9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[Little Fish]

Like you did?

I've explained the mechanisms to the extent possible. And you ignored all of that

i did not ignore it, i responded here:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=214226&st=120&p=4066623entry4066623

so that you could focus in on how aluminum would be oxidized within picoseconds if vaporized in air. Big deal. In the post your were responding to I didn't say that aluminum was vaporized in air. I said many materials thoughout were impacted by varied processes.

then what is the mechanism you propose for the 40 nanometer thin aluminium particles? mechanical collision creating a uniform mix and consistent size of nanometer particles? good luck finding a materials engineer that agrees with that. a millimeter particle of metallic aluminium would have to shatter into 100 million metallic particles and reform with 100 million iron oxide particles to form a millimeter intimately mixed composite, through collision of aluminium and steel chunks? get real.

All of the materials in those chips were present in the towers. Exactly how they combined during the collapse isn't something that I can answer. But they were all there. Manufactured nanothermite need not apply. Especially poorly manufactured nanothermite with the inconsistencies present in those chips.

all the components for TNT and Nitroglycerin were in the towers - nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon.

Nitroglycerin - C3N3H5O9

TNT - C7H5N3O6

could anyone reasonably argue that TNT and Nitroglycerin could be formed by materials impacting and mechanical collisions in a building collapse?

Edited September 26, 2011 by Little Fish

[Scott G]

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.

Ah ok, thanks :-)

[bee]

Indulging in some pure speculation, re the thermite business.

I'm thinking that when skyscrapers of this height ( WTC 1,2,7) are designed and built... that part

of the design must (logically) include how to bring the building down into its own footprint, if necessary.

In the case of bad damage. When it couldn't be risked that the building might fall (or huge chunks of it fall)

causing massive damage to the surrounding area.

So...maybe thermite or nanothermite, or whatever....was built into the main structure....

And a way of igniting it planned......(ie a blast from a laser?? A Directed Energy Weapon?)

To make sure it fell into it's own footprint and didn't topple over?

And this is what was done on 9/11?

I think it would have been very remiss of the people who gave the go ahead for the huge

skyscrapers if something along these lines wasn't an integral part of the design.

[Scott G]

Indulging in some pure speculation, re the thermite business.

I'm thinking that when skyscrapers of this height ( WTC 1,2,7) are designed and built... that part

of the design must (logically) include how to bring the building down into its own footprint, if necessary.

In the case of bad damage. When it couldn't be risked that the building might fall (or huge chunks of it fall)

causing massive damage to the surrounding area.

So...maybe thermite or nanothermite, or whatever....was built into the main structure....

And a way of igniting it planned......(ie a blast from a laser?? A Directed Energy Weapon?)

To make sure it fell into it's own footprint and didn't topple over?

And this is what was done on 9/11?

I think it would have been very remiss of the people who gave the go ahead for the huge

skyscrapers if something along these lines wasn't an integral part of the design.

Nanothermite didn't exist when the WTC buildings were built, so it would have to have been done after that. I certainly believe that this is precisely what happened, but I don't think that it was done for anyone's safety. Perhaps to lessen collateral damage, sure, but when you consider the fact that the Twin Towers were essentially a money losing venture, you have to wonder why Siverstein and his partners bought the lease on it about 6 months before 9/11. Why one of Silverstein's partners insisted that he get lots of insurance against terrorists on them. Why no one (to this day) has been told about this 'design'. Why people were instructed to stay at their desks before the buildings collapsed instead of trying to escape. A lot of things that don't add up to ensuring people's safety here. And when you consider that no steel framed building has collapsed due to plane crashes and/or fires alone... essentialy, I think that without those explosives, the buildings simply wouldn't have fallen. For an example of a building that experienced much worse fires then the WTC buildings and yet didn't suffer a complete collapse despite inferior structural strength, I suggest you look at this article:

http://911research.w...re/windsor.html

Edited September 26, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

Nanothermite didn't exist when the WTC buildings were built, so it would have to have been done after that. I certainly believe that this is precisely what happened, but I don't think that it was done for anyone's safety.

Read this report very carefullly and understand what is being presented.

About the NIST World Trade Center Investigation

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.

The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.

In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.

The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.

NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.

My link

No one planted explosives at the point of the aircraft impacts of either building..

Edited September 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[UFreak]

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.

I have to say, you make stick to your one "gun" pretty tightly!. Its been explained, but will you believe a scientist NOT interested in furthering your investment of time?..HECK NO!....Just keep digging deeper into your hole!

[booNyzarC]

I happened upon a couple of links related to Harrit's paper.

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html

And:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

I found them very informative. Seems like this was cleared up years ago.

[Space Commander Travis]

Indulging in some pure speculation, re the thermite business.

I'm thinking that when skyscrapers of this height ( WTC 1,2,7) are designed and built... that part

of the design must (logically) include how to bring the building down into its own footprint, if necessary.

In the case of bad damage. When it couldn't be risked that the building might fall (or huge chunks of it fall)

causing massive damage to the surrounding area.

So...maybe thermite or nanothermite, or whatever....was built into the main structure....

And a way of igniting it planned......(ie a blast from a laser?? A Directed Energy Weapon?)

To make sure it fell into it's own footprint and didn't topple over?

And this is what was done on 9/11?

I think it would have been very remiss of the people who gave the go ahead for the huge

skyscrapers if something along these lines wasn't an integral part of the design.

That is something that I've often tought, as well, Even if demolotion charges aren't customarily built in, they must be designed so that they'd come down in a limited area - collapsing on itself - , otherwise as you say it'd be utter carnage if they tried to demolish one.

Edited September 26, 2011 by 747400

[skyeagle409]

all the components for TNT and Nitroglycerin were in the towers - nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon.

Nitroglycerin - C3N3H5O9

TNT - C7H5N3O6

could anyone reasonably argue that TNT and Nitroglycerin could be formed by materials impacting and mechanical collisions in a building collapse?

No one took and planted explosives up to the point of the aircraft impacts, which is where the building collapses began. Why did't the government blow up the buildings a week before the aircraft struck the WTC buildings?

In addition, the videos show no evidence of chemical explosions as the buildings collapsed.

Edited September 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Stardrive]

I'm thinking that when skyscrapers of this height ( WTC 1,2,7) are designed and built... that part

of the design must (logically) include how to bring the building down into its own footprint, if necessary.

You mean to tell me someone designed a skyscraper, that was to be placed in a crowded city, to collapse in it's own footprint! You mean the architects of the WTC actually planned for it's eventual demolition?! LOL Bee, we all have a "no duh" moment from time to time. I luv my Beebuzz, to everyone else.... I saw her first!!! lolz.

[mrbusdriver]

This nanothermite finding....it's based on 4 samples, according to the paper. There were apparently many other samples collected and contributed, but only the four samples were used in the study.

Were the other samples studied? If so, what were the results? Why weren't the other samples included in the "population" of the study?

[Little Fish]

I happened upon a couple of links related to Harrit's paper.

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html

so what exactly does this non-scientist anonymous blogger say that is meaningful to the findings? I can't find anything except childish rhetoric. it reads like a playground argument. I think the author might be 12 years old.

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

are you suggesting the red chips are red primer paint?

look at the picture he uses from the NIST report and read the caption:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/SdvA2L2qQMI/AAAAAAAADV4/d0aIGL2nEgo/s400/x_primer_003.jpg

"formation of black scale between paint and steel after exposure greater than 650C"

the chips ignite at 420C, so the red chips are not the primer paint.

look at the composition of the primer paint

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/SdvA1HXzIJI/AAAAAAAADVg/FYc8D10zshw/s400/x_primer.jpg

it says 20.3% zinc. there is no zinc in Harrits red chips, so the red chips are not primer paint.

[Little Fish]

This nanothermite finding....it's based on 4 samples, according to the paper. There were apparently many other samples collected and contributed, but only the four samples were used in the study.

Were the other samples studied? If so, what were the results? Why weren't the other samples included in the "population" of the study?

what other samples?

[Stardrive]

This nanothermite finding....it's based on 4 samples, according to the paper. There were apparently many other samples collected and contributed, but only the four samples were used in the study.

Were the other samples studied? If so, what were the results? Why weren't the other samples included in the "population" of the study?

Which brings us to the next question. Have they submitted thier paper, with samples, to an independent lab for verification?

I'll take 3 guesses at that, absolutelynot, noteven, and say whaaat???.

To answer the OP's question, no, the 911 conspiracy theories will never stop.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Stardrive

[skyeagle409]

No explosives used in the WTC attacks.

Collapse of the North Tower

After the South Tower collapsed, NYPD helicopters relayed information about the deteriorating conditions of the North Tower. At 10:20 a.m., the NYPD aviation unit reported that "the top of the tower might be leaning," and a minute later reported that the North Tower, "is buckling on the southwest corner and leaning to the south".

At 10:28 a.m., the aviation unit reported that "the roof is going to come down very shortly." The North Tower collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for 102 minutes.

[booNyzarC]

so what exactly does this non-scientist anonymous blogger say that is meaningful to the findings? I can't find anything except childish rhetoric. it reads like a playground argument. I think the author might be 12 years old.

He seems to be pretty on the ball to me. I've read three of his blog entries, and several of the commentary below them. I found them all to be pretty interesting and entertaining.

are you suggesting the red chips are red primer paint?

look at the picture he uses from the NIST report and read the caption:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/SdvA2L2qQMI/AAAAAAAADV4/d0aIGL2nEgo/s400/x_primer_003.jpg

"formation of black scale between paint and steel after exposure greater than 650C"

the chips ignite at 420C, so the red chips are not the primer paint.

look at the composition of the primer paint

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/SdvA1HXzIJI/AAAAAAAADVg/FYc8D10zshw/s400/x_primer.jpg

it says 20.3% zinc. there is no zinc in Harrits red chips, so the red chips are not primer paint.

It doesn't say 20.3% Zinc. Read it again.

And yes, the red materials do have Zinc in them.

[UFreak]

yeah, what an elaborate ruse the guv'ment played on us, huh? All for.....for stock gains!?!? - yeah, They killed 3000k Americans, risked the entire structure of the party, because they knew of NO OTHER way to manipulate the stock market!....I tell you what, i almost HOPE it was a con now, because the conspiracy would have to employ MILLIONS!....and many people who lost loved ones, or commrades in arms...so, if any entity can hold together a con of that magnitude, to rip off the stock matket, they almost deserve whatever gains they got!.....-nutjobs!

Edited September 26, 2011 by UFreak

[UFreak]

...Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks. Reynolds claims it is physically impossible that the Boeing planes of Flights 11 and 175, being largely aluminium, could have penetrated the steel frames of the Towers, and that digital compositing was used to depict the plane crashes in both news reports and subsequent amateur video.[106] "There were no planes, there were no hijackers," Reynolds insists. "I know, I know, I'm out of the mainstream, but that's the way it is." According to David Shayler, "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." Truth movement veterans have repeatedly refuted the "no-plane" claims.[83][106][107] Discussion of no plane theories have been banned from certain conspiracy theory websites while advocates have been threatened with violence by posters at other conspiracy theory websites....

That's my favorite

[Stardrive]

Still waiting for the independent lab/peer review link... don't bother with Bentham, they'll put up anything for a price.

[Scott G]

Still waiting for the independent lab/peer review link... don't bother with Bentham, they'll put up anything for a price.

Anyone can publish an article online. Bentham simply charged a price for it and promised peer review. It appears that the promise was fairly hollow, however, and several people have withdrawn their support for them since the hoax article you refer to was almost published:

http://www.libraryjo.../CA6664637.html

That being said, you're only mentioning the hoax article because they also published another article:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World TradeCenter Catastrophe

So, other then Bentham's questionable peer review, has this article been peer reviewed by anyone else? Well, for starters, the article isn't just written by Niels Harrit; it's written by 8 different authors, all of them professionals who have researched 9/11 issues in the past. I would think that they would probably have peer reviewed each others' work.

It's also been in the news in Europe:

It's also been commented it on quite a bit in online forums. You may scoff at that type of review, but the fact of the matter is that an article that can withstand a fair amount of debate in online forums can certainly lend such an article credibility; believe it or not, people in online forums can know about technical things too.

[skyeagle409]

Anyone can publish an article online. Bentham simply charged a price for it and promised peer review. It appears that the promise was fairly hollow, however, and several people have withdrawn their support for them since the hoax article you refer to was almost published:

http://www.libraryjo.../CA6664637.html

That being said, you're only mentioning the hoax article because they also published another article:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World TradeCenter Catastrophe

So, other then Bentham's questionable peer review, has this article been peer reviewed by anyone else? Well, for starters, the article isn't just written by Niels Harrit; it's written by 8 different authors, all of them professionals who have researched 9/11 issues in the past. I would think that they would probably have peer reviewed each others' work.

It's also been in the news in Europe:

It's also been commented it on quite a bit in online forums. You may scoff at that type of review, but the fact of the matter is that an article that can withstand a fair amount of debate in online forums can certainly lend such an article credibility; believe it or not, people in online forums can know about technical things too.

No one in their right mind is going to run up all of those stairs and plant thousands of pounds of explosives after those impacts. There is no evidence of any planted explosives whatsoever, and there never was any evidence in the first place.

Edited September 26, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

...Nico Haupt and former chief economist within the Labor Department under the Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds, argue that no planes were used in the attacks.

Just alrliners.

"Watch footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center."

That was a cigar-shaped object, but it was not a missile. I threw my cigar at the building after someone stole my truck.

[Czero 101]

are you suggesting the red chips are red primer paint?

look at the picture he uses from the NIST report and read the caption:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/SdvA2L2qQMI/AAAAAAAADV4/d0aIGL2nEgo/s400/x_primer_003.jpg

"formation of black scale between paint and steel after exposure greater than 650C"

the chips ignite at 420C, so the red chips are not the primer paint.

Did you read anything beyond that image, such as the following...?

These pictures show that the coating, when subjected to temperatures above 250°C, begins to break up in irregular patterns and can flake off surfaces if subjected to impacts.

So the primer can "flake off" and can "break up in irregular patterns" when heated above 250°C (and presumably below the 420°C ignition point). That could be one source for the "chips".

look at the composition of the primer paint

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_PcI9awojNLQ/SdvA1HXzIJI/AAAAAAAADVg/FYc8D10zshw/s400/x_primer.jpg

it says 20.3% zinc. there is no zinc in Harrits red chips, so the red chips are not primer paint.

Really...?

Are you sure?

Taken from your own link to the article at Bentham Science, pdf page 11:

The resulting spectrum, shown in Fig. (14), produced the expected peaks for Fe, Si, Al, O, and C. Other peaks included calcium, sul-fur, zinc, chromium and potassium.

So there actually was zinc in Harrit's "red chips".

Notice how they also mention Chromium being present. "Zinc Yellow" pigment is listed in the composition of the primer paint.

"Zinc Yellow" is another name for Zinc Chromate or ZnCrO₄.

Zinc Chromate is listed by NOAA / CAMEO Chemicals as an "Inorganic Oxidizing Agent". From that link:

Flammability

Materials in this group do not burn in themselves, but enhance the combustion of other substances.

Reactivity

Inorganic oxidizing agents can react with reducing agents to generate heat and products that may be gaseous (causing pressurization of closed containers). The products may themselves be capable of further reactions (such as combustion in the air). The chemical reduction of materials in this group can be rapid or even explosive, but often requires initiation (heat, spark, catalyst, addition of a solvent). Explosive mixtures of inorganic oxidizing agents with reducing agents often persist unchanged for long periods if initiation is prevented. Such systems are typically mixtures of solids, but may involve any combination of physical states.

Is it not possible then that some of the results Harrit has shown could very well be the result of a chemical reaction of the zinc chromate present in the primer paint, aluminum (a known reducing agent) present in the chip and the heat used in the experiment...?

I'm no chemist / scientist, to be sure, but for me, this is sufficient evidence to question the claims made by Harrit et al in his / their study.

Cz

EDITED grammatically...

Edited September 26, 2011 by Czero 101

[Scott G]

No one in their right mind is going to run up all of those stairs and plant thousands of pounds of explosives after those impacts.

I never claimed that anyone would do that. In fact, I haven't seen -anyone- claim that that's how it went down. As to how, exactly, it could have been done, I'm not sure. But I think the following article gives some good ideas as to how it could have happened:

http://911review.com..._access_p1.html

There is no evidence of any planted explosives whatsoever,

Yes, there is. Here's an article from Jim Hoffman, the founder of 9/11 Research:

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives - As Documentation of Thermitic Materials in the WTC Twin Towers Grows, Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble

[Little Fish]

It doesn't say 20.3% Zinc. Read it again.

And yes, the red materials do have Zinc in them.

The thermitic chips did not have zinc in them, nor were they primer paint. whoever made you believe that is misinforming you.

"7. Could the red nano-thermitic material found in the WTC dust have been primer paint used on the WTC?

No. We obtained asample of primer paint from a 9/11 monument at Clarkson College in New York with the help of a colleague there, and the paint proved to have a distinctly different chemical composition from that observed in the red/gray chips. In particular, the primer paint used on the WTC shows significant zinc content, absent when the interior of a red-material sample is exposed (see our paper {http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM} and Australia talk:"

Pause the video at 2:44 in the video, you will see the difference between the red chips and wtc primer paint. it is totally different no zinc! no chromium! - the red chips are not wtc primer paint!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScY8c9THrTY

"See attached XEDX graphs showing distinct elemental contents of the red chips and the primer paint (both from the WTC). Even under a good optical microscope, one can see the difference between the primer paint and the red/gray chips; see for example, recent photomicrographs by Jon Cole. While both are present in the WTC dust, the primer paint is rather flexible and non-glossy whereas the red thermitic material is rigid and rather brittle and glossy under white light illumination. It is the observed brittleness that evidently led to the fracturing of the red material into small fragments during the destruction of the buildings.

Further, after soaking in MEK, the red/gray chips (still wet with MEK) remained very hard, easy to pick up with forceps without deforming. OTOH, primer paint chips became very flexible and limp after soaking and still wet with MEK. There can be no mistaking the distinction.

5. Figure 14 in your paper shows zinc. Doesn’t this mean that this sample (which later was soaked in MEK) was a primer-paint sample?

It is unfortunate that we did not first fracture the chip which was later soaked in MEK and measure the fresh surface — a procedure we followed (thanks to Dr. Jeff Farrer) on the FOUR chips thoroughly analyzed in the paper. I am certain that if we had done this, there would have been no zinc on the inside of the chip-later-soaked, because after soaking there was NO ZINC (as we showed in our paper, Figures 16, 17 and 18). Clearly, soaking and agitating in MEK removed surface contamination. The Zn seen in Figure 14 was before soaking, as we said in the paper, and was very likely due to surface contamination, but we could have stated that more clearly. A lot of Zn was present in the dust (a fact recorded also in the USGS data set for the WTC dust). The fact that no Zinc or Ca show up in the XEDS spectra post-MEK, Figs 16, 17 and 18 is crucially important as demonstration that this is NOT primer paint."

http://stj911.org/blog/?page_id=898