Wow I found a place where intelligent people are discussing things. So if we take the step that 9/11 was not what it appears, and you can get some good information from Alex Jones, plus they just released a documentary on OKC bombing and Eric Holder was Attorney General in OKC or assistant.. Should we not fear anyone getting in there but Ron Paul.. we need to defund all these people who are shipping guns down and drugs back. California Sheriffs Threaten Feds For Usurping the Constitution! watch
Just poor kero on a beam and light it up and see if the original report stands up. It wont do shit you could put kero on it all day long. Ive seen cars lit up with fuel of a much higher flash point on garbage dumps and extreme heat and still not lose form apart from interior and tyres but the shape of the thin metal is still all in form. Anyone can do an experiment at home with Kero (Jet Fuel) and a thin Piece of metal over a steel bucket. Then you will see what it wasn't
Please be careful when creating and posting videos like this; there are some that may consider your experiment an illegal act of bomb-making... Just sayin...
It was not designed to handle a plane going 180 mph, or lost in the fog. It was most certainly designed to withstand the impact from a plane traveling at over 600 miles per hour. I doubt the validity of your calculations. Did you take into account heat capacity of all the materials? I confined the fire to one half of one floor, removed cooling cross currents, and removed fireproofing.
For example, as a graduate engineer I've done the thermodynamic calculations to show that the maximum temperature the steel beams would reach under the worst conditions is 280 degrees Celsius. I've also calculated that the kinetic energy and damage of the planes that hit the towers was LESS than what Skilling designed them to withstand. However, despite all this evidence it proves absolutely nothing. You people are chasing the wrong thing.
I really don;t understand the obsession with what's called the "physical evidence". I believe in government complicity, but don't subscribe to the theories of bombs or thermite in the towers, missiles in the pentagon, demolition at WTC 7, or the like. There is plenty of material out there that takes a bit more time to research, but is much more convincing than any of this physical evidence.
@baguazhang2 Good to see someone else going into depth with the physics of the WTC collapses. I myself have been researching it extensively, and I concur that the impact force of the planes and the intensitys of the fires would be well below what was needed to bring them down.
'I believe in government complicity, but don't subscribe to the theories of bombs or thermite in the tower.' Hmm, then What Are your thoughts on the kill mechanism employed against the towers?
I know you'd like a hard answer from me, but I personally refuse to speculate on any of the physical evidence after engaging in nearly a decade of debates over it and having it all lead to nothing. What I have looked into, and written a 180 page book about (with 500 references from books, newspapers, and political documents) is the history of US involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the surrounding countries since the end of the Soviet Afghan War, pipeline politics, US foreign
policy documents, foreknowledge from 13 different countries and from similar failed attacks, NORAD (with no focus on the wargames), official documents pertaining to our energy policy and projected energy requirements...etc. These kinds of subjects. A good introduction is to read the 9/11 Timeline, and a good intro book is Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon". I research only means, motive, and opportunity, so unfortunately I don't have an opinion regarding kill mechanism.
@baguazhang2 Wow, you wrote your own book? May I ask what the title is, and who your publisher was? I've been looking for a publisher myself, not that my ideas are coherant enough to be jotted down a book. Maybe in the future.
I understand your hesitation on the phenomena of the towers collapse: What I've found is that the conventional demolition theory is only unable to explain a mere TWO facts: The massive temperatures found in the WTC foundations, and 70% of their structures being dustified.
NIST refused to look for explosives because explosives were not used. CIA (offices in 7WTC) did not look for anyone besides OBL because none else did it (although OBL denied involvement at first). Iraq had to be invaded after Afganistan because of WMD. Pat. Act had to be passed because of terrorist. MSM can't show "collapse" of WTC because of our sensibilitys. We (U.S.) must give up our Liberty for Security. "Those that would trade Liberty for Security deserve niether," Ben Franklin. Are ukiddn?
Clearly shows excessive amounts of thermal energy, and in a blast circle no less. Seismic data proves the FACT they were taken down by nuclear demolition.
Zeolite absorbs radiation, and is created when granite (72% Si2O2, 15% Al2O3) is exposed to fission temps.
@DK1Ryan, it seemed that there was little / no damage to the bottom of the beaker, is that the case? Also, it appeared there was a large amount of unreacted material (can be seen cascading down over the hot iron as you tipped the beaker), could those unreacted materials account for the "residue" images? Did you collect images of the powder prior to reaction?
@gunit87801 Good question, there is only a macroscopic picture of the unburned thermite. Why? This load of thermite was not even able to melt this tiny glass beaker anyway, and we can observe that the thermal glow was diminishing very rapidly, in several seconds (as in other videos with thermite). How such material can be responsible for alleged pools of melted metal in debris, staying hot for weeks? Only the use of thermite as one of the main construction materials of WTC could explain this.
@gunit87801 I would also like to remark that infrared spectra in the video are unreadable (at least on my computer), so without any value. Kevin Ryan should bring up the better picture.
@ivankmin It isn't a good picture of the IR spectra, you are right. For once.
As for the rapid cooling, here is a little experiment you can do at home to illustrate the principle. Take a turkey and a chicken and put them into the oven at the same time. Which cooks quicker? Which will get cold first? This is a tiny sample with a tiny volume.
The fact that it doesn't damage the glass beaker designed for this type of experiment is neither here nor there.
@DarkwingScooter The sample on the video is not so tiny, there was something like 1 cm layer in the beaker. I understand that this thermite quick blast did not damage the beaker, and for the steel cutting, a charge must be somehow "vectored". But still, for your alleged melted steel pools and for the "suspicious" twisting of huge steel WTC elements, the amount of any thermite had to be really immense, gigantic, simply... beyond any reasonable thinking:o)
@ivankmin What exactly is a "reasonable" amount of thermite. Reasonable in terms of you ideas about logistics or reasonable in terms of physical reality?
The logistical argument is just about the weakest one in the OS toolkit, because moving a 100 tonnes of material is just not that hard.
If you do not understand how this experiment fits in with the larger 911 theory I am sorry, but it is part of a much larger body of evidence that you need to familiarize yourself with.
Bringing thermite to an office fire is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Jet fuel has 10 times the energy of thermite, wood has more heat energy, plastic burning, 14 times the heat of thermite. The office fires destroyed the WTC complex. What is the goal? What was the conclusion? Paper has more heat energy than thermite.
Notice how fast the themite burned. The fires at the WTC burned for months, not seconds.
@iSunTzu Wood only has more energy than thermite if you ignore the atmospheric oxygen.
To give you an indication of the problem with you little theory, this themite also has same energy in these terms as RDX.
Yet, people don't light bonfires to bring down buildings, and buildings which became veritable bonfire do not collapse, but a couple of well placed charges of RDX does cause rapid and catastrophic collapse.
Please don't let real life interfere with you delusions.
@DarkwingScooter Fires destroyed the WTC complex, not thermite, not RDX. My little theory is fire did it, your little theory has some evildoers you can't tell us about did it, because you can't comprehend un-fought fires destroy buildings. Your have a silly conspiracy theory, a fantasy and you can't do a thing about it other than post on the internet as you return to the middle ages making up failed fantasy for the physics of fire you can't comprehend. Happy witch hunting 10 years of fail
@DarkwingScooter You don't understand, paint the WTC steel with thermite, raises the steel temperature 8 degrees, it will not fail, it will not melt on a global scale. Bringing thermite to a office fire is stupid, only an idiot would make up thermite planted by unknown evildoers. You must not understand physics since you make up nonsense in your fantasy of 911. The office contents were enough, no need to make up moronic nonsense. Who did it in your delusion. How much thermite did they use?
@iSunTzu I take it you have not seen the Cole video and are using NatGeo laughable experiment?
5d5iIoCiI8g
There is no precedent for office fires far more severe than this (including one in the WTC itself) causing global failure. None at all, it is a figment of your imagination. If anyone is making up moronic nonsense it is you, the Cardington fire tests completely destroy your ideas.
Yet thermite can readily be made to do this kind of damage depending on the application and formulation.
Just keep repeating BS you read online. Cardington:
-They used steel beams, not trusses.
-It had composite floor slabs designed to act as a support member.
-None of its structural members were compromised by an airliner.
-They refer to their test structure as "indeterminate", as opposed to "determinate" (p. 1). If you read the comparison you will note that the WTC is determinate.
"Behaviour of steel framed structures under fire conditions: Main Report"
Doesn't Gage repeatedly say this stuff can't be "made in a cave in Afghanistan"? Apparently it can!
I also love water boys critique of Van Romero's demo. Its not like Los Alamos labs specializes in this stuff or anything. But yeah a water tester is an authority on the subject.
@lijebaley01 So you have no respect for your own opinion? Good call. And as you can probably tell, we Goyim no longer respect your disingenuous Jewish bullshit either.
How is it this even to this day, they won't admit that the molten aluminum alloys have exactly the same color as the molten aluminum alloys falling from the wtc right where the plane ended up? Who gives a crap what your thermite does, or how it is made, there was none at the WTC. Show me an explosive exotherm when you run DSC scans of the red chip material in an inert atmosphere. Until then, you have proved nothing.
".....the molten aluminum alloys have exactly the same color as the molten aluminum alloys falling from the wtc..." Please give us an authoritative link for that claim.
Let's just say for argument's sake, that the red/gray chips are red primer paint chips with a thin layer of steel that spalled off with the paint. Now, we expose these chips to a micro-oxyacetylene torch, as Harrit, et al did. We end up with iron spheroids such as shown in photos in fig 23 and 26 (they are the same material), and uneffected red remains (paint pigment) Some how, the truthers take this as evidence of thermite.
You have misunderstood the Harrit paper - and the science behind it. The grey layer is nothing to do with the thermitic material (it may play a role in its use, but it is not a part of the thermitic material). The red material is the thermitic material - the red layer consists of the materials necessary and it was the red material that was analysed and found to be thermitic. To understand the reference to "layers", Google: energetic composites united states patent 5266132 1993
You are confusing two different uses of the word "layers". Nanothermite (or MICs if you want to use the technical term) can be made up of "layers" (as shown in the patent) between 10 and 10,000 Angstroms thick in order to control the timing and rate of reaction of the material. It (the NT) can then be a "layer" in relation to "layers" of other material (which may or may not be important in the timing/rate of reaction) like in the red/grey chips - a red layer and a grey layer.
@DarkwingScooter don't let the fact that over 60 tonnes of thermite would have been required get in the way of your glamorous movie-style conspiracy theory.
@barfnz Sixty tonnes is two whole dumptruck loads. It is COMPLETELY impossible that someone could ever drive dumptruck filled with "building material" through New York, and no crew could ever move a whole dumptruck load from one place to another. It would involve top secret high-tech super weaponry like a couple of wheelbarrow's or pushcarts. Gee, life is hard.
@barfnz not one of the scientists represented in this segment of the truth movement (peer reviewed) have ever claimed to believe or support holograms, or any of the other straw-man/red herring counter-accusations made by your contingency (as you tend to show up all over youtube making up repeated but often nonsensical science-sounding claims). Why don't you produce some experiments of your own, document them on youtube and then invite the presenter here to an open debate?
did you know, that the balls of 'thermitic' material claimed to be found were actually just fly ash from concrete dust? the real conspiracy isn't in the details, this is all a big sideshow to divert attention away from the US administration. under Bush, the event was the political wedge needed to bring the cold war policies of the neo conservative movement back into power.
@DarkwingScooter one such established fallacy is that thermitic materials found were in trace amounts and such low levels do not support the theory that thermite could have been used to aid the destruction of the towers. I hear Jim Jones has some delicious kool aid, you might like to taste it, since you apparently believe everything you read on the Internet.
oh wait, fly ash particles are spheres of Fe. so identical spheres of Fe which are the same size, according to you, cannot be fly ash, because it would conflict with a theory you are too ignorant to question the validity of.
@barfnz Can you find an authentic photo of Fe spheres in fly ash that match this description. No you can't, because the flay ash theory was unsubstantiated garbage to begin with.
very cool,. How people ignore the obvious demolitions of these buildings when convincing arguments could be made from any of a number of different angles, is beyond me. Great job. u'r a hero Kevin./ thank you
This discussion is deviating from the theme of an amateur experiment of nanothermite and its relationship to the WTC demolitions into some silly shouting match over whether the real 9/11 terrorists were Osama bin Laden's 19 fanatics armed with incredible luck or highly skilled engineers and support staff backed by just about every watchdog who should scream "demolition," who blew up the twin towers before their complete evacuation.
@DanUuNoel actually, Osama did have engineers, technicians and many other resources available to him. they didn't need much luck when they were motivated by ja-halia and you're only fooling yourself to deny that Islamic fundamentalism didn't rise up in Egypt after the CIA-led torture of Sayad Qutp.
These rhetorical statements like "We don't know what happened" bother me. When it comes to other complex topics like how DNA works, do we say "We don't know what DNA does?" No, we claim we understand, even though we don't know all the details. Let's be careful not to over-represent our state of ignorance. We can and do know some things about what happened and how the government has been covering up.
@TheSteveLane If you can pay people to kill other people and ask no questions (Hitmen), you can pay people to stuff blocks with material and ask no questions.
comparing these particles can at best, only prove that deflagration of similar materials occured. we should remember occums razor, and that metals such as aluminium and iron were in large supply for combustion in the event. the most compelling evidence i've seen, is the calculated potential kinetic energy of a boeing in a dive.
@DarkwingScooter you are not even close to being correct, Jet A and kerosene are different fuels. balls form during cooling after alloys melt, this is commonly seen in welding. why ignore the simplest and most correct explanation?
@DarkwingScooter so kerosene is a different fuel to Jet A as you now know. you tried telling me they were the same thing, have you change your mind now? your theory about my theory is a theory based on assumption. you don't seem to understand the first thing about deflagration to detonation transitions or even basic kinematics but, i'm interested in your theory. we know that for a critical structural failure to occur, alloys in the construction do not need to melt but only heat enough to weaken.
Dr. Jones once said, he could not make this stuff. How could you make it in your garage? I thought it was nanotechnology, something made in specialized labs.. Could you explain? Thanks.
@robmoj The stuff from the WTC appears to be finer and of higher quality looking at the pictures, much more uniform.
Also, the chemicals used in this experiment are not necessarily readily available in caves.
The production of gunpowder was also once restricted to hi-tech (for the time) specialized labs. When more knowledge of the technique becomes available easier techniques and shortcuts also become available.
@DarkwingScooter Thanks for the info... one thing that I wanted to know is if this red/gray chips were found on the USGS or RJ Lee dust samples. I know the iron microsphere were there, but do these chips too?
@robmoj I'm not sure, that is a good question. Certainly just because they didn't specifically report it doesn't mean it wasn't there. They may just not have seen the significance.
One follow on test that should be done is to ignite this stuff in a vacuum or an argon atmosphere just to shut up the debunkers, even though this is clearly not reacting with atmospheric oxygen in this video.
@DarkwingScooter Real (nano)thermite (like this one) of course ignites even under argon. But Jones et al. had to prove that their red chips are sort of thermite, and since chips contained lot of carbon compounds and DSC was performed under air, they probably followed the oxidation of carbon stuff. Your remark that thermite in this video was not in contact with oxygen is just silly. The beaker was covered loosely with some lid and oxygen (air) of course could go inside the beaker easily.
@ivankmin I didn't say it was not in contact with oxygen, just that it clearly isn't using atmospheric oxygen.
Oxidation with atmospheric oxygen with carbon cannot melt steel in open air conditions. So the fact that the droplets indicate molten steel is sufficient to indicate that the WTC sample was not undergoing simple combustion.
Any claims that this was not a thermitic reaction is pure claptrap unless you can prove the unsupported claim that carbon fires can produce the observed products.
@DarkwingScooter Many organic stuffs show exotherms at temp. around 500 degrees C when in contact with oxygen. They usually carbonize and resulting graphitic compounds are suitable for a reduction of iron oxide to iron rich-mass, which can melt at quite low temperatures when impure. Harrit et al. did not prove thermitic reaction in chips and did not prove elemental aluminium in chips (a) to (d). Consequently, they did not prove thermite. This video can not change it.
@ivankmin Can provide evidence for organic material combusting to reduce iron oxide to elemental iron?
Can you provide evidence that fly ash iron particles will look and analyze the same as these?
Can you show a paint that behaves like this?
Do you understand that the difference between an iron-rich sphere and a pure iron sphere is not the same as the difference between elemental iron and an iron containing molecule?
Is asking for just a tiny nod to empiricism really too much to ask?
@DarkwingScooter Surprise 1: Combustion of the mixture organic material (e.g. coal) with iron ore (iron oxides) is exactly the way how iron has been produced for thousands of years by mankind. Surprise 2: Fly ash can contain mostly various microspheres, including iron-rich, look e.g. at the picture of fly ash in Wikipedia. Surprise 3: A paint can behave like in Harrit's paper, it is a normal behaviour. Concerning your 4th question, I do not understand your point.
@ivankmin "A paint can behave like in Harrit's paper, it is a normal behaviour." An authoritative reference please. Or do you just beat that drum to discourage people from seeking the truth.
@woebrd Polymers are main components of any paint and many of them suffer oxidative pyrolysis with distinct DSC exotherms at temperatures cca 400 - 600 degrees C. Here are just two examples of scientific papers dealing with paints and you can observe corresponding exotherms there: „DSC evaluation of binder content in latex paints, Progress in Organic Coatings 33 (1998) 211–21.7“ or here „TG-DSC analysis applied to contemporary oil paints, J. Thermal. Anal. Calorim. (2011), 104, 541“
@ivankmin You are laboring under the false assumption that ANYTHING can be proven to the degree that you are asking for.
Remember that the modern scientific method starts out with the realization that NOTHING can be proven to that extent. Go read Descartes again. The last people to demand your level of proof were the logical positivists and we all know what a disaster that turned out to be.
GRAVITY does not have the level of proof you are demanding. By your telling there is no way to prove it.
@DarkwingScooter (Sorry for my funny English) You truthers should always keep in mind 2 things: 1) The burden of proof is fully on your side; 2) Extraordinary claims (like CD of WTC hypothesis) require extraordinary proofs! Any thermite must contain elemental aluminum and this was not proven by Harrit et al. Only we know almost for sure is that chip (e) was a particle of red primer Tnemec (thanks to Sunstealer, but also to Harrit et al. themselves). Better luck next time...
@DarkwingScooter What do you mean by words "physically reproducible"? Proofs are really up to you, believe me, since you want to accuse:o) Well, the WTC collapses looked really as CD. But plain common sense tells me that no evil conspirators in the world could be so incredibly stupid to use the impacts of just two planes for cover-up of “top secret” (sic!!) demolishing of three WTC skyscrapers:o)
@ivankmin Proof in science IS reproducing experiments.
You can't use your political views or ideas about logistics to figure what is most likely to happen in physical reality...
Your ideas are physically implausible in the extreme, so the burden of proof is on YOU to prove them. Truthers are not asking you to believe any that is not readily observable in nature and reality.
@DarkwingScooter "Proof IS... reproducing experiments" --- what experiments and their reproduction are you talking about, in this 9/11 issue? This particular experiment showed that Ryan is able to prepare fine thermite by sol-gel technique and this thermite even burns (and ignite at quite low temperatures). Nothing else was proven. Concerning the alleged impossibility of WTC collapses without CD, this is just an obsessive idea, nothing else. You do not have any proof for this claim, sorry.
@ivankmin Most of the mainline truther claims are reproducible by experiment. The "proof" in scientific terms MEANS the outcome of the claims are not falsified (but are falsifiable by) reproducible experiment.
In scientific terms truther claims are (by and large) proven.
It is the OS' claims that cannot meet this standard even the burden of proof has ALWAYS been on them because they are the ones making the PHYSICALLY (not logistically or politically) implausible claims.
@DarkwingScooter Aha. Since we non-truthers can not finally falsify your weird truthers claims, you must be right and scientific:o) My overal impression: nobody in the world (whether truthers or NIST or whoever) can find exactly, if the collapses of WTC towers were "natural" or CDed. There are too many unknown factors, including the most important ones: the real inner damage of these building. If you consider, e.g., Harrit's paper as a scientific proof of CD, it is self-explanatory for me:o)
@ivankmin If you want we can discuss legal standards of proof. Preponderance of evidence is with the truther version, since there is no positive evidence for the government version at all.
The truthers haven't proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, here I would agree. But that is why they are asking for a new (properly constituted this time) investigation rather than asserting some absolute transcendent truth.
@DarkwingScooter As a scientist (polymer chemist) with 30 years of experience, I have spent hundreds of hours trying to find why truthers are so convinced of the inside job, namely of CD. I have found nothing else that endless row of suspicions, weird hypotheses, very precise calculations with very uncertain inputs, etc. On the other hand, I have no objections against a further investigations, especially in the case of WTC7:o) Anyway, it will cost me no money, since I am living in Europe...
@ivankmin Some preliminary independent experimentation has been done. Jonathan Cole demonstrates in this video the use of small amounts of homemade thermate, (which is far less energetic than the alleged nanothermite,) sever steel columns in a short amount of time. I think further investigation is needed.
Search "9/11 experiments: The great thermate debate" by the "physicsandreason" channel.
@ivankmin In a blast furnace you fool! You can't melt iron in OPEN AIR with organic fuel. Smelting is not melting, iron is not melted during the smelting process.
Jeez, you really have to beat OS'ers over the head with reality.
@DarkwingScooter I only reminded you that the reduction of iron oxides with organics as a coal (and air access) is the usual way how the iron is produced. Why you are still talking about iron? These "droplets" were only "iron-rich". We simply do not have enough of reliable data about these shiny little things: Harrit et al. found them in the burned chips, whereas another truther in darksideofgravity found them in the unburned chips (and no new droplets were formed during burning in this case.)
@DarkwingScooter Instead of such funny (and interesting!) experiments with a real thermite, Ryan, Jones and other thermite boys should analyze some more red chips from WTC dust, using X-ray diffraction this time to prove elemental aluminum. And in cooperation/under supervision of some independent scientists. Without this, no conclusion can be made...
@ivankmin Since Jews have already admitted to demolishing the buildings by way of controlled demolition, no further testing is really necessary, right asshole?
@DarkwingScooter To be more specific, even Harrit et al. did not claim the droplets are "pure" iron. In another analysis of truther in darksideofgravity site you can find that microspheres (droplets) contain many elements including oxygen. In sciforums(dot)com you can find an explanation that such shiny droplets are formed by iron oxides themselves. Consequently, these droplets do not prove thermitic reaction:o)
I've always wanted to ask what the atmosphere was like at UL? I'm sure that many of your colleagues and friends are aware of the glaring problems with the NIST report, I hope that eventually more people from these organizations will step forth. One act of bravery allows many more to follow. Thank you for all you've done.
Nice one Kevin! The quality and quantity of research you've provided over the last four years is staggering. Chemist, sleuth and all round bullshit destroyer.
Wow I found a place where intelligent people are discussing things. So if we take the step that 9/11 was not what it appears, and you can get some good information from Alex Jones, plus they just released a documentary on OKC bombing and Eric Holder was Attorney General in OKC or assistant.. Should we not fear anyone getting in there but Ron Paul.. we need to defund all these people who are shipping guns down and drugs back. California Sheriffs Threaten Feds For Usurping the Constitution! watch
iondetox 1 month ago
Just poor kero on a beam and light it up and see if the original report stands up. It wont do shit you could put kero on it all day long. Ive seen cars lit up with fuel of a much higher flash point on garbage dumps and extreme heat and still not lose form apart from interior and tyres but the shape of the thin metal is still all in form. Anyone can do an experiment at home with Kero (Jet Fuel) and a thin Piece of metal over a steel bucket. Then you will see what it wasn't
Stringyheads 1 month ago
THERMITE PAINT! I KNOW I was a NAVY SEAL!
Dionysus187 4 months ago
Please be careful when creating and posting videos like this; there are some that may consider your experiment an illegal act of bomb-making... Just sayin...
gaarack 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gaarack LOL "an illegal act of bomb-making" LOL. So this is a bomb he is making, is it?????????????/
NeilCrouse 4 months ago
@iSunTzu
It was not designed to handle a plane going 180 mph, or lost in the fog. It was most certainly designed to withstand the impact from a plane traveling at over 600 miles per hour. I doubt the validity of your calculations. Did you take into account heat capacity of all the materials? I confined the fire to one half of one floor, removed cooling cross currents, and removed fireproofing.
baguazhang2 4 months ago
For example, as a graduate engineer I've done the thermodynamic calculations to show that the maximum temperature the steel beams would reach under the worst conditions is 280 degrees Celsius. I've also calculated that the kinetic energy and damage of the planes that hit the towers was LESS than what Skilling designed them to withstand. However, despite all this evidence it proves absolutely nothing. You people are chasing the wrong thing.
baguazhang2 4 months ago
I really don;t understand the obsession with what's called the "physical evidence". I believe in government complicity, but don't subscribe to the theories of bombs or thermite in the towers, missiles in the pentagon, demolition at WTC 7, or the like. There is plenty of material out there that takes a bit more time to research, but is much more convincing than any of this physical evidence.
baguazhang2 4 months ago
@baguazhang2 Good to see someone else going into depth with the physics of the WTC collapses. I myself have been researching it extensively, and I concur that the impact force of the planes and the intensitys of the fires would be well below what was needed to bring them down.
'I believe in government complicity, but don't subscribe to the theories of bombs or thermite in the tower.' Hmm, then What Are your thoughts on the kill mechanism employed against the towers?
TheJamesrocket 3 months ago
@TheJamesrocket
I know you'd like a hard answer from me, but I personally refuse to speculate on any of the physical evidence after engaging in nearly a decade of debates over it and having it all lead to nothing. What I have looked into, and written a 180 page book about (with 500 references from books, newspapers, and political documents) is the history of US involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the surrounding countries since the end of the Soviet Afghan War, pipeline politics, US foreign
baguazhang2 3 months ago
@TheJamesrocket
policy documents, foreknowledge from 13 different countries and from similar failed attacks, NORAD (with no focus on the wargames), official documents pertaining to our energy policy and projected energy requirements...etc. These kinds of subjects. A good introduction is to read the 9/11 Timeline, and a good intro book is Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon". I research only means, motive, and opportunity, so unfortunately I don't have an opinion regarding kill mechanism.
baguazhang2 3 months ago
@baguazhang2 Wow, you wrote your own book? May I ask what the title is, and who your publisher was? I've been looking for a publisher myself, not that my ideas are coherant enough to be jotted down a book. Maybe in the future.
I understand your hesitation on the phenomena of the towers collapse: What I've found is that the conventional demolition theory is only unable to explain a mere TWO facts: The massive temperatures found in the WTC foundations, and 70% of their structures being dustified.
TheJamesrocket 3 months ago
i really hope many of these exodic chemical require specail permits
napalmcoffee 5 months ago
NIST refused to look for explosives because explosives were not used. CIA (offices in 7WTC) did not look for anyone besides OBL because none else did it (although OBL denied involvement at first). Iraq had to be invaded after Afganistan because of WMD. Pat. Act had to be passed because of terrorist. MSM can't show "collapse" of WTC because of our sensibilitys. We (U.S.) must give up our Liberty for Security. "Those that would trade Liberty for Security deserve niether," Ben Franklin. Are ukiddn?
trex9008 7 months ago
@trex9008 They still chase that "thermite" red herring. It was NEVER a theory until Dimitri Khailzov published his book and sent copies to CONgress.
loc(dot)gov/exhibits/911/images/lg-map-therm1(dot)jpg
Clearly shows excessive amounts of thermal energy, and in a blast circle no less. Seismic data proves the FACT they were taken down by nuclear demolition.
Zeolite absorbs radiation, and is created when granite (72% Si2O2, 15% Al2O3) is exposed to fission temps.
LASER enrichment = low radiation.
cheerdiver 5 months ago
@DK1Ryan, it seemed that there was little / no damage to the bottom of the beaker, is that the case? Also, it appeared there was a large amount of unreacted material (can be seen cascading down over the hot iron as you tipped the beaker), could those unreacted materials account for the "residue" images? Did you collect images of the powder prior to reaction?
gunit87801 7 months ago
@gunit87801 Good question, there is only a macroscopic picture of the unburned thermite. Why? This load of thermite was not even able to melt this tiny glass beaker anyway, and we can observe that the thermal glow was diminishing very rapidly, in several seconds (as in other videos with thermite). How such material can be responsible for alleged pools of melted metal in debris, staying hot for weeks? Only the use of thermite as one of the main construction materials of WTC could explain this.
ivankmin 7 months ago
@gunit87801 I would also like to remark that infrared spectra in the video are unreadable (at least on my computer), so without any value. Kevin Ryan should bring up the better picture.
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin It isn't a good picture of the IR spectra, you are right. For once.
As for the rapid cooling, here is a little experiment you can do at home to illustrate the principle. Take a turkey and a chicken and put them into the oven at the same time. Which cooks quicker? Which will get cold first? This is a tiny sample with a tiny volume.
The fact that it doesn't damage the glass beaker designed for this type of experiment is neither here nor there.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter The sample on the video is not so tiny, there was something like 1 cm layer in the beaker. I understand that this thermite quick blast did not damage the beaker, and for the steel cutting, a charge must be somehow "vectored". But still, for your alleged melted steel pools and for the "suspicious" twisting of huge steel WTC elements, the amount of any thermite had to be really immense, gigantic, simply... beyond any reasonable thinking:o)
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin What exactly is a "reasonable" amount of thermite. Reasonable in terms of you ideas about logistics or reasonable in terms of physical reality?
The logistical argument is just about the weakest one in the OS toolkit, because moving a 100 tonnes of material is just not that hard.
If you do not understand how this experiment fits in with the larger 911 theory I am sorry, but it is part of a much larger body of evidence that you need to familiarize yourself with.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
Bringing thermite to an office fire is like bringing a knife to a gun fight. Jet fuel has 10 times the energy of thermite, wood has more heat energy, plastic burning, 14 times the heat of thermite. The office fires destroyed the WTC complex. What is the goal? What was the conclusion? Paper has more heat energy than thermite.
Notice how fast the themite burned. The fires at the WTC burned for months, not seconds.
iSunTzu 7 months ago
@iSunTzu Wood only has more energy than thermite if you ignore the atmospheric oxygen.
To give you an indication of the problem with you little theory, this themite also has same energy in these terms as RDX.
Yet, people don't light bonfires to bring down buildings, and buildings which became veritable bonfire do not collapse, but a couple of well placed charges of RDX does cause rapid and catastrophic collapse.
Please don't let real life interfere with you delusions.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Fires destroyed the WTC complex, not thermite, not RDX. My little theory is fire did it, your little theory has some evildoers you can't tell us about did it, because you can't comprehend un-fought fires destroy buildings. Your have a silly conspiracy theory, a fantasy and you can't do a thing about it other than post on the internet as you return to the middle ages making up failed fantasy for the physics of fire you can't comprehend. Happy witch hunting 10 years of fail
iSunTzu 7 months ago
@iSunTzu Who cares how long it takes to prove? There is no statue of limitations on mass murder last I checked.
Knowing when you are being lied to and not accepting it is not the same as witch-hunting.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter You don't understand, paint the WTC steel with thermite, raises the steel temperature 8 degrees, it will not fail, it will not melt on a global scale. Bringing thermite to a office fire is stupid, only an idiot would make up thermite planted by unknown evildoers. You must not understand physics since you make up nonsense in your fantasy of 911. The office contents were enough, no need to make up moronic nonsense. Who did it in your delusion. How much thermite did they use?
iSunTzu 7 months ago
@iSunTzu I take it you have not seen the Cole video and are using NatGeo laughable experiment?
5d5iIoCiI8g
There is no precedent for office fires far more severe than this (including one in the WTC itself) causing global failure. None at all, it is a figment of your imagination. If anyone is making up moronic nonsense it is you, the Cardington fire tests completely destroy your ideas.
Yet thermite can readily be made to do this kind of damage depending on the application and formulation.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter "Cardington fire tests..."
Just keep repeating BS you read online. Cardington:
-They used steel beams, not trusses.
-It had composite floor slabs designed to act as a support member.
-None of its structural members were compromised by an airliner.
-They refer to their test structure as "indeterminate", as opposed to "determinate" (p. 1). If you read the comparison you will note that the WTC is determinate.
"Behaviour of steel framed structures under fire conditions: Main Report"
grandmastershek 7 months ago
@grandmastershek Cardington relates to WTC7, but FEA analysis suggests that applying it to the towers is also not realistic.
The thermal expansion hypothesis also incorrectly modeled WTC7 and the behavior of fire to achieve a predetermined result.
Being endorsed by a government department does not make something true.
If you buy a piece of cake, do you insist that there be a peer reviewed study or a pastry chef report before believing it is cake? Is the cake a lie?
Reality is reality.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
Doesn't Gage repeatedly say this stuff can't be "made in a cave in Afghanistan"? Apparently it can!
I also love water boys critique of Van Romero's demo. Its not like Los Alamos labs specializes in this stuff or anything. But yeah a water tester is an authority on the subject.
grandmastershek 7 months ago
@lijebaley01 So you have no respect for your own opinion? Good call. And as you can probably tell, we Goyim no longer respect your disingenuous Jewish bullshit either.
911wasajewcrime 7 months ago
Great video.....
FreedumbFighter28 7 months ago
They got it from here: Method for producing nanostructured metal-oxides
Patent 6986818 Issued on January 17, 2006. As if it has any bearing on what happened almost 6 years before.
lijebaley01 7 months ago
Interesting video but LOL, are you a terrorist ? :-D
RockTheOcean4me 7 months ago
colorado. edu/engineering/civil/cem/Faculty2/Brown/default. htm
that the guy? Perhaps if you didn't use a racist derogative name..... Not really too sure how this relates to my question and statements of facts.
lijebaley01 7 months ago
How is it this even to this day, they won't admit that the molten aluminum alloys have exactly the same color as the molten aluminum alloys falling from the wtc right where the plane ended up? Who gives a crap what your thermite does, or how it is made, there was none at the WTC. Show me an explosive exotherm when you run DSC scans of the red chip material in an inert atmosphere. Until then, you have proved nothing.
lijebaley01 7 months ago
@lijebaley01
".....the molten aluminum alloys have exactly the same color as the molten aluminum alloys falling from the wtc..." Please give us an authoritative link for that claim.
woebrd 7 months ago
@woebrd search molten aluminum alloy, takes a 5 seconds.
lijebaley01 7 months ago
@lijebaley01
Its your statement. Back it up or admit that you made it up to discourage people from seeking the truth.
woebrd 7 months ago
@woebrd Which one haven't I backed up?
lijebaley01 7 months ago
Let's just say for argument's sake, that the red/gray chips are red primer paint chips with a thin layer of steel that spalled off with the paint. Now, we expose these chips to a micro-oxyacetylene torch, as Harrit, et al did. We end up with iron spheroids such as shown in photos in fig 23 and 26 (they are the same material), and uneffected red remains (paint pigment) Some how, the truthers take this as evidence of thermite.
lijebaley01 7 months ago
@lijebaley01
You have misunderstood the Harrit paper - and the science behind it. The grey layer is nothing to do with the thermitic material (it may play a role in its use, but it is not a part of the thermitic material). The red material is the thermitic material - the red layer consists of the materials necessary and it was the red material that was analysed and found to be thermitic. To understand the reference to "layers", Google: energetic composites united states patent 5266132 1993
ThePeage 5 months ago
@lijebaley01
You are confusing two different uses of the word "layers". Nanothermite (or MICs if you want to use the technical term) can be made up of "layers" (as shown in the patent) between 10 and 10,000 Angstroms thick in order to control the timing and rate of reaction of the material. It (the NT) can then be a "layer" in relation to "layers" of other material (which may or may not be important in the timing/rate of reaction) like in the red/grey chips - a red layer and a grey layer.
ThePeage 5 months ago
@DarkwingScooter don't let the fact that over 60 tonnes of thermite would have been required get in the way of your glamorous movie-style conspiracy theory.
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz Sixty tonnes is two whole dumptruck loads. It is COMPLETELY impossible that someone could ever drive dumptruck filled with "building material" through New York, and no crew could ever move a whole dumptruck load from one place to another. It would involve top secret high-tech super weaponry like a couple of wheelbarrow's or pushcarts. Gee, life is hard.
[/sarcasm]
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@barfnz not one of the scientists represented in this segment of the truth movement (peer reviewed) have ever claimed to believe or support holograms, or any of the other straw-man/red herring counter-accusations made by your contingency (as you tend to show up all over youtube making up repeated but often nonsensical science-sounding claims). Why don't you produce some experiments of your own, document them on youtube and then invite the presenter here to an open debate?
dachu134 7 months ago
did you know, that the balls of 'thermitic' material claimed to be found were actually just fly ash from concrete dust? the real conspiracy isn't in the details, this is all a big sideshow to divert attention away from the US administration. under Bush, the event was the political wedge needed to bring the cold war policies of the neo conservative movement back into power.
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz Are you just going to power through the already established fallacies that have already been shown to be false now?
Fly particles look nothing these spheres, nobody makes this claim anymore because it is easily established to be complete unsubstantiated hogwash.
Next you will be claiming that it is some mysterious super-paint that is not the specified paint used at WTC and no other paint that can be found.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter one such established fallacy is that thermitic materials found were in trace amounts and such low levels do not support the theory that thermite could have been used to aid the destruction of the towers. I hear Jim Jones has some delicious kool aid, you might like to taste it, since you apparently believe everything you read on the Internet.
barfnz 7 months ago
oh wait, fly ash particles are spheres of Fe. so identical spheres of Fe which are the same size, according to you, cannot be fly ash, because it would conflict with a theory you are too ignorant to question the validity of.
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz Can you find an authentic photo of Fe spheres in fly ash that match this description. No you can't, because the flay ash theory was unsubstantiated garbage to begin with.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
very cool,. How people ignore the obvious demolitions of these buildings when convincing arguments could be made from any of a number of different angles, is beyond me. Great job. u'r a hero Kevin./ thank you
winston2015 7 months ago
@winston2015 convincing arguments are not evidence. speculation is not evidence. conspiracy theories are not evidence.
barfnz 7 months ago
This discussion is deviating from the theme of an amateur experiment of nanothermite and its relationship to the WTC demolitions into some silly shouting match over whether the real 9/11 terrorists were Osama bin Laden's 19 fanatics armed with incredible luck or highly skilled engineers and support staff backed by just about every watchdog who should scream "demolition," who blew up the twin towers before their complete evacuation.
911censorship (.com) settled this silly dispute.
Love,
DanUuNoel 7 months ago
@DanUuNoel actually, Osama did have engineers, technicians and many other resources available to him. they didn't need much luck when they were motivated by ja-halia and you're only fooling yourself to deny that Islamic fundamentalism didn't rise up in Egypt after the CIA-led torture of Sayad Qutp.
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz You seem to have missed the 6th grade 9/11 class. Kindly try to understand 911babystep, dot, com.
Love,
DanUuNoel 7 months ago
These rhetorical statements like "We don't know what happened" bother me. When it comes to other complex topics like how DNA works, do we say "We don't know what DNA does?" No, we claim we understand, even though we don't know all the details. Let's be careful not to over-represent our state of ignorance. We can and do know some things about what happened and how the government has been covering up.
SciMethod 7 months ago
@TheSteveLane If you can pay people to kill other people and ask no questions (Hitmen), you can pay people to stuff blocks with material and ask no questions.
TheAliBanjanShow 7 months ago
comparing these particles can at best, only prove that deflagration of similar materials occured. we should remember occums razor, and that metals such as aluminium and iron were in large supply for combustion in the event. the most compelling evidence i've seen, is the calculated potential kinetic energy of a boeing in a dive.
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz Occam's razor has two parts, it doesn't just ask you to accept the simplest explanation.
Just throwing energy at iron and aluminium does not thermite make.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago 2
no but throwing energy at fe and al does produce balls by rapid cooling. there are more reasonable explanations for balls of metal than thermite.
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz Not with jet fuel you don't. You need a furnace to melt iron with organic fuels.
Jet fuel is the kerosene in your gas heater, it is not some super hot material with magical superpowers.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter you are not even close to being correct, Jet A and kerosene are different fuels. balls form during cooling after alloys melt, this is commonly seen in welding. why ignore the simplest and most correct explanation?
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz Simple google search will reveal that Jet-A is in fact a kerosene type fuel.
So your theory now is that blowtorches were spontaneously formed in the crashes?
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter so kerosene is a different fuel to Jet A as you now know. you tried telling me they were the same thing, have you change your mind now? your theory about my theory is a theory based on assumption. you don't seem to understand the first thing about deflagration to detonation transitions or even basic kinematics but, i'm interested in your theory. we know that for a critical structural failure to occur, alloys in the construction do not need to melt but only heat enough to weaken.
barfnz 7 months ago
@barfnz Kerosene is class of fuels which is used for, among other things, heating and jet-fuel.
Your theory of high-rise building collapse is childishly simplistic.
Get back on topic.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
Nanothermite evidence is compelling and evidence of horrible murder still unresolved. Onward toward justice.
greenback001 7 months ago
Looks like Viton is only available in bulk. In Soviet Union that would be too much Viton for one comrade.
UNIVERSITYHI 7 months ago
@911wasajewcrime Thanks
robmoj 7 months ago
Great work. Most interesting how similar your results were to dust found around Ground Zero.
Thanks for your work and commitment to investigating the reality of 9/11.
GruesomeTruth 7 months ago
Dr. Jones once said, he could not make this stuff. How could you make it in your garage? I thought it was nanotechnology, something made in specialized labs.. Could you explain? Thanks.
robmoj 7 months ago
@robmoj The stuff from the WTC appears to be finer and of higher quality looking at the pictures, much more uniform.
Also, the chemicals used in this experiment are not necessarily readily available in caves.
The production of gunpowder was also once restricted to hi-tech (for the time) specialized labs. When more knowledge of the technique becomes available easier techniques and shortcuts also become available.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Thanks for the info... one thing that I wanted to know is if this red/gray chips were found on the USGS or RJ Lee dust samples. I know the iron microsphere were there, but do these chips too?
robmoj 7 months ago
@robmoj I'm not sure, that is a good question. Certainly just because they didn't specifically report it doesn't mean it wasn't there. They may just not have seen the significance.
One follow on test that should be done is to ignite this stuff in a vacuum or an argon atmosphere just to shut up the debunkers, even though this is clearly not reacting with atmospheric oxygen in this video.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Real (nano)thermite (like this one) of course ignites even under argon. But Jones et al. had to prove that their red chips are sort of thermite, and since chips contained lot of carbon compounds and DSC was performed under air, they probably followed the oxidation of carbon stuff. Your remark that thermite in this video was not in contact with oxygen is just silly. The beaker was covered loosely with some lid and oxygen (air) of course could go inside the beaker easily.
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin I didn't say it was not in contact with oxygen, just that it clearly isn't using atmospheric oxygen.
Oxidation with atmospheric oxygen with carbon cannot melt steel in open air conditions. So the fact that the droplets indicate molten steel is sufficient to indicate that the WTC sample was not undergoing simple combustion.
Any claims that this was not a thermitic reaction is pure claptrap unless you can prove the unsupported claim that carbon fires can produce the observed products.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Many organic stuffs show exotherms at temp. around 500 degrees C when in contact with oxygen. They usually carbonize and resulting graphitic compounds are suitable for a reduction of iron oxide to iron rich-mass, which can melt at quite low temperatures when impure. Harrit et al. did not prove thermitic reaction in chips and did not prove elemental aluminium in chips (a) to (d). Consequently, they did not prove thermite. This video can not change it.
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin
Pure pedantic horseshit from another Jew.
911wasajewcrime 7 months ago
@ivankmin Can provide evidence for organic material combusting to reduce iron oxide to elemental iron?
Can you provide evidence that fly ash iron particles will look and analyze the same as these?
Can you show a paint that behaves like this?
Do you understand that the difference between an iron-rich sphere and a pure iron sphere is not the same as the difference between elemental iron and an iron containing molecule?
Is asking for just a tiny nod to empiricism really too much to ask?
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Surprise 1: Combustion of the mixture organic material (e.g. coal) with iron ore (iron oxides) is exactly the way how iron has been produced for thousands of years by mankind. Surprise 2: Fly ash can contain mostly various microspheres, including iron-rich, look e.g. at the picture of fly ash in Wikipedia. Surprise 3: A paint can behave like in Harrit's paper, it is a normal behaviour. Concerning your 4th question, I do not understand your point.
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin "A paint can behave like in Harrit's paper, it is a normal behaviour." An authoritative reference please. Or do you just beat that drum to discourage people from seeking the truth.
woebrd 7 months ago
@woebrd Polymers are main components of any paint and many of them suffer oxidative pyrolysis with distinct DSC exotherms at temperatures cca 400 - 600 degrees C. Here are just two examples of scientific papers dealing with paints and you can observe corresponding exotherms there: „DSC evaluation of binder content in latex paints, Progress in Organic Coatings 33 (1998) 211–21.7“ or here „TG-DSC analysis applied to contemporary oil paints, J. Thermal. Anal. Calorim. (2011), 104, 541“
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin You are laboring under the false assumption that ANYTHING can be proven to the degree that you are asking for.
Remember that the modern scientific method starts out with the realization that NOTHING can be proven to that extent. Go read Descartes again. The last people to demand your level of proof were the logical positivists and we all know what a disaster that turned out to be.
GRAVITY does not have the level of proof you are demanding. By your telling there is no way to prove it.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter (Sorry for my funny English) You truthers should always keep in mind 2 things: 1) The burden of proof is fully on your side; 2) Extraordinary claims (like CD of WTC hypothesis) require extraordinary proofs! Any thermite must contain elemental aluminum and this was not proven by Harrit et al. Only we know almost for sure is that chip (e) was a particle of red primer Tnemec (thanks to Sunstealer, but also to Harrit et al. themselves). Better luck next time...
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin Why should the burden of proof be on the people who are claiming things that are physically reproducible and with ample evidence?
It is the OS'er who are making extraordinary claims here, never forget. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
That high-rise buildings don not collapse from fire and do collapse from explosives is in no way shape or form n extraordinary claim.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter What do you mean by words "physically reproducible"? Proofs are really up to you, believe me, since you want to accuse:o) Well, the WTC collapses looked really as CD. But plain common sense tells me that no evil conspirators in the world could be so incredibly stupid to use the impacts of just two planes for cover-up of “top secret” (sic!!) demolishing of three WTC skyscrapers:o)
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin Proof in science IS reproducing experiments.
You can't use your political views or ideas about logistics to figure what is most likely to happen in physical reality...
Your ideas are physically implausible in the extreme, so the burden of proof is on YOU to prove them. Truthers are not asking you to believe any that is not readily observable in nature and reality.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter "Proof IS... reproducing experiments" --- what experiments and their reproduction are you talking about, in this 9/11 issue? This particular experiment showed that Ryan is able to prepare fine thermite by sol-gel technique and this thermite even burns (and ignite at quite low temperatures). Nothing else was proven. Concerning the alleged impossibility of WTC collapses without CD, this is just an obsessive idea, nothing else. You do not have any proof for this claim, sorry.
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin Most of the mainline truther claims are reproducible by experiment. The "proof" in scientific terms MEANS the outcome of the claims are not falsified (but are falsifiable by) reproducible experiment.
In scientific terms truther claims are (by and large) proven.
It is the OS' claims that cannot meet this standard even the burden of proof has ALWAYS been on them because they are the ones making the PHYSICALLY (not logistically or politically) implausible claims.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Aha. Since we non-truthers can not finally falsify your weird truthers claims, you must be right and scientific:o) My overal impression: nobody in the world (whether truthers or NIST or whoever) can find exactly, if the collapses of WTC towers were "natural" or CDed. There are too many unknown factors, including the most important ones: the real inner damage of these building. If you consider, e.g., Harrit's paper as a scientific proof of CD, it is self-explanatory for me:o)
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin They are not weird claims.
That thermite cannot be used in demolition is a weird (falsified) claim.
Thermal expansion causing truss failure is a weird (falsified) claim.
Bazant's crush down is a weird (falsified) claim.
Catastrophic damage from airplane impacts is a weird (falsified) claim.
Kerosene pouring down stairwells causing a steel melting towering inferno is a patently ridiculous claim.
The truther claims are readily falsifiable and have not been falsified, that is enough.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter " thermite cannot be used in demolition..."
Give an example or demo expert who can give a method or peer reveiwed study demonstrating it.
"Thermal expansion..."
Yet it meets the standards of the NFPA, the ASCE, the ICC, ad infinitum.
"Bazant's crush down ..."
See above.
"Catastrophic damage..."
The buildings survived the crashes.
"Kerosene pouring down stairwells causing a steel melting..."
I agree. It didn't happen.
grandmastershek 7 months ago
@ivankmin If you want we can discuss legal standards of proof. Preponderance of evidence is with the truther version, since there is no positive evidence for the government version at all.
The truthers haven't proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt, here I would agree. But that is why they are asking for a new (properly constituted this time) investigation rather than asserting some absolute transcendent truth.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter As a scientist (polymer chemist) with 30 years of experience, I have spent hundreds of hours trying to find why truthers are so convinced of the inside job, namely of CD. I have found nothing else that endless row of suspicions, weird hypotheses, very precise calculations with very uncertain inputs, etc. On the other hand, I have no objections against a further investigations, especially in the case of WTC7:o) Anyway, it will cost me no money, since I am living in Europe...
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin Some preliminary independent experimentation has been done. Jonathan Cole demonstrates in this video the use of small amounts of homemade thermate, (which is far less energetic than the alleged nanothermite,) sever steel columns in a short amount of time. I think further investigation is needed.
Search "9/11 experiments: The great thermate debate" by the "physicsandreason" channel.
Cozzmos 5 months ago
@ivankmin In a blast furnace you fool! You can't melt iron in OPEN AIR with organic fuel. Smelting is not melting, iron is not melted during the smelting process.
Jeez, you really have to beat OS'ers over the head with reality.
DarkwingScooter 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter I only reminded you that the reduction of iron oxides with organics as a coal (and air access) is the usual way how the iron is produced. Why you are still talking about iron? These "droplets" were only "iron-rich". We simply do not have enough of reliable data about these shiny little things: Harrit et al. found them in the burned chips, whereas another truther in darksideofgravity found them in the unburned chips (and no new droplets were formed during burning in this case.)
ivankmin 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter Instead of such funny (and interesting!) experiments with a real thermite, Ryan, Jones and other thermite boys should analyze some more red chips from WTC dust, using X-ray diffraction this time to prove elemental aluminum. And in cooperation/under supervision of some independent scientists. Without this, no conclusion can be made...
ivankmin 7 months ago
@ivankmin Since Jews have already admitted to demolishing the buildings by way of controlled demolition, no further testing is really necessary, right asshole?
911wasajewcrime 7 months ago
@DarkwingScooter To be more specific, even Harrit et al. did not claim the droplets are "pure" iron. In another analysis of truther in darksideofgravity site you can find that microspheres (droplets) contain many elements including oxygen. In sciforums(dot)com you can find an explanation that such shiny droplets are formed by iron oxides themselves. Consequently, these droplets do not prove thermitic reaction:o)
ivankmin 7 months ago
EXCELLENT!
kawika7777 7 months ago
The narrator voice sounds like Greame Macqueen.
Seigu007 7 months ago
@Seigu007 it's kevin ryan
thedreamisstilldead 7 months ago
@thedreamisstilldead are you sure?
Seigu007 6 months ago
@Seigu007 Yes.
thedreamisstilldead 6 months ago
I've always wanted to ask what the atmosphere was like at UL? I'm sure that many of your colleagues and friends are aware of the glaring problems with the NIST report, I hope that eventually more people from these organizations will step forth. One act of bravery allows many more to follow. Thank you for all you've done.
unitytorch 7 months ago
Nice one Kevin! The quality and quantity of research you've provided over the last four years is staggering. Chemist, sleuth and all round bullshit destroyer.
educution 7 months ago