"The 'nanothermite' samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind. The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its "contaminants" are, in fact, the dominant species." - Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
The chips don't even "explode" they "vigorously burn".
What kind of paint can vigorously burn like that? Any kind if you put a propane torch flame to, red primer paint is what the "red" chips are most likely.
You can get the same effect by sprinkling coarse black pepper onto the burner elements of an electric stove. The test would have to be done in an inert atmosphere to be conclusive anyway, as long as oxygen is interfering, these types of uncontrolled experiments don't really say too much.
Nice video clip, shows the explosive nature of this type of thermite. Notice the large amounts of gas that's produced.
I think most people now realize the official conspiracy theory is a BS cocktail. It's now rare for me to find someone with an IQ above 120 who actually believes the official story.
The same debunkers are always trolling these videos. If they want to stop the truth movement they need to form a group like; "Idiots for the official story" & "People against physics" or something.
911truth. org/en/news-section/41-articles/521-scott-grainger. html
Now can you please provide a list with names signed by "all the physics experts" who openly support the NIST Report and boldly ignore the experts above?
@theBartone9119 that is not true many non government structural engineers, think the official story is a false. 2 planes thit two building and 3 buildings fell, where is the physics in that.
it is termite used to blow the towers, it is zionistes job, TNT explosive to blow concrete, termite to cut and blow the steel, ben laden does not have this technology in his cave !!!! jew does
As someone who has seen thermite and pyrotechnic materials thousands of times up close, I can say confidently, that this was a smoke/vapor flame. The flame followed the path of the smoke-fuel and swept the swept across the entire item. A thermite reaction looks a lot more like a sparkler firework with bright sparks. A nanothermite reaction would be a quick flash/explosion.
Get this!! NIST never tested for explosives of any kind because they didn't HEAR a big enough BOOOMMMMM! HOW'S THAT FOR SCIENCE?
Funny how everyone else heard EXPLOSIONS all morning long.(& in the afternoon also.)
They said it was gaslines(LOL) at first...until they were told there were NO GASLINES.Then they shut up.I watched ALL for 4 days & the lies got even bigger.Funny how they never mentioned Israeli's in explosive laden VANS. At least 3 Vans.911 was a CIA/Mossad intelligence success.
I really feel the need to note I absolutely despise people who go out of their way to reject scientific process, this really poignantly echoes so much of our history of ignorance and stifling of progress. So here it is.
your right its not paint.....its nothing, i think i know what its supposed to be and i think it is prob just the aluminum from the planes that melted and stuck to one side steel. dont forget there was tons of aluminum from the plane, and aluminium melts at a lower temp.
@pitt15220 Hahahhahaahahahahhaa! Idiot! random melting of aluminium cannot form uniformly mixed alumium nanoparticles at precise ratios to aluminium oxide nanoparticles in a silicon matrix it would create completely arbitrary larger clumps of differing sizes and mixes. It would also NOT FORM LAYERS!!!!
Honestly people should think before they post drivel.
@pixarian72 Seriously...just repeating what you hear Steven Jones say makes you no expert. thats why we rely on peer review instead of youtube scholars.
Clarification on the whole "should have tested in vacuum thing" from Jones himself:
"We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper."
Tillotson et al under Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories are the original developers of nano-thermite. In addition to being verification for chip above being nano-thermite, it also verifies it being, direct quote, "high explosives".
@grandmastershek ...Which is why Jones tested it in the exact same conditions they did to compare it against the data they got. You know, the exact thing you'd want to do to find out if it is indeed nano-thermite. Test it in the same conditions that original developers did and see if you get the same results. Like what I said. In a post you replied to.
Really though, thanks for a chuckle, your ability to ask the question when replying to its answer is very Jack Sparrow. Hubris, not so much.
@SexyMelon The problem was there test wasn't to test if it was nanothermite. sadly Dr. Jones has yet to show it would ignite in an oxygen devoid ambient.
Any of the so called replications get published yet?
@grandmastershek "The problem was there test wasn't to test if it was nanothermite."
Yes, it was. Are you purposefully being an idiot?
"sadly Dr. Jones has yet to show it would ignite in an oxygen devoid ambient."
Scientifically ignorant people aren't allowed to critique peer-reviewed literature for this very reason: you don't even get the premise. Igniting it in a void environment would be IRRELEVANT.
"Any of the so called replications get published yet?"
@SexyMelon "igniting it in an oxygen-void environment would be pointless"
No, it would show the two products are reacting with each other and not with atmospheric oxygen. In other words it would help your case if it still ignited in a vacuum and would show that you are even more wrong than you already are if it didn't.
@flanksteak2 No such reaction is possible between chemicals involved. That doesn't even make sense: if it reacted with oxygen this way, it'd be an explosive more volatile than an atomic bomb.
Further, this would be in violation of protocol, as the results of Tillitoson et al study which examined nano-thermite was also conducted in atmospheric conditions.
I swear "armchair scientists" like you are incredibly tiresome. Did you ever imagine that copy-pasting bullshit like this from "debunker" websites isn't substitute for genuine scientific findings?
When did I say they did? Oh right I didn't. You're just another truther who tries to bear the garb of intellectual yet still hiding behind the same moronic hand waving.
@12Weasel Thank you for this most intelligent contribution also.
Truly the opposition to truth of the matter of 9/11 is based on high intellectual standards, and not in any way immature name-calling and ignorant stereotyping.
I do value witness testimony a great deal, people dismiss it in court far too often. i have no doubt that there were loud sounds at the WTC but an explosion would be followed by obvious shock waves and immediate post damage, of which i have never heard.the first time i watched a house/building burn i was frightened of the extremely loud noises being made, sounded like explosions,but they're not. pressure builds in rooms,breaks windows,tanks of all sorts explode (fire extinguisher). other reasons
"If it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
Experiment is the ultimate judge of any hypothesis, so that's what needs to be done.
Myself... For as long as aforementioned experiments continue to support the "conspiracy theory" and contradict the government-endorsed conspiracy story, I'll have to side with the "nutty" camp. There's really no choice in the matter.
@SexyMelon are you asking me to, or are you describing the truthers level of success in rangling in these white men in the black suits? remind me again what year it is....and also sometimes i forget when these 9/11 crimes took place.
@SexyMelon oh so sorry, i spoke too cryptically, i'll clarify for YOU. you said to admiralct: "fail" and i was wondering whether you were asking me to "fail" or whether you were describing the truthers "fail"ed attempt in bringing the "guilty" gov to justice. when i asked you what year it was and which year 9/11 occured, i was pointing out the fact that it's been 9 years now and you haven't one name of the alleged "therMIGHT" planters. Thank you for the reply Sexy, i hope that clarifies it for u
@admiralct I liked it when you didn't try to make sense better.
Oh and, you probably don't want to bring up the "nine years already", seeing how in those years the only evidence that surfaced was AGAINST the government's conspiracy theory, and none FOR it.
@SexyMelon i would love to put ur 100 nanometer length paint chip on one side of the 50 yard line of a foot ball field and on the other half of the field, fill it with the millions of pieces of evidence suggesting Al-Qaeda, compare and see if ur alleged "evidence" of ther(might) is even visible among the mountains of data against demo and FOR the original account. u have just as EASY of a time accepting thermite and dismissing mountains, as u have as HARD of a time believing official and Dbunkrs
@admiralct "the millions of pieces of evidence suggesting Al-Qaeda"
Oh wow.
I suppose it's like that mythical evidence for the historicity of the Bible I keep hearing about, so abundant, yet mysteriously can never be mentioned by name?..
Have you seen even one piece of evidence yourself, or are you just repeating what the telly told you again?
Let's start by naming one piece of evidence. Here's nano-thermite in the dust. Your turn.
@SexyMelon i don't care much 4 biblical history. "mysteriously can never be mentioned" just as the evidence the truthers need is always "just beyond reach" (they hauled off the steel forever, cannot test it).
seen evidence myself, k i obviously don't have my own intelligence agency so to a certain extent i have 2 take the gov's word. i understand that truthers WONT.
you trust the sincerity of ur fellow truthers but distrust the sincerity of anybody else who doesn't agree with nano-thermight
@SexyMelon not truthers fault but a very adventagous position for them to take (only of course, once the steel is hauled off), considering most of it is gone. where were the truthers days after collapse when they had the chance to demand steel testing. didn't many truthers claim to have been suspicious from the moment the buildings fell....why not speak up then. i wish it wasn't too late but it is when it comes to truthers examining steel. people did examine it before they sent it off though.
@admiralct "not truthers fault but a very adventagous position for them to take"
So... What?
"where were the truthers days after collapse when they had the chance to demand steel testing"
Demanding it!
Nearly everyone involved was outraged over destruction of the evidence, regardless of whether they were "truthers" or not. In fact I don't think there was a single person that was okay with it: engineers, investigators, citizens, families, scientists, police, FBI, everyone was quite upset.
@SexyMelon i know, i see. when airplanes crash mysteriously, they re assemble them in hangers, but a building (even 7) is simply to massive to store anywhere, it would take dozens of warehouses to fill, easier to haul off. PLUS there is no mystery like with typical crashed airplanes, we know how those buildings fell, as a result of the terrorist attacks and subsequent collapse/fires of wtc1.
@admiralct "it would take dozens of warehouses to fill"
There aren't a dozen warehouses in US?
"easier to haul off"
So... It's unpractical to investigate the biggest terror act in history in the way every other collapse always is.
But it IS practical to completely change all of US laws, enact egregious security measures, manufacture millions of pieces of military and spy weaponry and security equipment, sink millions of dollars into defense, and engage in open warfare with foreign countries.
@SexyMelon how about this, how about i believe my theory, you believe yours, we each act accordingly and lets see how many people side with your story, you can all gather round the screen and laugh and my sheeple comments. if your a melon my name is gallagher. smash!
@admiralct You don't want that argument, recent polls (Zogby specifically) indicate you're outnumbered in many parts of the world, including state of New York itself.
More so you don't want that argument is because - what you say, "sheeple?" - it's a logical fallacy: majority doesn't make a right. At least no more than it did when Reichstag was set on fire by supposed Jewish terrorists.
You're free to believe whatever you wish.. But in face of contrary evidence.. Why would you lie to yourself?
@SexyMelon I'm sorry but truthers hardly outnumber captive chupacabras. i have never met a truther in real life, of course i don't go around asking everybody but i have never witnessed anybody stick up for 9/11 truth. i have only seen people point and laugh not at the sillyness of the theory, but the gullibility towards outrageous assertions. see, the theory isn't silly, it's the people that belive in them. how is it that we're outnumbered by rare people? actually Nyorkers laugh at you sorry.
@admiralct At no point in that incoherent mess of a post did you come even close to making a lick of sense, so I can't really respond.
Well... Again, you may very well be in minority both by popular and by scientific standards, so you're really in no position to spew anything self-congratulatory here.
If your whole argument hinges on plain name-calling, sheepish crowd-following, and stereotyping, that's just not worth anyone's time.
@SexyMelon you asked in the face of contrary evidence, would you lie to yourself...i want you to think for a moment about how much evidence from original account have you looked away from, completely dismissed or claim to be part of the conspiracy. you say "i have no evidence" well guess what cracker jack, i don't exactly have my own theory, i believe america's explanation, it makes sense and it holds all the cards. u don't have your own theory of evidence, you follow the "crowds" w/no evidence
@SexyMelon you think because i support the original account that i also must believe in WMD's? i've been watching frontline for years and Bush has recently confirmed their reports that he was suspicious that they were telling him what he wanted to hear. this is coming from a guy who you think ordered 9/11 to occur. if u knew a wink about Al-Qaeda u would know that they don't need WMD's, they take advantage of surprise with whatever weapon they use. Al-Qaeda threatened us for decades. do u doubt?
Yeah, they've been telling US to get out of Israel for decades, at one time resorting to violence. Incidentally the only crime Bin Laden is wanted for by the FBI.
The 98' bombings.
Why would US be threatened by a rag-tag group of nutjobs they themselves created to fight the soviets back in the cold war era is too ludicrous to entertain seriously.
What's the last time Al Qaeda killed anyone again?..
@admiralct "u don't have your own theory of evidence"
The theory is that the buildings were subjected to controlled demolition.
This is supported by steady velocity of the collapse, horizontal level nature of it, total and unprecedented collapse itself, numerous reports and recordings of chain heavy-duty explosions and flashes, scientifically verified explosive residue present in the dust, recorded red-hot and flowing molten iron, and many other lines of evidence.
@SexyMelon there was no controlled demolition of the WTC. the speed of collapse matches what should have happened given that airplanes destroyed the towers. none of the buildings collapsed horizontally, the collapse of all three buildings was predicted by citizens and firemen, erronous reports of and zero recordings of post-impact explosions, never heard of flashes but there are explanations for that, components (short of all necessary) of bombs already present in WTC, many things glow red-hot
Don't bother. Melonhead gets slaughtered and will waste your time just talking and talking and talking about nothing like a fickle women who can't control her emotions.
@flanksteak1 "Melonhead gets slaughtered and will waste your time just talking and talking and talking about nothing like a fickle women who can't control her emotions."
Truly the opposition to truth of the matter of 9/11 is based on high intellectual standards, and not in any way immature name-calling and ignorant stereotyping...
Good thing the opposition to truth of the matter couldn't muster any intelligent argument for almost 10 years now. Helps on-lookers decide who's really right.
Not quite. There are still a few samples remaining, most under close guard, some even behind closed doors (while former is common sense, latter is illegal).
It's not enough - poor statistical power - but it's something if it were just allowed to be tested.
Regardless, there are other ways the testing could be done. See video above.
"people did examine it before they sent it off though."
@SexyMelon Iron flows? The only black metal globs i saw were on an irregular beam cut of some 9/11 memorial. I think the aluminium and glass (maybe even the gold from the vaults) flowed before the support beams did.
@VCat2006 "Iron flows? The only black metal globs..."
Not thinking of the same thing at all here. Here you go: /watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE&p=D5BDF224DFA0FF8C
"I think the aluminium and glass (maybe even the gold from the vaults)"
Aluminum and glass don't glow bright-orange, at least not until they're way, way past iron's melting point. Gold is a better guess, but it doesn't glow either, just glisten.
Besides, most of it was on that truck that was hauling it off the site for no suspicious reason.
Obviously if you smelt it in a dedicated forge it'll glow, anything will (like the ceramic pot in the video). I mean it won't glow when it's only just at melting point, at the temperature of office fires (~1,000C) as opposed to forge temperatures (~1,700C+).
@VCat2006 Nothing liquid really glows falling through air unless it's every, incredibly, unnaturally hot. As you can see even metals in a forge lose their glow if they ever attain it very quickly when poured. Another possibility is that the on-going chemical reaction, or your typical incendiary.
So... It's either super-heated metal, or it's an incendiary. Thermite happens to be both, as do quite a few other metallic fuels.
@SexyMelon Superheating is achieved by heating a homogeneous substance in a clean container, free of nucleation sites, while taking care not to disturb the liquid.
It's unwise to resort to hyperbole when referring to facts.
@SexyMelon Hydrogen is a metal, but heating liquid hydrogen past its boiling point without it turning to gas sounds dangerous to me. Lithium, sodium, potassium, etc are easy to superheat.
Iron is black, and aluminium, as draped over the memorial beams, is grey.
Those tiny drops of gold glowed for a while. How about a lot of glowing hot molten aluminium and/or glass with lots of rubble and whatever was on the buckling floor?
@VCat2006 Sounds quite interesting, thanks. Do you have any footage or an article about this stuff?
"How about a lot of glowing hot molten aluminium"
Well, that's the problem: if it's aluminum glowing bright-orange, hot enough not to loose the glow falling through a dozen stories, it's aluminum that's hot enough to cut through steel like butter.
(Well, I imagine it could, seeing that thermite does.)
"glass with lots of rubble"
That has no potential to even burn reliably, less of all glow.
@VCat2006 The more subtle fallacy, of course, is just dismissing - rationalizing - the finding as opposed to studying it.
Say it could be aluminum or whatever... But if there's a chance, even a slightest chance, that it was actually iron, is that not important? Why consider every possibility BUT it being iron, or thermite?
This could be verified with simple analysis of the rubble for thermitic or iron slag, for instance. But, on order or government, that evidence was simply destroyed, so no can do...
Still, one can try to reproduce the effect with said aluminum, gold, flaming debris, or whatever else, and thermite itself, and see what fits best.
In fact, both have already been done: /watch?v=45p19_-CS5I
@SexyMelon Rationalization is a fallacy? I think you got that backwards.
Oh, you must be a Christian, then, according to Pascal's Wager. You must also follow every doomsday cult savior that has ever existed because there's just the slightest chance that they were telling the truth and you're hellbound.
Yeah, I know what that is. My "lol wat" still stands: what?
"9/11 Twoofers: Life in blissful ignorance, or spend your life searching for unlikely evidence. Why carry on with your life?"
What the...
So your argument is... If you research something, you have no life, therefore, you shouldn't research it?..
It's... Erm... Have you heard of such thing as "science"? Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, maybe a couple other guys? Were they wasting their lives too?
@VCat2006 Oh and, yeah, in this particular instance, I'm not asking you to "waste your life" on research: I'm asking why exactly you choose to ignore evidence in the form of what looks clearly like molten iron, with experiment and theory supporting it, and none opposing it?
"If i heard a bang, i'd assume it was a firecracker. Or snapping bolts..."
@VCat2006 Maybe an analogy in case I weren't making myself clear...
If you hear a gunshot, would you turn around? It just as well may be a popped tire or a burst pipe, but would you take the chance?
Likewise, if you see what looks like molten iron leaking out of the building, is that not suspicious at all? Or numerous explosions? Could be anything, but do you take the chance?
It's evidence, and evidence deserves to be investigated, doesn't it? If you just outright dismiss it... Well, why?
(Should note again, as aforementioned, that there's already good evidence suggesting it couldn't be anything but iron, most likely mixed with thermite. This isn't an argument for it, this is just mental exercise of skepticism.)
Well, I don't know what that's about, but do you have any more clips like this? I'd very much like to see at what speed steel bends exactly, this a whole lot slower than I'd expect.
(Why yes, a collapsing steel frame... Very good.)
"loostrains911 blogspot com"
Quite ironic, don't you find?
Of course, those quotes - hundreds of them! - aren't used to hinge on what people *thought* like they heard, only to get an idea of the type of noise. Don't be silly.
@SexyMelon My turn! December 13, 2001. video recordings of Osama bin Laden (i understand that it's adventagous of you to deny that it's really him, oh how fun!) have him saying "we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day"
Ah, okay. Let's ignore that this was a fake for a second - check FBI's website for verification - good job thinking of something. Good.
Now, what I had in mind was asking for evidence of the technical aspects of the collapse, in the same lieu as thermite chips here. Do you know anything on that front?
(Points deducted for mentioning any person/institution without mentioning what evidence they provide, for hopefully obvious reasons.)
@Melon in ur mind, you MUST dismissed them 2 be fake, because the tapes cause your theory to collapse faster than building 7. there is plenty of information on the technical aspects of the collapse, i wont cut paste and nitpick over thousands of technical engineering applications of math, if u deny they exist than i fear i cannot help u. visit Tokyo or the Imperial War museum in England, they have beams twisted from fire induced collapses, at GZ the "trident" is a nanothermite free beam of steel
@admiralct "in ur mind, you MUST dismissed them 2 be fake, because the tapes cause your theory to collapse faster than building 7"
Not at all. Seeing that Bin Laden is a (presumably former) CIA employee, he could very well be complicit or responsible for the attacks.
The truth remains though that he openly denied any involvement, and the actual perpetrators happen to be a rogue saudi arab group (at least according to official story).
I do not. There were a few - I would say a couple dozen papers is a "few" in this case - works published on the matter, but if you judge it by that standard, then you should know that critical works outnumber those supportive four to one.
I was more drawing your attention to the fact that despite all the works, all the inquiry, and all investigation... There is no *evidence* to support the government's conspiracy.
@admiralct "we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy"
Haha, wait, what?
Bin Laden & co. "calculated" what later took a whole of NIST YEARS of super-advanced expertise and computer simulation to accomplish?.. Even if the latter refused to model the collapse itself?..
I shouldn't nitpick seeing how that's the same kind of evidence that's used for, say, telekinesis, but... Sheesh. That's kinda hilarious.
@SexyMelon PFFFFFTTTTT!! "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names...get real!" Ah, so you're familiar with Poe's law...the rational and irrational arguments among the truth movements are definately more fun than arguing over who's physical evidence better suits the percieved event.
@SexyMelon PFFFFFFTTTTT!!! "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names....get real!" - sorry, how silly of me
Ah so, you're familiar with Poe's law...i always did find the rational and irrational aspects of the 9/11 debates to be much more fun than arguing over who's physical evidence better suits the perceived event.
@SexyMelon PFFFFFFTTTTT!!! "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names....get real!" - sorry, how silly of me
Ah so, you're familiar with Poe's law...i always did find the rational and irrational aspects of the 9/11 debates to be much more fun than arguing over who's physical evidence better suits the perceived event.
@admiralct "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names....get real!"
Are you a honest-to-god idiot or do you have trouble expressing yourself...
Do you have any fucking idea what you're asking for? What the fuck do you actually expect? Did you think even for a second...
Actually, with official conspiracy magically acquiring all names within hours, no matter your perceptions of reality are skewed... Due to gullibility...
@SexyMelon magically acquiring names huh? "yes hello American Airlines/United? this is the defense department, we heard u have planes missing and reports from the crew as to the seat numbers of the passengers, could you please recite their names for us..." hokus pokus, alakazam, abracadabrah! = simply magic huh? sexymelon watched a youtube vid that said "the buildings couldn't have fallen that way, the planes could never maneuver into pentagon" lets go shed some light! so whos the gullible one?
I guess there's no reason for any investigation of any hi-jacking or plane crash to take more than a few days then! That in reality they can take years must be a conspiracy of some sort.
Uh, no, unless UA had magic terrorist-identifying passenger seats, it's not that simple... Especially of those who, you know, never were on the planes... Like the leaders and other conspirators...
@SexyMelon "takes days...must be a conspiracy of some sort" No sorry.
again, it's not magic, the crew on HJ plane has passenger list and they can also tell who clearly is not in their seats and not in the bathroom, they must be in the cockpit. all with arab names with ugly background checks. maybe they should hire YOU to investigate such matters, i've got a sneaking suspicion that you'd be good at it ;) Sigh
@admiralct "again, it's not magic, the crew on HJ plane has passenger list"
We've been over that. That's just not how things work. Such investigations usually take months if not years, there's no magic terror-detector to speed it up, you need to put bits and pieces together.
I'm amazed you can figure out so quickly where my information comes from. Care to shed some light as to where yours comes from? Honest research? Or a TV documentary? Or maybe a "debunker" website?
Can you tell me which video here of YT contains information pertaining to ASTME119 floor assembly fire and collapse test as detailed in NCSTAR1-X, acknowledging lack of failure of non-fireproofed floor assemblies after six hours of exposure to 1,000C fires?
@SexyMelon i got my information from the planet earth, we've been calling you for some time. OH BOY you're one of those who stays up late reading NCSTAR. you can pick holes in whatever you want, you're theory is one big hole itself. so is your big stink because NIST doesn't know exactly how every molecule in that building behaved, or is it that you think the whole thing is bogus to cover up powerful forced that MADE 9/11 happen? btw i met u blogging on a YT vid so at the very least u watch these
@admiralct "so is your big stink because NIST doesn't know exactly how every molecule in that building behaved"
Nice strawman there, want a light?
The issue was more so that they never investigated the collapse, did not collect data on severity of fires, dismissed physical evidence against the steel's failure, lied about and simply conjured data to fit their theories, conducted no scientific testing, conducted no investigation and otherwise simply failed in all relevant aspects.
@admiralct Oh and, yeah, NIST found no evidence to support their hypothesis, which is the fact I was somewhat leading you to. In fact they found quite a lot of opposite in their UL263 tests, also aforementioned.
Quite problematic, wouldn't you think?
"btw i met u blogging on a YT vid so at the very least u watch these"
Blogging? What?
Yes, of course I watch videos on YouTube... That's kind of the point of the website, isn't it?
@admiralct Oh and, yeah, I still suggest - not as a point of argument, just a mental exercise of skepticism for your sake - you come up with some evidence for the whole fire-based collapse (or core meltdown or pancake theory if you want).
I mean, it would be quite ironic for you to advocate a baseless conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? There's got to be some proof before you believe it.
You can keep Laden's "confession" - again, check out FBI's site - but that's not exactly a "mountain", is it?
@admiralct "who's physical evidence better suits the perceived event."
Then again, with how little sense you manage to make...
Oh fuck it. Just try to name one thing, how about that. Let's see those "mountains". I can name my pile of evidence, can you name even a speck of yours?..
@911Brit1 It's a really small chip of certain substance being heated up in a measuring apparatus. Because it flares up and ignites we can conclude it's combustible, and because of how quick it's consumed, we can judge the intensity of the reaction.
In other words, whatever it is, ignites easily, burns very hot, and combusts very rapidly.
The hypothesis is thus that it's an explosive incendiary, or analogous substance.
grandmastershekis a troll: dont argue with these. These accnts are perfect axample of bot created channels which multiple commentors use on rotating shifts to spread infighting and create fake consensus on walls. Send links to their channels to everyone to sho them how to spot a paidtroll profile.
How can any1 hate the idea of a new investigation when 6 of the 10 members of the 911commission have publicly stated that the Pentagon lied to them, thus proving there was a coverup?
"How can any1 hate the idea of a new investigation when 6 of the 10 members of the 911commission have publicly stated that the Pentagon lied to them, thus proving there was a coverup?"
All Bush cronies at that, even. I wonder if people even know about that part...
.it burns it is paint..you cant say it is thermite because the metal is stil there..Maybe its paint that was soaked in paint thinner for 48hours....They should have done that flame test in a vacumn.if it was thermite it would free the oxygen needed to burn.
@blueshadow1996 "it burns it is paint..you cant say it is thermite because the metal is stil there"
Red part of the chip is thermite. It evaporates completely.
"Maybe its paint that was soaked in paint thinner for 48hours"
Then it would not even be paint anymore.
And it wasn't. The sample was tested with MEK against actual paint, and it is different. Normal paint was also tested in a burner, and it simply consumed by the flame: it does nothing.
@SexyMelon ..What do you think MEK is..a paint thinner. ..It is supposed to cause a reaction that melts metal...Why is it still in a solid state? The reason for testing in a vacumn is to ascertain that it is thermite..
Yes, MEK is paint thinner, and the sample was soaked in it and compare to genuine paint sample: paint melted away, the red chip was undamaged.
Testing in vacuum would be a bonus, but it is already conclusively established that is thermite from a battery of other tests. There is not just a single way to establish what is what, and there is no such thing as performing every possible test. Paint might burn in vacuum too for all we know.
@SexyMelon The sample was soaked in paint thinner for over 40 hours and then ignited.Paint would thin and not dissolve..Hydrochloric acid would have been a better test. As for burning in a vacuum.Oxygen is needed to burn...with thermite it frees up the oxygen to burn...Thermite is used in making primers.that is why it can fire under water. I read the paper by jones and the danish dude.They never ascertain that it is thermite..They only speculate that it may be.
@blueshadow1996 "As for burning in a vacuum.Oxygen is needed to burn.."
Correct. I'm just saying this is not the only nor required way to establish what the sample is: there is a whole battery of tests performed already. Besides, this would be ambiguous.
"They never ascertain that it is thermite..They only speculate that it may be."
This is scientifically correct. No honest scientist will ever say "This IS something", only "We've done some tests, this is what they say, this is what we think."
@SexyMelon ..I really would like to continue this discussion...But to make it short oxygen atoms are released and will burn in a vacuum if it was thermite.Paint could not burn even if one ton of thermite was added..Because they had no sample of thermite or nano thermite they only speculate this and state it in their paper..
@blueshadow1996 You can PM me if you want, pleasure talking to you.
I agree that a test in vacuum would determine whether it was self-oxidizing. What I'm trying to say is, it's not the only way to check whether it is, indeed, thermite. Many other methods were used.
@blueshadow1996 The samples were compared to: a)paint; b)commercially available brand of thermite; b)combustion data from a paper that worked with genuine nano-thermite.
In order: it doesn't dissolve or burn like paint, it has chemical composition similar to thermite, and it combusts in the same manner as nano-thermite.
There are many other details and experiments listed in the paper. It seems to check out. Further study is always a good thing, but that can go on to infinity.
may i add that paint is flammable...
MrPierpaf 5 months ago
wow if this was thermite, it would have burn like shit, it burned like paint
MrPierpaf 5 months ago
It is so paint. It burns just like paint and produces realitivly little light. What know that it is NOT, therefore,THERM*TE. Get a clue.
leftysergeant 6 months ago
It left alot of "ash" behind so therefore it is not an explosive at all. Explosives are very efficient at combusting and leave very little residue.
mrtommynazi 6 months ago
somebody or something did not follow through and the plane that was aimed for WTC7 went astray and had to be taken down in Pennsylvania?
aNdYmAtTeR 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Debunk This! It's Not Paint!" - Consider yourself debunked
theBartone9119 7 months ago
"The 'nanothermite' samples vary by about a factor of 10 in energy content. This nonuniformity proves it is not a "precision engineered" substance of any kind. The top end of energy content exceeds the theoretical maximum for thermite by a factor of two, and the observed content of nanothermite by a factor of five. The substance cannot be thermite of any type. Its "contaminants" are, in fact, the dominant species." - Ryan Mackey (NASA Rocket Scientist)
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Comment removed
theBartone9119 7 months ago
The chips don't even "explode" they "vigorously burn".
What kind of paint can vigorously burn like that? Any kind if you put a propane torch flame to, red primer paint is what the "red" chips are most likely.
You can get the same effect by sprinkling coarse black pepper onto the burner elements of an electric stove. The test would have to be done in an inert atmosphere to be conclusive anyway, as long as oxygen is interfering, these types of uncontrolled experiments don't really say too much.
theBartone9119 7 months ago
Nice video clip, shows the explosive nature of this type of thermite. Notice the large amounts of gas that's produced.
I think most people now realize the official conspiracy theory is a BS cocktail. It's now rare for me to find someone with an IQ above 120 who actually believes the official story.
The same debunkers are always trolling these videos. If they want to stop the truth movement they need to form a group like; "Idiots for the official story" & "People against physics" or something.
NRGFromTheVacuum 8 months ago
@NRGFromTheVacuum Too bad all the physics expert agree with the official theory, looks like you are a person against physics.
theBartone9119 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theBartone9119
Here's are (some of the) experts that don't agree with the official findings:
ae911truth. org/news/41-articles/396-911-explosive-testimony-exclusives. html
911blogger. com/news/2011-05-16/ae911truth-experts-speak-out?TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=850
911truth. org/en/news-section/41-articles/521-scott-grainger. html
Now can you please provide a list with names signed by "all the physics experts" who openly support the NIST Report and boldly ignore the experts above?
Thetan1974 8 months ago
@theBartone9119 that is not true many non government structural engineers, think the official story is a false. 2 planes thit two building and 3 buildings fell, where is the physics in that.
TheOringinalBRad 7 months ago
it is termite used to blow the towers, it is zionistes job, TNT explosive to blow concrete, termite to cut and blow the steel, ben laden does not have this technology in his cave !!!! jew does
MrGrimesessaid 9 months ago
As someone who has seen thermite and pyrotechnic materials thousands of times up close, I can say confidently, that this was a smoke/vapor flame. The flame followed the path of the smoke-fuel and swept the swept across the entire item. A thermite reaction looks a lot more like a sparkler firework with bright sparks. A nanothermite reaction would be a quick flash/explosion.
drchen054 9 months ago 2
And this is why scientific ignoramuses aren't allowed to critique scientific literature.
SexyMelon 10 months ago
It had the holy dogshit cooked out of it before it outgassed and let out a little coronal flame there.
LOL
It barely made enough heat to cause itself to become luminous.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@flanksteak2 Pathetic.
But, more importantly, obviously untrue.
SexyMelon 10 months ago
Get this!! NIST never tested for explosives of any kind because they didn't HEAR a big enough BOOOMMMMM! HOW'S THAT FOR SCIENCE?
Funny how everyone else heard EXPLOSIONS all morning long.(& in the afternoon also.)
They said it was gaslines(LOL) at first...until they were told there were NO GASLINES.Then they shut up.I watched ALL for 4 days & the lies got even bigger.Funny how they never mentioned Israeli's in explosive laden VANS. At least 3 Vans.911 was a CIA/Mossad intelligence success.
ed11561 10 months ago
The "Hindenburg" was thermite-dipped, too.
watch?v=xiAT9xvTVKI
No, wait, it was silver (aluminum) paint over red (iron) oxide primer...
ROFLAO
beachcomber2008 11 months ago
"Damn scientists, what do they know about science."
SexyMelon 1 year ago
I really feel the need to note I absolutely despise people who go out of their way to reject scientific process, this really poignantly echoes so much of our history of ignorance and stifling of progress. So here it is.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
ScootleRoyale 1 year ago
@ScootleRoyale Wait... What?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
your right its not paint.....its nothing, i think i know what its supposed to be and i think it is prob just the aluminum from the planes that melted and stuck to one side steel. dont forget there was tons of aluminum from the plane, and aluminium melts at a lower temp.
pitt15220 1 year ago
@pitt15220 Hahahhahaahahahahhaa! Idiot! random melting of aluminium cannot form uniformly mixed alumium nanoparticles at precise ratios to aluminium oxide nanoparticles in a silicon matrix it would create completely arbitrary larger clumps of differing sizes and mixes. It would also NOT FORM LAYERS!!!!
Honestly people should think before they post drivel.
pixarian72 1 year ago 2
@pixarian72 Seriously...just repeating what you hear Steven Jones say makes you no expert. thats why we rely on peer review instead of youtube scholars.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
im cunfused, whats this video supposed to be??
SuckMyKiss420 1 year ago
Clarification on the whole "should have tested in vacuum thing" from Jones himself:
"We used air in the studies to match conditions used by Tillotson et al., so we could compare with their results for known nanothermite -- see Fig. 29 in our paper."
Tillotson et al under Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories are the original developers of nano-thermite. In addition to being verification for chip above being nano-thermite, it also verifies it being, direct quote, "high explosives".
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon They made it so they knew it was nanothermite. They weren't testing to see if it was. They were testing its behavior in an air ambient.
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek ...Which is why Jones tested it in the exact same conditions they did to compare it against the data they got. You know, the exact thing you'd want to do to find out if it is indeed nano-thermite. Test it in the same conditions that original developers did and see if you get the same results. Like what I said. In a post you replied to.
Really though, thanks for a chuckle, your ability to ask the question when replying to its answer is very Jack Sparrow. Hubris, not so much.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon The problem was there test wasn't to test if it was nanothermite. sadly Dr. Jones has yet to show it would ignite in an oxygen devoid ambient.
Any of the so called replications get published yet?
grandmastershek 1 year ago
@grandmastershek "The problem was there test wasn't to test if it was nanothermite."
Yes, it was. Are you purposefully being an idiot?
"sadly Dr. Jones has yet to show it would ignite in an oxygen devoid ambient."
Scientifically ignorant people aren't allowed to critique peer-reviewed literature for this very reason: you don't even get the premise. Igniting it in a void environment would be IRRELEVANT.
"Any of the so called replications get published yet?"
No one owes you anything.
Get lost.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "igniting it in an oxygen-void environment would be pointless"
No, it would show the two products are reacting with each other and not with atmospheric oxygen. In other words it would help your case if it still ignited in a vacuum and would show that you are even more wrong than you already are if it didn't.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@flanksteak2 No such reaction is possible between chemicals involved. That doesn't even make sense: if it reacted with oxygen this way, it'd be an explosive more volatile than an atomic bomb.
Further, this would be in violation of protocol, as the results of Tillitoson et al study which examined nano-thermite was also conducted in atmospheric conditions.
SexyMelon 10 months ago
I swear "armchair scientists" like you are incredibly tiresome. Did you ever imagine that copy-pasting bullshit like this from "debunker" websites isn't substitute for genuine scientific findings?
SexyMelon 10 months ago
@SexyMelon Melonfucker, where did you go you shit bagger.
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@SexyMelon LOL
What idiotic claim are you making now?
flanksteak2 10 months ago
Beachcomber is a troll, by the way. That's the reason for idiocy below...
SexyMelon 10 months ago
@SexyMelon
It's been like 2 years and you are still "talking" about this.
Are you sure you are male?
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@flanksteak2 Go troll someone who cares, mr. "Internet expert".
SexyMelon 10 months ago
@SexyMelon LOL
Awe, I got you feeling Meloncholy eh Melonhead?
flanksteak2 10 months ago
@SexyMelon "Yes, it was. Are you purposefully being an idiot?"
You dip. They made it. they knew it was nanothermite.
"Scientifically ignorant people aren't allowed to critique peer-reviewed literature..."
Even if I was I am not asking that I be part of the process. I am asking for Jones & co to stop avoiding it. Keep dodging.
" Igniting it in a void environment.."
Oh well you put it in caps so it must be true. Sadly you have an evironement that it could be reacting with. But you say NUH UH!
grandmastershek 10 months ago
@SexyMelon "No one owes you anything."
When did I say they did? Oh right I didn't. You're just another truther who tries to bear the garb of intellectual yet still hiding behind the same moronic hand waving.
grandmastershek 10 months ago
LMAO
This is what Truthers call explosive nano-thermite?
That chip was cooked to death until the non-volatiles finally ignited.
flanksteak1 1 year ago
Looks like paint to me.
skonkfactory 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@skonkfactory "Looks like paint to me."
I guess it's that thermitic exploding paint I've been hearing so much about.
"That chip was cooked to death until the non-volatiles finally ignited."
It's great that we have YouTube experts like you explain these things to us without having any knowledge or doing any research at all.
"Cooked to death" at 400C until it explodes. Yup. Must be ordinary paint.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@skonkfactory (Whoops, latter part of the post not addressed to you, sorry.)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@12Weasel *You're.
SexyMelon 1 year ago 2
@12Weasel Thank you for this most intelligent contribution also.
Truly the opposition to truth of the matter of 9/11 is based on high intellectual standards, and not in any way immature name-calling and ignorant stereotyping.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon
Melon, this is what you call a stoichiometric explosive reaction? Shame on you. LOL
flanksteak1 1 year ago
@12Weasel Thank you for your intelligent and informative contribution to the 9/11 debate from the side of official government propaganda.
Your leaders thank you for your contribution.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
I do value witness testimony a great deal, people dismiss it in court far too often. i have no doubt that there were loud sounds at the WTC but an explosion would be followed by obvious shock waves and immediate post damage, of which i have never heard.the first time i watched a house/building burn i was frightened of the extremely loud noises being made, sounded like explosions,but they're not. pressure builds in rooms,breaks windows,tanks of all sorts explode (fire extinguisher). other reasons
admiralct 1 year ago 2
"If it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." - Richard Feynman
Experiment is the ultimate judge of any hypothesis, so that's what needs to be done.
Myself... For as long as aforementioned experiments continue to support the "conspiracy theory" and contradict the government-endorsed conspiracy story, I'll have to side with the "nutty" camp. There's really no choice in the matter.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Cool. Where's that chip from?
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 WTC's post-collapse dust.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
!!!!! PROOF......that the truthers eat these paint chips before viewing them under microscope.
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct Fail.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon are you asking me to, or are you describing the truthers level of success in rangling in these white men in the black suits? remind me again what year it is....and also sometimes i forget when these 9/11 crimes took place.
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct I'd like to reply, but you're making zero sense.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon oh so sorry, i spoke too cryptically, i'll clarify for YOU. you said to admiralct: "fail" and i was wondering whether you were asking me to "fail" or whether you were describing the truthers "fail"ed attempt in bringing the "guilty" gov to justice. when i asked you what year it was and which year 9/11 occured, i was pointing out the fact that it's been 9 years now and you haven't one name of the alleged "therMIGHT" planters. Thank you for the reply Sexy, i hope that clarifies it for u
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct I liked it when you didn't try to make sense better.
Oh and, you probably don't want to bring up the "nine years already", seeing how in those years the only evidence that surfaced was AGAINST the government's conspiracy theory, and none FOR it.
Just a heads-up. See video above, etc.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon i would love to put ur 100 nanometer length paint chip on one side of the 50 yard line of a foot ball field and on the other half of the field, fill it with the millions of pieces of evidence suggesting Al-Qaeda, compare and see if ur alleged "evidence" of ther(might) is even visible among the mountains of data against demo and FOR the original account. u have just as EASY of a time accepting thermite and dismissing mountains, as u have as HARD of a time believing official and Dbunkrs
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "the millions of pieces of evidence suggesting Al-Qaeda"
Oh wow.
I suppose it's like that mythical evidence for the historicity of the Bible I keep hearing about, so abundant, yet mysteriously can never be mentioned by name?..
Have you seen even one piece of evidence yourself, or are you just repeating what the telly told you again?
Let's start by naming one piece of evidence. Here's nano-thermite in the dust. Your turn.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon i don't care much 4 biblical history. "mysteriously can never be mentioned" just as the evidence the truthers need is always "just beyond reach" (they hauled off the steel forever, cannot test it).
seen evidence myself, k i obviously don't have my own intelligence agency so to a certain extent i have 2 take the gov's word. i understand that truthers WONT.
you trust the sincerity of ur fellow truthers but distrust the sincerity of anybody else who doesn't agree with nano-thermight
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "just as the evidence the truthers need is always "just beyond reach"
Did you pay any attention to your own posts? I already said there ARE mountains of evidence going for it.
"(they hauled off the steel forever, cannot test it)"
So because the government is complicit of destruction of evidence, that's all the "truther's" fault?.. What?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon not truthers fault but a very adventagous position for them to take (only of course, once the steel is hauled off), considering most of it is gone. where were the truthers days after collapse when they had the chance to demand steel testing. didn't many truthers claim to have been suspicious from the moment the buildings fell....why not speak up then. i wish it wasn't too late but it is when it comes to truthers examining steel. people did examine it before they sent it off though.
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "not truthers fault but a very adventagous position for them to take"
So... What?
"where were the truthers days after collapse when they had the chance to demand steel testing"
Demanding it!
Nearly everyone involved was outraged over destruction of the evidence, regardless of whether they were "truthers" or not. In fact I don't think there was a single person that was okay with it: engineers, investigators, citizens, families, scientists, police, FBI, everyone was quite upset.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon i know, i see. when airplanes crash mysteriously, they re assemble them in hangers, but a building (even 7) is simply to massive to store anywhere, it would take dozens of warehouses to fill, easier to haul off. PLUS there is no mystery like with typical crashed airplanes, we know how those buildings fell, as a result of the terrorist attacks and subsequent collapse/fires of wtc1.
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "it would take dozens of warehouses to fill"
There aren't a dozen warehouses in US?
"easier to haul off"
So... It's unpractical to investigate the biggest terror act in history in the way every other collapse always is.
But it IS practical to completely change all of US laws, enact egregious security measures, manufacture millions of pieces of military and spy weaponry and security equipment, sink millions of dollars into defense, and engage in open warfare with foreign countries.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "we know how those buildings fell, as a result of the terrorist attacks and subsequent collapse/fires of wtc1."
Ah, I see. We don't need an investigation because you know what happened without it.
...
?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon how about this, how about i believe my theory, you believe yours, we each act accordingly and lets see how many people side with your story, you can all gather round the screen and laugh and my sheeple comments. if your a melon my name is gallagher. smash!
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct You don't want that argument, recent polls (Zogby specifically) indicate you're outnumbered in many parts of the world, including state of New York itself.
More so you don't want that argument is because - what you say, "sheeple?" - it's a logical fallacy: majority doesn't make a right. At least no more than it did when Reichstag was set on fire by supposed Jewish terrorists.
You're free to believe whatever you wish.. But in face of contrary evidence.. Why would you lie to yourself?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon I'm sorry but truthers hardly outnumber captive chupacabras. i have never met a truther in real life, of course i don't go around asking everybody but i have never witnessed anybody stick up for 9/11 truth. i have only seen people point and laugh not at the sillyness of the theory, but the gullibility towards outrageous assertions. see, the theory isn't silly, it's the people that belive in them. how is it that we're outnumbered by rare people? actually Nyorkers laugh at you sorry.
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct At no point in that incoherent mess of a post did you come even close to making a lick of sense, so I can't really respond.
Well... Again, you may very well be in minority both by popular and by scientific standards, so you're really in no position to spew anything self-congratulatory here.
If your whole argument hinges on plain name-calling, sheepish crowd-following, and stereotyping, that's just not worth anyone's time.
The arbitrator remains that you have no evidence.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon you asked in the face of contrary evidence, would you lie to yourself...i want you to think for a moment about how much evidence from original account have you looked away from, completely dismissed or claim to be part of the conspiracy. you say "i have no evidence" well guess what cracker jack, i don't exactly have my own theory, i believe america's explanation, it makes sense and it holds all the cards. u don't have your own theory of evidence, you follow the "crowds" w/no evidence
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct I did ask you for evidence, didn't I? What do you think I dismiss exactly? What evidence is there to support it?
Bin Laden's tape was the only thing I heard from you so far, I think.
"i believe america's explanation"
And there you go. I hope you'll pay attention to your own words, at least.
Next up, looking hard for those WMDs in IRaq and those Al Qaeda caves in Afghan, they'll turn up somewhere eventually, right?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon you think because i support the original account that i also must believe in WMD's? i've been watching frontline for years and Bush has recently confirmed their reports that he was suspicious that they were telling him what he wanted to hear. this is coming from a guy who you think ordered 9/11 to occur. if u knew a wink about Al-Qaeda u would know that they don't need WMD's, they take advantage of surprise with whatever weapon they use. Al-Qaeda threatened us for decades. do u doubt?
admiralct 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@admiralct "you think because i support the original account that i also must believe in WMD's?"
Why not? You believe the government's story even when it happens to be wrong, don't you?
"this is coming from a guy who you think ordered 9/11 to occur."
I never said Bush was behind anything.
"if u knew a wink about Al-Qaeda u would know that they don't need WMD's, they take advantage of surprise with whatever weapon they use"
Empty talk.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "Al-Qaeda threatened us for decades."
Yeah, they've been telling US to get out of Israel for decades, at one time resorting to violence. Incidentally the only crime Bin Laden is wanted for by the FBI.
The 98' bombings.
Why would US be threatened by a rag-tag group of nutjobs they themselves created to fight the soviets back in the cold war era is too ludicrous to entertain seriously.
What's the last time Al Qaeda killed anyone again?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "u don't have your own theory of evidence"
The theory is that the buildings were subjected to controlled demolition.
This is supported by steady velocity of the collapse, horizontal level nature of it, total and unprecedented collapse itself, numerous reports and recordings of chain heavy-duty explosions and flashes, scientifically verified explosive residue present in the dust, recorded red-hot and flowing molten iron, and many other lines of evidence.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon there was no controlled demolition of the WTC. the speed of collapse matches what should have happened given that airplanes destroyed the towers. none of the buildings collapsed horizontally, the collapse of all three buildings was predicted by citizens and firemen, erronous reports of and zero recordings of post-impact explosions, never heard of flashes but there are explanations for that, components (short of all necessary) of bombs already present in WTC, many things glow red-hot
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "there was no controlled demolition of the WTC"
Hard evidence suggests it was. There is no evidence to the contrary.
You're just repeating yourself now.
"the speed of collapse matches what should have happened given that airplanes destroyed the towers"
Untrue and unsupported.
"none of the buildings collapsed horizontally"
That's simply false, and quite evident from the records.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "the collapse of all three buildings was predicted by citizens and firemen"
Only collapse of WTC 7 was predicted, but not by firemen, only by someone "from above".
This is a paradox in that the three collapses were first and only such events in history, and their prediction would only further the suspicions.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "erronous reports of and zero recordings of post-impact explosions"
It is delusional to dismiss wittness testimony of over 500 professional rescue workers as "erronous".
This is a gigantic hurdle. To dismiss this amount of wittness testimony is to do admit to delusion.
And of course, there are multiple recordings, in spite of highly-directional microphones commonly used on cameras.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@admiralct "components (short of all necessary) of bombs already present in WTC"
WTC was stacked with bombs?..
"many things glow red-hot"
I was talking about red-hot iron beams removed from the wreckage weeks after collapse.
"never heard of flashes but there are explanations for that"
...
You never heard of it, but there's an explanation for everything that doesn't fit your theory.
This is delusional. I don't know how to make it any more clear.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct Dude.
Don't bother. Melonhead gets slaughtered and will waste your time just talking and talking and talking about nothing like a fickle women who can't control her emotions.
flanksteak1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@flanksteak1 "Melonhead gets slaughtered and will waste your time just talking and talking and talking about nothing like a fickle women who can't control her emotions."
Truly the opposition to truth of the matter of 9/11 is based on high intellectual standards, and not in any way immature name-calling and ignorant stereotyping...
Good thing the opposition to truth of the matter couldn't muster any intelligent argument for almost 10 years now. Helps on-lookers decide who's really right.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "you follow the "crowds" w/no evidence"... Indeed, no?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "i wish it wasn't too late"
Not quite. There are still a few samples remaining, most under close guard, some even behind closed doors (while former is common sense, latter is illegal).
It's not enough - poor statistical power - but it's something if it were just allowed to be tested.
Regardless, there are other ways the testing could be done. See video above.
"people did examine it before they sent it off though."
How do you figure?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "so to a certain extent i have 2 take the gov's word"
The way to test it is to think of ONE... ONE piece of evidence going for it.
Because "some extent" just might be "completely on faith" here.
"you trust the sincerity of ur fellow truthers"
I trust no one's sincerity. I trust hard data, physical evidence, and measurements that turn out the same regardless of who does them.
I.e. science.
Velocity of the collapse, thermitic residue, iron flows, are not subject to trust.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Iron flows? The only black metal globs i saw were on an irregular beam cut of some 9/11 memorial. I think the aluminium and glass (maybe even the gold from the vaults) flowed before the support beams did.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 "Iron flows? The only black metal globs..."
Not thinking of the same thing at all here. Here you go: /watch?v=OmuzyWC60eE&p=D5BDF224DFA0FF8C
"I think the aluminium and glass (maybe even the gold from the vaults)"
Aluminum and glass don't glow bright-orange, at least not until they're way, way past iron's melting point. Gold is a better guess, but it doesn't glow either, just glisten.
Besides, most of it was on that truck that was hauling it off the site for no suspicious reason.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "Aluminum and glass don't glow bright-orange, at least not until they're way, way past iron's melting point."
Really? I didn't know a simple heating element could melt iron at home, then: watch?v=8uIF_NIJN5g
How would they cut the vertical bars with thermate (thermite with sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate)?
"Gold is a better guess, but it doesn't glow either, just glisten."
watch?v=sbbgWPt3G1Y
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 "Really? I didn't know a simple heating element could melt iron at home, then: watch?v=8uIF_NIJN5g"
I don't know what you're talking about. This is no iron, the description says its melting aluminum, and it is molten aluminum, silvery as it is...
"How would they cut the vertical bars with thermate?"
Cutter charges. How is this a mystery? That's how anything is ever done with explosives, especially in demolition. See: /watch?v=Wn-MCCZ3O1M
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@VCat2006 "watch?v=sbbgWPt3G1Y"
Obviously if you smelt it in a dedicated forge it'll glow, anything will (like the ceramic pot in the video). I mean it won't glow when it's only just at melting point, at the temperature of office fires (~1,000C) as opposed to forge temperatures (~1,700C+).
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Nothing liquid really glows falling through air unless it's every, incredibly, unnaturally hot. As you can see even metals in a forge lose their glow if they ever attain it very quickly when poured. Another possibility is that the on-going chemical reaction, or your typical incendiary.
So... It's either super-heated metal, or it's an incendiary. Thermite happens to be both, as do quite a few other metallic fuels.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Superheating is achieved by heating a homogeneous substance in a clean container, free of nucleation sites, while taking care not to disturb the liquid.
It's unwise to resort to hyperbole when referring to facts.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Sorry, didn't mean "superheating" as a technical term. Just as in "very hot". Can you even superheat metals at all?..
Still, like I said, you don't get that effect unless the metal is either incredibly hot - well past its melting point - or is an incendiary.
On a more basic level, everyone should know what molten iron looks like compared to molten aluminum or whatever else.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Hydrogen is a metal, but heating liquid hydrogen past its boiling point without it turning to gas sounds dangerous to me. Lithium, sodium, potassium, etc are easy to superheat.
Iron is black, and aluminium, as draped over the memorial beams, is grey.
Those tiny drops of gold glowed for a while. How about a lot of glowing hot molten aluminium and/or glass with lots of rubble and whatever was on the buckling floor?
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Sounds quite interesting, thanks. Do you have any footage or an article about this stuff?
"How about a lot of glowing hot molten aluminium"
Well, that's the problem: if it's aluminum glowing bright-orange, hot enough not to loose the glow falling through a dozen stories, it's aluminum that's hot enough to cut through steel like butter.
(Well, I imagine it could, seeing that thermite does.)
"glass with lots of rubble"
That has no potential to even burn reliably, less of all glow.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@VCat2006 The more subtle fallacy, of course, is just dismissing - rationalizing - the finding as opposed to studying it.
Say it could be aluminum or whatever... But if there's a chance, even a slightest chance, that it was actually iron, is that not important? Why consider every possibility BUT it being iron, or thermite?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This could be verified with simple analysis of the rubble for thermitic or iron slag, for instance. But, on order or government, that evidence was simply destroyed, so no can do...
Still, one can try to reproduce the effect with said aluminum, gold, flaming debris, or whatever else, and thermite itself, and see what fits best.
In fact, both have already been done: /watch?v=45p19_-CS5I
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Rationalization is a fallacy? I think you got that backwards.
Oh, you must be a Christian, then, according to Pascal's Wager. You must also follow every doomsday cult savior that has ever existed because there's just the slightest chance that they were telling the truth and you're hellbound.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 "Rationalization is a fallacy?"
Not a fallacy per se. Just poor skepticism.
"Oh, you must be a Christian, then, according to Pascal's Wager."
lol wat
"because there's just the slightest chance that they were telling the truth"
Oh, I get it.
I didn't say you have to TRUST it because there's a chance, I said you should INVESTIGATE it if there's a chance.
Besides, it's quite ludicrous to compare religious whatever to investigating cause of collapse of a building.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Pascal's Wager: Go to hell or spend your life obeying the Church. Why risk hell?
9/11 Twoofers: Life in blissful ignorance, or spend your life searching for unlikely evidence. Why carry on with your life?
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 "Pascal's Wager"
Yeah, I know what that is. My "lol wat" still stands: what?
"9/11 Twoofers: Life in blissful ignorance, or spend your life searching for unlikely evidence. Why carry on with your life?"
What the...
So your argument is... If you research something, you have no life, therefore, you shouldn't research it?..
It's... Erm... Have you heard of such thing as "science"? Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, maybe a couple other guys? Were they wasting their lives too?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon Oo, i thought you didn't do strawmen. You hypocrite. Ad hominem, too.
VCat2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VCat2006 "Oo, i thought you didn't do strawmen. You hypocrite. Ad hominem, too."
That's not helping. Tell me what I said wrong?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@VCat2006 "You hypocrite. Ad hominem, too."
Also, lol.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon And a cherrypicker, but the explosives apart from the trains already showed that.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Right... Whatever.
Nice talking to you up to that part.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VCat2006 Oh and, yeah, in this particular instance, I'm not asking you to "waste your life" on research: I'm asking why exactly you choose to ignore evidence in the form of what looks clearly like molten iron, with experiment and theory supporting it, and none opposing it?
"If i heard a bang, i'd assume it was a firecracker. Or snapping bolts..."
Sigh. Still missing the point then.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@VCat2006 Maybe an analogy in case I weren't making myself clear...
If you hear a gunshot, would you turn around? It just as well may be a popped tire or a burst pipe, but would you take the chance?
Likewise, if you see what looks like molten iron leaking out of the building, is that not suspicious at all? Or numerous explosions? Could be anything, but do you take the chance?
It's evidence, and evidence deserves to be investigated, doesn't it? If you just outright dismiss it... Well, why?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
(Should note again, as aforementioned, that there's already good evidence suggesting it couldn't be anything but iron, most likely mixed with thermite. This isn't an argument for it, this is just mental exercise of skepticism.)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon If i heard a bang, i'd assume it was a firecracker. Or snapping bolts: watch?v=Z9SyAXyDwIY It all depends on the setting, really.
New York is known to have trains, right? loosetrains911 blogspot com
VCat2006 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@VCat2006 "watch?v=Z9SyAXyDwIY"
Erm?..
Well, I don't know what that's about, but do you have any more clips like this? I'd very much like to see at what speed steel bends exactly, this a whole lot slower than I'd expect.
(Why yes, a collapsing steel frame... Very good.)
"loostrains911 blogspot com"
Quite ironic, don't you find?
Of course, those quotes - hundreds of them! - aren't used to hinge on what people *thought* like they heard, only to get an idea of the type of noise. Don't be silly.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon My turn! December 13, 2001. video recordings of Osama bin Laden (i understand that it's adventagous of you to deny that it's really him, oh how fun!) have him saying "we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic...We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day"
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "video recordings of Osama bin Laden"
Ah, okay. Let's ignore that this was a fake for a second - check FBI's website for verification - good job thinking of something. Good.
Now, what I had in mind was asking for evidence of the technical aspects of the collapse, in the same lieu as thermite chips here. Do you know anything on that front?
(Points deducted for mentioning any person/institution without mentioning what evidence they provide, for hopefully obvious reasons.)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@Melon in ur mind, you MUST dismissed them 2 be fake, because the tapes cause your theory to collapse faster than building 7. there is plenty of information on the technical aspects of the collapse, i wont cut paste and nitpick over thousands of technical engineering applications of math, if u deny they exist than i fear i cannot help u. visit Tokyo or the Imperial War museum in England, they have beams twisted from fire induced collapses, at GZ the "trident" is a nanothermite free beam of steel
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "in ur mind, you MUST dismissed them 2 be fake, because the tapes cause your theory to collapse faster than building 7"
Not at all. Seeing that Bin Laden is a (presumably former) CIA employee, he could very well be complicit or responsible for the attacks.
The truth remains though that he openly denied any involvement, and the actual perpetrators happen to be a rogue saudi arab group (at least according to official story).
I do like comparison with building 7 though. Heh.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "if u deny they exist"
I do not. There were a few - I would say a couple dozen papers is a "few" in this case - works published on the matter, but if you judge it by that standard, then you should know that critical works outnumber those supportive four to one.
I was more drawing your attention to the fact that despite all the works, all the inquiry, and all investigation... There is no *evidence* to support the government's conspiracy.
Well, you can count that tape if you want.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "they have beams twisted from fire induced collapses"
What steel-frame building has ever completely collapsed due to fire?..
Otherwise, yes, of course partial collapses are common in steel-frame buildings, or at least poorly-built ones.
"at GZ the "trident" is a nanothermite free beam of steel"
Never heard of it, could you spare some more info?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon "What steel-frame building has ever completely collapsed due to fire?.."
WTC 1, 2, and 7. Assuming the debree didn't critically damage the support of 7's East penthouse.
VCat2006 1 year ago
@admiralct "we calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy"
Haha, wait, what?
Bin Laden & co. "calculated" what later took a whole of NIST YEARS of super-advanced expertise and computer simulation to accomplish?.. Even if the latter refused to model the collapse itself?..
I shouldn't nitpick seeing how that's the same kind of evidence that's used for, say, telekinesis, but... Sheesh. That's kinda hilarious.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct (I'd like to hope you were exaggerating with "giving names" part - really? - but a derivate of Poe's law tells me to never count on it.)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Comment removed
admiralct 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon PFFFFFTTTTT!! "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names...get real!" Ah, so you're familiar with Poe's law...the rational and irrational arguments among the truth movements are definately more fun than arguing over who's physical evidence better suits the percieved event.
admiralct 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SexyMelon PFFFFFFTTTTT!!! "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names....get real!" - sorry, how silly of me
Ah so, you're familiar with Poe's law...i always did find the rational and irrational aspects of the 9/11 debates to be much more fun than arguing over who's physical evidence better suits the perceived event.
admiralct 1 year ago
@SexyMelon PFFFFFFTTTTT!!! "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names....get real!" - sorry, how silly of me
Ah so, you're familiar with Poe's law...i always did find the rational and irrational aspects of the 9/11 debates to be much more fun than arguing over who's physical evidence better suits the perceived event.
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "C'mon Admiralct, these people don't have names! we'll never have names....get real!"
Are you a honest-to-god idiot or do you have trouble expressing yourself...
Do you have any fucking idea what you're asking for? What the fuck do you actually expect? Did you think even for a second...
Actually, with official conspiracy magically acquiring all names within hours, no matter your perceptions of reality are skewed... Due to gullibility...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon magically acquiring names huh? "yes hello American Airlines/United? this is the defense department, we heard u have planes missing and reports from the crew as to the seat numbers of the passengers, could you please recite their names for us..." hokus pokus, alakazam, abracadabrah! = simply magic huh? sexymelon watched a youtube vid that said "the buildings couldn't have fallen that way, the planes could never maneuver into pentagon" lets go shed some light! so whos the gullible one?
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "hokus pokus, alakazam, abracadabrah! = simply magic huh?"
That simple, huh.
I guess there's no reason for any investigation of any hi-jacking or plane crash to take more than a few days then! That in reality they can take years must be a conspiracy of some sort.
Uh, no, unless UA had magic terrorist-identifying passenger seats, it's not that simple... Especially of those who, you know, never were on the planes... Like the leaders and other conspirators...
Sigh.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon "takes days...must be a conspiracy of some sort" No sorry.
again, it's not magic, the crew on HJ plane has passenger list and they can also tell who clearly is not in their seats and not in the bathroom, they must be in the cockpit. all with arab names with ugly background checks. maybe they should hire YOU to investigate such matters, i've got a sneaking suspicion that you'd be good at it ;) Sigh
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "again, it's not magic, the crew on HJ plane has passenger list"
We've been over that. That's just not how things work. Such investigations usually take months if not years, there's no magic terror-detector to speed it up, you need to put bits and pieces together.
"all with arab names"
lol
Dude.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "sexymelon watched a youtube vid"
I'm amazed you can figure out so quickly where my information comes from. Care to shed some light as to where yours comes from? Honest research? Or a TV documentary? Or maybe a "debunker" website?
Can you tell me which video here of YT contains information pertaining to ASTME119 floor assembly fire and collapse test as detailed in NCSTAR1-X, acknowledging lack of failure of non-fireproofed floor assemblies after six hours of exposure to 1,000C fires?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon i got my information from the planet earth, we've been calling you for some time. OH BOY you're one of those who stays up late reading NCSTAR. you can pick holes in whatever you want, you're theory is one big hole itself. so is your big stink because NIST doesn't know exactly how every molecule in that building behaved, or is it that you think the whole thing is bogus to cover up powerful forced that MADE 9/11 happen? btw i met u blogging on a YT vid so at the very least u watch these
admiralct 1 year ago
@admiralct "i got my information from the planet earth"
You picked up your information from the ground?.. Maybe you should indeed start by watching a few videos...
"OH BOY you're one of those who stays up late reading NCSTAR"
What?
Oh, yeah, studying technical documents, how terrible of me?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "so is your big stink because NIST doesn't know exactly how every molecule in that building behaved"
Nice strawman there, want a light?
The issue was more so that they never investigated the collapse, did not collect data on severity of fires, dismissed physical evidence against the steel's failure, lied about and simply conjured data to fit their theories, conducted no scientific testing, conducted no investigation and otherwise simply failed in all relevant aspects.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct Oh and, yeah, NIST found no evidence to support their hypothesis, which is the fact I was somewhat leading you to. In fact they found quite a lot of opposite in their UL263 tests, also aforementioned.
Quite problematic, wouldn't you think?
"btw i met u blogging on a YT vid so at the very least u watch these"
Blogging? What?
Yes, of course I watch videos on YouTube... That's kind of the point of the website, isn't it?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct Oh and, yeah, I still suggest - not as a point of argument, just a mental exercise of skepticism for your sake - you come up with some evidence for the whole fire-based collapse (or core meltdown or pancake theory if you want).
I mean, it would be quite ironic for you to advocate a baseless conspiracy theory, wouldn't it? There's got to be some proof before you believe it.
You can keep Laden's "confession" - again, check out FBI's site - but that's not exactly a "mountain", is it?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@admiralct "who's physical evidence better suits the perceived event."
Then again, with how little sense you manage to make...
Oh fuck it. Just try to name one thing, how about that. Let's see those "mountains". I can name my pile of evidence, can you name even a speck of yours?..
SexyMelon 1 year ago
why even bother with the grandmastertroll...paid shill..
SANDBAG53 1 year ago
Can someone explain what is going on here?
911Brit1 1 year ago
@911Brit1 It's a really small chip of certain substance being heated up in a measuring apparatus. Because it flares up and ignites we can conclude it's combustible, and because of how quick it's consumed, we can judge the intensity of the reaction.
In other words, whatever it is, ignites easily, burns very hot, and combusts very rapidly.
The hypothesis is thus that it's an explosive incendiary, or analogous substance.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
grandmastershekis a troll: dont argue with these. These accnts are perfect axample of bot created channels which multiple commentors use on rotating shifts to spread infighting and create fake consensus on walls. Send links to their channels to everyone to sho them how to spot a paidtroll profile.
How can any1 hate the idea of a new investigation when 6 of the 10 members of the 911commission have publicly stated that the Pentagon lied to them, thus proving there was a coverup?
interlovepol 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@interlovepol How do you identify a fake account?
"How can any1 hate the idea of a new investigation when 6 of the 10 members of the 911commission have publicly stated that the Pentagon lied to them, thus proving there was a coverup?"
All Bush cronies at that, even. I wonder if people even know about that part...
SexyMelon 1 year ago
(Sometimes I wonder why I even bother.)
SexyMelon 1 year ago
.it burns it is paint..you cant say it is thermite because the metal is stil there..Maybe its paint that was soaked in paint thinner for 48hours....They should have done that flame test in a vacumn.if it was thermite it would free the oxygen needed to burn.
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
@blueshadow1996 "it burns it is paint..you cant say it is thermite because the metal is stil there"
Red part of the chip is thermite. It evaporates completely.
"Maybe its paint that was soaked in paint thinner for 48hours"
Then it would not even be paint anymore.
And it wasn't. The sample was tested with MEK against actual paint, and it is different. Normal paint was also tested in a burner, and it simply consumed by the flame: it does nothing.
Please think for yourself about this.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon ..What do you think MEK is..a paint thinner. ..It is supposed to cause a reaction that melts metal...Why is it still in a solid state? The reason for testing in a vacumn is to ascertain that it is thermite..
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
@blueshadow1996 I don't know what you mean.
Yes, MEK is paint thinner, and the sample was soaked in it and compare to genuine paint sample: paint melted away, the red chip was undamaged.
Testing in vacuum would be a bonus, but it is already conclusively established that is thermite from a battery of other tests. There is not just a single way to establish what is what, and there is no such thing as performing every possible test. Paint might burn in vacuum too for all we know.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon The sample was soaked in paint thinner for over 40 hours and then ignited.Paint would thin and not dissolve..Hydrochloric acid would have been a better test. As for burning in a vacuum.Oxygen is needed to burn...with thermite it frees up the oxygen to burn...Thermite is used in making primers.that is why it can fire under water. I read the paper by jones and the danish dude.They never ascertain that it is thermite..They only speculate that it may be.
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
@blueshadow1996 "Paint would thin and not dissolve."
Well, thinning means it was partially dissolved... The paint thinned, the sample didn't. Thus, not paint.
"Hydrochloric acid would have been a better test."
This would just remove iron oxide from both samples, wouldn't it?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon oil would do the same..after all its only rust.
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
@blueshadow1996 "As for burning in a vacuum.Oxygen is needed to burn.."
Correct. I'm just saying this is not the only nor required way to establish what the sample is: there is a whole battery of tests performed already. Besides, this would be ambiguous.
"They never ascertain that it is thermite..They only speculate that it may be."
This is scientifically correct. No honest scientist will ever say "This IS something", only "We've done some tests, this is what they say, this is what we think."
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon ..I really would like to continue this discussion...But to make it short oxygen atoms are released and will burn in a vacuum if it was thermite.Paint could not burn even if one ton of thermite was added..Because they had no sample of thermite or nano thermite they only speculate this and state it in their paper..
blueshadow1996 1 year ago
@blueshadow1996 You can PM me if you want, pleasure talking to you.
I agree that a test in vacuum would determine whether it was self-oxidizing. What I'm trying to say is, it's not the only way to check whether it is, indeed, thermite. Many other methods were used.
Paint sample, namely, would not even ignite.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@blueshadow1996 The samples were compared to: a)paint; b)commercially available brand of thermite; b)combustion data from a paper that worked with genuine nano-thermite.
In order: it doesn't dissolve or burn like paint, it has chemical composition similar to thermite, and it combusts in the same manner as nano-thermite.
There are many other details and experiments listed in the paper. It seems to check out. Further study is always a good thing, but that can go on to infinity.
SexyMelon 1 year ago