Nano-thermite in the WTC dust

ah, not when considering the source. If you are lied to repeatedly for as long as you've lived by someone or a government, its fair to assume the lying continues. Yes, sometimes shit does happen, and the US has actually had an attack coming to them for some time so it wasn't even a surprise, but still doesn't mean I would believe the official story for a second.



I don't claim to know what happened, I just know that the official story is bullshit. What the truth is...well, I don't know. This is bigger than Bush as an individual though. As for the Bush admin, hell these people have had their fingers in US power for many years before Little Bushy was around. The president of the states is a figurehead, look beyond him to where the real power lies. The US is a military based country, always at war. You think the car industry is in trouble, try going without a war or an enemy (real or imagined) for a decade or two, then you'll see some real unemployment and economic disaster. All the troops all over the planet, the weapons manufacturers, the contractors, the support staff, the pentagon, the cia etc etc all employed to kill. No kill=no work. This is way bigger than fucking Bushy, this shit has been going on since kennedy and got kicked into high gear with that butcher reagen. Its the military industrial complex.

Showing my hand.

Maybe not building but it used to be used to bond the chassis of locomotives, i'm not sure whether it's used in the construction of airframes but it's possible.

Well i am no expert, but it would appear thermite is quick and dirty, not something you would use to construct airplanes or even buildings, rivets and weilding are fine for that and I think air frames are aluminum...so thermite would be over kill.
The type of thermite they are talking didn't exist until recently, it's a different way of making thermite so that it can actually be an explosive as well, and it can be sprayed on like paint, or fireproofing in elevator shafts.

deadprez is right, without our military industrial complex things could be worse (for the USA), we don't actually produce much here anymore so what do we have to sell? Export?

Really where can the USA go from here? We are proper fucked if you take a look at it.

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 16 2009, 11:43 PM

OK so we agree that planes crashed into buildings. My next question is, imagining that Bush and the Neo-cons did plan the WTC attacks, why didn't it turn into a massive abortion like every other single thing that they planned?

#1 George W Bush didn't plan it.

If you mean that the Iraq war was a fuck up I think depends on how you look at it.

One other thing you have to look at how the people in power think.

http://www.wired.com/politics/security/mag...currentPage=all

http://nixontapes.org/chron5.htm
You can listen to Nixon talking about blowing up a dam, Kissinger ask how many will die "no more than 100,000" and Nixon wanting to use nukes and Kissinger complaining "that's to much"

I post those just as examples of what people in power do.

I don't think flying planes into buildings is going to bother people like this.

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 17 2009, 12:15 AM

*Raises his hand*

There are just way too many little bits and pieces about 9/11 that can be put into a box and labeled "conspiracy".

The thermite argument is not new, and is comprehensively debunked here. (amongst other places)

Also, a 100 ton thermite reaction would have caused a thermite-flash of a very, very considerable size and magnitude of brilliance... possibly enough to ignite surrounding structures, and definitely enough to damage the eyesight of onlookers, so it's not as if it would be easy to miss. This is a quick movie of just a few grams...


The molten residue from such a reaction would have caused stalagmites of molten metal weighing in at 50 tons to build up at the base of the towers... somebody would have noticed these, too... not to mention, somebody would have noticed tons and tons of thermite being shipped in, stored and then put in place... it doesn't matter whose great uncle three times removed was a non executive director of a company that once sold batteries to the company that made flashlights for the security firm that had the contract to transport the wages of the company that hired the WTC night watchmen... it's a hundred tons of thermite FFS; you can't hide it behind the water coolers and pass it off as office supplies.

Has the same tone as all the other "debukers" sarcastic and dismissive and frankly just as weak as a lot of the conspiracy theories, but it's clear you haven't paid attention to what this dutch scientist is saying.
He claims to have found nano thermite, a very different animal from what your "debunker" is talking about.

Turner construction had full access to the core support structure to apply "fire proofing" so they were noticed, they were expected, and they were ignored, the fireproofing could have just as easily been spray on nano thermite, you would only need enough to weaken the steel, and this type of thermite can also be an explosive.

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 17 2009, 02:35 PM

This is interesting too, watch at about 1 minute in at the left hand video window, at the base of the black smoke you will see molten metal pour out, keep watching and you will see a very large amount pour out then about 2 minutes later the building collapses.
You will realize that whatever is making the molten metal, there is a *lot* of it remember the video of the people jumping? Use that to scale this clip.


This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 17 2009, 03:18 PM

sigh... you'd think that you'd never seen a post by YMG before. OK let's address some points. The large flash produced by thermite is the result of the chemical reaction between the iron oxide and the aluminium. This happens on a molecular level, so plenty small enough to render the nano- argument largely irrelevant. I say largely because the Niels Harrit is claiming that with nano-thermite the reaction happens more rapidly. Now the two things which have most bearing on the power of explosions are how quickly the reaction takes place and how much pressure is being applied at the time. So the same quantity of explosive, whatever the substance can be made to be much more powerful if the reaction is initiated in a confined space. So given the quantities of thermite being alleged, the fact that nano-thermite reacts more quickly, the fact that a structure such as a skyscraper has a certain amount of structural strength in the first place (creating pressure) I think we should have seen the resultant flash from outer space.

Looking at the last video you put up we can indeed see molten metal pouring out of the tower. We can see it at the same height as the smoke billowing out of the building from where SOME CUNTS had flown a plane into it. A plane with some aviation fuel in it. Now as you no doubt know aviation fuel is basically high octane petrol, which is not classed as an explosive substance but an immflammable stuff. Except when it is in an engne where it is placed under pressure and then ignited to create a controlled explosion. So if we think about a quarter full tank of aircraft fuel ruptured and spilling out under pressure and likely to be ignited in a second pressure chamber i.e. the inside of a skyscraper with all the walls and such then you are talking about a swift and strong chemical reaction. And one whose result can very clearly be seen on all video of said events.

I did not mean YMG was sarcastic and dismissive I was refering to the person in the link.

The fire from the airplane never got hot enough to melt steel.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology...842.html?page=4

SO I thought perhaps molten Aluminum?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gge5NyqoNIQ
No that's not it.

So it looks like molten steel, but airplane fuel doesn't get hot enough and the "enclosed space" idea, while good thinking, isn't possible due the very design off the building, and any enclosed space would need oxygen to keep the fire burning.

So we have molten steel (2500 degrees F) pouring out the side of the building in copious quantities moments before the building collapsed.
I'm puzzled to say the least, so I poked around
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-thermites

Several times more powerful the conventional explosives, (translates to less needed for same effect) unfortunately I can't find a picture of any nanoenergetics exploding or burning, so hard to say what it would look like.
Whatever it did look like, it was done at the core of the building so most likely you wouldn't see more the smoke.

Here is a better picture of the molten metal falling out of the building
http://blog.lege.net/content/20060721_htm7.../Molten2Low.JPG

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 17 2009, 05:52 PM

In how many of these fires were planes flown into the buildings?

Excellent point probably none, since no one really got to go in and poke around the site we may never know what exactly happened.

I still don't believe the official story.

I did find this
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/scienti...aluminum-lg.jpg

Apparantly aluminum can glow if heated high enough but for that to happen it has to be heated to 1538 C or 2800.4 F

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 17 2009, 06:16 PM

So when are we going to stop messing around and get to the big stuff...let's blow up the planet, just 'cos we can....men !!

The reason that the "official" story is not credible to you is that these people can barely open their mouths without saying something stupid, like when Bush said that the attacks happened because "they are jealous".

So let's start from the point that we all agree on and construct our own version of events relying on good observable facts and common sense.

Before the molten metal, before the structural collapse is what I think we can all agree without resort to sensationalism is a catastrophic collision. If we, for the moment keep an open mind about whether or not the planes caused the structural failures that directly led to the collapse and focus on how the planes got there we can see that the major part of this plot was to provide a spectacle for the audience.

Still not saying they "planned" it per say, it is a possibility, but even more likely is that they intentionally knew about it and let it happen as pretext for war. Saying that, you say that everything that admin did turned into a major abortion, like what for example? Katrina? Not really unless you think that the US power structure actually gives a shit about poor people, or Iraq, not really a failure if the intent was simply to go to war and build military bases throughout the middle east.

In the end this is going to be the most probable theory, they just let it happen and if so then it would be even more difficult to prove ties to this.
It's simple, easy to avoid blame and they got their show to motivate the sheep.

OK I agree that the Neo-cons explicitly were looking for a pretext to annex the middle east back into the late nineties. I have posted elsewhere about the ambition to create a "global sphere of influence" back as far as the Eisenhower era (you can tell it's an American military person thought that phrose up, like, what other shape would a sphere of influence be?). The reason that I don't think that they did let this just happen is that it left them looking like impotent fools, which is exactly the type of thing that the power structure does care about.

They like their pretexts to be like your other example The Gulf Of Tonkin incident: entirely fictional, under sole control of the media and military and with no real losses. If they had known this was going to happen the best case scenario for the intelligence services would be to let the terrorists take off and then bust them in mid-air. All of the pretext purposes would be served, plus they'd look omniscient and omnipotent and it would have made great tv.

So you don't think they were in on it because of pride?
If they stopped them in md air how were they going to justify the wars were in now?

Your comments get me to thinking perhaps it was an outside group, but not who we think.

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 17 2009, 11:55 PM