Nano-thermite in the WTC dust

When have the US ever had to justify any war they got themselves into? Oh, they're communists, let's bomb them. Oh, they pander to terrorists, let's bomb them. Oh, they possess very dangerous weapons(like we don't, hehe) let's bomb them.... and so on ad infinitum. To suppose that all this 911 nonsense was an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan is puerile.

Always, the president alone can not decide to go to war.

Who said anything about the prez? I said the US.

If they stopped them with a missile, easy. Don't forget 294 people were onboard the 4 planes.

The US?


So you think if we shot down 4 planes with 294 people Bushco could still justify going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You tell me. They're your fellow Americans

Remember, 911 wasn't the primary justification for going to war with Afghanistan, and it certainly wasn't the justification for going to war against Iraq at all. It was just enough to get the American people in the right frame of mind (with suitable spin). But if not that, something else. Weapons of mass destruction, threats to Israel, regime change. They could have even manufactured a threat to the oil supply lines. The excuse for these wars was waffer thin, they didn't need to plan an elaborate conspiracy to justify them. I might buy that they let it happen, with sufficient evidence, but they didn't need to - if they'd brought the planes down at the right time, there'd have been less loss of life and just as much outrage.

Plus, if they'd brought down the planes, they get to look like heroes and still get what they want. Bush came out of 911 looking like a retard, sitting in a classroom reading to kids and scratching his butt while somebody is bombing his country.

This post has been edited by Tootle: Jun 18 2009, 06:49 AM

Well about excuses to go to war I don't think any of the above would have gotten us this far, but as for planning 9/11 maybe they just took advantage of the situation and pushed forward.

One thing you're right about is Bush looking bad, hell Cheney has spoken up in defense more in the last few months than the entire time in office, that tells you something right there.

Without a truly independent media that people are willing to watch this shit will go on and on.

The idea that shooting down the planes would have still been a justification for war doesn't really fly for me. You need to remember it wasn't just a "war" against Afghanistan that was the goal, it was a never ending "war on terror". A war with no end because, really, how can you ever defeat "terror", the same as the "war on drugs". Both these can keep the US war machine/money machine running indefinitely. The planes actually hitting the buildings was all about the spectacle. The dead americans, the FEAR. Obviously the emphasis on fear, the thought that "oooh we can get attacked at any time". If the planes were shot down or the attack stopped in some way americans would have still felt that safety and security and wouldn't have fallen into gung ho war mode for a never ending war.

OK, back to the towers for a second.... Let's look at this logically:

Would the neocons behind the Bush regime (or insert secret society of choice if you prefer) be mental enough or evil enough to plan and carry out this attack? Personally, I would say no... They may be in the same league of mental and evil, but not the same ball-park. That's just MVHO though, and I appreciate that others may not feel the same.

Anyhoo.... Whether or not they were mental/evil enough is largely irrelevant when it comes to the thermite theory. From a structural and engineering POV, there was absolutely no need for explosives or thermite to be used. Once the aircraft crashed into the towers, the design of the buildings guaranteed that they would eventually collapse unless the fires were extinguished. The Twin Towers (as I'm sure you know) were built around a central support column and the floors were suspended from this by steel floating trusses (The outer frame played some support role for the trusses, but they were attached mostly for rigidity purposes). Severe localised damage caused by the impact, left the debris of several floors resting on one or two floating floors, supported by steel trusses that were being weakened by prolonged exposure to heat. I've created a crude animation to show the process....

 wtcanim_s.gif ( 196.34K ) Number of downloads: 1


Once a few had collapsed, the carrying capacity of each floor was exceeded by the weight of the ones collapsing on it from above. This in turn caused the superstructure to bow and collapse, bringing all the undamaged floors above the impact down too.

The structural engineers and architects who designed the WTC all concurred with the NIST engineer's report (which basically says what my anim demonstrates) as did several of the world's leading tall-building designers who were commissioned independently by the BBC during the production of an investigatory documentary on the collapses (I forget the name of the documentary, sorry). Several respected engineering companies contracted by insurers have also concurred, as have the vaunted Purdue University College of Engineering.

The designers of the Twin Towers were well aware of this vulnerability which is why they designed-in fireproofing for the steel floor trusses. What the designers hadn't factored-in, was the inevitable damage to this fireproofing foam caused by any significant impact by a large airliner... As the possibility of a large airliner impact was deemed unlikely in the extreme, the design specification did not extend to that eventuality. The building was only designed to withstand a small aircraft crashing into it.

However, any engineer thinking of crashing large airliners into the WTC with a view to bringing them down, would be well aware that such a significant impact would easily and inevitably damage this fireproofing foam to such an extent that any sort of post impact fire would likely bring down the towers in the way described above.

Herein lies the flaw to the thermite demolition conspiracy theory (and even the conventional explosive demolition theory)... it simply wasn't necessary to ship-in and install tons and tons of thermite or demolition charges. Any black-op demolition engineer worth his/her salt would have known that a large airliner impact would be a kill shot to structural integrity.

Even if I don't buy it myself, I actually "get" why some people want to believe that these towers were brought down by the establishment... what I don't get, is why these people feel the need to come up with half-arsed theories like hundreds of tons of thermite, or secret demolition teams etc to make their point. It's silly.

Yep, terrorism only works if it grabs peoples attention. If it had been a Cessna and a vacant mini-mart it wouldn't have mattered a jot.

Yeah America is pretty jaded now a days, you would need something spectacular to put the fear in them and what better than 2 of the tallest buildings in our most famous city.
I am still very curious about this molten metal

he Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah
http://www.seau.org/SEAUNews-2001-10.pdf
So what made the metal molten? The fire at the *top* of the building?
Also interesting to note is that the buildings were designed to withstand a hit by a 707.

This is interesting too
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/o...explosions.html

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 18 2009, 10:34 PM

I suppose it depends on what you think is evil. If killing innocent people is evil, well, for sure the power brokers of america are evil enough to plan such a thing. No question.

Well if you listen to those Nixon recordings he sits around discussing things that will lead to the death of hundreds of thousands of people, like you and I would discuss sports.

If you aren't player in their world you are just cattle, cattle gets slaughtered.

There's a big difference between discussing something and actually going ahead with it. I'm sure Nixon got off on yacking about such issues, being the big man, but that doesn't mean he'd do it. The rich and powerful have to at least rationalise their actions to themselves as being for the greater good. Even Hitler did that. These men (and rarerly women) don't see themselves as villains, ever. I expect Bush saw himself as a man forced to make some difficult choices. Equally, I think he didn't have the sense to look outside his own cotery for opinions. Bush was pretty much a patsy for some pretty brutal neocon group-think.

As for the towers, what does all this investigation buy us? Any evidence about a neocon conspiracy has been firmly shunted into 'conspiracy nut' folder, and would never be considered conclusive. The villains of the piece are away and gone, having achieved nothing of significance other than getting a lot of innocent people corpsified. They'll never be punished. The consequence are still reverberating around the world, and would continue to do so even if the truth came out.

I agree Bush was a patsy, I don't think he realized what he got himself into initially.

If anyone else still is interested in reading about this try out http://911research.wtc7.net/

Unfortunately it looks exactly what you would expect a conspiracy site to look like and I almost closed the window except there were interesting photos I hadn't seen before.
This site uses a lot of information from reputable sources, but also has its share of speculation.

This post has been edited by f33dback: Jun 19 2009, 01:55 AM

I certainly think they're capable of it. It's just a case of whether or not all those fail-safes supposedly in place can fail to perform adequately to stop whatever splinter group of the U.S. intelligence services that's alleged to have committed the act.

Let's just put this into perspective... This is a newsletter reporting on a conference of structural engineers that took place only a few weeks after the attack (when everything was still just guesswork) and not an engineers report or a detailed study. The report of molten metal in that newsletter is like all the others that have come from the WTC... mostly second hand (ie. hearsay) and unverified.

The on-site teams who reported seeing molten steel, were no experts in metallurgy, and wouldn't know the difference between molten steel and molten tin, aluminium or any of the other tons of metal present in the debris. Clearly there were also a significant number of cases where the word "molten" was erroneously used to describe metal that was glowing and deformed but not actually molten. Even if there was some molten steel (and I mean a very few incidences and small quantities) it could have been caused by localised conditions, as localised "hot-spots" are entirely normal. There certainly wasn't (and isn't) the tons and tons of molten steel required to validate the thermite theory.... Which, as I've already said, was unnecessary to cause the collapse in any case. There is no mention of any pools of re-solidified molten steel in any post 9/11 report on the debris, let alone any mention of such pools in the quantities required to validate a thermite demolition.


Again, I mentioned this too... the buildings were not designed to withstand an impact from a much larger airliner... the 707 is potentially half the weight of the wide-body 767's which hit the twin towers, and their maximum take-off weights are around 90 tons lighter than the 767's. In other words (despite what some conspiracy theorists say - seriously, look it up, they really do play fast and loose with facts) the 707 is nearly half the mass (under certain loading conditions) of the 767. The actual impacts, however, are estimated to have been in excess of 5½ tons greater than the maximum the buildings were designed to withstand. To compound this, the buildings were only designed to withstand the smaller impact, if it were at a speed 300 or 400 mph SLOWER than actually occurred.

So, the mass on impact exceeded the maximum design specification by several tons, and the speed of these larger aircraft were several hundred percent faster than the designers allowed for. The aircraft also had full fuel tanks, and this was not considered in the design. The Twin towers were simply not built to withstand an aircraft impact so far above the maximum specification and so hugely above the factored speed. The only surprising thing here, is the fact that it took the buildings an hour and an half to collapse. From the FEMA report:

"The WTC towers were the first structures outside of the military and the nuclear industries whose design considered the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on july 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds. However, in the September 1 1 events, the Boeing 767-200ER aircraft that hit both towers were considerably larger with significantly higher weight, or mass, and traveling at substantially higher speeds. The Boeing 707 that was considered in the design of the towers was estimated to have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds and a flight speed of 180 mph as it approached an airport; the Boeing 767- 200ER aircraft that were used to attack the towers had an estimated gross weight of 274,000 pounds and flight speeds of 470 to 590 mph upon impact."

Which all brings me back to my point... The buildings didn't need any "extra help" to bring them down, once the airliners had hit them.... So WHY do conspiracy theorists feel the need to inject such fanciful nonsense as thermite or demo charges into the equation?

Is it, perhaps, because their assertions are so so bare in the evidence department, that they have to make stuff up which violates Occam's razor to the point of absurdity?

So the people trying to dig up any survivors are second hand reporters in your mind? It's red hot metal YMG, there are videos of it falling out of the building, there are photos of it, there is not a doubt at all that it existed.


I covered the *type* of metal that was pouring out of the building, it certainly isn't aluminum, it's steel, there are massive amounts pouring out of the building in a video that you yourself can watch, and shortly after that metal pouring out of the building it collapses.
There was no 100 tons of thermite, you are reading old information, what I have posted is *new* information and they have physical proof of (what they call) nano thermite, which is a thermite far greater in power than standard thermite.
Even if metal in the wreckage was not "molten" but red hot one has to ask themselves how it got that way and stayed that way for 21 days, if you read thru that site I posted they make an excellent argument aboput airline fuel, how much and how hot.



That's covered in my post, I just happen to fin dit interesting that they took that into consideration during the design of the building not that it means anything now.
By the way there was 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane, at least a 3rd of that was vaped at impact the rest burned at lower than 500 C (no forced air but open air burning) and of that maybe lasted a max of 10 minutes, which doesn't cover the building collapsing an hour later.
Any other plastics, carpet, wood, etc that may have been burning would have burned at far lower temps than aviation fuel.
Ever thrown a moltav? Shit burns fast.



Because evidence shows something else was going on, and the 911 commission didn't cover a lot of shit, the steel was removed (on trucks with brand new GPS units installed on them) to the families objections and sold to china.

This is like letting the morgue take the body from a murder scene prior to the detectives showing up.

The real question here is why do you have so much trouble accepting that maybe, just maybe something else went on that day.

Explain one simple thing, why is there active explosive residue in the dust?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/info/index.html

No, they are unqualified observers. The people reporting that there was molten steel found (based on the reports of these unqualified observations) are second hand reporters.


No, it's not steel, it is aluminium. NIST, independent metallurgists and structural engineers dealt with this some time ago. The steel in the support trusses would lose enough strength at half the point required to melt steel, to collapse the building... If the support beams had weakned passed the point of their carrying capacity, long before becoming molten enough to flow, the building wouldn't be standing for molten steel to pour out. In short, you can't melt a steel structure AND THEN pour molten steel from the top of it.

Your assertion that it "certainly isn't aluminium" is based on what exactly? That YouTube link that showed it to be silver? That has been pretty comprehensively tackled in a number of places... Oxidised aluminium does indeed glow red/orange, as does molten aluminium that is contaminated with organic matter, as it unquestionably would have been flowing /pooling over and around an office block filled with organic matter.

Bad science is bad science.


A screen capture from the video containing the "new information" that YOU posted on page one:

 100tons.gif ( 74.31K ) Number of downloads: 1


Oh dear, it seems you're having difficulty coming to terms with the tricky details of your own theory


It's not rocket science.... medieval earth-furnaces and charcoal burners work in exactly the same way, similar to many earth ovens used all over the world today. It's simply a matter of preventing/slowing heat loss with insulation (the rubble in this case) whilst simultaneously letting in just enough air to allow combustion to slowly continue. All you need is the fuel, which in this instance would have been the huge amount of office furniture, stationary, plastics, soft furnishings etc. present in the debris.

Mine fires work in much the same way and can smoulder for decades, sometimes centuries.


*sigh*

In order for the fuel to be "vaped" it has to release its energy... this is in the form of heat, so saying it simply "vaped" in that way is disingenuous, because you are ignoring the fact that this sudden heat release far exceeds the flashpoint temperature for most contents of an office block. Aircraft fuel burns at 300ºC in the open, but any fire in a structure like this, is not an open fire, and heat is increased as it is in any burning building because it can't dissipate as readily... Most buildings burn with a core temperature in excess of 1100ºC with localised spots that are either hotter or cooler. It is obvious to anybody looking at this more than one dimensionally, that the aircraft fuel acted as the catalyst for the ensuing fire, not the fuel that kept it burning until the damage became critical an hour or so later.


Assuming that there actually is.... I don't need to explain it, because thermite reactions didn't couldn't bring down the towers in the way that is being claimed, so the point is academic.

This post has been edited by yourmercifulgod: Jun 19 2009, 06:40 PM

We are talking about firefighters, in my opinion they are qualified.

I got thru my "rebuttal" of your points but I removed them, just go read the site all your points are taken apart and a very good case is made.

One thing though is I can't see how you feel active explosives found in the dust is a moot point, considering the way 7 fell especially.