aluminothermic, nanothermite etc WTC

[Crazytimes]

What do you guys make of this ? I am debating a truther on another site and he posted this in responce to my suggestions that there is no evidence of thermite. I used some of rkowens videos from youtube and he says he will not debate with youtube debunkers. If one of you wants to sign up on the forum and debate him it would be great.

I skimmed this quickly and what I think he is saying is that they used some sort of spray on thermite on the beams. I am at work and didnt read to much of it. I think this if from a website he says he co-authored.


Yes... sometimes referred to as nanothermate, nanothermite, energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) or superthermite...

But the following is the reason I do not debate the "Youtube Debunkers".

You are obviously educated... if you want to debate a topic... learn first. foolw the trail of references too.

“Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? … NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
-- NIST Responses to FAQs, August 2006

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has had considerable difficulty determining a politically correct sequence of events for the unprecedented destruction of three World Trade Center (WTC) buildings on 9/11 (Douglas 2006, Ryan 2006, Gourley 2007). But despite a number of variations in NIST’s story, it never considered explosives or pyrotechnic materials in any of its hypotheses. This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnics, and second, the extensive experience NIST investigators have with explosive and thermite materials.

adding link to article
http://factsnotfairies.blogspot.com/2008/08/top-ten-connections-between-nist-and.html
Please do not quote long articles in their entirity

[240-185]

Don't bother with all the examples he provided. They're all classic examples of 9/11 trutherism.

He found 10 reasons to have used therm*te at WTC7, *he* has the burden of proof that WTC7 was brought down by using one of these techniques.

[ElMondoHummus]

That's nothing more than a long winded version of the standard thermite hypothesis. You'll note that there's not actually anything there that proves its presence.

My response would be the following:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
http://911myths.com/html/traces_of_thermate_at_the_wtc.html


One of the most intriguing aspects of NIST’s diversionary posture has been their total lack of interest in explosive or pyrotechnic features in their explanations.


One of the most intriguing aspects of truther's insistence in explosives or thermite theories is the complete lack of gross characteristic effects, such as obvious noise from explosions and obvious melting on the recovered steel components.

The rest of the "dump" he gave you is a combination of legitimate articles that simply don't apply to the Twin Towers or long debunked works in Steven Jones's pseudo-peer reviewed "Journal"; you can find individual refutations of those works in this forum by simply searching on the titles, or on the names of the individuals involved (such as "Kevin Ryan", "Steven Jones", "Franke Legge", etc.

[Crazytimes]

Thanks guys. I may have to pay one of you to sign up and debate him. He has a strange way of thinking he is right. There are some other morons who chime in with CT's from back in 2003 and they can get annoying.

He also says he is getting ready to write a new page on why the new NIST report is worse than the first.

[A W Smith]

Spray coat steel with thermite? if I recall you need six parts of thermite to cut one part steel. Thats some pretty heavy coatings.

theres a guy over at ATS arguing silent thermobarics. But get this. you don't hear the thermobaric explosion because it went off DURING the demolition... HUh? :jaw-dropp

[Quad4_72]

First of all, to date there is no such device in existence that utilizes nanothermite (Or thermite for that matter) to cut large steel beams in a controlled demolition setting. Also, back in 2001 I believe nanothermite was in its early stages of development. Here is some discussion on nanothermite:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=108091

[BigAl]

Spray coat steel with thermite? if I recall you need six parts of thermite to cut one part steel. Thats some pretty heavy coatings.

theres a guy over at ATS arguing silent thermobarics. But get this. you don't hear the because it went off DURING the demolition... HUh? :jaw-dropp

Does anyone have a better description and citation for the mix of thermite and steel and for the amount of slag that results?

As far as thermobaric explosives go, they work via overpressure over a large area and are the exact opposite of a silent explosion. YouTube, (the source of all truth) has a video of a DIY thermobaric device. If it can believed, the blast at would be as loud as any other demolition charge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dU1P32n_o

[Klimax]

As far as thermobaric explosives go, they work via overpressure over a large area and are the exact opposite of a silent explosion. YouTube, (the source of all truth) has a video of a DIY thermobaric device. If it can believed, the blast at would be as loud as any other demolition charge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1dU1P32n_o

Bolded.No need to continue.Debunked by itself.

[Alt+F4]

This omission is at odds with several other striking facts; first, the requirement of the national standard for fire investigation (NFPA 921), which calls for testing related to thermite and other pyrotechnicsod

Ah, another truther who implies that the FDNY was "in on it". The NFPA 921 is a guide for fire and explosion investigations, it's not a requirement. The author of this guide, The National Fire Protection Association, does not believe that thermite was involved in the destruction of the WTC. The National Association of Fire Investigators and the International Association of Arson Investigators have come to the same conclusion.

[Crazytimes]

The National Association of Fire Investigators and the International Association of Arson Investigators have come to the same conclusion.


Do you know where I can find the info on this ? Thanks fo !

[Alt+F4]

Do you know where I can find the info on this ? Thanks for the info !

Here's the links to their websites. Note there is no demand for a new investigation, no articles about the possibility of thermite at the WTC center. Ask that truther why these professional organizations don't support a thermite theory.

In addition, there were dozens of arson investigators (called fire marshals in the FDNY) on the scene on 9/11 and it's aftermath. Why did none of these men report findings of thermite? They are trained in detecting it, as thermite has been used on occassion in arson cases.

http://www.firearson.com/insideiaai/featuredtopics/index.asp

http://www.nafi.org/

http://www.nfpa.org/

[DGM]

Do you know where I can find the info on this ? Thanks fo !
Interestingly enough they (NFPA) didn't mention their displeasure in their comments on the WTC 7 report either.

http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/

[Alt+F4]

Interestingly enough they (NFPA) didn't mention their displeasure in their comments on the WTC 7 report either.

Yup, a 178 page comment and not one mention of thermite.

[Mr. Skinny]

Ah, another truther who implies that the FDNY was "in on it". The NFPA 921 is a guide for fire and explosion investigations, it's not a requirement. The author of this guide, The National Fire Protection Association, does not believe that thermite was involved in the destruction of the WTC. The National Association of Fire Investigators and the International Association of Arson Investigators have come to the same conclusion.
Technically, it's a consensus standard and, while you are correct that it is not a requirement, portions of in are incorporated by reference into OSHA and other government standards. Though I'm not a firefighter, I'm willing to bet that NFPA is treated almost as "the bible" by firefighters and investigators. Someone in the business can correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, were I an investigator in this case, I'd imagine that I'd be looking for evidence of anything unusual in the rubble pile, and finding none (in this case explosives/thermite/detonators/det cord, etc.) my investigation would not be led in that direction, and thus I'd not make mention of it in my report.

[CORed]

I love how the truthhers always talk about the "unprecedented" collapse. Like airliners with full loads of fuel crash into skyscrapers all the time, but only this one time did it cause them to collapse.

[Smackety]

I love how the truthhers always talk about the "unprecedented" collapse. Like airliners with full loads of fuel crash into skyscrapers all the time, but only this one time did it cause them to collapse.

Laugh if you must but, my research says it was totally unprecidented. The precident had nothing to do with it. Have you done any research?





It was all Dick Cheney.

[Trojan]

It was all Dick Cheney.

I that it was George and Rummy :boggled: