New DVD – Steven Jones, PhD: “Nano-Thermite”

[SteveAustin]

I see, in your fantasy world, the frauds at Bentham believed that they were going to get $800 for a paper they knew was a hoax? They actually thought that somebody was going to pay $800 to publish absoloute nonsense in their sham journal? Man you twoofers are so divorced from reality it's funny.

Straw man arguments really rock don't they dtugg?

And for your first excuse, I see that you think the frauds at Bentham might be so fraudulent that they would have accepted money for a paper they never intended to publish. Too funny!

Oh, and if they knew it has a hoax, why did one of their editors quit over this debacle?

You JREF cult members have an amazing knack for ignoring posts you do not want to see...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980958&postcount=217

[SteveAustin]

Steve-0
Nobody linked to anything that claimed a "paid internet 9/11 debunker group of 1000" existed

and you cannot link to such a claim as proven in the very thread

Because you choose to interpret the article to say something different does not mean the article was not linked.

If all you JREF cult members cannot even grasp that simple fundamental then how can you grasp the truth of 9/11? It really boggles the mind!

[A W Smith]

the harrit paper wasn't published

again with the nist dust. Only in Jones/harrit sample was this alleged nanothermite claimed. therefore any other sample can be brushed away as inconclusive as it is NOT from the batch Jones tested. therefore it is imperative that Jones share his sample for independent blind study testing. Refusal to share this sample casts doubt on the legitimacy of the results Jones claims.

[SteveAustin]

A straw man? So responding to your post constitutes a "straw man"? Wow.

Anyway, I love the fact that you are blatantly accusing Bentham of fraud, requesting the $800 with no intention of publishing the article because they knew it was a hoax.

That is some fine thinking hoss!

/hypocritical troll is hypocritical.

LOL, the authors of that crap paper were attempting to defraud Bentham, but nice standard JREF tactic to turn it around and blame the victims!

[16.5]

And now I'm still waiting on a peer reviewed paper in a scientific journal that refutes the Harrit paper! But I will be waiting a very very very long time won't I!

We agree, you will be waiting a long, long time. Because the Jones paper was unscientific crap that was not published in a peer reviewed journal.

If you believe otherwise, please identify who did Jones' peer review on the Bentham sham?

[~enigma~]

Because you choose to interpret the article to say something different does not mean the article was not linked.

If all you JREF cult members cannot even grasp that simple fundamental then how can you grasp the truth of 9/11? It really boggles the mind!
The article did not say anything even remotely similar to your bogus claim but if you prefer to let it boggle your mind (which I think is already scrambled) go right ahead.

[SteveAustin]

Jones' colleagues kicked him out of his position at U.U. His papers and speeches show him the academic fraud he is for the claims he makes of of thermite/themate/nano-anything at WTC.

So judging from this response you obviously have no evidence to back up your beliefs and claims

[A W Smith]

Because you choose to interpret the article to say something different does not mean the article was not linked.



Steve-0:

Do all three of these words exist in that article? Yes or no.

"paid" "internet" "debunker"

[SteveAustin]

You can judge his "stupidity" if you want. I see it as verbal diarrhea coming from a proven scientific fraud. So once again, why does a fraud require debunking?

Hey everyone, go back to the beginning of this thread, heck pick any old thread here at JREF at random and see just how very very often the cult here at JREF uses this attack the arguer tactic instead of actually attacking the argument! It will be really enlightening!

[dtugg]

Straw man arguments really rock don't they dtugg?

So you don't think that they believed that they were going to get a check? Well that kind of blows your pathetic excuses out of the water.


You JREF cult members have an amazing knack for ignoring posts you do not want to see...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4980958&postcount=217

You have really crappy reading comphrension skills. Since the subject was the hoax paper, I obviously wasn't talking about the editor that quit in disgust over the gargage thermite paper, I was talking about the one who quit in digust because the sham journal accepted the hoax paper for publication. Why would he do that if they knew it was a hoax?

[BigAl]

So judging from this response you obviously have no evidence to back up your beliefs and claims


My engineering background tells me that Jones' papers and allegations are silly. Other, many here, have specific relevant expertise and explain to me exactly why.

It's a fact that the U.U. Faculty kicked Jones off the campus.

[~enigma~]

Hey everyone, go back to the beginning of this thread, heck pick any old thread here at JREF at random and see just how very very often the cult here at JREF uses this attack the arguer tactic instead of actually attacking the argument! It will be really enlightening!
If you were a proven scientific fraud (based on publicly available documents), I and others here would call you a scientific fraud and not even address your arguments. Sorry for you but fraud is not protected by the MA and neither is your god Jones. Only a truther would be idiotic enough to insist the MA applies to a non-member.

[~enigma~]

It's a fact that the U.U. Faculty kicked Jones off the campus.
Unfortunately it was almost 20 years late :(

[SteveAustin]

NIST (Or the EPA or some other agency) has lots of dust samples. They all show how absurd Jones' claims are. JREF thread have cited these published papers.

NIST doesn't have Jones' samples because he hasn't offered them, or at least he hasn't told us he has and that is the #1 way we'd know.

Mmmm all the dust samples come from the same general area and should all be adequate for the task. So if NIST (Or the EPA or some other agency) has lots of dust samples then why the need for JREF cult members to keep harping this straw man and demanding that Jones submit HIS samples when they could just use their own samples and send those to a truly independent lab somewhere?

Just a little more common sense that shoots down another JREF straw man argument

[A W Smith]

Mmmm all the dust samples come from the same general area and should all be adequate for the task. So if NIST (Or the EPA or some other agency) has lots of dust samples then why the need for JREF cult members to keep harping this straw man and demanding that Jones submit HIS samples when they could just use their own samples and send those to a truly independent lab somewhere?

Just a little more common sense that shoots down another JREF straw man argument


this is why

Only in Jones/harrit sample was this alleged nanothermite claimed. therefore any other sample can be brushed away as inconclusive as it is NOT from the batch Jones tested. therefore it is imperative that Jones share his sample for independent blind study testing. Refusal to share this sample casts doubt on the legitimacy of the results Jones claims.

[SteveAustin]

the harrit paper wasn't published

Yes it was, it was published in Bentham. For you to keep repeating this lie only proves you do not care about truth.

again with the nist dust. Only in Jones/harrit sample was this alleged nanothermite claimed. therefore any other sample can be brushed away as inconclusive as it is NOT from the batch Jones tested. therefore it is imperative that Jones share his sample for independent blind study testing. Refusal to share this sample casts doubt on the legitimacy of the results Jones claims.

So your saying that only the Harrit/Jones dust sample are adequate? What about the tons of other dust? Why can NIST/EPA/Whoever etc. not use their dust samples from their "very thorough" investigation and send those to a truly independent lab to see whose findings are truly accurate, the Harrit/Jones findings or the "Official" findings?

[BigAl]

Mmmm all the dust samples come from the same general area and should all be adequate for the task.

And none of them show evidence of thermate/thermite/nano-anything.

[SteveAustin]

My engineering background tells me that Jones' papers and allegations are silly. Other, many here, have specific relevant expertise and explain to me exactly why.

It's a fact that the U.U. Faculty kicked Jones off the campus.

Then all of you here should be able to cooperate on a peer reviewed scientific paper debunking the Harrit/Jones paper and have it published in a scientific journal?

If you cannot do that then all your words are just hot air.

[T.A.M.]

Arguing about the legitimacy of the Bentham "journal" is like arguing over the legitimacy of MAD magazine as a legitimate scientific journal.

truthers are just upset because their one holy grail turned out to be a tin cup.

TAM:)

[dtugg]

Then all of you here should be able to cooperate on a peer reviewed scientific paper debunking the Harrit/Jones paper and have it published in a scientific journal?

If you cannot do that then all your words are just hot air.

Why? The only people that believe them are morons who wouldn't be convinced anyway.

[SteveAustin]

If you were a proven scientific fraud (based on publicly available documents), I and others here would call you a scientific fraud and not even address your arguments. Sorry for you but fraud is not protected by the MA and neither is your god Jones. Only a truther would be idiotic enough to insist the MA applies to a non-member.

Couple of points...

First of all, I wish you JREF cult members would decide if Jones or Harrit are either my guru or my god?

Secondly, who is talking about the MA, I am talking about fraudulent debating tactics!

[FineWine]

Mmmm all the dust samples come from the same general area and should all be adequate for the task. So if NIST (Or the EPA or some other agency) has lots of dust samples then why the need for JREF cult members to keep harping this straw man and demanding that Jones submit HIS samples when they could just use their own samples and send those to a truly independent lab somewhere?

Just a little more common sense that shoots down another JREF straw man argument


A "truther" invoking common sense--hilarious! Some of us are wondering why Jones and his fellow frauds refuse to submit their samples to independent labs. I'm sure you've devoted a great deal of thought to this question. Perhaps they have no interest in winning a Pulitzer Prize.

I'm guessing that today, like every day, is not the day when you finally show us the myth that can stand scrutiny.

[SteveAustin]

You're killing me here! There are apparently no lengths that you won't go to defend you guru! Of course, I understand this is all part of your act to make twoofers look bad. You really do such an excellent job of it!

Now we are back to guru! Sheesh I wish you guys could keep your stories straight!

[A W Smith]

Yes it was, it was published in Bentham. For you to keep repeating this lie only proves you do not care about truth.



Not legitimate. dismissed Steve-"0". you still have nothing. zero, "0"

http://www.arnoldfeldman.com/menublogs/menuimmblog/89-artbenthamscandal

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/hoax-exposes-incompetence-or-worse-at.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55756/

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/23230/

[SteveAustin]

And none of them show evidence of thermate/thermite/nano-anything.

So you have one group that says it does contain nanothermite and another group that says it doesn't.

What normal people do in this circumstance is to get a 3rd opinion from an independent source.

NIST/EPA/Whoever should still have tons of dust samples from their "thorough" investigation that they could send to an independent 3rd party no?

[dtugg]

Now we are back to guru! Sheesh I wish you guys could keep your stories straight!

You see, unlike twoofers, who believe whatever their gurus tell them to believe, we are individuals and may have different opinions, especially regarding something so insiginifant as some random twoofer.

[~enigma~]

Couple of points...

First of all, I wish you JREF cult members would decide if Jones or Harrit are either my guru or my god?

Secondly, who is talking about the MA, I am talking about fraudulent debating tactics!
No...you are talking to yourself now since you just put yourself on ignore.

[T.A.M.]

Couple of points...

First of all, I wish you JREF cult members would decide if Jones or Harrit are either my guru or my god?

Secondly, who is talking about the MA, I am talking about fraudulent debating tactics!

A1. They are both.
A2. Please don't start up on the whole debate tactics thing again. I had you on ignore because of it (actually you are technically still there, but I check in on your comments occasionally to see if you have given up that insanity).

TAM:)

[dtugg]

So you have one group that says it does contain nanothermite and another group that says it doesn't.

What normal people do in this circumstance is to get a 3rd opinion from an independent source.

NIST/EPA/Whoever should still have tons of dust samples from their "thorough" investigation that they could send to an independent 3rd party no?

Great idea. Surely your fraudulent gurus have sent their samples for independent testing. Wait...they haven't. Well, color me shocked!

[A W Smith]

So your saying that only the Harrit/Jones dust sample are adequate? What about the tons of other dust? Why can NIST/EPA/Whoever etc. not use their dust samples from their "very thorough" investigation and send those to a truly independent lab to see whose findings are truly accurate, the Harrit/Jones findings or the "Official" findings?

Can you read? I explained why in the very post you quoted!

again
Only in Jones/harrit sample was this alleged nanothermite claimed. therefore any other sample can be brushed away as inconclusive as it is NOT from the batch Jones tested. therefore it is imperative that Jones share his sample for independent blind study testing. Refusal to share this sample casts doubt on the legitimacy of the results Jones claims.

[T.A.M.]

So you have one group that says it does contain nanothermite and another group that says it doesn't.

What normal people do in this circumstance is to get a 3rd opinion from an independent source.

NIST/EPA/Whoever should still have tons of dust samples from their "thorough" investigation that they could send to an independent 3rd party no?

I agree. Too bad Steven Jones doesn't. He has refused to provide his samples for INDEPENDENT 3rd party analysis and subsequent confirmation or refutation of his findings.

TAM

[~enigma~]

I agree. Too bad Steven Jones doesn't. He has refused to provide his samples for INDEPENDENT 3rd party analysis and subsequent confirmation or refutation of his findings.

TAM
All tactics used before when he crossed the line into fraud with cold fusion. Why are we even entertaining Jones "intellectual" diarrhea?

[ferd burfle]

Attempting to build a straw man argument are we?

arguments from incredulity rock don't they!

Steve, you seem to be aware of the concept of logical fallacy, so you're a cut above some truthers, IMO. Now please do us all a favor and learn and understand the meanings of the fallacies before you cite them. Sorry, no link, but that shouldn't slow down a crack researcher like yourself. Please be aware that learning the meaning of these fallacies will require reading for comprehension and a modicum of thought.

And by the way, Steven Jones is not making the argument here in the forum, so no one is "attacking the arguer" in the sense of the Membership Agreement.

ferd

[alienentity]

Runlikell - just move the question mark and you've answered your own question:

'they may be wrong, they may be a bit crazy, but surely they are honest men? no.'

If you believe that two people who constantly misrepresent arguments and evidence are honest men, you're a sucker, bud.

Here's just one example out of many more - Harrit still claims that WTC7 fell in 6.5 seconds. That's a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

Steven Jones, in lecture after lecture, referred to the 'peer reviewed' articles in the Journal of 9/11 Studies, but never bothered to mention to his audiences that he was one of the editors, and that some of the articles he sited were in fact by the other editors of the journal.
Is it an honest person who conceals such a glaring conflict of interest, or consistently abuses the term 'peer review'?

Perhaps by the standards of ordinary con-men or swindlers, these guys are paragons of virtue. By most respected scientific standards, they're the opposite.

[Toke]

Did NIST's "throughout" investigation test for pixiedust?
And if not why?

[~enigma~]

Did NIST's "throughout" investigation test for pixiedust?
And if not why?
Yes they did and the existence of Tinkerbell has been conclusively proven much to the joy of....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/132574a7c64438635e.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17154)

[alienentity]

Runlikell - Doesn't it bother you just a little that Jones' own arguments have been contradictory for many years? For example, in the early days of his thermite/thermate mania, he cited very high temperatures, molten iron, sulphur, barium etc.... as 'proof' of conspiracy and controlled demolition.

After discovering and testing the red/grey chips, he now claims explosive nanothermite did the dirty deed. But nanothermite trades high temperatures for speed - it doesn't (in theory, since neither Jones nor Harrit has obtained samples from sources they cite) generate high temps at all; just explosive gases. And where's the sulphur in the WTC dust? Now they've backed away from it....oops!

Maybe that's a bit too complicated for your tastes, so what about this problem: Neither Jones nor Harrit has obtained even a single sample of nanothermite from any of the sources they think it came from -

Not from Los Alamos National Laboratory
Not from Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC/IH)
Not from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Nor have they had any of their ideas corroborated by a single expert from the US military research establishment.

Nor has there been a single whistleblower who recognized that materials made in research labs had appeared in WTC dust, and followed their moral and patriotic duty.

Nor has any documented building ever been imploded in controlled demolition using either thermate, thermite or nanothermite. Not one.

Nor have Jones, Harrit et al. identified the organic binder in the chips.

Nor have Jones, Harrit et al. identified the grey layer of the chips.

Nor have Jones, Harrit et al. replicated the red/grey chip material and tested it.

Nor have Jones, Harrit et al. demonstrated, thru direct and unambiguous methods, that this class of material can actually destroy complex steel structure.

Or how it could explode without noticeable explosions.

Or how it could do all the above without leaving obvious signs of explosive destruction on steel, easily recognized by demolition experts who combed the debris.


There are at least 10 major points which would need complete verification in order to support their theories and claims. Without this, they are offering little but clever conjecture - except in the realm of pseudo-cience, they have no basis for claiming they have found the 'smoking gun', the 'loaded gun', or anything of the kind.

In the world of con artists, paranoid fantasy and pseudoscience, they've definitely 'nailed it' and have 'proved' that 9/11 was an inside job. For sure. Everything's real in that realm, even Sylvia Browne.

[alienentity]

Did NIST's "throughout" investigation test for pixiedust?
And if not why?

Hehe. Much is made of NIST's failure to do an arson investigation of WTC7. Maybe that's because it wasn't arson?

Truthers seem to possess a special talent for missing the obvious.

[Toke]

They didn't do a regular crash investigation either, it is almost as if they knew before starting why the planes crashed.

[TruthersLie]

You know if I were an editor and I received what is obviously a crap paper I would try and find out who sent it to me, I would try and find out who attempted to submit a transparent fraud.

hmmm...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html

"Mahmood Alam, Bentham's director of publications, responded to queries from New Scientist by email: "In this particular case we were aware that the article submitted was a hoax, and we tried to find out the identity of the individual by pretending the article had been accepted for publication when in fact it was not."

You are SOOOOO right.

Why then did the HEAD EDITOR OF THAT JOURNAL QUIT IN DISGUST??????

The head editor of that journal quits and says "I never saw that paper."

How does the head editor of the journal NEVER SEE an article they are trying to bust for being a hoax/forgery?

And
Why did he quit in disgust from the journal? That is NOT the action of an editor who is proud of their journal and trying to bust a HOAXER. That is the action of someone disappointed and disgusted with the SHODDY journal they were working with and trying to distance themselves.

Why did he quit over this paper?
why did the editor of the open chemical physics journal quit in disgust stating "this journal is a sham?"

Come on stevie....

[TruthersLie]

See what I mean, JREF "debunkers" rely on simiply repeating falsehoods in the hopes that eventually people will believe them

Oh poor stevie.

Lets see.

I have read that thread. You make the claim that there were 1000 paid shills. You didn't supply a single citaiton. Not for 15 pages.

Someone else found a similar paper full of crap and posted the citation. YOU NEVER SUPPLIED IT.

how hard is that to understand?

You made a claim.
You were than asked to provide a citation
YOU THEN NEVER DID.

Very straightforward twoof.

[TruthersLie]

Then it should be no problem for him to get his paper published. Heck he doesn't have to publish it in Bentham, he can choose any other publication where he does not have to pay for it himself.

So let him publish it and allow the world to see his information, otherwise it is nothing more than unproven hot air.

Here you go twoof. Over 50 articles posted which support NIST and the common narrrative. Notice, not one is in a vanity journal. Not one craptacular and mocked for their ****** editorial policy. What do you have again? I mean if it is so easy high school drop outs like you can figure it out you shoudl have hundreds of REAL peer reviewed journals to refute NIST. Take ONE. In ANY LANGUAGE. I'll wait.


Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1),

Collapse of towers as applied to September 11 events
Cherepanov, G.P. 2008 Materials Science 44 (4), pp. 489-499

Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

Fire load in a steel building design
Razdolsky, L. 2008 Proceedings of the 4th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference, ISEC-4 - Innovations in Structural Engineering and Construction 2, pp. 1163-1167

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

[NutCracker]

Then all of you here should be able to cooperate on a peer reviewed scientific paper debunking the Harrit/Jones paper and have it published in a scientific journal?

If you cannot do that then all your words are just hot air.


Typical truther inversion, everything they pull out their ****-ends is considered established fact until it is disproven with almost mathematical rigour.

Reality: junk paper published in pay to publish journal. Journal has no peer-review process.
Truther: disprove paper in peer-reviewed journal!

Reality: structural engineering, building codes, fire proofing etc. etc. Building high-risers challenging. Aircraft impact degrades structural integrity, fires do the same. Building collapses.
Truther: argues if collapse resistance is intrinsic property of (damaged, burning) buildings. Invokes explosives to explain collapse. Disprove! FEA is not enough, neither is any other damage/fire induced collapse.

The list goes on.

Anything to keep their belief system afloat.

[TruthersLie]

Yes it was, it was published in Bentham. For you to keep repeating this lie only proves you do not care about truth.


and the fact that you keep trying desperately to hold on to the "peer reviewed" bentham that you keep repeating it shows that you have NO academic credibility.

Thank you twoof.


So your saying that only the Harrit/Jones dust sample are adequate? What about the tons of other dust? Why can NIST/EPA/Whoever etc. not use their dust samples from their "very thorough" investigation and send those to a truly independent lab to see whose findings are truly accurate, the Harrit/Jones findings or the "Official" findings?

Oh twoof. YOu are too funny. Absolutely too freaking funny.
1. EVEN if NIST, EPA/whoever were to examine the dust and say it is "nanothermite free" you would just disregard it. Wouldn't you twoof? Of course you would.
2. Jones is the one making the claim. So he needs to have independent verification of his samples. Why hasn't he done that? I'll pay the $40 bucks to have it examined.

so please try again... this time with something that makes sense... maybe you should take your haldol and try to write something comprehendable.

[TruthersLie]

Did NIST's "throughout" investigation test for pixiedust?
And if not why?

Because they were busy searching for giant lizard poo to make sure godzilla didn't to it.

(p.s. mothra did)

[ElMondoHummus]

Here you go twoof. Over 50 articles posted which support NIST and the common narrrative...

Performance based structural fire engineering for modern building design
Rini, D., Lamont, S. 2008 Proceedings of the 2008 Structures Congress - Structures Congress 2008: Crossing the Borders 314

Engineering perspective of the collapse of WTC-I
Irfanoglu, A., Hoffmann, C.M. 2008 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 22 (1)...

(rest snipped)


Not to overguild the Lilly by beating this point into the ground, but believe it or not, this list is incomplete. For example, one of the earliest studies was conducted by a pair of Tsinghua University (Beijing, China) researchers - LU Xinzheng & JIANG Jianjing (http://www.luxinzheng.net/publications/english_WTC.htm) - which was a "finite element analysis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method)" (FEA) of the main towers collapses. This was a very early analysis - publication date is Nov. 2002 - and may have been superceded by the more in-depth NIST study, but it was one of the first to concentrate on the effect of the steel's performance in the fires.

Another link on the Lu and Jiang model: http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/lu-jiang-model

Let's also remember that the University of California's Delta group did an environmental impact study (http://delta.ucdavis.edu/WTC.htm) (they measured aerosolized pollution released by the fires and collapses), and while that doesn't speak towards the actual collapse itself, during their research they illuminated one very central detail that helps argue against explosives or thermite, and that's the amount of energy available for the fires from the combustible contents of the towers. It was immense.

We're also missing the Weidlinger Associates and Exponent Failure Analysis Associates studies, although those weren't academic ones. Rather, the first was done at Silverstein's behest for his insurance claim, and the other was commissioned by the insurance companies. Neither saw any cause to address the event as anything other than a collapse proceeding from the jetliner crashes and subsequent fires.

There's the Lioy study that's been misrepresented and misused to make microsphere and therefore thermite arguments.

And last, I noticed that the famous (to those of us studying 9/11) Purdue simulation (http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/) was not mentioned. That's a pretty important one.

I do not say any of this to knock on TruthersLie; rather, I write this to point out that many very crucial studies do indeed exist, and a fair number have not been mentioned in his brief listing of them. The ultimate point here is that the legitimate studies that have been conducted on the towers collapse tend to validate in some way or another the fact that fires and impact damage was what led to the collapse of the towers. Others that take that as a starting point show that the post-collapse events are consistent with presuming the towers did indeed collapse from impacts and fires, and not from explosives; I challenge people to cruise through Google Scholar, as well as local universities academic e-journals and compare medical studies done in the aftermath of 9/11 with those in the aftermath of the Madrid train bombings, or the Israeli bus bombings. There's no study that does a direct comparison, but you'll note as I have that there is a distinct difference in the numbers and severity of barotraumatic injuries between the collapses and real bombings. That's very significant, in my opinion. It indicates no explosions, and further validates the fact that no demolitions were used that day.

Anyway, I'm starting to ramble. TruthersLie has made a good point here: Conspiracy addicts and peddlers are making a big deal out of the Bentham study, but the fact of the matter is, it is outmassed as well as outclassed by the sheer amount and quality of other research that has been done on 9/11, and none of those studies validate thermite or intentional demolitions in any way. Not in the least bit. True, they don't study that question directly, but they don't have to; the data they'd be examining would be different if the towers were intentionally demolished. Again, I point to my search in the past on incidents of barotrauma. Furthermore, you'd see differing FEA and other structural engineering analyses emerge if the towers were indeed supposed to have stood. That is not happening. The wealth of research out there validates the dominant narrative of jet impacts and fire damage causing the collapses, and that is only apparent when someone takes his/her nose outside conspiratorial sources and looks in the real world for their information.

[Justin39640]

The examples of nano-thermite we know of are for cutting tiny tiny objects.

lol that device in that video looks like it would be useful if you planned to CD your kids metal swing set lol

ETA: i think my sawzall would be more effective than that thing

[9/11-investigator]

We are the Saudi Arabia of Coal so the dire energy situation is?

That's exactly what you are: the Saudi Arabia of coal. SA will pass peak oil in a couple of years.
And you conclude from that the planet (or the US) is not in a dire energy situation.

Here is a very recent warning from a big shot from the IEA:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html
They are in panic mode.

In order for the energy situation to be dire it is not only important how much fossil fuel is left but also at what production capacity it is available.

For your information: the world is already at, or close by or even has passed 'peak oil'.

And forget about the stories that the US has coal 'for 200 years'. US coal production will likely peak from 20 years from now and then decline.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html

Or here a German study:

http://www.energiekrise.de/kohle/docs2007/EWG-Report_CoalProductionScenario_MAR2007.gif

Post edited for breach of Rule 4; please do not hotlink to copyrighted material.

[~enigma~]

That's exactly what you are: the Saudi Arabia of coal. SA will pass peak oil in a couple of years.
And you conclude from that the planet (or the US) is not in a dire energy situation.

Here is a very recent warning from a big shot from the IEA:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html
They are in panic mode.

In order for the energy situation to be dire it is not only important how much fossil fuel is left but also at what production capacity it is available.

For your information: the world is already at, or close by or even has passed 'peak oil'.

And forget about the stories that the US has coal 'for 200 years'. US coal production will likely peak from 20 years from now and then decline.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/052504_coal_peak.html

Or here a German study:

http://www.energiekrise.de/kohle/docs2007/EWG-Report_CoalProductionScenario_MAR2007.gif
For crying out loud. Are you gonna recycle the peak oil bunk? Time to finally put you on ignore.

[Audible Click]

All tactics used before when he crossed the line into fraud with cold fusion. Why are we even entertaining Jones "intellectual" diarrhea?

Maybe we're trying to put a skeptical Depends around his "mind"?

[twinstead]

Skeptical Depends. I LIKE it.

[tfk]

All tactics used before when he crossed the line into fraud with cold fusion. Why are we even entertaining Jones "intellectual" diarrhea?
.
Enigma,

My recollection from the time that the Fleischman & Pons nonsense came out is that Jones was actually a voice of sanity. And that his muon catalyzed cold fusion has been validated. (Not that it'd ever provide noticeable amounts of energy, tho.)

Do you have links to show otherwise?

Tom

PS. Now, his "Jesus appeared in the New World" stuff is pretty darn funny...

[beachnut]

...
For your information: the world is already at, or close by or even has passed 'peak oil'. ... What does this have to do with the moronic delusions you share with Steven Jones insane rant on thermite which he made up out of thin air and was fired for being stupid on 911 issues by ranting without evidence.

Jones is lost in a fantasy world paranoid, an anti-war protester who believes, like Nixon did, the ends justify the means; not a rational scientist on 911 issues. The only inside job is Jones' fraud and your gullibility.

Not close on the tangential failure post; is this proof you are not prepared to support your beliefs on 911 with facts and evidence; just talk and off-topic tripe at that?

[~enigma~]

Maybe we're trying to put a skeptical Depends around his "mind"?
Shove it in his mouth then duct tape it shut.

[~enigma~]

.
Enigma,

My recollection from the time that the Fleischman & Pons nonsense came out is that Jones was actually a voice of sanity. And that his muon catalyzed cold fusion has been validated. (Not that it'd ever provide noticeable amounts of energy, tho.)

Do you have links to show otherwise?

Tom

PS. Now, his "Jesus appeared in the New World" stuff is pretty darn funny...I posted a link to something written by...get this..A.K. Dewdney. Jones was appointed as a referee for Pons and Fleischmann. Jones did in fact test for neutron emissions as did many other scientists however as other scientists and Jones found a few million times less than Pons and Fleischmann claimed, Jones stepped over into scientific fraud by claiming he validated them. The link will have to be enough since all I am telling you is from my personal experience back in 1989.

[peteweaver]

What does this have to do with the moronic delusions you share with Steven Jones insane rant on thermite which he made up out of thin air and was fired for being stupid on 911 issues by ranting without evidence.

Jones is lost in a fantasy world paranoid, an anti-war protester who believes, like Nixon did, the ends justify the means; not a rational scientist on 911 issues. The only inside job is Jones' fraud and your gullibility.

Not close on the tangential failure post; is this proof you are not prepared to support your beliefs on 911 with facts and evidence; just talk and off-topic tripe at that?

Fraud though he is, certain gullible people with littler or no understanding of the physics involved do listen to the man, because he has a PhD.

[Hokulele]

Piled higher and Deeper.

[TruthersLie]

Piled higher and Deeper.

I thought it was Permanent head Damage

Though I guess either one works.

[DGM]

Is there any "ground breaking" new information in this new video? I have to admit I've grown way to impatient to read though a long thread or view another "truther" video.

[alienentity]

Considerably slower due to internal resistance.
But we have been through this before.

Back to Dr Jones, since there isn't any evidence of sequenced demolition explosives simultaneously cutting structure (in any of the WTC bldgs) for example, what difference does it make what the supposed chemistry of hypothetical explosives is?

None of them could have been used in the real event - the discussion is moot, a distraction.

[LibraryLady]

I have split off 22 posts into AAH. Please stay on topic.

[9/11-investigator]

Posting on JRef is a bit like playing Russian roulette, you never know when your posts will be AAH-ed. Therefore just a line or two to minimize potential loss of time investment...

Well, well isn't this a nice find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Looks very familiar to an event 8 years ago.
This Chinese building of more than 100 meters high was controlled demolished earlier this week (I believe). Look at the 'crown of debris' spouting away in all directions.

Still any doubts that the WTC towers were blown up (by thermite)?

[Arus808]

Posting on JRef is a bit like playing Russian roulette, you never know when your posts will be AAH-ed. Therefore just a line or two to minimize potential loss of time investment...

Well, well isn't this a nice find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Looks very familiar to an event 8 years ago.
This Chinese building of more than 100 meters high was controlled demolished earlier this week (I believe). Look at the 'crown of debris' spouting away in all directions.

Still any doubts that the WTC towers were blown up (by thermite)?


wow, please point to use the MANY sounds of progessive blast sounds found on 9/11/2001 for any of the buildings that collapse.

A building collapsing whether blown up or not, may look the same . LOOKING like a demolition doesn't MEAN it was demolition.




and thermite doesn't EXPLODE. ITS an incendiary. YOU do know what incendiary is right

[dtugg]

Posting on JRef is a bit like playing Russian roulette, you never know when your posts will be AAH-ed. Therefore just a line or two to minimize potential loss of time investment...

Well, well isn't this a nice find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Looks very familiar to an event 8 years ago.
This Chinese building of more than 100 meters high was controlled demolished earlier this week (I believe). Look at the 'crown of debris' spouting away in all directions.

Still any doubts that the WTC towers were blown up (by thermite)?

Did they blow up the Chinese building using thermite (not that thermite can be used to blow stuff up), nazi? No? Then what the hell is your point?

[alienentity]

Posting on JRef is a bit like playing Russian roulette, you never know when your posts will be AAH-ed. Therefore just a line or two to minimize potential loss of time investment...

Well, well isn't this a nice find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Looks very familiar to an event 8 years ago.
This Chinese building of more than 100 meters high was controlled demolished earlier this week (I believe). Look at the 'crown of debris' spouting away in all directions.

Still any doubts that the WTC towers were blown up (by thermite)?

Yup. Because, as you evidently don't know, thermite doesn't blow things up. It does melt/fuse them though.

No controlled demolition in history has used thermite. Find one if you dare.

nanothermite, you say? Oh....that (theoretically, cause neither you, me or Dr. Jones has ever seen the stuff in action) makes things go boom! Like any conventional explosive but more violently (due to a higher energy density).

No detonation booms = no controlled demolition = no nanothermite

as the saying goes, 'you can't have one without the other'.

Sorry. And nanothermite doesn't melt things either.....so it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the heat of debris fires after the collapses.

Still wrong crazy after all these years. (ala Paul Simon)

[alienentity]

Posting on JRef is a bit like playing Russian roulette, you never know when your posts will be AAH-ed. Therefore just a line or two to minimize potential loss of time investment...

Well, well isn't this a nice find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Looks very familiar to an event 8 years ago.
This Chinese building of more than 100 meters high was controlled demolished earlier this week (I believe). Look at the 'crown of debris' spouting away in all directions.

Still any doubts that the WTC towers were blown up (by thermite)?

YooHoo, Mr. 9/11 Investigator sir! Find me the explosions in this. don't be shy!

O-WZpXiEKAo


Remember, no detonations just before the collapse, in sequence = no controlled demoliton.

Got it? Sucks to be a truther, huh?

Edit: I've added this additional note. This video is the death knell for the WTC7-was-brought-down-by-controlled-demolition theorists. I hope reality is sinking in for you. The reporter is less than 4 blocks from the building, with an open microphone.
There is no possibility that explosive demolition could have occurred in that proximity without being picked up on her mike. Even a 120db blast would easily have been heard at that distance.

Controlled demolition of the WTC buildings is a dead issue. It did not happen. The sooner you realize this the better for us all.
If you have the guts to face reality, watch the video and learn.

[alienentity]

This totally different controlled demolition proves that thermite was used to melt the WTC buildings. Even though there's no connection whatsoever. Damn clever, those NWO guys!!

79sJ1bMR6VQ

Also, a car ran a red light yesterday by my house. That's total proof of thermite in the towers!! OMG!!

(This is the new truther standard of comparison)

[A W Smith]

Posting on JRef is a bit like playing Russian roulette, you never know when your posts will be AAH-ed. Therefore just a line or two to minimize potential loss of time investment...

Well, well isn't this a nice find:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVQaVgJne6c

Looks very familiar to an event 8 years ago.
This Chinese building of more than 100 meters high was controlled demolished earlier this week (I believe). Look at the 'crown of debris' spouting away in all directions.

Still any doubts that the WTC towers were blown up (by thermite)?


lets compare . shall we? this a screen capture of the china demo immediately BEFORE the building collapses
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/chinademo.jpg


this is a screen capture of a video of the north tower collapse immediately AFTER the building starts to collapse. Any questions???

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wcbsnorthtower.jpg

[9/11-investigator]

and thermite doesn't EXPLODE. ITS an incendiary. YOU do know what incendiary is right

Very good, 100 points! Thermite is indeed an incendiary. But you obviously haven't been paying attention because nobody is talking about thermite, it's nano-thermite that's the issue here.

Link (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000091000024243109000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes).

As a result, the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3. ©2007 American Institute of Physics.

YOU do know that shock waves and explosions go hand in hand right.

[9/11-investigator]

lets compare . shall we? this a screen capture of the china demo immediately BEFORE the building collapses
http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/chinademo.jpg


this is a screen capture of a video of the north tower collapse immediately AFTER the building starts to collapse. Any questions???

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/wcbsnorthtower.jpg

What happened was that the core columns were cut (probably by thermite), the building started to implode and that was the moment to push the button and explode the building --> spouting concrete in all directions in a crown shape.

No further questions your honor.

[BigAl]

What happened was that the core columns were cut (probably by thermite), the building started to implode and that was the moment to push the button and explode the building --> spouting concrete in all directions in a crown shape.

No further questions your honor.

Dust, ash and smoke. Fixed that for you.

[BasqueArch]

What happened was that the core columns were cut (probably by thermite), the building started to implode and that was the moment to push the button and explode the building --> spouting concrete in all directions in a crown shape.

No further questions your honor.

9/11-investigator. Your hypothesis is contradicted by the visual facts and is therefore wrong. Read “WTCs1,2 Visual Facts for What Happened, Audio/Visual Facts for What Didn't Happen.” Thread OP.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5005477#post5005477

Abstract:
Regarding WTCs1,2 Audio/Visual Facts
Hypotheses that contradict the visual facts are wrong.
Not all hypotheses that agree with the visual facts are right.
Restated: Where in conflict, the visual facts trump all hypotheses. You can argue about causes, but you can’t argue with facts.

“I pass with relief from the tossing sea of cause and theory to the firm ground of result and fact.” -Churchill

Visual Facts For What Happened: ONE. Perimeter columns gradually buckled and collapsed at the failed floors. TWO. Floor slabs subsequently collapsed inside the perimeter and core columns. THREE. Perimeter and core columns, not crushed nor exploded, subsequently toppled to the ground.

Audio/Visual Facts For What Didn’t Happen: ONE. No expected CD loud detonation sounds. TWO. No evidence for expected explosives/thermite damage to columns or spandrel plates. Evidence of large sections of connected, unexploded, unshattered toppled core and perimeter columns. THREE. CD explosives-ejected perimeter columns should have outdistanced the dust cloud behind them, they did not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't reason someone out of something he was never reasoned into. - Swift

[alienentity]

What happened was that the core columns were cut (probably by thermite), the building started to implode and that was the moment to push the button and explode the building --> spouting concrete in all directions in a crown shape.

No further questions your honor.

Let's start off with this blooper 'what happened was that the core columns were cut (probably by thermite)'.

1) You have zero evidence that they were cut. Your statement is purely speculative.
2) You don't know what they would have been 'cut' by.

Your case is dismissed immediately for lack of evidence. Next conspiracy theory please.

There are many fatal flaws in truther theories, many stemming from incompetent analysis of video,audio and eyewitness testimony.

But there are also fatal flaws in the current nanothermite and old thermite theories as well. I am preparing to outline those terminal conditions soon in a comprehensive way - I'll probably produce a video on the subject to counter the moronic emanations already out there.

9/11-Investigator: has it ever occurred to you that you don't have the slightest idea (in any meaningful legal sense) who might have carried out your supposed false-flag 'inside job'? I mean you don't have a shred of credible evidence, nor are you likely ever to, with which to proceed with a criminal case.

It probably hasn't occurred to you. But it should have.

ps 'the building started to implode and that was the moment to push the button' That's just sad. No wonder most people don't take 9/11 'truth' seriously.

[Justin39640]

What happened was that the core columns were cut (probably by thermite), the building started to implode and that was the moment to push the button and explode the building --> spouting concrete in all directions in a crown shape.

No further questions your honor.

unfortunately for your argument here
the nanothermite truther camp (the ones who wrote the paper) said the nanothermite was used in conjunction with 10 to 100 tons of conventional explosives

so youre back to square 1

obviously your video interpretation skills are lacking
nothing was blown upwards
things fell from heights
and since dust is lighter than steel (and everything else falling) the shape of the cloud high up looks like that

any other interpretation is a flat out lie

also collapse started before any signs of air being forced out
what explosives blow up and then dont show any signs of an explosion for almost 2 seconds? o none ty (because an explosion is several times the speed of sound)

there is NO indication of explosives
only biased people looking for the evidence to fit into their delusions see this

[Arus808]

Very good, 100 points! Thermite is indeed an incendiary. But you obviously haven't been paying attention because nobody is talking about thermite, it's nano-thermite that's the issue here.

Link (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000091000024243109000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes).

As a result, the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3. ©2007 American Institute of Physics.


quoting an article that was dated in 2007 doesn't prove that such an element existed in 2001..

Please prove that nano-thermite, in conventional use, existed in 2001 (conventional use means that it was being used by authorized entities and was in abundance - specifically here, the Controlled Demolition industry).

[Justin39640]

quoting an article that was dated in 2007 doesn't prove that such an element existed in 2001..

Please prove that nano-thermite, in conventional use, existed in 2001 (conventional use means that it was being used by authorized entities and was in abundance - specifically here, the Controlled Demolition industry).

o wait a second
im not sure how important this is
but the title of his article is
"Generation of fast propagating combustion and shock waves with copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite composites"

[dtugg]

As a result, the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3

Mach 3 (1020 m/s) isn't very powerful at all for a solid explosive. It almost certainly would not be able to cut through large steel columns.

For comparison:

RDX: Mach 26 (8750 m/s)
TNT: Mach 20 (6900 m/s)

[9/11-investigator]

quoting an article that was dated in 2007 doesn't prove that such an element existed in 2001..

Please prove that nano-thermite, in conventional use, existed in 2001 (conventional use means that it was being used by authorized entities and was in abundance - specifically here, the Controlled Demolition industry).

That's much better! That is indeed the next task in solving 9/11: who put the nano-thermite in the towers and who provided this stuff. Once these questions have been answered the real 9/11 trials can begin. Water- and zipper-gate will prove to be peanuts compared to this event.

[~enigma~]

nano-gate. Will it expose the nano-brains of the TM? Will there be a nano-throat? Will there be 18 minutes missing from the nano-video? Tune in same time next week for another stupid post from our resident TMbot.

[16.5]

Very good, 100 points! Thermite is indeed an incendiary. But you obviously haven't been paying attention because nobody is talking about thermite, it's nano-thermite that's the issue here.

Link (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000091000024243109000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes).

As a result, the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3. ©2007 American Institute of Physics.

YOU do know that shock waves and explosions go hand in hand right.

That is correct!!! Shock waves = explosions = very, very, VERY loud noises. Oh wait, I think you are missing the very, very, VERY loud noises.

[UNLoVedRebel]

That's much better! That is indeed the next task in solving 9/11: who put the nano-thermite in the towers and who provided this stuff. Once these questions have been answered the real 9/11 trials can begin. Water- and zipper-gate will prove to be peanuts compared to this event.

Guess what. There already was a "trial". Your fellow mormon friends couldn't even convince themselves 9/11 was an inside job.* And to think you converted from Judaism to Mormonism for them. Sad.

*See Brainster for details.

[alienentity]

That's much better! That is indeed the next task in solving 9/11: who put the nano-thermite in the towers and who provided this stuff. Once these questions have been answered the real 9/11 trials can begin. Water- and zipper-gate will prove to be peanuts compared to this event.

You don't read too good, dude. If you wanted to put a criminal case together (presumably that's what would be needed to bring the 'perps' to justice) you'd need some actual, gubmint-issue thermite to compare to. And you'd need some experts to testify that the chips are the same stuff.

Jones and Harrit are, unfortunately for you guys, not experts in nanothermite. That's right, you read correctly. I'll repeat it again for you - Jones and Harrit are NOT experts in nanothermite.
They have absolutely zero qualifications and experience regarding its manufacture, testing and application. They are relying 100% on a scant few conference reports and papers (which anybody, including me can read) but they haven't even consulted the people who wrote the papers and did the research.

A bare minimum standard of investigation would be to cover those vital issues, but they haven't bothered to do that yet.

Jones himself admits that he has no idea how the chips were actually made.
He doesn't know what the various layers are actually made out of either.

Harrit has read about the chemistry of nanothermite, but yet has never handled it himself.

A defense lawyer would have a field day with these guys if they ever tried to get a criminal case going. But they won't do that, don't worry - what they're really after is ****-disturbing, trying to keep the 'truth' movement alive and fooling gullible schmucks who don't read too good.

Who are the suspects in the impending criminal investigations? (sound of crickets)

Good luck with that. If you really believe this stuff, then you also will believe me when I tell you that my children are attending Hogwart's for their education. And they can fly!