British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

There are many paths to enlightenment, skyson. Many people, including myself, have come over the years to realize that the official story was wrong, very wrong. There have been various "smoking guns" that have precipitated such shifts of view.

Just because you find one observation compelling doesn't mean that someone else won't find some other observation compelling.

true. but i found this view point is very easy to demonstrate, very easy for any one without particular expertise to understand, and a simple fact that is provocative enough for anyone blindlessly following the official line to re-consider.

other topics tend to trail into endless debate, and in my view could be too distractive: for example, they often question you - are you a qualified structure engineer?:eek::eek:

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

other topics tend to trail into endless debate, and in my view could be too distractive: for example, they often question you - are you a qualified structure engineer?:eek::eek:

So far I've found that -all- 9/11 topics trail into endless debate .

In particular, I don't find that any one "sledge hammer" fact changes peoples minds on topics such as this.

Rather I find that only when someone, perhaps for unrelated reasons (say a bored retired computer programmer whose children have grown up ), sits down and reads through, over a period of days, the details of some major event from another perspective, patiently and calmly letting those details accumulate in their mind, do they begin to shift, if the weight of the evidence so compels, to a substantially different understanding.

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

Apparently skyson added the parenthetical (mass/projected area) after the word density by way of explaining what density means after I first quoted him above.

I would differ with this definition of density. I thought density was M/V (mass divided by volume), not M/A (mass divided by cross section area.)

For spheres of radius R:

• V = (4/3) π * R³
• A = π * R²

No, I was not defining what a density is. I was referring to the fact, that V[terminal] is calculated on the base of mass/projected area, which is highly correlated to desity.

In any case, you win.

But (for sphere's of equal density) SCALE correlates with terminal velocity, which DOES MATTER!

I was talking about this:

A 80 kg mud ball colliding with a 10 kg mud ball has the same effect as a 800,000 ton mud ball hitting a 100,000 ton mud ball!!! A 80 kg air filled glass ball colliding with a 10 kg air filled glass ball has the same effect as a 800,000 ton air filled glass ball hitting a 100,000 ton air filled glass ball!!!

Regardless of speed.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

In any case, you win.

Cool .

Now I command thee to go off and Play!

[c1ue]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

May I recommend you read the paper itself then?

The paper itself confirms that there were exactly 4 samples involved as I had surmised.

The paper also notes that the aluminum in the micron-sized chips is not all aluminum oxide, that there is elemental aluminum involved. It notes that any aluminum exposed to air will contain aluminum oxide as this is why aluminum doesn't 'rust' and the samples have a high surface area to mass ratio.

The paper also notes that the samples in question contained 0.1% of the 'thermitic' material, and that the source of this material is impossible to ascertain. Given again that a multi-ton aluminum airplane smashed into even more multi-ton iron frames, the burden of proof is on the nano-thermite faction to show that this material came from something else.

Before we talk physics, we first have to talk biology. It is a well know fact that cat has the distinctive ability to manouver in the air so to minimize the damaging effects of falling from high places. They do have nine lives! So if you want to discuss the physics of falling cats and horses, you need to make them dead first.

Have you consider the effects of a falling dead cat and a falling dead horse from the same height? If the density of dead cat flesh is similar to the density of the dead horse flesh, which I believe is the case, then the one cubic inche of dead cat flesh would have the same kinetic energy of one cubic inche of dead horse flesh, correct? When these one cubic inch fleshes reaching the ground they would sustained similar damage, correct? So, in aggregate, the cat(eg. all 100 cubic inches of flesh) and the horse(eg. all 10,000 cubic inches of flesh) would suffer similar damage, correct?

Sorry, your ignorance continues to build.

Yes, a dead cat will splash if dead sufficiently long enough. But so will a mouse.

But a freshly killed cat doesn't splash, it bounces. Hence the term 'Dead Cat Bounce': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

A horse, no matter how agile, WILL splash. Unless it has a parachute.

They will NOT sustain a similar amount of damage, because a horse weighs 100 times more than a cat but presents less than 20 times the surface area when hitting the ground.

So please, stop embarrassing yourself.

I am thinking of writing an article to conclusively demonstrate the impossibility of WTC total collapse due to gravity ONLY. Possibly this weekend. But I cannot gaurantee, because spring break is here, and my little kids are freed...:eek:

While you are at it, please demonstrate how wind cannot destroy a bridge.

Oh wait, it can. Is that enough of an example of smaller objects destroying larger? Air vs. concrete and steel?

What your small mind apparently cannot conceive is that an object of sufficiently high mass has effectively an infinite terminal velocity.

Ah - after some searching, the following image claims to be -after- the top six floors "pancaked" in Madrid. One can still see the crane on top, and the several pancaked floors below. I don't recall seeing any pancaked floor images from the World Trade Center, do you, even though that was the official theory?

Madrid, it should be noted, had a point source fire which started at a high floor and completely enveloped the top floors. The temperatures at the top floors achieved the 800 degree plus level.

Madrid did not, however, have 20 or 30 floors of weight on top of 5 to 10 floors set more or less simultaneously ablaze with jet fuel. 20 or 30 floors approximates the height of the entire Madrid building.

Surely you must see some slight difference?

Secondly even you in previous posts noted how one of the WTC towers tilted as its collapse began. So clearly the collapse was not a pancake as Madrid was. But the point is still the same: a structural collapse CAN occur from a fire, even without a huge mass above it.

Madrid also was a much smaller building.

There are significant differences between a 110 story building and a 32 story one - else there would be 110 story buildings everywhere.

I was talking about this:

A 80 kg mud ball colliding with a 10 kg mud ball has the same effect as a 800,000 ton mud ball hitting a 100,000 ton mud ball!!! A 80 kg air filled glass ball colliding with a 10 kg air filled glass ball has the same effect as a 800,000 ton air filled glass ball hitting a 100,000 ton air filled glass ball!!!

Regardless of speed.

I fear your ignorance continues to show.

A 100,000 ton air filled glass ball of size 1 meter diameter will crush anything in its path.

A 100,000 ton air filled glass box with cross section of 1 square meter will crush anything in its path down, irrespective of how high the box is, unless the air pressure is lower than ambient pressure (i.e. a glass balloon). If the glass itself weighs 100,000 tons, the air pressure would not even matter.

Concrete ships can float, just as steel ships do.

The WTC buildings were hundreds of thousands of tons; the floors above the collapse were at least tens of thousands of tons.

Tens of thousands of tons falling even 1 inch, much less 12 feet, is a massive shock for which the WTC's rigid frames were never intended to withstand.

TPC at least has a theory which postulates a different mechanism for the collapse; a massive explosion severing the frame at a specific spot could also achieve a collapse - his view is that the fire could not have done so.

But to say the collapse could not happen once the upper floors started to fall - that's just crazy.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The paper also notes that the samples in question contained 0.1% of the 'thermitic' material, and that the source of this material is impossible to ascertain. Given again that a multi-ton aluminum airplane smashed into even more multi-ton iron frames, the burden of proof is on the nano-thermite faction to show that this material came from something else.

I saw you write something like this before, but didn't quite believe you meant what you seemed to imply. So let me ask straight out: Are you suggesting that that thermetic-material might have been formed on the day of 9/11 as some accidental by-product of the collisions or fires of that day?

I do not consider that to be a possibility. I find that material, as described in that paper, to be far too specifically formed, with fine grain structure and composition, with explosive capacity (both in speed and total energy) exceeding most of the best thermate materials in commonly available, with precise mixing of ultra-fine particles, to be in any way a possible accidental by-product of the collisions and fires of that day. That material was, I am certain, manufactured by humans to be a high-tech explosive.

You have a strong mind, c1ue. I remain convinced that in this case your mind is not serving you well.

But as others have noted, my mind can be stubborn as well. I should remain open to the possibility that it my mind that is deluded here. To be honest, I am not particularly open to this possibility at present. Tomorrow ... who knows.

[c1ue]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

I saw you write something like this before, but didn't quite believe you meant what you seemed to imply. So let me ask straight out: Are you suggesting that that thermetic-material might have been formed on the day of 9/11 as some accidental by-product of the collisions or fires of that day?

Yes, I am exactly suggesting that.

1) The samples in questions are exactly 4. Before ascribing these particles - for these are indeed VERY small particles - to a general case, a larger sample size would be necessary.

In the case of the WTC - obtaining a larger sample size should not be an issue as it was spread literally all over Manhattan. For that matter, the dust is still likely all over Manhattan albeit at reduced volumes after cleaning.

2) The presence of aluminum and iron oxide is not at all unusual; the paper itself notes there are many sources for both between the WTC buildings and the airplanes.

3) The particles themselves are not necessarily unusual: the WTC buildings plus 2 - 767 jets converted from structurally whole objects into a more or less flat pile on the ground.

It would be quite fair to say that a majority of the material in all 4 objects was converted to particles. That some of these particles are composed of aluminum and iron oxide - this should happen if for no other reason than chance.

4) Even were 'nano-thermite' involved - the volume of the nano-thermite is tremendous. The implication of the 1.9% number is apparently lost on you - spelled out this means that if there were 1000 tons of WTC dust, that there in turn was 20 tons of nano-thermite.

The actual dust amount was likely far far greater. This article notes there was probably around 1 million tons of dust released:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC511010/

This means in turn 20000 tons of nano-thermite?

There must have been nano-thermite trucks lined up to New Jersey to move that much in.

For that matter the same paper speaks of 243 archived samples. A bit different from 4 samples collected by random people neh?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Thus if your implication is that I cannot understand how unlikely these particles could be formed through other means - then my response in turn is that proving such should be a trivial task.

The paper in question could not and did not do so - it merely asserted.

Again, no smoking gun.

[flintlock]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

of course they were, a world war 2 bomber flew into the empire state building so when the world trade centre was built it was of course made strong enough to withstand an impact from a passenger jet. and the empire state held up fine despite the impact and not being designed for it.

B-25 Mitchell Loaded weight ~ 33,000 lbs. Fuel ~1000 gallons. Cruising speed 230 mph

Boeing 767 ~ 275,000 lbs. Fuel ~11,000+ gal. Speed on impact ~590 mph

Slight discrepancy here.

http://www.radiodiaries.org/audiohis...es/empire.htmlCompare photos of the damage to the Empire State building to those of the initial damage on the Twin Towers. Apples to Oranges indeed.

http://forthardknox.com/2008/02/07/1...crash-vs-9-11/

Totally different building designs as well.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The implication of the 1.9% number is apparently lost on you - spelled out this means that if there were 1000 tons of WTC dust, that there in turn was 20 tons of nano-thermite.

The actual dust amount was likely far far greater. This article notes there was probably around 1 million tons of dust released:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC511010/

This means in turn 20000 tons of nano-thermite?

There must have been nano-thermite trucks lined up to New Jersey to move that much in.

The implication is not lost on me. In one of the other links (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html) I recommended to you in an earlier post, a hypothetical scenario is presented which includes many trucks with the thermite in question.

The presence of aluminum and iron oxide is not at all unusual;

We're dealing here with more than just the presence of some common elements. We're dealing with the specific physical form and explosive properties.

Would you dismiss a murder scenario involving a gunshot if a bullet were found in the body and a handgun nearby, on the grounds that lead and iron were common elements found everwhere?

[c1ue]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The implication is not lost on me. In one of the other links (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html) I recommended to you in an earlier post, a hypothetical scenario is presented which includes many trucks with the thermite in question.

...

Would you dismiss a murder scenario involving a gunshot if a bullet were found in the body and a handgun nearby, on the grounds that lead and iron were common elements found everwhere?

The scenarios outlined could be, but possibility is not the same as plausibility.

Your example is flawed - a body has no lead in it.

If instead a dead body were found with a hole in it and no bullet, but with tap water in the hole, then an ice bullet is both possible and plausible. A similar scenario for blood not of the person's type in the hole.

But having blood in the hole of the same type as the person - doesn't lend itself to any untoward scenarios other than a "No Country for Old Men" cow gun. (again, nothing personal)

So far I've gone through every single example of evidence you have presented, and the very best of them have done nothing more than show that aluminum and iron oxide can burn when heated up sufficiently.

So what? As I've said repeatedly: anything will burn if heated up sufficiently.

Neither you nor your links have yet to in any way exclude other possible sources nor causes of these mysterious particles found in exactly 4 private samples.

Were you to say: "The WTC plot was known to the government but not stopped due to disbelief/inertia/stupidity/ulterior motives", this I could believe.

But to say that the WTC was taken down by tons of planted 'nano thermite' - the burden of proof is on you, and frankly has not been met in any way thus far.

In fact, this article speaks much more clearly on both the presence of aluminum and the presence of 'thermitic' explosions:

www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

2,000,000 kg of anodized 0.09" alunmunum sheet was used, in the form of 43,600 panels, to cover the facade of each Twin Tower

...

The other major source of aluminum at the WTC was the aluminum alloy airframes of the Boeing 767 aircraft that crashed into the Twin Towers on the morning of 9-11. It may be estimated that, on impact, these aircraft weighed about 124,000 kg including fuel; of this weight, 46,000 kg comprised the fuselage and 21,000 kg made up the mass of the wings - all of which were fabricated from aluminum alloys..

...

These metallic additions to aluminum lower the melting point of the alloy from a value of 660 degree C, for pure aluminum, to about 548 degree C for alloy 2024.

4000 tons of cladding, 67 tons of airframe, and who knows how many tons of computer frames, desktop gewgaws, etc per tower.

[skyson]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

It is abundantly clear that engaging a debate with you is a futile endeavor.

Sorry, your ignorance continues to build.

Yes, a dead cat will splash if dead sufficiently long enough. But so will a mouse.

But a freshly killed cat doesn't splash, it bounces. Hence the term 'Dead Cat Bounce': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_cat_bounce

A horse, no matter how agile, WILL splash. Unless it has a parachute.

They will NOT sustain a similar amount of damage, because a horse weighs 100 times more than a cat but presents less than 20 times the surface area when hitting the ground.

So please, stop embarrassing yourself.

While is true that a heavy object will have much higher pressure per unit of area at the instant of impact(due to smaller impacting area), but you need to consider the whole process of impacting. What happen to the horse/cat after initial impact? The horse will have more flesh left to be destroyed than the cat, say 0.1 seconds after impact. Hence, in consideration of the whole body, the horse would sustained same damage as the cat in propotion to their whole body.

You are suggesting that the bigger the object, the easier to be destroyed, given similar density of the objects.

This is simply absurd.

While you are at it, please demonstrate how wind cannot destroy a bridge.

Oh wait, it can. Is that enough of an example of smaller objects destroying larger? Air vs. concrete and steel?

What your small mind apparently cannot conceive is that an object of sufficiently high mass has effectively an infinite terminal velocity.

Another absurd example. Did the air collide with the bridge? The density of air is vastly smaller than the concrete of the bridge. An object with lesser density could destroy an object with higher density?

Home work for you: why the wind destroyed the Tacoma Narrows Bridge?

Hint: not collision. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I fear your ignorance continues to show.

A 100,000 ton air filled glass ball of size 1 meter diameter will crush anything in its path.

A 100,000 ton air filled glass box with cross section of 1 square meter will crush anything in its path down, irrespective of how high the box is, unless the air pressure is lower than ambient pressure (i.e. a glass balloon). If the glass itself weighs 100,000 tons, the air pressure would not even matter.

Concrete ships can float, just as steel ships do.

"A 100,000 ton air filled glass ball of size 1 meter diameter will crush anything in its path. "

WOW, what kind of material this is, PROFESSOR? :rolleyes:

OK, let you pass the first BS test.

Now, I put a 800,000 ton air filled glass ball of size 2 meter diameter in its path.

What happen then?

Please study some basic physics concepts, as well as my original arguements. AND DON'T SPIN them!

The WTC buildings were hundreds of thousands of tons; the floors above the collapse were at least tens of thousands of tons.

Tens of thousands of tons falling even 1 inch, much less 12 feet, is a massive shock for which the WTC's rigid frames were never intended to withstand.

But to say the collapse could not happen once the upper floors started to fall - that's just crazy.

Again, you are ignoring my original arguement. It is not about how heavy the upper floor section is, it is about its mass in relation to the mass of the lower floor section(In WTC1, it is 16 floors vs. 94 floors).

Please study what your opponent is talking about, before you spew more incoherent rumbling.

Clearly, your self proclaimed "great mind" just could not accept the fact that you are wrong, despite you have been proven otherwise repeately.

Remember this thread? While you were consistently showing you did not know what you were talking about, yet you insisted that others with expert knowledge were wrong.

Of course, if you are persistent enough, you will be "invincible". In your own mind, that is.

Now I declare that I will not engage in any debate with you, to avoid the tragedy of wasting my precious time. Oh, YES. You are "right" at the end, and truely "invincible".

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

the very best of them have done nothing more than show that aluminum and iron oxide can burn when heated up sufficiently.

I guessed you missed the part where the iron particle sizes were uniformly under 100 nm, which requires special manufacturing techniques and enables explosive, rather than just incendiary results.

I guessed you missed the part where it only needed to be heated to about 430 °C to ignite, rather than in excess of 900 °C like ordinary thermate.

I guessed you missed the part where the ignited samples contained spherical balls of iron, indicating that upon ignition, temperatures reached over 1400 °C.

I guessed you missed the part where some ignited samples emitted about 6 to 8 KJ/g, which is in excess of the theoretical max of 3.9 KJ/g for a simple thermate mix. This demonstrates that additional energetic compounds were present, beyond just the iron and aluminum.

This is a very hot, very fast burning, very energetic, specially manufactured thermite mix. It is not some accidentally mingled mix of iron and aluminum dust particles resulting from the collisions and fires of that day.

I am puzzled that someone of your evident intelligence and reading skills would miss so many essential details. What's going on here, c1ue?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

The scenarios outlined could be,

Good, we agree on that.

Earlier you had ridiculed the possibility that tons of this special thermite could have been delivered to the WTC towers in a long line of trucks.

Now you agree that the hypothetical scenario I referenced could have done that.

Yes, there is a distinction between theoretically possible and reasonably likely. If you care to argue the position that no scenario involving delivery of tons of this special thermite to the WTC towers is plausible, go ahead. It is a tough row to hoe, claiming the non-existence of any such scenario, and it will take more than simply a gentle snort of ridicule ("but possibility is not the same as plausibility") to make. Good luck.

I will readily agree that we lack sufficient evidence to favor any particular scenario.

[c1ue]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

You are suggesting that the bigger the object, the easier to be destroyed, given similar density of the objects.

No, I'm suggesting that you cannot understand the fundamental differences between large masses falling and small ones.

You continue to reinforce this behavior.

Another absurd example. Did the air collide with the bridge? The density of air is vastly smaller than the concrete of the bridge. An object with lesser density could destroy an object with higher density?

Oh? So now you're saying the wind did not collide with the bridge?

What you still fail to understand is that ANY energy transfer is a collision - whether it is miniscule or gigantic.

And yes, the density of air is FAR less than that of the bridge. So you have your example of a less dense object destroying a greater one.

You did not stipulate the means.

"A 100,000 ton air filled glass ball of size 1 meter diameter will crush anything in its path. "

WOW, what kind of material this is, PROFESSOR? :rolleyes:

The same kind of material as stipulated by your original example.

That is - an absurd amalgamation of materials intended to convey a point.

Again, you are ignoring my original arguement. It is not about how heavy the upper floor section is, it is about its mass in relation to the mass of the lower floor section(In WTC1, it is 16 floors vs. 94 floors).

Your original argument is exactly as I stated. You stated that there is no way a 16 floor falling building can destroy a 94 floor standing building.

Relative masses are irrelevant. Each floor of the 94 floor building is intended to support a specific standing weight - not an impact. We're not talking about billiard balls where both the strength of the material is so large and the material dense such that energy impacts are evenly distributed through the entire structure.

Secondly you also assume that the collapse was only at the impact point. It could have been at either a lower or higher floor; the jet fuel would possibly have gone down while the fire would possibly have gone up.

I guessed you missed the part where the iron particle sizes were uniformly under 100 nm, which requires special manufacturing techniques and enables explosive, rather than just incendiary results.

I guessed you missed the part where it only needed to be heated to about 430 °C to ignite, rather than in excess of 900 °C like ordinary thermate.

I guessed you missed the part where the ignited samples contained spherical balls of iron, indicating that upon ignition, temperatures reached over 1400 °C.

I guessed you missed the part where some ignited samples emitted about 6 to 8 KJ/g, which is in excess of the theoretical max of 3.9 KJ/g for a simple thermate mix. This demonstrates that additional energetic compounds were present, beyond just the iron and aluminum.

This is a very hot, very fast burning, very energetic, specially manufactured thermite mix. It is not some accidentally mingled mix of iron and aluminum dust particles resulting from the collisions and fires of that day.

And again, while all these properties may be true - a sample size larger than 4 and from a more disinterested source would be more credible.

And also again, it is not clear at all to me why this could not have happened in the high-energy environment of the WTC collision followed by the 110 story towers collapsing.

From my experience, just because something is nanometer sized doesn't mean squat. Lots of nm sized constructs happen in nature all the time - high energy events propagate them. And the events of 9-11 were very much high energy.

So again my point is that the evidence thus far is purely circumstantial - and there are plenty of circumstances other than nano-thermite which could explain them.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

And again, while all these properties may be true - a sample size larger than 4 and from a more disinterested source would be more credible.

Well, they did the best they could on sample size. Do you have any evidence or claims of any contrary samples?

As for "disinterested" source, what do you mean? NIST, the FBI, and the 9/11 Commission? In that case, you are pre-determining your result, by a priori discrediting everyone you disagree with.

And also again, it is not clear at all to me why this could not have happened in the high-energy environment of the WTC collision followed by the 110 story towers collapsing.

Such highly reactive super-thermite never occurs in nature. So far as I know, no one with even marginal claims to expertise in manufacturing high explosives has ever raised even the shadow of a doubt as to whether or not the material documented in Jones, et al paper was deliberately manufactured high explosive.

Do you expect me to give you even an ounce of credence when "it is not clear at all to [you] why this could not have happened in the high-energy environment of the WTC collision". That tells me that you have zero expertise and zero willingness to consider the uncontested expert testimony of and carefully presented evidence by others.

Sad. How can you persist in being so obtuse?