British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[skyson]

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

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

Originally Posted by c1ue
No, I'm suggesting that you cannot understand the fundamental differences between large masses falling and small ones.

You continue to reinforce this behavior.

Wrong. There is no fudamental differences between large masses falling and small ones.

When in a vacuum, a feather will fall at the same speed as a large piece of steel.

In the earthly world, two objects with similar density, and similar shape(same aerodynamics) will fall with the same speed, and will reach the same terminal speed, regardless of their sizes.

Assuming equal density, while a larger falling object carries a larger amount of kinetic energy than small one, the energy is distribute evenly to the whole mass, so kinetic energy contained in per unit mass in the larger object is the same as the small one. So on impact, damages to the objects are proportional to their respective mass.

For example, assuming 1 horse = 1000 cats weight. When these two objects land on the ground, 1 cubic inch of cat flesh is destroyed, and 1000 cubic horse flesh got destroyed. At the surface, it looks like horse sustained 1000 times of damage than a cat, but in relation to their mass, in fact each sustained damage to 1% of their respective body mass.

So you say:"But a freshly killed cat doesn't splash, it bounces. A horse, no matter how agile, WILL splash"

And I say, that is wrong. They would both produce a sound of "thump", and lower half of cat and lower half of horse got destroyed.

Originally Posted by skyson
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?

Originally Posted by c1ue
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.

I must admitted my statement is wrong here(was at work, could not think carefully before posting). I ignored the cases like: bomb explosion, high speed water cutter, sea water smoothing rocks, etc.

Yes, lesser density objects do damage higher density objects. However, the damage is mutual to both objects. In an explosion, the destruction of a small piece of steel would necessary matched with a destruction of a huge mass of air.

If you collide the cat with the horse, than one cubic inch of damaged cat flesh will match with one cubic inch of damaged horse flesh. So a smaller object colliding with a larger object with similar density, with enough force, the smaller object will get totally destroyed, yet the larger object will still have the mass of (original mass - smaller object mass).

This is the essence of Third Newton Law. In a collision, you cannot focus on the damage done to the collided object, you will have to consider the damage done to the colliding object as well.

Originally Posted by skyson
"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?

Originally Posted by c1ue
The same kind of material as stipulated by your original example.

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

OK, then I ask you again:

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

What happen then?

Originally Posted by skyson
Again, you are ignoring my original argument. 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).

Originally Posted by c1ue
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.

You still fail to understand the Third Newton Law, and my original argument.

When considering the collapse, you focus solely on the effects of collision on the lower 94 floors, yet fail to discuss the effects of collision on the upper 16 floors. If the upper floor section can destroy one floor of the lower section, then you have to see that the lower section would at the same time destroy one floor of the upper section. If this process continues, then the upper floor section will exhaust its mass before the completed destruction of the lower floor section. The collapse will stop right at 94-16 = 78 floors.

In addition, in your analysis of collapse sequence, you isolate the lower 94 floors into one single floor at a time, but consider the upper 16 floors as one integrate unit. This is selective bias. You either consider both upper and lower floor sections as individual floors or a one single unit for each. You cannot slice one object into pieces yet keep another object as a whole body.

This is the fatal flaw the Dr. Greening, Dr. Bazant, and NIST rely on in their analysis.

P.S. Please do not use "dead cat bounce" to help with your analysis. It is a financial term, not a physics phenomenon.

[c1ue]

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

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.

Given that these archived samples exist - was any attempt made to access them?

Someone making such serious accusations should be doing so. As mentioned before - the burden of proof rests on those making the wild accusations.

And again - if you postulate that evidence is being suppressed, then you automatically make your own proposition unprovable.

Even excluding the (presumably) public archived samples, there ought to be literally thousands of others available. Having only 4 seems awfully small.

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?

110 story buildings don't occur in nature. Said buildings being rammed by 767 jets is equally non-natural. Collapses of 100,000 ton objects is equally a non-normal/unnatural occurrence. What can be said is that there was enormous energies in this process - and a lot of things can happen with enormous energies.

As for expertise - are you asserting that Jones is an explosives expert?

I'm quite certain he is not. From what I can tell, he is a physicist with a purely academic background. Explosives experts that I have heard about - none of them were physicists.

Please do point out who these experts might be - because I am not aware yet of such testimony.

As for the other portions - there is NO ONE on earth with expertise on 110 story buildings being rammed by commercial jets, then collapsing. It is thus difficult to see how anyone can conclusively exclude almost anything from what might have happened - at least without a very strong and well researched chain of reasoning.

Similarly it is not unreasonable to ask that a normal scientific procedure be followed when reporting purported scientific results: i.e. falsifiability.

Any result which is attested must have all possible sources of alternate causation examined and eliminated. This has NOT been done by any of the sources you have put forward thus far.

A number of possible alternate causes for various items has been put forth, but the only response thus far is the appeal to authority fallacy - which in turn I have yet to see actual authority.

From my view I have been quite patient and open in asking for corroboration - both on the lack of falsifiability and the 'expert' side.

Instead you are saying I'm obtuse. At that point you are starting to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discourse.

[marvenger]

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

My primary point was that the building was designed for an impact by a passenger jet. I don't think we can prove anything one way or another with the information at hand. FEMA was the first to show how the towers apparently collapsed and then NIST followed with a completely different collapse sequence. Its all the missing information, the dynamics of the collapse of the 3 building bdg7 in particular defying intuitive expectation, and the fact they spent many times over more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job that makes me extremely suspicious.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

It is thus difficult to see how anyone can conclusively exclude almost anything from what might have happened - at least without a very strong and well researched chain of reasoning.

Items that require specialized machinery and processes to produce can be excluded, including Gutenberg Bibles and the super-thermetic material described in Jones paper.

Jones probably isn't a thermetic explosive material expert, but he speaks of such people he worked with in producing that paper, and the paper has been widely available for comment by anyone interested for a year or two now.

From my view I have been quite patient and open in asking for corroboration - both on the lack of falsifiability and the 'expert' side.

Instead you are saying I'm obtuse. At that point you are starting to engage in ad hominem attacks rather than discourse.

It seems to be the person, not the lack of evidence, that is the obstacle I face here. Hence my comment.

In your view,

• almost any material can be produced or found in the debris,
• any degree of explosive destruction evidenced in the videos or material destruction,
• any reports from "interested" parties rejected, and
• any reports based on limited physical evidence rejected

because we have no similar collapse for comparison.

Essentially the game you and I are playing now is that either (1) I overcome whatever arbitrarily high burden of proof that you impose, convincing you to change your mind or (2) you go away convinced you're right.

There is only one proper way to resolve this. There is a substantial body of evidence and expert witness that many significant parts of the official story are fraudulent. But given the rules of the game under which you are playing (which in my view warrant my ad hominem attack that you're being obtuse) it would be a fools game for me to attempt to present that evidence to you. You are not ready to turn an open mind to this subject; there is nothing I can do about that. The only proper way to resolve this will occur if and when you view the evidence for yourself, not looking for rhetoric to justify in your mind rejecting the evidence, but rather looking to understand what happened that day, and by implication what that tells us about the extent of evil in our government and institutions.

I wish you well in your growing understanding.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

In the earthly world, two objects with similar density, and similar shape(same aerodynamics) will fall with the same speed, and will reach the same terminal speed, regardless of their sizes.

Er eh, skyson, didn't you and I already cover that claim a few pages of posts back?

Allow me to explain this again. From Terminal Velocity (wikipedia), terminal velocity is proportional to the square root of the mass and inversely proportional to the square root of the cross section area. The mass is proportional to the volume and for spheres say the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius. The cross section area of spheres is proportional the square of the radius. So the terminal velocities of spheres of uniform material are proportional to the square root of the radius.

We know this from practical experience. Sufficiently small steel balls float on the slightest updraft like dust; they don't fall like cannon balls.

I read what you write as claiming that all steel balls (for a specific density of steel) have the same terminal velocity, regardless of size. I disagree with my reading of your comments.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

... makes me extremely suspicious.

You're not the only one who is suspicious.

Some of the 9/11 Commission members are suspicious, including Max Cleland, Bob Kerry, Lee Hamilton, John Farmer, and Tim Roemer. See further 9/11 Commission Members Doubt Official Story.

Various senior intelligence officers, congressmen and other government officials are suspicious. See further Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous.

Former Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura is suspicious. See further Jesse Ventura claims gov’t involved in 9/11.

Japanese Diet member Yukihisa Fujita is suspicious. See further Lawmaker takes 9/11 doubts global (Japan Times).

Various professionals are suspicious. See further:

• Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
• Firefighters for 9/11 Truth
• Lawyers for 9/11 Truth
• Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth
• Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth
• Patriots Question 9/11
• Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth
• Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice
• Scientists - Journal of 9/11 Studies
• Researchers - Complete 911 Timeline

Thanks to 911Truth.org for the above list of professional "truther" sites.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Given that these archived samples exist - was any attempt made to access them?

Someone making such serious accusations should be doing so. As mentioned before - the burden of proof rests on those making the wild accusations.

Exactly.

So tell me again why NIST, FEMA and the 9/11 Commission did not test for explosives? They surely had access to far greater quantities of dust and debris samples than any outsider. The burden of proof rests on those making the wild accusation that no explosives were involved in the WTC collapses.

[c1ue]

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

There is only one proper way to resolve this. There is a substantial body of evidence and expert witness that many significant parts of the official story are fraudulent. But given the rules of the game under which you are playing (which in my view warrant my ad hominem attack that you're being obtuse) it would be a fools game for me to attempt to present that evidence to you. You are not ready to turn an open mind to this subject; there is nothing I can do about that.

If you wish to continue your ad hominem accusations, then so be it.

Every assertion you have made, I have followed through and examined.

In my view, the questions and alternative causes I have posed after each step are quite reasonable.

It seems more to the point that you don't respect my lack of agreement with your belief.

This last round is an excellent example: you assert 'explosives experts' say that the thermitic material found by Dr. Jones must be man made. Yet the paper does not prove any such claim - it merely states that it doesn't think there can be another cause other than human manufacture.

This is exactly equivalent to the AGW claim that human induced global warming via CO2 must exist because no other possibility has been found.

All I asked was who these experts were and what exactly there testimony is. I did not see this in the paper, nor in any of the links you've provided.

In fact I have seen a list of 'top government and military officials' whom are suspicious of the WTC events in one of the links provided (or ancillary) - but at least half of them are of the belief that the government knew of the plot and failed to act.

This possibility is quite real, and the incompetence/disbelief of government agencies in this aspect is equally believable. In turn, the ability of the government to cover up an intelligence oversight is equally possible/plausible.

But I did not recall a single one of these 'top government and military officials' who espouse the nano-thermite theory.

Finally as to logic and experience on what might be possible in a high-energy environment - consider why high energy colliders are used to find exotic particles: the high energies involved cause all sorts of potentially unusual situations to arise which may reveal things not normally ever findable in Nature.

Extending such a high energy environment from particles to aggregations of materials - it is not at all unreasonable IMO for equally unusual amalgamations to occur.

For example: 767 slams into WTC superstructure, leaving a smear of aluminum over a long swath of iron I-bars. In the ensuing collapse, these I-bars are ground partly into powder as they tumble through a mix of concrete and other bits of the WTC.

Or: 767 slams into WTC, dumping 15000 gallons of jet fuel. Fuel ignites, melting portions of the 767's structure. Molten aluminum squirts around, drips down, and coats portions of the WTC steel superstructure. The ensuing collapse causes portions of this WTC superstructure to disintegrate into small parts.

There is an entire train of thought examining the possibility of aluminum melting and/or burning, including pics of an Air France jet which burned after sliding along the ground much less colliding with a steel building:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

And this same link also shows pics which depict sagging of the external WTC columns - if the external columns were sagging WITHOUT a fire, is it so strange that the internal structure was deforming as well?

wtc sag column pic.jpg

You'll note that column are sagging in 2 different directions, so it is impossible that this is due purely to the initial collision.

This type of behavior is very consistent, however, with a thesis of weakening due to high temperature (not melting): specifically that metals lose 50% of strength at 60% of melting temperature.

So again, whatever your thoughts on nano-thermite, there does seem to be evidence of alternative reasons for the collapse.

For that matter this pic also seems to show the aluminum cladding of the WTC in close conjunction with the external WTC steel superstructure. As there was a huge surface area of this cladding, again the possibilities for some type of interaction during the collapse or during the burning exist.

[flintlock]

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

My primary point was that the building was designed for an impact by a passenger jet. I don't think we can prove anything one way or another with the information at hand. FEMA was the first to show how the towers apparently collapsed and then NIST followed with a completely different collapse sequence. Its all the missing information, the dynamics of the collapse of the 3 building bdg7 in particular defying intuitive expectation, and the fact they spent many times over more money investigating Bill Clinton's blow job that makes me extremely suspicious.

I find the chance Monica Lewinsky was a virgin better odds.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

you assert 'explosives experts' say that the thermitic material found by Dr. Jones must be man made

I don't recall saying that.

In fact I have seen a list of 'top government and military officials' whom are suspicious of the WTC events in one of the links provided (or ancillary) - but at least half of them are of the belief that the government knew of the plot and failed to act.

Yes, there are many theories for what happened that day, which complicates our efforts to understand.

if the external columns were sagging WITHOUT a fire,

You mean some of the external columns where parts of the initial colliding plane ejected and that big fire ball of exploding fuel occurred, blasting outward from the building at the time of the plane impact?

Finally as to logic and experience on what might be possible in a high-energy environment - consider why high energy colliders are used to find exotic particles: the high energies involved cause all sorts of potentially unusual situations to arise which may reveal things not normally ever findable in Nature.

I don't see much relevance between examples of exotic (though naturally occurring) subatomic particles created by collisions at major fractions of the speed of light and examples of macro materials with fine detail and extraordinary properties never seen except in some recent advanced thermite explosive manufacture created by subsonic collisions.

[Ghent12]

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

I don't see much relevance between examples of exotic (though naturally occurring) subatomic particles created by collisions at major fractions of the speed of light and examples of macro materials with fine detail and extraordinary properties never seen except in some recent advanced thermite explosive manufacture created by subsonic collisions.

Energy is a function of mass, displacement squared (or area), and the inverse of time squared. Enormous energy doesn't care if you get there with enormous velocity squared or with enormous mass. Other aspects of physics occasionally care, but this begs the question of how this "nanothermite" was even made.

Was it made by painstaking process, assembling it in ultra-tiny batches on a nanoscopic scale? Was it made in a manner which even allowed the existence of the many tons supposedly used? Wouldn't it take decades of dedicated manufacturing just to produce enough? If it was made in such a manner as to allow mass production, how was it made? Were large amounts of energy used, along with elemental aluminum and iron? Your theory leaves open more questions than it supposedly answers.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

So, tell me c1ue, is there -any- physical evidence that could be found in the dust and fine debris that escaped the WTC campus itself that day which you would find convincing evidence of deliberate human destructive activity, and not just a possible accidentally produced product of the plane collision and resulting fires and building destruction?

Or, to put it quite another way, if the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 Commission reports had all included detailed and explicit analysis of similar thermetic material found in the dust and had all concluded without hesitation that this was human manufactured explosive material, would you have any doubts of their conclusions?

Earlier you criticized Prof. Jones for not being "disinterested." Whom would you find to be suitably disinterested? Certainly FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission are not disinterested. They have clearly all taken the side of the establishment which some of us truthers are accusing of one of the more outrageous false flag operations in human history. They are very interested parties.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

this begs the question of how this "nanothermite" was even made.

I do not know how to manufacture nanothermite.

Perhaps you could research the matter and report back to us?

I am confident from what I have read and reported here that that material found in the WTC dust is the same sort of material as the U.S. military has recently learned to manufacture as especially energetic, explosive thermite.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Enormous energy doesn't care if you get there with enormous velocity squared or with enormous mass.

It takes more than sufficient energy to get something done. Enormous energy has been converted at Hoover Dam in my lifetime, and not a single $100 bill has shown up in my sock drawer as a direct result. Our sun has converted enough mass to energy in the time I spent writing this response to power human civilization for the rest of time (just a wild guess here) but we're still worried about peak oil.

[c1ue]

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

You mean some of the external columns where parts of the initial colliding plane ejected and that big fire ball of exploding fuel occurred, blasting outward from the building at the time of the plane impact?

Quite true, but does this mean significant structural weakening of the WTC did or did not occur? If the structure was deformed at the opposite end of the WTC from the entry point, it seems logical that damage would have occurred throughout the plane's path as well.

Clearly this wasn't enough in and of itself to cause a collapse, but it certainly means a weakening of the WTC structure on that floor. The burning jet fuel then had much less structure to weaken in order for a collapse to begin.

Does this then mean that a collapse could have happened due to natural causes?

So, tell me c1ue, is there -any- physical evidence that could be found in the dust and fine debris that escaped the WTC campus itself that day which you would find convincing evidence of deliberate human destructive activity, and not just a possible accidentally produced product of the plane collision and resulting fires and building destruction?

There are plenty:

1) The remains of some sort of detonation device: be it fuse, cord, anomalous remote signaling device, whatever

2) The presence of something which cannot possibly be part of the WTC: uranium, fulminate of mercury, or some such.

3) Some sort of definitive proof of systematic explosive emplacement activity. One of the 9/11 conspirators renting a U-Haul for 3 months and a video of this truck going into the WTC garage, for example.

4) Video evidence for which there can be no other possible explanation. Merely flying bits of WTC building don't in and of themselves mean much.

5) Pieces of WTC structure cut or deformed by some explosive effect which clearly is different than the collapse/collision mechanism. The angled cuts, for example, which were later shown to have been done by WTC cleanup crews.

I merely point out that the arguments are circular: evidence cannot be corroborated by government and archived samples because government is corrupted.

How then can anyone prove or disprove the nano-thermite theory?

Normal scientific procedure is the opposite: to systematically categorize all other effects, then to deduce ways to distinguish these other effects from the one being examined.

Science doesn't operate by saying: this is the only way this could have happened because we say so. Unless you are a climate scientist.

Or, to put it quite another way, if the NIST, FEMA and 9/11 Commission reports had all included detailed and explicit analysis of similar thermetic material found in the dust and had all concluded without hesitation that this was human manufactured explosive material, would you have any doubts of their conclusions?

I don't actually care about the agencies' themselves, what I look at are the explanations. I have yet to see something in the final reports of these agencies which is not at least plausible and possible.

In Sherlock Holmes' terms: there is no dog that didn't bark

Does this mean I think the NIST, FEMA, and other reports are 100% right?

No, it does not.

But in the absence of compelling evidence, I just accept it as close enough and move on.

I believe I have tried to objectively assess the evidence for nano-thermite, and equally have not seen compelling evidence thus far.

For that matter - the link I posted above includes a section of Perl code which is supposed to calculate the amount of energy liberated by falling bits of WTC building.

The numbers I got out of it were very very large.