British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[ThePythonicCow]

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

1) The trace substances associated with thermite are not present. This was presented in the earlier threads

I don't know which thread presented that claim. I do see a couple of iTulip threads presenting information that there was thermite found in WTC dust:

• British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11
• New Thermite?

You might recognize the first thread listed above. It's this present thread.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

If you can picture yourself catching any 15 kg object with a rigid, standing-tall shoulder from a height of 10 feet, you might get the gist.

What caused an entire floor to disappear or deconstruct, going from supporting enormous weight via many steel beams to providing roughly zero vertical support, uniformly, across the entire large floor, in a few tenths of a second, so that the upper portion of the building could drop at roughly free fall speeds on the lower portion across that 10 feet gap.

[seanm123]

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

Pretty good job of pissing off a 9/11 witness with family who works for the Port Authority. Question, where is the one single corroborating witness to this explosive story after nearly nine years?

FYI, there was 2 million feet of fiber-optic cable hooked up to hundreds of security cameras, access control on most doors, 110 security card turnstiles, and plenty of systems integration to remote sites all guarded by the Port Authority Police which was fully responsible for the security of the buildings. They the police and the guards worked for the Port Authority who reported at the time to the Governor of NY Pataki and Governor of NJ Schundler. They lost many officers in the attacks.

Care to discuss the funerals?

I personally know plenty of people who worked in the building and family who worked there along with their widows. There is no way after all of those funerals they would ever keep quiet.

Nobody got in and planted explosives period, find one single corroborating witness already.......I am patient, I'll wait another decade for proof......

[ThePythonicCow]

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

The Washington Post Times (about as mainstream as they come, short of perhaps the New York Times) posted the following article on Monday, Feb 22, 2010, of this week at http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t=home_columns

By Jennifer Harper INSIDE THE BELTWAY

EXPLOSIVE NEWS

A lingering technical question about the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks still haunts some, and it has political implications: How did 200,000 tons of steel disintegrate and drop in 11 seconds? A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7 at the World Trade Center.

"In order to bring down this kind of mass in such a short period of time, the material must have been artificially, exploded outwards," says Richard Gage, a San Francisco architect and founder of the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Mr. Gage, who is a member of the American Institute of Architects, managed to persuade more than 1,000 of his peers to sign a new petition requesting a formal inquiry.

"The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers' destruction. We are therefore calling for a grand jury investigation of NIST officials," Mr. Gage adds.

The technical issues surrounding the collapse of the towers has prompted years of debate, rebuttal and ridicule.

He is particularly disturbed by Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in "pure free-fall acceleration." He also says that more than 100 first-responders reported explosions and flashes as the towers were falling and cited evidence of "multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally 600 ft. at 60 mph" and the "mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking."

There is also evidence of "advanced explosive nano-thermitic composite material found in the World Trade Center dust," Mr. Gage says. The group's petition at www. ae911truth.org is already on its way to members of Congress.

"Government officials will be notified that 'Misprision of Treason,' U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act," Mr. Gage says. "The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial."

Stay tuned for more in this space.

This is more open to questioning the official story of 9/11 than I would have expected from the Washington Post Times.

I wonder where this is going. This could get interesting.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Regarding the charge of Misprison of Treason, U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18...----000-.html:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven years, or both.

[Ghent12]

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

What caused an entire floor to disappear or deconstruct, going from supporting enormous weight via many steel beams to providing roughly zero vertical support, uniformly, across the entire large floor, in a few tenths of a second, so that the upper portion of the building could drop at roughly free fall speeds on the lower portion across that 10 feet gap.

You forgot a question mark at the end of your loaded question.
1) The root cause was the time in the large fire, where the steel absorbed heat energy. This raised its temperature and therefore altered its properties, noticeably lowering its strength. I've described this as recrystallization earlier.
Now this is the point where you can point out that "no skyscraper in history..." etc. In this case, similarly, no skyscraper in history was subjected to the instantaneous onset of several large fires. Neither was any skyscraper ever before subjected to such an enormous lateral impact.
This is the cause you are looking for.
2) It was not uniform, unless you mean a different definition of the word. After the onset of collapse started in one section, new strains and stresses were quickly developed in the rest of the sections, all of which were also weakened by the raised temperature, eventually leading to collapse of the entire upper section.
The video clearly shows non-uniformity to every instance of the collapse. As a simplified model, people can say that the entire upper section struck the entire lower section, but this scale is too big to be portrayed as a simplified model. In aggregate, though, the entire upper section did "pile drive," or whatever term you wish to use, the lower section.
3) "Roughly free fall speeds" is an irrelevant term, and also misapplied. The loss of structural support into a collapse was rapid, as seen by the video, and that led to substantial initial velocity as the upper sections landed on the lower part. Free fall from 10 feet or not, such a dynamic load was more than enough to overwhelm the support.

Furthermore, the whole "free fall" issue is something which you need the integrity to examine honestly (generically; not necessarily directed at you TPC). The timing given by the conspiratorial proponents is usually the slightly more than 9 seconds for the perimeter columns to impact the ground (which were essentially traveling at free fall speed), and not for the rest of the building itself.

[skyson]

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

Okay, apparently the example I previously presented with regard to trucks is causing more confusion than clarity.

Try this one for size:
Scenario 1) A 75 kg man balances a 15 kg barbell weight on his shoulder.
Scenario 2) A 75 kg man attempts to catch (with his shoulder) a 15 kg barbell weight dropped from a height of 10 feet.
Who "wins" this one? Yes, the man is more massive, but surely you can see the point now.

Now you might say that the barbell is harder and denser than the man. Fair point, so try this one:
Scenario 1) a 75 kg man balances a 15kg baby on his shoulder.
Scenario 2) a 75 kg man attempts to catch (again, with his shoulder, no arm catch decelerating the fall as it is being caught) a 15 kg baby dropped from the height of 10 feet.
You might survive the catch. Of course, this is an imperfect analogy, because all people generally attempt to catch heavy things by moving with the object they are catching. If you can picture yourself catching any 15 kg object with a rigid, standing-tall shoulder from a height of 10 feet, you might get the gist.

I don't know what you are trying to say. But your examples have no resemblance and relevance to the real world scenario here. Now try this:

1. Place a 80 kg mud square on the ground. Drop a 10 kg mud square from 12 meter onto the the mud square on the ground.
2. Place a 10 kg mud square on the ground. Drop a 80 kg mud square from 12 meter onto the the mud square on the ground.

Try this in your backyard, and tell us your results. Thanks.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

In response to Ghent12, though I'm probably wasting my time:

You ignore my question (except to critique it's punctuation - aw shucks thanks and to label it "loaded'). I was responding to your examples of dropping weights from a height of 10 feet through air, but unless one of the floors lost all structural integrity across the entire floor in a fraction of a second, your examples are irrelevant. If part of a floor crumpled more slowly, then the portion of the tower above there did not drop quickly to build up the speeds in your example, and the rest of that floor did not simultaneously lose structural integrity during that second of alleged fall time.

There are other large skyscrapers which have had worse fires, as a simple google search will show you. See for example http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...are/fires.html The World Trade Center twin tower and building 7 fires were far from the worst.

Steel bends when hit with a force. If that force is insufficient to bend that steel past it elastic limits, then the steel returns to its original position, none the worse for the wear. If the force is sufficiently large, then the steel is permanently bent, or even broken or buckled. Were the top floors of the towers still standing straight and tall after the initial impact? Yes, they were. Therefore however great was the initial airplane impact, it did not push even an adequate supporting proportion of the structural steel on the impacted floors past their elastic limits. Moreover I cannot imagine that even FEMA or NIST or Popular Mechanics or George Bush's pet monkey would be foolish enough to claim that the steel structural members in the non-impacted floors received an initial blow anywhere close enough to cause any bending, weakening or failures of any significance whatsoever.

Your examples of dropping things on ones shoulder have a uniform lack, a complete lack, of any structural support between the dropped weight and the shoulder. Your claimed model for how those buildings fell must be pretty close to uniform. My claimed model for what happened (controlled demolition) is pretty close to uniform. About the only variation here that is not uniform is what I claim would happen, in your claimed model, if just a portion of one floor lost the ability to support the weight above it. In that event, I'd expect the upper portion to fall over and off, down to street level, leaving the largely undamaged lower portion standing tall.

There was no where close to enough heat energy produced from those fires to heat up all that steel to the point of substantially weakening the bulk of the steel in the building below the impact floors. Not even close. People were walking around and between that steel for the entire hour or two before the final collapse. People don't walk up and down stair wells entwined within massive steel girders that are many hundreds of degree hot; rather they cook, like turkey's in the oven on Thanksgiving.

[Ghent12]

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

In response to Ghent12, though I'm probably wasting my time:

You ignore my question (except to critique it's punctuation - aw shucks thanks and to label it "loaded'). I was responding to your examples of dropping weights from a height of 10 feet through air, but unless one of the floors lost all structural integrity across the entire floor in a fraction of a second, your examples are irrelevant. If part of a floor crumpled more slowly, then the portion of the tower above there did not drop quickly to build up the speeds in your example, and the rest of that floor did not simultaneously lose structural integrity during that second of alleged fall time.

I didn't ignore your question at all. As I said, "Free fall from 10 feet or not, such a dynamic load was more than enough to overwhelm the support."

There are other large skyscrapers which have had worse fires, as a simple google search will show you. See for example http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/...are/fires.html The World Trade Center twin tower and building 7 fires were far from the worst.

You evidently have not researched any of these fires, nor made any analytical comparisons to the 9/11 tragedy.

Steel bends when hit with a force. If that force is insufficient to bend that steel past it elastic limits, then the steel returns to its original position, none the worse for the wear. If the force is sufficiently large, then the steel is permanently bent, or even broken or buckled. Were the top floors of the towers still standing straight and tall after the initial impact? Yes, they were. Therefore however great was the initial airplane impact, it did not push even an adequate supporting proportion of the structural steel on the impacted floors past their elastic limits. Moreover I cannot imagine that even FEMA or NIST or Popular Mechanics or George Bush's pet monkey would be foolish enough to claim that the steel structural members in the non-impacted floors received an initial blow anywhere close enough to cause any bending, weakening or failures of any significance whatsoever.

When it comes to the subject of structures and materials, all comments from you are ignored, and rightly so. I firmly believe that you do not have enough of an understanding of this subject matter to make a well-informed opinion on said subject. You confused recrystallization with crystallizing previously, denoting a fundamental misunderstanding both of the fact that metals form crystalline structures and of the principles of temperature as it relates to hardness, strength, and toughness. I apologize if this is ad hominem, but I cannot in good faith continue this travesty of your perpetual appeal-to-ignorance fallacies when I am not ignorant of the subject material.

Your examples of dropping things on ones shoulder have a uniform lack, a complete lack, of any structural support between the dropped weight and the shoulder. Your claimed model for how those buildings fell must be pretty close to uniform. My claimed model for what happened (controlled demolition) is pretty close to uniform. About the only variation here that is not uniform is what I claim would happen, in your claimed model, if just a portion of one floor lost the ability to support the weight above it. In that event, I'd expect the upper portion to fall over and off, down to street level, leaving the largely undamaged lower portion standing tall.

There was no where close to enough heat energy produced from those fires to heat up all that steel to the point of substantially weakening the bulk of the steel in the building below the impact floors. Not even close. People were walking around and between that steel for the entire hour or two before the final collapse. People don't walk up and down stair wells entwined within massive steel girders that are many hundreds of degree hot; rather they cook, like turkey's in the oven on Thanksgiving.

I was trying to "dumb it down" to make it more well understood. Hell, try catching something that is 20% of your weight from a height of 1 foot by going "cold shoulder." Actually, don't, because it will hurt a lot unless you perform a natural reaction to lean away from the impact.

As far as heat energy is concerned, again I must ignore your comments related to this. You say, "no where near," without any justification. Heat energy is related to temperature, but it is not the same.

I can't convince you of this; this much is clear. Either you will learn the structures of materials and the physical principles behind dynamic forces or you will remain in ignorance of them. When you say, "it had to be bombs because the buildings could not have fallen from the crash and fires," you are simply wrong.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

"Free fall from 10 feet or not, such a dynamic load was more than enough to overwhelm the support."

It only overwhelms the support if it arrives at (collides with) the support at sufficient velocity. "Slightly" dynamic is not enough. It must have enough momentum (mass times velocity) to apply sufficient force over sufficient time (ft = mv) to overwhelm the support. We well know that the lower part of the building was quite capable of holding the upper part when it was static (zero velocity.) A partial or slow crumpling of just part of a floor does not create the dynamic load that dropping the upper portion across 10 feet of air creates.

You can't tell me how you can clear out an entire floor in the time (approximately one second or less) it would take the upper portion to accelerate downward at anything close to gravitational acceleration (thereby gaining the kind of velocity suggested by your examples and the various calculations of kinetic energy we've seen) because there is only one way that could be done. Explosives.

So, no, you have not answered my question with your phrase "Free fall from 10 feet or not" because that "or not" is unrelated to and unsubstantiated by any of the rest of your remarks.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

You evidently have not researched any of these fires, nor made any analytical comparisons to the 9/11 tragedy.

I take you have done that analysis then. Excellent. May we learn your results?

I have done this much. I've seen and read that those fires burned longer, over more stories, with more flaming, than we had at the World Trade Center towers. I've read architects and engineers who design such buildings state that what we see in these other fires is what we should expect -- hydrocarbon fires don't bring down steel frame skyscrapers. I've read demolition experts state that what happened with the three World Trade Center buildings is what happens due to demolitions using explosives and that they know of no other way to bring down a building in the manner that those three buildings came down, without the use of explosives. I've read reports of those explosives being found in the dust collected after the collapse.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

You say, "no where near," without any justification. Heat energy is related to temperature, but it is not the same.

The justification was in plain sight in what I wrote. The temperatures were sufficiently cool that people could walk around within the center column stairwells that were surrounded by the core column steel girders. That caps the temperatures somewhere in the 100 to 200 degrees Fahrenheit range, which is what one would expect in a high rise fire in the upper stories of a skyscraper. The heat travels mostly upward and the lower stories sufficiently removed from the fire don't heat up noticeably.

The question is not heat energy, but heat energy per unit of steel mass. If I put a thousand BTU's of energy into a one gram short section of fine wire, it vaporizes the wire quickly. If I put a billion BTU's of energy into 300,000 tons of room temperature steel, it raises the temperature of the steel a degree or two I suppose with no damage to the steel.

Yes, heat energy is not the same as temperature. But it is the temperature of the metal that determines how much it is weakened.

Answer this for me:

How hot (temperature) do you think that the metal in the steel girders in the lower 40 stories of either tower got, prior to collapse?

Either you will answer "hot" (several hundred degrees or above) and I will say you're wrong per the above, or you will answer "not very" (not too hot for humans to be exposed to for prolonged times) and I will say then that steel did not weaken.

I honestly cannot tell, past your arrogant insults, which you will say. But neither answer can possibly be correct and explain the failure. I don't need a degree in recrystallization to know that much.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

The following youtube video does a good job of showing and describing what I see when I view video's of the towers falling:

[Ghent12]

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

The following youtube video does a good job of showing and describing what I see when I view video's of the towers falling:

If you really believe him, then I hope you donated to him because so few else have. One thing you can count on about conspiracy theorists is that they are more willing than the average person to donate generously to causes they zealously believe in. Hence Alex Jones.

Here's a youtube video that ridicules the likes of the video you posted. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55nQ0...layer_embedded

In all seriousness, do you honestly believe everything stated in that video you posted? Since all it showed was 10 seconds of footage, yet its claims extend beyond that particular 10 seconds, it loses credibility instantly. In particular, take note of that guy's question of "where is the pile driver?" You can answer that one for yourself--if you view more video than the same 10 seconds repeatedly. So I ask you, TPC, "where is the pile driver?"

Back to sarcasm...
Now let's talk about explosions. What were those clearly visible explosive blasts of air coming from seemingly below the point of impact all the way down? What caused them? Obviously they were pre-explosions, designed to blow out the corner windows to reduce the structural support provided by them. The real explosions happened later as the video denoted clear evidence of steel girders flying outward at high speed, which did not happen during the pre-explosions (those being designed to blow out windows exclusively). So what you have here is a multi-layered, all floor demolition initiated after the onset of global collapse of the upper section. It's so clear to me now... :rolleyes:
And don't get me started with building 7. Granted, the firefighters evacuated it for a long time before its charges were finally detonated citing concerns that it would eventually collapse on its own, but it was obvious that in spite of the 20-story gaping hole in it and the multi-floor rampant fires were not enough to bring it down. Firefighters know nothing of the risks of buildings that are on fire and have suffered structural damage, or of their potential to collapse after all...:rolleyes:

[Ghent12]

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

The following youtube video does a good job of showing and describing what I see when I view video's of the towers falling:

If you really believe him, then I hope you donated to him because so few else have. One thing you can count on about conspiracy theorists is that they are more willing than the average person to donate generously to causes they zealously believe in. Hence Alex Jones. There are just so many begging for so much money, and while the zealots may be willing, they are often not always able...

Here's a youtube video that ridicules the likes of the video you posted.


In all seriousness, do you honestly believe everything stated in that video you posted? Since all it showed was 10 seconds of footage, yet its claims extend beyond that particular 10 seconds, it loses credibility instantly. In particular, take note of that guy's question of "where is the pile driver?" You can answer that one for yourself--if you view more video than the same 10 seconds repeatedly. So I ask you, TPC, "where is the pile driver?"

Back to sarcasm...
Now let's talk about explosions. What were those clearly visible explosive blasts of air coming from seemingly below the point of impact all the way down? What caused them? Obviously they were pre-explosions, designed to blow out the corner windows to reduce the structural support provided by them. The real explosions happened later as the video denoted clear evidence of steel girders flying outward at high speed, which did not happen during the pre-explosions (those being designed to blow out windows exclusively). So what you have here is a multi-layered, all floor demolition initiated after the onset of global collapse of the upper section. It's so clear to me now... :rolleyes:
And don't get me started with building 7. Granted, the firefighters evacuated it for a long time before its charges were finally detonated citing concerns that it would eventually collapse on its own, but it was obvious that in spite of the 20-story gaping hole in it and the multi-floor rampant fires were not enough to bring it down. Firefighters know nothing of the risks of buildings that are on fire and have suffered structural damage, or of their potential to collapse after all...:rolleyes: