British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[lakedaemonian]

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

It is true that most demolitions are done bottom up (as WTC 7 apparently was done), and sequenced so as to minimize the explosives needed. WTC 1 & 2 blew top down, and used more explosives than a normal demolition would have used, resulting in more damage to nearby buildings and in greater (and finer) dust volumes in lower Manhattan.

I'm qualified to handle and use explosives through course qualification, formal instruction and operational use that might be relevant to this conversation. I do not claim to be a subject matter expert just pointing out a few things that seem to be in direct opposition to the "conspiracy theory inside job" perspective.

Based on that experience I would ask the following questions:

1.) The amount of explosives required to drop the WTC would be massive, with an equally massive amount of explosive chemical residue that could be tested for everywhere......where was it?

2.) Where is the residual physical rubbish? IE if electric detonators were supposedly used, where are they? Same for the det cord casing? Same for NONEL non-electrics if supposedly used? I have yet to see a single use of even a small amount of explosives in any setting that does not leave blatantly obvious "sign" both chemical and physical.

3.) Not so much a question as an opinion. From a practical perspective, the logistics of covertly placing sufficient explosives to drop those buildings is simply off the charts. And the likelihood of being able to effectively manage the unintended consequences approaches absolute zero. Just have a look at Israel and the debacle they face with the assassination of one terrorist in Dubai recently.....we often give far too much credit where it isn't due in terms of national covert capabilities.

With the thousands upon thousands of cleanup workers involved surely massive amounts of chemical and physical detonation "litter" would have been found....that's where it begins and ends for me.

This is my first and last discussion on any WTC conspiracies......I think our time is better spent on the "alignment of interests" against the best interests of Joe 6 Pack.

I blame Robert Ludlum and Ian Fleming........

[ThePythonicCow]

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

1.) The amount of explosives required to drop the WTC would be massive, with an equally massive amount of explosive chemical residue that could be tested for everywhere......where was it?

So you find the "zero explosives" theory more convincing?

Allow me to repeat this; something doesn't add up in your reply so I must be missing something.

You're saying the building wasn't dropped by explosives because it would have taken a massive amount of them, so it must have fallen due to no explosives whatsoever.

As to where the chemical residue is, that's been found. See further Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (The Open Chemical Physics Journal - 2009). A "simplified summary" of this paper can be found at Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple.

There are some experts in this matter who have determined that explosives were required to accomplish what happened on 9/11. See for example 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11.

I notice that you have expertise in this area, however the doubts that you raise today seem to be the usual skepticism of (1) it would be too big a job to pull off and (2) where's the evidence?

By the way, if this would have been too big a job for some major government(s) to pull off, how is it that 19 men in an Afghan cave (I'm being imprecise here, but hopefully my meaning is clear) managed to do it?

For a few other whistleblowers (not all of them still alive) see A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers.

In my view, the real issue in many people's minds, and perhaps in your mind, is that surely it must be impossible for evil acts on such a grand scale to be accomplished by our own governments, institutions and leaders.

The answer to that is exactly why the matter of 9/11 is not a waste of our time. Such grand acts of evil are possible, can and do happen, and our (strong and instinctive) denial of such facts makes proper understanding of our circumstances and proper planning for our future actions neigh on impossible. This is why a proper understanding of 9/11 is the linchpin to our survival as a free people.

The sociological study of how such grand acts of evil can be understood can be pursued in the February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, which issue is entirely devoted to state crimes against democracy (SCAD's). A psychological study of such grand evil can be found by searching the web for the subject "ponerology".

2.) Where is the residual physical rubbish? IE if electric detonators were supposedly used, where are they?

The physical evidence was mostly destroyed without allowing a proper investigation. This destruction of evidence is discussed for example in the recent speech FireFighter Eric Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation". See also Firefighters for 911 Truth.

A brief survey of some of the evidence can be found at Evidence: The Destruction of the World Trade Center.

3.) Not so much a question as an opinion. From a practical perspective, the logistics of covertly placing sufficient explosives to drop those buildings is simply off the charts.

With the thousands upon thousands of cleanup workers involved surely massive amounts of chemical and physical detonation "litter" would have been found....that's where it begins and ends for me.

See my above comments.

This is my first and last discussion on any WTC conspiracies.

Well, thanks for dropping by.

Guess you didn't really want to discuss answers to your questions after all, huh?

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Your continued belief in this is not indicative of deductive reasoning.

Your continued heavy use of scorn, ridicule and insult is not conducive to trust or fruitful discussion.

Have a good day.

[lakedaemonian]

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

So you find the "zero explosives" theory more convincing?

Allow me to repeat this; something doesn't add up in your reply so I must be missing something.

You're saying the building wasn't dropped by explosives because it would have taken a massive amount of them, so it must have fallen due to no explosives whatsoever.

As to where the chemical residue is, that's been found. See further Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe (The Open Chemical Physics Journal - 2009). A "simplified summary" of this paper can be found at Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple.

There are some experts in this matter who have determined that explosives were required to accomplish what happened on 9/11. See for example 29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11.

I notice that you have expertise in this area, however the doubts that you raise today seem to be the usual skepticism of (1) it would be too big a job to pull off and (2) where's the evidence?

By the way, if this would have been too big a job for some major government(s) to pull off, how is it that 19 men in an Afghan cave (I'm being imprecise here, but hopefully my meaning is clear) managed to do it?

For a few other whistleblowers (not all of them still alive) see A Guide to the 9/11 Whistleblowers.

In my view, the real issue in many people's minds, and perhaps in your mind, is that surely it must be impossible for evil acts on such a grand scale to be accomplished by our own governments, institutions and leaders.

The answer to that is exactly why the matter of 9/11 is not a waste of our time. Such grand acts of evil are possible, can and do happen, and our (strong and instinctive) denial of such facts makes proper understanding of our circumstances and proper planning for our future actions neigh on impossible. This is why a proper understanding of 9/11 is the linchpin to our survival as a free people.

The sociological study of how such grand acts of evil can be understood can be pursued in the February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, which issue is entirely devoted to state crimes against democracy (SCAD's). A psychological study of such grand evil can be found by searching the web for the subject "ponerology".

The physical evidence was mostly destroyed without allowing a proper investigation. This destruction of evidence is discussed for example in the recent speech FireFighter Eric Lawyer Slams NIST And The 9/11 "Investigation". See also Firefighters for 911 Truth.

A brief survey of some of the evidence can be found at Evidence: The Destruction of the World Trade Center.


See my above comments.

Well, thanks for dropping by.

Guess you didn't really want to discuss answers to your questions after all, huh?

No offense, but you seem to be completely lacking in the ability to win friends and influence people.

If you are attempting to develop buy-in for your perspective that is usually best achieved by attracting rather than repelling people to your particular point of view.

Just some constructive feedback.

Back on topic,

As stated, I'm no subject matter expert, but I do know a little bit and I know that Thermite or known Thermite-like incendiary/cutting/demolition tools to the best of my knowledge are much harder to work with than explosives.

Is it theoretically possible to use Thermite to covertly destroy multiple buildings?

Many things are theoretically possible.

Is it likely or even unlikely to have occurred as you describe? Probably not.

Think about it from a different angle.

Hypothetically, what if it WAS a conspiracy?

What if the 19 guys who downed 4 planes, 2.02 buildings, dug a big hole in Pennsylvania and took approx. 3000 lives was one big stage managed intelligence operation much like the very real ISI stage managed slaughter in Mumbai a little over a year ago.

Why would they then complicate things and increase their risk a whole level of magnitude greater by prepping to demo 2 of the targeted buildings where the risk of operational compromise and the vastly increased number of personnel in the loop would have to expand exponentially?

And that's without a commensurate increase in potential reward to justify the staggering increase in risk of operational compromise.

Look at what's just happened with the alleged Israeli hit on just one A-hole in Dubai....voluntarily or involuntarily compromised across the board...on a scale of 1 to 1000, with the alleged Israeli hit in Dubai being a 1, the events on 9/11 would be approx. eleventeen thousand with a margin of error or 2-3 percent.

This is the real world.....not some horrifically complex Bondian cliffhanger with laser armed sharks.

Just my 0.02c

[ThePythonicCow]

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

No offense, but you seem to be completely lacking in the ability to win friends and influence people.

Well, I do ok (for a cow) on other topics. But this topic is a minefield.

Thanks however for the warm response :rolleyes:.

[cjppjc]

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

Well, I do ok (for a cow) on other topics. But this topic is a minefield.

Thanks however for the warm response :rolleyes:.

You are well liked for sure. But you are one stubborn cow.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Why would they then complicate things and increase their risk a whole level of magnitude greater by prepping to demo 2 of the targeted buildings

(I think it was 3 buildings, not 2, that they demolished.)

Perhaps they did the demolitions in order to get the buildings to actually fall ??

By the way, really really Big Lies are easier in some ways than ordinary assassinations of one relatively unknown person. Most folks simply refuse to believe the Big Lie, regardless of the evidence.

Apparently you yourself are an exception to this however. Since you have not responded to any of the points or evidence in my previous long reply, I take it that you now agree with me and understand what really happened on 9/11. Congratulations and Welcome.

(Yes, I am being a tad sarcastic. But so were you, as I trust you are aware, when you labeled your feedback "constructive" and of "no offense.")

[Ghent12]

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

By the way, if this would have been too big a job for some major government(s) to pull off, how is it that 19 men in an Afghan cave (I'm being imprecise here, but hopefully my meaning is clear) managed to do it?

They didn't. They didn't plant enormous amounts of explosives. They hijacked airplanes and crashed them into the buildings.

Why do so many conspiracy theorists raise such obvious appeal to ignorance fallacies? Any critical thought would instantly vaporize most of these claims.

Just take the example you posted, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, and read the opening paragraph. "We are asked to believe that kerosene melted steel," and other tripe. Such an obviously fraudulent claim.

The same strain of logical fallacies flow from most of the websites you post. The authors of your favored "scientific" evidence of nano-thermite have been discredited. Steve Jones' article, for example, is "peer reviewed" alright, in a political journal; not by civil engineers or someone from his own field, physics.

Yeah, it may be critical to understand the possibility of false flag attacks and so forth. In this case though, you have no credible evidence for the attacks of 9/11 being one.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

The same strain of logical fallacies flow from most of the websites you post

Excellent response. Thank-you.

You have succinctly demonstrated why I have mostly resisted providing links to websites in this thread, until that one post of mine.

If I don't provide links, then only I am attacked. If I do provide them, then the linked sites are attacked as well, complicating the matter for anyone seriously trying to understand this event.

I observed earlier that we were sufficiently far apart that useful discourse was quite unlikely. I should have followed the implications of that observation when I made it.

I should probably tune this thread out for now. The thread has become sufficiently trashed with bad vibes that there is zero chance it will lead anyone to a better understanding.

If that was your purpose, you have succeeded.

If that was not your (conscious) purpose, then I submit you don't know your own motives.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

But you are one stubborn cow.

[c1ue]

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

Here's one item I recently listened to. It has the radio chatter of fire and rescue in WTC2 in the last few minutes before it fell. Certainly the building was no raging inferno at least up to about floor 78.

The link is interesting but unconvincing. The planes struck well above floor 78, and furthermore the transcripts of victims shows a delineation around Floor 90 (plane impact). These same transcripts also show a consistency: smoke, stairs down blocked or impassable, etc. for those above floor 95 vs. some smoke and/or blockages for those from 85 to 95.

Given this, firefighting running up to floor 78 is quite consistent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/26/ny...fa551d&ei=5070

I browsed briefly through a few other 9/11 'bomb' theory sites - including one which postulated a coordinated terrorist radio detonation bombing of the buildings plus the plane impacts - but all of them rely heavily on trying to show how the fires could not have weakened the beams.

The coordinated plot one in particular points to fires in Venezuela and Spain as examples of how very hot fires were withstood by buildings.

Yet these examples are poor. The 2 buildings in question are significantly different in structure than the WTC 1 & 2:

Windor Building in Madrid: 32 stories

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...fire_2005.html

Venezuela: 50 stories

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...uela_fire.html

But both of these fires were due to contents igniting - neither jet fuel nor physical impact was involved. Both fires also started at or near the top, and in the former case there was an actual collapse of the top 6 floors despite all the differences.

You've also not responded as to why there is no evidence of aluminum oxide nor barium nitrate - characteristic evidence of thermate combustion - as opposed to other materials which are quite conceivably from other sources in the WTC buildings. I suppose this was suppressed as well?

In fact it is exactly this intellectual slackness of conspiracy theory (i.e. evidence suppression) which makes it difficult to explore: both sides basically are reduced to trying to prove an absence which is impossible.

So to steal a page from another discussion - the climate change one - what would have to happen in order to falsify the WTC 'bomb' conspiracy theory?

For me, a falsification of the existing WTC collapse explanation could come in several ways:

1) A credible witness: i.e. someone in the coverup speaks up and present evidence
2) An experiment or precedent where a top 1/4 or 1/3 structural break in a 'space frame' type building does NOT lead to a collapse
3) Evidence of a bomb - chemical and with a plausible percentage exclusive of materials already in the WTC buildings, fuse bits, detonator bits, etc etc

I'm sure you can think of others...

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Again, the assumption made (based on a 4 samples of unscientific provenance) is that a thermitic material was present. Well, this thermitic material is a combination of elemental aluminum and rust - both materials abundant in either the WTC building structure or the planes.

The second assumption is that this combination cannot occur by any means other than fabrication. The collapse of a 110 story building apparently cannot provide the energy to create a 1/10 of a millimeter sized bit of iron rust and aluminum - much less the impact of a 767 airplane filled with jet fuel into a steel framed building.

The next assumption is that some other material was used to set off the thermitic reaction which is 'covered up' or undetectable: the material requires at least 370 degree heat in order to start its reaction. Where are these detonators?

The last assumption is that somehow these bits of nano-thermite were blown free as opposed to consumed by the blaze. But thermite isn't explosive, it is simply very hot and relatively burning. How do chips get thrown off by a thermitic burn?

[ThePythonicCow]

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

You've also not responded as to why there is no evidence of aluminum oxide nor barium nitrate - characteristic evidence of thermate combustion - as opposed to other materials which are quite conceivably from other sources in the WTC buildings. I suppose this was suppressed as well?

Well, as best the officials could, -all- physical evidence was suppressed or kept from independent analysis. Most of the evidence was thrown out or destroyed by recycling.

So far as I am aware, -all- physical evidence available for independent analysis lacks a proper and legal chain of custody from the scene of the collapsed buildings. That's just how it is. If that is a sine qua non for your trusting the analysis, then you are in much the same position as the global warming proponents who will only trust peer reviewed literature from the IPCC.

My readings just now (google search for 'thermate barium nitrate') inform me that barium nitrate is not present in some forms of thermate. However the Jones paper (available at
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe) does claim that aluminum and trace elements of barium were found.

CONCLUSIONS

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:

1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
4. Iron oxide appears in faceted grains roughly 100 nm across whereas the aluminum appears in thin platelike structures. The small size of the iron oxide particles qualifies the material to be characterized as nanothermite or super-thermite.
5. Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not.
6. From the presence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide in the red material, we conclude that it contains the ingredients of thermite.
7. As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.
8. After igniting several red/gray chips in a DSC run to 700 °C, we found numerous iron-rich spheres and spheroids in the residue, indicating that a very high temperature reaction had occurred, since the iron-rich product clearly must have been molten to form these shapes. In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction.
9. The spheroids produced by the DSC tests and by the flame test have an XEDS signature (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) which is depleted in carbon and aluminum relative to the original red material. This chemical signature strikingly matches the chemical signature of the spheroids produced by igniting commercial thermite, and also matches the signatures of many of the microspheres found in the WTC dust [5].
10. The carbon content of the red material indicates that an organic substance is present. This would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive. The nature of the organic material in these chips merits further exploration. We note that it is likely also an energetic material, in that the total energy release sometimes observed in DSC tests exceeds the theoretical maximum energy of the classic thermite reaction.

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

I did not respond to questions in this area earlier because this is not a subject I have mastered sufficiently to speak with confident accuracy.

Do take a look however at the images of the pre-ignited material, as shown at a site I already linked above (Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple). We not just discussing relative proportions of elements in combusted material here. The images show clearly manufactured materials, and the analysis of these materials reveals, by composition and by properties (they actually explode, as noted in the CONCLUSIONS I quote just above), that these are high explosives. Here are a couple of those images:

[ThePythonicCow]

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

The link is interesting but unconvincing. The planes struck well above floor 78

That link, to the pre-collapse radio chatter in WTC2, tells me that there was not a raging inferno below floor 78. I quite agree that it tells me more or less nothing about was happening above that floor.

I conclude from this link, and other evidence including video of the building from the outside that WTC2 was not on fire or seriously damaged much below the floors of impact (floor 78 or whatever it was) prior to WTC2 collapse. Other buildings (WTC1, 6 or 7, in particular) might have sustained serious damage at lower levels following the collapse of WTC2, but WTC2 collapsed first, so has no such extenuating circumstance.

I remain certain that 78 stories of more or less intact, undamaged (except by pre-collapse explosions in the lower floors, a topic for another day) and near-atmospheric temperature steel and concrete do not convert to a huge dust cloud in ten seconds without the aid of some substantial amount of explosives.

This radio chatter is just one of the pieces of evidence to the state of the building, below the impact floors, prior to collapse.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Yet these examples are poor. The 2 buildings in question are significantly different in structure than the WTC 1 & 2:

There are insufficient number of steel framed high rise fires or collapses to provide an exact match to the WTC twin towers. There is nothing I can do (since I lack the funds to build a few WTC twin towers and 'crash test' them) about this limitation.

Numerous experts I have read (yup -- no links at hand -- sorry) have stated that this is generally the case however. Petro and carbon based fires, whether from jet fuel (kerosene) or office furnishings and materials, don't sufficiently heat steel to the point of sudden catastrophic collapse and dustification of the entire building, including massive amounts of structure essentially undamaged right up to the ten seconds of total collapse.

You state further:

in the former case there was an actual collapse of the top 6 floors despite all the differences.

I take it that the "former case" refers to the Madrid fire, right?

I have not found where it was documented that the top 6 floors collapsed, but on the link you provide for the Madrid fire, it does state:

The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes. Everything else was burned away.

Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof.

I must not be correctly understanding your point here.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Well, this thermitic material is a combination of elemental aluminum and rust - both materials abundant in either the WTC building structure or the planes.

See the images I posted a couple posts back.

We're talking about the physical properties of pre-ignited finely structured materials, not just the elemental chemical composition of the resulting amorphous dust.