British Institute of Nanotechnology: Military Involved in 9/11

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Where are these detonators?

Beats me.

Given that no material from the collapse site has been available for independent analysis, I would not expect however that any such detonators would be publicly available.

For that matter, I don't know enough about these sorts of explosives to know if detonators of the sort usually used in demolitions were even used here. Perhaps there exist other technologies for setting this stuff off. I have no expertise in this area.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

The last assumption is that somehow these bits of nano-thermite were blown free as opposed to consumed by the blaze.

There was no blaze below the impact floors.

There may also have been other explosives or such material involved, besides the thermate documented by Jones, et al. I don't know.

Something imparted a massive amount of explosive energy into those two towers in the space of ten seconds, and something dropped WTC7 in the manner of a classic bottom up demolition in the space of eight seconds.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

I browsed briefly through a few other 9/11 'bomb' theory sites

I'm presently finding the following site to be a good read:

• http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/index.html
• http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal...ies/index.html
• http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._scenario.html

[c1ue]

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

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:

The abstract of the paper in question does not provide the detail on exactly the size of the sample - other sources apparently related to a similar (if not the same) paper refer to exactly 4 samples.

For something which is touted as ubiquitous in the WTC collapse dust, it should be a lot more common.

As for the images - there are lots of ways they could have formed. As I mentioned previously - an aluminum jet liner flying at 500 mph and impacting a steel frame, lots of things can happen with those types of energies involved.

A question to ask is how exactly would such a structure be formed period? It is a non-trivial endeavor to deposit layers of metals like aluminum at such small scales - this is why semiconductor equipment costs millions of dollars per machine.

The abstract also fails to note the precise combination of elements - it isn't just any aluminum or iron oxide, there are specific ratios and forms. In fact a plated structure as in the example is probably a lot less efficient than a mix of powders (normal Thermite form). For that matter anything and everything will oxidize at sufficient temperature.

Lastly the testing via ignition conveniently destroyed at least part of one sample; the paper also doesn't speak to how a 430 degree heat is applied to cause ignition.

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.

Your opinion is, of course, your own.

But I will repeat: both WTC towers were 95% air. A collapse which allows the conversion of enough gravitational potential energy to kinetic energy of the 20 or 30 floors above floor 78 could easily have collapsed the buildings at high speed.

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.

There are significant differences between office furnishings(wood/paper) and jet fuel. For one thing, the energy density of jet fuel is much higher. For another, the concentration of tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel represents a much higher concentration of heat potential than office furnishings. That is - unless someone has an office of solid wood.

And as for collapse - as noted previously, both fires were at/near the top of the structures and did not involve damage to the steel frames. Yet still there were collapses in one of the two examples.

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:

tsk tsk - you didn't read the full article! Further down the page:

At about 3 am (0200GMT), at least six of the upper floors collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris.

Sound familiar?

Something imparted a massive amount of explosive energy into those two towers in the space of ten seconds, and something dropped WTC7 in the manner of a classic bottom up demolition in the space of eight seconds.

Once again, I point out that the mass and height/gravitational potential energy involved is so great that the results can seem explosive.

A similar, but much smaller, ratio can be achieved by dropping a 45 pound iron mass (like a dumbell) 1 foot down onto a walnut. The shards of walnut shell will fly out the sides with very high speed even though resting the iron on the walnut will merely compress or crack it.

As for WTC7 - if indeed steel and other large dense objects were flying out of the WTC 1 & 2 buildings, I don't see why it is impossible that one or more of these objects fell into/through WTC7 and did structural damage.

It is also conceivable that in the confusion of the WTC 1 & 2 collapse, that someone fearful of similar collateral collapse ordered a takedown of the building.

But the NIST Q & A seems quite straightforward and clear:

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/f...qa_082108.html

When did WTC 7 collapse?
On Sept. 11, 2001, WTC 7 endured fires for almost seven hours, from the time of the collapse of the north WTC tower (WTC 1) at 10:28:22 a.m. until 5:20:52 p.m., when WTC 7 collapsed.
What caused the fires in WTC 7?
Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city’s water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building’s collapse began.
How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report’s probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building’s east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line—involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

...

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Factors contributing to WTC 7’s collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
What are the major differences between "typical" major high rise building fires that have occurred in the United States and the fire in the WTC 7 building on September 11, 2001?
There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 5¹ (2001).
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics; 4) fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth; 5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors; 6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor; 7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures; 8) the sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.
There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7: 1) Fires in high rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors; 2); fires in other high rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1; 3) water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.
The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.

Note the key points: the WTC buildings (towers and 7) were different than standard skyscraper fires in that fires were started in a large area or in many places simultaneously - in the towers' case the jet fuel also acted as an accelerant as compared to paper and furnishings.

Again, I don't see a smoking gun.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

The abstract of the paper in question does not provide ...

May I recommend you read the paper itself then?

It is available as a free download at the following link (obtained from the first sentence of that abstract):

The scientific paper Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe provides, quite simply, proof that explosives were used in the destruction of the Twin Towers.

I will admit that I find discussions that involve the kinetic energy obtained from dropping a weight in free fall or near free fall some distance onto a lower structure to be quite unconvincing, for (at least) the reason that I don't understand (short of the use of explosives) how one or more floors of the WTC towers went from load bearing to not load bearing uniformly across the entire floor and the one or two seconds it would take for this scenario to be relevant to what I observe. I would also expect, if sufficient kinetic energy were generated anyway, that the lower parts of the building would crush and crumple and collapse in a slower and asymmetric fashion, rather than exploding rapidly in a massive cloud of dust.

I do not find the NIST comments on WTC7 to be helpful. While of course there are differences between the few available historical examples and WTC7, that is to be expected when comparing complex events for which only a few sample instances exist. I find far more persuasive the comments by various architects and demolition experts who are confident that such a building does not fall in such a way without the intentional use of explosives and demolition techniques.

But -- please read the full paper linked above.

The paper makes a compelling case that human manufactured very high explosives were present in the dust debris. That is in my view, and I trust you will find in your view, a smoking gun.

[skyson]

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

Originally Posted by skyson
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.

Sorry, again your examples are pointless. The WTC was a hugely heavy structure which was still 95% air by volume. Mud is nothing similar, and the scale of the examples are so small such that the compression strength of the mud is large compared to the gravitational energy gained.

A cat can fall off a cliff and live, a horse falling the same distance SPLASHES.

WOW, what a deafening sound of "SPLASH" when the dead horse falling on the ground!!

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?

When considering a collision(in this case, dead cat vs. the earth and dead horse vs. the earth), only desity and relative sizes of two colliding objects matter.

Your dead cat is not colliding with your dead horse, so your example is irrelevant.

You should consider the effects of dead cat colliding with the earth, and dead horse colliding with the earth seperately.

Because the dead cat flesh is similar with the dead horse flesh in density, and the size ratio of cat/earth is similar with the size ratio of horse/earth, I expect these two collisions will have similar effects after impact.

Hope you don't teach high school physics, otherwise your poor students will all fail this subject. ;)

Similarly a car hitting a cow more or less bounces. A train hitting a car sends the car flying away in pieces.

Scale matters.

Again, SCALES DOES NOT MATTER! Density and relative sizes of two colliding objects matter!! 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!!!

Tell me the density of your car, cow, and train, then find out the size ratio of car/cow, and train/car first, before you discuss the collision!

Funny that you give the example of train hitting the car into pieces. Would you fancy the car collide with the train and completely destroy the train?

Oh, then why do you insist that the upper floor section of WTC1(16 floors) completely destroyed the lower floor section of WTC1(94 floors)(*plane impact zone 93-95 floors)?

Please tell me how do I suppose to think of your logical mind?

Honestly, without understand the basic physics of the WTC collapses, it is pointless to debate about explosives, nano-thermite, dust ejections, etc.

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:

[ThePythonicCow]

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

tsk tsk - you didn't read the full article! Further down the page:

At about 3 am (0200GMT), at least six of the upper floors collapsed in a shower of flaming metal debris.

Sound familiar?

Ok - thanks. Sufficiently long and hot fires (raging inferno for half a day) can eventually weaken the metal (or some connectors therein, this is unclear to me) above the fires to the point of collapse, in at least one example of a steel frame building (with whose construction I am unfamiliar.)

By the way -- did the collapse of the upper floors cause the lower floors to collapse?

Certainly the Madrid fire burned much longer and hotter. Perhaps the Madrid building construction was inferior to that of the WTC buildings (as an Americah chauvinist, I am perhaps too willing to consider this possibility )? Perhaps the Madrid upper floors fell slower than the WTC buildings? Do you have any more information on that Madrid collapse, such as building structure or collapse timings or whether it appeared to emit "explosive" debris at high velocity sideways during the collapse or how much of the collapsed material was converted to fine dust?

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?

[ThePythonicCow]

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

When considering a collision(in this case, dead cat vs. the earth and dead horse vs. the earth), only desity and relative sizes of two colliding objects matter.

Don't forget velocity. In the case of (dead) objects falling in air, consider terminal velocity, which for roughly spheroidal objects will correlate positively with size. I would suppose that for such objects of similar density, a larger object (a horse, say) will have a higher terminal velocity than a smaller object (a dead cat, say) because the ratio of mass to cross section area is higher for the larger object. Perhaps a competent high school physics teacher can correct me if I am wrong here.

[skyson]

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

I will admit that I find discussions that involve the kinetic energy obtained from dropping a weight in free fall or near free fall some distance onto a lower structure to be quite unconvincing, for (at least) the reason that I don't understand (short of the use of explosives) how one or more floors of the WTC towers went from load bearing to not load bearing uniformly across the entire floor and the one or two seconds it would take for this scenario to be relevant to what I observe. I would also expect, if sufficient kinetic energy were generated anyway, that the lower parts of the building would crush and crumple and collapse in a slower and asymmetric fashion, rather than exploding rapidly in a massive cloud of dust.

COW, forget it! Let it fall! Instead focus on what happened after "initiation of collapse"! The upper floor section of WTC1(16 floors) CANNOT COMPLETELY destroy the lower floor section of WTC1(94 floors)! Small objects CANNOT COMPLETELY destroy larger objects. This is basic physics -the Third Newton Law!;)

[skyson]

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

Don't forget velocity. In the case of (dead) objects falling in air, consider terminal velocity, which for roughly spheroidal objects will correlate positively with size. I would suppose that for such objects of similar density, a larger object (a horse, say) will have a higher terminal velocity than a smaller object (a dead cat, say) because the ratio of mass to cross section area is higher for the larger object. Perhaps a competent high school physics teacher can correct me if I am wrong here.

terminal velocity is the function of density(mass/projected area being one of main factors in calculating the V[terminal]) of the object in the earthly world.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

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:

If given a choice of playing with one's children or writing a World Trade Center collapse article, I have only one word of advice:

Play!

[ThePythonicCow]

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

terminal velocity is the function of density of the object.

This is a true statement, and is why I qualified my claims with the phrase "of similar density."

So ... what's your point?

Are you implying that terminal velocity is not a function of M/A (mass divided by cross section area)?

[ThePythonicCow]

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

Instead focus on what happened after "initiation of collapse"!

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.

[ThePythonicCow]

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

density(mass/projected area

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

[ThePythonicCow]

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

SCALES DOES NOT MATTER! Density and relative sizes of two colliding objects matter!!

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