An Open Question about Nanothermite

[Ed Jewett]

There's lots of dust around and can be studied.... Dust should be preserved AND it should be tested...

Having truthers hoard their samples... is not the wisest approach.

All science should be repeatable by others... We need that sort of confirmation.

Dust collected and preserved that day should be both secured and made available for further testing and scientific re-verification, but enough of it must be preserved and secured so as to be made available to a formal court of legal inquiry.

The public inquiry is important; the scientific inquiry is very important; the formal court of legal inquiry (however much a dream it seems to be be) is ultra-important.

Public pressure is critical; scientific support for that pressure is absolutely critical; legal surety is the sine qua non.

[Ed Jewett]

Thank you, gentlemen, but then there is this:

Niels Harrit is a Weasel. He's the Back-Stabbing Fredo of the Truth Family
Posted on August 2, 2009 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton

***UPDATE*** anyone want to join in on the conversation? We are having an interesting chat on the comments section… jump right in folks…

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/...ment-29399

[Peter Lemkin]

Thank you, gentlemen, but then there is this:

Niels Harrit is a Weasel. He's the Back-Stabbing Fredo of the Truth Family
Posted on August 2, 2009 by willyloman
by Scott Creighton

***UPDATE*** anyone want to join in on the conversation? We are having an interesting chat on the comments section… jump right in folks…

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/...ment-29399

IMHO that piece didn't warrant posting again for two reasons. 1] it is a hit piece against Harrit without any merit and 2] it is obvious that IF there were people with explosives in a van, they were not responsible for putting the carefully placed [over months, no doubt] charges in WTC 1,2,7. So there is NO analogy, as the pathetic scribbler of that 'challenge' piece wrote.

Not everyone against the official version, IMO, is on the side of sanity or truth - nor are all in that category capable of reasoned thinking. Thus, I don't think all should be promoted further without merit. Yes, there were some [I believe two different, perhaps] mentions of vans with explosives that day....one involves the Israeli 'cheerers'. That may or may not be true and they may or may not have been involved, BUT they certainly were NOT the explosives for the towers to be brought down...that would take professional precision, careful access and lots of time.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lemkin,

How do you know what it would take to place explosives to take down the towers? ... how much time and precision?

The fact is, you don't know nor does any proponent of *explosive controlled demolition* know. The believe that the structure was so strong and with so much redundancy that to destroy it would take enormous planning, and lots of time and of course extensive explosives ... which were not really heard. Yes there were some explosions heard.. but they were not the huge number of bombs you seem to be implying and there were explosions of things like transformers and pressurized tanks.

You and most others seem averse to the notion of a progressive failure which is not unlike knocking over a line of dominos.... hit the first and the progression begins. That's what happens in a CD anyway.. and so the demo people use the least bang for the buck based on the job. That is how this needs to be approached because there is no obvious evidence,...*smoking gun*... of extensive use of explosives. You are deceiving yourself into believing this.

We don't know yet. Nano thermite is not capable any way of producing the observed outcome.

[Peter Lemkin]

Lemkin,

How do you know what it would take to place explosives to take down the towers? ... how much time and precision?

The fact is, you don't know nor does any proponent of *explosive controlled demolition* know. The believe that the structure was so strong and with so much redundancy that to destroy it would take enormous planning, and lots of time and of course extensive explosives ... which were not really heard. Yes there were some explosions heard.. but they were not the huge number of bombs you seem to be implying and there were explosions of things like transformers and pressurized tanks.

You and most others seem averse to the notion of a progressive failure which is not unlike knocking over a line of dominos.... hit the first and the progression begins. That's what happens in a CD anyway.. and so the demo people use the least bang for the buck based on the job. That is how this needs to be approached because there is no obvious evidence,...*smoking gun*... of extensive use of explosives. You are deceiving yourself into believing this.

We don't know yet. Nano thermite is not capable any way of producing the observed outcome.

Calculations have been done and papers written by informed persons, with footnotes and references on the amounts likley neeed; the amounts used - based on residues in dust; and the time and access questions. Nanothermite is perfectly suited for what was observed. Your bizarre theory is IMO not and I don't even believe anymore you believe in it - sorry. You are just on Forums, IMHO to cast doubt. I believe I have posted here long ago the papers I mention, if not they can be found on the internet. Access was likely through the power downs, utility floors, elevator upgrade and fireproofing upgrades [some or all of these]. Amounts needed were large [in absolute terms; not large relatively - as nanothermite is both an incindiary [burns through steels and concrete] and an explosive - depending on placement and amounts used. Timing was done by radio control timers that were computer controlled to microseconds. You are IMHO trying to deceive others into believing a solid as rock building can just unzip or collapse like a house of cards or dominoes. I'm not convinced nor fooled by that nonsense.

Even IF [and I see NO way IF] your un-link theory had any merits, it would have to be rejected [to name but a few reasons] for not being able to explain:

- the total energy release
- the molten metal/steel
- the nanothermite and its residue in the dust
- multi-ton beams propelled hundreds of yards latterally [gravity works downward]
- the total pulvarization of everything into a fine pyroclastic dust
- the squibs
- the flashes seen and explosions heard
- WTC 7
- and much more.

There were no zipper parts, cards, nor dominoes [or their WTC equivilents on the ground...only exploded dust!]

Sorry.....

[Jeffrey Orling]

Niels Harrit, the author of the paper you referred to stated in an email about 2 months ago that he estimated it would require 240 tons PER FLOOR for each of the towers. That is absurd and on the face of it undercuts his claim about the NT.

We don't know why those red gray chips were in the dust... and that requires more study. The presence of micro spheres in the dust can be possibly attributed to the enormous heat associated with the mechanical grinding of all the *concrete* and some of the metal. We saw how fine the dust particle size was and this could easily ignite and melt from the heat of friction. It's conceivable that fine iron oxide and ground up aluminum reacted in an exothermic reaction and this might be the explanation for the enormous heat which was found for months below all three towers. The thermitic reaction with iron oxide doesn't even require a fresh source of oxygen. The towers had abundant amounts of iron oxide and aluminum.

I don't rule out that the collapses were initiated with some engineering intervention. The event was obviously intended to be blamed on Islamic terrorists, but it was understood that the planes alone could not destroy the towers, but that would be the cover/cause and it would be blamed on the weakening of the steel from the fires they planes started. If additional heat devices were strategically placed (relatively few) they would not require det chord or wiring or timing and would ignite from the fires naturally caused as a result of the plane strikes.

In fact, there WAS certainly weakening of the steel from the heat from the fires. It appears that this was not sufficient and so additional devices were possibly or likely placed which would provide more intense heat to add to further weaken the structure. The combination of plane destroyed columns, weakened steel from fires and additional heat (or a few explosives) would push the structure at around the plane strike zone to below its reserve strength. And then the upper floors would come crashing down and the entire floors system would progressively collapse. This approach exploited the mass of the towers to destroy the floors... leaving the columns without bracing and they buckled or teetered over.

I know many in the truth movement want to believe that those towers were so strong that they could not collapse. This is not true. Excessive loading of a floor would destroy it (locally) and all below (locally). But of course the excessive load was not applied locally but over the entire floor area.

It needs to be noted that both twins came down from destruction at the plane strikes zones and so the planes' traumas DID contribute to their demise. Or was this an elaborate precision operation where the plane was direct to the precise area where all the devices were placed? I doubt that. More likely is that the anticipated fires would ignite the few placed devices AT the strike location and the fact would be sealed.

Further note the form of the beginning of the collapses of each tower. South tower rotated and dropped toward the plane strike damage at the SE corner of the core and the north tower's upper floors came almost straight down because the plane damage was in the center of the long side of the core... This seems to reinforce the fact that the plane damage WAS a factor... though not the sole cause.

Building 7 is a more complex mystery. Though it had no plane damage and the debris from tower 1 did not damage the core.. there was a massive Con Ed sub station serving all of lower Manhattan at the lowest floors and the tower was built over it. The structure of 7 required 4 massive transfer trusses to transfer the loads core columns to pass over / around the substation. There were also massive gen sets to power the NYC OEM center located within and lower down in the core.

Building 7's failure was also core led. It's possibly that there was extensive core damage from burning diesel...and or the explosions of the huge transformers in the sub station, but not enough for the core to collapse. The fires went unfought because the substation blew, electric service was lost and no pumps could move water up to the sprinkler system... not to mention that the water main apparently was also destroyed.

There are credible reports that the DOB and the FDNY had set up a transit and noted that building 7 began to slightly distort in the afternoon... indicating that the frame was redistributing loads as some columns were failing and unable to carry their design load. The redistribution caused some twisting and torquing of the structure. At that point it wouldn't take much more to collapse the entire core and the building would follow.

Careful observation shows the core was destroyed in advance of the downward motion of the curtain wall which had 2.25 second period of free fall decent. Just before the curtain wall comes down the East penthouse can be seen plunging right down through the entire building... a sign that all the columns which supported it had buckled. This might have been the last stage of the core destruction or the first one... but there is good reason to believe that there was no core remain when the curtain wall came down... the part we CAN see.

We can also see that the north side of the curtain wall entire upper floors (20 or more) bows inward as it comes down... an obvious indication that there was nothing behind it to hold it flat. It did not dip in the center as that would have shattered all the glass... so it *folded* inward at the window frame connections. We can surmise that the collapsed core pulled the floors inward along with the 58 columns located just inside the curtain wall and rotated the lower spandrels just enough to push the curtain wall out a few inches.... just enough so that there was nothing beneath it and so it fell at free fall.

If the DOB and the FDNY felt that the tower was going to come down... which they publicly stated they feared would happen, it is conceivable that they could have *helped it come to pass*... but this and pre placed explosives is still speculation.

It should also be noted that the Deutschbank did not collapse and was CLOSER to the South tower then Building 7 was to the north tower. It did not have the extensive fires. It did not have huge storage tanks of diesel fuel. It did not sit atop a huge ConEd sub station. It did not have exotic transfer trusses to offset the core column loads. It did not have a long span column free office space.

Building 7 was a very strong building but it also had aspects which mitigated that strength and assisted in its demise. The NIST explanation was hardly correct.

NIST provided the support for the hijacker story and took the heat off PANYNJ, the engineers and the DOB who *conspired* to allow such vulnerable and *radical* structural designs to be built. There are few to no similar structural frames being built today.. and only a few smaller ones of that design. The OCT is also a cover up of incompetence of PANYNJ, the engineers, DOB and contractors... their collective responsibility and negligence was passed right over.

Look boss, the plane... the plane!

[Charles Drago]

To paraphrase Conan Doyle so as to better serve our deep political inquiries: "Once you eliminate the impossible, nothing discernible may remain."

In searching for the truth about what turned the towers to dust, remember that "black" technology is decades, if not generations, ahead of that accessible to the public.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Charles,

I don't think the towers were turned to dust. I know this is a common characterization of what occurred. I think that almost all the steel was not turned to dust or even melted. Most of the steel frame broke apart at the weaker connections/splices. Much of it was mangled when it feel from such heights and was battered by other heavy steel sections.

Virtually all the materials which lend themselves to crushing such as concrete, wall board, tiles, carpet and even flesh was ground and crushed... by the enormous mass - several hundred thousands of tons... leaving little recognizable.

A fair amount of paper seems to have managed to avoid getting crushed and floated around lower Manhattan... perhaps it was blown away and didn't stay put to be crushed??? There was enormous winds and air over pressure associated with the collapses.

Before we can look for a cause.. we need to accurately describe what actually happened. Saying the buildings turned to dust is not accurate.. only part of them did.

Jeffrey

[Phil Dragoo]

Jeffrey


I found your paragraph at #16 useful:

1. In fact, there WAS certainly weakening of the steel from the heat from the fires. It appears that this was not sufficient and so additional devices were possibly or likely placed which would provide more intense heat to add to further weaken the structure. The combination of plane destroyed columns, weakened steel from fires and additional heat (or a few explosives) would push the structure at around the plane strike zone to below its reserve strength. And then the upper floors would come crashing down and the entire floors system would progressively collapse. This approach exploited the mass of the towers to destroy the floors... leaving the columns without bracing and they buckled or teetered over.
   

When George Noory had Judy Wood on Coast to Coast AM she was incensed and certain the buildings were "dustified" and the jumpers subject to a "microwave-like weapon".


I see a parallel with her hypothesis and that of those who claim Greer turned and shot Kennedy. Nothing so outre and burlesque occurred but nonetheless assassin(s) other than the patsy shot the 35[SUP]th[/SUP] president.


The plane provided the destabilizing event. Driving the destabilized condition to the critical would require failure of fasteners in a single floor, perhaps at one side of the core. Mechanics could have accessed the crawl space above the drop ceiling as required, installing remotely-actuated devices which would be controlled by the white plane loitering.


Substitution of the bolts on some of the truss attachments discussed earlier in this section with items of a lesser tensile strength, or lesser heat resistance would suffice: the effect would be seen in the area of the fire from the jet fuel.


The mechanism needn't be total-structure in scale requiring a freight train of explosive, nor necessitate a new technology or a new generation of laser or particle beam device.


It would be exploiting a weakened condition, driving instability to critical and collapse.


Rockford used liquid soap and a roll of coins to bring down a karate attacker.


http://thecharacterofjimrockford.blogspo...chive.html


With the right gas-oxygen mix a flame can cut steel like butter (hence my suggestion of substitution of key bolts):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EGmrPiumEU

[Jeffrey Orling]

Phil is essentially correct and it should be understood that in a commercial CD there is some prep aside from explosive and cutter charge placement. This prep may even include some *pre weakening* such as cutting into some columns with a torch, or removing some bolts. And then not every column is targeted... only the ones necessary to cause the failure to progress per design so that the building structure usually fails entirely in the center and the building comes down into itself.

The twin towers AND bldg 7 were very unique structures similar with long span column free floors... structurally they were a series of floors suspended between two arrays of columns - at the facade and at the perimeter of the core.

A CD always takes out the columns and at the base so the upper mass comes crashing down by gravity and destroys itself... no more explosives are needed.. gravity does the job. But the structure MUST fall far enough so that the impact energy shatters the frame's joints and the columns and beams break apart like dropped pick up sticks.

Attacking selected key columns at the base is a much more efficient CD then exploding all the floor masses AND all the columns. If the frame is not broken at its joints and connections it will stand absent the floors slabs. But the floors slab in the case of the WTC buildings were part of the composite with the floor trusses and the destruction of the floors destroyed the trusses leaving the facade with no lateral bracing. The inside of the core lost it's bracing in the collapsing floors within it. So the floor destruction was not impeded by the columns or their strength but it did WEAKEN them... make them unstable... as they beams/bracing was ripped off the core's columns. So there was no rigid steel frame left to stand. The core then toppled from its internal instability and broke apart at its connection/splices.

A short structure's columns might have stood without the bracing... but above a certain height it could not. A standard 3D lattice structure as most towers are.. would also mitigate a global floor collapse and still have many braces connecting the columns. The column free floor design was the undoing of the 3 buildings. The destructive mass was provided by several dropping floor masses and building components.

There was some inward bowing of the facade in the twins. This was likely not from sagging trusses (NIST) pull the facade in.. but rather a core failure which led to the facade taking too much load and buckling... as the core was slowing losing strength as its columns failed one by one.