What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Slow death]

I think the terrorists did attack, but the US government saw the attack as an opportunity to invade Iraq and attack other Arab countries, with saddam hussein polity knocked down, the US began to intensify attacks on Arabs country and today the number of killed in Arab countries are scary

[1714633302]

1714633302

[1714633302]

1714633302

[Spendulus]

You keep bringing up the idea of basic chemistry. Nobody is going to refute basic chemistry regarding the 9/11 inside job. Why not? Because basic chemistry doesn't apply in the 9/11 inside job. Why not? Because chemistry and else way beyond basic chemistry was used.

Wake up sometime.

The only reason you said this is you don't know what chemistry is.

"Does jet fuel melt steel" is a question of chemistry.

Next?

I don't really know of anyone who says that jet fuel melts steel. Perhaps some of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists in this forum have said it. I simply don't remember, and I am not going to go looking for them, and I don't even care.

The fact is, jet fuel of the past was similar to kerosene. I don't know what JF is made up of today. But if you put some kerosene in a steel can, it doesn't melt the steel can... at least not in quantities that are noticeable.

So, why do you even ask that? And your "Next" means what? Next question? You are asking the questions. Go ahead, ask another. I'll help. Is the sky blue? Or does it only look that way?

Here's ONE OF MANY TIMES you discuss jet fuel.  Your concern.  Not mine.  And it's chemistry.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1025761.160;imode

There is lots of fuel in a plane of that size. But there is, also lots of building concrete and metal to be heated up with that fuel. In addition, there is convection time (the time it takes heat to penetrate steel and concrete from the outside). In addition, one need consider the air passages to the fuel. The fuel can't burn without air.

When you look at the pictures of the people standing around the crash openings in the buildings (Twin Towers before they came down), it is highly unlikely that that there was enough heat to melt anything - that most of the fuel burned off inefficiently in the air - because the people would not have been able to stand around in the 2,000+ degrees F that it would take to crumble concrete and melt steel, especially when there isn't near enough time for convection to have occurred without roasting the people as well.

[BADecker]

You keep bringing up the idea of basic chemistry. Nobody is going to refute basic chemistry regarding the 9/11 inside job. Why not? Because basic chemistry doesn't apply in the 9/11 inside job. Why not? Because chemistry and else way beyond basic chemistry was used.

Wake up sometime.

The only reason you said this is you don't know what chemistry is.

"Does jet fuel melt steel" is a question of chemistry.

Next?

I don't really know of anyone who says that jet fuel melts steel. Perhaps some of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists in this forum have said it. I simply don't remember, and I am not going to go looking for them, and I don't even care.

The fact is, jet fuel of the past was similar to kerosene. I don't know what JF is made up of today. But if you put some kerosene in a steel can, it doesn't melt the steel can... at least not in quantities that are noticeable.

So, why do you even ask that? And your "Next" means what? Next question? You are asking the questions. Go ahead, ask another. I'll help. Is the sky blue? Or does it only look that way?

Here's ONE OF MANY TIMES you discuss jet fuel.  Your concern.  Not mine.  And it's chemistry.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1025761.160;imode

There is lots of fuel in a plane of that size. But there is, also lots of building concrete and metal to be heated up with that fuel. In addition, there is convection time (the time it takes heat to penetrate steel and concrete from the outside). In addition, one need consider the air passages to the fuel. The fuel can't burn without air.

When you look at the pictures of the people standing around the crash openings in the buildings (Twin Towers before they came down), it is highly unlikely that that there was enough heat to melt anything - that most of the fuel burned off inefficiently in the air - because the people would not have been able to stand around in the 2,000+ degrees F that it would take to crumble concrete and melt steel, especially when there isn't near enough time for convection to have occurred without roasting the people as well.

Note that the jet fuel I talked about was burning jet fuel, but you didn't mention the burning part in your post, above.

Basic chemistry doesn't take into account the many effects of burning fuel in buildings like the Twin Towers. Nor does it take into account the many effects of using liquid fuel to put out fires by depriving the fires of oxygen, especially in the Twin Towers. Nor does basic chemistry take into account the billows of black smoke in the Towers area, caused by partially burned fuel being boiled away by the relatively little that burned.

There wasn't nearly enough heat from the fuel, in the Towers, to reduce their structural strength at all. The heat came from the explosives that caused the explosions, explosions that many people attested to. The explosions of the prepared explosives is what brought the towers down.

However, I would caution everyone working in buildings that are part of the complex there, to consider having sample tests done on the materials making up the buildings. Why? Because you can see in many of the videos of the Towers coming down, great big chunks of masonry in free fall, virtually disintegrating in mid air, with nothing there to make them disintegrate like that.

The point is, either there is explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes, or there was some "disintegrating ray" sent from space satellites, like the Ronald Reagan Star Wars systems that he had placed around the earth back then. If you work in any of those buildings, you are in potential danger.

[Spendulus]

Note that the jet fuel I talked about was burning jet fuel, but you didn't mention the burning part in your post, above.

Basic chemistry doesn't take into account the many effects of burning fuel in buildings like the Twin Towers. Nor does it take into account the many effects of using liquid fuel to put out fires by depriving the fires of oxygen, especially in the Twin Towers. Nor does basic chemistry take into account the billows of black smoke in the Towers area, caused by partially burned fuel being boiled away by the relatively little that burned.

There wasn't nearly enough heat from the fuel, in the Towers, to reduce their structural strength at all. The heat came from the explosives that caused the explosions, explosions that many people attested to. The explosions of the prepared explosives is what brought the towers down.

However, I would caution everyone working in buildings that are part of the complex there, to consider having sample tests done on the materials making up the buildings. Why? Because you can see in many of the videos of the Towers coming down, great big chunks of masonry in free fall, virtually disintegrating in mid air, with nothing there to make them disintegrate like that.

The point is, either there is explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes, or there was some "disintegrating ray" sent from space satellites, like the Ronald Reagan Star Wars systems that he had placed around the earth back then. If you work in any of those buildings, you are in potential danger.

Your arguments presented here have already been refuted.  Yes, with 8th grade chemistry.

How do you want to proceed?  Each of your rantings one by one? 

I guess that what I wonder is where on Earth do you come up with this stuff?  If it is refuted by science, it's not true a week later.  Yet that's what you are doing.  Taking arguments that have been refuted, then presenting them as true yet once again.

"explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes"

You have any idea how crazy that statement is?

[BADecker]

Note that the jet fuel I talked about was burning jet fuel, but you didn't mention the burning part in your post, above.

Basic chemistry doesn't take into account the many effects of burning fuel in buildings like the Twin Towers. Nor does it take into account the many effects of using liquid fuel to put out fires by depriving the fires of oxygen, especially in the Twin Towers. Nor does basic chemistry take into account the billows of black smoke in the Towers area, caused by partially burned fuel being boiled away by the relatively little that burned.

There wasn't nearly enough heat from the fuel, in the Towers, to reduce their structural strength at all. The heat came from the explosives that caused the explosions, explosions that many people attested to. The explosions of the prepared explosives is what brought the towers down.

However, I would caution everyone working in buildings that are part of the complex there, to consider having sample tests done on the materials making up the buildings. Why? Because you can see in many of the videos of the Towers coming down, great big chunks of masonry in free fall, virtually disintegrating in mid air, with nothing there to make them disintegrate like that.

The point is, either there is explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes, or there was some "disintegrating ray" sent from space satellites, like the Ronald Reagan Star Wars systems that he had placed around the earth back then. If you work in any of those buildings, you are in potential danger.

Your arguments presented here have already been refuted.  Yes, with 8th grade chemistry.

How do you want to proceed?  Each of your rantings one by one? 

I guess that what I wonder is where on Earth do you come up with this stuff?  If it is refuted by science, it's not true a week later.  Yet that's what you are doing.  Taking arguments that have been refuted, then presenting them as true yet once again.

"explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes"

You have any idea how crazy that statement is?

Perhaps if you would happen to expand your chemistry knowledge beyond the 8th grade, you might understand some of these things.

[Spendulus]

Note that the jet fuel I talked about was burning jet fuel, but you didn't mention the burning part in your post, above.

Basic chemistry doesn't take into account the many effects of burning fuel in buildings like the Twin Towers. Nor does it take into account the many effects of using liquid fuel to put out fires by depriving the fires of oxygen, especially in the Twin Towers. Nor does basic chemistry take into account the billows of black smoke in the Towers area, caused by partially burned fuel being boiled away by the relatively little that burned.

There wasn't nearly enough heat from the fuel, in the Towers, to reduce their structural strength at all. The heat came from the explosives that caused the explosions, explosions that many people attested to. The explosions of the prepared explosives is what brought the towers down.

However, I would caution everyone working in buildings that are part of the complex there, to consider having sample tests done on the materials making up the buildings. Why? Because you can see in many of the videos of the Towers coming down, great big chunks of masonry in free fall, virtually disintegrating in mid air, with nothing there to make them disintegrate like that.

The point is, either there is explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes, or there was some "disintegrating ray" sent from space satellites, like the Ronald Reagan Star Wars systems that he had placed around the earth back then. If you work in any of those buildings, you are in potential danger.

Your arguments presented here have already been refuted.  Yes, with 8th grade chemistry.

How do you want to proceed?  Each of your rantings one by one? 

I guess that what I wonder is where on Earth do you come up with this stuff?  If it is refuted by science, it's not true a week later.  Yet that's what you are doing.  Taking arguments that have been refuted, then presenting them as true yet once again.

"explosive sulfur thermite built into all these buildings to make it easier to demolish them when the time comes"

You have any idea how crazy that statement is?

Perhaps if you would happen to expand your chemistry knowledge beyond the 8th grade, you might understand some of these things.

Actually I'm quite familiar with analogs, similar things to the thermite processes, although I have not worked with thermite.  But it's nothing but a welding compound.  The nano-thermite nonnsense, I recall reading a number of college dissertations that were on similar processes in rocket motors.  We're not talking here about the chemistry of the processes.

We're talking about crazy talk — your talk of building explosive materials into buildings, and your insinuation that that was and is being done.  Please tell us more.

[TECSHARE]

Actually I'm quite familiar with analogs, similar things to the thermite processes, although I have not worked with thermite.  But it's nothing but a welding compound.  The nano-thermite nonnsense, I recall reading a number of college dissertations that were on similar processes in rocket motors.  We're not talking here about the chemistry of the processes.

We're talking about crazy talk — your talk of building explosive materials into buildings, and your insinuation that that was and is being done.  Please tell us more.

And what is the process of welding composed of? That's right, melting metals like steel in order to liquefy them so they can be bound once cooled. It is also well known to be used in the military to destroy large weapons which are resistant to penetration by classic projectiles. Something like thermite could have very well been used to weaken the internal structures of the WTC buildings. There is evidence of this on video as well as in samples collected from the iron girders, dust, and satellite thermal imagery. Also there is no debate over whether nanothermite is real, it exists. This is not a theory. Also there is evidence using simple laws of physics demonstrating that explosives MUST have been used by the distance that iron girders were propelled from the towers. You are not nearly as informed as you think you are.

[Spendulus]

Actually I'm quite familiar with analogs, similar things to the thermite processes, although I have not worked with thermite.  But it's nothing but a welding compound.  The nano-thermite nonnsense, I recall reading a number of college dissertations that were on similar processes in rocket motors.  We're not talking here about the chemistry of the processes.

We're talking about crazy talk — your talk of building explosive materials into buildings, and your insinuation that that was and is being done.  Please tell us more.

And what is the process of welding composed of? That's right, melting metals like steel in order to liquefy them so they can be bound once cooled. It is also well known to be used in the military to destroy large weapons which are resistant to penetration by classic projectiles. Something like thermite could have very well been used to weaken the internal structures of the WTC buildings. There is evidence of this on video as well as in samples collected from the iron girders, dust, and satellite thermal imagery. Also there is no debate over whether nanothermite is real, it exists. This is not a theory. Also there is evidence using simple laws of physics demonstrating that explosives MUST have been used by the distance that iron girders were propelled from the towers. You are not nearly as informed as you think you are.

So you think the planes the towers, they were loaded up with "nano thermite," AND there were explosives?

Wow.  That sounds like one very complicated set of stuff.

There must have been hundreds of ninjas prowling in and around those buildings for months to get all that set up.

[tvbcof]

And what is the process of welding composed of? That's right, melting metals like steel in order to liquefy them so they can be bound once cooled. It is also well known to be used in the military to destroy large weapons which are resistant to penetration by classic projectiles. Something like thermite could have very well been used to weaken the internal structures of the WTC buildings. There is evidence of this on video

I'd not seen one of those shots.  Most likely this was run-off from the work of sawing through the large core columns in the center of the building.  Most of it drained down the elevator shafts causing the famous hot-spots, but something seems to have damed it up in this location and it probably ran across the floor.  This was where collapse started and there were decorative explosives used to simulate and/or extenuate the aircraft hits for PR reasons.  I suspect that this effected the drainage of molten elemental iron which is the expected byproduct of a conventional thermite reaction.

Nano-thermite reactions also result in elemental iron, but it seems to express more as tiny hollow iron spheres which are generally microscopic.  I remember the early researchers finding these in abundance and scratching their heads about it.  At this point there was much less known about nano-thermite.  It's properties and even it's existance.  Later the compound was identified and described.  An example of this is the peer reviewed paper I linked to already on this thread.

as well as in samples collected from the iron girders, dust, and satellite thermal imagery. Also there is no debate over whether nanothermite is real, it exists. This is not a theory. Also there is evidence using simple laws of physics demonstrating that explosives MUST have been used by the distance that iron girders were propelled from the towers. You are not nearly as informed as you think you are.

So you think the planes the towers, they were loaded up with "nano thermite," AND there were explosives?

Wow.  That sounds like one very complicated set of stuff.

There must have been hundreds of ninjas prowling in and around those buildings for months to get all that set up.

I don't remember whether it was conjecture or it was reported, but on some floors they were re-applying the 'fireproofing' on the girders and floor pans.  It was reported that some of the floors were completely closed.  One person said that the work sounded like large things on rollers were moving around.  He imagined those containers in which construction waste is stored.

One guy I heard interviewed was a sysadmin responsible for a datacenter in one of the towers.  There had been a short-notice power shutdown of the whole building on a weekend.  As anyone who does this kind of work knows, it can be a laborious process to get all the machines back on-line.  He was taking a comp day on 911 so he survived.  He said that in the preceding weeks there was a noticeable amount of dust in the air to the extent that it was noticeable on the furniture.

On the fireproofing, the original was made of asbestos which subsequently got a bad rap.  Many fortunes were made 'abating' this 'threat.'  Doing so in the twin towers would have been extremely expensive and occupancy was already quite low.  IIRC, the cost to demolish the buildings was estimated at north of a billion dollars due in part to this problem.  Fortunately for someone those bad bad 'terrorists' handled the job in a more cost effective manner.  And those nice nice insurance companies turned the math around completely for the owner (one Larry Silverstein...who one suspects had a relationship of some sort with Donald Trump and who might be somewhat nervous at the way things are shaping up vis-a-vis the 2016 election.)

[BADecker]

Actually I'm quite familiar with analogs, similar things to the thermite processes, although I have not worked with thermite.  But it's nothing but a welding compound.  The nano-thermite nonnsense, I recall reading a number of college dissertations that were on similar processes in rocket motors.  We're not talking here about the chemistry of the processes.

We're talking about crazy talk — your talk of building explosive materials into buildings, and your insinuation that that was and is being done.  Please tell us more.

And what is the process of welding composed of? That's right, melting metals like steel in order to liquefy them so they can be bound once cooled. It is also well known to be used in the military to destroy large weapons which are resistant to penetration by classic projectiles. Something like thermite could have very well been used to weaken the internal structures of the WTC buildings. There is evidence of this on video as well as in samples collected from the iron girders, dust, and satellite thermal imagery. Also there is no debate over whether nanothermite is real, it exists. This is not a theory. Also there is evidence using simple laws of physics demonstrating that explosives MUST have been used by the distance that iron girders were propelled from the towers. You are not nearly as informed as you think you are.

So you think the planes the towers, they were loaded up with "nano thermite," AND there were explosives?

Of course. As soon as the planes made it into the Towers, they loaded themselves up with Tower nano thermite for an instant before they exploded. It was the fuel in the planes that set the nano thermite off, which boiled away the remaining fuel while it was setting other nano thermite in the building off. Just watch the videos of the big chunks of Tower, dissolving and disintegrating as they fall to earth next to the Towers. Nano thermite throughout.

Wow.  That sounds like one very complicated set of stuff.

Not so complicated. The nano thermite was mixed right in with the cement when the buildings were built. Remaining big buildings still have it within them, ready for a Silverstein calibre of a person to set them off as well.

There must have been hundreds of ninjas prowling in and around those buildings for months to get all that set up.

They weren't ninjas. Ninjas move so fast that they would attract lots of attention. They moved slowly, so that nobody would suspect anything. They were turtles. 

[Spendulus]

....soon as the planes made it into the Towers, they loaded themselves up with Tower nano thermite for an instant before they exploded. It was the fuel in the planes that set the nano thermite off, which boiled away the remaining fuel while it was setting other nano thermite in the building off. Just watch the videos of the big chunks of Tower, dissolving and disintegrating as they fall to earth next to the Towers. Nano thermite throughout.
....

Absolutely fascinating?

Where can I buy some of this concrete-mixed-with-nano-thermite?  Does it get delivered in regular concrete trucks?

How many buildings have it?

Do the roads and the bridges have it?

Do the Muslim Islamic Terrorists have it?

[Spendulus]

....

I'd not seen one of those shots.  Most likely this was run-off from the work of sawing through the large core columns in the center of the building.  Most of it drained down the elevator shafts causing the famous hot-spots, but something seems to have damed it up in this location and it probably ran across the floor.  This was where collapse started and there were decorative explosives used to simulate and/or extenuate the aircraft hits for PR reasons.  I suspect that this effected the drainage of molten elemental iron which is the expected byproduct of a conventional thermite reaction.

Nano-thermite reactions also result in elemental iron, but it seems to express more as tiny hollow iron spheres which are generally microscopic.  I remember the early researchers finding these in abundance and scratching their heads about it.  At this point there was much less known about nano-thermite.  It's properties and even it's existance.  Later the compound was identified and described.  An example of this is the peer reviewed paper I linked to already on this thread.
....

Which IIRC I posted a rebuttal to.

But now you see part of what I was talking about?  Molten metal?   Oh, they must have used THERMITE.

SUSPICIOUS DUST?  Oh, they must have used EXPLOSIVES.

So we've got planes ramming into towers PLUS explosives previously set EXACTLY WHERE THE planes hit PLUS THERMITE exactly there to.

Man, we have a whole buffet line of crap going on at the same time from these conspiracy theorists.

LOL, these conspiracy theories are very weak theories.  They are bat shit crazy talk.

Rationally, one should ask from the evidence, what is necessary and sufficient to cause the results.  Nothing other than planes ramming buildings is required, because -

1.  There was no "molten metal."
2.  There was no flash as would have been seen from explosions.  Remember the beams supporting the towers were on the perimeter, so it would have been very, very obvious.  If you have never seen an explosion, you wouldn't understand.  It's a brilliant flash.
3.  The effect of nano-thermite and thermite are opposite.

None of this implies that a great conspiracy theory on 911 couldn't be made, just that it hasn't been seen yet.

[tvbcof]

....

I'd not seen one of those shots.  Most likely this was run-off from the work of sawing through the large core columns in the center of the building.  Most of it drained down the elevator shafts causing the famous hot-spots, but something seems to have damed it up in this location and it probably ran across the floor.  This was where collapse started and there were decorative explosives used to simulate and/or extenuate the aircraft hits for PR reasons.  I suspect that this effected the drainage of molten elemental iron which is the expected byproduct of a conventional thermite reaction.

Nano-thermite reactions also result in elemental iron, but it seems to express more as tiny hollow iron spheres which are generally microscopic.  I remember the early researchers finding these in abundance and scratching their heads about it.  At this point there was much less known about nano-thermite.  It's properties and even it's existance.  Later the compound was identified and described.  An example of this is the peer reviewed paper I linked to already on this thread.
....

Which IIRC I posted a rebuttal to.

But now you see part of what I was talking about?  Molten metal?   Oh, they must have used THERMITE.

SUSPICIOUS DUST?  Oh, they must have used EXPLOSIVES.

So we've got planes ramming into towers PLUS explosives previously set EXACTLY WHERE THE planes hit PLUS THERMITE exactly there to.

Man, we have a whole buffet line of crap going on at the same time from these conspiracy theorists.

LOL, these conspiracy theories are very weak theories.  They are bat shit crazy talk.

Rationally, one should ask from the evidence, what is necessary and sufficient to cause the results.  Nothing other than planes ramming buildings is required, because -

1.  There was no "molten metal."
2.  There was no flash as would have been seen from explosions.  Remember the beams supporting the towers were on the perimeter, so it would have been very, very obvious.  If you have never seen an explosion, you wouldn't understand.  It's a brilliant flash.
3.  The effect of nano-thermite and thermite are opposite.

None of this implies that a great conspiracy theory on 911 couldn't be made, just that it hasn't been seen yet.

The heavy support columns (which were in the center of the structure and provided most of the strength) were sawed through with conventional thermite (or thermate) in the time between the impacts and the collapse initiation.  The mid-air pulverization was accomplished with nano-thermite which was probably applied in a manner similar to the way fireproofing material was to the floor pans and girders.  All dust samples contained unreacted nano-thermite.

I'm a little surprised that you would mistake 'beams' and 'columns' (which is the only way I can make sense of your (incorrect) statement about were the support was to be found.)  Even a casual observer would be familiar with the configuration and theory of the (fairly unique) building I would think.

I have seen and used live hand grenades (in training.)  The most surprising thing about them is the lack of a 'flash', though if one looks carefully one can sort of see the shrapnel moving away at high velocities.  Generally speaking, watching action/adventure movies is an exceedingly poor way to understand high explosives.  I've also seen vid of other controlled demolitions and what flashes there are seem surprisingly underwhelming.  Indeed, one of the reasons for using nano-thermite may have been to create the pulverization needed to dampen what flashes there are.  Even so, some of the footage of the collapses do seem to show some flashes down below the failure line as the structure fell.  And many many people on-site reported explosions.

[Spendulus]

The heavy support columns (which were in the center of the structure and provided most of the strength) were sawed through with conventional thermite (or thermate) in the time between the impacts and the collapse initiation.  The mid-air pulverization was accomplished with nano-thermite which was probably applied in a manner similar to the way fireproofing material was to the floor pans and girders.  All dust samples contained unreacted nano-thermite.

I'm a little surprised that you would mistake 'beams' and 'columns' (which is the only way I can make sense of your (incorrect) statement about were the support was to be found.)  Even a casual observer would be familiar with the configuration and theory of the (fairly unique) building I would think.

I have seen and used live hand grenades (in training.)  The most surprising thing about them is the lack of a 'flash', though if one looks carefully one can sort of see the shrapnel moving away at high velocities.  Generally speaking, watching action/adventure movies is an exceedingly poor way to understand high explosives.  I've also seen vid of other controlled demolitions and what flashes there are seem surprisingly underwhelming.  Indeed, one of the reasons for using nano-thermite may have been to create the pulverization needed to dampen what flashes there are.  Even so, some of the footage of the collapses do seem to show some flashes down below the failure line as the structure fell.  And many many people on-site reported explosions.

No, the nano-thermite thing was debunked completely.  If you want me to bring the paper up again, I can do that.   But it is not (at least I do not see how it is) a necessary part of a conspiracy theory.  If you think it was explosives, just use that generic word.  More explicitly, "high explosive," since that implies a shattering effect on the surrounding matter and something like a 50,000 foot per second gas velocity.

I have seen a large experimental rocket explode, and it was a brilliant white, instantaneous flash.  Scary as hell from a mile away.  I've also seen all kinds of molten metal and such.  No, you wouldn't see the flash if something occurred in the interior.  But if it occurred on the perimeter I beams (did I just say "beams"?  I'm an idiot...) then you would definitely see it, either from explosives or from thermite type materials.

No credible is people who say they heard "explosions."  Honestly, I can't tell the difference between a car backfiring and certain types of gunshots. 

Molten steel is VERY bright.

Speculation about "nano-thermite" is a waste of time.  This is because the term itself is not a specific item, in rate of reaction, high or low explosive or not at all, and so forth.  It's only a variety of "nano-stuff" anyway.  Every heard of grain elevator explosions?  "Nano-dust."  Submarine torpedos running on "nano-size aluminum powder" and sea water?  "Nano."

It's still a ridiculous assertion to say that planes hit the towers AND there was explosives AND there was a thermite material.  I hold that one should look for a SUFFICIENT cause of the events, and that's well, sufficient.

[tvbcof]

...
No credible is people who say they heard "explosions."  Honestly, I can't tell the difference between a car backfiring and certain types of gunshots. 
...

On the contrary, very very many people say exactly that at the time of the event.  Before the memory hole did it's work.  I went to bed that night with hopes of finding out how the terrorists got the bombs in.  It did not dawn on me until some time later that the thing was a total false flag.

Here are various clips from NY during the event.  I'd not seen some of these but have seen countless other witnesses say pretty much exactly the same thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTxVIHBRJkw

By happenstance, the vid also shows some of the flashes that were observed, and, of course, the implosion of the building(s) itself.  It is hard for me to believe that anyone could watch these buildings come apart as they did and mentally map it to a gravity collapse.  Even without understanding the structural theory of the building.  It is even more ridiculous when one does understand the core columns and such.

BTW, here's a rather well known photo of one of the core columns:



It appears to show the effects of thermate used in a conventional manner, and from the research I did (a long time ago) the picture was taken at a time when this cannot be explained by after-action clean-up efforts.

I would also point out the absurdity of an aluminium aircraft 'taking out' not one but many such columns in the center of the building.  This after taking out the much smaller but still very substantial steel structure which provided strength to the outer part of the building.  Ever see how an aircraft is built?

[TECSHARE]

So you think the planes the towers, they were loaded up with "nano thermite," AND there were explosives?

Wow.  That sounds like one very complicated set of stuff.

There must have been hundreds of ninjas prowling in and around those buildings for months to get all that set up.

So should I just put that down as you have no substantive rebuttal to physical evidence I presented? Maybe the "ninjas" some how changed the laws of physics to make those multiple 4-ton girders end up hundreds of feet from the tower? Maybe they also used their laws of physics changing powers to make the towers fall at free fall speed, ie no resistance which would be created by an actual collapse as explained by the "pancake" gravity driven collapse theory. There is substantively no significant difference between placing one type of explosive and two types of explosives. Everything I have posted is factual.

As far as your "ninjas" there was an opportunity to place devices as the weekend before the attacks, there was an "unprecedented" shut down of the power (including the security systems) on the top half of the south tower, as witnessed by this employee as well as others working in the WTC building providing plenty of time for this to be coordinated undetected. The company in charge of security at the WTC, Dulles International Airport, and United Airlines was called Stratsec, which had Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Bush on its board of directors. George H.W. Bush was also formerly the director of the CIA. These circumstances provided plenty of opportunity, resources, and knowledge for organizing such an act. Additionally the technology to remotely take over and pilot civilian aircraft has been in development since the 70's, and was demonstrated to be functional before 9/11.

Which IIRC I posted a rebuttal to.

But now you see part of what I was talking about?  Molten metal?   Oh, they must have used THERMITE.

SUSPICIOUS DUST?  Oh, they must have used EXPLOSIVES.

So we've got planes ramming into towers PLUS explosives previously set EXACTLY WHERE THE planes hit PLUS THERMITE exactly there to.

Man, we have a whole buffet line of crap going on at the same time from these conspiracy theorists.

LOL, these conspiracy theories are very weak theories.  They are bat shit crazy talk.

Rationally, one should ask from the evidence, what is necessary and sufficient to cause the results.  Nothing other than planes ramming buildings is required, because -

1.  There was no "molten metal."
2.  There was no flash as would have been seen from explosions.  Remember the beams supporting the towers were on the perimeter, so it would have been very, very obvious.  If you have never seen an explosion, you wouldn't understand.  It's a brilliant flash.
3.  The effect of nano-thermite and thermite are opposite.

None of this implies that a great conspiracy theory on 911 couldn't be made, just that it hasn't been seen yet.

1. Evidence of molten metal - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

2. Flashes - 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

3. On what factual data do you base this claim? Regardless if it was thermite, thermate, or nanothermite, all three would be very capable of liquefying the iron supports sufficiently to bring the building down, especially in combination with explosives. The outer columns could have been weakened with thermite, and the inner supports destroyed with high explosives in an effort to conceal the explosive blasts from the public eye.

So the three cores of any criminal investigation-
Means: CHECK
Motive: More to come
Opportunity: CHECK

[alphatv]

It will remain mystery as long as Democrat president is there.

[Spendulus]

...
No credible is people who say they heard "explosions."  Honestly, I can't tell the difference between a car backfiring and certain types of gunshots.  
...

....

By happenstance, the vid also shows some of the flashes that were observed, and, of course, the implosion of the building(s) itself.  It is hard for me to believe that anyone could watch these buildings come apart as they did and mentally map it to a gravity collapse.  Even without understanding the structural theory of the building.  It is even more ridiculous when one does understand the core columns and such.

BTW, here's a rather well known photo of one of the core columns:



It appears to show the effects of thermate used in a conventional manner, and from the research I did (a long time ago) the picture was taken at a time when this cannot be explained by after-action clean-up efforts.

I would also point out the absurdity of an aluminium aircraft 'taking out' not one but many such columns in the center of the building.  This after taking out the much smaller but still very substantial steel structure which provided strength to the outer part of the building.  Ever see how an aircraft is built?

"Rather well know photo" only shows a column cut at a standard angle, either by cutting torches or something like thermite.  Most likely just a cutting torch, because that wouldn't require building up the dam like structures around the areas to be worked on.  And with thermite, the slag would have been routed out, not just dribbled on the low side.  So I'd say cutting torch on this, but could be wrong.  Does not matter, because for this picture to support the conspiracy theory you have to definitively show the column to be like that before the men started working.

Because those men arrived to do things  — EXACTLY THINGS LIKE THAT.  

I'm certain you can see the problem with this kind of "evidence."

As for your question about being doubtful as to the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the tower, we can address that.  Have you considered that the kinetic energy of a mass is a function of speed and of weight?  It does not matter if the mass is steel, fuel, water, humans, or aluminum.  There is nothing but the cross sectional area of the propelled object divided by the weight, times the square of the velocity.  Then there are secondary effects if the mass experiences phase changes on impact.  (Solid to liquid, or liquid to gas).  Whether this occurs is a function of the noted kinetic energy figured as instantaneous localized heating.

As for the flash in the video (one flash repeated over and over) I'm not impressed.  Yes, it appears to be a flash in the interior of the building - it looks like a flash from the big UPS systems which were IIRC a couple floors over the area that got hit.  So, something shorted out, right?  Flash.

What I was getting to is that if thermite had been used on the exterior columns you would have seen a very distinctive series of flashes going down the line.  One random flash doesn't cut it, sorry.

Also, are we through arguing nano-thermite?  As I mentioned, there's no need to hypothesize "nano-thermite" for a conspiracy theory, in fact it makes it crazier.  Demolition crews would simply used standard materials and standard methods.  Never has that been "nano-thermite," which is something of a laboratory curiosity.  The very reason Nobel won his Nobel prize was the fact that he figured out a way that dangerous, explosive material could be handled safely.  

I'm also curious, why this focus among conspiracy nuts on "cutting the columns?"  There is no relation between cutting a column and bringing a building down.  It is only necessary to heat a steel structure until it is weakened.  Steel is like putty when it is above 500-800 F.  The temperature and strength curves are well understood.  There's plenty of energy in jet fuel to do this.  This is simply stated, why I do not think "additional theories" are required.  These theories only attempt to bring "additional destructive energies" into the equation.  But if the known energies are sufficient, these ideas are not necessary.

It's as simple as that.  The conspiracy theorist must first rule out that the impact energy and the fuel of the jets could have caused the structural failures.  

I have not seen this done.  I've seen attempts at it that were extremely easy to debunk.

[BADecker]

...
No credible is people who say they heard "explosions."  Honestly, I can't tell the difference between a car backfiring and certain types of gunshots.  
...

....

By happenstance, the vid also shows some of the flashes that were observed, and, of course, the implosion of the building(s) itself.  It is hard for me to believe that anyone could watch these buildings come apart as they did and mentally map it to a gravity collapse.  Even without understanding the structural theory of the building.  It is even more ridiculous when one does understand the core columns and such.

BTW, here's a rather well known photo of one of the core columns:



It appears to show the effects of thermate used in a conventional manner, and from the research I did (a long time ago) the picture was taken at a time when this cannot be explained by after-action clean-up efforts.

I would also point out the absurdity of an aluminium aircraft 'taking out' not one but many such columns in the center of the building.  This after taking out the much smaller but still very substantial steel structure which provided strength to the outer part of the building.  Ever see how an aircraft is built?

"Rather well know photo" only shows a column cut at a standard angle, either by cutting torches or something like thermite.  Most likely just a cutting torch, because that wouldn't require building up the dam like structures around the areas to be worked on.  And with thermite, the slag would have been routed out, not just dribbled on the low side.  So I'd say cutting torch on this, but could be wrong.  Does not matter, because for this picture to support the conspiracy theory you have to definitively show the column to be like that before the men started working.

Because those men arrived to do things  — EXACTLY THINGS LIKE THAT.  

I'm certain you can see the problem with this kind of "evidence."

As for your question about being doubtful as to the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the tower, we can address that.  Have you considered that the kinetic energy of a mass is a function of speed and of weight?  It does not matter if the mass is steel, fuel, water, humans, or aluminum.  There is nothing but the cross sectional area of the propelled object divided by the weight, times the square of the velocity.  Then there are secondary effects if the mass experiences phase changes on impact.  (Solid to liquid, or liquid to gas).  Whether this occurs is a function of the noted kinetic energy figured as instantaneous localized heating.

As for the flash in the video (one flash repeated over and over) I'm not impressed.  Yes, it appears to be a flash in the interior of the building - it looks like a flash from the big UPS systems which were IIRC a couple floors over the area that got hit.  So, something shorted out, right?  Flash.

What I was getting to is that if thermite had been used on the exterior columns you would have seen a very distinctive series of flashes going down the line.  One random flash doesn't cut it, sorry.

Also, are we through arguing nano-thermite?  As I mentioned, there's no need to hypothesize "nano-thermite" for a conspiracy theory, in fact it makes it crazier.  Demolition crews would simply used standard materials and standard methods.  Never has that been "nano-thermite," which is something of a laboratory curiosity.  The very reason Nobel won his Nobel prize was the fact that he figured out a way that dangerous, explosive material could be handled safely.  

I'm also curious, why this focus among conspiracy nuts on "cutting the columns?"  There is no relation between cutting a column and bringing a building down.  It is only necessary to heat a steel structure until it is weakened.  Steel is like putty when it is above 500-800 F.  The temperature and strength curves are well understood.  There's plenty of energy in jet fuel to do this.  This is simply stated, why I do not think "additional theories" are required.  These theories only attempt to bring "additional destructive energies" into the equation.  But if the known energies are sufficient, these ideas are not necessary.

It's as simple as that.  The conspiracy theorist must first rule out that the impact energy and the fuel of the jets could have caused the structural failures.  

I have not seen this done.  I've seen attempts at it that were extremely easy to debunk.

Except that you entirely ignore the fact that there were live people milling around in all that alleged heat.

The fuel from the planes mostly boiled off before it could burn. Air does NOT automatically mix with fuel in sufficient form and quantities to make enough heat to weaken anything like girders, especially through asbestos and concrete. The fact of the people walking around shows that it didn't.

The explosions heard by many people are the reason for the Towers falling, and the place where heat hot enough to do any structural damage came from.

But I DO like how you use your high school science... Political Science, that is... the science of propagandizing... the only science that could ever stand a chance of proving that 9/11 was NOT an inside job.

[TECSHARE]

I'm certain you can see the problem with this kind of "evidence."

As for your question about being doubtful as to the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the tower, we can address that.  Have you considered that the kinetic energy of a mass is a function of speed and of weight?  It does not matter if the mass is steel, fuel, water, humans, or aluminum.

As for the flash in the video (one flash repeated over and over) I'm not impressed.  Yes, it appears to be a flash in the interior of the building - it looks like a flash from the big UPS systems which were IIRC a couple floors over the area that got hit.  So, something shorted out, right?  Flash.

What I was getting to is that if thermite had been used on the exterior columns you would have seen a very distinctive series of flashes going down the line.  One random flash doesn't cut it, sorry.

Also, are we through arguing nano-thermite?  As I mentioned, there's no need to hypothesize "nano-thermite" for a conspiracy theory, in fact it makes it crazier.  Demolition crews would simply used standard materials and standard methods.  Never has that been "nano-thermite," which is something of a laboratory curiosity.  The very reason Nobel won his Nobel prize was the fact that he figured out a way that dangerous, explosive material could be handled safely.  

I'm also curious, why this focus among conspiracy nuts on "cutting the columns?"  There is no relation between cutting a column and bringing a building down.  It is only necessary to heat a steel structure until it is weakened.  Steel is like putty when it is above 500-800 F.  The temperature and strength curves are well understood.  There's plenty of energy in jet fuel to do this.  This is simply stated, why I do not think "additional theories" are required.  These theories only attempt to bring "additional destructive energies" into the equation.  But if the known energies are sufficient, these ideas are not necessary.

It's as simple as that.  The conspiracy theorist must first rule out that the impact energy and the fuel of the jets could have caused the structural failures. 

I have not seen this done.  I've seen attempts at it that were extremely easy to debunk.

Going for all the low hanging fruit as usual eh? You still haven't addressed the 4-ton girders blown hundreds of feet from their positions in the towers, or the free fall speed of the building falling. Both of these things REQUIRE explosives to happen under the laws of physics. You can't just call batshit & ninjas to wiggle out of this one, it is 100% math and science.

As far as your argument about the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the towers, it was designed to withstand a direct Boeing 707 impact, according to one of the WTC engineers. This is a mathematical breakdown of the differences in the kinetic energy showing it had a 10% margin of error between the designed for impact, and the actual impact.

Regarding the substances the plane was made out of, it DOES matter. If it did not matter, why is it that aluminum bullets are not popular? It would be much cheaper than copper. The density of the the projectile matters because it will behave differently when hitting an object of greater density than when it hits an object that is less dense than it is. As a result, a mostly aluminum framed plane would not cut thru the outer steel columns of the building, but simply deform the side of impact and spread out its kinetic energy as it was crushed and the plane ripped apart as a result of hitting a more dense object, the outer steel columns.

As for your claims of steel becoming "like putty when it is above 500-800 F", do you even bother checking these things or do you just repeat them out of pure  arrogance and faith that you are right? Look at any steel working or forging website and it will tell you that the working temperature of steel where it is soft enough to be worked is almost double the temperatures you claim.

In reference to your response about the flashes, you clearly did not view all of the videos, and are quickly moving to discredit them, because they discredit your earlier claims of no explosives like flashes being visible. additionally the metric is not how impressed you are, but that the flashes exist. The most clearly visible case of this is in building 7, where it is extremely obvious that explosive charges were used, as you can clearly see multiple flashes in repetition, along with windows blown out, and ejections from the pressure. There was also included several angles of flashes in the WTC buildings, but the most prominent was the shock waves and ejections from these charges. 1. 2. 3. Furthermore, as I explained earlier, highly visible explosive flashes could be avoided simply by placing thermite charges on the exterior supports, and using the cutter charges on the internal supports, obfuscating most of the flashes. Clearly not all of them were hidden though as the video evidence shows.

You try to make a point that the steel could just have been heated to bring the building down, but you are ignoring a very basic law of energy, induction. You are claiming that a massive highly conductive structure made from steel surrounded by heat sapping materials such as concrete was able to heat to sufficient softening or melting point in just 56 minutes in an uncontrolled kerosene fire? Must be those ninjas changing the laws of physics again.

"It's as simple as that.  The conspiracy theorist must first rule out that the impact energy and the fuel of the jets could have caused the structural failures. 

I have not seen this done.  I've seen attempts at it that were extremely easy to debunk."

As sourced above, directly from an WTC engineer's mouth, the buildings were designed to withstand such an impact.