What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

That's 4.3 x 0.0001 x 2000 lb/ton = 8.6 lb of explosive (EQUAL TO 40,000 joules).  

But PE = mgh, mass gravity height,

E= 8000 lb * 32 ft/sec^2 * 1000 = 2.4 * 10^7 joules.

40,000 joules from your explosives
24,000,000 joules of  PE, potential energy

So again, isn't the PE explanation a SUFFICIENT one?
Why is the explosives explanation a NECESSARY one?

As you can see, there are trying enormous amounts of energy in a tall building's collapse.  A cartwheeling 40' section of an I beam certainly can deflect a 4 ton section of an I beam hundreds of feet sideways.  Or it slides sideways on a rubble heap.  Or a section of the perimeter columns tilts over like on a pivot (which IS SEEN in the video) and imparts energy.  

There are several problems with your logic. First of all you are taking the entire energy force of the building (I assume, you still haven't explained where you get your numbers from), and claiming all of it is available to some how fling these multi-ton objects laterally. The calculation I provided was for ONE single 4-ton girder....

Let me restate more clearly.

Energy required to set 4 ton steel section moving at 21meters per second
8 pounds of TNT, 40,000 joules from your link

Potential energy of that 4 ton steel section at 1000 feet
24,000,000 joules

That is JUST THE POTENTIAL ENERGY IN THAT BEAM FRAGMENT.

Now, given the distribution of debris from the towers' fall, the position of the beam fragment is within the normal distribution.  It is "within the conical mound of debris," although more or less the outer part of it.

Unfortunately for your argument there was no "conical mound of debris". As I explained earlier one of the shocking facts noted by cleanup crews was the LACK of a taller debris pile. The debris field was wide but not tall consistent with explosives. FFS bone fragments of victims were still being found years later on distant rooftops. Collapses don't pulverize human bone and send it flying either.

I'm using the phrase "conical mound of debris" loosely.  Certainly, if you stood in the center of where the building was, it was the highest.  A hundred yards out, it's lower.  Three hundred yards out, just dust.  Here's what some guys said at the time.  (NY TImes, reporter to firefighter)



Debris was incredible, how much of it was across the street. You couldn't even tell the street from the sidewalk. It didn't look like a big pile at first, but you realized it later on because it was a gradual outlaying of material. It gradually increased in height as you went along, so it was like climbing a hill, you really don't know how high you are until you are up there.

Q. The perception wasn't real till you saw firemen standing on the pile. You could barely see them.

A. Barely see them.

Q. Then you have a perception of the mass that was there.

A. How deep it was. And how high it is. I mean you were actually standing sometimes 15, 20 stories up. It wasn't that much of a fall, because there was a lot of material along the way. -Firefighter Fred Marsilla nytimes.com

[1714610454]

1714610454

[1714610454]

1714610454

[Spendulus]

Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away?

Maybe you can clarify exactly what you are asking for. Frankly, physics proves it regardless of how you interpret the video.

As in, if 9/11 was a demolition and explosives were used that caused the bone fragments to be thrown far away, are there videos showcasing said explosions? Or would kinetic energy from the plane colliding with the building be enough to do so?

What's "far away?"  Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence."  It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam.  

I guess it's up to whoever makes the claim "bone fragments were found far away" to support his claim that somehow this is evidence or proof of explosives.  As I've already shown, the kinetic energy of position at 1000 feet alone is orders of magnitude higher than is required to move things a few hundred feet sideways.

A piece of debris from an aircraft colliding with a tower, if it continued forward at it's initial velocity for ten seconds would come to rest over a mile away. 

Many of the bone fragments found were like 1-2mm in size, these would decelerate quickly from the plane's velocity but would be moved by the wind.

So what exactly is "far away?"

[Spendulus]

One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive.  In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.  ....

"Reactive" means simply that it will very, very shortly be "not reactive." 

[Karish2return]

9/11 was all planned by USA.

[TECSHARE]

One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive.  In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.

Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives.

Are there videos showing an explosive force capable of ejecting bone fragments that far away?

Maybe you can clarify exactly what you are asking for. Frankly, physics proves it regardless of how you interpret the video.

As in, if 9/11 was a demolition and explosives were used that caused the bone fragments to be thrown far away, are there videos showcasing said explosions? Or would kinetic energy from the plane colliding with the building be enough to do so?

If you bother to actually read the thread this is exactly what I have been providing evidence for based on the laws of physics.

What's "far away?"  Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence."  It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam. 

I guess it's up to whoever makes the claim "bone fragments were found far away" to support his claim that somehow this is evidence or proof of explosives.  As I've already shown, the kinetic energy of position at 1000 feet alone is orders of magnitude higher than is required to move things a few hundred feet sideways.

A piece of debris from an aircraft colliding with a tower, if it continued forward at it's initial velocity for ten seconds would come to rest over a mile away. 

Many of the bone fragments found were like 1-2mm in size, these would decelerate quickly from the plane's velocity but would be moved by the wind.

So what exactly is "far away?"

Again, that kinetic energy is acting with a DOWNWARD force. Any lateral force would be irregular and insufficient to move 4-ton objects the distance they were found and at the speed of their travel. As far as the bones, the question is HOW they became pulverized in the first place. A collapse would crush them, but not turn them into tiny shattered fragments. You make arguments about the plane impacts, but the fragments were not simply found in one direction, they radiated outward in all directions surrounding the area which does not line up with your explanation of it being caused by the plane impact. Even in horrible massive plane crashes there are still bodies and bones left. Anyways, this is an ancillary topic that you will only use to distract from the indisputable physical evidence of explosive force based on the distance of the massive steel supports hundreds of feet from the towers, so I am not going to address this specific topic any further.

What is "far away"? Lets examine that.



For reference here is the wall segment we are talking about.





Here is a diagram of the paths and velocities required for each of these sections depending on the originating floor.





The sections were ejected in ALL directions, and from every floor. This totally disqualifies any theory of it being a result of the plane impacts, or some freak "spring" action created by the collapse.





Here are photographs showing where this wall segment landed, 600ft away on roof of the Winter Gardens. Note the section lodged in the building at the top of the photo well above the height of the debris pile, disqualifying the toppling down the debris pile theory.




Finally here is an aerial shot of the area showing really how far away 600 feet is. As you can see, this area is also well outside the main mass of the debris pile clearly demonstrating it did not simply topple down a debris pile.

[Spendulus]

What's "far away?"  Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence."  It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam.  

Again, that kinetic energy is acting with a DOWNWARD force.

What is "far away"? Lets examine that.

Here is a diagram of the paths and velocities required for each of these sections depending on the originating floor.



The sections were ejected in ALL directions, and from every floor. This totally disqualifies any theory of it being a result of the plane impacts, or some freak "spring" action created by the collapse.

Here are photographs showing where this wall segment landed, 600ft away on roof of the Winter Gardens. Note the section lodged in the building at the top of the photo well above the height of the debris pile, disqualifying the toppling down the debris pile theory.

Finally here is an aerial shot of the area showing really how far away 600 feet is. As you can see, this area is also well outside the main mass of the debris pile clearly demonstrating it did not simply topple down a debris pile.

To an extent I agree with you.  "Toppling down a debris pile" wasn't precisely what I had in mind.  Rather I wanted to illustrate the massive amounts of potential energy in each of these pieces of the building when they were up in the air.  The translation of just a small part of this energy into sideways motion easily results in the sideways displacement.

What percentage? 40,000 required for sideways movement/24,000,000 joules PE = 0.16%
(this is for that one column fragment previously discussed, eg 4 ton section A36 steel)

Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement.

You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives?  I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it.  I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well.

[Spendulus]

One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive.  In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.

Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives.

There's no reason to presume that a "nano-thermite" would have the same stability characteristics as regular thermite.  None whatsoever.  In fact, nano-thermite seems to be a mythical creation of 911 conspiracy advocates which has whatever features they want to give it.  Real behavior of nano-materials is quite different.

For example, nano aluminum which can be used as a propellant reacting with sea water alone.  Not exactly something that could be used reliably or safely as a explosive.  Again, Nobel won his prize for discovering a way to save lives by making explosive materials safe for those whose job required using them.

[tvbcof]

One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive.  In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.

Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives.

There's no reason to presume that a "nano-thermite" would have the same stability characteristics as regular thermite.  None whatsoever.  In fact, nano-thermite seems to be a mythical creation of 911 conspiracy advocates which has whatever features they want to give it.  Real behavior of nano-materials is quite different.

For example, nano aluminum which can be used as a propellant reacting with sea water alone.  Not exactly something that could be used reliably or safely as a explosive.  Again, Nobel won his prize for discovering a way to save lives by making explosive materials safe for those whose job required using them.

Neither of these assertions are exactly true of the nano-thermite (especially difficult to initiate, or a hypothetical invention in which it would necessarily be especially easy to initiate a reaction.)  The material has been studied in detail in one paper in particular.  From 3. in TOCPJ-2-7.pdf:

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differ-
ential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435  ̊C. The energy re-
lease for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be ap-
proximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. ...

I would not want the stuff coating my house if a spark from a random short circuted wire could set it off.  Possibly this was associated with the short-notice power disturbances which impacted on-site datacenter deployments.  I mean, taking certain vacant and prepped floors out of service for safety reasons.

Nano-thermite would act like a high explosive in terms of it's potential to shater and pulverize things and would not overlap with the function of conventional thermite/thermate which is used to cut steel.  The heavy steel box structures mostly I would guess.

I don't doubt that conventional high explosives were employed in convential ways to acomplish certain tasks.  It probably was these which were reported by witnesses time and time again in the early days, and which were responsible for the outward and often upward trajectories of the debris as the buildings were collapsing.

[Spendulus]

One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive.  In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.

Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives.

There's no reason to presume that a "nano-thermite" would have the same stability characteristics as regular thermite.  None whatsoever.  In fact, nano-thermite seems to be a mythical creation of 911 conspiracy advocates which has whatever features they want to give it.  Real behavior of nano-materials is quite different.

For example, nano aluminum which can be used as a propellant reacting with sea water alone.  Not exactly something that could be used reliably or safely as a explosive.  Again, Nobel won his prize for discovering a way to save lives by making explosive materials safe for those whose job required using them.

Neither of these assertions are exactly true of the nano-thermite (especially difficult to initiate, or a hypothetical invention in which it would necessarily be especially easy to initiate a reaction.)  The material has been studied in detail in one paper in particular.  From 3. in TOCPJ-2-7.pdf:

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differ-
ential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435  ̊C. The energy re-
lease for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be ap-
proximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. ...

No to the kJ/g "estimates."  They are in excess of yields from thermite. 
So what to the "ignites."  Paint ignites.

This material was not thermite or nano-thermite, it was primer paint.  Yes, paint contains metal and metal oxides.  No, paint does not explode.

I don't doubt that conventional high explosives were employed in convential ways to acomplish certain tasks. 

Eliminating the fantasy stuff about fantasy nano-thermite is a step forward.  Then you are simply left with the question of whether an energy source other than jets, fire and potential energy is required to explain the events.

[Spendulus]

.....

Neither of these assertions are exactly true of the nano-thermite (especially difficult to initiate, or a hypothetical invention in which it would necessarily be especially easy to initiate a reaction.)  The material has been studied in detail in one paper in particular.  From 3. in TOCPJ-2-7.pdf:

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differ-
ential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435  ̊C. The energy re-
lease for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be ap-
proximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. ...

I would not want the stuff coating my house if a spark from a random short circuted wire could set it off.  Possibly this was associated with the short-notice power disturbances which impacted on-site datacenter deployments.  I mean, taking certain vacant and prepped floors out of service for safety reasons.
....

"the stuff" is exactly what your house would have if it was done with a 1970s era primer, because that's what the "red/gray chips" were, primer paint.  Look at the Millet study that debunked Harriet -

    


    'In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.'

    '
    Conclusions
    The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
    There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.'
    
Millette is actually an expert at this type of study, so he didn't make the rookie mistakes they did. He used FTIR, for one thing. He took the guesswork and speculation out of it, and found nothing remarkable.  

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=015_1330900552

[TECSHARE]

One of the relatively few things that bother me about the thermate/nano-thermite hypothesis is that the nano-thermite which was discovered in all of the dust is quite reactive.  In terms of stability, it is vastly different from high explosives which require another high explosive to initiate a detonation.... Anyway, the troublesome aspects of my current strongest hypothesis (thermate/nano-thermite) pale compared to the problems associated with the 'official conspiricy theory' which I am supposed to be believing.

Note true. Standard Iron oxide thermite is extremely stable. It is not reactive to impact, and its ignition temperature requires a temperature of 2731.730 F, so well within the safe range of any petrol based fuel fires. You make a fair point about it not being sufficient to pulverize concrete, but there is a lot of evidence to support the additional use of high explosives.

There's no reason to presume that a "nano-thermite" would have the same stability characteristics as regular thermite.  None whatsoever.  In fact, nano-thermite seems to be a mythical creation of 911 conspiracy advocates which has whatever features they want to give it.  Real behavior of nano-materials is quite different.

For example, nano aluminum which can be used as a propellant reacting with sea water alone.  Not exactly something that could be used reliably or safely as a explosive.  Again, Nobel won his prize for discovering a way to save lives by making explosive materials safe for those whose job required using them.

I used the term "standard iron oxide thermite" for a reason. I never said it HAD to be nanothermite, only that there was evidence for it. Additional, there is plenty of reason to assume thermite and nanothermite have the same properties, as they are almost chemically identical. The main difference is particle size and burn rate. The igniton temperature is roughly identical. Additional compounds can be added to have other effects if desired. It is not magic or alchemy, it is chemistry, and if you know how chemistry works you can change its properties considerably, so it is not some unimaginable feat that the properties could vary. Again you seem to want to pretend nanothermite is some fantastical nonexistant substance. Its existence and its properties are well documented.

What's "far away?"  Just like the assertion that the beam being found "far away" is taken to be some kind of "evidence."  It's not and there's nothing of an anomaly in the beam.  

Again, that kinetic energy is acting with a DOWNWARD force.

What is "far away"? Lets examine that.

Here is a diagram of the paths and velocities required for each of these sections depending on the originating floor.



The sections were ejected in ALL directions, and from every floor. This totally disqualifies any theory of it being a result of the plane impacts, or some freak "spring" action created by the collapse.

Here are photographs showing where this wall segment landed, 600ft away on roof of the Winter Gardens. Note the section lodged in the building at the top of the photo well above the height of the debris pile, disqualifying the toppling down the debris pile theory.

Finally here is an aerial shot of the area showing really how far away 600 feet is. As you can see, this area is also well outside the main mass of the debris pile clearly demonstrating it did not simply topple down a debris pile.

To an extent I agree with you.  "Toppling down a debris pile" wasn't precisely what I had in mind.  Rather I wanted to illustrate the massive amounts of potential energy in each of these pieces of the building when they were up in the air.  The translation of just a small part of this energy into sideways motion easily results in the sideways displacement.

What percentage? 40,000 required for sideways movement/24,000,000 joules PE = 0.16%
(this is for that one column fragment previously discussed, eg 4 ton section A36 steel)

Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement.

You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives?  I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it.  I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well.

Oh no? You seemed to think it was a viable explanation until I presented this information. Funny how it suddenly is not your argument any more after confronted with the evidence. Again you are ignoring that fact that this effect happened over and over again with multiple sections, in all directions. When this energy is transferred multiple hundreds or thousands of times over the entire structure, it becomes a much greater proportion of the total percentage of kinetic energy some how magically redirected laterally against the forces of gravity. Again, this is all in a situation where there is no perfect transaction of energy, meaning that there also had to be a lot of energy wasted in this translation of kinetic energy laterally. Not being able to define the method of lateral translation of energy is pretty much the entire point of presenting this evidence, so the fact that you can't explain it is a pretty fucking big hole in your logic.


Here is more evidence for you to chew on while you manufacture your next denial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoAD8HlrLZg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Fye_H1wIM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd70TwKS3qo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8QCQudNEtY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc1ql4TfCZw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt8PMLTmcng

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg

[Spendulus]

I used the term "standard iron oxide thermite" for a reason. I never said it HAD to be nanothermite, only that there was evidence for it. Additional, there is plenty of reason to assume thermite and nanothermite have the same properties, as they are almost chemically identical. The main difference is particle size and burn rate. The igniton temperature is roughly identical. Additional compounds can be added to have other effects if desired. It is not magic or alchemy, it is chemistry, and if you know how chemistry works you can change its properties considerably, so it is not some unimaginable feat that the properties could vary. Again you seem to want to pretend nanothermite is some fantastical nonexistant substance. Its existence and its properties are well documented.

Umm....NO.  Particle sizes and burn rates are huge differences.  Look at my note about nano particle aluminum being the fuel for torpedoes.  Change the particle size, that does not work.  What I am saying is that one must get very specific on "nano-thermite" or otherwise it is a nebulous term that can have any characteristics you want.  

Regardless, we can agree to use "standard iron oxide thermite."  

....
Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement.

You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives?  I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it.  I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well.

Oh no? You seemed to think it was a viable explanation until I presented this information. Funny how it suddenly is not your argument any more after confronted with the evidence. Again you are ignoring that fact that this effect happened over and over again with multiple sections, in all directions. When this energy is transferred multiple hundreds or thousands of times over the entire structure, it becomes a much greater proportion of the total percentage of kinetic energy some how magically redirected laterally against the forces of gravity. Again, this is all in a situation where there is no perfect transaction of energy, meaning that there also had to be a lot of energy wasted in this translation of kinetic energy laterally. Not being able to define the method of lateral translation of energy is pretty much the entire point of presenting this evidence, so the fact that you can't explain it is a pretty fucking big hole in your logic.
....

Come on, that's not fair.  I only said I was trying to think of a simple way to explain it.  Here goes.

The WTC towers were by volume, about 10% steel, concrete, etc - building structure, and 90% air - working spaces.  Then one falls.  All material goes downward.  Material fragments in the process.  By the time 10 stories have pancaked, there is in that area pretty much a solid mass of building material.  It is no longer 90% air.  Once the density of material reaches a certain number - you pick it, 30%, 50%, 70%, then that area or section is effectively presents a solid mass to materials coming down from above.  Then they move sideways because that's all they can do.

Now do you seriously want to argue that 0.2% of the PE of a beam cannot translate into sideways movement?  Really?

We could agree that the debris pile from a 200 foot x 200 feet building extended 5 feet further out than the original perimeter.  That's sideways motion.  It extended 200 feet.  Again, that's sideways motion.  It extended 500 feet.  That's sideways motion.

[tvbcof]

.....

Neither of these assertions are exactly true of the nano-thermite (especially difficult to initiate, or a hypothetical invention in which it would necessarily be especially easy to initiate a reaction.)  The material has been studied in detail in one paper in particular.  From 3. in TOCPJ-2-7.pdf:

Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differ-
ential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig.
(19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC
samples all ignited in the range 415-435  ̊C. The energy re-
lease for each exotherm can be estimated by integrating with
respect to time under the narrow peak. Proceeding from the
smallest to largest peaks, the yields are estimated to be ap-
proximately 1.5, 3, 6 and 7.5 kJ/g respectively. ...

I would not want the stuff coating my house if a spark from a random short circuted wire could set it off.  Possibly this was associated with the short-notice power disturbances which impacted on-site datacenter deployments.  I mean, taking certain vacant and prepped floors out of service for safety reasons.
....

"the stuff" is exactly what your house would have if it was done with a 1970s era primer, because that's what the "red/gray chips" were, primer paint.  Look at the Millet study that debunked Harriet -

    
    'In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.'

    '
    Conclusions
    The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
    There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite.'
    
Millette is actually an expert at this type of study, so he didn't make the rookie mistakes they did. He used FTIR, for one thing. He took the guesswork and speculation out of it, and found nothing remarkable.  

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=015_1330900552

Millette's samples do not display the same behavior as Harrit's under exposure to MEK.  Millette used this as an excuse to NOT attempt to reproduce the findings that the reaction is violent and resulted in molten iron spheres under the argument that his results indicate no elemental aluminium an thus cannot be of the thermite family.  This indicates to me both that his results are invalid, and that he is a fraud.

Evidence abounds of a cover-up on many fronts.  To wit, one would expect to find a multitude of shills working in various fronts at the behest of the perpetrators.  Millette would appear to be an anticipated example of such.

I've not looked at Millette's paper yet since my workstation fails to verify the issue's certificate authority.  Perhaps later I'll try on a machine with a less secure operating system where I use more relaxed security protocols.

[protokol]

Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?

It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.

As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.

[vokain]

Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?

It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.

As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.

I mean, false flags are a diversionary tactic used in this world. If foul play is involved, magicians' tricks of "look here while I do this there" could be expected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversionary_foreign_policy

Consider a Machiavellian group with political power embroiled in a military-industrial complex, who needs a reason to go to war for the control of oil somewhere that is not a part of the Empire. Is it not plausible that such a group would figure some sort of means to an end to control such a resource that allows for more power?

[BADecker]

Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?

It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.

As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.

I mean, false flags are a diversionary tactic used in this world. If foul play is involved, magicians' tricks of "look here while I do this there" could be expected.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diversionary_foreign_policy

Consider a Machiavellian group with political power embroiled in a military-industrial complex, who needs a reason to go to war for the control of oil somewhere that is not a part of the Empire. Is it not plausible that such a group would figure some sort of means to an end to control such a resource that allows for more power?

The money!



9/11 Trillions: Follow The Money



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3xgjxJwedA

[Spendulus]

Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?

It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.

As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.

You mean cutting a horse's head off, then shooting it, then driving over it with a truck isn't necessary?

[BADecker]

Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?

It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.

As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.

You mean cutting a horse's head off, then shooting it, then driving over it with a truck isn't necessary?

It is if someone pays you enough to do it - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1385160.msg14860214#msg14860214... like the American people paying the government people in taxes for who knows what, and this is the result.

[Spendulus]

Millette's samples do not display the same behavior as Harrit's under exposure to MEK.  Millette used this as an excuse to NOT attempt to reproduce the findings that the reaction is violent and resulted in molten iron spheres under the argument that his results indicate no elemental aluminium an thus cannot be of the thermite family.  This indicates to me both that his results are invalid, and that he is a fraud.

Evidence abounds of a cover-up on many fronts.  To wit, one would expect to find a multitude of shills working in various fronts at the behest of the perpetrators.  Millette would appear to be an anticipated example of such.

I've not looked at Millette's paper yet since my workstation fails to verify the issue's certificate authority.  Perhaps later I'll try on a machine with a less secure operating system where I use more relaxed security protocols.

Here are some brief sections of Millette.

SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles

Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick.

There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

Nano-thermite  ....is made up of approximately 2 nanometer iron oxide particles and approximately 30 nanometer aluminum metal spheres

The differences in size of the FeO being 100-200 nm and the requirement for about 2 nanometer size for the "nano-thermite" are not reconcilable.  Period.

The lack of the (more or less) 30 nm AL spheres is conclusive.  Obviously, for "regular thermite" normal size powdered metals are satisfactory.

[Spendulus]

Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?

It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.

As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.

.....
Consider a Machiavellian group with political power embroiled in a military-industrial complex, who needs a reason to go to war for the control of oil somewhere that is not a part of the Empire. Is it not plausible that such a group would figure some sort of means to an end to control such a resource that allows for more power?

Got to hand it to you.  That sure sounds like Al Queda and ISIS, doesn't it?