- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So im more convinced than ever that the govt allowed 9/11 to happen
Posted on 8/9/17 at 2:38 pm to GumboPot
Posted on 8/9/17 at 2:38 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Exactly.
He carried out the experiments with success with an inferior thermite.
A military grade thermite would perform WAY better.
Your ambiguous extrapolation should be an embarrassment for you as an engineer.
1
Posted on 8/9/17 at 2:50 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I know. That's not what I said. I said " they essentially blew the beams like they would with a standard shaped copper charge"
I believe it and there is evidence for it. And it can be done with inferior homemade thermite.
quote:
Ok, so your theory that the evidence samples are some absolute indicator that there was some sort of special material used to take down the towers is completely bogus because you just said that it's a common material that could've come from anywhere. Thanks for admitting that.
Yes, it's quite common. You can buy some commercial grade thermite here: LINK
Then there is composite nanothermite.
After all my explanations about geometry, specifically surface area do you still not understand why nanothermite (i.e. military grade composite nanothermite found un-ignited) is more powerful than normal thermite?
Furthermore, the fact that the nanothermite found was placed on a silica composite. Why would they do that? Again it's all about geometry to expose the maximum surface area which requires less thermite to do the same job. The composite structure also helps to stabilize the Fe and Al compounds during transportation and storage.
quote:
I did watch the video. It contained no nanothermite experiments. That's not how science works. You said yourself that they have different properties so why would you substitute one for the other then claim it proves your point?
Again.
Homemade thermite and nanothemite still have the same components, Fe03 and Al.
Homemade thermites particles are less effective because the particles are larger and have less surface area per unit volume.
Nanothermite which is military grade and is not available to the public has much smaller particles and have a much larger net surface area per unit volume.
(I don't know how many times I have to explain that?
) If the test were successful with inferior homemade thermite why wouldn't the test be successful with more superior military grade nanothermite?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 2:56 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Your ambiguous extrapolation should be an embarrassment for you as an engineer.
Ridicule.
It not a baseless extrapolation.
I laid it all out. You just don't understand it.
You fail to refute the science on purpose or because you don't understand it (and it's high school level science) and revert to other 911 topics that I'm not even debating and ridicule.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 3:30 pm to GumboPot
quote:
After all my explanations about geometry, specifically surface area do you still not understand why nanothermite (i.e. military grade composite nanothermite found un-ignited) is more powerful than normal thermite?
I'm not saying your explanations are well within the realm of scientific theory. I'm saying the fact that none of your truther friends have ever laid hands on or tested nanothermite means that none of you have any idea of the actual real world properties of the material nor it's effect on steel beams like the ones found in the WTC.
quote:
Homemade thermite and nanothemite still have the same components, Fe03 and Al.
Homemade thermites particles are less effective because the particles are larger and have less surface area per unit volume.
Nanothermite which is military grade and is not available to the public has much smaller particles and have a much larger net surface area per unit volume.
Once again, you're extrapolating data to fit your theory.
quote:
If the test were successful with inferior homemade thermite why wouldn't the test be successful with more superior military grade nanothermite?
They cause two completely different reactions to the material they're intended to destroy. One passively melts the steel while the other detonates and cuts through in the same manner as a standard shaped charge. So that just begs the question of why anyone would use something with such a unique fingerprint vs using something that would just blend in with the rest of the building debris. It makes zero sense from a basic covert standpoint.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 3:34 pm to GumboPot
quote:
I laid it all out. You just don't understand it.
You fail to refute the science on purpose or because you don't understand it (and it's high school level science) and revert to other 911 topics that I'm not even debating and ridicule.
I fully understand your angle.
You claim to know every property of a material that you or any of your fellow truthers have never laid your hands on or tested. Then when you get called out on it you say "oh, well we can't get our hands on the material but we know exactly what it does, how it's applied and how it precisely reacts in the field".
It's a cop out for a lack of physical data.
It's like being an expert on bigfoot because you saw a big footprint in the woods.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 8/9/17 at 3:37 pm to upgrayedd
How many nujobs believe there was a conspiracy.
So it's the Jew bankers, Saudi oilmen, secret societies and groups like the bilderbergs group, trilateral commission and illuminati?
So it's the Jew bankers, Saudi oilmen, secret societies and groups like the bilderbergs group, trilateral commission and illuminati?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 3:44 pm to lsucoonass
Who knows.
The problem is these people get together in an echo chamber and use quasiscientific theories to explain things that we may not have an answer for. They typically have psychological tendencies that make them have a need for everything to be explained and placed in the proper location. That's why this kind of thing disproportionately attracts people like architects and engineers because they're brains are simply wired that way. In their minds, there HAS to be a solution for x and they'll suspend even the most basic logic to solve the issue.
The problem is these people get together in an echo chamber and use quasiscientific theories to explain things that we may not have an answer for. They typically have psychological tendencies that make them have a need for everything to be explained and placed in the proper location. That's why this kind of thing disproportionately attracts people like architects and engineers because they're brains are simply wired that way. In their minds, there HAS to be a solution for x and they'll suspend even the most basic logic to solve the issue.
This post was edited on 8/9/17 at 3:56 pm
Posted on 8/9/17 at 3:47 pm to Placebeaux
Posted on 8/9/17 at 3:47 pm to TigersHuskers
Most downvotes ever?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 3:58 pm to upgrayedd
Let's say there was a chemical involved that caused the fire to be hot enough to melt the metal. Was it possible for the terrorist to get it on the plane?
Since they were determined to bring down the towers then had a failed attempt in 1993. Would it be more likely that they spend the 7 or 8 years planning for this attack, trying to work out all the details and figuring out exactly what it would take to bring it down? Opposed to the government doing it?
Since they were determined to bring down the towers then had a failed attempt in 1993. Would it be more likely that they spend the 7 or 8 years planning for this attack, trying to work out all the details and figuring out exactly what it would take to bring it down? Opposed to the government doing it?
Posted on 8/9/17 at 4:24 pm to OweO
He's saying that the govt planted said chemical in the WTC then blew it up to look like it fell due to the fire.
Some people theorize that the government worked with terrorist organizations to coordinate the attack and tear down the WTC.
quote:
Since they were determined to bring down the towers then had a failed attempt in 1993. Would it be more likely that they spend the 7 or 8 years planning for this attack, trying to work out all the details and figuring out exactly what it would take to bring it down? Opposed to the government doing it?
Some people theorize that the government worked with terrorist organizations to coordinate the attack and tear down the WTC.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 4:30 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I fully understand your angle.
No you don't.
quote:
You claim to know every property of a material that you or any of your fellow truthers have never laid your hands on or tested.
Link? Howerver I can get most of what I need from CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and Perry's amongst many other sources.
quote:
Then when you get called out on it you say "oh, well we can't get our hands on the material but we know exactly what it does, how it's applied and how it precisely reacts in the field".
FeO3 and elemental Al were successfully used in the experiments to cut A36 beams and tubular steel. I provided a video link twice.
FeO3 and Al are the exact same base components in thermite and nanothermite. The only difference between the two are particle size, mounting substrate and accelerate.
Saying that nanothermite cannot cut steel beams but thremite can (as illustrated in the video I linked twice) is like saying my supercharged heavy duty Ford F-250 can't pull my boat but my neighbors Ford F-150 can.
quote:
It's like being an expert on bigfoot because you saw a big footprint in the woods.
Another dishonest and disingenuous tactic to avoid the issue and claim victory...and I'm not even looking for victory. Just looking for truth.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 5:42 pm to GumboPot
quote:
FeO3 and Al are the exact same base components in thermite and nanothermite. The only difference between the two are particle size, mounting substrate and accelerate.
Ok, so the nanothermite results in the same properties as a shaped copper charge - using an accelerated reaction and molten metal to slice through a steel beam. Once again, it makes absolutely no sense to use a material with such a distinct fingerprint to do the job that a traditional demolition tool will do (and will also be far harder to detect).
Posted on 8/9/17 at 8:36 pm to GumboPot
From your link:
The study you linked also doesn't specify exactly where the sample was taken, nor does it go to great pains to describe a proper chain of custody. Without that, how can truly open minded people be completely sure that these samples are actually untainted samples from the WTC? They say it was from WTC rubble, but how do we know whether the pieces contain post collapse contaminants?
The authors of that piece don’t seem surprised by the presence of the listed elements. They are not even suggesting anything sinister.
The authors cite no clear evidence that the identified elements you associate with thermite or even thermate (Professor Jones from BYU calls it thermate) exist in proportions that match what we might expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction. Furthermore, some of the elements would expect to be produced in a thermite/thermate reaction aren’t reported at all.
In other words, your own linked article provides absolutely no proof of thermite/ thermate. It merely serves to lead readers to make up their own narrative (which you do). You might be easily persuaded by assumptions and speculation, but the reason guys like you are widely regarded as kooks is because more rational minds require more evidence than the crap that persuades kooks.
If you are indeed a rational thinker, then the only explanation I can offer is what I've already stated - you are a liar.
quote:
Interpretation
The total element compositions of the dust samples reflect the chemical makeup of materials such as: glass fibers (containing silicon, aluminum, calcium, magnesium, sodium, and other elements); gypsum (containing calcium and sulfate); concrete and aggregate (containing calcium and aluminum hydroxides, and a variety of silicate minerals containing silicon, calcium, potassium, sodium, and magnesium); particles rich in iron, aluminum, titanium, and other metals that might be used in building construction; and particles of other components, such as computers, etc. Organic carbon in the dusts is most likely from paper, wallboard binder, and other organic materials.
The trace metal compositions of the dust and girder coatings likely reflect contributions of material from a wide variety of sources. Possibilities include metals that might be found as pigments in paints (such as titanium, molybdenum, lead, and iron), or metals that occur as traces in, or as major components of, wallboard, concrete, aggregate, copper piping, electrical wiring, and computer equipment. Further detailed SEM studies of dust and beam coating samples are needed to develop a better understanding of the residences of metals in the samples. A detailed review of the materials used in construction, and the elemental composition of materials commonly found in office buildings would also be useful to understand more completely the potential sources and compositions of the materials in the dusts.
The study you linked also doesn't specify exactly where the sample was taken, nor does it go to great pains to describe a proper chain of custody. Without that, how can truly open minded people be completely sure that these samples are actually untainted samples from the WTC? They say it was from WTC rubble, but how do we know whether the pieces contain post collapse contaminants?
The authors of that piece don’t seem surprised by the presence of the listed elements. They are not even suggesting anything sinister.
The authors cite no clear evidence that the identified elements you associate with thermite or even thermate (Professor Jones from BYU calls it thermate) exist in proportions that match what we might expect from a thermite/ thermate reaction. Furthermore, some of the elements would expect to be produced in a thermite/thermate reaction aren’t reported at all.
In other words, your own linked article provides absolutely no proof of thermite/ thermate. It merely serves to lead readers to make up their own narrative (which you do). You might be easily persuaded by assumptions and speculation, but the reason guys like you are widely regarded as kooks is because more rational minds require more evidence than the crap that persuades kooks.
If you are indeed a rational thinker, then the only explanation I can offer is what I've already stated - you are a liar.
Posted on 8/9/17 at 8:51 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Saying that nanothermite cannot cut steel beams but thremite can (as illustrated in the video I linked twice) is like saying my supercharged heavy duty Ford F-250 can't pull my boat but my neighbors Ford F-150 can.
Why do demolition companies not use nanothermite or other thermitic materials to bring down buildings?
Page 25 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News