0
   

Dennis Kucinich: we're being played...

 
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 01:07 pm
@camlok,
Cam, the thing that totally eliminates my ever believing those reports is that even if I COMPLETELY accept the theory that explosives and/or thermite was used to bring down the buildings, there is no way there would be 'molten steel running like lava' long after the event (21 days after in one case)

We don't see that in big buildings that we know WERE brought down that way. Both thermite and explosives do their work very quickly - like milliseconds for explosives and only seconds for thermite.

Were there very hot fires in the enormous pile of debris long after the collapse? Sure, I would fully expect to see that in a building of that size jam packed with flammable plastics and other materials that was on fire when it collapsed after being hit with an airliner with a full load of fuel on board. Probably a lot of broken gas mains at the bottom feeding it for awhile too.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 02:34 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Cam, the thing that totally eliminates my ever believing those reports is that even if I COMPLETELY accept the theory that explosives and/or thermite was used to bring down the buildings, there is no way there would be 'molten steel running like lava' long after the event (21 days after in one case)


You raise a good point, Leadfoot.

Did you see the pictures at the FEMA link? Did you read the report that described steel that had been vaporized? How did that happen to WTC steel? Moreover, how did that happen to WTC7 steel, which wasn't contacted in any fashion by jet fuel, which, as we both know, cannot melt, let alone vaporize steel.

Quote:
We don't see that in big buildings that we know WERE brought down that way. Both thermite and explosives do their work very quickly - like milliseconds for explosives and only seconds for thermite.


This wasn't thermite, it was nanothermite, a whole 'nother thing.

What was a US developed, at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, recently discovered and patented, circa 1996/97, non-commercially available, military much higher grade than thermite explosive doing at the WTC?

===========

In this interview on the cable program Face to Face with Jack Etkin, Dr. Harrit discusses this finding and its implications. Dr. Harrit notes that World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7), a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper that was not hit by one of the planes on 9/11, collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint, and that the official explanation for this is that it was due to fire. However, the finding of nano-thermite in the dust, along with other available evidence, leads inescapably to another conclusion. “There is no doubt that this building was taken down in a controlled demolition,” says Dr. Harrit. “I consider this to be [a] mainstream scientific conclusion. There’s no way around this conclusion. There are so many observations that are only compatible with a controlled demolition.”

“Science is based on observation and experience,” says Dr. Harrit in the interview. Pointing out that it had never occurred before 9/11, he says, “A steel framed high rise simply does not collapse due to fire.”

Among the other evidence is the observation that WTC 7 fell at the acceleration of gravity, or free-fall acceleration. Fire, says Dr. Harrit, cannot do that to a building. “All of these columns had to be cut at the same time for this phenomenon to happen,” he says.

While conventional thermite is an incendiary, made from a mixture of powdered aluminum and iron oxide, Dr. Harrit explains that nano-thermite is manufactured from the atomic scale up. The ingredients are much more intimately mixed, he says, so they react with each other much faster. Unlike thermite, “Nano-thermite can be used as an explosive,” notes Dr. Harrit. “You can use thermite for cutting the steel beams, and it’s soundless,” he adds.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/07/interview-with-dr-niels-harrit-on-discovery-of-nano-thermite-in-wtc-dust/




Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 02:43 pm
@camlok,
You should read up on nano-thermite and what it is, does and how it is ignited. From the simple reading I have done, it sounds like it's use is unique and has extreme light release.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 02:57 pm
@Baldimo,
General information is always helpful, I agree.

What is really important though, is,

What was a US developed, at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, recently discovered and patented, circa 1996/97, non-commercially available, military much higher grade than thermite explosive doing at the WTC?

===========

This was most probably accomplished through the use of nano-thermites, which are hightech
energetic materials made by mixing ultra fine grain (UFG) aluminum and UFG
metal oxides; usually iron oxide, molybdenum oxide or copper oxide, although other
compounds can be used (Prakash 2005, Rai 2005). The mixing is accomplished by
adding these reactants to a liquid solution where they form what are called “sols”, and
then adding a gelling agent that captures these tiny reactive combinations in their
intimately mixed state (LLNL 2000). The resulting “sol-gel” is then dried to form a
porous reactive material that can be ignited in a number of ways.
The high surface area of the reactants within energetic sol-gels allows for the far higher
rate of energy release than is seen in “macro” thermite mixtures, making nano-thermites
“high explosives” as well as pyrotechnic materials (Tillitson et al 1999). Sol-gel nanothermites,
are often called energetic nanocomposites, metastable intermolecular
composites (MICs) or superthermite (COEM 2004, Son et al 2007), and silica is often
used to create the porous, structural framework (Clapsaddle et al 2004, Zhao et al 2004).
Nano-thermites have also been made with RDX (Pivkina et al 2004), and with
thermoplastic elastomers (Diaz et al 2003). But it is important to remember that, despite
the name, nano-thermites pack a much bigger punch than typical thermite materials.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf

============

Other than US government, military scientists and their hookups, scientists don't even know how to make this superthermite/nanothermite.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:03 pm
@camlok,
Did you see what it took to make it start reacting? Laser pulse, how was that pulled off inside the WTC? What about the Pentagon or Flight 93 in PA? Was it all nano-thermite?
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:22 pm
@Baldimo,
Again the really really important thing is,

What was a US developed, at Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, recently discovered and patented, circa 1996/97, non-commercially available, military much higher grade than thermite explosive doing at the WTC?

What was the residue of this superthermite doing at WTC, spread throughout the dust. Unreacted particles that "exploded" at very low temperatures when heated. This US government explosive released iron microspheres, which were also found within WTC dust at levels 1500 times that of normal office dust. A signature that was identical to one of thermite.

The only difference is that the UFG [ultra fine grain] superthermite can be ignited much easier, is thermite on steroids, is a super fast explosive.

It is the only thing that could have provided the temperatures needed to melt steel and vaporize steel and melt Mo.

The alleged hijackers had no superthermite/nanothermite.

Now, for the most ludicrous hypothetical of all time, even if they had superthermite, how would they have gotten it to WTC7?

Jet fuel, as you now know, can't do that.



================
Do try to keep up. You took part in this, didn't you?

"Preliminary experiments indicate that films of the
hybrid material are self-propagating when ignited by thermal stimulus'

Builder: Very interesting. Negating the need for intricate time-delay wiring.

https://able2know.org/topic/369947-9#top
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:25 pm
@Leadfoot,
He fails to unerstand that the "Sulfidation" is a normal product in fires where plaster or gypsum wallboards are prt of the fire product AND , a significant amount of reductive burning happens. The "rotten egg" smell that was reported by air sampling teams confirm most of that. Calcium sulfate is reduced an H2S an free sulfur are replacing the structure.

Was there a reductive fire? I dont know ? but that would be a more reasonable (snd more simple) answer to the EDAX analyses showing the stretch of metal that was analyzed for various elements.
Hes also stuck on a minor amount of Mo making up a recipe of thermite. That too is more easily explained by metal alloys like steel an aluminum nd paints.

The interesting thing is that EDAX analyses has a Basement floor level of detection, and the USGS samples were done by Inductively Coupled Argon Plasma Spectrography (ICAPS) a more accurate analyses and one that , (if a mass balance were done) Ill bet it more closely scores with all the other construction ND COATING metals around the site.

The "limited metallurgical analysis" does not seem to make a conclusion
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:31 pm
@camlok,
I don't think nano-thermite was used because the planes and after effects of the crashes brought down the towers, a 3rd plane was slammed into the side of the Pentagon and a 4th plane crashed in PA. It has been speculated that the 4th plane was headed for the WH.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:31 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
He fails to unerstand that the "Sulfidation" is a normal product in fires where plaster or gypsum wallboards are prt of the fire product AND , a significant amount of reductive burning happens.

Was there a reductive fire? I dont know ? but that would be a more reasonable (snd more simple) answer to the EDAX analyses showing the stretch of metal that was analyzed for various elements.


Go on, explain fully. Not everyone has your level of expertise so use language that will allow others to take part in the discussion. Teachers can explain things simply without trying to show off.
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:38 pm
@Baldimo,
You are ignoring WTC7, which fell at free fall speed -IMPOSSIBLE, had the same dust signatures, the same molten/vaporized steel.

Scientific studies by numerous independent scientists have confirmed that nanothermite/superthermite was used. Nothing else can account for the molten/vaporized steel. No other legitimate/legal fuel was available.

Do you want me to post the studies, again?
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:40 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Was there a reductive fire? I dont know ?


Please describe for us what this means.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:51 pm
@camlok,
its how mot metals are smelted and charcoal is made, and silicates are spawned.
Oxygen is in a minimum and the chemical product is reduced.

plaster board is a great environmental problem in composts. They add gypsum to aid the "handling" of compost and the Sulfate turns into sulfur and H2S gas. Ever drive near a wood pulp operation (they add bisulphite which further reduces to H2S, which smells lik cooking cabbage. Also in mushroom farms, They make their fresh compost with hay, manure, peanut shells, vitamins, and GYPSUM. If its allowed to compost the old fashioned way,( no air) the entire mushroom farm smells like ****.
The Grman hqve invented more modern aerobic composting facilities where they blow air into the bottom of the compost piles which are kept in a sealed building. NO H2S. Compost is produced in 20 dys qnd smells like clean soil.

0 Replies
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:53 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
He fails to unerstand that the "Sulfidation" is a normal product in fires where plaster or gypsum wallboards are prt of the fire product AND , a significant amount of reductive burning happens.

Just curious, but can you provide some examples of similar events that had the same results as what happened to the steel at the WTCs?
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:56 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
I don't think nano-thermite was used because the planes and after effects of the crashes brought down the towers

=======

Are you as a thinking individual, a fellow who can discuss many things, content with such a very limited "after effects of the crashes"?
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 03:57 pm
@camlok,
Quote:
You are ignoring WTC7, which fell at free fall speed -IMPOSSIBLE, had the same dust signatures, the same molten/vaporized steel.


Not ignoring it, it's collateral damage from the collapse of towers 1 and 2. You rely very heavily on the term, "free fall speeds" to describe the collapse of the towers.
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 04:02 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
Not ignoring it, it's collateral damage from the collapse of towers 1 and 2.


How so?
0 Replies
 
camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 04:08 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
You rely very heavily on the term, "free fall speeds" to describe the collapse of the towers.


I have taken great pains to distinguish them, each time requiring more typing than would be required to smoosh them together.

WTC7 free fall speed for 2.25 seconds, 8 floors, 100 feet.

WTC1 & 2 - accelerating speed throughout their descent, for as long as measurements could be made.

While both scenarios are different, both scenarios are impossible. It's not me who relies heavily on the description for WTC7, it is NIST. NIST stated WTC7 fell at free fall speed.

The impossibility of that happening should send a bouquet of red flags shooting into the heavens like fireworks.
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 04:44 pm
@camlok,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
Quote:
As the North Tower collapsed, heavy debris hit 7 World Trade Center, causing damage to the south face of the building[34] and starting fires that continued to burn throughout the afternoon.[35] Structural damage occurred to the southwest corner between Floors 7 and 17 and on the south face between Floor 44 and the roof; other possible structural damage includes a large vertical gash near the center of the south face between Floors 24 and 41.[35] The building was equipped with a sprinkler system, but had many single-point vulnerabilities for failure: the sprinkler system required manual initiation of the electrical fire pumps, rather than being a fully automatic system; the floor-level controls had a single connection to the sprinkler water riser; and the sprinkler system required some power for the fire pump to deliver water. Also, water pressure was low, with little or no water to feed sprinklers.[36][37]

Some firefighters entered 7 World Trade Center to search the building. They attempted to extinguish small pockets of fire, but low water pressure hindered their efforts.[38] Fires burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, the flames visible on the east side of the building.[39][40] During the afternoon, fire was also seen on floors 6–10, 13–14, 19–22, and 29–30.[34] In particular, the fires on floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 continued to burn out of control during the afternoon.[41] At approximately 2:00 pm, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center between the 10th and 13th floors, a sign that the building was unstable and might cave to one side or "collapse".[42] During the afternoon, firefighters also heard creaking sounds coming from the building and issued uncertain reports about damage in the basement.[43] Around 3:30 pm FDNY Chief Daniel A. Nigro decided to halt rescue operations, surface removal, and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area due to concerns for the safety of personnel.[44] At 5:20:33 pm EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center started to collapse, with the crumble of the east mechanical penthouse, while at 5:21:10 pm EDT the entire building collapsed completely.


Quote:
In November 2008, NIST released its final report on the causes of the collapse of 7 World Trade Center.[35] This followed their August 21, 2008 draft report which included a period for public comments.[41] In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation and LS-DYNA models to simulate the global response to the initiating events.[87] NIST determined that diesel fuel did not play an important role, nor did the structural damage from the collapse of the twin towers, nor did the transfer elements (trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs). But the lack of water to fight the fire was an important factor. The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near Column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, Column 79 soon buckled – pulling the East penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the entire building above to fall downward as a single unit. From collapse timing measurements taken from a video of the north face of the building, NIST observed that the building's exterior facade fell at free fall acceleration through a distance of approximately 8 stories (32 meters, or 105 feet), noting "the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."[88] The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse.[35]
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 04:59 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
Just curious, but can you provide some examples of similar events
Just from lab experiments and an environmental study with buried Gyp board. I dont think weve had a total dropped building. The Empire Stte was hit with a B-25 a smallish plane with an avgas engine not diesel jet fuel.
and it hit in a surficial impact.It had no speed nor mass that a 767 provided (F=ma) to drive it into the core of the building like at the WTC so, that whole thing is newish. We have indeed learned alot from the incident.

bin Laden was quoted to hve said that even he did not xpwct the planes to bring the buildings down. So if you wish to quote the guys who took credit as a valid forensic witness, BMG

camlok
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 Feb, 2017 05:15 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
bin Laden was quoted to hve said that even he did not xpwct the planes to bring the buildings down. So if you wish to quote the guys who took credit as a valid forensic witness, BMG


Quote:
The U.S. has waged multiple wars using 9/11 as a pretext, even though, in the case of Afghanistan, the publicly stated purpose for the war was to bring to justice the presumed mastermind of the attacks, Osama bin Laden. Yet, Dr. Harrit points out, to this day, “we haven’t seen the evidence for this person actually being guilty in the crime, and he is not wanted by the FBI for this attack on 9/11.” An FBI spokesperson, Rex Tomb, Dr. Harrit observes, in fact explained to reporter Ed Haas that 9/11 is not listed on bin Laden’s “Wanted” poster because the FBI does not have enough hard evidence to connect him to 9/11 to indict him in a court of law.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/07/interview-with-dr-niels-harrit-on-discovery-of-nano-thermite-in-wtc-dust/


There was also the long promised Blair evidence, and Colin Powell and George Bush, likely others, "soon" they said.

Never came!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 04:12:28