Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: wwswimming
146 replies. 1458 page views.

this thread is tracking at about a perfect 1:10 ratio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DQjBfbn24

Danish television interviews lead researcher on the discovery
of a variety of thermite labelled "nano-thermite".

"Chemist talk about the findings of explosives in dust from World Trade Center."

We've rehashed this bullshit so many times it's sickening. It doesn't matter how many new Youtube University videos you find, there are certain facts that truthers continually deny in order to make their twisted beliefs about what happened on 9/11 function.

The claim in your latest video is that they found "nano-thermite" in the rubble. Nano-thermite? Okay. Well, considering they cite a phantom article with no title and no journal, we're going to have to go on what Mr and Mr TV Personalities say. Btw, this video appeared on Danish morning TV, described by one guy at randi.org as "..not News. It is Infotainment at best."

So Mr. Harrit launches into a ridiculous tirade which might at first appear convincing but ultimately is the same thing we've been hearing for years, repackaged. This guy brings nothing new to the table and makes the same stupid assumptions and miscalculations that his truther fore bearers have been making for eight years now.

Okay, on to the show. "Nano-thermite" what is it? Mr. Harrit makes the claim that it is different because it is reduced to "tiny particles" which helps heat develop more quickly. My bullshit meter reading is nearly off the chart, especially because he claims that nano-thermite can be used as an explosive. It can't. Thermite does not explode. It doesn't. Even though you all try to claim it can explode, it simply doesn't. It gets really fucking hot and it melts things.

Now, Mr. Harrit makes a huge mistake about 1/4 the way in. He asks "Well, it's an explosive. why else would it be there?" First of all, when thermite reacts, most of it is used up creating the intense heat and energy that Mr. Harrit describes, the trace elements left over are a small fraction of the original compound. Some of those trace elements were found at the WTC site, there is no arguing about that.

He claims it was "by accident" that someone looked at the dust. Wrong. The USGS and other organizations took a very careful look at the dust and rubble at ground zero. In fact, many of those organizations published their own studies, showing the various levels of compounds found and offering far more plausible explanations about their origins.

Second, Harrit makes no effort to explain where he got his samples from. Without any chain of custody, we have no idea if the samples he tested are from the WTC, from a scrapyard, or from his neighbors house. I find it highly suspicious that this guy got any legitimate sample from the WTC and he does absolutely zero to allay that fear.

The rest of the video is him talking out of his ass. He mentions the WTC 7 collapse, the fact that the buildings fell in a controlled demolition-style, etc, etc. He believes that 100 tons of thermite was used? Really? 100 tons? 200,000 lbs of thermite was secretly trucked in and attached to the supporting structure of two buildings with thousands of tenants? Nobody saw anything? Nobody has said anything? He conveniently blames the security company at the WTC, but he provides zero evidence that any of this happened anywhere but in his head.

He further claims there were tons of unreacted thermite? Where? Who found it? How do you know about it? Where did it go?

He ultimately brings this whole BS story about nano-thermite around to the truther's strongest argument that something was amiss on 9/11 -- WTC 7. As observers of this three ring circus, though, we should ask ourselves one simple question: If this man came on television to disclose a study that would finally prove, once and for all like he claims, that the government used thermite to destroy the WTC, wouldn't he spend a bit more time talking about it rather than rehashing WTC 7? Why would he divert attention away from his miraculous discovery to talk about something we already know about?

Finally, in his parting words, Mr. Harrit tells us that the only conspiracy out there is one involving 19 hijackers and asks to think about the evidence we've seen to support that. Unfortunately for Mr. Harrit, and others like him, there is ample evidence that hijackers took over planes and slammed them into the WTC. In fact, we have more evidence for that story than for anything Youtube University has produced thus far.

In conclusion, this guy is nothing but a TV televangelist preaching to his devoted truther followers like a Sunday sermon. There is nothing new to see here folks, move along.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: wwswimming
146 replies. 1458 page views.

this thread is tracking at about a perfect 1:10 ratio.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6DQjBfbn24

Danish television interviews lead researcher on the discovery
of a variety of thermite labelled "nano-thermite".

"Chemist talk about the findings of explosives in dust from World Trade Center."

i havent seen that yet! is that a danish mainstream media outlet?

Doesn't matter b/c you'll take it for fact. Oh Noes!!!!!!!!!! Conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!

:laugh:

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: mxrider
Um no event8horizon is the one insinuating Clinton would have been involved by saying it would take years to pull this off. Or did Bush and Cheney start planning this in 1996 and the final piece of the puzzle to put the operation into motion was for them to get elected?

event8horizon didn't suggest either administration played any part in the planning, TLC came up with that conspiracy theory on his own.

I didn't come up with anything. I asked an interrogative, also known as a question. Note that it was in its proper form as the sentence finished with a character of punctuation known as a "question mark." event8horizon insinuated that 9/11 was in planning for a long time. Since we all know that truthers believe that the US government was behind 9/11 that leaves one conclusion, therefore I asked whether Clinton was in on their dastardly plan as well. So why is it so diffcult for you to follow logic to its natural conclsuion?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KlokWyze

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KlokWyze
No man, I'm saying the problem isn't who did it. It doesn't matter who did it. Whenever an event like this happens normal people like you will always turn to authority for answers & orders..... without question.

You see what I'm saying?

Since these tinfoil nutters are so "crazy", why try & justify your beliefs to them? I don't argue about the meaning of life with homeless crackheads. LOL

Yeah, I see what you're saying. You're proffering yet another version of the ridiculously oafish and sophomoric "lemming" argument and making the squalid assumption that people like me haven't actually looked into the facts of the matter; that I merely take my marching orders willingly and without argument. That's the first point where you are wrong. You also try to imply that you are somehow more aware than those "normal people" and can see beyond what they see. Odd, but you haven't demonstrated any of that alleged great knowledge and awareness in the least concerning this matter. In fact, about all you seem to be doing is demonstrating a paranoia about authority, an underpinning and the great foundation common to most truthers.

btw, I'm not trying to justify any beliefs to truthers. Truthers are hopeless. I just want to prevent the truthers from poisoning the minds of others with their hocus pocus, superficial baloney. So if you have nothing to add related to the facts of the matter around 9/11, kindly step aside and allow those who are aware of the facts deal with this.

You see what I'm saying?

No need to take it personally man. I can see that you feel really strongly about this & that's what's guiding your response.

You made it personal, man. And, yes, I feel strongly about people like you telling others to throw critical thinking and true scientific analysis out the window to pursue an agenda based on paranoia about how the big, bad, uncaring government is out to get us for their own personal gain.

I've looked @ quite a bit of the information & the one thing I eventually concluded was that arguing online about scientific evidence regarding something as emotionally charged as 9/11 is a waste of my time, & probably yours as well.

Have fun "preventing the truthers" from poisoning others. :laugh:

We wouldn't know what information you've looked at because you haven't demonstrated having one iota of knowledge concerning 9/11 in this thread thus far. If you don't want to waste your time then why are you participating in this thread in the first place? If you feel it's a waste of your time, be gone.

 

[Appledrop]

to anyone with a brain, it is obvious that a plane impact alone would not have caused the entire collapse of the buildings in the way in which they did.
yes, some sort of explosive material must have caused or at least assisted their destruction.

but honestly, I dont care anymore. 90% of people on anandtech violently attack such "conspiracy theories", maybe they deserve to be exploited in such moves as 9/11

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Money
to anyone with a brain, it is obvious that a plane impact alone would not have caused the entire collapse of the buildings in the way in which they did.
yes, some sort of explosive material must have caused or at least assisted their destruction.

but honestly, I dont care anymore. 90% of people on anandtech violently attack such "conspiracy theories", maybe they deserve to be exploited in such moves as 9/11

Again, this is factually incorrect. There is a consensus among engineers, demolitions experts, and building collapse experts that planes and nothing else brought down the WTC. Despite your best efforts to shed the burden of proof, it is the truther's responsibility to dig up SOMETHING that has any shred of credibility that points to anything other than the simplest, and most fit explanation: That 19 terrorists hijacked planes and slammed them into the WTC and Pentagon, causing, in the former, the complete collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

If it makes you more comfortable, you can keep your head buried in the sand and believe that the big bad government brought down the WTC or you can choose to examine the actual evidence and realize that a bunch of uneducated foreigners killed 3,000 Americans. Reality sucks sometimes.

 

[Squisher]

The planes were made of thermite!

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Money
to anyone with a brain, it is obvious that a plane impact alone would not have caused the entire collapse of the buildings in the way in which they did.
yes, some sort of explosive material must have caused or at least assisted their destruction.

but honestly, I dont care anymore. 90% of people on anandtech violently attack such "conspiracy theories", maybe they deserve to be exploited in such moves as 9/11

Again, this is factually incorrect. There is a consensus among engineers, demolitions experts, and building collapse experts that planes and nothing else brought down the WTC. Despite your best efforts to shed the burden of proof, it is the truther's responsibility to dig up SOMETHING that has any shred of credibility that points to anything other than the simplest, and most fit explanation: That 19 terrorists hijacked planes and slammed them into the WTC and Pentagon, causing, in the former, the complete collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

If it makes you more comfortable, you can keep your head buried in the sand and believe that the big bad government brought down the WTC or you can choose to examine the actual evidence and realize that a bunch of uneducated foreigners killed 3,000 Americans. Reality sucks sometimes.

evidence?? try reading the actual paper. maybe u missed what this thread is about:

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Money
to anyone with a brain, it is obvious that a plane impact alone would not have caused the entire collapse of the buildings in the way in which they did.
yes, some sort of explosive material must have caused or at least assisted their destruction.

but honestly, I dont care anymore. 90% of people on anandtech violently attack such "conspiracy theories", maybe they deserve to be exploited in such moves as 9/11

Again, this is factually incorrect. There is a consensus among engineers, demolitions experts, and building collapse experts that planes and nothing else brought down the WTC. Despite your best efforts to shed the burden of proof, it is the truther's responsibility to dig up SOMETHING that has any shred of credibility that points to anything other than the simplest, and most fit explanation: That 19 terrorists hijacked planes and slammed them into the WTC and Pentagon, causing, in the former, the complete collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

If it makes you more comfortable, you can keep your head buried in the sand and believe that the big bad government brought down the WTC or you can choose to examine the actual evidence and realize that a bunch of uneducated foreigners killed 3,000 Americans. Reality sucks sometimes.

are u talking about the bazant crush down theory?? some dont agree with the "crush down" model. this guy lays it out qyite nicely.
"You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm

i noticed the nist has about 2865 employees. i doubt all those are architects and engineers. ae911truth.org has 639 architects and engineers. maybe they can help the nist staff explain the freefall of wtc 7. so if anyone wants to know what other architects and engineers say about the 3 wtc's falling down:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Money
to anyone with a brain, it is obvious that a plane impact alone would not have caused the entire collapse of the buildings in the way in which they did.
yes, some sort of explosive material must have caused or at least assisted their destruction.

but honestly, I dont care anymore. 90% of people on anandtech violently attack such "conspiracy theories", maybe they deserve to be exploited in such moves as 9/11

Again, this is factually incorrect. There is a consensus among engineers, demolitions experts, and building collapse experts that planes and nothing else brought down the WTC. Despite your best efforts to shed the burden of proof, it is the truther's responsibility to dig up SOMETHING that has any shred of credibility that points to anything other than the simplest, and most fit explanation: That 19 terrorists hijacked planes and slammed them into the WTC and Pentagon, causing, in the former, the complete collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

If it makes you more comfortable, you can keep your head buried in the sand and believe that the big bad government brought down the WTC or you can choose to examine the actual evidence and realize that a bunch of uneducated foreigners killed 3,000 Americans. Reality sucks sometimes.

evidence?? try reading the actual paper. maybe u missed what this thread is about:

"We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

http://www.bentham-open.org/pa...02/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I can also go out into my back yard and make some unreacted thermite. Like most "evidence" put forward by truthers this paper lacks one important piece of information -- There is zero chain of custody. So, once again, nobody has proven anything. A few thermite chips that someone claims came from the WTC are really thermite, that's not much of a conclusion considering there is zero supporting evidence. You cannot provide an effective chain of custody, you cannot tell me how the thermite got into the building undetected, you cannot tell me why they even bothered to slam planes into the buildings if they were wired to blow, you cannot tell me what how they managed to hide the tons and tons of thermite from sight. Basically, you can't tell me anything besides "some thermite is really thermite and some guy that I'm going to blindly trust says it came from the WTC!!!!"

I'll repeat. The "samples" they collected were supposedly provided by citizens, and most of them weren't even found at Ground Zero. Without a proven chain of custody, this entire paper isn't worth the paper it's written on.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Money
to anyone with a brain, it is obvious that a plane impact alone would not have caused the entire collapse of the buildings in the way in which they did.
yes, some sort of explosive material must have caused or at least assisted their destruction.

but honestly, I dont care anymore. 90% of people on anandtech violently attack such "conspiracy theories", maybe they deserve to be exploited in such moves as 9/11

Again, this is factually incorrect. There is a consensus among engineers, demolitions experts, and building collapse experts that planes and nothing else brought down the WTC. Despite your best efforts to shed the burden of proof, it is the truther's responsibility to dig up SOMETHING that has any shred of credibility that points to anything other than the simplest, and most fit explanation: That 19 terrorists hijacked planes and slammed them into the WTC and Pentagon, causing, in the former, the complete collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

If it makes you more comfortable, you can keep your head buried in the sand and believe that the big bad government brought down the WTC or you can choose to examine the actual evidence and realize that a bunch of uneducated foreigners killed 3,000 Americans. Reality sucks sometimes.

are u talking about the bazant crush down theory?? some dont agree with the "crush down" model. this guy lays it out qyite nicely.
"You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm

i noticed the nist has about 2865 employees. i doubt all those are architects and engineers. ae911truth.org has 639 architects and engineers. maybe they can help the nist staff explain the freefall of wtc 7. so if anyone wants to know what other architects and engineers say about the 3 wtc's falling down:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

ae911truth? The website started by a guy who has ZERO experience building large buildings? The website which is full of dumb factual errors? This argument goes nowhere because I spent a good two pages blasting this stupid organization in our last thread. The NIST is responsible for managing building codes. The engineers they have actual have experience in building, demolishing, and examining buildings. AEtruth is nothing but a sham, started by a man who only purports to have knowledge of the subject.

As for your first link, I'd advise you to actually read the NIST report. They lay out the evidence very nicely.

 

[zinfamous]

One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

despite the ludicrous claims made in regards to what appears to be evidence, how valid are these "samples" in the first place? I would think they go into a little detail in the paper regarding the sources, but I can't imagine them being as rigorous with accuracy as you find in real peer-reviewed science articles.

 

[EagleKeeper]

When you weaken the structure with intense heat, then the collapse/weight will start the domino effect.

The CTs have yet to be able to demonstrate how the amount of explosive material could have been placed in an type of time period with out the installation being noticed.

Then you have the timing factor of the explosives being fired at the precise time.
Were people watching for the planes to hit before firing the explosives?

And why was the WH not exploded or the Pentagon not further destroyed?
All the effort to go into rigging the WTC and a few dozen pounds went into the Pentagon?
Or are they saying that the Pentagon was a separate unrelated coincidental incident?

What do they have to say about a Flight- 91? How does that fit into their theories?


The standard explanation fills in holes much better that the fluff that the CTs keep coming up with.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: event8horizon

Originally posted by: BeauJangles

Originally posted by: Money
to anyone with a brain, it is obvious that a plane impact alone would not have caused the entire collapse of the buildings in the way in which they did.
yes, some sort of explosive material must have caused or at least assisted their destruction.

but honestly, I dont care anymore. 90% of people on anandtech violently attack such "conspiracy theories", maybe they deserve to be exploited in such moves as 9/11

Again, this is factually incorrect. There is a consensus among engineers, demolitions experts, and building collapse experts that planes and nothing else brought down the WTC. Despite your best efforts to shed the burden of proof, it is the truther's responsibility to dig up SOMETHING that has any shred of credibility that points to anything other than the simplest, and most fit explanation: That 19 terrorists hijacked planes and slammed them into the WTC and Pentagon, causing, in the former, the complete collapse of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

If it makes you more comfortable, you can keep your head buried in the sand and believe that the big bad government brought down the WTC or you can choose to examine the actual evidence and realize that a bunch of uneducated foreigners killed 3,000 Americans. Reality sucks sometimes.

are u talking about the bazant crush down theory?? some dont agree with the "crush down" model. this guy lays it out qyite nicely.
"You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/mac5.htm

i noticed the nist has about 2865 employees. i doubt all those are architects and engineers. ae911truth.org has 639 architects and engineers. maybe they can help the nist staff explain the freefall of wtc 7. so if anyone wants to know what other architects and engineers say about the 3 wtc's falling down:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Truthfuly, that guy lays it out quite horribly with his "simple" model. His model doesn't begin to model the actual structural framework of the twin towers, nor does he account for the weakening of the structural components caused by the fire. His statement is misleading as well. The 3x safety factor is the normal/peak structural design load that would be encountered during static loading. However, the forces encountered during the WTC collapse were dynamic loads.

As far as ae911 truth. There are hundreds of thousands of architects and engineers. Yet they can only find 639 to join their ranks? Doesn't speak too well for them. That's not to mention that, like their "Scholars for 9/11 Truth, I'd question the credentials of many of the members of ae911truth. In fact, some have already done that.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ae911truth

 

[FaaR]

Originally posted by: event8horizon"You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."

It's too late at night right now for me to read the entire page which you link to, but is the person you quoted seriously expecting anyone to believe that EACH of the floors of the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of the combined weight of dozens of floors above, falling from a height of a full floor? That's a sizeable impulse you got there matey, easily millions and millions of newtons of force.

I truly doubt any skyscraper, now, in the past, or in the future, will EVER be constructed to such a building standard.

It's fairly obvious that when the uppermost sections of the towers started to fall, the impact knocked loose the next lower floor from its foundations. That floor's weight was then added to the total mass already in motion which again impacted the NEXT lower floor and so on and so forth. All until the tower was no more than a giant pile of rubble and scrap on the ground.

But please, do continue to post! I find your contributions utterly fascinating. Seriously.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: mxrider
Um no event8horizon is the one insinuating Clinton would have been involved by saying it would take years to pull this off. Or did Bush and Cheney start planning this in 1996 and the final piece of the puzzle to put the operation into motion was for them to get elected?

event8horizon didn't suggest either administration played any part in the planning, TLC came up with that conspiracy theory on his own.

I didn't come up with anything. I asked an interrogative, also known as a question. Note that it was in its proper form as the sentence finished with a character of punctuation known as a "question mark." event8horizon insinuated that 9/11 was in planning for a long time. Since we all know that truthers believe that the US government was behind 9/11 that leaves one conclusion, therefore I asked whether Clinton was in on their dastardly plan as well. So why is it so diffcult for you to follow logic to its natural conclsuion?

You are conflating, projecting the views of others onto event8horizon to suggest he insulted what he never did.

Originally posted by: FaaR
It's fairly obvious that when the uppermost sections of the towers started to fall, the impact knocked loose the next lower floor from its foundations. That floor's weight was then added to the total mass already in motion which again impacted the NEXT lower floor and so on and so forth. All until the tower was no more than a giant pile of rubble and scrap on the ground.

This was my understanding until recently. A couple of floors weakened by fire fall out onto the floor bellow, causing that to break away, and the lower floors doing the same all the way down, resulting in a stack of floor chunks at the bottom. However, looking back at the pictures videos a couple of months ago I realized that most of what should have been in the giant pile turned to dust, leaving just a few stories worth of rubble at the base. Furthermore. the acceleration of the collapse looks conspicuously quick for that explanation. Unfortunately, the NIST study didn't bother to analyze the collapses themselves, only how the buildings could have been weakened to the point of progressive collapse, so we don't have any simulation to compare it to.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Your giagantic pile was pulverized. One could see in the original vidoes, of the dust being created and thrown into the air as the buildings collapsed.
Take a concrete block and drop another onto it. When it shatters the peices are not able to match beck together. There will be cement dust that has fallen to the ground and/or blown away.

The same way as an multi-ton aluminam airliner turns into shards of metal (some just the size of a splinter) when impacting the ground.

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The same way as an multi-ton aluminam airliner turns into shards of metal (some just the size of a splinter) when impacting the ground.

Shens, it'll buff right out.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The same way as an multi-ton aluminam airliner turns into shards of metal (some just the size of a splinter) when impacting the ground.

Shens, it'll buff right out.

Sure, they rebuild airplanes after they've crashed, why not the WTC?

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: Ns1

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The same way as an multi-ton aluminam airliner turns into shards of metal (some just the size of a splinter) when impacting the ground.

Shens, it'll buff right out.

It was just a flesh wound.

 

[JeepinEd]

The real conspiracy is with the 911truth people.
They are conspiring to keep this stupid conspiracy going so that they can make more money off their DVD's, tinfoil hat advertisers and fools who donate money to their cause.

 

[event8horizon]

Originally posted by: FaaR

Originally posted by: event8horizon"You cannot crush an isotropic or composite 3-D structure A by a part C of itself (C = 1/10 A) by dropping part C on A using gravity. Part C either bounces on A or gets damaged in contact with A and is stopped by A that is also damaged a little. It is quite basic and all due to gravity. Materials, size and particulars of the elements of the structure A doesn't matter the least. Part C of A cannot destroy A."

It's too late at night right now for me to read the entire page which you link to, but is the person you quoted seriously expecting anyone to believe that EACH of the floors of the WTC towers were designed to withstand the impact of the combined weight of dozens of floors above, falling from a height of a full floor? That's a sizeable impulse you got there matey, easily millions and millions of newtons of force.

I truly doubt any skyscraper, now, in the past, or in the future, will EVER be constructed to such a building standard.

It's fairly obvious that when the uppermost sections of the towers started to fall, the impact knocked loose the next lower floor from its foundations. That floor's weight was then added to the total mass already in motion which again impacted the NEXT lower floor and so on and so forth. All until the tower was no more than a giant pile of rubble and scrap on the ground.

But please, do continue to post! I find your contributions utterly fascinating. Seriously.

heres where nist gets us:
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm
this article gets more indepth than the last i linked if your interested.
From NIST report - NISTNCSTAR1-6D chapter 5.2 - we learn:

"The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. ? between Floor 93 and Floor 98. ? The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward ? At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads ? and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively., ? At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC 1 began to collapse. ? The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns (the upper part C) exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure (part A). Global collapse ensued."

that is where bazant et el comes in with the crush down theory. now what this author is presenting is that collapse arrest should have happened.

1.4 Why Global Collapse will not occur (in Layman's Terms)

"What a reasonable person would expect after local failures at the initiation zone - even very serious ones - is that gravity would just slowly (no free fall) pull the upper part assembly down, some parts may contact each other and get damaged like in a soft collision by local forces, when plenty of energy is transformed into heat, and after that primary and secondary structure of upper part and parts of structure below would get entangled into one another and rub against each other. Friction develops and absorbs the remaining energy released. Some parts will fall down outside the building. This is the basic reason why a multi-parts steel structure does not ever globally collapse like a house of cards!"

think of the local failures as the weakened steel that common c speaks of. the jet fuel mostly burnt up at impact and only burned 10-15 mins after impact. the famous pic of that lady in the gash after it cooled down is a good example of the post jet fuel fire.

ps. the author of this website has stated that he is about to publish a paper (peer reviewed). i cant remember the name....maybe ASCE. ill find out and let yall know.

 

[ElFenix]

it was obviously the rothschilds.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
You are conflating, projecting the views of others onto event8horizon to suggest he insulted what he never did.

He damn sure did. He claimed that possibly the planning was in the works for a long time. Since truthers believe the government was behind 9/11 that means that Clinton must have been in on it as well. There is no other alternative, but considering your lack of critical thinking skills I doubt you're able to figure that out.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Your giagantic pile was pulverized. One could see in the original vidoes, of the dust being created and thrown into the air as the buildings collapsed.
Take a concrete block and drop another onto it. When it shatters the peices are not able to match beck together. There will be cement dust that has fallen to the ground and/or blown away.

Like I said, the collapses look rather quick for that, and the pile looks awful small for such large buildings. were it simply floors falling on floors, I'd expect something similar to the effects of earthquakes rather than the buildings dustifying from top to bottom as they did.

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: kylebisme
You are conflating, projecting the views of others onto event8horizon to suggest he insulted what he never did.

He damn sure did. He claimed that possibly the planning was in the works for a long time. Since truthers believe the government was behind 9/11 that means that Clinton must have been in on it as well. There is no other alternative, but considering your lack of critical thinking skills I doubt you're able to figure that out.

Again, just because others think the "the government" as a whole was in on the attacks doesn't make anything event8horizon suggested an implication of any administration.