thermite and high explosives

[cooky]

Perhaps you could explain how the buildings crashed to the ground in seconds through the path of most resistance?

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Here are summaries of a hoax article being published in a Bentham periodical. There is a factual basis for critiques of Bentham publishing.

libraryjournal.com /article/ CA6664637

blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public]Index of /peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public


The 9/11 conspiracy theories are supported by little more than youtube videos, websites and faux science. For all their claims, the 9/11 conspiracy movement is supported by ZERO credible peer reviewed scientific papers. Why haven't any reputable publications accepted anything related to the 'truther' movement? Are all the investigative journalists on staff at the Atlantic, New Yorker and Vanity Fair a part of the conspiracy too? If you believe the physics of WTC collapses is direct evidence of a conspiracy you should have no trouble publishing it in a scientific engineering journal. Good luck!!!

 

[eots]

got any peer reviewed studies validating the NIST column 79 theory ??????

 

[daws101]

got any peer reviewed studies validating the NIST column 79 theory ??????

it's not a theory it's findings and conclusions

 

[Rat in the Hat]

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a credible scientific source. Until the truther movement can produce discourse worthy of publication in reputable academic periodicals it is nothing more than unsubstantiated hyperbole and rhetoric. There is no credible evidence that thermite or nano-thermite were present in the WTC towers. Whats more, thermitic compounds are rarely, if ever used in a manner hypothesized by the truth movement. Ultimately, the 9/11 truth movement is supported by little more than a bunch of websites and youtube videos.

Perhaps you could explain how the buildings crashed to the ground in seconds through the path of most resistance?

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkfVdrtLcRs&feature=related]Trololo 10 hours - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not a credible scientific source. Until the truther movement can produce discourse worthy of publication in reputable academic periodicals it is nothing more than unsubstantiated hyperbole and rhetoric. There is no credible evidence that thermite or nano-thermite were present in the WTC towers. Whats more, thermitic compounds are rarely, if ever used in a manner hypothesized by the truth movement. Ultimately, the 9/11 truth movement is supported by little more than a bunch of websites and youtube videos.

Perhaps you could explain how the buildings crashed to the ground in seconds through the path of most resistance?

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkfVdrtLcRs&feature=related]Trololo 10 hours - YouTube[/ame]

"I can't take it any more !!!ahahahahahahahahahaha! (pulls out hair)

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAZEoY15xAk]Patriots Question 9/11 - Robert Bowman Interview - part 5 of 5 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[eots]

got any peer reviewed studies validating the NIST column 79 theory ??????

it's not a theory it's findings and conclusions

if it was not peer reviewed how do you know ? you just said in the posts above NIST may not have everything right...which one is it ??

 

[daws101]

Patriots Question 9/11 - Robert Bowman Interview - part 5 of 5 - YouTube

your point?.....oh..... that's right you have no point .

 

[daws101]

got any peer reviewed studies validating the NIST column 79 theory ??????

it's not a theory it's findings and conclusions

if it was not peer reviewed how do you know ? you just said in the posts above NIST may not have everything right...which one is it ??

it's both! and no i did not!

 

[Mr. Jones]

Major fires on most floors of World Trade Centre Building 7 were much worse on the side facing the Twin Towers’ collapses.

Then the building should have collapsed as expected from scattered fires and asymmetrical damage, in a staggered descent with the parts of the building with the worst damage from fire or physical damage collapsing first.

 

[daws101]

Major fires on most floors of World Trade Centre Building 7 were much worse on the side facing the Twin Towers’ collapses.

Then the building should have collapsed as expected from scattered fires and asymmetrical damage, in a staggered descent with the parts of the building with the worst damage from fire or physical damage collapsing first.

who says? this coming from mr knows nothing about egineering, science,demolition etc....

 

[LA RAM FAN]

you guys are still feeding the kid troll?

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Perhaps you could explain how the buildings crashed to the ground in seconds through the path of most resistance?

IF it is so easy to publish in Bentham Scientific journals, or if these are "vanity publications" (note: there is no factual basis for these charges) -- then why don't the objectors write up their objections and get them peer-reviewed and published?? The fact is, it is not easy, as serious objectors will find out.

Here are summaries of a hoax article being published in a Bentham periodical. There is a factual basis for critiques of Bentham publishing.

libraryjournal.com /article/ CA6664637

blogs.nature.com/peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public]Index of /peer-to-peer/2009/06/hoax_paper_accepted_for_public


The 9/11 conspiracy theories are supported by little more than youtube videos, websites and faux science. For all their claims, the 9/11 conspiracy movement is supported by ZERO credible peer reviewed scientific papers. Why haven't any reputable publications accepted anything related to the 'truther' movement? Are all the investigative journalists on staff at the Atlantic, New Yorker and Vanity Fair a part of the conspiracy too? If you believe the physics of WTC collapses is direct evidence of a conspiracy you should have no trouble publishing it in a scientific engineering journal. Good luck!!!

which are NONE that you can debunk cause you only see what you want to see.all that crap from that scientific journal has been debunked by the bood DEBUNKING THE 9/11 DEBUNKING,an answer to popular mechanics and other defenders of the official conspiracy theory.

Good luck on trying to debunk that book.nobody has even been able to.

oh and bld 7 and the witness testimony of barry jennings who was in that building is the crux of the 9/11 coverup commission that you cant get around.you can only sling shit in defeat like you did in this post.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Major fires on most floors of World Trade Centre Building 7 were much worse on the side facing the Twin Towers’ collapses.

Then the building should have collapsed as expected from scattered fires and asymmetrical damage, in a staggered descent with the parts of the building with the worst damage from fire or physical damage collapsing first.

yeah but why do you try and reason with a child on this?

 

[whitehall]

The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.



They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chalk this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.

INTRODUCTION
Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.

http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1

Note it doesn't say this type of thermite takes the place of explosives, only "to enhance air blast". None of the suggested uses scream POWERFUL to me. The towers were not underwater, and their is no evidence rockets were strapped to the columns. That they would use it as a primer and not an actual explosive seems to be good evidence it's not as powerful as the conspiracy theorist suggest.9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained - YouTube

Let's forget the motivation of the left to "blame America" and understand the chemical composition of thermite. It's aluminum and iron oxide with traces of magnesium. A chemical analysis found those components in a collapsed building? My goodness. I expect there was also substantial carbon components that suggest a napalm attack. One thing the left wing conspiracy doesn't address is how the hell or why the hell an alleged American covert agency would blow up the World Trade Towers. Did Bill Clinton plan it? The first attack on the WTC happened under Clinton's watch and he all but dismissed it. Did a bi-partisan domestic terrorist organization conspire with a bunch of radical jihadists with split second timing to engage thermite bombs when we saw the freaking planes crash into the buildings? Get a grip tinfoil heads.

 

[eots]

The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.



They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chalk this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.

INTRODUCTION
Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.

http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1

Note it doesn't say this type of thermite takes the place of explosives, only "to enhance air blast". None of the suggested uses scream POWERFUL to me. The towers were not underwater, and their is no evidence rockets were strapped to the columns. That they would use it as a primer and not an actual explosive seems to be good evidence it's not as powerful as the conspiracy theorist suggest.9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained - YouTube

Let's forget the motivation of the left to "blame America" and understand the chemical composition of thermite. It's aluminum and iron oxide with traces of magnesium. A chemical analysis found those components in a collapsed building? My goodness. I expect there was also substantial carbon components that suggest a napalm attack. One thing the left wing conspiracy doesn't address is how the hell or why the hell an alleged American covert agency would blow up the World Trade Towers. Did Bill Clinton plan it? The first attack on the WTC happened under Clinton's watch and he all but dismissed it. Did a bi-partisan domestic terrorist organization conspire with a bunch of radical jihadists with split second timing to engage thermite bombs when we saw the freaking planes crash into the buildings? Get a grip tinfoil heads.

what mindless drivel

 

[daws101]

The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.



They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chalk this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.

INTRODUCTION
Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.

http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1

Note it doesn't say this type of thermite takes the place of explosives, only "to enhance air blast". None of the suggested uses scream POWERFUL to me. The towers were not underwater, and their is no evidence rockets were strapped to the columns. That they would use it as a primer and not an actual explosive seems to be good evidence it's not as powerful as the conspiracy theorist suggest.9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained - YouTube

Let's forget the motivation of the left to "blame America" and understand the chemical composition of thermite. It's aluminum and iron oxide with traces of magnesium. A chemical analysis found those components in a collapsed building? My goodness. I expect there was also substantial carbon components that suggest a napalm attack. One thing the left wing conspiracy doesn't address is how the hell or why the hell an alleged American covert agency would blow up the World Trade Towers. Did Bill Clinton plan it? The first attack on the WTC happened under Clinton's watch and he all but dismissed it. Did a bi-partisan domestic terrorist organization conspire with a bunch of radical jihadists with split second timing to engage thermite bombs when we saw the freaking planes crash into the buildings? Get a grip tinfoil heads.

what mindless drivel

yes mr mindless!