Would a new 9/11 investigation really accomplish anything?

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Not at all...my personal information including location and current cell phone number has been made available to the 911 truth movement. I have been in contact with Steven Jones about this issue. I'm completely out in the open. Would you like my address?

I can prove it through the experiments that i outlined to the above people. I'm not sure if it will go anywhere as it is beyond my control. Furthermore, my interest in this issue has more than faded.

And you are missing the point...I'm just saying that I can prove that the steel was melted...nothing more nothing less. Wow, Dudley Doright...who the hell references this anymore. It's 2010 BTW.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by ibiubu]

Originally posted by ibiubu

I can prove it through the experiments that i outlined to the above people. I'm not sure if it will go anywhere as it is beyond my control. Furthermore, my interest in this issue has more than faded.

Ok then, so you have some actual professional chops.

So, do you agree that the best way to prove thermxte/melting steel/temps >4000F, would be to write up a paper, or shoot, even just a letter to the editor to the most prestigious journal in materials science (I'm guessing here), outlining your objections to the findings in that paper by Biederman?

Do you agree that publishing in the JONES Journal is pointless?

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus
No one has proved it is physically possible for the buildings to collapse like that without explosives or some other variable.

That is obviously enough of a reason to have another investigation.

That I take as a direct claim that NIST did not demonstrate the collapse mechanism.

To which I responded:

---

"NIST showed how. No one has yet refuted the NIST reports.

"And don't forget that no one has produced any positive evidence for explosives."

The NIST report refutes itself because it is incomplete.

It did not scientifically show that the “phenomenon” (the unexplained collapses) were physically possible.

Until it is proven to be possible there is no reason to assume it is.

Originally posted by jthomas
"Remember, the burden of proof lies with those who want to convince some entity for the need for another investigation. I'm trying to get that across to bsbray11 and he doesn't yet understand that trying to shift the burden of proof for his claims to others will not get him a new investigation."

No alternative theory is necessary to prove a lack of evidence for another.

Evidence for explosives might help to theorize on a possible unknown variable, but fact is that it has not be proven to be physically possible for those building to collapse like that without explosives or some other unknown variable.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by Jezus]

I'll help you all out a little, here are some links not mentioned in your former discussions :

1. Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives
www.911research.wtc7.net...

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

2. A bigger, clearer copy of the "eutectic mixture" article :
www.springerlink.com...
An initial microstructural analysis of A36 steel from WTC building 7.

3. Worcester Polytechnic Institute :
The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel
www.wpi.edu...

Discuss This Article ( Note - this link is outdated! ) :
( www.wpi.edu... )

The "Deep Mystery" of Melted Steel

There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called an eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

An one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

An eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

The important questions, says Biederman, are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from. The answer could be as simple--and this is scary- as acid rain.

Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? "We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

From a building-safety point of view, the critical question is: Did the eutectic mixture form before the buildings collapsed, or later, as the remains smoldered on the ground. "We have no idea," admits Sisson. "To answer that, we would need to recreate those fires in the FPE labs, and burn fresh steel of known composition for the right time period, with the right environment." He hopes to have the opportunity to collaborate on thermodynamically controlled studies, and to observe the effects of adding sulfur, copper and other elements. The most important lesson, Sisson and Biederman stress, is that fail-safe sprinkler systems are essential to prevent steel from reaching even 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit, because phase changes at the 1,300-degree mark compromise a structure's load-bearing capacity.

The FEMA report calls for further metallurgic investigations, and Barnett, Biederman and Sisson hope that WPI will obtain NIST funding and access to more samples. They are continuing their microscopic studies on the samples prepared by graduate student Jeremy Bernier and Marco Fontecchio, the 2001–02 Helen E. Stoddard Materials Science and Engineering Fellow. (Next year's Stoddard Fellow, Erin Sullivan, will take up this work as part of her graduate studies.) Publication of their results may clear up some mysteries that have confounded the scientific community.

-JKM
[email protected]
Maintained by: [email protected]
Last modified: Sep 02, 2004, 14:07 EDT

This is their new Sustainability Forum, where investigative minds perhaps could find discussions regarding the eutectic mixtures found in the WTC7 steel :
www.wpi.edu...

It is however only accessible for WPI Community Members only.
But I hope ibiubu ( "I be I, You be you" ? ) will have the credentials to get into this forum.
I found their newer forum by clicking this reddish outdated link in the right top corner which reads : "Discuss This Article". Then I used their own Search on their web pages for the word "Forum".
They also have a "Venture Forum", perhaps there you can find something too.



ibiubu,
please tell me what professional advice you gave to Prof. Jones and others.
Can you find Erin Sullivan's graduate study? I hope you can.
And I hope she got it granted. Which I somehow doubt.

[edit on 12/4/10 by LaBTop]

I think I understand what you wanted to clear up for Joey Canoli :

The steel FIRST has to melt BEFORE the EXTERNAL constituents of the eutectic mixture can form in the melt.
And there must be a certain amount of Fe, C, S, P, Mn, O, Si, etc be present in that melt, in very narrow boundaries of certain percentages, to be able to lower the melting temperature of that type of steel.

If either this event happened in the still erect towers, or in the debris from the collapsed ones, there are only two possible scenarios :

1. The steel must reach melting temperatures before the external source of Sulfur can mix with the Iron steel melt.
That external Sulfur had to be added (naturally or not) to the, to be formed eutectic mixture, before it could play a part in forming an eutectic mixture which could lower the melting point to ~ 1000° C.
Sulfur rich thermite comes to mind.

2. The steel was already produced many years ago, made in the steel plant specifically as this special kind of eutectic mixture, so SOMEONE knew that it would melt at office fire temperatures, when the towers would get burned.
Thus is only one question left in this case then :
Were all steel beams and columns made of this type of steel, since we saw the towers hit and burn localized only, thus all the steel beneath the fires had their original strength, which resisted the initial collapse forces of the top sections in and above the fires.



( I have edited the above post, since colored text in quotes doesn't work for me)

[edit on 12/4/10 by LaBTop]

The problem isn't the capitalized "R" but the use of quotation marks. Any " or ' will prevent the color BB code from working.
This "will not work"
This 'will not work'
This will work

Thanks.

Gemwolf
ATS Staff

Thanks very much Gemwolf, I saw only the 2 opening and closing quotation marks, but the author used two others in the middle of that text. Me stupid when late.

[edit on 12/4/10 by LaBTop]

Solved.

[edit on 12/4/10 by LaBTop]

Sorry for the mess in those two left above posts of mine, the colored text problem is solved as you can see now.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention, Volume 6(5) October 2006.
JFAPBC (2006) 5:17-21 © ASM International
DOI: 10.1361/154770206X129006 1547-7029 / $19.00

Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the steel from Building 7 of the World Trade Center - Some Observations.
R.D. Sisson, Jr., and R.R. Biederman.

www.springerlink.com...
www.springerlink.com...

This reads as damage control :

(Submitted August 25, 2006; in revised form September 7, 2006)

Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940°C were experienced in localized regions. Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed.

When scientists use words like "suggests", they have no hard evidence, its an assumption.
The text : "showed that temperatures higher than 940°C were experienced in localized regions" is only a lower boundary definition, while we would like to know what the higher boundaries were.

How did they reach this conclusion, and how high did the temperature go up, one would ask, as a follow up question.
Because that's exactly what the forensic team of FEMA asked the Worcester Polytechnic Institute Materials Science and Engineering faculty.

to examine the microstructures of
the steels from the World Trade Center disaster to
determine the maximum exposure temperatures
and to identify the mechanism for the extensive
metal removal.

Because if we could prove that much higher temperatures were reached, that would be a official theory backbone breaker.
So, they let us not near any possible route to such an investigation.

Someone willing to pay the $19.00 to see more than 1 page PDF text? It says 5 Pages, 17-21 in this Springerlink :
www.springerlink.com...
and the free preview is only page 17. Four more pages which have their reasoning.

PS: I have page 17, 18 and 19 now.
Page 20, 21 are sadly not free, but locked.

www.springerlink.com...
www.springerlink.com...
www.springerlink.com...

Here are some excerpts from the 3 first pages, sadly enough you can't read the other two, where one should expect their reasoning for the 940°C boundary which they indicate in their Summary.

Page 17
(Submitted August 25, 2006; in revised form September 7, 2006)
Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940
°C were experienced in localized regions. Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface
layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred
while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed.

Keywords: Building 7, microstructure, rubble pile, slag, sulfur, temperature

Introduction
The Worcester Polytechnic Institute Materials
Science and Engineering faculty was asked by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
forensic team to examine the microstructures of
the steels from the World Trade Center disaster to
determine the maximum exposure temperatures
and to identify the mechanism for the extensive
metal removal. These determinations were based
on microstructural examination of portions of
a beam.
Steel beam samples from Building 7 were collected
during the FEMA forensic investigation
after the September 11, 2001, attack. The Building
7 sample was identified by its location. The samples
were collected by the FEMA forensic team from
the “pile of rubble” that had been burning for many
days. The samples had been exposed to the fires in
the building while it remained standing as well as
the fires in the rubble on the ground after the
building collapsed. In this sample beam, extensive
metal removal was observed with thickness decreases
up to ½ in. and very localized regions of total metal
loss. A photograph of the steel beam sample is
presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 Severely eroded ½ in. wide flange beam from WTC 7.
Nominal composition (%) of the A36 steel plate is
0.29C max, 0.80-1.2Mn, 0.04P, 0.05S, 0.15-0.3Si,
bal Fe.

A photograph of a metallurgical
mount of a beam section is seen in Fig. 2.
Preliminary results from this investigation were
presented in 2001[1] and the FEMA report,[2] and
this case history updates those reports.

Fig. 2 Cross-sectional metallurgical mount.

Page 18
Microstructural Observations
Metallographic samples from
the beam were prepared from
several locations, including sections
with total metal loss and
thicker sections. The cross
sections were mounted and
polished using standard metallographic
practice.

Building 7 - A36 Steel
The microstructure of the steel
from Building 7 is typical of a
structural steel such as ASTM
A36. The wide flange beam displayed a microstructure
that consisted of a banded hot worked
mixture of ferrite and pearlite (Fig. 3). The
microstructures in these regions displayed no effects
of excessive heat or metal loss.

Fig. 3 Microstructure of unaffected A36 steel. White—ferrite; dark—banded pearlite. Pearlite
forms in bands due to manganese segregation and prior hot working. 4% nital etch.

In the regions of the beam that exhibited
extensive metal removal, an intergranular liquid slag
attack was observed (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4 Optical micrograph of near-surface region showing iron
oxide-iron sulfide eutectic structure, grain-boundary
attack, and decarburization.

Scanning electron
microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDS) identified the slag to be
comprised of Fe, O, and S (Fig. 5). Chemical
reactions including oxidation, sulfidation, and
decarburization occurred, as well as the usually
observed phase transformations in the steel.
As the temperature increases, several microstructural
changes[3] normally occur within the
steel. Two important intermediate temperature
transformation reactions that occur soften the steel.
These are the pearlite spheroidization reaction at
temperatures below the A1 temperature, and the
conversion from ferrite and pearlite to austenite at
temperatures above the A1 temperature and above
the A3 temperature, followed by transformation
back to pearlite and ferrite on cooling. Typical
examples of these transformations are presented in
Fig. 6 and 7, within the pearlite banded regions
near the bottom of Fig. 4. In Fig. 6, the Fe3C in
the pearlite had started to spheroidize. Also, some
pearlite bands have areas where a re-austenitization
had occurred and new finer-grained regions of
pearlite and ferrite formed on cooling (Fig. 7). These
observations indicate that the steel in this region
had experienced temperatures in the range of 550
to 850 °C.
An example of a typical near-surface microstructure
is shown in Fig. 8. This microstructure
shows the scale and slag reaction effects at the top
of the micrograph and the normal metallurgical
reactions that occurred in this steel on heating and
cooling toward the bottom. As the temperature
increased, some changes in the microstructure of
the steel occurred as a result of heating and cooling.
However, as higher temperatures occurred, microstructural
as well as chemistry changes occurred
due to the reactions with the environment. The
interaction of heat in a corrosive fire environment
resulted in exposing the steel to sulfidation, oxidation,
and reductions in thickness.

Page 19
Using EDS with SEM, it was determined that
the slag contained iron, oxygen, and sulfur (Fig.
5). The reaction of this slag with the steel resulted
in several metallurgical effects. First, the surface of
the steel was decarburized in this environment (Fig.
8). Second, the slag preferentially attacked the grain
(.......page 20 not available for free. Fig. 8 thus not seen yet.)

Fig. 5 Energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) analysis of eutectic region.(LT: this shows light-gray regions of FeS and FeO.)

Fig. 6 Typical microstructural changes that occur when A36
steel is heated to the vicinity of the eutectoid reaction
~727 °C (1340 °F), held for a short time, and cooled to
ambient (LT: room-) temperature. Arrow indicates partial carbide
spheroidization.

Fig. 7 Typical microstructural changes that occur when A36
steel is heated to above the eutectoid temperature ~727
°C (1340 °F) and cooled to ambient temperature. Arrow
indicates a typical region where conversion to an
austenite matrix (on heating) occurred followed by a
retransformation to a ferrite matrix on cooling.

The only information which we need now, is their 940°C reasoning.

reply to post by LaBTop


You provide good information and bring up some important points. But, the steel did not contain the eutectic iron sulfide phase when it was made.

I guess to summarize the issues that you brought up, the following can be clarified:

In my opinion backed by Laws of Thermodynamics and multi-component phase equilibria, the following is fact:

The analysis of the steel shows a remelted, heavily oxidized and sulfurized layer that is compositionally different than the underlying, unaffected steel.

Based on my experience and knowledge, the following is only logical to consider. The resultant microstructure is nearly proof of the following:

The products of thermate reaction are "slag" and that would cause the resultant phases of iron sulfide and iron oxide in their geometric forms. This did not occur while being exposed to air after fracture. It didn't fracture, it was cut with this mixture...

I outlined the experiments that would prove this to 911 truth. I don't like their mood because they blame the government for it. I don't. I don't know what happened. But, I know metallurgy and the official story is wrong. Portions of the steel melted instantaneously to create that microstructure...it happened in seconds.

I know the guys at WPI...they weren't really wrong in their conclusion. They were left with some confusion and wanted to conduct some experiments. I told them what additional experiments must be conducted to address my conclusions. They are quite fine with that.

Buy, nobody wants to investigate. And, I do fear that it will only cause misery for me. I'm a scientist and I'm currently working on an invention. That consumes a great deal of my time.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by ibiubu]

[edit on 12-4-2010 by ibiubu]

[edit on 12-4-2010 by ibiubu]

Originally posted by Jezus

No alternative theory is necessary to prove a lack of evidence for another.

Evidence for explosives might help to theorize on a possible unknown variable, but fact is that it has not be proven to be physically possible for those building to collapse like that without explosives or some other unknown variable.

This is a powerful argument for some sort of DEW as countenanced by Judy Wood. Or at least it is as powerful an argument for that as it is for the use of CD-style explosives, in that it relies purely on the weakness of the official report and continues with pure conjecture.

ibiubu,

Shouldn't they have also found quite some Al in their tests?
I do not see any of it in their graphs.

Would that nullify the use of (nano) thermite?
There is also a lot of Sulfur used in a certain formulation for thermite, which you can ignite with a match stick, instead of a Mg ribbon.
At much lower temperature thus.
But, there's a lot of Aluminum in that formation too.

reply to post by LaBTop


Yes, you have a sharp mind. I mentioned to them that there should be a layer of aluminum oxide (only angstroms thick, maybe 8) on the surface of the fractured/cut beams. This oxide would instantaneously form and is quite tenacious. Typically handling of the sample will not remove this. This will push the limits of the analytical method, but it may be measured using Auger analysis. I do quite a bit of SEM and EMPA, but haven't worked with Auger much. I would seek an expert in this area, like McCrone in Chicago.

Everyone's all caught up in Nanotech in my field. I read that they found some aluminum oxide spheres in the dust that was small enough to be called nano. Actually, this is strange to find. I can assure you that finely divided aluminum oxide power is all you need. Sulfur just lowers the temperature. I used to make thermite explosions (with liquid aluminum) when I did research at an aluminum company. I'm glad I don't do that anymore...it was for safety videos of what not to do. I guess that I was the "canary in a coal mine"

Are you a metallurgist? Three cheers for your intellect.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


I really don't know what the correct answer is...all of the information that I provided in this thread is all a metallurgist needs to take the next step.

They have told me that they will contact me again.

ibiubu, and others.

And especially the Opening Poster (the OP).


I'll offer you all some threads and posts which have a small audience, but should have great impact on the title of this thread :

First of all, one of the most important analysis of the famous WTC basement explosions by NK-44 at the Loose Change Forum :

The Basement Explosions. (and other floors)
z10.invisionfree.com...

It shows a tremendous effort from "NK-44" and "chopoz", and it will take you about 3 to 6 hours to read the 5 pages, and much more when you get really interested, and follow all the links and read them too, and so on for their links again.
I am reading this master piece for several weeks already.
It is the best example of a laborious work which should trigger a new 9/11 investigation.

Next, my seismic evidence for these WTC basement explosives, especially clear proved for the WTC 7 demolition, at the Study of 911 board :
www.studyof911.com...

For more on my seismic posts here, use the ATS Search right up there, and use these terms :
LaBTop seismic
Lots of result pages will come up. Have a nice read.

These two links alone should boost this thread to 500 posts at least, but for some reason I do not see that happening.
However, I will gladly defend them both, against any opposition.
And many with me, I know for sure.


Next, my thermobaric explosives thread, which shall interest you, ibiubu especially, since now we know that they have developed these weapons, but now combined with nano-thermite compounds.
And "new" weapons are always old, for the period they managed to keep them secret. That's from 1993 and on.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's 3 pages long, but I posted much more on it, so do an ATS forum SEARCH (right top of ATS pages) with these terms :
LaBTop thermobaric
LaBTop thermite
You will find much more about these subjects then, in many search result pages.


Next, see my posts and others in this following thread at the Study of 911 board, about the Oklahoma City bombing, which happened in the mid-nineties.

Bombs were planted in the Murrah Federal Building, Documents detailing addition, undetonated devices removed.

They used the same type of explosives there and then in 1995 already; first fine tuned them in the '93 WTC basement bombing, and finally used them in the 2001 Twin Towers and WTC 7 bombings.

www.technologyreview.com...
www.technologyreview.com...

Technology Review - Published by MIT
Printer_friendly_article
January 21, 2005

Military Reloads with Nanotech
Smaller. Cheaper. Nastier. Those are the guiding principles behind the military's latest bombs. The secret ingredient: nanotechnology that makes for a bigger boom.
By John Gartner.

Nanotechnology is grabbing headlines for its potential in advancing the life sciences and computing research, but the Department of Defense (DoD) found another use: a new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.

With funding from the U.S. government, Sandia National Laboratories, the Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory are researching how to manipulate the flow of energy within and between molecules, a field known as nanoenergentics, which enables building more lethal weapons such as "cave-buster bombs" that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs such as the "daisy cutter" or MOAB (mother of all bombs).

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

"The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says.

Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.

"Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times," Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.

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.

However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.

Nanoaluminum is more chemically reactive because there are more atoms on the surface area than standard aluminum, according to Douglas Carpenter, the chief scientific officer at nanometals company Quantumsphere.

"Standard aluminum covers just one-tenth of one percent of the surface area (with atoms), versus fifty percent for nanoaluminum," Carpenter says.

Carpenter says the U.S. military has developed "cave-buster" bombs using nanoaluminum, and it is also working on missiles and torpedoes that move so quickly that they strike their targets before evasive actions can be taken.

"Nanoaluminum provides ultra high burn rates for propellants that are ten times higher than existing propellants," says Carpenter.

The military is also trying to make sure that its bullets kill quickly.

The U.S. Army Environmental Center began a program in 1997 to develop alternatives to the toxic lead that is used in the hundreds of millions of rounds that are annually fired during conflicts and at its training ranges. Carpenter says that although bullets using nanoaluminum are ready to be field tested, the government has been slow implement the technology.

"Getting the government to change the way they kill people is difficult," Carpenter says.

Because nanometal provides a higher concentration of energy while requiring fewer raw materials, the overall cost of these weapons would drop, according to Kevin Walter, vice president of technical business development at nanometals manufacturer Nanoscale Technologies.

"You get a little better bang for your buck," Walter says.

The nanometals can be produced in particles as small as eight nanometers, Walter says, and then combined with other chemicals to create the explosive materials, which can also be used for non-military applications including pyrotechnics and explosives for mining.

Nanotechnology "could completely change the face of weaponry," according to Andy Oppenheimer, a weapons expert with analyst firm and publisher Jane's Information Group. Oppenheimer says nations including the United States, Germany, and Russia are developing "mini-nuke" devices that use nanotechnology to create much smaller nuclear detonators.

Oppenheimer says the devices could fit inside a briefcase and would be powerful enough to destroy a building. Although the devices require nuclear materials, because of their small size "they blur the line with conventional weapons," Oppenheimer says.

The mini-nuke weapons are still in the research phase and may be surreptitiously funded since any form of nuclear proliferation is "politically contentious" because of the possibility that they could fall into the hands of terrorists, Oppenheimer says.

The creation of much smaller nuclear bombs adds new challenges to the effort to limit weapons of mass destruction, according to Oppenheimer.

"(The bombs) could blow open everything that is in place for arms control," Oppenheimer says. "Everything gets more dangerous."

Copyright Technology Review 2005.

And again, "new" military technology is always much older.
See this highly interesting Thread page 1 ,
Super Thermite, might it have been used?
and especially the posts from sp00n and bsbray11 :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by Jezus

No alternative theory is necessary to prove a lack of evidence for another.

Evidence for explosives might help to theorize on a possible unknown variable, but fact is that it has not be proven to be physically possible for those building to collapse like that without explosives or some other unknown variable.

This is a powerful argument for some sort of DEW as countenanced by Judy Wood. Or at least it is as powerful an argument for that as it is for the use of CD-style explosives, in that it relies purely on the weakness of the official report and continues with pure conjecture.

Well something is by default false until proven true.

Since we have never seen anything like what happened on 9/11 without explosives someone has to prove that it is actually physically possible to be accepted as a potential theory.

Since no one has shown how or why it is possible there is no reason to believe it is.

Explosives is only the most obvious possibility for what is otherwise an unexplained phenomenon.

Fair enough. I tend to disagree, just because I think explosives are actually highly unlikely, for a variety of reasons. But I do basically agree with your logic - that there is no evidence for anything beyond the collapse being in some way exceptional.

My feeling is that it is more likely that because of the unprecedented design of the buildings and the unprecedented events of the day, stuff happened that is outside the normal purview of engineers. They have thus taken some time to produce working theories. They're only engineers, after all. At my university they were always considered to be the thick kids

[edit on 13-4-2010 by TrickoftheShade]

Remember, the burden of proof lies with those who want to convince some entity for the need for another investigation. I'm trying to get that across to bsbray11 and he doesn't yet understand that trying to shift the burden of proof for his claims to others will not get him a new investigation."

You're right, I don't understand why it is suddenly my personal responsibility to prove what happened on 9/11.

You keep saying everything has already been proven so there's no need for the government to prove anything to me. Sorry, but I pay the government, and it works for me. Maybe you aren't American and don't understand that.

What evidence have they presented me with again?