U watch -- U consider -- U explain

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by waypastvne

 

And if you take out the strip and attach the charge directly to the target, what do you get.

If you remove the V section from the linear shape charge and place it on a steel column, You will get a very loud bang and a small dent in the column. It is the small strip of metal that actually cuts the column.

No boom! Just a quick hot cut.

Contrary to a widespread misconception, the shaped charge does not depend in any way on thermodynamical phenomena for its effectiveness. In particular, the "jet" of an exploding shaped charge does not "melt its way" through armor, its impact is purely kinetic in nature.

Your evidence does not support your small bang theory.

reply to post by waypastvne


Did you look that up?

It is amazing how real life is so different from those darn books.

Well, I guess you should expect to be mislead . It's not like everyone needs to know such things on a day to day basis.

Good effort though.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by waypastvne

 

Did you look that up?

I looked it up about 5 years ago. I understand how linear shape charges work apparently you do not.

You have no evidence for your small bang theory.

reply to post by waypastvne


ok son.

2nd line

reply to post by hdutton


Hmmm, after two glasses of wine and this late hour I would say this...you want my explanation? It looked like a burning building to me. But since you didn't tell us how the building was set on fire or how many combustible materials were inside I guess I would have to say, it looked like it was burning. That is the only explanation I can offer.

Was it not a burning building? Did people get out? Who set in fire?

I watched, I considered and I explained...it was a burning building.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Okay Dave as you have completely overlooked the fact of Rodriquez stating an initial explosion then a few seconds later another one above him, we will forget all the other aspects bar one key point, a question - yes or no, it`s that simple...

Would a plane hitting a building around 1000 feet above ground level that is built to absorb energy, channel the energy to the ground and trigger a seismic reading (feel free to research before answering)?.

If you answered no, then what caused the seismic spikes prior to both impacts?.

If you answered yes, then why did the plane hitting a building around 10 feet above ground level not built to absorb energy over at the Pentagon not trigger a seismic reading?.

reply to post by hdutton


Please don't forget NIST spokesman with a $300 tie and $5000 suit when asked if NIST had carried out tests for explosives on 911?

Newman said "it had not.“

When a reporter asked Michael Newman "why not?

Newman said, “Because there was no evidence of that.”

Then the reporter asked, “How can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?”

"Baghdad Bob" Newman shot back; “If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time . . . and the taxpayers’ money.”

Outrageous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The criminal demeanor of these monsters is so obvious it would be hilarious if we were not talking about mass murder and the reason behind all the illegal wars, torture, secret prisons, TSA, Homeland Security, millions dead, DU chucking contamination provoking deformed babies for the next 8 billion years...the killing continues...the list of crimes is too long and painful to list here, all done with "taxpayers money."

reply to post by beijingyank


Is there something confusing to you about the idea of a high enough decibel required to denote an explosive? Have you ever heard any of the many controlled demolition videos which are documented? The explosions are easy to identify and always happen before the building comes down.

Not only has a demolition never been done on a scale as large as the Twin Towers, but it has never been done in the manner that the truth movement requires. How could such a perfect government plan be so certain that the events would play out so perfectly, even to the point of WTC 1 smashing debris into WTC 7 and starting fires?

It just makes no logical sense. In order to stick to the demolition theory, you have to board up your mind and pretend nobody is knocking, even though that nobody is common sense.

reply to post by Varemia


Your argument is based on an opinion and is a fallacy.

The facts come first. Facts come before an opinion.

There is scientific proof, and unimpeachable fact of nano thermate in the 911 dust.

Deal with it. Even if it shatters all of the preconceived notions of life. I know it's painful, but truth is the best therapy. Naturally, the brain wants an easy way out, and denial is usually the easiest way to handle the circuit overload.

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by Varemia

 

There is scientific proof, and unimpeachable fact of nano thermate in the 911 dust.

What are the ingredients of nanothermite? Aluminum and iron oxide (rust). What happens when a giant airplane made of aluminum hit a building with aluminum sheathing? Minouri Yamasaki, who built the WTC design included building facades sheathed in aluminum-alloy.

Rust occurs in fires because fires depend on oxygen and oxygen is what accelerates rust. Rust is permeable to air and water, therefore the interior iron continues to corrode. Rust prevention thus requires coatings that preclude rust formation. Stainless steel forms a passivation layer of chromium(III) oxide. Similar passivation behavior occurs with magnesium, titanium, zinc, zinc oxides, ALUMINUM polyaniline, and other electroactive conductive polymers.

The ingredients for nanothermites are indeed there. What the wonderful source failed to explain is that nanothermites are found in ALL fires of structures that are made of iron, steel, or aluminum. It is the result of FIRE.

Now let's also consider this, the restaurant in the WTC had appliances made of aluminum. Computer monitors of the time were made with arsenic, mercury, cadmium, beryllium, chromium, nickel and ZINC. How many computers were in the WTC?

The shocking thing would be if there were no nanothermites found.

And my argument is based in facts and truth.

reply to post by WarminIndy

The ingredients for nanothermites are indeed there. What the wonderful source failed to explain is that nanothermites are found in ALL fires of structures that are made of iron, steel, or aluminum. It is the result of FIRE.

Now let's also consider this, the restaurant in the WTC had appliances made of aluminum. Computer monitors of the time were made with arsenic, mercury, cadmium, beryllium, chromium, nickel and ZINC. How many computers were in the WTC?

The shocking thing would be if there were no nanothermites found.

Then, by this logic, if we locate all our junk yards to "tornado alley", we could close the auto plants.

Every time a storm passed thru the juke yard a bunch of new cars would be assembled and ready for sale.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

The ingredients for nanothermites are indeed there. What the wonderful source failed to explain is that nanothermites are found in ALL fires of structures that are made of iron, steel, or aluminum. It is the result of FIRE.

Now let's also consider this, the restaurant in the WTC had appliances made of aluminum. Computer monitors of the time were made with arsenic, mercury, cadmium, beryllium, chromium, nickel and ZINC. How many computers were in the WTC?

The shocking thing would be if there were no nanothermites found.

Then, by this logic, if we locate all our junk yards to "tornado alley", we could close the auto plants.

Every time a storm passed thru the juke yard a bunch of new cars would be assembled and ready for sale.

You will have to prove the nanothermites were manufactured before hand. You are dealing with two basic ingredients here, rust and aluminum. Fire causes oxidation, oxidation is a chemical change in the bonding to iron and oxygen.

What your source is really saying is this, he found the two ingredients that make up nanothermites. He then told you that because he found those two ingredients it is proof there was a conspiracy. He failed to tell you of the thousands of other chemicals also present in the debris. Many of which do interact with each other.

I think it is silly to say because someone found two ingredients among thousands that there is a conspiracy.

Oh my goodness, there was Dihydromonoxide found there too, or was there?

Do you see how easy it is to fool people? One man, who does not like the government, claims to find nanothermites. What he really did was find the two ingredients and then tell you something else. The fact he did not tell you the names of the thousands of chemicals and chemical compounds created by fire just means he does want people to know the truth. His truth is this ....1+1= Whatever I say it is to make you think I know what I am saying.

And you probably could go the exhaust pipe of your car and rub off nanothermites from it.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Nano thermate was constructed from three elements. There is a carbon molecule added to the mix. Scientists found high tech stuff in the 911 dust, built from the molecule up. There was no random association with elements. And 19 hijackers controlled by a guy in a cave couldn't have made it.

The scientific paper has been out there for over two years now, and the science has yet to be challenged. There has been no peer reviewed scientific papers that has been able to refute the scientific facts/ findings.

I am translating the paper into Chinese now using nano technology PhD candidates. They comment the paper was carefully put together, and there isn't any flaws they have detected. They would like to duplicate the experiments in the lab and I am trying to get a sample now.

Word has it there are two samples already being studied in China, but we don't know who at present. We are looking however, the scientific world is a small one.

The translated paper will be presented to the Chinese Science Academy and we will request their further review.

911's Mass murder is evidence of psychopaths. Psychopaths don't stop. They can't stop. It's their Nature.

The Chinese are all too familiar with psychopaths. The last time they came to China they were disguised as Japanese soldiers. They are a thick headed lot. Even today when the Japanese are asked about the Nanjing Massacre they will smile at you. They will then laugh at you. And then they will ask you if you are a "conspiracy theorist?"

Yes, psychopaths won't stop their mayhem until dead or in prison. Look at what they have wrought since 911. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and endless debt. Millions are now dead, 50 million are on food stamps, Social Security is on the chopping blocks, the dollar is under water, and the murder of innocents continues as police began to club protesters in NY today. 16 Trillion dollars have been secretly distributed to the bankster cabal buddies as revealed today in Congressional hearings on The Fed.

The jig is up. The immutable, scientific forensic evidence points the smoking gun at the neocon cabal.

This rat pack of mass murdering, baby killing, war criminal traitors, responsible for 911, with their torture, secret prisons, are inside the DC Beltway and have a future appointment with the hangman.

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Nano thermate was constructed from three elements. There is a carbon molecule added to the mix. Scientists found high tech stuff in the 911 dust, built from the molecule up. There was no random association with elements. And 19 hijackers controlled by a guy in a cave couldn't have made it.

Carbon is used to make steel and aluminum. Carbon is found in burnt things. Our bodies are made of carbon. Life works on earth because of carbon. And Osama bin Laden was extremely wealthy. He was a civil engineer. He was not living in a cave during that time. Wow, you really know little about him.

Osama bin Laden attended King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. There he studied business administration and civil engineering. In 1979, he earned a degree in civil engineering, and only two years later, Bin Laden also received a degree in economics and public administration.

www.kau.edu.sa...

Do you suppose this, Osama bin Laden as a civil engineer could understand how the WTC was constructed? After all, it was public knowledge. Do you suppose this guy who had these degrees could plan these things? And it seems he has as much education or more than Richard Gage.

Just a guy in a cave. You underestimated him.

As I have said.

The purpose of this post was to give people a chance to observe, by direct comparison, the direct effects of fire upon a large buildibg and consider if the evidence supports the "Official story" about the collapse of W T 7 being caused by office fires.

I do not doubt, nor dispute, that there was some damage done by falling debris from WT1. However, this damage was minor by comparison to other buildings directly below the two main towers. One would expect the damage to cause it to fall over rather than straight down.

If you will look at the damage to these buildings you will notice they are, for the large part, crushed but standing.

The advanced reports of the building comming down along with the reported sound of explosions would lead most people to believe the collapse was intentional. As I have previously stated, a device designed to "rapidly distroy" a structure does not always go BOOM! It can some times be heard to spew and fizz, even though very quickly as it cuts through it's target rather than blowing it a part.

Of course, the main problem with the collape of building WT7 was the FACT that it did so in the same manner as did WT1 & WT2 but was not struct by a plane nor did it have large fires for long period of time. The likelyhood of three buidings collapsing in the same fashion - on the same day - with in a city block of one another, yet for different reasons would seem to me to be fairly low.

Originally posted by hdutton
Of course, the main problem with the collape of building WT7 was the FACT that it did so in the same manner as did WT1 & WT2 but was not struct by a plane nor did it have large fires for long period of time. The likelyhood of three buidings collapsing in the same fashion - on the same day - with in a city block of one another, yet for different reasons would seem to me to be fairly low.

You think WTC 7 didn't have prolonged fire?

Where did this smoke come from then? (and keep in mind that this is earlier, before the fires were burning at their largest:



It's not about probability or likelihood. It's about what really happened. You can't just ignore evidence and expect to be listened to.

reply to post by Varemia


Might I apoligize for not making statements which could be more easily understood ?

I meant to say: Building 7 did not have large fires for a long period of time. In the case of the other buildings, we were told the fires were such infernos for their duration that the structurral steel was weakened and this led to their collapse.

Office fires such as shown, even in your pics, would not generate enough long term heating to weaken the steel columns. In fact the NIST report states the cause of the collapse of building 7 was the expansion of a single column, # 47. in the area of floors 12 & 13 I think.

The sudden disappearance of the "air unit" on the roof before the collapse is also troubling to me. I really do not know why, but something about this happenening just does not look right.

Originally posted by hdutton
reply to post by Varemia

 

Might I apoligize for not making statements which could be more easily understood ?

I meant to say: Building 7 did not have large fires for a long period of time. In the case of the other buildings, we were told the fires were such infernos for their duration that the structurral steel was weakened and this led to their collapse.

Office fires such as shown, even in your pics, would not generate enough long term heating to weaken the steel columns. In fact the NIST report states the cause of the collapse of building 7 was the expansion of a single column, # 47. in the area of floors 12 & 13 I think.

The sudden disappearance of the "air unit" on the roof before the collapse is also troubling to me. I really do not know why, but something about this happenening just does not look right.

Only one column in WTC 7 was weakened. Just thought you might find that interesting.

reply to post by WarminIndy




I will refer to the professors of chemistry at the university when I want a lecture about nano thermate. You are way behind the curve. Fact is, you don't have a clue what nano thermate is or how it is made.

The jig is up.

Originally posted by beijingyank
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I will refer to the professors of chemistry at the university when I want a lecture about nano thermate. You are way behind the curve. Fact is, you don't have a clue what nano thermate is or how it is made.

The jig is up.

I have been hearing the arguments and rebuttals for many years. The thing is, you can't prove who placed the nanothermite, you base your argument on a supposition. No, I am not a chemist, that much is true, but through all of the "research" about nanothermite, no one has said any differently than what I have.

www.nanoscalereslett.com...

There is a very good article on the subject. Take their word for it. Hmm, so aluminum is the main ingredient, then carbon which is what the steel was made from doused with jet fuel does indeed make nanothermites. Interesting here that you have all the ingredients for it under the circumstances which would make it.

1. Aluminum nanoparticles may be stably suspended in ethanol fuel up to the concentration of approximately 10% volume fraction for pure aluminum and 5% volume fraction for n-Al2O3. Although n-Al has demonstrated its ability as a gelling agent, it is recommended for future study that a dispersant is incorporated in the suspension for higher nanoparticle loadings.

What your conspiracy sources did not do was demonstrate that nanothermites are only manufactured in laboratories. That is an assumption. Richard Gage presented his argument from the viewpoint of it being manufactured in a laboratory without presenting the fact that the planes were made of aluminum and contained jet fuel. Neither did he present the fact that the steel beams of the buildings contained carbon. Neither did he present the heat of the fire as a catalyst. No, he just said "Look what I found".

Let me ask you this, is your paper based solely on laboratory experiments?