Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out

reply to post by Thermo Klein


Comes from BBC documentary "THE THIRD TOWER" which extracts it from the NIST report on WTC 7

Here is the BBC timeline summary

[url=http://]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7437516.stm[/url

Also was not just Rotanz who believed WTC would collapse

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan was in lobby command post when noticed lobbhy windows breaking and
plaster falling off walls - this indicated building was "moving" or becoming unstable

Chief Callan ordered all men to evacuate the North Tower at 9:30am , 1/2 hour before South Tower collapse

FDNY Assistant Chief Joseph Callan: "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe. And that was based on the conditions in the lobby, large pieces of plaster falling, all the 20 foot high glass panels on the exterior of the lobby were breaking. There was obvious movement of the building, and that was the reason on the handy talky I gave the order for all Fire Department units to leave the north tower."

Callan: "For me to make the decision to take our firefighters out of the building with civilians still in it, that was very tough for me, but I did that because I did not think the building was safe any longer, and that was just prior to 9:30."

Rotanz was talking to a structural engineer who voiced concerns that building was in danger of collapse. John
Peruggia, EMS Division chief, was there and sent a runner to communicate this information to FDNY Chief
Peter Ganci

EMS Division Chief John Peruggia: "I was in a discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the Department of Buildings, but I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite significant and they were very confident that the building's stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower was in danger of a near imminent collapse.

I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it was across the street from number 1 World Trade Center. I told him "You see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with the information that the building integrity is severely compromised and they believe the building is in danger of imminent collapse." So, he left off in that direction."
.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


I never seen that video what an eye opener.

2nd.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

 

There are plenty of pics available showing WTC 7 being clobbered by falling debris from the North Tower :-

www.youtube.com...

With regard to your supposed rebuttal of fuel fireballs going down lift shafts you need to check it out. There were continuous shafts from the impact zones to the basements.

I looked at your link. It just shows "dust and debris" moving over building 6. 5 ton sections of the outer curtain wall MIGHT have hit building 7. However at that hight, they'd have to have been PROJECTED OUT over building 6 and clear a steep arc to hit the side and top of building 7.

Meanwhile, building 6 would have received MORE damage from the Curtain walls.

The only clear photos I saw without a lot of dust in the way of building 7, show some gouges on the side -- hardly something that would defeat the structural integrity of the building.



I would change my mind if I saw more actual evidence. But seeing a cloud of dust and saying just at the top of that, a dozen 5 ton steel sheets snuck through is not really convincing. There were many projected bits of steel from the building, which led some to think that just FALLING would not make them shoot out like that -- but I figure that the downward motion and bottom hinging of these heavy supporting walls would have "flipped" out steel columns.

The Demolition theory, doesn't support the use of high explosives that would have projected out curtain wall -- shaped charges wouldn't provide that much force. Demolitions don't project out debris. It had to either be a peculiarity of the construction, or something else.


>> But this YouTube video isn't convincing either. Curtain wall would have radiated out in a similar manner all around the building, whereas to strike Building 7, it has a very narrow window. Some debris obviously did hit -- but not enough to bring down a building.


>> The Firefighters talking about the building leaning -- that does seem like some evidence for a natural collapse. If we could have had better acquisition of evidence, where reports of firefighters who said they thought charges were set were also part of the discussion, I think it would be useful. The fact that the 911 commission ONLY recorded supporting reports hurts its credibility.

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst


Verizon Telephone building suffered damage from WTC 1 (North Tower) debris

The south (Vesey Street) side of the building was damaged from approximately the 13th floor down, primarily due to the impact of projectile debris from the collapse of WTC 1 (Figure 7-10). In addition to fairly extensive facade damage (bricks and windows), two bays of slab and framing were damaged at the sidewalk arcade at the 1st floor, and one bay of slab and framing (including spandrel beams) was damaged at the 6th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th, and 13th floors (Figures 7-11 and 7-12). In addition, one interior column suffered minor damage below the 1st floor.

It lies to the west of WTC 7 (Northwest of WTC 1)

The World Finance Center 3 (WFC 3) was hit by debris including sections of column trees from exterior wall

The 50-story WFC 3 building has a plan area of approximately 200 feet by 250 feet. Exterior column trees from WTC 1 were found hanging from the southeast corner of WFC 3 (Figure 7-2) and on the setback roof and against the east face of the Winter Garden (Figures 7-3 and 7-4). The impact of exterior column trees caused structural damage in both structures. Building faces not directly oriented toward the WTC site suffered minimal damage, even at the close proximity of several hundred yards.

List of all the collateral damage on buildings surrounding WTC

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by thedman


too bad none of them had a camera and nothing they talk about is visible from any video or picture ever seen...

interesting testimony however - thanks for posting the source.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Hi, my name is Niels Harrit,
"I have a Master and PhD in Chemistry and I'm Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and I have been so for almost 40 years. I have published close to 60 peer-reviewed papers in the best journals and currently I'm involved with research in x-ray timed spectroscopy...
In the dust we found what we characterize as unreacted thermitic material in the shape of some very tiny red-grey chips which have different properties, most importantly is they're still react[ant] and in the reaction they produce molten iron which is the prime indication of a thermitic reaction and such a reaction can be used to destroy steel structures.
What we have found is the modern version of thermite, which we call nanothermite which is produced in a different way, it is not just two powders being mixed the material is actually built from the atom scale up."



Hi, I'm pteridine,

I see you are still at a loss to explain the unburned super thermite and have to resort to an appeal to authority. Fair is fair. Here is a better version, Thermo.

Hi, my name is Niels Harrit,
"I have a Master and PhD in Chemistry and I'm Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen and I have been so for almost 40 years. I have published close to 60 peer-reviewed papers in scientfic journals and currently I'm involved with research in x-ray timed spectroscopy...
In the dust we found what we incorrectly characterized as unreacted thermitic material. Because we have no actual chemists on our team, we completely screwed up the analytical protocols when we tried to analyze our four samples. Our own data shows it but we can't admit it because we are busy scamming people with our show. We have some really gullible followers who don't understand much but pretend that they do. When real analytical chemists challenge our work, we clam up and hide while our sycophants repeatedly post the errors using our script. We promised another paper two years ago that would correct our errors but my partners, Larry, Moe, and Curley Jones, decided not to publish it because it might not agree with our predetermined conclusions. That is also why we haven't let anyone but our co-conspirators have any samples because when we let Henryco have some, the chips behaved like paint.
What we have found is the modern version of the con job which was produced using a pseudo scientifc paper published by a vanity publisher and fed to the unassuming masses. I certainly hope that no analytical chemist ever reviews this embarrassment because its errors and faulty conclusions are obvious to any chemist."

Originally posted by pteridine
Because we have no actual chemists on our team, we completely screwed up the analytical protocols when we tried to analyze our four samples.

PLEASE explain to us less enlightened folks how a man who is a Professor Emeritus with 40 years teaching experience, a Master's degree in Chemistry, a PhD in Chemistry, and nearly 60 articles published in peer-reviewed journals is not a Chemist.

How's that working for you, by the way? challenging OBVIOUS facts with jibberish.... an intelligent guy like you, such a shame.



ETA:
As a small side note next time please remove quotes around something that is not a quote...

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by pteridine
Because we have no actual chemists on our team, we completely screwed up the analytical protocols when we tried to analyze our four samples.

PLEASE explain to us less enlightened folks how a man who is a Professor Emeritus with 40 years teaching experience, a Master's degree in Chemistry, a PhD in Chemistry, and nearly 60 articles published in peer-reviewed journals is not a Chemist.

How's that working for you, by the way? challenging OBVIOUS facts with jibberish.... an intelligent guy like you, such a shame.



ETA:
As a small side note next time please remove quotes around something that is not a quote...

Niels has either been blinded by his desire to find something or just ran the analyses and let the Jones boys write the paper. If he didn’t review it before submission, shame on him.
The elemental map says ‘aluminosilicates’ to most but ‘aluminum’ to this crew. See figure 10 in the Bentham paper and note 10c and 10e images. Note that where there is aluminum there is also silicon. Use of a carbon stage is the proper technique when looking for elemental aluminum because of shine-through but they make no mention of that important point when they show fig 17. XRD would provide resolution of the issue but they chose not to do a simple, low cost analysis. Maybe they didn’t want to see the answer.
The use of MEK as a solvent to dissolve cured paint shows lack of chemical acumen. MEK is not a strong solvent. Methylene chloride [dichloromethane] is better and readily available. If more solvent power is needed, DMSO or DMF could be used. A heated mixture of DMSO and DMF will dissolve cured epoxy.
The thermodynamics show exotherms in excess of theoretical maxima for thermite. This, coupled with running the DSC in a stream of air, means that the carbonaceous matrix is burning. This means that one is unable to tell the difference between combustion and another reaction. Thermite does not need air to react. The operation of the DSC under argon or nitrogen would discriminate between combustion and other reactions. Jones eventually admitted his error and promised another paper. He has not yet produced it two years later.
The fact that is ‘obvious’ is that the gibberish comes from the authors. That you did not comprehend this before you were enlightened is understandable.
This paper was published in Bentham because other journals would not have published it as it is written.

ETA:
I was correcting your quote. As a small side note next time please learn about other uses of quotation marks.
owl.english.purdue.edu...

reply to post by pteridine


let's get something straight here... you and I are not the experts; we are bringing forth information from experts to help us understand and come to a conclusion.

Who is your source for all those technical, chemical, physical conclusions?
and why do you think your unnamed source is a better source than our esteemed Professor Harrit?


The things you mention sound plausible... BUT someone like Niels Harrit would OBVIOUSLY know which chemicals are approriate for cleaning off paint, testing a H+ v Ho hypothesis, using the correct equipment - which is why he's in the video and not some random person who writes a blog.

appeal to authority? of course!! That's what we should be doing.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

let's get something straight here... you and I are not the experts; we are bringing forth information from experts to help us understand and come to a conclusion.

Who is your source for all those technical, chemical, physical conclusions?
and why do you think your unnamed source is a better source than our esteemed Professor Harrit?


The things you mention sound plausible... BUT someone like Niels Harrit would OBVIOUSLY know which chemicals are approriate for cleaning off paint, testing a H+ v Ho hypothesis, using the correct equipment - which is why he's in the video and not some random person who writes a blog.

appeal to authority? of course!! That's what we should be doing.

Speak for yourself regarding chemical expertise. I am the source for my conclusions and I have shown that Harrit's conclusions are not consistent with the data presented in the Bentham paper. Someone like Harrit wouldn't necessarily know what solvent to use, much like an opthamologist wouldn't necessarily know how to repair an ACL. There are specialties everywhere. Cleaning paint off a substrate and dissolving cured paint are two different things. None of the people on Jones team knew what to use so Jones asked an acquaintance for a solvent that would dissolve paint. MEK is what he used.
The fact that XRD was not used may only mean that they didn't have one available to them but when they saw the elemental map that said aluminosilicate, XRD is what they should have done to resolve the issue. This should have happened before they published as should the DSC under inert. Instead, they published a half-baked paper in a vanity journal and rode the wave of adulation by the truther population.
The conductvity experiment was so bad that I don't even review it other than to say it was exceptionally pointless.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

let's get something straight here... you and I are not the experts; we are bringing forth information from experts to help us understand and come to a conclusion.

Who is your source for all those technical, chemical, physical conclusions?
and why do you think your unnamed source is a better source than our esteemed Professor Harrit?


The things you mention sound plausible... BUT someone like Niels Harrit would OBVIOUSLY know which chemicals are approriate for cleaning off paint, testing a H+ v Ho hypothesis, using the correct equipment - which is why he's in the video and not some random person who writes a blog.

appeal to authority? of course!! That's what we should be doing.

edit on 17-1-2012 by Thermo Klein because: (no reason given)

Your problem is you are listening to and trusting "turther" oriented "experts". You're not going to find the truth at conspiracy oriented sites, you are only going to find the "truth" of added conspiracy.

One would think that after 10 years you'd realize this. Many have and do once they come to the realization they are being duped...

ETA: pteridine is saying exactly the same thing as other knowledgeable experts are saying, over and over again at numerous Web Sites. You will not find that at a "truther" oriented Web Site. All you'll find is more "poof" of a conspiracy...

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Thermo Klein
reply to post by pteridine

 

let's get something straight here... you and I are not the experts; we are bringing forth information from experts to help us understand and come to a conclusion.

Who is your source for all those technical, chemical, physical conclusions?
and why do you think your unnamed source is a better source than our esteemed Professor Harrit?


The things you mention sound plausible... BUT someone like Niels Harrit would OBVIOUSLY know which chemicals are approriate for cleaning off paint, testing a H+ v Ho hypothesis, using the correct equipment - which is why he's in the video and not some random person who writes a blog.

Speak for yourself regarding chemical expertise. I am the source for my conclusions...

ok. Please use your expertise to explain why these alleged nanothermite/alleged paint chips are so incredibly thin?
normally people don't apply paint in nanometer-size, individually lined-up paint atoms... they use a sprayer or paint brush. Why did they go to such extremes back when this paint was applied, 1972 was it?

HERE's why I ask...

typical paint is 75 –125 μm (micrometers)
fireproofing paint would obviously be much thicker.
nanothermite chips found in the dust are only 15-20% as thick as paint, with two 10 μm sections

Drywall is typically painted with 3 layers (one primer and two paint). Traditionally a destructive test method is used to determine paint thickness. Today, the primary purpose of ultrasonic testing is to non-destructively measure the TOTAL thickness of the paint system, typically in the range of 3 to 5 mils (75 –125 μm).
(Source: DeFelsko manufacturing: Measuring Paint Thickness)

For your paint theory to hold up you need to explain why the paint in the Twin Towers is 1/7th the thickness of typical paint (even though it would be thicker than typical paint due to being fireproofing)

Originally posted by Reheat
Your problem is you are listening to and trusting "turther" oriented "experts". You're not going to find the truth at conspiracy oriented sites, you are only going to find the "truth" of added conspiracy.

I agree with you that you can't find truth from some random, biased website... which is precisely why I listen to the 1,600 professional Demolition experts, Chemistry professionals, Engineers, and Architects who individually have signed a statement saying 9/11 was accomplished using explosives.

I don't think you're after truth but if you happen to skew that way in your free time try watching the video from the OP.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
Your problem is you are listening to and trusting "turther" oriented "experts". You're not going to find the truth at conspiracy oriented sites, you are only going to find the "truth" of added conspiracy.

I agree with you that you can't find truth from some random, biased website... which is precisely why I listen to the 1,600 professional Demolition experts, Chemistry professionals, Engineers, and Architects who individually have signed a statement saying 9/11 was accomplished using explosives.

Did they sign a statement saying 911 was accomplished using explosives or is that what you were told? Look on the 911 website and see if you can find what they actually signed.

reply to post by spoor


Who are you to call his experience and credentials into question?.
As far as i am concerned i give your opinion, of who is, and who isn't professional enough to comment, absolutely no credence whatsoever. (Not even a fly fart)
I, like many people, are capable of determining who is worth listening to and who isn't based on nothing more than common sense, you are not the only person in the world capable of "reasoning".
Why do you even feel it is necessary to attempt to call these people out, don't you think people are capable of deciding for themselves without your opinion attempting to persuade them?.
What, exactly, is your motivation in attempting to assuage people that your opinion of these speakers is more relevant than the message they convey?.
If these speakers are not qualified to be speaking openly about their convictions (They would be coming across as "Know nuthin's"), then why do you feel threatened enough to attempt to destroy their credibility?.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

ok. Please use your expertise to explain why these alleged nanothermite/alleged paint chips are so incredibly thin?
normally people don't apply paint in nanometer-size, individually lined-up paint atoms... they use a sprayer or paint brush. Why did they go to such extremes back when this paint was applied, 1972 was it?

HERE's why I ask...

typical paint is 75 –125 μm (micrometers)
fireproofing paint would obviously be much thicker.
nanothermite chips found in the dust are only 15-20% as thick as paint, with two 10 μm sections

Drywall is typically painted with 3 layers (one primer and two paint). Traditionally a destructive test method is used to determine paint thickness. Today, the primary purpose of ultrasonic testing is to non-destructively measure the TOTAL thickness of the paint system, typically in the range of 3 to 5 mils (75 –125 μm).
(Source: DeFelsko manufacturing: Measuring Paint Thickness)

For your paint theory to hold up you need to explain why the paint in the Twin Towers is 1/7th the thickness of typical paint (even though it would be thicker than typical paint due to being fireproofing)

You cannot determine the thickness of the layers using figure 4 of the Bentham paper. Look at Fig. (5). "BSE images of cross sections of red/gray chips from samples 1-4 ..." and you will see a better aspect to estimate cross sections. Note that there is a variation in the thicknesses; paint is not applied evenly and we don't know if the painting contractor was occasionally thinning the paint for some reason or another. Note also that your reference is not discussing oil based paint on steel. It is discussing the total thickness of three layers of paint on drywall so it is hardly a reference point.

The red paint was not intended to be fireproofing.

It would seem contrary to the theory you support to have thinner layers of the deadly nano paint. Perhaps you should focus on what a thin layer of thermite could do at all. How would it be ignited and how would it stay ignited? What would happen if it did give off the heat of thermite? Why did the chip self extinguish in the DSC? Why didn't the Jones team sample the red paint seen to cover the structural components in the rubble so that they could compare it with the red chips in the dust?

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat
Your problem is you are listening to and trusting "turther" oriented "experts". You're not going to find the truth at conspiracy oriented sites, you are only going to find the "truth" of added conspiracy.

I agree with you that you can't find truth from some random, biased website... which is precisely why I listen to the 1,600 professional Demolition experts, Chemistry professionals, Engineers, and Architects who individually have signed a statement saying 9/11 was accomplished using explosives.

I don't think you're after truth but if you happen to skew that way in your free time try watching the video from the OP.

I did watch some of it, but have heard it all before. Much of what they have to say is incredibly wrong. It seems impossible to me that an experienced structural or even civil engineer could utter such nonsense as some of them do.

Do you really know WHO they are? Have you verified their credentials? Are they the same folks who signed a petition indicating they supported a further investigation? They did not sign a petition supporting CD.

Many of those 1600 or so you're so impressed with are merely in some way connected to an Engineering Firm in one way or another. They are not degreed professionals at all. Even still that is a very small representation from the legitimate Structural or Civil Engineer or Architects. If it's so obvious where are the bulk of the thousands of them all over the world. I'll tell you where they are.... Avoiding this group of charlatans and frauds like the plague...

Oh, and just who are these Demolition Experts. Surely, you're not talking about Tom Sullivan, the photographer and dynamite gopher!

Originally posted by pteridine
Why didn't the Jones team sample the red paint seen to cover the structural components in the rubble so that they could compare it with the red chips in the dust?

And why won't they give some of their dust to another laboratory for testing as Jones promised to do? That would end the criticism of their sham paper once and for all wouldn't it? That's precisely why they won't as their fraud would be exposed and they know it....

They are hiding something and I know what it is.... it's paint!

Originally posted by Reheat

They are hiding something and I know what it is.... it's paint!

Exceptionally THIN explosive paint

think I've had enough if this thread... catch ya on the next one.

Originally posted by Thermo Klein

Originally posted by Reheat

They are hiding something and I know what it is.... it's paint!

Exceptionally THIN explosive paint

When you decide to come back it would be very nice of you to explain how that Exceptionally THIN "explosive" paint cut massive structural steel to facilitate a CD. .

BTW - You might also explain how it suddenly became explosive. Harrit et. al did not find that to be the case at all. Therm*te of any kind is NOT explosive. It is an incendiary. You don't even know what you're supporting. How pathetic, but totally in character.