wtc7 is the smoking gun! all others aspects can be somewhat debunked or have a minimum impact on the majority of people (mokten steel / nanothermite). But wtc7 is the real smoking gun. I've show the video to lot of friends without elling them what it was, and everybody thogught for a controlled demolition. This proves nothing, engineers analysys proves something in this case, but this can let people open their eyes and rethink the whole picture.

I've show the video to lot of friends without elling them what it was, and everybody thogught for a controlled demolition.

What, you showed them a seven hour video of a building burning out of control before it finally collapsed, or an edited version just showing the last few seconds? I hope you provided refreshments and toilet breaks.

Showing just the end is exactly the same as ignoring the 1953 CIA-backed coup in Iran, and jumping to more modern times and saying "So why doesn't Iran like America? We didn't so anything wrong!"

i've showed them a video of a building collapsing that's all. i'm not an engineer so i'm not trying to elaborate/speculate technical aspects. and i haven't tried to convince them of some consipracy . i've just showed the the video and tryed to let them think abnout that

Sorry, but if you're obfuscating pertinent facts then you're only misleading their perceptions.

Oh so... showing them a 7 hour video of a building burning, that doesn't exist as far as I know, at a time when people barely have 10 minute to spare outside of their daily routines is the solution?

Umm... I don't think you're being realistic here.

so what are the pertinent facts ? a frefall collapsed building ? or (small) fires in the building makin it collapsing at freefall ? or maybe i'm forgotting the debris form the other towers collpase. I repeat again. i'm not sayin anything, just that we need to open our eyes. we could go on for hours this way; generally i'm pretty confident to say that the official story of the 9/11 have "some" failure in it. that's all. and imo the wtc7 is the biggest one. And again, sorry: i've not mocked or try to manipulate other people opinion. those who puts their head down the sand cannot be helped. those who (still) have a criticism sense can have an opinion or can or must rethink about that.

well said here.

I like the way you mix the evidence/admission of lies by our government in the overthrow of Mossadegh with what you see as the "truth" today.

It lends credence to your position by saying essentially "I know the government lies so I'm a truth-seeker too! But 9/11 is not a lie!"

Do I have to accept every claim of conspiracy? No.

Can you show us a video of this out of control fire? Can you tell us why it is out of control?

Because no firefighters were fighting it. They pulled out when the first building collapsed.

Right, which says absolutely nothing about the fire when you know that there were people in the right places giving the wrong orders that day. The point of verifying the facts is to see whether these orders were misplaced or not. If you can't prove that there were out of control fires to me, I'll have to stick to all the footage which clearly shows very localized fires on only a couple floors.

https://www.metabunk.org/sk/GJS-WTC27.jpg-20130909-161658.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/Fire.jpg

https://www.metabunk.org/data/MetaMirrorCache/contrailscience.com_skitch_9_11__Is_this_photo_consistent_with7aefe49bedd45fad1d8f73eeb2425cd6.jpg

Fire doesn't have to be on more then a couple floors. It just has to be at the point of where it collapse. Where it was.

Clearly this thread is about WTC7.

Fire doesn't have to be on more then a couple floors. It just has to be at the point of where it collapse. Where it was.

"Fire", "it", "collapse".

Fires don't collapse. And the collapse of a building says nothing about whether the fire is out of control, it only says something about the structural integrity of the building, which could mean a lot of things. Can you please try to form an argument that makes sense and doesn't require me to de-construct your faulty reasoning?

It referring to the building, obviously. The fire was out of control because it was literally not being control by firefighters. Lmao.

Also here's what controlled demolition sounds like.

Here's what wtc 7 sounded like. Quietest controlled demolition known to man with invisible explosives.

The fire was out of control because it was literally not being control by firefighters.

But that's not what that means at all. An out of control fire means the fire is no longer able to be controlled. Many fires are not fought by fire fighters, but they could very well be controlled if they were there. Semantics are very important here, as it is the difference between a good argument and the application of circular logic, which is what you're doing here, without providing any evidence that the fires were out of control.

By now you must have figured out one of the points of this discussion is to figure out whether the absence of fire fighters was justified or part of the cover-up. Your answer is analogous to "they were absent because they were absent" and is of course complete non-sense in that regard.

Well since there is no proof a fire has to pertain to your definition of "out of control" to collapse it's absolutely not important. Never said they were absent because they were absent. They were absent because wtc 1 fell so everyone got he fuck out of there.

Also nice of you to not address the lack of sound or visble explosions in wtc 7.

I'm not getting into a debate about WTC7 with you, I am just trying to get to the evidence of your claim that there were uncontrollable fires in WTC7. So far you have produced pictures of the fires in WTC1/2 and an 8 second video of smoke with not a single flame on it. And this pitiful presentation took us almost 10 comments of going back and forth.

I think it's safe to say that if you can't present any evidence after 10 comments and repeated requests, you don't have any.

Point out where I claimed they were uncontrollable. Feel free to copy and paste.

[removed]

[removed]

Rule 10. Removed.

Sorry.

Rule 10. Removed.

Hence the mistaken premature reports of its collapse by the BBC and others. Word was out that it was going to collapse and the media had been evacuated from the are too by that point in the afternoon

More facts:

• http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-06/facts-speak-themselves

• http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/

• http://911blogger.com/news/2015-08-08/fourteen-incredible-facts-about-911

Sorry but can someone tell me what happened to all the concrete after the collapse of wtc1 & 2? Or all the plane crash corpses? Don't say they were vaporised coz you know thats shit. The Lufthansa plane slammed against a mountain, and they recovered bodies there, not so?

Bone fragments of fire fighters who were inside the building during the collapse were found on top of other buildings. I think that says enough about what happened to both the concrete and the bodies.

You just have to look at the video of the collapses to see all the explosions. We've just been conditioned into believing it's a collapse.

The Lufthansa plane didn't have 200k tons of material falling on top of it from 100 stories up.

So how did they find one of the hijackers passports then? How convenient.

Passports would survive a lot better then squishy bodies in a building collapse. Also explosives don't destroy the concrete in controlled demolition the weight of the building does. So not sure what concrete disappearing adds to an inside job theory.

It's not like paper burns after all. Only steel can do that.

It's not like fires burn unevenly after all.

Many of the passengers and bits of luggage were actually blasted through the buildings, landing decimated several blocks away on awnings or rooftops. Read up on it--your ignorance is too convenient

The same heat that turned steel into molten pools vaporized the aluminum, the engine body, the people, furniture, drywall, and the concrete, and schmelted glass into concrete-metal-glass aggregates as well. Keep in mind, when you study the actual science of a foundry and melting steel, you realize there was *a preposterous amount of heat that was unaccounted for in the NIST studies and that no one wants to talk about.

It's the Case of the Missing Joules. It's no conspiracy, unless physics itself is conspiring against out ability to prove our assumed explanation.

Research the construction of the buildings--mostly steel, glass and air. Still, the debris piles were 7 stories tall, above the vast basement levels, and literally burned for months.

I bought the ebook, Beyond Misinformation from ae911truth.org and it's incredible. I think it might change the world if enough people get their hands on it. I ordered a 20 pack and I'm going to give to some folks and oops leave them at doctor and dentist office next to a 5 yr old copies of USA TODAY

Great idea!

2

Why did the BBC report the WTC Building 7 collapse twenty minutes in advance of the event?

They refuse to give their source. They also lost the footage for a few years. The BBC explanations for this on their website received much negative comment and attention as it makes sense that reporting an event before it happens, then not quoting the source and losing the footage does not bode well for good journalism, on the day "in the fog of war" as some have put it, or afterwards when questions were arrogantly dismissed.

Conspiracy or not, proper journalists would answer these questions. They are relevant as a matter of record. Ridiculing those who ask these questions begs other questions. Why so certain there is no problem with the BBC reporting on this subject? Heard of Jimmy Savile? After all, these are just questions. Since Quora is a place to ask questions and have them answered by people who know, why not try answering them before resorting to the name calling, defending the establishment as a knee jerk reaction and using dismissive language found in many answers on this question.

Whether or not BBC was part of a conspiracy or not, is not the question. The question is why did they report it all? Who knew it would collapse and why? If there was advance warning of this event it should be known. It may silence those who believe it was a conspiracy. Perhaps the forewarning will explain the conspiracy away. The fact that this is not revealed only makes matters worse.

This is relevant to understanding the event. For anyone to say "they made a mistake" is an opinion. You can't mistakenly predict the future so another, proper explanation is required. Showing the information they received will resolve this but it's not forth coming. But the "there's nothing to see here" attitude answers nothing.

In addition, for those who concede that mistakes are made in the reporting of these things, it would behoove them to apply this instant knee jerk defense to all reporting of such events in the media. There are, no doubt, many incorrect reports and it means that for those who want thorough answers we have to work harder than quoting powerful news organizations that make mistakes, as the final word on these matters.

A proper answer on Quora addresses the question and backs it up.

The answer to this question is: We don't know why, but we should.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-BBC-report-the-WTC-Building-7-collapse-twenty-minutes-in-advance-of-the-event

The early BBC report is no mystery. Firefighters at the scene who assessed the damage to WTC7 believed it had become structurally unsound and was on the verge of collapse and so they cleared a collapse zone around the building before it fell. All the news stations were reporting this information. Some stations misunderstood the info and reported that the building had already collapsed (instead of that it was expected to collapse).

Bingo.

You can't mistakenly predict the future

Since when?

lol

I am accepting of the idea that 3 generations from now, maybe some truth will actually be said. Facts are present with more than enough evidence to support these findings.

The gains of what actually came from this I am fuzzy on, perhaps somebody can help me out:

(I am speculating from what I have learned over the years.)

Control of middle-east, control of US citizens, control of US finances.

What more was there to be gained from this event that I am missing?

I am accepting of the idea that 3 generations from now...

Does some estimate exist? Or are you accepting your own estimate?

The gains of what actually came from this I am fuzzy on, perhaps somebody can help me out:

(I am speculating from what I have learned over the years.) Control of middle-east, control of US citizens, control of US finances. What more was there to be gained from this event that I am missing?

Gains and losses.

Without 9/11 there would be no "war on terror".

Without 9/11 there would be no "clash of civilizations"

Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan.

Without 9/11 there would be no war in Iraq.

Without 9/11 there would be no war in… (insert any country classified as part of the "axis of evil" or defined as being 'with the terrorists')

Without 9/11 thousands of U.S. troops would not have been sent to their deaths.

Without 9/11 hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been sentenced to their deaths.

Without 9/11 there would be no inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Without 9/11 there would be no civilian contractors in Iraq and the scandal that has followed them would have been averted.

Without 9/11 there would be no false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), and no crack down on the freedom of the press (banning photographing the returning coffins).

Without 9/11 there would be no Patriot Act.

Without 9/11 there would be no NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

Without 9/11 there would be no Camp Delta and no Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay.

Without 9/11 there would be no Military Commissions Act and no coordinated program of extraordinary rendition, indefinite detention and torture of those defined as “enemy combatants”.

Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in secrecy and complete militarization of intelligence under the newly created office of the Director of National Intelligence.

Without 9/11 there would not be thousands of dead and dying emergency workers who are suffering crippling and fatal respiratory illnesses.

Without 9/11 there would be no vast increase in military and security spending that goes arm in arm with huge cutbacks in other key social programs (such as levees in New Orleans).

Without 9/11 there would have been no total abandonment of fiscal restraint, which has contributed to plunging the nation into an abyss of debt and looks likely to tip the world into a deep recession if not a complete depression.

And on and on and on.

Perhaps most importantly, without 9/11 there would be no "post 9/11 society/mentality".

Michael Ryder Meyer, former speechwriter for UN Secretary General there would be no "war on terror".

there would be no "clash of civilizations".

there would be no war in Afghanistan.

there would be no war in Iraq.

thousands of U.S. troops would not have been sent to their deaths.

hundreds of thousands of citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan would not have been sentenced to their deaths.

there would be no "axis of evil".

there would be no Patriot Act.

there would be no Military Commissions Act.

there would be no extraordinary rendition.

there would be no indefinite detention.

there would be no torture of those defined as “enemy combatants”.

there would be no NSA warrantless wiretapping program.

there would be no inaction on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

there would be no Camp Delta and no Camp X-ray at Guantanamo Bay.

there would be no civilian contractors in Iraq and the scandal that has followed them would have been averted.

there would be no false military reporting (Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch), and no crack down on the freedom of the press (banning photographing the returning coffins).

there would be no vast increase in secrecy and complete militarization of intelligence.

there would not be thousands of dead and dying emergency workers.

there would be no vast increase in military and security spending.

there would have been no total abandonment of fiscal restraint.

And on and on and on.

Perhaps most importantly, without 9/11 there would be no "post 9/11 society/mentality".

yes. thank you‼

I am accepting that by 3 generations from now I will be dead and the truth will be finally out there. But after I am gone without any closure.

I do think some estimate exists as people will begin to cycle into our bureaucracy, replacing old figures to only discover more than what they bargained for. Mouths tend to be loud sometimes. This is all hopes and speculation of decent humans being politicians...which never comes up in the same sentences ever.

again, thanks for the detailed response. I really enjoyed the list-format of which you provided.

As much as I don't believe 9/11 was solely orchestrated by terrorists and everything listed here and more is highly suspicious I don't believe we will ever learn the truth.

We have been wondering who exactly killed JFK for 40 years and were still no closer to the actual truth. I do hope one day something will happened when our government ceases to cover these things up but I don't think that will be for awhile.

People know who killed JFK (or we know at minimum, 2-3 likely gunmen, but we know the powers that ordered it, including the order to cover it up). What you are saying is that the media and the government won't entertain the thought and won't therefore validate it.

Unfortunately, without this validation, those who require their masters or an authority to tell them what to think will not believe anything contrary to what is written in history books.

Exactly.

I don't believe we will ever learn the truth.

We already know the buildings were blown up. That's a shitload of truth.

Of course it is but its not "the truth". nobody in an "official" capacity has come out and said "yes the U.S. Government was responsible for 9/11. Its no different than seeing a UFO, asking the government for answers and them telling you its a weather balloon.

And that, my friend, is how propaganda, as weak or dubious it may seem, can manipulate the masses.

Unfortunately, it's human nature to conform to even the most obvious untruths. Even the intelligent among us are susceptible to this....A study has been done numerous times that shows how conformity affects decision making.

In an experiment, ten people sitting in the same room are asked to choose between an obviously correct answer and an obviously incorrect one... If the first nine people (who are part of the experiment) choose the wrong answer, the tenth person—out of all of the trials ran—chose the correct answer only 36% of the time. That's troubling.

nobody in an "official" capacity has come out and said "yes the U.S. Government was responsible for 9/11.

What's an example of a person in "official" capacity for you?

President, Vice President, Congressman, Senators.

Active or retired?

Either

Why would they though.

They never will, kinda the point I guess. We will never have "The Truth". The media will continue to treat 9/11 conspiracy theorists like crazy people and publicly shame their ideas.

We have been wondering who exactly killed JFK for 40 years and were still no closer to the actual truth.

52 years actually, and the case was solved within an hour of it happening. It was Oswald that pulled the trigger.

Allegedly

Other than a videotaped confession, what would convince you that it was him that isn't already out there?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qgrXpD8uNw

I asked you a simple question...you reply with a 2 hour YouTube clip?

Trust me dude, there isn't anything in that clip I haven't seen or heard before, and nearly all of it will be nonsense.

What would convince you that Oswald was the shooter that isn't already out there?

Well considering he's dead im not sure. after everything I have seen and read I don't believe that he even pulled the trigger of that rifle.

How unfortunate for him that he had no alibi during the shooting...and brought a long package to work with him that morning...and owned a rifle identical to the one recovered in the depository...and left prints all over boxes arranged in the snipers nest...and was in the vicinity of another murder 40 minutes later...

Oswald had a pretty ridiculous string of bad luck, don't you think?

Damn dude you got a pretty big hard on for this huh?

I've wasted an ungodly amount of time reading about this topic from both sides. It's a sickness.

I blame Oliver Stone for putting the bug in my head.

Nothing wrong with having an obsession.

What other reasons for "a string of bad luck" can you determine? Set up? Brainwashed? Chosen as the "fall" guy? Hired by powerful people?

I'll go with the far more plausible "lone nut loser".

This is a guy who was diagnosed as having potentially violent antisocial tendencies at 15 years old. He pulled a knife on his mothers landlady as a kid. He was fired from every job he ever had. He beat the shit out of his wife on a regular basis. There was the botched suicide attempt in Russia, there was openly talking about shooting Eisenhower to his fellow marines, and on and on.

Oswald was no agent, he was a pathetic loser.

Playing the devil's advocate, I'll continue to take the viewpoint of a potential perpetrator(s): one tasked with assasinating an official. So we're looking for someone to take the fall. We most likely can't blame it on god or aliens, so it'll have to be a real person.

Checklist 1) Mental problems
2) Violent, anti-social tendencies
3) Pulled a knife on his mother's landlady as a kid
4) Fired form every job he had
5) Abusive
6) Suicidal
7) Discussed shooting a president to Marines

All these make him a perfect candidate to take the fall. If I had to propose the most sane theory, he'd still be the sole shooter; I have moderate suspicions he was victim to extreme brainwashing, and psycho-political priming, for who knows how long. Him being murdered shortly after following through on his mission only makes this easier to believe.

Ruby was just as unhinged as Oswald was though (seriously, read through his Commission testimony, he's as nutty as a fruitcake). He's a terrible bag man, and besides that, who silences Ruby? It's a never ending cycle.

Oswald being set up doesn't make sense at all. Who convinced him to bring the long package to work that day? Who convinced him to leave nearly every dollar he had and his wedding ring with Marina that morning, like he was convinced he'd never see her again? Who convinced him to flee the depository? Who convinced him to try to kill cops in front of multiple witnesses in the Texas Theater?

Oswald being a lone nut fits his profile to a tee and explains everything we know without making any additional assumptions.

Here's a start for you. Would you think information of this type is disinfo? Could controlling someone's behavior through advanced psychological ways be possible?

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/brainwsh.shtml

Do you think that every single one of the school shootings are lone nuts?

Could controlling someone's behavior through advanced psychological ways be possible?

Just because it's possible doesn't mean it happened. I'd need evidence that Oswald was a puppet, because everything about him from all the way back to his childhood screams disaffected lone nut loser, and every single action he took on the day of the assassination fits that same profile.

At least you're willing to admit that Oswald was the one in that window with a rifle in his hand. Most people around here would strenuously disagree with you on that.

Do you think that every single one of the school shootings are lone nuts?

Absolutely. No evidence at all to the contrary, but plenty of evidence that all of them suffered from mental illness.

See the link I posted for a discussion on utilizing mental illness for "psychopolitical" gains (I am quite positive you didn't read it yet.) It was well worth the read (there is also a 42 page pdf floating around somewhere)

Edit: Whether or not you subscribe to "big" conspiracies, you must know the following: we don't know what we don't know. When pieces of work like that are floating around, my uncertainty in many things shifts. Of course, the procedures should be read with a skeptical viewpoint. For a start, it discusses harnessing select citizens and cultivating mental disorder and malignmnent through drugs, hypnosis, brainwashing, pain, torture etc. We all agree that a trend in these shootings are mentally deranged people, usually on some sort of anti-depressant drug. Yes, it takes a rather large leap, but it's a very real possibility.

See the link I posted for a discussion on utilizing mental illness for "psychopolitical" gains (I am quite positive you didn't read it yet.) It was well worth the read (there is also a 42 page pdf floating around somewhere)

Unless it provides evidence that Oswald was anything other than what he appeared, why would I waste my time reading it?

I'm quite aware of MKUltra and Scientology auditing and a bunch of other "brainwashing" methods, but again, just because they exist doesn't mean they are relevant in this case. Crazy people do crazy shit all the time without CIA handlers pulling strings.

I hope by saying "within an hour" you are casting doubt on the guilt of Oswald. There was no trial, Oswald was silenced, and a murder such as that would have been a long intense investigation.

If not for the public outcry, Johnson would never have even ordered the Warren Commission, a panel who included 4 people who were known opponents of a Kennedy, including shockingly, Allen Dulles, who Kennedy had angrily dismissed as CIA Chief (because Kennedy felt he had been misled by the CIA in the Bay of Pigs only 2 years earlier). Before Kennedy's death, Dulles' career in government would have been ruined indefinitely.

There was no trial, Oswald was silenced, and a murder such as that would have been a long intense investigation

I guess the combined efforts of the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, the ARRB and the Rockefeller Commission don't constitute a "long intense investigation"?

If not for the public outcry, Johnson would never have even ordered the Warren Commission

Um...the Commission was fully formed within 6 fucking days.

Why is it in like 5 years it's still barely over 2000 architects and engineers? 2000 out of what 10million worldwide? Seems like a negligent number to use to back up your cause considering it was so "obviously" a controlled demo. Also thermite doesn't explode. So explosions are irrelevant.

Not a lot of people want to come out publicly. I work for an engineering firm and have asked a lot of them about it. Coming out against something like this could cost you you're job or future jobs.

That's like saying all Snowdens information is false. I mean he's the only one to Come out about the information out of how many millions of government workers?

Just seems like you're really intent on arguing about 9/11 but aren't really taking in the evidence.

Except 99% of those architects and engineers didn't come out publicly. They did the equivalent of signing a petition.

Why don't you answer his question?

By the way you might want to look at this page: http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html

It shows quite a bit more than a signature, but even so, signing a petition is almost to the letter "coming out publicly", that's the whole idea behind a petition, showing to the public that you are behind an idea.

Also, why is it that people who believe in the official story always have to resort to turning this into a numbers game? Why not discuss the actual facts and science instead of turning it into a popularity contest? I mean, the answer to your question is quite obvious, so that begs the question why you still pose it. Are you that insecure about what you know that you have to influence others by suggesting you're in the bigger group?

Also thermite doesn't explode. So explosions are irrelevant.

Here's an experiment with home-made thermite to prove you wrong, the nano-sized version would be even more destructive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

Strange that you haven't seen this before, it goes around quite often. Maybe there are other things you've missed as well?

His question was a rhetoric. Lmao. When have I argued for the official story? Oh and I've seen that plenty. And that wasn't an explosion. Notice there wasnt any bang. These are explosions. Also where is the giant balls of light thermite creates when wtc7 collapses?

You mean rhetorical. No it wasn't, by not answering it you admit that there is no correlation between the number of people speaking up and the validity of their claims.

You should grow a pair and admit when someone else proves you wrong instead of weaselling out in the hope that nobody calls you out.

And that wasn't an explosion. Notice there wasnt any bang.

I don't know what video you've watched, but there's a definitive explosion at the 11:21 bit.

Nah I meant rhetoric. And yah that was clearly a rhetoric, bro. Once again where is the giant balls of light or explosions when wtc 7 collapses?

Also thermite doesn't explode. So explosions are irrelevant.

Uhhh

This 2004 paper from Lawrence Livermore Labs is quite clear about nanothermites being —

“explosive composites based on thermite reactions.”

It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives … using sol-gel chemistry.”

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

and

This online article entitled “NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives” discusses the procedure by which sol-gel nanothermites are made and gives a nice TEM image of a nanothermite.

https://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

and

This US Department of Defense journal from Spring, 2002 describes how:

“All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives.”

It clarifies that —

[Nanothermite properties] “include energy output that is 2x that of high explosives” and “As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned [including] high-power, high-energy composite explosives.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20060519134006/http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf

and

A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how —

“the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20110713060428/http://apl.aip.org/applab/v91/i24/p243109_s1?isAuthorized=no

and

In this paper, former NIST employee Michael Zachariah discusses —

“developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum [i.e. nanothermite] for energy intensive applications involving explosives and propellants…”.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t

and

This article helps us understand how the military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a —

“new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times … resulting in a very rapid reactive wave … used in many applications, including … explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”

http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/14105/?a=f

and

Unlike some energetic materials, nanothermites are “tunable”, meaning the “ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values.” Explosives generate pressure, as do nanothermites tuned to do just that.

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P128319.HTM

and

This conference paper states that —

“Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications such as” explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials.”

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P131370.HTM

and

This paper from the US Army describes how:

“These tunable nanoenergetic materials will be useful for various applications such as high-temperature non-detonable gas generators, adaptable flares, green primers for propellants and explosives, high power/energy explosives.”

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA481290&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

and

Even Wikipedia knows that nanothermite is used for explosive applications.

Nanothermites “are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Cool. You spent that much time on a side point?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=EUIEA7bi4_g

Where are the explosions, bro? Or the giant balls of light thermite creates?

Actual demoliton for reference.

So wait... you said it wasn't explosive. Why did you say that? Are you just planning on running from your own statement? Is it explosive? Or isn't it?

You're seriously trying to use the depth of the research against me? The tiniest bit of research would have saved you some embarrassment.

Can thermite explode under certain circumstances? Sure, why not. But it would need to be contained in a thick sealed chamber which would not be ideal to cut steal beams. Do I think those "explosions" a few people reported where thermite bombs? Nope. Because for one, explosions go off immediately before collapse in controlled demolition as shown in my link. And two, were reported in areas where collapse didn't even happen(like the lobby). Happy? You've successfully argued an irrelevant side point.

Embarrassment? Lmao. Only some weirdo internet dweller would think being slightly wrong would make someone embarrassed. Try not to take internet arguments so serious and stop projecting.

Once again where are the explosions and balls of light prior to collapse in wtc 7?

Can thermite explode under certain circumstances? Sure, why not.

So why did you lie before? What purpose did your lie serve? The rest of your comment is speculative and unsupported. I'm not interested in what you "think." Your opinion doesn't matter. You were proven wrong by actual facts. Facts matter.

would think being slightly wrong

100% wrong > "slightly wrong"

So why did you lie?

I was paid by the government, bruv. Or maybe I was just wrong. Feel free to pick whichever you like. Get that self pat on the back that gets you through your miserable day!

Once again where were the explosions or balls of light prior to collapse?

Or maybe I was just wrong

Do you often make statements without researching?

Once again where were the explosions or balls of light prior to collapse?

Prove balls of light need to be seen from the outside of the building. I don't think placing thermite near the exterior of the building would get the job done. Prove we'd be able to see thermite explosions from outside the building. Explosions on the core columns. I'll wait.

But we aren't going to just take your word for it. Your word has already been proven useless. We could check to see if anyone who was there heard the explosions though...

We gotta get back. 7's exploding!

But he was probably paid off by people who don't believe the official story. Right, bruv?

The building was burning for 7 hours( somehow not burning any of the thermite ignition systems) yet not a single spot on any of the floors was burned to the core? Sure, dude. Regardless 1 & 2 had giant holes from planes all the way to the core. What do you know. Also no giant balls of light.

Nice link to an explosion that led to no collapse. Do I have to link that compilation again that shows explosions happen immediately prior to collapse. Or how about that wtc 7 collapse video with absolutely zero explosions.

Look at you run from topic to topic every time you're proven wrong. Cute.

The building was burn for 7 hours yet not a single spot on any of the floors was burned to the core?

You've seen "all" of the debris from the collapse? Interesting. Because NIST didn't

The following statements were made in: NIST, Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory. NCSTAR 1-3, “Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel,” September 2005:

1. “Although no steel was recovered from WTC 7, a 47-story building that also collapsed on September 11, properties for steel used in its construction were estimated based on literature and contemporaneous documents.” p. iii

2. The steel used in the construction of WTC 7 is described based solely on data from the literature, because no steel from the building was recovered. p. xxxvii

3. No steel was recovered from WTC 7; however, construction-related documents describe the structural steel as conventional 36 ksi, 42 ksi, and 50 ksi steels. p. xliv ibid.

4. Since no steel from WTC 7 was recovered from the site, the steel used in the construction of this building is described based on data from the literature of the period. p. 1.

5. Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality. Ch. 7.7.2 Mechanical Properties of WTC 7 Steel, p. 114.

6. “No metallography could be carried out because no steel was recovered from WTC 7.” Ch. 7.7.3 Physical Properties of WTC 7 Steel, p. 115.

The following statement was made in NCSTAR 1-3D, “Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels,” September 2005:

• “Because NIST recovered no steel from WTC 7, it is not possible to make any statements about its quality,” page 273.

The following statement was taken from NCSTAR 1-3E, “Physical Properties of Structural Steels,” September 2005:

• “These analyses were made only for steel from WTC 1 and WTC 2 as no steel was recovered from WTC 7,” p. 1.

The following statement was taken from a NIST June 2004 Progress Report:

• “No steel from WTC 7 has been identified from the pieces of recovered WTC steel in NIST’s possession … Properties were estimated from available test data in the literature.” (Volume 1, Page 17)

You should give NIST a call. Sounds like they could use your help.

Nice link to an explosion

So now thermite can be explosive. And there were explosions. You're 0/2, bruv. How embarrassing.

And since you now know that thermite can be tailored to fit specific needs (thanks to me) we can go further to determine whether or not it can be tailored for sound!

And whadda know?! It can!

https://www.google.com/patents/US5532449

I feel embarrassed for you at this point.

So at this point you're 0/2 with the facts. So rather than you spewing out more unsupported opinion...why don't you try to at least get 1/3 with the facts. Go ahead and account for the VOCs measured at Ground Zero

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

Explosions =\= explosives.

And why are you quoting nist about studying steel beams? No one even mentioned steel beams. Were talking about seeing the core from the outside. Obvious a completely different subject.

Once again explosions happen immediate prior to collapse. Since you seem to skip over this point. I'll just repeat it til you address it.

I'd also like to point out your link to that patent is use with a plasma torch. Lmao. This. Used like this in demolition. Here's one being used during 9/11 clean up. Did you just solve the mystery of "thermite" in the dust? Thanks for the evidence I can use against anyone that brings up "thermite" in the dust. Lmao.

Also from your link.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.

This is when someone chimes in with the rekt comment.

Explosions =\= explosives.

So explosions did take place. And thermite can be explosive. How embarrassing for you as you claimed otherwise before. And explosions with benzene levels of 610,000 ppb are the evidence of thermite. Not just the explosions themselves. But you chose to ignore that section of my response. I wonder why?!

And why are you quoting nist about studying steel beams? No one even mentioned steel beams. Were talking about seeing the core from the outside. Obvious a completely different subject.

You claimed not a single spot was burned to the core. You haven't even seen all of the debris as I've proven. 0/3 with your claims

Did you just solve the mystery of "thermite"

Nope. As torches don't produce 610,000 ppb of benzene as mentioned in the large portion of my comment that you skipped. Try again.

Also from your link.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.

This is when someone chimes in with the rekt comment.

Wow. I can't believe you don't understand what you just read. You even highlighted the point that refutes you. Thermite is not as loud as conventional CD explosives and can be tailored to adjust the volume. Yes, you have been "rekt" with this information.

So I'll continue to wait for you to account for the VOCS using only the combustion available in the official story.

Lmao. I see in your comment history you got completely shut down in another thread trying to argue VOCs. Yet you're still trying to argue it. Because you're just a broken record that argues just to argue. So yah I ignored it. Just like you ignored explosions not occuring immediately prior to collapse. Just like I'm gunna ignore anything you say until you address this point.

Completely shut down? Oh please, by all means... link and explain how the peer reviewed, published paper has been shut down. Should be easy if you actually read/understood the conversation

The paper wasn't shut down. Your use of it was. Where were the explosions immediately prior to collapse?

So go ahead and show me how? Should be easy

Where were the explosions immediately prior to collapse?

Don't try to change the subject. You're discarding evidence without explanation. I'm waiting.

Sorry. No subject was changed. I've repeated this point in every reply to you. You won't address it because you know you don't have an answer to a giant hole in your views. Where were the explosions immediately prior to collapse?

You haven't proven your claim on the audible level of explosive. I'm not claiming rdx was used. And already showed you that thermite is quieter and can be adjusted to reduce volume. With source. So if the official story combustion is true, then account for the VOCs. Stop stalling. You're throwing out evidence simply because someone responded to it. A response does not equal a refutation. His theory failed. Which is why you do not want to address it. I'm waiting

Can be adjusted while in conjunction with a plasma lance, manually. Lmao. Once again where were the explosions prior to collapse?

So they can be adjusted. Thanks for the admission. And they are quieter than rdx. So go ahead and prove the required audio level of thermite. I don't need to disprove a claim you can't prove. And do ahead and account for the VOCs. Still waiting

While in conjunction with a plasma lance* words mean things, bruv.

Your own patent link proves thermite is audibly loud.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.

Once again where were the explosions?

Your reading comprehension is atrocious.

while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, 

The thermite patent eliminates that problem

In detail, the present invention 101 is free of a potential fire because of the capability of controlling the heating, and does not produce any noise

So go ahead an account for those VOCs. Waiting...

Eliminating the problem of thermite being loud when not used in conjuction with a thermite lance. Duh. Pretty linear stuff, dude.Dude already ripped you on VOCs. I don't need to address it.

Nope that's literally not what it says. You stick with your incorrect interpretation. I'll stick with the actual terminology used. I guess you're too afraid to get to the VOCs.

Yah it is. Are you touching yourself when you hear yourself argue? Because there is no way someone can be this cringe with Internet arguments without having some weird fetish.

It's funny that you're pretending you're not in the same exact argument. Setting aside the fact that I've already disapproven you several times, it's pretty obvious that you know you don't have an argument when you resort to childish behavior.

does not produce any noise.

Still waiting on those VOCs

Let's count how many comments it takes until you climax. 1

What does that have to do with the VOCs?

2

2? 2 ppb of benzene? You need 610,000.

3

Are you 12?

4

4

5

?

6

6 what?

7

7 it is. No worries. Maybe one day I'll find someone who can account for the VOCs. So far, no luck.

8

I'll start off with correcting a fundamental misconception that crops up at several points and should be dealt with summarily: the 9/11 Commission report only covers intelligence and law enforcement considerations. Any technical or engineering questions are outside its purview so constant repetitions of what is or isn't in the report is completely irrelevant. For engineering and technical questions, refer to the NIST Report. Conflating the two betrays either basic ignorance or dishonesty.

1. These are facts--but they have mundane explanations.

2. This is easily explained by garbled communications. The alternative explanation, that the BBC were provided knowledge, makes no sense whatsoever.

3. 2300 Architects and Engineers is a miniscule percentage of their respective fields.

4. Molten steel would have produced steam explosions from the water sprayed on the rubble pile. Thermite doesn't produce the eutectic melting referenced. The "nano-thermite" was found to be comprised of paint and primer. Iron microspheres aren't produced soley by thermite.

5. Eyewitness reports of explosions are scattered, inconsistent with demolition, and not corroborated by video/audio recordings (which have no audio evidence of blasting whatsoever.) Actual blasting does not produce "squibs and waves of explosions" as seen on the WTC.

6. Hollywood expectations of jet fighter intercepts are largely fictional. There is no actual evidence of any suspicious orders given by top people.

7. This is an argument from ignorance at best. The Citgo and Doubletree videos weren't in a position to show the plane.

8. This is not one fact but rather several specious and highly dubious claims. In particular the claims that some hijackers were still alive has been thoroughly discredited.

9. Every single person who had a camera had it pointed at the WTC "to document the event." It doesn't mean that was what they were there to do in the first place.

10. Given the embarassing failures of the intelligence and the law enforcement communities to prevent the attack, it's simply not necessary to invent a conspiracy to be the cause of these quotes.

11. Completely irrelevant. Opportunism does not equate to complicity.

12. Again, not one fact but more than one smuggled in. The attack did not impact the accounting investigation, and there are put options on thousands of companies every day. That somebody happened to guess right is no more an indication of conspiracy than guessing the right lottery numbers.

13. This is innuendo, not evidence.

14. That's what happens when a plane crashes at high speed and high angle into an unyielding surface. It and nearly all of its contents basically get pulverized.

15. They were not built to withstand fully fueled high speed suicide attacks.

Do you have any sources for any of those claims? Kinda pointless to contest tons of major points and then offer no credibility.

He's got his talking points all lined up, but like most talking points, they're all hot air. I mean, OP has a well sourced 15 point list of facts, but the "rebuttal" consists of well written talking points that don't actually address anything. Decently written though, and with the air of authority. I'll give him that.

Would it have been more credible with links to Youtube?

Make sure you research his links. He provided you with James Millette's unpublished "progress report."

http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when-mohr-is-less-the-official-non-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc/

EPA whistleblower Dr. Cate Jenkins used the phrase “deliberate misrepresentation” with regard to their studies in which samples were manipulated through pre-conditioning to lower the pH before testing. Millette’s name shows up in Jenkins’ report four times because he participated in several EPA-funded studies that Jenkins has charged with fraud. Millette did a lot of the analytical work on the WTC dust for these government teams, and was the leader in the laboratory for the government-sponsored studies

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DrJenkinsRequestsSenateInvestigationOnWTCdust.pdf

It's a hallmark of the Gish Gallop--a tactic used by fine creationists and other charlatans everywhere--that it's easy to rattle off, as it were, fifteen false claims rather glibly that each would take several minutes or several paragraphs to properly refute.

Several of these require no sources as it's simply alternative explanations of the events, or I'm stating general facts. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 fall into this category and I don't think more needs to be said.

4 --http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231314

6 --http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html

7 --this took me two minutes to google "pentagon citgo video" and "pentagon doubletree video." The OP implies that these videos don't show a plane, implying that they show something else. When the reality is they just weren't in a position to have a good view of the crash anyway.

8 --this one's like nine different claims shoehorned into one, so it's a true Gish Gallop all on its own. Fifteen claims if one is expected to research each individual hijacker claimed to still be alive.

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

And anyway, most of them--not actually all that incriminating.

Being wanted by the FBI for something means that person is a suspect who can be prosecuted for direct involvement in a crime. Being the leader of the organization that committed the crime doesn't mean that leader is going to be arrested for that.

"No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." A naked quote with no attribution or context deserves no time wasted in response.

CIA created Al Qaeda? Not really. We funded and trained the Afghan Mujahedeen during the Soviet occupation during the Cold War, but that doesn't mean Al Qaeda is the CIA's creature. The fact that we left them without a pot to piss in after we didn't have any strategic need for their help anymore was a huge part of why we had an anti-American terror problem in that country to begin with.

"Tim Osman"--A claim with very murky origins and completely unverifiable. And even if it were, it's just part and parcel of the above. An historical connection from many years prior, before he decided we were the enemy. http://www.911myths.com/html/tim_osman_was_bin_ladin_.html

"Fox News reported--" and I don't need to read any more of that sentence.

"FBI has never updated their original list." I have no idea what is even being claimed here.

"No video footage." Except for all the video footage we have. It's easy to say "there's no evidence" when you just declare that all the evidence is faked.

"Hijacking Code." "Excuse me, I know you've just barged into the cockpit and have a razor blade to my carotid artery, but if you'd give me just a moment to fiddle with these knobs I'll be happy to get out of your way." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics)

You rebut as if this were your job. Haha.

Nah, just nerd sniped.

Image

Title: Nerd Sniping

Title-text: I first saw this problem on the Google Labs Aptitude Test. A professor and I filled a blackboard without getting anywhere. Have fun.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 133 times, representing 0.1579% of referenced xkcds.

^{xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete}

While not required, you are requested to use the NP domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by prefacing your reddit link with np.reddit.com.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

These are facts--but they have mundane explanations.

So, what are they?

This is easily explained by garbled communications. The alternative explanation, that the BBC were provided knowledge, makes no sense whatsoever.

Standley said the Salomon Brothers building collapsed. It did. How garbed could the communications have been if she actually got the facts right, but 20 minutes early? No, what happened is they got press release a bit early.

2300 Architects and Engineers is a miniscule percentage of their respective fields.

Those are the architects and engineers who have gone on the record. How many have gone on the record supporting NIST's explanation?

Eyewitness reports of explosions are scattered, inconsistent with demolition, and not corroborated by video/audio recordings (which have no audio evidence of blasting whatsoever.)

On the contrary, they are entirely consistent with demolition and the OP provides a well sourced page to back up the claim. I do like the firefighters descriptions though.

Hollywood expectations of jet fighter intercepts are largely fictional. There is no actual evidence of any suspicious orders given by top people.

"Air force F-16 fighter jets were scrambled to intercept the private plane as it flew north-west, but were unable to detect any sign of life behind the aircraft windows which had frosted over, suggesting the cabin may have suffered a sudden loss of air pressure"

http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/26/julianborger

This is an argument from ignorance at best. The Citgo and Doubletree videos weren't in a position to show the plane.

Then why were the videos confiscated? And why haven't we seen a single video of the plane hitting the Pentagon?

All I have time for right now.

1) read the fucking NIST report.

2) There had been reports for hours that WTC7 was going to be allowed to burn out, that it may collapse, that it was about to collapse, that collapse was imminent. It's completely unsurprising that some remark was misheard as "it has collapsed" and passed along some news wire. But why would the conspiracy even need a press release at all?! It makes no sense, it adds no value, to extend foreknowledge to uninvolved people--a foreign news service in fact--when all they had to do was nothing. Keep all the journalists in the dark, don't bother with press releases, just let them report on events as they unfold. It's unbelievably stupid to suggest that there was a script passed around.

No, those are the architects and engineers who have ever, since its inception, joined or signed on to the AE9/11Truth organization. An organization whose membership reflects less than two percent of their combined fields. Just this year, their proposal got laughed off the floor of the American Institute of Architects convention. Sorry, no, you don't get to shift the burden of proof on this one. When AE9/11Truth manages to swing a plurality of professionals, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

Demolition charges are set off seconds before collapse initiates. Any report of an explosion by an occupant of the building who later makes his or her way out of the building is, necessarily, not consistent with blasting. Blasting detonations are also deafening. The fact that any given explosion is not corroborated by a consensus of all those present indicates that the explosions were not large enough to be blasting.

According to the link you gave, the F-16 fighter jets scrambled to intercept the plane had over four hours in which to do so. So, thank you for proving my point for me.

What you call "confiscated" is also synonymous with "collected as potential evidence." It's utterly not suspicious. They probably scooped up every recording they could get their hands on for a mile around to review as a normal part of investigation. Why haven't we seen a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon? Maybe there aren't any. Most surveillance video is focused on foot and ground vehicle traffic, there's no reason to expect a great many would be positioned to capture an incoming plane. And at any rate, the plane parts and the crash damage is so conclusively caused by a plane that even many Truther sites are eschewing the no-plane theory of the Pentagon attack.

According to the link you gave, the F-16 fighter jets scrambled to intercept the plane had over four hours in which to do so. So, thank you for proving my point for me.

What the report from the Guardian said was that after "cruising north-west for about four hours across the breadth of the country, apparently on autopilot, the Learjet seems to have run out of fuel and plunged into a swampy part of north-eastern South Dakota, two miles from the small town of Mina.", which isn't the same thing as saying the " F-16 fighter jets scrambled to intercept the plane had over four hours in which to do so." You changed the meaning there.

So here's the Washington Post story, which has more details and a proper timeline:

According to the FAA, the plane left Orlando, where Stewart lived, at 9:19 a.m. Eastern time

The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m., just after they had cleared the twin-engine jet to climb to 39,000 feet northwest of Gainesville, Fla. An FAA spokesman said that air traffic controllers noted "significant changes in altitude" by the plane, but that the aircraft's crew did not respond to repeated radio calls from the ground.

Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm

So the planes were scrambled at 10:08, 24 minutes after they lost radio contact.

They weren't scrambled at 10:08, the planes were already in the air doing something completely different and were in a position to divert. And they failed to find it. It took a third jet to locate the plane, an hour and fifteen minutes after losing contact!

Again, thank you for proving my point that scrambling jets at a moments notice to zip up to escort errant planes is a largely a Hollywood fantasy.

Read the fucking NIST Report

I gather you refer to the unbelievably fraudulent NIST report? That NIST report?

At a press briefing, Shyam Sunder, NIST’s lead investigator, declared that “the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery.” He also, announced that NIST “did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down,” saying: “[S]cience is really behind what we have said.” Both of these statements are patently false.

With regard to the question of science: Far from being supported by good science, NIST’s report repeatedly makes its case by resorting to scientific fraud.

[And as an aside, if NIST did engage in fraudulent science, this would not be particularly surprising. NIST is an agency of the US Department of Commerce. During the years it was writing its World Trade Center reports, it was therefore an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. In 2004, the Union of Concerned Scientists put out a document charging this administration with “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.” By the end of the Bush administration, this document had been signed by over 15,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel Laureates and 63 recipients of the National Medal of Science. See this for more details on this.

Moreover, a scientist who formerly worked for NIST has reported that it has been “fully hijacked from the scientific into the political realm,” with the result that scientists working for NIST “lost [their] scientific independence, and became little more than ‘hired guns.’” Referring in particular to NIST’s work on the World Trade Center, he said everything had to be approved by the Department of Commerce, the National Security Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget—“an arm of the Executive Office of the President,” which “had a policy person specifically delegated to provide oversight on [NIST’s] work.” (See this regarding this whistleblower.)]

One of the general principles of scientific work is that its conclusions must not be dictated by nonscientific concerns – in other words, by any concern other than that of discovering the truth. This former NIST employee’s statement gives us reason to suspect that NIST, while preparing its report on WTC 7, would have been functioning as a political, not a scientific, agency. The amount of fraud in this report suggests that this was indeed the case.

According to the National Science Foundation, the major types of scientific fraud are fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. There is no sign that NIST is guilty of plagiarism, but it is certainly guilty of fabrication, which can be defined as “making up results,” and falsification, which means either “changing or omitting data.” (See National Science Foundation misconduct policies.)

The omission of evidence by NIST is so massive, in fact, that it doesn't really fit within the conventional definition of "Scientific Fraud". NIST seemed to manifest an unflinching determination to disregard half of the relevant evidence. Clearly that goes beyond just a bias in their conclusion.

With regard to there being "no evidence of explosives"... This is because it was simply ignored.

I have mentioned in this thread the "Swiss-Cheese Steel" in the FEMA report. This piece of steel from WTC 7 had been melted so severely that it looked like Swiss cheese. As also mentioned in another comment above, James Glanz, the N.Y. Times reporter who covered the FEMA findings wrote: “The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright.” Glanz’s statement was, in fact, quite an understatement. The full truth is that the fires in the building could not have brought the steel anywhere close to the temperature – about 1,482°C (2,700°F) – needed for it to melt. ( See Melting Point of Metals )

The Lee Report (again, as I cite above) said: “A detailed study into the mechanisms [that caused] this phenomenon is needed.”

Arden Bement, who was the director of NIST when it took on the WTC project, said that NIST’s report would address “all major recommendations contained in the [FEMA] report.” But when NIST issued its report on WTC 7, it did not mention this piece of steel with the Swiss-cheese appearance. Indeed, NIST even claimed that not a single piece of steel from WTC 7 had been recovered.

This piece of steel, moreover, was only a small portion of the evidence, ignored by NIST, that steel had melted. See my other comment regarding the Deutsche Bank evidence.

A key point stated in my comment above is that the Lee Report/study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization”– meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).

Another study was carried out by the US Geological Survey, the purpose of which was to aid the “identification of WTC dust components.” Besides also finding iron particles, the scientists involved in this study found that molybdenum had been melted. This finding was especially significant, because this metal does not melt until it reaches 2,623°C (4,753°F).

NIST, however, did not mention either of these studies, even though the latter one was carried out by another US government agency.

Read the fucking NIST Report

I gather you refer to the unbelievably fraudulent NIST report? That NIST report?

I gather you refer to the NIST Building 7 report which passed independent peer review and was published by the American Society of Civil Engineers in Journal of Structural Engineering, one of the oldest and most prestigious engineering journals in the country?

On one hand, I have a shrill redditor calling foul. On the other hand, I have the scientific consensus of the architecture & engineering professional communities. I'm going with the consensus of experts, thanks.

The "nano-thermite" was found to be comprised of paint and primer

Yup. LaClede primer paint to be exact.

The Deutsche Bank building, which was right next to the Twin Towers, was heavily contaminated by dust produced by their destruction. But Deutsche Bank’s insurance company refused to pay for the clean-up, claiming that this dust had not resulted from the destruction of the WTC. So Deutsche Bank hired the RJ Lee Group to do a study, which showed that the dust in the Deutsche Bank was WTC dust, which had a unique signature. Part of this signature was “Spherical iron . . . particles.” This meant, the RJ Lee Group said, that iron had “melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles.” The study even showed that, whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal. The spherical iron particles are also a strong indicator of thermite (although, the intensity required for this demolition lends itself to concluding nanothermite/thermate was used).

The RJ Lee study also found that temperatures had been reached “at which lead would have undergone vaporization” – meaning 1,749°C (3,180°F).

Back to the "jet fuel" meme?

Nope...well, you can have your fun if you must, but don't implicate Building 7. All the alleged jet fuel ignited on impact with WTC 1 & 2....there was no jet fuel in building 7. The fire was caused by burning debris.

With respect to Building 7, FEMA did the initial investigative report. It was comprised of volunteers and was not funded by Congress. It put forth an hypothesis, but qualified this hypothesis by stating that even it had a very low probability. Basically, it increased the mystery... thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese. James Glanz (a N.Y. Times journalist who interviewed and wrote an article on the FEMA findings), in describing the conclusion in the report that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

Hmmmmm.

The Lee report also gives reasons why iron spheres were found in the dust. No one ever seems to bring that up though...I wonder why.

There were plenty of iron based components in the towers. If they were thin enough (like sparks created by friction, or thin layers of rust flakes that would be knocked loose from the impact of a collapse), you could create iron spheres with a Bic lighter.

You need that heat to create the spheres. I don't know if a bic lighter could generate the required heat...but I doubt it.

Further, the amount of iron sphere particles in the Deutsche Bank building (as shown in the Lee Report) is significant. Whereas iron particles constitute only 0.04 percent of normal building dust, they constituted almost 6 percent of WTC Dust – meaning almost 150 times as much as normal.

Even if there were iron components in the towers...if you accept the preposterous "pancake theory" of collapse, you would never have that many iron particles. To conclude you'd get that many particles from "friction" or other heat caused by the kinetic energy from the collapse alone is really grasping at straws.

The fact is you'd need far more heat in far more places within the towers to create the concentration of iron sphere particles in the WTC Dust.

You need that heat to create the spheres. I don't know if a bic lighter could generate the required heat...but I doubt it.

The spheres have been recreated using a lighter and steel wool.

Read the Lee report, it says the exact same thing. You've quoted it once already, why not go the full 9 yards and read the rest of it?

Even if there were iron components in the towers...if you accept the preposterous "pancake theory" of collapse

Only preposterous to conspiracy theorists. Totally plausible to everyone else including most of the engineering community.

, you would never have that many iron particles. To conclude you'd get that many particles from "friction" or other heat caused by the kinetic energy from the collapse alone is really grasping at straws.

Hundreds of thousands of tons of structural steel and office contents falling and colliding from over a thousand feet in the air produces a lot of friction.

The fact is you'd need far more heat in far more places within the towers to create the concentration of iron sphere particles in the WTC Dust.

Nah, not at all.

Iron spheres are a common component of flyash (literally ash from foundries), which makes up a large portion of construction grade cement.

Lots of cement in the towers, and lots of it reduced to dust during the collapse.

Seriously man, this is all out there if you care to look for it.

Here's a good one that doesn't get mentioned much.

How did a plane made out of aluminum pierce through solid steel beams like butter? Simple science folks.

Simple science folks.

Something apparently out of your reach.

Velocity counts for most of the force behind an impact, and whichever material is the most brittle usually breaks first due to shock. In this case, steel is one of the more brittle metals known to man, and it's not surprising that it would shatter like glass. It's the same reason why skyscrapers in earthquake zones use aluminium beams instead of steel, and why water can turn your bones to jelly if you hit it hard enough.

Tl;dr, harder doesn't mean better, especially when the laws of velocity are in effect. This is grade school stuff, for God's sake.

Steel is ductile and far from brittle. If you want to say its brittle, then it is no more or less "brittle" than aluminum.

However, steel can withstand far more pressure. I don't know the threshold, but what's key is that below this threshold, steel will not fatigue/become stressed (indefinitely). Aluminum does not share this strength. A similar threshold for aluminum would be a very tiny fraction of that of steel's. Considering you could easily dent airplane aluminum with a carpenter's hammer, it's obvious that the yield strength between the two metals is significantly different.

The same reason blades of grass can be imbedded into a tree during a tornado.

Citation needed, please.

I just googled it and can't find anything even remotely close to verifiable.

Did you really try? Because I got results in less than a minute.

Picture

Related Mythbusters episode, which demonstrated that it's possible.

I read a couple of things that suggested the bits embedded in a tree could be due to the tree bending and splitting, forming gaps that can fit blades of grass in.

I can't watch the MB video at the moment, but that picture seems to be of straw, which is much harder than undried grass, and I'm less surprised that it can become embedded in stuff!

By that logic, it shouldn't be too surprising that something way harder and with much more mass than straw, like a plane, was able to penetrate steel. It may seem unlikely, but so does the straw.

You are confusing me with the guy that said a plane couldn't puncture the WTC.

I am just saying that in the picture you posted, that is not grass... it's straw.

I still in no way believe that bits of normal grass can embed themselves in a tree.

Downvote away, but I still have yet to see anything that suggests that it's even remotely possible for blades of grass (which are different from bits of straw) can embed themselves in a tree.

Same way a copper jacketed lead round will blow through 1/4" steel.

Physics.

Simple science folks.

You forgot a "simple" thing like momentum.

Really? You mean "inertia", don't you Sir Isaac Newton?

And please, since your apparent erudition caught his error so deftly, please expound as to how the plane's inertia has any factor, the consideration of which causes an error in his reasoning.

The plane 's inertial mass doesn't change. And therefore does not cause any change or alter any force the plane had to begin with.

Simple science folks!

No, I meant momentum in this case. I chose my words carefully.

You're the one missing the "simple science"! But you sure are trying to use fancy words to sound intellectual, which actually makes it worse.

/weeps for our education system

Ok, then momentum, closely related, but a word people commonly use when they mean inertia.

But still, considering your lofty B.S. in Physics (which you point out to me in another comment), I have yet to see a response that substantively addresses the merit of whatever point you try to make.

I've only seen comments from you that ridicule, plus some (limited) evidence that you actually studied physics, but not once have you provided a reply/response elaborating as to why you are right.

In short, you & your input today are about as valuable as a cheerleader at a chess match.

I'm not bothering to try to convince anyone of anything. I merely wish you would stop spouting off like you know what you're talking about. It's people like you who make others laugh at the "9/11 truthers". There are real questions that should be addressed and you're giving them a hole so big with your physics ignorance they could drive a truck through it, so all of your other concerns are tossed aside.

It's embarrassing. Given your view of physics, bullets would not work.

So you are saying you do not have any interest in the truth behind 9/11?

If you are merely "truther bullshit patrol" then you need to stop interrupting and casting doubts on points that would have a negligible difference if you didn't intervene. Stick to egregious errors.

I think you are smart enough to know that it is fallacious to oppose a contention on the basis of minor and incidental aspects of an argument, rather than giving an answer to the main claim which it makes.

Edit: Lead bullets have a mass and density far greater than the Hunan body. With adequate velocity they will penetrate human tissue irrespective of yield. In fact, hollow-points are intended to deliberately lower the overall yield strength of lead bullets, making them flatten—thereby far more lethal.

Do you really know anything about physics you didn't learn from watching Mr. Wizards World?

So you are saying you do not have any interest in the truth behind 9/11?

Never said that.

Lead bullets have a mass and density far greater than the Hunan body. With adequate velocity they will penetrate human tissue irrespective of yield.

Lead bullets have a mass greater than a human body? Oh really. A 230 grain .45 bullet weighs 15 grams. An average human body weighs 80700 grams. "irrespective of yield" means nothing at all. What does that even mean in this context?

You're a weird bird, that's for sure. I hope you have a good evening.

Bullets usually have much greater inertial mass than anything they hit. What do you suppose happens if you shoot a bullet at a steel armored tank? Nothing...? You'll need a special anti-tank bullet.

An armor-piercing shell must withstand the shock of punching through armor plating. Shells designed for this purpose have a greatly strengthened case with a specially hardened and shaped nose, and a much smaller bursting charge.

Without a steel bullet, it certainly won't go far; it might even bounce off.

What happens if you shoot a plane at hundreds of 2" thick, 36" long and 12" wide steel girders? It's not so simple.

Continuing: Yes, focused pressure and inertia of the massive weight of the plane might have the nose destroying its steel target. Perhaps it hit the 40" gap between the steel girders. But have you ever seen the video of a test where a commercial plane's wings get sheared off by wooden telephone poles? It doesn't seem natural that the momentum of the main section of the wing (body) would be able to "hold on" to the wings as they slow on colliding with steel beams.

Velocity.

are you trying to say planes didnt hit the buildings, the buildings werent made of steel, or the airplane wasnt made of aluminum?

Simple science? 767 weighs 400,000 lb, traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. Honestly its amazing that something this blatantly stupid gets upvoted. Then again this is /r/conspiracy

Consider this thought experiment. At what speed would you need to propel an unopened aluminum soft drink can (whether the contents were under pressure or not) at a steel chain link fence for that can to breach that fence and pass through?

The fact is, you can increase the acceleration all you want to get the maximum force possible. But given the tensile strength of one aluminum can compared to the steel mesh of such a fence, the can would neck or deform before the force from the can would puncture the fence.

Similar to the fence is the exterior of the twin towers. The steel columns were independent, and each would be relatively unaffected by the force affecting the columns on either side

Those who want to bring up the titanium engines of the 767s: they alone could have possibly gone through the exterior, but they are behind the nose of the plane, and since the rest of the plane is largely aluminum, the only scenario possible (given enough acceleration) is that were would have seen two smaller holes these engines have created. The aluminum just would not have the strength to withstand any force imaginable when compared to the steel columns (or lattice) that comprised the exterior of the buildings.

I think an object as large as a plane hitting a building that fast is going to cause some structural issues, like what happened on 9/11.

At what speed would you need to propel an unopened aluminum soft drink can (whether the contents were under pressure or not) at a steel chain link fence for that can to breach that fence and pass through?

Please do tell!

The fact is, you can increase the acceleration all you want to get the maximum force possible.

Oh... /facepalm

Was that supposed to be an argument?

By simply ignoring what I said while simultaneously employing words that mean nothing but convey ridicule does not shift the burden back to me.

You have demonstrated you know nothing about physics, but you have shown you know how to attack without reason or merit. That's a talent without much esteem in those who actually use reason and their intellect to rationally debate.

I don't think you are really even trying to earn that paycheck as a shill... Come on. Those are tax dollars you are wasting.

You have demonstrated you know nothing about physics

My B.S. degree in Physics begs to differ. :-)

I was face palming at your sentence about "increase the acceleration all you want to get the maximum force possible". I do not think those words mean what you think they mean in this context. And I love that you start that sentence with "the fact is".

I'm no "shill". I simple get a kick out of people in this sub who think they know physics and throw around language trying to prove or disprove things.

Sadly in this place, having an actual qualification in a subject seems to automatically disqualify your from having an acceptable "opinion" on that subject. Usually the words "argument from authority" will follow soon after.

(Unless you're one of the 0.1% of people in most professions that will agree with their views, in which case you're practically infallible.)

Any pedantic criticism of my statement concerning force or how said force can be increased while mass remains constant, is not only pointless, it is still overshadowed by the respective tensile strength, or more importantly, the yield strength, of the respective materials.

Both aluminum and steel are ductile. [And FYI to anyone reading, The comment by /u/kyaroki above, that steel "is one of the most brittle substances known to man" is tantamount to saying an umbrella is the least effective means to stay dry when it's raining. It's misleading and far more inaccurate then his delivery of that statement would otherwise imply.]

While aluminum and steel have perhaps similar tensile strengths, there is a load below which steel will resist fatigue indefinitely. The same cannot be said for aluminum.

That fact is dispositive to the "what would win in a collision" debate.

Ah, I see we have our resident pretentious sesquipedalian. Unfortunately he thinks it will make up for lack of knowledge.

I don't think I am guilty of "sesquipidalia". <<---That word alone has more syllables than any I've used.

Honestly, the vocabulary in my comments is rather mundane.

Further, you just attacked my delivery, while avoiding any meaningful counter-argument. It's just one more out of several times in this thread that your replies have been empty ad-hominems.

Why do that? You are serving to obfuscate instead of honestly discuss or debate. For that reason you contribute nothing, nor do you stop the dissemination of false information.

You're like a hot dog vendor in a courtroom. Get the fuck out or add something of value.

The aluminum can is far thinner then the fence links. The aluminum in a fuselage is just as thick if not thicker than the outside support beams. Let alone there is a hell of a lot more plane then support beam.

Take your entire post and bring it to the closest teacher of physics you can find. If he neither laughs, nor cries I will buy you a drink.

You can't mistakenly predict the future

Since when?

The early BBC report is no mystery. Firefighters at the scene who assessed the damage to WTC7 believed it had become structurally unsound and was on the verge of collapse and so they cleared a collapse zone around the building before it fell. All the news stations were reporting this information. Some stations misunderstood the info and reported that the building had already collapsed (instead of that it was expected to collapse).

Here's a start for you. Would you think information of this type is disinfo? Could controlling someone's behavior through advanced psychological ways be possible?

http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/brainwsh.shtml

Do you think that every single one of the school shootings are lone nuts?

The fire was out of control because it was literally not being control by firefighters.

But that's not what that means at all. An out of control fire means the fire is no longer able to be controlled. Many fires are not fought by fire fighters, but they could very well be controlled if they were there. Semantics are very important here, as it is the difference between a good argument and the application of circular logic, which is what you're doing here, without providing any evidence that the fires were out of control.

By now you must have figured out one of the points of this discussion is to figure out whether the absence of fire fighters was justified or part of the cover-up. Your answer is analogous to "they were absent because they were absent" and is of course complete non-sense in that regard.

Image

Title: Nerd Sniping

Title-text: I first saw this problem on the Google Labs Aptitude Test. A professor and I filled a blackboard without getting anywhere. Have fun.

Comic Explanation

Stats: This comic has been referenced 133 times, representing 0.1579% of referenced xkcds.

^{xkcd.com | xkcd sub | Problems/Bugs? | Statistics | Stop Replying | Delete}

Where were the explosions immediately prior to collapse?

6