The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is not difficult to understand.
To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.
- Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.
- The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images made by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.
- Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles.[1] This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.
- Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.
- There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke caused by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence.[2]The second major product of the thermite reaction is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.
- Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.
- The elemental composition of the metallic microspheres from the WTC dust matches that of metallic microspheres produced by the thermite reaction.
- The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.
- Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.
- A peer-reviewed scientific publication has identified the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by an independent scientist.
There is also a great deal of indirect evidence for the thermite theory. This includes the attempts by NIST to downplay the evidence for thermite. It also includes things like a weak effort by Rupert Murdoch’s National Geographic Channel to discredit the ability of thermite to cut structural steel, which was itself roundly discredited by one independent investigator. It is now unquestionable that thermite can cut structural steel as needed for a demolition.
Therefore, debunking the WTC thermite theory is not easy but is very straightforward. Doing so simply requires addressing the evidence listed above point by point, and showing in each case how an alternative hypothesis can explain that evidence better. Given the scientific grounding of the thermite theory, use of the scientific method, including experiments and peer-reviewed publications, would be essential to any such debunking effort.
That is almost certainly why we have seen no such debunking. Instead, the people working to refute the WTC thermite theory have resorted to what might be called a case study in how not to respond to scientific evidence.
The failed thermite theory debunkers have produced:
- Thousands of chat room comments and other posts yet not one peer-reviewed scientific article.
- Alternate hypotheses that have little or no evidence to support them. For example, the mini-nuke hypothesis and the “Star Wars Beam” hypothesis.
- Government scientists declaring that the evidence simply doesn’t exist.
- Attempts to exaggerate the meaning of the evidence; for example, by saying that thermite or nanothermite could not have caused all of the effects seen at the WTC.
- Deceptive efforts to introduce the government contractors who created the official accounts as independent scientists.
The last of these methods has been the most popular. Trying to debunk the tenth piece of evidence for WTC thermite, NIST contractor James Millette produced an unreviewed paper that purports to replicate the finding of nanothermite in the WTC dust. This was apparently organized in the hope that doing so would discredit all of the evidence for thermite at the WTC.
Millette is well known for having helped create the official reports on the analysis of WTC dust. He was responsible for creating the form that was used to pre-screen all materials found in the dust prior to any analysis by official investigators. Those official reports did not mention any of the evidence listed above, in particular failing to report the abundant iron microspheres scattered throughout the WTC dust. Additionally, Millette’s official report team did not find any red-gray chips, let alone nanothermite.
As he worked to debunk the WTC thermite research, Millette was still unable to find any iron microspheres. But he did claim to have finally found the red-gray chips. Curiously, he did not attempt to replicate the testing that would determine if those chips were thermitic.
Claiming to have found the chips, Millette perfomed an XEDS analysis for elemental composition but failed to do any of the other tests including BSE, DSC, the flame test, the MEK test, or measurement of the chip resistivity. Having inexplicably “ashed” the chips at 400 °C in a muffle furnace, thereby proving that they were not the materials of interest (which ignite at 430 °C), Millette ignored the remainder of the study he had set out to replicate. Because he did not do the DSC test, he could not do XEDS of the spheres formed from the chips. Since he had still not found spheres in the dust, he could not test those and this allowed him to ignore the testing of spheres from the thermite reaction.
Millette rested his case on FTIR, which I have also performed on chips from WTC dust but with a much different result. Like Millette’s paper, my FTIR work is not yet part of a peer-reviewed publication and therefore should not be taken as authoritative evidence. There has been less urgency to this supplemental work because what has been done to date has received no legitimate response from the government or from much of the scientific community. That sad fact should be the central point of discussion today.
In any case, Millette attempted only one tenth of the tests in his struggle to replicate (or refute) one tenth of the evidence for thermite at the WTC. His un-reviewed “one percent approach” was nonetheless very convincing to many people, including some of the people who produced the official reports for 9/11. But it is obvious to others that Millette’s work was not a replication in any sense of the word.
I’m looking forward to the peer-reviewed scientific article that finally does replicate the nanothermite paper or any of the other peer-reviewed scientific papers that document the evidence for thermite at the WTC. Hopefully, we can approach those efforts without concerns about the sources and without recalling all the deception and manipulation that preceded them.
Until then, it is important to recognize the difference between the superficial appearance of science and the actual practice of science. Ignoring 90 percent of the evidence is not scientific. And replication of the 10 percent means actually repeating the work. If thermite debunkers and alternate hypothesis supporters can find the courage and focus to step through that challenge, maybe they can begin to add to the discussion.
Notes
[1] Here are only a few examples of the hot wind:
“Then the dust cloud hits us. Then it got real hot. It felt like it was going to light up almost.” -Thomas Spinard, FDNY Engine 7
“A wave — a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block.” – David Handschuh,New York’s Daily News
“When I was running, some hot stuff went down by back, because I didn’t have time to put my coat back on, and I had some — well, I guess between first and second degree burns on my back.” -Marcel Claes, FDNY Firefighter
“And then we’re engulfed in the smoke, which was horrendous. One thing I remember, it was hot. The smoke was hot and that scared me” -Paramedic Manuel Delgado
“I remember making it into the tunnel and it was this incredible amount of wind, debris, heat….” -Brian Fitzpatrick FDNY Firefighter
“A huge, huge blast of hot wind gusting and smoke and dust and all kinds of debris hit me” -Firefighter Louis Giaconelli
“This super-hot wind blew and it just got dark as night and you couldn’t breathe” -Firefighter Todd Heaney
[2] For example, see Joel Meyerowitz, Aftermath: World Trade Center archive. Phaldon Publishing, London, p 178. See photograph of the event on 11/08/01 that shows a stunning and immediate change of cloud-like emissions from the pile, from dark smoke to white cloud.
At first I assumed this article would be a legitimate one, but once I read though it I realized it was written by a conspiracy theory nut job, who pushes his theories under the guise of academic credibility.
Kevin, you are an idiot.
LOL! Very nice illustration of what Mr. Ryan is talking about. Way to prove his point.
It’s been 5 years and not a single person has replicated their research, nor have they expanded on it. Instead we are waiting for another truther, Basile, to do one. No doubt, like Jones and co., Basile will not be publishing in a real journal on forensic chemistry nor will he be presenting before any reputable academic body on the topic. Instead they will continue to hide in fake journals and appeal to scientific illiterates on youtube and at Gage’s sermons.
James Millette, an actual forensic chemist who has outstanding credentials in the field, analyzed the dust and concluded no such thermite existed. He then presented his findings before the American Academy of Forensic Science. He acted like an actual academic, while the truthers continue to sit around telling each other what they want to hear while playing smoke and mirrors.
Your assertion that James Millette “analyzed the dust and concluded no such thermite existed” and “acted like an actual academic” is contradicted by your acknowledgment that “not a single person has replicated” Harrit’s, et al, research. Let Millette submit his own analysis for publication in peer review journal, as Harrit, et al, did. That would be what an “actual academic” would do.
Sadly, it appears you don’t understand scientific nomenclature. Since he didn’t reach their conclusions, he obviously didn’t replicate it.
Harrit et al, submitted their research to a proven fraud publisher which I will more than happily demonstrate, but I get the feeling you are not too concerned with the actual facts, and was “peer reviewed” by at least 1 truther who was acknowledged in the paper itself. Yeah, no conflict of interest there.
Millette presented his findings before the authoritative body in the field of forensic science, the AAFS. Jones & Co ahve doen nothing but hide on the internet.
You confuse replicating their analysis with arriving at their same findings. You are correct that, to date, nobody, including Millette, has replicated their analysis of the red/gray chips. Millette, for example, didn’t heat the chips to confirm the formation of iron spheres. Obviously, if he didn’t conduct the analysis, he isn’t going to arrive at the same conclusions. Beyond that, your argument is ad hominem, labeling the Bentham journal as “fraud” without addressing the substance of the paper. Let Millette submit his analysis for publication in a peer-review journal.
Like I said earlier, you appear to not to understand the wording. A replication is when one conducts the same experiment and arrives at the same conclusion. Confirming results is the necessary element of replication.
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/data-rep/
“Beyond that, your argument is ad hominem…”
No, it’s really not. Peer review is one of the basic tenets of modern science. Truthers don’t get a pass, or short cuts. We rely on it so people who are devoid of bias examine the work of others, to the best of our ability; which as I noted was not met. Griscom is a truther, and is recognized in the paper itself. That minimally proves the peer review was at least in part susceptible to heavy bias. Any responsible academic would have seen his name in the paper and recused himself.
No one is required to submit a paper for peer review refuting Jones and company because that has yet to happen on Jones’s side. in any honest fashion. Millette has done far more given he presented before a real academic body on the topic.
Dude, “A replication is when one conducts the same experiment and arrives at the same conclusion.” Does the bold emphasis help you out? Like I said, “Millette, for example, didn’t heat the chips to confirm the formation of iron spheres. Obviously, if he didn’t conduct the analysis, he isn’t going to arrive at the same conclusions.”
As for your dismissal of the Harrit, et al, paper, your attack on the journal as “fraud” rather than substantively addressing the contentions of the paper and your appealing to the supposed prejudices of this person involved are by definition ad hominem. Here, look it up: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
You do realize it says ” and arrives at the same conclusion”, right? Pretty telling with regard to how you treat evidence. Focus on what’s convenient and ignore the rest. And you are wrong on ad hom. I would suggest you actually read the definition that simply copy pasting the link. It is no personal attack when the publisher clearly demonstrates less than reputable practices. Peer review is a basic check in the scientific community. I expect Jones et al to meet that very basic standards. And I have outlined how they did not. Your expectation that Millette should meet those standards while disregarding them for Jones and company is telling.
You don’t get to hail something as peer reviewed, and then when it’s really not pretend it doesn’t matter when it’s not convenient, and demand it be met for those who don’t share your personal beliefs.
I defer to my previous comments.
In typical truther fashion: lather, rinse, and repeat.
He says in typical falser fashion: ignore, obfuscate, refuse to substantively address the facts while employing ad hominem argumentation, etc. It was you who lathered, rinsed, and repeated. Hence my deferral to my previous comment, in which I illustrated the problems with your argument, you clown.
Why hasn’t anyone explained that all scientific findings are positive and that negative results are never print worthy?
P. 538. Right after the section on converting text into space lizard.
Yup Oliver Stone sure does make good comedies
Cool story
No only stupid truthers think that’s the official story. Typical YouTube research
Which has nothing to do with your factless beliefs about 9/11.
Hate to burst your bubble but those words are also hallmarks of how an intelligent person describes an illogical person
One thing overlooked in this was a blowtorch effect caused by the burning of a few hundred tons of jet fuel in a chimney. Folks were jumping out of the building far above the fire because the heat they felt. The temperature at the burn area was hot enough to melt some and weaken all the support and interior [furniture, doors, sheet] steel. The metal seen flowing was aluminum, lead and copper, all of which you can melt on your stove.
Molten aluminum and lead are silver, not orange. The temperatures reached were absolutely not hot enough to melt any steel.
Blowtorch effects will get steel hot enough to melt just as a cutting torch. That’s how they used to make steel centuries ago.
Tom, once again, the temperatures in the WTC were absolutely not hot enough to melt steel. Jet fuel and office fires do not reach such temperatures, no matter how much oxygen they have. Furthermore, the thick black smoke indicated the fires were oxygen starved.
Go take a iron working course and read about the BCE history of steel.
Go read the NIST report. They didn’t make steel BCE by burning jet fuel or office furnishings in oxygen-starved fires.
You’re correct. There was no way for 02 could have gotten into that building except the tons of thermite and explosives introduced by space aliens.
Let’s please not be silly and engage in ridiculous strawman argumentation.
“a blowtorch effect caused by the burning of a few hundred tons of jet fuel in a chimney” A 747 carries 118.8 tons of fuel (36 000 gallons x 6.6 lbs per gallon, divided by 2000). What chimney? The elevator shafts are not continuous shafts and the amount of fuel burned in the first few moments of impact would have consumed the majority of the fuel.
Jets use a kerosene type jet fuel. Blowtorches use a compressed gas mix of acetylene, butane, and/or propane (all highly explosive) or MAPP ( methylacetylene and propadiene) which are not subject to explosiveness on impact.
(Jim Miles)
That’s incorrect: there WERE elevator shafts running the full length of the buildings.
If you’re going to use erroneous information in a discussion there’s not much point in debate.
Unless you’re willing to concede some of your errors.
RU willing to admit you’re wrong about this? If not you’re not worth listening to, frankly.
There were full length service shafts, all the other elevators – public, local. and express – were separated into modules. One of the survivors of the buildings is Arturo Griffiths who was in one of these service shafts and was obviously not burned to death.
The buildings contain 2,160,00 cubic yards of space. The airplanes held about 50 cubic yards of fuel (about 10,000 gallons worth, allowing for about 1500 gallons of consumption). As a lot of that fuel exploded on impact as is seen on the many videos, and as the fuel is carried in the wings, and as the wings struck obliquely, not all the fuel would have been in one spot at one time.
If even half that fuel made it into the building, the remaining 25 cubic yards is insignificant in relationship to a service shaft as high as the buildings, and not all of it would have found its way to the service shafts. 25 cubic yards – visualize a backyard swimming pool measuring 4 long paces by 4 long paces by an adult’s height – not much capacity! (not even half my living room)
The idea of an “elevator blowtorch” appears to be quite unrealistic. Many of the witnesses reported explosions both before and well after the airplane’s impact.
And as an “alienentity” I would have to reflect your own criticism about whether or not someone’s argument is worth listening to, so add a rebuttal, but please do so under your own name. (Jim Miles)
Thank you for your comment. We don’t need to speculate about whether fuel/air made it into the shafts, as we have many eyewitness accounts of fireballs which killed people in elevators below the impact floors, shortly after the planes impacted. This is not in dispute.
Further, even in the lobbies following the plane impacts there were large explosions which blew out elevator doors and even lobby glass and facia, burning many people, many fatally.
There are several reports of the smell of kerosine or jet fuel in all these cases.
So we already have factual evidence that fireballs traveled all the way to the ground floors within seconds of plane impacts.
This cannot be denied, it is simply the truth.
Instead of taking my word for it, simply google eyewitness accounts of fireballs, or jet fuel. If you require some references and ask nicely I might provide them for you.
It doesn’t matter if my name is Fred Smith or Helga Gildenstern, the information is publicly available and easily verified.
cheers
AE
Indeed, there is no question that explosions occurred in the lobby. The question remains, however, about what actually caused them.
The original claim was that there wasn’t any way for jet fuel or fireballs to get down the shafts.
Since people reported a smell of kerosine or jet fuel in the lobby after the explosions, and since they happened moments after the plane impacts, we can safely conclude that the explosions were in fact some kind of combination of falling elevators and exploding air/fuel in the buildings.
Also people were badly burned, some fatally so. Their charred remains were observed directly following the explosions. This exactly matches a fuel/air explosion, rather than a different type of explosion.
For example high explosives cause severe concussion and blast effects but do not cause incineration of people. ie they do not cause fireballs and charring of victims.
Very grisly stuff indeed either way. A tragedy and too many innocents died.
But I really don’t think there’s a serious question as to the cause of the lobby blasts, as I’ve outlined. I think FDNY was pretty clear about it as well.
I was merely pointing out your fallacy of begging the question, presuming in your premise the very thing to be proved; namely, that the explosion in the lobby was caused by a jet-fuel fireball travelling down the elevator shafts. This hypothesis has never been tested, much less proven. http://digwithin.net/2013/11/17/jet_fuel/
Jeremy that’s utter nonsense. I’m sorry but I don’t have to pander to this. Someone made the claim that fireballs couldn’t travel down the shafts, yet we have plenty of eyewitnesses who testified that they did.
There is no other plausible and causal explanation for people being charred in the lobby moments after the planes hit.
Just because you’re persisting in these equivocations I’m going to provide some quotes.
First quote conclusively shows that the fireballs went down the shafts:
‘A full elevator had just left the 78th floor, and Carmen was about to carry up six or seven stragglers. The plane struck as the doors of her elevator closed. They could hear debris smash into the top of the car; then the elevator cracked open, and flames poured in. Carmen jammed her fingers between the closed doors, pulled them partly open and held them as passengers clambered over and under her 5-foot-6 frame to escape.
Before finally throwing herself out onto the lobby floor, she glanced back to be sure the elevator was empty. That was when fire scorched her face with second- and third-degree burns, and literally welded her hooped right earring to her neck. Her hands were badly burned’
‘One witness, near an elevator between the 40th and 50th floors of the North Tower recalled,
“I saw the elevator in front of me had flames coming out of it. The elevator was closed but the flames came from the front where the doors meet and on the sides…I saw a chandelier shaking; it was really moving…black smoke started filling the corridor, it got really dense fast.” And a survivor in the basement of the North Tower at the time of the attack recalled, “I saw a big bright orange color coming through the basement with the smoke…A fireball came shooting out the basement door.”
Investigators heard additional reports that some elevators “slammed right down” to the ground floor in loud violent crashes. The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died”‘
Further documented reports of fireballs out of the elevator shafts:
‘the jet fuel was sprayed into a much larger area within the tower, the analysis shows. It documents office workers who reported burning ceilings, floors and elevators at locations throughout the lower reaches of the north tower. Flames even reached the north tower lobby, where several people were severely burned as they stood near the elevators.’
‘The smell of burning jet fuel was becoming more and more prevalent at the FCC levels in both buildings.’
The Fire Command Center (FCC) for the two towers was present at the Concourse level.
Your first quote refers to the 78th floor. Nobody questions that flames from jet fuel fires entered elevator shafts on the floors near where the plane impacted.
The next two just show that flames were coming from elevator shafts, which is likewise not in question.
Your next quote, from the New York Times, likewise only notes that witnesses observed fires on lower floors. Again, no kidding.
The quote from the Elevator World says they smelled burning jet fuel as the fires raged above and debris fell from the building. I am unsurprised.
Further documented evidence of jet-fuel fireballs in the lobby levels:
‘Firefighter John Morabito of ladder 10, which is just 200 yards from the north tower. “Just inside the front entrance, Morabito found two victims of the fireball. A man, already dead, was pushed against a wall, his clothes gone, his eyeglasses blackened, his tongue lying on the floor next to him. The other was a woman, with no clothes, her hair burned off, her eyes sealed.’
‘Mercedes Rivera: I saw a burned woman in a sitting position in the lobby, as if she was still typing behind a desk…. She was already dead.’
‘Lobby & 3rd floor: Firefighter Peter BlaichAs we got to the third floor of the B stairway, we forced open an elevator door which was burnt on all three sides. The only thing that was remaining was the hoistway door. And inside the elevator were about I didn’t recognize them initially, but a guy from 1 Truck said oh my God, those are people. They were pretty incinerated. And I remember the overpowering smell of kerosene. That’s when Lieutenant Foti said oh, that’s the jet fuel. I remember it smelled like if you’re camping and you drop a kerosene lamp.’
‘That’s the first thing that got me. That and in front of one of the big elevator banks in the lobby was a desk and I definitely made out one of the corpses to be a security guard because he had a security label on his jacket. I’m assuming that maybe he was at a table still in a chair and almost completely incinerated, charred all over his body, definitely dead. And you could make out like a security tag on his jacket. And I remember seeing the table was melted, but he was still fused in the chair and that elevator bank was melted, so I imagine the jet fuel must have blown right down the elevator shaft and I guess caught the security guard at a table’
These events all happened directly after the plane impacts. To pretend that they are some kind of coincidence is malicious and unhelpful. We know that the jet fuel burned these people.
There was no question in the witnesses accounts – the fireballs and falling elevators did the damage.
You said you were presenting “evidence of jet-fuel fireballs in the lobby levels”, but you just presented evidence of “fireballs”, with the exception of the Firehouse magazine report, which provides compelling witness testimony.
Glenna, I’m linking to a comprehensive page on the subject. Incidentally, as I read thru it quickly, I remembered you had used Arturo Griffiths as a ‘proof’ that no fireball went down that full length elevator shaft.
However, I discovered that ‘A large fireball came through the shaft just after Griffith and Cruz were pulled from smoky elevator.’
Oh well, so much for your denial. I actually am not surprised that you’re wrong about this, and have used a snippet of a story to give it the opposite meaning of what actually happened – that’s exactly how these myths are perpetuated – it’s sad that basic fact-checking is not part of the program for 9/11 truthers.
Again, it matters not what my name is or what your name is – the facts stand alone outside this. Here is the link.
https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/wtcelevatorshafts
This fails on so many levels. 1) No evidence of thermite has ever been found at any of the WTC sites. Mr. Ryan needs to learn the difference between primer paint and thermite. 2) Thermite is not a high explosive, you cannot use it to cut horizontally thru large composite steel columns, as required in a controlled demolition.
Your comment fails on every level. 1) Evidence of thermitic materials have indeed been found in the dust. See Harrit, et al, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm. 2) Thermite can be used to cut horizontally through steel (there are patented devices for this), and nanothermite has applications for explosives, as the DOE and DOD have both observed.
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Right…the debunked Harrit paper, and the Jonathan Cole playing with light gage metal.
Really try and prove me wrong…1) Have Kevin Ryan give Chris Mohr some of the WTC dust samples, so he can do a new and completely independent test. 2) Have Jonathan Cole build a full size mockup of column 79 and cut thru that
column using thermite, and post the video on YouTube.
The Harrit paper has not been “debunked”. Cole’s experiments show that thermite can indeed cut horizontally through steel. 1) Chris Mohr is demonstrably ignorant and dishonest: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/16/911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions/. 2) There is a difference between thermite and the nano- or super-thermite found in the WTC dust. Nanothermite is, needless to say, much more energetic. Also, conventional demolition explosives were likely used along with thermitic materials, which could have, e.g., cut through bolts and connections. Explosions were heard around WTC 7 all morning, and two blasts can be heard just before it collapsed at free-fall acceleration, which means that all its potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
7WTC didn’t come down in one piece. The internal structure collapsed prior to the facade. The facade started to move at less than gravitational acceleration and then sped up to, and for brief moments faster than, gravitational acceleration. It then slowed down again. That sequence pretty much pisses all over your idea of “all of the potential energy was converted into kinetic” as there was obviously still resistance many stories into the collapse OF THE FACADE. After that the resistance was negligible, which doesn’t mean everything was removed, it just meant the components had no strength left to support any of the weight as so they might as well not be there. Big difference. :)
The east penthouse collapsed first, and then the rest of the building collapsed as a single unit at free-fall acceleration, which occurred with sudden onset. Which means that all its potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
It doesn’t appear you understand the engineering behind the hypothesis.
The first thing you’ve gotten wrong is that the E Penthouse ‘collapsed’. It actually fell into the building when support column(s) beneath it failed. You can tell because windows all the way down below suddenly either shattered or changed.
Note that there was no explosion of any kind reported or captured on any of the many videos taken at the time. Nor was there any explosion as the exterior of the building fell about 8 seconds later.
That rules out any kind of explosive demolition.
By “collapsed”, I obviously meant it fell into the building when the support columns beneath it ceased to support it, so you aren’t actually producing a counterargument. And, yes, two distinct explosions can be heard in one video just moments before the collapse. WTC 7 collapsed at free-fall acceleration, which disproves the fire-induced collapse hypothesis for the reason I’ve already given.
Thanks Jeremy. My responses in point form:
1) There was no explosion either immediately prior or at the time when the E PH fell into the building.
2) I’ve seen all the videos, there’s no demolition explosion heard, in fact bystanders are not alerted until the building actually starts falling and a rumbling sound can be heard.
SPL’s of real demolitions at similar ranges to the video cameras are unmistakable and I can provide you with references and comparative videos to substantiate this.
3) Approximately 15% of the collapse, involving only part of the building took place at, near or above freefall acceleration. In no way does this ‘disprove’ the fire-induced collapse; for the least reason that you cannot prove a negative.
There were substantial fires over many hours, you are never going to disprove that because it’s a simple fact.
The lack of demolition explosives at the time of collapse (a huge number would be needed to fit the CD hypothesis, to blow out all the exterior columns instantaneously) falsifies that hypothesis. There is simply no real evidence, only conjecture.
But the fires were very real; the reports from FDNY that they expected the building to collapse were very real.
We have what we need to understand this collapse, including a comprehensive FEA model demonstrating probable mechanisms.
1 – 2) Yes, there was. In the video dubbed “Camera No. 3” in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol. 2, two distinct blasts can be heard just before collapse.
2) Free fall occurred with sudden onset and the fact of free fall means that all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
1) I completely disagree. I’ve checked dozens of videos of real controlled demolitions, they all sound extremely loud and unmistakable.
Nothing like that happened to WTC7
Otherwise link me to the video.
I can supply you links to my video comparing the sound from the same distance.
2) You keep saying that like it means something in the case of WTC 7. Repeating it doesn’t make it right. :)
1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus I also have this video from NIST’s FOIA release.
2) Denying the law of conservation of energy is pretty silly.
1) Jeremy, you’ve debunked yourself. There is no explosion. Please stop with this silliness.
Now watch and learn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tNhnTBzSyQ
2) Nobody denies the law of conservation of energy. That’s a strawman argument.
1) Your comparison of the audio is what’s silly. Notice how in the known CD, there is a clear shot to the source of the sound and the noise of the actual collapse (as opposed to explosions) is very loud. Notice on the other hand how there are blocks of buildings obstructing soundwaves and how quiet even the noise from the collapse of WTC 7 is in the CBS video.
2) I stand corrected. You didn’t deny the law of conservation of energy. You merely argued that it didn’t apply to WTC 7. My bad.
Dodge noted. The rooftop where the video is taken from has a clear line of sight (and sound) and the people don’t even stop talking.
That just doesn’t happen with real CD’s.
If this is the best evidence you’ve got it’s not good enough to pass even the first sniff test.
I know you can fool truthers with that kind of equivoction, but they believe just about any crazy thing, i’ve learned. ;)
If by “dodge” you mean “directly addressing the argument with a counterargument”, thanks for noting it. As for your counter-counterargument, the video wasn’t taken from a rooftop, silly. It was taken on the ground, and like I said, there were several blocks of buildings between WTC 7 and the camera’s microphone. This is one reason why the sound of the collapse is so quiet. Compared to the other video, where the collapse noise is very loud. I would merely further observe that you haven’t attempted to explain the two booms that can be heard just before the penthouse starts to collapse.
You’re clearly being surrounded by CIA stooges…..
You ought to reread the post above again. Justin is correct: there was an internal collapse underway for several seconds before global collapse.
It falsifies your assertion that ‘there was no energy available to do all the work of buckling columns’.
What you wrote does not square with what actually happened – never mind NIST.
Your response typifies the way people are still misunderstanding the basic mechanics after 12 years.
The fact that there was a local collapse in the area of the east penthouse before global collapse does not falsify the law of conservation of energy, which tells us that the free fall collapse of WTC 7 “as a single unit” means that all its potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
The Harrit paper findings have not been replicated anywhere, which means by standard scientific method it has not been verified.
As such it should be treated as a hypothesis, and one which is not accepted by any respected body of engineers (like ASCE) or chemists.
The 2012 study carried out by Dr Jim Millette actually falsifies the central claim of the 2009 Bentham paper in that there was no nanothermite found, using more comprehensive and definitive tests than the Harrit paper did.
In the 5 years since the paper, they have not released any follow-up tests which they promised they would do – these include FTIR analysis as well as others. As the Harrit paper states ‘Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.)
analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify the organic material.’
None of this has been either done or published in almost 5 years. One wonders why the team do not want to either identify or release their subsequent findings!
Nor has the Harrit team bothered to experimentally show any form of nanothermite painted onto steel beams and blowing them up, as they claim.
Without this needed evidence, all that remains is a pretty sketchy theory with no detail.
Jon Cole’s experiment doesn’t provide any explanation for WTC 7, which you claim collapsed uniformly and suddenly. Thermite is very slow, and has never been used to demolish any steel building in history. There’s zero real-world data to support the hypothesis that a large building with dozens of columns and hundreds of trusses could be brought down by thermite.
And no controlled demolition in history involves blowing out bolts hours before collapse, with no explosions at the onset of actual collapse! This is science fiction that you’re talking about.
I give you guys top marks for creativity and persistence, but a Fail for accuracy.
So why don’t people replicate the Harrit, et al, studies to verify or disprove their findings? This is the point of the article, you realize, to explain “how to debunk WTC thermite” if people wish to do so. Why should the most credible hypothesis be rejected by engineers and chemists? This is ignorance.
Let Chris Mohr and Jim Millette publish their findings, then, in a peer-reviewed journal. Mohr is demonstrably ignorant and dishonest (http://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2011/09/16/911-and-skeptic-magazines-science-of-controlled-demolitions/). And Millette was responsible for the government’s official signature study of the dust, which mysteriously did not report on the finding of the red/gray chips or iron spheres (http://digwithin.net/2012/02/17/when-mohr-is-less-the-official-non-response-to-energetic-materials-at-the-wtc).
The argument that no previous controlled demolition had employed the use of nanothermite, so therefore this did not occur is a non sequitur. Talk about fail.
Jeremy. Your own comment contains the answer: Harrit’s study has NOT been replicated, either by FH Couannier (he was unable to get any microspheres in a DSC up to 700º C), Marc Basile, or Dr James Millette.
The testing has been repeated, but the results have not been able to be reproduced. So in other words the Harrit claims have not been confirmed anywhere. They need to be treated as such, not as some kind of gospel.
Millette presented his study to a conference of forensic scientists last year, something that Harrit has never done.
You should be careful about slandering Chris Mohr. It is irrelevant to either the Harrit, Couannier or Millette studies anyway.
AlienEntity. Your own comment contains the answer: Nobody has tried to replicate the Harrit, et al, study and to publish their findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Hence, your claim that it has been debunked is false.
I did not “slander” Chris Mohr. I stated that “Mohr is demonstrably ignorant and dishonest”. If you follow the link I provided, you’ll see that this is true and hence by definition not “slander”.
Harrit et al. have made claims, none of these claims have been replicated.
Therefore, by standard definition the claims are not verified by the scientific community.
They claimed elemental Al, Millette disproved that claim. QED
Let Millette submit his own counterclaim for peer-review then.
That’s not how science works, Jeremy.
Harrit made the claims, they have not been reproduced and verified.
Millette was able to show that the chips do not contain thermitic materials. He didn’t need to burn them to impress people. He used science instead.
Submitting findings for peer-review *is* how science works, actually.
It’s only part of the process. Dr Millette’s work went through an academic peer review process, which is one form, and one step.
The problem with the Harrit paper is that it was published in a journal with absolutely no track record, and no recognition in the academic world per se. In fact the Editor-in-Chief of that journal resigned in protest over the publication of the paper. Not a good sign.
Following that, the Harrit team have failed to present the paper at any academic or professional conferences in forensics or chemistry. So they’re not following the standard process.
Finally their claims have never been replicated, so the findings should be viewed cautiously.
If they were really interested in getting their work replicated they’d do as Dr Jones did when he was working in the field of cold fusion, and take the work to top universities around the world.
He was doing good work back then, shame he has turned his back on good science and become a salesman instead.
Back in 2009 they wrote ‘Further studies of the red material (separated from the gray material) compared to
known super-thermite variants using DSC, TGA, FTIR (etc.) analyses would certainly be in order. In particular, NMR and GC-mass spectroscopy and related studies are urged to identify
the organic material.’
That’s almost five years, and they’re doing anything but following their own advice! :)
Thank you for acknowledging that you were wrong to say that submitting one’s findings for peer-review is “not how science works”.
As for your remarks about the Bentham journal, it is the fallacy of ad hominem argumentation. Here is Prof. Harrit’s response to such invalid arguments, re, the editor’s resignation: http://911blogger.com/node/20614
We agree others should try to replicate their findings to test their hypothesis, which to date has not been done. Hence their findings cannot be said to have been “falsified”.
Please don’t attempt to twist my words. There are many aspects to peer review, and Harrit et al. have not succeeded in meeting all those aspects.
By not publishing in a standard, top rated journal, they’ve essentially bypassed the normal process.
By avoiding the presentation of their work in front of forensic experts, they’ve avoided that aspect of peer review.
It’s not ad hominem to question the pedigree of Bentham Open Chemistry; it simply demonstrates that Bentham is not a well-respected or even established publication, and has zero track record for competent peer review.
That is why Bentham has been roundly criticized by many experts in publication, in one case for accepting a nonsense paper which was submitted as a test of their peer review.
An article about the accepted fake paper can be found here: http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars
BTW, Kevin Ryan in this very article engaged in a personal attack against Dr Millette! He labels him as a ‘NIST contractor’, hoping to bias readers by implying that he’s tainted somehow; he also dismisses the paper as ‘unreviewed’.
So it is fair and relevant to counter his attack on Millette with a balanced and factual look at the quality of the peer review and publication involved with the ‘Active Thermitic’ paper.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
So, yes, Millette performed a comprehensive and professional test of the chips, but falsified the idea that they might have elemental aluminum.
If Kevin Ryan wants to get corroboration, he need only send in a few chips to a qualified lab and have them verify whether there is in fact any elemental aluminum.
Until then, the Harrit results have been fairly tested and so far have failed to be verified independently.
Not my fault, but theirs. It’s been almost 5 years, why can’t they fork out a little of the huge amount of money they get every year and commission another study?
What are they so afraid of finding out?
Dude, please don’t try to say I’m “twisting” your words, because you did in fact try to argue that submitting one’s findings for peer review is, quote “not how science works”, unquote. So, like I said, thank you for since acknowledging that this is how science works, actually.
And how interesting that for Harrit, et al, who *have* published their findings in a
peer-reviewed journal, you dismiss it because it’s not a “top rated”
journal. But when I say Millette should submit his findings for peer-review, your response is, “That’s not how science works, Jeremy.” Your double-standard is highly instructive.
*sigh* using a quotemine to try to twist my words isn’t going to fly.
A study or experiment, if it’s not validated by others, is not proven. Even if it’s published in a peer-reviewed journal, even a very well respected one. (of course Bentham Open isn’t a respected or known journal to begin with, making the uphill climb even steeper)
The scientific process requires far more validation, as Dr Steven Jones has himself stated. If you also disagree with him, be my guest.
I happen to agree with him on this point, that’s why the Harrit paper has not made it to the stage where its results are validated.
Peer review after publication might indeed find problems with the study or paper – this happens all the time in science.
What’s different about the Harrit paper is that they will not accept any criticism of their work, but apparently expect it to be accepted as doctrine.
Again, that’s not how science works.
They won’t present their work in front of established scientific conferences in forensics or chemistry for comment and criticism.
You can try to twist my words but you’re really doing nothing but reinforcing the fact that this paper is not enough, is not thorough enough, and after 5 years is going nowhere in the science community.
I predict that if Dr Millette decides to have his findings published in a major scientific journal, his will become the established norm, and his will be duplicated successfully.
That’s my prediction. I don’t think that anyone else is going to identify the chips as thermitic, using a thorough and complete protocol.
We’ll see, won’t we? Until then time is not on your side, it’s slipping away rapidly. Eventually nobody will care about this anymore, for good reason.
Much ado about nothing, IMO.
How is quoting you saying that submitting one’s findings for peer review is, quote, “not how science works”, end quote, “twisting” your words? LOL! That’s what you said.
Everyone understands that by taking things out of context you can change the meaning.
I explained above all you need to know, in reply. Yet you are sticking to a quotemine, which isn’t even correct to begin with.
You need to do some reading up on what forms and norms peer review takes. Academic conferences are definitely a form of peer review, so your denial is pointless.
Also pointless is your avoidance of the reality that the Harrit paper conclusions have not been scientifically verified, and that the two studies looking at the chips we know of have found different results.
If an experiment is not 100% repeatable, in Dr Steven Jones own words, then it hasn’t been validated.
I’ll keep repeating this until you stop trying to misrepresent peer review, and the scientific process as we know it.
By the way, speaking of peer review, were any of the reviewers of the Bentham paper experts in nanothermite, sol-gels, forensic materials science etc? If so, do let us know.
Bentham Open is not a recognized journal, it only has 5 volumes in total, and God only knows what quality standards. I guess if you set the bar low enough anyone can make it across. That much you guys seem to have done very well! :)
The context is precisely as I stated it, that you said submitting one’s findings for peer review “is not how science works”. LOL!
Steven Jones said in a 2011 interview regarding his cold fusion paper
‘100% reproducible, which is crucial, of course, to science. Is that
every time you do the experiment it works… and our hypothesis was
completely sustained”
Now of course Jones was not able to get the same effect 100% of the time, but he worked hard with other scientists in Japan, Switzerland and Russia to refine the experiment.
Eventually they were able to corroborate his first results, but it took a decade.
This is a vital part of the scientific process, and thus far neither the claim of elemental Al or microspheres has been reproduced by other scientists.
FH Couannier was not able to produce microspheres; Millette was not able to find any elemental Al.
By Steven Jones’ own personal account, this means the results have not been verified. They are not a scientific fact in any conventional sense of science.
There’s a study published every week telling you that you’re eating the wrong food, or taking the wrong vitamins. Over time new studies come out and supersede a lot of the old ones.
That’s how science works. Harrit and his team do not get to dictate to the world what is real and what is not. If Kevin Ryan is not willing to rethink his hypothesis in the face of new data, he’s not doing science.
You comment as though Harrit, et al, would disagree, but in fact they state clearly in the paper that further studies should be done to test their hypothesis.
Further, the peer review process doesn’t end with publication, but is supposed to continue post-publication.
In a good scientific journal like Nature, letters or other studies and criticisms can be offered. But of course Bentham Open isn’t that kind of journal, so the peer-review process isn’t really working.
For example, Dr Millette is highly qualified to make a critical analysis of the chips, as part of this post-publication process. He’s not required to get his study peer-reviewed in another journal in order to do this.
To demand so is another red herring. Instead of addressing the actual findings people like Kevin Ryan want to avoid them.
In my view that’s not very professional behavior; I don’t care what their beliefs are, they need to behave like responsible people if they want to have any scientific credibility.
Thus far, the Bentham paper has been a scientific flop. It has had zero impact on the forensic community or engineering community. And you can’t blame the other academics and professionals if Harrit and his colleagues refuse to present their findings in a scientific conference!
Nobody needs to convince 9/11 Truthers – they’ll believe anything they’re told. If Harrit said it was explosive blueberry pie that’d go over almost as well. It’s the scientific bodies, the esteemed publications, which Harrit et al. have failed to reach.
If they don’t get another study done, they’ll have even less credibility. Not my problem but theirs.
Thank you for acknowledging once more that you were wrong to say that submitting one’s findings for peer-review is “not how science works”.
It is rather silly to argue that Millette need not submit his findings for peer review. That’s how science works, man.
I checked Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal, just to see what they’ve published since inception. They’ve had a total of only 5 Volumes since 2007.
It doesn’t appear in the top 100 chemistry journals thru Microsoft Academic Search, using a rating system.
Bentham already has a fairly dodgy reputation in the academic world.
Too bad Harrit et al. didn’t submit the paper to one of the top 10 publications. Had it been published it would have received far more attention in the academic world than it has.
Years ago Dr Jones proudly published in Physical Review Letters and other top science journals. Those days are long gone, and so is his credibility.
You are engaging in ad hominem argumentation. I challenge you once again to explain the creation of iron spheres. Epoxy resin doesn’t do that. Paint chips don’t do that, either.
You can create iron spheres using a wood fire and scrap metal. And don’t say you cannot, because it has been demonstrated over and over again, check the JREF website.
So… therefore if you heat epoxy resin or paint chips, a reaction will occur producing iron spheres?
LOL!
It should be noted that even Marc Basile, who is a believer in the nanothermite theory, knows that replication is needed before a definitive conclusion can be reached about the dust chips.
‘This new study is going to be a real game-changer because the replication is necessary to confirm controversial research conclusions in the world of science’
Dr Jim Millette has of course already replicated the study of the chips, using the identical selection methodology as the Harrit team; he did not use DSC to ‘burn’ the chips, because DSC cannot identify the composition – that’s not what it’s for.
What was needed was:
a) to determine exactly what materials the chips are made of (something the Harrit team never did completely)
b) determine using several methods whether or not there was any elemental Al in the chips (there was not)
Both Harrit et al. and Millette found the chips contain only a very small % of Al or Fe to begin with, being comprised mainly of epoxy resin (about 80% by weight).
A thermitic reaction requires the Fe and Al molecules to be mixed closely together, not diffused and diluted by an organic compound. This extreme dilution of any possible reactants in the chips right away raises a red flag against the thermite hypothesis!
c) Jim Millette used FTIR to determine that the organic matrix is ordinary epoxy. And he found the Al is part of aluminosilicates, or Kaolin clay – a common pigment element used in paints. So the chips of Harrit and Millette are made of:
Epoxy (main ingredient)
Iron Oxide (small amount)
Kaolin clay (small amount)
Just like dozens of known steel primer paint formulations.
Because of this data, the most objective hypothesis is that these are indeed flakes of primer paint still attached to a gray layer of carbon steel.
Since there were factually 10’s of tons of such primer paint of various formulations used on the WTC towers, we expect there to be a fair amount in the dust.
There is nothing suspicious about their presence. But now a whole cottage industry based on wild speculation about their nature has arisen – witness the $549,000 raised last year by AE911Truth alone! In the 5 years since the Bentham paper was published AE911Truth has pulled in close to $2 million, without having to publish any follow-up paper, or present the findings and allegations to any scientific body or scientific conference!
Does heating epoxy resin cause a thermitic reaction? Let Millette publish his findings in a peer-reviewed journal. Also, you said yourself Millette did NOT attempt to replicate the studies of the chips performed by Harrit, et al. If Millette wishes to disprove their findings, that’s what he should do. Furthermore, you claim the chips are primer paint, but your own source notes that they do not match the composition of the primer paint used in the WTC. Also, heating primer paint does not cause an exothermic reaction.
1) There was no thermitic reaction in Harrit’s DSC. A nanothermite is extremely fast, and the DSC ethotherm took a full 5 minutes.
So let’s be clear: it is not possible that the DSC demonstrated a thermitic reaction: that’s not what a DSC does, nor did it!
2) Millette did in fact replicate the majority of Harrit’s methodology. But he went much further that Harrit in identifying the material, using several techniques which Harrit et al. promised they were going to do in 2009.
What he showed was that the chips do not contain any elemental Al, thus falsifying the idea that they were thermitic.
I think you’re shifting the burden of proof – Harrit’s team mistakenly attempted to use a DSC plot as some kind of ‘proof’ of explosive reaction. But that is simply incorrect – the plot of a DSC is variable depending on sample size, holder, temperature rise etc… so is not used for that purpose in science.
For example, RDX high explosive, used for demolitions, showed an exotherm over 10 minutes, vs 5 minutes for the red chips. It tells you nothing about any possible explosive power.
3) Millette has already disproved Harrit’s findings, something you don’t seem to understand. That’s how science works, you can’t bend it to suit your political agenda then call it science.
4) There is a popular myth now that there was only one kind of primer on the WTC steel. This is simply not true. There were at least two major types: Tnemec (which Harrit and Millette looked at) and LaClede. There were also others, some not even documented specifically!
Further, the exact formulations are never going to be known as there are different batches and formulas are tweaked.
LaClede primer contains: Epoxy, Iron Oxide and Kaolin clay (Aluminosilicate – Al, Si and O)
The Harrit and Millette chips, except for the MEK chip contain those same ingredients. That’s a simple fact.
5) False. Many epoxy-based paints will give an exotherm in a DSC. That is because epoxy is organic. It depends on the exact type and age.
The late polymer chemist Ivan Kminek not only wrote to confirm this regarding epoxy, but also experimentally confirmed it by mixing a batch of ‘primer paint’ according to the LaClede formula and then doing a TGA on it (a little different from DSC, it measures loss of mass; used by chemical engineers for the same purpose).
You can easily confirm this by looking at heating methods to remove epoxy resins; they do in fact decompose in heat, although not all at the same temperature.
1) When Harrit, et al, heated the chips, a thermitic reaction occurred.
2) Millette did not head the chips to attempt to reproduce this thermitic reaction.
3) Ergo, Millette has not “disproved” their findings.
4) You can keep claiming that the chips are primer paint, but, again, your own source, Millette’s own paper, points out that they are not a match.
5) Epoxy resin does not result in a thermitic reaction creating iron microspheres. Your own Ivan Kminek acknowledges that the spheres do not support the primer paint hypothesis and that “We simply have not found any scientific paper which deals with the formation of such spheres when burning some paint with iron oxide.” (http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html?showComment=1336373622642#c1691834011830948838)
Jeremy, you’re misunderstanding how the DSC works and what the plots are.
DSC cannot determine if something is explosive. That’s not what it does. The fact that Harrit et al. are incorrect about this is a problem, since they’ve pushed all their supporters into an unsupportable position – the same one you find yourself in.
Ivan Kminek, a 25 year veteran polymer scientist who used DSC thru his career, was able to quickly cut thru the noise on this subject. I suggest you -that is if you really want to know how this works – study some of his comments on the subject.
Also those of Dr Frank Greening. Both have pointed out the obvious: the DSC ‘spike’ in the Bentham paper actually happens over 5 minutes! Thermite doesn’t work that way, esp. nanothermite – it’s a very fast reaction.
What Harrit’s DSC showed was an exotherm from the organic binder which makes up almost 80% of the red layer.
Dr Millette used FTIR to show that this is in fact ordinary epoxy resin.
2) Dr Millette, a professional materials scientist and forensic expert, used several definitive tests to see whether there was any elemental Al in the chips. Without it, there could be no thermitic reaction possible.
He showed that none of his samples, obtained in the same methodology as Harrit’s, had elemental Al. Therefore they cannot be thermitic.
I caution you in handwaving Dr Millette’s work, as it demonstrates something a lot of people suspect about thermitist conspiracists: they demand further investigation and testing, yet when that happens and is not to their liking, they don’t accept it.
This gish gallop could go on forever if you stubbornly refuse to learn about the science, respect the work of those who are not in your camp, and generally take an extreme ‘us vs them’ approach to the matter.
3) Millette has falsified the claim that the chips are thermitic. That’s a fact. You can ignore that fact if you like, but you’re not doing science anymore, just politics.
4) Mllette does not say which paint the chips match, however he does find that they are consistent in composition with typical primer paints. That is, they are made of an epoxy, iron oxide and kaolin clay.
He did not have the data for LaClede primer, the other main primer used in the WTC. LaClede is made of epoxy, iron oxide and kaolin clay. That’s what Millette found the chips are made of.
Looking at Harrit et al.’s XEDS spectra for chips A-D, that’s exactly what they are made of as well.
There’s no getting around this unless you want to deny XEDS scans as well.
But if it’s not good enough when it’s not in favour of your theory, then you can’t use it when you think it IS in your favour. You can’t have it both ways.
5) There is no empirical data that the spheres were formed by a thermitic process. This is actually just conjecture – which is fine, but that’s all it is.
Nobody knows exactly what the process was, but one thing’s for sure: There is very llittle of either Al of Fe in the chips, about 6% of the total mass of the chips, and no thermite in the world can operate with that mixture, since there are not enough molecules of reactants in contact with each other.
A xerogel nanothermite has the gel as fuel and the oxidizer in each pore of the gel, in a perfect stoichiometric mixture. (See the Gash or Tillotson papers)
If you really think that a material which has 80% of the energy coming from epoxy is still thermitic, then you’re in the realm of fantasy, not reality.
Your need to believe this stuff may indeed be so strong that nothing could persuade you otherwise. I suspect that’s the case, otherwise you wouldn’t take such amazingly extreme and unscientific positions on the matter.
Kevin Ryan could send a few samples to an independent lab and get them to use standard forensic tests to see if there’s any elemental Al in them.
If not, we all know their not thermitic. I don’t care whether they burn or not, that’s irrelevant.
It’s almost 5 years since the paper yet the team haven’t followed up as they said they would, they haven’t scrounged up a few bucks (AE911Truth, where are your hundreds of thousands of dollars?) to send the samples for competent tests.
But they don’t need to if people like you support them no matter what, and try to reverse the burden of proof onto skeptics, as well as disrespect anyone who doesn’t corroborate your POV.
You’re giving them a free pass, but they don’t deserve it. That’s not a rational, fair and scientific process at all. That’s what you want, isn’t it?
Tell Kevin Ryan to send the samples asap and get the results published. What is he afraid of? Being wrong?
So what, that’s actually a good thing for all of us.
The protection of your egos should not be the prime objective of this inquiry, but I fear it has become that way. The truth got left behind and overtaken by breathless rhetoric about thermite years ago.
1) Epoxy resin doesn’t ignite at 430C in a thermitic reaction producing iron spheres.
2) Millette did not heat the chips to determine whether a thermitic reaction occurred. He also has not submitted his findings for peer review. Mark Basile did heat the chips and replicated Harrit’s, et al, findings, including the production of iron spheres.
3) Ergo, Millette has not “falsified” the findings of Harrit, et al. To do so, as Kevin Ryan explains above, he would actually have to try to reproduce the Harrit study.
4) Paint doesn’t undergo a thermitic reaction when heated producing iron spheres.
5) How do you propose the iron spheres were created if not through a thermitic reaction? If others want to challenge the findings of Harrit, et al, they need to try to reproduce them. To claim their paper is “debunked” without this having occurred is to reject science.
1) Prove it. That’s just a bare assertion.
2) DSC heating does not show whether there is a thermitic reaction. This is a myth.
He has submitted his findings for peer review. He presented them at a forensics conference.
Why do you keep making false statements?
3) Millette has falsified the claim that there is elemental Al, therefore thermite, in the chips.
4) Neither paint nor the red chips are thermitic.
5) No, you’ve got the burden of proof backwards. Harrit and Ryan need to replicate their results. So far it hasn’t happened. Nor have they sent their chips for independent study.
Why have they not done this? Please answer that question.
ps Kevin Ryan, please get the chips tested independently. It’s been almost 5 years, why have you not done this?
1) http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm.
2) Giving a talk at a conference is not submitting one’s findings for peer review.
3) Millette did not reproduce Harrit’s, et al, studies, and has not submitted his findings for peer review, hence cannot be said to have “falsified” their findings.
4) Then explain the exothermic reaction and production of iron spheres when the chips are heated to ignition.
5) Nonsense. The whole idea is for *others* to replicate their study. Why has no one does this? Please answer that question. Perhaps you should do what they did and obtain your own chips and do your own tests if you are so keen on proving them wrong.
1) LOL, you’re trying to make a case for all epoxy paints based on a few tests? Please. The Harrit chips are epoxy, iron oxide and Kaolin clay. They aren’t thermitic even if Harrit says so.
Remember, the results have not been replicated, so you can’t claim they have been. That’s science. btw I reread your comment and I see you said ‘epoxy’, I was referring to epoxy-based paint, which contains iron oxide, like the red chips. Yeah, I think they might produce microspheres at times, but it’s an effect which hasn’t been duplicated, so nobody really knows.
2) Giving a presentation at a conference is certainly peer review. There are many aspects to peer review. Ironic that you demand peer review when you don’t care if the Harrit paper has been replicated and had its results verified. Double standard?
3) The Millette study did duplicate the Harrit study all the way thru selection of chips, and included more comprehensive tests as well.
It did falsify their findings. You’re wrong.
4) The chips are mostly made of organic epoxy binder. that’s what burned. there was no thermite there so whatever caused the microspheres wasn’t thermitic. Jumping to conclusions for political effect is not wise.
5) Wrong. The whole idea is that they’ve made extraordinary claims, but refuse to follow up and let their chips be independently tested.
The burden of proof is on them. The identical types of chips were tested by Millette and found to be non-thermitic. If they want to see another test (since you guys seem so confident) they can pay for it.
AE911truth brought in $549,000 in revenues in 2012. They can’t spend $2000 on a definitive test? Please don’t make me laugh!
1) I disagree and note that you have yet to explain the formation of iron spheres.
2) No, giving a talk is not scientific peer review. Let Millette submit his findings for peer review and publication in an academic journal. As for replicating the results of Harrit, et al, I agree with you this should be done, as you perfectly well know, so your claim of a “double standard” is rather dishonest.
3) False. Millette did not reproduce the Harrit, et al, studies. For example, he did not heat the chips to see whether they would react and create iron spheres.
4) You still aren’t explaining the creation of iron spheres.
5) It’s “wrong” to say that the idea of science is for others to try to reproduce the results of Harrit, et al, to test their hypothesis? Let’s please not be silly.
Your response has the ring of counter intelligence about it
Your response sounds paranoid. You haven’t addressed any of the issues
No thermitic rection occurred when Harrit, et al, heated the chips? The iron microspheres tell otherwise.
All these years later, Millette has yet to have his findings published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Look, I hate to get dragged into a strawman-based argument. The hypothesis that iron microspheres are exclusively the product of a thermitic reaction is falsified. There are many such sources, so basing your beliefs on this is not wise.
Further, Millette did a number of careful scans (which Harrit et al. did not do) and showed that there was little or no elemental Al in either the grey or red portion of the chips. Without it, no thermitic reaction is even possible. End of story.
The only way for Harrit’s claims to be taken seriously is if they could be independently replicated/reproduced by a competent lab.
It’s been 7 years, and even though the cost of doing this is not very high (a few thousand $$ at most) nobody has done it. Not Harrit, not Jones, not what’s-his-face (the dude who was sent samples and claimed to be raising funds). Nobody.
Instead of blaming Millette for these shortcomings and pretending that it’s all a conspiracy (yawn) why not just get on with it and produce new independent tests? Or is the truther community just interested in dancing around the science?
It is more than a bit pathetic that as soon as an independent lab did a test, and it didn’t produce the results you wanted, you shift all the burden to that lab. That’s just not how good science works. But I think you know that. The question is why you’re still grinding on this topic after so many years. I’m bored with it, frankly, but I’m responding because this came up in my gmail.
Have a good night, I won’t respond further at this time.
You are welcome to provide an explanation for how these iron microspheres were formed by igniting the chips, absent a thermitic reaction.
I would merely observe that you haven’t done so.
Note: They’re actually not pure iron, but contain iron and other elements. To refer to them as ‘iron’ is not accurate. As I mentioned, nobody on this planet has been able to replicate Harrit’s findings, so the scientific process has NOT corroborated the claims.
I would refer you to the burden of proof, which is on Harrit’s shoulders, to prove that iron-rich microspheres can ONLY be produced by a thermitic reaction. He would have to somehow disprove all the other scientific literature (there is plenty) which contradicts that claim. he can’t do it, he hasn’t done it, and he will never do it.
It then is left to laymen to ‘believe’ in the thermite theory based on spotty science and disregard all other investigation, as you are doing. Hence you must dismiss Miillette’s findings because they contradict your beliefs. This is not science, it’s bad pseudo-science. Which is why the scientific community at large is ignoring you. (And will continue to do so unless you can step up and do the work)
Correction: “iron-rich microspheres”. My point remaining the same, which is that you’ve not produced any other explanation for them.
You’re also welcome to read the reports on microspheres by RJ Lee Group, and to comment on various physicists who’ve written things like ‘very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the “thermodynamic size effect.’
There are even youtube videos showing how such microspheres can be produced by ordinary means. In short, it is a simple fact that several mechanisms exist to produce these artifacts, excluding thermitic reactions. Using their presence alone as a ‘proof’ of thermitic reaction is pure pseudo-science; especially when there is no valid evidence that elemental aluminum exists in the chips in the first place. (This is the ‘back to square one’ piece of evidence that Millette discovered, and thermite enthusiasts loath). If anything, the chip DSC simply confirms that something burned and possibly produced some microspheres. Big deal. It’s never been confirmed independently anyway, so all your work is still ahead of you (to paraphrase Chris Hitchens) :)
I’ve read the reports on the microspheres by the RJ Lee Group. They noted that “Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in ‘normal’ interior office dust.” They state that “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.”
These iron spheres are evidence of extremely high temperatures in the World Trade Center buildings—high enough to liquefy iron. The melting point of iron is about 1535 °C, similar to that of structural steel (1538 °C; structural steel is mostly iron). According to NIST’s own estimation, the maximum temperature any of the fires achieved in the WTC buildings was about 1,000 °C. From the physical evidence of the steel that was preserved from the twin towers, NIST found only three locations where the steel had reached temperatures above 250 °C, and the samples from those locations showed “no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 °C for any significant time.”
You say the RJ Lee Group wrote that “very small metal particles have much lower melting points than their bulk material counterparts (around 900 o C for iron nanoparticles, as opposed to 1535 o C for bulk iron). This is called the “thermodynamic size effect.” Actually, that is not a quote from the RJ Lee Group, but from Dave Thomas. But no matter, the problem with this claim is already noted above (not to mention the question of how steel beams and columns were turned into “nanoparticles”; the melting of such structural elements being an uncontroversial, documented fact).
So we see you’ve yet to produce a valid alternative explanation for their existence.
Lol, nobody can prove a negative. It’s a fact that there are several known sources for iron microspheres, none of which are thermite. You cannot eliminate those possible sources just because you have an emotional attachment to the idea of thermite. That’s just bad logic, and terrible science.
As far as ‘valid’ goes, most normal folks, including scientists, disagree with the thermite theory as valid in this case. So that leaves an extreme fringe of thermite cultists.
Ps of course normal office dust is different from the fire debris. These were massive fires, and of course they weren’t hot enough to melt bulk steel, nor is there a shred of evidence of that phenomenon. The fact is that microspheres are not definitive proof of melted bulk steel! Only thermite cultists think that’s true.
LOL! You say that as though I had placed that burden of proof on you. (I didn’t.)
And yet, as I pointed out in my previous comment, you’ve yet to produce even a single valid alternative explanation their existence.
Purely ad hominem argumentation, instructive in light of your inability to provide any alternative explanation.
FALSE. That steel was melted is a documented fact. Appendix C of the FEMA report, for example.
Have MIllette publish his findings in a peer reviewed journal…until then then, his findings have no authority.
This is a rather strange reaction, not just because you’re not addressing his methods nor his findings. In fact he has presented this information at professional conferences, which is part of the scientific peer review process.
To my knowledge none of the authors of the 2009 Thermitic Materials paper has gone in front of a meeting of scientific peers to present their findings, instead preferring to lecture to laymen.
And if you are referring to publishing in respected, established scientific journals, then the original Thermitic Materials paper also fails this measure. It was published in an obscure online journal, as you probably know.
Worse, the findings of Harrit et al. have never been corroborated by any other laboratory; in other words their findings have no authority as they cannot be reproduced elsewhere. Dr Millette, in fact, has by his findings called into question the findings of the Harrit paper and this should raise a cautionary note to serious minds.
Curiously Dr Jones has been silent on the fact that the further research they vowed to do has not materialized. Or should I say they haven’t bothered to follow up and publish their later findings. Rather they’ve gone quite quiet about it. One suspects they have realized that they were incorrect and simply don’t want to admit it publicly. I think we can safely say if the opposite were true they’d be trumpeting it all over the interwebs!
You simply don’t understand the term ‘peer review’…i.e. the scholarly process whereby manuscripts intended to be published in an academic journal are reviewed by independent researchers (referees) to evaluate the contribution, i.e. the importance, novelty and accuracy of the manuscript’s contents” Thus, if a scientist has proposed a certain outcome, then to validate it, that scientist must have that outcome peer reviewed..that’s if the data in question is considered worthy of peer review by an accepted journal, which in Millette’s case seems to be the problem. At least the Thermitic Materials paper has been published.
Your claim that “In fact he has presented this information at professional conferences, which is part of the scientific peer review process” begs the question re peer review….this statement distorts the accepted meaning of ‘peer review’, as defined above
Until it is published, Millette’s paper is simply more junk science from the bowels of the US scientific community….and you sound like an amateur scientist.
Oh, I understand it. The Jones/Harrit paper wasn’t published in any kind of respected journal,,so that claim is very weak’ at best it’s suspect. And again (conspiracists always skip over this) none of the findings have been duplicated – that’s also a necessary part of the scientific process!!
Nothing becomes accepted by the scientific community based on a single paper. To have real persuasive power a theory must be studied and replicated.
Back in the day when Jones was researching ‘cold’ fusion, findings were shared worldwide, and he proudly collaborated with other experts. In fact he himself declared that it was years before his team’s results could be duplicated, thus validating them.
He went completely off the rails with ‘Active Thermitic Materials’ because
a) none of the team members were experts on the matter, and likely (as Millette found) did not understand which tests would be conclusive
b) he jumped the gun as he grossly overstated the certainty of their findings (for political/rhetorical reasons, obviously). They should have presented the paper as a more tentative type. Since they didn’t, folks like you are pressured into dismissing actual peer review or scientific corroboration.
Again, these controverfsies would best be presented at a scientific conference, but we all,know that Jones et al. have no intention of doing real science here. They just did enough to legitimize the argument among other conspiracists or casual observers. They failed to follow up with other tests as they’d said they would. And they’ve had 7 years to do so since the paper!
A meaningless statement, given that nobody has tried to duplicate them.
The lead author, just for starters, has a PhD in chemistry. So what do you mean none were experts?
How so?
“Explosions were heard around WTC 7 all morning, and two blasts can be heard just before it collapsed at free-fall acceleration” – sorry but this simply is not true. The only reports of explosions relating directly to WTC7 are from Barry Jennings which are irrelevant, as a) they are directly contradicted by Michael Hess who was stood next to him at the time and b) they were at least 6 hours prior to collapse of WTC7 and therefore even if they existed they are not indicative of CD. There is not a single reliable report of explosions in the moments before WTC7 collapsed and no video footage of the collapse picked up the sounds of explosions as was be expected with a controlled demo – and please bear in mind the size and location of this so called CD – this would be the largest controlled demolition in human history in one of the most densely populated places on the planet yet not a single reliable report of explosions indicative of cd exists, that simply is not possible. Thermite cannot be placed as a substitute to explosives either in order to get around the noise issue as thermite is an incendiary and therefore incapable of creating the free fall that the truthers claim is so indicative of CD.
Yes, it is true. Get your hands on the videos released by NIST via a FOIA request and watch them all. There were explosions going on all morning. Two distinct boom sounds can also be heard just prior to WTC 7’s collapse in one video.
What is incapable of having caused the free-fall collapse of WTC 7 is office fires.
Again – I have viewed every video available of WTC7 collapsing to my knowledge – not a single one contains the sounds of explosions in the moments prior to collapse. This would have been the largest controlled demolition in history in one of the most densely populated places on the planet. In order to create the free fall that truthers claim is only possible by controlled demolition it would require the simultaneous destruction of every single external column – the noise would have been almost biblical in scale – yet not a single reliable witness reported hearing explosions in the moments before collapse as would be expected with a CD (I would especially question why not a single member of the FDNY reports hearing explosions in the moments before WTC7 collapsed).
If you wish to show a video that demonstrates the boom sounds I will be happy to view it – but to date no video appears to have picked up the sounds you refer to and not one reliable witness has stated that they heard such sounds in the moments before collapse. You can argue that fires did not bring down WTC7 as much as you like, but that does not mean you get to replace it with a theory that is clearly impossible – and creating the largest CD in history in the middle of the financial district of Manhattan without anyone hearing it is clearly not possible.
1) So you are not familiar with the video in which two distinct boom sounds can be heard just prior to the onset of collapse. Okay. It nevertheless exists. I have a copy of it. As I said, it was among those videos released by NIST through a FOIA request.
2) You just pointed out that in order for free fall to be achieved, “it would require the simultaneous destruction of every single external column”. Since you reject the controlled demolition hypothesis, please explain how it is you think fire achieved that result. What is “clearly impossible” is the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, meaning there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by this hypothesis. Ergo, some other force had to have acted on the columns to, as you correctly point out, result in the simultaneous destruction of the columns so that they provided no resistance to the building’s collapse.
1) No I’m not familiar with that video which brings up a very interesting question – why not? If the video shows what you claim then it would be spread across every truther website out there as to date they have avoided the total lack of sounds of explosives like the plague. You seem very coy about providing a link to what would frankly be the most important piece of evidence around WTC7, which to me seems more then a little strange. One simple question does it sound anything like this much smaller CD? /watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U
I’m guessing not. And that still does not get away from the fact that not a single reliable witness reported the sounds of explosions in the moments before collapse. Not one. Sorry but that is not possible.
2) Actually no I didn’t – what I pointed out is that “truther’s claim”. And as you well know it is not up to me to provide an explanation for the free fall – it is up to NIST who have done so – if you wish to say that this is not the case you need to a) convince the scientific community that NISTs hypothesis is flawed and b) provide a suitable alternative explanation as to how it occurred. Fire damage is the accepted theorem for how WTC7 collapsed, not CD – its up to you to prove it was CD not up to me to prove it wasn’t, however – couple of points – the entire collapse was not free fall – the free fall section occurred in the middle of collapse meaning that your assertion that there was no energy available to buckle the columns is incorrect – this statement would only be correct if the building started accelerating initially at free fall – it did not, it accelerated at less then free fall – then free fall – then slower than free fall, so your statement is essentially flawed.
But if you wish to argue that all the columns had to be destroyed simultaneously then great – all you have to do is prove this and how it happened – which we know cannot have been done by explosives as there were no reliable reports of explosions in the moments before collapse, despite this being the largest CD in history in one of the most densely populated places on the planet.
1)
This argument is a non sequitur.
You want me to provide you with a link to the Blu-Ray disc containing my archived copy of the video from the NIST FOIA release? This is not possible. I have seen the video on YouTube, however. The group that submitted the FOIA posted it. Can’t recall their name at the moment, and don’t know if it’s still up.
Depends what you mean. It’s not as loud, for example. The video you directed me to was shot from much closer, with no obstructions between the microphone and the building. The WTC 7 video, on the other hand, was shot from street level with 5 blocks of other buildings between. Hence the sound of the collapse itself, like the two distinct booms that precede it, is also quite muffled despite in reality being a very loud event.
2)
Actually, yes, you did point out that free fall “would require the simultaneous destruction of every single external column”. Maybe that’s not what you mean,t but it’s what you said. To be clear, what you said was a “truther’s claim” was that free fall “is only possible by controlled demolition”. So, again, you are welcome to explain how fire could possibly cause the free fall collapse of WTC 7. Again:
Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted to
kinetic energy, meaning there was no energy available to do the work of
buckling columns as required by this hypothesis. Ergo, some other force
had to have acted on the columns to, as you correctly point out, result
in the simultaneous destruction of the columns so that they provided no
resistance to the building’s collapse.
True. It was in free fall for a remarkable 2.25 seconds, over 100 ft or 8 stories.
False. Free fall occurred with sudden onset.
False. Free fall by definition means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns. This is the law of conservation of energy. You can’t argue with the laws of physics.
The building did start accelerating at free fall. I’ll merely note for the record that you just tacitly acknowledged that it was physically impossible for fire to have caused this.
“You want me to provide you with a link to the Blu-Ray disc containing my archived copy of the video from the NIST FOIA release? This is not possible. I have seen the video on YouTube, however. The group that
submitted the FOIA posted it. Can’t recall their name at the moment, and don’t know if it’s still up.”
So just to clarify – you are in possession of probably the single most important piece of evidence with regards to WTC7 – literally the only evidence in existence that demonstrates the noise of explosions at WTC7 and you cannot find where it is anywhere on the net? Why does this sound more than a little suspect?
Was it perhaps one of these videos?
/watch?v=8TkNZrkSB7I
Because weirdly not one of them contains the sounds of explosions? Odd that. Notice how many people are on the streets and witness this collapse as well – yet not one of them has reported hearing explosions. Do you not find this strange?
“Depends what you mean. It’s not as loud, for example.”
How loud is “not as loud” – as in “barely audible”?
“The video you directed me to was shot from much closer, with no obstructions between the microphone and the building. ”
Very true – It was also a much smaller demolition though which had its explosives spread out rather then severing every single external column across at least 8 floors at the same time (as trthers claim is required for the free fall) – some 400+ demo charges fired off simultaneously – I think its fair to say the noise would have been near biblical, yet no one reported hearing it, despite this monumental noise occurring in one of the most densely populated places on the planet. So far then the entirety of your evidence for explosives is a single video clip which may or may not exist and if does may or may not contain the sounds of explosions as expected with a demolition of this size. Hardly an open and shut case.
“Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, meaning there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by this hypothesis.” Except again that is not correct, as stated this is only correct if the building started its collapse at free fall – it did not. The fall is broken down into three stages (taken from NIST)
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
“True. It was in free fall for a remarkable 2.25 seconds, over 100 ft or 8 stories.” – in line with NISTs computer model.
“False. Free fall occurred with sudden onset.”
Except it didn’t did it – for the first 1.75 seconds the building was not in free fall – yet was still moving downwards. This is where the buckling of the external columns between floors 7 and 17 occurs before they lose their resistance and the building accelerates in freefall, once past this point the building slows again as the upper sections above 17 collide with the rubble pile. If what you said was correct then the first 1.75 seconds would also be in free fall – they weren’t – you are wrong.
“False. Free fall by definition means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns. This is the law of conservation of energy. You can’t argue with the laws of physics.”
Actually that’s not correct either – firstly as pointed out the outer columns lost their structural integrity at the start of the collapse, not during free fall – secondly you say that free fall shows that no other energy is spent. This relies on a flawed concept though – namely that you are capable of measuring the free fall accurately enough in order to assert this statement. Let me provide an example (apologies in advance for the extreme example but it is merely used to highlight the concept) – if I build a pyramid of champagne glasses clearly it would require energy to pass trough them from top to bottom – if I dropped a pool ball on them from a height of ten foot say you cold probably witness the ball decelerating as it struck the glasses – however if I performed the same experiment with a 3 tonne safe are you still confident that you could discern the deceleration. Its not a question of there being no resistance at all – its a question of whether there was enough resistance in order to make detection possible.
This is not arguing with the laws of physics – this is arguing with the false assumptions you have made – namely a) that the energy required to cause the columns to buckle initially occurred during free fall – it didn’t, it occurred prior, and b) that the resistance provided by the already buckled columns was large enough to be detected.
“The building did start accelerating at free fall. I’ll merely
note for the record that you just tacitly acknowledged that it was physically impossible for fire to have caused this.”
Feel free to note whatever you like if your ego so requires. The fact of the matter is that for the first 1.75 seconds of collapse WTC7 did not fall at free fall – the reason for this is that this was the period where energy was expended buckling the external columns. Your assertion that the building started its acceleration at free fall is incorrect. Your assertion that this in turn makes the buckling of the external columns impossible is also therefore incorrect.
No thermite was found. The paper by Jones is fraud. If you had some evidence, you could team with a news paper and have the Pulitzer. The biggest story in hisotry, remains a silly fantasy in your mind, and a few failed 911 truth followers.
Thermitic materials were found. If you wish to try to substantiate your assertion that the Harrit, et al, paper was a “fraud” you are welcome to. Good luck.
Your totally correct, I mean there must be thermitic materials in the dust if the same peer review journal that reviews there articles so well they they published an SCIgen manuscript.
Your facts were peer reviewed my Grammer check unfortunately sir. Quoting Bentham is like quoting a kindergartener’s crayon painting of a T-Rex as proof dinosaurs aren’t extinct.
Kevin Ryan is trying to poison the well by portraying Dr Jim Millette as a ‘NIST contractor, and by grossly misrepresenting his study. In one case he resorts to a false statement as I’ll show below. He’s hoping to dismiss Millette’s work, even though Millette followed both the protocols ‘in accordance with the recommended guidelines for forensic identification of explosives and the ASTM standard guide for forensic paint analysis and comparison. The criteria for the particles of interest as described by Harrit et al. are: small red/gray chips attracted by a magnet and showing an elemental composition primarily of aluminum, silicon and iron as determined by scanning electron microscopy and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) (Figure 4).’
From Millette’s paper
Kevin Ryan claims that the MEK test was not done. This is false.
‘Samples of red/gray chips were placed in several solvents overnight and then subjected to ultrasonic agitation to determine if the solvents could dissolve the epoxy binder and
liberate the internal particles. The solvents included methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and two commercial paint strippers used for epoxy resins. The commercial paint strippers, Klean-Strip KS-3 Premium Stripper and Jasco Premium Paint and Epoxy Remover, contain methylene chloride, methanol and mineral spirits.
One red/gray chip was subjected to 55 hours of submersion in MEK, then dried and coated with a thin layer of gold for conductivity. The red layer was analyzed by SEMEDS
analysis using an advanced x-ray phase mapping technique. The technique uses a multivariate statistical analysis program to find spectrally similar regions in a spectral image acquisition. It analyzes the spectrum at each pixel location and then groups the pixels with similar spectra into principal components or phases.’
Did Millette perform the same test with the solvent as Harrit, et al? E.g., I don’t recall Harrit, et al, coating chips with gold, etc. So seems Kevin is correct. He is also correct that he did not reproduce the other tests, including heating the chips to see whether a reaction occurred resulting in iron spheres.
When is Kevin Ryan going to send some of the WTC dust chips for independent testing? Almost 5 years ago the authors of the Bentham paper said they were going to do more testing, including FTIR, yet they’ve not released these comparisons with actual nanothermite, for example.
AE911Truth now pulls in over $500,000 per year, yet doesn’t seem to be interested in spending a few thousand bucks to confirm the allegation that the red/grey chips are thermitic.
All that needs to be done is to confirm whether there is elemental Al in them or not, and if so in what amounts! If there’s no elemental Al the chips CANNOT be thermitic. It’s that simple.
Perhaps that’s the reason that Kevin Ryan is reluctant to send the chips off for further independent tests. One wonders…
The DSC test cannot tell you if the chips are thermitic. That is a myth. It seems that Kevin Ryan is more interested in perpetuating a myth than finding out the truth.
You’re going around in circles. Again, as Kevin Ryan points out, if others wish to “debunk” the findings of Harrit, et al, they need to actually recreate their studies of the chips and submit their findings for peer review.
You’ve got it the wrong way around. Harrit and Ryan need confirmation from independent scientists, otherwise (I have this from Dr Steven Jones) the scientific process is not complete.
The results have not been verified by anyone else. That’s the problem – the thermitists problem.
Nice try at reversing the burden of proof again.
Besides, Harrit et al. promised in 2009 they would do the work needed to identify the organic matrix. They have failed to do so even after 5 years. No amount of excuses from you is going to let them off the hook.
Your responses are becoming nonsensical. You start by saying I got it “the wrong way around” and then repeat the point I just made, that others should try to reproduce their results to test their hypothesis.
Another issue is that truthers constantly talk about how tests like the DSC are necessary to determine composition, and Millette did not follow them. Sadly, all we have as a source on these claims, are the truthers themselves. I have seen the claim that the LLNL did the DSC during their research. However, they weren’t trying to determine if they had a form of thermite. They knew what it was from the outset. They were testing it’s behavior in a non-inert environment. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to contact SOME authority in forensic chemistry to get a protocol? Maybe someone at the National Fire Protection Association? Or someone at the American Academy of Forensic Science?
Here is a version of the video I am referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus. The point is you wrongly denied that explosions were heard in the vicinity of WTC 7 all morning and that two distinct booms can be heard just prior to its collapse.
I don’t at all agree this video is “the single most important piece of evidence with regards to WTC7”. The fact of free fall, for example, is far more important evidence. I was simply making the point that such sound can in fact be heard.
NIST’s claim of a “stage 1” of collapse is fraudulent. See: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/. Again, free fall occurred with sudden onset.
You say free fall was is “in line with NIST’s computer model”. This is a perfectly meaningless assertion. It isn’t “in line” with the laws of physics. It’s funny you say that, actually, because in NIST’s draft, they state that the speed of collapse was consistent with physical principles, but then after having to acknowledge free fall, they changed this language to say it was consistent with their model. That was a stretch, too, though, since their model didn’t resemble the actual collapse at all.
WTC 7 collapsed at a rate indistinguishable from free fall to the resolution of the video. This is absolutely remarkable. If you wish to explain how fire could have caused this, again, you are welcome to do so. Please tell us how it is that the columns went suddenly from holding the building up as they were designed to do and had done since its construction to offering no measurable resistance to the building’s mass.
I’ll just note again for the record that you have now twice tacitly acknowledged that it is physically impossible for fire to have caused WTC 7 to collapse with sudden onset of free fall.
Your assertion that no explosions were heard was false. Your assertion that free fall didn’t occur until “the middle of collapse” was false. Even being generous with that and assuming you meant it didn’t occur until 1.75 seconds in, this is just a repetition of a claim by NIST that is demonstrably fraudulent. But even if this claim was true, it would remain seemingly inexplicable that fire in just 1.75 seconds could cause all the building’s columns to lose all strength such that they went from holding the building up to offering no measurable resistance.
If you think you can explain what NIST had to resort to fraud to try to do, good luck!
“Here is a version of the video I am referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?….” – I’ve seen that video previously and I’m assuming you have posted up a link to the wrong video as there is clearly no explosion in that one. We are talking about the largest controlled demolition in history here. Yet the best that can be produced is the quietest of sounds that could equally be a very gentle breeze blowing across the microphone. Here is what demolition sounds like – camera appears to be a similar distance (although appreciate it is difficult to judge) and whilst there are not other buildings in the way its a much smaller demolition that never achieves free fall either – watch?v=_anYswmGMeM
There is also one other rather important point – You claim that WTC7 starts accelerating at free fall as soon as it starts to collapse – the video you posted up claims the explosion occurs at 0.11 – problem is that the external facade of the building does not start to collapse until 0.18 – are you suggesting that the external facade waited around for seven seconds before collapsing? And that’s being really generous when you consider that light travels faster then sound so the actual explosion (if there was one) would have more likely occurred around the 10sec point. So even your evidence of explosions at WTC7 is not indicative of explosive controlled demolition.
“The point is you wrongly denied that explosions were heard in the vicinity of WTC 7 all morning.”
Hearing explosions “in the vicinity” is irrelevant – truthers claim all columns had to be severed simultaneously in order to create free fall collapse which would mean a huge explosion shortly before collapse – not a single reliable witness reports hearing these.
“and that two distinct booms can be heard just prior to its collapse.” – Distinct? Seriously? I showed that video to a friend (max volume through headphones) and asked him to tell me when the explosions went off – he looked at me blankly at the end – not exactly what I would refer to as “distinct”.
“NIST’s claim of a “stage 1” of collapse is fraudulent. See: http://www.foreignpolicyjourna…. Again, free fall occurred with sudden onset.”
Your attempt to provide a source to disprove NIST is to reference yourself? In an article that is not peer reviewed and has never been formally published. Yeah sorry but that’s not evidence – that’s merely you backing up your opinion with more of your own opinion. One thing I did find interesting though was this statement
“Lateral displacement away from the point of view of the camera could be perceived as “downward” displacement, but not actually representative of the beginning of downward movement, and thus not an accurate means by which to determine the onset of global collapse.”
One problem with this though is that if you accept this point you also have to accept that any inwards movement of the external collapse would give the impression that the facade is collapsing at a quicker rate than perceived – meaning free fall was not actually achieved.
” It isn’t “in line” with the laws of physics.” – great – then it should be no problem to prove that then to the satisfaction of the scientific community then – remind me how many peer reviewed articles there have been in recognised Engineering Journals that have proven that the “laws of physics” were broken.
“If you wish to explain how fire could have caused this, again, you are welcome to do so.” – I don’t need to – NIST have done so. The buckling of the external walls between floors 7 and 17 created the free fall. But if it wasn’t fire what was it – because we know it cannot be explosive CD as there were no explosions at the correct moment – as nicely highlighted by your video – cheers.
“Your assertion that no explosions were heard was false.”
Except its not is it – not a single reliable witness heard explosions in the moments before WTC7 collapsed – despite this being the largest explosive demolition in the history of mankind in one of the most populated places on the planet – not a single one reported it. All you have is an barely audible video that could easily be wind on the mic and isn’t indicative of the type of demo you suggest.
“this is just a repetition of a claim by NIST that is demonstrably fraudulent.” – then demonstrate it to the satisfaction of the majority of the scientific community then.
“If you think you can explain what NIST had to resort to fraud to try to do, good luck!”
If you think that you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the scientific community that NIST acted fraudulently and that every single one of the members who worked on this fraud are likely complicit in the murder of thousands of innocent people (as the majority worked on the WTC 1&2 documents, or do you believe those are correct) then good luck to you. I’m sure you are capable of proving that to the required satisfaction right? NIST had around a team of around a hundred highly qualified experts working on this including many PhD qualified structural engineers – remind me what your engineering qualification is again? If you could add your experience of working with multi story buildings too that would be much appreciated.
You need to turn up your speakers. There are two distinct booms just prior to collapse. It is not wind in the mic. I said “distinct”, yes. If you open the video in editing software, you can visually witness them in the audio track. They are distinct.
Your argument that since it’s so hard to hear on the video’s audio track, therefore it can’t have been an explosion is fallacious. The sound of the collapse was a very loud event. Yet it, too, is hardly audible in the audio. It follows that if the noise of the collapse was so distant and muffled, the sound of any explosions would be, too.
There was a local collapse of the east penthouse several seconds before the onset of global collapse, which, again, occurred with sudden onset of gravitational acceleration.
You can call it “irrelevant” now, but, again, the point is you initially denied that any sounds of explosions could be heard all morning. Nice to see you acknowledging that you were wrong, now, though, even if only tacitly.
False. I do not support my conclusion with “opinion”, but with observable fact.
Your implied argument that the paper is not credible because I am its author is a fallacy. If you think there is any error in fact or logic therein, you are welcome to point it out. Your comment that “any inwards movement of the external collapse would give the impression that the facade is collapsing at a quicker rate than perceived – meaning free fall was not actually achieved” is perhaps an attempt to do so, but a failed one, as it is nonsense.
The scientific community already understands perfectly well that free fall means all the potential energy of a mass has been converted into kinetic energy, meaning there is no energy available to do any work (i.e., buckling columns). This is the law of conservation of energy and I assure you well established in the scientific community.
False.
I don’t need to do that to demonstrate it to you. I refer you again to my paper that clearly illustrates NIST’s fraud.
Again, you are welcome to explain how you think fire caused the free-fall collapse of WTC 7. NIST wasn’t able to do so, so good luck!
“You need to turn up your speakers. There are two distinct booms just prior to collapse.” – I was listening to this at full volume through a pair of Sennheiser headphones – exactly how loud does it need to be – clearly incredibly loud judging by the fact that the people recording this make no comment on the sounds – strange that.
“Your argument that since it’s so hard to hear on the video’s audio
track, therefore it can’t have been an explosion is fallacious.”
Its certainly a lot less fallacious that because there are two barely audible sounds then they MUST be explosions. Where is your evidence that these sounds are explosions? Do you have anyone who backs up these two sounds – there were plenty of people around to hear them yet you do not have a single shred of evidence to support your opinion – because that is all it is – an opinion.
“The sound of the collapse was a very loud event. Yet it, too, is hardly audible in the audio.” – yet it has witnesses to its occurence – there are people who mention hearing the collapse – the number of people that mention the two explosions (which would have been considerably louder) is zero. Strange that. Again saying two barely audible sounds on a video are explosions doesn’t make them so because you have absolutely nothing to support that claim.
“There was a local collapse of the east penthouse several seconds before
the onset of global collapse, which, again, occurred with sudden onset
of gravitational acceleration”
Proof of gravitational acc of the Penthouse claim please (and a link to your own work is not proof by the way – its just you trying to justify your opinion). Oh and care to explain how you could achieve grav acc at the penthouse considering th design of the building (simply taking out a single column wouldn’t create grav acc – taking out all supports would create a symentrical collapse – which we clearly don’t see with the Penthouse). And it doesn’t support your claim either – unless you feel that explosions inside a building are somehow clearly more audible than explosions taking out every single external column across eight floors? The sounds in know way support your claim because they are in the wrong place – there is no sound of an explosion around the moment the external facade collapses which would obviously be the most clearly audible.
There is no evidence the video contains the sound of explosions and even if it did then they do not match the timeline of events.
“You can call it “irrelevant” now, but, again, the point is you initially
denied that any sounds of explosions could be heard all morning.”
Then show all of these reports then – and then tie them into the events as you describe them at WTC7 – they are irrelevant – you know it, I know it. You know not one of those reports tie in with what you claim. Your entire evidence for explosions is two barely audible sounds that could have been created by many other sources (including something as simple as a breeze on the mic) and have no supporting evidence.
“False. I do not support my conclusion with “opinion”, but with observable fact and valid logic.” – no your support it with your opinion of what is observable fact.
“If you think there is any error in fact or logic therein, you are welcome to point it out.” – I’m not arrogant enough to believe that this is my area of specialty (remind me again of your engineering qualifications). If what you have produced is as reliable and damning as you claim then you wil have no issue getting it published and reviewed by actual experts – you have done this right?
” is perhaps an attempt to do so, but a failed one, as it is nonsense.”
Sorry – I didn’t realise that your definition of pointing out erors is to simply refer to them as “nonsense”. In that case your paper is nonsense. Job done by me apparently. THe inward movement of the facade effecting the timing was your claim not mine – I merely pointed out you have to apply that to the whole collapse – so tel me why it is nonsense seeing as it is your own claim.
“This is the law of conservation of energy and I assure you well established in the scientific community.”
Yeah thats not how it works – you have to prove that free fall at WTC7 as a result of fire and in the manner that NIST have explained is not possible – you have done this right? Apparently all of the scientific community are aware of this so it should be no issue at all to get the majority of the community to support you – you do have majority support right?
“False.”
Well that has me convinced!!!! NIST have explained the events to a level that is not questioned within the vast majority of the scientific community and their version of events are the officially accepted version (tell me which version exists on wikipedia for example – NISTs or yours?) – you may not like this fact, you may even disagree with it, but it doesn’t change it. NISTs version of events is the one excepted by the majority.
“I don’t need to do that to demonstrate it to you.” – you are right you don’t – you need to do it to the majority of the scientific community – hows that going by the way?
“NIST wasn’t able to do so, so good luck!”
You mean they weren’t able to do it to your satisfaction – let me know how you get on with convincing everyone it was explosive demolition when they realise that not a single reliable witness heard the largest CD in human history in one of the most populous places on the planet. Good luck – because the truth movement have been trying to do it for well over a decade.
Great. Then you heard the two distinct booms.
Thanks for acknowledging that there were two distinct booms just prior to the collapse of WTC 7. Whether they were explosions we can’t say with certainty, but the point, again, is that you denied any such sounds were heard. You were wrong.
I didn’t say the east penthouse collapsed at free fall. I was referring to global collapse, which occurred several seconds after the local collapse of the penthouse.
That is true. Nevertheless, if you click it, you will see that the conclusion drawn is fully supported by the observable facts and valid logic. That you continue to dismiss it, yet are unable to point to any error in fact or logic therein is illustrative of your intellectual dishonesty.
Again, I have my own archived copies on a BluRay disc. You may still be able to download the entire collection of videos released by NIST through a FOIA request.
Thanks for acknowledging that you are unable to point to any error in fact or logic in my paper demonstrating NIST’s fraud.
You didn’t point out any error. Your statement was nonsense. It was not logical. If you think otherwise, you are welcome to clarify your argument. You say:
But, again, that makes no sense. It makes no sense to say we must apply an observation about how NIST chose a STARTING POINT for global collapse to the whole collapse. It’s like saying we must apply the starting time for a race to the whole race. It has no meaning. It is nonsense.
I already have. This is simple. Once again: Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
That is true. And yet I have shown you one example of how their report is fraudulent with a paper that you admit you can’t point to any error in fact or logic in.
I didn’t realize that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. Thanks for clarifying that. Evidently, then, there is no point in discussing this with you any further, since you need others to tell you what to think.
It is true that I am not satisfied with an explanation that is demonstrable scientific fraud.
“Great. Then you heard the two distinct booms”
No I heard a single low sound – not a “boom” by any description.
“Thanks for acknowledging that there were two distinct booms just prior to the collapse of WTC 7”
Except I didn’t, and its a little pathetic that you are trying to put words into my mouth to be honest. Sounds – not booms. And prior to the collapse – but still in totally the wrong place.
“Whether they were explosions we can’t say with certainty, but the point,again, is that you denied any such sounds were heard. You were wrong.”
Again not true – I stated explosions were not heard. Which unless you can prove the sounds in that video are explosions means my comment stands correct. There is no evidence that they are the sounds of explosions – in fact there is precisely as much evidence to support a claim that the sound is the mating call of the Kakapo. Namely none. So I wasn’t wrong – I was just merely wrong in your mind when you changed what I said in order to suit your own purposes – which is hardly the same thing.
“I didn’t say the east penthouse collapsed at free fall. I was referring to global collapse,”
Fair point, my mistake.
“That you continue to dismiss it, yet are unable to point to any error in
fact or logic therein is illustrative of your intellectual dishonesty.”
No its not – its is fact of the point that the work is in no way accepted by the scientific community where as NISTs works appears to have been – it is also recognition of the fact that I am not an expert in this field so why would I point to errors in it (again, what is your expertise in this area?). As such I choose to accept the hypothesis that is not questioned by the majority of the scientific community that has been widely published, that has had years in the public domain leaving it open to quality rebuttal and that was put together by a hugely qualified team rather then something put together by you, someone who appears to have no expertise in building collapse whatsoever. I’m strange like that. But hey – keep putting words in my mouth and making false accusations of intellectual dishonesty, makes your case so so much more valid.
“Again, I have my own archived copies on a BluRay disc. You may still be able to download the entire collection of videos released by NIST through a FOIA request.”
So you have all of this evidence which directly contradicts NIST but you sit on it and don’t show it to anyone. Sounds legit! We both know that if you had direct evidence of explosions that were indacative of CD you would have them all over the internet by now. You haven’t because you don’t.
“Thanks for acknowledging that you are unable to point to any error in fact or logic in my paper demonstrating NIST’s fraud.”
Yep – now i you could admit that you are unable to get your work published through a peer reviewed process that would be great. Or are you that arrogant?
“But, again, that makes no sense. It makes no sense to say we must apply
an observation about how NIST chose a STARTING POINT for global collapse
to the whole collapse. It’s like saying we must apply the starting time
for a race to the whole race. It has no meaning. It is nonsense.” – Except my claim relates to the accuracy of the recording – not to when it starts – you claim that an inward bowing of the external facade would make it appear that the wall is falling when it is not – therefore an inward bowing of the wall at any point would give the impression that the facade is falling quicker then it is – as there would be two factors affecting the movement of the facade as witnessed on the video – the downward motion of the wall and the inward motion of the wall whcih would give the impression the wall is falling marginally quicker then it is. This is your own words here “Lateral displacement away from the point of view of the camera could be perceived as “downward” displacement,” if the facade is moving away from us during descent then this could be viewed as downward displacement which would give the impression the facade is falling fast then it was.
“I already have. This is simple. Once again: Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.”
You’ve already proved this! Great – why didn’t you say that the majority of the scientific community is on your side and accept your evidence! They do don’t they?
“That is true. And yet I have shown you one example of how their report is fraudulent with a paper that you admit you can’t point to any error in fact or logic in”
No, you have shown me your CLAIM of how their report is fraudulent – like I said this area is not my area of specialty – so once you’ve convinced those whose area of expertise this is then I’ll be happy to go along with it. When is this being published in “the International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics”? I cannot wait!!!!!
“I didn’t realize that you are incapable of thinking for yourself. Thanks for clarifying that.”
How many ad hominem responses is this now? Didn’t realise you were 14 – thanks for clarifying that ;)
“Evidently, then, there is no point in discussing this with you any further, since you need others to tell you what to think.”
Evidently you do not – as witnessed by the fact that you don’t need a single reliable witness to mention the sounds of explosives in the moments before collapse for you to still think its CD! You keep ignoring absolutely everyone out there – especially the FDNY who were there that day, none of whom seem to support the CD theory and none of whom report hearing explosions indicative of CD at WTC7.
“It is true that I am not satisfied with an explanation that is demonstrable scientific fraud.” – then for the love of god demonstrate it to the scientific community – you’ve had years to do it so what you waiting for?
Good luck convincing them – especially with a video with barely audible noises in clearly the wrong place with not a single reliable witness to back it up – I’m sure they will be totally bowled over with that evidence.
Fair point. My mistake. But there are two. Again, you can visually see this if you open the footage in video editing software.
Right. Thanks for acknowledging that you heard a boom sound (there are actually two).
If you have a better description for the sounds, you’re welcome to share it.
So if the sound is explosions, it should have come after the initiation of collapse? Well, that just makes no sense.
Actually, I said “boom” sounds could be heard (as opposed to “explosions”), and you denied this. Nice of you to acknowledge that you can hear the boom sound (two, actually).
Right. Except that right after we hear them, the east penthouse collapses. Other than that, no evidence at all.
You’re still appealing to authority, a logical fallacy. I would merely observe once more that you acknowledge you are unable to point to a single error either of fact or logic in the paper I provide you with demonstrating NIST’s scientific fraud.
Here you go, you can try to download the collection via this torrent file:
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-02/international-center-911-studies-nist-cumulus-video-database-released
Non sequitur. I would love to upload my collection of videos in which explosions are heard to YouTube, but that is a major project for which I have no time. I have other priorities.
Correct.
If you mean that the inward bowing of the facade introduces ambiguity into the measurement, yes. This is the main point of my paper. Hence the observation that NIST should have used the NW corner for measurement to eliminate that ambiguity. David Chandler, for example (who is among those who measured it independently and wrote to NIST challenging their draft report, which forced NIST to acknowledge free fall in its final report), used the NW corner to take his measurements.
Free fall is unconstroversial. NIST acknowledges it.
Yes, actually, as I have already observed, the scientific community most certainly accepts the law of conservation of energy.
Again, my conclusion is supported with facts and logic you acknowledge you can find no error in.
Pointing out that you keep saying you can’t evaulate the evidence for yourself but need the scientific community to tell you what to think is not an ad hominem argument. It’s just an observation. You just did so again in the quote above this one.
Witnesses are redundant when you can hear explosions for yourself caught on video, e.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4
Incidentally, it’s firefighters hearing the explosions in the above examples.
My paper is freely available to anyone interested in the truth. That includes scientists.
Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
It’s called the law of conservation of energy.
“If you have a better description for the sounds, you’re welcome to share it.”
An indistinct low volume rumble.
“So if the sound is explosions, it should have come after the initiation of collapse? Well, that just makes no sense.”
Actually yes it probably should – it certainly should have come much much closer the the collapse. You state that the free fall can only be achieved by removing all resistance – that means severing every single external column simultaneously. You also state that the building accelerates at free fall from the first moment – which must mean that the explosion is set of in the instant before we see movement of the outer facade – light travels faster then sound so the image of collapse would be apparent to us momentarily before we hear the sound – it takes sound 5 seconds to travel 1 mile – so if this camera is around a quarter of a mile away we would expect a delay of a little over a second between seeing the collapse and hearing the explosion. As an interesting aside NIST suggest that the volume of a single demo charge at half a mile (twice the distance I’m suggesting here) is 130db – to compare thats louder than using a chainsaw – but hey that barely audible rumble is clearly hundreds of charges going of simultaneously to remove every external column across eight floors right?
“Actually, I said “boom” sounds could be heard (as opposed to
“explosions”), and you denied this. Nice of you to acknowledge that you
can hear the boom sound (two, actually).”
Nice try but no cigar I’m afraid – what you claimed is blasts actually – here is your statement copied and pasted –
“Explosions were heard around WTC 7 all morning, and two blasts can be heard just before it collapsed at free-fall acceleration
Glad that you admit though that no blasts or explosions were heard prior to collapse (that’s how this is done isn’t it? Sorry I’m rather new to this whole “mindlessly putting words into peoples mouths” thing).
“Right. Except that right after we hear them, the east penthouse collapses. Other than that, no evidence at all.” – right except that you claim the big part of the explosion is the collapse of the external facade – when there is no explosion. Other then that total lack of explosion at the point where you claim the largest CD in history should have occurred you’ve got a point – tell me – why would a explosion inside a building in an apparently concentrated area be more audible then the severing of every single external beam over eight floors? Look forward to your response.
“You’re still appealing to authority, a logical fallacy. I would merely observe once more that you acknowledge you are unable to point to a single error either of fact or logic in the paper I provide you with demonstrating NIST’s scientific fraud.”
If that makes you feel better about the fact that no one takes your work seriously then that’s ok with me.
“Here you go, you can try to download the collection via this torrent file:”
Nice link – I notice at the bottom there is a request for any juicy bits – the only mention of explosions and WTC7 is the video you have already posted up – like I said how much evidence do you have of explosions at WTC7 that are INDICATIVE OF CD – because from the comments below there appears to be nothing that relates to WTC7 and explosions other then what you posted up already which as we have already shown has a barely audible ruble in the wrong place and of a volume much lower than expected.
“Non sequitur. I would love to upload my collection of videos in which explosions are heard to YouTube, but that is a major project for which I have no time. I have other priorities.”
Mind if I ask whats in your schedule thats more important then uncovering the largest cover up in history? Must be pretty important.
“Yes, actually, as I have already observed, the scientific community most certainly accepts the law of conservation of energy.”
Nice deflection – I’ll take that as a no then shall I.
“Again, my conclusion is supported with facts and logic you acknowledge you can find no error in.”
No I acknowledge that I do not have the expertise to point out the errors. But again – do put words into my mouth – its making you look really honest, nice to see such integrity in the truth movement. Well done.
“Witnesses are redundant when you can hear explosions for yourself caught on video, e.g.:”
Nice try – except for a few points – in the first one there is no time line – you have literally no idea when this was shot – it could have been in the moment the WTC7 came down – or it could be hours before – you don’t even know where the explosion came from – but hey if it says WTC7 in the title it must be true right!!!!!
Second one – not hearing any explosions indicative of the type of CD you describe. So that will also be irrelevant – its pretty simple, you claim the free fall could only have been caused by CD – you claim WTC7 starts accelerating at free fall – therefore we should hear explosions in the moments before collapse of the external facade – none of your videos show that do they.
“Incidentally, it’s firefighters hearing the explosions in the above examples.”
Great then show me some that believe WTC7 was CD – or are you telling me that they heard the largest CD in history and simply ignored it?
“It’s called the law of conservation of energy.”
Now all you need to do is persuade the scientific community that this is somehow relevant and totally disproves what NIST claims – oh and then convince them that the largest CD in history took plce in one of the most populated places on the planet without anyone reporting hearing it or any video picking up the noise from it. Like I said – good luck with that.
Look, let’s boil it down:
1) (a) You denied that explosions could be heard all morning despite there being videographic proof of this (the NIST cumulus videos, as well as a couple I linked to on YouTube). (b) You also denied the existence of the boom sounds in the WTC 7 video before acknowledging it (you say you hear only one sound and describe it as a “rumble” rather than “boom). One can argue whether this noise is an explosion or not; the point is you denied any such sounds could be heard and you were wrong. (c) You also said that no firefighters heard any such sounds. I posted two examples of firefighters hearing explosions. Point being: you were wrong about that, too. (BTW, yes, we do know when and where that one was shot; it was used in the HBO documentary “In Memoriam” and filmed by Lucia Davis in the morning and the noise was from the direction of WTC 7).
Bottom line: you’re arguing from ignorance with these denials (e.g., no firefighters heard explosions) and then raising the bar (e.g., okay, so firefighters heard explosions, yea, but show me a fight fighter who believes WTC7 was a CD) when proven wrong.
2) You dismiss my paper demonstrating NIST’s fraud with appeal to authority and ad hominem fallacies but are admittedly unable to point to any error in either fact or logic therein.
3) You have yet to address the fact that free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
“Look, let’s boil it down:”
Yes lets do that.
Firstly lets deal with this point – because it reflects heavily on the rest.
“3) You have yet to address the fact that free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.”
Firstly I don’t have to address that point – the best part of a hundred experts who are infinitely better qualified then either me or you already did this. And did so to a level where the vast majority of the scientific community do not question there outcomes.
But much much more important then that is what you feel this free fall implies – namely that this was achieved using controlled demolition. You state that there is no energy to buckle columns which means the resistance of every single column has to be removed (all 57 of them) simultaneously – and has to be done so over roughly 8 floors – which is an awful lot of explosives all fired of at exactly the same time. You could argue that the explosions you claim occurred throughout the day are severing some of the columns but the majority would still have to remain (plus there is no evidence to support such a claim) – either way we are talking about an explosion of near biblical proportions at the instant the building collapses, creating the largest controlled demolition in the history of mankind. Any explosions earlier in the day then are essentially irrelevant as they pale into insignificance in comparison to the blast that had to remove so may external columns over such a large area. Your claim is for this monumental explosion at the moment of collapse (unless you can explain another way that the support of 57 external columns was removed across eight floors at exactly the same time?). This is not my claim but yours. So lets look at your supporting evidence of this vast explosion –
“1) (a) You denied that explosions could be heard all morning despite there being videographic proof of this (the NIST cumulus videos, as well as a couple I linked to on YouTube)”
Great – if that makes you feel “right” then fine. So do explosions throughout he morning support your claim of a monumental explosions in the exact moment of collapse? No – they are irrelevant – its like reporting hearing a gun shot in Dealey Plaza on 21st November 1963 and claiming this was the shot that killed Kennedy. As an aside – is there another explanation for these explosive sounds – such as a number of cars being on fire in the area?
“(b) You also denied the existence of the boom sounds in the WTC 7 video before acknowledging it (you say you hear only one sound and describe it as a “rumble” rather than “boom). One can argue whether this noise is an explosion or not; the point is you denied any such sounds could be heard and you were wrong.”
And you claimed that the “booms” were explosions (despite having no evidence to support this). By stating that WTC7 instantly accelerates at gravity and that this was caused by explosive CD you are stating that by far the largest explosion occurs at the moment of collapse – does the video show this? No it doesn’t – the booms are in totally the wrong place – if anything then the video helps prove it was not explosive demolition.
“(c) You also said that no firefighters heard any such sounds. I posted two examples of firefighters hearing explosions. Point being: you were wrong about that, too”
Except that wasn’t what I typed at all – what I actually typed (verbatim) was “especially the FDNY who were there that day, none of whom seem to support the CD theory and none of whom report hearing explosions
indicative of CD at WTC7.”
Notice the last line there – remember your claim is that the CD explosion occurs at the moment of collapse – you have posted up nothing that supports FDNY hearing explosions INDICATIVE OF CD AT WTC7.
” (BTW, yes, we do know when and where that one was shot; it was used in the HBO documentary “In Memoriam” and filmed by Lucia Davis in the morning and the noise was from the direction of WTC 7).”
“In the morning” so that footage is from a minimum of over 5 hours prior to collapse of WTC7 – again, did you miss the “indicative of CD”? Or do buildings hang around for five hours thinking about collapse after demolition charges go off?
“Bottom line: you’re arguing from ignorance with these denials (e.g., no firefighters heard explosions)” – bottom line is you are arguing against yourself here – you claim the explosive charges that caused the collapse went off at the moment WTC7 fell – but all the explosions you mention do not correlate with this – why is that? You are being – to use your own words – intellectually dishonest. (Oh and as mentioned earlier I was specific about FDNY – none were indicative of CD – the CD you claim had to occur in the moment of collapse).
“then raising the bar (e.g., okay, so firefighters heard explosions, yea,but show me a fight fighter who believes WTC7 was a CD) when proven wrong.”
Except you didn’t prove me wrong though did you. You simply misquoted me (be emitting the statement “indicative of CD”) in an attempt to make it appear you are correct. BTW – how many FDNY do support your theory – or can you think of a really really good reason as to why they would keep quiet about this?
The simple facts of the matter are –
This would have been the largest (and therefore one of the loudest) controlled demolition in the history of mankind in one of the most densley populated places on the planet.
You claim the explosive demolition must have occurred at the moment of collapse.
You claim there is evidence of this despite the fact that not a single piece of evidence has supported the timeline YOU proposed.
There is not a single reliable witness who reports explosions in a manner that supports your proposed timeline.
There is not a single piece of evidence that supports your claim. Not an eyewitness, not a piece of film, not a piece of forensic evidence or statement from those at the site after like the FDNY.
But hey, feel free to bicker over the semantics of what I did or did not say and if that fails simply misquote me if it makes you feel better – but the fact of the matter is you are trying to claim fire is impossible and then proposing an alternative hypothesis that is evidently impossible. That makes no sense.
Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, has been addressed. You claim this has been addressed, i.e., that the free fall collapse has been explained in terms of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, as though this hypothesis somehow didn’t violate the law of conservation of energy. This is false. No, it hasn’t been addressed. Again, NIST failed to do so. Again, NIST had to resort to fraud in an attempt to avoid having to do so altogether.
You argue that WTC 7 couldn’t have been a controlled demolition because we would have heard the explosions required to cause all the columns to fail simultaneously. This is a non sequitur. You are welcome to try to explain how it could be physically possible for fire to have caused all the columns to fail simultaneously such that the building collapsed at the acceleration of gravity.
The explosions heard all morning are not “irrelevant”. Prepping the building for demolition by taking out certain columns earlier (along with the finding of thermitic materials in the dust) would actually help explain why there isn’t more audio evidence of explosions in the videos of its collapse (in addition to the fact the entire area was blocked off for a radius of 5 blocks, etc.). You still have to explain how fire could have caused the free-fall collapse.
I did not state that the booms heard as the WTC 7 collapse was initiated were definitively explosions. I was simply raising the possibility that this was so and pointing out the existence of this sound because you falsely claimed no such noise could be heard. And you still have to explain how fire could have caused the free-fall collapse.
Bottom line: Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
“You claim this has been addressed, i.e., that the free fall collapse has
been explained in terms of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, as
though this hypothesis somehow didn’t violate the law of conservation of
energy. This is false.”
There is a caveat you need to add to that sentence “in my opinion” – because that is all it is – unless of course you have convinced either a) the majority of the scientific community or b) NIST, that their calculations are incorrect then you are merely stating your opinion as though it is accepted fact. It’s not.
” No, it hasn’t been addressed.
In your opinion.
” Again, NIST failed to do so”
In your opinion.
“. Again, NIST had to resort to fraud in an attempt to avoid having to do so altogether.”
Again – in your opinion.
“This is a non sequitur.” – except it isn’t – because every single explosive controlled demolition in history has produced an audible blast. If you can show a similar controlled demolition of a comparable size that occurred in a densely populated area with large numbers of people present without anyone hearing it then you would have a valid point. You can’t so you don’t.
” You are welcome to try to explain how it could be physically possible
for fire to have caused all the columns to fail simultaneously such that
the building collapsed at the acceleration of gravity.”
You misunderstand where the burden of proof lies here – NIST have done this to the apparent agreement of the vast majority of the scientific community to the extent that it is the generally excepted version of what occurred. The burden of proof is not on me to prove their assertions correct to you – its for you to do so to the satisfaction of the scientific community. If you claim that the Sun orbits the Earth its not up to me to prove you wrong but up to you to prove you are right.
“Prepping the building for demolition by taking out certain columns
earlier (along with the finding of thermitic materials in the dust)
would actually help explain why there isn’t more audio evidence of
explosions in the videos of its collapse” – only if you can state how many columns and to what extent – even if 50% of the columns were taken out that stil requires a huge amount of explosives to create the collapse as you describe it. And thats before we start on the fact that your actual evidence that this was occurring is precisely zero. As for thermitic material – your proof for this is? Its good proof I’m betting, I mean its not like it came from dust that was collected by the general public and then stored god knows how for over two years before being featured in a paper that led to the editor resigning and has never been independently verified despite numerous requests – that would be ridiculous!
“(in addition to the fact the entire area was blocked off for a radius of 5 blocks, etc.)” ha ha – you mean as oppose to all those other controlled demos where they allow the general public to wander around the base of the buildings just to make sure they can hear it? Pretty sure they clear every CD for a substantial distance – yet weirdly everyone can still hear them despite them being much smaller in size – odd that. Could I have a source please for your 5 block claim too.
“You still have to explain how fire could have caused the free-fall collapse.” No I don’t – again you misunderstand where the burden of proof lies – its not up to me to prove NIST correct – its up to you to prove them wrong.
“I did not state that the booms heard as the WTC 7 collapse was initiated were definitively explosions.”
Here is what you wrote – “Explosions were heard around WTC 7 all morning, and two blasts can be heard just before it collapsed at free-fall acceleration” – the Dictionary defintion of blast is “.a destructive wave of highly compressed air spreading outwards from an explosion.” So if you did not claim the booms were explosions why did you refer to them as blasts – which are the direct result of explosions?
“I was simply raising the possibility that this was so”
And as has been pointed out – they are in the wrong place – but you somehow seemed to miss that point.
“Bottom line: Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was
converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available
to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced
collapse hypothesis.” – bottom line – if the truth movement could actually prove this assertion it would have been published in numerous peer reviewed journals at some point during the years they have been harping on about it – but here we are 13 years later and still we have nothing of any value.
The law of conservation of energy is not my “opinion”.
My assertion that NIST committed scientific fraud is an opinion, yes, but a conclusion backed by solid fact and logic — which you acknowledge you can find no errors in.
You are employing ad hominem argumentation against the Harrit, et al, paper, rather than substantively addressing their analysis and conclusions.
Bottom line: Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
“The law of conservation of energy is not my “opinion””
I never said it was – I said that the fact it has not been addressed is your opinion – there is a difference.
“which you acknowledge you can find no errors in.”
Which I acknowledge is not my area of expertise – so I have not attempted to. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe its your area of expertise either.
Please don’t mistake my lack of knowledge in a specific area as somehow evidence that you are correct. That’s not how it works – because it’s not me you have to convince – it is the experts in this field – and ten plus years down the line the truth movement have persuaded no more then a tiny hand full of those with the relevant expertise.
“You are employing ad hominem argumentation against the Harrit, et al, paper, rather than substantively addressing their analysis and conclusions.”
That do not have a clear chain of evidence – as far as I’m concerned that is pretty much the end of discussion – their work couldn’t even stand up to the peer review process (the editor of the journal who published it resigned in shame over its publication), there is no way in a million years that it would ever be accepted as evidence in a court of law. As for addressing their analysis and conclusions others have attempted to do this by asking independently to confirm their results using their samples – they have refused. For all the truth movements posturing about NIST et al not releasing evidence once the shoe is on the other foot things suddenly change.
“Free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.”
Bottom line – it is impossible for the largest explosive controlled demolition in man kinds history to have occurred in one of the most densely populated places on the planet without a single person reporting this noise or a single piece of film catching this sound. You can argue that fire didn’t cause the collapse until you are blue in the face – it doesn’t suddenly make controlled demolition possible.
Since you are claiming that the collapse of WTC 7 at gravitational acceleration has been explained in terms of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis, please provide support for this claim. (Hint: You’ll find you won’t be able to.)
See, free fall means all the building’s potential energy was converted into kinetic energy, which means there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
It’s the law of conservation of energy.
Molten aluminum explains the high temperatures and persistent fires at ground zero far more than thermite. When molten aluminum is exposed to water it undergoes a exothermic reaction and gives off heat and hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas has an autoignition temperature of 800 degrees and burns at 2500-5000 degrees depending on the oxygen content. So the FDNY spraying down the debris field was inadvertently fueling the fires below.
Another case of this exact phenomena was the USS Stark. A US Navy frigate struck by 2 anti ship missiles in the Persian gulf. One missile detonated the other did not. The second missile started a fired the was primarily fueled by unspent fuel the quickly spread throughout the compartment. The fires git so hot that the aluminum the ship was made of started to melt. Firefighting teams pumped 40 TONS of water into the space but the fires would not go out. So much water was pumped in the ship was in danger of capsizing. It wasn’t until they switched to foam were they able to smother the fire.
So aluminum which was present in massive quantities in the WTC has a melting point of 1200 degrees, well within the temperatures seen that day. On a molten state, releasing hydrogen gas which burned at a minimum of 2500 degrees in an enclosed area, building up massive quantities of heat. Melting more and more aluminum, releasing more and more hydrogen gas. This is a naturally occurring explanation to what we saw in the debris field, no thermite needed!
It is difficult to understand how one could think it was molten aluminum in the debris rather than molten iron, given that molten aluminum is silver. It also does not explain the iron microspheres found in the dust. Or the red/gray chips. Or the melted steel. Or the free fall collapse of WTC 7. Etc.
Deniers please explain the molten masses immediately after impact and for many weeks afterwards. Trying to legitimately say that thermite has not been definitely detected by independent study is a weak counter to the clear pictures and eye witnesses of the molten metallic mass. It’s futile, even if true (which it is not) since you need a rational and believable scientific explanation to support your hypothesis. We are yet to see this. The flash point of avgas been less that half of the melting point of steel and iron is well documented so you need to actually explain how and why the large amounts of molten metallic material came about if you want your “no thermite” argument to fly….. Simple really, except for the fact that you don’t have an explanation that is scientifically reproducible.
The author’s ignorance/deception is shown in his very first bullet: “No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which generates the temperatures required and molten iron as a product”. BS. There was an abundance of aluminum from the shattered aircraft available to produce the molten metal seen, and when mixed with glass, copper and other materials readily available in an office building would produce an effect like what was witnessed. Not only is it a legitimate explanation, the whole thermite thing isn’t necessary to explain the buildings coming down. Steel starts losing strength at 700 degrees F, and has lost nearly half its strength at 1000 degrees F, well below what even the conspirakooks agree the fires burned at. Shame on the “Foreign Policy Journal” for allowing this nonsense to be published. It’s a great way to destroy any credibility you have.
Heating aluminum produces molten iron?
The author isn’t the one with a credibility problem, evidently. Perhaps you ought to try reading more carefully and take the time to understand what you are reading before trying to respond.
Do you even science bro?
Thermite -> a chemical reaction by which iron oxide and aluminium undergo exothermic, and RAPID oxidation. Ergo thermite+fire=aluminum oxide.
If you can’t show aluminium oxide in the dust (but can somehow account for 0.1% of said dust being claimed unignited thermite, or 500 tons of unignited thermite for those of us with basic math skills), then you can’t show thermite reaction.
16 years and still not a shred of evidence to support your cult.
Also, thermite CAN’T explain underground fires dipshit. Thermite is a RAPID exothermic reaction. It doesn’t even last hours, let alone day, let alone months (blatant exaggeration as usual. NASA thermal imaging shows hot spots FAR BELOW the temperature thermite burns at, which began cooling in weeks).
For a movement dubbing themselves “truthers”, you sure do lie a lot.
“The next XEDS spectrum (Fig. 17) was acquired from a region that showed a high concentration of aluminum. Using a conventional quantification routine, it was found that the aluminum significantly exceeded the oxygen present (approximately a 3:1 ratio). Thus, while some of the aluminum may be oxidized, there is insufficient oxygen present to account for all of the aluminum; some of the aluminum must therefore exist in elemental form in the red material. This is an important result. Aluminum particles are covered with a layer of aluminum oxide irrespective of size, thus it is reasonable to find a significant oxygen content with the aluminum, given the very high surface area to volume ratio of these very fine particles.”
https://benthamopen.com/ABSTRACT/TOCPJ-2-7
@disqus_RY7Ef2c9wM
Hey,
I just read 50% of your posts. I find you to be such a fascinating human being. All your responses that I’ve read thus far are well-founded rebuttals based off of a strong knowledge base. I’d love to become Facebook friends with you, just to see your thoughts, opinions, and shares flowing through my news feed.
Thanks,
Jay
Yes, but I think the author is right to demand peer-reviewed scientific rebuttals as the proper way to put the theory to rest. And considering the significance of this event, the effort is warranted, wouldn’t you agree?
By my reading so far, truthers have published papers, while debunkers have only blabbered on. If your intelligent explanation really is all it takes to shut them up, then we just need the citation of a few reputable scientific journals to make it official. Otherwise, aren’t you just another charlatan of science?
For argument’s sake let’s assume this whole thing was staged and the buildings were taken down by a controlled demolition.
How long would it take to set up a controlled demolition for three buildings of that size?
How many people would have to be involved in such an operation?
How would something of that size and scope go unnoticed by the general public, the janitors or security of the buildings?
The second part of the operation, hijacking four air planes and crashing them.
I wonder how many would have been involved of this operation!
Many phone calls came from people on the planes stating the plane was hijacked, were these faked also?
If not how did they talk people into this suicide mission?
All in all it sounds like a small Operation of maybe 500 people involved…..and nobody saying they had a hand in killing 3000 innocent citizens?
It doesn’t are up so the official explaination is probably the closest to reality.
On the contrary, the official explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is what doesn’t add up, and it’s the controlled demolition hypothesis that best explains the evidence, starting with the fact that the free-fall collapse of the building means that all its potential energy was converted to kinetic energy, which means that there was no energy available to do the work of buckling columns as required by NIST’s fire-induced collapse hypothesis.
What dogs have you, and the others in the hunt to argue so hard against the existence of nano thermite at WTC? There are so many other unanswered questions just in the videos one doesn’t know where to start. If you are any sort of engineer at all you know that melting connections using nanothermite apparatuses is not only plausible, but probable; it definitely goes a hell of a lot further than jet fuel as the sole propellant for all of the fire damage. More specifically perimeter stainless steel exoskeleton column fires; makes absolutely makes no sense. And because you are bogged down in a debate about epoxy paint chips vs nanothermite makes even less sense that you miss the obvious elephant in the room anomalies. You guys know damn well that the towers were wired to fail.
Ganging up on Hammond, with complete disregard, and zero curiocity of all of the mega evidence that shows that nanothermite was not only microscopically present, but it looked like the collapse of Mt. St Helen with not only small puffs of clouds, but all of the volcanic plumes that quickly enveloped the island.
Not only that you are ignoring the plasma cutter sparks everywhere that could only be something cutting through steel, and setting stainless steel on fire.
Central core, and bar joist connections being melted away.
You didn’t wonder why building 7 was ready to demo; the attack was supposed to be a surprise.
Furthermore, the main reason for 911 was they needed a “Pearl Harbor” like event to get the American military in country Afghanistan to liberate the poppy fields that the Taliban had seized; they halted the majority of the world opium production.
People don’t realize that opium is as big of a cash cow golden goose revenue stream as hydrocarbons; it has been since hundreds of centuries prior to the founding of the British East India Company.
They knew from Russia’s failure in Afghanistan that the only forces capable to liberate the poppy fields are the American military.
As soon as the troops arrived, opium production reached record highs; but you guys didn’t know that because your too busy trying to debunk microscopic evidence.
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks”
There is another science involved in this comment. Classical conditioning and the use of paired associations. Theory is the neutral word while conspiracy is the stimulus. Wage incentive vs wage increase for one example. Wage being the neutral word, wile incentive stimulates a positive response, and increase stimulates a negative response…Does nut job stimulate a different response than blow job? Still waiting on a 9/11 memorial to associate another event, like Watergate, with the attacks. The repeated association of the Kennedy family was becoming agitating… The Liberty buildings were rebuilt with liberty bonds (your assistance)..
i have never seen a closed top chimney before… Human flesh burns at very lower temps. The fire suits are UL protected for 500 degrees F. We built a smelting pot for inland steel. The steel thickness was 6″. We built it on a temporary I beam structure, The weld procedure required a min. of 300 degree F preheat. 300 F degrees creates a low oxygen environment and breathing becomes difficult. When finished it required stress relief. We used kerosene fuel to supply a constant temperature of 800 degrees F, and held it for an 8 hour period, as required by the engineered process. The steel blasting pot and structure below it, never changed shape… Steel box columns do not experience crushing failure without CD. Crane booms, whether lattice or telescoping, are engineered box columns. Crane booms either topple over or buckle during failure, every time. The twin towers were engineered huge box columns, containing hundreds of smaller box columns and reinforced connections. When steel fails, to the point of shearing it never tears in a straight line or perfect right angles.. Steel dissipates heat quicker than most believe. The fact that witnesses were reporting burnt bodies, is a testimony that the buildings were decreasing in temps not increasing…
We had to insulate the entire structure in order to reach and maintain steel temps of 800 degrees. Without heavy blanket insulation, a continuous heat source would not sustain temps over 600 degrees,
in a natural environment.
Of course there was thermite: that’s what you get when you crash an aluminum airplane full of jet fuel into a steel building. The impact pulverized the aluminum that formed the plane’s fuselage and ignited the kerosene in the fuel tanks, while also heavily damaging the steel frame of the building. The burning kerosene ignited the thermite steel-aluminum powder, producing the observed thermite reaction.