Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.
Printable View
Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.
My questions weren't really aimed at you - i don't expect you to be able to answer them - just thinking out loud, trying to put forth the relevant questions. There ARE people that could answer some of them - who knows, maybe a member of this site works on a demolition team?Quote:
Originally Posted by knight31
I wasn't suggesting it was the job of employees to monitor engineers or anything like that - I was more thinking when the employees walked back into their offices the day after the powerdown, were things normal? Were there scraps of wire strewn all over the floors, or signs that something major had been done? Some people entered and then left before the buildings came down - I wonder if any of them ever mentioned seeing signs of weird tampering in the halls or offices?
Would it be enough to destroy just the central core? Id think to ensure a clean demolition they'd have to blow the outer walls too.
Yes, the collapse looked very much like controlled demolition. But I'm no expert - I'm a complete layman - hell a complete noob! I don't know what happens when such a tall building is struck by a large plane - I have never seen anything similar to compare it to, nor do I know anything about structural dynamics involved. So conceding to complete lack of relevant knowledge I'll refrain from making assumptions.
I did hear recently that scientists eventually figured out the steel didn't actually need to be liquefied - just stressed and heated enough to soften sufficiently. This could have been accomplished by vibrations from impact. Again, I don't know, just conjecturing.
Experts are stumped - I doubt a couple of complete neophytes talking on a message board are going to figure out anything they haven't.
Nanothermite. Hmmm... is it transparent? Does it have a strong odor? That must have left smells and visible traces that every employee would instantly notice when they walked into their rooms. Were any such reports made I wonder? (again just conjecturing - I don't expect you to answer Omnis).Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
How is nanothermite triggered? Would it still require wiring run all through the building? Or maybe it is enough just to blow the core to bring the whole building down, in which case this whole line of questioning about the state of the offices whn the employees walked in is irrelevant. Still I can't help but wonder out loud here.
It seems to be very exotic, very expensive and very unnoticeable. It is triggered by a high degree of flame. If you've ever made a thermite, they basically take a jet lighter to light. I'm assuming a similar temperature is required for nanothermite. For the building to be a controlled demolition, wiring and such would have to be required. However, the pancake effect of the falls suggest they didn't bother wiring a demolition, just limited the nanothermite to the lower levels and let the heat work its way down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
Oh yeah, I saw that episode of Mythbusters!! Badass stuff!! I hate the way my mind flipflops on this issue as I sift through different accounts and theories. There seems to be great evidence, though inconclusive, for both possibilities.
That's what I notice, too. Any asshole can debunk loose change and claim therefore 9/11 had to be muslim extremists acting alone, but just because not all the questions lead to suspicious answers doesn't mean none of them do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkmatters
JFK on the other hand, I'm not on the fence about. Fucker got plugged by the CIA.
The problem I find with many conspiracy theories is, the people who LOOK for evidence look for evidence that supports their own theory. If the evidence doesn't match up, they keep changing the theory of what happened until evidence does match up.
Why aren't we looking for more evidence that it wasn't a false-flag, say, the letter that Bin Laden wrote, the physics of a falling building that ISN'T demolished purposely, the phone calls that weren't suspicious, but actually completely in line with the "story" that we've been told? There is a ton of evidence on both sides.
"Nanothermite", huh? Making it sound fancy to fool the people that don't know shit about chemistry? Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and a reducing agent, usually aluminum. I don't suppose you might find iron oxide dust in a collapsing building? Hmm...Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnis Dei
Also, thermite is not used for demolition. It's sometimes used to cut metal, but not to bring down buildings. Furthermore, the "Truthers" claim to have seen explosions, which would not occur during a thermite reaction, which is not explosive.
Because the people that ought to be reinforcing this evidence are too busy acting like it's unnecessary to do so. But I agree, filtering is a terrible trend among conspiracy theorists. And apparently debunkers as well (see blow)Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
-_- I know, I've made thermite. Christ dude open a book. I'm not making anything sound fancy, nanothermite is a refined form made in a laboratory.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
You're right, people do this all the time. When they look for info, they unconsciously filter it so it corroborates their belief. It is very hard to have no belief and just say "I don't know."Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
My mind says "I don't know what happened on 9/11," yet I instinctually gravitate towards false flag. I am aware of this, yet a bias has been planted nonetheless. I notice that I won't spend as much time reading counter arguments or evidence than I would ones that support the bias.
Of course this goes for both sides. This thread isn't so bad, but look at how violently people will chew into those who question the events. Their labeled as "truthers" and morons because they have some questions or a different viewpoint. And many in the other camp call the people who believe in the normal story brainwashed.
Your ego is made out of opinions and beliefs about yourself, others, and the world. So when your beliefs are questioned, on one level it feels like you yourself are being attacked. Many people respond with annoyance and aggression when they hear viewpoints contrary to their own - its a psychological defense mechanism.
9/11 is especially emotionally charged because Americans feel as if their country was attacked. They have the culprit, Al Qaeda, and saying their own government did it pisses them off. It would be as if a family member was murdered and the police said they found the killer. But then some other people come along and tell the family that they have the wrong guy, and it was actually their own cousin who did it. The family wouldn't want to hear it, and they would be angry at these people for such accusations.
I have the same mindset as those who say "they don't really know." I cannot tell you if the government did it, or if it was actually Bin Laden. I'm leaning Bin Laden lately because until recently I hadn't seen his open letter, but I'm sure I'll see evidence the other way soon enough.
Truthers aren't bad people, they want the truth. But people who believe it was Bin Laden aren't bad either. We just have differing opinions.
Some of the people in the truth movement are completely out of control to the point of harassing victims of terrorist attacks and calling them actors working for the secret police while they're trying to recover from trauma. No matter which side is actually, factually correct extremists have tainted every inch in reach of this tragedy with poison.
Warning: haven't read the thread.
The question I would like anyone who believes the official story to answer is, why does the official 9/11 report deny the presence of molten steel at ground zero, despite the fact that their are hundreds of credible eye witness reports (including former mayor of New York, Rudy Guliani) of molten steel from directly after the buildings came down and for several weeks afterwards? There is no explanation in the report as to how the molten steel could have been there because they deny it existed in the first place.
Rudy Guliani knows enough about metallurgy to distinguish molten steel from molten aluminium by sight?
This is a very cool story. I think I'll read it a few more times for the lulz.
Maybe you should stop being a troll and actually contribute to the thread, Xei.
> "The question I would like anyone who believes the official story to answer is:"
> Receive answer
> "Troll"
Awesome thread.
The mayor may not be qualified to make such an observations, but there are many others.
The president of a controlled demolition company, Mark Loizeaux, observed molten steel "at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers."
That being said, I never really saw the significance of molten steel to begin with. Was it just that fire can't melt steel?
And furthermore, apparently molten aluminum is silver when there are other light sources (daylight,) and only glows red in a darkened environment, as it produces a very low level light in and of itself.
So were these observations made in daylight or low light conditions?
There is always this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Cn5...eature=related but with all the material inside those office buildings who knows what we are seeing coming out.
For me it seems more likeQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Question
Strawman
Question rephrased
Personal attack
Question given up on
Self-declared winner
Maybe someone who knows enough about black body radiation can tell us what the temperature aircraft grade aluminum would have to be at to glow like this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
http://www.historycommons.org/events...lten_metal.jpg
:)
That's what contributing means.
Spoiler for Yawn:
Guess how I got this info. Clue: it wasn't via a rare gift. Clue: you can do it too. Not sure why you didn't.
Because it would be nice to see you not be an ass for once. I find it shameful that someone who makes a reasonable inquiry has to get responses like yours. Someone who has their credibility on the line who's going to go out of their way to be specific about the molten material they saw is naturally going to raise some eyebrows. Someone who's seen molten aluminum before is going to ask questions about "the glowing stuff" coming out of the side of the building. The least you could do is be a decent human being and point them in the right direction for knowledge's sake. I'd think you of all people would want to help others find the correct information without turning them off to your approach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I enjoy it more when you take the humanistic approach and help others in a positive manner. I like the friendly Xei more. :/
I just thought the original question was so humorously ill-conceived (and it was phrased like it was such a clincher) that it merited a humorous response. I should point out that I know nothing of metallurgy; it just took a modicum of critical thought to see the glaring flaw, and Xaq is perfectly capable of this.
O.K if I get the gist of that molten aluminum will oxidize when mixed with other materials, causing it to glow.
That can explain the picture of the window. Would that account for the "rivers of molten steel" reported at ground zero? The original aluminum was from the aircraft itself, however if they were still encountering large amounts of it weeks after the event, which would require another source. Is aluminum a major component in building skyscrapers?
And invader is right, sarcastic responses don't help prove your point. People will take you more seriously if you come off as sincere and helpful. If you believe theories of controlled demolition are false, you can present counter evidence without belittling people who asked legitimate questions.
I'm more interested about the rescue operations to towers before they collapsed. Here they haven't broadcasted much about what happened in that presice date. What floors they got into, who they found there? How that day went there. Because it seems to reflect throught time as somekind of a rift. My fellow crazious have long come to this theory. Almost all movies involving planes seems to be part of diversing realities crossing over that day. Also those made before the actual date. To open the mystery I would like to know some publicly acceptle things upon things that might seem trivial.
I'm only half serious. And I would find some dark humour if this get's moved beyond dreaming, but I'm also half serious and not trolling
EDIT: not trolling
The original question was not about one picture; it was about the long list of accounts of molten metal that persisted for weeks after the buildings came down.
9-11 Research: Molten Metal
Are all of these sightings airplane aluminum and glass? What about the steel beams with dripping molten ends? The commission report states that the fires in the building or subsequent wreckage were never hot enough to melt steel. Do you think these beams with molten ends were dipped in aluminum?