The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hitheycallmejosh said:
I understand peer review, but it sounds to me like nobody was willing to peer review them, hence using Bentham to become published.
Click to expand...

The 'peer review' and credibility of 'Bentham' crops up all the time. And all the time debunkers refuse to accept that peer review has little to do with the publishing house.

One of those reviewers actually broke with convention to come forward to identify himself ( and his impressive credentials ) so lay that ghost to rest.
And Bentham was chosen as it enabled anyone worldwide to access the paper. All the other journals require registration as a subscriber and payment of hefty fees to access papers. And absolutely refuse the information to be published outside their own journal using copyright laws.
As the writers specifically wanted the paper to be very widely available that route was selected.
 
Brainiachick said:
My apologies if I misunderstood your position and thank you for taking the time to point out to me what your argument isn't. It would be most helpful if you could tell me what exactly your argument is.
Click to expand...
But why should I? You already pointed out what my argument is, that explosives were used to take down the building. I'm just pointing out that I didn't make that claim. Is there something wrong with correcting your assumptions about my position?
 
Hitheycallmejosh said:
Err...so if what is published by these 'professors' has scientific grounds (and I'm not saying it does, I personally haven't read it yet) they'll still simply be dismissed based on who was willing to publish their results?
Click to expand...


Only insofar as someone uses the "fact" that they have been "published in a scientific journal" as part of the argument that they have to be accepted.

That's not scientific, to dismiss something just because it's not published by someone you respect.
Click to expand...

It is also not what happens.

My 2 short paragraphs are clearly not a complete review of the article - however even they have a snippet of actual analysis of the information in the article and an insight into why I think it is rubbish.
 
Landru said:
Do you have any evidence that such a thing has been developed .... ?
Click to expand...

I am assuming I am missing your point.

In 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminium particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.[3] Current production levels are now beyond 100 kg/month.
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite#Production

  • The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not on the ISI list, so as you say, crap. (Many journal are pay per page and still make the list)
 
Hitstirrer said:
The 'peer review' and credibility of 'Bentham' crops up all the time. And all the time debunkers refuse to accept that peer review has little to do with the publishing house.

One of those reviewers actually broke with convention to come forward to identify himself ( and his impressive credentials ) so lay that ghost to rest.
And Bentham was chosen as it enabled anyone worldwide to access the paper. All the other journals require registration as a subscriber and payment of hefty fees to access papers. And absolutely refuse the information to be published outside their own journal using copyright laws.
As the writers specifically wanted the paper to be very widely available that route was selected.
Click to expand...

Could you provide evidence about the reviewer and his credentials.
 
Hitheycallmejosh said:
But why should I? You already pointed out what my argument is, that explosives were used to take down the building. I'm just pointing out that I didn't make that claim. Is there something wrong with correcting your assumptions about my position?
Click to expand...

Then you shouldn't be posting here as the title is about the plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives.
 
qed said:
I am assuming I am missing your point.

In 2002, the production of nano-sized aluminium particles required considerable effort, and commercial sources for the material were limited.[3] Current production levels are now beyond 100 kg/month.
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite#Production

  • The Open Chemical Physics Journal is not on the ISI list, so as you say, crap. (Many journal are pay per page and still make the list)
Click to expand...

See post 64. I don't see any evidence of use for demolition or even the capacity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hitheycallmejosh said:
Brainiachick said:
My apologies if I misunderstood your position and thank you for taking the time to point out to me what your argument isn't. It would be most helpful if you could tell me what exactly your argument is.
Click to expand...

But why should I? You already pointed out what my argument is, that explosives were used to take down the building. I'm just pointing out that I didn't make that claim. Is there something wrong with correcting your assumptions about my position?
Click to expand...


There is absolutely nothing wrong in correcting my assumption and I'm sure if you read my reply to you, it opened with an apology. Likewise there is nothing wrong with seeking clarifications from you on what your position is since you have decried the use of explosives. You have been very articulate in stating what your position is NOT, but you have failed to state what your position is. It is a simple question but if you wish to not clarify, that's OK, but then don't complain that you've been misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
gerrycan said:
Anyhow the video is here watch it around the 8-9 minute mark, it should be enough to reassure you.
BD: I don't f*****g know either... Let's get it on.....
Click to expand...

Thanks for the video link. I hadn't seen it before and the entire video is worth watching, ingenious and informative. So, he clearly established these compounds (whether present or not at the sites) can cut vertical beams (and seamlessly knock out bolts, while we're at it). Good to know. Must have heard contrary arguments a hundred times.

PS There was a moment in that upload I'd like to pick up on (had me totally sold). If I manage to grab a screenshot from this rubbish phone I'll get back to you on that.
 
Last edited:
Brainiachick said:
I like what you have posted here, but can you please let me know your source. The only trouble I have is the covertness of the operation even if, for some indeterminable reason, the President's brother had a moving company and it happened to be in the towers and building 7. How did they strip the building and rig it with explosives without anyone seeing them at work. How many men [or Israelis] would they require for this sort of work, how long would it take? It is a very complicated theory to pursue no matter how intriguing.
Click to expand...

The subject of access is very valid.

Re the towers. Are you aware that in the months prior to 911 the largest elevator renovation contract ever granted in the world went to an unknown company, Ace Elevators, rather than to the manufacturer, and long term maintainence company, of the towers elevators, Otis.

That contract gave access to the cores of both buildings, out of view of all occupants, and also gave access to the crawl spaces under the concrete floors and above the false ceiling on every floor giving unseen access to the outer columns and all floor support trusses.

Very soon after 9/11 that Ace Elevators went into liquidation.

A possible access route for other work ? Or simply a coincidence over timing of the renovation ?
 
Landru said:
I know. Not being used in demolition.
Click to expand...

Do you have access to a dynamic gas-phase condensor, or a pulsed plasma device, capable of producing aluminium particles of 10 nanometers size ? Alternatively perhaps you have in your garage a sol-gel production facility. If not it will be difficult for you to make some nanothermite. Then there is also the small issue of expertise.

Nanothermite is not used in commercial demolition for a few reasons. And those have been pointed out to you already.
 
Landru said:
Could you provide evidence about the reviewer and his credentials.
Click to expand...

Yes. One of the peer reviewer of the Bentham Open nanothermite paper was Prof. David L. Griscom.

Among his impressive credentials, Prof. Griscom is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and a Fellow of the AAAS. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N. F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
Content from External Source

I quote a brief excerpt from his blog when he decided to break convention and announce that he was one of the reviewers.

"The 2009 publication in The Open Chemical Physics Journal (TOCPJ) of a fabulous paper by Harrit et al. entitled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” Some disparagers of the 9/11 Truth movement have alleged that TOCPJ is a place on the web where anybody can buy a publication without peer review. Absolutely false! I know this because I was one of the referees of the Harrit et al. paper. The editors asked for my opinion. And after about two weeks of studying what the authors had written, checking relevant references, and gathering my thoughts, I finally provided my advice to authors in 12 single-spaced pages, together with my recommendation to the Editors that they publish the paper after the authors had considered my suggestions. Still, some skeptical readers may ask how anyone can rate a scientific paper as “fabulous.” Well, I am the principal author of 109 papers (and a co-author of an additional 81) in peer-review journals. And have refereed a least 600, and possibly as many as 1000, manuscripts. So you would be right in calling me an aficionado of articles published in scientific journals. And I found absolutely nothing to criticize in the final version of the Harrit et al. paper! Apropos, twelve of my own publications have appeared in the American Institute of Physics’ Journal of Chemical Physics (an old fashioned paper journal), so it is accurate to say that chemical physics (of inorganic materials) is my main specialty."
Content from External Source
Other peer reviewers were of similar calibre but preferred to remain anonymous as is the usual convention amongst such scientists as it can provoke feuds and / or favourism within that tightly knit community.

Do you wish to challenge both the paper itself or the credentials of the reviewers ?

Its been attempted before by debunkers who have had to retreat.

To this date the paper remains un-debunked.
 
Hitstirrer said:
Do you have access to a dynamic gas-phase condensor, or a pulsed plasma device, capable of producing aluminium particles of 10 nanometers size ? Alternatively perhaps you have in your garage a sol-gel production facility. If not it will be difficult for you to make some nanothermite. Then there is also the small issue of expertise.

Nanothermite is not used in commercial demolition for a few reasons. And those have been pointed out to you already.
Click to expand...

How much more heat does nano-thermite produce per pound, compared to regular thermite?
 
Mick West said:
How much more heat does nano-thermite produce per pound, compared to regular thermite?
Click to expand...

You clearly do not realise that the formula of nanothermite can be altered to produce many different desired effects and results.

That question is like asking how much heat can you get from a piece of coal.
 
Hitstirrer said:
Yes. One of the peer reviewer of the Bentham Open nanothermite paper was Prof. David L. Griscom.
Click to expand...

Missing from his credentials: hard core conspiracy theorist:
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/
One 74-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the swine-flu scam, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."
Content from External Source
Also makes the very low level error of confusing dynamic loads (falling block) with live load capacity (people and furniture) in the WTC tower collapse scenarios

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html
Moreover, if for the sake of argument we were to accept Dr. Garcia’s calculation of a static-plus-dynamic force of 6.1 times the weight of the “upper block,” this number is still far less than the “2000%” live loads (20 times the weight of the block) that the exterior columns alone were designed to withstand for brief moments (see above).
Content from External Source
So does not really seem that great a peer reviewer.
 
qed said:
@Brainiachick

Where did Josh claim "that the building was brought down with explosives"?
Click to expand...

He said he didn't and I apologised if I had misunderstood his point and asked him to confirm what his position since I've obviously misunderstood it - but he is only willing to confirm what his position isn't. I therefore see no point in arguing over a position he won't confirm.
 
Mick West said:
What's the most you could get?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. But Im beginning to understand your line of questioning. I suspect that normal thermite will have similar heat energy capability as nano. I have been told that candlewax can produce more heat energy per lb than thermite, and also that paper can. But that its to do with the speed that the energy can be released though isn't it ? You wouldnt try to weld a railway line to another using a candle.

As I understand it, the difference between thermite that can be made in a garage, and nanothermite is the speed of reaction and not the heat it can generate per lb. The componants are the same but it is the nano nature that provides far more surface area to react immediately than if larger particles are used in ordinary thermite. The surface area in minute particles per lb is far in excess of larger ground down grains.

Its a bit like igniting one lb of blackpowder in a heap on a slab - and packing that same lb inside a strong and tightly secured container and igniting it.

The same energy is generated - but the effect is somewhat different.

I was once told that the difference between thermite and nano thermite is like the difference between a firecracker and a nuclear device. Obviously an exaggeration but was said that way to emphasise that the two should not be compared together.
 
Hitstirrer said:
The subject of access is very valid.

Re the towers. Are you aware that in the months prior to 911 the largest elevator renovation contract ever granted in the world went to an unknown company, Ace Elevators, rather than to the manufacturer, and long term maintainence company, of the towers elevators, Otis.

That contract gave access to the cores of both buildings, out of view of all occupants, and also gave access to the crawl spaces under the concrete floors and above the false ceiling on every floor giving unseen access to the outer columns and all floor support trusses.

Very soon after 9/11 that Ace Elevators went into liquidation.

A possible access route for other work ? Or simply a coincidence over timing of the renovation ?
Click to expand...


Even though this doesn't offer explanations for everything, I certainly find this information very interesting indeed - can you provide a source please?
 
Hitstirrer said:
I have no idea. But Im beginning to understand your line of questioning. I suspect that normal thermite will have similar heat energy capability as nano. I have been told that candlewax can produce more heat energy per lb than thermite, and also that paper can. But that its to do with the speed that the energy can be released though isn't it ? You wouldnt try to weld a railway line to another using a candle.

As I understand it, the difference between thermite that can be made in a garage, and nanothermite is the speed of reaction and not the heat it can generate per lb. The componants are the same but it is the nano nature that provides far more surface area to react immediately than if larger particles are used in ordinary thermite. The surface area in minute particles per lb is far in excess of larger ground down grains.

Its a bit like igniting one lb of blackpowder in a heap on a slab - and packing that same lb inside a strong and tightly secured container and igniting it.

The same energy is generated - but the effect is somewhat different.

I was once told that the difference between thermite and nano thermite is like the difference between a firecracker and a nuclear device. Obviously an exaggeration but was said that way to emphasise that the two should not be compared together.
Click to expand...

With the nano-thermite, the reaction (oxidation, basically) is a lot quicker because of the very small size of the components. As I understand it this basically makes it a high speed explosive, and not an incendiary.

But what I'm getting at is how exactly this nano-thermite differs from thermite, or thermate, or C4. What is the actual physical mechanism that cuts through the columns, and how long does it take?

Some of the proposed mechanisms, like spraying it on in a thin layer under the fireproofing, just seem ridiculous in terms of the energy density required. It's easy to say "oh but the military have more powerful stuff", but there are actual physical limits here.

There's a limit to the amount of heat, the free enthalpy, that the chemical reaction can produce, and then there's the time in which is can be produced. Slow would melt steel, fast would shatter it.

So what exactly are people suggesting?
 
Mick West said:
Missing from his credentials: hard core conspiracy theorist:
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/
One 74-year-old’s search for the truth: 9/11, election fraud, illegal wars, Wall Street criminality, a stolen nuke, the swine-flu scam, control of the U.S. government by global corporations, the unjustified assault on Social Security, media complicity, and the "Great Recession" about to become the second Great Depression. "The most important truths are hidden from us by the powerful few who strive to steal the American dream by keeping We the People in the dark."
Content from External Source
Also makes the very low level error of confusing dynamic loads (falling block) with live load capacity (people and furniture) in the WTC tower collapse scenarios

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html
Moreover, if for the sake of argument we were to accept Dr. Garcia’s calculation of a static-plus-dynamic force of 6.1 times the weight of the “upper block,” this number is still far less than the “2000%” live loads (20 times the weight of the block) that the exterior columns alone were designed to withstand for brief moments (see above).
Content from External Source
So does not really seem that great a peer reviewer.
Click to expand...

You have me confused now. Are you seriously saying that Prof Griscom was being less than professional when peer reviewing that paper ? And that his credentials mean nothing because you don't like his report ? Take care, you tried that over Tony Szamboti remember.

Its a basic ad hominum attack of the worst kind, and you know it.

But thank you for posting the link to Prof Griscom's blog. I realise that you intended that to be used to discredit him and hoped that people wouldn't take the trouble to open that link and read the blog in full.

They will now though. And they will see the full context of his remarks.

http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2007/01/hand-waving-physics-of-911.html

And guess what, they are exactly what I would expect to hear from an expert peer reviewing Professor of his status. That guy Dr Garcia produced a blog that wasnt peer reviewed and and had no intention of exposing his work to scrutiny. And Prof Griscom called him out on it.

Nice try though Mick.
 
I'm saying that, like Tony, he likely has a bias. I know scientists like to think they don't, but they probably do. A proper peer review would be one of people who are neutral on the matter. Ideally the paper should have been submitted for peer review without reference to 9/11.

If people want to use an argument from authority, then they should expect that authority scrutinized. Here Griscom's lack of understanding of live loads (and other major flaws in that article, like the effect of tilt) shows he's not quite as smart as he thinks he is, or as people say he is.

So I think his peer review is pretty much worthless.
 
Oh, and and then there's this:
http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/2012/01/chemtrails-monstrous-conspiracy-against.html
(archive: http://archive.is/a79Nq)
The young lady first interviewed in the short video below shows good common sense and is perfectly right about normal jet aircraft contrails evaporating in a short period of time. In fact, normal contrails comprise tiny ice particles condensed from the water vapor present in the turbofan engine exhaust, forming a trailing "cloud" until inevitably sublimating (like dry ice) back into the vapor phase. At the end of this news report, Georgia Tech "weather researcher" Dr. Jim Saint George surely should have known that, but instead he seems to assert that there are no chemtrails, only contrails. So one must assume Jim was the designated "conspiracy theory debunker" of the so called "mainstream media," whose job it is to cover up government crimes.
Content from External Source
Case closed.
 
Last edited:
Mick West said:
With the nano-thermite, the reaction (oxidation, basically) is a lot quicker because of the very small size of the components. As I understand it this basically makes it a high speed explosive, and not an incendiary.

But what I'm getting at is how exactly this nano-thermite differs from thermite, or thermate, or C4. What is the actual physical mechanism that cuts through the columns, and how long does it take?

Some of the proposed mechanisms, like spraying it on in a thin layer under the fireproofing, just seem ridiculous in terms of the energy density required. It's easy to say "oh but the military have more powerful stuff", but there are actual physical limits here.

There's a limit to the amount of heat, the free enthalpy, that the chemical reaction can produce, and then there's the time in which is can be produced. Slow would melt steel, fast would shatter it.

So what exactly are people suggesting?
Click to expand...

Know what. People are suggesting everything from it being used as an additive to the fireproofing ( an upgrade was undertaken in the towers a while before, when an extra layer was sprayed on upper floor trusses. ), through to magic silent explosives.

Others say that a combination of thermetic and conventional could be used such as thermite used to severely weaken a component which is then thrown out by a nearby small charge. Again avoiding the charactaristic 'CRACK' of C4.

I understand your need to form such questions of course, but the bottom line is that whatever is suggested is speculation. And I don't 'do' speculation very well as you have probably found out about me so far.

But to address your other remark about 'Slow and Fast' - you are correct. In emails with Dr Harrit he told me that nano can be formulated to produce both fast and slow results, and all points in between. So it can be either a highly energetic incendiary or an explosive depending on the formula, and the required result.

The main thing is to forget all we know about thermite. Its irelevent to this discussion because its as different as chalk and cheese.

If Nanothermite was used in the volume that the dust samples reveal, then the debate isn't what they did with it at all. It's not even about how they did it, or how access was achieved. If it was there that has to be taken as a given unknown.

So the bottom line on the nano debate is simply - Is the peer reviewed paper correct ?
 
Hitstirrer said:
Know what. People are suggesting everything from it being used as an additive to the fireproofing ( an upgrade was undertaken in the towers a while before, when an extra layer was sprayed on upper floor trusses. ), through to magic silent explosives.

Others say that a combination of thermetic and conventional could be used such as thermite used to severely weaken a component which is then thrown out by a nearby small charge. Again avoiding the charactaristic 'CRACK' of C4.

I understand your need to form such questions of course, but the bottom line is that whatever is suggested is speculation. And I don't 'do' speculation very well as you have probably found out about me so far.

But to address your other remark about 'Slow and Fast' - you are correct. In emails with Dr Harrit he told me that nano can be formulated to produce both fast and slow results, and all points in between. So it can be either a highly energetic incendiary or an explosive depending on the formula, and the required result.

The main thing is to forget all we know about thermite. Its irelevent to this discussion because its as different as chalk and cheese.

If Nanothermite was used in the volume that the dust samples reveal, then the debate isn't what they did with it at all. It's not even about how they did it, or how access was achieved. If it was there that has to be taken as a given unknown.

So the bottom line on the nano debate is simply - Is the peer reviewed paper correct ?
Click to expand...

But this is the plausibility of destroying WTC7 with explosives debate. Conventional is out because of noise issues. So the plausibility of other explosives needs discussing.

It's very very easy to say "some kind of very powerful or hot, yet quiet material". It's very hard to establish that such a material is possible. Simply pointing to nano-thermite does not help.
 
Landru said:
Then you shouldn't be posting here as the title is about the plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives.
Click to expand...
Brainiachick said:
He said he didn't and I apologised if I had misunderstood his point and asked him to confirm what his position since I've obviously misunderstood it - but he is only willing to confirm what his position isn't. I therefore see no point in arguing over a position he won't confirm.
Click to expand...
this is getting way off topic, but you know, I was only pointing out someone's flaw in their reasoning. And then I was asked to state MY position told what my position was so I mentioned that it in fact wasn't that. I respectfully back out of this thread until I have something to add to it.
 
Mick West said:
But this is the plausibility of destroying WTC7 with explosives debate. Conventional is out because of noise issues. So the plausibility of other explosives needs discussing.

It's very very easy to say "some kind of very powerful or hot, yet quiet material". It's very hard to establish that such a material is possible. Simply pointing to nano-thermite does not help.
Click to expand...

When never fails to amuse me is the debate about noisy, or quiet, conventional, or unconventional explosives. And the attempts to calculate the mass of such exposive that would be required - usually being assessed as 'many tons'.

And then, in virtually the same breath, they go on to assert that fire and gravity alone was capable of doing what a few seconds ago they claimed would have taken many tons of explosives to cut hundreds of connections and produce the result seen on video.

But in your earlier post you say " Conventional is out because of noise issues." Have you not seen the videos of many people reporting massive 'booms' just before WTC7 fell ? Some with audio picking them up. Seems to me that there were noise issues. But that the reports simply overcame that by ignoring them.

But to address your remarks above. Its actually not very hard to establish that such a material is possible. Its published in respected journals, along with its variable properties.

And as I said earlier, it isnt mandatory to only use one weapon in an armoury at a time. If a thermetic reaction is used to severely soften steel it then takes a very small conventional charge to make the final disconnection. To focus on one or the other would be a mistake if some kind of thermite was part of this event.

And that takes me back to the last line of my post #109.
 
Hitstirrer said:
When never fails to amuse me is the debate about noisy, or quiet, conventional, or unconventional explosives. And the attempts to calculate the mass of such exposive that would be required - usually being assessed as 'many tons'.

And then, in virtually the same breath, they go on to assert that fire and gravity alone was capable of doing what a few seconds ago they claimed would have taken many tons of explosives to cut hundreds of connections and produce the result seen on video.
Click to expand...

You don't understand that the conspiracy theory about "controlled demolition" of WTC7 (and the towers for that matter) is made with the claim that throughout the structure explosives were used (corresponding to how it would be done with a real controlled demolition)

I haven't seen it argued that only part of the building was made to collapse by secret means and they allowed the gravity to do the rest.
So how is what you are saying a valid argument?

Why argue for such a convoluted scenario? And the whole "thermite" thing was Jones trying to be clever after it was pointed out that we don't hear the loud explosions associated with a controlled demolition so he concocted the idea of using thermite as some sort of exotic thing secret agents would use if they were doing some sort of secret controlled demolition.
 
Last edited:
Representative Press said:
You don't understand that the conspiracy theory about "controlled demolition" of WTC7 (and the towers for that matter) is made with the claim that throughout the structure explosives were used (corresponding to how it would be done with a real controlled demolition)

I haven't seen it argued that only part of the building was made to collapse by secret means and they allowed the gravity to do the rest.
So how is what you are saying a valid argument?

Why argue for such a convoluted scenario? And the whole "thermite" thing was Jones trying to be clever after it was pointed out that we don't hear the loud explosions associated with a controlled demolition so he conceited the idea of using thermite as some sort of exotic thing secret agents would use if they were doing some sort of secret controlled demolition.
Click to expand...

I'm really sorry Rep but you will have to run that by me again in a different form of words.

Are you writing a fictional novel and practicing in here ?
 
Hitstirrer said:
All the dust around Manhattan was found to contain almost 8% by volume of such microspheres. But all reference to such microspheres was absent from reports.
Click to expand...
Microspheres are also produced by steel scraping past steel. We all know them as SPARKS.

So you have to ask yourself whether any sparks were made that day when two hundred thousand tons of iron scraped down fifty steel columns for half a mile.

Or not.
 
Last edited:
Jazzy said:
Microspheres are also produced by steel scraping past steel. We all know them as SPARKS.

So you have to ask yourself whether any sparks were made that day when two hundred thousand tons of iron scraped down half a mile of steel columns. Or not.
Click to expand...

Please don't read selectively.

I already explained that such 'sparks' are typically jagged edged and not perfectly formed spheres, or slightly pear shaped, depending on how far they fall when cooling. So please dont refer to your 'scraping of sparks ' as being microspheres. Those are microparticles. And such jagged edged 'sparks' are what is normally found in all background dust in an industrial zone, but in a far less concentration.

Also, the very large percentage of microspheres that was identified in the dust are elemental iron, not scraped off steel particles. And elemental iron is impossible to separate out from steel simply by friction.

But elemental iron is a bi-product of a thermetic reaction of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mick West
Sean Kirkpatrick's Interview With Daniel Lavelle at The Guardian [Transcript]
Replies
26
Views
3K
MapperGuy
M
Z.W. Wolf
Claim - The Brother of Nick Davies (AKA Phuket Word) Speaks
Replies
5
Views
1K
Mendel
Mendel
Marc Powell
Debunked: 9/11 truth experts are knowledgeable professionals and their judgments are to be trusted
3 4 5
Replies
195
Views
29K
Mendel
Mendel
Mick West
The Dumbing Down of AE911Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
3 4 5
Replies
188
Views
55K
econ41
econ41
T
Claim: Jim Hoffman's "9/11 progressive collapse challenge" can't be met
7 8 9
Replies
353
Views
56K
Jeffrey Orling
Jeffrey Orling

Latest posts

Back
Top