Hitstirrer
Active Member
Oddly, the Skytower one was first reported in Popular Mechanics who later went on to deny that any structures had been so demolished.
The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11
- Thread starter Cairenn
- Start date
- Status
Hitstirrer
Active Member
It may be on topic but its borderline strawman.
Its like demanding to know the names of the people working on black ops designing new planes. You can't seriously imagine that IF this was done by a covert team that they would have used Yellow Pages to recruit them.
And as to people not talking. During development of tha first atom bomb thousands kept silent. And they didnt have the incentive of the risk of committing suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head - twice - as has been seen happened to one such loose lipped person.
Popular mechanics of all people, reported that the skyride tower was brought doen using thermitic material in the 1930s I think.
Also, the roof of the reichstag building in Germany, being of steel construction, obviously survived the fire that occured there, and was brought down using thermitic material also. As i said, these are just the two best known examples, the first because of the irony of popular mechanics actually debunking themselves, and the 2nd because of the controversy surrounding the dubious circumstances of the fire.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
No, it's irrelevant information. Because you're asking for an opinion.
You're not only creating a straw man, you're also doing so by asking for an opinion on the matter, so it's way irrelevant.
Nothing. But bringing up Jowenko is an argument from authority. The vast majority of people who use Jowenko to bolster their WTC7 arguments will ignore his WTC1/2 interpretation. If you say an expert is right about one thing, but wrong about another, then where is his authority? If they can discern what is correct better than Jowenko can, then they are basically saying Jowenkos has less authority than they have, and are simply arguing based on their own opinions.
1500 lbs to cut two legs of a tower (not a building). The Reichstag roof (not building) was brought down with thermite in the 50s. A substance so efficient that it was never used to bring down a building. The old NIST report dealt with the thermite theory in the FAQ. I assume any new investigation would look at the efficacy of using thermite for building demolition and would come to same conclusion.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
Err, isn't that the same scenario with NIST on this very forum? Argument from authority? 'Well, ok, they made some mistakes in their work, and their models aren't exactly consistent with their reports...but it's ok because their end result is what appears to be what happened (fire damage = collapse).'
It's 'we'll accept the result because it seems logical and we'll accept the parts that fit that explanation. Even if they don't give us all the data to verify it.'
qed
Senior Member
)!
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Off topic in this particular thread but as you have asked I will do you the courtesy of replying. For any follow up on this please take it to the thread marked 'plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives.'
Back in the 1930's basic thermite was used. I can make that in my garage. Its just finely ground aluminium and iron oxide. Both easily obtained .
Its use in demolition would be, as you say, not very efficient.
Nanothermite however is built up from its atomic level rather than grinding down base material. It can only be made in advanced laboratories under controlled conditions. It was evidence of that substance that was discovered in the dust and a peer reviewed paper written which has not to this day been debunked causing it to be withdrawn.
Another fact to note is that one of NIST's team was a worlds expert on nanothermite technology and had earlier patented a device to cut steel using nanothermite.
A bi-product of a thermal reaction is to produce elemental iron from the oxide in there and for it to be thrown away from the reaction to drop and cool in air where surface tension forms it into minute spherical or peardrop shaped microdrops. All the dust around Manhattan was found to contain almost 8% by volume of such microspheres and reported on by independent laboratories. Normal 'background' volume of such elemental iron specks, in an area where much steelwork had taken place, is 0.47% and such particles usually are sharp edged from grinding acivities and the like.
NIST's in-house nanothermite expert would have to known that.
But all reference to such microspheres was absent from reports.
These don't really seem relevant. 1500 pounds of something vs. 3 pounds of something else. Clearly you are not talking about the same kind of thing at all.Huge “overshoes” in the form of cupolas made of steel and lined with firebrick were constructed around two legs of the tower and filled with 1,500 pounds of thermite, a mixture of aluminum and iron oxide. When fired by electricity, the thermite generated a temperature of more than 5,000 degrees about the two legs, melting the ten-foot sections almost instantly, causing the tower to tip and then to crash.
Last edited:
He's dead now, but he was one of the top Dutch demolition experts at the time. His assertions were based only on a superficial viewing of the collapse via a copy of Loose Change. He repeated the WTC7 assertion later, but gave no real indication he'd looked into it in depth, and I think that was before the NIST WTC7 report came out.
Do you have any evidence that such a thing has been developed and/or used in demolition?
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Was a world renown expert yes. RIP Danny J.
My own take on this is similar to that entry I posted earlier. Its hard for a pro who works using standard processes, that they know gets results, to even consider alternatives.
A commercial demo contact would never consider dropping a building by exploding its upper floors into talcum powder sized particles and progressively running the timed sequence DOWNWARDS that way.
It would be both inefficient, and expensive, as it would require every few floors to be detonated downwards as the front progressed, whereas cutting low down expertly would then use gravity to do most of the work. Which is, of course why they do that.
If Danny was still with us we could ask him to design a 'Hollywood' effect demolition using a top down method and Im sure that the end result would then resemble what we saw. He might have then again changed his mind.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Err Thats what many so called '911 truthers' are attempting to do.
So there is no evidence at this time.
Brainiachick
Active Member
I completely disagree that Cairenn's point is off topic. Since your argument is that the building was brought down with explosives, and we find it hard to understand how that could have been done all by stealth, it is a valid question to ask how it was possible and what company could have had the expertise not to only rig such a building but achieve it completely undetected - and finally no one is whistle-blowing!
It's like trying to convince a virgin [who did not have IVF treatment or anything remotely similar] that she is definitely pregnant but refusing to explain [but discounting] the implausibility that reproductive science facts pose to such a claim!
I think her questions are valid - you can either answer them or not.
Last edited:
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Why would commercial demo companies wish to use extremely expensive and government controlled substances instead of cheap alternatives? Gold is a very versatile material much like lead but isnt used to create rain channels.
Of course there is no such evidence because its simply not an option, unless you happen to have access to government labs capable of producing this material in any kind of volume.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
First off, my argument is not "that the building was brought down with explosives" as you put it. You're putting up a straw man. I never made such a claim. I used a simple hypothetical to prove my point that her point 'who do you think was involved?' was both an opinion and a straw man in itself as well.
For example, although the topic is about explosives, I could ask 'ok, well who do you think purchased these explosives' which is certainly on the topic of these hypothetical explosives, but in no way a relevant question. Straw man.
I asked if there was any evidence that nanothermite existed or has been used in demolition by anyone and the answer is there is no evidence.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Of course there is evidence of the existence of nanothermite.
Can you not operate google ?
Hitstirrer
Active Member
My reply was to your evidence of usage in demolition question. And my reply to the second part was :-
Why would commercial demo companies wish to use extremely expensive and government controlled substances instead of cheap alternatives?
Of course there is no such evidence because its simply not an option, unless you happen to have access to government labs capable of producing this material in any kind of volume.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
And that disproves the possibility?
Before scientists discovered the boson (etc), it was merely a prediction. A possibility. It seemed sound and seemed like it would fit into the equations. So what would you have said at that time before they physically were able to observe the boson (etc) but had only made predictions as to it's existence?
Isn't that how a lot of science works? Predict and then attempt to prove?
Besides, if, and this is a hypothetical again, don't get me wrong, but if the US government were to have taken part in the destruction of these buildings, that information would be classified. The goal would be to make sure there is no evidence to be found.
Normally it is incumbent of the person making the claim to provide evidence but I took a look, fascinating stuff. What I didn't find was any credible evidence that it could/had been used for demolition of large buildings. The Wikipedia talk page makes interesting reading on the subject.
It certainly chips away at the plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives which is the title of this thread.
qed
Senior Member
I just Googled nanothermite and got http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf
Reading it at the moment.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade
Center Catastrophe
These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21].
err... @Mick West ?
Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendi-
ary when ignited [6], but when the ingredients are ultra-fine
grain (UFG) and are intimately mixed, this “nano-thermite”
reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes re-
ferred to as “super-thermite” [20, 22].
Last edited:
One plausible possibility based on actual lines of evidence and not the simulation of an investigation:
I think it was Ry Dawson that did some of the FOIA requests personally. Look him up on Youtube if he hasn't been censored yet. The same thing happened in other instances, e.g. the "Death to American, death to Israel" anthrax conspiracy that was bumbled... and which contains answers to your other question about "Why wouldn't they just plant WMDs in Iraq?"Ever wonder how the bombs were put in the towers? Did you know the President's brother had a moving company in the towers and building 7 in the weeks prior to 911? Did you know that that moving company was Israeli (Urban Moving systems) and Israelis were caught on 911 taking pictures of themselves to the backdrop of the burning towers and laughing? They were arrested and the address for their moving company (yes the same one) turned up a front for the Mossad, it was an abandoned warehouse in New Jersey. (They were released by the FBI when Ashcroft put a lid on it, and they went back to Israel). Their van had traces of explosives in it, box cutters, thousands in cash, and highlighted maps of New York. When tested they failed polygraph tests which are 98% accurate. Link
There are answers to your questions.
As far as imaginary whistle blowers, people with a tribal siege mentality shaped by the Talmud may be less likely to blow the whistle than those without. And who are they going to blow the whistle too? There are many mechanisms of control, beginning with the fact that they'd be framed as being anti-Semitic. As far as the neocons, who are they going to blow the whistle too or why weren't there more whistle blowers in the past about past conspiracies that would strike people as even more evil than merely placing explosives (e.g. MK Ultra) if whistle blowing is so common and should be expected?
Not to mention the fact that even if whistle blowers came forward, it's unlikely that you would hear about or believe them anyway.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
Didnt you read my other reply then? Of course there is no such evidence.
On two counts.
First of all the substance is controlled by the government in enough quantities to even blow your hat off and is therefore not available to demo companies.
Secondly its extremely expensive compared to conventional explosives and any company putting forward a quote that was ten times that of another using conventional explosives wouldn't get the contract.
But there the circular argument goes because that company wouldn't be able to quote that high fee because the substance isn't available. Soooooo No - there is no such evidence because it hasnt happened.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
But that doesnt mean its not possible.
That link comes up every once in while here at MB.
As @MikeC said:
Bentham is a "self publishing" house - if you cannot get something into a reputable publication you pay Bentham and they will publish it for you with few or no questions asked once the cheque has cleared.
Professors or not - that hey find the presence of aluminium and iron in building wreckage to be something worth reporting on, and that htey had to pay to get it published, tells me I have no reason to take them seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's possible there are robot dogs. It is not plausible.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
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?
That's not scientific, to dismiss something just because it's not published by someone you respect.
Last edited by a moderator:
It kind of is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility.
Brainiachick
Active Member
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.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
I understand peer review, but it sounds to me like nobody was willing to peer review them, hence using Bentham to become published.
Another point I wanted to make...
Isn't this the same form as 'just asking questions' that is being tossed around so often here on the forums? It's okay to just ask questions and chip away at a possibility, but not if it conforms with what NIST has said?
Hitstirrer
Active Member
I have just written five replies to that and deleted then one by one as I dont want to be banned - so I will instead assume that you are being serious and reply accordigly.
The possibility of someone using nanothermite in a commercial demolition contract has already been addressed due to it being severely controlled by the military and on cost grounds. Its a vanishingly small possibility.
But to address the plausibility aspect.
If the military control this substance so closely isn't it reasonable to think that its pretty powerful. And if its so powerful isnt it plausible to consider that used inthe correct quantity, and correctly placed, it could indeed bring down a highrise building.
And if a suitable licence fee was paid to the person holding the patent for a device that can be used to cut steel then the plausibility factor increases.
Soooo YES - it is plausible.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brainiachick
Active Member
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.
Or more plausible, the paper was crap and they had to pay someone to get it published.
No, what you are doing is just asking questions saying phrases like, "it's possible."
- Status
Similar threads
