9/11 was an inside job

[Nous]

Nano-thermic paint is an utterly ridiculous idea for melting steel structure.
By thinly spreading out the incendiary material , there is insufficient energy
concentration to raise the temperature of the entire cross-section of steel
to anywhere near melting temperatures.

How did you determine the "energy concentration" of the nanothermite in the red layer?

In any case, even if your claims are true, it's hardly consequential to anything. It would rule out one of basically endless possibilities of how the buildings might have been rigged with nanaothermite.

 

[Nous]

BTW: Is there any rational reason for NIST to have refused to test, or to continue to refuse to test, for the presence of incendiaries or explosives? The guidelines of the National Fire Protection Association requires such testing when there is "high order damage".

18.3.2 High-Order Damage. High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise.​

ff911

 

[Revoltingest]

This is why I think it's a red herring.

We're looking at one of two scenarios:

- Airplanes crashed into buildings and the impact caused the damage leading to collapse.
- A group of people snuck in and planted explosives beforehand.

Neither scenario tells us who did it. Remember that the central claim being made is "9/11 was an inside job," not an assertion about how the buildings were destroyed.

9/11 could have been an inside job either way. Likewise, even if it was destroyed by planted bombs, then it is also possible that Islamic terrorists planted the bombs, leaving the government off the hook.

I say each scenario paints a clearly different picture of who perpetrated it.

And I resent your continued disrespect of those tasty tasty herring!

 

[Revoltingest]

How did you determine the "energy concentration" of the nanothermite in the red layer?

Regarding your claim of nano-thermite paint, I don't.
It's simply orders of magnitude too thin to have any effect.

In any case, even if your claims are true, it's hardly consequential to anything. It would rule out one of basically endless possibilities of how the buildings might have been rigged with nanaothermite.

Many things are is possible.
But far fewer things are likely.

 

[Nous]

It's simply orders of magnitude too thin to have any effect.

How did you determine that?

(See, this is basically the problem with people's unique, individual analyses. It's generally nothing more than people expressing their beliefs that have no connection to reality.)

 

[Revoltingest]

How did you determine that?

I doubt you'd be impressed with my mental calculations based upon the order
of magnitude estimates of temperature rise due to a thin film burning.
Remember that I was once a weapon systems designer. I've a passing
familiarity with melting steel with shaped charges (at Northrop Aircraft), &
with the welding of railroad rails (at Knorr Bremse). The volume & distribution
of thermite would have to be more concentrated than a film of paint in order
effect melting.
The proposition of thin film ignition of structural steel is simply ludicrous.
Ask the penguin....he'll tell you. He's in the business of building targets.

(See, this is basically the problem with people's unique, individual analyses. It's generally nothing more than people expressing their beliefs that have no connection to reality.)

My reality is based upon relevant education & experience.
It's all I gots, so it'll have to suffice.

 

[Stevicus]

I say each scenario paints a clearly different picture of who perpetrated it.

I think it could go either way, regardless of how.

And I resent your continued disrespect of those tasty tasty herring!

All I would ask for is a fair and impartial herring.

 

[Nous]

I doubt you'd be impressed with my mental calculations based upon the order
of magnitude estimates of temperature rise due to a thin film burning.

You're right, I'm unimpressed. Your "mental calculations" evidently do not involve any consideration of any particular characteristics of this formulation of nanothermite, i.e., the heat a given amount produces, its exotherm, nor the amount of nanothermite in any given volume of the red stuff.

It's not "mental caculations" when one's thought processes do not entail numbers, is it? Yours are merely thoughts that have no known relationship to the reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're right, I'm unimpressed.

Woo hoo....detente!

Your "mental calculations" evidently do not involve any consideration of any particular characteristics of this formulation of nanothermite, i.e., the heat a given amount produces, its exotherm, nor the amount of nanothermite in any given volume of the red stuff.

Oh, I considered the heat per unit volume, & consequently the heat per unit area
of thermite vs steel. Paint wouldn't have the energy density needed to melt steel.
Wouldn't even reach creep temperatures.
Why should I show calculations you'd neither understand nor accept even if you did?

It's not "mental caculations" when one's thought processes do not entail numbers, is it? Yours are merely thoughts that have no known relationship to the reality.

Since I'm so unimpressive, perhaps you could impress me with your
"caculations" showing that a nano-thermite paint could melt structural steel?
I'd prefer imperial units, but metric is OK.

 

[Nous]

Oh, I considered the heat per unit volume, & consequently the heat per unit area
of thermite vs steel.

Prove it. Give us those numbers and cite their sources.

 

[Revoltingest]

Prove it. Give us those numbers and cite their sources.

To whom?
Only several other posters on RF would understand.
And they don't need convincing.

Btw, regarding your claim....
Prove it.

 

[Nous]

To whom?
Only several other posters on RF would understand.
And they don't need convincing.

That isn't why you are unable to provide these phantom numbers by which you claim to have performed "mental calculations". Right? Why be so dishonest? The truth is not good enough?

Do you really think that someone believes that you have performed some sort of calculations of the heat produced by the formation of nanothermite found the 9/11dust?

 

[Revoltingest]

That isn't why you are unable.....

The operative word regarding your challenge isn't "unable".
It's "uninspired".
If you had the background to understand, & were open to the
analysis, it would be another story. But this is pidgeon go.

 

[Nous]

The operative word regarding your challenge isn't "unable".

If you ever become able to prove your claims that the nanothermite found the 9/11 dust is incapable of cutting through steel columns, I have no doubt you will do so.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you ever become able to prove your claims that the nanothermite found the 9/11 dust is incapable of cutting through steel columns, I have no doubt you will do so.

Don't think that I don't know the old trick.
We've reached stage 4.

1) Flood the foe with numerous challenges.
2) Deny or ignore every one which was met.
3) Impugn the foe's qualifications.
4) When the foe gives up trying, declare "Victory!"

 

[Nous]

Don't think that I don't know the old trick.
We've reached stage 4.

1) Flood the foe with numerous challenges.
2) Deny or ignore every one which was met.
3) Impugn the foe's qualifications.
4) When the foe gives up trying, declare "Victory!"

so let's be clear and honest on these 4 items:

(1) You are unable to provide any calculations showing that the formulation of nanothermite found in the 9/11 dust is incapable of cutting steel.

(2) You are unable to account for the presence of the nanothermite found in the 9/11 dust except as an incendiary/explosive involved in the destruction of the buildings.

(3) You are unable to account for the evidence of temperatures in the WTC buildings that were much higher than those produced by office-materials fires.

(4) . . . (now what was the 4th one, Nick Perry?) . . .

 

[Revoltingest]

so let's be clear and honest.....

Not holding my breath here....

 

[Nous]

Not holding my breath here....

I take it that means you don't dispute:

(1) You are unable to provide any calculations showing that the formulation of nanothermite found in the 9/11 dust is incapable of cutting steel.

(2) You are unable to account for the presence of the nanothermite found in the 9/11 dust except as an incendiary/explosive involved in the destruction of the buildings.

(3) You are unable to account for the evidence of temperatures in the WTC buildings that were much higher than those produced by office-materials fires.

 

[Revoltingest]

I take it that means you don't dispute:

I expect that whatever I post
or don't, you'll claim victory.

Let's say your demolition conspiracy is true.
Who did it....
- US governent?
- Mafia?
- Islamists?
- Other?

 

[Nous]

I expect that whatever I post
or don't, you'll claim victory.

I didn't claim victory or say anything to suggest any such claim of victory. I am only sticking to the topic of the evidence concerning the destruction of the WTC buildings in noting that (1) you haven't been able to provide any calculations showing that the formulation of nanothermite found in the 9/11 dust is incapable of cutting steel; (2) you haven't been able to account for the presence of the nanothermite found in the 9/11 dust except as an incendiary/explosive involved in the destruction of the buildings; and (3) you haven't been able to account for the evidence of temperatures in the WTC buildings that were much higher than those produced by office-materials fires.