9/11 Explosive Evidence by experts. Not by plane, by explosives.

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#2
Watch the entire documentary and make your own conclusions, this documentary is quite unbias, backed by facts from physicists, engineers, architects, scientists. Let's see the entire events without political lens, but with hard science only.

Watch 9/11 Explosive Evidence Online | smh.tv
I loved it. had to go to YouTube though. Since the link you provided wasn't allowed to be viewed by those of us in the US. But the presence of Nano Thermite found in the debris has peaked my interest. I am still trying to find if this substance actually existed in 2001. Research into Nano Thermite began in the early 1990's. So the concept was there. But from what I've come across so far, it is difficult to produce. It seems to me it would take a very large quantity of it to do what we all witnessed. The actual producers of this substance would be the next logical place to look. Who could have made the Nano Thermite?
 

servantx

New member
Sep 16, 2009
851
26
0
#3
Guess why they block it in the U.S. ;)

You never know how advance is DARPA on Nano Thermite production, from the public point of view. Like they had Internet in the 1970s...
 

Darby

New member
Mar 8, 2001
5,929
179
0
#5
Research into Nano Thermite began in the early 1990's. So the concept was there. But from what I've come across so far, it is difficult to produce. It seems to me it would take a very large quantity of it to do what we all witnessed.

Yeah, I guess it would take "a very large quantity of it."

The best burn rate of Nano Thermite recorded is ~2,400 m/s. That makes it a low, not a high, explosive. C4 plastic explosive has a burn rate of ~8,000 m/s and is a high explosive. PE4 and RDX are faster.

There's no way you would use Nano Thermite to acheive explosive destruction of the steel columns in any building. Explosive destruction of building materials relies on the shockwave exceeding the speed of sound in the material. For steel that velocity is 6,100 m/s. For concrete it is 3,200 m/s. Nano Thermite cannot develop a shockwave velocity that exceeds the speed of sound in concrete let alone steel.

Could you mix the Nano Thermite with RDX or some other appropriate high explosive? Probably. You could also mix lark's vomit with a sufficient amount of an appropriate high explosive to echeive your goal.

I don't know if you've ever seen the result of a "normal" AN-M14 TH3 thermite grenade. I have. It is very difficult to actually look at because the light emitted from the intense heat is blindingly bright. And that's only 26.5 oz of TH3 thermite. These people are talking about a huge explosion - many tons of the stuff. So where was the blinding ultra-white flash? And considering that thermite is a fine powder, where is all the residue? Not trace residue, but lots of the stuff scattered around because it supposedly exploded.

And this speculation is now over two years old.
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#6
Yeah, I guess it would take "a very large quantity of it."

The best burn rate of Nano Thermite recorded is ~2,400 m/s. That makes it a low, not a high, explosive. C4 plastic explosive has a burn rate of ~8,000 m/s and is a high explosive. PE4 and RDX are faster.

There's no way you would use Nano Thermite to acheive explosive destruction of the steel columns in any building. Explosive destruction of building materials relies on the shockwave exceeding the speed of sound in the material. For steel that velocity is 6,100 m/s. For concrete it is 3,200 m/s. Nano Thermite cannot develop a shockwave velocity that exceeds the speed of sound in concrete let alone steel.

Could you mix the Nano Thermite with RDX or some other appropriate high explosive? Probably. You could also mix lark's vomit with a sufficient amount of an appropriate high explosive to echeive your goal.

I don't know if you've ever seen the result of a "normal" AN-M14 TH3 thermite grenade. I have. It is very difficult to actually look at because the light emitted from the intense heat is blindingly bright. And that's only 26.5 oz of TH3 thermite. These people are talking about a huge explosion - many tons of the stuff. So where was the blinding ultra-white flash? And considering that thermite is a fine powder, where is all the residue? Not trace residue, but lots of the stuff scattered around because it supposedly exploded.

And this speculation is now over two years old.

I had a couple of hours to kill, so I watched the whole video. Very informative. There was one section that showed liquid steel pouring out of the smoldering building. When the building came down at a surprising free fall rate, it was noted that the free fall rate was not possible unless there was no resistance. That resistance would have been the central steel support structure. So yes it was speculated upon that the central steel support structure had been destroyed by Nano Thermite. But that speculation was based on finding the Nano Thermite signature in the debris dust everywhere. So it does appear that the central steel structure was melted away prior to the demolition of the buildings. But all the engineers seemed to agree that the building could not fall under its own weight at the free fall rate it did.
 
Likes: titorite

Jcpo

New member
Feb 5, 2013
116
7
0
25
LY, France
#7
I loved it. had to go to YouTube though. Since the link you provided wasn't allowed to be viewed by those of us in the US. But the presence of Nano Thermite found in the debris has peaked my interest. I am still trying to find if this substance actually existed in 2001. Research into Nano Thermite began in the early 1990's. So the concept was there. But from what I've come across so far, it is difficult to produce. It seems to me it would take a very large quantity of it to do what we all witnessed. The actual producers of this substance would be the next logical place to look. Who could have made the Nano Thermite?
They use it to braze railpath of TGV (high speed train) in France.
 
May 13, 2013
53
3
0
36
#8
I had a couple of hours to kill, so I watched the whole video. Very informative. There was one section that showed liquid steel pouring out of the smoldering building. When the building came down at a surprising free fall rate, it was noted that the free fall rate was not possible unless there was no resistance. That resistance would have been the central steel support structure. So yes it was speculated upon that the central steel support structure had been destroyed by Nano Thermite. But that speculation was based on finding the Nano Thermite signature in the debris dust everywhere. So it does appear that the central steel structure was melted away prior to the demolition of the buildings. But all the engineers seemed to agree that the building could not fall under its own weight at the free fall rate it did.
The resistance should have actually been the floors below; not just the central steel support structure. There was another very informative vid I saw a while back that theorised that "squibs" were both visible, and used ... can't recall the name off hand though. Another one would be to watch the first zeitgeist film, as it offers a little insight as well.
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#9
The resistance should have actually been the floors below; not just the central steel support structure. There was another very informative vid I saw a while back that theorised that "squibs" were both visible, and used ... can't recall the name off hand though. Another one would be to watch the first zeitgeist film, as it offers a little insight as well.
The thing that caught my attention was the Nano Thermite signature in the dust debris afterwards. I did some research on who could have made the tremendous quantity of the stuff it would have taken to liquify the steel supporting structure of the towers. I came up empty. The stuff was invented in the early 90's. But manufacturing this stuff was difficult. Even today I can't find anyone manufacturing large quantities of the stuff. There weren't a whole lot of suspects to choose from at the time. All government contractors. It's like the technology to mass produce this stuff, still doesn't exist.

So my take on this is time traveling terrorists from the future brought the Nano Thermite back with them to do the job. But I guess we'll never know who the Puppet Master is (or will be).
 

Gpa

New member
Jul 2, 2010
670
129
0
#10
Hmmm.
Einstein said:
So yes it was speculated upon that the central steel support structure had been destroyed by Nano Thermite. But that speculation was based on finding the Nano Thermite signature in the debris dust everywhere. So it does appear that the central steel structure was melted away prior to the demolition of the buildings. But all the engineers seemed to agree that the building could not fall under its own weight at the free fall rate it did.
"But that speculation was based on finding the Nano Thermite signature in the debris dust everywhere."

Very suspicious indeed. Unless of course, if you look over the list of elements used as thermite and, compare those to the list of materials that were used to build the towers, you might find a few similarities.
F-n conspiracy theorists... if their brains were made of thermite and you put them all together... (add your own favorite ending).

There are many possible thermodynamically stable fuel-oxidizer combinations. Some of them are:
Aluminium-molybdenum(VI) oxide
Aluminium-copper(II) oxide
Aluminium-iron(II,III) oxide
Antimony-potassium permanganate
Aluminium-potassium permanganate
Aluminium-bismuth(III) oxide
Aluminium-tungsten(VI) oxide hydrate
Aluminium-fluoropolymer (typically Viton)
Titanium-boron (burns to titanium diboride)
Nano-thermite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#11
GPA

If you got some time to kill, watch the movie. These aren't a bunch conspiracy oafs. The people that put this together gathered the professional opinions of over 40 engineers. There is documented video of liquid steel pouring out of the side of one of the towers. All of the engineers agree that jet fuel could not have created the intense heat necessary to melt the steel columns. And there are comparison videos to watch that show what burning buildings should look like after a fire. None of the comparison buildings collapsed. So the facts don't add up. By what the engineers say, both those towers should still be standing. They were built to withstand a collision with an aircraft.
 

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#12
They were built to withstand a collision with an aircraft.
Incomplete knowledge and statements like this will always get one in trouble. They were built to withstand a collision with an aircraft that is traveling LESS THAN 250 Knots Calibrated Air Speed (KCAS). The jets flown by terrorists were traveling MUCH faster than 250 KCAS. They were estimated to have hit the buildings at well over 320 KCAS. Given the energy equation (mass*velocity^2) that puts the energy of collision FAR over the design-to limit.

Why less than 250? Simple, as any aviation expert knows... there is an enforced speed limit for aircraft when they are below 10,000 feet pressure altitude. It is a feature of how our ATC system works. That speed limit is 250 KCAS. So, the buildings were not designed to the assumption that crazy Islamofascists would purposefully hit them at maximum speed. They were designed to the reasonable proposition that, under IFR conditions (heavy weather obscuring visibility) that an aircraft got lost while it was at pattern altitudes and airspeeds (actually below 200 KCAS for pattern speeds) and accidentally hit the buildings.

So...it is disingenuous to say "designed to withstand a collision with an aircraft" without being VERY SPECIFIC as to what those design requirements really were. Being an expert in aircraft and design requirements, I just had to point out that nonsense.

RMT
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#13
Incomplete knowledge and statements like this will always get one in trouble. They were built to withstand a collision with an aircraft that is traveling LESS THAN 250 Knots Calibrated Air Speed (KCAS). The jets flown by terrorists were traveling MUCH faster than 250 KCAS. They were estimated to have hit the buildings at well over 320 KCAS. Given the energy equation (mass*velocity^2) that puts the energy of collision FAR over the design-to limit.

Why less than 250? Simple, as any aviation expert knows... there is an enforced speed limit for aircraft when they are below 10,000 feet pressure altitude. It is a feature of how our ATC system works. That speed limit is 250 KCAS. So, the buildings were not designed to the assumption that crazy Islamofascists would purposefully hit them at maximum speed. They were designed to the reasonable proposition that, under IFR conditions (heavy weather obscuring visibility) that an aircraft got lost while it was at pattern altitudes and airspeeds (actually below 200 KCAS for pattern speeds) and accidentally hit the buildings.

So...it is disingenuous to say "designed to withstand a collision with an aircraft" without being VERY SPECIFIC as to what those design requirements really were. Being an expert in aircraft and design requirements, I just had to point out that nonsense.

RMT
I was referring to what was conveyed in the movie. And to be honest, I was really amazed at all the opinions made by professional engineers. These are people like you that know what they are talking about.
 
May 13, 2013
53
3
0
36
#14
Incomplete knowledge and statements like this will always get one in trouble. They were built to withstand a collision with an aircraft that is traveling LESS THAN 250 Knots Calibrated Air Speed (KCAS). The jets flown by terrorists were traveling MUCH faster than 250 KCAS. They were estimated to have hit the buildings at well over 320 KCAS. Given the energy equation (mass*velocity^2) that puts the energy of collision FAR over the design-to limit.

Why less than 250? Simple, as any aviation expert knows... there is an enforced speed limit for aircraft when they are below 10,000 feet pressure altitude. It is a feature of how our ATC system works. That speed limit is 250 KCAS. So, the buildings were not designed to the assumption that crazy Islamofascists would purposefully hit them at maximum speed. They were designed to the reasonable proposition that, under IFR conditions (heavy weather obscuring visibility) that an aircraft got lost while it was at pattern altitudes and airspeeds (actually below 200 KCAS for pattern speeds) and accidentally hit the buildings.

So...it is disingenuous to say "designed to withstand a collision with an aircraft" without being VERY SPECIFIC as to what those design requirements really were. Being an expert in aircraft and design requirements, I just had to point out that nonsense.

RMT
Seriously, watch this vid from the 40min mark, if you think "islamofascists" did it.


And, Gpa ... watch it from the start.
 
Likes: Jcpo

Jcpo

New member
Feb 5, 2013
116
7
0
25
LY, France
#15

As we can see on youtube, termite is not so difficult to find/make..
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#16
Jcpo

As we can see on youtube, termite is not so difficult to find/make..
I don't think you see the difference between what I was talking about and what you are referring to. Normal thermite has been around for a while. As you can see it gets quite hot. Hot enough to melt steel. But it burns slowly. Nano-Thermite burns very rapidly. Like flash powder. In the blink of an eye, all that heat energy is released. The steel goes from solid to liquid state very very fast. Remember the forensic facts state that the signature of Nano-Thermite was found in the dust debris after 911.

I just have a very rudimentary knowledge of the Nano-Thermite production process. Regular thermite is dissolved into a solvent. Then painted onto a surface and allowed to dry. The resulting dried film is scraped off. This is how Nano-Thermite is made. I don't know the exact numbers, but suppose you get 1 microgram of Nano-Thermite for every square meter of surface area. So a million square meters of surface area would be needed to make 1 gram of the stuff. Do that 1000 times and you get a kilogram of the stuff. This is what I mean by difficult to manufacture. A very large processing plant with lots of invested time just to produce very small amounts. So someone with a huge processing plant and years of production time would be needed. This is kind of the idea that I got when I researched this stuff. Yes it can be produced. But who has a ton of the stuff just laying around? And just how much time would be needed to make that much? Facts and figures that I don't have. Just a guess on why current production is about a kilogram a month. So it doesn't appear that anyone that does make the stuff, can produce it in large quantities. And also, who would have the demolition expertise to use Nano-Thermite to take down a building? This would be highly specialized knowledge. I do suspect there are no known demolition experts that could give you an answer.
 

Jcpo

New member
Feb 5, 2013
116
7
0
25
LY, France
#17
I don't think there is really need of this stuff or not as much as you think, as we saw on some pictures there are beams that are cutted straightly... Anyway time is not always a problem, it is possible for anyone who takes a little care about...



also see here : http://jayinreallife.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/9-11-thermate-beams.jpg

In the dust and hurry who would notice the 'lighting' ?

Also don't forget the people that assure they heard an explosion before the crash... ! There is not only termite.
There are vids that show little explosions at the surface of the building...
 

Einstein

Well-known member
Nov 30, 2003
2,039
211
63
Novato, California
#18
Jcpo

I don't think there is really need of this stuff or not as much as you think, as we saw on some pictures there are beams that are cutted straightly... Anyway time is not always a problem, it is possible for anyone who takes a little care about...

If you just pay attention to the forensic evidence and pull out the existing facts, things usually fall into place by themselves. There was no mention of any other type of explosive material found. Which raises the question: Is Nano Thermite an explosive? Regular Thermite burns slowly, but hot enough to melt steel. But Nano Thermite releases all its energy very rapidly. If the steel supporting structure becomes molten in the presence of a shock wave, would that be the explosive detonations that were reported by many witnesses?

Then there is that video clip of what is interpreted to be molten steel (due to its yellowish color) gushing out the side of the building. And the pools of solidified molten steel found afterwards under the debris. Like the entire columns of steel had been melted. Not just severed. The buildings collapsed at a free fall rate. To the astonishment of the engineers. As if there was no steel supporting structure at all. So I am inclined to believe that if Nano Thermite was used, it stands to reason, that a very substantial amount was needed to melt the steel supporting structure, so as to allow it to collapse at the free fall rate it was documented to have fallen at. And yes, I do agree that after collapse photos show severed steel columns. So perhaps a combination of techniques were used to bring down the buildings.

I have no idea what amount of Nano Thermite could have been used. It just seems to me that a lot more of it would have been needed than anyone known to produce it was capable of producing.

Of course the finger pointers are pointing their fingers at the government and the banks as potential suspects. The banks would make lots of money just by starting a war that way. And then there is another angle I thought of. What if the government and the capitalists were set up to appear to be the culprits? By people that don't like the capitalistic way of life? Then all the finger pointers would be pointing their fingers in a new direction.
 
Likes: Jcpo

RainmanTime

70,000 Tachyons
Dec 23, 2003
7,989
180
63
#20
Several years ago on this very forum, myself and one of my nephews (who is a civil structural design engineer) had a debate with a few folks who insisted that "steel does not melt at the temperatures that jet fuel burns." I am too lazy to go find that thread and respond in that thread, so I decided to reply in this one.

You see, the statement above attributed to the people who insisted the US GOV staged 9-11 must always be the starting point for making the "they planted thermite charges" claim for how the twin towers were brought down. They need you to believe that the failure of the load bearing steel beams was not a natural result of the damage and the fire, because that is how they lead you down the false path of "the US GOV planted explosives." There are so many Occam's Razor reasons for why their claims are too complex and too exotic to be considered. For example, you would have to show how and when the US GOV had the time to implant that many charges to ensure the charges that were allegedly blown were in the exact same place as the building damage to make it look like it was failure due to damage and fire. Note the two airplanes did NOT strike the towers at the same elevation.

But forget all those Occam's Razor arguments and let's go with the most basic. Let us destroy the belief that the load bearing beams could not have failed due to the fire. While it is certainly true that steel does not MELT at the flame temperatures induced by aviation fuel (JP-8), steel does not have to melt to lose load-bearing strength. So they start out making a false argument to draw your attention to the fact that the flame temp did not reach steel melting temp. Steel only needs to be heated to a high enough temperature for its modulus of rigidity to seriously degrade. In fact, it is a simple enough experiment to do with ANY metal to see that you do not have to MELT it to make it malleable to external forces that permit you to shape it.

I knew that it would only be a matter of time before videos would show up on the internet PROVING what all of us in engineering know to be true which falsifies the faux claim about steel melting temperatures not being met. I do not have to state ANY facts... all it takes is the evidence of a real experiment. Because that represents irrefutable facts.

So here you go:

Game, Set, Match. Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is the highest likelihood. You don't need thermite, and therefore you do not even need to explain how the GOV orchestrated a massive thermite planting effort to attach thermite to the columns they wanted to blow. What you see above is sufficient evidence to PROVE that the failure of the load bearing members of WTC 1 and 2 were a natural result of the aircraft damage and ensuing fire.
RMT
 

pafjlh

New member
Mar 16, 2015
40
6
0
52
#22
I realize this has been debated for awhile. Whether the planes were to blame for the towers going down or was it bombs that did it. For me I feel as if it really doesn't matter. Why because at the end of the day it changes nothing. The twin towers would sitll have gone down on that fateful day, the Pentagon would still have taken a huge hit to its structure and sadly almost 3000 people would still have lost their lives. I know that some believe there was a govenment cover up for whatever reason. Yes, I know there have been documentaries and conspiracy theories about these reasons as well. But for me as said before it changes nothing, and trying to understand it more or point blame at others for cover ups doesn't change it or make what happened that day go away.