Tuesday, January 21, 2025
What's new

Peer-reviewed paper sights the use of nano-thermite in WTC collapse

People who kept the debris/dust could have kept it as a sad memory sort of like keeping the ashes or any number of other reason. That they had dust/debris many years after the incident is not unsual.
Did I say it was 'unusual'?

They certainly didnt know that the material they had in their posession was incendinary or explosive in any way , they proably kept it like I said sort of like keeping the ashes.

Its the researchers at Copenhagen University that found out the true nature of the materail , that it was infact a precise mix of materials required to causue it to ignite explosivley. Thats what led to conclude that this material is explosive in nature

By the way IronOxide ( rust ) doesnt ignite explosively , this material did , so read the whole the thing and dont hang to parts that you understand ( leaving out the ones that you dont :P )
You have made a serious logical error, one that revealed you to be technically incompetent and cast doubts on your claim to have been published.

If the presence of iron oxide can be explained by rust, then it is illogical to conclude that some type of explosive either created the iron oxide or that the iron oxide is an element of that explosive.

Next...

Regarding the University of Coppenhagen...

The reference for that institution is a Mr. Niels H. Harrit. The question is: Was the University of Coppenhagen an active sponsor and participant of this 'paper'? If not, then the University's name is being used unethically, possibly deceptively in order to grant this 'paper' some credibility. The hint for this possibility is in the next name, a Mr. Jeffrey Farrer of Brigham Young University, the same institution as Dr. Steven Jones. BYU suspended Jones when there were allegations that he tried to attach BYU's name into this loony conspiracy. No one in BYU's Engineering Dept supported his 'thermite' theory. His colleague, Dr. D. Allan Firmage, said very kindly about Jones...

CEEn People - D. Allan Firmage
After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.
Jones is Physics. Firmage is Engineering with decades of practical experience. One is theory and the latter is application. If you truly did published, it should imply that you possess some measure of critical thinking skills and should move you to place more credibility on Firmage. But here is the story on Farrer...

Deseret News | Three at BYU praise Jones
Farrer, who manages BYU's Transmission Electron Microscopy Laboratory, sent an e-mail asking the group to remove his name from the Web site on Sept. 7, hours before BYU administrators informed Jones they were placing him on paid leave. Farrer had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the content of scholarsfor911truth.org. He was disturbed that it appeared to have a political viewpoint, though he said he would continue to work with the group.
So here on this supposedly 'peer reviewed paper' we have a member of the group who is academically suspended and another requested to be disassociated with the group. That make the use of Farrer's and BYU's names unethical and deceptive.

No red flags here...right?
 
.
Lol, again Osama Bin Laden has admitted on more then one occasion that he was behind 9/11. The terrorists that committed it were not a figment of peoples imaginations. Are you saying that the U.S. is in cahoots with Osama?

OBL was a stooge used by the Americans as a coverup for the real operation. The planes did crash into WTC but that's not what brought the towers down.
 
. .
OBL was a stooge used by the Americans as a coverup for the real operation. The planes did crash into WTC but that's not what brought the towers down.

proove it with CREDIBLE support else keep the conspiracy with u.thanks.:lazy:
 
.
I don't think any sane person could deny that AlQaeda or OBL were begind the plane hijackings and twin tower crashes.

But about the tower collapses: Even OBL in his interview never expected/planned that to happen. What about the third WTC tower that collapsed all on its own? What about the huge short positions taken on airlines and insurance companies BEFORE the attacks?


Again no one is denying OBL's rule in this, Infact there was a rag-tag group of extermists which formed a group called United Mujahidin Front against Jews and Crusaders who declared Jihad on the US back in 98. OBL had organised this forum and AQ was to be a part of it.

But was OBL and Alqaeda the ONLY ones. That is the question? Even if there was 5% complicity or complicty by not doing anything by some people in the US administration when Bush-Cheney were in power, isnt that worthy of independant investigation?
 
Last edited:
.
But what about the tower collapses? Even OBL in his interview never expected/planned that to happen.
So what? How does that prove that fire was not the cause of the collapse?

What about the third WTC tower that collapsed all on its own.
Fire.

Take a look at this...

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire
A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor. Fire extinguishers were nonfunctional, and the fire spread quickly before the firefighters could arrive. An electrical short-circuit accelerated the fire spread. At about 6 p.m., nine hours after the start of the fire, when the blaze seemingly was under control and subsiding, the building suddenly collapsed, killing 27 people. Figure 3 shows a photograph of this collapse.
That was only a 6-story building and was of concrete construction. No airliner crashed into it. Concrete are more favorable for being fire resistant than steel and this building collapse.

What about the huge short positions taken on airlines and insurance companies BEFORE the attacks?
Nothing unusual about it. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001 the market experiences spikes in trading in various sectors. After the underground bombing attempt on the WTC towers back in 1993, terrorism insurance was required. Let me guess, you did not know that al-Qaeda attacked the WTC towers once before?
 
.
@ EjazR

dude, way before 9/11 happened, In 1993 to be exact, there was a failed attempt to blow up the WTC by exploding a vehicle full of explosives in the basement killing 6 people and injuring more than 1000. The terrorists had link to al-quaida and other organizations. this conspiracy theories are very exciting and are promising at certain level yet lack solid proof so dont fell for the "inside job" theory. The plans to blow up the WTC were been happening for a while and in 2001 they accomplished it.

1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
.
So what? How does that prove that fire was not the cause of the collapse?

Fire.

Take a look at this...

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire
That was only a 6-story building and was of concrete construction. No airliner crashed into it. Concrete are more favorable for being fire resistant than steel and this building collapse.

Nothing unusual about it. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001 the market experiences spikes in trading in various sectors. After the underground bombing attempt on the WTC towers back in 1993, terrorism insurance was required. Let me guess, you did not know that al-Qaeda attacked the WTC towers once before?

I don't think it makes sense to compare a six storey building in Egypt with a world class structure like the twin towers. Particularly when the original architect had to precisely take this possiblity of planes hitting the tower into account when designing it. Planes have hit towers in NY before(without them collapsing) in case you didnt know.

The Height of Ambition - The New York Times

But Robertson still had one more set of structural calculations to perform. Lawrence Wien, who was continuing his fight against the towers, had begun to remind New Yorkers publicly of a Saturday morning in July 1945, when a B-25 bomber, lost in the fog, barreled into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building. Most of the 14 people who died were incinerated by a fireball created when the plane's fuel ignited, even though the fire was quickly contained. The following year, another plane crashed into the 72-story skyscraper at 40 Wall Street, and yet another one narrowly missed the Empire State Building, terrifying sightseers on the observation deck.

Regarding the short positions, it was unusual enough for the SEC, FBI and DoJ to make statements about it. The problem was that the short positions were abnormaly large, entered days before the attacks and closed within days after. We havent heard anything about it since.

I am not blaming Americans or Israelis are behind this if that is what you are thinking. There are some inconsistencies that doesnt fit the official version. And given the credibility of the Bush-Cheney adminstration I think you can understand people's difficulty in accepting anything that was "official" during their reign.

P.S. I had to edit my previous post so you might have missed my intent.
 
.
I don't think it makes sense to compare a six storey building in Egypt with a world class structure like the twin towers. Particularly when the original architect had to precisely take this possiblity of planes hitting the tower into account when designing it. Planes have hit towers in NY before(without them collapsing) in case you didnt know.
Of course I did know. Here is what Robertson said...

LERA | WTC - Sept. 11, 2001
We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
What you missed is the fact that NO ONE claimed the airliner's impacts were the cause of the collapse. It was the fire and even Robertson said so.

Here is Robertson's own chart...

0cff6aafab7b77757d63beb31e155c89.jpg

Once it is understood that it was a combination of structural damages and fire then the Egyptian textile building example is very appropriate. Concrete is more favorable than steel because of its fire resistive abilities and that concrete building collapse strictly because of fire. Whereas the WTC had steel columns, in main support and perimeter, and many of them were either severed by the impact or weakened by the fire. So if concrete can fail under fire, then why not steel?

Regarding the short positions, it was unusual enough for the SEC, FBI and DoJ to make statements about it. The problem was that the short positions were abnormaly large, entered days before the attacks and closed within days after. We havent heard anything about it since.
They had to say something because people like you made a big deal out of it. What is 'abnormal'? Compared to when?

I am not blaming Americans or Israelis are behind this if that is what you are thinking. There are some inconsistencies that doesnt fit the official version. And given the credibility of the Bush-Cheney adminstration I think you can understand people's difficulty in accepting anything that was "official" during their reign.

P.S. I had to edit my previous post so you might have missed my intent.
You are not fooling anyone with this. Either support your argument with credible SCIENTIFIC and TECHNICAL argument, or accept the silent consensus of the professionals in construction, engineering and demolition.
 
.
Of course I did know. Here is what Robertson said...

LERA | WTC - Sept. 11, 2001
What you missed is the fact that NO ONE claimed the airliner's impacts were the cause of the collapse. It was the fire and even Robertson said so.

Here is Robertson's own chart...

0cff6aafab7b77757d63beb31e155c89.jpg

Once it is understood that it was a combination of structural damages and fire then the Egyptian textile building example is very appropriate. Concrete is more favorable than steel because of its fire resistive abilities and that concrete building collapse strictly because of fire. Whereas the WTC had steel columns, in main support and perimeter, and many of them were either severed by the impact or weakened by the fire. So if concrete can fail under fire, then why not steel?

They had to say something because people like you made a big deal out of it. What is 'abnormal'? Compared to when?

You are not fooling anyone with this. Either support your argument with credible SCIENTIFIC and TECHNICAL argument, or accept the silent consensus of the professionals in construction, engineering and demolition.

So that means any steel based structure is bound to collapse in case of a fire? As far as I know the 9/11 comission report, does not mention the cause for WTC7 collapse. If it was so easy to prove from "experts", why didnt the government sponsored report include it.

As you may be aware, the panel itself had controversies from the beginning and accused of conflict of interest. Some panel members themselves have accused the Congress/Bush for inadequate funding and stonewalling.
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com

About funding issues:
9-11 Commission Funding Woes - TIME

If this was the most horrific attack on US soil, shouldnt there have been no holes barred investigations?

Here is a list of articles done by Professors, arhitects, engineers and even a former site manager at the WTC.
Technical Articles
Journal of 9/11 Studies
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth FF 911 Truth


CBC's solomon did an interview with hamilton after the report and a book on the 9/11 report came out. Read the interview transcript and judge for yourself how credible he seems.
CBC News: Sunday - 9/11: TRUTH, LIES AND CONSPIRACY

Its a long interview but I want to quote one intersting tidbit and ask you to look at Hamilton replies.

Solomon: I just want to clarify something that you said earlier. You said that the Commission Report did mention World Trade Center Building 7 in it, what happened. It did mention it or it didn't?

Hamilton: The Commission reviewed the question of the Building 7 collapse. I don’t know specifically if it’s in the Report, I can’t recall that it is, but it, uh..

Solomon: I don’t think it was in the report.

Hamilton: OK, then I'll accept your word for that.

Solomon: There was a decision not to put it in the report?

Hamilton: I do not recall that was a specific discussion in the Commission and we rejected the idea of putting Building 7 in, I don't recall that. So I presume that the report was written without reference to Building 7 at all, because all of the attention, of course, was on the Trade tower buildings.

Solomon: And the black boxes on the planes: one bit of evidence I just got asked about, if it came up, was: the last 3 minutes of the black box on Flight 93 has not been made public or is missing, or I don't know what's happening. Was there any discussion as to what happened to those last three minutes?

Hamilton: I do not recall any reference to the black box.

Solomon: Were they all found?

Hamilton: I do not know, off hand, I do not know.

You may believe everything that the 9/11 comission report detailed, but forgive me if I have to be forced into the undecided category based on this.
I agree that there is a crazy bunch of conspiracy theorists out there talking about missiles and thermite and what not. I am not putting out a "theory" of what happened. I am saying the explanation that AQ and OBL are the only ones behind the 9/11 attacks without any complicity from other sources is inadequate.

Blindly accepting the 9/11 report is gross injustice, particularly to the 3000 people who died that day.
 
.
So that means any steel based structure is bound to collapse in case of a fire?
Try to avoid latching onto simplistic answers. I have pointed out that there was a combination of CONTRIBUTING factors that led to the collapse. For WTC towers 1 and 2, it was severe structural damages that compromised overall integrity and unchallenged fire that weakened both intact and damaged steel structures.

Look at these images...

2a6cf26611b0e7c219f33a440304611d.jpg


ef92f1e806f07d7daff603df4d13a4f3.jpg

The wood beam was burned but remained structurally strong enough to support steel beams that softened because of fire. A steel structure does not to melt, as many loony conspiracy theory believers asserted, in order for the overall structure to either undergo global collapse or be condemned as unusable. Steel melt at...

What's the melting point of steel?
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
But loses half of its tensile strength at around 500-600 C., far less than its melting point. Another factor to consider is that if it is a supporting structure, the steel member will be bearing a vertical load, and as steel weakens due to fire, it will expand, like how railroad tracks expand and twists in summertime temperature.

GlobeGazette.com :: Extreme heat causes tracks to buckle. ..
For decades, researchers have tried to figure out how to keep steel railroad tracks from warping in high temperatures, according to an IDOT news release.

Despite the successful prevention measures adopted by the railroad industry, no technology exists that can completely prevent it from happening. The so-called “sun kinks” can happen out of the blue. If undetected, they can result in a derailment.
So as the steel column expands due to increasing temperature, its expansion is checked by the weight above, global collapse can come even sooner than expected because the load is constant. For the railroad tracks, their expansion is checked by companion tracks and joints. The result is a warp track. Does it mean that fire induced collapse is inevitable for ANY steel structure? If the fire is unchallenged and spread -- Yes. Was that what happened for the WTC towers? No, there were physical damages to many internal main steel columns and perimeter columns that compromised overall structural integrity. The towers remained standing despite those damages, but the unchallenged fire spread and sufficiently weakened the remainder columns and that led to global collapse.

As far as I know the 9/11 comission report, does not mention the cause for WTC7 collapse. If it was so easy to prove from "experts", why didnt the government sponsored report include it.

As you may be aware, the panel itself had controversies from the beginning and accused of conflict of interest. Some panel members themselves have accused the Congress/Bush for inadequate funding and stonewalling.
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com

About funding issues:
9-11 Commission Funding Woes - TIME

If this was the most horrific attack on US soil, shouldnt there have been no holes barred investigations?

Here is a list of articles done by Professors, arhitects, engineers and even a former site manager at the WTC.
Technical Articles
Journal of 9/11 Studies
Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth FF 911 Truth


CBC's solomon did an interview with hamilton after the report and a book on the 9/11 report came out. Read the interview transcript and judge for yourself how credible he seems.
CBC News: Sunday - 9/11: TRUTH, LIES AND CONSPIRACY

Its a long interview but I want to quote one intersting tidbit and ask you to look at Hamilton replies.



You may believe everything that the 9/11 comission report detailed, but forgive me if I have to be forced into the undecided category based on this.
I agree that there is a crazy bunch of conspiracy theorists out there talking about missiles and thermite and what not. I am not putting out a "theory" of what happened. I am saying the explanation that AQ and OBL are the only ones behind the 9/11 attacks without any complicity from other sources is inadequate.

Blindly accepting the 9/11 report is gross injustice, particularly to the 3000 people who died that day.
When I see you brought on the 9/11 Commission Report, I know right away that you have pretty much subscribed to the loony conspiracy theory. The 9/11 Commision Report is hardly a credible TECHNICAL report on the mechanics of the collapse. The NIST reports, plural, are. Even those loony conspiracy theory believers have abandoned the 9/11 Commision Report and focused on the NIST reports. You were content with how the 9/11 Commission Report was challenged and in your mind left the issue as is. You are behind the time. Exercise some critical thinking, particularly on the arguments presented the loons, ask why is it that no credible architectural/construction/engineering companies IN THE WORLD challenged the NIST reports. Are they all conspirators? What are their cut from the insurance payout? You implied that I have 'blindly' accepted the 9/11 Commission Report when you blindly accepted the loons' argument that there are 'inconsistencies' and at the same time you are years behind the information curve.
 
.
OK my question is about the attack on pentagon. How come a full sized plane just vanish into thin air. I mean look at the wreckage. Where did all the wreckage go?
 
.
OK my question is about the attack on pentagon. How come a full sized plane just vanish into thin air. I mean look at the wreckage. Where did all the wreckage go?
You need to reduce the hyperboles. An aircraft is not a solid object, especially an airliner. It is essentially a hollow tube with just enough structural support to deflect air flow around it. You have to understand that flying is weight restricted. The stronger the aircraft more than necessary, the less capable it will be in terms of speed, altitude and endurance. So when this hollow tube impact a reenforced masonry structure like the Pentagon building, the hollow tube WILL lose. Keep in mind that the Pentagon was a WW II era construction where building codes are different than today.

Same for the aircraft's engines as many loony conspiracy theory believers claimed that there should be larger holes on the side of the Pentagon because of the engines...

Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation

In the above link, you can see that the core of an airliner's turbofan engine is not very large compared to the engine pod assembly itself, which is mostly empty space. So when the engines hit something as solid as reenforced masonry, only the small cores will remain relatively intact while the pod itself will disintegrate.

You are also making the logical error in believing that what is available is all that there is. No. It is not feasible to photograph EVERYTHING to everyone's satisfaction.
 
.
It is not feasible to photograph EVERYTHING to everyone's satisfaction.

the security camera that was at the heliport where the airliner hit was not a high speed camera. this is why it did not catch a clear image of the airliner hitting. The airliner passed between that gaps in the frames.
 
.
the security camera that was at the heliport where the airliner hit was not a high speed camera. this is why it did not catch a clear image of the airliner hitting. The airliner passed between that gaps in the frames.
Precisely. The majority of commercial security cameras out there are 10fps at the most. Television are 60hz. So people falsely expected that these very slow frame rates devices should have the same clarity between 10 and 60.
 
.


DONOT POST GRAPHIC/BLOODY/DEAD pictures or videos. Will result in an immediate ban.

Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom