Nanothermite paper, if you think it is bull shit then show us your evidence

[rhys 0]

Quote

Fe2O3
Ferric Oxide

Rust Unimpressed

Youu really seem to be having trouble grapsing this composition.

yes ferrric oxide is rust, and yes thermite, thermate and nano thermite are made with this product.

but you are suggesting that the rust is from the steel structure, while ignoring that it is in a carbon matrix, mated with the other ingredients and is a volitile incediary which can be ignited with a lazer. or flame.

you ignore, and ignoring evidence is unscientific.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

You did not attach a picture.

oops my bad,

attached

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

Quote

Fe2O3
Ferric Oxide
Rust Unimpressed

Youu really seem to be having trouble grapsing this composition.
yes ferrric oxide is rust, and yes thermite, thermate and nano thermite are made with this product.
but you are suggesting that the rust is from the steel structure, while ignoring that it is in a carbon matrix, mated with the other ingredients and is a volitile incediary which can be ignited with a lazer. or flame.
you ignore, and ignoring evidence is unscientific.

Lazer ? dr evil had one of those . you might mean L.A.S.E.R. aka light amplification by the stimulated emission of radiation . NOT Ztimulated !

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

You did not attach a picture.

oops my bad,

attached

Nope, still not there.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 2,404]

>but you are suggesting that the rust is from the steel structure, while
>ignoring that it is in a carbon matrix . . .

Steel rusts. If you found that rust in dirt, it would be "Fe2O3 in a carbon matrix." Big words do not an argument make.

[nigel99 144]

Quote

Quote

Fe2O3
Ferric Oxide

Rust Unimpressed

Youu really seem to be having trouble grapsing this composition.

yes ferrric oxide is rust, and yes thermite, thermate and nano thermite are made with this product.

but you are suggesting that the rust is from the steel structure, while ignoring that it is in a carbon matrix, mated with the other ingredients and is a volitile incediary which can be ignited with a lazer. or flame.

you ignore, and ignoring evidence is unscientific.

I have had the opportunity to "play" with thermite. It is impressive that some old iron filings and aluminium dust can be so volatile/potent(that is what we used).

I 100% agree with you that about the incendiary nature of the mixture, I just disagree with you on its origins.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[muff528 3]

Quote

>but you are suggesting that the rust is from the steel structure, while
>ignoring that it is in a carbon matrix . . .

Steel rusts. If you found that rust in dirt, it would be "Fe2O3 in a carbon matrix." Big words do not an argument make.

There's carbon in the steel alloy, too.

[rhys 0]

Quote

Every single person in this thread who has tried to have a conversation with you about the subject has been fobbed of with cries of "strawman!" and "ignorence!"[sic]. When it comes to this subject you're a rude, aggressive and closed-minded broken record. It's a real shame.

Ignoring evidence an manoevering around it, is ignorence.

Changing the subject and arguing about irrelevant points to detract from the subject matter, is using a straw man argument.

Try gong into a church and tell them you athiest point of view, are thay going to listen? are they going to use the same tactics you guys all use here??

Is that majority going to be against you?

Nice try, but peer pressure doesn;t work on me.

You have to prove your assertions, and weak ass experients made my billion dollar media networks whose owner is a signatory of the PNAC, ado not prove anything, straw man arguments and ignorence do not mean anything, refuting the facts is the only thing that means anything.

All you are left with is;

acknowleging the nanothermite and expalining its existence, or

saying the eidence is planted then proving so.

saying that the composition of a highly engineered substance is simple rust, would make it prevailent world wide, when this is the first many of us heve ever heard if it.

and as for not replying to you, i was tired and though i was replying to skip belt.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[rhys 0]

Quote

Steel rusts. If you found that rust in dirt, it would be "Fe2O3 in a carbon matrix." Big words do not an argument make.

Now you use straw man techniques and ignroence to try to discredit and distract from the subject.

If your are right, can you please provide me evidence that similar occurences of this composition as explained in detail in the paper with photographs from a microscope have existed eleswhere ANYWHERE, ANY PLACE or ANYTIME.

And provide links to the source.

Not individual components but in red grey chips.

You are lying to yourself, to me and to everyone if your beleive these red grey chips are simple rust from the building.

You can say all you like, but you cannot show us any evidence.

I challenge you to, for the sake of your integrety.

Your argument is getting really weak now.

I have attached some more photographs of what you are saying is rust, and I further challenge you to show me similar photographs of what you are explaining.

Here is the paper the photgraph came from to help you understand a little better, about how this is not rust in dirt, but something much more complicated.

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/thermitics_made_simple.html

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[skipbelt 0]

dr. evil invented nanothermite paper , but not without fits and starts . he didn't invent it so much really as perfect it !

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

You did not attach a picture.

oops my bad,

attached

I'm sorry, that's just no good.

Could we have one that is lower resolution and less focussed please.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Ignoring evidence an manoevering around it, is ignorence.

Changing the subject and arguing about irrelevant points to detract from the subject matter, is using a straw man argument.

Try gong into a church and tell them you athiest point of view, are thay going to listen? are they going to use the same tactics you guys all use here??

Is that majority going to be against you?

Nice try, but peer pressure doesn;t work on me.

You have to prove your assertions, and weak ass experients made my billion dollar media networks whose owner is a signatory of the PNAC, ado not prove anything, straw man arguments and ignorence do not mean anything, refuting the facts is the only thing that means anything.

All you are left with is;

acknowleging the nanothermite and expalining its existence, or

saying the eidence is planted then proving so.

saying that the composition of a highly engineered substance is simple rust, would make it prevailent world wide, when this is the first many of us heve ever heard if it.

and as for not replying to you, i was tired and though i was replying to skip belt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you use straw man techniques and ignroence to try to discredit and distract from the subject.

If your are right, can you please provide me evidence that similar occurences of this composition as explained in detail in the paper with photographs from a microscope have existed eleswhere ANYWHERE, ANY PLACE or ANYTIME.

And provide links to the source.

Not individual components but in red grey chips.

You are lying to yourself, to me and to everyone if your beleive these red grey chips are simple rust from the building.

You can say all you like, but you cannot show us any evidence.

I challenge you to, for the sake of your integrety.

Your argument is getting really weak now.

I have attached some more photographs of what you are saying is rust, and I further challenge you to show me similar photographs of what you are explaining.

Here is the paper the photgraph came from to help you understand a little better, about how this is not rust in dirt, but something much more complicated.
http://911research.wtc7.net/...ics_made_simple.html

What was that quote from Forrest Gump???

I think my rather mundane spell checker thinks you have some "issues" and you are making it quite crazy.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Ignoring evidence an manoevering around it, is ignorence.

Which is what you do.

Quote

Changing the subject and arguing about irrelevant points to detract from the subject matter, is using a straw man argument.

Which is what you do - constantly.

Quote

Nice try, but peer pressure doesn;t work on me.

Neither does science.

Quote

You have to prove your assertions, and weak ass experients made my billion dollar media networks whose owner is a signatory of the PNAC, ado not prove anything,

Great! Another way for Rhys to not pay any attention to things he doesn't want to hear. "I don't need to refute that paper, it was written by eeevil people!"

Quote

acknowleging the nanothermite and expalining its existence, or

Which is what several people are doing, have you listened to anything they have to say? No. So what's the point?



(And by the way, when someone puts [sic] next to a word, it means you're spelling it wrong.)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[muff528 3]

Do you have links you can point to that can answer some questions? For example: Do physical properties of the elements involved in the nanothermite samples match (ex. C14 content, etc.) or do they differ from those same elements found in the WTC (steel beams, other construction materials, furnishings, etc.)? What is the distribution pattern around the WTC site and how does the concentration drop off with distance? How does the presence, distribution and other characteristics of the material in NYC compare to that of other large industrial cities? How does it compare to rural locations? What other methods or processes can produce nanothermite with similar properties and distributions? Have these other scenarios been satisfactorily eliminated? Has each element of an investigation been independently corroborated? Did the investigation and analysis of the material, along with other evidence (which has also been investigated and treated without prejudice) lead to a theory? ... Or, with a particular hypothesis in mind, are the pieces of the puzzle being made to fit that hypothesis? Is there any other "evidence" that may or may not support a hypothesis? If physical evidence points to a scenario, say an "inside job", and there is no evidence to refute that, how is the connection made to a specific "whodunnit"? ...and how did "tens of tons" of the pyrotechnic material get "planted" in the buildings, and was there enough time from initial development of that pyrotechnic in the mid-1990s till 9/11 to have the idea, develop a plan, plant the material, execute the plan, and ensure that no one "talks"? BTW - there are a few "straw-man" references in the "....Made Simple" article.

[billvon 2,404]

>If your are right, can you please provide me evidence that similar
>occurences of this composition as explained in detail in the paper with
> photographs from a microscope have existed eleswhere ANYWHERE, ANY
>PLACE or ANYTIME.

Sure. Attached is a picture of the "microspheres" you mentioned above. They are available from a company called CenoStar. They harvest those silica/iron/aluminum microspheres from coal fired power plants and use them for coatings, soundproofing, thermal insulation etc.

>And provide links to the source.

http://www.cenostar.com/

[Andy9o8 0]

Mmm, they look like soap bubbles to me.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Mmm, they look like soap bubbles to me.

Project Mayhem?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Mmm, they look like soap bubbles to me.

Dove is in on the conspiracy!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

You have to prove your assertions

Indeed. Now how exactly do you believe this "peer reviewed paper" (on a web site that promotes itself as open publishing of hundreds of subject matter journals - sounds like a self certifying process) actually has proven its assertions?

Uniform 100nm shapes - these look pretty irregular to me - red roughly rectangular objects.

samples are tiny, and the "provenance" of the samples is not exactly compelling. Claims that there must be tons more of the stuff in the rubble, which is no longer present or possible to investigate, is highly convenient. Science is about repeatable results, and that's not possible here.

"Although these elements -- aluminum, iron, oxygen, and silicon -- were all abundant in building materials used in the Twin Towers, it is not possible that such materials milled themselves into fine powder and assembled themselves into a chemically optimized aluminothermic composite as a by-product of the destruction of the Twin Towers. " Claims like this are made, but never actually proven.

And then we get back to the core problem - how to explain how it was accomplished, why you would bother with the pesky task of hijacking and crashing airplanes in (al queda already had a bombing history at the Towers), and why no Iraqis were on board the planes.

[diablopilot 2]

Holy shit, I sure hope you're wearing your tin foil hat, or the brain ray will begin sucking all your remaining intellect.

Oh......never mind.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[billvon 2,404]

And your one warning. Cut it out.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

And your one warning. Cut it out.

Again . . . i ask what part wasn't true?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

Dammit!
Zinged by accuracy!

[skipbelt 0]

the sheer intractible entrenched obstinancy of the basis for and defense of this thread make it the worst most painful most unenjoyable yet !

[nigel99 144]

Quote

Do you have links you can point to that can answer some questions? For example: Do physical properties of the elements involved in the nanothermite samples match (ex. C14 content, etc.) or do they differ from those same elements found in the WTC (steel beams, other construction materials, furnishings, etc.)? What is the distribution pattern around the WTC site and how does the concentration drop off with distance? How does the presence, distribution and other characteristics of the material in NYC compare to that of other large industrial cities? How does it compare to rural locations? What other methods or processes can produce nanothermite with similar properties and distributions? Have these other scenarios been satisfactorily eliminated? Has each element of an investigation been independently corroborated? Did the investigation and analysis of the material, along with other evidence (which has also been investigated and treated without prejudice) lead to a theory? ... Or, with a particular hypothesis in mind, are the pieces of the puzzle being made to fit that hypothesis? Is there any other "evidence" that may or may not support a hypothesis? If physical evidence points to a scenario, say an "inside job", and there is no evidence to refute that, how is the connection made to a specific "whodunnit"? ...and how did "tens of tons" of the pyrotechnic material get "planted" in the buildings, and was there enough time from initial development of that pyrotechnic in the mid-1990s till 9/11 to have the idea, develop a plan, plant the material, execute the plan, and ensure that no one "talks"? BTW - there are a few "straw-man" references in the "....Made Simple" article.

good post.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.