911 and the Demo Truth
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Intermediate Accounting 12th and 13th edition Kieso Weygandt
Next: JSH: Back to conic section parameterization result
From: Al Dykes on 16 Oct 2009 12:10 In article <9446806a-8c55-46ed-8550-de22050b5eca(a)p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>, <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Oct 13, 4:42=A0am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> Innews:936658c6-b1b3-444b-946c-dbc9b347170a(a)f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com, >> knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com <knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com> mused: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 12, 11:22 am, "AllYou!" <ida...(a)conversent.net> wrote: >> >> Innews:hav96v$fue$15(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu, >> >> Henry <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> mused: >> >> >>> Gunner Asch wrote: >> >>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:28:04 -0400, Henry >> >>>> <9-11tr...(a)experts.org> wrote: >> >> >>>>>> LOL! Well, you've finally taken to selective snipping, which >> >>>>>> is the final refuge of the person who knows they have lost >> >>>>>> the debate. The obvious flaw in your comment is that you >> >>>>>> think steel has to heat to 2500 degrees before it weakens. >> >> >>>>> No, it has to be heated to over 2500 degrees before it melts, >> >>>>> a >> >> >>>> I notice you keep avoiding "weakens" and keep going straight >> >>>> to "melts" >> >> >>>> Why is that? >> >> >>> Because it did melt, and if it had gradually weakened, the >> >>> buildings wouldn't have suddenly exploded and disintegrated. >> >> >> Just some of the stupidity you spout: >> >> >> 1) You claim that the buildings exhibited all of the >> >> characteristics of a controlled demolition, and yet controlled >> >> demotions of buildings cause them to implode, not explode. >> >> You're reading from at least two different whacko sites, and >> >> getting confused. >> >> >> 2) Look up the word 'disintegrate' and then reconcile that with >> >> ground zero. >> >> >> 3) 'Gradually weakening' doesn't mean 'gradually fail'. Take a >> >> steel cable, put it under 99% load capacity, and then >> >> 'gradually' heat it up. Keep heating it. Does it fail just as >> >> gradually as >> >> it's heated, or does it fail catastrophically? >> >> >>> They would have shown gradual, isolated, and asymmetric bending >> >>> or sagging in the areas of extreme heat. >> >> >> 1) There's nothing about gradula heating that causes anything >> >> to be asymetric.] >> >> >> 2) How do you know that the trusses didn't sag to some degree >> >> before failing? If you do, prove it. >> >> >> 3) The sagging was isolated to the buildings. >> >> >> 4) Steel begins to weaken (and hence, sag) with every increase >> >> in temperature, no matter how small. >> >> >>> There a reason you >> >>> conspiracy theorists can't cite even *one* example of a steel >> >>> framed high rise that collapsed due to fire.... >> >> >> You kooks can't give one reason why all major building codes >> >> require the steel to be fireproofed. >> >> >>> Why do you think WTC7's entire hurricane, earthquake, and fire >> >>> resistant steel frame >> >> >> Why do you think its frame was fire resistant? >> >> >>> suddenly dropped at free fall speed? >> >> >> It didn't. >> >> >>> We >> >>> know >> >> >> You mistakenly believe. >> >> >>> that gradual weakening due to the gradual heating of a few >> >>> columns can't cause that. >> >> >> Sure it can. >> >> > Liar. >> >> Prove that I lied. >> >> > It wasn't a house of cards. >> >> It wasn't up there by magic, either. >> >> > 47 core columns. >> >> Which required latteral support. =A0That's why they were there. >> >> > Hundreds of perimeter columns. >> >> That required latteral support, and each other. =A0And many were >> missing. >> >> > Where are the pancakes? >> >> IHOP >> >> > How was it turned to mostly dust? >> >> It wasn't. =A0The sheet rock was, but not the concrete. =A0 > >Liar. >Besides, drop a piece of "sheet rock" 1/4 mile and see if it turns >into 90% dust. >Put piece into a 100 ton press and see if it turns to dust and >spreads for blocks and miles. > >>But how does >> thermite turn the concrete to dust? >> >So you admit something had to turn everything into dust. >> >> >> > H- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >So you are saying that the "sheet rock" is the dust that is inches >thick for blocks and spread for miles over the river AND into the >atmosphere for miles? The content and distribution of material was indicative of a complex mixture of building debris and combustion products in the resulting plume. These three samples were composed primarily of construction materials, soot, paint (leaded and unleaded), and glass fibers (mineral wool and fiberglass). Levels of hydrocarbons indicated unburned or partially burned jet fuel, plastic, cellulose, and other materials that were ignited by the fire. In morphologic analyses we found that a majority of the mass was fibrous and composed of many types of fibers (e.g., mineral wool, fiberglass, asbestos, wood, paper, and cotton). The particles were separated into size classifications by gravimetric and aerodynamic methods. Material < 2.5 .m in aerodynamic diameter was 0.88-1.98% of the total mass. The largest mass concentrations were > 53 .m in diameter. SOURCE: http://www.ehponline.org/members/2002/110p703-714lioy/EHP110p703PDF.PDF> -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Henry on 16 Oct 2009 12:39 Al Dykes wrote: > Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >> Al Dykes wrote: >>> Nobody claims to have found "unreacted nanothermite" >> Your conspiracy kook lies sure are blatant stupid, and easily >> exposed. >> Press Release: >> >> http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html >> >> Summary of research: >> >> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html >> >> >> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >> >> >> >> Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust >> Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and >> researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of >> World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust >> itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive. >> >> The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, >> describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust >> taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. >> Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray >> energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study >> authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be >> an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." >> >> The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth >> by critics of the official reports. >> >> At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand >> the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a >> demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an >> enormous source of recent American spending -- was started. >> >> Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology >> (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings' >> destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of >> these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary >> compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings >> without notice. >> >> NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They >> concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the >> building failures. >> >> Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has >> refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other >> accelerant or explosive. >> >> "We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure, >> to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't." >> >> Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes. >> >> Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks >> NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional thermite -- >> which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered >> thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this >> type of application." >> >> Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the >> many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures, >> such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme >> pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust >> particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a >> "volcanic eruption". >> >> "One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was >> the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7." >> >> NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of >> the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse." >> >> Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and >> known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, >> Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began >> researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005. >> >> Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a >> magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor >> of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet. >> >> "That was very odd to me," he said. >> >> Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially >> described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust. >> >> But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material >> would take longer. >> >> Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels >> Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over >> 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano >> Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal >> of Physical Chemistry A. >> >> Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September >> 11th attack. and says has two answers. >> >> "First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask >> me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer >> them, 'I was on your side'." >> >> Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the >> TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes >> the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the >> mainstream public and media." >> >> And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories >> manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and >> was consequently fired. >> >> "This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been >> shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the >> dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or >> something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available >> to just anyone." >> >> In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial >> explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law >> requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics. >> >> In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging >> the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil >> Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of >> Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges >> have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The >> Journal of 9/11 Studies >> >> Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of >> over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 >> attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method. > Nobody claims to have found "unreacted nanothermite" You need to be able to read and think in order to know what the team of nine scientists discovered - which is why you don't. -- http://911research.wtc7.net http://www.journalof911studies.com/ http://www.ae911truth.org
From: Al Dykes on 16 Oct 2009 12:42 In article <hba7jf$qdi$1(a)ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> Henry <9-11truth(a)experts.org> wrote: >>> Al Dykes wrote: > >>>> Nobody claims to have found "unreacted nanothermite" > >>> Your conspiracy kook lies sure are blatant stupid, and easily >>> exposed. > > >>> Press Release: >>> >>> http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html >>> >>> Summary of research: >>> >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html >>> >>> >>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>> >>> >>> >>> Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust >>> Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and >>> researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of >>> World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust >>> itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive. >>> >>> The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, >>> describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust >>> taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. >>> Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray >>> energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study >>> authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be >>> an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic." >>> >>> The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth >>> by critics of the official reports. >>> >>> At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand >>> the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a >>> demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an >>> enormous source of recent American spending -- was started. >>> >>> Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology >>> (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings' >>> destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of >>> these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary >>> compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings >>> without notice. >>> >>> NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They >>> concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the >>> building failures. >>> >>> Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has >>> refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other >>> accelerant or explosive. >>> >>> "We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure, >>> to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't." >>> >>> Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes. >>> >>> Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks >>> NIST is wrong. "What we've discovered is not conventional thermite -- >>> which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered >>> thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this >>> type of application." >>> >>> Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the >>> many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures, >>> such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme >>> pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust >>> particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a >>> "volcanic eruption". >>> >>> "One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was >>> the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7." >>> >>> NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of >>> the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse." >>> >>> Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and >>> known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, >>> Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began >>> researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005. >>> >>> Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a >>> magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor >>> of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet. >>> >>> "That was very odd to me," he said. >>> >>> Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially >>> described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust. >>> >>> But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material >>> would take longer. >>> >>> Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels >>> Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over >>> 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano >>> Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal >>> of Physical Chemistry A. >>> >>> Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September >>> 11th attack. and says has two answers. >>> >>> "First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask >>> me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer >>> them, 'I was on your side'." >>> >>> Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the >>> TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes >>> the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the >>> mainstream public and media." >>> >>> And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories >>> manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and >>> was consequently fired. >>> >>> "This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been >>> shown," says Jones. "We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the >>> dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or >>> something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available >>> to just anyone." >>> >>> In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial >>> explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law >>> requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics. >>> >>> In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging >>> the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil >>> Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of >>> Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges >>> have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The >>> Journal of 9/11 Studies >>> >>> Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of >>> over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 >>> attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method. > > >> Nobody claims to have found "unreacted nanothermite" > > You need to be able to read and think in order to know what >the team of nine scientists discovered - which is why you don't. > Nowhere in the above does anyone claim to have found "unreacted nanothermite". -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail
From: Iarnrod on 16 Oct 2009 16:29 On Oct 16, 10:39 am, Hankie the Self-Admitted Fired Janitor <9-11liar...(a)kookshit.org> wrote: > You need to be able to read and think in order to know what > the team of nine scientists discovered - which is why you don't. Oh the IRONY from a self-admitted fired janitor substance abuser. Hankie, controlled demolition and your super-Spook cartoon magic gravity defying thermite and Wile E Coyote Acme silent and invisible explosives simply so not exist.
From: * US on 17 Oct 2009 20:46
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Iamdud <iarnrod(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >... lied. Bush and Cheney lied about 9/11 and you approve of that. |