All three towers collapsed by controlled demolition on 9/11 .

[the other mike]

^^The definition of a shill or troll.

I didn't know educating someone when they were completely wrong was being a shill or troll. I wonder what people think about you not answering a simple yes or now question or simply not admitting you were wrong in the face of all the evidence provided against you.

How does me providing FACTS/TRUTH make me a shill or troll? This seems to be your only defense when being painted into a corner. Insult when proven wrong.

Because I recognize the same talking points I've been hearing for 2 decades maybe ?
Save it for your Marxist kids will you ?

 

[Gamolon]

^^The definition of a shill or troll.

Anyone who points out your errors works at Langley, eh?

You're confusing me with someone else pal.

Conspiracy Theories, Disinformation Agents and the CIA

Well know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false. William Casey, Ronald Reagans first CIA Director (from Caseys first staff meeting, 1981)

duluthreader.com

Internet troll: A person, usually operating under a pseudonym, who posts deliberately provocative messages to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of provoking maximum disruption and argument. They are often paid by nefarious sources but sometimes are motivated to do so for their own amusement. They often try to provoke dissension and doubt by writing dis-informational letters to the editors of newspapers.

So the information in the video you posted is dis-information? The part about how fireproofing affects I beams that were used for the core columns?

I guess this makes you an "Internet Troll"?

 

[Gamolon]

^^The definition of a shill or troll.

I didn't know educating someone when they were completely wrong was being a shill or troll. I wonder what people think about you not answering a simple yes or now question or simply not admitting you were wrong in the face of all the evidence provided against you.

How does me providing FACTS/TRUTH make me a shill or troll? This seems to be your only defense when being painted into a corner. Insult when proven wrong.

Because I recognize the same talking points I've been hearing for 2 decades maybe ?
Save it for your Marxist kids will you ?

But they're FACTS Angelo! Who cares if they're "talking points" and if you "recognize them as such". They're still undeniable facts.



FACTS that proved your claim wrong. And you can't admit it. How pathetic.

 

[the other mike]

So the information in the video you posted is dis-information? The part about how fireproofing affects I beams that were used for the core columns?

I guess this makes you an "Internet Troll"?

So the fireproofers are the
ones who got inside ? I figured it was cleaning crews or elevator inspectors.

 

[Gamolon]

Let's see how the truth deniers and trolls respond to my new approach, without the usual diversion and disruption tactics.

Record I'm posting this in conspiracy theories because I know the administrators are required to anyway. You're welcome moderators.

Once you become aware as many of us how the World Trade Center towers were constructed with 47 --2 in thick massive steel columns in each twin tower......from the ground floor to the top...... as Illustrated in this animation:;

Did you even watch the whole video? Why did they talk about how fireproofing would have affected the core columns/I beams?

 

[the other mike]

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions | Twin Towers

Despite the illegal destruction of most of the structural steel and other debris in the months after 9/11, a sizeable body of forensic evidence has been developed over the years by government investigators and independent researchers. Much of the available evidence indicates the occurrence of...

www.ae911truth.org

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust​

Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 11 This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

According to their analyses, the gray sides of the chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the red sides had various features indicative of thermite and nano-thermite.

Features Indicative of Thermite​

• The chips were composed primarily of “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” The first three elements are suggestive of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide.
• Their red color and magnetic properties were suggestive of iron.
• They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, producing highly energetic reactions.

Features Indicative of Nano-thermite​

• The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers.”
• The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately mixed.
• When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”
• They ignited at a much lower temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, which is above 900°C.
• Silicon was one of their main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic material was mixed in a sol-gel to form a porous reactive material.
• Their carbon content was significant. The authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.”

A backscattered electron image of a red-gray chip.

The presence of the above-described substance in the WTC dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

What other explanations for this substance exist?

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not.

The second possibility is that the WTC dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red-gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times or places that precluded any contamination. One sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day.

With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plausible explanation has been provided — nor has NIST responded to the reported discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust — which is corroborated by other evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — constitutes compelling evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive and incendiary materials.

NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues​

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. NIST provides the following question and answer in its FAQs on WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for residues of these compounds in the steel.... Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wall- board that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence is not ignored in science just because it is not conclusive. In fact, NIST conducted many tests during the course of its investigation that were not conclusive. Given the evidence examined in this chapter, some of which had already been discussed widely during NIST’s investigation, NIST had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not such testing would have been conclusive.

Moreover, NIST’s answer actually implies that such testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a negative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive result could also have been conclusive. This argument was made in the Appeal of NIST’s response to a Request for Correction filed in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, Inc.:

“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition.... While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.... The results [of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue], coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present....”

The Appeal therefore argued:

“t is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive.... Unless NIST can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive.”

NIST ignored this point in its response to the Appeal and provided no such scenario.

 

[Gamolon]

So the information in the video you posted is dis-information? The part about how fireproofing affects I beams that were used for the core columns?

I guess this makes you an "Internet Troll"?

So the fireproofers are the
ones who got inside ? I figured it was cleaning crews or elevator inspectors.

So you linked to a video that had disinformation about the core columns? Does that make you an "Internet Troll"? You posted the definition didn't you?

 

[Faun]

^^The definition of a shill or troll.

I didn't know educating someone when they were completely wrong was being a shill or troll. I wonder what people think about you not answering a simple yes or now question or simply not admitting you were wrong in the face of all the evidence provided against you.

How does me providing FACTS/TRUTH make me a shill or troll? This seems to be your only defense when being painted into a corner. Insult when proven wrong.

Because I recognize the same talking points I've been hearing for 2 decades maybe ?
Save it for your Marxist kids will you ?

Translation: you believe in fairy tales and will not allow any light of reality to penetrate your armor of conspiracies.

 

[the other mike]

Pop quiz Friday kids.
Study up.

Based on Newton’s Third Law of Motion, which states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, we know there would have been a deceleration of WTC 1’s upper section if it had impacted and crushed the intact structure below it. The absence of deceleration is incontrovertible proof that another force (i.e., explosives) must have been responsible for destroying the lower structure before the upper section reached it.

Near-Free-Fall Acceleration | Twin Towers

According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) — which is the U.S. government agency that investigated the World Trade Center’s destruction — the Twin Towers came down “essentially in free fall.” NIST’s theory of the collapses hinges on the idea that the upper section of...

www.ae911truth.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions | Twin Towers

Despite the illegal destruction of most of the structural steel and other debris in the months after 9/11, a sizeable body of forensic evidence has been developed over the years by government investigators and independent researchers. Much of the available evidence indicates the occurrence of...

www.ae911truth.org

View attachment 512669

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust​

Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 11 This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

According to their analyses, the gray sides of the chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the red sides had various features indicative of thermite and nano-thermite.

Features Indicative of Thermite​

• The chips were composed primarily of “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” The first three elements are suggestive of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide.
• Their red color and magnetic properties were suggestive of iron.
• They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, producing highly energetic reactions.

Features Indicative of Nano-thermite​

• The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers.”
• The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately mixed.
• When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”
• They ignited at a much lower temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, which is above 900°C.
• Silicon was one of their main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic material was mixed in a sol-gel to form a porous reactive material.
• Their carbon content was significant. The authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.”

A backscattered electron image of a red-gray chip.

The presence of the above-described substance in the WTC dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

What other explanations for this substance exist?

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not.

The second possibility is that the WTC dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red-gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times or places that precluded any contamination. One sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day.

With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plausible explanation has been provided — nor has NIST responded to the reported discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust — which is corroborated by other evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — constitutes compelling evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive and incendiary materials.

NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues​

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. NIST provides the following question and answer in its FAQs on WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for residues of these compounds in the steel.... Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wall- board that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence is not ignored in science just because it is not conclusive. In fact, NIST conducted many tests during the course of its investigation that were not conclusive. Given the evidence examined in this chapter, some of which had already been discussed widely during NIST’s investigation, NIST had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not such testing would have been conclusive.

Moreover, NIST’s answer actually implies that such testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a negative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive result could also have been conclusive. This argument was made in the Appeal of NIST’s response to a Request for Correction filed in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, Inc.:

“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition.... While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.... The results [of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue], coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present....”

The Appeal therefore argued:

“t is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive.... Unless NIST can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive.”

NIST ignored this point in its response to the Appeal and provided no such scenario.

nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

Damn, that's funny!

 

[the other mike]

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions | Twin Towers

Despite the illegal destruction of most of the structural steel and other debris in the months after 9/11, a sizeable body of forensic evidence has been developed over the years by government investigators and independent researchers. Much of the available evidence indicates the occurrence of...

www.ae911truth.org

View attachment 512669

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust​

Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 11 This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

According to their analyses, the gray sides of the chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the red sides had various features indicative of thermite and nano-thermite.

Features Indicative of Thermite​

• The chips were composed primarily of “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” The first three elements are suggestive of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide.
• Their red color and magnetic properties were suggestive of iron.
• They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, producing highly energetic reactions.

Features Indicative of Nano-thermite​

• The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers.”
• The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately mixed.
• When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”
• They ignited at a much lower temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, which is above 900°C.
• Silicon was one of their main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic material was mixed in a sol-gel to form a porous reactive material.
• Their carbon content was significant. The authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.”

A backscattered electron image of a red-gray chip.

The presence of the above-described substance in the WTC dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

What other explanations for this substance exist?

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not.

The second possibility is that the WTC dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red-gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times or places that precluded any contamination. One sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day.

With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plausible explanation has been provided — nor has NIST responded to the reported discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust — which is corroborated by other evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — constitutes compelling evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive and incendiary materials.

NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues​

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. NIST provides the following question and answer in its FAQs on WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for residues of these compounds in the steel.... Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wall- board that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence is not ignored in science just because it is not conclusive. In fact, NIST conducted many tests during the course of its investigation that were not conclusive. Given the evidence examined in this chapter, some of which had already been discussed widely during NIST’s investigation, NIST had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not such testing would have been conclusive.

Moreover, NIST’s answer actually implies that such testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a negative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive result could also have been conclusive. This argument was made in the Appeal of NIST’s response to a Request for Correction filed in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, Inc.:

“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition.... While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.... The results [of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue], coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present....”

The Appeal therefore argued:

“t is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive.... Unless NIST can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive.”

NIST ignored this point in its response to the Appeal and provided no such scenario.

nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

Damn, that's funny!

I hear Bremer is an expert.

 

[Gamolon]

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions | Twin Towers

Despite the illegal destruction of most of the structural steel and other debris in the months after 9/11, a sizeable body of forensic evidence has been developed over the years by government investigators and independent researchers. Much of the available evidence indicates the occurrence of...

www.ae911truth.org

View attachment 512669

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust​

Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 11 This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

According to their analyses, the gray sides of the chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the red sides had various features indicative of thermite and nano-thermite.

Features Indicative of Thermite​

• The chips were composed primarily of “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” The first three elements are suggestive of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide.
• Their red color and magnetic properties were suggestive of iron.
• They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, producing highly energetic reactions.

Features Indicative of Nano-thermite​

• The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers.”
• The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately mixed.
• When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”
• They ignited at a much lower temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, which is above 900°C.
• Silicon was one of their main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic material was mixed in a sol-gel to form a porous reactive material.
• Their carbon content was significant. The authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.”

A backscattered electron image of a red-gray chip.

The presence of the above-described substance in the WTC dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

What other explanations for this substance exist?

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not.

The second possibility is that the WTC dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red-gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times or places that precluded any contamination. One sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day.

With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plausible explanation has been provided — nor has NIST responded to the reported discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust — which is corroborated by other evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — constitutes compelling evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive and incendiary materials.

NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues​

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. NIST provides the following question and answer in its FAQs on WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for residues of these compounds in the steel.... Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wall- board that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence is not ignored in science just because it is not conclusive. In fact, NIST conducted many tests during the course of its investigation that were not conclusive. Given the evidence examined in this chapter, some of which had already been discussed widely during NIST’s investigation, NIST had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not such testing would have been conclusive.

Moreover, NIST’s answer actually implies that such testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a negative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive result could also have been conclusive. This argument was made in the Appeal of NIST’s response to a Request for Correction filed in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, Inc.:

“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition.... While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.... The results [of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue], coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present....”

The Appeal therefore argued:

“t is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive.... Unless NIST can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive.”

NIST ignored this point in its response to the Appeal and provided no such scenario.

It was paint. Ever wonder why Harrit's paper never showed a comparison between the paint chips (red paint from the steel)he found in the debris and the supposed thermite chips? He had to use information from OTHER types of paint instead of the paint chips he had in his hands.

Want to know why?

Because they were the SAME. The thermite chips were paint chips. Even one of his cohorts showed an image of a paint chip during a presentation and it matched Harrit's supposed thermite chip!

 

[Gamolon]

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions | Twin Towers

Despite the illegal destruction of most of the structural steel and other debris in the months after 9/11, a sizeable body of forensic evidence has been developed over the years by government investigators and independent researchers. Much of the available evidence indicates the occurrence of...

www.ae911truth.org

View attachment 512669

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust​

Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 11 This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

According to their analyses, the gray sides of the chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the red sides had various features indicative of thermite and nano-thermite.

Features Indicative of Thermite​

• The chips were composed primarily of “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” The first three elements are suggestive of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide.
• Their red color and magnetic properties were suggestive of iron.
• They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, producing highly energetic reactions.

Features Indicative of Nano-thermite​

• The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers.”
• The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately mixed.
• When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”
• They ignited at a much lower temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, which is above 900°C.
• Silicon was one of their main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic material was mixed in a sol-gel to form a porous reactive material.
• Their carbon content was significant. The authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.”

A backscattered electron image of a red-gray chip.

The presence of the above-described substance in the WTC dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

What other explanations for this substance exist?

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not.

The second possibility is that the WTC dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red-gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times or places that precluded any contamination. One sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day.

With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plausible explanation has been provided — nor has NIST responded to the reported discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust — which is corroborated by other evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — constitutes compelling evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive and incendiary materials.

NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues​

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. NIST provides the following question and answer in its FAQs on WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for residues of these compounds in the steel.... Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wall- board that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence is not ignored in science just because it is not conclusive. In fact, NIST conducted many tests during the course of its investigation that were not conclusive. Given the evidence examined in this chapter, some of which had already been discussed widely during NIST’s investigation, NIST had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not such testing would have been conclusive.

Moreover, NIST’s answer actually implies that such testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a negative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive result could also have been conclusive. This argument was made in the Appeal of NIST’s response to a Request for Correction filed in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, Inc.:

“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition.... While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.... The results [of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue], coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present....”

The Appeal therefore argued:

“t is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive.... Unless NIST can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive.”

NIST ignored this point in its response to the Appeal and provided no such scenario.

nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

Damn, that's funny!

I hear Bremer is an expert.

Was the video that you linked to in the OP disinformation?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions | Twin Towers

Despite the illegal destruction of most of the structural steel and other debris in the months after 9/11, a sizeable body of forensic evidence has been developed over the years by government investigators and independent researchers. Much of the available evidence indicates the occurrence of...

www.ae911truth.org

View attachment 512669

Nano-thermite in the WTC Dust​

Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.

In April 2009 a group of scientists led by Dr. Niels Harrit, an expert in nano-chemistry who taught chemistry at the University of Copenhagen for over 40 years, published a paper in the Open Chemical Physics Journal titled “Active Thermitic Materials Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.” 11 This paper, which reported the results of experiments conducted on small red-gray, bi-layered chips found in multiple independent WTC dust samples, concluded that the chips were unreacted nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

According to their analyses, the gray sides of the chips consisted of “high iron and oxygen content including a smaller amount of carbon,” while the red sides had various features indicative of thermite and nano-thermite.

Features Indicative of Thermite​

• The chips were composed primarily of “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon.” The first three elements are suggestive of thermite, which is commonly made by combining aluminum and iron oxide.
• Their red color and magnetic properties were suggestive of iron.
• They all ignited between 415° and 435°C, producing highly energetic reactions.

Features Indicative of Nano-thermite​

• The chips’ primary ingredients were ultra-fine grain, seen typically “in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers.”
• The ultra-fine ingredients were intimately mixed.
• When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”
• They ignited at a much lower temperature — 430°C — than the temperature at which conventional thermite ignites, which is above 900°C.
• Silicon was one of their main ingredients, and it was porous, suggesting the thermitic material was mixed in a sol-gel to form a porous reactive material.
• Their carbon content was significant. The authors noted that this “would be expected for super-thermite formulations in order to produce high gas pressures upon ignition and thus make them explosive.”

A backscattered electron image of a red-gray chip.

The presence of the above-described substance in the WTC dust strongly suggests that nano-thermite was used in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.

What other explanations for this substance exist?

The first possibility is that the red-gray chips were in fact paint chips. The researchers explored this possibility — first by soaking the chips in methyl ethyl ketone (a solvent known to dissolve paint chips, which did not succeed in dissolving the red- gray chips), and second by exposing the red-gray chips and known paint chips to a hot flame. The paint chips dissolved into ash, while the red-gray chips did not.

The second possibility is that the WTC dust might somehow have been contaminated with the red-gray chips during the cleanup operation. However, this hypothesis was ruled out on the basis that all four of the dust samples had been collected at times or places that precluded any contamination. One sample was collected about 20 minutes after the collapse of WTC 1. Of the other three samples, two were collected the next day.

With those two possibilities ruled out, no other plausible explanation has been provided — nor has NIST responded to the reported discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust.

Therefore, the presence of unreacted nano-thermite in the WTC dust — which is corroborated by other evidence of high-temperature chemical reactions — constitutes compelling evidence that WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 were destroyed by controlled demolition using nano-thermite and possibly other explosive and incendiary materials.

NIST’s Refusal to Test for Explosives or Thermite Residues​

Despite the compelling evidence for high-temperature thermitic reactions examined above, NIST has refused to test for explosives or thermite residues. NIST provides the following question and answer in its FAQs on WTC 1 and WTC 2:

Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?

NIST did not test for residues of these compounds in the steel.... Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wall- board that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

But, to reiterate the point mentioned above, evidence is not ignored in science just because it is not conclusive. In fact, NIST conducted many tests during the course of its investigation that were not conclusive. Given the evidence examined in this chapter, some of which had already been discussed widely during NIST’s investigation, NIST had every reason to conduct very simple lab tests for explosives and thermite residues, regardless of whether or not such testing would have been conclusive.

Moreover, NIST’s answer actually implies that such testing might have been conclusive. Indeed, a negative result would certainly be conclusive. A positive result could also have been conclusive. This argument was made in the Appeal of NIST’s response to a Request for Correction filed in 2007 by a group of scientists, an architect, and two 9/11 family members, which quoted the following statement from Materials Engineering, Inc.:

“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. The compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition.... While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.... The results [of Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy on minute traces of residue], coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present....”

The Appeal therefore argued:

“t is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a test for explosive residues would not be conclusive.... Unless NIST can explain a plausible scenario that would produce inconclusive explosive residue test results, its stated reason for not conducting such tests is wholly unpersuasive.”

NIST ignored this point in its response to the Appeal and provided no such scenario.

nano-thermite, a form of thermite with explosive properties engineered at the nano-level.

Damn, that's funny!

I hear Bremer is an expert.

Did Bremer tell you that?
Is he speaking to you right now?

 

[the other mike]

Controlled demolition technician Tom Sullivan on 9/11 Free Fall​

 

[the other mike]

Did Bremer tell you that?
Is he speaking to you right now?

Why was Paul Bremer silent on 9/11 about the fact that the first airplane went right into his company's office in the North Tower?
"The nose of the first plane went into our offices. For us the World Trade Center and 9/11 was about as bad as it could get."
- Robert Wilkerson, senior vice president of Marsh Crisis Consulting, "9/11 shows need for crisis planning," Deseret News, March 15, 2002
Lewis Paul Bremer was chairman and CEO of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a risk and insurance services firm which is a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC). Bremer and 1,700 of the employees of Marsh & McLennan had offices in the World Trade Center. Bremer's office was in the North Tower.
The plane that hit the North Tower went right into the computer center and offices of Bremer's company. As Robert Wilkerson, senior vice president of Marsh Crisis Consulting, told the press: "The nose of the first plane went into our offices. For us the World Trade Center and 9/11 was about as bad as it could get."
When the first plane hit the North Tower, 294 employees of Marsh & McLennan were working in offices on the upper floors. Not one of them survived.
So, doesn't it seem odd that on September 11, when Bremer was interviewed in Washington on WRC-TV (NBC) at 12:30 pm in the studio that he did not even mention the fact that the first plane had gone into his company's offices and killed hundreds of his employees?
Bremer is quite cool, maybe too cool, in the interview and shows no sign of emotion, which seems very odd for a person whose office was just hit by a plane. Why was he silent about this important fact? Bremer, who was the chairman of the National Committee on Terrorism, was instead rather keen on blaming Osama bin Laden, and perhaps Iran and Iraq for the terror attacks that had just wiped out his company's offices.
Three days later, in an interview on CNN, Bremer stated that their office was located "above where the second aircraft hit." This statement, however, is contradicted by Wikipedia (See: Paul Bremer) and the statement by the company's VP Wilkerson, although MMC reportedly did have offices in both towers.
Then, at 4 minutes and 45 seconds of the interview video, Bremer is answering a question about how the terror attacks will change our lives. Bremer says, "It is a day that will change our lives. It's a day when the war... (pause) ...the terrorists declared on the United States..."
What was Bremer going to say when he stopped himself? Was he going to say, "It's a day when the war on terrorism began? It seems like that was what he was going to say when he checked himself. He clearly had to re-think what he was planning to say.

 

[Gamolon]

Did Bremer tell you that?
Is he speaking to you right now?

Why was Paul Bremer silent on 9/11 about the fact that the first airplane went right into his company's office in the North Tower?
"The nose of the first plane went into our offices. For us the World Trade Center and 9/11 was about as bad as it could get."
- Robert Wilkerson, senior vice president of Marsh Crisis Consulting, "9/11 shows need for crisis planning," Deseret News, March 15, 2002
Lewis Paul Bremer was chairman and CEO of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a risk and insurance services firm which is a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC). Bremer and 1,700 of the employees of Marsh & McLennan had offices in the World Trade Center. Bremer's office was in the North Tower.
The plane that hit the North Tower went right into the computer center and offices of Bremer's company. As Robert Wilkerson, senior vice president of Marsh Crisis Consulting, told the press: "The nose of the first plane went into our offices. For us the World Trade Center and 9/11 was about as bad as it could get."
When the first plane hit the North Tower, 294 employees of Marsh & McLennan were working in offices on the upper floors. Not one of them survived.
So, doesn't it seem odd that on September 11, when Bremer was interviewed in Washington on WRC-TV (NBC) at 12:30 pm in the studio that he did not even mention the fact that the first plane had gone into his company's offices and killed hundreds of his employees?
Bremer is quite cool, maybe too cool, in the interview and shows no sign of emotion, which seems very odd for a person whose office was just hit by a plane. Why was he silent about this important fact? Bremer, who was the chairman of the National Committee on Terrorism, was instead rather keen on blaming Osama bin Laden, and perhaps Iran and Iraq for the terror attacks that had just wiped out his company's offices.
Three days later, in an interview on CNN, Bremer stated that their office was located "above where the second aircraft hit." This statement, however, is contradicted by Wikipedia (See: Paul Bremer) and the statement by the company's VP Wilkerson, although MMC reportedly did have offices in both towers.
Then, at 4 minutes and 45 seconds of the interview video, Bremer is answering a question about how the terror attacks will change our lives. Bremer says, "It is a day that will change our lives. It's a day when the war... (pause) ...the terrorists declared on the United States..."
What was Bremer going to say when he stopped himself? Was he going to say, "It's a day when the war on terrorism began? It seems like that was what he was going to say when he checked himself. He clearly had to re-think what he was planning to say.

Was the video of the columns in the OP disinformation Angelo? Your silence is damning.

 

[candycorn]

Now, do you admit you/the video was wrong? Yes or no?

You're wrong troll.

I am?

Why, in the same video you posted did they discuss how heat affects I beams in the core?

You're assuming you know what my argument is, without ever having heard it.

Good point.

Why don't you write a couple of paragraphs about what you think happened that day in some reasonable detail.

Oh yeah; you're afraid to do that.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Now, do you admit you/the video was wrong? Yes or no?

You're wrong troll. Probably covering your ass because you're involved, which makes you my enemy.

Once you become aware as many of us how the World Trade Center towers were constructed with 47 --2 in thick massive steel columns in each twin tower......from the ground floor to the top......

You were aware of the WTC construction?

If you're referring to the 47 massive core columns
changing from box beams to I beams, as I already told your pal
Game Boy here, it would not change anything.

The near freefall of all three towers was impossible without nano-thermite in place.

Wrong.

It would change everything.

Near free fall speed means less than free fall speed and they had tro fall at less than free fall speed.

There was no nano thermite in place and none was needed for them to fall as they did.
You have failed as always and as always you have not provided any evidence

 

[Soupnazi630]

Now, do you admit you/the video was wrong? Yes or no?

You're wrong troll.

Are you still claiming your claim is correct?

My claim is that controlled demolition charges were placed
inside the towers before 2 planes hit them.

Now either address that or move along.

You need evidence of such controlled demolition and you have never shown any such evidence.