Explosives found in World Trade Center dust

[Robert_Stephens]

Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author, peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite

Interesting. Nanothermite mixed with Mono-mono-hydrazine (rocket fuel) and iron oxide celate is a metal, non-combustible, anti-rust preservative common in western countries that have high rise buildings near or next to salt water. It defeats normal salt brine airborne induced electrolysis.

Just a thought. Consider.

Robert

 

[PhysicsExist]

Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author, peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite

Interesting. Nanothermite mixed with Mono-mono-hydrazine (rocket fuel) and iron oxide celate is a metal, non-combustible, anti-rust preservative common in western countries that have high rise buildings near or next to salt water. It defeats normal salt brine airborne induced electrolysis.

Just a thought. Consider.

Robert

Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf







FEMA AGREES:
The authors of Appendix C of the FEMA REPORT concluded by saying, “No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of the phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1. http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm


Take a look at the science and facts. Or can you........?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert

 

[DiveCon]

Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert

hey no fair
how dare you use science

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Indeed. How unfair....haha

Robert

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Interesting. Nanothermite mixed with Mono-mono-hydrazine (rocket fuel) and iron oxide celate is a metal, non-combustible, anti-rust preservative common in western countries that have high rise buildings near or next to salt water. It defeats normal salt brine airborne induced electrolysis.

Just a thought. Consider.

Robert

Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf







FEMA AGREES:
The authors of Appendix C of the FEMA REPORT concluded by saying, “No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of the phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1. FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study


Take a look at the science and facts. Or can you........?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6fpGIIEqfs&feature=related

FEMA AGREES:
The authors of Appendix C of the FEMA REPORT concluded by saying, “No clear explanation for the source of sulfur has been identified…A detailed study into the mechanisms of the phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” Washington DC. May 1, 2002, Appendix C, p.1. FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study


Take a look at the science and facts. Or can you........?

How fascinating. Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert

 

[Rat in the Hat]

How fascinating. Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert

Now, now, don't question PhysicsExists. He's got it all figured out that the government went into WTC7 while it was burning, and planted demolition charges because of "PHYSICS".

Ask him, he'll tell you all about it. And he'll use the same YouTube videos over and over to do it.

And he seriously believes Geraldo Rivera is on their side, and didn't just put them on his show for ratings.

Take my advice, and don't ask him any questions about his videos. He won't answer them, and the questions make him post the video for the 100th time.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

So many whackos here. Ok, advice well taken. Eventually, I will know who is who and who is a total nut job. Thanks for your input and heads up. Appreciated. This is my 5th day here and am quickly learning.

Robert

 

[PhysicsExist]

How fascinating. Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert

Now, now, don't question PhysicsExists. He's got it all figured out that the government went into WTC7 while it was burning, and planted demolition charges because of "PHYSICS".

Ask him, he'll tell you all about it. And he'll use the same YouTube videos over and over to do it.

And he seriously believes Geraldo Rivera is on their side, and didn't just put them on his show for ratings.

Take my advice, and don't ask him any questions about his videos. He won't answer them, and the questions make him post the video for the 100th time.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi]
Newton's Laws prove 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

cognitive dissonance - Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists.

 

[Rat in the Hat]

How fascinating. Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert

Now, now, don't question PhysicsExists. He's got it all figured out that the government went into WTC7 while it was burning, and planted demolition charges because of "PHYSICS".

Ask him, he'll tell you all about it. And he'll use the same YouTube videos over and over to do it.

And he seriously believes Geraldo Rivera is on their side, and didn't just put them on his show for ratings.

Take my advice, and don't ask him any questions about his videos. He won't answer them, and the questions make him post the video for the 100th time.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi]
Newton's Laws prove 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

cognitive dissonance - Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists.

 

[DiveCon]

How fascinating. Interesting. Since the WTC structures are 81.3% hollow by volume, what then, did those two airliners do to such structures, at an impact transfer velocity of 400 tons, each......?

Robert

Now, now, don't question PhysicsExists. He's got it all figured out that the government went into WTC7 while it was burning, and planted demolition charges because of "PHYSICS".

Ask him, he'll tell you all about it. And he'll use the same YouTube videos over and over to do it.

And he seriously believes Geraldo Rivera is on their side, and didn't just put them on his show for ratings.

Take my advice, and don't ask him any questions about his videos. He won't answer them, and the questions make him post the video for the 100th time.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi]
Newton's Laws prove 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

cognitive dissonance - Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists.

SEEEE!!! ^^^^
no where does he actually address anything in the post he is responding to, all he does is post the exact same bullshit again

 

[Robert_Stephens]

No, Newton's law pertaining does not prove controlled demolition. You are a pathological liar. Here is the facts with physics and an easy differential equation proving you are in total, gross error.

V=volume
C=failure
H=heat
N=answer and sum

V/&#8776;(V´ø/*/><åx&#8721;^H)§x3.88392/¡¥-.23&#8776;&#8747;&#937;/H+=N Collapse time 1.0955, or, nearly 2 seconds form roof level to hit street level.

This can also be applied to WTC-1 and WTC 2 with impact coefficients of both jet airliners. No explosive is needed, since all 3 are upwards of 75% hollow by volume.

Robert

 

[Rat in the Hat]

Now, now, don't question PhysicsExists. He's got it all figured out that the government went into WTC7 while it was burning, and planted demolition charges because of "PHYSICS".

Ask him, he'll tell you all about it. And he'll use the same YouTube videos over and over to do it.

And he seriously believes Geraldo Rivera is on their side, and didn't just put them on his show for ratings.

Take my advice, and don't ask him any questions about his videos. He won't answer them, and the questions make him post the video for the 100th time.

In its July 2008 Draft Report for Public Comment, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initially claimed that Building 7 collapsed 40% slower than free fall acceleration.

Why would NIST want to say Building 7 did not experience free fall? NIST’s lead technical investigator, Shyam Sunder, stated in the WTC 7 technical briefing that free fall could only happen when an object “has no structural components below it.”[ii] The only way for a building to have no structural components below it is to remove the lower structural components with an external force such as explosives. If the upper part of a building is crushing its lower structural components, in other words, doing the work of removing them, not all of its energy will be converted into motion and its descent will not be free fall.

A high school physics teacher named David Chandler objected to NIST’s initial claim, pointing out that, based on video footage of Building 7’s destruction, NIST’s claim contradicted “a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity.”[iii] Mr. Chandler wrote a comment to NIST, saying, “Acknowledgement of and accounting for an extended period of free fall in the collapse of WTC 7 must be a priority if NIST is to be taken seriously.”[iv]

Responding to the criticism, NIST in its final report issued in November 2008 did finally acknowledge that Building 7 descended at free fall. According to NIST, “This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories, or 32.0 meters (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s [a period of 2.25 seconds].”[v] However, NIST did not attempt to explain how Building 7’s free fall descent could have occurred.

However, Mr. Chandler does explain how in Part 3 of his video, NIST Finally Admits Freefall, saying:[vi]

“In the case of a falling building, the only way it can go into free fall is if an external force removes the supporting structure. None of the gravitational potential energy of the building is available for this purpose, or it would slow the fall of the building. The fact of free fall by itself is strong evidence of explosive demolition, but the evidence of explosive demolition is even stronger than that.”

Mr. Chandler goes on to describe two particular attributes of Building 7’s free fall descent that make the evidence for explosive demolition even more overwhelming:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [measuring the building’s descent] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly.”

Secondly:

“The onset of freefall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building… The fact the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width.”

Mr. Chandler summarizes the meaning of these observations, saying:

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of 8 floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

Only explosives can instantaneously remove 8 stories allowing the upper structure to accelerate downwards in free fall. The absolute free fall of Building 7 over a period of 2.25 seconds is by itself overwhelming evidence that explosives were used to bring down the building.

REFERENCES

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 – Draft for Public Comment,” Washington, DC. August 2008. Chapter 3 p.41. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf

[ii] NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008. http://911speakout.org/NIST_Tech_Briefing_Transcript.pdf Transcript p.16

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Quoted by David Ray Griffin, “The Mysterious Collapse of WTC 7: Why NIST’s Final 9/11 Report is Unscientific and False,” GlobalResearch.ca, September 14, 2009. The Mysterious Collapse of WTC Seven

[v] NIST NCSTAR 1A, “Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7,” Washington, DC. November 2008. p.45 NIST and the World Trade Center

[vi]
Newton's Laws prove 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

cognitive dissonance - Mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. when confronted with challenging new information, most people seek to preserve their current understanding of the world by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding the new information or by convincing themselves that no conflict really exists.

SEEEE!!! ^^^^
no where does he actually address anything in the post he is responding to, all he does is post the exact same bullshit again

It's all he knows.

 

[DiveCon]

No, Newton's law pertaining does not prove controlled demolition. You are a pathological liar. Here is the facts with physics and an easy differential equation proving you are in total, gross error.

V=volume
C=failure
H=heat
N=answer and sum

V/&#8776;(V´ø/*/><åx&#8721;^H)§x3.88392/¡¥-.23&#8776;&#8747;&#937;/H+=N Collapse time 1.0955, or, nearly 2 seconds form roof level to hit street level.

This can also be applied to WTC-1 and WTC 2 with impact coefficients of both jet airliners. No explosive is needed, since all 3 are upwards of 75% hollow by volume.

Robert

yeah, but your just using physics, he uses "newtonian physics" so he must know more than you

 

[Robert_Stephens]

He must! Wow.......haha

Robert

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dr. Harrit is the lead scientist of a European, nine-author, peer-reviewed study*, which found millions of microscopic red-gray chips in the World Trade Center dust. These chips, at first thought to be paint, were ignited and determined to be unburned nanothermite

Common Ground - February 2011

You're a truther? No wonder you do not understand that eugenics is evil.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thermite = aluminum and rust. It can be found nearly everywhere if you want it to be found.

Espcially in the ashes of a major office building that had aluminum air ducts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually they have claimed that over 10 tons of “active thermetic material” that utilized “nano technology” has been found in the dust surrounding the world trade center.

Really, 10 tons? Ever seen thermite go off? I doubt there would be any left that hadn't been burned. Let alone 10 tons.

I'm not even 100% convinced there is such a thing as Nano thermite.

The really weird thing is that until recently there probably wasn't 10 tons of nano thermite available anywhere because it was to hard, and too expensive, to make in bulk.

 

[PhysicsExist]

Actually they have claimed that over 10 tons of “active thermetic material” that utilized “nano technology” has been found in the dust surrounding the world trade center.

Really, 10 tons? Ever seen thermite go off? I doubt there would be any left that hadn't been burned. Let alone 10 tons.

I'm not even 100% convinced there is such a thing as Nano thermite.

The really weird thing is that until recently there probably wasn't 10 tons of nano thermite available anywhere because it was to hard, and too expensive, to make in bulk.

Explosive Residues
Independent researchers have discovered a highly engineered explosive-incendiary material in several dust samples collected near the WTC site. In their paper, entitled Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, nine researchers, led by chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen, conclude:

“[T]he red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”

REFERENCES

Harrit, Farrer, Jones, Ryan, Legge, Farnsworth, Roberts, Gourley, Larsen, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Bentham Open Access, 2009. http://buildingwhat.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf