Scientists find active 'super-thermite' in WTC dust

[lone wolf]

Here's what a real blast looks like from one of the camps I was at.

Where's the building? An expanding rock face and a structural failure just aren't the same.

 

[gerryh]

Where's the building? An expanding rock face and a structural failure just aren't the same.

Now now Lone....this man is an expert in all things that go "boom", you shouldn't question his ethereal examples.

 

[Kakato]

I've participated in over 400 blasts but no way would I ever try a building demo,those guys are the master blasters.
Rock is a different story,it still takes 5 days to set up any of the blasts I post vids of.
I'm no expert but blasting is blasting,the basics are fairly simple,taking down a building isnt.

 

[gerryh]

I've participated in over 400 blasts but no way would I ever try a building demo,those guys are the master blasters.
Rock is a different story,it still takes 5 days to set up any of the blasts I post vids of.
I'm no expert but blasting is blasting,the basics are fairly simple,taking down a building isnt.

Well, considering the discussion is concerned with taking down a building, not blasting a hole in the ground or taking a rock face down, your videos are more of a straw man.... or are you just posting them to say.."Hey guys, look what I can do...I the man".

 

[Kakato]

Well, considering the discussion is concerned with taking down a building, not blasting a hole in the ground or taking a rock face down, your videos are more of a straw man.... or are you just posting them to say.."Hey guys, look what I can do...I the man".

The technique may be a bit different but blasting is blasting,the same materials are used in all aspects,rock or demo's.

And though that vid looked like lots of energy was expended it wasnt much powder,not even a 1/4 of what would be needed to take down a building like the WTC.

And it took a lot of people in broad daylight to get that blast ready,just trying to show how impossible it would be to set up a blast 4 times that size in New York without anyone noticing.

Chill out there Ger.
I'm not here to scrap with you.

 

[gerryh]

The technique may be a bit different but blasting is blasting,the same materials are used in all aspects,rock or demo's.

And though that vid looked like lots of energy was expended it wasnt much powder,not even a 1/4 of what would be needed to take down a building like the WTC.

And it took a lot of people in broad daylight to get that blast ready,just trying to show how impossible it would be to set up a blast 4 times that size in New York without anyone noticing.

Chill out there Ger.
I'm not here to scrap with you.

If you're wanting to compare apples to apples, then find a video showing the setup for a controlled demolition of a highrise, or even a lowrise. Comparing apples to prunes does nothing for your side of the argument. That's what you accuse the other side of doing all the time.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Anybody who's actually seen a controlled demolition of a high rise tower, and was paying attention, knows the way the WTC buildings came down was not a controlled demolition. Just search Youtube for controlled demolition, you'll find dozens of examples. What you'll see and hear is that there's a series of loud explosions that go on for 5 to 10 seconds before collapse begins, and the collapse begins at the bottom. WTC towers 1 and 2 began to collapse at the level where the planes hit them, the explosives in the buildings would have had to survive the impact and fire for an hour or so (actually, 57 minutes in one case, over 100 minutes in the other, if my memory's correct), and have been installed at precisely the right floor to make the collapse start at that point. And if you watch the collapse of building 7 closely you'll see that the roof falls in before the building falls. That's not how controlled demolitions happen. Moreover, it takes a large crew months to prepare a building that size for explosive demolition, they'd have been making big holes in the walls to get at the structural steel, then patching them invisibly, hauling in masses of explosives and det cord, there's no way it could have been done without anybody noticing, those buildings were occupied pretty much 24/7. Unless of course several thousand people were in on the conspiracy and deliberately sacrificed themselves on the day to avoid revealing it. It strains credulity past the breaking point.

 

[ironsides]

Anybody who's actually seen a controlled demolition of a high rise tower, and was paying attention, knows the way the WTC buildings came down was not a controlled demolition. Just search Youtube for controlled demolition, you'll find dozens of examples. What you'll see and hear is that there's a series of loud explosions that go on for 5 to 10 seconds before collapse begins, and the collapse begins at the bottom. WTC towers 1 and 2 began to collapse at the level where the planes hit them, the explosives in the buildings would have had to survive the impact and fire for an hour or so (actually, 57 minutes in one case, over 100 minutes in the other, if my memory's correct), and have been installed at precisely the right floor to make the collapse start at that point. And if you watch the collapse of building 7 closely you'll see that the roof falls in before the building falls. That's not how controlled demolitions happen. Moreover, it takes a large crew months to prepare a building that size for explosive demolition, they'd have been making big holes in the walls to get at the structural steel, then patching them invisibly, hauling in masses of explosives and det cord, there's no way it could have been done without anybody noticing, those buildings were occupied pretty much 24/7. Unless of course several thousand people were in on the conspiracy and deliberately sacrificed themselves on the day to avoid revealing it. It strains credulity past the breaking point.

You will never be able to change these conspiracy nuts with logic. They are convinced just as you said that people just went on working 24/7 while some sinister organization drilled holes, planted bombs then patched things up. All this done in full view of the tenants and police security as well as building security. You gave a very precise and logical answer, very good.

 

[Liberalman]

It is possible.

I used to work in an 80 floor office tower there is a lot of activity and maintenance people are doing lots of work on a daily bases putting new devices constantly upgrading taking out old devices ripping down old offices and building new offices on the various floors.

Bombs come in all shapes and sizes not just the big stick of dynamite that you light the wick with a wooden match.

There are small bombs that can fit in the palm of your hand and if a lot of little charges drilled into support structure can bring part of a building down.

A lot of this work is carried out during the night when everyone is at home.

Unless the police officer has been trained in bomb recognition most officers wouldn’t know what they are looking at.

In my opinion the WTC came down because it was poorly built by not building to code that New York is famous for.

 

[YukonJack]

It was Bush who brought down the Twin Towers.

It was Bush who fired the gun to kill the tomcat in the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963.

It was Bush who pulled the trigger in the Ford Theater.

It was Bush who bombed Pearl Harbour.

Ridiculous?? No more than this babble about the 9/11 conspiracy promopted by insane idiots.

 

[Liberalman]

I like Bush

 

[Cliffy]

I like Bush

You must be a closet conservative then.

 

[darkbeaver]

Ask yourselves. Were the buildings demolished? Did you see them pulverized right before your eyes and then crash to the ground in ten seconds? Did you see those things? Now look at any video of a professional demolition of a large building and you see the exact same action. There is absolutely no reason whatever to suspect anything other than professional purposeful demolition and all the normal steps that would have to be taken. The aircraft played no part whatever in the failure of the three structures, in fact there literally could have been airliners flown into the buildings at one a day since sept 11 2001 and the buildings would still be standing there amid a pile of scorched aircraft parts.

 

[CDNBear]

Ask yourselves. Where the buildings demolished?

In NYC.

Did you see them pulverized right before your eyes and then crash to the ground in ten seconds?

Yes.

Did you see those things?

Yes.

Now look at any video of a professional demolition of a large building and you see the exact same action.

Only if you're drunk, stoned and you squint.

There is absolutely no reason whatever to suspect anything other than professional purposeful demolition and all the normal steps that would have to be taken.

See last reply.

The aircraft played no part whatever in the failure of the three structures, in fact there literally could have been airliners flown into the buildings at one a day since sept 11 2001 and the buildings would still be standing there amid a pile of aluminum aircraft parts.

And yet they aren't there anymore, after two planes were witnessed by millions of people flying into them. Exploding, causing great structural damage.

You're right DB, it was because terrorists flew planes into them...:lol:

 

[ironsides]

It is possible.

I used to work in an 80 floor office tower there is a lot of activity and maintenance people are doing lots of work on a daily bases putting new devices constantly upgrading taking out old devices ripping down old offices and building new offices on the various floors.

Bombs come in all shapes and sizes not just the big stick of dynamite that you light the wick with a wooden match.

There are small bombs that can fit in the palm of your hand and if a lot of little charges drilled into support structure can bring part of a building down.

A lot of this work is carried out during the night when everyone is at home.

Unless the police officer has been trained in bomb recognition most officers wouldn’t know what they are looking at.

In my opinion the WTC came down because it was poorly built by not building to code that New York is famous for.

They were not built like the "Empire State Building", that is for sure.

 

[darkbeaver]

Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal



By Niels Harrit
After the paper entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.
However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.
But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm). Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her ”major advanced research” points out that, already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology” (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).

 

[darkbeaver]

Anybody who's actually seen a controlled demolition of a high rise tower, and was paying attention, knows the way the WTC buildings came down was not a controlled demolition. Just search Youtube for controlled demolition, you'll find dozens of examples. What you'll see and hear is that there's a series of loud explosions that go on for 5 to 10 seconds before collapse begins, and the collapse begins at the bottom. WTC towers 1 and 2 began to collapse at the level where the planes hit them, the explosives in the buildings would have had to survive the impact and fire for an hour or so (actually, 57 minutes in one case, over 100 minutes in the other, if my memory's correct), and have been installed at precisely the right floor to make the collapse start at that point. And if you watch the collapse of building 7 closely you'll see that the roof falls in before the building falls. That's not how controlled demolitions happen. Moreover, it takes a large crew months to prepare a building that size for explosive demolition, they'd have been making big holes in the walls to get at the structural steel, then patching them invisibly, hauling in masses of explosives and det cord, there's no way it could have been done without anybody noticing, those buildings were occupied pretty much 24/7. Unless of course several thousand people were in on the conspiracy and deliberately sacrificed themselves on the day to avoid revealing it. It strains credulity past the breaking point.

You keep saying "there's now way it could have been done without anybody noticing". Well you are right they were noticed. The following provides the known train of events and associations of interest in any bonified investigation.


Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
Unanswered Questions .********************
Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one - tenants


Kevin R. Ryan, 7-09-09

(During the years from 1993 to 2001, Marsh made several modifications to these floors, in addition to the fireproofing upgrades mentioned above. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Marsh made modifications to the south side of floor 94 in 1998. That same year, the PANYNJ helped Marsh demolish floors 95-98 in order to rebuild the fire alarm and sprinkler systems. Marsh did further modification work on floor 95 in the year 2000.[13] The full floor fireproofing upgrades on floors 93 through 100 were accomplished in August through November of 1998, except for floor 94, which was done in December 1996.
The South Tower Impact Zone
United Airlines Flight 175 hit the south tower (WTC 2) between floors 78 and 83, in the southeast corner of the building. In the impact zone, Baseline Financial Services (Baseline) was located on floors 77 and 78, Fuji Bank was on floors 79 to 82, and AON Corporation was on floor 83.
Baseline was led by a very interesting individual named Joseph Kasputys, who had a history of being well connected to the highest levels of government, as well as to defense and intelligence industries. Kasputys worked, from 1972 to 1977, for the US departments of commerce and defense. He was also the deputy director of Nixon’s White House taskforce that dealt with the Arab oil embargo of 1973, and he was instrumental in the creation of the Department of Energy (DOE).
Kasputys’ connections to the DOE, from 1977 through at least 1997, are interesting considering that the DOE was developing thermite ignition devices as early as 1983.[29] Additonally, national laboratories working within the DOE developed nanothermites in the late 1990s. Nanothermites are explosive thermite mixtures where one or more reactants are present at the nanometer scale. These are also called super-thermites due to the extraordinarily large amount of energy released upon ignition.[3, 30])


(Kasputys was also a member of the Logistics Management Institute (LMI), whose members included Paul Kaminski of In-Q-Tel and General Dynamics, Charles DiBona of Halliburton, Skull and Bones member Joseph Samuel Nye, and Michael Daniels of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). It has been noted that SAIC, a defense contractor with expertise in thermite-related technologies, played a large part in the NIST WTC investigation. LMI’s self-proclaimed role is “advancing the science of government.”[30, 31])


(According to NIST, Kasputys’ Baseline modified the southeast corner of floor 78 in 1999, exactly where the aircraft hit on 9/11.[33] Floors 77 and 78 were upgraded for fireproofing in June and April of 1998, respectively.)

 

[CDNBear]

Professor Pileni's Resignation as Editor-in-Chief of the Open Chemical Physics Journal



By Niels Harrit
After the paper entitled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," which I along with eight colleagues co-authored, was published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal, its editor-in-chief, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, abruptly resigned. It has been suggested that this resignation casts doubt on the scientific soundness of our paper.
However, Professor Pileni did the only thing she could do, if she wanted to save her career. After resigning, she did not criticize our paper. Rather, she said that she could not read and evaluate it, because, she claimed, it lies outside the areas of her expertise.
But that is not true, as shown by information contained on her own website (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm). Her List of Publications reveals that Professor Pileni has published hundreds of articles in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology. She is, in fact, recognized as one of the leaders in the field. Her statement about her ”major advanced research” points out that, already by 2003, she was ”the 25th highest cited scientist on nanotechnology” (http://www.sri.jussieu.fr/pileni.htm).

Bentham and TOCPJ are vanity sites, where peer review is claimed, not actual.

TOCPJ's publication of the article highlighted in the OP of this thread was the driving force of her resignation, because the paper was found to be fraudulant.

Nothing like missing the point.

This is from one of your very own CT sites...

An executive at the New England Journal of Medicine and a Cornell graduate student who submitted a nonsensical paper to an open-access journal to test its peer review policy say it was accepted without comment.
Kent Anderson, executive director of international business and product development at the New England Journal, and Philip Davis, a PhD student in scientific communications at Cornell, sent a computer-generated manuscript using pseudonyms and the phony affiliation the "Center for Research in Applied Phrenology" to The Open Information Science Journal.
The journal accepted the article, which included this passage:
"In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9]."

Fake Paper tests peer-review process at Bentham Science Publishers | 911Blogger.com


I really liked this part...

"In this section, we discuss existing research into red-black trees, vacuum tubes, and courseware [10]. On a similar note, recent work by Takahashi suggests a methodology for providing robust modalities, but does not offer an implementation [9]."

 

[darkbeaver]

Bentham and TOCPJ are vanity sites, where peer review is claimed, not actual.

TOCPJ's publication of the article highlighted in the OP of this thread was the driving force of her resignation, because the paper was found to be fraudulant.

Nothing like missing the point.

There aren't many who miss the whole point of you bear,and your supporting links are where?

 

[CDNBear]

There aren't many who miss the whole point of you bear,and your supporting links are where?

Right in the post.