I used the term "standard iron oxide thermite" for a reason. I never said it HAD to be nanothermite, only that there was evidence for it. Additional, there is plenty of reason to assume thermite and nanothermite have the same properties, as they are almost chemically identical. The main difference is particle size and burn rate. The igniton temperature is roughly identical. Additional compounds can be added to have other effects if desired. It is not magic or alchemy, it is chemistry, and if you know how chemistry works you can change its properties considerably, so it is not some unimaginable feat that the properties could vary. Again you seem to want to pretend nanothermite is some fantastical nonexistant substance. Its existence and
its properties are well documented.
Umm....NO. Particle sizes and burn rates are huge differences. Look at my note about nano particle aluminum being the fuel for torpedoes. Change the particle size, that does not work. What I am saying is that one must get very specific on "nano-thermite" or otherwise it is a nebulous term that can have any characteristics you want.
Regardless, we can agree to use "standard iron oxide thermite."
....
Less than one part in 500 translated into sideways movement.
You still want to argue that this cannot occur without explosives? I have not so far defined the METHOD of translation into sideways motion, just sought to illustrate that the energy was there in sufficient quantities to allow it. I do have an idea on the answer, am trying to think of ways to explain it well.
Oh no? You seemed to think it was a viable explanation until I presented this information. Funny how it suddenly is not your argument any more after confronted with the evidence. Again you are ignoring that fact that this effect happened over and over again with multiple sections, in all directions. When this energy is transferred multiple hundreds or thousands of times over the entire structure, it becomes a much greater proportion of the total percentage of kinetic energy some how magically redirected laterally against the forces of gravity. Again, this is all in a situation where there is no perfect transaction of energy, meaning that there also had to be a lot of energy wasted in this translation of kinetic energy laterally. Not being able to define the method of lateral translation of energy is pretty much the entire point of presenting this evidence, so the fact that you can't explain it is a pretty fucking big hole in your logic.
....
Come on, that's not fair. I only said I was trying to think of a simple way to explain it. Here goes.
The WTC towers were by volume, about 10% steel, concrete, etc - building structure, and 90% air - working spaces. Then one falls. All material goes downward. Material fragments in the process. By the time 10 stories have pancaked, there is in that area pretty much a solid mass of building material. It is no longer 90% air. Once the density of material reaches a certain number - you pick it, 30%, 50%, 70%, then that area or section is effectively presents a solid mass to materials coming down from above. Then they move sideways because that's all they can do.
Now do you seriously want to argue that 0.2% of the PE of a beam cannot translate into sideways movement? Really?
We could agree that the debris pile from a 200 foot x 200 feet building extended 5 feet further out than the original perimeter. That's sideways motion. It extended 200 feet. Again, that's sideways motion. It extended 500 feet. That's sideways motion.
Yeah, you're right that is not fair. You are only ignoring the laws of physics and just restating the same theory over and over again in different ways pretending it is a new explanation. We already discussed Newton's 3rd Law, which states any action must have an equal and opposite reaction. IE as the "pile driver" of the floor is falling it also is destroying itself, meaning since the "collapse" was initiated 12 floors down from the top, it could only have operated with this effect for a maximum of 12 floors below it because it would be turned to loose rubble by this point. Hence your whole excuse about the rubble getting more dense is just nonsense.
Of course debris would fall and spread out a little bit, but not eject laterally 600 feet. With every foot you extend the lateral movement, you are requiring MORE FORCE to eject it. You are acting like the difference between moving a 4 ton section of steel 5 feet and moving it 600 feet is a moot point. It is not, every foot that 4-ton object goes requires exponential amounts more of energy to move it. You are just rephrasing the same explanations that I have disproved using the laws of physics, over and over again. You still are offering no explanation for the lateral ejection force or action sufficient enough to eject 4-ton sections of steel 600 feet laterally (other than what you have already said several times now).
Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
I think you have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on there buddy. There is a HUGE list of reasons why these buildings were chosen, and why it was immediately cast as a terrorist attack. I am actually glad you made this comment, because it gives me an opportunity to give evidence for the potential motives for this attack, which are at the core of any criminal investigation and have gone largely ignored in this case. Means, motive, and opportunity.
Here is a list of potential motives for multiple parties:
1. As Vokain explained the key to any
false flag attack is misdirection. This was already a very large and complicated attack no matter how you think it actually went down. They are already blowing up two massive skyscrapers, the rest of the WTC complex, hitting the pentagon, and were probably going for an additional target with the plane that went down in Pennsylvania. Crashing a few planes is relatively easy in comparison to all of the rest of the prep work to pull this all off successfully.
2. Gaining increased funding for the
military industrial complex. After the end of the cold war and the unpopularity of getting involved militarily in the Middle East, the military industrial complex needed justification for expanding into a new war. War is extremely profitable for a plethora of industries like banking, weapon systems manufacturing, private military forces, as well as the government run military as well. This one was outlined very clearly in a document released by
The Project For A New American Century, a group very closely tied with the Bush administration. The document they released called "
Rebuilding America's Defenses" stated among other things:
Let's say hypothetically that there was a controlled demolition of the twin towers, plus building 7. In that case, then why the hell did planes crash into the towers in the first place, and why did they blow up building 7 too?
It makes absolutely no logical sense to me, why spend more resources on having planes fly into them? And why blow up a third tower when the huge twin towers were already going to fall, no added shock value was added by having building 7 fall too, it seems needless. Think I asked this question earlier in this thread but no-one had a good answer.
As far as I'm concerned, even without delving into the mechanics on whether this could or couldn't have occured, the logic of the controlled demoliton theory is massively flawed.
+1
I've tried and failed to get this very basic subject discussed. It'd be nice to see internal consistency among the conspiracy theories, but there isn't any.
That's an indication it's more active dis information by groups who are adversaries to the US on the world stage, of course. They don't need quality theories, just crap repeated over and over to ignorant populations, such as in Jordon, Pakistan and Egypt.
By contrast the JFK killing is a very clean, simple conspiracy theory. There was one bullet or several; there were several assassins or only one.
Now you got your wish. I haven't brought it up yet because I was too busy watching you flail trying to argue against rock solid evidence based on the laws of physics. Now that I have demonstrated you have no explanation for this I can present more tertiary evidence that would otherwise just serve as a distraction from the facts of the physics of the matter you have failed to explain using the official story.
Actually the entire issue is dead as a doornail except for (1) Muslim apologists and protectors of the faith who want to use Takiyya, cast the US in a bad light regardless of how much lying they do (2) repeaters of the propaganda of (1)
Actually, no. You still haven't offered any reasonable explanation of how 4-ton girders flew laterally 600 feet or how the towers fell at free fall speeds. It is much simpler to just declare the debate over so you do not have to address these gaping flaws in your argument. Additionally you haven't even attempted to refute:
1. The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to collapse the structures.2. Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause complete structural failure. There may be a few people like that. But the problem with your conceptualization is that if you put such a person in front of Conspiracy Theorist A, he asserts that no planes hit the towers. Then you put him in front of CT-B, and B says the planes hit the towers but there was ALSO explosives, yada yada yada. And put him in front of CT-C, and C says that the planes hit the towers but they were all driven by Evil Jews. On and on and on.
You see, multiple lines of suspicion do not converge on an alternative explanation. Plus many of them break down on examination using 8th grade physics and chemistry.
However it does form an interesting version of the logical error of an "Irrefutable hypothesis."
Sort of like...
"Believe anything OTHER THAN the official story, and that's okay. Even if what you believe is easily refutable using chemistry and physics. Believe it anyway, because the official story must be refuted."
Multiple people have more than one opinion of what actually happened, therefore none of them are correct. Nice logic. Again this is another convenient way to avoid having to actually defend your own argument with facts.
