Elizabeth Tague Your entire premise fails Matthew, for ALL explosives produce deafening decibel levels . . . and since thermites do NOT produce expanding gases, then they are NOT explosives nor explosive.
Matthew Barancho Technically, they are incendiaries... but certain formulations can do pressure-volume work (hence, "explosive") and have customizable features (such as noise level). Sol-gel nanostructured thermitic formulations are "tunable" so that "ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values.":
https://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P128319.HTM
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf
aiche.confex.com- Matthew Barancho You seem to have no idea what you are talking about, You (Ron) and Elizabeth both seem to misunderstand and underestimate the capabilities of nanostructured formulations (nanothermites), which are renowned for their "tailorability". Traditional high explosives release a set amount of pressure in an immediate reaction. Nanothermites can be fine-tuned to release almost any amount of pressure, capable of exceeding the 'gas expanding' ability of high explosives while also retaining the benefits of an incendiary. The question is whether or not this kind of technology could have been available in late 2001. The answer is: absolutely, yes! The patent was first issued in 1997, where discussed applications of nanostructured thermitic formulations were already praised for their "explosive" capacity. An article published in early 2002 states that many leading institutions already had "active" programs working with these materials:
"Academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives."
http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf
Such formulations should have been considered by NIST. But, like so many other possibilities, they were ignored in favor of a much 'friendlier' narrative.
Let's pretend for a moment that thermite/nanothermite/thermate/etc. has never existed. How could the perpetrators have caused a collapse of WTC7 without using enough conventional explosives on each column to have created 130db+ explosions? There are a number of possibilities that weren't considered by NIST such as partial cuts on columns (rather than total) and shaped charges to reduce noise level.
No more cherry picking, folks. You guys need to address ALL of the evidence conflicting with the official story, beginning with why NIST omitted key structural features from their WTC7 model and why they have edited out the collapse initiation in all but one piece of leaked footage. You need to explain why the NIST model is so obviously flawed. You need to explain every explosion, individually. You need to do all of this because you are the ones claiming that no further investigation is needed and that the mystery is solved beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the burden of proof lies with you all. Good luck.
- Matthew Barancho Ron, it is not disputed that thermitic materials can cut steel and it is not disputed that explosives can cut steel. Nanothermites are capable of a spectrum of anything in-between these two mechanisms. I've provided multiple sources for your review. The over-pressure (hence, noise level) was customizable to whatever volume the perpetrators were willing to accept. More importantly, it really doesn't matter whether or not this type of formulation was used -- it is only presented as a theory much more plausible than the widely-propagated tale. Another possibility is that conventional explosives were used to create only partial cuts on multiple columns in the TT region, contributing to a gradual weakening of the structure. You must refute all possibilities beyond any reasonable doubt to sustain the official narrative that WTC7 was brought down by fires and structural damage, alone. But to do that, you'd also have to provide a plausible sequence of events in which the fires witnessed at WTC7 could have initiated a progressive collapse -- something that even NIST has failed to do... miserably.
You've repeatedly demonstrated that you cannot even begin to explain the low-frequency "boom" at collapse initiation yet you proceed waving your hand at it. You cannot explain why NIST would edit out this particular segment from the released footage, either.
You expect me to refer to a controlled demolition that has used thermite in the past (of which there are a handful, let Google be your guide) even though this was barely comparable to a controlled demolition and certainly the first time a demolition was intended to be disguised as a natural collapse.
Testimony is not necessarily under oath and nothing about your copy-pasted dictionary quote suggests it as such. You may want to read that definition again, Ron.
We have no way of knowing whether or not "truthers" would be satisfied with a legitimate, official investigation. This is because such an investigation has never existed. NIST's WTC7 collapse model is visibly incorrect (lack of perimeter flexure as a response to collective core failure) and has outstanding omissions of extreme importance (girder stiffeners, lateral support beams). Ron, and others, have dodged these points repeatedly.
I suspect my response here will be quote-mined (especially by Keoki, who seems to have nothing to offer but childish one-liners), while my most relevant arguments will be dodged once again.
Any open-minded critic reviewing this entire discussion can plainly see the nature of the "swallowers" in this group. It is one of incredulity and willful ignorance. Ron claims there are "many investigations and studies conducted so far that have supported the consensus explanation" yet he cannot provide a single one that has been sustained as independent research has progressed.8 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
- Matthew Barancho Like I said, Liz, you need to look into this a bit more.
"We also report that the combustion wave speed can be easily tuned from 1 m/s to 2300 m/s for the nanoenergetic composites prepared using mesoporous Fe2O3 gel, nanoparticles of WO3, MoO3, Bi2O3, and CuO mixed with Al-nanoparticles and addition of other chemicals in nanoscale. Tunable combustion speed is found to depend not only on the type of oxidizer but also on the nanostructural arrangement present in the energetic composites."
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA481290...
"We have also reported the composite of CuO nanorods and Al nanoparticles exhibiting a combustion wave speed of 1500 +/- 100 m/s, which enhances to 2200 m/s for the self-assembled composites. Interestingly, these higher combustion wave speeds are comparable to the lower end values of the detonation velocities (e.g., 2000 m/s for hydrocarbon/alkylene-air mixtures, 1500-2700m/s for metallic azides and fulminates, and about 3000 m/s for ammonium nitrate fuel oil) for explosives."
https://mospace.umsystem.edu/.../generationfastporpagatin... - Matthew Barancho Anyway, as I've emphasized repeatedly, this is not the only explanation for explosions slightly lower than the 130db threshold purported by NIST. As I've mentioned before, traditional explosives could have been used to make partial cuts on key columns, possibly using shaped charges, which would also account for lower noise levels. None of this was considered by the "professionals" at NIST, who managed to fabricate an utter failure of a "collapse model" using millions of dollars from American taxpayers.
John Judge Tony Szamboti suggests that thermite was used first to cut the columns and then kicker charges used to knock the cut columns out of alignment, leading to the collapse. This would certainly reduce the requirement for large amounts of explosives or the order of the explosive pressures involved. Either way empirical work should carried out by a proper investigation if other proofs can't be found.2 hours ago ·
Dan Plesse Audio visual support for Matthew Barancho
9/11 low frequency boom witnesses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTVP0HWGuPg
9/11 Molten Steel: Witnessed, Recorded, Displayed and the Cause Patented Download
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI_EFMTLNwc
www.youtube.com
The earthquakes source was coming from UNDER the ground not hitting the ground i...See More
No comments:
Post a Comment