Any evidence at hand to support those claims or have you at least seen the documents?
Edit: how do you paint steel beams with thermite?
Last edited by a moderator:
9/11 in the Academic Community
- Thread starter Masato Toys
- Start date
Edit: how do you paint steel beams with thermite?
"Harrit et al. report finding red/gray chips with a thickness of 10-100 microns in WTC debris. They conjecture that these are some form of thermite. Jim Hoffman (Explosive Residues: Energetic Materials and the World Trade Center Destruction) supposes that this material was painted onto the steel supports of the WTC towers and contributed to their collapse.
The same publication by Hoffman quotes a figure of about 4 MJ/kg for the energy density of thermite, and assumes a density of 4,400 kg/m^3.
The thickness of the steel in the core columns of the WTC buildings tapers as they go up (9-11 Research: The Core Structures). At the mid-section of the building it is thought to have been about two inches thick (about 5 cm).
From these data, it is straightforward to calculate the maximum increase in temperature of the columns that could result from ignition of the thermite layer. What follows is a best-case analysis: it is assumed that the thermite remains in good thermal contact with the steel throughout its reaction; all the heat from the thermite is deposited in the steel, and that there is no cooling of the steel by convection, radiation, or conduction along the column. We assume that the thickness of the nanothermite layer is the maximum thickness of the chips reported by Harrit.
Consider one square meter of column surface. The thermite layer is assumed to be 100 microns thick, so its total volume is 0.0001 m^3 and its mass is 0.44 kg. It will therefore release 1.76 MJ of energy. The same area of column corresponds to 0.05 m^3 of steel, with a mass of 400 kg. The specific heat of steel is about 500 J/kg.K. So the expected temperature increase is
Delta T = 1,760,000/(400*500) = 8.8 C
This shows that Hoffman's paint theory cannot be true."
The Thermite Paint Theory | Metabunk
The same publication by Hoffman quotes a figure of about 4 MJ/kg for the energy density of thermite, and assumes a density of 4,400 kg/m^3.
The thickness of the steel in the core columns of the WTC buildings tapers as they go up (9-11 Research: The Core Structures). At the mid-section of the building it is thought to have been about two inches thick (about 5 cm).
From these data, it is straightforward to calculate the maximum increase in temperature of the columns that could result from ignition of the thermite layer. What follows is a best-case analysis: it is assumed that the thermite remains in good thermal contact with the steel throughout its reaction; all the heat from the thermite is deposited in the steel, and that there is no cooling of the steel by convection, radiation, or conduction along the column. We assume that the thickness of the nanothermite layer is the maximum thickness of the chips reported by Harrit.
Consider one square meter of column surface. The thermite layer is assumed to be 100 microns thick, so its total volume is 0.0001 m^3 and its mass is 0.44 kg. It will therefore release 1.76 MJ of energy. The same area of column corresponds to 0.05 m^3 of steel, with a mass of 400 kg. The specific heat of steel is about 500 J/kg.K. So the expected temperature increase is
Delta T = 1,760,000/(400*500) = 8.8 C
This shows that Hoffman's paint theory cannot be true."
The Thermite Paint Theory | Metabunk
The physics work like this.
You have a fire cracker. If you tape four or five pennies to it, it has the power to send the pennies flying.. If you heap enough pennies on it they will smother the energy from the explosion.
Now when the plane (firecracker) hit the pile of pennies (tower), the vast majority of it's energy was spent almost immediately. It's weight hit the building did it's damage and stopped. Then then fuel, stored in the wings, which obviously were destroyed almost immediately spreading the energy of the fuel into the fire ball we saw and an ensuing fire.
At this point the official theory states the steel structure sagged in the heat and the top of the building fell vertically bringing the rest with it. Now if you imagine heating a stick of wax in the middle, you can see that the middle will fall vertically and the rest will sag in toward the weak point. That makes sense.
The problem is as the buildings collapse, instead of the ends of the wax rod falling in, the ends nearest the weak point actually get blown sideways for quite some distance, given they weigh tons and given the energy source (plane impact/fuel) is used up. There is no reasonable explanation for it but explosives.
In the last video I posted you can see the evidence of explosives as the concussion from blasts causes the smoke to billow first inward because something has used up a whole lot of air close by and the smoke moves inward to fill the void. Explosives use up a lot of air that's what causes the shock wave from a blast. It's the echo of the air bouncing of itself as it fills the vacum made by the bomb.
You have a fire cracker. If you tape four or five pennies to it, it has the power to send the pennies flying.. If you heap enough pennies on it they will smother the energy from the explosion.
Now when the plane (firecracker) hit the pile of pennies (tower), the vast majority of it's energy was spent almost immediately. It's weight hit the building did it's damage and stopped. Then then fuel, stored in the wings, which obviously were destroyed almost immediately spreading the energy of the fuel into the fire ball we saw and an ensuing fire.
At this point the official theory states the steel structure sagged in the heat and the top of the building fell vertically bringing the rest with it. Now if you imagine heating a stick of wax in the middle, you can see that the middle will fall vertically and the rest will sag in toward the weak point. That makes sense.
The problem is as the buildings collapse, instead of the ends of the wax rod falling in, the ends nearest the weak point actually get blown sideways for quite some distance, given they weigh tons and given the energy source (plane impact/fuel) is used up. There is no reasonable explanation for it but explosives.
In the last video I posted you can see the evidence of explosives as the concussion from blasts causes the smoke to billow first inward because something has used up a whole lot of air close by and the smoke moves inward to fill the void. Explosives use up a lot of air that's what causes the shock wave from a blast. It's the echo of the air bouncing of itself as it fills the vacum made by the bomb.
Not true. There is evidence of the support structure being cut in ways that require explosives called cutting charges and are only used to control the fall of the building, so the structure does not get in it's own way on the way down. They are complicated cuts made in steel for one purpose, photographed on steel being taken out of ground zero. I cant find pics they're somewhere in that film, but if you saw them you would see that no one needed to make cuts like them to remove wreckage. The point is it looks like a conventional demolition.
Cool.. too drunk to care atm
I do own style.
M
member 1013
Guest
Looks like an interesting watch, thanks OP
If you believe that, I think you've woefully misunderstood a lot of Chomsky's career. He's never been a conspiracist and has never questioned official reports without official countervailing reports, often supplied by people on the ground in regions if the world where Americans were either not interested or not paying attention. His sources have always come from grass roots organizers, missionaries, leftis political party members, guerilla fighters and foreign journalists cross checked with official government documents obtained via the FOIA or through official public statements.
His overarching narrative has always been that the US government has willfully aided and abetted terrorists, dictators and paramilitary organizations to maintain hegemony despite the prohibitions of law and/or the narratives of freedom pushed in the media. The primary aim is not to show that government is the enemy, but rather to show that its policies are often crafted to suit corporate whims and the only way we can get to truth is through the mouths of people who are experiencing the effects of those policies. Many if not most of his accounts, when subsequently fact checked have been demonstrably accurate rather than simply speculative.
There is not nor has there ever been anything conspiratorial or even anti-US about Chomsky's writings though many have misread him this way over the years when cherry picking from his writings.
So in one instance he uses evidence from people that experienced what was happening to form his opinion, and on the other he uses what the government tells him what happened to form his opinion. It's your bias of believing that anything which questions the US Governments narrative of 9/11 as 'conspiratorial' which is clouding your view here.
Last edited:
That you think I have that bias at all is pretty hilarious as I've said nothing to indicate it. What I think conversely is that there's an unshakeable faith in US dominance among truthers that allows people to dismiss the idea of a bunch of driven ideologues from the third world delivering a devastating blow to this country.
All throughout history driven men and women have been able to expose the weaknesses of overconfident empires. 9/11 is sadly no different.
You don't seem interested in looking at one side of the information, yet have an opinion that it could only be one way. So, yes, you do have a bias.
I said I prefer reading articles or books to watching videos and I have read several articles that have cast aspersions on the official 9/11 story over the years (do you forget I used to be an OGer?) as well as several that have debunked those articles. The official account is not my issue with truthers as I said in the other post you dredged up. My issue is that there are so so many things to be upset about that have cost us far more lives and had far deadlier consequences and the evidence is much much more plausible for those things than the various alternative theories about 9/11.
The one bias I will admit to having is the belief that the government is fundamentally incompetent, far too much so to have pulled off and successfully covered up involvement in 9/11. I also have a bias against film as an appropriate medium for evaluating evidence because of all the visual techniques that can be utilized to manipulate emotions and present a case. A documentary, while useful, is always leagues behind a book or scholarly article. What interests me slightly about this thread tbh is how there are calls for a greater amount of written scholarship challenging official accounts, which I personally would welcome.
