9 Scientists from 3 Countries Find Tons of Nano Thermite Near 3 WTC Towers

[z.monkey]

Iz are acronym...
EE ACID...
Electrical Engineer (EE)...
Advanced Certified Interconnect Designer (ACID-IPC)...
I design stuff, professionally...

[MileHigh]

Ok thanks for the info, sounds interesting.

MileHigh

[jibbguy]

I think we need an expert opinion on whether a giant bomb blast in the basement is worse than airplanes hitting the neighboring buildings or not.

You know, several of the prime engineers on the project were still alive in 2001. And at NO TIME have they ever been accused of failing in their job... And at no time has there ever been any evidence that those buildings had substandard ANYTHING. The steel tested was the promised and spec'ed grade. 

It is a truth that these building routinely sustained loads from wind storms much worse than the momentary shock value of the airliner crashes. 100 MPH winds are a tremendous burden on a building that tall and broad; and this happened several times over the years; especially as winds are often much stronger at the higher stories than at ground level.

And steel buildings are much more flexible than concrete, brick, or stone... They can take sudden shocks; or sustained hurricane-strength winds that can bend them a foot or more in the lee direction, and later spring back with no damage. They are specifically designed for BOTH scenarios. 

From what some suggest, Bldg 7 would have been so weak, that it would have collapsed years before of its own weight (as well as the Towers). They were not weak. And they were certainly strong enough to sustain the shocks of the hits. In fact, the NIST reports do not blame the structural damage of the aircraft, it blames fire for all three collapses (...which, "oddly" enough, burned nearly 800 degrees below the point for melting steel).

And another thing about steel buildings: They are not going to fall from the top-down perfectly straight at free-fall speeds.... It is just too strange to expect that all the members failed in exactly the correct time, to allow the building to drop straight down without slowing or falling to one side.... You know, that means EVERY SINGLE VERTICAL MEMBER and connecting horizontal beam had to fail at exactly the correct time, within a couple milliseconds of it's neighbor and opposite on the other side... Over and over and over again, as the stories collapsed one after another... This precise matching side-to-side, happening over a hundred times for each Tower building story, and 47 times for #7. Without slowing the fall at all, and without tilting to one side. Straight down, and within a second or two of free-fall speed.

Because all it would take to mess-up that "perfect symmetry", would be for one of those upper members to fail a little slower than the ones on the other side.. this would cause a skew to one side and help slow the fall; the skew and slowing being magnified as it continued to fall... A topple over to one side, and a partial much slower collapse with the lower stories probably even still standing. 

Amazing, that it didn't happen that way huh? And to think... 3 TIMES IN A ROW, in a single day. Must be astronomical odds there.

Oddly enough, this is EXACTLY how demolitions are done. Another amazing coincidence.

[MileHigh]

An expert opinion would certainly be welcome.  But as a lay person you can just make a ballpark estimate of the sizes of the two energy sources.  The total gravitational potential energy in the two towers must have been millions of times higher than the total energy in one truck filled with nitrate explosives.  I never said that anything was substandard about the buildings.  It's not about the shock of the airliners, it's about dropping a 6000 ton object from a distance of 12 feet onto the "top" of each of the buildings.  They simply were not designed for that kind of shock.  I bet you the cumulative affect of the heat of the fire would soften the steel superstructure, but I have never read that speculation in my readings.  I think that the skew would correct itself during the collapse.  Also, the free-fall is a myth.  There are YouTube clips where there is a more precise timing done and both collapses are short of free-fall speed by about seven or eight seconds.

Anyway, we can all disagree about this, it is like another Kennedy assassination mystery and there will always be people that believe what they want to believe.  I just don't think the conspiracy theory is for real from the human factor down.  Yes, it was suggested as a political ploy for the very reasons that you suggest during the Kennedy administration and rejected.  I just can't believe the conspiracy is true, and what happened to the towers can be taken at face value.  When extreme things like this happen, s*it happens.  Look, New Orleans and Holland were both flooded in the Modern Era, and the Titanic sunk on its maiden voyage, the Hindenburg went up in a ball of flames, and two 747 jetliners slammed into each other on the ground killing more than 500 people.  We only have so much control, and every now and then Man is given a sobering reminder about the human condition and his own frailties.

MileHigh

[d3adp00l]

Mile, first please list your guesses as guesses, you obviously don't work in the area of construction.

Second, the conforming explaination of the towers failure is specifically targeted at YOU, the common person. In a world where 99% of people have your level of understanding, if I explain something that makes sense to you, I don't have to care that the 1% of experts, and experienced people know that is BS.

You can not as a lay person ball park anything in regards to these buildings, you have to know and understand the specifics. If you are unwilling to educate yourself, then please stop making conjecture based on very limited understanding.

Dropping 6000 tons 12 feet on the "top" of each building. First, where did you get that figure, is it accurate? or is it a guess.

second, you are neglecting the fact that the steel stucture of the supposed weaken floor, did not disappear. so it would be a friction in your calcs. and it would be of very significant importance.

Do you know the moment load calculated for those floors? Do you know the shear load? Do you know the static load?
Do you know what it is designed for?

If not please list it as an opinion.

The FACT is this, the uppers floors were of lighter weight construction than the lower floors, meaning that each floor has less mass than the floor below it. The fact is that as the upper section fell it would expend its kinetic energy as it impacted a lower floor. It would not speed up in its decent it would deccelerate, and would fall to a path of lower resistance or if such a path was not possible, the falling section would expend all of its energy and come to rest. Given the balancing act that resting would imply I would think that it would fall into free space as the highest probability.

I would bet you anything you would like that you can not heat steel with a hydrocarbon fuel that is naturally aspirated to the point of losing 80% of its static load bearing strength. Which is what you are implying, add in the cooling effect of the steel mass, and non stoich fuel mixture (evident by the black smoke) and you have a better chance of hitting satan with a snowball in hell.

I can respect your opinion that you accept the explaination put forth.

I disagree with it.

The official story is compelling, on the surface.


I would like to pose this question though, do you believe that the most important military building in the US, and proly the world, is so un defended that a relatively slow moving plane could get inside its defenses?

That would mean that if someone really bad wanted to they could get a foxbat, and drop whatever they wanted on it.

I am really not buying that one.

Ever fly into restricted air space? I know people who have, not something you want to do.

On top of all that, have you researched into what happens when a liner flys off course? It does not go unnoticed.

Now if the pent was hit first, and then the towers, I might give that a little more chance, but getting hit third? No I am not buying into that.

If anyone believes that our military, of government just couldnt react fast enough, or properly, then why are we letting them operate any hostile military actions if they are so inept?