One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: payne1000
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1077 next>>
Apr 25, 2017 08:16:15   #
emarine wrote:
so what's transparent in the excavator jaw in your photo... is it glass?... was there glass is the WTC towers?... seems 1400F melts window glass enough it flows orange...how do you know your molten mess is steel?... who sampled it?


Move the time slider to 2:20 on this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-99CLdHWCc
 
Apr 25, 2017 08:08:53   #
emarine wrote:
your babbling again... try reading the info on thermite & learn your statement is false...


Where is the thermite info you are referring to?
Does it come from a government agency like the other disinformation you post?
Apr 24, 2017 20:53:52   #
Super Dave wrote:
Hahahahaha.

You'll say anything when you're cornered.


Have you always had that nervous laugh?
It makes you appear even more like an idiot.
Apr 24, 2017 20:52:17   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
Say what? "the plane cartwheeled down the face of the Pentagon"? Why don't you explain how that happened, can't wait to see how much worse you can butcher science. I can always use another good laugh.

Nearly 70 witnesses saw a jetliner crash into the Pentagon. and even a couple of your favorite truther gurus analyzed the surveillance videos. There were actually two cameras adjacent to each other at the same security check point. One of the camera views was not obstructed One of them took sequential pairs of Pentagon surveillance video and ran them in a blink comparator. The result shows an aircraft coming in low and fast across the Pentagon lawn. In the other analysis of the videos, stop frame analysis shows the profile of a jetliner. Both of them used radar and FDR data to establish a basis for these analyses and to correct the time error.

Eyewitnesses affirm large plane impact, and the damage trail establishes the plane path before and after impact with a high degree of precision. The plane flew low from the southwest straight toward the Pentagon on a path making a 52-degree angle with the Pentagon's west wall. It clipped a tree; downed five light poles; struck a fence, a generator-trailer, and a low concrete wall; and impacted the building at the first and second floors, creating an 18-foot wide hole atop a 96-foot gash in the facade. Outside, plane debris was strewn to the north near the Heliport because of the speed and angle of impact. The light poles' separation gives a plane wingspan in the range 100 to 130 feet (a Boeing 757 wingspan is 124 feet 10 inches), while the low concrete wall and generator-trailer damage separation indicates an engine separation of approximately 43 feet (Boeing 757 engine separation is 42.5 feet).

Inside the Pentagon, the plane was increasingly fragmented by the steel and concrete columns, creating a fluid-like flow of solid debris. This flow of material destroyed or damaged many internal columns, defining a continuation of the outside path, and ultimately created an exit hole in the C ring wall. Debris, including plane parts, spilled into the AE Drive in the direction of the original plane path. Internal columns were bowed and abraded in the flight path direction and much of the first floor suddenly filled with debris. The first floor ceiling beyond the collapsed portion of the building remained intact.

Applying the Scientific Method

A confluence of physical, eyewitness, and other evidence provides an overwhelming case for a large plane, a Boeing 757 and specifically Flight AA 77, impacting and penetrating the Pentagon on 9/11. The initial hypothesis of large plane impact, when examined for its consequences as shown by the eyewitness testimony, physical damage, and other supporting evidence, survives the scientific method test and becomes a theory that explains virtually all the observations. No other hypothesis, such as impact by a missile or pre-planted bombs, has even ventured to explain all this evidence.

The Impact Hole and Facade Damage:

Many claims have been made that the impact hole was too small for a plane the size of a Boeing 757 to have entered the building. None of these claims have merit. The fuselage of a Boeing 757 is 12.33 feet wide and 13.5 feet high and the corresponding hole was about 18 feet wide. Early photographs were obscured by spray from fire hoses and hid a long gash of about 96 feet in the first floor facade. There were many missing outer support columns. Thus the plane's fuselage, both engines, and the heavier, inner parts of the wings had sufficient room to penetrate the building.

According to witnesses and the FDR data, the plane had rolled about 5 degrees counterclockwise when it hit the wall. Facade markings, such as a long gash made by a wing, confirm these observations. Critics frequently point to the absence of a clear vertical gash that they contend should have been made by the vertical portion of the tail. There are, as shown by Jim Hoffman, markings in the area where the tail might have hit. It is possible that the tail was blown off and fragmented, and did not reach the wall intact. One witness described seeing the fuel explosion while the tail was still visible. Many witnesses saw the tail, and this criticism cannot overturn the other evidence of plane approach and impact.


Courtesy of Blade Runner, the "cowardly Zionist shill", locating this information in the Foreign Policy Journal which linked to the information above. If you ask me nicely, I will provide a link where you can read the entire report. This will include the name of the Journal's editor who prepared this report.

Photo 1 below. Although the surveillance cameras recorded at low resolution, in this frame, enclosed in the red rectangle, is the distinct image of a jetliner which fits the profile of a Boeing 757.

Photo 2. This aerial view of the face of the Pentagon clearly shows a number of significant details. The red arrow indicates the flight path. The blue lines outline the wings, and the yellow bracket indicates the 96 foot measurement of damage to the face. It is important to note that the right wing hit the building nearly head on--this blunt impact resulted in a much higher impact force and consequently a higher kinetic energy than did the left wing which hit at a much more shallow angle. This is apparent in the extent of damage on the right compared with the left.

Trust me payne, old buddy, old pal, I really am trying to help you out here. But the kinetic energy necessary to open the jaws of that trap you are caught in is enormous.

.

.
Say what? "the plane cartwheeled down the fac... (show quote)


So you see a 757 in that first photo?
The bottle must be almost empty for you to be hallucinating that much.
Here's a better illustration of the plane in relation to the Pentagon.
Notice the engine on the right would have hit the large wire spools if it had been a 757.




Apr 24, 2017 20:42:49   #
emarine wrote:
When did metal get transparent putz?...


There is no transparent metal. The orange glow of the steel is almost as bright as the sky.
A fool such as yourself might mistake that for transparency.
Apr 24, 2017 20:37:41   #
amadjuster wrote:
Not quite there yet, hot shot. You really jumped to a big conclusion because your highlights were not what the author was saying. I am giving you the link to the Lawrence Livermore study on Nano-thermite and what they were doing was getting it into a more stable, gel form. The final conclusion was this would be useful in pyrotechnics or propellants. No mention of explosives. Also notice the date of the article - 2004.

http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/307362.pdf


Try to understand this . . . Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories is run by the government and produces weapons for the military.
Would a government laboratory produce a paper which gives any clues to their part in murdering 3,000?
Wouldn't they go full bore in attempting to convince the world that the product of their research which is in question wasn't available a few years earlier?
 
Apr 24, 2017 20:29:22   #
emarine wrote:
Must be the sound a skyscraper collapsing makes to me...I didn't hear any explosions... I know what explosions sound like... just don't know what sounds a skyscraper collapsing makes... same as everyone else on the planet knew on 911... fact is no one pre 911 knew that sound because it never happened before putz... same as your smoking stupid photo... It doesn't look like any controlled demolition on video... your bullshit is maybe could be at best... you troofers live in a maybe could be world ...show us some real proof putz... start with the weeks old molten metal...
Must be the sound a skyscraper collapsing makes to... (show quote)


The reason no one knows what a skyscraper collapsing sounds like is because skyscrapers don't collapse unless explosives are used.
The reporters on the scene knew what explosions sound like and they knew what controlled demolitions look like. They weren't shy about reporting what they saw and heard.
Their comments were censored after that morning. Controlling the media is one of the most important Zionist requirements in the Protocols. They slipped up a little on that morning.
Now, 16 years later, their slip up is making it more difficult to keep their crime covered up. https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU
Apr 24, 2017 20:19:46   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
A jetliner such as the Boeing 757 is not made entirely of aluminum. The stresses of high-speed, high altitude flight a jetliner must endure demand considerable strength. All critical connecting parts, such as bolts, nuts, rivets, screws, fasteners are all MilSpec parts. Even the aluminum skin is made of strong alloy.

The keel beams and the wing spars are the strongest components in all aircraft, whether it be a single-engine prop job or a high flying jet. The keel beam and wing spar in a jet liner are made of very strong light weight alloys. The fuselage keel beam made like a very strong spear flying at high speed when it hit the building.

Obviously there was no 757 on the lawn of the Pentagon. The 757 that hit the Pentagon was destroyed, But, there were pieces of the plane all over the place, inside and out.

If you can come up with convincing evidence that what hit the Pentagon was something other than a Boeing 757 jetliner, then do it. So far, after all this time, truthers have failed to provide a shred of such evidence.

"It couldn't have been a 757 because I don't believe it was a 757", doesn't cut it.

.

.
A jetliner such as the Boeing 757 is not made enti... (show quote)


Most of the parts of an airliner wreckage can't be carried by hand. The tail section is one of the strongest parts of an airliner. Tail sections usually remain together in crashes. A 757 tail section is three stories tall. There is no hole where the tail could have entered the Pentagon. Where is the tail section?












Where is that tail section? Where is any of the 757?

Apr 24, 2017 19:56:10   #
emarine wrote:
WTF putz... go back and read it... its clear you have lost it...


So where did all the molten metal come from?
The only explosive material which creates molten metal in great quantities is thermite.
Apr 24, 2017 19:48:22   #
emarine wrote:
So I should believe a troofer blog just because you think it's true putz....

HOW INDEED CAN NANOTHERMITE BE EXPLOSIVE?
& THE NANOTHERMITE CHALLENGE

T Mark Hightower, B.S., M.S., Chemical Engineering

INTRODUCTION

This paper explores the explosiveness of nanothermite.

Steven E. Jones made the error early in his research, of classifying nanothermite as an explosive in the same category as the high explosive RDX, with no published science to back up his claim. The 911 truth movement has never recovered from this error, for to this day nearly everyone in the movement refers to "explosive nanothermite," as even this clever cover for a fictitious "For Dummies" book illustrates. (1)



Examples of Jones confusing these issues are cited and commented upon. Two technical papers on nanothermite are cited to support my contention that nanothermite is not anywhere near being an explosive in the sense of a high explosive like RDX. These two papers are also cited on the issue of adding organics to nanothermites to produce gas generating nano-thermites (GGNT) and I maintain that these papers suggest that the only way to make a nanothermite truly explosive is to combine it with an explosive or other high-explosive mechanism. “It's not the “nano” that makes it explosive. It's the explosive that makes it explosive.”

Finally, I make recommendations of what those who advocate the nanothermite theory for WTC destruction can do to clarify their position, and I announce The Nanothermite Challenge.

EXAMPLES OF JONES CONFUSING THERMITE AND NANO-THERMITE WITH EXPLOSIVES

Here is a two-paragraph quote from Steven Jones' first paper. (2)

“Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel or perhaps iron. Scientific analysis would be needed to conclusively ascertain the composition of the molten metal in detail.”

“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel.” (2)

Here Jones puts thermite, HMX, and RDX in the same category. But thermite is totally different than HMX and RDX. Thermite is an incendiary. It gets very hot, it produces molten iron, it can melt steel, and it can catch things on fire, but it is absolutely not an explosive. It is not even a low explosive. On the other hand, HMX and RDX are high explosives. HMX detonates at 9,100 m/s (meters per second) and RDX detonates at 8,750 m/s. He also lumps all three under the category of cutter-charges, but a cutter-charge with thermite would be totally different than a cutter-charge with a high explosive. A thermite cutter-charge would cut by melting the steel with the high-temperature molten iron it produces (an extremely low velocity and slow process compared to high explosives), whereas an RDX cutter-charge would cut by the supersonic detonation of high explosives in what is known as a shaped charge, which essentially produces a supersonic projectile of molten metal (copper is often used in shaped charges) that instantly penetrates and severs the member.

Later in the paper Jones says

“"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Explosive superthermites are formed by mixing nanoaluminum powder with fine metal oxide particles such as micron-scale iron oxide dust.” (2) And further down he says “Highly exothermic reactions other than jet-fuel or office-material fires, such as thermite reactions which produce white-hot molten metal as an end product, are clearly implied by the data. In addition, the use of explosives such as HMX or RDX should be considered. "Superthermites" are also explosive as must be remembered in any in-depth investigation which considers hypotheses suggested by the available data.” (2) From page 85 of a presentation that Jones gave early in his work (3), he says “Gel explosives: Tiny aluminum particles in iron oxide, in a sol-gel: “High energy density and extremely powerful” and “can be cast to shape”. http://www.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html (Livermore Nat’l Lab, 2000) I have read the LLNL web page that Jones cites above (4) very carefully and I cannot find anything in it that implies that the “thermitic nanocomposite energetic material” referred to is an explosive. It refers to the result as a thermite pyrotechnic, releasing an enormous amount of heat, but it does not say that it is an explosive. In the web page another class is explained briefly, energetic nanocrystalline composites. "The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN." No mention is made here of thermite, so this wouldn't apply to Jones claiming that nanothermite is an explosive.
So I should believe a troofer blog just because yo... (show quote)


Your point is moot when all the photos and videos show all three towers were taken down with explosives of some kind and those who witnessed the controlled demolitions heard the explosions loud and clear. The use of thermite is evident in all the molten metal in the debris piles which remained in a molten state for days to weeks. https://youtu.be/VwjRaadx-QU




Apr 24, 2017 19:40:33   #
emarine wrote:
Somewhere your troofers obtained dust samples... that's how the Nano thermite got into the picture... there was no sign of explosives in the samples... I know your identity and you're still always wrong... you choose a 911 blog as your source putz... my sources tare your sources a new asshole putz... you sure you can handle them?...


How can sources you haven't provided "tare" my sources a new asshole?
Where is your source which backs up your claim about explosive additives to thermite? You don't have one do you?
Kevin Ryan wrote the article in 911blogger. Ryan worked for Underwriters Laboratories during 9/11. He was fired from UL because he questioned NIST's report on the steel in the towers.
Here's Ryan's letter to NIST: http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php
 
Apr 24, 2017 17:58:01   #
emarine wrote:
More bullshit putz... you have to add HMX a very high explosive to Nano thermite to do pressure/volume work ...explode with velocities over 9000M/S ... which would have to be on all beams on all floors to cut steel that large...your fairy tale science is pure bullshit...HMX makes a huge bang putz... one big bang from 1000's of videos that was probably a transformer at best.. notice the part where there were no explosives of any kind in the dust samples putz?


Where is your source to back up the claims you are making?
Being an anonymous shill blows your credibility enough without you expecting anyone to believe unnamed, unsourced claims.
No explosives in the dust samples? Who examined the dust samples?
The perpetrators controlled the crime scene.
Apr 24, 2017 17:27:45   #
emarine wrote:
Bullshit...Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9/11 Truth community?

“It's not what we don't know that hurts us, it's what we know that ain't so.” – Will Rogers

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are heavily promoting the theory that “explosive nanothermite” was used to bring down the Twin Towers on September 11th, 2001, and that microscopic chips of a fused compound containing unignited nanothermite were found in the World Trade Center dust. This discovery is now considered a “smoking gun” by most members of the 9/11 Truth community, even though a good many serious researchers and 9/11 activists remain unconvinced.

Let’s take a look at what is supposed to be the current best evidence in the controlled-demolition theory of the World Trade Center’s tallest buildings. Steven Jones, a physicist who joined the 9/11 Truth movement from Brigham Young University during 2005, introduced the theory that thermite/thermate played a role in the destruction of the towers; and in 2006, he refined this theory to propose that nanothermite or “superthermite” – a finely granulated form of thermite – was in fact the substance used, and its high reactivity served to pulverize the steel, concrete and many additional tons of skyscraper material, including the buildings’ contents.

In an effort to confirm the claims being made about thermite and nanothermite, T. Mark Hightower, a chemical engineer from both the space program and chemical industry, decided to investigate its use as an explosive. In addition to doing his own study, he has repeatedly written to leading 9/11 researchers who champion the use of nanothermite as the principal (if not exclusive) mechanism for bringing about the destruction of the Twin Towers, probing them on the explosive capabilities of nanothermite. The replies he has received suggest that this is an issue they are unwilling to examine fully and openly.

Hightower wrote directly to Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, citing a frequently‑referenced March 2005 LLNL paper on thermite, which can be downloaded from the Reference 2 link at the bottom of http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/theories/thermitetech.html

This paper explains what nano‑composites are, focusing on thermite mixtures and how they are produced. It also includes some experimental results.

As Hightower observed to Gage, however: “This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On page 10, it states, ‘One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.’"



What Hightower was asking Gage was: “How can a substance be an explosive and not be able to do pressure/volume work on an object – that is, move an object?” Gage responded: “The nanothermite was set in a bed of organic silica, which I believe the authors suggest may provide the explosive pressure/volume work. In addition, I believe that the authors are quite open to the possibility that other more high-energy explosives may have been used.”

Without further characterization, the “bed of organic silica” is not a sufficient explanation, so the possibility is raised that “other more high-energy explosives may have been used.” Surely thermite or nanothermite would become explosive if combined with bona fide explosives. Hightower decided to take an even closer look at the claims advanced on behalf of nanothermite, and has spent several months researching everything he could find in the open literature. Again and again, he found that thermite, even in its nano form, unless combined with high explosives or another high-explosive mechanism, cannot be a high explosive.

So if nanothermite is to be the “smoking gun” of 9/11, it would have had to have been combined with some form of high-power explosives or other high-explosive mechanism to do the job of bringing the buildings down. What was it combined with? By itself, nanothermite cannot have been the sole agent of demolition – it was only another “helper.” By itself, therefore, nanothermite cannot be “explosive evidence,” as AE911 Truth maintains.

There are reasons to believe that the 9/11 movement’s nanothermite experts are actually aware of this problem. For example, during a recent interview (“9/11: Explosive Testimony Exclusive” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lU-vu2JvZY), Niels Harrit explains that nanothermite is built from the atom scale up, which allows for the option of adding other chemicals to make it explosive. He states that the role played by the red-gray chips found in the dust is unknown. But he is convinced, based on observation of the towers’ destruction and the molten metal present, that both explosives and incendiaries were used. It’s just that he and his fellow researchers have not been able to prove that the nanothermitic material they found in the dust has the explosive properties he believes were necessary to accomplish the destruction.

Harrit suggests the use of “a modern military material which is unknown to the general public” as an explanation for the missing pieces to the 9/11 nanothermite puzzle. He urges a new investigation, whereby NIST will test WTC dust samples for remaining explosives and thermitic material. But he also seems to be saying that he and his fellow 9/11 researchers do not consider it worthwhile to pursue further analysis beyond their current findings.

9/11 truthers may agree that (1) if unignited nanothermite was in the WTC dust after the event, it proves a demolition plan of some kind; or (2) if unignited nanothermite was found in the dust after the event, it only proves that nanothermite played some role either on 9/11 or in its aftermath – including the cleanup, which was overseen by the federal and city governments. Those who believe (1) may in fact be satisfied with the lack of conclusive evidence of explosives the discovery of nanothermite presents. Those who agree with (2) are most likely to be unsatisfied by the current state of affairs, and may indeed argue, “We still have no real ‘hard evidence’ proving that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives.”

We do have visual evidence (videos) that strongly indicate to any discerning viewer that the Twin Towers did not come down by gravitational collapse. However, apart from that, we are still where we started – pursuing different inquiries into how and why the buildings fell the way they did. “Explosive nanothermite” is no firmer a theory than conventional explosives demolition, nuclear demolition, or directed free-energy technology; in fact, it is somewhat misleading and – for that reason alone – probably not the best horse for us to be betting on.
Bullshit...Has nanothermite been oversold to the 9... (show quote)



From your article: "As Hightower observed to Gage, however: “This paper offers no evidence to me that explosive velocities anywhere near that of TNT (22,600 feet per second) can be produced by the nanothermites as described and presented. On page 10, it states, ‘One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.’"

What Hightower must not have known at the time: At LLNL, government scientists have learned how to combine the exothermic power of the thermite reaction with organic moieties to produce a thermite reaction that can do pressure/volume work (i.e. turn massive quantities of concrete and other building materials into dust).
http://911blogger.com/node/5272
Apr 24, 2017 17:14:13   #
amadjuster wrote:
Who told you that?


Common sense . . . that ability which you have lacked all your life.
Apr 24, 2017 16:54:48   #
Blade_Runner wrote:
That "newest" thermite you are talking about didn't exist in useable form in 2001. It was only in the R&D stage at the time.


And who told you that?
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1077 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.