Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Providing proof/evidence that supports the US 911 Conspiracy Theory


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, hot enough said:

This is a dandy example of Michael Hardner's silence. 

Goalpost = moved.  The 'silence' you accused me of was about war crimes or somesuch.

As for your magical building-destroying pixie dust, I have been clear that I will leave it to the experts to discuss the science.  As expected, nothing has come out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Goalpost = moved.  The 'silence' you accused me of was about war crimes or somesuch.

This has engendered massive war crimes and you are silent on these and the US government conspiracy.

Quote

As for your magical building-destroying pixie dust, I have been clear that I will leave it to the experts to discuss the science.  As expected, nothing has come out of it.

You are being patently dishonest and you are breaking forum guidelines. It is not my "anything". That is a personal jab that you know is intended as such in contravention of the guidelines. 

You also contradict yourself in the course of two sentences. You say that you "will leave it to the experts", then you make a statement based in ignorance. 

The science is uncontested and peer reviewed. It stands as the accepted science of the day. That's how western science works.  

Nanothermite was found in WTC dust. That is US government discovered, US government proprietary nanothermite. Lest you feign ignorance of this material, I'll again post US scientists describing how this nanothermite is made.

After you read this, you can help explain to Omni that his planned and oft-repeated, and known to him to be a complete falsehood, "You mean the rust and aluminum...and it was already in the building", can make nanothermite. 

You both have seen these US government scientists describe how nanothermite is made. You are the only registered follower of this thread, Michael, except for me. How can you both be so patently dishonest?

Omni is doing this not to "promote intelligent, honest and responsible discussion" as MLW guidelines state. He is doing it for "simply nuisance value", which you too know and fully realize yet you address me. 

Quote

https://str.llnl.gov/str/RSimpson.html

Nanoscale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives

ONE thousand years ago, black powder was prepared by grinding saltpeter, charcoal, and sulfur together into a coarse powder using a mortar and pestle. Since then, the equipment for making energetic materials-explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics-has evolved considerably, but the basic process for making these materials has remained the same. That, however, is changing, thanks to an explosive combination of sol-gel chemistry and modern-day energetic materials research.


At Livermore Laboratory, sol-gel chemistry-the same process used to make aerogels or "frozen smoke" (see S&TR, November/December 1995)—has been the key to creating energetic materials with improved, exceptional, or entirely new properties. This energetic materials breakthrough was engineered by Randy Simpson, director of the Energetic Materials Center; synthetic chemists Tom Tillotson, Alex Gash, and Joe Satcher; and physicist Lawrence Hrubesh.


These new materials have structures that can be controlled on the nanometer (billionth-of-a-meter) scale. Simpson explains, "In general, the smaller the size of the materials being combined, the better the properties of energetic materials. Since these `nanostructures' are formed with particles on the nanometer scale, the performance can be improved over materials with particles the size of grains of sand or of powdered sugar. In addition, these `nanocomposite' materials can be easier and much safer to make than those made with traditional methods."

Energy Density vs Power, the Traditional Tradeoffs
Energetic materials are substances that store energy chemically. For instance, oxygen, by itself, is not an energetic material, and neither is fuel such as gasoline. But a combination of oxygen and fuel is.

Energetic materials are made in two ways. The first is by physically mixing solid oxidizers and fuels, a process that, in its basics, has remained virtually unchanged for centuries. Such a process results in a composite energetic material such as black powder. The second process involves creating a monomolecular energetic material, such as TNT, in which each molecule contains an oxidizing component and a fuel component. For the composites, the total energy can be much greater than that of monomolecular materials.

However, the rate at which this energy is released is relatively slow when compared to the release rate of monomolecular materials. Monomolecular materials such as TNT work fast and thus have greater power than composites, but they have only moderate energy densities-commonly half those of composites. "Greater energy densities versus greater power—that's been the traditional trade-off," says Simpson. "With our new process, however, we're mixing at molecular scales, using grains the size of tens to hundreds of molecules. That can give us the best of both worlds-higher energy densities and high power as well."

Energetic Nanostructures in a Beaker
To control the mix of oxidizer and fuel in a given material at the nanometer scale, Livermore researchers turned to sol-gel methodologies. Sol-gel chemistry involves the reactions of chemicals in solution to produce nanometer-size particles called sols. These sols are linked together to form a three-dimensional solid network or skeleton called a gel, with the remaining solution residing in the open pores of the gel. The solution can then be supercritically extracted to produce aerogels (highly porous, lightweight solids) or evaporated to create xerogels (denser porous solids).
"A typical gel structure is extremely uniform because the particles and the pores between them are so small," notes Tillotson. "Such homogeneity means that the material's properties are also uniform. Our main interest in the sol-gel approach is that it will allow us to precisely control the composition and morphology of the solid at the nanometer scale so that the material's properties stay uniform throughout-something that can't be achieved with conventional techniques."


Using these sol-gel-processing methods, the team derived four classes of energetic materials: energetic nanocomposites, energetic nanocrystalline materials, energetic powder-entrained materials, and energetic skeletal materials.


Energetic nanocomposites have a fuel component and an oxidizer component mixed together. One example is a gel made of an oxidizer with a fuel embedded in the pores of the gel. In one such material (termed a thermite pyrotechnic), iron oxide gel reacts with metallic aluminum particles to release an enormous amount of heat. "These reactions typically produce temperatures in excess of 3,500 degrees Celsius," says Simpson. Thermites are used for many applications ranging from igniters in automobile airbags to welding. Such thermites have traditionally been produced by mixing fine powders of metal oxides and metal fuels. "Conventionally, mixing these fine powders can result in an extreme fire hazard. Sol-gel methods can reduce that hazard while dispersing extremely small particles in a uniform way not possible through normal processing methods," adds Simpson. The Livermore team has successfully synthesized metal oxide gels from a myriad elements. At least in the case of metal oxides, sol-gel chemistry can be applied to a majority of elements in the periodic table.


In energetic nanocrystalline composites, the energetic material is grown within the pores of an inert gel rather than mixed into it. One way to initiate the growth is to dissolve the energetic material in the solvent used to control the density of the resulting gel. After the gel is formed, the energetic material in the pore fluid is induced to crystallize within the pores. The Livermore team synthesized nanocrystalline composites in a silica matrix with pores containing the high explosive RDX or PETN. The resulting structures contain crystals so small that they do not scatter visible light and are semitransparent.


In the powder-entraining method, a high concentration of energetic powders (90 percent by weight) is loaded within a support matrix (for example, silica) that takes up a correspondingly small mass. Highly loaded energetic materials are used in a variety of applications, including initiators and detonators. Manufacturing this type of energetic material using current processing technologies is often difficult. Producing detonators with pressed powders is a slow manufacturing process, mixing two or more powders homogeneously is difficult, and precise geometric shapes are not easy to produce. Also, pressing powders is a hazardous process.


Many of these problems may be overcome with the sol-gel process. One result is that the sol-gel explosives formed by adding energetic powders are much less sensitive than those produced by conventional methods. "These results were surprising because conventionally mixed powders generally exhibit increased sensitivity when silica powders are added," says Simpson. "We're still exploring the reasons for this decreased sensitivity, but it appears to be generally true with sol-gel-derived energetic materials."


The final class of energetic material produced by sol-gel methods is energetic skeletal materials. Basically, the sol-gel chemistry is used to create a skeletal matrix, which is itself energetic. Satcher thinks that it might also be possible to form a nanostructure made up of a fuel-oxidizer skeleton with precise stoichiometry (the numerical relationship of elements and compounds as reactants and products in a chemical reaction). "This is something we are still looking into," he adds. In addition to providing materials that have high energy density and are extremely powerful, sol-gel methodologies offer more safe and stable processing. For instance, the materials can be cast to shape or do not require the hazardous machining techniques required by materials that cannot be cast.

Future Looks Bright
Right now, making energetic materials using the sol-gel technique is in the basic research stage, but results look promising. "Many compositions depend on a simple, inexpensive procedure that we can basically do in an ordinary chemistry beaker," says Tillotson. He notes that the practical advantages of these materials are encouraging. Some of the pluses are less sensitivity, safe mixing, low-temperature synthesis, safe handling, safe processing, and homogeneity leading to better performance.
"We've just begun to explore the possibilities for these new materials and the methodologies that produced them," adds Simpson. "This approach is like a new baby—it has lots of potential. The ramifications are still largely unknown."


—Ann Parker
Key Words: aerogel, energetic materials, explosives, nanocomposites, PETN, propellants, pyrotechnics, RDX, sol-gel, xerogel.

For more information contact Randy Simpson (925) 423-0379 ([email protected]).

 

Edited by hot enough
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Omni said:

You should watch the little video I sent you and you'll see that's not quite true.

What world renowned scientists made your "little" video? Is it peer reviewed? Has it been published in a peer reviewed journal?

You just continue on and on with your attempts to not engage in "intelligent, honest and responsible discussion". You continue on with your "not bringing anything new to the argument, ... messages [that] are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hot enough said:

Is it peer reviewed?

Every bit as much as anything Steve Jones has out out. You can take the information provided in the video and look it up to verify, if you have any scientific awareness, other than what conspiracy theorists rant on about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

Every bit as much as anything Steve Jones has out out. You can take the information provided in the video and look it up to verify, if you have any scientific awareness, other than what conspiracy theorists rant on about. 

You do realized that you are lying, don't you? And it bothers you not at all!

1) What world renowned scientists made your "little" video? Names, please. 

2) Is it peer reviewed? By who?

3) Has it been published in a peer reviewed journal? What journal/journals?

You just continue on and on with your attempts to not engage in "intelligent, honest and responsible discussion". You continue on with your "not bringing anything new to the argument, ... messages [that] are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value."

 

10 minutes ago, Omni said:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hot enough said:

What world renowned scientists made your "little" video

There are 7 of them in all. You should listen to 'em all.  Of course the one I just sent you debunks your Jones junk and I guess that would blow you conspiracy theory stuff up.But that's up to you. Keep the blinders on as most conspiracy theorists continue to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Omni said:

There are 7 of them in all. You should listen to 'em all.  Of course the one I just sent you debunks your Jones junk and I guess that would blow you conspiracy theory stuff up.But that's up to you. Keep the blinders on as most conspiracy theorists continue to do.

This is the type of stunning dishonesty that has marked every thread about 911 and the USGOCT. All the supporters of that goofy conspiracy theory are deceptive, unresponsive, diversionary, underhanded, sneaky, dishonest, unscientific, anti-truthers who know nothing about the topic they always fail to discuss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realize that you are lying with your blatant evasions, don't you? And it bothers you not at all!

1) What world renowned scientists made your "little" video? Names, please. 

2) Is it peer reviewed? By who?

3) Has it been published in a peer reviewed journal? What journal/journals?

You just continue on and on with your attempts to not engage in "intelligent, honest and responsible discussion". You continue on with your "not bringing anything new to the argument, ... messages [that] are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

Still waiting to hear from you on how tons of explosives were installed in the towers unnoticed by people and sniffer dogs. You've been evading that issue from day one. And of course we all know why.

Pfft Thilly Gooth! 

Don't you realize you don't have to prove 911 was an inside job? The onus is on people who don't believe it was an inside job to prove it wasn't. 

 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

Pfft Thilly Gooth! 

Don't you realize you don't have to prove 911 was an inside job? 

The science long ago showed that the accused hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers, Boges. This will almost certainly be your last post because you know how ignorant you are on this subject and you won't want to embarrass yourself.

Why do you folks so hate science? Yet you make pretense in other threads that science is important to you. 

 

Quote

The onus is on people who don't believe it was an inside job to prove it wasn't. 

Actually that is exactly how it works. The US government made the claims as to who done it so the US government has to prove it. I wonder how this escapes a mental giant like you. 

The US government failed to provide any evidence for their wacky conspiracy theory, the one that still has you duped. When the US governments' evidence is reviewed it is ludicrous, but I note that it still has you duped. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Omni said:

Still waiting to hear from you

You do realize that you are lying with your blatant evasions, don't you? And it bothers you not at all!

1) What world renowned scientists made your "little" video? Names, please. 

2) Is it peer reviewed? By who?

3) Has it been published in a peer reviewed journal? What journal/journals?

You just continue on and on with your attempts to not engage in "intelligent, honest and responsible discussion". You continue on with your "not bringing anything new to the argument, ... messages [that] are not so much offensive as simply nuisance value."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

The science long ago showed that the accused hijackers did not cause the collapse of the three towers, Boges. This will almost certainly be your last post because you know how ignorant you are on this subject and you won't want to embarrass yourself.

And yet you refuse to detail how explosives ERRR nanothermite was put into the 3 buildings in question and the names of the people that actually hijacked the planes. I thought you were pro fact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also why wasn't the Nanothermite used in the Pentagon? What happened there? Technical difficulties?

Oh and where was the Nanothermite that flight 93 was destined for? Do we know the target of that flight? I guess since there wasn't a corresponding plane crash to shield the false flag operation the Nanothermite was removed. Who did that? 

Edited by Boges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boges said:

And yet you refuse to detail how explosives ERRR nanothermite was put into the 3 buildings in question and the names of the people that actually hijacked the planes. I thought you were pro fact. 

Have you read the article from the US government scientists describing how nanothermite is made? Why haven't you addressed any remarks to Omni for his ludicrous suggestion that nanothermite can be made by the accidental collisions of rust particles and aluminum? 

I thought you were pro fact. 

Why do you refuse to acknowledge that it was done, Boges? Nanothermite was found in WTC dust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and if Mohamed Atta and Co. didn't Hijack those planes then who did? Who would give their lives for a False Flag Operation to mire the US in war for more than a decade. What of the cellphone accounts of people hijacking planes and families that got a call from their loved ones saying Goodbye. Are those people still alive? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Boges said:

Also why wasn't the Nanothermite used in the Pentagon? What happened there? Technical difficulties?

Oh and where was the Nanothermite that flight 93 was destined for? Do we know the target of that flight? I guess since there wasn't a corresponding plane crash to shield the false flag operation the Nanothermite was removed. Who did that? 

Thank you. I now know the intellectual level I am dealing with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Boges said:

Oh and where was the Nanothermite that flight 93 was destined for?

I've heard speculation it was either the WH or the Capitol, but I guess we'll never know for  sure. There was no nanothermite found in the cornfield (just like everywhere else) so I guess it wasn't the target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

Oh and if Mohamed Atta and Co. didn't Hijack those planes then who did? Who would give their lives for a False Flag Operation to mire the US in war for more than a decade.

Who says they were hijacked? No one has provided evidence for that. What there was was nutty as hell.

Quote

What of the cellphone accounts of people hijacking planes and families that got a call from their loved ones saying Goodbye. Are those people still alive? 

Those calls have never been proven either. In fact most have been disproven by the FBI. I see your facts come from propaganda movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hot enough said:

Who says they were hijacked? No one has provided evidence for that. What there was was nutty as hell.

Those calls have never been proven either. In fact most have been disproven by the FBI. I see your facts come from propaganda movies.

So the families of those that died were in on it to. Gotcha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Boges said:

And yet you refuse to detail how explosives ERRR nanothermite was put into the 3 buildings in question and the names of the people that actually hijacked the planes. I thought you were pro fact. 

Psst. If he ever gets around to taking a crack at answering that question, I got another one. How many people would have had to have been involved in this conspiracy, and how after all these years not one has spilled the beans. That should be like pulling teeth as well I expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...