Welcome back after your little sojourn B'man ... you haven't missed much, as you seem to be really the only regular truther poster here, so without you we have all been as quiet as wee church mice.
Actually, all I did was add a thanks... my contribution in this thread otherwise is a few weeks old... It's been somewhat painful to read the discussions without adding my 2 cents, but I'm not really going to be getting into 9-11 issues very much. (especially with the latest releases and comments related to the video of the firefighters describing how the main lobby of building 7 exploded and collapsed on them and the related 'debunking'... but I really don't want to get into the long and drawn out debate over the day of 9-11)
Nice to know that I'm missed on the topic... it's actually pretty hard to raise other issues that don't tie into 9-11 on some level, that's why I've been having difficulty starting new threads.
Wrong B'man ... Van Romero was testing "super" not nano.
Oh... maybe I misunderstood, and since I first posted that I did learn that there's probably about 50 different concoctions of explosives / high level incendiaries that can be made into sol-gels, and this just illustrates the importance of free and open investigation of this issue... especially when videos like :
YouTube - CBS Report On 9/11: Ground Level Explosion Caused WTC To Collapse! are coming out. At the very least, NIST should have performed the test for explosives to be able to say conclusively that there were no explosives, rather then the justification which amounts to 'we didn't test for explosives because it would have been too difficult' or 'because the buildings collapsed at the floors that were impacted'... I forget the specific reasoning, but it was along those lines.
And what exact difference would it make to this imaginary paint, does it somehow increase the energy output by being applied thicker ???
The difference I was referring to was more like how you can put your hand into the flame of a candle for about half a second before it will start to burn you... so, the extra material would serve to extend the burning time in order to accomplish the objective reasoning behind it being there, whether it was explosive (2X TNT will provide at least 2X the explosive force), or incendiary to heat the steel further. (assuming that this stuff being in the building was accurate of course)
Wrong again, Ventura deliberately lied, which show dishonesty, and yet he claims to be this noble warrior fighting for "truth" ...much like his outright lie of being a Navy SEAL.
But the scientist ALSO lied by performing a test that he KNEW would not be sufficient to destroy the steel... which was my point. As for Ventura's military career, I don't know the details and enough about military specifics to really comment deeply, so I would just pose it as a question :
Is it possible that Ventura as UDT might have been working WITH SEALS teams directly?? I mean in the sense that you might have a squad of soldiers on the frontlines working directly with a squad of artillery (probably a bad example, but I'm mostly ignorant on military affairs beyond certain basic understandings)
What is it that leads you to believe so many people whom willingly engage in distortion, omission and blatent lying ???
I don't put Ventura's work as any sort of 'gospel'... and I did make effort to give a nuanced position in this matter. Also, there are people that are blatant liars on either side of the fence, so, as per usual I'm an advocate for discernment, separating the truth from the lies to the best of my abilities.
Why do you not have ANYBODY on your side whom is honest about their ability, expertise and authority to speak on this ???
There's no simple answer to that... THERE ARE, however, MANY with credentials that do speak within their expertise, and anytime they are mentioned, every attempt to slander their character is made... just to specify a single factor of this.
Why is the Twoof Movement full of such lies ???
I would ask the same of the 'F.olks A.ccepting G.overnment S.tories' as well
Van Romero, on the other, hand, conducted a simple experiment to prove that even applied as a paint it would STILL have no-where near enough heat energy to cut through beams of that size ... thickness does not count.
Yes, he did conduct a simple experiment, using his approximation of what was found, applied a small amount to a small section of a much larger beam. BUT, to give an analogy of how his experiment gets into flawed territory, would be like taking a 9mm pistol and shooting an elephant and when it continues to charge at you make the conclusion that elephants are bullet proof... so, in the same way, by ONLY using a small amount on a small section of a single beam, when even those pushing that it was this type of sol-gel that was found have no qualms of saying that it would require several TONNES of the stuff to take down the building. So, had the guy used a heavy gauge steel stud and applied the same amount and it STILL didn't cut through, I'd have no choice but to shut up on that issue.
My overall point was that BOTH were lying and NEITHER made their case.
His experiment stands on its own merits ... it does NOT have to reflect the actual conditions of 9/11, the molecules in steel will react in exactly the same way irregardless of how a test is done or in real life !!!
Yes, his experiment stands that there are different concoctions that can still fall under the category of thermite... but if he was so confident in the results, he should have made a better test scenario. That's all I'm saying.
But please do explain B'man what the term "nano" means to you ???
It's a matter of scale. Take the difference of coffee and espresso... (there may be more differences, but as far as I know) Coffee beans get ground up so that the water filters through turning the water into coffee... this would be like 'macro' thermite. But with Espresso the beans are ground up into super-fine particles (I think also the water gets pushed through with more pressure, but not important), and so MORE of the caffeine gets released from the beans when the water passes through because the smaller particles means that there is a greater surface area for each particle to dissolve the caffeine and flavor into the water. So the same with the particles of the materials for the chemical reaction... the smaller particles allow for a more efficient reaction, potentially so much more efficient that it borders on explosive (as is my understanding from the papers I've read on the subject)
What difference does being "nano" make ???
^^^
I can tell you categorically no-where near as much as you seem to believe !!!
For some inexplicable reason you seem to feel that the compound by being ground even smaller gets more powerful ... that is patent nonsense.
Nano just means smaller ... that the molecules have been ground finer. but it has exactly the same energy potential as before, it cannot somehow magically become more powerful by being smaller.
It has EXACTLY the same energy density as before, but by having greater surface areas, by being smaller it presents more surfaces then it WILL ignite easier, giving a faster reaction ... that is it !!!
It doesn't change it by being super, thuper, thuper-duper or nano ... it is still just thermite ... and it is NOT an explosive and can NOT cut sideways ... ever !!!
I've read a number of papers on the subject, and the findings of these papers discussing sol-gels SUGGEST differently... That as you decrease the size of the particles you exponentially increase the rate of the energy release.... but I'm not gonna stress over this any longer because it involved going to such great lengths to get the papers, and then finding the referenced papers going back to the late 80's... and I don't expect it would change the position anyway, so I'll just agree that we disagree for this particular issue.
Which, I'm no longer even fully convinced by stephen jones and Harrit's paper... first, their choice of reviewer (with pay to publish policy) was a politically poor choice, but I don't know if that was done out of necessity or choice. Also, the particular tests performed, as has been noted, were not the ideal techniques... HOWEVER, as they say there are many ways to skin a cat, so I'm not in doubt that they DID find SOMETHING, I'm not convinced that what they claim it as is accurate, I don't doubt they found something explosive... or possibly like a fuse to the real charge... I don't know.
If it was a demolition made to appear as a collapse due to fire, they utterly failed at that in building 7 because there were explosions going off BEFORE either tower collapsed in the main lobby. And a structure CANNOT, as in PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to collapse within 3% of free-fall acceleration for at least 17 measured stories WHILE simultaneously performing the 'work' of destroying the structure and pulverizing the concrete.
The 60% of free-fall in the towers, is STILL a fair bit faster then the verinage demolitions, which I've personally measured which accellerate at about 40% of gravity, and that's with the buildings mostly rigged to collapse. HOWEVER, it's 'believable', if not for the other oddities noticed that are not supportable.
So B'man what exactly would thermite do ... why would you require it ... oh! don't answer for I remember this one ... it was "invented" by Jones et al to cover up for the fact that ordinary explosives could not have been used as there was ZERO physical, seismic nor audio evidence to support it ... so this mythical, magical compound was brought into play ... :roll
I'm sorry, but there's PLENTY of unexplained explosion sounds going on... it's all be 'debunked' as 'natural' loud sounds, but whatever... to answer the question : either; as a fuse to ignite the proper explosions, as the explosions themselves, or some combination...
But none of this takes away from the very biggest question B'man ... which I am sure we would all appreciate your considered expert answer to ... as thermite (of whatever flavour) is an incendiary which is governed by GRAVITY ... please explain EXACTLY the method, the methodology and the means to get it to cut sideways ???
I've seen devices made to 'project' thermite sideways... it's on youtube somewhere... but like I said earlier, the size is exponentially inverse to the speed of energy release when it starts getting into nano-scales.
But please, not Jones' pathetic wee video of a tiny, thin, slender, wee rod being cut by a proportionally HUGE canister of thermite directed across it ... please, not that for it does not wash !!!
I didn't know that was jones' attempt...