Carbon nanotubes and 911 survivors

Discussion in '9/11' started by Eleuthera, Feb 15, 2020.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    let's ignore science to continue the advancement of conspiracy theories ... lets us just ignore that human bodies are carbon based and were incinerated in the thousands ... your sources are useless if can't understand point/counterpoint ... why do you all reject science that doesn't agree with your preconceived bias? ... and I will continue to label you as "TROOFERS" until you are willing to read and not just reject opposing scientific data ...

    nanotubes have been around for ages and I can provide many links showing how they can occur outside of the ridiculous nanothermite theory ...

    I know that 9/11 truth is your bible ... but the bible got many things wrong as well ... dispute my findings if you have the balls ...
     
  2. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    wrong! ... nanothermite was not present ...
     
  3. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    28,115
    Likes Received:
    21,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    you accuse 'ignoring science' and then make scientifically unbased statements.

    Once again- where do you think the metal nanoparticles required to make the CNT's came from, if not from nanothermite? Surely you must have an alternative theory to be so certain that the only theory being proposed is wrong...
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm well on topic Bobby ... yet you have failed to rebut anything in regards to what I have posted ... why don't you do some research instead of focusing on my perceived slights against you ... care to discuss combustion and thermitics? ...
     
  5. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I provided sources ... why not read them? ... afraid they won't agree with your preconceived bias? ...

    better yet, provide me with sources that shows the only way these nanotubes could only be present with a true scientific source rather than a blog from a tool who couldn't discern paint chips from metallurgical deposits? .. are you really going to hang your hat on Neils Harrits? ...
     
  6. modernpaladin

    modernpaladin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2017
    Messages:
    28,115
    Likes Received:
    21,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    your source provided the process by which the CNTs could have been created in the 'burning building struck by plane' scenario. It didn't try to explain where the volume of metal nanoparticles that would be required in that process to make the uncommonly large amount of CNTs that were found might have come from. And thus far, neither have you. OP link has proposed the only theory as to where the amount of metal nanoparticles necessary for that process to occur could have come from thus far, that being nanothermite.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When I posted that you were off topic as usual.

    I’m not here to “rebut” as in a debate because I’m not here to debate, I’m here to discuss. I told you that countless times. And even if I wanted to rebut it would not be for stupidity. I have no obligation to rebut nonsense.

    The vast majority of the threads I create and the posts I write are based on extensive research. OTOH the vast majority of your posts are strictly based on personal denial of anything that doesn’t fit the OCT.

    Depending on context. I am not an authority on either and I seriously doubt you are. For me the focus with respect to 9/11 is always exposing the government fraud associated with the event and it is extensive.
     
  8. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's right, your sources are Scott Pelley, David Muir and the other talking heads in the MSM. :cheerleader:
     
  9. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not familiar with either of them ...
     
  10. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    They didn't 'pancake' ..... they imploded!
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually they exploded, about every other floor or so in a near perfectly timed sequence. The velocity of the ejections and the debris that landed up to 600 feet distant, some weighing up to 4 tons or more is evidence of that. So are the multi-ton structural components that were embedded in adjacent buildings. The video is unmistakable:

     
  12. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8

    I think you are misreading the video? What I saw was some fairly small explosions (squibs), a debris field and the structure imploding! All three buildings IMPLODED!

    You need explosives to create an implosion. If the towers had EXPLODED they would have ‘peeled back’ like a peeld banana. All controlled demolitions I have ever seen of high rise structures are implosions and most often the centre is taken out first and then the outer wall collapses, either from the bottom up or they fall back slightly toward the centre of the structure as the inside collapses!

    You will have seen the late Danny Jovenko, the Dutch controlled demolition expert, explaining the collapse of WTC7 where he calls it an “ ....... an implosion carried out by experts” and he was in no doubt about that at all. He was killed in a rather strange car ‘accident’ a few months later when he started to express his views on various TV interviews. WTC7 was a perfect implosion, expertly implemented by controlled demolition experts.

    WTC1 and WTC2 were different! They were still implosions but had the added complication that neither building was symmetrical regarding damage, the damage and its location was not predetermined, the intensity and location of the fires and the dynamics of the structures was not predetermined either, that is a lot of ‘unknows’! The seismic event that happened about 10-11 secs. before any movement was noticeable, created an enormous increase in the volume of smoke but........ it billowed out, which to me says many smaller explosives but not HE and certainly within the core structure! The small squibs of smoke didn’t blast out, until seconds before the collapse started and during the collapse as they preceded the debris field.

    If you have ever worked with ‘light concrete’ you will know it does not bend and when used in floors, as it was in the twin towers, there is no reinforcing. Bend the corrugated steel floor pan and it will erupt in a massive cloud of fine dust and small lumps. It powders very quickly. We see this happen in your video and that was the main source of the ‘smoke’, it was actually mostly light concrete dust. But look at the dust above! It is being sucked down and back toward the centre ...... it was following the implosion within the central core.

    There were explosions, no doubt about it, and these may well have caused some large bits of steel outward but the mass of the structure followed Newton’s Laws and followed gravity. Also a mass hitting say one end of a column could, if you apply the Law of Levers, actually catapult quite heavy loads a considerable distance. IMO: That is why some quite heavy chunks travelled so far.

    I don’t often find anything you say to be questionable ..... but on this one I can’t agree with you.
     
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not misreading the video. The twin towers were not demolished in the same manner as WTC7. For the twin towers, there are corroborating eyewitness reports of a massive explosion in the sub-basement a couple of seconds prior to the first airplane impact. Then there are also reports of explosions throughout the time prior to the full destruction and during. The debris field covered an area up to 600 feet distant from the tower(s).

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Ok, what do you think the above looks like?

    What you're describing is WTC7, not the twin towers. The 3 buildings were not destroyed in the same manner as WTC7. According to Hulsey, his model for WTC7 shows somewhat what you're describing, with all the interior columns taken out simultaneously, followed by all the perimeter columns a fraction of a second after, a classic controlled demolition. The twin towers were not a classic controlled demolition as you can see on video. Not all controlled demolitions are the same. There have been top down controlled demolitions in the past.



    In the above video Chandler describes the material as "being blown out" and "explosions". There was no "catapult effect", at least not for the majority of the material, the material was literally blown out and the distance of the debris field is clear evidence of that.

    At the end of the day does it really matter? All 3 buildings were taken out via controlled demolition. The exact manner it was done is by far secondary to the fact that they were controlled demolitions which had to be planned well in advance of 9/11. How exactly it was accomplished is a matter for a legitimate scientific/forensic investigation. None of these buildings naturally collapsed as a result of planes, damage, fire or a combination. The destruction wave velocity was about 2/3 of free fall acceleration for the twin towers directly down through its structure with no discernible hesitation despite that the majority of the building was not damaged and indistinguishable from free fall for WTC7, also directly down through its mostly undamaged structure with no discernible hesitation.
     
  14. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    You surprise me! I am on your side of the OCT fence! I tend to analyse what I see/hear so that I understand what I see. To me EVERY aspect of 9/11 is important.

    I explained that WTC7 was a classic controlled demolition an implosion into its own footprint.

    I explained that WTC1 and 2 were different and WHY they were different.

    All three buildings were imploded using strategically placed explosives and cutting charges and all three WERE destroyed in exactly the same manner ......... a controlled demolition! It was the conditions prior to the demolition that were different and for 1 & 2 they were unpredictable. That is why the appearance of the collapse appeared differently in 1 & 2 ..... it was the conditions existing at the moment of collapse initiation that determined the differing results, not the controlled demolition method chosen.

    For the main body of both towers, it was a top-down demolition! It had to be because had they fired the charges the same way as for 7, then the towers would most likely have toppled directly the structure moved and this would have been at the weaker and unstable impact zone. It would truly have been an uncontrolled progressive collapse. They took out the top section above the impact as a bottom up demolition to avoid that scenario and even then that part began to topple just before it disappeared in the dust cloud.

    The impact damage caused instability in the Towers because it was asymmetrical. For WTC7 the structure was stable, no significant damage and had only minor and widely dispersed fires ...... they knew before they pressed to ‘FIRE’ button what WTC7 would do. With 1 and 2, it was a best guess.

    Your video’s show exactly what I said ....... an implosion! The dust hangs above the building, slowly descending with the building and being lighter, it does not attain free fall acceleration because there is no weight to create the kinetic energy required to overcome air resistance. The debris in the main, was light structural pieces which fell faster than the dust and huge volumes of dust (pulverised light concrete) which billowed! Very little of the big bits were blown out like you would see in a building that had been bombed and destroyed by a high explosives.

    I queried only your statement that the towers ‘exploded’ when even experts refer to a controlled demolition as an IMPLOSION, which showed you appeared to not fully understand the dynamics! I also believe that ‘high’ explosives were not used, otherwise there would have been a very noticeable and very loud audible BANG, because high explosives have a supersonic shock wave ..... low explosives have a subsonic shock wave so the explosion would be muffled. Again this all adds to the argument that the building all came down under controlled demolition as there were many muffled explosions before the collapse.

    https://www.lanl.gov/museum/news/newsletter/2017/2017-04/high-explosives.php


    I have no argument with the rest of your post.
     
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am not arguing that all 3 buildings were a controlled demolition. All I'm saying is that WTC7 was a classic controlled demolition but the twin towers were not and were not taken out the same way. This is readily observable in the videos because WTC7 came down essentially in one piece whereas the twin towers were blown out every other floor or perhaps every 3rd floor in timed sequence top down. A classic controlled demolition is usually an implosion of the entire building (caused by calculated explosive charges taking out specific columns at once) but the manner in which the towers were destroyed were explosions taking out whole floors at a time from top to bottom. In the case of the North Tower, there was one massive explosion separating the top floors from the rest of the building. That top part disintegrated in mid-air as it descended. There had to be prior weakening of the connections (thus the many eyewitness claims of hearing many secondary explosions prior the building's total destruction) and possibly chemical weakening (thermitic products?) of the structural steel (thus the many claims of molten steel). In fact there were quite a few anomalies in the method used to destroy the twin towers. Some pieces seem to explode/disintegrate in mid air and the last spire standing seemed to disintegrate.




    All these issues must be explored and neither one of us are going to know what the finer details are other than superficially. But if you note Chandler always uses the terms "explosion(s)" and "ejection(s)" when discussing the destruction of the twin towers, never "implosion".

    You say:

    And I don't disagree with that either. But there is a hierarchy of importance when analyzing the 9/11 crime. One must first establish that the official narrative is false (category 1), followed by a list the many general reasons supporting that it's false (category 2). Beyond that each reason must be analyzed thoroughly in detail (category 3). The manner in which the towers were destroyed falls into the third category. The 4th category is to investigate who or what entities are responsible. So I'm not saying how the towers were destroyed is not important, I'm saying it's not as important as establishing the first 2 categories before the 3rd.
     
  16. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You guys are having an argument over semantics. Yes there were explosions, as ProVox has noted, but the end result was an implosion.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I’m not arguing, I’m discussing. We each have our own perspectives. When I look at the video, I see floors being blown out and high velocity ejections. The building IS being peeled top down like a banana. So I see it as a consecutive series of perfectly timed explosions and the building is taken apart top down. I can’t honestly characterize that as an implosion. This is very different than WTC7 which is taken out first internally then externally a fraction of a second later so the entire building implodes. Again it’s a matter of perspective, the end result is the same, all 3 are nearly perfect controlled demolitions that fully destroyed all 3 buildings, a CD company’s wet dream. The planning was almost perfect except for the timing of the sub-basement explosion, which was about a second or two too early (prior to the first plane impact).
     
  18. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I am not arguing with your view I am just making a point here, a point for discussion, that I have thought of which you may not have done?

    With WTC1 & 2 some 20%(?) of the load was taken by the outer shell (Spandrel Tube) and this was linked through the hundreds of floor trusses, to the 47 central core columns. The central core and the outer shell columns were also linked at the top by the Hat Truss. So, the approach to a controlled demolition would be quite different to that of WTC7 as the load distribution was different.

    As the centre core on 1 & 2, was taken down, floor by floor, ahead of the collapse of the upper section, the trusses dragged the outer shell toward the core, so it did not need to be taken down as a separate entity it only needing cutting charges on the corner ‘columns’ every X number of floors, to prevent them peeling outward like a banana. Although there were views through the dust of this happening at ground zero to some core columns, in the main it seems, looking at videos, that it worked.

    WTC7 was a different construction. The internal steelwork took the load and the floors were reinforced concrete not light concrete. The outside shell was not structural and was demolished a few seconds after the internals were taken down, to ensure it collapsed into the foot print of the structure as it was not part of the support structure to any great degree. That is why it stood for about 4 seconds(?) before the classic controlled bottom up demolition was observed. With WTC7 there was no damage to interfere with a normal bottom up demolition.

    The following is theory ….. as there is no evidence of what was going on inside the debris/dust cloud, only by understanding the construction, applying logic and working out what was probably happening from events seen from outside, can you make an informed guess.

    I would suggest WTC 1 & 2 followed exactly the same path as WTC7 but the ‘ground zero’ for them was the impact zone and a bottom up demolition from that point! I also believe that the lower section core was then taken out, floor by floor, at the same time (or within seconds) travelling in the opposite direction, from the top down. As the demolished upper section debris approached the visible top of the lower and apparently undamaged tower, there was no opposing force to the progressive gravitational collapse and it all just fell into an ever deepening hole at approaching free fall acceleration. This is why the smoke and dust was seen to billow out or curl back toward the centre and follow the falling debris downward to ground zero.

    To achieve this ‘programmable’ sequence there is no alternative but that ‘someone’ had to program that specific sequence into the controller AFTER impact as, before the aircraft struck, it was not known where the impact point would be. It was only at that point in time that the sequence could be determined and the start point defined. This took a lot of preplanning!


    The end result was the same no matter how you look at it ........ but I find it a challenge to try and work out exactly how the controlled demolition experts probably achieved what they did. To have some government appointed ‘expert’ tell me it was due to aircraft impact and fires, is an affront to common sense and rings the bell that someone is not telling the truth as it defies both logic and the Laws of Physics to believe that excuse as even being a extremely remote possibility!
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would disagree on only one point--the impact points of the aircraft WERE known, or at least designed into the plans. We know that because of records and photos suggesting that to some degree the towers were prepared for strikes at those respective points.

    While there are few records regarding the first strike, anybody paying attention and understanding aviation matters knows that the 2nd strike was almost a miss.
     
    ProVox likes this.
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't disagree with the above. Your take is as good as anyone else's who acknowledges the controlled demolition of the twin towers. To be honest I never took it that deep, I just took it from the point of view of video observation, expert analysis (such as Chandler), the resultant debris field and eyewitness claims. Again my objective is to expose the OCT fraud, not to try to come up with all sorts of theories. Having said that, I do have my own theories regardless.

    Here I have to agree somewhat with Eleuthera. To plan such a spectacle, (my theory) the planes would have to have been programmed to impact the towers at a specific point of impact and time of impact. I doubt there was human intervention because of several factors and the programming was either slightly off or circumstances caused the timing and point of impact to be slightly off. It was still within an uncanny range of accuracy. One could come up with all sorts of plausible theories as to how this was all accomplished, yours and mine are just 2 versions.
     
    ProVox likes this.
  21. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry for no links here, it's all getting so old now.

    Because there was so much time to photograph the damage to the North Tower, it was the first one struck and the last one to fall, close examination, according to some, revealed that likely there were a few missing bolts connecting various structural members. Those points were visible and meaningful to the trained eye. When I watched the analysis years ago I found it somewhat persuasive.

    Persuasive because we know that Paul Bremer's company rented about 6 out of the more or less 8 floors that were involved in the strike. Paul Bremer went on to become the Main Dude in Bush's "provisional government" after he invaded Iraq.

    Also there was talk about what appeared to be large battery type devices installed in the offices of Bremer in the weeks and months before the attack.

    Fewer details but similar regarding the South Tower.

    So it is likely that extremely precise planning and preparation were involved in just where the aircraft would strike the towers.

    Obviously, WTC7 did not have that.
     
    ProVox and Bob0627 like this.
  22. ProVox

    ProVox Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2019
    Messages:
    41
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Eleuthera, you said:

    “So it is likely that extremely precise planning and preparation were involved in just where the aircraft would strike the towers.”

    I have just one problem with your theory ...............

    The aircraft impact did not cause sufficient damage to bring the towers down, and that was known to be so when the towers were designed and built, even if you include the fires that followed! Aircraft impact (Boeing 707 @ 600mph) was allowed for in the design.

    Bob, you said:

    “Here I have to agree somewhat with Eleuthera. To plan such a spectacle, (my theory) the planes would have to have been programmed to impact the towers at a specific point of impact and time of impact.”

    They didn’t programme the aircraft control system, not possible to that degree of accuracy to cope with constant variables such as wind direction, gusts and even wind sheer ,...... they programmed the controlled demolition system!

    To do that as a ‘bottom-up’ and ‘bottom down’ very accurate sequence, the start point had to be determined and that was apparent ONLY after impact. Litterally all that was needed was someone to enter the floor number for the impact, press 'FIRE' and the system determines what pre-programmed sequence then follows!

    I spent 40+ years designing and commissioning control/safety/shutdown systems for chemical and LPG/LNG plants and facilities ..... once you know what is wanted/needed, the sequence programming is not that difficult to do and primarily is down to the competence and imagination of the programmer(s). :roll: :wink:
     
  23. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,512
    Likes Received:
    1,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am positive you don't have a source for this outrageous troofer claim ...
    and this means what? ... no **** that the 2nd hit was almost a miss ... but it wasn't ... so how does this play into your no planer, drone fantasies? ...
     
  24. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,953
    Likes Received:
    11,883
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You're quite right--the aircraft strikes were theater only. That is, they were not required for the successful demolition of the towers.

    Their constant playing on TV was for the purpose of terror, scaring hell out of viewers. Psychological trauma, not much more.

    I suspect the explosives placed on those floors effected WERE necessary for mission success, but if the planes had missed, as the second almost did, the demolition would still have been successful.

    The explosions in the basement reported by Willie Rodriguez and the seismographs tend to corroborate my theory.
     
    ProVox likes this.
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe anyone who doesn't buy the OCT believes otherwise. I'm not so sure the aircraft could even have penetrated the tower to such a depth, taking out multiple steel columns without some additional mechanism.


    The velocity and accuracy of the plane suggests either a programmed flight or a drone. Because of these factors, it couldn't possibly be manually flown. I once saw a video where a seasoned pilot in a simulator was only able to hit the tower once in 10 tries using the same flight path and velocity (which well exceeded VMO limitations for that type of claimed aircraft). So I'm guessing even someone operating a drone would have difficulty getting it right. The sequence of the controlled demolition also had to be programmed for proper timing.

    Well again, your theory is as good as anyone's.

    Bottom line is that we're all guessing because none of it makes much sense without an understanding of all the factors involved that could have made it all possible. And bottom line is that the OCT is a simplistic fairy tale that makes the least amount of sense.
     
    ProVox and Eleuthera like this.

Share This Page