Thursday, January 19, 2012

Please Read What I Actually Wrote Before Saying My Arguments Are 'Moronic'

James B. of Screw Loose Change recently commented on my FAQ article posted at AE911Truth and, surprise surprise, he wasn't very impressed. He says the claims in my article are "ironic (and moronic)," but the real irony here is that he clearly didn't carefully read what I wrote. So, what are James' brilliant criticisms?

"They then go on to argue that the collapse started in the location where the aircraft did not have its major impact, ignoring the whole point that the fires were the primary cause of the collapse,"

First off, I did NOT ignore the issue of the fires, as I addressed that later in the article. The point I was making is that the collapse began at the floors with minimal damage, meaning that the planes likely would not have disrupted any of the demolition devices placed at those floors. I discuss this issue in greater detail here.

3. Thermal Analysis using Differential Scanning Calorimetry
Red/gray chips were subjected to heating using a differential scanning calorimeter (DSC). The data shown in Fig. (19) demonstrate that the red/gray chips from different WTC samples all ignited in the range 415-435 ˚C

This of course is several hundred degrees below the ignition point of Thermite cited above (1700 F = 927C), and well within the temperatures produced within a normal office fire, so their own experiment either disproves the conclusions of the article itself, or their assertion that this was Thermite, or in fact... both assertions.

Here James conveniently leaves off what I also wrote in regards to the demolition devices being set off by the fires. My full quote reads:

Dr. Jones’ point about triggering the thermite with electrical superthermite matches is noteworthy because, as pointed out by Los Alamos National Laboratory, these types of matches can be made to “resist friction, impact, heat, and static discharge through the composition, thereby minimizing accidental ignition.” The same article notes that one application of these matches can be to trigger explosives for demolition. (emphasis added)

The fact of the matter is that the devices could very well have been designed so that the fires would not have set them off. As Jim Hoffman notes:

Prior to 2001, the national laboratories and Pentagon contractors had developed advanced energetic nanocomposites which, in addition to providing much higher energy densities than conventional high explosives, were engineered to be very stable and require highly specific conditions for detonation. [source]

As for thermitic explosives, they could have been designed to detonate only on exposure to the very extreme conditions of temperature and pressure provided by specialized detonators, and to deflagrate (merely burn) in response to the kinds of pressures and temperatures produced by the plane crashes and fires. As a fail-safe, the demolition sequence could have been programmed to be triggered by premature ignitions of pyrotechnics. [source]

While nanothermite seems to have a lower ignition point than conventional thermite, nanothermite explosives can evidently be engineered to avoid accidental ignition. As for James' claim that (1700 F = 927C) is "well within the temperatures produced within a normal office fire," the fact remains that there is no evidence that the fires in the Towers reached that temperature. So no James, my article does not disprove "both assertions." It supports the assertion that both thermate and nanothermite were used to demolish the Towers. The issues of what types of materials were likely used in the Towers and how they could have been used and set off has long been addressed.

James' post is full of nothing but meaningless insults and illogical arguments. Hopefully his reading comprehension improves in the future.