Patents: Nanoengineered Explosive (Nano-Thermite) / Integral Low-Energy Thermite Igniter

page: 3
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Try google search

www.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

I found the patent and the abstract.




posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88

Same goes for you. You have no facts to prove your theories or debunk anything what I said.


Sure I do. Pick one - we'll dispel ignorance together.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

How do you explain the "pools of molten steel"?

They weren't pools of steel, many metals (and even glass) melt in fires. That's the only cogent explanation for liquid metal a week or so after 911. (metal pools didn't last months, that's another truther myth)


My deleted post in reply to the lies spread by the member "exponent" contained a videoclip that clearly debunked his claim.

Here it is again



What I said still stands, you discredited yourself with these statements.


edit on 7-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
Okay how do these explosives tie in with 911? I still do not get that part. Have substances been found, that are not part of the building materials that made up the WTC complex, but were part of this particular explosives device? Is there some other reason one would assume this particular device was used?



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ALF88
 


There were no lies in my post. Your video contained not even a single mention of 'pools of molten metal' and even the mentions of red hot elements is not sufficient to claim 'hotter than fire' as fires can easily heat metal to red hot temperatures.

Your post was removed because you called me a liar, even though your video doesn't contradict what I said at all.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Okay how do these explosives tie in with 911? I still do not get that part. Have substances been found, that are not part of the building materials that made up the WTC complex, but were part of this particular explosives device? Is there some other reason one would assume this particular device was used?


Apparently he's a thermiter and a no-planes-ite. So he ran across a patent he couldn't read for understanding and, looking for keywords like so many of them do, saw "aluminum". Unaware that aluminum is a common component rocket fuels and explosives, he associated "thin layers" and "aluminum" with some sort of thermite paint that could be applied to the structural beams at the plant.

A lot of this stuff takes some physics and material science to read. It's easier if you're just looking for word matches I guess.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by ALF88
 


There were no lies in my post. Your video contained not even a single mention of 'pools of molten metal' and even the mentions of red hot elements is not sufficient to claim 'hotter than fire' as fires can easily heat metal to red hot temperatures.

Your post was removed because you called me a liar, even though your video doesn't contradict what I said at all.



You Sir claimed in this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that there were no pools of molten steel.


Here is just one example. At 1:05 in the video a firefighter says ...



...you get down below and you see molten steel, molten steel running down the channel rails, like you are in a foundry, like lava...


and there are lots of witnesses more in the video who confirm it.


Therefore NIST was lying and you are lying as well!


edit on 8-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Okay how do these explosives tie in with 911? I still do not get that part. Have substances been found, that are not part of the building materials that made up the WTC complex, but were part of this particular explosives device? Is there some other reason one would assume this particular device was used?


I am sure you are aware of the Nanothermite findings of Prof. Harrit and Steven Jones.

Does the patent proof that the explosive described in it was used on 9/11?

No! It doesn't.

But what it proves is that explosives exist that have the characteristics of what was found by Harrit and Jones and that nobody but the US government holds the rights to these patents. In addition to that it proves that there are explosives, that are very flexible and need no wiring or drilling of holes throughout a building, which makes the time factor of preparing the towers for a controlled demolition almost obsolete.

It doesn't matter, if US government hired and controlled individuals on ATS try to ridicule everything, the patent speaks for itself.
edit on 8-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
You Sir claimed in this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that there were no pools of molten steel.

Correct, nobody has ever shown evidence that there were pools of molten steel.


Here is just one example. At 1:05 in the video a firefighter says ...


...you get down below and you see molten steel, molten steel running down the channel rails, like you are in a foundry, like lava...

and there are lots of witnesses more in the video who confirm it.

I have no doubt that there was glowing, running material in the fires. However, this is not a pool, and it's almost certainly not steel. No tests were performed on any material that identifies it as undergoing those temperatures, and the temperature measurements taken only come close to softening steel significantly. There are many other materials that can glow and melt in the towers in reasonable heat, such as glass and aluminium, two incredibly common materials that literally wrapped the entire outside.


Therefore NIST was lying and you are lying as well!

Or you are making the assumption that because someone saw a glowing, running material, that it must be steel. This assumption underpins the whole theory of long lasting molten steel pools, but it just has never been shown to happen. Indeed many of the original quotes turn out to be falsely attributed or invented entirely.

Can you explain to me exactly how we know that this is steel instead of one of the myriad of other potential options? Can you also explain what mechanism could be used to keep steel molten for so long?



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Correct, nobody has ever shown evidence that there were pools of molten steel.

I have no doubt that there was glowing, running material in the fires. However, this is not a pool, and it's almost certainly not steel. No tests were performed on any material that identifies it as undergoing those temperatures, and the temperature measurements taken only come close to softening steel significantly. There are many other materials that can glow and melt in the towers in reasonable heat, such as glass and aluminium, two incredibly common materials that literally wrapped the entire outside.


There are witnesses, who are way more credible than you, who state otherwise. They have NO reason to lie and calling those firefighters amateurs, which you do, is pathetic. These guys were on the scene and have seen everything with their own eyes. You obviously didn't! I do believe them, and I actually don't know what kind of proof you expect. The US government confirming it? Strangely eye witnesses are only credible for guys like you, if they support the official version of events.


edit on 8-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
There are witnesses, who are way more credible than you, who state otherwise.

Who? Who has been trained in identifying metal from a hot runny liquid? Who states that it was definitely steel? The vast majority of the clips are just people guessing that it was steel, not testing it or proving it.


They have NO reason to lie and calling those firefighters amateurs, which you do, is pathetic.

I'm not suggesting they lied. Nobody is suggesting they lied, what the heck is wrong with you?


These guys were on the scene and have seen everything with their own eyes. You obviously didn't! I do believe them, and I actually don't know what kind of proof you expect. The US government confirming it? Strangely eye witnesses are only credible for guys like you, if they support the official version of events.

No eye witnesses are never credible when they're supposed to magically tell the difference between materials without touching or sampling them in any way.

The fact you saw fit to attack me instead of discuss the point illustrates all I need to, there's no actual evidence but some people really really want to believe it.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

We've seen a recent rash of new one-line responses to posts that add nothing to the flow of discussion.

One Line or less Responses or "me too" atta-boy comments contribute nothing to the discussion. These include rows of smilies, "you're wrong", or other similar short responses.

Each mod has the ability to apply nominal points warnings (20 points) for both of these minor board infractions. Please help us maintain the best discussion board possible by considering your responses in both content and length.

Unfortunately, those of you who have fallen into these habits, may get a few warnings in your U2U In Box. These warnings are not full Staff Warnings, but provide you with a link to your one-line post.

Please help keep ATS quality at its highest.



Use this thread to post your comments about this information:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on Mon 9 Jul 2012 by The Vagabond because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


From the reply he gave to me, he does not necessarily say that prove has been found that those explosives were used, but that explosives with a set of characteristic exist, that in his opinion were a good choice to use on the towers.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by exponent
 


From the reply he gave to me, he does not necessarily say that prove has been found that those explosives were used, but that explosives with a set of characteristic exist, that in his opinion were a good choice to use on the towers.


That is exactly it and nothing else did I say throughout this thread. Thank you Cassius.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Who? Who has been trained in identifying metal from a hot runny liquid? Who states that it was definitely steel? The vast majority of the clips are just people guessing that it was steel, not testing it or proving it.

They have NO reason to lie and calling those firefighters amateurs, which you do, is pathetic.
I'm not suggesting they lied. Nobody is suggesting they lied, what the heck is wrong with you?

No eye witnesses are never credible when they're supposed to magically tell the difference between materials without touching or sampling them in any way.

The fact you saw fit to attack me instead of discuss the point illustrates all I need to, there's no actual evidence but some people really really want to believe it.


I tend to believe these witnesses, they are credible. You on the other hand are doing everything to discredit them. You got nothing to support your theories, but the statements from a government that is deeply involved in the attacks and NIST a corrupt organization. They are liars and that has been proven!



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
I tend to believe these witnesses, they are credible. You on the other hand are doing everything to discredit them. You got nothing to support your theories, but the statements from a government that is deeply involved in the attacks and NIST a corrupt organization. They are liars and that has been proven!

This is total nonsense. You're not even attempting to use logic here. You're just pretending that there's some level of credibility that extends infinitely.

They are human. They do not have spectrographs for eyes. They identified hot, liquid material in the rubble of the towers. They did not test it for being steel. You are just wildly grasping at straws here.


NIST a corrupt organisation. They are liars and that has been proven!

No actual information here, but you accuse me of being the one who's trying to discredit? There are thousands of engineers working for NIST, but you dismiss them all instantly because you want to believe something else.

Tell me, how exactly did they identify it as steel. Come on, surely its very simple if you're not completely making up 'credibility'. They must have tested it via some method?



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
This is total nonsense. You're not even attempting to use logic here. You're just pretending that there's some level of credibility that extends infinitely.


Says exponent, the user that has nothing to offer but his own opinion and the proven lies and deceit of the US government and NIST.


Originally posted by exponent
They are human. They do not have spectrographs for eyes. They identified hot, liquid material in the rubble of the towers. They did not test it for being steel. You are just wildly grasping at straws here


No, I am not my friend, it is you who is desperately trying to defend the official version of events which is getting tougher every day.


Originally posted by exponent
No actual information here, but you accuse me of being the one who's trying to discredit? There are thousands of engineers working for NIST, but you dismiss them all instantly because you want to believe something else.


They are corrupt and lied repeatedly. If you want to keep believing in liars, go ahead.


Originally posted by exponent
Tell me, how exactly did they identify it as steel. Come on, surely its very simple if you're not completely making up 'credibility'. They must have tested it via some method?


What proof do you have that it was something else? You claimed it was glass and all kinds of other things but no steel? The difference between you and me is, that I actually can present witnesses for my claims. You sir can't, and that makes you angry! You lost and there is no way you can win that fight, no matter how many times you try to ridicule the firefighters and other honest heroes of that day.
edit on 9-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALF88
Says exponent, the user that has nothing to offer but his own opinion and the proven lies and deceit of the US government and NIST.

See, no logic at all, you just insult and ridicule because you have nothing better to say.


No, I am not my friend, it is you who is desperately trying to defend the official version of events which is getting tougher every day.

There's no desperation. You seem to want to pretend that firefighters are superhuman and can tell what a material is without even touching it. Talk about desperation!


They are corrupt and lied repeatedly. If you want to keep believing in liars, go ahead.

Keep repeating the same thing, I'm sure it will convince you despite the total lack of any evidence you have to support your claim.


What proof do you have that it was something else? You claimed it was glass and all kinds of other things but no steel? The difference between you and me is, that I actually can present witnesses for my claims. You sir can't, and that makes you angry!

Still pretending firefighters can identify steel through magic huh? Well keep at it, I'm sure you'll figure out something sooner or later.


You lost and there is no way you can win that fight, no matter how many times you try to ridicule the firefighters and other honest heroes of that day.
edit on 9-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)

Don't be so ridiculous. I'm not trying to ridicule anyone. I'm trying to point out the truth that firefighters do not have spectrographs for eyes.

This is how deluded you've become on 911, that you have to rely on the idea that firefighters can magically determine what a material is without touching it. That is not remotely rational.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
9/11 MADNESS
post removed because of personal attacks

Click here to learn more about this warning.



posted on Jul, 9 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

See, no logic at all, you just insult and ridicule because you have nothing better to say.

There's no desperation. You seem to want to pretend that firefighters are superhuman and can tell what a material is without even touching it. Talk about desperation!

Keep repeating the same thing, I'm sure it will convince you despite the total lack of any evidence you have to support your claim.

Still pretending firefighters can identify steel through magic huh? Well keep at it, I'm sure you'll figure out something sooner or later.

Don't be so ridiculous. I'm not trying to ridicule anyone. I'm trying to point out the truth that firefighters do not have spectrographs for eyes.

This is how deluded you've become on 911, that you have to rely on the idea that firefighters can magically determine what a material is without touching it. That is not remotely rational.


You can report my posts as much as you want to.

I presented witnesses and evidence you have nothing. Your posts will be ignored from now on.
edit on 9-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
7
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join