And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001, or even in the 15 years since 9/11. S'funny that, since it supposedly did such a great job on the day, bringing down buildings three times the height of any previously imploded. You'd think it would have utterly replaced all conventional methods by now.

Or alternatively, this magic pixie dust doesn't actually exist or behave as alleged.

Just because you haven't studied a topic enough, doesn't make it magic. It's called science... whether or not you're capable of understanding.

This 2004 paper from Lawrence Livermore Labs is quite clear about nanothermites being —

“explosive composites based on thermite reactions.”

It begins: “We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives … using sol-gel chemistry.”

https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/307362.pdf

and

This online article entitled “NanoScale Chemistry Yields Better Explosives” discusses the procedure by which sol-gel nanothermites are made and gives a nice TEM image of a nanothermite.

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

and

This US Department of Defense journal from Spring, 2002 describes how:

“All of the military services and some DOE and academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives.”

It clarifies that —

[Nanothermite properties] “include energy output that is 2x that of high explosives” and “As sol-gel materials and methodology advances, there are a number of possible application areas that are envisioned [including] high-power, high-energy composite explosives.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20060519134006/http://ammtiac.alionscience.com/pdf/AMPQ6_1ART06.pdf

and

A high explosive creates a shockwave that always travels at high, supersonic velocity from the point of origin. This paper describes how —

“the reaction of the low density nanothermite composite leads to a fast propagating combustion, generating shock waves with Mach numbers up to 3.”

https://web.archive.org/web/20110713060428/http://apl.aip.org/applab/v91/i24/p243109_s1?isAuthorized=no

and

In this paper, former NIST employee Michael Zachariah discusses —

“developing an oxidizer matrix for reaction with nano-aluminum [i.e. nanothermite] for energy intensive applications involving explosives and propellants…”.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cm034740t

and

This article helps us understand how the military has been leveraging the potential explosive power of nanoenergetic compounds, specifically nanothermites. It describes a —

“new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.” Purdue professor Steven Son, who has become a leading expert on nanothermites, goes on to say that “Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times … resulting in a very rapid reactive wave … used in many applications, including … explosive devices.” The article says that such nanoenergetics enable “building more lethal weapons such as cave-buster bombs that have several times the detonation force of conventional bombs.”

http://www.technologyreview.com/NanoTech/14105/?a=f

and

Unlike some energetic materials, nanothermites are “tunable”, meaning the “ignition sensitivity thresholds, reaction rate, and pressure generation can be tailored to have a wide range of values.” Explosives generate pressure, as do nanothermites tuned to do just that.

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P128319.HTM

and

This conference paper states that —

“Nanoenergetic thermite materials release energy much faster than conventional energetic materials and have various potential military applications such as” explosives. They are likely to become the next-generation explosive materials.”

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2008/techprogram/P131370.HTM

and

This paper from the US Army describes how:

“These tunable nanoenergetic materials will be useful for various applications such as high-temperature non-detonable gas generators, adaptable flares, green primers for propellants and explosives, high power/energy explosives.”

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA481290&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

and

Even Wikipedia knows that nanothermite is used for explosive applications.

Nanothermites “are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics. Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being researched by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs that are several times more powerful than conventional explosives.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

Plus, the combustion available in the official story (fire/jet fuel) cannot account for the actual, measurable data:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

Theoretical papers - particularly those dating from years AFTER 9/11 - are entirely irrelevant. Show me cases where nanothermites have been used for explosive demolition of a steel-framed building. Bonus points available if they're more than one-third the height of WTC 1 and 2!

Because without practical examples, yes - this might as well be magic pixie dust.

These credentialed papers (multiple from 2002 and one from 2000 - even though you said nothing 15 years later) explaining the explosive properties/applications of nanothermite (including military) > your reddit comment which has since been proven false to begin with. Sorry.

And... Again....

The combustion available in the official story (fire/jet fuel) cannot account for the actual, measurable data:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

Maybe that was magic pixie dust too? But realistically, it was science (thermite).

Notable by its absence. ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of nanothermite ever being used. Indeed, the fact it was still being discussed in purely theoretical terms five years later, is evidence it was not a practical idea in 2001.

Meanwhile, the fact we don't fully understand the mechanisms, doesn't mean it must be your magic pixie dust. Not least because you have exactly zero data recording the results of nanothermite use, against which 9/11 can be compared. This is not how science works.

Oh please. The Skyride Tower was taken down with thermite in 1936. Which was of course "not before 2001."

Sorry, according to published science, thermite has many explosive characteristics. It yielded better explosives back in 2000.

These credentialed papers (multiple from 2002 and one from 2000 - even though you said nothing 15 years later) explaining the explosive properties/applications of nanothermite (including military) > your reddit comment which has since been proven false to begin with.

Additionally, thermite accounts for the measurable data (VOCS) where as the official story combustion cannot.

Fire/jet fuel = fairy tale

Science always trumps your reddit comments.

And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001, or even in the 15 years since 9/11.

Literally, all of this, proven wrong. Hurry up and shift those goal posts!

Just because you don't fully understand the mechanisms doesn't mean actual, qualified individuals don't. Don't get those two confused. They couldn't be further from each other.

Oh please. The Skyride Tower was taken down with thermite in 1936.

Excuse me - are you trying to muddy the waters, or are you just a complete idiot? Thermite != nanothermite. Congratulations on failing chemistry 1.0.1. Or are you now claiming thermite brought down the Twin Towers?

That'd be impressive, because it only just managed to bring down an open-framed collection of girders. Not a building in the slightest. Can't you tell the difference?. Oh, it was such a brilliant success, even thermite has never been used in 80 years since!

  thermite has many explosive characteristics

Methane has "many explosive characteristics". It doesn't mean you can bring a building down with cow farts. Though, frankly, that would be more plausible than the liberal sprinkling of nanopixiedust you suggest took place.

Additionally, thermite accounts for the measurable data (VOCS) where as the official story combustion cannot.

And again, confusing nanothermite and thermite! They are not the same thing You can't use (dubious) evidence of one as "proof" for the other. Though what they do have in common is, neither has ever been used to demolish a building.

You don't "fully understand the mechanisms" of nanothermite either, because those have never been demonstrated in practical use. All you can offer is hypothetical theories, including ones dating from years after the alleged event, and without any basis outside a laboratory. Once again, I ask for:

ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of nanothermite ever being used.

Perhaps you can ask your much-touted "qualified individuals" to answer this for you? After all, you keep dodging the issue.

Excuse me - are you trying to muddy the waters, or are you just a complete idiot? Thermite != nanothermite.

Correct. Nanothermite is far, far more explosive. Thanks for refuting yourself.

Or are you now claiming thermite brought down the Twin Towers?

I'm claiming nanothermite accounts for the VOCs where as the official story combustion (fire/jet fuel) cannot

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

You keep dodging that. Exhibit A:

And again, confusing nanothermite and thermite! They are not the same thing You can't use (dubious) evidence of one as "proof" for the other. Though what they do have in common is, neither has ever been used to demolish a building.

Nice dodge. Now you can go ahead and account for the VOCs using the official story combustion (fire/jet fuel)

That'd be impressive, because it only just managed to bring down an open-framed collection of girders. Not a building in the slightest.

In 1936. Damn that pesky advancing technology!

Methane has "many explosive characteristics". It doesn't mean you can bring a building down with cow farts.

Ah, ah ah. How heavy are those goal posts? You keep trying to move them! Here's your comment:

And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001, or even in the 15 years since 9/11.

All of it disproven.

Moar!

PRS Date: 1997/07/22 PRS Code: AS02 EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15 Abstract of US5885321

Fine aluminum powders are prepared by decomposing a lane-adducts in organic solvents under an inert atmosphere to provide highl y uniform particles selectably sized from about 65 nm to about 500 nm and believed particularly effective as fuels and additives, in pyrotechnics, and in energetic ma terials including composites, super thermite, and other explosives

Once again, literally all of this:

And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001, or even in the 15 years since 9/11.

Has been disproven. You should really do some research next time.

You don't "fully understand the mechanisms" of nanothermite either

Thanks for admitting you don't. But the actual, qualified scientists do. And they > your unqualified opinions posted on Reddit.

Perhaps you can ask your much-touted "qualified individuals" to answer this for you? After all, you keep dodging the issue.

That isn't required to prove that any kind of thermite was present on 9/11. Perhaps you can account for the VOCs with the official story combustion. Or should we continue to pretend that I don't keep bringing that up?

[Whisper: you do know that copy-pasting the same thing doesn't make it any better?]

Your shrieking repetition also fails miserably to prove anything. It only concludes weakly that the spikes are "similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite". [And please note, not even your unicorn-like nanothermite]. Perhaps you can also explain how the thermite supposedly responsible was suddenly going off in unprecedented quantities on February 9, almost five months after its supposed use - rather than the day of its alleged use? There's no conceivable way for the spike to be the product of controlled demolition.

And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001, or even in the 15 years since 9/11.

All of it disproven.

Nope. The only people who even mention "nanothermite" are 9/11 truthers. Who, as we have seen here, are not very good at chemistry. Nor, does it seem, do they understand patents.

PRS Date: 1997/07/22 PRS Code: AS02 EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15 Abstract of US5885321

Whoops, someone has a touchingly childish belief that patenting something makes it For Realz, Guys! Truth is, you can patent entirely non-existent things. Here's a patent for a spaceship propulsion system. So, like much of your "proof," this is actually just another purely hypothetical fairy-story. You don't even realise the patent is lapsed - the military clearly deciding it wasn't worth pursuing. Whoops again!

Now, since I've taken down your VOC fantasies as utterly meaningless, and far from the evidence you think, are you going to stop dodging my request for:

ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of nanothermite ever being used.

Either put up, or shut up. Which is it to be?

[Whisper: you do know that copy-pasting the same thing doesn't make it any better?]

[Whisper: I don't need it to be better when it was right the first time]

Your shrieking repetition also fails miserably to prove anything.

Actually it debunked the entirety of your statement.

And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001, or even in the 15 years since 9/11.

Literally, all of it. Debunked. And even if your statement were true (which we all now know that it isn't) it still provides 0 evidence against any form of thermite existing in the dust. Exactly 0. The fact that it's 100% wrong was a delightful bonus!

Whoops, someone has a touchingly childish belief that patenting something makes it For Realz, Guys! Truth is, you can patent entirely non-existent things. Here's a patent for a spaceship propulsion system. So, like much of your "proof," this is actually just another purely hypothetical fairy-story. You don't even realise the patent is lapsed - the military clearly deciding it wasn't worth pursuing. Whoops again!

So this is the point where you prove it's non-existent. The published papers I produced prove otherwise.

Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos.

“The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says.

Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly.

“Superthermites can increase the (chemical) reaction time by a thousand times,” Son says, resulting in a very rapid reactive wave.

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

Oh they can? Great. No hypothetical there!

Sorry...was that shrieking?

Perhaps you can also explain how the thermite supposedly responsible was suddenly going off in unprecedented quantities on February 9, almost five months after its supposed use - rather than the day of its alleged use? There's no conceivable way for the spike to be the product of controlled demolition.

ah, ah ah....the peer reviewed, published paper is just that. Peer reviewed and published. You want to refute? Great! Present a peer reviewed, published rebuttal. And your statement here works against you. If "fire" can do it, so can "fire" combined with chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants. Except fire can't do it. As shown in the published paper. Not on those dates. Not without the PM. And not at those levels.

Still waiting on those VOC spikes.....

Nope. The only people who even mention "nanothermite" are 9/11 truthers. Who, as we have seen here, are not very good at chemistry. Nor, does it seem, do they understand patents

You mean the two peer reviewed, published papers/authors of which there are 0 peer reviewed, published rebuttals. Fixed that for you!

Now, since I've taken down your VOC fantasies as utterly meaningless, and far from the evidence you think, are you going to stop dodging my request for:

Error 404: Source not found. What you're really trying to say here is, "I tried to hand wave the published paper away because I can't find a proper refutation. So let's both pretend I refuted it and move on to something else because I really can't refute it."

Fixed that for you!

Still waiting for a way for fire/jet fuel to account for the VOC spike levels/dates.....especially without that pesky PM!

ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of nanothermite ever being used

Once again...."That isn't required to prove that any kind of thermite was present on 9/11. Perhaps you can account for the VOCs with the official story combustion. Or should we continue to pretend that I don't keep bringing that up?"

And once again, you're hurting your own argument. Thermite was used in 1936. Many years before it was built up on the nano-scale to become the much more energetic/powerful/tunable/explosive nanothermite.

Ps...just because you don't know if something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't. You've already shown that you make statements about topics you don't know about. And that those statements are false. Add this to the list!

However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.

Guess that means there are 0...right?

Yikes!

610,000 ppb benzene....990,000 propylene.

Still waiting....

Sorry, not playing this game any more until you answer my questions.

Perhaps you can also explain how the thermite supposedly responsible was suddenly going off in unprecedented quantities on February 9, almost five months after its supposed use - rather than the day of its alleged use?

and also

ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of nanothermite ever being used.

Still waiting...

Sorry, not playing this game any more until you answer my questions.

You mean you can't account for the VOCs using the official story combustion. Fixed that for you.

The presence of thermitic materials explains why the fires lasted for so many months, deep within the oxygen-poor pile, and why the fires were resistant to the extensive, but ineffective, efforts to extinguish them. In this scenario, the extreme levels of VOCs would be the result of the complete thermal degradation of all plastic materials in the thermitic (incendiary) fires. In normal structural fires with limited ventilation, plastic materials often burn incompletely.

and

ah, ah ah....the peer reviewed, published paper is just that. Peer reviewed and published. You want to refute? Great! Present a peer reviewed, published rebuttal. And your statement here works against you. If "fire" can do it, so can "fire" combined with chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants. Except fire can't do it. As shown in the published paper. Not on those dates. Not without the PM. And not at those levels.

ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of nanothermite ever being used.

Once again...."That isn't required to prove that any kind of thermite was present on 9/11. Perhaps you can account for the VOCs with the official story combustion. Or should we continue to pretend that I don't keep bringing that up?"

And once again, you're hurting your own argument. Thermite was used in 1936. Many years before it was built up on the nano-scale to become the much more energetic/powerful/tunable/explosive nanothermite.

Ps...just because you don't know if something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't. You've already shown that you make statements about topics you don't know about. And that those statements are false. Add this to the list!

However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.

Awwww man. You lost your own game!

Feel free to ask again. I'll answer again

Now...about those pesky VOCs.....

610,000 and 990,000 ppb. Still waiting...

Oops! You went 0-for-2! Still, thanks for playing!

Feel free to try again if you can ever provide any actual evidence for explosive demolition. But trying to present lapsed patents and atmospheric samples taken five months after the event, simply proves how feeble your case actually is.

It's OK that you're pretending I didn't answer you every time. This conversation isn't for you. I know you're wrong. You know you're wrong. And I know that you know you're wrong. This conversation is for anyone else who might be reading/falling for your incorrect statement. And I corrected for you. Along with answering all your questions. And you couldn't even handle one of mine. Probably because mine was a peer reviewed, published paper and yours were just opinions from an unqualified redditor.

Perhaps you can also explain how the thermite supposedly responsible was suddenly going off in unprecedented quantities on February 9, almost five months after its supposed use - rather than the day of its alleged use?

The presence of thermitic materials explains why the fires lasted for so many months, deep within the oxygen-poor pile, and why the fires were resistant to the extensive, but ineffective, efforts to extinguish them. In this scenario, the extreme levels of VOCs would be the result of the complete thermal degradation of all plastic materials in the thermitic (incendiary) fires. In normal structural fires with limited ventilation, plastic materials often burn incompletely.

and

ah, ah ah....the peer reviewed, published paper is just that. Peer reviewed and published. You want to refute? Great! Present a peer reviewed, published rebuttal. And your statement here works against you. If "fire" can do it, so can "fire" combined with chemical energetic materials, which provide their own fuel and oxidant and are not deterred by water, dust, or chemical suppressants. Except fire can't do it. As shown in the published paper. Not on those dates. Not without the PM. And not at those levels.

Oops! You've been answered... again.

and also

ONE SINGLE PRACTICAL EXAMPLE of nanothermite ever being used.

Once again...."That isn't required to prove that any kind of thermite was present on 9/11. Perhaps you can account for the VOCs with the official story combustion. Or should we continue to pretend that I don't keep bringing that up?"

And once again, you're hurting your own argument. Thermite was used in 1936. Many years before it was built up on the nano-scale to become the much more energetic/powerful/tunable/explosive nanothermite.

Ps...just because you don't know if something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't. You've already shown that you make statements about topics you don't know about. And that those statements are false. Add this to the list!

However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.

"Oooops!* you've been answered... again

Thanks for admitting you're only playing a game rather than being able to provide any/refute my evidence. That is also useful for anyone reading this to see!

I know you're wrong. You know you're wrong. And I know that you know you're wrong.

Ah, thanks for demonstrating perfectly the arrogant ignorance of the Truther, more befitting a religious zealot. Whatever happened to having an open mind and seeking the truth? Clearly, it's vastly over-rated when you "know" so much. Still, I guess you've got to have blind faith, when the actual evidence is so weak more Americans believe in Bigfoot than 9/11 conspiracy theories. But, who cares? You "know" the truth!

I guess your touching faith also extends to you proclaiming your "peer reviewed" paper as proof, even though it's nothing of the sort. "Evidence for energetic materials" does not equal controlled demolition. What truthers like you are doing is as weak as those who proclaim because we don't know exactly how the pyramids were build, "It must be aliens!" I don't need to account for the VOC's. I could just claim there was a secret underground storage tank between WTC1. Because that would explain the spikes every bit as well - and there's every bit as much evidence for that as explosive demolition.

That isn't required to prove that any kind of thermite was present on 9/11.

And yet, one of the frequent arguments made for controlled demolition - we see it here virtually every time a building catches fire - is the lack of precedent for steel-framed buildings collapsing. But it cuts both ways. There are no cases of "nanothermite" being used in building demolition. There are no cases of buildings even 1/3 the size of WTC1 + 2 being brought down either.

This lack of precedent also means you have absolutely nothing to compare 9/11 with. So your VOC spikes are utterly meaningless - not least because they do not show the behavior you would expect from their actual use in the manner alleged, if they were the product of thermite combustion. That would be an immediate spike on 9/11 - when the thermite actually combusted, followed by a slow decline. Have another example: if there was a sudden spike of radioactivity five months later, would you take that to mean the building had been nuked? Or that there were quite possibly, other sources?

Thermite was used in 1936. Many years before it was built up on the nano-scale to become the much more energetic/powerful/tunable/explosive nanothermite.

Citation needed, as they say. Because you have abjectly failed to show this happened at all on the practical level. But let me see if I've got this right. Thermite was used in 1936, then vanished entirely from the map, suddenly re-appearing for one day only, in 2001. And despite doing such an apparently wonderful job, has never been used again since. Yeah, that's very plausible /s

But I'm happy let you have the last word. Frankly, I'm getting bored of you shrieking "Peer-reviewed! Peer-reviewed!" like a parrot, with no apparent idea of what it means or what the paper in question doesn't prove. Perhaps you can then fly off to Venus on your patented spaceship and search for Bigfoot there.

Awww how sad. You still can't account for the VOCs so you resort to talking about Bigfoot.

So to recap:

I disproved your entire statement. You tried moving the goalposts. And you can't use the official story to account for the measurable data. Got it!

I'll stick to the unrefuted published papers/science. You stick to Bigfoot. Suits us both.

Thermite was used in 1936. Many years before it was built up on the nano-scale to become the much more energetic/powerful/tunable/explosive nanothermite.

Citation needed, as they say.

Skyride Tower Felled by Melting Steel Legs, Popular Mechanics, October 1933

Destroy Roof of Reichstag, Ottawa Citizen, Nov 20, 1954

We actually already talked about that, and how it wasn't a building. My citation request was for the bit about "much more powerful" nanothermite. I've still not been given any practical evidence for its existence outside the lab.

how it wasn't a building

Do we agree that "proof of concept" has a meaning?

I am sure /u/PhrygianMode already provided you with a list of sources proving that military nanothermite research is actually a thing. Shifting the goalpost by asking for "practical evidence for its existence outside the lab" is as if a creationist would ask for practical evidence for evolution outside lab experiments which only proved generational mutation.

Indeed I did provide him with evidence counter to his "point." Here is his original statement before he tried shifting the goal posts (I don't recall it having to be a "building" originally):

And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001

Absolutely refuted. And yet, he persists. Or at least attempts to persist.

Ah, he'll come around in a few years too.

Possibly. He's been trying to convince people of the official story for quite some time. Curious why they do that if an alternate theory is so inconsequential and wrong?

Yup. The best, the world's leading scientists, set out to disprove 9/11 Truth and, in the process, created some of the best technically groundbreaking analyses and theories, absolutely revolutionizing the way forensic and criminal investigations will be conducted - forever - only, and only because some borderline paranoid fringe lunatic whackjob tinfoil crackpot nutjob conspiracy theorists kept on about their bullshit theory that the official story doesn't add up. Otherwise, the whole matter would have been settled with "mostly due to structural failure, because the fires were just too intense".

Good old Harley Guy! He knew what was up before NIST did. Someone should have put him on the WTC7 investigation! Maybe then they wouldn't have built a new tower before they knew why the original collapsed. Meaning all of those building code suggestions had to have been left out!

I'm sure you'll agree that theoretical research work is rather different from practical implementation. The complete apparent lack of the latter is significant, especially considering the utterly unprecedented scale of the alleged demolitions in question.

This is just not how science, research and development work. Or if you think it is, please provide me with other examples of a product which appeared out of nowhere, worked perfectly at record shattering scale for one day, then vanished, and hasn't been seen or heard of again since.

I'm sure you'll agree that theoretical research work is rather different from practical implementation. The complete apparent lack of the latter is significant,

It is less significant than you seem to think. I can name you one practical implementation of nanothermite research outside the military that even you might be holding in your hands soon (if you are a firefighter, for example, you might have seen one already somewhere).

especially considering the utterly unprecedented scale of the alleged demolitions in question.

You must concede that you are grasping at straws. The towers were big, so what.

This is just not how science, research and development work. Or if you think it is, please provide me with other examples of a product which appeared out of nowhere, worked perfectly at record shattering scale for one day, then vanished, and hasn't been seen or heard of again since.

Ha! Gotcha!

I am taking you by your word.

But you must promise not to flip your table.

Are you ready?

^{Self-disintegrating towers.}

Self-disintegrating towers

I trust I may be permitted a shake of the fist?

Please, I thought we were gentlemen. Of course you may.

Theoretical papers - particularly those dating from years AFTER 9/11 - are entirely irrelevant. Show me cases where nanothermites have been used for explosive demolition of a steel-framed building. Bonus points available if they're more than one-third the height of WTC 1 and 2!

Because without practical examples, yes - this might as well be magic pixie dust.

Oh please. The Skyride Tower was taken down with thermite in 1936. Which was of course "not before 2001."

Sorry, according to published science, thermite has many explosive characteristics. It yielded better explosives back in 2000.

These credentialed papers (multiple from 2002 and one from 2000 - even though you said nothing 15 years later) explaining the explosive properties/applications of nanothermite (including military) > your reddit comment which has since been proven false to begin with.

Additionally, thermite accounts for the measurable data (VOCS) where as the official story combustion cannot.

Fire/jet fuel = fairy tale

Science always trumps your reddit comments.

And yet, there has been NOT ONE OTHER PROVEN, ADMITTED OR EVEN SUSPECTED CASE of "nano thermite" ever being used for explosive demolition, civilian or military - not before 2001, or even in the 15 years since 9/11.

Literally, all of this, proven wrong. Hurry up and shift those goal posts!

Just because you don't fully understand the mechanisms doesn't mean actual, qualified individuals don't. Don't get those two confused. They couldn't be further from each other.

how it wasn't a building

Do we agree that "proof of concept" has a meaning?

I am sure /u/PhrygianMode already provided you with a list of sources proving that military nanothermite research is actually a thing. Shifting the goalpost by asking for "practical evidence for its existence outside the lab" is as if a creationist would ask for practical evidence for evolution outside lab experiments which only proved generational mutation.