Expired

Who owns the patent to nano-thermite?

71 replies
Found 12th Nov 2009
was watching a conspiracy theory on 9/11 and apparently they didnt include anything about it in their report.

he then goes on to say "just wait till you find out who owns the patents of nano-thermite"

  1. Misc
  2. Nano
Groups
  1. Misc
  2. Nano
71 Comments

Osama bin laden .

Banned

ronald mcdonald

daz1981;6868808

ronald mcdonald



Now thats a conspiracy theory lol :thumbsup:

Original Poster

a serious answer please.........

big dave.

Osama Bin Laden didnt do ****

fps_d0minat0r;6868831

a serious answer please.........



You have been watching a conspiracy theory about 911 and nano thermite and you want a serious answer,:whistling:

tonyg1962;6868846

You have been watching a conspiracy theory about 911 and nano thermite … You have been watching a conspiracy theory about 911 and nano thermite and you want a serious answer,:whistling:



you really think Osama Bin Laden and Co pulled off 9/11.lol @ watching a conspiracy theory about nano thermite

NASA

strike;6868866

you really think Osama Bin Laden and Co pulled off 9/11.lol @ watching a … you really think Osama Bin Laden and Co pulled off 9/11.lol @ watching a conspiracy theory about nano thermite



I think martians did it ,Only explanation really,

"They used a Nano-Thermate (not Thermate) to vaporize the buildings. … "They used a Nano-Thermate (not Thermate) to vaporize the buildings. Nano-thermite is a spray-able dust explosive derivative from Thermate (which is Thermite with Aluminum Nitrate) and is patented and the patent is owned by the Chief of NIST who was in charge of investigating how the building came down - needless to say he found no evidence.The building's explosive nano-dust was ignited by a directed energy weapon satellite controlled by the Space Shuttle."



Whoop whoop!!

Original Poster

tonyg1962;6868846

You have been watching a conspiracy theory about 911 and nano thermite … You have been watching a conspiracy theory about 911 and nano thermite and you want a serious answer,:whistling:



i dont get what your trying to say.

fps_d0minat0r;6868902

i dont get what your trying to say.



You may not have noticed on the news but im pretty sure that a few people saw some planes involved ,

The thermite which was found was produced by the thousands of burning computers. Did they state this in the conspiracy theory video?

Original Poster

tonyg1962;6868917

You may not have noticed on the news but im pretty sure that a few people … You may not have noticed on the news but im pretty sure that a few people saw some planes involved ,



yes but planes dont cause steel sttructures to collapse.

and nor does the flame from the fuel melt the steel.

and how did wtc 7 just fall down? that wasnt hit by a plane...........maybe a ball of paper hit it?

Original Poster

dananana;6868946

The thermite which was found was produced by the thousands of burning … The thermite which was found was produced by the thousands of burning computers. Did they state this in the conspiracy theory video?



it wouldnt be enough to melt all the steel in them massive sky scrapers.........plus there were explosions far lower down then where the planes actually hit.

EDIT: hang on.......what tells you computers have thermite in them?

fps_d0minat0r;6868959

yes but planes dont cause steel sttructures to collapse.and nor does the … yes but planes dont cause steel sttructures to collapse.and nor does the flame from the fuel melt the steel.and how did wtc 7 just fall down? that wasnt hit by a plane...........maybe a ball of paper hit it?



Maybe you want to watch a different programme that actually has some facts in it,

fps_d0minat0r;6868959

yes but planes dont cause steel sttructures to collapse.and nor does the … yes but planes dont cause steel sttructures to collapse.and nor does the flame from the fuel melt the steel.and how did wtc 7 just fall down? that wasnt hit by a plane...........maybe a ball of paper hit it?



This is a straw man argument. As when the steel was exposed to a lot of heat which would of reduced the strength of the beams. Burning debris hit wtc 7 and the same thing happen.

debunking911.com/the…htm
Might provide a little balance before you start donning your tinfoil hat.

Original Poster

tonyg1962;6868985

Maybe you want to watch a different programme that actually has some … Maybe you want to watch a different programme that actually has some facts in it,



what like buildings burning for hours and hours but not falling down?

and the fact of the towers falling at free fall speed debunking the pancake theory?

and a steel structure has NEVER in the history of mankind fallen down due to fire?

fps_d0minat0r;6868977

it wouldnt be enough to melt all the steel in them massive sky … it wouldnt be enough to melt all the steel in them massive sky scrapers.........plus there were explosions far lower down then where the planes actually hit.EDIT: hang on.......what tells you computers have thermite in them?



debunking911.com/the…htm :thumbsup:

dananana;6869010

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm :thumbsup:



You snooze you lose! :-D

Original Poster

dananana;6869010

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm :thumbsup:



lmfao ahahahaa............i doubt that much would be able to take down a steel house let alone the wtc.....i mean it didnt even kill the man beside it, did it?

fps_d0minat0r;6868959

yes but planes dont cause steel sttructures to collapse.and nor does the … yes but planes dont cause steel sttructures to collapse.and nor does the flame from the fuel melt the steel.and how did wtc 7 just fall down? that wasnt hit by a plane...........maybe a ball of paper hit it?



No planes don't but fire does. For example Blacksmiths heat up metal with fire so it is easier for them to bend as they lose their strength with heat.

Original Poster

mods close this thread, its going off topic and being spammed.

fps_d0minat0r;6869007

what like buildings burning for hours and hours but not falling down?and … what like buildings burning for hours and hours but not falling down?and the fact of the towers falling at free fall speed debunking the pancake theory?and a steel structure has NEVER in the history of mankind fallen down due to fire?



Funny i work in the building industry and i have seen many steel buildings collapse due to fire,In fact during the building of steel structure we use " Firewalls" which are more resistant to heat in order to control which way a steel structure collpses,

Original Poster

dananana;6869048

No planes don't but fire does. For example Blacksmiths heat up metal with … No planes don't but fire does. For example Blacksmiths heat up metal with fire so it is easier for them to bend as they lose their strength with heat.



temperature required to melt steel structures used in the wtc: 1510 degrees.

maximum temperature of fuel burning in air: 825 degrees.

tonyg1962;6869060

Funny i work in the building industry and i have seen many steel … Funny i work in the building industry and i have seen many steel buildings collapse due to fire,In fact during the building of steel structure we use " Firewalls" which are more resistant to heat in order to control which way a steel structure collpses,



This is because firefighters will normally fight the fire before the building collapse.

Original Poster

tonyg1962;6869060

Funny i work in the building industry and i have seen many steel … Funny i work in the building industry and i have seen many steel buildings collapse due to fire,In fact during the building of steel structure we use " Firewalls" which are more resistant to heat in order to control which way a steel structure collpses,



thats strange, please enlighten me with an example where a whole building collapses upon it self where it looks like a controlled demolition.

sure it can be chance but 3 buildings falling in the same way?
IMPOSSIBLE.

I think my martian theory is more plausible and less insulting to the peole who died,

dcx_badass;6869066

Ste looses half it's strength at less than the temp of burning aviation … Ste looses half it's strength at less than the temp of burning aviation fuel, nice try though.I suggest you read this (read it all):http://tinyurl.com/911evidenceKey part:



Ahaha I believe what I see on the news.

Most of the avaiation fuel was burnt out on impact.

First building ever to fall after airplane attack. Whoever it was the fooled the world.:thumbsup:

Here is a very good long article which may help to answer your questions. ]http//ww…tml

Original Poster

dcx_badass;6869066

Ste looses half it's strength at less than the temp of burning aviation … Ste looses half it's strength at less than the temp of burning aviation fuel, nice try though.I suggest you read this (read it all):http://tinyurl.com/911evidenceKey part:



ok but the whole building didnt catch fire..........only a bit where the plane crashed did.

if it weakened then it should have tipped to one side.......however it fell asif the fire weakened the whole of the base and middle of the building.

You've only just seen Loose Change OP?

fps_d0minat0r;6869079

temperature required to melt steel structures used in the wtc: 1510 … temperature required to melt steel structures used in the wtc: 1510 degrees.maximum temperature of fuel burning in air: 825 degrees.



"FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

]"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

fps_d0minat0r;6869099

thats strange, please enlighten me with an example where a whole building … thats strange, please enlighten me with an example where a whole building collapses upon it self where it looks like a controlled demolition.sure it can be chance but 3 buildings falling in the same way?IMPOSSIBLE.


No chance in it they were hit by planes.

Original Poster

teambintip;6869142

You've only just seen Loose Change OP?



i saw that over a year ago.......

im watching newer ones with more evidence.

Original Poster

dananana;6869151

"FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel ( … "FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."[URL="http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4#steel"]"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F."The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down." No chance in it they were hit by planes.



but planes dont cause buildings to collapse...........the WTC were built to withstand such an attack.

WTC fell down due to fire, apparently..........name me another case where this has happened.

Banned

[SIZE="5"][CENTER][COLOR="Red"]George W. Bush[/COLOR][/CENTER][/SIZE]

[CENTER]"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and these are the people you want to concentrate on"[/CENTER]

Stop arguing with these people. They are one dimensional. Whether 9/11 was a genuine unknown attack, or whether it was something staged/fixed, for whatever purpose, people who want to believe otherwise, will.

People who find it easier to blame others will never believe otherwise.

Forget about it. You got your answer about nano-thermites. End thread.

Banned

it was convienient so it is possible but this swine flu is also handy for the economy so that was man made to

personally if its for the good of the country i dont see a problem with the governments doing things like this as it makes a better world to live in

i watched a program about this a few weeks ago and did make me think but you're never gonna know for sure what actually happened so people should just give it up and move on.

fps_d0minat0r;6869172

but planes dont cause buildings to collapse...........the WTC were built … but planes dont cause buildings to collapse...........the WTC were built to withstand such an attack.WTC fell down due to fire, apparently..........name me another case where this has happened.



The official account is crap. Its a coverup end of. Been other buildings burning for 20 hours in spain found ]here

Terrorists did attack the twin towers but they were not from Afganistan.

At the end of the day innocent people died. :x
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text
    Top Discussions
    1. 75% off Sky TV for existing customers. Only works when you call the specifi…18206624
    2. Just heard this...2 ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★ congrats to all on 392k ★★★★★★★★★★★★★★7769188
    3. Mercedes-Benz recalls 400,000 cars in UK over airbag fault11
    4. Meerkat Movies (2 for 1 Cinema Codes) | Official Trading Thread427214624

    See more discussions