1677 replies to this topic

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

Consider that:

1. No thermite evidence found in the rubble of the WTC buildings

Because NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

2. There was no evidence of thermite cuts on the structural columns of the WTC buildings, either in the rubble nor at the Fresh Kills landfill. I am very sure that steel shipped off to China did not exhibit evidence of thermite cutes.

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel including the steel shipped off to China.

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

3. Thermite alone could not have demolished the WTC buildings

Wrong! Its is more than capable of destroying large steel structures, as it was used to demolish and destroy one of the 600ft plus Skyride Towers back in 1935.

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

4. Thermite is not widely used by the demolition industry

Hmm...and neither is fire!

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

5. Thermite is not as effective as RDX , which is used by the demolition industry

Yet fire is more effective than Thermite or RDX or both apparently.

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

In other words, thermite was not responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

But fires, having been proven as more efficient and effective than either Thermite or RDX was responsible. Its so effective, that the demolition industry will be making the change from RDX and other such time wasting exercises and starting fires.

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

As for the steel from the WTC buildings, you might want to read the sign of an attachment of a photo I took in Rio Vista where I examined a piece of steel from one of the WTC buildings.

We know, it was fires!

skyeagle409, on 31 January 2013 - 07:21 PM, said:

It says among other things:

*   350,000 tons of WTC steel has been requested

*   USS New York used 7 tons in its construction

*   Coatesville, PA received 500 tons of steel


If you are going to concoct a conspiracy theory, at least open the book and read the rest of the story before you post.

I would also tell Q24 to stop concocting these conspiracy theories about the steel being shipped off.

And that Bill Manning, what a conspiraloon hey??

Edited by Stundie, 01 February 2013 - 06:17 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 February 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

Because NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

There was a valid reason why they did not check for thermite. For one thing, why check for something for which there was no evidence? No evidence found in the rubble, nor captured on video nor on audio, and no evidence noted at the Fresh Kills landfill. Another thing, thermite alone is not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings. Ever wondered why demolition crews pre-weaken buildings and use explosives in conjunction with RDX?

What it is, 911 conspiracist are not knowledgeable enough to understand that there was no way anyone would have used thermite over RDX and dynamite to bring down the WTC buildings and remember, thermite is not effective as RDX and dynamite nor is thermite widely used by demolition companies, and that is another prime hint.

Quote

Wrong! Its is more than capable of destroying large steel structures, as it was used to demolish and destroy one of the 600ft plus Skyride Towers back in 1935.

Thermite would not have been used to bring down the WTC buildings because it is not effective and furthermore, the Skyride Towers are not constructed in the same manner as the WTC buildings..BIG difference.

Quote

Hmm...and neither is fire!

On the contrary, fire collapsed the steel frame of a freeway overpass in Oakland, CA. and collapse the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain, and fire collapsed multiple steel frame buildings in Thailand, so in that regards, it is YOU, who is incorrect/.

Quote

Yet fire is more effective than Thermite or RDX or both apparently.

Themite is not a good substitute over RDX. In fact, thermite was unable to cut a vehicle in two during an experiment  shown on TV, much less capable of bringing down buildings the size of the WTC Towers.

Quote

Its so effective, that the demolition industry will be making the change from RDX and other such time wasting exercises and starting fires.

Goes to show that you have absolutely no knowledge on the demolition process.

Quote

I would also tell Q24 to stop concocting these conspiracy theories about the steel being shipped off.

That would be a very good idea, especially since no evidence of thermite was ever found as the WTC steel was loaded on barges and trucks. Ever wondered why demolition experts, architects and civil engineers have stated for the record that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings?

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 February 2013 - 07:23 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Babe Ruth, on 01 February 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

It's not a red herring Cz, and we both know it.  If it were, you would not be obliged to address it.

And you are unable to provide a plausible or persuasive answer to the criticism.  WHY was the evidence whisked away to smelters around the world?  Why not to domestic smelters?  Why did the official explanation and investigation NOT analyze the dust?  Why did it take concerned citizens to realize the dust might have provided important clues as to what happened?

The simple answer is that the actual perpetrators had their story before anything happened, and they had to make that story stick.

Thousands of tons of WTC steel stayed right here in the United States and some was shipped to our location here in California, where it was placed on display at the local airport in Rio Vista.. That is the location where I took that photo of  the WTC information sign, which I placed as an attachment on a recent post.

It was during that time that we were flying children during our Young Eagles flight.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 February 2013 - 07:50 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 February 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

Because NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

Read the facts here.

Quote

NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

Which was clearly evident in the videos.

Quote

NIST did not conduct tests for explosives residue as noted above, such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive.

Especially, since ingredients of thermite were used in materials employed during the construction of the WTC buildings and it seems that 911 CT folks were unaware of that fact. Furthermore, there was no evidence of explosions in the videos nor on audio and seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions. Add to the fact that clean-up crews did not find evidence of explosives in the rubble nor at the Fresh Kills landfill, so the question is: who made of the story of explosives in the absence of  explosive evidence?

As I have mentioned in my earlier post, Richard Gage was caught lying about thermite and Steven Jones has now been discredited by experts as well, and they were used as references by the 911 conspiracy movement, which is another prime example as to why they cannot be taken seriously.

If there were large explosions, then they would be cause to look for explosives, but there were no explosions as the buildings collapsed silently in that respect. Why look for something for which there was no evidence in the first place?  And remember, thermite is not an explosive.

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 February 2013 - 07:46 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

There was a valid reason why they did not check for thermite. For one thing, why check for something for which there was no evidence?

Yeah, why bother with checking? I mean checking is just a waste of time.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

No evidence found in the rubble, nor captured on video nor on audio, and no evidence noted at the Fresh Kills landfill.

Well we all know that when you say there is no evidence, there is evidence, it's just that you can't accept the possibility

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Another thing, thermite alone is not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings.

Its capable and has been used to bring down a steel structure and the WTC were a steel structure.

Its hilarious that you believe a chemical which is capable of cutting steel isn't capable of bring down the towers! Oh well!

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Ever wondered why demolition crews pre-weaken buildings and use explosives in conjunction with RDX?

Ever wondered why they bothered with all that rigmarole and just set fire to it? Would have been quicker by your logic!

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

What it is, 911 conspiracist are not knowledgeable enough to understand that there was no way anyone would have used thermite over RDX and dynamite to bring down the WTC buildings and remember, thermite is not effective as RDX and dynamite nor is thermite widely used by demolition companies, and that is another prime hint.

But fire, we all know that fire is without a doubt the best way to bring down a steel structure!

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Thermite would not have been used to bring down the WTC buildings because it is not effective and furthermore, the Skyride Towers are not constructed in the same manner as the WTC buildings..BIG difference.

Thermite is not effective, except it was effective in bringing down a 600ft steel structure.

And of course, the skyrider towers were not constructed the same as the WTC, I don't recall anyone saying that they were. But it was a steel structure like the WTC and a closer comparison to an overpass or a toy factory in Thailand.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

On the contrary, fire collapsed the steel frame of a freeway overpass in Oakland, CA. and collapse the steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain, and fire collapsed multiple steel frame buildings in Thailand, so in that regards, it is YOU, who is incorrect/.

Silly me, fancy thinking that other high rise steel structures such as the One Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank, 1 New York Plaza, Caracas Tower or the Bejing Mandarin Hotel which all burned for much longer than the WTC are not as good as a comparitor than, an over pass, a 3rd world toy factory and a concrete and steel building which partially collapsed.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Themite is not a good substitute over RDX. In fact, thermite was unable to cut a vehicle in two during an experiment  shown on TV, much less capable of bringing down buildings the size of the WTC Towers.

Fire is much better than RDX and Thermite and I think you'll find that Jon Cole built a device which cut a steel beam with very little thermite.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Goes to show that you have absolutely no knowledge on the demolition process.

I do have no knowledge of the demolition industry, I would have used fire over explosives anyday.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

That would be a very good idea, especially since no evidence of thermite was ever found as the WTC steel was loaded on barges and trucks.

Well it was never checked for was it, so we will never know.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Ever wondered why demolition experts, architects and civil engineers have stated for the record that fire, not explosives, brought down the WTC buildings?

You mean demolition experts like Brent Blanchard whose demolished a grand total of 0 buildings!

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 February 2013 - 07:53 PM, said:

Yeah, why bother with checking? I mean checking is just a waste of time.

Basically speaking, it is a waste of time for you to try to convince those of us who know better and because we know that thermite alone was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings. So when it comes down to the old-fashioned basics of building demolition implosions, it's structural pre-weakening,  RDX and dynamite over thermite.

Quote

Well we all know that when you say there is no evidence, there is evidence, it's just that you can't accept the possibility

On the contrary, there was no evidence to begin with and once again, Richard Gage was caught lying about thermite in his interview and Steven Jones has since been discredited by experts and even my his own colleages at BYU and they were used as references by the 911 conspiracy movement, so what does that tell you?

Quote

Its capable and has been used to bring down a steel structure and the WTC were a steel structure.

No, it could not, and once again, over a thousand pounds of thermite could not even cut a simply SUV in two, so what does that tell you?

Quote

And of course, the skyrider towers were not constructed the same as the WTC, ...

Well, what does that tell you? Why is thermite not mainly used by demolition companies today?

Quote

I don't recall anyone saying that they were. But it was a steel structure like the WTC and a closer comparison to an overpass or a toy factory in Thailand.

The fact of the matter is, fire weakened the steel structures to the point of failure, which is why they collapsed. When we want to fabricate complicated aircraft parts using 4130 steel, we simply throw the steel into an oven at a temperature noted in the WTC buildings, which softens the steel for fabrication purposes. While in such a condition,the steel is not suitable for structural purposes because it is too soft.

Quote

I do have no knowledge of the demolition industry, I would have used fire over explosives anyday.

You are forgetting the timing of explosives involving the implosion process, and it was a mistake for you to compare fire with explosives.

Quote

Well it was never checked for was it, so we will never know.

Common sense is all it takes. Since there were no explosions evident in the videos nor captured on audio nor detected by seismic monitors nor found in the rubble of the WTC buildings nor evident on the steel colomns at the Fresh Kills landfill, why waste time looking for something that is not there? Remember, time is money!

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 February 2013 - 08:38 PM.

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Basically speaking, it is a waste of time for you to try to convince those of us who know better and because we know that thermite alone was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings.

Sorry but the WTC was a steel structure and there is evidence that a steel structure ws brought down by thermite.

So for all your claims of knowing better, you don't know shhh........lol

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

So when it comes down to the old-fashioned basics of building demolition implosions, it's structural pre-weakening,  RDX and dynamite over thermite.

There is no need for structural pre-weakening with fire is there??

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

On the contrary, there was no evidence to begin with and once again, Richard Gage was caught lying about thermite in his interview and Steven Jones has since been discredited by experts and even my his own colleages at BYU and they were used as references by the 911 conspiracy movement, so what does that tell you?

Oh but the eyewitness accounts disprove you and seeing as they were actually at GZ and not sitting in front of their computers, I'll take their words and accounts over an internet keyboard warrior who thinks he knows better than the people at GZ.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

No, it could not, and once again, over a thousand pounds of thermite could not even cut a simply SUV in two, so what does that tell you?

Its tells me that the mythbusters guys are absolutely useless at using thermite effectively.

Especially when you consider that Jon Cole manage to cut a steem beam with a few lbs of thermite.

Mind you, I suppose if the mythbuster guys had used fire, that car would have been sliced down the middle like it had been cut by a light sabre hey?? lol

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Well, what does that tell you? Why is thermite not mainly used by demolition companies today?

It tells me that the demolition industry are wasting there time with explosives when fire does the trick, apparently?? lol

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

The fact of the matter is, fire weakened the steel structures to the point of failure, which is why they collapsed.

If fire is so good at weakening building to the point of failure, then it makes you wonder why the demolition industry don't use it hey Skyeagle?

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

When we want to fabricate complicated aircraft parts using 4130 steel, we simply throw the steel into an oven at a temperature noted in the WTC buildings, which softens the steel for fabrication purposes. While in such a condition,the steel is not suitable for structural purposes because it is too soft.

And an oven filled with a thermite reaction going off wouldn't soften steel?? lol

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

You are forgetting the timing of explosives involving the implosion process, and it was a mistake for you to compare fire with explosives.

I'm not the one who thinks fire can and does a better job of demolition than explosives.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Common sense is all it takes.

The sense you have proposing isn't that common I'm afraid.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 08:22 PM, said:

Since there were no explosions evident in the videos nor captured on audio nor detected by seismic monitors nor found in the rubble of the WTC buildings nor evident on the steel colomns at the Fresh Kills landfill, why waste time looking for something that is not there? Remember, time is money!

But there is plenty of evidence, closing your eyes and ears and going lalalalalalala!! Or thinking you know better than the people who where there at GZ doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Edited by Stundie, 01 February 2013 - 09:05 PM.

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Sorry but the WTC was a steel structure and there is evidence that a steel structure ws brought down by thermite.

There was no evidence and the two guys who claimed that thermite was found have now be discredited because no  evidence of thermite was ever found. That is why demolition experts, architects and civil engineers have determined that fire, not thermite, cause the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Quote

So for all your claims of knowing better, you don't know shhh........lol

On the contrary, you are the person who is claiming that thermite was used despite no evidence, not I Demolition experts, architects and civil engineers agree with me, not you because we are the experts, not you.

Quote

Oh but the eyewitness accounts disprove you and seeing as they were actually at GZ and not sitting in front of their computers, I'll take their words and accounts over an internet keyboard warrior who thinks he knows better than the people at GZ.

That's a laugh!! Those people later said the explosions they heard were attributed to falling elevators, not explosives and look what you posted!!

[skyeagle409]

Stundie, on 01 February 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Especially when you consider that Jon Cole manage to cut a steem beam with a few lbs of thermite.

Not the kind of steel beams that made up  the structure of the WTC buildings. BIG difference.

Quote

But there is plenty of evidence, closing your eyes and ears and going lalalalalalala!! Or thinking you know better than the people who where there at GZ doesn't cut it I'm afraid.

Let's take a look at some facts, shall we?!


In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions",  to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:

"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," However when you look at the link he used, you will find that Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states:

"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."   

Let's take another look. 911 conspiracist claim this photo was evidence of thermite.

Fact of the matter is, the light was a reflection from a flashlight. Did you really think that anyone would be bending that close over molten steel?

Next, 911 conspiracist claimed these cuts were made by thermite.

Let's see who was really responsible for those cuts.

Now,  my challenge to you is for you to post your thermite evidence for everyone to see and let's see where your so-called evidence goes after I turn over your so-called evidence to investigative news reporters, demolition experts, architects and civil engineers.

The ball in now in your court. Don't chicken out on me because I will make that an issue!!

Edited by skyeagle409, 01 February 2013 - 11:08 PM.

[Czero 101]

Hey Stundie... Welcome back...

Question for you:

Do you live on a farm? Cuz you seem to really like building strawmen...







Cz

[Insaniac]

It's odd that some think fire can cut through steel. Just sit and think about it for a moment. Surreal.

If fire was so useful to demolitions teams, they wouldn't use Thermite. They'd just walk in with flamethrowers and torch the place.

The reason they don't do that is probably because it doesn't work. The fire would take too long. You'd need something like Napalm or *drumrolls*... Thermite! *ba dum tish*

Edited by Insaniac, 02 February 2013 - 04:34 AM.

[skyeagle409]

Insaniac, on 02 February 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

It's strange that some think fire can cut through steel. Just sit and think about it for a moment. Surreal.

Fire weakens steel columns to the point they can no longer handle the loads for which they were designed. That was evident in the WTC videos and photos where the WTC buildings buckled moments before their collapse. That was an indication that fire was weakening the structure. If steel is not allowed to expand due to thermal heating, steel will buckle.

As mentioned in an earlier post, in order for us to fabricate complexed parts using 4130 steel, we simply throw the steel sheet into an oven in order to soften the steel at which point the steel is not suitable for structural purposes because of its weakness.

Quote

If fire was so useful to demolitions teams, they wouldn't use Thermite. They'd just walk in with flamethrowers and torch the place.

It doesn't work that way. The demolition process using explosives requires structural pre-weakening, precise placement and precise timing of the charges otherwise you are going to get this result.


.

Quote

The reason they don't do that is probably because it doesn't work. The fire would take too long. You'd need something like Napalm or *drumrolls*... Thermite! *ba dum tish*

Thermite is not widely used by demolition companies and remember, thermite is not an explosive nor is it as effective as RDX and dynamite. 911 conspiracist, it seems, are not knowledgeable enough to understand the true nature of thermite nor are they knowledgeable on the thermal expansion effects on steel if steel is not allowed to expand due to fire, hence a baseless conspiracy theory surrounding thermite is born.

Have you ever wondered why the SR-71 was designed the way it was? The aircraft was actually built to expand several inches due to thermal heating.

Quote

   "Melted" Steel"

Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

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."


Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Edited by skyeagle409, 02 February 2013 - 06:09 AM.

[turbonium]

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 07:44 PM, said:

[/color][/size]

Especially, since ingredients of thermite were used in materials employed during the construction of the WTC buildings and it seems that 911 CT folks were unaware of that fact. Furthermore, there was no evidence of explosions in the videos nor on audio and seismic monitors did not detect bomb explosions. Add to the fact that clean-up crews did not find evidence of explosives in the rubble nor at the Fresh Kills landfill, so the question is: who made of the story of explosives in the absence of  explosive evidence?

If there were large explosions, then they would be cause to look for explosives, but there were no explosions as the buildings collapsed silently in that respect. Why look for something for which there was no evidence in the first place?  And remember, thermite is not an explosive.

It's a little-known fact that the WTC had elevators which exploded upon impact! And that's what everybody heard on 9/11. They sound just like high explosives,


So there's no need to look for explosives, because there's no evidence for it.

Of course, if NIST happened to trip over it by chance, they would know their employer is a mass murderer. They would expose these monsters instantly, despite the massive implications of doing so. Those NIST guys are a fearless bunch, yes indeed!!

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

There was no evidence and the two guys who claimed that thermite was found have now be discredited because no  evidence of thermite was ever found. That is why demolition experts, architects and civil engineers have determined that fire, not thermite, cause the collapse of the WTC buildings.

No they haven't and this is why there isn't a list of demolition experts, architects and engineers who support the official story.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

On the contrary, you are the person who is claiming that thermite was used despite no evidence, not I Demolition experts, architects and civil engineers agree with me, not you because we are the experts, not you.

Experts like Brent who has demolished the grand total of 0 buildings or structures.

skyeagle409, on 01 February 2013 - 10:31 PM, said:

That's a laugh!! Those people later said the explosions they heard were attributed to falling elevators, not explosives and look what you posted!!

They most certainly didn't. There are plenty of testimonies of people at GZ who heard, felt and saw explosions that were not elevators falling, bodies hitting the ground or other debunking memes which are usually any old crap, but not explosions.

I'll take the word of those at GZ and not some random Internet debunker whoever deluded themselves there is no evidence.

Edited by Stundie, 02 February 2013 - 12:26 PM.

[Stundie]

Czero 101, on 02 February 2013 - 12:05 AM, said:

Hey Stundie... Welcome back...

Question for you:

Do you live on a farm? Cuz you seem to really like building strawmen...



Cz

Hi Czero. Thanks for the welcome. ;-)

No I don't. I was just wondering out of curiosity, do you write those awful jokes you get in christmas crackers? lol