Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thermite confirmed in 911 WTC Dust Samples


acidhead

Recommended Posts

Midge - look more carefully on the picture you posted - there is the ground, covered with debris, and there is a car, on which only a dust layer is seen!

You can't see what size the "dust" particles on the car are......

This means the larger pieces were not carried in the air, but over the ground, like any wind would carry them.

Are you are saying that the wind could have blew the larger pieces to where they were found? Wound't that still account for 3 mm 'chips" in the samples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MARAB0D

    63

  • Q24

    45

  • aquatus1

    36

  • el midgetron

    36

How did thermite, flowing across a flat concrete surface, not only not melt through it, but didn't even carve a groove for itself?

As mentioned, the thermite was not pooling, it was dispersed and flowing. This would make heat transfer to the material it is travelling over less efficient. You specify a “flat concrete surface” but just to clarify, there would be all sorts of random concrete and metal debris at the location. I wouldn’t say that the flow didn’t cause damage or maybe even carve a groove as I’m sure it could have done.

I refer to the

of the thermite and car again to support the above. After the reaction it can be seen a hole has been melted beneath the pot where the thermite pooled, but around that where the thermite flowed there only appears to be superficial damage to the paintwork with perhaps minor melting of the bonnet surface.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't see what size the "dust" particles on the car are......

Are you are saying that the wind could have blew the larger pieces to where they were found? Wound't that still account for 3 mm 'chips" in the samples?

Thats enough that I can see all window glass intact and no big pieces on the roof, despite they are all around. On your image I cannot distinguish the material of these big pieces around, but something tells me this is just pieces of the office paper...

I never said that 3 mm chips could not be spread to some distance around the collapse of the buildings - what I said (if you carefully re-read) that they could not be the parts of dust sample. Neither physically nor by definition, as 3mm IS NOT DUST. Also I said that 3 mm chips could not be found anywhere on the high levels, as their settling rate is too high for them to travel much more that 100 m from the site and only at the levels of 1st floor or ground floor. Don't make a buffoon of yourself, you are already enough of a buffoon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats enough that I can see all window glass intact and no big pieces on the roof, despite they are all around. On your image I cannot distinguish the material of these big pieces around, but something tells me this is just pieces of the office paper...

Do you understand how big 3 mm is? I ask because you originally claimed it was to small to be seen and now it seems as if you are suggesting that it should have broken out the windows of the car in the photo.......

Yes, there are a lot of papers in the photo. Office paper is 8.5 x 11 inches, much larger than the particles in question.

I never said that 3 mm chips could not be spread to some distance around the collapse of the buildings - what I said (if you carefully re-read) that they could not be the parts of dust sample. Neither physically nor by definition, as 3mm IS NOT DUST.

This has been explained to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is crazy. This is the second time I've typed and submitted a post, and later found it missing...

As mentioned, the thermite was not pooling, it was dispersed and flowing.

This is misleading. It was not dispersed; it was flowing in a very clear stream.

This would make heat transfer to the material it is travelling over less efficient. You specify a “flat concrete surface” but just to clarify, there would be all sorts of random concrete and metal debris at the location. I wouldn’t say that the flow didn’t cause damage or maybe even carve a groove as I’m sure it could have done.

We are not talking about a ball rolling down a floor. We are talking about thermite, which would easily melt through whatever rubble is in its way. And we know that it didn't carve a groove, let alone melt it's way through.

I refer to the
of the thermite and car again to support the above. After the reaction it can be seen a hole has been melted beneath the pot where the thermite pooled, but around that where the thermite flowed there only appears to be superficial damage to the paintwork with perhaps minor melting of the bonnet surface.

Superficial damage... :rolleyes: ? You are referring to the sagging crater where the pot was, and the bonnet deformed from a mere 10 seconds of thermite exposure? What did I say about intellectual dishonesty?

As I previously mentioned, pure thermite flows well and is so hot that it usually slips off whatever it is melting. This is the case on the car, where most of the damage is caused by splashing thermite (as opposed to the utter destruction right where the pooled thermite was). However, at the WTC, we aren't talking about quick splashes. We aren't even talking about 10 seconds of exposure, which is all the video needed to melt through the car. We are talking about minutes, anywhere from 3 to 7, depending on account. Minutes where the alleged thermite was in direct contact with concrete (not splashing and falling off). We know that thermite would have melted through the concrete in about 30-40 seconds, and yet, this flow not only did not melt through it, it didn't even carve a channel.

The point stands: How could thermite in direct contact with concrete for minutes not melt or carve a groove?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (marabod @ May 13 2009, 07:53 AM) *

I never said that 3 mm chips could not be spread to some distance around the collapse of the buildings - what I said (if you carefully re-read) that they could not be the parts of dust sample. Neither physically nor by definition, as 3mm IS NOT DUST.

This has been explained to you.

Sorry, Midge - but you seem to be under influence or just trolling for some purpose. I won't respond with anything else to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is misleading. It was not dispersed; it was flowing in a very clear stream.

Dispersed rather than in a concentrated pool in the case of the WTC2 flow.

Superficial damage... :rolleyes: ? You are referring to the sagging crater where the pot was, and the bonnet deformed from a mere 10 seconds of thermite exposure? What did I say about intellectual dishonesty?

No, the superficial damage with perhaps minor melting of the bonnet I was referring to is exactly where I said – around where the thermite pooled beneath the pot. What have I said about reading properly?

However, at the WTC, we aren't talking about quick splashes. We aren't even talking about 10 seconds of exposure, which is all the video needed to melt through the car. We are talking about minutes, anywhere from 3 to 7, depending on account. Minutes where the alleged thermite was in direct contact with concrete (not splashing and falling off).

What do you mean not splashing and falling off? How is there a flow in the first place if the thermite is not ‘falling off’?

The point stands: How could thermite in direct contact with concrete for minutes not melt or carve a groove?

I don’t see your point. How do you know the thermite did not ‘carve a groove’ or melt any of the debris? As I said in my last post “I’m sure it could have done” and don’t see a problem with this. Further explanation is needed for your point to be relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dispersed rather than in a concentrated pool in the case of the WTC2 flow.

I forgot how you do love to be vague. But there will be clarity here. The flow cannot be described as "dispersed" in any way. It was a very clear stream.

No, the superficial damage with perhaps minor melting of the bonnet I was referring to is exactly where I said – around where the thermite pooled beneath the pot. What have I said about reading properly?

Take your own advice. I didn't say that you were wrong. I said that you (once again) tried to downplay what we were seeing. Just as the thermite stream in the WTC cannot be described as "dispersed", neither can the deformation and bowing of the entire bonnet and a melt crater be described as "superficial damage to the paintwork with perhaps minor melting of the bonnet surface".

What do you mean not splashing and falling off? How is there a flow in the first place if the thermite is not ‘falling off’?

You don't understand the difference between something being splashed and something being drowned?

Silly me...of course you do...you are just hoping to cause doubt by shoveling as much as you can, in the hopes that quantity will be mistaken for quality.

But, just to show how silly your arguments are, here is the difference:

Let's say that you have a cardboard box. On top of it is a bowl of water. A clumsy bear grabs the bowl and water spills. The cardboard box gets splashed on, and gets wet. It may even sag a bit. That's what splashing is. That's what's happening to the car.

But that's not what's happening at the tower. What's happening at the tower is that someone is pouring water down a large sheet of cardboard. That means that, instead of a few seconds of exposure to water, the cardboard is being continually exposed for however long the water runs. It is, for all intents and purposes, underwater. The effects of being under a running stream are indistinguishable from that of being under a standing pool. In fact, they may be worse.

When a splash of thermite hits the bonnet of the car, it spontaneously melts a thin layer, and thus loosing any traction, it slides off. The more splashes hit, the more damage is done. The place where the splashes are continuous, such as around the pot, are effectively 'drowned' in thermite, and thus melt. On a concrete floor, a splash of thermite will cause some spalling. More splashes will cause more damage. Continuous exposure to thermite, regardless of whether the thermite is moving or standing still, will melt a hole. In fact, the moving thermite will cause more damage, as the thermite that cooled on contact is replaced by fresh, hot, thermite.

I don’t see your point. How do you know the thermite did not ‘carve a groove’ or melt any of the debris? As I said in my last post “I’m sure it could have done” and don’t see a problem with this. Further explanation is needed for your point to be relevant.

We know that thermite didn't carve a...wait...how come you don't know?

Looks like we have something else that you either did not research or did not understand. Very well then, I'll explain, as soon as you tell me that you understand why thermite running over the same spot is the same as that spot sitting underneath pooled thermite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Midge - but you seem to be under influence or just trolling for some purpose. I won't respond with anything else to this.

eh, well atleast I don't need to resort to insults to support my argument. Take it easy, Mr Chemist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know that thermite didn't carve a...wait...how come you don't know?

I don’t know the damage or melting the thermite may have done inside the building because the video footage cannot see through the wall and neither do I have x-ray vision.

I am though quite content to assume that some of the thermite would have melted some of the debris.

There is also no problem with some of the thermite flowing out of the window. Remember, the thermite is flowing not pooling and so a large crater will not be burnt straight through numerous layers of debris and the floor ‘Alien style’.

Looks like we have something else that you either did not research or did not understand. Very well then, I'll explain, as soon as you tell me that you understand why thermite running over the same spot is the same as that spot sitting underneath pooled thermite.

If thermite was running over the same spot continuously for minutes then I would agree to a large extent. Where thermite flows over the same spot sporadically for only seconds at a time (as we see with the WTC2 flow) then of course I do not agree this is the same as a pool of thermite sitting in continuous contact.

You don’t seem willing to tell me what your point is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know the damage or melting the thermite may have done inside the building because the video footage cannot see through the wall and neither do I have x-ray vision.

We don't need to look inside the building. The behaviour of the flow as it is exiting the building tells us what we need to know.

I am though quite content to assume that some of the thermite would have melted some of the debris.

Then why bring it up? If it was enough rubble to block the flow, the thermite would have pooled, which you already agreed could not occur. If there was too little rubble, it would have melted like ice cubes before a flash flood.

Where you just trying to throw something out there in the hopes that it meant something, or does it actually affect the argument?

There is also no problem with some of the thermite flowing out of the window.

No, there isn't. Who said there was?

Or is this more of that shoveling you do to cloud the actual point?

Remember, the thermite is flowing not pooling and so a large crater will not be burnt straight through numerous layers of debris and the floor ‘Alien style’.

Who's talking about a large crater in the concrete? I'm asking why concrete in direct contact with thermite for minutes at a time did not melt like the 4 inch block shown in your videos did after 30-40 seconds.

If thermite was running over the same spot continuously for minutes then I would agree to a large extent. Where thermite flows over the same spot sporadically for only seconds at a time (as we see with the WTC2 flow) then of course I do not agree this is the same as a pool of thermite sitting in continuous contact.

Again, you attempt to downplay something devastating to your case.

You can look at any video of the flow and you will find that sporadically is Q24 speak for "less than a waterfall". To the rest of the world, sporadically implies an occasional drip, which is not what the video shows us. Since the flow first begins, we have a 10 second burst, followed by a few seconds of drips, followed by a flow of varying quantity. At no time does the flow actually stop. That means that the concrete was in direct contact with the molten thermite the entire time.

a clip of the first 1:45 mintues of the flow (remember there was material flowing all the time till the collapse about 7 minutes later). That's about three times as long as thermite needs to melt through a concrete floor.

You don’t seem willing to tell me what your point is.

:rolleyes:

You might as well give up on that particular tactic. It isn't fooling anyone, and it's a bit embarrassing.

As shown, the thermite was in contact with the concrete continuously (the video alone shows proof of almost two minutes worth of contact). How did it not melt through the floor?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't need to look inside the building. The behaviour of the flow as it is exiting the building tells us what we need to know.

Oh, and what exactly do you think we need to know? :unsure2:

Then why bring it up? If it was enough rubble to block the flow, the thermite would have pooled, which you already agreed could not occur. If there was too little rubble, it would have melted like ice cubes before a flash flood.

I haven’t brought anything up – this is supposedly your point. :huh:

Where you just trying to throw something out there in the hopes that it meant something, or does it actually affect the argument?

Please can you reveal what your argument actually is? :unsure:

No, there isn't. Who said there was?

You did. Remember you’re the one arguing that it can’t be thermite… please tell me you remember… please aquatus, please! :cry: If you are now saying there is no problem with thermite flowing out of the window then why are you arguing in the first place?

Or is this more of that shoveling you do to cloud the actual point?

Honestly, believe me when I say… I have no idea what your point is. :no:

Who's talking about a large crater in the concrete? I'm asking why concrete in direct contact with thermite for minutes at a time did not melt like the 4 inch block shown in your videos did after 30-40 seconds.

You’re really freaking me out now… where did I link to a video of a 4 inch concrete block? :blink:

Again, you attempt to downplay something devastating to your case.

How is a sporadic flow devastating to the case? :hmm:

You can look at any video of the flow and you will find that sporadically is Q24 speak for "less than a waterfall". To the rest of the world, sporadically implies an occasional drip, which is not what the video shows us. Since the flow first begins, we have a 10 second burst, followed by a few seconds of drips, followed by a flow of varying quantity. At no time does the flow actually stop. That means that the concrete was in direct contact with the molten thermite the entire time.

a clip of the first 1:45 mintues of the flow (remember there was material flowing all the time till the collapse about 7 minutes later). That's about three times as long as thermite needs to melt through a concrete floor.

Yes the flow does stop and start. When a tap gives a few drips after it has been turned off do you say the tap is still on?

  • sporadic

    (of similar things or occurrences) appearing or happening at irregular intervals in time; occasional

The flow was not continuous and therefore was sporadic. Let’s see what NIST say…

“Many such liquid flows were observed from near this location in the seven minutes leading up to the collapse of this tower.”

So even NIST conclude there were a number of flows; not one continuous flow.

The drips between the flows would be only a small amount of residual material left from the thermite.

You might as well give up on that particular tactic. It isn't fooling anyone, and it's a bit embarrassing.

Really, I’m being serious that it’s not clear what your point is. Try ending some of these sentences to make yourself understood: -

  • The flow cannot be thermite because…
  • If this was thermite then it should not…
  • If this was thermite then we should see…

As shown, the thermite was in contact with the concrete continuously (the video alone shows proof of almost two minutes worth of contact). How did it not melt through the floor?

Ah, I think this is your point finally :w00t: you do believe thermite would melt through the floor ‘Alien style’!

I do not agree that any considerable volume of thermite was in contact with the floor continuously. The thermite would be flowing and splashing over debris before exiting the window. Where residual thermite was left behind there would be some melting of the debris and yes, even perhaps the concrete floor.

You seemed to agree with me and answer your own question here…

So, because of all this, we know that if this waterfall was thermite, it was not pooled anywhere. Had it been pooled anywhere, it would have simply melted it's way through the concrete Alien-style.

You say if the thermite had pooled, it would have melted through the concrete. Surely implying, as we agreed the thermite was not pooled, that it would not have melted through the concrete.

Anyhow, you seem to keep dealing in extremes where either all of the debris was melted or none of it was melted, where all of the thermite must melt through the floor or none of it melt through the floor. I would find it far more sensible to believe in real life that some of the thermite melted debris and the floor whilst some of the thermite found its way to the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Two different planes hit the world trade center. The amount of fuel they had on the planes burned. This article has not been replicated by other sources yet. I think until that time, people have to be content with realizing that it was probably just a terrorist attack and not a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WeAreChange LA Questions VP Biden on 9/11 and Nano-thermite

May 18 2009

Click LINK for VIDEO: 5 minutes

linked-image

PDF of paper handed to Biden

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

After the last words were spoken, it was obvious that the press would not have an opportunity to ask questions, so Jeremy and Bruno moved quickly, crammed against the wall, toward the podium in an effort to create an opportunity to ask a question. We were at an advantage with our hand held cameras, and we actually found ourselves right next to Biden as he moved chairs aside to fulfill requests for photos with residents in attendance. The moment generated many smiles and laughter, and genuine joy could be seen in the faces of all the residents. Biden stood and addressed the residents, and the instant that the photo op was finished, Jeremy engaged him: Vice-President Biden, Im Jeremy Rothe-Kushel with WACLA Media. Biden said, "If I had your hair, I would be President!" Jeremy couldnt disagree with that and offered up that Biden could have some since there was enough to go around. Then it was time to get serious and Jeremy jumped right into the preliminary part of his question.

It seems like with the kind of work that Esparanza and communities around the world are doing in terms of rejuvenating themselves, we could all rejuvenate our communities. So, I want to ask you about the role, the foundational role, [that] restoring the rule of law has in terms of rejuvenating our economy because there was a recent scientific paper that came out, I dont know if you know about it, but it basically is conclusive that the World Trade Center was blown up by very high, advanced explosives and it should have been and continue to be the very highest news story right now. So, my question to you is, when are you and President Obama going to ask the Department of Justice to start a criminal investigation in terms of who produced this advanced nano-thermite and who put it in the World Trade Center?

The space had gone silent, and every single person, including the press, the residents, the politicians and the Secret Service were listening intently to Jeremy's question, and they all could not help but witness Biden's discomfort and his loss for words. At this point Biden asked to see the report and took it to into his hands to look at it.

With the paper in the Vice-Presidents hands, Jeremy finished up the question by asking: And if you all are not going to do that, is it possible for We the American People to trust you with our economy if we cant trust you with restoring the rule of law? Biden, obviously caught in an awkward moment, handed the scientific paper back to Jeremy, and said "Yes," then said thank you to everybody, and quickly turned to leave. While leaving the scene, offered up a little bit more in terms of his ambiguous answer. That its possible to trust---you can trust us.

Unsatisfied with the evasiveness and ambiguity of the Vice Presidents answer, Jeremy continued to call out to Biden, asking him to clarify his position in regards to the 9/11 cover-up, but Biden did not clarify his position any further. Are you going to do an investigation? Sir, are you part of the treasonous cover-up of 9/11 or are you going to help clear this up? Vice President Biden, this is about treason under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution.

Today we managed to get the only question asked, and every single person present walked away from that event with Jeremy's question about scientific proof for military grade explosives used in the destruction of the Twin Towers on their mind. On our way out, a reporter complained to Jeremy that "it doesn't matter what story you are after you should always keep it with the agenda of the moment," to which Bruno's pleasant response was, "When is 9-11 ever the agenda of the moment?" The reporter bowed his head and walked away.

As we stood in the street, smiles on our faces for having just had an intense experience of engaging high rank politicians about 9-11 and treason, the same Secret Service agent we had interacted with before the press conference came walking out. He smiled and pointed at us, "Great work guys!" then he saluted us! Yes, a Secret Service agent saluted us for asking the Vice President a hard question about scientific proof of the controlled demolition of the towers on 9-11. Bruno called out to him "Thank you! You did a great job running a smooth operation!"

infowars.com

wacla.org

wearechange.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.