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
 Share

Recommended Posts

Midge - the photo is impressive and weird, but you are stepping on your own toes! Your people quoted, DO NOT think this was a normal thermite, but some mysterious "super-thermite" which is supposed to be an explosive! The building picture, however, resembles quite ordinary thermite reaction - which is excluded by the findings of the "researchers" who claim it to have been a super-thermite. Do not you see a contradiction here? No explosion, no massive flash - nothing which can be attributed to this alleged nano-mixture!

The image was from me, marabod, not el midgetron, but I agree it is both impressive and weird.

You are putting too much emphasis on the exact type of thermite used. With so many varieties – ‘nano’, ‘super’ and of different grades – it appears fairly futile to pinpoint the exact type used and precisely how it should/should not react. The paper’s authors even state as much: -

“We would like to make detailed comparisons of the red chips with known super-thermite composites, along with comparisons of the products following ignition, but there are many forms of this high-tech thermite, and this comparison must wait for a future study.”

And: -

“We make no attempt to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present until more is learned about the red material and especially about the nature of the organic material it contains.”

What the authors are sure of is that the material discovered is thermetic.

The same time, resemblance to thermite does not constitute thermite at all.

So although scientifically proven thermetic material was found in the WTC dust samples and that matching a thermite reaction is visible in photographic evidence… you would ask us to ignore what we know and see.

Radiation Laws explain that any heated substance would emit light with its wavelength getting shorter with the rise of temperature. All without exception substances start to glow red at about 650 C, and then the colour starts changing to orange when closer to 1000C and then to bluish-white at the temperatures over 1700 C.

By your own reckoning then, the flow from WTC2 must be in excess of 1,000oC. The problem then is in how the metal was held in place and heated to those temperatures prior to exiting the building. Once the metal liquefies it will begin to flow and spread out more thinly, making it difficult for the fire to heat and maintain those temperatures.

The orange flow from the window on the photo can easily be some burning organics, for example aviation fuel from the plane, not necessarily a molten metal - but it can be Aluminium too, and one must miss something, expecting molten Aluminium to be "silvery" in colour, as it emits light like any other molten metal!

Aviation fuel from the plane is not viable as it is know this was burned off within approximately 20 minutes of the impact. The WTC2 flow is not seen until nearly an hour after impact.

Regarding Aluminium, I am led to believe it is a silvery colour at its melting point. Here is just one random link showing as much. After that, it is again a case of answering how the Aluminium could be held in place to be heated to those 1,000oC+ temperatures before exiting the building. Once it liquefies at a much lower temperature, why does it not immediately flow out of the building?

If this was indeed a thermite reaction, it effortlessly explains not only what we see but the timing of the flow in the minutes prior to collapse.

The fact that this spot appears only in one window (at least on the photo) shows that the reaction was at one corner only - while the columns of the buildings are uniformly spread all over its area, and the thermite damage or even a complete destruction of one column only, can not bring the building down as the columns always have excess of strength and the weight would be simply re-distributed among the rest of them.

It seems sensible that any such thermite units would be placed on the centre core columns of the structures. If we look at the angle of the plane impact and the path it took to the north-east corner of the building, it is reasonable that those thermite units could be displaced to the location seen.

Again, no response on the lack of NIST’s investigation or the findings of FEMA that I detailed. We need to see the full picture to draw the most likely conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • aquatus1

    36

  • el midgetron

    36

  • Q24

    45

  • MARAB0D

    63

What the authors are sure of is that the material discovered is thermetic.

(marabod @ Apr 14 2009, 11:53 AM) *

The same time, resemblance to thermite does not constitute thermite at all.

So although scientifically proven thermetic material was found in the WTC dust samples and that matching a thermite reaction is visible in photographic evidence… you would ask us to ignore what we know and see.

Q24, it has been pointed out several times that while thermite is a thermitic material, thermitic materials are not always thermite. Aluminum and iron oxide burning in the same environment will produce a thermitic reaction and leave a thermitic residue, but it is not thermite. Your attempt to cloud this very simple concept by pretending that you are being asked to do something that no one is asking you to do ("you would ask us to ignore what we know and see") is intellectually dishonest.

The simple fact of the matter is that in an explosion of this magnitude, there is simply no surprise that thermitic reactions were created. Why was there a sudden waterfall of molten metal? Who knows? Maybe a pool of metal was being held by a rubble dam that eventually gave way. There's quite a few different ways in which it could have happened, but really, why is it important? No one is questioning that thermitic reactions occur. Heck, you can see thermitic reactions occurring in the Mythbusters Hindenburg clip I posted last page.

Why ask this?

The problem then is in how the metal was held in place and heated to those temperatures prior to exiting the building.

Is the implication that there may have been an amount of thermite so large that it could almost spontaneously melt several hundreds of pounds of metal (in the same way a water balloon melts when you pop it?) As opposed to the more reasonable explanation of a pool of molten metal gathering up until it finds a way out? Really, it seems like the only reason to make a claim that has neither much significance nor requires a great deal of thought to come up with multiple causes is, again, to cloud the issue, and again, seems like an intellectually dishonest tactic.

and finally

Again, no response on the lack of NIST’s investigation or the findings of FEMA that I detailed. We need to see the full picture to draw the most likely conclusion.
.

Q24, this entire thread is a response to why NIST didn't bother to investigate it. The reason why NIST doesn't worry about thermitic residue is because thermitic residue is expected. It is no more a surprise or an indication of thermite than sulfur was way back when the thermite idiocy began. That you pretend that everything that has been presented refuting the significance of why there was no response is intellectually dishonest to the point of denial. The reason no one followed up on the thermitic residue is the same reason no one followed up on the ash residue or the smoke residue; because none of these are out of place.

Now, here is a real question that no one has answered yet and that has a direct relevance to the use of thermite for demolition: How can you use thermite to cut a vertical beam?

Why is there no response to that very essential question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thermitic material was found on the Hindenburg. Well, not found, but figured out from plans and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q24 - the flow of "metal" on the photo clearly comes from some window. I have never been to WTC, but it is obvious that this window was supposed to start right at the floor level, otherwise any flow out of it is hardly possible at all. There is nothing surprising in the colours of aluminium, as it is red-hot when it melts and strongly glowing when it is casted at about 800 C. By the way, molten Aluminium physically can not be "silvery" as it melts at 660 C, which is already a red heat zone! Maybe they kept there a rubbish container with empty coke cans, or there was a pallet with some Aluminium window frames, or it was from the plane itself, who knows? And when Aluminium is heated to such temperatures (which is absolutely NORMAL in a fire), then it starts to oxidise, hence the "white smoke" of Aluminium Oxide. Our atmosphere has 20% Oxygen, so no thermite is needed to produce the same product.

Moreover, molten Iron from thermite reaction stays liquid only for seconds, as it rapidly cools down and solidifies - its melting point is around 1000 C higher than the one of Aluminium! When thermite mixture is burnt in a pot or crucible like on the test photo, Iron usually collects at the bottom of the vessel and forms a button as soon as the reaction is over - one literally needs tons of thermite to make molten iron overflowing down the building side! 10 litres of molten Iron would weigh some 70-80 kilograms and require almost 150 kg thermite load to be generated! And it is hard to even notice a 10-Litre "droplet" on a photo of such scale - while the photograph shows some sort of a niagara falls. No wonder this technician, whom they chose as a main Chemistry expert, thinks there was 100 tons of the mixture...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, here is a real question that no one has answered yet and that has a direct relevance to the use of thermite for demolition: How can you use thermite to cut a vertical beam?

Why is there no response to that very essential question?

A nozzle or jet ejection system that forces a stream horizontally is one option. This is demonstrated in this U.S. patent for a thermite device described as useful for structural demolition. Another good example is this

.

Then there is always the more basic method of drilling the columns creating channels into which the thermite can flow.

As to the rest of your post, you seem to prefer to attribute findings and events to random chance rather than look for reason as to what you see. That’s fine I guess, even if not very convincing.

There is nothing surprising in the colours of aluminium, as it is red-hot when it melts and strongly glowing when it is casted at about 800 C. By the way, molten Aluminium physically can not be "silvery" as it melts at 660 C, which is already a red heat zone!

Please can you tell me what we see in these pictures?

linked-image

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/...P602180326.html

linked-image

http://www.flickr.com/photos/photons/14258294/

linked-image

http://www.westcoastcastings.com/casting-process.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! On the third of these photos I see a moderately red-glowing molten aluminium; on the first and second I can see SOME metal being melted (could be lead, tin etc).

In all three cases these are DIGITAL photos, and all digital cameras have an IR filter (you remove it, and they become night-vision ones) - so they surely depress some IR coming from the molten metal of this low temperature as 660 C. I suggest you to make a trip to some foundry and see yourself what Aluminium looks like when casted. Or check another flicr photo - this one is for real!

Sorry, can't post it, it refuses to take dynamic page for images...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/2939679...fba958.jpg?v=0:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, Q24 - the temperatures in a common household fire well exceed 1000C, as not only Aluminium, but also Silver and Gold melt in it. The red glow is NOT a property of metal, but the property of temperature - so if the metal is flowing from the window at 1000+ degrees, it would be red-orange glowing flow, IRRELEVANTLY to which metal it is - Zinc, Silver, Aluminium, Lead, Tin or any others!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! On the third of these photos I see a moderately red-glowing molten aluminium; on the first and second I can see SOME metal being melted (could be lead, tin etc).

In all three cases these are DIGITAL photos, and all digital cameras have an IR filter (you remove it, and they become night-vision ones) - so they surely depress some IR coming from the molten metal of this low temperature as 660 C. I suggest you to make a trip to some foundry and see yourself what Aluminium looks like when casted.

Ah, so all those pictures of silver aluminium are actually um… red? And when a scientist does an experiment to attempt to recreate the WTC flow and says the aluminium is “silvery” from his first hand view, it’s also actually… red? Heck, even NIST in their FAQ state, “Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery” but it’s… red?

Right.

I’m not saying aluminium cannot appear red, just that at its melting point it is very apparently silver.

BTW, Q24 - the temperatures in a common household fire well exceed 1000C, as not only Aluminium, but also Silver and Gold melt in it. The red glow is NOT a property of metal, but the property of temperature - so if the metal is flowing from the window at 1000+ degrees, it would be red-orange glowing flow, IRRELEVANTLY to which metal it is - Zinc, Silver, Aluminium, Lead, Tin or any others!

I am in agreement the flow is in excess of 1,000oC. The fires in the WTC were estimated to rise and fall between approximately 100-1,000oC. NIST found no evidence of any of the steelwork being exposed to 1,000oC temperatures so it is then difficult to explain how the metal seen flowing from WTC2 can have been held in place and heated so efficiently by such a diffuse flame.

You already said yourself that the flow resembles a thermite reaction so perhaps that is easiest to accept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so all those pictures of silver aluminium are actually um… red? And when a scientist does an experiment to attempt to recreate the WTC flow and says the aluminium is “silvery” from his first hand view, it’s also actually… red? Heck, even NIST in their FAQ state, “Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery” but it’s… red?

Right.

I’m not saying aluminium cannot appear red, just that at its melting point it is very apparently silver.

I am in agreement the flow is in excess of 1,000oC. The fires in the WTC were estimated to rise and fall between approximately 100-1,000oC. NIST found no evidence of any of the steelwork being exposed to 1,000oC temperatures so it is then difficult to explain how the metal seen flowing from WTC2 can have been held in place and heated so efficiently by such a diffuse flame.

You already said yourself that the flow resembles a thermite reaction so perhaps that is easiest to accept.

Yes! It is actually red! Your "scientist" simply never saw the molten Aluminium, this is what it tells me. Moreover, he is not acquainted with the mentioned already Radiation Laws - otherwise he would've known that 660 C is a "red heat" zone.

We took photos and videos, so we will have the recorded evidence as these are processed. (I have now attached two videos showing clearly the silvery appearance of the flowing aluminum.)

However he is honest enough to mention that some Aluminium alloys have lower melting point, means - they may melt without a red glow... But still he is missing the idea that at the "melting point" most metals, including Aluminium CAN NOT flow at all, as this point is a point of equilibrium between solid and liquid state - pretty much like water at 0 C can not "flow" because it is not water but a mixture of water and ice. Metals start to "flow" when their temperature is 50-100 degrees C higher than the melting point, at this point they become liquid enough to be poured into the dies. Therefore, any Aluminium must "flow" only above 700 C - which you can see on the photos I referred to. Differently from your "scientist", I spend 2 years in mid-80s developing the robot-manipulator for Aluminium casting, so it would be hard for you to persuade me that flowing Aluminiam is "silvery". I already told you - go to a nearby foundry and see it with your own eyes.

As for the theory about molten steel, flowing out of the window, I just do not want even to discuss this BS as I already did so in the previous messages. This is a closed loop - as if the amount of steel, capable to "flow" was generated, then the amount of heat would've made the entire building glowing red... Or the entire Manhattan would've been burnt (100 tons, hahaha!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Q24 - yours is the same case as Midgetron's. You both desperately want to believe in thermite theory, as this exposes the malicious nature of US government - but both are lacking experience and education, needed to understand the practical and theoretical issues behind the scandalous statement. You need to keep in mind, that neither I am trying to defend CIA, nor am trying to laugh at you both - I am sincerely trying to explain to you that the thermite explanation is unrealistic, nothing more.

No matter how desperately you argue, that liquid Aluminium is "silvery", it would not become such - therefore I once again suggest you to find the place where they melt it (use Yellow Pages) and go there to see how it looks. This would also show you, how ridiculous are the attempts to acquire practical knowledge by clicking a mouse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, Q24 - yours is the same case as Midgetron's. You both desperately want to believe in thermite theory, as this exposes the malicious nature of US government - but both are lacking experience and education, needed to understand the practical and theoretical issues behind the scandalous statement. You need to keep in mind, that neither I am trying to defend CIA, nor am trying to laugh at you both - I am sincerely trying to explain to you that the thermite explanation is unrealistic, nothing more.

Have you ever played with super thermite mixed with other substances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever played with super thermite mixed with other substances?

Come on, acidhead -read the entire discussion! There can not be anything but a hot flash from nano-thermite - so the effects they describe are all contradicting their "findings". One of a two: either there was "nano-thermite" and then no one noticed its action at all - or, there was a common thermite, but the samples did not contain a nanogram of it!

From chemical point of view mixtures only work because the components in them are in close contact with each other - if you mix superthermite with something else, it would stop being super-thermite, because its components would be dissociated . Add, say, 10 % of lime to thermite mixture, and it won't ignite at all or will be burning too slowly. In general any inert component would only inhibit the explosives - like kizergel filler makes a safe nice dynamite out of dangerous and spontaneous nitroglycerine. Little can be added to this nano-thermite to enhance its action, unless you blend in it another explosive - but in this case this would make no sense, as any thermite is needed to achieve high temperatures, not to blast, blinding the watchers 10 km around.

I regularly do the tests trying to mix thermite-type blends with "other substances" - as I am targeting the metal button, formed at the bottom of the crucible, so I have to find and add the suitable fluxes to stop the formation of those mentioned tiny globular particles of metal, be it Iron, Ferrovanadium, Ferrotitanium or Titanoaluminium. Organics only increase the stench, as they burn very slowly and have Oxygen deficiency in reaction zone, mostly they evaporate and form surface flame, which has no use at all, unless someone wants to cook potatoes on it. Mixture is made to work by contacting Ferric Oxide (oxidant) and Aluminium (reducer), and as a reducer Aluminium is much stronger than any organics, they mentioned. Try mixing some wax or lacquer with Iron Oxide and it won't burn at all, as even pure Hydrogen can not kick out Oxygen from the Ferric Oxide - it is vice versa, metal Iron would readily displace Hydrogen from the acids and reduce it into elemental form, while metal Aluminium would displace Hydrogen even in water. When they talk about "organics in thermite" this only shows they have no clue about the electrochemical series, which show the oxidation/reduction potentials of various substances.

Just to add about these "globular" or "spheric" Iron particles they "discovered" - they are formed in abundance on the common welding electrodes and can be found literally anywhere near the building and industrial sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL! On the third of these photos I see a moderately red-glowing molten aluminium; on the first and second I can see SOME metal being melted (could be lead, tin etc).

In all three cases these are DIGITAL photos, and all digital cameras have an IR filter (you remove it, and they become night-vision ones) - so they surely depress some IR coming from the molten metal of this low temperature as 660 C. I suggest you to make a trip to some foundry and see yourself what Aluminium looks like when casted. Or check another flicr photo - this one is for real!

:lol: total bunk.

InfraRed wavelenghts cannot be seen with the naked eye, so its irrelevant that some digital cameras filter this part of the spectrum. In fact, thats the very reason they add IR filters to digital cameras in the first place. Because, digital camera sensors are inherently sensitive to infrared wavelenghts, which would interfere with capturing what we see, as we see it.

In addition, it is incandescence that is responsible for the light (we see) caused by heating a substance (like a metal or the filament of a light blub), not infrared radiation. Your above statement suggests that your expected "color" of moltent aluminium is the visible manifestation of infrared energy, which is a completely false if not ridiculous claim.

You cannot see IR in the first place, so "depressing" it would NOT change somethings apperance.

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A nozzle or jet ejection system that forces a stream horizontally is one option. This is demonstrated in this U.S. patent for a thermite device described as useful for structural demolition. Another good example is this
.

Then there is always the more basic method of drilling the columns creating channels into which the thermite can flow.

Remember the thing I said about being intellectually dishonest?

I suppose it's partly my fault. Since we had been speaking of demolition explosives the entire time, I should not have assumed that you would stick to the actual topic when I said "demolition". I should have known that you would coyly try and divert to tools used to prepare for a demolition, rather than used during the actual demolition itself.

Your first device is fictional. That's the beauty of not requiring a prototype when applying for a patent. Whether it would actually work or not, I don't know (being that the inventor is making an awful lot of assumptions in equating a thermite exhaust being the same as a solid fuel exhaust, I do not find that the device is feasible) is questionable, but being that it doesn't even exist, it's pointless. Personally, I find that the inventor thinking that holding a rocket engine in your hands and expecting it to behave is somewhat optimistic.

A thermal lance is used to cut metal prior to demolition (Sometimes. A circular saw is often safer, cheaper, and faster). Unless you are proposing that someone was up in that conflagration with an oxygen tank feeding O2 through a magnesium tube (not an aluminum tube, incidentally), and doing so on a scale that beggars imagination (the slag is usually so low volume that it solidifies before even getting a couple of feet away). Again, this is an example of you picking up anything with the word thermal or thermic in it, and trying to equate it to thermite. Intellectually dishonest.

The thermal device that you showed cutting the 3/4 inch rebar is actually real, and it's actually nothing more than a modified cradle hook that you normally used for cutting horizontal metal. The modifications include a remote ignition and a vertical diverter. Again, though, the problem is in quantity. The flash of thermite (kudos to you, that this is an actual thermite device!) is so hot and fast (it's ground fine, though not the nano-fine the original post tries to make so significant) that it not only blasts through the rebar, it melts pretty much the entire cradle (most of what you see in the wrapping is sacrificial flameproofing, to keep the blast pointing in one direction.) If the flash were any longer, such as if it were trying to melt a one inch rebard instead of a 3/4 inch, it would simply melt the cradle and be useless.

The problem remains, however. The use of thermite as a demolition charge, meaning as something that can be operated remotely to spontaneously create a collapse in regular building material (have I covered all the angles? Probably not, but heck..) simply does not work. Even the best you could click on Google was nothing more than some cutting devices,. None of these...let me repeat that...NONE of these could actually do the kicking away of the cut piece, something that is vital to demolition. In fact, using these devices would be even more dangerous because, since they aren't kicking away the piece and since the two molten pieces are so close together, chances are good that the two halves would fall together and re-fuse into one piece. Heck, it's dangerous enough with non-molten pieces for them to fall on top of each other and get hung up that they have to be kicked away, imagine with pieces that could not only get hung up, but could actually fuse back together!

And, let's not forget that the most slag you get from any of these devices is a few ounces that solidify before they even run off the column. Absolutely NONE of these devices melts anywhere near the amount of metal to account for your mysterious river. Heck, you need a four foot thermal lance to burn a decent hole through a cinder block wall (I know this from experience).

For a demolition, you need something that will cut a vertical support and kick away the cut piece. Support beams are generally anywhere from 2-4 inches of concrete and steel rebar, and the support beams in the tower were thick steel beams even thicker than normal. There is simply no way that anything will hold thermite in place that long. The little charge you linked to shows how you need a good six inches of fire-proofing for less than a gram of thermite, and that thing is not re-usable; that thing is melted hollow. Anything more and it would melt away just like the bar.

The Mythbuster clip I linked too even shows how you can wrap thermite encrusted canvas around a steel frame of 1/4 inch steel rods, and it simply cannot melt them because it burns too hot too fast. It literally melts a little bit of the surface and slides right off. The same thing would happen around a steel support beam. You would need to have so much fireproofing that you might as well use shaped charges, because the thermite would be even more visible.

As to the rest of your post, you seem to prefer to attribute findings and events to random chance rather than look for reason as to what you see. That’s fine I guess, even if not very convincing.

No one is impressed with your tap-dancing. Your moves are old and have been seen before.

You pretend that you have a reason. You don't. You have a guess. Just as I have a guess. The difference is that my guess that a pool of metal can be held up by rubble until it overflows is something so intuitive that every child who has ever played in a puddle has figured it out. What is your guess based on? That hundreds of pounds of thermite suddenly melted a few hundred pounds of metal so fast and so close together that they all ran out in a molten river?

That's just not very convincing.

Please can you tell me what we see in these pictures?

Well, they look like molten metal. Based on the color, I'd say lead or tin, but the link says aluminum, so there you go. It's pretty and pure, which is why this would be almost the only time you would see it that shiny. Lead and tin do stay clean, but some metals like aluminum oxidize so fast that sometimes it even happens as it is being poured. You can actually see the color changing as it falls (it's pretty neat!).

Why?

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However he is honest enough to mention that some Aluminium alloys have lower melting point, means - they may melt without a red glow...

I am happy to leave this side point at your bolded words.

As for the theory about molten steel, flowing out of the window, I just do not want even to discuss this BS as I already did so in the previous messages.

I don’t think the flow is molten steel melted from the structure but rather iron from the actual thermite reaction, just to be clear.

By the way, Q24 - yours is the same case as Midgetron's. You both desperately want to believe in thermite theory, as this exposes the malicious nature of US government - but both are lacking experience and education, needed to understand the practical and theoretical issues behind the scandalous statement.

I do not want to believe anything. The results of the official NIST WTC investigation, combined with the collapse characteristics and evidence supportive of thermite, make the conclusion self evident.

Remember the thing I said about being intellectually dishonest?

You asked: How can you use thermite to cut a vertical beam? I provided a number of possibilities and examples and now you are complaining.

What I find intellectually dishonest is the claim that a hydrocarbon diffuse flame waxing and waning from 100oC to 1,000oC as it moves around the structure (largely the open office areas rather than the core) could cause collapse, whilst simultaneously claiming a device utilising 2,500oC thermite ejected directly onto the columns could not. Double-standards in the extreme.

The difference is that my guess that a pool of metal can be held up by rubble until it overflows is something so intuitive that every child who has ever played in a puddle has figured it out. What is your guess based on? That hundreds of pounds of thermite suddenly melted a few hundred pounds of metal so fast and so close together that they all ran out in a molten river?

The fire at its hottest was estimated to be a little over 1,000oC. If molten metal pooled on the floor in the suggested ‘rubble cup’, then we somehow have an unbelievably efficient heat transfer to raise the metal temperature to 1,000oC. This is why blast furnaces require a specific setup to function, with the correct flow of fuel and oxygen, rather than simply a hole filled with combustibles and set on fire.

I clearly bullet-pointed why the flow favours the thermite explanation in my post #48.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is yet another flaw in the entire discussion - we make hypothetical assumptions of the possibility to weaken the columns with thermite, but this first of all requires the columns to be exposed to a direct contact with such! Practically we rarely can see the rusty steel posts amid the building floor, as the columns are usually hidden in the walls or coated with concrete, so the alleged thermite heat is first supposed to destroy this concrete before trying to affect the actual steel. This, in turn, would require huge amounts of thermite mixture with some floor being literally packed with it - here the 100-ton theory probably comes from! But such a load would heat not the columns only, but the entire area, so at least one-two floor levels were supposed to glow red outside and white inside... It would've been an unforgettable sight, so the witnesses and tv-watchers probably all had their memories flashed by the men-in-black immediately afterwards.

Q24 - yes, some alloys melt at low points, before red glow zone - so what? This is absolutely irrelevant, as the actual flow on the photo is not at a low temperature at all - it is orange. It is either a burning organic material, or any metal, heated to 1000+ Centigrade. It is impossible to conclude which exactly metal, any with melting point below 1000-1200 would do, including the Gold from the safes. Just itemise all the findings and observations, and you would see that they do not fall all in one picture with some superthermite residues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 Al-Quida operatives took down the World Trade Towers to punish the US financially. Why? Because during Desert Storm infidel boots treaded upon and desecrated the holy ground of Mecca. Hence the call by Bin Laden for America to convert to Islam or expect more attacks.

Marabod, I'll listen to what you have to say more often. :)

Interesting debate nonetheless guy's, carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, thank you, Stardrive - but I really do not want to "carry on" as I am not paid for this P). I am just an amateur, defending the Reality from other amateurs, who wish to wreck it. I feel pretty comfortable in this existing Reality, so I kick as much as I can to get rid of the alternative versions, hahaha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it may also be molten plastic?

I'm pretty sure you can get that effect, especially if the plasic is liquid enough AND on fire?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 Al-Quida operatives took down the World Trade Towers to punish the US financially. Why? Because during Desert Storm infidel boots treaded upon and desecrated the holy ground of Mecca. Hence the call by Bin Laden for America to convert to Islam or expect more attacks.

Hahahahaha! What is much more important, that even if this were CIA operatives, who has put the WTC down for their ulterior reasons to manipulate World Politics, then the actual facts state this has been done not by using some mythological superthermite, but by plunging the actual aeroplanes into these two buildings - of which the entire planet was a witness, courtesy to CNN. The discussed theory is very good to explain, say, the non-existence of Hiroshima bombing, with an accidental explosion of 1000 tons of superthermite mixture, thoroughly blended by Japanise military for burning Los Angeles - but not to explain a real-life event, followed by the billions of people in direct live TV broadcast. I wish I was immortal - just to see the conspiracy theories which may arise in another 50 years or so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it may also be molten plastic?

I'm pretty sure you can get that effect, especially if the plasic is liquid enough AND on fire?

No, not really...although molten plastic can flow like that, when it hits the air it would likely not be glowing...if it is on fire, it is going to be giving off a great deal of smoke...its not plastic. It is metal of some sort. The dynamics of a burning building are so unique to a given building...so many factors; how much fuel, how much oxygen can get to the fuel...what kind of airflow and airpressures are involved...the fire itself starts to create its own thermal columns that change patterns in a building that you might not see right away; a hole can be burned into a ceiling that leads to a ventilation shaft that feeds a fire from what you think is a blocked off section...weird things happen. I can be crawling around on the floor of a room where the ceiling is 1200 degrees and not be uncomfortable because the floor is only 300 or 350 degrees; and that is on an 8 foot ceiling. Heat from room to room can vary as much as well.

It is hard to say what caused metal to melt in that quantity...IDk. I have seen some big office buildings on fire and I have been in some *spam filter*ed fires myself, but I have never seen anything close to the pooling metal that has been pointed out. What caused it I have no idea. I dont know what was stored in the building, there are plenty of chemicals that can burn hot enough to cause that, but they are not your typical office supplies. I have seen industrial buildings burn down that melted equipment, lighting fixtures, hand tools...but there were barrels of chemicals to account for that reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The paper, even the abstract, states they found "highly energetic unreacted thermitic material". Are you suggesting that an ordinary warehouse fire can produce not only a thermitic reaction but also unreacted thermitic material that when ignited produces a more dramatic reaction than conventional thermite? Or in other words, that an ordinary warehouse fire randomly creates unreacted thermitic material on-par with the latest nano-engineered thermitic compounds?

Its also worth pointing out that isn't what the paper or abstract suggests. They are not speaking about a "traditional aluminium/iron oxide thermite reaction". Maybe the part in the abstract where they note this material ignited "far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite" might have hinted at that?

If you have guns and reloading materials in your home and it catches fire, then it would most likely have been the ATF that set fire to your house to smoke you out. :lol: So, I doubt that fire dept would even investigate.

hey now! Damn government always trying to infringe....I do have those things in my house....no ATF so far....but let them come...Muh..Wah..Ha ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Practically we rarely can see the rusty steel posts amid the building floor, as the columns are usually hidden in the walls or coated with concrete, so the alleged thermite heat is first supposed to destroy this concrete before trying to affect the actual steel. This, in turn, would require huge amounts of thermite mixture with some floor being literally packed with it - here the 100-ton theory probably comes from!

The WTC steel was not enclosed by concrete. The drywall would have to be removed to access the core columns and fire-proofing was in place though unfortunately not rated against a 2,500oC thermite reaction.

What is the “100-ton theory” you mention? I did a rough estimation of the WTC2 flow and figured approximately 200kg of thermite in a single unit perhaps of dimensions 20cm x 25cm x 100cm.

I feel pretty comfortable in this existing Reality, so I kick as much as I can to get rid of the alternative versions, hahaha!

You just nailed the truth for many people there. It is certainly disconcerting for a time when the true reality of 9/11 dawns on you. The conditioning of most people simply won’t allow that to happen.

I can be crawling around on the floor of a room where the ceiling is 1200 degrees and not be uncomfortable because the floor is only 300 or 350 degrees; and that is on an 8 foot ceiling.

Thank you, just to note, that is what I was trying to point out about metal pooling at the floor level being difficult to heat to the extreme temperature seen in the WTC2 flow.

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
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.