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

Aquatus, may I just set out the three step demolition process I see so as there is no confusion where the explosive and non-explosive elements come in: -

  1. Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure.
  2. Thermite charges (apparent from evidence presented by Professor S Jones and visible flowing from WTC2) initiated the collapse.
  3. Further conventional demolition charges (evident through explosive ‘squibs’ during collapse) removed resistance from the structure, resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse.
The above removes the need for an obvious string of explosions as audible in conventional demolitions immediately prior to collapse.
That thermite will melt steel was never in question, and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. That it can be ejected horizontally was your claim, however being ejected horizontally and being capable of cutting through structural support members are two different things.

If thermite can melt steel… and if thermite can be made to move horizontally… then it stands to reason that thermite can melt steel horizontally. Whether thermite could melt through the largest columns in the WTC is then only down to the quantity required.

The reason for that is because thermite does not lend itself well at all to explosive demolitions, which require precision timing down to the micro-second. It's like using a flamethrower instead of a blowtorch. It has it's place in demolition, but only in preparation, and only in limited scenarios.

A demolition consists of two series of explosions. The first is the cutting charge. This is usually a shaped charge whose sole purpose is to cut through the support member. Literally, it just slices right through. This is the only conceivable place for a thermite charge, and again, thermite doesn't cut as much as it just melts through. This is important, because it is precisely why the second explosion is needed.

The second explosion is the "kicker". The piece that was just cut literally hangs in the air for a micro-second. If nothing else happened, the structure being cut could very well (and it has happened an embarrassing number of times) simply drop the inch or so gap that was just cut by the shaped charge, stick together, and not collapse. You can well imagine the sinking feeling a demolition team must feel when they blow their building only to see it sag a little and remain standing. It's about as dangerous as situation you can get.

I gather two main points raised – timing and the “kicker”.

I don’t believe you do this on purpose but these are double-standards you apply to the theories. The physical characteristics of the collapse are not in question as they are what we all see, so interpretation is only open to the method of collapse. Now can you explain why the official fire collapse theory does not require precise timing or a “kicker”?

I think the answer to the above would have to be that the columns were heated along a length enough enabling them to buckle. I suggest that thermite would also enable the columns to have a buckle effect provided that the melted area is wide enough and at an angle. Alternatively, two charges placed a distance apart on the same column would certainly provide a buckle effect.

The timing mentioned must be as relevant to one theory as another and I really don’t see what sort of precision random office fires would provide, certainly not compared to dedicated charges.

All in all – no precision timing or “kicker” was required to initiate collapse.

I suspected as much, and is it why I will show you how you are incorrect, once we finish with the demolition argument.

Give it a go but please try to be impartial when judging the thermite or alternative theories.

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

The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31 http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25)

Authors: Niels H. Harrit*,1, Jeffrey Farrer2, Steven E. Jones*,3, Kevin R. Ryan4, Frank M. Legge5,

Daniel Farnsworth2, Gregg Roberts6, James R. Gourley7 and Bradley R. Larsen3

1Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

2Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602, USA

3S&J Scientific Co., Provo, UT, 84606, USA

49/11 Working Group of Bloomington, Bloomington, IN 47401, USA

5Logical Systems Consulting, Perth, Western Australia

6Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Berkeley, CA 94704, USA

7International Center for 9/11 Studies, Dallas, TX 75231, USA

doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.

Click on LINK for PDF: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?...6b7ab1affe86ea8

Abstract

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite

**********************

I did'nt think aluminium and iron oxide thermite was explosive

I think it has a massive heat resistance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aquatus, may I just set out the three step demolition process I see so as there is no confusion where the explosive and non-explosive elements come in: -

  1. Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure.
  2. Thermite charges (apparent from evidence presented by Professor S Jones and visible flowing from WTC2) initiated the collapse.
  3. Further conventional demolition charges (evident through explosive ‘squibs’ during collapse) removed resistance from the structure, resulting in a symmetrical, near freefall collapse.
The above removes the need for an obvious string of explosions as audible in conventional demolitions immediately prior to collapse.

You can set out the steps, but that doesn't make it logical. You just randomly and rather flippantly toss out comments like "Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure." Asides from the nonsense of them being witnessed, strictly from an explosive demolition standpoint, that is a worthless statement. Conventional explosives are simply not precise enough to guarantee weakening rather than collapse. You can't tape a bunch of sticks of dynamite to a column and predict how damaged it is going to be, if at all. In terms of weakening the structure, conventional explosives would be no different than using unconventional explosives, such as a jetliner filled with fuel.

We already talked about thermite charges (1) not existing, and (2) not capable of explosive demolition. How exactly you expect these fictional charges to even remain in place after the conventional or unconventional explosives went off is beyond me. Unless you are suggesting that someone went up there and placed them after the explosion.

Further explosives are irrelevant. Once the supporting structure is removed, the building is going to fall, with or without "squibs". There is no purpose to putting explosives on non-structural elements.

And all of these things, except for the fictional thermite charge, still make a lot of noise. Not only would it not remove the need for an obvious string of explosives, it would be an audible string of explosions in and of itself.

In short, what you described above in not how a building is explosively demolished. The only possible layout is if you were trying to hide a covert operation as if it were an genuine collapse, in which case it is indistinguishable from what actually happened, and you lose any semblance of logical support.

In other words, your argument becomes "It's a controlled demolition because it doesn't look like a controlled demolition."

If thermite can melt steel… and if thermite can be made to move horizontally… then it stands to reason that thermite can melt steel horizontally. Whether thermite could melt through the largest columns in the WTC is then only down to the quantity required.

No. Again, you are trying to get away with a claim that the evidence doesn't support. You are trying to imply that thermite can be used to cut a beam horizontally and that this can be used for an explosive demolition. This is not true.

As I emphasized before, speed and precision is an issue. Thermite is a liquid. It flows. That means it flows down, not across. Cutting horizontally with thermite is going to be similar to cutting horizontally with a water jet; at some point, the outflow weakens the inflow too much for it to be effective. As your own example showed, the closest you can get to melting horizontally is a brief flash on a focused field, which itself requires tamping to the tune of 8 to 1, and even then the tamping is sacrificial. Your own example is proving how the concept is simply not feasible.

If you are trying to argue that it is only a matter of quantity, then you must acknowledge that it is not instantaneous. Now you have a problem, because the support member is not going to stay floating in the air while you are trying to melt through it. It is going to try and come back to a resting position, which means that it will simply settle down and the two molten halves will fuse back together again.

So, in summary, not only does thermite not move horizontally, except as a single flash burst, it still does not overcome the previously mentioned counter regarding speed and precision, no matter how much thermite you toss at it.

I gather two main points raised – timing and the “kicker”.

I don’t believe you do this on purpose but these are double-standards you apply to the theories. The physical characteristics of the collapse are not in question as they are what we all see, so interpretation is only open to the method of collapse. Now can you explain why the official fire collapse theory does not require precise timing or a “kicker”?

Yes indeed, I can, but I will only do so after we settle the first point. You, like all CT'ers, make a habit of continuously moving from topic to topic. I'm rather tired of that tactic, and I am going to address one point at a time until it can be put to rest.

I think the answer to the above would have to be that the columns were heated along a length enough enabling them to buckle. I suggest that thermite would also enable the columns to have a buckle effect provided that the melted area is wide enough and at an angle. Alternatively, two charges placed a distance apart on the same column would certainly provide a buckle effect.

And I will explain why that is incorrect when you understand why thermite cannot be used in an explosive demolition. If you don't understand that, the rest is going to be too difficult for you to understand.

The timing mentioned must be as relevant to one theory as another and I really don’t see what sort of precision random office fires would provide, certainly not compared to dedicated charges.

Not at all. Two different mechanism do not necessarily require the same steps.

All in all – no precision timing or “kicker” was required to initiate collapse.

That is correct.

Give it a go but please try to be impartial when judging the thermite or alternative theories.

No, you aren't ready for that yet. One step, one point, at a time. Once you understand how thermite doesn't work for explosive demolitions, we can move forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

</I>Poor stupid wooden year-6 Pinocchio! Do you really think you got me caught pants down??? Check the quotes once again - just to see, which exactly thermite they were about, and what was said about thermite and mysterious "superthermite" in them. How can you argue with something which you haven't even read in full? Or maybe I touched some string so sensitive that my "brotherly" address put you on a needle?

:lol: Way to go, Freud!

So, you are claiming that you were talking about "regular" thermite? Not so fast slick. First off, the exchange you were having with Acid was about nano-thermite (or "super") not regular thermite. Secondly, the whole "100 tons" thing has always been about the estimate amount of nano-thermite. Thirdly, your use of the word "even" clearly indicates a comparison (because as pointed, out you and Acid were talking about super-thermite and the estimates of nano-thermite quoted). So, to make that comparsion and state "even" regular thermite would melt the entire WTC, you are actually, by way of the comparison, speaking about the effects of nano-thermite. The use of word "even" in that statement makes no logical sense outside of a comparative fucntion.

Its so simple even a child could understand that.....

You are from New Zealand right? They speak english there don't they? Well, I don't see how you can defend your comment further other than claiming a poor command of the english language (unless you just come out and admit to your BS). But incase you choose to try, you might want to consider how irrelevent your comment would be without that "even" in there. What logic or purpose would tossing such a nonsensical comment about regular thermite into an exchange about nano-thermite have if it wasn't a comparison? Zero. :lol: .....But that is currently what you are claiming about your intentions even though your comment was grammatically structured otherwise.

...? ... the report concludes a "super" thermite ... NOT commercial thermite... NEEDS investigating.

"the job was to make the building to collapse inside itself?"--who said this?

"but the quantity estimated can probably cause it to fall on one of the sides" --it didn't though... go figure.

No one said - it has just collapsed inside itself, I was watching this on TV!

BTW the heat from 100 tons of even non-super thermite would probably melt the entire WTC plus a 500-meter deep hole in the ground...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Midge... The effects and results of thermite use strongly depend on the following variables and their combinations: fineness of the mixture, applied quantities, physical placement of the charges. These variables all remain unknown, because there is no credible data on them - so the entire discussion is just a hypothetical guessing of the possible outcomes in one or another case. I can chew it down for you, but at the current point this would be a waste of time, as it seems - as they are ALL were one way or another mentioned in the above posts by various users including myself, so if you have any interest to the event discussed, you always have access and must be able to do it yourself.

Meanwhile, the mentioned three variables each can be presented by a comparatively wide spectrum of parameters, exempli gratia the fineness can be from nanometer-size to few hundred micron size, which presents dozens of the possible behaviors of such mixture in dependence on the other two parameters - say, smaller quantities (kilograms) of the nano-sized mixture, placed in a bag near the building column would provide DIFFERENT result from a nano-size mixture in larger quantities (tons), packed along the column height. Hence there are DIFFERENT estimates. Your haven't seen any of the working thermite options in action, this is why you are surprised with such variety of them mentioned. You are questioning the thermite application in a way, that each time I want to ask you, how long is a piece of string!

You would probably argue with me if I state, that table salt is a poison, and even laugh - but this is an absolute truth, as the effect of its taking internally also depends on some variables, pretty much similar to the ways of how thermite action does. Say, a tea spoon of it would make you thirsty, a table spoon may help to rapidly remove stomach cancer, while a cup of it taken at once would cause your death due to the osmotic failure of the kidneys. So, when you are asking to put salt on your fries, you do not suggest a cup of it being added - because it is common sense, which you rely upon, but in the scientific approach common sense is not used at all, being replaced by calculations, observations and dialectical analysis. BTW - one does not need to be a chemist or a scientist generally, to understand this all - one just needs to have a 3-dimensional vision and knowledge of some important Philosophical concepts.

Therefore, if you want to hear someone's estimate of thermite action, you need first to specify the length of the string - say, you tell me the combination, you are interested in (fineness, weight, location of the charge), and I would gladly make a guess for you, and this would be only a guess, as I never saw more than 1 kg of it in use; but nothing stops you from showing my guess to the experts or just asking for a second opinion from them (of course of you find such experts who saw 10 tons or 100 tons of it being applied!). I suggest you to use some demolition or pyrometallurgy consultants, would probably cost a hundred bucks per session only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I guess you are not even going to continue to claim you were not talking about nano-thermite? :rolleyes:

You would probably argue with me if I state, that table salt is a poison, and even laugh - but this is an absolute truth, as the effect of its taking internally also depends on some variables, pretty much similar to the ways of how thermite action does. Say, a tea spoon of it would make you thirsty, a table spoon may help to rapidly remove stomach cancer, while a cup of it taken at once would cause your death due to the osmotic failure of the kidneys. So, when you are asking to put salt on your fries, you do not suggest a cup of it being added - because it is common sense, which you rely upon, but in the scientific approach common sense is not used at all, being replaced by calculations, observations and dialectical analysis. BTW - one does not need to be a chemist or a scientist generally, to understand this all - one just needs to have a 3-dimensional vision and knowledge of some important Philosophical concepts.

But that isn't what you have been doing...... When a quantity of 10 to 100 tons of nano-thermite is suggested, you do not put it into a context of logical calculation, observation or meaningful analysis. Or even one of common sense being a combined weight of several sequential charges or something in the neighborhood of what is understood about controlled demolitions. Rather, you look at the possible lump sum without context and start drooling about it destroying half of Manhattan. Its basically like someone telling you that Americans eat 9 pounds of salt each year and you respond by saying "impossible, that amount would be enough to instantly mummify someone!" .

Your arguments are a circular exercise in nonsense - You first claim the content of nano-thermite was to high in the residue (according to calculations you based on two fictions). Then you claim that quanties of nano-thermite, that might account for ratio found in the residue, would destroy half of Manhattan. In essence, you refuse to consider that eating 12 grams of salt a day adds up to around 9 pounds annually. Your entire argument is either that 30kg of thermite would only weaken a steel column or that 100 tons would destroy half of manhattan. Unlike your salt example, there is no consideration of intermediate amounts or context on your part.

While you claim to be using a "scientific approach", your arguments are far from having scientific basis but mostly consist of fantastical claims like "100 tons of nano-thermite would evaporate everyone in lower manhattan". Cremation at temperatures of 1700f takes about an hour for 100 pounds. Yet, you are suggesting that this magical "flash" can do the same work in an instant. Considering the astronomical heat required for this feat and considering that flesh, just like steel, requires time to heat you still maintain it couldn't melt steel (even though you already said it could melt the entire WTC and a 500 foot hole in the ground......). I assume this and meny other simular statements by you are the result of your claimed "scientific approach"?

BTW, maybe you can share your calculations where you formulated that 100 tons of nano-thermite would cause a "flash" (which seems to be your "scientific" term for a really fast explosion) that was the size of half of Manhattan, yet doesn't have the energy to destroy the building it originated from? Do you really think an explosion ten miles in size isn't going to flatten everything around it's center?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, maybe you can share your calculations where you formulated that 100 tons of nano-thermite would cause a "flash" (which seems to be your "scientific" term for a really fast explosion) that was the size of half of Manhattan, yet doesn't have the energy to destroy the building it originated from?

You are amazingly persistent, almost like a leech or a hungry fly! Your parascientific knowledge and terminology are absolutely unique, do you know about this? "Really fast explosion" is not applicable to thermite at all - because there is nothing to "explode" in it, this is a reaction of chemical exchange, not of decomposition or gas formation. It is neither explosion nor implosion, this reaction goes WITHOUT the change in volumes between the reagents and products, moreover, it goes in SOLID PHASE, so the only result of it is HEAT EVOLUTION, equal to the differences of Gibbs energy between the reagents and products. Only an ignoramus can call this process "explosion"! This is precisely why the "experts" were talking about some mysterious "organic filament" to nano-thermite, and this alone already shows they were talking not about ANY thermite, but about some explosive or rapidly expanding mixture, based on such! The group of substances called "explosives" produce rapid increase of volume of the products of reaction, the release of additional volumes goes with the speed exceeding the speed of sound and the reaction necessarily produces a bang, which is a shockwave similar in origins to the bang of a flying jet, heard on the ground - it is a "compressed sound". Thermite reactions DO NOT produce such bang, because they have no shockwave formed, and even if the flash is produced, it is SILENT or of low noise level.

Any "modified" thermite (but not just "thermite" or "nano-thermite")with some "organics" added would require a CLOSED VOLUME to behave as an explosive (if this is possible at all), and the closed volume, filled with an explosive we call a BOMB. There was no BOMB in WTC! "Really fast" this explosion would only happen, if the organics added are EXPLOSIVES themselves - but this lacks any practical sense, as most of commercial and military explosives do not use the initiation by high temperatures, instead they are DETONATED by a shockwave from another, weaker explosion, provided by the DETONATOR. And without such additives, "superthermite" would only produce FLASH of the temperatures in excess of 2500 C - which flash would not "cremate", but evaporate the living tissues, pretty much like Hiroshima flash did not "cremate" the Japanese but evaporated those in the epicenter. To evaporate the flesh one needs to preheat it to the temperatures, incomparable with those needed for melting steel, because water evaporates at 100 C while steel melts over 1600C. Whatever happens in a crematorium chamber has nothing to do with the processes in a high temperature flash, as cremation is a process of BURNING, i.e. OXIDATION to the state of ashes, not of evaporation. By the way, if a human accidentally falls into 1700 C furmace, full of molten steel, then fast evaporation would precede burning, mainly due to the oxygen deficiency in the reaction zone - I am unaware how the Oxygen supply is provided in the crematorium furnace, haven't been in it yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uhgg, must you insist on continuing this nonsense? Ok, even though you didn't provide your "calculations" as requested, I guess you threw out enough new swamp to trek through. However, please muster all you faculties and let me know if english is your first language. Thanks-

You are amazingly persistent, almost like a leech or a hungry fly! Your parascientific knowledge and terminology are absolutely unique, do you know about this? "Really fast explosion" is not applicable to thermite at all - because there is nothing to "explode" in it, this is a reaction of chemical exchange, not of decomposition or gas formation.

And you pretend to be a "chemist"? :lol:

Ok, just on the surface, you say 100 tons of material can create a "flash" half the size of Manhattan. Now you are saying that same reaction will not create a gas? Doesn't that contradict everthing known about burning a fuel? Perhaps you don't know but the "flashes" produced by thermite are due to combustion, that means "burning" and fire creates gases. You sure you are a chemist?

It is neither explosion nor implosion, this reaction goes WITHOUT the change in volumes between the reagents and products,

:lol: Right, if it doesn't change in volumes, how the heck could it crate a "flash" half the size of Manhattan that will "vaporizse" everything living?

The group of substances called "explosives" produce rapid increase of volume of the products of reaction, the release of additional volumes goes with the speed exceeding the speed of sound and the reaction necessarily produces a bang, which is a shockwave similar in origins to the bang of a flying jet, heard on the ground - it is a "compressed sound". Thermite reactions DO NOT produce such bang, because they have no shockwave formed, and even if the flash is produced, it is SILENT or of low noise level.

Wrong. Nano-thermite produces mach 3 shockwaves.

The researchers explain that nanothermite composites, made of metallic fuel and inorganic oxidizer, have “outstanding” combustion characteristics. Mixing a low-density composite of copper oxide nanorods (fuel) and aluminum nanoparticles (oxidizer) results in a large contact area between the fuel and oxidizer. On the nanoscale, the low density and large contact area of the nanothermite composite can lead to a fast-propagating combustion.

The team tested the combustion in a shock tube studded with optical fibers and pressure sensors to measure the combustion wave speed. They found that the nano composites could generate combustion waves with velocities ranging from 1500 to 2300 meters per second, which is in the Mach 3 range.

http://www.physorg.com/news119702507.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyways I'm confused, how was the nanothermite used to bring down the building?

Was it from the shockwave generated (its explosive properties) or its high temperature cutting abilities?

I would have thought you could do one or the other, by generating a shockwave the reaction goes so quickly that there is little heat transfered into the steel/iron/whatever...

to achieve high temperature cutting you need a slow reaction...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, just on the surface, you say 100 tons of material can create a "flash" half the size of Manhattan. Now you are saying that same reaction will not create a gas? Doesn't that contradict everthing known about burning a fuel? Perhaps you don't know but the "flashes" produced by thermite are due to combustion, that means "burning" and fire creates gases. You sure you are a chemist?

Hahaha, Midge - you are surely ripen enough for the role of a village fool! I was proclaimed a professional chemist by the people who were entitled to do so - and who are you to challenge their opinion? Just for start, write the equation of thermite reaction here, please - and point out to the gases, formed during it. This simple task would surely demonstrate to you and to the others your level of expertise in the issue discussed. Then we can slowly work out with you its heat effect (of course of you understand the difference between Enthalpy and Entropy as well as between Joules and degrees), compare it with the ability of nearby gases to expand, their thermal conductivity, and as a culmination I would explain to you that thermite DOES NOT "burn" or "combust" anyhow, but only releases the reaction heat, and surely not produces any "reaction gases". Keep trying, pal, and you may be promoted from a leech into ticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyways I'm confused, how was the nanothermite used to bring down the building?

Was it from the shockwave generated (its explosive properties) or its high temperature cutting abilities?

High temperature melting of steel members at the collapse initiation level.

Conventional explosives are simply not precise enough to guarantee weakening rather than collapse. You can't tape a bunch of sticks of dynamite to a column and predict how damaged it is going to be, if at all. In terms of weakening the structure, conventional explosives would be no different than using unconventional explosives, such as a jetliner filled with fuel.

Sorry, I should have known to be more specific – I was referring to conventional demolition charges/explosives as used commercially.

We already talked about thermite charges (1) not existing, and (2) not capable of explosive demolition. How exactly you expect these fictional charges to even remain in place after the conventional or unconventional explosives went off is beyond me. Unless you are suggesting that someone went up there and placed them after the explosion.

We have already talked about thermite charges (1) being basic technology, and (2) why are you talking about “explosive” in relation to thermite? I propose the thermite charges would be used at the collapse initiation level and conventional demolition charges used throughout the lower levels. The two would not be in a position to interfere with each other. Thermite charges placed on the impacted core columns would be destroyed or displaced. The remainder of the core columns were unaffected by the impact and exposed to relatively little fire as shown in NIST’s simulations.

Further explosives are irrelevant. Once the supporting structure is removed, the building is going to fall, with or without "squibs". There is no purpose to putting explosives on non-structural elements.

The lower intact structure, far larger than the blocks above the impact level, would resist the collapse, slowing and possibly arresting the fall. The lower conventional demolition charges evident through the visible ‘squibs’ would be to remove that resistance and cause complete collapse. I did not mention non-structural elements.

And all of these things, except for the fictional thermite charge, still make a lot of noise. Not only would it not remove the need for an obvious string of explosives, it would be an audible string of explosions in and of itself.

Yes, referring back to the conventional demolition charges, there are a mass of witness reports from firefighters and others on the scene prior to the collapses describing explosions and references to bombs or secondary devices. Demolition charges after collapse initiation would not be heard through the noise of the collapse itself.

In other words, your argument becomes "It's a controlled demolition because it doesn't look like a controlled demolition."

Try, “It is a controlled demoltion because it features characteristics of a controlled demolition and shares none of a ‘natural’ collapse.”

No. Again, you are trying to get away with a claim that the evidence doesn't support. You are trying to imply that thermite can be used to cut a beam horizontally and that this can be used for an explosive demolition. This is not true.

What do you mean “… and that this can be used for an explosive demolition”? Thermite can melt steel, can be used horizontally and could be used to initiate the collapses.

If you are trying to argue that it is only a matter of quantity, then you must acknowledge that it is not instantaneous. Now you have a problem, because the support member is not going to stay floating in the air while you are trying to melt through it. It is going to try and come back to a resting position, which means that it will simply settle down and the two molten halves will fuse back together again.

Sorry but if perhaps multiple sections of every core column were simultaneously liquefied at opposing angles, the building is going to do exactly the opposite of “settle down”. The integrity of the core columns would be completely compromised, the previously supported loads involved pushing them out of alignment (a buckle effect), with the centre of the building falling through itself and dragging the perimeter with it, as we saw.

Yes indeed, I can, but I will only do so after we settle the first point. You, like all CT'ers, make a habit of continuously moving from topic to topic. I'm rather tired of that tactic, and I am going to address one point at a time until it can be put to rest.

I'm not moving from topic to topic, rather asking you to apply the same standards to your own theory as you set for others. It’s ok though, I already know why the official story does not require precise timing or a “kicker”; it is for similar reasons that the thermite theory does not either.

And I will explain why that is incorrect when you understand why thermite cannot be used in an explosive demolition. If you don't understand that, the rest is going to be too difficult for you to understand.

You will explain why what is not correct – buckling columns as in the official theory or why you think thermite cannot have a buckle effect on a column?

No, you aren't ready for that yet. One step, one point, at a time. Once you understand how thermite doesn't work for explosive demolitions, we can move forward.

You could be a long time waiting to explain how the visible molten metal flow from WTC2 is not thermite then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, just on the surface, you say 100 tons of material can create a "flash" half the size of Manhattan. Now you are saying that same reaction will not create a gas? Doesn't that contradict everthing known about burning a fuel? Perhaps you don't know but the "flashes" produced by thermite are due to combustion, that means "burning" and fire creates gases. You sure you are a chemist?

he is right btw re: thermite

no gasses are produced by the reaction (though gasses may be produced as a result of other materials outside the reaction combusting due to the extreme temperature)

You could be a long time waiting to explain how the visible molten metal flow from WTC2 is not thermite then.

why is it thermite?

I don't think you've established that its thermite, other than "they look similar"

Edited by bathory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow, this thread is dynamite, er I mean thermite... nano or super?

I don't know.

But it's interesting, not sure who's winning. Looking even..

Goop points all round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is it thermite?

I don't think you've established that its thermite, other than "they look similar"

Images/video of the WTC2 flow show it to look exactly like thermite. Note that the flow becomes visible only in the minutes prior to collapse. Add the confirmed thermetic material found in the WTC dust to which this thread pertains. Take into account FEMA’s description of a “severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel” which they propose could have “started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure”. Note the extreme temperatures in the rubble pile and considerable volume of molten steel reported that could not have been produced by regular fires. Consider that the official investigation failed to attribute collapse initiation to the impact damage and office fires evident. Whilst indeed not established, thermite is looking the leading and increasingly strong contender as cause of the collapse initiation.

In respect of all the above, I would find a more pertinent question to be: why is it not thermite?

Some would use multiple disparate and often contentious claims that are required to cover that question, relying greatly on coincidence and/or peculiarity of situation. Occam’s Razor states that “the simplest explanation is usually the best” and thermite is an example of one single answer that effortlessly explains all of the anomalies laid out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes but why would it be occuring in that part of the building?

i mean, the flow appears to be coming from an area that was hit by the plane, are you suggesting, they packed the entire building with this stuff and then crashed a plane into it, and then set off the thermite charges in the very same section that had just been blown the **** up by a plane...

sounds pretty silly to me, why would you place thermite in an area where you plan on crashing a plane into the building, so that you don't know if the charges will still be in place and able to be set off?

i mean, at best if they go off, you don't know if they are going to be where you originally put them, there would probably be a good chance that they get knocked away from what you intended to cut, making them a waste of time, and then theres always the possibility that they don't even ignite, which for the conspirators probably wouldn't be a good thing?

Edited by bathory
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hahaha, Midge - you are surely ripen enough for the role of a village fool!

You mean, "village idiot"?

I was proclaimed a professional chemist by the people who were entitled to do so - and who are you to challenge their opinion?

Well, speaking as the "village fool" I hope it was more than just their "opinion". Obviously, normal sane folks would require some kind of "authority". But don't let me rain on your parade, because I to am entitled to grant you a title based on my "opinion". Anyone can. But whatever, you are a chemist, you have told us you are a chemist so meny times I don't know how anyone could not know at this point. "By the power vested in my opinion, you are a chemist". I get it. No need to repeat it 100 more times. You are a chemist. Congratulations, you are a chemist. Hey, guess what? You are a chemist thats what.

Knock, Knock, whos there? You are a chemist, thats who.

Hey, if you feel the need to repeat it again, can I suggest using gigantic red text so the infrared rays burn it into our eye-sockets? Maybe something like this -

I AM A CHEMIST

Just for start, write the equation of thermite reaction here, please - and point out to the gases, formed during it. This simple task would surely demonstrate to you and to the others your level of expertise in the issue discussed.

lol, I have never claimed to be a "chemist", scientist or anyone qualified to make such calculations. However, YOU HAVE and YOU HAVE ignored my requests for such formulas at least twice. Seriously, you must have some big chemist rocks to ask me to write you an equation after repeatedly ignoring my requests. Of course its even more pathetic that the "chemist" needs to come to the "village fool" for calculations. You have prided yourself on the "scientific method" so shut up and do it. And do calculations FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED!

Who am I kidding, I have better chance of winning the lottery...

Keep trying, pal, and you may be promoted from a leech into ticks.

Since you haven't answered any of my several questions about your native language and considering your displays of broken english, the "village fool" is going to conclude that english isn't you first language. Or maybe I should say "promote you from a native speaker into foreign speakers".

I only bring this up (time after time) because it could help with your defense.

he is right btw re: thermite

no gasses are produced by the reaction (though gasses may be produced as a result of other materials outside the reaction combusting due to the extreme temperature)

Honestly, I can do nothing but thank you. Getting a straight and logical answer out of the "chemist" has been impossible. Your comment makes sense and I will take you word for it.

Can you verify his statement about a "flash" half the size of Manhattan that vaporizes everything living but leaves all structures intact?

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes but why would it be occuring in that part of the building?

A reasonable suggestion for the location of the WTC2 visible flow is that this thermite charge was displaced by the aircraft impact. With WTC1, the aircraft impacted the core structure centrally and did not pass through to the opposite side, barring some smaller debris and the landing gear. With WTC2, the angle of the aircraft impact meant it passed only through one side of the core structure, carrying most of the debris to rest in the north-east corner of the building (see diagram below).

linked-image

sounds pretty silly to me, why would you place thermite in an area where you plan on crashing a plane into the building, so that you don't know if the charges will still be in place and able to be set off?

Perhaps you are overestimating the impact damage caused. NIST simulations show that of the 47 core columns in WTC2, only 10 were damaged (ranging from ‘light damage’ to ‘severed’), leaving the remaining 37 columns intact. I believe this could be expected as building performance studies had been carried out previously. Also, fires in the core structure were relatively weak compared to those in the office areas.

Basically from the above we can conclude that the majority of any such thermite charges would survive the impact/fire damage. There are additional steps involving placement and construction of the thermite charges that could further safeguard against fire. The lesser number of core columns for which any charges were destroyed or displaced would be damaged anyway, ie no charge needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, I have never claimed to be a "chemist", scientist or anyone qualified to make such calculations. However, YOU HAVE and YOU HAVE ignored my requests for such formulas at least twice. Seriously, you must have some big chemist rocks to ask me to write you an equation after repeatedly ignoring my requests. Of course its even more pathetic that the "chemist" needs to come to the "village fool" for calculations. You have prided yourself on the "scientific method" so shut up and do it. And do calculations FOR WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED!

Who am I kidding, I have better chance of winning the lottery...

I have not noticed your "requests for such formulas", because a way ago, in the previous messages I have already provided the thermite equation! Fe2O3 +2Al = Al2O3 + 2Fe....... This equation is not a state secret anyhow, everyone knows it, it is a common domain - all I wanted was for you to show the GASES, released during the above reaction. I was hoping you mental capacity to be sufficient for copying the reaction itself from my own post, but it occured to be not - and this is not MY failure, but the one of your parents!

The word "pathetic" you use seems rather self-inflicting in this case. Is not this a Freudian compensation? You DO NOT LOOK pathetic, your ARE pathetic!

Edited by marabod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was hoping you mental capacity to be sufficient for copying the reaction itself from my own post, but it occured to be not - and this is not MY failure, but the one of your parents!

The word "pathetic" you use seems rather self-inflicting in this case. Is not this a Freudian compensation? You DO NOT LOOK pathetic, your ARE pathetic!

Rather than actually discuss the issue or respond to me in a logical fashion, you resort to insulting my parents?

Try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rather than actually discuss the issue or respond to me in a logical fashion, you resort to insulting my parents?

Try harder.

So, after all you do not like when the posts become excessively personalised? Why then you yourself are trying to flamebait the others, referring to their personal features instead of discussing the topic? Just re-read your posts to me! However you are right in the sense that this was a deviation from discussion, it was actually the fact that you claimed being unaware of the expression "village fool" and tried to turn things to my inability to express myself in English, which turned me on... Meanwhile my memory tells me that this expression was used by Shakespeare on at least one occasion... Digging even deeper into English history and culture would help as well - say

The Haxey Hood is an ancient game held annually on ‘Twelfth Night’ or January 6th, and although there are no written records of it before 1828, oral traditions link the event to the 13th or 14th centuries. Before the introduction of the Gregorian Calendar, January 6th was celebrated as the ‘Feast of Kings’, the old Christmas. It is claimed, that its origin lies in the following fanciful story regarding Lady de Mowbray, the wife of Sir John de Mowbray who, at the time, owned most of the Haxey parish.

It is told that Lady de Mowbray was out riding on 6th January when a gust of wind blew her hood away and thirteen men attempted to retrieve it. One, the village fool, captured it, but lacked the courage to hand it back to its owner. Amused, Lady de Mowbray promised each man a broad piece of land and named the man who eventually returned her hood as the ‘Lord’. The remaining men were known as ‘Boggins’ and were regarded as the Lord’s servants and a ‘Chief Boggin’ was selected to assist the Lord (Ref: 2).

http://www.tc-lethbridge.com/tekhs_journal/?id=18, and Google reveals another 12,000+ sites, using this expression...

But by now I already understand, that if one the same person claims GASES being released during thermite reaction and the same time claims speaking a superior English, which is apparently missing "the village fool" expression, then of course discussing with this person anything more complex than crossing a street on green light, makes little sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, after all you do not like when the posts become excessively personalised? Why then you yourself are trying to flamebait the others, referring to their personal features instead of discussing the topic? Just re-read your posts to me!

This is a total waste of time and I am sure also annoying to others. However, I have not been any more abrasive to you than you have been to me. Anything "personal" about you I have commented on were all things you yourself put into the discussion. No where did I reach beyond the discourse you started and attack private areas of your life, such as your family.

However you are right in the sense that this was a deviation from discussion, it was actually the fact that you claimed being unaware of the expression "village fool" and tried to turn things to my inability to express myself in English, which turned me on... Meanwhile my memory tells me that this expression was used by Shakespeare on at least one occasion... Digging even deeper into English history and culture would help as well - say

http://www.tc-lethbridge.com/tekhs_journal/?id=18, and Google reveals another 12,000+ sites, using this expression...

12,000 sites eh? Do a search for "village idiot" and you get 664,000 sites. Which is why I asked if thats what you ment. In comparison, a search for "village cheese" gets 24,000 sites..............

As for you english, I have asked a couple of times about it because you don't seem to be a native speaker. Any one of those times you could have just simply answered my question but you haven't. My suspicions also compounded by your use of non-english terms like "diletanto" rather than saying "amature". And your confusion at the phrase "oh brother". And your numberous awkwardly deployed words.

This very simple question of your native language going unanswered sums up what trying to have a discussion with you has been like. Rather than answering direct questions, you ignor them until they "turned you on" (which FYI, is a phrase with sexual connotations.....) :hmm:

But by now I already understand, that if one the same person claims GASES being released during thermite reaction and the same time claims speaking a superior English, which is apparently missing "the village fool" expression, then of course discussing with this person anything more complex than crossing a street on green light, makes little sense.

Or, discussing the appearance of IR to the naked eye? Of course I believe your defense was that you are not an expert on such matters. Fine. Yet, no where have I claimed to be an expert on the matter of thermite. But that level of rational doesn't seem to be employed you.

Btw, Bathory already explained where I was wrong about my "gas" assumption in a more efficient and logical method then you seem to be accustom to. I acknowledged this several posts back. Please, try to keep up with the discussion and lets get back on topic.

Edited by el midgetron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12,000 sites eh? Do a search for "village idiot" and you get 664,000 sites.

Hahaha! This makes you to be in majority, this must be enough a prize after your initial complete denial of the existence of the idiom itself. Meanwhile the word "fool" was existing in English for much longer than the word "idiot", as the latter is of non-English origin at all.

Just to satisfy your curiosity - yes, I am not a native English-speaker. But for you it changes nothing and does not add any value to your linguistic "observations", as I simply do not speak US or English English, while in this hemisphere you would probably need an interpreter. It is "brother" which would rather be used here between the street thugs, while casual friendly address would be "mate" or in certain cases "bro". Neither does the word "diletanto" point to my origins, as this is an Italian form, while I am Russian - but at this "internationale" we have here I sometimes find it more convenient to use some commonly known non-English terms and expressions, for instance it would probably more appropriate to respond to some of your posts with the word "fangulu" than to present you an expanded reply. Sayonara.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to satisfy your curiosity - yes, I am not a native English-speaker.

That wasn't so hard was it? You really didn't need to go get all "turned on" about it and everything.

But for you it changes nothing and does not add any value to your linguistic "observations", as I simply do not speak US or English English, while in this hemisphere you would probably need an interpreter. It is "brother" which would rather be used here between the street thugs, while casual friendly address would be "mate" or in certain cases "bro".

Oh, "so exotic", how would I ever manage without an interpreter?

Who could have ever imagined there was such a word as "bro"? Do you pronounce it just like it looks? If we could import that word to the US, it could revolutionize the way american frat boys speak!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The last few posts have been very entertaining, keep it up guys… or not :lol:

It’s just a shame aquatus did a runner without properly explaining any of his theories or responding to the counterpoints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really didn't need to go get all "turned on" about it and everything.

I believe you are confusing "English" with your local dialect. It is quite stupid to suggest, that if in your form of language "turn on" necessarily has a sexual reference, then this understanding of it is universal. How about Dick Cheney? Does his name turn you on? Meanwhile we have a huge network of liquor stores "King Dick", and no one can draw any parallels...

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.