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

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.

I NEVER SAID THE MEANING WAS UNIVERSAL. I just told you because I figured most sane folks prefer to aviod making such mistakes. But, if you want to go around telling people they "turn you on", BE MY GUEST, KNOCK YOUR SELF OUT ROMEO.

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 last few posts have been very entertaining, keep it up guys… or not laugh.gif

Let's go with the "...or not"

Marabod, El Midgetron, The both of you need to take the kindergarten sniping outside. I recommend you both take some time to cool off before posting here again, because if your next posts as childish as the past few pages have been, I won't be making recommendations anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sorry about that. Last week started off busy, and by Wednesday got so bad that I didn't have any time for UM. The the weekend came, and well...there was the beach, and some cute girls...I hope you understand.

So, let's pick up from our last exchange:

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

No, you weren't, though I can understand why you thought that you were. Hopefully, after I explained how conventional demolition charges work, you understand why, but if you don't, by all means ask.

As I said, "Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure." is a meaningless statement. If you were talking about demolition explosives, then "weakening the structure" is a pretty odd way to say "brought the entire building down". If you meant otherwise, then my statements concerning unpredictability and unreliability stand.

We have already talked about thermite charges (1) being basic technology,

More accurately, non-existent technology. That is, of course, if you are referring to "conventional demolition charges/explosives".

and (2) why are you talking about “explosive” in relation to thermite?

Because you continue to refer to them (incorrectly) as explosives, i.e. "conventional demolition charges/explosives".

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.

So...you are suggesting that someone went up and placed them there after the crash?

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.

To be clear...you are under the impression that the upper half of the WTC could have simply "slumped" down onto the bottom half, and not collapsed? Thus requiring further explosives to guarantee a total collapse?

That would explain why you believe the whole nonsensical free-fall argument. If that is the case, we'll have to make that a point for the future as well.

I did not mention non-structural elements.

Yes, you did, although again, it's clear why you don't know it. Anytime you are talking about squibs blowing out the outside of the building, you are talking about squibs being used in non-structural elements of the WTC.

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.

And you are smart enough to know that things explode in fires and that people saying "it sounded like a bomb going off" doesn't mean that it was a bomb going off.

Demolition charges after collapse initiation would not be heard through the noise of the collapse itself.

Of course they wouldn't. That is because demolition charges do not go off after a collapse. They go off before it, and indeed are usually responsible for the collapse.

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

No, that would be an incorrect statement in several different ways. You make a lot of claims about how a demolition works, and yet despite being correct, you either repeat the claims, or pretend that you never claimed it in the first place. Accept that you have something to learn here, and stop being so willful. And stick to the topic of thermite, till we put it to bed.

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.

Thermite can melt steel, vertically. It can only flash horizontally, and only melt a 3/4 inch hole, and relatively slowly at that. So slowly that you can even see it happening on a YouTube video. Explosive demolitions are so much faster that it's ridiculous.

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.

Then, again, you are saying "It's a controlled demolition because it doesn't look like a controlled demolition." There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you do need to recognize that none of this is evidence of a conventional demolition. You can't pretend that this is just how things are done.

I'm going to need some clarification here. As has already been established, explosive demolition involves cutting and removing a chunk of supporting structure. Now, I've been operating on the assumption that you were proposing that thermite was used instead of shaped charges. Are you instead proposing that an entire chunk was melted away, instead of blown away? I want to make sure I understand

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.

Well, you've displayed other things you "know", so... :lol:

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?

Sure. Just first tell me that you understand why it couldn't have been a conventional demolition. Once we put that to bed, we can start talking about thermite as an unconventional demolition tactic.

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

At some point you will have to decide if you are still arguing for reason or out of denial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sorry about that. Last week started off busy, and by Wednesday got so bad that I didn't have any time for UM. The the weekend came, and well...there was the beach, and some cute girls...I hope you understand.

So, let's pick up from our last exchange:

No, you weren't, though I can understand why you thought that you were. Hopefully, after I explained how conventional demolition charges work, you understand why, but if you don't, by all means ask.

As I said, "Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure." is a meaningless statement. If you were talking about demolition explosives, then "weakening the structure" is a pretty odd way to say "brought the entire building down". If you meant otherwise, then my statements concerning unpredictability and unreliability stand.

More accurately, non-existent technology. That is, of course, if you are referring to "conventional demolition charges/explosives".

Because you continue to refer to them (incorrectly) as explosives, i.e. "conventional demolition charges/explosives".

So...you are suggesting that someone went up and placed them there after the crash?

To be clear...you are under the impression that the upper half of the WTC could have simply "slumped" down onto the bottom half, and not collapsed? Thus requiring further explosives to guarantee a total collapse?

That would explain why you believe the whole nonsensical free-fall argument. If that is the case, we'll have to make that a point for the future as well.

Yes, you did, although again, it's clear why you don't know it. Anytime you are talking about squibs blowing out the outside of the building, you are talking about squibs being used in non-structural elements of the WTC.

And you are smart enough to know that things explode in fires and that people saying "it sounded like a bomb going off" doesn't mean that it was a bomb going off.

No, that would be an incorrect statement in several different ways. You make a lot of claims about how a demolition works, and yet despite being correct, you either repeat the claims, or pretend that you never claimed it in the first place. Accept that you have something to learn here, and stop being so willful. And stick to the topic of thermite, till we put it to bed.

Thermite can melt steel, vertically. It can only flash horizontally, and only melt a 3/4 inch hole, and relatively slowly at that. So slowly that you can even see it happening on a YouTube video. Explosive demolitions are so much faster that it's ridiculous.

Then, again, you are saying "It's a controlled demolition because it doesn't look like a controlled demolition." There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you do need to recognize that none of this is evidence of a conventional demolition. You can't pretend that this is just how things are done.

I'm going to need some clarification here. As has already been established, explosive demolition involves cutting and removing a chunk of supporting structure. Now, I've been operating on the assumption that you were proposing that thermite was used instead of shaped charges. Are you instead proposing that an entire chunk was melted away, instead of blown away? I want to make sure I understand

Well, you've displayed other things you "know", so... :lol:

Sure. Just first tell me that you understand why it couldn't have been a conventional demolition. Once we put that to bed, we can start talking about thermite as an unconventional demolition tactic.

At some point you will have to decide if you are still arguing for reason or out of denial.

..the author's discussed finding "super-thermite" with possible substances added to create an explosive...

While Aquatus and Marabod continue to discuss 'thermite' ...Q, Midge, myself and others are focused on the 'super-thermite' as mentioned by the author's of the paper in the OP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..the author's discussed finding "super-thermite" with possible substances added to create an explosive...

While Aquatus and Marabod continue to discuss 'thermite' ...Q, Midge, myself and others are focused on the 'super-thermite' as mentioned by the author's of the paper in the OP.

Q24 has been talking about normal thermite this entire time (although he doesn't actually know it, but he did post an example of super-thermite before). Everyone of his theories is about regular thermite. So that is what I am talking to him about.

"Super-thermite" is just a red herring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you weren't, though I can understand why you thought that you were. Hopefully, after I explained how conventional demolition charges work, you understand why, but if you don't, by all means ask.

As I said, "Conventional explosives (witnessed by numerous firemen, workers and reporters) weakened the structure." is a meaningless statement. If you were talking about demolition explosives, then "weakening the structure" is a pretty odd way to say "brought the entire building down". If you meant otherwise, then my statements concerning unpredictability and unreliability stand.

The demolition process I set out in my post #101 is straightforward, I don’t know why you are getting so confused. Basically steps 1 & 3 use conventional methods and step 2 uses thermite to initiate the collapse.

When I say “weakened the structure” I mean exactly that, by cutting certain columns. The “brought the entire building down” does not happen until the end when the main lower columns are cut.

The whole process avoids an obvious string of audible explosions as heard in a conventional demolition and there is no reason it would not work if planned correctly.

More accurately, non-existent technology. That is, of course, if you are referring to "conventional demolition charges/explosives".

The technology for a thermite charge is absolutely existent, just not a known working example. To make this obvious, the technology for a steam powered bicycle is existent but it would be an extremely inefficient method of transport and so has not been created. It’s the same for a thermite charge which would have little commercial potential… but doesn’t mean it could not be useful in the affair we are discussing.

So...you are suggesting that someone went up and placed them there after the crash?

That you even suggest such a thing makes me question your general logic processing skills. All demolition units, thermite or conventional, would be pre-placed. Please do not argue in circles now and say, “they could not survive the impact”, I can see that coming and I have already explained that the majority of core columns were undamaged and exposed to relatively little fire.

To be clear...you are under the impression that the upper half of the WTC could have simply "slumped" down onto the bottom half, and not collapsed? Thus requiring further explosives to guarantee a total collapse?

That would explain why you believe the whole nonsensical free-fall argument. If that is the case, we'll have to make that a point for the future as well.

Once the collapse somehow initiates, I would not expect the upper half to simply slump down but I do expect the lower half to provide considerable resistance.

Applying basic physics, there is no way that the upper blocks should be able to crush the entire buildings. Newton’s third law of motion states that, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, or in a little more detail: -

“Whenever a particle
A
exerts a force on another particle
B
,
B
simultaneously exerts a force on
A
with the same magnitude in the opposite direction. The strong form of the law further postulates that these two forces act along the same line.”

Now if we assume for WTC1 that the upper block (above the impact zone) is A and the lower intact structure is B, what happens? The upper block consisting of approximately 12 floors collapses and crushes the 12 floors immediately below. If, as Newton said, a force of the same magnitude is acting in each direction, then even by this early stage we are dealing with 24 floors of broken steelwork and crushed concrete – largely debris.

It is possible for this debris to be pushed to the side of the structure or embed between steelwork (another law of physics: path of least resistance) but what is for sure is that this debris cannot continue ploughing its way through the remaining 86 intact levels.

This is, incidentally, how the official explanation works – they must assume that the upper blocks remain intact throughout the collapse acting as a hammer in conjunction with the anvil of the lower block. It is nonsense and as I have explained, once the upper block has fallen through its own height, we are talking about debris.

Drop a hammer on your foot… it hurts. Drop the equivalent weight of metal shavings on your foot… no pain. You see why what I am saying above is important.

What we see in actual collapse video footage (more so in the case of WTC2) is that the upper block does remain intact for a disproportionately long time. We know that, assuming the upper and lower blocks are of similar construction (in fact the lower block was stronger!), this violates Newton’s third law. The only answer to this is that the lower block was in fact already weakened.

I have explained using basic physics why the Towers should not have been able to crush themselves at all and yet the official story would have you believe not only did it happen but it did so at near freefall speed. Please note “near” freefall. Even conventional demolitions are not true freefall.

Yes, you did, although again, it's clear why you don't know it. Anytime you are talking about squibs blowing out the outside of the building, you are talking about squibs being used in non-structural elements of the WTC.

No, I talk about visible squibs that would have been caused by large pressure waves from demolition charges on the main columns. The squibs are visible generally in the centre face of the Towers and interestingly the large box columns (rather than the I-column majority) were located at the centre of each core facing.

And you are smart enough to know that things explode in fires and that people saying "it sounded like a bomb going off" doesn't mean that it was a bomb going off.

I’m smart enough to listen when, instead of believing a gas canister or electrical transformer, etc, has exploded, a trained fireman says, “Oh My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!

I’m smart enough to question when a BBC reporter says, “Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower - I don't know what on Earth caused that.

I have set out some of the many accounts of explosions, bombs and secondary devices in my post here. I have explained why they are strongly suggestive of planted rather than ‘natural’ explosives here.

Thermite can melt steel, vertically. It can only flash horizontally, and only melt a 3/4 inch hole, and relatively slowly at that. So slowly that you can even see it happening on a YouTube video. Explosive demolitions are so much faster that it's ridiculous.

A device of the size seen in the video I linked may only be able to melt a ¾ inch hole but I am not suggesting a unit of those dimensions would be used for demolition. Scale the device up and add additional ejection points. Incidentally, most of the columns at the impact level were of steel less than 2 inches thick – it’s not a lot.

Then, again, you are saying "It's a controlled demolition because it doesn't look like a controlled demolition." There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but you do need to recognize that none of this is evidence of a conventional demolition. You can't pretend that this is just how things are done.

There is obviously a distinction between what I am putting forward as evidence and possibilities I am putting forward for the presence of that evidence. I have always maintained that overall the WTC demolition was unconventional.

Now, I've been operating on the assumption that you were proposing that thermite was used instead of shaped charges. Are you instead proposing that an entire chunk was melted away, instead of blown away? I want to make sure I understand

I thought I had made it clear the demolition was a combination of the two; both conventional methods and thermite involved at different steps. I say a section of the column would be melted away by the thermite, but a “chunk” would do.

At some point you will have to decide if you are still arguing for reason or out of denial.

Just to refresh, you said you will show how the WTC2 visible molten flow is not thermite. In your two posts since then you have failed to do that.

"Super-thermite" is just a red herring.

I think too much emphasis can be placed on the type of thermite used. When I say “thermite” I am generally referring to any such reaction which creates bursts of extremely high temperatures. The paper this thread is about states that comparison with the many forms of thermite must wait for a future study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The demolition process I set out in my post #101 is straightforward, I don’t know why you are getting so confused. Basically steps 1 & 3 use conventional methods and step 2 uses thermite to initiate the collapse.

You really don't know why it is so confusing?

When you take existing technical terms and decide to redefine them, it confuses people.

You can't take a conventional explosive demoliton, change out steps, equipment, heck, entire processes, and still refer to it as a conventional explosive demolition, without confusing people.

If you are talking about unconventional techniques, don't refer to them as conventional.

When I say “weakened the structure” I mean exactly that, by cutting certain columns. The “brought the entire building down” does not happen until the end when the main lower columns are cut.

The whole process avoids an obvious string of audible explosions as heard in a conventional demolition and there is no reason it would not work if planned correctly.

Then my previous statements stand.

The technology for a thermite charge is absolutely existent, just not a known working example. To make this obvious, the technology for a steam powered bicycle is existent but it would be an extremely inefficient method of transport and so has not been created. It’s the same for a thermite charge which would have little commercial potential… but doesn’t mean it could not be useful in the affair we are discussing.

Ergo, your thermite charge, like your steam-powered bicycle, is fictional.

More importantly, the thermite charge you linked to would not work for what you are suggesting, as it is for linear cuts, just like shaped-charges.

That you even suggest such a thing makes me question your general logic processing skills. All demolition units, thermite or conventional, would be pre-placed. Please do not argue in circles now and say, “they could not survive the impact”, I can see that coming and I have already explained that the majority of core columns were undamaged and exposed to relatively little fire.

And you were wrong, but, as you wish, we won't pursue that deviation any longer.

Once the collapse somehow initiates, I would not expect the upper half to simply slump down but I do expect the lower half to provide considerable resistance.

Yes, well, we can follow the whole "free-fall", or "near-free-fall" nonsense after the thermite issue is put to rest.

No, I talk about visible squibs that would have been caused by large pressure waves from demolition charges on the main columns. The squibs are visible generally in the centre face of the Towers and interestingly the large box columns (rather than the I-column majority) were located at the centre of each core facing.

Again, you need to stop making up your own definitions to technical terms. A squib is not a large plume of smoke, nor is it caused by large pressure waves. A squib is a small explosive used for a variety of things such as special effect (blood splatters) or, in demolition, as initiators. You would not see squibs on any face of the WTC because they would not be at the faces, they would be in the center, right next to the explosives, initiating them.

I’m smart enough to listen when, instead of believing a gas canister or electrical transformer, etc, has exploded, a trained fireman says, “Oh My God, these b******* put bombs in here like they did in 1993!

I’m smart enough to question when a BBC reporter says, “Then, an hour later than that we had that big explosion from much, much lower - I don't know what on Earth caused that.

I have set out some of the many accounts of explosions, bombs and secondary devices in my post here. I have explained why they are strongly suggestive of planted rather than ‘natural’ explosives here.

I stand corrected, and withdraw my statement: "You are smart enough to know that things explode in fires and that people saying "it sounded like a bomb going off" doesn't mean that it was a bomb going off."

Obviously, I was wrong.

A device of the size seen in the video I linked may only be able to melt a ¾ inch hole but I am not suggesting a unit of those dimensions would be used for demolition. Scale the device up and add additional ejection points.

And, again, we are in the realm of fictional devices.

Incidentally, most of the columns at the impact level were of steel less than 2 inches thick – it’s not a lot.

2 inches of steel is huge. It's big enough to qualify the WTC supporting structures as the largest in the world. You won't dismiss them so easily.

There is obviously a distinction between what I am putting forward as evidence and possibilities I am putting forward for the presence of that evidence. I have always maintained that overall the WTC demolition was unconventional.

Then stop referring to it as a conventional demolition.

I thought I had made it clear the demolition was a combination of the two; both conventional methods and thermite involved at different steps. I say a section of the column would be melted away by the thermite, but a “chunk” would do.

To clarify, we are talking about a "conventional" size chunk (or section)?

Just to refresh, you said you will show how the WTC2 visible molten flow is not thermite. In your two posts since then you have failed to do that.

Just to refresh, no, I did not. I said, very clearly, that I would not explain how for reasons that you have failed to present in an attempt to make it look like I have failed.

Again, some honesty is needed here.

I think too much emphasis can be placed on the type of thermite used.

I agree, expecially since you seem to be leaning more to a thermic reaction than to actual thermite. It seems important to Acidhead, though.

When I say “thermite” I am generally referring to any such reaction which creates bursts of extremely high temperatures. The paper this thread is about states that comparison with the many forms of thermite must wait for a future study.

Then you need to stop making up your own definitions for existing terms. Thermite is a specific product with specific properties. Thermic reactions are more general, and would make more sense in your argument (although they still wouldn't work).

Admit that you are not referring to a conventional explosive demolition, and we can move on to the flow you believe is thermite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say “thermite” I am generally referring to any such reaction which creates bursts of extremely high temperatures.

i think this sums up his entire argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't take a conventional explosive demoliton, change out steps, equipment, heck, entire processes, and still refer to it as a conventional explosive demolition, without confusing people.

I don’t know how to break it down any more simply: the demolition as a whole was obviously unconventional though could contain some conventional elements.

Using the steam powered bicycle example again – the overall concept would be unconventional though the bicycle wheels and steam engine could be based on conventional templates.

Ergo, your thermite charge, like your steam-powered bicycle, is fictional.

If someone told you they had constructed the first steam powered bicycle would you be decrying that the inventor is a liar and how unfathomably impossible it all is to you?

Again, you need to stop making up your own definitions to technical terms. A squib is not a large plume of smoke, nor is it caused by large pressure waves. A squib is a small explosive used for a variety of things such as special effect (blood splatters) or, in demolition, as initiators. You would not see squibs on any face of the WTC because they would not be at the faces, they would be in the center, right next to the explosives, initiating them.

I haven’t time to argue over semantics. When you say, “A squib is not a large plume of smoke” that makes it clear you know perfectly well what I was referring to. When talking about this characteristic of the collapses, the word ‘squib’ is commonly used.

When I say ‘squib’ I am referring to the smoke plumes generally at the centre face of the Towers ahead of the collapse progression and which happen to line up with the core box columns: -

linked-image

I stand corrected, and withdraw my statement: "You are smart enough to know that things explode in fires and that people saying "it sounded like a bomb going off" doesn't mean that it was a bomb going off."

Obviously, I was wrong.

If you would stop trying to be smart and had checked my links, you may have learnt that you were right. From the second post linked: -

“I agree that some explosions would, no doubt, be due to the fires and collapses. There are though a number of important features which lead to the conclusion that these explosions were separate events aside from the impacts: -”

Fires or not, the WTC explosions witnessed were remarkable.

2 inches of steel is huge. It's big enough to qualify the WTC supporting structures as the largest in the world. You won't dismiss them so easily.

I’m not dismissing the WTC columns; I’m making the point that if such a small device can cut a ¾ inch steel rod then, after scaling up the device, 2 inches of steel could be equally as well decimated.

To clarify, we are talking about a "conventional" size chunk (or section)?

Well, I am taking that the

is one thermite charge. So what size section do you believe that quantity of thermite would melt from a column if ejected horizontally? I assume an unconventional size section as we are dealing with thermite in this question.

Then you need to stop making up your own definitions for existing terms. Thermite is a specific product with specific properties. Thermic reactions are more general, and would make more sense in your argument (although they still wouldn't work).

That is not my understanding. Thermite does not necessarily have to be the most common aluminium/iron oxide reaction – alternative oxides can be used and even alternatives to aluminium so long as it is more reactive than the oxide element. From there you can add extras such as sulphur to create thermate or UFG mixes to create nano/super-thermite.

I don’t want to drag out this argument because as I have said, the type of thermite used is not so important as knowing that there was thermetic material in the WTC. If you want to understand my take on thermite, please skim over the Wiki article which even contains a further link to a copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite.

i think this sums up his entire argument

Take from my argument whatever makes you happy :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technology for a thermite charge is absolutely existent, just not a known working example. To make this obvious, the technology for a steam powered bicycle is existent but it would be an extremely inefficient method of transport and so has not been created. It’s the same for a thermite charge which would have little commercial potential… but doesn’t mean it could not be useful in the affair we are discussing.

I just wonder, if you are in full understanding of the two <bolded> issues as above, then why are you continuing to insist on some thermite having been used in 9/11 at all? Aquatis told you already, that "super-thermite" is a red herring - what else do you want to hear?

In the other post you include the image, showing a sky-scraper collapse, when burnt in the middle of the eight - so what?

linked-imageYou blow up [for educational purposes] a cow-shed, and it would also show the result of a roof, collapsing onto a foundation - but in the discussed case, thousands tons of concrete construction is collapsing on the "foundation" which is at least 70 metres above the ground zero - so, what is surprising in the bits to fall DOWN? Mind you, on your photo they do not fly PERPENDICULARLY to the building sides! Means - there was NO EXPLOSION!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know how to break it down any more simply: the demolition as a whole was obviously unconventional though could contain some conventional elements.

Then just admit already that it was not a conventional explosive demolition. If a demolition does not follow the process that every single other conventional demolition follows, then you have to call it unconventional.

Look, you know, I know, pretty much everyone here knows that the only reason you want to keep calling it a conventional demolition is so that people can't use the "It's a demolition because it doesn't look like a demolition" counter against you. But it's over. Heck, your own description of what you think happened makes it clear it wouldn't look like a demolition. Just be honest, man. All you have to do is say "It wasn't a conventional demolition." and we can move on. But I'm not going to let you mumble under your breath that it was, because then you are going to continue with your intellectually dishonest tactic of pretending something was something that it wasn't just because you decided to call it that.

Using the steam powered bicycle example again – the overall concept would be unconventional though the bicycle wheels and steam engine could be based on conventional templates.

Then just admit that it was not a conventional explosive demolition.

If someone told you they had constructed the first steam powered bicycle would you be decrying that the inventor is a liar and how unfathomably impossible it all is to you?

Of course not. I would simply ask to see the prototype.

I haven’t time to argue over semantics. When you say, “A squib is not a large plume of smoke” that makes it clear you know perfectly well what I was referring to. When talking about this characteristic of the collapses, the word ‘squib’ is commonly used.

No, it is not, and not you are not going to dismiss it with a wave of your hand and a haughty "I haven’t time to argue over semantics." These are technical terms, they refer to specific things, and the things that you are using them to refer to are not them. You called a plume of smoke a squib, you referred to it as being cause by pressure waves, and even at that, I corrected you and referred to them correctly as explosives, and went on to explain why explosives would be useless in that position.

When I say ‘squib’ I am referring to the smoke plumes generally at the centre face of the Towers ahead of the collapse progression and which happen to line up with the core box columns: -

You cannot refer to squibs as plumes that bust through enforced windows and go 40 to 50 feet beyond, just like you can't call melting a support column a conventional demolition. You cannot redefine existing terms just for your convenience. It's not honest.

What's funny is that you even act surprised that anyone gets confused at this!

If you would stop trying to be smart and had checked my links, you may have learnt that you were right. From the second post linked: -

“I agree that some explosions would, no doubt, be due to the fires and collapses. There are though a number of important features which lead to the conclusion that these explosions were separate events aside from the impacts: -”

Fires or not, the WTC explosions witnessed were remarkable.

Like I said, I won't go into this deviation until the first point is put to rest.

I’m not dismissing the WTC columns; I’m making the point that if such a small device can cut a ¾ inch steel rod then, after scaling up the device, 2 inches of steel could be equally as well decimated.

And, like I said, that is wrong both conceptually and practically. Once we settle the first point, we can move on and I will explain why

Well, I am taking that the
is one thermite charge.

That should definitely be our next point of discussion.

So what size section do you believe that quantity of thermite would melt from a column if ejected horizontally? I assume an unconventional size section as we are dealing with thermite in this question.

Oh yeah! Heck, when I first heard this theory, the quantity people were talking about was so out of proportion that I couldn't even conceive of it as the actual argument. It took me about two weeks to realize that it wasn't me being confused, but the people where actually claiming what they were claiming! I'll explain that when we talk about the flow. It's pretty interesting stuff.

That is not my understanding. Thermite does not necessarily have to be the most common aluminium/iron oxide reaction – alternative oxides can be used and even alternatives to aluminium so long as it is more reactive than the oxide element. From there you can add extras such as sulphur to create thermate or UFG mixes to create nano/super-thermite.

Thermite is actually an aluminum, iron oxide, base, with a few other components that I won't talk about here, for safety reasons. To that base, you can add other components that change the properties of the original, but they don't change the actual composition of it. Thermate is a type of thermite. Superthermite is merely thermite that is more finely ground (seriously, that's all it is.) Just like thermate burns slower, superthermite burns faster. They are both thermites, however.

Thermic reactions, on the other hand, refer to more than just thermite. A thermal lance is an example of a thermic reaction, even though it is made up almost entirely of magnesium.

I don’t want to drag out this argument because as I have said, the type of thermite used is not so important as knowing that there was thermetic material in the WTC. If you want to understand my take on thermite, please skim over the Wiki article which even contains a further link to a copper oxide/aluminum nanothermite.

Do you think that, maybe, the reason why you haven't been able to convince anyone of your point, or that the point in general is simply not taken seriously by the engineering community, might be because the people promoting it don't attach much importance to the central theme of their own argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind you, on your photo they do not fly PERPENDICULARLY to the building sides! Means - there was NO EXPLOSION!

I’m hesitant to respond to this after you claimed that pictures of silver molten aluminium were actually red but… if you look at the areas I circled, it is seen that the ejection is perpendicular to the building face.

Then just admit already that it was not a conventional explosive demolition. If a demolition does not follow the process that every single other conventional demolition follows, then you have to call it unconventional.

Do you actually read my posts? It may help you if I quote myself…

I have always maintained that overall the WTC demolition was unconventional.
the demolition as a whole was obviously unconventional

There are many other instances on this thread where it can readily be inferred that I am referring to the WTC demolitions as unconventional. If you still don’t understand me, I can go further back in time…

… a top-down, unconventional controlled demolition.
I would say it is quite an unconventional controlled demolition… though a demolition nonetheless.
I am still arguing it is an unconventional demolition exhibiting characteristics of standard demolitions
… there is much evidence that the demolitions of the Towers and WTC7 were unconventional
Of course this was not identical to a conventional controlled demolition.

Please tell me you get it now.

Look, you know, I know, pretty much everyone here knows that the only reason you want to keep calling it a conventional demolition is so that people can't use the "It's a demolition because it doesn't look like a demolition" counter against you.

I see now why you are getting so hung up on this. I’m not trying to counter anything, only explain how an unconventional demolition could contain some conventional elements. The similarities between the unconventional WTC demolition and conventional demolitions are the following: -

  • Sudden onset
  • Near freefall
  • Virtually symmetrical
  • Complete collapse
  • Visible explosive squibs
These features have never occurred in buildings of this type before except in controlled demolition… let alone three times in one day.

Of course not. I would simply ask to see the prototype.

You really couldn’t envisage a steam powered bicycle without first seeing a prototype? That’s interesting. If you have such a lack of mental creativity I can see why you struggle with the whole concept of an unconventional demolition.

Thermite is actually an aluminum, iron oxide, base…

Can I stop you there and ask why this paper refers to a copper oxide/aluminium base as thermite? I will tell you – because it does not have to be iron. There are many mixes that would fall under the broad ‘thermite’ heading but the reactions and their results would be similar.

Do you think that, maybe, the reason why you haven't been able to convince anyone of your point, or that the point in general is simply not taken seriously by the engineering community, might be because the people promoting it don't attach much importance to the central theme of their own argument?

There are 643 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you will not find an equal number of professionals in support of the official story.

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you actually read my posts? It may help you if I quote myself…[

There are many other instances on this thread where it can readily be inferred that I am referring to the WTC demolitions as unconventional. If you still don’t understand me, I can go further back in time…

Please tell me you get it now.

All you have to do is say the words "It was not a conventional explosive demolition." and we can move on.

I see now why you are getting so hung up on this. I’m not trying to counter anything, only explain how an unconventional demolition could contain some conventional elements. The similarities between the unconventional WTC demolition and conventional demolitions are the following: -

  • Sudden onset
  • Near freefall
  • Virtually symmetrical
  • Complete collapse
  • Visible explosive squibs
These features have never occurred in buildings of this type before except in controlled demolition… let alone three times in one day.

None of those things are properties of conventional explosive demolitions. Not a single one. They are all, however, properties of a collapsing high-rise, regardless of the cause of the collapse.

You really couldn’t envisage a steam powered bicycle without first seeing a prototype? That’s interesting. If you have such a lack of mental creativity I can see why you struggle with the whole concept of an unconventional demolition.

I can envision a steam-powered bicycle quite easily (I am quite a fan of retro-future and steampunk). I can also envision habitats under the sea, anti-gravity backpacks, and many, many other things, some more plausible than others. That does not remove them from the realm of fiction, nor does my requesting a prototype of whomever invented them indicate any lack of creativity. Rather, it indicates a good dose of common sense.

Now, if that rather transparent attempt to make me look bad is over, let's continue.

Can I stop you there and ask why this paper refers to a copper oxide/aluminium base as thermite? I will tell you – because it does not have to be iron. There are many mixes that would fall under the broad ‘thermite’ heading but the reactions and their results would be similar.

Certainly. Because copper oxide, just like iron oxide, and pretty much any other oxide, serves simply as the oxidizer in the catalystic reaction. As you know from the Wiki page you posted "Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide, which produces an aluminothermic reaction known as a thermite reaction". I'll take the blame for that, though. I'll be a little clearer in the future.

There are 634 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and you will not find an equal number of professionals in support of the official story.

Don't need to. After all, the question was why should the point be taken seriously when the people promoting it didn't attach importance to it.

You aren't going to divert me. You can try, but it's not going to happen.

Now, do you understand that the properties of a conventional explosive demolition and the properties of a falling building are two separate and distinct things?

If you can understand that, then you can understand why what you are proposing is not a conventional explosive demolition. If that is the case, then we can move on to the thermite (or thermic) flow. But we won't until you understand that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All you have to do is say the words "It was not a conventional explosive demolition." and we can move on.

Ok, I will do that, right after you say the words, “aquatus cannot read”. Alternatively you can just read my post above properly and we can move on.

None of those things are properties of conventional explosive demolitions. Not a single one. They are all, however, properties of a collapsing high-rise, regardless of the cause of the collapse.

Oh, so the conventional demolitions you have seen before have slow onsets, a drawn out collapse, topple to the side and only partially bring the structure down. :huh:

I think part of the mistake you are making is to start from the point that “this was a collapse” rather than ask “how could it collapse?” I mean, you have no precedent whatsoever to be claiming that sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete collapses are properties of a ‘naturally’ collapsing high-rise.

I can envision a steam-powered bicycle quite easily

Good, then you don’t need a prototype to know it could exist – as with a thermite demolition charge.

You aren't going to divert me. You can try, but it's not going to happen.

Divert you from what? You keep promising explanations that are never forthcoming.

Now, do you understand that the properties of a conventional explosive demolition and the properties of a falling building are two separate and distinct things?

Yes, of course the properties of a falling building are different to that of a controlled demolition. It is exactly those properties that highlight the WTC buildings as controlled demolitions, albeit unconventional.

If that is the case, then we can move on to the thermite (or thermic) flow. But we won't until you understand that point.

Please do move on - you were going to explain 3-4 posts back why the visible WTC2 molten flow cannot possibly be thermite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I will do that, right after you say the words, “aquatus cannot read”. Alternatively you can just read my post above properly and we can move on.

You got it.

"Aquatus cannot read"

There you go.

Now it's your turn.

Oh, so the conventional demolitions you have seen before have slow onsets, a drawn out collapse, topple to the side and only partially bring the structure down. :huh:

Nope. But a few building collapses that I have seen have been like that.

I think part of the mistake you are making is to start from the point that “this was a collapse” rather than ask “how could it collapse?” I mean, you have no precedent whatsoever to be claiming that sudden, near freefall, virtually symmetrical, complete collapses are properties of a ‘naturally’ collapsing high-rise.

I think the mistake that you are making is that you think a high-rise could fall any other way than how the WTC towers fell.

Good, then you don’t need a prototype to know it could exist – as with a thermite demolition charge.

No, I don't need a prototype to know it could exist. If, however, someone claims that they rode one to New York, I would need to see one to believe it.

Divert you from what? You keep promising explanations that are never forthcoming.

You aren't fooling anyone, Q24. You know perfectly well what you have to do to move to the next point.

Yes, of course the properties of a falling building are different to that of a controlled demolition. It is exactly those properties that highlight the WTC buildings as controlled demolitions, albeit unconventional.

And as soon as you can say "It was not a conventional explosive demolition", we can move on.

Please do move on - you were going to explain 3-4 posts back why the visible WTC2 molten flow cannot possibly be thermite?

No, I wasn't, and everyone knows it. The only one keeping me from explaining it is you.

Settle the first point, and we can move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Aquatus cannot read"

I really hoped you were going to take the alternative option.

I have had second thoughts and have no wish to carry on a discussion with someone who admits they cannot read.

I am content that I have responded to and countered any points you brought up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y

I think the mistake that you are making is that you think a high-rise could fall any other way than how the WTC towers fell.

I think there is a million "other" ways the tower could fall. I think that the way it fell was suspect considering the lopsided-ness of the "official" initial damage.

Also i would like to provide a video URL showing damage in the lobby. The official story of how this damage was caused is BS- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzwRcZcXIrk...feature=related

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a million "other" ways the tower could fall. I think that the way it fell was suspect considering the lopsided-ness of the "official" initial damage.

The asymmetric damage and direction of the building tilt is another point in which the official story fails but thermite can explain.

WTC2 was impacted on the South with damage carrying along the East side and then the upper block tilted slightly to the South-East at collapse initiation – all well and good. WTC1 was impacted on the North side with damage localised to the North and then tilted slightly… to the South – not good!

The above does not make sense in the case of a fire collapse propagating from the impact damage zone. The above can though make great sense depending on the layout of thermite charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The asymmetric damage and direction of the building tilt is another point in which the official story fails but thermite can explain.

WTC2 was impacted on the South with damage carrying along the East side and then the upper block tilted slightly to the South-East at collapse initiation – all well and good. WTC1 was impacted on the North side with damage localised to the North and then tilted slightly… to the South – not good!

The above does not make sense in the case of a fire collapse propagating from the impact damage zone. The above can though make great sense depending on the layout of thermite charges.

Not really a valid argument! I am not an architect, but I was for 10 years living in a tower building of 14 stories only - and the technical documentation on it was stating that it was design to oscillate with up to 2 metres (~7 feet) amplitude, as measured at the roof level. Basing on this, a 28-storied building must oscillate with at least 4 metres amplitude, while a 56-storied one is supposed to have 8 metres deviation from vertical position, again - at the roof level. These towers DO NOT stay upright all the time, they MOVE depending on the wind direction. Therefore, as soon as the Twin Towers did not collapse at once, there easily could be some difference in the direction of their collapse.

Regarding you previous note, that on the provided photo the direction of the objects, flying out of the building, was horizontal - NO! The DUST was indeed ejected horizontally, but the heavier pieces are clearly seen as driven DOWN by gravity force, means the horizontal vector in their movement was negligible - which is not the case if any explosion takes place, the pieces were supposed to fly HUNDREDS of metres. Obviously (for anyone who has ever studied the Material Science), when the upper stores collapse on the lower stores, there is supposed to be a short-living area of elevated air pressure somewhere in a middle, and this is precisely what is seen on the photos. This observation is not related anyhow to the thermite or superthermite theories.

Obviously, few dynamite sticks, attached to the columns on the same level and detonated at once, could cause SIMILAR effect even in the absence of the planes at all - however this is not what we all saw and heard! Controlled explosions have a habit to produce a SOUND, which remained undetected by millions of the watchers. Have you ever heard a 12g gunshot??? I assure you, that a single dynamite candle blast is much noisier... And there is no such form of thermite in this world which can substitute for dynamite efficiency, but without its noise (remember, the miserable now-unemployed Danish Chemist suggested 100 TONS of thermite as equivalent!).

The theory of thermite has no value at all, be it a normal one, or a nano-one which they "discovered".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really a valid argument! I am not an architect, but I was for 10 years living in a tower building of 14 stories only - and the technical documentation on it was stating that it was design to oscillate with up to 2 metres (~7 feet) amplitude, as measured at the roof level. Basing on this, a 28-storied building must oscillate with at least 4 metres amplitude, while a 56-storied one is supposed to have 8 metres deviation from vertical position, again - at the roof level.

Putting aside the building you lived in, which seems rather extreme, and concentrating on the WTC buildings, NIST say the sway was only, “about 3 ft to 4 ft under design wind conditions”.

These towers DO NOT stay upright all the time, they MOVE depending on the wind direction. Therefore, as soon as the Twin Towers did not collapse at once, there easily could be some difference in the direction of their collapse.

This explanation is easily dismissed…

NIST’s analysis of WTC2 immediately after impact showed an oscillation of, “approximately 20 in. at the roof level” which damped down to a minor approximate 3 inches within 3 minutes. Even that 3 inch oscillation is spread over the height of the structure, meaning a sway of still less within any set group of floors.

I hope you see how entirely insignificant that oscillation is compared to the importance of structural damage when discussing tilt direction of the upper blocks at collapse initiation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

plaster and aluminum reaction, with white smoke (all present at the WTC towers) -

Yet, another reason not to accept the controlled demolition conspiracy theory put forth by Jones, et al.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hoped you were going to take the alternative option.

I'm sure you did. It's obvious that this doesn't have anything to do with your defeated arguments. This is about nothing more than your pride.

You are simply incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

I have had second thoughts and have no wish to carry on a discussion with someone who admits they cannot read.

In other words, you are unable to respond, and therefore you are retreating. Advancing backwards. Throwing in the towel.

You are giving up, not because you cannot argue, but because you know that you are wrong and are unable to admit it.

Say the words that you claim that you have already said, but never actually have, and we can move on.

I am content that I have responded to and countered any points you brought up.

That would be laughable if it wasn't so transparent.

By refusing to allow you to deviate from a single point, you have slowly had to retreat from claim after claim and your knowledge of the subject has been stripped bare. You went from advocating super-thermite, to saying it was probably just normal thermite, to "heck, it's not that important! I really just meant thermic all this time!" You went from "It's a conventional explosive demolition!" to "Well, sure, it doesn't look like a conventional demolition, but it is!", to "Well, okay, it's unconventional, but it has conventional parts!" Significantly, you went from "I know what I'm talking about!" To "Look, when I said this, what I meant was that." To, finally, "Okay, look, What I said may mean this, but I have decided that I will use these words to mean that instead, so my argument is still right!"

And, course, your final bark, reminiscent of those bygone days in the sandbox: "Ok, I will do that, right after you say the words, “aquatus cannot read”."

A challenge which I met. And when it was your turn, well, you turned and ran.

Man up, Q24. Admit that you have learned something, and move forward. You may actually learn how to make your argument a valid one (yes, there really is a way in which it could work!), but you will never find it if you insist on remaining in the exact same morass that you have been sinking in for the past several years.

Swallow that useless surfeit of pride, say clearly what you claim you have already admitted, and you can move this conversation forward. Otherwise, the standstill remains your fault, and yours alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of those things are properties of conventional explosive demolitions. Not a single one. They are all, however, properties of a collapsing high-rise, regardless of the cause of the collapse.

Nope. But a few building collapses that I have seen have been like that.

What collapses of steel high-rise structures that were not controlled demolitions have you seen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure you did. It's obvious that this doesn't have anything to do with your defeated arguments. This is about nothing more than your pride.

You are simply incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

In other words, you are unable to respond, and therefore you are retreating. Advancing backwards. Throwing in the towel.

You are giving up, not because you cannot argue, but because you know that you are wrong and are unable to admit it.

Say the words that you claim that you have already said, but never actually have, and we can move on.

That would be laughable if it wasn't so transparent.

By refusing to allow you to deviate from a single point, you have slowly had to retreat from claim after claim and your knowledge of the subject has been stripped bare. You went from advocating super-thermite, to saying it was probably just normal thermite, to "heck, it's not that important! I really just meant thermic all this time!" You went from "It's a conventional explosive demolition!" to "Well, sure, it doesn't look like a conventional demolition, but it is!", to "Well, okay, it's unconventional, but it has conventional parts!" Significantly, you went from "I know what I'm talking about!" To "Look, when I said this, what I meant was that." To, finally, "Okay, look, What I said may mean this, but I have decided that I will use these words to mean that instead, so my argument is still right!"

And, course, your final bark, reminiscent of those bygone days in the sandbox: "Ok, I will do that, right after you say the words, “aquatus cannot read”."

A challenge which I met. And when it was your turn, well, you turned and ran.

Man up, Q24. Admit that you have learned something, and move forward. You may actually learn how to make your argument a valid one (yes, there really is a way in which it could work!), but you will never find it if you insist on remaining in the exact same morass that you have been sinking in for the past several years.

Swallow that useless surfeit of pride, say clearly what you claim you have already admitted, and you can move this conversation forward. Otherwise, the standstill remains your fault, and yours alone.

The Lion King has spoken>>>>>>>>

LOL ... pride... lol... way to go Q... your pride is on the line HAHAHAHAH LOL!... too funny ....

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.