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

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

None. Good thing I didn't say I had.

High-rises are buildings, but buildings are not necessarily high-rises.

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

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

Quite laughable, I agree. However, It would be more accurate to say that it is not "his pride on the line", but rather "his pride in his way".

I have always found that the worth of a post (and by extension, the poster) can generally be determined by the amount of relevant points, with the data and references to support those points provided in the post itself. Some take the time to put together a post concerning those points, so that a discussion may move forward. They give a logical trail of steps that lead to a given conclusion. Then they post a manner in which they can be shown wrong, merely by having their opposite meet that standard.

Others who post...well, their posts seem to have a lack of both data and relevance.

As I said, the quality of the post reflects the quality of the poster.

Q24, are you ready to admit that what you are proposing is not a conventional explosive demolition?

Edited by aquatus1
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

There are plenty of other reasons for the buildings to have been wired. I do believe they knew that an attack was likely, but there's no evidence beyond this, to conclude a false flag operation.

And if they knew the attack was coming (which I believe they did) and they also knew the building was already wired for demolition (regardless of the reason) - then everything was already in place for them to let the attack happen, blow up the buildings afterwards, and then claim it was due to the planes crashing into them.

If the building were already wired as you state, then it explains a lot of things people have wondered about how it would have been set up for demolition. And of course it would explain why the buildings collapsed in the fashion that they did.

Now all that said - I'd love to have some idea as to where you got this info in regards to the buildings being wired for the reasons you stated. It does seem to make sense however. It also seems like a reasonable possibility in my opinion.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before everyone gets all freaked out about this, let me tell you a little secret. I have been given reason to believe, through sources that I cannot easily verify or name, but which I suspect are verifiable and trustworthy, that these buildings were wired to implode symmetrically long before 9/11, in order to protect the surrounding buildings and inhabitants. The reason is simple. The government knew these buildings were a likely target, and had good reason to believe that if they collapsed asymmetrically, it would endanger far more people, than if they wired them, in the event of an attack. They may also have been required to do this, in order to obtain insurance on these structures.

Long ago I dreamed of these attacks in amazing detail, although I didn't know the meaning of my dream until that day. The dream was extremely accurate, and I have detailed it both here and on other sites. It is because of this curious dream, that I began to study the various conspiracy theories, looking for clues to a source. This search led me to the chemistry, and I too concluded what these scientists have now apparently verified. However, I have no reason to believe that this was a false flag type of operation. There are plenty of other reasons for the buildings to have been wired. I do believe they knew that an attack was likely, but there's no evidence beyond this, to conclude a false flag operation.

You're seriously trying to say that these building where wired with thermite in the chance that an attack happened they could bring them down into their own footprint?

Easy and fast answer.... your delusional :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're seriously trying to say that these building where wired with thermite in the chance that an attack happened they could bring them down into their own footprint?

Easy and fast answer.... your delusional :wacko:

The buildings were known to be targets for terrorist. His explanation as to why they would have previously been wired seems like a reasonable one to me.

That doesn't mean I believe it to be true, but it certainly seems plausible. It may also explain a lot of other questions regarding how hot the steel got, why the building turned to dust, and other things that I'd have to go back and look at in order to word them correctly.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The buildings were known to be targets for terrorist. His explanation as to why they would have previously been wired seems like a reasonable one to me.

That doesn't mean I believe it to be true, but it certainly seems plausible. It may also explain a lot of other questions regarding how hot the steel got, why the building turned to dust, and other things that I'd have to go back and look at to word correctly.

If that was the case then they could have been up front and given this info years ago. It makes no sense for this information to be withheld from the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was the case then they could have been up front and given this info years ago. It makes no sense for this information to be withheld from the public.

Look at the reaction you had at the mere suggestion it may have been wired for insurance purposes and for the safety of individuals around the area should a terrorist attack occur.

Now after reassesing your reaction, try and tell me again why it would "make no sense for this information to be withheld from the public."

The government always thinks they know what is best for us. There is a large number of things the government doesn't make the public aware simply because they don't think we need to know, or would fear a public backlash if we knew about it.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the reaction you had at the mere suggestion it may have been wired for insurance purposes and for the safety of individuals around the area should a terrorist attack occur.

Now after reassesing your reaction, try and tell me again why it would "make no sense for this information to be withheld from the public."

The government always thinks they know what is best for us. There is a large number of things the government doesn't make the public aware simply because they don't think we need to know, or would fear a public backlash if we knew about it.

Better for it come out up front or 8 years later? I am 100% sure that if it was wired for it that it would have been revealed by now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that was the case then they could have been up front and given this info years ago. It makes no sense for this information to be withheld from the public.

The information is meant be held forever, it is meant for UM forums and nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better for it come out up front or 8 years later? I am 100% sure that if it was wired for it that it would have been revealed by now.

Doesn't matter when it's better for it to come out. If they don't want us to know, they don't tell us. Why in the world would the government let it be known buildings people work in are wired with explosives?

In fact, it'd be a horrible thing to let be known for the simple fact terrorists could then use it to their advantage.

Again, I'm not stating that I believe the posters comments are correct. As for why the general public wouldn't be made aware of it though if it were - there are plenty of reasons why not.

Do you honestly believe the government lets everything they do known to the general public?

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

None. Good thing I didn't say I had.

High-rises are buildings, but buildings are not necessarily high-rises.

Then what high rise collapses are you basing your "properties" on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then what high rise collapses are you basing your "properties" on?

On none of them. The theories are based on physics as applied to engineering. They are confirmed by the collapsing WTC towers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at the reaction you had at the mere suggestion it may have been wired for insurance purposes and for the safety of individuals around the area should a terrorist attack occur.

Now after reassesing your reaction, try and tell me again why it would "make no sense for this information to be withheld from the public."

The government always thinks they know what is best for us. There is a large number of things the government doesn't make the public aware simply because they don't think we need to know, or would fear a public backlash if we knew about it.

This theory is comparatively easy to check - it is enough to search the other famous highraises, if they are also wired or not. Say, the Empire State building - surely with its name and history it must also be on a terrorist strikes list; this is enhanced by its old age, while its location presents a lot of danger to the neighbours if it collapses in an uncontrolled way. It is even possible to see if it has been ever wired like WTC - we know a technician in Denmark, who possesses a microscope, capable of determining nano-thermite even in the airborne city dust, not saying about the inside of a formerly wired building!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q24, are you ready to admit that what you are proposing is not a conventional explosive demolition?

Aquatus, your last couple of posts have been a complete and utter waste of time and space in regard to the topic. Further, the fallacious content and double-talk won’t be missed by anyone who follows our post exchange over the previous pages.

Now, in reference to the tiresome repetition of your question above - if you are not of the intelligence to accept the very clear answer in my post #137, then there is little value in us discussing further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aquatus, your last couple of posts have been a complete and utter waste of time and space in regard to the topic. Further, the fallacious content and double-talk won’t be missed by anyone who follows our post exchange over the previous pages.

So, no, you are not ready to admit that what you are proposing is not a conventional explosive demolition...Which means that, since we have obviously not settled the first point, nothing has been wasted.

You go to great lengths to be ambiguous in order to never admit that you are wrong. I am simply removing that tactic by being as clear as possible.

Now, in reference to the tiresome repetition of your question above - if you are not of the intelligence to accept the very clear answer in my post #137, then there is little value in us discussing further.

Ah, yes, I did miss that! So, just so we can be absolutely clear and I don't make the same error again, what you are saying in post 137 is that what you are proposing is indeed an unconventional demolition? On the whole?

If you do, then we can move on to the next point, which I believe you wanted to discuss the thermic flow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes, I did miss that! So, just so we can be absolutely clear and I don't make the same error again, what you are saying in post 137 is that what you are proposing is indeed an unconventional demolition? On the whole?

God help me – he asked again. :cry:

If you do, then we can move on to the next point, which I believe you wanted to discuss the thermic flow?

Yes, please move on before you drive me insane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God help me – he asked again. :cry:

Yes, please move on before you drive me insane.

LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God help me – he asked again. :cry:

I know it hurts, but the worst is over.

Yes, please move on before you drive me insane.

Oh, I'm good, but I can't take credit for that. I can only work with what's already there.

So, please, tell me what sort of process led to the thermic flow (where it came from, how it started, what it's composed of, etc...). Let's make that clear from the very beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL

Dynamite drop-in, Acid :tu:

Good to know we can always count on you to advance the topic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, please, tell me what sort of process led to the thermic flow (where it came from, how it started, what it's composed of, etc...). Let's make that clear from the very beginning.

You have been present throughout this thread so it is strange that you seem so far behind the discussion.

For explanation of the ‘thermic flow’ location, please see my post #117 where it is described how the charges could be displaced by the airliner impact.

For how the ‘thermic flow’ started, please see my post #48. Note the details regarding when it started and it is obvious that the visible flow began when the others in the core structure did, at the beginning of the impact zone demolition period shortly prior to collapse initiation.

As to what the ‘thermic flow’ composed of - I would have thought the description was self explanatory enough, along with my previous statements that thermite can vary in exact composition. The paper this thread begins with states the thermetic material discovered is composed of the following amongst others: “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have been present throughout this thread so it is strange that you seem so far behind the discussion.

Yeah, it's weird how I can get so lost when you answer questions so directly, clearly, and concisely.

But, it's only me who has this problem with you, right? So, it can't be an issue on your part.

For explanation of the ‘thermic flow’ location, please see my post #117 where it is described how the charges could be displaced by the airliner impact.

So, that would be this one:

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).

For how the ‘thermic flow’ started, please see my post #48. Note the details regarding when it started and it is obvious that the visible flow began when the others in the core structure did, at the beginning of the impact zone demolition period shortly prior to collapse initiation.

So, that would be this one:

No responses were received to either of the above.

In relation to the second question I am going to throw the information out here as it ties into the main topic regarding thermite at the WTC. The molten flow from WTC2 in the minutes leading to its collapse has been cited as supportive evidence of thermite since long before this latest journal paper was released. Viewing the images below it is not difficult to see why.

linked-image linked-image

WTC2 flow (left) Thermite reaction (right)

The ‘official’ story has put forward the idea of office debris, battery lead or aluminium as the cause of the WTC2 flow but these theories all suffer from the following negatives: -

1. No thick/dark smoke expected from debris

2. No flame expected from debris

3. No silver colour to indicate aluminium or lead

4. No dark/light patches/spots indicative of a mixture

5. Experiments to replicate molten metal/debris mix have proven unsuccessful

The following observations leave thermite as the leading contender: -

1. Light white smoke as given off from iron oxide in thermite reactions

2. No flame as in thermite reactions

3. Glowing orange/red as in thermite reactions

4. Completeness of substance colouration and consistency throughout

5. Timing of substance flow immediately prior to collapse

Of course there are still further issues such as the “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting” discovered by the initial FEMA investigation for which they speculated, “It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.” FEMA recommended a “detailed study” of this finding, which NIST ignored and has not been carried out to this day.

This is just to demonstrate that there is additional evidence supporting the use of thermite.

As to what the ‘thermic flow’ composed of - I would have thought the description was self explanatory enough, along with my previous statements that thermite can vary in exact composition. The paper this thread begins with states the thermetic material discovered is composed of the following amongst others: “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon”.

Q24, I spent three pages pointing out how you were using words that referred to specific things in reference to things they were not. Nothing you say is self-explanatory. Heck, getting you to explain it is like pulling teeth.

Okay, so please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but what you are suggesting is that thermite charges got displaced by the plane crash, then activated a little before the collapse and flowed out of the building. You said you had details, but I feel that I missed them. In all cases, is that the gist of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's weird how I can get so lost when you answer questions so directly, clearly, and concisely.

But, it's only me who has this problem with you, right? So, it can't be an issue on your part.

Yeah, weird. :wacko:

And correct - you are the first I can think of who has struggled to understand me.

So, that would be this one:

So, that would be this one:

Yes and yes – you’re on a roll! :yes:

Q24, I spent three pages pointing out how you were using words that referred to specific things in reference to things they were not. Nothing you say is self-explanatory. Heck, getting you to explain it is like pulling teeth.

Well again it’s weird you say that, when after having read my posts you come up with…

Okay, so please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but what you are suggesting is that thermite charges got displaced by the plane crash, then activated a little before the collapse and flowed out of the building. You said you had details, but I feel that I missed them. In all cases, is that the gist of it?

… which is entirely correct! It just goes to show that it’s not so hard to get the gist when you read peoples’ posts properly. Go Aquatus, go! :tu:

You said you were going to explain how the WTC2 molten flow cannot possibly be thermite some 70+ posts of this thread back. Now you seem to have got the gist of things, does that mean we are finally going to have your long awaited explanation? I won’t get my hopes up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

… which is entirely correct! It just goes to show that it’s not so hard to get the gist when you read peoples’ posts properly. Go Aquatus, go! :tu:

Yay me! And all I had to do was spend two pages getting you to tell me how to fish out the information from the 12 other pages that you had it in!

You said you were going to explain how the WTC2 molten flow cannot possibly be thermite some 70+ posts of this thread back.

Yeah, it took you long enough to get here.

Now you seem to have got the gist of things, does that mean we are finally going to have your long awaited explanation? I won’t get my hopes up.

Yes, we are indeed there!

There are a couple of ways in which we know that this is not thermite, or indeed, any sort of thermic reaction. We'll go through them one by one.

Now, you kept mentioning before that there are a lot of different thermite mixtures, and you wondered why I always referred to the standard iron oxide base. The reason is because this mix generates the highest temperatures, a necessity if you are proposing that large slabs of steel are being melted. The iron oxide mix burns at around 4500 degrees. That's pretty darn hot. Not only that, but it is a property of thermite that it is extremely conductive. This is an important point that will pop up again.

Now, the thermite was on concrete. The standard floor slab is about 4 inches of concrete and rebar. Concrete is hydrophilic, and will always contain trace amounts of water. Normally, this isn't an issue. Indeed, concrete cinder blocks are often used by metal caster and are exposed on an irregular basis to a molten metal bath. Regular metal causes the water within it to steam out. Depending on the amount and temperature, this can actually get dangerous as a trapped steam burst can shoot a sprinkle of molten metal at the unlucky caster. Mostly, the water has the time to steam out and bubble through the metal.

But that is with normal metal. Thermite is not normal metal. Not only is it 4 times hotter than molten aluminum by itself, it's conductivity is much higher. Now the steam in the concrete no longer has the luxury of steaming itself out. It will burst out explosively, spalling the concrete at an unbelievable rate. What's more, all those little chips of concrete are going to be turned instantly into lava (the many different silicates in concrete melt around 1200 to 1500 degrees). How long would it take thermite to melt through a concrete floor? Well, a thermal lance burns cooler than thermite, but still at a respectable 3800-4200 degrees. It will make a 2-inch hole in a floor slab in about 30 to 40 seconds.

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

With me so far, or do I need to expand on anything?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yay me! And all I had to do was spend two pages getting you to tell me how to fish out the information from the 12 other pages that you had it in!

No, you spent two pages repeatedly asking me to confirm that the demolition was unconventional. As soon as you moved on and asked “what sort of process led to the thermic flow”, I provided the suggested information for you. Still – yay! :w00t:

With me so far, or do I need to expand on anything?

I’m right there with you! :tu:

Can we talk in degree Celsius (oC) rather than degree Fahrenheit (oF) though please? Celsius seems the primary measurement and is used throughout the NIST WTC investigation. Just I was a little shocked to read thermite burns at “4,500 degrees” before I realised what was going on!

Also I do not believe the thermite would be pooling anywhere for any amount of time. The theory that metal sat nicely in a little ‘pooling cup’ while being heated and then throwing itself out of the building is all of the official story’s making – not one I find plausible. Pretty much as soon as the charge is initiated and the reaction begins I believe the flow becomes visible.

Aw, and I thought you were going to show how the flow cannot be thermite. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thermetic material discovered is composed of the following amongst others: “aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon”

LOL, Q24 - this "materials" you list comprise something like a HALF of the Earth crust (can tell more precisely tomorrow, after checking the CRC book at work). And out of them only first three are used in the thermite...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, Q24 - this "materials" you list comprise something like a HALF of the Earth crust (can tell more precisely tomorrow, after checking the CRC book at work). And out of them only first three are used in the thermite...

LOL, marabod – these materials are not found in nature “intimately mixed” on a nano scale.

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.