Which is it, truthers: bombs or thermite?

[CHF]

I'm getting a little tired of the way the TM switches back and forth between demolition charges and thermite depending on which piece of evidence is being discussed.

"Squibs," "freefall speed," "debris ejected sideways," and "some people heard explosions" is all cited as evidence of demolition charges blowing apart the WTC.

BUT....."molten steel," Steven Jones' microspheres, and the lack of loud CD charges on audio of the collapses is "proof" of thermite!

Sometimes I see truthers switch between the two in mid-senetence - as Richard Gage did in a CFRB radio debate when I pointed out how the usual sounds of a CD were not heard or recorded. "That's cuz they used thermite....and people heard explosions." :eek:

So let's clear this up once and for all: is it bombs or thermite?

It can't be both. If your position (like Gage's) is that thermite was used because bombs are too loud then say goodbye to all those "explosive" talking points because none of that could be caused by silent explosives.

If it's bombs you believe in then stop with the "molten steel" and Steven Jones.

[Alferd_Packer]

Exploding termites?

[Apollo20]

CHF:

NO!

You have it all wrong!

It was THERMATE:

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/gallery/tsgmicrothermate.jpg

Only trouble is Jones now appears to be backing away from therMAte and now insists it was therMIte. Thus is his recent e-mail exchanges with me he states that the iron-rich spheres contain Si, even though the slide noted above shows no Si!

[twinstead]

What is the difference between the two again for us science idiots?

[Dave Rogers]

Can we have a poll?

(a) Explosives
(b) Thermite
(c) Thermate
(d) On planet X, therm*te is an explosive

If we got a whole load of (d) responses, it would confirm a common suspicion about the truth movement...

Dave

[Swing Dangler]

Can we have a poll?

(a) Explosives
(b) Thermite
(c) Thermate
(d) On planet X, therm*te is an explosive

If we got a whole load of (d) responses, it would confirm a common suspicion about the truth movement...

Dave

I would add (e): petition the government to release the steel to be tested for any and all explosive or thermite based residues to rule out the use of or non use of explosives based devices or thermite based devices.

[Dave Rogers]

I would add (e): petition the government to release the steel to be tested for any and all explosive or thermite based residues to rule out the use of or non use of explosives based devices or thermite based devices.

Since the question would be something along the lines of "What caused the WTC towers to collapse?", it would have to be an extraordinarily heavy petition.

Dave

[Juustin]

What is the difference between the two again for us science idiots?

I'm not a chemistry expert by any means, but I believe usually when there's two different forms of a compound, -ite and -ate are used to denote which version it is. I think the difference is that -ate usually means it's the version with more oxygen atoms. I could be wrong though, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I am.

IE:
nitrite - NO2
nitrate - NO3
sulfite - SO3
sultate - SO4

You get the idea.

[Apollo20]

The term "Thermite" is a little different because it is actually a trade name that goes back over 100 years I believe.

"Thermate" is more recent, and according to Jones is thermite to which a little sulfur is added. However, I believe it is actually thermite with any gas producing additive such as a perchlorate, a nitrate, a peroxide or sulfur.

[Alferd_Packer]

Yes, you laughed at my plan to use exploding termites to demolish the towers, but the last laugh will be on you!

BWAAAH HAAAA HAAAAA HAAAAA

My mutant, flesh eating termites will soon be released upon the world.

http://www.uncoveror.com/termites.htm

[defaultdotxbe]

What is the difference between the two again for us science idiots?
thermite is a "pure" mixture, usually iron oxide and aluminum

thermate is a military inscendiary, about 60% thermite, but with other things added to lower ignition temp and slightly increase max temp and/or burning time

[JamesB]

It is Schroedinger's terrorists. It is both at the same time, while simultaneously being neither.

[CHF]

I would add (e): petition the government to release the steel to be tested for any and all explosive or thermite based residues to rule out the use of or non use of explosives based devices or thermite based devices.

First we'd need a reason to suspect that explosives or thermite were used or else we might as well test for marshmellow residue to rule out an attack by the marshmellow man.

And don't forget, Swing, that you would actually need to prepare two petitions, as opposed to just one.

Your first petition would be to have WTC steel tested for explosive or thermite based residues, while your second petition would demand to know why the government scrubbed off all the explosive or thermite based residues.

[Apollo20]

I think a big problem with Jones' thermite/thermate theory is that there are many variants of these incendiaries, so when he claims to have found its "signature" in a WTC dust sample, I would ask: a signature of what? Jones is apparently aware of this problem but has never actually spelled it out (as far as I know).

The basic, original, "thermite" formulation goes back to the chemist Goldschmidt who actually called it "thermit", but even he applied it to exothermic reactions involving the reduction of almost any metal oxide with aluminum. Iron oxide is most commonly used, but NiO, Co3O4, Cr2O3, MoO3, MnO2, CuO, etc, are also used. More importantly, metal salts such as NaF, KF, AlF3 or NaAlF6 are sometimes added to increase the combustion rate of the thermite mixture. The "thermate" variation, which makes ordinary thermite behave more like an explosive by generating gases such as N2, O2, etc, only adds to the complexity.

What this means is that Jones, (or anyone else!), can analyse a WTC dust sample and proclaim it to be a themite/thermate "residue" even if it contains Cu, Zn, Ba, Cr, Mn, etc, etc, as well as Fe and Al. In fact Jones turns this argument on its head and says that the presence of traces of Cu or Mn, or F, or whatever, in a sample containing Fe and Al PROVES it's a thermite residue!

[fuelair]

The term "Thermite" is a little different because it is actually a trade name that goes back over 100 years I believe.

"Thermate" is more recent, and according to Jones is thermite to which a little sulfur is added. However, I believe it is actually thermite with any gas producing additive such as a perchlorate, a nitrate, a peroxide or sulfur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate

esplaines it pretty well!!

[liverleef]

I would add (e): petition the government to release the steel to be tested for any and all explosive or thermite based residues to rule out the use of or non use of explosives based devices or thermite based devices.

If a substantial amount of thermite was used (and it would take a substantial amount) wouldn't you be able to identify it via visual inspection? Steel exposed to thermite/thermate would look very different from other debris no?

[DC]

a combo of Thermite and explosives maybe?

[Anti-sophist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermate


That particular page is under almost constant assault by truthers. Just be warned.

[CHF]

a combo of Thermite and explosives maybe?

Sure why not, eh?

Feel free to suggest what each device would have been used for.

[defaultdotxbe]

If a substantial amount of thermite was used (and it would take a substantial amount) wouldn't you be able to identify it via visual inspection? Steel exposed to thermite/thermate would look very different from other debris no?
i addressed this at a post i made at my forums
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?showtopic=1440&hl=

naturally the resident truthers missed the point entirely

[DC]

Sure why not, eh?

Feel free to suggest what each device would have been used for.

well i guess to demolish the building.

[CHF]

well i guess to demolish the building.

I mean explain what function each device would have performed.

For example, if you're gonna claim that the NWO blasted the WTC into dust with bombs then what exactly was the point of using thermite?

[defaultdotxbe]

I mean explain what function each device would have performed.

For example, if you're gonna claim that the NWO blasted the WTC into dust with bombs then what exactly was the point of using thermite?
the thermite was used to cut the steel because explosives would be too loud

the explosives were used because thermite cant cut steel beams




...it makes sense in an m.c. escher sortof way...

[Apollo20]

I believe the big parting of the ways between Jones and Fetzer, (about a year ago I think), was mainly due to Jones' claim that thermite/thermate was all that was used - i.e. high explosives like C-4 were not needed. But perhaps this is why Jones now claims that many different formulations, some more like conventional explosives, were in fact used. Hence:different theories for different days.....

So, mate, thermite might be it. No sorry, thermate mates a mite better.... maybe!

[Swing Dangler]

That particular page is under almost constant assault by truthers. Just be warned.

Source?

[DC]

I mean explain what function each device would have performed.

For example, if you're gonna claim that the NWO blasted the WTC into dust with bombs then what exactly was the point of using thermite?

you think the NWO did it, who is the NWO? doe they exist? who are they?

[Pardalis]

Source?

You're not really good at this are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermate&action=history

[Swing Dangler]

[QUOTE=CHF;3610152]First we'd need a reason to suspect that explosives or thermite were used or else we might as well test for marshmellow residue to rule out an attack by the marshmellow man.

Based upon the oral histories and descriptions, the events in the basements, the working theory of the FBI and police, the historical record of terrorist attacks, all combine into a pretty important reason as well as the comments of Bill Manning below. When people hear a gunshot, they suspect a gun is fired they call the police, and the the police investigate whether or not a gun was fired. It is pretty straightforward. The problem was with the scenario with the Towers, there was no investigation of the items above.

Bill Manning of Fire Engineering:

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

From Bill Manning Fire Engineering's editor in chief:
Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

How right Bill Manning was...
As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.
Except of course we didn't even get a computer generated hypothetical from NIST on the global collapse.

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.

[Swing Dangler]

You're not really good at this are you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Thermate&action=history

I didn't see any truthers on there. I see a lot of anonymously folks though. And considering I've read a couple of accounts of debunkers posing as truthers or licensed professionals, I can't accept that those entries are from truthers. Do you have any better evidence that speculation?

[Pardalis]

And considering I've read a couple of accounts of debunkers posing as truthers or licensed professionals

Source?

[funk de fino]

Not this old lie again

the working theory of the FBI and police

It has been shown here to be baloney, if it is the lying reporter who made the claim on 12 Sept

If not him then source please?

[lapman]

Based upon the oral histories and descriptionsSo people actually saw explosives go off?
, the events in the basements,Which has already been explained over and over again that it was fuel exploding in the elevator shafts which is supported by both damage pattern and eyewitness accounts.
the working theory of the FBI and police,Which would be?
the historical record of terrorist attacksThe last time terrorists flew an airplane into a building AND rigged the building with explosives before or since 9/11 would be?

[funk de fino]

I didn't see any truthers on there. I see a lot of anonymously folks though. And considering I've read a couple of accounts of debunkers posing as truthers or licensed professionals, I can't accept that those entries are from truthers. Do you have any better evidence that speculation?

Why would debunkers change it to support truthers? Wowzer SD, another swish!!

As for bolded part, no irony meter ever built could withstand that assault.

Talk about shock and awe tactics

[defaultdotxbe]

Which has already been explained over and over again that it was fuel exploding in the elevator shafts which is supported by both damage pattern and eyewitness accounts.
and nosewitness accounts, several people reported smelling kerosene in the basement and lobby after the explosion, even willie rodriguez if im not mistaken

[Jonnyclueless]

Even thermite/ate doesn't work. The reason for it is to explain the molten metal in the basements and to explain not needing a lot of explosives smuggled in and planted.. The whole basis for the collapse claim is the speed of the fall and the need to move building out of the way in order to get it down so fast. So even if you are using Thermite or Thermate, you still need to plant it on about every other floor just to remove that building mass and get it to fall as fast as it did (using their logic).

So the two reasons for claiming thermite are:

Molten steel in basement - not possible with thermite
the rapid collapse - still requires as much material as traditional explosives.

Any way you add it up, the conspiracy theories make no sense what so ever.

[CHF]

you think the NWO did it, who is the NWO? doe they exist? who are they?

Please grow up and answer the question: What function would each device have performed?

The purpose of the bombs was to ______

The purpose of the thermite was to ______

[twinstead]

Any way you add it up, the conspiracy theories make no sense what so ever.

They don't need to make sense. The entire truth movement is based on rhetorical games and trying to poke holes in the 'official story' to attempt to instill doubt. Coming up with a replacement theory that makes more sense isn't part of the program.

[DGM]

I think Dr. Jones made up the "thermite" idea because unlike most "truthers" he realizes that explosives make a crap load of noise. He needed quiet destruction. Unfortunately for him he can't put together a practical working model of the device that he thinks was used. The "truth" movement would go a long way if they could show the famous "angle column" cut being done with "thermite".

[CHF]

I think Dr. Jones made up the "thermite" idea because unlike most "truthers" he realizes that explosives make a crap load of noise. He needed quiet destruction. Unfortunately for him he can't put together a practical working model of the device that he thinks was used.

Exactly right. The TM needs a quiet demolition technology and Jones is desperately trying to provide one.

Yet the rank-and-file of the TM love their demolition talking points so much that they cling to each and every one....even if they are completely incompatible with thermite.

The "truth" movement would go a long way if they could show the famous "angle column" cut being done with "thermite".


Hell, they'd go a long way if they could get some Ground Zero workers on board with quotes like "we have no idea how those cuts were made...we sure as hell didn't make them!"

Yet for some reason whenever the loons talk to GZ workers all they ask them about is the air quality.

[twinstead]

Hell, they'd go a long way if they could get some Ground Zero workers on board with quotes like "we have no idea how those cuts were made...we sure as hell didn't make them!"


Well obviously the GZ workers were in on it, silly.

[CHF]

Well obviously the GZ workers were in on it, silly.

Don't forget "paid off" or "intimidated into silence"....which is soooo much less insulting!

[DGM]

Don't forget "paid off" or "intimidated into silence"....which is soooo much less insulting!
I think the "afraid of losing their job" is by far the most insulting. I've always said the way to get rid of the "truth" movement was to have them say this to a bunch of iron workers.

[Crungy]

[QUOTE]
Based upon the oral histories and descriptions, the events in the basements, the working theory of the FBI and police, the historical record of terrorist attacks, all combine into a pretty important reason as well as the comments of Bill Manning below. When people hear a gunshot, they suspect a gun is fired they call the police, and the the police investigate whether or not a gun was fired. It is pretty straightforward. The problem was with the scenario with the Towers, there was no investigation of the items above.

Bill Manning of Fire Engineering:

From Bill Manning Fire Engineering's editor in chief:


How right Bill Manning was...

Except of course we didn't even get a computer generated hypothetical from NIST on the global collapse.

You do realize that Bill Manning has been writte that he is a firm believer in the towers being brought down by a combination of structural damage caused by the planes and the ensuing fires.

Bill Manning
However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

As usual, you try to use the above qoutes to imply that he believes the towers fell from CD. He has written about the absolute idiocy of 9/11 conspiracy nuts. You were hoping that no one would notice. Nice try!

[GodisEnergy]

Yea were nutty because 3 buildings collapsed EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMO

[Jonnyclueless]

Yea were nutty because 3 buildings collapsed EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMO

How were those 3 buildings exactly like a controlled demolition?

[GodisEnergy]

Well they looked exactly like a controlled demolotion.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

[Jonnyclueless]

Well they looked exactly like a controlled demolotion.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

NO, they don't. See how this works? We can both offer opinions and pretend they are factual.

The answer to your claim is NO. They do not look exactly like controlled demolition. Next subject.

[CHF]

Yea were nutty because 3 buildings collapsed EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMO

I thought the official TM position was that the WTC towers were a NEW demolition technology that was designed to NOT look like a regular demolition.

[twinstead]

Hey GodisEnergy. Are you going to explain how those building should have collapsed, or if you don't think they should have collapsed at all, WHY they shouldn't have collapsed?

Sadly, you can't just SAY it to make it true.

[TheRedWorm]

Yea were nutty because 3 buildings collapsed EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMO

...<snipped>...
So let's clear this up once and for all: is it bombs or thermite?



Just answer the question, please, GiE.

ETA: w00t, 500 posts. Soon, Larsen, soon :D

[pomeroo]

Well they looked exactly like a controlled demolotion.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY



You have established that--how to put it most charitably?--you bring no technical knowledge of science and engineering or specific knowledge of the events of 9/11/01 to the table. Under the circumstances, you might try explaining why the collapses of WTC 1,2, and 7 do not resemble controlled demolitions to people who actually work in the demolition industry.

[uk_dave]

Exactly right. The TM needs a quiet demolition technology and Jones is desperately trying to provide one.



More than that, the 'truth' movement needs to prove that it was 100% impossible for the structural damage caused by the plane impacts and subsequent fires to cause the structural failure and collapse of those towers.

That they have not done.

[DarkMagician]

Well they looked exactly like a controlled demolotion.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

They look almost nothing like one, and sound nothing like one too.

The only similarity is the falling part.

[Jonnyclueless]

Perhaps they used Bormite?

[CHF]

So, to recap so far....

Only three twoofers have responded to the OP which asks the TM to decide between bombs or thermite.

Swing Dangler didn't answer the question, and instead called for tests to be done on WTC steel (even though Swing has in the past argued in favour of both bombs and thermite at various times depending on the piece of "evidence")

Dictator Cheney suggested that a combination of thermite and bombs was used but had no clue as to why this would have been done or what each would have been used for.

GodIsEnergy didn't even try to answer the question and instead claimed that the three building collapses were "exactly like a controlled demo" which of course is a load of 100% pure BS, as most twoofers have acknowledged.

All in all, a rather pathetic showing but I can't say I expected much more.

[tsig]

Perhaps they used Bormite?

Corbomate

[Jonnyclueless]

Teh thermite argument doesn't really matter anyways. The reaosn it's used is to explain the lack of need for planting so many explosives that it would be to hard to sneak past any security. But the whole claim for a CD was that the buildings fell too fast to not have used demolition techniques. Well the speed thing means they would have had to demolish every other floor and used a huge amount of anything since the goal was to move building out of the way an allow it to fall faster.

To Thermite debunks itself anyways. Either argument is proven wrong simply by the amount of material needed. If they claim just a small amount of thermite was needed, then it debunks their claim about the freefall speed issue. If they argue explosives then we're back to the impossibility of pulling it off.

[beachnut]

Jones made up thermite 4 years after 9/11, he is the smoking gun of 9/11 truth moving from a we don't know what it was but it seems fishy conspiracy theory group, to a full blown conspiracy theory cult much like bigfoot and UFOs. Even Watergate was solved in half the time it took Jones to wake up to thermite as he was "looking for religion" at BYU; failing at that he made his "own religion" and has follower who are challenged to research 9/11, so they use his mantra.

9/11 truth types (most common); 1. old school, RDX fans, 2. bigfoot like cult of thermite, and 3. escapees from "happy dale" with some form of undiscovered waves at a select frequency to judy-wood-dustify the towers.

The total types, too many to list in one thread, unless someone named *chris*.* is posting...

[Apollo20]

Well, Beachnut, Chris7 is another story.

[Sizzler]

Apollo.

Lets assume for a second that 9-11 was an inside job and Jones is in fact finding residues, microspheres and unreacted chemical compounds.

Could the explosive nature of thermate or a nano-therm?te cause the squibs, ejections, rapidly expanding dust flows, etc... claims?

I mean, is it at least possible that various kinds of therm?te used throughout the building could even cause what we all witnessed?

Kinda a loaded question but certainly one I've been curious about.

Any thoughts?

[CHF]

Could the explosive nature of thermate or a nano-therm?te cause the squibs, ejections, rapidly expanding dust flows, etc... claims?

I mean, is it at least possible that various kinds of therm?te used throughout the building could even cause what we all witnessed?

You mean does therm?te "pulverize a building into dust," "eject steel beams horizontally," "eliminate all resistance," cause "squibs" and result in "explosions heard by 118 firefighters?"

No it doesn't.

[trustbutverify]

I didn't see any truthers on there. I see a lot of anonymously folks though. And considering I've read a couple of accounts of debunkers posing as truthers or licensed professionals, I can't accept that those entries are from truthers. Do you have any better evidence that speculation?

Skeptics posed as truthers to change a wik entry in a truther direction to fool people to think that... um... what??

Wait- has the CIA ever stolen your homework?

[beachnut]

Well, Beachnut, Chris7 is another story.
I was not exclusive to any particular *chis*.*, you may of missed the 11,000 posts with another *chris*.*

[Sizzler]

You mean does therm?te "pulverize a building into dust," "eject steel beams horizontally," "eliminate all resistance," cause "squibs" and result in "explosions heard by 118 firefighters?"

No it doesn't.

I've done a bit of reading on nanotherm?tes and they seem pretty powerful though.

I think it is a fair question.

[IchabodPlain]

Well they looked exactly like a controlled demolotion.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa7PN-8T2VY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

Notice the difference in audio from this video of the Ft. Worth demolition, compared to the video you posted...

[DC]

You have established that--how to put it most charitably?--you bring no technical knowledge of science and engineering or specific knowledge of the events of 9/11/01 to the table. Under the circumstances, you might try explaining why the collapses of WTC 1,2, and 7 do not resemble controlled demolitions to people who actually work in the demolition industry.

Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf)

and top down demolitions are not new

[Apollo20]

Sizzler:

In the review paper by L.L Wang et al. "Thermite reactions: their utilization in the synthesis and processing of materials" J. of Materials Science 28(14), 3693, (1993) we read:

"In applications where production of high-pressure and high-velocity gases is required, such as in the demolition of concrete, thermite mixtures with additions of substances that decompose into gases at high temperature can be ignited...."

The review paper references US and Japanese patents from 1990 which show that various "thermite" compositions can be made that behave at one extreme like a heat source and at the other extreme like an explosive. However, I have been unable to find the patents in question.

[CHF]

and top down demolitions are not new

Show me one that looks even remotely like the WTC towers.

[CHF]

I've done a bit of reading on nanotherm?tes and they seem pretty powerful though.

I think it is a fair question.

It's nanotherm?te now, is it? :rolleyes:

[Evilgiraffe]

It's nanotherm?te now, is it?

It's a funding issue...

NWO top brass was refusing to cough up for ordinary thermite, so some bright spark put buzz-words into the proposal. Works every time :)

[defaultdotxbe]

Lets assume for a second that 9-11 was an inside job and Jones is in fact finding residues, microspheres and unreacted chemical compounds.
unreacted compounds? do you know what unreacted components of thermite are?

[Evilgiraffe]

Oooh I know Sir... Pick Me, Pick Meeeeeeee!

Is it rust and aluminium sir?

[pomeroo]

Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf)

and top down demolitions are not new


Pointless dodge. We'll try it again:

Nobody who works in the demolition industry swallows the fantasy movement's snake oil about explosives. There isn't a shred of evidence suggesting that the Towers were demolished: no detonator caps, no bits of wiring, no spikes on the seismographs--nuthin'! Yes, we all get the idea that a demolition company strives to produce a controlled progressive collapse that affects the surrounding area as little as possible. Obviously, none the collapses at the WTC complex fit the bill.

Demolition specialists laugh at the notion that two of the world's tallest skyscrapers would be brought down from top-to-bottom. That's not how it's done. The notion is insane, originating from the desperation of conspiracy liars who are forced to concede that the buildings started collapsing from the impact zones.

Tell us how members of your imaginary conspiracy knew the exact floors the planes would hit.

By the way, when Cheney returns to private life in January, does he still get to be dictator?

[pomeroo]

Progressive collapse is a failure mode of great concern for tall buildings, and is also typical of building demolitions. (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf)

and top down demolitions are not new



Just out of curiosity, what on earth possessed you to cite a paper you couldn't possibly hope to comprehend? I mean, Bazant?!? You are a conspiracy liar; Bazant is a real researcher. What's going on? There is absolutely nothing in that paper that your evil movement can use.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Apollo.

Lets assume for a second that 9-11 was an inside job and Jones is in fact finding residues, microspheres and unreacted chemical compounds.

Could the explosive nature of thermate or a nano-therm?te [...]


Funny. You forgot the "let's also assume that any variation of thermite has an explosive nature" stipulation before asserting that it does...

[DarkMagician]

I've done a bit of reading on nanotherm?tes and they seem pretty powerful though.

I think it is a fair question.

It is a fair question.

The problem is, no matter how many times you ask the question, the answer is still "No!"

[Finnegan]

"Yea were nutty because 3 buildings collapsed EXACTLY LIKE A CONTROLLED DEMO"

Speaking as an amateur psychoanalyst (I'm sure I read a Freud book once..Hideous Kinky or something) I'd suggest that you're unwittingly fulfilling a repressed desire to disseminate disinformation on a vast scale. There is only one known cure: the destruction of your computer.

Finnegan

[Sizzler]

Sizzler:

In the review paper by L.L Wang et al. "Thermite reactions: their utilization in the synthesis and processing of materials" J. of Materials Science 28(14), 3693, (1993) we read:

"In applications where production of high-pressure and high-velocity gases is required, such as in the demolition of concrete, thermite mixtures with additions of substances that decompose into gases at high temperature can be ignited...."

The review paper references US and Japanese patents from 1990 which show that various "thermite" compositions can be made that behave at one extreme like a heat source and at the other extreme like an explosive. However, I have been unable to find the patents in question.

Thanks Apollo.

I've done a little reading on nanotherm?tes and they seem very powerful.

So would OP be unfair? Is it safe to say that therm?te in its various forms can account for both heating and explosions?

[Sizzler]

Funny. You forgot the "let's also assume that any variation of thermite has an explosive nature" stipulation before asserting that it does...

Apollo had this to share.


In the review paper by L.L Wang et al. "Thermite reactions: their utilization in the synthesis and processing of materials" J. of Materials Science 28(14), 3693, (1993) we read:

"In applications where production of high-pressure and high-velocity gases is required, such as in the demolition of concrete, thermite mixtures with additions of substances that decompose into gases at high temperature can be ignited...."


:)

[Sizzler]

unreacted compounds? do you know what unreacted components of thermite are?

haha...

wrong choice of words. yours are better. unreacted components it is:)

[Sizzler]

It is a fair question.

The problem is, no matter how many times you ask the question, the answer is still "No!"

Care to expand on the "NO!". Perhaps I'll stop asking if your answer is good:)

[defaultdotxbe]

haha...

wrong choice of words. yours are better. unreacted components it is:)
your choise of words wasnt what i was addressing, my point was the conponents/compounds of thermite are aluminum and rust, both quite common (and expected) in the WTC (and most buildings)

[Sizzler]

your choise of words wasnt what i was addressing, my point was the conponents/compounds of thermite are aluminum and rust, both quite common (and expected) in the WTC (and most buildings)

Right.

Could you please explain how the aluminum ended up in the slag, and microspheres? Could you also explain how the rust and aluminum ended up in chip form that react much like therm..te?

[Dave Rogers]

Right.

Could you please explain how the aluminum ended up in the slag, and microspheres? Could you also explain how the rust and aluminum ended up in chip form that react much like therm..te?

While he's at it, can you give an explanation of the same things that's consistent with the use of therm*te to initiate collapse? Then we can compare them and see which one makes more sense.

Dave

[applecorped]

[QUOTE]
Based upon the oral histories and descriptions, the events in the basements, the working theory of the FBI and police, the historical record of terrorist attacks, all combine into a pretty important reason as well as the comments of Bill Manning below. When people hear a gunshot, they suspect a gun is fired they call the police, and the the police investigate whether or not a gun was fired. It is pretty straightforward. The problem was with the scenario with the Towers, there was no investigation of the items above.

Bill Manning of Fire Engineering:

From Bill Manning Fire Engineering's editor in chief:


How right Bill Manning was...

Except of course we didn't even get a computer generated hypothetical from NIST on the global collapse.


We have a new theory! A gun was used to bring the towers down! It all makes sense now.

[applecorped]

I didn't see any truthers on there. I see a lot of anonymously folks though. And considering I've read a couple of accounts of debunkers posing as truthers or licensed professionals, I can't accept that those entries are from truthers. Do you have any better evidence that speculation?

You're right. Someone adding text that states that thermate was used in bring down the towers couldn't possibly be a trooother. My aloe plant is more useful than you are.

[DC]

[QUOTE=Swing Dangler;3610422]


We have a new theory! A gun was used to bring the towers down! It all makes sense now.

what a smart answer. did you think that out yourself? or did your troofer kid help?

[applecorped]

I didn't see any truthers on there. I see a lot of anonymously folks though. And considering I've read a couple of accounts of debunkers posing as truthers or licensed professionals, I can't accept that those entries are from truthers. Do you have any better evidence that speculation?

You're right. Someone adding text that states that thermate was used in bring down the towers couldn't possibly be a trooother. My aloe plant is more useful than you are.

Talk:Thermate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
this is the ingredient that brought down the twin towers, read stephen jones articles to find out the truth about 911 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~

Facts are facts....our government simply has proven to be a group of liars and thieves among us (how much proof does it take to show this? Taxation without true representation? The lie of "weapons of mass destruction?"

Thermate has never been used in building demolitions, it is inherently unsuitable for the task. No evidence of Thermate has ever been found at ground zero. 213.40.135.154 09:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Professor Stephen E. Jones had samples of steel from the WTC buildings that fell, and found thermate.--Shink X 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, he found sulphur, which was abundant in the offices of the world trade centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.13.99 (talk) 13:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, where was the abundant sulpher? Sulpher is part of lots of stinky substances, where would that be found abundantly in an office (specifically that office)? Ace Frahm 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't seem to add this in the section above. Sulphur would have been present mostly in drywall and office partitions (as you can imagine, there would have been a lot of these). Sulphur would have also been released through combustion from other common sources, including (tragically) human bodies. 81.101.44.41 (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[applecorped]

I didn't see any truthers on there. I see a lot of anonymously folks though. And considering I've read a couple of accounts of debunkers posing as truthers or licensed professionals, I can't accept that those entries are from truthers. Do you have any better evidence that speculation?

You're right. Someone adding text that states that thermate was used in bring down the towers couldn't possibly be a trooother. My aloe plant is more useful than you are.

Talk:Thermate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
this is the ingredient that brought down the twin towers, read stephen jones articles to find out the truth about 911 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~

Facts are facts....our government simply has proven to be a group of liars and thieves among us (how much proof does it take to show this? Taxation without true representation? The lie of "weapons of mass destruction?"

Thermate has never been used in building demolitions, it is inherently unsuitable for the task. No evidence of Thermate has ever been found at ground zero. 213.40.135.154 09:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Professor Stephen E. Jones had samples of steel from the WTC buildings that fell, and found thermate.--Shink X 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, he found sulphur, which was abundant in the offices of the world trade centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.13.99 (talk) 13:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, where was the abundant sulpher? Sulpher is part of lots of stinky substances, where would that be found abundantly in an office (specifically that office)? Ace Frahm 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't seem to add this in the section above. Sulphur would have been present mostly in drywall and office partitions (as you can imagine, there would have been a lot of these). Sulphur would have also been released through combustion from other common sources, including (tragically) human bodies. 81.101.44.41 (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Apollo had this to share.

In the review paper by L.L Wang et al. "Thermite reactions: their utilization in the synthesis and processing of materials" J. of Materials Science 28(14), 3693, (1993) we read:

"In applications where production of high-pressure and high-velocity gases is required, such as in the demolition of concrete, thermite mixtures with additions of substances that decompose into gases at high temperature can be ignited...."

:)


Yeah, I completely missed that. Oops...

[Sizzler]

So to put this thread to rest.

Therm.te can account for both weakening and explosions.

OP is wrong:)

[CHF]

So to put this thread to rest.

Therm.te can account for both weakening and explosions.

OP is wrong:)

Can it blast concrete into volcanic dust and toss massive steel beams in all directions?

If not then back to the drawing board.

[Dave Rogers]

So to put this thread to rest.

Therm.te can account for both weakening and explosions.

OP is wrong:)

Well, strictly speaking, yes, but:

Explosive nanothermate won't account for weakening, because the heat it evolves won't be sufficiently concentrated. Nor will it account for the lack of explosive sounds so loud as to be obvious, because the sound of the explosion depends only on the presence of supersonic gas expansion. Arguably, it can't result in demolition either, because it's a lower velocity explosive than what's needed to cut steel.

On the other hand, non-explosive therm*te certainly won't produce explosions, but there's no known way for it to cut large steel columns, and at the time of 9-11 was no known way for it to cut any type of vertical column.

So perhaps the OP should have read "Explosives or incendiaries?" Because, again, whatever your therm*te composition, it will be a compromise between the two; it's not possible to make up a formulation of therm*te that would cut steel with the force of a high explosive without making a bang.

Dave

[DC]

Well, strictly speaking, yes, but:

Explosive nanothermate won't account for weakening, because the heat it evolves won't be sufficiently concentrated. Nor will it account for the lack of explosive sounds so loud as to be obvious, because the sound of the explosion depends only on the presence of supersonic gas expansion. Arguably, it can't result in demolition either, because it's a lower velocity explosive than what's needed to cut steel.

On the other hand, non-explosive therm*te certainly won't produce explosions, but there's no known way for it to cut large steel columns, and at the time of 9-11 was no known way for it to cut any type of vertical column.

So perhaps the OP should have read "Explosives or incendiaries?" Because, again, whatever your therm*te composition, it will be a compromise between the two; it's not possible to make up a formulation of therm*te that would cut steel with the force of a high explosive without making a bang.

Dave

There was and are Patents.

[moon1969]

Maybe twoofers should answer this:

how many tons of explosives would it take to takedown the twin towers?

if explosives were planted how come nobody noticed anything?

how many tons of explosives would it take to takedown the WTC7?

Did Larry Silverstein gain anything from the destruction of the WTC7?

[Dave Rogers]

There was and are Patents.

There is a patent from (IIRC) 2005 that describes a means of cutting a vertical steel member up to 1" in diameter using a ceramic nozzle based apparatus which is substantially larger than the member to be cut and requires to be placed very close to it. Scaling this up for the size of columns in the WTC would clearly require much larger devices, which would inevitably intrude on public areas close to the core of the buildings.

Oh, and these fail totally to align with Steven Jones's assertion that the buildings fell too fast. Since the collapse progressed downwards in a wave rather than initiating at several different heights more or less at random, any extraneous means used to sever the columns would have to be timed precisely to follow the collapse wave downwards, which would require timing accuracies of well below a tenth of a second. This sort of accuracy, with a thermal cutting based device, is not just impossible but quite inconceivable [1].

So what I said was accurate notwithstanding the patents.

Dave

[1] No, I don't keep using it, and it does mean what I think it means.

[Confuseling]

First we'd need a reason to suspect that explosives or thermite were used or else we might as well test for marshmellow residue to rule out an attack by the marshmellow man.

Based upon the oral histories and descriptions, the events in the basements, the working theory of the FBI and police, the historical record of terrorist attacks, all combine into a pretty important reason as well as the comments of Bill Manning below. When people hear a gunshot, they suspect a gun is fired they call the police, and the the police investigate whether or not a gun was fired. It is pretty straightforward. The problem was with the scenario with the Towers, there was no investigation of the items above.

Bill Manning of Fire Engineering:

Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the Happyland Social Club Fire? Did they cast aside the pressure-regulating valves at the Meridian Plaza Fire? Of course not. But essentially, that's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

From Bill Manning Fire Engineering's editor in chief:

Such destruction of evidence shows the astounding ignorance of government officials to the value of a thorough, scientific investigation of the largest fire-induced collapse in world history. I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.

How right Bill Manning was...

As things now stand and if they continue in such fashion, the investigation into the World Trade Center fire and collapse will amount to paper- and computer-generated hypotheticals.

Except of course we didn't even get a computer generated hypothetical from NIST on the global collapse.

Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. The federal government must scrap the current setup and commission a fully resourced blue ribbon panel to conduct a clean and thorough investigation of the fire and collapse, leaving no stones unturned.



Sorry about the zombie conversation point, but I keep hearing this and I find it quite interesting.

It seems to me we can tease out two pertinent questions here.

1) Was evidence that the WTC buildings were destroyed by something other than fire and impact covered up by swift removal of the debris / interference in the investigation?

2) Was corrupt manipulation of / avoidance of building safety standards covered up by swift removal of the debris / interference in the investigation?

Now, we have to take a couple of premises here; axiomatic truths, if you will. The first is that any investigation can go on forever; a grain of sand contains the universe entire in microcosm, and there will always be unanswered questions. The second is that no matter what you investigate, and how thoughtlessly or thoroughly, somebody will disagree with you, and somebody will agree. The third is that when wolves are at the door, as they normally are in politics, you can't afford to be seen to entertain foolishness.

The thing is question two is really interesting to me (as are many other questions in a similar vein), and I don't believe it has been properly investigated. I don't believe it ever will (perhaps many years from now, when it's no longer relevant), because of its association with question one. We live in turbulent times, and a marriage of convenience with people who suggest that a crime such as the world has never seen has floated straight underneath the radar of every nation-state on Earth and only been picked up by a group of teenage youtube sleuths isn't reckless opportunism; it's outright suicide. The question is diluted, and made politically unpalatable. Asking question two to point people towards question one might make sense. Asking question one to point people towards question two makes you an imbecile, or perhaps an agent provocateur.

Now yes, we could have gone to more effort to prove that explosives weren't used. But hang on, investigations cost money. If ~100% of experts across the planet agree on the collapse mechanism, then too much time was spent investigating! Too much money! I want it back, and spent flying to Mars or building a hospital!

Question one has been answered. The answer is no. The answer will forever remain no. The only thing that the conflation of the legitimate questions with this obdurate fringe achieves is preventing their answer. It's that simple; if you want the many question twos answered, you have to drop question one.

[Jonnyclueless]

So to put this thread to rest.

Therm.te can account for both weakening and explosions.

OP is wrong:)

Then remind us what would be the point in thermite when conventional explosives are far better? I seem the to recall that the whole point of thermite was to explain the lack of explosions.

[cloudshipsrule]

Based upon the oral histories and descriptions, the events in the basements, the working theory of the FBI and police, the historical record of terrorist attacks, all combine into a pretty important reason as well as the comments of Bill Manning below.

By this logic, many tornadoes are actually freight trains, no?

[Sizzler]

Well, strictly speaking, yes, but:

Explosive nanothermate won't account for weakening, because the heat it evolves won't be sufficiently concentrated. Nor will it account for the lack of explosive sounds so loud as to be obvious, because the sound of the explosion depends only on the presence of supersonic gas expansion. Arguably, it can't result in demolition either, because it's a lower velocity explosive than what's needed to cut steel.

On the other hand, non-explosive therm*te certainly won't produce explosions, but there's no known way for it to cut large steel columns, and at the time of 9-11 was no known way for it to cut any type of vertical column.

So perhaps the OP should have read "Explosives or incendiaries?" Because, again, whatever your therm*te composition, it will be a compromise between the two; it's not possible to make up a formulation of therm*te that would cut steel with the force of a high explosive without making a bang.

Dave

simple. use both:)

[Sizzler]

There is a patent from (IIRC) 2005 that describes a means of cutting a vertical steel member up to 1" in diameter using a ceramic nozzle based apparatus which is substantially larger than the member to be cut and requires to be placed very close to it. Scaling this up for the size of columns in the WTC would clearly require much larger devices, which would inevitably intrude on public areas close to the core of the buildings.

Oh, and these fail totally to align with Steven Jones's assertion that the buildings fell too fast. Since the collapse progressed downwards in a wave rather than initiating at several different heights more or less at random, any extraneous means used to sever the columns would have to be timed precisely to follow the collapse wave downwards, which would require timing accuracies of well below a tenth of a second. This sort of accuracy, with a thermal cutting based device, is not just impossible but quite inconceivable [1].

So what I said was accurate notwithstanding the patents.

Dave

[1] No, I don't keep using it, and it does mean what I think it means.

Here's a solution.

Quietly cut beams with regular therm..te precollapse (no pre-collapse demolition sounds). Then precisely time nano-therm..te to explode materials and steel beams out of the way. The sounds of nano-thermite detonation would be hidden as the sound of "gravity driven collapse". The collapse itself was quit loud.

In addition, pre collapse cutting via regular therm..te would account for bowing of perimeter columns but be perceived as fire weakening.:)

[CHF]

In addition, pre collapse cutting via regular therm..te would account for bowing of perimeter columns but be perceived as fire weakening.:)

Cutting what?

[Sizzler]

Cutting what?

If the core was cut pre-collapse, that and the heat from the fires would account for the observed bowing. Traditional therm.te would be rather silent.

Then, nanotherm.te could be used to initiate collapse and be used as a top down demolition "explosive" with the core already cut in key areas. The sounds of nano-therm.te would be observed as the sounds of the collapse.:)

[Confuseling]

You could do it with a hacksaw as well. Maybe the CIA swapped all of the in-flight meals round, so people who wanted brown bread got white and vice versa. The point? Is there a point?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

But that completely skips over the part where it's been shown that fire (plus damage caused by the impacts) is incapable of initiating the collapse in the first place...

Occam's Razor, Sizzler. Why would it be necessary to even postulate such a complex setup if a much simpler explanation hasn't been positively ruled out?

[Sizzler]

But that completely skips over the part where it's been shown that fire (plus damage caused by the impacts) is incapable of initiating the collapse in the first place...

Occam's Razor, Sizzler. Why would it be necessary to even postulate such a complex setup if a much simpler explanation hasn't been positively ruled out?

This is assuming the conspirators were certain fire and damage along would bring down the buildings.

Past examples of fire in highrise steel framed buildings would have suggested to the conspirators that fire and damage may not be enough.

When uncertain, overload:)

[Jonnyclueless]

simple. use both:)

Then what would be the point of using the thermite?

[Jonnyclueless]

And what happened to the good old days where the planes flying into the buildings had explosive pods on them?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

This is assuming the conspirators were certain fire and damage along would bring down the buildings.

Past examples of fire in highrise steel framed buildings would have suggested to the conspirators that fire and damage may not be enough.

When uncertain, overload:)


Fascinating. Peel one assumption away and you find yet another. In this iteration, you're assuming that there was a conspiracy at all. This assumption, as we all know, honestly, is the core of your argument. A pretty rotten one at that.

You're working backwards from a conclusion.

Fail.

[Blender Head]

We'd have gone to war regardless of whether those Towers fell or not.

[beachnut]

If the core was cut pre-collapse, that and the heat from the fires would account for the observed bowing. Traditional therm.te would be rather silent.

Then, nanotherm.te could be used to initiate collapse and be used as a top down demolition "explosive" with the core already cut in key areas. The sounds of nano-therm.te would be observed as the sounds of the collapse.:)
Show me how thermite cuts a WTC column, and tell me how it was placed. Show me the proof. You are taking a gravity driven thermite device, or do you have something to cut a column?

Jones made up thermite 4 years after 9/11 because of political reasons, he just made it up. No evidence, no clue. What about you? Why do you support the dumbest of all ideas on 9/11? Wait, what about Jones' squibs? With the silent thermite, how do those pesky squibs fit? Was it thermite or bombs? Jones has no clue, but you are using nanothermite?

The terrorist did not know if the planes would bring down the WTC. If they had not been going so fast, they would have failed to bring down the buildings; like 911 truth fails to understand 9/11. The terrorist pilots are able to fly planes into building in real life, truther pilots can not do it in a simulator. Terrorist knew what happen on 9/11, they were the first, the passenger on 93 knew about 9/11 next, the rational people of the world next, and 9/11 truth members will never know.

[Dave Rogers]

simple. use both:)

:hb:

Dave

[Jonnyclueless]

We'd have gone to war regardless of whether those Towers fell or not.

Well then maybe they were using 9/11 as a way to try and change abortion law or suppress gay rights.

[Dave Rogers]

Here's a solution.

Quietly cut beams with regular therm..te precollapse (no pre-collapse demolition sounds).

We've established that this was not possible, but carry on.

Then precisely time nano-therm..te to explode materials and steel beams out of the way. The sounds of nano-thermite detonation would be hidden as the sound of "gravity driven collapse". The collapse itself was quit loud.

Two points here.
(1) Nano-thermate is still not a high explosive, it has a much lower combustion rate than the explosives needed to cut steel. Therefore, the only things the nano-thermate does are create extra noise and destroy non-structural elements.
(2) Nano-thermate requires the same extremely high initiation temperatures as thermite, rather than conventional detonators. The timing probably still won't be good enough for what was observed.

It's a stupid suggestion anyway, because it would make more sense[1] to use high explosives for weakening the lower structure. But there's never been any satisfactory explanation of why the lower structure had to be weakened; as someone else said, the collapse of the towers was completely unnecessary to any plausible plot, including the al-Qaeda one that actually existed.

In addition, pre collapse cutting via regular therm..te would account for bowing of perimeter columns but be perceived as fire weakening.:)

There's a problem with that. The amount of bowing observed requires sagging of floor beams, and that's impossible with thermite. Therefore, there had to be a fire hot enough to cause the floor beams to sag. Since the only argument in favour of thermite is the "fires weren't hot enough to soften steel" one, then there's no need for thermite once you accept that the perimeter columns bowed.

Sorry, but your god doesn't fit the gaps.

Dave

[1] This shouldn't be taken to mean that either suggestion makes a significant amount of sense. It might be better to say that nano-thermate makes even less sense.

[defaultdotxbe]

This is assuming the conspirators were certain fire and damage along would bring down the buildings.
this is assuming the collapse of the buildings was somehow necessary

[aggle-rithm]

this is assuming the collapse of the buildings was somehow necessary

In fact, if they hadn't collapsed it might have had an even more lasting impact. The charred husks of the towers would have been visible for miles away during the several years it would take to dismantle them (since explosive demolition is forbidden in New York City). A huge area around the towers would have to be closed to the public because of falling debris concerns. Instead of having the area cleaned up and ready for re-development in a year, it may have taken a decade to clean up the mess.

Let's look at this from the perspective that it was done to justify a war: Wouldn't it be better to have a more persistent reminder on the NYC skyline as to why we are at war? Instead, we clean everything up and everyone goes back to their daily routines. In a few years, we forget why we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and support for the military action wanes.

Sound familiar?

[Sizzler]

We've established that this was not possible, but carry on.

Well, we haven't established it was impossible, only that a patent for such a device cannot be found.



Two points here.
(1) Nano-thermate is still not a high explosive, it has a much lower combustion rate than the explosives needed to cut steel. Therefore, the only things the nano-thermate does are create extra noise and destroy non-structural elements.
(2) Nano-thermate requires the same extremely high initiation temperatures as thermite, rather than conventional detonators. The timing probably still won't be good enough for what was observed.

Again, nanothermite is not needed to cut the steel. Regular thermite could have been used first.


It's a stupid suggestion anyway, because it would make more sense[1] to use high explosives for weakening the lower structure. But there's never been any satisfactory explanation of why the lower structure had to be weakened; as someone else said, the collapse of the towers was completely unnecessary to any plausible plot, including the al-Qaeda one that actually existed.

Shock and awe. Why drop 2 H-bombs on Japan. Why not just one?

There's a problem with that. The amount of bowing observed requires sagging of floor beams, and that's impossible with thermite. Therefore, there had to be a fire hot enough to cause the floor beams to sag. Since the only argument in favour of thermite is the "fires weren't hot enough to soften steel" one, then there's no need for thermite once you accept that the perimeter columns bowed.

Not hot enough to cause the core to fail. Hot enough to cause floors to sag perhaps.

[Dave Rogers]

Well, we haven't established it was impossible, only that a patent for such a device cannot be found.

OK, but the burden of proof is on you to prove it was possible, as you're claiming an exception.

Again, nanothermite is not needed to cut the steel. Regular thermite could have been used first.

Again, again, a[rule10]'in gain, regular thermite cutting steel in the lower parts of the building as suggested by the truth movement (in its ever-repeated canard that the structure gave essentially no resistance to the collapse) would have resulted in the collapse initiating in the wrong place. It is simply impossible to achieve the sub-tenth of a second timing required by cutting steel with an agent that takes several seconds. So no, regular thermite could not have been used for the purpose you suggest.

Shock and awe. Why drop 2 H-bombs on Japan. Why not just one?

Because they didn't surrender after the first one. Duh.

Not hot enough to cause the core to fail. Hot enough to cause floors to sag perhaps.

And, therefore, not hot enough to be a thermite reaction. Max's heat-weakening idea hasn't been shown to be feasible either.

Dave

[Sizzler]

OK, but the burden of proof is on you to prove it was possible, as you're claiming an exception.



Yes that is true. I guess the best any truther can do is show a patent that was made public after 9-11 and only able to cut thin beams.


Again, again, a[rule10]'in gain, regular thermite cutting steel in the lower parts of the building as suggested by the truth movement (in its ever-repeated canard that the structure gave essentially no resistance to the collapse) would have resulted in the collapse initiating in the wrong place. It is simply impossible to achieve the sub-tenth of a second timing required by cutting steel with an agent that takes several seconds. So no, regular thermite could not have been used for the purpose you suggest.

I think we are have a communication break down here. Let me try to rephrase.

1. Regular thermite cut the core pre-collapse. No need for sequenced timings.

2. Nano-thermite was used as the explosive power that caused the building to actaully collapse.

3. Collapse initiation could occur anywhere depending on how the conspirators timed the explosions.



Because they didn't surrender after the first one. Duh.

HAHA. Woops, must have fallen asleep for that part in History12.

Nonetheless, the towers could have been CD'ed for shock and awe value.



And, therefore, not hot enough to be a thermite reaction. Max's heat-weakening idea hasn't been shown to be feasible either.

Dave

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

[Dave Rogers]

2. Nano-thermite was used as the explosive power that caused the building to actaully collapse.

Can't be. Won't cut steel.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Already got there. Fire and impact has been shown to be feasible, and agrees with all the evidence. Thermite hasn't been shown to be feasible, and there's no evidence for it. End of story.

Dave

[beachnut]

Shock and awe. Why drop 2 H-bombs on Japan. Why not just one?

Good thing we did not drop one H-bomb on Japan, they would be mad.

Research is your strong suit. Yep

Keep up the good work truther. Thermite was made up by Jones, carry on the reason he got fired, someone needs to believe the fantasy of Jones.

Jones, upset by the Iraq war started posting his false information, the school fired him; yep retired early, good cover, most employers will let you retire instead of the embarrassment of being fired for being kind of crazy by making up lies about 9/11. Fired, or retired early, take your pick; his thermite theory you are now pushing is a fantasy only research challenged people accept. Lack of knowledge is the key to being a member on 9/11 truth, even if you have advanced degrees, or fresh out of 1st grade.

Just like your H-bomb mistake, you have made a bigger mistake with your thermite fiction. But, go ahead, show your lack of understanding; soon you will drop this, like your buddy Ganhdi, and start another failed thread of woo.

[Sizzler]

Can't be. Won't cut steel.



Already got there. Fire and impact has been shown to be feasible, and agrees with all the evidence. Thermite hasn't been shown to be feasible, and there's no evidence for it. End of story.

Dave

I'm not convinced by NIST's report on WTC 1/2 as well as many others; including some "non-truthers" here.

WTC7 report will be interesting when it is published.

I do agree that therm..te is just speculation but I am not so quick to judge that therm..te CD is impossible.

[Sizzler]

Good thing we did not drop one H-bomb on Japan, they would be mad.

Research is your strong suit. Yep

Keep up the good work truther. Thermite was made up by Jones, carry on the reason he got fired, someone needs to believe the fantasy of Jones.

Yes my mistake on the WW2 history....

And, Jones wasn't fired. He was forced to retire early. Big difference:)

[Jonnyclueless]

And I'm not quick to dismiss dustification.

[CHF]

And, Jones wasn't fired. He was forced to retire early. Big difference:)

Didn't he resign rather than have to answer for his shoddy claims of "peer-review?"

[Dave Rogers]

I do agree that therm..te is just speculation but I am not so quick to judge that therm..te CD is impossible.

Whether or not you judge it impossible, surely you can see that the complexity of the timing schemes required for some of the CD theories is so wildly improbable as to be unworthy of consideration?

And answering an earlier point of yours:

2. Nano-thermite was used as the explosive power that caused the building to actaully collapse.


Not acceptable, because that would cause an incredibly loud bang just before collapse, whereas people only heard smaller bangs at the wrong times.

Dave

[DC]

Didn't he resign rather than have to answer for his shoddy claims of "peer-review?"

when that is true, why would that university not remove the paper from its server?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/Papers/J6p2%20.doc

[Dave Rogers]

when that is true, why would that university not remove the paper from its server?

Who cares? Jones took early retirement when he was on enforced leave, suspended from teaching and having his research under investigation by BYU. The issue was his attitude to peer review in his work on the WTC collapses, and the investigation was abandoned when he retired. Sizzler is right in that he took early retirement rather than resigning, and both he and the university claim that it was not under any pressure. None of this is in any way disputed by any party involved, most especially not Steven Jones.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Pointless post - deleted.

[aggle-rithm]

And, Jones wasn't fired. He was forced to retire early. Big difference:)

Not really. It's common for people in high-status positions, like business executives or college professors, to be given the option to resign/retire in order to save face, rather than suffer the humiliation of being fired.

In fact, it's fairly common for lower-level workers as well, because if they resign they can't collect unemployment insurance.