Not true, the temperatures needed for the the material to be designated as burned thermite is way hotter than friction and jet fuel to cause

Can you corroborate this story anywhere else than on PrisonPlanet.com?

I can't find anything about it.

The only stuff about this Prof. Steven Jones guy I can find shows that he's a big wig on the 9/11 conspiracy lecture circuit.

Seems fishy to me. If it was someone who isn't already involved in the project who came across this, mabye I'd give it more credit, but in this case, seems a bit to convienant he's the one who found it.

-O

I'll leave the analysis of physics up to the physicists, if I even spelled that right.

At any rate, could be true, could be false...I'm not a big 9/11 conspiracy guy outside of thinking we would have done more to prevent it but didn't because we had other priorities outside of Binny to attend to.

Just wish, for the sake of the movement, they could get people not currently involved in the movement to present some of the papers and/or findings.

-O

You dont have to be a physicist to recognize molten steel. I recommend you watch the video I linked to. You will easily recognize the molten steel dripping out of the corner of the WTC south. You will see it bounce off a couple of ledges and explode into bright droplets.

The official explaination of the collapse is that the fire reached unheard of temperatures for jet fuel and weakend the supporting beams. The exaggerated temperatures in the official report dont even pretend to account for molten steel so why is it there? What was burning so hot that it melted steel?

Thermite, as used in controlled demoltions, is the only explaination for the sight in the above mentioned footage. Do yourself a great service and review it.

I watched the clip, and as disturbing as it was to see the tower go down again, I can't say with any certainty that is motlen steel.

I saw yellowish/red sparks, and being that I have no knowledge of the phsysics involved in steel I can't speak with any level of confidence on the matter, nor is it fair for me to base an opinion on that.

As I said, I'll leave that to the phsycists.

-O

Originally posted by subz
The Big O, that's very true but the 9/11 truth movement is stuck in a catch-22. There is a mainstream media blackout with all things that counter the official 9/11 fairytale.

....I am sorry, but when someone calls the "official 9/11 story" a fairytale, and then proposes that one of crazy Alex Jones's fantastical claims is the truth just gives me a chuckle.


Anyways, good luck trying to prove this one..

There are only a few facts for certain behind the 9/11 attacks. Two Hijacked commercial airliners were taken by assailants which can never be proven were even on the flight, and then crashed into the tallest office buildings in the Western Hemisphere. After a certain amount of time, the buildings collapsed and killed many many people.

Beyond those facts, nothing else has been proven as of yet.

prof jones has stated that it is not thermite for sure, but definitely sulphur.
until further PAINSTAKING investigation into the metal is done, thermite is only a possibility.

i think tucker carlson taught him a thing or two about destructive character smashing forces and other things non-scientific.

evidence must be spin-free to be 'good' evidence.

i'm pondering the likelihood of an ignited magnesium airplane rim being a 'coincidental fuse' to 'coincidental thermite'.
i'm contemplating it, because 'they' have already put forth this theory.
you gotta wonder what the bobby fisher of cointelpro reality-chess will think of next, 'cause 'he' has already thought of what you're going to think/realise next.

I've never really been sure what to believe about the 9/11 events. The official story seems to have a lot of holes, but a lot of the critics of the official version don't seem to know what they are talking about, either. I am glad to see some serious mainstream researchers working on this. Interestingly, looking at the BYU paper that thepresidentsbrain linked to, and comparing the pic that says 2001 WABC-TV 9:53:51am with the wikipedia thermite reactions, it does look similar, but there are a lot of reactions that look like that. (would burning jet fuel look like that? dunno) Anyhow, kudos to these researchers and to subz for posting this, and raven2012 who emailed me the link to this atsnn story.

edit: You have voted subz for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month

[edit on 22-6-2006 by DragonsDemesne]

Originally posted by subz
The molten yellow iron and thermite can be seen oozing out of the WTC before the collapse. There could be no friction at this point as no collapse had yet occured. How would iron become molten when the official account is that the iron was weakend? Weakend is even stretching physics past the point of aburdity, let alone molten iron.

If they are thermite reactions, shouldn't we be able to spectrally analyze the light from the sources to detect the ingredients of thermite? It should have a different spectrum than the other fires taking place shouldn't it?

Ok, so subz, you are telling me that those sparks/ molten metal in the video which occur at the point of impact of the plane are caused by a thermite reaction? Isn't it just a little odd that the so called themite charges would have been planted so close to exactly where the plane would strike?

Where are the photos and or videos of all the other themite charges that must have been planted in both WTC's? Again I am pretty sure it would have taken multiple demolition charges to bring down the WTC'S. There must be more photo/video evidence of them being ignited before the towers collapsed, if they indeed were there.

Thermite charge CUTs its way across steel, they do not melt entire beams. And that material is most likely insulation material mixed with jetfuel ( =compound with properities of Napalm)

And as i have said before Combination of a shock and prolonged exposure to +300C temperatures are more than enough to reduce steels load bearing ability by up to 70% and i assume that WTC was not designed with 70%safety margins, but more likely 25%. (if you say that there are no temperatures above 300C in an office fire, research some firefighting textbooks)


My credentials on saying this:
Military Demolition training
Currently studying Mechanical Engineering and Metallurgy in University

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I've never really been sure what to believe about the 9/11 events. The official story seems to have a lot of holes, but a lot of the critics of the official version don't seem to know what they are talking about, either. I am glad to see some serious mainstream researchers working on this. Interestingly, looking at the BYU paper that thepresidentsbrain linked to, and comparing the pic that says 2001 WABC-TV 9:53:51am with the wikipedia thermite reactions, it does look similar, but there are a lot of reactions that look like that. (would burning jet fuel look like that? dunno) Anyhow, kudos to these researchers and to subz for posting this, and raven2012 who emailed me the link to this atsnn story.

edit: You have voted subz for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month

Thanks very much DragonsDemesne, Im glad you read the article

Originally posted by pavil
If they are thermite reactions, shouldn't we be able to spectrally analyze the light from the sources to detect the ingredients of thermite? It should have a different spectrum than the other fires taking place shouldn't it?

I do not know. Perhaps you could do that? I am not privy on how to perform spectral analysis.

Originally posted by pavil
Ok, so subz, you are telling me that those sparks/ molten metal in the video which occur at the point of impact of the plane are caused by a thermite reaction? Isn't it just a little odd that the so called themite charges would have been planted so close to exactly where the plane would strike?

The theory is that there were thermate cutter charges on all the supporting columns. The ones that were exposed by the impact of the plane of course will be more visable than the ones that are concealed by the outer skin of the WTC buildings. As an indication of the extent of the cutter charges, there were huge pools of molten steel found in the basement of the WTC buildings. These pools remained hot for weeks after the building collapsed. Thermal images courtesy of NASA clearly show this. No explaination in the official story explains why any of the steel became molten, and in such huge quantities.

Originally posted by pavil
Where are the photos and or videos of all the other themite charges that must have been planted in both WTC's? Again I am pretty sure it would have taken multiple demolition charges to bring down the WTC'S. There must be more photo/video evidence of them being ignited before the towers collapsed, if they indeed were there.

There are plenty of scenes that show properties of controlled demolition throughout the WTC complex. WTC building 7 is the smoking gun on this topic. I highly recommend viewing the footage of WTC building 7 coming down.

Here is my favourite image that shows the effects of the thermate cutter charges on the steel columns of the WTC towers.



You can clearly see the column has been cut with a thermate cutter charge. It has been cut on a downward sloping angle so that the building slides in on itself (instead of outwards onto the rest of Manhattan). You can also see the molten steel residue that has accumlated at the lower end of the cut.

Can the pancake theory or the stressed steel theory explain the clear angled cuts that are evident on many of the WTC supporting columns? Can the pancake theory or the stressed steel theory explain the huge pools of molten steel that remained hot for weeks in the WTC towers' basements?

"The theory is that there were thermate cutter charges on all the supporting columns"

Hmmm... I only see one column there with that shear angle and plenty which show no characteristics of a planned "cut". I can also see some material at the base of the "cut" but there's no big label on it saying "molten steel" I'm afraid.

I'd be careful of drawing any conclusions from that picture without knowing exactly when it was taken and whether or not any clearance work had already started at that point - the lack of any airborne dust means it must surely date from at least some period of time after the the event.

Originally posted by pavil
Ok, so subz, you are telling me that those sparks/ molten metal in the video which occur at the point of impact of the plane are caused by a thermite reaction? Isn't it just a little odd that the so called themite charges would have been planted so close to exactly where the plane would strike?

Let's think about it in another way shall we. Let's say that the thermite was placed higher than the impact holes. Since it is liquid (and all buildings should be mostly watertight) how would the liquid get out of the building other than the impact sites (holes for liquid to bleed out)? It would take longer for the liquid to sit there and melt the outside columns than it would for the liquid to find the least path of resistance (which all liquids do). Add that the floors were suppossedly failing and this gives an even greater chance of the thermite mixture (liquid steel) to find it's way to the impact holes and leak out.

Or are you telling me that liquid fuel from the plane can find it's way to the subbasement and blow out the lobby but liquid steel couldn't find it's way to the impact holes?