Physics Professor Finds Thermate On WTC Steel Sample

Originally posted by northwolf
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)

Where is this insulation comming from? There is no insulation in an office building. There is not enough insulation around pipes to create this much napalm IMO. The only insulation I can think of is in the roof system. We'd have to know the roof system before we could find out what kind of insulation also...there are many kinds. But how would insulation make it's way down into the impact hole?

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)

So, by what you are saying is that every steel building that has an office fire will fall? Hmm...I haven't seen this before...can you show a global collapse of a steel building from fire please? The safety margin as you call it (engineers call it safety factor) was 50% I believe. That means that every steel column, beam, connector had to be rated at 150% over it's load capacity.

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

My credentials on saying this:
Bachelor of Science Civil Engineering
Emphasis on Structural Engineering
6 years working as a geotechnical engineer (foundations)
3 years working as a structural engineer (rehabilitation of building envelopes)

All these questions, you'd think they'd of been addressed by the official inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. Why are there so many unanswered questions? Surely there is enough questions remaining to completely negate the value of the official inquiry and necessitate a fresh impartial one.

Also the questions regard the collapse of the towers could of been answered in the weeks after the attack if the wreckage and debris was not illegally removed and sent to India and China as scrap before it was federally investigated.

So a thermite reaction of super hot temperatures in the inner column of the WTC is going to slide off an office floor for a considerable distance and drip down the side fo the building? Wasn't there a lot of open space in the central support system? Wouldn't molten metal at such a high temp just burn through things like a hot knife through butter? One video I saw of a thermite reaction clear burned through an engine block in a manner of seconds.

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

I'm not the one trying to prove thermite was there. Maybe one of Dr. Jones colleagues could do it for him, surely they must have explored that. The burden of proof is on you to prove it was there, not me trying to prove it wasn't. You provide the evidence.

Basing your theory on one piece of video evidence in one isolated spot of one tower is too flimsy for me. To prove your point you will need much more real hard evidence than that. Just my opinion.

Originally posted by pavil
So a thermite reaction of super hot temperatures in the inner column of the WTC is going to slide off an office floor for a considerable distance and drip down the side fo the building? Wasn't there a lot of open space in the central support system? Wouldn't molten metal at such a high temp just burn through things like a hot knife through butter? One video I saw of a thermite reaction clear burned through an engine block in a manner of seconds.

The thermite wasn't flowing over the engine block was it? No, it was sitting on it. If the liquid metal was flowing over things, it wouldn't have enough time to melt through....or maybe it did and that's how it came to be pouring out of the holes. These are just possibilities that could happen to show you and others that the molten metal could have come from other places other than right at the impact zone.

Furthermore, how do you know that the molten metal didn't slice through things like a hot knife through butter just to end up there? You don't and neither do we. So, therefore it could have happened.

Basing your theory on one piece of video evidence in one isolated spot of one tower is too flimsy for me. To prove your point you will need much more real hard evidence than that. Just my opinion.

I agree. Add to it that thermite may have been found and you start to piece together more information. Note I said MAY have been found. This is still not conclusive.

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?

How are you going to do that? Travel back in time?

Originally posted by northwolf
that material is most likely insulation material mixed with jetfuel ( =compound with properities of Napalm)

What type of insulation are you talking about?



The material running out the building was more likely molten aluminum from the airplane.

-by subz
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.

that COULD have been a cut done with a torch during the clean-up.
i've had this discussion aslewhere. i agree it is probably from the demo, but it's not 'good evidence' without a timeline. i figure is was a cutter charge because of the angle of the cut. the cleanup crew would presumably have cut it lower down. IF you're going to cleanup that beam, get the whole thing, and don't leave a huge stump sticking up.
but, then again, maybe they cut off an exact thirty foot length for truck-loading considerations.

we are almost out of the tunnel of lies, i feel. it would be bad to trip at the last second.

Howard. At what temperature does aluminum glow orange in broad daylight?

Griff, how hot can the tip of a candle flame get?

Actually, the tip of the candle flame does not get any hotter. Now, if you are trying to say that a candle flame can heat an object, then yes it can. And it could probably heat the object until it reaches it's threashold. But you are using strawman tactics here to wave your hand away from my question so I'll reiterate it for you.

How hot does aluminum need to be to glow orange in broad daylight?

Furthermore Howard,

It wouldn't matter how much heat the flame has. The aluminum would have melted into it's silvery form until all the aluminum was melted (I mean all aluminum that this liquid came from...not the entire plane). Ever try to boil water that still has ice in it? Guess what the surrounding water's temperature is? I'll give ya a hint...0C no matter how much heat is added. It stays at this temperature until ALL the ice is melted. It doesn't boil around the ice. Then once it has converted to all liquid, it starts to gain temperature until boiling point. Guess what temperature it stays at until ALL water has boiled...yup..100C.

Also, once this silvery aluminum turns liquid, what made it stay there until it was hot enough to glow orange? As soon as it turns liquid, it would start to flow...hmm...probably away from this heat source thus cooling it down. So, tell me what made this liquid aluminum stay in this heat until it got to the glowing orange part?

Originally posted by billybob
that COULD have been a cut done with a torch during the clean-up.
i've had this discussion aslewhere. i agree it is probably from the demo, but it's not 'good evidence' without a timeline. i figure is was a cutter charge because of the angle of the cut. the cleanup crew would presumably have cut it lower down. IF you're going to cleanup that beam, get the whole thing, and don't leave a huge stump sticking up.
but, then again, maybe they cut off an exact thirty foot length for truck-loading considerations.

we are almost out of the tunnel of lies, i feel. it would be bad to trip at the last second.

The photo, in and of itself, is not conclusive evidence. But when considered in the context of actually finding thermate on WTC wreckage it adds considerably to the argument that the towers were destroyed via controlled demolition.

With regards to you analysing the photo, you've done a pretty good job of outlining the salient points. I would add that the cut to the column is on an angle, which would be redundant in any clean up operation.

But in the abscence of any timeline for this image, the presence of firemen indicate that this is not that long after the collapse. The clean up operation was carried out by contractors, not firemen. The presence of firemen points to ongoing rescue operations. Cutting through huge H columns with blow torches would not be ongoing if there were chances people could be rescued from the wreckage. I would say the clean up operation had not yet began when that photo was taken.

A question I would add to those doubting this story is, would you oppose the opening of an impartial investigation of 9/11? When the accusation is some element of the US government carried out these attacks to be used as a pretext for curtailing civil liberties and expansionist policies in the Middle East, what good is an enquiry headed and controlled by the US government? If there is no evidence of US government involvement or controlled demolition then there should be no objection from you people to opening another enquiry.

[edit on 22/6/06 by subz]

All of this grows increasingly more tedious. I have no degrees other than in art but I am a careful observer and I know what I saw (via TV but ad nausium) on 9/11 and what makes the most sense to me is that the planes plowed through several support beams, the subsquent fires weakened the remaining beams supporting the floors above them cause the sheer mass to collapse, taking the rest of the floors with them. Did the fires cause the beams to collapse? No...no more than the planes did but the accumulation of events did. Remember the twin towers were designed differently to create as much floor space as possible; the outer walls were the weight bearing walls, and it only makes sense (to me anyways) that if you damage any of that superstructure, the floors above it will become unstable. It reminded me more than anything of the dominos effect.

As much as I despise the Bush administration, their one consistancy has been their chronic lack of imagination...these boys just don't think outside of the box, they don't believe there is anything outside of it to think about. I really believe them when they say no one could have imagined someone flying a plane into the trade centers. Not because it hadn't been considered by the military, it certianly had, but that they simply could not imagine it themselves. Just like they could not imagine that they would not be greeted as liberators with open arms in Iraq or imagined the lawlessness, looting and insurgency. As a result I really have a hard time believing that they had anything to do with 9/11 (at least with the planning and execution) as far as I have been able to surmise, they either (1) Recieved reports that it was going to happen and simply did not believe it or (2) They believed it but simply let it happen (not thinking it would be as bad as it was) for political gain. Either way you cut it, they were either incompentent or complacent and corrupt, neither of which have been good for the country.

Originally posted by grover

As much as I despise the Bush administration, their one consistancy has been their chronic lack of imagination...these boys just don't think outside of the box, they don't believe there is anything outside of it to think about. I really believe them when they say no one could have imagined someone flying a plane into the trade centers.

I suggest you look into p.n.a.c. or operation Northwoods if you really believe that they wouldn't think of these things. BTW, pretty much all of the administration was a part of p.n.a.c. As far as not imagining planes into the WTC, come on...where they the ones living in a cave? Everyone knew it was a possibility. Why else would they have test operations going on at the exact same moment that encompased planes flying into buildings? So, they couldn't image planes flying into buildings but they are going to have test runs that they obviously had imagined planes flying into buildings.

Well, I coulda told ya that

i am not saying this is true or false, but someone out there seems to want people to believe it was a government conspiracy. since 911 happened, i am sure there has been alot of false truths given to the public, to make them believe that the government is behind it.

why would people high up want you to believe it was the government, i do not know.

one thing i am sure of is that those buildings were brought down like controled demolitions, why and how they did it seems to me, we will never find out really.

but just remember somewhere up high in this thing there seems to be alot of people wanting everyone to believe it is the government. why would people high up want that?


[edit on 23-6-2006 by andy1033]

Giff I was talking about THIS administration and its lack of imagination....the military is entirely seperate, yes they have a civilian boss who is part of whatever administration, but the generals and planners are the ones who are paid to antisipate things. I know about northwoods etc. I was saying THIS administration is incapable of thinking outside of muchless imagining anything beyond their little boxes.

But you failed to notice that most of THIS administration was a part of p.n.a.c.

After the 2000 election of George W. Bush, many of the PNAC's members were appointed to key positions within the new President's administration:

Source: en.wikipedia.org...


Look into the link I posted. They have a table with all the admin that was a part of pnac. Still think they are dummies?

Oh come on now do I have to mention EVERYTHING? When I am confronted with any conspericy or odd theory I try and apply Occam's razor to it. William of Occam, who was a medieval scholastic philosopher developed a "razor" to cut through the mulitiude of theories and speculations rampant in scholastic philosophy...phrased in understandable english he basically said, "The more complicated the theory, the less likely it is to be true." For 9/11 to have been a government plot as opposed to governmental inepitude, the conspirecy would by necessity had to have had hundreds of co-conspiritors, people willing to have let this happen in various branches of government and military on a number of different levels. The X-files not withstanding, such a multi faceted plot would have been extremely vernable to leaks. I just don't see it. I am not being niave, just practial. It is easier to imagine a handful of fanatics who die in the event, than a huge governmental conspirecy.

Originally posted by grover
For 9/11 to have been a government plot as opposed to governmental inepitude, the conspirecy would by necessity had to have had hundreds of co-conspiritors, people willing to have let this happen in various branches of government and military on a number of different levels. The X-files not withstanding, such a multi faceted plot would have been extremely vernable to leaks. I just don't see it. I am not being niave, just practial. It is easier to imagine a handful of fanatics who die in the event, than a huge governmental conspirecy.

Bolded by me. Do you think if these people are willing to orchestrate something like this that they would suddenly turn heart and spill the beans? Also, I'm willing to go for just complicity. That still points the finger at them and they should be taken down for it. Like I keep saying, I can't blame ineptitude if something of mine fails, why can the government?

If the government wasn't at least complacent, then why did NORAD stand down? Why did the President stay at Booker Elementary when our country was under attack? Why did Condy Rice tell Mayor Brown not to fly on 9/11? Why, Why, Why. And still the answers are nowhere to be found.

you raise valid arguements, but then so do I. Trust me I am no friend or apologist for this administration.