Clear Video Evidence of Thermite Pouring Out of the Tower Just Before Collapse?

No, I have no idea. I'm just debunking something that many people believe. Also, alternatively, if there was an oxygen rich atmosphere in the bulding as the government says then there wouldn't be any need for the thermite. Besides, if the government really wanted to bring down the building they wouldn't be so stupid as to put thermite in the whole building.

Again, I have no idea, all I know is that thermite couldn't have been used.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by JenovaMM]

Originally posted by JenovaMM
No, I have no idea. I'm just debunking something that many people believe. Also, alternatively, if there was an oxygen rich atmosphere in the bulding as the government says then there wouldn't be any need for the thermite. Besides, if the government really wanted to bring down the building they wouldn't be so stupid as to put thermite in the whole building.

Again, I have no idea, all I know is that thermite couldn't have been used.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by JenovaMM]

well can you show how your so sure that the fire had a lack of oxygen? also its not really debunking unless you can show the physical evidence of how you came to such a conclusion. without evidence it isnt really debunking.

Sorry, bad language. The smoke coming out of the windows was too thick, too black. Most anyone who works around fires knows that the darker smoke means the fire isn't getting enough oxygen. An example would be a candle compared to a fire when in an enclosed room.

Originally posted by JenovaMM
Sorry, bad language. The smoke coming out of the windows was too thick, too black. Most anyone who works around fires knows that the darker smoke means the fire isn't getting enough oxygen. An example would be a candle compared to a fire when in an enclosed room.

No I realize that, I build fires all the time, I know exactly what the smoke means, but how do you prove that it wasn't getting the oxygen. when A plane rams into the side of a building, it usually opens a pretty big whole. Now I agree that the fires didn't have enough oxygen, but I think that it would be assuming to say that the explosives had a lack of ovygen because the place of the fires had a lack of it.

Let's say half the building was getting enough oxygen but the other half wasn't. The building would have fallen on it's side rather then straight down as they did. The thermite in the oxygen-starved region wouldn't be able to ignite properly.

Originally posted by JenovaMM
Let's say half the building was getting enough oxygen but the other half wasn't. The building would have fallen on it's side rather then straight down as they did. The thermite in the oxygen-starved region wouldn't be able to ignite properly.

well let me ask this, how do they get the oxygen to building they are going to demo?

They don't have a fire in most of the buildings that they demolish... Fire makes demolition unpredictable.

[edit on 25-10-2006 by JenovaMM]

Explosives can explode under water. I'm not sure, but I think part of the chemical reaction includes the production of oxygen.

Some explosives can but my argument is against thermite. Thermite cannot go off underwater.

People try and dispute the use of explosives in the World Trade Center because there was no evidence of their use... Hmmmmm.. I wonder if there would be evidence if the crime scene hadn't been quickly cleaned up ?

The fast cleanup is suspicious but this thread pertains to the use of thermite to initiate the collapse, not explosives in general, that is why I kept my argument confined to thermite. Bombs might have been used, I haven't seen enough proof for one side or the other but I know that thermite couldn't have been used because of how the building fell and the smoke content in portions of the building that were closed off.

Some explosives can but my argument is against thermite. Thermite cannot go off underwater.

I agree completely. Thermite also won't go off in a low oxygen atmosphere.
But I wonder, could something be added to give off oxygen in the reaction?

That's an interesting theory except what would be able to clear out the smoke and provide enough oxygen without generating a larger fire? You would see less smoke in the videos if there was the oxygen and the fire would be much more intense.

Right --- and I didn't mean for my comment to come out of place I was simply reading earlier in this thread people(not you)who quickly would dismiss the use of thermite/mate because of the lack of evidence. Clearly forgetting that the only evidence we have to discuss and decipher whether such explosives were used is the external video footage of the attack, which obviously is insufficient and frusterating(especially considering that for those building to collapse, the central core HAD to be destroyed or incredibly weakened, no way cameras are capturing any of that)for those of us who want to study this event from all angles. It is indeed suspicious.

Thermite/mate can't be the only thing that could have been used, is it ? I mean, in an oxygen starved enviorment there isn't anything that could be used that has the same effect(as far as eating through and weakening metal)and could have been used ?

It would have to be something that would burn through the metal slowly but everything like that would seem to run into the same lack of oxygen problem or amount restrictions.

I don't know your specific expertise or how much you know and if you know this, but I understand the importance of oxygen in igniting a flame as well as keeping it going, and I am curious as to the minimum amount of oxygen needed in a given space so that a small charge could gain enough oxygen as to ignite and sustain a minimal, yet still quite hot, flame or magma substance ?

It depends on the charge. I have no idea for thermite/thermate.

It is possible to still ignite a candle without much oxygen, it just burns weak and small. On a larger scale could something(thermite or not)have just enough oxygen as to keep it going long enough(smaller amounts but longer exposure)to weaken the frame work ?

I was referring to some kind of chemical additive to the thermite that could give off oxygen to the localized reaction. Kind of like how magnesium can burn under water because it makes its own oxygen to sustain the process. Add powdered magnesium to thermite maybe?
I'm not a chemist, can't prove it by me...