1 Chop, 2 Chop & ALL 3 Fall Down

My favorite is the hybrid thermite nonsense.
Apparently thermite was suppose to be able to cut on angles huge thick columns of steel no problem.
So why couldn't mythbusters cut an SUV in half with 1,000 lbs of thermite then?



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 1/9/2009 by GenRadek]

[edit on 1/9/2009 by GenRadek]

reply to post by adam_zapple

---

He was using a vastly oversimplified demonstration to illustrate a point, not prove it. He was performing for an audience, not building a case for scientific review. Parsing like this is such a waste of time.

Does it make it a poor illustration of physical behavior? Yes.

Does it change a single fact the man presents? No.

C'mon.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by GenRadek

---

This is thermite

This is thermate

Two different chemical compositions, two different materials.



The trace chemical AE911 refers to is thermate, not thermite.

If you're going to bash the theory, at least get the particulars correct.


[edit on 10-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by GenRadek

Note very last paragraph from the link you had provided
on the FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study:
911research.wtc7.net...


Though i suppose it's possible that the right mix of ingredients in the rubble with the right environmental conditions could have created an acid strong enough to mimic the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur that Dr. Jones referred to what is found consistent with the theory of thermite arson. Being that virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic further independent analysis, i suppose we'll never know for absolute sure. Yet if i were forced to choose between acid rain and thermite... the latter explains what we saw in the collapse of all three buildings.

As for the other link:
www.debunking911.com...
Shortly into this article, i reached this statement, reminds me of something adam would say. So for now i'm not going to bother reading any further, i've had my fill of nonsense for the day.



[edit on 10-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Ahh I see, so given your lack of knowledge into chemistry, a well known fact and property of iron is a load of nonsense eh?
Heh, ok whatever you say pal. If you are willing to ignore facts, real facts, and you more than happily accept the idea that the towers should have fallen over like a tree, I can see your common sense and reasoning abilities are somehow severely impaired.

So the million $ question: Are you willing to explain how iron cannot burn or heat up when its oxidizing or are you about to admit a children's science magazine knows more than you?

Extra credit: Do you even know what oxidation is?

reply to post by cogburn

---

Oh no I no the difference between the two!
Its just that Jonesy and the CT crew like to interchange the two constantly and I hear thermite and thermate used at the same time.

However, Jonesy forgets what other source of sulfur that was more in volume in the pile AND he also never discovers the barium nitrate, a byproduct of thermate. I am sure you also noticed this important part lacking in his claim.

www.dodtechmatch.com...

But I thank you for you clarification again!

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Ah, the sulfur source to sulfide the iron and lower its melting point. I have not estimated the weight of plasterboard in the building or on the impact floors, but I imagine that both numbers were significant. A 4x8 sheet of half-inch has about 70 pounds of CaSO4.2H20. That means each sheet has about 13 pounds of sulfur in it. The question is, how do we get to sulfide in steel from sulfate in plaster? The answer is obviously that the sulfate is reduced to sulfide or sulfur in the fires. The reducing agent is carbon, in the form of partially combusted fuel and office furnishings. Likely CO is a culprit but, at those temperatures, so is every other carbonaceous specie, including paper. Gravimetric analyses using sulfates were fraught with error if the ashing of filter paper in the crucible was oxygen poor and the sulfates were reduced to sulfides. Simple chemistry gets us sulfides, as does the burning jet fuel.
How do we get scatter and contact with the steel? Drop a sheet of plasterboard, sometime, and note the dust. Now hit it with an airplane at 400+ mph. Dust everywhere from hundreds of sheets of plaster board. What else might the airplane do? Strip the remaining structure to its skeleton, exposing steel, while igniting its fuel.
Bare steel, sulfate dust, reducing conditions, and heat allow the formation of sulfides in steel. It is also possible that elemental sulfur was formed and, as a vapor above 445 C, would have access to react with any exposed steel above that temperature and would condense as a hot liquid on steel below that temperature where it could also react.
Who needs tons of thermite and Byzantine conspiracies when you have one of the biggest non-nuclear cruise missiles in the world to do the job?

I get it now, i think i see the light...

... like two fuel filled torpedoes the planes started the fires, that in turn made all the steel beams of all 110 floors brittle as twigs and as tower 1 went down some steel beams were thrown over wtc6 and hit the side of wtc7... which in turn made all the steel beams of all 37 floors in wtc7 to become brittle as twigs and eventually collapsed aprox 5 1/2 hours later... all at once at free-fall speed (just like towers 1&2 proceeding)... and in the aftermath we have a chemical cocktail soup that left the materials of the pile of debris for all three buildings further damaged with characteristics that mimic a thermite arson, but are really just evidence of acid and rust damage.

How is this as a general description, do i have it right?

[edit on 10-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Not exactly, but you did call out the prime cause, the two airplanes.
All that needed to fail in either tower was the structure at the level of the damaged floors. Everything else followed from that….but you already know this. You already know that the tons of thermite that some need to invoke wouldn’t cause failure in such a rapid manner, nor could the failures be timed like high explosives. You also know that brittleness doesn’t have anything to do with the failures of the rest of the buildings. You realize that the vertical support columns depended on horizontal members to stabilize them and that dynamic loads and static loads are entirely different.
Your expertise in chemistry and forensic science, along with your web surfing ability allows you to conclude that not everything that ever got hot mimics a thermite arson. You know hot steel will burn in air and when there are fires burning weeks later that they are not a diagnostic for thermite. You know that Prof. Jones is physicist who should stay in school. You alone know that fires containing everything from plaster, to paper, to flooring, to plastic, to fluorescent lights, to steel and aluminum would be of such purity that they would approach the combustion of diamonds fanned by breezes from the wings of angels.
You almost had me convinced of your complete ignorance and lack of technical knowledge but I see now you are just testing some of us by playing dumb and you are really good at it.

pteridine... what can i say, it's a dumb theory you guys are clinging to. I felt like an idiot writing it, but it's what you believe happened. I'm just trying to get my head around it and at the same time attempt to see what you see as truth.

An explanation for what happen on Sept 11th should take no more then a paragraph... not a book full of intellectual posturing that obviously goes out of it's way to explain the unexplainable.

Some of you boys are blinded by your own brilliance and seriously need to get over yourselves, and get real for a change.


... or your ego.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

You believe that a complex plan that has absolutely no evidence for its existence nor technical means for its execution was flawlessly executed. You used the speed of fall of #7 to claim demolition. Is that your claim for #1 and #2?
I say that no other explanations are needed other than the planes that struck the towers. Nothing else fits the facts. Everything else is speculation.

Yes i think it's safe to say 1, 2 & 7... collapses all look very much alike.

Are you saying that the only part of my OS summary,
that you agree with is that the planes initiated everything?

As for the rest, you plead the 5th?

... or is the rest all a matter of flaming hot chemistry and alchemy at play?

[edit on 10-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]

The only point he "illustrated" was that he doesn't seem to understand how a skyscraper can behave differently than cardboard boxes.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

lmao adam ... where have you been?
Are you speed-reading again (skipping over posts)?

never mind... here's a copy and paste from my post not to long ago:

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

I say fire and gravity did the job after the planes damaged 1 & 2. Then, after pieces of the tower hit #7, fires and gravity did that one too.
We agree that the planes initiated everything, so knowing that, you should know what they initiated and how. How the charges were placed and where. What they were. What evidence they left.
I only needed a little chemistry, for your plan you definitely need the Philosopher's stone.

So that would make our OS summaries basically the same.

Therefore fire is number 1 cause of all three collapses?
If so... minus the planes hitting 1&2 and debris hitting 7
but still have the same degree of fire...
would they still have collapsed in the same manner?

reply to post by The All Seeing I

---

Minus the aircraft there would have been no structural damage and no thousands of gallons of fuel to feed and spread the fires. No insulation would have been knocked off the trusses holding the outer walls to the core. I cannot say if the buildings would have collapsed, although cases of fire induced collapse of steel framed buildings are known.

reply to post by GenRadek

---

You need to brush up on your chemistry.

Barium nitrate is an oxidizer and an accelerant. There would have been little to no barium nitrate residue because it's sole purpose is to be completely consumed.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by cogburn]

reply to post by cogburn

---

Yes, but the barium would still be present as other compounds, such as carbonates and sulfates, given the proposed composition of the thermate. There would have been a detectable amount of barium given the amount of thermate necessary to do anything to a large structure. Did Prof. Jones claim to find any Barium?

[edit on 1/11/2009 by pteridine]