Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

reply to post by mmiichael


Jones is just one of many people who are seeking, will seek and prove what really happened. If it came all down to just Alex Jones, I would agree with you.

This isn't about a wining side, not for me anyway.

How many times have you watched the live demolition of WTC 7?

Did you see the squibs go off?

Did you see the crimp in the middle of the building?

Did you compare the other closer more damaged and more burnt out buildings with WTC 7's damage/fires?

How many times have you seen the live news reports on BBC and CNN stating that WTC 7 had collapsed (10 or more minutes before it really collapsed), with WTC 7 in the background of the reporter?

Did you think the BBC, in England showing live footage from New York, scrambled and dropped out just after the building was shown was at all strange?

Did the dust look just like the dust from WTC 1 &2, just on a smaller scale?

What is your explanation of the sat images of the heat from the molten steel at all three WTC sites?

I'm not asking you to change you mind, but just look at the real uncensored and clean evidence again - Starting with the impact of the first plane.

Cheers

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyline666]

reply to post by undermind


Wow. Are you done? Do you feel better?

Take a few deep breaths, and try to relax man. I wouldnt want you to to go tell the site owner that I'm being too bossy. But seriously, I'm not really interested in who can type to most trash, so spare me.

There was a lot of babble in your post, but I failed to see how it was relevent to this thread?

Did you have some links to post? Did I read correctly that you stated you educated Dr. Jones? That sounds pretty impressive. Do you have the means to discredit all his findings with your own data? Are you going to share the wealth of knowledge with the rest of us to demonstrate your own ability to prove me or anyone else here wrong?

Or are you simply going to continue waisting all of our time with your opinion?

Originally posted by SPreston
reply to post by esdad71

 

Perhaps you overlooked the posts in this thread in which F R Greening appeared to be a novice scientist and Jones and others had to correct his science. And I was replying to a post referring to Greening's apparent extensive use of unscientific guesswork on his disinformation website.

No, I read the posts and are aware of the criticism but then again a quick google search can do the same for Jones. Thanks for making sure.

However, why would there be thermite left to test? Would it not have all been used in the slicing of the steel beams? You see, this line of the conclusion I think is a good one...

As measured using DSC, the material ignites and reacts vigorously at a temperature of approximately 430 °C, with a rather narrow exotherm, matching fairly closely an independent observation on a known super-thermite sample. The low temperature of ignition and the presence of iron oxide grains less than 120 nm show that the material is not conventional thermite (which ignites at temperatures above 900 °C) but very likely a form of super-thermite.

first, what is the Known super-thermite they are comparing it against and secondly, they are bending the laws of physics stating that this sample is "different" with a lower ignition temperature and makes it super thermite? If you turned that in as a 10th grade science project you would get a D.

Originally posted by Skyline666

Jones is just one of many people who are seeking, will seek and prove what really happened. If it came all down to just Alex Jones, I would agree with you.

This isn't about a wining side, not for me anyway.

[...]

I'm not asking you to change you mind, but just look at the real uncensored and clean evidence again - Starting with the impact of the first plane.

I appreciate your reasonable reply.

There are many things that happened on 9/11 that defy people's notion of what would occur when such huge structures are impacted by large planes. There are inconsistencies in the ongoing coverage and follow-up.

These have been addressed painstakingly by not only government approved agencies but by many concerned private professionals worldwide also seeking answers.

For the questions you listed there are qualified but reasonable explanations backed up by evidence even if they may conflict with your expectations.

I am not an advocate of any of these explanations, just someone who accepts the best available until something more substantiated can replace it.
This does not mean I automatically accept everything from authoritative sources and those that concur.

Those who question what happened on 9/11 have legitimate issues. My criticism is only that much of what they put forward as evidence is unscientific and often agenda driven.

No one in the world knows what one of the WTC building hit by a plane compared to one of the same design hit by a plane with explosives to precipitate a collapse would look like. Those who claim they do based on a partial understanding of physics, chemistry, demolition, engineering, etc - are unreliable. Yet so many of them claim superior knowledge and condemn out of hand those who disagree. Science through intimidation.

I find this a problem and impediment to establishing the truth.


Mike



[edit on 5-6-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


I completely understand and respect what you are saying.

I just wanted to know your thoughts on all known evidence regarding WTC 7, and what your theory is to how it collapsed?

If you have posted this before, I will read it.

Cheers,
Chris

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyline666]

[edit on 5-6-2009 by Skyline666]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by turbofan

Originally posted by mmiichael
Maybe he can provide us with edited version these queries and his replies, in the spirit of transparency. Why don't you ask Dr. Jones?

Are you asking me to write Jones about coming here to discuss your
questions, and/or address Woods?

Thought it was pretty clear.

Jones is fielding inquiries from the public.

Can we see those questions and his replies?

If not, why not?

This is not an unusual request.


Mike

[edit on 5-6-2009 by mmiichael]

With all due respect, do I look like your bi*ch?

For the gazillionth time, here is Jones' e-mail. Get your lazy fingers
out from under your butt and write him yourself!

[email protected]

posted by esdad71

However, why would there be thermite left to test? Would it not have all been used in the slicing of the steel beams? You see, this line of the conclusion I think is a good one...

That was postulated in these threads. Chemist Professor Niels Harrit states on Danish TV that nano-thermite is an explosive and an incendiary.

Linda Moulton Howe, "Nano-Thermitic Material in WTC Dust"

Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.

It can explode and break things apart, and it can melt things.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center

A theory on how the nanothermite red dust particles were produced and where they came from.

posted by TDX

There is one thing which baffles me- the quantity of the unignited nanothermite, it seems to be in rather large multi-ton quantities, standard explanation (that these chips were in close contact with steel, therefore the....) is not acceptable, becuase the surface area of the charges would have to be very large and the ignition temperature (around 430°C) would cause the thermite burn no-matter-what inside the charge.

Instead, I propose that the unignited thermite came from unignited charges

Our preparators had to knock the towers down, but they couldn't be sure with the exact extent of the fire and airplane damage, so what they did was to put far more charges than necessary.

During the last few seconds of the precollapse preparation one of the charges cut the critical column, while the other charges were still burning (the burning couldn't be synchronized, even when using nanothermite), or unignited, then the collapsing floors destroyed the unignited charges and forced the chips into air.

The stream of molten metal (NE corner), which was seen during the precollapse preparation of south tower, but what you don't know is that there was a significant amount of red dust during the first 2-3 seconds of the collapse, the movement of the dust suggests that it consists of relatively small particles, therefore it is not cooling molten metal.

The most probable theory is, that the molten metal came from thermite charges, which were dislodged by the aircraft impact (the charges were originally intended to cut some of the 1000 or 900 row core columns in the building), unfortunately the spacing of the exterior columns prevented the charges from escaping the building, so they remained inside the debris pile, some of them ignited (the yellow molten metal) and some of them didn't go of (the red dust during the collapse).

source

Sorry SPReston, that is all theory and no proof. I know 'what' it is i want to know what they were comparing it too since it did not act like what they were comparing it to which would negate the experiment.

posted by esdad71
Sorry SPReston, that is all theory and no proof. I know 'what' it is i want to know what they were comparing it too since it did not act like what they were comparing it to which would negate the experiment.

Contact your local high ranking US Army General or a Defense Department liason and perhaps they will feed you some pertinent data.

Some of the information you seek is in the 2nd linked thread above. They used a known super-thermite. They did not have access to Defense Department nano-super-thermite to compare against.

Originally posted by SPreston

But allegedly fine particle nano-thermite creates far more energy than ordinary thermite, ...

Please show us the chemistry equation showing more energy for a chemical reaction because you say it has more energy. You can't change chemistry with nano-thermite mubo jumbo talk. It is thermite or it is not thermite and you can't change chemistry because you say there is more heat per pound because you wish it to be so because you think a failed paper of Jones says so.
I will wait for you to post the formula and how you got more energy from a reaction. How do you and Jones change reality to get more energy out of a pound of thermite? This will be good.