Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

reply to post by FDNY343


If you were at the NW corner of building four, you should have been very close to the crash. The sound must have been incredible...at 300 feet a jet has 10 times the decibels as a rock concert. At 800 feet, did you receive any hearing loss? How were you able to converse with the other thousands of people?

Can you point to where you were standing and where you saw the aft fuel door on the below map?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ec3defa45571.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by Yankee451
If you were at the NW corner of building four, you should have been very close to the crash.

I was. Correct.

Originally posted by Yankee451
The sound must have been incredible...at 300 feet a jet has 10 times the decibels as a rock concert.

Luckily it wasn't at 300 feet. But, correct.

Originally posted by Yankee451
At 800 feet, did you receive any hearing loss? How were you able to converse with the other thousands of people?

No, I do not suffer any permanant hearing loss.

Because the noise from the jet came and went very quickly. Short burts of high-decibel sounds are not going to cause serious permanant damage. Over hours, yes.

Again, I was able to communicate with others around me as we saw the plane approach, and after the impact. The noise was not constant over long periods of time.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Can you point to where you were standing and where you saw the aft fuel door on the below map?

That was asking you a question. Let me clarify.

Are you asking me specifically WHAT pieces I saw (aft fuel door) or like a general description like seat cushin?

reply to post by godspeaker


Leave if you won't contribute to the thread. We're here to discuss 9/11 and the details therein, not talk about the end of the world and your view of what God's will is.

reply to post by FDNY343


Because the video evidence shows that no parts fell off the plane, I am curious where you saw plane parts.

If the sound was only for a split second, are you saying you SAW a plane, or heard a sound and looked up to see an explosion? Did you SEE it or did you hear other people describe it after the fact?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh I understand, and I also understand that if an FAE was even created, it would have also destroyed the gypsum elevator shafts before traveling 1000+ feet down them to destroy the lobby and steel doors in the basement.

Why would it turn and try to escape through the drywall? What force would act on it to do that? It doesn't just turn because of no reason at all.

Turn? An FAE is a big exploding cloud of gas. It expands everywhere in all directions.




If anyone's saying the FAE is making a turn and going somewhere like a car, it's you in your insinuation that the FAE went down the building, one can only imagine through the drywall shafts such as the elevator shafts. So how did the FAE make a turn from the impact and go down the building without exploding between the impact area and the lobby?

No, but you can look at some of the injuries and see that burns are present.

And so the burns were noted. ....That still doesn't mean there wasn't trauma.

Nobody to my knowledge reported any bleeding ears, or collapsed lungs that I am aware of.

Not to your knowledge as in, if there was bleeding from the ears you would've already known in your almighty genius, right? Well why don't you pull up the medical record for the guy you see laying outside the lobby with his skin burned off, since you've apparently reviewed it well enough to assume he had no trauma. There were people in hospital beds from explosions, and one guy even gave an interview from his hospital bed saying that there was a quick series of explosions like gunshots and then "three big explosions" from which he said he received his injuries.

You can also look at this archsurg.ama-assn.org... that includes a breakdown of injuries from 9/11 at Saint Vincent’s Hospital. This is where the VAST majority of victims of 9/11 went to.

An in the modern age between the NSA and hacker groups like "Anonymous," that website is some hardcore, irrefutable proof, let me tell you. I'd be surprised if you could find a single person listed for being wounded by explosions, or if the medical term used to describe such trauma would even be specified to such a cause, even though there are already YouTube videos even out of that relatively small sample of witnesses that confirm explosions were injuring people. I guess the real people in the videos from that day were lying or hallucinating numerous explosions, even from the hospital bed, but the online, public medical records 10 years later are better testimony to you. No, I think I'll go with, you're the one suffering from hallucinations or delusions.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Because the video evidence shows that no parts fell off the plane, I am curious where you saw plane parts.

If they can land on the roofs of other buildings,where else could they land?

forums.timesdaily.com...

www.angehr.com...

There are two with 30 seconds of Google Images search.

Originally posted by Yankee451
If the sound was only for a split second, are you saying you SAW a plane, or heard a sound and looked up to see an explosion? Did you SEE it or did you hear other people describe it after the fact?

I didn't say split second. I say came and went very quickly. Let me say this again. I SAW the plane as it approached the towers, FELT the rumble of the plane, and SAW it explode on impact with the WTC.

How hard is this to understand?

I physically SAW it. Not heard from other people, not figured it out, SAW it.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Correct. Now, go GOOGLE what a eutectic reaction is. It's an ACID attack. It takes LOTS of time for this to occur. This is NOT something that occurs in 10 seconds.

You have no clue what you're talking about. A eutectic reaction is not an "acid attack." There is not a chance in hell I'm going to believe you over credible academic authorities on the definition of a term.

Here is a definition from an online glossary provided by the University of Southampton, England:

A eutectic reaction is a three-phase reaction, by which, on cooling, a liquid transforms into two solid phases at the same time. It is a phase reaction, but a special one. For example: liquid alloy becomes a solid mixture of alpha and beta at a specific temperature (rather than over a temperature range). The eutectic solid is commonly lamellar (stripy) in form.

www.soton.ac.uk...

I expect to see something at least as credible from you defining a eutectic reaction as an "acid attack." You are thinking of something completely different, and I have no idea how in the hell you confused yourself so bad, let alone became so confident of it.


And before you say the definition above doesn't apply to the WTC:

Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

www.tms.org...

Also appendix C of FEMA's report shows a eutectic reaction consisting primarily of molten iron (I believe those are the exact words) formed on WTC steel, at only 1000 C and well below iron's normal melting point by the use of a material that included sulfur penetrating its grain boundaries and melting them.

Did Cole do a metalurgical analysis with a microscope to see if inner-granular melting occured? No, he did not.

This is hilarious. Do you even know what inter-granular means? Cole melted holes through the steel exactly like you see in FEMA's report, and you think there was no melting between the grains? What happened to the steel that was completely melted away then? If it didn't melt, what happened to it?

reply to post by FDNY343


Okay, well where did you see the parts of the plane then on the map, and what did you see?

The images you linked to are pictures taken after the collapse right?

The footage of the impact you are claiming to have witnessed shows a plane disappear into the building...that's the word used to describe it on the TV...the building ate the plane. Nothing fell off all the way to the tail section.

We've all seen the footage, so if you saw plane parts, where did you see them?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Turn? An FAE is a big exploding cloud of gas. It expands everywhere in all directions.

Correct. But it will travel through the path of least resistance, which is down. Not through sheets of drywall.

Originally posted by bsbray11
If anyone's saying the FAE is making a turn and going somewhere like a car, it's you in your insinuation that the FAE went down the building, one can only imagine through the drywall shafts such as the elevator shafts. So how did the FAE make a turn from the impact and go down the building without exploding between the impact area and the lobby?

This makes no sense whatsoever.
Where else is a liquid going to go?

Originally posted by bsbray11
And so the burns were noted. ....That still doesn't mean there wasn't trauma.

Baratraumatic injuries are very serious, and usually require surgery if severe. They effect the air-filled organs in your body (sinuses, lungs, eardrums, etc)

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not to your knowledge as in, if there was bleeding from the ears you would've already known in your almighty genius, right? Well why don't you pull up the medical record for the guy you see laying outside the lobby with his skin burned off, since you've apparently reviewed it well enough to assume he had no trauma.

Well, considering he had his skin BURNED off, then most likely his injuries are due to FIRE, and not an EXPLOSION from some kind of EXPLOSIVE.

Originally posted by bsbray11
There were people in hospital beds from explosions, and one guy even gave an interview from his hospital bed saying that there was a quick series of explosions like gunshots and then "three big explosions" from which he said he received his injuries.

Again, if it was from an EXPLOSIVE, he would have had baratraumatic injuries.

Do you have a source for this? I would love to see it to get a frame of reference.

Originally posted by bsbray11
An in the modern age between the NSA and hacker groups like "Anonymous," that website is some hardcore, irrefutable proof, let me tell you.

Um, you do realize that the link that I posted was to the Journal of the American Medical Association, right? And not a hacker group like you seem to be claiming. It is a journal about surgeries. You can read some of their other journal entries here.
archsurg.ama-assn.org...

Originally posted by bsbray11

I'd be surprised if you could find a single person listed for being wounded by explosions, or if the medical term used to describe such trauma would even be specified to such a cause, even though there are already YouTube videos even out of that relatively small sample of witnesses that confirm explosions were injuring people.

It would, considering baratrauma injuries require a specific treatment, and would present with different symptoms.

Again, I have no doubt that EXPLOSIONS (meaning something rupturing with a ball of flames) would burn people. However, an EXPLOSIVE would cause different injuries. Not burns.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I guess the real people in the videos from that day were lying or hallucinating numerous explosions, even from the hospital bed, but the online, public medical records 10 years later are better testimony to you. No, I think I'll go with, you're the one suffering from hallucinations or delusions.

Again, I have no doubt that the people in te lobby suffered from an explosion. HOWEVER, not from any EXPLOSIVE.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Correct. But it will travel through the path of least resistance, which is down. Not through sheets of drywall.

My God, it's one horrible horrible misunderstanding of physics after another.

Set a pumpkin next to C4 and detonate the C4. The open air is the path of least resistance. Are you telling me the pumpkin isn't going to be destroyed?

Now an FAE. It's a big explosion you say is going down elevator shafts made of drywall. And yet the drywall isn't destroyed?

"Path of least resistance" isn't supposed to mean the space between your ears.

This makes no sense whatsoever.
Where else is a liquid going to go?

Is it burning liquid or is it an FAE? Or is it a burning liquid until it gets to the lobby, then it's magically distributed as an aerosol in the correct proportions to create an FAE?

Well, considering he had his skin BURNED off, then most likely his injuries are due to FIRE, and not an EXPLOSION from some kind of EXPLOSIVE.

There are bombs that cause fireballs. Real FAE's that the military develop (with precision) are one example. Any number of bombs like they drop on Iraq or Afghanistan are also examples. And evidence suggests whatever happened, happened from the basement, if you really want to know. And I would be more than happy to be the one to introduce what evidence I am talking about to you. We can see how much you can handle without scrambling to instantly make irrational excuses for every single thing.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Again, if it was from an EXPLOSIVE, he would have had baratraumatic injuries.

Do you have a source for this? I would love to see it to get a frame of reference.

I'm about to run out the door but here are two videos right off the top of a YouTube search:

Um, you do realize that the link that I posted was to the Journal of the American Medical Association, right? And not a hacker group like you seem to be claiming. It is a journal about surgeries. You can read some of their other journal entries here.
archsurg.ama-assn.org...

You missed my insinuation. I have friends that could hack that website and make it say whatever they want. And you think it's more credible than video testimony straight from the hospital bed. You would sooner say victims are lying. That is disgusting.

reply to post by Varemia


The Naudet film shows the impact up close...very timely placement for old Jules...it appears that a lot of cladding gets blown away, but no real steel is visible.

If I was making a movie set, I'd put explosives behind the cladding for the fireball, and then ignite the thermate to cut the gash.

At first I was puzzled by the alleged wing scarring to the aluminum cladding...sure looks like something smacked into the building. The mark is what I'd expect a flat wing to make, not the swept back wing of the jet. But then there's this closeup:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/465111fb6383.jpg[/atsimg]

thewebfairy.com...#

First note the shape of the columns behind the cladding. See how they're not flat, but more like the shape of a long "U", with the top of the U facing out. That's what the wing would hit...not the flat side of a piece of quarter inch steel, but two knife edges of quarter inch steel on each column.

Look at the gash to the left now...note the damage to the steel. See how the gash appears to have come from the left? The wing's sawing motion would have started from the middle and moved outwards, what can explain the opposite?

Incidentally, look to the right of the lower right arrow...how hot were those fires?

I had more time to find videos of explosion victims from hospital beds:



That's Arthur DelBianco and he's the person I was originally thinking of.






I have lots of videos of other witnesses who weren't as seriously injured at Ground Zero.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by godspeaker

 

Leave if you won't contribute to the thread. We're here to discuss 9/11 and the details therein, not talk about the end of the world and your view of what God's will is.

The 9/11 attacks were the biggest deception the rich people have ever performed to get what they wanted. They got more control of the government, the oil business in the middle east more protected and they still have over half the citizens of the U.S. believing some mountain men could do such a heinious act on the Americans.

Originally posted by godspeaker

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by godspeaker

 

Leave if you won't contribute to the thread. We're here to discuss 9/11 and the details therein, not talk about the end of the world and your view of what God's will is.

The 9/11 attacks were the biggest deception the rich people have ever performed to get what they wanted. They got more control of the government, the oil business in the middle east more protected and they still have over half the citizens of the U.S. believing some mountain men could do such a heinious act on the Americans.

Hey, an uneducated, one-balled failed landscape artist caused more death and destruction than any human in history so why couldn't "mountain men" figure out how to hijack 4 planes.

reply to post by Yankee451


You're making so many unfounded assumptions that it's ridiculous. The panels that got knocked off/ broken look like they could be similar material to the gutters you see on houses. You can also see that way that they were attached in segments regardless of what I thought they looked like. If you sever it, then the part on top falls away.

Seriously though, you haven't answered my question about what happened to the perimeter section toward the center of the hole. Did it shoot out of the tower or into the tower?

I can't be certain, but I think it went into the tower, meaning that something had to impart a force in that direction. Otherwise, the explosion from the inside would have forced them outward after the plane hit and the "thermite" cut the columns.

Honestly, I just don't see enough backing for your idea. It still makes way more sense and takes a lot less assuming to just say a plane hit the towers. It explains the hole, the impact damage to the exterior casing on the perimeter, the explosion, the explosions down the elevator shafts (jet fuel). I mean, really, you can't just assume that the plane was fake and then build all your theories on ways that someone would fake a plane. There's no evidence for it at all!

Edit: This may interest you. It's a gas explosion. Compare it to what happened in the towers. Notice how it keeps burning?

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

Out of aluminum ammunition for your gun?

I didn't slip in the MIT paper as proof a wing can cut steel...you did that. Why aren't you prepared to defend your evidence?

The steel was 9.5mm thick according to the report, but it was also folded into square tubes, multiplying it's strength at the same time it is multiplying the layers of steel necessary for the silly sword-wing to slice through, so why didn't the MIT geniuses roll all that steel into a big column for the sake of their modeling, and why would you keep referring to 1/4 inch steel instead of referring to a tubular column of 1/4 inch steel? Are you still clutching at straw men?

Just for kicks, the next time you try to name-drop or try to use some technical school's "paper" as evidence to support your position, you might try reading the paper first.

We'll let the readers decide who's loathsome and who's pugnacious.

Aluminum gun ammunition is very effective against all targets.See www.youtube.com... and others.

Just for kicks, the next time you try to rebut a paper, you might try reading the paper first.

"Each column was a box structure, almost square, with a assumed wall thickness of t ext = 9.5mm. In actuality, the exterior columns were variable in thickness of 12.5mm at the bottom of the buildings to 7mm at the top. The true columns thickness of that portion that was
hit is not known to the authors."

Their estimate of 9.5mm is weighted in favor of the plane not penetrating the columns.

"Perimeter columns in the upper stories were typically fabricated of lighter gauge steel, most commonly 0.25 in (6.35 mm) …In contrast to the upper stories, in the lower stories, the perimeter column flanges were as thick as 3 in. (76 mm) and typically made of lower strength steels." wtcmodel.wikidot.com...

The steel was welded into box members of dimensions shown in many references.

I sent you the paper because I thought you were interested in the calculations. If you want real evidence that wings can cut steel, review the videos and still photographs of the impacts. If you don't like the idea that the holes were caused by the aircraft, join the no-planer crowd.

I can't wait to see your debut in the next Cole video.

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by godspeaker

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by godspeaker

 

Leave if you won't contribute to the thread. We're here to discuss 9/11 and the details therein, not talk about the end of the world and your view of what God's will is.

The 9/11 attacks were the biggest deception the rich people have ever performed to get what they wanted. They got more control of the government, the oil business in the middle east more protected and they still have over half the citizens of the U.S. believing some mountain men could do such a heinious act on the Americans.

Hey, an uneducated, one-balled failed landscape artist caused more death and destruction than any human in history so why couldn't "mountain men" figure out how to hijack 4 planes.

They didn't hijack four planes and fly them to strategic locations. You're arguing for nothing because no one will tell you who actually did it. To argue about one tiny thing such as shearing explosives is like a child playing in a sandpile in the middle of the desert. You will never get to the truth with such arguments.

reply to post by godspeaker

They didn't hijack four planes and fly them to strategic locations. You're arguing for nothing because no one will tell you who actually did it. To argue about one tiny thing such as shearing explosives is like a child playing in a sandpile in the middle of the desert. You will never get to the truth with such arguments

Sorry, I'm already at the truth. You are the one wandering around in the desert looking for evidence to support your worldview wherein you're being oppressed by powerful forces beyond your control. You're not being oppressed by anything but your own limitations.

reply to post by godspeaker


Got anything to add about the evidence of thermate in the Naudet video, or the tests mentioned in the OP?

If not, why not...move along.