Best 9/11 documentaries

a reply to: Zaphod58

"identically uniform"... You mean like mass produced steel beams? The materials it's burning through in this case would be pretty darn (I.e. inspected and approved) consistent unless they slapped up a high rise with hodge podge ends and pieces.
Besides, thermite is just one issue.

Compressed air isn't going to travel through intact understructure before it does micronized concrete dust anyway, there were explosives used and those are squibs from demolition charges. George Bush himself said as much...


Debris and collapsing material doesn't accelerate through intact understructure either for that matter, unless it is of course WTC debris and collapsing material. I can't think of any other instance in physics where something actually accelerates through the path of MOST resistance without some, as of yet, officially unaccounted for tremendous energy source.

a reply to: twitchy

And yet, as SO posted in one of the threads, there is evidence that sub standard construction occurred. Mass produced doesn't eliminate differences between batches of steel. Neither does testing.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Substandard construction is one thing, defying physics by accelerating through intact understructure is another entirely and is ONLY possible in a carefully planned and coordinated controlled demolition. Trying to portray the WTC towers as some haphazard construction job with bad mafia steel is a little presumptuous, and irrelevant if it was demolished.

a reply to: twitchy
If the president of the United States says that they planted explosives in the building, then by golly it's good enough for me to at least consider the notion. Especially since there's no other possible way for it to happen... three times in one day.

a reply to: twitchy

So after claiming that thermite cannot be timed, which it obviously can, now you're saying that thermite wouldn't be able to take a building down because the timing from an initial ignition to a full blown thermitic reaction is too slow?

It is too slow and demolition companies do not use thermite to demolish tall buildings because it is not effective. Take a look at the following photo and notice how much preparation was required to burn two legs of a tower with thermite, and notice that it was done near ground-level.

Photo: Thermite Drops Tower

a reply to: twitchy

If the president of the United States says that they planted explosives in the building, then by golly it's good enough for me to at least consider the notion. Especially since there's no other possible way for it to happen... three times in one day.

At no time did Bush claim that explosives were planted in the WTC buildings, you took his comments out of context. Were there breaking news headlines that Bush said explosives were planted in the WTC buildings?

.

a reply to: twitchy

Substandard construction is one thing, defying physics by accelerating through intact understructure is another entirely and is ONLY possible in a carefully planned and coordinated controlled demolition.

That can be done without explosives. Case in point.

a reply to: skyeagle409
Too slow? Let's look at your own source... Which says, "melting the 10 foot sections almost instantly". You actually do a pretty good job of debunking yourself.
What is that, circa 1920's? Thermite was pretty much invented in 1893, you reckon they came up with a better version of it in 108 years before 9-11?

a reply to: twitchy

What is that, circa 1920's? Thermite was pretty much invented in 1893, you reckon they came up with a better version of it in 108 years before 9-11?

Since that time, how many times has thermite been used to demolish tall buildings?

originally posted by: skyeagle409 At no time did Bush claim that explosives were planted in the WTC buildings.

You see the problem there right? That's exactly what the man said, on national television. I watched that one live, there's a video of him saying it. How far out of context do you need it to twist before that isn't what the man said? Is that doublespeak, or triple ungood plus doublespeak? LOL what a riot. I did enjoy your video of other controlled demolitions though, the similarities are staggering and the more people see that the better.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: twitchy

What is that, circa 1920's? Thermite was pretty much invented in 1893, you reckon they came up with a better version of it in 108 years before 9-11?

Since that time, how many times has thermite been used to demolish tall buildings?

Well, there's your example, it was about 600 plus feet tall, then there's the roof of the German Reichstag which was finally brought down by thermite charges in 1954. I'm sure there are other examples, but commercial demolition companies don't generally use it but then they aren't sneaking in and out of US landmarks at four in the morning either.

a reply to: twitchy

He is referring to explosions of the aircraft, not planted chemical explosives.

It is too slow and demolition companies do not use thermite to demolish tall buildings because it is not effective. Take a look at the following photo and notice how much preparation was required to burn two legs of a tower with thermite, and notice that it was done near ground-level.

Linear Thermite Charge

Benefits

Can cut both concrete and steel at one time making rebar/concrete structural elements faster to demolish
Can be designed to produce a linear cut by the use of a linear fixed-nozzle or a moving circular nozzle
Cuts with the speed of explosive shaped charges but without the fragmentation and logistical problems of explosives

Applications and Industries

Infrastructure (building/bridge) demolition


techportal.eere.energy.gov...=764

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: twitchy

He is referring to explosions of the aircraft, not planted chemical explosives.

Uh, no he isn't. Bush is a complete moron, famous for it in fact, but there's no other context for it to be taken in. Dismissive is one thing, outright denial in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary though, well you know what that is... Fanaticism. The man clearly says explosives. It even slows it down real good at the end there for you.

a reply to: wildb


About two thirds of the way through this video, there is some mention of companies involved in developing thermite for demolitions I thought you would find interesting. It's an overwhelming overload of info but it was in there somewhere, your link reminded me of it.

originally posted by: twitchy
a reply to: wildb

About two thirds of the way through this video, there is some mention of companies involved in developing thermite for demolitions I thought you would find interesting. It's an overwhelming overload of info but it was in there somewhere, your link reminded me of it.

Yes I know what your talking about, a division of Komatsu company. They developed methods for using thermite to demolish buildings..

The info is at 24:35 into the video

My confidence is lacking in any links to NIST, or arguments presented by them in regards to 9/11, especially after they struggled to even answer a simple question from a high school physics teacher on why for 2.25 seconds, WTC7 was in a state of free-fall.

originally posted by: pteridine
Steven Jones is a con artist. He decided that he wanted a demolition plot and then overreached without even coming up with a workable plot. I have written no paper as the only samples of the original material are held by Jones and, for some reason, he is not forthcoming.

This is interesting. Have you wrote to Steven Jones? What was his replies?

originally posted by: pteridine
I will make you the same offer that I have made to others who subscribe to demolition of the towers. Assume you are the plotter. How did you do it? What did you use, how much, and where did you place the charges? When did you place the charges? What did you use to trigger the charges?

I am not a conspiracy theorist.

Building 7 mimics the collapse of other steel structured high rise buildings collapsing via controlled demolition.

So WT7 being brought down by some type of controlled demolition is only the natural conclusion of process of elimination.

The official narrative does not look good when it is continually debunked. Those who support the official narrative also do not do themselves any favors by attacking people constantly (like you continue to do in your posts). I’ve looked at the two arguments on both sides, and so far the only argument winning are those that do not believe in the official narrative.

An example.

Rethink911.org decided to sponsor a physics debate back in March 2014 between two top physicists with a PHD in Physics from an accredited University and at least 50 published scientific research papers. The debate would be 1 hour long and on a popular radio show.

The debate would be a balanced debate between a top physicists defending the official narrative and a top physicist debunking the official narrative.

Rethink911 contacted PatriotsQuestion911.org and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and found Dr. David Griscom (Phd) who accepted via email to join the debate representing the “9/11 truth movement”.

Rethink911 then also contacted the physics department of around 30 top Universities, including Harvard, Yale, Stanford. They also emailed the American Physicists Society, and the German (GPG), to argue the case for the official conspiracy theory narrative.

However no top physicist was interested in supporting the government’s official narrative. This I find alarming.


.

a reply to: wildb

Linear Thermite Charge

What's the difference between RDX and thermite? Why is RDX used by demolition companies during demolition implosions and not thermite?

a reply to: twitchy

About two thirds of the way through this video, there is some mention of companies involved in developing thermite for demolitions I thought you would find interesting. It's an overwhelming overload of info but it was in there somewhere, your link reminded me of it.

Now, for the rest of the story.

Thermite

Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event; there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by the theorists.

Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Thermite also burns very hot but very slow and it's uncontrolled. When you see tests for thermite you often see it burning on a steel plate, it creates a lot of fire and reaction, but none of these reactions were seen in the Twin Towers. And again, it doesn't burn horizontally through columns that are load bearers. I don't know how it can happen

undicisettembre.blogspot.com...

a reply to: Debunkology

So WT7 being brought down by some type of controlled demolition is only the natural conclusion of process of elimination.

That has been proven false. No sound of explosions as WTC 7 collapsed, no explosive evidence found in dust samples of the RJ Lee Group and no evidence of demolition explosions within the seismic data.