0
rhys

Thermate, WTC collapses

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote


[roll the eyes back int the head]

Fortunately not everyone that reads these threads are compelled to make comments.



Most of us don't even bother engaging in these nonsense conversations anymore.


And it refutes the cliche that "all skydivers are brothers". Shit, they're just people who happen to jump out of planes, too.

I usually read `em and weep (as the saying goes). Third of all `Mericans are either complete or functional illiterates. So . . . there you go . . . ;)
“Keep your elbow up!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

These rants seem to fall into two categories. The one I just described, and then the ones very well written, full of would be damning scientific evidence, but the minute you examine the arguments and data it quickly falls apart.



The only story falling apart is the ever changing NIST 'story', here is a well put together piece. written only a couple of months ago.

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

I especially like the inteviews;

Quote

NIST releases its WTC 7 draft Report in a press conference in which Shyam Sunder is questioned by attendees on the possible use of incendiaries and explosives. Although Kevin Ryan's essay about nanocomposite explosives and NIST's connections to them had recently been publicized, Sunder continues to talk as if the only aluminothermic materials are slow-burning incendiaries.

In this exchange, a questioner points out that thermite incendaries wouldn't make the noise postulated by NIST's hypothetical blast scenario, then questions the illogic of supposing that a huge explosive charge would be required to cause a failure that NIST claims happened due to fire alone.

QUESTIONER I think that the idea that thermate cut through the beams -- it wasn't actually an explosion that caused the beams to be cut, so that could probably be done a lot more quietly, right?

SUNDER Yea,

QUESTIONER: And did you look at Steven Jones' work?

SUNDER: Well, that, the issue of thermate did not ah, even reach, ah, in our judgement, a, a level of importance sufficient to in fact do a detailed analysis. We could rule it out fairly easily, for several reasons. Uh, one, um, in order for a thermate reaction to take place, there has to be, a, materials, and of course, building materials have all of the things that are required for thermite or thermate, and if you look at the amount of thermite or thermate that would be needed to build this[sic] bring this building down you would have had to place about a hundred pounds of thermite right in proximity to the column, and it had to have always adhere to the column, because what thermite does is actually melts the steel, so somebody has to keep pushing it so the thermite continues to be sticking to the steel -- this vertical column -- until it actually, a, collapses. Ah, and in order to get that kind amount of materials into the building and to actually place it, and for this reaction to take place, is unlikely to actually have happened.

QUESTIONER: One last follow-up, The part of that that I have trouble with is that if you say the building came down without any explosives at all, ah, then isn't it possible that you wouldn't need a lot of explosives to bring it down, if it came down with no explosives at all?

SUNDER: Repeat your question.

QUESTIONER: If you're saying the building came down with no explosives whatsoever; ah, isn't it possible that it could come down with a smaller number of explosives?

SUNDER: No. A, the big difference is that fire is a persistent assault on the structure.

QUESTIONER: Couldn't they work together?

SUNDER: What?

QUESTIONER: The explosives and the fire.

SUNDER: Well let me put it this way. There is a very elegant and straightforward to understand proceed method that causes this building to come down, and that's the issue of thermal expansion. It's very straightforward, it's based on sound science, and it is consistent with all the observations we have, and it's consistent with the fact that the fires were on the lower floors of the building.

QUESTIONER: But it had never happened before, right?

SUNDER: But the physics is consistent, it's sound, it's been analyzed, and we have the results, and we are, we are very comfortable with our findings.

In a later exchange, Shane Geiger notes the presence of aluminothermic residues in dust samples.

GEIGER: ... and you re-iterated from your Twin Towers report that NIST has stated that it found no corroborating evidence to suggest that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. Now, in the very next sentence you ...

SUNDER: Let's ...

GEIGER: ... admit that NIST did not conduct tests for explosive residue. So of course it's very difficult to .. to find what you're not looking for.

VOICE: OK, we're going to move on.

GEIGER: .. iron spheres which are characteristic of the dust and can be seen on the United States Geological Survey website. Ah, these are found in every single sample of the dust to date, including all the samples that R.J. Lee group took a look at. I actually have ...

VOICE: We're going to ...

GEIGER: I have a friend who's found these in his sample of dust, and I think this is ... there's enough of these out there -- there's a billion pounds of World Trade Center dust at the landfill on Staten Island. I think its pretty fair to say that NIST could, if NIST were interested in doing so, that NIST take a look at these spheres. Inside these spheres, Dr. Steven Jones is claiming that there is evidence of a thermite reaction.

VOICE: Move on.

GEIGER: I certainly would like to hear about your research on this, other than bare assertions.

SUNDER: Yes, very quickly, there are a thousand pages of reports right there on the website. I urge you to read it, understand it, and when you've understood it, we can have a discussion.



:D:D
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it pretty odd that thermite would bring down the Towers - especially considering that a couple of jet aircraft slammed into the buildings at high speed.

Itd be like interviewing the coroner about Sonny Coreleone's cause of death:

"Well, he could have died from acute cocaine toxicity."
"No. We have no evidence to suggest that it was, in fact, cocaine that killed him."
"But you did not test for evidence of cocaine in his blood."
"True. He had no more blood in his body. It was all on the asphalt of the toll plaza. I'm sure we would have found tar and ethylene glycol. As well as a high levels of lead and copper. But that is mere surmise."
"So, you think he could have died of lead poisoning, but you didn't check for it."


It sure as hell was expert flying that the planes hit right where the thermite was planted.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a big pile of metal being squashed and generally FUBARd. Try taking few tons of steel, drop it from WTC height and then drop some more tons of rock over it. Wait couple of weeks so the puddla has a chance to cool down (thats right; no fire, no explosion and it still takes very long time to cool down) and then look at the pretty iron spheres that formed. You might be surprised.

Now lets try new experiment: try to find arguments that does not support your theory and then try to dismiss them (don't bother with counter arguments, just try to figure out why the original argument/evidence is shite). Then please post the arguments and your findings why they are false. Only then you may present your arguments which will fit into the big picture much better than the old one did.

Now that's science!!!
I understand the need for conformity. Without a concise set of rules to follow we would probably all have to resort to common sense. -David Thorne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

considering It would take longer to read the article than you did to reply, i will assume you didn't read it.

I suggest you do, or refrain from trying to refute it, maybe you should just ignore it like NIST are!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It is claimed that Professor Steven Jones ran electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site to prove thermate was used. Steven Jones' credentials are not given, but if he is qualified to run this kind of analysis, he is lying about the results. An electron microscope can tell you about the crystalline structure of a material, but not its chemical composition; one uses chemical methods (taught as "quantitative analysis" in college) or a mass spectronometer for that. He claims to have found sulphur in these globules. That's very interesting, because only a very small amount of sulphur is used in military grade thermate. According to Wikipedia, Thermate-TH3 has only 2% sulphur, but 29% barium nitrate. Jones said nothing at all about the barium content of these globules. The function of sulphur in thermate is to lower the inignition temperature; the sulphur itself burns off in the form of sulphur dioxide (a gas commonly used in curing dried fruit, and which combines readily with water to form battery acid). Lots of things -- even the human body -- have enough sulphur to make up a detectable residue in some of the meltdown products. Furthermore, even if enough thermate were used to actually bring down the towers -- itself beyond credulity, given the amount needed and the fact that nobody noticed -- the chance of finding identifiable and distinctive traces of it in millions of tons of rubble is exceedingly small.


_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes. Ignore it.

The same way the coroner would ignore he possibility that Sonny Corleone succumbed to an allergic reaction to a bee sting. It can be stated with a high degree of probability that the hundred bullet entry wounds were the cause of death.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I find it pretty odd that thermite would bring down the Towers - especially
>considering that a couple of jet aircraft slammed into the buildings at high speed.

The collision of those aircraft, the damage they did to the structure, the damage done by the fire, and the kinetic energy of all that weight above the crash site cannot possibly have anything to do with a building collapse. As we all know, neither a raging fire nor a 500mph impact of a nearly half million pound aircraft can damage anything.

But thermite? Now _that's_ the only possible explanation. Why just a few months ago, a Marine fighter crashed into a home here in San Diego. In a bizarre coincidence, the home must have been filled with thermite, because it burst into flame and was destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

According to Wikipedia, Thermate-TH3 has only 2% sulphur, but 29% barium nitrate. Jones said nothing at all about the barium content of these globules.



Quote

Jones didn't report any Barium Nitrate, another element associated with Thermate reactions. Some have claimed that the lack of the Barium Nitrate is telling because it is a much more significant part of Thermate reactions. However, Thermite with Barium Nitrate as accelerant would not be amenable to column cutting as it is causes an explosive exothermic reaction.

Steven Jones responded:
""It is true that the military form of thermate, thermate-TH-3, contains a large amount of barium nitrate. I never said I had found the signature of thermate-TH-3. Rather, as I explained in my talk, variations are easily done using aluminum, sulfur, and various metal oxides and oxidizers, and what I've shown evidence for is the basic signature of thermite/thermate-analogs."



Quote

Furthermore, even if enough thermate were used to actually bring down the towers -- itself beyond credulity, given the amount needed and the fact that nobody noticed -- the chance of finding identifiable and distinctive traces of it in millions of tons of rubble is exceedingly small.



Denying it is there without looking is plain old stupid!
Quote


• Question: “Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
• Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”

NIST is remiss in not testing for thermite residues as required by the NFPA 921 code.


"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But thermite? Now _that's_ the only possible explanation. Why just a few months ago, a Marine fighter crashed into a home here in San Diego. In a bizarre coincidence, the home must have been filled with thermite, because it burst into flame and was destroyed.



I used to respect your posts bill, putting words in people mouths and skewing thier opinions is not really 'cricket' now is it.

the symmetry of the collapses is the question, no one on this planet is refuting the plane crashed into the twin towers.

Random inputs do nt usually end up with symmetrical results.

There are already over thirty-five peer-reviewed papers at the Journalof911Studies.com nothing is stopping you or anyone from stopping these journals from being peer reviewed, you simply have to state your beliefs as facts using the scientific method.
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Denying it is there without looking is plain old stupid!



Nope. The argument was refuting Jones's findings. Of course he will find sulfur in the rubble. It doesn't mean there was thermate there. It means that the sulphur content was normal.

I claim pink unicorns with tutus kicked down the beams at the 100th floor and caused the collapse. The U.S. govt has been breeding them for years in secrecy. In my analysis a found trace of bone. Unicorns are obviously have bones. I swear to you rogue unicorns are the answer.

I am going to ask NIST about the unicorns. After all, denying it isn't there without looking is plain old stupid!
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



the symmetry of the collapses is the question...Random inputs do nt usually end up with symmetrical results.



Well, gravity tends to pull things straight down. The building didn't tip over. The very top portion of the buildings was compromised while the lower 2/3 was stable. But - when the columns failed, the entire weight of the structure above the failure hit the next floor, collapsing it into the next lower, and the next lower.

We saw it on tower 2 - the top was leaning. The bottom was upright.

The force that caused the collapse was gravity. Due to wekening of the structure, the structure collapsed under its own weight.

Take an empty beer can and put a 50 block of lead on the top. It'll collapse straight down.

One need only see the video of the people jumping to their deaths to see they fell straight down. And they had a greater susceptibility to lateral aerodynamic forces.

The earth's gravity tends to accelerate us towards the earth in the most direct route.

Straight down. Symmetrically in the x and y axes. The buildings (lacking lateral momentum) collapsed. They didn't tip.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>the symmetry of the collapses is the question, no one on this planet is
>refuting the plane crashed into the twin towers.

Au contraire! Several of your fellow conspiracy theorists question just that:

The first, by conspiracist John Lear, is that the North Tower was struck by a missile disguised by a hologram. This was first proposed on a website called "webfairy" and got lots of traction for a while.

The next conspiracy theories argue that it was A plane, but not THE plane. A common theory is that the aircraft was taken over in flight, a military aircraft with a "pod" or "pods" slung beneath it was substituted, and then seconds before impact, a missile was fired from the pod into the building, causing the later collapse. From the video "The mysterious reflections of 9/11" the pods are:

"two long shapes located underneath the fuselage, one towards the bow and the other towards the stern of the plane. There is a third, seemingly pyramidal in shape, on the underbelly, almost in the center of the plane."

"Aeronautical engineers at official Spanish" government offices used "contour-detection digital analysis" to determine they were not Boeing aircraft, "given that the fuselage of commercial airplanes is cylindrical and flat, according to the cited technical report."

At 9/11Review.org, the "pod" is described as "a 20m. long cylinder about 30 cm. in diameter."

But in any case, I agree you're not claiming that. You're just claiming that that crashing a fully fueled, almost half million pound 767 into a building at 500 knots could not possibly cause significant damage.

>Random inputs do nt usually end up with symmetrical results.

Right. It wasn't symmetric. Look at the videos.

>There are already over thirty-five peer-reviewed papers at the
>Journalof911Studies.com nothing is stopping you or anyone from stopping these
>journals from being peer reviewed, you simply have to state your beliefs as facts
>using the scientific method.

And no one is stopping you from believing in any crackpot theories you like. As crackpot theories go, I much prefer the "767 sized hologram-missile."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't we just go back to saying that the U.S. got fucked (again) for spending so much time pissing people off in other parts of the world? Couldn't we be far more constructive (and accurate) by sticking with that? It is no secret that George Bush and his cabinet had close ties to middle-eastern warlords and jihadists... why do we have to believe that he is responsible for blowing the buildings up? We already have evidence to say that he fucked up. And it doesn't depend on outrageous accusations of thermite explosives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Can't we just go back to saying that the U.S. got fucked (again) for spending so much time pissing people off in other parts of the world? Couldn't we be far more constructive (and accurate) by sticking with that? It is no secret that George Bush and his cabinet had close ties to middle-eastern warlords and jihadists... why do we have to believe that he is responsible for blowing the buildings up? We already have evidence to say that he fucked up. And it doesn't depend on outrageous accusations of thermite explosives.



It's more likely that this was orchestrated by Rupert Murdock to boost ratings at Fox News and give a green light for Bush to invade Iraq.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It's more likely that this was orchestrated by Rupert Murdock to boost ratings at Fox News and give a green light for Bush to invade Iraq.

Ehhh.... Conspiracy theories...

I think it is far more plausible to say that FOX news definitely took advantage of every Jingoistic platform it could from 9/11 forward to boost its ratings. "TERRORISTS? ON OUR TURF? KILL KILL KILL 'EM ALL!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Maybe they were 'nanocomposite' unicorns - that's why NIST didn't see them, they were too small.



Nope. Ever tried to knit small tutu's? Not many Grandmas in their rocking chairs can be cleared top secret.
_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Between this thread, and the Record-of-live-birth-gate one, this forum is better than Comedy Central!



I have to agree
When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0