# 911 take 911

MHz
#151
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato

There was no trace of explosive material found anywhere in the debri and a lot of the people involved in the cleanup were very experienced in cleaning up controlled demolitions,so far not one of them saw any evidence of explosives in the rubble pile.

They had to use a microscope.
files.meetup.com/749288/NanoThermite%20paper.pdf (external - login to view)

Kakato
#152
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz

They had to use a microscope.
files.meetup.com/749288/NanoThermite%20paper.pdf (external - login to view)

You might want to read up a tad on thermite and what it is and is used for.
This will get you started.

Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g

density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc

54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3

Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.

A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg

For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:

0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911Fun Fact!

How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window (external - login to view):

A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.

Example:

Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft. *Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

Density of metals (external - login to view)

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Some of the
video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.

The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister (external - login to view) but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices (external - login to view) and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy (external - login to view). Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
Update:
Steven Jones:
Actually, the metal-cutting device employing thermite is well known and documented; see the paper by Robert Moore published three months ago (January 2007) in the Journal of 9/11 Studies:
Furthermore, there is a demonstration of a “device employing thermite” cutting through a metal rod,
here.

Yet another absurd comparison from Jones. A small metal rod is NOT the same as a large column. See how large that canister is compared to that small metal rod? The canister in that video, while being enough to cut the vertical rod, will only cut a small hole into a vertical WTC column. (Something I said long ago. See bold text above) For the towers columns to have been cut by a similar device you would need much larger canisters wrapped around the buildings at this scale. Absurd! If Jones wants to salvage what credibility he thinks he has left, he MUST show us a working device which uses thermite and cuts a sizable hollow column. It MUST also be small enough to do the job yet hide from the average World Trade Center worker. Anything less is an attempt to deceive the public.

TenPenny
#153
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz

Perhaps they appear that way because you post the very same words in both threads.

Perhaps they look that way because people like you have to believe in some mythology, and also feel the need to become evangelists, just like a JW goes door to door, preaching to people who don't believe the snake oil you're peddling, trying to convince people that you are the route to the truth.

If it helps you sleep better, feel free to believe that 911 was a conspiracy developed by Obama to let Bush bring in unpopular security rules that would ultimately lead to Obama's chance to win an election and bring his version of socialism to the US.

Kakato
#154
Still quote mining,wonder why the pertinent part of the quote is allways left out.

Alex Jones, professional conspiracy theorist radio host, has said Jones found evidence of thermite. This isn't true. What Jones found was something which would have been in the debris pile anyway. Sulfur...
WTC Thermite (external - login to view)
Sulfur (external - login to view)
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:
"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area (external - login to view)
You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states
"He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers."
Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know.

darkbeaver
#155
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny

These 911 threads are all the same as the religion threads. People believe in weird conspiracies just as they believe in god(s), and for the same reason: when something bad happens, the human psyche needs to be able to point the finger at something.

So in reality, the 911 conspiracy people are simply believers in a different religion.

If it helps you sleep better at night, keep right on believing.

Where do you point when something bad happens? The conspiracy to invade Iraq is well understood and defined as conspiracy at the highest levels and there is no other plausable explanation. It is also understood that no invasion of Iraq would be possible without an initiating event. So if you do not believe the invasion of Iraq was in fact a product of conspiracy you must have religious reasons not to. So knowing your dislike of association with conspiracy thinking I am forced to think that you are "coinsidence theorist" and you must excuse the solid linear events surrounding 911 as pure coinsidense. I wonder, but not much, which side of this argument is bolstered by religion. Certainly not the side defined by logic.
Last edited by darkbeaver; Jan 17th, 2010 at 12:04 PM..

darkbeaver
#156
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato

Still quote mining,wonder why the pertinent part of the quote is allways left out.
Alex Jones, professional conspiracy theorist radio host, has said Jones found evidence of thermite. This isn't true. What Jones found was something which would have been in the debris pile anyway. Sulfur...
WTC Thermite
Sulfur
In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states:"One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done,"
However when you look at the link he uses

Quote has been trimmed, See full post:
Your rugs must be very lumpy.

Kakato
#157
What does thermite have to do with ground zero?
Hmmm,could it be the plasma cutters they used to cut the steel columns during clean up?

Kudos to an Italian debunker over seas who put an iron slab to the test.

If you still need convincing that the angled cut was done by workers cleaning up ground zero then please read his excellent page on the subject.
11 Settembre: Real-world tests cut through steel, shatter thermite "evidence" (external - login to view)
He also explains the method used in cutting steel in ground zero.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/technical-widening-about-thermal.html (external - login to view)
Jones continues to defend the indefensible. In a reply to Screw Loose Change Blog, Jones defends this deception by quote and photo mining while pointing out the obvious. (external - login to view)
Jones writes:
The angle-cut beam in the first photo above has been the subject of much discussion. Recently, a first-responder has stated that he saw this particular cut-column (it is rather remarkable in appearance) when he arrived at the GZ scene on 9/11/2001. We are seeking a written statement from him to this effect to hopefully settle this issue. An analysis of the slag seen clinging to the inside and the outside (both) of this angle-cut column would also do much to answer questions about what did the cutting. I think you will agree that in the second photo, the worker is using an oxyacetylene torch to cut the steel.
INCREDIBLE! His argument for using the top photo as evidence seems to be that he has no evidence it's made without thermite... Incredibly, he argues that the photo of the iron worker cutting the column I uncovered is all the evidence he needs for THAT column and that column only. With his absurd logic he is at the same time suggesting that because there is no photo of the iron worker cutting the iron in his original photo, the original photo is evidence of thermite! To put it plainly, if it walk and talks like a duck that doesn't mean it isn't thermite. He doesn't even have a source for the quote from the alleged first responder saying the photo was taken on 9/11, never mind evidence that he was actually there. Because we all know, if there is no photo on the internet then he wasn't there using Jones' logic. And yet this passes Kevin Ryan's peer review! (Editor of "scholars for 9/11 studies.") I say again, INCREDIBLE!
Had he been just an average internet poster I would let this go as gross ignorance of how the scientific method works, but not a professor. I am left to draw no other conclusion than Steven Jones is purposely deceiving his flock or he has a serious mental disease. What other conclusion can a one draw?
Listen to "Demo Dave" Griffin and his crew talk about ground zero and evidence of pancaking.
"For it being two hundred and ten story buildings, the pile wasn't an enormous pile. We were expecting it to be - I think a lot of the guys were expecting it to be a lot more. I cut away a section of the wall - my gang cut into a section of the wall and we - we counted 14 floors compressed into 8 feet."
He also points to perimeter columns with angled cuts which he says his men cut.
"You can see where they made the cuts along - [Dave points to columns with angled cuts] right above - that's the bow tie connection they're cutting at about 3 to 5 foot above the bow tie connection before it starts in to the forming of the candle stick. They've got three candles left to cut."

Sloppy research or purposeful deception by the "scholars"? The evidence for one is growing...
Thanks to Shagster, ScottS and David B. Benson for their research.

lone wolf
#158
We've read pages and pages of what this site says or that site says. Do you have YOUR OWN version of what happened? One can't really claim to have debunked a thing without having thoughts all their own.

Kakato
#159
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Your rugs must be very lumpy.

Still trolling I see.

Kakato
#160
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver

Your rugs must be very lumpy.

I guess every forum needs a resident troll.

Kakato
#161
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf

We've read pages and pages of what this site says or that site says. Do you have YOUR OWN version of what happened? One can't really claim to have debunked a thing without having thoughts all their own.

I've been a member and contributor on that site for many years so your getting my material along with a lot of other peoples so sorry if I'm too lazy to retype everything all over again.

So if your questioning the source,I am part of that source along with many others.

lone wolf
#162
How do we know you didn't google it? Your credibility takes a beating every time you claim knowledge that hasn't presented itself. At best, unless you're one of the people actually involved, it's all just guesswork based on what you know from other situations. That makes your guesses no better than anyone elses.

darkbeaver
#163
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato

I guess every forum needs a resident troll.

Troll and foilers haha you are exhausting your vocabulary.

Kakato
#164
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf

How do we know you didn't google it? Your credibility takes a beating every time you claim knowledge that hasn't presented itself. At best, unless you're one of the people actually involved, it's all just guesswork based on what you know from other situations. That makes your guesses no better than anyone elses.

The reason I can post a response so fast is because I have had this info on my computer for years and have argued the same points repeatedly so it's not too hard.

Now if your going to say my credibility has taken a beating then perhaps you will show me where or post some proof of this.
I dont lie,I know that may be hard for you to fathom but I have lived my life this way for a long time so i can back up anything I say on what I have done and I have done lots.

I'm posting well researched facts that counter any assumptions or false statements made.

Why do you have a problem with facts?
What knowledge have I claimed to posses that your curious about?
My experience with blasting maybe? I hold a ticket to supervise blasters and I'll post a copy for if you like,I also have many other certificates that I need for my line of work.
Got a problem with that or the facts?
Otherwise it seems like your also just trolling.

lone wolf
#165
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato

The reason I can post a response so fast is because I have had this info on my computer for years and have argued the same points repeatedly so it's not too hard.

Now if your going to say my credibility has taken a beating then perhaps you will show me where or post some proof of this.
I dont lie,I know that may be hard for you to fathom but I have lived my life this way for a long time so i can back up anything I say on what I have done and I have done lots.

I'm posting well researched facts that counter any assumptions or false statements made.

Why do you have a problem with facts?
What knowledge have I claimed to posses that your curious about?
My experience with blasting maybe? I hold a ticket to supervise blasters and I'll post a copy for if you like,I also have many other certificates that I need for my line of work.
Got a problem with that or the facts?
Otherwise it seems like your also just trolling.

Defensive are we? They with the most to prove and all ... and now name-calling too. Preachy just makes you look insecure and this sort of fluff only adds to it.

So ... a foiler is someone who doesn't take your word for it? You need adoring crowds? That job's already filled.

Hint: You learn a lot more by observing.

Kakato
#166
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf

Defensive are we? They with the most to prove and all ... and now name-calling too. Preachy just makes you look insecure and this sort of fluff only adds to it.

So ... a foiler is someone who doesn't take your word for it? You need adoring crowds? That job's already filled.

Hint: You learn a lot more by observing.

You made the claim,so now your saying you cant back it up?
I have nothing to prove and couldnt give a rats *** what peeps think of me.
You on the other hand seem jelous or something with the constant need to follow me around so that makes me wonder who the insecure one is here.

I hate crowds of any kind,most people play mind games and dont like it when I take them to task on them.

The topic was about 9/11 and I have posted nothing but well researched facts that challenge the assumptions being made along with pictures and video for comparisons..

Tell me why you have a problem with that?
Take your own advice.
Hint: You learn a lot more by observing

lone wolf
#167
Ha! You've been foiled!

...uh... What claim?

Kakato
#168
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf

Ha! You've been foiled!

...uh... What claim?

Quote:

Your credibility takes a beating every time you claim knowledge that hasn't presented itself.

Maybe go troll a different topic.

lone wolf
#169
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato

Maybe go troll a different topic.

What I offered was a suggestion that you get a little less preachy. Reject it? I don't really give a damn ... but you don't have to go all hissy because you're not getting the reverence you reserve for yourself.

Kakato
#170
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf

What I offered was a suggestion that you get a little less preachy. Reject it? I don't really give a damn ... but you don't have to go all hissy because you're not getting the reverence you reserve for yourself.

I dont get hissy,absolutely no one can piss me off.

MHz
#171
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato

The reason I can post a response so fast is because I have had this info on my computer for years and have argued the same points repeatedly so it's not too hard.

Now if your going to say my credibility has taken a beating then perhaps you will show me where or post some proof of this.
I dont lie,I know that may be hard for you to fathom but I have lived my life this way for a long time so i can back up anything I say on what I have done and I have done lots.

I'm posting well researched facts that counter any assumptions or false statements made.

Why do you have a problem with facts?
What knowledge have I claimed to posses that your curious about?
My experience with blasting maybe? I hold a ticket to supervise blasters and I'll post a copy for if you like,I also have many other certificates that I need for my line of work.
Got a problem with that or the facts?
Otherwise it seems like your also just trolling.

Is that why you are glossing over new things, like the cockpit door info? You should have that info if you have researched it thoroughly, after all it has been available for several months.

So rather than take anybody through all that old material how about something new.

You point to the salvage work as being the source of the 'sulfur residue' when you haven't shown that the tested dust came from inside the area where cutting was being done. Molten aluminum is silver in color, no yellows/oranges involved.
Here is a rather short video that deals mostly with the rubble pile. The 2nd link is to a full length documentary.

Molten metal

### YouTube - Scientists Examine the Molten Steel that Lingered for Weeks Underneath WTC 1 2 amp 7 on 911 - Many Surprises Found

MHz
#172
Quote: Originally Posted by Kakato

I dont get hissy,absolutely no one can piss me off.

Sure 'we' can, that is why you bring terms like 'tinfoiler' into the conversation. You just regurgitate what you have in the past (by your own admission), why, it has nothing to do with the FDR and the cockpit door.

lone wolf
#173
Quote:

Your credibility takes a beating every time you claim knowledge that hasn't presented itself.

BTW: I could have said the same thing without the collective "your". Sorry it confused you....

AnnaG
#174
Um, you guys remember the topic?

The first vid lost me almost right away when the lady said that steel can only be melted in a blast furnace or if thermite is used. That's straight crap. Otherwise steel could not be welded or cut in machine shops and especially not underwater. I saw no reason to continue watching this video when misleading comments like that are made.

As far as the second one goes, I don't want to spend 2 hours + listening to what this guy's opinion about the matter is.

Concerning the 3rd vid: I can't doubt that explosives were used but the points these people were making are debatable. Their main points were that there was aluminum and sulfur found in metal debris and there was molten metal under the buildings. Well, can you guess how many materials containing sulfur or aluminum might have been in an office building? Wire insulation contains sulfur, adhesives contain sulfur, paints and enamels, transformer dielectrics, pretty much anything made from petrochemicals contains sulfur (stuff like plastics), and so on.
Stuff containing aluminum? Wire conduits, computers and fax machines and other office equipment, the aircraft themselves, some wires, etc.

Melted metals? That's hardly a big surprise either. Can you imagine the amount of friction and compression involved in a building collapse? Lead by itself has been known to melt under just the compression of shock waves. If you prevent a metal from expanding and apply pressure you increase its temperature. Add heat from friction and probably chemical reaction, I think it is pretty feasible to find molten metals under collapsed buildings.

Besides that, if the puddles were a combo of molten iron, aluminum, and other stuff, why weren't the buckets of the excavation equipment melting when they dipped into the puddles? Molten iron is hotter than molten structural steel.
Last edited by AnnaG; Jan 17th, 2010 at 02:06 PM..

Kakato
#175
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

Um, you guys remember the topic?

The first vid lost me almost right away when the lady said that steel can only be melted in a blast furnace or if thermite is used. That's straight crap. Otherwise steel could not be welded or cut in machine shops and especially not underwater. .

Some of the claims just boggle the mind,Ive seen 2 d10 bulldozers(I was running one) get side to side with blades together to push a huge rock and the steel on the blades was literally dripping off like molten welding slag just from the incredible friction.

Thermite is also used in plasma cutters which is what they used to cut the steel beams while cleaning up the debris at the WTC.
They dont do nice clean cuts but are better to cut thick sections of any iron and most welding shops have one now.

Lots of the molten aluminum came from the ups machines on the one floor.

Kakato
#176
Quote: Originally Posted by MHz

Sure 'we' can, that is why you bring terms like 'tinfoiler' into the conversation. You just regurgitate what you have in the past (by your own admission), why, it has nothing to do with the FDR and the cockpit door.

I covered the cockpit door about 6 pages ago.You can go back and find it yourself,im not spoon feeding it to you or doing your homework for you if you arent comprehending the info.

MHz
#177
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

The first vid lost me almost right away when the lady said that steel can only be melted in a blast furnace or if thermite is used. That's straight crap. Otherwise steel could not be welded or cut in machine shops and especially not underwater. I saw no reason to continue watching this video when misleading comments like that are made.

I'm pretty sure it was referencing 'pools of molten metal' rather than making small cuts. Look at this photo, 5 days after the attack look at all the 'hot spots'. Cleanup operation had barely started so cutting beams for removal is not the source.

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

As far as the second one goes, I don't want to spend 2 hours + listening to what this guy's opinion about the matter is.

That's fine, a person would have to have some interest, you quit after a minute on a 10min vid.

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

Concerning the 3rd vid: I can't doubt that explosives were used but the points these people were making are debatable. Their main points were that there was aluminum and sulfur found in metal debris and there was molten metal under the buildings. Well, can you guess how many materials containing sulfur or aluminum might have been in an office building? Wire insulation contains sulfur, adhesives contain sulfur, paints and enamels, transformer dielectrics, pretty much anything made from petrochemicals contains sulfur (stuff like plastics), and so on.
Stuff containing aluminum? Wire conduits, computers and fax machines and other office equipment, the aircraft themselves, some wires, etc.

Hers is a link (to a link) to a paper that covers just what was found.
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center // Current (external - login to view)

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

Melted metals? That's hardly a big surprise either. Can you imagine the amount of friction and compression involved in a building collapse? Lead by itself has been known to melt under just the compression of shock waves. If you prevent a metal from expanding and apply pressure you increase its temperature. Add heat from friction and probably chemical reaction, I think it is pretty feasible to find molten metals under collapsed buildings.

Really, find one other example anywhere.

Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG

Besides that, if the puddles were a combo of molten iron, aluminum, and other stuff, why weren't the buckets of the excavation equipment melting when they dipped into the puddles? Molten iron is hotter than molten structural steel.

You provided the answer yourself, they were dipped in it for a short period of time, leave it in overnight see what happens.

Kakato
#178
I allready explained where the thermite came from.

Kakato
#179
Once again,heres thermite.

Rethinking Thermite
One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.

There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.
They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.
The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.
Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...
Timeline and Firemen The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.
Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.
The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.
The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html (external - login to view) Below are photos of firemen well after September 11.

October

December 15th 2001

So the fact that there are firemen in the photo doesn't mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.
Angle and yellow residue
Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can't be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn't one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle. Remember, we're talking about "Scholars" here.

Once again, a close up of their column...

Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Maybe I just happened to get this from some obscure site. Maybe I work for the government and have a stash of photos the scholars aren't privy to... No, actually I got this from the same place the scholars got their photo.
Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=13 (external - login to view)
The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=73 (external - login to view)

Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below. http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php (external - login to view)

Kakato
#180
Molten metal explained and very thoroughly.

Molten Metal (external - login to view)
The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero (external - login to view).

They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways (external - login to view), I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works (external - login to view). Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. I will give Jones the benefit of the doubt and say he and the other "Scholars for truth" may not know how to use Google. We'll chalk this up to old scholars who hate computers. (We'll also forget that professors are supposed to know how to do research. Though that one is a little tougher for me...) The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist. It will be interesting to see how Jones gets around this now that he knows. Will he use these rationalizations or produce hard facts? I have little doubt he will think of SOMETHING...
Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.
INTRODUCTION
Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.

http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/ (external - login to view)
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf (external - login to view)

Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/ (external - login to view)
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1 (external - login to view)
Note it doesn't say this type of thermite takes the place of explosives, only "to enhance air blast". None of the suggested uses scream POWERFUL to me. The towers were not underwater, and their is no evidence rockets were strapped to the columns. That they would use it as a primer and not an actual explosive seems to be good evidence it's not as powerful as the conspiracy theorist suggest.
Now that you have the ignorance of "Scholars for 911 truth" we can continue...
To be honest, I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientists of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionists', of which I'm not one. Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a halt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catcher's mitt.

no new posts