Proof of thermite?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

Pages:
1
2
3
…
10

Proof of thermite?; More strong evidence
Topic Started: Apr 28 2008, 10:09 PM (6,171 Views)
Headspin	May 1 2008, 10:12 AM Post #26
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Tether Apr 30 2008, 11:26 PM Could the molten steel be melted glass? Firefighters, engineers and scientists who were there have reported molten steel with incredulity, they cannot explain the cause. Three professors on the FEMA investigation team could not explain melted I-beams with holes like swiss cheese, which they described as if they were "vapourised". http://wtc.nist.gov/media/AppendixC-fema403_apc.pdf most of the tower's material were pulverised to fine and coarse dust paritcles. it is highly unlikely any glass survived in sufficient quantities to later melt into "rivers of molten steel" that were reported to the 911 commission by firefighters (the 911 commission did not even publish this expert testimony, but instead left it to NIST to investigate who then go on to deny even the existence of these testimonies.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Tether	May 1 2008, 12:38 PM Post #27
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08	Quote: You also must be kidding about the dust, it's everywhere in 9/11 news coverage, documentary films & photographs, visible in video of the expanding clouds seen formed during the collapse. You seem to just claim these things don't exist based on absolutely nothing. No I'm not kidding and I claim this from fact. There was dust everywhere, but it wasn't 2 to 3 inches thick. This is just an example of how people embellish their observations. I have yet to see video or picture examples of dust being 2 or 3 inches thick. Link me up if you have this, because I aint seen it, and most certainly not from river to river Edited by Tether, May 1 2008, 01:02 PM.
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08


Headspin	May 1 2008, 12:45 PM Post #28
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Quote: No I'm not kidding and I claim this from fact. There was dust everywhere, but it wasn't 2 to 3 inches thick. This is just an example of how people embellish their observations. I have yet to see video or picture examples of dust being 2 or 3 inches thick. Link me up if have this, because I aint seen it, and most certainly not from river to river This is obviously an attempt to derail the thread by making an outragous claim that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed so everyone runs off looking at the wrong issue. this is not a discussion about the depth of the dust. Edited by Headspin, May 1 2008, 12:47 PM.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Tether	May 1 2008, 01:01 PM Post #29
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08	Quote: 1500° Celsius = 2800° Fahrenheit In the context of the situation, it's obvious the first guy in the video (the firefighter) was speaking in terms of Celsius, not Fahrenheit, when he said 1500 degrees. Red hot, bright orange, oven-like conditions still raging 6-8 weeks after the collapse took place? Nothing else at GZ could produce those kind of temperatures, for that long, EXCEPT for molten steel, which produces 1500°Celsius heat. And the 2nd guy confirms it when he said it was 2800 degrees. Both are saying the same thing except one guy uses celsius, the other fahrenheit. It's no coincidence 1500° (C) just happens to be equal to 2800°(F). You might be able to get away with this if the guy didn't say "bright reddish orange", but that's what he said, and that means he was talking 1500 degrees fahrenheit neighborhood. I know it's not easy to admit that you are wrong, but you are dead wrong on this claim. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. Melted steel at 2800 is going to very close to bright white.
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08


Tether	May 1 2008, 01:13 PM Post #30
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08	Quote: This is obviously an attempt to derail the thread by making an outragous claim that has nothing to do with the issue being discussed so everyone runs off looking at the wrong issue. this is not a discussion about the depth of the dust. Just making an observation that people don't decribe things accurately. The person in the video that mentions 2800 degrees in my opinion, is making an inaccurate claim, because ................................... it don't add up, and I know better. Meanwhile some posters hear want to take it as fact, and run with it.
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08


Tether	May 1 2008, 01:26 PM Post #31
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08	Quote: most of the tower's material were pulverised to fine and coarse dust paritcles. it is highly unlikely any glass survived in sufficient quantities to later melt into "rivers of molten steel" that were reported to the 911 commission by firefighters (the 911 commission did not even publish this expert testimony, but instead left it to NIST to investigate who then go on to deny even the existence of these testimonies Most? I don't think so Most of the concrete and floor contents went to the basement, most of the steel went outside the perimeter of the buildings. The main reason there was fire in the hole! is because most of the buildings contents were (you guessed it) in the hole. I'm being realistic here, and not listening to somebodies embellishments (fish stories).
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08


Xenomorph	May 1 2008, 01:36 PM Post #32
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08	Why bother with Tether? No matter how many links or sources you point him to, he will still create a fake argument, quit wasting your time.
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08


Lidane	May 1 2008, 02:10 PM Post #33
Posts: 26 Group: Members Member #486 Joined: 04/09/08	Xenomorph May 1 2008, 01:36 PM Why bother with Tether? No matter how many links or sources you point him to, he will still create a fake argument, quit wasting your time. Tether conveniently ignores the molten steel found at all three sites 6-8 weeks later, as witnessed by dozens of workers and firefighters. He will continue to ignore any and all inconvenient facts that don't support his conclusion.
Posts: 26 Group: Members Member #486 Joined: 04/09/08


Xenomorph	May 1 2008, 02:17 PM Post #34
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08	Lidane May 1 2008, 02:10 PM Xenomorph May 1 2008, 01:36 PM Why bother with Tether? No matter how many links or sources you point him to, he will still create a fake argument, quit wasting your time. Tether conveniently ignores the molten steel found at all three sites 6-8 weeks later, as witnessed by dozens of workers and firefighters. He will continue to ignore any and all inconvenient facts that don't support his conclusion. Indeed yes, the person has an agenda and doesn't care about any evidence except trying to distract you from it. Like parasitic bugs feeding on something dead and useless trying to somehow make use of it. Edited by Xenomorph, May 1 2008, 02:30 PM.
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08


Tether	May 1 2008, 02:30 PM Post #35
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08	Xenomorph May 1 2008, 02:17 PM Lidane May 1 2008, 02:10 PM Xenomorph May 1 2008, 01:36 PM Why bother with Tether? No matter how many links or sources you point him to, he will still create a fake argument, quit wasting your time. Tether conveniently ignores the molten steel found at all three sites 6-8 weeks later, as witnessed by dozens of workers and firefighters. He will continue to ignore any and all inconvenient facts that don't support his conclusion. Indeed yes, the person has an agenda and doesn't care about any evidence except trying to distract you from it. Seems I'm the only one discussing the evidence. One poster wants to claim that what the guy in the video says about 1500 degrees is really 2800 degrees F, and I show there is no way he is talking 1500 C, and you want to claim I don't care about the reality of it? Am I talking to kids or what?
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08


Xenomorph	May 1 2008, 02:32 PM Post #36
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08	How about that intergranular melting in the FEMA analysis?
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08


Headspin	May 1 2008, 03:18 PM Post #37
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Xenomorph May 1 2008, 02:32 PM How about that intergranular melting in the FEMA analysis? well he doesn't believe his ears, does he believe his eyes I wonder?
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Lidane	May 1 2008, 03:42 PM Post #38
Posts: 26 Group: Members Member #486 Joined: 04/09/08	Tether May 1 2008, 02:30 PM Xenomorph May 1 2008, 02:17 PM Lidane May 1 2008, 02:10 PM Xenomorph May 1 2008, 01:36 PM Why bother with Tether? No matter how many links or sources you point him to, he will still create a fake argument, quit wasting your time. Tether conveniently ignores the molten steel found at all three sites 6-8 weeks later, as witnessed by dozens of workers and firefighters. He will continue to ignore any and all inconvenient facts that don't support his conclusion. Indeed yes, the person has an agenda and doesn't care about any evidence except trying to distract you from it. Seems I'm the only one discussing the evidence. One poster wants to claim that what the guy in the video says about 1500 degrees is really 2800 degrees F, and I show there is no way he is talking 1500 C, and you want to claim I don't care about the reality of it? Am I talking to kids or what? See how you continue to ignore the evidence? I already explained how youare absolutely wrong, and that Ground Zero worker also stated explicitly it was 2800 degrees. But somehow the worker is wrong and you are right, even though he was there working directly on the pile and you WERE NOT?? Mayor Giuliani is also seen in the video Xenomorph posted, where he testified at the hearings of 'temperatures of a few thousand degrees.' Of course, the mayor must be wrong too. Hundreds of people who witnessed the events with their own eyes and ears are all wrong, but Tether who was never there is right! Because Tether is Godlike with psychic abilities and knows all!
Posts: 26 Group: Members Member #486 Joined: 04/09/08


Tether	May 1 2008, 04:22 PM Post #39
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08	Quote: Because Tether is Godlike with psychic abilities and knows all! You finally get something right. Now you know who to listen to when you need some answers.
Posts: 107 Group: BANNED! Member #129 Joined: 01/19/08


Headspin	May 1 2008, 04:25 PM Post #40
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Tether May 1 2008, 04:22 PM Quote: Because Tether is Godlike with psychic abilities and knows all! You finally get something right. Now you know who to listen to when you need some answers. do we have to be psychic and godlike to be able to hear your answers?
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Lidane	May 1 2008, 04:37 PM Post #41
Posts: 26 Group: Members Member #486 Joined: 04/09/08	Tether May 1 2008, 04:22 PM Quote: Because Tether is Godlike with psychic abilities and knows all! You finally get something right. Now you know who to listen to when you need some answers. Time to take your meds. And this time double the dosage.
Posts: 26 Group: Members Member #486 Joined: 04/09/08


Avenger	May 1 2008, 09:55 PM Post #42
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Xenomorph May 1 2008, 02:32 PM How about that intergranular melting in the FEMA analysis? I don't see how it can be anything other than a thermate reaction. And then there is the RJ Lee report that mentions evidence of molten iron and evaporated lead in the WTC dust. The boiling point of lead is about 200 degrees hotter than the melting point of structural steel. I mean, seriously.
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


Xenomorph	May 1 2008, 11:54 PM Post #43
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08	Avenger May 1 2008, 09:55 PM Xenomorph May 1 2008, 02:32 PM How about that intergranular melting in the FEMA analysis? I don't see how it can be anything other than a thermate reaction. And then there is the RJ Lee report that mentions evidence of molten iron and evaporated lead in the WTC dust. The boiling point of lead is about 200 degrees hotter than the melting point of structural steel. I mean, seriously. Indeed I agree. My main point is just my patience has worn thin with "debunkers" who don't cite or source anything to support their assertions. Meanwhile I have them attacking and insulting me all the time, while at the same time I provide links or info on a constant basis. They really prove they have no credibility.
Posts: 96 Group: Members Member #67 Joined: 01/16/08


SPreston	May 2 2008, 12:25 AM Post #44
Patriotic American Posts: 1,229 Group: Members Member #122 Joined: 01/18/08	Xenomorph Why bother with Tether? No matter how many links or sources you point him to, he will still create a fake argument, quit wasting your time. I agree. Tether is incapable of honest debate.



Headspin	May 2 2008, 06:37 AM Post #45
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Xenomorph May 1 2008, 11:54 PM Avenger May 1 2008, 09:55 PM Xenomorph May 1 2008, 02:32 PM How about that intergranular melting in the FEMA analysis? I don't see how it can be anything other than a thermate reaction. And then there is the RJ Lee report that mentions evidence of molten iron and evaporated lead in the WTC dust. The boiling point of lead is about 200 degrees hotter than the melting point of structural steel. I mean, seriously. Indeed I agree. My main point is just my patience has worn thin with "debunkers" who don't cite or source anything to support their assertions. Meanwhile I have them attacking and insulting me all the time, while at the same time I provide links or info on a constant basis. They really prove they have no credibility. You are not alone, I totally empathize with you, I find it is difficult to remain polite sometimes, but that is the reaction some of the <unmentionables> want to achieve. here I believe is the reason why some of the most prominent <unmentionables> have done a runner: Fe-O-K-Al-Si http://www.911blogger.com/node/15358 Edited by Headspin, May 2 2008, 06:40 AM.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


RKOwens4	May 3 2008, 04:45 PM Post #46
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08	Quote: What could possibly cause steel to turn molten like that, besides thermite? How do we know the molten metal was steel? No tests were ever done to determine its composition. We have some eyewitnesses who use the term "molten steel", but others who say "molten metal". Some reporters say "molten metal" and then in the very same report, just seconds later, say "molten steel". These are not foundry workers trained to be able to tell the difference between the two simply by looking at it. These are reporters, politicians, and cleanup workers. Would you be able to tell the difference? The most common type of metal in the world is aluminum, which was abundant at the World Trade Center. Every exterior column had an aluminum facade (keeping the steel from rusting and giving the building its iconic silver look). It was also used in the planes and the hundreds of vehicles in the underground parking garage. Aluminum has a melting point of 890 degrees F, well within the range of the known temperatures. I know what comes next. You're going to tell me, "But some eyewitnesses said molten steel!" This is true, but many others said molten metal. What makes one eyewitnesses testimony more valid than another's? Use some critical thought. Could it be that they weren't aware of the vast difference between the two, and were using an everyday term? And what about the account of temperatures of probably 2800 degrees? What about the other two people in your video who say 1500 and 1100? Why ignore them? Quote: An experiment shows thermite burning through an iron engine block within seconds And notice how the molten steel also solidifies within seconds. Not only is there no evidence (or at the VERY least, inconclusive evidence) that there was ever molten steel at ground zero, conspiracists have hilariously never even attempted to explain how molten steel would be a sign of controlled demolition in the first place. Afterall, in traditional controlled demolitions, no pools of molten steel are created. The explosives simply blast through the steel. Even if you believe thermite was used, you still have to explain WHY ON EARTH the steel would remain molten for 6 weeks! The steel would have immediately begun solidifying after the incendiary burned out, regardless of the availability of oxygen (still, oxygen was plentiful anyway). The bigger the mass of the pool was, the longer it would take for its heat to tranfer away and for the steel to solidify, but we're still talking about a matter of minutes or an hour here. Another thing, how could pools of molten steel created by thermite even form? Certainly you believe the thermite was used and burned out BEFORE the buildings collapsed, right? If some pool of molten steel was produced on the impact floors where the collapse began, the chaos of the collapse itself would have dispersed the molten steel all over the 16 acre site. Wouldn't this result in small droplets which would solidify in seconds? I'm just thinking of these inconsistencies off the top of my head, but the burden of proof is on YOU to explain for example how the molten steel could remain pooled together throughout the entire collapse. Edited by RKOwens4, May 3 2008, 04:46 PM.
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08


RKOwens4	May 3 2008, 05:19 PM Post #47
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08	SPreston, THANK YOU for accurately representing NASA's findings! Finally a truther with at least some honesty. I can't tell you how often conspiracists misrepresent the thermal imaging to say that it's evidence of molten steel. Alex Jones did this on a talk show with the BBC just the other night, saying it measured temperatures above the melting point of steel. Even the final cut of Loose Change says that NASA thermal imaging "shows those sorts of temperatures" consistent with molten steel. No it doesn't! These people are apparently flipping through NASA's report and looking at the pretty pictures rather than actually reading the report accompanying the thermal picture. The NASA reports says that it detected temperatures "greater than 800 degrees F". This is the report's exact words. 800 degrees is not above the melting point of steel, Alex Jones! Utterly dishonest. Keep in mind this man is one of the leaders of the "truth" movement. The irony is overwhelming. The USGS looked at NASA's data and gave a more speculative interpretation, concluding with maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F. Still, either of these (800 degrees or 1341 degrees) are well within the range of the temperatures we'd expect to find from a still-smoldering pile fed by carpeting and whatever other materials survived the collapse as well as by spilled fuel from vehicles and elevator hydraulics and whatnot. So, once again, the NASA thermal imaging data IS NOT evidence of molten steel! In fact, it's strong evidence AGAINST molten steel, indicating that the temperatures never got anywhere near the melting point of steel even in the days immediately after 9/11, at least not on the surface.
Posts: 66 Group: Skeptics Member #260 Joined: 02/02/08


Avenger	May 3 2008, 06:47 PM Post #48
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel. Limited Metallurgical Examination Quote: The amount of energy introduced during the generation of the WTC Dust and the ensuing conflagration caused various components to vaporize. Vapor phase components with high boiling point and high melting point would have, as they cooled, tended to form precipitated particles or thin film deposits on available surfaces through condensation mechanisms. The results of this process would be the presence of a thin layer of deposited material on the surfaces of the dust particulate matter. Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event. Pdf page 25. WTC Dust Signature Report
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


JFK	May 3 2008, 07:01 PM Post #49
Posts: 4,218 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	RKOwens4 May 3 2008, 04:45 PM Every exterior column had an aluminum facade (keeping the steel from rusting and giving the building its iconic silver look). Have you ever see what happens over time when you put steel against aluminum ? Especially in a salty and wet environment ? I have and it ain't pretty.... That could have been yet another motive for foul play. Those buildings were how old ? < I'd love to see the inspection records > Edited by JFK, May 3 2008, 07:02 PM.
Posts: 4,218 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


Avenger	May 3 2008, 07:57 PM Post #50
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08	Quote: SPreston, THANK YOU for accurately representing NASA's findings! Finally a truther with at least some honesty. Preston brought that up back on page one. What's the matter? Page two got too hot for you? You didn't want explain FEMA's metallurgical examination? You didn't want to deal with the RJ Lee report concerning evaporated lead? You have the nerve to lecture us about honesty?
Posts: 574 Group: Members Member #17 Joined: 01/14/08


2 users reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · World Trade Center · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2
3
…
10