Thermate in WTCFollow

Fifteen hundred is the usual max temperature I've seen bandied about. It's the one Popular Mechanics used in its debunking of the common 9/11 myths as well. Seems as good a temperature as any for my purposes.The garage photo was well lit and showed the aluminum glowing even as it cooled. Not too many people keep their foundries in their backyards so I'm not feeling too broken up that I can't find this perfect photo of spilling molten aluminum at high noon to satisfy you.

Edited, Jul 11th 2006 at 2:02am EDT by Jophiel

No offense taken.

As a side note, that brilliantly glowing yellow mass that couldn't possibly be aluminum because of how brightly it glows in broad daylight is an enhanced photograph, according to the NIST (PDF Warning).

One thing that debunkers such as Jones never address or explain to my personal satisfaction is the role played by the hundreds of thousands of tons of other material inside the towers.

These were not empty buildings. They were enormous office buildings at near full capacity. Jones' nattering on about the quality of aluminum fails to take into consideration the materials not related to the buildings themselves or to the planes, but to the office furnishings themselves.

Additionally, there was a large cloud of dust and smoke at ground level - hardly "broad daylight" conditions.

To echo Kelv, I too am curious about your purpose in posting this, aside from trolling.

Duh, to file for an insurance claim silly!

Or was that to go to war with Iraq?

Wait, no, I bet it was to jack up gas prices!!!

Or maybe, to cover up the paid hit on someone in the WTC 7 building!!!

Frankly i'm amazed that anyone would think that flying a jet plane into a building would somehow not cause enough damage to the building that they had to plan in advance to blow them up with industrial explosives 6 hours later....

anyone find that just a little bit implausable?

Bush "Hey guys! i got a great idea!! lets fly a couple of planes into the WTC!! that will let us attack Iraq and get all that oil!"

Powell " great idea! hey but you think that a fully fueled 737 will be enough to knock the towers down? they are mighty big buildings..."

Bush "Your right, we should hire people to plant thousands of pounds of high explosives on the important structural points to make sure they fall down just in case... but hey don't let the press find out."

Powell " No problem, now all we need to do is find 30 islamic terrorists who are sympathetic to our cause.."

Where I get off saying that the substance was most likely thermite in the context that you're reffering to is that, in the same sentance, I describe how molten metal was found in all 3 towers that fell and that thermite is a perfect explanation for how such heat could be produced and retained. Based on that information, it's very likely the substance in the footage was thermite. That was my argument, although in hindsight I can see how my choice of words made it easy to miss that point.

"Thermite accounts for the molten pools of metal wtc 1 2 and 7, as steel fueled by thermite could retain heat for long periods of time as did these pools of molten material, and since thermite was probably present within the building then this material coming out of the side of the building was most likely thermite."

You know, I wonder what would pur out of a building containing acres of burning and melting nylon based office building carpet.

Huh.

Oh, yeah, molten nylon and other melty office things and airplane things. Oh well that obviously leaves the Thermite issue then because Thermite isn't made of aluminum powder, iron filings, and fuel oil. oh, wait a minute, it is.
huh.

And i'm sure that aluminum building panels directly bolted to a steel structure for a couple decades wouldn't rub against eachother as a tower moved with the wind, potentially creating enogh aluminum powder to react with the girder itself and the tonnes of jet fuel released on impact. Except that similar cover panels on structures such as freeway bridges, do.

Huh.

And of course, when you slam an airplane into a building and explode it, the overpressure wave of the directed and expanding explosion which is moveing away from the entry hole and would try to expand through the path of least resistance, i.e the windows surrounding the impact site, it couldn't posibly create what is commonly referred to an overpressure wave and blow all those windows out... Except that's exactly what happens when you hit something with a cruise missle (i.e. little airplane).

Huh.

You mention eyewitness accounts as well. Discounting the general unreliability of eyewitness testimony, we have thousands more eyewitnesses that state that it wasn't thermite, it was a big assed airplane that crashed. Twice even. And there is video footage that does not show the building exterior panelsexplodeing before the airplane hit it.

So in conclusion, Dronadesh you are a ******* idiot of epic proportions.

Feel better now Kao?
Oh for the love of god he's still talking. Your plan didn't work Kao he's just spewing out more.

Edited, Jul 11th 2006 at 10:36pm EDT by Buffyisagoddess

Jones deals with this in his "Experiments with Molten Aluminum" page. Check it out.




Eye witness testimony may be unreliable, but when you get multitudes of different people giving the same acount of events, then such testemony gains a lot of credibility. Especially when backed up by other evidence such as this audio/video footage. And as a side note I fail to see how accounts of the planes hitting the towers contradicts accounts that explosions where heard and felt.


Some eyewitness testimony;

fireman talking about a bomb in the building

news talks about explosions

"secondary explosions

"3 thuds"

"heavy duty explosion"

"secondary device"

reporter experiencing multiple explosions

"gunfire"

"boom boom boom boom boom boom"

BBC


And some of course there's the extended account of eyewitness and 9/11 hero William Rodriguez who was the head janitor at the WTC.
William Rodriguez

Edited, Jul 11th 2006 at 11:18pm EDT by Dronadesh

I certainly believe it's the one most plausible.Perhaps you won't think so but I find it somewhat telling that the people on this forum who most often take Bush and the administration to task are still of the opinion that the government explanation is most probably the correct one.

Despite your evocation of Gbaji's name, this isn't really a partisan issue.

F'uck the thermate.
Answer this...

Why?

Jet fuel isn't a component of thermite. Thermite is a mixture of aluminum and another metal to oxidize the aluminum. Rust can be used to oxidize the aluminum, but it's not a very powerful oxidizing component. Manganese is a much more powerful oxidizing material and is what Prof Jones found in the sample he studied from the steel beam. (he also found sulfer, which would reduce the melting point of iron and is used specifically in thermite for that purpose creating a compound called thermate)

Professor jones experimented with rusty steel and aluminum, aluminum and concreat, aluminum and rust powder, as well as combinations of those with plastic, gypsum (drywall), and water. In all experiments, there was no explosive reaction and no heat retention. The only role that jet fuel would play is to increase the temperature, which was done in the experiments by heating the aluminum manually to molten temperatures. (the aluminum used was an alloy similar to what would be found in the material that made up the planes)

As far as other materials mixing with molten aluminum in order to change the color as it poured out of the buildings, his experiment wasn't designed to study the possibility of contaminants changing the color of aluminum. However, this whole aluminum from the planes theory is a load of crap anyways because no plane hit WTC 7 and it also collapsed and had pools of molten metal underneath it.




I assume that you're trying to explain the ejection of material from the building below the collapse of the buildings (the link that I'd posted that you where responding to was focused on the audo recording of explosives before the collapse of the building which confirms the testimony of people hearing multiple explosions before and during the collapse of the buildings and is a different subject than what you're explaining). The "skeleton" of the buiding would also consist of the 80 cm tall web joist connecting the core to the perimeter at each floor. These horizontal joists are integrally a part of the skeleton of the building. I don't understand what you mean when you say the floors and the skeletons aren't the same structure. Furthermore, the buildings fell at close to free fall speed, and thus the speculation that the floors would be falling faster and independent from the rest of the building is completly absurd. Not to mention that the exposive blasts where stagered and appeared at multiple floors at the same time. (as can be seen in the loose change 2 footage - check it) Just take a look at this picture to see how far down these blasts go. (the shaking of the camera tripod and the debris falling right before the collapse is another compelling proof that there where explosions prior to the collapse)



After close examination of the "there's a bomb in the building, start clearing out" footage, I agree with you that there's no way to link it to 9/11 WTC attacks. Otherwise, the rest of the eyewitness testimony makes it abundantly clear that police, firemen, reporters, and civilians all experienced multiple explosions that can't be explained as the collapse of the towers.

That aside, there's no way that any of the plane would have remained intact in order for there to be something to be exploded (like in the bacement for instance where multiple people witnessed explosions.) According to William Rodriguez, the head janitor of the WTC building 1 who worked there for 20 years, it was a class A building which means that all the kitchens where electric and that there was no gas piplines or tanks in the kitchens.

As far as how thermite would have been planted and where it would have been placed, one substantial factor is that Marvin Bush, George's brother, was a board member for securicom which provided security for the world trade center (and therefor would have access to the building). If you really wanted to examine the feasibility of planting explosives/cutter charges in the wtc you'd have to look at the floor plans, observe videos/pictures of where some of the explosions came out of (i.e. the "squibs"), what support beams would have to be taken out to make it fall the way it did, how/when it could have been done, and a lot of other technical data that would have to be put together. (I heard talk that some of the scholars for 9/11 truth crew where working on something similar to that).

Regardless, the evidence that thermite was used is overwhelming and it's rediculous to state that such thermte was created from random scrap materials put together by chance that was able to pour profusely from the side of the building and creat pools of molten metal that retained heat for weeks when in labratory conditions using the same materials (minus jet fuel and nylon as you stated which have no effect in producing thermite other than to heat up the materials) not even once where they able to create anything which remotely resembled an actual thermite reaction such as what would be needed to create the conditions seen on 9/11.

I posted what I thought was a relevant motive. Perhaps you'd like to coment on it.



You can't generate a plausible theory before you collect all the data. We need to have a real investigation into these matters before we begin to draw conclusioins.

On the FBI's most wanted poster of Osama Bin Laden he's not wanted for 9/11, just the '93 wtc bombing. When asked about it the FBI spokesman comented that they didn't have sufficiant evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

And as for the 9/11 comission, there are multitudes of reasons why such investigations can't be considered authoritative. Don't take my word for it, 25 current and former intelligence officials from orginizations like the CIA, FBI, FAA, DoD, Naval Intelligence, and Homeland Security signed this letter to Congress heavily critisizing the 9/11 commission.

Ultimately, no theory will be acceptable until a real investigation has been conducted considering any and all of the possible evidence concerning 9/11 including testemony by subpena and accountability for "mistakes" made by officials within our government. A good example is that Steven Jones, a concerned citizen with the expertise to study the steel for evidence of demolitions, is the only effing person to conduct such a study! Obviously if there's no foul play there's certainly a gross inadequecy in our government's ability to investigate crucial events and protect us from a highly preventable attack. However, as I'd be more than happy to proove, there's ample evidence that such failures are the result of foul play and we need to do something about it.





I resent the fact that you're insinuating that I'm making generalizations without pointing out how I may be doing so. Essentially you're being a hypocrite by making a generalization without giving any evidence to support it.



Again, you're making unfair insinuations. Actually occams razor has been brought up in this thread and I think that such principles should certainly be applied to the interpretation of evidence.




I can't believe that you're saying this. I don't understand how in any way questioning the status quo about what happened is disrespectful at all to the victems and those who where directly effected by 9/11. I do, however, think it's disrespectful to speak on behalf of such people saying what thier feelings are about 9/11 and who they think was responsible. It's our duty to make sure that those who are accountable for this attack are identified and held accountable, and public discourse is a vital component in this process.





You say that such conspiracy thoerys as those that I advocate are full of inconsistancies and are implausible. Perhaps you should address the exact thoeries that I'm promoting and tell me how they are inconsistant with facts and implausable rather than making a blanket statement putting everything into a convinient package that can be stamped and labled without even looking into and confronting it's contents.

It's funny that you should mention the relationship between Al'Qaeda and Iraq. It seems very odd to me that they used the war on terror as a pretext to make war with Iraq. It doesn't seem implausable to me that Al'Qaeda is just a patsy orginization meant to rally public support for a war on the middle east, as that seems to be what it's done. Especially considering that the FBI themselves have admitted that they have no evidence linking 9/11 with Osama Bin Laden. (not to mention that many of the 19 highjackers have been found to be alive) There's no doubt that there's a governmental conspiracy, that's the very nature of the CIA and classified military documents. It's a question of what exactly they're conspiring and whether 9/11 was one of those operations.

And furthermore, who are you to understand what potential the government has and how they calculate risks. It's a fact that the CIA places agents in stratigic positions to oversee the workings of orginizations which effect global interests. It's certainly not implausible for such people to oversee compartmentalized operations on a need to know basis, keeping those under them in the dark while enacting plans that only a few people understand. It's possible that under such a system that they could orchistrate something like 9/11. And it's not unplausable for agents who understand what's going on to be silenced as is being done currently with many intelligence officials who have taken the role of whistle blowers.

I'd be happy to discuss all this on a case by case basis to give you the opertunity to proove how my thoeries are implausible and inconsistant. Currently I've been discussing evidence that demolitions where used to take down the WTC. Perhaps you've found some inconsistancies with those arguments that you'd like to point out. Just don't pigeon hole me and assume that I support all varieties of conspiracy thoeries as I know there are multitudes of thoeries that are based on weak evidence or even none at all.