The amount of thermite required to cut a small rod proves that thermite did not cut the large steel columns at the WTC. By the way, please post videos showing where thermite is used to demolish buildings anyway. Thanks.
@huntera123 It doesnt prove anything. Nano thermite was found in dust samples which "lowers" the melting point of steel drastically. Thermite is mainly used within the military. Civil industry demo companies use standard stuff like rdx and c4. But the new generation is Nano Thermite, this is extremely expensive used by military.
the finer the particles in the thermite, the more violent the reaction is, for it catches faster as a whole, burning up even quicker....but producing tons more heat. nanothermite.
I should cite sources and educate YOU because of your own ignorance? This is pretty basic stuff, you know. A simple wiki search would have answered it immediately. I'm not going to spoon feed you :P.
Search words: Barium nitrate (look at decomposition temp), Thermite, Thermate.
I'm not "conspiring" anything. I'm just saying: You don't know what you are talking about. So STFU and sit down.
@PwntifexMaximus Do you think 9/11 was carried out by the government?
How do you explain Steven Jones spending the 90's claiming he could prove Jesus visited north america? Why are there so many quacks and liars in the ranks of professional conspiracy propagandists?
@soulinite he's not saying that he believes in the conspiracy theory he's just saying that your example of why thermite didn't take down WTC is false. I'm only in Pre-AP chem, so maybe there's some more advanced thermite, but I was under the impression thermite reactions resulted in Aluminum Oxide and Iron, not Barium Nitrate.
It's no more ficticious than regular thermite. It's only the grain size that differs. Sure, the nano-prefix is misleading for the aluminium component (the oxide-layer and technical hurldles makes it impossible to to shrink particles below 100 nm -ish) in diameter), but the iron oxidizers are easily crushed into the 5-10 nm range.
@BankaiIchigo12345 That is a pretty fast conclusion. Have you seen thermite on ice. It explodes. I think there may be other senarious where a shock effect could be created.
Also every other video on Youtube shows thermite burning very hot and vigorously and makng sparks and molten metal fly around while burning for several seconds, up to a minute. Standard thermite isn't exposive, so this must have been mixed with dynamite, TNT, black powder, nitrocelulose, or some other explosive compound.
@BankaiIchigo12345 If I have to think this WAS thermite only: I think it has already been ignited a sekond before we se any reaction, because the thermite may have been isolated inside the container. So after it has been ignited it develops pressure inside the container until the heat/pressure burst up the gate, makes the thermite burst out in a split sekund (champain bottle) on the iron/steel pole in a very concentrated stream smelting over and pushing over the pole in no time. Thats my theory
Thermite cuts steel like a hot knife through butter. Jonathan Cole devised ways to cut beams vertically, cut columns horizontally, cut off bolt heads, and cut 3/4 of the way through a hollow box column with charges placed on the inside. See my video:
moron, its a law that dates from 1988 and exempts NIST from action -- common place for the US government to exempt itself from civil liabilities -- the report can still be sued in actions not seeking damages, i.e. criminal charges
Maybe next time before you make yourself fool again, just try to find this information for yourself, thats the problem with you guys you never research for yourself, never... but i am not your mother and i give you a little hint where you get your answer, wikipedia.
@Denierbud11 The energy of a 250 ton plane traveling at 500mph doesn't even come close to that of a 50,000 ton block of building (1/10th the towers mass) at free fall. And that's just the onset of collapse. Imagine the mass of that block 10 seconds later.
a 50,000 ton block at free fall doesn't register until it hits something -- thus the 10 seconds between onset and the first contact of debri with the ground
or are you better than NIST at interpreting data? i'll go with NIST until you produce some pedigree that trumps them
@Denierbud11 Do you read what you type before you hit post? A 50,000 ton block (remember we're talking about the top of the building here) doesn't register until it hits something.. Yes that's true. But you're saying that 50,000 ton block, the top of the building, fell for 10 seconds at free fall? So the entire top of the building fell for 10 seconds, the amount of time it would take to hit the ground, without hitting something but the entire collapse took 25 seconds? Are you high?
As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence OR used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.
signed into law on Oct. 1, 2002, by President Bush
as in: anything NIST concludes is inadmissible in a court of law and makes it as good as hearsay and toilet paper. So much for NIST's credentials.
@Denierbud11 Allow me to present a flaw in their logic: The impact of the planes into the towers generated seismic signals picked up by LDEO. For what NIST is saying to be correct, for nearly 10 seconds of their collapse, two 500,000 ton buildings generated no seismic activity while they demolished themselves but being struck by ~250 ton planes did? No. The seismic signals recorded start at onset of collapse. Not half way through it.
@Denierbud11 It's not a matter of wanting to use their data. I'm simply pointing out that you're attacking "truthers" with information even NIST doesn't support.
only controlled demolitions could have made those 3 buildings fall like that.
nearly free-fall speed, symmetrical collapse into its own footprint?
resulting from minor, asymmetrical damage that should have weakened certain corners of the building more than others?!
"Oh but there was jet fuel!" yeah, most of it burnt up in those big fireballs,
and Building 7 had no jet fuel in it! Yet ALL 3 towers fell the exact same way, controlled demo style. Same sheep who think JFK was shot from the back
argument from incredulity! I don't believe it, is not an argument.
The buildinds did NOT fall demolition style, they did not fall at free fall, the towers certainly did NOT fall within their own foot print, the damage to all three was NOT minor, the fires were out of control, and how did you expect them to fall? topple over like a tree
other than that, I guess you presented a good argument for only having half a brain
@Denierbud11 Even NIST has said free fall in the collapse of bldg 7. There is measurable free fall in the collapse of the towers as well. Free fall, through air, from ~1350 feet is roughly 10 seconds. The official story is the towers fell in roughly 10 and 11 seconds respectively. So the towers fell through their structural support with an average level of acceleration greater than 95% of that of gravitational free fall through air.
the official story does not say it fell in 10 - 11 secounds, -- the 911 Commission did not investigate the timing or structural cause of collapse -- others did, just a video can be used -- its clear the tower collaspe was almost double the time of free fall -- watch a video of the collaspe and see for yourself
@Denierbud11 You can only see debris falling in the videos. You cannot see the structure itself past the initial collapse. Seismic readings from Columbia confirm the collapse times I've indicated.
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” -NIST NCSTAR 1 Section 6.14.4
@Denierbud11 Maybe YOU can see it but for those of us without X-ray vision we have trouble seeing through the large dust cloud that obscures the falling section of building.
put down the ho ho and tell your mom to turn down the tv - watch any video of the towers collapsing, you will see debri at free fall, falling faster than the tower
@Denierbud11 I didn't say the towers fell entirely at free fall. I said there was measurable free fall in the collapses of which NIST confirms. What I DID say was "the towers fell through their structural support with an average level of acceleration greater than 95% of that of gravitational free fall through air." ~95% puts it at roughly a second or so slower than free fall. And the seismic data clearly shows the collapse time wasn't any where near "almost double the time of free fall"
@Denierbud11 See it's funny that you keep repeating that because Columbia Universities seismic readings show 10 and 11 seconds for the collapse times. Not 20 seconds. NIST says 10 and 11 seconds because they based their times on those seismic readings. NIST also says "free fall" for all 3 buildings. So if you think that those times are wrong then it stands to reason that you are on the wrong side of the debate. You are, in fact, a truther. Welcome.
"The spikes began approximately 10 seconds AFTER the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds." - SO 10 PLUS 15 = 25
"The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground"
They fell at nearly free-fall, they DID fall demolition style, they DID fall main into their own footprint (aside from the material thrown explosively outward from the demo charges and explosions heard). Fires were NOT out of control, they were mainly paper fires burning black smoke because they were running out of fuel, low-heat scenario. And then you tell me I have half a brain. I think that's "name-calling". Here's one: you're a shill.
Look at the buildings as they "fall"-----they don't tilt, lean, sag------material begins EXPLODING as the main columns come straight down into their footprint. There's enough material for both to happen.
The point is that the structures don't lean, sag, sway, shift------they explode internally and begin collapsing downard at nearly free-fall speed. That's what a controlled demolition is, you can see the squibs puffing out, you can see molten metal pouring out of the tower. Demo
110 story towers cannot lean, the would fall before the lean got significantly off center -- but i guess your experience with building mechanics is limited to leggos
there is no explosion, the structural integrity fails DIRECTLY at the impact floors! did the explosives some how survive the fires ??
how did the explosives get past security and the bomb sniffing dogs?
@Denierbud11 Actually sky scrapers can lean a decent amount. Go to the observation deck of the Sears Tower on a windy day. You can feel the tower sway back and forth. It's visible from the ground on a truly windy day. The twin towers do the exact same thing. They can move considerably off center without falling over. Their perimeter and core columns can take a substantial amount of horizontal load. Well, did and could I guess.
"LOL, actually, I am producing videos now, and will get back to you with an actual thermite on steel experiment soon. Expect to be embarassed. During my OWN experiments with thermite on high carbon A36 steel, the worst I could do was "BLUE" the surface, but my NEXT experiment will actually involve several hundred pounds of thermite, and half a TON of steel, and I from math, I don't expect it to even blue the steel at all. See you then!"
if you are saying this is how the towers fell then 1/ why didn't the planes jet fuel ignite the fuses upon the fiirst impact instaed of 50 minutes later
Thermite needs a fuse easy to light with a flame it's a baseless theoryif it was prewired for explosives the the dentonators would have blown like a Rambo Movieshooting an amo dump.
@Merlin5x5 "LOL, actually, I am producing videos now, and will get back to you with an actual thermite on steel experiment soon. Expect to be embarassed. During my OWN experiments with thermite on high carbon A36 steel, the worst I could do was "BLUE" the surface, but my NEXT experiment will actually involve several hundred pounds of thermite, and half a TON of steel, and I from math, I don't expect it to even blue the steel at all. See you then!"
@Merlin5x5 So you never intended making any video of your inability to replicate the experiment that P&R performed with just a few pounds of thermite then?......LMFAO!
You ex-nam REMFs (rear echelon mother fuckers) are all as gutless and impotent as one another I guess..LOL!
"Expect to be embarassed..."
LOL!...I just can't wait to be embarassed really....LMFAO!
You could easily design such a device so the ceramic container is destroyed right after the reaction. It only needs to stay intact long enough to direct the spray of reacting thermite into the target, then disintegrate from the reaction pressure. Any person competent in the art could do this. Also, these ceramic containers would not survive the cascade of broken steel collapsing to the ground. Searchers only found things the size of a fingernail or less. Compete destruction.
First of all your claim does not prove nothing even if it would have been true, in steel framed buildings, thermite is used constantly for controlled demolition, they have to weaken the building prior to main event and thermite is used just for that. You have no ability of critical thinking at all, behind your actual journals are big corporations and if you borned six months ago then try to remember bailouts and bonuses few years ago, that tells alot to you who is in charge...
Whats wrong with you? Did i said that thermite has been used in demolition? Pay attention a little and you may seem a little smarter next time. Now if you read my comment over and over again until you finally get what i actually said then research Tom Sullivan who was demolition technician and what he has to say, he explains very detaily how they take buildings down and what controlled demolition actually means... controlled.
is English your second language or something --- you made a statement that thermite is used in controlled demolition -- I challenge you show when and how often it is used
I did not say thermite is used IN controlled demolition, i said it is used for controlled demolition and explained when, it is used to weaken the steel framed buildings, to weaken it! Not in the final step when they take the building down... is it clear enough now? If you even can´t understand this then there is no point to talk to you, because there is voices in your head that twists other peoples words, we cannot have normal discussion like that...
Good luck to you giving me example where they have not used thermite to weaken the building before the main event. And i was talking about the steel framed building to be clear, you guys have some fuzzy thinking.
Good luck to you giving me example where they have not used thermite to weaken the building before the main event. And i was talking about the steel framed building to be clear, you guys have some fuzzy thinking.
Maybe next time before you make yourself fool again, just try to find this information for yourself, thats the problem with you guys you never research for yourself, never... but i am not your mother and i give you a little hint where you get your answer, wikipedia.
Are you playing stupid or you are? Seriously, did you even check in the wikipedia, it clearly states who has the title and editorial rights from 1995, NCE is just a title published by EMAP wich is big media corporation in UK, you probably don´t have any knowledge about your own mainstream media channels. You are embarrising yourself now. Why even take word when you clearly have no knowledge about the issue? Pathetic...
Your English is OK, but you seem to be confused about how magazines and journals are made. Unsurprising for a truther (I assume you're a big Bentham fan).
NCE is written by and open to review by chartered engineers. If you're suggesting that having a media company own the publishing rights makes them part of the global conspiracy involving millions os shape-shifting jews, I can only assume you are very very young.
Nice going, where you are taking all this stuff? You must have very rich fantasy... now back to the hard facts.
"NCE is published by EMAP who acquired the title and editorial control from the ICE in 1995"
I do not assume nothing, i hope you just finally get it. And try to remember why we are arguing over the NCE in first place, you asked how big corporation is behind NCE, i answered you, it took me now 3 comments to explain you, just get it. Rest of your comment is irrelevant
I am not suggest nothing, i just pointed out some facts for you but censorship is nothing new. I am not saying that NCE is junk engineering but EMAP can filter things out if they want, they have the editorial rights. Why you always put words in my mouth and then i have to come back here just to defend my points what you always twist? But we have gone too far away of the actual issue anyway, just research both sides, your "?shape shifting jews?" proves your ingorance about 9/11.
There are no 'Sides'. There's just what happened, and the internet, that's it.
Either you're suggesting censorship or you're not. If you are, surely that points to a conspiracy involving thousands of people- highly unlikely (Manhattan in 3,2,1-).
What is a credible source of information in your opinion?
Your arguments are weak, you just speculate, while i am looking at hard facts, molten steel for example this alone basicly debunks whole official story, thats why NIST leading scientists didn´t "knew" nothing about it and did not include it in their "investigation" While there are video evidence, picture evidence and eye witnesses. And if you even before researching start talking bullshit like there was no molten steel then you are proving even more of your ingorance... continues...
And whats my credible source? I cannot answer to this because i am looking to both sides of the spectrum, multiple sources and put this together in my head, using my own head to actually think unlike you. I have learned basic understanding of physics in school and i am able to implement them on 9/11.
Wow- flashback to 2005/2006 when this was dealt with exhaustively- but then truthers love to rinse and re-use their arguments, so:
Anything that's not anecdotal?
Anything that has been identified by an expert (ie a metallurgist) as steel?
And if so, has is been shown that the melted metal was caused prior to the collapse and not made by the underground furnaces burning for months afterwards in the NASA pictures?
Good luck with that (no misquoting please, I know all the main ones).
"Anything that has been identified by an expert (ie a metallurgist) as steel?"
And it defenetly proves that there was no molten steel. But there are evidence for melted steel and again you with your life under rock refuse to research and because you know all in 2011 with arguments from 05/06
watch?v=zt-KgVFIa9c
I do not misquot you are the one who has done that.
And there is so much more, start researching before making even more of an ass out of yourself.
The small, weak thermite torch in this clip was designed and built by a firm of engineers.
Larger and more powerful thermate cutters were recently cobbled together by an engineer with no explosives experience, and upon ignition most of the incendiary and explosive events documented by NIST in their 268 page report on fire behavior at WTC2 could be observed: v=5d5iIoCiI8g
i don't care if the pixels on the screen are fake or it's a tube ,I'm just saying its completly possible to cut a piece of rebar with a small thermite charge or c-4,and as far as the WTC steel only has to be a dull orange maybey 1,000 F? before it loses all strength.excuse me I have to go shoot up again.
That should have been melting point at 650C, and ignition point at circa 630C (below the melting point) for elemental magnesium. My bad.
Your bad: "most of the rest of the vid is based on proving "melted " steel."
The thermate cutting demonstration debunks (1) a deeply flawed experiment by National Geographic and (2) the assertion that "thermite can't cut sideways." It also provides the only explanation to account for pressure pulses, metal combustion, molten metal and iron spheres.
This "thermire torch" is quite large in relation to the steel that was cut.,if something like this were used at the the WTC,they would be much larger. You might also expect some of them to have survived the collapse since they are made of sturdy material.
@Bernadotte01 I posed a question,not rhetoric. I have seen the first vid on your list. At 1:43 is a statement from newsweek that "it melted the structural steel" and most of the rest of the vid is based on proving "melted " steel. The failure of the building did not require melted steel,merely weakened steel putting horizontal pressure on the bolted together exterior panels. Remember the videos showing those exterior panels being pulled inwards before the collapse?
@mrtommynazi yes, Mr Nazi, I do recall the video showing the pre-collapse explosive ejection of an object an extremely high velocity, and the metal combustion footage, and the torrent of radiant molten iron. The inward pulling of columns at the onset of the explosive demolition simply fails to account for those incendiary features.
"So why don't your Truthy scientists show us thermite cutting some actual standing steel-- even a little 6x12 I-beam? ROFLMAO" -blueshark69 (at v=GEPjOi2dQSM)
@Bernadotte01 Your're talking about the hot spewing metal before the collapse? Ity's easy to explain,it was merely magnesuim.aluminum alloy combusting. Read an article on "pyrophoric metals" by the department of energy,you will find melting temps and precautions when casting molten magnesium. One of the risks is that molten magnesiun can combust when introduced to iron oxide in a thermite reaction. You see magnesium is hard to ignite but when in liquid form it is quite easily ignited
@mrtommynazi "it was merely magnesuim.aluminum alloy combusting."
One of the risks with pure elemental magnesium is that it can ignite at extremely low flame temperatures - around 630C, or below its boiling point of 630C.
Most aluminum alloys include small amounts of magnesium and do not become more incendiary as a consequence. I have some alloy 7075, it includes magnesium, and does not readily ignite.
The molten metal is iron, not burning aluminum. You cannot duplicate the flow with aluminum.
@Bernadotte01 "Steel lined runoff pits or pits with tightly fitting steel pans should be provided, and the pans must be kept free of iron scale. Leaking metal contacting hot iron scale results in a violent thermite reaction. Use of stainless steel pans or linings will eliminate this possibility." From the department of energy article describing the hazards of working with moltem magnesium. Aren't most of the landing gear on aircraft mostly magnesium?
@mrtommynazi Melts at 650C - ignites at 630C. Only a lunatic would make landing gear parts from elemental magnesium.
NIST understood that the only candidates available in sufficient volume to account for the molten cascade were Al and Fe, and they settled for the low-melting point reflective explanation that ascribes novel properties to aluminum while violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Did you like the National Geographic experiment that was debunked by physicsandreason?
@mrtommynazi thermate you can paint it on all you need is a charge hence the explosions heard before the planes hit. thermate is the same substance used in incendiary grenades which burns at 3,992 °F im just saying that is a possibility and you wouldnt need bags of it just a new paint job
@mrtommynazi thermate you can paint it on all you need is a charge hence the explosions heard before the planes hit. thermate is the same substance used in incendiary grenades which burns at 3,992 °F im just saying that is a possibility and you wouldnt need bags of it just a new paint job
@mastermusicianxv There were no explosions before the planes hit. That is a myth created by willie rodriguez a janitor who was in the basement at the time. In his story he hears a "rumble and everything shook" later he hears a loud "bang". The guy considered the "bang" to be the plane hit but it was most likely elevators,beams and debris falling down the shafts into the basement following the plane strike.
@mrtommynazi You are making a premise that a complex object for a rudimentary experiment must be equally scaled up in proportion to an object being cut. This is not so, especially considering anyone involved in such a conspiracy would not be so limited in technology, nor financing. As for surviving where are those indestructible black boxes from the planes? They conveniently evaporated as well I suppose. Well, everything and human remains were carted off as soon as possible to landfills & China.
@ShootBlueHelmets Cleanup took months, SBH, and the debris was picked over by several federal agencies at Fresh Kills. Ask the FAA; Black boxes are *not* indestructible. Several were recovered, and some were too damaged to be used.
You're arguing that the bad guys "might" be able to do something. You need credible evidence that they actually would or could, or you're just speculating. Whistling in the dark.
@mrtommynazi It would have made no differencce as the explosives used on the WTC were so powerful that everything, including the concrete was pulverized to small particles, not even a computer was found and you expect people to go "Woah! a thermite cutter charge in the rubble". And even if they did find it, they would never make it public just like they never made public that nano thermite was found in all dust samples. You know, before staging such an attack you make sure you control the media.
@Xendrius Explosives are made of a very efficient fuel and oxidizer/air source in perfect proportions,when they burn/explode there is nothing remaining of the preburn mixture. "nano thermite" is just very finely ground aluminum and iron oxide,testing for small particles of each in the dust would yield rerults since those elements were in the building before it was ground into dust in the collapse.
"Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved."
@mrtommynazi I have pointed this out to multiple truthers. None of them are willing to explain how thermite evaporated. Or even how it survived the plane crash and hour of fire. You'd think some would've been knocked into Manhattan.
@EGRJ I also like to pose the question: If the buildings were wired to implode then,why not wait until full occupancy and blow them all at once with no warning? What could be more terrifying than three buildings imploding and collapsing at "free fall" speeds on a tuesday morning.No warning means more death right? They usually shut up at that point and have no explanation as to why aircraft were even involved in the whole scenario. Truthers are pitiful people.
You did not get the video at all, this is to demonstrate that thermite can cut vertical columns and beams and they did not find original thermite in the dust, they found nano thermite, maybe they did find some similar devices but research how they destroyed almost all the evidenxe. Also search for "the great thermate debate" and research about architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, these are independent scientist unlike the official commision with over half having conflicts of interest.
@Matu1 I did understand this video.They used thermite in an open ended container and forced the discharge into one direction similar to what a shaped charge does to high explosive.The ability of themite to cut would depend on you ability to direct ito onto a target. There is no use even talking of "nano thermite" a theorectical explosive whose components,iron oxide and aluminum, would have been common in the dust anyway
I notice the troll team attached to this video went on vacation after physicsandreason presented a brilliant steel-cutting demonstration - using thermate:
@Bernadotte01 There is nothing to argue here it quite simple. Go to Home Depot and ask to see the #4 re-rod. That is your common rod found in driveways, foundations, and so on. But what was in the world trade is WAY thicker than that. Stuff that is probably over an inch thick. Hard core shit! lol. After the 35w bridge collapsed here in MN I went to check it out and when it all boils down.....what size of re-bar you use means nothing! That stuff was tore up with ease.
@scottie56005 I know a lot about steel, its microstructure, its heating and cooling curves, precipitation of the eutectic from liquid, precipitation of the eutectoid from solid austeninte, the effect of cooling rates on grain size and structure, its ductile strength at different temperatures, etc ad nauseum. Boring, and unnecessary.
As I said before, the melting range of the low-carbon rebar will be approximately the same as the WTC steel.
For larger scale thermate cuts, see: v=5d5iIoCiI8g
@Bernadotte01 yes clearly I'm on heroin just like you,paranoid and delusional,obviously sombody drilled out this rebar with a lathe to trick everyone on youtube,or it's CGI
@davetileguy Yeah - you are on heroin. Anyone can press the "see all comments" button to prove it. Here's a shill for the official fable pretending that the solid rebar is hollow:
======
taylort123
1 month ago
--JackRyan1985 That's not rebar, it's tubing. You can see the hole in the bottom half of the cut. Alex Jones claiming that that is a rod is absurd.
=====
That's the kind of hollow lie people enforcing the official myth fabricate every day.
This is so ubber bull shit. So what if this cuts a small rod. We're talking about thick steel plates and beams which would require hundreds of bags of thermite...
Jones is a blithering fucken idiot, not an Ironworker. Go back to your shit job professor and stop bullshitting the country!
Why does taylor123 feel compelled to lie about this video? What motivates someone to say, "that is a hollow tube" when clearly it is solid rebar?
How many lies, like the one in which "blacksmiths once used sulfur for forge welding," does the official fable require? How many polyurethane fires produce white smoke?
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...
On November 21, 2001, The New York Times published an article titled:
ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC:
STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED
In 2002 the Ministry of Truth changed the title, all references to evaporated steel were deleted, and the engineers became retrospectively unbaffled!
Any questions?
@shooter686 - Do you subscribe to the unreproducible aluminum hypothesis to account for the brightly glowing torrent of molten metal that preceded WTC2 "collapse"?
@taylort123 It is rebar being cut in this clip, not tubing.
Rebar, unlike tubing, has stippled rings all over the surface to produce an intimate mechanical composite with the concrete in which it is designed to be embedded.
Tubing is typically smooth, because you don't need to waste material producing those lumps all over the place that have absolutely no function on a tube.
Clearly the metal rod being cut in this clip is solid rebar, and you are blind or ignorant. "The hole" is in your mind.
No one knows how the building came down using thermite. But there were traces of thermite. If the building was brought down by thermite, no one knows how it was used. People argue how its impossible to bring down a building with thermite because you have to use alot of it and along with tons of explosives. But is it really impossible to think that the government might have come up with a new type of explosive that used thermite along with demolition charges?
I ask many armchair experts and none of them can answer this question.
How did they cut vertical surfaces of a highrise I-beam?
If you want to use this little video to prove anything, explain why ZERO of these devices were ever found especially the size needed
shooter686 3 weeks ago
The amount of thermite required to cut a small rod proves that thermite did not cut the large steel columns at the WTC. By the way, please post videos showing where thermite is used to demolish buildings anyway. Thanks.
huntera123 1 month ago
@huntera123 It doesnt prove anything. Nano thermite was found in dust samples which "lowers" the melting point of steel drastically. Thermite is mainly used within the military. Civil industry demo companies use standard stuff like rdx and c4. But the new generation is Nano Thermite, this is extremely expensive used by military.
nahnah21 1 month ago
the finer the particles in the thermite, the more violent the reaction is, for it catches faster as a whole, burning up even quicker....but producing tons more heat. nanothermite.
grimm61111 3 months ago
@grimm61111 The largest by-product of thermite is barium nitrate. Why was no Barium nitrate found by the conspiracy theorists?
soulinite 3 months ago
Comment removed
Funkadelic2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soulinite Sounds like a weird mixture. Please link me the source for your claims about barium nitrate will you..?
Funkadelic2 3 months ago
@soulinite
1. Barium nitrate is only included in military incendiary grade thermite. Then it is called "thermate". Regular thermite has no barium nitrate at all.
2. Barium nitrate is consumed in the reaction, so what would be found in that case would be barium oxide.
Not knowing what you are talking about makes a poor basis for any debate.
PwntifexMaximus 3 months ago
@PwntifexMaximus Cite your source please. How did you get into conspiracy theories exactly?
soulinite 3 months ago
@soulinite
I should cite sources and educate YOU because of your own ignorance? This is pretty basic stuff, you know. A simple wiki search would have answered it immediately. I'm not going to spoon feed you :P.
Search words: Barium nitrate (look at decomposition temp), Thermite, Thermate.
I'm not "conspiring" anything. I'm just saying: You don't know what you are talking about. So STFU and sit down.
PwntifexMaximus 2 months ago
@PwntifexMaximus Do you think 9/11 was carried out by the government?
How do you explain Steven Jones spending the 90's claiming he could prove Jesus visited north america? Why are there so many quacks and liars in the ranks of professional conspiracy propagandists?
soulinite 2 months ago
@soulinite
1. I have been told never to attribute to malice what can be blamed on stupidity, but I would have to say: I do not know.
2. Steven Jones was a deluded fool.
3. Because there is fame and money in sensationalism.
Again, I never said I did. I'm only saying: You are talking out of your ass.
PwntifexMaximus 2 months ago
@PwntifexMaximus So why no barium oxide?
soulinite 2 months ago
@soulinite
Because you don't need barium in any way shape or form to make a cutting thermitic material you fool!
Have you been reading ANYTHING I've been saying?
PwntifexMaximus 2 months ago
@soulinite he's not saying that he believes in the conspiracy theory he's just saying that your example of why thermite didn't take down WTC is false. I'm only in Pre-AP chem, so maybe there's some more advanced thermite, but I was under the impression thermite reactions resulted in Aluminum Oxide and Iron, not Barium Nitrate.
ryan10730 2 months ago
@ryan10730 Fare enough.
soulinite 2 months ago
@ryan10730 There are many tipes of thermites.
In short,all you need is metal oxide and another more reactive metal than first bounded with oxygen.
KroatienSS 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PwntifexMaximus Why not go to a fire station in Manhattan and see what the first responders think about your nonsense?
youtube(*)com/watch?v=DkTcNR0EfKY&feature=channel_video_title
soulinite 2 months ago
@grimm61111
Nanothermite does NOT exist. It is a fictitious substance who's name was invented by the idiots trying to say that the US gov committed 9-11 attacks.
BankaiIchigo12345 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BankaiIchigo12345 how are you so sure?
grimm61111 3 months ago
@BankaiIchigo12345
It's no more ficticious than regular thermite. It's only the grain size that differs. Sure, the nano-prefix is misleading for the aluminium component (the oxide-layer and technical hurldles makes it impossible to to shrink particles below 100 nm -ish) in diameter), but the iron oxidizers are easily crushed into the 5-10 nm range.
PwntifexMaximus 2 months ago
@PwntifexMaximus How did you come to believe in crazy conspiracy theories exactly?
soulinite 2 months ago
do you want to sell me somthing some units or vill you send me you video of jet termite somthing yuo rote
Mikkelstar 4 months ago
with this you can broke some fucking safe
tomytherose 6 months ago
That was NOT thermite. Thermite burns hotter than steel melts, but it does NOT explode.
BankaiIchigo12345 7 months ago
@BankaiIchigo12345 That is a pretty fast conclusion. Have you seen thermite on ice. It explodes. I think there may be other senarious where a shock effect could be created.
ChrisG140907 7 months ago
@ChrisG140907
I bet it was mixed with TNT in this.
Also every other video on Youtube shows thermite burning very hot and vigorously and makng sparks and molten metal fly around while burning for several seconds, up to a minute. Standard thermite isn't exposive, so this must have been mixed with dynamite, TNT, black powder, nitrocelulose, or some other explosive compound.
BankaiIchigo12345 7 months ago
@BankaiIchigo12345 If I have to think this WAS thermite only: I think it has already been ignited a sekond before we se any reaction, because the thermite may have been isolated inside the container. So after it has been ignited it develops pressure inside the container until the heat/pressure burst up the gate, makes the thermite burst out in a split sekund (champain bottle) on the iron/steel pole in a very concentrated stream smelting over and pushing over the pole in no time. Thats my theory
ChrisG140907 7 months ago
@BankaiIchigo12345
Explosive thermate cutting steel columns:
v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Bernadotte01 6 months ago
@BankaiIchigo12345 THERMITE IS EXPLOSIVE IT JUST HAS TO BE CAONTAINED BUT THIS IS CONSENTRATED VERY HIGHLY CONSENTRATED THERMITE
DESTROYAH250 5 months ago
@BankaiIchigo12345
I'd go with ChrisG:s explainiation. Simply randomly mixing in some explosives is just absurd, not to mention overly complicated.
PwntifexMaximus 3 months ago
Thermite cuts steel like a hot knife through butter. Jonathan Cole devised ways to cut beams vertically, cut columns horizontally, cut off bolt heads, and cut 3/4 of the way through a hollow box column with charges placed on the inside. See my video:
Incendiary Experiments
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
Comment removed
ChrisG140907 7 months ago
Ok, then who uses it in the preperation stage
Denierbud11 7 months ago
moron, its a law that dates from 1988 and exempts NIST from action -- common place for the US government to exempt itself from civil liabilities -- the report can still be sued in actions not seeking damages, i.e. criminal charges
Denierbud11 7 months ago
Maybe next time before you make yourself fool again, just try to find this information for yourself, thats the problem with you guys you never research for yourself, never... but i am not your mother and i give you a little hint where you get your answer, wikipedia.
Matu1 7 months ago
What the hell are you talking about, NIST says 25 seconds for the collapse === its their statement
you are the one twisting it
Denierbud11 7 months ago
250 ton planes at 500 mph -- mass time velocity equals what?
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 The energy of a 250 ton plane traveling at 500mph doesn't even come close to that of a 50,000 ton block of building (1/10th the towers mass) at free fall. And that's just the onset of collapse. Imagine the mass of that block 10 seconds later.
Mass X velocity = linear momentum BTW.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog
a 50,000 ton block at free fall doesn't register until it hits something -- thus the 10 seconds between onset and the first contact of debri with the ground
or are you better than NIST at interpreting data? i'll go with NIST until you produce some pedigree that trumps them
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 Do you read what you type before you hit post? A 50,000 ton block (remember we're talking about the top of the building here) doesn't register until it hits something.. Yes that's true. But you're saying that 50,000 ton block, the top of the building, fell for 10 seconds at free fall? So the entire top of the building fell for 10 seconds, the amount of time it would take to hit the ground, without hitting something but the entire collapse took 25 seconds? Are you high?
Ahlywog 7 months ago
quote right off of NIST's own web site.
As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence OR used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses.
signed into law on Oct. 1, 2002, by President Bush
as in: anything NIST concludes is inadmissible in a court of law and makes it as good as hearsay and toilet paper. So much for NIST's credentials.
EarthsGravitySucksAg 7 months ago
you could copy, paste and google - or below link
wtc . nist . gov / pubs /factsheets / faqs _ 8 _ 2006 . htm
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 Allow me to present a flaw in their logic: The impact of the planes into the towers generated seismic signals picked up by LDEO. For what NIST is saying to be correct, for nearly 10 seconds of their collapse, two 500,000 ton buildings generated no seismic activity while they demolished themselves but being struck by ~250 ton planes did? No. The seismic signals recorded start at onset of collapse. Not half way through it.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog
so NIST is wrong, but you still want to use their data ...
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 It's not a matter of wanting to use their data. I'm simply pointing out that you're attacking "truthers" with information even NIST doesn't support.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
only controlled demolitions could have made those 3 buildings fall like that.
nearly free-fall speed, symmetrical collapse into its own footprint?
resulting from minor, asymmetrical damage that should have weakened certain corners of the building more than others?!
"Oh but there was jet fuel!" yeah, most of it burnt up in those big fireballs,
and Building 7 had no jet fuel in it! Yet ALL 3 towers fell the exact same way, controlled demo style. Same sheep who think JFK was shot from the back
ModernPlague 7 months ago
@ModernPlague
argument from incredulity! I don't believe it, is not an argument.
The buildinds did NOT fall demolition style, they did not fall at free fall, the towers certainly did NOT fall within their own foot print, the damage to all three was NOT minor, the fires were out of control, and how did you expect them to fall? topple over like a tree
other than that, I guess you presented a good argument for only having half a brain
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 Even NIST has said free fall in the collapse of bldg 7. There is measurable free fall in the collapse of the towers as well. Free fall, through air, from ~1350 feet is roughly 10 seconds. The official story is the towers fell in roughly 10 and 11 seconds respectively. So the towers fell through their structural support with an average level of acceleration greater than 95% of that of gravitational free fall through air.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog
the official story does not say it fell in 10 - 11 secounds, -- the 911 Commission did not investigate the timing or structural cause of collapse -- others did, just a video can be used -- its clear the tower collaspe was almost double the time of free fall -- watch a video of the collaspe and see for yourself
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 You can only see debris falling in the videos. You cannot see the structure itself past the initial collapse. Seismic readings from Columbia confirm the collapse times I've indicated.
"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos.” -NIST NCSTAR 1 Section 6.14.4
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog
in regards to the tower you actually can see both the debri and the structure -- why lie?
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 Maybe YOU can see it but for those of us without X-ray vision we have trouble seeing through the large dust cloud that obscures the falling section of building.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog
put down the ho ho and tell your mom to turn down the tv - watch any video of the towers collapsing, you will see debri at free fall, falling faster than the tower
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 I didn't say the towers fell entirely at free fall. I said there was measurable free fall in the collapses of which NIST confirms. What I DID say was "the towers fell through their structural support with an average level of acceleration greater than 95% of that of gravitational free fall through air." ~95% puts it at roughly a second or so slower than free fall. And the seismic data clearly shows the collapse time wasn't any where near "almost double the time of free fall"
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog
it took the towers nearly 20 seconds or more to fall, that is not 95% of freefall speed - watch a video
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 See it's funny that you keep repeating that because Columbia Universities seismic readings show 10 and 11 seconds for the collapse times. Not 20 seconds. NIST says 10 and 11 seconds because they based their times on those seismic readings. NIST also says "free fall" for all 3 buildings. So if you think that those times are wrong then it stands to reason that you are on the wrong side of the debate. You are, in fact, a truther. Welcome.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog regarding NIST
"The spikes began approximately 10 seconds AFTER the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds." - SO 10 PLUS 15 = 25
"The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground"
WHY DID YOU LIE?
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 Care to share where you're quoting this from?
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Denierbud11
You're wrong on everything you said.
They fell at nearly free-fall, they DID fall demolition style, they DID fall main into their own footprint (aside from the material thrown explosively outward from the demo charges and explosions heard). Fires were NOT out of control, they were mainly paper fires burning black smoke because they were running out of fuel, low-heat scenario. And then you tell me I have half a brain. I think that's "name-calling". Here's one: you're a shill.
ModernPlague 7 months ago
@ModernPlague
why bother to lie when its easy to show it to be a lie
you admit stuff was thrown out -- there fore it did NOT fall into its own foot print - if it did, it would not have damaged WTC 7 some 300 feet away
why lie?
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11
Look at the buildings as they "fall"-----they don't tilt, lean, sag------material begins EXPLODING as the main columns come straight down into their footprint. There's enough material for both to happen.
The point is that the structures don't lean, sag, sway, shift------they explode internally and begin collapsing downard at nearly free-fall speed. That's what a controlled demolition is, you can see the squibs puffing out, you can see molten metal pouring out of the tower. Demo
ModernPlague 7 months ago
@ModernPlague
110 story towers cannot lean, the would fall before the lean got significantly off center -- but i guess your experience with building mechanics is limited to leggos
there is no explosion, the structural integrity fails DIRECTLY at the impact floors! did the explosives some how survive the fires ??
how did the explosives get past security and the bomb sniffing dogs?
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11 Actually sky scrapers can lean a decent amount. Go to the observation deck of the Sears Tower on a windy day. You can feel the tower sway back and forth. It's visible from the ground on a truly windy day. The twin towers do the exact same thing. They can move considerably off center without falling over. Their perimeter and core columns can take a substantial amount of horizontal load. Well, did and could I guess.
Ahlywog 7 months ago
@Ahlywog
"For the Sears Tower, average sway is six inches from center, though the edifice can accommodate 12 inches."
Denierbud11 7 months ago
Eh, yo quiero aprender a hacer eso.
Steelvg10 8 months ago
Thats a pretty big canister for such a small rod.
oknowiamdead 9 months ago
"service related injuries"
Those paper cuts can take decades to heal.
Especially with the soft girly skin of a REMF like you, swallower....LOL!
How's the video progressing, swallower? Still loading that big heavy tape are ya?
LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"service related injuries"
Those paper cuts can take decades to heal.
Especially with the soft girly skin of a REMF like you, swallower....LOL!
How's the video progressing, swallower? Still loading that big heavy tape are ya?
LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"service related injuries"
Those paper cuts can take decades to heal.
Especially with the soft girly skin of a REMF like you, swallower....LOL!
How's the video progressing, swallower? Still loading that big heavy tape are ya?
LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
"LOL, actually, I am producing videos now, and will get back to you with an actual thermite on steel experiment soon. Expect to be embarassed. During my OWN experiments with thermite on high carbon A36 steel, the worst I could do was "BLUE" the surface, but my NEXT experiment will actually involve several hundred pounds of thermite, and half a TON of steel, and I from math, I don't expect it to even blue the steel at all. See you then!"
Been seven months now, meowlin 4x2..LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
if you are saying this is how the towers fell then 1/ why didn't the planes jet fuel ignite the fuses upon the fiirst impact instaed of 50 minutes later
Thermite needs a fuse easy to light with a flame it's a baseless theoryif it was prewired for explosives the the dentonators would have blown like a Rambo Movieshooting an amo dump.
BoomerangBrault 11 months ago
/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
This guy shows the proper method for cutting vertically with relatively small amounts of thermite.....enjoy.....
noozilander 11 months ago
@noozilander
This guy is posting a Fuel ignition device for model rockets.
It's on the patent. The device pictured is NOT a demolition device at all,
and it would have to be scaled up about 1000 times to cut thru a core column.
IF you actually go to the website, you get a company that never existed, and
a website that existed for JUST ONE YEAR, LOL.
My guess is another Truther fake company, like Steven Jones and S&J Scientific.
Merlin5x5 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Merlin5x5 "LOL, actually, I am producing videos now, and will get back to you with an actual thermite on steel experiment soon. Expect to be embarassed. During my OWN experiments with thermite on high carbon A36 steel, the worst I could do was "BLUE" the surface, but my NEXT experiment will actually involve several hundred pounds of thermite, and half a TON of steel, and I from math, I don't expect it to even blue the steel at all. See you then!"
Seven Months now.
Couldn't do it huh? LOL!
noozilander 11 months ago
@Merlin5x5 Do you EVER follow through on anything coward?
Keep swallowing Meowlin....
noozilander 11 months ago
@noozilander
Sure do, I have been raping Truther conspiracy fantasies since 2007!
Did you try to lookup spectreenterprises. net? The domain has been
closed for almost two years now. The company never existed in the
city that USED to be on the web page. You can use INTERNIC WHOIS
to find out who runs / ran the thing, and for how long.
BASIC INTERNET FRAUD PREVENTION, LOL.
Ever do that famous KookTard Research?
Merlin5x5 11 months ago
@Merlin5x5 So you never intended making any video of your inability to replicate the experiment that P&R performed with just a few pounds of thermite then?......LMFAO!
You ex-nam REMFs (rear echelon mother fuckers) are all as gutless and impotent as one another I guess..LOL!
"Expect to be embarassed..."
LOL!...I just can't wait to be embarassed really....LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
@noozilander
how do we count as rear echelon, when you are 4,000 miles away, in another country, and an expert in attacks on another country?
Wouldn't that make you the MORON pulling shit out of your ass?
Just sayin....
Merlin5x5 11 months ago
@Merlin5x5 I haven't pretended to be some sort of war hero, imagineero.....LMFAO!
How's that video coming along, REMF?
Did you give up on failing to prove easily provable things again coward?
noozilander 11 months ago
@noozilander
Good, you are NOT, nor are you some angel advocating Truth.
You are just another internet conspiracy wierdo trying to tell us what we
saw with our own eyes was an attack, was actually George Bush in disguise.
How is your ass kicking coming along, Suck Ass Truther?
I betcha it's farther along than my video, LOL.
Merlin5x5 11 months ago
@Merlin5x5 Evolution is proceeding at a faster rate than your video coward.....LOL!
Well it is for most of us. You still drag your knuckles on the ground when you walk, REMF.
Keep swallowing Meowlin....
noozilander 11 months ago
@noozilander
NOT your evolution, you are still a porch ape.
Next time I go to the VA for my service related injuries, I will try to remember
I was rear echelon, and not serving in places you were to cowardly even to volunteer for.
Keep sucking ass, shit breath.
Merlin5x5 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Merlin5x5 "service related injuries"
Those paper cuts can take decades to heal.
Especially with the soft girly skin of a REMF like you, swallower....LOL!
How's the video progressing, swallower? Still loading that big heavy tape are ya?
LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Merlin5x5 "service related injuries"
Those paper cuts can take decades to heal.
Especially with the soft girly skin of a REMF like you, swallower....LOL!
How's the video progressing, swallower? Still loading that big heavy tape are ya?
LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Merlin5x5 "service related injuries"
Those paper cuts can take decades to heal.
Especially with the soft girly skin of a REMF like you, swallower....LOL!
How's the video progressing, swallower? Still loading that big heavy tape are ya?
LMFAO!
noozilander 11 months ago
911 "truthers" are fucking douchebags. just sayin...
st1dinoh 1 year ago
You could easily design such a device so the ceramic container is destroyed right after the reaction. It only needs to stay intact long enough to direct the spray of reacting thermite into the target, then disintegrate from the reaction pressure. Any person competent in the art could do this. Also, these ceramic containers would not survive the cascade of broken steel collapsing to the ground. Searchers only found things the size of a fingernail or less. Compete destruction.
apryason 1 year ago
wtc!
q09l15 1 year ago
Excellent. Can anyone tell me how many times thermite has been used to demolish a building?
Anyone.......
I'll give you a hint. It's the same as the number of articles the 'truthers' have had published in actual journals.
Anyone?
Anyone............
2210ethan 1 year ago
@2210ethan - how do you suppose demolition is done in other cases if you think it was so impossible to demolish the WTC with thermite/thermate?
gunthaarz 1 year ago
@gunthaarz
Sorry, I'm not quite sure what your question is?
Are you asking how most demolition work is done, and what explosive is normally used?
2210ethan 1 year ago
@2210ethan
Once.
NoobiiPower 1 year ago
@NoobiiPower
Linky svp.
2210ethan 1 year ago
@2210ethan
What do you mean you don't agree whit me ??!
lol, nah what you mean by linky svp...
NoobiiPower 1 year ago
@NoobiiPower
I mean provide a link to support your 'once' assertion s'il vous plait.
2210ethan 1 year ago
@2210ethan
google.
NoobiiPower 1 year ago
@NoobiiPower
ok never mind.
2210ethan 1 year ago
@2210ethan
First of all your claim does not prove nothing even if it would have been true, in steel framed buildings, thermite is used constantly for controlled demolition, they have to weaken the building prior to main event and thermite is used just for that. You have no ability of critical thinking at all, behind your actual journals are big corporations and if you borned six months ago then try to remember bailouts and bonuses few years ago, that tells alot to you who is in charge...
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
Thermite is NEVER EVER used in demolition
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11
Whats wrong with you? Did i said that thermite has been used in demolition? Pay attention a little and you may seem a little smarter next time. Now if you read my comment over and over again until you finally get what i actually said then research Tom Sullivan who was demolition technician and what he has to say, he explains very detaily how they take buildings down and what controlled demolition actually means... controlled.
Matu1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Matu1
are these your words?
"thermite is used constantly for controlled demolition"
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11
Yes but you said totally different thing, maybe you do not understand english enough?
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
is English your second language or something --- you made a statement that thermite is used in controlled demolition -- I challenge you show when and how often it is used
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Denierbud11
I did not say thermite is used IN controlled demolition, i said it is used for controlled demolition and explained when, it is used to weaken the steel framed buildings, to weaken it! Not in the final step when they take the building down... is it clear enough now? If you even can´t understand this then there is no point to talk to you, because there is voices in your head that twists other peoples words, we cannot have normal discussion like that...
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
Cool, feel free to give examples of when thermite has been used in this way. Good luck with that.
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
Good luck to you giving me example where they have not used thermite to weaken the building before the main event. And i was talking about the steel framed building to be clear, you guys have some fuzzy thinking.
Matu1 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2210ethan
Good luck to you giving me example where they have not used thermite to weaken the building before the main event. And i was talking about the steel framed building to be clear, you guys have some fuzzy thinking.
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
AND ps, I'd be interested to see you explain how 'big corporations' are behind the NCE magazine, to choose just one example.
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
Maybe next time before you make yourself fool again, just try to find this information for yourself, thats the problem with you guys you never research for yourself, never... but i am not your mother and i give you a little hint where you get your answer, wikipedia.
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
Wikipedie will explain how big corporations are behind NCE magazine? That's news to me. I hope I don't 'make myself fool (sic)'
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
Are you playing stupid or you are? Seriously, did you even check in the wikipedia, it clearly states who has the title and editorial rights from 1995, NCE is just a title published by EMAP wich is big media corporation in UK, you probably don´t have any knowledge about your own mainstream media channels. You are embarrising yourself now. Why even take word when you clearly have no knowledge about the issue? Pathetic...
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
Are you using google translate by any chance?
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
Thats it? I know my english is not perfect but i guess this "debate" is over, it was more like me schooling you.
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
Your English is OK, but you seem to be confused about how magazines and journals are made. Unsurprising for a truther (I assume you're a big Bentham fan).
NCE is written by and open to review by chartered engineers. If you're suggesting that having a media company own the publishing rights makes them part of the global conspiracy involving millions os shape-shifting jews, I can only assume you are very very young.
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
Nice going, where you are taking all this stuff? You must have very rich fantasy... now back to the hard facts.
"NCE is published by EMAP who acquired the title and editorial control from the ICE in 1995"
I do not assume nothing, i hope you just finally get it. And try to remember why we are arguing over the NCE in first place, you asked how big corporation is behind NCE, i answered you, it took me now 3 comments to explain you, just get it. Rest of your comment is irrelevant
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
Your logic is truly remarkable even by truther standards.
Are you suggesting that EMAP- essentially a publishing company- is preventing engineers from publishing the TRUTHZ?
I'll tell you what, why don't you recommend a more reliable information source from the engineering world.
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
I am not suggest nothing, i just pointed out some facts for you but censorship is nothing new. I am not saying that NCE is junk engineering but EMAP can filter things out if they want, they have the editorial rights. Why you always put words in my mouth and then i have to come back here just to defend my points what you always twist? But we have gone too far away of the actual issue anyway, just research both sides, your "?shape shifting jews?" proves your ingorance about 9/11.
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
I still want to know who uses Thermite in the prep stages of a demolition
Denierbud11 7 months ago
@Matu1
'Research both sides'?
There are no 'Sides'. There's just what happened, and the internet, that's it.
Either you're suggesting censorship or you're not. If you are, surely that points to a conspiracy involving thousands of people- highly unlikely (Manhattan in 3,2,1-).
What is a credible source of information in your opinion?
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
Your arguments are weak, you just speculate, while i am looking at hard facts, molten steel for example this alone basicly debunks whole official story, thats why NIST leading scientists didn´t "knew" nothing about it and did not include it in their "investigation" While there are video evidence, picture evidence and eye witnesses. And if you even before researching start talking bullshit like there was no molten steel then you are proving even more of your ingorance... continues...
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1 ...continues...
And whats my credible source? I cannot answer to this because i am looking to both sides of the spectrum, multiple sources and put this together in my head, using my own head to actually think unlike you. I have learned basic understanding of physics in school and i am able to implement them on 9/11.
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
I'm glad you have looked at 'both sides of the spectrum', that's great.
What's your source for 'molten steel' ?
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
Ill give you a hint, firefighters, steel cross, pictures.
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1
Wow- flashback to 2005/2006 when this was dealt with exhaustively- but then truthers love to rinse and re-use their arguments, so:
Anything that's not anecdotal?
Anything that has been identified by an expert (ie a metallurgist) as steel?
And if so, has is been shown that the melted metal was caused prior to the collapse and not made by the underground furnaces burning for months afterwards in the NASA pictures?
Good luck with that (no misquoting please, I know all the main ones).
2210ethan 7 months ago
@2210ethan
"Anything that has been identified by an expert (ie a metallurgist) as steel?"
And it defenetly proves that there was no molten steel. But there are evidence for melted steel and again you with your life under rock refuse to research and because you know all in 2011 with arguments from 05/06
watch?v=zt-KgVFIa9c
I do not misquot you are the one who has done that.
And there is so much more, start researching before making even more of an ass out of yourself.
Matu1 7 months ago
The small, weak thermite torch in this clip was designed and built by a firm of engineers.
Larger and more powerful thermate cutters were recently cobbled together by an engineer with no explosives experience, and upon ignition most of the incendiary and explosive events documented by NIST in their 268 page report on fire behavior at WTC2 could be observed: v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Have a nice day!
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
i don't care if the pixels on the screen are fake or it's a tube ,I'm just saying its completly possible to cut a piece of rebar with a small thermite charge or c-4,and as far as the WTC steel only has to be a dull orange maybey 1,000 F? before it loses all strength.excuse me I have to go shoot up again.
davetileguy 1 year ago
That should have been melting point at 650C, and ignition point at circa 630C (below the melting point) for elemental magnesium. My bad.
Your bad: "most of the rest of the vid is based on proving "melted " steel."
The thermate cutting demonstration debunks (1) a deeply flawed experiment by National Geographic and (2) the assertion that "thermite can't cut sideways." It also provides the only explanation to account for pressure pulses, metal combustion, molten metal and iron spheres.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
This "thermire torch" is quite large in relation to the steel that was cut.,if something like this were used at the the WTC,they would be much larger. You might also expect some of them to have survived the collapse since they are made of sturdy material.
mrtommynazi 1 year ago 9
@mrtommynazi Like biblical scripture, your words mean nothing.
check the record:
v=5d5iIoCiI8g
check the record: v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Open your lying eyes and check the record: v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Your empty rhetoric was demolished by scientific experimentation - see for yourself:
v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 I posed a question,not rhetoric. I have seen the first vid on your list. At 1:43 is a statement from newsweek that "it melted the structural steel" and most of the rest of the vid is based on proving "melted " steel. The failure of the building did not require melted steel,merely weakened steel putting horizontal pressure on the bolted together exterior panels. Remember the videos showing those exterior panels being pulled inwards before the collapse?
mrtommynazi 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi yes, Mr Nazi, I do recall the video showing the pre-collapse explosive ejection of an object an extremely high velocity, and the metal combustion footage, and the torrent of radiant molten iron. The inward pulling of columns at the onset of the explosive demolition simply fails to account for those incendiary features.
"So why don't your Truthy scientists show us thermite cutting some actual standing steel-- even a little 6x12 I-beam? ROFLMAO" -blueshark69 (at v=GEPjOi2dQSM)
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 Your're talking about the hot spewing metal before the collapse? Ity's easy to explain,it was merely magnesuim.aluminum alloy combusting. Read an article on "pyrophoric metals" by the department of energy,you will find melting temps and precautions when casting molten magnesium. One of the risks is that molten magnesiun can combust when introduced to iron oxide in a thermite reaction. You see magnesium is hard to ignite but when in liquid form it is quite easily ignited
mrtommynazi 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi "it was merely magnesuim.aluminum alloy combusting."
One of the risks with pure elemental magnesium is that it can ignite at extremely low flame temperatures - around 630C, or below its boiling point of 630C.
Most aluminum alloys include small amounts of magnesium and do not become more incendiary as a consequence. I have some alloy 7075, it includes magnesium, and does not readily ignite.
The molten metal is iron, not burning aluminum. You cannot duplicate the flow with aluminum.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 "Steel lined runoff pits or pits with tightly fitting steel pans should be provided, and the pans must be kept free of iron scale. Leaking metal contacting hot iron scale results in a violent thermite reaction. Use of stainless steel pans or linings will eliminate this possibility." From the department of energy article describing the hazards of working with moltem magnesium. Aren't most of the landing gear on aircraft mostly magnesium?
mrtommynazi 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi Melts at 650C - ignites at 630C. Only a lunatic would make landing gear parts from elemental magnesium.
NIST understood that the only candidates available in sufficient volume to account for the molten cascade were Al and Fe, and they settled for the low-melting point reflective explanation that ascribes novel properties to aluminum while violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Did you like the National Geographic experiment that was debunked by physicsandreason?
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi thermate you can paint it on all you need is a charge hence the explosions heard before the planes hit. thermate is the same substance used in incendiary grenades which burns at 3,992 °F im just saying that is a possibility and you wouldnt need bags of it just a new paint job
mastermusicianxv 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi thermate you can paint it on all you need is a charge hence the explosions heard before the planes hit. thermate is the same substance used in incendiary grenades which burns at 3,992 °F im just saying that is a possibility and you wouldnt need bags of it just a new paint job
mastermusicianxv 1 year ago
@mastermusicianxv There were no explosions before the planes hit. That is a myth created by willie rodriguez a janitor who was in the basement at the time. In his story he hears a "rumble and everything shook" later he hears a loud "bang". The guy considered the "bang" to be the plane hit but it was most likely elevators,beams and debris falling down the shafts into the basement following the plane strike.
mrtommynazi 1 year ago
@mrtommynazi You are making a premise that a complex object for a rudimentary experiment must be equally scaled up in proportion to an object being cut. This is not so, especially considering anyone involved in such a conspiracy would not be so limited in technology, nor financing. As for surviving where are those indestructible black boxes from the planes? They conveniently evaporated as well I suppose. Well, everything and human remains were carted off as soon as possible to landfills & China.
ShootBlueHelmets 10 months ago
@ShootBlueHelmets Were the explosives in WTC 7 planted before or after the WTC 1 collapse?
EGRJ 8 months ago
@ShootBlueHelmets Cleanup took months, SBH, and the debris was picked over by several federal agencies at Fresh Kills. Ask the FAA; Black boxes are *not* indestructible. Several were recovered, and some were too damaged to be used.
You're arguing that the bad guys "might" be able to do something. You need credible evidence that they actually would or could, or you're just speculating. Whistling in the dark.
EGRJ 8 months ago
@mrtommynazi It would have made no differencce as the explosives used on the WTC were so powerful that everything, including the concrete was pulverized to small particles, not even a computer was found and you expect people to go "Woah! a thermite cutter charge in the rubble". And even if they did find it, they would never make it public just like they never made public that nano thermite was found in all dust samples. You know, before staging such an attack you make sure you control the media.
Xendrius 9 months ago
@Xendrius Explosives are made of a very efficient fuel and oxidizer/air source in perfect proportions,when they burn/explode there is nothing remaining of the preburn mixture. "nano thermite" is just very finely ground aluminum and iron oxide,testing for small particles of each in the dust would yield rerults since those elements were in the building before it was ground into dust in the collapse.
mrtommynazi 9 months ago
@mrtommynazi I usually don't respond to anyone with "nazi" in his username. You might search YT for "the great thermate debate" and catch up.
Skeptic121 9 months ago
@mrtommynazi This is regular thermite, not Thermate (brand name) nanothermite. They function completely differently.
mustbeburtreynolds 8 months ago
"Historically, pyrotechnic or explosive applications for traditional thermites have been limited due to their relatively slow energy release rates. But because nanothermites are created from reactant particles with proximities approaching the atomic scale, energy release rates are far improved."
Combustion Science and Technology
Volume 179, Issue 8, 2007
mustbeburtreynolds 8 months ago
@mrtommynazi I have pointed this out to multiple truthers. None of them are willing to explain how thermite evaporated. Or even how it survived the plane crash and hour of fire. You'd think some would've been knocked into Manhattan.
EGRJ 8 months ago
@EGRJ I also like to pose the question: If the buildings were wired to implode then,why not wait until full occupancy and blow them all at once with no warning? What could be more terrifying than three buildings imploding and collapsing at "free fall" speeds on a tuesday morning.No warning means more death right? They usually shut up at that point and have no explanation as to why aircraft were even involved in the whole scenario. Truthers are pitiful people.
mrtommynazi 8 months ago
@mrtom
You did not get the video at all, this is to demonstrate that thermite can cut vertical columns and beams and they did not find original thermite in the dust, they found nano thermite, maybe they did find some similar devices but research how they destroyed almost all the evidenxe. Also search for "the great thermate debate" and research about architects and engineers for 9/11 truth, these are independent scientist unlike the official commision with over half having conflicts of interest.
Matu1 7 months ago
@Matu1 I did understand this video.They used thermite in an open ended container and forced the discharge into one direction similar to what a shaped charge does to high explosive.The ability of themite to cut would depend on you ability to direct ito onto a target. There is no use even talking of "nano thermite" a theorectical explosive whose components,iron oxide and aluminum, would have been common in the dust anyway
mrtommynazi 7 months ago
A linear thermite cutter charge, perhaps, detonating on a perimeter column at WTC2: v=y4yGCO_1cE4
A much larger charge on a corner column - or columns: v=P7nzIRkKeAI
(Quod Erat Demonstrandum)
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@shooter686 Do you think, as Taylor123 did, that the steel being cut in this clip is "a hollow tube," or do you think it is solid rebar?
I notice that in your greedy need to post 9 consecutive comments that you failed to answer my previous question.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 Thats #4 rebar all day long!
scottie56005 1 year ago
@scottie56005 Thanks scottie!
I notice the troll team attached to this video went on vacation after physicsandreason presented a brilliant steel-cutting demonstration - using thermate:
v=5d5iIoCiI8g
If you haven't seen it yet, check it out!
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 There is nothing to argue here it quite simple. Go to Home Depot and ask to see the #4 re-rod. That is your common rod found in driveways, foundations, and so on. But what was in the world trade is WAY thicker than that. Stuff that is probably over an inch thick. Hard core shit! lol. After the 35w bridge collapsed here in MN I went to check it out and when it all boils down.....what size of re-bar you use means nothing! That stuff was tore up with ease.
scottie56005 1 year ago
@scottie56005 I know a lot about steel, its microstructure, its heating and cooling curves, precipitation of the eutectic from liquid, precipitation of the eutectoid from solid austeninte, the effect of cooling rates on grain size and structure, its ductile strength at different temperatures, etc ad nauseum. Boring, and unnecessary.
As I said before, the melting range of the low-carbon rebar will be approximately the same as the WTC steel.
For larger scale thermate cuts, see: v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 ???? what are u smokin?
davetileguy 1 year ago
@davetileguy Is that CIA heroin from Afghanistan that you're shooting into your veins, Dave? Or is it PNAC kookaid?
Don't you know anything about steel?
Tell us the melting range of a low carbon steel, and put the syringe away.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 yes clearly I'm on heroin just like you,paranoid and delusional,obviously sombody drilled out this rebar with a lathe to trick everyone on youtube,or it's CGI
davetileguy 1 year ago
@davetileguy Yeah - you are on heroin. Anyone can press the "see all comments" button to prove it. Here's a shill for the official fable pretending that the solid rebar is hollow:
======
taylort123
1 month ago
--JackRyan1985 That's not rebar, it's tubing. You can see the hole in the bottom half of the cut. Alex Jones claiming that that is a rod is absurd.
=====
That's the kind of hollow lie people enforcing the official myth fabricate every day.
I said it was solid, junkie. Learn to read.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@Bernadotte01 Quite frankly your not worth my time,go insult someone else,have a nice life! :-)
davetileguy 1 year ago
This is so ubber bull shit. So what if this cuts a small rod. We're talking about thick steel plates and beams which would require hundreds of bags of thermite...
Jones is a blithering fucken idiot, not an Ironworker. Go back to your shit job professor and stop bullshitting the country!
Dannavy85 1 year ago
Why does taylor123 feel compelled to lie about this video? What motivates someone to say, "that is a hollow tube" when clearly it is solid rebar?
How many lies, like the one in which "blacksmiths once used sulfur for forge welding," does the official fable require? How many polyurethane fires produce white smoke?
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive...
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On November 21, 2001, The New York Times published an article titled:
ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC:
STEEL MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PARTLY EVAPORATED
In 2002 the Ministry of Truth changed the title, all references to evaporated steel were deleted, and the engineers became retrospectively unbaffled!
Any questions?
@shooter686 - Do you subscribe to the unreproducible aluminum hypothesis to account for the brightly glowing torrent of molten metal that preceded WTC2 "collapse"?
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
Comment removed
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
@taylort123 It is rebar being cut in this clip, not tubing.
Rebar, unlike tubing, has stippled rings all over the surface to produce an intimate mechanical composite with the concrete in which it is designed to be embedded.
Tubing is typically smooth, because you don't need to waste material producing those lumps all over the place that have absolutely no function on a tube.
Clearly the metal rod being cut in this clip is solid rebar, and you are blind or ignorant. "The hole" is in your mind.
Bernadotte01 1 year ago
No one knows how the building came down using thermite. But there were traces of thermite. If the building was brought down by thermite, no one knows how it was used. People argue how its impossible to bring down a building with thermite because you have to use alot of it and along with tons of explosives. But is it really impossible to think that the government might have come up with a new type of explosive that used thermite along with demolition charges?
KINGARTHUR3341 1 year ago