ExtraExtra.truther911.remember jfk,the patsy,other shooters that were allowed&then patsy gets blame.same with 911.irans ahmadenejad was key4creating final piece of911puzzle.alquada responds to ahmadenejad saying they get credit,not inside job.urika!for11/2years radiocontrolled demoexplosives r planted in3buildings,jewish owner doubles insurance,israelimosad intell knows alqaeda 3hijacks,US operates allow,missle pentagon,iraqwar,patriot act,6wars now,$falls,10years2truth! RonPaul2012save r USA
when it comes to thermate vs thermite. the real difference is thermate burns hotter than thermite and thermate is sticky like glue. and can burn without eating oxygen. gotta love pyrotechnicals for making something already badass twice as awesome
not sure if anybody pointed this out or not but I was rather amazed at how quietly the thermate destroyed the metal. one of the arguments against controlled demolition is "explosives are very loud" this was not louder than a wisper.
still can't believe how many people think an ALUMINUM tin can can, the only time in history, take out a building of that stature...it's a fuckin super skeleton of SOLID STEEL people, where else do buildings of this magnitude fall like this? if anyone has footage i want to see! lol now go back to infighting my little lemmings =p
@26851920 Ahhh... the buildings were not "pushed" over ...by Godzilla's friend, Thermite, or by anything else. It turned to dust in mid air. And it certainly didn't end up in its own footprint. Ask the folks in New Jersey and in Brooklyn and in Pennsylvania ...and on down the east coast.
@ItWasDEWed they found molten metal at the bottom of the building that was burning for weeks they also found in the dust take a wild guess .............Thermate odd
That aluminum "tin can" happens to weigh 3/4 of a million pounds. It also was travelling at nearly 400mph. I don't care what something is made of, if it is that heavy and travelling at 400mph it is going to do some damage. Notice, that it also took out over half the steel columns on that floor. Those things on the outside are COLUMNS.
@ammosmoke dude, i don't care that you don't care, just go back to bowing down to anything and everything this event "justifies" for the Feds...how much do you think one of those beams weighs too? throw a fuckin hollow aluminum anything (gas in it or not, aerodynamic i.e. not a Puncturing/penetrating design) at some steel pipe, u'll soon realize u've been fooled all along, fool....like i said, just keep bowing down to them, cuz if you don't get it by now you NEVER will
I'm not "bowing" to anyone. I'm not "justifying" anything. I'm just not yet convinced that the feds blew up our center of commerce. Some strange things happened yes, and some of it even looks a bit fishy, but I'm still not convinced.
@ammosmoke but you are, by continually complying with all their hoops and hollars....but anyways, reread, i didn't say anything about you justifying, i said it was the fed's event to justify the police state...if u still can't see that at this point, you my friend, are blind....What will it take to convince you?? them coming out and saying, yes, we LIHOP/MIHOP? lol come onnnnnn brother, it's TOO LATE in the game! look at everything being implemented right now!!!
@rodfrizzle do you realy belive that building was fallen by a plane? common here in holland a plane crashed in a old cheap crapy building and it did not fall.
there is molten mettal, the streets in NY where checked out by thermite result possitve. don't belive every thing the telly tells you, and think for you self, check building no.7 the architect of the twin towers said it could have many planes, the pillars still wouls stand. firemans confirm explosives and molten mettal.
@26851920 Can you explain why the thermite in this video didn't turn the metal into a dust fountain in mid air? Or... can you explain why the WTC did not glow and spit sparks like what is shown in the video above? I see no correlation.
I'm not looking for a false choice. I'm looking for truthful answers.
@ItWasDEWed if you search on world trade center movies you'll find building number 7, and some more exclusive movies from twintowers. there on the side you will find exactly the image as this video shows dripping molten mettal falling out of the window. maby you wanna see zeitgeist. fact is that never steel framed buildings has been collapsed by fire, 911 6 buildings fall in their footprint. the white dust you see all over the streets of new york is mainly the rest of thermithe, aluminium oxide
@ItWasDEWed You are wrong on every point, I can show you a video where around 40 seconds of constant violent dripping starts before the collapse, thermite was used to weaken the columns while explosives were used to knock everything otwards.
i've heard that strutral steel weakens by 50% when heated to 1100F and that fires reached this temp. my Q is IF the jet feul burned off in about 15 mins. & heat is the transferance of energy, is 15 mins. enough time to heat steel to it's weakening point + after the jet fuel burned off wouldn't the temp. of the steel lower below it's weakening point. im not that knowledgeable in physics & don't claim to be, just inquisatize
Oh adorabilly, if you want to be a parrot and repeat the official story, you have to at least get the details correct.
you said:
"wtc7 had fires on at least 10 floors burning for 8 hours with 25% of facing gone"
According to NIST, there was only fire on 6 floors at the time of collapse. The fire on the other floors went out earlier.
Also, NIST says that 7 exterior columns were damaged across 13 floors. With a total of 47 floors and 58 columns, that comes to 3.3% of the exterior gone.
"try to at least do research in other pages except for the truther ones..."
Ummm...you realize that the information I gave you about the fires and damage was straight from NIST, right? Are they a truther site?
You're now claiming fire on 14 floors? How could NIST have missed that?
also, I am sticking by the official FEMA report on the liquefied steel over the edited TV program you sent me. Once again, my only source is the officially sanctioned investigation.
"why listen to the actual researchers providing more indepth analysis that completely DEBUNKS your citation." Did you just say that the researchers debunked themselves? Did you eat paint chips when you were little?
"14 floors from eyewitnesses." Once again, NIST says there was only 6 floors on fire at the time of collapse. They did a lot more research than you.
Those buildings were imploded, there was molten steel pools, even if ALUMINUM planes took out CORE STEEL columns AFTER going thru the OUTSIDE STEEL COLUMNS, they'd only take out what they ran into, not the entire core to the BASEMENT
YOU CAN NOT FACE THE TRUTH so you make half assed excuses. A little intelligence is a dangerous thing in your a case. NOW BACK IN THE PEN WITH THE REST OF THE GOVT SHEEP
"You do realize that from the same NIST report they say directly, there is no MOLTEN steel there, right?" We were talking about WTC7, so that means NCSTAR 1A, give me a quote and a page number where they say there is no molten steel.
What's that? you can't? Oh, I'm sure you won't admit that you were wrong though. I can't wait to see what crazy thing you'll say next. Don't forget to add "swing and miss" even though you didn't make any point except to show your ignorance of the NIST report!
horrabilly, you really should read things more carefully, or post a quote if you can't handle paraphrasing!
"#7 from the NIST FAQ.
There is no evidince of molten metal." OK, first of all I told you we were talking about WTC7... anyways that's NOT what they said in #7. They said that NIST did not report that the fire melted steel. They didn't say anything about whether or not there was evidence of molten steel! In fact, if you think you can manage to scroll down to #13, you will find...
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing." Oh snap! Did NIST just say that molten steel was a possibility? I guess it's time for horrabilly to STFU!
Did you find any? did anyone report any? Did any credible witnesses find any? Was it possible that steel could have melted in the pile. Yes. Is it possible a baseball will fly through you window smack you in the head and kill you in 20 minutes? Yes. Probable? No. Likely? No. Not one solidified puddle, not one piece of dripping steel. HUNDREDS of workers poured over the site, not one found ANYTHING. NOT ONE. Again, and again.. show the proof? This metal didn't melt. did it? Nope.
hahaha... I love truthers who data mine quotes. 1. this question is about wtc1 and 2, not wtc7. stop changing the topic. 2. from the same place found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse oh snappy... and from the same faq fully debunking truthers are #2,4,5,11, and 12. snap crackle liquified due to errosion and corrosion. as per the scientists who studied it. pop. fail. good try though. howl howl howl
2. "from the same place found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse" I completely agree, I don't think jet fuel and office furnishing fires can melt steel, I never said they could. I'm glad you're finally correctly quoting NIST. That wasn't so hard now was it?
"No it isn't. they specifically state the towers." Correct, the NIST quote you provided me was about the Towers. However, the FEMA liquefied steel quote was referring to structural steel from WTC7. So like I said, it was really about all 3. minor point anyway.
"still, no molten steel was found" You seem to hold very dearly to your eyewitness accounts of fires. What about all the eyewitness accounts of molten steel? Or do witnesses only count when they agree with you?
Oh I love eyewitnesses. especially ones who have training and education to back up statements.
See it doesn't take any special training to be 1 of 136 who saw a jet strike the pentagon. It is a jet.
or 1 of 90 who saw flight 93 go into the ground upside down. Don't need to be a rocket scientist for that.
I believe there are lots of eyewitnesses who saw MOLTEN METAL. There was lots of different metals which would melt in the office fires. at least a dozen.
How do you know the molten metal wasn't steel? Did you test it? Did anyone test it? There was a lot more steel in the rubble than any other metal, how do you know none of it melted if you admit molten metal was present?
there were hundreds of structural engineers on site looking for clues as to why they failed. there were hundreds of individuals going over things taken from the site.
if one found molten steel, it would be everywhere.
your proof of molten steel is a lack of molten steel with the statement that it was a possibility it could have melted in the pile???
So gov't conspiracy for a cover up needs thousands.. no.
I have shown your liquefied steel is from erosion and corrosion. It didn't melt.
It was liquefied on a very small scale, that's why they called it intergranular. I think perhaps that is where you are getting hung up on this. It's really a question of semantics and I can't help it if you don't know good english.
liquefied from what? Melted? no. corroded? yes (as per the scientists who ran your study) so therefore liquefied does not mean melted. and you want to debate me on the semantics? that is very straightforward. isn't it? corroded and eroded due to the environment. not melted. so that would be swing and a miss.
That video you showed never never actually shows any researcher saying that the steel didn't melt. That's what the woman says. Give me a direct quote from one of the researchers that the steel didn't melt or drop it already, you're just saying the same thing over and over.
Sisson has been quoted "I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect." bbc
A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel (WPI Seminar, September, 2003. Presented by Erin Sullivan.)
abstract To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C.
Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure.
Analysis of the Cause of the Severe Erosion Damage Observed in Structural Steel Components from the 9/11 World Trade Center Incident (WPI Seminar, October 9, 2003. Presented by Prof. Ronald Biederman, George F. Fuller Professor of Mechanical Engineering)
abstract
Several Steel samples from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were collected during the Federal Emergency Management Agency forensic investigation shortly after the September 11, 2001 incident.
Macroscopically the steel samples supplied had severe "erosion" with plate thickness varying from 12.7mm to a total loss of metal in many areas. Also, some localized plastic deformation was observed. A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced
horrabilly, you still haven't answered my question. to refresh you,
you said "I believe there are lots of eyewitnesses who saw MOLTEN METAL. there were hundreds of structural engineers on site looking for clues as to why they failed. there were hundreds of individuals going over things taken from the site.
if one found molten steel, it would be everywhere."
Then I asked "Well what type of metal did these experts determine the molten metal to be?" Please respond.
Eyewitnesses (you know people who were actually there, firefighters, emts and first responders) provided information to believe there were fires on 14 floors in WTC7. And there were fires an all sides of the building, and some great video of the fires on the opposite side of the building from where it was damaged. so the whole floors wer burning.
the eyewitnesses discussed the damage done to WTC7 and have a quarter of the front portion of the building is MISSING/scooped out.
The sulfur in thermATE becomes a superheated gas or even a plasma, blowing out with great force, melting through steel like steam through ice. Search YouTube for: Thermate Grenade
Grenade is different than the actual explosive itself. The grenade does not have the heat long enough to vaporize concrete. WTC was vaporized. Thermite cannot vaporize concrete.
The proof Thermate was used was how long the fires were going till late November early December. If it was airplane fuel which it was not. The fires would have been out a week in 2-3 days.
He probably did. Media edits it out. There is a 5-10 minute delay in live News. He said it the just edit it out. Majority of media is highly edited and censored. Feels like Nazi Germany now.
There was no way that the temperature was lowered using a combination with sulfur.
The natural composition of skyscrapers leaves enough residue for any large scale, high temperature, explosion to create a reaction with the aluminum and any forms of oxides in the building. Thermite itself is Aluminum mixed with any oxide, though rust is commonly used. Any oxides in the building would break apart and the molten aluminum (low melting point) would reduce the reactions, creating extremely hot iron.
the aluminum in thermite has to be ground to a very fine powder, do you really expect me to believe that ordinary building materials can create a corrosive eutectic reaction capable of liquefying steel??
Adorabilly you make yourself look bad when you say such ignorant things!
You told me "NO STEEL was liquefied. Not one example was ever found. Not one."
In FEMA Appendix C, in the summary for a piece of structural steel from WTC7: "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that LIQUEFIED THE STEEL." (emphasis added)
I can only claim it was 2 am here, and I have been arguing with some other idoits about molten steel. Which was never found. I took liquify as molten. My mistake.
Well, I appreciate someone that can admit their mistakes, that is a rare thing when talking about 9/11. But you should also understand some basic definitions before you call people idiots.
Miriam-Websters dictionary:
liquefy: to reduce to a liquid state
melt: to reduce from a solid to a liquid state usually by heat
very similiar, and in the FEMA report, the SOLID steel was reduced to LIQUID through HEAT so in this case,
LIQUEFIED STEEL = MELTED STEEL !!! There is no difference!
The liquid is iron, sulphur and oxygen which in a corrosive environment "allows deep penetration of the liquid into the steel." C7. Not turned the steel into liquid.
That "corrosion of steel can produce "islands" of steels surrounded by liquid, which makes erosion of the steel much easier."
That is NOT MOLTEN steel.
Had the steel been reduced to LIQUID (which is NOT what this says), there would have been steel that cooled in puddles. this is deformed, not in a puddle.
are you serious? I already posted a quote from FEMA describing liquefied steel. I then used a common dictionary to show you that in this case liquefied means the same thing as melted. If you can't accept that it's not my fault.
these islands of steel you speak of, where did the steel go that used to be around the island?
also, the steel's melting point was lowered, that's why they described the reaction as eutectic.
Did you just say "There was some intergranular melting" and "Not melted" in the same post as part of the same argument? I don't even know where to begin with that. Do I agree or disagree?
I can answer a question of yours though: "What was the form of the steel?" Severely thinned according to FEMA
yes. Since steel is a compound that is made by mixing together lots of different metals and allowing them to bond and then cool.
As the temperature rises parts of the metal will melt (intergranular melting) where the melting points are reached for the different compounds. That is why steel loses 50% of its strength at 1000C.
you say melted metal. That would mean we would see slag, puddles, etc.. there is none.
Being severly thinned and being deformed from heat are two entirely different things.
Also, are you suggesting that the different componenets that make up steel melt away separately? You should probably look up what a eutectic reaction is.
You are right they are two entirely different things.
In fact the people who did the study you so happily point to say that it didn't melt.
watch?v=eDa4bL8TwlA
The researchers come on the 8 minute mark. Notice what they say, it didn't melt, it was corroded by a liquid slag (made up of iron, sulphur and oxygen). it was erroded and deformed. Because of the hot fires cooking the steel for WEEKS mixed with sulphur and oxygen.
the researchers didn't say the stuff you claimed, that was the woman giving the BigBrotherChannel presentation.
She claimed it happened in the debris, yet in Appendix C, they specifically say that it could have happened in the debris OR it could have happened prior to collapse!
The woman also claimed to have known the source of the sulfur, when in Appendix C they say specifically that they DON'T know the source of the sulfur!
liquefied is liquefied no matter how you try to play it, adorabily
It talks about how when you heat steel to 1000 degrees (well below its melting point) you get a liquid of the materails in it. That liquid seeped into the beam. The image above the summary shows it and describes how that liquid forms "islands" of steel. figure c7.
Not a LIQUID steel. A liquid made up of sulphur, iron and oxygen. Which attacked the steel. Not liquid steel. This is corrision. it should read liquified parts of the steel.
The other slight technical problem with the Thermate argument, on conveniently ignored by the "truth movement" is the supposed "fact" the WTC fell at free fall, did this demonstration happen in milliseconds? no so that would mean that....oh dear "truthers"
Well actually no the truther believe that thermite was used only in the beginning were the tower started to fracture, thats why you can see metal pouring out of the tower before the collapse, that's what Steven Jones believes anyway.
CTNZ2000, adding sulfur to thermite lowers the melting point and can make the reaction much much quicker. This is consistent with Appendix C of the 2002 FEMA report, in which they study WTC steel that was liquefied by a high temperature corrosion attack including oxidation and sulfidation.
Sorry, but I work with Defence Ammo Techs and civillian demolitions workers, the whole WTC explosives argument is idiotic on so many levels it becomes clear to me that the "truth" movement would not know a real fact about explosives that if brains where PE4 they could not blow their noses.
"can make the reaction much much quicker" 4 seconds to two seconds, .5 of a second to .1 of a second? Fundamentally understand what you are posting about before you post.
I don't know exactly how much faster it would happen, but in the FEMA report which you have yet to comment on, they noted that the substance caused the steel to melt at only 1000 C, much lower than the typical melting point, thus the reaction would liquefy the steel much quicker.
Thermite, as well as Thermate (Thermite combined with Sulfur as well as barium nitrate) only reduces its own melting point, it merely burns at EXTREMELY high temperatures and melts anything in its path. The Sulfur added to some Thermite lowers it's own melting point, not the melting point of everytihng it touches. Also, if they used Thermate, or any other derivative of thermate, it would have been a fiery explosion and not a molten stream. The creation of Thermate was for incendiary grenades.
I am US NAVY EODS Retired look up US NAVY MOS A-431-0011 and with how WTC was built I just recently found out there was virtually no oxygen within WTC which could make Themite Active.
Thermate was used and is used for common Underwater Demolitions. This is now my field of expertise. With the oxygen level to be so low and the Birum Nitrate and Sulfar was just enough to have over 5000 Sulfar Charges wiothin all 3 buildings.
The bomb dogs within WTC could sniff out Thermate.
Do you think thats why the bomb sniffing dogs where pulled 5 days before 911, just after the weekend where there was a wtc powerdown (google it) when there was NO SECURITY and tons of work guys with cables,
bomb sniffing dogs were ALL pulled. The extra ones that were assigned due to a series of bomb warnings were pulled. The bomb sniffing dogs went back to NORMAL levels. Which was 2 dogs on at all times.
And there was 1 person who said there was a powerdown. 1 out of 50,000 people who work there. No records of it exist.
AND Do you have any idea how long it would take to rig a 100 story building to fall? witha crew of 20 it would take about 4 months. Not a weekend.
Wait. Stay on topic. Normal security levels had 2 bomb sniffing dogs on site. And 2 were on site the whole time. At no time was WTC w/out bomb sniffing dogs. The records clearly state it.
MBush co, Sercurcom, was in charge of wtc security and between 96-2000 installed an entirely new security system in the towers - just what it is, is anybodys guess now - but the way those towers came down..i'd say it had a little boom boom in it
if you really believe a plane can make 2 buildings IMPLODE STRAIGHT DOWN just donate your eyes to the eye bank - and your brain trash, dont donate that worthless thing to anyone.
I wont bring up wtc7 which collapsed straight down into its footprint BY FIRE, just evenly fell BY FIRE LOL!
wtc 7 didn't fall into its own footprint. it struck 2 buildings and collapsed across a road. It did $1.4 billion worth of damage to the verizion building. But that must be because the verizion building was in the footprint.
In wtc5 and 6 there were whole sections inside the buildings which collapsed due to fire. just by fire...lol lol lol.
so that would be 3 swings (bomb dogs, marvin bush, and now wtc7) 3 strikes. You're out!!!
What do you mean? On 9/11 a jet impact and 10,000 gallons of gas "rigged a 100 story building to fall". Two actually. Took about an hour. Oh and you only had to affect a few floors. Your premise is fine as long as you leave 9/11 out of the equation.
The bomb sniffing dogs were pulled 3 weeks prior. There was plenty of security but not in the areas construction crews were working in.
My deceased fiance moved 6 times from floor to floor like floors were being totally remodeled. From what she told me prior to her death on 9/11 I think Mossad is going to blow up WTC.
Now the weird thing is this a week prior September 4-11 The flag was at half mast South Tower. If anyone who has WTC South Tower footage the flag was at half mast.
Are you a NY'r or just your fiance, sorry about that. Im a NY'r myself. Use to work on 92flr back in '88. What made her say she thought the Mossad was going to blow the towers? Just the fact that they kept moving? Did she pass in 9-11 or something unreleated? What time period was she being moved, just before 9-11?
It is taking me a lot of bad memories due to 9/11 remembering almost every detail.
I am Nomadic when 9/11 happened I was in DC and sadly saw Pentagon and she was up in NY working at WTC. She was moving floor to floor for roughly 1 month prior till 9/11 happened.
I track Mossad when they come here in the States and 3 Mossad Spies she recognized in the Towers. Local, State, and Federal Authortoites did absolutly nothing.
The twoofers are still arguing that the floors and perimeter columns are unbreakable and able to resit having a third of the building dropped on them. DUH! Thass some strong buildins, duuuude.
Ok so basically you would need about 500 tons of this per WTC building to actually knock them down. I wonder how they snuck it in and up all those elevators and stairs without anyone knowing? Oh I know the 9/11 attacks were not an inside job and people that say it was are victims of foreign influence who are trying to make our country fall apart.
God Bless America for those who appreciate it. Some people don't know how good we have it.
Jangle - With all respect, your statements about the strength of structural steel at temperature are way off, as are several of your other statements about metallurgy. This information is widely available from the various agencies that both manufacture and certify this material.
Your engineering is equally poor. The towers were constructed with a 6x SAFETY FACTOR not a 6x "redundancy". You are seriously into your areas of ignorance.
Ya, that was back in the 60's, early 70's. They never thought that someone would crash a plane into the building going 500, 590 miles an hour, plus the added fuel that our jet's can carry now.
Actually.. The planes back (boing 707) then were the same size and flew 100 miles an hour faster then the planes actually flying into the WTC (boing 767)
thermit® is a trademark from H. Goldschmidt for aluminothermic welding compounds, invented in 1894
so its Al + metaloxide
thermate is ironoxid-based thermite whit Ba(NO3)2 addition (at least usually)
the "thermate" in this video look just like selfmade thermite, there is no barium at all (would be green(ish) flames) and the reaction is not thermate like violent
dijimi - Your point is idiotic and barely deserves the dignity of a reaply. I suppose it hasn't registered with you that the cast-iron steel in your stove and structural steel used in the tower are two entirely different compositions to deal with two entirely different purposes?
As to your foot, please take your ass-fetish elsewhere. I'm not interested.
thermite uses sulfur, potassium and manganese and burns hotter, thermate uses just Iron oxide and aluminum powder, people often get them confused (I may have even said the wrong names)
Mindlobster - Screaming your point loudly doesn't make it any more correct.
The Tower architects claimed %600 structural redundancy. However, structural steel starts significant weakening at 800F, and loses fully 80% strength at 1300F. This, plus loss of 35% load-bearing columns was enough for failure of the support structure.
Don't post video's you didn't make without crediting the real maker... and get your facts straight...
The movie is titled Thermate... but in the description I see you do have "thermite"... But the person isn't making a mold... They are casting a part... Also it is not melted steel, it's molten iron from the exo-thermic reaction of Fe2O3 ("rust") and Al...
I'm so sick of thermite+WTC theories. I have only ever HEARD that thermite residue was found, I've never heard it from an official source. But even if thermite residue were found, do you know what thermite is made of? Aluminum and iron oxide. You know what happens when you expose iron or steel to lots of heat? It turns into iron oxide. You know what happens when you throw a giant aluminum tube at high speeds through a building? You get aluminum powder.
Also, give credit where it's due, please! This is from Theodore Gray's website, who has a vast collections of every single non-highly-radioactive elements, and quite a few of the not-so-radioactive ones.
"I have only ever HEARD that thermite residue was found, I've never heard it from an official source." No "residue" was ever found. Truther Jones says that DUST from BLOCKS away has these tiny spheres that somehow prove thermate. It's absurd - MILLIONS of tons of WTC dust would overwhelm any attempt to find a few tons, at best, of thermate evidence in random dust.
ummm we know what thermite does. duh. How is the fact that thermite could have caused the destruction of the WTC proof that it did? That's a logical fallacy.
Just the basement supports? That wouldn't bring down the tower. They set off bombs down there in '93 and that didn't bring them down. The superheating from collision and fuel within the plane and within the offices was more than enough to melt through the core support beams anyway.
I can see the congnitive dissonance is kicking into overdrive. My question is...the THERMITE. The FACT that it D. That simple fact ALONE. Isn't that proof enough?? If not...explain.
You can't take a building down from the top without taking down the base supports. It was the combination of the jets and a thermate compound taking out base supports that took all "three" building down.
first of all, this is thermite, not thermate, but either way, notice how it only melts *downwards*? thermite can't cut vertical steel columns- what supplies the lateral force? there is no explosion here.
Bonusonus - yes this is thermite (equation is 2Al(s) + Fe2O3 (s) ---> 2Fe(l) + Al2O3 (s)). But, thermite + Sulfur = Thermate. The steel in the towers had sulfur residue. So all they need is thermite and it will bond with the sulfur in the steel and it will stick to it. Thermate/Thermite can be used as explosive, as u noticed, it sparks when it is ignited, and if u have alot of it packed together, bam, u got an explosion. Hopefully that helped a little bit.
Actually sulfur in thermite bonds to the aluminum making aluminum sulfide. thermate is thermite with a large portion of barium nitrate and 3% sulfur added. the barium nitrate liberates the oxygen to oxidize the sulfur in thermate. thermate has far LOWER steel penetrating abilities then thermite because it's heat because defused in the form of flames, which is the point of thermate.
And no it does not combine with the iron, the iron would have to already be liquid for that to happen.
so now its not a 100% chance thermate was used in the towers too force it to fall.
but it is very strange to have such high tempratures in the rubble.
im still certen thermate was used to collapse the buildings, ive seen pictures of core collums cut diagnaly and people who dismantle structures say they never cut steel that big diagnaly. the core collums are the size of the trucks they were transported on when they were built. there was no need to cut steel that was sticking in the air.
Regardless of whether it was a 747 or 767, they have approximately (same order of magnitude) fuel capacity...which equates to a great deal of heat energy...which is the main point.
But Jetfuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, regardless of the quantity... one litre burning produces the same temperature as 40K litres. Somewhere around the order of 800 degrees...
(cont) I for one, don't buy the "thermite theory" for the collaprs, although that still leaves plenty of room for other speculation around the 9-11 events.
I dont believe it was a complete inside job. I do believe those in our gov new something was going to happen that day, why else ware the NPD doing 1st time ever full scale type terrorist training the same day. Coincidence. F no.
(cont) While the main building structure, steel, melt at between 2500 and 2700 F (depending upon carbon content) it becomes significantly more plastic (therefore weaker) after soaking in the approx 1800 F jet-fuel inferno. I can accept that this alone was enough to bring about the tower collapses.
So what ??? If one section high up in a building fails , it should bring down the total building at nearly free fall speed following the path of maximum resistance ?? Given the building can start to fall...but what insane notion leads you to believe it would collapse entirely into itself without a third force factor ??? And this 3 times in one day ??
The path of maximum resistance would be UP. It had to go DOWN. THe debris did not just shove floors down, it shoved perimeter columns OUT. That sped the failure of the floor to perimeter joints.
This has been flagged as spam show
ExtraExtra.truther911.remember jfk,the patsy,other shooters that were allowed&then patsy gets blame.same with 911.irans ahmadenejad was key4creating final piece of911puzzle.alquada responds to ahmadenejad saying they get credit,not inside job.urika!for11/2years radiocontrolled demoexplosives r planted in3buildings,jewish owner doubles insurance,israelimosad intell knows alqaeda 3hijacks,US operates allow,missle pentagon,iraqwar,patriot act,6wars now,$falls,10years2truth! RonPaul2012save r USA
variablestatus 3 months ago
when it comes to thermate vs thermite. the real difference is thermate burns hotter than thermite and thermate is sticky like glue. and can burn without eating oxygen. gotta love pyrotechnicals for making something already badass twice as awesome
stinknus 3 months ago
Thermite != Thermate
ACPD5510 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
A Florida engineer, Jonathan Cole, recently demonstrated how to use packaged thermite to cut steel girders, box columns, and bolts. See my video:
Incendiary Experiments
punxsutawneybarney 7 months ago
How thick is that block of steel?
cdickenson64 9 months ago
not sure if anybody pointed this out or not but I was rather amazed at how quietly the thermate destroyed the metal. one of the arguments against controlled demolition is "explosives are very loud" this was not louder than a wisper.
dapperdan623 10 months ago
so was this thermate or thermite? the title says one, the description says another - they are diff chems
legalyzefreed0m 1 year ago
still can't believe how many people think an ALUMINUM tin can can, the only time in history, take out a building of that stature...it's a fuckin super skeleton of SOLID STEEL people, where else do buildings of this magnitude fall like this? if anyone has footage i want to see! lol now go back to infighting my little lemmings =p
chriscunanan 1 year ago
thermite. it's the only thing that pushed a steelframed buildin to it's footprint, over and over again. why? because it is designed to do so.
26851920 1 year ago
@26851920 Ahhh... the buildings were not "pushed" over ...by Godzilla's friend, Thermite, or by anything else. It turned to dust in mid air. And it certainly didn't end up in its own footprint. Ask the folks in New Jersey and in Brooklyn and in Pennsylvania ...and on down the east coast.
ItWasDEWed 1 year ago
@ItWasDEWed they found molten metal at the bottom of the building that was burning for weeks they also found in the dust take a wild guess .............Thermate odd
drugwhore 1 year ago
@chriscunanan
That aluminum "tin can" happens to weigh 3/4 of a million pounds. It also was travelling at nearly 400mph. I don't care what something is made of, if it is that heavy and travelling at 400mph it is going to do some damage. Notice, that it also took out over half the steel columns on that floor. Those things on the outside are COLUMNS.
ammosmoke 6 months ago
@ammosmoke dude, i don't care that you don't care, just go back to bowing down to anything and everything this event "justifies" for the Feds...how much do you think one of those beams weighs too? throw a fuckin hollow aluminum anything (gas in it or not, aerodynamic i.e. not a Puncturing/penetrating design) at some steel pipe, u'll soon realize u've been fooled all along, fool....like i said, just keep bowing down to them, cuz if you don't get it by now you NEVER will
chriscunanan 6 months ago
@chriscunanan
I'm not "bowing" to anyone. I'm not "justifying" anything. I'm just not yet convinced that the feds blew up our center of commerce. Some strange things happened yes, and some of it even looks a bit fishy, but I'm still not convinced.
ammosmoke 5 months ago
@ammosmoke but you are, by continually complying with all their hoops and hollars....but anyways, reread, i didn't say anything about you justifying, i said it was the fed's event to justify the police state...if u still can't see that at this point, you my friend, are blind....What will it take to convince you?? them coming out and saying, yes, we LIHOP/MIHOP? lol come onnnnnn brother, it's TOO LATE in the game! look at everything being implemented right now!!!
chriscunanan 5 months ago
on a lot of movies you can see this stuff dripping out of the windows.
The goverment all did this to push through the terrorist law.
now everybody can be thrown in jail without reason. a nother step forward to the new world order.
Ask the security cam's images they don't wan't to give of the pentagon.
End the private central bank of the states, they allmost have taken the world, and taken somany lives. they will enslave us
26851920 1 year ago
@rodfrizzle do you realy belive that building was fallen by a plane? common here in holland a plane crashed in a old cheap crapy building and it did not fall.
there is molten mettal, the streets in NY where checked out by thermite result possitve. don't belive every thing the telly tells you, and think for you self, check building no.7 the architect of the twin towers said it could have many planes, the pillars still wouls stand. firemans confirm explosives and molten mettal.
26851920 1 year ago
@26851920 Can you explain why the thermite in this video didn't turn the metal into a dust fountain in mid air? Or... can you explain why the WTC did not glow and spit sparks like what is shown in the video above? I see no correlation.
I'm not looking for a false choice. I'm looking for truthful answers.
Thank you.
ItWasDEWed 1 year ago
@ItWasDEWed if you search on world trade center movies you'll find building number 7, and some more exclusive movies from twintowers. there on the side you will find exactly the image as this video shows dripping molten mettal falling out of the window. maby you wanna see zeitgeist. fact is that never steel framed buildings has been collapsed by fire, 911 6 buildings fall in their footprint. the white dust you see all over the streets of new york is mainly the rest of thermithe, aluminium oxide
26851920 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@26851920
Can you explain why the thermite in this video didn't turn the metal into a dust fountain in mid air? Apparently not.
Can you explain why the WTC did not glow and spit sparks like what is shown in the video above? Apparently not.
Skyscrapers are made out of "thermitic material." What do you think structural steel is?
And Facts do not come from a fictional movie. I am looking for facts, not speculation.
ItWasDEWed 1 year ago
@ItWasDEWed You are wrong on every point, I can show you a video where around 40 seconds of constant violent dripping starts before the collapse, thermite was used to weaken the columns while explosives were used to knock everything otwards.
Xendrius 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xendrius
Can you explain why the thermite in this video didn't turn the metal into a dust fountain in mid air? Apparently not.
Can you explain why the WTC did not glow and spit sparks like what is shown in the video above? Apparently not.
ItWasDEWed 1 year ago
HAHA!!....."jpass", i love how u got a photo of Larry SLIVERstein.
p.s. 9/11 was so clearly an inside job!... wake up Morons!
marek0086 2 years ago
Oh come on.Just becuase you hate bush dosnt mean you can believe 9/11 was an inside job.MORON
RobDFrizzle 2 years ago
ye i think 9/11 was an inside job JUST because i dont like Bush. You're the MORON.
U think i think that Bush did it !?
marek0086 2 years ago
Pshh Yeah i'd asume becuase everyone one who thinks the government did it surely also hates bush
RobDFrizzle 2 years ago
Man don't call people morons. thats not necessary.
gosciu555 2 years ago 7
u sure about that?
marek0086 2 years ago
It just antagonizes people. its not worth it.
gosciu555 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
it totally depends on the person.
marek0086 2 years ago
@gosciu555 No, but it is very ironic. ;)
MrDestructionAddict 6 months ago
Thermite or thermate? (read the description you'll see why I am saying that)
Hakidia 2 years ago
Thermate is thermite with sulfer...lowers the melting point of steel
tf8252 2 years ago
I know what it is I'm just asking because it says thermate in the title but thermite in the description
Hakidia 2 years ago
It's thermate because you can see actual fire coming off of it and not just pieces of molten iron
BaseBallerBHS11 2 years ago
i've heard that strutral steel weakens by 50% when heated to 1100F and that fires reached this temp. my Q is IF the jet feul burned off in about 15 mins. & heat is the transferance of energy, is 15 mins. enough time to heat steel to it's weakening point + after the jet fuel burned off wouldn't the temp. of the steel lower below it's weakening point. im not that knowledgeable in physics & don't claim to be, just inquisatize
Xxbadhabit420Xx 3 years ago
strutral-structral
inquisatize-inquizative(i think)
Xxbadhabit420Xx 3 years ago
xx.
the problem isn't that first 15 minutes. It is the remaining time and fires.
on wtc1 and 2, you had two different mechanisms for collapse. One was due to the vast majority of the core being destroyed.
on the second one you had fires raging in the corner with massive damage (but not as much as the first one) to the core.
couple that with the weight of the floors above them, and just needed time.
wtc7 had fires on at least 10 floors burning for 8 hours with 25% of facing gone
adorabilly 3 years ago
Oh adorabilly, if you want to be a parrot and repeat the official story, you have to at least get the details correct.
you said:
"wtc7 had fires on at least 10 floors burning for 8 hours with 25% of facing gone"
According to NIST, there was only fire on 6 floors at the time of collapse. The fire on the other floors went out earlier.
Also, NIST says that 7 exterior columns were damaged across 13 floors. With a total of 47 floors and 58 columns, that comes to 3.3% of the exterior gone.
smitty121981 3 years ago
... the 25% you referred to was a description of how far the damage extended into the building in that little (3.3%) area.
smitty121981 3 years ago
and smitty... try to at least do research in other pages except for the truther ones...
cuz otherwise you will end up in the basement wearing a tinfoil hat thinking the NSA and FEMA are coming for you.
adorabilly 3 years ago
"try to at least do research in other pages except for the truther ones..."
Ummm...you realize that the information I gave you about the fires and damage was straight from NIST, right? Are they a truther site?
You're now claiming fire on 14 floors? How could NIST have missed that?
also, I am sticking by the official FEMA report on the liquefied steel over the edited TV program you sent me. Once again, my only source is the officially sanctioned investigation.
smitty121981 3 years ago
Of course you will.. why listen to the actual researchers providing more indepth analysis that completely DEBUNKS your citation.
14 floors from eyewitnesses.
liquefied due to corrosion. that is not melting.
swing and a miss.
adorabilly 3 years ago
"why listen to the actual researchers providing more indepth analysis that completely DEBUNKS your citation." Did you just say that the researchers debunked themselves? Did you eat paint chips when you were little?
"14 floors from eyewitnesses." Once again, NIST says there was only 6 floors on fire at the time of collapse. They did a lot more research than you.
smitty121981 3 years ago
Those buildings were imploded, there was molten steel pools, even if ALUMINUM planes took out CORE STEEL columns AFTER going thru the OUTSIDE STEEL COLUMNS, they'd only take out what they ran into, not the entire core to the BASEMENT
YOU CAN NOT FACE THE TRUTH so you make half assed excuses. A little intelligence is a dangerous thing in your a case. NOW BACK IN THE PEN WITH THE REST OF THE GOVT SHEEP
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago 6
@2JOHNNYT the twin towers are the only steel framed bulding to fail because of a fire!
tim0090 2 months ago
@tim0090 Ah but Tim you are wrong....WTC7 failed because of "fire" too - NOT!
2JOHNNYT 2 months ago
You do realize that from the same NIST report they say directly, there is no MOLTEN steel there, right?
cherry picking your facts/quotes won't change the truth.
howl at the moon.
horrabilly 3 years ago
"You do realize that from the same NIST report they say directly, there is no MOLTEN steel there, right?" We were talking about WTC7, so that means NCSTAR 1A, give me a quote and a page number where they say there is no molten steel.
What's that? you can't? Oh, I'm sure you won't admit that you were wrong though. I can't wait to see what crazy thing you'll say next. Don't forget to add "swing and miss" even though you didn't make any point except to show your ignorance of the NIST report!
smitty121981 3 years ago
#7 from the NIST FAQ.
There is no evidince of molten metal.
The researchers are on the video explaining what happened to the steel. eroded/corroded. Not melted. Not molten.
horrabilly 3 years ago
horrabilly, you really should read things more carefully, or post a quote if you can't handle paraphrasing!
"#7 from the NIST FAQ.
There is no evidince of molten metal." OK, first of all I told you we were talking about WTC7... anyways that's NOT what they said in #7. They said that NIST did not report that the fire melted steel. They didn't say anything about whether or not there was evidence of molten steel! In fact, if you think you can manage to scroll down to #13, you will find...
smitty121981 3 years ago
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing." Oh snap! Did NIST just say that molten steel was a possibility? I guess it's time for horrabilly to STFU!
smitty121981 3 years ago
horrabilly 3 years ago
"liquefied"
smitty121981 3 years ago
horrabilly 3 years ago
1. It's really about all 3
2. "from the same place found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse" I completely agree, I don't think jet fuel and office furnishing fires can melt steel, I never said they could. I'm glad you're finally correctly quoting NIST. That wasn't so hard now was it?
smitty121981 3 years ago
No it isn't. they specifically state the towers.
No molten steel though. erroded and corroded steel. Big difference.
keep trying though.
horrabilly 3 years ago
And did you even read the SECOND sentence there?
If there were any molten steel (which none was found), it would be due to LONG EXPOSURE TO COMBUSTION WITHIN THE PILE.
Not molten steel from thermite, or explosives, or any other truther space beams...
still, no molten steel was found. go figure.
horrabilly 3 years ago
"No it isn't. they specifically state the towers." Correct, the NIST quote you provided me was about the Towers. However, the FEMA liquefied steel quote was referring to structural steel from WTC7. So like I said, it was really about all 3. minor point anyway.
"still, no molten steel was found" You seem to hold very dearly to your eyewitness accounts of fires. What about all the eyewitness accounts of molten steel? Or do witnesses only count when they agree with you?
smitty121981 3 years ago
Oh I love eyewitnesses. especially ones who have training and education to back up statements.
See it doesn't take any special training to be 1 of 136 who saw a jet strike the pentagon. It is a jet.
or 1 of 90 who saw flight 93 go into the ground upside down. Don't need to be a rocket scientist for that.
I believe there are lots of eyewitnesses who saw MOLTEN METAL. There was lots of different metals which would melt in the office fires. at least a dozen.
molten metal not steel.
horrabilly 3 years ago
How do you know the molten metal wasn't steel? Did you test it? Did anyone test it? There was a lot more steel in the rubble than any other metal, how do you know none of it melted if you admit molten metal was present?
smitty121981 3 years ago
there were hundreds of structural engineers on site looking for clues as to why they failed. there were hundreds of individuals going over things taken from the site.
if one found molten steel, it would be everywhere.
your proof of molten steel is a lack of molten steel with the statement that it was a possibility it could have melted in the pile???
So gov't conspiracy for a cover up needs thousands.. no.
I have shown your liquefied steel is from erosion and corrosion. It didn't melt.
horrabilly 3 years ago
Well what type of metal did these experts determine the molten metal to be?
smitty121981 3 years ago
so just admit it. the fema liquefied steel quote is about erosion and corrosion from the environment.
liquefied steel does not equal molten steel.
as I have pointed out by showing a video of the scientists who studied it saying it isn't molten.
go ahead, you can say it. IT wasn't molten. It isnt too hard.
horrabilly 3 years ago
"liquefied steel does not equal molten steel."
It was liquefied on a very small scale, that's why they called it intergranular. I think perhaps that is where you are getting hung up on this. It's really a question of semantics and I can't help it if you don't know good english.
smitty121981 3 years ago
horrabilly 3 years ago
Really?
Isn't this what you said
LIQUEFIED STEEL = MELTED STEEL !!! There is no difference!
And didn't I just show you that it liquefied from errosion and corrosion as stated by the author of that report?
so is there a difference?
and then when I pointed out it was only on a small scale you said
"liquefied is liquefied no matter how you try to play it"
so liquefied is liquified, but it is not melted. Right?
horrabilly 3 years ago
yep that's what I said and I stand by it
You didn't answer my last question
smitty121981 3 years ago
even though it has been shown to be Corrosion and erosion that caused that piece of steel to deform.
Then liquified steel is not melted.
that steel was not melted.
so
LIQUEFIED STEEL (does not)=MELTED STEEL!!!
correct?
horrabilly 3 years ago
That video you showed never never actually shows any researcher saying that the steel didn't melt. That's what the woman says. Give me a direct quote from one of the researchers that the steel didn't melt or drop it already, you're just saying the same thing over and over.
You still didn't answer my question
smitty121981 3 years ago
hahahaha...
(small three year old voice) it doesn't say it didn't melt.
ok. since you didn't watch it. here we go
8:15 it was eroded and deformed
8:24 it was attacked by a liquid slag
So what was it caused by? ERODED AND DEFORMED.
Sisson has been quoted "I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect." bbc
It did not melt. It eroded.
horrabilly 3 years ago
A Metallurgical Examination and Simulation of the Oxidation and Sulfidation of the World Trade Center Structural Steel (WPI Seminar, September, 2003. Presented by Erin Sullivan.)
abstract To simulate the extreme wastage experienced by WTC building 7 structural steel during the fires experienced on September 11, 2001, A36 steel was reacted with powder FeS/FeO/SiO2/C in an open air furnace environment at 900C and 1100C.
horrabilly 3 years ago
Initial investigations of the WTC structural steel revealed an apparent liquid "slag" attack and penetration down grain boundaries by liquid iron oxides and sulfides. The current laboratory simulation results show grain boundary penetration by a liquid slag at higher temperatures regardless of powder reactants applied to the steel samples. Eutectic structures within the Fe-S-O and Fe-Si-O systems were observed along with elemental segregation within the near surface microstructure.
horrabilly 3 years ago
Analysis of the Cause of the Severe Erosion Damage Observed in Structural Steel Components from the 9/11 World Trade Center Incident (WPI Seminar, October 9, 2003. Presented by Prof. Ronald Biederman, George F. Fuller Professor of Mechanical Engineering)
abstract
Several Steel samples from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were collected during the Federal Emergency Management Agency forensic investigation shortly after the September 11, 2001 incident.
horrabilly 3 years ago
Macroscopically the steel samples supplied had severe "erosion" with plate thickness varying from 12.7mm to a total loss of metal in many areas. Also, some localized plastic deformation was observed. A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced
horrabilly 3 years ago
horrabilly, you still haven't answered my question. to refresh you,
you said "I believe there are lots of eyewitnesses who saw MOLTEN METAL. there were hundreds of structural engineers on site looking for clues as to why they failed. there were hundreds of individuals going over things taken from the site.
if one found molten steel, it would be everywhere."
Then I asked "Well what type of metal did these experts determine the molten metal to be?" Please respond.
smitty121981 3 years ago
also, I wasn't aware of that research, I will have to look into that before I respond to your rant.
smitty121981 3 years ago
Eyewitnesses (you know people who were actually there, firefighters, emts and first responders) provided information to believe there were fires on 14 floors in WTC7. And there were fires an all sides of the building, and some great video of the fires on the opposite side of the building from where it was damaged. so the whole floors wer burning.
the eyewitnesses discussed the damage done to WTC7 and have a quarter of the front portion of the building is MISSING/scooped out.
adorabilly 3 years ago
I don't think this is thermATE
I think it is thermITE
The sulfur in thermATE becomes a superheated gas or even a plasma, blowing out with great force, melting through steel like steam through ice. Search YouTube for: Thermate Grenade
Skeptic121 3 years ago
Grenade is different than the actual explosive itself. The grenade does not have the heat long enough to vaporize concrete. WTC was vaporized. Thermite cannot vaporize concrete.
The proof Thermate was used was how long the fires were going till late November early December. If it was airplane fuel which it was not. The fires would have been out a week in 2-3 days.
Molten Steel was at the base of WTC.
TheStormchaser1 3 years ago
In the movie "Zero," S. Jones says barium was found in the WTC dust. Haven't seen him claim that anywhere else, which seems very odd.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
He probably did. Media edits it out. There is a 5-10 minute delay in live News. He said it the just edit it out. Majority of media is highly edited and censored. Feels like Nazi Germany now.
TheStormchaser1 3 years ago
Thermate with Molybdenum and/or Potassium xNO3instead of Barium xNO3?
Look, the skyscraping gusher simulates thermite+ nearby nicely -- "simulates" being the presumptive euphemism here.
CACBCCCU 3 years ago
There was no way that the temperature was lowered using a combination with sulfur.
The natural composition of skyscrapers leaves enough residue for any large scale, high temperature, explosion to create a reaction with the aluminum and any forms of oxides in the building. Thermite itself is Aluminum mixed with any oxide, though rust is commonly used. Any oxides in the building would break apart and the molten aluminum (low melting point) would reduce the reactions, creating extremely hot iron.
GrumpEBear 3 years ago
the aluminum in thermite has to be ground to a very fine powder, do you really expect me to believe that ordinary building materials can create a corrosive eutectic reaction capable of liquefying steel??
smitty121981 3 years ago
NO STEEL was liquefied. Not one example was ever found. Not one.
Melted METAL which could be lots of different things was seen.
but melted steel was never found.
adorabilly 3 years ago
Adorabilly you make yourself look bad when you say such ignorant things!
You told me "NO STEEL was liquefied. Not one example was ever found. Not one."
In FEMA Appendix C, in the summary for a piece of structural steel from WTC7: "Heating of the steel into a hot corrosive environment approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) results in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that LIQUEFIED THE STEEL." (emphasis added)
Now go do some research!
smitty121981 3 years ago
oops. You are right.
I can only claim it was 2 am here, and I have been arguing with some other idoits about molten steel. Which was never found. I took liquify as molten. My mistake.
adorabilly 3 years ago
Well, I appreciate someone that can admit their mistakes, that is a rare thing when talking about 9/11. But you should also understand some basic definitions before you call people idiots.
Miriam-Websters dictionary:
liquefy: to reduce to a liquid state
melt: to reduce from a solid to a liquid state usually by heat
very similiar, and in the FEMA report, the SOLID steel was reduced to LIQUID through HEAT so in this case,
LIQUEFIED STEEL = MELTED STEEL !!! There is no difference!
smitty121981 3 years ago
Ah yes.. so you were saying melted steel. Just like I thought.
and you are wrong. if it was molten, why is is still in its basic shape (distorted yes, but still in basic shape?)
The report your cited talks about how this was a corrosion attack on the integrity of the steel.
adorabilly 3 years ago
The liquid is iron, sulphur and oxygen which in a corrosive environment "allows deep penetration of the liquid into the steel." C7. Not turned the steel into liquid.
That "corrosion of steel can produce "islands" of steels surrounded by liquid, which makes erosion of the steel much easier."
That is NOT MOLTEN steel.
Had the steel been reduced to LIQUID (which is NOT what this says), there would have been steel that cooled in puddles. this is deformed, not in a puddle.
adorabilly 3 years ago
adorabily:
"Not turned the steel into liquid."
"That is NOT MOLTEN steel."
are you serious? I already posted a quote from FEMA describing liquefied steel. I then used a common dictionary to show you that in this case liquefied means the same thing as melted. If you can't accept that it's not my fault.
these islands of steel you speak of, where did the steel go that used to be around the island?
also, the steel's melting point was lowered, that's why they described the reaction as eutectic.
smitty121981 3 years ago
you are making an inference from a simple statement.
There was some intergranular melting (meaning inside of the steel particles melted).
What was the form of the steel? flat puddles? that would be molten steel.
this is and has been characterized as rapid corrosion and WEAKENING of the steel.
Not melted.
adorabilly 3 years ago
Did you just say "There was some intergranular melting" and "Not melted" in the same post as part of the same argument? I don't even know where to begin with that. Do I agree or disagree?
I can answer a question of yours though: "What was the form of the steel?" Severely thinned according to FEMA
smitty121981 3 years ago
yes. Since steel is a compound that is made by mixing together lots of different metals and allowing them to bond and then cool.
As the temperature rises parts of the metal will melt (intergranular melting) where the melting points are reached for the different compounds. That is why steel loses 50% of its strength at 1000C.
you say melted metal. That would mean we would see slag, puddles, etc.. there is none.
it is deformed under the heat and corrosion.
adorabilly 3 years ago
Being severly thinned and being deformed from heat are two entirely different things.
Also, are you suggesting that the different componenets that make up steel melt away separately? You should probably look up what a eutectic reaction is.
smitty121981 3 years ago
You are right they are two entirely different things.
In fact the people who did the study you so happily point to say that it didn't melt.
watch?v=eDa4bL8TwlA
The researchers come on the 8 minute mark. Notice what they say, it didn't melt, it was corroded by a liquid slag (made up of iron, sulphur and oxygen). it was erroded and deformed. Because of the hot fires cooking the steel for WEEKS mixed with sulphur and oxygen.
Nice try though.
swing and a miss.
adorabilly 3 years ago
the researchers didn't say the stuff you claimed, that was the woman giving the BigBrotherChannel presentation.
She claimed it happened in the debris, yet in Appendix C, they specifically say that it could have happened in the debris OR it could have happened prior to collapse!
The woman also claimed to have known the source of the sulfur, when in Appendix C they say specifically that they DON'T know the source of the sulfur!
liquefied is liquefied no matter how you try to play it, adorabily
smitty121981 3 years ago
hahahahah just like a truther.
you have the two scientists who ran the experiment to see what happened to that piece of steel.
did you even watch the video?
both experts said it was corrosion not melting.
The scientists reply for 2 minutes. Their words. Not the narrators voices.
liquefied due to corrosion and errosion due to the environment is VASTLY different than MELTING/MOLTEN.
Swing and a miss.
adorabilly 3 years ago
There is a difference between molten/melted and corroded/eroded. But both can cause something to liquefy.
And where would all that sulphur come from... lets see how about the concrete and drywall that was burning in the debris pile?
swing and a miss.
horrabilly 3 years ago
Though did you even read the rest of the section?
It talks about how when you heat steel to 1000 degrees (well below its melting point) you get a liquid of the materails in it. That liquid seeped into the beam. The image above the summary shows it and describes how that liquid forms "islands" of steel. figure c7.
Not a LIQUID steel. A liquid made up of sulphur, iron and oxygen. Which attacked the steel. Not liquid steel. This is corrision. it should read liquified parts of the steel.
adorabilly 3 years ago
Aye... All of the eyewitnesses, including Dr. Mark Heath said there were explosions -- at the time prior to collapse.
Physhi 3 years ago
The other slight technical problem with the Thermate argument, on conveniently ignored by the "truth movement" is the supposed "fact" the WTC fell at free fall, did this demonstration happen in milliseconds? no so that would mean that....oh dear "truthers"
CTNZ2000 3 years ago
Well actually no the truther believe that thermite was used only in the beginning were the tower started to fracture, thats why you can see metal pouring out of the tower before the collapse, that's what Steven Jones believes anyway.
mindlobster 3 years ago
CTNZ2000, adding sulfur to thermite lowers the melting point and can make the reaction much much quicker. This is consistent with Appendix C of the 2002 FEMA report, in which they study WTC steel that was liquefied by a high temperature corrosion attack including oxidation and sulfidation.
smitty121981 3 years ago
Sorry, but I work with Defence Ammo Techs and civillian demolitions workers, the whole WTC explosives argument is idiotic on so many levels it becomes clear to me that the "truth" movement would not know a real fact about explosives that if brains where PE4 they could not blow their noses.
CTNZ2000 3 years ago
hmmm... good job ignoring my entire post.
Well anyways, you seem to be an expert. What do you think caused the liquefied steel in the FEMA report? Why was the reaction corrosive and eutectic?
smitty121981 3 years ago
"can make the reaction much much quicker" 4 seconds to two seconds, .5 of a second to .1 of a second? Fundamentally understand what you are posting about before you post.
CTNZ2000 3 years ago
I don't know exactly how much faster it would happen, but in the FEMA report which you have yet to comment on, they noted that the substance caused the steel to melt at only 1000 C, much lower than the typical melting point, thus the reaction would liquefy the steel much quicker.
smitty121981 3 years ago 2
Thermite, as well as Thermate (Thermite combined with Sulfur as well as barium nitrate) only reduces its own melting point, it merely burns at EXTREMELY high temperatures and melts anything in its path. The Sulfur added to some Thermite lowers it's own melting point, not the melting point of everytihng it touches. Also, if they used Thermate, or any other derivative of thermate, it would have been a fiery explosion and not a molten stream. The creation of Thermate was for incendiary grenades.
GrumpEBear 3 years ago
No opinion on the thermite thing. But what caused the steel to melt then in your opinion?
tovarco 3 years ago
I am US NAVY EODS Retired look up US NAVY MOS A-431-0011 and with how WTC was built I just recently found out there was virtually no oxygen within WTC which could make Themite Active.
Thermate was used and is used for common Underwater Demolitions. This is now my field of expertise. With the oxygen level to be so low and the Birum Nitrate and Sulfar was just enough to have over 5000 Sulfar Charges wiothin all 3 buildings.
The bomb dogs within WTC could sniff out Thermate.
Anyon
TheStormchaser1 3 years ago
Do you think thats why the bomb sniffing dogs where pulled 5 days before 911, just after the weekend where there was a wtc powerdown (google it) when there was NO SECURITY and tons of work guys with cables,
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
bomb sniffing dogs were ALL pulled. The extra ones that were assigned due to a series of bomb warnings were pulled. The bomb sniffing dogs went back to NORMAL levels. Which was 2 dogs on at all times.
And there was 1 person who said there was a powerdown. 1 out of 50,000 people who work there. No records of it exist.
AND Do you have any idea how long it would take to rig a 100 story building to fall? witha crew of 20 it would take about 4 months. Not a weekend.
adorabilly 3 years ago
ARE YOU A SHILL FOR THE MAN? How long would it take to rig the wtc with bombs, hmm?
Did you know SECURACOM, headed by MARVIN BUSH, was responsible for installing a NEW SECURITY SYSTEM in the WTC between teh years of 1996-2000?
Think maybe it wasn't a security system?
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
Wait. Stay on topic. Normal security levels had 2 bomb sniffing dogs on site. And 2 were on site the whole time. At no time was WTC w/out bomb sniffing dogs. The records clearly state it.
adorabilly 3 years ago
I have heard MB was operating security - others say not true. Are you saying he just installed the system? Or is there more? Thanks.
tovarco 3 years ago
MB was on the board of directors. Not operating security directly. And his company was kicked out 3.5 years before the attacks.
WTC had their own seperate head of security.
adorabilly 3 years ago
MBush co, Sercurcom, was in charge of wtc security and between 96-2000 installed an entirely new security system in the towers - just what it is, is anybodys guess now - but the way those towers came down..i'd say it had a little boom boom in it
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
So in 1998 a different company was in charge.. and yet they never found anything.
They had bomb sniffing dogs on site for 3.5 years after, yet they never found anything.
They must have had a cold... yea.
keep trying though. at least you have the peoples names right.
adorabilly 3 years ago
if you really believe a plane can make 2 buildings IMPLODE STRAIGHT DOWN just donate your eyes to the eye bank - and your brain trash, dont donate that worthless thing to anyone.
I wont bring up wtc7 which collapsed straight down into its footprint BY FIRE, just evenly fell BY FIRE LOL!
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
Like all of your FACTS so far they are wrong.
wtc 7 didn't fall into its own footprint. it struck 2 buildings and collapsed across a road. It did $1.4 billion worth of damage to the verizion building. But that must be because the verizion building was in the footprint.
In wtc5 and 6 there were whole sections inside the buildings which collapsed due to fire. just by fire...lol lol lol.
so that would be 3 swings (bomb dogs, marvin bush, and now wtc7) 3 strikes. You're out!!!
hahahaha.lol
adorabilly 3 years ago
back in the pen with the rest of the sheep - out here in the real world youre lost or a paid shill
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
Of course. Cuz I tell you how full of shit you are. I must be a paid shill. I get paid by the character... I'm racking it up. I wish.
You give 3 bs statements. I call you on them.
admit that you are wrong about those three...Look up the PROOF, not the truther pages.
oh wait, you won't because you can't. To admit that those are wrong (even if they are wrong) would destroy your fantasy...
too bad.
adorabilly 3 years ago
Oh yea... that myth.
But as a truther you at least got his name right, and got the cotnract period right.
One small problem.
securacom was booted in 1998 because they couldn't handle the work and were replaced by an entirely different security company.
So that would mean the bush boys had explosives planted in the building for 3.5 years before the attacks.
good try though.
911myths(dot)com
adorabilly 3 years ago
What do you mean? On 9/11 a jet impact and 10,000 gallons of gas "rigged a 100 story building to fall". Two actually. Took about an hour. Oh and you only had to affect a few floors. Your premise is fine as long as you leave 9/11 out of the equation.
tovarco 3 years ago
The bomb sniffing dogs were pulled 3 weeks prior. There was plenty of security but not in the areas construction crews were working in.
My deceased fiance moved 6 times from floor to floor like floors were being totally remodeled. From what she told me prior to her death on 9/11 I think Mossad is going to blow up WTC.
Now the weird thing is this a week prior September 4-11 The flag was at half mast South Tower. If anyone who has WTC South Tower footage the flag was at half mast.
TheStormchaser1 3 years ago
Are you a NY'r or just your fiance, sorry about that. Im a NY'r myself. Use to work on 92flr back in '88. What made her say she thought the Mossad was going to blow the towers? Just the fact that they kept moving? Did she pass in 9-11 or something unreleated? What time period was she being moved, just before 9-11?
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
It is taking me a lot of bad memories due to 9/11 remembering almost every detail.
I am Nomadic when 9/11 happened I was in DC and sadly saw Pentagon and she was up in NY working at WTC. She was moving floor to floor for roughly 1 month prior till 9/11 happened.
I track Mossad when they come here in the States and 3 Mossad Spies she recognized in the Towers. Local, State, and Federal Authortoites did absolutly nothing.
And, she died with our unborn child.
TheStormchaser1 3 years ago
Sorry about dredging up the hurt. You track spies, so you're US intelligence?
2JOHNNYT 3 years ago
US NAVY medically retired.
TheStormchaser1 3 years ago
The twoofers are still arguing that the floors and perimeter columns are unbreakable and able to resit having a third of the building dropped on them. DUH! Thass some strong buildins, duuuude.
leftysergeant 3 years ago
Ok so basically you would need about 500 tons of this per WTC building to actually knock them down. I wonder how they snuck it in and up all those elevators and stairs without anyone knowing? Oh I know the 9/11 attacks were not an inside job and people that say it was are victims of foreign influence who are trying to make our country fall apart.
God Bless America for those who appreciate it. Some people don't know how good we have it.
D3g1532 3 years ago
Jangle - With all respect, your statements about the strength of structural steel at temperature are way off, as are several of your other statements about metallurgy. This information is widely available from the various agencies that both manufacture and certify this material.
Your engineering is equally poor. The towers were constructed with a 6x SAFETY FACTOR not a 6x "redundancy". You are seriously into your areas of ignorance.
kziin 4 years ago
Ya, that was back in the 60's, early 70's. They never thought that someone would crash a plane into the building going 500, 590 miles an hour, plus the added fuel that our jet's can carry now.
WTCTribute 4 years ago
Actually.. The planes back (boing 707) then were the same size and flew 100 miles an hour faster then the planes actually flying into the WTC (boing 767)
Good day ^^
Jelmoh 3 years ago
LOL!!!
Tell me. Why would we have a DOWNGRADE over the 30-40 years?
I want proof of this before I accept it.
WTCTribute 3 years ago
thermit® is a trademark from H. Goldschmidt for aluminothermic welding compounds, invented in 1894
so its Al + metaloxide
thermate is ironoxid-based thermite whit Ba(NO3)2 addition (at least usually)
the "thermate" in this video look just like selfmade thermite, there is no barium at all (would be green(ish) flames) and the reaction is not thermate like violent
Assi2004 4 years ago
dijimi - Your point is idiotic and barely deserves the dignity of a reaply. I suppose it hasn't registered with you that the cast-iron steel in your stove and structural steel used in the tower are two entirely different compositions to deal with two entirely different purposes?
As to your foot, please take your ass-fetish elsewhere. I'm not interested.
Jangle2007 4 years ago
whats the diff between thermite and thermate?
panefuldeath 4 years ago
thermite uses sulfur, potassium and manganese and burns hotter, thermate uses just Iron oxide and aluminum powder, people often get them confused (I may have even said the wrong names)
battleaxe12 4 years ago
Yeah, you got it all wrong. Maybe you should have looked it up before talking about it.
P4nD3m0n1c 4 years ago
thermite is basicly anything which uses a metal oxide which reacts with a metal to form another metal oxide and other molten metal.
thermate usually is iron thermite (black or red) with barium nitrate and sulphur
silendshade 4 years ago
Mindlobster - Screaming your point loudly doesn't make it any more correct.
The Tower architects claimed %600 structural redundancy. However, structural steel starts significant weakening at 800F, and loses fully 80% strength at 1300F. This, plus loss of 35% load-bearing columns was enough for failure of the support structure.
Jangle2007 4 years ago
Yeah! I'm on my third wood stove this week!! They keep melting for some reason...
What a dumb-ass. I oughta stick my foot up your butt.
djjimi 4 years ago
Ummm... are you serious?
Don't post video's you didn't make without crediting the real maker... and get your facts straight...
The movie is titled Thermate... but in the description I see you do have "thermite"... But the person isn't making a mold... They are casting a part... Also it is not melted steel, it's molten iron from the exo-thermic reaction of Fe2O3 ("rust") and Al...
frogy1752 4 years ago
I'm so sick of thermite+WTC theories. I have only ever HEARD that thermite residue was found, I've never heard it from an official source. But even if thermite residue were found, do you know what thermite is made of? Aluminum and iron oxide. You know what happens when you expose iron or steel to lots of heat? It turns into iron oxide. You know what happens when you throw a giant aluminum tube at high speeds through a building? You get aluminum powder.
Greenhorn82 4 years ago
Also, give credit where it's due, please! This is from Theodore Gray's website, who has a vast collections of every single non-highly-radioactive elements, and quite a few of the not-so-radioactive ones.
Greenhorn82 4 years ago
"I have only ever HEARD that thermite residue was found, I've never heard it from an official source." No "residue" was ever found. Truther Jones says that DUST from BLOCKS away has these tiny spheres that somehow prove thermate. It's absurd - MILLIONS of tons of WTC dust would overwhelm any attempt to find a few tons, at best, of thermate evidence in random dust.
ghk13287 4 years ago
I'd play with it...all the time...
LclTechie 4 years ago
it looks like a fire cracker....
getmewild 4 years ago
ummm we know what thermite does. duh. How is the fact that thermite could have caused the destruction of the WTC proof that it did? That's a logical fallacy.
TacticusPrime 4 years ago
How about the fact that thermite residue was found on the support beams in the basements?
tf8252 4 years ago
Just the basement supports? That wouldn't bring down the tower. They set off bombs down there in '93 and that didn't bring them down. The superheating from collision and fuel within the plane and within the offices was more than enough to melt through the core support beams anyway.
TacticusPrime 4 years ago
I can see the congnitive dissonance is kicking into overdrive. My question is...the THERMITE. The FACT that it D. That simple fact ALONE. Isn't that proof enough?? If not...explain.
tf8252 4 years ago
You can't take a building down from the top without taking down the base supports. It was the combination of the jets and a thermate compound taking out base supports that took all "three" building down.
ShawnHydedotcom 4 years ago
the steel used burnt away at 4000*, the jetliner fuel could only burn to a maximum of 1800* - prooves ur theory wrong
RenegadeZealot 4 years ago
first of all, this is thermite, not thermate, but either way, notice how it only melts *downwards*? thermite can't cut vertical steel columns- what supplies the lateral force? there is no explosion here.
bonusonus 4 years ago
Bonusonus - yes this is thermite (equation is 2Al(s) + Fe2O3 (s) ---> 2Fe(l) + Al2O3 (s)). But, thermite + Sulfur = Thermate. The steel in the towers had sulfur residue. So all they need is thermite and it will bond with the sulfur in the steel and it will stick to it. Thermate/Thermite can be used as explosive, as u noticed, it sparks when it is ignited, and if u have alot of it packed together, bam, u got an explosion. Hopefully that helped a little bit.
Fuerchtemich 4 years ago
Actually sulfur in thermite bonds to the aluminum making aluminum sulfide. thermate is thermite with a large portion of barium nitrate and 3% sulfur added. the barium nitrate liberates the oxygen to oxidize the sulfur in thermate. thermate has far LOWER steel penetrating abilities then thermite because it's heat because defused in the form of flames, which is the point of thermate.
And no it does not combine with the iron, the iron would have to already be liquid for that to happen.
Belmakar 4 years ago
so now its not a 100% chance thermate was used in the towers too force it to fall.
but it is very strange to have such high tempratures in the rubble.
im still certen thermate was used to collapse the buildings, ive seen pictures of core collums cut diagnaly and people who dismantle structures say they never cut steel that big diagnaly. the core collums are the size of the trucks they were transported on when they were built. there was no need to cut steel that was sticking in the air.
christophermarshall 5 years ago
1. A lot of the cutting was not done by professionals, just people with thermal lances, and basic training trying to clear rubble to save lives.
2. 747's have a capacity of 57285 gallons of fuel; it's not inconceivable that some made it to the ground floor.
3. AluminumINSTANTLY bonds with oxygen.
3. Rust is everywhere; it floats in the ocean, shifts in deserts, and generally appears everywhere.
4. Capitalize, punctuate, and for God's sake use spell check.
annie3332587 5 years ago 2
It was a 767 that hit the building, not a 747... get your facts straight before you post. The two planes are completely different, do your homework.
earthtocolin 4 years ago
Regardless of whether it was a 747 or 767, they have approximately (same order of magnitude) fuel capacity...which equates to a great deal of heat energy...which is the main point.
Jangle2007 4 years ago
But Jetfuel doesnt burn hot enough to melt steel, regardless of the quantity... one litre burning produces the same temperature as 40K litres. Somewhere around the order of 800 degrees...
earthtocolin 4 years ago
(cont) I for one, don't buy the "thermite theory" for the collaprs, although that still leaves plenty of room for other speculation around the 9-11 events.
Jangle2007 4 years ago
Like where were our planes Andrews AFB is less than 15 milles from the pentagon for christ sakes!
mindlobster 4 years ago
I dont believe it was a complete inside job. I do believe those in our gov new something was going to happen that day, why else ware the NPD doing 1st time ever full scale type terrorist training the same day. Coincidence. F no.
NoillegalAliens 3 years ago
(cont) While the main building structure, steel, melt at between 2500 and 2700 F (depending upon carbon content) it becomes significantly more plastic (therefore weaker) after soaking in the approx 1800 F jet-fuel inferno. I can accept that this alone was enough to bring about the tower collapses.
Jangle2007 4 years ago
Jet fule burns at 1400f not 1800f.
mindlobster 4 years ago
So what ??? If one section high up in a building fails , it should bring down the total building at nearly free fall speed following the path of maximum resistance ?? Given the building can start to fall...but what insane notion leads you to believe it would collapse entirely into itself without a third force factor ??? And this 3 times in one day ??
Madness !!
splutonium 4 years ago
The path of maximum resistance would be UP. It had to go DOWN. THe debris did not just shove floors down, it shoved perimeter columns OUT. That sped the failure of the floor to perimeter joints.
leftysergeant 4 y