Controlled Demolition of WTC on 9/11 + Thermite Pt 1 of 4

[goodtogomofo]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I am so confident that this video is wrong that I am not even going to watch it all, now, ask yourself this, would a debunker do this? no of course not, so to conclude, my overly confident response makes this video incorrect.

[wisdomtrek]

The temperature needed to melt steel is approximately 2600deg Fahrenheit, Combustion of building materials and jet fuel doesn't even come close enough towards matching this temperature. MOLTEN STEEL = THERMITE. I've seen Thermite in video footage on YouTube and what I've seen MATCHES the WTC footage of molten steel pouring off the side of the building's.and that collected in the basement of the building's. 9/11 was staged.

[lsteer100]

no explosives were used.

if explosives were used, how can you explain the planes flying into the towers?

[nahnah21]

@lsteer100 well they cant just use explosions can they its too obvious then. The planes were used to create fireworks or something to start it all. How can u say no explosions were used when many witness saw explosions going off in the basement where no jets were hit?

[Theitisme400]

I still cannot believe the people who doubt that it was a demolition, we all learn physics at a young age by being a literal part of it, and we know, as humans, what happens to matter....of all sorts.

[gitrboi023]

"The birth of treason" Or watch. " 9-11 Coincidences"

[gitrboi023]

LIES ITS ALL LIES!!! Open your eyes and watch a video called "The birth of treason" here on Youtube. It changed the way I felt about 911. I'm not saying it will change any one elses but the evidence is overwhelming!!

[gitrboi023]

Dude here's my point again.. they say in the commision report that the fires that were burning in the plane impact area were so hot that it weakened the steel and made the floors pancake right? Well the fires never made it any where close to the temperature that they would have needed to be to melt or or even make the steel bow. If it was as hot as they say it was how the hell could anyone be photographed standing DIRECTLY in the impact hole?!?!?

[gitrboi023]

They fire brought down the WTC huh? Well guess what steels melting point is 2400 degrees fahrenheit. The WTC only ever got as hot as 1300 to 1700 degrees. But only for a short amount of. If it was truely the fire then how could those two ppl in the videos be standing in the impact hole where the plane hit right before it fell? CONTROLLED DEMO!!

[PoetryHound]

@gitrboi023 "How could those two ppl in the videos be standing in the impact hole"

They weren't standing there right when the plane hit, but an hour later when the fires were weakening trusses and columns elsewhere. Why is that so hard to understand?

[PeterHantsen]

youtube search

1. September Clues

2. 911 entschlüsselt

3. No Plane

[PoetryHound]

This video shows no evidence of any controlled demolition.

Question: How many demolition experts around the world say explosives brought down the twin towers?

Answer: Zero

[Can778899]

How about EXACTLY 4000?

Yes I mean it 4000 and one corrupt government.

Greetings from good ol' Germany

[unclenewy]

Denierbud do you honestly believe that these buildings fell perfectly into their own footprint (the 1st, 2nd and 3rd steel structured buildings to collapse due to fire in the ENTIRE HISTORY of steel structured buildings (all on the same day))because of planes crashing into them? One of which was only hit by debris from the others. WAKE UP.....OPEN YOUR EYES...unless you work for the US government then you have to come on here and try to make an argument supporting the ridiculous

[Kronick666]

1, 2, 3, safely neatly done BinLaden must a had those buildings well rigged with explosives to bring them don't like that what a dick for conspiring to do that!!! good thing he dead!!!

[piwacket33]

Like the guy said, the probability of that happening? To 3 buildings. NOT ONE of them falls outside their footprint?

All the government has to do is IGNORE this, because WHO can make them answer?

[Denierbud11]

I guess I can take comfort that at least hyonjun is not a no planer.

You do agree planes hit the towers correct?

No 3d holograms, no sound projection ...

[hyonjun]

Well I saw planes in all the videos. I don't have any reason to doubt that planes hit the buildings.

Have you heard of the C-130 that crashed into an apartment building in Tehran? Did not collapse.

Caracas building burned on 26 floors for 17 hours. Did not collapse.

[Denierbud11]

I have a question for you Hyonun.

How does thermite, that burns in a matter of minutes, if not seconds, cause there to be molten metal in the building collapse days or weeks later?

[hyonjun]

open your eyes real good

watch?v =f0avhUN2Y5A

[Denierbud11]

Have you found a real world example in which thermite has been used in a demolition?

Just curious, because with all the press the truthers give this, you would think some maker of thermite would start to market it to the demolition industry - that is, if it works as advertised. Silent, precision and all that.

[Denierbud11]

Have you watched this video?

watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&feature=ch­annel_page

Do you think the NYFD is a bunch of liars, or do you think they know what they are talking about?

[hyonjun]

What about all these firefighters and survivors? Are they all liars?

watch?v =h9Wrnj8IBOI

[Denierbud11]

Know they are not liars, but explosions do not equal explosives. I trust you know this and do not understand why you post irrelevant details,

[mrcarlos15]

I know you're trying to be the voice of reason or the devil's advocate, but open your eyes. The evidence is outstanding...

[Denierbud11]

"The evidence is outstanding"

Evidence of what? explosions?

[mrcarlos15]

Evidence of a controlled demolition.

[clehneis]

Listen man the term "pull it" is a demolition term for taking a building down. The demolition team, that knocked down the rest of the WTC remains, used this term on live footage. After Larry Silverstein says this he then continues to say we then watched the building go down. Its obvious...its not assumption, its stone cold evidence. Please do not deny everything and just keep an open mind. I know its scary, the fact that our government would do such a thing but really do your research peace

[Denierbud11]

watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q&feature=re­lated

This one is kinda funny and loud

[Denierbud11]

watch?v=YYYnbanYv8E&feature=re­lated

Another one from my home town - damn loud

[hyonjun]

Why the explosions aren't as loud, I don't know. But there is no way to say they did not occur. There are definitely explosions as can be seen in the videos. They even blow out much further than most of the videos you posted.

[Denierbud11]

"I don't know"

Could be there are none, and the small squibs are just air ejectink debri.

Why so few squibs? You should see massive explosions.

[hyonjun]

There are massive explosions shown in the 'In Memoriam' video.

There is no way to deny those explosions did not occur.

Pressurized air will eject debris similar to an avalanche. As a wall of air. Not as blowing out explosions in specific areas. Also, the final explosions shown occur simultaneously on different floors. Not possible from pressurized air.

[Denierbud11]

"Pressurized air will eject debris similar to an avalanche. As a wall of air. Not as blowing out explosions in specific areas."

Now that would depend on the pressure.

[hyonjun]

In the 'demo sequence' video, the explosions are very very many floors lower than the collapse. They also occur in random places on the building. Not possible from air pressure.

The explosions may look small due to distance and size of the building. However, if you guage by the size a single floor, the explosions are quite large. They are most likely much larger than we can see since they are meant to damage interior supports.

[Denierbud11]

"They are most likely much larger than we can see since they are meant to damage interior supports."

So there is no visual evidence of the massive explosions, no audio evidence and no physical evidence - do you want to check again? I thought you were a man of science, do you often take leaps like this?

I mean, you have NO EVIDENCE. Not one witness to the planting of demolition charges - nothing! You have a theory - but nothing tangible to back it up.

[clehneis]

you need to research WTC 7. Larry Silverstein actually admits planned demolition was used on that building. BBC reported that the WTC 7 (Solomon Building) had fallen when you can still see the building standing behind the reporter. If you want to stick your head in the sand go ahead, but don't blame me when all your freedoms have been lost.

[Denierbud11]

No he does not, this is a truther lie - pull it is not a demolition term for destruction with explosives.

[hyonjun]

There is visual evidence. As well as many many many people interviewed at the WTC saying there were multiple explosions before the buildings fell.

You can see the huge explosions blasting out of the building. What are you talking about? Look at the video. Are you blind?

[Denierbud11]

There is no visual evidence of the massive explosions seen in controlled demolitions. If charges were placed on the concrete core, why would the massive explosions not be seen and heard? Sure it would blow out windows on each level they were used.

[clehneis]

you sould be called Denialbud11. Just do the research jackass.

[Denierbud11]

I have, there is no evidence of controlled demolition. No witnesses to the explosives being planted, no evidence found on site, no audio recording of the explosions the would occur moments before a collapse and no visual evidence of the massive explosions.

Please tell me what research you have done.

[hyonjun]

And please please tell me how wtc 3, 5 , and 6 didn't have a complete collapse like 1, 2, and 7. Since you're so fuckin smart.

Fires were much worse in 5. Large piece of the towers split 3 in half. 6 was completely destroyed but did not have a nice sweet collapse like the others. Those buildings actually look like normal damage.

Please explain Denialbud11.

[hyonjun]

Check the Windsor Building in Madrid.

Burned for over 15 hours and did not collapse.

Where's the molten metal?

Where's the complete collapse?

Should this fire not have brought down the building?

Should the impact damage of the WTC 1 and 2 not have brought down 3, 5, and 6 in their own footprints?

I mean it's not like planes weigh more than crashing buildings. Or fires for less than 2 hours melt steel faster than 15 hour fires.

[Denierbud11]

The Windsor tower did have a significant partial collapse and the metal was certainly weakened (but not melted - which is a truther lie).

You cannot ignore the fact that the planes caused significant structural damage, the jet fuel caused secondary explosions, the towers had insufficient fire proofing, etc.

[hyonjun]

Actually the entire steel frame of the Windsor buiolding was still standing the next day after burning for nearly 20 hours. All that fell was concrete. There was abosolutely nothing that resembled the complete collapse like the WTC.

Jet fuel was gone real quick buddy. Jet fuel will not blow up a building and bring it down.

Nice try

What about the structural damage of the other WTC buildings? Why didn't they have a complete collapse? Why did they have local damage to the impacts only?

[Denierbud11]

No, a portion of the outside structural steel collapsed.

[hyonjun]

The planes have insufficient mass to bring down a building the size of the towers and turn into dust.

Go take a dynamics class before you spout off with retard comments like that.

[Denierbud11]

The planes did not take down the towers by themselves - the towers withstood the impact - when a building is destroyed with controlled demolition, the collapse begins at the bottom and gravity does the rest, turning the building to dust, largely from the force of the collapse. If the collapse from a bottom destruction can destroy the concrete, why can it not happen from a progressive colapse from the top?

[Denierbud11]

"The planes have insufficient mass to bring down a building the size of the towers and turn into dust."

When did I make this claim? Its obvious the planes alone did not take down the towers, since the stood for up to an hour afterwards.

[hyonjun]

fire collapse comparison

watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM&feature=re lated

closeup of charges

watch?v=LJtlgZXb0Mo&feature=re lated

slo-mo of collapse showing charges going up the building

watch?v=qN_lXjnojxI

[hyonjun]

You really don't see the blasts that are completely independent of the crashing debris?

The ones that blast straight out the sides?

Really

Get your eyes checked.

[Denierbud11]

watch?v=UoHGiY3RMD4

Camera is about a mile away - can hear those explosions (I even saw it live and in person)

Know how many hours went into that demolition work?

[hyonjun]

Linear shaped charges are used to make horizontal cuts.

It is shown in this video at 4:55 youtube(dot)com/watch?v=tIx2CV­RxRXg

Thermite is a powder that can be ignited with magnesium strips. This can be done remotely just like pyrotechnics. You can google that.

I don't know if thermite has been used before for demolitions. I do know that it is used in incendiary munitions by the military. I also know it cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter.

[Denierbud11]

Thermite does not burn horizontally, and cannot be used in conjunction with shape charges.

Unless you think they used both. In which case the question is why use thermite?

[hyonjun]

I don't think they needed to use thermite. Unless it was a way to weaken the supports without being there breaking out supports before hand.

It just look like thermite coming out of the building. It's not steel or aluminum as debunkers have claimed.

[hyonjun]

Heat raidiates in all directions. And at 4000F+ it will weaken or melt anything it contacts.

[Denierbud11]

At what radius will the 4000f heat melt steel?

If they did not need thermite, why use it? Why melt steel vertically, how will that weaken the support? Doesn't add up some how.

[hyonjun]

If used it would be in contact don't you think? What is your argument? That thermite doesn't melt steel? You don't make any sense.

Every theory you have come up with about how the towers came down has been scientifically debunked.

[Denierbud11]

My theory is that it serves no purpose, since it cuts vertialy and not horizontally. It cannot cut the support beams. Why use it? Why cut a vertical beam? Why use it in only this spot?

And no, you have not shown with science that any theory has been disproven.

[hyonjun]

Your whole argument of vertical vs horizontal is ridiculous. If 4000F exothermic reaction is contacting metal, it will melt. The direction is of no consequence.

It could have been placed at the joints as well. It doesn't matter. It melts it doesnt cut.

If thermite is used to weaken supports. You won't have to spend as much time weaking the structure beforehand.

[Denierbud11]

How the hell is it of no consequence? How is cutting a vertical support going to bring down a horizontal support?

Thermite uses the force of gravity to melt, it does not heat up the entire beam - I have no idea why you are promoting a theory that has no basis is science. If thermite was an effective demolition tool, why has no one ever used it before?

[hyonjun]

First of all I said before. Concrete is used for compression and steel is used for tensions.

The weight being held up is by the concrete. The concrete is usually steel reinforced to resist bending but it does not hold up the weight.

The tensions side to side are resisted by steel I-beams. They are horizontal. So your whole argument of cutting vertically vs horizontally is retarded. You are an idiot.

[hyonjun]

Demolitions don't usually use thermite because there is time and no reason to hide weakening of supports before hand.

[hyonjun]

Fire melted steel to bring down buildings. Debunked.

Building was supported by aluminum which metled by fire. Debunked.(I really cant believe you actually thought the WTC was aluminum lmao).

Structural damage from a plane striking the largest skyscrapers in NY brought the buildings down. Debunked.

Molten metal was aluminum spilling out of building. Debunked.

You've got nothing.

[hyonjun]

NO skyscraper has ever completely collapsed into its own footprint from a fire on a few floors that lasted less than 2 hours. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Damage from impacts are local to the impact and a collapse is local. Don't even get me started on WTC7 falling how it did.

Do you blink when the videos show the explosions?

[Denierbud11]

What skyscraper has ever been struck but such a large plane at such a large speed?

I would love to see a video that shows explosions, and the sounds of explosions, unforuntaly you don't have one. Silent explosions is the reason the truther movement moved to thermite, but when that did not work, they moved to no plane theories and sky war weapons - well, al least you are not a no planer.

[hyonjun]

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=IX9gdR­ST6zM

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=fAq1na­nCu80

(at 3, 5, and 9 seconds)

These videos clearly show significant explosions many floors below the collapsing floors.

Most damage would be near the core of the building making it difficult to see. However, these explosions are large enough to come out of the building.

[hyonjun]

Ok I can't link but search the names

"911 WTC DEMOLITION SEQUENCE FINALLY REVEALED"

"Second collapse - In Memoriam"

[Denierbud11]

"These videos clearly show significant explosions many floors below the collapsing floors."

Yet the explosions make no audible sound, why is that? Ever controlled demoliton makes sound. Loud explosions.

[hyonjun]

The whole building is coming down. There is no discernable way to tell the blasts from tons of crashing concrete with our ears from street cameras.

Near most cameras there are people screaming and running.

You see the blasts don't you? You're worrying about the sound? Come on man. Those blasts are clear as day.

[Denierbud11]

watch?v=0IvicKnhANs&feature=re­lated

Tell me when you hear the explosions (and the reporter describing the collapse as an explosion is not the same).

compare to this

watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

or this

watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM&feature=re­lated

"look at all the flashes all over the place"

[hyonjun]

How does the reporter saying "huge explosion" not mean huge explosion? That doesn't make any sense.

[Denierbud11]

Did you hear explosions or the collapse?  Witnesses cannot tell the diffrence often.

Explosions should be audible before the collapse.

[hyonjun]

It's not steel or aluminum molten from fire as debunkers have claimed.*

[hyonjun]

In your post it even says that Alcoa provided the WTC with an aluminum "skin" for its appearance. It is not there for structural integrity.

You are the one acting like an ass, sir.

[Denierbud11]

The exterior of the towers were aluminum, thus there was a lot of aluminum in the towers and it is very probable that any exterior items that may be seen melting is aluminum.

Aluminum is used in building construction and building structural support.

Your ignorance of the industry is astounding for a structural engineer or what ever you claim you are.

[hyonjun]

Whatever my friend.

Don't get all riled up with me because you can't deal with the fact that those towers did not come down from fire.

How about you watch this video showing molten aluminum

youtube(dot)com/watch?v=nhbaiu­K3M3U

and get your head out of your ass

Deal with it. You've been had.

[Denierbud11]

Its plain to see you have no idea what you are talking about, you did not know aluminum was used extensively at the WTC. did not know it was used in structural design and construction, did not know that your head was up your ass and probaly actualy think you are an engineer in the fantasy world you exist in.

In the real world you are a 12 year old with a youtube account and don't know the first thing about 911.

You got spanked, deal with it.

[hyonjun]

Look man I am a mechanical engineer graduated '04 from USF. I specialized in thermodynamics and materials science. I worked for 3 years doing mechanical design designing sensor housings for bombs dropped from F-18s. My housings were made of 6061-T6 aluminum alloy and were recovered after being dropped from a plane and still worked. No i don't work in construction but I know a little something about materials. I think a little more than you.

Kiss my ass.

[Denierbud11]

Then as an engineer can you tell me how one would use thermite to make a horizontal cut?

Why is it that no one in the history of building demolition has used thermite?

Why it is that you assume molten metal can only be steel and not another metal common to the WTC?

If the molten metal did not come from the fire what caused it?

How the conspirators were able to gain access to three large office buildings, plant explosives, and leave behind no evidence and no witnesses?

[hyonjun]

Linear shaped charges are used to make horizontal cuts.

It is shown in this video at 4:55 youtube(dot)com/watch?v=tIx2CV RxRXg

Thermite is a powder that can be ignited with magnesium strips. This can be done remotely just like pyrotechnics. You can google that.

I don't know if thermite has been used before for demolitions. I do know that it is used in incendiary munitions by the military. I also know it cuts through steel like a hot knife through butter.

[hyonjun]

I don't know what metal was molten down there. It is most likely steel.

Either way, any molten metal was not caused by fires. And there are accounts by fire-fighters of magma-like molten metal at the base of the tower for weeks after 9/11.

If this is true, something much hotter than fire must have melted the metal to keep so much of it so hot for so long. Just based on the law of conservation of energy. The energy must come from somewhere. The fire didn't burn hot enough or long enough.

[Denierbud11]

What melted the metal?

If you see it on the exterior, why can it not be aluminum?

Thermite only cuts vertically, not horizontally, do you know why?

How difficult is it to place linear shaped charges for demolition?

[hyonjun]

The metal was most likely from molten from a thermite reaction for a few reasons.

The molten liquid pouring from the building in part 3 of this video was not steel bc the fires weren't hot enough. Also, molten Aluminum pours silver not bright orange so it's not that.

[PoetryHound]

The claim that thermate was used to bring down the towers is dumb. Thermate isn't used for bldg demolitions for very good reasons. Plus there are more mundane explanations for the presence of the substances claimed to be byproducts of a thermate reaction. Former Prof. Steven Jones came up with this thermate theory and he has not undergone proper peer review. No one in a relevant discipline - metallurgists, materials engineers, demo experts, incendiaries experts - have corroborated his claims.

[Freedomlover911]

His thermate is based upon two main ingredients, molten iron slag (byproduct of thermite), and presence of sulphur in the slag which indicates high grade thermate (not to mention the brownish-yellow clouds at time of collapse). What else would cause these indicators? You attack the messenger quite well, but can you explain the factors as I've laid them out for you?

[Ace7Pga]

PoetryHound is a fraud - i dealt with him before.

[y0utubeterrorstorm]

Tell me where else all that molten iron came from.

[hyonjun]

I am a mechanical engineer specializing in materials science. There is no other explanation for the melting of structural steel. Weaking or melting by open flame is impossible.

Unfortunately I like my job. Otherwise I would be in one of these videos.

[PoetryHound]

Temp and effect of intergranular melting from a eutectic reaction is very different from those of a thermite/thermate reaction.

[ArmedByOurEnemies]

I myself am a welder, steel worker, fitter. My lifes passion is in creating from steel. Many times that means structures have to be dismantled and replaced. during non explosive demolition we use carbon arc rods (jet rods) Huge amounts of electricity have to be used to heat the surface metal to a molten state and then blown away to expose underlying steel and process continues. some times we use Gauging fuel/oxy mixture (but that is oxygen not air) to increase the heat enough to begin cutting.

[ArmedByOurEnemies]

from wikipedia

Oxy-fuel welding and cutting

Torches that do not mix fuel with oxygen (combining, instead, atmospheric air) are not considered oxy-fuel torches and can typically be identified by a single tank (Oxy-fuel welding/cutting generally requires two tanks, fuel and oxygen). Most metals cannot be melted with a single-tank torch. As such, single tank torches are typically used only for soldering and brazing, rather than welding.

[ArmedByOurEnemies]

* 1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron

* ~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel

* ~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.

Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved

[Freedomlover911]

Great post ABOE! Thanks for adding some expertise to the conversation :)

[Denierbud11]

Melting point of aluminum is 662 C

Opps - another truther lie

[majnos]

@ArmedByOurEnemies : melting point is not the problem, the main problem is that steel looses strength with rising temperature. It looses most of its strength from 200°C to 800°C. In 800°C it looses majority of its strength. Find yourself if you dont believe.

[Freedomlover911]

I agree. I have actually done all types of metal work and I understand the concept of heat wicking through metal. Open flames are certainly not the reason for melting or weakening of structural steel. Thanks for the comment!

[Denierbud11]

"I am a mechanical engineer specializing in materials science."

If you were not a liar, you would know that there are other items, like aluminum, used at the WTC, that could explain the 'melting steel'

Another truther lie - why do you lie?

[hyonjun]

Thats right, the melting pt of aluminum is over 1200F.

The fires could possibly lower the yield strength of the aluminum but not melt it.

Either way no one uses aluminum to support buildings. Not even for bolts. It is too brittle. They use steel for its tensile strentgh and concrete for its compressive strength. Aluminum is used for smaller, lightweight applications that require 'good enough' strength - like bikes, cars, etc.

You sir are the liar who does not know what he speaks.

[Denierbud11]

Google Alcoa WTC

"In the late 1960's, Alcoa was approached to help design a new alloy for the World Trade Center. Alcoa created a unique aluminum "skin" and novel cladding system for the architects. T, a signature lightweight alloy developed by Alcoa for the World Trade Center, is credited with giving many tall buildings around the world their shiny, graceful appearance. Aluminum was used extensively in the construction, including the covering of the trademark ..."

[Denierbud11]

Alcoa was also the general contractor in charge of the application of asbestos and fire proofing.

[Denierbud11]

Hynom

You claim aluminum is not used in building construction.

"In 1998, Alcoa moved its corporate center to a six-story aluminum and glass structure on Pittsburgh's North Shore. Its wave-form glass facade opens the entire building to the river, the city, and the southern sky. Inside is an open office environment designed said then-chairman Paul O' Neill."

Eat shit ass.

[majnos]

@hyonjun What if the steel have not met predefined quality? Is there a way to confirm that WTC was build with prescribed steel quality ?

[blackArt2000]

@PoetryHound Totally Wrong!

[Arachnidia]

As a New Yorker and as a human being, it rips my heart out every time I watch or read about this fiasco. It angers me to no end that those responsible are not punished. It angers me that many died and will die for their greed.

[Dertygian]

This is the chemistry that proves TONS of thermate is required. Thermate theorys are laughable.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

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

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

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

[D3g1532]

Exactly. Also that would make the towers look like giant sparklers. Not ne of the conspiracy theorists can explain how that much thermite was place directly on the steel beams of both buildings. Therefore the thermite theory is impossible. Also none of them take into account that thermite is not such a precision demolition and would of melted steel marks everywhere. Wake up! stop pissing on your own fellow American's graves and accept what you really saw.

[Freedomlover911]

Dertygian, why would so much Thermate be needed? Wouldn't it just be used to cut main columns/central support columns/corner columns? Thermite isn't the only material that is used. You keep posting the same figures over and over again like you copied and pasted from somewhere. Besides, thermite doesn't "explode" and go boom like the many witnesses testify. What were the booms heard on every floor that knocked people out into stairwells and peeled skin like a boiled tomato? Not Thermite!

[Dertygian]

Freedomlover911: You claim thermate THEN say there are ALSO bombs? WTF. Overkill, eh? No, I use science. You cannot disprove the chemistry FACT. BUT and PLEASE, explain how after setting the thermate or even bombs in place, how the plane's impact DID NOT DISTURB the materials? They just HAPPEN to stay functional and in place on the EXACT floors. HAHAHA, so, so, so, so, wrong.

[Freedomlover911]

D3g1532, if you look closely at much of the footage of the tops of the towers you can indeed see "sparklers" in the dust clouds and inside the towers as they are falling looking like gunpowder sparkles from 4th of July fireworks show. I've had no problem finding this footage. Questioning the "official" story is not "pissing" on American's graves. That is bullshit propaganda you are repeating. Were it one of your family members murdered, wouldn't you want an honest/independent investigation?

[D3g1532]

I have observed these anomalies. But there is so many things that could have caused those sparks. Most conspiracy theorists will see something like a spark or melted metal and jump to the conclusion that this means there was DEFINITELY thermite used in these attacks. I have plenty of experience with explosives. I know for a fact that if this was going to be an inside job that thermite would be the last of choices to use for a demolition of such a large building.

[Freedomlover911]

"I know for a fact that if this was going to be an inside job that thermite would be the last of choices to use for a demolition of such a large building."

Of course it would not be the ONLY method to bring down a building of this size, but why would it not be used at all? What "fact" do you know that confirms this?

[Freedomlover911]

Thermite does not cause sparks that float through the air, but it does melt metal. Two different explosives being used. Dertygian is chasing a red herring by his claims that thermite couldn't have been the only method of bringing down the building. In essence he is correct, but misleading.

[D3g1532]

It melts metal but the fact is the WTC didn't melt like a candle like some say. The reason it would not be used is because in order for this to correctly work the thermite would have to be painted on the steel beams during the construction of the building. Thermite doesn't stay at a consistent hot temperature the temperature fluctuates. If you were to take down the WTC correctly you would use Composition 4 or TNT.

[Freedomlover911]

"The reason it would not be used is because in order for this to correctly work the thermite would have to be painted on the steel beams during the construction of the building."

Why would this EVER be done? Is it done? Where? Thermite is used all the time without "painting" it on a beam during construction, is it not?

[D3g1532]

It wouldn't. Therefore thermite is not good for building demolition. I have worked with this substance before in the military. The military uses thermite mainly to destroy weapons, tanks and Marine vessels. As I said before if we were to demolish a building it would make more sense to use composition 4 or TNT.

[Freedomlover911]

So, you're saying it wouldn't be used, never been used, couldn't be used to cut beams to bring a building down. Is this your point?

Of course there are other materials used to effectively bring down a building. You seem to say that thermite is "not" one of many components that professional demo companies use. Maybe you need to do some more research on the subject...

[D3g1532]

No no don't give me the research thing. As I said I actually used these substances and devices, I don't need research. What I am saying is that using thermite for a building like this is impractical. Also using thermite would be allot more obvious than you may think. It would also require tons of it. It would be so obvious that a crew of people simply walked into a building with large quantities of dangerous materials and started placing it in various areas.

[Freedomlover911]

So closing the buildings over the weekend, pulling out bomb sniffing dogs and power downs for "cabling" don't count? Or had you not heard of any of this? You are correct on the face of your argument were it not for these other odd instances.

[D3g1532]

No I heard of it. Its called a drill. Most tall buildings in America such a the Empire state building must do a very thorough drill every 3 months. I took part in similar drills in in Boston at Logan airport a year before the attacks.

[y0utubeterrorstorm]

These "drills" are exactly the cover for the real criminals so they don't get caught.

[Freedomlover911]

Be sure to listen to the audio clip of the guy who appears at the beginning of Part 2. Leaves NO DOUBT! It is in my profile as my URL

[techsprite]

Diagonally cut box-columns, traces of thermite residue, and even traces of uncombusted thermite. No explanation for the complete destruction of WTC 7, which was damaged only on one side. The convenient recycling of the steel beams & columns. At some point you gotta believe you own eyes! It was a demolition. Wake up!

[Dertygian]

No proof at all. There is LOTS of drywall in the building. Which accounts for the so called 'evidence' of thermate. A drywall panel is made of a paper liner wrapped around an inner core made primarily from gypsum plaster, the semi-hydrous form of calcium sulphate (CaSO4.½ H2O). For it to be thermate there would have been TONS in the building. So, nope, no thermate.

[RichardC111165]

Jones evidence for thermite consists of 1 to 1500 micron iron spheres. Sulfur in the mix is not required, but helps melt steel. He found sulfur in some, but not all, of the spheres. He found no calcium, which one would expect if drywall were the source of the sulfur. But it is really a minor point. The USGS also found the iron microspheres, but did not try to explain them. I believe the thermite was INSIDE the hollow box columns of the core and ignited remotely. search YouTube for WTC+horseshoe

[Freedomlover911]

Despite the trace evidence of sulfur found in the molten balls, the yellowish brown cloud seen when the buildings fall is a signature of burning sulfur. These two pieces of evidence do not contradict one another.