Thermite or Explosives ?

a reply to: Rocker2013
Dude, the Harrit Jones Ryan paper has never been debunked. It's been over 5 years now and not one article in a peer reviewed journal has appeared to refute the findings.
I lead a translation team in China. Using members from the Chinese Science Academy and academics in language, the paper took 2 years of hard work.
All of the Chinese scientists that read the paper said it wasn't difficult science to get your head around. It was straight forward, the science was sound and the results were compelling.
Anyone, especially neocons/zionists that pumps the official fairy tale is a traitor, tool, or both.
The terrorists are inside the Beltway. Nobody is safe with these psychopaths running around, especially their minions.

a reply to: skyeagle409 John Gross is a tool and traitor. The guy is a joke in the scientific community.

a reply to: wastedown

There is no evidence for either. Explosive implosions takes many months of preparations. Some people have this Hollywood mindset that detonating a bomb inside a steel frame building is enough to bring it down, but that is only in Hollywood movies, not in the real world.

a reply to: sg1642

what would you sugest caused the molten metal described in the rubble pile? I'm not claiming you are wrong I'm just curious.

"Sometimes a big load of iron in a ship can get hot. The heat can even set other materials on fire. That’s because the iron is rusting, which means it is burning very, very slowly. Iron rusts in a chemical reaction called oxidation. That means the iron reacts with oxygen gas from the air. Oxidation is the chemical reaction that occurs when anything burns in air. Like most oxidations, rusting gives off heat."

As I understand it, C-4 detonated next to concrete vaporizes the water suspended in the concrete, leaving only the dust and aggregate. While I cannot say conclusively what happened on 911, exsplosives placed on the concrete columns would account for the lack of concrete volume in the rubble, and justify the presence of such a large volume of dust.

a reply to: engineercutout

Problem is, there are no demolition explosions in the videos as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, and it would have been impossible for properly prepare each occupied building for explosive demolition without detection. The 1993 WTC 1 bombing is an example of what happens when a building is not structurally pre-weakened.

a reply to: engineercutout

exsplosives placed on the concrete columns would account for the lack of

What concrete columns? Unless you are talking about below ground.
They had steel beams.
The only concrete I'm aware of is the light weight type in the floors.

originally posted by: samkent
You can't have both.



Thermite doesn't explode so you have to dismiss those claims of explosions.

Thermite won't shoot steel beams out of the building and down the street.

Thermite requires containment boxes around the beam to be burnt through.

Thermite can be set off by simple office fires.



Explosives blows out all the windows in a series of staccato booms and rocks the neighborhood.

Explosives won't leave micro spheres in the dust of 911.

Explosives and detonation devices have an expiration date.

Explosives can be dislodged and not go off at all by the airplane explosion.



Choose your poison and show us proof.

I would like to return to your original posting about the idea of thermite ot being usable as an explosive, and you request for proof of my position.
I would postulate oyur trying a little experiment in order to learn for yourself the manner in which thermite will explode.
First, go out and buy several boxes of cheap holiday sparklers. The coating used on them is somewhat similar to a low grade of thermite.
Next hold several together and light them. They will burn with tremendous heat and smoke. In this state, they could even be used to burn through a piece of light metal; try it and see.
Now, take about the same number of sparklers and "carefully" remove the coating from the support wire. Take the resulting powder and encapsulate it into as small a container as it will possibly fit. Take an ather sparkler and embed it in a manner to used as a fuse. Lite this fuse and move away quickly; there is going to be an explosion.

You see almost anything which will burn rapidly, will do so and displace a certain volumn of space with it's smoke and residual fumes. If this material is confinded, it will still burn and expand. The tighter the confindment , the stronger the expolsive effect.

Another way you can see this same senario at work is to take black powder, a known explosive, and pour a small amount out on the ground. If you light it, you will only get some "spewing noise" and a lot of smoke. Now, what happenes when you put an amout into a piece of pipe and close the ends???

Need I explain more?

originally posted by: engineercutout
As I understand it, C-4 detonated next to concrete vaporizes the water suspended in the concrete, leaving only the dust and aggregate.

Not at all. C4 causes a big sudden overpressure, like any high brisance explosive.

There's no magic way that it selectively removes hydration from concrete.

Water in concrete isn't a suspension either. It chemically reacts with the major components of the cement, and it's molecularly bonded. It can't dry out fall off or be shaken loose. Pulverized concrete isn't Portland cement, you'd have to pump in a huge amount of energy in the form of heat to calcinate it back to its original form.

a reply to: tinymind

You generally DO confine thermite in some sort of frame, generally clay, when you weld with it. The thermite reaction is comparatively slow, and doesn't evolve large volumes of gas, which is required for a real explosive.

So, no, it's not an explosive no matter how much you might want it to be.

And again, if you wanted an explosion you'd use an explosive. If you want to make molten steel to cut or weld you can use thermite. But it doesn't do you any good to set off thermite and scatter it with another charge.

originally posted by: tinymind

there is going to be an explosion.

I doubt it. Thermite produces no gas, only solids, so no over pressure.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: engineercutout

Problem is, there are no demolition explosions in the videos as WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 collapsed, and it would have been impossible for properly prepare each occupied building for explosive demolition without detection. The 1993 WTC 1 bombing is an example of what happens when a building is not structurally pre-weakened.

Search the name Sakhera Hammad.

a reply to: tinymind

I would like to return to your original posting about the idea of thermite ot being usable as an explosive, and you request for proof of my position.

Thermite is not an explosive and since the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 began at the impact points, it is not likely that thermite nor explosives would have remained firmly intact to steel columns, especially since the impacts were violent enough to dislodge fire protection from the steel columns.

If thermite and explosives are not firmly attached to structural steel, they are basically useless other than blowing out windows and walls while leaving steel columns intact.

a reply to: tinymind

You see almost anything which will burn rapidly, will do so and displace a certain volumn of space with it's smoke and residual fumes. If this material is confinded, it will still burn and expand. The tighter the confindment , the stronger the expolsive effect.

But my point remains.
If you are in the camp that believes the sounds of explosions were due to explosives then you must discount thermite.

originally posted by: Bedlam
Water in concrete isn't a suspension either. It chemically reacts with the major components of the cement, and it's molecularly bonded. It can't dry out fall off or be shaken loose. Pulverized concrete isn't Portland cement, you'd have to pump in a huge amount of energy in the form of heat to calcinate it back to its original form.

Yep, good point. And how huge, what's your estimate?

With regards to this aluminum molybdenum-rich particle in the WTC dust we may be talking about at least 2623°C to melt that Mo. Which is higher than the boiling point of thermite btw.

Also, for Portland cement we would need roughly 1450°C but can find lead oxides on the surface of mineral wool in the dust as well.(Page 21), which indicates 1749°C minimum.

a reply to: samkent

Neither-

Directed Energy Kinetic Weapon that doesn't exist destroyed towers 1 and 2. Conventional controlled demolition for wtc7

So far out there in left field no one would ever buy it....especially when Dr Stephen Jones and other PhDs that get paid to go along say it doesn't exist.

Really doesn't matter if any of us believe it or not. Like in the Interview entitled New Order of Barbarians " Nothing can stop us now everything is in place. said Dr Day.
soundcloud.com...

a reply to: PublicOpinion

It's not just surface temp, it's heat energy. I'm at work no time to dig it out but it's lots of BTUs to calcinate it back to lime. So what you're seeing is concrete dust not quicklime.

a reply to: superluminal11

You can't really combine "directed energy " and "kinetic " in the same description.

a reply to: Bedlam

I guess it is too late for these guys:
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96YczGVZzn8]

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

to read your posting.

It could have saved them some time and money.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: Bedlam

I guess it is too late for these guys:
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96YczGVZzn8]

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

to read your posting.

It could have saved them some time and money.

Sparklers produce a gas thermite does not.


chemistry.about.com...


Reducing Agents
The reducing agents is the fuel used to burn the oxygen produced by the oxidizers. This combustion produces hot gas. Examples of reducing agents are sulfur and charcoal, which react with the oxygen to form sulfur dioxide (SO2) and carbon dioxide (CO2), respectively.