Physicist says heat substance felled WTC

I really think that this is another attempt to tie the neo-cons to the 9/11 tragedy.I believe that the planes themselves brought the towers down-not explosives

deseretnews.com...

Just to play devils advocate here. Could these reactions occur naturally? You have a plane mostly made of aluminum (crashing maybe shredded it enough to work?). You have rusted steel (iron oxide) from the towers. Then you also have gypsum board which has sulfer in it (thanks Howard for always bringing this up). So, could it have made a thermite reaction at the crash sites?

As far as WTC7 goes. This theory doesn't stand.....no airplanes = no aluminum.

Is this physicist hinting at thermite by chance? That is what it sounds like to me and now everyone is saying it except for the debunkers crowd.

Someone started a good thread here a few days ago with videos about 911 and one of the clips shows the architect/designers of the WTC saying that the towers should have been able to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from aircraft. In other words the towers were as usual built stronger than admitted to the public.

If anybody knows that thread or saw the vid I saw then please put it up cause it was good stuff.

Frankly, I think that it has been fully proven that 911 was at least partially an inside job. Now it is just to follow the money/motive/winners of this sordid affair.

Originally posted by Griff
Just to play devils advocate here. Could these reactions occur naturally? You have a plane mostly made of aluminum (crashing maybe shredded it enough to work?). You have rusted steel (iron oxide) from the towers. Then you also have gypsum board which has sulfer in it (thanks Howard for always bringing this up). So, could it have made a thermite reaction at the crash sites?

Your suggestion is very clever. However, the reagents should be brought together in pulverized form to really actuate a violent reaction. The aluminum was shereded, but not to the texture of poweder or even filings. Same applies to the iron oxide there. You have a great explanation idea but I think it won't work in practice.

The materials would have to be laid directly upon each other too in some significant amount, which would be pretty significant indeed when you're talking about globally collapsing one of the largest steel skyscrapers in the world. Powdered, as Aelita just mentioned, to really work, and then it would require a lot of heat to get the reaction started. The heat required to start a thermite reaction wouldn't naturally occur in the WTC.

I've attempted to make thermite for experimental purposes many times. I've used many types of possible ignitors including a torch-lighter, broulet torch, magnesium strip and simple match head. I was successful in one attempt to ignite it. Maybe that's my own stupidity, but if a moron could only ignite once successfully, then what are the odds of two planes succeeding in bringing down 3 towers by chance.

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
I've used many types of possible ignitors including a torch-lighter, broulet torch, magnesium strip and simple match head. I was successful in one attempt to ignite it.

Just out of curiousity, was it when you used the magnesium strip?

No, actually it was the match head. Which does argue in favor of the sulfer theory. But dude, I went through at least 6 books of matches.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The heat required to start a thermite reaction wouldn't naturally occur in the WTC.

There's the answer I was looking for. Thanks bsbray.

So, no this type of reaction couldn't occur...IMO. There's just too many what ifs in the official story.

So, was the thermite/sulfur on board the planes? And the initial crash-explosion burned hot enough to start the Thermite burning?

Was it placed in the Towers ahead of time?

And the BYU prof commented that the "molten material" was off the South Tower....did the same thing happen on the North Tower?

Need input.....need input.....

I wonder what affect the oxygen generators would have had on the fires?

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I wonder what affect the oxygen generators would have had on the fires?

We're talking about before the collapses, Howard.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I wonder what affect the oxygen generators would have had on the fires?

'
Please link to or show us that there were oxygen generators on those floors. I thought it was all office space? I'm not doubting you but please back up your claims with proof.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
I wonder what affect the oxygen generators would have had on the fires?

I don't think oxygen holds any bearing on the thermite reaction, except for maybe aiding as an ignitor. But even then it could only serve as an ignitor for the ignitor.

Originally posted by Griff
Please link to or show us that there were oxygen generators on those floors. I thought it was all office space? I'm not doubting you but please back up your claims with proof.

I’m talking about the oxygen generators on the plane

Granted they are rather small, but there were 160 or so.


www.beoxygensystems.com...

There was that plane that crashed in Florida when some improperly stored oxygen generators in the cargo hold caught fire.

Howard, why don't you just go ahead and throw your whole thermite theory out there so we can debunk it and get it over with.

Howard,

I'm starting off saying that I don't know anything about this sort of stuff so...

Would those oxygen generators still be operational after impact? Or what is your theory that you're trying to lead up to?

For people who may not know the effects of Thermite here is a link to some videos.

www.youtube.com... =search_videos&search=Search

Originally posted by Griff
Howard,

I'm starting off saying that I don't know anything about this sort of stuff so...

Would those oxygen generators still be operational after impact? Or what is your theory that you're trying to lead up to?

Sure they would be opperational, they are activated by heat.

My only point was thatthere were a number of different fuel sources in the building that should considered when looking at the fires, both pre and post collapse.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
My only point was thatthere were a number of different fuel sources in the building that should considered when looking at the fires, both pre and post collapse.

Yeah, there could've been burning soiled diapers in there, too. But why have you derailed a thread on thermite for this?

The chances of any significant amount of thermite forming in the towers naturally is slim and none. The temperatures required for starting the reaction weren't there. And it still wouldn't explain the global collapse; it's only an attempt to compensate for the complete lack of evidence or precedent of the assertion that those fires caused the collapse initiations.

If there was any thermite, it was planted and intentionally ignited.