IRON in WTC Burned ?

my opinion is the collapse of wtc was far from a natural result of fires and collision damage, and even the methods of common controlled demolition (use of c4 and cutter charges) seems to be unrealistic due to the sheer amount of building prep and quantity of explosives required to achieve the complete pulverisation of the building in the way that it did. If it was c4 they would of needed so much that the wtc staff would of been climbing over the demo. boxes just to get to their desks.

What the Finnish military expert states is that the sheer radiation of a hydrogen bomb would of been absorbed by the steel in the core extremely quickly like a sponge, taking it well above melting point, which serves as a good logical explaination of how these cores were so easy to warp, melt and even evaporate in such a small time frame. Perhaps in the weeks running up to 9/11 when the WTC were powered down, instead of rigging thousands of c4 charges, they just stratigically placed a few mini nuke devices in key locations across the building.

And who is to say this wasn't a next generation atomic device taylored to achieve what we saw, are you up to date on all the latest top secret atomic weapon development? We all know how terrorists love their nukes and how they can get them on the black market, remember the suitcase nuke scare?

So, are you claiming that they have developed nuclear weapons that don’t release radiation? [sarcasm]Wow, the worlds energy problems have been solved![/sarcasm]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, are you claiming that they have developed nuclear weapons/ reactions that don’t release radiation? [sarcasm]Wow, the worlds energy problems have been solved![/sarcasm]

Originally posted by HowardRoark
So, are you claiming that they have developed nuclear weapons that don’t release radiation? [sarcasm]Wow, the worlds energy problems have been solved![/sarcasm]

no

So then, please explain how come there is no significan amount of radioactive debris at ground zero. surely a nuclear clast would have released some radiation.

hey, I know, maybe it was Steve Jones's cold fusion!

You know Howard,

Your posts would sound more intellegent and thought provoking without all the sarcasm. Why is it you guys (you, Vushta, Duhh et al) only come back with sarcastic, unintellegent, child-like behavior? You are an intellegent person and I would take you more seriously without all the sarcasm.

Sorry to be off topic, but it's been bothering me for some time now.

Off Topic! Because sarcasm beat killing people, atleast thats what I saw on a shirt yesterday! Back on topic; There was no nuclear blast!!! Still dying to see that evidence, though! The start of this thread; explains how heat from the furnace created, on 911 helped keep metal molten, and how it was poss. Without Stevies thermate/mate/super what ever concept! Back on track???? GOOD ! Happy Hunting!!!!!

Originally posted by Duhh
Back on topic; There was no nuclear blast!!! Still dying to see that evidence, though!

I agree with this.

The start of this thread; explains how heat from the furnace created, on 911 helped keep metal molten, and how it was poss. Without Stevies thermate/mate/super what ever concept! Back on track???? GOOD ! Happy Hunting!!!!!

But the start of this thread doesn't disprove thermite/thermate/super thermate. It could have just as easily started from thermite et al.

BTW, love your sig. My niece is named Nesta after Bob's middle name.

You are correct! Yet it explains how the issues could have taken place. Minus the barrium laden super thermate. Which no one, not even Steve J has found evidence of. Thermate is 29% of it, only 2% sulfer. Where is it? If there is so much sulfer?

Good choice of names there G-man! His family I call friend!

[edit on 2-8-2006 by Duhh]

Originally posted by Duhh
The start of this thread; explains how heat from the furnace created, on 911 helped keep metal molten, and how it was poss.

No, not at all. The process describes oxidation of iron, i.e. iron turning to rust. It does not explain the presence of molten iron. It does not explain how temperatures in excess of 1000C were achieved in the first place to start the oxidation, particularly under WTC7. The only thing it possibly explains is how temperatures remained elevated for such a long time, which actually strengthens a previously weak point in the thermite hypothesis.

Originally posted by Duhh
You are correct! Yet it explains how the issues could have taken place. Minus the barrium laden super thermate. Which no one, not even Steve J has found evidence of. Thermate is 29% of it, only 2% sulfer. Where is it? If there is so much sulfer?
[edit on 2-8-2006 by Duhh]

I'm no chemist but from what I've read, barium oxidizes instantly in air. So, as far as I can tell, there wouldn't be residue from barium.

Originally posted by Griff

I'm no chemist but from what I've read, barium oxidizes instantly in air. So, as far as I can tell, there wouldn't be residue from barium.

Griff,

"Oxidizes instantly"? What has that to do with it. Oxidized Barium would be Barium oxide (or dioxide, or trioxide - I'm no chemist either!)

So, where's all the Barium (di, tri) oxide then?

The fact that an element oxidizes does not mean that the element disappears.

Harte

Barium oxide is used as a coating for hot cathodes such as cathode ray tubes (computer monitors). So why WASN'T it found? There were plenty of computer monitors in the towers weren't there?

en.wikipedia.org...

Edit: Maybe they did find it and just assumed it was from computer monitors.....like all the other chemicals found.


Barium peroxide is used in pyrotechnics and tracer ammunition.

The oxides, peroxides and superoxides are closely related, forming a chain of oxygen ions of progressively higher oxidation number.

Barium peroxide is used in pyrotechnics and tracer ammunition, and was once used in the manufacture of hydrogen peroxide. Sodium peroxide is used as a carbon dioxide absorber and oxygen regenerator (e.g. in some submarines), through the reaction:

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Not sure at the moment what kind of residue that would leave.

[edit on 8/3/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff
Barium oxide is used as a coating for hot cathodes such as cathode ray tubes (computer monitors). So why WASN'T it found? There were plenty of computer monitors in the towers weren't there?

Edit: Maybe they did find it and just assumed it was from computer monitors.....like all the other chemicals found.

Barium peroxide is used in pyrotechnics and tracer ammunition.

Griff,
Dang these 9/11 threads is active! I'll post something in my usual area (Ancient civ.) and won't get a response for a day or two, if at all.

Anyway, as far as my knowledge extends, things that are used in pyrotechnics require energy storage in the chemical, whereas oxidation usually represents the loss of energy. So, while peroxides and superoxides might be related to oxides, they probably aren't the result of exposure to air, which was what you were talking about.

So, like I was saying, instantly oxidizing Barium should have left some barium oxide. Regarding the CRT electrode coating, I'd guess that a fire would remove little or none of this coating from the cathode in a CRT. That thing gets pretty hot normally, gotta be a reason they use Barium oxide, wouldn't you think?

Harte

Originally posted by Harte

So, like I was saying, instantly oxidizing Barium should have left some barium oxide. Regarding the CRT electrode coating, I'd guess that a fire would remove little or none of this coating from the cathode in a CRT. That thing gets pretty hot normally, gotta be a reason they use Barium oxide, wouldn't you think?

I would agree with this if it was only fire and heat. Remember that everything was pulverized...meaning the CRT in the monitors would have been turned to dust.....probably seperating the barium oxide coating. Like I said, I'm just speculating and trying to come to a conclusion.

Originally posted by Griff
I would agree with this if it was only fire and heat. Remember that everything was pulverized...meaning the CRT in the monitors would have been turned to dust.....probably seperating the barium oxide coating. Like I said, I'm just speculating and trying to come to a conclusion.

Geez Griff. What are you, camped out on this thread?

You're responding faster than I'm reading!

Harte

Harte,

I don't know why were are discussing barium/barium oxide in thermate anyway. I just found this in wiki.

Thermite grenades are used as incendiary devices to quickly destroy items or equipment when there is imminent danger of them being captured by enemy forces. Because of the difficulty in igniting standard iron-thermite, plus the fact that it burns with practically no flame and has a small radius of action, standard thermite is rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. It is more usually employed with other ingredients added to enhance its incendiary effects. Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature. Although the primary purpose of Thermate-TH3 is as an incendiary, it will also weld metal surfaces together.

Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Bolded by myself.

Sorry the quote is so long...I couldn't get it to copy the important parts of what I wanted to show.

So, now we have to stop talking about barium oxide and start talking about barium nitrate. To be continued until I find further info.

The only thing I have found so far on barium nitrate is that it is toxic and when breathed it's symptoms seem to align with the symptoms of 9/11 clean up crew who have gotten sick. It is also water soluble. How much water was sprayed onto the wreckage?

Originally posted by Harte
Geez Griff. What are you, camped out on this thread?

You're responding faster than I'm reading!

HEHE...I have 2 monitors at work and one is mostly always open to ATS. Yeah, you could say I'm addicted to this site lol.

A couple of quick things to maybe consider in regards to the quote you just posted.

Addition of barium nitrate to thermite increases its thermal effect, creates flame in burning and significantly reduces the ignition temperature.

I wonder if the heat increase (I'm going to assume this is what is meant by an increase in "thermal effect") would be necessary, and worth the byproducts of flame and reduced ignition temperature. And I wonder how noticeable the flame would be, and what color (bright white/yellow like thermite, or darker like a hydrocarbon fire?), and a reduced ignition temperature could potentially have been a pretty risky thing for a demo engineer, depending on where the thermite would have been placed and in what sort of container.

Are those the only things barium nitrate is added to thermite for?