IRON in WTC Burned ?

Griff you have no one ,but yourself to blame, for me still being here ! Thanks that was cool! Your a good man. Ok back on topic. My point about the barium was this.Why wouldn't Stevie Jones have brought this up,about his "testing of the mystery metal"? Seeing how it is this mystery metal," found by a gal in chunk of dirt" ! He keeps mentioning all this extra sulpher. Sulpher is not what is added to thermite to make it mate. It is more barium whatever...!

Again, props to Griff,you really are here to exchange info!

BsBray,

As far as the Wiki article said. I'm not sure that the added affect of barium nitrate would be usefull as well considering the questions you posed. Take care.

[edit on 8/3/2006 by Griff]

Jones has pointed out that sulfur speeds up the reaction, just as barium nitrate has its own qualities to add to the reaction, and just the same as any other additives would also provide other qualities to the reaction.

What the substance is named is pretty irrelevant here, anyway, unless the discussion is the nomenclatures of various kinds of thermite.


Thanks, Griff.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by bsbray11]

Duhh,

Glad to see you didn't leave. I see exactly what you are saying and can actually agree with you....see, we can come to some sort of agreement. lol. Take care.

Insolubrious
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.

That's assuming that the pulverization was caused ONLY by 'explosives'. I personally believe the afformentioned phenomenon was caused by the core failing before the perimeter structure, falling inside the 'tube' pulling it inwards as it fell. Don't forget that the outer 'perimeter' structures of WTC 1 and 2 were alot stronger than any of you might imagine and I believe they actually held the buildings up momentarily after the cores were 'knocked' out from under them. (The perimeter structure would have put up one HELL of a fight considering that not only was it designed to have 'some' load bearing capacity it was also designed to take most of the the lateral loads the building might endure.)

I'm almost 100% convinced that something above and beyond the official report had to have occured to have caused the 'hot spots' that lingered for an unGodly amount of time but what was it? Thermite/mate seems to be the only rational thing at the moment and that's what I'm leaning towards.

No matter what caused the metal to get as hot as it did, how on earth did it stay as hot as it did for SO LONG? That's what Im' mostly curious about at the moment.


I've done limited research on thermite induced metal fires and from what I understand, they are EXTREMELY difficult to put and can stay hot for extraordinary amounts of time just becase of the extreme temperatures that are produced. However, I feel there is yet more to the reason why the hot spots stayed hot for so long....

And wasn't 'pyrocool' used to help put out these 'fires'?
I've heard in more than one place that pyrcool dampens ultraviolet radiation caused by 'certain' types of fires.. Doesn't thermite induced fire produce such ultraviolet radiation? This I'm not too sure about.. perhaps you guys could elaborate.

Perhaps fallen rubble is a better insulator than I previously thought as well.






[edit on 4-8-2006 by TxSecret]

Originally posted by DeadEagle

Originally posted by Xenesthad
From what i've heard Thermate which is Thermite with added sulphur and maganese in was used to melt the iron to fell the buildings

You heard very wrong.

To you, and others who believe thermite brought down the towers, have any of you even seen thermite in action?

Dude, have YOU ever seen a thermite reaction?

Look here:

videos.streetfire.net...


Have you seen this picture?

www.rumormillnews.com...

It's been posted all over the place but this one was handy...


Ok.. to all the people who think that it WASN'T a thermite reaction, I thumb my nose at thee!. lol

I am pretty certain thermite was present, but don't you guys think the thermite could of just been a natural reaction caused by the aluminium plane colliding with the rusty surfaces of the twin towers? Many construction experts know the risk of thermite fires in buildings which can be simply be triggered when drilling a rusty surface with aluminium drill tips. Also, the only video of wtc spewing thermite was localized to the area where the plane collided with the building. Now, i am not sure about the nature of thermite reaction, but once this stuff gets going could it keep reacting and growing as it contacts more 'fuel' (rust and aluminum) ?

Originally posted by Insolubrious
I am pretty certain thermite was present, but don't you guys think the thermite could of just been a natural reaction caused by the aluminium plane colliding with the rusty surfaces of the twin towers?

No. Thermite takes amazing temperatures to initiate, and a fine powder of aluminum / iron oxide.

What you're proposing is similar to a paper written by a guy named Greening, in which he pointed out that molten aluminum and rust were both present in the Towers, and then suggested that a thermite reaction could be initiated by some explosive spattering mixing them together.

Steven Jones took Greening's idea and put it to the test in his lab, pouring molten aluminum onto a rusted piece of steel, as Greening asserted could initiate a thermite reaction.



As you can see in the above photo, no reaction occurred. As you can also see, just molten aluminum appears a silvery color in broad daylight, and not a very bright yellow, as the molten metal seen pouring out of the corner of WTC2. But that's off topic.

Anyway, thermite needs temperatures above and beyond what should have been in the Towers to initiate, and the particles of aluminum and iron oxide also have to be small enough and close enough to each other for the reaction to get a foot hold and continue efficiently.

[edit on 4-8-2006 by bsbray11]

good post, interesting. One thing that grabs me in Jones experiment firstly, The iron he is using probably wasnt left baking in the sun all day, the metal on the towers would of probably been heating up in the sun all morning since there wasnt a cloud in site (still i doubt that counts for much), secondly is it not possible that the friction generated by the plane collision exceeds the temp of molten aluminium in certain areas? I mean the plane was probably hot already and slamming into that building i would imagine created extremely high temperatures from the extreme friction, if only for a split second. I could also imagine lots of fine aluminum filing produced as a result of the impact where the plane would of scraped against the building. Your points are very good although I am still left wondering if the thermite reaction was natural or engineered. One point is that we see the thermite ejecting from the crash area, and the aluminium from the plane was the only ingredient neccesary to start the reaction. And as I said previously i am pretty sure u can start a thermite reaction by drilling rusty surfaces with aluminum drill tips.

To me this is much like when you light a match, if you just softly drag the match along it wont light, you need some speed to create friction to get it going. Which is the difference between Jones experiment and the WTC impact, shouldnt Jones be taking say a 500mph aluminum projectile fired at thin rusty iron rather than tipping molten aluminum along ? It would be interesting to know how much heat is generated from the friction of a 500mph object grinding across steel.

just another point now i think about it tho, we didnt see thermite spewing from the crash zone for quite some time, which would indicate the reaction didnt take place immediately when the plane crashed, as with my theory the crash friction is the igniter. Still perhaps thermite was present straight after impact and only worked its way outwards as time progressed. I am still unsure either way.