World Trade Center + Explosives

Originally posted by Omniscient
A leaning that indicates a complete lack of structure. Yes.

No, if there was "a complete lack of structure" then it would have fallen straight down. Leaning means there is resistance and that the upper floors are rotating around a fulcrum. This happens from an incomplete failure (ie thermite slices through exterior corner box columns and inner core columns before the vertical collapse sequence). Leaning happens in demolitions. So what? What's your point? It leaned so therefore....?


Wizard,

Placing thermite may have been an inconvenience but definitely not impossible in my opinion (keeping in mind all the maintenance work prior to 9/11, and that thermite will keep indefinitely), and the molten material flowing from WTC2 prior to its collapse has no other well-fitting explanations. Certainly it was not aluminum, or aluminum with burning hydrocarbons around it, as suggested by NIST. Thermite would be required for "clean" initiations that lack obvious explosive events.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Leaning happens in demolitions. So what? What's your point? It leaned so therefore....?

Really?...and that is why exactly?...

Originally posted by bsbray11
Placing thermite may have been an inconvenience but definitely not impossible in my opinion (keeping in mind all the maintenance work prior to 9/11, and that thermite will keep indefinitely), and the molten material flowing from WTC2 prior to its collapse has no other well-fitting explanations. Certainly it was not aluminum, or aluminum with burning hydrocarbons around it, as suggested by NIST. Thermite would be required for "clean" initiations that lack obvious explosive events.

Wow, so I guess you were there to make sure aluminum was not melted in the towers and that it was definetely steel... It is not possible at all that some of the aluminum the airplanes, which crashed into the towers btw, were made of melted because of the fires...

Just for curiosity, could you tell us why is it that "it is not possible for the molten material to have been aluminum"?

[edit on 21-10-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Just for curiosity, could you tell us why is it that "it is not possible for the molten material to have been aluminum"?

It's possible that it could have been but unlikely. Aluminum doesn't glow orange at the temperatures the fires got to in the towers. If the temperature in the towers was hot enough to make the aluminum glow bright orange (in daylight), then the steel would have been melting along with the aluminum.

As for aluminum with organics burning inside it. That is just rediculus and NIST knows it. Things need oxygen to burn and these organics wouldn't have access to oxygen being inside the aluminum.

IMO thermite is the best answer to that question. Whether accidental thermite or not.

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Or even better show us how exactly they planted these explosives through out two enormous buildings with no one noticeing.

how exactly? that is not possible and you know it. It is like me asking you how the planes were hijacked exactly by the idiot terrorists and flown into the buildings in the first place. Even if one Chooses to believe the official story nobody has been able or willing to make up an exact story of what really happened that day as part of the excuse for 911.

Why would aluminum, something we know was present on those floors, be less probable than thermite, something we have no evidence of?

That doesn't sound like very good science.

www.jnani.org...

To rule out aluminium so quickly is poor science, because we don’t know what the temperatures were in the impact zone, while we do know that many metric tonnes of aluminium constituting the plane were in the area just above the outflow of molten metal.

. . .

But the quantity of thermite required to produce this stream of molten metal is much greater. 107 Kg of thermite is required to produce 54 Kg of molten iron, and the stream of molten metal flowing from the impact zone (if iron) has been estimated at thousands of kilograms. Even if the stream is only 1,000 kg of iron, then 2,000 kg, or two metric tonnes, of thermite would be required.

It seems less probable that thermite was used, especially considering the vast quantities of thermite needed.



[edit on 22-10-2006 by LeftBehind]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Wizard,

Placing thermite may have been an inconvenience ...

Please read "Aluminothermics" everyone.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thermite is like a cap gun compared to sol-gel shaped nano-thermate charges.

Not to step on your balls BSBRAY.



[edit on 22-10-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Oh well Thermite or Alumthermite either way they both explode and either could of been used

Originally posted by Griff

It's possible that it could have been but unlikely. Aluminum doesn't glow orange at the temperatures the fires got to in the towers. If the temperature in the towers was hot enough to make the aluminum glow bright orange (in daylight), then the steel would have been melting along with the aluminum.

The temperatures in the towers were not uniform, there were spots which had temperatures much higher than other places in the towers.

Originally posted by Griff
As for aluminum with organics burning inside it. That is just rediculus and NIST knows it. Things need oxygen to burn and these organics wouldn't have access to oxygen being inside the aluminum.

IMO thermite is the best answer to that question. Whether accidental thermite or not.

They could be talking about aluminum compounds/alloys, or even composite materials which have been used in building military aircraft, and apparently some people are trying to use these composite materials for building passenger aircraft.

These compounds are more expensive, and composite materials are a lot more expensive which is one of the reason why they weren't used in the past in passenger aircraft. I am not sure if any passenger aircraft has been built with composite materials thou.

If the planes were built with aluminum alloys and the aluminum was melted, this would have released the other elements in the aluminum, such as lithium. Carbon steel is also used for building aircraft, but I am not sure if the planes crashing into the towers had some carbon steel or not.

Is kind of late, and i can't remember right now what kind of aircraft flew into the towers, was it 747s?

Anyways, looking for some more information on this might shed some light as to what they could have referred to.

What is also interesting is how did a 600,000 pound beam, twice the weight of the aircraft manage to fly 400 or so feet into a neighboring building, anyone have an idea as to how this could of happen? Recently they have apparently found bone fragments on or around the roofs of some buildings, can a building collapsing really produce such force to do these type of things?

Originally posted by Pepperslappy
Oh well Thermite or Alumthermite either way they both explode and either could of been used

Hmmm...

I was under the impresion that thermite ( tried a search on Alumthermite didn't get any hits, so I don't know what it is, perhaps you can enlighten me on it ) doesn't explode all it does is burn...

Can you post any links supporting your claim?

And please no Jones crap...I don't drink his KoolAide...

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It seems less probable that thermite was used, especially considering the vast quantities of thermite needed.

Interesting. I wasn't aware that it would have took that much. I'll have to reconsider then. Still haven't totally convinced me yet though.

Originally posted by Muaddib
The temperatures in the towers were not uniform, there were spots which had temperatures much higher than other places in the towers.

And yet, there was a uniform collapse. Go figure.

They could be talking about aluminum compounds/alloys, or even composite materials which have been used in building military aircraft, and apparently some people are trying to use these composite materials for building passenger aircraft.

What you are saying actually makes sense and could be the cause of it. I've never ruled out other possibilities. I'm not married to the "it's thermite" theory to the point were I won't consider other possibilities.

[edit on 10/23/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by LeftBehind
It seems less probable that thermite was used, especially considering the vast quantities of thermite needed.

You should look into what Slap Nuts has posted about sol-jel and aerojel used with nanothermate and superthermate. If that was used, then there wouldn't need to be that much. Nanothermate burns twice as hot as thermite and also has 1,000x the reaction rate: in Slap Nuts' own words.

2. ThermAte burns minimally 2x-10x as hot and fast as thermIte (depends on formula)... Reduce their calculations by 1/2 minimally or 1/10th.

3. NANO-thermAte... typical aluminum particles have only 1/10th of 1% of their atoms exposed on the surface. Whereas, nano-particulates, have almost 50% of their surface exposed as atoms, increasing reaction rates by 1,000x.

So... you tell me... MINIMALLY Nano-thermate has reaction rates 1000x faster and 2x hotter than "thermite"... do you really need that much?

Then, we take our nano-thermate and put it in some aero-gel which allows us to shape it however we like to make perfect shaped charge cuts... This addresses the "inconspicuous and direct contact" arguments.

So, NIST... How many AERO-GEL, NANO-THERMATE SHAPED CHARGES would it take?

Source: www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's a very interesting thread that many have just waved off...wonder why?