Stop the Thermite/Thermate Debate! No help for 9/11 truth!

What is the point to proof that a specific chemical substance was used to bring the three WTC buildings down on 9/11?

Responsible 9/11 researcher should focus on the many, many clear pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an Inside Job!

The WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. It not important if conventional explosives or something else was used!

What if the thermate theory is false? This will discredit the 9/11 truth movement as a whole and destroy all its efforts and achievements

Stephen E. Jones is not very plausible for me. Maybe he's just another crook paid by US agencies to propagate disinformation and damage the 9/11 truth movement.

Some facts about Jones:
Jones has written a paper entitled "Behold My Hands: Evidence for Christ's Visit in Ancient America" in which he used archeological evidence to support the claims of Joseph Smith Jr. (founder of the Latter Day Saint movement) that Jesus had visited the Native Americans after his Resurrection, an event chronicled in the Book of Mormon. The evidence pointed to is Mayan depictions of deities which have stigmata like markings on their hands.[10]
en.wikipedia.org...

LOL. What a serious and credible scientist. I' am impressed!

ephrin--

I, for one, agree with you.

Let's get a few facts straight about thermite, and the Video showing something burning in WTC 1. That news clip could very well have shown a magnesium fire, as the landing gear of a 757, including the wheels and struts, are made from a magnesium alloy. Magnesium, btw, is the substance used in military flares--it burrns bright, and with a LOT of sparks. Ask anyone who has ever served in the Airforce or on a Navy Carrier--Magnesium fires are violent, hot, and very difficult to supress. Personally, my take on the fire shown in the News clip is that it was sourced in magnesium plane parts and not Thermite. (Sorry, too hot and bright to be synthetics).

I, too, firmly believe that the Towers and building & were brought down by explosive demolition, but Thermite was not involved, and would be totally unnecessary to cutting the necessry steel structural members necessary to colapse the buildings. That is easily accomplished by the use of shaped charges, which are used in the demolition industry, readily availabe, and completely capable of cutting through a 4" beam in nothing flat. If you want to know what the shaped cutting charges look like--they resemble a Toblerone Candy bar. They are set at a 45 or better angle, low end to the inside, to cut the beam such that the weight is pushed inward, making the building colapse in on itself.

Now, Thermite has only 2 Military uses--Incendiary munitions, and destroying equipment. It comes in 2 forms--Munitions and Grenades--that later of which looks like a smoke can or a concussion grenade.

The idea that Thermite was used in the WTC Towers is ludicrous. Yes, the towers were explosively demolished, (there is precious plenty proof of it), and it was a pro job. No, thermite is and was out of the question, as it had no use.

[edit on 27-10-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

Would be a wise move to drop the whole demolition theory aswell. They are both as flawed as each other.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Would be a wise move to drop the whole demolition theory aswell. They are both as flawed as each other.

I agree that the ingredients used to bring down the towers is a moot point. But, the plane crash, fire and gravity theory is more flawed than either of the other 2 IMO.

BTW, Doctor, isn't the plane crash, fire and gravity theory essentially a demolition theory as well? So, by your reasoning, we should not question and just except what "they" say? Since "they" have lied at every given chance, sorry, I can't just except that. Read my sig.

[edit on 10/28/2006 by Griff]

Originally posted by doctorfungi
Would be a wise move to drop the whole demolition theory aswell. They are both as flawed as each other.

Hi, Doc--

Well, that isn't going to happen unless and until those on the other side of this Issue step forward and give us the Truth regarding 9/11, and back that up with some hard evidence. The bottom line is that somebody in Government knows exactly what happened on 9/11 and why, and who was responsible. At this juncture, 5 years after the fact, no one has done that in a substantial and satisfactory manner. Until they do, the CTs will continue, and every day "they" wait, the theories will grow. This isn't about Socratic Logic, it is about the Truth. Part of finding that truth is ruling out false premises, like the Thermite Theory we are discussing here, and because it serves as a distraction from the CSI grade work others have done. The weight of the evidence, so far, points to
deceit and a cover-up, and that theory becomes more plausible every day.

The fact is, if the Washington Truth is to be believed, the impossible happened on 9/11: 3 buildings, Towers 1 and 2, and Building 7, colapsed inward on themselves (imploded) within miniutes of each other and in the same city block, and at a rate greater than gravity, and deposited 98% of their own rubble in their own basements.

Sorry, that isn't possible without mechanical help, and that according to the building's designers, and numerous Architects and Structural Engineers.

All we are saying here, is that Thermite was NOT one of the tools used.

[edit on 28-10-2006 by Ed Littlefox]

Originally posted by Griff
I agree that the ingredients used to bring down the towers is a moot point. But, the plane crash, fire and gravity theory is more flawed than either of the other 2 IMO.

That's because you either haven't studied the case or you have ignored large parts of it. Seriously, the controlled demolition theory is old news and has been proven wrong on just about every single aspect.

BTW, Doctor, isn't the plane crash, fire and gravity theory essentially a demolition theory as well?

Anyone with some sort of common sense knows that the 'demolition theory' is talking about the towers being brought down by controlled demolition.

Then again it would be a bit stupid to expect common sense from a 9/11 denier.

So, by your reasoning, we should not question and just except what "they" say? Since "they" have lied at every given chance, sorry, I can't just except that. Read my sig.

No. That's far from my reasoning. We SHOULD question what 'they' say, we SHOULD demand answers and we SHOULD expect to get them. But when we do get them and they can be scientifically proven we should accept it.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
The fact is, if the Washington Truth is to be believed, the impossible happened on 9/11: 3 buildings, Towers 1 and 2, and Building 7, colapsed inward on themselves (imploded) within miniutes of each other and in the same city block, and at a rate greater than gravity, and deposited 98% of their own rubble in their own basements.

If we are going to harp on others theories, let's get a few things straight. Towers 1 & 2 did NOT collapse inward on themselves with 98% of the rubble in their footprints.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Let's get a few facts straight about thermite, and the Video showing something burning in WTC 1. That news clip could very well have shown a magnesium fire, as the landing gear of a 757, including the wheels and struts, are made from a magnesium alloy.

The material was seen flowing from WTC2, not WTC1, and the plane that impacted WTC2 had its landing gear ejected out of the same corner area from where the molten material was later seen.



Just something to keep in mind.

Also, you outline only two military uses of conventional thermite. You also have to consider thermites that are now available that make use of nano technology, that allow much smaller particles, which allow the iron oxide and aluminum to react much more readily than with larger particles and less surface area contact. These kinds of thermites can therefore release more energy with a smaller mass.

Originally posted by doctorfungi

Originally posted by Griff
I agree that the ingredients used to bring down the towers is a moot point. But, the plane crash, fire and gravity theory is more flawed than either of the other 2 IMO.

That's because you either haven't studied the case or you have ignored large parts of it. Seriously, the controlled demolition theory is old news and has been proven wrong on just about every single aspect.

BTW, Doctor, isn't the plane crash, fire and gravity theory essentially a demolition theory as well?

Anyone with some sort of common sense knows that the 'demolition theory' is talking about the towers being brought down by controlled demolition.

Then again it would be a bit stupid to expect common sense from a 9/11 denier.

So, by your reasoning, we should not question and just except what "they" say? Since "they" have lied at every given chance, sorry, I can't just except that. Read my sig.

No. That's far from my reasoning. We SHOULD question what 'they' say, we SHOULD demand answers and we SHOULD expect to get them. But when we do get them and they can be scientifically proven we should accept it.

I would that you prove your point. What scientific evidence are you speaking of, from what research project, who were the researchers, what were their findings, who funded the project, and who supervised it?

Doc, your logic is faulted; might I call it reductio ad absurdium. I believe I explained that no scientific studies have been done, and no results published. Oh, I can be wrong, and will admit it about the time you show me some proof to back your claims. I will accept any proof you have that thouroughly answers the questions I posed in the first paragraph.

Originally posted by doctorfungi
That's because you either haven't studied the case or you have ignored large parts of it. Seriously, the controlled demolition theory is old news and has been proven wrong on just about every single aspect.

Care to show me how? Have you or anyone else done a structural analysis of these buildings? If so, can you share the construction documents that I have yet to see to actually do this?

Anyone with some sort of common sense knows that the 'demolition theory' is talking about the towers being brought down by controlled demolition.

Well, I guess I don't have "common sense" then because the government theory of planes, fire and gravity is indead a "demolition theory". BTW it was "common sense" that the Earth was flat for thousands of years. It was "common sense" that the sun revolved around the Earth for thousands of years. You can have your "common sense". I'll take verified scientific LAWS myself.

Then again it would be a bit stupid to expect common sense from a 9/11 denier.

For being an Aussie, you sure do have some nads...I'll give you that. BTW, why does 9/11 mean so much to you, being an Aussie and all?

No. That's far from my reasoning. We SHOULD question what 'they' say, we SHOULD demand answers and we SHOULD expect to get them. But when we do get them and they can be scientifically proven we should accept it.

So, scientifically prove them then. Because the NIST hasn't. We have at least three engineers on this forum that have stated that the NIST is full of Bullocks. What qualifications do you have to say differently? Other than being a doctor of fungus?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
The fact is, if the Washington Truth is to be believed, the impossible happened on 9/11: 3 buildings, Towers 1 and 2, and Building 7, colapsed inward on themselves (imploded) within miniutes of each other and in the same city block, and at a rate greater than gravity, and deposited 98% of their own rubble in their own basements.

If we are going to harp on others theories, let's get a few things straight. Towers 1 & 2 did NOT collapse inward on themselves with 98% of the rubble in their footprints.

Sorry Griff--

But, they DID colapse into their own "Footprint" and into their own basements. That is a proven fact. Read the engineers reports, and look at the clips and stills takenduring and just after,I have. It's just me, but I believe the expert opinions of demolition people and what I see with my own eyes.

Also, you outline only two military uses of conventional thermite. You also have to consider thermites that are now available that make use of nano technology, that allow much smaller particles, which allow the iron oxide and aluminum to react much more readily than with larger particles and less surface area contact. These kinds of thermites can therefore release more energy with a smaller mass.

That IS the only 2 uses of Thermite in the military. Why are you people so facinated by Thermite--nanotech or otherwise? The fact is , as I stated much earlier, and I will state again, here is that much better and much more efficient and faster means exist in the form of shaped demolition charges designed for the purpose of cutting heavy structural steel--and the are very high-tech! Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

Lastly, Ephrin--

Nobody here, other than Dr. Fungi, is refuting anything but the use of Thermite in the explosive demolition of the WTCs and Building 7. This changes nothing with the CT Theroy regards 9/11. All I am saying in refuting the thermite theory is that the substance is not used in the demolition industry. Shaped charges are used. I am also saying that, for that reason, this job was done by someone with professional credentials and skills, and not by a bunch of amateurs. Those who know have not spoken up, and likely will not ever speak up. To do a job like this, you have to absolutely control every aspect of every detonation precisely, and you cannot do that with Thermite. What you can control with precision is a shaped charge, and that is exactly what is used. QWhy? It burns a predictible and straight cut, and Thermite just melts a hole. Look it up, google it, find out for yourself.

Originally posted by Ed Littlefox
Sorry Griff--

But, they DID colapse into their own "Footprint" and into their own basements. That is a proven fact. Read the engineers reports, and look at the clips and stills takenduring and just after,I have. It's just me, but I believe the expert opinions of demolition people and what I see with my own eyes.

I think you're confused here man. You say 98% of the masses of the Towers landed in their footprints, when it was more like 90% landed outside of them. Some Mr. Blanchard of PROTEC wrote up a paper some months ago, arguing for the 'official story', from a demolition engineer's perspective, and declared as much as 95% of the buildings' masses landed outside. Jim Hoffman's estimated 80-90%. I'm thinking around 90% myself.



That's WTC2's footprint in the foreground.

Enough "said", right? lol

If that's 98% of that building's mass, then someone doesn't understand the concept of percentages, and that's all I have to say.

I wrote up an article here that goes over this in more detail, making a case against pancake collapse theory from the fact that so much of the debris was ejected outwards, and thus could not contribute mass to the collapse itself. Skim over it if you have some time.

WTC7 was an implosion. The Twin Towers were explosions, if anything.

much better and much more efficient and faster means exist in the form of shaped demolition charges designed for the purpose of cutting heavy structural steel--and the are very high-tech! Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

"Better" is a vague word.

"Better", for example, might not be so much better after all if WTC1 starts its collapse by a series of obvious explosions blasting out of the perimeter walls. That's what would make thermite appropriate for initiations, and possible core and/or perimeter corner column severing in spots.

[edit on 29-10-2006 by bsbray11]