Thermite theory vs. Explosives theory

Originally posted by whiterabbit
IT'S THIS SIMPLE:

If they used thermite, it would be impossible to have covered up all the evidence.

If they used explosives, it WOULD have been possible to cover up the evidence.


So why do so many of you support the thermite theory over explosives? Because someone told you so?

Come on, guys! User your heads. It's stuff like this why no one takes you seriously.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

How about if they used both?

Ok whiterabbit, let me throw you off here...

...what if they used both thermite and explosives? Maybe at the exact moment of impact of the WTC 1 and 2 jets, the masterminds triggered the explosives in the buildings, to hide the explosion sound with the jet impact explosion sound? But the explosives were only enough to weaken the building about 70%. Then thermites were used to finish off the last 30% to make it collapse?

Ever thought of that?

Nobody needs to hide anything, CD Inc. is in charge of cleanup. Oh wow, b.t.w. did you know the government uses CD Inc. as a cleanup crew because they are the only company under contract to never disclose any classified documents they may uncover in the wreckage? They are also the most experienced with working with lots of dead bodies around. That is also why CD Inc. was used to clean up the Oklahoma bombings, and other government projects.

--edit--
damn i typed to slow, guy above me said it as I was saying it lol...

[edit on 15-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But would explosives leave all that molten steel in the basements of the buildings?

No. Neither thermite nor explosives are capable of directly causing that. That had to come from some other process.

Originally posted by morphonius821
And i doubt even if the occasional person did raise a concern, it would be very doubtful that it would be well recieved in the emotionally charged post 911 environment...

It's not doubtful at all. If they had used thermite to bring the towers down, there would be beams that were very obviously melted/cut. This also would've been before they started cutting the beams up with cutting torches.

It wouldn't take a trained eye at all to spot one. It'd look like a beam, cut off at one end, and covered in slag. And there would be evidence of extreme heat and fire all around that beam from the thermite.

And since some of these wouldn't have burned completely (or perhaps some not burned at all), there would be lots of columns with unburned thermite still strapped to them.

And who in their right mind is going to turn to a fellow worker whos probably busily picking up body parts (and wondering if they are form a missing friend) and say "gee that beam looks suspicious it looks like they were murdered by Uncle Sam.....??????

I doubt anybody would have suspected Uncle Sam, but someone WOULD have reported it had they found an undetonated device (thermite) or found evidence that something cut the beams.

It was still a crime scene. People would've reported evidence. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if they were specifically instructed to do so.

If the government (in one form or another) was behind the attack then it is the simplest thing in the world to hide the truth as the same people who planned the attacks would also be incharge of cleaning them up.

Too many people were involved in the cleanup. Either they paid off hundreds of people (with millions of dollars per person, likely) or they didn't find any evidence.

Since thermite would've left lots of obvious evidence, it's reasonable to conclude they didn't use thermite.

Originally posted by NegativeBeef

How about if they used both?

That's even more implausible than explosives or thermite by itself. Each has its own evidence that the other doesn't have. Doing both would mean twice the evidence to cover up, with no real benefit to bring down the building.

Originally posted by Connected
...what if they used both thermite and explosives? Maybe at the exact moment of impact of the WTC 1 and 2 jets, the masterminds triggered the explosives in the buildings, to hide the explosion sound with the jet impact explosion sound? But the explosives were only enough to weaken the building about 70%. Then thermites were used to finish off the last 30% to make it collapse?

That would be extremely impractical and would create even more evidence than one of those methods alone.

You'd still have all the things I described from thermite to cover up, but then you'd also have to worry about someone spotting undetonated explosives and calling the bomb squad.

Besides which, if explosives had gone off at the time of the plane impact, people would've seen damage--HEAVY damage--all throughout the lower floors as they were leaving. People did report seeing and hearing things, but not nearly enough to account for that.

If there were explosives, they were set off right before the building fell.

Nobody needs to hide anything, CD Inc. is in charge of cleanup. Oh wow, b.t.w. did you know the government uses CD Inc. as a cleanup crew because they are the only company under contract to never disclose any classified documents they may uncover in the wreckage? They are also the most experienced with working with lots of dead bodies around. That is also why CD Inc. was used to clean up the Oklahoma bombings, and other government projects.

There were still too many people. There were reporters hovering around, gawkers, rescue workers, etc.

Thermite REALLY would have left evidence everywhere--evidence even untrained people could spot. There would've been people constantly asking, "Why are all those columns melted like somebody cut them?" They would've been reporting their observations to the police, the fire department, the FBI, etc.

So many people would've seen so much that you could NEVER have kept it quiet.

Explosives, while hard, would be possible. The only evidence would be undetonated explosives in the rubble. Which, if CD Inc. was really in on it, they would probably be the only ones to have found them, since those would blend right into the rest of the rubble. Nobody just working around the scene would notice them.

Thermite doesn't hold up at all. Explosives does. Stick with explosives, guys.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by whiterabbit

No. Neither thermite nor explosives are capable of directly causing that. That had to come from some other process.

Maybe have to check a little closer about a thermite fuel air mixture device.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
Maybe have to check a little closer about a thermite fuel air mixture device.

Nah, thermite couldn't cause it. It burns up too quickly.

It could be the catalyst for it. It could start a fire that would continue to smolder under the rubble. But the thermite itself couldn't account for that.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But would explosives leave all that molten steel in the basements of the buildings?

No. Neither thermite nor explosives are capable of directly causing that. That had to come from some other process.

Please provide some evidence other than your opinion.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Nah, thermite couldn't cause it. It burns up too quickly.

But thats why you use a fuel air mix to spread it.

EXOTIC THERMITES: Thermites can also be made from teflon-magnesium or metalflourides-magnesium or aluminum. If there is an excess of flouride compoundin the mixture, flourine gas can be released. Flourine is extremely corrosive and reactive. The gas can cause organic material to burst intoflames by mere contact. For teflon-magnesium use 67% teflon and 33% magnesiumA strong first fire igniter should be used to ignite this mixture. Both theteflon and the magnesium should be in powdered form. Do not inhale anysmoke from the burning mixture.If you use metal-florides instead of teflon, use flourides of low energymetals. Lead flouride is a good example. Try using 90% lead flouride and10 aluminum.Warning: Flouride compounds can be very poisonous. They are approximatelyequal to cyanide compounds.Another exotic mix is tricalcium orthophosphate and aluminum. When this burns,it forms calcium phosphide which when contacts water releases hydrogenphosphide which can ignite spontaneously in air.

[edit on 15-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But thats why you use a fuel air mix to spread it.

It still wouldn't burn for 4 weeks under rubble. Not even close.

Thermite is a red herring. Even if Professor Steven Jones' findings were confirmed by other scientists, sceptics could still argue that what was detected was thermite used by workers at Ground Zero to cut up girders. There are, indeed, photos suggesting that thermite was used in the clear-up. See Fig 14(a), (b) & (c) at nomoregames.net... . So, if you think the alleged discovery of thermite by Professor Jones is a smoking gun, you are sadly mistaken. It is NOT going to prove the case for an inside job. Besides, it is not explosive and could not account for the way most of the North and South Tower was turned to dust. The intellectual fight between Jones and Fetzer is a battle for leadership of the 9/11 truth movement in America by two alpha-males. The former, who imagines himself as another Brigham Young, exploits his scientific reputation for what it is worth but offers poor scientific work and cannot think outside the box of his lab. The latter, a doyen of conspiracy theorists, has never touched a test tube but thinks all possibilities - however speculative or far-fetched - should be considered. The trouble is that 1. thermite is politically acceptable but exotic, high-energy beam weapons is not; 2. thermite cannot account for the degree of pulverisation into fine dust of most of the towers, whilst these weapons possibly can. The two people are forcing the 9/11 truth movement to choose between what is credible to those still unconvinced about the real facts of 9/11, and what may be the hard truth about how the towers were destroyed. If you want to push a lie because it is more easily believed, then go ahead along the Jones path. If you want to establish the truth however more difficult it will take to get people to believe it, then take the Fetzer-Wood route.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
It still wouldn't burn for 4 weeks under rubble. Not even close.

So i guess you know what would keep the debris red hot for 6 weeks if not thermite.



[edit on 15-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

The 4 weeks of hot grond zero underground rubble is a sure thing that more ENERGY was added to make the CD possible.... its IMPOSIBLE that the downfall of the WTC i or II made a molten lake of metal just by the collapse.... what they used? I dont know but I can bet they used very advanced stuff to carry out such a thing, the fact that we dont know about it doesnt make it imposible....

Sorry guys, didn't read this thread at all, and I'm a WTC idiot, but have had a scenario I'd like to share and that's worth exactly what it is:

Special "insulation" for the metal components of the towers, at least at anticipated impact points, with a chemical component that, when mixed with jet fuel, turns to a slow-burning thermite like substance. Then the building's collapse was ensured in case impact and fire alone wouldn't do the trick, and they could still say, in a way, it was the jet fuel, and if needed show exactly how all the collapse damage was indeed at and around impact points, not all throughout the towers as in a CD. It would be a plane and chemicals induced collapse totally engineered but made to look like the official story.

A bit silly but what the heck. It makes some sense.

Here's a kicker,
I watch this: www.youtube.com...

Where are the sounds to the squib explosions on specific floors as seen in
www.youtube.com...

Are these silent bombs causing squibs? or bombs that blend into the rumble sound of the building?

Notice the second video 0:21 seconds is show a demolition of a building and you clearly hear the charges going off, despite the music and commentary. You can even say the camera at 0:21 in the second video is similarly close to the base of the building as the camera guy in the first video.
Yet, in the second video you hear distinct charges set off and in the first video you do not.

Any explanation?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
So i guess you know what would keep the debris red hot for 6 weeks if not thermite.

Nope. Not totally.

The leading theory is that hot iron interacting with the water had a hydrogen reaction.

I DO know thermite couldn't have done it, though. It would've burned up LONG before that. And explosives even sooner.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by DoomX
Are these silent bombs causing squibs? or bombs that blend into the rumble sound of the building?

Any explanation?

If you're asking me, I agree with you. I don't believe there was explosives, and there's absolutely no evidence of them.

All my point was, is that everybody latches on to this thermite theory--even though explosives is about a thousand times more plausible.

Explosives would've left MUCH less evidence. And muffling the sounds of explosives, however they would do it, would still be easier and more believable than covering up all the evidence that thermite would leave. The thermite theory is something straight out of a comic book--it doesn't work in the real world.

[edit on 16-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Special "insulation" for the metal components of the towers, at least at anticipated impact points, with a chemical component that, when mixed with jet fuel, turns to a slow-burning thermite like substance. Then the building's collapse was ensured in case impact and fire alone wouldn't do the trick, and they could still say, in a way, it was the jet fuel, and if needed show exactly how all the collapse damage was indeed at and around impact points, not all throughout the towers as in a CD. It would be a plane and chemicals induced collapse totally engineered but made to look like the official story.

A bit silly but what the heck. It makes some sense.

You might think about what the molten aluminum from the aircraft is going to do when it comes in contact with the following materials.

1. Jet Fuel.
2. Oxygen generators.
3. Oxygen tanks.
4. Magesium.
5. Graphite composites.
6. Concrete.
7. Steel.
9. Other hazmat from the aircraft.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
This deserves it's own topic. And for the record, I don't believe in either theory, but I just cannot stand how absolutely ridiculous the thermite theory is and that some of you actually believe it. So, I'm going to break it down.

But why would it be ridiculous if they use Thermite in other buildings with controlled demolitions?