Thermite theory vs. Explosives theory

Originally posted by Griff
Sorry WhiteRabit that this is getting way off base. I have found a few things.

Take it as off base as you want. I'm sick to death of talking about 9/11 anyway

If the responses hadn't been in my thread I wouldn't have even talked about it today.

I contacted one of my collegues about this. It depends on the member that is being designed. For tensile capacity of a tension member in "block shear" one of the variables is .3 of the ultimate strength. Which would give a FS of 3.333. So, yeah, it depends on the member and also the building.

I also came across in my reference manual that the construction documents would have all this info contained in them. Why are they classified again?

All this discussion is so irrelevant. Even if thermite/thermate were detected in steel girders from Ground Zero by scientists other than Professor Jones, it would hardly constitute a smoking gun of an 'inside job' because supporters of the official story could argue that the thermite detected was used by workers clearing up after 9/11. Indeed, there are some photographs that appear to show them using it then (see Fig 14(a), (b) & (c) at janedoe0911.tripod.com... )
The pools of molten metal are not incontrovertible proof of thermite/thermate being used in the demolition of the two towers because they have a number of possible explanations, all requiring that the metal in the basement of the towers was heated by something far more energetic than jet fuel.

As far as I am concerned, the issue of thermite/thermate is a red herring because the evidence for it is at best controversial, Jones' claims to have detected it having not been replicated by anyone else, and at worst irrelevant because it could not have caused the explosive degree of pulverisation into dust of the concrete and steel making up WTC1 and WTC2. Some people in the 9/11 truth movement realise this (e.g. Jim Fetzer) and that is why they have distanced themselves from Jones' work, thus causing a schism of sorts in the movement.

How much would something like this help?:

Click for high-res.

Architectural, and you can't really even read the numbers.

Nonetheless, apparently at least one complete tower is available as such:

588MB torrent file

I don't know anything about torrent files. Is that the same as these bittorrent things I keep hearing about? Anyway, are they all architectural? We could get some stuff off that. Structural drawings would be golden though. Along with the specs. I'd imagine the specs to be volumes though. Specs for our tiny jobs are about 20 pages, so the specs for one tower would be probably 1000's.

Originally posted by Griff
Anyway, are they all architectural?

I don't know, I haven't actually downloaded the 588-meg file yet, lol. But I think so. I still haven't heard of any structural documents in public domain.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
After considering the various theories of the demolition (i fully believe it was demolished), the only one which can account for all the evidence seen is the theory of using a small hydrogen bomb in the basement.

Tough to explain the lack of neutron-activation of the rubble. Or the lack of dead people everywhere in the area from neutron irradiation.

The hydrogen bomb 'theory' has a lot of issues. I'd sooner go for Pootie's un-detectable thermite cutters than that.

Originally posted by Pootie

Since TWO FEMA photographers were the only people allowed to photograph and all other cameras were confiscated at military checkpoints entering the restricted zone, I think you know this will be difficult/impossible.

Needle in a haystack...

Surely not, you're claiming they were all over the building. Further, the devices cited in your patent use an aluminum-copper exotic that leaves copper bars everywhere.

Originally posted by Pootie


Which leaves us with:

A. Fusion devices that little is known about. (I will concede the raised tritium levels could point to this.)

The tritium was explained in the paper brought up earlier, and it doesn't require any sort of fusion device. At any rate, any sort of fusion device would have produced neutron activation of the materials around it, lots of x-rays and neutron flux outside the building for which there is no evidence, and hard gammas from the putative trigger mechanism. You don't have enough dead bystanders and cleanup crew for this one.

B. A military explosive we are unaware of.

There is a family of them that would work. Might even explain some of the other stuff seen. But planting it would be far too tough, my biggest objection to the explosives theory.

Am I missing something?

A couple of airplanes?

Edit: Interesting! Your boy Mohler of the thermite cutter worked for a military division of Monsanto, and made very similar things for the DOD.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Tough to explain the lack of neutron-activation of the rubble.

What's this?



Why were so many steel columns flying outwards trailing white dust, that was coming from the debris and not just off of it (ie, the debris was generating this material all the way to the ground)? Why was there evaporated steel?

Lingering white smoke coming from superheated debris piles:








Btw, the middle image above is from Hunter College Department of Geography, from an article published October 2001.

Or the lack of dead people everywhere in the area from neutron irradiation.

Can you back this up or are you just assuming because you don't know of any? Not knowing of any is not the same as positively knowing that there weren't any, just as you assumed there was no activated steel because you hadn't looked for any.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Can you back this up or are you just assuming because you don't know of any? Not knowing of any is not the same as positively knowing that there weren't any, just as you assumed there was no activated steel because you hadn't looked for any.

This is logically equivalent to trying to prove a negative, and can only be answered by inspection of each and every gram of rubble. However, it's not necessary.

The energy output of deuterium-tritium fusion is primarily in neutrons. The neutron flux of even a small weapon would have been devastating. To try to claim it would leave no activated material is an indication that you don't understand how fusion works.

Further, the "micro-fusion weapons" you guys talk about require antimatter, Penning traps et al which while you're trying to pass it off as something you just pick up at the store, is not available in adequate quantity, nor is a Penning trap particularly small, nor all that portable.

And at any rate, the reaction of the antimatter to induce fusion releases copious amounts of 511keV gamma rays. Which, again, would not be well contained by the structure and would have caused irradiation of the people nearby.

When the "micro nuke" went off, you'd have high-flux activation of the surrounding building materials. This produces long half-life isotopes. It is the same mechanism that produces fallout in conventional nukes. You'd also have lower-flux activation of materials in the surrounding buildings, and a lot of people dead of neutron radiation.

If you can stroll around the area without a Geiger counter going nuts, it wasn't a nuke of any sort.

Edit: typo

[edit on 27-3-2007 by Tom Bedlam]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
This is logically equivalent to trying to prove a negative

Ah, you don't know that. You have to know whether or not they exist before you can say whether trying to prove or disprove their existance is trying to prove a negative or not. You could prove them positively if you had the medical records and a good head on your shoulders, for all you know. A nuclear reaction will not instantly vaporize anyone around, though come to think of it, about 1000 completely missing persons ("vaporized") attest to something along those lines. The point is that distance is also a factor and severe burns a potential symptom in the short-term.

The energy output of deuterium-tritium fusion is primarily in neutrons. The neutron flux of even a small weapon would have been devastating. To try to claim it would leave no activated material is an indication that you don't understand how fusion works.

I didn't claim it didn't leave activated material. I asked you what that picture was. Are you going to answer me?

Further, the "micro-fusion weapons" you guys talk about require antimatter

Says you. Generally, it only requires something to initiate fusion besides fission. That can be anti-matter, that can be "red mercury", that can be some other source of intense X-rays or any number of things that you don't have authority to speculate on (do you? pure fusion research scientist eh?). All that needs to exist is enormous pressure to push two nuclei close enough to each other for them to fuse. I very seriously doubt there are only two possible ways to go about achieving it.

When the "micro nuke" went off, you'd have high-flux activation of the surrounding building materials. This produces long half-life isotopes. It is the same mechanism that produces fallout in conventional nukes. You'd also have lower-flux activation of materials in the surrounding buildings, and a lot of people dead of neutron radiation.

All are fine with me except the radius of damage. You are assuming sizes that I'm not so sure are necessary.

If you can stroll around the area without a Geiger counter going nuts, it wasn't a nuke of any sort.

I don't suppose you count massive radiation at the landfill where the debris was hauled, and elevated radiation in that area in general? Heard of this? Rather recent news. And the clean-up site was very strictly controlled for a good length of time. If any Geiger readings were done they were not made public, as far as I know, just as they had local seismographs in Manhattan, and those records are also not in public domain. So it's something I don't think you can really comment on either way, except to speculate that you think or you don't think.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
This is logically equivalent to trying to prove a negative

Ah, you don't know that. You're blowing smoke up my ass.

Your statement, verbatim: "Not knowing of any is not the same as positively knowing that there weren't any."

The only way to positively know that there weren't ANY is to examine every last bit of material. However, like I said, you wouldn't have to, because it would be obvious.

A nuclear reaction will not instantly vaporize anyone around

However, a few kiloGrays of neutrons will kill them deader than Dick's hatband, so you'd be seeing bodies everywhere.

I didn't claim it didn't leave activated material. I asked you what that picture was. Are you going to answer me?

It's a picture of the building collapsing. Now, show me the evidence of neutron activation of the material. Are you going to answer me? PS - if it were activated by a fusion weapon, you'd be seeing people in the area dying even now.

Says you.

Way back up the thread, and on the other threads, there's a constant posting of a link to the "proof" that micro-fusion weapons exist, which uses antimatter for the primary.

Generally, it only requires something to initiate fusion besides fission. That can be anti-matter, that can be "red mercury", that can be some other source of intense X-rays or any number of things that you don't have authority to speculate on. All that needs to exist is enormous pressure. I very seriously doubt there are only two possible ways to go about achieving it.

If you're invoking "red mercury", and you don't understand about the results of neutron flux, you aren't ready to discuss my authority to speculate on the matter.

All are fine with me except the radius of damage. You are assuming sizes that I'm not so sure are necessary.

The bulk of any DT reaction's energy is in neutrons. If it went off at all, there would have been enough to scatter activated material all over Manhattan in the smoke plume. Detection of it would be trivial. Not to mention the dead bystanders.

I don't suppose you count massive radiation at the landfill where the debris was hauled, and elevated radiation in that area in general? Heard of this? Rather recent news. And the clean-up site was very strictly controlled for a good length of time. If any Geiger readings were done they were not made public, as far as I know, just as they had local seismographs in Manhattan, and those records are also not in public domain. So it's something I don't think you can really comment on either way, except to speculate that you think or you don't think.

Given the amount of crap carried away in the debris plume, you should easily be able to find it all over the area, in the storm sewers, in the river, etc. Got any legit sources, or is it all 911 conspiracy sites?

I'd even settle for some half-trained ATS'r with a calibrated counter, scintillometer, what have you, strolling around the immediate area of Ground Zero. Show me the zoomies.

And if there was so much massive radiation, you'd have workers dead of radiation poisoning left and right, instead of just lung issues from inhaling airborne crap.

No evidence of activation is proof of absence of a fusion weapon.

I'm sort of surprised that no-one has brought up the possibility that they popped off an NE in the building core, toggled off at the bottom so that the wave went up to the top instead of straight out radially.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam

[edit on 27-3-2007 by bsbray11]

what caused these Iron I-Beams to be red hot like this for 6 weeks?
I'll bet it was some kind of chemical, like.........
I know THERMITE

[edit on 27-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
Your statement, verbatim: "Not knowing of any is not the same as positively knowing that there weren't any."

The only way to positively know that there weren't ANY is to examine every last bit of material.

My point was that you are asserting something that you do not know to be true. I'm not recommending you try to figure out if it's really true or not, or any method for doing that. I'm only suggesting you not make assumptions like that unless you have some reason to, at least some testimony or source or something, besides that you haven't heard the opposite. I haven't heard that there aren't people on the dark side of the Moon, but I'm not about to tell you that therefore there are.

However, like I said, you wouldn't have to, because it would be obvious.

How would it be obvious that there are not vaporized people? Especially considering that there WERE vaporized people, about 1000 of them.

However, a few kiloGrays of neutrons will kill them deader than Dick's hatband, so you'd be seeing bodies everywhere.

So there were no dead bodies in the aftermaths of the collapses? Or are you saying that EVERYONE should have died? Again, this goes back to the yield of the devices. I actually doubt anyone would have immediately died far enough away to not be also pummeled by debris.

I didn't claim it didn't leave activated material. I asked you what that picture was. Are you going to answer me?

It's a picture of the building collapsing. Now, show me the evidence of neutron activation of the material.

I did. You aren't answering my question. What part of a gravity-driven collapse shoots out steel beams that produce white dusty material, and what part of a gravity-driven collapse evaporates steel?

Obviously those are rhetorical questions. In other words, you are seeing neutron activation in those pictures, not just "a picture of the building collapsing". We can play immature word games like that all day, man, but I'm not going to. You can either address those images or you can drop the point altogether, because there's no use having a discussion with you if you're not even going to be open to what I'm showing you.

If you're invoking "red mercury", and you don't understand about the results of neutron flux, you aren't ready to discuss my authority to speculate on the matter.

What besides Los Alamos' word do you have against red mercury? I don't really care what the mechanism is. All I'm saying is that you aren't going to tell me what the mechanism was, and then tell me it's impossible. That's setting up your own pins to knock down and like I said, I very seriously doubt there are only two ways of achieving nuclear fusion.

The bulk of any DT reaction's energy is in neutrons. If it went off at all, there would have been enough to scatter activated material all over Manhattan in the smoke plume. Detection of it would be trivial. Not to mention the dead bystanders.

Again, size. Obviously there is a boundary on any type of nuclear weapon, and it won't just affect things as far as YOU see fit, and then its effects magically stop. The affected area is dependent upon the yield! I'm not even saying there wasn't radiation, I'm saying by the time that it mattered, it had already spread, and the debris was already being hauled out, and to this day there IS elevated radiation in the area.

Unexpected Radiation 'Hot Spots' Found In NYC

Anti-terrorism officials conducted a helicopter survey of New York City's radiation sources in preparation for a so-called "dirty bomb" attack -- and discovered a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a new report found.

Federal authorities found 80 unexpected "hot spots" around New York City, according to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

www.informationliberation.com...

The park that was closed was about 10 miles SW of Ground Zero, across the Lower New York Bay.

Look:



That smoke is going RIGHT OVER Staten Island Park!



It's being corrected by removing the contaminated soil. The soil from Ground Zero was also removed, which would logically, therefore, reduce radiation, just as it will in Staten Island:



What I wonder is where those 79 other "hot spots" were.


This is what you were asking for. Will you concede that I've provided what you asked for? You don't have to agree that a nuke was used, only that the above, even if coincidental, does show dangerous amounts of radiation right down-wind of Ground Zero.

[edit on 27-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
My point was that you are asserting something that you do not know to be true. I'm not recommending you try to figure out if it's really true or not, or any method for doing that. I'm only suggesting you not make assumptions like that unless you have some reason to, at least some testimony or source or something, besides that you haven't heard the opposite. I haven't heard that there aren't people on the dark side of the Moon, but I'm not about to tell you that therefore there are.

I'm an engineer, though.

If you asked me what the house across the street was painted, I would (and have) said "It's sort of off-white, on this side"

How would it be obvious that there are not vaporized people? Especially considering that there WERE vaporized people, about 1000 of them.

Oh, I don't doubt it. Any huge building collapse with fires under it like that would no doubt incinerate any number of people. Not to mention the ones that saw it as an opportunity to play dead.

So there were no dead bodies in the aftermaths of the collapses? Or are you saying that EVERYONE should have died? Again, this goes back to the yield of the devices. I actually doubt anyone would have immediately died far enough away to not be also pummeled by debris.

Neutrons would go through concrete like no-one's business. I guess my point here is that I have seen videos of people not that far from the buildings when the thing started to fall. If you're saying the device was at ground level, then even a fractional ton would have toasted the people nearby.

It might be fun to do an analysis but there's so many variables it would probably be tough to come up with a good compromise.

Obviously those are rhetorical questions. In other words, you are seeing neutron activation in those pictures, not just "a picture of the building collapsing". We can play immature word games like that all day, man, but I'm not going to. You can either address those images or you can drop the point altogether, because there's no use having a discussion with you if you're not even going to be open to what I'm showing you.

Ok, so you're claiming you can see neutron activation, because they're trailing dust? And as for "immature word games", good Lord, your next sentence is more or less "Identify these images or you have to shut up unless you agree with me". How can you pair that with the suggestion not to make assumptions you led off with? I can certainly say whatever I want, but it's sort of presumptuous of you to say "You must be silent unless you can identify the features of this photo". Whatever I say, you'd just say "You can't prove it". And that's the point of my statement. If YOU can't prove that the rubble had a few megaCuries of activated debris, then you have no evidence that it WAS a fusion weapon. The onus is on you as the proposer of the fusion bomb theory to produce your evidence, not me.

What besides Los Alamos' word do you have against red mercury? I don't really care what the mechanism is. All I'm saying is that you aren't going to tell me what the mechanism was, and then tell me it's impossible. That's setting up your own pins to knock down and like I said, I very seriously doubt there are only two ways of achieving nuclear fusion.

Ah, jeez. When you say "Los Alamos", what you're really saying is "Sam Cohen". I can also post several LANL papers that state unequivocally that it DOESN'T exist. You might not want to use LANL as a source to prove the existence of Red Mercury here. Sam is also big into nuclear isomer lasers and isomeric explosives, but no-one's been able to demonstrate them. Never met the guy personally but there are a lot of stories about him that circulate.

Again, size. Obviously there is a boundary on any type of nuclear weapon, and it won't just affect things as far as YOU see fit, and then its effects magically stop. The affected area is dependent upon the yield! I'm not even saying there wasn't radiation, I'm saying by the time that it mattered, it had already spread, and the debris was already being hauled out, and to this day there IS elevated radiation in the area.

In the immediate area around GZ it ought to be really hot still. And anywhere the debris would have washed to. A lot of it was showing up in the river. It ought to be there as well.

-- and discovered a Staten Island park with dangerously high levels of radium, a new report found.

-- found 80 unexpected "hot spots" around New York City

The park that was closed was about 10 miles SW of Ground Zero, across the Lower New York Bay.

Now, you're saying that a spot 10 miles away was contaminated with radium, something I wouldn't expect as an activation byproduct of a pure fusion weapon. So if a spot 10 miles away had radium in it, you'd expect a gradual increase until you got to GZ, where it would be pretty hot. Certainly you might get "hot spots" where the wind dumped stuff out, but you'd also have a huge amount right in the area around GZ.

This is what you were asking for. Will you concede that I've provided what you asked for? You don't have to agree that a nuke was used, only that the above, even if coincidental, does show dangerous amounts of radiation right down-wind of Ground Zero.

Interesting, but a contamination that's primarily radium isn't what you'd expect, really. You'd see probably see some actinide production by the R-process right up close to the thing, but not as much as you'd get from having the typical Uranium casing on the bomb, which most of the fusion weapon CT'ers are proposing it didn't have. Mostly what I'd expect would be to see activation in carbon, silicon, aluminum and other fairly light elements that would have been present in abundance around the thing.

So, let's hum in another explosives theory. I'm not proposing it seriously, but more to liven things up.

I'm of the opinion that it would have been spectacularly hard to plant either shaped charges or Pootie's thermal-lance devices on the beams without someone noticing the people knocking holes in the sheet rock.

So, why not use a blunt instrument? If all you have to do according to NIST is knock the floors off their supports to get a pancake with that building design, then why not use an NE charge in the building core, just below the impact?

You'd get the windows-blowing-out effect, you'd get the top of the building popping off, and you'd get more than enough downblast to knock one or more floors loose, I suspect.

Hell, you might want to pop off several very small ones lower down to loosen things up for the finale. That would cover the first few bangs.

Another find was a bottle of Red Mercury. Now this was a big deal for me. In order for a nuclear bomb to created fusion, you need fission, which is why nuclear missles are so complex. Back in the peak of the Cold War, the USSR came out with a story that stated they developed a chemical that could create fusion WITHOUT fission, thus creating the capabilites for the possibility of a small, cheap nuclear mega-ton bomb. It was called Red Mercury. Most people say it was just some urban legend that was whipped up by the Soviets to sell some crap on the black market for $200K-$300K per ounce (which they did). No tests have ever proved that this substance actually worked. It was produced on the USSR and Eat Germany, from what I know. It just goes to show what extent Iraq was taking to create something for mass destruction.

www.ricekiller.com...