PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Is it still reasonable to assume that 'thermite' was somehow used in the Towers? (To include WTC 7)?

That, there in the video, is 1,000 pounds. Loosely bagged.

Big bags.

Compared to the not-yet-proven-to-exist "nano-thermite"?

Or, is it "thermate"???

Look at yourself and tell me you are better than a "truther."

You posted a YouTube video of the wrong substance to back an argument that just isn't working.

Go ahead and make it clear to me that you don't think there is any difference between conventional thermite, which has been around since the 1800s, and nano-thermite and nano-energetics in general, which Los Alamos and other DoD contractors have been researching in more recent years for everything from explosives (not just incendiaries anymore when the grain sizes are small enough) to rocket fuel. Your bathtub full of conventional thermite isn't going to launch a rocket either, genius. Get back to me when you do some real research and know what the differences are yourself, instead of just mocking people ignorantly like I am making this stuff up myself.

reply to post by bsbray11


"Mocking"??? I was asking, for clarity.

I have only vague knowledge of solid rocket engine fuel, as developed for the space program, for instance. Morton-Thiokol, out there in Salt Lake City, who have the contract for the Shuttle's SRBs. Again, only a passing hint of knowledge, based on being an afficionado of space exploration, and aerospace in general.

SO, I was hoping for a nutshell from you..a nugget. You know more about it, thought you might wish to share.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well, I can teach myself, too....

Nano-thermite, also called "super-thermite",[1] is the common name for a subset of metastable intermolecular composites (MICs) characterized by a highly exothermic reaction after ignition. Nano-thermites contain an oxidizer and a reducing agent, which are intimately mixed on the nanometer scale. MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

en.wikipedia.org...


I looked, found no reference for "nano-thermate.

Also looked up 'solid rocket propellant':

en.wikipedia.org...







[edit on 9 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
"Mocking"??? I was asking, for clarity.

Then your problem is you don't know who to address your questions to. I said NIST did not test for it. No one looked for anything remotely related to these substances. Period. I did not say I knew what they would find if they did now did I? And you wouldn't know either, so you can stop pretending.

Posting YouTube videos of irrelevant substances as if you're going to prove something with it doesn't seem like a very honest way to ask a question.

reply to post by bsbray11


Fair enough....the debris was not searched for those substances. We ARE talking about WTC 7, correct?

So...being Devil's advocate for a moment, I will assume that WTC 7 was rigged with thermite- or thermate-based devices that somehow were used to cut at crucial points, in the structure, to effect the 'demolition'.

Thing I have a problem understanding is --- there seems to be no disagreement as to exactly where WTC 7 first failed, is there? (If so, and I missed it, then tell me...after I finish writing this).

The same range of floors, roughly seven through 14? Correct?

Also, coincidentally, where the fires seemed to be most prevalent?

Tell me, would those fires, in the building, have 'set off' any thermit/thermate that had existed in the building, prior to the impact and subsequent fires?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Fair enough....the debris was not searched for those substances. We ARE talking about WTC 7, correct?

NO, NIST did not do test for explosives on the WTC 1 and 2 steel. NIST did not recover any steel from WTC 7.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Fair enough....the debris was not searched for those substances. We ARE talking about WTC 7, correct?

They didn't look at any of the WTC Towers debris for any of it either. So the same for both cases as far as this is concerned.

Tell me, would those fires, in the building, have 'set off' any thermit/thermate that had existed in the building, prior to the impact and subsequent fires?

What you mean to ask is, would it be possible to set up a thermite charge that hydrocarbon fires will not prematurely initiate, right? Considering those kinds of fires only put out a limited range of temperatures anyway, you should already know the answer to that, if you know as much as you put on.

reply to post by bsbray11

...you should already know the answer to that, if you know as much as you put on.

No, not really, I've never looked into what (how much heat) is needed to initiate the thermitic reaction. Only thing I know for certain is, once lit, it can't be stopped.

This I know only from studying the Space Shuttle's systems.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, not really, I've never looked into what (how much heat) is needed to initiate the thermitic reaction.

It depends on the specific chemical make-up of the kind of thermite what temperature/heat it requires to initiate the reaction. But what makes you automatically assume such a charge could not be insulated where it was not making contact with a column? And what also makes you assume the fires in WTC7 were widespread enough to cause enough premature ignitions to actually cause a premature collapse? Nowhere near the entire building was engulfed. I don't want to get out the photos of the building's actual fires, I am disgusted enough by the way people deny the fact that it fell into its own footprint despite the vast majority of its mass landing just there.

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by pteridine

 

Why is it so difficult for YOU to understand that it is impossible to find explosives when no one looks for them in the first place?

What you are claiming is that it is impossible for someone to find something that he is not looking for. So, if I wasn't looking for something, I couldn't find it. Now I understand why you have trouble with logic.
You should definitely rethink this and try again.

Meanwhile, there is no evidence of CD, looked for or not.

Originally posted by pteridine
What you are claiming is that it is impossible for someone to find something that he is not looking for. So, if I wasn't looking for something, I couldn't find it. Now I understand why you have trouble with logic.
You should definitely rethink this and try again.

Same to you.

What do you think, they do chemical analyses for these substances with their eyeballs?

reply to post by weedwhacker


There is no reason nano-thermate could not be produced. Nano just means small, is this case just finer particles used in the mixture. Thermate is thermite with sulfure that helps it burn hotter. There is nothing stopping anyone making it nano, if they wanted to but it probably wasn't necessary.

Thermate is a variation of thermite and is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of very high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. It is used primarily in incendiary grenades...
...In addition to thermite, thermate also contains sulfur and sometimes barium nitrate, both of which increase its thermal effect...

en.wikipedia.org...

There is also manganese thermite, chromium thermite, copper thermite, also teflon/viton can be used.

We've been arguing this stuff for ages and this is the first time you've tried to educate yourself on this? You guys are so reluctant to even look into what we're saying ain't ya? Why so reluctant to educate yourselves, scared of what you learn?

Could you please now stop with the bogus argument that there is no 'nano-thermate' if someone happens to use that term. I could call it 'super duper magic dust' like some of you like to, but at the end of the day it's the same thing, and you cannot keep denying it's existence.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
No, not really, I've never looked into what (how much heat) is needed to initiate the thermitic reaction. Only thing I know for certain is, once lit, it can't be stopped.

Then quit arguing something you know nothing about. This is typical of debunkers, you argue stuff you are clueless about.

Well hopefully you will read the supplied quotes this time, I and others have posted many time. I hope I don't see you make this same silly argument again on ATS, and no I don't forget.

Originally posted by ANOK
We've been arguing this stuff for ages and this is the first time you've tried to educate yourself on this?

It's awful, isn't it?

Considering all the effort to expose them to this information, it's to absolutely no use. They won't even read it.

reply to post by ANOK


Um....errmmmm....ummmm...I posted, from same source, same Wiki article, just up above a few, as you just did....and you dare to criticize me, and accuse me of arguing??

Guess who's being argumentative here?

I was asking. I haven't gotten into "thermite" discussions before. For a good reason, because I am trying to LEARN!

Yet, your knee-jerk reaction!

Meh!@ Not worth my time to respond, so this will be it.

[edit on 9 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by bsbray11


bsbray....you really wanna go this route???:

Considering all the effort to expose them to this information, it's to absolutely no use. They won't even read it.

See what I mean?

How much of the information that refutes your pet theories do you accept?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And, as an afterthought: Can you offer any other examples of these exotic components (or what term should we use for them?) being used elsewhere?

Because...here's a thought. Would a company that specializes in razing buildings benefit from having access to such materials?

Seems, since they aren't as volatile, and liable to explode while being handled, they'd provide a measure of safety above and beyond what is commonly used, no?

Just asking...maybe someone in the audience will know.

AND, in this edit, answer to your question below: Not my job. I'm asking, not showing.


[edit on 9 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
How much of the information that refutes your pet theories do you accept?

Depends.

What do you have to show me?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
AND, in this edit, answer to your question below: Not my job. I'm asking, not showing.

Well then we are on the same side of the fence.

[edit on 9-3-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by ANOK

 

Um....errmmmm....ummmm...I posted, from same source, same Wiki article, just up above a few, as you just did....and you dare to criticize me, and accuse me of arguing??

I was asking. I haven't gotten into "thermite" discussions before. For a good reason, because I am trying to LEARN!

Typical debunker drama. You know very well that you've been denying thermite/thermate for ages Weedy, maybe you don't remember who you have discussion with here but I don't forget.

We all know this is not your first discussion about thermite. And yes you were still arguing with your 'I couldn't find Nano-thermate' comment you added as if to say we're all still wrong.

You think I should be impressed you educating yourself now? The only thing you're doing is trying to find another angle to argue in support of the OS, thus your no nano-thermate comment. No matter what we show you you will always have an irrelevant BUT...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...And, as an afterthought: Can you offer any other examples of these exotic components (or what term should we use for them?) being used elsewhere?...

Not arguing? Here you go again, you still won't except the evidence without a huge BUT...My point about you doing nothing but looking for an angle is proved right here!

Why do we have to show use of thermate when it's a known and used substance? You should try that self-education thing again, maybe drop the bias first and stop looking for ways to deny what you see?

You tried everything you could to deny it's existence, and now you cannot do that anymore you want to deny it's USE.

Oh no, you don't argue...

[edit on 3/9/2010 by ANOK]

reply to post by pteridine


I've asked direct questions which have gone continuously unanswered and I have shown you where my opinion comes from regarding the Bentham paper.

There's no other correspondence necessary.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


We found explosives. I'm not sure what this is about.

Explosives were found. What else are you looking for?