PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

I'm sort of confused why this thread is still going. We found proof of demolition. Unreacted thermite. Didn't we know this over a year ago?

www.youtube.com...

At the risk of violating some rule, I will put my 2 cents worth in.

It is my opinion after looking at lots of videos and reading a lot about 9/11 that all three of the buildings came down primarily as a result of explosive charges that were planted in the buildings well prior to being hit by the planes.

They all exhibit signs of preplanned controlled demolition as far as I see.

The situation with building 7 seems so obviously a controlled demolition as to be ridiculous to even consider it was anything else.

In all probability someone knew of the planned attack and used it as an opportunity, the cast of characters for that is fairly short and requires little imagination.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


No proof of unreacted thermite was found. Jones has not yet proved thermitic reactions.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


I like the way this researcher said,

"If civilian researchers like myself are not familiar with it, it is probably because they do not do much work with explosives."

question is was there aluminium and was there rusty steel on that site.

Wait, wait, time out.

We have SPreston saying its demolition charges, we have Aquarian saying its thermite chips.

Which is it? Paint on thermite or some sort of demo exploding charges?

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by GenRadek


You tell me. We have found Thermite, which is evidence for explosives.

I mean, case closed on the "were there explosives" trial. Not sure what we're still doing here. Proof for demolition has been found. It's pretty basic. This thread is finished. If anyone can refute what has been posted here, please make the effort.

Thanks,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Fact: Thermite is not an explosive. I repeat, thermite is NOT an explosive. So no, there is NO evidence of explosives.

Fact: Jones did not find thermite or evidence of thermite. What he found is paint chips. His whole "analysis" of the "chips" was profoundly flawed.

So nope, there is NO proof or evidence of explosives anywhere.

reply to post by pteridine


This is not a response. I was expecting a bit more from you. I wrote laughing text on my banned post, I didn't mean any harm by it.

Making statements like "there is no evidence for thermite" without backing it up with anything is not reasoned debate. If you want to refute what I have posted here then show me why there is no evidence for thermite. Show me how the combustion of "paint" would melt iron.

Otherwise, I don't think you're responding to me and you shouldn't make posts that are off topic.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by GenRadek


Totally confused by your reasoning.

en.wikipedia.org...

Thermite is primarily a cutting agent. Nano-thermite is an incendiary used by the military in high tech explosives. Are you saying that the discovery of nano-thermite in the WTC dust is normal?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by GenRadek


How does the combustion of paint melt iron?

Does paint combust at 2800 degrees F?

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


So now its nano-thermite?

Ok, but then how does this nano-thermite work to explode and cut large steel core beams?? And what kind of explosives are there that would be using nano-thermite to cut steel beams?

Thermite is an incendiary. Thermite is used primarily to weld, while thermate is for cutting. Thermate includes barium nitrate and sulfur to increase the temperature of the thermititc reaction. It makes it hotter to melt through the steel or object being cut.

Using it as in ingredient in an explosive would also have explosive residues WITH the thermitic materials. There was none found with the chips. Pteridine has a better description of the paint chips and why Jones found that instead, so I would direct your question to him. he has doen a great job analyzing the Jones report, and found many flaws. Be sure to ask him.

reply to post by GenRadek


It was always nano-thermite. Didn't you read the paper??!!!??!

There was other material found with the WTC dust they tested. I suggest you read the Bentham paper before making these claims.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1

You must have not seen my posts on why Jones has not proven thermite. The first thing he must do is to show the reaction in the absence of air. The binder is combusting, as can be seen in the energy balances that he published. If there is no exothermic reaction in the absence of air, then it is not thermite and paint is the most probable explanation of the red chips.

If there is a reaction in the absence of air, then the next step will be to determine what the reaction is.
Jones wanted to find thermite and concluded that it was thermite in spite of his own experiments. His science is faulty and he has not proven thermite.

reply to post by pteridine


You've mentioned this before, I've recognized it as a valid argument and so has the Jones team.

Despite the test being administered outside a vacuum, the "paint" melted elemental iron. Iron melts at 2800 degrees F. Can paint have an accelerated combustion of 2800 degrees F?

Since the answer to the above question is a resounding NO, the deduction is made quite easily...thermite.

Thoughts?

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


In the paper it also states that,
"No red/gray chips having the characteristics delineated
here were found in dust generated by controlled demolition
using conventional explosives and methods"

not to imply that this thematic reaction couldn't be used in some other way than as a cutter charge alone, but to have tonnes of thermatic material that no-one has suspected or seen being brought to each building beforehand or during just doesn't add up.
especially when highly trained individuals worked within or around all these buildings and all safeguards including such as building inspections made during and after any maintainance work was carried out.

reply to post by redgy


Take it up with the federal bureau of investigation (FBI) and ask them how this could be possible. I don't have the answer for you. I'm not a secret agent.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

I don't KNOW if the buildings were brought down by CD or not because I wasn't there. I didn't fly the plane, I didn't set an explosive, I wasn't a firefighter hearing explosions.

I would like to pose a question for you all.

Do you know what "diversion...deception" is?

While everyone is spending countless hours arguing about thermite, thermate, nano thermite, nano thermate, dynamite, cutter charges, etc.....Has it ever occurred to anyone to work this situation backwards and see where it might lead?

Ages ago, someone discovered they could mix saltpeter, sulfur and charcoal and make an explosion. Next thing ya know they have varied uses for "gunpowder". (no guns yet) This invariably led to the discovery of the next step in the explosion evolution and the next thing you know we have dynamite, nitro glycerin, c-4 and all sorts of explosive matter.

Fast forward and we are now into the "thermites" and such. These explosives have been around for awhile and have been improved to the point that they may have transformed into something else that you know nothing of. How many here have ever done an experiment with any explosive mentioned above.

What if there is a new "by product" of these earlier explosives that you might not be aware of that is being used in ares that you have never been given access to?

"THEY" ...TPTB..if you want to call it that....have developed an explosive so powerful that it makes "thermate" look like silly puddy...........

But you will spend all your time chasing some theory of thermite like a bloodhound that has been double backed on and run off the real trail....

Nah...couldn't ever happen....not in america.......THEY would never do that.......sleep well general .......you helped all this come about............

peas

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Iron containing does not mean iron. The melting point of the iron containing compound is unknown as is the source.
The first thing Jones must do is to show an exotherm in the absence of air. Until then, he has nothing and everything else is in question.

reply to post by theonlyrusty


I would certainly give credence to this thought. Technology as we know it is, from what I understand, is at least 10 years behind military technology.

I don't generally participate in conspiracy theories. I tend to stick to the facts. I've never been one to discount these types of ideas however. Another thread should be opened to discuss possible scenarios for how the attacks went down.