PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by pteridine


The melting point of iron:

Melting point 1811 K, 1538 °C, 2800 °F

The periodic table is readily available to the public.

The melting point of iron is well known and has been well known for hundreds of years.

The dust that was collected contained iron that had not been melted. Once the tests were administered, with a heat of 700 degrees C, or 1292 degrees F, the iron melted. This means that an accelerated combustion occurred with temperatures reaching at least 2800 degrees F. Paint does not do that.

I refer you:

"In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content."

Is this quoted sentence wrong?

To reiterate, elemental iron was verified as having melted after testing the WTC dust. This means there was an accelerated combustion of 2800 degrees F. This is the same test that has been administered by other scientific journals to test for thermitic reactions, journals that the Harrit/Jones group followed. Their tests yielded the same results.

What in the heavens are you talking about?

Originally posted by rush969
Please explain what was the "evidence" that convinced you the most, about your theory??

The main reason i believe is from the statments made by fire chiefs on the scene like chief Nigro and Chief Hayden.

Cheif Nigro made the statment that he evacuated the firemen BEFORE talking to Silverstien.

Chief Hayden made the statement that they were afraid of fires jumping to other buildings.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Their tests are inconclusive. Flyash is present in the dust that they collected and a magnetic separation would also separate some of the flyash spheres that were predominantly iron. This brings into question the source of all such material.
Further, as we do not know the molecular compositions of any post DSC materials, we cannot say if they would form during the combustion of the carbonaceous binder in the DSC.
The key experiment that must be done first is DSC in the absence of air. When that is done, if it shows an exotherm, then the next experiments must be done to determine what reaction is occurring.

reply to post by pteridine


We've been over this. You're bringing up the same talking point you brought up twenty pages ago.

"Debunkers" have proposed that the iron-rich spheres were fly ash residues embedded in the Towers' concrete, ignoring that the iron constituents in fly ash are oxides rather than elemental iron. How will they explain away the bi-layered chips, whose red layers have iron oxide and elemental aluminum in the ratio of Fe2O3 thermite as nano-sized particles of uniform shape?"

How do we not know the molecular composition of any post DSC material?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by rush969
Please explain what was the "evidence" that convinced you the most, about your theory??

The main reason i believe is from the statments made by fire chiefs on the scene like chief Nigro and Chief Hayden.

Cheif Nigro made the statment that he evacuated the firemen BEFORE talking to Silverstien.

What could this have to do with a Demolition scenario??

Chief Hayden made the statement that they were afraid of fires jumping to other buildings.

Well, how can this convince you of demolition if those fire chiefs were all day talking about the INMINENT COLLAPSE of WTC7??

I insist that there has been NO PROOF shown, as was offered, about the demolition of WTC 7 with explosives!!

Originally posted by rush969
What could this have to do with a Demolition scenario??

Becasue then they could have only been talking about the building when the fire commander stated PULL IT.

Well, how can this convince you of demolition if those fire chiefs were all day talking about the INMINENT COLLAPSE of WTC7??

Because if the building would have collapsed on its own it would caused more damage to other buildings and spread the fires.

I insist that there has been NO PROOF shown, as was offered, about the demolition of WTC 7 with explosives!!

Sorry but i have to believe the fire chiefs and not the media.




[edit on 16-3-2010 by REMISNE]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


We do not know the molecular composition of the post DSC chips because it was not determined. Further, quantitation is not straightforward. Given their predetermined conclusions and the poor quality of the science that they have demonstrated, their quantitative numbers are also suspect. The right way to do this is through careful stepwise analysis. First, show that the reaction without air either occurs or does not occur. If it occurs, then investigate what the reaction is.
Having ten tons of unreacted red chips in the dust seems a bit much for "highly engineered" demolition material. How much went off to bring the building down? Jones quickly claimed "fuse material" when he was informed that such a paint-on thermitic coating would only gently warm the structure. Having ten tons of unburned fuse is even more ludicrous than ten tons of unburned demolition materials. Ten tons is a lot of unburned fuse. How many tons of demolition charges didn't go off and what happened to them? Lack of attention to detail has made Jones irrelevant.
Jones said, last year, that he was working on a revised paper. That paper, if we ever see it, will purportedly address the problem of the DSC. Whether it will provide a rationale for a paint on demolition material that doesn't demolish is another matter.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
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

This is just one explanation for what is otherwise an unexplained "phenomenon”.
However, this alternative theory is really a secondary issue.
The main issue is that there is no evidence to explain why building 7 would collapse at all.

The collapse of building 7 is an unexplained “phenomenon”.

Don’t let people pull you into an argument of semantics and rhetoric.
The point is that NO evidence from the “official story” conclusively explains the collapse.
"

reply to post by Jezus


There is no "proof" because it is simply not true. Such falsehoods rot your spirit and must be expunged. Want to deny ignorance, cleanse yourself of these reprehensibly unfounded conspiracies.

reply to post by Jezus


There is no "proof" because it is simply not true. Such falsehoods rot your spirit and must be expunged. Want to deny ignorance, cleanse yourself of these reprehensibly unfounded conspiracies.

Originally posted by argonfritz
There is no "proof" because it is simply not true. Such falsehoods rot your spirit and must be expunged. Want to deny ignorance, cleanse yourself of these reprehensibly unfounded conspiracies.

Sorry but i have to believe the fire chiefs and not the media.

Originally posted by Jezus
This is just one explanation for what is otherwise an unexplained "phenomenon”.
However, this alternative theory is really a secondary issue.
The main issue is that there is no evidence to explain why building 7 would collapse at all.

The collapse of building 7 is an unexplained “phenomenon”.

Don’t let people pull you into an argument of semantics and rhetoric.
The point is that NO evidence from the “official story” conclusively explains the collapse.

Originally posted by argonfritz
There is no "proof" because it is simply not true. Such falsehoods rot your spirit and must be expunged. Want to deny ignorance, cleanse yourself of these reprehensibly unfounded conspiracies.

Are you talking about the “official story” conspiracy theory?
Are you talking about the lack of proof for why building 7 collapsed?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by argonfritz
There is no "proof" because it is simply not true. Such falsehoods rot your spirit and must be expunged. Want to deny ignorance, cleanse yourself of these reprehensibly unfounded conspiracies.

Are you talking about the “official story” conspiracy theory?
Are you talking about the lack of proof for why building 7 collapsed?

Of course he is.

The 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY is the 'silliest' conspiracy theory in the history of the world.

Freefall of WTC7 and NIST

NIST has no explanation for freefall.

NIST has no evidence for the following.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bdfd8f5ff437.jpg[/atsimg]

The pseudo-scientists at NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) have no evidence for their model, no explanation for freefall, no common sense, and no integrity.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/86fbaf592342.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by argonfritz
reply to post by Jezus

 

Want to deny ignorance, cleanse yourself of these reprehensibly unfounded conspiracies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The above link refers to a "conspiracy fetish" as offensive content. We are on this site to discuss possibilities, including conspiracies we have little proof for. If we don't start somewhere, even with "unfounded conspiracies" and discuss them there is little point in even having a website dedicated to conspiracies.

Originally posted by REMISNE
Sorry but i have to believe the fire chiefs and not the media.

Well, sorry to say this as well. I can´t see any logic in this statement as the fire chiefs NEVER discussed demolition, controlled or not, or placing emergency explosives (which I don´t know if fire depts. manage that at all), to destroy the building to avoid damage to surrounding area.
The fire chiefs where discussing the iminent collapse of 7 due to damage it had sustained, and the fires that were going without being fought.
The fire chiefs KNEW VERY WELL, the building was going to collapse, they anounced that to their men, and ordered everybody to get away, and established a perimeter for safety.
This is all perfectly documented. So your statement doesn´t really make sense.

reply to post by pteridine


Your opinions are not efficient enough to discount the Bentham paper in its entirety, which is what you have been doing.

I would also like to see these tests done in a vacuum. But for you to say that the post DSC composition of the paint chips is not determined is completely absurd. Did you forget to read page 15 of the paper? Or did you not read it at all?

We can discuss how the Thermite was used, if you'd like. At the moment the focus is on whether Thermite was present, which it most assuredly was.

Yours,

THE AQUARIAN 1

So if there was such a substancial amount of thermite on the ground at the site even after the collapse, wouldn't the whole area then become a volatile fire hazard.

the amounts of machinery, cutting equiptment, flame and heat sources that were there or being used, wouldn't that alone be able to set off a chain reaction with all this thermite that was blowing around in the dust at the time.

isn't thermite able to start a burn with only a spark or flame hot enough on contact.

Originally posted by rush969
Well, sorry to say this as well. I can´t see any logic in this statement as the fire chiefs NEVER discussed demolition, controlled or not, or placing emergency explosives (which I don´t know if fire depts. manage that at all), to destroy the building to avoid damage to surrounding area.

But the firechiefs statements contridict the official story in a lot of areas, specially what was said on the phone with Silverstein.

Who said anything about fire depts placing explosives? They had demo teams on the scene.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Thermite has not been proved. The paper is baseless speculation which is why it is published in a Bentham vanity journal. No reviewer at a reputable journal would allow it to be published. Jones tries to dupe the untrained with a lot of impressive looking analytical data that is lacking in scientific merit.

As to page 15, that page shows kaolinite type materials. If you are referring to the EDAX/XEDS spectra and BSE images, they do not show molecular composition. Check your instrumental analysis texts; those techniques show only the elements present.

The first thing he has to do is to run the DSC under inert gas and show an exotherm. Until then he cannot claim anything but combustion.