PROOF that Building 7 was demolished with explosives!!!

reply to post by GenRadek


Who are you people? Do you guys work in an office and coordinate responses on this forum?

I've had the same conversation over a hundred times! With the same people!!

Again, if we are going to just make bald faced statements--Thermite was found, all the buildings were brought down intentionally by elements beside the airplane impacts.

It's just basic logic.

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


NO there was NOT any thermite, or thermate, or nanothermite, or supernano thermite found. NONE. Jones did NOT find ANY thermites. His botched paper is so terrible it would make a high school chem teacher cringe. Read through pterdine's answers. He practically spoon feeds the answers to you. If you cannot understand that breakdown of the response, then I dont know what to say.

reply to post by GenRadek


He says the same thing over and over and I have already eviscerated these weak points.

1. Pterryerdine suggests that the iron spheroids are a product of Fly ash, which is found in concrete. The problem with this argument is that fly ash is made of iron oxides. Elemental Iron and Elemental Aluminum are not contained in fly ash, but are found in the WTC dust as well as the post DSC experiments performed by Jones. In the post DSC the samples were subjected to XEDS analysis. Not surprisingly the iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of oxygen, as expected in an aluminothermic residue.

A paper published a year before any WTC sample tests shows that the metal-rich spheroids in the WTC dust had iron-to-oxygen ratios indicating abundant elemental iron, such as found in thermite residues. It also pointed out several other features of WTC remains that indicated exposure to temperatures far above what could be produced by fires burning jet fuel and office contents, including: iron-rich and silicate spherules, volatilized lead, a molybdenum spherule, and materials with a "Swiss-cheese appearance". Molybdenum has a very high melting point of 2617ºC.

2. DSC in oxygen free environment. Mr. Jones and team have already stated that this test should be done, not as the end all, however. Elemental Iron spheroids were not found in the samples tested before DSC. During DSC there was an accelerated reaction. Post DSC, elemental iron spheroids were found in the samples which only form when iron is melted. The melting point of iron is 2800 degrees F.

3. Pterry suggests that Jones found paint. Paint doesn't have an accelerated reaction of 2800 degrees F.

This is a thermitic reaction: 2 Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2 Fe.
The thermite reaction involves the transfer of oxygen from the oxidizer (metal oxide) to the fuel (metal). Elemental aluminum and Iron Oxides were found in the samples before DSC. Post DSC sample contents contained Aluminum oxide and elemental iron.

If this is the crux of the argument, you guys have no argument.

*Snip*

Mod Note: 9/11 Conspiracies Forum Posting Conduct – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4/2/2010 by semperfortis]

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by rush969
IN THE FORM OF????

1. Statement by Chief Nigro that he evacuated the firemen BEFORE talking to Silverstein.

How does Chief Nigro´s statement proove explosives, please??

2. Statement by Chief Hayden that they wre worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

And please, how does Chief Hayden statement proove explosives??

So...if I have uncontrolable fires in a large skyscraper and I have no water to fight them with, and I´m worried that fire might jump to other buildings, the solution would be to bring in lots of explosives and blow the building UP!!! WOW!!

[edit on 2-4-2010 by rush969]

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


The "iron spheres" were "iron containing", NOT pure iron. And yes, there can be iron containing spheres in fly ash:

www.sbras.ru/PSB/phsb/papers/CSD2003_4_12e.pdf

www.coalcgp-journal.org/papers/2009/CCGP-D-09-00017-Valentim.pdf

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12628204

www.informaworld.com/index/713856637.pdf

Even extracting iron from fly ash is feasible:
www.freepatentsonline.com...

Now you can read through the pdfs, and see just how much there is when it comes to iron in fly ash. Yes even iron-rich spheres can and are formed in fly ash and found as well.

And again to have the NUMBER ONE RINGER for any thermite: RUN THE DSC IN AN INERT ATMOSPHERE. Since thermite does burn in NO OXYGEN conditions, THAT should be the FIRST test of these "chips." That is just common sense, something that Jones and his followers lack. And his lame attempt to explain why he didnt feel the need to do so is just more proof he has NO clue what he is talking about. But no he runs it under a steady stream of air and gee, it burned! Well no kidding!

Also it has been stated that the "burning" of the sample only occurred with direct flame. When the flame was removed the burning stopped. Now refresh my memory, if these are "highly engineered thermite chips" then why do they fizzle out and stop burning the moment you remove the flame? I know how thermite works, you light it up and the reaction dont stop till the whole thing goes. It doesnt just light, sputter and fizzle right after you remove the flame. That is not thermite, I dont care how you try and argue otherwise. If that isnt another red-flag that shows how BAD Jones goofed on his analysis, man than there is not much else to say. Jones set out to prove thermite, and failed, miserably.
And all the videos I have watched of thermite, the thermite lights and STAYS burning until it uses up all the available fuel. It NEVER stops in the middle of the reaction, or when you remove the flame. If you cannot understand these facts, there is o hope of understanding the more complex things.

Originally posted by rush969
How does Chief Nigro´s statement proove explosives, please??

Due to the phone call between the fire commander and Silverstein, when the fire commader stated PULL IT he could have only been talking about the building and not pulling the firemen since the firemen were already out of the building.

So...if I have uncontrolable fires in a large skyscraper and I have no water to fight them with, and I´m worried that fire might jump to other buildings, the solution would be to bring in lots of explosives and blow the building UP!!! WOW!!

Yes, and you do not need a lots of explosives to bring down an already unstable building. The fire commander has the authority to bring down a building that is considered unsafe and may cause more casualties or damage.

Also the fact if the buidling would have collapsed on its own it would have fallen to the south side that had damage and not almost in its own footprint.

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by GenRadek

 

He says the same thing over and over and I have already eviscerated these weak points.

1. Pterryerdine suggests that the iron spheroids are a product of Fly ash, which is found in concrete. The problem with this argument is that fly ash is made of iron oxides. Elemental Iron and Elemental Aluminum are not contained in fly ash, but are found in the WTC dust as well as the post DSC experiments performed by Jones. In the post DSC the samples were subjected to XEDS analysis. Not surprisingly the iron-rich spheroids showed iron far in excess of oxygen, as expected in an aluminothermic residue.

A paper published a year before any WTC sample tests shows that the metal-rich spheroids in the WTC dust had iron-to-oxygen ratios indicating abundant elemental iron, such as found in thermite residues. It also pointed out several other features of WTC remains that indicated exposure to temperatures far above what could be produced by fires burning jet fuel and office contents, including: iron-rich and silicate spherules, volatilized lead, a molybdenum spherule, and materials with a "Swiss-cheese appearance". Molybdenum has a very high melting point of 2617ºC.

2. DSC in oxygen free environment. Mr. Jones and team have already stated that this test should be done, not as the end all, however. Elemental Iron spheroids were not found in the samples tested before DSC. During DSC there was an accelerated reaction. Post DSC, elemental iron spheroids were found in the samples which only form when iron is melted. The melting point of iron is 2800 degrees F.

3. Pterry suggests that Jones found paint. Paint doesn't have an accelerated reaction of 2800 degrees F.

This is a thermitic reaction: 2 Al + Fe2O3 → Al2O3 + 2 Fe.
The thermite reaction involves the transfer of oxygen from the oxidizer (metal oxide) to the fuel (metal). Elemental aluminum and Iron Oxides were found in the samples before DSC. Post DSC sample contents contained Aluminum oxide and elemental iron.

If this is the crux of the argument, you guys have no argument.

1.] Jones claims to find elemental iron after ignition and elemental aluminum in the chips. His claims are not well supported by the EDAX and one material he has found is an aluminosilicate, like kaolinite, a common filler in...paint. This has been gone over many times. The origin of the spheroids is questionable. Their compositions are unknown. To claim thermite because of such does not follow. Thermitic reaction has not been shown. If thermitic reaction is shown, then one must determine its source.
2. The DSC in an inert gas is the key experiment. It will remove all doubt as to the existence of a thermitic reaction. It will do so immediately, without guessing, innuendo, illogical conclusions, and bad science. Jones should have done this first.
3. You do not know the origins of the spheres and no flame temperatures have been measured. Yet you claim that 2800F was the flame temperature because that is the MP of Iron and the spheres are iron containing. Then you bring Mo into the picture for no apparent reason. Mo was not a component of the paint chips. It is present in some newer super thermites, but that is not part of Jones' claims.
Jones does not explain the major inconsistencies in energy release that he measured and that I told you about. You ignored this key issue, also, along with BSBray, because you either didn't understand it or didn't want to address it. He does not explain why the chips self extinguish after ignition by an oxy-torch. He cannot explain ten tons [his estimate] of chips in the dust or their intended purpose. After being told that as paint on thermite, should they stay lit, they would only warm the steel, he claimed that they were "fuse material." Ten tons of unburned fuse implies many more tons of unexpended demolition materials. Obviously, his critical thinking isn't what it should be.
All the evidence says that Jones has so far proved nothing, the red chips are most likely paint, the key experiment has yet to be done, and that many people are easily duped when it comes to things technical.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by rush969
How does Chief Nigro´s statement proove explosives, please??

Due to the phone call between the fire commander and Silverstein, when the fire commader stated PULL IT he could have only been talking about the building and not pulling the firemen since the firemen were already out of the building.

Silverstein's statement was recorded for a NOVA broadcast months after 9/11. He recounted the sequence of major events leading to pulling the firemen out of WTC 7 in a brief sentence.

The interviewer did not react to the "pull it" statement as anything unusual.

PBS did not provide an immediate news release stating that Silverstein "admits in interview that he and NYFD decided to pull WTC 7 down."

The 9/11 Truth Movement presumes Silverstein is smart enough to arrange a demolition of WTC 7 but too dumb not to reveal his secret while being filmed, and being too powerless to prevent PBS from airing the broadcast.

They broadcast that interview months later and no one reacted.

Originally posted by jthomas
PBS did not provide an immediate news release stating that Silverstein "admits in interview that he and NYFD decided to pull WTC 7 down."

The discussion isn't about what Silverstein admits after the fact.

The discussion is about what he said..."pull it"

Originally posted by jthomas
They broadcast that interview months later and no one reacted.

No one reacted?

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
PBS did not provide an immediate news release stating that Silverstein "admits in interview that he and NYFD decided to pull WTC 7 down."

The discussion isn't about what Silverstein admits after the fact.

He had nothing to "admit."

The discussion is about what he said..."pull it"

Months after 9/11, and only on NOVA.

Originally posted by jthomas
He had nothing to "admit." "

That's just speculation based on your own assumptions...

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
He had nothing to "admit." "

That's just speculation based on your own assumptions...

You have to demonstrate otherwise.

reply to post by pteridine


Molybdenum was found in the dust of the World Trade Center. In response to your posts I will direct you here and you can live in eternal circle logic, i.e. heaven:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
He had nothing to "admit." "

That's just speculation based on your own assumptions...

You have to demonstrate otherwise.

You speculation based on assumptions is true until proven otherwise?

Originally posted by THE AQUARIAN 1
reply to post by pteridine

 

Molybdenum was found in the dust of the World Trade Center. In response to your posts I will direct you here and you can live in eternal circle logic, i.e. heaven:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So? Molybdenum is found in fly ash. Fly ash is used in concrete. WTC had concrete, which would contain fly ash, which would contain Mo. Mystery solved.

www.flyash.info...

reply to post by THE AQUARIAN 1


Molybdenum is found in many places but you present no argument for its use as a CD agent.
Jones' paper has been proven to be unscientfic on many levels and the "thermitic" paint is looking more and more like plain old paint. Are you making a point about Molybdenum or just deflecting the discussion?

Originally posted by pteridine
the "thermitic" paint is looking more and more like plain old paint.

Does that mean you finally found a matching chemical profile from some brand of paint?

You wouldn't think it would be that hard to figure out who supplied all the paint for the WTC columns, huh? In the perfect society you live in, where it's impossible to smuggle bombs into buildings and everyone in the government just wants to tell you the truth, you'd think at least some proper documentation would still exist somewhere, and someone would be going out of their way to present it to you so you wouldn't have to worry your important little head.

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by rush969
How does Chief Nigro´s statement proove explosives, please??

Due to the phone call between the fire commander and Silverstein, when the fire commader stated PULL IT he could have only been talking about the building and not pulling the firemen since the firemen were already out of the building.

Reality, as you can see by the quote in my signature (taken from the exact words Silverstein spoke is, that he was only informed of a decission that had been taken by the fire commander, to pull the teams of fire men away from 7 because they were very certain that it was going to collapse on its own. Silverstein never decided or ordered anything!!

So...if I have uncontrolable fires in a large skyscraper and I have no water to fight them with, and I´m worried that fire might jump to other buildings, the solution would be to bring in lots of explosives and blow the building UP!!! WOW!!

Yes, and you do not need a lots of explosives to bring down an already unstable building. The fire commander has the authority to bring down a building that is considered unsafe and may cause more casualties or damage.

So. Please tell me, how much dinamite do fire trucks carry in them for these cases??
Why would Chief Nigro use the term "pull" if that was not the intended procedure to bring down the building??
If the intended procedure was explosives and that is "normal procedure" why not call it by it´s correct name??

Also the fact if the buidling would have collapsed on its own it would have fallen to the south side that had damage and not almost in its own footprint.

Well, the fact is the building did fall to the south. Its north face ended pretty much covering the debris pile. Not a typical CD or building collapsing in its own footprint at all. Building 7 did cause damage to other nearby buildings even having a whole street in between them.