Thermite Experiments and Evidence Summary

reply to post by curious_soul


This is exactly the point that guys Pteridine and Goodoldave would like everyone here to miss. They(9/11 Debunkers), will outright mislead anyone who will listen, in their quest to deflect and deter anyone from believing anything other than the official conspiracy theory.

The OP's video(Thanks for that btw Turbofan) is complete proof that the National Geographic channel had a hidden agenda, and although this was easily seen by anyone with half a brain, all the Debunkers and all the debunkers men jumped right on the bandwagon. The willingness of Debunkers to mislead in order to gain the upper ground is undeniable now. It should be a issue for a lot of the people who simply "believe" what their being told by the debunkers, rather than the truthers, as the gospel. When in fact they may be being mislead, of course it's not to excuse the truthers wild claims. But that's just it, it's pretty easy to hear a truther say that holograms smashed into the towers and know their out of their minds, but it's a lot different when you got the Debunkers claiming to spout the scientific truth and backing it up with bogus experiments(perpetrated by the likes of the oh so reputable NatGeo) only designed to deceive the listener/viewer into believing their deception.

Some of the guys on hear posting should really be ashamed of themselves talking about "well he did it with thermate, but you guys say its thermite" It's as if you could really careless if there was a exotic accelerant used in the towers on 9/11. Your so convinced your right, that even if the evidence was staring you in the face proving otherwise, you wouldn't see it. Is it so hard to believe that some highly engineered accelerant could/might have been used in the towers that day? One only has to look to the Anthrax attacks to realize that it's a very real possibility.

Commenting on the OP's video, it really is amazing how many things(in the OP's video) seem to exhibit some of the same things captured on video(on 9/11), at the towers that day. Not to mention some of the physical evidence and comments by investigators and witnesses. At the very least, the video makes it quite clear that a simple basic thermate blend could have been used to bring down the towers(especially when you throw in the jet impacts). Throw in some highly engineered, more efficient thermetic material and the possibility even gets higher. Thanks for the post OP.

reply to post by turbofan


Never thought about the outer columns as having been tampered with.
I suppose all along one floor might be possible.
Fire in the outer columns appears to be a video fact.
Thus on the floor spiked with thermite an explosion or airliner must hit
nearby.

I have not seen any concentration on the straps used from the central
core of columns for the internal floor suspension.
They would have to be the weakest link.
Removal of the inner suspension might break the outer support and in
the fall take out the floors underneath.

reply to post by PersonalChoice


Thermite and thermate are two different things. Thermate is known to more readily cut metal than thermite. Jones claimed thermite. Nat Geo used thermite; Cole used thermate. Cole had a lot of fun cooking a few steel beams but this doesn't really prove anything.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by PersonalChoice

 

Thermite and thermate are two different things. Thermate is known to more readily cut metal than thermite. Jones claimed thermite. Nat Geo used thermite; Cole used thermate. Cole had a lot of fun cooking a few steel beams but this doesn't really prove anything.

It prooves more than the theory of building 7 collapsing due to some fires into a pile of dust.

Originally posted by TrueFalse

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by PersonalChoice

 

Thermite and thermate are two different things. Thermate is known to more readily cut metal than thermite. Jones claimed thermite. Nat Geo used thermite; Cole used thermate. Cole had a lot of fun cooking a few steel beams but this doesn't really prove anything.

It prooves more than the theory of building 7 collapsing due to some fires into a pile of dust.

How'd you get that? It doesn't even address building 7!

reply to post by Varemia

How'd you get that? It doesn't even address building 7!

So, are we to assume that you have an answer with proof to what happened to WTC 7 and please save us the OS, we are in here to deny ignorance, not to embrace it.

I have yet to see anyone disprove thermite & thermate was used in destroying the WTC complex. Everything the government said was disproved by science, and only demolition supports the destruction of the WTC.

So, I assume you have some science to show us that demolition was not the cause of the destruction of the WTC?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by PersonalChoice

 

Thermite and thermate are two different things. Thermate is known to more readily cut metal than thermite. Jones claimed thermite. Nat Geo used thermite; Cole used thermate. Cole had a lot of fun cooking a few steel beams but this doesn't really prove anything.

what it does prove is the Nat Geo documentry was highly flawed,and was pushing a OS agenda to the main stream public....and that very clear to see....and if you can't see that,then it no surpise you don't see all the other oddity's on 9/11.

reply to post by turbofan


Excellent demonstrations! I really enjoyed your videos thank you for sharing. I am super convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. These experiments knock it out of the park!

In the construction business you really get to see the nuts and bolts of a building.
I can tell you all- that it would have taken an army of men "under cover" inside the buildings bowels.I'm talking major deconstruct and reconstruct without anyone noticing to place the amount material to pull this theory off.
Has any one reported seeing this construction going on?
Have all the men involved in the planting and execution been eliminated?
Just think about all the wiring involved to set this thermite in off in sequence not to mention after impact from planes or rockets,holograms- add what ever.
It is interesting how beings can deny things seen with their own eyes just to buy something they so want to believe.

reply to post by snapperski


Jones claimed thermite. Nat Geo used thermite. How was that misleading?

reply to post by pteridine


Jones does NOT claim Thermite! Stop misleading the forum. You need to read, or re-read that science paper.

The conclusion of the paper states:

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in
the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic
pyrotechnic or explosive material.

Futher to this, you have not joined my thread to debate the science which you "believe" to understand so well.

I'm prepared and ready to begin our debate which we agreed upon. Awaiting your reply in the following thread:

"Jones' Dust Analysis: Common Arguements Addressed"
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by turbofan


Like I said, this is the debunkers favorite tactic: exaggerate, mislead, insult, etc, etc they do it time and time again. And don't ever try to question one with a serious flaw in the investigation, they only respond to accusations of super-duper nano thermite, holograms, laser beams. Bring something like that up and you'll get 50-60 back and forth posts on a thread. Bring up something like why they changed the hijack/intercept rules in May of 01(that had not been changed since the late 70's), then changed them right back to the way they were on 9/12, and it's a ghost town.

Thanks again for that last post TF, I had not read that report since it had been released, but I was almost positive myself that Jones never said it was "thermite" but I wasn't completely sure so I didn't say anything. It really isn't the issue of this thread, even though they are trying desperately to make it that.

One of the biggest points of this thread(b/c there are a few), is that Natgeo claimed they couldn't cut steel columns with 175 whopping pounds of thermite, in a clear attempt to over exaggerate the point to the viewer that even with 175 lbs on one (half the sized) steel column isn't even singed in a thermite cutting contraption(the pitiful one it was). When in fact, this guy uses 1.5 pounds of a simple thermate material and a homemade cutting contraption and he was able to cut/or make the column fail.

reply to post by PersonalChoice


Very well said PC.

It's easy to pick out the dishonest debaters, or those that don't bother to research the available material
before engaging in a discussion.

They are so far hooked on their initial thought, that they will fight and twist words to keep from admitting their
error.

Nowhere in that paper does Jones claim the chips are thermite. It makes me wonder how little else Mr. Pteridine knows about this document. I'm looking forward to finding out.

reply to post by turbofan


Note that Jones' quote does not say "Thermate." This is because the composition of the paint chips does not allow for thermate. Barium nitrate was not shown to be present and significant amounts of sulfur were not seen. Jones said "Thermitic" which alludes to thermite; hence he claimed thermite.

Cole used thermate, which is known to cut metal better than thermite, but for which there also is no evidence. He could have also used a cutting torch, grinding wheels, cutter charges, or simply unbolted the connection to demonstrate how the buildings collapsed. There is no evidence of any of these being used to cause collapse, either. Cole's experiment was an exercise in entertainment of pyromaniacs and nothing more.

It was a fun video to watch, especially the machinations that he went to to get a cut. The piston driven cutter was ingenious. Placing these in the building, filled with red paint chips of course, would have required some serious construction work given the number of stories and number of supporting columns. Getting the thousands of pistons might have been a logistical challenge, but junkyards could have been combed to get the biggest woosh for the buck.

Originally posted by snapperski

what it does prove is the Nat Geo documentry was highly flawed,and was pushing a OS agenda to the main stream public....and that very clear to see....and if you can't see that,then it no surpise you don't see all the other oddity's on 9/11.

Oddities aside, you are saying that since the Nat Geo documentary used what Jones claimed, it is flawed. Cole used what Jones didn't claim but he speaks the truth. Given that logic, the truth should be in what Jones' didn't claim.

This gives us a bit of latitude, doesn't it? Don't worry about evidence, I'm sure something will be misinterpreted and repeated until you believe it. After all, if it fits your predetermined conclusions, then it must be true.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones said "Thermitic" which alludes to thermite; hence he claimed thermite.

Wrong again.

'Thermitic' is not a term to describe Thermite soley. This term has been around for years and also used by
Tillotson to describe his nano-super thermite.

Please read and acknowledge the meaning and use of the word "thermitic" in the following paper:

"Making Nanostructured Pyrotechnics in a Beaker", dated April 2000.
e-reports-ext.llnl.gov...

Your research is poor, and your attempts to mislead the forum have been noted twice.

A fourth invitation to join me in a debate which you agreed upon has been issued. Please respond to my
thread titled, "Jones' Dust Analysis: Common Arguments Addressed" when you are ready to formally
discuss the science.

Does anyone have access to nano-thermite to prove Jones' theories? I would personally love to see tests performed on it to prove what truthers claim it does. It would also be really interesting to see the "red chips" reproduced through nano-thermite testing.

I know it's slightly off topic, but it does bear unto the credibility of the arguments here. This guy is trying to prove that National Geographic was flawed because they used thermite (in a rather stupid way) to attempt to "burn through" steel. He proves that if you use thermate and simply contain it, it will cut steel. That was the main point, and it was a very good point. I do not feel, however, that it nullifies everything that National Geographic did. I honestly did find it kind of stupid when they just bagged thermite all around the steel lol.

If you search the published pdf, you will find two hits for barium.
They did sometimes find small amounts of barium, together with other elements, in the red chips.

Originally posted by ohhwataloser
yes im sure every single day they inspect the steel, or every week, or every month... show me something that shows they'd do it more frequently than bi-yearly. which is leaves quite the opportunity window. again your full of it.

Ahem...presuming ten one pound charges per support column (I'm cutting you some slack because ten is an easier number to multiply by than twenty... and this whole bit is make believe anyway), with thrty nine columns per floor, at 110 floors, with two buildings, that's EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND, EIGHT HUNDRED of these little packages that would need to be rigged up. There's no flipping way they could be planted in a month, two months, or even three months, particularly when they were sneaking around trying to place them without being noticed by the NYPA who were on the lookout for bombs ever since the *first* WTC bombing 1993.

im just speculating but i could see going in at night and just going in unoccupied areas during day hours, making it very easy. as a construction electrcian, I know it would be pretty easy to "sneak around" in most buildings and hide things like your claiming is far fetched. Its not far fetched at all...I mean what are you basing your speculation off of?

I'm basing my statement on the FACT, not the speculation, that the NYPA had their own full time staff of security, electricians, inspectors, engineers, custodians, etc., many of them working there for years, so anyone just walking off the street claiming to be an electrician wouldn't have been allowed entry to sneak around reardless of what cover story they gave out.

Nice try.

. You don't have to say 100% it is, you can still call yourself a debunker, but to have such a closed mind and call it impossible after collecting all the pieces, including world history, well thats ignorant.

??? At what time in any of world history has anyone ever been able to sneak in and plant secret demolitions in an occupied building without anyone noticing?

reply to post by turbofan


Did Jones claim to have found thermate? Was there elements of thermate or thermite present? What best represents what Jones found [other than my conclusion of red primer paint]?

I think that the best way to address Jones' paper is for me to post a thread reviewing the paper and let other counter. I will do so when I am in the US again.