What evidence is there that a nano-thermite reaction occurred in WTC7?
I dunno seeing as I do not believe in a nano thermite reaction in any of the buildings.
I was trying to clarify what they were saying.
I understood what they were saying too.
I am far from being convinced that there is any evidence for a thermite reaction. I was just trying to make a summary of crazy chainsaw's theory as it is quite technical and not very brief. I suggest you argue the point with chainsaw.
Neil has done that already, he appears to know more about it than I do, so I'll leave that to him.
They didn't find evidence of thermite, that's why they didn't mention it.
They never mentioned the fires under the rubble of WTC and they never look at the possibilities of Thermite.
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.
The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.
Furthermore, a very large quantity of thermite (a mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide that burns at extremely high temperatures when ignited) or another incendiary compound would have had to be placed on at least the number of columns damaged by the aircraft impact and weakened by the subsequent fires to bring down a tower. Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening. Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially). Therefore, while a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns, many thousands of pounds of thermite would need to have been placed inconspicuously ahead of time, remotely ignited, and somehow held in direct contact with the surface of hundreds of massive structural components to weaken the building. This makes it an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Again, I'm copying this point to the
molten metal thread.
How can I ignore points before you answer them?
If he cannot prove his hypothesis, why should we believe it?
He cannot prove it, because he cannot get to any of the metal. Besides I thought it was a Hypothesis, like Chainsaws thread. An idea!
Steven Jones is no longer a professor. Is it your layman's opinion that NIST are doing a rubbish job, or do you have some professional standing to back it up?
I know he was hounded out of his job, what for expressing his rights to freedom of speech! Because he no longer works at a University, does that know means he is no longer a Proffessor. Not sure how it works in American, but in the UK, if you get sacked or leave a job, you do not lose the title.
Neil has done no such thing, he is engaged in a technical discussion with Crazy Chainsaw about a specific hypothesis of Chainsaw's
And pretty much explained how it was impossible.
Nobody has conceded that there even is evidence for Thermite or a varient of it.
Likewise nobody has conceded that the molten metal found is steel or that the heat couldn't have been generated by underground fires. Again, all the issues are addressed in this thread:
So all the photos of molten steel, fused with concrete is what exactly?? The heat couldn't have been generated by underground fires, because there is nothing hot enough to burn at the tempretures recorded.
If you don't reply in it, I'll assume that you don't have rebuttals for the points raised in it and are just resorting to rhetoric and generalisation.
Like I said, I've read through and there is no point, Neil has provided what I would call a credible argument which debunks the idea of a nanothermite reaction.
