• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

Timble said:
Hydrocarbon fire can burn for years underground, in coal mine spoil heaps for example where the material is a lot tighter packed than the debris of the WTC and the potential oxygen supply lower.
Click to expand...

In order for any fire to occur, there needs to be oxygen present. So what is your point? If a coal mine has oxygen supplies...than, yea a fire can burn for a long time. So what's the point?

"Thermite won't burn for weeks, it burns rapidly or not at all."

You really shouldn't talk about things you don't understand. Just because the burst of flames and sparkles die down from the initial chemical reaction...doesn't mean the molten iron created by said reaction...has already cooled off.

Go dig a hole and build a bonfire down in it...then completely cover the hole with metal debris....and see how long it continues to burn.
 
Last edited:
Architect said:
Good to see you back, Dave

28th is ignoring me because I posted some pesky Sheffield and Edinburgh structural engineering papers that proved he was talking more bolloks that Paxman when he complains about the Scottish Raj.
Click to expand...

Okay, could we get an English to English translation here? :D
 
28k do you agree with the following principles?

1. once an exothermic reaction is complete it stops releasing heat energy

2. the thermite reaction is over in a few seconds

3. the hotter something is, the faster it cools

4. because the thermite reaction releases its heat energy so quickly, reaching a very high temperature in a few seconds, this energy is also dissipated quickly due to the temperature gradient between the molten metal and the surrounding air

5. hydrocarbons, by comparison, burn over a longer period, adding heat energy to a system for the whole of that period

6. because hydrocarbons burn at a lower temperature than themite, the heat energy is dissipated at a slower rate

7. a thermite reaction would most likely be over before the building collapsed and so most of the heat energy would have been dissipated into the surrounding air

8. hydrocarbon fires would have continued to smoulder under the rubble after collapse, adding heat to the system

9. the insulation provided by the rubble could easily cause pockets of very high temperature to form as a result of the stored heat from these smouldering hydrocarbon fires, it is perfectly feasible that these pockets contained molten metal and maintained their temperature for weeks

For more about the thermodynamics of 9/11 see this article:

http://www.counterpunch.org/thermo11282006.html
 
28th Kingdom said:
I am but one man (who, btw - is a louser typer...so that doesn't help matters) trying to communicate points with MANY different people at once. All of you are only having one conversation...and that is with me. How can you expect me to jump through loops for 10-15 at once? I can't guys...sorry...I'm just not that fast.
Click to expand...
28 IQ, I know it's not easy being one against so many in a forum like this. You can't respond to every single point.

One point that has been repeatedly asked is how could thermite/thermate be made to cut a vertical steel column. Your answer on that so far is that devices are available, then you said something about the thermite being in proximity. You need to address that a lot better. What could hold the thermite in place while it cuts through the column? When it starts burning, it will just fall straight down through whatever it was that had been holding it in place.
28th Kingdom said:
Well, another cool thing about thermate...is that it produces it's own oxygen...so, it could have easily burned for 6 weeks under a pile of rubble.
Click to expand...
No. Since it contains all its own reactants (no need to get oxygen from the air), it burns up very quickly. The only things that can burn for six weeks are things that can get oxygen only slowly, such as those underground fires mentioned earlier. If something burns for six weeks, it's a sure sign that the combustion is limited by the amount of oxygen it can get.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Go dig a hole and build a bonfire down in it...then completely cover the hole with metal debris....and see how long it continues to burn.
Click to expand...
Why does it burn a long time in this situation? Because it was hot??? NO!!! Because when you completely cover it, you're restricting the access to oxygen!!! This does not apply to thermite, which has all the reactants built-in!!!
 
Can you tell me, from your extensive knowledge of thermite/thermate, where on the wtc tower structures these thermite/thermate cutting charges would have been placed, and on how many?
Click to expand...

Waiting...but take your time...
 
28K,

The following is total BS (see especially the bolded parts):

28th Kingdom said:
Another point I need to stress. Even if you want to say that this molten metal (pouring from WTC 2) is aluminum mixed with ambers of other burning materials....still, NIST clearly states that the hottest temperatures on those impacted floors, were around 1000°C - so while aluminum melts at around 660°C - it will NOT appear red or orange at this point...but most importantly...it CANNOT have the type of reaction we see from the molten metal pouring from WTC 2. BY reaction, I am referring to the way the molten metal pops and dances...kind of like a sparkler or something you may see from a welder. These are clear signs of extreme heat at work...much hotter than 1000°C, the hottest temperature available on those floors.

No, in order to get a molten metal to react like that...you need massive amounts of heat (i.e. furnace) like those caused by a thermite reaction. So just going by complete and utter scientific facts [sic] ...we can determine, just by visually observing the BEHAVIOR of that molten medal....that it is burning hotter than the 1000°C maximum temperature available on those floors. Which means...that something else must have been present in order to generate the heat needed to cause that type of reaction in the molten metal. Something else like a chemical reaction...from thermite.
Click to expand...
So many errors, so little time.

(1) We don't know what the "maximum temperature" on those burning floors was. Why you suddenly accept this part of the NIST report, when you reject almost all else in it?

(2) You cite no evidence whatsoever that metal burning at 1000 C or less could not break up as it falls, as shown in the video ("pops and dances" is poetic but clearly is not a scientific description).
 
Last edited:
Maccy,

I can see you want to go into great detail about these basement pools, but that's not even one of the bits of evidence I'm trying to push here....the pools fact was just an appendix to another point I was making. There were explosions reported in the basement...so the pools at the base of the WTC 1, 2, 7 are most likely from therma/ite placed in the basement. (Therma/ite separate from the explosives.)

Also, in open air...yes, molten metal would cool faster than 6 weeks...but trapped under the pile of rubble....a sort of oven or furnace was created...which is what persevered the heat wherein suspending the metal in a liquid state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ

Why is it...that molten rock inside volcanoes ALWAYS stays hot and molten(liquid) ...until it spews OUTSIDE of the - oven-like confines of the volcano?
 
Trigood said:
So many errors, so little time.[\b]

(1) We don't know what the "maximum temperature" on those burning floors was. Why does 28K suddenly accept this part of the NIST report, when he rejects almost all else in it?

(2) Cites no evidence whatsoever that metal burning at 1000 C or less could not break up as it falls, as shown in the video ("pops and dances" is poetic but clearly is not a scientific description).
Click to expand...


Well...if you claim my post has errors...why aren't you correcting my mistakes...instead of asking me for more information to prove these things, which you already know are errors, are true? How can I prove an error to be true? Where is the logic, here?
 
28th Kingdom said:
Maccy,

I can see you want to go into great detail about these basement pools, but that's not even one of the bits of evidence I'm trying to push here....the pools fact was just an appendix to another point I was making. There were explosions reported in the basement...so the pools at the base of the WTC 1, 2, 7 are most likely from therma/ite placed in the basement. (Therma/ite separate from the explosives.)

Also, in open air...yes, molten metal would cool faster than 6 weeks...but trapped under the pile of rubble....a sort of oven or furnace was created...which is what persevered the heat wherein suspending the metal in a liquid state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3D2myMbQjQ

Why is it...that molten rock inside volcanoes ALWAYS stays hot and molten(liquid) ...until it spews OUTSIDE of the - oven-like confines of the volcano?
Click to expand...

Funny stuff, you appear to be far from peaking, your thermite is real funny, your facts are missing.

Now we add explosives in the basement, and thermite, more thermite. Why does it have to be thermite.

youtube, another youtube video! Who would know?

The new youTube school of CTer, no brains required, just look up facts on YouTube. Throw in some NIST qoutes here and there, they may think you read the thousands of pages.

I bet you will post more youTube stuff, not only Alex Jones can predict the future! Plus you will come up with more junk science.

Alex Jones eat your heart out, 28th will post more youTube video links, go 28th.

When will we get the real facts? So far you have proved there are not explosives. The videos we have watched show the WTC towers bend, not explode into total collapse. The videos have shown how thermite goes down, just like gravity, so it can not cut the vertical columns.

Proof as provided by you; From youTube you have proven your ideas wrong.
 
Last edited:
28th Kingdom said:
"Can you tell me, from your extensive knowledge of thermite/thermate, where on the wtc tower structures these thermite/thermate cutting charges would have been placed, and on how many? Waiting...but take your time..."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2172874#post2172874
Click to expand...

You would use RDX to blow up the WTC.

But if you ran an aircraft at 590 mph into an building to start fires, you would not need to use explosives.

How wouuld you place the thermite devices, what do they look like; and why do CD guys not use thermite to bring down buildings?

Why are CT guys so dumb to use thermite?

Why are you thinking there was thermite? There was no evidence of thermite, no piles of used thermite; where is your proof?

Too bad you were not around when Nixon did do a CT to cover up WaterGate. Bet you would not of figured it out!

Thermite? And you have no idea how it was done? Good job, you see to prove that you have no facts or good ideas FOREVER!

Next great idea?
 
You all still...think this is molten aluminum mixed with ambers from burning debris:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

It's the exact same color as the molten metal pouring from WTC 2...which is the EXACT same color and consistency of thermite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmHJORTlqk

Come on guys...be objective here...what are the unbelievable odds...of silver molten aluminum mixing with burning ambers...and creating a perfectly uniform colored liquid metal? That is seen all over the towers...and always looks the same. I mean...come on guys and gals.
 
28th Kingdom said:
You all still...think this is molten aluminum mixed with ambers from burning debris:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

It's the exact same color as the molten metal pouring from WTC 2...which is the EXACT same color and consistency of thermite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmHJORTlqk
Click to expand...
Circular reasoning.

28th Kingdom said:
Come on guys...be objective here...what are the unbelievable odds...of silver molten aluminum mixing with burning ambers...and creating a perfectly uniform colored liquid metal?
Click to expand...
Argument from personal incredulity.

28th Kingdom said:
That is seen all over the towers...and always looks the same. I mean...come on guys and gals.
Click to expand...
Appeal to pity.
 
28th Kingdom said:
You all still...think this is molten aluminum mixed with ambers from burning debris:

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

It's the exact same color as the molten metal pouring from WTC 2...which is the EXACT same color and consistency of thermite:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmHJORTlqk

Come on guys...be objective here...what are the unbelievable odds...of silver molten aluminum mixing with burning ambers...and creating a perfectly uniform colored liquid metal? That is seen all over the towers...and always looks the same. I mean...come on guys and gals.
Click to expand...

you are using a video form 1000 feet and saying it is thermite

I am telling you it is cheap computer case metal, cheap furniture metal melted by oxygen generators form the aircraft, pouring out the side.

See how oxygen generators, which are capable of destroying an aircraft, work when on fire!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
 
And actually...oh yea, this is good. This liquid CAN'T BE ALUMINUM! Why? Because even if you were to heat aluminum up to the point where it started to glow hot...it glows a very noticeable RED color. As oppose to molten iron (the after product of a thermite reaction) which burns yellow to orange in color. Molten iron really has no noticeable red glow.

So you SEE...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom