• 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!

28th Kingdom said:
"... a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns ..."

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."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm - NIST FAQ 12


"Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning."

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace." NIST FAQ 11

So NIST says there is no clear indication that this "material" is burning. But, then NIST speculates... that this "material," is composed (in part) of burned materials. Doublethink? So if nothing is burning, where is that glow coming from? Is that not a clear sign the material is burning?
Click to expand...

28th, if you feel you have proved thermite then please write it up in a concise proof, or formal argument, and post it.

I would suggest the following format if you wish to debate one individual on your thermite formal argument

Proposed format for moderated debate

1) a) The side arguing for the proposition (Side A) shall post first.
Side A shall post an introduction that shall state the proposition they will be defending and five points that they will argue in defense of the proposition. One post in length.

1) b) The side arguing against the proposition (Side D) shall post next.
Side B shall post an introduction that shall state how they shall be arguing against the proposition and five counter-arguments they will argue against the proposition. One post in length.

2) a) Side A will present point 1. One post in length.
2) b) Side D will present counter-point 1. One post in length.

3) a) Side A will present point 2. One post in length.
3) b) Side D will present counter-point 2. One post in length.

4) a) Side A will present point 3. One post in length.
4) b) Side D will present counter-point 3. One post in length.

5) a) Side A will present point 4. One post in length.
5) b) Side D will present counter-point 4. One post in length.

6) a) Side A will present point 5. One post in length.
6) b) Side D will present counter-point 5. One post in length.

7) a) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) b) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) c) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) d) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) e) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) f) Side D will defend. One post in length.

8) a) Side A will present their summary. One post in length.
8) b) Side D will present their summary. One post in length.

A) Should Side A or Side D wish to point out logical fallacies made by their opponent, they will do so during when of their scheduled posts and the pointing out of the logical fallacy does count towards their total post length limit. Their opponent will then receive one post, in addition to their scheduled posts, to defend themselves against the accusation.

B) A separate thread shall be started for the peanut gallery to comment as they see fit.

C) Each side will have one week from the time their opponent posts the immediate previous point to respond. Failure to do so, or failing to notify the thread moderator of extenuating circumstances preventing responding, will result in forfeiting the debate.

D) Only Side A and Side D may post in the moderated thread.

E) Images will be posted as links to hosting sites (photobucket, vbhost, etc) and shall not make use of in-lining.

F) References to external sites may only be used as source citations; the relevant portion must be quoted in the post and counts towards the total post length.
 
28th Kingdom said:
"... a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns ..."

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."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm - NIST FAQ 12


"Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning."

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace." NIST FAQ 11

So NIST says there is no clear indication that this "material" is burning. But, then NIST speculates... that this "material," is composed (in part) of burned materials. Doublethink? So if nothing is burning, where is that glow coming from? Is that not a clear sign the material is burning?
Click to expand...

No, no proof of thermite here?

try again thermite boy
 
28th Kingdom said:
"... a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns ..."
"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace." NIST FAQ 11

So NIST says there is no clear indication that this "material" is burning. But, then NIST speculates... that this "material," is composed (in part) of burned materials. Doublethink? So if nothing is burning, where is that glow coming from? Is that not a clear sign the material is burning?
Click to expand...

No, they said burnt material is in the aluminum. Are must try harder.
 
No, it's a clear sign that it is molten.

Everything burns if heated to a high enough temperature because they give off gasses which ignite.

But like most solids, aluminium goes from solid to liquid to gas depending on temperature.

If it wasn't hot enough to burn that doesn't mean it wasn't hot enough to melt.

Shortly after midnight on 12 January he poured it (petrol) through the letterbox of the Cochrane's Wythenshawe home and lit a match, while Jane kept watch.

The hallway of the terrace in Warmley Road was engulfed in flames and reached temperatures of 1,000 degrees centigrade in minutes.

By the time fire crews arrived Mrs Cochrane was dead and although her husband was rescued, he later died in hospital. Post-mortem examinations revealed the pair died from burns and smoke inhalation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/6178909.stm
Click to expand...
 
28th Kingdom said:
"... a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns ..."

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."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm - NIST FAQ 12
Click to expand...
NIST didnt test for chemical residue for thermite because there were no physical indication of thermite (which would be very apparent if thermite had been used)

take for example a scare disease of years past, flesh eating bacteria, when someone died of this it left very obvious signs on the body right? so if a body comes into a coronors office, clean and healthy looking, shoudl the coronor run a special culture to test for flesh eating bacteria? or would it be a waste since its obvious from a cursory visual inspection that this person didnt die from it?


and you have yet to provide mechanism by which thermite can cut a vertical column
 
28th Kingdom said:
"... a thermite reaction can cut through large steel columns ..."

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."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm - NIST FAQ 12
Click to expand...

It is incredibly dishonest of you to present this quote out of its original context. The full response is here:
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.
Click to expand...

Bolding mine. NIST had a very good reason not to investigate the thermite/thermate claim. It's impossible to substantiate, and the material itself would make a covert controlled demolition operation impossible.
 
Belz... said:
If the thread is no longer interesting to you, why do you linger here, posting cats (or actually, ONE cat, over and over) ?

Post-count-upping ?

Otherwise at least say something relevant, or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Time to let the cat out of the bag? Perhaps, the bit of performance art doesn't seem to be having any effect on the intended target, although others do seem to be enjoying it. It pretty much all comes down to this:

Horatius said:
You've posted a video in which Jones says the Madrid hotel didn't collapse due to fire, while they were showing the video of the steel framed portion of the hotel collapsing.

How can we accept anything else this video might say when it so obviously expects us to accept a completely absurd assertion, while it's actively debunking itself?


Seriously, folks, take a look. About 1:00-1:30 in.

He goes on to say, "The structure remains", implying the steel structure, when in fact, it was only the concrete structure that remained. And they show a picture of just that!

How can I accept anything from someone who blatantly lies to my face, and expects me to not even notice?
Click to expand...

We have a fellow posting pictures and videos, and making absolutely inane assertions as to what they do or do not show. Not unlike a certain cat-denier we could mention. It was hoped that by mocking this behaviour, he could be induced into a bit of self-reflection, that would lead to a general improvement in his abilities to actually see what's in front of him, rather than what he wants to see.

Of course, that looks to be a complete failure.

I'd also take issue with the assertion that I haven't brought anything relevant to the discussion. In fact, I provide better evidence for his hypothesis than he does.

It simply gets frustrating when you spend a lot of time writing a well-thought out post, that is either completely ignored, or responded to in an inane fashion. Posting a cat picture is easier and more fun.

When appeals to common sense are brushed off, and he asserts that rediculously complicated processes would be "not to complex" or "easily pulled off", what other response can you make?

When he makes an implied argument, and then denies the obvious implication when called on it, which seems to be his entire method of argumentation, what else is there to do?

When he demands to know what evidence we would need to convince us he has a point, and then ignores all of our suggestions to keep posting the same tired, inane, bald assertions of "scientifically proving" things, what else can I do?


I can at least post a picture of a cat and make everyone but you and him smile.

9490457867329d6d2.jpg


Different cat. Happy now?
 
firecoins said:
what are you talking about? My mind has been changed. I love cats now!:D I think I am going to try to get some pussy right now!
Click to expand...

That's "...get a pussy right now!" Completely different thing, you know!




Dumb Dog People

:D
 
The Almond said:
It is incredibly dishonest of you to present this quote out of its original context. The full response is here:


Bolding mine. NIST had a very good reason not to investigate the thermite/thermate claim. It's impossible to substantiate, and the material itself would make a covert controlled demolition operation impossible.
Click to expand...

No, the only thing that is intellectually dishonest about my previous post is the classic Doublethink contained in the NIST report. (That would be the part you so conveniently opted to ignore)

NIST said...that the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 had no visual indication that it was burning. Then they proceed to say...that this molten material was composed (in part) of debris that glowed orange like logs burning in a fireplace. So if the material glowed like logs burning in a fireplace...doesn't that mean there was a visual indication it was burning?

Go research the exact meaning of Doublethink and you will see why I just completely undermined the credibility of the NIST report.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
 
28th Kingdom said:
NIST said...that the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 had no visual indication that it was burning. Then they proceed to say...that this molten material was composed (in part) of debris that glowed orange like logs burning in a fireplace. So if the material glowed like logs burning in a fireplace...doesn't that mean there was a visual indication it was burning?
Click to expand...

Melting and burning are two different issues.

Aluminium can melt and have burning office items mixed in with it.
 
He is a silly man.

The molten aluminium contained debris which glowed like embers burning in a fireplace...you know, like the charcoal you BURN in your barbecue....see much flame?
 
28th Kingdom said:
No, the only thing that is intellectually dishonest about my previous post is the classic Doublethink contained in the NIST report. (That would be the part you so conveniently opted to ignore)

NIST said...that the molten metal pouring from WTC 2 had no visual indication that it was burning. Then they proceed to say...that this molten material was composed (in part) of debris that glowed orange like logs burning in a fireplace. So if the material glowed like logs burning in a fireplace...doesn't that mean there was a visual indication it was burning?

Go research the exact meaning of Doublethink and you will see why I just completely undermined the credibility of the NIST report.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Click to expand...


Are you really that obtuse? It glowed LIKE logs in a fireplace. It's a comparison. Sort of like saying a loud sharp noise sounded LIKE a bomb going off. Sound familiar?

And by the way, have you dug up any evidence you'd like to share of a device that would allow thermite to cut through a vertical beam?
 
Last edited:
I think what worries me most about CTers is their absolute certainty. While most posters here are sure that the NIST report and the "official" story (hate that phrase) are correct based on the available evidence, we would be willing to change that view if shown good evidence to do so. CTers could be shown great evidence from now till doomsday and they will never change their minds.
 
FramerDave said:
Are you really that obtuse? It glowed LIKE logs in a fireplace. It's a comparison. Sort of like saying a loud sharp noise sounded LIKE a bomb going off. Sound familiar?
Click to expand...

Yea, I'm so obtuse, that I didn't omit key words in order to distort the reality of the situation... Mr. Orwell, sir.

It wasn't - glowed like logs - it was - glowed like logs that were burning in a fireplace. They made a visual comparison of a material that has no visual signs of burning to a material that has clear visual signs of burning.
 
28th Kingdom said:
Yea, I'm so obtuse, that I didn't omit key words in order to distort the reality of the situation... Mr. Orwell, sir.

It wasn't - glowed like logs - it was - glowed like logs that were burning in a fireplace. They made a visual comparison of a material that has no visual signs of burning to a material that has clear visual signs of burning.
Click to expand...


Who is playing word games now?

And you still have not dealt with this issue:

Melting and burning are two different issues.

Aluminium can melt and have burning office items mixed in with it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom