no i am not extrapolating without prior case. we know that thermite can generate sufficient heat to melt steel. thats a fact which you do not dispute. the prior case is when experiments show how thermite reactions melts steel.
I've acknowledged that thermite melts steel. I am not disputing with you on this.
your argument that I need a prior CD usng thermite is toothless unless you can refute the already known fact that thermiite can and does generate enough heat to melt steel.
When did I say you needed a prior CD to show that thermite melts steel? You need to read my statements better.
You made an
assumption on how a thermite demolition
would/should look after the fact. You provided witness statements that there was molten steel
weeks after the fact, no scratch that,
Days.
A thermite reaction is fast, lasting only a few minutes at
most (Want to sustain a reaction for days to sustain metal in a liquid state do you really want to argue for a pile of thermite the size of pike's peak?). When the heat source runs out then there's nothing to
sustain the temperature.
Add to that no conventional thermite would survive the collapse in an ideal mixture, or that, according to you, the fires weren't hot enough to provide an ignition source for anything
unignited which miraculously survived the collapse of the towers.
now given this fact then it is true to say that if a CD used thermite then we would expect to find melted steel (e.g. in the dust samples)
For how long
after the collapse? Days? Weeks? Months after the reactions have ceased?
and if the heat generated from many thermite reactions was suddenly covered up and unable to escape a rubble pile coupled
Insulation would certainly retain the heat, but for how long at the required temperature to keep steel in a molten state? Remember, the debris piles were not perfect insulators. What if the reactions took place outside of one of the smoldering hot spots, and the reaction ran out? This is fundamentally the problem with your argument.
None of this even
begins to describe the logistics of importing the thermite into the building before collapse.
with the presence of unignited nanothermites randomly distributed in the rubble pile then it seems likely that molten steel would be discovered.
I think you've brought up nano-thermite long enough. Name one scientist other than Jones who has identified this new thermite. Someone outside of the conspiracy theory loop (
and for fairness, somebody who has not participated in politics).
Now to tackle your other questions about these paint chips:
spheres in the dust were found that have the same chemical signature of commercial thermite.
If I recall correctly these are your molybdenum spheres correct?
Think about the sources:
- The steel from the trade centers - One of the top uses of molybdenum is as an alloy in stainless steels
- Other alloying uses - Tool steels, for things like bearings, dies, machining components; cast irons, for steel mill rolls, auto parts, crusher parts; super alloys for use in furnace parts, gas turbine parts, chemical processing equipment.
- Other uses - Chemicals and lubricants,
- Catalysts - Paint pignments, Corrosion inhibitors, smoke and flame retardants (like
fireproofing),
It's used in machinery, electrical applications, transportation, chemicals, oil and gas, etc
Is thermite required to liberate the molybdenum from the materials it is incorporated in?
we have expoding paint (red chips) that produce spheres that have the same chemical signature as commercial thermite. can you produce red paint that is attracted to a magnet?
Anything with
iron is magnetic, & steel is made up mostly of iron (essentially steel is simply an alloy).
can you produce paint that explodes?
If by 'explode' you mean to
spontaneously combust, you might be looking at
pyrophoric iron sulfides. Gypsum board releases sulfur as it degrades, and could have conceivably combined with iron during the oxidation process.
or perhaps you can point to a case when an office fire melted steel?
I never argued that fire melted the steel... I've been considering alternative sources since nearly all of the evidence in my observation has argud
against controlled demolition.
or perhaps you can provide an article which states a smoldering fire can generate temperatures sufficient to melt steel?
For this I will need to comb through the witness account and consider the speakers' background and other implications of the statements. This will be presented later.
your argument is also strange because it is blind to the fact that YOUR hypothesis has no precedence!
Yes, think for a moment how often a passenger jet crashes into a building.
And then compare what you're using to support thermite in this argument.
We know steel loses 50% of it's loading capacity by 600 oC, and 90% by 1000 oC. We
know that the redistributed gravity loads after the planes hit, brought the intact columns closer to their
room temperature load capacities. A rather bad combination if you ask me...
So what do we know?
Twin towers
- The towers had considerations for a plane impact in mind
- Impact damage redistributed the loads and destroyed [or severely damaged] floor slabs on several floors. The planes also struck parts of the core structure.
- The floor slabs were protected by spray- fire proofing.
- The core columns were protected by gypsum wall board, and drywall
- Mechanical systems were severed from the impact area and up.
Let's deal with the fireproofing first since you claim that NIST's analysis is flawed. First off, the core protection, and the floor trusses were protected differently. The floor trusses were protected by spray-on foam fireproofing. The core was walled in gypsum board.
- Sprayon fireproofing is uniformly attached to the trusses so let's assume that only parts which were hit directly with plane debris was dislodged. This leaves the core columns:
- The core was protected by a layer of gypsum board (AKA drywall).
UNLIKE the foam, this gypsum board is attached directly to the columns, and is attached as a unit like so:
<<link>>
Gypsum, plaster, calcium silicate and other cementitious materials are usually supplied as panels which are fixed to the structure with either steel wire or nailed to a timber cradle. Advantages of this type of system include attractive appearance, ease of installation and no particular surface preparation requirements. However, they are not suitable for exterior use due to poor weathering characteristics and installation can be time consuming
Source
-- In short since it is not continuously bound to the structure as foam would be, if it is impacted by an exterior force and breached it does not provide the same level of protection that say, foam based protection would offer since it covers the structure all over.
Add to these that the there was visible distortion in the exterior columns from added lateral loads:
-The floors were connected to the perimeter columns. This is well known.
-Under temperature variations, materials expand and contract, the steel underwent creeping. A combination effect which affected the floors.
- You continue to ask what proves that the floors could cause the visible distortions in the perimeter columns, the reason we know it was the floors is because the perimeter columns had to support some of the gravity loads from the floor span. Just as importantly, the floors transferred lateral bracing to the core column which was built almost entirely for
gravity loads.
This is all
before the collapse. So far in regard to the 'pre-collapse' conditions you've pointed out an anomoly for which there is no direct sample of, and an anomoly which was not observed in the other tower.
that is EXACTLY what you are doing. except thermite melting steel is a proven fact. office fires melting steel is not, and i cannot find an article on smoldering fires generating sufficient temperatures to melt steel.
Have I bored you enough yeeeeet?
This is a strawman, because NIST has never argued that the steel was
ever melted by the fires. They are not claiming that the steel melted, you are. Their lack of acknowledgment may not be gratifying but they simply have not argued that steel was melted by the fires.
(A) we add hydrocarbons, office material, gypsum etc and we ignite these materials before covering it up with dust and concrete and then spray water all over it. In my pile
(B) i will use all the same materials as you have used in addition to thermite, solgel or whatever which i too ignite before covering it up. and we can observe which pile generates higher temperatures for a longer period of time and can manage to melt steel.
Pile A would burn longer and probably less than 2000 oF, Pile B will produce greater temperatures, however whether it
maintains a sufficient temperature to sustain steel in a liquid state for several weeks is very questionable. You still haven't sufficiently addressed how that would work.
