• 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.

A Thermite/Thermate Question

PhantomWolf said:
Except that the collapses took about 16 and 18 seconds while freefall would have been 9 and 10 seconds. You think if I was driving 180km/h in a 100km/h zone that the cop would let me off the speeding ticket cause I was going "near the speed limit"?
Click to expand...
Maybe I'm just being picky here, but why does every person making the free fall speed claim refer to free fall as speed? Seriously, haven't they figured out yet that free fall is acceleration by gravity without any other external mechanisms?


And have they figured out how to attach the rockets to the debris which fell ahead of the freefall speed collapse wave? ;)
 
finalmessenger said:
And to Phantom Wolf-you just dropped your other paw. Grizz got it right. You added about 10 secs to freefall of buildings. That is just total trash when anyone can find out how fast they really "accelerated".
Click to expand...

How fast they accelerate throughout the collapse has a direct bearing on the time it took from the collapse initiation to the end of the collapse. If a large item was dropped from the initiation point on WTC 2 it would have taken 9 secs to hit the ground, on WTC 1 it would have taken 10 seconds. If the buildings were in freefall, then they would have taken 9 secs and 10 secs to collaspe. For them to have taken at least 16 secs (WTC 2) and 18 seconds (WTC 1) they can not have been falling at freefall, or even close to freefall. This is quite clear from the video's of the collapses as well as the Sesmic data of the collapses. It's also totally obvious when you look at the video and see the panels falling well ahead of the collapse front.

And yeah Grizz did get it right, so I have to wonder why you said:

And then there are the people who keep forgetting about the speed of collapse=freefall
Click to expand...

Cause you know, funny thing, I refered to the collapse times, not Freefall speed. You did that.
 
finalmessenger said:
You say thermite or thermate. I say whatever. I downloaded as many vids as I could find. Boom boom boom. Gone gone gone. Now those are some upside down horseshoes because the luck was all bad.

If you dig you may come up with something relevant. If you BS you will just shovel up BS. Debunkers dare you to bring facts when they can just as easily look it up themselves. So here are some facts I found for them. Need some more? I’m not the 911 Commission of a crime here. I’ll go look if you want me to.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...stions-Regarding-Thermite-by-Robert-Moore.pdf

So who said thermite isn’t possible? And then there are the people who keep forgetting about the speed of collapse=freefall(?), which is an inescapable conclusion in this case because it was all recorded for our benefit. Absolutely, completely, utterly, totally impossible and ridiculous to boot.
Click to expand...

hey I remember the Bert Moore device here at Jref. we laughed till we cried. Check out its size. Check out the date! its friggin huge. And these gigantic devices were planted without anyone noticing metal objects the size of sofas surrounding the core columns? really?
 
THERMITE WELL: To cut metal with thermite, take a refractory crucible and
drill a 1/4 in. hole in the bottom. Epoxy a thin (20 ga.) sheet of mild steel
over the hole. Allow the epoxy to dry. Fill the crucible with ferro-thermite
and insert a first fire igniter in the thermite. Fashion a standoff to the
crucible. This should hold the crucible about 1 1/2 in. up. Place the well
over your target and ignite the first fire. The well works this way.
The thermite burns, making slag and iron. Since the iron is heavier it goes
to the bottom of the well. The molten iron burns through the metal sheet.
This produces a small delay which gives the iron and slag more time to
separate fully. The molten iron drips out through the hole in the bottom of
the crucible. The standoff allows the thermite to continue flowing out of the
crucible. The force of the dripping iron bores a hole in the target.
A 2 lb. thermite well can penetrate up to 3/4 in. of steel. Experiment with
different configurations to get maximum penetration. For a crucible, try a
flower pot coated with a magnesium oxide layer. Sometimes the pot cracks
however. Take the cast thermite formula and add 50% ferro-thermite to it.
This produces a fair amount of iron plus a very liquid slag.
 
finalmessenger said:
THERMITE WELL: To cut metal with thermite, take a refractory crucible and
drill a 1/4 in. hole in the bottom. Epoxy a thin (20 ga.) sheet of mild steel
over the hole. Allow the epoxy to dry. Fill the crucible with ferro-thermite
and insert a first fire igniter in the thermite. Fashion a standoff to the
crucible. This should hold the crucible about 1 1/2 in. up. Place the well
over your target
Click to expand...
ok, lets stop here, this rig uses gravity to allow the molten iron to drip down, how do you rotate this to cut a vertical column? (since you cant, you know, rotate gravity)


and ignite the first fire. The well works this way.
The thermite burns, making slag and iron. Since the iron is heavier it goes
to the bottom of the well. The molten iron burns through the metal sheet.
This produces a small delay which gives the iron and slag more time to
separate fully. The molten iron drips out through the hole in the bottom of
the crucible. The standoff allows the thermite to continue flowing out of the
crucible. The force of the dripping iron bores a hole in the target.
A 2 lb. thermite well can penetrate up to 3/4 in. of steel.
Click to expand...
the columns at the WTC were much thicker than 3/4in
 
BTW, please explain the photos of what looks like steel girders cut at an angle at GZ. Again, steel bends long before it breaks unless it is cut. They sure look cut to me.
 
Last edited:
finalmessenger said:
BTW, please explain the photos of what looks like steel girders cut at an angle at GZ. Again, steel bends long before it breaks unless it is cut. They sure look cut to me.
Click to expand...

They were cut by the clean up crews. Any truther who has not been in a coma for 3 years knows this. There are photos of crews doing this.
 
good luck with that

finalmessenger said:
THERMITE WELL: To cut metal with thermite, take a refractory crucible and
drill a 1/4 in. hole in the bottom. Epoxy a thin (20 ga.) sheet of mild steel
over the hole. Allow the epoxy to dry. Fill the crucible with ferro-thermite
and insert a first fire igniter in the thermite. Fashion a standoff to the
crucible. This should hold the crucible about 1 1/2 in. up. Place the well
over your target and ignite the first fire. The well works this way.
The thermite burns, making slag and iron. Since the iron is heavier it goes
to the bottom of the well. The molten iron burns through the metal sheet.
This produces a small delay which gives the iron and slag more time to
separate fully. The molten iron drips out through the hole in the bottom of
the crucible. The standoff allows the thermite to continue flowing out of the
crucible. The force of the dripping iron bores a hole in the target.
A 2 lb. thermite well can penetrate up to 3/4 in. of steel. Experiment with
different configurations to get maximum penetration. For a crucible, try a
flower pot coated with a magnesium oxide layer. Sometimes the pot cracks
however. Take the cast thermite formula and add 50% ferro-thermite to it.
This produces a fair amount of iron plus a very liquid slag.
Click to expand...

great now try it sideways, on a 16" x 36" by 3" thick core column.
 
Jones stated that thermite was a "clever" choice because its ingredients, aluminum and iron oxide do not require identifying tags by law, meaning they couldn't be traced back to their manufacturers.
 
finalmessenger said:
Jones stated that thermite was a "clever" choice because its ingredients, aluminum and iron oxide do not require identifying tags by law, meaning they couldn't be traced back to their manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Unfortunatly for Jones. he is not clever.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/theyoughtaknowbetter%3Acritiquesoftheinept

Physicist Dave Rogers Comments on Steven E. Jones' Paper "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse?"

BYU Engineers denounce Steven Jones' 9/11 claims

Bad science: comments on Steven Jones' January, 2008 paper on iron microspheres found in WTC7 dust.

Dr. Frank Greening's summary of Jones' January, 2008 paper on iron microspheres. More here.

The "mysterious" iron spheres in WTC dust that are cited by Jones as possible evidence of thermite or thermate use, were in fact expected to be produced by the WTC fires:

Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

...In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event. Source (PDF)​
Dr. Frank Greening lectures Steven Jones about the content of his iron microspheres

Flaws with Jones' X-ray analysis of dust
On the quantification of EDS spectra (related to Steven Jones' "microspheres" claims)

Steven E. Jones evades questions about peer review of his 9/11 work.

Steven Jones falsely claims 90 peer reviewed papers in JONES: it's actually 40 non-peer reviewed articles. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98462 and http://911blogger.com/node/12469

Jones thinks vehicles around WTC site may have been set afire by "thermite dust." As opposed to, you know, paper.

Steven Jones argues that the tower collapses were both "straight down" and characterized by the horizontal ejection of structural steel.

Steven E. Jones determines that 4"-thick concrete floors will not pulverize when a quarter-mile high building collapses. Ya can't make this stuff up.

My look at Steven Jones' thermite/thermate hypothesis

Steven Jones attempts multiple deceptions by photograph

Steven Jones makes false claim of explosive "squibs" at top of WTC 7

Steven Jones misrepresents WTC 7's collapse time

Steven Jones egregiously misrepresents the fires in WTC 7 “Fires were random, not particularly large, and certainly not an inferno," and again misuses photos.

Robert Cronk: "9/11, Steven Jones, and Me" (4 parts)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
what a dissapointment, and i had more steven jones links ready.

I see he's logged off. Was that our FinalMessage for tonight? Was it information overload or did we answer his thermite/thermate questions?
 
finalmessenger said:
And then there are the people who keep forgetting about the speed of collapse=freefall(?), which is an inescapable conclusion in this case because it was all recorded for our benefit. Absolutely, completely, utterly, totally impossible and ridiculous to boot.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to what you're trying to achieve here, finalmessenger. The vast majority of posters on this forum, including most of the resident truthers, are well aware that the collapses of the Twin Towers took place significantly slower than freefall, as are any casual readers of the forum who have, in fact, casually read it. The cogniscenti are aware that a very small portion of the collapse of WTC7 has been modelled as taking place within measurement error of freefall acceleration, both by NIST and by truth movement sources. A few of us are even aware that this WTC7 freefall result is itself highly dubious, and may be an artefact of the fitting procedure used. All of us are however aware that freefall collapse is a long-debunked lie of the truth movement. What is your purpose, then, in advancing evidence which is known to be incorrect?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom