The Great Thermate Debate

[tsig]

Rather, a combination of aluminum and iron oxide which produces an exothermic reaction is exactly what the chips are, along with organic material which intensifies the reaction; hence the total more energy output being more than the theoretical maximum for thermite. If you don't want to call that thermite, what terminology would you prefer? Super-thermite? Sol-gel explosives? Such semantic nitpicking aside; such highly energetic nanocomposites don't simply form by happenstance, not even close.

You're right paint is a highly engineered product.

 

[Justin39640]

You don't understand why testing the sample in an inert atmosphere would prove or disprove therm*te, do you?

I highly doubt he understands what the term "inert" means let alone what it would prove or disprove.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Do you think that they waited a few years after inventing the thing before they filed for a patent?

Typically I file for Patents before I'm even sure the idea will work.......who files first wins..........

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Do you think that they waited a few years after inventing the thing before they filed for a patent?

Oh, absolutely. Inventors always give the rest of the world 5+ years to come up with the same idea and rob them of any potential fame and/or profits.

</sarcasm>

 

[Michal]

Quite simple. It did not exist in 2001. You have still not addressed the question of how one prevents the discovery of residues such as the refactory shell of the charge. An amazing number of objects of the size required were found in tact or crumpled in a way that still left them identifiable.

which simply proves that you triforcharityin post No373 and leftysergeant in post No380 lied

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6183569.html

 

[beachnut]

Apparenlty Leslie Robertson, says different. Make some research !!!

You were wrong when you first posted nonsense, and you have not failed to fail again. Robertson said the building failed due to impacts and fires. You failed to research, you made up a lie.

You lied about the design of the WTC, and you have delusions of CD backed with ignorance.

 

[Michal]

Do you think that they waited a few years after inventing the thing before they filed for a patent?

here is my answer: do you know how many solutions implemented in SR-71 were kept secret and not registered (for patent) for long years?

 

[beachnut]

here is my answer: do you know how many solutions implemented in SR-71 were kept secret and not registered (for patent) for long years?

STP, not very long, you just can't do research.

You lied about the WTC design due to ignorance and failed google research.

 

[triforcharity]

which simply proves that you triforcharityin post No373 and leftysergeant in post No380 lied

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6183569.html

Wow, can't prove the device works, can't prove it was invented in 2001, can't prove a damn thing.

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

 

[excaza]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6183569.html

Wow, a patent for cutting torches. You do realize the workers used them for cutting up the debris? Are you just going to fling things out in the hopes that something sticks?

 

[leftysergeant]

which simply proves that you triforcharityin post No373 and leftysergeant in post No380 lied

You are avoiding the point that notheing existed then or now that can do the job without leaving glaringly obvious residues and that there is no reason on earth to assume that anything that could even do the job existed in 2001.

 

[A W Smith]

which simply proves that you triforcharityin post No373 and leftysergeant in post No380 lied

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for Rule 12

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6183569.html

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I suppose the best course of action now is to refer to the "greatness" of the thermite debate as a low rumbling thud

 

[Michal]

You are avoiding the point that notheing existed then or now that can do the job without leaving glaringly obvious residues and that there is no reason on earth to assume that anything that could even do the job existed in 2001.

anyhow you did not address my point (for rule No12)

you lied, you loose


Grasping at straws are you ?

Wow, can't prove the device works, can't prove it was invented in 2001, can't prove a damn thing.

The video in the opening post proved that the concept is viable.
The patent was granted February 6 of 2001.

Wow, a patent for cutting torches. You do realize the workers used them for cutting up the debris? Are you just going to fling things out in the hopes that something sticks?

I suppose the best course of action now is to refer to the "greatness" of the thermite debate as a low rumbling thud

You need to learn how to follow links (and sublinks), read and comprehend.

[qimg]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/signedsealeddelivered.jpg[/qimg]

You just need to learn how to remember and comprehend.

You are avoiding the point that notheing existed then or now that can do the job without leaving glaringly obvious residues and that there is no reason on earth to assume that anything that could even do the job existed in 2001.

The patent was granted February 6 of 2001.
I posit that the "red/grey chips" are the residue.
The patent was granted February 6 of 2001.

For those too lazy to open that .pdf, here are the highlights :

 

[triforcharity]

Aparently, spelling is not your thing. Neither is reading. From your own patent.

Found here, btw.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...6,183,569.PN.&OS=PN/6,183,569&RS=PN/6,183,569

In addition, the prior art has not provided a practical solution for effecting an extended, linear cut in a piece of material. The prior art also has not sufficiently addressed concerns related to the health and safety of a user using an explosive shape charge apparatus to create high velocity explosions to cut material. As a result, the prior art has also not adequately considered use of a thermite-based cutting apparatus to alleviate hazards associated with debris, noise and pressure waves generated from using explosive charges to cut material having a substantial thickness.

Also....

The preferable range of thickness t for materials cut by the apparatus 1 of the present invention is about 0.25 to 2 inches.

Why did you not link to the original link?

You have two different links now. Who's the liar? Certainly not I, nor Lefty.


HOWEVER, two problems you STILL have.

1- This type device would need to be fairly large, and almost impossible to conceal. Someone would certainly notice it.

2- The dogs around GZ would have detected the thermite residues, as well as the various FBI, ATF, and many other local, state, and national LE agencies who sifted through every piece of material. Not ONE of them noticed the obvious burns on the steel.

Imagine that.....

 

[Oystein]

Aparently, spelling is not your thing. Neither is reading. From your own patent.

Found here, btw.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...6,183,569.PN.&OS=PN/6,183,569&RS=PN/6,183,569

...

Ouch! I suggest you read again! I'll quote US Patent with a different highlight:

the prior art has not provided a practical solution for effecting an extended, linear cut in a piece of material.

It's contained in the section "Description of the Prior Art", which describes previous patents trying for the same or similar effect (2,587,243/4,693,181/4,815,384). Those did not introduce "thermitebased apparatus" or alleviate the hazards associated with explosives.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

I suppose the best course of action now is to refer to the "greatness" of the thermite debate as a low rumbling thud

I don't even hear that.....all I hear is crickets......chirp...........chirp

 

[sheeplesnshills]

anyhow you did not address my point (for rule No12)

you lied, you loose


You do know that "loose" does not mean what you think it does, don't you?
If you are going to misspell words its best not use a large font, bold and colour.
That just makes you look like a fool.

 

[Oystein]

I think that debunkers should not invest too much time in trying to "prove" that no engineering solution could exist now or in 2001 that would cut steel columns like the WTC ones in a way that's appropriate for intentional demolition.
Please note:

• When some eminent authority says that some engineering solution will come soon, he is usually right; when some eminent authority says that some engineering solution is impossible, he is almost certainly wrong
• In the case of an act of terror, the demolition doesn't have to be so very much controlled like a usual CD. You don't necessarily have to time all your cuts in a certain pattern. Conceivably, you cold cut one by one until one too much has been cut and collapse commences.
• To the extent that thermite, in its simplest form, could indeed be simply rust and aluminium, two substances that are abundant at the WTC, this does not have to alert any sniffing dogs. Igniters (magnesium...) would be a little bit more difficult to pass by, but don't assume it's impossible
• You don't absolutely HAVE to apply such devices in a way that would get noticed. Sure, if you remove bathroom walls and attach devices there, that would catch someone's attention. But if you go to the spaces between cealings and the floor above, you could escape notice for a few days.

So in general, I'd advice not to try to prove the negative too much.

If the other side has a theory, they should spell it out to a degree of detail that allows for testable predictions, and then we can see if we find positive evidence.

We can lean back and wait. The red-grey chips are not evidence, and the lack of slags and previously melted column ends is a pretty strong reason to assume that the thermite theory is not true.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Ouch! I suggest you read again! I'll quote US Patent with a different highlight:


It's contained in the section "Description of the Prior Art", which describes previous patents trying for the same or similar effect (2,587,243/4,693,181/4,815,384). Those did not introduce "thermitebased apparatus" or alleviate the hazards associated with explosives.

I hate prior art.....how dare somebody have invented something before I got the idea