OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[sheeplesnshills]

Keep in mind I know you are not advocating for this theory.

Correct.

(BTW my apologies to DC as I had forgotten he is no longer a 'truther'.)

Do you think you could work out a way of using it in a controlled fashion to make the building fall they way you want it to?

Yes

Using thermite to heat up, ie. simply weaken, key parts of the fire floor levels seems to me to be just making up stuff for the sole reason that one cannot envision the events not being a vast gov't conspiracy.

True but thats not the same as saying would be impossible to bring down a building using thermite. The WTC was not, as there is zero evidence that it was, utterly impractical to set and ignite charges or to leave no evidence of those charges.
We should be careful about saying things are impossible just because no one has tried to do it.

NIST and common sense ( who? what? where did that phrase come from?) explain the heating up of the steel as a result of the office fires which were lit and spread to be very large area, multi floor fires within seconds by the introduction of thousands of gallons of liquid acellerant.

Agree 100%, why waste time with thermite etc when you have an airliner.......

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Fixed that for ya AGAIN, because you convenienty ignored the most important obstacle AGAIN.

If you wanted the building to come down, and blame it on fire, which is not explosive in nature, you would use a different type of charge, an incendiary to cut the beams. You would NOT use explosives which would give away your project."
-Richard Gage

An incendiary was used......a Boeing 767 fill of fuel!
Thermite would be just as obvious as explosives as it would leave traces of the thermite itself, damaged beams and ignition systems all over the debris pile.

 

[GlennB]

Quote where I claimed thermite was an explosive.

Er, triforcharity quoted your exact words in his post, to which you are now responding. Unless by "these explosives" you're thinking of something other than therm?te. But that would be plain weird, given the thread and its current course.

 

[tempesta29]

Er, triforcharity quoted your exact words in his post, to which you are now responding. Unless by "these explosives" you're thinking of something other than therm?te. But that would be plain weird, given the thread and its current course.

If I said explosives then yes, I was not referring to thermite specifically, by definition. I have never referred to thermite as an explosive. You are claiming I have.

Quote it.

 

[triforcharity]

I already HAVE quoted it. In the context of this thread (assuming you understand "context") it is absolutely what you claimed.

If not, please clarify this post.

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.

There you go. Just in case.

 

[tempesta29]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

 

[triforcharity]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

But this thread is NOT about explosives, is it?

A simple "Yes" or "no" will suffice.

 

[adkinsjr]

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

Then why did you say:

someone simply chose to use a highly volatile incendiary in a controlled demolition.

LOL, The fact of the matter is that you referred to thermite as an explosive, you were corrected, and now you're trying to save yourself the embarrassment by playing with words..."oh I never said that EXACTLY!"

Hurry think of something! Oh let me guess, they used both thermite AND explosives in the demolition right? Maybe you can pretend like that's what you were getting at all along, anything to avoid admitting your fluke.

 

[twinstead]

When one can make stuff up as one goes along, one is guaranteed to never lose a debate, huh?

 

[tempesta29]

Then why did you say:

LOL, The fact of the matter is that you referred to thermite as an explosive, you were corrected, and now you're trying to save yourself the embarrassment by playing with words..."oh I never said that EXACTLY!"

You're either too incompetent to decipher the facts or you're just being dishonest. Where do I specifically refer to thermite as an explosive? Be very thoughtful in your response to this because as of now you're just failing.

Hurry think of something! Oh let me guess, they used both thermite AND explosives in the demolition right? Maybe you can pretend like that's what you were getting at all along, anything to avoid admitting your fluke.

That's exactly what I meant. In fact, I believe I've even posted just that in this forum. That is also the predominant theory of those would believe these buildings were brought down in this fashion.

But if you want to get technical about my posts rather than just being reasonable: quote exactly where I claimed thermite was an explosive. It's simply reading comprehension: I claimed explosives were used, and I also claimed thermite was used. I never mixed the two. You did. Try harder, and be honest in your exchanges.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Once again I'll have to point out to the truthers that no matter what type of devices they wish to invent in their fantasy world it must be able to reliably withstand the impacts and/or observed fires completely unscathed for at least 45 minutes in the real world. That means all of the device, from the initiation mechanism(s) to the final substance being ignited (be it explosive or incendiary) with the additional requirement that it be undetectable (at the very least to the untrained eye) in it's placement both during and after its installation.

That's what's impossible. I have no doubt that you can rig up devices that might work given enough time and space to meet the first of those requirements, but not the second. Only people relying upon a faulty Electric Monk make claims that it can be done while maintaining a straight face.

 

[adkinsjr]

But if you want to get technical about my posts rather than just being reasonable: quote exactly where I claimed thermite was an explosive. .

We're talking about thermite demolition, tempesta. The context of this discussion was the plausibility of rigging three tall occupied office buildings with demolition devices which are specifically based on thermite , and completing this task in secrecy. I said that there are major obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible. Your response to me was:

"There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings"

You're obviously referring to the demolition devices that I was discussing as "these explosives." Stop trying to save face here, you're already in the "truth" cult, and that's rock bottom.

 

[tempesta29]

We're talking about thermite demolition, tempesta. The context of this discussion was the plausibility of rigging three tall occupied office buildings with demolition devices which are specifically based on thermite , and completing this task in secrecy. I said that there are major obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible. Your response to me was:

You're obviously referring to the demolition devices that I was discussing as "these explosives." Stop trying to save face here, you're already in the "truth" cult, and that's rock bottom.

How ironic. It was your post, post #55, in which you turn the discussion from thermite itself to a discussion of how one would rig such high profile structures in secrecy. At that point, you changed the conversation from thermite being used in demolition to the plausibility of rigging the buildings at all.

Now, here you are trying to pin this sharp turn in topic on me.

No, I compared thermite being used to demolish three steel framed high-rises on the same day, all of which are larger than any building that's ever been demolished, all of which were being used for office space at the time, and doing it all in complete in complete secrecy with going to mars

There are logistical obstacles to overcome, some of which may be impossible to overcome. Rigging the towers with demolition devices in complete secrecy is a serious obstacle that you conveniently ignore when you say that they "simply chose to use thermite."

The controlled demoltion hypothesis delusion is preposterous.

Until your above post, I was on topic, referring only to thermite itself as the variable. I discussed only the logistics involved in adding thermite to the demolition technology. It was you in the above post who just tossed in the secrecy factor. How is rigging the Twin Towers with explosives so different from rigging them with an explosive/thermite combination? Does one require more 'secrecy' than the other? Is robbing a bank with an MP5K so much different logistically than robbing a bank with an AK74?

A bit of logical consistency would be nice, but apparently that's asking too much.

 

[adkinsjr]

How ironic. It was your post, post #55, in which you turn the discussion from thermite itself to a discussion of how one would rig such high profile structures THERMITE in secrecy. At that point, you changed the conversation from thermite being used in demolition to the plausibility of rigging the buildings WITH THERMITE at all.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Telltale Tom]

So I think that the You Tube videos on this site prove that large amounts of thermite can cut beams both vertically and horizontally. So the demo team would have used very big thermite devices to cut the 4in flanges and webs columns.

I am sure they could have easily smuggled the tons of thermite into the buildings and welded them to the internal and perimeter columns without anyone noticing. How clever and daring our government are. And since the NYFD, NYPD and the engineering community seem to be in on it that explains why supposedly "nobody noticed anything odd during the clear up."

You can see why thermite is consistent with the 14 Pillars of Evidence that are shown on the ae911truth web site.


1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration.
Only possible by the simultaneous melting of all columns in the middle of the towers. Not sure if this had to occur at all levels to achieve nearly free-fall acceleration.
2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution Yes without thermite around the full perimeter of the building how could it fall straight down.
3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction.
Yes the special fire protection to the thermite was designed to last even the most severe fire. The collapse started in the fire zone when the thermite was detonated and only something like that could make 250 columns fail simultaneously...
4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Thermite takes a long time to cut things, so thats why the first responders saw the flames and explosions an hour before the collapse... oops thermite doesn't explode...well we probably had some other explosives just in case the thermite didnt work. Sadly none of the flashes were caught on camera.
5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
This must have been thermite in association with a conventional explosives. Our government are very very clever and probably wanted to confuse the investigation.
6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking Could only have been done by thermite blasts at every level.
7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds.
If you look at the videos of thermite reaction you can see that it is the closest thing to a volcano... which explains the pyroclastic-like clouds.
8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found Yes we usually try and keep this point as far away from the first point; as if it did fall straight down, it would not also fall straight out. But you would expect one of these with a thermite demolition and we have both the bases covered.
9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 – 40 stories below demolition front Yes this is clear evidence of sequential thermite detonations at every floor level, milliseconds before each floor collapses. Since thermite cannot do that, since its a slow burn; then this is definitely where nanothermite was used. Nano thermite is a top secret compound with many properties that are amazing and hard to believe.
10. Total building destruction: Well what more would you expect from nano-thermite.
11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises Yes clear evidence of melting steel into a big puddle. These NYFD folks must have cut it into small bits when no-one was looking. Seems there was nothing bigger than a partially melted chiller.
12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples. Although aluminum and iron are not normally considered explosive we can prove they are in particular conditions.
13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples And of course its in all the dust for the reasons cited above.
14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire. We tend to ignore the plane impact thing here; but you can imagine that it couldn't be done without copious amounts of nana-thermite.

 

[dafydd]

I haven't conveniently ignored it at all. And really, there isn't much to respond to on this topic. There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings. Yes, it is a serious obstacle, the most serious as far as I'm concerned. That doesn't make it impossible. For a website about critical thinking, it's astonishing how frequently people use the word impossible.

How was it done?

 

[GlennB]

I am sure they could have easily smuggled the tons of thermite into the buildings and welded them to the internal and perimeter columns without anyone noticing.

Ah!

That clears it all up for me. Thanks.

 

[TJM]

There is certainly nothing 'impossible' about putting these explosives in those buildings.

Yes, there is.

 

[adkinsjr]

How was it done?

It wasn't.

 

[twinstead]

It's not enough to claim it WAS done. It's not even enough to explain how it COULD be done. There needs to be evidence it actually WAS done. This is the skeptic trifecta.