South Tower 81st floor filled with thermite?

Sunstealer said:
Even though I've quoted the thermite reaction giving you the reactants and the products you still don't know what thermite is do you? Claiming it was steel plus THERMITE!!! shows you don't know what thermite is. The melting point of Alumina (Al2O3) is 2072°C therefore it cannot be flowing from the tower because you claim that the temp is around 1370°C. Some 700°C lower. So come on Anders move your position again. What's the only thing left on the RHS of the thermite equation? Hint: Begins with "Ir" and ends in "on". And because you have to do that then you have to address my previous post which destroys your argument.

See it's easy, that's why your trolling is so boring apart from the stundiliciousness of it.

I think you are going to have to go on ignore because if you are going to troll atleast put some effort in and make it amusing.
Click to expand...

The bright color of the glowing material pouring out of the 81st floor at least indicates a fairly high temperature. The material could have been a mixture of many components with thermite as one of them (I'm not moving the goalpost since haven't any fixed goalpost regarding this :D).
 
Anders Lindman said:
The bright color of the glowing material pouring out of the 81st floor at least indicates a fairly high temperature. The material could have been a mixture of many components with thermite as one of them (I'm not moving the goalpost since haven't any fixed goalpost regarding this :D).
Click to expand...
Quality. Now you do realise that the more components compounds and elements you add the lower the melting point of that amalgam becomes, don't you? That's simple chemistry. Not looking good for molten steel, or molten Al2O3 or molten Fe either. Keep going Anders, it's amusing to watch you flounder.

P.S. :D
 
Sunstealer said:
Quality. Now you do realise that the more components compounds and elements you add the lower the melting point of that amalgam becomes, don't you? That's simple chemistry. Not looking good for molten steel, or molten Al2O3 or molten Fe either. Keep going Anders, it's amusing to watch you flounder.

P.S. :D
Click to expand...

Ok, but then the temperature of the amalgam (because nobody has claimed it is pure iron on something like that) pouring out of the South Tower could have been lower than the initial temperature of the thermite when ignited.
 
Sunstealer said:
Now you do realise that the more components compounds and elements you add the lower the melting point of that amalgam becomes, don't you? That's simple chemistry.
Click to expand...

Simple chemistry? Then what about an amalgam of tin and copper? Bronze is a blend of tin and copper, isn't? Tin has a low melting point. Bronze, as far as I know, has a much higher melting point.
 
Last edited:
Bronze is copper and tin. Brass is copper and zinc.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
I think you give him 6 points too many for reasoning. A truther index would be a great invention.
Click to expand...

The reasoning points were awarded based on arguments, logical assumptions and leap of faiths a truther would make if it could link pyroclastic flows and star wars space beams into it all he would get a 10/10 ;)
 
Anders Lindman said:
The bright color of the glowing material pouring out of the 81st floor at least indicates a fairly high temperature.
Click to expand...

Not if that stuff is glass. It could be glass, you know. I would be bloody surprised to see a fire that big in which there was no glass among the molten and solidified blobs on the ground. Big fires like that always melt glass if there is any to melt.

I have seen video of bottle manufacturing plants in which a conveyor belt is filled with a row of dozens of perfectly solid, self-supporting bottles glowing like Christmas candles.

The material could have been a mixture of many components with thermite as one of them (I'm not moving the goalpost since haven't any fixed goalpost regarding this :D).
Click to expand...

No, it couldn't. There is about zero percent chance that there were thermite charges placed in the floors. Thermite placed on the core columns would have coagulated long before it crossed that much concrete floor. We know that there was no thermite placed in any of the perimeter columns because at no time do we see, emanating from behind the aluminum cladding, a blinding light that would attract attention from miles around in the middle of the Sahara at high noon on a typical clear summer's day.

FAIL.
 
TL,

TruthersLie said:
Sorry... I have the resident idiots dolts morons mental midgets I mean more "out of touch" truthers (anders here, jammy, billy smith) on ignore.
Click to expand...

Don't be sorry. It's a smart move.

Saves your precious resources of functioning brain cells from contamination & possible spoilage. Eliminates the Lulz factor, tho.

TruthersLie said:
But I was just struck by an idea (that another truther on youtube constantly parrots), wouldn't it have been easier to just fill a jet with thermite, ignite the thermite and then crash it into the building than to fill a floor with it on the WTC?
Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but I don't believe that it would work.

Thermite is a powder. Some have suggested that it could be made into a paste or paint.

However you make it, you've got to get large surface area/volume ratios of iron oxide in very close proximity to large surface area/volume ratios of pure (non-oxidized) aluminum.

The factor that makes it effective is the "large surface area/volume ratios". This is why you grind each into small particles and mix them carefully. An extremely high temp at one location begins the reaction, and the reaction typically propagates thru a continuous bolus of thermite by the exothermic release of heat.

If adjacent masses of thermite are not close enough to absorb enough heat (mostly thru convection & radiation), then they won't ignite. And we've seen that the typical temps in an office fire are unlikely to be hot enough to ignite it.

I could be wrong, but I'd expect that, if you scattered a bunch of thermite around a room into non-contiguous areas, and then set the room on fire (say, by igniting one of those areas), any thermite not in direct contact with the initially ignited area would remain un-reacted at the end of the fire.

The simple act of scattering the thermite, whether its reaction has begun or not, seems to me to be an effective way (one of the only effective ways) of stopping the reaction. I can't think of a better way of scattering (& aerating & cooling) it than a 500 mph collision.

JMO.


tom
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
TL,



<snip>

JMO.


tom
Click to expand...
It's been my contention for a long time that this very issue, about the mixture being contaminated or destroyed is what makes the thermite theory before and after the collapses dead on arrival... this never registers to them :\
 
Anders Lindman said:
The bright color of the glowing material pouring out of the 81st floor at least indicates a fairly high temperature. The material could have been a mixture of many components with thermite as one of them (I'm not moving the goalpost since haven't any fixed goalpost regarding this :D).
Click to expand...

This is of no importance though since no one has ever produced evidence of thermite or any other explosive residue. Being as this would have to be present for the controlled demolition fairy story we need not be bothered by this hypothesis.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Simple chemistry? Then what about an amalgam of tin and copper? Bronze is a blend of tin and copper, isn't? Tin has a low melting point. Bronze, as far as I know, has a much higher melting point.
Click to expand...

Why bother with any of this since we know that planes crashing into the buildings caused the collapses? There's no uncertainty on this point.
 
Anders Lindman said:
That's an interesting idea. Could have been glass. Yet still very hot glass I assume judging by the brightness of the molten slurry pouring out of the South Tower.
Click to expand...

None of which does anything to refute the very obvious, widely witnessed and well documented fact that planes were used in the attacks on the 9/11.
 
Craig4 said:
None of which does anything to refute the very obvious, widely witnessed and well documented fact that planes were used in the attacks on the 9/11.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that there ARE some witnesses who claim they didn't see a plane, some of whom would perhaps have missed the planes anyway if they were real, but some witnesses may actually have been watching one of the WTC towers (not many watching the North tower, but many people watching the South tower) at the time of the fireball explosion(s).
 
Anders Lindman said:
Don't forget that there ARE some witnesses who claim they didn't see a plane, some of whom would perhaps have missed the planes anyway if they were real, but some witnesses may actually have been watching one of the WTC towers (not many watching the North tower, but many people watching the South tower) at the time of the fireball explosion(s).
Click to expand...

How can you call someone a witness when they themselves say that didn't see anything? Follow up question. Have any of those witnesses continued their statements with something, anything, along the lines of "Therefore there were no airplanes that day"?

Next, if you need to pepper your post(s) with words like "If", "May" and "Perhaps" while offering no evidence to support those claims other than incomplete cherry picked statements then you really should evaluate your position on the matter before someone decides that you suffer from CRI (Cranium Rectal Inversion).
 
Anders Lindman said:
Don't forget that there ARE some witnesses who claim they didn't see a plane, some of whom would perhaps have missed the planes anyway if they were real, but some witnesses may actually have been watching one of the WTC towers (not many watching the North tower, but many people watching the South tower) at the time of the fireball explosion(s).
Click to expand...

This sort of statement is one of the many reasons why normal people think no-planers are so bizarre. What anyone reasonable would expect is that: some people would see the plane, on the basis that they were standing in a place from which the plane could be seen and were looking in the right direction at the time; some would not see the plane because they were in a location from which the plane could not be seen - for example, underground on a train, or on the wrong side of the tower; some would not see the plane because, although they were standing in a place from which the plane could be seen, they were not looking in the right direction; and some people would be surprised at not having seen the plane because, although they were in group 2 or 3, they thought they should have been in group 1. For some reason, no-planers take accounts that say "I didn't see the plane," mentally transform them into accounts that say "I definitely should have seen the plane but I didn't," and then decide that these accounts are so authoritative that they outweigh all other accounts that say "I saw the plane". It's very difficult to know how even to communicate with someone capable of such thoroughly incompetent reasoning.

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom