Merged So there was melted steel

[tmd2_1]

Report you for intentionally derailing the thread.
This court scenario was okay as an approach to the OPm which is "if we assume there was molten steel, why does that mean CD?"
Your task is to explain here, or, if you prefer, in a court setting, how you would explain to a jury what you make of this supposed evidence that you say molten steel is.

Dragging in Gross and the FEA models NIST didn't realease has nothing to do with the OP. It would therefore be a derail. Don't do that.


Does anybody understand this gibberish?


I don't want to talk about Gross because that would be off-topic, and anything he would or would not say in court is total speculation. A nonsense issue really.


Okay. Now please explain how that question addresses the topic of this thread and is not off-topic. Or admit that it is off-topic and drop it.
Remember the topic of this thread: We are still waiting for your Reasoning that connects the premise "molten steel" with the conclusion "malicious deed, other than plane crashes"
So this question to Gross "Can we see the numbers that back up your model?" might be on-topic if any applicable answer (basically "yes, here they are" or "no, sorry") would lead you closer to finally writing down your Reasoning.


Since you admit that you don't know the answer Gross would give, what purpose do you have telling us the question? Why did you introduce Gross and the court and the question in this thread?


That is an obvious lie.

Intentionally derailing the thread? Let's go back to how this all started I proposed the courtroom setting, in which you/NIST would be the prosecutions expert witnesses. Cole, Jones..etc...the defense. They have theories, as to why the steel is Molten...you chose not to believe them. Then you get on the stand. The question is "Oystein why was there molten steel at the WTC [remember it was there according to the premise of this thread]" Your answer "uhhh I really can't explain it" Those were more or less your words from earlier in the thread. Those presumably would be Gross' words or anyone else from NIST as well. While I don't know that for certain, I do know your words, as you said them already. You are a chemist/chemical engineer I believe you said right? (note you of course do not have to answer that, I am only going by something you offered in the past[though I could have you confused with someone else], I only bring that up to make a point) You support the official story, you have qualifications and that would be your answer. Compare that to a theory as to why it was there. How do you think that it would go over in court.

Then O'41 introduced that the defense expert witnesses are nothing more than propaganda artists, to which I replied with something like "oh really how do you think Gross would do with....." He took it to the general scale not me.

 

[tmd2_1]

Just a couple of points from the legal perspective - fuller explanations if anyone wants them.

The first one is the killer for all of tmd2's recent posturings:
The base premise of tmd2_1's proposed defence is wrong in law. The involvement of a third party in acts which contribute to death does not absolve any of the parties who contributed to death from being guilty to murder. So the proposed defence doesn't even leave home plate!

Even if we pretend that he could proceed his scenario has Gross called as a prosecution witness.

• Why would the prosecution call Gross at all?
• What can Gross contribute to proof of murder?

Let's again pretend that Gross was called by the prosecution that means that tmd2_1 can only ask him questions in cross examination. And the questions can only be about, seeking clarity of, what Gross has said in evidence.

To ask questions about any post collapse factor - whether molten metal or anything else which occurred after the victims were dead the prosecution would have had to ask about those topics in the first instance.

• Why would the prosecution ask about events post the deaths?
• Why would the judge allow irrelevant testimony into court?
• And the question "Can we see the numbers that back up your model?" is almost certainly not valid for cross examination without a lot of lead in which tmd2 has not provided.

And the legal process does not operate like the scientific method. tmd2's scenario would run into closed doors at each of the points above where I had to pretend. And in a real court scene there would be many more.

By in large I answered this when I answered Oystein. But of course a third party does not absolve the party in question (in this case AQ) in a theoretical sense. In a practical sense, it certainly does(in this case). I mean the buildings just happened to be rigged?

Even if you follow with this logic...that there was some other party involved somehow...it still changes the official story which is AQ was solely responsible for the acts of that day.

 

[Oystein]

Indeed correct about the energy transfer. Perhaps you would like to explain why TNT has approximately the same has thermate 4.6 megajoules, gunpowder has about 3 megajoules, and wood has 16.2 megajoules. Yet TNT is used to blow things up, and not wood? I mean it's approximately 4 times the energy density. Can you explain to us all how it works.

What a moronic question! What do shockwaves that break steel have to do with the thermodynamics of melting steel over a period of weeks? Very little, methinks. The energy needed to melt a cross-section steel is very different from the energy needed to break the same.
Part of the reason why explosive demolition is efficient is power: Much of the energy is applied within a very short time (tiny fraction of a second).

While you're at it, could you also explain why paper wasn't used to bring down these towers http://books.google.com/books?id=xd...chanics thermite&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false and yet thermite was? Surely it would be easier to use paper right? We all would love to hear the answers to these questions.

Easy answer:
Part of the reason is again power: Thermite, when sufficiently concentrated, burns very quickly, in a matter of seconds, giving the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics little time to do its chore of whiking away heat before anything melts. Your scenario of diluted, slowed-down thermite does away with this property of high power / fast reaction, and thus is detrimental to your own theory of CD.
The other part ist of course the fact that organic combustibles don't reach these temperatures unless they and their oxygene is preheated (such as it might have been in the GZ rubble).

But that's not what we are talking about here (how you can cut steel for CD). We are talking about how you can keep steel melted for weeks, or melt it from scratch weeks later, by adding something malicious before the collapses. So please move the goal post back and try to explain:

By what Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) have you concluded from the (assumed) premise of molten steel that there must have been something malicious (other than plane crashes) before the collapses?
You see, I noticed, that your pot again failed to address that topic and provide such Reasoning.

Indeed look at the above, and who is the one practicing a religious exercise?

You.

 

[aggle-rithm]

You're not being deceptive again are you now Oystein? Here is the sequence:

I said this
"You however have not answered how you think NIST would "do" perform on the stand. How you think their testimony would hold up. What do you think the jury would think of their answers. Would the judge even allow them the continue with their non answers. Would they be treated as hostile witnesses. Is that clear enough? Do you know what I'm asking? and of course I am talking about their not releasing the numbers, and their brilliant circular reasoning."

You replied
"You are talking about answers, but I think you have not formulated the question.
I think we will find that the question is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. But I can't be sure, because I don't know the question.
TMD, could you please pose the exact, verbatim question that the defense would ask of NIST (Gross) in court?"

To which I simply said the question would Provide the numbers that back up your model. Gross: "No" This all started when it was stated the defense expert witness (Cole, Chandler) couldn't get away with their "propaganda" in court. I replied with how do you think the prosecution witnesses would do (Gross) with replies like that.

When all else fails, shift gears so you are arguing about what you are arguing about instead of those pesky facts that you can't explain.

 

[tmd2_1]

What a moronic question! What do shockwaves that break steel have to do with the thermodynamics of melting steel over a period of weeks? Very little, methinks. The energy needed to melt a cross-section steel is very different from the energy needed to break the same.
Part of the reason why explosive demolition is efficient is power: Much of the energy is applied within a very short time (tiny fraction of a second).


Easy answer:
Part of the reason is again power: Thermite, when sufficiently concentrated, burns very quickly, in a matter of seconds, giving the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics little time to do its chore of whiking away heat before anything melts. Your scenario of diluted, slowed-down thermite does away with this property of high power / fast reaction, and thus is detrimental to your own theory of CD.
The other part ist of course the fact that organic combustibles don't reach these temperatures unless they and their oxygene is preheated (such as it might have been in the GZ rubble).

But that's not what we are talking about here (how you can cut steel for CD). We are talking about how you can keep steel melted for weeks, or melt it from scratch weeks later, by adding something malicious before the collapses. So please move the goal post back and try to explain:

By what Reasoning (using established facts, laws of science, logic) have you concluded from the (assumed) premise of molten steel that there must have been something malicious (other than plane crashes) before the collapses?
You see, I noticed, that your pot again failed to address that topic and provide such Reasoning.


You.

Ok so following this... thermite..TNT...gunpowder..is more "powerful" than paper or wood etc? In fact if you look at the results that are produced by these things, I would say far more "powerful" so why did you even bring up paper at all? Because it appears it is not powerful enough to do the job? Again I am only using your words.

 

[tmd2_1]

When all else fails, shift gears so you are arguing about what you are arguing about instead of those pesky facts that you can't explain.

Right...I'm the one who threatened to report someone for "derailing" the thread.

 

[Oystein]

Intentionally derailing the thread? Let's go back to how this all started I proposed the courtroom setting, in which you/NIST would be the prosecutions expert witnesses. Cole, Jones..etc...the defense.

What would they defend against?

They have theories, as to why the steel is Molten...

No, they don't. They simply assert that molten steel weeks after the collapses means something malicious. They haven't given us much detail about what that "something malicious" would be, and no Reasoning that connects it with the molten steel.
At least you have not told us yet what those theories ("Reasoning") are.

you chose not to believe them.

Correct. Without any good reasons, I don't tend to believe extraordinary claims. I am not religious, ya know.

Then you get on the stand. The question is "Oystein why was there molten steel at the WTC [remember it was there according to the premise of this thread]" Your answer "uhhh I really can't explain it" Those were more or less your words from earlier in the thread.

Well, not exactly, you miss a bit of subtlety, but I'll let that pass. I have no explanation that I am certain of.

Those presumably would be Gross' words or anyone else from NIST as well. While I don't know that for certain, I do know your words, as you said them already.

Ok. So let's cut out Gross and NIST.

You are a chemist/chemical engineer I believe you said right? (note you of course do not have to answer that, I am only going by something you offered in the past[though I could have you confused with someone else], I only bring that up to make a point)

No, I never said that. I am an IT consultant.

You support the official story, you have qualifications and that would be your answer.

My qualification is not an issue here. Only if my arguments are correct. Or actually, not even that. The entire thread is here for you to provide an answer.

Compare that to a theory as to why it was there.

There is no such theory. We have been asking for it so long, but you still refuse to give one.

How do you think that it would go over in court.

Well, the court, if competent, would not even allow you to ask me this question, unless you first explain how it bears on the case at hand, which a murder case against the AQ pilots of two 767s and their organisation. It is far from obvious that any answer I might give would relieve the defendants of their culpability, and at any rate the question and any possible answer has no logical connect to the prosecution's case. At least you have so far failed to explain what that connection might be.

Then O'41 introduced that the defense expert witnesses are nothing more than propaganda artists, to which I replied with something like "oh really how do you think Gross would do with....." He took it to the general scale not me.

ozeco41 has totally destroyed your petty little court idea. You just didn't notice.



I'll tell you what: Why don't you try to get rid of everything that distracts you from answering the question that's at the base of this thread, such as Gross, NIST, my qualification, furnaces or not, court cases, defense, Cole, etc., and instead simply concentrate on a single objective, which I'll gladly repeat for you:


What is the Reasoning (using actual, established facts, laws of science and consistent logic) that convinced you that molten steel weeks after the collapses could only be the ultimate result of someone adding something malicious, such as thermite, to the towers before the collapses, except for planes?

 

[NoahFence]

[blink]answer the question[/blink]

 

[Oystein]

By in large I answered this when I answered Oystein. But of course a third party does not absolve the party in question (in this case AQ) in a theoretical sense. In a practical sense, it certainly does(in this case). I mean the buildings just happened to be rigged?

They weren't rigged.
We know this because no one, expecially not you, has so far been able to provide any Reasoning that leads to the conclusions that the towers were rigged. In particular, no-one has tied the (only assumed, but most likely not factual) presence of molten steel weeks after the collapses to this conclusion by using established facts, laws of science and logic.

Even if you follow with this logic...that there was some other party involved somehow...

tmd, there is no such logic! You continue to not tell us what that logic would be!

it still changes the official story which is AQ was solely responsible for the acts of that day.

Which does not relieve AQ of the accusation. Which is why your court case scenario simply does not apply here. Drop it already.

 

[Oystein]

Ok so following this... thermite..TNT...gunpowder..is more "powerful" than paper or wood etc?

I hope you realize that "power" is a physics term with a very specific definition, that can be measured and expressed using numbers and physical units?

In fact if you look at the results that are produced by these things, I would say far more "powerful" so why did you even bring up paper at all?

You would? You don't seem to know what I am talking about.

Again, you suggested that the thermite could have somehow been mixed with stuff to make it react slower. Can you tell me how this slower thermite reaction would affect the POWER of it?

Because it appears it is not powerful enough to do the job? Again I am only using your words.

Yes, burning paper would not be powerful enough to MELT the steel of the erect towers BEFORE collapse. So what? No one claims paper should be able to do that, or that any steel was melted before the collapses. In fact, we don't claim that any steel was melted at any point in time at all!

It's all YOUR theory! YOU must explain how and when steel was melted by what, and how there was still melted steel weeks after the collapses, because it is yu who claimes there was melted steel weeks after the collapses. We only grant you this premise for the purpose of this thread.

 

[DGM]

I have to applaud tmd2_1 for one thing. He/she (I don't know if this has been established) has never been in trouble with the law. This person has never been in an actual court of law while in session.

 

[Miragememories]

"It is easy to ignore your unprovided examples that are supposedly comparable to the WTC debris pile conditions."

"Hey Miragememories, it is also easy to ignore posts that totally, brutally, absolutely prove you to be wrong wrong wrong, right? Like this one - whaddaya say to this:"

"Just a quick comment about the WTC debris pile comparisons.

Landfill sites tend to be very active oxygen and methane gas producers.

They also tend to be fairly loosely packed compared to GZ.

The arguments about readily available oxygen do not stand up at GZ as it can be see that the dust would tend to smother an active fire and tend to seal against easy passage of air-even from the subway.

Densely packed dust, also means a rich concentration of red chips.

The requirements for sustained heat generation were there in the WTC GZ debris pile, (via thermitic reactions) even if it was a poor site for internal fire."

"According to Harrit e.al. "Active Thermitic Material...", the red-grey chips were about 0.1% by weight of the dust samples.

About 50% by weight of each chip was red layer

About 28% by weight of the red layer was minerals. Only 10% was a stochiastic mix of Al (disregarding the fact that it wasn't elemental, as evidenced by the clear presence of kaolinite crystals and equal amount of silicon) and Fe2O3.

So this "rich concentration of red chips" is actually only 0,005% by weight thermite.
Multiply that with the energy density of thermite (1.5MJ/kg) and you get a dust that contains 0.075 Joules = 0.0179 calories of thermitic energy per gram of dust.

Remember that 1 Calorie is defined as the energy to heat 1 gram of water by 1°C.


MM claims that Harrit's dust, if densely packed, can heat steel by more than 1500°C.
In fact, it could warm the same amount of water by less than 1/10th of a °C, if only it were thermitic (which of course it isn't)

Miragememories intuition is off of reality by about 4 to 5 orders of magnitude. This is absolutely on par with truthers in general"

As usual Oystein you display a great deal of empty verbosity.

What is important, and the basis of my theory, is that the heat generated is trapped and the maintenance source for this heat provides its own oxygen.

The unspent thermitic material contained in the red chips was evidence of a much greater volume of expended thermitic material.

Thermitic material that was creating intense heat before, during, and after the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7.

This intense heat remained trapped deep in the debris pockets.

The red chips, easily ignited at temps of 430 C, were not responsible for the high temperatures in these pockets.

Their continuous ignition over the ensuing months following 9/11, aided in maintaining the original high temperatures and possibly allowed for the trapped heat to achieve higher pocket temperatures.

Excavation work above, would have disturbed the densely packed dust sufficiently to create a constant inflow of falling un-ignited red chips.

There was no oxygen to ignite the particle-sized combustibles that were also packed in the dust. And if there was, it would have been quickly burned off.

Naturally whenever the firefighters broke through to one of these pockets, the fresh injection of atmospheric oxygen would cause an immediate flare-up of all the super-heated combustibles, cause metals to glow red, and when the heat was sufficient, reveal molten metal.

What you have failed to do Oystein, is provide a realistic alternative theory that explains what was the reality of the WTC Ground Zero debris pile.

This is on a par with the flunkies who wish to promote the agenda of those who do not want the truth about 9/11 to become public knowledge.

I do not want to believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I'll be damned if I'll swallow the crap that you and others so eagerly accept as so-called intelligent explanations.

MM

 

[tmd2_1]

What would they defend against?


No, they don't. They simply assert that molten steel weeks after the collapses means something malicious. They haven't given us much detail about what that "something malicious" would be, and no Reasoning that connects it with the molten steel.
At least you have not told us yet what those theories ("Reasoning") are.


Correct. Without any good reasons, I don't tend to believe extraordinary claims. I am not religious, ya know.


Well, not exactly, you miss a bit of subtlety, but I'll let that pass. I have no explanation that I am certain of.


Ok. So let's cut out Gross and NIST.


No, I never said that. I am an IT consultant.


My qualification is not an issue here. Only if my arguments are correct. Or actually, not even that. The entire thread is here for you to provide an answer.


There is no such theory. We have been asking for it so long, but you still refuse to give one.


Well, the court, if competent, would not even allow you to ask me this question, unless you first explain how it bears on the case at hand, which a murder case against the AQ pilots of two 767s and their organisation. It is far from obvious that any answer I might give would relieve the defendants of their culpability, and at any rate the question and any possible answer has no logical connect to the prosecution's case. At least you have so far failed to explain what that connection might be.


ozeco41 has totally destroyed your petty little court idea. You just didn't notice.



I'll tell you what: Why don't you try to get rid of everything that distracts you from answering the question that's at the base of this thread, such as Gross, NIST, my qualification, furnaces or not, court cases, defense, Cole, etc., and instead simply concentrate on a single objective, which I'll gladly repeat for you:


What is the Reasoning (using actual, established facts, laws of science and consistent logic) that convinced you that molten steel weeks after the collapses could only be the ultimate result of someone adding something malicious, such as thermite, to the towers before the collapses, except for planes?

Calm down Oystein! My God you act like I'm shattering your dogma, and we know that can't be true!

So there are theories out there you choose to ignore them your business. I'd rather not cut Gross out, becuase if you read the NIST FAQ (I posted it on the first page of this thread) it doesn't seem like NIST thinks there shold have been Molten steel as well. So we can presume Gross would not have much of an answer.

ozeco41 has destroyed nothing, he evades answering how Gross and company would do on the stand. He is the one that took it to a general scale.

 

[tmd2_1]

They weren't rigged.
We know this because no one, expecially not you, has so far been able to provide any Reasoning that leads to the conclusions that the towers were rigged. In particular, no-one has tied the (only assumed, but most likely not factual) presence of molten steel weeks after the collapses to this conclusion by using established facts, laws of science and logic.


tmd, there is no such logic! You continue to not tell us what that logic would be!


Which does not relieve AQ of the accusation. Which is why your court case scenario simply does not apply here. Drop it already.

This was oz'41's point "The involvement of a third party in acts which contribute to death does not absolve any of the parties who contributed to death from being guilty to murder." Follow what I said I was addressing this. A third party means the official story is not correct, pretty simple logic.

 

[DGM]

ozeco41 has destroyed nothing, he evades answering how Gross and company would do on the stand. He is the one that took it to a general scale.

This has to be a parody. No one can be this dense.

 

[Oystein]

As usual Oystein you display a great deal of empty verbosity.

What is important, and the basis of my theory, is that the heat generated is trapped and the maintenance source for this heat provides its own oxygen.

You don't get it. Even if you were able to trap the heat perfectly, 100% of it, and could ignite all the remaining thermitoc material in the dust at once, it would raise the temperature of itself by only a small fraction of a degree.

The unspent thermitic material contained in the red chips was evidence of a much greater volume of expended thermitic material.

Let's do a quick sanity check, shall we?
The towers had a mass each of about 300,000,000kg. Let's ignore WTC7 for the moment, then we have 600,000,000kg of total building mass.
How much of that was released as dust? Let's say 5%, or 30,000,000kg. Let's further assume that ALL the thermitic material was associated with ONLY the dust. The unspent thermitic material was 0.1% of the dust, or 30,000kg.
How much is your "much greater volume of expended thermitic material", MM? May I estimate a factor of 20? So that of 20 parts of original thermite, 19 parts burned and 1 part was left over to be found by Harrit and friends?
Then we are dealing with originally 600,000kg (600 tons) of red-gray material.

Does that sound about right?

Now we still have the problem that actual, stochiastic thermite (Fe2O3 + 2Al) was only about 5% of that material, so it had only an energy density from thermite of 0,075kJ/g, or 75J/g, or about 18 calories per gram. You know that a calory is the energy needed to warm 1g of water by 1°C. The specific heat of water is about 9.3 times that of iron; so 18 calories per gram could could warm 1 gram of iron by 168°C. Not even enough to sustain the thermite reaction, and a very far cry from melting iron.

Please note that the above holds true for concentrated red-gray material, supposing it did really contain thermite, as Harrot claims.
The energy density goes down eveb further for any bit of non-thermitic dust that you'd mix in during the collapse.

Conclusion: The stuff cannot burn at all, unless aided by organic matrix (epoxy). Thermite adds negligible heat.

Thermitic material that was creating intense heat before, during, and after the collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7.

See above: No. 75J/g is very low heat.

This intense heat remained trapped deep in the debris pockets.

Again, we are talking about 167° C above ambient temperature at most.

The red chips, easily ignited at temps of 430 C, were not responsible for the high temperatures in these pockets.

A brief look at Harrit's "Active Thermitic Material...", fig, 29, reveals that actual nanothermite ignites at higher temps (Tillotson e.al.). 430°C is a typical temp for organics to burn, not thermite
The thermite component of that red-grey material however releases so little heat that it could add only less than 167K to its environment - to little to sustain the thermite reaction.

Their continuous ignition over the ensuing months following 9/11, aided in maintaining the original high temperatures and possibly allowed for the trapped heat to achieve higher pocket temperatures.

Again, very negligible.

Excavation work above, would have disturbed the densely packed dust sufficiently to create a constant inflow of falling un-ignited red chips.

Nonsense

There was no oxygen to ignite the particle-sized combustibles that were also packed in the dust.

FALSE. There is always some oxigene flow.

And if there was, it would have been quickly burned off.

Quicker than the thermite?

Naturally whenever the firefighters broke through to one of these pockets, the fresh injection of atmospheric oxygen would cause an immediate flare-up of all the super-heated combustibles, cause metals to glow red, and when the heat was sufficient, reveal molten metal.

Nonsense

What you have failed to do Oystein, is provide a realistic alternative theory that explains what was the reality of the WTC Ground Zero debris pile.

Molten steel is not part of the reality of the GZ debris pile. No explanation thus needed. Sorry.

This is on a par with the flunkies who wish to promote the agenda of those who do not want the truth about 9/11 to become public knowledge.

It already is.

I do not want to believe 9/11 was an inside job, but I'll be damned if I'll swallow the crap that you and others so eagerly accept as so-called intelligent explanations.

As if you could tell which is which.

 

[tmd2_1]

I hope you realize that "power" is a physics term with a very specific definition, that can be measured and expressed using numbers and physical units?


You would? You don't seem to know what I am talking about.

Again, you suggested that the thermite could have somehow been mixed with stuff to make it react slower. Can you tell me how this slower thermite reaction would affect the POWER of it?


Yes, burning paper would not be powerful enough to MELT the steel of the erect towers BEFORE collapse. So what? No one claims paper should be able to do that, or that any steel was melted before the collapses. In fact, we don't claim that any steel was melted at any point in time at all!

It's all YOUR theory! YOU must explain how and when steel was melted by what, and how there was still melted steel weeks after the collapses, because it is yu who claimes there was melted steel weeks after the collapses. We only grant you this premise for the purpose of this thread.

Yes I have a pretty good idea of what you are talking about which is why I asked the questions of you the way I did to get the results that we see here.
Let me address the slowed down thermite reaction first. I would suggest the best (if not only) way to determine the results typical debris at the WTC would have on the reaction time and power of thermite is through experiment. Sure it will decrease the power, but enough not to be able to melt steel? I don't know, experiment will tell.

Now on to your paper. A clear example of the tactics used here. You wrote facts (and they are correct) that would make it seem like thermite's power is trivial. We all know what burning paper is like, and can compare that to steel. But when put under the slightest bit of scrutiny (which I did) it falls apart, and the facts become meaningless. You use them to try and influence "raw" newcomers, and perhaps those just lurking or searching. People that perhaps do not have a strong background in science. So we have and admission that paper would not melt steel, and we know thermite will. I trust this will be the last we hear on paper's energy density. I will simply refer back to this post.

Perhaps I shouldn't accuse you of doing this, but it sure seems this way to me.

 

[triforcharity]

Indeed correct about the energy transfer. Perhaps you would like to explain why TNT has approximately the same has thermate 4.6 megajoules, gunpowder has about 3 megajoules, and wood has 16.2 megajoules. Yet TNT is used to blow things up, and not wood? I mean it's approximately 4 times the energy density. Can you explain to us all how it works.

Because they don't burn the gunpowder or TNT. They blow it up. Meaning, using it as an explosive. They don't use heat to burn the steel. They use the shockwave to shoot the molten copper through the steel. Literally, cutting it.

Wood isn't an explosive. To use it for a controlled demolition would be stupid.

While you're at it, could you also explain why paper wasn't used to bring down these towers http://books.google.com/books?id=xd...chanics thermite&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=false and yet thermite was? Surely it would be easier to use paper right? We all would love to hear the answers to these questions.

Thermite burns quicker.

Indeed look at the above, and who is the one practicing a religious exercise?

You. As always.

 

[DGM]

People that perhaps do not have a strong background in science.

Like yourself?

So we have and admission that paper would not melt steel, and we know thermite will.

Wait, where did you pull this "admission" from? Given the right conditions paper would do a much better job.

I know he has me on ignore but, I had to spotlight this bit of dishonesty.

 

[Dog Town]

I know he has me on ignore but, I had to spotlight this bit of dishonesty.

But, but...he has such "a strong background in science"!