Burning Painted Steel Beams, Making Iron-Rich Microspheres!

[ozeco41]

Because there was no finding of nanothermite in the ANY of the 9/11 WTC Dust.

It would make no difference to the truth if it was there. If there had been a 100tonne heap on ground zero. There was no CD so whether or not thermXte was present is irrelevant to the CD argument. UNTIL "they" put forward a plausible hypothesis for CD which meets prima facie standard. 12 years on and it hasn't happened.

Essentially we are only discussing thermXte because we debunkers are prepared to go along with truther or troll false arguments - otherwise there would be no discussion. Their logic is arse about and they rely on reversing burden of proof.

...IF it were proven, there are numerous indications that tell us that it would NOT have been used, no matter the peacefulness of its purpose or lack thereof.

that is my main point. There was no CD so thermXte is irrelevant.

 

[Miragememories]

"It would make no difference to the truth if it was there.

If there had been a 100 ton heap on ground zero.

There was no CD.

So whether or not thermite was present is irrelevant to the CD argument.

UNTIL "they" put forward a plausible hypothesis for CD which meets prima facie standard.

12 years on and it hasn't happened.

Essentially we are only discussing thermite because we debunkers are prepared to go along with truther or troll false arguments - otherwise there would be no discussion.

Their logic is arse about and they rely on reversing burden of proof.

that is my main point.

There was no CD so thermite is irrelevant."

Wow.

Such Titanic-like arrogance.

You insist that 100 tons of a nanothermite-containing material, in the hands of knowledgeable people, could not support a controlled demolition of the three WTC towers.

What engineering experience do you possess that grants respectability to such a questionable opinion?

MM

 

[DGM]

Wow.

Such Titanic-like arrogance.

You insist that 100 tons of a nanothermite-containing material, in the hands of knowledgeable people, could not support a controlled demolition of the three WTC towers.

What engineering experience do you possess that grants respectability to such a questionable opinion?

MM

Point flies over your head.

Where is the evidence that 100 tons were used? There is none.

BTW: Your post is also a "strawman" (he did not insist this) .

 

[carlitos]

Dodge noted. That's what I get for asking for a coherent theory. More game playing.

This, (although now we are off topic), is the problem. What mechanism, employing thermite, would be able to act like 1,500 pounds of thermite encased in a cement "collar", and cut the columns needed at the point where the collapse initiated, unobserved.

No problem. You just place 1,500 pounds on those 4 dozen columns that Tony Szamboti says were "cut" and bingo - collapse the building. Except...bomb-sniffing dogs, employees in those offices, functional elevators, practically see-through open office floors, reality, etc.

Also - No booming explosion, no barotrauma injuries, no blown out eardrums, no blinding white flash of thermite, nada. Just more fantasy game playing in this little subforum. If 100 tons of thermite would have ignited, the flash would be visible from space and we'd all be donating to the "blind FDNY" fund, and every new york intersection would have been retrofitted to accomodate all the blind people.

For a more specific example, WTC7 collapsed in pretty good quality film. Tons of thermite would have had the whole thing glowing like a giant arc welder just before collapse. Stupidest. Theory. Ever.

 

[ozeco41]

Point flies over your head.

Where is the evidence that 100 tons were used? There is none.

Correct. Both points.

BTW: Your post is also a "strawman" (he did not insist this) .

I said "thermXte wasn't used for CD" I did not say that "thermXte couldn't be used for CD".




BTW "couldn't" is also near certain in the setting of WTC 9/11 but I'll not pursue that derail at this stage.

 

[NoahFence]

Wow.

Such Titanic-like arrogance.

You insist that 100 tons of a nanothermite-containing material, in the hands of knowledgeable people, could not support a controlled demolition of the three WTC towers.

What engineering experience do you possess that grants respectability to such a questionable opinion?

MM

Give me a date.

EXACTLY when are you people going to prove CD, and when are you going to give a complete narrative that makes sense out of the entire day, that fits better than what the rest of us call "reality"?

Hijackings > WTC > Pentagon > Shanksville.

WHEN are you going to tie it all together?

Why are you people so cowardly? What are you afraid of?

 

[ozeco41]

...You just place 1,500 pounds on those 4 dozen columns that Tony Szamboti says were "cut" and bingo - collapse the building. Except...bomb-sniffing dogs, employees in those offices, functional elevators, practically see-through open office floors, reality, etc.

Don't forget Tony's key discovery - revealed to the amazed world in those recent claims - Delayed Action Gravity.

Cut the columns and:
A) The perimeter pulls inwards; BUT
B) The top portion of tower doesn't start to fall until several minutes later...

now how does that go...???

err...falling top of tower due to cut columns causes perimeter to pull in... BUT tower doesn't fall till later...

Now let me try that again....

Better still I'll leave the idiocy alone. There must be a risk to mental health trying to follow convoluted logic T Sz style....

BTW getting what happened first coming after what happened next is a T Sz trademark. Same nonsense in "Missing Jolt"....his "starting point" of top bit falling was already past the point where he looks for a "jolt' - but he still has that past possibility in the future. Or the future has already happened ...or...I'll take my own advice and save risk of brain injury.

 

[jaydeehess]

Wow.

Such Titanic-like arrogance.

You insist that 100 tons of a nanothermite-containing material, in the hands of knowledgeable people, could not support a controlled demolition of the three WTC towers.

What engineering experience do you possess that grants respectability to such a questionable opinion?

MM

IF you had 100 tons of nanothermitic material found in the rubble of the WTC complex it STILL does not overcome the null hypothesis MM.
YOU would still have to come up with a mechanism by which thermite would be used in order to cause the collapses AS OBSERVED and result in there being 100 tons of it remaining, scattered, in the dust which was only igniting underground rather than on the surface.
That is the type of hypothesis that AE911T should have managed to produce by the 7th or 7th anniversary of the attacks, at a minimum!

ETA: BTW , how does a 100 ton heap at ground zero translate into it being in the hands of knowledgeable people? By reading your own take into ozeco's words?

 

[jaydeehess]

Give me a date.

EXACTLY when are you people going to prove CD, and when are you going to give a complete narrative that makes sense out of the entire day, that fits better than what the rest of us call "reality"?

Hijackings > WTC > Pentagon > Shanksville.

That last line is the null hypothesis boiled down to its barest minimum.
Despite the fringe 'no planes' idiocy, it is quite apparent that planes hit three buildings on 9/11, and one crashed in a Penn. field. They were caused to do so by suicide hijackers cut from a similar cloth as those who board Israeli busses and blow themselves up.
The impact caused damage to the structures they hit and the fuel in their tanks caused widespread offices fires within seconds of impact.
Impact and heat damage then caused structures to fail, in Manhattan hundreds of thousands of tons of debris caused enormous damage to eight more structures, one of which burned for more than 7 hours and collapsed. In all , ten NYC structures were damaged beyond repair

Now, it remains to be stated how a thermite driven subplot was employed to cause the same thing.

It has been asked by many for nigh on a dozen years and still all comers tend to skate deftly, or ungainly, away from the issue.

 

[NoahFence]

That last line is the null hypothesis boiled down to its barest minimum.

I try to keep it simple for the idiot truthers, and they still can't explain it.

 

[Robrob]

Wow.

Such Titanic-like arrogance.

You insist that 100 tons of a nanothermite-containing material, in the hands of knowledgeable people, could not support a controlled demolition of the three WTC towers.

What engineering experience do you possess that grants respectability to such a questionable opinion?

MM

Maybe you should go back and read what he actually wrote?

 

[triforcharity]

Which means that a much larger volume was successfully ignited.

MM

And yet, no evidence of such happening, like the tremendous lightshow that would have occurred. Amazingly, not ONE person describes seeing a 4th of July type lightshow. Why is that? Why also do NONE of the steel that was recovered, show signs of this?

 

[thedopefishlives]

And yet, no evidence of such happening, like the tremendous lightshow that would have occurred. Amazingly, not ONE person describes seeing a 4th of July type lightshow. Why is that? Why also do NONE of the steel that was recovered, show signs of this?

That last part is the important part. You can complain all you like about the steel that was shipped off to China, but every last single piece was inspected when it was recovered. Where's the steel showing the obvious cutting/melting from thermite? If there was such a volume of thermite action, it would be immediately obvious from the prevalence of damaged steel in the debris.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Don't forget Tony's key discovery - revealed to the amazed world in those recent claims - Delayed Action Gravity.

Cut the columns and:
A) The perimeter pulls inwards; BUT
B) The top portion of tower doesn't start to fall until several minutes later...

now how does that go...???

err...falling top of tower due to cut columns causes perimeter to pull in... BUT tower doesn't fall till later...

Now let me try that again....

Better still I'll leave the idiocy alone. There must be a risk to mental health trying to follow convoluted logic T Sz style....

BTW getting what happened first coming after what happened next is a T Sz trademark. Same nonsense in "Missing Jolt"....his "starting point" of top bit falling was already past the point where he looks for a "jolt' - but he still has that past possibility in the future. Or the future has already happened ...or...I'll take my own advice and save risk of brain injury.

I never said the exterior came down minutes after the core pulled the perimeter columns inward. It was a very short time lag (in seconds). In fact, we know what the lag was based on when the antenna starts its downward motion and when the roofline starts falling. It was a very short time lag but it shows the core fell first.

If you somehow thought that I ever meant minutes, you were clearly not paying much attention. Of course, this is more likely just nonsensical made up rhetoric to cause anyone who doesn't know me to develop a negative opinion. Propagandists do this all the time. Where did you learn the trick?

 

[NoahFence]

Any negative opinions are the direct result of the data you provide.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Do you have any comment on Dave Thomas' experiment in the OP, Tony Szamboti?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

I never said the exterior came down minutes after the core pulled the perimeter columns inward. It was a very short time lag (in seconds). In fact, we know what the lag was based on when the antenna starts its downward motion and when the roofline starts falling. It was a very short time lag but it shows the core fell first.

If you somehow thought that I ever meant minutes, you were clearly not paying much attention. Of course, this is more likely just nonsensical made up rhetoric to cause anyone who doesn't know me to develop a negative opinion. Propagandists do this all the time. Where did you learn the trick?

Tony, re your query of a few months ago, regarding Solid Bodies versus Rubble, there are some Results of possible interest.

 

[Sunstealer]

We already know that microspheres containing iron are produced from material other than reacted thermite. Municiple waste plants produce fly ash below the melting point of iron. Truthers know all this as it's been discussed to death on here, they just choose to ignore the fact and continue to trot out that only thermite and temperatures greater than 1500°C can create iron containing microspheres.

It's quite simple: burn stuff and you'll produce produce microsperes containing iron with temperatures below the MP of iron.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Do you have any comment on Dave Thomas' experiment in the OP, Tony Szamboti?

I don't know all of the details, but it appears Dave only found a couple of microspheres out of a significant mass of iron.

When ignited, the red/gray chips produced a significant number of spheres per unit mass, so I believe it is highly unlikely that the mechanism shown by Dave was responsible for the large quantity of spheres found in the WTC dust, especially in lieu of the fact that they were found with the red/gray chips which were capable of producing them.

 

[The Big Dog]

I don't know all of the details, but it appears Dave only found a couple of microspheres out of a significant mass of iron.

When ignited, the red/gray chips produced a significant number of spheres per unit mass, so I believe it is highly unlikely that the mechanism shown by Dave was responsible for the large quantity of spheres found in the WTC dust, especially in lieu of the fact that they were found with the red/gray chips which were capable of producing them.

are we still talking about the idiotic paper that proved that whatever they had was NOT thermite because it was MORE energetic than thermite? And further, wasn't this the paper that used paint scraped off the BYU football stadium as control, and was "peer reviewed" by a couple of their truther buddies?

Academic dishonesty by nimrods.