• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Thermite/Thermate Question

R.Mackey said:
The above photograph does not even resemble thermite.

You have been duped, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

It's okay to be duped as long as when one is shown that fact one realizes it and learns from it. What GIE is doing is beyond being duped.
 
look the molten iron spheres came from this thermite.It has the same chemical signature for thermite.
Its even partially reacted.
Do you know what high tech thermite in sol gel looks like?

The reddish colour indicates iron as well more proof of thermite hahhaha
 
GodisEnergy said:
look the molten iron spheres came from this thermite.It has the same chemical signature for thermite.
Its even partially reacted.
Do you know what high tech thermite in sol gel looks like?

The reddish colour indicates iron as well more proof of thermite hahhaha
Click to expand...

So basically you are trying to tell us you have no idea WTF you are talking about? Either post some sources for any of that trash you just spewed or retract it.
 
im having alittle trouble understanding this eutectic mixture.

from what ive read about sisson et el-
bloggernews.net/117816
Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.
Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.
However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires.
“I don’t find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that’s rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect.”

in another link-
springerlink.com/content/g5w603461r3078t3/fulltext.pdf?page=1

Microstructural examination of a beam from Building 7 showed that temperatures higher than 940°C were experienced in localized regions. Concurrent examination of the beam surfaces and surface layers showed evidence of extensive metal removal, and the analysis suggests that this removal occurred while the beam was exposed to the fire in the rubble pile after the building had collapsed.

rmackey said "2. There is no evidence of melted steel, or melted iron for that matter."
sisson states that the slag contained iron.

what sisson says is that the slag consisted of iron, sulfur, oxygen. Is sisson talking about melted iron.

rmackey also stated "Because the sulfur that goes into the eutectic starts in a different form. The sulfur in thermate is elemental sulfur. The sulfur that caused the eutectic probably started as an acidic form, such as H2S or a weak solution of H2SO4 (sulfuric acid). Those behave quite differently. "

the temp sisson is talking about is 940 c and higher as stated aove. sulfurfic acid boils at 290 c. the 2 sulfur compounds you mention would be gasses in this environment. could your h2s or h2so4 be part of the "slag" sisson is mentioning??

and someone else mentioned the pile of rubble being low in oxyen. im wondering where sisson gets his oxygen in his "slag"?
 
GodisEnergy said:
look the molten iron spheres came from this thermite.It has the same chemical signature for thermite.
Its even partially reacted.
Do you know what high tech thermite in sol gel looks like?

The reddish colour indicates iron as well more proof of thermite hahhaha
Click to expand...

My God... you don't even know what you're saying! The iron spheres did not, indeed could not have had the same "chemical signature" as thermite. They were iron spheres!!! Their chemical "signatures" i.e. the physical properties revealing the identity of the item was that of iron!!!

What you're probably trying to say is either that the iron spheres had a composition indicating that it only was formed by high temperature reactions, such as thermite ones, or that the paint chips had a thermite signature. Either way, your post is just utterly, absolutely incorrect, and should embarass the hell out of you because one of us "debunkers" is stating the argument more accurately than you are!

And I haven't even gotten around to rebutting the flawed arguments themselves yet, arguments that have been given time and time again even in this thread! Good gawd, man...
 
thermite spheres have been tested before,there not pure iron..
aluminium oxide ,pottasium,sulpur etc do form onto the spheres.
because the melting point of aluminium and other metals is below that of iron they often
form in the inside of the iron spheres.
 
GIE, please tell me ONE component to those spheres that COULD NOT have been present in the buildings when they collapsed.
 
Senenmut said:
rmackey said "2. There is no evidence of melted steel, or melted iron for that matter."
sisson states that the slag contained iron.

what sisson says is that the slag consisted of iron, sulfur, oxygen. Is sisson talking about melted iron.
Click to expand...

No, he is not. Iron compounds are not the same thing as iron.

Stating this is evidence of "molten iron" is like saying the ocean is an example of molten salt (salt melts at about 800oC).

Senenmut said:
rmackey also stated "Because the sulfur that goes into the eutectic starts in a different form. The sulfur in thermate is elemental sulfur. The sulfur that caused the eutectic probably started as an acidic form, such as H2S or a weak solution of H2SO4 (sulfuric acid). Those behave quite differently. "

the temp sisson is talking about is 940 c and higher as stated aove. sulfurfic acid boils at 290 c. the 2 sulfur compounds you mention would be gasses in this environment. could your h2s or h2so4 be part of the "slag" sisson is mentioning??
Click to expand...

You have misread the article. Dr. Sisson is talking about highly localized temperatures of about 940oC, and not much higher. This is the temperature at which the steel-sulfur eutectic melts. It is far lower than the melting temperature of steel (or iron) that hasn't reacted with sulfur, in the 1500-1600oC range.

Where the eutectic melted away, leaving the "curled edges" and holes and so on, we know it reached about this temperature.

A lot of the eutectic survived, and this part cannot have reached 940oC.

These regions appear on the same piece of steel, so we conclude that the highest temperature experienced was not much more than 940oC. A wholly credible number in an ordinary fire. I remind you that NIST's own mockup of the WTC fires (see NCSTAR1-5E) reached over 1400oC in some locations, without a speck of thermite anywhere.

Regarding the melting/boiling temperature of other sulfur compounds, you forget that the sulfur may have started to react with the steel before it was heated, or the two could have been concurrent. To pick an obvious example, sulfuric acid from overheated uninterruptible power supplies could have flowed onto structural steel at a temperature of about 100oC, then started to react with the steel, and then was further heated eventually to a temperature of about 900oC. The sulfur would bond to iron and form more heat-resistant compounds (but far less heat resistant compounds than steel itself) first.

There is no reason at all to assume the sulfur started at the upper temperature. The only case where this is required is yours -- when the sulfur is originally part of a "thermate" concoction. In that case, the sulfur cannot escape until the thermate is ignited.

In other words, you are trying to apply a flaw in your theory to mine (and Dr. Sisson's). You can't. My theory is superior to yours precisely because ours does not have this flaw, not to mention several other flaws as outlined previously.

Senenmut said:
and someone else mentioned the pile of rubble being low in oxyen. im wondering where sisson gets his oxygen in his "slag"?
Click to expand...

Low in oxygen does not mean totally devoid of oxygen. In fact, it is reactions like these that consumed much of the oxygen. The "anomaly" you believe you have found is, in fact, a feature.

Don't feel bad, though. The Truth Movement makes mistakes like these all the time, just like how the eutectic proves there couldn't possibly be any thermite effects, but you guys keep trying to claim it is evidence for thermite.
 
Last edited:
R.Mackey said:
No, he is not. Iron compounds are not the same thing as iron.

Stating this is evidence of "molten iron" is like saying the ocean is an example of molten salt (salt melts at about 800oC).



You have misread the article. Dr. Sisson is talking about highly localized temperatures of about 940oC, and not much higher. This is the temperature at which the steel-sulfur eutectic melts. It is far lower than the melting temperature of steel (or iron) that hasn't reacted with sulfur, in the 1500-1600oC range.

Where the eutectic melted away, leaving the "curled edges" and holes and so on, we know it reached about this temperature.

A lot of the eutectic survived, and this part cannot have reached 940oC.

These regions appear on the same piece of steel, so we conclude that the highest temperature experienced was not much more than 940oC. A wholly credible number in an ordinary fire. I remind you that NIST's own mockup of the WTC fires (see NCSTAR1-5E) reached over 1400oC in some locations, without a speck of thermite anywhere.

Regarding the melting/boiling temperature of other sulfur compounds, you forget that the sulfur may have started to react with the steel before it was heated, or the two could have been concurrent. To pick an obvious example, sulfuric acid from overheated uninterruptible power supplies could have flowed onto structural steel at a temperature of about 100oC, then started to react with the steel, and then was further heated eventually to a temperature of about 900oC. The sulfur would bond to iron and form more heat-resistant compounds (but far less heat resistant compounds than steel itself) first.

There is no reason at all to assume the sulfur started at the upper temperature. The only case where this is required is yours -- when the sulfur is originally part of a "thermate" concoction. In that case, the sulfur cannot escape until the thermate is ignited.

In other words, you are trying to apply a flaw in your theory to mine (and Dr. Sisson's). You can't. My theory is superior to yours precisely because ours does not have this flaw, not to mention several other flaws as outlined previously.



Low in oxygen does not mean totally devoid of oxygen. In fact, it is reactions like these that consumed much of the oxygen. The "anomaly" you believe you have found is, in fact, a feature.

Don't feel bad, though. The Truth Movement makes mistakes like these all the time, just like how the eutectic proves there couldn't possibly be any thermite effects, but you guys keep trying to claim it is evidence for thermite.
Click to expand...

here is his work:
Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the Steel from Building 7 of the World Trade Center—Some Observations

he wants $29.00 for it. all he mentioned to the bbc was that the slag consisted of iron, sulfur, and oxygen. now if you have the article, maybe you can quote the iron compounds that you are talking about. im just quoting what he (sisson) said.

i understand that it is localized. and i also understand that temps got very high is spots (nasa image).

and he is also saying the sheetrock was the "source" of the sulfur.

mackey said "There is no reason at all to assume the sulfur started at the upper temperature".
again, if you have the article that states sisson said this.....

i understand that he (sisson) and you might have different scenarios for the sulfur. im just trying to understand why he said the "slag" consisted of iron, sulfur, and oxygen. it just sounds like he is talking about liquid iron, elemental sulfur, and oxygen.
 
Senenmut said:
i understand that he (sisson) and you might have different scenarios for the sulfur. im just trying to understand why he said the "slag" consisted of iron, sulfur, and oxygen. it just sounds like he is talking about liquid iron, elemental sulfur, and oxygen.
Click to expand...

I know his work, I've read his work. If you want to know what he wrote, either shell out the cash or go to a university library.

There is no possible way you can have "liquid iron, elemental sulfur, and oxygen" in a mixture without some kind of reaction. Therefore, that is NOT what he is talking about. The very idea is positively absurd. He very, very specifically refers to a slag composed of those elements. That means a compound. That means the iron is not pure, and that obviates any need for temperatures hot enough to melt iron.

He is talking about a mixture of the three. The oxygen is supplied by the air, the iron was originally part of the steel he was examining, and the sulfur started attacking it as an acid or other active sulfur-metallic compound. This is quite plausible in a normal fire with lots of chemicals present -- Dr. Barnett identified numerous possible scenarios, and guess what, "thermate" isn't on the list. Thermate makes no sense at all. Its burning temperature is too hot for this result to occur.
 
R.Mackey said:
I know his work, I've read his work. If you want to know what he wrote, either shell out the cash or go to a university library.

There is no possible way you can have "liquid iron, elemental sulfur, and oxygen" in a mixture without some kind of reaction. Therefore, that is NOT what he is talking about. The very idea is positively absurd. He very, very specifically refers to a slag composed of those elements. That means a compound. That means the iron is not pure, and that obviates any need for temperatures hot enough to melt iron.

He is talking about a mixture of the three. The oxygen is supplied by the air, the iron was originally part of the steel he was examining, and the sulfur started attacking it as an acid or other active sulfur-metallic compound. This is quite plausible in a normal fire with lots of chemicals present -- Dr. Barnett identified numerous possible scenarios, and guess what, "thermate" isn't on the list. Thermate makes no sense at all. Its burning temperature is too hot for this result to occur.
Click to expand...

mackey said-
There is no possible way you can have "liquid iron, elemental sulfur, and oxygen" in a mixture without some kind of reaction. Therefore, that is NOT what he is talking about. The very idea is positively absurd. He very, very specifically refers to a slag composed of those elements. That means a compound. That means the iron is not pure, and that obviates any need for temperatures hot enough to melt iron.

i thought it sounded strange too!!! that is why i asked. next time im on campus, ill check it out. ive read greening, yours, godisenergy, prof jones.
im ready for someone to take it to the next stage, that is test their hypothesis. jones can recreate his red chip thermite and test it on some a36 steel. sisson can create a burning debris pile with his "slag" attacking a36 steel.....thats what im waiting for!!!
 
Sulfur-iron eutectics are not news, you know. Even the Romans knew about it. All of the required chemicals were verifiably present in the structure and its contents, in the correct quantities and concentrations. The temperature required is unremarkable. I would venture that Dr. Sisson's hypothesis is already completely validated.

Sulfur-iron eutectic as a result of thermate, not so much. The burden of proof is yours.

The mistake you are making by considering the two as equals is called an Equivocation Fallacy. They only seem equal to you, and only because of lack of education or bias on your part. They are not equal at all. Indeed, Dr. Sisson's result -- showing that the steel never exceeded 940oC give or take a hair, rules out thermite. We didn't have to disprove thermite to come up with a better hypothesis, but we did anyway. Your hypothesis is DOA.

That's really all there is to say. I've given you the facts, it's up to you to learn.
 
GodisEnergy said:
thermite spheres have been tested before,there not pure iron..
aluminium oxide ,pottasium,sulpur etc do form onto the spheres.
because the melting point of aluminium and other metals is below that of iron they often
form in the inside of the iron spheres.
Click to expand...

(*Sigh*...) That's not a rebuttal. You forget, we too have read his "work". For starters, Jones talked about iron-rich and iron-aluminum spheres, but he never discussed "thermite spheres". Any spheres he discussed he mentioned as being a product of a thermite reaction, not being thermite itself! So yes, you are still failing to describe the truther thesis better than those who refute it.

On top of that: Iron-aluminum microspheres can be created from the combustion of carbonaceous matter. This is something you seem to want to ignore. As Dr. Frank Greening has pointed out:

Frank Greening said:
... the mineral matter in natural carbon-based fuels forms an ash residue after the fuel is combusted that always contains Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe – precisely the most abundant elements, (after the ubiquitous oxygen), in your WTC samples as revealed by their EDX spectra!
Click to expand...

Coal burning results in the presence of the elements Jones discusses. Coal burning produced the spheres. As has been pointed out to you before. Fly ash - the product of such burning - is used in the production of concrete. Concrete was present in large amounts in the towers. Therefore, the origin of the spheres is the fly ash used in the production of concrete! The elements present, and the form they are found in demonstrate this origin, and negate any proposition saying they came from thermite.

The more you argue, the more you disprove the thermite hypothesis. You do it with the very information you proffer to support Jones's argument.

There is really nothing more to say to this. All we've been doing is repeating arguments we've made previously. My recommendation to people reading your posts is to take key words from it and do a search on this forum; that will reveal that these arguments have been rendered moot in the past already.
 
yea mn,k,s ,cu, are present in fly ash ....we were arguing about what thermite spheres would produce you thought it would be pure iron , i proved that wrong what thats not a rebuttal ?
Every time i bring up a good point theres a personal slander against me,typical debunking methodology
 
GodisEnergy said:
yea mn,k,s ,cu, are present in fly ash ....we were arguing about what thermite spheres would produce you thought it would be pure iron , i proved that wrong what thats not a rebuttal ?
Every time i bring up a good point theres a personal slander against me,typical debunking methodology
Click to expand...

You have yet to bring up a good point. You simply make ridiculous claims and you NEVER post any sources for your claims. That's not how we roll pal. You will get called out every time for that.
 
GodisEnergy said:
yea mn,k,s ,cu, are present in fly ash ....we were arguing about what thermite spheres would produce you thought it would be pure iron , i proved that wrong what thats not a rebuttal ?
Every time i bring up a good point theres a personal slander against me,typical debunking methodology
Click to expand...

Where did I say they were "pure"? I said they were "iron". You're the one imposing an interpretation on what I'm saying. Apparently my sarcasm criticising your horrid phrasing - which reads like you're trying to say iron has the same chemical characteristics of thermite - was lost on you. Very well, I'll say it straight: When you don't mean to say that the iron spheres have the same chemical signatures that thermite does, then don't phrase it that way. Instead, say "the spheres have characteristics indicating they were formed by thermite reactions". Or something similar. Because it's tiresome to read you accidentally saying that iron=thermite, even though that's not what you intend to write.

In short, learn how to write better. You're failing at that.

Now, onto the argument itself: You're still wrong in your misstated argument that the iron spheres demonstrated characteristics indicating they were formed from thermite reactions. Jones is handwaving, and you're buying it hook, line, and sinker. Again, the high temperature events that were required for the formation doesn't have to be limited to the WTC fires, and you've yet to make an argument why it should. Every characteristic of the spheres demonstrates their origin, and it wasn't the towers, precisely because of the points Jones himself admits in his paper, which is that the fires prior to collapse did not get hot enough to melt steel. Furthermore, a thermite reaction would leave behind other products that neither Jones nor you discuss, such as the stoichiometrically correct proportions of Aluminum oxide and pure iron. Where is that? The "meteorite" certainly isn't it.

It's not a personal attack to call you wrong when you are wrong. And it is entirely accurate to point out that we who are rebutting this information are stating Jones's argument better, with more accuracy and more clarity than you are.
 
you can deny it all you want but you cannot form these spheres before or after or during the 911 without a thermite reaction,if there so common in buildings why dont you find me some .If all buildings with concrete have them like you say it shouldnt be hard to find .And would be of serious interest to arson investigators who use x-eds analysis to determine wether thermite has been used.

Aluminium oxide was found in the spheres, spot to spot showed different levels of it some parts were very high.Most of the aluminium oxide formed the white smoke we see coming from the towers.Where on earth does that white smoke come from the rest of the smoke is black,Its clearly thermite CLEARLY!
 
GodisEnergy said:
you can deny it all you want but you cannot form these spheres before or after or during the 911 without a thermite reaction,if there so common in buildings why dont you find me some .If all buildings with concrete have them like you say it shouldnt be hard to find .And would be of serious interest to arson investigators who use x-eds analysis to determine wether thermite has been used.

Aluminium oxide was found in the spheres, spot to spot showed different levels of it some parts were very high.Most of the aluminium oxide formed the white smoke we see coming from the towers.Where on earth does that white smoke come from the rest of the smoke is black,Its clearly thermite CLEARLY!
Click to expand...

Again, cite your sources for your claims or STFU.
 
Thats what im saying why dont you provide some sources for your theories of spheres being formed before the collapses because they should be pretty common being in every builing in the world with concret,sulpidization of steel etc etc.None of your debunkers have any sources you expect me to beleive your theories and none of you are even scientists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom