Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Sherman Bay]

W.D. Clinger responded faster than I have, and described the process well, femr2. If you are indeed trying to learn and not trolling, I will elaborate. Please feel free to use the Web's resources to verify what I say here. I am not making s* up.

What you are seeing is most likely an artifact caused by extreme photo processing.

It's just colour range enhancement to highlight behaviour which is already there.

You may have intended it to be only color range enhancement, but using this kind of photo processing has introduced undesirable changes in the image which cannot be separated from the desirable ones. Indeed, the undesirable ones overwhelm any others. To someone familiar with photographic artifacts, that's what shows the most.

JPEG is lossy, GIF is not. Your statement makes little sense.

As W.D.Clinger said, that is incorrect. Let me explain how GIF works.

For each frame, since GIF can only store 256 different color values, the actual number must be reduced to 256 in order to make a "color map." If you are an experienced graphics designer, you can control which colors are dropped and which are altered. If not, you are at the mercy of an automatic program which doesn't know which colors are important to you, and makes its own decision.

It is possible for a GIF image to NOT encode significant data loss, but this can be done only if:

• you control the color value table to do so (some loss), or
• the original had no more than 256 colors (no loss).

This works well for limited-color corporate logos, not so much for photos of outdoor scenes, where the blue of a typical sky alone might have 1000 variations of "blue." If you doubt me, take an outdoor, daylight snapshot with any digital camera, then enlarge the sky area enough that you can see individual pixels. You will find a lot of blues, but no truly solid areas of exactly the same shade. GIF processing forces a lot of compromises in images like this.

Not only is GIF extremely lossy under some conditions, but what I have just described is applied to every frame separately in video (unless an experienced video/graphics designer is in control to prevent that). So the color map for color #104 in frame #1 may map to a different color in frame #2, and still another in frame #3. This is what causes the "waving" or "pulsing" effect you see in many of these videos. What was dark blue in one frame may become green in the next and light blue in the next. If the process is cyclical, the effect may cause a moiré pattern.

Worse yet, if you are showing a GIF animation as video, the only way to avoid distortion would be to limit ALL colors for ALL frames to the same 256 color table. Otherwise, somewhere in time there will be color changes introduced between frames.

If you take a JPG image with poor compression (severe data loss), then save it as a GIF (more severe data loss), the resulting image is highly distorted in several ways. The artifacts are more prevalent than the original data in examples as you have given.

Truthers put much stock in subjective interpretation of such artifacts, calling them "anomolies."

What *anomoly* is it that you think I am highlighting ?

All of them. The "wave" or "shockwave" in particular. Almost everything you "see" in these highly-distorted images was added to the image during processing. You are mistaking artifacts for facts.

Photo processing experts (of which I am one) call it absolute nonsense.

A *photo processing expert* (interesting choice of word triplet. giggle) would not suggest similar artefact behaviour between GIF and JPEG formats. Two entirely different beasts.

That merely illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.

femr2, your disdain for my knowledge, and others who agree with me on this topic, and your lack of research before loudly insulting us is interesting. It would be like an auto mechanic who worked on Fords for 40 years and along comes a young punk kid who never changed a tire or sparkplug who, in all seriousness, claims that there is no "F" in the word "Ford," and refuses to look at the logo on the side of the Ford cars in the shop to check.

 

[oody]

Personally, I had a really hard time trying to see what femr was trying to point out in the animated GIF, for quite a while. I finally did see it today, so I knocked together an edited version of his sequence to roughly approximate what to look for, for those (like me) who have a hard time reading tealeaves. Just to help make sure we're at least on the same page FWIW. And I have 15 posts now, so I can.

 

[femr2]

I've since linked to a video proving that it was indeed sunlight off of the windows.

To funny. Couldn't help but assemble our recent *discussion*...

The South face is collapsing, as evidenced by the fact you can see through the building.
Period. That .gif doesn't even show anything. Try again.

Nonsense. You cannot see through the building.

Dude, the south face is clearly collapsing prior to the 'global' collapse.

Having said that, is it really too much to imagine being able to see through the TRANSPARENT GLASS on the north face through to the outside? Really?

You suggested that the facade distortion highlighted in the video was "the sun shining through the North face". Nonsense. The distortion is of the reflections upon the North facade, which, as I've said, allows you to the the effect of the internal building behaviour...bottom to top propogation under East penthouse, followed by top to bottom as penthouse descends.

So they're reflections now?

The features highlighted in both videos are CLEARLY the result of slight change in reflections upon the facade

Ah... I see now.
The fact of the matter is, there is a slight chance I could be wrong about seeing through the building, although it's unlikely. If I am in fact wrong about that, then there's another innocuous explanation, such as curtains or light shining on the windows.

What the hell do you think a reflection is ?

Pretend for a moment that it'll never sink in. Using words even a monkey can understand, explain the significance of the reflected light

I should have looked further into this a long time ago. Would have saved a boatload of keystrokes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z86dBvWm9RE Sunlight reflecting off of the windows.

The FACT of the matter is, the 'distortions' as you now call them, are WINDOWS REFLECTING SUNLIGHT. Are you saying it's not?

change in reflectivity state is the means by which the behaviour being highlighted becomes visible, but *what it is* is the CAUSE of that state change, which is a disturbance/a flexure (as Ryan put it)/a distortion...of the facade.
You were 100% sure that you could see right through the building. I suggest you include an amount of doubt in what you are saying.

I've since linked to a video proving that it was indeed sunlight off of the windows.

Sterling work NoahFence. That showed me eh ?

 

[dafydd]

To funny. Couldn't help but assemble our recent *discussion*...














Sterling work NoahFence. That showed me eh ?

Yes,it did. What caused the failure?

 

[NoahFence]

Big honkin' pieces of the North Tower coupled with fire caused the "deformations"

aka

Sunlight.

 

[ozeco41]

He seems to be confirming what NIST says. Until he does otherwise I'm taking it as such. Simple really.

The technical fact seems to be that simple. The building collapsed and as it did so a wave of flexure moved up and down the face of the building. That movement originally labelled a "shock wave" which many objected to so the proponent, femr2, changed the label. Ryan Mackey gave a reasoned explanation why the observed building movement should be called "flexure" so, for my money, flexure it is.

The movement of the building supports the official NIST explanation of a Column 79 led collapse OR something very near to that explanation.

However femr2 bears the label "truther" for some reason so by definition nothing he says can be true can it?

It's a pity he did not claim "the cloudless sky is blue" the denials would be a great study in applied confirmation bias.

The preferred alternative seems to be that the building did not flex but the observations are the result of graphics processing artefacts.

I'll stay with the idea that the building façade did flex a little bit. The idea that the whole inside of such a building could collapse without the façade flexing is too much for me to buy without some extraordinary proof of the rigidity of the façade. After all the whole ruddy lot came down seconds later.

And, what better than sunlight reflecting off windows to clearly reveal the deformation? Why does reflection have to be caused by another phenomenon simply to support the fixed idea that femr2 must be wrong?

 

[femr2]

If you are indeed trying to learn and not trolling, I will elaborate.

Go ahead. Just read ahead and I'm sorry to be blunt, but whilst I have no issue with you stating elements of the encoding methods for GIF format files, it's utterly irrelevant to the discussion, and your conclusions are NONSENSE WRONG.

Please feel free to use the Web's resources to verify what I say here. I am not making s* up.

By all means look at the 24bit 1280*720 version of the file you are talking about, with which you can confirm you are talking S*. I included a link a few posts ago. It's just under 300Mb for a 2.5 minute clip.

You may have intended it to be only color range enhancement, but using this kind of photo processing has introduced undesirable changes in the image which cannot be separated from the desirable ones. Indeed, the undesirable ones overwhelm any others. To someone familiar with photographic artifacts, that's what shows the most.

See above.

As W.D.Clinger said, that is incorrect. Let me explain how GIF works.

I'm more than familiar with GIF encoding schemes in all of their various flavours thanks.

For each frame, since GIF can only store 256 different color values, the actual number must be reduced to 256 in order to make a "color map." If you are an experienced graphics designer, you can control which colors are dropped and which are altered.

The video data is treated with care, and as you can see if you inspect the pallete information in the GIF there is minimal effect from inter-frame content change as the view is fairly static and the colour information between frames fairly consistent.

It is possible for a GIF image to NOT encode significant data loss, but this can be done only if:

• you control the color value table to do so (some loss)

• 
  There are numerous automatic processes for selection of GIF animation colour tables.
  
  

  Almost everything you "see" in these highly-distorted images was added to the image during processing. You are mistaking artifacts for facts.

  Utter nonsense.
  
  Here is a comparison between 24bit original image data and corresponding GIF image...
  
  
  
  (GIF)
  
  
  
  
  (RAW)
  
  Note the lightening in tone near the top left of the building, which is an early moment in the traversal of that lightening down the facade, as the East penthouse descends behind it.
  
  Note that the lightening is present in both the GIF and raw image. Note that the lightening is present in both fields of the raw image (the image is in split field form, with upper field being on the left.)
  
  

  That merely illustrates your lack of knowledge on the subject.

  I'm afraid not.
  
  

  femr2, your disdain for my knowledge, and others who agree with me on this topic, and your lack of research before loudly insulting us is interesting.

  Not as interesting as you digging the hole deeper.

 

[NoahFence]

And, what better than sunlight reflecting off windows to clearly reveal the deformation? Why does reflection have to be caused by another phenomenon simply to support the fixed idea that femr2 must be wrong? [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]

I've long since backed off my assertion that he was 'wrong' - but stand by my assertion that his youtube video was 'misleading'.

At the end of the day if you want to get technical (femr) or not (me) is irrelevant. What these so called deformations show is nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing remarkable, proving nothing we didn't already know.

 

[Christopher7]

You do know that most of the dogs trained by Capt. McGee, were in fact trained for LP and explosives, right?

McGee's dogs were trained to detect conventional explosives and military thermate containing barium nitrate. They were not trained to detect thermite or thermate made without barium nitrate or the nano-thermite found in the dust.

 

[Sherman Bay]

By all means look at the 24bit 1280*720 version of the file you are talking about, with which you can confirm you are talking S*. I included a link a few posts ago. It's just under 300Mb for a 2.5 minute clip.

Since this thread is already 116 pages, and you gave no key words I could use to search for that link, and I don't know which one you mean, if you want me to look at it, please provide a direct URL. 300Mb (don't you mean MB?) is no problem; bring it on.

 

[femr2]

What these so called deformations show is nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing remarkable, proving nothing we didn't already know.

I have to disagree with you there. Upon what evidence was *what you already knew* based upon ? I would hazard a guess that is was the theorised probable behaviour sugessted by NIST. Proof/evidence ? Hmm.

The behaviours I'm highlighting are as near to *proof* of the segment of the sequence which they span as I have seen.

I'll add at this point that the only reason this discussion is ensuing is that beachnut posted a link to the video with the purpose of making personal attack. Quite ironic really. The video was posted 4 August 2009, and the reason it was posted was to highlight that very behaviour. Old hat folks. It's like the dark ages roun' 'ere sometimes

 

[DGM]

The original problem was his use of "shockwave" - I've since linked to a video proving that it was indeed sunlight off of the windows.

I believe he corrected his misuse of the word "shock-wave" so that's off the table. I think he has actually shown that the exterior facade did show distortion. This is little more than, no ****!.

This whole thing seems to drift off from fact to, "you're a truther, you must have so hidden agenda".

 

[femr2]

Since this thread is already 116 pages, and you gave no key words I could use to search for that link, and I don't know which one you mean, if you want me to look at it, please provide a direct URL. 300Mb (don't you mean MB?) is no problem; bring it on.

...

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A9SCYN9X
2:23 - 1280x720 - H264 - 298.45 MB

There is a link to it on the YT video also (which I assume you've already seen), but here y'are anyway...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg

 

[DGM]

The technical fact seems to be that simple. The building collapsed and as it did so a wave of flexure moved up and down the face of the building. That movement originally labelled a "shock wave" which many objected to so the proponent, femr2, changed the label. Ryan Mackey gave a reasoned explanation why the observed building movement should be called "flexure" so, for my money, flexure it is.

The movement of the building supports the official NIST explanation of a Column 79 led collapse OR something very near to that explanation.

However femr2 bears the label "truther" for some reason so by definition nothing he says can be true can it?

It's a pity he did not claim "the cloudless sky is blue" the denials would be a great study in applied confirmation bias.

The preferred alternative seems to be that the building did not flex but the observations are the result of graphics processing artefacts.

I'll stay with the idea that the building façade did flex a little bit. The idea that the whole inside of such a building could collapse without the façade flexing is too much for me to buy without some extraordinary proof of the rigidity of the façade. After all the whole ruddy lot came down seconds later.

And, what better than sunlight reflecting off windows to clearly reveal the deformation? Why does reflection have to be caused by another phenomenon simply to support the fixed idea that femr2 must be wrong? [qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/scratch.gif[/qimg]

^ this! I'm only a simple General Contractor, I don't use a lot of words.


(damn engineers)

 

[ozeco41]

^ this! I'm only a simple General Contractor, I don't use a lot of words.


(damn engineers)

I have been accused of using a thousand words where 8 would do.

A bad combination - an engineer with a law degree

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I stopped reading femr2's posts some time ago, for reasons stated within this extremely long review of what he has posted here during the last few days.

The reason I went back and read all of femr2's recent posts is that I could scarcely believe he has been talking about the high quality of YouTube videos and animated GIFs. And yet...

You are getting feebler and more desperate by the day Beachnut. Most of my videos have a title prefix of demolition, sure. Most YT searches for anything related to 9/11 usually include the word, so it's silly not to include it. (Approaching 1 million views there). You may notice that the videos do not make *conspiracy* or *explosives* claims, but for the vast majority are simply good quality versions of available footages from various viewpoints, or various interesting features highlighted. WTC7 Shockwave Visible is a good example there, within which I have processed the video to allow you to actually see the progression of the descent of the East penthouse through the structure. Ifyou have a problem with such, that's your problem.

So he's talking about YouTube videos.

Here's some of that detail in another processed version ...
[qimg]http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif[/qimg]

That's an animated GIF.

The features highlighted in both videos are CLEARLY the result of slight change in reflections upon the facade, yes.

Yes, I think that's the likely explanation.

Seems a reasonable word to use to me...Shockwave...a type of propogating disturbance...the video shows external disturbance of the facade due to propogation of failures upwards beneath the East penthouse, followed by similar downwards as the East penthouse and structure descends internally.

Not a shock wave, as femr2 now seems to agree.

I don't recall seeing any evidence for the conclusions femr2 drew within the above quotation.

As femr2 agreed in the earlier quotation above and in another quotation below, he's talking about a reflection. It looks to me as though that reflection is caused by a combination of the building's sway and flex as it fails. I see no reason to assume that the slightly shinier parts of the image should be identified with failures near those shinier parts. If the shinier parts are caused by reflection, as femr2 agrees, and the reflections are caused by sway/flex, as femr2 may also agree (see below), then the sway/flex that causes the reflections can be caused by failures far away from the shinier parts.

What is wrong with you all ?

You really should be applauding the video. (And me)

I don't understand why femr2's videos are significant in any way. As a matter of fact, femr2's principled refusal to advance any reason for me to pay attention to his posts is one of the reasons I stopped paying attention to them.

What it shows is (via careful control of video colour range information) actual visual proof within the video record of propogating disturbance within the building, starting low down beneath the East penthouse and travelling upwards. When this propogation reaches the East penthouse, it begins its descent, causing a similar but larger disturbance of the facade as it traverses down inside the building.

You can SEE the propogation.

femr2 has agreed that we see a reflection moving across the face of the building. As I noted above, that reflection is likely to be caused by sway/flex. It looks to me as though femr2 is assuming that the position of the reflection is the same as the position of some "disturbance" that caused the reflection.

That doesn't follow, as can be demonstrated by sticking a meter stick into the ground, attaching a mirror to its middle so that the sun reflects onto a marked spot, and tapping the meter stick at various positions ranging from its very top to its very bottom.

It is (the only) visual proof of actual internal building behaviour which supports the notion of the propogation of failures following the initiating mechanism suggested by NIST. It does not prove which column, nor the reason the propogation initiated, but it does strongly suggest that particular propogation mechanism to be correct after initiating.

Expected behaviour ? Of course not. Who expected such behaviour ? Interesting ? Sure.

It would be interesting if I had reason to believe femr2's analysis, but I don't.

Incorrect, it's particularly GOOD quality, which is why I have been able to process the video data and highlight the very subtle (but critically important) visual cue information.

Again...

http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg
Well done femr2 !

Yes, femr2 really is extolling the "particularly GOOD quality" of animated GIFs and YouTube videos.

Perhaps because focus has been on the animated GIF posted inline, rather than the video.

A chunk of the video...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/hjm.gif

Yes, femr2 is talking about an animated GIF and a YouTube video.

(You shouldn't have too much difficulty seeing the large round circle of facade distortion traverse down as the penthouse structure moves downward through the building...in the video. Let me know if you can see that.)

Yes, I can see a slightly shiny reflection moving down from around 6 to 10 seconds (in the YouTube video). I also see a slightly shiny reflection near the top from 12 to 15 seconds, remaining fairly stationary or even moving upwards a bit relative to the building as it falls.

I see no reason to think those shiny areas are anything other than reflections caused by the building's sway and flex as it fails and falls.

The details in the following animated GIF are rather subtle, and as I said require watching the clip a number of times, looking at the facade region below the East penthouse, and watching for colour changes propogating from the lower to upper floors...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/3/2/920361115.gif

GIFs cannot show subtle details of color in full-color photographic or video images. Their color palette is limited to 256 discrete colors. That technical limitation of GIFs creates more obvious color boundaries than would be seen in full-color images, and the resulting differences in color are easily over-interpreted by those who desire to see more details than can be extracted reliably.

I'm only aware of two people who have had problems, and the GIF is, as stated, part of a video, the link to which is provided. Watch that instead.

That's a YouTube video.

If you want the other view in video format...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjEIeKujnIM

That's a YouTube video.

No, change in reflectivity state is the means by which the behaviour being highlighted becomes visible, but *what it is* is the CAUSE of that state change, which is a disturbance/a flexure (as Ryan put it)/a distortion...of the facade.

Yes, the reflection probably reveals some genuine distortion of the facade, quite probably caused by flex, which can be caused by sway.

Why read more into it than that?

Downsampling of colour range, sure. Doesn't really introduce much in the way of artefacts of the kind he was hinting at.

I don't think femr2 understood what Sherman Bay was hinting at. femr2 certainly did not understand what I was saying.

To compare to JPEG is a very silly thing to do when talking about artefacts, as it is inherently mathematically lossy and could certainly *produce images of things and actions that never were there in the first place* though such would certainly NOT be in the slightest bit like the very clear progression of facade disturbance evident in the image he referred to...
http://femr2.ucoz.com/hjm.gif

As I have explained above, the animated GIF's limited color palette makes it easier for the human eye to perceive patches of a slightly different color. That's less true of JPEG/MPEG than of GIFs, but JPEG/MPEG's lossy compression can also create artifacts that are easily over-interpreted by those who desire to read more into the details than can be extracted reliably.

To suggest that facade distortion behaviour is due to compression artefact is UTTER NONSENSE.

I don't think anyone has yet suggested that 7WTC was brought down by image compression artifacts. (Now that femr2 has expressed that straw man, I fear Telltale Tom or some other dedicated Truther will turn it into the next Internet meme.)

Although I am not suggesting that femr2's interpretation of the shinier patches as disturbances co-located with those patches is utter nonsense, I am pointing out that there is no apparent justification for femr2's interpretation.

I have also suggested that artifacts of both MPEG and GIF files may contribute to over-interpretation of those shinier patches.

Compare the videos (full 24-bit colour information, HD resolution) to the GIFs. Same behaviour.

I haven't seen the full 24-bit colour information, HD resolution videos. Up until the message quoted next, femr2 had been arguing on the basis of animated GIFs and YouTube videos.

I also placed a non-YT copy online...
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=A9SCYN9X
2:23 - 1280x720 - H264 - 298.45 MB

Nice. At almost 300 megabytes, I'm not going to download it until femr2 explains its significance.

femr2's long-standing refusal to explain the significance of his research is one of the reasons I stopped reading his posts.

 

[ozeco41]

I've long since backed off my assertion that he was 'wrong' - but stand by my assertion that his youtube video was 'misleading'...

Understood.

...At the end of the day if you want to get technical (femr) or not (me) is irrelevant...

Sure - even I am irrelevant.

... What these so called deformations show is nothing out of the ordinary, and nothing remarkable,..

But they do show it so they add to the pool of accessible evidence. Accessibility is the issue.

...proving nothing we didn't already know.

Nothing wrong with adding confirmatory evidence. Especially when that evidence is more direct than the evidence you already have.

 

[ozeco41]

...Although I am not suggesting that femr2's interpretation of the shinier patches as disturbances co-located with those patches is utter nonsense, I am pointing out that there is no apparent justification for femr2's interpretation....

A good point. I won't explore it at this stage - too much activity and noise on the thread.

 

[femr2]

he's talking about YouTube videos.

My YT uploads are generally in 1280x720 H264 with factor of 1 (Absolute maximum quality), which is the native internal YT format. If you bother to change the default resolution within YT you will receive an almost identical version to that uploaded. As you have already seen, I also provide megaupload links for the original upload files here and there.

Yes, I think that's the likely explanation.

Then why support the ridiculous suggestion that the visual information is the result of compression artefacts ?

femr2 has agreed that we see a reflection moving across the face of the building.

Not quite, the distortion of reflection in localised areas of the facade as events within the building pass by. There's a difference.

It looks to me as though femr2 is assuming that the position of the reflection is the same as the position of some "disturbance" that caused the reflection.

Within reasonable limits, absolutely.

Yes, femr2 really is extolling the "particularly GOOD quality" of animated GIFs and YouTube videos.

Absolutely. I assume you've seen the original footage. Wonderfully handled video data

I don't think femr2 understood what Sherman Bay was hinting at. femr2 certainly did not understand what I was saying.

I assume you have now looked at the images posted a short while ago with which you can compare the full bit-depth image data with the GIF image data. You will see particularly good correlation between the two, negating your concern about GIF colour tables (as I have already suggested).

I am pointing out that there is no apparent justification for femr2's interpretation.

You need to spend more time looking at the image sequence.

I haven't seen the full 24-bit colour information, HD resolution videos.

You didn't bother to increase the YT resolution setting then ?

Nice. At almost 300 megabytes, I'm not going to download it until femr2 explains its significance.

It's the video file uploaded to YT. That 24bit HD resolution video you just mentioned you haven't seen, within which you will see that conversion to GIF has had absolutely minimal effect upon the colour data for the purposes of being able to see, identify and make conclusions about the observed facade behaviours.

 

[Sunstealer]

The dogs were looking for people and then body parts, not explosives. They would not have been sniffing the steel beams, girders and columns.

[FONT=&quot]"Our dogs, and the dogs we train for incendiary work are specifically trained to react to certain chemicals found in explosives/incendiaries. In the case of thermite/thermate that chemical is Barium Nitrate. Sulfur is also one of the compounds we train for that are found in thermate and explosives either as an initial component or as a by product of detonation."
http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/...howComment=1241099880000#c1478786432859045273

The nano-thermite did not contain barium nitrate or sulfur. Sample #1 from WTC 7 was corroded by a eutectic containing sulfur but the dogs did not detect it.
[/FONT]

McGee's dogs were trained to detect conventional explosives and military thermate containing barium nitrate. They were not trained to detect thermite or thermate made without barium nitrate or the nano-thermite found in the dust.

What about Sulphur? Your own quote, which I have highlighted and repeated below,

Sulfur is also one of the compounds we train for

shows they were trained to detect Sulphur.

From that it is now obvious that you are saying that a thermite that doesn't contain barium nitrate or sulphur was used.

So how can a thermite without sulphur cause a eutectic containing sulphur?

I shall quote you again

Sample #1 from WTC 7 was corroded by a eutectic containing sulfur but the dogs did not detect it.

So you admit that the steel was corroded via a Fe-O-S eutectic. If thermite/thermate didn't contain Sulphur then thermite/thermate could not have been the cause of the eutectic.

Therefore thermite/thermate could not be the material used for demolition unless you believe that the Fe-O-S eutectic has nothing to do with demolition.

If you don't believe that the Fe-O-S eutectic has anything to do with your theory of demolition then why the hell are you quoting it!