OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

ImANiceGuy said:
However, if we are to believe the eyewitness testimony, then there should be large pools of solidified metals, because the quotes from the responders imply a significant volume of liquid metals.

I guess my issue is that people saw liquid metals during the rescue/clean-up; whether they saw molten steel or molten metals is what is in question (by Truthers other than myself). ie. no one questions that there would be plenty of molten metals in such a debris pile.

Where did it all go then?
Click to expand...

My bolding. Looking at this the other way round, if we have witness testimony that suggests that molten metal was abundant in the rubble piles, but the physical evidence recovered from the scene afterwards indicates that molten metal was in fact much less common, then it seems a reasonable conclusion that the witness testimony exaggerated the molten metal present, or mistook other glowing objects for molten metal. This is hardly incompatible with the suggestion that the identification of molten iron was mistaken.

Dave
 
Chodorov said:
I don't think so. I think you've missed the molten iron in all three basements.
Click to expand...

Now see, you're at least at step 4 or 5 (and probably closer to 9 or 10). You completely skipped over steps 1, 2 and 3 that I laid out above. Until you can show how to do those steps then the rest is moot and cannot be related to explosives (or therm*te for similar reasons).

Describing how your supposed explosive devices survived the impacts and fires and then functioned as intended without ever being noticed by anyone is critical information that you must have before you can claim that they were used. Without that anything that follows is incorrect as it might relate to explosives or therm*te.

If this were possible (no matter how improbable) to do then truthers would have some kind of an answer to my three questions above. They don't and never will because they have chosen an impossible scenario to start off with and anything that follows is all fruit from the poisoned tree. But perhaps you will be The One. Tell me how:

1) The explosive device (this means all of the device, not just one part of it) must be able to withstand an impact from a 400+ MPH 767 along with its cargo and fuel. This means that not only can't it detonate but it also must remain 100% functional.

2) The explosive device must then be able to withstand a minimum of 45 minutes worth of unfought office type fires.

3) The explosive device and whatever type of protection that you used to meet 1 and 2 above cannot be detectable through casual observation to the untrained eye.
Click to expand...
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Now see, you're at least at step 4 or 5 (and probably closer to 9 or 10). :
Click to expand...

Have you looked into the evidence or not? If not its somewhat premature you posting here. But we all have the same internet. Its not going to do you any good if you succeed in wasting all my time sending me on missions to dredge up material, that you all are not ready for.

Suffice to say that you have all seen molten iron falling from the twin towers. No-one has missed that. Yet not everyone knew what it was they were watching.
 
Dave Rogers said:
My bolding. Looking at this the other way round, if we have witness testimony that suggests that molten metal was abundant in the rubble piles, but the physical evidence recovered from the scene afterwards indicates that molten metal was in fact much less common, then it seems a reasonable conclusion that the witness testimony exaggerated the molten metal present, or mistook other glowing objects for molten metal. This is hardly incompatible with the suggestion that the identification of molten iron was mistaken.

Dave
Click to expand...

Thats all make-believe. Nothing contradicts the witness testimony.

If? "If" "If is the middle word in life". Why are you dealing in such riddles and hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that there was iron in all three basements and your conspiracy theory is therefore untenable. Plus it was always stupid from the start. From the start regime intelligence was an obvious factor. I just didn't realise it was American shadow government regime intelligence.
 
Chodorov said:
The fact of the matter is that there was iron in all three basements and your conspiracy theory is therefore untenable.
Click to expand...

Truther 101:
(1) Make something up.
(2) Pretend all the evidence supports it, even though it doesn't.
(3) Pretend it proves an inside job, even though it doesn't make sense.
(4) If anyone points this out, simply return to step (1).

Dave
 
Chodorov said:
Have you looked into the evidence or not? If not its somewhat premature you posting here. But we all have the same internet. Its not going to do you any good if you succeed in wasting all my time sending me on missions to dredge up material, that you all are not ready for.

Suffice to say that you have all seen molten iron falling from the twin towers. No-one has missed that. Yet not everyone knew what it was they were watching.
Click to expand...

There you go again, skipping over the critical parts of your own theories. It's not a "Pointless mission to dredge up material" if the material is there. It IS a pointless mission if you're willing to concede that the material isn't there in the first place. But you can't do that because then your entire theory falls apart like the house of cards that it is because it has absolutely no foundation to stand upon.

Secondly, I haven't seen any evidence of "Molten Iron" falling from the twin towers. I have seen videos of something that looked like it might be molten falling from the towers in a video taken from over 1,000 feet away. That something could have been anything from plastics to glass to metal or an amalgam of all three (or something else entirely). Anyone who claims that they know for certain what it was is flat out lying to you.

Again, in order for it to be what you claim that it is you must first be able to answer my three points above. Until you can do that any claims anyone makes that spring from that line of thought have no leg to stand on.
 
Chodorov said:
Thats all make-believe. Nothing contradicts the witness testimony.

If? "If" "If is the middle word in life". Why are you dealing in such riddles and hypotheticals. The fact of the matter is that there was iron in all three basements and your conspiracy theory is therefore untenable. Plus it was always stupid from the start. From the start regime intelligence was an obvious factor. I just didn't realise it was American shadow government regime intelligence.
Click to expand...

You answer NO critics of your theory. You ignore and dance around every single legitimate question about inconsistencies in your position. Your answer to every inquiry is to simply restate your position. I am getting the impression that you are just repeating what you are told and don't really understand "your" position at all.

If simply restating your position over and over again was a proper way to debate, a 5 year old would win every debate contest on Earth. "I know you are, but what am I?", I know you are, but what am I?" "I know you are, but what am I?" "I know you are, but what am I?"....LOL
 
Last edited:
Chodorov said:
Have you looked into the evidence or not? If not its somewhat premature you posting here. But we all have the same internet. Its not going to do you any good if you succeed in wasting all my time sending me on missions to dredge up material, that you all are not ready for.

Suffice to say that you have all seen molten iron falling from the twin towers. No-one has missed that. Yet not everyone knew what it was they were watching.
Click to expand...
Your "evidence" of "molten iron" is anecdotal at best. There is no PHYSICAL evidence whatsoever of your "three basements of molten iron". IT DOES NOT EXIST. What you are doing by calling people to "look for it on the internet" is called the common logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. If you knew this evidence existed you would produce it. We both know you don't have it. Your witnesses didn't handle the material, did not sample it, They are not metalurgists, And it is not possible to discern the makeup of a molten or glowing material by sight, This is why foundries sample material and test it to confirm alloy content. As far as the molten material falling from the north east corner of the south tower one of our posters here handled it, (see my sig) The curator of the 911 museum handed it to him explaining it source and content. It had been confirmed that it was in fact aluminum. Doubt me? Well then you will just have to "look it up on the internet". How do you like them apples champ? What do I expect from you? More example of logical fallacies many of which you have posted in the past. Do you see my join date at this forum? Ive been around 9/11 debates and research for quite a long time. I know your bull shiate. You are not unique. You are not the intellectual you imagine yourself to be. I predict you will continue to fail just like all the rest who have visited the past 4 years here. TTFN. I find it amusing you fantasize the Arabs as illiterate, Their origins are from a region of the globe that invented mathematics, Continue to post for us your dumbassery. As it is amusing for the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
Chodorov said:
What would be the correct response from people who weren't woo, tribal, and faith-based. Who were capable of scientific analysis? Well they might say ... Hey I checked out that molten iron story about five years ago, and it turned out that ........ And out would come some very excellent explanation that in retrospect only would seem pretty satisfying and plausible. But this is not what is going on. What is going on is more akin to Moony deprogramming. Back when the Reverend Moon had such a hold on people there were Moony deprogrammers. And they would kidnap the Moonie on behalf of the family, and just basically argue with him for days and nights until the denialism was up.

Well this is not possible here. Since I'm not about to kidnap anyone. We need merely note that even though all of us have the same internet in front of us, one side of the argument is not interested in evidence. They keep asking for it only to waste time and for no other reason.
Click to expand...

Hey I checked out that molten iron story about five one years ago, and it turned out that
  1. there is zero physical evidence for molten iron in any of the three basements
  2. there is zero photographic or video evidence for molten iron in any of the three basements
  3. there is not a single credible and competent witness testimony for molten iron in any of the three basements

In fact, many of the witness statements contain the proof that whatever they saw could not possibly have been molten iron.



When I checked out the story last year, I also found that there exists no theory ever advanced by any truther that would explain alleged occurances of molten steel as the byproduct of some method of intentional demolition. In particular, I looked at the proto-theries of demolition by thermite and by DEW, and found both to be void of evidence, incomplete, and in conflict with large amounts of other evidemce, and with basic physics and chemistry.
 
Chodorov said:
What would be the correct response from people who weren't woo, tribal, and faith-based. Who were capable of scientific analysis? Well they might say ... Hey I checked out that molten iron story about five years ago, and it turned out that ........ And out would come some very excellent explanation that in retrospect only would seem pretty satisfying and plausible.<snipped idiotic rant>.
Click to expand...

I think you need to see what Mr.Stephen D. Chastain has to say.

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

Here are his qualifications.

http://stephenchastain.com/author.htm
 
tempesta29 said:
Why are the hottest temperatures recorded at the deepest depths of the rubble, in the sub-levels of the towers? Assuming the collapses wouldn't have severely diminished these fires, why would the fire seek deeper, more oxygen-deprived depths?
Click to expand...

First off, fire moves in all directions. The fire towards the top was able to be extinguished by the firefighters. Towards the bottom, not so much.

Some firefighter even invented a tool for this exact purpose.

http://firechief.com/mag/firefighting_waterjet_technology_cuts/

I wonder, why might a firefighter invent something like this? :rolleyes:

Lastly, who said they oxygen-deprived?
 
Chodorov said:
brazenlilraisin said:
You were told hours ago that WTC7 had NO basement
Click to expand...

So what? Its just someone lying. What you have to explain is the molten iron in all three basements. The pretense that building seven, miraculously had not basement is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

Obvious troll should try harder, or I'll consider taking up sudoku.
 
I'm trying to figure out if he is suggesting that WTC7 DID have a basement, and anybody who is saying it doesn't is lying.
 
Chodorov said:
...
Suffice to say that you have all seen molten iron falling from the twin towers. No-one has missed that. Yet not everyone knew what it was they were watching.
Click to expand...


We have all seen something that was apparently liquid and glowing yellow-orangish drop from the fire zone of WTC2.

Can you please explain how this observations help your claim of "molten iron found in three basements" when
  • the colour of the flow (yellow) indicated a temperature (around 1000°C) which is well below the melting point of iron (1530°C)?
  • this event only counts for one of three buildings
  • this particular flow was too thin to make it to the basement in still molten state
???

Hint: It doesn't.
 
Chodorov said:
You are not interested in the evidence. For example if you had video proof that the planes were not commercial airliners this would mean nothing to you.
Click to expand...

It would mean something if it existed,but it doesn't.
 
Last edited:
tempesta29 said:
Why are the hottest temperatures recorded at the deepest depths of the rubble, in the sub-levels of the towers? Assuming the collapses wouldn't have severely diminished these fires, why would the fire seek deeper, more oxygen-deprived depths?
Click to expand...
Did you read all of my above posts?
I asked about the result when tons of debris rupture gas tanks in autos.

Why would the deeper areas be particularily oxygen deprived? The rubble was a lattice of rubblized material and a subway tunnel ran to the towers, oxygen could easily get to the fires. It has been pointed out to you several times now that coal seam fires have been burning at higher temps than the WTC rubble for decades and they have even less access to oxygen.

Pull your head out from under the cloak of personal incredulity and think about that.



This is coming from the man who believes that acceleration is constant even when resistance is not, and that steel columns can just up and decide not to offer any resistance to collapse.
Click to expand...

It also noted that the basic resistance cxomes NOT from the columns but from the floor pans WHICH ARE ALL basically the same. I also pointed out that the MASS increases and the velocity increases, BOTH of which would increase the downward force, as the collapse progresses.

Third time now T;
By what path/mechanism/system would the impact forces of the falling mass be transferred primarily to the columns?
 
Chodorov said:
Have you looked into the evidence or not? If not its somewhat premature you posting here. But we all have the same internet. Its not going to do you any good if you succeed in wasting all my time sending me on missions to dredge up material, that you all are not ready for.

Suffice to say that you have all seen molten iron falling from the twin towers. No-one has missed that. Yet not everyone knew what it was they were watching.
Click to expand...

I missed it. Would you please show me evidence of this. Something that establishes that any falling, glowing object is actually steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom