POSITIVE EVIDENCE for WTC7 Controlled Demolition

[StoneRook]

hmmm....

Who to believe????

A man from NASA, that has the knowledge,
or,

A man who started posting less than 20 days or so ago, "just asking questions" and "trying to wrap his brain around the WTC collapse".... (paraphrased)

My money goes on the man from NASA....

 

[DGM]

Sizzler:
When can we expect Jones or anyone else to show us any reason WHY to look for thermite at the WTC site. So far they have not presented one credible reason WHY it would be there. As a tax payer (man do I pay taxes) I want to know why you want me to spend money looking for something that there's no reason for being there.

 

[R.Mackey]

Mackey wrote:


Are you joking me?

You now know SO2 is a by-product of a thermite+sulfur. And you know SO2 is the byproduct of many other 'natural' materials in the building that would have to go through a reduction reaction to eventually be able to cause sulfidation.

So what you are saying then is that although theoretically, thermite + sulfur is a possible source, your objections have ruled out any possible source of thermite+sulfur in the building.

Would you like to restate your specific objections so that it is clear; leaving no problems in semantics, or misinterpreted unspoken thoughts?

I may as well ask if you're joking me, but I think I already know the answer.

Read my posts again. Nowhere do I object to the chemical form of the sulfur from thermate (although I did object to the chemical form in wallboard). My objections, again, are the following:

1. That sulfur could have come from anywhere. You even agreed with this.
2. Thermate is hot. Hot enough to destroy the eutectic mixture. It's not a problem of chemistry, it's a problem of thermodynamics.
3. Thermite, no matter what the form, leaves metal oxide powders, and these are not seen on the sulfidized fragments.

It's not thermite, not any variety. Dr. Biederman doesn't say it could be thermite. Dr. Barnett doesn't say it could be thermite. And I say it's not thermite. But this position has nothing to do with the form being SO₂, or H₂SO₄, or H₂S, or what have you. Your post, and the previous one, do not represent my position accurately.

This is why you're now on my "soft Ignore" list. On the off-chance you say something of public interest or accidentally insightful, I may comment, but otherwise I've lost interest. You either aren't willing or capable of reading what I write, so why should I continue? I'd just be repeating myself, as I've had to do here.

Instead, you seem much more interested in playing games of semantics and hyperbole, just like a hundred other conspiracy theorists before you. I'm only in this to learn and to educate, and I don't enjoy playing those games. You can continue if you wish, but you will be playing with yourself.

 

[twinstead]

You can continue if you wish, but you will be playing with yourself.

Wow. I'm not going to TOUCH that one...

 

[LashL]

I'd like to see the their computer model though. Don't you think it is kinda funny that they haven't made it public?

NO, I dont think it odd that they didn't release their computer models. Does the NTSB release the plane when they've done investigating a crash?
Does the coroner release the body to the public, when he's done examining for cause of death?

Well, considering the American people paid for it, why not release it?

By not releasing it, it suggests there may be something to hide.

The American people also pay for their coroners and the NTSB. Those entities report on the results of their investigations; they do not release the dead bodies or the aircraft and/or parts to the public.

Do you think that suggests that coroners and the NTSB may have something to hide?



P.S. See Arthur's link above. It appears that you can obtain the NIST computer models yourself quite economically if you are really interested (and if you have the computer power and the appropriate knowledge to do anything with it).

 

[Spins]

I don't think it's quite that simple. I know it's tempting to correlate the "thermate" with the "barium nitrate" form, viz. the NO₃^- group, but it doesn't hold in general. "Thermite" does not contain iron "oxite." Instead, thermite contains iron oxide, which has various forms, but none of them is FeO₂. We don't call it "thermide," instead the whole class of metal reactions is called a "thermite reaction."

I wasn't trying to correlate the -ate in thermate with the -ate in barium nitrate, I was trying to point out that the -ate in thermate and the -ite in thermite reflects the oxidative state of each pyrotechnic composition once heated to ignition temperature.

The thermate that we know and love is generally basic thermite plus barium nitrate and some other goodies. We aren't removing iron oxide and replacing it with barium nitrate, for example. There is no change to the basic thermite reaction, just addition of a sympathetic reaction.

This discussion metions alternate formulations, e.g. manganese thermite and chromium thermite. Manganese and chromium are similar to iron but exist in different oxidized states. These are also called "thermites."

This leads me to conclude that "thermate" is a colloquial or even commercial name. Having said that, I Am Not A Chemist, and if anyone has real information, I'd like to learn. But I'm not aware of any actual "thermate" that isn't specifically thermate-TH3.

As I mentioned previously pyrotechnic compositions that generate heat through the reaction of a metal and a metal oxide are generally referred to as thermites. With the addition of a more energetic oxidizer (or oxidizers) they are generally referred to as thermates. For example...

Al + MoO₃ = thermite
Al + MoO₃ + KClO₄ = thermate

TH3 was developed from therm-8 and TH2; there is also a TH4 variation which is very similar in composition to TH3 but with the addition of a synthetic resin binder.

TH3 is a mixture of granulated aluminium, grained aluminium, black iron oxide, barium nitrate, and sulfur. The 0.3% binder referred to in the Wiki article and elsewhere is actually castor oil and I'm guessing this additive is only added to TH3 as a stabilizer (not a binder) when the composition is used in munitions such as the AN-M14.

I'm reluctant to go into too much detail, exact compositions etc, for obvious reasons.

Futhermore, the objections I've put forth in this thread rule out any thermite reaction in creating the sulfidized steel, regardless of its specific composition.

That's never been in doubt.