The Great Thermate Debate

triforcharity said:
He won't read it. It hurts his delusions.

I'll download this, and go see if he knows the first thing about NFPA 921.

I'll let ya'll know.
Click to expand...

He's not reading anything! He talks about column buckling as if it were merely single columns, and not entire lengths of several connected to each other. And my God... he still hasn't read Eagar's actual quotes.

I'm keeping my promise to myself to try hard to avoid snarking and belittling, but man, I'm finding it hard... plain ignorance of information I can understand, since I'm ignorant of a lot of things. But deliberate, willing, active ignorance in the face of material being handed to you is just so annoying...

I think I should stay off the forum while I'm travelling for Christmas and New Years. Not like I don't already cut down when I'm on vacation, but I mean really stay off. Not even occasionally lurk on my Blackberry. I should consider doing that; I find myself getting meaner and more sarcastic to people the more I read willful ignorance, and that's not a good path for me to take.
 
A W Smith said:
Which is why "the great thermite debate" Ain't so great. Still waiting for examples of the white slag from a thermite reaction on any piece of corroded steel from the world trade center.
Click to expand...

The thread title is actually really really funny...

Truthers really do think that there is "debate" over their ideas....

Truthers really do think that the "thermite" paper is solid, peer reviewed research that has "blown the cover on the conspiracy".....

And while the vast majority of the engineering and scientific world continues to just ignore them we get the thread title...

The Great Thermate Debate.

Now that is funny funny stuff...
 
superlogicalthinker said:
"No sign of molten steel-type temperatures here, and certainly not ones lasting for months."

No?....So if the surface temp was APPROX.(NOTE THAT WORD) 2000F which is about 1000C, how hot do you think they would be under the debris?

Much much hotter, which would put us close to molten steel, are you deniying the molten metal? You have seen it pouring out of the south towwer right? Oh yeah, just because NIST said it was "probably" aluminum, it must be, without even testing for it.

"halfed baked farce"
Click to expand...

Oh you are new here....that explains a lot. Please show why the temp of a vent in a debris fire would be significiently cooler than the core of the fire......list all assumptions made and show working. We'll wait.......chirp....chirp

As for the "molten" metal.....this has been covered in other thread.....in short there is no definitive evidence it was metal and certainly none that it was steel and no "ingots" of solid steel were found in the clear up nor were signs of melting on any of the beams. The beam in question was likely in a vent to a debris fire that burned a huge mixture of material that resulted in an hot acidic vapor which corroded the beam as it would be expected to do.
 
leftysergeant said:
That idiot docent was standing right next to a crack in the beam. The other doofus talking about the "meteorite" being heat-fused is a couple IQ points short of 100 as well.

Now, can you possibly show some way that HE could do the damage to that steel beam, but a few thousand tons of steel falling on it would not, especially if it was heated to something like 1000 dgrees?
Click to expand...



The meteorite has papers stuck in it where you can still read the text. Obviously if thermite had caused its formation that wouldn't be the case. They keep it in a temp and humidity controlled room to keep it from falling apart (which it is, slowly). It isn't even close to being "fused" together. It looks like a big giant dirt ball with rebar, wires, papers, and trash stuck in it.
 
Last edited:
superlogicalthinker said:
"Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion. The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion."
Click to expand...
Not observed in the towers. Ergo, no requirement to test for explosives. The cause of the blasts in the basement were known. Backdraft.

You have squat here.

NFPA Gudlines 2001. It is not a law, but is FF 101.
Click to expand...

Backdraft is Fire Science 101, first week.
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Probably because of people who can keep it out!;)
Click to expand...
Wrong. It is nonsense, like all 911 truth claims; moronic nonsense. And you can't do anything about it, you can't prove it, you can't defend it with science. The paper proves the dust was not thermite; should have paid attention in science class. At least you have a super 911 truth like name. The paper is a lie, made up nonsense to fool people.
Good luck, with post like this you are proving you don't have a clue when it comes to physics.
superlogicalthinker said:
Give it time my man, ... Are you arguing that the NIST report is not in direct contridiction with Newtons laws? This one should be fun.
Click to expand...
Posting proof you will not be writing a paper to explain your delusion, you have no clue. You will post more nonsensical talk like this as your version of proof. Nonsense; is your lack of knowledge due to your education? Why are you unable to understand physics? Repeating lies from 911 truth is not wise if you can't comprehend the nonsense you post.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
So if there were explosions why did 'they' need Thermate? (remember the title of the thread)

Who planted the explosives and why didn't anyone notice.
Click to expand...

"Who planted the explosives and why didn't anyone notice. "

Good question.....lets investigate with subpoena power and find out.;)
 
Thermi*te's silent yet so bright anyone looking directly at it without protection incurs damage to their eyesight?
 
superlogicalthinker said:
Thermate is an incendary, not explosive. Do you know the dif?
Click to expand...

Yes and it was proposed by 'Truthers' to explain why there were no sounds of demolition charges at the time of the collapse.
Now you are in the Thermate Debate thread talking about explosives. Does that mean you don't think thermate was used to demolish the towers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom