Moderated Thermite: Was it there or not?

bill smith said:
The ones that didn't go through the slurry walls went around the bathtub in circles ?
Click to expand...
pathtunnel.jpg
 
I think bill's signature should be changed to "there comes a time when enough people tell you that you don't know what you are talking about that you have to listen to them"
 
Originally Posted by bill smith
The ones that didn't go through the slurry walls went around the bathtub in circles ?
Click to expand...


The pile vastly exceeded the area if the bathtub and the tunnels I referred to went into the pile. I know this first-hand.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
The pile vastly exceeded the area if the bathtub and the tunnels I referred to went into the pile. I know this first-hand.
Click to expand...

On which basement floors did the trains run ? Or level with which basement levels ?Right at the bottom of the bathtub or halfway up ?
 
bill smith said:
On which basement floors did the trains run ? Or level with which basement levels ?Right at the bottom of the bathtub or halfway up ?
Click to expand...
Doesn't your 911 cult of liars press package and big bag of delusional lies to post have any of this information in it? Oh, you want reality; got it.


Is there a thermite issue involved in your line of questioning?

Or do you stir things up and leave like over at this thread, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5024858#post5024858 ; You post lies by an idiot on 911, Capt. Daniel Davis, and runaway like a vandal.
 
Last edited:
I think Jones (and other thermiters) should first try to prove that thermite(ate) or super-hyper-ultra-mega-blaster-nanothermite charges can be used for cutting massive steel columns.
 
Carlos said:
I think Jones (and other thermiters) should first try to prove that thermite(ate) or super-hyper-ultra-mega-blaster-nanothermite charges can be used for cutting massive steel columns.
Click to expand...

Exactly. not only that, but that the cutting charges can go off undetected on video or audio.....

I'd really, really love to see them try!:D
 
beachnut said:
yes

http://www.nae.edu/File.aspx?id=7345

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx oops, a real journal
Click to expand...

From one of your links;-
'' Concurrent with rescue work in New York, Port Authority engineers were investigating the condition of the PATH tunnels in Jersey City, New Jersey, where the Exchange Place Station, which was at an elevation 5 feet lower than the WTC PATH Station, had served as a sump for fire water, river water, and broken water mains discharging into the bathtub...''

The trains can't have been running very deep by the looks of it.
 
Last edited:
beachnut said:
yes


http://www.nae.edu/Publications/TheBridge/Archives/V32-1EngineeringandHomelandSecurity.aspx oops, a real journal
Click to expand...

Bill; Figure 9 (page 17) in that document was "my" subway and frequently my stop. The exit platform was a wide staircase that lead right into basement mall. It drew air from the south and the north of the collapse. The picture shows the west track (towards the tub). The east track was restored to service fairly quickly and I could see that debris on my way to work as they repaired the west track.

There were at least 4 other similar tunnels feeding air into the fire.
 
Last edited:
BigAl said:
Bill; Figure 9 (page 17) in that document was "my" subway and frequently my stop. The exit platform was a wide staircase that lead right into basement mall. It drew air from the south and the north tracks. The picture shows the west track (towards the tub). The east track was restored to service fairly quickly and I could see that debris on my way to work as they repaired the west track.

There were at least 4 other similar tunnels feeding air into the fire.
Click to expand...

I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass (as I'm sure you will agree it had to be) will only burn what's on the outside. Surely you're not going to say that that was enough to account for a three-month inferno sufficient to melt steel and heat the ground 70 feet above to 1500 degrees ? 'enough to melt the guy's boots'
 
So bill thinks that the pile was some sort of hermetically sealed environment. What a bunch of crap. Please provide a source that supports your fantasy.
 
bill smith said:
I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass (as I'm sure you will agree it had to be) will only burn what's on the outside. Surely you're not going to say that that was enough to account for a three-month inferno sufficient to melt steel and heat the ground 70 feet above to 1500 degrees ? 'enough to melt the guy's boots'
Click to expand...
The pile burned for months because there was little air; add lots of air burn fast; little air burn slow. Do you understand chemistry?

Are you allowed to use fire?
 
bill smith said:
I don't deny that, but oxygen only on the outside of a compacted mass (as I'm sure you will agree it had to be) will only burn what's on the outside. Surely you're not going to say that that was enough to account for a three-month inferno sufficient to melt steel and heat the ground 70 feet above to 1500 degrees ? 'enough to melt the guy's boots'
Click to expand...

That would only be true if there were absolutely no voids in the debris that would allow oxygen in.

Obviously the debris was porous enough to allow this to happen.

I would add that you have no evidence that this was not the case. There's no good reason to think otherwise. Don't forget that smoldering fires eventually can reach very high temps - that's a fact, easily verified.

There are many reports of GZ workers uncovering debris and having the fires suddenly flare up as additional air was supplied. This is direct evidence that they were in fact slowly cooking (like a charcoal fire) in a relatively oxygen-deprived environment.
 
beachnut said:
The pile burned for months because there was little air; add lots of air burn fast; little air burn slow. Do you understand chemistry?

Are you allowed to use fire?
Click to expand...

Sure....give it no air at all and it will burn forever. Tell the energy companies.
 
Anyway, the main point is that you've tried to argue that there couldn't have been oxygen available to burn in the piles.

This idea has been refuted by basic evidence of the site layout, composition and arrangement of debris, and a number of other things.

Your argument doesn't square with the evidence, therefore it should be discarded.

Next big idea?
 
bill smith said:
Sure....give it no air at all and it will burn forever. Tell the energy companies.
Click to expand...

Why are you so hostile and bitter towards basic science and chemistry? It doesn't help your understanding at all.

do you want to learn or not?
 
alienentity said:
That would only be true if there were absolutely no voids in the debris that would allow oxygen in.

Obviously the debris was porous enough to allow this to happen.

I would add that you have no evidence that this was not the case. There's no good reason to think otherwise. Don't forget that smoldering fires eventually can reach very high temps - that's a fact, easily verified.



There are many reports of GZ workers uncovering debris and having the fires suddenly flare up as additional air was supplied. This is direct evidence that they were in fact slowly cooking (like a charcoal fire) in a relatively oxygen-deprived environment.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the mass was nt really compacted ? That the half-million tons of a collapsed 110 story skyscraper compacted into only six basement levels would not be tightly compacted ? Or are you saying that most of the rubble was outside on the heaps ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom