Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 01:17:53 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.

Can other things partially evaporate steel? Yes.

One of those things is the steel catching on fire, with enough airflow and a
heat upwards of 1500 degrees, steel burns; in the absence of pure oxygen this
process will be uneven, resulting in partial burning (or evaporation). Flame
cutting is a machining process where steel is heated to the kindling temperature
with a torch, the torch is stopped and then the cut is blasted with oxygen,
nothing else. A continuous line can be cut to any length as the burn is
self-sustaining due to the massive heat released as steel burns, saving costs as
no fuel gas is expended during the cutting. In some cutting systems, propane is
used as a pre-heat gas, the same propane you use in a backyard barbecue grill.

But you've been told this before and you've ignored it before. Just not in
this particular newsgroup.

Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes.

Could other things cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes, jet fuel for one thing, a burning office building for another.

Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

Can other things cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.
Given 80 tons of aluminum and a massive building fire, I can cause all kinds of
dripping metal.

Were those three items present at the WTC? Yes.

Correleation does not prove causation no more than the following is "proved".

Do ice cream sales go up in summer? Yes.
Do more people drown in summer? Yes.

Ice cream causes drownings.

But in your tiny little world, contrary evidence doesn't exist since you
started with a "fact" and only accept things which support that "fact" to
intrude on your own private reality.

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.

No, at best it can melt it, most often its used for welding


Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes.

As can burning office furniture, this was present in huge quantities.

Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

No, thermite produces molten iron, the metal in the video was aluminium


Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

I am not the person pushing the absurd government conspiracy theory.

Keith

"Keith W" wrote in news:dv134f$lf1$1
:


"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376
@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har
har
har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to
a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.

No, at best it can melt it, most often its used for welding.



From Jones' paper:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF
(~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a
jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)
However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or
explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus
cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the
required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not
mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.




Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the
WTC?
Yes.

As can burning office furniture, this was presen in huge quantities.
t
Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

No, thermite produces molten iron, the metal in the video was aluminium


From Jones' paper:
The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000
oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the
Towers could produce. If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of
about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this
molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is in fact ruled out with high
probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video
is consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the
Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since
thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures. (As
some of the molten metal hits the side of the building in the video clip
above, note that the white-hot interior is exposed.) The reader may wish
to compare the dripping molten metal observed on the corner of the South
Tower just before its collapse with the dripping molten metal from known
thermite reactions: http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite2.htm .





Were
those tree items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able totake everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

I am not the person pushing the absurd government conspiracy theory.

Keith




I encourage you to look into this deeper. Here's some interesting
information. (Scroll down for 115 ommissions in the government reports):
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 01:54:44 GMT, "Wake Up!" wrote:

From Jones' paper:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF
(~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel.

Note from reality:

Steel doesn't need to be "evaporated" to give that appearance. Heating to
1,500F and exposure to enough oxygen, even if the initial heat source is then
completely removed, will cause steel to burn. Note, that this isn't a thermal
reaction but a chemical one, the steel isn't melting; it's combusting and
generates enough heat to be a self-sustaining process as long as a sufficient
supply of oxygen is present.

(Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a
jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)

Recall that WTC 7 had thousands of gallons of diesel which would have been
pumped to the upper floors to supply the generators. A break in these lines
would have resulted in this fuel being pumped out through the break and right
into the fire that WTC 7 was experiencing.

Nice try to throw in the lack of a jet but that red herring has long since
passed its expiration date.

However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or
explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel,

RDX, nor any other explosive, can "slice through steel". Steel shatters in an
explosion, it doesn't evaporate in any explosion short of a nuclear weapon going
off.

cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the
required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not
mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

The reports didn't mention the Earth being round either, that's no reason to
call for that mystery to be "explored".

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in news:dv134f$lf1$1
:



No, at best it can melt it, most often its used for welding.



From Jones' paper:
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting
to the official theory, since fires involving paper, office materials,
even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures anywhere near the ~5,180oF
(~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not hit by a
jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.)


Jones isnt a structural engineer and doesnt know how to interperate
fire evidence.

There was no 'evaporation' of steel members, there was however considerable
oxidation. Steel immersed in a fire burning at temperatures of only 1000 deg
C
for a prolonged period will oxidise. The fires in the rubble of the WTC
burned
for weeks. The results were precisely as expected.


However, thermite-variants, RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or
explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can readily slice through steel, thus
cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach the
required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not
mentioned in the “official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.


This is frigging nonsense

Thermite produces temperatures hot enough to MELT steel, thats why
its used for field welding where electricty isnt available. It does NOT
and CANNOT evaporate steel

The boiling point of liquid iron is approx 2800 C, thermite burns at
2500 C

Thermite CANNOT evaporate steel





Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the
WTC?
Yes.

As can burning office furniture, this was presen in huge quantities.
t
Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes.

No, thermite produces molten iron, the metal in the video was aluminium


From Jones' paper:
The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000
oC, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the
Towers could produce.

And structural steel melts at temperatures in excess of 1400c

Ergo whatever it was the material was NOT molten steel.


If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it
would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of
about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this
molten metal.

Unless it was contained by some other material that had not melted


Thus, molten aluminum is in fact ruled out with high
probability. But molten iron with the characteristics seen in this video
is consistent with a thermite-reaction attacking the steel columns in the
Tower, thus weakening the building just prior to its collapse, since
thermite produces molten iron at yellow-to-white hot temperatures.

Look up the melting point of iron old boy it's in excess of 1500 C

http://www.webelements.com/webelemen...t/Fe/heat.html

Melting large quantities of steel is remarkably difficult and involves
huge quantities of energy. You'd need many tons of thermite
installed without anybody noticing and then the hijackers would have to hit
the exact floors prepared.

Occams razor applies here.


snip


I encourage you to look into this deeper. Here's some interesting
information. (Scroll down for 115 ommissions in the government reports):


As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Keith W" wrote in
:

As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links too):



Those who wish to preserve fundamental physical laws as inviolate may wish
to take a closer look. Consider the collapse of the South WTC Tower on 9-
11:
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evide..._collapse.mpeg





Top ~ 30 floors of South Tower topple over.

What happens to the block and its angular momentum?



We observe that approximately 30 upper floors begin to rotate as a block,
to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Law of
Increasing Entropy. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous,
as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over –
this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air! How can we understand this
strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing – and demanding
scrutiny since the US government-funded reports failed to analyze this
phenomenon. But, of course, the Final NIST 9-11 report “does not actually
include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for
collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 1; emphasis
added.)



Indeed, if we seek the truth of the matter, we must NOT ignore the data to
be observed during the actual collapses of the towers, as the NIST team
admits they did. But why did they do such a non-scientific procedure as to
ignore highly-relevant data? The business smacks of political constraints
on what was supposed to be an “open and thorough” investigation. (See
Mooney, 2005.)



So I with others call for an open and thorough investigation. I hope the
international community will rise to the challenge. The field is wide open
for considering the alternative hypothesis outlined here, due to its
neglect by studies funded by the US government.



-----------------------



Keith, each Tower had 47 massive steel beams. Please take a few minutes and
search Jones' paper for the term "core" and read the information (as it
pertains to the 47 massive steel columns):
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


Also look through this paper by a Mechanical Engineering Professor:
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/me...ssor-from.html


Finally, how does one explain the near free fall collapse of WTC 7, which
was NOT hit by an airplane?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IM...demolition.mpg



The following are ten quotes from the WTC Task Force Interviews "Oral
Histories" as published in the New York Times.

See here for many more quotes, and links to the Times website
http://forums.bluelemur.com/viewtopic.php?t=4820



FDNY CAPTAIN:
"Somewhere around the middle of the world trade center, there was this
orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then
this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that
building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping
sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the
building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides
as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were
getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."



FDNY BATTALION CHIEF:
"It looked like it was a timed explosion"



FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came
down."

Q. "Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire
was?"

A. "No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish
a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's
what I thought I saw"



FDNY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER:
"We looked up at the building straight up, we were that close. All we saw
was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people
thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. I remember
seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the
building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse
like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My
initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they
show you those implosions on TV."



FDNY FIRE MARSHAL:
"I thought it was exploding, actually. That’s what I thought for hours
afterwards, that it had exploded or the plane or there had been some
device on the plane that had exploded, because the debris from the tower
had shot out far over our heads"



FDNY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER:
"I should say that people in the street and myself included thought that
the roar was so loud that the explosive - bombs were going off inside the
building."

"As I said I thought the terrorists planted explosives somewhere in the
building. That's how loud it was, crackling explosive"



FDNY CHIEF:
"You could see the windows pop out just like in the picture, looked like
a movie. I saw one floor of windows pop out, like poof, poof. I saw one
and a half floors pop out. It looked almost like an explosion. The whole
top was teetering, and I really thought just the top of the building was
falling off."



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed
like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction,
then all of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a
pancake."

Q. "where was the fire? Like up at the upper levels where it started
collapsing?"

A. "It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe twenty floors below the
impact area of the plane. I saw it as fire and when I looked at it on
television afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It shows a
rush of smoke coming out below the area of the plane impact. The reason
why I think the cameras didn't get that image is because they were a far
distance away and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was and the
smoke was up above it."



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on
television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all
the way around like a belt, all these explosions"



FDNY FIREFIGHTER:
"There was an explosion at the top of the Trade Center and a piece of
Trade Center flew across the West Side Highway and hit the Financial
Center." ... "the south tower from our perspective exploded from about
midway up the building." ... "At that point a debate began to rage
because the perception was that the building looked like it had been
taken out with charges"

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"Keith W" wrote in
:

As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links
too):



I did so some days ago - clearly you werent listening

If you want a professional analysis it will cost $1500 per
day plus expenses, minimum charge period is one day.

Keith

Wake Up! wrote:
"Keith W" wrote in
:

As a qualified engineer who works in the field of failure analysis
and prediction I suspect I am far more knowledgeable and
qualified in this field than either you or Professor Jones and I
have read the investigation reports and failure analyses.

The towers collapsed due to the failure of the struts linking
the damaged inner and outer cores. The outer shell failed in buckling
with a resultant progressive collapse , the floors above
the point of failure acting as a gigantic hammer overloading
each floor in turn

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

The weakness of struts in a fire is well understood by firemen,
those I have spoken to have a saying 'never trust a truss'

As lightweight steel structures they heat up fast and fail
relatively quickly compared with heavier steel joists.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms -
Total Privacy via Encryption =----




Keith, you're a qualified engineer. Please give your professional opinion
on these excerpts from Jones' paper (be sure to watch the video links too):


Why do you bother? As "truth" and your other names you asked exactly
the same questions and then called all the responders names,became
vulgar, told them they were wrong, that they had provided "no scientific
proof" and then threw a tantrum before leaving.

As near as I can see the only things you seem to have learned a
jetliners don't fly on diesel fuel and squibs aren't puffs of smoke. I'm
glad I was able to teach you that much.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Wake Up!" wrote in message
...
"khobar" wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?

So could a big airplane loaded with fuel hitting it at 250 knots.

What part of "airplane crashes into building" do you NOT understand, retard?

Wake Up! wrote:
"khobar" wrote in news:kZBQf.392$PE.376@fed1read05:

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Wake UP!" wrote in message
...
Video of THERMITE REACTION at WTC on 9/11
http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Thermite.htm


I've seen and used thermite and thats not it, by the way you are
aware that thermite isnt used to demolish buildings arent you ?

Yes he is, but that's the beauty of his conspiracy - since thermite
isn't used for demolition, no one would suspect it being used. Har har
har de har har.

Paul Nixon





As if that means anything, or has any bearing whatsoever. (I guess to a
reality denier it might.) Can thermite partially evaporate steel? Yes.
Could thermite cause the temperatures that existed in metal at the WTC?
Yes. Can thermite cause metal dripping like in the videos? Yes. Were
those three items present at the WTC? Yes. I love the way you deniers
aren't able to take everything into context, and instead give silly
reasons for each and every piece of information, so you can hold on to
your absurd government conspiracy theory. LOL!!

Care to take a shot at explaining the problem with your "theory" that I
exposed in the hread "it bugs me"? Seems all you kooks just ignore
that glaring problem.

Harry K