Thermate/Thermite CANNOT cut a structural steel I-beam.

[MervinFerd]

Much attention has been given to a certain Professor Jones, who maintains that he has developed evidence that the destruction of the Twin Towers and a third building in NYC on 11 September 2001 was the result of planted charges of "thermate". Professor Jones' evidence has been disputed and discounted; however, it has been generally accepted that the material -could- cut through a steel structural beam.

In two current threads, however, supporters of Professor Jones have been repeatedly challenged to present evidence of such cutting. No such evidence has been produced. Clearly, if thermate cannot cut a structural I-beam, then Professor Jones' claims are untenable.

Note that there is no question that thermate can melt the -surface- of steel; however, steel structural members may be inches in thickness. The volume of the thermate necessary to burn through that thickness is apparently too great for effective transfer of heat to the steel. The supposed technique does not work.

Supporters of Dr. Jones are invited to refute this conclusion.


Credit to Hack87 for first noticing this difficulty.

[MervinFerd]

1. I will not get a response, will I?

QED

[wildbilln864]

2. Nonsense will get no response!

I think you're probably on everyone's ignore list judging by your posts.
Just sayin! :hi:

[MervinFerd]

3. Just answer the question: Is there -any- evidence that thermate....

can cut through a structural steel i-beam?

"Just asking questions, not making any allegations."

[screembloodymurder]

5. How about a couple bolts,

Mervin?

[MervinFerd]

6. Bolts would be more likely. But, then why is there evidence of the stuff

on randomly selected beams?

And I still want a demonstration.

[wildbilln864]

203. Your Answer...

Merv!

Here.

[MervinFerd]

4. No answers. QED.

Good bye, Dr. Jones.

[Clark2008]

7. OK - fine.

However, explain to me why the steel so conveniently fell into 30-foot pieces - easily loaded onto trucks.

I don't get much into what was used to do it: only that it was.

[dailykoff]

8. That's telling 'em!

Welcome to the 9/11 forum, Clark2008!

:hi:

Hope to see more of you down here!

[hack89]

9. What was the length of the beams

before they were all connected?

Care to venture a guess how many explosive charges would be needed to slice the towers in the neat pieces you imagine? Do you really want to go down that path?

[TheWraith]

10. Because the length of the beam segments was roughly 28 feet.

Aside from ones damaged in the actual impact, the beams themselves wouldn't have been where the steel superstructure failed. It would have been at the rivets and connecting plates. Take a look at the photos of the debris and you'll see that a lot of girders still have the remains of torn plates attached to their ends.

[MervinFerd]

11. The Shadow Gov't cut the beams in 30 ft pieces for easy removal?

Decent of them, but HOW MANY explosive charges would that require? The mind boggles.

[jberryhill]

12. Convenient?

As noted below, the exterior columns were bolted together in 28 foot sections.

The "inconvenient" ones were the ones which didn't fail at the joints:

See man cut beam:



See cutting torch residue on beam:



This is to be distinguished from the "obvious thermate" used on this beam:

[MervinFerd]

13. Are you claiming the 3rd photo is of a beam cut by thermate?

On what evidence?

[jberryhill]

14. No dingus

I'm claiming that the third picture has residue pretty much identical to the residue shown on the column being cut by a good old fashioned cutting torch.

However, the third picture is constantly being tossed around as "evidence of thermate" when not a single person has shown what a column cut by thermate SHOULD look like.

If you would stop hyperventilating, you'd notice that I agree with you. The residue on both beams looks the same, and you have impaired sarcasm detection even in the presence of sneer quotes around "obvious thermate".

Actually, if you look at the section of beam being cut by the torch, you'll notice that they had to cut through the Al cladding in order to get to the beam. You see the "chew marks" on the Aluminum cladding? Well, Mervin, some other idiot is posting THAT as "thermate damage" in another thread.

[MervinFerd]

15. Dingus? Hadn't heard that word in quite a while. Doofus, maybe.

I hadn't seen that picture "tossed around".

Usually my sarcasm detector works just fine, thank you.

[greyl]

22. The Simpson's last night, from Nelson. ;) nt

[MervinFerd]

16. Friendly fire.

Around here, I tend to be surrounded by bandits.

It was the IFF system that was turned off.

[dailykoff]

32. Uh, fellas, YOU GOT THE WRONG F***ING BUILDING.

:rofl:



That's not even one of the towers. But this is:



:rofl:

[William Seger]

39. Thanks, dailykoff. You've done it again.

So, a column cut with a torch at the WTC would look different from a column cut with a torch at a different building, because... um... because...

Well, I'm sure there must be some good reason, or you wouldn't have posted that, right?

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

41. Can you tell which building it is?

 

dailykoff wrote:

That's not even one of the towers.

That picture does appear to have been taken at the WTC site, because the following picture was taken during the WTC cleanup and it seems to be of the same building.

     

How can you tell it isn't one of the towers? And if it isn't, which building do you think it is?

- Make7

[dailykoff]

44. Yes, and if you can't

then you have no business posting in this forum.

It's one of the lowrises.

[Make7]

49. For what it's worth, here is my theory:

The following picture is number 5102 found in the Here Is New York "Ground Zero" Gallery.



The steel structure closely matches the following picture from my previous post which was also taken at the WTC cleanup site.



If we take a look at an un-cropped version of that picture, we can see that the structure shown is indeed part of one of the WTC towers.


(?pic">high resolution version - 1,595.4 KB)

So given how similar the structure is in the Here Is New York and FEMA pictures, I think it is a distinct possibility that this picture...



... is showing part of one of the WTC towers. That's my theory anyway.

Since you seem so confident that "it's one of the lowrises", perhaps you can simply give some sort of explanation as to how you have reached such a conclusion.

- Make7

[William Seger]

72. I don't think you're going to get an answer

>dailykoff: Yes, and if you can't then you have no business posting in this forum.

I have to assume that we won't be hearing any more from dailykoff. That's (almost) a shame; I wanted to hear why he thought it mattered which building the column was in.

[AZCat]

148. Oh you'll hear more.

Dailykoff is made of far more resistant stuff than that - he's not one to let a little hypocrisy get in the way of a good snarky post.

[Make7]

158. Apparently the standards of 'dailykoff' don't apply to 'dailykoff'.

I asked:

Can you tell which building it is?

dailykoff replied:

Yes, and if you can't then you have no business posting in this forum.

It's one of the lowrises.

Now, in an almost unforeseeable turn of events, it looks like it was actually dailykoff that was unable to tell which building it was. And like you, I was also under the impression that dailykoff would conclude that he/she had "no business posting in this forum" and simply stop posting, but I was surprised yet again to find him/her continuing to post in a forum where he/she obviously believes that he/she has no business posting in.

I was at least hoping for a reply to my post so I could hear the explanation as to how he/she determined that the building structure in that picture was part of one of the low rises. Oh, well...

- Make7

[dailykoff]

159. Quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus.

Horace, Ars Poetica. Look it up. :)

[greyl]

161. Sorry, you lose. nt

[dailykoff]

169. Incorrect. (n/t)

[Make7]

191. Translation: "the wisest make mistakes"

I assume that is the meaning you intended, rather than a more literal translation.

The problem as I see it really isn't that you made a mistake when identifying the building remnant, it is the way you repeatedly posted your incorrect assumption that it wasn't one of the towers including :rofl: and :crazy: smilies to let people know how amusing you thought it was that they could have been so wrong about something so obvious to you.

Also when I responded to your initial post about the matter, I asked if you could tell which building it was, how you could tell it was not one of the towers, and wondered which building you thought it was. In your reply, you didn't even give an answer for how you determined that it was not part of one of the towers, however you did explain to me that if I was unable to tell which building it was, I "have no business posting in this forum." But now since it turns out that you were the one that couldn't tell which building it actually was, it was merely a mistake. What I would like to know is this: If I had incorrectly identified the building, why wouldn't it also have simply been a mistake?

We all make mistakes from time to time, laughing at people and telling them they have no business participating in the discussion when you think they have gotten something wrong or were unable to figure something out is not how I imagine a wise person conducts themselves.

Wouldn't a wise person admit that they have made an error, learn what they could from their mistake, and move on. I doubt they would feel the need to hide behind a dead language when actually admitting that they were wrong.

- Make7

[dailykoff]

192. I see your Latin is no better than your engineering.

Not one word right out of four, even the easy ones, and on top of that you "borrowed" someone else's loose translation without acknowledging it.

Don't OCTs have any standards at all? :eyes:

[Make7]

193. Why hide behind Latin? Why not just admit your mistake in English? ( n/t )

[jberryhill]

58. Really?

Which one of the "lowrises" is this:

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

194. Just in case you have any other bright ideas

A photo of the World Trade Center lobby taken on 19 August 2000.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

17. LOL n/t

[nebula]

18. If thermate not used in the destruction of the towers,

What explains the large pools of molten steel at Ground Zero, which burned for weeks after after 9/11? Pools of molten steel were also present at WTC7, which was never struck by a plane.

[wildbilln864]

19. And no it was....

not aluminum!
:hi: welcome nebula, to the dungeon.

[hack89]

21. So even thought the temperatures were hot enough

to melt steel, they were not hot enough to melt aluminum? If you would simply show me a picture of these pools perhaps we could resolve this - there are pictures aren't there?

[Twist_U_Up]

26. Do you trust the NYFD ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x129344

[SidDithers]

27. Do you?...

A Fire Chief's Assessment - Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses. The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

More at link above.

Sid

Edit: fixed link

[Twist_U_Up]

28. Maybe.

How does he explain the molten steel ponds that were "like lava from a volcano" that his men were discussing in the previous video?

link ?

The guy supports Popular Mechanics .
I mean come on now!
Popular Mechanics has been debunked numerous times.

[MervinFerd]

30. Aluminum? How does any CD scenario explain "lava from a volcano".

The usual presumption around here is that the molten metal was aluminum, which melts at a much lower temperature than steel.

By whom has the Popular Mechanics article been debunked? I've never seen a link--just CTers announcing: "That is bunk."

If you don't like Pop Mech, try 911myths.

[hack89]

31. Isn't aluminum a metal?

If you can explain how steel was molten while aluminum, with a much lower melting temperature, was not you might have a point. And how would the molten metal and aluminum be kept from mixing? I have no problem with molten "metal" - you need more to prove it was steel.

The simple fact is no one has ever explained how thermate produced pools of molten steel. I can understand it maybe making thin cuts to sever the columns - that would be all you need for demolition. But that would not produce large amounts of slag. Are you seriously suggesting they melted entire beams?

[piobair]

37. Just for accuracy

It's FDNY not NYFD. Also as heat is generated from burning material that heat is retained if it has no outlet. The btu's generated will accumulate. That is why a room and contents fire {say drapes and a sofa} can reach temps of 1300F in a matter of a few minutes. If I new how to link videos I'd link to an NFPA room burn showing a time lapse with a thermometer. Flashover occurs in about 15 minutes.

[MervinFerd]

35. Not Aluminum. And, you know this......how?

[LARED]

20. A better question might be how does thermite

explain molten pools of metal many weeks after the collapse. Have any ideas?

[MervinFerd]

24. Special "Slow Thermate" developed by the Demolition Division of the....

Secret Shadow Government.

Heaven only knows why.

[wildbilln864]

196. an even better question....

might be what could cause molten pools of metal many weeks after the collapses.
:shrug:

[MervinFerd]

23. I dunno, but if thermate will not cut beams, it was probably something else.

Can you show me pictures of these "pools"? Chemical analysis to show that they are steel? Some estimate of the total volume?

Just basic questions.

Oh, and that picture of thermate cutting a steel beam.

[Bonescrat]

25. Of course thermite/thermate could melt through a structural steel beam...

Disclaimer: I am not on either side of the 911 debate. I am not saying this to attack nor defend the demolition hypothesis, only to state the obvious.

If thermite/thermate can melt through a small amount of steel (ie it can indeed exceed the melting point of steel) then it can melt through any amount of steel. The question is how much thermite/thermate it would take. I am not even close to thinking about pondering the possibility of researching how much it would take so please don't ask. Oh yeah and neither do I have any pictures.

[MervinFerd]

29. No. Not as a practical matter.

YES, if you kept adding the stuff to the burned area, you will eventually get through.

But a big pile on top of inches of steel is a very different thing.

[Bonescrat]

38. It could definitely be done with one "big pile".

I have seen video of a flowerpot full burning through the engine block of a car - ie "inches of steel". One big pile could melt through a steel beam. Once again it would depend on the size of the pile. And this is purely an academic exercise on my part which has nothing to do with practicality.

[jberryhill]

43. The trick is getting it to go "sideways" not down

Okay, you've seen thermite go through metal under the influence of gravity.

Now, how do you get it to go sideways to make fast, precisely timed cuts, to vertical members?

[dailykoff]

33. Then what sliced through this one, a box cutter?

You guys are a regular laff riot.

:rofl:

p.s. it's a column, not a beam.

[MervinFerd]

34. It was cut by a cutting-torch during removal of the debris.

Ha Ha.

[dailykoff]

36. Were you there when it was cut?

As if it made a difference. If a torch could cut it, some other device obviously could too.

You guys need better training manuals.

:rofl:

[William Seger]

40. "some other device"

Such as ...?

[dailykoff]

47. Such as the ones used in demolitions. (n/t)

[MervinFerd]

53. No. Were you?

Could have been "some other device" that will actually make that kind of cut.

[mirandapriestly]

64. why would they bother cutting it at an angle?

there is a reason that it would be cut an an angle in demolition, but not when cutting debris

[greyl]

68. What do you know about cutting WTC debris with a blowtorch?

It's obvious that that cut had no part in initiating the collapse. You say the thermite violently cut through it, produced a tiny bit of slag, then the building collapsed around and on top of it, and it looked exactly like a fresh blowtorch cut afterward?
Wrong.

[mirandapriestly]

74. You are wrong, when columns are cut in demolition they are

cut at an angle to cause them to slide off at detonation. Like you know about blowtorches? lol,

[greyl]

79. Your post makes no sense, and doesn't relate to mine at all.

Show how I was wrong.

[William Seger]

69. You really can't figure that out?

Really?

[mirandapriestly]

71. I know what the answer is as to why they should do it if it's upright

but I've seen them cutting columns when they were laying on their sides or amidst a big pile where it made no sense to do it and would be difficult.

[William Seger]

76. If you've seen them cutting columns up for removal

... then why could you not understand that cut column the first time you saw it? (Or, really, even if you hadn't seen them cutting columns before seeing that picture, what was so hard to figure out about it?)

Larger question, why is that everything a conspiracist doesn't understand becomes "evidence" without first asking someone who might be able to explain it? That stupid picture of the torch-cut column will be floating around the net as "CD evidence" for years.

[greyl]

81. He bailed out in post #75 nt

[William Seger]

83. A wise decision

... pretty lame reason, though. (Actually, it didn't make much sense, but I've come to expect that.)

[mirandapriestly]

127. You don't make any sense

and you are the conspiracists - you claim it was 19 hijackers. I don't make any claim, I just know that one is a lie by the Bush administration and others.

This picture shows a cut with a blowtorch which is not likely to result in an angular cut.


he's just trying to cut them down to size, he isn't going to go to that kind of trouble.

[greyl]

132. That's not exactly a vertically standing column, is it?

If the steelworker was concerned with forcing a standing column to fall in a particular direction, that's where the angular cut comes in. The situation in your above photo is different.

[William Seger]

147. Make sense? Ok, I'll try to help

> I don't make any claim,

And then after a mere comma, you immediately prove yourself a liar by making an outrageous claim:

> I just know that one {19 hijackers} is a lie by the Bush administration and others.

And, farther down in this same thread:

> Fact is, wtc7 was demolished right in front of our eyes, and the other buildings were too.

You make lots and lots of claims. And how do you "know" all this stuff you're claiming as "fact"? From reading your postings here the last few months, you appear to be extremely credulous when it comes to CT stuff. Sometimes there doesn't seem to be any limit to how outrageously implausible a CT claim is, you are likely to accept it as "truth" without a shred of evidence. On the other hand, you claim to "know" a lot of completely plausible stuff isn't true, despite the clear evidence for it, by simply claiming that the evidence must have been faked, for no other apparent reason than your tacit assumption that every single detail of the "official story" is false. Taken at face value, this would appear to be extremely contradictory behavior if someone mistakenly assumed that your beliefs are based on logic and reason, but of course the method you use to separate what you claim as "true" and "false" is transparently obvious: you are a conspiracy nut of the most irrational variety. "Truth" is absolutely anything and everything that you can use to rationalize your "inside job" conspiracy speculations, and everything else is false.

Therefore, I asked you a specific question: Why is that everything a conspiracist doesn't understand (such as this torch-cut column) becomes "evidence" without first asking someone who might be able to explain it? I wasn't really expecting an answer from you; it was a rhetorical question, because the answer is obvious (see above).

And, if you really don't understand why a vertical column would be cut at an angle, but a horizontal one might not... well, hey, there's some more "evidence", huh.

[jberryhill]

166. Because if you look at the pictures above...

They had several stories worth of stuff standing there, and they obviously wanted to be able to control what direction it would fall or be pulled down as if on a hinge.

But the weird thing is, what you have in this thread is a picture of a dude cutting an upright WTC column with a torch, and at an angle. Apparently, he believed he had sufficient reason to do so.

[jberryhill]

180. Because THIS is the structure that had to be brought down..

You can't see a reason why you would want to know which way that sucker was going to fall when you were cutting it?

[jberryhill]

42. Asked and answered

See it being cut here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=129006&mesg_id=129212

You cropped that picture to elmiinate the steelworker who is SHOWN to the left of it in the uncropped version of that picture.

Notice how the cutting torch slag goes into the box on three sides, and then out of the box on the front side. That shows that the column was cut by a torch on three sides, bent over, and then the remaining side was cut from the back.

This is what professional welders have to say in response to your question about THAT piece of metal:


http://www.hobartwelders.com/mboard/showthread.php?t=19417&highlight=thermite

The slag is a big clue to me that it was an OFC, based on my experience.

Now, I have seen the explosives in use that are designed for that kind of cutting and demolition, but the remnants that I have seen do not bear a resemblance to a torch cut as that picture does.

...

Yup, the slag is a dead giveaway. It indicates a slow, directed process.

...

Thermite is used to weld, not cut.

It's a common way to repair railroad tracks after a derail.

"linear shaped charge" wouldn't have left that much slag.

Final bit of evidence: it's clean. If it had been cut before the collapse there would have been some debris lodged on it.

...

The slag on the face of the beam facing the camera clearly shows that side of the beam was cut AFTER the beam was tipped over! Any cuts from the outside would put a slag pile like that on the INSIDE of the beam.

Look at the picture again! the beam was cut on the 3 far sides, tipped over, and the face was cut. Clearly torchwork to clear debris.

So, we have a choice. We can believe that it was cut like this, with a torch:





...and believe the opinion of welders who cut things with torches.

OR we can believe that the metal was cut by something for which you have provided no comparison to any piece of metal cut by anything other than a torch.

It's interesting how you cropped out the steel worker who is visible right next to that column in the original photograph:

http://www.hobartwelders.com/mboard/attachment.php?attachmentid=17434&stc=1&d=1146672888

The really odd part is that all of this was already posted to the thread, and you bring the same picture up again. Why?

This is sort of like when a psychic is exposed to have been using fakery, and the psychic defends that he only "sometimes" does that. Here we have a picture of a clean-up worker making the same kind of diagonal cut on the identical type of column and producing the identical slag residue on the column. So, you are saying that "some" of the diagonally cut columns were cut by thermite to bring the building down, when there is no known mechanism for cutting columns with thermite/ate, and no pictures of columns so cut for the purpose of comparing them with this one.

[dailykoff]

45. Wrong. They're not the same building.

But I'm not the least surprised that you're running around claiming they are.

:rofl:

[vincent_vega_lives]

48. Dude look at the welding site.

Its pretty clear to them what they are looking at.

[jberryhill]

50. I said it's the same type of column

Torch-cut steel box beams look like torch-cut steel box beams, no matter what building they came from.

From your dishonest response above, though, it is clear that you are simply trying to be funny.

The source of the photograph is here:

http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=73

Now, look at the angle cut beams here:



Do you see the steelworker?

Do you see the oxy acetylene rig right next to the angle cut beams?

Gee, I wonder why?

[jberryhill]

57. It's one of the tower base columns

[mhatrw]

51. Ummm ...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM

[Bolo Boffin]

52. Excellent...

Now please find reports of molten metal found underneath the car weeks after these experiments were filmed...

Also, please find precision explosives using thermite that could be adapted for the WTC towers...

Also, please explain the mechanism that kept the irreversible thermite reactions from going off inside the raging fire of the South Tower's northeast corner until just before collapse...

Also, please provide calculations of the amount of thermite necessary to "keep the building falling at near freefall conditions" or whatever it is you happen to believe about the fall of the towers...

I'm sure there must be a YouTube out there you can cut and paste with all that info in it.

[jberryhill]

54. That is one cool video

I have GOT to get me some of that stuff.

The problem, of course, is getting it to go horizontally to cut through a vertical column. The video suggests that it's pretty easy to get it to go down, which would be great if you wanted to put a hole in the floor. What sort of rig would you need to hold it in place to make a horizontal cut through a vertical column (and diagonally, yet, as some believe)?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. We're having a problem getting a handle on that.

What could you wrap it in that it wouldn't burn through, negating its ability to be focused for the cut?

Our CD-believing friends haven't gotten back to us with a working model of such a device. Perhaps they will respond to you.

[MervinFerd]

59. I can't tell what actually happened to the iron blocks.

There's a lot of sparks and some molten metal. But what actually happenend to the block? I don't think you can tell from this video.

[greyl]

61. That's easy. A squad of tiny flying pneumatic robots, each with

a half kilo payload of condensed thermazite/zate, controlled by remote medical equipment at Walter Reed, and armed with a granular synthesis oxylaser.

The molten metal? Robots.
Robots made of alloy arya51-911 which can transubstantiate via infra-red command (or microwaves) and seep into the ground to escape detection.
Silverstein didn't say "pull it", he said "pool it".

[mhatrw]

136. A ceramic container with holes in it?

Just like in the engine block experiment except considerably smaller and better controlled?

What's the problem again?

[mhatrw]

135. Notch the beam. Set a container made of a material with a higher melting point

with holes in it in this notch. Connect this container on both ends to ceramic bars surrounded by very high melting point springs that also connect to a weight that hangs down below the container on the other side of the steel beam. The device with the thermite/mate dispersing container is set in a notched groove across the entire girder with the weight below and the springed arms connecting the thermite/mate dispersing container to the weight hanging below on the other side of the girder at a 45 degree angle vis a vis the vertical girder. When the thermite starts slowly dripping at 2500 C, the weight naturally pulls the container down and through the melting girder.

[Bolo Boffin]

143. Do you have a picture of this device? n/t

[jberryhill]

178. Where was Rube Goldberg on 9/11

We've found our man.

All we need to do now is to find the lever arm between the towers and a toaster... and then follow the trajectory of the toast onto a breakfast plate, and we'll have him.

[Bolo Boffin]

185. Isn't it incredible?

I've got more questions for mhatrw:

How many of those devices had to be used for the towers? Since your side keeps saying that this is a CD, I'd imagine you'd have to have enough of these to cut the core columns and/or the perimeter columns on each floor.

How the hell did they smuggle that many of those things into the towers without William Rodriguez and all of William's coworkers noticing?

Such a device does not exist anywhere, since you've not produced a picture yet. That means it's not on the market. That means these things had to be tested in secret somewhere - or are you saying that BushCo relied on an experimental, untested device as a crucial part of their plan? Who tested these things? Who made sure that they all worked, every one without fail, and LEFT NO TRACE OF THEIR EXISTENCE BEHIND?

The real world beckons you back, mhatrw.

[mhatrw]

187. Boy, that's funny.

Could you describe why you think it would be impossible or even difficult to construct a device that uses thermite to melt steel?

I'm not saying that thermite was used for CD on 9/11. Nor am I saying even that CD necessarily occurred on 9/11 anywhere but in WTC-7 -- although I have no confidence whatsoever in NIST's "explanation" for the collapse of the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers. However, the argument that many here seem to be making -- that there is some reason to believe that it would be impossible to use thermite to cut through a steel girder -- is utterly absurd.

[jberryhill]

197. yes, certainly

You asked:

"Could you describe why you think it would be impossible or even difficult to construct a device that uses thermite to melt steel?"

So it appears that you realize that the action we are talking about here is "melting" steel, as opposed to explosive cutting.

It also appears that you appreciate that the object here is to make a horizontal cut across a vertical standing beam with something that gets very hot and runny, as shown in the flowerpot videos.

Here's the catch: it's a thing called gravity. Lets say I make some kind of firebrick ledge and place it against a steel column. We'll give that ledge a little slope toward the column:

..\\....|||||
...\\...|||||
....\\..|||||
.....\\.|||||
......\\|||||
.......\|||||
........|||||

(on edit: leading dots are needed, since the posting formatter eats leading spaces - ignore the dots)

Okay, now the vertical thing is the steel, and the angled thing is my ceramic material. We'll assume some sort of rig for holding the ceramic in place. We are going to put thermite into the V-space there and ignite it.

Now you seem to believe that the ceramic is going to "hold the thermite against the steel" and it will just work its merry way right through to the other side.

But that's not what is going to happen. You see, as soon as the steel starts melting, that provides a place for all of your thermite to run right out of the bottom of the V:



..\\....|||||
...\\...|||||
....\\..|||||
.....\\...)|||
......\\...)||
.......\...|||
...........|||
...........)||
........ )|||
........|||||

What you see in those wonderful videos is thermite being ignited, running out of a hole in the bottom of a flowerpot, and then melting right through whatever metal is below it. That's why I asked up above, "okay, but how do you propose to use it to make a horizontal cut through a vertical column?"

Now, if anyone wants to continue to claim that we have seen a picture of a column cut by such a device, then much of the work should be done for you. Work backward from the horizontal and "ruler straight" (as some claim) cut, which exposes a flat cross section of cut metal with some slag on the outside, to the type of device you are going to use to force the thermite NOT to follow gravity as it eats through the steel.

[nebula]

60. Have a look at this

Photo of a demolition crew member explaining how "linear-shape charges" are commonly used in the controlled demolition industry to slice through steel beams at the base of a building:





Note the word 'linear' indicates that the shape charge is designed to cut the steel beam at a perfectly straight, or linear angle.




Photo of a steel beam at Ground Zero in the aftermath of 9/11:



Cut clean through in a straight angle, which indicates the use of a linear shape charge.




Video explains the linear shape charge:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RdBYnLXh-i8

[greyl]

62. The angle is the only similarity in those photos.

If you found a picture of what a column looks like post-shaped charge demo, you won't find slag on it like the WTC photo.

[nebula]

63. The slag is a residue of melted steel

Which might mean:

1) The column was cut by a guy using a blowtorch after the building fell.

(With the slag being produced from the torch melting the steel)

or,

2) The column was cut by the use of thermate in conjunction with the linear-shape charge.
(The slag you see on the column would be produced from the thermate melting the steel)

[greyl]

65. Of your two options, only one makes sense: Blowtorch.

Why complicate the conspiracy by executing the plane attacks, plus using thermate, plus using explosives? There simply isn't any evidence of thermite used there, nor is there any evidence that thermite could have been used. It's red herring.

[nebula]

67. Evidence of thermate would be...

the large pools of molten steel which allegedly burned for months after 9.11 at the base of all 3 buildings.

Another possible reason for using thermate:

1) The twin towers were exceptionally large, strong buildings, so required something even more powerful than shaped charges alone to bring them down.

The Twin Towers are well above the average size of buildings that are typically brought down by controlled demolition. So exceptional measures, such as the strategic placement of thermate, would need to be utilized to take them down.

[greyl]

70. Evidence of thermite is my grandma's torpedo bra.

Show us why you believe the molten metal was steel.
Show us how thermate explains any molten metal burning for weeks* after 9/11.
Show us any evidence of thermate that I wouldn't be embarassed sharing with Keith Olbermann.

[nebula]

73. What can cause metal or steel to turn into molten lava and burn for weeks?

Two possibilities:

1) A blast furnace

2) Thermate

We're talking about 9/11 and not a steel production plant. So we can scratch option 1 for obvious reasons. Which leaves us with thermate as the only likely explanation for the pools of molten "lava" burning at ground zero.

If you have any other explanation for it, then I'm all ears. I'm not afraid to be proven wrong.

[greyl]

77. Show evidence for #2

then explain how the underground passages couldn't have fed oxygen to any fire for a few weeks.
Then, show us any evidence of thermate.

Have you ever witnessed the scene of a wood fire that had been "extinguished" for days but still had red hot coals in it? Multiply the size and total heat of that by a few million.

[nebula]

82. I don't have any definitive proof that it was thermate

Just as you don't have any definitive proof that it wasn't.

The only way to prove it (either way) beyond a doubt is to examine the Twin Tower steel in a laboratory.

But that isn't possible now, is it? Since the heads of FEMA, Bush appointees Michael Chertoff and I believe Michael Brown at the time, allegedly had all the steel almost immediately shipped off to be recycled before investigators could have them properly analyzed.

So why were the steel columns never preserved as critical evidence in the case against the terrorists? Why was all this crucial evidence so quickly destroyed? Can anyone explain that? Because they would show that the towers were brought down by CD?

[greyl]

96. I know, you don't even have circumstantial evidence.

You don't have logic on your side, either. What is on your side?
How do you know it wasn't my grandma's bra? Lycra-spandex was found at the scene.

[nebula]

104. And you never answered any of my questions

Your lame jokes do not count as an answer.

Why were the steel columns never preserved as evidence?? Why were they so quickly sent off to be recycled before anyone could examine them?

[greyl]

123. Not true.

http://www.construction.com/NewsCenter/Headlines/AR/20020110r.asp

Thousands more answers here: http://www.caddigest.com/subjects/wtc/index.htm

[William Seger]

78. "metal or steel"?

Make up your mind.

How would thermite "burn for weeks?"

Have you read the thread? The only likely explanation is that it was alumninum, which could stay molten at the temperatures of the fires burning under the debris.

[Bolo Boffin]

88. Does thermate typically leave large pools of molten steel...

...wherever it has been used?

I've seen picture of steel quite hot, yet still in recognizable girder form. I haven't seen "molten pools" and I've never seen a claim for "molten pools."

Are you sure we're talking about the same thing?

[nebula]

91. Firefighters describing molten pools...

"flowing at Ground Zero like you were at a foundry."


Google Video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

[Bolo Boffin]

94. Good, thanks.

So two buildings collapse with tremendous energy, trapping most of that energy underneath the building materials, which act like the walls of a foundry...

...and you feel the need to introduce thermite here to explain underground fires hot enough to melt steel?

Have you ever heard of Centralia, Pennsylvania?

[nebula]

100. Not a good anagoly

No molten pools were present at Centralia.

The ongoing fires produced by the underground mines were of relatively low-intensity, producing the kind of energy you could expect from burning coals.

The article doesn't even mention anything about there being molten pools.

[Bolo Boffin]

106. However, it does get rather hot down there, doesn't it?

And, hey! You haven't answered my original question - does thermite tend to leave molten pools of steel for weeks on end?

[nebula]

113. Yes, it can

Thermite applied to metal creates melted, or molten metal.

And uncontrolled molten metal can burn on its own for weeks, even months on end.

Just as hot lava (which consists of melted iron ore) from an active volcano can burn for weeks, or the molten metal you see in a foundry.

[Bolo Boffin]

115. So you agree that thermite is not necessary to have molten steel underground? n/t

[nebula]

144. Yes, if your talking about a active volcano

are you implying that volcanic activity underneath Ground Zero is the cause of the molten metal that was present there?

[Bolo Boffin]

146. Is there a reason that you're conducting this discussion on two different threads?

As I said below, I don't think we can rule out "natural occurence" as blithely as you do.

It seems to me that every necessary element for making and trapping heat is already present in the Pile without needing to resort to thermite.

[piobair]

195. I don't think so

With the exception of magnesium I can't think of a metal that will sustain combustion absent an outside heat source. Are you suggesting that once steel melts it will continue to burn once the heat is removed? The most logical explanation for molten pools of any kind of metal is the retention of heat from all of the burning debris in the pile. Add a fresh air source such as subway tunnels or elevator shafts and you have a pretty fair approximation of a blast furnace.

[nebula]

66. Also, why wouldn't shaped charges alone produce slag?

When the shape charge goes off, it creates an intense heat during the explosion.

It would follow then that this intense heat (created from the shape charge going off), when applied to steel would also create slag--just as the intense heat from a blowtorch creates slag when applied to steel.

[William Seger]

80. Because...

... explosives tear through metal with the kinetic energy of the blast wave; they don't melt their way through.

[dailykoff]

84. BINGO! And that's how it was done.

Excellent work nebula! I knew you nailed it as soon as I saw the panic attack under your post.

I wonder why your pic isn't on 911myths.com yet?



:rofl:

[nebula]

87. Panic attack?

What the hell are you talking about?

[Bolo Boffin]

89. He means us, nebula, not you.

He's spinning the discussion you're having as a panic attack.

BTW, could you provide a source for "molten pools"? I've only ever seen a single video and that wasn't a molten pool of anything, it was a girder being pulled out of the ground that was orange-hot on one end.

[William Seger]

90. WRONGO! Read jberryhill's link to the welders page about the slag

I'm SHOCKED to see you still posting on this forum! :eyes:

But since you're back, you left a couple of threads hanging up there.

[jberryhill]

164. Or You *COULD* ask the guy in that photo

...what a column cut by a linear charge looks like.

I did.

"Yes we get a lot of this crap! The photos show Eric Shaub, a foreman for Demolition Dynamics, in the 1998 series "What A Blast!". Yes the rubber bands are securing linear charges, and yes the ANGLE of severance is similar to - yet the only thing vaguely in common with - the high profile photo of WTC torch-cutting you mentioned. They are otherwise completely unrelated activities."

[mirandapriestly]

75. This is another of those "no argument" threads

of course, thermite can cut through steel. The alive hijacker cters like to find little details and pick away at them to make it look like they are proving a case. But ever since I found out that Dr Jones is connected to the DOE, I don't trust the the thermite issue and the cters keep bringing it up which makes me more suspicious. It can't be proved without an investigation so they keep the argument alive.
Fact is, wtc7 was demolished right in front of our eyes, and the other buildings were too. Thermite is just one possibility.

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Jones is connected to the DOE? The...

Department of Education?

You find Dr. Jones suspect because you have discovered some connections he has with the Department of Education?

His paper on Jesus Christ visiting Native Americans didn't faze you, but these "connections" with the Department of Education raise the alarum bells?

Please tell me you are joking.

[nebula]

93. Firefighter Describes "Molten Metal" at Ground Zero, like a "Foundry"

Google video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3060923273573302287

[Bolo Boffin]

95. Hey, I saw your answer up there.

We're talking about something else down here, if you don't mind.

[nebula]

97. More eyewitnesses accounts.

An employee of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed “Fires burn in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet.”

The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, “Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel.”

A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that “feeling the heat” and “seeing the molten steel” there reminded him of a volcano.

New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, “Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6.”

An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, “A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures” (pay-per-view). Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero “descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams.”

The same journalist also refers to “the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole.” (pages 31-32)

An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, “They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event.”

An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, “its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel.”

The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.

According to a member of New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, “One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots.”

A retired professor of physics and atmospheric science said “in mid-October when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire—which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December.”

A fireman stated that there were “oven” like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.

Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, “There are pieces of steel being pulled out that are still cherry red” and “the blaze is so ‘far beyond a normal fire’ that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires.” (pay-per-view)

Continued With Source Links Here

[Bolo Boffin]

99. Hello, do you understand the words, "I saw your answer up there"?

We are talking about something else down here, thank you. Go do your little data cut-and-paste up there, would you?

Jeez.

[nebula]

128. First you say there is no evidence of molten pools

when I present you with irrefutable eyewitness evidence of it, you brush it off.


Believers of the official story are impossible to reason with.

[Bolo Boffin]

130. No evidence I had seen.

There is a difference, and I know what it is. Let's just say I've relied on the assertation of fact from people here before and been burned...

Now, I wanted to be clear, you do agree that there are plenty of reasons to have molten steel underground without resorting to thermite as an explanation?

Oh, and besides the WTC, can you point to any examples OF molten steel being underground because of thermite?

And HEY! You're back down here again. Can a guy notice that another person is suspicious of Dr. Jones because of his connections to the DOE without you trying to discuss something we're already discussing someplace else? Jeez.

[nebula]

137. Let me say again

"Now, I wanted to be clear, you do agree that there are plenty of reasons to have molten steel underground without resorting to thermite as an explanation?


Technically, I would agree that there is. Extreme temperatures beneath an active volcano or below the sea floor, for example, can cause iron ore in the earth to turn into molten lava. (which we now both agree that flowing molten pools were present at Ground Zero).

But there is no natural occurrence that could explain it. And nothing man-made except for one of the following:

1) a blast furnace
2) possibly a nuclear explosion
3) thermite/thermate


We can eliminate the first two, in regard to Ground zero, for obvious reasons.
That leaves 3) as the only possible cause of molten pools at Ground zero. (The extreme heat of thermate reaction can rapidly cause steel to turn into molten metal).

[nebula]

138. btw,

can you tell me what the supposedly 'thorough' official 9/11 report provides as the reason, if any, for the existence of molten pools at ground zero?

Or did they conveniently ignore that subject as well?

[Bolo Boffin]

140. I think they ignored it.

I don't think it raised any concerns for them. I'm sure it was something they were aware of.

[Bolo Boffin]

142. Can we eliminate natural occurance?

I mean, what are the basic components of a blast furnace?

A constant source of heat
Something to contain the heat

So these two buildings fall down into a spectacular heap, mashing all of this flammable material together, and you don't think it's possible that fires could have burned for weeks under all of that?

Why is metal molten under the surface of the earth? It's because there's all that heat, but no way for it to escape. The ground is an insulating layer.

All of that stuff piling on top of itself - lots of asbestos and other insulating materials in the WTC, plus literally tons of building material and the rest of it - you don't think somewhere, under all of that, the necessary conditions of a blast furnace could have been produced - without the need for thermite? You're saying that's not even plausible?

[jberryhill]

181. There are only three things that melt metal?

Golly, that's going to come as a surprise to blacksmiths who were melting metals without any of those three things since the bronze age.

All they had was charcoal and air currents. I had no idea that Japanese steel samurai sword makers were using blast furnace, thermate, or nuclear explosions.

As an aside, what do you suppose was in the fuel tanks of every vehicle parked in the garages beneath the towers?

Ever see what's left after an uncontrolled car fire?

[MervinFerd]

186. Blast furnace, nuclear bomb and thermate!!

What a trio. Marvelous, magical stuff this thermate.

Seems to have acquired quite magical powers since Dr. Jones discovered it.

[Make7]

189. .

[dailykoff]

86. Yep. They wanted a picture, they got one, and now

there's nothing left to do but swear black is white until their spittle-covered keyboards wear out.

:rofl:

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William Seger]

98. What the hell are you smoking?

Everytime you get caught posting something especially ridiculous, your next few posts like this: :rofl:

[dailykoff]

101. Let me make it simple for you:

Here's a pic of a cut WTC core column, from the larger pic with the firemen (not the clean-up crew). Notice the regularity and straightness of the cuts:



Here's a pic of a demolition device designed to make just such a cut:



Now if you're going to try to tell me a clean-up worker with a blow torch made the ruler ruler-straight cuts in the first pic, I'm going to have myself another good chuckle.

[Bolo Boffin]

102. I like it when you make it simple to debunk you...

1. There are no ruler-straight cuts in your first picture. You can see the sawing, jagged edges all the way down.

2. Is there thermite in that shaped charge in the second picture? If not, what does it have to do with your hypothesis of thermite cutting the core columns in the WTC?

[mirandapriestly]

116. You didn't "debunk" anyone! dk made a clear case.eom

[Bolo Boffin]

117. Nuh-uh. n/t

[dailykoff]

121. Don't you mean "waaaaah"?

Just trying to help you get your sub-lingual noises straight. :)

[Bolo Boffin]

122. I thought you were going to bed. n/t

[dailykoff]

124. And so I am. Good night. (n/t)

[greyl]

119. That's just denial and baseless assertion. nt

[nebula]

103. I don't believe it was cut by a blowtorch

But not because the cut appears to be ruler straight.

(The worker could have marked the column with a straight line to provide a guide for the torch).

[dailykoff]

105. It's pretty straight.

It's a lot more regular than any blow-torch cut I've ever seen, including the pics posted in this thread, but I agree that there are other reasons to think it wasn't cut with a torch, mainly that the pic appears to have been taken shortly after the collapses.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. Why do you think it was taken shortly after collapse?

Because you want to?

[dailykoff]

108. Look at the uncropped photo.

It's posted above and makes it pretty clear.

[Bolo Boffin]

109. I want to hear YOU say it.

After all, it's your assertation - back it up.

[dailykoff]

110. I just did. (n/t)

[Bolo Boffin]

111. No, you said the picture makes it clear - it doesn't.

What about the picture makes you think it was taken so soon after the actual collapse.

[dailykoff]

112. I also said the cuts below are straight and you denied THAT.

Got a ruler?

[Bolo Boffin]

114. Again: why do you think this picture was taken so soon after the collapses?

The cut closest to us isn't all that straight, and you can see the jagged cuts all along the flat edge.

I demand ruler-straightness in my ruler-straight cuts!

[dailykoff]

118. If you were actually interested, you would have found it

and reposted it. You haven't. You're not. Good night.

[Bolo Boffin]

120. I actually am interested in when that picture was taken.

You said you had reasons for thinking it was taken soon after the collapse.

You refuse to share them with us.

The only one offered thus far is my suggestion that you want it to be soon after, so you just said it was.

You've offered nothing to counter that.

Sweet dreams.

[nebula]

125. No way to know for sure what happened

without examining the steel in a lab. Which is the standard procedure in any investigation.

Too bad no one bothered to examine it.

Either this is a case of incredible gross negligence, or a cover-up.

Take your pick.

[Bolo Boffin]

126. Hmm.

Are you saying no tests were ever conducted on any WTC steel?

[nebula]

129. I stand corrected

Denver Post

"The physicist said that in more than a year of investigation, he found thermite residue in samples of dust found near ground zero and on one of the steel beams used in a Sept. 11 memorial. Thermite is a compound that, when ignited, produces incredibly high temperatures and is used by the military in incendiary grenades and to cut through steel.

Some government reports have also identified a significant presence of odd substances - including sulfur and zinc - and have noted that there is no obvious explanation for their presence. Jones said sulfur and zinc are part of a typical thermite fingerprint.

"I'm not willing to say yet that this is conclusive, but it does deserve explanation. What we're asking for is more study and a major investigation," said Jones, who has helped organize a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

For many observers, Jones' work says less about a hidden conspiracy behind Sept. 11 than it does an unease with the event and what has followed. "

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4572518

[Bolo Boffin]

131. Dude, Jones is connected to the DOE, if you know what I'm saying.

Which I don't, because I'm just repeating what miranda said, and miranda hasn't explained the dire, sinister consequences of being associated with the DOE. I mean, it's not like Jones is a teacher or anything...or is he connected to the School Lunch program? Maybe Jones discovered clear evidence of a pre-Columbian Food Pyramid being visited by Jesus...

It's too horrid to think about.

So, are you saying that thermite is the only possible source of sulphur and zinc in a big building?

Plus, is this the only record of WTC steel being examined that you can find? Any other examinations out there that we might have heard about? Maybe?

[greyl]

133. Posted in #123

Forensic Expert Studying WTC Steel

More expert and industry professional articles.

[mirandapriestly]

134. I explained it in the cold fusion thread

he was told by an informant at the DOE about cold fusion then set about trying to stop cold fusion research. Islamic hijacker cters had it all wrong and said he was a cold fusion proponent.
(IOW, the DOE was protecting energy companies who did not want cheap energy sources researched). So I wonder if he is working with the same "folks" on this.

[Bolo Boffin]

139. Energy, not Education

Ohhhh. I apologize.

I guess it really belongs in the other thread, but he was doing research to try and develop cold fusion - how is that trying to stop cold fusion research?

[nebula]

141. No

"So, are you saying that thermite is the only possible source of sulphur and zinc in a big building?"

I am saying, unless you believe there was volcanic activity taking place underneath Ground Zero, that thermate is the most likely cause for the molten pools that burned for weeks at Ground Zero.



btw, what does the official 9/11 report have to say about the cause of molten pools at Ground Zero?? (which we now both agree were present). Or have they conveniently ignored that issue as well?

[William Seger]

145. Simple? How simple can this be?

We now have what certainly appears to be incontrovertible evidence that the "mystery column" was cut with a torch: We have a direct comparison to other columns cut with a torch in that same cleanup operation. And it isn't just the general appearance of the jagged cut and the slag; it's the location of the slag: it's on the inside of the column on three sides because those sides would have been cut from the outside with the torch, and it's on the outside of the lower cut because, after the column fell over, that last side was cut from the top. Please explain to me how that slag pattern would happen with a shaped charge or thermite or any combination of the two.

For that matter, explain to me why a shaped charge would produce slag in the first place. Explosives don't melt through metal -- they tear through it with the kinetic energy of the blast wave. If you claim they do produce cuts that look exactly like a torch cut, with that same slag pattern, post a picture to prove it.

Or, as has been requested countless time now, explain to me how you cut through a column with thermite, but in this case you also have to explain how it would end up looking anything like that torch cut. If you claim it can, post a picture of a column cut with thermite that looks exactly like a torch cut.

The simple reason you need to do that is because it looks EXACTLY like a torch cut, dude, and that's according to professional welders. And furthermore, a torch cut is also the simplest, most plausible explanation, by far. You're asking people to believe that the column was cut by some highly implausible method, with no explanation at all of the specific details that must be explained, but you're offering absolutely nothing as evidence except a photo of a shaped charge placed on a column at an angle.

Is that simple enough for you?

[nebula]

149. Again...

The slag could be the result of...

1) a blowtorch...

Or,

2) thermate residue deposited onto the columns after a shape-charge has sliced through the beam. I understand that a shape charge would not necessarily melt through the steel, but if thermate was also present, it would have left slag residue.

There's no way to know for certain either way just by looking at the photo. And it would help to have more photos of more angle-cut WTC columns, but I don't even know if they exist.

(To me, the existence of large molten pools burning for weeks, if not months at Ground Zero is the most compelling evidence of thermate. And so far, no one has provided another explanation for their existence. Perhaps I will start a new thread on the subject.)

[mirandapriestly]

150. That would be good to start a thread on the molten pools

I don't think they are due to blowtorches, lol...

[nebula]

151. Maybe the WTC was built on an active volcano?

that must explain it.

[Bolo Boffin]

152. Why are you spliting up this conversation?

I say this because I see you are ignoring an explanation I've given for the molten steel underneath the Pile, and your spliting up of the conversation gives you a bit of cover for doing so.

So please. Start an new thread on this subject. I'd love to get a little FOCUSED DISCUSSION going on here.

[vincent_vega_lives]

183. Neither does anyone else...LOL

Nor does anyone with HAB think that thermite/thermate reactions continued for days or even weeks.

[vincent_vega_lives]

182. whaah are you talking about?

thermate residue deposited onto the columns after a shape-charge has sliced through the beam

:wtf: how is that supposed to be possible BTW?

To me, the existence of large molten pools burning for weeks, if not months at Ground Zero is the most compelling evidence of thermate.

Not to sound redudnant but... :wtf: how is that supposed to be possible BTW?

[jberryhill]

184. I gotta see this device...

"2) thermate residue deposited onto the columns after a shape-charge has sliced through the beam."

If the shape-charge slices the beam, then the point of the thermate is.... what?

You understand that thermate is a powder. But you hypothesize some sort of rig which keeps it in close proximity to the beam, even in the presence of explosives going off?

[eomer]

153. Re: the location of slag

"it's on the inside of the column on three sides because those sides would have been cut from the outside with the torch, and it's on the outside of the lower cut because, after the column fell over, that last side was cut from the top."

The only thing I can say for sure by looking at that photo is that the two faces I can see clearly because they are not in shadow definitely have slag. The two faces that are in shadow seem ambiguous to me and, obviously, the four faces that I can't see I don't have any idea about.

It appears to me that all eight faces (inside and out) could possibly have slag. You've already claimed that three out the four that we can see at all do have it so the only one we can possibly have a dispute about is the outside face of the left side. That face is in shadow so I can't tell for sure but there are some vague grey streaks that are generally vertical as you would expect and could very well be slag.

I say slag on all eight faces is just as supportable as your claim of slag on only three inside faces and one outside face.

[dailykoff]

155. That is a very good point.

You never know what nonsense they'll come up with next. :crazy:

[William Seger]

156. Yeah, well, suit yourself

True, just because you can't come up with any logical, credible explanation for why that column looks exactly like it was cut with a torch if it wasn't cut with a torch doesn't mean that you aren't allowed to ignore both expert opinion and common sense. And of course it's easy enough to believe that all the people involved with the cleanup who would have seen all these columns cut with explosives and thermite before the welders came in and cut some other columns (leaving them looking exactly like that) would have very likely decided that, heck, what's a few thousand murders compared to the BushCo/PNAC need for a new Pearl Harbor.

This column is the "9/11 truth movement" in a microcosm.

[eomer]

160. I'm not convinced it looks exactly like it was cut with a torch.

The torch cut that was posted elsewhere in this thread is much more jagged than this one is and I wonder why a torch cut would be so straight as this cut is. Are there photos of cuts we know were cleanup torch work and are as straight as this one?

Regarding eyewitnesses, I would think the early responders were focused on search and rescue and might not take notice of something that was subtle and that required a thought process to realize it was out of place. So that's not very convincing to me at first impression.

I'm not convinced either, BTW, that this column was cut by therm[ite/ate]. I'm on the fence -- not convinced one way or the other. Too bad they didn't seal off the crime scene like they do for a common everyday murder and take photos thoroughly of the whole site before anything was disturbed (other than for rescue purposes) because a whole lot of questions would likely have been answered.

[William Seger]

162. That's why it ought to be called the 9/11 Denial Movement

Just how straight is it, really, and is it really straighter that these?



But, as I said, whatever floats your CT boat. .

[eomer]

163. Yes, it looks straighter than those to me.

At least straighter than the two diagonal cuts. When I zoom in on those they look more jagged than the cut we've been discussing. I'm not sure what I'm looking at on the third column. The end looks closed off. Was a cut made there and, if so, why is the end closed?

With regard to conspiracy theories, I believe that exploring theories is the usual approach when trying to solve crimes (and I'm a bit of an expert, having watched several Law and Order episodes).

And just what do you think should be discussed in this forum if not theories about 9/11? As I said, I'm not convinced that this particular theory is true. Rather, I'm interested in exploring it along with other theories since 9/11 is an unsolved crime.

[jberryhill]

165. You asked for 'em....

Are there photos of cuts we know were cleanup torch work and are as straight as this one?



Aside from the slag, do you see the ripples along the top face of the picture under discussion? An explosive cut won't have those ripples.

The difference betwee explosive shear and a torch cut can be seen side-by-side here:



Can you pick the one that was cut by a torch?

[eomer]

170. One of the four top edges looks somewhat like the ripples

in your torch cut but not really that much. The other three edges look nothing like it at all.

Is there only one way that thermite/thermate cuts look? Ripples will never occur?

And, BTW, is your lower-left photo of a column that was cut with thermite/thermate? If so you just proved the OP wrong. If not then the cut doesn't tell us what a thermite/thermate cut looks like.

[greyl]

174. The lower left photo isn't from thermite or a torch.

That should help narrow it down for ya.

appendix: Thermite doesn't cut.

[eomer]

176. So the question of how a steel column cut by thermite will look

is still open. Maybe it will have ripples. Maybe not. Maybe it will have ripples with only some specific techniques of applying thermite to the column but not with others.

Appendix B: Thermite does cut because the OP and everyone else in the thread is using the word "cut" in the more general sense. Same as a torch doesn't cut literally but only in a more general manner of speaking.

[jberryhill]

177. Welcome to last week...

"Is there only one way that thermite/thermate cuts look? Ripples will never occur?"

To date, nobody, NOBODY, claiming that "this" or "that" is a thermate-cut beam has produced a single reference image of a thermate-cut beam.

I could just as easily say that the diagonal column looks EXACTLY as if it were cut by the electric tentacle of a creature from the Andromeda galaxy, and you cannot prove me wrong on that.

What would be helpful would be a reference image of what DOES a beam look like if it were cut by the electric tentacle of a creature from the Andromeda galaxy. But I do not feel the need to produce one because it WAS cut by such a tentacle, and the strength of my belief in that proposition makes it so. And, since you cannot prove me wrong, then I must be right.

HOWEVER, the diagonally-cut column looks a LOT like a column cut by a torch. Indeed, we have a photograph of someone using a cutting torch on a vertical WTC column during clean-up, and producing identical slag dripping down. We have a photograph of other diagonally cut columns protruding right next to a set of tanks for a cutting torch rig, and a steelworker.

Nonetheless, there are those who will continue to maintain that the column was cut by something for which there is zero reference imagery thus far.

You SHOULD be able to find lots of explosive cuts also, btw, since CDI was contracted to blow stuff apart using shaped charges during the clean-up.

[jberryhill]

167. That would be fine, except for...

...this picture which shows the backsides of similar diagonal columns:



Next to the tanks for a cutting torch rig... next to the steelworker...

So, here's what they did... KNOWING that thermate cut columns were all over the place, they strategically placed cutting torch rigs and steelworkers to hang out near the diagonal cut columns so that people would be duped into believing that those steelworkers had cut those columns with those torches...

[eomer]

171. This photo also proves (by your logic) that FDNY workers

did the torch cutting. Standing right next to it and all.

[jberryhill]

179. Indeed...

...there is a diverse skill set on the FDNY, and I am sure that they have quite a few skilled folks at metalworking for rescue:



Still, it's SOMEBODY'S torch rig next to those columns.

[dailykoff]

154. Oh, so thermite IS an explosive?

Thanks for pointing out the obvious, but don't you think it would be a good idea if you guys could keep your stories straight?

:rofl:

p.s. if you think that pic "looks EXACTLY like a torch cut," why don't you find a photo of a column cut with a torch to prove it?

You know, back up your claims with proof like we do?

[William Seger]

157. Put down the bong...

... read my post again (nothing about thermite being an explosive), then go back and look at that picture of the column that WAS cut with a torch. Now, get up off the floor, apologize to the whole board for acting like a buffoon, then go clean up your room and do your homework.

[dailykoff]

168. So thermite CAN cut columns, it just didn't cut THESE columns

because, um, they don't say "Thermite Fairy Was Here" in big letters?



This thread gets sillier by the hour. :crazy:

[William Seger]

172. Sez who?

As stated too many times for me to keep track of, if you want to claim thermite can cut a column, then you need to prove it; and especially if you think it can cut a column like that, since it defies common sense. But I don't think the thread is silly enough yet, so please keep posting whatever thought pops into your head.

[dailykoff]

173. The photographs, which contradict your "common sense."

Sorry about that. :)

[William Seger]

175. There ya go.

I knew you could make it even sillier.
Got any more "thoughts" on the subject?

[MervinFerd]

188. QED: Thermate is NOT a -practical- way to cut a steel beam.

We have in evidence a video showing an impressive demolition of a small automobile by thermite dripping from a ceramic flowerpot.

Conceded that if you suspend -enough- thermite above a beam, it will eventually burn through. The OP never denied this.

But, it is also entirely clear that this is a highly inefficient and untidy way to cut a beam. It most definitely will not produce nice straight lines across the beam.

SO.

We -still- do not have any photographic, or other evidence, of the use of thermite to actually cut a structural steel beam.

QED.

[Bolo Boffin]

190. And after it apparently worked "so well" on 9/11

Three buildings so "efficiently" brought down by thermite shape-charges, and not a single patent pending on any such product since...

It's incredible, ain't it?

[MervinFerd]

198. QED.

Still waiting for that evidence.

It doesn't exist, does it?

[MervinFerd]

199. QED QED QED QED QED QED.

Still waiting.

[John Q. Citizen]

200. All good things come to those that wait, Mervin.....

http://www.worldtradecentertruth.com/articles/ThermiteDevicesMoore1.pdf

[MervinFerd]

201. Progress! Thanks. Now, lets hypothesize that these little jewels....

were used to bring down the WTC.

What would you expect to see? How would the collapse proceed? How much thermite residue would you expect to see on a random piece of steel pulled from the debris? What would a beam cut by these jewels look like? And were any such found? Can these devices account for "puffs and poofs and booms"? Can they account for Free Fall? How --many-- would be required to a) collapse the building? or b) produce Free Fall? What about "pulverization".

IOW, does this hypothesis account for the claimed evidence?

[John Q. Citizen]

202. First things first. I would expect that perhaps you might admit you were wrong, Mervin

and then apologise to everyone you disparaged for being right.

Then and only then might you expect to move on to your next co-operative project.

[MervinFerd]

204. Wrong? No, I demanded "proof of concept" and did not get it.

The thermite believers -should- have checked this --before-- spreading their theories.

It remains to be seen:
a) whether these devices actually work as claimed.
b) whether these devices would actually cut beams of the thickness found in the wtc.
c) whether these devices account for the claimed evidence of thermite
d) whether these devices have any advantage over any other method of cutting beams.

[wildbilln864]

205. proof of concept?

see post 203!

[John Q. Citizen]

206. Your OP subject line says it all.

"Thermate/Thermite CANNOT cut a structural steel I-beam"-Mervin Ford

That you are now trying to disavow your subject line isn't surprising.

What is surprising is that you apparently belive anyone would fall for it.

[MervinFerd]

207. Actually, we still don't know the OP was false.

All we have is a patent application. There's -no- demonstration the thing actually works.

The OP was a challenge--one that has taken a very long time to answer even partially. Given the long wait, its very clear that thermite is -not- a commonly used method of cutting steel beams.

Almost certainly there will be a lot of discussion of this patent. I'll reserve judgment as to whether the OP was actually wrong.

But thanks for the effort.

[wildbilln864]

208. but you see...

Merv, it's not required that thermite cut the structural steel framing members in the WTCs. All that's required is that the thermit heat the steel to the point where it looses the strength to support it's load. Which thermite can do!

[MervinFerd]

209. I see nothing of the kind.

Yes, the thermite need only heat the steel enough to weaken it. Or, it could just destroy connectors or bolts.

Troubles are:
1: I don't know whether this device will do even that. -Enough- thermite in a flowerpot would do that, but its not very practical. The patent application device would hold only small amounts of thermite; its really, honestly, not clear how much steel it would heat.
2. I am still absent an hypothesis as to how this stuff was used. What evidence would be expect to see if the patented device -were- attached to WTC beams. A device that cuts nice neat grooves wouldn't leave behind much thermite residue, or produce pools of molten metal. Would it?