You can't credibly deny thermit....

[wildbilln864]

was responsible for molten pools of metal under the WTCs weeks after the collapses if you can't give an alternative example of what caused the molten pools. What other substances could cause this phenomenon?

Thermit burns at about 4500 degrees F if I remember right.
Molten aluminum is shiny and bright when molten unlike steel which is orange or yellow. (on edit) So the difference is easy to determine!

snip/
Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500 °C (4500 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn well while wet and cannot be extinguished with water. Small amounts of water will boil before reaching the reaction. If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water and generate hydrogen gas in a single-replacement reaction.

/end snip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite


It supplies it's own oxygen so if enough was there under the rubble piles it well could burn for weeks! All the more reason to cart off and destroy the evidence IMO!

[wildbilln864]

1. I submit that...

there is no other substances which were present that could cause molten metal pools weeks later.

on edit: here's a &imgrefurl=http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/chopsaw02.html&h=225&w=300&sz=23&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=a9K8_kKpMSKnpM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=116&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmolten%2Baluminum%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DGpic"> pic of molten aluminum at bottom of the page.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. It is good to hear that we can't deny a proposition without supplying an alternate

You will be so good as to report to the appropriate threads and provide your credible conclusions for a host of 9/11 issues, like what happened to the planes and the passengers, etc. You will be so good as to convince your CT friends to do the same. They seem to be "just asking questions."

Now, an alternate to thermite. I need the Pile alone, no thermite at all.

The WTC towers contain floor after floor of offices, filled with all kinds of things to burn. The towers crushed all of these things together under the Pile, an abundance of fuel.

The subsequent fires were insulated enough, and provided with oxygen enough (humans witnessed these pools, did they not? They had to travel there, and thus oxygen could flow along these passageways to the underground fires) to burn indefinitely, just as the fires underground in Centralia, Pa. and Burning Mountain in Australia burn to this day.

The escaping heat could easily find spaces in the Pile that would collect the heat, and become a virtual foundry, where all kinds of metals, aluminum, steel, whatever, could have melted or become almost molten, what have you. It is possible, it is credible, it is probable. No thermite needed.

PS: Aluminum turns orange-red when hot enough. Aluminum alloys have much lower melting points (and thus orange-red points) than aluminum itself.

PPS: A toxic fire spewing God-knows-what into the atmosphere is reason enough to clean the place up as quickly as possible. The sheer deed itself, getting rid of what those murderous terrorists did to New York, is reason enough. IMO.

[Bryan Sacks]

17. cauldron effect is sufficient, I've always believed. We agree. n/t

[LARED]

3. Can you provide an explanation as to how

thermite created molten pools of metal eight + weeks after the collapse.

[vincent_vega_lives]

4. thats what I would like to know

Every thermite reaction I ever saw lasted seconds. I've never understood where this molten metal = thermite comes from.

Metal is highly conductive. That means with out a constant source of thermal energy it COOLS rapidly. Thermite is hardly that. Thermite gets VERY hot VERY quickly and expends its fuel VERY Quickly.

[wildbilln864]

5. well I don't know for sure but...

is it not possible that if massive amounts of thermit were used, maybe it took this long for all of it to react/burn! As for your 8+ weeks. Not sure but I thought it was only 4-5 weeks.

As to bolo's idea about the materials in the building being the fuel. I don't see how building materials could burn hot enough to melt steel, especially weeks after.

All I know for sure is we've been lied to since day one! You guys can keep protecting the real perps if you want but I will continue to push for an investigation.
:hi:

[Bolo Boffin]

6. Good disclaimer.

Thermite begins an instantaneous irreversable process and burns quite quickly until it is all gone. It does not last for weeks...

...the way an underground fire, with enough available fuel, can burn.

Did you know that in the Iron Age, iron was smelted with charcoal fires? Yet charcoal does not burn hot enough to melt iron. Hm. Perhaps the Iron Age is a conspiracy.

Do not ever accuse me of covering up for the real perps again.

[nebula]

7. You're all completely missing the point!

It's not a question of how long it takes for THERMITE to burn itself out.

The question is how long it takes for MOLTEN METAL to burn itself out. Thermite is only required to get the process of melted metal going, it is NOT the end product.

Have you ever seen molten metal in a foundry? Or molten lava in a volcano? That stuff could literally burn for weeks on its own energy!

And no way in hell any metals in the building could ever reach the high temperatures needed to form molten pools without direct exposure to something like thermite!

[hack89]

9. Molten steel starts cooling immediately ..

simple thermodynamics. The idea that it was a self perpetuating reaction is ridiculous.

Shall we review the melting temperature of aluminum? Much less then steel. And the rubble pile was full of it.

[nebula]

11. But it wasn't just molten steel

It was a mixture of molten steel AND thermite.

[hack89]

13. You are kidding, right?

how does thermite keep from igniting from the temperature? It would have been consumed within seconds of ignition. Are you really saying that there was still thermite reacting weeks after the collapse?

[piobair]

30. "Burn for weeks on its own energy"

Of all of the wrong science I've seen posted here this has got to be one of the most ludicrous ideas I've ever seen{excepting shape shifting chem sprayers}. Steel DOES NOT BURN! It does not support combustion. It softens and melts when enough heat is applied. Ask any farrier or blacksmith who uses a coal forge if coal can produce enough heat to make steel malleable. The notion that steel "burns" is wrong. Not open to discussion or interpretation.

[jberryhill]

34. It is impossible to melt steel using coal

Ah.. you are one of those "blacksmith fallacy" people.

Iron:

Melting Point: 1535.0 °C (1808.15 K, 2795.0 °F)
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/fe.html

Charcoal:

Burns at 2012 degrees Fahrenheit
http://www.fweb.org.uk/Dean/deanhist/charcoal.htm

Therefore, if charcoal burns at 2012 F, it is more than 700 F below the melting point of Iron.

So, please, don't wander in here with your BuschCo sponsored lies about "blacksmiths" using coal fires to forge or melt Iron.

(Incidentally, if you define "burn" as an exothermic oxidation reaction, and you assert that steel does not "burn", then I invite you to enlighten me on the origin an nature of the thing most people call "rust". Sorry, but I have seen plenty of steel burn. I refer to the body panels of my 72 VW bus, which did indeed oxidize spontaneously on a regular basis.)

[vincent_vega_lives]

42. God God Man

Have mercy on the poor chillins. :spank:

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. I bring this up again and again

It is a function of energy transfer over time, not just the "hot enough" temperature. :grr:

[achtung_circus]

74. A propos of which

in 1935 when my Dad was 10 years old a train derailed, spilling its coal which caught on fire. The wreckage was recovered and the coal had a layer of dirt bulldozed on top of it.

In about 1965, when I was 10 years old, it was still possible, if you knew where, to dig through the loose dirt, insert your cold from tobogganing feet into the ashes and warm them up.

[hack89]

8. Who said it was melted steel?

These pools of molten metal have not been documented very thoroughly so you have no real idea what they were. Much more likely it was aluminum.

[nebula]

10. No

Melted aluminum cannot burn for weeks on its own energy. And it is silver in color.

The molten pools at Ground Zero were described by witnesses as being orange, not silver in color.

[hack89]

12. Neither can steel ..

I think you need to revisit the laws of thermodynamics. Molten steel is a byproduct, not a reaction. It cannot create energy.

[nebula]

15. Where did I say molten steel is a reaction?

You're not making any sense.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

18. I missed the word "pools" in that video link.

BTW, What Really Happened isn't a valid source here at DU.

There are other sources for that video, though. I'm sure it's on YouTube. I'll even bet you can find one that hasn't been cut to show that the crane pulls up an orange-hot girder.

But not a pool.

Thermite cannot explain temperatures that hot "six weeks later." It burns too fast.

Only the underground fires burning off the accumulated debris can explain temperatures that hot "six weeks later."

And since those fires don't need thermite, don't HAVE thermite, thermite isn't necessary on September 16th, the date of your picture.

Thermite isn't a necessary component of these fires. It isn't even possible for thermite to be burning this long after the collapse.

[nebula]

19. Are you illiterate?

Where did I say thermite was a source of the 6-week old molten material?



"BTW, What Really Happened isn't a valid source here at DU."

Yeah, because since you can't discredit the video, attack the messenger providing it.

[nebula]

20. Let me repeat myself,

Since you seem to have a hard time with basic reading comprehension:


It's not a question of how long it takes for THERMITE to burn itself out.

The question is how long it takes for MOLTEN METAL to burn itself out. Thermite is only required to get the process of melted metal going, it is NOT the end product.

Have you ever seen molten metal in a foundry? Or molten lava in a volcano? That stuff could literally burn for weeks on its own energy!

And no way in hell any metals in the building could ever reach the high temperatures needed to form molten pools without direct exposure to something like thermite!

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Did you know?

People in the Iron Age smelted iron with charcoal fires!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smelting

Now you know.

[nebula]

24. Where does it state on your Wikipedia link

about using charcoal to smelt iron??


The only reference to charcoal is this:

"It makes use of a chemical reducing agent, commonly a fuel that is a source of carbon such as coke, or in earlier times charcoal, to change the oxidation state of the metal ore. "


Doesn't say a thing about smelting IRON with charcoal.

[jberryhill]

35. We HAVE A WINNER!

Elsewhere in the thread, I sarcastically suggested that we would soon see CT'ers implying that thousands of years of metallurgy was impossible to perform with charcoal as fuel.

We are talking about technology known to man at the dawn of civilization which now must be denied to preserve the undisputable use of thermit/ite/ate at the WTC.

I tip my hat to you, nebula for the sterling grasp of basic material science which inspired this gem:

"Doesn't say a thing about smelting IRON with charcoal."

Charcoal burns at the necessary temperature (2012 degrees Fahrenheit / 1100 degrees Centigrade), and was therefore used locally in the smelting of iron from as early as 450BC right up until coke became available in the 18th century.
(http://www.fweb.org.uk/Dean/deanhist/charcoal.htm)

And not just Iron, either:

There are numerous early literary references to steel from India from Mediterranean sources including one from the time of Alexander (3rd c. BC) who was said to have been presented with 100 talents of Indian steel, mentioned by Pant <1>. Bronson <2> has summarised several accounts of the reputation of Indian iron and steel in Greek and Roman sources which suggest the export of high quality iron and steel from ancient India.
http://metalrg.iisc.ernet.in/~wootz/heritage/WOOTZ.htm

Who knew they had thermit/ite/ate in 300 BC?

[nebula]

48. Hot charocal alone is NOT sufficient to smelt iron

A special-type of furnace and compressed air from a bellows is required, using charcoal to fire it! In the early days, this furnace was known as a bloomery:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloomery

[jberryhill]

71. Good lord read your linked material, man

A bloomery consists of a pit or chimney with heat-resistant walls made of earth, clay, or stone. Near the bottom, one or more clay pipes enter through the side walls. These pipes, called tuyères allow air to enter the furnace, either by natural draft, or forced with a bellows. An opening at the bottom of the bloomery may be used to remove the bloom, or the bloomery can be tipped over and the bloom removed from the bottom.


A PIT... WITH EARTH WALLS... PIPES ENTER FROM THE SIDE WALLS.... NATURAL DRAFT...

Jeebus, mister, where do you think THAT sort of structure might have been at the WTC site?

A big pit with earth walls, and big shafts connected into the pit to supply air by natural drafts.

THAT DESCRIBES THE WTC SITE!

It was a big pit with subway and service tunnels running into it. It had walls of earth and stone. And a whole lot of metal and burning fuel got dropped right into the doggone thing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

43. Heck I just smelted some Italian sausage the other day

using charcoal. It smelt great!

[jberryhill]

69. He who smelt it....

dealt it.

[Kingshakabobo]

23. I guess it would help if you would stop referring to steel "burning" itself out....

.........don't you mean "cooling"?

[piobair]

32. repeat yourself

all you want but the fact remains that steel does not burn. It does not support its own combustion. It absorbs heat from other sources and once that heat is removed the steel begins to cool. Where did you get the idea that steel burns?

[vincent_vega_lives]

41. Molten Metal is NOT 'burning'

It has only one place to go when and EXTERNAL source of energy is removed. It COOLS. Rapidly.

Thermite is just a heat source that expends it's fuel rapidly and at high temps.

[nebula]

22. Dozens of 1st Responders have used the term 'molten pools' or 'molten steel'

To describe what they saw at ground zero (just a few examples):

But of course, all these emergency personnel are just making it up because they hate America. It's a conspiracy I tell you!



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


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

A NY firefighter described molten steel flowing at ground zero, and said it was like a "foundry" or like "lava".

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.

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."

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."

A structural engineer who worked for the Trade Center's original designer saw "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)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."

Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history", even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001 and again on September 21, 2001, and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands, and "firetrucks a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."

Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

[hack89]

27. For clarity sake,

are you saying that the molten steel is from thermite melting structural steel or is it the by-product of the thermite reaction?

[John Q. Citizen]

39. From reading the post it appears

nebula is posting eye witness accounts of molten steel, in reply to bolo's post above. I don't see nebula attributing those accounts to thermite, necessarily.

[hack89]

63. You accept thermite don't you?

If so, what do you think? This is one aspect of the thermite CT I could never get a grip on.

[John Q. Citizen]

75. Yes. as one of a number of theories that attempt ot explain the surplus heat.

I'm not yet sure which one or combination will turn out to be the cause. I only know that something caused that heat. It wasn't chairs.

[nebula]

14. NASA photo of Ground Zero

taken with infrared imaging equipment.

[quickesst]

25. I would think....

that with all your eyewitness statements, coupled with the thermal imaging from NASA, would qualify, or come as close as one can to "irrefutable evidence, which is further evidenced by the lack of replies refuting it. Thanks and good work.
quickesst

[hack89]

28. But no one has shown ,,

that ordinary fires in the rubble pile could not produce those temperatures. Why would they be producing combustion byproducts if they weren't ordinary fires.

Secondly, you have to agree that those temperatures are hot enough to melt aluminum. Explain to me in any o f the eyewitness accounts where molten steel is distinguished from molten aluminum.

It is still not clear if you think the molten steel is the byproduct of the the thermite reaction or if the thermite melted structural steel. The first makes no sense when you consider that thermite is used for emergency repair welding of railroad tracks- do you really think they wait for weeks for the stuff to cool and harden? The second case is impossible according to photographic "proof" of thermite cut beams.

[hack89]

29. So how much molten steel is needed..

to produce such large hot spots? How much thermite is needed to produce that much molten steel.

In case you haven't figured it out, this is where your theory get ridiculous - there has to be tons of molten steel.

[jberryhill]

31. What kind of logic is that?

You can't assert that thermit remained toasty hot for weeks after the explosion. Thermit burns violently and intensely. What on earth makes you believe that thermit can either burn for weeks or maintain these alleged molten pools for weeks?

Your proposition is a false dichotomy. If I say that UFO's are responsible for crop circles in England, you do not have to explain the origin of crop circles in order to observe there is no support or logic to my UFO theory. It's even better when all you have to go on, in the face of my assertion, are second-hand accounts of what the crop circles looked like.

There was a complicated mix of crap under that rubble, including the fuel from every vehicle parked in the basement parking garages. This pile of rubble was served with shafts (subway tunnels) to supply air through this pile and all sorts of things can happen in a disorganized pile of crap with things burning in it. In that pile, there were likely spots which couldn't support combustion, spots which could, and spots which acted as air shafts. It was an immense pile of crap with all kinds of fuels from whatever was in the building.

Now, someone is going to come along and make some kind of assertion about the temperature of burning gasoline and the melting points of metals. Go look at some pictures of the aftermath of uncontrolled vehicle fires first, please.

This weeks-long burning thermit of yours should replace Hannukah as the latest and greatest miracle of ever-burning stuff.

What's funny is that you can't even keep your personal theory of thermit combustion from contradicting the stuff you quote:

First you quote an article stating:

"If thermite is ignited underwater, the molten iron produced will extract oxygen from water"

and then you say:

"It supplies it's own oxygen..."

So let us consider this fascinating substance and what, in your mind, is its mechanism of combustion. Underwater, where nearby oxygen is bound to hydrogen, burning thermit will rip apart those water molecules in order to get at that oxygen to support its combustion. But in air, where oxygen is merrily floating around and free for the taking, burning thermit supplies its own.

That's just astounding how thermit makes up its mind whether to supply its own oxygen or steal it from water.

I've been asking for weeks without a single CT'er having so much as a grunt in response to my question - How, since thermite is apparently now the only substance on earth which melts metal - was it possible for blacksmiths to melt and forge metals, including steel in samurai swords, using nothing but charcoal?

And if your answer depends at all on air currents, shafts, and updrafts, then consider what goes on in large towers and disorganized piles of crap, when things burn in them.

[nebula]

45. Simply false

"How, since thermite is apparently now the only substance on earth which melts metal - was it possible for blacksmiths to melt and forge metals, including steel in samurai swords, using nothing but charcoal?"


In the early days, blacksmiths would use hot coals to fire a bloomery (an early blast furnace) and bellows for compressed air. This provided the extreme high temperature environment required to smelt iron.

Highly specialized equipment (furnace and bellows) is required! Hot charcoal alone CANNOT smelt iron and steel.

[Bolo Boffin]

47. Yes! You've almost got it!

You're throwing a block in the way with the "highly specialized" talk, but you're almost there!

Now reread what you've just written, and go watch the video again. Hint: listen for the description of an "oven".

[nebula]

50. 1) Mixing jet fuel and steel in an 'oven' is not sufficient

to melt steel. Jet fuel doesn't even burn anywhere near that hot. Especially when somewhere around 90% of the jet fuel was visibly consumed in the initial fireballs when the planes struck the towers.

2) Nothing in the buildings themselves can burn at the high enough temperatures to melt steel. If you think otherwise, then please tell us what could have burned that hot besides thermite/ate.

[Bolo Boffin]

51. Why does a bloomery work? n/t

[nebula]

52. To melt iron, a bloomery requires compressed air

and abundance of extreme hot-burning substance such as charcoal.

None of those things were present at Ground Zero.

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Not compressed air.

The Wiki says that a bellows is an optional part of a bloomery. Regular air channels was used.

And a bellows only blows more air over the coals, causing them to release their energy faster.

Heat is a radiant energy. Unchecked, it will move out in all directions. A bloomery focuses heat energy to the point of melting metals.

(It's just like household budgeting. When you're trying to save money or get control of the bills, you increase income and decrease outflow. You cut back on expenses and you get a second job. More money coming in and less going out means you're saving money.)

First, a bloomery decreases the flow of heat energy outward by making an oven. It's an insulated space that traps heat, or at least slows its ability to escape.

Then, a bloomery increases heat input by blowing air over the coals, making them burn faster. The temperature at which things burn is a RATE. It's how fast heat energy can be released from a burning substance. If there is enough of a burning fuel, and there is enough insulation over the burning fuel, it doesn't matter how hot the fuel burns. The insulated space will trap the heat energy, and the temperature will rise to the point that metal can be melted.

There was an immense amount of burnable fuel for the fire trapped under an overwhelming amount of insulating materials in the Pile. There was so much fuel that the fires burned for over eight weeks before finally being put out. Had they been left to burn, they would have gone on for much longer.

The Pile had all the necessary circumstances to explain all witness testimony of molten pools or molten metals after the collapse. There is no reason to introduce thermite to this equation. Nothing is gained, and difficulties are introduced.

[John Q. Citizen]

62. Three magic bloomeries, all constructed out of coincidence. Your a hoot,

bolo!

I'm laughing my ass off.

[Bolo Boffin]

64. Don't pollute. n/t

[jberryhill]

67. good, laughing is healthy

Go over and read post #66

By the way, back when I was a techie, my doctoral work specifically related to the behavior of molten metal solutions and selective precipitation of crystal compounds out of molten metals:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992SPIE.1582...71C

So, okay, it's been a few years since I spent ALL of my time playing around with melting metals.

What's your background?

[John Q. Citizen]

76. I listen to a lot of Frank Zappa. One of my favorite songs

is that one called "Cosmic Debris."

Hey there brother!


You know the one?

[LARED]

80. I saw Zappa a few times

The man was a genius.

[John Q. Citizen]

82. He was indeed. We certainly agree on that! n/t

[jberryhill]

86. Count Me In On That

So this device... was it round, and did it have a motor? Or was it something different?

[piobair]

65. I can't believe

that you don't grasp the concept of retained heat. It's the same process that allows an 10 by 12 foot room to reach flashover temperatures{1500F}with only a couch and drapes burning. Neither the couch or drapes burn at those temps but are miraculously attained within minutes without "specialized equipment". This is 7th grade science and once again, steel does not support combustion!

[jberryhill]

70. It's believeable

A lot of people don't grasp the distinction between "heat" and "temperature".

[jberryhill]

66. A little material science history

Oh boy...

"Highly specialized equipment (furnace and bellows) is required! Hot charcoal alone CANNOT smelt iron and steel."

We will begin with the dawn of metallurgy, when ancient man found unusual materials on the ground in the place where he let his campfire burn down to hot coals the night before. It is, in fact, precisely the smelting of metal from ore-rich deposits in the presence of a good set of hot embers, where we first began to notice that you could GET metal from ore deposits.

A "furnace" is a place where you hold stuff and burn it.

The purpose of the bellows is not about having compressed air, but it is about having a current of air moving through the burning material to provide a draft that increases the rate of combustion, and thus the heat of the fire. When you are trying to get a fire going from a wisp of tinder, you blow on it. When you see someone at night inhale through a cigarette, the tip heats up.

I don't know how much time you spent playing with fire as a youth, but it is air drafts that matter. Fire is about oxidation. Swiftly sending a current of air into a fire, under the right conditions, makes the fire burn more energetically (please don't tell me, "Oh yeah, how come I can blow out a match?")

You can, in a small space, get a good draft going with a bellows. If you've got enough room and big tubing, you don't need a bellows, because you can rely on drafts.

If you have a lot of space, you can get a good draft going with a big chimney. You start a fire at the bottom of the chimney, and hot air rising through the chimney sucks fresh air into the hearth. It's a positive feedback loop. You can feel the suction toward a fireplace in your house when you get a good fire going.

Now, if you've ever tried to make, say, a campfire, then you know you can't just light a log on fire and let it burn. You have to make a stack that has air passages in it to get those drafts going through air channels in the pile.

If you are familiar with making a charcoal barbeque fire, then try this instead of lighter fluid next time:

Take a coffee can open at both ends. Make openings around the outer periphery of one end of the can. Put that end of the can down in your barbecue. Put in some crumpled paper. Now pour the charcoal into the can. Light the paper through the openings.

It's a great way to get a charcoal fire going without fluid. What happens is you get air currents sucked in through the openings, and an updraft through the pile of briquets, that will get those suckers glowing hot faster than if you spread them out or pile them and try to light it from the top.

They sell a device for doing that:



You can experiment with the design parameters, but I'll tell you something interesting - the taller it is, the better. In fact, if you get a good enough fire started at the top end of an, oh say, 70 story tall bunch of shafts, you are going to get some great localized updrafts and currents of superheated air above where that fire is.

I'll tell you something else, you pour a big heap of fuel containing debris like, say, fueled vehicles from a parking garage and a whole lotta office furniture and stuff, into a great big fire pit that has big empty shafts leading to it like, say, subway lines and service tunnels then I don't see why you'd be at all surprised that you'd get some might hot hot spots in that heap for a very long time.

Someone referred to long-burning mine fires in various places. Yes, that happens. They burn long and slow because they are oxygen deprived. Dig some service shafts to those underground fires and you'll get much better results.

If you think that something as simple as a furnace and shaft arrangement wouldn't form in a pile of crap like that, then you haven't played with fire enough.

[piobair]

33. I've lost track

of why some advocate that thermite/ate had to have been used. Is it because there was no chemical evidence of conventional explosives?

[jberryhill]

36. Oh, you'll love the answer

I believe the thermit/ite/ate stuff is clung to by those who buy into Steven Jones' "analysis" of "stuff he got in the mail" which was alleged to be WTC steel.

But it gets better than that, according to our dear friend here Mirandapriestly. You see, Jones had come up with cold fusion techniques on his own at about the same time as Pons and Fleishman (BYU, Provo, and Salt Lake City being a tight little community and all). Because P&F had gone the popular press route to beat Jones to the punch on publication of cold fusion discoveries, Jones became a critic of the P&F cold fusion work.

Mirandapriestly dimly picked up on that internecine dispute, and then concluded he had been "fooled" into believing that Jones was a cold fusion proponent instead of a critic (failing to appreciate that Jones was a cold fusion proponent when it came to HIS theories, but a critic of other people's work - big surprise that). Therefore, Mirandapriestly has become suspicious that Jones is actually a disinfo agent working inside the "truth" movement to plant the thermit/it/ate hypothesis as a red herring in order to discredit the truthers.

So, CT'ers of the Jonesian type are sold on thermit/ite/ate, but if that is debunked then it will confirm to Mirandapriestly that Jones' mission was to discredit the truthers by introducing the hypothesis in the first place - thus, of course, confirming the basic theories of the truthers.

The apparent logic is similar to that of "if it looked like CD, then it was an inside job" but "if it didn't look like CD, then the inside jobbers were good at covering their tracks to make it not look like CD". Heads, I win; tails, you lose.

[Bolo Boffin]

37. It started

as far as I know, with the video of a dripping hot substance from the South Tower. This was compared with videos of thermite reactions.

Then Stephen Jones got a hold of a hunk of metal from the towers. He began testing for trace elements of thermite, or was it -mate at that point? Anyway, he was finding them. However, the things he was looking are used in other ways in office buildings as well.

By then, people had copped to the fact that it wasn't thermite dripping out of the South Tower. It became steel in the minds of our CT friends, because it was now being hooked up to these reports of orange-hot metals underneath the pile. Some reports even are of molten pools of metal, and some reports lasted up until eight weeks after the collapse. In the mind of a conspiracy theorist, the only way this could happen was the thermite reaction.

The thermite hypothesis not only eliminates the idea of chemical evidence (because they think they have chemical evidence as well), but it eliminates the need to explain the relative paucity of explosive events that bring down the towers. Sure, we still got people who will post a long list of "sounded like bombs going off" witnesses, but the rhetorical genius of the thermite hypothesis is that they can use our arguments against bombs in conjunction with thermite - thermite doesn't make big booming noises going off.

As yet, no one has decribed a viable way of transporting that much thermite into the buildings, how it was attached to the columns and forced to do the work of cutting the columns, etc. It is a hypothesis that unites some video and some shoddily interpreted chemical evidence into a position that appears to eliminate some difficulties (in exchange for others) and also gives CTers a chance to look smarter than the pigeons they come in contact with, because who's ever heard of thermite?

[John Q. Citizen]

38. There was never any tests done to check for conventional explosives residue.

Thermate was suggested as a possible explanation for at least three reasons.

1. The observations, both direct and through aerial thermal imaging of extremely high and persistent temperatures both in the pile and in at least one tower prior to collapse (the molten metal spilling out the window)

2. The FEMA appendix C that showed and described steel retrieved from WTC #7 that showed minimum temperatures of 1200 F and corrosive sufidation (a by product of some military grades of thermate which use sulfur for greater heat)of the metal

3. Tests performed by Dr. Steven Jones which he claims show evidence of thermate by products on WTC metal he obtained from a private source.

[hack89]

40. What evidence do you have

that there were no test for explosive residue. Are there actual statements that verify this or is your proof simply that you can't find anything on the internet?

[John Q. Citizen]

44. From the NIST FAQ. Have you read this stuff? Or do you argue from the

point of view that since you know it wasn't an inside job, it would be a waste of time to educate yourself on the facts? I'm just curious, because it seems like someone who was looking for available arguments and facts on 9/11 would have read this already.

And this is why I contend that NIST didn't approach the investigation from a scientific point of view. They started with a conclusion and then set out to support their conclusion. This isn't science, this is white wash.

12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

They then go on to explain why they didn't need no stinkiing tests, since they already know what caused the collapses. Is that the scientific method, in your world?

I am not contending that NIST would have found anything. I'm contending that what we have here is an intelligence failure. Anyone with any intelligence would test for and attempt to rule out obvious possibilities before arriving at a conclusion. Instead we have this August body, stacked full of PHds, that in reality, is a joke. It's a sham. It's a white wash.

How can you defend that?

[hack89]

46. No, you don't get it.

The FBI did the initial criminal investigation. NIST was brought in a well after the fact. Show me where the FBI did not do test.

Sorry for the confusion.

[mirandapriestly]

49. Yeah, the FBI knew nothing all that time, then BAM!

They have everyone's name in a few hours. NIST's methods are blatant "Bush science".

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Trying to hijack the thread.

You're using the mention of the FBI to introduce a new topic. You can start a new post to do that.

Go away.

[mirandapriestly]

77. Better than hijacking the whole forum

and he/she /it mentioned the FBI

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Yes NIST methods are a good example of "bush science." Start with

the conclusion.

[jberryhill]

68. Funny thing about tests...

I was feeling a little upset stomach the other day, and my doctor did NOT do a pregnancy test on me.

I was surprised, because I read that upset stomach can be a symptom of pregnancy.

I guess the doctor believed, on other observations, that a pregnancy test might not be necessary.

Do you know there was no ballistic evidence whatsoever in the OJ Simpson trial?

Shocking but true.

[John Q. Citizen]

73. They didn't even check out the gun OJ held to his head in the low speed getaway?

Is that right?

What did they do?

That sounds pretty shoddy. You would think they might at least get a serial number.

[jberryhill]

90. I guess you missed the point....

Both victims in the OJ case were stabbed to death.

The point is that you don't DO tests when those tests are not indicated by other circumstances.

[John Q. Citizen]

96. Are you claiming there wasn't an autopsy performed on the murder victims

in the OJ case because they already knew the results in advance? Or are you saying that an autopsy showed there were no fire arms used? It's a big difference, after all, because the latter situation might have shown that there weren't any bullets in the victims. It also might have determined a lot about the killer, and a lot about the victims. My guess is the second scenario is the case.

Too bad the 9/11 investigators didn't follow a similar protocol and do an autopsy on the building. How do we know that co-conspirators working in baggage handling didn't put explosives in the hold of the planes along with the baggage? You know some extra punch.

So was it the eye witness video and tape recorded accounts of secondary explosions that discouraged tests, or was it the eyewitness accounts and video recorded squibs and flashes coming below the disintegration wave that discouraged the tests? Or was it the improbability of three buildings having three random events and then all collapsing in a rapid sequential manner that discouraged any investigation into anything other than the story put out by the bush administration?

Was it the apparent, persistent and unexplained molten metal that discouraged further investigation? Or perhaps they just forgot about investigating when all the US military grade and genetically identical to US military strain anthrax started being mailed to liberal leaders and journalists?


Very strange, very strange indeed.

Do you believe it would have been useless and a waste of time to do autopsies in the OJ case? I don't.

[John Q. Citizen]

53. The FBI had an informant living with 2 of the accused hijackers. So what

happened?

The FBI is missing 25% of their files pertaining to leak investigations. What happened?

The FBI was called off 9/11 to investigate the anthrax attacks. How is that going? Any arrests yet?

NIST doesn't claim the FBI did or should have done testing. Why do you?

Why would the FBI run tests for explosives/thermate/x? Is that a reasonable line of inquirey?

Why is the FBI lying about the movements of the accused hijackers?

And why doesn't the FBI know who the so-called hijackers are? Why don't they have enough evidence to present to a DA to get an indictment against anyone, like, uh, Osama?

[Bolo Boffin]

55. Hijacking the thread.

We're very clearly talking about thermite here. The FBI is a separate topic.

Go away.

[John Q. Citizen]

58. Make me!

[mirandapriestly]

78. uh-oh, another point you can't deal with?

Like ALL the points?

[hack89]

57. You said that there were no tests for explosives done ..

I am merely asking you to prove it. Judging from the the hysterics I must have hit a nerve.

[John Q. Citizen]

59. No hysterics. No tests. Prove me wrong! n/t

[hack89]

61. You made the claim.

I was asking for proof. It looks like you proved yourself wrong.

[John Q. Citizen]

72. I proved myself right. NIST proves me right on that account. Show me where the

FBI says they ran explosive/incendiary residue tests.

I could be wrong. Perhaps the FBI ran them but they came back positive, which is why we haven't heard about it?

Or do you have a better theory why they would keep the results hushed up, if they bothered to run tests at all?

[nebula]

79. Important difference between thermite and thermate

Thermite mixed with sulfur becomes thermate.

Thermate cuts through steel even more rapidly than thermite, and thus would be suitable for use as an explosive in a controlled demolition. Indeed, thermate was specifically created for use in the demolition industry.

Being much more powerful than more conventional explosives, thermate would probably be the substance of choice in a high-rise structure like the Twin Towers, which were built with steel columns and beams that were much thicker than your average steel-framed building. Thus required a more powerful explosive such as thermate to bring it down.

[LARED]

81. Fascinating

do you have any source for that wealth of information?

[nebula]

84. Look up professor Steve Jones

Thermate is common in the demolition industry.
And is also a primary ingredient in hand grenades.

No question about it. Thermate is a powerful explosive material that can and does cut through steel beams.

[LARED]

85. I've read Jones' stuff

Not very compelling, and quite un-scholarly work for a Professor.

Have anything credible?

[nebula]

91. YOU are the one lacking credibility.

You've made up your mind. To you, anything that doesn't agree with your conclusion is not credible.

Are you disputing the fact that thermate is an explosive and that it is used in the demolition industry?

If you think something is not credible, then you need to explain why you think that is. Otherwise, you're talking out of your ass.

[LARED]

92. All I asked for was some credible evidence of what you stated

Don't get mad at me because you cannot provide something to back up your claims. If thermate is an explosive used in the demolition industry it should be a simple matter to establish.

Until then, you sir are the one blowing smoke out of your ass.

[nebula]

93. Watch the documentary 9/11 Mysteries

It has interviews with several people in the demolition industry discussing how thermate is used in their trade.

Of course, you probably won't believe them either.

[jberryhill]

94. Do they say in that documentary...

That it is used in their trade to burn for weeks and create pools of molten metal?

[LARED]

95. Any idea where in the video this information is given

the thing is a hour and a half long, and I'd rather not listen for an hour to discover someone misunderstood what was said.

[John Q. Citizen]

83. The problem with new and improved demolition/incendiary devices

is that there's a ton of secret reseach being done, but since it's secret, we don't have access to what's really going on.

There are papers and research into the theoretical aspects of some of these devices but in terms of new discoveries and production we haven't a clue.

We've seen some of the new weapons rolled out in Iraq to media coverage, but there are a lot we haven't been introduced to.

So how far thermate research and deveopment had gotten by 2001 we don't really know. Super-nono-thermite? Who knows?

But something has to account for the suplus heat observed and recorded in conjuction with the 3 collapses. It wasn't desks.

[wildbilln864]

87. exactly...

Thermite, thermate, maybe neither, maybe something else we're unaware of right now. We'll never know unless there's some kind of real investigation! The only reason I would even suspect thermit is because of Jones. Never heard of thermit before till I read what he was saying and watched him saying it. And he's not alone. Then I found it is a real compound which is suitable for such applications. It burns above 4500 degrees F.! Hell, they make grenades with it. Jones said he found evidence of high temperature sulfidation of steel caused by the steel being melted, I suspect, in the presence of some sulfer compound. He asserts that the fires in the WTCs could not have burned hot enough to cause this. I believe that too. He's a nuclear physicist! I thought he should know better than I or better than someone posting anonymously on a board. I would trust him more that those who've tried to debunk him because they've not proven anything other than their ability to ridicule. There was no investigation so anyone's presentation on the subject is speculation! Maybe there was explosives or some similar things used, maybe not but we probably will never know!

Two planes completely destroying three buildings by only hitting two? Right! :eyes:
There were so many pictures taken of the damage before #7 fell. If there was enough damage to it where's the definitive pictures that show it and show what caused it? After all building 6 took most of the debris from the towers and it kept standing! It's between the towers and building 7.
What did spark those fires in #7 anyway? Anyone said? :shrug:
Thermite sure would.

[LARED]

88. Di you forget this thread wildbill84

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x105517

[wildbilln864]

89. no, I haven't...

evidently you're somehow convinced it means something. What's your point? Is it that you're still trying to understand it? :shrug:

[wildbilln864]

97. but....

here's a kick 4ya!
:hi: