Bad title bro.. The public is immune to this idea. Why? Because a weakened form of this meme was released, which inoculated the public against the real thing. "Jet fuel cant melt steel beams" has become a joke, that causes most people to laugh the issue off completely.

I was astonished by the post on the front page yesterday, where they seemed to address something entirely different.

The dude just showed how steel at 1800degrees was significantly weaker and like a condescending tool, he asserted that this addresses that conspiracy theory, but it did not address the theory at all, i.e. why was there MOLTEN STEEL AT 9/11!!

I looked through the comments and didn't see this mentioned, I was very disappointed.

That's what they do. They change metrics entirely to fit whatever. I could perhaps get behind the idea of steel weakening under prolonged exposure...

Problem is how much fuel was burnt up in the initial explosion?

Why was there molten steel 6 weeks after 911 at ground zero?

The attempts to 'debunk' the presence of thermite were done by pouring thermite and not directing it... the tests w\ jet fuel are done the opposite way.

Problem is how much fuel was burnt up in the initial explosion?

~25% officially (FEMA, NIST, Baum, Rehm).

Most of it probably.

Why was there molten steel 6 weeks after 911 at ground zero?

The response I saw in that thread was that there was a lot of insulation from the rubble, which created a "kiln", where the temperature increased because it was in insulated. I think this is possible but incredibly improbable, especially if there was molten steel present weeks after.

a fire needs oxygen to burn. A kiln has an oxygen source. Fires cant burn trapped at the bottom of a pile of rubble.

Except Thermite (and other exothermic reactions) can. Because thermite creates its own oxygen thats needed to burn. This is why theyre so reluctant to acknowledge the molten metal in the ruble, because its physically impossible without an oxygen source.

On Mythbusters they lit up half a ton of thermite and the resulting fire did not appear to last very long. Under what conditions would thermite burn for six weeks?

How big was their fire/area of combustibles compared to Ground Zero? Fire moves/spreads/consumes as it goes. How is it possible that fire can do it without thermite, but not possible that fire can do it with thermite?

[serious question] there must be oxygen under the earth's crust that keeps the core molten then, right?

you don't need oxygen to achieve high temperatures... I don't know about how it works in the core tho

the accepted theory is that the earths core maintains its temp from radioactive decay.

And residual momentum. It's still hot from all the friction of formation.

so not all fire needs oxygen to burn? I'm confused.

Normal fire is a chemical rxn between molecules and atoms. Nuclear "burning" is the ripping of atoms(fission) or the joining of atoms (fusion).

The core has residual heat from formation of solar system/Earth and nuclear heat from radioactive isotope decay.

When folks say that the pile couldn't burn because there was no air, then they are denying things like atmospheric pressure and gas equilibrium. The pile was not solid. It smoked, therefore there was burning.

Makes you wonder why modern foundries have to use specific chemical techniques to raise temperature, when you can more or less smelt steel by accident.

Coke fuel further heats the flowing steel iron in a furnace, as the steel trickles down through it. Also helps add carbon. Edits: change steel/iron. Lime added to intentionally form slag and remove impurities.

But first you have to add coal. Not office paper and kerosene.

A furnace uses coke and forced air to heat and cycle quickly. The pile had weeks to accumulate heat and byproducts.

Forced air or coal vs weeks of time. You're making my argument and then claiming victory.

Not at all. I'm saying that coal and forced air are not necessary to melt steel; if you have heat, insulation and time. It should be noted that the "pools of metal" probably had plenty of other metals and slag from concrete, drywall, etc. edit: format error fixed

Ok I'm not going to just mock you for this. It sounds plausible: constant heat source, insulated to trap heat. Theoretically that might work. The problem is the heat source is oxygen starved. It doesn't really matter how big the smouldering mass is, it's not a hot fire. Now the presence of liquid metal is a problem. Arguing that over time it would just work is bizarre. I've tried melting steel and it's not an accident at all. You cannot do it in a bonfire. It took man kind thousands of years to progress from iron to brass to steel for a good reason. If anybody could just do it by accident the hostory of warfare would be very different.

The insulation on an art-studio cupola is only 6 inches or so of a clay/vermiculite type liner. The pile was several, insulating, stories deep. We all saw the smoke coming out of it; and, if there's smoke, there's oxygen (to coin a phrase). The pile obviously had oxygen that didn't come from a thermite source, or it would have extinguished. People forget that a subway tunnel ran down there, a few first responders survived in the stairwell and fires don't require that much room. Smoke emanating from the same place would mean that a fire(s) were venting through a consistent channel, which would continue heating up, burning any fuels in the "walls". Have you ever seen a chimney fire? Any soft metals in the "chimney" formed would melt and/or burn right away if ground to dust; and don't forget the paper, wood, carpets, etc. Edit: My point about the subway and other infrastructure is that the pile was pierced through with air sources, never mind oxygen from heat-decayed materials.

Wow, first steel framed building to collapse into a steel smelter. Another first!

The materials/processes he mentions do not even come close to accounting for the amount of VOCs measured at Ground Zero.

The presence of thermitic materials explains why the fires lasted for so many months, deep within the oxygen-poor pile, and why the fires were resistant to the extensive, but ineffective, efforts to extinguish them. In this scenario, the extreme levels of VOCs would be the result of the complete thermal degradation of all plastic materials in the thermitic (incendiary) fires. In normal structural fires with limited ventilation, plastic materials often burn incompletely.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

I keep telling people that it was a unique event.

If it was smoking, then it was aerated by whatever chaotic structure was in the pile; it wasn't a solid lump of concrete dust and steel.

Thermite couldn't possibly explain molten steel after 6 weeks - nothing could except for something actively feeding a lot of pretty high quality fuel into it. Which seems implausible. Steel is hard to get molten in the first place, must less keep it that way, and what would be the motive of pouring fuel in?

110 floors of insulation were compacted into roughly 5-10 storeys. Thermite that burned fresh as the towers came down could've retained its heat for months, although I would like to see an experiment of some sorts.

But now you're talking about truly enormous amounts of incendiaries - to keep things at steel-melting temps for more than a month...?

Truly enormous amounts, yes. Hundreds of tons, according to David Chandler. For a construction or elevator company, this would've been no problem.

What would even be the motive? If you're going to use explosives, why would you use a metric shitton instead of just a few well-placed ones? It's not like the usual demolition practices involves lugging barrels of TNT in...

How many tons of wood/plastic furniture were in the buildings?

How many tons of wood/plastic furniture were in the buildings?

Consider what fuels were actually in the pile: a) liquids from planes, bodies and cars, etc. b) ground up and mixed solids; wooden furniture, carpets, aluminum cans, magnesium fixtures, brittle iron, pvc pipes, paper...

why was there MOLTEN STEEL AT 9/11!

Probably because there was no "molten steel" despite you claiming there was? There was "something" hot and liquid, but zero evidence it was steel. It's typical of all these "arguments" that you brush aside something that doesn't confirm your bias, but believe wholeheartedly something with no evidence, because it DOES fit your bias.

Meanwhile, the United States government stood by as these attacks were being planned so they could launch their 7 country plan in the middle east, and we are STILL arguing about trite garbage.

From a number of videos and witness accounts, there weas a significant amount of molten metal. I have assumed the vast majority of the metal in the WTC was indeed structural steel and so those pools of molten metal were also steel. I did not do any tests to verify this, I believe the rubble was shipped to China conveniently.

Meanwhile, the United States government stood by as these attacks were being planned so they could launch their 7 country plan in the middle east, and we are STILL arguing about trite garbage.

Yes you're right, 9/11 is irrelevant compared to criminal acts committed by politicians out in the open.

That was molten aluminum used in the facade that is seen in the videos on 9/11 leaking out, not steel.

Molten aluminium doesn't have a bright red glow.

It certainly does with alloys and a high temperature. Not to mention the various other metals found in huge offices.

"Only 300° more than jet fuel!"

Where should that temp rise come from then? And how were beams hundreds of feet below effected?

I just didn't waste my time on the blacksmiths post.

Those people are what we call dumb cunts.

People who get "hung up" on a title or the name of a website are just thrashing in the dark looking for something to try and discredit the content. Since they don't have a shred of evidence to counter the truth, it's all they've got. It's petty, superficial BullShit.

at the end of the day, whats the main goal? To get this info into the minds of as many people as possible.

going about it this way, is going through the path of greatest resistance, because the title of this post was turned into a joke in an attempt to keep the idea from actually spreading.

people are very easy to manipulate. If your goal is to get them to take your idea seriously, you need to take into account the method of presentation. Facts alone are meaningless in this context, they have nothing to do with determining whether or not the idea will spread.

Paaattaaayyy!! PAAATaaaaayYYYYY!! come on girl EMMM.. you gotta take care in yo presentation if you want it to go viral and reach the most people. OnnNN my ownnnnn! howww could it end this waayyyyy!?

youre right, it doesnt dimish anything about the facts, But it does change how those facts are perceived by the public. This is a war of ideas were in. If you only concern yourself with facts, you will lose. You need to take into account human perception, and finding the easiest way for the idea to propagate.

The public has been "memetically inoculated" against this idea of jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams. So if you want the FACTS to spread, you need to go about it another way

This is a great example of a strawman arguement: set up a silly notion (jet fuel can't melt steel) and proceed to tear it down, while ignoring more realistic explanations. Thermite is not required to create pools of molten metal; the necessary ingredients of fuel, material, insulation and air were in the pile.

Prove what? You throw the word science around; here's another sciencey phrase for you "Occam's razor". In short: "Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

This block of text reinforces my "Occam's razor" post. Instead of a collapsing building on fire (post-plane crash), you are adding explosives and shill analysts. The bigger (sociological) question prompted by this carousel debate, may be "Why can't some people accept that bad foreigners were able to hurt us, badly?"

Disambiguation: This Your previous block of text reinforces ...

You, like most people who bring up Occam's Razor, don't understand Occam's Razor. You've left out the crucial clause: "of equal explanatory power".

NIST (and you) make assumptions about which structural members were damaged, how severely they were damaged, what temperatures the fires reached, etc. And still the final word from NIST is: "We are unable to provide a full explanation for the total collapse".

So you've made lots of assumptions and accomplished no explanatory power. And you think that this hypothesis is better than the singular assumption that the three rapid, total skyscraper failures on 9/11 were achieved by the same means as every other rapid, total skyscraper failure in history?

NIST (and you) make assumptions about which structural members were damaged, how severely they were damaged, what temperatures the fires reached, etc.

Brilliant point.

Hey, thank you!

4.1.3 Other Identified Core Columns "As none of the remaining columns [other than the portions of four out of 329 in the fire zones lol] were within the impact or fire floors, no further analysis was conducted as damage was assumed to be a result of the collapse and subsequent handling during recovery...the preceding forensic analysis does not, and cannot, give a full and accurate picture of the type and amount of impact damage sustained by the vast majority of core columns."

NC-STAR 1-3C 199-200

Says it all, doesn't it? I recommend downloading 1-3C and searching "vast majority". I would have copied more here, but the PDF from NIST is read-only so I can't copy and paste! Lol naturally, right?

Wow.... Hadn't read that before. Very interesting. And I will search the document for that key phrase. Thanks!

I understand Occam's razor in that it is not a tool to preclude other explanations, but it does limit the multiplying of factors. You're asserting that demolition is simpler than destruction. The number of people, logistics and time involved to (secretly) prepare a block of architecture for demo, rather than have a bunch of murderers crash into it, seems like an example of cognitive dissonance.

The difference is that one is an explanation based on historical precedent and consistent with the observed evidence, and the other isn't an explanation at all, just an appeal to incredulity.

I do wonder if 7 was pulled; but if so, as a reaction to the event. Destroying actual secrets in actual government offices. Edit: watching videos of the collapses seems to make BS of the whole "freefall" caterwauling. Shit is falling faster than the buildings.

?

If I must explain my confusion to your prior post: a) "pulled" is a slang for demolition, so is that impossible?, OR... is it impossible for WTC#7 to have been demolished, simply because it was in the wrong place at the wrong time? b) The mere fact that we are having this discussion means that 'freefall' is not "accepted as fact".

Fires, from aluminum planes, intentionally full of fuel, crashing into the world's tallest buildings could produce molten aluminum, free reactive sulfur, aluminum and iron soots. No thermite or special pleading required.

Or, you could hit it with a plane.

Or, you could hit it with a building or two, that you just hit with 2 planes. (Sorry. Fixed it.)

Or, you could hit it with a building or two

Just one. And pieces of one. Not an entire "building." Why exaggerate? And NIST states that this only (possibly - since they can't prove it) caused the fires. It did not help to initiate collapse. They also state that the building would have collapsed from a similar fire without the debris.

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?

The debris from WTC 1 caused structural damage to the southwest region of WTC 7—severing seven exterior columns—but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours. The debris impact caused no damage to the spray-applied fire-resistive material that was applied to the steel columns, girders, and beams except in the immediate vicinity of the severed columns. The debris impact damage did play a secondary role in the last stages of the collapse sequence, where the exterior façade buckled at the lower floors where the impact damage was located. A separate analysis showed that even without the structural damage due to debris impact, WTC 7 would have collapsed in fires similar to those that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001. None of the large pieces of debris from WTC 2 hit WTC 7 because of the large distance between the two buildings.

"Other than initiating the fires in WTC 7, the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse of WTC 7." NCSTAR 1A, p xxxii

Please fix again.

Again; I think that it is significant that WTC7 was full of secret shit. I think that it is entirely plausible that it was intentionally brought down to hide said secret shit. If so; then it would be as a result of the attack, rather than part of it. Fixed.

If so; then it would be as a result of the attack, rather than part of it. Fixed.

How so?

These ingredients you mention do not even come close to accounting for the amount of VOCs measured at Ground Zero.

The presence of thermitic materials explains why the fires lasted for so many months, deep within the oxygen-poor pile, and why the fires were resistant to the extensive, but ineffective, efforts to extinguish them. In this scenario, the extreme levels of VOCs would be the result of the complete thermal degradation of all plastic materials in the thermitic (incendiary) fires. In normal structural fires with limited ventilation, plastic materials often burn incompletely.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10669-008-9182-4

"The occurrence of such extreme, sharp spikes in VOCs in air at GZ indicate something other than the behavior of a typical structure fire. Oxygen influx as a result of shifting of materials within the pile might have created an increase in combustion of material in localized areas. But these spikes in VOCs, at levels thousands of times higher than seen in other structure fires, suggest extremely violent but short-lived fire events. Probably the most striking spike in toxic air emissions, found in EPA monitoring data, occurred on 9th February, 2002. Note (Table 1 ) that this was nearly 5 months after 9/11, and after nearly all the debris had been cleared from GZ. In fact, the levels of some species, like toluene and styrene, were some of the highest observed at the site. But the levels of benzene and propylene detected on that day were far above previous measurements, at 610,000 and 990,000 ppb, respectively. Other VOCs were measured at their peak levels on this date, including 1,3-butadiene at 400,000 ppb." "EPA also monitored very fine particulate matter (PM) and other sizes of PM. PM is probably the most reliable indicator for the activity of structure fires, as such fires are generally known to burn incompletely, and produce PM that drifts up and outward from the source. EPA data from the West Broadway sampling site, the location closest to GZ where PM was monitored, show the following trend in very fine PM (PM 2.5 , or all particles \ 2.5 l m) in October and November 2001 (Fig. 4 ). These data show that the peaks in levels of very fine PM near GZ correspond to different dates than the peaks for the previously discussed combustion products. The five stron- gest peaks in PM 2.5 levels are centered on 23th, 26th September, and 3rd, 10th, 20th October, closer in time to the events of 9/11. None of these dates correspond to the dates of five peaks in VOCs noted above. Additionally, it is clear that the levels of PM 2.5 emissions rose more gradu- ally, and died down more gradually, indicating slower fire dynamics as might be expected from the burning of the organic materials previously thought to exist in the WTC. These data suggest that the greatest level of fire activity, associated solely with the typical fuel sources expected in the WTC, was completed by the third week of October. That is, the materials expected to burn (incompletely) in a structure fire, producing PM, were largely burned off by mid- to late-October. Therefore, the extreme spikes in air concentrations of the five VOCs noted above, particularly on 3rd, 8th November, and 9th February, point not to other sources of typical combustible materials but to other forms of com- bustion. Such forms of combustion appear to be violent and short-lived, and thus similar to the effects of energetic materials, like thermite"

A house fire burns incompletely because it is fast. VOC's may have had time to accumulate from smoldering patches. Shifting, settling debris opens pockets of combustion-product vapours and the sensors light up.

This theory doesn't work as the VOC spikes do not match the PM.

Additionally, the paper points to a comparison in which 400 tons of plastic was burned for three days. The strongest benzene reading was 26ppb. This is compared to 660,000ppb at GZ.

You have to read more than just the portion that I put in bold for you.

Great point. Information age neutralization.

because it is a joke, and so are all you truthers who keep yammering on and on about what temp jet fuel burns at.

steel gets extremely soft/weak at the same temps jet fuel burns at, add to that the fact that this fire was 100 stories up in the clear wind (driving fresh oxygen into the fire like a blast furnace) and you get an intense fire more than capable of weakening the damaged area of the towers to the point that they fail.

the meme is a joke because you people are a joke.

get over it.

get a job.

And this is the exact reaction that a public inoculated by this meme responds with.

The REAL issue, is how there was molten steel in the rubble, for 3 months after 9/11. An environment without enough oxygen to support such a reaction naturally.

But no, the public was vaxinated against this concept with "steel beams dont melt dank memes" jokes.

show me pictures and proof of "molten steel" at ground zero.

not just what alex or jessie told you to believe, and you believed... but i want pictures/video/testing of the pool of metal and i want to see it be comprised of said "steel" not aluminum, or lead, or copper, or any of the other metals found in a building with much lower melting temps...

show me the evidence.

you can't, because it doesn't exist.

get over it.

get a job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zww9-AaIgrw

This isnt a controversial concept. its accepted fact at this point.

/u/st1y_wan_kenobi reply back to this please

he wont be able to reply without making an illuminati confirmed joke. Because thats all he has.

i see /u/st1y_wan_kenobi replying to other things though come on dude.. reply

it would be nice if a sub who seems obsessed with "censorship" and "freedom of speech" would stop suppressing/censoring anyone who stops by with an opinion that doesn't fall in line with the hivemind here.

kinda hard to have a debate here when you can only respond every 10 minutes... and then people like you come by acting like i have nothing more to say because i'm being censored...

No one is censoring/suppressing you, in fact i'm encouraging you to come make your claim because I enjoy reading multiple points of views. If you want to get your panties up in a bunch because i'm asking you to reply then go back and look for your safe space as no one has said anything to you in a bad manner except yourself wanting to believe you're being suppressed/censored.

then why after my first comment does everything i try to type say "you must wait 10 minutes"...

oh thats right... because the mods here have it set up so that if someone makes posts that get multiple downvotes... they get "throttled"

ask a mod, it's common practice to prevent spamming.

downside is, in a hivemind circlejerk sub like this one, anyone who doesn't suck truther dick can only reply every 10 minutes...

that is called censoring, i don't need your moms vagina or any of my other other favorite safe places to tell me that.

Are you a subscriber to this subreddit? I experience that problem on multiple subreddits where i'm not a subscriber... no one is sensoring you... just the way shit works on reddit. what a cunt

it's when you get lots of downvotes, it's something that can be tweaked within the sub by the mods.

the first few posts here were no problem, after that, with all the little lemmings downvoting, the sub puts a 10 min block on you.

Only by granting approved submitter status. Otherwise, they can't change it.

crickets...

in the first 30 seconds of your stupid video your entire theory is debunked... all those cars, all the other softer metal in the buildings, all of that melts at much lower temps than structural steel...

you people are so convinced of your stupid theories that you ignore the evidence right in front of you.

if youd watch more than 30 sec in, youd see testimony from fire fighters and others on the scene of the contrary.

Im not going to argue whether or not there was molten steel in the rubble with you, its already been shown. If you want to discuss the implications of this however, im all ears.

because those firefighters took samples to a lab to find out that it was structural steel and not aluminum and tin and led and copper and all the other tons and tons of softer metals that were in the buildings and the parking garages.

it hasn't been shown, ever, and you just failed to prove anything other than your willingness to ignore clear evidence.

lol, how is it outlandish? have you ever blown air at a fire? like with a set of bellows (or for even more fun, a leaf blower)? that's just how fire works MENSA, it's not a theory, it's reality.

but hey for starters... where's the molten metal? show me pictures/video of the molten metal pools that alex and jessie like to yammer on and on about.

secondly... if there were/are pools of molten metal... show me the lab studies where it comes back as structural steel and not lead/tin/aluminum/zinc that just about every metallic object on every floor of both buildings were made of.

oh you can't do that? of course you can't you simpleton... because all your theories based on giant pools of molten steel are complete bullshit and always have been.

just because alex and jessie tell you something, doesn't mean it's true. start thinking for yourself. there are so many valid things to question here so when you lot get all hung up on such stupid insignificant minutia it makes you all look full on retarded.

just drop it, you're wrong.

get over it.

get a job.

I think this debunks all this rather nicely:

http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

And here are some more sources for you to peruse:

https://youtu.be/jZ9wSD4Hcys

https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-iron-microspheres-in-9-11-wtc-dust-as-evidence-for-thermite.t2523/

And one from an explosive expert/first responder:

http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html?showComment=1240395840000#c6101665985354960506

Good quote from that last one:

"No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue. Not one."

Was probably pretty hard to get those dogs in on the conspiracy.

Oh, also, you would need a shit-ton of thermite to bring down those buildings. How did they sneak that in?

"Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

"Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum."

Source: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Oh, I like this one too. It shoots down one of your bullshit papers:

"Also, the article’s reference to “Danish Chemists” is misleading. Here's the actual article itself; published again at the Bentham Open Journals, a vanity publishing outfit based in... wait for it... Pakistan. http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Notice who the authors are… Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, STEVEN E JONES, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen. ("truthers" all)

This is a rehash of Jones’ thermite theory that has been completely debunked already, and every one of the "authors" are members of various conspiracy groups and have had previous theories shot down in flames.

Google the names. While the OP tries to imply that this "group of chemists" are an independent study group, they are not.

The publisher is a pay to play vanity journal. (Open Chemical Physics Journal is the same company) The only condition you must meet to publish in it is to send in your check. The owners of the journal cannot even provide a who-is of the peer reviewers. (“peer review itself is just the first step in authentication anyway). They are not even aware of the content they allow to be published. They just cash the checks. It’s a boiler room operation out of Pakistan. Jones himself has already been caught manipulating data to fit his “theory”. For example…

In Steven Jones' PDF "Answers to Objections and Questions", to support his claim for Sol-gels/Thermite he states: "One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," However when you look at the link he uses http://www.newsday.com/news/health/n...age-right-area You find out Mr. Jones edits out the VERY next line which states "He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers." Apparently, Jones felt this was not important enough for his readers to know. This just one of the deceptions he used, including photos and false claims about thermite “devices” that didn’t exist then, and still don’t.

He seems to be being a bit more careful here, calling the substance “thermitic material” which means simply, any substance that burns… Then his group goes into fantasy land about “Nanotechnologically produced “super-thermite”, a substance that only exists in theoretical research and his imagination. In fact, although a patent was issued in the late 90's for "nanothermite" full research on manufacturing and developing true nanothermite only began in 2008 under a program being funded by the DOD. Jones willingly confuses nano thermitic materials, used to enhance explosive reaction, and "nanothermite".

Here is the spectrographic signature for both military (top) and commercial thermite…

Element Weight % Atomic % Carbon 5.18% 15.34% Aluminum 24.78% 32.66% Titanium 70.04% 52.00%

Element Weight % Atomic % Carbon 5.13% 15.33% Aluminum 23.50% 31.23% Titanium 71.37% 53.44%

Below is a composite of the spectra from page 8 of Dr. Jones paper for the red dust and the spectra for thermite. http://www.amazingrust.com/Experimen...mite_EDAX.html

The spectra for thermite extends only to 5 keV. Perhaps Dr. Jones is talking another, imaginary flavor of thermite, but he is using the elements found in thermite as he stated in the OP.

I would think a more reasonable hypothesis is that the trace amount of titanium observed in the samples came from another source. I'm sure among the computers and other office equipment in the WTC, titanium was present somewhere.

Or maybe from here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanium Quote: "Titanium commercial aerospace requirements (including engine components such as blades, discs, rings and engine cases as well as airframe components including bulkheads, tail sections, landing gear, wing supports and fasteners) can account for a substantial proportion of the mass of modern aircraft, for example:

The four engines alone on the Airbus A380 use about 26 metric tons (57,000 pounds) of titaniumBoeing (including both the airframes and engines)

B787 – 134 metric tons (295,000 lb) of titanium B777 – 59 metric tons (130,000 lb) of titanium B747 – 45 metric tons (99,000 lb) of titanium B737 – 18 metric tons (40,000 lb) of titanium"

The "red chips" are iron oxide, commonly known as rust, as has been shown in several other studies. There is nothing new in this "study", just an attempt to try another angle. After being laughed at for his "angle cuts" and imaginary "bundling devices" as well as his use of misleading photos he now is coming back with a new "find" that has been known about for years."

Source: http://ronmossad.blogspot.com/2009/04/final-word-on-niels-harrit-nanothermite.html?showComment=1240395840000#c6101665985354960506

Lol...you're trying to argue that there was no thermite or explosives necessary to bring down those buildings...and then the basic premise of your argument is "you would need a shit-ton of thermite to bring down those buildings."

Lol you are so smrt

No, my basic argument is the thermite argument is full of shit because the amount of thermite needed precludes it from even being a possibility. How would they reasonably had that amount of thermite placed without one person noticing?

I explained to you that your argument refutes itself, but you haven't understood. So...Would it take a shit-ton of thermite/explosives to knock the buildings down, or not?

An ungodly amount that would have taken weeks to place and set up. With no one noticing. In Manhattan. In a building patrolled by explosive sniffing K9s. So, hypothetically, yes you could. Realistically? No way in hell.

If that's true, that it would require "an ungodly amount" of thermite/explosives and weeks of preparation, then clearly the idea that they collapsed without thermite/explosives is utterly preposterous, right?

No. They were hit by two jetliners filled with fuel. I'd say (and remember seeing on TV) that caused a pretty big explosion.

Yeah, and I remember seeing them blow up into smithereens. So you're saying that making them blow up like that after the planes hit would take ungodly amounts of thermite/explosives, but it would do exactly the same thing without the ungodly amounts of thermite/explosives?

For this very reason, blowing atmospheric gases used in breathing by humans, is still not going to get a jet fueled office fires to be able to melt steel

you're right, thats why bellows were invented and used for hundreds and hundreds of years in foundries... because they don't work.

also your copypasta of truther bullshit about demolitions is tired old hat... it's all been debunked.

WTC towers were not "typical buildings" and the attacks on them were not "typical structure fires"

the collapse was not due to only the fires themselves, the building became susceptible to fire induced collapse beacuse of the damage inflicted by the impact of the planes.

those towers were designed to fall straight down

they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller plane, flying at much slower speeds, low on fuel, lost in the fog looking to land (designed this way due to the bomber that flew into the empire state building).

they were not however designed to withstand the impact of much larger planes, flying at maximum speeds, fully loaded with fuel.

your little chart full of truther nonsense doesn't mean jack shit in this situation.

planes smashed into the buildings and damaged huge sections of the structure. fire then weakened those damaged areas until they could no longer support the weight of the building above them. this is proven by the fact that the second building hit was the first to fall... because it was hit lower on the tower and therefore the damaged area had more weight to support.

the fact is these buildings did exactly what they were supposed to do. they survived the impact, and held until the fire cooked the remaining supports of the damaged area to the point it could no longer carry the load. as soon as that tipping point was reached... the tops of the towers fall through the damaged areas of the towers into the undamaged areas below ripping them apart from the inside out.

again... how they were designed to fail.

HAHAHAH Source me where bellows can heat iron to the point that it flowed as a liquid, outside of a blast furnace

wow you really are a quite full of yourself aren't you... i never said anything close to that... i said the fires were bad... i'm the one saying there wasn't molten steel... you guys are the geniuses claiming there were olympic sized swimming pools full of molten steel under the rubble pile.

I am glad you disagree with the US governments conspiracy theory.

perhaps you're just far to stupid to actually understand reality here, the reality that the government is referencing when they say fire caused the collapse. see, if it was just the damage, the buildings would have fallen shortly after the original impacts... it was the fires cooking the damaged areas... which is exactly what "the government" and everyone who knows what in the fuck they are talking about has been saying for 15 years now.

Source this is even a thing in steel framed skyscrapers, outside of controlled demolitions

so you want me to "source" other examples of fully loaded jetliners slamming at catastrophic speeds into the sides of 2 of the largest buildings on the planet... and then collapsing...

other than the only time it actually happened

...yeah go fuck yourself without your strawman trash.

No aircraft hit WTC7, thus invalidation your whole argument. kek

hey dumbfuck... no plane hit 7... but guess what did? the debris from 2 of the largest buildings on the planet crashing down a few hundred feet away.

which caused massive damage to the side of 7

which then also set 7 on fire in multiple places throughout the damaged area.

which caused the exact same massive damage + fire = collapse that logic and common sense and physics, and gravity... should make obvious to you.

but then again you are here... defending truthtard bullshit... so how much logic or common sense could you possibly have?

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners

again... you stupid fuck...

the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of smaller planes, flying at much lower speeds lost in the fog looking to land and low on fuel...

they were not designed to withstand much larger planes, flying at much faster speeds, fully loaded with fuel, being rammed into them on purpose.

... you're dumb bro, stop with the bullshit.

you've been wrekt again and again just crawl back in your truther hole and die you fucking shut-in looser.

so completely wrong again... you suck at this... i'm not wasting my time with you anymore... you literally just said no plane hit the towers... you are quite clearly a crazy person so i won't be talking to you anymore.

you're crazy, you just said no planes hit the towers... why the fuck would i keep talking to you, and how in the fuck could you possibly think you've "won" anything?

there are dozens of video's and hundreds of pictures showing clear evidence for planes at the towers and at the pentagon... there is no video or pictures of molten steel...

yet here you are saying there were no planes and molten steel?

and you "won"

lol...

you're a delusional fuckbag.

(this is all saved btw)

save it, write it down, take a picture... I DON'T GIVE A FUUUUUCK

go fuck your mother, everyone else in the neighborhood already does so you might as well get in line.

Fantastic post! Informative and exhaustive. But I must say the reason you aren't getting any attention is that title. I bet people aren't even looking at it because of that. If I were you I might delete and repost this with an updated title

Yeah I know the phrase is technically true, but it's so overused and ran into the ground that it immediately puts a bad taste in the reader's mouth. I'm not good at making titles, I'm just saying that with this one it's going to be overlooked

Yeah I just mean moreso than it would otherwise.

I can't stress enough though, this is a great post. I'll be linking it to people when the topic comes up

At the end of the day, none of this matters.

Bottom line, we knew it was going to happen, had the means to stop it, Israel knew it was going down, warned their citizens via their anti terror text alert system (sounds so Dwight Schrute esque), had agents here video taping it (oft referred to as the dancing israelis). We turned around invaded the wrong country, spent over a decade trying to get Osama, finally "got him" at the expense of many many lives and tons and tons of crippling debt.

We could've prevented all of this. Instead elements within our government were either criminally negligent or complicit in these crimes. I doubt they'll ever pay for it, but a man can dream...

Something i never hear about which would help in the cover up. Aluminum burns at pretty high temperatures plane was made out of aluminum. Still doesnt explain freefall, bld 7, pentagon rocket, insider trading ect ect.

WTC7 makes this whole thing moot anyway. No jet fuel, no plane crash, same result. It's obvious demolition but no one really cares.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzF1KySHmUA

EVERYONE WATCH THIS VIDEO YOU IDIOTS

Im from Texas and i will say this; The explosions, burns and melted steel look very similar to what thermite does. believe it or not, we use it to hunt invasive hogs and javelinas. You put the thermite in a steel container and surround it with sour corn mash. The hogs come in and shoot a round into the container and boomshakalaka. Whenever i see the damage and videos, i immediately think of a Thermite explosion. Im not expert though, just a guy who has witnessed it. Also, i know that police/military use thermite shotgun rounds to disable engine blocks. Thermite cuts through steel like butter.

I might be thinking of Tannerite, which can be bought. Thermite is hard to get i think.

thermite isn't "hard to get", you just have to be smart enough to google the ratio (8:3 BTW) of the 2 primary ingredients then google where to buy them.

iron oxide (rust) and powdered aluminum are everywhere if you know where to look. any pyrotechnics hobby club in america can point you in the right direction, we use both of these chemicals all the time... drums of them.

people tend to think thermite is just some crazy exotic high explosive because people that truther types prostrate to make it seem so mystical and magical... it's not... it's 2 very common elements mixed in a way to produce an exothermic reaction.

this is also very important to remember when these truther snake oil salesmen try to tell you how important it is that they found "evidence of thermite" at the ground zero...

"evidence of thermite" is at the scene of just about every fire in the country... aluminum, iron, sulfur... all things found in just about every structure fire ever.

youre ignoring the most important part though. it wasn't regular thermite found, it was NANOthermite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

To get the particles that size, more advanced techniques are needed than just mixing 2 ingredients.

LOL

why because alex and jessie told you so? you people will believe anything. show me the proof of super duper shape-shifting lizard people miracle thermite...

all you have is aluminum, rust, and sulfur... which is in every structure fire ever.

if you do have smaller than averaged sized particles in the rubble here it might... just might have something to do with 2 of the largest buildings in the world crashing down onto shit and pulverizing it.

super duper shape-shifting lizard people

Since this sub has been around I have seen very little post promoting this subject matter, ever. But since you went there, please enlighten us.

I appreciate your strawman concept here. regardless of the obtainability or science behind thermite, its far from the purpose of the original post. Looking back, i was thinking of Tannerite. It explodes big and heavy, Thermite just burns hot. An open container of Tannerite can level and entire house size structure.

lol, yeah ok...

first of all it would depend on the size of said container, secondly it would depend on the size of the house... and if there were any doors/windows open.

tannerite has been around for years, it's also a very simple composition of a few basic chemicals but i won't even post the ratio's for that one here... you people are far to gone to provide that sort of info to and not feel uneasy about it...

Lol, you might be right. I have seen a Folgers sized coffee can of Tannerite used to level a barn, but honestly the barn was probably 60+ years old.

tannerite is a hell of a lot of fun, as are any impact sensitive binary based exploding targets. but it's not HE by any means... it's nothing compared to PETN or other HE compositions.

I'm curious how being from Texas qualifies you to understand explosions?

Never said it was. What makes you qualified to use Ad Hominem Fallacies?

So why bother mentioning you're from Texas? Should we care where you're from?

more Ad Hominem BS, no you shouldn't, but the state allows us to use Tannerite for personal uses. Some states don't. You can keep attacking the person, like a moron, but it doesn't make your ignorance less noticeable. I see a lot of posts like "why do people troll us, etc". This is the exact reason. I guess when you talk about conspiracy long enough, you eventually think you are important enough to be personalized on by someone. Its called "The Fantasy of Uniqueness" and its a literal psychosis.

I guess I will quietly sit back and let someone who doesn't understand proper punctuation and sentence structure defend a jackass homophone because this is the internet, your home. Enjoy the pile of shit you're making for yourself douche bag.

yep. I will enjoy it. Your tears feed my dark soul. Speaking of which, its a place for discussion, not logical fallacy attacks. It seems that you confuse the two. You attack my punctuation instead of my argument. That my doucheapottamus friend, is the definition of Trolldom. Go back under the bridge in your mom's basement.

At work, so can't write a more personal reply, but this seems to cover most of it.

http://911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

Sorry bout that. I hate just posting a single link and going "hur hur, read this 20 page website, your answer is probably in there" but wanted it out there.

If you read it, it doesn't offer much information. "Conclusion: who knows?"

That appears to be the same conclusion of this reddit submission.

And my post offers explanations near the bottom of the page

I'm pretty sure you're incorrect, but hard to demonstrate while on this phone.

A large part of the page goes into explain molten metal that was seen pouring out of Windows on higher levels. That is a different thing than what your post was about.

They talk about the molten metal you are referring to further down.

I certainly hope I don't seem either of anti-science or like I'm not diggin' the fact that Bill Nye-types like you get it and spread the word to dummies like me who (the shame of it) believed the gubmint, but I snuck in to an Elton John concert in the early seventies and heard Rocket Man: "And all of science I don't understand, it's just my job five days a week..." Keep on truckin truthin...Edit: The buildings were demolished, as the archived videos clearly show. I'm done with trying to "science the shit out of it", but I'm glad someone's detailing it.

a fire needs oxygen to burn. A kiln has an oxygen source. Fires cant burn trapped at the bottom of a pile of rubble.

Except Thermite (and other exothermic reactions) can. Because thermite creates its own oxygen thats needed to burn. This is why theyre so reluctant to acknowledge the molten metal in the ruble, because its physically impossible without an oxygen source.

Thermite couldn't possibly explain molten steel after 6 weeks - nothing could except for something actively feeding a lot of pretty high quality fuel into it. Which seems implausible. Steel is hard to get molten in the first place, must less keep it that way, and what would be the motive of pouring fuel in?

Or, you could hit it with a plane.

I explained to you that your argument refutes itself, but you haven't understood. So...Would it take a shit-ton of thermite/explosives to knock the buildings down, or not?

I guess I will quietly sit back and let someone who doesn't understand proper punctuation and sentence structure defend a jackass homophone because this is the internet, your home. Enjoy the pile of shit you're making for yourself douche bag.