This entire thermite theory puzzles me ...

Accepting for a moment that thermite was used to bring down the towers, I would not expect to see what many here consider proof that thermite was used. Perhaps it is simply a matter of not understanding how the thermite would be used. This is how I think it would be done:

1. Thermite cutting charges would be used to cut the 47 core columns (just the core columns as there would be no visible evidence to be recorded). Just 47 charges at the base of each column would be used to simplify the task and reduce the risk of exposure, but for the sake of argument I will accept charges on however many floors you desire.

2. The thermite cutting charges would sever the columns by burning a narrow strip of steel. I have a mental image of a cut similar to one made by a big laser or cutting torch - maybe 3 or four inches thick.

3. Each cut would produce at most a gallon or two of molten metal - we are not talking a large volume of steel being melted.

4. Thermite reactions are explosive reactions - the molten metal from the cuts would be dispersed in all directions - it would not collect or pool. As the towers collapsed, this molten metal would be further dispersed as it was violently mixed with the other debris.

5. All the thermite would be consumed before the towers finished collapsing - there would be no thermite reactions in the rubble pile.

So how can thermite create high temperatures in the rubble pile when it was all consumed cutting the columns? How can there be pools of molten steel when it was first explosively dispersed and then mixed in the chaos of the collapse?

And the biggest question would be why you would need thermite in the first place? What advantage does it have over high explosives? And if it is better than high explosives, why don't commercial demo companies use it?

The only help I can offer is the observation that perhaps
exposives and thermite were used together for fail-safe
redundancy. Explosives in case the thermite crew screwed
up; thermate in case the explosives crew screwed up.

For Bushcists planting explosives, discovery of a dud
would be a disaster. For al Qaeda planting the
explosives it would only be another failed try.

how does that explain the large volume of molten metal weeks after the collapse?

in the elevator shafts, I suppose it pooled at the bottom as each shaft.
It would have been interesting to take the pile apart in a sicntific manner,
photographing and logging each piece of steel (every one was stamped with an
ID number).

Failure to take the opportunity to investigate this unique occurrance is a
scientific crime.

You use the thermite to make the cuts and the explosives to create enuf laterally movement so that the part above the cut slips off the lower part.

can you provide a single document case of thermite being used in a building demo?

There is no need for thermite - with HE cutting charges you either make the cut with a downward angle or use a second HE "kicker" charge.

A huge problem with thermite that everyone conveniently overlooks is that it is extremely hard to ignite - it requires a very high temperature to react. That is why burning magnesium is commonly used to ignite thermite. You cannot use det cord like you would for HE. I can find no evidence that there is a detonation system available that would allow you to set off multiple thermite charges at the same time.

Using thermite needlessly complicates your demo preparations without providing any advantage over high explosives alone.

In addition to cutting the core columns they had to blow apart the floor assemblies, the core cross bracing, the perimeter columns, the hat trusses, and everything else that was holding the buildings together, or they wouldn't have conveniently disintegrated.

and how was thermite detonated?

And while you are at it, show me a single instance of thermite being used to demolish a building. History shows that high explosives work just fine - are you arguing that without thermite the towers would have remained standing?

and get back to me if you still have questions.

is that what you are referring to?

And I guess you have no answers to my questions - what a shock! When in a tough spot evade!

one carefully "guesses" and "supposes" in order to have plausible deniability later even while importing other issues and made up theories in each post in an effort to detract and distract from your legitimate questions and to lend further false "credibility" to her suppositions and guesses which come straight from the CTer play sheet; the other feigns non-existent knowledge while wholly evading your questions.

Talking Heads lyrics leap to mind: "same as it ever was... same as it ever was..."

but some of us know what we're talking about.

p.s. the ones who don't aren't hard to spot.

It is, indeed, apparent that there are some posters here who know what they are talking about. Funny, but most of them are people to whom you consistently post non-answers, deflections, nonsensical responses, and lame insults ~ all of which are very easy to spot, indeed.

any more than you are. Anyway his "questions" have been addressed repeatedly, and not just in this thread.

You just can't answer them.

And you never have.

To me, Jones' thermite supposition is as much of a wild ass guess as NIST's favored collapse initiation theory.

Neither of these speculative theories currently appear to be based on any hard, physical evidence.

Jones claims he has a sample of the once-molten steel.

The FEMA Appendix C report had samples of partially evaporated steel
from both the towers and WTC7.

The stream of molten metal pouring out of WTC2 is also evidence of
thermite. Official apologists are forced to assert that the yellow
metal is superheated aluminum or that airplane aluminum mixed with
structural steel to form thermite on the spot.

Jones has pictures of the molten steel, but somehow the investigators
didn't think to preserve any of it, or document it.

The physical evidence has been destroyed, the researchers' site access
was severely restricted, and the blueprints are a secret.

But currently that's all it is, IMHO.

otherwise been available (proof of the weakened steel theory or the CD theory)
is not available.

The fact is, NIST's report and FEMA's reports are nothing but indecent guesses.
NIST's mechanism completely contradicts FEMA's. NIST basically brought unlimited
resources to the question of "what evidence would be needed to prove that the fires
brought down the towers" and then they pretend that evidence exists when it doesn't.

Only the CD hypothesis explains the molten metal, the pulverization of concrete,
the squibs, and the sulfidation attack on the steel.

Only CD and FEMA's discredited pancake theory explain the total progressive collapse.
Of course building 7's total progressive collapse is yet to be explained.

that the molten metal from WTC2 is proof of thermite.

Due to the open floor plan, there were only two sources of steel to melt - the core columns and the perimeter wall.

It could not be the core columns as the molten steel would flow down the elevator shafts and stairwells. It is hard to imagine melting enough steel for it to flow 50 to 60 feet and pour out of the building. Additionally, if the core columns were cut, the building would be collapsing and the floors would be tilting inwards as the falling core dragged them down. I don't think steel flows uphill.

It could not be the perimeter walls simply because there is no massive hole where the steel was melted. The wall is made of steel yet it is mostly intact so how could it have been melted? Show me the hole where the wall melted.

Additionally, if it was proof of thermite, why did none of the hundreds of other charges act the same way?

The only other source of metal to be melted was the plane.

if the core columns were cut, the building would be collapsing and the
floors would be tilting inwards

The structure was highly redundant, and so core had to be weakened
before the collapse was initiated.

molten steel would flow down the elevator shafts

The elevator shafts were interrupted at the sky lobby level, and I imagine
for fire control purposes they were sealed at the bottom there. Draining
them to the basement would then require drilling holes through this fireblock.

It is hard to imagine melting enough steel for it to flow 50 to 60
feet and pour out of the building.

It's not just the columns that had to be cut, but also the extensive cross
bracing. It wouldn't do for a big cross-braced section of core to get
photographed on the pile. That would look too wierd. It had to be cut into
tiny little pieces. This is a symbol of the delicate nature of civilization
we're talking about here. That meant a lot of metal to be melted.

why did none of the hundreds of other charges act the same way?

Maybe the plan was for the metal to flow down the elevator shafts into the
basement, and some of the drain holes built for this purpose were plugged up
by debris. Drywall plugged up the stairwells in the impact area, and may
well have plugged some of the drain holes at the sky lobby level.

that it becomes unworkable? You must admit that there are much simpler and more reliable methods to demolish the WTCs.

Like what? Flying airplanes into them?

I am simply trying to explain the otherwise inexplicable.

How did airplanes reduce the towers to dust, as DoYouEverWonder so astutely asked?

I don't have to propose a comprehensive theory of everything. I just need to
poke holes in the official answers and ask for a new investigation.

You have the WTC laced with a complex mix of high explosives and thermite, using techniques that have never been used before. Why all that when it is obvious to all that 47 charges at the base of the core columns was all that was necessary to cause the collapse.

Who is going to conduct your investigation when so many agencies and universities have been implicated in the cover up? Who is left that has that kind of expertise and credibility?

They would have left obvious evidence at the bottom of the pile. Ultimately
that's why I can't believe that angle-cut post was part of the demolition.
It would have been too dumb to leave evidence like that.

Who is going to conduct your investigation

How about a blue-ribbon commission of experts and public personages from
around the world? Philosophers, engineers, and scientists of demonstrated
integrity. Not the bunch of craven political hacks who did the 9/11 Commission
report.

NIST fire safety engineers? Any university labs affiliated with NIST? Can anyone who supports the official story be considered having the appropriate integrity?

How do you keep politics out of an international group? We are not popular in the world - why are we to assume that it would be an impartial group and they don't see it as an opportunity to punish Bush?

Would the government get to appoint members to this group?


As to your comment:



Are you saying there is no obvious evidence at all in the pile? You are starting to glimpse the truth I see!

You could also have Rudy G. be the head of the group. After all, he's a connected guy. Remember the book that came out about his connections? 9/11 came in just the nick of time to take that unpleasant material out of the news.

and how would you ensure that the American public viewed it as fair and unbiased?

There isn't any more. In case you've forgotten, the obvious evidence
has been shipped off to China and India, and to mafia-controlled scrap
yards, despite protest from experts and family members. Firemen
rioted at Ground Zero, protesting the scoop-and-dump cleanup.

The only acceptable investigation would have been to have experts on the
site as the pile was deconstructed, photographing and logging every piece
of debris as it came off the pile and setting aside pieces of interest.

Instead, ASCE was basically excluded from the site. Any investigation that
fails to acknowledge the criminal nature of the destruction of evidence
can not be credible. The MIT hacks and the NIST hacks and the ASCE hacks
that failed to protest this are not to be trusted.

what really happened at the WTC? Without physical evidence how will your international blue ribbon panel figure out what happened? You have proven that computer modeling is not good enough so what other methods are there?

I have proven no such thing. NIST's computer modeling with the "realistic"
parameters did not generate a collapse, so they just kept amplifying the
parameters until it did. NIST truncated its analysis in space and in time.

NIST's floor sag tests and its workstation fire tests were fudged. Even so,
the floor sag test did not generate the desired result (a 42-inch sag) and
they ignored that fact. The metallurgical analysis did not support their
results and they ignored that too.

The fact that NIST engages in Bush Science doesn't invalidate science.

have the expertise to do it "right"?

NIST fire safety engineers? Now that is partisan!

that NIST does all the research that is used to write US fire safety codes? Their professionalism has never been questioned.

They are the premier fire research organization in the country - they are not a partisan organization just because they don't support you CT d'jour.


http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/guide/fire_loss.htm

I'm not a big fan of the thermite theory, seems way too hard to put enough of it everywhere you would need it and too labor intensive, to bring down the buildings.

I do think that weapons were used. However, I think that whatever they used, they only needed 1 - 4 per building and they used the elevators to place them where they would get the desired result of causing total failure.

Is the thermite theory a strawman to discredit the CTers and to distract from the evidence that real weapons were used?

What about the alleged evidence of sulfur residue?

and this..




office fires don't melt steel into pools.

Good Grief.

there were hot spots that burned for months afterwards.

since the thermite was consumed in seconds as it explosively generated the necessary heat to cut thick steel.

Or do you evidence of slow burning thermite you care to share with us?

but it's not a yellow tarp.

there were plenty of consumables in the building - judging from the picture, it was taken shortly after the collapse so it wouldn't be surprising to find fires in the debris.

I could not have picked a better picture than the bottom one to show how thermite could not have created pools of molten steel. Look at that nice clean cut just like I describe in step 2 of my original post. Then look at the remainder of the column - nice and straight with absolutely no sign of melting or warping due to high temperatures.

Since thermite didn't melt this column and you consider it proof of thermite, can you explain why this column was not melted into a pool of molten metal?

Don't you also agree with me that the thermite would have been all burned up quickly and that it was impossible for there to be thermite in the rubble pile? Or do you think thermite is a slow burning, none explosive substance?

in action, and you'll see that it wouldn't warp and bend the surrounding the steel.. it would just melt through its predetermined path at a very fast pace. The hot spot in the picture could just be part of the aftermath of the mess left after the collapse. If thermite was used, lots had to - thus lots of its byproduct had to remain in the rubble. The heat was from the molten iron, which is the main byproduct of a thermite/thermate.

The angle on the top of that steel column (in the top picture), only bolsters the thermite/thermate theory. If you were to cut the columns with this process, you would probably need to do it at an angle as so the top of newly cut steel "piece" wouldn't just drop on top of the bottom half, but slide off.

not only was not much molten steel produced, but it was widely scattered in the initial explosion and subsequent collapse.

And what kept it so hot in the rubble pile for so long? That steel would have started cooling immediately. What was the source of heat that kept it molten for so long? It could not have been thermite.

What evidence do you have that column was not cut during the post 9/11 clean up. There were hundreds of ironworkers using cutting torches to clean up that mess.

And what kept it so hot in the rubble pile for so long? That steel would have started cooling immediately. What was the source of heat that kept it molten for so long? It could not have been thermite

Thermites byproduct is 2000 degree molten iron. Kept under a pile of rubble, it WILL stay hot for weeks. And fyi, lots of it is created by a thermite reaction.


What evidence do you have that column was not cut during the post 9/11 clean up. There were hundreds of ironworkers using cutting torches to clean up that mess.

I don't. I don't claim to know 100%. I am simply pointing out that a clean 45 degree cut on a major column bolsters the thermite/thermate theory. Just as the molten metal found in the rubble does as well.

In contrast, the official theory doesn't explain the molten metal or anything else properly. Just one of a hundred other reasons to have an official, independent re-investigation opened.

How many cuts were made in the columns?

How much molten steel does each cut create?

How does all that molten steel from all those widely separated cuts gather and coalesce into pools?

Why wouldn't there be millions of little droplets scattered everywhere from the explosive thermite reaction?

gather and coalesce into pools?"

I don't know, but the molten metal pouring out of WTC2 shows it did.

Maybe excess thermate was used so as to generate ragged-looking melted
spots instead of neat suspicious-looking cuts in the core columns.

is from the plane?

and it's silvery. If it's superheated to 1000 degrees it turns colors,
but that requires some kind of crucible to hold it.

is based on a low quality internet video? Why do you think that the color you see on your monitor is exactly the color of the metal on 911?

What other evidence do you have to collaborate this fact?

color of the metal.

I am open to a scientific discussion of why the yellow color is wrong coming from a
person who knows why it is wrong. In the absence of any such argument, the assumption
that the color is probably right is reasonable, and the assumption that the color
is wrong is not.

How many cuts were made in the columns?

I'm not going to try and attempt a guess of something like that. First: I don't know. Second: It's a moot point.


How much molten steel does each cut create?

Again, it would depend on how much thermite/thermate is used. I don't have a definitive answer, so I'll guess alot.


How does all that molten steel from all those widely separated cuts gather and coalesce into pools?

I'm assuming a huge collapse of that nature would allow for a few spots of molten metal to be found here and there. If only major columns were cut, then the molten metal would only be found in those key places. Trying to guess the outcome of how something would move around in a collapse of that nature is something only a CRAY supercomputer could compute. It borders on chaos.

Why wouldn't there be millions of little droplets scattered everywhere from the explosive thermite reaction?

Why would there be? Thermite isn't truly "explosive", it will flare at first but no huge explosions will occur.


These questions really take the focus away from the fact that yellow hot molten metal WAS observed falling from WTC2 - in the exact same fashion as a thermite reaction. It could not have formed from the fires (no matter what type of metal you're talking about). Period.

in large pools of flowing molten metal - give a a real life example. Considering the historic application for thermite was welding railroad rails together I don't think you will.

Why did only one of hundred (thousands?) of thermite charges produce flowing metal? How can one example out of hundreds be proof of anything.

Nice job of avoiding the hard questions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585&q=thermite&pl=true
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=261014432083397724&q=thermite
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1241595747072069657&q=thermite

now observe the video shot of WTC2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2991254740145858863&q=cameraplanet%2B9/11
and
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7762750380274876390&q=thermite

This, in my opinion, does not appear to be anything other then a thermate/thermite reaction.
This theory fits the observed pictures, videos and witness accounts like a glove. The official theory has really no explanation for the flowing metal observed in the video (other then aluminum, which it couldn't be) or the hot spots observed in the rubble days after. So if you were an investigator, which would you lean towards?

which is extensively used in aircraft construction. It melts at 935 °F - 1180 °F which is significantly less than the temperature of a typical building fire.

http://www.tennalum.com/td2024.htm

You demand proof from me and others that the flowing molten metal observed is iron eminating from a thermite reaction. I want proof that this is actually Alloy 2024.
Please.

It's horseshit.

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

Explosives have tracer elements. Thermate does not.

I'd guess demo companies don't use thermate because it requires more
labor to place than explosives do.

Just look at the persistent heat in the bases of WTC 1,2 and 7 and how much more time it took to remove the demolished materials. If you want a building to be demolished it's not because you want to take months to clean up the mess made by a spectacular demolition.

You are right about the tracer elements, the manufacturers of terror didn't want a paper trail leading back to where the materials came from.

Also Thermite reactants and derivatives are multiuse exothermic reactions that can be designed to persist and directional over time for cutting or instant reactants like traditional explosives.


More at:

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

and general Google Search

http://www.google.com/search?q=thermite&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

when it was all consumed before the rubble pile was created? And what was creating combustion byproducts months after 9/11? Molten steel is a byproduct of combustion, not a cause of it.



http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

Molten iron is the byproduct of a thermite/thermate reaction, so it's pointless to argue how much thermite was consumed. On the contrary, the more thermate that reacted, the more it would add to the molten metal pools after the collapse. There is also a good chance that some thermate sat in the debris after collapse and combusted, only adding more heat to the molten pools in the rubble.

This seems to be a much more plausible explanation then any other put forth as to why there was so much heat in the debris weeks after.

May I ask where and how a fire would have gotten hot enough in either of the towers to melt metal to yellow hot temperatures (1700-2000 degrees)?
Why was the temperature at the core of the pile nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel (in perfect conditions) a full seven days after the collapses?

so what heated the intact steel beams that came out of the rubble pile glowing hot? Are you saying that the molten metal heated everything in the pile? How could it do that and stay molten - the laws of thermodynamics say that if one object gets hotter the other must get cooler.

How did that molten steel stay molten after a couple of months with no additional heat being applied?

What created the combustion products that were measured coming out of the pile if it was not combustion (you know - fires.)?



http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

No one has ever said their was gas in the rubble pile - NIST says it was all burned off within 10 minutes of the impact. It did set the contents of the towers on fire - and we all know that building fires easily get to 14000 -1600 degrees C.

so what heated the intact steel beams that came out of the rubble pile glowing hot? Are you saying that the molten metal heated everything in the pile? How could it do that and stay molten - the laws of thermodynamics say that if one object gets hotter the other must get cooler.

Yes, but under the insulated conditions this would very likely happen and also sustain the heat. Why does this seem so impossible?
The molten metal that comes from thermate is 2500 degrees celcius - much, MUCH hotter then the fires in the towers. The heat in the rubble piles was pinned at about 600-700 degrees. Thermite also cannot be smothered as it has it's own oxygen supply.


What created the combustion products that were measured coming out of the pile if it was not combustion (you know - fires.)?

There were many, many floors that weren't hit by fire, so there was ample fuel to be ignited if it sat in and around the molten metal. It seems extremely plausible to me.


It did set the contents of the towers on fire - and we all know that building fires easily get to 14000 -1600 degrees C.

I sure didn't know that. Please post some links to backup this claim.

I have some questions:

1. if the pile was so insulated, why was it's surface temperature so hot (1000 C)? How could all that energy escape?

2. How big was this mass of molten steel? The rubble pile was massive - if the mass of molten steel was not equally massive how could it heat such a large area?

3. Where is the report of the massive steel slugs found after the metal cooled cooled? They had to be at least as large as a small house.

4. What is the ratio of thermite to molten steel produced? If, for example, there was a ton of molten steel, how many tons of thermite were needed to create it?

5. How has the thermite ignited? As you know, thermite is very hard to ignite with burning magnesium commonly being used. I cannot any evidence of a detonation mechanism that would allow you to string multiple thermite charges together. So tell me how the thermite was detonated.

And you are right about the fire temps - 1000 to 1200 c is the proper range.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/Design/performance/fireModelling/parametricFireCurves/ecsc.htm

1. if the pile was so insulated, why was it's surface temperature so hot (1000 C)? How could all that energy escape?

You are asking the wrong person. Hopefully someone in here has a degree in thermodynamics that can explain it, because clearly you and I can't. My guess is that it was very hot under the pile. Too hot for convential fires (from the building or after the collapse) to cause those temperatures to escape.


2. How big was this mass of molten steel? The rubble pile was massive - if the mass of molten steel was not equally massive how could it heat such a large area?

Again, you expect too much from me. I wasn't at ground zero. I didn't take measurements at the scene. I don't think anyone did. Because of the quick cover-up and the hauling away of evidence, I'm not sure if anyone can answer that question. Even FEMA. WHich give me more reason to be suspicious and question the offical line.


3. Where is the report of the massive steel slugs found after the metal cooled cooled? They had to be at least as large as a small house.

If you are referring to a large lump of iron that was found, maybe it would be in your best interest for you to investigate for yourself. Again, most of the evidence was carted off on trucks to be smelted in China and India. It's a good question.


4. What is the ratio of Hermite to molten steel produced? If, for example, there was a ton of molten steel, how many tons of thermite were needed to create it?

I again am not sure, but this is a very good question. I'll look into it.


5. How has the thermite ignited? As you know, thermite is very hard to ignite with burning magnesium commonly being used. I cannot any evidence of a detonation mechanism that would allow you to string multiple thermite charges together. So tell me how the thermite was detonated.

Quote from Wikipidia: "Another method of igniting is to use a common sparkler to ignite the mix. These reach the necessary temperatures and provide a sufficient amount of time before the burning point reaches the sample."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
this would correlate with this video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7231843493488769585&q=thermite&pl=true

to use a fuel based weapon? Something made preferably from airplane fuel? Doesn't the MOAB use some sort of fuel and that's why it's not considered a nuclear weapon?

I'm just asking, since I wasted my youth playing with Barbie dolls and left the firecrackers for my kid brother, I don't know a heck of a lot about weapons and explosives.

is that it is so hard to ignite - magnesium is the most commonly used igniter and it is as nearly as dangerous as thermite. You can't wire multiple thermite charges together like you can use det cord for high explosives.

There is a possibility that superthermite was used; nanoaluminum powders have been developed that are more chemically reactive, with more aluminum atoms on the surface area - would make it much easier to ignite.

can you show that thermite detonators exist?

Again this really is beside the point. For a long period of time we didn't know about stealth technology and the stealth bomber, but that didn't mean it didn't exist (until it was unveiled). I'm sure there are groups of people with many forms of technology that we, the public, have no idea about.

it always appears in these threads eventually.

Lets get back to basics - why is thermite even necessary? Are you saying that high explosives alone would not have brought down the WTC towers?

Ahh .. the old black program, area 51, alien technology gambit!

You obviously missed my point. I'm sorry that you have to revert to discrediting tactics to enforce your point. Really.

(BTW - JFK was not shot by Lee Harvey Oswald)


Anyways...

Lets get back to basics - why is thermite even necessary? Are you saying that high explosives alone would not have brought down the WTC towers?

I think that the size and strength of the buildings wouldn't allow entirely the use of high explosives. This would probably impede the plan in 3 main ways:

1) Explosive purchases are traceable. Thermate's ingredients aren't.
2) It would be very clear to the public if the buildings were completely leveled with explosives. There would be many, many more loud explosions, squibs and an overall obvious sign of demolition.
3) Explosives may have been more susceptible to pre-ignition.



So yes, let's get back to the basics:

- Why did the flowing metal observed act exactly like a thermite reaction?
- If it wasn't a thermite reaction, why was the metal yellow hot if the fires couldn't possibly have caused that much heat?
- Why were there hot spots of molten metal that lasted for weeks in the rubble?
- Someone to explain or get proof of why there was the 45 degree cut on the observed column in the pic posted earlier (with the large amount of "slag" hanging off the edges.

And one of the most basic of all:
- Why did WTC7 collapse?

that thermite can do any of the things you claim it does. As far as I can see, thermite has never been used on such a large scale and for demolition - just how the hell can you tell what the evidence is suppose to look like?

I think that fires in the rubble pile were hot enough - but that is irrelevant. Why are there only two choices? We can both be wrong!

You have taken some basic information on thermite and have spun it into a fantastic theory without a shred of evidence that it is remotely possible.

But you have not proved a single shred of evidence that thermite can do any of the things you claim it does.

And your proof that it can't is... where?


thermite has never been used on such a large scale and for demolition

The events of 9/11 also had never occurred before.. but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.


just how the hell can you tell what the evidence is suppose to look like?

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck...


You have taken some basic information on thermite and have spun it into a fantastic theory without a shred of evidence that it is remotely possible.

How is it not remotely possible? Please, please tell me how it is not REMOTELY POSSIBLE???

To me, Pancaking floors is not remotely possible. To me, NORAD standing down without reason is not remotely possible. To me, WTC7 collapsing on its own is not remotely possible. To me... etc, etc, etc


We can both be wrong!

YES! I agree with you 100% After looking at everything involved, I feel that the theory fed to us about the events that day have a much less probability of occurring then what most CT'ers are stating.

a rare occurance on this board. Have a pleasant evening.:toast: