Thermate in the Twin Towers? Nope!

[The Vegan Marxist]

As a former "conspiracy theorist", & pro-scientific thinker, I can't help but notice the major errors in the theories on 9/11. Now, don't get me wrong. I truly believe 9/11 was used by our government in order to be taken advantage of, but when it comes to the inside job theories, I just can't take it as truth any longer. Now, I'm not going to attack all theories right now, but rather one of the largest ones at the present time - the finding of Thermate chemical signatures in the Twin Towers.

Steven Jones has done plenty of speeches about this in which he points out the chemical elements found within the debris. These elements pointed out are as such: iron, sulfur, aluminum, potassium, manganese, fluorine, & titanium.

Yes, most of these elements can be found in thermate. Jones had this one right. So what's the problem here? Well, like any proper scientist who would conduct studies on these elements, they'd first try & find any natural sources in which these elements could come from. And guess what? They all check out for other natural sources:

Sulfur: The third most common ingredient in the WTC construction was gypsum-based drywall, which is 18.62% sulfur.
Iron: Used in paint & electronic devices.
Potassium: Used in concrete.
Manganese: Used in the structural steel, paint, batteries, & ceramics.
Fluorine: Used in Freon. 200,000 pounds of Freon cooled the WTC complex. This was the largest air-conditioning system in the country.
Titanium: Used in paper & paint & made up 2% of each of the 767's. WTC7 was also clad in polished steel & titanium.

I find the idea of Jones claiming these elements were uncommon & only found within thermate quite disturbing, & at the least illogical.

So what would any professional scientist do next? Well, they would check if these elements were presently in their correct, signature quantities.

According to Steven Jones' own estimates, "about 1,000 pounds of explosives would be sufficient [per tower]". For both towers & WTC7, this would equal about 3,000 pounds of thermate. Thermate is 2% sulfur, in which calculates to about 60 pounds of sulfur. Approximately 1 million tons (2 billion pounds) of dust blanketed lower Manhattan.

So, based on Professor Jones' estimates, a thermate reaction would cause the WTC dust to be approximately 0.000003% sulfur. Correct? (don't worry, it's text. You can get a calculator if needed)

Yet, this would then be highly unlikely for such a low percentage to be detectable, especially when compared to USGS dust samples in which showed as much as 5.4% sulfur!

And finally, what is the last important thing a scientist would need to do in order to confirm the presence of a chemical device? Well, they would need to ensure that all of the elements of thermate are present. So, are all elements present?

I would say no! For the two main byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide (41%) & barium nitrate (29%). Both are especially unique to thermate & would have no reason whatsoever to be found within the WTC - unless, that is, thermate was in the twin towers.

However, neither the USGS nor Steven Jones himself report finding any traces of either of these elements - the two main ingredients of thermate! Yes, Jones does point out the presence of aluminum, but there's a huge difference between aluminum & aluminum oxide (which has 3 oxygen atoms). Not to mention aluminum was common through its use in the WTC's facade, the 767's, & vehicles.

The presence of all elements pointed out through natural sources within the WTC complexes, & the very lack of aluminum oxide & barium nitrate just completely destroys the theory that thermate was in the WTC!

I promise you all. Please do your own studies on what I've pointed out. I know I'm putting myself out in the open of attack by those who believe in the "inside job" theory, but please give me the chance to try & show you why the thermate theory is wrong. I'm not here to bullshit any of you, rather show you the truth through a scientific analysis. I am not pro-government, I am pro-science. As I hope you all are as well.

[Gezus]

what about the beams that where cut? and the detonator i saw bush pocket? yea exactly.

[The Vegan Marxist]

(07-16-2010 06:13 AM)Gezus23 Wrote:  what about the beams that where cut? and the detonator i saw bush pocket? yea exactly.

I can get those explained as well if needed. What this thread is for is to point out the flaw in the "thermate" theory. Nothing more. But, what detonator are you talking about? Out of all the theories that I've heard, I've never heard of this one.

[Gezus]

^ i was kidding about that detonator. but not the beams. the support beams where found to be cut.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Ahhh, nvm about the columns being cut. I see the relevance in this thread to point out the flaw of this as well. I'll let a video explain, since it does a better job than I:

[Gezus]

here is the redpill take in its reality for it doesn't give you the lies of the blue pill:

RedPill

at one point it covers 911

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'll gladly point out any & all flaws about the "inside job" theory when relevant. This thread is presently only being used to point out the flaws in the "thermate/thermite" theory. So can we please keep it relevant.

[Gezus]

^ both are relevant mate. the beams where cut and/or then melted by thermate.

---

the music in that vid you posted is as lame as the facts they present. the video nor picture shows them in the process of cutting those beams. like the part where the guy is saying that they just got done cutting the first ones and have a few left.. why the fuck didnt they catch those first ones on film? coz they was already cut and they covering it up.

now im not gonna say i believe this theory but i have always liked to re-bunk "debunked" 911 theories when there is still facts not fully "debunked" and still possibilities.
there was this guy in my english class that i tried to argue about this with him and he would say the same stupid shit and then he would start telling everyone around us that i believed our government did it and when i never really said that nor said i believed the theory, only that i believe it to be a possibility and then he would be like "oh well its a possibility that an asteroid could come through the roof and hit me in the balls but its not gonna happen." and that was annoying cos that doesnt really help prove anything and that is a possibility in the future not the past like we are talking about. so hopefully this will be funner to debate with you coz your not a dumb ass like him.

sorry i gotta get off computer it took me forever to type this..its lagging really bad and i can type a whole sentence b4 it shows up... so making corrections is taking forever.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Let me point out another, in which can be linked to the thermite theory. Many like claiming that devices were used to bring down the towers, in which they back up this theory with the claim of the presence of "molten steel". Yet, I'd love for anyone to point out where any controlled demolition ever left behind pools of molten steel.

The problem about the theory of thermate, as pronounced by Steven Jones, is that, even if an incendiary such as thermate were to be used, the steel would have immediately begun solidifying after the incendiary burned out. Which would mean that it be impossible for it to be found still molten up to 6 weeks later!

But I'll humor you & see your evidence of molten steel, despite there being no connection between molten steel & controlled demolition:

• NASA thermal imaging
• Pictures & video
• Eyewitness accounts
  

The picture above is the NASA thermal imaging picture that all theorists use to point out "molten steel" readings. The documentary "Loose Change" claimed that the images provided showed temperatures that were consistent with molten steel (2750 Fahrenheit or greater).

So what's the problem? Well, fact of the matter is, NASA reported temperatures "greater than 800 degrees Fahrenheit". The study by USGS suggested that the maximum temperatures were of 1341 degrees F. So of course, these findings were not surprising for a smoldering pile of steel (remember, the initial fires were burning at 1800 degrees F), & nowhere near were they at 2750 degrees F.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429...l.r09.html

What's next? Ah, yes, the pictures of the "molten steel":




The only problem about these pictures is that we can tell that there is still structure to the steel & that the tractor, apparently, is still able to pick it up without it pouring down. What this tells us is that the steel being picked up is not "molten", just very hot! One may not know this, but steel begins to glow at about 1000 degrees F. This is consistent with the USGS findings of maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F.

Want another picture? Alright, I'll provide the picture that Steven Jones provided us with in his lectures & papers:



The only problem about this photo is that it was doctored. To get the original photo, look nowhere but below:



What you are looking at is firefighters going through the rubble at night, & the glowing source is nothing more than a flashlight. I wish I could find the footage for you to show you where this image was obtained, but I can no longer find it unfortunately.

So what's left? Ahhh, yes, the eyewitness accounts of witnessing molten steel. First, let me point out the obvious fact that there was "molten metal" at the site, but there's a HUGE difference between molten metal & molten steel (I hope you all knew that). So of course, given that these witnesses were not experts on the difference between the two, it's completely understandable on why they would be confused from such.

Not only was aluminum abundant at Ground Zero due to its use in the WTC's aluminum facade, the two 767's, & the hundreds of vehicles present in the underground parking garage, but it also has a melting point of 887 degrees F to 1184 degrees F (depending on the particular alloy).

So, it being fed by office contents & fuel from elevator hydraulics & vehicles & sourced with oxygen from hollow beams & tunnels which acted as chimneys, underground fires burned for weeks perhaps as hot as 1800 degrees F, more than hot enough to account for pools of molten aluminum.

Given that, even if thermate was present in the towers, the molten steel would not be an effect from such. There is no connection between the two whatsoever. But given the conditions that were taking place there, the territory, & the temperatures of the fire, molten aluminum is very likely to have been seen by our eyewitnesses easily.

---

Edit: I have now obtained the video footage in which the doctored image originated from:

---

(07-16-2010 07:02 AM)Gezus23 Wrote:  ^ both are relevant mate. the beams where cut and/or then melted by thermate.

---

the music in that vid you posted is as lame as the facts they present. the video nor picture shows them in the process of cutting those beams. like the part where the guy is saying that they just got done cutting the first ones and have a few left.. why the fuck didnt they catch those first ones on film? coz they was already cut and they covering it up.

now im not gonna say i believe this theory but i have always liked to re-bunk "debunked" 911 theories when there is still facts not fully "debunked" and still possibilities.
there was this guy in my english class that i tried to argue about this with him and he would say the same stupid shit and then he would start telling everyone around us that i believed our government did it and when i never really said that nor said i believed the theory, only that i believe it to be a possibility and then he would be like "oh well its a possibility that an asteroid could come through the roof and hit me in the balls but its not gonna happen." and that was annoying cos that doesnt really help prove anything and that is a possibility in the future not the past like we are talking about. so hopefully this will be funner to debate with you coz your not a dumb ass like him.

sorry i gotta get off computer it took me forever to type this..its lagging really bad and i can type a whole sentence b4 it shows up... so making corrections is taking forever.

Yes, the music is quite irritating. I'll agree with that. But the images point out them cutting the beams as well. I don't expect you to take that at face value. When I was a theorist, I wouldn't have. But I'll try & provide more videos on it as well:




I don't expect you to take this at face value, but the evidence is right there & it's pretty much a given on why those beams were cut the way they were.

[Fuzzly Bear]

Good first post. Maybe I'll watch the videos as well another time.

[Gezus]

(07-16-2010 07:41 AM)The Vegan Marxist Wrote:  Let me point out another, in which can be linked to the thermite theory. Many like claiming that devices were used to bring down the towers, in which they back up this theory with the claim of the presence of "molten steel". Yet, I'd love for anyone to point out where any controlled demolition ever left behind pools of molten steel.

The problem about the theory of thermate, as pronounced by Steven Jones, is that, even if an incendiary such as thermate were to be used, the steel would have immediately begun solidifying after the incendiary burned out. Which would mean that it be impossible for it to be found still molten up to 6 weeks later!

But I'll humor you & see your evidence of molten steel, despite there being no connection between molten steel & controlled demolition:

• NASA thermal imaging
• Pictures & video
• Eyewitness accounts
  

The picture above is the NASA thermal imaging picture that all theorists use to point out "molten steel" readings. The documentary "Loose Change" claimed that the images provided showed temperatures that were consistent with molten steel (2750 Fahrenheit or greater).

So what's the problem? Well, fact of the matter is, NASA reported temperatures "greater than 800 degrees Fahrenheit". The study by USGS suggested that the maximum temperatures were of 1341 degrees F. So of course, these findings were not surprising for a smoldering pile of steel (remember, the initial fires were burning at 1800 degrees F), & nowhere near were they at 2750 degrees F.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429...l.r09.html

What's next? Ah, yes, the pictures of the "molten steel":




The only problem about these pictures is that we can tell that there is still structure to the steel & that the tractor, apparently, is still able to pick it up without it pouring down. What this tells us is that the steel being picked up is not "molten", just very hot! One may not know this, but steel begins to glow at about 1000 degrees F. This is consistent with the USGS findings of maximum temperatures of 1341 degrees F.

Want another picture? Alright, I'll provide the picture that Steven Jones provided us with in his lectures & papers:



The only problem about this photo is that it was doctored. To get the original photo, look nowhere but below:



What you are looking at is firefighters going through the rubble at night, & the glowing source is nothing more than a flashlight. I wish I could find the footage for you to show you where this image was obtained, but I can no longer find it unfortunately.

So what's left? Ahhh, yes, the eyewitness accounts of witnessing molten steel. First, let me point out the obvious fact that there was "molten metal" at the site, but there's a HUGE difference between molten metal & molten steel (I hope you all knew that). So of course, given that these witnesses were not experts on the difference between the two, it's completely understandable on why they would be confused from such.

Not only was aluminum abundant at Ground Zero due to its use in the WTC's aluminum facade, the two 767's, & the hundreds of vehicles present in the underground parking garage, but it also has a melting point of 887 degrees F to 1184 degrees F (depending on the particular alloy).

So, it being fed by office contents & fuel from elevator hydraulics & vehicles & sourced with oxygen from hollow beams & tunnels which acted as chimneys, underground fires burned for weeks perhaps as hot as 1800 degrees F, more than hot enough to account for pools of molten aluminum.

Given that, even if thermate was present in the towers, the molten steel would not be an effect from such. There is no connection between the two whatsoever. But given the conditions that were taking place there, the territory, & the temperatures of the fire, molten aluminum is very likely to have been seen by our eyewitnesses easily.

---

Edit: I have now obtained the video footage in which the doctored image originated from:

---

(07-16-2010 07:02 AM)Gezus23 Wrote:  ^ both are relevant mate. the beams where cut and/or then melted by thermate.

---

the music in that vid you posted is as lame as the facts they present. the video nor picture shows them in the process of cutting those beams. like the part where the guy is saying that they just got done cutting the first ones and have a few left.. why the fuck didnt they catch those first ones on film? coz they was already cut and they covering it up.

now im not gonna say i believe this theory but i have always liked to re-bunk "debunked" 911 theories when there is still facts not fully "debunked" and still possibilities.
there was this guy in my english class that i tried to argue about this with him and he would say the same stupid shit and then he would start telling everyone around us that i believed our government did it and when i never really said that nor said i believed the theory, only that i believe it to be a possibility and then he would be like "oh well its a possibility that an asteroid could come through the roof and hit me in the balls but its not gonna happen." and that was annoying cos that doesnt really help prove anything and that is a possibility in the future not the past like we are talking about. so hopefully this will be funner to debate with you coz your not a dumb ass like him.

sorry i gotta get off computer it took me forever to type this..its lagging really bad and i can type a whole sentence b4 it shows up... so making corrections is taking forever.

Yes, the music is quite irritating. I'll agree with that. But the images point out them cutting the beams as well. I don't expect you to take that at face value. When I was a theorist, I wouldn't have. But I'll try & provide more videos on it as well:




I don't expect you to take this at face value, but the evidence is right there & it's pretty much a given on why those beams were cut the way they were.

well you have out done yourself. lol. (got my freakin computer working.) and yes there are a lot of doctored photos and they are a disappointment coz its shit like that that makes people go "See, see the government wouldn't lie to us. they telling the truth. they didnt put out fake photos, the ones saying its a lie are the ones that in the end, lied.". and even if thermate was not used. how was a structure built not to - wait let me rephrase that. how was TWO structures built not to pancake some how pancake perfectly? and the third building pancaked as well and it only merely had some fires. no plane crash and yet it had those "fires" hot enough to ruin its structure as well and coz it to perfectly pancake too. its these things that always make me think twice about what happened not if the thermate was used or not or whatever else these theorists think up of. and i notice there is that one pic of them picking up metal and its not molten but how long after is that? but yes i understand any molten metal was probably aluminum and other metals not able to withstand heat like steal so i will let that pass for now. its just the fact that 3 buildings pancaked perfectly like a perfectly planned out demolition that makes me go "whoa, wait.. something is not fitting in with this puzzle.". and i especially love how the pentagon got "hit" and all nearby businesses got their camera tapes of the event seized by the government. oh yea sure they seized it for evidence to see if the could get any thing from the footage of a non existent plane that hit the pentagon. to much fishiness for any of those marvelous "facts" to ever make me think other wise. i will always have the thoughts of the possibilities of thermate or something about it being an inside job or something.. not sure exactly what it is but the story we are told is either a lie or half true or true. and nobody start on that paranoia bullshit.

also i wouldn't trust a photo released by the government or nasa or whatever else... cia, fbi, dont give a fuck- don't trust that shit.

well anyways there is another thread for this so ima stop draggin your thread offtopic. great facts btw and awesome research. make me rethink some shit.

peace callin it a night.

[El Mono]

Even so, the ones that bug me, and can't be explained without truth from the government are as follows:

1. The 4th plane wreckage. Did not look like a plane crash, there was no black box, no engines, but a passport? Get the fuck outta here.

2. The 747 that "hit the pentagon", there were again, no engines, the destruction of the wall was circular, and not plane shaped; there was a reinforced wall behind it and every one else was at the other side of the pentagon. All experienced pilots said he could of not flown the angles in that plane to reach the Pentagon. And, the reason that makes all this suspicious, they took the CCTV footage of the surrounding area and will not release it.

Those 2 will always bug me.