Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2006-09-03 11:20:55
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada
o rly?  then how do you explain the massive deposits of sufur found in the steel after the process of sulfidation occurs, the process that thermite implements?  Also, the molten steel            molten steel at the site maintained the reaction for weeks.  Hot coals go out underground.  Molten steel does not.  The foundations were melted:  evidence of sulfidation :  thermite.  Again, no jet fuel underground in the foundations, yet you have melted steel, and all the evidence was scrapped.   University chemists know better than we or firemen do.  Those weren't ashes and hot coals, and the videos of molten steel pouring from the building aren't from a <1000 degree fire..  The molten streams occured minutes after the collision, caught on video, showing yellow hot molten metal pouring from structural beams on the outside.  This is a thermite reaction caught on tape.  I posted the link in one of my old posts about this.

Last edited by Spumantiii (2006-09-03 11:23:56)

2006-09-03 11:22:40
Sgt_Sieg
"Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.
+89|6990

Spumantiii wrote:

700 degrees huh
wrong dude
fires have burned in steel truss buildings before, we've been over this, they did not fail.  I dunno what you're reading but 700 degrees won't do it unless you plan on having a 48 hour cook off.
We're talking 2000 degrees, not red hot flames, white hot chemical reactions, that destroyed the steel.  Jet fuel fires do not have the physical properties needed and consistency of burn rate/ temperature to weaken the steel.  Jet fuel is engineered to be stable.
Well considering steel melts at 1510 degrees I'd say that the fact that it becomes bendable at 700 is perfectly reasonable. Plus, while fires have burned in steel building before, ones burned by JET FUEL probably hasn't, even if it has, it wasn't at the scale of that on 9/11. You lose.

Spumantiii wrote:

o rly?  then how do you explain the massive deposits of sufur found in the steel after the process of sulfidation occurs, the process that thermite implements?  Also, the molten steel            molten steel at the site maintained the reaction for weeks.  Hot coals go out underground.  Molten steel does not.  The foundations were melted:  evidence of sulfidation :  thermite.  Again, no jet fuel underground in the foundations, yet you have melted steel, and all the evidence was scrapped.
Mind citing where all this information is from? I'd like to see the credintials.

Last edited by Sgt_Sieg (2006-09-03 11:24:08)

2006-09-03 11:27:41
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada
read about thermite, or take chemistry if you don't believe it.  Also: the fires were reportedly under control in south tower anyway, the first one to go, after the fires were reportedly under control.  Small local fires.  Then molten steel began pouring from the structural beams, and sulfidation was found in the metal.  You lose.
2006-09-03 11:28:19
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6925|England. Stoke

Spumantiii wrote:

o rly?  then how do you explain the massive deposits of sufur found in the steel after the process of sulfidation occurs, the process that thermite implements?  Also, the molten steel            molten steel at the site maintained the reaction for weeks.  Hot coals go out underground.  Molten steel does not.  The foundations were melted:  evidence of sulfidation :  thermite.  Again, no jet fuel underground in the foundations, yet you have melted steel, and all the evidence was scrapped.
Yeah because of course there would be jet fuel left in the foundations not that it would have burnt off. Sulphur deposits could be (if actually present, as you have still not provided a source for your info) the result of many things, the twin towers were constructed and contained many materials. The fact that were was molten metal in the foundations proves nothing, firstly it was probably not molten steel (more likely aluminium) and even if it were steel this has nothing to do with a thermite reaction.
2006-09-03 11:28:24
the_hitman_kills
Agent 47 wannabe
+32|6680|Inside my APC
We will just have to wait until the next moon landing to bring back proof that the whole things is not a fake.

I have seen documentaries that proved the landing was faked, and documentaries that proved it was real.
And i thought both seemed plausible.

Until i see the actual landing site and the famous foot prints I'm holding back my judgment.
2006-09-03 11:32:22
the_hitman_kills
Agent 47 wannabe
+32|6680|Inside my APC
as for the twin towers, it was my understanding that the initial explosive blew away the fire protection on the metal braces leaving them exposed to the fire.

the braces weakened , then failed and then started falling down the tower like a domino effect.

if the fire protection was better and the braces where stronger, chances are the towers could have survived or at least lasted much longer.
2006-09-03 11:32:25
Sgt_Sieg
"Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.
+89|6990

Spumantiii wrote:

Also: the fires were reportedly under control in south tower anyway, the first one to go, after the fires were reportedly under control.  Small local fires.  Then molten steel began pouring from the structural beams, and sulfidation was found in the metal.  You lose.
Okay, again, where are the sources of this god knowing information? All my counterpoints are scientific, not based on "reports."
2006-09-03 11:32:34
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6925|England. Stoke
Oh yeah back to the monn landings, whilst on the surface of the moon the astronauts left several laser refelctors which are regularly observed by several observatories across the globe. They simply fire a laser at the surface of the moon and the reflectors, reflect it back.
2006-09-03 11:34:37
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada
I have to dig, man, use search           thermite, author: spumantiii  I blurbed before
2006-09-03 11:37:12
Sgt_Sieg
"Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.
+89|6990

Spumantiii wrote:

I have to dig, man, use search           thermite, author: spumantiii  I blurbed before
Okay, I'll look for the sources of your evidence if I have the time, but my life doesn't revolve around such things so until I find it I'm still dissmissing it. But I think the thread has be pretty derailed from the original topic. End of disscussion Spumantiii? For now of course.
2006-09-03 11:37:14
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
2006-09-03 11:37:16
UON
Junglist Massive
+223|6869

the_hitman_kills wrote:

We will just have to wait until the next moon landing to bring back proof that the whole things is not a fake.

I have seen documentaries that proved the landing was faked, and documentaries that proved it was real.
And i thought both seemed plausible.

Until i see the actual landing site and the famous foot prints I'm holding back my judgment.
Did you get a chance to watch the one in the first thread?  If I ever get time I might do a shorter edited version which cuts out the stuff which are easily refuted (e.g. shadow direction probably caused by uneven floor).  I'm not truly convinced either way either.
2006-09-03 11:40:26
Sgt_Sieg
"Bow Chicka Bow Wow." The correct way.
+89|6990

Spumantiii wrote:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Okay that's long, I'll read it tonight when I have an hour or so to really look at it.
2006-09-03 11:45:54
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada
highly suggested reading ^
2006-09-03 11:48:43
jonsimon
Member
+224|6711

Spumantiii wrote:

read this, the part where they prove the presence of thermite.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

sulfidized steel from thermite reactions
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evi … index.html

Thermite reaction: molten steel
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … net+9%2F11
another thermite reaction:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.h5.jpg
molten aluminum, the official stated explanation for pools of yellow hot molten metals in and falling from the buildings.  Notice no vapors and no heat coloration
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/ene … ouring.jpg
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt structural steel, and it produces a thick black smoke while burning in the buildings.  Thermite does not produce smoke, burns at over 3000 degrees, producing liquid metal instead.   Liquid molten metal was being removed from ground zero 6 weeks after the tragedy.  The only way this is possible is with a thermite like reaction.  Falling objects do not produce heat like that.
You're welcome.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-09-03 12:06:30)

2006-09-03 11:49:02
kimaera
Member
+2|6668|Auburn,AL
Found this link inside the article and still trying to figure out why there are people that beive in this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
2006-09-03 12:25:04
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6932|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

Spumantiii wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

The 'official story' 9/11 conspiracy theory is endorsed mainly by the right...
Whilst it may not have happened exactly as claimed. I'm pretty sure that on the 11th of September 2001 terrorists from an Al Qaeda cell crashed 2 planes into the World Trade Centre which led to it's collapse. There may be other additional factors but I have little doubt that that is what happened.

I've read quite a lot of these conspiracies now and I'm not convinced by any of them. Maybe Building 7 was demolished after the attack, possibly to increase to impact of the attack on the public. But the scientific data about the fire not being able to cause the collapse of the twin towers is extremely spurious. A 700 degree C fire would be capable of reducing the structural integrity significantly enough to lead to a collapse. That is perfectly possible, since JetA fuel burns at 825 degrees C.

There's a lot of other stuff which all adds up fine as far as I'm concerned and I have taken the time to look into it in some depth. I don't usually take what I'm told at face value.
you've obviously been looking in the wrong places, modern chemistry already proved the presence of thermite charges in the buildings, and active thermite reactions, before during and after the event, even 6 weeks later in ground zero those reactions were continuing.  Why has that not become common knowledge?  Is it too far fetched?  It has been proven with math and real evidence by people who know what they're talking about


ps thermite is used to melt steel

the evidence to say the moon does not exist is insubstantial and reaching to say the least, stated by undergrads and jokers.  Anyone seriously arguing it never happening is doing so for the sake of practicing debate skills lol.

700 degrees huh
wrong dude
fires have burned in steel truss buildings before, we've been over this, they did not fail.  I dunno what you're reading but 700 degrees won't do it unless you plan on having a 48 hour cook off.
We're talking 2000 degrees, not red hot flames, white hot chemical reactions, that destroyed the steel.  Jet fuel fires do not have the physical properties needed and consistency of burn rate/ temperature to weaken the steel.  Jet fuel is engineered to be stable.
1.  Thermite is the oxidation of aluminium metal with the oxide form of another metal, most commonly but not always iron (rusted steel can work too).  Both of those substances wouldn't be that hard to find an any particular building and if you combine them and add enough heat from, say jet fuel, they react and produce a thermite reaction.  No conspiracy, just common chemistry.
2.  Those other truss buildings you mention would have had their fire proofing intact, unlike the WTC, so their trusses wouldn't have heated up or failed nearly as quickly as those in the towers did.  Uninsulated steel is a great conductor of heat, so assuming that it would have taken 2+ days for an uninsulated truss to heat  to a point where it could fail is rediculous.
3.  Jet fuel designed to be stable?  Jet fuel in commercial liners is kerosene, a by-product of gasoline, both of which aren't too stable when in the presence of high temperatures and oxygen. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … p;ct=title
2006-09-03 12:33:59
jonsimon
Member
+224|6711

mcgid1 wrote:

Spumantiii wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


Whilst it may not have happened exactly as claimed. I'm pretty sure that on the 11th of September 2001 terrorists from an Al Qaeda cell crashed 2 planes into the World Trade Centre which led to it's collapse. There may be other additional factors but I have little doubt that that is what happened.

I've read quite a lot of these conspiracies now and I'm not convinced by any of them. Maybe Building 7 was demolished after the attack, possibly to increase to impact of the attack on the public. But the scientific data about the fire not being able to cause the collapse of the twin towers is extremely spurious. A 700 degree C fire would be capable of reducing the structural integrity significantly enough to lead to a collapse. That is perfectly possible, since JetA fuel burns at 825 degrees C.

There's a lot of other stuff which all adds up fine as far as I'm concerned and I have taken the time to look into it in some depth. I don't usually take what I'm told at face value.
you've obviously been looking in the wrong places, modern chemistry already proved the presence of thermite charges in the buildings, and active thermite reactions, before during and after the event, even 6 weeks later in ground zero those reactions were continuing.  Why has that not become common knowledge?  Is it too far fetched?  It has been proven with math and real evidence by people who know what they're talking about


ps thermite is used to melt steel

the evidence to say the moon does not exist is insubstantial and reaching to say the least, stated by undergrads and jokers.  Anyone seriously arguing it never happening is doing so for the sake of practicing debate skills lol.

700 degrees huh
wrong dude
fires have burned in steel truss buildings before, we've been over this, they did not fail.  I dunno what you're reading but 700 degrees won't do it unless you plan on having a 48 hour cook off.
We're talking 2000 degrees, not red hot flames, white hot chemical reactions, that destroyed the steel.  Jet fuel fires do not have the physical properties needed and consistency of burn rate/ temperature to weaken the steel.  Jet fuel is engineered to be stable.
1.  Thermite is the oxidation of aluminium metal with the oxide form of another metal, most commonly but not always iron (rusted steel can work too).  Both of those substances wouldn't be that hard to find an any particular building and if you combine them and add enough heat from, say jet fuel, they react and produce a thermite reaction.  No conspiracy, just common chemistry.
2.  Those other truss buildings you mention would have had their fire proofing intact, unlike the WTC, so their trusses wouldn't have heated up or failed nearly as quickly as those in the towers did.  Uninsulated steel is a great conductor of heat, so assuming that it would have taken 2+ days for an uninsulated truss to heat  to a point where it could fail is rediculous.
3.  Jet fuel designed to be stable?  Jet fuel in commercial liners is kerosene, a by-product of gasoline, both of which aren't too stable when in the presence of high temperatures and oxygen. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … p;ct=title
1. But jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough. Plus you're insinuating that the WTC support columns were rusted all throughout the building? And the WTC7 never had any fires, what caused the thermite reaction there?
2. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough, and conductors are not greater than 100% effecient.
3. Its stable enough to fuel our planes when in the presence of high temperatures and oxygen. Just like gasoline is stable enough to fuel our cars.
2006-09-03 12:38:26
mcgid1
Meh...
+129|6932|Austin, TX/San Antonio, TX

Spumantiii wrote:

o rly?  then how do you explain the massive deposits of sufur found in the steel after the process of sulfidation occurs, the process that thermite implements?  Also, the molten steel            molten steel at the site maintained the reaction for weeks.  Hot coals go out underground.  Molten steel does not.  The foundations were melted:  evidence of sulfidation :  thermite.  Again, no jet fuel underground in the foundations, yet you have melted steel, and all the evidence was scrapped.   University chemists know better than we or firemen do.  Those weren't ashes and hot coals, and the videos of molten steel pouring from the building aren't from a <1000 degree fire..  The molten streams occured minutes after the collision, caught on video, showing yellow hot molten metal pouring from structural beams on the outside.  This is a thermite reaction caught on tape.  I posted the link in one of my old posts about this.
Sulfur isn't involved in a thermite reaction: 
Most common form of the reaction Fe2O3 + 2Al → Al2O3 + 2Fe;    ΔH = -851.5 kJ/mol
2006-09-03 12:44:11
FlamingDeath
Member
+1|6662
Off-topic

GotMex I love your sig, very clever
2006-09-03 12:46:36
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada
Basic thermite preparations can be modified and augmented in various ways to change their properties. The fineness of the aluminum powder determines the speed of the reaction. The use of ultra-fine aluminum powder gives the reaction an explosive quality, resulting in 'super-thermites'. The addition of sulfur in preparations called thermates enhances the ability of the reaction to cut through steel.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysi … rmite.html

Steel cannot remain in a molten state for weeks due to a petro-based fire. Case closed again…
Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel. Scientific analysis, using for example X-ray fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal.

I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction or some variation thereof such as thermate, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and so the reaction cannot be smothered, even with water. Use of sulfur in conjunction with the thermite will accelerate the destructive effect on steel, and sulfidation of structural steel was indeed observed in some of the few recovered members from the WTC rubble, as reported in Appendix C of the FEMA report. Full story...
http://www.ny911truth.org/articles/cut_to_the_chase.htm
2006-09-03 12:52:38
FlamingDeath
Member
+1|6662
Thermite reactions work due to the surface to area ratio's, in the same way flour thrown in the air can cause chain reaction fires in the kitchen. Also something burning very hot is needed to start the reaction, such as magnesium. Im not a chemistry expert so im probably wrong on this, but I reckon if the temp was hot enuff and alumnium/iron(rust) was present then a thermite reaction could happen, the hotter the temp, the less surface to area ratio is required...

Like i said im not a chemistry expert so i could be talking crap

Last edited by FlamingDeath (2006-09-03 12:53:40)

2006-09-03 12:55:16
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada
sorry to sidetrack..  Again

as for sun cast moon shadows, have a look at some art school photos and assignments covering shadow calculation, and ray casting.  You will see that 2 light sources !=  1 shadow.  Shadows do not compound and form different lengths or angles.  Shadows overlap, so if 2 light sources are present there will always be 2 cast shadows.
https://www.nd.edu/~ndband/photos/scandinavia/140%20-%20Day%2010%20-%20Stockholm%20-%20shadows.JPG  one light source plus teflected and ambient light

shadows
http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=h … en%26lr%3D
https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs48n-03/images/leonardo-penumbrae-ssh.jpg
the result of multiple light sources
2006-09-03 12:55:34
Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6763|the best galaxy

kimaera wrote:

Found this link inside the article and still trying to figure out why there are people that beive in this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society
Me to, and also Christianity, Islam...
https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
2006-09-03 12:57:02
Spumantiii
pistolero
+147|6898|Canada

FlamingDeath wrote:

Thermite reactions work due to the surface to area ratio's, in the same way flour thrown in the air can cause chain reaction fires in the kitchen. Also something burning very hot is needed to start the reaction, such as magnesium. Im not a chemistry expert so im probably wrong on this, but I reckon if the temp was hot enuff and alumnium/iron(rust) was present then a thermite reaction could happen, the hotter the temp, the less surface to area ratio is required...

Like i said im not a chemistry expert so i could be talking crap
that's a sound assumption, probably correct since thermate (+sulfur) reactions can reach 4000+ degrees C

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard