You guys are absolutely wrong in your beliefs concerning thermite.

It is not used as a demolitions explosive. It has none of the properties you need. Speed, control, symetry.

There's no such thing as a 'thermite cutter charge'. Ask any demolitions company, they'll laugh at you. It's a term found solely in and created by the truth movement. Thermite burns slowly, you little control of where it actually burns it being a liquid and all, and it doesn't show even heat distributions while activated.

True cutter charges also don't produce clean cuts. They're more akin to and aptly shatter charges. I've seen your claimed photo, with the firemen. I don't understand how you can claim it's anything else besides an oxy torch cut.

Claiming an ongoing thermite reaction is the cause of the heat pockets is also ludicrous. You can't 'simmer' a thermite reaction for weeks. It has exponential growth through the reactants.

I'm glad you post it the Skeptics area. At least you are being up front.

I don't know if I have heard "thermite cutter charge" before anywhere. But as for thermite, when Dr. Jones (again) tested some WTC dust from the collapse, he found substances consistent with thermate. However, these sustances have no explanation for their existence without thermate.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904

>>I don't know if I have heard "thermite cutter charge" before anywhere.

You haven't. No demolitions person has. They don't exist. Thermite just isn't used for this. There's literally at least a dozen other chemicals, which are actual explosives, to do a demolition with

>>However, these sustances have no explanation for their existence without thermate.

Are you kidding me? I'm not interested in listening to nutters for hours on end. You could have at least given me a list of these substances, or a time in the video.

I'm assuming you're talking about sulfur. That's found in drywall.

Lucky they used Thermate then.

With nearly 70% Thermite in there, surely someone would fine residue in the debris?

in order to find something, you need to look for it.
It was found (and not by NIST - they did not look for it).

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...11SciMethod.pdf

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

here is a demonstation of the technology using thermite claimed by a company Spectre Enterprises taken from their own website
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=...earch&plindex=0

the patent for a thermite-based cutting device was given to Spectre Enterprises in 1999

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...obert-Moore.pdf

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?...83569.PN.&OS=PN

http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=061835...View+first+page

"Spectre Enterprises is the leading developer of technologies based upon exothermic metal reaction chemistry…a class of chemistry characterized by high temperature and high-energy reactions"
"exothermic metal reaction chemistry" - that would encompass thermites and its family of derivatives.
http://www.spectreenterprises.net/

sulphur is found in drywall bound as a sulphate compound, sulphates do not cause sulphidation of steel and "intergranular melting" as can be found in this revealing analysis (includes large pictures):
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
"no clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified"

So, what happened to all of the molten iron from the thermite(or thermate) reactions?

The criminals spirited it away from the crime scene.

Unfortunately for them they didn't get all of it.

And how is it that they "spirited" all of this molten iron away from the crime scene?

Please also clarify what you mean by "spirited". (I presume you mean quickly, please quantify)

It was there then it wasn't there.

Please join the dots

So we agree that it wasn't there.

The problem is, you say:

- The fact that it wasn't there proves that it was there and that they "spirited it away"
(Even though you have refused to explain how they might have done so)

I say:

- The fact that it wasn't there only proves that it wasn't there.


You're connecting dots that don't exist.

I think we can agree that the structural steel was there otherwise I doubt the thing would have stood up for 25 years. Dickhead!

Then it wasn't there as they spirited it away to China apparantly, in trucks with GPS trackers onboard.

So it was there (i.e. it held the damn tower up) then it wasn't there. They took it away before anyone could look at it to really find out why, for the first time in construction history, a high rise tower collapsed because of fire. You would think they would have wanted to inspect the steel so they could arrange for it not to happen again.

No speed appeared to be the overriding factor. Or get it away quickly before someone finds traces of Thermate in there.

I've got news for them, they were too late.

Again with the poor reading comprehension, chum? He clearly was talking about molten iron/steel. You seem to be saying that the fact that it wasn't there proves that it was, and was "spirited away."

I think a truck would need a lot more than a GPS tracker to make it to China.

And I wasn't

It is his reading comprehension that is at fault.

You weren't talking about molten iron/steel? Let's trace the conversation:

Jakeb: So, what happened to all of the molten iron from the thermite(or thermate) reactions?
Roscoe: The criminals spirited it away from the crime scene.
Jakeb: And how is it that they "spirited" all of this molten iron away from the crime scene?
Roscoe: It was there then it wasn't there.
Jakeb: The fact that it wasn't there proves that it was there and that they "spirited it away"? (Even though you have refused to explain how they might have done so). I say: The fact that it wasn't there only proves that it wasn't there.
Roscoe: I think we can agree that the structural steel was there otherwise I doubt the thing would have stood up for 25 years. Dickhead!

The conversation is right here, chum, for everyone to see.

Well I think that structural steel that's melts usually goes by the name of

molten iron/steel.

Oh I see

They took all of the structural steel away but left the molten stuff.

I get it.

Nurse!! There's one over there

Please source your claim that it was "spirited away".

Source your claim that "they took it away before anyone could look at it".

I was talking about MOLTEN IRON. Please read again for comprehension:

I asked:

Your answer:

Who has the reading comprehension problem, again?

Structural steel doesn't melt into iron...so my question stands:

I'm still wondering about those GPS trucks driving the steel to China. I guess that was before the Northwest Passage opened up.

Trucks drove through the hole in the earth dug to China that is why they needed GPS or Gratuitously Plausible Spiriting! If you are not from China you would know what Spirited away means without confusing yourself, or maybe not...

The Steel deal was a Steal as China paid less than a closer competitor that would have paid more and would have shipped a fraction of the distance.

1. Thermite is not a liquid.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6534888186116364067

2. Thermite burns fast. Extremly fast through steal.

http://www.hallpass.com/media/howtomakethermite.html

3. It burns where it is placed

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=32...earch&plindex=8

4. even heat distributions?



Not sure what you meant by even heat distributions... but I see plenty of heat distributed while it's activated. Your facts are completly wrong and here's a video of a thermite grenade being used by U.S. soldiers to open a safe IE: Being used as demolition.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=22...43450&q=grenade

It is when it's reacting! And of course that's what he was talking about.

Compared to explosives, which demolition companies actually use, thermite has a glacial pace.

...and therefore burns whatever is underneath it. How would you get it to cut through a vertical piece of steel?

Well, sure you can destroy stuff with it. The army sometimes uses it by putting it down the barrel of enemy artillery, which gets welded together and rendered useless. But it's not used in the demolition of buildings for the reasons he described. If you can come up with any examples of demolition companies using thermite, we'll stand corrected.

Maybe it wasn't used to cut through the steal. It could have been used to demolish the concrete structure. I haven't heard anyone mention that... but I'm sure the core was reinforced with concrete. Take a look here: btw I'm not saying this is how it was done but this is an example of thermite used in demolition as you stated it is not used... but here is a patent for it's use. I'm sure they had their own method and use for it.

I'd also like to mention that if thermite was used on the steal then it could have been used on the iron plate or steal beam grillage or concrete pad that was used in wtc. It doesn't have to be used like you said on vertical columns. It could have been used anywhere to weaken the structure.

pictured here:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc1.htm


http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5532449.html

Thermite charge patent filed by BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20060266204.html

"The present invention provides for cutting operations using linear thermite charges; the charges cut one dimensional or two dimensional geometric shapes; the invention is useful for structure entry or demolition."

"[0003] The invention relates to thermite charges that are useful for cutting materials including metals, masonry, reinforced concrete, rock, and the like. The invention allows more expeditious and safer material removal, including entry into structures, and structural demolition"

"[0006] This thermite-based method will allow operators to penetrate a material in timeframes similar to explosive shape charges without the safety concerns and security risks associated with explosives. In addition, the sustained duration of a thermite jet will more effectively handle discontinuities and interfaces that normally disrupt and dissipate explosively driven shape charge jets. When a linear shaped charge is used for cutting steel on a steel bridge demolition project, a large degree of preparation work must be undertaken to ensure a successful cut or penetration. A "preconditioning" process involves removing overlapped plates and areas of reinforcement with a conventional cutting torch. This process is time consuming, expensive, and dangerous. Conversely, the sustained jet of a thermite charge offers improved performance over multi-plate materials with limited or substantially no preconditioning. The thermite charge's sustained jet also affords a greater assurance in cutting plates of varying thickness, layered plate configurations, and any supporting or reinforcing members that may exist in the middle or on the backside of a material. While the projected thermite charge particle stream is a slower reaction than that of an explosively driven jet, it is very fast from the perspective of the operator. The anticipated timing for material penetration is typically on the order of hundreds of milliseconds"

"[0038] After deployment of the anchors, the initiation system will ignite the thermite and other energetics present in the system. It is anticipated that the jet will penetrate a 1/2 inch thick steel target in less than 1 second. This will allow for swift deployment through the breach into the area of interest for rescue or rapid entry applications, and timeframes conducive to commercial demolition applications. Fire extinguishing materials, which would be injected into the breach after the thermite materials have been expended, can be incorporated into the device designs. This would help to reduce the possibility of igniting a secondary material inside the target."

"[0061] Applications for the invention include linear cut or curvilinear cuts in homogenous and non-homogeneous materials. Typical cutting operations include: Concrete, and reinforced concrete, in a variety of applications (cut into slabs or rubble); break pavement for a variety of access needs including utilities: gas, electric, phone, cable, water, sewer; street applications including bridge decks and other repair/replacement; road beds in large scale--highway with rebar; concrete in any structure (walls, etc.); demolition--of structures, buildings--steel reinforcing (I-beams in concrete); steel bridges, steel hulls (ships for rescue applications and hostile applications); and general concrete removal."

Did y'all notice that this patent is from 2006? And that it's an idea someone had, but is not being used? Find me an example of any demolition company ever having used thermite.

here is a patent (again) from 1999
http://patimg2.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=061835...View+first+page

why is it important to you that a 'demoltion company' uses such a device?

why is the date of the patent filing important to you?

whether a device exists to pull of the shelf of your local hardware store, or not, seems irrlevant to me. the technology of nano-exothermic explosives/incendaries has existed for a decade.

why do you state it is "it's an idea someone had" when the patent states "this present invention"

i propose an idea - a pill which is coloured red, 5 mm diameter, a patient with cancer takes the pill two times a day for a period of one month. at the end of the month the patient is cured of cancer. Can i patent a cure for cancer?

I can't get that page to display for some reason (I get a brief Quicktime "Q" followed by nothing), but I'll assume it's some kind of a thermite cutting device.

Fair enough, that the NWO could have had a breakthrough idea of how to use thermite to cut something or other in the towers, but it seems pertinent to me that demolition companies never use it. But it's possible.

On the other hand, what would the thermite be used to cut in the Twin Towers? The core columns? If that were the case, you wouldn't have sections of the core hundres of feet tall remaining standing for a few seconds after the building around it collapsed. The floors and perimeter columns collapsed first, then the cores.

upgrade your quicktime viewer to see the 1999 patent and its diagrams, heres the text version:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6183569.html

I would speculate the areas that were needed to be cut/broken where concussive explosions would have been obvious to the viewing public- ie the outer sections exposed to cameras- perhaps the corners?

Actually it appears that only the inner core columns of the core of the bottom section remained standing. The outer columns of the core went down immediately with the perimeter columns, the floors and rest of the building, leaving the inner core of the core standing (sorry for repetition - wanted to make myself clear and not mistaken as a typo).

It looks like the bombs/cutters seperated the outer columns of the core - thus removing the core columns supporting the floors - 4:25 in below video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615

I see your point, but if there was no chance a demolition company would use it, then i guess Battelle/Spectre would never have patented such a device. clearly Battelle and Spectre see a market for it.

I would say that it comes down to cost, it would be cheaper to use RDX/whatever + det chord + labour, than it would be to use thermite cutter charges. if the price of RDX goes up and thermite cutter manufacturing costs goes down, or some other factors change (demo wages/insurance rates/whatever), then the demo companies would probably en masse use thermite cutter charges.

there are other non-economic reasons outlined in the patent for using thermite cutters over shaped charges :

"What has not been disclosed in the prior art, however, is use of a thermite based apparatus for directing or focusing a cutting flame derived from the activation of a thermite charge for the purpose of cutting substantially thick material such as steel plates and bars, for example. In addition, the prior art has not provided a practical solution for effecting an extended, linear cut in a piece of material. The prior art also has not sufficiently addressed concerns related to the health and safety of a user using an explosive shape charge apparatus to create high velocity explosions to cut material. As a result, the prior art has also not adequately considered use of a thermite-based cutting apparatus to alleviate hazards associated with debris, noise and pressure waves generated from using explosive charges to cut material having a substantial thickness. In spite of the foregoing known apparatus and methods for cutting material, there remains a real and substantial need for an apparatus for cutting material which employs a thermite-based charge to ensure a safe and efficient cutting action."

I personally don't know if demo companies have used thermite charges to date, but they would have to be a saleable product on the market first. its well known that defence research projects develop technology years ahead of commercially available products. Commercial companies and saleable technology spring up from classified defence projects (DARPA), as an example take satellite photography - military satellites had the technology years in advance of anything commercially available, google earth has sprung up with a commercial product, but its still behind in terms of sophistication of what the military has available to it from the NRO satellites.

On the thermite topic.....why would they use it anyways. Assuming it was possible to do, why would they use this instead of just explosives?

I think the idea is that since there were no loud explosions before the buildings came down, conventional blasts could not have been responsible.

But I wonder what it would have cut. I disagree with HeadSpin that the outer core columns fell with the buildings - big sections of the core remained standing for a short while after the rest of the buildings collapsed around them. To me, it looked like the whole core, which is only a 6x8 grid of columns.

What you can see from the videos and evidence of the floor supports is that the floors were avalanching inside the towers, then when the perimeter columns didn't have the floors to hold them in place anymore, the avalanche shoved them out of the way. This whole process damaged the horizontal bracing of the core columns, but left the columns themselves mostly intact. Then soon after, those were not able to stand because they didn't have the rest of the building to hold them vertical.

I just don't see the usefulness of thermite in making all that happen.

There were reports of "explosions", however nothing significant enough to indicate the presence of bombs on seismic readings.

The reason thermite/ate is brought up by the conspiracy crowd is due to the fact there is no physical evidence of actual explosives. All they have to rely on are eye-witness reports of "explosions".

With thermite/ate, they have the sulfur residue to get all excited about. Unfortunately for them, the third most common material in the towers was sheet-rock, or dry wall, in which sulfur is in abundance.

But rather than let logic guide them, they revert back to their demolition mindset, and steadfastly argue that thermite/ate was used.

Seeing as how this consitutes concrete physical evidence of a controlled demolition (albeit one that's never been done before) in their world, it will continued to be argued until physical evidence of space beams are discovered.

How exactly were these quite large charges placed? I can understand Linear Shaped Charges as they're quite thin in profile and use detcord for ignition but now we're talking about quite a bulky thermite charge! This is what the floors looked like and I can't see any easy way to hide something that large here!

1.

I suggested some reasons why in my post (immediately above your question). did you read my post?

2.

I suggested some reasons why in my last post.

3.

Did you watch the gordon ross presentation that I posted? he states the evidence suggests the corners were cut.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615

4.

Do you disagree with Mohammed Columbo's calculations as presented in Gordon Ross's presentation? did you watch Gordon Ross' presentation that i posted?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4801566025292753615

5.

Do you have an analysis showing the whole core was standing? your analysis or someone elses that counters Mohammed Columbo's analysis in phase three here- http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

6.

Please show me a video where i can 'see' what is happening 'inside' the towers.

7.

Please demonstrate to me that the core columns attached to the bedrock required 'the rest of the building' to hold them vertical. Please indicate how this remaining core structure collapsed and broke into small pieces.

8.

please show me how this validates bazant and greenings 'crush down' theory that the top floors crushed the rest of the building.

9.

This has been addressed already on the 7th post of the first page of this thread.

• A. If you are talking only about the X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) analysis of the residue evidence, you might have a point worth discussing.
  
• B. If you are talking about the sulfur found inside the micron sized molten iron/aluminum bubbles found in the dust then you have a lot of explaining to do.
  
• C. If you are talking with reference to the sulfidation and integranular melting of a steel flange from the fema report, again you have a lot of explaining to do.
  
• D. If you are talking about the X-ray energy dispersive spectrometry (XEDS) analysis of the molten micron iron/aluminium spheres and bubbles which show a direct quantative composition match to residue from thermite compounds then you have a lot of explaining to do.

Thermite compound can easily explain all four, gypsum plasterboard cannot.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...11SciMethod.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...rade_Center.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0XSPPuxglI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGudMVKswVM...related&search=

10.

That looks like a picture of an architectural schematic, it does not show what all the floors and other building spaces looked like.

Yes, I read it, but why would someone planning to demolish an occupied building be concerned with the "safety factor" of using thermite instead of explosives? Can you think of ANY valid reason why someone would use thermite instead of just using explosives? No, "safety" isn't a logical reason if you're planning on killing everyone in the building at the time of detonation (or ignition).

I suppose this means you are of the opinion that there were not any explosive charges in the buildings?

which bit of this statement did you not understand:
"The prior art also has not sufficiently addressed concerns related to the health and safety of a user using an explosive shape charge apparatus"

if that's not enough for you, what about these suggestions:
sniffer dogs would detect other explosives.
no noticeble seismic signatures.
reduce visual and audible attributes of conventional explosives/cutters.
ease of deployment.
fire/heat resistance.
disguise of explosives.
precutting/preconditioning.
less chance residue traces would be discovered.
....

Sniffer dogs - Wouldn't it just be easier to remove the sniffer dogs?
Seismic signatures - That at least would make sense :)
Reduce visual and audible attributes - Would be quieter, however the large mass of thermite needed would be much more difficult to conceal
Ease of deployment - Thermite would be MUCH more difficult to deploy, as MUCH more would be needed
Fire/heat resistance - True, but why would you need it to resist heat/fire in the first place?
Discuise of explosives - It would be MUCH Tougher to disguize a giant thermite "cutter charge" than it would be to discuise a small explosive to do the same job
Residue traces - Thermate/thermite would have left MASSIVE amounts of molten iron and other trace elements, as well as physical evidence on the beams themselves.

You failed to answer my question:

Is it your belief that there were no explosive devices in the buildings?

Thermite plus explosives would explain all the observations.