Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

More 911 (Split from Obama Deception)

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    8:46 Plane impact WTC1 (North Tower)
    9:03 Plane impacts WTC2 (South Tower)

    9:59 WTC2 (South Tower) collapses
    10:28 WTC1 (North Tower) collapses

    According to NIST, no fires were observed subsequent to the collapse of WTC2, but that teh fire-alarm system sent one signal to the monitoring company. It did not contain any information of where the fire might be.

    Again, according to NIST, the fires which led to the collapse were started by the collapse of WTC1.


  • Options
    #123
    Nuravictus
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Nuravictus


    hkcharlie wrote: »
    can you provide the sources?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o


  • Options
    #124
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o

    Even leaving aside the dubious nature of the thermite that was supposedly found we still have several practical problems to overcome.
    • It was supposedly a controlled demolition but controlled demolition has never used thermite.
    • How do you get tons of thermite into the building without anyone seeing?
    • How do you get this thermite directly onto the support columns without anyone seeing?
    • What is the delivery mechanism given the nature of thermite?
    • How does no one see the mechanism to set off the thermite, cable or other?
    • Why didn't the crashes and fires set off the thermite?
    • There has never even been an experiment run to show thermite could cut the steel as is suggested (Happy to be shown otherwise).


  • Options
    #125
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    meglome wrote: »

    * How do you get tons of thermite into the building without anyone seeing?
    I believe someone had the idea that a ceiling-tile-replacement project (which did occur) could have accomplished this.

    The problem arises only when one asks:

    * How do you get this thermite directly onto the support columns without anyone seeing?
    Here, the ceiling-tile argument falls apart. You couldn't.

    * The slightest spark would set thermite off, why didn't the crashes and fires do that immediately?
    This question is invalid, as it is based on a false premise. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite...it is not accurate to presuppose that "the slightest spark" would set it off.

    It would be fair to reword the question in terms of persistent fire.
    A more interesting question is, perhaps, how one could synchronise so many seperate thermite reactions given its ignition difficulty.

    * There has never even been an experiment run to show thermite could cut the steel as is suggested (Happy to be shown otherwise).
    From memory, CrazyChainsaw on the randi forums has come up with a way in which thermite could be used to cut horizontally. It involves some bulky apparatus, uses more thermite (than would otherwise be required for the same cut performed vertically), perhaps some oxygen airflow mechanism, and leaves a very distinctive, messy signature. Oh...and there's that whole synchronisation problem again...

    Synchronisation and reaction-speed is, to be honest, the real killer. With explosives, its like having a series of axes which are synchronised to cut all the supports in one blow each, at exactly the same moment. Thermite, in comparison, is like having a dozen blokes with chainsaws (or blowtorches), who will start the chainsaw (or blowtorch) manually when given a signal, and then proceed to cut through.


  • Options
    #126
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,227 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    And remember: rust + aluminum + fire = thermite.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Nuravictus
    Registered Users Posts: 394 ✭✭Nuravictus


    King Mob wrote: »
    And remember: rust + aluminum + fire = thermite.

    Its Nano Thermite, not Thermite.


  • Options
    #128
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,227 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Nuravictus wrote: »
    Its Nano Thermite, not Thermite.

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

    So aluminum and rust in really small particles.


  • Options
    #129
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    bonkey wrote: »
    I believe someone had the idea that a ceiling-tile-replacement project (which did occur) could have accomplished this.

    Fair point. Though I'd still say it would be very tricky to get tons of thermite into the building without anyone noticing something was amiss. I'm sure it would be fairly easy to track down the contractors and ask if you did believe something was amiss. Has the 'truth movement' done this I wonder?
    bonkey wrote: »
    This question is invalid, as it is based on a false premise. Thermite is actually quite difficult to ignite...it is not accurate to presuppose that "the slightest spark" would set it off.

    It would be fair to reword the question in terms of persistent fire.
    A more interesting question is, perhaps, how one could synchronise so many seperate thermite reactions given its ignition difficulty.

    Indeed, I've changed my point above. Even if thermite isn't that easy to ignite, in the crashes and fires I just don't see how it still wouldn't ignite pretty quickly. Especially given the temperatures.
    bonkey wrote: »
    From memory, CrazyChainsaw on the randi forums has come up with a way in which thermite could be used to cut horizontally. It involves some bulky apparatus, uses more thermite (than would otherwise be required for the same cut performed vertically), perhaps some oxygen airflow mechanism, and leaves a very distinctive, messy signature. Oh...and there's that whole synchronisation problem again...

    I really didn't doubt that some mechanism could be found to get this to work, in theory at least. My doubts would be about how cumbersome and impractical this would be. My feeling would be very impractical and very cumbersome. And as you rightly point out it would leave obvious tell tale signs behind it. And of course I'd still like to see this in real world experiments.
    bonkey wrote: »
    Synchronisation and reaction-speed is, to be honest, the real killer. With explosives, its like having a series of axes which are synchronised to cut all the supports in one blow each, at exactly the same moment. Thermite, in comparison, is like having a dozen blokes with chainsaws (or blowtorches), who will start the chainsaw (or blowtorch) manually when given a signal, and then proceed to cut through.

    Even worse than that I feel. If you can't show the mechanism to use the thermite works in practise then I'll still have to wonder why the thermite wouldn't just burn a small hole in the steel and pour through it.


Advertisement