Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
no !!!!!not that!if i remember right eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
175 pounds of thermite couldn't burn through a 1/2 thick column, so i imagine it would take over 1,000,000,000 pounds to burn through a 4 inch thick beam.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ihmbjxyh9eg]what national geographic has to say about thermite and 9/11/2001 - youtube[/ame]
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
Thermite VS Car Cool Video
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.
*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
Density of metals
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition
Who We AreLike the perimeter columns -- and like steel columns in all tall buildings -- the thickness of the steel in the core columns tapered from bottom to top. Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick
9-11 Research: The Core Structures
.
and trained firefighters that have heard items exploding before in fires said it did not sound like a "normal explosion" it sounded like bombs going off
How many were trained in 1000ft buildings coming down with kinetic energy off the scale? I would be more amazed if the floors cracking didn't sound like explosions.
these reports clearly came from firefighters able to make it out of the building before the collapse so there was no 1000ft buildings coming down with kinetic energy off the scale and many of the reports came from the lower floors and lobby and basement
It wasn't NIST's job to do forensic testing for explosive residue. If you believe that the FBI did no testing then you need to prove that they didn't. However the FBI website indicates that the FBI most certainly did consider the possibility of bombs on 9/11.
FBI ? FBI Intelligence Timeline
Are you seriously accusing the FBI in being derelict in it's duties and ignoring the possibilities of bombs? Of course you are because that is the only way you can pretend that your "conspiracy theory" works and that is what you consider to be "normal".
My god what an ass you are ..of course forensic testing for explosive residue is NISTs duty..but regardless the FBI did no testing for explosive residue nothing in your link indicates they did ..because they never did.. its the only way your conspiracy theory will work
The ever more frequent use of slurs on your part coupled with your inability to refute any of the evidence and the facts are signs that your entire premise has been debunked.
You still have to prove that none of the FBI's 7,000 special agents or technical support specialists looked for explosive residue. Given that the previous 2 attempts to blow up buildings had involved explosives (McVeigh and the '93 WTC attack) it would have been a gross dereliction of their sworn duty to have failed to follow SOP and use forensics for possible explosive residues.
You are obviously in a state of desperation since nothing that you are throwing at the wall is sticking. The smart move would be for you to quit while you are only this far behind. But don't let me stop you fromyour own hole ever deeper.
How many were trained in 1000ft buildings coming down with kinetic energy off the scale? I would be more amazed if the floors cracking didn't sound like explosions.
these reports clearly came from firefighters able to make it out of the building before the collapse so there was no 1000ft buildings coming down with kinetic energy off the scale and many of the reports came from the lower floors and lobby and basement
The shearing steel would have sounded like "explosions" to anyone untrained in strengths of materials testing. The sounds would also have traveled down the core and echoed back from the concrete walls of the basement. That is how sound works.
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.If I remember right Eots mentioned that the beams near the base of the towers had to be about 4 inches thick.... That's an awful lot of thermite to burn through that much steel without anyone noticing....
Thermite VS Car Cool Video
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.
*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
Density of metals
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Thermite and Sulfur- Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNOM_U5UM6Q]THERMITE CUTTING STEEL - VALIDATED - EXPERIMENTALLY DEMONSTRATED - YouTube[/ame]
My god what an ass you are ..of course forensic testing for explosive residue is NISTs duty..but regardless the FBI did no testing for explosive residue nothing in your link indicates they did ..because they never did.. its the only way your conspiracy theory will work
The ever more frequent use of slurs on your part coupled with your inability to refute any of the evidence and the facts are signs that your entire premise has been debunked.
You still have to prove that none of the FBI's 7,000 special agents or technical support specialists looked for explosive residue. Given that the previous 2 attempts to blow up buildings had involved explosives (McVeigh and the '93 WTC attack) it would have been a gross dereliction of their sworn duty to have failed to follow SOP and use forensics for possible explosive residues.
You are obviously in a state of desperation since nothing that you are throwing at the wall is sticking. The smart move would be for you to quit while you are only this far behind. But don't let me stop you from
You are indeed correct it was gross dereliction .but it is a fact that no testing for explosive residue was done by any agency.this is not in dispute by anyone but you and if you make a claim otherwise you need to prove it ..if any such test did occur it should be very easy to reference the fact..but it never happened so good luck with that ..I provided you the NIST site with the statement but you clearly did not read it..which is good because then you would of just parroted the NIST spin and excuse like ollie and crew do..but because you are unaware what that is.. you see it as it really is..a gross dereliction of their sworn duty to have failed to follow SOP and use forensics for possible explosive residues.
Fact: Planes hit the towers and Pentagon
Opinion: Someone found a way to hide tons of explosives/ thermite in the towers to blow them up.
Can we see the difference here?
Fact: Planes hit the towers and Pentagon
Opinion: Someone found a way to hide tons of explosives/ thermite in the towers to blow them up.
Can we see the difference here?
its called mistaking correlation with causation...so ollie did you hear about the FBI test for residue that they never did ?..maybe you should fill yer lil friend in on the official NIST spin and excuse for their "gross dereliction of their sworn duty to have failed to follow SOP and use forensics for possible explosive residues"..so he can parrot it in future discussions
Fact: Planes hit the towers and Pentagon
Opinion: Someone found a way to hide tons of explosives/ thermite in the towers to blow them up.
Can we see the difference here?
its called mistaking correlation with causation...so ollie did you hear about the FBI test for residue that they never did ?..maybe you should fill yer lil friend in on the official NIST spin and excuse for their "gross dereliction of their sworn duty to have failed to follow SOP and use forensics for possible explosive residues"..so he can parrot it in future discussions
Is it standard procedure for NIST to check for explosive residues after a plane crash?
its called mistaking correlation with causation...so ollie did you hear about the FBI test for residue that they never did ?..maybe you should fill yer lil friend in on the official NIST spin and excuse for their "gross dereliction of their sworn duty to have failed to follow SOP and use forensics for possible explosive residues"..so he can parrot it in future discussions
Is it standard procedure for NIST to check for explosive residues after a plane crash?
Probably is if there is an obvious explosion. But when said plane crashes full speed into a building i think the already know why it isn't flying any more.......
Is it standard procedure for NIST to check for explosive residues after a plane crash?
Probably is if there is an obvious explosion. But when said plane crashes full speed into a building i think the already know why it isn't flying any more.......
NIST was investigating 3 building collapses not a plane crash
Probably is if there is an obvious explosion. But when said plane crashes full speed into a building i think the already know why it isn't flying any more.......
NIST was investigating 3 building collapses not a plane crash
Is it standard procedure for NIST to check for explosive residues after a building collapse?
My point really being to question where you get your information on what SOP for NIST investigations is...
