Do the following things actually exist?

Links only please.

1. A linear thermite cutting charge that can make linear cuts in steel?

2. Any commercial use of thermite for demolition?

3. A detonating system that allows multiple thermite charges to be exploded simultaneously?

I have looked but have found nothing - any help would be greatly appreciated.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m14-th3.htm

But haven't found anything that indicates it is used often for demolition though.

I suspect the answers are:

1. No.
2. No.
3. No.

But I, too, would appreciate seeing any evidence of the existence of these things.

and tell them you're looking for a detonating system that allows multiple thermite charges to be exploded simultaneously?

I'm sure they'd love to help you.

is right.

It seems apparent that neither of you can answer hack's questions.

Is that your expert opinion? :silly:

all this time. Who is going to contact Professor Jones and give him the bad news? :crazy:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the responses to date.

And it's entirely accurate.

None of the responses prior to my response which you were responding to with your lame ass reply have answered the questions in the affirmative with proof of same.

So, the answers are still no, no, and no to the questions as asked.

Let's see,

Thermate is basically thermite with sulphur
Thermate is an incendiary like the fireworks you see in July
Thermate is used in demolitions to cut steel
Thermate should have a reliable ignition delivery system for the demolition professional

Do you doubt thermate's existence?

she understands what it is.

I merely point out that the answers above do not answer the questions asked.

They still don't.

Anything short of linking to blueprints for a thermite bomb will not satisfy you. Sorry, not interested in being labeled as a terra-ist.

Are you now hack89's spokesperson?

1. Yes, basic chemistry and physics can be used to influence flow direction of incendiaries like thermite. A good example would be fireworks contained in cylinders to control flow direction.

2. Yes, Thermate is used in controlled demolitions and is a mixture of sulphur and thermite.

http://www.atsnn.com/article/213167

3. Yes, since thermate is used in demolitions it should be safe to assume there is a reliable ignition delivery system. Besides, there are many ways to ignite thermite and it wouldn't be difficult to synchronize with an electronic circuit. This stuff is not rocket science.

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

Three simple and straightforward questions...

You purport to provide answers to them.

Your links do not support your assertions in answer to the questions.

Try reading the questions again.

And then try actually answering them with links to support your assertions.

The links provide more than enough information about thermite/thermate and its properties. That is enough to make an informed conclusion. It really is that simple.

I am not the one with comprehension problems. :think:

the question is not whether thermate exists. It is a given that it does.

Your responses still do not answer the questions asked.

1. We are talking about a linear charge - not a jet that burns a round hole. Much more difficult - it will take more than vague generality to convince me. Can't find a link?

2. Check your definition of thermate - can you document it ever being used for commercial demolition?.



3. Thermite is very hard to ignite. And again, you have not proven that thermite is commonly used for demolition.

and people who like to make things blow up in their back yard, but I think this "thermite torch" might be close to what you mean.
A linear shaped charge usually has a liner with a v shaped cut so that it penetrates like an arrow. Usually thermite isn't added to shaped charges, although I can't remember why.

Thermite Torch
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?KEY=03/06198.030123&ELEMENT_SET=DECL
U. S. Patent No. 4,693, 181 discloses a linear cutting charge device including an explosive mass formed in the shape of a bar. Detonation of the charge in this patent is disclosed as stating that it compresses a metal liner and converts the metal liner into an outwardly projected slug of metal, the shape of which is dependent upon the shape of a cavity of the device. It is this outwardly projected slug which penetrates the work surface of a material which is cut or deformed by the detonation and subsequent penetration.


Detonation:
(The Eyewitness 911 site owner Rick Siegal said he saw the helicopters that were above each tower right before they went down. He did not see anything from them at the time, but then on tape he saw some sort of flash beneath the helicopters, which is also visible on the tape, so there is speculation that those were infrared detonators since they occurred just before each "collapse".)

Infrared detonators:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4714571
"the Iraqi insurgents are using different technologies for their roadside bombs in Iraq, causing more casualties. He says they now use an infrared detonator to get around the jamming device used against the detonators using radio signals, and the charges are "shaped" to create a more intensified explosion, better able to penetrate armor.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/12/ldt.01.html
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Military sources tell CNN that coalition forces in Iraq have found a new type of improvised explosive device, an IED, that for the first time combines two deadly technologies aimed at maximum destruction, a disturbing advance in the bombs that have killed hundreds of U.S. troops. Military sources confirm to CNN the unexploded bomb had an armor penetrating capability and an infrared laser detonator.

The bomb had a metal cap charge specifically designed to penetrate armored vehicles. The infrared detonator was much like the electronic eye on a garage door system. The first object that breaks the beam, the bomb explodes.

(Gee I wonder how they got those?)

doesn't mean they exist. So I guess no one can answer his question.

:sarcasm:

The post above did not, and nor have you.

Try answering hack's questions as asked.

You seem pretty confident that you can.

So.......... I'll look forward to it.

Did you read the provisional patent you posted? The '181 patent about linear shaped charges does not discuss thermite in any way, it seems to be cited only as a prior, and according to the thermite torch provisional patent application, inferior way to cut metal because it produces shock waves (from the detonation) which the thermite does not. Did you read the thermite compositions described in the provisional patent? They contain neither Iron or Sulfur, so they couldn't have been the source of the substance Dr. Jones claims to have discovered.

How do insurgents get infrared detonators, you wonder. Easy, they build them. Infrared lasers are everywhere - cd players are a cheap source if you couldn't buy the diodes individually. If they are for short ranges they could instead be using infrared leds which are even more plentiful, found in every tv remote control (with a matching detector in the tv). It's possible to ignite materials directly with the infrared energy, but the cnn transcript describes this as a system that triggers when the beam is broken, so the initiator is probably electrical, which is easier in any case and means the ir power can be very low. The original question of how multiple thermite reactions could be initiated simultaneously remains unanswered.

How are the patents and infrared detonators relavant to the questions of the OP?

which had nothing to do with Jones or 9/11. But I'm sure in your mind you proved the President would never kill Americans.

in Iraq on false pretense and concocted evidence, so don't tell me that I don't believe he wouldn't kill Americans. Why would you even make such a claim?

of you to pretend that you had even a remote clue about the question - and then pretend that it was answered when it is obvious you had no clue - then toss in a straw man argument "the president would never kill americans" to divert from your obvious display of ignorance.

Sheesh.

The patent proves thermite's cutting ability can be controlled and directed.

As for the insurgent's detonators, it is a great example of how creativity can be misused. Igniting thermite through an electronic circuit wouldn't be rocket science.

They all refer to high explosive cutting charges. The purpose of that paragraph is to describe other mechanisms for cutting thick steel. None of these refer to thermite.



The rest of the patent describes a improved handheld thermite cutting torch.

Do you understand that to ignite thermite requires a temperature that is as nearly as hot as thermite? It is not a trivial matter.

You obviously didn't bother with the links provided. Igniting thermite is a trivial matter when indirect methods like sparklers, magnesium strips, or catalysts are available.

When used in a timed circuit, a fuse can convert electrical energy into the thermal energy needed for the reaction.

that makes linear cuts.

"The torch is activated, producing a flame and reaction product within the charge tube 320. The flame and reaction products are forced by high pressure inside the charge tube 320 through the aperture 304 towards the workpiece. After striking the workpiece, the flame and reaction products are directed out the groove 312, parallel to the line of the cut in the workpiece, thereby preventing backpressure from building up around the nozzle, and eliminating the need for a standoff distance. By directing flame and reaction products through the groove, parallel to the cutting aperture, the torch can also be used to cut a workpiece having a larger diameter or width than the torch itself.
"

it describes a handheld cutting torch that has a modified nozzle that creates a horizontal flame vice a round one. Explosive charges don;t have torches, nozzles and cutting apertures.

how the OCT continues to deny that it exists. It's funny how they operate. It takes three, the OP who "disappears", while the useful idiot goads and insists the question is not being answered, then the casual passerby fake "global warming" advocate who just happens to know something (but doesn't really) about thermite to make it look as though there is a "consensus" .

Fight'em with facts and truthiness. :toast:

"The greatest derangement of the mind is to believe in something because one wishes it to be so."
Louis Pasteur

is a good word.:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think that's the polite response these days to ridiculous and silly posts such as the one I'm responding to.

some of us can't spend all day in this forum.

what you were "saying" at all...

and you still haven't answered hack's questions.

Why is that?

pfft.

Hmmm,who do you remind me of? I always forget when I answer you people's (persons) posts - you aren't really interested in the answer , you are interested in trying to look like you are right. The availablity and cheapness of infrared detonators have nothing to do with the op or anything else.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

..." additionally describes in the interview a patent from 1999 that his team found for a thermite "linear cutting system" Quoting his interview:

Dr. Stephen Jones: " important point is that thermite can be...designed to either cut through steel without explosion...called an incendiary....evices at least since 1999 ...to have thermite come out essentially as a hot slicing molten iron...knife that will cut through thick steel...AND WE'VE DUG OUT THE PATENT....So you have this device that holds the thermite and lets it go out in such a way that it will cut through steel; it's called a "linear cutting system" and...that fits exactly with what we see. "

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
(emphasis mine)

Surprise, surprise.

Go ahead...

1)
2)
3)

How hard can it be?

Google "linear cutting system" or "linear cutting system" + thermite and see what you get.

Is Dr Jones making stuff up again?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

he doesn't make things up - it is more accurate to say he talks about things he is not qualified to talk about.

Patents are not secret - they are public information. He (or you for that matter) should provide a link if he is going to base incredible theories on it.

Your previous post simply shows you can't read very well - your link describes a cutting torch, not a demolition charge.

What does have believing Bush have to do with this? Do you really believe that everyone who doesn't accept every one of your CTs is a freeper? I have stated many time in this forum that Bush has committed impeachable crimes for 911. I accept nothing at face value and question everything - just because you can't do the same is your problem.

The cutting torch proves thermite's cutting ability can be directed. What makes you believe it cannot be adapted for cutting steel columns?

Should we throw away a perfectly good hammer because the handle is made of wood instead of plastic? :crazy:

I can point at a bottle rocket and say "there is proof that we can fly to the moon." but I would have to skip over a lot of steps involving some pretty complex engineering. It is not a trivial issue.

You are talking about a hand held cutting torch that just happens to use thermite as a cutting medium. To translate that into a linear cutting charge is a pretty big step - too big a step to just blithely assume it can be easily done.

The propulsion concept behind a bottle rocket is scalable or we wouldn't have space shuttles or any large rockets.

Engineering issues like life support and navigation control are just consequential details. Scalability is not a problem. Do you expect the basic laws of physics to change when a model has been scaled up?

Some folks here don't actually read what they cut and paste - they just think that if they cut and paste enough that people won't read the links and will be fooled into thinking that they know what they are talking about.

are links. It is up to the OP to determine whether the links satisfy the inquiry.

Not sure if you missed the "links only" stipulation in the OP?

In the patent, copper oxide was used in place of iron oxide. Sulphur is not a main ingredient in thermite.



Thermate is used in demolitions and should have a reliable ignition system.

Even if the ignition system was unavailable it can be made from scratch. The whole system would consist of an electronic circuit, cord, and custom made fuses.

Sorry I will not go into further detail since this information can be abused.

but try answering hack's questions.

You still haven't.

in these questions. Todays technologies show us that almost anything is possible. Like Ive said before, none believed that a plane could deter conventional radar systems for years, until the stealth bomber was unveiled. Until it was shown to the public, it was considered "impossible" by the public.
Why it seems that it would be such a herculean task to produce such devices is really beyond me.. you really do need to give more credit to the multi trillion dollar military, industrial and secret service infrastructure that controls the USA (and world).

These questions really are, IMHO, moot. The fact is that no "conventional" theory can properly explain the the molten metal observed falling from WTC2 and the intense heat in the rubble afterwords. These facts only strengthen the thermate hypothesis.

no point. That's obvious. But, as long as she can keep people replying to pointless blather, ie, "no you haven't, no you haven't, no you haven't", the more time it takes away from actual discussion. The other obvious thing about the poster in question is why not prove they do not exist? Wouldn't that be much easier than relying on a bunch of ct loons to provide the answer she seeks? Just askin. Here, I'll get it started.

The answer to #1 is no. Here's why. (Start here)

quickesst

is to get us all on the NSA blacklist they're trying to build from Google's search records.

at the library, checking out "how to" books on building demolition and explosives !

...just saying

Remember when EMP weapons were the province of science fiction?

Also, welcome to DU. :hi:

Could this product be used to facilitate a shaped device that would deliver a linear Thermate cut?

http://www.cotronics.com/vo/cotr/cm_castable.htm

Sorry if someone else has linked this already.

"The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2500°C (4532°F) with iron (III) oxide)— although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment. Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen and does not require any external source of air."

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

You are asking for "links only". Correct?

Having read this thread, I thought it would be a good idea to point out what you are asking for in the OP.

doesn't know as much as you do, but...


http://darwin.nap.edu/books/NI000141/html/16.html
An Assessment of Techniques for Removing Offshore Structures (1996)
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS)

AN ASSESSMENT OF TECHNIQUES FOR REMOVING OFFSHORE STRUCTURES FIGURE 2-7 Sketches showing internal diver cut. Source: Courtesy of Association of Diving Contractors. melting the target material, which produces a crater or hole. The charge is placed and detonated in the same way as an explosive charge and is self-sustaining once it is initiated (figure 2-10). This technique requires highly efficient thermite mixtures and automated systems to produce linear cuts.

OCR for page 26

So...linear cuts, charges, & thermite

"TECHNIQUES BEING DEVELOPED" Show me that they were actually developed.

Secondly, they are not talking about a shaped charged. They are talking about an automated cutting torch . The torch by its self only burns a round hole. To make a linear cut requires a mechanism to move the torch in a line. This would be a bulky mechanism designed to be used in ones or twos, not by the hundreds as required in the WTC. And how the hell would you hide such a device?


Nice try - now show me a linear shaped charge like I asked form.

I hope you don't mind a brief interruption to make sure I understand where you're coming from on the issue of what caused the WTC buildings to collapse unlike any other steel buildings in world history.

What is your theory on the cause of those historical collapses?

Let me rephrase your question:

"Hack, do you believe that the WTC were laced with a mixture of high explosives and thermite (using devices that don't exist) and demolished using techniques that have never been used in commercial demolition? "

You do realize, don't you, that the 911 "truth movement" has never told me what to believe in any detail. Once you get pass the "obviously it is CD" there is nothing but a lot of emotion and hand waving. Why isn't there a detailed and plausible time line that says "to create the observed damage, I think they used x amount of explosives placed in the following locations." That is what I am looking for - can you help?

The WTC are unique cases unless you are prepared to show me previous cases of high rise buildings being hit by large airplanes flying at high speeds which created large fires. Why do you believe that because it never happened in the pass it can't happen at all? It is not like there is a large sample set to examine.

I accept that the combination of structural damage and large fires were sufficient to bring down the WTC.

Dr. Van Romero said something to the effect that a relatively small amount
of explosives in a few key places could have brought the buildings down.

If we are to believe that scattered fires did the job, then apparently
all that would be needed was explosives producing damage on the order of the
fire damage.

If we are to believe the zipper theory, cutting a few flimsy truss "clips" would
bring the whole building down. Who needs explosives? A couple of suicide
grinders with abrasive cutting wheels could do the job.

that a relatively small amount of explosives would produce everything that we saw with the WTC - only that it would fall down. For example, Hoffman's dust clouds could not be explained by a small amount of explosives if they had to generate a force ten times the potential energy of the WTC. So what is it - a huge amount or a small amount? How would thermite fit into Van Romero scheme - why is it necessary? He also never said that severe structural damage and large fires could not bring down the WTC.

If fire is the key, why hasn't a single 911 scholar gone to the effort to calculate how much energy the fires generated? This is old science - shouldn't they be able to take it further than a couple of internet photos and out of context quotes?

The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures, said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse," Romero said.

http://www.911review.com/coverup/romero.html

I believe his subsequent statements.

BTW - how many tons of explosives are required to make Hoffman's calculations work? I came up with 20 -50 tons per floor - I can understand now why he was unwilling to actually go the extra step of making the calculations himself.

been through this before.

Is it asking too much that you refer to his statements before making
pronouncements on them?

He did not recant everything.

He did not recant the statement that a realativel small amount of explosives could
have done the job.

He did not recant the statement that it looked just like a controlled demolition.

He did not recant the statement that a two-stage attack (one to draw the FDNY and
a second one to kill them) was a common terrorist tactic.

The only thing he recanted was the opinion that fire could not have caused the
collapse.

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says
By John Fleck
Journal Staff Writer

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

The day of the attack, Romero told the Journal the towers' collapse, as seen in news videotapes, looked as though it had been triggered by carefully placed explosives. Subsequent conversations with structural engineers and more detailed looks at the tape have led Romero to a different conclusion.

Romero supports other experts, who have said the intense heat of the jet fuel fires weakened the skyscrapers' steel structural beams to the point that they gave way under the weight of the floors above. That set off a chain reaction, as upper floors pancaked onto lower ones.

Romero said he believes still it is possible that the final collapse of each building was triggered by a sudden pressure pulse caused when the fire reached an electrical transformer or other source of combustion within the building. But he said he now believes explosives would not have been needed to create the collapse seen in video images.

the morning of September 11/01 about the fact that shortly after he saw the second airplane strike the second tower on television, he tried to telephone various people in emergency response agencies to tell them that he believed the buildings were in imminent danger of collapse as a result of the impacts and subsequent damage, and when he couldn't get through on the phone, he headed down to the site.... those links have been posted here before and are probably still in the archives, even though CTers seem to refrain from mentioning them.

The poster's use of the term "CT'ers" is evidence for one or more of the following:

* Poster doesn't know the definition of the word conspiracy.

* Poster DOES know the definition, but uses it correctly only in posts intended to cast doubt on 911 Truth Seekers.

* Poster is unaware that the important question about 911 is not whether there was a conspiracy; rather, the only question is WHO was behind the conspiracy.

Hopefully, the poster will learn the importance of precision and clarity when writing about important
matters where the incorrect use of legal terminology can lead to false conclusions.

Give it a rest.

Your errors in fact and in logic are non-stop but it's difficult to refrain from asking you to correct them.

Are your posts written by a CT'er?

It's been quite some time since I read his account of the morning of September 11/01 so I will have to go look for it again.

developed. This is what it says:

" The charge is placed and detonated in the same way as an explosive charge and is self-sustaining once it is initiated"

you asked for this in the op
"A linear thermite cutting charge that can make linear cuts in steel?"
now you are changing your tune to "shaped charge" You people/person are too much.

it can be used as an explosive. It has to be ground really fine and measure precisely. I would think then that this would be used in a charge, since you would not , for obvious reasons want to use it in a torch.

A superthermite bomb can fit in a suitcase .

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/WTC-Jones19mar06.htm
"Superthermites" use tiny particles of aluminum known as "nanoaluminum" (<120 nanometers) in order to increase their reactivity. Mixed with fine metal oxide particles, such as micron-scale iron oxide dust, nanoaluminum in superthermite becomes explosive

so you have proof that it was developed? It is a commercial product so surely you can link to a product brochure? Or perhaps it was not economically feasible? Or perhaps it was overtaken by a different technology? Who knows - all we do know is that there is absolutely no proof that it was ever made.

But again you are missing the point.

Your post is still not talking about a linear cutting charge.(by the way - a linear cutting charge is a shaped charged - any explosive device that focuses it explosive energy is a shaped charge.) It is talking about a mechanism that holds a thermite cutting torch in place and then moves it to cut straight line.

Context is everything - your article talks about the dangers that divers face using thermite cutting torches underwater. Then it takes about a future technology to replace the diver with a machine. Since it does not appear to actually exist, I can't explain how it works but I can speculate:
It would be a fairly large mechanism that serves two functions: one to hold the torch onto the structure that needs to be cut and secondly to move the torch to make a straight cut. It would most likely be hydraulically controlled with hydraulic fluid being supplied from the surface by hoses. In any case, a device for underwater metal cutting.

I just can't see how this non-existent device would work in a WTC scenario. You must admit that it adds a lot of complexity for no apparent advantage. But that has always been the weakness of the thermite theory - why use it in the first place when high explosives are more than adequate?

in terms of detection. The ingredients are something that can be explained away, I'm not sure about sound, I think thermite is silent, although I don't know about the explosive version.

and I'm sure the technology exists for some sort of thermate cutting device... I don't know why you think it would it need to be "public". There are many, many weapons and technologies tested secretly every year which we know nothing of. If the evidence points to thermate/thermite being used in the buildings, the only discourse would be to figure the how afterwords. Why would anyone want to showcase something that would be easily traceable anyways?

I think if the device wouldn't need any hydraulics or complicated apparatuses as you speculate - as once you set it off, the heat from the reaction would do the rest. It would be just a matter of holding the thermite at an angle close to the steel with some sort of crucible. This would contain the heat as so it would be directed almost fully towards the steel. Don't forget that thermate cuts through steel very quickly and easily, so once the reaction started, the heat would cause negligible damage to the vessel because most of it would be flowing through the steel column at this point. Gravity would do the work, no contraptions needed.

If your CT requires devices you cannot prove exist then what is the point of discussing this further? You could say it was alien technology from area 51 and it would be equally meaningful. Anything is possible when you can make things up.

you happened by a murder scene and saw a body with knife marks in his/her back. But when you read the story in the newspaper the next day, it reports police stating that it was a suicide. Wouldn't you be suspicious?

I think there is ample evidence of thermate, so the question of how it was used is beside the point.

the fact that no one can articulate how thermite would be used is proof of that. Every piece of evidence has other possible causes - it is not an open and shut case like you would believe.

a specific known item used for the deployment of thermate it doesn't disprove the theory.

Put events as a whole into context and you shed more light on the CD theory.

Specfic building events:
- The flowing metal observed streaming from WTC2 being the effect of a thermate reaction explains the circumstances far better and
more elegantly then the idea of airplane aluminum melting.
- Pulverized concrete, violent expulsion of dust and debris and the observed squibs of dust are much more easily explained with CT
then with gravitational energy.
- Eyewitness accounts of "huge explosions" bolster the idea of CT, and only complicate and provide more mysteries to solve for the
OCT.
- The heat observed in the rubble afterwords has a much higher probability of being the effect of thermate and/or explosive charges
then it does mere gravitational energy or office fires.
- The strange 45 degree cut observed on the column in the photograph after the fact has a higher probability of being a cut from
thermate, rather then from cleanup crews -- who would have no reason to make such a dangerous cut when trying to remove the
steel. Also the slag that is observed on the cut doesn't resemble slag that would be expected from an oxyacetylene torch.
- The Pancake theory is flawed in one area that it doesn't explain how the massive core columns were pulled and destroyed with the
floor slabs as they fell. One would expect the core to still be somewhat standing if only the floors were falling around it. CT
would explain this "phenomena" because progressive collapse didn't occur.


Some of the general surrounding mysteries that point to CT (by showing prior knowledge):

- The irregularly high amount of "put" options placed on United and AA prior to 9/11.
- The apparent coincidence that war game exercises were taking place on the same day with the same characteristics as the events
that occurred later on.
- The very distinct possibility that a stand-down order was given that day for the remaining air defense.
- The announcement by Rumsfeld on Sept. 10th that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 TRILLION dollars.
- Bush's puzzling inaction to the news that the second tower had been hit by a plane.
- Bush's comments made about when and where he saw the first plane hit Tower 1 on television. An impossibility.
- FEMA being granted only some 30 million dollars to investigate the biggest attack in history by "foreigners" on American soil.
- The carting off of valuable steel and building evidence, which if it were kept and studied (as it should have been), would
probably have later nullified many skeptics distrust of the OCT - myself included.
- The countless odd coincedences and connections regarding the people involved.


History also points to government conspires occurring on a regular basis.

- Evidence that an attack on Pearl Harbor was known in advance by Roosevelt.
- The fact that agencies of the US government, and select members of the white house have had their hand in
previous attempts to frame disastrous events on state enemies lends credence to governmental conspiracy. "Operation Northwoods"
is just one example.
- The countless CIA ties to installed dictatorships and deals that occur with them. Think: Iran-Contra
- The lies propagated before the first Gulf War. ie- "Babies being taken from their incubators and left to die by Iraqi soldiers."
- The irrational dehumanizing and subsequent actions taken against leaders who fly in the face of US official foreign policy.
Usually actions and policy that interfere with interests in oil and natural resources. Ie- Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Mohamed
Mossadegh.

I really don't have the time or energy to compile something grandiose to encompass every event of importance. So hopefully what's here has some merit and can show 9/11 in context to other events.

I don't think its an open and shut case. There are many areas that need much explanation. I am simply attempting to find the most plausible and all-encompassing theory that explains all aspects surrounding 9/11, given the circumstances.

Personally in regards to the idea of CD, I think alot of people really need to open up to the possibility that this illusion of a parent figure that is transfered to "higher ups" in government and society is misplaced and grotesque. I don't want another father or mother. I can think for myself and I love my real parents, thank you.

There is always, and will probably always be, the very distinct possibility for official complicity in places and events where one would expect the exact opposite. People will always be people - including your "elected" officials. They are not infallible to greed and corruption.

If these particular devices weren't known to you, you wouldn't be asking for "proof" that they existed, which incidentally has been supplied in abundance.

In any case, identifying the secret recipes and trade names of the gizmos that were used is entirely irrelevant to the obvious fact that buildings were demolished with explosives.

So the WTC was demolished by non-standard explosives and techniques yet there is absolutely no need to prove anything? Belief is all that is required? At least you are honest about where you stand.

Why do you think I have unique knowledge of explosives and demolition?

to the question of whether they were used, and the answer to that is obvious and demonstrable. The towers could not have been demolished in any other way.

were done by who exactly? You can't even produce a single paper by any 911 "scholar" that shows it was theoretically impossible for the WTC to fall without CD - can you understand why there are some of us that are not willing to accept such sweeping statements as "The towers could not have been demolished in any other way."?

Has is occurred to you that if you have to fall back on unproven techniques and non-existent explosive devices that perhaps it not as clear cut as you would like to believe?

You haven't read Jones? "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?"

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

You haven't read Griffin? "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True"

http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

You haven't read Wood? "A Refutation of the Official Collapse Theory"

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

In section 9 of this paper Jones argues for the impossibility of a speedy gravity driven collapse. He claims that conservation of momentum prohibits what we see. He does not make any quantitative analysis calculations or even attempt to sketch an argument to back up his claim.

He mixes up the discussions of WTC1,2&7 and he mentions observations made by "several engineers/scientist". He backs this up with a reference to the book of a retired theology professor (Griffin) and with a link to this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html

In this piece the unidentified author argues without argument or calculation that air resistance alone would account for slowing the collapse to about 15 seconds (which he claims to be the observed times.) He then concludes that the much greater resistance from the intact floors of steel and concrete below would further increase this resistance thousands of time so that the collapse would last "tens of minutes" if it were at all possible for it to occur. Again -- no calculations are shown.

Jones later provides his first "scientific" reference and this is Judy Wood's billiard balls model:

http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

There are so many flaws in this paper that I do not know where to begin. For one thing, Wood flatly ignores conservation of momentum up to the point where she announces: "Now, let's consider momentum." And from then on she proceeds to *ignore* conservation of momentum!

And Jones complains is that "the official story" fails to take precisely this into account!

now go back through the DU archives and look at Janedoe's posts - note the conspicuous lack of formulas and calculations even though she claims to be an engineer.

featured on the st911 front page.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=50155

http://www.st911.org/

You do know, don't you, that her field of expertise is not remotely related to the engineering of high rise building (unless you are will to accept that the WTC and teeth are connected in some manner.)

She claims that the official story violates the laws of physics and that a collapse
without demolition should take 55 seconds.

At the Annual Conference of the Society for Experimental Mechanics in St Louis
she asked Dr. Frank Gayle how asymmetric damage and asymmetric fires could generate
a symmetrical collapse. She says members of the audience gasped when he replied
"gravity is symmetrical".

Gayle apparently claimed that the fireproofing was blown off the perimeter columns
all the way around the building.

She asked him for his analysis of how the collapse of one floor resulted in total
progressive collapse. He could not provide one.

You got that from her interview with Fetzer. He mentions on her behalf that she enquired at the end of Gale's presentation how small fires scattered around the building could cause a perfectly symmetrical collapse (never mind that is was not so.) If that's true that she asked such a question I can already imagine the audience gasping. But Wood goes on to say:

"Correct. You have asymmetrical damage, asymmetrical fires, and lets assume you do have the exact same temperature around everyone of the column, the core colums and the perimeter columns -- they happen to all loose their fireproofing at the exact same time -- how do you have this perfectly symmetrical collapse? Frank Gale's answer shocked me. He said 'Ho... You forgot gravity is symmetrical' "

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html
10 minutes into the second hour.

Notice how you put in Gale's mouth nonsensical words that Wood claims for herself. Her assumptions do not remotely resemble anything that can be found in any of the NIST report or summaries. Wood is clueless. Gale attempted some humor.

(Nevertheless, the symmetry of Gravity and of the load on the surviving columns *is* relevant in a way that Fetzer and Wood can not fathom. They seem to have no acquaintance with the process of load redistribution. While some columns loose even part of their load bearing capability, others take the slack. The hat truss, among other structural components, performs that function. The failure of the columns is a cascade effect.)

Load redistribution is one of the many, many reasons why fires and planes did not and could not initiate a global collapse and why global collapse could not have been achived without explosives.

Is it your contention that the columns that did not creep or buckle could have taken the blunt of the load of the top portion of the tower however much weight was transferred to them? Wasn't the safety factor somewhat limited and not infinite? Or were the towers designed to survive just any amount of column failure? Then why did they use so many in the construction of the towers?

How many more columns should the planes have taken out, and how many more should the fires have wakened than NIST conjectures, for the towers to yield to the force of gravity?

That essentially means that the vertical loads could have been supported by 1/5 - 1/6 of the 183-7 colums per floor (yes the core columns were heavier than the perimeter columns but you get the idea).

I know of no floors where more than 10% of the perimeter and core columns were taken out. Since 90% is greater than 20%, damage caused by "planes" did not cause the towers to collapse.

No columns could have been heated to the point of failure by fuel or secondary office fires, and I have seen no evidence that any were, so the fires were irrelevant.

That rules out fires and planes, which leaves explosives, unless you have a better idea.

what happens when one column sags and the loads are now dynamic? You do understand the distinction, don't you?

There were no sagging columns, at least on account of fires or planes, because loads carried by damaged columns were redistributed to the rest of the structure. That's why you didn't see any perimeter columns above the plane holes crashing down.

The "dynamic" loads you're imagining were produced by explosives.

I understand that after the impact there were no sagging columns. My point is that when the remaining columns were exposed to high temperatures, they weakened. When they weakened sufficiently they sagged. When they sagged, all the weight they were supporting became a dynamic load.

and a misunderstanding of dynamic loading. Look it up.

you never, ever, seem to be able to explain things with resorting to cut and paste from some CT site. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about.

When that weight shifts downwards, it is dynamic force - no two ways about it.

Static load corresponds to the weight on the structure.

Dynamic load takes into account inertial effects. It is the reaction forces that oppose momentum imparted to the structure (F=dP/dt which is just F=ma).

While dynamic loads become primary factors after collapse initiation, they are also present whenever weights shift around because of progressive failure of other load bearing components (creep, sagging, etc.) or even because of the normal dynamic response of the structure to winds.

Search for "dynamic load factors" in the second of these papers.

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf
http://www.nibs.org/MMC/ProgCollapse%20presentations/FinalReport.pdf

Yes, the buildings fell to the ground, so one would expect that there were "dynamic forces" at play while that was occurring.

But they fell because they were demolished. There is absolutely no evidence of any sagging, creeping, or buckling as a consequence of fire, planes, or dynamic loading, i.e., variable lateral loading caused by wind, earthquakes, waves, or impacts.

How much damage did they take? Why did it collapse before B1 even thou the plane hit it at a banked angle, almost entirely missing the core and the subsequent fires burned with far less intensity? How does this add up?

More asymmetrical damage to WTC2. More localized stress. Much more weigth above the lower impact level. I'm sure others will deal more fully with this puzzle.

response to a question from another questioner Frank Gayle used a laser
pointer and claimed that the fireproofing had been blown off of all
the perimeter columns. This is at the end of the first hour of the
radio program. I did not put those words in Gayle's mouth. Maybe
Dr. Wood did, but I didn't.

This is indeed what she claimed Gayle said. I forgot this was also discussed in the first part of the interview.

steel joints in a highly redundantly strong building to the point of bending and breaking (after only 50 some minutes) besides NIST's flawed report?

WHeres the proof that diesel fueled fires could take down a 47 storey building at 5:30 pm?
On that note, wheres the proof that there was actually diesel fuel in WTC7?

and on and on (I would go on, but its time for bed)...

So the mutualbox one says:
"Steel will start to lose its strength rapidly at 1000 degrees. This temperature is easily obtained in a normal single family dwelling room and contents fire. In a warehouse fire these temperatures are obtained very rapidly. The building materials act like a heat sink. The steel and masonry walls absorb most of the heat generated. When steel absorbs heat at such a rapid rate as in a fire the steel will begin to expand, twist and bend. When any of these things are happening the steel is failing."
http://www.mutualbox.com/index.htm

How would a single dwelling or warehouse fire differ from the wtc? The author did not write his name, so I wonder if it is a fireman saying this from experience, meaning that there might be other variables that would allow fires to reach higher temperatures faster? Also, would this be true if jet fuel were used?

but in answer to your question, the role of the jet fuel, by releasing so much energy in such a short period(on the order of megawatts), was to take the fire almost directly to the flash-over phase. The rate of burning and heat release increases significantly in the flash-over phase - that's what made the WTC fires unique.

The WTC were very hot fires that released an enormous amount of heat energy.






http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

how temperatures of 1000C would be

1) possible with this type of fire.

and

2) sustained for the duration of the fire.

So many numbers have been thrown around since 9/11 regarding the temperature of the fires that the idea of anybody guessing the temperatures without basis seems laughable. It was less then 10000 gallons of jet-fuel and office materials that burned-- this is not indicative of a blast furnace.


I'll paste these points for you to consider:

- 800º C is near the maximum flame temperature of hydrocarbons burning in air without pre-heating or pressurization of the air. Even those temperatures are usually reached only with premixed (blue) flames, such as in gas stoves and blowtorches. Diffuse flames, of the type in the WTC, tend to be far cooler.
- Widespread fires reaching 700º C would have caused extensive window breakage and would have made the steel glow red-hot. No such events were observed.
- Fires would have to be very extensive to raise the temperatures of columns to near the fire temperatures, given the thermal sinks of the steel structures. Columns of the perimeter walls and of the core structures were well coupled thermally. In order to soften columns, fires would have to exceed the capacity of the 100,000 tons of steel in each building to draw away the heat. In fact the fires did not even consume entire floors of either tower.
- Heating the external columns would be especially difficult because the columns were situated outside the interior volume, with only one of the four sides adjacent to the building's interior.
- Heating of core columns would be especially difficult given the apparently poor ventilation of the core regions, being further from any air supply.
- As the jet fuel burned off and the fires became less severe, the columns would have cooled and regained most strength lost to elevated temperatures

They don't seem to have a problem with it so perhaps the issue lies with you?

Believe what you want to believe - I will believe the science and the experts.

maybe you believe that JFK was shot by a lone gunman? There were many "experts" in this field who claimed so. Do you believe them as well?

On a side note, it would be interesting to compile a list of the current "whos-who" in regards to the OCT. People who are actively supporting the official line.

Then you have all the universities that are associated with NIST.

There are some MIT profs:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/

There is the ARUP group:

http://www.arup.com/fire/feature.cfm?pageid=6267

The real question for you is what universities, professional groups and fire engineering experts disagree with the official story? The 911 scholars are certainly not a "whos-who" - none of them are structural or fire engineering experts.

no one 's name is on the one I referenced above. Plus, it's affiliated with the Arlington Fire Dept, which was at the Pentagon. I think it's suspect.

the fires at the Windsor Towers were hot enough to buckle steel and cause a partial collapse. There was no aviation fuel yet it the fires were hot enough.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

As to your questions, it is obvious you have not read the links I sent you. Read this one:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

It specifically address your questions about air supply. It also explains in great detail how enormous the heat energy of the fires were.

Your sink heat argument is bogus - there is no way that steel can conduct heat that fast. By your logic, If I can heat one end of a steel bar red hot, the entire bar will be red hot. If you have ever played with fires as a kid, you know that that is not true. The bar will heat up but the heat will not be uniform - the metal can't conduct heat that fast.

the Windsor Towers burned for 18 ~ 20 hours. Not some 50 minutes as in the towers. Yet it still didn't completely collapse. You would think that it would, considering the massive forces that must have been unleashed as the "progressive" collapse initiated, but somehow was stopped by the totally burned out building skeleton.

Also, the collapse occurred over hours, not seconds as seen in the WTC's.

the first collapse started two and a half hours after the fire started. One thing you must keep in mind is that the Madrid fires start tiny and took a long time to grow to a phase 3 flash over fire. The WTC fires reached that strength in minutes due to the aviation gas.

You really do need to read and understand this paper:

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20V%20Fire.pdf

Secondly, the only reason there was not total collapse was that the building was primarily of concrete construction. The entire point of the Madrid fire is that concrete buildings are inherently more resistant to fires - the only portion not to collapse was the concreted portion.



http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

And the "steel" was a non-structural curtain wall that lacked fireproofing. But don't let facts get in the way of a good spin.

but I was browsing the quotes you provided ...



Lets look at this statement:

First he states "burned under stoichiometric conditions" which is the perfect combination of air and fuel that result in perfect combustion. This could not have and did not happen.

Second, this formula uses a fully fueled plane as an example (158,733lbs or roughly 26,000 gallons), when the planes which struck the towers were carrying something like 40% of its fuel load (roughly 11,000 gallons). So there is roughly 1296 GJ of total POTENTIAL energy from the fuel load.
The statement also forgets to mention is that most of the fuel burned off in a huge fireball immediately after the impact. So lets throw a liberal estimate at the remaining fuel left to burn inside to be roughly 40% (I would guess closer to 20%) of the remaining fuel. So now we are down to 518 GJ of energy left to damage the building through heat caused by fire. We are down 6x times from his stated potential energy calculation that could affect the tower.

I do understand that at the bottom of the statement he says only a fraction would be capable of causing enormous damage. Why he would word the piece with quantified statements like "a fraction" and "enormous damage" without backing them up with numbers as he did previously confuses me.

If a layman such as myself can do simple calculations to refute such a claim from an "expert"... well I'll let you figure that one out.





Theres that magic number again: 1000C. Does he mean a sustained 1000c temp, or at its peak? What?

I'd like to see where in the history of any building fires was such a temperature reached, and sustained long enough to bend and contort steel so bad as to initate a full collapse of the building.
Even FEMA admits that the fuel had burned off after a few minutes - so jet-fuel really is out of the question in regards to equations regarding temperatures.

Where WAS the glowing, melting steel? We would have easily seen it in the dark gaping holes where the planes entered. I have yet to see ONE picture or video showing this.

It doesn't have an explanation along with it. It is beyond my technical understanding, but it sounds like some kind of housing which causes the thermite to behave as an explosive would, ie form a jet/jets that will penetrate steel.
http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentView.aspx?id=6766744

It does not indicate linear, but it is my understanding that a linear cut just entails a different shape (v shape ) liner. So, if they can produce a hole they can produce a linear cut.