Chinese "Demolition" Proves 9-11 was an Inside Job
in [Physics]
|
Prev: FR Bending of Light = GR 1919 Eddington Experiment
Next: Solutions manual to Intermediate Accounting 13e Kieso
From: Peter Webb on 15 Jan 2010 20:06 At last, some semblance of reality on the subject of thermite. For the record: 1. No "thermite" was found in the debris. Ingredients for thermite were found, but these are simply Aluminium and Iron Oxide. Aluminium aircraft hits steel framed building, of course there is going to be Al and FeO3 in the ashes, the surprising thing would be if there was no Al or FeO3 in the debris, as this would indicate either no aircraft or the the buildings steel frame had disappeared. 2. Thermite is not explosive. It does not release gasses, and hence expand in size, so generates no explosive force at all. 3. Thermite is (as its name implies) a reaction which causes heat. As you point out, to generate enough heat to melt the girders a huge quantity of thermite would be needed. Not a "nano-spray", but many kgs of the stuff in a ceramic container so it remained attached to the girders while the (quite slow) reaction proceeded. Thermite generates much less heat per gram than burning kerosene/avgas; as there was 50 tons of burning avgas already, you would need a couple of hundred tons of the stuff to make any real difference to the heat of the conflagration. 4. If you want to "cut" steel girders, then thermite is completely hopeless. Its not explosive, so it can't be used as a cutting agent. You use much smaller quantities of very high explosive, for example shaped charges of C4. 5. There were undoubtedly traces of paper in the debris. That is mostly cellulose, one of the two ingredients in nitrocellulose, a high explosive far more suited to demolition. Instead of going on about the ingredients for thermite being found in the debris, 9/11 kooks should go on about the debris containing cellulose, the main ingredient of the powerful explosive nitro-cellulose. There is the same evidence for nitro-cellulose as thermite, and at least you could (in theory at least) cut steel beams with nitro-cellulose if you had enough of it and could build containment structures for the explosives.
From: Strabo on 16 Jan 2010 11:19 Al Dykes wrote: > In article <1e3c548e-d6e2-46db-835a-505fceadb3a6(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, > <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jan 8, 4:51=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 8, 1:08=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>> >>>> Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the >>>> demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have >>>> turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams. >>>> And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING. >>> WTC7 was hit by WTC1, dearie. >>> >> So were about 14 other buildings. >> Many had much more damage and fires than WTC 7. >> > > > > > WTC1, 2, and 7 were unigue. All the others has effective fireproofing. > Yep. They were insulated with asbestos.
From: CoalMineCanary on 16 Jan 2010 13:07 In article <aa211f53-41cf-464a-95f1-7410476d64cd(a)22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>, Darwin123 <drosen0000(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > I pointed them out over an over and over and over. Everyone knows 9/11 was an inside job.\ Some just can't believe it. -- Hint; Enjoy the moment !
From: knews4u2chew on 16 Jan 2010 13:15 On Jan 15, 5:06 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > At last, some semblance of reality on the subject of thermite. > > For the record: > > 1. No "thermite" was found in the debris. Ingredients for thermite were > found, but these are simply Aluminium and Iron Oxide. Aluminium aircraft > hits steel framed building, of course there is going to be Al and FeO3 in > the ashes, the surprising thing would be if there was no Al or FeO3 in the > debris, as this would indicate either no aircraft or the the buildings steel > frame had disappeared. > > 2. Thermite is not explosive. It does not release gasses, and hence expand > in size, so generates no explosive force at all. > > 3. Thermite is (as its name implies) a reaction which causes heat. As you > point out, to generate enough heat to melt the girders a huge quantity of > thermite would be needed. Not a "nano-spray", but many kgs of the stuff in a > ceramic container so it remained attached to the girders while the (quite > slow) reaction proceeded. Thermite generates much less heat per gram than > burning kerosene/avgas; as there was 50 tons of burning avgas already, you > would need a couple of hundred tons of the stuff to make any real difference > to the heat of the conflagration. > > 4. If you want to "cut" steel girders, then thermite is completely hopeless. > Its not explosive, so it can't be used as a cutting agent. You use much > smaller quantities of very high explosive, for example shaped charges of C4. > > 5. There were undoubtedly traces of paper in the debris. That is mostly > cellulose, one of the two ingredients in nitrocellulose, a high explosive > far more suited to demolition. Instead of going on about the ingredients for > thermite being found in the debris, 9/11 kooks should go on about the debris > containing cellulose, the main ingredient of the powerful explosive > nitro-cellulose. There is the same evidence for nitro-cellulose as thermite, > and at least you could (in theory at least) cut steel beams with > nitro-cellulose if you had enough of it and could build containment > structures for the explosives. Sure, sure..... http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
From: Al Dykes on 16 Jan 2010 14:17
In article <8Dl4n.24069$AO4.20188(a)newsfe02.iad>, Strabo <strabo(a)flashlight.net> wrote: >Al Dykes wrote: >> In article <1e3c548e-d6e2-46db-835a-505fceadb3a6(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, >> <knews4u2chew(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> On Jan 8, 4:51=A0pm, Iarnrod <iarn...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Jan 8, 1:08=A0pm, knews4u2c...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> Even if the planes did knock out numerous floors of the WTC, like the >>>>> demolition charges in the video, the WTC buildings shouldn't have >>>>> turned to dust and pick-up stick sized beams. >>>>> And WTC 7 was hit by NOTHING. >>>> WTC7 was hit by WTC1, dearie. >>>> >>> So were about 14 other buildings. >>> Many had much more damage and fires than WTC 7. >>> >> >> >> >> >> WTC1, 2, and 7 were unigue. All the others has effective fireproofing. >> > >Yep. They were insulated with asbestos. Not to code. -- Al Dykes News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising. - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail |