9/11 truth movement topic

[d3adp00l]

Its actually iron oxide and aluminum in a powdered form that makes thrermite, and the sulfur that was detected would tend to lead to thermate. In order for the reaction to work the mixture must be reduced to small particlulates. And the article is, well kinda not good. Rust is chemically known as iron oxide, the article states that aluminum doesn't rust, yes it does its known as aluminum oxide. Pure aluminum doesn't last in an oxygen enviroment however alloys with surfaces treatments do. They look plain aluminum but their not. So if thermite/thermate was used it wasn't the planes. But the proof of of that would be on the steel but its gone now.


http://www.asminternational.org/images2/cof/centen_1003.pdf
http://www.schemedesigners.com/Article-AOPA-Bonanza-Paint-August2001.htm

[Dingus Mungus]

The point was and I didn't make it apparent. through doing such is a lessen learned. if i try it with 3 sticks of wood insufficient heat is obtained. 100 pieces of wood isn't enough, now 500 pieces is sufficient to melt the aluminium from the iron leaving the iron red hot. Ok I concede that we are talking about iron in the case of the wtc. However the point is that if i add more fuel to the fire the end result is a hot enough fire to melt the aluminium from the iron.

That doesn't negate its max temp. Max temp is determined by the speed and energy of the oxidation. Molecules always have these kinds of factors limiting the ammount of energy you can release in a time span. The point I was making is nothing in that building was capable of producing those temperatures. (except the explosives) Use wood and jet fuel in your smelter... If your right the unit will melt itself. 5$ says your safe...

Ok i agree wood does not burn as hot under normal conditions. However change the conditions and you can have a hotter than "normal" fire. simply inject oxygen. Refering a jet engine to a blast furnace is just wrong. Now on the other hand it is in effect closer to a gas axe. Maximum possible temp again i agree however there is also a flash point involved.

"Refering a jet engine to a blast furnace is just wrong." Ummmm...  What about swapping coal or coke for JET FUEL. So you say the jet fuel with moving air acted like a blast furnace in WTC, but when the air and fuel move through an engine suddenly its not like a blast furnace??? Explain...

"Why would he say it doesn't exist???" Denial. I know that makes your point as well. However given that I cannot seem to get what i concider some of the brightest minds in the world to understand how it come to be. I'm certain that he himself don't understand it's presence so he in his own mind denies it's existance. simply because he cannot even begin to comprehend how it came to be. He cannot explain it so he don't want to discuss it and the easy and fastest way is to deny it's existance. Which brings to bare the whole point of Witness reliability bieng well, unreliable.

HE HEADED THE "FALL AND BURN" SECTION OF THE REPORT!!!!
Thats not something I want ignored! Thats my POINT!!!
You must now understand why there must be a new investigation.

Fall time: newton covered that maybe you need to address some of his works again as You won't listen to me.

WTC7 fall time: 6.5seconds
free fall in vac: 6.0seconds

Due to "wind resistance" there's simply no extra time left for any pancaking to take place. Per floor fall time would be measured in two times; fall time and resistance time. You understand fall time, but you need to analise resistance time. There is an exchange of energy that needs to take place when one object turns another to dust... This would slow its fall speed considerably on each impact. Please research this point for yourself. It's simply impossible from a physics stand point. No extra time!

Citing pancaking of floors which i doubt was the case as the structure partially twisted as it fell. which is another point i make that you dismiss readily but evidence proves different.

So if pancaking didn't happen why was concrete turned to dust? and steel melted? Where does all the friction come from? (Silly question considering prefall molten steel)
You never adressed that by the way... If it was the fall and friction why was there several fountains of molten steel spotted?

Molten iron: well a fire was involved, enough heat was generated to melt iron with the potential as the structure fell to blast oxygen past or into the allready red hot iron.

You still haven't sited a source, so untill you show me something proving you can achieve those kinds of heat with those fuels you're talking out your ass. I've shown several sources that clearly state the max tamp of jet fuel is 900 celsius. Show me something scientific!

I'm not skewing the facts the firemen are. I don't hear explosions. all i hear is a collapsing building going through it's last throws of resistance.

Yeah, because you watching a youtube clip should be a much better judge of that.

do a side by side comparison of WTC collapse and a building bieng imploded by soundtrack alone. you will hear a distinct difference between ignited charges and shearing structural supports as the building twists and collapses.

Here this is brand new, it required a lot of stabilizing.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/744529/9_11_new_collapse_footage_rare_demo_clearly_seen/
Side by side no audio, but you heard the audio in last clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo
Mini version of wtc 7...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAyyHQQXX_0

Now you find me a video of a building falling from structural damage like wtc7 did!

LMAO! Anyone else notice Ring didn't attempt to answer any of these?!?!?!

[Dingus Mungus]

May I remind people again, fuel will only explode when under pressure or as a fume. The plane was fueled not to long ago(low fume level), and the plane crashing into the building depressurized the fuel. The accumulative temperature of the ignited fuel could not have melted the steel, infact, coolent on the airplane would have lowered it even more. I remmeber reading somewhere very long ago that all the important executives were told not to come to work that day. Many firemen were already ready before the plane crashed(wtf). The wtc fell as if the floors stacked like pancakes, the same as a controlled demolition.

Don't worry, why would the government have a reason to decieve us?

Why does everyone ignore the fact that there was other factors involved? like that the fuel ignited the contents of the building of the effected crash area. what about the fact that the wind was blowing right through the building increasing the temp of the fire. 

I don't know how to say "office materials have low energy density" any clearer.
I don't know how to say "jet fuels max burning temp is 900 celcius" any clearer.

[Dingus Mungus]

Like WTC 7 who gives a flying flip wiether it was demoloshed or fell due to structural damage, debris and fire. it was evacuated! What point does knowing anything about WTC 7 have to do with who orchistrated 9/11?     

It would have taken more than 5 hours to rig an implosion...
Clearly if the building was demo'ed then someone had advanced warning, and has covered up the use of explosives from the begining. That coupled with the short installation window in a time of panic, clearly illistrates why wtc7 and the related inconsistancies are important.

Would you agree that if explosives where used than they would have been set up in advance?

[ring_theory]

I didn't respond to your post because i've been addressing your questions and your not even listening. So why bother