Thermite isn't expensive, isnt an explosive, and the BY PRODUCTS OF ITS USE, just when burnt on its own, is aluminum oxide and MOLTEN iron. The use i mentions is, we use a few ceramic potters together, with a thin sheet of aluminum between two, plugging the shared hole. This is placed on top of a 2 to 3 foot mound of various colored powdered glass. about 5 cups of thermite is ignited, which melts the aluminum plug when it gets hot enough, runs down into the glass, melting and fusing it. it forms runnels and channels and flows this way and that, and we still get a little red hot iron on the bottom, it forms a nice support base when it cools. No boom, no blown away, just a stream of liquid iron.
in demolition, small high temp explosives are usually used to IGNITE the thermite, which might be where a bang would come from, but all you hear from the thermite is a nice sizzle and hiss. On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Of course it would be incorrect if the demolition company wanted to make > molten iron. However, they generally try to use as little of the expensive > thermite as possible to get the job done. When a person hears an explosion, > as people claimed to do, this means that things were blown away. You can't > have it both ways. If thermite were used to bring the buildings down, it did > not produce the molten iron. The molten iron had to result from something > else. If it resulted from something else, most of the support for the > thermite claim disappears. You can see how easy it is to put out a few > "facts" and have people believe they have meaning. Mention thermite to the > average person and they imagine a big part of the building being melted. > Detect a little aluminum and they conclude thermite was used. It is so easy > to fool people, it is no wonder so much delusion exists. > > Ed > > > On Sep 8, 2008, at 12:46 PM, leaking pen wrote: > >> Considering that I use thermite to MAKE molten pools of metal, as part >> of a glass sculpture technique, that would be incorrect. The reaction >> in large amounts doesnt "blow" things away. Thats standard aluminum / >> iron (II) oxide thermite. >> >> On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 8:49 AM, Edmund Storms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> I hate to get involved in this cat fight, but when thermite is used, it >>> melts only a very local region which is blown away from the area by the >>> reaction. A molten pool of iron would not be produced. I suspect, as >>> others >>> have suggested, that the huge energy of the collapse would melt the iron, >>> which would run to the lowest point where a pool would form. This would >>> make >>> it look as if a lot more molten iron were present than was actually the >>> case. As for aluminum, the airplane was made of aluminum and aluminum is >>> present in small amounts in building material either as the metal or >>> Al2O3. >>> Therefore, I see nothing unusual about finding aluminum. As for the other >>> speculations, I agree with Jed. If any of the buildings were brought down >>> on >>> purpose, this knowledge would get out. This is too big to keep secret. >>> However, I believe the administration knew this was going to happen but >>> they >>> did not expect the buildings to collapse. They wanted an excuse to ramp >>> up >>> the war on terror but they did not want such a loss. This any many other >>> acts that need to be investigated makes a win by Obama very important. >>> Ed >>> >>> Ed >>> On Sep 8, 2008, at 9:29 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >>> >>> ----- Original Message ---- >>> From: Jed Rothwell >>> >>>> You mean NIST and the NYFD and every other fire department and safety >>> >>> agency on earth has chosen to ignore that. No doubt they are all part >>> of a grand conspiracy. Get used to it. >>> >>> Huh? Every other fire department on earth? Get real - better yet get some >>> facts together besides "NIST told me so." >>> >>> Of course, no fire department, certainly not the NYFD, are part of any >>> grand >>> conspiracy - unless getting at the truth scientifically is now to be >>> labeled >>> as "conspiracy". If you are not consulted, then how can you object? >>> >>> Is that you definition of conspiracy (getting at the truth >>> scientifically, >>> in spite of a past flawed report) ? >>> >>> Funny, since this remark is coming from the prime (and eloquent) defender >>> of >>> a technology (LENR) which is also facing similar disproportionate >>> criticism >>> from a stone wall of "experts" who are alighned against it, and who >>> (those >>> experts) are also failing to look at a mountain of evidence pointing the >>> other way. >>> >>> Even the mayor Rudy Giuliani said weeks after the incident about the NYFD >>> "They were standing on top of a cauldron. They were standing on top of >>> fires >>> 2,000 degrees that raged for a hundred days." [direct quote] >>> >>> Of course, no one seriously believes that Rudy went out an measured this >>> temperature, but he should have been getting accurate information from >>> the >>> fire chiefs - and this was long before an official report came out. >>> >>> By the way, and speaking of demolition experts - lets go to the very best >>> CDI. >>> >>> CDI stands for Controlled Demolition Inc., the world-renowned Baltimore >>> company that uses thermite explosives to implode structures such as WTC7. >>> There is no more hands-on, and knowledgeable company in the trade. >>> Company-founder Jack Loizeaux and his sons have handled many high profile >>> demolitions including the Murrah Building in Okla. City. >>> >>> Mark Loizeaux, now president of CDI and one of the contractors in the >>> clean-up is quoted in newspaper accounts and television interviews in the >>> weeks following 9/11 as seeing molten steel in the bottoms of elevator >>> shafts "three, four, and five weeks" after the attack. >>> >>> Is this part of a conspiracy? No - absolutely not. It is the reporting >>> of >>> fact by an observer who had been superbly competent to report on what he >>> has >>> seen directly - unlike the bureaucrats at NIST... >>> >>> ... who seldom go out of the office except to show their bizarre video >>> simulations which do not consider anything below the eight floor - and >>> then >>> to dodge questions about why they did not consider very basic things, >>> like >>> molten steel or like interviewing Mark Loizeaux - years later about why >>> he >>> might have changed some details of his original interview, AFTER the >>> first >>> report came out . >>> >>> http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/index.html >>> >>> When steel beams were pulled from these glowing pools, and there are >>> videos >>> showing this - many of them still had dripping metal coming from fairly >>> straight cut marks. Was some worker down there in a 2000 degree inferno >>> with >>> a torch? Were these videos faked ? If so why didn't NIST say they are >>> fake >>> videos? >>> >>> Here is a website put up and maintained by those same NYFD firefighters >>> who >>> Rothwell wants us to believe are "going along" and supporting the flawed >>> NIST official report: >>> >>> http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?p=2948#post2948 >>> >>> I think someone in the next administration should poll the surviving >>> firemen >>> and clean-up crews. >>> >>> Know what, I will make a large bet that the great majority will say that >>> there was moltent steel under ground zero for weeks - and even that many >>> will say that there was clear evidence of demolition. Did NIST interview >>> a >>> single firefighter or cleanup crewman? >>> >>> Nope ... sorry that would have involved getting hands dirty with real >>> eye-witnesses when they gratly prefer a "computer simulation" as if the >>> computer adds some semblance of authority. What a sad joke. >>> >>> Jones >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > >
