Collapse of World Trade Centre 7

markomongo · 17-06-2009 7:22pm

King Mob wrote: »

After the collapse, during the rescue and clean up operation.

If indeed that is a cut made by thermite.

And still doesn't change the fact that thermite has never been used in controlled demolitions.

Possibly...but in my opinion very unlikely.

I believe it was used to cut the core columns so the two towers would fall at free-fall speed symetricaly into their own footprint encountering slim to no resistance.
The physicist Steve Jones who tested dust samples says-"it looks like thermite with sulpher added, which is a very clever idea".

He and many other scientists believe that this 'super thermite' was the cause of the towers collapse.

Galileos law of falling bodies confirms this free fall speed.

Molten steel pouring from the tower...possible proof of thermite reactions.

Super-thermite is an extremely powerful explosive that releases much more energy per gram than any other conventional explosive used in demoliton.

Temperatures at Ground Zero remained at over 1000 degrees for over a week after 9/11 and it is estimated that the so called fires would have burned into late December if a special cooling agent had not been added to the water.
show_image.php?id=41

Note also that the heat under the 47 story WTC7 is similar to bith towers 110 story five days after the collapse indicating similar means or energys used.

Thermite reactions give off a GRAYISH WHITE ALUMINUM OXIDE and this can be seen streaming away from upper floors during collapse as shown below.

The top section of WTC2 appears below to break
the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum-

Shredded steel and dust was blasted upwards and outwards;
this breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy.

Pyroclastic dust clouds covered Manhattan;
all the concrete and all the office equipment was turned to dust...pulvarised.

Explosive squibs (many more of these photographed from a multitude of angles).

They are the first two buildings ever to completely collapse due to fire, WTC7 later that day was the third.

I could go on and on. But even just look at other events on the day...
Eg. The tiny hole in the pentagon before the walls collapse, no evidence of large plane debris or wing impact etc.

The Shanksville crash site...again no evidence of a boeing plane found and a quote from Wally Miller- "I stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies there".

Americas air defence (NORAD) against hijacked planes, with 100% sucess rate fails 4 times in one day?

Several of the alleged hijackers have turned up alive...

Wake up...investigate 9/11

King Mob · 17-06-2009 8:05pm

markomongo wrote: »

Possibly...but in my opinion very unlikely.

I believe it was used to cut the core columns so the two towers would fall at free-fall speed symetricaly into their own footprint encountering slim to no resistance.

But it didn't fall at free fall speed or on it's own footprint and it did encounter a lot of resistance.

markomongo wrote: »

The physicist Steve Jones who tested dust samples says-"it looks like thermite with sulpher added, which is a very clever idea".

Note "Physicist" not engineer or chemist.
I've read the paper. It doesn't include other possibilities for the presence of thermite.
Oh and the fact the paper was published in a dodgy journal.

markomongo wrote: »

He and many other scientists believe that this 'super thermite' was the cause of the towers collapse.

And have they ever proposed a method for this?
Cause thermite is never used like that.

markomongo wrote: »

Galileos law of falling bodies confirms this free fall speed.

Not quite
http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

markomongo wrote: »

Molten steel pouring from the tower...possible proof of thermite reactions.

And you know that's steel because?
And as far as I know thermite doesn't produce a stream of molten steel like that.

markomongo wrote: »

Super-thermite is an extremely powerful explosive that releases much more energy per gram than any other conventional explosive used in demoliton.

And you know this because?

markomongo wrote: »

Temperatures at Ground Zero remained at over 1000 degrees for over a week after 9/11 and it is estimated that the so called fires would have burned into late December if a special cooling agent had not been added to the water.

Note also that the heat under the 47 story WTC7 is similar to bith towers 110 story five days after the collapse indicating similar means or energys used.

And how exactly is this indicative of thermite or a controlled demolition?

markomongo wrote: »

Thermite reactions give off a GRAYISH WHITE ALUMINUM OXIDE and this can be seen streaming away from upper floors during collapse as shown below.

Nope absolutely not else in the building at all that could produce smoke at all.
But don't you claim that's pulverised concrete later on in your post?

markomongo wrote: »

The top section of WTC2 appears below to break
the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum-

Hang on. Didn't you also say earlier that the tower fell on it's on footprint? That doesn't look like falling on it's own footprint at all.

markomongo wrote: »

Shredded steel and dust was blasted upwards and outwards;
this breaks the Law of Conservation of Energy.

No it doesn't. As you said in the previous point: the conservation of angular momentum.
Your argument isn't very consistant.

markomongo wrote: »

Pyroclastic dust clouds covered Manhattan;
all the concrete and all the office equipment was turned to dust...pulvarised.

And? How is this indicative of a controlled demolition?

markomongo wrote: »

Explosive squibs (many more of these photographed from a multitude of angles).

Well that looks like that's at the moment of collapse. That could very well be caused by the floors pancaking.
Real squibs go off on every floor before the collapse not during.
Oh and thermite doesn't explode.

markomongo wrote: »

They are the first two buildings ever to completely collapse due to fire, WTC7 later that day was the third.

Yep nothing else happened to them that day at all. Not like a plane hit them or anything.
And there have been loads of instances of building of similar size and construction with a similar fire. {sarcasm/}

markomongo wrote: »

I could go on and on. But even just look at other events on the day...
Here are a few tasters-

Well given most of these claim don't actually stand up to scrutiny maybe you should look into the rest them a bit harder.

markomongo · 17-06-2009 9:47pm

You do not understand my points at all...
For a start that freefall website you reference is bogus and almost laughable. Im not even wasting my time debating it.

I will however admit that the free-fall claim is exaggerated but not by much. The fact remains that so little resistance occured something must have had an influence...eg. explosives.

You find it important that I should 'note' that I quote a physicist...is this supposed to void my claim? Do you know anything about science?
You mention the fact that it was published in a dodgy journal...you must be joking. Here is a journal written by 9 scientific professionals titled-

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

Link to journal- http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Please download, read, learn and understand...

By the way...molten steel IS produced from a thermite reaction in a stream exactly like the photo I have shown.

King Mob wrote: »

And you know this because?

I know from reading scientific journals... something i suggest you do.

King Mob wrote: »

And how exactly is this indicative of thermite or a controlled demolition?

Are you seriously asking this question? What else would produce such heat five days after the collapse?

King Mob wrote: »

Nope absolutely not else in the building at all that could produce smoke at all.
But don't you claim that's pulverised concrete later on in your post?

Look at the picture again...you can clearly see (unless you are visually impaired) the white smoke trailing from the ends of the pieces of metal indicating that the Termite is cooling.

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on. Didn't you also say earlier that the tower fell on it's on footprint? That doesn't look like falling on it's own footprint at all.

Exactly...it should have fell over the edge and not brought down the tower...but, it met no or little resistance from the floors beneath so this angled piece fell almost straight down thus breaking the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum as mentioned later in my post.

If you were a demolitions expert do you think you could have brought the towers down in a better fashion than what happened? Its text book... watch it again for yourself and ask, if you knew no better would you agree that it was a controlled demo? I believe every right minded person on the planet would...

King Mob wrote: »

No it doesn't. As you said in the previous point: the conservation of angular momentum.
Your argument isn't very consistant.

No...that was a different point completely...

King Mob wrote: »

And? How is this indicative of a controlled demolition?

What else could have completely pulvarised and destroyed everything in mid-air? Not much else to my knowledge except explosives...

King Mob wrote: »

Well that looks like that's at the moment of collapse. That could very well be caused by the floors pancaking.

It is at the moment of collapse. The squibs contain thick dust of a light colour, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.

Thermite could have been used along with conventional explosives but again please read the scientific journal quoted earlier...

King Mob wrote: »

Yep nothing else happened to them that day at all. Not like a plane hit them or anything.

Was the official reason for WTC 7 collapse not due to fire and structural damage? Was the intensity of the fire in Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 not blamed for weakining the steel? If this isnt YOUR belief as to what caused all three collapses then what are they?

And would you care to provide me with your suggested reasons for the following questions-

1.How Americas air defence (NORAD) against hijacked planes, with 100% sucess rate fails 4 times in one day?

2.How several of the alleged hijackers have turned up ALIVE? (and still the FBI have not revised their list!)

3.No evidence of a Boeing plane found at the Pentagon?

4.No evidence of a boeing plane found at Shanksville?

If you can answer these I have many more.

Peace love union respect.

King Mob · 17-06-2009 10:18pm

markomongo wrote: »

You do not understand my points at all...
For a start that freefall website you reference is bogus and almost laughable. Im not even wasting my time debating it.

Is it's bogus as you claim why not explain why it is?

markomongo wrote: »

I will however admit that the free-fall claim is exaggerated but not by much. The fact remains that so little resistance occured something must have had an influence...eg. explosives.

Well there can't be facts unless you can show as a fact that it did fall at free fall speeds.

markomongo wrote: »

You find it important that I should 'note' that I quote a physicist...is this supposed to void my claim? Do you know anything about science?
You mention the fact that it was published in a dodgy journal...you must be joking. Here is a journal written by 9 scientific professionals titled-

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe"

Link to journal- http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Please download, read, learn and understand...

I have read it.
It's a dodgy journal because, for a fee you can publish in that journal without peer review. You know one of the most important parts of science.

As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance. And it jumps to a conclusion it can't reach if it was being an honest paper.

markomongo wrote: »

By the way...molten steel IS produced from a thermite reaction in a stream exactly like the photo I have shown.

And going to back this up?
How do you know it is steel exactly?

markomongo wrote: »

I know from reading scientific journals... something i suggest you do.

Yes I do as a matter of fact. Care to link to them?

markomongo wrote: »

Are you seriously asking this question? What else would produce such heat five days after the collapse?

I don't know.
How do you know it was thermite?
Doesn't it cool very quickly?

markomongo wrote: »

Look at the picture again...you can clearly see (unless you are visually impaired) the white smoke trailing from the ends of the pieces of metal indicating that the Termite is cooling.

And there's smoke pouring off everything in that photo of a variety of other colours. It's hardly conclusive.

markomongo wrote: »

Exactly...it should have fell over the edge and not brought down the tower...but, it met no or little resistance from the floors beneath so this angled piece fell almost straight down thus breaking the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum as mentioned later in my post.

Unless of course there was a giant gapping hole in the building or something.

And it's still not falling on it's own footprint.

markomongo wrote: »

If you were a demolitions expert do you think you could have brought the towers down in a better fashion than what happened? Its text book... watch it again for yourself and ask, if you knew no better would you agree that it was a controlled demo? I believe every right minded person on the planet would...

Well how can it be text book when you claim they're using a method that's never been used before on a building of a size that's never been demolished?

markomongo wrote: »

No...that was a different point completely...

Well would the fact the building didn't fall straight down explain that?

markomongo wrote: »

What else could have completely pulvarised and destroyed everything in mid-air? Not much else to my knowledge except explosives...

No-one is claiming it was pulverised mid air.
And how would thermite do this exactly?

markomongo wrote: »

It is at the moment of collapse. The squibs contain thick dust of a light colour, apparently from crushed concrete and gypsum. But these materials would not have been crushed until the pancaking floors above impacted the floor emitting the squib. Thus the dust would not be produced until the air was already squeezed out, so there was no source of the dust for the squib.

And all those floors were completely clean of everything where they? And stayed that way despite raging fires.

markomongo wrote: »

Thermite could have been used along with conventional explosives but again please read the scientific journal quoted earlier...

Except there isn't a scrap of evidence for explosives.

markomongo wrote: »

Was the official reason for WTC 7 collapse not due to fire and structural damage? Was the intensity of the fire in Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 not blamed for weakining the steel? If this isnt YOUR belief as to what caused all three collapses then what are they?

So they could only fall down for one reason then?
A combination of factors is impossible?

markomongo wrote: »

And would you care to provide me with your suggested reasons for the following questions-

1.How Americas air defence (NORAD) against hijacked planes, with 100% sucess rate fails 4 times in one day?

It'd didn't and it never had "100% success rate"

markomongo wrote: »

2.How several of the alleged hijackers have turned up ALIVE? (and still the FBI have not revised their list!)

They weren't

markomongo wrote: »

3.No evidence of a Boeing plane found at the Pentagon?

There was.

markomongo wrote: »

4.No evidence of a boeing plane found at Shanksville?

There was.

markomongo wrote: »

If you can answer these I have many more.

Peace love union respect.

Are any of they actually based on something solid?

bonkey · 17-06-2009 10:24pm

King Mob wrote: »

As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance.

More imporantly, it tests combustion in an environment where oxygen was present, which doesn't and cannot establish that it was thermitic in nature.

A thermitic reaction should be established by showing that it occurs in the absence of oxygen.

markomongo · 17-06-2009 10:51pm

bonkey wrote: »

More imporantly, it tests combustion in an environment where oxygen was present, which doesn't and cannot establish that it was thermitic in nature.

A thermitic reaction should be established by showing that it occurs in the absence of oxygen.

It can occur in the absence of oxygen but dosent have to.

King Mob · 17-06-2009 11:02pm

markomongo wrote: »

It can occur in the absence of oxygen but dosent have to.

So it doesn't matter that the paper used a method that cannot give the answer the paper reached?
Not strike you as a problem?

markomongo · 17-06-2009 11:11pm

King Mob wrote: »

Is it's bogus as you claim why not explain why it is?

Well there can't be facts unless you can show as a fact that it did fall at free fall speeds.

I have read it.
It's a dodgy journal because, for a fee you can publish in that journal without peer review. You know one of the most important parts of science.

As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance. And it jumps to a conclusion it can't reach if it was being an honest paper.

And going to back this up?
How do you know it is steel exactly?

Yes I do as a matter of fact. Care to link to them?

I don't know.
How do you know it was thermite?
Doesn't it cool very quickly?

And there's smoke pouring off everything in that photo of a variety of other colours. It's hardly conclusive.

Unless of course there was a giant gapping hole in the building or something.

And it's still not falling on it's own footprint.

Well how can it be text book when you claim they're using a method that's never been used before on a building of a size that's never been demolished?

Well would the fact the building didn't fall straight down explain that?

No-one is claiming it was pulverised mid air.
And how would thermite do this exactly?

And all those floors were completely clean of everything where they? And stayed that way despite raging fires.

Except there isn't a scrap of evidence for explosives.

So they could only fall down for one reason then?
A combination of factors is impossible?

It'd didn't and it never had "100% success rate"
They weren't

There was.

There was.

Are any of they actually based on something solid?

Their seems to be no point in continuing a debate with you if you are as close minded as this post suggests. You seem to me to be one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers worldwide you just wont believe anything else.

Do some more research and you may not like what you find but you cannot dismiss the facts or even the (to me) very obvious posibilitys.

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

WakeUp · 17-06-2009 11:17pm

I find it strange that Norad fooked up so badly that day and were told to stand down. Im following the thread have a question if someone wouldn’t mind answering it.

Does the fact that this thermite test was undertaken where oxygen was present mean that it wasn’t present in the building or is that just standard scientific procedure for actually testing for the presence of thermite?

King Mob · 17-06-2009 11:20pm

markomongo wrote: »

Their seems to be no point in continuing a debate with you if you are as close minded as this post suggests. You seem to me to be one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers worldwide you just wont believe anything else.

Do some more research and you may not like what you find but you cannot dismiss the facts or even the (to me) very obvious posibilitys.

All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Yep all those times where I was asking for evidence and asking for to explain your in more detail mean I'm closed minded.

And weren't you the one who said:

For a start that freefall website you reference is bogus and almost laughable. Im not even wasting my time debating it.

That doesn't sound very open minded.

As for research I have done plenty.
I've never seen a single conspiracy accusation stand up to scrutiny.

But why not prove me wrong?

Unless of course your one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers conspiracy theory site worldwide you just wont believe anything else?

markomongo · 18-06-2009 12:04am

WakeUp wrote: »

I find it strange that Norad fooked up so badly that day and were told to stand down. Im following the thread have a question if someone wouldn’t mind answering it.

Does the fact that this thermite test was undertaken where oxygen was present mean that it wasn’t present in the building or is that just standard scientific procedure for actually testing for the presence of thermite?

No.
All you have to know about termite is in the document i have referenced. It is only a small piece of the 9/11 picture trust me.

Best of luck on your quest for the truth. Question everything.

Undergod · 18-06-2009 12:50am

markomongo wrote: »

Question everything.

...Mob is questioning what you're saying.

markomongo · 18-06-2009 1:35am

King Mob wrote: »

Yep all those times where I was asking for evidence and asking for to explain your in more detail mean I'm closed minded.

And weren't you the one who said:

That doesn't sound very open minded.

As for research I have done plenty.
I've never seen a single conspiracy accusation stand up to scrutiny.

But why not prove me wrong?

Unless of course your one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers conspiracy theory site worldwide you just wont believe anything else?

Ok then...

King Mob wrote: »

As for the paper itself, the 4 samples where collected weeks after the attacks. It doesn't exclude any other explanations that might explain the thermite like substance. And it jumps to a conclusion it can't reach if it was being an honest paper.

This quote proved to me that you are being ignorant and lowered my repect and credit to you and your beliefs/arguments.

If (like i asked you nicely too) you had of actully read this paper you would see that sample 1 was taken 10 minutes after the first towers collapse (all referenced) and that the final one was taken one week after 9/11 not weeks after as you describe.

This paper could not be more honest...again READ IT!

King Mob wrote: »

And going to back this up?
How do you know it is steel exactly?

Your standard thermite reaction-
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat

A video of a thermite reaction-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng&feature=related

King Mob wrote: »

No-one is claiming it was pulverised mid air.

You can clearly see from the photos and from firemans statements that it was pulvarised mid air.

King Mob wrote: »

And all those floors were completely clean of everything where they? And stayed that way despite raging fires.

This comment in no way presents an explanation as to how the squibs appeared. It seems here like you are just trying to deny everything I say without giving it any thought at all...

King Mob wrote: »

Except there isn't a scrap of evidence for explosives.

Ok then explain how all the mass from both towers exploded outward over 70m from the towers, concrete got pulvarised, core columns fell to the ground or what caused the pyroclastic clouds? In my opinion it can be nothing else except explosives...

King Mob wrote: »

It'd didn't and it never had "100% success rate".

King Mob wrote: »

They weren't

King Mob wrote: »

There was

Where are you getting your information from? At this point i was fed up earlier. You seem so sure of your points, and then scrutanise me at every turn demanding more references, and yet here you make these bogus claims with no logic or reference at all... Any person who claims to have done so much research surely would know what im talking about on my last points.

Video evidence of the crash site in Shanksville showing no evidence of a plane crash-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s

What do you think?

WakeUp · 18-06-2009 1:42am

markomongo wrote: »

No.
All you have to know about termite is in the document i have referenced. It is only a small piece of the 9/11 picture trust me.

Best of luck on your quest for the truth. Question everything.

nice one.., there are plenty of things which dont add up about 9/11. I never trusted Bush hes a total creep always has been always will his father was the exact same I wouldnt put anything past him or his evil cronies, all these things which have happened because of this event you have to wonder about it, I think its right to ask questions when people stop asking questions then we have a problem.

King Mob · 18-06-2009 2:06am

markomongo wrote: »

This quote proved to me that you are being ignorant and lowered my repect and credit to you and your beliefs/arguments.

If (like i asked you nicely too) you had of actully read this paper you would see that sample 1 was taken 10 minutes after the first towers collapse (all referenced) and that the final one was taken one week after 9/11 not weeks after as you describe.

This paper could not be more honest...again READ IT!

Your right I was mistaken. Those samples where sent in years after the attacks. In 2006, 2007, and two in 2008.
And for an honest paper they didn't seem too willing to under go proper peer review

markomongo wrote: »

Your standard thermite reaction-
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> 2Fe + Al2O3 + Heat

Aluminium and rust?
Nope certainly none of that in the Twin Towers at all.
Certainly no heat either.

markomongo wrote: »

A video of a thermite reaction-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdCsbZf1_Ng&feature=related

Wow that thermite cools rather quickly. Nor leaves a whole lot of molten anything.

markomongo wrote: »

You can clearly see from the photos and from firemans statements that it was pulvarised mid air.

And you know this can't happen in a normal collapse because?

markomongo wrote: »

This comment in no way presents an explanation as to how the squibs appeared. It seems here like you are just trying to deny everything I say without giving it any thought at all...

There was dust and debris all over the place before the collapse it's not a stretch to imagine there might be some inside the building.
But if it is a squib why is it going off after the collapse has started? And why are there only two at that level?

Every other squib I've seen goes off before the collapse and on every level.

And then there's still the complete lack of any solid evidence for explosives being present.

markomongo wrote: »

Ok then explain how all the mass from both towers exploded outward over 70m from the towers, concrete got pulvarised, core columns fell to the ground or what caused the pyroclastic clouds? In my opinion it can be nothing else except explosives...

Firstly they're not pyroclastic clouds.
And how can all the mass explode outward yet still fall on its own footprint exactly?

markomongo wrote: »

Where are you getting your information from? At this point i was fed up earlier. You seem so sure of your points, and then scrutanise me at every turn demanding more references, and yet here you make these bogus claims with no logic or reference at all... Any person who claims to have done so much research surely would know what im talking about on my last points.

Wow completely oblivious to the irony.
I do know what you are talking about very well.

Here's a few quick references:
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_93_photos.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/more_flight_93_photos.html

markomongo wrote: »

Video evidence of the crash site in Shanksville showing no evidence of a plane crash-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s

What do you think?

Yea nice cherry picked camera angles.

bonkey · 18-06-2009 8:42am

WakeUp wrote: »

I find it strange that Norad fooked up so badly that day and were told to stand down.

I don't believe htey did **** up, but its a theme for another thread.

Im following the thread have a question if someone wouldn’t mind answering it.

Does the fact that this thermite test was undertaken where oxygen was present mean that it wasn’t present in the building or is that just standard scientific procedure for actually testing for the presence of thermite?

Neither.

Lets say that you have a substance that can combust without the presence of oxygen. Lets call it bonkeyite.
You know that there are many substances which combust in the presence of oxygen...oxygen being a requirement for almost all forms of combustion.
You additionally know that bonkeyite is made up of fairly commonly-occurring materials - materials which you could find in materials (or in samples containing multiple different materials) which combust.

So, you have a sample of something. you look at its physical composition and find that the elements are present which you'd expect to find if bonkeyite is there. There's other stuff too, of course...so you don't know if you're dealing with bonkeyite, bonkeyite mixed with something, or a mix of common materials which happen to contain the same elements as bonkeyite.

You decide to perform a combustion test.

if you test in oxygen, you can determine whether or not its a combustible material - and little else.
If you test in the absence of oxygen, you can determine that its a combustible material which is based on an anaerobic reaction (i.e. one which doesn't require oxygen).

In neither case, can you definitively state that you've found bonkeyite. You can, however, rule out far, far more possibilities by showing anaerobic combustion then mere combustion.

Anti-rust paint, imperfectly applied to a surface (or applied to a surface where there were already traces of rust) would produce material which could be a match for (at least some of) the samples listed. It would contain the necessary elements. It would combust in air, but not in the absence of oxygen.

The authors did address the point that it might have been paint, I admit. They argued that their samples didn't burn like paint, and that it looked like they'd expect a thermitic reaction to look like.

Note - I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that their methodology was poor - possibly flawed. They performed a far, far less conclusive test, and offset the different results with claims of what it did and didn't look like. The test also doesn't rule out any other possibility...where an anaerobic combustion test would rule out any possibility based on aerobic combustion (which is the vast, vast majority of them).

So going back to bonkeyite...

...We have a substance. We think it might be bonkeyite. We know it contains the right elements (as well as other stuff). We argue that it doesn't combust like one other substance (a claim that is weak in itself), and we show that it burns in air.

Is that sufficient? I don't think so.

If we showed it contained the right elements (and could explain the other traces), combusted anaerobically, and we could show why such anaerobic combustion would not be expected in any materials expected to be found in a building or its furnishings...I'm not sure that even then we'd have sufficient evidence, but we'd certainly have a far, far stronger argument.

bonkey · 18-06-2009 8:48am

King Mob wrote: »

Unless of course your one of the many people who until the true story of what happened on 9/11 is aired on every mainstream media network and published in newspapers conspiracy theory site worldwide you just wont believe anything else?

Infracted

markomongo wrote: »

This quote proved to me that you are being ignorant

Infracted

WakeUp · 18-06-2009 3:53pm

bonkey wrote: »

I don't believe htey did **** up, but its a theme for another thread.

Neither.

Lets say that you have a substance that can combust without the presence of oxygen. Lets call it bonkeyite.
You know that there are many substances which combust in the presence of oxygen...oxygen being a requirement for almost all forms of combustion.
You additionally know that bonkeyite is made up of fairly commonly-occurring materials - materials which you could find in materials (or in samples containing multiple different materials) which combust.

So, you have a sample of something. you look at its physical composition and find that the elements are present which you'd expect to find if bonkeyite is there. There's other stuff too, of course...so you don't know if you're dealing with bonkeyite, bonkeyite mixed with something, or a mix of common materials which happen to contain the same elements as bonkeyite.

You decide to perform a combustion test.

if you test in oxygen, you can determine whether or not its a combustible material - and little else.
If you test in the absence of oxygen, you can determine that its a combustible material which is based on an anaerobic reaction (i.e. one which doesn't require oxygen).

In neither case, can you definitively state that you've found bonkeyite. You can, however, rule out far, far more possibilities by showing anaerobic combustion then mere combustion.

Anti-rust paint, imperfectly applied to a surface (or applied to a surface where there were already traces of rust) would produce material which could be a match for (at least some of) the samples listed. It would contain the necessary elements. It would combust in air, but not in the absence of oxygen.

The authors did address the point that it might have been paint, I admit. They argued that their samples didn't burn like paint, and that it looked like they'd expect a thermitic reaction to look like.

Note - I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying that their methodology was poor - possibly flawed. They performed a far, far less conclusive test, and offset the different results with claims of what it did and didn't look like. The test also doesn't rule out any other possibility...where an anaerobic combustion test would rule out any possibility based on aerobic combustion (which is the vast, vast majority of them).

So going back to bonkeyite...

...We have a substance. We think it might be bonkeyite. We know it contains the right elements (as well as other stuff). We argue that it doesn't combust like one other substance (a claim that is weak in itself), and we show that it burns in air.

Is that sufficient? I don't think so.

If we showed it contained the right elements (and could explain the other traces), combusted anaerobically, and we could show why such anaerobic combustion would not be expected in any materials expected to be found in a building or its furnishings...I'm not sure that even then we'd have sufficient evidence, but we'd certainly have a far, far stronger argument.

Bonkeyite:D has a certain ring to it...ty for detailed explanation.

jotom · 22-06-2009 3:31am

bonkey wrote: »

No, he didn't.
No, they didn't.

You're trying to read what you want to into what he said.

Demolition term for tieing cables around a building less than 10 stories in height, pulling it off-centre, and thus collapsing it.

*Not* a demolition term for explosive-based demolition

If the building was collapsed by explosives, then yes, they would have been planted before the WTC attacks. It wasn't, however, collapsed in this way.

yes it was! video evidence.

me_right_one · 22-06-2009 3:53am

OP needs to do a physics lesson!

markomongo · 22-06-2009 12:28pm

This is the best video i have seen and clearly shows the demolition of building 7. Wake up.

http://www.infowars.com/new-building-7-collapse-video-clearly-shows-demolition/

thecommander · 22-06-2009 1:39pm

markomongo wrote: »

This is the best video i have seen and clearly shows the demolition of building 7. Wake up.

http://www.infowars.com/new-building-7-collapse-video-clearly-shows-demolition/

Posted:November 3, 2008, hardly New.

I've watched this video a few times on a few different posts and it always preceded by "clearly showing" or "its obvious" that it was a controlled demolition. Can you point out to me how it clearly shows it?

meglome · 22-06-2009 1:49pm

markomongo wrote: »

This is the best video i have seen and clearly shows the demolition of building 7. Wake up.

http://www.infowars.com/new-building-7-collapse-video-clearly-shows-demolition/

Nobody is saying the WTC7 collapse doesn't looking a bit like controlled demotion. However there are no tell tail signature blasts from the explosives going off, even the seismic record doesn't show them. There are literally hundreds of controlled demolition video on the internet and ALL of them have the clear sounds of explosive going off. So then we start talking about thermite, which has NEVER been used in controlled demolition. As Bonkey outlines above the idea that thermite was even found is dubious to say the least.

So what we have is a collapse that looks superficially like a controlled demolition but as soon as you see that the penthouse collapses into the building first you see it isn't a controlled demolition. As soon as you can't find the sounds of any explosives then you see it isn't like a controlled demolition. As soon as you learn the building had design flaws then it's even less likely to be a controlled demolition if the other reasons aren't enough.

Oh and I feel pretty awake, since you mention it.

Collapse of World Trade Centre 7

Comments