IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Proof Of Thermite, Evidence of thermite causing buckling

SPreston
post Jul 8 2007, 11:44 AM
Post #1


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



Photographic evidence that Thermite brought down the South Tower
http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/19/Max-Photon...igure-9-45.aspx

video - 9/11: South Tower molten metal compilation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_jiCyMkrRM

The metal-fire is thermite burning INSIDE the lower end of WTC2/Column 301/Corner-panel 82-83.

In other words, a thermite reaction - complete with a bright white reaction region, yellow molten iron product, white aluminum-oxide ash, visible flames, and lots of heat - is taking place inside Column 301- (the most northern column on the east face) - at the column splice between the 80-81 corner-panel, and the 82-83 corner panel.

The white region in NIST Figure 9-45 is from a thermite burning INSIDE the lower end of WTC2/Column 301/Corner-panel 82-83, located mid-window at the NE corner of Floor 81.

Heat from the thermite inside this one specific box column - Column 301, at the lower end of the 82-83 corner panel (located mid-window of the 81st floor) - caused Column 301 to experience visco-elastic creep, bow inward, and fail.

(To be clear, there were many other thermite reactions in many other box columns, and many other columns also failed from the resultant heat-induced visco-elastic creep.)

It is the failure of this specific column - Column 301 - at this specific splice - that NIST defines as initiating the collapse of World Trade Center 2.

You must understand that the NIST investigation slams shut for WTC2 the moment Column 301 buckles.

This absurdly narrow investigation window serves as a cloaking mechanism. Much of the explosive controlled demolition work was both before and after the NIST investigation window.

Video - wtc south tower buckles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Frc2hRL4lfA

NIST Figure 6-32 - NorthEast Corner of WTC 2


The large fires on the left are from thermite burning INSIDE the lower ends of at least five perimeter-panel box columns:

Floor 81 / Columns 256, 257, 258, 259, and - the trusty old collapse-initiator - 301.

It so happens that there were five column splices in a row at this location.

It is essential to note that these column splices are located mid-window on Floor 81.

The fires on the lower right are also synthetic (or engineered) by demolition planners.

These fires are also from thermite burning INSIDE the lower ends of the perimeter-panel box columns at the columns splices.

Throughout the NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C report, NIST frequently describes these and similar WTC2 perimeter fires as "fires on debris."

Paul's Magic Filter sees the ambiguation. Note that NIST doesn't use the phrase "debris on fire."

By creating an obstacle at the Cold Spot, debris was purposely made to collect in front of column splices, which are at mid-window height.

Flames shooting out of box columns as the thermite burns create these incredibly peculiar "fires on debris."

These synthetic fires are essential props in the pre-scripted magic-illusion act.

Max Photon will have much more to say on these fires in the future.
http://maxphoton.com/2007/06/19/Max-Photon...igure-9-45.aspx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jul 8 2007, 03:51 PM
Post #2





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



WOW! Great analysis there! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Jul 8 2007, 06:19 PM
Post #3


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Great stuff SPreston. Thanks for sharing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Jul 9 2007, 08:42 AM
Post #4


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



How Thermite Was Used in the Controlled-Demolition of WTC2
By: Paul Bouvet
Written: May 08, 2007
maxphoton.com

On May 04, 2007 - after months of investigation - I realized that thermite powder had simply been poured into the bottom (lower) ends of the WTC2 perimeter-panel columns, through the column-splice bolt-access-holes.

(For clarity, when one is looking at a column-splice from the interior of WTC2, the thermite was poured in the upper bolt-access-holes, which are at the bottom of the columns.)

The thermite was ignited by non-electric detonators (NEDs), similar to - or possibly exactly - these:

EBA&D > Non-Electric Detonation Systems >

1.) http://www.ebco-aerospace.com/defense/non_electric_over.php
2.) http://www.ebco-aerospace.com/defense/non-..._detonators.php

The non-electric detonators were linked together, and ignited, by shock-tube, similar to - or possibly exactly - the shock-tube described in the link above.

Using frame-by-frame analysis, the shock-tube, and flashes from firing shock-tube - traveling from the upper right to the lower left - are readily seen in the following video:

WTC2 Thermite Video (stabilized)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035128522922802395
[This video is of WTC2 / NE Corner / Floor 80, just moments before this corner failed.]

The heat from the thermite was to designed to - and ultimately on 9/11, did - cause extreme, heat-induced weakening of the column-splice bolts, thereby allowing perimeter-panels not only to bow inward and fail, but also to easily and neatly separate during the demolition of WTC2.

(Thermite was a multi-functioned tool on 9/11. The other ways thermite was used in the controlled-demolition of WTC2 are beyond the scope of this paper.)

Thermite was chosen for this one function because:

1.) Thermite can't be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs.
2.) Thermite-residue is ambiguous, which engineers plausible deniability.
3.) Thermite can't be traced back to its source-of-origin.

The effects of the thermite on the perimeter-panels are readily seen in the following 4 photos.

The first 3 photos are from the FEMA 403 Report > Appendix B > Structural Steel and Steel Connections > http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apb.pdf.

The 4th photo is from the FEMA 403 Report > Appendix D > WTC Steel Data Collection > http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf.

Note the: (see FEMA photo)

- Burned-out, enlarged, bolt-access hole;
- Sulfidation of the steel;
- Oxidation of the steel;
- Burnt bolts that look heat-softened (no clean breaks seen);
- Folded spandrel (from being heat-softened).

Note the: (see FEMA photo)

- Burned-out, enlarged, bolt-access-hole;
- Sulfidation of the steel;
- Oxidation of the steel;
- Burnt bolts that look heat-softened (no clean breaks seen);

Note the: (see FEMA photo)

- Melted spandrel;
- Burnt, melted column below the melted spandrel;
- Heavy sulfidation of the steel, including signs that sulfur-rich iron poured over the columns.

The above photo is taken from FEMA 403 Report > Appendix D > WTC Steel Collection > http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apd_x.pdf.

Note the: (see FEMA photo)

- Burnt steel;
- The sulfidation of the steel, in both columns, from the thermite reactions that took place at these ends.

--------------------------

Summary of findings:

1.) Thermite was poured into WTC2 perimeter-panel columns, through bolt-access-holes at the bottom of the columns.
2.) The thermite was ignited with non-electric detonators.
3.) The non-electric detonators were linked and ignited by shock-tube.

The end.
----------------------
Note added June 14, 2007:

Here is a photo of a worker reaching into the bolt-access-hole of a box column.

Thermite was poured in exactly these holes (but not the holes below them).
(see photo below)
http://maxphoton.com/2007/05/22/how-thermi...on-of-wtc2.aspx
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 10 2007, 11:24 PM
Post #5



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Very interesting!

"The thermite was ignited by non-electric detonators (NEDs), similar to - or possibly exactly - these:

EBA&D > Non-Electric Detonation Systems >

1.) http://www.ebco-aerospace.com/defense/non_electric_over.php
2.) http://www.ebco-aerospace.com/defense/non-..._detonators.php

The non-electric detonators were linked together, and ignited, by shock-tube, similar to - or possibly exactly - the shock-tube described in the link above.

Using frame-by-frame analysis, the shock-tube, and flashes from firing shock-tube - traveling from the upper right to the lower left - are readily seen in the following video:

WTC2 Thermite Video (stabilized)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1035128522922802395
[This video is of WTC2 / NE Corner / Floor 80, just moments before this corner failed.]"

Note: the thermite was NOT electrically detonated
therefore it would not be affected by an
EMP (eletro-magnetic pulse!)

Otherwise, an EMP would mess up the electronics
in the timing sequence.

This is important!

imo, lunk

This post has been edited by lunk: Jul 10 2007, 11:28 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cary
post Jul 11 2007, 05:58 PM
Post #6


Ragin Cajun


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 3,691
Joined: 14-August 06
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Member No.: 5



Great stuff lunk. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SPreston
post Dec 24 2007, 11:06 AM
Post #7


Patriotic American


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 518
Joined: 14-May 07
From: Where I am standing on the RUINS of the 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY
Member No.: 1,045



North Tower transmission tower leads collapse - - 911 Eyewitness

RDX-class cutting charges cutting through the remaining North Tower core columns - - 911 Eyewitness
Core Structure still standing
Photos from a static mounted (see guy wire in lower left-hand corner) WTC1 video show the North Tower antenna which weighed 353 tons and was supported by the entire core structure fell first about 10-15 feet and fell 56 feet before the 94th floor began to fall. The apparent core sections were shattered and blown out of the building in the original What we saw - Bob and Bri video at about the 19:42 time which is why the antenna fell first in other WTC 1 videos. Or more likely, perhaps the core columns were also shattered in the sub-basement levels prior to the explosions blowing the large pieces out in the above video, dropping the antenna first.

Each colored segment is 50 feet


Experienced demolitions expert
QUOTE (Torin Wolf - demolitions expert)
Next, we are shown an incredible bit of detective work on Torins part. He shows a sequence of 12 different pictures of the collapse initiation of the North tower, WTC 1. Torin explains that the antenna on the top of the world trade center is a perfect guide of measurement for height, as there is a standard of changing the paint color of antennas once per fifty feet. The part of the antenna on the roof of WTC 1 appears black, then white alternated every fifty feet. There is a guide wire in the bottom left of every picture that shows that the camera does not move. Why is this picture so interesting? It shows the antenna, which is held up by the core columns, fall before the rest of the building while the fire line on the 78th (ed 94th) floor doesn't move. Torin then goes through the hard physics of the scene we're looking at and explains how it directly contradicts the official story, “This building is not collapsing on the 78th (ed 94th) floor. The antenna falls 56 feet before the 78th (ed 94th) floor falls.”


This post has been edited by SPreston: Dec 24 2007, 11:46 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Philadelphia
post Jan 15 2008, 02:42 PM
Post #8





Group: Newbie
Posts: 71
Joined: 23-November 07
Member No.: 2,505



We have yet to see any evidence that thermate/thermite is able to turn a tower block into a pile of dust, let alone that it did so, twice, on two towers of an estimated half million tons each. Nor does thermate/thermite account for the missing two thirds of both towers even before the lowest floors are destroyed. In such circumstances it is disingenuous to speak of 'pancake collapses' or 'acts of controlled demolition'. Again, the debris pile at Ground Zero was never consistent with any known form of demolition - a fact that thermite/thermate/bangs/flashes and all the stuff of controlled demolition relies on. We have, as equally devastating evidence satellite images of a vast plume rising from Ground Zero, this days after the event, which is no part of any demolition thesis and which cannot be explained by conventional demolitions using thermate/thermite.

Having been told for ages liquid steel was in the basements, that rivers of molten metal flowed at Ground Zero, that thermate/thermite accounts for what we see happening in the final seconds, I, and others, say simply that in the complete absence of any verifiable evidence it's time to stop this cover story of 'controlled demolition' and time to realise the strong indications that the true cause of tower destruction (and I do not use the word 'collapse') was energy weapons, these having as one of their by-products the otherwise inexplicable and little reported destruction of some 1400 vehicles, many of them parked far from the Twin Towers. There is, in short, compelling evidence that in spite of 'squibs' being used to mislead us the main cause of Twin Tower destruction was due to energy weapons, molecular dissociation of the matter of these towers, as so brilliantly put forward by the much maligned Dr Judy Wood.

I see no real argument against her thesis - only its ability to provide what thermite/thermate definitely does not - the most consistent and most detailed proof of the true cause of that tragedy.

This post has been edited by Philadelphia: Jan 15 2008, 02:47 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CocaineImportAge...
post Jan 18 2008, 12:55 AM
Post #9





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 426
Joined: 26-August 07
From: Brentwood, Essex, UK
Member No.: 1,846



In October of 1994, the 2.7 million square foot Sears Merchandise Center in Philadelphia became the largest single structure ever demolished with explosives. More than 50,000 people witnessed the 12-second event.

...errr!... in Philadelphia!... oh well!

...don't suppose THE biggest will ever officially go on record!?!

...maybe zapping em` via satellite does`nt count!... dunno.gif

...nice work Preston by the way!... thumbsup.gif

This post has been edited by CocaineImportAgency: Jan 18 2008, 01:01 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Jan 19 2008, 10:53 AM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



As a complete layman to the art of CD and such, my understanding is that the only function of thermite is to cut the steel precisely to allow gravity to assist in the implosion.

A friend sent me a link to a video of some homemade thermite. Apparently it is quite easy to make at home. Mix two powders in the proper ratio, ignite the mix with a magnesium strip, and voila, a fantastic reaction. Very impressive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 23 2010, 12:59 PM
Post #11





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Jul 9 2007, 01:24 AM) *
Very interesting!

"The thermite was ignited by non-electric detonators (NEDs), similar to - or possibly exactly - these:

EBA&D > Non-Electric Detonation Systems >

1.) http://www.ebco-aerospace.com/defense/non_electric_over.php
2.) http://www.ebco-aerospace.com/defense/non-..._detonators.php

The non-electric detonators were linked together, and ignited, by shock-tube, similar to - or possibly exactly - the shock-tube described in the link above.

Those links are now dead lunk.

Any chance you can relocate this material?

It is reasonably clear that numerous varieties of explosive devices, and other effects such as volumes of hydrocarbons being burned off, were used in a co-ordinated way. I have a hunch that nuclear may have been involved in the bases but not as pure nuclear explosive devices, after all nuclear reactors can misbehave if handled inappropriately whether by accident or design.

I have been doing some reading on nuclear power plants of late and have been impressed by the variety of technologies and implementations thereof available nowadays.

One of the safety devices often used in reactors is a, large, fuseable plug (common in other engineered systems too) which melts if the reactor goes into meltdown. Often the melt is guided into a special holding facility (tank) underground where it can be left to cool.

There has been a determined move to evolve nuclear power plants of small size and some such are designed for use where a power supply grid is not feasible such as in out-back communities. One of the necessities in such a design is to be able to rapidly adjust the power output to suit demand. Traditional nuclear plants are not suited to this as they require some time to adjust power output levels.

A useful intdroduction to nuclear power plants, policy issues as well as technical is found in:

Nuclear Renaissance: Technologies and Policies for the Future of Nuclear Power

I quote one paragraph in this book from page 156, {} indicates inclusions by myself:

QUOTE
One variant of the small-scale SBWR {Simplified boiling water reactors} concept, however, survives in the form of the GE and Purdue University Modular Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (MSBWR) project, This is a project closely associated with the US led Generation IV activity (see chapter 8). The aim is to produce two small reactor designs, one at 200 MWe and an even smaller one at 50 MWe. Like the SBWR, on which it is based, the MSBWR will employ passive features such as convection cooling. It will use 5% enriched BWR fuel with a ten-year refuelling interval. The MSBWR is designed for minimal intervention and maintenance [45]. This facilitates deployment of the reactor in remote areas far from existing electricity transmission grids or in clusters with several other similar units where a single skilled labour force can support the operation of several clustered units.


deployment of the reactor in remote areas

Also convenient where the security of the power supply is important as would be the case at the WTC. Is it too much of a stretch to consider that WTCs 1, 2 and 7 each had their own small nuclear generating plant - no need for oil fuel powered generators in WTC7 in that case. The ramifications of this are, I think, obvious.

I wonder if Purdue could model the meltdown of one of these for us?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Mar 24 2010, 08:36 AM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,983
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



QUOTE (Omega892R09 @ Mar 23 2010, 09:59 AM) *
Those links are now dead lunk.

Any chance you can relocate this material?


Those links were from 3 years ago!

They were about a product for sequential demolition, that was based on air pressure, not wires.
i posted this, as it was
theorized that a nuclear explosion in the towers could have caused an induction current in any wire, or wireless transmission, and thrown askew any
sequential demolition, after that time.

i have also heard the theory that the towers and world trade center were powered by nuclear reactors, that were set to go super-critical on 9/11 (causing the melted steel and concrete, and residual heat.)
...but this goes a little far, imo, in the realm of unpredictability,
for a planned, controlled demolition.

And the towers were taken down in a controlled demolition,
for them to fall, the way they did.

The peace-time use of nuclear bombs for building demolition.
(and great for plowing fields, too, if it wasn't for all the residual radiation.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Omega892R09
post Mar 24 2010, 01:02 PM
Post #13





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 2,194
Joined: 29-September 07
From: Hampshire, UK.
Member No.: 2,274



QUOTE (lunk @ Mar 22 2010, 11:36 AM) *
Those links were from 3 years ago!

Yeah! I realised that but now that you have provided context I may be able to find similar.

QUOTE
i have also heard the theory that the towers and world trade center were powered by nuclear reactors, that were set to go super-critical on 9/11 (causing the melted steel and concrete, and residual heat.)
...but this goes a little far, imo, in the realm of unpredictability,
for a planned, controlled demolition.

If the idea was that as built they were planned to go sc on 9/11 then yes that is a stretch.
However that was not my consideration which is that they were set-up to go super critical in the immediate run up to demolition and all other linking events.

The unpredictability may have been behind the delay in bringing down WTC7, with the rumours spreading that it was coming down some time before it did. A meltdown could be induced by explosive (or other) charges in right place at the right time and would explain the heavy thumps and ground level dust clouds at about the time the tops were hit.

QUOTE
And the towers were taken down in a controlled demolition,
for them to fall, the way they did.

I agree and am not disputing that.

As I have often repeated, many were the methods in play that day.

QUOTE
The peace-time use of nuclear bombs for building demolition.
(and great for plowing fields, too, if it wasn't for all the residual radiation.

Residual radiation in the form of elevated levels of tritium - just the stuff that is a by-product in some nuclear reactors. Don't need bombs to get this stuff, just nuclear power plants turned into bombs. High temperatures at the sites and water jets to cool and dilute contamination would be just what one would expect after such events.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Mar 26 2010, 10:17 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 4,017
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Fascinating stuff guys! salute.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ricochet
post Mar 26 2010, 11:05 PM
Post #15





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 746
Joined: 25-April 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,225



Pyro cool was also used to put out the fires, it is an ultra-vilolet ray absorber. Used to keep down radiation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 12th November 2019 - 02:20 AM