No evidence to support WTC being brought down by thermite

In my opinion, based mainly on history, the security forces in the US were probably aware of some upcoming plot; it wouldn't be too surprising if they did know what the intended targets were and the means of carrying out the attack.

But to make the jump from knowing roughly of a plot doesn't mean they were actively involved. Why would the Republicans risk this? If it was true they would be out of office for half a century or more.

It's easy enough to get through some right-wing agenda in the US, it's been happening under the Democrats and Republicans for generations with few people noticing; Bush didn't need the attacks in order to carry out his agenda. In the past we see many cases of attacks be faked. The pretext for the German invasion of Poland was based on Polish forces invading Germany first; which of course was fake. The planned full-scale invasion of Cuba was going to be justified by the sinking of a US ship; which would of been fake. The invasion of Yugoslavia (under Clinton - not a Republican) was justified by genocide; which was also fake and so on and so on.

The US media buy any story and the US population swallow it; no matter how small it is. You don't need destruction on that scale to justify an attack on Afghanistan and Iraq and a clamping down of rights in the US. It's possible Bush knew something was coming and didn't act, or the security forces were instructed to carry on monitoring the involved rather than making the arrests. That may be an honest mistake or there may be something to it. I'm not sure which is the more likely.

They can always invent a story to push through an agenda, it might be a bit slower without people witnessing two symbols of America being brought down, but it would still of happened. Just like Iraq - which had nothing to do with the World Trade Center attacks was still invaded supported by huge majority in the US 90% and above.

Anyway, onto the story at hand.

From WebNV:

Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of incendiary devices and the release of the conclusive evidence is imminent.

Steven Jones again, his bias should be enough to throw the evidence right into the bin. He's been claiming thermite has been used for months - with no evidence at all.

Now he claims to of found traces (on steel who's exact origins are largely unknown) of sulfur, which he claims is evidence that thermite was used to bring down the buildings. However in office buildings and aircraft you'll find a lot of sulfur and aluminum and lots of other things, so you really need traces of the other components of thermite, you should find 7 times as much barium is sulfur, yet his report does not mention any traces of barium.

Thermite itself is also a very bad way to demolish a building, it's actually used (or at least used to be used) to weld steel together because of its heat. You'd need masses and masses of thermite to even make a dent on a building like this. You'd really need something explosive to do the job, something like a large, fuel-laden aircraft. Oh wait that's what we've got.

Even more odd, thermite hasn't used sulfur as a binding agent for a decade or so, after this was pointed out to him he claims it was an exotic military thermite, which does use sulfur and which also explodes. Again no evidence to back up this claim.

I don't buy it. It's just the same as the Pentagon missile stuff... Sure if you ignore the hundreds of eye-witnesses who saw a large passenger aircraft and just put forward the few people who weren't sure what they saw you can make anything seem possible.

Steven Jones's work cannot be trusted at face value and should be scrutinized heavily.

9 comments

Comment from: chapstick [Visitor]
chapstick

I still don't believe that an airplane hitting the top floors of a building would cause it to colapse.

Something else brought those building down.

27th June 2006 @ 19:50
Comment from: [Member]
Paul

The NIST report http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1Draft.pdf says the following:

"Aside from isolated areas, perhaps protected by surviving gypsum walls, the cooler parts of this upper layer were at about 500 ºC, and in the vicinity of the active fires, the upper layer air temperatures reached 1,000 ºC."

Steel loses 50% of it's strength at 590°C, and about 90% at 950°C.

27th June 2006 @ 21:46
Comment from: Ibbeep [Visitor]
Ibbeep

It was the planes that brought those towers down. Jet fuel when ignited realeses an enormous amount of heat. Also both planes had full fuel tanks. That being said Gypsum walls would offer no real protection from the fire becuase they would be consumed very quickly at that heat. (construction is part of my job)

30th June 2006 @ 21:48
Comment from: Chris [Visitor]
Chris

To say fire from jet fuel or anything else caused the total near free fall and straight down collapse of these towers ignores the fact that high rise buildings have burned for days without partial collapse. It had never happened prior to 9-11.
Placing such emphasis on the planes also conveniently overlooks the fact that WTC 7 was not struck by any aircraft.
It is just wishful thinking on the part of experts who cannot handle the idea that there are people in the gov. that are ruthless enough to do this. It is not very scientific to start with the conclusion that the fires had to have done it and then shape your hypothesis around that assumption. Cowardice.

26th July 2006 @ 07:45
Comment from: [Member]
Paul

Ultimately the trouble is you have no evidence to support your claims. Mainly because your claims are twisted by political aims.

That is not an excuse to be dishonest and to throw mud randomly.

If you're really so sure, why not pay to have to identical towers built and then we can see if fully loaded aircraft can bring them down or not.

26th July 2006 @ 14:24
Comment from: Thomas [Visitor]
Thomas

And the towers collapsing at free-fall speed? - They did no such thing. WT1 took 17-20 seconds to fall. No where near free-fall speed.

Finally, Steven Jones has been discredited by his own university for unscientific methods, and the RELEVANT department (his field is astronomy...) has stated publicly that they in no way support his claims.

He's just another well-educated nutcase.

1st August 2006 @ 07:39
Comment from: Philippe orlando [Visitor]  
Philippe orlando

I completely agree with the owner of this blog. There is absolutely no evidence of explosives involved to bring those buildings down. On the contrary. All the conspiracy nuts should do the following:
Find movies of buildings demolished by explosives. Watch them carefully. They ALL, I mean ALL have something in common. They ALL collapse from the base. From the bottom up. Now look at the WTC building. The collapsing starts at the point hit by the planes.

Just because most experts dont' understand why and how those two planes were able to destroy those towers doesn't mean it's impossible. Humans are wrong sometimes, actually a lot of times. Plane crashes, the Titanic was built not to sink in seconds, the Space Shuttle was built to avoid all accident, all helicopters are build with redondant systems to prevent crashing, but still....

Are we saying that 1970 building technology is perfect? Are we saying that in the 70s we were able to build structures that couldn't be taken down by two planes crashing into them?

I see a lot of arrogance from those experts who all take for granted that human knowledge is perfect. It's not. Everthing that humans do is not perfect, including high raised buildings.

Please, all nuts conspiracy out there, look carefully to those building collapsing. It does NOT look like controlled demolition at all. And as somebody mentioned it, it's not free falling at all.

Now, I'm totally convinced that the Neo-cons knew something was going to happen and let it happen to have an excuse to go to was with Iraq. No doubt about that.

24th August 2006 @ 14:00
Comment from: Adrian [Visitor]  
Adrian

Then why was molten steel found in the basement of each building six weeks after the attacks?

12th July 2007 @ 15:17
Comment from: [Member]
Paul

Short answer: It wasn't.

Molten metal was found, which was aluminium from the aircraft.

12th July 2007 @ 15:35


Form is loading...