911 WTC World Trade Towers, Did Thermate do This?

instantluy, over time it doesn't matter, the only enemy steel has is time and moisture...noting with turn steel to dust like you say it did

 

This is boring. Do you have a point to make or are you going to prattle on like this for the rest of the thread?

The dust you see in your animated GIF images is caused in majority by the spray on fireproofing, the gypsum from the wall board, and the concrete from the floor assemblies. Steel was not turned to dust.

Moreover, your attempt to lead readers to the conclusion that there was some sort of energy weapon or nuclear weapon involved, is silly. Nuclear weapons do not turn steel to dust. Especially not "mini" nuclear reactions.



This is the tower that a 200 ton tnt equivalent nuclear fizzle failed to demolish. The rest of the tower was blasted across the desert, and was rather an embarrassment due to the fact that the area had to remain classified until clean up crews could safely remove the remains of the explosion.

Tremendous heat is required to vaporize steel. This heat is not easily hidden. For one, everyone near would be cooked, nearby buildings would be melted (not toasted), and the camera would not have been able to capture the image because it would be so bright. Couple that with the magnetic and radioactive emissions of a nuclear weapon and what you have is clearly nothing more than a preposterous claim.

 

I never said the steel was vaporized.

It was turned to dust.

anyone can see the whole columns turning to dust, why are you trying to pretend it did not?

Still on the da ride up da-nile?

since you claim it was not a nuke when what did they use?

see if you look very closely those are steel columns and they simply vanish into thin air unless you want to claim that the columns were really 007 secret insulation?

 

but something did, that is pretty hard to fake in pics, unlike areolaplanes majically flying through buildings LOLOL

 

NONE of the steel was turned to dust......it is a scientific impossibility

 

REALLY?

which law is that? LOL

 

Okay sport,since you're making the claim, why don't you explain HOW the steel turned to dust?

I'm betting you won't give a straight answer.

 

No one can see steel turning to dust. Do you know why I know? It's because of what you DON'T see in these images.

Steel is pyrophoric. It ignites in air. This is why sparks fly off steel when you strike it with flint or cut it with a torch. It's due to the energy released by rapid oxidation. Had that much steel "turned to dust" the resulting release of energy due to oxidation would have made lower Manhattan look like the sun touched down on Earth. Your claim that steel turned to dust is comical, irrational, and simply not true.

 

Another reason why steel wasn't turned to dust by nuclear fission:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rope_trick_effect

Again, no light...

 

nuclear "fission" is your word not mine.

 

lots of words with errors I do not wish to correct. its not a claim its an observation that anyone can see who opens their eyes unless you are reading this in brail.

Dont you have any shame? Anyone can see it right in front of their eyes that it is turning to dust.

 

You mean you think I'm wrong but you have no idea what you're talking about so you're not able to prove your assumptions. I'll help you out. You can't prove your assumptions because it's your assumptions that are incorrect.

You do not see steel dust in those photographs and I proved chemically why you don't see steel dust in those photographs.

Have you got anything else of importance to say on the topic or are you going to continue to bloviate?

 

Do you know what the words nuclear fission mean? I don't think you do.

 

feel free to explain it LOL

 

I think you should apologize for calling me uneducated first. If you want me to explain nuclear physics to you, I think you owe me that.

 

HA!

Maybe in your world you proved it but then all that takes is the gubafia to say planes did it. LMAO

you proved nothing.

Laws of physics lets see them.

 

ok so y9ou cant back your claim!

Laughing is more appropriate.

 

What claim?

 

now about all that steel turning t dust....

 

Are you disputing the claim that steel is pyrophoric? Is that what you want me to prove to you? Or is the claim something else and you're just going to ignore the fact that steel is pyrophoric? Do you have some evidence that steel wouldn't create a massive release of light and heat if it was rapidly "turned to dust"?

No? Go figure.

 

Wow! Look at koko dance! How about just explaining your position instead of running away, Koko? Oh right. You have no explanation, just a retarded claim made by looking at a crappy video and making some major league ASSumptions.

 

no I am disputing your claim that the steel did not turn to dust.

Only someone tripping on da-nile can make that claim when its right before their eyes.

Its as foolish as a few idiots that belive 175 flew through #2 LOL

But then I have come to expect that from official liars.

 

I am still waiting for some nice clean videos from your gubafia eh pal?

nothing but trash videos.

Da gubafia is making the claims it was planes and massive fire and we already established it was not fire and wtc2 stood till the fire was nearly completely out.

Now you dont need a degree to figger that one out, nor that it should still be standing there.

I cannot find this phenomena anywhere in ANY gubafia report.

Since you got it happening point out where I can review this turning to dust or are you another one that holds an apple in your hand and claims its not an apple?

 

So you are intending to ignore the pyrophoric nature of steel. If steel was indeed turned to dust as you claim, where did the energy to break the chemical bonds between particles come from, and where did all the energy that had to be released go?

I know. It's a trick question. To many words that you don't care to correct, right?

What you see in those photos can not be steel dust. The rapidly produced steel dust would instantly ignite and emit large amounts of heat and light. Since these large amounts of heat and light are missing from your photos, the dust you see is clearly not steel.

There must be a different explanation for what you see. I know what that explanation is, but if you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to have to do better.

The only person in denial here is you. Your entire rebuttal to my argument is "nuh uh"

 

Keep dancing Koko. The more you run away from the fact you can't explain how the steel got turned to dust the more obvious it becomes your claims are nothing but the festering piles of (*)(*)(*)(*) everyone says they are. Your lameassed interpretation of some videos are not evidence of anything other than a hyperactive imagination.