How does thermate cut at all when it is supposedly in a thin layer of paint and started by the fires? Seems to me it might warm things up a bit, but there wouldn't be enough in a layer of paint to do anything else.
I was watching a documentary a while back about a team tasked with sinking a ship to make an artificial reef,to get it to settle in the right spot they had to cut 'doors' in the hull with SHAPED CHARGES,not just a paint on method....logic dictates any cutting of beams would need those shaped charges wrapped around the columns as well
Shaped charges make perfect sense. They are high explosives set up to cut the object with a high pressure wave. Thermite works by melting through whatever you want melted. They COULD have piled up enough thermate over the "doors" to insure the thermate burned through, but it would take a lot of thermate and the results would be unknown since it would happen over the course of minutes instead of milliseconds. They also could only create "doors" facing down. Thermite can't cut sideways. There have been people who have set up small scale examples of how it could be done, but those small scale examples don't scale.
In the same manner that model rocket fuse burns in the direction it is wound around an object. Up, down, sideways, backwards, underwater...etc..
A model rocket fuse will follow itself. You're asking us to believe the thermite paint went THROUGH the steel rather than following itself to continue the reaction. Not even close to the same thing.
Faulty analogy, the fuse burns the way it does due to it's small cross section and the material it's made of consumes itself easily....thusly G and H motors and more powerful ones are ignited using thermalite because of this
Once again you fail to see the problem with your theory. In order for thermite to react in any kind of sustained way, the particles have to be in contact with one another. That is why nano-thermite works better than regular thermite. The particles are smaller and thus closer to one another and thus able to spread the reaction faster. Add other stuff to the mix like paint and other chemicals and you cut off the reaction all together because now there is "stuff" between the particles. Add to that the fact you're not going to get anywhere near enough heat to do ANYTHING to the columns besides make them warm and one has to seriously wonder where you are going with this excuse for controlled demolition. This current iteration of what happened does NOT support the truther claims for a controlled demolition due to the speed of the collapse.
The speed of the collapse indicates controlled demolition in and of itself. Simple thermite in and of itself may react in the manner you believe that it would. Chemically altered nanothermate might not. I'm sure the department of defense doesn't put out a memo advising everyone of what it is they are experimenting with chemically. Scrutinize your own perceived version of events as you do anything counter and honest debate could be achieved.
Chemistry is a science, not a religion. I am telling you how thermite works. You PRETENDING the DoD have some superthermite paint nobody else has seen or heard of to explain your lameassed theories you can't defend doesn't alter the truth. Can you explain how the thermite paint is suppose to cut columns? No. Can you explain how it carries out a controlled demolition? No. Can you explain how the thermite paint not exposed to the fires was ignited? No. Can you explain how the timing was so perfect according to truthers? No. All you can do is pretend it exists and it works in some mysterious way. That doesn't cut it here in the real world. You need evidence, or at the very least, some real world example of what you are talking about. Since nobody has seen or heard of thermite paint before truthers made it up, and since Jones' claims of thermite in paint were found to be incorrect, what, exactly, are you asking us to believe and on what grounds? Your good word is NOT enough for someone to give up reality for. ?
Model rocket fuse? What material are you talking about? Does this material cut through steel? What follows are the details regarding thermite which conflict with observed events that you have not addressed. 1. The heat of ignition of thermite is very high. This heat needs to be sustained in order for the reaction to continue. A. The temperatures required for ignition were not observed or measured within the buildings prior to or even after the collapse. B. The temperatures required for ignition could not have been generated by jet fuel, or office fires. 2. Thermite does not do work on objects it comes in contact with. It does not expand during reaction. It is not explosive. It only releases the difference in energy between the Fe2O3 bond and the Al203 bond in the form of heat. Some of this heat is consumed to maintain the reaction, the rest radiates. The amount of heat released is directly proportional to the mass of the sample. A. A thin layer of reactant coating a beam in the WTC has very little mass. B. Steel is very conductive, and can quickly lower the heat released by the minimal mass of the painted on thermite to below the heat of ignition. 3. The thermite reaction requires the free exchange of oxygen from Iron Oxide to Aluminum. It is an oxidation reaction; burning. A. Contaminate compounds used in paint would inhibit the free exchange of oxygen, and slow the burning. Please respond to these three very specific points, and their explanatory sub comments.
is that why the majority of attorneys are so dumb? after all anyone can see it could not have been demolition! LOLOLOLOL
It could have been controlled demolition, but the evidence proves otherwise. No evidence exists of there being a controlled demolition, absent evidence proves there were no conventional high explosives, and people surviving the collapse where the controlled demolition was suppose to be taking place and without hearing anything all disprove controlled demolition. But hey. Even lawyers are smart enough not to buy into the truther bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That takes an extra special level of dumb!
agree with the obvious nonsense just because it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck hell every one knows thats a bulldozer! silly wabbits!
So why is it truthers can't even buy evidence now that the latest bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim is that the government "bought" the evidence. Bought it from whom? Your posts are always good for a laugh and nothing more.
Pick ONE particular aspect SPECIFICALLY, and I'll be happy to engage you in a back and forth kind of discussion with you.
Then allow me to reinterate my intentions to discuss SPECIFICS, one at a time, back and forth, until a logical conclusion can be reached. (minus all the name calling and sarcasm) So a back and forth exchange of information and ideas sounds acceptable to you or no?
Which particular point do you care to address...SPECIFICALLY? Why is this so difficult? Pick one. Not 5 or ten. That way, when you ask, I'll answer, and the eliminate 18 lines of rhetoric and other distractions. One point. One answer, for all to plainly see, one at a time. Can you do that??? See...that way...nobody can run from their specific answer and stay completely ON TOPIC versus blah blah blah and this that and the other thing. ONE question, followed by one response, followed by another ONE specific response, and so on. Is that so tough?
The only ones who run time and time and time again are the truthers. Want me to point out some examples for you RWAF?
ONE...and then allow me to respond (and without too much unneeded commentary or insults please). Thanks.
Here's One: You started a thread a while back claiming that the FBI pulled 95% of United 93's wreckage from underground, which is patently false (and you know it). You never retracted said claim. That's just One of many, but let's keep the bullet points very short so someone doesn't get distracted and lose attention.
Address it in THAT thread and I'll happily respond, or start another one. I want to keep the mud from churning in the waters as much as possible.
