In the circles I've gone round and through, which is a crucial step you may also take - just start going through 9/11 research sites (some place like http://911research.wtc7.net/) and read what you can about whatever details you're interested in because thermite is only the start of our worries.

But I'll go ahead and say the sciency keywords I've learned and may be misusing, which is why it's better to point you in the direction of the papers and documentation. Thermite is distinguished from thermate, the latter of which has sulfur added to it. Otherwise all you need is aluminum and iron oxide - the aluminum and oxygen bond, creating molten iron and an exothermic reaction. Of course you need the proper proportions and it's usually in powdered form. It's not used as an explosive but as an incendiary, for melting steel in military applications, primarily demolitions.

Nanothermite however is still a thermite compound, the difference being that the material put together is on a much smaller scale, the elements being built up at the molecular scale. It's almost like shrinking ordinary thermite, or just building it up fractionally, but all the proportions remain the same. Thermite could potentially result in a natural reaction where the necessary elements and conditions are present, but nanothermite can only be engineered by the human hand, because the pieces are simply too small and precise. An analogy could be finding DNA in seawater.

And the red/grey chips that are found in the dust are characterized by even, orderly molecular configurations that result in shapes and angles that appear entirely artificial. Saying they're byproducts of the collapse is like saying crop circles are the effects of wind. There is geometry and mathematical precision to the material, at a scale where you need a microscope to see it. This is as far as I need to understand it.

Look into the Jeff Farrer or Niels Harrit interviews if you want a step-by-step explanation of the Steven Jones hypothesis, which is really just observation of the evidence.

Thank you! I'm not sure if I agree with you, but you're the first to address my question. I hope you don't mind, but I'm gonna link this over to a thread in r/conspiratard to see their response.

I'm glad you appreciate the information but just checking to see what other people think of my explanation of the facts is not going to change them. I think I know what part you're not entirely convinced by, and that's the matter of perfect molecular geometry at any size being susceptible to natural occurrence, which in this case would be from heat and pressure. EDIT #2: I just realized that this doesn't make any logical sense because nothing that happened on 9/11 should be considered natural or happenstance. This is what the search for truth should be all about.

At this point I would say Jeff Farrer's interview is required viewing because of the level of detail to which he describes the likelihood of the drywall or other office debris providing the material to jerry-rig nanothermite in a manner consistent enough to cover every single dust sample collected... Just watch the interview.

EDIT: If you don't have YouTube sucks to be you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanothermite http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html - AND READ HIS PAPER.

It's actually nano-thermite that has been discovered at the 9/11 WTC site and analyzed by chemist Neils H. Herrit and others (see the PDF for their qualifications)

"When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. "-from your link

Okay, so this seems to be somewhat convincing (and the first evidence I've seen that the thermite may be unique and identifiable as explosive). R/conspiratard has led me to believe that Bentham is a junk science journal, and its not peer reviewed. This is slightly off topic, but care to convince me that Bentham is a reliable source? Or do you have a peer reviewed source? Thanks!

The publishers at Bentham say their articles are peer reviewed. Herkimer and others of his ilk say they are not. I'll let you decide for yourself.

Bentham is not the source. The scientists that wrote the article are the source. Bentham is only the publisher and, being an open journal, one of the only places that would make the article available to anyone that wanted to see it as opposed to the normal pay-to-see journals that professionals have preferred in the past because there's money in it.

So many good points there. I love how people who demand only content from journals that are peer reviewed never consider that the bigger the journal the more it depends on leadership deciding which peers they permit to review their journal. If your conclusions go against the grain then you're not a peer. When did peer pressure, majority rule, and the messenger trump the message?

As a general principle, peer reviewed journals have more credibility in science than non-peer reviewed journals.

Are you seriously questioning this?

What I question is thinking that an arbitrary amount of peer review increases or decreases the legitimacy of any thing, if the thing being reviewed doesn't or can't change in the process; if the qualities of the original observations are unchanged. The findings of one peer cannot be trumped by a majority of other peers - look at someone like Galileo - there really is no method except democracy for peer-review science to sustain itself, because vary rarely is there such a thing as a real peer - the only thing that matters is truth in evidence, not truth in making conclusions from evidence, unfortunately, because that already steps into the realm of conjecture, though for some reason we don't mind when the scientific community does so, except when it suggests that the public at large is wrong about something, hence the line of anti-intellectualism.

Experiments should be conducted in an easily-repeatable manner so that the original results can be confirmed, but that still means those experiments had been made and presented by the discoverer, the individual who comes up with conclusions first. He or she is responsible for the entire setup before anyone else takes their own stab at it. Most people then read the report and if it's "done well" and not missing any holes as far as human logic can reason from the data shown then they're not very likely to question the conclusions and thus go along with the experimenter's assumptions, because after all he or she is the one most familiar with the details, and it takes more than time to run experiments.

If you're telling me all peer review journals maintain a staff that actually independently (that means every peer individual working there) conducts every experiment suggested to the journal and then compare results, rather than do mere fact-checking CIA-style, then I'd be much impressed that there are enough resources to replicate such sophisticated procedures, but then each report we read would be written by the journal, it wouldn't be the one submitted to it. What actually happens is that an experiment is limited by the abilities of its creator, and his or her capacity to get help and advice from colleagues before the report is completed and submitted to the journal. All significant review has to have already been completed for the so-called peer review journal to accept a hypothesis as having been thoroughly tested.

The problem isn't the word review but the word peer. Who or what organization could count as a peer of NIST? Would NIST be open to suggestion that another, "independent" organization repeat every one of the steps they took in putting their NC-STAR masterpiece together? Why is such a request met with scorn and skepticism by supporters of the official government theory? Yet all we'd be asking for is an additional peer review. It really is arbitrary because you still need some number of accepted peers already to vote on whether they accept a new one. The idea of scientific consensus is still mired in public opinion.

Here's another good video about thermate (which is actually the incendiary proposed to have been used):

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

Thermite is a very exothermic reduction-oxidisation reaction, it's not an explosive.

Thermite is used in cutting lances in welding.

Cutting Lances were used to cut the remaining steel beams after the incident.

I could wax lyrical but this guy debunks claims of thermite tomfoolery much more thouroughly than I can in this state {8}.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm I'm very interested to see if you think this is a satisfactory explanation.

But of course, you could always believe I'm a government shill.

Okay, here is r/conspiratard's answer of my question. Anyone care to de-bunk Herkimer?

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiratard/comments/e4cjm/just_posted_this_to_rconspiracy_in_the_interest/c156y7x

Herkimer has been debunked hundreds of times here on reddit and at digg before that. The only thing I can say is to review his claims and sources and then do the same for these.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Firefighters for 9-11 Truth

Compare the claims and evidence from both sides and make your own decision.

Wasn't Herkimer banned entirely from digg before he came here?

Don't forget the time Alex Jones personally called him out on his radio show. And I quote:

Herkimer56, a horrid little troll on Digg, who's been given imperial power by Digg to ban anyone he wants - he works for Digg, basically - with one - you could have five thousand people vote you to the main page - one vote from him, he's kinda like Diebold. He just has the magic tinkerbell wand.

His activities were also documented on "Infowars" in 2007 by user "Femacamper":

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/internet_digg_bury_the_bury_brigade.htm

Wow, this makes me feel so much better about trying to talk to him.

You and me both...

Oh man. Herk pre-dates even Digg. You guys ever hear of Usenet? Yeah. That fucker is old as dirt. You can look at google groups archives of all that nonsense.

Compare the claims and evidence from both sides and make your own decision.

Now there's a challenge you'll never see from supporters of the official conspiracy theory. Their specialty is "don't listen to those crazies".

[deleted]

TWO VANS with explosives and traces of explosives in them that were stopped and its occupants were detained,

So they linked the buildings with explosives, they flew planes into the buildings, and they had vans with explosives. Sounds like they were not very confident.

They just hated these towers so much

[deleted]

Nice rebuttal. where's this evidence? and don't dare link to a shitty youtube video.

try china and india. The scrap from WTC was shipped out without being examined by investigators.

Evidence of two vans, filled with explosives. or did they swap the passengers on the planes for vans? dolt.

Make fun if you want but it turns out what he's saying is true.

The Isrealis arrested was extensively covered on Fox News, of all places.

/r/conspiratard are a bunch of racist jewish zionists who are just putting out a bunch of baseless propaganda from their Hasbara (Hebrew: הסברה‎) playbooks

upvoted because you're adorable<3

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Cossiga#Political_views

EDIT: My wireless keyboard ran out of batteries last night, so I could only copy-paste. Now that I can type, I'd like to add more here. Your third link is a blatant lie. Here is my evidence. More below. I did read your link, did you read mine? Or did you just call me a shill, then edit your comment to say something about "zionist wikipedia"?

[deleted]

In November 2007, the Corriere della Sera reported that Cossiga had declared that everyone knew that 9/11 had been engineered by the CIA and Mossad with the "help of the Zionist world" to discredit the Arabs. He was, of course, being ironic – though this did not stop the statement circulating all over the internet. –http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/francesco-cossiga-obituary

No reply to this post, no surprises there.

It seems ironic that you would turn around and focus on questioning someone else's theory - I mean you've stated that you think it was Osama bin Laden yet you lack evidence. Not to mention the fact that he isn't even wanted by the FBI in connection.

He was asking a question, not necessarily questioning, or discrediting the theory

[deleted]

Why should there not be any thermite in the rubble?

My question is why is thermite proof of explosives if there are other causes of thermite? I don't mean to challenge you on this, but how can people tell if thermite residue is explosive, and can you cite who has performed this test?

Jeff Farrer's interview includes a description of the process of electron microscopy which revealed the red/grey chips to be energetic.

It's not a matter of "residue," so much as "unreacted thermite." The purpose of its deployment, furthermore, is not to simply explode the whole building, but to initiate a controlled structural collapse, by critically weakening the core support columns.

Now, here is what completely verifies this theory:

http://911blogger.com/node/5149 (picture backed up here)

Notice how the columns are cut diagonally, at an angle of about 65 degrees, so that the columns will simply slide off, initiating a collapse. Then, keeping that in mind, view this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sbzv53uhqUo

and notice how the steel columns collapse into their own footprint, as if dissected in multiple places.

The metal from the collapse was, in spite of laws requiring the retention of evidence, shipping overseas immediately to be reforged:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

evidently by the Chinese firm "Baosteel".

The first link I sent you (I assume what prompted this post to begin with) was what verified the presence of thermite. The dust was collected from several unrelated sources:

http://911review.com/energeticmaterials09/OCPJ/7TOCPJ.pdf (sorry for the different host - 2 minute limit on posting messages before it shows them as edited).

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-10/911-experiments-great-thermate-debate <-- This video is important, too, in light of several mainstream "debunkings" of the thermite demolition theory.

Why should there not be any thermite in the rubble?

Why should the order of these perfectly formed thermite chips arise from the chaos of buildings collapsing?

I don't know, thats what I'm asking you.

1) Can you prove that there were perfectly formed thermite chips?

2) Can you prove that they are explosive residue?

Now you're starting to sound just like an untruther troll. Of course nobody can "prove" anything one way or the other yet. They can only present evidence.

Asking for proof makes me an "untruther troll"? I'm losing more and more respect for this movement by the day.

Right now, you have speculation. You act like it's proof. It's not. It's speculation. And many of your speculations could be easily proven or disproven with simple scientific tests.

I said:

Of course nobody can "prove" anything one way or the other yet.

Your response:

You act like it's proof.

That just about covers your credibility. Or lack thereof.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/e4cda/thermite_911_truth_question/c157011

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/e4cda/thermite_911_truth_question/c159gt3

No, but those are great questions.

It's a shame there was never a criminal investigation into 9/11. It's a shame that no forensic evidence was ever examined by the law or even by the insurance company. If there had been an actual investigation, maybe we wouldn't be asking these questions over 9 years later.

I've studied the evidence in-depth and can propose plausible explanations for every assertion of the 911 truther movement, except two:

1). WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, and the fires inside weren't fueled by jet fuel like in WTC 1 and 2. There's no way WTC 7 came down on its own. That was a controlled demolition. Remember: 3 buildings fell that day, but only two were hit by jets.

2). The thermite found in the four WTC dust samples from four different locations was engineered, so unless the gov't had a huge stockpile of this stuff inside the towers, there's no explaining how it ended up there. I've heard there's only one lab in the world that can create nano-thermite. I won't mention where it is because nothing can be proved.

1. is the piece of evidence that is most bothersome. Turn it over, look at it from every direction and ask how a 40-something story skyscraper fell straight down in 6.5 seconds when it wasn't hit by a plane. No way does a building pancake like that on its own. Never in the history of skyscrapers and fires has anything happened like that. Hope that info helps...

1) Falling buildings generally produce debris, that fucks other buildings up

2) You say you won't say anything because it 'can't be proved'? I think you should prove the other unsubstantiated claims in your post before worrying about keeping one laborotary secret seen as you can't find any evidence of it.

Bombard WTC 7 all you want, it's not going to come down like it did unless by a controlled demolition.

Is that your entire argument? do you have any evidence of this "controlled demolition"? lemme guess, the firefighters saying "Pull it"?

The best evidence is in the videos of the demolition. A building that is on fire, hit from debris, does not fall straight down in 6.5 seconds. Just doesn't happen -- talk to any demolitions expert or civil engineer. The building would crumble and tip, not fall straight down (which is hard enough to pull off even by demolitions experts). And say for instance the building was damaged beyond repair and had to come down. Explosives couldn't be set up so quickly in a burning building. The explosives had to already be in place.

As for my "entire argument," other people posting here have given mountains of evidence and links. I only pointed out the facts that tipped me from skeptical of the truther claims to almost sure that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were controlled demolitions. When I reviewed the evidence presented by the 911 Engineers and Architects for Truth (at last count, over 900 professionals have risked their careers to bring this info to the public), I had to agree that the official conspiracy theory presented by the 911 Commission and media is simply too full of holes.

As for the firefighters saying "pull it," I have no fucking clue. Why did the BBC report that WTC 7 had fallen, while it still stood? Why were two vans full of explosives found in NYC that day? Why were Israeli Mossad agents, posing as movers, cheering as the planes hit? Why was World Trade Center security shut down the weekend before the attack? How did solid steel melt in a jet-fuel fire that couldn't possibly get hot enough to melt steel without the presence of an incendiary? Why were Mossad agents posing as art students centered in areas of the U.S. where the hijackers lived? Why was air security over the eastern U.S. so lax that day?

You tell me. I'm just sayin'...

Same old circumstantial 'evidence' that's been parroted many a time before. I'm not even going to bother countering all them as I've done many a times before and it does nothing to sway someone set in their viewpoint.

I will however, mention ae911. have a look here. Read it through, and see if then you can come back and preach the same about ae911 (risking their careers... lol), and this isn't an ad hominem as is likely will be called by someone. I'm not attempting to refute anything with this, aside from the constant use of ae911 as 'proof' somehow.

EDIT: Here's a choice quote

There indeed is a shortage of actual structural engineers who claim WTC was demolished with explosives. This page lists well over 1000 certified structural engineers, certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board (SECB) of The National Council of Structural Engineers Association. And that is just certified structural engineers in United States, Puerto Rico & Virgin Islands, certified in 2005 or later. Consider, how many thousands of more of structural engineers there are worldwide. And how many of these over 1000 certified structural engineers question the events of 9/11? You guessed it, not a single one.

You're right, the architects and engineers signed a petition for a new investigation, not to claim for sure that WTC was demolished. What I want to know is how three buildings collapsed within their own footprints at free-fall speeds, when in the history of high-rise fires there's never been a single collapse? Answer that for me and I'll go back to watching the night sky for alien motherships.

Holy crap, I hadn't seen that photo before. If that's WTC 7, it's getting just absolutely bombarded.

Once again /conspiracy/ shows that it can't handle anyone having even the slightest differing opinion from theirs. how are you at -1?

It is indeed WTC7, have a look here for the source and some other interesting pctures /conspiracy/ doesn't want you to see.

EDIT: Another interesting article linked is a description of how a woman who took the first photo from the flight 93 crash was harrased and hounded by 'truthers'.

You're here because you haven't learned to search, start with youtube video's if you must.

If your advanced enough, try to get some World trade center steel, have it analyzed for thermite, learn the difference between the different type of thermite.

Then as you descend into the rabbit hole learn to recognize truth from disinformation.

The answer to your question exists, find it.

So, your answer is...... ????

Are there multiple types of thermite produced by different processes? Is it possible to differentiate? If you aren't going to answer, a simple link would be appreciated.

I didnt downvote, BTW

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIHrP0maPEw http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=4499

those two should be a great start for you, any real American will investigate this Conspiracy to it's fullest without bias.

Ill tell you though there is a lot of evidence that this was a Israeli Mossad Operation against America, to bring the US into a War against the middle east.

The Israeli's attacked the US before, search the USS Liberty, where Israeli's killed a bunch of US navy and sunk that ship. They tried to make it look like Egypt did it so that the US would attack Egypt.

I don't mean to be difficult, but my audio drivers are down (damn Xubuntu) so YouTube is meaningless to me. A summary of relevant points or text citations would be appreciated.

Can we stay on topic? I am asking a specific question about thermite.

i wont be able too tonight, maybe another redditor can, but I've got to type a interview transcript tonight and study for an exam.

Maybe tomorrow i can do that, or maybe get to another pc?

World trade center steal

Really?

how would you test for thermite?

i know most of the crime scene evidence was shipped to china, but some people have some saved, its possible to see what's inside the steel, the exterior would be far too contaminated by now, but even that should show some thermite.

steal != steel

I guess you just aren't advanced enough.

sorry mien fuhrer ill edit it immediately or ill face rebuke by your reichness lol. chill out.

Not my fault you're writing checks you can't cash.

I believe that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks, directed by Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan.

proof?

The FBI doesn't want OBL for 911 so why do you?

Can we stay on topic? If you'd like to discuss this, lets start a different thread. This thread exists because I have a very specific question about thermite.

And I thank you very much for creating this post in a respectful manner because after sifting through a lot of documents, videos, and other threads, this exact question came to mind. I couldn't have asked this question better.

And if they did want him for 9/11, you'd say that was just a cover up.

First let me ask you this.

Have you seen jet fuel melt steel ?

Have you seen molten metal under WTC 7 ? Find it

Can we stay on topic? If you'd like to discuss this, lets start a different thread. This thread exists because I have a very specific question about thermite. I also asked r/conspiratard, and they've already provided citations and answers. I'm a bit disappointed I haven't seen any over here yet.

Confirmed shill.

HAHAHAHA. thanks for removing just about any credibility you had.

How come someone who questions (while keeping an open mind) your thoery is automatically a shill? You just don't like free-thinkers.

HYPOCRITE.

And I'll bite, you idiot. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. however, jet fuel burns hot enough to cause steel to lose 90% of its structural integrity. it's not a simple case of 1499 Degrees steel is fine, then 1500 it suffers a catastrophic collapse. Notwithstanding the office furniture, drywall, carpeting, paper, desks, curtains, the other 1000 possible combustible items, oh and remember how the jet fuel was delivered, via a plane. that kinda affects integrity of buildings too. they're not designed to have jets parked in them.

Come back with a better theory fuckwit. because, jet fuel and 1000 others things may burn but it cannot be beyond 495 degrees.

There were measurements taken on 9/11 and there are people who claim that they were running down the stairs and there were explosions in the lobby. A fireman said a third explosion and the building will collapse.

Oh shit! they were measurements! and someone heard explosions in the lobby!

Shit well I'll just drop all my scientific knowledge and rational thinking.

jet fuel and 1000 others things may burn but it cannot be beyond 495 degrees.

To stupid to even bother correcting. try a little science pal. or do some original research.

have you ever touched jet fuel ?

If you want to discount first hand reports and dismiss it as explosions then you're batshit insane. Explosions in the lobby shattered the it and as it happens it left evidence. What is it that you were saying about scientific knowledge now ?

Explosions in the lobby of WTC tower

This is your evidence? My audio drivers are still down, so I couldnt hear the audio... But the video appears to be interviews with shaken people shortly after the towers fell.

This is your evidence? Unreliable first hand testimony? Please tell me you have actual facts to support this assertion.

First you want to dismiss the explosions as just some random occurrence. Then you want to dismiss the evidence of the explosion. Show me you have some creativity.

properly done, you can melt steel in a campfire.

Can you melt steel or even make a dent on steel in 60 minutes ? and keep it molten for months ?

exactly, and he even says if done properly, but apparently it was done at random in three different buildings, two hit by a plane, and one that spontaneous combusted and melted all its steel.

or maybe it was the bombs.

Can thermite?

especially so.

911 - molten metal thermite car demolition

And there was nanothermate which was also found on-site.

I know the combustion of Themite can produces molten steel (I'm 7/8ths of the way through a degree in chemistry). However, I don't think thermite could "keep it molten for months ".

Tell me you know or you dont know if thermite / nanothermate could keep steel molten for months. It's not good enough for you to be thinking.

Tell me you know or you dont know if thermite / nanothermate could keep steel molten for months.

Under what circumstances? In the context of the WTC site, I think it's extremely unlikely.

Unlikely is not good enough in the circumstances.

Would you happen to know anything about molten steel seen erupting from the South tower before it went down ?

Or anything about molten steel where WTC 7 stood that was active for 5 weeks ?

Or anything about molten steel where WTC 1, 2 stood, which was also active for 5 weeks ?

Unlikely is not good enough in the circumstances.

How about extremely unlikely? It's impossible to be completely certain about most things, including whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. I'm comfortable if I can conclude the it is extremely unlikely that my government perpetrator behind the event.

Would you happen to know anything about molten steel seen erupting from the South tower before it went down ?

Prove to me it was steel, not aluminum.

Or anything about molten steel where WTC 7 stood that was active for 5 weeks ?

Or anything about molten steel where WTC 1, 2 stood, which was also active for 5 weeks ?

Again, prove to me that the molten metal people saw in the ruins of the towers was steel, not aluminum. Also, explain to me why molten steel in the ruins weeks after the towers collapsed indicates that thermite was combusted. After all, the combustion of thermite is an extremely vigorous reaction, and it would have all combusted within seconds, not weeks.

1. Aluminum does not melt with orange glow. Orange glowing molten metal was seen dripping down the side of the WTC tower by millions of people before the collapse.
2. Answer the question - how did the molten metal come to be, not what is the molten metal ?

This is where you shoot yourself in the foot and expose yourself as a shill. A shill claiming to be 7/8ths of the way to be a chemist. goodbye wannabe chemist.

Orange glowing molten metal

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

http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&amp;expIds=17259,17311,24472,25752,25854,26339,26788,27147,27404,27415,27584,27601&amp;sugexp=ldymls&amp;xhr=t&amp;q=molten+aluminum&amp;cp=9&amp;safe=off&amp;um=1&amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;source=og&amp;sa=N&amp;tab=wi&amp;biw=1128&amp;bih=566

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/aluminum/glowing.html

(note the source of the last one!)

Answer the question - how did the molten metal come to be, not what is the molten metal ?

The aluminum came from the bodies of the aircraft and office furnishings. It melted due to the fires in the building. It pooled because the floors were sagging since the girders were all softened by the flames.

Extremely unlikely is not good enough either.

There is a paper on the molten liquid as seen by millions of people dripping from WTC towers before the collapse. Simply, the conclusion of this analysis is inescapable. The liquid metal was molten iron..

So tell me 7/8th degree chemist, can you say aluminum at melting point and dripping as seen is orange ?

And you haven't enlightened us as to the molten metal staying molten for 5 weeks.

Extremely unlikely is not good enough either.

What is then? What level of uncertainty?

[from the pdf] Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity.

Calculations have shown that the floors would have sagged due to the heat below them. The thin cement floor would create a surface where the aluminum could collect and be heated by flames below.

And you haven't enlightened us as to the molten metal staying molten for 5 weeks.

Again, how does thermite explain this? You're the one making the claim that molten some weeks later is evidence of thermite.

So tell me 7/8th degree chemist

I'm also 7/8th engineering physicist and published in PRL, btw.

1. You have not shown where aluminum dripping can even remotely be compared to what we saw at WTC. Orange and glowing in bright daylight.

2. You keep coming back to thermite. First tell me how the molten metal can stay molten for weeks ?

You have not shown where aluminum dripping can even remotely be compared to what we saw at WTC. Orange and glowing in bright daylight.

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

You keep coming back to thermite. First tell me how the molten metal can stay molten for weeks ?

You're the one who suggested that this was evidence of thermite!

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

"When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. "-from your link

Okay, so this seems to be somewhat convincing (and the first evidence I've seen that the thermite may be unique and identifiable as explosive). R/conspiratard has led me to believe that Bentham is a junk science journal, and its not peer reviewed. This is slightly off topic, but care to convince me that Bentham is a reliable source? Or do you have a peer reviewed source? Thanks!

You and me both...

have you ever touched jet fuel ?

If you want to discount first hand reports and dismiss it as explosions then you're batshit insane. Explosions in the lobby shattered the it and as it happens it left evidence. What is it that you were saying about scientific knowledge now ?

Explosions in the lobby of WTC tower

Unlikely is not good enough in the circumstances.

How about extremely unlikely? It's impossible to be completely certain about most things, including whether or not 9/11 was an inside job. I'm comfortable if I can conclude the it is extremely unlikely that my government perpetrator behind the event.

Would you happen to know anything about molten steel seen erupting from the South tower before it went down ?

Prove to me it was steel, not aluminum.

Or anything about molten steel where WTC 7 stood that was active for 5 weeks ?

Or anything about molten steel where WTC 1, 2 stood, which was also active for 5 weeks ?

Again, prove to me that the molten metal people saw in the ruins of the towers was steel, not aluminum. Also, explain to me why molten steel in the ruins weeks after the towers collapsed indicates that thermite was combusted. After all, the combustion of thermite is an extremely vigorous reaction, and it would have all combusted within seconds, not weeks.

You're right, the architects and engineers signed a petition for a new investigation, not to claim for sure that WTC was demolished. What I want to know is how three buildings collapsed within their own footprints at free-fall speeds, when in the history of high-rise fires there's never been a single collapse? Answer that for me and I'll go back to watching the night sky for alien motherships.