Steve Watson on the Importance of the "Molten Metal" Video

Steve Watson analyzes the molten metal video posted at 911Blogger yesterday (read the original Watson article for links and photos):

"A video of a firefighter describing seeing molten "steel" flowing at ground zero after 9/11 has emerged on Google video. He states that it was like a foundry or "lava in a volcano". This is an extremely important piece of footage because it highlights the fact that something other than jet fuel fires, or in the case of building 7, office material fires, was responsible for the collapse of the buildings.

There are lots of accounts alleging that rescue workers encountered molten steel. Debunkers have often asked the question whether these witnesses know the difference between incandescent and molten, i.e. the fact that glowing steel was pulled out of the rubble doesn't mean it was molten.

The firefighter in this video specifically says the steel was flowing.

Molten metal found in the basement of the WTC suggests that the commonly used explosive thermite may be responsible for the collapse. Physics professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, has conducted extensive research to prove that buildings not destroyed by explosives would have insufficient directed energy to produce the large quantities of melted metal that was discovered. The molten steel was found five days after the collapse, on Sept. 16, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used an Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) to locate and measure the site’s hot spots.

It requires temperatures of at least 5,000 fahrenheit to melt steel. Diesel jet fuel does not reach these temperatures and the fires in the buildings were short lived. Firefighter tape recordings prove that only small pockets of fire were still burning in the buildings seconds before their collapse.

The USGS Spectroscopy Lab produced images which showed dense thermal hot spots days and weeks after the attacks. ABC News reported that, "the temperature at the core of "the pile," is near 2000 degrees Fahrenheit, according to fire officials, who add that the fires are too deep for firefighters to get to."

In perfect conditions the maximum temperature that can be reached by hydrocarbons such as jet fuel burning in air is 1520° F (825° C). When the World Trade Center collapsed the deeply buried fires would have been deprived of oxygen and their temperatures would have significantly decreased.

Why was the temperature at the core of "the pile" nearly 500° F hotter than the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel a full seven days after the collapses? There were no infernos in either of the twin towers before they collapsed, so what caused the hot spots deep in their wreckage?

Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert, on the jet fuel fires which burned in the WTC buildings:

"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it didn't, the steel did not melt."

Molten steel did not exist in the WTC buildings prior to the collapses, but...

Molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed [from WTCs 1 & 2],” Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Maryland is on record as saying. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

One of the more unusual artifacts to emerge from the rubble was a rock-like object which has come to be known as "the meteorite". It is a fused element of molten steel and concrete all fused by the heat into one single element.

What caused the steel to melt? How did it stay molten for weeks after the collapses? How did fires in the WTC wreckage manage to burn for more than three months?

According to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, a thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures in excess of 2,500°C. This provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings.

Thermite contains its own supply of oxygen, and does not require any external source such as air. Consequently, it cannot be smothered and may ignite in any environment, given sufficient initial heat. It will burn just as well while underwater, for example, and cannot even be extinguished with water, as water sprayed on a thermite reaction will instantly be boiled into steam.

The use of thermite and thermate is also common in military circles:

Thermite grenades are used by the military as incendiary devices to quickly destroy items or equipment when there is imminent danger of them being captured by enemy forces. Because of the difficulty in igniting standard iron-thermite, plus the fact that it burns with practically no flame and has a small radius of action, standard thermite is rarely used on its own as an incendiary composition. It is more usually employed with other ingredients added to enhance its incendiary effects. Thermate-TH3 is a mixture of thermite and pyrotechnic additives which have been found to be superior to standard thermite for incendiary purposes. Its composition by weight is generally thermite 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulphur 2.0% and binder 0.3%.

Professor Jones contends that thermite devices could be set off at will using thermite electrical matches commonly used for controlled demolitions. He also points to evidence of a dark grey thermite residue on recovered steel columns from the towers.

In August 2006 the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) responded to questions of controlled demolition and thermite use by dismissing all the evidence outright in two incredible sentences. Firstly in response to the thermite theory:

"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

NIST also contend that the suggestion is irrelevant because they had already ruled out controlled demolition.

Secondly on the molten metal:

"The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing."

Oh OK, forget it then shall we?"

Big props again to FeO for finding the video.

I thought molten iron

(versus molten steel) was the end-product of a thermite reaction.

"According to The Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia, a thermite reaction generates extraordinarily high temperatures in excess of 2,500°C. This provides a credible explanation for the fires, hot spots and molten steel (a by-product of the thermite reaction) found in the collapsed buildings."

steel is iron plus some carbon

it is, but that molten iron reaches a very high temperature--beyond the melting point of steel, so in fact the heat produced would melt quite a bit of the steel in the structure. Once you pile it all together, the extra heat melts the steel around it and it pools, flows, etc. Also bear in mind that steel is primarily composed of iron...


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force



Okay, this is basically a semantic issue. Strictly speaking, a thermite reaction does produce molten iron, as aluminum takes the oxygen from iron oxide (becoming aluminum oxide and leaving molten iron behind.) This reaction is used to melt steel or weaken to the point that it breaks down. Whether "steel" is the most accurate description of the unidentified flowing metal is unclear -- after a quick re-read of the Steven Jones' material, I think probably not. Tests on the re-solidified, once-molten metal, he says, reveal that
"The previously )molten metal has very little (if any)
Chromium yet abundant Manganese, (thus)
we we rule out rule out molten structural steel (as a major component)." It's probably best to describe it as "molten metal," period.

To return to the semantics issue, the guy in the video who refers to it as molten steel probably does so because "steel" is the most obvious specific word to describe "sky-scraper metal," and he wasn't making any kind of fine distinction in that description. But I think we should refer to it as "molten metal."

My hang-up here is very much like my reaction to the idea that "there were no names on the passenger manifests, when in fact what is being refered to are the pre-censored "victim lists." If something is going to be repeated ad nauseam, it's best to get it straight in the beginning.


Does thermite explode?

When we here witness accounts of hearing explosions I am curious because thermite does not explode.

Evidently thermate does, though.


Plus, who's saying non-thermate explosives weren't also used?

that's what i think. now you're headed in the right direction

There is just no precident for thermite being used to cut through vertical steel columns that would fit the profile of this free-fall collapse.

Maybe i'm missing it but I just can't seem to find examples where professional demolition companies have ever used thermite for a synchronized demolition, such as this.

thermite is an incendiary, a vastly different product to HMX and RDX which are military explosives like TNT that can be used in civilian demolition projects. Thermite is a slow-burning product in comparison, does not explode, and, as far as I can determine, is never used in demolition of buildings.

Can you maybe respectfully point me in the right direction demonstrating examples for me where thermite was used in this way?

So - i have a conundrum on my hands:

1 - i believe the buildings were demolished since they fell at free-fall speeds.

2 - the focus on thermite seems inconsistent with this profile.

got it? respectfully

thermite in its conventional form is useless in demolition: it is slow-burning, with unpredictable time to melt, and can only be used in direct contact with horizontal unclad steel beams / components. (The horizontal steel members in the Twin Towers were covered by at least 4 inches of concrete.)

John, Jones isn't arguing for thermite.

He's arguing for thermate. You really need to check out The Journal of 9/11 Studies and get your facts straight. (Funny, I feel a strange sense of deja vu with this link.)

Actually he argues for both

But I only say this respectfully.

Jones: “combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added). The thermate reaction proceeds rapidly and is much faster than thermite in degrading steel leading to structural failure.  Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is allowed in the discussion.”

But, both are problematic, for the same reasons. Certainly, the sulfidation of steel is an additional argument in favour of thermate, but is mitigated against because of the difficulty of maintaining contact between thermate sulphur-rich molten-iron products and steel columns.

Again, if you can demonstrate an example where thermite OR thermate is used to cut vertical columns to facilitate controlled demolitions, I would be very curious to see it and please to be convinced.

But, apparently there does not even exist a patent for the delivery of thermate to vertical columns.

Molten iron flows very fast, due to its high density, and would have only very short contact times with vertical steel members.

No fire has ever caused a steel frame building to collapse.

Unfortunately, thermate or thermite has never been used to collapse a steel frame building also.

Unless I'm wrong. This would be a case where I would be happt to be proven wrong, so I can have a clearer picture of what MAY have happened.


Do you realize that when he describes "aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added)" he is in fact describing thermate? That's what thermate is -- thermite with sulfur added. He's not arguing for the use of both substances in that paragraph, at least.


But that is just one paragraph.

But of course he talks EXSTENSIVELY about thermite also:

Jones: “Observe the grayish-white plumes trailing upward from white "blobs" at the left-most extremities of the upper structure.  (The lower structure is mostly obscured by dust.)  It is possible that thermite cut through structural steel and that what we now observe is white-hot iron from the reaction adhering to the severed ends of the steel, with grayish-white aluminum oxide still streaming away from the reaction sites. The observations are consistent with the use of thermite or one of its variants.”

So - I have two problems. Thermite & thermate both are inappropriate explainations for cutting through vertical columns (unless - respectfully - someone can demonstrate an example of such). And - pools of molten metal can very cleary be explained through exothermal reactions related to using water on iron oxide.

I am unsure why the simple use of known conventional explosives alone is not the simple answer, and why this tangent on thermite exists.

I would hate to think we have been led down a blind easily debunked alley on purpose.

But I am just speculating.

Is technology available to cut columns with thermite/thermate?

Of course the inventions are available to cut the columns. In this research, I found out a bunch of interesting things with some patent searches. Things like creating a back pressure behind the thermite/thermate material, to force it as a spray. Using ejection design to force the hot material into the steel. The chemical composition of different thermites and thermates. The burning temperature of thermate and thermite. How much steel can a pound of thermite burn through. Pyronol.RTM., once ignited, will attain temperatures between six and twelve thousand degrees Fahrenheit. Wait a minute, will attain temperatures between six and twelve thousand degrees Fahrenheit. Are you kidding me, what’s this Pyronol stuff?

The data and number of patents is overwhelming.

Here’s the URL for the patent office search, just enter the following patent numbers into the search box and click search.

To search for your favorite search terms go here:

I found the best ones when I searched these terms:
Incendiary and cutting and thermite
Pyrotechnic and cutting and thermite
Thermal and rods
thermite and cutter

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

Patent Number: 5,698,812
Filed: December 16, 1997

Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC)

thermite destructive device

A destructive device containing a thermite-type composition having a core burning configuration. The device comprises a housing having a top, a bottom, and a thermally insulated liner to maximize the thermal effectiveness of an ignition. The bottom has a circumferential skirt and defines one orifice therein for directing the expulsion of the thermite-type-composition upon ignition, the top has vents which together with the bottom orifice and skirt balance the escape of gas and prevent the device from moving during ignition.

(1) A core burning design with orifice/nozzle at the base directing the jet at the target.

(2) Balanced gas escape design, including a vented plug at the top, and an orifice and skirt at the bottom which distributes the forces so that the burning thermite jet does not move the container off target.

(3) Thermal insulated container design to maximize thermal effectiveness of the output.

Other types of thermite mixtures containing metals and the oxides of other metals other than iron oxide are known: aluminum/manganese oxide (4 Al+3 MnO.sub.2); aluminum/chromium oxide (2 Al+Cr.sub.2 O.sub.3) and others. Aluminum/iron oxide mixtures (8 Al+3 Fe.sub.3 O.sub.4) have proved to be the most effective incendiary composition for destruction of steel targets because superheated liquid products are formed by the reaction. These molten products affect a high rate of conductive heat transfer to the steel target and, therefore, cause destruction of the target. Any combination metal/metal oxide capable of high rates of conductive heat transfer can be used in the present invention.

A vented plug 30, made of graphite or other refractory material capable of withstanding the reaction temperature of the specific thermite selected, having a plurality of vent holes 32, fits onto the top of the insulation liner 16. The vented plug 30 acts as a baffle for the exit of molten product materials and also acts as a radiation shield and thus helps retain the heat produced. By designing destructive devices so that the diameters of vent holes 32 and a nozzle 18 are of different sizes, it is possible to release the molten products of reaction at a rate which balances gas escape and distributes the forces so that the burning thermitejet does not move the device off the target.

It is used in multicomponent thermite incendiary compositions, in which another oxidizer and binder are together included. THERMATE-TH3, a mixture of aluminum and iron oxide and other pyrotechnic additives, was found to be superior to aluminum and iron oxide alone and was adopted for use in incendiary hand grenades. Its composition by weight is aluminum/iron oxide 68.7%, barium nitrate 29.0%, sulfur 2.0% and binder 0.3%. The addition of barium nitrate increases the thermal effects, creates flame in burning and reduces the ignition temperature.

The combined design features yields jetting molten products rather than flowing molten mass to penetrate the metal target for optimum damage. The device does not require a large void volume which would make the device very large and the design also reduces the amount of payload.

A device with greater penetration capabilities is the "thermite Penetrator Device" of U.S. Pat. No. 4,216,721 herein incorporated by reference, which was designed to direct the flow of energy through an opening at the bottom of the containing vessel. However, it is still inefficient in that a great amount of its energy is being lost through its open top end. The open top not only reduces the energy available for penetration, but adds to the device's visible signature.

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

Patent Number: 4,216,721
Filed: August 12, 1980

Assignee: The United Stated of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC)

thermite penetrator device (U)

In a thermite penetrator device for destroying a metal target comprising a refractroy crucible containing a thermite mixture therewithin, said crucible having a plurality of metal discs disposed adjacent a bottom portion of said mixture and crucible, said discs providng a space therearound between said discs and crucible, said discs being devoid of any chemical reaction with said thermite mixture, a readily ignitable starter material atop said thermite mixture, an igniter cord contacting said starter material and an exit hole in said crucible below said discs for passing molten thermite reaction products therethrough,

Controlling the release from a conical ceramic crucible of molten thermite eaction products (generally, iron and alumina) to effect optimum penetration of metallic targets by said molten products through the use of metallic discs which are completely protected on their sides against the molten products, thus forcing these molten products to melt the discs sequentially from top to bottom, resulting in a delay of flow of the molten products from the conical crucible to thus permit the molten iron, heavier than the molten alumina, to substantially unimpededly transfer its heat to the metallic target, the molten iron being more efficient in melting metallic materials than the molten alumina.

Upon ignition of the above mixture, molten iron, having a melting point of approximately F. and a density of about 7, and molten alumina, or aluminum oxide, having a melting point of approximately F. and a density of about 4, will be formed. The peak temperature of the reaction will be in excess of F. The reaction is caused to take place in a reaction vessel or ceramic crucible, suitably of fused silica, although any refractory ceramic material capable of withstanding the temperatures involved may be used.

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

This is my favorite patent because it shows that thermite can be made into paste then could be daubed or painted on a column and an igniter can be pressed into the still moist paste. Dang I love this, it even uses photo flash cubes as igniters. This one also shows that Radio Frequency controlled igniters can be used.

Patent Number: 4,477,060
Filed: October 16, 1984

Underwater cutting tool


Some of the wires are left in place to provide a sufficiently great area of contact with the thermite. This cavity is filled with thermite paste (thermite alcohol mixture). It is important that the paste cures well and fills the lance cavity in question densely packed.

The igniter (heater filament) is pushed in or pressed into the thermite paste as long as the latter is still moist. Subsequently the free lance end is sealed by a pressure-resistant seal.

In tests also conventional photoflashes which operate mechanically, of the type called magic cubes, have proved to be advantageous ignition means. In that even mechanical ignition is effected of snarled up magnesium wire disposed in a glass container or the like filled with oxygen, for example by an igniter filled with gunpowder, which is ignited by a mechanical stroke and which feeds a blast flame to said snarled up magnesium wire.

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

This one shears of the ends of bolts. I like this one because the ignition device is acoustical. This also uses thermite as an igniter, so I guess that the reaction is a lot hotter than thermite.

Patent Number: 4,069,407
Filed: January 17, 1978

a plurality of pyrotechnic torch means in said housing each having a nozzle proximate said shackle pin and said mooring loop, said nozzles being oriented to direct high temperature non-explosive jets against one of said mooring elements in at least two places, the other of said mooring elements extending across the interval between said two places, and

Returning to the front end of plug adapter 86, two thermite igniters 114 and 116 are disposed in adjacent longitudinal bores, igniters 114 and 116 being contacted by igniter wires 118 and 120,

Torch ignition is actuated by an acoustic control system commanded from a remote location.

the acoustic transducer might be mounted exterior of the housing; an acoustic control system from another manufacturer might be employed; electromagnetic wave or low frequency radio wave signaling devices might be employed in lieu of an acoustic transponder system.

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

Patent Number: 3,744,369
Filed: July 10, 1973

Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC)



An apparatus and method for severing a steel cable comprising a housing hng an upper reservoir and a lower work piece holder component, a flow gate extending downward from the reservoir through the work piece holder, port means positioned at the bottom of the housing, whereby on the ignition of the thermite mixture in the reservoir component, the resultant molten mass contacts the steel cable positioned in the work piece holder for a short period of time, thereby severing the cable.

The present method is based on the well known thermite welding process. In the process, coarsely powdered aluminum and iron oxide are mixed, and ignited by a fuse of magnesium ribbon and barium peroxide. A violent reaction occurs resulting in a peak temperature of over The reaction proceeds as follows:

2Al+ Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3 .fwdarw. Al.sub.2 O.sub.3 + 2Fe+185,000 calories

The thermite is suitable for utilization as a destructive agent becasue of its high temperature and the erosive action of the superheated molten iron and aluminum oxide.

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

Patent Number: 4,069,407
Filed: January 17, 1978

Underwater cutting rod


It is the further object of this invention to provide a cutting rod and system which is far superior to any previously used in the art. In addition, it is an object to provide a rod which is light-weight, readily adaptable to most standard rod holders, easy to handle and use, which develops an arc under any non-explosive atmosphere including water, and develops temperatures high enough to melt any known metal, mineral or combination of metals and minerals.

The classic thermite reaction consists of 8 moles of aluminum plus 3 moles of magnetic iron oxide. The reaction to completion produces 4 moles of aluminum oxide plus nine moles of molten iron. When ignited, this mixture produces an enormous quantity of heat, namely 758,000 calories per gram molecular weight. this heat is sufficient to raise the temperature of the region to 5, F.

The rod of the present invention is completely consumed during the operation; thus, no waste product is developed which would cause environmental problems in the use of the device.

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

Patent Number: 4,541,616
Filed: September 17, 1985

Thermal burning rod

General requirements for cutting metals, especially metals such as steel, certain ceramics, and concrete, under water, have led to the development of a series of exothermic burning rods primarily based upon various thermite reactions involving the combustion of oxides of iron in the presence of oxygen atmospheres.

The most recent developments in this type of thermite or exothermic burning rod may be seen in U.S. Pat. No. 4,069,1107 to Brower, which describes an elongated metallic rod suitable for the conduction of electricity having an insulating outer coating and having a plurality of interior elements running its length. With one exception, the elements are primarily of an iron composition. The exception is that at least one element, constructed of metal from the metallic group comprising aluminum, magnesium, titanium, or their alloys is included so as to provide the aluminum, iron, and oxygen mixture required for the classic thermite reaction. The rods are gripped in a pressure tight collect chuck . . .

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

Patent Number: 4,034,567
Filed: July 12, 1977

Self-drilling thermal bolt

The self-drilling bolt according to the invention may be anchored in widely differing types of material: among these there may be mentioned mineral materials such as rock or stone, refractory materials, asphalt, concrete, reinforced concrete, metals in general, and in particular steels. The anchorage of such a bolt in iron-based materials is especially advantageous since the iron, which is itself present in the material, will during drilling provide some of the necessary energy for melting the latter.

The self-drilling thermal bolt which has been described can be used in many fields: civil engineering work, mining work, the construction industry and under-water work for example.

Other materials which have similar properties and which may also be used are for example ferro-manganese compounds, mixtures of silica and metallic powders, mixtures of the thermite type, or even cast iron.

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

Patent Number: 4,799,829
Filed: January 24, 1989

Method and apparatus for removing submerged platforms.


“The cutting of the piling is performed by a series of tubes radially deployed in the cutter on a common plane. Each tube is filled with what is, in essence, a solid fuel similar to thermite or magnesium. Thus, the cut is performed through the use of a series of solid fuel torches. The preferred solid fuel is Pyronol.RTM.. Pyronol.RTM. is manufactured by Goex, Inc. and the material itself is the subject of U.S. Pat. No. 3,695,951. Pyronol.RTM., once ignited, will attain temperatures between six and twelve thousand degrees Fahrenheit. These temperatures are sufficient to burn through steel and concrete.”

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

This is used for concrete, but reaches the needed temperature.

Patent Number: 5,532,449
Filed: August 29, 1994

Assignee: Kabushiki Kaisha Komatsu Seisakusho (Tokyo, JP)

Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete


thermite powder T is basically a mixture of finely-divided metallic aluminum and ferric oxide that, when ignited, produces extremely high temperatures as the result of the union of the aluminum with the oxygen of the oxide. The thermite reaction on the surface of a concrete structure is so intensive that it easily melts concrete and rock with a melting point in the range of about 1200 to about

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

Here’s a patent for another igniter:

Patent Number: 3,988,989
Filed: November 2, 1976

Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Navy (Washington, DC)

High-pressure, electrically initiated explosive igniter

The central area of the booster head 36 contains a material such as thermite, for example, for igniting the main charge. Such a material may, or may not, be necessary.

Some of the wires are left in place to provide a sufficiently great area of contact with the thermite. This cavity is filled with thermite paste (thermite alcohol mixture). It is important that the paste cures well and fills the lance cavity in question densely packed.

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

Another remote ignition device.

Patent Number: 4,371,771
Filed: February 1, 1983

Assignee: The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC)

Cutting torch and method

For munition demilitarization the preferred initiator is an electric match, shown in FIG. 3. An electric match permits a remote activation, e.g., 750 meters away, and it is inexpensive.

The devices and methods, shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,069,407 and 4,182,947 by Jerome S. Brower issued on Jan. 17, 1978 and Jan. 8, 1980 utilize the thermite reaction consisting of 8 moles of aluminum plus three moles of iron oxide to produce 4 moles of aluminum oxide plus nine moles of molten iron. The reaction is extremely exothermic, releasing 758,000 calories per gram molecular weight.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear, kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor, with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil at home or some monstrous foreign power that was going to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it. ~ General Douglas MacArthur

We always obeyed the law. Isn't that what you do in America? Even if you don't agree with a law personally, you still obey it. Otherwise life would be chaos. ~ Gertrude Scholtz-Klink, explaining Nazi policy

Authoritarian government required to speak, is silent. Representative government required to speak, lies with impunity. ~ Napoleon

The target suffered a terminal illness before a firing squad in Baghdad. ~ CIA officer at US Senate hearing on 1963 overthrow of Iraqi Prime Minister Kassem

Form no covetous desire, so that the demon of greediness may not deceive thee, and the treasure of the world may not be tasteless to thee. ~ Zoroaster

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own; a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms… ~ Albert Einstein, obituary

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Very good work


But, it is important to note that a patent does not mean all that much. While you do indeed illustrate that there are various patents on file proposing various thermite delivery systems, it would be important to show examples of workable systems that demonstrably illustrate that the technology is viable. A patent is no guarantee of practicality.

I suggest that the key questions still revolve around how such a system could be effectively deployed to deliver thermite to VERTICAL columns.

The other issue is the time constraints. Melting through a steel column with thermite - essentially meting clean through a massive column - would be a very SLOW process. This does not seem to match the data that we have - which is that rapid fire explosions IMMEDIATELY precipitated a collapse.

Another question is the weight ratio of thermite necessary to cut through these columns. Quite a LARGE quantity would be necessary to cut through even ONE column. I am unsure how to reconcile this anomoly.

But lastly, why would such a speculative technology be used? What are the advantages of using a long-burning chemical reaction to MELT through steel columns, leaving behind quite a lot of evidence, as opposed to simply using available controlled demolition technology? C4 plastic explosives is a very efficient method of bringing buildings down.

To my knowledge there are no examples of thermite technology EVER being used to bring down buildings. Again - melting through vertical steel colums would be a very slow process.

Can you provide us with some extimates regarding hos long it would take to melt through a column with thermite - and how efficient this would be in the context of a controlled demolition?

While i appreciate your post illustrating various thermite patents, but finding examples of workable technology in the world of construction and demolitions where thermite has been used to cut vertical columns is not something I have been able to find.


All You Have To Do Is Look It Up

This was in response to your statement “But, apparently there does not even exist a patent for the delivery of thermate to vertical columns.” If your red the above, most of them explicitly state that they are for use in vertical applications.

The first patent I listed expressly details that it can be used for vertical applications.

If you read the above patents, it clearly details process that enhance the speed, creating back pressure, and directed charges that creates a jet flow into the vertical column. Not to mention Pyronol.RTM which burns at 12,000 degrees F. This is stark evidence that accelerated thermite/thermate/Pyronol.RTM are very possible. Of course the actual devices constructed using most of these inventions would be held as proprietary information. You could try to go ask the assignees about it, but sigh, most of the assignees are DOD. Give them a call and see if you can get them to reveal what they have.

No, you would not need a large quantity. Pyronol.RTM is almost five times more powerful than normal thermite, and this is incendiary material that is in the public record. Can you imagine that maybe there are even more powerful incendiary composites unknown to the general public. I’m sure you would say ‘yes’.

Again, using advances materials like Pyronol.RTM, back pressure, directed construction, and multi chamber release to produce JETS of reactant material; the reaction would be very fast. This is all completely documented in the above patents. The chemical markers of C4 are very obvious. The traces of thermite/thermate reactions is hard to see, and covered up by the aluminum airplane frame, the cladding, the drywall and most recently noted acid rain. These types of reactions would be the obvious choice as they evidence would be questionable as to their use.

I don’t know if these devices have been used for building demolition, my guess is that these are more expensive than conventional devices and the market would dictate that conventional explosives would be used commercially. In paten number 4,799,829, the device is used to bring down submerged platforms. It’s underwater, but it definitely shows cutting vertical members, just under water. Using a hybrid of these devices would be a very fast reaction. Again, you’ll have to go to The United States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army (Washington, DC) to see what the military has in their stockpile that they use to cut underwater vertical columns.

In this article related to WWII, it states, “Covert operations that conceal the identity of, or permit plausible denial by, perpetrators moreover may be politically prudent, especially in "peacetime." Demolition specialists able to infiltrate clandestinely, position charges precisely, then slip away sometimes prove invaluable under combat conditions, because they impose disproportionately heavy security burdens on defenders.” And “Brittle cast iron breaks easily, but acetylene torches or thermite may be needed to slice nickel-molybdenum steel, which strongly resists conventional explosives.” And “Professionals whose mission is to stop road and river traffic temporarily cut supports at one end of truss bridges so affected spans fall in the water; they cut trusses at midspan to make bridges buckle if long-lasting destruction is the intent.”

So the US military was using thermite to take down bridges over FIFTY years ago. Please consider that the technology has advances considerably in the last 50 years.

I couldn’t access this article directly, but the Google blurb states “RDT&E BUDGET ITEM JUSTIFICATION SHEET (R-2 Exhibit) ... thermite-like materials and provide twice the total energy of high explosives. ...
So another reason that would be that the thermite provides twice the total energy of high explosives.

In this article:

It states:

AN-M14 TH3 Incendary:

Filler – 26.5 ounces of thermate (TH3) mixture

Capibilities – can be thrown 25 meters by average soldier. A portion of the thermate mixture is converted into moltant iron, which burns at 4,000 degrees F. It will . . . . The thermate filler of the AN-M14 granade burns for 40 seconds and can burn through a ½ inch homogenous steel plate.” And this is without directed construction, advanced materials or back pressure to form cutting jets.

While I appreciate your healthy skepticism, I am astounded. Any reasonable person would quickly and gladly say, ‘Okay, there are a lot of patents that describe using thermite to bring down vertical structures, Okay, they have been doing it for over fifty years with much cruder technology. Okay, thermate reactions can easily be fast using back pressure, shaped charge design and advanced material.

My advice for you is start searching for WWII records of thermite used to bring down bridges. I found references quickly. Fifty year old technology bringing down vertical structures.

I hope that this can close this part of the discussion and we can move on to how we can get access to the WTC rubble where there is ample evidence to prove or disprove the WTC demolition theory.

Great posts.

Thank for for taking the time to dig up this interesting information! Your points regarding the probable greater expense of a thermate demolition AND the evidence that would be left behind with conventional explosives are particularly important.

Clearly, the Towers were not conventional controlled demolitions. They were designed as acts of theater, and the name of the show was "planes crash into buildings and make them fall down." Your research strongly suggests that the technology is out there to pull off demolitions that had to be unconventional in order to "look right" in that context.

Good stuff

Although at the moment I am not finding anything on the dstruction of vertical columns in bridges in WW2.

Maybe you can point me in the right direction.

But, another interesting questions:

Since Thermite effectively MELTS through steel, how do you explain the widespread pulverizing of the contents of the building - and the flinging of heavy steel columns thousands of yards.

Does thermite melt through columns or blow things up? Does thermite use explosive force? or a chemical reaction to melt?

John? huh?

John? huh?

Here's the deal...

This guy is making a point of spelling expertise "expertize" which is what John Albanese was doing over in another thread, when he went "undercover" as "Anonymous" to check and see whether we were all posting appropriately at 911blogger (and we weren't! oh, the humanity!) (Someone noticed that both John Albanese and this Anonymous were spelling expertise with a "z" and when confronted, he acknowledged he was Anonymous.)

Anyway, he's also playing discourse cop over here, so it's either John Albanese or a perceptive troll who picked up on that whole thing and is using it to tweak people.

Dear Inspector Clouseau

By continually harkening back to all this nonsense you are in fact again attempting to inflame.

If anyone is being a cop it is you Inspector Clouseau

I just see polite questions and and in interesting debate taking place here. There nothing to see here. Move along.

2007 could be the year when an opening may present itself to present this research to the public and media. I for one applaude whoever this is because he/she appears to be asking tough questions, and getting good answers. Who knows, maybe a breakthrough is in the works.

Nothing to see, nothing to see

Move along, everyone.

Says anonymous.

If you can't contribute to the discussion at hand

I would agree. Move along.

Unless, of course, you WANT to flame the board with insinuation.


I am not John Albanese, but I think you should stop with this also.

It is getting tired and puts a bad face on what this forum is supposed to be about. You are basically proving that harassment is used to intimidate skeptics.

Miss Cass and Miss Speller

Hey Casseia, I'm sorry if by outing him I've given an opening for disruptors to jump on the mispelling bandwagon. What bugs me most is this self-righteousness where someone (kof kof) keeps harping on the tone and content of our discussions as being a turn off to newcomers, etc

I for one think that this forum is pretty exceptional in the way that so many people come together to pursue a cause without it all breaking down into unreadable back and forth smears. That makes it a target for peo0ple who like to stir up trouble, and we've learned the types of trouble that are possible. People post idiotic "theories" and when called on their BS appeal to fairness as if the truth movement were not about truth but about wild speculation as our critics claim.

When we refuse to be put in that bind by requiring that people put up or shut up, they whine about censorship (as if it was so hard to make the greyed out posts appear!) Notice how after the drop off in noplane comments we now have a slew of spacebeeam comments to deal with? What will Judy Jetson and Morgan Reynolds Wrap's next discovery be? he asks with a shudder. Whatever it is I bet it will gain "currency" just as the spacebeam theory makes a quiet exit.

My reaction to being treated like an idiot is not so much to be offended (do any of us still remember what it feels like to be offended after the interminable parade of disgust that passes for the current status quo? It just doesn't get much more offensive than Abu Ghraib, does it?) No, I'm not offended--I'm disturbed and encouraged at the same time.

Disturbed to think that yes, there may be people who will fall for some of these gimmicks, if only out of reluctance to believe that people who seemed like rays of hope (why Uncle Fetzer, why??) could actually be such craven bastards, and encouraged by the depths to which the perps' apologists have sunk--such debasement of themselves can only mean desperation before our slow but steady success at raising awareness.

Remember everyone, the last place we're going to hear the truth spoken is on Fox. We will much sooner hear it on the streets, see it in mass protests, and experience it in a way none of us can predict now. Then the MSM will follow, reluctantly, with some cockamamie bull about how they were deceived. Everyone will claim to have been decieved at that point.

There is a lot to be said for positive thinking--and just as much to be said for eternal vigilance. Here's a thought--the next time someone tries to goad any of us into fruitless arguing by playing games, let's start a new thread about something else--something that hasn't yet been discussed but should be. Let's use every opportunity to become stronger, more eefective, more focused.

Let's start to be what we want to see. Let's start behaving like the winners we are. We have reason to be proud, confident, and more determined than ever. Soon we will also have reason to rejoice, and boy is that going to be sweet. Eyes on the prize. You don't look back when you're rushing towards the end zone, and the last thing on your mind should be your defeated opponent falling farther and farther behind in his pursuit.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


But you always seem to be in the center of conflicts

No wonder people avoid you by posting anonymously.

You post insults and accusations at people.

And then you try to flip the debate by claiming the victims of this bahavior are somehow to blame.

This thread is a perfect example.

I see perfectly polite debate taking place, yet here you and Cass are again raising tensions with accusations and contentious claims.

I've seen this pattern with you on board after board.

"Molten" Metal, Glowing Orange Hot Metal...


Whether the metal was "molten" and "flowing" or orange hot, an ordinary carbon fire such as at the WTC COULD NOT have produced it....So lets not pit "Molten" metal against "Glowing orange Hot" metal...Both are parts of the body of evidence for explosive demolition.

Whether the metal was "molten" and "flowing" or orange ...

AMEN! common sense returns to this discussion.

Thank God

I agree

But, I'm just curious, have you considered the principal of exothermic reactions?

It is an extremely common reaction studied in chemistry labs in high school. It basically says that iron and steam produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN.

This generates heat. So in this case using water on a rubble fire would actually add fuel to the fire.

In fact, if you look it up you will see that the firemen themselves realized this and switched to a foam flame retardant WEEKS after the collapse, because water was problematic in a steel/iron environment that was highly-packed.

Hey - i don't mean to insult anyone with my questions. I am just curious if anyone ever heard of this or considered it? I think it makes us stronger to prove our point as thoroughly as possible by eliminating all the POSSIBLE answers.


Does anyone know what an exothermic reaction is- and when they occur?

We should all look this up. I would not want to be accused of being a liar - or worse. We should all be armed with the most COMPLETE understanding of this EVENT as possible.

Also please note that by asking these questions I am not taking a position. Just askin'

More sources


Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards:

exothermic reaction with water + iron powder which emits hydrogen gas; and spontaneously ignites in O2 vapors.

Could this explain the flare -ups?

yes that was quite the ugly

yes that was quite the ugly discussion the other day

I agree

People should just be able to educate themselves by asking questions.


Just curious, what exactly was the thermite used for? Cutting the columns to bring down the tower in a synchronized fashion?

Does anyone know if there is any evidence of the existence of a a thermite canister that could cut sideways through a vertical column??

This link:

indicates that thermite could be used to burn sideways to cut small holes, but does anyone have any evidence of the existence of this technology being used to cut through massive vertical towers?

Just for the record I think its great that a forum like this exists that allows someone like me to learn from your collective expertize on this subject.

Steven Jones discusses this at length

You can check out his paper on the complete destruction of the Towers or his FAQ page for specific information about the ways thermite and thermate can be used as demolition tools.

Journal of 9/11 Studies

And dude, you really need to spell "expertise" with an "s" for your own health and safety on this board.

yes indeed

But with all due respect and homage to your cause, which I support, I think there are some legitimate questions that Jone's work (with all due respect to his expertize) raises.

I have not yet seen a credible analysis of the volume of thermite necessary to burn for 6 weeks and cut through massive steel columns.

I have seen the numbers necessary to cut a six inch hole in an iron-block engine, and this is problematice because quite a lot of thermite would be needed. Does anyone have an example of thermite being used on a such a large scale as this?

He also does not address the principal of exothermic reactions. It is an extremely common reaction studied in chemistry labs in high school. It basically says that iron and steam produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN.

This generates heat. So in this case using water on a rubble fire would actually add fuel to the fire.

In fact, in the old days industries would use iron and steam to make hydrogen.

But really, I trult appreciate your kind patience in explaining this stuff to me. I would not want to be accused of being a liar or worse. I just want to make sure that when I make a claim, it is scientifically and factually correct.

It has always been my belief that polite questions and a nturally inquisitive mind is all that any meaningful theory needs. I say let the chips fall where they may.

Who could argue with that? Truth is truth - right?

You clearly didn't read his paper and his FAQ.

So I'm done.

Why do you say that?

I'm just politely asking two questions:

How much thermite would be necessary?

Can steam and iron mix to create hydrogen feeding a massive iron/steel fire?

If he DID address these issues I would like to understand it.

And you're a troll, because you won't accept an answer.

End of story.

As for your steel/iron fire hypothesis, can you show me an instance where this has ever happened in a building fire? Lotsa buildings, lotsa fires in history -- if it was a possibility, it probably would have happened somewhere, don't you think?

A troll?

I will notfall into the insult trap again.

I am simply politely asking questions. and - frankly - i have always enjoyed your posts.

Now - stay calm - and to answer your question:

"can you show me an instance where this has ever happened in a building fire? Lotsa buildings, lotsa fires in history -- if it was a possibility, it probably would have happened somewhere, don't you think?"

Yes - I do. You frame this question to imply there are no examples - when in fact it is a quite common phenomenon.

From this Fire Science and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1/2, 61-73, 1994.:

The nonadiabatic nature of low-speed combustion and fire, in which strongly exothermic reactions produce large temperature variations but only mild pressure variations, can cause difficulty when integrating zone models of enclosure fires.

see? "strongly exothermic reactions"

Fully documented. Fire and Technology.

Now - am i a troll for presenting documented facts?

Molten Metal

Ok - its either possible - or not possible..

Its either a real principal of science or not.

hydrogen production technology is a two-step process. First, steam contacts molten iron to form iron oxide and release hydrogen.

The only inputs are steam, oxygen and carbon. All present at ground zero.

The outputs are hydrogen, and great amounts of heat.

Iron is not consumed in the process and remains molten whether in a metal or oxide form.

Molten Metal.


its a self-sustaining chemical reaction that creates hydrogen and heat.

These fires can only be contained using foam retardants.

you see "retardants" is the key word here.

Dr Jones does mention exothermic reactions here:

"Moreover, as hypothesized below, thermite reactions may have resulted in substantial quantities (observed in pools) of molten iron at very high temperatures – initially above 2,000 °C (3,632 °F). At these temperatures, aluminum materials from the buildings should continue to undergo exothermic oxidation reactions with materials also entrained in the molten metal pools including hydrocarbons and metal oxides, which will then keep the pools molten and even growing for weeks despite radiative and conductive losses."

But strangely enough while he mentions exothermic reactions as a result of thermite - he fails to mention an extremely basic exothermic reaction known to all firemen....

Spraying water on large steel/iron fires in contained areas can create exothermic reactions yielding hydrogen and large amounts of heat.

I remember in high school breaking the water molecule down into hydrogen and oxygen and ENERGY.

but i could be wrong. i really respectfully submit these issues in the spirit of friendship and respect for your expertize.


Hey, John Albanese, if this is you, you really need to get some help.

If you're a troll, you definitely win the evil troll of the week award.

Would you like to explain why you are misspelling "expertise" with a z?

I have not called you any names

I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I just think the molten metal evidence can be further discussed.


That is all I have done here today. I have introduced the concept of exothermic reactions resulting from molten iron oxide and water. it is what makes some fires so hard to fight. I would actually like to know if anyone knows about this, and whether it is possible or probable to have occured at GZ.

Now PLEASE be polite and consider this. Help this board to maintain standards by respectfully answering - or ignoring the question - but not questioning my intentions or integrity. my integrity and intentions are not apropo to the issue at hand. if my science is inaccurate - politely prove it- and i will politely acknowledge it..

I can guarantee you that rudeness will not solve this problem.


Why are you spelling it "expertize"?

I notice you declined to answer this question.

Your integrity and intentions are always relevant. Everywhere. All the time.

Because I didn't know spelling counted

I suppose I could run every post through a spell check, but I would hope people would see past my bad spelling and see that my questios have some substance to them. Frankly, its kind of a cheap shot, but I do not want to fight.

John, the point is--you're doing it again...

You're like pathologically anonymous. Why don't you just post politely like this using your name? I think it's great that you're challenging people to learn more about the issues, including what an exothermic reaction is, that way we can all be sure we'll REALLY know how to shut down shills in debates. But you're going about it in a very creepy way.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Spelling doesn't count on this board

that's for damn sure. But the point is, the first time you spelled it that way, I pointed out that you needed to spell it correctly and gave you the correct spelling. Oddly enough, you first used it in a reply to researcher488's allusion to the other thread in which you posted anonymously, in which you were busted by the way you spelled expertise. I think you realize how angry and betrayed that made people feel in that instance. Now it seems that you're doing it again. Do you think it's funny? I hope so, frankly, because the alternative is that you've gone utterly bonkers.

I see nothing constructive

about this line of questioning.

It looks like its designed to put me in a defensive posture.

When you start talking about me personally - "busting me" on my spelling - and read into spelling errors as "pathological" - i would suggest that YOU are being the creepy one.

I would respectfully request that you keep your opinions about ME to yourself - and I will do the same. I am sure no one wants to see this board digress into cross accusations.


I was going to answer your thermite/thermate post a little more, up above, but if you're going to keep playing this game, you're going to be playing it solo. It's just too creepy at this point.

If you'd like to have this discussion as "John Albanese," then I will reconsider.

Ok. well

Have a good night.

But I think you are being rude accusing me of being "creepy" simply for not posting my identity.

But, you know what's more creepy? when people accuse others with irresponsible accusations. I would argue that people have a RIGHT to their privacy, and it seems to be a very easy trick to use someone's identity against them. I do not see why it has any relevance to this discussion.

I am sure you are familiar with some of the more inflamatory camps that post here. For example, I would imagine you would agree that Nico Haupt has been guilty of accusing people like David Kubiak and many many others of being government agents and spies and plants and shills and many other crazy things.

He uses it as a weapon.

Do you agree?

Well, lets suppose David Kubiak is a legitimate activist attempting to further the cause, but now his personal reputation and life is being slandered and attacked.

Would Kubiak have the right to scream foul?

Would he have the right to protect his safety and the safety of his family and his reputation and livelihood?

Consider that Kubiak may go on the road to present and speak at 9/11 events. Should he be fearful that the irresponsible accusations that he is a government agent could hinder his ability to continue his work? Should be be concerned that someone somewhere will take these accusations seriously and be waiting for an opportunity to exact revenge?

Maybe you should be a little more sensitive on the issue of public figures, and respect people's decisions to post anonymously without being harassed and accused of being someone they are not..

My involvement here is limited to the discussion of ideas, theories and verifiable facts. So, at some point you will have to move on and stop accusing every anonymous poster of being someone who they may or may not be, and who may or may not want to remain anonymous. I expect that you will occasionally recognize my expertize on some of these subjects and will have the maturity to simply stick to the discussion at hand, and judge posts based on the quality of their content, without wasting everyone's time with accusations.

Just for the record, if I am posting lies, or unverifiable facts, or disinformation (that you can prove) or personal insults or accusations agaionst anyone I would ENCOURAGE you to point it out. That's what this is all about. Hashing out what the truth about 9/11 actually is.

Wow - this is educational!

2.  Classifications of Fuels

Not all fuels are the same, and if you use the wrong type of fire extinguisher on the wrong type of fuel, you can, in fact, make matters worse. It is therefore very important to understand the four different classifications of fuel.

Water (PW) Extinguishers are designed for Class A (wood, paper, cloth) fires only.


It wasn't until on 27 September, the officials ordered 2000 gallons of a special foaming agent called Pyrocool FEF, which when added to water produces a slippery, low-viscosity foam.

combustible debris is mixed with twisted steel in a mass that covers 17 acres, and may be 50 metres deep. very uncommon event.

Is this true

Can water really make matters worse in certain fires?

Is it wrong to discuss this? I don't want to upset anyone.

I'm just curious if thermite is the ONLY explaination for molten metal at GZ.


an analogy about the 'heat in the kitchen' that pops into mind.

I am very impressed with the tenor of this debate

I am glad it is not becoming rude.

I am just curious: Did Dr. Jones consider this commonly known scientific fact:


Years ago, some chemists allowed the molten iron to drop into water because this creates additional smoke and steam. However, this process also sets up conditions under which the molten iron may explode with tremendous force.

It would appear that molten iron and water do not mix. exothermic

These are reactions which release energy to the surroundings.

The temperature of the surroundings rises.

Metals with Oxygen 

Nearly all the metals react with oxygen to form OXIDES.

Metals with Water 

Some metals react with water to produce hydroxides (or oxides) and hydrogen. 

Reactivity Series : iron            - with water - when heated

When iron oxide and titanium metal are involved, the products of the reaction are titanium oxide, elemental iron, and a large exothermic heat of reaction. ...

i used to trust scholars for 911 truth

until i found out that fetzer was doing radio shows with death beam judy wood.

now i feel forced to question every thing they say. i also want to know if the molten metal issue is a red herring.

Polte Question

Just curious, but when you state that an ordinary carbon fire "such as at the WTC COULD NOT have produced it" what do you mean?

I understand that carbon fires can, under the right conditions, burn quite hot.

IN fact. according to the study of PYROPHORIC METALS:

Some metals, such as aluminum, iron, and steel, that are not normally thought of as combustible, may ignite and burn.

I am just curious why you claim definitively that it would be impossible.

Hot or burning metals may react violently upon contact with other materials, such as oxidizing agents and extinguishing agents used on fires.

When burning metals are spattered with limited amounts of water, the hot metal extracts oxygen from the water and promotes combustion. At the same time, hydrogen is released in a free state and ignites readily. Small amounts of water do accelerate combustible metal fires

Polite question

Can you please point out some instances where molten (flowing) metal was found in the rubble of a structure destroyed by fire?

Furthermore, can you note in each instance whether authorities conducted an investigation into "thermite-based arson"?

No i can't.

But I'll look it up.

Do you have a photo of this "Flowing" metal?

But, can you show me an example where thermite was used to cut through vertical steel columns to demolish a building at free fall speed?

Isn't that the real question?

I myself believe it was controlled demolition purely on the basis of the free fall speed. Now this is a law of physics that i can wrap my arms around. The towers BOTH fell in approx. 10 seconds through core columns and 90+ floors with no resistence.

But - i am having problems processing the thermite issue because i can find no examples of thermite being used in this way, or any evidence that the technology even EXISTS to cut clean through vertical columns in two 100story buildings to bring both down in such an efficient way.

Just a question. People ask questions because they seek the truth, not because they want to discredit or upset people,

Are you the same anonymous who has posted above?

I direct you to the work of Steven Jones at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

That wasn't molten metal the

That wasn't molten metal the firefighter witnessed. It was obviously Aunt Jemimah pancake syrup. Pancake collapses are usually closely followed by a hearty flow of the Auntie.

Please type in the letters/numbers that are shown in the image above.
I see VUCDUS...VUC me once shame on .....shame Vuc me...uh.....we won't get, we won't get Vuc'ed again.

George Bush is not my zero, he is my President. And,no, I do not want to have a beer with him.

Good One!

Great joke! LOL

But I'm just not sure I completely understand the significance of the molten metal. Are you guys saying that thermite used to knock down the building is the only thing that can melt metal and/or make metal glow orange?

Is that the only possibility in this case?

Now we need the corroborating video of the flowing metal

The next step is to locate the video (probably taken by an onsite engineering firm, or firefighters) of the flowing molten metal. We know it was there, we simply need someone to post the video on Youtube or Google video.



I agree

This would be a key piece of evidence

All I saw, was the color 'green.'

Do yourselves a favor and quit speculating long enough to focus on the coming "9/11-TRIAL." It's not important what they used, but it remains a mystery as to WHEN they placed the explosives. Has anyone seen any attempt to make a real chronology of the -- WTC CONSTRUCTION EVENTS -- as they occurred?

How about a good single-page that lists the suspected perps, and their allies? Anybody uncover Rove's personal cell number?

We simply don't have ANY more time to read, or to blog about it. Literally Billions of man-hours are being wasted here. We need the movement to go from "Zombies of Filmland," to a standing, John Connors-style Army!

But since you mention 'thermite,' those in Ohio need to rush right over to the Carnagie Foundation and brouse through the records of ALCOA. {They bought the important files after the WTC take-over.} The way I heard it, ALCOA's people didn't know what this project even entailed. What you are looking for is an adventure in advanced electro-mechanics. The big 'prize' is finding a .doc with both "WTC" and any relevant signatures at the bottom. Find this, we have a firm case.

Anyone in NYC can find some original documents which the engineers and architect's have signed-off on. The *Twin sprinkler systems* look pretty suspicous to me. Start with the elevators and you'll be amazed!

One 'physics' problem is getting the planes through the curtain wall. Steven Jones, et. all, still haven't satisfied me here. I'm wondering if a solid piece of steel, in the shape of a plane would have penetrated it? The answer is of course that it would have fallen straight to the ground after leaving a very messy hole. ... Such a pity. I guess they had to line the inside of these aero-wonders with --the same-- flash-point combination used on the --inside surfaces-- of the Aluminium spandrel. I know, you're not supposed to call them that, but that's what they are, rigid panels, not crepe-paper, not -non-elements-.

We can criticize the no-planers for lack of depth in their research, but their methodology is quite reasonable. So was Jimmy's idea of making 9/11 into a global road-show. Normally, Advertising works. The problem is stopping the flow of 'hush-money.'

Once my 9/11 'folder' reached a depth of 2", I decided that I had seen enough. I began a quest of near grad-level study of the remaining 'safe' spots in the world, and I began to admire Jones, Webfairy, Holmgren, Stephan and Nico for their courage. No one has taken more personal 'heat.' Today, none of their group seem to care enough for each other, and the real 'bottom-line' to their effort had become: "Beware of the false-hope practitioners."

Not that Alex Jones, or Aaron Russo fits that moniker, but what does one do after they 'smell the noxious fumes' of our country's decay? "Just Do something, people!!!"

(Hint: The green was the binder in a Sulphur-laden siliconized aggregate compound applied to the portions that were to be hit by the planes.)

Dear Mr. & Ms. Jones;Anon

Dear Mr. & Ms. Jones;

Anon said:
"thermite in its conventional form is useless in demolition: it is slow-burning, with unpredictable time to melt, and can only be used in direct contact with horizontal unclad steel beams / components. (The horizontal steel members in the Twin Towers were covered by at least 4 inches of concrete.)"

NOTE: It's that simple little 4" of slab-decking that caused them to find it impossible to repair this building. (singular)

Our informant is correct, the 'thermit' (TM) is supposed to contact the steel directly, which it so easily does --IF-- you place it on the external collums!

To get to them, you need to access --lease-occupied-- spaces.

But, to get through 10" of vertical concrete on the core-supports? That's quite a different problem.

Is there not ONE former tenant who MIGHT be interested in the truth? Someone who remembers the building engineers tearing their (designer-finish) sheet-rock off, and rapidly replacing it for free?

I merely speculate in introducing other viable ways to dismember the core.

...My very favorite is to use 3" Copper pipe, not just because it looks so damned innocent, but because it has uniform properties against the prescribed grid. AND it's the best way to conceal "SHAPED CHARGES!"

They can be of numerous sizes and types, installed, and pressure tested by totally uninformed 'subs,' and later re-fitted with the necessary gasses to enable a nano-tech flash-type reaction. These 'risers' exploding within the cores were never to be witnessed as mere 'squibbs.' Maybe they merely provide the propellant, for C3 to do 10-times the damage as the process preceedes downwards. This we saw quite convincingly demonstrated on YouTube

Again, no one has presented me with any data to denounce the fact the outside of the building is so greatly involved.