Why use thermite at all?

Why is it that I, an "expert" in pre-press, digital printing, and First Person Shooters, can thoroughly and completely pick out the lies and misunderstandings in that Steven Jones verbal diaherria quicker than he can invent them?

THAT is the holy grail text of truthers?

REALLY??
 
The thing that gets me is that while thermite was brought into the discussion in order to account for no booms , what it did as well was make heat the 911 conspiracy cause of collapse. At its base, the same as that which NIST determined.;)
 
The reality is, prior to 9/11 truth movement, there was nothing wrong with the concept of a building collapsing after being hit by a 200,000lb wide body airliner at 500mph. Anyone with half a brain knows that if an aircraft of this size hits a building, it's going to collapse. The reality of it is that if 9/11 was to be an inside job, and the target of this false flag attack was the trade centers, all that is required is an aircraft in each. No bombs, no thermite, no sneaking around, no massively complex, lengthy, high risk (of being seen/caught), no having to worry about the hundreds of people needed to prime the building with explosives whistle blowing 10 years down the track, no worrying about explosive residue in the rubble, nothing. All that you need to do is fly an aircraft into it. That's all.
 
jaydeehess said:
The thing that gets me is that while thermite was brought into the discussion in order to account for no booms , what it did as well was make heat the 911 conspiracy cause of collapse. At its base, the same as that which NIST determined.;)
Click to expand...


Well not really as all the twoofers I've seen have suggested it was used to cut columns not just warm them enough to get them to fail. If they admitted the latter then they by default accept that the fire could have done this just as well if not better.

Few have even accepted that only one floor needed to fail to bring down the building so they still need the whole building to be rigged.
 
I think thermite entered the equation because truthers didn't really understand what it was, how it worked, and what it was for. And once they were instructed about such matters, per usual they refused to admit they could possibly be wrong. Thus we must apparently repeat this farcical discussion forever. If baking soda had been less well known, we'd probably be debating that instead.
 
Macgyver1968 said:
Because truthers NEED something to cause the collapse other than just fire and impact damage to support their "Inside Job" theory. At first, they said it was conventional explosives...then it was pointed out that explosives make really loud sounds. Rather than reconsider their CD theory, they had to come up with something that might have been used that doesn't make a lot of sound....enter thermite. When it was shown that the properties of regular thermite are known, and it wouldn't make a very good demolition device...they came up with nano-thermite...a substance who's properties aren't well known...so they can make it do anything they want.

When nanothermite is discredited, they will just switch to something else...like Elektron as sheeple suggested.
Click to expand...

And yet they still keep regurgitating the "sounds of explosions" canards. :oldroll:
 
Orphia Nay said:
And yet they still keep regurgitating the "sounds of explosions" canards. :oldroll:
Click to expand...

I always laugh when I hear someone like Gage telling people 'nano-thermite can be engineered to either burn as a very hot incendiary or exploded very large' insisting it was a combination of incendiary and hushaboom nanothermite which bought down the towers.

Oh the things which people say when they're not expected to provide any evidence to their followers..
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Because there would be no reason to?

Gage claims it was used because it is quiet.

He also says steel was thrown hundreds of feet by massive explosives.

Try and work that one out
Click to expand...
I am interested in how they can explain how those two phenomenon as not mutually exclusive. So far, I've just heard them say that nanothermite is high tech and not understood. So the government could have made it so badass that it has the power to blow up **** with out making a peep.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Like everything else that's being said on this forum these days, we have had this discussion some time in the past. If it isn't obvious to you by now why thermite was necessary, it never will be. Thermite is crucial for this kind of demolition because it has the special property of doing only whatever was done on 9/11 and nothing else. Nano-thermite is even more like that. Whatever evidence of anything that was found on 9/11 is exactly what nanothermite does.

Isn't it obvious now?
Click to expand...

The most obvious thing here is your lack of therm?te knowledge.
 
Edx said:
Because there would be no reason to?

Gage claims it was used because it is quiet.

He also says steel was thrown hundreds of feet by massive explosives.

Try and work that one out
Click to expand...

This still leaves room for Gage to be right about one of these claim, as I see no good reason why Gage couldn't be mistaken on the second claim but correct on the first.
 
SpringHallConvert said:
This still leaves room for Gage to be right about one of these claim, as I see no good reason why Gage couldn't be mistaken on the second claim but correct on the first.
Click to expand...

He claims it was extremely loud and quiet when it suits him.

  • Why use thermite?
  • ----Well that because thermite is quiet.
  • But you claim steel was flung hundreds of feet by ridiculously massive absurdly powerful explosives. That would be eaisly picked up on every video and pounded everyone in the areas ear drums into their heads.
  • ----AHH but thats why they used thermite, because its quiet.

Thats literally how it went in this debate. No creative editing needed, you can go find and check the debate yourself. Thats really what he said. Gabe believes in quiet, but absurdly violent, explosives.

So can you come up with a reason to use thermite or do you not accept that absurdly powerful explosives blew the crap out of the towers and that therefore "because its quiet" is a good reason?
 
Last edited:
SpringHallConvert said:
It's no less stupid than believing in a "caveman mastermind", as you guys do.
Click to expand...
Are trying to be the Archie Bunker of 911 truth? Blame the Jews, apologize for 19 terrorists, and call them cavemen? 911 truth logic...
Why make bigoted statements? Why do you call the 19 terrorists cavemen? Too bad you are not able to figure out 911, do you think if you were as educated as Atta you could? He not only understands 911, he could understand why thermite is the dumbest claim 911 truth has.

Atta went to Cairo University, he studied engineering. One of the highest-scoring students, Atta admitted into a very selective architecture program his senior year. Atta graduated with a degree in architecture, and joined the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Engineers Syndicate organization. Atta worked at the Urban Development Center in Cairo, where he worked on architectural, planning, and building design.

The terrorists understand 911, why can't you? Did you study engineering? What school did you go to? Atta, one of the masterminds behind 911.

UBL inherited around $25–30 million, not bad for a "caveman".
 
SpringHallConvert said:
It's no less stupid than believing in a "caveman mastermind", as you guys do.
Click to expand...

Let's examine this:

A never-before-used-in-a-cd, slow burning incendiary device on a never-before-attempted top down collapse of high rise building on a never-before-achieved height......

OR


.....19 educated fanatics exploit a weakness in air defenses they studied and practiced against and were funded by a multi-millionaire.

You sure you want to put your theory to the stupidity scale?
 
Travis said:
Outside of all the questions about what evidence there is or isn't for thermite at the WTC I always come back to another question: why use it at all?

Seriously. If you had to do a controlled demolition of the WTC why trust a completely unproven method of skyscraper demolition, a method that would require loads of special infrastructure and that would be highly visible?

I really just can't think of any good reason to do it.
Click to expand...
Why use thermite at all? I'm glad you asked. Thermite is brighter than the 4th of July... It'll set fire to nearby buildings and materials while the building falls down... and most importantly they're silent. But the guys doing the demolition like the fireworks display... and danger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom