I am asking for discussion and explanation of it's properties and use.
For theoretical research.
I know, or think, it is more of an accellerant rather than an actual explosive, kind like acetylene?

Does anybody in the Seti community have hands on experience with it, or is it something that is not generally used in the industrial landscape of work, such as nitroglycerine or generic dynamite?

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Watch this...At 2:01 the word 'pull it' was used referring to 7.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Yes.
It is "quite exciting" in use.
Not a big bang as one gets with an explosive, but a very high energy fire. It will burn its way through steel in no sort order or by changing the mix a little it will weld railway tracks (and other very substantial lumps of metal), or another change and there's the Roman Candle to end all Roman Candles.
It has been used over the years for all sorts of legitimate uses, and one or two "less legitimate" (one guy over here demonstrated a less legal use for it when he destroyed a traffic camera using it - all that was left was a saggy pile of metal and some scorched branches on nearby trees...

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

And the thing is..............
This is not a decision you can make on a moment's notice.
Preparations have to be made to bring down a building of that size and construction.
HOURS of preparation, maybe days worth.
You don't just waltz in, toss a couple of grenades and say bye bye.
You watch too many Arnie movies.

This took days of preparation to drop 7 in it's tracks.
And without knowing of the coming disaster....why?
I know why. It was scripted, the whole nine yards.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I am not supposed to be telling you this, even though it's obvious.
To take down tower 7 in a controlled manner, which it obviously was, takes hours or days of precisely place charges. Every load bearing beam has to be accounted for. I mean, you have to have access to the original architect's drawings and layout.

Ok. Having said all of that, now you might understand how impossible the seemingly off the cuff comment to 'pull 7' because it's a danger is.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

My food for thought on 7.
This is not political fodder.
This is interesting scientific discussion.
They are analyzing the beam structures that supported the building...
And every one of them...has come to the conclusion that it was physically impossible, given the engineering of the building, that it fell as it did.
Unless........explosive or other incendiary devices undercut the girder structure well before the staged fall.
It was a demo job. No doubt.

There were no fires down there.

The only conclusion is stated at the end.
If we accept the impossible evidence and yet conclude that there was no crime committed, we only allow those who committed it to go on to commit other crimes.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Freedom isn't free.
And neither is thermite.....

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

a thermite grenade which is about the size of a can of beans will burn through the engine of a military truck. 2.5 ton truck e, g,. When we pulled out of Iran all of our listening posts along the Russian border put one of these on top of their filing cabinets before leaving..

mark Thermite is not really that use full as a explosive

It's the aluminum powder that is the reactive part . However you don't need it to be in a power to get the same reaction .

liquid Iron has the same effect if you throw a aluminum can or what we called a "star" (1 kg of solid aluminum in the shape of a star) will give a simular type of reaction just not as violent as what happens if you mix iron in the form of a power with aluminum in the form of a powder.

And yes you are thinking correct they could have used it to weaken the beam on that building and would have been very hard to spot after the building collapsed but the beam it's self would have shown the area where it may have been used .

It would look like someone had used a oxy lance on it so the edge would have been very jaggerd and not a clean cut like a oxy acetylene torch .

---

Sorry Mark I disagree. I have seen steel shear off. I could have been killed once beacuse of that. Thank God I had the good sense to stay back when we were lifting a truck A.C. unit back into the trailer. The fork lift operator got to zealous with the lift and the 2" steel bar broke off. It missed my face by a foot. And the break was like some one sawed it clean.
Steel expands and weakens its own supports. When it gives way the next level down can not support the weight and it shears. I dont buy the conspiracy. Its all physics.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Sorry Mark I disagree. I have seen steel shear off. I could have been killed once beacuse of that. Thank God I had the good sense to stay back when we were lifting a truck A.C. unit back into the trailer. The fork lift operator got to zealous with the lift and the 2" steel bar broke off. It missed my face by a foot. And the break was like some one sawed it clean.
Steel expands and weakens its own supports. When it gives way the next level down can not support the weight and it shears. I dont buy the conspiracy. Its all physics.

Especially when a flaw gets cast into the metal. Every flex it grows. Then corrosion sets in. Soon your beam has only half its capability. Yes, you can spot these, if you x-ray the steel.

Yes it is physics. Those buildings failed exactly as they were designed to fail. Yes, they knew someday, someone would have to tear them down, so they designed that in.

Now as to thermite, the airplane delivered the aluminum - that's what they are built of - the jet fuel the heat, and the iron was already in the building.

---

Now as to thermite, the airplane delivered the aluminum - that's what they are built of - the jet fuel the heat, and the iron was already in the building.

And that explains why some saw Liquid metal coming from the building before it collapsed .

But building 7 mite be different the plane did not hit that building .

Not that im saying there was a conspiracy or there was not . Depends if the Rumours are correct about the security services having something inside it that they did not wish people to find out about

---

What is more likely?

That a government agency went about to set thermite charges (or otherwise) in all the support beams of building 7, which is in the middle of New York City, and no one ever talked about it to the media, there are no official documents of it anywhere and no one in New York noticed what must have been a construction crew walking into a building that was in use at the moment to set those charges?

OR

The buildings structure was compromised after it got hit by burning debris from the other towers, like the engineers who studied the whole thing claim?

Building 7 conspiracy theories

The collapse of the tower was done with such precision that some believe that it could not be committed by terrorists. Tower imploded and fell entirely vertically without any great extent damage to adjacent buildings. [Source needed] Although the point that the collapse occurred at a rate such that almost corresponded to free fall, which is considered by some to be impossible without help of professional blasting means, would in conspiracy theories suggest that it was a job done by specialists from the US government. Some also believe that there are many questions around the issue of whether it is possible that a building of this size could collapse by the fires and the damage caused by the collapses of the Twin Towers.

Critics of these conspiracy theories suggest that demolition explosives in the house of this size requires weeks or even months for the practical preparation and that there are no opportunities to make such preparations undetected in a building to be blasted. Similarly, a demolition blast should resulted in the windows of the WTC 7 have been shattered and produced a sound blow to between 130-140 decibels, none of these have been recorded. [2] That WTC 7 collapsed straight down is not surprising in that the housing body is hollow, it requires shorter and more massive structures to a collapse that results in a tilt in any direction. [3]

[2] http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610
[3] http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

hey mark that ex biker from Suffork has 5 kgs of Thermite shall i ask him to send you some so you can try a few things ?

---

stupid program aqhhh hhhhhhhhhhh

---

What is more likely?

That a government agency went about to set thermite charges (or otherwise) in all the support beams of building 7, which is in the middle of New York City, and no one ever talked about it to the media, there are no official documents of it anywhere and no one in New York noticed what must have been a construction crew walking into a building that was in use at the moment to set those charges?

OR

The buildings structure was compromised after it got hit by burning debris from the other towers, like the engineers who studied the whole thing claim?

maybe you need to watch this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEI98FVjF2I

about 40 mins into it there is some interesting facts .

Frank Lowy owns part of the World Trade centre !!!!!
He was the Landlord of the shopping mall
Now Frank Lowy is susposed to be a good man but i have herd some things about him that make me sus he's not as clean as some mite expect .
who is Frank Lowe ? he's a Australian billionaire whom owns Westfield shopping centres all over the world


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


Micheal take particular attention to DREX and what it is , aproxx 1 hr into the vid .
Pay particular attention of Building No.7 the penthouse part that holds the airconditioner's as it collapses

Pay attention to the thermal heat photos taken by N.A.S.A five days after 9/11

---

One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Sighh....

Janne i can see why they think that . Slag does look simular to that but as one who has work with it for a decade no it is not slag or melted iron but does look like melted plastic .

Slag is brittle and would not still be there but would be polverised into powder

---

maybe you need to watch this video


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEI98FVjF2I

about 40 mins into it there is some interesting facts .

Frank Lowy owns part of the World Trade centre !!!!!
He was the Landlord of the shopping mall
Now Frank Lowy is susposed to be a good man but i have herd some things about him that make me sus he's not as clean as some mite expect .
who is Frank Lowe ? he's a Australian billionaire whom owns Westfield shopping centres all over the world


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


Micheal take particular attention to DREX and what it is , aproxx 1 hr into the vid .
Pay particular attention of Building No.7 the penthouse part that holds the airconditioner's as it collapses

Pay attention to the thermal heat photos taken by N.A.S.A five days after 9/11

There are thousands of 9/11 conspiracy theory videos on Youtube and the only thing any of them are good for is seeing how not to construct an argument, as they are riddled with inconsistent logic and fallacy after fallacy.

And non of these videos go into the very simple question I asked earlier, namely which scenario is more likely? An elaborate plot designed by the government that involved a small army of demolition crew, in the middle of New York City with no one noticing them wiring a building for demolition that was at that moment in use and non of these people talking about it to the media afterwards and having absolutely no paper trail to trace it back too? Or the building just collapsed after its structural integrity was compromised after it was hit by burning debris?

Simple question, which of those two scenarios is more likely. If we believe the conspiracy people, its actually the first scenario. And that shows in what kind of fantasy world they are operating. You can't wire a building in the middle of Manhattan for demolition without anyone seeing it. You can't run an operation that involves dozens of people without at least one of them talking about it to someone. The government leaves a giant paper trail for everything it does. And the government is terrible at keeping a secret.

So drag as much footage that makes the collapse look like a controlled collapse as you want, drag in as many 'questionable' people as you want, point out as many nonsensical details and oddities and coincidences as you like, as long as you can't refute what I just said, the entire conspiracy theory has no logical basis to build on.