portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

Thermite Identified As Likely Culprit Of WTC Collapse

A new branch of 9/11 research claims to have identified the cause of the collapse of the twin towers. The photographic and video evidence makes a very strong case for thermite being responsible for the unprecedented implosions of steel framed reinforced buildings on September 11.
Thermite Identified As Culprit Of WTC Collapse
Evidence mounting that cause first identified on Alex Jones Show led to towers' implosion

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones/Prison Planet.com | April 24 2006

A new branch of 9/11 research claims to have identified the cause of the collapse of the twin towers. The photographic and video evidence makes a very strong case for thermite being responsible for the unprecedented implosions of steel framed reinforced buildings on September 11.

This facet was first brought to light during a November 2005 appearance on The Alex Jones Show by Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones. Jones said that white phosphorous wasn't powerful enough to cause the implosion but that thermite was the likely culprit. Alex Jones's 2005 release Martial Law 9/11 Rise of the Police State highlighted the physical evidence that the towers and Building 7 were brought down with incendiary devices.

Brigham Young University physicist Professor Steven Jones told peers at a Utah meeting that, "while almost no fire, even one ignited by jet fuel, can cause structural steel to fail, the combination of thermite and sulfur "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

Jones points to a video (click here to watch) which shows a bright yellow molten substance dripping from the south tower minutes before its collapse. Government investigators claimed that this was aluminum from Flight 175 but Jones is adamant that aluminum is silvery in appearance and doesn't turn yellow.

Jones also told the Deseret News that sulfur traces found at ground zero indicates the thermite was combined with sulphur to make it burn even hotter than the normal 2500 degrees Celsius.

Jones stated that thermite was a "clever" choice because its ingredients, aluminum and iron oxide do not require identifying tags by law, meaning they couldn't be traced back to their manufacturers.

Watch the following video and observe how thermite completely melts a car engine in a matter of seconds, without the addition of sulphur, and also completely resists neutralization by liquid nitrogen. Notice how the dripping substance is identical to that seen in the south tower video.

Here's the video 25.Apr.2006 08:51

check it out

The prisonplanet.com hotlink takes you to an explination page. Just under the blue "show video" hot button is the actual google video.

Both hyperlinks are:


 link to video.google.com

Marvin, George, and Thermite Bush 25.Apr.2006 18:07

Bush watch

Another point from another article I have read: thermite, since it can be made with simple industrial chemicals privately can avoid THE REQUIRED GOVERNMENT TRACER CHEMICALS that go in all other high powered explosives that can be readily tracable to the exact shipment and culprits.

Combine the untracability of thermite as a demolitions choice, with the fact that Giuliani and Co. in NYC destroyed the steel evidence before the investigation, you see Giuliani as a terrorist with knowledge before the fact in guilt. Particular when Giuliani told the press he was warned the buildings were going to come down AHEAD OF TIME. Amazing, of course since these so called collapses never happened before in steel structures, ever. Unless of course you knew that the controlled demolition was going to take it down with thermite.

That sparking melting steel, on that one place, is a super hot fire!

It is very like thermite that Bushies used to take down the towers--courtesy of the head of the security there, Marvin Bush, brother of George W. Bush. The last day of Marvin Bush's contract for security was September 11, 2001. Their mom said so! She wrote about it in her book _Recollections!

When you compare that one video with the other one, its really exactly the same thermite looking fire.

The other video is usefully pared. It is an example of a thermite explosion. It has a melting yellow-white iron spark waterfall effect just like the video of the WTC.

This is because one of the ingredients of thermite is iron oxide itself. When ignited it causes a 2500 C iron oxide fire which converts itself into a white hot tunnelling slurry of iron that burns through thick steel in seconds.

Thermite Bush I think is another brother of the Bush family that is involved in this...
from the video
from the video

Brian, do yourself a favor 26.Apr.2006 04:41

Mike Novack stepbystpefarm <a> mtdata.com

THINK! This is not intended as a comment on what DID cause the towers to collapse, just tryign to address some of the silly misinformation spread on the web.

A jet fuel fire is plenty hot enough to ANNEAL steel (if a truck with a lot of diesel fuel catches fire under an underpass they have to replace the beams that were overhead).

THINK! Just how hot a fire do you think people were able to acheive in the Middle Ages? But obviously adequately hot to make steel "workable" enough that smiths could beat it into swords or draw it out into wire for making chain mail. Hot enough to glow red is all you need, not the golden white heat that melts steel.

Next time you get a chance and there is a blacksmithing demonstration that the time to WATCH. See with your own eyes the size of fire quite adequate to take all the strength out of the metal so that the smith can make it flow under his (or her) hammer or pull it out like taffy and twist it with tongs.

open them 26.Apr.2006 07:44

looker elementary

>>>> See with your own eyes the size of fire quite adequate to take all the strength out of the metal <<<

See the molten steel fall from the tower with your own eyes at the video link that preceded your comment, Mike - it is something quite extraordinary.

See it with your own eyes.
a smolten gun
a smolten gun

google BYU professor jones article 07.Jul.2006 22:07


The problem is you do have to not only think, but know a bit of science. Kerosene (what Jet-A fuel is) has a low burning temperature insufficient to melt steel, especially in a pool fire like the WTC-1 and WTC-2 fires.

Griffin's book has a great review:

The official theory of the collapse, therefore, is essentially a fire theory, so it cannot be emphasized too much that fire has never caused large steel-frame buildings to collapse---never, whether before 9/11, or after 9/11, or anywhere in the world on 9/11 except allegedly New York City---never.
One might say, of course, that there is a first time for everything, and that a truly extraordinary fire might induce a collapse. Let us examine this idea. What would count as an extraordinary fire? Given the properties of steel, a fire would need to be very hot, very big, and very long-lasting. But the fires in the towers did not have even one of these characteristics, let alone all three.
There have been claims, to be sure, that the fires were very hot. Some television specials claimed that the towers collapsed because the fire was hot enough to melt the steel. For example, an early BBC News special quoted Hyman Brown as saying: "steel melts, and 24,000 gallons of aviation fluid melted the steel." Another man, presented as a structural engineer, said: "It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning. . . . The columns would have melted" (Barter, 2001).
These claims, however, are absurd. Steel does not even begin to melt until it reaches almost 2800 Fahrenheit. And yet open fires fueled by hydrocarbons, such as kerosene---which is what jet fuel is---can at most rise to 1700F, which is almost 1100 degrees below the melting point of steel. We can, accordingly, dismiss the claim that the towers collapsed because their steel columns melted.
Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled. For example, Thomas Eagar, saying that steel loses 80 percent of its strength when it is heated to 1,300&#730;F, argues that this is what happened. But for even this claim to plausible, the fires would have still had to be pretty hot.
But they were not. Claims have been made, as we have seen, about the jet fuel. But much of it burned up very quickly in the enormous fireballs produced when the planes hit the buildings, and rest was gone within 10 minutes, after which the flames died down. Photographs of the towers 15 minutes after they were struck show few flames and lots of black smoke, a sign that the fires were oxygen-starved. Thomas Eagar, recognizing this fact, says that the fires were "probably only about 1,200 or 1,300&#730;F" (Eagar, 2002).
There are reasons to believe, moreover, that the fires were not even that hot. As photographs show, the fires did not break windows or even spread much beyond their points of origin (Hufschmid, 2002, p. 40). This photographic evidence is supported by scientific studies carried out by NIST, which found that of the 16 perimeter columns examined, "only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250&#730;C [482&#730;F]," and no evidence that any of the core columns had reached even those temperatures (2005, p. 88).
NIST (2005) says that it "did not generalize these results, since the examined columns represented only 3 percent of the perimeter columns and 1 percent of the core columns from the fire floors". That only such a tiny percent of the columns was available was due, of course, to the fact that government officials had most of the steel immediately sold and shipped off. In any case, NIST's findings on the basis of this tiny percent of the columns are not irrelevant: They mean that any speculations that some of the core columns reached much higher temperatures would be just that---pure speculation not backed up by any empirical evidence.
Moreover, even if the fire had reached 1,300&#730;F, as Eagar supposes, that does not mean that any of the steel would have reached that temperature. Steel is an excellent conductor of heat. Put a fire to one part of a long bar of steel and the heat will quickly diffuse to the other parts and to any other pieces of steel to which that bar is connected.
For fires to have heated up some of the steel columns to anywhere close to their own temperature, they would have needed to be very big, relative to the size of the buildings and the amount of steel in them. The towers, of course, were huge and had an enormous amount of steel. A small, localized fire of 1,300&#730;F would never have heated any of the steel columns even close to that temperature, because the heat would have been quickly dispersed throughout the building.
Some defenders of the official story have claimed that the fires were indeed very big, turning the buildings into "towering infernos." But all the evidence counts against this claim, especially with regard to the south tower, which collapsed first. This tower was struck between floors 78 and 84, so that region is where the fire would have been the biggest. And yet Brian Clark, a survivor, said that when he got down to the 80th floor: "You could see through the wall and the cracks and see flames . . . just licking up, not a roaring inferno, just quiet flames licking up and smoke sort of eking through the wall." Likewise, one of the fire chiefs who had reached the 78th floor found only "two isolated pockets of fire."
The north tower, to be sure, did have fires that were big enough and hot enough to cause many people to jump to their deaths. But as anyone with a fireplace grate or a pot-belly stove knows, fire that will not harm steel or even iron will burn human flesh. Also in many cases it may have been more the smoke than the heat that led people to jump.
In any case, the fires, to weaken the steel columns, would have needed to be not only very big and very hot but also very long-lasting. The public was told that the towers had such fires, with CNN saying that "very intense" fires "burned for a long time." But they did not. The north tower collapsed an hour and 42 minutes after it was struck; the south tower collapsed after only 56 minutes.
To see how ludicrous is the claim that the short-lived fires in the towers could have induced structural collapse, we can compare them with some other fires. In 1988, a fire in the First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles raged for 3.5 hours and gutted 5 of this building's 62 floors, but there was no significant structural damage (FEMA, 1988). In 1991, a huge fire in Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza lasted for 18 hours and gutted 8 of the building's 38 floors, but, said the FEMA report, although "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted . . . under severe fire exposures. . . , the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (FEMA, 1991). In Caracas in 2004, a fire in a 50-story building raged for 17 hours, completely gutting the building's top 20 floors, and yet it did not collapse (Nieto, 2004). And yet we are supposed to believe that a 56-minute fire caused the south tower to collapse.
Unlike the fires in the towers, moreover, the fires in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Caracas were hot enough to break windows.
Another important comparison is afforded by a series of experiments run in Great Britain in the mid-1990s to see what kind of damage could be done to steel-frame buildings by subjecting them to extremely hot, all-consuming fires that lasted for many hours. FEMA, having reviewed those experiments, said: "Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900C (1,500-1,700F) in three of the tests. . . , no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments" (1988, Appendix A).
These comparisons bring out the absurdity of NIST's claim that the towers collapsed because the planes knocked the fireproofing off the steel columns. Fireproofing provides protection for only a few hours, so the steel in the buildings in Philadelphia and Caracas would have been directly exposed to raging fires for 14 or more hours, and yet this steel did not buckle. NIST claims, nevertheless, that the steel in the south tower buckled because it was directly exposed to flames for 56 minutes.
A claim made by some defenders of the official theory is to speculate that there was something about the Twin Towers that made them uniquely vulnerable to fire. But these speculations are not backed up by any evidence. And, as Norman Glover, has pointed out: "[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service" (Glover, 2002).

So the sad fact is, that unless you're relying on "faith-based" explainations, science proves the buildings couldn't have failed to due fire. See my attached file for why the law of gravity (something we all know and believe is true) also destroys the government's story. Yes, it looked possible when you saw it, terrorized on 9/11 - but the towers fell far too fast. Finally, look at world trade center 7 - study that....it wasn't even hit by a plane, didn't even have any jet fuel burn it, yet it fell and it's an obvious controlled demolition, planned in advance...

Sorry to break any hearts, it's a hard thing to accept... just have an open mind and realize that the vast majority of Americans, both democrats and republicans alike, are good people who have been victims of a coup by a small gang of fascists... We have to work together to get our republic back... but first we must accept what has been done to us, not by osama, but by the neocons...
free falling bodies, or: gravity is all the government has...
free falling bodies, or: gravity is all the government has...

my take on wtc collapse cause 13.Dec.2009 03:27


i don't think that fire was the sole cause of the collapse of the wtc towers, but it may have contributed. civil engineers generally use much higher safety margins than aeronautical engineers, but he must balance strength with practicality, space, cost, material availability, legal requirements, marketability etc.

when the airliners sliced through the external columns, there would have been some loss of load capacity (how much is academic and irrelevant). when you combine the effects of fire (fuelled by more than just jet fuel - contents of the buildings may have fuelled the fires), loss of structural strength due to the breaking of external columns, the impulse of the collision on the structure as a whole, any material defects which may have been pre-existing (which is one of the reasons why engineers use margins of safety) etc, it makes sense that a building could collapse.

what i have jotted down here is by no means rocket science. forget the videos and photos and what so called experts have said. videos and photos can be doctored, and anyone who claims to be an expert at anything is really a moron