Talk:Thermate/archive 1

this is the ingredient that brought down the twin towers, read stephen jones articles to find out the truth about 911 19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)19:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)~

Facts are facts....our government simply has proven to be a group of liars and thieves among us (how much proof does it take to show this? Taxation without true representation? The lie of "weapons of mass destruction?"

Thermate has never been used in building demolitions, it is inherently unsuitable for the task. No evidence of Thermate has ever been found at ground zero. 213.40.135.154 09:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Professor Stephen E. Jones had samples of steel from the WTC buildings that fell, and found thermate.--Shink X 19:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, he found sulphur, which was abundant in the offices of the world trade centre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.13.99 (talk) 13:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, where was the abundant sulpher? Sulpher is part of lots of stinky substances, where would that be found abundantly in an office (specifically that office)? Ace Frahm 15:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't seem to add this in the section above. Sulphur would have been present mostly in drywall and office partitions (as you can imagine, there would have been a lot of these). Sulphur would have also been released through combustion from other common sources, including (tragically) human bodies. 81.101.44.41 (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of allegations of Thermate use in destruction of World Trade Center

In the interest of NPOV goodness I think there should be some mention of the allegations by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that Thermate was used in the destruction of the Wold Trade Center on Spetember 11, 2001. The trick is how to make such a section NPOV as I'm sure it's going to be hard to find someone who doesn't have extremely strong opinions and emotions, regardless of what your own position may be.

Such a section would need to make sure it didn't portray the allegation as an established fact while at the same time avoided portraying the allegation as a crackpot theory.

I'm not sure that I'm up to this task personally as I doubt I could write something sufficiently NPOV given my personal feelings on the matter. Raitchison 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to add an external link to a PDF paper named "Some Physical Chemistry Aspects of Thermite, Thermate, Iron-Aluminum-Rich Microspheres, the Eutectic, and the Iron-Sulfur System as Applied to the Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001"

It is scientific not political.

Surely Wikipedia must embrace the scientific method, no matter what conclusions it draws.

Or else what is the point? (Senojxela 10:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Scientific or no that the paper's title establishes as fact that Thermate was used in the "Demise of Three World Trade Center Buildings on 9/11/2001" makes it POV, as would a paper that establishes as fact that it was not used. Raitchison 15:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At risk of being pendantic, Jones's paper did not establish thermite was used. Rather, it proved the existence of a particle - iron rich microspheres - that can be created through several different mechanisms. Apologies for what on the surface appears to be a nitpick, but it's actually essential knowledge in analyzing the paper; if you read it, you'll note that there's no actual linkage of the particles to mechanisms involving thermite, and there's no mention made of alternate sphere formation mechanisms that did not involve thermite. In short, Jones's paper leaves out critical information, and does not prove any thermite mechanism at all. Tibore Escalante (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]