---

The 9/11 Phreato-Thermatic Explosions


Greetings Everyone!


Here is an article I wrote.

MAX-MIHOP Says - The Aluminum Components of Flights 11 and 175 Were Used as Aluminum Powder for Phreato-Thermatic Explosions

I welcome your comments and criticism.


Regards,

Maxwell C. Photon
Department of Lighting

---

I find your theory of using thermite to weaken the steel fascinating, but wouldn't depending on the plane to provide the aluminum for the reaction be too risky? ie. mixing it properly, etc..

Indeed, Max you've mentioned this before and said that in no case was thermite designed to melt steel and if it did it was incidental. Why then was thermite chosen? It reaches temperatures of over 2500C, easy enough to almost instantly melt the aluminium exterior panels and shortly afterwards melt the perimeter columns.

This obviously didn't happen, so do you think they used incredibly small amounts of thermite or some other method? Incidentally how can your theory be falsified? It seems it produces no 'real world' predictions.

Also in response to Azrael according to Dr Greening you would require 150 tons of rust available.

?????
Didn't Greening believe the official report?

That would bring the total to zero (0) of anything else to weaken the steel, right? That's called logic, isn't it?

Greening is a proponent of 'natural' collapse but he believes that there may have been some rather violent chemical reactions which helped the collapse.

I don't understand your second statement, Max claimed that the aluminium from the planes was used as part of a thermite reaction and Dr Greening informed him you'd need about 150 tons of rust in order to react the 50 tons of aluminium in the plane.

Max's theory falls down in so many other places though that it's hardly worth worrying about.

Never mind then, we were talking about weakening the steel.

Oh I see, well from what I understand from Max so far his evidence for this thermite extends to 'fires were seen' and 'there is a weird fire at this corner' but there are much simpler testable hypothesis for these. Other than that I don't think you can actually test his theory so it is essentially 'controlled demolition did exist even if theres no evidence of it'

Indeed...

I think if I were to talk about rows 5,6,9 and 10, you would have to look it up but if I read correctly between the lines Max wouldn't. I could be wrong...

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your point, are you trying to get in a sly insult and say that my knowledge of the WTC is inferior to Max's? If so just come straight out and say it! I am not ashamed of the quantity of my research and believe that I have been as thorough as anyone else here, more so when reading through the NIST report.

No insults. To be honest, I didn't get the point about those rows before someone pointed it out to me. The blueprints are now in the PD despite the actions of some people, look up those rows.

I'm not sure which rows you are referring to, perhaps you could be more specific? Apologies for the insinuation you were insulting me.

I think they are refered to on the blueprint as 5xx 6xx etc..

They are what you call the 'core', please look at blueprints and tell what you think. I'm not an engineer.

Ah I understand what you mean now. I don't know what part of max's analysis refers to the cores, perhaps I haven't read that far yet. Max specifies a corner and perimeter panel as having '5 splices in a row' at some point and I don't believe this to be true, so that is where I was confused. Incidentally I do know the layout of the core and have read NCSTAR 1-1/1-1A enough to make my eyes bleed :)

A quick test, do you know why I excluded row 7 and 8? (You can see it by looking it up on the blueprint)

What exactly do you mean? I have no idea why you excluded rows 7 and 8, they were the middle two rows? I assume you're referencing the 'spire' here?

---

Hi Everyone,

Max here.


Note that this thread also has a parallel thread running at JREF.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86967


Also, I addressed Dr Greening (Apollo20) here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2757373#post2757373

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2757593#post2757593

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2759074#post2759074

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2763841#post2763841

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2766473#post2766473


Thanks for reading! Stay tuned!

Max

---

---

e^n and Azrael,

Would depending on the jets for the AL be too risky?

I don't know the risk profile, so I can only speculate. I don't think getting the basic ratios right was that difficult. And I don't think hitting the target was that difficult. Perhaps you could be more specific as to the risks you see, and we can discuss them.


Why was thermite chosen?

Oh let me count the ways!

1.) It is extremely low tech, hence, non-traceable. The primary goal of military deception is to protect the identity of the sponsor. Anything high tech is easily traced.

(Incidentally, that is why the "exotics" crowd, is - in my estimation - lost at sea. They don't understand the rudiments of MILDEC.)

2.) Thermite - as you pointed out - is energy-dense.

3.) Thermite-residue tests are ambiguous.

4.) The buildings were full of aluminum and iron (well, steel). This only adds to the ambiguity.

5.) Thermite can be mixed in different recipes for different uses, without introducing lots of new traces.

6.) Thermite is extremely versatile (just look at the many uses I have proposed!)

7.) Thermite gets past bomb-sniffing dogs (I think - someone check me if I am wrong.)

8.) Thermite is relatively hard to ignite accidentally (especially safely tucked away and protected in box-columns and spandrel splices).

9.) The molten iron from the thermite helped provide the (erroneous) input signal of "steel melting from the fires." This confusion was key to NIST's pre-engineered narrative.

And there are more reasons, but you get the drift...

If you really think about it, thermite is amazing! It is stunning how versatile it is!


You asked: Do you think they used incredibly small amounts of thermite?

In box columns and spandrel splices - yes, small amounts.

The amounts used were calculated to create the desired heat-weakening effect, without melting throught the steel. (Please don't forget about heat transport.)


As to the questions about real world predictions, and falsifiability. Those are the best questions, and the most involved.

However, I must go, so I will defer those (yet I do want to acknowledge receipt of those questions, and my obligation to answer them).


As always, thanks for your participation. It is important.

Max

---

---

Gentle readers,

I started this thread.

I have a parallel thread at the JREF Conspiracy Theory Forum:

The aluminum of Flights 11 & 175 was used to create phreato-thermatic explosions.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=86967


I am going to stop posting on this thread, and focus on the JREF thread.

The reasons are twofold:

1.) This forum shows up very poorly on my screen, which is exhausting.

2.) All the action is at JREF.


Regards,

Max Photon

---

From the jref'ers posting here, I'm sad to say even someone "claiming" to be a nasa engineer failed at answering a mathematical question. I'm not going to move over there where people claim to have expertise in fields and when questioned about those fields.. well.. they know shit..

PS: I don't know anything about engineering and know slightly something about physics, but I can tell when their math sucks. But jref'ers with expertise in CT claim to have inside knowledge about engineering and know it all. So no, I'll stay away from jref and unless to urge is too great I won't be discussing mathematics and physics with jref'ers who moved over here and reiterate the same points over and over again.

Azrael from my understanding you're asking an ambiguous question and claiming superiority when someone can't answer you directly. Please link me to where R. Mackey couldn't answer your question.

You are free to think what you like. Everything has already been explained and reiterating doesn't help.