Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Thermite confirmed in 911 WTC Dust Samples


acidhead

Recommended Posts

You asked: How can you use thermite to cut a vertical beam? I provided a number of possibilities and examples and now you are complaining.

Yes, Q24, I am complaining. I am complaining because you have been, for the past several pages, arguing about hundreds of pounds of not just molten steel, but steel so hot that it is liquid. You argue about thermite that might be used as an explosive to cut construction members. About ways that the WTC towers could have been cut down. And yet, when you get asked to present something feasible, suddenly the environment is no longer one that liquifies steel, but one in which a person can hold a thermal lance and manually cut through a support member, Suddenly we aren't dealing with the two inch thick steel plate making up the WTC structural members, we are dealing with a 3/4 inch piece of rebar. We aren't dealing with a demolition charge that removes a chunk of supporting structure to initiate a collapse, but with a fictional cutter designed for pre-demolition clearing.

That is why I am complaining, Q24. I am complaining because you are intellectually dishonest.

What I find intellectually dishonest is the claim that a hydrocarbon diffuse flame waxing and waning from 100oC to 1,000oC as it moves around the structure (largely the open office areas rather than the core) could cause collapse, whilst simultaneously claiming a device utilising 2,500oC thermite ejected directly onto the columns could not. Double-standards in the extreme.

When you can show how the claim and the proof do not directly relate, you can claim intellectual dishonesty. Just because you cannot understand it does not mean that someone is lying to you.

The fire at its hottest was estimated to be a little over 1,000oC. If molten metal pooled on the floor in the suggested ‘rubble cup’, then we somehow have an unbelievably efficient heat transfer to raise the metal temperature to 1,000oC. This is why blast furnaces require a specific setup to function, with the correct flow of fuel and oxygen, rather than simply a hole filled with combustibles and set on fire.

Actually, a hole filled with combustibles served as a furnace and metal smelter for a long time before blast furnaces came around. Blast furnaces just made the process more efficient.

Again, your lack of knowledge does not constitute lying on anyone else's part.

#48[/url].

Q24...Please answer this question with a Yes or No: Are you under the impression that the flow we have been referring to this entire time, the one coming out of the window picture that you posted, is composed of "thermite"?

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 238
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • MARAB0D

    63

  • Q24

    45

  • aquatus1

    36

  • el midgetron

    36

There is yet another flaw in the entire discussion - we make hypothetical assumptions of the possibility to weaken the columns with thermite, but this first of all requires the columns to be exposed to a direct contact with such! Practically we rarely can see the rusty steel posts amid the building floor, as the columns are usually hidden in the walls or coated with concrete, so the alleged thermite heat is first supposed to destroy this concrete before trying to affect the actual steel. This, in turn, would require huge amounts of thermite mixture with some floor being literally packed with it - here the 100-ton theory probably comes from!

Your assumptions sure do seem "hypothetical" to the extreme. You have argued both that only 60kg and now 100 tons of thermite would be needed (in support of two seperate points). However, both of these figures were reached by considering completely hypothetical factors like an imaginary method of collapse/imaginary thermite mixures and now an imaginary coating of concrete. Maybe if your calulations were more based on actual factors rather than these hypothetical and irrelevent concepts, your findings wouldn't be so extreme and contradictory?

But such a load would heat not the columns only, but the entire area, so at least one-two floor levels were supposed to glow red outside and white inside... It would've been an unforgettable sight, so the witnesses and tv-watchers probably all had their memories flashed by the men-in-black immediately afterwards.

That or maybe they all had on your "IR depressing" sun-glasses which made the buildings look normal.................. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your assumptions sure do seem "hypothetical" to the extreme. You have argued both that only 60kg and now 100 tons of thermite would be needed (in support of two seperate points). However, both of these figures were reached by considering completely hypothetical factors like an imaginary method of collapse/imaginary thermite mixures and now an imaginary coating of concrete. Maybe if your calulations were more based on actual factors rather than these hypothetical and irrelevent concepts, your findings wouldn't be so extreme and contradictory?

You are mistaken both ways! My estimate was not 60 kg but 30 kg at maximum - to weaken or damage 10 columns on one side of the building (this would help to lean the building on one side - which was NOT the actual result, but what I myself would've used to demolish a highraise without respecting its neighbours). 100 tons come from Q24 quotation of the statement of the ACTUAL CHEMIST, the technician from some Amsterdam or Copenhagen Uni or whatever, where the analyses for superthermite were made! I have nothing to do with 100-ton theory, I am LAUGHING at it with all sincerity a Chemist can afford.

That or maybe they all had on your "IR depressing" sun-glasses which made the buildings look normal.................. :lol:

At least you admit, that the WTC towers were NOT glowing red!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are mistaken both ways! My estimate was not 60 kg but 30 kg at maximum - to weaken or damage 10 columns on one side of the building (this would help to lean the building on one side - which was NOT the actual result, but what I myself would've used to demolish a highraise without respecting its neighbours).

And of course, since according to you super thermite burns so fast that it would not heat or damage the columns at all, you must also be talking about some other type of thermite. So, to sum up that argument of yours, there was to much thermite residue discovered in the dust because by your calculations it would only take a small quantity of something else to achive something that didn't happen. :lol:

At least you admit, that the WTC towers were NOT glowing red!

Why would I need to admit that? I am not the one who believes you can see infrared radiation...................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well heres some food for thought

this is the aftermath of the victorian bushfires, nothing but wind and vegetation to fuel it.

linked-image

linked-image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well heres some food for thought

this is the aftermath of the victorian bushfires, nothing but wind and vegetation to fuel it.

linked-image

linked-image

If i'm not mistaken, that only *aluminum (flimsy automotive grade at that) with a melting point of around 660 °C (?) (note the car shells are steel still in tact)

Where as metal 'high grade industrial structural steel' is around 1300 °C (boiling point at aprox 3000 °C)

*edit: (maybe even an alumin/lead combo(?)

Edited by REBEL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And of course, since according to you super thermite burns so fast that it would not heat or damage the columns at all, you must also be talking about some other type of thermite. So, to sum up that argument of yours, there was to much thermite residue discovered in the dust because by your calculations it would only take a small quantity of something else to achive something that didn't happen. :lol:

Why would I need to admit that? I am not the one who believes you can see infrared radiation...................

BTW, my opinion on IR depression by the cameras was not a professional opinion - I have never claimed me being an expert, so I just used this as an observation. Being a diletanto, you obviously can see no difference between me speaking of what I surely know due to my profession and what I say, being the same diletanto as yourself! All my views can be easily challenged by someone, who knows better, I have no objection to this, same as I took to notice your reasoning about the invisibility of IR! All I said was boiling down to the statement, that any object, heated to 600-650 Centigrade glows in red zone, and it was YOUR words about the possibility of Aluminium to be silvery at melting point (660 C) caused me to guess why was not it on your photos! I did not realize, that for you anything, containing Aluminium, would be called "Aluminium" anyway, as I myself draw a line between the element and its alloys. For instance I would never say that Lead can be melted in a cup of hot tea, so if you mean Wood's alloy under "Lead" you can see the reason of proving me wrong, as for you this is one the same Lead!

But the core is that even if the alloy-in-question was flowing from a fire zone with 1000 C in it, it would still be NOT silvery, but glowing orange - and this is what the discussion was about. I can name to you a dozen of low-melting point alloys, not necessarily of Aluminium, and they ALL would be glowing red-orange at the same circumstances. Capito?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, my opinion on IR depression by the cameras was not a professional opinion - I have never claimed me being an expert, so I just used this as an observation.

Hey, thats ok! Sixth grade science class is kind foggy to me as well. But then again, I don't promote myself as a scientist.

Being a diletanto, you obviously can see no difference between me speaking of what I surely know due to my profession and what I say, being the same diletanto as yourself! All my views can be easily challenged by someone, who knows better, I have no objection to this, same as I took to notice your reasoning about the invisibility of IR!

"Reasoning"? You flatter me most unjustly. Not sure where you got the idea but thinking we can see IR but its about the same as believing "glitter" appears in the spectrum of colors.

All I said was boiling down to the statement, that any object, heated to 600-650 Centigrade glows in red zone, and it was YOUR words about the possibility of Aluminium to be silvery at melting point (660 C) caused me to guess why was not it on your photos!

No it wasn't my "words" or my in "photos". I believe Q24 already pointed out that you once that you have been speaking to two different people. Capito?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, Midge - only Pope is infallible! At least when talking chemistry I made less mistakes then the mentioned "experts" - so I beg you to forgive me one error, you were so happy to discover! Meanwhile it was a nice move - to switch the discussion to my personality, away from the issues on which you do not have your own clear opinion. But I would still be happy to hear your full version of 9/11 event, with details like the weight of thermite etc. It must be a thrilling science fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i'm not mistaken, that only *aluminum (flimsy automotive grade at that) with a melting point of around 660 °C (?) (note the car shells are steel still in tact)

Where as metal 'high grade industrial structural steel' is around 1300 °C (boiling point at aprox 3000 °C)

*edit: (maybe even an alumin/lead combo(?)

Are you proposing that the molten waterfall Q24 posted is actually steel?

Wouldn't it make more sense that it was composed out of the flimsy light steel and aluminum furniture, the filing cabinets, the light fixtures, and all the hundreds of thin, lightweight metals, that are all over a standard office?

And I would hesitate before thinking that automotive grade aluminum is flimsier when compared to office grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you proposing that the molten waterfall Q24 posted is actually steel?

Not proposing anything, haven't read the whole thread, actually i was more interested in bathory's pics that looked odd, then assumed he was trying to make the comparison between high-grade/strength structural & industrial metal to automotive.

Wouldn't it make more sense that it was composed out of the flimsy light steel and aluminum furniture, the filing cabinets, the light fixtures, and all the hundreds of thin, lightweight metals, that are all over a standard office?

agreed, it's very possible, and good point.

And I would hesitate before thinking that automotive grade aluminum is flimsier when compared to office grade.

Depending what type office furniture, along with other unknown furnishings &/or parts of the building structures.

Anyway (without throwing the thread too far off topic) something about bathory's pics that don't add up.

Why aren't the car bodies at least buckled (in part anyway) from under the extreme & intense heat.

If you take another look at bathory's pics, any which way i look at it i can only come up with either lead from batteries, alloy rims, gas tanks (not petrol tanks) aluminum from air-con or radiator cooling system(?) Granted the temp was 45+ degrees during the fires, still think it shouldn't melt that easy tho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, my opinion on IR depression by the cameras was not a professional opinion - I have never claimed me being an expert, so I just used this as an observation.

Being a diletanto, you obviously can see no difference between me speaking of what I surely know due to my profession and what I say, being the same diletanto as yourself!

...ahhh..... name calling....

... I'm not an expert on name calling but I suppose this makes you a "diletanto" as well.. no ... ? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least when talking chemistry I made less mistakes then the mentioned "experts"

Thats debatable.

Meanwhile it was a nice move - to switch the discussion to my personality, away from the issues on which you do not have your own clear opinion.

Whatever. After your wild claims about IR and stating "Yes! It is actually red!" (in the photos), you went on to accuse Q24 and myself of lacking the "practical knowledge" to understand your argument. Yet, now that it has been established it was actually your failures of "pracitical knowledge" (which made you "see red") you accuse me of switching the discussion to your personality because I commented about your disappointing display of practical knowledge?

It seems to me that this is yet another example of your tendancy to intelectually contradict yourself.

By the way, Q24 - yours is the same case as Midgetron's. You both desperately want to believe in thermite theory, as this exposes the malicious nature of US government - but both are lacking experience and education, needed to understand the practical and theoretical issues behind the scandalous statement. You need to keep in mind, that neither I am trying to defend CIA, nor am trying to laugh at you both - I am sincerely trying to explain to you that the thermite explanation is unrealistic, nothing more.

No matter how desperately you argue, that liquid Aluminium is "silvery", it would not become such - therefore I once again suggest you to find the place where they melt it (use Yellow Pages) and go there to see how it looks. This would also show you, how ridiculous are the attempts to acquire practical knowledge by clicking a mouse...

But I would still be happy to hear your full version of 9/11 event, with details like the weight of thermite etc. It must be a thrilling science fiction.

Why I would attempt to suggest details "like the weight of thermite"? I have no idea.

However, there are two factors that could be considered. One being the witnessed collapse and the other being the residue found in the dust. If, I were to form a hypothesis about the weight, those are the factors I would consider. Yet again, this isn't what you chose to do. Your "calculations" were based on an unrelated collapse and unrelated mixture of thermite. You defended this method of calculation by claiming nano-thermite couldn't heaten or weaken the steel "at all". Yet, that stament again seems to be based on some kind of scientific hocus-pocus. You contradict that claim by saying 100 tons of nano-thermite would make the building "glow red hot", cause a "manhattan hiroshima" and "melt a 500meter hole in the ground".

Ahh, "nano", sorry, I keep forgetting!!! The flash from 100 tons of "nano-thermite" would be half-Manhattan in diameter - and everything alive within it would be evaporated... A sort of clean Hiroshima...

here the 100-ton theory probably comes from! But such a load would heat not the columns only, but the entire area, so at least one-two floor levels were supposed to glow red outside and white inside....

BTW the heat from 100 tons of even non-super thermite would probably melt the entire WTC plus a 500-meter deep hole in the ground...

So to re-cap, you have stated that any kind of thermite would be useless to cause the WTC to collapse as it did. You have also stated that there was far to much nano-thermite residue found in the WTC dust. And you have stated that only 30kg of thermite would have been needed to weaken 10 steel columns. And you have also stated that in a large enough quantity "even" regular thermite would probably melt the entire WTC. Um, ok....

I couple posts back I mentioned how you took things to the extreme in your arguments. What happens when a more moderate, realistic method is employed? First off you have established that in some quantity nano-thermite will melt steel (probably even the entire WTC) even if its 100 tons. The actual numbers quoted by Acid's chemist were 10 to 100 tons. Since you only seem to consider the extremes the majority of that estimate was disreguarded by you and it became just "100 tons". Even in this quantity, I don't suspect it would "fill entire floors" of the wtc, another extreme claim by you (by comparison there is 100 tons of paint on the ceiling of the UN Dome in Geneva). Now, that we have an estimate of 10 to 100 tons where you argee at some point nano-thermite will melt steel, isnt it safe to consider that your original calculations reguarding the residue are flawed because they were only based on 30kg of thermite "weakening" 10 columns?

So, if you could find a point between weakening 10 collumns with 30kg and melting the entire WTC with 100 tons, a point sufficiant to collapse the wtc in on its self, might that quantity of thermite be able to account for the ratio of residue found in the WTC dust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After your wild claims about IR and stating "Yes! It is actually red!" (in the photos), you went on to accuse Q24 and myself of lacking the "practical knowledge" to understand your argument.

Ahh, again we are in the same place! Meanwhile the assumption about IR was not that wild, as you may think, as IR and longest wave visible red are very close to each other, so I would not be surprised if the IR filter mutes some longer part of the visible red too - which may account for a naked eye to see the red glow at few degrees below the point, when camera starts to register it. Given that the melting of Aluminium happens precisely on the border of red glow beginning, this may be an important wavelength gap. - But this is not to defend my supposition at all, as soon as I know now that you call "Aluminium" anything which contains this element, those photos of molten silvery "aluminium" tell me that was not Aluminium at all, but its alloy. By the similar logic "bread" is anything which contains flour - from spaghetti to custard.

The actual numbers quoted by Acid's chemist were 10 to 100 tons. Since you only seem to consider the extremes the majority of that estimate was disreguarded by you and it became just "100 tons"

Both figures are almost equally insane - I just chose 100 tons as a bit more laughable! Just scroll up, where the graphs were posted, showing the "energy" release comparance between thermite and conventional explosives! According to them (approximately!) 10 tons of thermite would release the same energy as some 15-20 tons of dynamite - meanwhile the most famous terrorist acts were using loads of explosive in order of 100 kg and up to 1 ton in rare cases! This was ENOUGH to bring a highraise down! Does this ring the bell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both figures are almost equally insane - I just chose 100 tons as a bit more laughable! Just scroll up, where the graphs were posted, showing the "energy" release comparance between thermite and conventional explosives! According to them (approximately!) 10 tons of thermite would release the same energy as some 15-20 tons of dynamite - meanwhile the most famous terrorist acts were using loads of explosive in order of 100 kg and up to 1 ton in rare cases! This was ENOUGH to bring a highraise down! Does this ring the bell?

No. In fact your line of argument gets more odd as you go.

If the WTC was rigged with explosives, how valid is it to compare it to the "most famous terrorist acts"? Not very in my opinion because to my knowledge rigging a building for demolition is not the standard modus operandi used in terrorist bombings. However, lets take a look at your numbers anyway (100 kg to 1 ton) .

The 1998 embassy bombings -

"Seismological readings analyzed after the bombs indicated energy of between 3-17 tons of high explosive material."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_United_S...mbassy_bombings

OKC Federal building bombing -

"After running initial tests on the site, the bomb was probably composed of ammonium nitrate, a high concentration fertilizer, and nitromethane, a high performance racing fuel. We have estimated that the bomb weighed anywhere from 2 tons to 5 tons judging by the damage. We will find out more for certain after further investigation and relief efforts. "

http://people.emich.edu/jmiko/papers/The%2...y%20Bombing.doc

But whatever, I don't really see how your above point is relevant at all. I am still more interested in your claims that no type of thermite could bring down the WTC and your statements that several tons would melt the entire building?? Like it or not, somewhere between the "laughable" extremes of your arguments there is a reasonable middle ground. Yet now, your argument against considering a more moderate argument is that it isn't consistent with "the most famous terrorist acts" even though in all respects 911 isn't really comparable to the "most famous terrorist acts".

Ok, lets try this. Answer me this question please -

If 30 kg will weaken 10 columns and 100 tons might melt the entire WTC, then how much would be needed to melt the steel in enough spots to cause a symmetrical or "global" collapse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot to tell about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings! I was talking about demolishing a SINGLE building, not about wiping the cities off the face of the Earth!

At 9:02 a.m. CST, the Ryder truck, containing in excess of 6,200 pounds (2,800 kg)[30] of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, nitromethane, and diesel fuel mixture, detonated in front of the north side of the nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.[28] The blast destroyed a third of the building[35] and created a 30-foot (9.1 m) wide, 8-foot (2.4 m) deep crater on NW 5th Street next to the building.[36] The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings in a sixteen-block radius,[37] destroyed or burned 86 cars around the site, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings[38] (the broken glass alone accounted for 5% of the death total and 69% of the injuries outside the Murrah Federal building).[39] The destruction of the buildings left several hundred people homeless and shut down multiple offices in downtown Oklahoma City.[40] Total damages from the bombing totaled at least $652 million.[41]

An aerial view of the destruction

The effects of the blast were equivalent to over 5,000 pounds (2,300 kg) of TNT,[30][42] and could be heard and felt up to 55 miles (89 km) away.[40] Seismometers at the Omniplex Science Museum in Oklahoma City, 4.3 miles (6.9 km) away, and in Norman, Oklahoma, 16.1 miles (25.9 km) away, recorded the blast as measuring approximately 3.0 on the Richter scale.[43]

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

Meanwhile, according to the graphs, which you ignore as inexistant, 2,300 kg of TNT equivalent makes about 1.5 tons of mysterious "superthermite" - so the discussed 10-ton load would appear nearly 7 times STRONGER than what was used in Oklahoma-city. And the 100-ton load would be 70 times stronger... Didn't I suggest the destruction of the entire Manhattan?

If you think, that millions of witnesses can miss an explosion, equivalent to 15 tons of TNT or the effects of the released heat during it, then why do not you mention the possibility that it was a nuclear-driven UFO plunging into the building? Have you ever seen what a TNT candle does to a rock cliff? Just tell me, are you still a school kid, and I would leave you alone here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why I am complaining, Q24. I am complaining because you are intellectually dishonest.

I think the evidence I have put forward absolutely demonstrates the viability of a thermite initiated demolition.

If I understand correctly, you are complaining because whilst I can demonstrate that thermite will melt steel, can be ejected horizontally and has been considered for demolition purposes… I have not provided an example of where a fully working thermite charge has been used for demolition before.

Do note that no one would claim a thermite charge is the most effective method of demolition and there should be no reason to find an example of such a device used in common practice.

The WTC controlled demolition would by nature be covert and the purpose of thermite charges in this one instance, to avoid the string of audible explosions heard prior to the onset as in conventional building demolitions.

Actually, a hole filled with combustibles served as a furnace and metal smelter for a long time before blast furnaces came around. Blast furnaces just made the process more efficient.

Even the earliest furnaces were setup to achieve fuel and oxygen efficiency, any discovery before that was a fluke. I guess with the passage the airliner had made through the building, large holes in the walls, broken windows, dark smoke indicating inefficient burning and NIST’s modelling showing the worst of the fires moving on rapidly from area to area, I just don’t see a makeshift furnace scenario in this case.

Q24...Please answer this question with a Yes or No: Are you under the impression that the flow we have been referring to this entire time, the one coming out of the window picture that you posted, is composed of "thermite"?

I can’t believe you just asked that but, Yes, that is my impression.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well heres some food for thought

this is the aftermath of the victorian bushfires, nothing but wind and vegetation to fuel it.

linked-image

linked-image

It takes 451 degrees to ignite a car, that is it, nothing more. After that, it is off to the races...it is full of every fuel and energy you could ask for.

vegetation that gets cars on fire...cars that contain very special metals like magnesium that burn at thousands of degrees. A cigarette on a car seat can get a car started, cars are full of plastics that are easy to get started at a low temperature, yet they burn very hot, cars however are full of chemicals and metals that once heated sufficiently can do amazing things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You forgot to tell about the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings! I was talking about demolishing a SINGLE building, not about wiping the cities off the face of the Earth

Meanwhile, according to the graphs, which you ignore as inexistant, 2,300 kg of TNT equivalent makes about 1.5 tons of mysterious "superthermite" - so the discussed 10-ton load would appear nearly 7 times STRONGER than what was used in Oklahoma-city. And the 100-ton load would be 70 times stronger... Didn't I suggest the destruction of the entire Manhattan? If you think, that millions of witnesses can miss an explosion, equivalent to 15 tons of TNT or the effects of the released heat during it, then why do not you mention the possibility that it was a nuclear-driven UFO plunging into the building? Have you ever seen what a TNT candle does to a rock cliff? Just tell me, are you still a school kid, and I would leave you alone here.[/

Oh, brother....It was your example, an example I said I couldn't see the relevance of to begin with. You compare 9/11 to other "famous" terror attacks and then slam me for entertaining your riduculous exercise.

I am not sure why you are even trying to argue about weights, you have stated that nano-thermite couldn't damage steel "at all". Wouldn't it have been sufficiant to just stick to that claim?.....oh wait, thats right, you got your stories mixed up and also said it could melt the entire WTC. Can't have it both ways and your attempts to do so only make you look like some one who is detached from reality. You contradictions and failure to address them in a logical mannor pretty much sums up your whole argument.

Anyway, you are clearly not talking about the "demolition of a single" building. You are taking your argument to another of what you call "laughable" extremes. Either that, or I guess you actually believe demolitions of buildings are done with one large blast? Of course not. Controlled demolitions are done with a series of small explosions. Now, since you have stated that enough nano-thermite could melt the entire WTC, it goes without saying that a lesser amount would be sufficiant to melt a small section of steel. Take whatever amount of nano-thermite that might be and multiply it by the number of collumns and the number of floors and before you know it you are going to have a combined weight in the tons.

So stop raving about huge explosions that would destroy manhattan, put your thinking cap back on and try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, brother....It was your example, an example I said I couldn't see the relevance of to begin with. You compare 9/11 to other "famous" terror attacks and then slam me for entertaining your riduculous exercise.

I am not sure why you are even trying to argue about weights, you have stated that nano-thermite couldn't damage steel "at all". Wouldn't it have been sufficiant to just stick to that claim?.....oh wait, thats right, you got your stories mixed up and also said it could melt the entire WTC. Can't have it both ways and your attempts to do so only make you look like some one who is detached from reality. You contradictions and failure to address them in a logical mannor pretty much sums up your whole argument.

Anyway, you are clearly not talking about the "demolition of a single" building. You are taking your argument to another of what you call "laughable" extremes. Either that, or I guess you actually believe demolitions of buildings are done with one large blast? Of course not. Controlled demolitions are done with a series of small explosions. Now, since you have stated that enough nano-thermite could melt the entire WTC, it goes without saying that a lesser amount would be sufficiant to melt a small section of steel. Take whatever amount of nano-thermite that might be and multiply it by the number of collumns and the number of floors and before you know it you are going to have a combined weight in the tons.

So stop raving about huge explosions that would destroy manhattan, put your thinking cap back on and try harder.

Well, I am unsure which sort of brotherhood you make a hint on, personally I do not feel any brotherly emotions to anyone at all, including yourself.

And, YES, I can have it "both ways"! My experience with thermites tells me that the finer the mixture is made, the faster the reaction goes - id est the less becomes the ability of such thermite to burn, slowly enough to melt or weld the steel. Such "extreme" (your favourite word!) as "nano-thermite" must simply flash in a matter of "nanoseconds" and disperse itself. Pufff! The flash like that for the quantities range 10 to 100 tons would be probably larger than 100 metres in diameter and bright enough to permanently blind the observers few miles away... This is a supposition only, based on observations of the size of the flash produced by only 50 grams of the fine mixture (this flash is at least 5-6 inches in diameter) - I leave the larger scale tests to be performed by the curious people like yourself. Also, the heat from such flash would surely warm up the large section of the building to the red heat (650-700 C), and surely melt the windows in the buildings few hundred meters away from the epicenter - but WOULD NOT melt the steel columns as this requires long preheating due to the high thermal conductivity of the metals and heat dissipation.

The same quantity (10-100 tons) of "non-nano" thermite would also heat the building red and surely melt the columns. But in the quantities, which a sane person can imagine, basing on the actual footages of the disaster (which quantities are well UNDER 100 kg, not saying a ton, 10 tons or 100 tons), they both are equally USELESS for the demolition of the observed type. However I wish you well on your selected way to knowledge, at least this would keep you occupied with something instead of reading the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the evidence I have put forward absolutely demonstrates the viability of a thermite initiated demolition.

How so? You were asked to provide a means of demolition and the closest you were able to offer was a non-existent device, a thermal (not thermite) lance that has to be operated manually, and a remote device that maxes out at cutting a 3/4 inch hole. How does any of that validate the idea that thermite was used not only to cut through 4 2-inch thick plates making up the supporting columns of the WTC towers, but to kick it out as well?

If I understand correctly, you are complaining because whilst I can demonstrate that thermite will melt steel, can be ejected horizontally and has been considered for demolition purposes… I have not provided an example of where a fully working thermite charge has been used for demolition before.

You are almost there. I am complaining because you tried to get away with it.

That thermite will melt steel was never in question, and it is dishonest to suggest otherwise. That it can be ejected horizontally was your claim, however being ejected horizontally and being capable of cutting through structural support members are two different things. And thermite is not only considered for demolition purposes, it is often used...during non-explosive demolition, meaning physically cutting and removing, not explosive collapse.

Basically, I'm complaining because out of one side of your mouth you claim to have a valid argument, and out of the other side you try and pretend the support you have is actually referring to what you have claimed existed. In other words, you would be taken more seriously if you were honest about the limitations of your evidence, rather than try and pretend they actually supported what you claimed, when they do not actually do so.

Do note that no one would claim a thermite charge is the most effective method of demolition and there should be no reason to find an example of such a device used in common practice.

The reason for that is because thermite does not lend itself well at all to explosive demolitions, which require precision timing down to the micro-second. It's like using a flamethrower instead of a blowtorch. It has it's place in demolition, but only in preparation, and only in limited scenarios.

The WTC controlled demolition would by nature be covert and the purpose of thermite charges in this one instance, to avoid the string of audible explosions heard prior to the onset as in conventional building demolitions.

I think this is where you are making your mistake.

For starters, all the reports that I heard of explosions happened pretty early on, not way into the fire when the towers collapse, but let's ignore that for right now.

A demolition consists of two series of explosions. The first is the cutting charge. This is usually a shaped charge whose sole purpose is to cut through the support member. Literally, it just slices right through. This is the only conceivable place for a thermite charge, and again, thermite doesn't cut as much as it just melts through. This is important, because it is precisely why the second explosion is needed.

The second explosion is the "kicker". The piece that was just cut literally hangs in the air for a micro-second. If nothing else happened, the structure being cut could very well (and it has happened an embarrassing number of times) simply drop the inch or so gap that was just cut by the shaped charge, stick together, and not collapse. You can well imagine the sinking feeling a demolition team must feel when they blow their building only to see it sag a little and remain standing. It's about as dangerous as situation you can get.

That happens with regular shaped charges. Now, imagine that with thermite that impossibly burns horizontally. Now you have two molten ends that are not only likely to stick together, but even fuse.

So, what the "kicker" does is "kick" the chunk that was just cut and is hanging in the air for that brief micro-second. It kicks it out of the way, so that the structure no longer has just an inch to drop, but a huge gap. That's why the timing is so crucial; the kick has to be done in the micro-second after the cut has been made, but before it begins falling due to gravity.

Now, shaped charges are anything but quiet, although after they have been packed and tamped, they may only register as rather loud "thumps". The real noise, the big bang that you hear from demolitions jobs, that comes from the bundles of dynamite that act as the kicker. There has to be enough dynamite to make a hundred pound chunk of metal fly off at rapid velocity from a dead start. That is going to make a big boom. Thermite can't do that. It just isn't explosive enough to punch a huge chunk of metal like that.

So, even if some thermite charge existed that could cut 2 inch plate vertically, it would still not be a preferred means of cutting structural members, but more importantly, it would still not solve the problem that you mentioned, the one of noise. The majority of the noise doesn't come from the cutting, but rather from the "kick", which is what produces the decidedly non-covert string of explosions.

Even the earliest furnaces were setup to achieve fuel and oxygen efficiency, any discovery before that was a fluke. I guess with the passage the airliner had made through the building, large holes in the walls, broken windows, dark smoke indicating inefficient burning and NIST’s modelling showing the worst of the fires moving on rapidly from area to area, I just don’t see a makeshift furnace scenario in this case.

And you don't need to. Melting thin sheets of aluminum and steel doesn't require a furnace. But that's the next step. I want to lead you through the logical step-by-step disassembly of this, so let's get the demolition thing out of the way first.

---Thermite doesn't cut vertically, but even if it did, it does not do so rapidly enough or cleanly enough for explosive structural demolition,

---It is not the "cut" that makes the majority of the noise, but rather the "kick", which is done using force (not thermic or cutting) explosives, to push it away.

If you agree with those statements, then you can understand why thermite cannot be used in an explosive demolition. If not, I invite you to ask questions about it. We aren't even discussion the timing of the explosions, the actual physical placement of the explosive, the pre-demolition placement of them, the inadvisability of using thermite near high explosives, or any of the other reasons why this could not work; we are just focusing on the bare-bones demolition itself.

I can’t believe you just asked that but, Yes, that is my impression.

I suspected as much, and is it why I will show you how you are incorrect, once we finish with the demolition argument.

Edited by aquatus1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am unsure which sort of brotherhood you make a hint on, personally I do not feel any brotherly emotions to anyone at all, including yourself.

Its just an expression, its not an actual "brother" or "brotherhood" of any sort. Perhaps the language barrier is partly to blame for making you look crazy.

And, YES, I can have it "both ways"! My experience with thermites tells me that the finer the mixture is made, the faster the reaction goes - id est the less becomes the ability of such thermite to burn, slowly enough to melt or weld the steel. Such "extreme" (your favourite word!) as "nano-thermite" must simply flash in a matter of "nanoseconds" and disperse itself. Pufff! The flash like that for the quantities range 10 to 100 tons would be probably larger than 100 metres in diameter and bright enough to permanently blind the observers few miles away... This is a supposition only, based on observations of the size of the flash produced by only 50 grams of the fine mixture (this flash is at least 5-6 inches in diameter) - I leave the larger scale tests to be performed by the curious people like yourself. Also, the heat from such flash would surely warm up the large section of the building to the red heat (650-700 C), and surely melt the windows in the buildings few hundred meters away from the epicenter - but WOULD NOT melt the steel columns as this requires long preheating due to the high thermal conductivity of the metals and heat dissipation.

Are you sure about that? Because I was discussing this with someone who claimed to be a chemist and they said 100 tons would not only heat the steel but would probably "melt the entire WTC and a 500 meter deep hole in the ground". But I don't think they really know what they are talking about.

BTW the heat from 100 tons of even non-super thermite would probably melt the entire WTC plus a 500-meter deep hole in the ground...

The same quantity (10-100 tons) of "non-nano" thermite would also heat the building red and surely melt the columns. But in the quantities, which a sane person can imagine, basing on the actual footages of the disaster (which quantities are well UNDER 100 kg, not saying a ton, 10 tons or 100 tons), they both are equally USELESS for the demolition of the observed type. However I wish you well on your selected way to knowledge, at least this would keep you occupied with something instead of reading the books.

Well, "sane" people usually don't believe they can see in infrared vision with just their eyes....... but that is the sort of thing an uneducated story teller would dream up.

Anyway, you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around the fact the controlled demolitions are not done with one large blast. Its sort of common knowledge but I know that isn't your strong point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (marabod @ Apr 20 2009, 04:21 AM) *

And, YES, I can have it "both ways"! My experience with thermites tells me that the finer the mixture is made, the faster the reaction goes - id est the less becomes the ability of such thermite to burn, slowly enough to melt or weld the steel. Such "extreme" (your favourite word!) as "nano-thermite" must simply flash in a matter of "nanoseconds" and disperse itself. Pufff! The flash like that for the quantities range 10 to 100 tons would be probably larger than 100 metres in diameter and bright enough to permanently blind the observers few miles away... This is a supposition only, based on observations of the size of the flash produced by only 50 grams of the fine mixture (this flash is at least 5-6 inches in diameter) - I leave the larger scale tests to be performed by the curious people like yourself. Also, the heat from such flash would surely warm up the large section of the building to the red heat (650-700 C), and surely melt the windows in the buildings few hundred meters away from the epicenter - but WOULD NOT melt the steel columns as this requires long preheating due to the high thermal conductivity of the metals and heat dissipation.

Are you sure about that? Because I was discussing this with someone who claimed to be a chemist and they said 100 tons would not only heat the steel but would probably "melt the entire WTC and a 500 meter deep hole in the ground". But I don't think they really know what they are talking about.

QUOTE (marabod @ Apr 14 2009, 06:54 AM) *

BTW the heat from 100 tons of even non-super thermite would probably melt the entire WTC plus a 500-meter deep hole in the ground...

Poor stupid wooden year-6 Pinocchio! Do you really think you got me caught pants down??? Check the quotes once again - just to see, which exactly thermite they were about, and what was said about thermite and mysterious "superthermite" in them. How can you argue with something which you haven't even read in full? Or maybe I touched some string so sensitive that my "brotherly" address put you on a needle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.