1. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Well that's an astute observation. One wonders if thermite proponents have figured out how many 10's of tons of thermite would be required to attack a building with a footprint of one acre, and how on earth such an amount of material could be brought into an office building and attached to perimeter columns, for example, without being detected.

    So far it's extremely difficult to imagine ANY scenario where that would be possible. This coupled with the fact that there's just no data on demolition of large steel buildings similar to the WTC using this kind of incendiary brings it to a very, very remote and speculative idea.
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Indeed, and I think it's very worthwhile to look at these historical examples of demolition using thermite to get an idea of the difficulty of implementing such a thing.

    AE911 like to bring up these two examples as a kind of "gotcha", but it's really rather disingenuous, especially when you look at what they are saying gotcha to:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...-reichstag-dome-set-incendiary-precedent.html (http://archive.is/gNOiL)
    Because after viewing the pictures, videos and descriptions of historical demolition using thermite, then the idea of bringing down the WTC towers with thermite (and matching what was observed that day) is very clearly something that demolition experts would laugh at.
  3. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Here's the fixed link to the NPR interview:

    The relevant bit on thermite is at 18:00 onwards, with the "notion" quote above at 19:48.

    [Conspiracy coincidence, the Popular Mechanics editor interviewed here is James Meigs, and the East tower of the Sky Ride that was demolished with thermite is on Chicago's Northerly Island, later site of the famous airport Meigs Field, which was itself destroyed by a conspiracy!]
  4. hamishsubedei

    hamishsubedei Member

    There are many patents for thermite cutting charges, linear cutting charges to be used in the destruction of steel buildings.
    I don't think they would have used commercial available technology but rather a military classified thermite cutting device.

    What is the material flowing out of the south tower , NISTs claim that its molten aluminium at 440c has been thoroughly debunked in experiments where organic materials did not cause the aluminium to turn orange/yellow.
    Also if it were aluminium from the plane why exit the building moments before the tower collapse and not before? A rational minded person would ask whether the molten metal flowing seconds before the tower collapsed had any affect to the structural integrity of the building.
  5. Landru

    Landru Moderator Staff Member

    The second paragraph is off topic and addressed elsewhere. As for your first paragraph, did they use unobtanium? Any evidence to support your claims?
  6. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    I can tell you from personal experience.. there's no "classified" military thermite cutting devices, or cutting devices of any kind. The vast majority of explosives used by the Military are commercially available. The only real difference is the way its used, and that only really boils down to shape charges used for specific applications such as removing hinges or cutting through steel doors etc. The stuff that you hear about in the movies and such as "classified military etcetcetc" explosives are for hollywood effect. Shape Charges in and of themselves just use steel or some other type of rigid material packed with something like C4 or another explosive to focus the energy of the blast into a point rather than allowing the kinetic energy to blow out in all directions.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member

    The concept that someone capable enough to plot and accomplish the destruction of the WTC towers and be able to blame others for their skullduggery and then is not able to also acquire and use advanced technology that the public is unaware of is beyond belief (i.e. advanced thermite technology) . . personally I don't believe it is likely they did or that there is even a "they" but do think the real story lies in gross negligence, incompetence, and poor building standards.
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  8. Alienentity

    Alienentity Active Member

    Meh.. Dec 04, 2013 found that the developer was not negligent in the collapse of WTC 7.
    They forgot to add 'that would survive thermite charges placed on the columns'. Dang!
  9. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Keep on target chaps. The thread is about actual known usages of thermite for demolition - not speculation about what might be possible.
  10. hamishsubedei

    hamishsubedei Member

    How do you know that, do you work for DARPA or Los alamos national laboratory?
  11. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Again, the topic is what actually exists and has been used. Not pointless speculation.
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  13. ThatGuyZach

    ThatGuyZach New Member

    I know it's a bit late, but here are my two cents on the subject. The Reichstag's roof was probably ungodly sturdy, given that it was most likely built to withstand or deflect bomb blasts. The use of thermite was probably a last resort for some of the heavier sections, and the fact that there are other buildings surrounding the Reichstag (some of which are residential, I'm guessing) would probably limit the usefulness of explosives due to the risk of shrapnel. In other words, the only two known instances of Thermite being used were used under very unique, possibly experimental circumstances.

    And neither time did it seem to be very efficient.
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Nicole Schnaß

    Nicole Schnaß New Member

    @Mick West : You have done a great job of computer moddeling of the collapse of the tween towers and also to wtc7. But in my opinion we have to bring the experience of a company of demolition as well in our considerations.

    Perhaps it would the best way if you talk with some owner of some one of them about how he would bring Wtc7 down to earth.

    Only this competently person could refute the story of the conspirators to use nano-thermit.
  15. Svartbjørn

    Svartbjørn Senior Member

    That relies on an appeal to authority tho @Nicole Schnaß . There are plenty of people that claim to be experts ( and may well be) but their credentials, in and of themselves, don't make them any more or less viable than laymen that study stuff like this. AE911 is full of people with expert opinions and tons of credentials, doesn't mean that they're right (or wrong).

    If Mick ( or anyone) were to approach a demolition company (or several) for advise on how they would bring down the towers you'd end up with an opinion, which is no different than asking AE911... You'd get their opinion. Different companies use different methods for the same job based on their experience and proficiency with different types of explosives etc. I doubt you'd end up with any different conclusions than are already present. I'm also fairly certain several demolition companies have already offered their opinions on the towers, how they'd be brought down by CD or other methods... Just have to do a Google search. ( On my phone or I'd post a few links)
  16. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The point of this thread was to illustrate times when thermite has been used for demolition. It's not used for demolition because conventional explosive demolition charges are smaller and more precise. If you ask a demolition expert - civil or military - they will tell you they would use conventional explosives.

    Now if they had access to some magic form of thermite that gave you the benefits of conventional explosives without the annoying loud bangs, then they might use that. But there's no evidence anyone ever has.
  17. At one point the used to use plain fire as a means of demolition. That doesnt mean (like thermite) it can be timed precisely enough for the "accuracy" the CTs claim must have been required for the buildings to collapse.