Modern Uses of Thermite for Demolition and their applicability to the WTC

http://techportal.eere.energy.gov/technology.do/techID=764

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This particular example is clearly one that could not have been used, and actually provides more evidence for the lack of use of thermite.

This is because the ceramic lined structure holding the thermite against the column needs to be bolted to the that column (as the force of the thermite reaction will push the structure away. This means that the structure remains affixed to the end of the column. Since no such structures were observed in the rubble, then that would seem to indicated that no such structures were used.

 

Alienentity

Active Member

I've seen these before, glad you brought it up. There's no evidence this kind of thing was used. The steel showed no signs of that type of cutting or melting.

I don't even think this technology was around in the late 20th Century, unless you can find a reference it seems to have been developed fairly recently, like verinage in France (using cables or hydraulics).

I wonder what you think this does to the nanothermite theory, since it doesn't use nanothermite? Looks like nobody is going to paint nanothermite onto structural steel for demolition in our lifetimes, or ever. At least this technology seems to exist and may have some practical applications. Now you should go find some examples!
 
I don't think that they would have used that exact device I posted above but it shows that thermite can be used for concrete and steel, most likely it was a classified type device of some combination of nanothermite and thermite that could explain the complete destruction of the concrete as gravity can't explain that.
 
No, it makes sense considering the was no evidence of computers or telephones etc found in the rubble of the wtc that a concrete holder device would have been destroyed as well
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
When did they put all these devices on the girders? Also, they used thermite to hide the sound but then used explosives to cover the use of thermite. Lol
 

Alienentity

Active Member
A secondary explosion could have destroyed evidence of the holder device.
Explosives to destroy the holders, AFTER they had gone off and demolished the building? I don't think you've thought through that scenario.

Besides, the steel would have shown signs of the thermite cut and thermite itself. But that's not what happened, so it's irrelevant. That's the reason conventional cutter charges are also irrelevant because there was no evidence of them either.

There are lots of theories, but no evidence that those techniques either existed or were used on 9/11.

Can you show us an example of a large steel frame building demolished with this thermite technique? I think you're going to find it's not a good application for large building demolition for a number of reasons; in certain applications it may be easier than conventional explosives, but I think you're confused about what those conditions would be.
 
Im just speculating but perhaps it was thermite that cut/weakened the steel , when the building started to collapse the nanothermite went off sequentially after that destroying all the concrete in the building etc.

Besides, the steel would have shown signs of the thermite cut and thermite itself.

http://www.nc911truth.org/foto/wtc7.html

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesNotThermite.jpg


http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=abolhassan_astaneh_asl_1

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physpics/5100.jpg

while in some of these photos its unknown if they were a result of cutting before or after the collapse It doesn't not show the evidence of a thermite cut.

WTC 7 Fema steel was picked out by FEMA and showed thermate .
Most of the wtc steel was removed so how can we know what proportion of it had evidence of thermite cutting or not .
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
Im just speculating but perhaps it was thermite that cut/weakened the steel , when the building started to collapse the nanothermite went off sequentially after that destroying all the concrete in the building etc.



http://www.nc911truth.org/foto/wtc7.html

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/JonesNotThermite.jpg


http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=abolhassan_astaneh_asl_1

http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/a/PhillipsCritique/physpics/5100.jpg

while in some of these photos its unknown if they were a result of cutting before or after the collapse It doesn't not show the evidence of a thermite cut.

WTC 7 Fema steel was picked out by FEMA and showed thermate .
Most of the wtc steel was removed so how can we know what proportion of it had evidence of thermite cutting or not .

Incorrect. There is plenty of documentary footage showing the cutting of those columns after collapse. This isn't even worth considering in 2014.

The WTC steel was removed to Freshkills and inspected carefully by forensic experts. It was sorted and key pieces were kept.

Why do you not know this basic stuff? How can you ever understand if you don't have relevant info? This is not even a serious question in 2014, it's old, old news.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
What else but thermite could explain the molten metal flowing from the south tower
http://www2.ae911truth.org//ppt_web/2hour/slideshow.php?i=100&lores=1

Thermite cutters like the one you showed in the patent wouldn't leave pools of molten metal, they would leave marks on the steel. So if you're suggesting bulk thermite was used then what's the point of showing us the cutter technology.

Besides, you still haven't shown us any example of the LTC being used on a steel frame high rise. Can you please provide this evidence? Otherwise you're just engaging in idle speculation, which is not evidence of anything.
 
Yes that would account for the pools of molten steel observed in 911.
One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces of steel were saved but by who ?
Sure there is footage of them cutting the columns after the collapse but there is footage of steel cut like that before the steel removers came in .
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Yes that would account for the pools of molten steel observed in 911.
One hundred fifty pieces out of hundreds of thousands of pieces of steel were saved but by who ?
Sure there is footage of them cutting the columns after the collapse but there is footage of steel cut like that before the steel removers came in .

You really don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not going to humour you any further. No pools of molten steel have ever been empirically proven to have existed, so if you insist on dragging that meme into the discussion you're not serious about anything.

We're discussing real-world uses of thermite in demolition. You are still evading your responsibility to provide an example of a steel frame high rise demolished using any kind of thermite.

Please stop dodging this problem, that's what the thread's about.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
You don't get to just make bare assertions, you must provide evidence for your claims. If you claim the LTC could create large pools of molten steel, you must provide empirical evidence.

If you claim that LTC's existed in 2001, you must provide evidence for that.

If you claim LTC's have been used in steel frame high rise demolitions, you must provide evidence for it.

Or is this going to be more idle speculation based on your fantasy of what you imagine thermite is, was or can be?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
New topics in new threads please.

This thread is about modern usages of thermite in demolition, and if those usages are consistent with the events observed on 9/11 at the WTC.

It is not about claims of molten steel.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
This particular example is clearly one that could not have been used, and actually provides more evidence for the lack of use of thermite.

This is because the ceramic lined structure holding the thermite against the column needs to be bolted to the that column (as the force of the thermite reaction will push the structure away. This means that the structure remains affixed to the end of the column. Since no such structures were observed in the rubble, then that would seem to indicated that no such structures were used.
Why would ceramic vessels on steel columns suffering severe impacts survive the collapse? Or do you mean the studs? Is there no other mechanism or substance you can think of that might be capable of affixing something firmly in place in resistance of a fair deal of pressure?

Besides, you still haven't shown us any example of the LTC being used on a steel frame high rise. Can you please provide this evidence? Otherwise you're just engaging in idle speculation, which is not evidence of anything.

You really don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not going to humour you any further. No pools of molten steel have ever been empirically proven to have existed, so if you insist on dragging that meme into the discussion you're not serious about anything.

We're discussing real-world uses of thermite in demolition. You are still evading your responsibility to provide an example of a steel frame high rise demolished using any kind of thermite.

Please stop dodging this problem, that's what the thread's about.
Your crass criticism suggests you've found a previous example of a steel frame high rise being 'demolished' outright by fire, as you're implying precedent is a requirement for a scenario to be worth considering. Care to share it? Otherwise, by your measure, both thermite demolition and the official account are of equal worth, given neither scenario has precedent.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why would ceramic vessels on steel columns suffering severe impacts survive the collapse? Or do you mean the studs? Is there no other mechanism or substance you can think of that might be capable of affixing something firmly in place in resistance of a fair deal of pressure?

Regardless of how much of the vessel survived, there location where they were affixed would give the game away. And to hear the AE911 folk tell it, many hundreds of such cuts would have to be made. Is there any evidence that these type of charges were used?

Your crass criticism suggests you've found a previous example of a steel frame high rise being 'demolished' outright by fire, given you're implying precedent is a requirement for a scenario to be worth considering. Care to share it? Otherwise, by your measure, both thermite demolition and the official account are of equal worth.

The topic is demolition with thermite charges. Not collapse due to fire.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
What's good for the goose, Mick. I'm not changing the topic, I'm pointing out the flaw in Alien's 'no precedent = not worth considering as a possibility' argument as it applies to this topic.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What's good for the goose, Mick. I'm not changing the topic, I'm pointing out the flaw in Alien's 'no precedent = not worth considering as a possibility' argument as it applies to this topic.

But the lack of precedent is exactly what is being considered here. It's exactly what is being considered as a possibility. We are looking at modern usages (either actual or proposed) of thermite for demolition, as seeing if there's anything that would match the events and other evidence we saw on and after 9/11.
 

Grieves

Senior Member
But the lack of precedent is exactly what is being considered here. It's exactly what is being considered as a possibility. We are looking at modern usages (either actual or proposed) of thermite for demolition, as seeing if there's anything that would match the events and other evidence we saw on and after 9/11.
The topic of the thread is modern applications of thermite in demolition and the possibility of their application to demolish the buildings of the WTC. Hamishi's contribution was sensible and very much on-point: he provided information on and examples of devices applicable in and intended for demolitions. The response I'm seeing from Alien is 'Well, show me a building just like those at the WTC which has been leveled using this technology, in other words give me a precedent, or clearly the thermite theory doesn't have a leg to stand on.' That's nonsensical, given the official account describes events with absolutely no precedent either.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Regardless of how much of the vessel survived, there location where they were affixed would give the game away.
1.1/2 - 3 lbs of standard (top down made) thermitic material would be enough to cut through a typical beam such as there were in the towers. Jon Cole makes this point here in this video@ around 9 minutes. You must take into consideration that a 'bottom up' made nanothermitic material would be far more efficient. Lawrence Livermore Labs have been developing these highly energetic materials for quite some time, and the density/power ratio of these is hugely improved by the sol gel type 'bottom up' manufacturing process, resulting in a material that will go to 3500c very quickly. This would mean that the remaining container would be considerably less noticeable, than that shown in Jon's video.

The topic is demolition with thermite charges. Not collapse due to fire.
Most likely tharmAte, given the observed and documented sulphidation of steel elements, suggesting that this would be used to lower the melting point of the elements dramatically. It is inevitable that comparisons will be drawn between the supposed fire cause and the alternatives such as thermitic sol gel type thermitics that are being discussed and have long been in the sights of US government funded laboratories. The US govt has been researching these since way before 911

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alienentity

Active Member
So once again, has anybody got an example of a steel frame highrise building demolished using thermite, thermate or nanothermite? Hmmm, I didn't think so.
Explosives can destroy steel as well, yet there was no evidence of them on the steel inspected at Freshkills, nor of melted steel.

The eutectic erosion is not melting, and it was discovered only on a couple of pieces buried in the smouldering rubble piles amongst thousands of pieces. So again there's just no real evidence that any such mechanism existed there.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This thread is for discussing modern usages of thermite for demolition, and their applicability to the WTC evidence. If your post does not include that topic it will be deleted.

Since there was a large number of posts diverging from this, I have moved them here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/fire-vs-thermite-the-impolite-thread.2871/

Posts were also tending towards the impolite. I remind people that there is a Politeness Policy in place. Continued violations of this policy and/or violations of the posting guidelines will result in temporary bans.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A google patent search for thermite+demolition (or thermate+demolition) does not return much, with the Battelle patent from the OP being the most relevant. There is also this one for demolishing concrete, but it does not look relevant to the WTC situation. I include it because an incredibly cursory look at it might make some of the more enthusiastic theorists say "look, demolition of concrete with thermite, just like in the WTC".

https://www.google.com/patents/US5532449


Obviously the complicated control apparatus makes it useless for large scale evidence-less demolition.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
1.1/2 - 3 lbs of standard (top down made) thermitic material would be enough to cut through a typical beam such as there were in the towers. Jon Cole makes this point here in this video@ around 9 minutes.

But has such a technique ever been used on anything like the WTC core columns?

And I don't mean speculated about with hypothetical technology. I mean is there any existing technique (at least to the level of patents or research papers) which is applicable to the WTC core columns?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
The topic of the thread is modern applications of thermite in demolition and the possibility of their application to demolish the buildings of the WTC. Hamishi's contribution was sensible and very much on-point: he provided information on and examples of devices applicable in and intended for demolitions. The response I'm seeing from Alien is 'Well, show me a building just like those at the WTC which has been leveled using this technology, in other words give me a precedent, or clearly the thermite theory doesn't have a leg to stand on.' That's nonsensical, given the official account describes events with absolutely no precedent either.
Not at all. You've perhaps missed the irony of turning their own objections on them. They are constantly harping on that 'No steel building in history has been destroyed by fire' as a 'proof' that it couldn't happen.

I hate having to spell out the obvious, but you needed it I guess.

I agree, there is no precedent for a 110 story steelframe building hit by a jet travelling 400+ knots. Don't blame NIST for that, it's just the way reality is. Doesn't mean the buildings didn't fail due to fire alone. And without hard evidence of thermite/thermate/nanothermite, the CD stuff is just speculation, not fact.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Relevant to this thread:

a) where is the evidence that a LTC was used to demolish the WTC?
b) What residual evidence does a LTC leave, based on real-world experiments with such devices?
c) How is a large building demolished using LTC's? Can anyone cite any empirical data to support the claim that this is even possible?
d) What is the burn time of an LTC and how long would it take to cut thru a very large steel column of the size required for the WTC buildings?

Without the data, you have only the most tenuous and speculative notion.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
A google patent search for thermite+demolition (or thermate+demolition) does not return much, with the Battelle patent from the OP being the most relevant. There is also this one for demolishing concrete, but it does not look relevant to the WTC situation. I include it because an incredibly cursory look at it might make some of the more enthusiastic theorists say "look, demolition of concrete with thermite, just like in the WTC".

https://www.google.com/patents/US5532449


Obviously the complicated control apparatus makes it useless for large scale evidence-less demolition.

You got this one from a post of mine that you chose to delete from another thread Mick.
 

qed

Senior Member
RFI

Some sceptics seem to be arguing that the nano-thermite/thermite was painted onto the columns, while some seem to be arguing special devices.

Which is it? Or can it be both?
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You got this one from a post of mine that you chose to delete from another thread Mick.

I actually got it from the mentioned google search.

But do you think something like this was used to destroy some concrete? Is there evidence of its use?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
hamishsubedei was arguing that the LTC could be destroyed with a conventional charge so's not to leave evidence... don't forget to include that.

And I believe proponents of the LTC (Linear Thermite Charge) theory also suggest there was an additional conventional explosive. Some suggest that a "plug" of the column be blown out. Tony suggests that the LTC (or possibly thermite paint) would cut the splices, then opposing charges would rotate a column segment.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
TWCobra Debunked-Max Bliss implying that aluminium can be added to modern turbo-fan engine fuel. Contrails and Chemtrails 6
S Modern Man's Shrinking Brain Science and Pseudoscience 0
Hama Neggs Debunked: Chemtrails "Inserted" into Films [Footage reused in modern advertisement] Contrails and Chemtrails 19
Cairenn Claim that modern hybrid wheat is lacking in nutrition--True or bunk? Health and Quackery 29
Mick West Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Contrails and Chemtrails 19
Mick West Truth and lies: Conspiracy theories are running rampant thanks to modern technology General Discussion 3
Mick West UFO Billboard in Montana Uses Photo of Identified Flying Object UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Dan Page Claim: Mobile app uses atmospheric data to prove chemtrails vs contrails Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Steve Funk Geoengineeringwatch uses photoshopped image Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Graham2001 Aulis article uses NASA documents to cast doubt on the reality of Apollo Conspiracy Theories 26
Thomas Hughson Nestle patenting uses of Nigella sativa - Is this true? Health and Quackery 15
JRBids Weather Modification Company Uses Electromagnetic Waves to Make Rain Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Gunguy45 Debunked: Pepsi uses aborted fetus cells in their drinks Conspiracy Theories 56
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Oystein Wayne Coste's new hypothesis for WTC1+2 collapses: nano-thermite propellants! 9/11 5
Mick West TTSA Exotic Material vs. Thermite Slag UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Mick West Debunked: Thermite Slag on WTC beams [Oxy Cutting Slag] 9/11 2
Mick West Debunked: The WTC 9/11 Angle Cut Column. [Not Thermite, Cut Later] 9/11 137
JohnJones The Thermite Paint Theory 9/11 31
Mick West Nanothermite vs. Thermite/Thermate for Cutting Thick Steel 9/11 285
gerrycan Thermite Has Historically Been Used for Demolition (at least twice) 9/11 57
Mick West Debunked: Iron Microspheres in 9/11 WTC Dust as Evidence for Thermite 9/11 743
Pete Tar Thermite Destruction Theory 9/11 21
Related Articles























Related Articles

Top