Nanothermite vs. Thermite/Thermate for Cutting Thick Steel

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes. I'm sorry about my use of the word 'powerful'. The usual interpretation of that word implies that more 'work' is being done. In this case its more about how fast that same 'work' is done. But as I said, if its accepted that the basic form of thermite is capable of melting steel, then its illogical to debate whether a more reactive version can do that same thing..

But if it reacts faster, then it just become an explosive, not an incendiary.

If something is DIFFERENT, then it's perfectly logical to ask how this difference will affect it's properties.

Consider bullets. A bullet from a .50 sniper rifle from is a lot faster and more powerful than a 9mm, vastly so, vastly more energy and destructive power. And yet for a specific job (shooting people underwater), the 9mm works a lot better
The .50 bullet just shatters.

So, something that is just "more" something does not mean it is better for a particular task.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
But if it reacts faster, then it just become an explosive, not an incendiary.

If something is DIFFERENT, then it's perfectly logical to ask how this difference will affect it's properties.

Consider bullets. A bullet from a .50 sniper rifle from is a lot faster and more powerful than a 9mm, vastly so, vastly more energy and destructive power. And yet for a specific job (shooting people underwater), the 9mm works a lot better
The .50 bullet just shatters.

So, something that is just "more" something does not mean it is better for a particular task.

Being faster does not make it explosive unless it was designed to be. If I was less charitable I would have to accuse you of being disingenous because this has been discussed many times in the myriad of threads that you insist on running. One effect of that policy is that some readers may not have read the other threads where it has been explained that the government's interest in nanothermite is because it can be manufactured to be either a very efficient incendiary, or a propellant, or an explosive. The first paragraph in it's wiki entry says that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

So to ask how its difference will affect it's properties would need to be prefaced with an explanation about the particular different 'recipe' that you are enquiring about. Nanothermite can be manufactured to make 'more' mean 'better' at a particular task. It can also be manufactured to make 'more' mean 'useless' at that task, but excellent at a different task.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Would you expect that the millions spent by Livermore Labs in development would be because it would be worse than ordinary thermite ?

Worse at what? A .50 is worse than a 9mm for many tasks, but it's a lot more expensive.

Were they trying to make it cut thick steel better? Was that the goal?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Were they trying to make it cut thick steel better? Was that the goal?

You started this thread by asking that question -- Its as if you believed that cutting thick steel is the only use for nanothermite. As if nanothermite has to duplicate RDX cutting charges. Not so. As has been explained many times now, ( again the myriad of threads hides such info ) a loaded column does not need to be cut by a shaped charge to be made to fail. If a section can be softened rapidly and then thrown aside by a much smaller concussive charge the effect is the same.

If that is so, then it makes this thread redundant because 'cutting thick steel' would not be the aim, and as such, comparing standard thermite v nano's performance at that task is also irelevent.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You started this thread by asking that question -- Its as if you believed that cutting thick steel is the only use for nanothermite. As if nanothermite has to duplicate RDX cutting charges. Not so. As has been explained many times now, ( again the myriad of threads hides such info ) a loaded column does not need to be cut by a shaped charge to be made to fail. If a section can be softened rapidly and then thrown aside by a much smaller concussive charge the effect is the same.

If that is so, then it makes this thread redundant because 'cutting thick steel' would not be the aim, and as such, comparing standard thermite v nano's performance at that task is also irelevent.

"softened rapidly"? Can you elaborate on that, because it sounds highly implausible.
 

Vec

New Member
If a section can be softened rapidly and then thrown aside by a much smaller concussive charge the effect is the same.

Is there any evidence that this has ever happened or is even possible in building demolition?
 

Alienentity

Active Member
I'm also sure that if Jon Cole could get hold of a large quantity of nanothermite we would soon see a new YouTube showing a suitable home made device cutting large sections of steel. Don't forget that one logical reason to use thermite in demolition would be to reduce the concussive noise. If, for some reason, that was a major consideration then a combination of severe weakening of steel followed by a tiny charge to throw the weakened area aside would have some merit.

Don't be so sure. That's what empirical evidence and experimentation is for. Cole has not demonstrated a demolition-worthy experiment cutting right through a cross-section of 3 inch thick structural steel akin to that found in the WTC towers. This would give a much better idea of the amount of thermite required, if it were successful. But of course this experiment has not been done.

I remind all of you that nanothermite, if it were in the presence of heat exceeding a few hundred degrees C, would cook off, rendering any possibility of 'timed' demolition virtually impossible. You can't have it both ways, yet this is what you're trying to do. This is fantasy, not grounded in reality.

No controlled demolition of a steel high rise has ever been attempted with thermite or thermate. That much we know as fact. No evidence exists to show that nanothermite has been used in controlled demolition. This also is pure speculation.

Maybe we should start a new thread along the lines of 'Neither thermite, thermate or nanothermite has ever been used to demolish a high rise building'.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Don't be so sure. That's what empirical evidence and experimentation is for. Cole has not demonstrated a demolition-worthy experiment cutting right through a cross-section of 3 inch thick structural steel akin to that found in the WTC towers. This would give a much better idea of the amount of thermite required, if it were successful. But of course this experiment has not been done.

And it should not be vastly expensive to do either. You can get a 3" thick piece of steel for $239, if you can't find anything at the scrap yard.
http://www.metalsdepot.com/products/hrsteel2.phtml?page=plate


Seems like it would be an ideal experiment for AE911 to fund.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Being faster does not make it explosive unless it was designed to be. If I was less charitable I would have to accuse you of being disingenous because this has been discussed many times in the myriad of threads that you insist on running. One effect of that policy is that some readers may not have read the other threads where it has been explained that the government's interest in nanothermite is because it can be manufactured to be either a very efficient incendiary, or a propellant, or an explosive. The first paragraph in it's wiki entry says that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

So to ask how its difference will affect it's properties would need to be prefaced with an explanation about the particular different 'recipe' that you are enquiring about. Nanothermite can be manufactured to make 'more' mean 'better' at a particular task. It can also be manufactured to make 'more' mean 'useless' at that task, but excellent at a different task.
And yet we have zero evidence that nanothermite is effective for cutting thick steel if poured on top of it, for example. So round and round we go.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Maybe we should start a new thread along the lines of 'Neither thermite, thermate or nanothermite has ever been used to demolish a high rise building'.

Interesting concept. In 1945 an Atomic device had never been used to destroy a City before - ergo - Hiroshima must have been caused by a big gunpowder bomb.

But of course you just need to engage your critical thinking skills for a second or two and the whole idea of trying to make capital of a strawman argument based on something never happening before, meaning that it would never happen, becomes a bit clearer.

Why would a client seeking to employ a demolition company wish to pay a premium and accept being the first to use an experimental technique ? On the other hand, if a client insisted on there being no large explosion sounds and that most of the concrete must be pulverised into talcum sized particles and spread over 20 square miles of New York then alternatives to RDX would be considered.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting concept. In 1945 an Atomic device had never been used to destroy a City before - ergo - Hiroshima must have been caused by a big gunpowder bomb.

But of course you just need to engage your critical thinking skills for a second or two and the whole idea of trying to make capital of a strawman argument based on something never happening before, meaning that it would never happen, becomes a bit clearer.

Brilliant! You must tell Tony and Gerry about this.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
And yet we have zero evidence that nanothermite is effective for cutting thick steel if poured on top of it, for example. So round and round we go.

As long as you keep imagining things like 'poured on top of it' - then yes - we will keep going round and round. What makes you think that a device would be invented that entails 'pouring it on top' ?

You take the art of strawman building to new levels.
 

Vec

New Member
As long as you keep imagining things like 'poured on top of it' - then yes - we will keep going round and round. What makes you think that a device would be invented that entails 'pouring it on top' ?

You take the art of strawman building to new levels.

Pretty sure he's referring to the "red and grey chips" that seemingly would have had to been painted onto something (like a steel column or girder). Unless we're disregarding those as evidence for the claim that thermite was used.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As long as you keep imagining things like 'poured on top of it' - then yes - we will keep going round and round. What makes you think that a device would be invented that entails 'pouring it on top' ?

So what device do you envisage? And why can't we see a demonstration?
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Pretty sure he's referring to the "red and grey chips" that seemingly would have had to been painted onto something (like a steel column or girder). Unless we're disregarding those as evidence for the claim that thermite was used.

Again, you are inventing a method. You even say it yourself by the use of the word 'seemingly'. I understand that there is a huge investment in debunk circles to dismiss them as paint chips, but that doesnt entitle you to imagine that they were in fact painted onto steel.
 

Hitstirrer

Active Member
Is there any evidence that this has ever happened or is even possible in building demolition?

Can you not imagine that experiment ? Is it essential for you to be actually shown a heavily loaded vertical column with an area in its centre heated to cherryred and then a small explosive charge placed nearby causing that severely weakened area to be thrown to one side and the load cause the column to bend.

Of course there is no evidence of it being used - mainly because it hasn't been used in that way. But if you can't even envisage that being possible without watching a YouTube then I suspect that you would also challenge that video evidence as well.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Interesting concept. In 1945 an Atomic device had never been used to destroy a City before - ergo - Hiroshima must have been caused by a big gunpowder bomb.

But of course you just need to engage your critical thinking skills for a second or two and the whole idea of trying to make capital of a strawman argument based on something never happening before, meaning that it would never happen, becomes a bit clearer.

Why would a client seeking to employ a demolition company wish to pay a premium and accept being the first to use an experimental technique ? On the other hand, if a client insisted on there being no large explosion sounds and that most of the concrete must be pulverised into talcum sized particles and spread over 20 square miles of New York then alternatives to RDX would be considered.
Ah yes, grasshopper. You are learning! So ironic isn't it, since 9/11 truthers insist that steel buildings never collapse from fire, ergo - controlled demolition! hehe

But with Hiroshima, it was the culmination of decades of work by hundreds of the world's top physicists, including Einstein, Bohr and other luminaries. The work required large-scale collaboration across countries. It is all well-documented.
And, it was successful!

However, with the thermite/thermate/nanothermite hypothesis, no such trail of development is observed. No successful tests have been carried out to support the claim that the WTC towers were demolished by such means.

Worse, there is NO scientifically accepted and studied theory which exists, very much unlike the subject of nuclear fission and fusion. And that is precisely the distinction which needs to be made. Notice I didn't suggest that because something HASN'T happened it CANNOT happen. That's not my position - that's the truther position.

The nuclear fission theory HAS been proven true. The thermite theory has NOT been proven true. You have helped to demonstrate the massive flaw in the claims of AE911Truth and its followers.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can you not imagine that experiment ? Is it essential for you to be actually shown a heavily loaded vertical column with an area in its centre heated to cherryred and then a small explosive charge placed nearby causing that severely weakened area to be thrown to one side and the load cause the column to bend.

That seems like an utterly unworkable way of bending a column, and not one that the properties of nanothermite would be at all helpful for.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Can you not imagine that experiment ? Is it essential for you to be actually shown a heavily loaded vertical column with an area in its centre heated to cherryred and then a small explosive charge placed nearby causing that severely weakened area to be thrown to one side and the load cause the column to bend.

Of course there is no evidence of it being used - mainly because it hasn't been used in that way. But if you can't even envisage that being possible without watching a YouTube then I suspect that you would also challenge that video evidence as well.
Ah yes, there's no evidence, just imagination. We're supposed to take your word for it.

No thanks. We need hard data, like a successful nuclear test, which can be replicated. That's how science works.

Just because you can imagine something does not make it real. Very important distinction.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Besides, how is thermate or thermite supposed to throw a steel beam 600 ft? That's what Richard Gage says is part of the 'proof'. So where is the experimental data to support this claim?
I'm sure you guys have the data, you wouldn't claim something as a fact if it wasn't, would you? Heavens!!! XD
 

Vec

New Member
Again, you are inventing a method.

What is this if not inventing a method:

If a section can be softened rapidly and then thrown aside by a much smaller concussive charge the effect is the same.

Can you not imagine that experiment ? snip

Sure. I can imagine a lot of things. But the point would be to demonstrate A) what exactly it would take to make that happen and B) would give some good indication of what evidence it might leave behind. Say, on video or audio, so we might be able to look for such evidence in the very many videos we have. As it stands, we have nothing but a claim that it is possible, with no corroborating evidence or way to investigate that claim. Are we at the point now that we should investigate any claim that someone might come up with? Every scenario that might be possible? That might stretch into infinity. Or should we use reason to set aside scenarios that are far outside of the realm of plausibility?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Some handy reference on cutting 3" (and over) thick steel. Gives a useful perspective on just how much metal is actually there.

Cutting a very thick block.

Rather slower cutting with water:
 
Last edited:

Hitstirrer

Active Member
So what device do you envisage? And why can't we see a demonstration?

The way that I approach such conundrums is to consider what I would do if tasked with a difficult and novel project. I never try to second guess what others may do to complete that task. There are always many ways of 'killing a cat' as they say, and the only thing that matters is whether it works or not.
As such, any solution of mine is bound to be nothing like another persons. This means that me envisaging a device and demonstrating it to you would be a pointless exercise. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't do that. Experimentation using real components would be the way forward before any conclusion on what may work, and what wouldn't, could be discovered.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Back to science.

This video illustrates some of the problems with using a linear thermite charge to cut steel:


There are three stages to cutting thick steel with oxyfuel:
  1. Preheating - to heat the metal in the general vicinity
  2. Piercing - to push the flame all the way through
  3. Cutting - to move sideways, extending the cut.
A linear charge removed the need for #3, as it does it all in step #2, piercing, so the speed of cutting in step #3 is irrelevant.

In the video, it takes approximately 13 seconds for step #2 to pierce 4" of steel. So let's say 10 seconds for 3", (there's another ten seconds of pre-heating, but might just be needed for a cleaner cut, it's unclear). This is done with an oxy-fuel torch, probably oxy-acetylene.

However, "piercing" with oxyfuel is very different to piercing with thermite. Termite simply melts though the steel by heating it up. Oxyfuel burns through the steel with a pressurized jet of pure oxygen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxy-fuel_welding_and_cutting
Thermite simply raises the temperature:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Given the 10-20 seconds needed to cut with oxyfuel, might we be able to get some round numbers for the type and size of linear thermite charge needed?
 

Vec

New Member
B
Given the 10-20 seconds needed to cut with oxyfuel, might we be able to get some round numbers for the type and size of linear thermite charge needed?

It might also be good to consider that cutting through an "I" beam requires multiple angles of detonation in order for success. As seen in this video here

 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
Fire was only needed to weaken the steel to a certain degree to cause collapse. Would thermite/thermate/explosives necessarily have to go all the way through? Or just cause enough damage to induce buckling?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just curious. If fire can cause damage to steel which induces buckling, then I imagine thermite could cause that same amount of damage without melting all the way through the steel, only a small portion.

Fire does it by producing lots of heat over a large area for many minutes.
Like this:

How would thermite do it if it burns off in a few seconds?
 
The idea with thermite cutting devices is to direct the hot gases generated by the heat from the reaction to a single direction.
Perhaps as nano thermite contains sol gel it creates more gases and is a faster reaction meaning a more powerful and controllable and therefore efficient way of cutting steel .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The idea with thermite cutting devices is to direct the hot gases generated by the heat from the reaction to a single direction.
Perhaps as nano thermite contains sol gel it creates more gases and is a faster reaction meaning a more powerful and controllable and therefore efficient way of cutting steel .

Perhaps since it contains sol gel it has less energy, and so can melt less metal?

Perhaps isn't going to cut it. Science and numbers please.
 

Bruno D.

Senior Member.
Is it essential for you to be actually shown a heavily loaded vertical column with an area in its centre heated to cherryred and then a small explosive charge placed nearby causing that severely weakened area to be thrown to one side and the load cause the column to bend.

Besides, how is thermate or thermite supposed to throw a steel beam 600 ft? That's what Richard Gage says is part of the 'proof'. So where is the experimental data to support this claim?

Good question, and no answer so far. Thermite + small explosion or kick ass big explosion? You can't have both.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
But thats the very point that has been made many times already.

You can.

Nanothermite can be made to be either an incendiary or a propellant or an explosive dependant upon the formulation. Check the wiki entry :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite

So you think nano-thermite threw beams 600 ft? You should do some math on that one :)
But see this thread:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/debunked-wtc-multi-ton-steel-sections-ejected-laterally.1739/

This thread is about if it could cut thick steel any better than regular thermite. And how much, if so.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
According to my understanding of someone else's understanding which I posted earlier, the explosive potential of nanothermite is nothing to compared to actual explosives. It ' explodes' in the sense it goes 'whoomph' really fast, but that's it.
 

Related Articles

Top