Wait, does Nano Thermite burn or explode? How much explosive kick does it have?
And do you have a diagram of this setup?
The plausibility of demolishing WTC7 with explosives on 9/11
- Thread starter Cairenn
- Start date
- Status
Wait, does Nano Thermite burn or explode? How much explosive kick does it have?
And do you have a diagram of this setup?
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Nano-thermite is made to be a low explosive because of its high surface area to mass causing a high rate of reactivity.
Its explosiveness and noise level can be tailored for a specific task via manipulation of its surface area to mass ratio.
Can you imagine a two story column section having its splices eliminated and then kicked at the top and bottom in opposite directions? The moment arm is about 12 feet from both charges to the fulcrum in the middle, resulting in a total arm of 24 feet giving more than enough mechanical advantage to take out that column section with a light and low noise generating charge.
Its explosiveness and noise level can be tailored for a specific task via manipulation of its surface area to mass ratio.
Can you imagine a two story column section having its splices eliminated and then kicked at the top and bottom in opposite directions? The moment arm is about 12 feet from both charges to the fulcrum in the middle, resulting in a total arm of 24 feet giving more than enough mechanical advantage to take out that column section with a light and low noise generating charge.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Tomorrow. It is midnight here in New Jersey and I have work during the day.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
An odd remark to make. The many comments - even from Mick - were examining 'silent' explosives. That vid and earlier threads covered that well. Massive explosions heard and reported. So I simply asked why this was being re-visited.
Take your own advice and at least read this thread.
Last edited by a moderator:
You have seen this in the video. It burns and it explodes. i.e. it will cut through and also provide a kick.
At about 8.30 you see the cutting.
After 11.00 you see the explosive 'kick'.
Even if it only burned, (which it doesn't), a small explosive charge could be added on a few main columns to provide a 'kick' and I am sure the resultant collapse would provide enough of a gravitational kick, to do the rest ... as with the unsecured Jenga models below.
But imagine if the Jenga blocks were super glued together or had braces attaching them to each other. They would not fall so easily then would they.
So that is the purpose of the thermite, to sever the connections so the structure becomes unstable and will collapse.
Last edited:
Hitstirrer
Active Member
As has been explained already, the backyard experiments by Jon Cole used thermite. That can be made by anyone in their garage and whilst it is impressive in itself we are led to believe that it is feeble compared to nanothermite. Various reports indicate that as nanothermite is manufactured by building up from molecular level, rather than grinding down into powder, it can be tailored to either burn faster than ordinary thermite or explode. As to the level of kick it can be made to produce it seems that its something of a 'secret' as no data is online to reveal that. Wiki makes an interesting comment on that though. Here :-
" Because of their highly increased reaction rate, nanosized thermitic materials are being studied by the U.S. military with the aim of developing new types of bombs several times more powerful than conventional explosives"
If that is accurate then that would answer your question about 'how much explosive kick does it have'.
I was responding to your question "why is it assumed that no large explosions were heard?" You should be more polite in your posts.
Hitstirrer
Active Member
[quote="Landru, post: 73087, member: 1022" You should be more polite in your posts.][/quote]
I find your style of input abrasive. For weeks you have sniped at me. Easily resolved. You are on ignore from here on.
I find your style of input abrasive. For weeks you have sniped at me. Easily resolved. You are on ignore from here on.
Grieves
Senior Member
Hardcore flip-flop. Previously you ridiculed that -exact- comment for my use of 'rough vicinity', and how that term isn't nearly specific enough.
Now you're saying that 'rough vicinity' is too specific a term for me to later claim we don't know where and how the collapse initiated?
Vango
New Member
I think the real question is, "How did building 7 come down at free fall speeds". To me there is only one logical answer, controlled demolition. There are only two other questions worth asking.
1. Would controlled demolition give the observed results?
2. Are there ANY other ways the building could have come down by it's self?
The answer to question 1, to my understanding, is that YES, controlled demolition would have given the observed results.
The answer to question 2, to my understanding, is that NO, there is no other explanation of how building 7 could have come down by it's self.
Am I missing something here?
There is an explanation for #2 (fire, internal progressive collapse), however that's not the topic of this thread. You can take it up elsewhere, maybe browse the forums for an appropriate thread).
I take it you recall the Mythbusters fiasco now?
Can you provide a cross sectional view of the 5" you are talking about and clarify the other dimensions... i.e. 5" x ?
Vango
New Member
I beg to differ. This thread is about the plausibility of controlled demolition bringing down building 7. Part of the answer to the question is, are there ANY other reasonable alternatives to controlled demolition?(Occam's razor).
In examining the "Plausibility of demolishing WT7 with explosives" one MUST ask, are there ANY alternatives. Since fire is the ONLY other unusual activity on the day of collapse, asking if fire is a reasonable alternative is a completely reasonable question. The answer to the post is NOT an expose on HOW explosives were planted, but a matter of whether there is a reasonable alternative to explosives bringing down building 7. Any other discussions are a waste of time. Controlled demolition, in the absence of any other theory, is the ONLY rational answer.
But it's not the only other theory. It's just the one we are discussing in the thread. The other theories (For example, NIST's) are discussing in detail elsewhere.
Please do not bring this up again. You are disrupting the discussion.
Mythbusters never addressed any 9/11 myths, not deliberately anyway.
They do lots of fun things with thermite, but those are related to other myths, or in some cases just for fun. They were all perfectly valid experiments with ordinary thermite.
Is this a common misconception? Maybe there should be a thread debunking it.
I am 99.9% certain, that video has been cited a number of times on this forum to debunk thermite cutting steel. I'll have a look and find some links unless you can do it easier with the admin tools?
Can you provide a cross sectional view to clarify the 5" steel?
Last edited:
Maybe it would be a good time to remind yourself what an engineer can do with just ordinary thermitic material. This experiment DOES address a 911 myth which was perpetuated by those clever guys at popular mechanics (who are mostly degreed in non-engineering disciplines) namely, that thermitic material cannot do fairly precise damage to structural steel.
It's certainly been cited at least elsewhere, if not here. It's been brought up here by people in the Truther faction. But how does that make it a "fiasco"?
Where did they say that? Can you quote them?
The PM book (which I didn't actually buy) on page 58, quotes Alan Pense saying that he doesn't “know of anyone else who thinks thermite reactions on steel columns could have done that.”
PM actually does state however, that thermitic material can do precise damage to steel in very much earlier issues.
PM actually does state however, that thermitic material can do precise damage to steel in very much earlier issues.
ColtCabana
Senior Member
Kevin Ryan never worked for Popular Mechanics...
Ha ha, it was actually John Cole who did the experiment. He never worked for them either. I see a pattern emerging.
But in the context he was discussing he was correct. Simple thermite is not used for demolition. There's are a couple of obscure historical examples. But we use explosives nowadays.
Nope. If you look at Popular Mechanics, they cite the demolition of the skyride tower in the 1930s by use of thermitic material, which by virtue of the date involved was probably simple thermate (rather than thermite) just to be accurate. As for using explosives nowadays, I agree. National Livermore Labs called nano thermitic material 'the explosive of the future'. Looks like thermate is not just historically valued in demolitions, but also quoted as being relevant to future applications. (the llnl article is from autumn 1998 I believe.
Grieves
Senior Member
He didn't say he doesn't know anyone who would have done it that way, he says he doesn't know anyone who thinks it -could- be done that way.
Vango
New Member
I suspect there are many block-ops that could pull off a building demolition using state of the art, and highly classified materials. Asking WHO did it is OFF TOPIC from the plausibility of it being done with explosives.
He probably didn't know anyone who thought that.
Josh Heuer
Active Member
We can dilly dally all day about what some guy thought about people he knows knowing things, but it's nonsense in the end.
Mick, would you say WTC7 at least could be brought down using thermite? I mean, hypothetically, if it was decided that the building needed to be demolished, and it wasn't a big secret, they were legitamately doing a controlled demolition. Is it plausible to take it down using thermite?
The point I'm getting at is that initially in the debunking world I saw a huge denial that thermite could even do the job, let alone some undercover work planting it without people noticing.
Last edited:
I'm sure there's some way you could rig the building with thermitic material so it would collapse.
Regular thermite packed around the columns would require rather a lot.
More focussed devices, like the "thermitic box cutters", could conceivably do it, although it's hard to see how you'd rig it.
You could bring it down with a bunch of robotic thermal lances. That does not mean it's practical.
Brainiachick
Active Member
And the premise for your reasoning is?
Asking 'who' could have the capability and/or motive is as important and relevant in this plausibility debate as asking if an Eskimo could possibly have the capability or necessity to build an igloo. Saying this is off topic [I note your passion in shouting it out in your capitalisation] is like undertaking a murder investigation and refusing to include possible suspects, motives and murder weapon. To examine the murder weapon alone without examining who could have done it or if it is even humanly possible will never be acceptable in the real world. Murder weapons do not commit murders, people do. Likewise, if this was done with explosives, fire or any other means, people were responsible for it and asking the 'who could' question goes to the heart of the matter of plausibility - if it is not possible, then it is not possible. If it is possible, who could have such a capability? In my humble opinion her question is valid and it is not off topic.
I am sorry I completely disagree with you and I surely do not understand what premise if any your reasoning supposes to rely upon, but I am open to hear it if you care to share.
The who and why have been discussed on other threads. It comes under the geopolitical headings and involves PNAC Pearl Harbour events and campaigns for American domination, (this is no conspiracy theory but a conspiracy fact). Also involved are Bush's Crusade as related by the ex French president as well as, but not least, massive financial considerations.
These issues are definitely off topic and indeed counter to Metabunk policy of 'zoning in' on specific topics.
Brainiachick
Active Member
Thanks for pointing out that the 'who could' has been discussed in a previous thread. To turn around and say it is off topic is clearly contradictory to your first paragraph that confirms their relevance and previous discussions. How plausible would it be to have successfully rigged that massive building with explosives completely undetected and blow the thing up, and who could have such capabilities or motives are relevant and interconnected. The question of who would have such capability is therefore a relevant point.
However, I will agree with you that continuing to argue on this particular relevant point may be tantamount to 'zoning in'; I will therefore ignore all subsequent 'zoning in' denials of the relevancy of this particular question.
Last edited:
You may find the following thread of interest and may even wish to contribute to it.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/9-11-pnac-motive-and-opportunity-as-evidence-of-an-inside-job.1082/
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, attached is a diagram of what I am suggesting could easily remove a column section after the splices for the two-story tall section are destroyed via thermal means. The force needed to be overcome is then only the frictional force due to the compressive load between column sections. This is a function of the normal force and the coefficient of friction. The coefficient of friction between steel parts is generally around 0.2. So if the load on the column is 4 million lbs. then a force of 800,000 lbs. needs to be overcome to push the column sideways at the interface. This is easily achieved with a low explosive. C-4 generates about 3 million psi and here an explosive pressure of just 10,000 psi applied to an area of 10" x 8" could do the job. There would be an enormous difference in sound level between a low explosive such as a nano-energetic material generating 10,000 psi and a high explosive like C-4 generating 3 million psi.
The concrete around the column will easily break up with 10,000 psi pressures applied to it.
Of course, I would imagine overkill would be used for reliability and would necessitate a larger area of charge on the column, but that would still generate much lower sound levels than that of C-4 used to cut the column.
Just so you can see that nano-energetics are capable of generating high gas pressures see http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jap/112/9/10.1063/1.4764319 and http://www.nsti.org/procs/Nanotech2011v1/3/W7.357
The above is very likely what was employed in the North Tower as it initiated on the 98th floor where there was a splice on all core columns and why the first floors to go afterward where 99 through 101 where the next up splice occurred. The columns were in three-story sections in the Twin Towers and two-story sections in WTC 7. The two-story sections in WTC 7 correlates with the even number of free fall stories of eight. I also added a file showing what you would see done on four two-story sections of all core columns with the perimeter then pulled inward by the falling core.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks Tony.
My first thought is that would result in lots of windows (if not all the windows) blowing out. You've got expanding gas powerful enough to move a partially restrained multi-ton column. That's going to create a blast wave which will blow out windows.
My first thought is that would result in lots of windows (if not all the windows) blowing out. You've got expanding gas powerful enough to move a partially restrained multi-ton column. That's going to create a blast wave which will blow out windows.
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Mick, they did blow out when the building started to fall, but you might say that was due to the exterior coming down.
What you also have to remember is that this would have been done somewhat low in the building which is not seen in videos. Additionally, the core columns were 50 to 60 feet from the windows and shock waves from explosives degrade exponentially. I seriously doubt that low explosives on the core columns would break a lot of windows.
Another interesting point showing the core came down a split second before the exterior, is when concrete dust was visible. If the interior had come down in the progressive collapse from north to south on the east side and then east to west, as described by the NIST, then we would have seen a lot of broken windows and concrete dust before the exterior came down. However, we don't see concrete dust coming out of windows until the exterior starts to fall.
Last edited:
Doesn't seem like a big blast blowing out windows though, seems like the frame bucking, and the windows just falling out.
Sounds like another topic, for another thread.
Forgive my slowness here, but this explosion with a force of 10,000 psi needed to overcome the friction. How long does that force need to be applied for? Wouldn't the ends of the columns need to be clear of each other before the explosion ends?
And isn't there a lot more than simple friction if you are rotating the columns? The ends will become wedged against each other, requiring vastly more force to move.
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti
Active Member
Don't forget there is still several million lbs. of vertical load on each column. So I don't think the column sections even need to be blown clear of each other. When the column becomes eccentric, due to sections being pushed out of place, it will buckle.
- Status
Similar threads
