Thermite Destruction Theory

[Pete Tar]

The main integrity of 1 and 2 was in the cores which hosed the lifts and obviously lift shafts. Once you remove a ceiling panel you can get at all the exposed structural beams and columns. Extensive lift renovations were done 10 months before 9/11. See around 11.00.

So the building was deliberately weakened, so when the planes would hit they could initiate a collapse? But not explosives?
What rules out the planes causing the collapse without premeditated weakening of the structure?

 

[Oxymoron]

Can you explain why the Verizon building just to the left and the post office just to the right of building 7 didn't seem to suffer much damage? Aren't they also in the immediate area? Did the explosive charges fail to detonate in those two building? Have they spent the last 12 years secretly removing nanothermite from their support columns?

View attachment 3143

Maybe because they weren't thermited to bits, 7 looked like that as well right up to before it 'fell' from 'a few office fires'.

Strange how these other buildings next to it which also got hit by falling debris, didn't catch fire and collapse as well. 7 looked virtually untouched from the main elevation even as it fell really. Certainly no worse than these other two which you cite.

 

[Mick West]

Maybe because they weren't thermited to bits, 7 looked like that as well before it fell from 'a few office fires'. Strange how these other buildings next to it which also got hit by falling debris, didn't catch fire and collapse as well. 7 looked untouched from the main elevation even as it fell really. Certainly no worse than these two.

It looks untouched because that's the view from the North. It's also a deliberately deceptive clip as it does not show the Penthouse collapse, and the internal collapse that preceded the exterior buckling.

But this is the Chomsky thread. There's an amusing new WTC7 thread over here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1727-Debunked-AE911Truth-s-WTC7-Explosive-Demolition-Hypothesis

And see also:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/17...descent-proves-giant-hole-not-explosives-used!

 

[Oxymoron]

So the building was deliberately weakened, so when the planes would hit they could initiate a collapse? But not explosives?
What rules out the planes causing the collapse without premeditated weakening of the structure?

No, the theory I put forward is that they were primed with thermite and a remote detonator. After the planes hit and they burned for a while, then the thermite was set off which cut the main support structures, allowing the towers to fall. 7 should have gone at the same time but it went wrong and was detonated later in the day.

 

[Oxymoron]

It looks untouched because that's the view from the North. It's also a deliberately deceptive clip as it does not show the Penthouse collapse, and the internal collapse that preceded the exterior buckling.

But this is the Chomsky thread. There's an amusing new WTC7 thread over here:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1727-Debunked-AE911Truth-s-WTC7-Explosive-Demolition-Hypothesis

And see also:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/17...descent-proves-giant-hole-not-explosives-used!

Yep sorry, I was only responding to a question though

 

[Landru]

No, the theory I put forward is that they were primed with thermite and a remote detonator. After the planes hit and they burned for a while, then the thermite was set off which cut the main support structures, allowing the towers to fall. 7 should have gone at the same time but it went wrong and was detonated later in the day.

Do you have any evidence for this?

 

[Landru]

The main integrity of 1 and 2 was in the cores which housed the lifts and obviously lift shafts. Once you remove a ceiling panel you can get at all the exposed structural beams and columns. Extensive lift renovations were done 10 months before 9/11. See around 11.00.

You are saying you remove a ceiling panel and you can access all this:



Any proof.

 

[Cairenn]

Where the other buildings built with the same type of construction as WTC 7? Were there fires burning uncontrolled in them?

There was lots of obvious damage to WTC7 in addition to the fires. Why are you ignoring that? Of course the side away from the WTC centers showed less damage.

 

[Pete Tar]

No, the theory I put forward is that they were primed with thermite and a remote detonator. After the planes hit and they burned for a while, then the thermite was set off which cut the main support structures, allowing the towers to fall. 7 should have gone at the same time but it went wrong and was detonated later in the day.

So it would have to be known in advance where the planes would hit, for there to be thermite to detonate where the collapse initiated from.
So the floors the planes hit weren't due to random chance, it was a pre-determined very exact hit?

 

[Cairenn]

So another plane was to hit WTC7?

I see a more and more complex and thus unreasonable theory being advanced. Sort of like the complications that Ptolemy used to explain the Sun and planets revolving around the Earth.

 

[Pete Tar]

I'm curious as to how you decide on your theory. Do you keep adding details as criticisms arise - 'well it must have been like this then' - or do you have the theory fully formed? Do you take each step to its full logical conclusion or is vague good enough? eg, If the whole shaft the length of the building was rigged, how much explosive material would have had to be installed, how much would it weigh, what was the detonator and how was it triggered? etc.

How much does your theory rely on circumstantial motives of possible players and how much on pure physics?
I would suggest that any suspicions of motives of who stood to gain and so on are irrelevant to examining the physical event itself and should not form any part of the evidence, or a first cause of suspicion, only analysis of the event itself should do that. Motives can of course provide background context, but it's still useless as evidence.

So what have you determined about the trade center collapses is impossible to explain by plane impacts?
And to check we have one point on which to start, do you agree that the collapse starts at the point of impact, and then proceeds down? It is observable on the video.

 

[Oxymoron]

It looks untouched because that's the view from the North.

Yes indeed it is and is that not the most prolific view which everyone is shown. There are only a very few pics of the South side and the extent of the damage is unclear from those. NIST state the reason for the collapse was fire. We know the fires were normal office fires and were short lived as they quickly ran out of fuel source. The steel was well insulated/fire protected.

It's also a deliberately deceptive clip as it does not show the Penthouse collapse,

The penthouse collapse makes no difference to the building collapse which is shown. The penthouse disappeared a few seconds before total collapse ensued so what is the point you are trying to make here.

If you want to talk 'deceptive', I suggest Trigger's pic is far more deceptive as it shows two building virtually intact and a pile of rubble in between them and asks

"Can you explain why the Verizon building just to the left and the post office just to the right of building 7 didn't seem to suffer much damage? Aren't they also in the immediate area? Did the explosive charges fail to detonate in those two building? Have they spent the last 12 years secretly removing nanothermite from their support columns?"



I can only conclude the inference to be that 7 was seriously damaged by falling debris and therefore collapsed whilst the Verizon and Post Office wasn't and therefore didn't collapse.

Had that picture been taken a bit earlier you would have seen three buildings with similar damage levels and only one of which collapsed. Now this is interesting because although all three were hit by similar levels of debris, only 7 caught fire, even though the fires were not observed
until much later.

Much damage, no fire, no collapse.

and the internal collapse that preceded the exterior buckling.

Do you have any pictures or video of that?

 

[Oxymoron]

You are saying you remove a ceiling panel and you can access all this:



Any proof.

From about 2.55 on you can see inside the crawlspace. This gives access to all the beams, trusses and columns on each floor. It is how they inspect it. Similarly, go up through the roof panel of a lift and you can access many structural elements of the building.

​

This is the refurbishment of the 85th floor SFRM. Because it is stripped out for this, it shows clearly the extent of access achievable once in the crawlspace area, which is very large for a 'crawlspace'.
​

 

[Oxymoron]

So it would have to be known in advance where the planes would hit, for there to be thermite to detonate where the collapse initiated from.
So the floors the planes hit weren't due to random chance, it was a pre-determined very exact hit?

Not if there was thermite placed on each or most floors. Obviously the impact area would be the weakest part of the structure due to the impact and explosion.

Note how he can just blow bolts with small amounts of thermite. (near end)

​

 

[BombDr]

No, the theory I put forward is that they were primed with thermite and a remote detonator. After the planes hit and they burned for a while, then the thermite was set off which cut the main support structures, allowing the towers to fall. 7 should have gone at the same time but it went wrong and was detonated later in the day.

Do you agree that Towers 1&2 failed at the point of impact? If so, what was the 'Thermite' needed for?

 

[BombDr]

Not if there was thermite placed on each or most floors. Obviously the impact area would be the weakest part of the structure due to the impact and explosion.

Note how he can just blow bolts with small amounts of thermite. (near end)

​

Yes, Iv seen that video. Good example used on a single joint in which neither concealment nor initiation are an issue. Now, how does one replicated that hundreds of times, with how much 'thermite', and how do you initiate it?

Also, bonus question: If its that easy, why do demolition crews waste their time with silly explosives, when this wonder material is available?

 

[Oxymoron]

Yes, Iv seen that video. Good example used on a single joint in which neither concealment nor initiation are an issue. Now, how does one replicated that hundreds of times, with how much 'thermite', and how do you initiate it?

Also, bonus question: If its that easy, why do demolition crews waste their time with silly explosives, when this wonder material is available?

Well it obviously is that easy because a guy in his back garden manufactured it and did it with a bit of experimentation and a short learning curve.

No doubt you could also do it.

I have already explained above how easy it is to access all the beams etc from the crawlspaces on each floor accessed via ceiling tiles so that covers concealment does it not.

Do you recall the bit at the end where he blows the bolts off using very small amounts of thermite.

I expect you are well acquainted with shaped charges and 'beehive charges'.

There are thousands of different types of charge as you must well know.

Explosives/cutters are merely the catalyst, gravity is the key force at work once the key supports are taken out.

I think you would not treat even a 1/4 lb of explosive with disrespect because you know the devastation it can cause.

​

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.co...e-world-trade-center-shape-charges-were-used/

Here’s what demolition experts use in steel framed buildings, the linear shaped charge … It generates around 3,000,000 psi pressure … at a speed in excess of 27,000 feet per second … There are over 1000 different types of explosive … With the use of delays we can control … where the debris lands … vibration … noise level. WMV video download (680kB)

The job of a shaped charge is to cut steel H-beams. “The way we do this is by cutting the beam at an angle which through a series of beams cut at the same angle will tend to make the building shift over and ‘walk’” WMV video download (670kB)

Content from external source

Also, bonus question: If its that easy, why do demolition crews waste their time with silly explosives, when a few office fires would do?

​

 

[Oxymoron]

Do you agree that Towers 1&2 failed at the point of impact? If so, what was the 'Thermite' needed for?

Actually, it can be seen very clearly that the initial collapse was above the point of impact and above the seat of the fiercest visible fire. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5qipBVaM08

 

[BombDr]

Well it obviously is that easy because a guy in his back garden manufactured it and did it with a bit of experimentation and a short learning curve.

No doubt you could also do it.

I have already explained above how easy it is to access all the beams etc from the crawlspaces on each floor accessed via ceiling tiles so that covers concealment does it not.

Do you recall the bit at the end where he blows the bolts off using very small amounts of thermite.

I expect you are well acquainted with shaped charges and 'beehive charges'.

There are thousands of different types of charge as you must well know.

Explosives/cutters are merely the catalyst, gravity is the key force at work once the key supports are taken out.

I think you would not treat even a 1/4 lb of explosive with disrespect because you know the devastation it can cause.

I cant watch the videos, sorry, so I am going from memory. But, its is still unfeasible as you would need hundreds of these charges and you would need access to the bare skin of the steel, which is coverd by fireproofing and internal walls. The idea that a guy gets itno a crawl space with a backpack, removes all the obstacles in his way, places a charge and then covers his tracks, and then repeats it several hundred times in implausible. That is even before whe have got to the point of initiation which is a whole other problem to overcome. In any event, any tyoe of explosive charge leave a signature, and for a deolition of this size would have been apparent to the NYPD or FBI.

 

[Ron J]

Well it obviously is that easy because a guy in his back garden manufactured it and did it with a bit of experimentation and a short learning curve.

No doubt you could also do it.

I have already explained above how easy it is to access all the beams etc from the crawlspaces on each floor accessed via ceiling tiles so that covers concealment does it not.

Do you recall the bit at the end where he blows the bolts off using very small amounts of thermite.

I expect you are well acquainted with shaped charges and 'beehive charges'.

There are thousands of different types of charge as you must well know.

Explosives/cutters are merely the catalyst, gravity is the key force at work once the key supports are taken out.

I think you would not treat even a 1/4 lb of explosive with disrespect because you know the devastation it can cause.

​

http://socioecohistory.wordpress.co...e-world-trade-center-shape-charges-were-used/

Here’s what demolition experts use in steel framed buildings, the linear shaped charge … It generates around 3,000,000 psi pressure … at a speed in excess of 27,000 feet per second … There are over 1000 different types of explosive … With the use of delays we can control … where the debris lands … vibration … noise level. WMV video download (680kB)

The job of a shaped charge is to cut steel H-beams. “The way we do this is by cutting the beam at an angle which through a series of beams cut at the same angle will tend to make the building shift over and ‘walk’” WMV video download (670kB)

Content from external source

Also, bonus question: If its that easy, why do demolition crews waste their time with silly explosives, when a few office fires would do?

​

In the David Chandler video, he claims a jet like puff is evidence of a cutter charge. Charges are explosives and don't make jets of smoke. The jet does not move down with the wall of the building, so Chandler suggests that is also evidence of a cutter charge. Unless acted on by another force, smoke jetting sideways out of the building would not fall with the building. The smoke billowing out of WTC1 did not fall, either.

From another angle, Chandler points out a jet of smoke at the corner of a somewhat lower floor, stating there were several ejections focused on the corner within a fraction of a second. The fact is that ejections were happening all across the 200 foot width of the building. The ejecta itself was not focused on the corner. Where Chandler is focusing the eyes of the viewer on the corner, further over to the right, falling debris is obscuring part of the view along much of the wall on the same floors that Chandler was pointing out his alleged focused ejections.

Early in the video, Chandler makes a point of saying there were no windows in the corner of the building, when pointing out the first jet of smoke. The smoke was however, jetting directly to the right of the camera position, not at an angle to it, which is what the corners were to the main wall of the building. The lower floor jet was the one which actually exited the corner, where there were no windows. The first jet that was pointed out went directly west, which indicated it did go out a window.

 

[anonname]

Their was also testing done on dust and molten steel from the towers. Both contained chemicals you would expect to find if thermite was used.

 

[Cairenn]

There was NO molten steel. What was found was not thermite residue. Just some of the chemicals found in it. Chemicals that could be easily explained.