Thermite Destruction Theory

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
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

Banned
Banned
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
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!
 
Last edited:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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

Banned
Banned
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 :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
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

Moderator
Staff member
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Banned
Banned
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
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

Senior Member.
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

Senior Member.
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

Banned
Banned
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/

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

 

BombDr

Senior Member.
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

Active Member
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/

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

New Member
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

Senior Member.
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.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
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
hamishsubedei Modern Uses of Thermite for Demolition and their applicability to the WTC 9/11 65
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
Mick West Debunked: Weapons of Mass Destruction redefined as "just bombs" Boston Marathon Bombings 0
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
C My girlfriend,Jungian Personality Theory and the Rabbit Hole (Dealing with Relationships) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 12
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Zeke3276 Zeke's Theory on "energy weapons" causing wildfires as part of Agenda 21 Wildfires 26
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 120
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
D The World is Rudderless:Conspiracy Theory quote General Discussion 27
txt29 Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice Conspiracy Theories 34
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Mick West Space Station Photos Disprove the "Flat Earth" Theory Flat Earth 110
M Flat Earth theory simple debunking by the moon's appearance Flat Earth 48
Mick West Pete Santilli's Malheur (Burns, Oregon) FBI False Flag Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theories 4
Alec Riz Explained: Flat Earth Theory: Why don’t our clocks have to change by 12 hours in 6 months? Flat Earth 40
Mick West How Rogue Scientist J. Marvin Herndon Disproved the Last Resort of the Chemtrail Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 31
Mick West Fear From Above: Chemtrails vs. Conspiracy Theory in the Bay Area Contrails and Chemtrails 9
David Ridlen Debunked: The Flat Earth Theory. 14 Ways the Flat Earth Theory is False Flat Earth 11
S Bruce Robertson's MH370 Theory Flight MH370 35
Mick West Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America Flat Earth 276
Spectrar Ghost Claim: Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters, Demonstrators In America Conspiracy Theories 0
derwoodii Jeff Wise's new MH370 theory Flight MH370 102
Idrinkyourmilkshake My experience believing in a CT. Escaping The Rabbit Hole 24
Auldy Why is The Monarchy The Subject of Conspiracy Theories Conspiracy Theories 19
Mick West Charlie Hebdo Conspiracy Theories - Ignore or Address? Conspiracy Theories 255
Dechelski Marc Dugain's theory.... thoughts? Flight MH370 10
Leifer Has the accusation of "shills" become an independant conspiracy ? Conspiracy Theories 89
M Debunk: The horizon never falling as proof of flat Earth theory Flat Earth 29
Thor Odinson Debunked:Solar System Warming (Climate Change Conspiracy Theory) Conspiracy Theories 113
NotQualified Claim: Pictures show Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is a Mossad agent named Simon Elliot General Discussion 13
Tunnelvisionary Community aspects of Conspiracy Theory Practical Debunking 96
Critical Thinker Gawker article: Why I Write About (and Debunk) the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory Contrails and Chemtrails 0
lemonlover Debunked: NIST's collapse theory contradicts Newton's Third Law of Motion 9/11 183
Lode Claim: "The Conspiracy Theory Is True: Agents Infiltrate Websites" General Discussion 12
Jason Aluminum-Water Explosions Theory of Collapse, Christian Simensen 9/11 17
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top