Thermite Has Historically Been Used for Demolition (at least twice)

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
The nanothermite hypothesis is a very novel and imaginative idea - however clever it is, I don't think it's ever been used for controlled demolition in world history
There are some very well known examples of thermitic material being used for the purpose of CD. The skyride tower [1936] and the remaining roof of the reichstag building [1954] being two.
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/reichstag-ruins-demolished


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=520nKY0D7F0


http://books.google.com/books?id=xd0DAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA657&dq=Popular Mechanics thermite&pg=PA657#v=onepage&q&f=true


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sources? Images? [Edit: added two for you, more below, also changed thread title slightly]
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
Sadly statements such as the above are typical of the lack of research that many would be debunkers display. There are some very well known examples of thermitic material being used for the purpose of CD. The skyride tower and the remaining roof of the reichstag building being two.
A girder and the remains of a tower are not buildings. How much did they use in each instance?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
A girder and the remains of a tower are not buildings. How much did they use in each instance?
They were steel structures and they were brought down in a controlled manner. Where do you get the "A girder" from? Very telling statement.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Yes, we know about the tower. But no steelframe building, no highrise building has been demolished using thermite.

I thought it was obvious we were talking about comparable buildings, but I should have been more specific. Consider the statement clarified and thanks for reminding us that no steelframe building or high rise has ever been demolished using either thermite or nanothermite.

Also, no explosive controlled demolition has ever happened without very easily seen and heard explosions at the time of collapse.
Yet thermitists have overlooked this glaring problem with WTC 7 - there were no explosions as it fell. No explosive CD in history could do that.

Thermite or nanothermite has to be one of the weakest and easily debunked hypotheses of the truth movement.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
Nevermind it has never been used on a steelframe building comparable to the WTC buildings, how many times has thermite been used in history to bring down a structure, and what was the preparation like?

Any takers?
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
They were steel structures and they were brought down in a controlled manner. Where do you get the "A girder" from? Very telling statement.
They were girders.

Clipped from the Nov 20, 1954 issue of the Ottawa Citizen

It should be noted the Reichstag is not a highrise building.

As for the Skyride tower. 1500 lbs. around two legs. This process was found to be so good it was never used again. That is a very telling statement.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
They were girders.

Clipped from the Nov 20, 1954 issue of the Ottawa Citizen

It should be noted the Reichstag is not a highrise building.

As for the Skyride tower. 1500 lbs. around two legs. This process was found to be so good it was never used again. That is a very telling statement.

Thanks for that info. I bet the Skyride tower didn't come down instantaneously into it's own footprint at freefall speed, either... ;)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
@gerrycan, what exactly are you debunking here? You quote someone saying that nanothermite has not been used for controlled demolition, and then you bring up some incredibly rare uses of regular thermite from 60+ years ago.

Has someone claimed that regular thermite has never been used? Or "thermitic material" (what ever that is defined as)?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Thanks for that info. I bet the Skyride tower didn't come down instantaneously into it's own footprint at freefall speed, either... ;)
So do you now withdraw what you said?
You said this "The nanothermite hypothesis is a very novel and imaginative idea - however clever it is, I don't think it's ever been used for controlled demolition in world history"
It is clearly wrong. So do you stand by it, or do you withdraw it?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
@gerrycan, what exactly are you debunking here? You quote someone saying that nanothermite has not been used for controlled demolition, and then you bring up some incredibly rare uses of regular thermite from 60+ years ago.

Has someone claimed that regular thermite has never been used? Or "thermitic material" (what ever that is defined as)?
That's desperate Mick, but if you want to go down that road, I could argue that size would be NANO, after all when we are talking about NANOthermite, we are referring to 120 Nanometers or thereabouts.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
So do you now withdraw what you said?
You said this "The nanothermite hypothesis is a very novel and imaginative idea - however clever it is, I don't think it's ever been used for controlled demolition in world history"
It is clearly wrong. So do you stand by it, or do you withdraw it?
Thermite has been used in two occasions a long time ago. There has been no evidence on nanothermite used.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
@gerrycan, what exactly are you debunking here? You quote someone saying that nanothermite has not been used for controlled demolition, and then you bring up some incredibly rare uses of regular thermite from 60+ years ago.

Has someone claimed that regular thermite has never been used? Or "thermitic material" (what ever that is defined as)?
Good point! gerrycan, your thread doesn't address the quote you used. I cited nanothermite, not thermite. (even though thermite hasn't been used for steelframe buildings either).
Can you find an example of nanothermite being used in a building demolition? Otherwise it seems your thread is D.O.A.
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
And two or more are called girders. It's not like they collapsed the building with thermite.
They collapsed the remaining roof steel structure with thermite. Obviously the steel survived the serious fire, as steel elements always have in history, until 911.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Sadly statements such as the above are typical of the lack of research that many would be debunkers display. There are some very well known examples of thermitic material being used for the purpose of CD. The skyride tower [1936] and the remaining roof of the reichstag building [1954] being two.
Are there any others? Or is that it?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Good point! gerrycan, your thread doesn't address the quote you used. I cited nanothermite, not thermite. (even though thermite hasn't been used for steelframe buildings either).
Can you find an example of nanothermite being used in a building demolition? Otherwise it seems your thread is D.O.A.
So regular thermitic material cannot be described as being on the nano scale now? Do you stand by your statement or not?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's desperate Mick, but if you want to go down that road, I could argue that size would be NANO, after all when we are talking about NANOthermite, we are referring to 120 Nanometers or thereabouts.
Huh? So now you are saying that regular thermite is nanothermite? So "nanothermite" is nothing special?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Are there any others? Or is that it?
Thermite is used daily Mick. Underwater welding, thermitic grenades etc etc. AE tried to give the impression that no one would have thought it could have been used on 911. Clearly not the case.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
That's desperate Mick, but if you want to go down that road, I could argue that size would be NANO, after all when we are talking about NANOthermite, we are referring to 120 Nanometers or thereabouts.
Oo! That's a brilliant attempt to move the goalposts! Now regular thermite is also nanothermite. Got it.

We must inform Dr Harrit and Dr Jones at once that they're looking for the wrong material; they were referring to sol-gel process stuff, wasting everybody's time. hehe
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thermite is used daily Mick. Underwater welding, thermitic grenades etc etc. AE tried to give the impression that no one would have thought it could have been used on 911. Clearly not the case.
Why don't you quote what they said then? What exactly are you debunking?

If they just went by your Skyride example, then perhaps they thought that 1500 pounds per column per floor would be unreasonable? How does the Skyride example make it seem plausible it was used for WTC?
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
Oo! That's a brilliant attempt to move the goalposts! Now regular thermite is also nanothermite. Got it.

We must inform Dr Harrit and Dr Jones at once that they're looking for the wrong material; they were referring to sol-gel process stuff, wasting everybody's time. hehe
Do you stand by your statement or not?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This is getting silly. Are you really going to insist that the Skyride tower was brought down with nanothermite just to "win" an argument based on pure semantics? That's dangerously close to trolling.

What is the actual claim that you are debunking here? Quote it. Define the terms.
 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
They collapsed the remaining roof steel structure with thermite. Obviously the steel survived the serious fire, as steel elements always have in history, until 911.
Could you cite evidence about the Reichstag demolition.
 

Alienentity

Active Member
. Obviously the steel survived the serious fire, as steel elements always have in history, until 911.
That's hogwash. There are plenty of steel structures and elements which have failed in fires. Why are you even bothering to imply otherwise?
Kader Toy factory is one such example of complete collapse due to fire alone, very rapidly.

Structure Mag, 2008 '
World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis'
 

gerrycan

Banned
Banned
That's hogwash. There are plenty of steel structures and elements which have failed in fires. Why are you even bothering to imply otherwise?
Kader Toy factory is one such example of complete collapse due to fire alone, very rapidly.

Structure Mag, 2008 '
World Trade Center 5 Failure Analysis'
WTC5??? Did you post this in the wrong thread by mistake?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
Yup, looks like thermite didn't work the first time. That's probably why it hasn't been adopted by the demolition industry - explosives are much more effective.

Great footage btw!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There were two Skyride towers. One tower (the west tower) was dynamited. Thermite was used on the east tower seemingly in an attempt to control the direction of fall, and for less blast damage to nearby buildings.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=JLFQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8SEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7162,7840397


http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=clgyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=h7YFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5298,4699028


This is the tower that was dynamited.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=I7FQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8SEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6866,7689351



And here's a somewhat odd retelling of what happened as melting the legs with "acid", but still has some useful details.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=7gYyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=c-MFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3031,2363322
 
Last edited:

Alienentity

Active Member
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nano-thermite
So gerrycan is claiming that nanothermite was used for demolition in 1935 and again in 1954. Then it wasn't used again until 2001. Ok, that makes sense...
I noticed that it took 120 lbs of dynamite to destroy the West Tower, and 1500 lbs of thermite to topple the East Tower! That's a factor of over 10:1 more material required, not including all the steel casings required to hold the thermite next to the steel.

Article here

Edit: oh, I see you've posted that article while I was typing!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
As it's an interesting topic, I've promoted it to the front page, but I removed @gerrycan's comment "Sadly statements such as the above are typical of the lack of research that many would be debunkers display. ", as it's needless distracting, as well as being a tad inaccurate, as the discussion above showed.
 
Last edited:

Related Articles

Top