Wayne Coste's new hypothesis for WTC1+2 collapses: nano-thermite propellants!

Oystein

Senior Member
Wayne Coste has a new whitepaper:
"Investigating the Mechanics of Destruction at the Twin Towers on 9/11: The Case for Propelled Demolition
By Wayne H. Coste, PE "

I'll attach the linked PDF.

From the Abstract:
I have only just begun browsing.
 

Attachments

  • Coste WH (2020) - Investigating the Mechanics of Destruction at the Twin Towers on 9-11 The Ca...pdf
    6.3 MB · Views: 330

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Interesting. He seems to be starting from a strong belief that A) the towers could not have collapsed (in the way observed) from impact and fire alone and B) Nanothermite was used.

He's also faced with a lack of evidence, which he's been forced to acknowledge.

So he settles on the "nanothermite rockets" theory - which is not really new, as it was discussed by Harrit years ago. But since he's reasonably rigorous he notes:

So then he settle deeper into what he calls the " Propelled Demolition Scenario"
Metabunk 2020-03-25 10-00-14.jpg

It gets more involved:
Metabunk 2020-03-25 10-01-49.jpg

He does not actually suggest rockets attached to the floor slabs (which you'd think is what would be needed) but instead theorizes:
The rigging of the building is discussed:
The "panels" theory is finessed to explain things like the "molten iron" (a glowing debris stream, probably just burning stuff) in one corner.
Metabunk 2020-03-25 10-09-43.jpg

The conclusion summarizes:
Of course this entire theory is nonsense. It relies on the secret installation of 1,900 tons of magical panels, links with some equally magical ignition mechanism that, even if it worked perfectly, would do little more than move air around. Panels which can, in one corner of the build, slowly burn into a pool of molten iron, while when arranged inside the elevator shaft can then propel sections of the outside of the building UP into the air.

It's a fascinating exercise in confirmation bias. Does it need addressing? I'd almost say no. AE911 has hidden behind the hand-waving of "just asking questions" for many years. They haven't got behind an alternative hypothesis because there isn't one. Coste thanks "Jim Hoffman, David Cole, Niels Harrit, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, and especially David Chandler" which suggests AE911 is somewhat behind this. Would it be a good thing if they were to actually start pushing a specific collapse mechanism? One that is so obviously ridiculous?

Then again, perhaps by addressing this, by engaging them on the topic, we could help them extend their own "debunker" mindset that they have already applied to thins like the Pentagon missile theory and the dustification theory.

If I were to address this paper, I think it would be best to start with their more fundamental misunderstandings - things that are false, and yet have become axiomatic for them. Thinks they feel refute the "official story" and hence remember the need for any rigor in their derived hypotheses. I think I'd start with:
Where would Coste be if it were demonstrated (and I think it has been, several times) that the "rooster tails" are actually NOT the result of an upward trajectory? Would the realization of his years-long mistake trigger the reexamination of other assumptions? Maybe.

Fascinating stuff (and in some ways a welcome distraction for the current virus news).
 

Oystein

Senior Member
I have tried several times for Coste (and Chandler, and others) to seriously look at the Harrit et al (2009) data, which actually refutes its own conclusions in several ways. The most significant, I think, is that the DSC data must be totally dominated (>>95%) by hydrocarbon combustion, such that any hypothetical thermite reaction would contribute well under 5% (or none) of the measured heat release. This in turn means that none of the main features of the DSC curves they present can be identified as caused by thermite - there is zero evidence for a thermite reaction in the the DSC data.

His tactic has been to link to old Harrit videos and the like, and otherwise ignore me.

But now the assumption that there WAS nanothermite, proven by Harrit et al, comes back at him.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
So how does this theory account for the "role" of the planes and their impact on the towers? In both towers the sections above the plane strikes move downward after different amounts of time post plane strikes. The plane destruction on 1wtc was symmetrical about the N-S axis and with 2wtc the motion strongly suggests that the plane's damage was angle through the core which appears to explain the top sections tilting as it descended. Both top falls delivered enormous mass which came crashing down through the floor systems, destroying them at about 65mph which leaving many core columns completely unscathed. The collapse did not accelerate but appears to move at a constant speed indicating that there was a consistent amount of resistance provided by the undamaged floor plates.

The interior floor plate collapse would leave the facade without lateral support and provide the over pressure to blast contents outward as the air between the floors is not compressible. The pulverized contents is seen blasting through the perimeter windows all around the tower floor after floor at the front of the descending collapse... So essentially the descending floor plates created an avalanche of floor plate destruction... and the columns left behind were made unstable by losing lateral bracing the floors had provided. Bulging mass and the air over pressure ahead of it led to the breaking of exterior panel joints and the panels falling/peeling away from the tower.

The again there were no reports of and observing the installation of the Coste panels in the cores of both buildings... an enormous undertaking.

Grasping at straws... NT rises again!
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
The interior floor plate collapse would leave the facade without lateral support and provide the over pressure to blast contents outward as the air between the floors is not compressible.
Slight nit to pick: air is definitely compressible, but to compress air creates pressure, doing it suddenly creates a pressure front, and then you have the overpressure effects you've described. (If the building had been filled with liquid, ...)
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Slight nit to pick: air is definitely compressible, but to compress air creates pressure, doing it suddenly creates a pressure front, and then you have the overpressure effects you've described. (If the building had been filled with liquid, ...)
You're correct but not under those circumstances... when the container is too weak... glass stattered.
 

Fromage

Member
I know this is late, and may be mistaken, but I don't understand what makes him think that any material plausibly called thermite (micro, nano or jumbo) has any significant propulsive power. Thermite is nice because it's freaking hot, but generates little gas (the combustion product becomes a solid in remarkably little time), doesn't produce a pressure wave to any great extent, and doesn't go bang! Ideal for in-situ severing or welding of metal - cutting/welding rails, repairing cracked castings etc. So neglible expansion/thrust of any form. Yes, of course Aluminum is added to rocket propellant - as an combustion accelerant - to help other fuels to generate gas more quickly than otherwise. But too much Al, thus little other fuel, little gas expansion. Furthermore, Al-containing solid fuels (like the ones in the SRBs or other composite rocket fuel mixtures (like those in model and amateur rockets) need containment to generate pressure and thrust. A lit bare fuel grain for a composite motor simply burns like a rather energetic road flare and doesn't go anywhere. Actually have had a chance to observe this - a high power rocket casing's aft closure failed, and the initial ignition blew the cap and nozzle out, followed closely by several fuel grains that hadn't even begun to burn. So we were left with 2 mechanically damaged fuel grains sitting by the launch pad that couldn't be used. Best disposal? Stick them on some concrete, and stick an igniter in the core hole. Pretty sparks and that was it, wasn't even as fast as a couple teaspoons of black powder.

And of course how do you make an array of sheets burn in a neat evenly descending line? Heck, how do you ignite hundreds of sheets in the first place? Anyone who's handled thermite knows that it's not the easiest thing in the world to ignite. And precise timing? Not a chance.
 

Oystein

Senior Member
@Fromage There is ongoing research into how nano-thermite could be mixed with other agents to tailor the combined reaction kinetics to suit various purposes including, yes, propellants. And Truthers hang their hopes on a reasoning that if something can be imagined ("you can tailor nanotherrmite to be anything, so you can tailor it to be a non-bang demolition agent"), it therefore becomes historical reality.

You are right that propellants need containment. Coste has nothing to show on that.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Playing devil's advocate...
Suppose the bad guys understood that if enough mass was released it could come crashing down destroying the tower below... much like what ACTUALLY happened. The actual cause of the release of the top sections is still debated... but regardless if one could make the top block drop... the tower would then "self destruct" (as we saw).

So... why couldn't beam and truss connections, be "cut" with thermite cause floors to collapse initiated not only ROOSD, but instability of unbraced columns? The cross sections of the steel columns at the higher floors was not terribly robust (as it was below)... beams and trusses, however, were pretty much the same cross sections no matter which floor... except mech floors. Also we are told that the planes did not destroy the towers by hitting them, but it was the extensive fires initiated from jet fuel which fatally weakened the towers. Why not thermite?

Could a CD be engineered that would use thermite to cut beams and bracing leading to a building collapse... instead of using explosives?
 

econ41

Senior Member
Playing devil's advocate...
...
Could a CD be engineered that would use thermite to cut beams and bracing leading to a building collapse... instead of using explosives?
IF you want to mimic the actual WTC collapses?

Yes. I have actually partnered with a couple of genuine truthers about 10-11 years ago.
Two separate series of discussion posts. Two different truthers.
They were out of their depth in formulating a viable applied physics hypothesis. So I offered them a qualified Civil and Military engineer (me) as a "consultant".

And the resulting collapse HAD to mimic the real event. So "we" cut floor joists with explosive charges to cause perimeter inward bowing. i.e. mimic the key trigger of the NIST hypothesis.

There were several compromises. If you want more details, more discussion, OP a thread - we are going off topic here.
 
Last edited:

econ41

Senior Member
At risk of going further "off topic"
So... why couldn't beam and truss connections, be "cut" with thermite cause floors to collapse initiated not only ROOSD, but instability of unbraced columns?
That would mimic the "progression" or "ROOSD" stage - where it wasn't needed. IF you want to:
1) Collapse a Twin Tower; AND
2) mimic the actual 9/11 collapse:

You MUST mimic the "initiation" stage. And if you do that, ROOSD would "progress" exactly as it did in reality on 9/11.

What you MUST mimic is cascading (i.e. sequenced) failure of columns in axial overloading.

And all of it redundant if you still have the planes doing the job for you.

Otherwise - simply causing a "Twin Tower" to collapse is technically simple but logistically difficult. Simply cut enough columns at basement level which would take a "significant" amount of explosives. (That is the "logistic" issue... without even mentioning "security") And it would emit one humongous big series of "bangs".
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
Otherwise - simply causing a "Twin Tower" to collapse is technically simple but logistically difficult. Simply cut enough columns at basement level which would take a "significant" amount of explosives.
Just a reminder that this had been tried unsuccessfully:
Article:
On Friday, February 26, 1993, Ramzi Yousef and a Jordanian friend, Eyad Ismoil, drove a yellow Ryder van into Lower Manhattan, and pulled into the public parking garage beneath the World Trade Center around noon. They parked on the underground B-2 level. Yousef ignited the 20-foot fuse, and fled. Twelve minutes later, at 12:17:37 p.m., the bomb exploded in the underground garage, generating an estimated pressure of 150,000 psi.[13] The bomb opened a 100-ft (30-m) wide hole through four sublevels of concrete.

This proves that, for a small group of terrorists, it's easier to hijack two airliners than it is to bring the WTC down with explosives in the basement.

On the other hand, if you have a conspiracy capable of covertly installing thermite or other explosives in the building, wouldn't it be easier for them to just "cut enough columns at basement level" to bring the WTC down the old-fashioned way, rather than to install charges in the uppermost floors to cut those floor joists to make the building fail in a novel way? Logistically, park trucks with explosives near the columns you want to fail (if security is a non-issue for your group), then simply blame the explosion on jet fuel pooling in the basement.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Well my devil's advocate post intended to show that explosives (nor plane crash) are required to collapse the towers in a manner that looks like what we saw. The damaged caused by the plane strike sis hard or may be impossible to reproduce with heat alone. But we are also told that the structural damage from the plane strikes was not sufficient to destroy the towers. But were they necessary? My guess is that fire alone could initiated a drop of the top blocks leading to a collapse form similar to what we saw.
But I believe the plane strikes were what may have destroyed the sprinkler system and that was also a main factor which allowed the fires to be as destructive as they were,
 

econ41

Senior Member
Well my devil's advocate post intended to show that explosives (nor plane crash) are required to collapse the towers in a manner that looks like what we saw. The damaged caused by the plane strike sis hard or may be impossible to reproduce with heat alone. # But we are also told that the structural damage from the plane strikes was not sufficient to destroy the towers. But were they necessary?## My guess is that fire alone could initiated a drop of the top blocks leading to a collapse form similar to what we saw.
But I believe the plane strikes were what may have destroyed the sprinkler system and that was also a main factor which allowed the fires to be as destructive as they were###,
# The key factors about heat were the effect of aircraft fuel accelerant causing near instantaneous starting of fires on multiple storeys AND concentration of fuel resulting from "Boeing Dozing" >> It would be difficult to reproduce those two in combination by other means.

## The structural damage may not have been significant BUT cannot be separated from aircraft fuel acceleration and compact heaping of fuel - so the fire causing effects were critical and cannot be separated from the impact damage.

### I'm probably iconoclastic on this issue but I doubt that destruction of sprinkler systems was as vital as is often assumed. I've never seen the topic debated by anyone with suitable qualifications.


 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I don't disagree with your post 15...
I do believe that a massive fire (plenty of accelerants) WITHOUT sprinklers could cause frame warp and failure and loss of axial capacity and collapse. I suspect this would have to be a top drop sort of scenario... where the steel was "thin enough" to be vulnerable to "open air" fires.
I am of the belief that the frame failed from expansion and contraction...joint failures.. and columns pushed out of axial alignment with lost capacity due to elevated temps.
++++
I suppose that using thermite to cut a sufficient number of beam to column connections could cause floor slabs to collapse. And if the column lengths were made too slender without the beams to brace them, they would collapse from Euler buckling.

Maybe.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
I'm probably iconoclastic on this issue but I doubt that destruction of sprinkler systems was as vital as is often assumed. I've never seen the topic debated by anyone with suitable qualifications.
Well, sprinkler systems are designed for a specific load, i.e. a specific square footage of a certain hazard class to be protected, with the "design area" chosen to represent the space with the worst water pressure in the building.

If you now start fires that are harder to extinguish (jet fuel vs. office furniture) in more locations than were designed for, the sprinkler system would fail and be unable to contain all of these fires until the fire department arrives, simply because it wouldn't be able to disperse enough water fast enough.

In this situation, the lower floors that were burning would be better protected (more water pressure) while the higher floors would hardly be affected by the sprinkler system.

So the hypothesis that the sprinkler system may not have been powerful enough to prevent (or delay) the collapse is reasonable. To decide the issue, we would require knowledge of the actual capacity of the sprinkler system and some idea of how the fires started and developed, and then we'd want an expert to figure out what the effect of the sprinkler system would have been.
 

econ41

Senior Member
Well, sprinkler systems are designed for a specific load, i.e. a specific square footage of a certain hazard class to be protected, with the "design area" chosen to represent the space with the worst water pressure in the building.

If you now start fires that are harder to extinguish (jet fuel vs. office furniture) in more locations than were designed for, the sprinkler system would fail and be unable to contain all of these fires until the fire department arrives, simply because it wouldn't be able to disperse enough water fast enough.

In this situation, the lower floors that were burning would be better protected (more water pressure) while the higher floors would hardly be affected by the sprinkler system.

So the hypothesis that the sprinkler system may not have been powerful enough to prevent (or delay) the collapse is reasonable. To decide the issue, we would require knowledge of the actual capacity of the sprinkler system and some idea of how the fires started and developed, and then we'd want an expert to figure out what the effect of the sprinkler system would have been.
Agreed. Those are all key points. Two more are the location of storege tanks for sprinkler water and their capacity AND that replenishment pumping would be part of the "active fire fighing regime" that the fire rating was premised on.
 

Fromage

Member
Playing devil's advocate...
Suppose the bad guys understood that if enough mass was released it could come crashing down destroying the tower below... much like what ACTUALLY happened. The actual cause of the release of the top sections is still debated... but regardless if one could make the top block drop... the tower would then "self destruct" (as we saw).

So... why couldn't beam and truss connections, be "cut" with thermite cause floors to collapse initiated not only ROOSD, but instability of unbraced columns? The cross sections of the steel columns at the higher floors was not terribly robust (as it was below)... beams and trusses, however, were pretty much the same cross sections no matter which floor... except mech floors. Also we are told that the planes did not destroy the towers by hitting them, but it was the extensive fires initiated from jet fuel which fatally weakened the towers. Why not thermite?

Could a CD be engineered that would use thermite to cut beams and bracing leading to a building collapse... instead of using explosives?
Yes a CD could be engineered that could use almost anything to cut/break beams leading to a building collapse - cue the footage of verissange demolition (collapse triggered by hydraulic rams).

The problem with thermite is more that you can't expect simultaneous ignition from literally dozens or hundreds of charges.

But with almost a whole wall of vertical supports severed, some central columns badly damaged or severed, you don't need explosives. The heat from the fires alone is enough to soften the concrete floor slab's undertrusses, bow the wall inwards (which was observed EVEN AT THE TIME) and rip away from their moorings. Floors fall, more wall connections severed. ROOSD.
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
Yes a CD could be engineered that could use almost anything to cut/break beams leading to a building collapse - cue the footage of verissange demolition (collapse triggered by hydraulic rams).

The problem with thermite is more that you can't expect simultaneous ignition from literally dozens or hundreds of charges.

But with almost a whole wall of vertical supports severed, some central columns badly damaged or severed, you don't need explosives. The heat from the fires alone is enough to soften the concrete floor slab's undertrusses, bow the wall inwards (which was observed EVEN AT THE TIME) and rip away from their moorings. Floors fall, more wall connections severed. ROOSD.
I think the real problem, unlike magic rocket panels, is that @Jeffery Orling hasn't proposed a good conspiracy theory.

If I were a truther, Jeffery's idea makes sense. A few conspirators plant just enough thermite charges to damage just a few key structural components somewhere above the intended jet impact floors. Damage a few beams after impact and the tower collapses. But the key is, only a few select components need be damaged for the collapse to ensue.

I think for real truthers, this is too close to what actually happened. It's just a small step from thermite charges "damaging a few key components" to the impact and resulting fire "damaging a few key components".

For all it's scientific wording, The Case For Propelled Demolition, is completely fantastical, because the conspiracy needs to be big and involved. It needs to make use of hypothetical and secret or unknown products. It has to involve lots of people. Like Q Anon or Chem-trails, the WTC collapse was orchestrated by a vast cabal of nefarious actors.

Things like 90 truckloads of panels impregnated with nano-thermite propellents may be an attempt to explain the "rocket projectiles", but more importantly, it demonstrates the power and vastness of the conspiracy.
 

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I have no idea how to do a thermite CD. But would it be unreasonable to have the devices places in the "engineered determined" location with times set for sometime after 9 am. The collapse was caused by a ROOSD... What they had to do is initiated a ROOSD.

Having said that I seriously doubt that there was that sort of engineering about those structure available at the time. MOST of the forensic engineering came years after the collapse and took quite some time to develop.
 

NorCal Dave

Active Member
I have no idea how to do a thermite CD. But would it be unreasonable to have the devices places in the "engineered determined" location with times set for sometime after 9 am. The collapse was caused by a ROOSD... What they had to do is initiated a ROOSD.
Nor would I. I just found your suggestion had a simple elegance to it. I suppose it's a little oxymoronic, but if I believed 9/11 was an inside job and wanted to apply Occam's razor, it made more sense than 90 truck loads of magic propellent panels. So why magic panels?

Was trying to understand why someone would put forth, what Mick referred to as "nonsense", as a viable theory. Your simpler idea made me realize that conspiracies need to be ever bigger and grander. How many people have to be involved in Flat Earth or Chem-trails? Thousands if not tens of thousands? I find those numbers make the conspiracies less likely, but for believers it's the opposite. Same here, the more bizarre the idea and the more people involved, the more believable.

I see I'm drifting off topic a bit. I know I should be addressing the actual claim, but when it's something even a knucklehead like me, can see on the face of it wont work, I get caught up in the "why"?
 

econ41

Senior Member
I see I'm drifting off topic a bit. I know I should be addressing the actual claim, but when it's something even a knucklehead like me, can see on the face of it wont work, I get caught up in the "why"?
You are not actually off the topic. Rather you identify the main failure with W Coste's model which it shares with most of these debates. That is failure to clearly define the objective and the context into which it fits. Is the goal to demolish a WTC Twin Tower with no constraints as to the mechanism OR is it to cause, mimic, resemble the actual 9/11 collapses?

Because there are at least three broad options if we want the collapse to "look like" what really happened. And the challenge to cause a Twin Towers collapse without it being similar to the actual event is actually trivial. And I recognise that @Jeffrey Orling's proposal is a half and half mix - he proposes some as yet undefined mechanism to "initiate" the collapse but leading to the ROOSD "progression" stage which actually happened on 9/11.

And there are two approaches to analysing whatever mechanism scenario we choose. Do we analyse consistent with "what really happened" i.e. an explanation fully coherent with what was observed or do we ignore what really happened and anlyse some abstracted concept?

These discussions - whether about explosives or incendiaries - arose out of the truther beliefs that some form of "CD help" was both needed and practiced. And, since truthers are either "planers" or "no planers" that led to two implicit scenarios.

So 3 main possibilities of "scenario" which have been assumed by most discussion have been:
(a) Analyse the real 9/11 mechanism of collapse; << Which should have been the scenario adopted by debunkers ( There is a side issue there but it is not relevant to current discussion.)
AND the two "truther scenarios":
(b) Analyse the "with plane" scenario assuming explosive or incendiary "help" was needed";
(c) Analyse with a "no plane scenario" whilst assuming there was explosive or incendiary assistance.

BUT those three are not taxonomic equals. Because "(a)" - what really happened is what happened and therefore defines the context for "(b)" and "(c)". Reverse the approach - remember truther arguments almost always start from a presumed conclusion THEN attempt to force ft evidence.
A logical approach to analysis if we are discussing the real event is to FIRST understand the real event mechanisms. But that leads to the situation of the extant hypotheses - there was no need for explosive or incendiary CD "help". (And that much is true even if we accept some form of "no-plane" but accept all the visible structural evidence >> discard that because "no-planes" leads to many other illogical anomalies.)

So that is "bottom line" - if we want to mimic what really happened as if we were using explosives or incendiaries in the real setting of 9/11 the "help" is redundant. The explosives or incendiaries can achieve no more than plane impact induced damage and fires did achieve. (Or the fires and damage that were actually observed despite no plane starting them if we try to remain with that fantasy option)

Now W Coste's hypothesis fails for several reasons. One being that he purports to be proposing a causal mechanism for the actual collapse BUT fails to EITHER rigorously fit his explanation into the context of the mechanism which actually happened on 9/11 OR present his own overall coherent scenario.

So W Coste's is one example of an attempt to explain Twin Towers CD and different in that it proposes a novel use of thermite propellant. But his hypothesis fails because it lacks a coherent overall context - either his own or subsumed in to what really was observed to happen on 9/11.

So:
I have no idea how to do a thermite CD. But would it be unreasonable to have the devices places in the "engineered determined" location with times set for sometime after 9 am. The collapse was caused by a ROOSD... What they had to do is initiated a ROOSD.

Having said that I seriously doubt that there was that sort of engineering about those structure available at the time. MOST of the forensic engineering came years after the collapse and took quite some time to develop.
Are you trying to add "thermite" into what really happened on 9/11 because it would be redundant? OR are you trying to suggest an hypothetical method of CD other than what actually happened? If so how do you deal with the damge resultig from plane impact and resulting fires? Which didn't need any "help"?
 
Last edited:

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
Are you trying to add "thermite" into what really happened on 9/11 because it would be redundant? OR are you trying to suggest an hypothetical method of CD other than what actually happened? If so how do you deal with the damge resultig from plane impact and resulting fires? Which didn't need any "help"?

I was musing that it is likely possible to create a collapse.... plane or no plane with thermite that had the attributes of the actual 9/11 collapse. My assumption is that termite could be used to fuel extensive fires AND cut key structural members leading to, for example, a collapse of the top mech floors, the antenna and the hat truss... which in turn initiates the ROOSD mechanisms collasping the tower in a similar manner to real world.

Plane impacts and fuel were main energy inputs which undermined the frame... I am proposing super high temps from thermite might be able to mimmick the real work IF... it was engineered properly.

I am just musing.
 
Top