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: 94

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.
 
Top