Title: Can anyone show me a controlled demolition company that uses Thermate? Source:
None URL Source:http://None Published:Jul 1, 2006 Author:Self Post Date:2006-07-01 17:55:03 by Critter Keywords:None Views:2966 Comments:98
I find only that RDX is used in controlled demolitions. I can't find any link between thermite, or thermate and controlled demolition except on pages discussing 9/11.
Fed:Thermite nasty stuff, but like fertiliser has legitimate use
AAP General News (Australia); 9/23/2004
AAP General News (Australia)
09-23-2004
Fed:Thermite nasty stuff, but like fertiliser has legitimate use
CANBERRA, Sept 23 AAP - The Anarchist's Cookbook describes thermite as nasty stuff and, like ammonium nitrate fertiliser which has been used to fuel car bombs, it has entirely legitimate uses.
Thermite is a mixture of powdered aluminium and iron oxide, or rust.
It burns at spectacularly high temperatures, as hot as 3,500 degrees Celsius, which is hot enough to melt steel.
That makes thermite particularly useful for welding. It is most commonly used to join the ends of railway lines.
Because the basic ingredients are so readily available, anyone with the inclination could produce their own thermite, aided by some very basic internet research.
However, it is relatively difficult to ignite and requires an ignition source much hotter that a cigarette lighter, for example.
Magnesium ribbon fuse appears to be the recommended method to ignite the substance.
There has been at least one workshop mishap in Australia where the use of a bench grinder produced the ingredients for a thermite reaction with the resulting fireball leaving the operator with serious burns.
Thermite is used in hand grenades and charges for military demolitions.
The US AN-M14 TH3 incendiary hand grenade contains about half a kilogram of a thermite compound called thermate.
I'm looking for an instance where it was/is used for controlled demolition. The latest theory basically claims that it is commonly used for the purpose, yet I don't find mention of that anywhere except in articles related to this latest theory.
Like I said, I just like to double check things. :)
Nor can I find any military or defense suppliers of thermite cutting charges (or lances or rods for that matter). For example, goto http://www.the-dma.org.uk/Products/main.asp?Start=T which lists defense products and if you scroll to "thermite cutting charges" and click you get no manufacturers found.
Now it may be that information on where to get "thermite cutting charges" has been supressed in recent years, and maybe the military gets their own made up special and outside GSA-procurment, but legitimate commercial applications ought to still be listed if there were any (similar to those for welding) but there seemingly are none.
I find this troublesome for the latest theories.
Agreed.
There seems to be a lot of hypothetical presumption about "thermite cutting charges" and I've looked for the BYU professors paper on his thermite research and findings but it doesn't seem to be available yet (I don't mean his general paper http://www. physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html but supposedly he has a newer paper specifically "proving" the use of thermite). His general chemistry & physics seem to be in order, assuming "thermite cutting charges" are real items available commercially or militarily, but as mentioned above, I can't find any.
My simple understanding of the thermite reaction is that it is difficult to ignite and its reaction rate is not precisely controllable, which would seem to make it unreliable for controlled demolition wherein the timing of cutting through support beams and columns must be thorough and exact to a second or two, otherwise the structure won't collapse as planned. As the thermite reaction is also a slower burning rather than an explosion, it's cutting direction is downward where ever gravity pulls the 'molten thermite' (see http://www. amazingrust.com/Experiments/how_to/Thermite_pics-videos.html) which means making thermite cut laterally across vertical support columns (orthogonal to gravitational pull) instead of dripping/running down the sides would seem to add great difficulty to controlled demolition.
While "thermite cutting charges" provide plausible explanations for some of the WTC collapse phenomena, it also introduces some new complications, namely procurring said charges, installing them, and triggering them precisely. Whereas regular demolitions are procurable and triggerable, but still need to be placed/ installed without notice.
Dr Jones`s papers are multi peer reviewed. Thermate cuts like butter. Very fast. Placed at an angle, not flat, will slice girders. It is ignited by electronic "matches". This whole opp was radio/computer run.
Thermate doesn`t explode, but nano thermite does. Very powerful. How else can oe explain pools of molten iron, metal and some copper. It takes around 4000 degrees for this.
Thermate cuts like butter. Very fast. Placed at an angle, not flat, will slice girders.
Ok, so assuming a "thermate" cutting charge is somehow beaded around a vertical girder with the side beads running downward at an angle and the top and bottom beads run horizontal, upon ignition, what prevents the molten thermate from dripping down the vertical exterior faces of the girder and/or what causes the molten thermate to cut horizontally into the girder?
Even a bead placed at an angle, upon melting will drip down from its original angular bead along the exterior face of the girder. Gravity will not carry molten thermate horizontally from the bead into the girder to make the cut.
Oh, there was dripping and running of iron by-product down the girders. This thermate takes seconds. One is not using a stop watch. A couple blinks of an eye, and its through. The sulfur mix is the key. It just eats steel up.
Dr. Jones has pictures of this molten iron that is like stalactites and in other photos hanging down horizontally like a giant blob.
You have to remember as these girders were cut through with thermate, other explosives were taking out other supports, which placed more stress, weakend and severed the beams.
You have to remember as these girders were cut through with thermate,
How did gravity carry molten thermite horizontally to cut into a vertical girder instead of dragging the molten thermite vertically down the exterior face of the girder?
You are under the impression that gravity is needed for thermate to work. This is not the case with the sulfur mix. Dr. Jones work, I believe, shows this.
I know that you are trying to put forth a middle, unbiased view. I wish others like yourself, would questioned the government theory as hard.
You are under the impression that gravity is needed for thermate to work.
Not chemically, but gravity is what keeps the molten thermite in contact with the surface it is to cut or weld. If you don't believe that, what prevents the molten thermite from cutting sideways or upwards out its crucibles or molds? Why does it always cut and/or melt what is below it?
All the videos of thermite and the applications of welding rely upon gravity to pull the molten thermite down onto the target or into the weld joint sealed with a mold around it (such as the railroad rail welding applications). Even the torches and lances rely upon a continued supply of newly molten thermite held against the cut by the technician.
This is not the case with the sulfur mix.
I don't see how sulfur changes the gravitational problem posed. A faster hotter reaction does not change the rate at which gravity pulls it downward. Which falls faster - a molten 1lb brick or a frozen 1lb brick? It still does not address directing the molten thermite/thermate horizontally for "several" seconds into a girder that is several inches thick, rather than flowing down the face of that girder.
Dr. Jones work, I believe, shows this.
Dr. Jones has only shown the exothermic reaction explains some of the chemical and thermal phenomena. The paper in which he claims to have proven this ostensibly is undergoing peer review and has not been published yet. At least I have not seen it. So no, to the best of my knowledge Dr. Jones has not (yet) shown how thermate/thermite would be applied and controlled to cut in the direction needed.
Chemically is the key. This sulfur mix is not only faster and hotter, it reacts with the steel and eats it up. Comparing welding techniques to this just can`t be done. Hopefully soon, Jones will put out his findings.
How would you then explain the pools of iron at all 3 buildings?
This sulfur mix is not only faster and hotter, it reacts with the steel and eats it up.
Only as long it remains in contact with the surface, ie until gravity pulls it away.
Comparing welding techniques to this just can`t be done.
Well, thermite welding techniques do illustrate how/why thermite works to cut/ weld anything below it. But you're right insofar as there is no "thermite cutting charge" information against which to compare or apply to the current problem of cutting very thick vertical girders.
How would you then explain the pools of iron at all 3 buildings?
I don't have an explanation, nor have I read one that seems to fit all the facts, including the government's version. You wrote earlier to me:
I know that you are trying to put forth a middle, unbiased view. I wish others like yourself, would questioned the government theory as hard.
I'm simply following where the actual data available leads, no more, no less. I have no qualms about questioning the government's theory or anyone elses.
It's hard to imagine where and how thermate would be usefull in bringing down a building like this, if you're not looking at the actual naked structure. So, I found a good view of the naked structure. :)
BTW, a follow up thought regarding what I'd like to see from Professor Jones in "proof" beyond a simple thermo-chemical analysis that thermite/thermate was employed:
4.4 Core columns Inside each tower there were 44 large, concrete reinforced, steel columns, which enclosed elevators, stairways, and utility space. Again, the author's inquiries to ascertain exact values for the core column dimensions failed. However, one is able to estimate these values by comparing the size of core columns to the size of exterior columns as captured in photographs of the site, such as the one shown below. With an accuracy compromised by the poor resolution of the photographs available, we determined that each column had a thickness of 67mm, and dimensions of 950mm x 312mm in rectangular cross section.
The problem with those dimensions (beyond being an unofficial estimate) is that IIRC the cross section of columns varies from thicker to thinner progressing upward in the building and hence I would expect the estimate may not be true for all floors throughout the towers.
So I would hope to see in such a proof:
a definitive statement on the cross section dimensions of the various support columns,
what kind of steel they were made from and its properties, and then
how much thermite/thermate is required to burn through steel girders of that type and cross section and
how long that takes, and then
how is gravity counteracted such that the required amount of molten thermite/thermate is kept in physical contact with the 'cut' for the required burn-through time,
how is it ignited,
how is the ignition of M columns x N cuts coordinated throught the building such that a 'controlled demolition' kind of collapse can be produced.
...concrete reinforced, steel columns, which enclosed elevators, stairways, and utility space.
If this is true, you've uncovered something that no one is saying. There was CONCRETE and steel reinforced elevators, stairways and utility areas. This would be big news in favor of explosives. How would the government explain a "pancake" and core/truss failure by fire?
Can I use that link? I'm going to bring it over to the Loose Change Forum.
If this is true, you've uncovered something that no one is saying.
I wouldn't know. I don't track this stuff.
There was CONCRETE and steel reinforced elevators, stairways and utility areas. This would be big news in favor of explosives.
I don't know how much of the support structure is steel reinforced/encased by concrete, but the presence of steel-reinforced concrete is a complication for the thermite/thermate theory in that the thermite/thermate has to burn through concrete first to get to the steel.
I thought I would drop you a quick update. I heard Dr Jones on a radio show very recently and the two types of applications they believe were used of the themate/thermite were in a sol-gel that can be used in either form of a nano-thermite explosive or cutter thermate. The other is a cylinder shape cutter that has a groove/slit that directs the thermate like a knife or laser and needs no gravity.
the two types of applications they believe were used of the themate/thermite were in a sol-gel that can be used in either form of a nano-thermite explosive or cutter thermate. The other is a cylinder shape cutter that has a groove/slit that directs the thermate like a knife or laser and needs no gravity.
Thanks very much.
Those help to explain how such a cutter charge would be planted (as thermite/ thermate is is fine powder that would otherwise blow or fall away).
But once ignited, the thermite/thermate melts and liquifies as it burns and I would think gravity would pull the molten thermite/thermate out of the cut and down the face of the beam instead of across and horizontally through the cut.
If you run across an explanation of how such charges would cut horizontally (against gravity) through several inches of metal, or even a video demonstrating an experimental charge cutting horizontally, I'd appreciate another ping.
Patents do not necessarily indicate a commercially (or even experimentally) working device - the patented cutter is largely theoretical, though it might be in development.
However, assuming such cutters could be commercially bought in large numbers (hundreds):
I would expect at least a few empty discharged cutters would have been found in the debris.
As designed, they are awkward to place - a precise "standoff distance" from the surface to be cut is required with clamps of some sort to hold them in place, and given they are cutting through a rectangular beam 3ft x 1ft of 2.6in thick steel, several cutters would have to be "ganged" together all around the beam at each cut. This has to be done at every cut (say 44 beams, every 2nd or 3rd floor, both towers) and then each cutter triggered as well.
Quite a logistic feat for a public demolition, let alone a stealth op.
Another problem is "thermite cutters" don't explode (they just burn), and hence another explanation for the "demolition explosion squibs" seen bursting out of some windows is needed.
But the info is useful. It serves to clarify the logistical problems the "thermite cutter" theory needs to overcome.
I would expect at least a few empty discharged cutters would have been found in the debris.
And how do you know they weren't? The government - local, state and federal - began the transport of debris from the crime scene almost immediately, under police and military guard to landfill in Staten Island, NY which likewise was protected by local, state and federal authorities.
I would expect at least a few empty discharged cutters would have been found in the debris.
And how do you know they weren't? The government - local, state and federal - began the transport of debris from the crime scene almost immediately, under police and military guard to landfill in Staten Island, NY which likewise was protected by local, state and federal authorities.
I don't know. I'm asking/suggesting what evidence (supportive of the thermite cutter theory) has the possibilty of being found, given the number of cutters required. If someone suggests to go back and look for evidence of "discharged cutters", even one would be very probative. Maybe some were seen but not recognized for what they were.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of conspiracy. It is simply information or facts we don't have. Everything else is speculation. And while the speculation may be plausible, that doesn't make it actual.
The only way I know to solve problems is to stay focused on the facts. Or put another way, if one doesn't know where they're going then any road will get them there, and they may as well shed intellectual inhibitions and invent whatever is most pleasing to them.
The only way I know to solve problems is to stay focused on the facts.
Agreed.
And in this case, facts certainly don't support the official story. SOMETHING caused vertical columns to "break" in two all along their lengths. STEEL bends, long before it breaks. And those vertical columns weren't going to bend easily.
I have been in the welding business many years, and I can tell you for a fact that any flame without the benefit of an oxidizer (oxygen added to the acetylene flame) will not melt thick steel. It MIGHT melt something very thin (like the thickness of a 55 gallon steel drum) after a VERY long time.... I'm sure we've all seen automobiles that burned to a crisp, yet the metal shell of the car remains relatively intact. They don't just melt to the ground, and this is extremely thin material compared to what we are talking about in the towers. Thus jet fuel CANNOT cause sufficient temperature to have any significant effect on those vertical columns. POSSIBLY on horizontal ones, given enough time.
I have seen first hand the effects of fire in buildings which took hours to extinguish, and ALL vertical columns were very much intact; even though some horizontal beams had sagged somewhat in the middle.. However, the sagging was from intense heat directly below the beam allowing it to stretch under it's own weight in the middle of the span. It did NOT pull the vertical columns off of plumb.. And these columns were nowhere NEAR the size of the ones used in the towers. In fact, they were merely I-beams, which would be nowhere near as ridgid as rectangular tubing.
No sir, those main support columns were compromised by something other than fires. And pancaking doesn't cut it either. If the horizontal beams HAD for some inexplicable reason sheared loose from the columns, the columns STILL would have remained standing until enough beams had broken away as to make them unstable enough to sway and fall over (given their size, several hundred feet) and even then, they would have BENT long before breaking.
And in this case, facts certainly don't support the official story.
Agreed, at least not the facts as known to date.
SOMETHING caused vertical columns to "break" in two all along their lengths.
'twould seem so.
STEEL bends, long before it breaks. And those vertical columns weren't going to bend easily.
There certainly did not appear to be long (dozens of floor heights) continuously bent and/or crumbpled steel support columns in the rubble. The rubble did seem to show numerous sections (of a few floor heights, consistently) of what were once near- continuous steel support columns.
Lastly, the commission's failure or unwilingness to address issues like what brought down WTC7 indicate to me that the research and investigation remain incomplete, even officially.
