Thermite theory vs. Explosives theory

Originally posted by LeftBehind
Like I said, certain types of sheetrock might be rated to slow down a fire, it is certainly not fireproof, nor a fireproofing substance like asbestos.

en.wikipedia.org...

The most commonly used drywall is one half inch thick, but can range from one quarter (6.35 mm) to one inch (25 mm). For soundproofing or fire resistance, two layers of drywall are sometimes laid at right angles to each other. In North America, five-eighths inch thick drywall with a one-hour fire-resistance rating is often used where fire resistance is desired.

Drywall provides a thermal resistance R-value of 0.32 for three-eighths-inch board, 0.45 for half inch, 0.56 for five-eighths inch and 0.83 for one-inch board. In addition to increased R-value, thicker drywall has a higher sound transmission class.

It will burn, it is fire resistant not fireproof.

And yes sheetrock is made from gypsum or calcium sulfate.

en.wikipedia.org...

A growing source of gypsum is from flue gas desulfurization which scrubs the sulfur emissions from fossil-fuel-burning power stations. This is done by using finely ground limestone which reacts with the sulfur dioxide to produce high-purity gypsum as a by-product.

I have seen your thread, and I have done research on this. I have never seen any picture, let alone video of "red hot I-beams burning red hot" six weeks later, and there is certainly none in that thread.

If you could provide a link to one it would be greatly appreciated.

It might take a little while.
Here's one link I got off my above mentioned thread.
Video Link : www.youtube.com...


here's a better one : www.youtube.com...


This is the ones with the firefighters explaining it all (One of the best)
Video Link : www.youtube.com...

Now tell me did you go to my thread and watch the videos on it?
I'm trying to find a good one which I misplaced showing a like 10 foot horizonal hole with molten metal just glowing like a foundry, when I find it I will post it.
I found it here it is : www.youtube.com...

So go and watch some of the videos on my thread and join the discussion there and here both threads have a lot of good info. on them.

Here's a whole google page for you to checkout on 911 Molten iron
Here's the link : www.youtube.com...

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

[edit on 20-3-2007 by PHARAOH1133]

Originally posted by whiterabbit
No. Neither thermite nor explosives are capable of directly causing that. That had to come from some other process.

Yes, it could easily be caused by thermAte or nanothermAte as that is the EXACT purpose of these aluminothermics.

Again, you are purposely ignoring the differences between the various aluminothermics to advance some odd agenda.

You need to:

1. Do more research on brisance and aluminothermics.

or

2. Stop playing a game here.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
It's not doubtful at all. If they had used thermite to bring the towers down, there would be beams that were very obviously melted/cut.

Obvious to who? You or me sitting here 6 years latter? Or to people who just went through the most horrifying thing imaginable? I'm sure they were looking for signs of thermite. Sarcasm.

This also would've been before they started cutting the beams up with cutting torches.

Really? I thought it was you who found that they started cutting beams and collumns as early as the day itself. How convienient that they start to cut the steel on 9/11. That way, even if something does look out of the ordinary, people can claim it was torch cut. Sound familiar?

It wouldn't take a trained eye at all to spot one. It'd look like a beam, cut off at one end, and covered in slag. And there would be evidence of extreme heat and fire all around that beam from the thermite.

Hmmm...I wonder why the first theory was that the fires melted the steel? Couldn't be because they saw evidence of extreme heat and fire could it? Again, sarcasm.

And since some of these wouldn't have burned completely (or perhaps some not burned at all), there would be lots of columns with unburned thermite still strapped to them.

Your opinion. Also, since the operation of cleanup became a scoop and dump operation, do you really think they were searching for unused thermite et al.?

I doubt anybody would have suspected Uncle Sam, but someone WOULD have reported it had they found an undetonated device (thermite) or found evidence that something cut the beams.

Could you explain to me what an undetonated thermite device would look like? How would untrained people know the difference between that and say shear resisters or anything that may be on the columns to stabalize them. I would assume if they would go so far as to take the towers down with thermite, they would make the charges look like other structural steel that gives the columns stability. Just thinking off the top of my head.

Since thermite would've left lots of obvious evidence, it's reasonable to conclude they didn't use thermite.

Correct. How much obvious evidence would there be off a technology that is not fully known yet? I.E. nanothermetics?

Originally posted by Pootie

Originally posted by whiterabbit
No. Neither thermite nor explosives are capable of directly causing that. That had to come from some other process.

Yes, it could easily be caused by thermAte or nanothermAte as that is the EXACT purpose of these aluminothermics.

You're wrong.

Thermite, thermAte, nanothermAte, super-thermite--NONE of it would be causing molten steel four weeks later. It simply doesn't burn long enough to do that, not even close. It had to come from some other process.

Now if you're referring to the molten steel on the day of the attack and not weeks later, that's easy--there never was any. Oh, there was molten metal to be sure, but not steel.

Again, you are purposely ignoring the differences between the various aluminothermics to advance some odd agenda.

Yeah, here we go with the disinformation agent stuff and the personal insults. Yay.

2. Stop playing a game here.

If you can't argue with me without making weird vague insults, please don't bother. I'm not interested.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You're wrong.

Thermite, thermAte, nanothermAte, super-thermite--NONE of it would be causing molten steel four weeks later. It simply doesn't burn long enough to do that, not even close. It had to come from some other process.

I'm not getting your thinking here. Obviously something did that. If fires could start a reaction in the basements for weeks (the official story), then thermite et al could have done the exact same thing. Why do you contend that thermite couldn't?

Now if you're referring to the molten steel on the day of the attack and not weeks later, that's easy--there never was any. Oh, there was molten metal to be sure, but not steel.

So, you personally analysed the molten material dripping from the towers to conclude without a doubt that it was not steel? How'd you do that? Why didn't you test other samples while you were at it?

Yeah, here we go with the disinformation agent stuff and the personal insults. Yay.

Instead of complaining about the inuendos, why don't you talk about your research of the aluminothermics?

Originally posted by Griff
Obvious to who? You or me sitting here 6 years latter? Or to people who just went through the most horrifying thing imaginable? I'm sure they were looking for signs of thermite. Sarcasm.

It would've been obvious to the rescue workers, the firemen, the onlookers. Everyone would've noticed it, and it would've been in the media in no time.

Really? I thought it was you who found that they started cutting beams and collumns as early as the day itself. How convienient that they start to cut the steel on 9/11. That way, even if something does look out of the ordinary, people can claim it was torch cut. Sound familiar?

They did start cutting beams the day of the attack. But these thermite-cut beams would've been visible from the moment the dust started settling. Everyone would've seen them.

Not to mention, there would be a clear difference between a thermite-cut beam and a torch-cut beam.

Your opinion. Also, since the operation of cleanup became a scoop and dump operation, do you really think they were searching for unused thermite et al.?

Well, it's not an opinion that there would've been unburned thermite. Thermite doesn't have an even burn time. There would've been LOTS of unburned thermite at the time the tower actually came down, which would've then likely have prevented that thermite from burning at all.

And I don't think they were searching for thermite, but they wouldn't have had to. It would've been obvious. Not the thermite itself--it would be pretty unimpressive just laying unburned in the rubble. But there would've been slagged up columns, surrounded by a large burn zone where the heat set fire to everything, and then unburned thermite to boot as well as the ignition device.

Could you explain to me what an undetonated thermite device would look like?

Not entirely, because they don't use thermite to bring down buildings, but I can speculate.

It'd have to be some kind of device, fairly sizeable, that wraps around the entirety of the steel column and forces the burning thermite to go sideways through it. If any bit of the thermite burned on that device, the area would also be surrounded by a big burn zone from the heat setting fire to stuff.

So, basically, you'd have an intact steel column, with a device wrapped all the way around its circumference, with slag all over part of it leading down from that device, and a big burn zone around it.

Now, times the above by all the devices you'd need to bring the tower down and figure that MANY of them will not fully burn, and someone's going to notice.

Correct. How much obvious evidence would there be off a technology that is not fully known yet? I.E. nanothermetics?

No kind of advanced thermite I've read about so far would leave significantly less evidence than standard thermite. They all have basically the same problems with evidence.

If it was controlled demolition, it had to be explosives.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Not to mention, there would be a clear difference between a thermite-cut beam and a torch-cut beam.

I'm still waiting to see the difference. You even said on the other thread that they would be similar?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
If it was controlled demolition, it had to be explosives.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to state that it had to be something. No matter what caused it, we still don't have the evidence ourselves to say for certain that this or that was the cause. I wish the construction documents weren't classified, then maybe some of us independant engineers could have a crack at it.

Originally posted by Griff
I'm not getting your thinking here. Obviously something did that. If fires could start a reaction in the basements for weeks (the official story), then thermite et al could have done the exact same thing. Why do you contend that thermite couldn't?

Well, yeah, I'm not denying something caused the stuff to smoulder and burn for weeks. Obviously that happened.

But the Truthers are trying to show that as proof of thermite, and it just isn't. They're trying to say the thermite directly caused it to stay molten and burning like that for weeks, and it's just not true. The thermite would've burned out quickly.

Now, the reaction causing it to smoulder like, like you said, would've been started by fire. Could part of the fire that led to the sustained reaction been caused by thermite? Sure, whatever, I'll concede that. But clearly, from what we saw after the collapse, the debris didn't need any help getting fires going. There were fires being put out lots of places--with no thermite in sight.

The molten steel weeks later just doesn't prove anything. It would've happened whether there was thermite there or not.

So, you personally analysed the molten material dripping from the towers to conclude without a doubt that it was not steel? How'd you do that? Why didn't you test other samples while you were at it?

I'll give you that. That's my opinion that there was no steel, because if there was no thermite, there wouldn't have been.

But I can say that there is no proof of molten steel the day of the attack (and please nobody post that picture of the "steel" flowing out of the window--it's been debunked to death).

Instead of complaining about the inuendos, why don't you talk about your research of the aluminothermics?

Well, firstly, it's real nice of you to defend that sort of behavior out of him. I disagree with you all the time, but I haven't acted toward you the way he was acting toward me. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say you probably wouldn't appreciate it if I did.

Now as for the aluminothermics, who said I have any research on it? I never claimed to be an expert on an authority on thermite.

But I do know what I know from real life and from reading. And thermite, nano-thermite, super-thermite, thermate, and all the other endless varieties all leave pretty much the same evidence. You get a quicker or slower reaction time depending on what variety you're talking about, maybe a hair more or less slag, but there's not a huge world of difference in it.

Originally posted by Griff
I'm still waiting to see the difference. You even said on the other thread that they would be similar?

Well, similar in that they've both got that melted look to the cuts, but there would be a big difference. The torch cut columns have a fairly neet line going through them, with a little slag hanging over the edges and some discoloration.

With a thermite cut column, you'd have slag all the thing like a melted candle, it would be a much more uneven cut (where some portions of the thermite were able to burn long than others and melt more of the steel away), probably a good foot or two of the steel column would be discolored above that, and you'd likely still have the ignition device attached to the column.

Originally posted by Griff
I don't know if I'd go so far as to state that it had to be something. No matter what caused it, we still don't have the evidence ourselves to say for certain that this or that was the cause. I wish the construction documents weren't classified, then maybe some of us independant engineers could have a crack at it.

Okay, what I should say then, is that it would be a thousand times easier to pull off a covert controlled demolition and cover it up afterwards with explosives than it would with thermite.

Not only would there be mountains more evidence to cover up from thermite, but, since people don't demolish buildings with thermite, they would've been doing it for basically the first time. They would've been depending on untested methods and technology. That would've required leaving so many things to chance.

They just wouldn't have used thermite. It would've been damn-near impossible to cover it up and they would've had to rely on untested methods and technology. The logistics of using conventional explosives would've been a cakewalk compared to it.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
With a thermite cut column, you'd have slag all the thing like a melted candle, it would be a much more uneven cut (where some portions of the thermite were able to burn long than others and melt more of the steel away), probably a good foot or two of the steel column would be discolored above that, and you'd likely still have the ignition device attached to the column.

Thanks for responding to this. That's what I was asking for. You still haven't shown me more than just your opinion though. I wish we could find a pic of a column that is known to be cut from thermite (I say thermite as in the generic form) and compare it to the other columns.

I am not trying to argue with you just to argue. I used to believe the thermite theory, but with people like you showing how it wouldn't work, I've changed my position and now don't claim to know what did happen. I just don't think damage and fire can fell 3 buildings made of steel and concrete all in the same day.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Well, yeah, I'm not denying something caused the stuff to smoulder and burn for weeks. Obviously that happened.

But the Truthers are trying to show that as proof of thermite, and it just isn't. They're trying to say the thermite directly caused it to stay molten and burning like that for weeks, and it's just not true.

You sir are incorrect.

"The Truthers" understand that the TEMPERATURE of the burning pile was not achievable with only gravity and hydrocarbon fires. However, an aluminothermic reaction, EVEN IF SHORT IN DURATION, could have easily heated the metal/materials in the sub basements to the extraordinarily high temperatures that were maintained in the pile for weeks, NOT by an ONGOING REACTION, but by the INSULATION that the pile provided. It may not have been 'thermite', but it is unexplained by the official accounts.

The temperatures of the piles is not in question and is FAR too high for gravity, jet fuel and burning office materials.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
The molten steel weeks later just doesn't prove anything. It would've happened whether there was thermite there or not.

HOW? Where is there enough energy input to MELT STEEL?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
I'll give you that. That's my opinion that there was no steel, because if there was no thermite, there wouldn't have been.

This is a direct contradiction to your statement above. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
But I can say that there is no proof of molten steel the day of the attack (and please nobody post that picture of the "steel" flowing out of the window--it's been debunked to death).

The thermal imaging of the 'piles' shows temps quite high enough to melt steel.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Now as for the aluminothermics, who said I have any research on it? I never claimed to be an expert on an authority on thermite.

CLASSIC DEBUNKER... "I will talk about 'thermite' all day, but I don't know anything about it... WTH?

Originally posted by whiterabbit
They just wouldn't have used thermite. It would've been damn-near impossible to cover it up and they would've had to rely on untested methods and technology. The logistics of using conventional explosives would've been a cakewalk compared to it.

This statement is wrong on so many levels...

1. You are correct... they would not have JUST USED 'thermite', they could have used a much more volatile aluminthermic mixture in shaped cutting devices (the patent numbers are posted here by Slap Nuts... I am not looking). They probably would haev used this in CONJUNCTION with other HE devices.

2. Aluminothermic reactions are A LOT easier to cover up that HE because they leave virtually NO chemical 'signature... just molten iron, some trace elements and Aluminum Oxide (as white smoke generally). HEs leave VERY telltale compounds to be found after the fact so aluminothermics would be MORE DESIREABLE for a coverup. The public is to dumb to get that steel/iron should not have melted and think it should have happened.

3. The 'logistics' are YOUR OPINION and your opinion is totally MOOT on this topic because you admit to knowing squat about 'thermite' or aluminothermics. Google "sol-gel"... look up the cutting device patents for "thermite" and get back to me.

4. Aluminothermics are NOT untested. This is a flat out deception.

Originally posted by Griff
Thanks for responding to this. That's what I was asking for. You still haven't shown me more than just your opinion though.

You know what's funny? I've been looking for some good pictures of thermite-burned metal to debunk this, but every time I do searches for it, I get those torch-cut pictures over and over.

There's lots of videos, though. Like check out this one:

www.guzer.com...

I mean, just watch how the thermite's going everywhere. It's a mess. It's sloppy. I mean, you get a little steel flying here and there with a cutting torch, but not anywhere like that.

And at the end of the video, you can see the sloppy hole. Now, it's not a steel column, but the idea is the same.

I wish we could find a pic of a column that is known to be cut from thermite (I say thermite as in the generic form) and compare it to the other columns.

You know what I've made up my mind to do? I've got all kinds of scrap steel, but nothing that big and thick really. If I run across a section of steel column or beam (which I'm sure I will eventually), I'm going to haul it home and do it just to show the difference. You can get thermite anywhere. I'll have to lay the column sideways and let it burn straight down down through it since I have NO idea how you'd get it to burn sideways through a verticle column, but it should work basically the same.

I am not trying to argue with you just to argue. I used to believe the thermite theory, but with people like you showing how it wouldn't work, I've changed my position and now don't claim to know what did happen. I just don't think damage and fire can fell 3 buildings made of steel and concrete all in the same day.

That is very respectable.

Originally posted by Griff

Thanks for responding to this. That's what I was asking for. You still haven't shown me more than just your opinion though. I wish we could find a pic of a column that is known to be cut from thermite (I say thermite as in the generic form) and compare it to the other columns.

I am not trying to argue with you just to argue. I used to believe the thermite theory, but with people like you showing how it wouldn't work, I've changed my position and now don't claim to know what did happen. I just don't think damage and fire can fell 3 buildings made of steel and concrete all in the same day.

I don't mean to be butting in for WR, but I've used thermate and WR is right.

There are some basic issues with it here.

First, unless you're using really exotic thermates (not all thermates are for incendiary use) then typically what you get is a wad of molten steel when the reaction ends. That's great for tearing up stuff. It really is, but the issue you always have with it is that it wants to run downwards.

If you're messing stuff up with it, you have to put it above what you want to ruin. To some extent, you can sort of direct it a little, but your control over that is minimal.

For example, if you have the time and materials, you can make a sort of clay mold to direct your thermate onto an area. But you always have to consider that it will flow downwards, and once it leaves your mold it will just run down where it wants to.

You could use clay molding to hold it in place for a few seconds, say, if you didn't have a lot of thermate and wanted to wreak optimal bedlam. You can use a wad of clay to direct it into the training and elevation gear of a piece of artillery, for example. Or you can weld railroad cars to tracks that way, which can be really irritating.

You can make great improvised welds with it if you needed to weld two pieces of steel, even really big heavy ones, if you can approximate the ends, seal the outer edges of the crack with your clay (may take some support framework) and make a clay funnel full o' thermate at the top, so that the steel melts and runs into the crack to be welded, leaving the slag in the funnel.

But the entire issue is that it runs down. You can use it to erode through horizontal members, I can't say cut exactly. But for vertical ones, you will most likely not get a cut, it will just run down the side.

Also thermate generally doesn't start that uniformly. I don't know if you could get a firechain that would ignite the thermate uniformly enough to burn through steel members on cue so that you got a nice controlled demolition. I'd expect any sort of thermate havoc to be slow and sloppy.

And finally, the thermate reaction is incredibly exothermic. It's one of the most exothermic reactions there is. And really exothermic means it's over fast. The more exotic thermates burn in just seconds (some of the anti-IR missile flares you see planes eject are an exotic thermate).

You can't have a spectacularly exothermic reaction that is also slow. A pound of TH3 will burn in about 10 seconds.

Originally posted by Pootie
You sir are incorrect.

"The Truthers" understand that the TEMPERATURE of the burning pile was not achievable with only gravity and hydrocarbon fires. However, an aluminothermic reaction, EVEN IF SHORT IN DURATION, could have easily heated the metal/materials in the sub basements to the extraordinarily high temperatures that were maintained in the pile for weeks, NOT by an ONGOING REACTION, but by the INSULATION that the pile provided. It may not have been 'thermite', but it is unexplained by the official accounts.

No, you're wrong again.

While thermite most definitely would've heated everything up and the debris would have insulated it, the insulating effect of the debris would not be enough to keep steel molten for weeks. It just isn't.

It came from a secondary reaction. Not thermite. There's been lots of speculation about what the secondary reaction was (hydrogen reaction, etc), but it was not caused directly by thermite.

CLASSIC DEBUNKER... "I will talk about 'thermite' all day, but I don't know anything about it... WTH?

*sigh* Are you really unable to talk about this without being disrespectful? You ought to take an example from Griff.

I never said I don't know anything about thermite. I definitely know something about it. I know more than your average joe on the street about it and I've seen the stuff used in front of my own person.

But if you want me to start discussing the subtleties of aluminothermics, I can't. As I said, I am no expert nor a chemist.

[edit on 26-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

White Rabbit:

You just keep ignoring the truth...

1. There are many far more 'powerful' aluminothermics than the 'thermite' you are seeing in those videos of UNCONTROLLED 'thermite' reactions.

2. There are PATENTED DEVICES for LINEAR CUTTING OF 'THICK STEEL' utilizing aluminothermics... not just the SLOP you are pointing out on your videos. Here is an example of one US Patent 6183569.

3. Aluminothermics can be made in almost ANY SHAPE using 'sol-gel' or 'Aerogel'.

Originally posted by Tom Bedlam
But the entire issue is that it runs down. You can use it to erode through horizontal members, I can't say cut exactly. But for vertical ones, you will most likely not get a cut, it will just run down the side.

Also thermate generally doesn't start that uniformly. I don't know if you could get a firechain that would ignite the thermate uniformly enough to burn through steel members on cue so that you got a nice controlled demolition. I'd expect any sort of thermate havoc to be slow and sloppy.

And finally, the thermate reaction is incredibly exothermic. It's one of the most exothermic reactions there is. And really exothermic means it's over fast. The more exotic thermates burn in just seconds (some of the anti-IR missile flares you see planes eject are an exotic thermate).

You can't have a spectacularly exothermic reaction that is also slow. A pound of TH3 will burn in about 10 seconds.

In one breath you say that any sort of thermate havoc would be slow and sloppy. Then you state that exotic thermates burn too fast? Which is it because now I'm confused?

And if exotic thermates are incredibly exothermic, meaning fast and hot, why is it impossible to think that an exotic thermate could burn fast and hot through a column? Disregarding the horizontal/verticle thing for the moment.

Originally posted by Pootie
1. You are correct... they would not have JUST USED 'thermite', they could have used a much more volatile aluminthermic mixture in shaped cutting devices (the patent numbers are posted here by Slap Nuts... I am not looking).

And that "much more volatile" mixture still would've created slag all over the place, still would've needed an ignition source, and would've left just as much evidence as typical thermite.

They probably would haev used this in CONJUNCTION with other HE devices.

Why? That would leave even more evidence than thermite alone would.

2. Aluminothermic reactions are A LOT easier to cover up that HE because they leave virtually NO chemical 'signature...

I disagree, and I don't see how you can think that.

It might not leave a chemical signature, but it would leave tons of other evidence that even laymen would be able to spot.

The public is to dumb to get that steel/iron should not have melted and think it should have happened.

They wouldn't have been too dumb to realize all these cut columns laying about, immediately after the collapse and the dust settled, were from a controlled demolition. People aren't that blind.

3. The 'logistics' are YOUR OPINION and your opinion is totally MOOT on this topic because you admit to knowing squat about 'thermite' or aluminothermics. Google "sol-gel"... look up the cutting device patents for "thermite" and get back to me.

Not what I said. I do know about thermite, and I know enough to know this would be damn-near impossible to pull off.

4. Aluminothermics are NOT untested. This is a flat out deception.

Well, thank you for accusing me of lying in addition to all the other insults, but that's not what I said. I did not say aluminothermics were untested.

What I did say is that the method and technology were untested, and they are.

Thermite is not used for controlled demolition of buildings. That's untested.

Thermite does not naturally burn sideways through things. It would require some kind of device to force it to do so. That's also untested.