Thermite Use Possibly Debunked.

Originally posted by turbofan
Well you can keep believing that jet fuel can burn through iron and all that fun stuff.

I wont hold me breath, just come back and tell us when the jet fuel burns through the iron and aluminum, k?

Then you can explain how those magical elements came together to form the chips.

edit on 30-11-2010 by turbofan because: (no reason given)

Who said that the fires burned through the steel beams?

What has been said is that theheat generated by the fires, raised the temperature of the steel beams thus lowering their yield point enough to cause the beams to have failed due to excessive loading.

Considering that the main ingrediants of thermite is aluminum, iron oxide and sulfur. Considering that an aircraft, made primarily of aluminum, carrying jet fuel, containing sulfur, hit a steel building, I would be suprised if you didn't find a chemical composition similar to thermite.

As far as the "nano-thermite" is concerned, it may exist, but somebody is going to have to show me it in action before I give any credability to it. Yes! I read the research that has been posted in these threads. I found it interesting, but I do not believe that it was used. The main factor behind my belief is that the collapse of both towers started at the point of impact. If the "nano-thermite" or what ever else you want to say caused the collapse, was in place before the planes hit, how did it survive the impact or why didn't it detonate on impact and cause an immediate collapse. If the charges were places elsewhere why didn't the collapse start at that point. Untill you can explain that, all of this talk of CD and thermite or nano-thermite is just plain BS.

It has already been explained.

Look up my thread, "Jones' Dust Analysis: Common Arguments Addressed"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are several links within that you can read which explain why airplanes hitting the beams and jet fuel
fires cannot trigger the nano-thermite.

In these PDF links there are magnified images of nano structures which will clearly indicate they cannot be
formed by planes and aluminum hitting steel beams upon impact.

Originally posted by turbofan
It has already been explained.

No it hasn't.

A quote in your post states

Response: See impact studies and Types of Ignition
Section 2.3 Characterization Methods, page 5 and 6 of:
Sol-Gel Processing of Energetic Materials, T.M. Tillotson. Aug. 18, 1997

Ignition of our nanocomposites has been achieved using butane flame, resistive heating element, and laser illumination (LASER IGNITION).
Magnesium Ribbon (Mg)
• Magnesium metal burns in an Oxygen environment (air) in a very bright, exothermic reaction. Magnesium ribbon can burn at several thousand degrees easily igniting thermite. The Magnesium ribbon is useful as it acts like a fuse, calmly burning, allowing a short delay between when the ribbon is lit and when the thermite begins to react.
•
Other forms of Magnesium metal can be substituted for Magnesium ribbon such as metal turnings, powders, or even common sparkers which contain Magnesium.
Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) + Glycerin
• An alternative to using Magnesium ribbon is to use the heat given off by the reaction between Potassium Permanganate and glycerin. Potassium Permanganate is an extremely powerful Oxidizer which spontaneously ignites after coming in contact with glycerin.
•
After adding a few drops of glycerin to Potassium Permanganate powder and a short delay, a violent exothermic oxidation reaction occurs which will ignite a thermite mixture.


These excerpts can be studied in depth by reading the linked material within the quotes. Ignition qualities of nanoenergetic structures can be tailored to specific levels. Several types of igniting methods can be used to prevent accidental light-off in certain environments. In addition, the rapid gas expansion forces particles away from the source which may impede the contiguous reaction from occurring. Also note, the drop hammer test yields a threshold of 50% efficiency as an acceptable percentage of ignition. That implies that un-reacted structures will remain.
signature:
Tino D.
Independent Researcher
Aerospace Technologist, RF communications.
Ontario, Canada

I find this interesting for a few reasons.

It states that an external ignition source is required, then it lists several types of ignition sources. Personally I think that if a butane flame can light this stuff, burning jet fuel should be able to do it easily.
If I buy into your premise that nano-thermite could survive the impact and fire from the aircraft, could the same be said for it's ignition system?

Another thing I find interesting from this quote is this statement "the rapid gas expansion forces particles away from the source which may impede the contiguous reaction from occurring". To me that implies that you have to have several points of ignition because the nano-thermite can not be depended to continue ignition from a single point.

Last but not least is the statement that "the drop hammer test yields a threshold of 50% efficiency as an acceptable percentage of ignition. That implies that un-reacted structures will remain."

50% efficiency? I have to ask how much of this stuff would it take to cut through an I-beam? An ounce, a pound? At 50% effiency could it even be relied upon for use?
Then the second part of that statement "That implies that un-reacted structures will remain."
Wouldn't the torches used to cut the debris ignite the un-reacted structures? I don't recall any I-beams bursting into flames when they were being cut. You would think that someone might comment on that?

Originally posted by boondock-saint
first of all the spectrum analysis needed
for this was not used on any camera
known to record any 9/11 footage
that I know about. You can do
these type analysis but u cannot
do it without special equipment.
So the videos you allude to does not
change the status quo IMO.

There are also pics from a sat view
of ground zero days after the event
which actually show the temps
required for thermite use.

So, IMO, u have no case.

Thats what im saying.

reply to post by freedish


The EVIDENCE Cannot be Refuted by a Press release by some Goverment Sponsored Disinfo Agent . Do Your homework First before you Post Outragious Claims on this Board Sir !

911research.wtc7.net...

no offense, but u r making
some very bold statements
based upon imperfect data
and u've been here less than
a week. There is about a decades
worth of homework for u in the 9/11
forum.

There was centuries of data for the flat Earth theory and look where it ended up. Plus there are far bolder statements on here almost everyday. Holograms, particle beams.

On the one hand we have one soldier and Wikileaks creating an international stir.
On the other we have 10 years and only Youtube speculation.
Sometimes a rose is just a rose. And a tragedy is just a tragedy.
The only conspiracy was amongst the hijackers.

Originally posted by turbofan
It has already been explained.

Look up my thread, "Jones' Dust Analysis: Common Arguments Addressed"

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are several links within that you can read which explain why airplanes hitting the beams and jet fuel
fires cannot trigger the nano-thermite.

In these PDF links there are magnified images of nano structures which will clearly indicate they cannot be
formed by planes and aluminum hitting steel beams upon impact.

Ooops, yeah I forgot, this is [i[NANO thermite, that very special brand of thermite that has only those properties that are requried for an "inside job".

Vey convenient.

Originally posted by JIMC5499

It states that an external ignition source is required, then it lists several types of ignition sources. Personally I think that if a butane flame can light this stuff, burning jet fuel should be able to do it easily.

Your personal opinion unfortunately doesn't trump the tested science. Jet fuel is not hot enough to light the
nano-thermite.

If I buy into your premise that nano-thermite could survive the impact and fire from the aircraft, could the same be said for it's ignition system?

First off,it's not my premise. It's a documented fact from LLNL. What is your point about the ignition systems
surviving, or failing during impact?

Another thing I find interesting from this quote is this statement "the rapid gas expansion forces particles away from the source which may impede the contiguous reaction from occurring". To me that implies that you have to have several points of ignition because the nano-thermite can not be depended to continue ignition from a single point.

What that quote states is:

The rapid expansion of gasses causes the nano particles to be blown away from the ignitoin sources, or
ignited material and therefore some particles will remain unreacted. It has absolutely nothing to do with
multiple ignition sources.

50% efficiency? I have to ask how much of this stuff would it take to cut through an I-beam? An ounce, a pound? At 50% effiency could it even be relied upon for use?

50% efficiency as an acceptable percentage of ignition.

Re-Read that portion of the PDF. It's a drop hammer test that indicates the threshold of ignition at a 50%
pass/fail. It has nothing to do with the efficiency of the nano material. It has everything to do with the ignition
properties and the minimum required friction/force to start a reaction.

reply to post by Nutter


That's true. However I still think the plane knocked down a feel steel beams. Enough to compromise the integrity of the building. (Of course I could be wrong).

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by hooper

 

Well Gee, I wonder why CadWelds works so well!!?

Exothermic welding, also known as exothermic bonding, is a welding process for joining two electrical conductors, that employs superheated copper alloy to permanently join the conductors. The process employs an exothermic reaction of a copper thermite composition to heat the copper, and requires no external source of heat or current. The chemical reaction that produces the heat is an aluminothermic reaction between aluminium powder and a mixture of copper oxides (copper(II) oxide and copper(I) oxide), with chemical formula:[1]

3CuO + 2Al → 3Cu + Al2O3 + Heat.[1]
This chemical reaction reaches a temperature of 1,400 °C (1,670 K).


The process is marketed under a variety of names such as Cadweld, Techweld, and Thermoweld.[2]

Sorry but I got 3 hours of sleep last night and that post looks like a lot of mumbo jumbo. Can you expand on it or explain your point?

Originally posted by freedish

I can't believe no one else caught this. These were in the 9/11 video cache that was released a few weeks ago.
Here are two videos showing the temperatures of the two buildings right after the attack.
My question is, where is the thermite?

(sorry i don't know how to embed vid's yet)

Infraspection 5

Infraspection 6


If thermite burns three times hotter than molten lava at 2500 degrees Celsius,
shouldn't we see big blobs of white everywhere?
The hottest thing I see is at maybe 100 Celsius. (212 Fahrenheit).

The thermate concept involves quick cutting blasts of localized thermate slicing through very specific vertical beams located deep within the core of the building's structure. These blasts - more like extended flashes of intense heat applied directly to the beam's surface to cut throug the beams - wouldve only fired off as the rest of the blast sequence was ready to initiate. Your thermal footage isn't anywhere near the proper point in time for those thermate cutting charges to ignite.

I guess you don't have much experience in this debate.

However I found another interesting thing:
There are several red spots that are no where near the impact zone.(5 seconds into the 2nd video)
Why are these spots that are NO WHERE near the impact zone heating up?
Shouldn't they be cold like the rest of the building?

I don't have much 9/11 conspiracy experience so maybe someone could help me out...

Like the one poster suggested, radiated heat from Tower 2 on the glass of Tower 1 in that area. Normal considering the situation. You can even pick up heat signatures from FLIR detectors if you stand in front of a reflective surface. It'll pick up your own reflection, and freak you out - think there's an invisible guy standing in front of you. That "heat signature" isn't mysterious.

Originally posted by freedish
reply to post by Nutter

 

That's true. However I still think the plane knocked down a feel steel beams. Enough to compromise the integrity of the building. (Of course I could be wrong).

edit on 1-12-2010 by freedish because: spelt plane wrong

The problem with this theory is that each WTC tower was constructed as three independent structures that were bolted together, one on top of the other. Like a stack of blocks. This was done to make a progressive collapse - like the one you're suggesting - impossible, since a progressive collapse could only ever progress to the bottom of the isolated structural unit where it began. Beneath that crumbling structure would sit a fully intact, and undamaged structure, and with the path of least resistance (one of Newton's laws of physics) being the only way that anything falls, what should have occurred (if a progressive collapse did actually initiate where the jet liners each hit) is that the floors below the impact should have crumbled to the sides of the undamaged structural section below them and tumbled off to the streets below.

The thing is that a disintegrating mass of concrete dust and chunks of steel is no match - not by a long shot - for a fully intact, and undamaged structure that is made of the very same material as the disintegrating mass that is collapsing on it. The drop involved is only a little over 12 feet, and no momentum at all is gathered in only 12 feet. That intact structure will hold firm, and while it may get damaged, the loose mass of the upper floors will immediately take the easy way to the streets once it meets that rigid resistance. That's just how reality works.

One guy - years ago - tried to insist that the weight of the upper floors crushed all the floors below, and took everything to the ground, but try making that claim to a structural engineer - even concerning a building that isn't designed as three isolated and rigidly intact segments - and that engineer will laugh at you. Unless, of course, you're talking about this very specific pair of "collapses" and there's anyone listening to the conversation. Then, watch the poor guy tie himself up in knots to keep from having to publicly admit that a progressive collapse of a steel-frame skyscraper is literally impossible. In fact, only three such collapses have ever occurred, and they all occurred that day and within 200 yards of each other.

You need to do some research into the finer points of physics and momentum. This specific argument on behalf of the OCT was widely crushed back in 2005, and yet here you guys are, still trotting it out as if you invented it.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
first of all the spectrum analysis needed
for this was not used on any camera
known to record any 9/11 footage
that I know about. You can do
these type analysis but u cannot
do it without special equipment.
So the videos you allude to does not
change the status quo IMO.

There are also pics from a sat view
of ground zero days after the event
which actually show the temps
required for thermite use.

So, IMO, u have no case.

If the temperature at the time of the building's collapse was nowhere near the temperature for thermite combustion then no matter how much you demean or try to massage the truth, it's a slam dunk that you're wrong.

Just because a person wants to believe something doesn't make it so. Otherwise the world would be ruled by psychotics

Originally posted by sy.gunson

Originally posted by boondock-saint
first of all the spectrum analysis needed
for this was not used on any camera
known to record any 9/11 footage
that I know about. You can do
these type analysis but u cannot
do it without special equipment.
So the videos you allude to does not
change the status quo IMO.

There are also pics from a sat view
of ground zero days after the event
which actually show the temps
required for thermite use.

So, IMO, u have no case.

If the temperature at the time of the building's collapse was nowhere near the temperature for thermite combustion then no matter how much you demean or try to massage the truth, it's a slam dunk that you're wrong.

Just because a person wants to believe something doesn't make it so. Otherwise the world would be ruled by psychotics

The footage posted wasn't taken at the time of the collapse, so no thermate was burning. None. No reason at all for it to be burning. It's as simple as that.

Just because a person wants to believe that these clips are evidence doesn't mean that they are evidence. Otherwise the world would be ruled by bumbling idiots who couldn't solve a crime if they committed it themselves.

reply to post by NorEaster


Good point I didn't think of that! Kudos.

And no I'm certainly no expert on 9/11 conspiracy.

Originally posted by turbofan

Well Gee, I wonder why CadWelds works so well!!?

Exothermic welding, also known as exothermic bonding, is a welding process for joining two electrical conductors, that employs superheated copper alloy to permanently join the conductors. The process employs an exothermic reaction of a copper thermite composition to heat the copper, and requires no external source of heat or current. The chemical reaction that produces the heat is an aluminothermic reaction between aluminium powder and a mixture of copper oxides (copper(II) oxide and copper(I) oxide), with chemical formula:[1]

3CuO + 2Al → 3Cu + Al2O3 + Heat.[1]
This chemical reaction reaches a temperature of 1,400 °C (1,670 K).


The process is marketed under a variety of names such as Cadweld, Techweld, and Thermoweld.[2]

Sorry but I got 3 hours of sleep last night and that post looks like a lot of mumbo jumbo. Can you expand on it or explain your point?

If you are asking me, the point is:

Hooper stated that Cadwelds is used to ignite Thermite all of the time and therefore it must be easy to start
a Thermite reaction by jet fuel fire.

The problem is jet fuel cannot get hot enough (~ 300' C); that's why a magnesium fuse is used. Magnesium
burns white hot and can reach temperatures into the thousands of degrees C.

Cadwelds is not some sort of weak flame, it's an aluminothermic reaction which produces 1,400+ degrees C.

And for those claiming that thermite could not have been present because it didn't start a reaction during the fire,
or collapse, you need to understand the temperatures involved as explained in this post.

The nano-thermite was likely trigger by RF circuits (as shown in my thread, "Igniting Nano-thermite Without Detcord") which produce the required criteria to start the reaction.

Nano-thermite/thermate MUST be tested before we can determine IF/HOW it was used during 911.

We've seen from The Great Thermate Debate video that steel beams can be cut using thermate, but the technique needs to be refined to eliminate any evidence of the application device. Also there haven't been enough photos of the cut beams yet discovered.

As an off-thread theory, to explain bending/buckling columns we could consider induction heating - which is used in industry to bend steel. This would require lots of batteries - like existed in the towers, I believe WTC2 had some on the FUJI level, 81.

Also you can melt steel - in the basement of WTC7 - with electrical arc / plasma cutting. This would require a local transformer and high power. Could we check the electrical consumption at WTC1,2,7 that day?

Originally posted by tuttlet


Also you can melt steel - in the basement of WTC7 - with electrical arc / plasma cutting. This would require a local transformer and high power. Could we check the electrical consumption at WTC1,2,7 that day?

Wow that's actually a really good idea. And there would be no evidence of this because of the massive amount of rubble. The only problem is I have no clue where or how to find that information.

And that sound a lot more plausible then thermite.

reply to post by freedish


Really? So, how do you explain the red-gray chips found in the dust and their performance in a DSC
machine?

Your electricity theory has been removed by experiment. Sorry.