Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

reply to post by bsbray11


The OP is not being refuted, other than the error of calling thermate "thermite," it is being called out as pointless. Thermate cuts steel as it was designed to do but the demonstration is as pointless as cutting the steel with a hacksaw. It does what it is designed to do. The reason for it being pointless is that there is no evidence for either thermite or thermate at the WTC. You may have missed that point in your confused state.
The Jones paper purports to show a super nano paint-on thermite. It is not thermate because it lacks sulfur and any nitrate salts. It also self extinguishes above its ignition point after all the binder burns, leaving the "nanoparticulate" red iron oxide unreacted. This is the required oxidant for the thermite reaction and it is unreacted. OOPS! Jonesy missed that little point along with the fact that the energy output is too great for thermite.
You, of course, can explain everything about this because you took Chem 101 last year.

Originally posted by pteridine
The OP is not being refuted, other than the error of calling thermate "thermite,"

Which is a petty argument and seems to ignore the fact that thermate is a form of thermite. Where do you think the word "thermate" comes from?

reply to post by bsbray11


I see you can't respond to the rest of the post. Cole's demo is pointless, Jones paper is inconclusive, etc.

Get those chem 101 notes out and prove that I am wrong and Jones did show thermite. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by pteridine
I see you can't respond to the rest of the post. Cole's demo is pointless, Jones paper is inconclusive, etc.

What is your idea of the logical way to respond to an opinionated rant?



While you're responding to that, here's an instant replay of steel being quietly cut completely through:

reply to post by pteridine


Actually his demo fits nicely with the photographic evidence and eye witness accounts, and I agree with his conclusion that this would have been a quiet way to weaken the towers.

If a guy can do this in his back yard and figure this out on his own, the military can do better by far.

reply to post by bsbray11


Explain how the thermodynamics in Jones paper is consistent with thermite. It should be easy for you.

Has anyone else noticed my images are getting lost from my posts? Check this thread's OP for example. It's missing the secondary linear explosion image I posted a screen capture of from the linked website. I'll try again and see if this one stays put. This is my own screen capture from the Naudet film.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47999b4d78a7.jpg[/atsimg]

I have another thread which discusses what I believe can better answer that gouge, but it too has been tampered with, and not just my OP, but also the images included on replies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's the same subject on another forum; so far not tampered with:

letsrollforums.com...

Originally posted by FDNY343
*snip*

Why would you make it look like a plane, duh -- to get people to believe the official story. Pretty straight forward.. Same could be said about a wife cheating on a husband. Why would she lie about it? To protect her interests. That what lies are for.

As for my usage of the word "megalithic" yes, it's Large Stones -- no WTC wasn't Large Stones, I used it because we don't use large stones to make huge structures anymore, and Sky Scrapers are modern man's megalithic structures. It's more of an analogy than anything else.

As for nano-thermite not doing over time... that is simply erroneous. Anything can do overtime with enough quantity and a mechanism to only expose a small amount of the fuel source. 1 ounch of nano thermite will just flash, 10,000 pounds of nanothermite can do overtime. It's not "all or nothing" as you would so like to believe. If they were missiles designed to look like planes the yeild would have been muuuuuuuuuuch more than 10,000 pounds. Also, I did specifically say it could of been anything from nanothermite to a super napalm.... I.E. just speculation.

As for you saying Thermate produces more heat energy than nano-thermite, a simple google search would prove you wrong. Not only that, but you contradicted yourself in this very post by saying Nanothermite is indeed stronger than thermite and hence the reason it could not burn over time.

As for Jetfuel burning.... if you had 500 pounds of jetfuel in a fire over 2,000 degrees, the jetfuel instantly vaporizes... soooooooooooooooooooo yeah, it's completely contradictory to state the temperatures were up over 2,000 degrees, yet there was 500 pounds of highly volitile jetfuel just smoldering over time, this defies physics.

Also, there is no office supplies that will burn hotter than jetfuel, something that is designed to burn hot. Paper, sheetrock, and wooden desks will never exceed the temperature of jetfuel, and if the jetfuel was not hot enough to melt steel, than the office supplies by default cannot do that either.

What you refer to are normal office fires in regular structures. The fires don't melt the steel, they destroy the steels support. My house has no steel in it's structure. My office has no steel in it's structure. We use concrete and wooden framing to build normal size buildings. Anything skyscraper status is exclusively supported by steel.

"And the FAA, ATF, FBI, NYPD, etc....... "

Because Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has any data on planes..... Because the NYPD has any data on planes...... because the FBI wouldn't have been in on it? Which by extention covers the FAA. The fact of the matter is there is no empirical evidence that those planes were infact the planes that "went missing." You just have media, which gets it from the horses mouth.

Wonderful for you.

Yes, very much so -- for Rescue 5 was the first firefighter team to arrive at WTC. I grew up with these guys kids -- the only survivors of R5 were the ones off duty at the time it happened, but they were in contact with the ones that were on duty. They confirmed to me that there was no data supporting plane wreckage.

So again the FAA ATF FBI NYPD FDNY... etc etc. is a bogus statement.

What this has to do with the price of tea in China, I have no idea.

It doesn't -- it was said because a poster before me stated that Thermate was designed to cut through steel, I was pointing out that it wasn't, and that it is infact designed as a weapon first and foremost.

Back to the nano thermite

"What separates MICs from traditional thermites is that the oxidizer and a reducing agent, normally iron oxide and aluminium are not a fine powder, but rather nanoparticles. This dramatically increases the reactivity relative to micrometre-sized powder thermite. As the mass transport mechanisms that slow down the burning rates of traditional thermites are not so important at these scales, the reactions become kinetically controlled and much faster."

The faster the reaction, the hotter it gets. The total length of the burn depends entirely upon how much fuel their is. Nanothermite is called "Super Thermite" for a reason. If it didn't produce more heat, then it would be absolutely pointless, and wouldn't be considered a "super" version of thermite, it would be considered an inferior version.

As for skyscrapers, use google because it's fairly well documented.

Pirrelli Towers is one, and the most impressive one, which wasn't hit by a plane, but the entirety of the skyscraper was ignited -- The Madrid Skyscraper Fire. It's known as the Windsor Building.

This building never collapsed. Proving that office supplies cannot melt steel.

Oh and

P.S.

On July 28th 1945 a B-25 US BOMBER crashed into the Empire State Building.

A bomber, with bombs.... hit the Empire State building and didn't collapse.

What gives?


Here is a video which compared WTC to a Chinese Skyscraper that was ablaze much like the Madrid one. Chinease sky scraper didn't collapse.

www.youtube.com...

Also, if jetfuel is to blame, explain WTC 7. Nobody likes to explain this building, it was hit by nothing, it had no jet fuel, it's exterior was undamaged, and the building just drops....

OKKKKKKKKAAAAAAAAAAAAY

I must be retarded now.

Not to mention it's fact that they reported it collapsing 30 minutes before it actually did, when nobody was even concerned about 7.

reply to post by Laokin


Thermite reacts rapidly once ignited. It doesn't need air to burn; the fuel and the oxidant are both present.

There is no record of the B-25 striking the Empire State Building having bombs onboard. It is a much smaller plane than those that struck the WTC and Pentagon.

reply to post by pteridine

There is no record of the B-25 striking the Empire State Building having bombs onboard. It is a much smaller plane than those that struck the WTC and Pentagon.

It doesn’t matter, you debunkers can dream up all the excuses you want, but the fact is the Empire State Building didn’t come down at free fall speed.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Has anyone else noticed my images are getting lost from my posts? Check this thread's OP for example. It's missing the secondary linear explosion image I posted a screen capture of from the linked website. I'll try again and see if this one stays put. This is my own screen capture from the Naudet film.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47999b4d78a7.jpg[/atsimg]

I have another thread which discusses what I believe can better answer that gouge, but it too has been tampered with, and not just my OP, but also the images included on replies.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's the same subject on another forum; so far not tampered with:

letsrollforums.com...

And as I have pointed out repeatedly, linear charges don't produce flames. They produce loud bangs and brief flashes of light.

Not flames.

Originally posted by Laokin
As for you saying Thermate produces more heat energy than nano-thermite, a simple google search would prove you wrong. Not only that, but you contradicted yourself in this very post by saying Nanothermite is indeed stronger than thermite and hence the reason it could not burn over time.

Nanothermite reacts faster than thermite/thermate. Because of the smaller particles. Because it reacts faster, it has less time to produce heat energy. Hence, whey nano-thermite produces less heat energy.

Originally posted by Laokin
As for Jetfuel burning.... if you had 500 pounds of jetfuel in a fire over 2,000 degrees, the jetfuel instantly vaporizes... soooooooooooooooooooo yeah, it's completely contradictory to state the temperatures were up over 2,000 degrees, yet there was 500 pounds of highly volitile jetfuel just smoldering over time, this defies physics.

And the fires were instantly over 2000 deg. F? No, of course not. Not to mention that the jet fuel that did remain didn't last long. Possibly 10 minutes.

Originally posted by Laokin
Also, there is no office supplies that will burn hotter than jetfuel, something that is designed to burn hot. Paper, sheetrock, and wooden desks will never exceed the temperature of jetfuel, and if the jetfuel was not hot enough to melt steel, than the office supplies by default cannot do that either.

What you refer to are normal office fires in regular structures. The fires don't melt the steel, they destroy the steels support.

JetFuel is designed to be compressed and ignited. That is where the energy for jets comes from.

Jetfuel will produce heat in the area of 1800-2000 deg. F. Hydrocarbon fires can produce the same.

You're correct in that 2000 deg. F fires will never melt steel. I will absolutely agree with that.

Originally posted by Laokin
Anything skyscraper status is exclusively supported by steel.

Except or the ones that use concrete. Which, BTW, is a large portion of them.

Originally posted by Laokin
Yes, very much so -- for Rescue 5 was the first firefighter team to arrive at WTC

Don't lie like that. Ladder and Engine 10 are the first firefighters to arrive at the WTC. Since, you know, they were within stones throw of the WTC.

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by Laokin
The faster the reaction, the hotter it gets. The total length of the burn depends entirely upon how much fuel their is. Nanothermite is called "Super Thermite" for a reason. If it didn't produce more heat, then it would be absolutely pointless, and wouldn't be considered a "super" version of thermite, it would be considered an inferior version.

No, the "super" part comes from the reaction time that it produces heat. The heat is the same temperature, but the amount of heat it produces (Measured in joules) is less per gram.

Originally posted by Laokin

As for skyscrapers, use google because it's fairly well documented.

Pirrelli Towers is one, and the most impressive one, which wasn't hit by a plane, but the entirety of the skyscraper was ignited -- The Madrid Skyscraper Fire. It's known as the Windsor Building.

This building never collapsed. Proving that office supplies cannot melt steel.

Pirelli Tower? You want to use that one?

Ok champ, let's do that.

The Pirelli Tower was hit by a Rockwell Commander 112, which is a single engine turbo-prop airplane weighing in at about 3200 pounds. Which, BTW, is about 1% of a 767 JumboJet.

So, that means the top speed will be substantially less also, which means less kinetic energy, less fuel, and less damage to the tower itself.

Not to mention the fact that the Pirelli Tower is a concrete structure.....



The Windsor building? You mean the one where all the steel-framed upper structure that was not encased in concrete failed? You mean that one?

Nowhere did Iever say that an office fire could melt steel. I did say that it will cause it to fail though.

PS. Here is an image of the aftermath of the Windsor Fire.

www.911myths.com...

Notice all the twisted steel that has collapsed?

Originally posted by Laokin

Oh and

P.S.

On July 28th 1945 a B-25 US BOMBER crashed into the Empire State Building.

A bomber, with bombs.... hit the Empire State building and didn't collapse.

What gives?

Well, a couple of things.

1-Smaller plane
2-slow speed
3- I don't think there were bombs on board though. Considering the plane was traveling over a US City on it's way to pick up an officer, I don't think that the bombs were on board. And if they were, their trigger would have been removed, as that is SOP when not on a bombing run.

Originally posted by Laokin
Here is a video which compared WTC to a Chinese Skyscraper that was ablaze much like the Madrid one. Chinease sky scraper didn't collapse.

www.youtube.com...

I can honestly say that I do not know anything about this fire. I am assuming that it is the Shanghi fire. I don;t know the buildings construction, but knowing China, is was most likely concrete.

Originally posted by Laokin
Also, if jetfuel is to blame, explain WTC 7. Nobody likes to explain this building, it was hit by nothing, it had no jet fuel, it's exterior was undamaged, and the building just drops....

7+ hours of unfought fire, in a steel framed building, that burns for 2.5 times it's SFRM's rating, Yeah, not suprised at all.

Originally posted by Laokin
Not to mention it's fact that they reported it collapsing 30 minutes before it actually did, when nobody was even concerned about 7.

edit on 29-3-2011 by Laokin because: (no reason given)

FDNY had been concerned at 7WTC from early on in the day.

BBC erronously reported it's collapse. Not suprising, considering most people outside of NY didn't even KNOW about building 7, let alone that there were 7 buildings in the WTC Complex.

And, they were in Brittan.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by pteridine

 

There is no record of the B-25 striking the Empire State Building having bombs onboard. It is a much smaller plane than those that struck the WTC and Pentagon.

It doesn’t matter, you debunkers can dream up all the excuses you want, but the fact is the Empire State Building didn’t come down at free fall speed.

So, if I throw a pebble at someone, it should kill them just the same as a bullet fired from a .38 special?

Jee, if only you would hav told us sooner!!

Not to nitpick, but 1&2 and 7 WTC didn't come down at free fall speed either.

But hey, who needs facts when you have arguments from personal beliefs!! WOOT!!

reply to post by FDNY343

So, if I throw a pebble at someone, it should kill them just the same as a bullet fired from a .38 special?

Jee, if only you would hav told us sooner!!

Not to nitpick, but 1&2 and 7 WTC didn't come down at free fall speed either.

But hey, who needs facts when you have arguments from personal beliefs!! WOOT!!

WTC 1, 2, and 7 did come down at free fall speed and the fact is A&E forced NIST to admit it in their pseudo report and if you say that is untrue you will be lying. If anyone is arguing from personal beliefs you just demonstrated yourself. WOOT!! How does that work for you?

Originally posted by FDNY343
Nowhere did Iever say that an office fire could melt steel. I did say that it will cause it to fail though.

So how exactly does fire cause steel to fail, according to you? Because whatever it does, the First Interstate Bank wasn't in any danger of collapse, neither have any other skyscrapers ever been.

If you're trying to say the WTC Towers and WTC7 had some unique vulnerabilities specific to only them, I'd like to hear how you think that plays into NIST's hypotheses.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by FDNY343

 

So, if I throw a pebble at someone, it should kill them just the same as a bullet fired from a .38 special?

Jee, if only you would hav told us sooner!!

Not to nitpick, but 1&2 and 7 WTC didn't come down at free fall speed either.

But hey, who needs facts when you have arguments from personal beliefs!! WOOT!!

WTC 1, 2, and 7 did come down at free fall speed and the fact is A&E forced NIST to admit it in their pseudo report and if you say that is untrue you will be lying. If anyone is arguing from personal beliefs you just demonstrated yourself. WOOT!! How does that work for you?

edit on 30-3-2011 by impressme because: (no reason given)

Really? NIST reported that the WTC 1,2,and 7 all came down at freefall speed? Really?

Cite the page.

I reccommend wtc.nist.gov as a good starting point. You can find all of the NCSTAR papers there.

(I'll give you a hint. Freefall is not a speed, it is an acceleration.)

You may find that NIST did in fact confirm that a PORTION of the NORTH FACE of 7WTC did fall at FFA for 2.25 seconds. HOWEVER, it was NOT for the entire collapse, and it was NOT the complete building.

You can read about that here

Here is another picture.

The panel that is loose from the building is truely in FFA.




Do you see where the collapse front is?

ABOVE that piece. Meaning, it is collapsing SLOWER than FFA.

Do I need more pictures to explain this to you?

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Nowhere did Iever say that an office fire could melt steel. I did say that it will cause it to fail though.

So how exactly does fire cause steel to fail, according to you?

There is a difference between "melt" and "soften".

Melt means that it goes from a solid form to a liquid form. This is most common with ice. So, yes, there is a big difference. If you need additional help with tht concept, please consult a blacksmith.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because whatever it does, the First Interstate Bank wasn't in any danger of collapse, neither have any other skyscrapers ever been.

Not according to the USFA.

Although there was concern for structural integrity during the incident, post fire analysis indicates that there was no danger of major or minor structural collapse. It was noted that quality control in the application of the sprayed-on fire protection was unusually good.

Found here

Now, since you were wrong about that, could you be wrong about the rest of your statement?

Originally posted by bsbray11
If you're trying to say the WTC Towers and WTC7 had some unique vulnerabilities specific to only them, I'd like to hear how you think that plays into NIST's hypotheses.

I didn't say that, but yes, they do, as NIST explained.

1-Problems with SFRM pre-911, some dating back to 1992.
2-No concrete used in fire protection.
3-No concrete in the core.
4-No firefighting efforts whatsoever
5-Massive plane impact damage.

So, unless you can find me a steel structure that has no concrete core, that has had massive damage from a speeding 767, that had no firefighting efforts whatsoever, and had problems with the SFRM pre-incident, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
So how exactly does fire cause steel to fail, according to you?

There is a difference between "melt" and "soften".

Melt means that it goes from a solid form to a liquid form. This is most common with ice. So, yes, there is a big difference. If you need additional help with tht concept, please consult a blacksmith.

That's not what I asked, so obviously you are the one having a lot of difficulty here.

I didn't ask "Does steel melt or soften?" I asked, "So how exactly does fire cause steel to fail, according to you?" As in, in a structure?


Not even NIST or FEMA (ie, no one) said the towers came down because the columns got too soft and hot. They said the floor trusses expanded, you know, thermal expansion?

Ever seen the Cardington tests?


That's what I'm talking about. Any comment on any of that?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because whatever it does, the First Interstate Bank wasn't in any danger of collapse, neither have any other skyscrapers ever been.

Not according to the USFA.

According to demonstrated historical fact. You can keep your arguments from bureaucracy.

Now, since you were wrong about that, could you be wrong about the rest of your statement?

I said it wasn't in danger of collapse, because it never failed. This is a fact we have verified by now, I would think. You are talking about people speculating ('concerned') at the time whether or not it would collapse, and they were obviously wrong, so how in the hell does that prove me wrong? Keep dreaming.

Although there was concern for structural integrity during the incident, post fire analysis indicates that there was no danger of major or minor structural collapse. It was noted that quality control in the application of the sprayed-on fire protection was unusually good.

Found here

Do you know how long spray-on fireproofing is rated for? Not almost 4 hours. That means the fireproofing wasn't even relevant by the time the fires were put out, and the building still burned for at least as long as WTC2 did after it would have gone beyond its rating.

There is no evidence I've seen that the WTC Towers' fireproofing didn't at least pass its inspection, no matter how bad you claim it was, meaning the same rating would have originally applied there. Whether or not the impacts would have dislodged a large amount of it has not been proven, and I really doubt that it would have dislodged much outside of the immediately areas of the impacts.

On top of all that, the heating of the columns themselves was not going to pose a problem at the WTC according to anyone. So your whole shtick here with steel softening is not even to the tune of the government's own story. They're talking about thermal expansion of the trusses, not the columns getting soft like wet noodles.

I didn't say that, but yes, they do, as NIST explained.

1-Problems with SFRM pre-911, some dating back to 1992.

"Problems" meaning anything. The picture posted earlier showed one cross-brace on a truss exposed, everything else still covered in fireproofing. And the idea is that the guy took the picture of it because he thought this was a problem. And even without fireproofing, steel has to be very hot for anything to start happening, and you're still confused on what actually happened to it, to cause the towers to collapse according to the government.

2-No concrete used in fire protection.
3-No concrete in the core.

Those are not unique to the WTC Tower either. First Interstate Bank. We were just talking about it.

4-No firefighting efforts whatsoever

I just mentioned 2 other skyscraper fires were firefighting attempts were abandoned and the buildings were allowed to burn out.

5-Massive plane impact damage.

"Massive" is not a quantity. The planes took out less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either tower. The buildings were not in danger of collapse from the plane impacts alone.

So, unless you can find me a steel structure that has no concrete core, that has had massive damage from a speeding 767, that had no firefighting efforts whatsoever, and had problems with the SFRM pre-incident, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Then all you are telling me is that you refuse to compare the WTC Towers to any other buildings, ever. You will always find some difference, no matter whether or not that difference actually makes a difference. If I did have a building that met all those requirements, then you'd probably ask for 110 stories or colored gray or etc. etc.

We were also talking about WTC7 earlier, but notice how quickly it gets thrown under the bus just because no plane hit it, and you can't keep retreating to that lame excuse.


Have you seen this one?




Mandarin Oriental Hotel. No concrete, not even fully constructed yet. All steel. Burned for over 5 hours.

There comes a point where it gets ridiculous.


Do you think the plane impacts alone brought down the towers or not?


If not, then what is it about the fire that you think caused the towers to explode everywhere, exactly?

reply to post by FDNY343

Do you see where the collapse front is?

No, I don’t see any collapse, I see the WTC exploding. Now you want to tell me my eyes are lying to me. Is there anything you debunkers will not stoop to?

If you want to believe the WTC did not come down at freefall speed, then knock yourself out. The fact is WTC 7 fell without resistance that is freefall speed and if you deny that fact then you are lying to yourself.

Here a question that you will never answer, what could have “caused” WTC to come down in the speed that it did?

Originally posted by impressme
No, I don’t see any collapse, I see the WTC exploding. Now you want to tell me my eyes are lying to me. Is there anything you debunkers will not stoop to?

Like ignoring the fact that the "damage progression front" (call it whatever the **** you want, I don't really care really) is ABOVE the pieces that ARE in fact falling at free fall ACCELERATION.

(FFA has no defined speed. It's not like ffs is 156.2 mph, it is a calculation that is different for every single inch of the planet)

So, please, show me the math of FFA from the top of the WTC, and show me that it falls within that timeframe. I'll wait.

Originally posted by impressme
If you want to believe the WTC did not come down at freefall speed, then knock yourself out.

Please feel free to show me. A simple stopwatch should do the trick.

Originally posted by impressme
The fact is WTC 7 fell without resistance that is freefall speed and if you deny that fact then you are lying to yourself.

I have never denied that fact. A PORTION of 7WTC's NORTH FACE, did in fact fall at FFA. HOWEVER< the collapse took WELL ABOVE 15 seconds, which is WELL ABOVE freefall acceleration.

Originally posted by impressme
Here a question that you will never answer, what could have “caused” WTC to come down in the speed that it did?

Gravity.