WTC Steel Analysis Reveals Thermite and Thermate By-Products

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
FYI - How much thermate does it take to melt a solid big block engine? About 1 CUP.

It takes one cup to burn THROUGH an engine block, an ALUMINUM engine block at that. Reducing the entire engine block to slag would take a lot more. The thermite videos that have been posted are entertaining but have no real value in this arguement other than to show what a thermite reaction is.

Originally posted by devolution
so what are some explanations of the flowing from the side of the building??

www.checktheevidence.com...

[edit on 9-6-2006 by devolution]

That is the northeast corner of the tower, the opposite corner from 175's entry ... this is where much of the airframe and "un-exploded" fuel piled up along with debris from inside the tower.

Why is molten aluminum so easily excluded, when it's the most logical explanation???

Originally posted by vor75


Why is molten aluminum so easily excluded, when it's the most logical explanation???

Because molten aluminum is not orange...it's silver until it gets to be like 1300 F. I used that temp because of the picture going around (not sure the exact temp. it starts to turn). Even at that, we know the temps. of the fire where not that hot to make aluminum glow that color. Now, if thermite was used, then yes, that could be aluminum at a high temperature.

Originally posted by GriffBecause molten aluminum is not orange...it's silver until it gets to be like 1300 F. I used that temp because of the picture going around (not sure the exact temp. it starts to turn). Even at that, we know the temps. of the fire where not that hot to make aluminum glow that color. Now, if thermite was used, then yes, that could be aluminum at a high temperature.

According to NIST hotspots reached over 1800 F.

Is the area where the jet piled itself up along with debris from inside the tower a good candidate for a hotspot?

Molten material pours from this same area.

Molten aluminium:



Yet, the conclusion is thermite reaction?

Thermite reactions bring down both towers, yet they are observed at only one point?

One thing about Jones paper remember is that he first excludes aluminium based on the colour of the molten material, and then arrives at temperature based on his exclusion of aluminium.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by vor75]

Originally posted by JIMC5499

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
FYI - How much thermate does it take to melt a solid big block engine? About 1 CUP.

It takes one cup to burn THROUGH an engine block, an ALUMINUM engine block at that. Reducing the entire engine block to slag would take a lot more. The thermite videos that have been posted are entertaining but have no real value in this arguement other than to show what a thermite reaction is.

thermAte...

There is too much distorting of parameters by people trying to prove their theories.

An example I'll give is the one where the steel structure is too massive of a heat sink for fire to have caused the failure, but that same heat sink goes away for the thermite theory.

Can we get a source of that photo? I'd like to read more about it. Thanks.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There is too much distorting of parameters by people trying to prove their theories.

An example I'll give is the one where the steel structure is too massive of a heat sink for fire to have caused the failure, but that same heat sink goes away for the thermite theory.

It doesn't go away when we talk about thermate. How do you think we can weld steel? Yes, steel is a heat sink but when the temperature is localized and high enough, the steel can't compensate for it fast enough. Now, we are talking about extreme temperatures, not temperatures from fire. Also, remember that fire is not localized like a torch.

I have a butane lighter (torch). I have used it to melt copper wire before. I know I couldn't use my BIC lighter to do the same thing. That's because the flame of a BIC lighter is cooler and not localized. BTW, copper is an excellent conductor of heat. So, how can I melt copper wire if it's such a great heat sink?

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
thermAte...

I did a little research into thermate and found the following from a Department of Defence website. The main use of thermate is to destroy equipment and explosive devices.

Patent #6766744
A device with greater penetration capabilities is the "Thermite Destructive Device," U.S. Pat. No. 5,698,812 issued Dec. 16, 1997 to Eugene Song. This device was designed to create a forceful jet of molten iron through an opening at the bottom of the containing vessel. One grenade containing approximately 350 g of thermate-TH3 charge is capable of burning through a sheet of 1-inch thick steel plate in about 8 second reaction time. The device utilizes a central core-burning configuration to direct the molten products through an orifice at the bottom of the device.

While this design has merit from a penetration standpoint, and a 350 g charge of thermite could penetrate 1-inch thick steel plate, it is still inadequate to produce reasonable hole size levels. It is only capable of burning a 7/8" diameter hole, which is not sufficient enough for the safe disposal of an unexploded munition. A larger sized hole is needed to prevent a buildup of the internal pressure, and to achieve the successful burnout of the filler explosive. Earlier work has indicated that burning a 3" diameter hole through the outer casing will allow the explosive contained in the bomb to burn without transitioning to a detonation.

Patent #6766744

350 grams for a 7/8" hole in a 1" steel beam. How many of these things would be needed do knock down both towers? This makes the implosion theory look almost practical.

Originally posted by Griff
It doesn't go away when we talk about thermate. How do you think we can weld steel? Yes, steel is a heat sink but when the temperature is localized and high enough, the steel can't compensate for it fast enough. Now, we are talking about extreme temperatures, not temperatures from fire. Also, remember that fire is not localized like a torch.

I have a butane lighter (torch). I have used it to melt copper wire before. I know I couldn't use my BIC lighter to do the same thing. That's because the flame of a BIC lighter is cooler and not localized. BTW, copper is an excellent conductor of heat. So, how can I melt copper wire if it's such a great heat sink?

It doesn't go away in a fire either. There is another thread that discounts the fire because of the conductive properties of steel.

Originally posted by JIMC5499


350 grams for a 7/8" hole in a 1" steel beam. How many of these things would be needed do knock down both towers? This makes the implosion theory look almost practical.

If I'm reading that right, it says that the 7/8" hole is from the thermate being directed onto the steel. They needed a bigger hole for the unused munition so it wouldn't blow up. What happens if the thermate isn't directed into the steel in this manner? What happens if you place 350 grams in a line on the 1" steel? Would it burn through? These are legitimate questions.

Did you really say that the theory looks almost plausible? Or were you using sarcasm?

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by JIMC5499


350 grams for a 7/8" hole in a 1" steel beam. How many of these things would be needed do knock down both towers? This makes the implosion theory look almost practical.

If I'm reading that right, it says that the 7/8" hole is from the thermate being directed onto the steel. They needed a bigger hole for the unused munition so it wouldn't blow up. What happens if the thermate isn't directed into the steel in this manner? What happens if you place 350 grams in a line on the 1" steel? Would it burn through? These are legitimate questions.

Did you really say that the theory looks almost plausible? Or were you using sarcasm?

I was being very sarcastic.

I'd like to find some energy ratings for thermite or thermate. I can get the info on the steel and work out how much would be needed to cut through a beam. My guess would be quite a bit. I can't find reliable figures though.

Please let us know if you find anything. I'm terrible myself with trying to find info on the net, or I'd try and help. Take care.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
There is too much distorting of parameters by people trying to prove their theories.

An example I'll give is the one where the steel structure is too massive of a heat sink for fire to have caused the failure, but that same heat sink goes away for the thermite theory.

Thermate/mite would have been HIGHLY focused and burning at temperatures far excceding the melting point of steel. Jet fuel would not have been either of these things, It is a question of speed, focus and intensity.

You are trying to blow up two vaild arguments with one bad one.

Patent #6766744
350 grams for a 7/8" hole in a 1" steel beam. How many of these things would be needed do knock down both towers? This makes the implosion theory look almost practical.

The SHAPE of the exit "hole" in this patent is not ideal for cutting a column. You would use a long charge with a long narrow exit to cut a nice straigtht line. Not a "laser" shaped hole cutter.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I really hope Dr. Jones can find a more reputable outlet than Prison Planet to carry this message to the public.

I absolutely agree on this.

I'm afraid that sites like Prison Planet serve merely to discredit any worthwhile evidence and meaningful research in the 9/11 truth movement.

This only makes anyone submitting hard evidence to such sites, " just another conspiracy nut "

I would much rather see such evidence submitted to the DOJ with return receipts, names dates and follow-up letters.

I know some will blame the BushCo owned media, but with verifiable proof, there is no reason
such evidence could not be discussed with respected members of the news media.

The 9/11 truth movement has been greatly ignored simply because of too much wild speculation,
rather than hard evidence.

Perhaps such evidence should also be submitted to your local and state representative, again
with names, dates and follow-up correspondence.

In other words, put them on the spot for straight answers.

We will never have any success, unless we act within the law to expose
hard facts.

I'm still waiting on my requested FOIA information from the FAA regarding the Pentagon crash site evidence.

My request was taken seriously and I should be hearing back some time this summer after they wrap up their investigation.

Any corresponce received should be copied and sent for archives to the Library of Congress.

All meaningful evidence should be treated as part of a crime scene investigation.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Thermate/mite would have been HIGHLY focused and burning at temperatures far excceding the melting point of steel. Jet fuel would not have been either of these things, It is a question of speed, focus and intensity.

You are trying to blow up two vaild arguments with one bad one.

No I'm trying to find out how much thermite/thermate it would take to collapse both towers. Once I figure that out in my opinion the thermite/thermate theory goes away.

What are the parameters? Meaning, do you think that you would have to place thermit/mate on all columns and beams? Or could it just be on a select few?

The demolitions expert that they interviewed right after the attacks said that if he were to demolish those buildings, he'd place explosives in the 1/3, 2/3 and top to aid gravity and also the foundation. Not a direct quote but going from memory.

That sounds about right when going by reports of something happening in the basement, on the 22nd floor, the 60 something floor I believe, etc.

IMO, you wouldn't need thermit/mate on all columns and beams, just a select few. Now does it seam more plausible? IMO, yes.

There's a detailed chemical and energetic quantitative analysis of how much thermite would be required here:

www.physics911.net...

That paper assumes normal thermite is used, and that the columns would need to be destroyed to cause a collapse. The use of "Nano-thermite" or thermate, cutting the columns at a 45 degree angle to utilize gravity to assist in column displacement, and an insulated mechanical device to concentrate the heat and direct the molten ejecta similar to the patented device Prof. Jones refers to, would all reduce the required quantities further.





[edit on 2006-6-9 by wecomeinpeace]

Originally posted by Griff
IMO, you wouldn't need thermit/mate on all columns and beams, just a select few. Now does it seam more plausible? IMO, yes.

Quantitative analysis of the amount and placement of the incendaries is a difficult task. This is why having ALL of the steel in storage SORTED as well as possible by location in the buildings seems like a no brainer to me. Just like you "reconstruct" an airplane after a crash, room could have been located to do something similar in this instance.

There is one important other aspect to this which thermate CANNOT account for and that is the powdering of hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete.

If thermate was used to sever the coulums that accounts for the tidy lenghts of colums, total structural failure, hot spots, "straight down" collapese, slag, sulphur, aluminum-oxide and "dripping molten something".

It still would not seem to account for the immense amounts of dust (that required outrageous amounts of enerdy to create), the "disappearance" of the block of floors that began to rotate and certain other phenomena. The evidence still lends itself to a combination of incendaries and explosives.

[edit on 9-6-2006 by Slap Nuts]