It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Thermite and explosives

page: 3
0
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 08:46 PM
Bsbray11....

If you'd like to keep asserting that it would take thousands of pounds of this stuff all over the building, then you should post some actual figures on the mass of this stuff, how much it would take per cut, and each column you feel should have been cut, so we can see where exactly you are pulling this "thousands of pounds" of superthermite from, and why an office fire can do the same thing in under an hour.

well lets start here...
www.guzer.com...
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?

Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb

That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column?
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:

A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.

2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe

One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.

Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.

That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.

Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:

Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.

To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.

ok lets assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.

www.coolmagnetman.com...

The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.

Hope that helps

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 10:16 PM
^ But again you say it would take all that, yet you think the planes impact and fires did it?

Sry but that is a contradiction.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:40 AM
Its not a contradiction. The impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire would easly create enough force to bring the building down. The fire was buring extremely hot, the steel bent, buckled when the plane hit, broke when the fuel hearted it up

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:07 AM

Originally posted by squidbones

You miss the point, people claim it would take tons of explosives, yet they are quite happy to believe the aircraft impact and fires did it by themselves.

And no the impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire would not easly(sic) create enough force to bring the building down. Read through some 9-11 posts to educate yourself on these facts.

[edit on 25/11/2006 by ANOK]

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 08:18 AM

Originally posted by squidbones
Its not a contradiction. The impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire would easly create enough force to bring the building down. The fire was buring extremely hot, the steel bent, buckled when the plane hit, broke when the fuel hearted it up

Well both the NIST and FEMA reports stated the aircraft impacts did not bring the buildings down.

The 911 commission reports state the fires were isolated.

Within ten minutes of impact, smoke was beginning to rise to the upper floors in debilitating volumes and isolated fires were reported, although there were some pockets of refuge.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by squidbones
Its not a contradiction. The impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire would easly create enough force to bring the building down. The fire was buring extremely hot, the steel bent, buckled when the plane hit, broke when the fuel hearted it up

Well both the NIST and FEMA reports stated the aircraft impacts did not bring the buildings down.

The 911 commission reports state the fires were isolated.

Within ten minutes of impact, smoke was beginning to rise to the upper floors in debilitating volumes and isolated fires were reported, although there were some pockets of refuge.

Your quote from the 911 Comission was WITHIN TEN MINUTES OF IMPACT ! Have you even looked at a single photograph? Watched a SINGLE video!!

Start here :

www.debunking911.com...
This is a series of pictures that shows SEVERAL STORIES engulfed.

Anok -
As far as a contradiction that I am accused of making. Yes you would need the tons of explosives to take down the tower...The terrorists OR governemnt (who ever you think did this) would NOT have know to what extent the damage from the plane impact would cause. Where exactly the plane would hit...etc. So I think it's common sence here.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by CameronFox]

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by ANOK

You miss the point, people claim it would take tons of explosives, yet they are quite happy to believe the aircraft impact and fires did it by themselves.

No it is not a contradiction. The demolition crowd are the ones claiming that more energy would be needed, or that the collapse speed means that explosives were used.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well then, we can agree that believing that the buildings falling on themselves did not have enough energy to produce "near free fall" collapse times, or "squibs" or micronized concrete, and also believing only a small amount of explosives would be needed is also counter-intuitive.

All the so-called evidence for demolition seems to hinge on huge explosive traits that are clear to anyone watching the numerous videos.

If all these anomalies are being caused by the collapse of the building only barely helped along by explosives, there's really no evidence at all of explosives.

If only a very small amount was needed, then how are "squibs" or "near free-fall collapse times" or "pyroclastic clouds" evidence of anything but a global collapse, with or without thermite or bombs to initiate it?

All of your so-called evidence demands that tons of explosives were used. To change your story and say it only needed help to collapse invalidates 90% of what you people call evidence.

On the other hand, if one believes that no explosives were used then all the so called anomolies are really just characteristics of a global collapse, so no explosives are needed.

If your saying that all they did was place a few thermite charges, then what's the point, and why do you keep bringing up the collapse times and squibs and such nonsense?

[edit on 25-11-2006 by LeftBehind]

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:37 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
well lets start here...
www.guzer.com...
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?

I said superthermite, not conventional thermite, so the figures are greatly inflated.

Nanotechnology is grabbing headlines for its potential in advancing the life sciences and computing research, but the Department of Defense (DoD) found another use: a new class of weaponry that uses energy-packed nanometals to create powerful, compact bombs.

The article itself is now missing (the link to the full story on that page is broken), but nonetheless, thermite made using nanotech is out, and is a different beast logistically than conventional thermite.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:40 PM

Scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratories are exploring the potential to release
energy from nanoparticles – nano explosives. Nanoenergetics is a new field in which
nanoaluminum particles are used as more effective explosives. Just as with the suntan
products, the nanoaluminum presents a higher surface area to volume of the material.
This means that when ignited a greater volume of the aluminum achieves chemical
reaction, releasing its energy, and generating a larger explosion per pound of material.
Nuclear weapons achieve their destructive power in this same way at the very lowest
atomic level. This means that nanoaluminum and the “superthermite” that is made from it are presenting significantly more powerful weapons than those in use today. Details on
this power and ongoing projects are not publicly available. But, it is instructive that the
experiments are being carried out at the same laboratory that created the designs for most of the nuclear weapons in the US arsenal (Gartner, 2005).

www.ctonet.org...

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 12:41 PM

Originally posted by bsbray11

I said superthermite, not conventional thermite, so the figures are greatly inflated.

No the figures would be the same, the reaction would be more efficient, but x amount of thermite would still produce y amount of melted iron, as cameron has shown.

If you have some calculations or evidence to the contrary please supply it.

If all you have are links describing "super-nano-thermate" in vague generalized terms, don't bother.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:07 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by squidbones
Your quote from the 911 Comission was WITHIN TEN MINUTES OF IMPACT ! Have you even looked at a single photograph? Watched a SINGLE video!!

Start here :

www.debunking911.com...
This is a series of pictures that shows SEVERAL STORIES engulfed.
[edit on 25-11-2006 by CameronFox]

But those fires did not last long, their are several photos and videos that show the fires going out well befoer the builidng collapsed. You also have the radio call from the fire chief who made it to the 78th floor and could see to the 79th floor that fires were small and containable.

Just a few photos showing very little to no fire,
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Also as far as heat goes what about the photo of the woman standing in the hole made by the plane that hit the North tower. Where is all the burning jet fuel and big inferno ?

Photo of woman standing in hole made by plane.
i114.photobucket.com...

[edit on 25-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:09 PM
Bsbray-

Nanothermite is still in it's research and development stages. Lets say the numbers are smaller, It would still require the same amount of detonations for the amount of columns needed to generate a collapse. That being said, planting these charges would be VERY difficult, and very hard to conceal. Some claim of a "gell" but I believe that would be just as difficult to control .

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
Bsbray-

Nanothermite is still in it's research and development stages.

Applying it to already-existing weapons, like daisy-cutters, is in R&D.

Making it is not.

Lets say the numbers are smaller, It would still require the same amount of detonations for the amount of columns needed to generate a collapse.

Has this number of placements ever been clearly established? I'd like to see where you think they'd have to be placed.

That being said, planting these charges would be VERY difficult, and very hard to conceal. Some claim of a "gell" but I believe that would be just as difficult to control .

These are opinions. If you have some method of laying out every single way materials could have been placed covertly, and determining the logistics of each one, then post it. If not, you're assuming and asserting things that neither of us can either confirm or deny.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:21 PM
ULTIMA 1

Are you still watching the LOOSE CHANGE videos...I though most of us in here agreed that it was pretty much GARBAGE?

How can you say the fires were minimal did you look at the links i posted? Yours show the building within MINUTES AFTER impact.

The firefighter you spoke of, Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:26 PM
BSBRAY -

I am not a demolitions expert, therfore I can not tell you WHERE i would place the charges. My OPINION though would be that since in the past and on ANY building that under goes under a controlled demolition... there are literally HUNDREDS of man hours to set it up. I would think that you would agree that to set this up would take quite alot of work.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:49 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
I am not a demolitions expert, therfore I can not tell you WHERE i would place the charges. My OPINION though would be that since in the past and on ANY building that under goes under a controlled demolition... there are literally HUNDREDS of man hours to set it up. I would think that you would agree that to set this up would take quite alot of work.

I'm sure it would if you were sending in a team of guys to cut the place, manually pre-cut columns, and then place conventional charges like RDX or C4, all within a period of a month or so, all out in the open.

The problem is, these weren't conventional, explosions pre-impact and all during the fires suggest the pre-cutting was just replaced with preliminary charges, and you're potentially looking at them being set up over a period of years before the actual events of 9/11.

Griff has been looking for records on maintenance done on the WTC Towers pre-9/11 and hasn't been able to find jack squat, while one of the eyewitnesses of basement explosions was a construction worker and claimed that construction was going on at the WTC all the time in the form of some project or another. This introduces the (imo very likely) possibility of front teams.

The CIA is known, by its own admission, to invent organizations or businesses when necessary to infiltrate an environment to get something done without detection. If not the CIA, the Mossad or any other able institution could do it. Even an Arab institution. It's not a matter of "Why didn't people see it?", so much as a matter of "Why should they have thought it strange?", assuming that it even took place out in the open and not during elevator maintenance or any other shafts in the core, which would be completely hidden from all the offices in the building. Bush family was even tied to the security company that ran security not only for the WTC, but the relevant airports as well. The means was there to offer a team, any team, clearance for "maintenance" on the elevators or any other excuse to get them into the core. It wouldn't be as hard as you're thinking. The trick is, you find a way to get in, and then don't walk in and announce to everyone who you are and what you're doing.

The specifics on all of this obviously aren't public knowledge, as would make sense, but it's not as if this is all impossible and could never happen. It would just take resources, and time.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
ULTIMA 1

Are you still watching the LOOSE CHANGE videos...I though most of us in here agreed that it was pretty much GARBAGE?

How can you say the fires were minimal did you look at the links i posted? Yours show the building within MINUTES AFTER impact.

The firefighter you spoke of, Orio Palmer was in the South Staircase (Adam) on the South Tower which was not damaged because of large, heavily constructed elevator equipment which protected it.

It’s not unreasonable to expect two small fires on a floor where only a wing tip entered. What was above those floors is the question not answered by the fireman’s quote.

The 78th floor was a sky lobby which didn’t have much office furniture to catch fire. If there were two small fires on the 78th floor where just a wing tip entered, what must the 81st floor be like where the nose of the aircraft hit?

If there were small fires on the 78th floor just before collapse, does that mean the 78th floor never had larger fires?

If he was in the staircase which is in the core, how would he know the perimeter columns were about to get pulled in?

If he did see the building was about to collapse, why would they predict he would get on the radio instead of take immediate action to save his life?

Why do they think the visibility from the smoke of two small fires were such that he could see to the four corners of the building?

Why are they using this quote as a ruler by which to measure the whole building?

No, i am using the 911 commission reports and other government and professional research sites.

The fire chief did not expect nor did any of the fire chiefs expect the towers to collapse because of the isolated fires reported. If anything they were only worried about the top floors above the crash site to collapse, not the whole builidng.

Check out this quote from the 911 commission.

None of the chiefs present believed a total collapse of either tower was possible. Later, after the Mayor had left, one senior chief present did articulate his concern that upper floors could begin to collapse in a few hours, and so he said that firefighters thus should not ascend above floors in the sixties.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:02 PM

Originally posted by CameronFox
BSBRAY -

I am not a demolitions expert, therfore I can not tell you WHERE i would place the charges. My OPINION though would be that since in the past and on ANY building that under goes under a controlled demolition... there are literally HUNDREDS of man hours to set it up. I would think that you would agree that to set this up would take quite alot of work.

It only takes a lot of work and man hours if you are worried about hitting other buildings nearby, if you are not worried about hitting other buildings it would not be that big of a job.

www.valis.cjb.cc...

Open letter and e-mails for the attention of:

Andrew Gould, Chairman and chief executive officer of Schlumberger Ltd.
Care of the Schlumberger Limited Secretary, Schlumberger Limited
153 East 53rd Street, New York, NY 100222

James R. Boyd, Chairman of the Board, Halliburton Company
C/o Director of Business Conduct, Halliburton Company
5 Houston Center, 1401 McKinney, Suite 2400, Houston, TX 77010
BoardofDirectors@halliburton.com

And their companies’ respective boards of directors and shareholders

From: David Hawkins david@eazeway.org Forensic Economist at Hawks' CAFE,
Foundation Scholar, Cambridge University, Co-host Black Hawk Investigations,

Copy:
U.S. Vice-President Richard Cheney,
Former Chairman & CEO of Halliburton Company (1996 – 2000)

Steven Jones, Jim Fetzer, Co-chairs Scholars for 9/11 Truth www.st911.org/

E-mailed: Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Dear Mr. Gould and Mr. Boyd

Re: Were oil company bombs, cutters used to 'pull' WTC #7?

A former (1965-1980) Schlumberger field engineer and researcher into computerized real-world data fusion, I am now a forensic economist investigating the special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams used to execute the precise and co-ordinated series of attacks on 9/11.

I invite the board of directors of both of your companies to investigate the possible use of oil company remote-controlled bomb and cutter technologies by as-yet unidentified organizations which decided to ‘pull’ – industry jargon for demolish – WTC building #7.

WTC#7 became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse through fire. The collapse generated pools of molten steel in the debris piles at the site, consistent with the ignition of chemical (thermite) cutters pre-positioned by wireline inside its structural box columns and the remote-controlled detonation of atomized aluminum powder or ‘rocket fuel’ bombs in segregated column sections.

[edit on 25-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

[edit on 25-11-2006 by ULTIMA1]

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 02:40 PM

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It only takes a lot of work and man hours if you are worried about hitting other buildings nearby,

No.

It would take a lot of work and man hours to wire any building that was 100+ stories with acreage of square footage.

Changing light bulbs in either tower would require a lot of work and man hours.

Was there maintenence done in the building? I'm sure there was. However it is very hard to hide things like wrapping explosives around exposed columns, drilling into columns to plant explosives, or even wrapping hypothetical super-nano-thermato charges around exposed columns.

Any task involving most of the floors of either building would require massive work and man hours.

Especially if you are going to do this:

Without anyone noticing.

posted on Nov, 25 2006 @ 06:54 PM
^ Actualy not as hard as you think. In my old job I was in and out of buildings like WTC7 everyday. Quite often I would see sections of offices or coridors screened off for maintenance. To keep the noise down, to keep the dust/dirt etc...from spreading to the rest of the floor, and just to keep it away from the general public for safety etc...
No one ever questions this beyond, 'what they doing now?' or something, repairs/changes in big building are common.

A lot of floors in the towers weren't even occupied.

Use your imagination you can work wonders, especialy if have people on the inside.

new topics

top topics

0