Thermite theory vs. Explosives theory

This deserves it's own topic. And for the record, I don't believe in either theory, but I just cannot stand how absolutely ridiculous the thermite theory is and that some of you actually believe it. So, I'm going to break it down.

Here are the hurdles you would have to overcome with explosives versus thermite:

Thermite
Would require LARGE amounts strapped to the columns and/or a device to make it burn sideways, as well as an ignition source.
Melted slag everywhere.
Unburned thermite everywhere (thermite doesn't burn uniformly).
Steel columns that were obviously cut by something for everyone to see (and NOT the cutting torch pics).
Evidence of fires having broke out everywhere thermite was planted.
Having to pay off the dozens and dozens of people who would've noticed the above.

Explosives
Would require planting a small explosive on each column.
Would be LOUD--insanely loud.
There would be some undetonated explosives in the rubble.
You would have to make sure to retrieve the undetonated explosives or pay off anybody who notices.


Now, for God's sake, look at the above, and tell me that YOU would honestly go with thermite.

You might--MIGHT--be able to cover up a demolition by explosives, because the only evidence would be undetonated explosives. There wouldn't be any fires, or melted slag, and any damage to the columns would look like structural failure.

But you'd NEVER be able to cover up all the things you'd have to from thermite.

Stick with explosives.

I for one will not debate this straw man. I urge others to DENY the believers another opportunity to cloud the issue with another witless argument about how they dun it.

The fact of the matter is that THEY DID IT! Governments become corrupt 100% of the time - NO EXCEPTIONS. IF you can provide me with one that hasn't, let me know, i'll move there. Criminals have seized control of our government and are looting our economy, erasing our borders, destroying our military, stripping Citizens of their civil liberties and Sovereignty. Believe whatever you want to believe. It's your right but, I will not waste time with your sort anymore.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Smack]

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Smack]

Originally posted by Smack
I for one will not debate this straw man. I urge others to DENY the believers another opportunity to cloud the issue with another witless argument about how they dun it.

Wow. I love how you debated me point by point there.

Whatever. My point was, part of the reason nobody takes you guys seriously is because you cling to a discredited theory like thermite.

Explosives is what they would do here in the real world.

But if you want everyone to keep laughing and telling you you guys are crazy, just keep clinging to that theory.

IT'S THIS SIMPLE:

If they used thermite, it would be impossible to have covered up all the evidence.

If they used explosives, it WOULD have been possible to cover up the evidence.


So why do so many of you support the thermite theory over explosives? Because someone told you so?

Come on, guys! User your heads. It's stuff like this why no one takes you seriously.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

So why do so many of you support the thermite theory over explosives? Because someone told you so?

Because the few bits of the WTC that are left are covered in the products of the reaction of Thermate.

I can't find the video (it is somewhere in Google Videos under "911 9/11"), but it has been chemically analyzed. There IS evidence, only no-one is interested (FBI etc).

Where have you accounted for nanoenergetics, whiterabbit?

You're right that the coarse thermite you can buy online wouldn't cut it, literally.

www.ctonet.org...
pdf.aiaa.org...
www.p2pays.org...


This should clarify, from the second source above:

The term, Metastable Intermolecular Composites (MIC) refers to an important subset of nanoenergetics. It is also known as a superthermite, or simply nanothermite, which are more descriptive terms. Typical compositions use a nanoscale metal fuel plus a nanoscale metal oxidizer. The reactions produce a large amount of energy liberated primarily as heat. The high surface to volume ratio and the increased surface contact between the reactants leads to a very rapid oxidation when compared to conventional (micronscale) thermites. This paper presents a mathematical model for the combustion wave propagation of consolidated and confined MIC pellets. In addition, a review of the current understanding of MIC as related to ignition and combustion mechanisms is presented and organized into four basic categories. Results of published and unpublished investigations on combustion mechanisms, such as ignition and burn rates are compiled and discussed so as to provide a single source of information for the technical community.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
Because the few bits of the WTC that are left are covered in the products of the reaction of Thermate.

Not true. They found sulfidation, not specific evidence of thermite.

Assuming sulfur could only have come from thermite isn't true. There's sulfur in the drywall. There was sulfur in lots of things throughout that building. Any of those things could have easily been the source of the sulfur found.

Thermite also leaves other byproducts besides sulfur, which they didn't find.

The evidence shows both.

No way to prove it but in theory.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Where have you accounted for nanoenergetics, whiterabbit?

You're right that the coarse thermite you can buy online wouldn't cut it, literally.

www.ctonet.org...
pdf.aiaa.org...
www.p2pays.org...


This should clarify, from the second source above:

The term, Metastable Intermolecular Composites (MIC) refers to an important subset of nanoenergetics. It is also known as a superthermite, or simply nanothermite, which are more descriptive terms. Typical compositions use a nanoscale metal fuel plus a nanoscale metal oxidizer. The reactions produce a large amount of energy liberated primarily as heat. The high surface to volume ratio and the increased surface contact between the reactants leads to a very rapid oxidation when compared to conventional (micronscale) thermites. This paper presents a mathematical model for the combustion wave propagation of consolidated and confined MIC pellets. In addition, a review of the current understanding of MIC as related to ignition and combustion mechanisms is presented and organized into four basic categories. Results of published and unpublished investigations on combustion mechanisms, such as ignition and burn rates are compiled and discussed so as to provide a single source of information for the technical community.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by bsbray11]

Are you talking about using it as an explosive?

Nanothermite (or superthermite, or whatever you prefer) isn't, from what I understand, reactive enough to be used as an explosive. It's used as a primer.

I mean, I suppose you might be able to get enough explosive force to blow one of those columns out with it if you piled a Volkswagen-size mound of the stuff around it, but I don't think I need to say that's unrealistic.

Otherwise, it's used to increase temperatures and things like that. You could say they used nanothermite just to cut or melt the columns, but then you run into the same problems you'd get with the normal thermite theory--in other words, EVIDENCE EVERYWHERE.

The thermite just doesn't hold up. Explosives are possible (however unlikely I think it is), but thermite just isn't.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Originally posted by Rotator
The evidence shows both.

No way to prove it but in theory.

Not true.

Covering up the evidence of using thermite to bring down the WTC would be damn-near impossible. You couldn't do it. There'd be melted slag, unburned thermite, obviously-cut columns, etc etc. I've said it I don't know how many times. EVERYONE would've seen it. You wouldn't have a prayer of covering it up.

You could, in theory, cover up explosives. It'd be hard as hell, but you could do it.

And since they didn't find any evidence, if you honestly believe it was controlled demolition, it had to be explosives--not thermite.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Are you talking about using it as an explosive?

No.

Fine aluminum particles are explosive but the velocity it detonates with doesn't impress me.

You could say they used nanothermite just to cut or melt the columns, but then you run into the same problems you'd get with the normal thermite theory--in other words, EVIDENCE EVERYWHERE.

No dude, that's exactly why I linked you to those articles!

The material being described is not the coarse-grained thermite you're thinking off. It's much more chemically efficient because of the greater surface area shared between the aluminum and its oxidizer. The oxidizer can even be changed, and may very well have been. It can be played with, too, in such a way as to tinker between the explosive velocity and the amount of heat produced.

Originally posted by bsbray11
The material being described is not the coarse-grained thermite you're thinking off. It's much more chemically efficient because of the greater surface area shared between the aluminum and its oxidizer. The oxidizer can even be changed, and may very well have been. It can be played with, too, in such a way as to tinker between the explosive velocity and the amount of heat produced.

Why does that matter? I mean, if I get what you're saying, they could've turned the heat down, so to speak?

If it was hot enough to melt the steel and cut it, you'd still have the problem with slag, evidence of cutting, unburned thermite, etc., even if it wasn't as hot as typical thermite.

Unless I'm still not getting what you're saying.

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Why does that matter? I mean, if I get what you're saying, they could've turned the heat down, so to speak?

No, the heat is much, much greater per some given amount of thermite, and you need less of it.

Only the outer surfaces of the particles react. For illustration purposes, imagine a boulder of aluminum and a boulder of iron oxide, and you push them together and light them. Not much is going to happen compared to how big the "particles" are.

With nanothermite the particles are intentionally designed very tiny and distributed in a manner so that the reaction takes place very readily and with great amounts of energy.

Originally posted by bsbray11
No, the heat is much, much greater per some given amount of thermite, and you need less of it.

Only the outer surfaces of the particles react. For illustration purposes, imagine a boulder of aluminum and a boulder of iron oxide, and you push them together and light them. Not much is going to happen compared to how big the "particles" are.

With nanothermite the particles are intentionally designed very tiny and distributed in a manner so that the reaction takes place very readily and with great amounts of energy.

Okay, then... Unless it reacts so quickly that it's explosive and blows the column (which we've established it doesn't), it's still going to melt the steel to cut it and slag the hell out of it. There'd still be a very obviously cut beam with lots of slag.

And even with the quicker reaction time, the burn time isn't going to be the same for every bit of thermite throughout the tower. So you'd still have unburned samples of it all of throughout the debris for people to find.

The thermite just doesn't hold up.

It might help Whiterabbit if you did a little more research. you might find other types of beam cutters.

www.valis.cjb.cc...

Dear Mr. Gould and Mr. Boyd

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

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.

Schlumberger’s “Casing and Tubing Cutters” document has, “Cutters used to sever tubing or casing .. Jet cutters cut casing in a flat plane perpendicular to the casing wall. Chemical cutters burn the casing .. Applications: .. Burr- and flare-free cutting with chemical cutters; Bomb for heavy drillpipe or casing [base of box columns 4” thick]”.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
It might help Whiterabbit if you did a little more research. you might find other types of beam cutters.

And showing me that...?

Those still would've left slag, obviously-cut beams, and unburned thermite. None of which were found at ground zero.

The thermite doesn't fly. I don't know why you guys are so attached to that theory.

Hell, I've even done what most debunkers won't and acknowledged that at least explosives are hypothetically possible! Thermite ain't.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

Some sort of material was molten in the basement area for weeks from my understanding.I cant figure many explanations for that.I dont have a dog in this fight,but something was extremely hot down there.

Those still would've left slag, obviously-cut beams, and unburned thermite. None of which were found at ground zero.

That depends on what they were looking for.....
I doubt anybody in the clean-up crews would have had the pre-requise expertise to forensically deterine if patterns in the debris were suspicious or not....

And i doubt even if the occasional person did raise a concern, it would be very doubtful that it would be well recieved in the emotionally charged post 911 environment...
And who in their right mind is going to turn to a fellow worker whos probably busily picking up body parts (and wondering if they are form a missing friend) and say "gee that beam looks suspicious it looks like they were murdered by Uncle Sam.....??????

Sorry rabbit your assumtions are more tenuous than the conspiracies they are designed to rebut.

If the government (in one form or another) was behind the attack then it is the simplest thing in the world to hide the truth as the same people who planned the attacks would also be incharge of cleaning them up.

Its simple if you want to find evidence of termite ETC... find some of the debris and examine it..... right......?
Just guessing here but my guess is that there is no wreckage left that has not been treated, processed and buried under armed guard........

Thorough from go to woe......

Originally posted by whiterabbit

If they used thermite, it would be impossible to have covered up all the evidence.

If they used explosives, it WOULD have been possible to cover up the evidence.

I just poke my head in every once and a while... but i was under the impression that all of the "evidence" was shipped over seas. Did they have a proper analysis done of the "evidence"? if so where could i find it?

Thanks

Originally posted by whiterabbit]

And showing me that...?

Those still would've left slag, obviously-cut beams, and unburned thermite. None of which were found at ground zero.

The thermite doesn't fly. I don't know why you guys are so attached to that theory.

Hell, I've even done what most debunkers won't and acknowledged that at least explosives are hypothetically possible! Thermite ain't.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

But would explosives leave all that molten steel in the basements of the buildings?