The Great Thermite Debate!

Originally posted by tinhattribunal

In 1997, Turner Construction also constructed the new headquarters for the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). The Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, a laboratory managed by NAVSEA was described during the 1990s as the “National Center for Energetics”...

So, in your world, if someone does some construction work at a lab facility working on energetics, they're suddenly advanced thermite bombers? I guess Bechtel is the world's biggest nuclear power, then.

reply to post by Bedlam


Okay, here is the forest through the trees. It is a aluminothermitic reaction. In the case of molten aluminum, it causes a thermite reaction when it comes into contact with finely divided metal oxides. So, finely divide aluminum powder with the metal oxide powder (typically iron), mix well. Cake it. Now provide enough heat to melt the aluminum thereby causing the reaction. This can be done with special high temperature burning fuses, or by using other accelerants. Hmmm let's see, magnesium burns over 5,000 F. And sulfur is added to thermite (now thermate) to lower the reaction temperature. It has a significant effect in this regard.

The above is available on the internet and can find via Google. It is not enough information to do it.

I tried to find pictures of aluminum casthouse explosions, but can't find many. The worst explosion in an aluminum casting operation is a thermitic reaction as it releases the most energy. These weren't small pops. The last one that I heard about blew up an 80,000 lb reverb furnace blew the roof off the building, blew the adjacent walls out, and killed three people.

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

The link above references the military usage of thermite incendiary bombs. It cites that it can be used as an explosive. It details a way to mix aluminum, magnesium, and iron oxide powders and fire an oxygen rich mixture to create the reaction. It can also be achieved as I described above. There are other sources/citations available that corroborate the information contained in the above link.

If thermate were used, and I firmly believe it was, it would not be detectable in the residue. The by-products are aluminum oxide and iron (plus minor other stuff) that would not be differentiated from the other materials present in the rubble. I believe Dr. Jones did all that DSC work on paint. I don't believe that there is nano-thermate, because the aluminum must be the elemental metal for the reaction, not an oxide "spheroid" as he described them. Nano-particles are typically metal oxides.

The proof is in the microstructure from the WTC 1&2 report Appdx C. The microstructure of the cut A36 I-beam shows surface layer with iron oxide and iron sulfide in a ferritic matrix. Below the surface affected zone, the A36 microstructure is typical of de-sulfurized steel of correct chemistry. This is the signature of thermate. Sulfur is only soluble in the liquid state of steel and virtually has no solid state diffusion below the liquidus temperature. The iron oxide is slag and proves the beam was locally re-melted. Imagine that, the steel WAS melted albeit locally. In the photos of the failed beam they sectioned for analysis, it looked like it was cut with a plasma torch.

The MIT metallurgists, whom I've corresponded with, were pressured and fearful of any conclusion other than "not sure...there was sulfur present but it may have diffused into the steel as it was hot." Can't happen. Violates the Fe-S-C phase diagram that has been verified many times. Very credible metallurgists, but sometimes people have to ask themselves if seeking the truth is worth risking potential consequences.

I never bought the thermite story for one main reason.
Why would they need to crash a plane into the WTCs if they were going to use thermite? Couldn't they just say that terrorists planted bombs? It would not be the first time terrorists tried to use a bomb on it.

Originally posted by RandyBragg
I never bought the thermite story for one main reason.
Why would they need to crash a plane into the WTCs if they were going to use thermite? Couldn't they just say that terrorists planted bombs? It would not be the first time terrorists tried to use a bomb on it.

This is something that always gets me. I also don't get why thermite/thermate, even if somehow turned into a massive bomb, wouldn't make any noise? The videos are fairly irrefutable to the point that there was no explosion directly prior to the collapse of the towers.

Originally posted by RandyBragg
I never bought the thermite story for one main reason.
Why would they need to crash a plane into the WTCs if they were going to use thermite? Couldn't they just say that terrorists planted bombs? It would not be the first time terrorists tried to use a bomb on it.

Yes, they did try to blow it up once before.....which makes it even more unusual that N.I.S.T. flat out refused to test for explosives.

reply to post by Flatcoat

which makes it even more unusual that N.I.S.T. flat out refused to test for explosives.

If a Cessna flew into the side of your house do you think they would test for explosives???
When a plane crashes on takeoff do they test for explosives?
When a building collapses after a fire do they test for explosives?

Not everything is a mystery in need of further investigation.

reply to post by samkent


Uh-Huh....but when many, many people report explosions, and 3 enormous buildings completely, not partially...completely collapse at record speeds, then I think the logical (not to mention, recommended by their own guidelines...) thing to do is spend a little extra time and test for explosives. Just to be sure, you know?

reply to post by Agit8dChop
Let me try that again..

Re: Proof of Super High Temperatures and Active Thermitic Material Present

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
from www.benthamscience.com...

More @ The Journal of 9/11 Studies

reply to post by Flatcoat

many people report explosions

Explosions do not mean explosives.
Engineers were not surprised the building collapsed with planes and fire.
Only a handfull of people on the internet believe bomb were planted.

reply to post by samkent

Explosions do not mean explosives.

But in many cases they do. Their own guidelines ,NFPA 921, state that explosives and exotic accelerants etc. should be tested for when "high order damage" is involved, and they define high order damage as-

"High-order damage is characterized by shattering of the structure, producing small, pulverized debris. Walls, roofs, and structural members are splintered or shattered, with the building completely demolished. Debris is thrown great distances, possibly hundreds of feet. High-order damage is the result of rapid rates of pressure rise."

Did we see that sort of damage on 911? I think that definition describes perfectly what we saw...

Originally posted by Flatcoat
Did we see that sort of damage on 911? I think that definition describes perfectly what we saw...

Your 'active thermite' was shown to be false a year ago. I posted a link yesterday. Didn't you wonder why people quit talking about thermite???

No one but a few conspiracy people believe in the 911 conspiracy anyway.
And those that do believe everything is a conspiracy.

reply to post by samkent

Maybe someone could post all the polls that have been done for our friend here.

Originally posted by ibiubu

Okay, here is the forest through the trees. It is a aluminothermitic reaction. In the case of molten aluminum, it causes a thermite reaction when it comes into contact with finely divided metal oxides...the above is available on the internet and can find via Google. It is not enough information to do it...

Ah. A 'bees smell fear' post. That's basic Thermite 101, copypasta'd off the net. None of it makes thermite into an explosive. Because it's not.

If you want explosives, there are some really good ones available. That are designed to be explosive. Why use an incendiary?

Originally posted by ibiubu
encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

The link above references the military usage of thermite incendiary bombs. It cites that it can be used as an explosive. It details a way to mix aluminum, magnesium, and iron oxide powders and fire an oxygen rich mixture to create the reaction. It can also be achieved as I described above. There are other sources/citations available that corroborate the information contained in the above link.

No it doesn't. It says that it can be used as an "incendiary bomb", because that's what thermite is.

If thermate were used, and I firmly believe it was, it would not be detectable in the residue. The by-products are aluminum oxide and iron (plus minor other stuff) that would not be differentiated from the other materials present in the rubble. I believe Dr. Jones did all that DSC work on paint.

You'd typically see barium or boron in there as well, if you use a commercial mixture. But it would take a HUGE amount of thermite. And again, an issue with thermate is that it is not used in timing-critical applications. Because it ignites unevenly, and the rate at which it melts through support structures is VERY uneven. It's not for that. If you had to drop a building in a controlled manner, thermite would not be the way to do it. Which is why they use high-brisance explosives.

edit to add: and, of course, you're only going to be melting through horizontal structures for the most part. You can rig to damage vertical structures, but it takes a LOT of prep work and it's untrustworthy.

I don't believe that there is nano-thermate, because the aluminum must be the elemental metal for the reaction, not an oxide "spheroid" as he described them. Nano-particles are typically metal oxides.

You don't believe it exists at all, or you don't believe it was used at WTC?

reply to post by Bedlam


It states Goldschmidt was the first to react thermite WITHOUT CREATING AN EXPLOSION. An incendiary device is a combination of explosive force and flammable materials.

Boron is not used in explosive formulations. You want to find sources? There are none. Other than the military and what I'm trying to inform you of. Yet you choose semantics and being difficult as opposed to participating in discourse. You have done this on these forums for 2 years, always playing devil's advocate without capable intelligence. Now you are asking if I believe nano-thermate exists when I already stated that I didn't. AND, even stated why. For what purpose do you ask? To inform me that your ignorant logic knows that I'm wrong?

You first said thermite only fizzles, and I have given you the most basic Google internet information that a child could find that states it can explode. Yet you continue your obstinant path of nit-picking your contrived definition of words and your basic understanding of thermite that is not of an explosive formulation.

Goodbye

Originally posted by ibiubu
reply to post by Bedlam

 

It states Goldschmidt was the first to react thermite WITHOUT CREATING AN EXPLOSION. An incendiary device is a combination of explosive force and flammable materials.

Perhaps you're looking at a different link - this one doesn't corroborate your statement.

Boron is not used in explosive formulations.

You're right, because thermite's not an explosive.

You want to find sources? There are none. Other than the military and what I'm trying to inform you of. Yet you choose semantics and being difficult as opposed to participating in discourse. You have done this one these forums for 2 years.

Look up the firechain, booboo.

You first said thermite only fizzles, and I have given you the most basic Google internet information that a child could find that states it can explode.

Two outright lies. You have not produced anything except your aluminum casting links that even intimates that it will explode. It's not explosive. And since you're notably lacking a huge amount of molten aluminum in WTC, it's moot.

Yet you continue you obstinant path of nit-picking you contrived definition of words and your basic understanding of thermite that is not of an explosive formulation.

Goodbye

It's not an explosive. It's just not. You're frantically trying to make it one to explain the supposed "molten metal" thing. But it's just not what you'd use to perform a demolition.

edit to add: you ever come up with an answer for "nano thermite"? Not that they call it that.

Also for your sulfur contamination argument: one word - gypsum.

I am confused by this discussion. The whole thermite idea was made up because of the lack of evidence for explosives. So there had to be something that does not explode, but still can take down those buildings.

And now there is a discussion that thermite is an explosive after all, completely defeating the purpose of why it was made up in the first place.

Anyhow, carry on, maybe I just miss the point.