Thermite demolition of twin towers?

[Dave World]

I put this question to structural engineers everywhere: Is the visual evidence recorded during the World Trade Center disaster in New York consistent with a carefully-engineered, controlled demolition using staged thermite detonations? Can that possibility be ruled out? I'm not talking about political plausibility. Just the best judgment that Science Forums.Net engineer participants can bring to bear. Let us keep this discussion logical, rational if you please.

[Greg Boyles]

What is the plausibility of demolition experts even being able to setup the charges for a controlled demolition of the towers without anyone noticing and without any loose lips (either on the team or outside it) giving the game away.

 

Let's remember that controlled demolitions also involve weakening the structure of the building by removing and partially cutting through the major supports and ccarefully coreographed explosion sequences. Otherwise it is anything but a controlled demolition.

 

I would say the plasuibility is negligeable.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[zapatos]

Based on the visual evidence a plane struck the WTC and roughly an hour later the tower collapsed beginning at about the level of the plane impact.

 

For the thermite detonations to be set prior to the impact there would have had to be accurate information regarding at what floor the impact would occur, the charges would have to have been set at that location, and the charges would have had to remain intact for an hour after the plane struck very near to where they were placed.

 

For the thermite detonations to be set after the impact would have required moving them to the proper location after the collission, then carefully placing and detonating them, all within an hour.

 

I would suggest the visual evidence is not consistent with a carefully engineered, controlled demolition using staged thermite detonations.

[Greg Boyles]

Based on the visual evidence a plane struck the WTC and roughly an hour later the tower collapsed beginning at about the level of the plane impact.

 

For the thermite detonations to be set prior to the impact there would have had to be accurate information regarding at what floor the impact would occur, the charges would have to have been set at that location, and the charges would have had to remain intact for an hour after the plane struck very near to where they were placed.

 

For the thermite detonations to be set after the impact would have required moving them to the proper location after the collission, then carefully placing and detonating them, all within an hour.

 

I would suggest the visual evidence is not consistent with a carefully engineered, controlled demolition using staged thermite detonations.

 

But some people just can't resist a good conspiracy theory.

[insane_alien]

I put this question to structural engineers everywhere: Is the visual evidence recorded during the World Trade Center disaster in New York consistent with a carefully-engineered, controlled demolition using staged thermite detonations? Can that possibility be ruled out? I'm not talking about political plausibility. Just the best judgment that Science Forums.Net engineer participants can bring to bear. Let us keep this discussion logical, rational if you please.

 

It could not possibly have been thermite detonations (for one, thermite doesn't detonate).

 

second, the common evidence of some red hot liquid flowing out the side isn't thermite, its something liquid and on fire, not thermite. if it was thermite it'd be sparking everywhere and look a whole lot messier.

 

there isn't any evidence of thermite.

[michel123456]

When you want to demolish a building by detonation, you put the explosives at the basis, near the ground. A conspiracy would have better thought of a train full of explosives in the subway for example, or a truck entering the ground floor, or something like that. The idea of crumbling down a tower with an airplane is somehow outrageous. Even during the event, I remember my amazement when the tower collapsed: it was totally unexpected. I am convinced even the terrorists didn't expect such a result. At first, the building litteraly swallowed the airplane without any problem. The fire damaged the stability, not the impact (what one would call the detonation in a conspiracy theory).

[Realitycheck]

That would be pretty difficult to plant the charges ahead of time in the exact same floors where the planes hit.

[Dave World]

It could not possibly have been thermite detonations (for one, thermite doesn't detonate).

 

second, the common evidence of some red hot liquid flowing out the side isn't thermite, its something liquid and on fire, not thermite. if it was thermite it'd be sparking everywhere and look a whole lot messier.

 

there isn't any evidence of thermite.

 

Thank you. That is why I come to Science Forums, for answers such as that. Now, let me rephrase the question. Leave thermite out of the equation. Is the recorded visual evidence from the WTC collapses consistent with controlled demolition of any sort? Obviously I think it is, or I wouldn't be asking the question. Let's make this a two part question. Postulating that it was a carefully staged, controlled demolition, what could have been the theoretical mechanism by which it was done? Cutter charges? Is there evidence for that? - dw

[zapatos]

Thank you. That is why I come to Science Forums, for answers such as that. Now, let me rephrase the question. Leave thermite out of the equation. Is the recorded visual evidence from the WTC collapses consistent with controlled demolition of any sort? Obviously I think it is, or I wouldn't be asking the question. Let's make this a two part question. Postulating that it was a carefully staged, controlled demolition, what could have been the theoretical mechanism by which it was done? Cutter charges? Is there evidence for that? - dw

Can you describe a credible scenario that explains how the charges were placed at the location of the impact?

[Dave World]

Can you describe a credible scenario that explains how the charges were placed at the location of the impact?

 

Perhaps the planes were flown by remote control into the point where charges had already been placed. Those were some stunning maneuvers at very high G-force by such inexperienced fellows. Or, charges could have been placed in a variety of locations, and were triggered first at the point of impact by the ensuing fire, or by the impact itself. Just a couple of thoughts.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Dave World

[Greg Boyles]

Perhaps the planes were flown by remote control into the point where charges had already been placed. Those were some stunning maneuvers at very high G-force by such inexperienced fellows. Or, charges could have been placed in a variety of locations, and were triggered first at the point of impact by the ensuing fire, or by the impact itself. Just a couple of thoughts.

 

You are not here to fairly discus this issue Dave as your mind is clearly already made up. You are here to try and convince the rest of us that you are right and we are wrong.

 

You have received the consensus from this forum that your hypothesis is nonsense. So either accept it or toddle off and discuss your conspiracy theory with your whack job mates else where!

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Perhaps the planes were flown by remote control into the point where charges had already been placed. Those were some stunning maneuvers at very high G-force by such inexperienced fellows.

Which maneuvers, exactly, were "stunning" and at "very high G-force"?

[zapatos]

Perhaps the planes were flown by remote control into the point where charges had already been placed. Those were some stunning maneuvers at very high G-force by such inexperienced fellows. Or, charges could have been placed in a variety of locations, and were triggered first at the point of impact by the ensuing fire, or by the impact itself. Just a couple of thoughts.

Just trying to understand what you are contemplating could have happened here...

 

What would have been the purpose of crashing a plane into the tower AND having a controlled demolition of the same building? If you could drop the tower with controlled demolition then crashing the plane into the tower was an unnecessary effort. Why not drop the tower with controlled demolition and use the plane for another target?

 

As an aside, can you fly a commercial jetliner by remote control? Not something I've heard of before.

[Greg Boyles]

Just trying to understand what you are contemplating could have happened here...

 

What would have been the purpose of crashing a plane into the tower AND having a controlled demolition of the same building? If you could drop the tower with controlled demolition then crashing the plane into the tower was an unnecessary effort. Why not drop the tower with controlled demolition and use the plane for another target?

 

As an aside, can you fly a commercial jetliner by remote control? Not something I've heard of before.

 

 

I seriously don't know why you are even bothering to try and have an intelligent discussion with this conspiracy theory nutter.

 

It should be fairly obvious by now that he is here for no other reason than to antagonise the USA and the west with his delusional conspiracy theories.

 

And I say that as veherment Australian critic of the USA and its foreign policies and some one who is still in two minds as to whether the USA and its western lap dogs had it coming due to their naively partisan interventions in the middle east and else where.

Edited September 10, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[insane_alien]

As an aside, can you fly a commercial jetliner by remote control? Not something I've heard of before.

 

yes, but it would require packing a lot of suspicious looking equipment into the cockpit (or the quicker and easier option of replacing the cockpit entirely) which would definitely be noticed by well anyone as its a job that would take weeks if not months.

 

on the whole, it'd be much much easier to say, take a religious radical willing to die for the 'cause' have him/her hijack a commercial flight and aim the plane towards some big easy to spot from the air target.

[Dave World]

You are not here to fairly discus this issue Dave as your mind is clearly already made up. You are here to try and convince the rest of us that you are right and we are wrong.

 

You have received the consensus from this forum that your hypothesis is nonsense. So either accept it or toddle off and discuss your conspiracy theory with your whack job mates else where!

 

I apologize. Subject closed. Do me a favor, and pull it altogether.

[Greg Boyles]

I apologize. Subject closed. Do me a favor, and pull it altogether.

 

A conspiracy theory that may give me a micro-second's worth pause for thought is one that involves rogue elements of the US security aparatus recruiting and funding the terrorists responsible and making them think they were Osama Bin Laden.

 

But thermite charges placed in just the right position prior to the collisions? Remote control jet air liners?

 

This conspiracy theory sounds more like the paranoid ravings of schizophrenic.

[InigoMontoya]

I don't work in the demolitions world. I work in the weapons world. So while controlled demolition of large buildings isn't something I normally study, the consequences of high energy events as it (often) pertains to structures is something I deal with on a routine basis. That said...

 

On the morning of 9/11 I was surprised to see the first tower fall. How/why would it fall with a delayed reaction like that? It didn't take more than 5 minutes of thought to come up with the answer: Thermal soak of structural elements. And in that moment I knew that the second tower was doomed as well. That was an odd feeling... Watching the tower burn *knowing* that there was no hope for anyone still inside.

 

As for the whole, "It fell straight down" line of questioning... Given the ramifications of the square/cube law and common architectural practices, I challenge you to collapse a building that size in any other way! Even if you *tried* to get it to fall over like a felled tree, the moment it started to go to the side it would buckle and just come more or less straight down.

[Greg Boyles]

I don't work in the demolitions world. I work in the weapons world. So while controlled demolition of large buildings isn't something I normally study, the consequences of high energy events as it (often) pertains to structures is something I deal with on a routine basis. That said...

 

On the morning of 9/11 I was surprised to see the first tower fall. How/why would it fall with a delayed reaction like that? It didn't take more than 5 minutes of thought to come up with the answer: Thermal soak of structural elements. And in that moment I knew that the second tower was doomed as well. That was an odd feeling... Watching the tower burn *knowing* that there was no hope for anyone still inside.

 

As for the whole, "It fell straight down" line of questioning... Given the ramifications of the square/cube law and common architectural practices, I challenge you to collapse a building that size in any other way! Even if you *tried* to get it to fall over like a felled tree, the moment it started to go to the side it would buckle and just come more or less straight down.

 

You mean like a felled tree. The only reason why a tree topples when undermined is that the trunk contains no significantly compressible air spaces. It can't fall any other way.

 

The debris field for the towers was, I believe, rather wide so it was far from a clean crumple. Perhaps the appearance of the building imploding was only relative to how tall they were. If they were much smaller buildings then perhaps it would have looked far more like a messy topple.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[Dave World]

I bow out of this whole discussion. At first I was seeking engineering information. Then someone asked me a hypothetical question, to which I made a hypothetical reply. Now, this thread can proceed of its own accord.

[Dave World]

I put this question to structural engineers everywhere: Is the visual evidence recorded during the World Trade Center disaster in New York consistent with a carefully-engineered, controlled demolition using staged thermite detonations? Can that possibility be ruled out? I'm not talking about political plausibility. Just the best judgment that Science Forums.Net engineer participants can bring to bear. Let us keep this discussion logical, rational if you please.

 

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

 

ISSN: 1874-4125

 

[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

 

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

 

To download the full PDF go to http://www.benthamsc...0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[John Cuthber]

In "Dave world" that report is damning evidence.

In the real world, however, it's just silly.

If the stuff ignites at 430C then how come it didn't ignite when it was in the middle of a burning building?

Do you understand the significance of that fact?

It means that this "magic" stuff simply didn't work.

 

I don't know if you can watch this; it may be limited to the UK.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014gpjx/9_11_Conspiracy_Road_Trip/

however one of the things they do is show what happens if you ignite several pounds of thermite resting on a steel girder. The answer is nothing. It melts and runs off.

They also ripped apart quite a lot of the other "evidence" for the conspiracy.

Needless to say, most of the conspiracy theorists didn't accept the evidence of their own eyes.

 

I wonder if it's time to close this thread.

[Dave World]

It could not possibly have been thermite detonations (for one, thermite doesn't detonate).

 

second, the common evidence of some red hot liquid flowing out the side isn't thermite, its something liquid and on fire, not thermite. if it was thermite it'd be sparking everywhere and look a whole lot messier.

 

there isn't any evidence of thermite.

 

Yes there is. Take a look. ====>>

The Open Chemical Physics Journal

 

ISSN: 1874-4125

 

[DOI: 10.2174/1874412500902010007]

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley and Bradley R. Larsen Pp 7-31

 

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

That was the abstract. Here is a link to the PDF. ====>> http://www.benthamsc...0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[mississippichem]

Might I ask why you post in purple? It is not so easy on the eyes.

[Pantaz]

Citing that pathetic "paper" on Bentham -- Seriously? Which would you like first, the dismantling of their "peer review", or the list of errors in the "paper"?