Thermite and steel

while reading this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x128477

I struck me that with all the discussion of thermite / thermate no one has yet to post a picture of what steel cut by thermite (or thermate)looks like. Surely after 5 years of research someone would have found one by now - I can't believe that 911 was the first time in history that thermite was used to demolish a steel structure. Or was it?

doesn't mean that it couldn't be used to cut beams. Thermite is probably too volatile and difficult to work. In a normal CD it's not worth the risk entailed in using it, when there are safer and easier ways to accomplish the same job. Especially when you're not trying to hide what you are doing.

and leaves no evidence behind? So no high explosives were used at all because they are hard to hide?

We still need a picture.

Dicky C. to send you one. There are plenty of pictures of thermite reactions. Use your imagination and consider what it would do if placed on main supporting structures in a very tall skyscraper in very large amounts in just the right places and ignited after a jumbo jet has hit it at maybe 400 mph.
Especially if place in position to cut or melt the support structures at an angle.

Maybe some of the molten material would flow out the hole made by the aircraft? Hmm?

in a building as big as the WTC. Especially, since after the 1993 Bombing, they did extensive renovations to the mechanical systems in both Towers and WTC 7.

Besides, regardless of whether of not thermite was used, it was very easy to deliver a load of explosives to the building. All you need to do is drive a truck loaded with you weapon of choice onto one of the freight elevators, send it to the desired floor and then shut the elevator down for 'repairs' or 'maintenance'.

have a link to a Phd or someone with some degree of experience who claims that only thermite was used to drop the towers? (or even only thermate, for that matter)

This is off topic, but have you ever read Synthetic Terrorism, Made in the USA?

You're imagining it.

"I can't believe that 911 was the first time in history that thermite was used to demolish a steel structure."

If I took him literally, that would mean he thinks it's the first time in history that thermite was used to sever something made of steel, like a beam, traversing 2 fire bricks, since a beam is by definition a steel structure.

It's steel and it has structure.

I can't answer the OP in any case. All I can say is that the man who first came up with the thermate hypothesis, Dr. Jones, also hypothesizes that it was used in conjunction with another explosive(s). What led him to thermate was the heavy sulfidation of the steel recovered by FEMA.

greyl, I know this is off topic, but have you ever read Synthetic Terrorism; Made in the USA or Welcome to Terrorland; Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 cover up in Florida? I only ask because I already remember a few long and lengthy threads concerning the OP, and yet I never recall seeing a discussion about either or both of those books that both "inside jobbers" and "outside jobbers" participated in. And of course it would be difficult to participate if one had never read those books.

ed-spelling

I think you can find it at Dr. Jones site, that's where I saw it.

That's why I informed you that exclusivity wasn't claimed - that you misread the OP, iow.

John Q. Citizen: "...have a link to a Phd or someone with some degree of experience who claims that only thermite was used to drop the towers?

sorry for the confusion.

My understanding of the current CD theory is:

1. High explosives were used somewhere in the towers to cut some columns.

2. Thermate was used somewhere in the towers to cut some other columns (that for some reason could not be cut by high explosives)

3. More high explosives were spread on each floor to:
- pulverize concrete floors.
- create Hoffman's pyroclastic flows

Have I missed anything?

are you always trying to prove that those towers weren't brought down by anything other than the 19 terrorists scenario?
And by the way, thermate is different than thermite. Jones says he's published a demonstration of the process. Why don't you go check that out?

why is it so hard?

you anything? I don't care what you believe! Maybe there are no pics of it. Maybe there are! I don't know. You want to look? Go for it! It still won't prove that it's not used for demolitions. Maybe it's totally new. I've read they make hand grenades from thermite. What's the point of showing you a picture?

had actually done research and experimentation to back up their claims. You are right - it is not important what I believe. However, you are the one that believes that thermate was used. I am simply curious what actual evidence is behind those beliefs. From your somewhat hysterical overreaction, I can only assume not much.

Do you really think that something that can cut through an entire engine blocks in seconds can't cut through a steel beam?

It's a perfectly simple and easy question. What should a steel beam look like if it were cut by thermate?

As opposed to what does it look like?
So it seems you're asking others to guess? Why?

The 911 Truth Industry has based a vast structure of conjecture on the thin foundation of "Thermate".

WHAT DOES A STEEL BEAM LOOK LIKE AFTER IT HAS BEEN CUT BY THERMATE?

Just a really basic, simple question.

Perhaps they have all been 'Covered up'.

a steel beam from a building that was demolished by conventional explosive means? c4? dynamite?
No! Your argument is rediculous!

The "911 Truth Movement" has put much effort into proving that thermate was used.

Where's a picture of what that would look like?

It's just a basic thing that a serious investigator would have done.

"The "911 Truth Movement" has put much effort into proving that thermate was used. "
No, the effort is to have an investigation and to show how it may have been done! No one knows but the perps how it was actually done!!

"Where's a picture of what that would look like? "
I showed pics of thermite reactions! I posted proof that thermite/thermit melts and welds steel!

"It's just a basic thing that a serious investigator would have done."
Again, it's done!

1. The CLAIM --widely disseminated-- is that evidence of thermate was found in the debris. The obvious next question: Can thermate actually cut through a steel beam?

2. You have shown pictures of "thermite reactions", not of structural steel girders actually cut by thermate. These are entirely different things. Thermate -certainly- gets hot enough to melt steel--that's not in dispute. The question is whether it is possible and practical to cut through --SEVERAL INCHES-- of steel with the stuff. That's not at all obvious: if you pack on -enough- thermate to melt inches of steel, much of the heat is going to go somewhere besides into the steel.

We also need to know --how many pounds-- of thermate are needed to cut a girder. This tells us how many --TONS-- of the stuff would have been needed to do the claimed demolition.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jan/25776.htm



Mike you sold us out.

Why was evidence from a crime scene destroyed so fast.

The theory as I understand it is that thermite or thermate was used to cut through at least some of the columns in the WTC towers. And since the 9-11 Truth movement has all these eminent scholars working to reveal the truth, surely one of them must have at least demonstrated that it's possible to cut through a steel column of the same thickness and construction as those columns that are supposed to have been cut through by thermate or thermite in the World Trade Center.

Now I know very little about materials science or pyrotechnics, so I'd be willing to accept a photograph of a steel column that had been cut through by thermite or thermate as at least preliminary evidence that this is possible. Better yet would be a movie posted on YouTube. After all, this is a central question. Can thermite or thermate actually be used to cut through a steel column like was used on the World Trade Center? Surely the 9-11 Truth movement can provide proof of something so simple.

either and the "plane" did not look ike that of a plane crashing into a building (planes don't fly into steel buildings and come out the other side), but strangely you guys don't seem interested in that.

What would steel beam look like if it were cut by thermate?

We -have- pictures of the WTC. They look like a burning building to me.
And what's this shit about a plane flying out the other side?

WHERE'S THE PICTURE?

learning enjoyment!

thermite
mixture of powdered or granular aluminum metal and powdered iron oxide. When ignited it gives off large amounts of heat. In wartime it has been used in incendiary bombs. A method for welding using thermite (invented by Dr. Hans Goldschmidt, a German chemist) is variously called the Goldschmidt process, the thermit process, or the aluminothermic process; it is used in welding large parts, e.g., castings, shafts, pipes, and steel rails. In the process the thermite, contained in a crucible, is ignited, e.g., by a strip of burning magnesium ribbon. The aluminum reduces the iron oxide to molten iron and forms a slag of aluminum oxide on its surface. The reaction is very exothermic; temperatures above 2,500°C (4,500°F) are often reached. Typically, the molten iron is poured into the joint to be welded, providing both heat for fusion and filler metal. Excess metal may be removed when the weld cools. Because thermite reacts with explosive violence once ignited, it cannot be heated as a mass to its kindling temperature (about 1,550°C/2,800°F); Goldschmidt was first to find a method for igniting thermite without explosion. He used a similar method to prepare various metals, e.g., chromium, manganese, and uranium, from their oxides.

here!

&imgrefurl=http://iva.uni-ulm.de/CHEMIE/CHEMIEVORLESUNG/allg-chem/redox/index.html&h=369&w=250&sz=28&hl=en&start=6&tbnid=e5uc6fHuL_U6aM:&tbnh=122&tbnw=83&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthermit%2B-911%2B-wtc%26svnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall">This.

and&imgrefurl=http://www.aarc.com.au/aarc/news/photolib/photos_thermit.html&h=1683&w=1184&sz=649&hl=en&start=29&tbnid=HjhS0RckuRPh3M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthermit%2B-911%2B-wtc%26start%3D20%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall"> here!

To recap, the OP asked for a photo of steel cut by thermite. You have provide half of the answer, but what about the rest?

as if it was allowed to be photographed.
obviously this is over you guys' heads. A thermite reaction clearly melts steel! It's used to weld it. Read the links! It's also used in grenades! Now is it not possible that a very large quantity could be used to blow up buildings? And who has access to large quantities?

Way to add the link showing the Australian railway welding after I responded.

claiming that photographing steel cut by thermate wouldn't be allowed.

edit: (but, the pic is of a weld, not a cut, correct?)

and that's a fact! But I hear a rumor that giuliani restricted cameras on the scene. Don't know ffor sure bout that. Doesn't matter because thermite could have been used.

Your one- and two-word posts don't have much room for claims, to be blunt. Since you made none, I assumed you were trying to prove something related to the OP (i.e. steel being cut by thermite/thermate).

And sorry the post lengths don't suit you, anyway what ever you mistakenly believed, my point is thermite/thermit could very well have been used. And if this was an inside job, the perps had the means to cover it up as they did!

So now he's 75% of the way done with the original question by the OP. All we need is some steel actually cut by thermite/thermate (I don't care which) and he will have crossed the finish line.

Are you saying that if there are no pictures of steel cut by thermite that proves thermite won't cut steel?

be nicer if the perps confessed! But they won't!

catch ya tomorrow! gnight!

What else? :shrug:

he prefers to advertise his favorite threads by bumping them, rather than add substance to discussions.

He seems to derive great pleasure from the practice.

he does!
:hi:

These are very different things.

If thermate -can- cut a girder, how much is needed and how long would it take?

Since there seem to be no pictures of a girder actually cut by thermate, I think that it cannot be done.

--PLEASE-- do not try this at home!

&imgrefurl=http://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/telekolleg/faecher/chemie/chemie_11/popup/chemie_11_10.html&h=280&w=400&sz=16&hl=en&start=121&tbnid=UuOTYiPkNQTUQM:&tbnh=87&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthermit%2B-911%2B-wtc%26start%3D120%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D100%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN%26as_qdr%3Dall">HERE!

It's certainly not a shot of a beam -cut- by thermite.

Your posts get stranger and stranger. That interests me.

However, I'm bright enough to know that a video posted on YouTube is necessarily going to be low-resolution (especially when compared to the original video feeds) and that such a reduction will reduce the quality. Perhaps if you examined a better video you would not have the same problems identifying aircraft?

with a video that someone made in their backyard. http://www.davidavery.co.uk/thermite/index.htm (scroll down for link to video)

It's a bit crude but I think it proves the point. At the end of the video the residue left on the top pot looks a lot like the residue left on this angle cut beam.

Very different thing.

Is it even possible to cut through several inches of steel with this stuff? And how much would it take?

--PLEASE-- do not try this at home!

> It's a bit crude but I think it proves the point.

I've never heard anyone suggest that thermite doesn't melt steel, so you're addressing the wrong point. The point is that it's a big step from saying thermite melts steel to developing a practical process for using thermite to bring down a structure. Specifically, how do you put enough of it in the right place (particularly in the case of a column) and keep it there long enough to do the needed. It's easy enough to sit around imagining that there should be some way to do that (which I'm sure petgoat will unnecessarily demonstrate momentarily), but the reason that there aren't any photos of structural columns and beams to answer the OP is that no such technology is known to exist. The question is, is there some such technology that's being kept totally secret, or does it exist only in the imagination of conspiracists? Anyone who understands the critical thinking process would understand why this question matters.

Say you need 1 mm of thermate to cut a 1 mm thick steel sheet. Then, to cut through 2 -inches- (50 mm) of steel in a girder you need -at least- a 2 inch (50 mm) thick slab of thermite.

Problem is, then most of the thermite is not flush against the steel, but is as much as 2 inches away. So, most the heat just goes into sparkles and not into melting steel.

There may be a way to do this. But, it's perfectly reasonable to ask for a demonstration.


And,

PLEASE do not try this at home.

Man cutting WTC beam with torch during clean-up:



Residue left on beam:



Notice how he's cutting at an angle?

Notice the black goopy-looking residue?

So, show me a thermate-cut beam, and we will decide whether your angle-cut picture above looks more like a thermite cut or a cutting torch cut.

There *are* real everyday experts in a lot of stuff.

That last comment from the welders, about how the slag goes "in" on three sides and comes "out" on the last side, and how that demonstrates the sequence of the cuts, is a great example of how a trained eye can see things that most people wouldn't even notice.

But I will bet you that, months from now, this is still going to be bandied about as a "thermate cut" beam.

There isn't one, is there?

Hee Hee.

There isn't one. Because Thermate can't cut a structural beam.

It's real simple.

no picture required!
Thermite grenade on a huge scale?

It's an entirely different situation.

Just give us a picture.

Courtesy of your fellow "debunkers":



:rofl:

You know that's the result of clean-up efforts:



But you are going to keep posting that picture and lying about it, aren't you?

That is the real question. They didn't get any heavy equipment in until the next morning. If it was from before that, then it wasn't cut after the collapse has part of the debris removal.

The picture in your post is obviously days later and it is no longer possible to tell when the damage or cutting was done.

This is NOT one of the towers:



And he's calling ME dishonest. :crazy:

I wasn't talking about this picture. What day was this picture taken?

there was a steelworker around. Notice the guy not wearing a fireman's helmet or jacket to the left of the column in question.

bending down with his back to us?

He's a fireman, he just doesn't have his jacket on but he has the same overalls and it appears that he has a helmet on.

... there's another pic of him in the series. I'll go back and find him and his torch.

He's a fireman, he just doesn't have his jacket on but he has the same overalls and it appears that he has a helmet on.

No, he's a steelworker.



See the gas tanks for the torch rig next to the diagonally cut columns?

See the fireman. See the fireman's helmet.

See the steelworker. See the steelworker's hardhat, which does not have the rear-extending lip of a fireman's hat. See that the steelworker does not wear a fireman's jacket, but does wear brown overalls.

Let's take a closer look:



So, what you have here is a steelworker, next to a cutting torch rig, next to diagonally-cut columns (which don't show slag on the back high-side, consistent with the other cut column shown in the thread), and you are going to believe that diagonally-cut columns from the clean-up photographs are evidence of a hitherto unknown and unseen method of making diagonal cuts horizontally across steel box columns.

I don't even think you are bright enough to be dishonest at this point.

The point is that this is from the clean-up, and it shows that a worker using a cutting torch to clear a standing column will (a) make diagonal cuts, and (b) generate slag residue down the column.

If one were confining thermite with some sort of mechanism to hold it against the beam to cut in a horizontal direction, then you would need something to keep a seal against the beam, so that you wouldn't get slag running down the sides.

But you are too dense to get that, or you are intentionally missing the point.

However, on further checking, you are lying again.

It is a tower base column:

Why don't you guys try to get your story straight?

:rofl:

If you look at the sides of the diagonally cut beam, do you notice that there is no dust or other debris on the top edges?

If that column were protruding, undisturbed since the collapse, from the pile like that, the top edges would not be clean. They would be covered by dust the same way that everyting was covered by dust.

That's a pretty good indicator that the column was cut *after* the collapse - not before.

The other clue is the presence of the steelworker in the photograph itself, and the pictures posted in another thread of (a) steelworker, (b) diagonally cut beams, and (c) oxy-acetylene torch rig right next to the diagonally cut beams.

The other clue indicated by the welders who have looked at the photo on the welding forum is that the slag is "inside" the beam on three sides, and "outside" the beam on the third side. This indicates that the beam was cut on three sides, then bent over and cut on the inside of the remaining side. That's why the slag goes "outside" on the side of the beam facing the camera in that photo.

You got the wrong building there little buddy.

:rofl:

What difference does the building make?

I think you'd swear day is night if you thought it maintained the cover story.

It is utterly irrelevant to the point of the post whether that building is one of the towers.

The point is that using a cutting torch to make that sort of cut through a steel beam generates slag identical to the type of cutting torch slag shown in your "thermate cut beam" picture.

It is a picture of someone using a cutting torch to cut through a box beam.

Why are you so dense that you don't understand that I did not even represent that it was a beam from one of the towers. That was not even the point. It *is* the same sort of beam being cut with a torch diagonally to control the direction of fall. THAT's the freaking point.

admitting an error or letting on that he's learned anything from a discussion.
He's not being serious.

Now it is. Or is it relevant again? You guys change your stories so fast I can't keep up.