Video about Thermite Charges

Scott Sommers

Illuminator
Scott Sommers
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
3,866
A long, long time ago, someone posted a video about thermite charges they developed to destroy steel bolts. Does anyone know where this is?
 
Scott Sommers said:
A long, long time ago, someone posted a video about thermite charges they developed to destroy steel bolts. Does anyone know where this is?
Click to expand...
I don't have a link, but it shouldn't be hard to find. Try some different search terms if you can't find it.
 
Norman Alexander said:
This it?

https://psemc.com/products/pyrotechnic-bolt-rod-cutter/
Click to expand...

Thanks, but that's not what I meant. After some time, it became clear that claims about thermite were problematic because there was no way you could cut through steel beams in a manner that would make the building collapse. A Truther-type guy invented a thermite device that he could attach to column joints and burn the bolds off. The beams would then fall apart. It was a nifty demonstration but it disappeared as evidence of anything.

Anyway, I was looking for the video.
 
It's all moot anyway. There is nothing that happened that day that can't be explained better without thermite.
 
Last edited:
Conspiracy theorist Cole presents evidence thermite was not used

Fonebone said:
Is this video the one you are searching for?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00


Around the 11:30 time stamp--
Can thermite cut steel bolts?

I guess it can !
Click to expand...

Delusional idiot Conspiracy Theorist (CT), Jonathan Cole P.E. CT, shows why thermite was not used on 9/11. There was no evidence of thermite damage on any WTC steel. The thermite experiment leaves a signature of damage not found on WTC steel.

Not a single piece of WTC steel exhibits the photo evidence presented by Cole of what steel would have on it after a thermite event. Sad to see CT dolts unable to see the evidence Cole shows which debunks the thermite delusion.

Good Job Fonebone finding evidence and proof of not thermite used to destroy the WTC.

Not surprising the dolts conspiracy theorists are fooled by idiots like Cole and other themrite pundits - they can't think for themselves or see the evidence.

Are there any thermite CTers left? Does Cole still believe in the thermite CT? The only facts in that video are when Cole says, "not sure". Then he shows WTC steel without any iron products fused to the steel... oops, he debunks himself in the video and presents the evidence for not themite used on 9/11 to destroy the WTC complex.
 
Last edited:
Robin said:
It's all moot anyway. There is nothing that happened that day that can't be explained better without thermite.
Click to expand...


Kevin Ryan agrees with you 100 % and has graciously agreed to assist in your quest for wisdom.
This link
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-12-08/how-debunk-wtc-thermite
Mr. Ryan lists ten easy ways to counter and silence any and all mention
of thermite that might occasionally rise by any future 9-11 truthseekers--

How to Debunk WTC Thermite






wtc_thermite_2.jpg

Posted on December 8, 2013 by Kevin Ryan
The evidence for the presence of thermite at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11 is extensive and compelling. This evidence has accumulated to the point at which we can say that WTC thermite is no longer a hypothesis, it is a tested and proven theory. Therefore it is not easy to debunk it. But the way to do so is very straightforward and is in no way mysterious.
To debunk the thermite theory, one must first understand the evidence for it and then show how all of that evidence is either mistaken or explained by other phenomena. Here are the top ten categories of evidence for thermite at the WTC.

  1. Molten metal: There are numerous photographs and eyewitness testimonies to the presence of molten metal at the WTC, both in the buildings and in the rubble. No legitimate explanation has been provided for this evidence other than the exothermic reaction of thermite, which produces the temperatures required and molten iron as a product.
  2. The fires at Ground Zero could not be put out for several months. Despite the application of millions of gallons of water to the pile, several rainfall events at the site, and the use of a chemical fire suppressant, the fires would not subside. Thermal images produced by satellite showed that the temperatures in the pile were far above that expected in the debris from a typical structure fire. Only thermite, which contains its own oxidant and therefore cannot be extinguished by smothering it, can explain this evidence.
  3. Numerous eyewitnesses who were fleeing the area described the air mass as a hot wind filled with burning particles.[1] This evidence agrees with the presence of large quantities of thermite byproducts in the air, including hot metallic microspheres and still-reacting agglomerates of thermite.
  4. Numerous vehicles were scorched or set on fire in the area. Photographic evidence shows that cars parked within the lower-level garage areas of the WTC complex burned as if impacted by a super-hot wind like that described by the eyewitnesses. All non-metallic parts of the cars, including the plastic, rubber, and glass, were completely burned off by a hot blast.
  5. There was a distinct “white smoke” present—clearly different from smoke produce by a normal structural fire—as indicated by eyewitnesses and photographic evidence.[2] The second major product of the thermite reactions is aluminum oxide, which is emitted as a white solid shortly after reaction.
  6. Peer-reviewed, scientific research confirmed the presence of extremely high temperatures at the WTC. The high temperatures were evidenced by metallic and other microspheres, along with evaporated metals and silicates. These findings were confirmed by 9/11 investigators and by scientists at an independent company and at the United States Geologic Survey.
  7. The elemental composition of the metallic microspheres from the WTC dust matches that of metallic microspheres produced by the thermite reaction.
  8. The environmental data collected at Ground Zero in the months following 9/11 indicate that violent incendiary fires, like those produced by thermite, occurred on specific dates. Peer-reviewed scientific analysis of these data show that the components of thermite spiked to extraordinary levels on specific dates in both the air and aerosol emissions at Ground Zero.
  9. Carbon nanotubes have been found in the WTC dust and in the lungs of 9/11 first responders. Formation of carbon nanotubes requires extremely high temperatures, specific metal catalysts, and carbon compounds exactly like those found in nanothermite formulations. Researchers have discovered that nanothermite produces the same kinds of carbon nanotubes. That finding has been confirmed by independent analysis in a commercial contract laboratory.
  10. A peer-reviewed scientific publication has identified the presence of nanothermite in the WTC dust. One of the critical aspects of that paper has been confirmed by an independent scientist.
Number (*) can be explained better without thermite below...
 
Fonebone said:
Kevin Ryan agrees with you 100 % and has graciously agreed to assist in your quest for wisdom.
Click to expand...
You mean he has listed all the moronic things that truthers say about thermite in one place.

So thermite, famously a quick hot reaction where, the product starts to return to the temperature of the surroundings just as soon as the reaction stops, can keep metal molten for months???

Even a truther should be able to see what is wrong with that

Same with the long burning fires. Or the heat in the ground.

There is no kind of thetmitic reaction that could possibly explain any of those.

But we already have a perfectly good explanation for all all of that. 110 storeys of combustible material compressed into the rubble will certainly burn hot and long and be a bigger to extinguish.

And it could certainly melt metals like aluminium. (You can melt aluminium in a good going campfire).

So there you are Thermite is not an explanation for any of those, not by any stretch of the imagination.

And there are perfectly good explanations already available.

And a paper published in an open access chemistry journal? That has never been considered evidence for anything (we don't even have to bring up that the lead author is a Pentagon no-planer)

Nope, that nonsense only underlines the fact that there is nothing in the ,9/11 events to suggest thermite.
 
Last edited:
A blast of hot wind filled with particles?

One might almost think that a giant burning sky scraper had collapsed close by.

Some vehicles caught on fire? Ditto.
 
For context, let's recall that Kevin Ryan was the person who said that the bursts of smoke/dust couldn't have been the result of downward pressure because the falling rubble was "cloud like" and couldn't have produced any pressure.
 
I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a truther to explain how thermite can keep metal molten for months, keep fires burning for months, make acres of land hot for months.

They never even try to answer.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that thermite caused those things, never mind try to pretend these things are evidence for thermite.

110 storeys of combustible material collapsed and compressed into large pits I'd more than enough to explain molten metal, long burning fires and high ground temperatures in the months following 9/11.

A giant burning collapsing building is more than enough to explain hot blasts of air filled with burning particles. That is just exactly what you would expect.
 
Robin said:
And no need to reinvent the wheel on iron rich microspheres:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264234
Click to expand...

The Microspheres in the Twin Towers didn't come from paint burning on steel, the Microspheres were present when.the buildings were welded together as Fly Ash Microspheres were used in the Flux of welding Rods, the welding debris would have been intombed in the Building along with Microspheres from inch toner, From Copiers and on documents, that were copied.
Hundreds of sources for Microspheres naturally in those buildings since day one. But no Thermite Specific Microspheres were ever detected in those buildings.
 
Robin said:
I've lost count of the number of times I have asked a truther to explain how thermite can keep metal molten for months, keep fires burning for months, make acres of land hot for months.

They never even try to answer.

It makes no sense whatsoever to say that thermite caused those things, never mind try to pretend these things are evidence for thermite.

110 storeys of combustible material collapsed and compressed into large pits I'd more than enough to explain molten metal, long burning fires and high ground temperatures in the months following 9/11.

A giant burning collapsing building is more than enough to explain hot blasts of air filled with burning particles. That is just exactly what you would expect.
Click to expand...

The Main Fuel involved in 9/11/2001 was definitely carbon in smoldering fires.
 
Scott Sommers said:
A long, long time ago, someone posted a video about thermite charges they developed to destroy steel bolts. Does anyone know where this is?
Click to expand...

It was very amateurly done, and really isn't worth the effort of Viewing too much thermite for too little gain.
 
Scott Sommers said:
Thanks, but that's not what I meant. After some time, it became clear that claims about thermite were problematic because there was no way you could cut through steel beams in a manner that would make the building collapse. A Truther-type guy invented a thermite device that he could attach to column joints and burn the bolds off. The beams would then fall apart. It was a nifty demonstration but it disappeared as evidence of anything.

Anyway, I was looking for the video.
Click to expand...

Actually I built a device that would do it, but it would have been to dangerous to attempt to do it in a Hydrocarbon fire. It used thermite and a strong concentration of Oxygen so the energy too cut the steel Actually came from the steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom