View Single Post
Old 26th May 2006, 07:24 AM   #344
Merchant of Doom
Hellbound's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,399
Originally Posted by Mutton-Head;1662022[B
Huntsman says[/b]
“and thermite is not an explosive, either”

Some notes from Steven Jones’ paper
“I maintain that these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter-charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. “

Notice “cutter charges,” not “explosive.”

“Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job.”

Notice thermite and explosives.

It seems you did not pay close attention to these points when reading the paper.
Actually, it seems you have no freaking clue on the subject. You may have read it, but you don't understand it.

A cutter charge is, specifically, an explosive. It is, more specifically, a high-speed explosive, typically a shaped charge, that is used to cut through an object.

IN contrast, cratering charges tend to be low-speed and unshaped.

Cutter charges also must be placed directly onto the structures they are intended to cut, in order to work correctly. You don't place a cutter charge on a piece of drywall and expect it to cut the steel column behind it. You have to open up the wall and put it on the column, or use a significantly larger amount of explosive. If you only set explosive on one side of a sturcture instead of both (still assuming you have direct contact), it requires four times the amount of explosive. Each little bit of distance you go away increease the amount of explosive needed exponentially. Either way, the explosives argument is an exercise in nonsense. You get one of two possible scenarios:

1. The charges were placed correctly. No one working noticed the people cutting holes in walls, no one noticed the drywall patches, no one noticed the work during the weeks that would have been required assuming the best circumstances and unrestricted access. No securoty guards noticed demolition or construction teams. THis is nonsense.

2. The charges were not placed ocrrectly, and larger amounts were used. No one noticed the 50lb. charges sitting under thier desk. Notice that a block of C-4 weighing in at about 2.2 lbs. is about the size of a brick. For relatively small steel columns (1 inch), assuming you're a few feet away, you're still looking at requiring something on the order of 3 to 4 of these blocks. And that's to cut a single, relatively small column. IF they had enough to cut all the columns in the building, considering the size of the columns, one floor would have been pretty well unuseable, because it'd be too hard to walk around the huge piles of explosive laying around everywhere.

Now, on thermite, is is NOT explosive, and is NOT used as a "cutting charge" by anyone who still has functional brain cells remaining. Thermite is an incendiary. It burns bright, hot, and fast. It also contains no sulfur.

Thermite is specifically used in the military for destruction of property. Not by cutting, but my melting huge freakin holes in it. Have to leave a vehicle behind? Set off a thermite grenade on the hood, it'll melt through the engine block...enemy can't use it. You cut use it to cut steel, but it wouldn't be very effective. The reason being that once it starts burning, it only goes one direction. Down. Through whatever is under it. So if you want to cut a vertical steel column, you have to actuall drill holes in the column for the thermite to go in, and hope the thermite spreads enough on the way down to cut it.

In any case, a thermite reaction would have left molten steel, as well as significant residues of aluminum oxide and melted iron (not steel) from the thermite itself. This was not found.

Jones is speaking far outside his field, in areas he has no knowledge or experience in.
Science is like safety testing cars. You don't coddle a new theory; you slam it head-on into a brick wall at 60 mph. If it survives better than the old theory, it's good. The way it fails, and under what conditions, lets you make the next theory even better.

People do not live by reason alone, they only make up reasons to stop other people asking silly questions.

Last edited by Hellbound; 26th May 2006 at 07:26 AM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top