Thermitic Controlled Demolition

DaveThomasNMSR

Muse
DaveThomasNMSR
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
877
Considering that evidence of an actual thermitic controlled demolition in history that has now surfaced, anybuddy think that this side-topic should become its own thread?

November 1935 article in Popular Mechanics discusses the demolition, with pictures:

skyride.jpg


Posted By: Locknar
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does toppling, count as a controlled demolition, whatever that is? Certainly not in the building demo world.
 
I am just going to point out to our truther friends that this is from Popular Mechanics, the very same "Yellow Journalism" rag that published the 9/11 articles a few years back that they all vilified as being an untrustworthy source because of it's owners publishing history.

Clearly they cannot trust this as a viable source. Perhaps that's why they haven't brought this article up...
 
That's stuff for a new thread.

One phrase jumped out on me: "The 628-foot twin towers..." :eek:

So henceforth, it can be claimed that one of the twin towers was demolished with thermite, the other with dynamite :cool:
 
Sounds cool, Dave. I'll definitely pick up a copy. I dig it when the mags care enough about certain hot-button issues to devote a large chunk of space toward detailed discussion.
 
Actually this is a great find.

So we now have a building that has been "demolished" using thermite. Awesome.

What do we notice? Oh the HUGE devices necessary to do it... OH wait... there must have been lots of advances in technology since 1935....

and notice that the tower TOPPLED over... oh I can see the twoof grabbing this one...
 
It only took 1500 lbs of thermite! What would the equivalent amount be to bring down one of the WTC buildings?
And where would you attach such devices and what would they look like?
 
Thermite is used all the time in demolitions. It's only you pretenders at the JREF that won't admit it.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, that tower looks suspiciously like a HAARP precursor antenna. There's more to this than meets the eye. I mean, "Skyride", what does that tell you?
 
Scott Sommers said:
Thermite is used all the time in demolitions. It's only you pretenders at the JREF that won't admit it.
Click to expand...

From the description:
We took down a 95' 1950's era rusty rohn25 style tower in a tight spot. Power lines on one side, other towers and guy points on the other. We first used thermite to destroy a guy point, but it didn't quite do it, so I used a sawzall to cut the last turnbuckle. The tower landed safely where expected (we had people pulling it in that direction), and the demolition didn't hurt anything else at the site.
Click to expand...

So it wasn't really a thermitic CD. But ... they made that decision to pull it! :eek: :D
 
Dog Town said:
Does toppling, count as a controlled demolition, whatever that is? Certainly not in the building demo world.
Click to expand...

Yes, it counts. "Controlled" is not a synonym for "straight down in its footprint", but rather for "in a predicted fashion to achieve our goals". Usually these goals include not damaging any adjacent structures, and that can be achieved by making the tower topple onto an open field, towards a predefined direction that is clear(ed) of obstacled.
Controlled demo of smokestacks often has them toppling towards a defined direction.
In this case, control was achieved by simultaneously severing two legs on one side. It would appear that the melting occurred, though slower than at dynamite' speed, fast enough for their objectives. Maybe they didn't require much precision.
 
Oystein said:
From the description:


So it wasn't really a thermitic CD. But ... they made that decision to pull it! :eek: :D
Click to expand...

Exactly. The technology's been around for decades. It's only the JREF pretending that WTC 7 wasn't a textbook example of standard controlled demolition techniques - from the thermite to pulling it. And it's only a matter of time until your role in this deception is uncovered and justice is done.

9/11 was an Inside Job!!
 
Last edited:
Interesting Wiki article HERE

There were in fact 2 towers, one brought down by dynamite the other as described above.

Many avenues of twoofness to be explored there methinks :=]

Compus
 
Scott Sommers said:
Exactly. The technology's been around for decades. It's only the JREF pretending that WTC 7 wasn't a textbook example of standard controlled demolition techniques - from the thermite to pulling it. And it's only a matter of time until your role in this deception is uncovered and justice is done.

9/11 was an Inside Job!!
Click to expand...

I can't tell.....are you joking? You gotta put a :D or something in there so we can tell.
 
We first used thermite to destroy a guy point, but it didn't quite do it, so I used a sawzall to cut the last turnbuckle.
Click to expand...
So, given that thermite might not be adequate to do the job, they had to be prepared to attack it with a sawzall. Was there an army of PTB lackeys hanging around Ground Zero on 9/11 with sawzalls in briefcases ready to jump in and finish off the towers, should the collapses not go off quite as planned? :rolleyes:

And where is the 99 day fire that always ensues from the use of this compound?
 
sylvan8798 said:
So, given that thermite might not be adequate to do the job, they had to be prepared to attack it with a sawzall. Was there an army of PTB lackeys hanging around Ground Zero on 9/11 with sawzalls in briefcases ready to jump in and finish off the towers, should the collapses not go off quite as planned? :rolleyes:

And where is the 99 day fire that always ensues from the use of this compound?
Click to expand...

I have always said in jest only that my theory is: an army of midgets with saws dunnit (proof: Because it is possible, midgets CAN cut steel columns with saws, just like thermite CAN melt steel columns). Turns out, I was onto something after all! :eek:
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Considering that evidence of an actual thermitic controlled demolition in history that has now surfaced, anybuddy think that this side-topic should become its own thread?

November 1935 article in Popular Mechanics discusses the demolition, with pictures:

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/skyride.jpg[/qimg]

Posted By: Locknar
Click to expand...

Notice also that they needed two separate Thermite packs per beam so it appears that they knew they had to take a whole section of bean out not just a cut......so we just doubled the amount the ninja needed to use!
 
Why does this even matter? These is NO evidence of thermite at the WTC, especially if you consider the MASSIVE amounts that would be needed. Not to mention the added complication that it would have to be done in secret. So what if thermite has been used for years to demolish structures, so have explosives and there's no evidence of those either.
 
Last edited:
I thought it was supposed to be nano thermite for the 9/11 twin towers. Maybe that's why these other twin towers took so much thermite and didn't collapse in a controlled way.
 
JLord said:
I thought it was supposed to be nano thermite for the 9/11 twin towers. Maybe that's why these other twin towers took so much thermite and didn't collapse in a controlled way.
Click to expand...

So the WTC fell in a controlled way did it? really? These was NO super-duper nano-nanu-nanu thermite! Or thermate, or... um... thermiate, thermaoite, thermuiate, thermiuoate, thermoeuiate...
 
DaveThomasNMSR said:
Considering that evidence of an actual thermitic controlled demolition in history that has now surfaced, anybuddy think that this side-topic should become its own thread?
Click to expand...

Flipping through an article on the history of shaped charges, research into them didn't really seem to develop in the late 30's, so I doubt they were even available for demolition at this point. I wonder if the switch to thermite for the second tower was because of issues with using dynamite to demolish the first.
 
Looks like it toppled over like a tree felled by a lumberjack.

Now you just need to find evidence proving that the WTC fell that way as well, and that the video footage showing otherwise was faked.
 
The sources in your own link (namely [13]) clearly don't support using nano-thermite as an explosive both in volume of gasses produced, ability to propagate and speed of burn, it goes on further to place iron at or near the bottom of the efficiency curve (and seeing as iron microspheres were the supposed smoking gun it only makes any claim or nano therm*te even more retarded than it already was). Furthermore your link also clearly states that in 2002 (you know, a year after 2001) the availability of the nano materials was limited and that even now, nine years later, when production methods have been greatly improved, production is still limited to something greater than 100kg per month.
 
Sam.I.Am said:
Furthermore your link also clearly states that in 2002 (you know, a year after 2001) the availability of the nano materials was limited and that even now, nine years later, when production methods have been greatly improved, production is still limited to something greater than 100kg per month.
Click to expand...

Darn it! Beedunked again! It couldn't have been nanothermite because the perps or secret military units or black ops couldn't their hands on any!
 
ergo said:
Darn it! Beedunked again! It couldn't have been nanothermite because the perps or secret military units or black ops couldn't their hands on any!
Click to expand...

There's a huge difference between not being able to get "Any" and being able to get "Enough". Using the information in your own link (well, actually the links that were the sources used for the wikipedia article) the best results for nano-therm*te are at best, in controlled circumstances, around 10 to 15 percent better than plain old run of the mill generic therm*te that you can purchase right now off of the internet with no MSDS or other hazardous paperwork involved. Heck, you don't even need to provide your ID, just a credit card number and a shipping address.

What that means is that your imaginary evildoers decided it was better to get something with a marginally better result, that was rare enough that any substantial reduction in availability would be sure to be noticed and then secretly place it into a predetermined aircraft impact zone where it sat completely unnoticed for some period of time and then let it sit in an out of control fire for at least 45 minutes before lighting it off. Not only that but then they had to count on nobody noticing the telltale cuts or ignition systems left behind even with the knowledge that there would be a intensive investigation of the crime after the fact.

Yep, makes sense to me... :rolleyes:
 
ergo said:
Apparently some people think that nanothermite doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
The problem you have is you don't understand what nano means and how the reduction in particle size relates to thermites properties. The thermite reaction will only put out so much energy and therefore heat.

nano doesn't equal magic.

unless you're a truther ;)
 
I think you all are missing the point. Obviously, if any form of therm*te or nanotherm*te had been used, the twin towers would have toppled to the side like trees. How much more evidence to we need? It's right there in the skyride article! :cool:
 
Orphia Nay said:
911Blogger have got wind of this article.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-08-25/skyride-tower-felled-melting-steel-legs#comments

Comment by waitew: "So,now we can factually claim that Popular Mechanics has confirmed that the twin towers were brought down with thermite & dynamite."

There's so many logical fallacies in that, there is only one response:

:dl: :dl: :dl: :dl: :dl:
Click to expand...


While we're discussing this, we should note his post script:

BTW, I can't take credit for this. "Questionman" posted this information in the comments section of the "Conspiracy Theories And The Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks" NPR page.

Questionman Today 12:08 PM
They claim that thermite can not be and has not been used for demolition. POPULAR MECHANICS November 1935 reports on the use of thermite to bring down a 600 foot tower in Chicago.
Click to expand...


"Today"? Gee, that's only (checks the OP) a month and a half after Dave Thomas posted this thread......

I'm reminded of them suddenly "discovering" patents for thermite cutting charges a few months after I pointed them out to them.....
 
And they continue to ignore that this process was extremely cumbersome and obtrusive.
 
AE911Truthiness Reports on 1934 World's Fair Thermitic Demolition

Of course, the Nov. 4th article on Gage/AE911Truthiness's website, Popular Mechanics Ignores Its Own Historical Records of Thermite Demolition: Destruction of Skyride Towers, Reichstag Dome Set Incendiary Precedent, makes no mention of my 9/11 Truth article in the July/August 2011 issue of Skeptical Inquirer, which Gage and AE911 Truth have yet to acknowledge.

In that article, I made the (since corrected) statement that Thermite was never used in a controlled demolition. A sharp reader write SI about the World's Fair radio tower demolition with thermite, and that letter was printed in the Nov/Dec. 2011 issue of S/I. The correction has been discussed right here on JREF.

Jonathan Cole actually mentions my S/I article, but not the correction, in his new 'experts' video.

But Gage's outfit wants to carefully mention the existence of a thermitic demolition, without referring to the provenance of that information. Oh, and without mentioning the obstacles the old demolition made clear (1500 pounds of thermite for one beam of a steel tower!?!?)

Surprised? Not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom