Thermite Debunked by Demolition Expert

Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Oct 12, 2014.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Apparently from an Italian website. Luckily the text is English. Below are quoted highlights. Read it all here:

    http://undicisettembre.blogspot.it/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html

    ***************************************************************************************

    2014/10/06 Avvertenze per i commentatori
    An interview with explosives expert Brent Blanchard
    by Hammer.

    The most controversial aspects of the 9/11 attacks are the collapses of the Twin Towers and of 7 World Trade Center. For years they have been the center of conjectures by authors who are not competent on the subjects that they discuss.

    Undicisettembre has already published the technical opinions of Italian explosives expert Danilo Coppe and of professor of Civil Engineering Charles Clifton; now we offer our readers a third expert opinion in this interview with American explosives expert Brent Blanchard, who provides another authoritative debunking of conspiracy theories.

    Brent Blanchard is a demolition expert; he serves as Operations Manager for Protec Documentation Services, a world leader in engineering and vibration consulting for explosive demolition projects. He's also a senior writer and editor at the website Implosionworld.com.

    We thank Brent Blanchard for his kindness and for his willingness to share his thoughts.

    ----------------
    Undicisettembre: If you actually had to demolish buildings like the Twin Towers, what kind of explosives would you use?

    Brent Blanchard: You’d have to use something that causes the steel to fail: linear shaped charges, RDX materials, C4, very powerful high-velocity stuff.

    I have heard thermite mentioned. That's not practical at all. Again you need a very, very high velocity, very strong military-grade explosive material.


    Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

    Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

    The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event; there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved impractical or impossible.

    There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

    In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by the theorists.

    Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Thermite also burns very hot but very slow and it's uncontrolled. When you see tests for thermite you often see it burning on a steel plate, it creates a lot of fire and reaction, but none of these reactions were seen in the Twin Towers. And again, it doesn't burn horizontally through columns that are load bearers. I don't know how it can happen.

    Undicisettembre: You said that thermite is uncontrolled. What do you mean?

    Brent Blanchard: Well, some mechanism has to be able to attach the thermite to all those columns, but the thermite must not cut through that attachment mechanism itself, and it has to be triggered later on, in sequence, on a lot of different columns, and have the same burn rate through all the columns for the structure to come down.

    It doesn't make any sense. The thermite argument doesn't make sense to the point of being a discussion worth having.


    Undicisettembre: A question I heard recently is: if thermite had been used, would it have produced a lot of light that would have been clearly visible from outside?

    Brent Blanchard: It would have created a whole lot of light. It would have created a lot of fire, a lot of flame, of glow, smoke, all prior to the collapse. It didn’t, because there was no thermite.



    Bold mine. The American professor he's refering to earlier is obviously Steven Jones.

    Read it all:
    http://undicisettembre.blogspot.it/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html
     
  2. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

    also, please note, debate about what sort of energetic material had been used, does NOT negate the fact that energetic materials or additional source of energy was used to cause the "collapse" of WTC1, 2 & 7.
     
  3. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ahhhh, more youboob conjecture.....
     
  4. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here is an idea for any & all who have an axe to grind on this subject.
    Jonathan Cole is a licensed professional engineer and in the case of
    licensed any sort of people, that license is subject to being taken away
    if said licensee is seen doing totally unethical things. With that said,
    if it can be shown that what Jonathan Cole presented in the video is in
    any way fraudulent, incorrect, the product of creative video editing or anything sleezie at all, you can present a case to the licensing board and ask that his license be revoked, its not like this sort of thing hasn't happened at all, many people with various sorts of licenses have had their status challenged and some actually loose their licenses. If the case that Jonathan Cole hasn't been totally on the up-&-up here has anything to it, by all means do press for the removal of his license. In the meantime, in the absence of a challenge to what he has presented, I accept what he has published by way of youtube ( and also on http://911speakout.org/ ) If really the only objection that you can raise is the fact that the INFORMATION about how thermite can cut steel in a variety of ways, is that its a youtube video, get over it!
     
  5. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A youboob video that in no way is analogous of the way theWTC towers were constructed...easy to see why you were taken in by the flim flam man who made it....He's telling you what you want to hear
     
  6. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The above is a quote from the "expert" however, the video by Jonathan Cole, proves that it is possible to cut steel anyway you want, it thus disproves the expert. Do you have anything to add to the debate other than unfounded assertions that I'm wrong whenever I post evidence.
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Kindly link to evidence that shows these type of cutters (thousands of them, if your theory is to be believed) were found in the rubble of the towers.

    I'll wait.
     
  8. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The bits that were the cutters could have been passed over as simply random scraps of metal and so junked with all the rest of the WTC metal, unless somebody was specifically tasked with locating bits that fit a specific pattern, they were probably just disposed of. The rubble was searched for human remains and people found even wallets, (etc.... ) in the rubble, but funny thing that, not even a remnant of the "FLT11" or "FLT175" flight data recorders were found. how strange ......
     
  9. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh right...trained forensic investigators would justthink the containers housing the 'cutter charges' would be passed over as 'random scrap metal'...

    Tell me another one.
     
  10. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Poppycock. You're moving goalposts again. Thousands of cutters, miles of det cord, the rubble being searched by people trained to look for evidence of explosives ... and nothing.
     
  11. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We have been over this before, the demolition would NOT have to be done to YOUR specifications, "det cord" isn't necessary and where is the documentation of any search for explosives in the rubble?
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You perhaps have evidence the site wasn't checked for explosives?

    And it's not up to OUR specifications
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How to ignite the thermite? You're avoiding the question, bob. Stop trying to divert the topic ... you made a claim, let's see you support it, for once.
     
  14. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    We are back to the details of a specific mode of demolition, and that is really NOT what I'm promoting. The fact is that no matter what sort of incendiary or explosive may have been used, the fact remains that WTC1,2 & 7 required an additional source of energy beyond what was available from the fires in the buildings to accomplish what was observed.

    Say the police find a body in an alley and so far, all they have is a body, no weapon, no suspects, but they must investigate with whatever evidence they can gather.

    The problem with the crime of 9/11/2001 is that so much of the evidence has already been destroyed. or for that matter simply not collected, as in the case of no documentary photos of ground zero.

    now what?
     
  15. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes Bob....It was called gravity.....


    It keeps coming back to that same answer that you keep ignoring
     
  16. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    its not that I ignore it, its that in the case of WTC7
    note that there would have to be many things supporting the mass that was the North & West walls, and for the "collapse" to happen as observed, ALL of these supporting structural bits would have to be removed ALL at the same time. So exactly how is that done with "office fires" < the exact term that Dr. Sunder used in the presentation of the NIST final report on the "collapse" of WTC7.
     
  17. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You keep making that claim without any proof showing it's correct.....Try again,Bob
     
  18. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The proof that its correct is in the video of WTC7 "collapsing"
    Free Fall acceleration clearly visible and with the vertical line that
    is the corner between the North & West walls remaining vertical for
    that 2.25 sec interval of free fall acceleration.
     
  19. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Show your math. You keep making this claim ... yet fail miserably to back it up.
     
  20. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is the reason why AMERICA will be a third world nation in the near future, academics who demand pages of numbers to justify a position that is OBVIOUS from viewing the video of the event.
     
  21. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes: we prefer facts over speculation.
     
  22. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    so you can view the "B movie" special effects and it doesn't bother you in the least that the events of 9/11/2001 include many violations of the laws of physics if one accepts the official version..... (?)
     
  23. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There were NO 'B' movie effects,nor were there any laws of physics broken,you have yet to adequately show any that were....
     
  24. genericBob

    genericBob New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,831
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I can point to the fact of the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration by WTC7
    and some people simply will not accept the significance of that.
    I can point to the 64% of g for the "collapse" events of WTC 1, 2
    and some will simply ignore that fact.
    4 aircraft virtually made to disappear and nobody seems to notice and nobody seems to care.

    oh well .......
     
  25. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everything you list above is a falsehood. You can point at them all you like, but it's already been proven.
     

Share This Page