At least the one in the Q&A below is. They don't actually rule out thermite or thermate as a contributing cause; they only go so far as to say it is
unlikely. And that conclusion is predicated on their assumption that it is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite could have been carried into the building. This entire line of reasoning
collapses if one can believe that it is in fact possible that 100 lbs. of thermite could have been carried into the building. I, for one, find it entirely possible that 100 lbs. of thermite could be carried in. In fact, it seems a ludicrous assertion, to me, to say that it would be difficult or unlikely to carry 100 lbs. in.
I will grant, in advance, that their argument is pretty sloppily constructed and could probably be improved if challenged. For example, they only mention in passing the problem of keeping the thermite in contact with the vertical surface of the column, which I believe to be a more plausible difficulty than carrying 100 lbs. in would be. But as it stands in their Q&A document, without any such improvement, it is not much of a basis for a conclusion that thermite was not used to weaken the column that failed and initiated the collapse (according to them). In fact, I would say that they leave the distinct possibility that that column
was weakened with thermite and essentially just do a lot of hand waving to distract from that possibility.
Maybe they do a better job on this thermite question somewhere else? If so, please let me know. If not, then it is curious that they relegated their refutation of probably the most commonly proffered alternative theory to a companion document Q&A and didn't deal with it in the main paper. I did a search in both
Volume 1: Chapters 1 through 8 and
Volume 2: Chapters 9 through 14 and Appendixes A through E for both "thermite" and "thermate" and got no matches. I did get matches for "RDX", which is the strawman they preferred over thermite because it was easier to refute. If the thermite argument is only addressed in this skimpy Q&A does that mean that the full panel of engineers and scientists had no chance to vet it and have not signed off on it?
Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.
Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.
To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column … presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.
It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.
Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.
Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
