WTC Discussion: Core Column Temperature & Failure.

[28th Kingdom]

There is no reason to continue this...if everyone is going to hold me to a higher standard than themselves. Nothing will be accomplished, if I can't quote NIST in an attempt to prove them wrong. This is just pointless, people.

 

[stateofgrace]

Let me get this straight 28ths big theory is that thermite was attached to the core columns by c-clamps which were hollowed out and had magnesium fuses in them. They survived the plane crash and did not ignite but some of it shattered across the building and pored out of one side.

The buckling of the building is actually an optical illusion and the magnesium, which survived the fireball, ignited the thermite, which was in c-clamps. The special c-clamps that would not fall off the beams even though they would end up completely burnt through.

28th I know I am on your ignore list, but come on.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

There is no reason to continue this...if everyone is going to hold me to higher standard than themselves. Nothing will be accomplished, if I can't quote NIST in an attempt to prove them wrong. This is just pointless, people.

All you have to do is present one source, that stands up to scrutiny, that supports your claim that either thermite, or thermate, can be ignited by a normal fire and your one step closer to proving your case. Instead you look for excuses to weasel out of the discussion. Coward.


ETA: Did you think this was going to be easy? Do you honestly think you can spew your logically inconsistent claptrap at the scientific/professional community and they would all just wag their heads in agreement? Do you think if you present this to SCIAM, or ASME, or ASCE that they aren't going to scrutinize every minute detail? Pull your head out of your ass.

 

[Mercutio]

There is no reason to continue this...if everyone is going to hold me to higher standard than themselves. Nothing will be accomplished, if I can't quote NIST in an attempt to prove them wrong. This is just pointless, people.

It was pointless long ago.

I am not holding you to any higher standard than myself. I have asked questions genuinely, and provided answers when asked myself. Currently, the questions I have for you involve the presence (or evidence of former presence) of detonator or clamp devices on the column stumps you claim were cut by thermite. Given my recent post on spectrum analysis, I could also ask whether you are aware of any spectral analysis of your video.

If you could do us the favor of answering those questions before you leave...

 

[Spins]

Okay...now tell me what material on the impact floors could have burned at 2866°C?

For temperature intervals rather than specific temperatures, 1 kelvin = 1 °C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

That's the temperature of the thermite reaction when it's underway, a piece of magnesium ribbon is normally used to ignite the thermite. Magnesium itself ignites at a much lower temperature, about 800 degrees Fahrenheit or 427 degrees Celsius.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

There is no reason to continue this...if everyone is going to hold me to higher standard than themselves. Nothing will be accomplished, if I can't quote NIST in an attempt to prove them wrong. This is just pointless, people.

i thought you "scientifically proved" the NIST report was a apck of lies, why would you even want to cite them? it merely shows your own "doublethink"

you claim thermate can be ignited in a typical fire, please provide a source that says this or definitively states the ignition temperature, i dont care if the source is wikipedia or not, just give me a source

 

[Mercutio]

The special c-clamps that would not fall off the beams even though they would end up completely burnt through.

...and then disintegrate completely, leaving no evidence in the rubble.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Let me get this straight 28ths big theory is that thermite was attached to the core columns by c-clamps which were hollowed out and had magnesium fuses in them. They survived the plane crash and did not ignite but some of it shattered across the building and pored out of one side.

The buckling of the building is actually an optical illusion and the magnesium, which survived the fireball, ignited the thermite, which was in c-clamps. The special c-clamps that would not fall off the beams even though they would end up completely burnt through.

28th I know I am on your ignore list, but come on.

Don't forget, those hollow C-clamps were invisible hollow C-clamps. And the Republican Elite Tactical Commando Hitsquad was using some sort of cloaking technology from thirty years in the future so nobody'd see them scaling the outside of the towers to install the invisible hollow thermate-rigged C-clamps.

Am I missing anything?

Oh, yeah.

 

[HeyLeroy]

It was pointless long ago.
(snip)
If you could do us the favor of answering those questions before you leave...

...and don't let the door hit you on the

on your way out.

 

[rwguinn]

Yes, and blanket statements like the NIST report has "no basis in science" do nothing but destroy your credibility.

For the fifth time, if you've got something to prove scientifically, or you have scientific evidence, I highly suggest that you do what responsible, ethical researchers do: Publish in a reputable scientific journal. If you want to scientifically prove something, this is the only way to do it.

This is rhetoric, not evidence.

ABSOLUTELY!
If an equation cannot be written for it, it doesn't exist.
(talk about blanket statements!)
Any physical law can be represented mathematically. 28IQ has not even shown he can get 2+2 right 2 out of 3 times, much less get the horribly complex F=ma thing right.
I also notice that his ignore list includes all the professional engineers, less myself. When you cut yourself off from those who actually know what you're talking about, and can show you the error of yore ways, you are a twue twoofer...

 

[28th Kingdom]

All you have to do is present one source, that stands up to scrutiny, that supports your claim that either thermite, or thermate, can be ignited by a normal fire and your one step closer to proving your case. Instead you look for excuses to weasel out of the discussion. Coward.

Oh trust me...the only thing I want to do is continue this discussion and on this one issue of the glowing material pouring from WTC 2. However, every time I have a point...or present scientific data, like the max burning temps of material on the impact floors...and how it can't make aluminum or steel glow orange - everyone wants to change the rules of the game. What scientific evidence or data does NIST have that the outer columns bowed? Are they judging this just from video footage?

There are countless pics and video showing the molten material pouring from WTC 2, and at ground zero after the collapses.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

And, no matter which camera or which camcorder was used to take the images/video - this molten material is always the same color i.e. yellow to orange. If that isn't conclusive enough as to the color of the material, than I don't know what to say. It's simply impossible to debate issues and facts...when you guys can just worm your way out of anything with some far fetched excuse like the lighting was off...or radioactive computer parts.

It's enervating going in circles...when according to the rules you have set up...I can't ever proof anything beyond doubt...because any photo or any video is subject...and every time I use facts that have been reported by NIST...you all shoot those down as well i.e. the temps of the core columns. I really don't know what angle is left for me to pursue.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Oh trust me...the only thing I want to do is continue this discussion and on this one issue of the glowing material pouring from WTC 2. However, every time I have a point...or present scientific data, like the max burning temps of material on the impact floors...and how it can't make aluminum or steel glow orange - everyone wants to change the rules of the game. What scientific evidence or data does NIST have that the outer columns bowed? Are they judging this just from video footage?

There are countless pics and video showing the molten material pouring from WTC 2, and at ground zero after the collapses.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

And, no matter which camera or which camcorder was used to take the images/video - this molten material is always the same color i.e. yellow to orange. If that isn't conclusive enough as to the color of the material, than I don't know what to say. It's simply impossible to debate issues and facts...when you guys can just worm your way out of anything with some far fetched excuse like the lighting was off...or radioactive computer parts.

It's enervating going in circles...when according to the rules you have set up...I can't ever proof anything beyond doubt...because any photo or any video is subject...and every time I use facts that have been reported by NIST...you all shoot those down as well i.e. the temps of the core columns. I really don't know what angle is left for me to pursue.

Possibilities

1) All the other posters on this forum keep changing the rules on you
2) Your presentation has serious issues


hrmmmm, I wonder which is more likely...

I even gave you a damned format you could use that would help you present your hypothesis in a coherent manner and you've chosen to ignore it in favor of your continued hodge-podge approach.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

I'm glad you asked...there they are:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774

You did notice that whatever it is that the "sparks" are coming from is in between 2 perimeter columns, so it's not perimeter columns that are being cut, but just inside the building, so it's not core columns that are being cut. So what is it? How big is it? Is it the size you would expect a thermite charge to be?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

PS. Did you study physics? We physics geeks are the only ones I know of who use "order of magnitude" in casual conversations.

I studied meteorology. "Order of magnitude" is heavily used, for instance as a justification for ignoring non-linear terms in equations when developing weather forecast models.

 

[28th Kingdom]

Possibilities

1) All the other posters on this forum keep changing the rules on you
2) Your presentation has serious issues


hrmmmm, I wonder which is more likely...

I even gave you a damned format you could use that would help you present your hypothesis in a coherent manner and you've chosen to ignore it in favor of your continued hodge-podge approach.

What issues does my presentation have? Virtually every fact that I call scientific is echoed by NIST...and this still isn't good enough for you guys...that's what I mean by impossible.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Oh trust me...the only thing I want to do is continue this discussion and on this one issue of the glowing material pouring from WTC 2. However, every time I have a point...or present scientific data, like the max burning temps of material on the impact floors...and how it can't make aluminum or steel glow orange - everyone wants to change the rules of the game.

you claimed thermate was was attached to the core columns using a hypothetical device

you claim that thermate can be seen falling from the building

we ask what thermate was doing at the edge of the building when you claim it was used in the core

you said the hypothetical thermate cutter device was damaged and the thermate scattered

we ask how it could be ignited without the rest of the rig (such as the ignition device)

you claim it can be ignited by a typical fire, and provide a source stating its ignition temp is significantly lower than conventional thermite reactions

we say this is vague and does not state it can be done by a typical fire and ask for a more specific source

you dodge and dodge and dodge some more

What scientific evidence or data does NIST have that the outer columns bowed? Are they judging this just from video footage?

several videos and several photographs, many of which have been presented to you, are they ALL the exact same optical illusion?

I really don't know what angle is left for me to pursue.

off the top of my head you could find out the ignition temp of thermate, or address the multiple photographs of bowing columns, or building a prototype of your c-clamp thermate device and demstrate its effectiveness at cutting vertical columns...

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What issues does my presentation have? Virtually every fact that I call scientific is echoed by NIST...and this still isn't good enough for you guys...that's what I mean by impossible.

For your argument to be taken seriously, and I don't necessarily mean accepted (that comes after scrutiny), it needs to be (1) logically consistent and (2) factually accurate.

Alright, let's take a specific example and look at how it could be presented in a more meaningful manner.

Your "thermite" video.

1. List the traits of thermite/thermate that would be viewable on the video - not necessarily on the video, but general traits of thermite/thermate that would be visual in nature.
2. Of the traits listed in #1, which ones are seen in the video
3. Of the traits listed in #1, which ones are not seen in the video
4. Are any of the traits listed in #3 essential for the hypothesis that it is thermite/thermate?
5. Of the traints listed in #2, which ones have other possible explanations?
6. Of the other possible explanations listed in #5, which can be eliminated and why?
7. List things (like those in #4) that would falsify your hypothesis.
8. What information can be cited that corroborates your interpretation of the video?
9. What information can be cited that conflicts with your interpretation of the video? (ties in to #7)

 

[rwguinn]

I studied meteorology. "Order of magnitude" is heavily used, for instance as a justification for ignoring non-linear terms in equations when developing weather forecast models.

We injuneers use "Order of magnitude" a lot also. Another term we use "ROM", or "Relative Order of Magnitude", or within a factor of 10...
Imagine our confusion when "Read Only Memory" started being commonly used by the laiety.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Oh trust me...

the only thing I want to do is continue this discussion and on this one issue of the glowing material pouring from WTC 2. However, every time I have a point...or present scientific data,

WHERE?!? PICTURES AND YOUTUBE VIDEOS AREN'T SCIENTIFIC DATA!

like the max burning temps of material on the impact floors...and how it can't make aluminum or steel glow orange - everyone wants to change the rules of the game.

You didn't present scientific data showing the max burning temperature of anything, you cherry-picked some info and twisted it. You didn't present scientific data showing how the material seen spewing from the side of the tower could be anything other than thermite/thermate/termites. Indeed, the videos you've posted tend to suggest otherwise.

What scientific evidence or data does NIST have that the outer columns bowed? Are they judging this just from video footage?

You haven't read the report, have you?

There are countless pics and video showing the molten material pouring from WTC 2, and at ground zero after the collapses.

http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/3550/thermiteic0.jpg

...and?

And, no matter which camera or which camcorder was used to take the images/video - this molten material is always the same color i.e. yellow to orange.

So what colour was it? Yellow, or orange?

If that isn't conclusive enough as to the color of the material, than I don't know what to say. It's simply impossible to debate issues and facts...when you guys can just worm your way out of anything with some far fetched excuse like the lighting was off...or radioactive computer parts.

It's enervating going in circles...when according to the rules you have set up...I can't ever proof anything beyond doubt...because any photo or any video is subject...and every time I use facts that have been reported by NIST...you all shoot those down as well i.e. the temps of the core columns. I really don't know what angle is left for me to pursue.

These are rules you've set up. You said you have evidence. Show it.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

We injuneers use "Order of magnitude" a lot also. Another term we use "ROM", or "Relative Order of Magnitude", or within a factor of 10...
Imagine our confusion when "Read Only Memory" started being commonly used by the laiety.

Yes, order of magnitude can be very useful in conveying information; ex:
which is more informative as a standalone statement?
* I reduced the Logical IO reads on the query by an order of magnitude. or
* I reduced the Logical IO reads on the query by 10%.