• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

Ok let's do a back of the envelope calculation.

From your video we see a piec of rebar being cut by thermite. Let's assume its diameter is about 10mm, fair?

From this we can estimate the size of the cutting device. I eyeball it at about 70mm long by 40mm high by 10mm deep. This gives it a volume of 28000mm3.

Let's assume that 25% of this volume is thermite. That gives us 7000mm3 thermite.

Now scaling this up to 3' wide. The device is now 914 x 6400 x 3650 mm give or take.
25% of this volume is 5.34 x 109 mm3.

Yup, that's 5.34 m3 of thermite.... or about the size of a small truck.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
would Cheney admit his criminal involvement, you would be first to say he is either misstaken or a liar.
Click to expand...

Here is what I believe is DC's answer to the original question.
His feelings against Cheney et al are so strong that it must have been a CD ,no matter what the evidence would show to an unbiased observer.
His feelings cause him to be unable to think rationally on the matter.
 
Last edited:
Cheney I'm not totally positive on the 70% at 1000 degrees. From what i have knowledge of and past experience from, Steel will Fail in the range of 1000 degrees if unprotected.

The fire protection system from what i could find was of the spray on style, and according to others likely became dislodged during the impact. I can verify that my past experience with spray on protection is that it is amazing stuff, but very brittle, and a good shock to the protected member could easily knock off large amounts.

My knowledge is that a 100 steel BEAM heated to 1000 degrees will sag and expand 9 and 1/2 inches.

Now the failure of the steel has many variables, the size of the steel, the load the steel is subject to, the temperature and distance the steel is to the fire.

In the world of firefighting there is a saying. Never trust a truss. The reason being that they will fail under fire condions if unprotected. Many a firefighter have died when trusses failed and collapse happened.

The lightwieght truss system is much thinner steel then a steel I beam, The load the trusses were under was already astounding and considering a 737 had just run into it adding more load to the trusses. The steel trusses sagging from being heated put an extraordinary amount of force on the outer columns, either pulling inward or pushing outward.

It is amazing to me how long the towers lasted in the first place.
 
In the film In Plane Site the pictures make it fairly clear that a cloud of heavy smoke and dust from WTC7 is rising below the falling upper floors of the main buildings.
 
Evilgiraffe said:
Ok let's do a back of the envelope calculation.

From your video we see a piec of rebar being cut by thermite. Let's assume its diameter is about 10mm, fair?

From this we can estimate the size of the cutting device. I eyeball it at about 70mm long by 40mm high by 10mm deep. This gives it a volume of 28000mm3.

Let's assume that 25% of this volume is thermite. That gives us 7000mm3 thermite.

Now scaling this up to 3' wide. The device is now 914 x 6400 x 3650 mm give or take.
25% of this volume is 5.34 x 109 mm3.

Yup, that's 5.34 m3 of thermite.... or about the size of a small truck.
Click to expand...

what thicknes of sttel did you use in your "calculation"?
 
eeyore1954 said:
Here is what I believe is DC's answer to the original question.
His feelings against Cheney et al are so strong that it must have been a CD ,no matter what the evidence would show to an unbiased observer.
His feelings cause him to be unable to think rationally on the matter.
Click to expand...

oh yes sure......
as if i had not enough other reasons to blame cheney for WMD lies and warcrimes etc.
 
Firefighter01 said:
Cheney I'm not totally positive on the 70% at 1000 degrees. From what i have knowledge of and past experience from, Steel will Fail in the range of 1000 degrees if unprotected.

The fire protection system from what i could find was of the spray on style, and according to others likely became dislodged during the impact. I can verify that my past experience with spray on protection is that it is amazing stuff, but very brittle, and a good shock to the protected member could easily knock off large amounts.

My knowledge is that a 100 steel BEAM heated to 1000 degrees will sag and expand 9 and 1/2 inches.

Now the failure of the steel has many variables, the size of the steel, the load the steel is subject to, the temperature and distance the steel is to the fire.

In the world of firefighting there is a saying. Never trust a truss. The reason being that they will fail under fire condions if unprotected. Many a firefighter have died when trusses failed and collapse happened.

The lightwieght truss system is much thinner steel then a steel I beam, The load the trusses were under was already astounding and considering a 737 had just run into it adding more load to the trusses. The steel trusses sagging from being heated put an extraordinary amount of force on the outer columns, either pulling inward or pushing outward.

It is amazing to me how long the towers lasted in the first place.
Click to expand...

i agree that beams will sag. and i would trust an I beam alot more than such a light weight struss under fire conditions.

but i had already troubles beliving that big parts of the WTC towers had the fireproofing dislodged, i sure have a problem with that in WTC7. the part on fire was not hit by debris.

and for sure also steel buildings can collapse. everything can collapse. but "natural" collapses do no collapse so symmetric and systematic. more asymmetric and chaotic.

why do CD experts need to preweaken buildings, make testshots and calculate sequences for well placed explosives to bring down a building the way they want it.
onesided asymmetric damage and assymetric uncontrolled fires can do the same in just a few hours.
 
eeyore1954 said:
I would base my opinion on knowledge of which direction gravity pulls.
Click to expand...

in that direction the building gave most resistance. cause it is build to give resistance to floors above it, in other words, it is build to keep those floors up there.

i indeed do not expect a building to collapse upwards and stick in the air
but take a look at the damage, the damage is on one side, and even worses the corner damage, it is the lower corner. the chance that it will collapse into the damaged side is very likely i think. cause the undamaged part of the building will give more resistance to the falling floors than the already broken part of the building.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
what thicknes of sttel did you use in your "calculation"?
Click to expand...

My figure is simply an "order of magnitude" estimate of the amount that may be needed to cut a column. This estimate obviously represents a size of device that would be impractical to install in secret. It may well require less thermite to sever a column, so let's call it an upper limit.

Let's not forget that I'm not the one proposing that thermite cutters were used. If you think the devices would be smaller, let's see your estimate.

Oh, and while you're at it, you could provide some evidence that these devices can actually cut steel columns, rather than just a piece of rebar. So far Truthburn have been unable to show this. Maybe you could help them out?
 
Last edited:
Dictator Cheney said:
in that direction the building gave most resistance. cause it is build to give resistance to floors above it, in other words, it is build to keep those floors up there.
Click to expand...

Under a STATIC LOAD. If they were designed to give resistance to a DYNAMIC LOAD they would look like this:

514648272bb6849ae.jpg


i indeed do not expect a building to collapse upwards and stick in the air
but take a look at the damage, the damage is on one side, and even worses the corner damage, it is the lower corner. the chance that it will collapse into the damaged side is very likely i think. cause the undamaged part of the building will give more resistance to the falling floors than the already broken part of the building.
Click to expand...

The initial structural damage was on one side. That damage was clearly not enough to bring the building down, otherwise it would have come down immediately. Therefore, there must have been damage inside the building, probably caused by the unchecked fires all over the building.

Consider this scenario:

The initial damage caused some of the load from the front of the building to be transferred to the rest of the columns. Then, fires burning for six hours weakened the columns the load had been transferred to. At some point, enough columns would fail so that the remaining columns could not maintain the integrity of the building. The remaining columns would then all fail at once.

You're an engineer. Explain why this explanation is LESS likely than controlled demolition requiring absolute stealth and speculative technology.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
need help with the goalposts?
Click to expand...
The goalpost is right where it's always been: you need to show that there is a way to cut a column of the type and size used in the WTC with thermite.

It is your claim that thermite was used to cut the columns in the WTC, so you prove that it was even possible.

So far no one in the truth movement has been able to do so, maybe you'll be the first?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Under a STATIC LOAD. If they were designed to give resistance to a DYNAMIC LOAD they would look like this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/514648272bb6849ae.jpg[/qimg]



The initial structural damage was on one side. That damage was clearly not enough to bring the building down, otherwise it would have come down immediately. Therefore, there must have been damage inside the building, probably caused by the unchecked fires all over the building.

Consider this scenario:

The initial damage caused some of the load from the front of the building to be transferred to the rest of the columns. Then, fires burning for six hours weakened the columns the load had been transferred to. At some point, enough columns would fail so that the remaining columns could not maintain the integrity of the building. The remaining columns would then all fail at once.

You're an engineer. Explain why this explanation is LESS likely than controlled demolition requiring absolute stealth and speculative technology.
Click to expand...

because of the way it came down. it was almost perfectly symmetric straight down. and i would say it is extremly unlikely to see that in a fire initiated collapse.

in demolitions the timing is very important i thaught, but not for WTC7

it had already from start on "shifted loads", its special construction. the lower corner and the other damage in the facade should have made it fall alot more to the damaged side than it did.

it very unlikely that fires would be able to heat up the steel on a such a large area that the remaining columns gave away all on the same time. what will also not be the official story.

it goes more into Arthurs direction with initiating column failure in column 79,80 or 81 i guess.

we will see what LS Dyna will tell us.
 
btw, was the Pyramids designed to take Dynamic impact?
we didnt even figure out how they builded those amazing constructions.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
btw, was the Pyramids designed to take Dynamic impact?
Click to expand...
A pyramid is one of the strongest possible shapes of a building. Very simple, and requires no great engineering ability. That's why it was such a popular monumental form in ancient times.

Now, back to backing up your core claim:
WildCat said:
The goalpost is right where it's always been: you need to show that there is a way to cut a column of the type and size used in the WTC with thermite.

It is your claim that thermite was used to cut the columns in the WTC, so you prove that it was even possible.

So far no one in the truth movement has been able to do so, maybe you'll be the first?
Click to expand...
 
WildCat said:
A pyramid is one of the strongest possible shapes of a building. Very simple, and requires no great engineering ability. That's why it was such a popular monumental form in ancient times.

Now, back to backing up your core claim:
Click to expand...

no i dont have any thermite yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom