Thermate

[TruthByDecree]

no. that report that EXPLAINS with EVDIENCE what caused the collapse initiation.

now care to explain to us why you think that the collapse needs to be explained? or have you never fell in your entire life? Im sure as a baby you bruised your little touche millions of times, when you tried to learn to walk.

You know that force called gravity? you know the force that keeps your feet on the ground?

Care to explain how you can stop gravity? Cause that's what caused the buildings to collapse.

Wrong.

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". - NIST September 27th 2007

 

[Brainache]

Wrong.

So what do you think NIST used 10,000 pages doing? Just a whole bunch of BS? You think engineers all over the world read 10,000 pages of BS and just said "Oh, OK it's all BS, but we'll change our building codes and fire protection specifications in line with the findings anyway."?

 

[TruthByDecree]

So what do you think NIST used 10,000 pages doing? Just a whole bunch of BS? You think engineers all over the world read 10,000 pages of BS and just said "Oh, OK it's all BS, but we'll change our building codes and fire protection specifications in line with the findings anyway."?

No I think they speculate on the initiation and are unable to give an explanation for the complete collapse. Can you read?

 

[Arus808]

Wrong.

wow, not only do you not understand 8th grade level English, you do not even understand kindergarten level English


and that quote wasn't an answer to my question, you dishonest person you:


now care to explain to us why you think that the collapse needs to be explained? or have you never fell in your entire life? Im sure as a baby you bruised your little touche millions of times, when you tried to learn to walk.

You know that force called gravity? you know the force that keeps your feet on the ground?

Care to explain how you can stop gravity? Cause that's what caused the buildings to collapse.

 

[Arus808]

No I think they speculate on the initiation and are unable to give an explanation for the complete collapse. Can you read?

then you have never read the report, nor do you understand what NIST was tasked to do.

why dont you stop being dishonest and read the report. you had 3 years to do so. only takes 2 weeks to read the complete thing

 

[BenBurch]

then you have never read the report, nor do you understand what NIST was tasked to do.

why dont you stop being dishonest and read the report. you had 3 years to do so. only takes 2 weeks to read the complete thing

Well, for him likely 3 weeks because he'll have to look up all the big words.

 

[GlennB]

I don't know what brought down the towers there hasn't been an investigation. That's how I know you don't know. In any case doesn't Steven Jones claim thermate combined with explosive devices?

He's right, dammit.
I finally had a look at all those huge NIST .pdf files clogging up my hard drive, and every damn page says "This page intentionally left blank". How did they get away with it for so long?

 

[Spud1k]

Wrong.

Yeesh. I love the way truthers love to confuse two issues. There are two things at stake here:

1. Collapse initiation
2. Collapse progression

The thermite thing in the OP is entirely to do with 1, as in what caused the start of the collapse. The NIST report deals with 1, in that it explains how the structure initially failed. What the NIST report doesn't deal with is 2, because once the building lost its structural integrity, global collapse was inevitable (thermite or no thermite). There was absolutely no point in investigating this, given the enormous effort it would have taken and the fact that there would be nothing to be gained from such an exercise other than placating truthers.

So the lack of a collapse progression model from NIST really doesn't disprove anything about the collapse initiation.

 

[Spud1k]

Well maybe I'm not as smart as you. So explain to me exactly just how much of the 10,000 gallons stayed inside the building, and how long it took for it to burn up, and just how such a smart person like you knows exactly.

The jet fuel kick-started the fire, but it continued to be fuelled by office furniture, carpets, paper, anything else that was in there, etc. so it's not like the fire would have gone out when the jet fuel ran out.

 

[Spud1k]

I think you might be confused, because his research is completely valid.

No it isn't. He presented evidence to support a theory he had as if it proved it. This it did not do; without addressing alternative explanations, his evidence constitutes corroboration, not proof, and trying to pass it off as proof is bad science. That plus the fact that the mere concept of using thermite for demolition is retarded says his research is most definitely not valid.

 

[DGM]

How much building content fire does your theory need per floor?

None: Fly ash is a component of light weight concrete. Lots of that in the towers, right?

 

[DGM]

Very interesting indeed. Where is the research to support that claim?

It's his. Do the the math using the percentages he gives in his paper.

 

[BenBurch]

He's right, dammit.
I finally had a look at all those huge NIST .pdf files clogging up my hard drive, and every damn page says "This page intentionally left blank". How did they get away with it for so long?

That claim will be repeated as though truth by the freepers truthers in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1...

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Wrong.

"We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse". - NIST September 27th 2007

As has been pointed out in this forum previously on a number of occasions, that is a reference to the difficulty in modeling the chaotic nature of the collapse post initiation. It should never be taken as any sort of concession to the notion that there's any doubt about the parts of the collapse NIST does describe.

For those here who're unaware of this reference: Steven Jones, Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage, and two victim's family members submitted a request for correction/comment to NIST regarding what they characterized as problems with the WTC collapse report, specifically that it violated the Data Quality Act and NIST’s "Guidelines, Information Quality Standards, and Administrative Mechanism" (referred to as the "IQS" in their petition). NIST responded quite directly, but as is habit with conspiracy peddlers, various elements of the response have been divorced from context and presented to mean something other than what it meant. The above quote is representative of that. If you read the response, you'll see that the sentence is actually limited in scope. Here's the surrounding context:

The final section of your request asserts that the WTC Report's stated goal and overall analysis violates the Data Quality Act and OMB/NIST Information Quality STandards. The basis given for this assertion is that NIST did not fulfill its responsibilities under the NCST Act because the focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. The NCST Act, as you note in your letter, requires NIST to "establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure." In the case of the WTC Towers, NIST has established that the failures initiated in the floors affected by the aircraft impact damage and the ensuing fires resulted in the collapses of the towers. This conclusion is supported by a large body of visual evidence collected by NIST. Your letter suggests that NIST should have used computer models to analyze the collapse of the towers. NIST carried its analysis to the point where the buildings reached global instability. At this point, because of the magnitude of the deflections and the number of failures occuring, the computter models are not able to converge on a solution.

Your letter contends that NIST's report violates the Information Quality Standard of "utility". NIST believes that the report has utility. In fact, the codes and standards bodies are already taking actions to improve building and fire codes and standards based on the findings of the WTC Investigation. As mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse.

I bolded the response sections important to this discussion. As I said above, the statement of being "unable to provide a full explanation" is in reference to the charge leveled that NIST did not continue to model after the collapse started. It is an exasperated reiteration of a point made in a previous paragraph. It is not any sort of admission that the study is lacking. If nothing else, the statement is a scolding of any assertion that it is, since such modeling would not provide consistent answers each time.

We can all see that it is not honest to quote the above sentence without reference to the context in which the sentence appears. As far as NIST is concerned - as well as most reputable researchers - the goal of the Act authorizing the study was reached: The reason for the collapse was determined. That events past that point was not dealt with is only of concern to the conspiracy minded, as no one besides them sees anything suspicious in the events after collapse initiation.

At any rate, it's important to see how many elements of the 9/11 fantasies are taken out of context, and often carry meanings quite different from the ones the conspiracy peddlers try to assign to them.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Well maybe I'm not as smart as you. So explain to me exactly just how much of the 10,000 gallons stayed inside the building

50-60% remained after the fireball according to NISTs estimates

and how long it took for it to burn up

probably 15-30 minutes for the jet fuel itself, several weeks for the fires started by the jet fuel

and just how such a smart person like you knows exactly.

well us smart people do things like reading, you should try it sometime

 

[~enigma~]

So just as I suspected, you guys haven't debunked anything. I hate to sound like a broken record, but a new investigation is probably what it will take to figure out which theory is correct.

Do you have the courage of your convictions? Why don't you truth seekers who think a new investigation is necessary simply go out and fund one? Or is it that you guys will scream "cover up" at another investigation that doesn't agree with you?

 

[Alt+F4]

How much thermate (in pounds please, I'm an American) would be needed to bring down the WTC?

Has thermate ever been used in a commercial controlled demolition by a demolitions company?

 

[~enigma~]

Debunkers, how did building content fire cut through the vertical core columns?

That's a really stupid question. Either you have been asleep for the last 6.5 years or you are being intentionally dishonest. Last I heard, most everybody here that cares about your 9/11 fantasy says the PLANES are what cut through core columns so next time please read before making foolish assumptions.

 

[~enigma~]

How much thermate (in pounds please, I'm an American) would be needed to bring down the WTC?

Can't answer that but the molten aluminum we see (mixed with organic and inorganic stuff so it appears orange) that truthers claim is molten iron (that we see a few floors above the "small" fire) would take approximately 32000 pounds of thermite considering thermite produces molten iron at a ratio of 2:1. That would have been hell to hide that on an occupied floor and have it remain unnoticed. Must have been hidden in a HUGE flower pot

 

[Apollo20]

DGM:

Rotary kiln expanded shale clay, not flyash, was used as the lightweight aggregate in the WTC concrete.

Enigma:

Please explain how you arrived at your 32,000 pounds of thermite.

Incidently, thermite with high-velocity gas generators as additives has been patented for use in demolitions: US patent No: 4963-203; issued 16 Oct 1990.