Split Thread The Towers should not hve collapsed (split from Gravysites)

[alex04]

I love the term "mis information" (sarcasm). Whenever the woo disagrees with something, they have their battle cry, "misinformation!" and then let loose the dogs of dumb.

I suppose this is a good strategy for them. If they have to actually provide a reasoned analysis or, god forbid, math, they might be disproven!

new sig!

 

[MRC_Hans]

OMG, this gets more and more fun..

Hardly.

Video Review:

The movie tries to discredit jones' findings. "Super Termite from the Internet" - Right. And Jones found the thermite residue in the dust from an hour after the collapse, long before there had been any significant amount of rescue operation. They also failed to ignore the fact that he did an real chemical analysis on them. Jones' a physicist. He knows what he's talking about when he's talking about thermite.

Oh, a real chemical analysis! How impressive. And, pray tell, what did he find?

..... You don't know (or, more likely) don't comprehend?

I'll tell you: He found sulphur. Of course, there is the teensy weensy little problem with that finding that considerable amounts of sulphur are found in other materials, which were known to be in the towers. Even paper contains sulphur.

Of course Gage doesn't, when he's talking about where the smoke from WTC7 came from judging by only video caps. The fireman's testimony is a lot more credible in that respect.

And what did the fireman say?

But either is irrelevant when the building shouldn't have come down to any amount of fire.

That is a really disingenious statement. How can you seriously claim that any building cannot come down "to any amount of fire". Remember the steel bridge that collapsed due to fire, last year?

And especially the obvious CD-way it did.

Now, since you say I don't know squat about demolitions, please educate me (and make up your own mind in the process): Did the buildings come down in a typical CD way (series of HE detonations, traces of explosives in the debris, etc.) or were they, like you alternatively claim, non-typical (cutter charges, hastily placed oversize charges, etc.)? After all, you can't have both.

So they're just grasping for straws to try to discredit Gage here. When you interview someone - anyone for long enough, he will inevitably say something stupid.

Others don't take so long .

Same goes for Clarke saying something along the lines "There has not been any big government conspiracy which hasn't been found out and publicised" or Mark's apparent obliviousness towards thermite.

But you are an expert in thermite, yes? Please state the appoximate amount of thermite needed to fatally compromize the structure of a single tower. Do use references.

But ultimately, they fail to bring anything new and relevant to the table.

Well, so do you.

As for the BBC's final tone of the report, it should not be surprising to you that media around the world, but especially in english-language countries, are pressured into coming up with a predetermined result for their investigation, as I've mentioned the influence of the US government on the mass media before.

How about non-English language media? Some of them distinctly critical against the US? Why don't Chinese, North Korean, Iranian, Syrian, Russian, Scandinavian, French, etc. media ever lend any ear to CTs?

For something like the Twin Towers, you'd need in the order of 2000 small HE charges in addition to the relatively silent thermite cutter charges.

How small? How many thermite charges, of which size? Now is your chance to show off, Mr. Demolition Expert.

2000/10s means you'll have an audible frequency of 200hz, far beyond of what the human ear can distinguish as individual waves (around 20hz)

Sorry, but we neeed this, here:



A 10 second 200Hz 'tone' where each period was created by a HE charge?? That would sound like the loudest fart in the history of Earth. It would certainly be more audible than a few single detonations. Do point to any recording of no less than three such events.


Hans

 

[Dabljuh]

Oh, a real chemical analysis! How impressive. And, pray tell, what did he find?

..... You don't know (or, more likely) don't comprehend?

I'll tell you: He found sulphur. Of course, there is the teensy weensy little problem with that finding that considerable amounts of sulphur are found in other materials, which were known to be in the towers. Even paper contains sulphur.

And structural steel too, right?

But you are an expert in thermite, yes? Please state the appoximate amount of thermite needed to fatally compromize the structure of a single tower. Do use references.

No, I'm not an expert on thermite. Are you? All I can do is project, speculate, and calculate. Yep, we can calculate a lower bound of how much thermite would have to be used.

For simplicity's sake, assume to cut a beam, it's sufficient to increase the temperature of the steel to the melting point. We're going to assume the reaction is quick enough to eliminate any heat disspation effects, and we're also going to ignore spills.



The Enthalpy of thermite minus the heating of the thermite itself is -3985 J/g, the specific heat capacity of steel is 0.47J/(gK), the density of thermite is approximately 3g/cm³, the density of steel is roughly 7.8g/cm³, the melting point of steel is 1510°C, we're going to ignore the fusion enthalpy. To bring it up from room temperature 21°C to the melting point, we need around ~700J per gram, that means 1g of thermite could melt 5.7g of steel, and 1cm³ of thermite melts 2.19cm³ of steel.

pi/2*width is the area, so you need pi/4.38 times the thickness applied to whatever width you want to melt. Which just works out to roughly the same width as the beam itself. If anyone knows better estimates, please post them, but that seems to be about it.

A 10 second 200Hz 'tone' where each period was created by a HE charge?? That would sound like the loudest fart in the history of Earth. It would certainly be more audible than a few single detonations. Do point to any recording of no less than three such events.

Am I your secretary now? Where's the magic word? Do your own damn research.

It's actually hard to find good audio material since most people kept away from the towers. Try this one, and listen to the sound between 0:35 and 0:45 and tell me if you think it's not possible that this sound stems from 1000's of small explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btftaMMav4I

(Now I'm going to wait for "zomg fake audio")

 

[~enigma~]

I'll tell you: He found sulphur. Of course, there is the teensy weensy little problem with that finding that considerable amounts of sulphur are found in other materials, which were known to be in the towers. Even paper contains sulphur.

I really don't understand the logic (rather illogic or sheer idiocy) of the truthers to claim that a chemical analysis (done by a physicist) has any bearing whatsoever on the collapse. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but why wouldn't the WTC debris be expected to contain nearly anything? I mean were there plastics, construction materials, cleaning materials, solvents, industrial chemicals, photographic chemicals, paint, ink, printer toner, plants, people, diapers (yes there was a baby trapped in the WTC), clothes, etc...?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

You honestly cite Las Vegas casino demolitions as an example for a "normal CD"? These are created to be essentially an impressive show of fireworks in addition to a CD.

The first ones brought down weren't. And since when do they amp up the sound to impress the crowd? The impressive visual shows involving fireworks doesn't change the fact that the demolitions themselves are incredibly loud.

You want to argue that the Las Vegas demolitions were louder than standard? Prove it. Then, go to the truther's favorite source - Google - and look up some videos of other explosives demolitions. Here's one that was far smaller - it was merely a grain silo - yet louder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE3Xro3tIgY

Here's another, of a hospital in Pittsburgh:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P7LOHYDBEg

Neither of those cases were for show. And both of those cases were still had explosions louder than the Twin Towers or WTC 7 collapse.

Granted, for most small to medium structures to be demolished, there are audible and identifiable explosions. For something like the Twin Towers, you'd need in the order of 2000 small HE charges in addition to the relatively silent thermite cutter charges. 2000/10s means you'll have an audible frequency of 200hz, far beyond of what the human ear can distinguish as individual waves (around 20hz)

Instead of making up supposedly silent demolitions to buttress your claim - which, BTW, would be yet another characteristic making it unlike a conventional explosives demolition - try addressing these:

1. There was no thermite effect found on the recovered steel. There should be melting well beyond the minute amount noted by observers that's been attributed to eutectic effects in the fires; there should be very obvious macroscopic effects on most if not all of the vertical load bearing components. There was not.
2. You earlier said that:
   

   "...demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to) but instead using cutter charges, for example thermite to pre-fragment the steel, and then simply blow it away with a small charge not capable of overcoming the steel's tension."

   Now you're saying:
   

   For something like the Twin Towers, you'd need in the order of 2000 small HE charges in addition to the relatively silent thermite cutter charges

   They "do not usually" use, but now they do? Why the change? And because this would be yet another deviation from a normal explosives demolition (you yourself are the one saying they "do not usually" use HE), why do you continue to purport that the WTC collapses have the signatures of a CD?
3. You earlier cited noise as a characteristic indicative of explosives use. But now, you're saying that the charges were "... far beyond of what the human ear can distinguish as individual waves (around 20hz)". Why are you reversing that now?

In this case I'm not going to assume malicious intent or incompetence, but simply a sort of misunderstandment bias towards making the premises of a wrong-sounding argument also sound wrong, even when they aren't.

The WTC Building 7 collapse looks 100% like a regular old fashioned controlled demolition.

The Twin Towers' collapses look like controlled demolition, but not the regular, carefully prepared kind, but more ineptly or hastily applied and designed to go from the top down, in a fashion that it can be - with some constraints - initiated at any floor to adjust for a plane that may not hit exactly at the predetermined height.

WTC 7 does not look like a regular, old fashioned explosives demolition. You yourself are providing the arguments saying this, which your flopping about regarding high explosives, to your hypothesizing about thermite, to your assertion that supposedly "silent" charges were used.

And your argument about the main towers - "ineptly or hastily applied" - suggests that evidence should be found. For example, there should have been more explosives used; you yourself noted this earlier. That would have made more noise, left more indications of their use on the debris, and have left evidence of the demolitions themselves in the rubble piles. None of that was observed or found.

Not only do none of your arguments point at explosives demolition, some of your claims are not supported; for example, the supposed inaudible charges. You're now reaching with your story changes to keep up with the rebuttals. That's not the sign of someone speaking with real knowledge. Provide evidence that such "silent" explosives exist. And show where the thermite effect was found on the steel; no, Jones's work does not cut it. That's been discussed time and time again. Finding particles who's origin can be attributed to other sources, sources Jones chooses to ignore, doesn't mean that thermite was used, especially when you consider the absence of any physical effect on the steel it was supposedly used on. Show where the steel was melted. And show where the effects of, and the remains of the cutter charges were in the debris.

 

[phunk]

The sound from known explosives demolitions events, such as the casino/hotel demolitions in Las Vegas, are very, very loud. Whereas you don't hear anything remotely close in the Twin Towers (a far larger structure) or the WTC 7 collapse (an equivalent-sized building to many of the demolished hotels/casinos).

Actually WTC7 is much taller than any building ever brought down w/ explosive CD. WTC7 was 610 feet tall, the 2 tallest buildings ever imploded were 439 and 361 feet.

 

[Dave Rogers]

pi/2*width is the area, so you need pi/4.38 times the thickness applied to whatever width you want to melt. Which just works out to roughly the same width as the beam itself. If anyone knows better estimates, please post them, but that seems to be about it.

You're assuming 100% efficiency of the heat transfer from the thermite to the steel, which is hopelessly optimistic. If we can assume that it would be necessary at the very least to sever the corner columns, which were 55x22 inches, then these are the minimum dimensions for the device required to be attached to each corner column. This is impossible without removal of fireproofing around the columns in an area which, according to the architects' plans at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html , appears not to be surrounded by any interior walls on the floors of interest (I'm looking at floor 95, which is close enough to the WTC1 collapse initiation floor to be relevant). In practice one would expect a significant proportion of the heat to be either lost to radiation or simply not transferred to the steel column in the time available. Taking a very generous heat transfer efficiency of 25%, which is far more realistic than your figure, you'll effectively need a device surrounding the column, roughly equal to its width all around (to allow for boundary conditions at the corners), so we're looking at a device roughly five by thirteen feet wrapped around every corner column on every floor. It is simply inconceivable that these could have been installed without every single worker on every affected floor noticing the installation. Even installing them in the ceiling voids would have required widespread removal of ceiling panels and the installation of heavy lifting gear. You simply can't do that in a busy office without people noticing, and remarking on it after the event. Your hypothesis, therefore, requires that every WTC survivor is part of the conspiracy; due to the difficulty of selection, it tends to suggest that all the WTC victims were conspirators too.

You're also assuming that it's possible to hold the thermite in contact with the steel while the temperatures equilibrate, which requires that you hold the thermite in a vessel of greater than 1500ºC melting point, which is sufficiently robust to have survived the airplane impact. I assert that no such material exists. Unless you can name one, your entire argument is an appeal to magic.

You're making things up that have never existed, and claiming that they are possible. You're providing no evidence of this. Unless you do so, your claims are worthless.

Dave

 

[e^n]

For simplicity's sake, assume to cut a beam, it's sufficient to increase the temperature of the steel to the melting point. We're going to assume the reaction is quick enough to eliminate any heat disspation effects, and we're also going to ignore spills.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564874cbe043ce4.png[/qimg]

The Enthalpy of thermite minus the heating of the thermite itself is -3985 J/g, the specific heat capacity of steel is 0.47J/(gK), the density of thermite is approximately 3g/cm³, the density of steel is roughly 7.8g/cm³, the melting point of steel is 1510°C, we're going to ignore the fusion enthalpy. To bring it up from room temperature 21°C to the melting point, we need around ~700J per gram, that means 1g of thermite could melt 5.7g of steel, and 1cm³ of thermite melts 2.19cm³ of steel.

pi/2*width is the area, so you need pi/4.38 times the thickness applied to whatever width you want to melt. Which just works out to roughly the same width as the beam itself. If anyone knows better estimates, please post them, but that seems to be about it.

I'm sorry but I don't see how biasing your model towards melting can somehow result in a reliable prediction of thermite amount required. Lets forget the fact that only one cross section of the thermite is actually in contact with the steel, the surface area available for thermal conduction to the surrounding steel is roughly equivalent to the surface area available for conduction from thermite.

Your analysis is very much oversimplified, and does not take into effect the expansion of thermite either. The only available video of a thermite column cutter works by using the expansion pressure to spray molten iron onto the beam and damage it this way.

Even if this were the case, and even if we could consider your model plausible (there's not actually anywhere in the towers you could attach these devices easily) there is no evidence for this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Since it requires the explosion to overcome the tension of the steel to actually rupture it, demolition teams do not usually destroy with high explosives (to which steel is very resilient to) but instead using cutter charges, for example thermite to pre-fragment the steel, and then simply blow it away with a small charge not capable of overcoming the steel's tension.

Actually, that's a complete lie, isn't it? These mythical hybrid thermite / explosive cutter charges you're describing don't exist, never have existed, and never could possibly exist. Cutter charges have never used thermite. Instead, they use a shaped charge of HMX with a binder, RDX / TNT mixture or similar high explosive, with a cavity in contact with the object to be penetrated. There's a liner inside the cavity in the charge which is converted to a high-velocity jet of metal by the explosion, typically moving at over 10km/s, which cuts through the steel. That's how shaped demolition charges work, and also HEAT rounds. Controlled demolitions are carried out using linear shaped charges, which Mark Loiseaux was seen handling in the BBC WTC7 documentary. These contain no thermite whatsoever and don't operate in anything remotely similar to the method you suggest. They contain high explosive as the only active component. Your fantasy device is a recipe for a premature detonation when the thermite overheats the high explosive.

How do I know this? Because I'm a demolitions guy in the army, and I've worked with C1, TNT and blasting cord.

And I think that's a lie too. I think you're completely ignorant of demolition procedures, you've just read the standard truther texts and learned to bluff well. I think you've never got nearer the army than watching reruns of The A-Team, and you wouldn't know how to knock down a pile of Jenga blocks. Just my opinion, you realise, but it fits better with your behaviour and level of knowledge than your story.

And the rest of your vague generalisations are just that. You've said nothing that couldn't be gleaned from guesswork and Wikipedia, and a lot that could be dispelled by learning from the same sources. You know nothing relevant here, and you have nothing to bring to this debate.

Dave

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Actually WTC7 is much taller than any building ever brought down w/ explosive CD. WTC7 was 610 feet tall, the 2 tallest buildings ever imploded were 439 and 361 feet.

Good point; thank you.

 

[e^n]

They contain high explosive as the only active component. Your fantasy device is a recipe for a premature detonation when the thermite overheats the high explosive.

This is correct, here's some extracts from the documentary



Not only does this show that the proposed demolition method is wrong, but in picture 2 you can also clearly see that the charges are set at a standoff distance. This insulating blanket of air would result in thermite being extremely ineffective.

There are various patents available online, and many demolition companies explain their method also. What Dabljuh has stated is entirely wrong.

http://www.dynawell.de/explosives_lsc.html

edit: I might point out I'm not so sure about thermite overheating HMX and causing it to detonate. I think it's more likely it would melt the entire charge with no detonation.

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

edit: I might point out I'm not so sure about thermite overheating HMX and causing it to detonate. I think it's more likely it would melt the entire charge with no detonation.

Either is possible. If you heat octogen too quickly it can detonate (it is used a rocket fuel and accidents have happened). That being said it is very stable. I doubt it would detonate but I've never tried it.

The very idea of putting thermite and high explosives in the same area of operation is crazy, never know what might happen. What if the thermite burns away the det/shock cord/wiring to the explosive?

LLH

 

[Newtons Bit]

Either is possible. If you heat octogen too quickly it can detonate (it is used a rocket fuel and accidents have happened). That being said it is very stable. I doubt it would detonate but I've never tried it.

The very idea of putting thermite and high explosives in the same area of operation is crazy, never know what might happen. What if the thermite burns away the det/shock cord/wiring to the explosive?

LLH

Remember, 100% of the energy is transfered to the column!

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Remember, 100% of the energy is transfered to the column!

Oh yeah! Heck if it magically transfers 100% into the target, why not just hold the burning thermite in your hands and press it against what ever you want to destroy!

LLH

 

[LordoftheLeftHand]

It's actually hard to find good audio material since most people kept away from the towers. Try this one, and listen to the sound between 0:35 and 0:45 and tell me if you think it's not possible that this sound stems from 1000's of small explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btftaMMav4I

(Now I'm going to wait for "zomg fake audio")

I heard a bunch of people screaming or something. Nothing to suggest explosives IMO.

LLH

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Imagine what they can do once they invent super DOOPER thermite.

 

[twinstead]

Imagine what they can do once they invent super DOOPER thermite.

Wow. Finally interstellar travel will be possible!

 

[MRC_Hans]

And structural steel too, right?

Yes, it will contain some sulfur, too. So, I take it you agree that the chemical analysis can't be used as evidence for thermite?

No, I'm not an expert on thermite. Are you? All I can do is project, speculate, and calculate. Yep, we can calculate a lower bound of how much thermite would have to be used.

For simplicity's sake, assume to cut a beam, it's sufficient to increase the temperature of the steel to the melting point. We're going to assume the reaction is quick enough to eliminate any heat disspation effects, and we're also going to ignore spills.

[URL]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_172564874cbe043ce4.png[/URL]

The Enthalpy of thermite minus the heating of the thermite itself is -3985 J/g, the specific heat capacity of steel is 0.47J/(gK), the density of thermite is approximately 3g/cm³, the density of steel is roughly 7.8g/cm³, the melting point of steel is 1510°C, we're going to ignore the fusion enthalpy. To bring it up from room temperature 21°C to the melting point, we need around ~700J per gram, that means 1g of thermite could melt 5.7g of steel, and 1cm³ of thermite melts 2.19cm³ of steel.

pi/2*width is the area, so you need pi/4.38 times the thickness applied to whatever width you want to melt. Which just works out to roughly the same width as the beam itself. If anyone knows better estimates, please post them, but that seems to be about it.

Well, but of course we can't ignore heat dissipation, since thermite burns somewhat slow, and you have, in another argument, put much weight in the heat-sink effect of the whole steel structure. Of course, if you want to back down on that and recognize that steel is not a particularly good heat conductor, we have instead the problem that the heat from the charge needs time to propagate into the steel. We must also assume that since one side of the charge is facing the air, only half of the energy, at best, is transferred to the steel.

Finally, you leave out an important factor: Melting energy. To melt a solid, you not only need to bring it to its melting temperature, you also need to apply additional energy to make the transit from a solid to a liquid.

So since we are heavily in the ballpark realm, let's just multiply your thermite amount with 10. This also allows for your theory of hastily placed large charges. We can now finish your calculation:

I estimate that the amount of steel to remove to almost cut a WTC beam is 5X5X40 cm = 1,000 cm3 = 7,800g. By your own estimate, this needed to be done in 2,000 places. That is 15,600 Kg of steel.

That means that according to your calculation 2.7 tons of thermite was needed, whereas I get 27 tons. Should we take an intermediate and assume 10 tons? So in addition to the HE charges needed to get the building to go at exactly the needed time, 'they' needed to tote in and install 10 tons of thermite and wire it.

And in your earlier haste to declare me an incompetent fool, you forgot to address this issue: Since you claim that beams were first weakened with thermite, then severed with HE, even an amateur can figure out that the HE charge must necessarily be placed just in the places where the beams are previously weakened. So now, expert or not, you need to explain how 'they' got away with placing a HE charge, presumably just opposite the thermite charge, and keep it from being damaged, or going off when that part of the beam got red to white hot from the cutter charge.

Am I your secretary now? Where's the magic word? Do your own damn research.

No, and I'm not your secretary. You made a claim, you provide the evidence.

It's actually hard to find good audio material since most people kept away from the towers. Try this one, and listen to the sound between 0:35 and 0:45 and tell me if you think it's not possible that this sound stems from 1000's of small explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btftaMMav4I

That is plain silly. Several people recorded videos from almost right under the towers. Two of the camera men were almost killed then the tower collapsed.

That sound? Are you serious?! That is the sound of a helicopter. It is there right from the start. Honestly, who do you think you are fooling?

Hans

 

[Dabljuh]

You're assuming 100% efficiency of the heat transfer from the thermite to the steel, which is hopelessly optimistic.

...

Taking a very generous heat transfer efficiency of 25%....

if you weren't useless, you could have calculated what amount of energy will radiate off in a given timeframe and what amount of energy will be absorbed by the air, and estimated a "heat transfer figure" Instead, you randomly make figures up. Yeah. That's serious sciencework, right.

Your hypothesis, therefore, requires that every WTC survivor is part of the conspiracy; due to the difficulty of selection, it tends to suggest that all the WTC victims were conspirators too.

You're making up stuff again. The assertion that the entire WTC population would have to be in on the conspiracy or otherwise realize the building is being rigged is ridiculous.

You're also assuming that it's possible to hold the thermite in contact with the steel while the temperatures equilibrate, which requires that you hold the thermite in a vessel of greater than 1500ºC melting point, which is sufficiently robust to have survived the airplane impact. I assert that no such material exists. Unless you can name one, your entire argument is an appeal to magic.

Tungsten, Fool

there's not actually anywhere in the towers you could attach these devices easily

Right, steal I-Beams are known to be incredibly slippery to the point of impossibility of attaching anything to them. Even duct tape falls right off.

Not only does this show that the proposed demolition method is wrong, but in picture 2 you can also clearly see that the charges are set at a standoff distance. This insulating blanket of air would result in thermite being extremely ineffective.

Stop thinking watching 5s of footage of someone using a shaped charge makes you an expert. Ask someone. The shaped charges contain a copper casing. The parabolic inside of the shaped charge causes a jet of hot plasma when the shaped charge is detonated. The material inside the shaped charges is going to be C4, a high explosive. Despite containing a HE, the construction is not referred to as a HE charge, it's a shaped linear cutting charge.

The problem with those if you clandestinely want to blow up a building under the cover of a jet liner impact, is that they're not only using copious amounts of HE, causing a loud boom, no, they also produce copper shrapnel by the bucketload, and leave copper signatures behind on whatever they cut. So any cleanup operation would find this. Plus it's what you commonly use for destruction of steel columns, which means it's going to be detected pretty quickly as there are enough people familiar with those.

Now thermite is not used in a shaped charge. Thermite is simply an incendiary and doesn't produce a copper plasma jet. Instead it melts pretty much anything it comes across within the shortest amount of time. The way to use thermite is not with a shaped charge, but with direct application.

According to Jones, commercial solutions for thermite based column destruction appear to be essentially metal cases with slids in it. however, these would leave back the metal cases or whatever remains from them. However, if one were to undertake a large scale operation like the destruction of the WTC, it would be trivial to create flat, solid thermite charges by pressure, or plastic. Those would detonate tugged to the columns and most of the termite would in fact fall off. So that means, if you use thermite over a shaped charge

- You will not have copper shrapnell or otherwise identifiable parts afterwards, merely the thermite signature molten iron and steel, and gaseous aluminium.
- You will not have a violent explosion, instead the beam will simply seem to fail.
- No one will look for thermite since it's not usually used for building destruction.

As such it is ideally suitable to the clandestine destruction of a steel highrise building.

However, there's two problems with this caseless thermite approach

1. It does not explain the observed explosive force
2. It may not actually work. Using copious quantities of thermite, the beams may simply press the softened material away and eventually fuse again through dissipation.

However, and this is where my experience with explosives comes into play again, what I'm thinking of solves both of these issues.

I spent some time in Inkscape to also educate the more complete idiots on this forum on how this would look like.

1- Lets say, that's a regular, badly drawn I-Beam.

For comparison, Fig 2 and 3 show how a shaped charge, or a high explosives destruction of a beam looks like. The huge packs are no accident, HE is very inefficient compared to shaped charges at destroying (intact) steel.

2 - Shaped linear cutting charges

3 - HE charges


Now here's what I actually suggest. Instead of shaped charges, we use thermite charges. These thermite charges are caseless and glued / wired / duct taped to the beam. That means, when they go off, a large portion of the thermite will actually fall to the ground or hit the beam way below.

Solidified Thermite and 100g of TNT


However, since thermite is fairly effective, a large, flat slab of thermite would sufficiently weaken the steel to already nearly collapse on its own, but the pressure that's on the beam might actually push a large portion of the softened material away, and the beam's heat dissipation might cause any liquified material to quickly solidify again.

Again - not an expert on thermite. But this is a perfectly viable setup.

Thermite melts...


Finally, after a few seconds, the weakened steel is severed by a HE charge much much smaller than the one that would be needed for a pure-HE destruction or even a shaped charge.

HE charge severes the weakened beam.


Now this is perfectly viable and would explain everything observed. Except for one tiny thing: Most explosives like C4 or TNT leave residue that can be detected by bomb-sniffing dogs or chemical analysis. I'm not a chemist, so I don't know if there's alternative high explosives that wouldn't be detected by such means. Maybe it's highly explosive super dooper thermite? Then again. FEMA was quick to shield the evidence from any independent investigators so it may just be a regular old 100g block of TNT.

Yes, it will contain some sulfur, too.

Structural Steel does not contain sulfur. Neither should it melt under any office fire / collapse related circumstances to the point where sulfur can enter the steel. The thermite theory perfectly explains the sulfur. You can't without without heavily bending the laws of physics.

 

[MRC_Hans]

if you weren't useless, you could have calculated what amount of energy will radiate off in a given timeframe and what amount of energy will be absorbed by the air, and estimated a "heat transfer figure" Instead, you randomly make figures up. Yeah. That's serious sciencework, right.

Asking others to do your homework, again, ehhh? Since you didn't even make a quesstimate, but simply ignored the radiated energy, what does that make you? Totally useless?

You're making up stuff again. The assertion that the entire WTC population would have to be in on the conspiracy or otherwise realize the building is being rigged is ridiculous.

The entire population would certainly be suspects, because the bringing in and positioning tons of explosive charges would be very obvious.

Tungsten, Fool

Ahh, so they also had to bring in tons of tungsten. The plot certainly thickens . And, of course, none of this more or less indestructible tungsten was noticed among the debris afterwards, right?

You know, this is the problem of making things up as you go: You tend to get painted into corners.

Right, steal I-Beams are known to be incredibly slippery to the point of impossibility of attaching anything to them. Even duct tape falls right off.

No, steel (note the spelling) beams in a building like the WTC are known to be covered in all sort of stuff: Fire proofing, internal walls, installations, heat insulation, etc. ... All of which had to come off for the installation of charges, and to be re-established in order for nobody to notice the operation.

I realize you didn't have this problem in the army, but most people should be able to imagine it, anyway.

Now thermite is not used in a shaped charge. Thermite is simply an incendiary and doesn't produce a copper plasma jet. Instead it melts pretty much anything it comes across within the shortest amount of time. The way to use thermite is not with a shaped charge, but with direct application.

Actually not.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lnqeodIIUw

In fact it doesn't even melt the clay flower-pot they set it off in. FYI, normal pottery clay melts at roughtly the same temperature as structural steel. The reason it burns through steel is that a chemical reaction occurs.

And no, it does not produce copious amounts of copper residues, but as you can see it does produce copious amounts of smoke, fire, sparks and slag. Look at the fireworks from a single cup. Now imagine tons of the stuff, distributed over the entire building! Yet, nobody noticed, and it is not visible on any video of the event.

According to Jones, commercial solutions for thermite based column destruction appear to be essentially metal cases with slids in it. however, these would leave back the metal cases or whatever remains from them.

In other words, irrelevant.

However, if one were to undertake a large scale operation like the destruction of the WTC, it would be trivial to create flat, solid thermite charges by pressure, or plastic. Those would detonate tugged to the columns and most of the termite would in fact fall off.

And create a tremendous amount of fireworks! Since we earlier calculated, which you haven't refuted, that some 10 tons of the stuff was needed for the actual action, if most of the thermite (say, 75%) would fall off, we now have 40 TONS of thermite going off in the building. The whole thing would light up like a giant christmas tree

... Say, my friend, why don't you think a bit about the implications of your silly ideas before you post them?

So that means, if you use thermite over a shaped charge

Thermite over a HE charge???

Did they teach you that in the army .

- You will not have copper shrapnell or otherwise identifiable parts afterwards, merely the thermite signature molten iron and steel, and gaseous aluminium.

Not just the signature. Tons of slag. Since the stuff absorbs oxygen as it burns, the slag will weigh more than the original thermite. We now have some 50 tons of slag (being charitable, after setting off 40 tons of thermite). Still nobody noticed it.

- You will not have a violent explosion, instead the beam will simply seem to fail.

In a display of fireworks that will make most July 4th shows seem like a wet match by comparison.

- No one will look for thermite since it's not usually used for building destruction.

Dude, they won't have to look for it, they will need a buldozer to shovel it away.

As such it is ideally suitable to the clandestine destruction of a steel highrise building.

Yah, as long as nobody watches.

However, there's two problems with this caseless thermite approach

Two? TWO?? ... This should be nominated as the understatement of the year.

1. It does not explain the observed explosive force
2. It may not actually work. Using copious quantities of thermite, the beams may simply press the softened material away and eventually fuse again through dissipation.

Oh, I see you decided to listthe two things that were NOT a problem. Wise move.

re #1: Which observed explosive force?
re #2: Are you crazy ?

However, and this is where my experience with explosives comes into play again, what I'm thinking of solves both of these issues.

*snip*
Again - not an expert on thermite. But this is a perfectly viable setup.

OMG. Isn't it about time this thread is moved to Humor?

Structural Steel does not contain sulfur. Neither should it melt under any office fire / collapse related circumstances to the point where sulfur can enter the steel.

And no sulfur was found in the steel. So....

The thermite theory perfectly explains the sulfur. You can't without without heavily bending the laws of physics.

One word: Gypsum.

Hans