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

Dabljuh said:
In fact it is more probable that WTC7 actually served as a headquarters of sorts for the perpetrators (CIA, FBI, Secret Service and others being the tenants) having weeks of time to rig WTC7, as compared to days for the twin towers.
Click to expand...
Speculation has little impact in the world of convincing people...


Dabljuh said:
The much cleaner, symmetric collapse of the building also indicates that WTC7 was prepped more carefully.
Click to expand...
All the factors of which were affected by the location of the structural failure, & size of the building. Much as you like to claim the collapse wasn't so symmetrical and 'convenient'. They were cleaning up parts of WTC 7 from 30 West Broadway and the verizon building had a front row seat to the debris pile against it....

Dabljuh said:
... would be expected in a thermite scenario. As the core fails due to thermite charges being ignited, the exterior columns would abruptly have to carry the entire weight of the tower, something which exceeded their capacity even without a plane damaging a significant portion of the peripheral grid.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that you actually got the exceeding load capacity part right, you've displayed very little understanding of how structures work. The exterior columns did not abruptly exceed their load capacities. The horizontal bowing is an indication of added lateral loading, not vertical axial loads. Had the core failed at multiple points inside the towers there would have been a much quicker follow up to collapse initiation.


Dabljuh said:
Consequently, your pictures are purely disinformation for the scientifically illiterate. Anyone with a piece of steel and a source of fire can confirm you're BS'ing / trolling here. That's some grave intellectual dishonesty there, do you want to be ignored?
Click to expand...

My field of knowledge is architecture, not chemistry, I don't pretend to be knowledgeable in metallurgy either. If the source is wrong outside of my general knowledge base then feel free to correct me.. The temperatures below 600 oC are tempering temperatures for unalloyed steels for one, which is a detail I misstated in my post...
If you want to ignore me for that, or just for the area where I'm actually making a good point go right ahead but I am addressing guests, more than I am you, being ignored is not really my concern... I'm curious as to what you'll do once the entire forum is on your ignore list :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
If the Towers were immune to fire, why would thermite be able to destroy them? Thermite is an incendiary--all it really is is a fire.



Also, notice how Dabljuh has changed his story. In the OP he claimed explosive demolition. Now he is claiming thermite.
 
Dabljuh said:
Alright. Granted. Sorry. A match's head contains sulfur and phosphorous and thus reaches temperatures sufficient to light thermite.
Click to expand...

It seems that every time something you say gets examined closely we find a problem like this. I mean if you did not know this kind of thermite can be lit with a match, what else don't you know about it? Personally I don't know much about it, I've use a grenade a few times to melt stuff (and I'm not even sure it is the same thing), that's it.

The question now becomes how many other things about this theory have you mis-stated? How many things have you misunderstood, or just been plain wrong about? Why should someone take you seriuosly when you make a simple error like this that wikipedia could have clarified in like 2 mins. When I read the post that said you could light it with a match I thought it was wrong too. So I looked it up. You didn't. How are we supposed to trust you now?

LLH
 
~enigma~ said:
Ok...time to put up or be branded a fool. What is the evidence that there was thermite at the WTC and why is that evidence of ONLY preplanted thermite and nothing else?
Click to expand...
Prof. Jones' analysis detected thermate residue match on steel samples, molten steel samples and microspheres in the dust cloud, and other origins to explain the observations like 'acetylene torch cutting during post-9/11 cleanup' could be ruled out as these produce different signatures.
 
Dabljuh said:
... The phenomenon observed is clearly radiation and not reflection.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you babbling about?!

There is no radiation in the visible range below some 500°C. Unless you're proposing this to be radioactive materials, or possible chemiluminescence (fireflies)
Click to expand...

:nope:

You need to learn the multiple meanings of the term 'radiation'.
 
LordoftheLeftHand said:
When I read the post that said you could light it with a match I thought it was wrong too. So I looked it up.
Click to expand...
The thing is, it *is* wrong. You can't use a match to light thermite. You can use a match HEAD. When we're talking about a match, you think of the mechanism of lighting the match and then using the lit match as a way to ignite thermite. Which is impossible.

Using a match head, it's possible, but then you don't light it with the match obviously. You can do all kinds of fun things with match heads, even light thermite apparently. But you can't light thermite with a match, or a zippo, or a gas lighter.

You didn't. How are we supposed to trust you now?
Click to expand...
You're not. Look it up yourself. Prove me wrong. That's your job. If you fail to do so in the long run, you're obliged to call me "Daddy".

Don't like it? I'm winning so far, so I make the rules.
 
Dabljuh said:
Prof. Jones' analysis detected thermate residue match on steel samples, molten steel samples and microspheres in the dust cloud, and other origins to explain the observations like 'acetylene torch cutting during post-9/11 cleanup' could be ruled out as these produce different signatures.
Click to expand...
The residue found has many explanations. you forgot to answer the second part of the question though. Why does this point to ONLY preplanted thermite and nothing else. Please take into account the many tons of office furniture, construction material, cleaning fluid, ink, toner, paint, photography chemicals, computers, people, etc...

Also, please tell me what you know about Sherman's neckties.
 
Dabljuh said:
They lose about half their strenght around 600°C, which can be devastating for buildings without structural redundance. And even NIST has found no reason to believe that any part of the steel even got this hot (other than the collapse itself)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this is a strawman or just plain ignorance. NIST ran computer FEM simulations and determined that yes, the steel did reach temperatures above 600C. Perhaps you should actually open the report and skim through the more relevant sections?

Dabljuh said:
The thing is, structural steel at the core is 2 inches thick. That's a whole lot of steel. And also a whole lot of ability to dissipate - the ability to dissipate heat increases with the size of the cross section (Copper, Silver, Gold have better coefficients than steel but a small cross section of even gold will not dissipate heat as well as a large cross section of steel)

Reasons like that are why you usually consider buildings in the category of the WTC "fireproof", as in addition to this, they've also got automated sprinkler systems and fireproofing attached to their steel.
Click to expand...

This is a complete fabrication of the truth movement. However you seem to be a truther of more than average intelligence. Why don't you do the research and develop a model showing that steel wicks away heat faster than it can be applied or whatever the current truth mantra is.

It is also necessary for the water pumps to be functional and the water lines to be intact to supply water to the sprinkler system. The plane impacts did a large amount of damage to the mechanical systems and electrical systems of WTC. They were not operational.

The fire-protection also needs to be still intact on the steel, and not knocked away by bits of flying plane and office debris.

Dabljuh said:
Of course that's all pointless if you simply bring it down with an abundance of pre-set thermite.
Click to expand...

In any event, I've actually done the mathto hand-check NIST's conclusions. A pull-in force of 6 kips is all that is necessary to initiate the collapse if one perimeter moment frame (or a large portion of it) is heated to just under 600C.

The reason for that should be obvious:
damaged3.JPG


Furthermore, the observed phenomenon of the tower wall pulling in:
nist1-6D-fig39.JPG


cannot be explained by a localized high temperature, such as thermite. The entire column must be heated. And from that picture, it looks pretty obvious to me that the fire is sufficient to heat those columns.
 
Dabljuh said:
But you can't light thermite with a match, or a zippo, or a gas lighter.
Click to expand...
You can't? I think you should reread what Climewhatever posted. Finly powdered thermite can indeed be ignited by a lighter and also by common sparklers.
 
Dabljuh said:
You're not. Look it up yourself. Prove me wrong. That's your job. If you fail to do so in the long run, you're obliged to call me "Daddy".

Don't like it? I'm winning so far, so I make the rules.
Click to expand...

n725075089_288918_2774.jpg
 
Dabljuh said:
The thing is, structural steel at the core is 2 inches thick. That's a whole lot of steel. And also a whole lot of ability to dissipate - the ability to dissipate heat increases with the size of the cross section (Copper, Silver, Gold have better coefficients than steel but a small cross section of even gold will not dissipate heat as well as a large cross section of steel)
Click to expand...

The thickness of structural members is not uniform throughout the height of the building. EDIT: Seems you're aware of this


Dabljuh said:
Reasons like that are why you usually consider buildings in the category of the WTC "fireproof", as in addition to this, they've also got automated sprinkler systems and fireproofing attached to their steel.
Click to expand...
Impact damage either disabled or overwhelmed the existing sprinkler systems, add to the fact that the fires ignited on several floors in a matter of seconds. Some of the fireproofing was also dislodged...


Dabljuh said:
Of course that's all pointless if you simply bring it down with an abundance of pre-set thermite.
Click to expand...
Sprinklers are pointless if the water lines and means of transporting the water up the towers are severed by a boeing 767, or when parts of the fire protection are removed. Fire ratings are assigned by floor assembly, not individual members. While a floor assembly can be rated for two or three hours. localized damage to the protection can reduce that rating.

EDIT 2: Oops... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3857130&postcount=291
Newton covered it.... in better detail
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
The residue found has many explanations. you forgot to answer the second part of the question though. Why does this point to ONLY preplanted thermite and nothing else. Please take into account the many tons of office furniture, construction material, cleaning fluid, ink, toner, paint, photography chemicals, computers, people, etc...
Click to expand...
All of these could be ruled out however as the origin of the samples observed. It doesn't mean this is "proof" that thermite did it. It simply means that we don't know of anything else that could have done it. See, real scientists don't demand proof, only dumbass college dropouts believe they need "proof" to "prove something". Real scientists believe that the theory of gravitation is the best explanation for the observed phenomena, (of stuff falling down) even though they can't "prove" that gravitation is the cause for the observations

Also, please tell me what you know about Sherman's neckties.
Click to expand...
Only what Wikipedia would tell me. You're probably referring to the part where it says "heating" - Did you know you can perfectly well destroy a railroad track in this fashion without heating it? It simply takes a bit more effort, i.e. more people who pull the ropes. Do you believe Gen. Sherman is responsible for the WTC collapse?
 
Dabljuh said:
All of these could be ruled out however as the origin of the samples observed.
Click to expand...
Ok...show me the scientific evidence that rules all other reasons out.
It doesn't mean this is "proof" that thermite did it. It simply means that we don't know of anything else that could have done it.
Click to expand...
Glad you understand that this proves nothing. And you are wrong, it doesn't mean we don't know of anything else that could have done it. It means you don't know of anything else that could have done it.
See, real scientists don't demand proof, only dumbass college dropouts believe they need "proof" to "prove something".
Click to expand...
Really?! I suppose Michelson and Morley among many others were college dropouts...
Did you know you can perfectly well destroy a railroad track in this fashion without heating it? It simply takes a bit more effort, i.e. more people who pull the ropes.
Click to expand...
Ropes were not involved but anyway now that you bring it up, yes the same (or very similar) effect could have been done without heating. This will be enough to tell any thinking individual that thermite was not necessary at the WTC.
Do you believe Gen. Sherman is responsible for the WTC collapse?
Click to expand...
I thought you were being serious...I was wrong.
 
Newtons Bit said:
NIST ran computer FEM simulations
Click to expand...
I bet you could without a problem run a computer simulation of similiar veracity that would show the towers could have survived. Again proving nothing.

This is a complete fabrication of the truth movement. However you seem to be a truther of more than average intelligence. Why don't you do the research and develop a model showing that steel wicks away heat faster than it can be applied or whatever the current truth mantra is.
Click to expand...
No, something like that can be calculated. And is basic physics knowledge, by the way. I intend to calculate it at a later point but right now I'm hungry, and there's probably a large number of folks better qualified for this who already have done more accurate calculations on that, and I'd expect none of them will have ended up with a result surprising me.

It is also necessary for the water pumps to be functional and the water lines to be intact to supply water to the sprinkler system. The plane impacts did a large amount of damage to the mechanical systems and electrical systems of WTC. They were not operational.
Click to expand...
What a coincidence! You have to understand how REALLY, REALLY SURPRISED I am about this.

In any event, I've actually done the mathto hand-check NIST's conclusions. A pull-in force of 6 kips is all that is necessary to initiate the collapse if one perimeter moment frame (or a large portion of it) is heated to just under 600C.

The reason for that should be obvious:
[qimg]http://bp2.blogger.com/_-e0bzNzFdXc/R8CEQsUe5cI/AAAAAAAAANc/AWO840doGX4/s400/damaged3.JPG[/qimg]

Furthermore, the observed phenomenon of the tower wall pulling in:
[qimg]http://bp0.blogger.com/_-e0bzNzFdXc/R8CFUMUe5eI/AAAAAAAAANs/r8Tb9QuweDQ/s400/nist1-6D-fig39.JPG[/qimg]

cannot be explained by a localized high temperature, such as thermite. The entire column must be heated. And from that picture, it looks pretty obvious to me that the fire is sufficient to heat those columns.
Click to expand...
This is some good work (I guess, can't do the calculations myself). But where would the pull-in force come from if not from core columns that were destroyed already? How would they get destroyed? Can you rule out thermite for that purpose?
 
Dabljuh said:
You can't use a match to light thermite. You can use a match HEAD.
Click to expand...

Actually I knew exactly what he meant when he said a match, just like you can light time fuse with a match HEAD.



Dabljuh said:
But you can't light thermite with a match, or a zippo, or a gas lighter.
Click to expand...

Whoops you did it again! And this time I linked the Wikipedia article and even quoted the part about lighters! Did you even read it?!?

Here it is again!(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite):
Similarly, finely-powdered thermite can be ignited by a regular flint spark lighter, as the sparks are burning metal (in this case, the highly-reactive rare-earth metals lanthanum and cerium).
Click to expand...
Have any word games you want to make about this mis-statement?



Dabljuh said:
If you fail to do so in the long run, you're obliged to call me "Daddy".

Don't like it? I'm winning so far, so I make the rules.
Click to expand...
:confused::confused::confused:

LLH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom