Merged National Geographic Special - "9/11 Science and Conspiracy" Debunks Thermite Myth

[TruthersLie]

The body is steel.

ROFLMAO.

I love it when twoofs show their piss poor reading comprehension. I read the whole site you url'ed.

Do you mean this part?
Body Composition 5
Body Panels Hatchback
Brakes Steel
Fuel Tank 0
Wheels

You misread it. The BRAKES are STEEL. Not the body panels.

They are not steel. Usually they are aluminum, tin or some other thin metal.

EVEN IF THEY WERE STEEL, they are less than 1 1/10th of an inch thick. Amazing..

Hey look at the hood of that mythbusters truck with the thermite.

Your point again with brainiac? That they melt through thin steel or aluminum? Again DUH.

5 minutes of investigoogling and trying to READ what you find.

 

[TruthersLie]

IIRC it was from a Canadian documentary that I can't find online. But there was quite a bit of discussion about this here, and the bottom line is the audio track doesn't add up. IIRC gumboot did an analysis if it. The "boom" is too clear to have been the result of mic levels set to record the speech of the men.

Wildcat. I would swear it was a legitimate explosion sound. And it was from a BBC special. but it does not show a series of rapid fire explosions before the towers collapse. It was filmed at about 1130am well after both towers collapsed.

But it doesn't matter because AFTER the collapse there were at least a dozen explosions.

 

[kylebisme]

Because gravity draws it to the center of the earth.

So, based on your argument, nothing can cut sideways, eh?

Really? Could you explain again how this can be done? I seem to have mised it...

You replied to it by rolling your eyes. Another well reasoned argument.

 

[beachnut]

Clearly a well reasoned argument.

Pick one of your failed statements and support it with science, physics, and structual engineering. Please show some evidence. But feel free to prove any of your ideas on 911. I love your silent explosives! Can you show me some of that stuff? I can't wait for the piles of melted steel you have as evidence.

The fact is you have junk. What you are saying is complete nonsense. When and if you post some evidence we can discuss then I have to say your junk so far needs zero debunking it is pure hogwash.

Silent explosives
Thermite

Both delusional concepts since the WTC collsapsed due to impacts and fires. Maybe you should show us why the impacts and fire can't do it.

Please explain with structural engineering concepts and evidence why Robertson is wrong. Robertson built the WTC and he was solely responsible for the structural engineering of the WTC towers. As most engineers he understands the impact and fires destroyed his towers.

“Not designed for a high speed impact” Robertson
“Not surprising they survived the impact and remained standing”
Robertson, “the collapse mechanism of the trade center, is as we anticipated it would be, when we first designed it”

So unless you can explain why Roberton is wrong and why NIST and thousands of engineers are wrong, you are the one who is wrong.

It is funny watching the lies spew from you and nut case people like Jones as the real experts say you guys are full of bull.

Robertson is the man who is responsible for the WTC structure he said the exact words, "preposterous" and "irresponsible" when Jones presented his delusional thermite story.

Your ideas on 911 are preposterous. Go ahead say I am appealing to authority as Robertson shuts down your delusions with knowledge of his own creation. You lack evidence what else can you do but talk and whine about things. Are you going to go to engineering school or take a physics course? Education is the key to help with critical thinking something you are avoiding like the plague.

 

[TruthersLie]

Could you please demonstrate this by explaining how free fall was achieved in your own words? I'm curious to know since you were just denying free fall a few posts ago.

No twoof. You must be mistaking me for someone else. There was no full freefall collapse. Not of the towers, nor of wtc7. The 2.25 seconds is fully explained by nist, and there are several great threads here where you can find that information.

Sure, but thicker would only make it take longer to melt though, not stop it from doing so.

So then the national geographic special definately showed a steel beam getting melted by thermite right?

 

[WildCat]

Wildcat. I would swear it was a legitimate explosion sound. And it was from a BBC special. but it does not show a series of rapid fire explosions before the towers collapse. It was filmed at about 1130am well after both towers collapsed.

But it doesn't matter because AFTER the collapse there were at least a dozen explosions.

Do you know the name of the show? I have never seen any version of this but the truther version, which sorely lacks in context. And the audio seems doctored to me, the explosive sound is way too clear. At the levels needed to pick up speech clearly the mic preamp would have overloaded and the wave form would have shown massive clipping from an explosion.

 

[kylebisme]

ROFLMAO.

I love it when twoofs show their piss poor reading comprehension. I read the whole site you url'ed.

Do you mean this part?
Body Composition 5
Body Panels Hatchback
Brakes Steel
Fuel Tank 0
Wheels

You misread it.

My comprehension is fine, it's just the formatting of the list which is poor. The body composition is a hatchback, and the body panels are steel.

 

[WildCat]

So, based on your argument, nothing can cut sideways, eh?

You need velocity to go sideways. Thermite has no velocity, but an explosion does. That's why they use explosives to cut columns, and not thermite.

This is obvious to everyone but truthers it seems.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

Besides that, they used a weaker beam and on its weaker orientation, ran the fire under nearly ideal conditions allowing it to reach about 67% hotter than anyone suggests the fires in the WTC got, did not secure to more steel which would distribute the heat, or anything at all for that matter, and stacked the weights in the center. Put simply, the so-called "experiment" wasn't fit for a high school science fair.

The experiment serves one point perfectly. The heat causes creep behavior under load, and this creep causes changes in the structure's geometry. In the case of the trade centers the temperatures didn't need to be at 1100oC to fail, as you know (if you've studied steel properties) it begins to lose strength rapidly at about half that, and a beam or column under load will undergo accelerated creep. In columns this creates bending stresses instead of compressive. The bending creates a lever arm around the center of mass which further accelerates this action. That's why once a column or beam fails in this fashion, it happens suddenly.

Now for the specific points not covered here:

they used a weaker beam and on its weaker orientation

True, however the trade centers also carried much more substantial loads, and for many columns these loads were elevated by the redistribution that took effect from the plane impacts. This means they were closer to their maximum limit in reference to their strength at room temperature. This means instead of needing to lose 50% of their strength to fail for example they may fail at 40% or 30% strength loss. If you've read Bazants' paper that talks about this:


Bazant, Le et al, "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York", Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE , Vol. 134 (2008).

Note page 2:

"Not really. The initial speculation that very high temperatures were necessary to explain collapse must be now revised since tests revealed a strong temperature effect on the yield strength of the steel used. The tests by NIST (2005, part NCSTAR 1-3D, p. 135, Fig. 6-6) showed that, at temperatures 150° C, 250° C and 350° C, the yield strength of the steel used in the fire stories decreased by 12%, 19% and 25%, respectively. These reductions apply to normal durations of laboratory strength tests (up to several minutes). Since the thermally activated decrease of yield stress is a time-dependent process, the yield strength decrease must have been even greater for the heating durations in the towers, which were of the order of one hour. These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al. (2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of their cold strength collapse when heated to 250° C."

The arguments Gage and DRG came up with were:

The fire burned out within a few minutes
the fire never got hot enough to weaken the steel in the first place

The former is based on a factual error (optimistic) or a lie (pessimistic assumption). The latter was a blatent quote mine or refusal to read the NIST report properly. And both were wrong.

 

[TruthersLie]

That isn't what I said.

Didn't you say this?

<snip>
I know the vast majority of the rubble was hauled off without investigation.

So you are claiming that the VAST MAJORITY of the rubble was hauled off without an investigation?

Please provide that simple citation of your claim. PROVE IT.
(I know you can't, but please provide a citation)

Just like I'm still waiting for your manpower analysis of how long it would take to wire the towers with these explosive charges for the "public safety."

 

[TruthersLie]

Could you please demonstrate this by explaining how free fall was achieved in your own words? I'm curious to know since you were just denying free fall a few posts ago.


That isn't what I said.

Sure, but thicker would only make it take longer to melt though, not stop it from doing so.

How much of that steel hood was melted?


or again how much damage was done to that steel column from the national geographic special?

 

[NutCracker]

How much less than free fall are you suggesting building 7 achieved?

Errr... please explain how your "free fall" (which it wasn't) implies that the events of 9/11 where an inside jobby-job.

You see, you can't. That's why you and your fellow ignorant delusional idiots are a massive fail.

 

[TruthersLie]

Please prove what you are claiming as fact.

PMSLMAO.

NO twoof. You are the one making the claim. You are claiming that you can use shaped charges and thermite together. Please provide a citation.

How can I provide proof of something that doesn't exist?

The burden of pwoof is on da twoof.

so again provide the proof to support your bs claims.

 

[BigAl]

I know the vast majority of the rubble was hauled off without investigation.

You know this how?

You've been remarkably short on citations for your claims.

We can provide lots of information about how the rubble was handled at the site and at the Staten Island operation where several thousand forensics people looked at all of it.

 

[TruthersLie]

And once again, my "rogue unicorns brought down the towers" theory gets some back-up.

No. MOTHRA did it.

 

[TruthersLie]

You mean you can't prove something is impossible, which I understand, but you seem to fail to while you claim thermite cutting sideways is impossible.

I have described how it could be done, and your response has been the equvianlt of "na-ah".

hahahaha.
You have described something with NO PROOF it can be done.

Provide a citation which supports your claim about a shaped charge being used with thermite for demolitons.

what? you can't because it is a Theory you have? oh isn't that special.

 

[TruthersLie]

I'm not repository, but a little digging found a a firefighter mentioning it.

and again and again... what is his PhD in? Can he differentiate between the 10 metals I listed for you (and showed videos of 5 of them) and molten steel?

yes or no? Can he (or anyone) tell you the differences between molten metal and molten steel on sight?

 

[Lupie]

Kylebisme is not interested in the truth, in facts, or in the opinions of actual experts. He/she is just here to play games, and maybe get a little "respect" from his fellow troofers by disrupting things and showing off. Kyle thinks that if he can show them how he "owned" a debunker, he'll get the acceptance and praise he so desperately needs.

L.

 

[twinstead]

I'm actually trying to figure out how a shaped explosive charge could hold thermitic material sideways long enough against thick metal to cut through it. I'd like to see an example of that from kyle because it sounds a little tricky to me.

 

[TruthersLie]

My comprehension is fine, it's just the formatting of the list which is poor. The body composition is a hatchback, and the body panels are steel.

Not according to the list. The BRAKES are steel.

Please provide any citation which says the body panels are steel.

I'll wait. Not that it matters because it is irrelevant to the disucssion. thermite cutting vertically is NOT in question.