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

[Justin39640]

How did you derive this figure?

east mechanical penthouse

 

[BigAl]

Are you claiming NIST did not report free fall being achieved during the collapse, or are you disputing their conclusion that it had? If it is the former, I've already proved that is true here. If you are taking issue with the conclusion itself, then please explain what fault you find in it.

No. You've stated a question that asserted free fall over a limited range. Here is the NIST answer. As I said, to the degree that free fall is true, so what?

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html​

If

 

[beachnut]

Are you claiming NIST did not report free fall being achieved during the collapse, or are you disputing their conclusion that it had? If it is the former, I've already proved that is true here. If you are taking issue with the conclusion itself, then please explain what fault you find in it.

Take the time from the penthouse falling through the interior of the structure to the final second of WTC7 falling to the ground in chaotic mess and you have nothing close to free fall. You have a unique building that fell due to fires not being fought on 911 and you can't prove otherwise due to what major problem? Lack of knowledge? Lack of engineering skills? Lack of training in physics?

If you want to look at a few seconds where the collapse was close to the acceleration of gravity fine, cherry pick some stupid clip of time and it gives you what? Nothing. There were no explosives, there was no thermite; only un-fought fires that destroy buildings and you is this what you can't grasp? What is your block on learning how the real world works.

What is your point? Are you supporting the moronic conclusions of the fringe nut case conspiracy movement who have no evidence so they make up lies? Cut to your conclusion and prove you are not another delusional truther spewing lies to apologize for 19 terrorists.

 

[Lupie]

Kyle,

Here's a quote from you-

"Sure, because if thermite was use, explosives couldn't have been. It's got be only one or the other, and can't be a combination of the two, eh?"

You are saying that thermite cannot be used with explosives, that it has to be one or the other. If you "know" this, then why did you say this about thermite-

Pack it into a shaped charge and igniting it just prior to a secondary explosive which blasts it in the direction you want.

Contradict yourself often?

L.

 

[BigAl]

Pack it into a shaped charge and igniting it just prior to a secondary explosive which blasts it in the direction you want.

It takes about 2 pounds of any kind of thermite to melt one pound of steel. The beams in WTC weighed hundreds of pounds per running foot.

How do you "blast" hundreds of pounds of Thermite?

Nobody knows how to melt vertical beams with thermite.

 

[Lupie]

Sure, because if thermite was use, explosives couldn't have been. It's got be only one or the other, and can't be a combination of the two, eh?

So can thermite be used with explosives or not? Enquiring minds want to know.

L.

 

[WildCat]

I explained that it is the reported interval temperatures of the fires which the items you list do not account for.

According to who? Source?

No. Rather, I know terrmite can cause fires with the initial temperatures reported, I am not claiming to know if that is what is what did it or not.

No, it was common office stuff burning which caused the fires. Aside from your own personal incredulity, what evidence do you have that it wasn't?

 

[WildCat]

Are you claiming NIST did not report free fall being achieved during the collapse, or are you disputing their conclusion that it had? If it is the former, I've already proved that is true here. If you are taking issue with the conclusion itself, then please explain what fault you find in it.

You are cherry-picking. Explain what is wrong with the following statement:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

[/SIZE][/FONT]
And bear in mind that this was only part of the collapse, which actually started when the penthouse collapsed.

 

[NutCracker]

If you insist on arguing that building 7 never achieved free fall, please explain how you came to that conclusion. I have previously substantiated my claim of building 7 achieving free fall by citing the conclusions of the NIST video analysis.

I've stated quite clearly that I ask you to explain how WTC*'s supposed free-fall supports the conclusion that the collapse was therm*te induced/a CD/inside jobby-job.

How you can interpret my request as "insist[ing] on arguing*that building 7 never achieved free-fall", and selectively, mid-sentence-cutting, quoting me accordingly, is quite beyond me.

Let me rephrase: EVEN IF wtc* fell at free-fall, how does that lead us to the conclusion that the collapse was therm*te induced/a CD/inside jobby-job or whatever the crank belief might be you hold or sympathize with?

Now, that's not to difficult to understand, isn't it? Nor is it an unfair request, given the significance you seem to put in this supposed free-fall, isn't it?

 

[alienentity]

How did you derive this figure?

From the 2008 NIST report, that you referred to. It goes into great detail.

Also from this video of mine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQkWCRV54lY



Even if you wish to set aside the exact time measurements, you truthers still haven't answered either question a or b .

Nor am I expecting a coherent answer. Don't sweat it.

 

[triforcharity]

Did you go down bellow, like this guy speaks of? I doubt most did.

Yes, as the team I was on was part of the search and rescue/recovery. I was all in and out of that pile. Like I said, I was there for ~4 months every single day. I didn't leave GZ for at least the first 2 weeks or so. I would have seen it, or heard about it. I, however, did not. Please do not assume, as it makes yourself look like a fool.

My conclusion that the office products and such you mention wouldn't have fueled hotspots starting at the temperatures reported? I'm basing that on the widely reported temps of fires containing such products. What reasoning do you have for implying otherwise?

Yeah, its called knowledge of fire and its properties. I absolutely guarantee that if you take thousands of offices, and put all their contents underneath a huge pile of steel, and set it on fire, it WILL most certainly heaat that steel for quite some time. The other problem is it would smolder. A smoldering fire
will in fact stay smoldering for months.

Just google "muck fires" and see what I am talking about. This is not a new concept.

I was responding to others claims that there were no booms.
[/QUTOE]

Yes, and there were no huge booms big enough to be conclusive of a controlled demolition.

I didn't ask an engineering or explosives question, it was a simple question of Newtonian physics.

And my knowledge of building physics is very limited. I don't ever talk about stuff I am not well versed in. I may venture in for a basic discussion, but not for something like this. My knowledge is limited. Ask an engineer, there are quite a few here.

From what I've seen from them, they only developed an explanation for initiation of the collapse. Can you support your clam that they analysed the collapse itself?

Nope, but it didn't matter. It would have continued to collapse one it started. Nothing would have been able to stop it.

Actually, I was just suggesting that in the right setup it could cut deep enough to weaken the structural integrity of the beam enough for it to collapse under the weight it is supporting.

See the FEMA report here, section D.4.

Yepo, but if you read the WHOLE THING, it completely debunks your claim of no investigation.

 

[triforcharity]

If anything any kind of explosion would be because most toilets are made of porcelain, a ceramic material. If you're familiar with how ceramics are fired in a kiln, then you'd also be aware that occasionally they'll also explode in them. To be honest I'm not sure to what extent this applies to the WTC, however it's a plausible scenario.

think about it. How many toilets were in that building, on every floor.

I think it has something to do with the type of porcelain, but I am not sure.

I will certainly find out for you though.

 

[triforcharity]

I explained that it is the reported interval temperatures of the fires which the items you list do not account for.


No. Rather, I know terrmite can cause fires with the initial temperatures reported, I am not claiming to know if that is what is what did it or not.

Termites??? Wow, didn't know they liked steel. Low iron count??


Anyway, where do you think 220 floors of office stuff went?? Do you think that would be a large amount of stuff, or a small amount??

Lets just put some numbers to this.

I am just estimating, but figure just office chairs. If there were 50 offices on every floor, and 100 of the 110 floors of WTC 1&2 had offices, that ALONE is 5,000 CHAIRS per BUILDING!! Multiply that by 2. 10,000 CHAIRS!! And, I think this is a low ball figure. Then do the same for desks. 10,000 desks, 10,000 computers, 10,000 filing cabinets filled with paperwork.

Now, do you understand how this amount of stuff could sustain a fire for quite a while?? Also, imagine this. If you take even ONE single computer, and set it on fire, this computer can burn for, I have personally seen, 3 hours. 10,000 computers, 30,000 hours. Now, do you understand how a fire can last 4 months??

 

[T.A.M.]

I love it when someone who is a REAL expert in a field hands a hack a plate of "this is how it is" pie.

TAM

 

[dafydd]

Ever been to a circus, do you know why people want to see the clowns? Same thing here.

No,at a circus the clowns know that they are being clowns.

 

[triforcharity]

Tam,

Its like feeding my dog a sirloin.

We are feeding this guy the best food in the world. He would rather eat McDonalds.

Idiots I say, every last one of them, Idiots.

 

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by kylebisme
From what I've seen from them, they only developed an explanation for initiation of the collapse. Can you support your clam that they analysed the collapse itself?

I think your question was answered some time ago, or maybe it was to another truther asking for the 1000 time the same question. I can't remember which.

Anyway, no reputable structural engineer that I'm aware of thinks the towers wouldn't have kept on collapsing after the upper mass had accelerated for a couple of floors.
So it would be a very large and rather useless exercise to carry on computations past that point.

In other words, for engineering purposes, it is a moot question, since collapse was already assured.

However, I think several competent studies have been done that show collapse times within the bounds that actually happened - 12 seconds, 15 seconds, etc.

As Ryan Mackey wrote:

'There are also subtle differences between NIST and the Purdue model, Dr. Quintiere's, the Arup study, and you are probably referring to Dr. Usmani at U Edinburgh or Dr. Seffen at Cambridge above, not sure which. There are subtle differences -- but the differences are exactly that, subtle. Every single competent analysis, government, non-government, US or foreign, concludes the collapses were expected. The consensus is universal, except for uneducated loudmouth cranks'

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5092619&postcount=182

 

[kylebisme]

No. You've stated a question that asserted free fall over a limited range. Here is the NIST answer. As I said, to the degree that free fall is true, so what?

The NIST explanation suggests "negligible support from the structure below", while free fall suggests the complete absence of support from the structure below. extensive but localised damage and spreading fires do not account for that compete absence of support.

Take the time from the penthouse falling through the interior of the structure to the final second of WTC7 falling to the ground in chaotic mess and you have nothing close to free fall.

Nor did I suggest otherwise, leaving the rest of your reply irrelevant.

"Sure, because if thermite was use, explosives couldn't have been. It's got be only one or the other, and can't be a combination of the two, eh?"

You are saying that thermite cannot be used with explosives, that it has to be one or the other. If you "know" this, then why did you say this about thermite-

The italicised quote there was sarcasm directed at the argument which it was a response to.

It takes about 2 pounds of any kind of thermite to melt one pound of steel. The beams in WTC weighed hundreds of pounds per running foot.

How do you "blast" hundreds of pounds of Thermite?

Nobody knows how to melt vertical beams with thermite.

As I said above, I was just suggesting that in the right setup it could cut deep enough to weaken the structural integrity of the beam enough for it to collapse under the weight it is supporting.

 

[triforcharity]

Ok, think of this "negligible " support. This is like trying to jump on an M&M. It is NOT going to slow your decent even a 1/1,000,000,000 of a second. It is useless.

Another anology.

Imagine I am driving a car 100 MPH. Now, try to jump out and stop me with just your body. What speed is my caar going to slow to?? Actually, a better questions is, How far is your body going to fly.


I AM NOT CONDONING VIOLENCE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

 

[kylebisme]

Even if you wish to set aside the exact time measurements, you truthers still haven't answered either question a or b .

I don't wish to set anything aside, I simply wanted clarification of what you were referring to, and I thank both you and Justin for providing it. As for your two questions; I never suggested traditional explosives were used, but lacking omnipresence I'm not in a position to say what was.