The Great Thermate Debate

kylebisme said:
Again, please quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe shows this. As long as you refuse to either substantiate or withdraw this claim here, your proving yourself incapable of engaging in rational discourse, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your arguments until that changes.
Click to expand...

Well, considering that WPI (BTW, one of the TOP FPE schools in the country) stated that the steel did NOT get to the temperature of therm*te (which would be around 2,800 deg. C. this rules out therm*te.

Do you understand what this means?
 
kylebisme said:
I asked you, politely, to quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe proves your claim. As you've proven unwilling to do comply with that simple request, I've no interest in further discussion with you.
Click to expand...

Read the ****** links you lazy truther.. God damn.......
 
Michal said:
at the nearest stripping and new fit-out
Click to expand...

Years before the attack? Not bloody likely.


did anyone searched for them? was there anyone allowed to search for it?
Click to expand...

They were searching for anomolies all over the place. None were found. We thus know that what that dork with the steel thermate charges showed us DID NOT happen.


there were columns found that were angle cut, he was just showing it is possible.
Click to expand...

Only morons and people who have not read much of this forum believe those columns were thermite cut. Had you asked first how they were cut, we would not be responding in the manner in which we are to the rest of your posts.


could be by radio


why do you think it has to be exactly in the right place?


no it could not. Plane a size of B767 can not collapse the very building, even if at high speed and fully fueled


whole WTC attack could be faked
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
ElMondoHummus said:
And I told you politely where to find them. I even sourced the titles and journals, and linked one of the multiple writeups. You were given exactly the information you requested. All you have to do is read the sources I gave you.

If you want to ignore substance, then that's your problem. But don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone else here.
Click to expand...

He wants an exact quote and probably a youtube video, so he can dismiss it it as government propaganda or something.
 
@ beachnut: wow, I am impressed. over 14k posts and you did not even managed to get it right.
 
Quiproquo said:
2. Please explain why it is the "magnitude or duration of those forces (which) determine whether or not there's a jolt" and not the principle of opposing forces as stated by Newton.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hi Quiproquo,

I'm The Almond. I'm working on getting my PhD in Civil Engineering, where I specialize in the materials science of building materials. During graduate school, I put food (rice, cheese and potatoes) on my plate by acting as a Teaching Assistant (T.A.) for classes called Statics and Dynamics. They're sophomore year undergraduate courses for engineers that deal with Newtonian mechanics. The question you've asked here is actually addressed during the first week of Dynamics.

I can help you understand the answer to this question, if you would like. My problem is that it takes me a long time to make certain the answer is clear. It's harder than teaching in a classroom because I can't draw on the white board, and I can't even get a buzz off of the fumes. Normally, I wouldn't have a problem explaining this to someone who asked, but Truthers are a unique class of people. I've tried to explain a very specific implication of Newton's third law to no less than 3 Truthers. They were quite obstinate in their refusal to learn, think and understand, and, invariably, they resorted to saying that I was wrong because I am an idiot.

Can you see why I'm hesitant to engage in this again? If I put in the time and effort to make you understand the answer to your question, there is a chance that you will simply ignore it because you'll realize that it doesn't support the claims of the 9/11 Truth movement.

I'll take the first step, please restore my faith in humanity.

Imagine a shopping cart, which in this case has frictionless wheels on a frictionless surface. You stand stationary (on a surface with friction) and push the shopping cart with 5 N of force. Using Newton's third law, how much force does the shopping cart apply to you?
 
Hey Michal,

Any comment on Leslie Robertson's conclusions?

You know, the one where you claimed I needed to do some research?

Thanks.
 
Michal said:
@ beachnut: wow, I am impressed. over 14k posts and you did not even managed to get it right.
Click to expand...
You are the one who failed for 9 years to figure out 911, and you missed critical research because you prefer hearsay over evidence. 9 years. Next time try real journals instead of news sources and making up your own conclusions based on hearsay. You can't back your claims with first person sources, and you debunked yourself.

http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement

You have delusions about 911, the 600 mph is easy to figure out. Are you supporting the moronic claim of thermate, or are you lost in the wrong thread? The video proves thermate was not used on 911.
 
Last edited:
repost

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6466715&postcount=45

You had better read
City in the sky: the rise and fall of the World Trade Center

Roibertson was the engineer, Skilling in Robertson's own words was the "salesman".the man who "had the golden tongue" (page 159) "who did not understand the engineering complexities of the projects the firm undertook" and "the thing I don't admire is his lack of attention to detail and unwillingness to focus on his profession sometimes"
What is incredible is how close the WTC came to not being built at all. with huge problems with wind turbulence and sway. There were protests from other property owners who wanted this project killed. Studies had to be undertaken in absolute secrecy in fear of the engineering problems coming to light by their opponents. Your "document" is nothing more than a brochure absent of math and data submitted by the PA of NY to silence those critics.
 
Miragememories said:
There is so much love here.

It is truly touching.

Actually based on the examination of the random dust samples, the thermitic material was everywhere.

Go figure.

MM
Click to expand...

Everywhere? Thats weird given the fires, exploding cars, etc. You would think this stuff would have been visibly going off. Yet again no one saw it just like no video of the collapses has the explosions.
 
A W Smith said:
Roibertson was the engineer, Skilling in Robertson's own words was the "salesman".the man who "had the golden tongue" (page 159) "who did not understand the engineering complexities of the projects the firm undertook" and "the thing I don't admire is his lack of attention to detail and unwillingness to focus on his profession sometimes"
Click to expand...


Patently false.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/547552/John-Skilling

http://www.djc.com/special/century/skilling.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_E._Robertson

Robertson's engineering career began in 1952, when he graduated from the Berkeley school of civil engineering with a bachelor of science degree and joined Kaiser Engineering. In 1958 he joined the structural and civil engineering firm Worthington and Skilling.

As an "up-and-coming engineer", Robertson was contracted by Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson (WSHJ) to participate in the design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (1966-1971), his first high rise construction.[1] In 1973 Robertson was made a partner and WSHJ was renamed Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson. The firm split its operations in 1982 with Robertson renaming the East Coast office Leslie E. Robertson Associates R.L.L.P.[2]

1 ^ Koch, Karl (2002). Men of Steel: The Story of the Family That Built the World Trade Center. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 1400046017.
2 ^ Leadership and Management in Engineering magazine. Volume 9, Issue 1, Engineering Legends pp. 46-50 (January 2009)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Alferd_Packer said:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html
Click to expand...

Leslie Robertson: ... But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.
Click to expand...

False.

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Skilling - a recognized expert in tall buildings - doesn't think a single 200-pound car bomb would topple or do major structural damage to a Trade Center tower. The supporting columns are closely spaced and even if several were disabled, the others would carry the load.

"However," he added, "I'm not saying that properly applied explosives - shaped explosives - of that magnitude could not do a tremendous amount of damage."
Click to expand...
 
triforcharity said:
You didn't understand that post, did you?
Click to expand...


To suggest that Skilling, who hired Robertson, and only made him partner 15 years later, wouldn't "understand the complexities of the projects he took on" is patently absurd and sounds a tad ungrateful from someone who appears to have been merely a junior partner.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom