• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Great Thermate Debate

Michal said:
:shocked: no, it rules them out of serious debate ... to bad you have not heard UL report concerning subject steel ...
Click to expand...

Why would UL do steel failure analysis from a fire? Why would WPI (One of the top fire science schools in the country) be ruled out of the debate?
 
Michal said:
I protest !!! this is a personal insult on me and it is against rule No12 of this forum. I demand satisfaction !!!
Click to expand...

The "Report" button is at the bottom left. Please summarise what you feel is wrong with the post, and the moderators will decide whether any action is appropriate.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Michal, please answer the following hypothetical question honestly.

A series of calculations performed manually by a single person in 1964, covering three pages of longhand script, indicates that a certain highly complex series of events is not expected to happen. A second series of calculations performed by state-of-the-art numerical simulations in 2005, taking several weeks to run each calculation on a cluster of high-end workstations, disagrees with the 1964 analysis and indicates that the series of events is, in fact, expected to happen. Which result would you consider the more reliable?

While considering this question, consider the situation where the series of events involves the responses of many thousands of separate components, as well as the behaviour of a highly complex moving debris field and a series of fires, whose simulation was completely impossible in 1964.

Dave
Click to expand...

Bump for Michal, since you appear to be posting today.

Dave
 
leftysergeant said:
Bull flops. Everything I know about fires, acid etching, steel, copper sulphate, pyrites and thermite (and i am sure, from the quality of arguemnets you offer regarding subjects which involve these things, that I know a great deal more than do you) tells me that the steel was just buried in a hot, wet environment with a lot of acid fumes and some copper. Can you prove that it was not? Can you prove that there is a form of thermite that leaves that sort of marks? It would surprise the bejeebus out of me if you could, because it violates every bit of the science that applies.



What UL report? Link it, and it had better be good if you want your credibility back.

And if that whacktard Kevin Ryan's name is in the link you provide, you get five of these:

:dl:
Click to expand...

very typical debunkers monkey approach - eating bananas and leaving apples because they like bananas more - discredid one report because it does not fit your view and pick another one because it does.

you give me five of these :dl: and I give you six of those :covereyes
 
What report did UL do on the eroded steel? Can you source it?

Why would WPI, a HIGHLY respected fire science and fire protection engineering school, be discredited?
 
So we can add 'hypothetical' to the list of words you don't understand?
 
Michal said:
very typical debunkers monkey approach - eating bananas and leaving apples because they like bananas more - discredid one report because it does not fit your view and pick another one because it does.
Click to expand...

Michal said:
to bad you have not heard UL report concerning subject steel ...
Click to expand...

Michal said:
Dave, could I please have a link to the latter study. I hope it is not the one where all external columns were removed and core columns down sized.
Click to expand...

:i:

The supreme irony being that, in your case, the report you've chosen to believe doesn't even exist.

Dave
 
Good lord, there are still some truthers babbling on about thermite???

After all this time they're still drinking the Steven Jones Cool Aid?

Amazing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom