• 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.

OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

Phillips and Jordan was the company that organized and controlled the cleanup operations. Specifically, to sort and organize all of the material that came from Ground Zero. Once there, ATF, FBI, NTSB, and many other local, state, and federal LE officers trained in forensics, including forensic pathologists, and forensic anthropologists.

Everything there was sorted and examined for evidence. Not a SINGLE beam was discovered that was melted.


The point in posting that picture was to show you that to the untrained eye, many other things could be confused for molten steel, including glass. Which, is what the picture is of.

Now, you couldn't identify it, so why should you expect others to be able to?
 
tempesta29 said:
Did you ever even counter my initial post? How can the upper sections of the Twin Towers not decelerate when they encounter greater resistance?

How can WTC 7 accelerate at the rate of gravity for 2.25 seconds without its columns being severed?
Click to expand...

OK, since this is the key question, let me point out that this has been answered.

(1) The Twin Towers. As I already pointed out, the retardation of the falling blocks was primarily due to conservation of momentum, which is insensitive to structural damage so long as the damaged structural elements are still present. A quick estimate suggests that the acceleration of the upper block would be expected to decrease by an amount of order 1%, which is too small to be detected from the observed acceleration data due to its very high level of measurement error.

(2) WTC7. This collapse was initiated in a very different way to that of the Twin Towers. It initiated low down in the structure, with the result that the falling mass was very much greater than the resisting mass below; conservation of momentum was as a result a very much smaller component of the retarding force. It also initiated over a much longer section of column, because the core columns were not heated sufficiently to cause significant loss of strength. The actual cause of collapse was most likely to have been the detachment of floor beams from the eastern core columns over several storeys, leaving a section of unbraced column too long to resist buckling. This led to a core collapse that preceded the collapse of the perimeter, which at the moment of collapse initiation was also unbraced over a very long section. This in turn led to an initial multi-storey buckle, which reduced the structural strength of the perimeter to a negligible amount over several storeys. The facade fell at close to freefall over these several storeys until it encountered significant resistance from parts of the structure further down that were still substantially intact.

The shorter answer is that the buildings were differently designed, experienced very different fire conditions, and collapsed in very different ways, so it's not surprising that the dynamics of the collapses were different. The slightly longer answer is that, viewed with some understanding of the details of construction, the nature of collapse initiation, some basic physics, and a rudimentary understanding of structural engineering, there's nothing at all surprising about the acceleration rate of either collapse.

Given that we understand the collapse dynamics, hypotheses of fire- and damage-induced collapses can be formulated that agree with all significant observables, there were no verifiable observations of any molten products that required temperatures in excess of those available to the fires before and after collapse, there is clear evidence from witness testimony and video sound tracks that there were no demolition explosives, and there is neither a rational motive nor an even vaguely plausible hypothesis for the installation of some other means of demolition, the only reasonable conclusion is that the impact damage and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC1/2 collapses, and the fires were the primary cause of the WTC7 collapse.

Dave
 
triforcharity said:
Phillips and Jordan was the company that organized and controlled the cleanup operations. Specifically, to sort and organize all of the material that came from Ground Zero. Once there, ATF, FBI, NTSB, and many other local, state, and federal LE officers trained in forensics, including forensic pathologists, and forensic anthropologists.

Everything there was sorted and examined for evidence. Not a SINGLE beam was discovered that was melted.
Click to expand...

Everything was sorted and examined for evidence? No it wasn't.

The point in posting that picture was to show you that to the untrained eye, many other things could be confused for molten steel, including glass. Which, is what the picture is of.

Now, you couldn't identify it, so why should you expect others to be able to?
Click to expand...

Then again, when actual beams are glowing and pools of molten steel are being described by numerous cleanup crew members, it rules out glass. Steel was something the Twin Towers had a lot of, far more than glass. These were... pools of molten glass? Is that your belief?

triforcharity said:
Yep, keep going.
Click to expand...

So you agree we can rule out the official story? Great. We should work together from here.
 
tempesta29 said:
Everything was sorted and examined for evidence? No it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, it most certainly was. You are free to contact Phillips and Jordan if you would like. They will tell you the same thing.

http://911depository.info/PDFs/Othe...nc - World Trade Center Forensic Recovery.pdf


tempesta29 said:
Then again, when actual beams are glowing and pools of molten steel are being described by numerous cleanup crew members, it rules out glass. Steel was something the Twin Towers had a lot of, far more than glass. These were... pools of molten glass? Is that your belief?
Click to expand...

So, you're telling me that because 10 people say it, than it must be true? This is called a logical fallacy. Can you name it?

And no, it does not rule out glass. In fact, you cannot rule out glass, or tin, or aluminum, or any of the other metals that are known to melt at or below 1800 deg. F.


tempesta29 said:
So you agree we can rule out the official story? Great. We should work together from here.
Click to expand...

Where does the official story say that there was molten steel at GZ? Nowhere, because there wasn't.
 
Dave Rogers said:
OK, since this is the key question, let me point out that this has been answered.

(1) The Twin Towers. As I already pointed out, the retardation of the falling blocks was primarily due to conservation of momentum, which is insensitive to structural damage so long as the damaged structural elements are still present. A quick estimate suggests that the acceleration of the upper block would be expected to decrease by an amount of order 1%, which is too small to be detected from the observed acceleration data due to its very high level of measurement error.
Click to expand...

But momentum cannot be constant because the forces acting on this mass are not constant. I'm not sure where you get this 1% business. The crash zone was apparently weak enough to induce a high velocity collapse. How can it offer the same resistance as undamaged structure?

(2) WTC7. This collapse was initiated in a very different way to that of the Twin Towers. It initiated low down in the structure, with the result that the falling mass was very much greater than the resisting mass below; conservation of momentum was as a result a very much smaller component of the retarding force. It also initiated over a much longer section of column, because the core columns were not heated sufficiently to cause significant loss of strength. The actual cause of collapse was most likely to have been the detachment of floor beams from the eastern core columns over several storeys, leaving a section of unbraced column too long to resist buckling. This led to a core collapse that preceded the collapse of the perimeter, which at the moment of collapse initiation was also unbraced over a very long section. This in turn led to an initial multi-storey buckle, which reduced the structural strength of the perimeter to a negligible amount over several storeys. The facade fell at close to freefall over these several storeys until it encountered significant resistance from parts of the structure further down that were still substantially intact.

The shorter answer is that the buildings were differently designed, experienced very different fire conditions, and collapsed in very different ways, so it's not surprising that the dynamics of the collapses were different. The slightly longer answer is that, viewed with some understanding of the details of construction, the nature of collapse initiation, some basic physics, and a rudimentary understanding of structural engineering, there's nothing at all surprising about the acceleration rate of either collapse.
Click to expand...

You don't actually explain how these core columns can completely fail to offer any resistance for such a significant period of time, which is the crux of my argument. How can you possibly say there is "nothing at all surprising" about a structure like this reaching gravitational acceleration? Has it ever happened before, even to buildings with far more fire damage? If not, then how can it not be surprising? We're talking about numerous, full-intact steel columns that failed to offer any resistance for 2.25 seconds. You seem to speak right from the NIST report, so accurately that you, just like NIST, simply omit the reasoning for free fall.

Given that we understand the collapse dynamics, hypotheses of fire- and damage-induced collapses can be formulated that agree with all significant observables, there were no verifiable observations of any molten products that required temperatures in excess of those available to the fires before and after collapse, there is clear evidence from witness testimony and video sound tracks that there were no demolition explosives, and there is neither a rational motive nor an even vaguely plausible hypothesis for the installation of some other means of demolition, the only reasonable conclusion is that the impact damage and subsequent fires were the cause of the WTC1/2 collapses, and the fires were the primary cause of the WTC7 collapse.

Dave
Click to expand...

And what was the cause of the gravitational acceleration? What happened to those columns to produce such an effect? I only know of columns being severed as able to produce gravitational acceleration.
 
tempesta29 said:
But momentum cannot be constant because the forces acting on this mass are not constant. I'm not sure where you get this 1% business. The crash zone was apparently weak enough to induce a high velocity collapse. How can it offer the same resistance as undamaged structure?
Click to expand...
F=ma by the time it reaches the floor the collapse cannot be arrested
You don't actually explain how these core columns can completely fail to offer any resistance for such a significant period of time, which is the crux of my argument. How can you possibly say there is "nothing at all surprising" about a structure like this reaching gravitational acceleration? Has it ever happened before, even to buildings with far more fire damage? If not, then how can it not be surprising? We're talking about numerous, full-intact steel columns that failed to offer any resistance for 2.25 seconds. You seem to speak right from the NIST report, so accurately that you, just like NIST, simply omit the reasoning for free fall.
Click to expand...
buckling and providing complete loss of support has already been explained to you
And what was the cause of the gravitational acceleration? What happened to those columns to produce such an effect? I only know of columns being severed as able to produce gravitational acceleration.
Click to expand...
There's your problem right there, YOU DON'T KNOW, so around and around and around you go.
 
There's your problem right there, YOU DON'T KNOW, so around and around and around you go.
Click to expand...
His entire argument is circular in it's logic. It reminds me of the scene in Bill & Teds Excellent Adventure as to why they need Eddie Van Halen to star in their music video.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0935664/
Bill: Ted, while I agree that, in time, our band will be most triumphant. The truth is, Wyld Stallyns will never be a super band until we have Eddie Van Halen on guitar.
Ted: Yes, Bill. But, I do not believe we will get Eddie Van Halen until we have a triumphant video.
Bill: Ted, it's pointless to have a triumphant video before we even have decent instruments.
Ted: Well, how can we have decent instruments when we don't really even know how to play?
Bill: That is why we NEED Eddie Van Halen!
Ted: And THAT is why we need a triumphant video.
Click to expand...
 
A W Smith said:
like,, Absence of daylight? Tell us a condition that will keep steel molten for weeks.
Click to expand...
Weeks? Nah...

Underground fires raged for months. O'Toole remembers in February seeing a crane lift a steel beam vertically from deep within the catacombs of Ground Zero. "It was dripping from the molten steel," he said.
Click to expand...

More like five months.
 
tempesta29 said:
But momentum cannot be constant because the forces acting on this mass are not constant. I'm not sure where you get this 1% business. The crash zone was apparently weak enough to induce a high velocity collapse. How can it offer the same resistance as undamaged structure?
Click to expand...

Like I said, scroll up; I showed my working. If you can't be bothered to read what I've alredy written, I can't be bothered to write it again.

tempesta29 said:
You don't actually explain how these core columns can completely fail to offer any resistance for such a significant period of time, which is the crux of my argument.
Click to expand...

Simple structural engineering. A buckled column offers negligible resistance once the plastic hinges have developed.

tempesta29 said:
How can you possibly say there is "nothing at all surprising" about a structure like this reaching gravitational acceleration?
Click to expand...

I can say it because I understand it, whereas you refuse to.

tempesta29 said:
Has it ever happened before, even to buildings with far more fire damage? If not, then how can it not be surprising? We're talking about numerous, full-intact steel columns that failed to offer any resistance for 2.25 seconds.
Click to expand...

No we're not. We're talking about a multi-storey buckle after the plastic hinges have developed, which wouldn't be expected to offer any resistance.

tempesta29 said:
You seem to speak right from the NIST report, so accurately that you, just like NIST, simply omit the reasoning for free fall.



And what was the cause of the gravitational acceleration?
Click to expand...

Gravity. Once there was no resistance from the buckled columns, that's the only acceleration possible.

tempesta29 said:
What happened to those columns to produce such an effect? I only know of columns being severed as able to produce gravitational acceleration.
Click to expand...

Like you said, you have no background in physics or engineering. The fact that something's outside your experience doesn't mean it's impossible, it means that your experience is inadequate for you to understand the situation.

Dave
 
Last edited:
triforcharity said:
Where is that quote from Mike? Because I know for a fact that the fires were officially considered extinguished 99 days after 9/11.

Is Temps making stuff up again?
Click to expand...
Sorry, it's a Jennifer Lin piece from The Philadelphia Inquirer.

99 days? Hmmm. I don't see how there can be any confusion over the dates as the piece says he didn't even start working at the site until January. Anyway, the "dripping" quote does get used by truthers a lot.
 
Yeah, but something tells me that is not factual. Could there possibly have been a piece of steel that was still red hot? Not likely, but possible. Could it have been molten? Not likely, as the heat from that would be maintaining fires below ground, big fires.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ground+Zero+fire+finally+put+out.-a080962845

December 20th it was declared officially out. But, there might have still been some small pockets below ground, but nothing big enough or hot enough.
 
triforcharity said:
December 20th it was declared officially out. But, there might have still been some small pockets below ground, but nothing big enough or hot enough.
Click to expand...
Sure. I see the BBC report on this similarly said:

"We consider the fire to be out," said Fire Department spokesman Robert Calise. But he warned it was possible that some small fires could still be burning...

Even now a fire truck will remain on standby at the site just in case, Mr Calise said, as it is still possible the fires could be reignited when debris is moved and oxygen fans into the hot remains deep underground.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1720423.stm
Click to expand...

So I guess there were still occasional fires, and this guy saw something he assumed to be molten steel, but was more likely something else.

Anyway, the reason for bringing it up was just to say that the nano-thermite hypothesis needs to explain "molten steel" reports stretching over months, not weeks. And even if we discard this particular example, that's still the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom