OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[dafydd]

We can use deduction to narrow our possibilities. So fire, I've ruled out an office fire.

If a qualified expert like you says that,then we must sit up and take notice. Got any maths ready for us yet?

 

[triforcharity]

How much thermite would it take to keep steel molten for months?

My BEST guess, using just basic figures, is that it would be somewhere in the 100-200 million pounds. Yes, I said millions.

We're talking about this.....

Which, is about 196,476,000 pounds.

Yeah, not so much.

 

[pgimeno]

Not sure, how much kerosene do you need to keep have pits of over 2000 degrees weeks after a fire started?

You don't need kerosene for that. Regular flammable material is enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_fire#Notable_landfill_fires

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_786127.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoulder

And you haven't commented on how did they do it in the light of the role Marvin Bush and Securacom played, and the extent of the powerdowns.

 

[Julio]

My BEST guess, using just basic figures, is that it would be somewhere in the 100-200 million pounds. Yes, I said millions.

We're talking about this.....
[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/ussronaldreagan.jpg[/qimg]

Which, is about 196,476,000 pounds.

Yeah, not so much.

So, basically, WTC fell down because of the weight of thermite

 

[triforcharity]

Yes.

 

[tempesta29]

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.

You literally said "a quick estimate suggests". How is that your "working"?

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

Buckling is a process that offers measurable resistance. Buckling does not occur at the same speed as the collapse of severed columns.

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

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.

These are vertical steel columns. If they are buckling then there will be resistance. Buckling involves resistance. You clearly do not understand this or you refuse to acknowledge it out of hubris.

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

I guess since I've typed it so many times there isn't great utility in reiterating, but if columns are buckling then there will be resistance. Are you implying that the estimated 8 floors x 80+ columns all buckled at gravitational acceleration? Buckling is steel deforming, bending. Steel doesn't bend at the rate of gravity.

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

The only reason that I even know to make these points is because people with physics and engineering backgrounds made them. I didn't devise them on my own, so your point is moot, besides serving its purpose of being condescending.

 

[beachnut]

We can use deduction to narrow our possibilities. So fire, I've ruled out an office fire.

There was zero melted steel. The office fires, and vehicle fires from the garages, are what burned for a long time in the debris fire. Over 220 acres of office contents burning in the debris piles. You lost this one, but keep up your perfect record of failure, it is what 911 truth does best, and you have perfected the technique.

No one saw steel beams melting; you are spreading lies.

 

[A W Smith]

The only reason that I even know to make these points is because people with physics and engineering backgrounds made them. I didn't devise them on my own, so your point is moot, besides serving its purpose of being condescending.

Well isn't that precious? You admit your ignorance but refuse to acknowledge the points made by the vast majority of the worlds engineers and physicists. And you refuse to even verify your conclusions with the tools given to you.

 

[GlennB]

The only reason that I even know to make these points is because people with physics and engineering backgrounds made them. I didn't devise them on my own, so your point is moot, .....

Right, so you're repeating something you read on a 9/11 CT site or two, having accepted it as gospel.

Which sites and which authors ?

 

[tempesta29]

You don't need kerosene for that. Regular flammable material is enough.

Regular flammable material is enough to create 2000 degree pits smoldering weeks after the initial fire? To keep what many of you claim to be aluminum glowing hot two weeks after the event? To keep glass in a molten state two weeks later? Such temperatures are already surpassing the temperature of an office fire as it's raging.

Or, as eyewitnesses have recounted, to keep steel beams melting two weeks after the initial fire?

 

[tempesta29]

Well isn't that precious? You admit your ignorance but refuse to acknowledge the points made by the vast majority of the worlds engineers and physicists. And you refuse to even verify your conclusions with the tools given to you.

I admit a lack of a related background, not ignorance. I haven't heard any logical counterargument to my main points. In fact, none of the counters I've heard really address the main points; they simply repeat the lines of NIST.

Right, so you're repeating something you read on a 9/11 CT site or two, having accepted it as gospel.

Which sites and which authors ?

Call them 9/11 CT sites if you wish. I don't care. You can type up Newtonian principles on a gay porn site; it doesn't make them any less valid.

As for the constant querying about "who": address the argument rather than the arguer. That's what JREF tells us anyway.

 

[A W Smith]

Regular flammable material is enough to create 2000 degree pits smoldering weeks after the initial fire? To keep what many of you claim to be aluminum glowing hot two weeks after the event? To keep glass in a molten state two weeks later? Such temperatures are already surpassing the temperature of an office fire as it's raging.

Or, as eyewitnesses have recounted, to keep steel beams melting two weeks after the initial fire?

heres such a fire that's been burning since before you were born
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralia,_Pennsylvania


And then you have an underground pedestrian tunnel that goes several blocks to the east from the concourse, subway tunnels going north/south, and a pair of path tubes going east, Which in theory could result in this effect
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&...itle&resnum=2&ved=0CDoQsAQwAQ&biw=914&bih=374

 

[triforcharity]

Regular flammable material is enough to create 2000 degree pits smoldering weeks after the initial fire? To keep what many of you claim to be aluminum glowing hot two weeks after the event? To keep glass in a molten state two weeks later? Or, as eyewitnesses have recounted, to keep steel beams melting two weeks after the initial fire?

Your ignorace of fire and fire science is glowing red hot right now.

Yes, a hydrocarbon fire in an area about 16 acres around, certainly is capable of keeping aluminum and glass molten for weeks. The fires burned for 99 days!! 99 DAYS!! Do you not understand how BIG this pile was?

Such temperatures are already surpassing the temperature of an office fire as it's raging.

Incorrect.

 

[tempesta29]

Your ignorace of fire and fire science is glowing red hot right now.

Yes, a hydrocarbon fire in an area about 16 acres around, certainly is capable of keeping aluminum and glass molten for weeks. The fires burned for 99 days!! 99 DAYS!! Do you not understand how BIG this pile was?

Do you know how big the fire was initially? Again, this wasn't The Towering Inferno. There were fires in the crash zones. That's it. This wasn't a 16 acre fire. And how does telling me how many days the fire burned prove your argument over mine?

Fires did not spread significantly beyond their impact zones. Fires did not significantly emerge from the structure. Fires did not produce significant window breakage. Fires did not produce a glowing steel effect seen in very hot fires. Flames themselves diminished greatly over time. Hell, when the South Tower collapsed you could hardly see a single flame. Smoke became dark rather quickly, implying oxygen starvation. Smoke in the South Tower was black when it collapsed, and had become black just minutes after the crash. No survivors who passed through the South Tower's crash zone reported great heat.

Yet in the rubble, the scene was described by many as a foundry. "Lava" was described. Steel beams were seen melting. I'm sorry you don't see the inconsistency.

 

[triforcharity]

Like putty in my hands you are....

Do you know how big the fire was initially? Again, this wasn't The Towering Inferno. There were fires in the crash zones. That's it.

Well, 5+ acres of instant fires certainly is the biggest initial fire that I can recall.

This wasn't a 16 acre fire. And how does telling me how many days the fire burned prove your argument over mine?

Proves there was plenty of heat, and pleanty of material to burn.

Fires did not spread significantly beyond their impact zones.

Define significant?

Fires did not significantly emerge from the structure.

Ok.

Fires did not produce significant window breakage.

Define significant?

Fires did not produce a glowing steel effect seen in very hot fires.

Can you see the structral steel of the Towers before the collapse? No? Ok. Does you understand thermal conductivity?

Flames themselves diminished greatly over time.

Nope, they just moved.

Hell, when the South Tower collapsed you could hardly see a single flame.

Again, why would you expect to see flames DURING the collapse?

Smoke became dark rather quickly, implying oxygen starvation. Smoke in the South Tower was black when it collapsed, and had become black just minutes after the crash.

Black smoke does NOT imply an oxygen-starved fire. It implies a hydrocarbon fire. Black smoke that becomes white does imply a fire that is dying.

No survivors who passed through the South Tower's crash zone reported great heat.

That is because they were able to get to some of the emergency egress stairs.

Yet in the rubble, the scene was described by many as a foundry. "Lava" was described. Steel beams were seen melting. I'm sorry you don't see the inconsistency.

Do you understand the concept of a muck/landfill fire? Aparently not.

Show me physical evidence of a melted steel beam. I'll wait.....

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Buckling is a process that offers measurable resistance. Buckling does not occur at the same speed as the collapse of severed columns.

unless the columns are physically removed (not just cut) buckling would likely offer less resistance. Try standing on an empty coke can then tap the side......oh and BTW I'm a Mech Eng......and you are a ??????

These are vertical steel columns. If they are buckling then there will be resistance. Buckling involves resistance. You clearly do not understand this or you refuse to acknowledge it out of hubris.

Ok please show that to be the case. List all assumptions and show working............we'll wait

I guess since I've typed it so many times there isn't great utility in reiterating, but if columns are buckling then there will be resistance. Are you implying that the estimated 8 floors x 80+ columns all buckled at gravitational acceleration? Buckling is steel deforming, bending. Steel doesn't bend at the rate of gravity.

near enough as to make no measurable difference........

The only reason that I even know to make these points is because people with physics and engineering backgrounds made them. I didn't devise them on my own, so your point is moot, besides serving its purpose of being condescending.

really? who.......

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Do you know how big the fire was initially? Again, this wasn't The Towering Inferno. There were fires in the crash zones. That's it. This wasn't a 16 acre fire. And how does telling me how many days the fire burned prove your argument over mine?

WTC1 was on fire on at least 10 floors as can be seen in the NYPD helicopter photos. It was by any measure a huge fire.

 

[beachnut]

I hear this a lot from people like you. I have eyewitness corroboration. That is evidence. Saying I have "zero evidence" is just being dishonest. When you want to have an honest discussion, give me a shout.

You are spreading lies. You are unable to figure out what evidence is as you spew delusional nonsense.

Why have you failed to figure out 911 for over 9 years?

Do you know how big the fire was initially? Again, this wasn't The Towering Inferno. ...

You are spreading lies. A fire set with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel on multiple floors is the biggest fire you will ever see, you failed². You are fooled by the fire being in bright daylight, you failed³.

Fires did not spread significantly beyond their impact zones. ...

Another lie. This is the best 911 truth can do, spread lies, based on delusions.

You failed! The fires were so big they spread to other buildings! Wowzer, when you are wrong you are wrong BIG!

Wow, the fire from WTC towers spread to WTC7! Makes your statement one of the biggest failures on 911 issues since 911 truth was stillborn on 9-11-2001. Are you practicing for the 10^th anniversary of 911 truth continuous failure? Or are you saying the impact zone includes all of WTC7?

Yet in the rubble, the scene was described by many as a foundry. "Lava" was described. Steel beams were seen melting. I'm sorry you don't see the inconsistency.

There were no steel beams melting, you failed to present evidence. If you had something you would have a Pulitzer Prize, why have you failed to earn the Pulitzer? Using hearsay, lies and your failed opinions as evidence, not a formula for success. Are you trying to fail, or is this a joke?

 

[GlennB]

Right, so you're repeating something you read on a 9/11 CT site or two, having accepted it as gospel.

Which sites and which authors ?

Call them 9/11 CT sites if you wish. I don't care. You can type up Newtonian principles on a gay porn site; it doesn't make them any less valid.

As for the constant querying about "who": address the argument rather than the arguer. That's what JREF tells us anyway.

It's their arguments I'm concerned with. Fact is that certain scientists and engineers have had their arguments regularly debunked here and elsewhere. If we knew who you're getting this stuff from it would short-circuit what is becoming a tedious process as you skip from one well-worn subject to the next without establishing a single fact along the way. Even Prof. Jones has abandoned therm?te as a demolition agent after having to accept the debunkers' case, so if you're reading his old stuff then you're way out of date.

Lately it's molten steel you're into, so here's a thought: for thermite to be responsible for molten steel found weeks after the collapse, it would have had to be burning until weeks after collapse, yes? Otherwise the steel would have cooled and solidified. How is that possible?

 

[dafydd]

Do you know how big the fire was initially? Again, this wasn't The Towering Inferno. There were fires in the crash zones. That's it. This wasn't a 16 acre fire. And how does telling me how many days the fire burned prove your argument over mine?

Fires did not spread significantly beyond their impact zones. Fires did not significantly emerge from the structure. Fires did not produce significant window breakage. Fires did not produce a glowing steel effect seen in very hot fires. Flames themselves diminished greatly over time. Hell, when the South Tower collapsed you could hardly see a single flame. Smoke became dark rather quickly, implying oxygen starvation. Smoke in the South Tower was black when it collapsed, and had become black just minutes after the crash. No survivors who passed through the South Tower's crash zone reported great heat.

Yet in the rubble, the scene was described by many as a foundry. "Lava" was described. Steel beams were seen melting. I'm sorry you don't see the inconsistency.

Give it up mate,you don't have a clue.Go and do something useful and stop making a fool of yourself here.