OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[pgimeno]

Buckling is a process that offers measurable resistance.

Can you prove that such resistance should have been "measurable" in the videos as opposed to "negligible"?

Meanwhile, here's a counterargument:

This curve [showing the buckling resistance] is an optimistic upper bound since, in reality, the plastic hinges develop fracture (Bažant and Planas 1998), and probably do so already at rather small rotations.
​

Bažant, Z.P. and Zhou, Y - Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis. P.6.

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?

Yes. Did you bother to take a look at the links I posted? The first one talks about landfill fires that last months. The second one talks about a coal fire that lasts thousands of years, with a temperature reaching 1700°C (about 3100°F).

But you're neglecting to consider the testimonies that talk about molten steel being there months after the collapse, and to answer this simple question: how is thermite able to last so long?

Fires did not spread significantly beyond their impact zones. Fires did not significantly emerge from the structure.

Both wrong:

Oh, but they look small from that distance, don't they? Yeah, things look smaller when they are far. See how small the fires actually were:

How could such a small fire be considered raging?

Fires did not produce significant window breakage.

Define significant?

I agree with triforcharity: define significant, in the light of NCSTAR1-5A figure 8-120 (p.292, which is 388 of the PDF) and NCSTAR 1-5A figure 9-91 (p.403, which is 107 of the PDF).

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

How do you know? Did you see the core? You're not saying it didn't happen just because you couldn't see it, are you?

Obviously, under daylight, that could not be seen to the naked eye.

And you've forgotten again to reply to my question about the relationship between Marvin Bush and the WTC security, and of the WTC2 upper-part powerdown, which together seriously undermine the credibility of your stated reasons to believe that the whole building was prepared with explosives and thermite. In light of that, how could such explosives be installed without anyone noticing?

(P.S. to moderators: both formauri.es and 11-s.eu.org are my own hostings)

 

[tempesta29]

Can you prove that such resistance should have been "measurable" in the videos as opposed to "negligible"?

You're the one suggesting buckling due to excessive load is immeasurably close to free fall. Why don't you just own up to your burden of proof? You wanna claim large steel columns can buckle virtually as fast as a bowling ball dives through the air? Go right ahead. That's your job. And these were dozens of steel columns doing so in harmony.

Can you cite one instance where steel columns have buckled due to excessive load and produced free fall?

Meanwhile, here's a counterargument:

This curve [showing the buckling resistance] is an optimistic upper bound since, in reality, the plastic hinges develop fracture (Bažant and Planas 1998), and probably do so already at rather small rotations.
​

Bažant, Z.P. and Zhou, Y - Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis. P.6.

Ugh. Make your arguments and cite them from there. Do not just direct me to your "required reading". This is an internet forum. It functions just as any other debate would. "Read this" is not an argument.

Yes. Did you bother to take a look at the links I posted? The first one talks about landfill fires that last months. The second one talks about a coal fire that lasts thousands of years, with a temperature reaching 1700°C (about 3100°F).

Well then, I guess 9/11 just makes sense. No other office fires have ever behaved this way, despite many having been so much more intense. We'll just believe that this one was special, cause it was 9/11, and terrorism, and Jesus, and America. Yeehaw.

But you're neglecting to consider the testimonies that talk about molten steel being there months after the collapse, and to answer this simple question: how is thermite able to last so long?

Wait. On one hand you talk about a coal fire that lasts thousands of years at 3100 degrees F and then you immediately question molten steel that is months old? Please be consistent.

How do you know? Did you see the core? You're not saying it didn't happen just because you couldn't see it, are you?

Are you implying that fires were hot enough to produce a glowing effect on the core yet the perimeter is somehow nowhere near glowing? What would allow such a discrepancy in temperature?

This whole "there's magic happening in the building that you can't see" business is just getting old. We've seen office fires absolutely gut steel framed high rises and the buildings stand. No, they don't produce underground lava.

Obviously, under daylight, that could not be seen to the naked eye.

Oh absolute BS.

 

[dafydd]

You're the one suggesting buckling due to excessive load is immeasurably close to free fall. Why don't you just own up to your burden of proof? You wanna claim large steel columns can buckle virtually as fast as a bowling ball dives through the air? Go right ahead. That's your job. And these were dozens of steel columns doing so in harmony.

Can you cite one instance where steel columns have buckled due to excessive load and produced free fall?



Ugh. Make your arguments and cite them from there. Do not just direct me to your "required reading". This is an internet forum. It functions just as any other debate would. "Read this" is not an argument.



Well then, I guess 9/11 just makes sense. No other office fires have ever behaved this way, despite many having been so much more intense. We'll just believe that this one was special, cause it was 9/11, and terrorism, and Jesus, and America. Yeehaw.



Wait. On one hand you talk about a coal fire that lasts thousands of years at 3100 degrees F and then you immediately question molten steel that is months old? Please be consistent.



Are you implying that fires were hot enough to produce a glowing effect on the core yet the perimeter is somehow nowhere near glowing? What would allow such a discrepancy in temperature?

This whole "there's magic happening in the building that you can't see" business is just getting old. We've seen office fires absolutely gut steel framed high rises and the buildings stand. No, they don't produce underground lava.



Oh absolute BS.

One day you may give a serious answer to the questions put to you.We can but hope,but so far you are following the tried and tested truther hand waving and goalpost moving path through total ignorance-land.We have heard it all before.Yawn.

 

[Quad4_72]

Can you cite one instance where steel columns have buckled due to excessive load and produced free fall?

No other office fires have ever behaved this way, despite many having been so much more intense. We'll just believe that this one was special, cause it was 9/11, and terrorism, and Jesus, and America. Yeehaw.

Ok I gotta jump in on these statements as they are probably some of the most redundantly retarded statements you guys make. For the last time, The towers were not your average office fires and the towers were completely different from any other collapse the world has ever seen. You know why? Because they were hit with two fully fueled jets traveling at the speed of a bullet! No other building in history has ever seen this kind of attack, so of course there is not going to be any comparison out there. Please stop citing the "never before have we seen" argument because it is getting EXTREMELY old.

Technically, I could make the same argument to you couldn't I? "Never before in history has there been a steel framed high rise top down demolition by the use of thermite or nano thermite, therefore it is not possible." See how that works? See how silly that argument is? Please stop using it.

This whole "there's magic happening in the building that you can't see" business is just getting old. We've seen office fires absolutely gut steel framed high rises and the buildings stand. No, they don't produce underground lava.

The Windsor fire in Madrid completely destroyed and caused global collapse of the outer steel frame. The inner concrete core survived, but the outer steel frame collapsed. How do you explain that? And no, "underground lava" was not present in the rubble at ground zero.

"la·va  –noun 1. the molten, fluid rock that issues from a volcano or volcanic vent."


No volcanoes were present at ground zero, so please stop making this silly claim as well. The temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt an abundance of various alloys that were present, such as aluminum.

 

[funk de fino]

Well then, I guess 9/11 just makes sense. No other office fires have ever behaved this way, despite many having been so much more intense. We'll just believe that this one was special, cause it was 9/11, and terrorism, and Jesus, and America. Yeehaw.

Really? Why do you lie? Why did you ignore the pictures of the huge fires that spread far from the impact zones? Because you are dishonest. One can forgive truthers for being stupid but not dishonest.

 

[tempesta29]

Ok I gotta jump in on these statements as they are probably some of the most redundantly retarded statements you guys make. For the last time, The towers were not your average office fires and the towers were completely different from any other collapse the world has ever seen. You know why? Because they were hit with two fully fueled jets traveling at the speed of a bullet! No other building in history has ever seen this kind of attack, so of course there is not going to be any comparison out there. Please stop citing the "never before have we seen" argument because it is getting EXTREMELY old.

Wow. The collapses of the Twin Towers were different from any other collapse the world has ever seen. Quite an argument!!!

Technically, I could make the same argument to you couldn't I? "Never before in history has there been a steel framed high rise top down demolition by the use of thermite or nano thermite, therefore it is not possible." See how that works? See how silly that argument is? Please stop using it.

A high impact collision from a commercial airliner was part of the design. An analysis in the 1960s concluded a 707 could smash it at 600 theoretical mph. So is it the fire that you turn to now? That's what I normally hear. It was kerosene that did it. Yep.

Why were bombs going off in the basement? That was weird. People were rocked right off their feet. Oh. Nevermind that. Nevermind the melting steel beams people saw. Just nevermind any of that. Never-f*cking-mind.

The Windsor fire in Madrid completely destroyed and caused global collapse of the outer steel frame. The inner concrete core survived, but the outer steel frame collapsed. How do you explain that? And no, "underground lava" was not present in the rubble at ground zero.

la·va  –noun 1. the molten, fluid rock that issues from a volcano or volcanic vent."

Weee, semantics! I love them too. They're fun. What they described was "like lava". A group of fire fighters is on tape describing the molten steel. They were all in accord with this assessment. Others actually saw beams themselves melting. I posted a video of a fireman describing, and presenting, two steel beams that had melted together. Steel melted. Deal with it.

No volcanoes were present at ground zero, so please stop making this silly claim as well. The temperatures in the rubble pile were sufficient to melt an abundance of various alloys that were present, such as aluminum.

Well ya got me: no volcanoes were at ground zero. Go ahead and quote where I claimed volcanoes and I will literally leave this forum forever, hop into a rented Ferrari Testarossa and drive it off a cliff while singing happy birthday to Hitler.

Yes, the pools were just aluminum. Good call. What they saw was all aluminum, or glass, or whatever preserves your little fantasy. People who saw steel beams melting are just lying, including the ground zero Chaplain quoted. He's a liar. Stupid lying Chaplain who has so much to gain from conspiracy insinuation. The Twin Towers were huge masses of steel, but this was all just aluminum that so many saw, weeks after the collapses, even though this aluminum would have been silver. But it was glass! Pools of molten glass! Hot dog. I knew it.

 

[Quad4_72]

Wow. The collapses of the Twin Towers were different from any other collapse the world has ever seen. Quite an argument!!!



A high impact collision from a commercial airliner was part of the design. An analysis in the 1960s concluded a 707 could smash it at 600 theoretical mph. So is it the fire that you turn to now? That's what I normally hear. It was kerosene that did it. Yep.

Why were bombs going off in the basement? That was weird. People were rocked right off their feet. Oh. Nevermind that. Nevermind the melting steel beams people saw. Just nevermind any of that. Never-f*cking-mind.



Weee, semantics! I love them too. They're fun. What they described was "like lava". A group of fire fighters is on tape describing the molten steel. They were all in accord with this assessment. Others actually saw beams themselves melting. I posted a video of a fireman describing, and presenting, two steel beams that had melted together. Steel melted. Deal with it.



Well ya got me: no volcanoes were at ground zero. Go ahead and quote where I claimed volcanoes and I will literally leave this forum forever, hop into a rented Ferrari Testarossa and drive it off a cliff while singing happy birthday to Hitler.

Yes, the pools were just aluminum. Good call. What they saw was all aluminum, or glass, or whatever preserves your little fantasy. People who saw steel beams melting are just lying, including the ground zero Chaplain quoted. He's a liar. Stupid lying Chaplain who has so much to gain from conspiracy insinuation. The Twin Towers were huge masses of steel, but this was all just aluminum that so many saw, weeks after the collapses, even though this aluminum would have been silver. But it was glass! Pools of molten glass! Hot dog. I knew it.

There is so much fail in this post I am not even going to bother addressing it. If you won't accept logical answers the first go around, you sure as hell won't accept them the second time they are presented. Keep fighting the fantasy fight against the government, I am sure one day you will make a difference (You won't).

ETA: "Lava" and "molten steel" are not synonyms. Lava implies that a volcano was present at ground zero. It is quite silly to EVER use the term "lava" when describing any event that took place on 9/11. But I am guessing that you probably also use the term "Pyroclastic flow" to describe the dust cloud after the collapses, so none of this comes as any surprise to me.

 

[AZCat]

A high impact collision from a commercial airliner was part of the design. An analysis in the 1960s concluded a 707 could smash it at 600 theoretical mph.

It did? I'd be interested in reading such an analysis. I wonder what simplifying assumptions they made in order to to reach a solution.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

It did? I'd be interested in reading such an analysis. I wonder what simplifying assumptions they made in order to to reach a solution.

This ought to be good...

 

[Julio]

Why were bombs going off in the basement? That was weird.

So, bombs in the basement to bring down a tower from top. Quite smart, indeed.

 

[GlennB]

A high impact collision from a commercial airliner was part of the design. An analysis in the 1960s concluded a 707 could smash it at 600 theoretical mph. So is it the fire that you turn to now? That's what I normally hear. It was kerosene that did it. Yep.

Nope. The theoretical airliner was presumed lost in fog on approach to landing and therefore travelling quite slowly. And they didn't factor in the resultant fires.

Meanwhile:

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?

Thoughts?

 

[SlamDunk]

It did? I'd be interested in reading such an analysis. I wonder what simplifying assumptions they made in order to to reach a solution.

I'm pretty sure that Leslie Robertson said the largest passenger airliner in service at the time at typical approach speed more like 130-160 kts.

 

[twinstead]

Are we REALLY going through this again? How many threads have we discussed this before?

I think it's a safe bet to say that nobody who was involved in the design of the WTC finds the collapses suspicious. Unless some truther can find one, this is a non issue.

 

[triforcharity]

Wow. The collapses of the Twin Towers were different from any other collapse the world has ever seen. Quite an argument!!!

Becuse that would be a factual statement. Never before in history had a steel framed skyscraper been the target of a 767 traveling at aproximately 733 feet per SECOND, had SEVERE damage inflicted upon it, which induced 5+ acres of intense fire that went completly unfought for ~1 hour. NEVER.

So, yes, the WTC towers were unique. Very unique.

A high impact collision from a commercial airliner was part of the design. An analysis in the 1960s concluded a 707 could smash it at 600 theoretical mph. So is it the fire that you turn to now? That's what I normally hear.

Can you cite this?

It was kerosene that did it. Yep.

Kerosene was the ignition source. The contents of the buildings were the fuel.

Why were bombs going off in the basement? That was weird. People were rocked right off their feet. Oh. Nevermind that.

Obviously they were not able to do much damage, given the fact that A) the collapse began at the TOP of the structure and B) Willie Rodriguez survived with absolutely no barotrauma injuries and C) Willie's story changed from the accounts he gave the day of, and proceeding days, as they do now.

Nevermind the melting steel beams people saw. Just nevermind any of that. Never-f*cking-mind.

Prove it. Not ONE picture of melted steel columns. NOT a SINGLE one.

Where are the previously molten nuggets? Got any pictures of them? How about eyewitness accounts of these huge solid nuggets?

Weee, semantics! I love them too. They're fun. What they described was "like lava". A group of fire fighters is on tape describing the molten steel. They were all in accord with this assessment.

Again, show me that they could look at a molten substance and positively identify it as steel, and not lead, tin, aluminum, glass, or any of the other things that it most certainly could have been.

Others actually saw beams themselves melting. I posted a video of a fireman describing, and presenting, two steel beams that had melted together. Steel melted. Deal with it.

Really? I missed that. Please repost that. I would love to see it.

Well ya got me: no volcanoes were at ground zero. Go ahead and quote where I claimed volcanoes and I will literally leave this forum forever, hop into a rented Ferrari Testarossa and drive it off a cliff while singing happy birthday to Hitler.

But then our newest ball of string wouldn't be around for us to bat around!!

Yes, the pools were just aluminum. Good call. What they saw was all aluminum, or glass, or whatever preserves your little fantasy.

Can you conclusively say that they were not? Oh, no, you can't? What a suprise.....

People who saw steel beams melting are just lying, including the ground zero Chaplain quoted. He's a liar. Stupid lying Chaplain who has so much to gain from conspiracy insinuation.

Show us the melted steel beams. I've talked to the people at Phillips and Jordan, and they found no molten steel whatsoever.

The Twin Towers were huge masses of steel, but this was all just aluminum that so many saw, weeks after the collapses, even though this aluminum would have been silver. But it was glass! Pools of molten glass! Hot dog. I knew it.

Or aluminum, or glass, or tin, or lead, or.......

You still haven't shown how this thermite was able to keep steel molten for weeks.

Did you see the picture of the USS Ronald Reagan I posted?

 

[pgimeno]

You're the one suggesting buckling due to excessive load is immeasurably close to free fall.

Am I?

I could hardly suggest that, given that the towers didn't fall in freefall.

Why don't you just own up to your burden of proof? You wanna claim large steel columns can buckle virtually as fast as a bowling ball dives through the air? Go right ahead. That's your job. And these were dozens of steel columns doing so in harmony.

Can you cite one instance where steel columns have buckled due to excessive load and produced free fall?

Meanwhile, here's a counterargument:

This curve [showing the buckling resistance] is an optimistic upper bound since, in reality, the plastic hinges develop fracture (Bažant and Planas 1998), and probably do so already at rather small rotations.
​

Bažant, Z.P. and Zhou, Y - Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis. P.6.

Ugh. Make your arguments and cite them from there. Do not just direct me to your "required reading". This is an internet forum. It functions just as any other debate would. "Read this" is not an argument.

What an awful dodge. I posted a citation and the corresponding reference in case you wanted to check it or its context. The paragraph I posted already indicates that fracture of the steel leads to a reduced resistance from buckling. My statement is therefore supported by at least two authorities, NIST and Bazant. Quote from NIST related to WTC7 (emphasis added):

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face.​

NCSTAR 1A, p.45 (87 of that PDF). (I'm not telling you to read the whole reference. I already copied the relevant excerpt; stick to it.)

The burden of proof, therefore, corresponds to you to prove these authorities wrong, by showing reasonable proof of that buckling resistance being big enough to be noticeable.

Still waiting.

Well then, I guess 9/11 just makes sense. No other office fires have ever behaved this way, despite many having been so much more intense.

How many office fires have continued underground being unaccessible due to the huge amount of debris over them?

Do you manage to realize the emptiness of your arguments?

On the other hand, I've shown to you landfill and carbon fires being active for months and years, making your point moot.

Wait. On one hand you talk about a coal fire that lasts thousands of years at 3100 degrees F and then you immediately question molten steel that is months old? Please be consistent.

Dude, please, read what I post, not what you want to understand of what I post. Where did I question molten steel?

This is what I wrote. Please read it again, this time for comprehension:

But you're neglecting to consider the testimonies that talk about molten steel being there months after the collapse, and to answer this simple question: how is thermite able to last so long?
​

And please answer the question, don't dodge it. You're the one claiming that thermite can explain that, so please go ahead and tell us how does thermite explain it. You haven't provided an explanation yet. I keep waiting.

Speaking of which, you keep dodging the question of how the explosives and thermite could be installed without anyone noticing, given that your point about Marvin Bush has been proved wrong and that only half of WTC2 had a powerdown.

Are you implying that fires were hot enough to produce a glowing effect on the core yet the perimeter is somehow nowhere near glowing? What would allow such a discrepancy in temperature?

No, that's not what I'm implying. I'm saying that you just made up something that you can't know for sure. Not that surprising, though; I'm used to truthers making up "facts".

But, since you ask, the exterior panels were exposed to external wind, which cooled them somehow. But there's more. In the few points of the external panels where the isolation was dislodged (since the gross of the dislodging had to happen necessarily in the core), the paint was... guess what color? Red. Could you really distinguish a red hot material painted red under daylight?

And guess what side of the steel did the flames affect?

Can you see how deeply the red hot zone extends in this piece of iron?

http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-341...ng-steel-to-strike-while-the-iron-is-hot.html

Oh absolute BS.

Who's in denial now? Dodge is all you can do now.

Can you adventure the temperature of this piece of metal?

http://www.corbisimages.com/images/67/FC7E25CE-070D-4E01-A3EC-3B576DC1BB52/O-006-0101.jpg

Let me guess the answer:

 

[pgimeno]

Meanwhile:

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?

Thoughts?

Clue:

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/gallery/data/509/medium/forging.jpg

 

[twinstead]

I see now. tempesta is basing practically an entire world view on things that are false, half true, unable to be verified, or out-and-out lies, and then arrogantly lecturing people who point that out to him.

There's a reason your cult is still a tiny minority, tempesta. You just don't know why yet.

 

[angrysoba]

I see now. tempesta is basing practically an entire world view on things that are false, half true, unable to be verified, or out-and-out lies, and then arrogantly lecturing people who point that out to him.

How refreshing!

 

[Mr.Herbert]

I'm pretty sure that Leslie Robertson said the largest passenger airliner in service at the time at typical approach speed more like 130-160 kts.

Wow.... this is a similar post that the new Mr. Herbert just posted at ATS!

Boeing spokeswoman Leslie Hazzard in this recording saying 500+ mph at 700 feet is impossible.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread602869/pg97

 

[GlennB]

Clue:

http://www.bushcraftuk.com/gallery/data/509/medium/forging.jpg

You think he'll move on to the "eut..." word next? Not that. Anything but that.