OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[jaydeehess]

Let me just say that I am glad the thread has returned to OT.

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

Hold on their buckos...
Obfuscation on your part tri.....

The average density of an aircraft carrier is less than that of water(otherwise it would behave more like a reef).
So does thermite float?

Of course it would still have a mass approaching 2 Mega-pounds, but if it sinks its also would not take up the same volume as an a/c carrier.

What else floats? wood, teeny little rocks, and witches!! So if thermite floats its witchcraft!

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

Others have likely jumped on this highly erroneous description but allow me to join in...

First of all, yes, the collapses were unlike most others. Not suprising given two things; a) the number of high rise collapses that have ever taken place are few; b) the number of super high rise, long span office structures that have had major fires is extremely tiny(likely only three that we can all name); c) the initial collapse took place at the fire/impact floors. First 10-15% of the overall load carrying capacity at these levels was removed by the impacts and then the jet fuel ignited large area office fires over several floors within seconds of the impacts (A SITUATION THAT HAS NEVER OCCURED AT ALL ANYWHERE! DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THIS?)
The kerosene did not melt or weaken the steel. There simply was not enough of it but IT DID ignite large areas of several contiguous floors, ablaze within seconds of impact.

The constant re-iteration that the official history says that the kerosene melted the steel is very tired and very wrong. You will NOT find that anywhere in the NIST reports or in any paper written about the collapses. (you may find off hand remarks concerning this but NO serious studies that indicate it, EXCEPT in 9/11 CT web sites.

 

[DGM]

Let me just say that I am glad the thread has returned to OT.





Hold on their buckos...
Obfuscation on your part tri.....

The average density of an aircraft carrier is less than that of water(otherwise it would behave more like a reef).
So does thermite float?

Of course it would still have a mass approaching 2 Mega-pounds, but if it sinks its also would not take up the same volume as an a/c carrier.

What else floats? wood, teeny little rocks, and witches!! So if thermite floats its witchcraft!

Who are you that is so wise in the sciences??????






Watched it the other day with my 12 year old, he didn't "get it"........kids!

 

[triforcharity]

Let me just say that I am glad the thread has returned to OT.





Hold on their buckos...
Obfuscation on your part tri.....

The average density of an aircraft carrier is less than that of water(otherwise it would behave more like a reef).
So does thermite float?

Of course it would still have a mass approaching 2 Mega-pounds, but if it sinks its also would not take up the same volume as an a/c carrier.

What else floats? wood, teeny little rocks, and witches!! So if thermite floats its witchcraft!

I'm confused.

Did I use the wrong weight for the USS Ronald Reagan? If so, I apologize.

I used this page here http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/cvn76.htm
Using full displacement.

I see that they use long tons, and not standard tons (2,000 lbs)

 

[DGM]

I'm confused.

Did I use the wrong weight for the USS Ronald Reagan? If so, I apologize.

I used this page here http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/cvn76.htm
Using full displacement.

I see that they use long tons, and not standard tons (2,000 lbs)

My guess is you've never seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

 

[jaydeehess]

Having not the time or inclination to read every post since I was here last I am not sure if anyone has corrected tempesta on his assumption of how the towers collapsed, according to actual engineering principles, not 9/11 faux-science.

The initial collapse saw the floor trusses sag and fail due to the fires and impact damage. tempesta once posted saying that redhot steel was not seen in the course of the fires. Untrue! There are pictures taken by the police helicopter that see into the fire levels(a feat not possible from the ground obviously). They show quite clearly a hellish scene of widespread red hot volumes of the office areas.

The core columns at the fire floors also heated up losing some of their load carrying capacity. The perimeter columns were pulled inward by the sagging trusses as well as having been heated. The perimeter columns would have been , in general, less hot than the core columns as one side of them is in open air. (Even if one side of a core column is at a relatively cool 200deg F while the other side faces a fire at 1800 deg F this column will see much greater heating than a column that has 1000 deg on one side and 60 deg on the other) Columns that are heated over several floors will see temps greater in their centers than columns heated only on one floor.

The loss of trusses also meant that columns had no lateral bracing making them much more susceptible to long column buckling(another concept tempeta ignores or does not understand)

So we have heated and thus weakened columns, some columns severed due to impact, loss of lateral bracing and perimeter columns that are out of alignment due to inward bending. Finally the insults to load carrying capacity reach a breaking point and columns quickly fail completely, no longer is there a way to redistribute the load, and the upper block falls. It does so as the columns buckle and/or snap, a situation that removes all but a negligible amount of load carrying ability meaning that the upper block falls at something approaching free fall.

The falling mass is NOT significantly impacting the load carrying columns lower down. Instead it is impacting the floor spans. It should be patently obvious that a floor span is desinged not to take the mass let alone the dynamic impact force of 10+ storeys. The effect is akin to stomping on a styrofoam cup. Since this floor is swept through quickly, the falling mass loses little velocity and continues falling and hits the next floor span at even greater velocity. The mass of that first destroyed floor adding to the falling mass while some mass gets ejected outward. This now has the columns of two floors having their lateral support ripped away violently. They fail now due largely to long column buckling and extreme buffeting by the falling debris.

There is good evidence that this interior collapse preceeds the perimeter and core failures.

There is nothing at all that can stop this from occuring all the way down.

 

[jaydeehess]

I'm confused.

Did I use the wrong weight for the USS Ronald Reagan? If so, I apologize.

I used this page here http://www.nvr.navy.mil/nvrships/details/cvn76.htm
Using full displacement.

I see that they use long tons, and not standard tons (2,000 lbs)

I was not questioning your weight. I was pointing out that it may not take up the same volume.
I also used several smilies

My guess is you've never seen "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"

Indeed it was tongue in cheek reference to the genius that is the M.P. crew.

 

[jaydeehess]

Who are you that is so wise in the sciences??????






Watched it the other day with my 12 year old, he didn't "get it"........kids!

He did not like "he doesn't have $*** all over him"?

Jete la vache!

 

[jaydeehess]

I so do love how tempesta was so annoyed that anyone here implied that he was claiming thermite was used to demolish the towers but now has moved onto the long lasting underground fires and questioning how they could have lasted so long(presumably sans thermite)

It would be nice if an uneducated CT such as this latest ( 'I won't/can't read Bazant!' 'I will take my understanding of the NIST report from what other CTs have said about it')) would show up that at least promoted an internally consistent series of contentions.

 

[triforcharity]

I was not questioning your weight. I was pointing out that it may not take up the same volume.
I also used several smilies



Indeed it was tongue in cheek reference to the genius that is the M.P. crew.

My bad. Ok, so there was nothing wrong with what I posted. Gotcha.

And no, it's been many years since i've watched any Monty Python movies. But, when I did watch them, they were quite entertaining.

 

[tempesta29]

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

I don't recall Annie Leibovitz diving into the rubble at any point. Molten steel was not on the surface of this rubble pile, nor was it ever reported so.

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

Very basic logical fallacy. Show me the hijackers in their cockpits.

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

Well, it could have been about 5000 degrees F initially, perhaps hotter. What is so far fetched about there still being molten steel weeks later?

 

[tempesta29]

I so do love how tempesta was so annoyed that anyone here implied that he was claiming thermite was used to demolish the towers but now has moved onto the long lasting underground fires and questioning how they could have lasted so long(presumably sans thermite)

It would be nice if an uneducated CT such as this latest ( 'I won't/can't read Bazant!' 'I will take my understanding of the NIST report from what other CTs have said about it')) would show up that at least promoted an internally consistent series of contentions.

Your perception of inconsistency is probably a product of your failure in comprehension. I never said thermite wasn't used in the demolition. I was annoyed that I was misrepresented as saying thermite was an explosive, as I never made the claim.

 

[tempesta29]

The kerosene did not melt or weaken the steel.

Yet you're claiming these fires led to a structural failure of epic proportions. Oh wait, two structural failures of epic proportions.

 

[tempesta29]

There is so much fail in this post I am not even going to bother addressing it.

Definitely one of my favorite "debunker responses".

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).

What logic? Did the entire steel frame of the Windsor building collapse? It certainly doesn't appear so. Was that a "global collapse"? Define global collapse for me please.

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.

If you saw molten steel flowing like a river, you might refer to it as "like lava," which is exactly what this fire fighter did.

Is that all you got?

 

[TJM]

Yet you're claiming these fires led to a structural failure of epic proportions. Oh wait, two structural failures of epic proportions.

Well there's the matter of the buildings being hit by two 100 ton airplanes as well, truthers always seem to leave that part out for some reason. Must be a minor quibble.

 

[tempesta29]

Well there's the matter of the buildings being hit by two 100 ton airplanes as well, truthers always seem to leave that part out for some reason. Must be a minor quibble.

The principle cause of both collapses was the fire right? Actually, the buildings were able to withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 mph. According to the head structural engineer of the towers, ensuing fires wouldn't be a problem structurally either.

And where is there measurable sagging of the upper sections prior to collapse? Both sections just suddenly and spontaneously fall. Show me the sagging that should have accompanied such a structural failure.

 

[TJM]

The principle cause of both collapses was the fire right? Actually, the buildings were able to withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 mph. According to the head structural engineer of the towers, ensuing fires wouldn't be a problem structurally either.

Citation please.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The principle cause of both collapses was the fire right? Actually, the buildings were able to withstand the impact of a 707 at 600 mph. According to the head structural engineer of the towers, ensuing fires wouldn't be a problem structurally either.

[Citation Required]
\ O /
|
/ \
​

 

[triforcharity]

I don't recall Annie Leibovitz diving into the rubble at any point. Molten steel was not on the surface of this rubble pile, nor was it ever reported so.

But surely there was some pictures of this melted column, right?

Surely there is eyewitness accounts of a large nugget of solidified steel somewhere, right?

Right?

Very basic logical fallacy. Show me the hijackers in their cockpits.

No, you've been explained this numerous times. A hijacker in the pilots seat is not the only evidence that we have of a hijacking.

HOWEVER, the only evidence you have of molten steel is......nothing.

Well, it could have been about 5000 degrees F initially, perhaps hotter. What is so far fetched about there still being molten steel weeks later?

Well, first off, the steel would have had to been in a blasting furnace, as that is well beyond it's melting point. Like, 2,000 deg. F higher.

Secondly, it would have cooled rather quickly.

Lastly, again, the lack of an eyewitness account of a large nugget of solidified steel, or even a picture of it.

 

[triforcharity]

Yet you're claiming these fires led to a structural failure of epic proportions. Oh wait, two structural failures of epic proportions.

Do you understand when steel begins to loose it's strength?

Do you know? Or are you stuck on this kerosene ************.