OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[triforcharity]

Definitely one of my favorite "debunker responses".

Get used to it. You'll be seeing it alot.

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.

Yes, in fact, the entire steel structure collapsed, globally.

Global : The whole thing.

Every bit of the steel framed structre of the Windsor tower collapsed.

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?

Are you still stuck on this?

Can you rule out any of the other substances that we have discussed?

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Which you have yet to cite for us.

Got links?

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.

See here.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1-6.pdf

Page 242 Fig 6-5 is the picture that does not show inward bowing.

Then, on page 243 Fig. 6-6, you see the inward bowing.

Page 249 details the inward bowing,

Page 257, Fig 6-17, page 258 Fig. 6-19, Page 260, Fig. 6-21, etc. etc. etc.

Now, what do you say now?

 

[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.

[Citation Required]
\ O /
|
/ \
​

Which you have yet to cite for us.

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess
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.

Yes, I am. What part of that makes you think kerosene has been blamed directly as the cause of this.

Once again, The continueing office fires were the major fuel source. They were ignited by the spread of thousands of gallons of kerosene. Arson investigators refer to this as an 'acellerant for a very good reason, it ACELLERATES the spread of a fire. In this case it caused there to be, within seconds, office fires that would have taken hours to develop if it had begun in the more common, single small location.

So the structural members at the fire floor levels were subject to a heating condition that 'normally' never occurs. In a 'normal' office fire, the fire begins in one small area and spreads relatively slowly. By the time it spreads to other floors you often have the orginal area beginning to exhaust its fuel. No so in the towers. All impact floors had large areas on fire immediatly.

If you cannot envision that this would have a major effect on the behaviour of the structure you once again demonstrate your inability in the realm of scientific thought.

 

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by tempesta29
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.

source please.

and, if he did indeed say that, he was clearly wrong. based on the evidence we now have.

 

[jaydeehess]

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.

What is there to clarify? I'm claiming explosives were used in the destruction of these buildings. What isn't clear to you that needs clarifying?

YOU abandoned the original topic of thermite with a post about loading "these explosives" into the towers. Given that YOU did not specify that you were abandoning the topic of the conversation it was , with good reason, that others believed YOU were claiming thermite was an explosive.

Having abandoned the OP and being very adamant that explosives were used to demolish the towers your arguement was then addressed.

NOW YOU are back to thermite and complaining that I accuse you of inconsistency.

OK, for clarification then; put forth an internally consistent senario of how the buildings were demolished,,please.

As what I would consider an example of the detail that would be satisfactory see post 346

 

[jaydeehess]

Quote:
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?

Thermite itself burns at about 4500F. It would require quite a bit of it to raise the temp of a large amount of steel to that.
YOU contend that this large amount of steel was molten and only lost heat slowly over the course of many weeks due to the insulative effects of being buried(right? after all if it could lose heat easily it would have cooled much more and earlier).
Do you have an estimate on about how much[ steel was liquid molten?I'm guessing you do not. Prove me wrong!
So do you have an estimate of how much thermite this would require?
I'm guessing you do not. Prove me wrong!

If it is a case of the insulative effect allowing the underground to remain hot for such a long time how do you not see that the same insulation would allow an underground fire to cause very high and long lasting temps? You have been informed of decades long and very hot underground fires. Why do you dismiss this evidence that underground fires can and do behave this way?

 

[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.

[Citation Required]
\ O /
|
/ \
​

Which you have yet to cite for us.

source please.

Post #346

 

[jaydeehess]

AMJ, are you asking me for a citation for my post 346?
It is a summary of the NIST report and Bazant's work. However I welcome correction if anyone would like to do so. If I got something very much wrong I'd like to know.

Given that tempesta is loathe to cite anything other than his own incredulity and uneducated guesswork I simply would like him to offer an internally consistent senario of how the buildings were taken down. I would like it to contain the same level of detail (or better) as my post 346, which I posted sans citation as well.

Part of this request is to stop the jumping form topic to topic and put a bit of order into the thread.
Part of it though is allow tempesta to fully clarify what he is contending happened since several times in this thread he has complained that we are not comprehending his line of thought.

 

[tempesta29]

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?

Are you asking if the workers who saw these melting columns stopped to take pictures? I guess they didn't.

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.

Why is it you ask for eyewitness testimony in an above question and then deem eyewitness testimony to be "nothing"?

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

Interesting. 5000 degrees F is 2000 degrees F hotter than steel's melting point.

Secondly, it would have cooled rather quickly.

So would glass and aluminum, yet the scene was still described as "like a foundry".

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

So you expect a layman to recount, amidst all of the wreckage, molten pools, massive heat and human death, that he saw a large nugget of solidified steel? Why would this have stood out in such a person's mind? These people were witnessing a mass grave.

 

[TJM]

AMJ, are you asking me for a citation for my post 346?
It is a summary of the NIST report and Bazant's work.

Not at all sir.

I'm just adding your post to what else needs to be addressed by our new truther friend. Call it a running tab.

My apologies if you thought otherwise.

 

[tempesta29]

source please.

"City in the Sky" discusses a white paper of February 3, 1964:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

and, if he did indeed say that, he was clearly wrong. based on the evidence we now have.

If you can't see the logical fallacy in the above statement, then I simply cannot help you.

 

[TJM]

"City in the Sky" discusses a white paper of February 3, 1964:




If you can't see the logical fallacy in the above statement, then I simply cannot help you.

Link please.

 

[jaydeehess]

Not at all sir.

I'm just adding your post to what else needs to be addressed by our new truther friend. Call it a running tab.

My apologies if you thought otherwise.

No, that's what I thought you were going for but wanted to check. No apology required.

 

[jaydeehess]

"City in the Sky" discusses a white paper of February 3, 1964:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact

.

First of all there does not appear to exist any 'paper' regarding calculations of this sort done by the engineers. The above is a second hand reference to such calculations which do not appear to exist. Robertson(IIRC) says that some calculations were done about a 707 flying low and slow (lost in fog) hitting the towers but they were not specifically designed to withstand an impact. These were back-off-the-napkin calcs done to appease those who were worried about a repeat of the B-25 impact on the Empire State Bldg.
there is no evidence at all that any calculations were done concerning the effects of thousands of gallons of acellerant in the towers.

Fact is no civilian structure has ever been designed with large, fast aircraft impact in mind.

Second of course is the fact that yes, the buildings did withstand the impact of an airliner going 500MPH (BTW many on the 9/11 CT side scoff at the idea that airliners can do 500MPH near the ground but you are the exception?).

NIST itself puts the loss of load carrying capacity due to impact at 10-15%

 

[jaydeehess]

OK, for clarification then; put forth an internally consistent senario of how the buildings were demolished,,please.

As what I would consider an example of the detail that would be satisfactory see post 346..................
.....Part of this request is to stop the jumping form topic to topic and put a bit of order into the thread.
Part of it though is allow tempesta to fully clarify what he is contending happened since several times in this thread he has complained that we are not comprehending his line of thought.

tempesta , please address this one way or another.

 

[tempesta29]

If it is a case of the insulative effect allowing the underground to remain hot for such a long time how do you not see that the same insulation would allow an underground fire to cause very high and long lasting temps? You have been informed of decades long and very hot underground fires. Why do you dismiss this evidence that underground fires can and do behave this way?

Because the initial fires themselves were not that incredible. The North Tower exhibited more fire than the South Tower, but its fires were not that emergent. The First Interstate Bank fire burned longer and hotter yet a report by Iklim Ltd. describes the structural damage from the fire:

In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.

Many people escaped through the crash zone of the South Tower, and none reported intense heat. This heat, we are told, is the principle cause of this building's collapse. It was hit last, it collapsed first, there is no visible fire externally when it collapses, and evacuees passed right through the crash zone and reported no serious heat.

Chief Oreo Palmer radioed from the crash zone of the South Tower:

"Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines."

Isolated pockets of fire. That doesn't sound that intense to me. This building collapsed FIRST by the way. Two isolated pockets of fire were able to destroy this huge, over-engineered mass of steel and concrete? This fire didn't even spread to the other side of the building. How is this a fire that weakened this structure to the point of rapid failure in less than an hour? This fire was getting weaker over time. One would be absolutely foolish to believe that this fire did what we're told it did.

 

[tempesta29]

deleted

 

[tempesta29]

tempesta , please address this one way or another.

I'm not a demolition expert. I don't know exactly how it was demolished.

 

[beachnut]

I'm not a demolition expert. I've heard it said that an explosive and thermite combination is plausible. What exactly are you asking of me, and why?

Where is your proof of melted steel columns? Proof, not silly talk. How much thermite does it take to melt a steel column? Why was no steel in the WTC found with traces of thermite products? Got any clue what thermite products are? What are the products of a thermite reaction? Anything?