OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[tempesta29]

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?

Stop asking the same question over and over. I posted eyewitness accounts. If you don't like them, then just move on.

Thermite was found in Neils Harrit's study. Don't like it? Move on, or present me with a counter argument to that study by men and women with comparable credentials.

 

[332nd]

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.

Two Isolated pockets of fire on what floor?

 

[332nd]

Stop asking the same question over and over. I posted eyewitness accounts. If you don't like them, then just move on.

So these eyewitnesses can tell the difference between molten metal? How do you know this?

Thermite was found in Neils Harrit's study. Don't like it? Move on, or present me with a counter argument to that study by men and women with comparable credentials.

Ever watch Mythbusters?

 

[Blaupunkt69]

Two Isolated pockets of fire on what floor?

Just going by memory but I think it was a sky lobby. A floor where the plane had barely impacted and contained very few combustable materials being that it was a transitional floor full of elevator banks. I think what was also reported were numerous dead bodies.

 

[tempesta29]

So these eyewitnesses can tell the difference between molten metal? How do you know this?

Some eyewitnesses reported melting steel beams.

Ever watch Mythbusters?

I'm a huge Top Chef fan myself.

 

[adkinsjr]

Which you have yet to cite for us.

Got links?



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?

I don't think tempesta will have much to say on that one. Richard Gage has told the lie, "no deformation associated with collapse."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10YTDOdyju0

Oh, if you want to be amused, read some of the recent comments left by foaming-mouthed "truthers". They aren't too happy with the truth (irony?). The reality that Richard Gage, the darling of the "truth" cult, can't get the facts straight is too much for some...

 

[tempesta29]

Bowing my rear. There is nothing to distinguish what NIST calls inward bowing from the deformation of the perimeter due to the plane crash itself. Secondly, the perimeter was far from being the primary load bearing structure of these buildings. The perimeter was essentially a netting. Poking holes in the netting is in no way going to cause bowing due to excessive load bearing.

My point was completely missed: there is no evidence of the upper sections' giving way prior to their sudden drop. The upper sections do not progressively sink before failure occurs. Failure in both instances is sudden. The buildings stand at their normal heights, then, suddenly, without any signs of impending collapse, the upper sections instantly begin their descents at constant rates of acceleration. These rates are constant from the moment the upper sections begin descending. They are constant through the crash zones, and they are even constant as the upper sections clear the allegedly critically damaged crash zones into undamaged structure.

 

[Dragon37]

Bowing my rear. There is nothing to distinguish what NIST calls inward bowing from the deformation of the perimeter due to the plane crash itself. Secondly, the perimeter was far from being the primary load bearing structure of these buildings. The perimeter was essentially a netting. Poking holes in the netting is in no way going to cause bowing due to excessive load bearing.

You don't see the bowing because you don't accept any evidence that questions your outlandish "theories". So the outer edges of the floors were just floating?

My point was completely missed: there is no evidence of the upper sections' giving way prior to their sudden drop. The upper sections do not progressively sink before failure occurs. Failure in both instances is sudden. The buildings stand at their normal heights, then, suddenly, without any signs of impending collapse, the upper sections instantly begin their descents at constant rates of acceleration. These rates are constant from the moment the upper sections begin descending. They are constant through the crash zones, and they are even constant as the upper sections clear the allegedly critically damaged crash zones into undamaged structure.

You don't have a point so it wasn't missed. All you are doing is regurgitating the same things over and over again. Then you ignore all the evidence that shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[tsig]

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

Planes>fire>gravity. There you are.

 

[GlennB]

Bowing my rear. There is nothing to distinguish what NIST calls inward bowing from the deformation of the perimeter due to the plane crash itself.

That's just wrong. I wonder if you can admit it?

Secondly, the perimeter was far from being the primary load bearing structure of these buildings. The perimeter was essentially a netting. Poking holes in the netting is in no way going to cause bowing due to excessive load bearing.

It's best if you don't simply parrot stuff you've read elsewhere. The walls were primary load-bearing structures, being loaded by the floor trusses and via the hat truss.

My point was completely missed: there is no evidence of the upper sections' giving way prior to their sudden drop. The upper sections do not progressively sink before failure occurs. Failure in both instances is sudden. The buildings stand at their normal heights, then, suddenly, without any signs of impending collapse, the upper sections instantly begin their descents at constant rates of acceleration.

Utterly wrong, for both towers. See the still above plus:

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

Since you're doing such a good impression of a moron, I'm going to treat you like one. Go to page 3 of this thread (assuming you're viewing it as 40 posts per page), scroll to post 97, and read it. Then present your working in as much detail as I've given in post 97 to show how much decrease in deceleration you would expect.

Buckling is a process that offers measurable resistance.

Not once plastic hinges have developed. This is basic structural engineering.

Buckling does not occur at the same speed as the collapse of severed columns.

This is a meaningless statement. Neither process has a characteristic speed. You're showing your ignorance.

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.

Many, many more people, also with physics and engineering backgrounds, have pointed out that they're wrong. Why do you choose to elevate the authority of the tiny minority over that of the majority consensus? I'll tell you why; it's because you're not interested in hearing anything that disagrees with the conclusion you want to make. Therefore, you'll take the opinion of a delusional incompetent over that of a world leading expert in structural engineering.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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

I love it when truthers reference a 1964 paper as proof that the Twin Towers couldn't possibly have collapsed, at the same time as other truthers are claiming that the NIST modelling is inadequate to prove that it could have collapsed. I wonder if any of them even understand what sort of computing power was available in 1964, and hence just how oversimplified the 1964 model had to be.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

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?

Ah, that well-worn piece of outright lying that the truth movement loves to repeat. Palmer reached the 78th floor of WTC2, and reported two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. Floor 78 had been hit by one wingtip of flight 175. The really big fires were on the 80th and upwards, and Palmer never reached them to report on them because the building collapsed immediately after he made his report. But people who claim to be seeking the truth are happy to repeat the blatant lie that Palmer's report of local conditions on floor 78 described the entire body of fire present in all parts of WTC2, which shows exactly how committed they are to seeking the truth.

Dave

 

[332nd]

Some eyewitnesses reported melting steel beams.

They know the molten material was steel how?

I'm a huge Top Chef fan myself.

Ah, so you didn't see the episode where 1,000lbs of thermite struggled to cut an SUV in half. Any idea how much would be needed to cut a steel beam from the WTC?

 

[332nd]

Ah, that well-worn piece of outright lying that the truth movement loves to repeat. Palmer reached the 78th floor of WTC2, and reported two isolated pockets of fire on the 78th floor. Floor 78 had been hit by one wingtip of flight 175. The really big fires were on the 80th and upwards, and Palmer never reached them to report on them because the building collapsed immediately after he made his report. But people who claim to be seeking the truth are happy to repeat the blatant lie that Palmer's report of local conditions on floor 78 described the entire body of fire present in all parts of WTC2, which shows exactly how committed they are to seeking the truth.

Dave

Oh no! Facts! Time to change the subject!

 

[A W Smith]

"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.

The text you quote makes absolutely no mention of fire. Are you that stupid?

 

[A W Smith]

Stop asking the same question over and over. I posted eyewitness accounts. If you don't like them, then just move on.

Thermite was found in Neils Harrit's study. Don't like it? Move on, or present me with a counter argument to that study by men and women with comparable credentials.

They found nothing but paint. And their "studies" were revealed to be fatally flawed and unscientific. They did not even dare to publish their "study" in a respected journal opting to publish in a vanity journal absent of peer review.

 

[Julio]

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?

The hotter, the quicker it cools down. Ever heard of Stephan and Boltzmann?

Even if all the steel from both towers were initially so hot, it would take less than a day to cool down below melting point.

 

[GlennB]

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?

An absolutely vast pool of melted steel, at that kind of temperature, could indeed remain molten for a long time in a burning debris pile. But it would need to be monstrous, just to retain enough heat to prevent a solid skin forming.

But there is still a high temperature gradient between the steel and its surroundings, and it must cool. The rate of cooling will depend on the size of the pool of molten steel, its initial temperature, the temperature gradient and the thermal capacity and conductivity of the surroundings.

But then - what's going to contain this pool and keep it from running away down the endless nooks and crannies, thus increasing its surface area and exposing it to cooler surroundings and thus rapid solidification? At the temperatures you're discussing it would take a material not even present at WTC.

So you're left unable to square this particular circle, tempesta29. If there were thermite charges mysteriously still igniting within the pile then you might get small pools of molten steel which would cool and solidify quickly. Meanwhile a vast pool of steel would require a vast amount of thermite in one place to effect this localised melting. And then, eventually, and even if magic pixies were involved, there would be an amorphous lump of solidified steel weighing in at many thousands of tons that would not go unnoticed.

Short version - you're just pulling random nonsense out of your butt because you read it somewhere and it sounded plausible.

 

[triforcharity]

AMJ, are you asking me for a citation for my post 346?.

No, Temps' claim that in the 60's, they(someone, I don't recall who) said the building would withstand an impact of a 707 at 600 mph, and the fires wouldn't harm the structure.

We're still waiting.