WTC7 and the girder walk-off between column 79 and 44

[Sunstealer]

"It can't be because there's no boom boom" is a thread bear canard that assumes you know all ther is to know about nano-thermite. You don't.

I do. I've read many papers on the subject and understand every word. Nano-thermite cannot do what you claim.

It's you, "Chris -a simple equation is all Greek to me - Sarns" that doesn't understand. You haven't got the qualifications to make the judgement and hence are suckered by snake oil salesmen.

 

[Christopher7]

I do. I've read many papers on the subject and understand every word. Nano-thermite cannot do what you claim.

You do NOT know what nano-thermite can do because that information is classified.

ETA:
Please get properly informed:

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. "The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices... However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research."
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-...-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction

 

[twinstead]

You do NOT know what nano-thermite can do because that information is classified.

Oh, so that means it can do anything you attribute to it. That works out well for you, doesn't it? Great debate mojo

 

[Christopher7]

Real suspects of 911
Paul Bremer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpw7fUj11bA&feature=youtu.be
On Board of directors of Komatsu:
At 1:53 "Komatsu - In July 1996 patented a nano-thermite demolition device"
Patent 5532449 Issued on July 2, 1996

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

It could be engineered to destroy steel framed buildings as well.

 

[LSSBB]

Real suspects of 911
Paul Bremer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpw7fUj11bA&feature=youtu.be
On Board of directors of Komatsu:
At 1:53 "Komatsu - In July 1996 patented a nano-thermite demolition device"
Patent 5532449 Issued on July 2, 1996

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

It could be engineered to destroy steel framed buildings as well.

A patent is only a concept.

 

[twinstead]

All I see is somebody desperately trying to find something that explains the lack of evidence that anything other than damage and fires brought down the buildings instead of realizing that sometimes lack of evidence actually means something actually...oh I don't know...didn't happen.

 

[Christopher7]

A patent is only a concept.

Wrong.

FIG. 3 is a graph which illustrates test results on the amount of blown-off dross for tests A, B and C;

FIG. 4A is a diagrammatic view which illustrates portions of an apparatus used for test A in FIG. 3;

FIG. 4B is a diagrammatic view which illustrates portions of an apparatus used for test B in FIG. 3;

FIG. 4C is a diagrammatic view which illustrates portions of an apparatus used for test C in FIG. 3; and

FIG. 5 is a graph which illustrates the comparison of cutting capability and the running cost of cutting between an embodiment of the present invention and various prior art methods.

 

[BasqueArch]

Real suspects of 911
Paul Bremer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpw7fUj11bA&feature=youtu.be
On Board of directors of Komatsu:
At 1:53 "Komatsu - In July 1996 patented a nano-thermite demolition device"
Patent 5532449 Issued on July 2, 1996

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

It is an object of the present invention to provide a method and an apparatus which can demolish a concrete structure at a high efficiency while preventing a secondary problem due to noise, flying dust and chips, and the like.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html
It could be engineered to destroy steel framed buildings as well.

You didn't quote the pertinent parts of the patent that shows it's a plasma torch "nano-thermite demolition device" used by a welder.

According to the present invention, a concrete demolishing method which melts a surface of a concrete structure comprises: generating a plasma arc from the plasma torch of a plasma arc , mixing thermite powder with a supply gas for the plasma torch, passing the mixture of thermite powder and supply gas to the plasma arc, directing the plasma arc at the surface of the concrete structure, and controlling the rate of supply of the thermite powder to the plasma arc in response to the operation of the plasma torch

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html

 

[Christopher7]

You didn't quote the pertinent parts of the patent that shows it's a plasma torch "apparatus" used by a welder.

You can't imagine that a stationary discharge device could be developed because your imagination only works in one direction - "It can't be because".

 

[Newtons Bit]

The NIST hypothesis says the beams expanded but did not buckle. You are referring to the preliminary test to establish the shear studs breaking.

The beam in Mr. Szamboti's spreadsheet has buckled yet he continues to use an elastic deflection equation for a beam with a uniformly distributed load on it. Both of these assumption are wrong. His engineering is wrong. Possibly by several orders of magnitude.

Table 10-1 in NCSTAR 1-9 Vol.2 says that the floor beams in the NE part of floor 13 did not exceed 600^oC.

According to NIST, the beams start buckling at 436 degrees.

You glibly say they are wrong but offer nothing to prove that. Calculate the expansion and sag or stop making that baseless accusation.

I already proved it by saying what was wrong with Mr. Szamboti's equations. It's basic engineering.

And I don't have to calculate the deflections. Others have already done so.

 

[BasqueArch]

You can't imagine that a stationary discharge device could be developed because your imagination only works in one direction - "It can't be because".

A "stationary discharge device" would burn a hole. You need suicidal welders to move it around the columns (what 50-100 of them?) simultaneously (at free fall acceleration) after removing the sheetrock and fireproofing.

Ok, so you imagine and describe how this scenario would work.
Details. Step by step.

 

[BasqueArch]

Wrong.

FIG. 3 is a graph which illustrates test results on the amount of blown-off dross for tests A, B and C;

FIG. 4A is a diagrammatic view which illustrates portions of an apparatus used for test A in FIG. 3;

FIG. 4B is a diagrammatic view which illustrates portions of an apparatus used for test B in FIG. 3;

FIG. 4C is a diagrammatic view which illustrates portions of an apparatus used for test C in FIG. 3; and

FIG. 5 is a graph which illustrates the comparison of cutting capability and the running cost of cutting between an embodiment of the present invention and various prior art methods.

You were hiding that this "apparatus" was a welding torch.

 

[Christopher7]

The beam in Mr. Szamboti's spreadsheet has buckled

Hello?
The summation of the "buckled beam" test is on pg 353 of 1-9 Vol.1
"This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further. The failure modes in this model were incorporated into the 16 story ANSYS and 47 story LS-DYNA analyses."

The final hypothesis does NOT involve buckled floor beams.

You glibly say they are wrong but offer nothing to prove that. Calculate the expansion and sag or stop making that baseless accusation.

I don't have to calculate the deflections. Others have already done so.

Yea, right.
Would you post them please?

 

[Christopher7]

A "stationary discharge device" would burn a hole. You need suicidal welders to move it around the columns (what 50-100 of them?) simultaneously (at free fall acceleration) after removing the sheetrock and fireproofing.

Ok, so you imagine and describe how this scenario would work.
Details. Step by step.

Get serious. You just want to argue ad nauseam.

It is enough to establish the possibility. That much denies the denoir choir their favorite hymn:
Where is the boom-boom
Show me the hush-a-boom
No-no nano-nano
It just can't be

 

[thedopefishlives]

Get serious. You just want to argue ad nauseam.

It is enough to establish the possibility. That much denies the denoir choir their favorite hymn:
Where is the boom-boom
Show me the hush-a-boom
No-no nano-nano
Ir just can't be

Fine. Let's assume such a device exists. Prove it was used. And don't even mention Harrit et al., because they have proven NOTHING.

 

[twinstead]

Chris are you saying that all you have to do is establish a possiblilty and that is the end of your responsibility in this debate?

 

[BasqueArch]

Get serious. You just want to argue ad nauseam.

It is enough to establish the possibility. That much denies the denoir choir their favorite hymn:
Where is the boom-boom
Show me the hush-a-boom
No-no nano-nano
It just can't be

I thought so.
So you can't imagine how it is possible that 50-100 suicidal welders occupied the building after it caught fire, removed the sheetrock and fireproofing, connected 50-100 220v 50A cords and simultaneously cut 50-100 columns. Neither can anyone else.

 

[Sunstealer]

You do NOT know what nano-thermite can do because that information is classified.

ETA:
Please get properly informed:

"Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. "The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out," Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly... Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices... However, researchers aren't permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research."
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-05-...-conventional-explosives-used-wtc-destruction

You can read the data from many papers. Tillitson, Gash, Wang, Fischer etc have papers on the subject and you can read them without need for clearance.

Secondly you really need to learn to read. Why is reading comprehension so poor in truthers?

If I have a jug of water (=weapon in C7s quote) and I add orange squash (thermite) then I make water tasty (tasty = more powerful).

You are reading it as if thermite is more powerful than already existing weapons or explosives. Learn what the word "add" means.

The material you are describing has never been found at ground zero. If you believe Harrit et al = super nano-thermite added to a weapon then do so using the data in the Harrit et al paper.

I know you can't because I know exactly what Harrit et al examined. Epoxy with kaolin and haematite pigment particles otherwise known as paint.

Hiding behind "the military have super seekrit weapons that can do anything I can imagine" just doesn't cut the mustard. There is nothing special about thermite. There's nothing special about nano-sized particles. There is nothing secret about adding such materials to explosives to create new materials for weapons.

 

[Christopher7]

You were hiding that this "apparatus" was a welding torch.

No, I posted the link.

Like I said, your imagination only works in one direction so you cannot imagine how a hands free column cutting device could be developed.

The scientists at Komatsu are very intelligent people with all the funding they need and they were not the only people developing nano-thermite demolition devices. The military, with unlimited funding, was also working on ways to use nano-thermite to blow things up and bring structures down.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hello?
The summation of the "buckled beam" test is on pg 353 of 1-9 Vol.1
"This analysis demonstrated possible failure mechanisms that were used to develop the leading collapse hypothesis further. The failure modes in this model were incorporated into the 16 story ANSYS and 47 story LS-DYNA analyses."

The final hypothesis does NOT involve buckled floor beams.

The NIST report states that buckling of beams around column 79 (thus allowing it to buckle) is the primary cause of failure in WTC7 [NCSTAR 1-9, p. 618].

And more specifically:

In a similar fashion, the girders between Columns 79 and 80 and columns 80 and 81 buckled and the girder between Columns 44 and 79 buckled and walked off the bearing seat between 3.7h and 4.0h

And even more specifically:

The beam in the Mr. Szamboti's spreadsheet, not the real one, just the one in the spreadsheet has a bending moment of 1341kip*ft. That same beam has a bending capacity of less than 800 kip*ft. It has failed through lateral torsional buckling. But Mr. Szamboti continues to use an elastic deflection equation. That equation does not apply to this condition.

Yea, right.
Would you post them please?

Check the NIST report. Enik did one as well, didn't he?