The biggest obstacle for Max to surmount is the total absence of evidence for the use of thermite on 9/11/01. Unlike Max, Blanchard and other demolition experts are capable of recognizing thermite. They can tell when it has been used and when it hasn't. Max has no expertise in the filed. He is content to fabricate nonsense and slander innocent people.
The biggest obstacle for Max to surmount is the total absence of evidence for the use of thermite on 9/11/01. Unlike Max, Blanchard and other demolition experts are capable of recognizing thermite. They can tell when it has been used and when it hasn't. Max has no expertise in the filed. He is content to fabricate nonsense and slander innocent people.
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Why on earth would they only do this to WTC 1 and 2? Wouldn't this imply that there are other buildings where this, um, unique construction technique has been used? I would love to see any evidence of any existing building, or any building currently under construction (Freedom Tower?) where this is/has been done. Meh, what a load of cow-patties.
JMarshall
Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 213
He can't provide evidence. Plain and simple. Max has a little understanding of the whole circumstance and the things he claims in his theories, but doesn't have any practical, or expertize in them. With the knowledge he does have, and the end result (Of course the towers came down) he has cobbled together something that looks good on paper, unless you have any practical knowledge, at which point it fails.
Even with my demolition and explosives knowledge, couldn't even come close to refuting Blachard's paper, in fact he is now my new hero! I have much to learn, in comparison with him...
Arus808
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 6,204
well, the closest i ever got to something "explosive" was rigging up cherrybombs to my gi-joe dolls while growing up
and minor sfx work to simulate being shot for short movies I did in high-school and college (working in the blood dye packs was cool)
and minor sfx work to simulate being shot for short movies I did in high-school and college (working in the blood dye packs was cool)
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,592
Cutting steel is horrendously wasteful, relative to heat-weakening steel
Sorry TAM, now I get your question.
Why did they only used enough Thermite to WEAKEN the steel, as opposed to using enough to cut the steel?
Answer:
Because melting/slicing/cutting steel at 1536 C takes way, Way, WAY more energy than merely heating steel to its critical temperature - a bit below 625 C - to weaken it, as the "fires" are claimed by NIST to have done.
Brent can tell you:
Cool demolition planners use the least amount of catalyst possible.
Max
* * *
Max:
I did not see anywhere in that post, a reference to why they only used enough Thermite to WEAKEN the steel, as opposed to using enough to cut the steel, which would insure the success of their sekrit plan.
TAM
Sorry TAM, now I get your question.
Why did they only used enough Thermite to WEAKEN the steel, as opposed to using enough to cut the steel?
Answer:
Because melting/slicing/cutting steel at 1536 C takes way, Way, WAY more energy than merely heating steel to its critical temperature - a bit below 625 C - to weaken it, as the "fires" are claimed by NIST to have done.
Brent can tell you:
Cool demolition planners use the least amount of catalyst possible.
Max
* * *
Last edited:
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,592
Anyone who keeps babbling about cutting or melting steel is a complete idiot.
Being the one bringing forth a model - MAX-MIHOP - I feel it is my responsibility to reach out to people of all speeds.
Brainster - heck, everyone with a brainsters - please from this day forward eliminate "cutting" from your cortex.
You are fighting ghosts from the past.
Thermite was used to heat-weaken a simple majority of box columns at impact floors on WTC2 to induce collapse.
As Bazant et. al. have pointed out, once the tower gets moving, total collapse is the strong strange attractor.
Columns were not "cut into convenient 30' lengths".
Core columns were found in their pre-fabricated 3-storey, 36' lengths because the core columns broke apart at the weld planes.
The core columns broke apart at the weld planes from forces from the collapse - not from any supplementary catalysts.
(However, thermite may have been used to heat the connections between core columns and horizontal steel members, to weaken the steel, to - in effect - partially unshore the core columns.)
I have a thread that discusses this topic:
How were WTC core columns separated at the weld planes?
Anyone at JREF who continues to babble about cutting or melting steel is either deliberately generating noise, or is a complete idiot.
(Come to think of it, there is an inordinant number of noisy idiots.)
Max
* * *
Being the one bringing forth a model - MAX-MIHOP - I feel it is my responsibility to reach out to people of all speeds.
Brainster - heck, everyone with a brainsters - please from this day forward eliminate "cutting" from your cortex.
You are fighting ghosts from the past.
Thermite was used to heat-weaken a simple majority of box columns at impact floors on WTC2 to induce collapse.
As Bazant et. al. have pointed out, once the tower gets moving, total collapse is the strong strange attractor.
Columns were not "cut into convenient 30' lengths".
Core columns were found in their pre-fabricated 3-storey, 36' lengths because the core columns broke apart at the weld planes.
The core columns broke apart at the weld planes from forces from the collapse - not from any supplementary catalysts.
(However, thermite may have been used to heat the connections between core columns and horizontal steel members, to weaken the steel, to - in effect - partially unshore the core columns.)
I have a thread that discusses this topic:
How were WTC core columns separated at the weld planes?
Anyone at JREF who continues to babble about cutting or melting steel is either deliberately generating noise, or is a complete idiot.
(Come to think of it, there is an inordinant number of noisy idiots.)
Max
* * *
Last edited:
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2007
- Messages
- 1,592
Last edited:
JamesB
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,152
Well I would have to agree with you that the people pushing this, Jones, Ryan, Griffin et al are complete idiots.
A W Smith
Philosopher
More stupider than maxes thermite ponds on concrete slab heating the trusses below it
Max you fail at thermodynamics. You cannot "heat weaken" steel fast enough. The steel will cool too fast in a limited thermite ignition. Unless you cut it or melt it outright the remaining steel Will conduct heat away from the thermite source. Look at the perimeter box columns in any wreckage picture. every box column end cap is intact. The bolts are what broke being the weakest link. Max we also see that your attempting to cloak you blatant ignorance with humor but it ain't working.
Max you fail at thermodynamics. You cannot "heat weaken" steel fast enough. The steel will cool too fast in a limited thermite ignition. Unless you cut it or melt it outright the remaining steel Will conduct heat away from the thermite source. Look at the perimeter box columns in any wreckage picture. every box column end cap is intact. The bolts are what broke being the weakest link. Max we also see that your attempting to cloak you blatant ignorance with humor but it ain't working.
Attachments
Very weak argument IMO. You are talking about an alleged EXTREMELY powerful and wealthy group of people. (A) They could afford, and allegedly had the resources to place as much Thermite within as needed, and (B) the risk of failure goes up dramatically wrt insuring collapse, if you only WEAKEN the steel, versus CUTTING right through it.
I do not buy the argument.
TAM
Exactly. You would have to time the weakening of the steel for the exact moment that the rest of the CD (with conventional explosives) occured, a narrow window for sure. Even then, as you said, it would likely not work.
TAM
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Elsewhere you have cited an ounce of thermite was needed to heat one pound of steel to 625C. How many pounds of steel were in the column joint MAX? How much thermite would have been needed to the amount of damage you suggest? Could you have controled the amount so that it would not have concentrated in one area so that no hot spots developed where the thermite would burn through?
Do you know how much work that would have entaled? The drywall that had to be cut through, the flooring material, the cutting and welding in the plenum areas? And all this unnoticed and un reported by the survivors?
Well duh. the fire damge was most prevalent in the floor support structures and core columns.
And you keep forgeting that the perimiter columns were inspected by FEMA, NIST, and FBI as the material was carted to the dump sites. Do I need to link you to all the PDFs and websites again?
Problems with Blanchard's paper
People have asked what's wrong with Blanchard's paper.
I would say a lot!
Take his assertion #2 about the buildings falling into their own footprint.
Blanchard's comment is a joke:
"A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95 % of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter"
About 95%?
Was Blanchard's paper peer reviewed?
Obviously not!
Blanchard is good mind you... he can look at photos of the collapse and say without hesitation that "clearly" about 95 % of the mass landed OUTSIDE the building's footprint!
I can't tell if it is 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%. Why?
Because dust can be very deceptive with regards to the mass it represents. I thought a demolition expert would know this.
Blanchard should get together with Ace Baker to discuss this since they appear to see eye to eye on this one. Blown to kingdom come indeed!
And you know that other "experts" such as those at Risk Management Solutions Inc, a company that specializes in assessing damage to buildings from acts of terrorism issued a report on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and reached entirely different conclusions. So why would I believe Blanchard?
People have asked what's wrong with Blanchard's paper.
I would say a lot!
Take his assertion #2 about the buildings falling into their own footprint.
Blanchard's comment is a joke:
"A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95 % of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter"
About 95%?
Was Blanchard's paper peer reviewed?
Obviously not!
Blanchard is good mind you... he can look at photos of the collapse and say without hesitation that "clearly" about 95 % of the mass landed OUTSIDE the building's footprint!
I can't tell if it is 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%. Why?
Because dust can be very deceptive with regards to the mass it represents. I thought a demolition expert would know this.
Blanchard should get together with Ace Baker to discuss this since they appear to see eye to eye on this one. Blown to kingdom come indeed!
And you know that other "experts" such as those at Risk Management Solutions Inc, a company that specializes in assessing damage to buildings from acts of terrorism issued a report on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and reached entirely different conclusions. So why would I believe Blanchard?
lapman
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 1,717
Apollo, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see to huge issues with Max's theory. To use thermite to heat the columns would require that the apparatus would have to survive the initial impact and fuel-air explosion and have a continuous tight seal against the column so the liquid iron does not flow out of it allowing the steel to cool.
Brent Blanchard is not rising to the bait. Here is his response to Max's typically uninformed comment:
(Max wrote)
"NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel."
(Blanchard wrote)
That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.
Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy....
(Max wrote)
"NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel."
(Blanchard wrote)
That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.
Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy....
Last edited:
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
Well maybe he was using hindsight because the it becomes easier to tell in the aerial pictures after the dust cleared that a large majority of the debris of WTC 1&2 fell outside the thier footprint.
uruk
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2003
- Messages
- 5,311
AHA!!!! there we have it from the horses mouth. It was hundreds of genetically engineered and trained rats that gnawed on the steel to weaken the columns.
See?. It's so MILDEC that it's obvious!!!!!!!
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
Since when is it considered "Hindsight" to use data collected after an event to describe the event?
Collecting all the available data and not jumping to conclusions until its all in is Science.
afinemadness
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2006
- Messages
- 143
It is not science. Science can only be found in online videos and though deciphering quotes taken out of context. The one caveat is there are certain people that can decide what is science just by looking at it and coming to a conclusion that has no basis in fact. These individuals have the ability to decide what is science and what is not