Blanchard Doesn't Buy Thermite Myth

By 600 C, most steels have lost more than half their strength.

* * *

"All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600 °C, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength. At intermediate temperatures the strength is independent of time, but above 500 °C, creep, or time-dependent deformation, further reduces the load-carrying capability..."


NIST Metallurgy Division Publications - NISTIR 7248
 
and your point Max? you are proving our claims with every post you make. Fire can reach up to temperatures exceeding the half-way melting point of steel. NORMAL structural office fires have seen this done.

In fact, the recent fire that closed part of I5 here in California, and the tunnels, the engineers had to go into double check the STEEL Reinforcements to make sure they were stable.
 
See, here's the thing. Max BELIEVES 9-11 was an inside job.

So it's difficult to convince him otherwise. It's like trying to convince Christians that Jesus didn't exist.

And as such, it's pointless to try to guide him to facts, because he won't believe the facts when presented with them.

SOP for Troofers heavily invested in the woooooo woo.
 
Arus808, how did you rule out that thermite was used as a catalyst.

Arus808 said:
and your point Max? you are proving our claims with every post you make. Fire can reach up to temperatures exceeding the half-way melting point of steel. NORMAL structural office fires have seen this done.

In fact, the recent fire that closed part of I5 here in California, and the tunnels, the engineers had to go into double check the STEEL Reinforcements to make sure they were stable.
Click to expand...


The fires were catalyzed.

A serious arson investigation would have shown the fires were catalyzed with thermite.

(Meanwhile, everyone has the emotionally-potent oversimplification that if thermite were used, it was used for cutting or melting steel, rather than as an incendiary.


Arus808, how did you rule out that thermite was used as an incendiary?


* * *
 
Last edited:
Max:

How did they rule out Magic Leprachaun Dust as an incendiary?

Sound silly, but you get my point.

As for the pancake issue, Blanchard was speaking to the collapse, where as NIST is referring to the initiation, and that they do not support the "Pancake Theory" for that...remember, they did not analyze the COLLAPSE.

As for burden of proof, clearly it is on those who are trying to provide an ALTERNATE to the presently held theory, which as of 2007 is the Official Story, so the burden is on you and other truth movement advocates.

TAM:)
 
Max challenges TAM to explain how he ruled out thermite as a catalyst of WTC fires.

T.A.M. said:
Max:

How did they rule out Magic Leprachaun Dust as an incendiary?

Sound silly, but you get my point.

TAM:)
Click to expand...



No TAM, I don't get your point at all. What you said is really stupid.

(Blanchard made a similar idiotic comment.)

Thermite can be used as an incendiary. That is a fact. Magic Leprechaun Dust is not an incendiary.

NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.

TAM, I ask you a direct question:

How did you rule out - for certain - that thermite catalyzed the fires?


Max

* * *
 
Last edited:
Max Photon said:
NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.
Click to expand...

Jet fuel, coupled with the inevitable risk of fire in a seriously damaged building (electrical fires).

No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.
 
Max Photon said:
The fires were catalyzed.

A serious arson investigation would have shown the fires were catalyzed with thermite.

(Meanwhile, everyone has the emotionally-potent oversimplification that if thermite were used, it was used for cutting or melting steel, rather than as an incendiary.


Arus808, how did you rule out that thermite was used as an incendiary?


* * *
Click to expand...
World Trade Center 5. As I pointed out in another thread the same type of damage that happened in WTC 1/2/7 happened in 5. It may have remained standing but it was clearly documented that some of those beams buckled.
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
Jet fuel, coupled with the inevitable risk of fire in a seriously damaged building (electrical fires).

No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.
Click to expand...

Which risk has gotten greater in the last 30 years with the proliferation of "shoebox" UPS systems under people's desks. Now you can pull the main breakers and still have electrical fires starting in the building.
 
The use of thermite as an incendiary to demolish the WTCs is cloaked by stupidity.

uk_dave said:
Jet fuel, coupled with the inevitable risk of fire in a seriously damaged building (electrical fires).

No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.
Click to expand...



...and so on to stupidity.



No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.

What was NIST trying to do: validate a pre-engineered narrative, or determine what initiated the collapse of the WTCs?

Fires played a role in the collapse of the WTCs. That requires an arson investigation. Arson investigations have thermite as part of the routine checklist. Hence, it would have been perfectly natural to consider thermite, and to test for it - such as by looking inside fire-affected perimeter box columns from WTC2.

Also, are you guys so dense that you can't see that your own twisted logic (a cusp catastrophe, actually) means that thermite could have been used with impunity, and never tested for, because - well - thermite couldn't have been used?

In other words, can you see how your own stupidity cloaks the fact that thermite was used as an incendiary?

It doesn't matter. Your blankets of darkness will never be able to stop your ever-shining friend,

Max Photon

(The non-stupid guy over there...yeah, the one with the rugged good looks.)


Hey, speaking of stupid, why doesn't someone ask old Brent Blanchard what the "telltale signs" are when thermite is used not to cut or melt steel - like Brent fantasizes about - but to heat it to about 600C ? If you read his paper, he makes it sound like the "telltale signs" are obvious to even a simpleton, and that he and his buddies - all pros, mind you - know to to tell if the box columns were heated with thermite from the inside to the critical temperature of the steel.

(As Apollo note, Brent's good...)




Moderators: Can we rename this thread:

The Brent Blanchard's Reputation Memorial Thread

(Heck, you might as well toss Protec's in there while you're at it.)


* * *
 
Last edited:
BenBurch said:
Which risk has gotten greater in the last 30 years with the proliferation of "shoebox" UPS systems under people's desks. Now you can pull the main breakers and still have electrical fires starting in the building.
Click to expand...

[truther] so you admit the circuit breakers were subjected to a controlled Demolition using C4 and Therm*te?[/truther]
 
T.A.M. said:
As for burden of proof, clearly it is on those who are trying to provide an ALTERNATE to the presently held theory, which as of 2007 is the Official Story, so the burden is on you and other truth movement advocates.
Click to expand...

So you mean you want them to explain how the evil thermite people were able to rig every floor of both towers with thermite (after all, they couldn't know for sure where the planes would impact).

So you mean you want them to explain how thousands of tons of thermite were planted in the towers by the evil thermite people without anyone becoming suspicious.

So you mean you want them to explain how they evil thermite people were able to delay the collapse of the towers for over an hour after the planes crashed.

So you mean you want them to explain how that over six years later none of the evil thermite people have the slightest scruple of morality about mass murder and associated astrocities....still.
 
Max Photon said:
Fires played a role in the collapse of the WTCs. That requires an arson investigation. Arson investigations have thermite as part of the routine checklist. Hence, it would have been perfectly natural to consider thermite, and to test for it
Click to expand...

Why didn't FDNY Fire Marshalls, who are trained arson investigators, demand a search for trace evidence of thermite? There were thousands of other firefighters on the scene that day and fighting the fires for weeks afterwards. Everyone of these experienced professionals has said that the fires were caused by jet fuel igniting debris (wood, plastic, cleaning fluids, leather, pleather, paper, aluminum, carpet, wall board, fabrics, conduit, wire/cable insulation, etc.)
 
Max Photon said:
No TAM, I don't get your point at all. What you said is really stupid.

(Blanchard made a similar idiotic comment.)

Thermite can be used as an incendiary. That is a fact. Magic Leprechaun Dust is not an incendiary.

NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.

TAM, I ask you a direct question:

How did you rule out - for certain - that thermite catalyzed the fires?


Max

* * *
Click to expand...

Well you do not have to be rude about it Max. 99% of what you spit out here would qualify as STUPID!

My POINT, was that it is ridiculous to expect NIST and others to RULE OUT FOR CERTAIN, or for that matter even ADDRESS, every single concievable cause of the collapse. There is NO EVIDENCE for the use of THERMITE, just as there is no evidence for Leprachauns, or Santa Claus. The fact that you didn't get my point doesn't say much for your READING COMPREHENSION.

Should we also investigate the link between Area 51, secret alien technology, and the collapses??

Leprachaun Dust, being MAGIC, could act as an incendiary, if that is what the Leprachaun wanted it to be used as.:D

TAM:)
 
If Blanchard is unable to explain his 95 % number, why should I believe ANYTHING he has to say?

He may be a "professional demolition guy", but right now I see him as a complete BSer with an axe to grind until he proves otherwise...

Come on Brent!

Explain the 95% or withdraw this claim!
 
Max Photon's Public Challenge to Brent Blanchard: 10 Simple Questions

* * *

Max Photon's Public Challenge to Brent Blanchard

  1. Is it possible that a significant portion of the jets' aluminum burned on impact in the presence of water and iron oxide, creating an improvised phreato-thermatic, or aluminum/hydrogen explosion?
  2. Is it possible that thermite was placed inside of perimeter box columns through their bolt-access-holes?
  3. Is it possible that thermite was placed in spandrel splice gaps?
  4. Is it possible that thermite was placed in the "rectangular tube" that forms where two floor truss top chords juxtapose at the truss seat?
  5. Is it possible that thermite was placed at gusset seats and burned the visco-elastic dampers?
  6. Is it possible that the thermite was linked together by thermite fuse?
  7. Is it possible that the thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impacts?
  8. Is it possible that thermite in box columns spewed out hot material onto debris, creating NIST numerous variations of "fires on piles of debris"?
  9. Did you ever even consider that thermite was used not to cut or melt WTC steel, but to heat it to its critical temperature?
  10. How did you and your professional colleagues rule out that thermite was used to heat WTC steel to its critical temperature, to induce collapse?

ETA:

11.) What are the "telltale signs" of thermite used to heat steel to its critical temperature?


ETA2:

If Mr. Blanchard has any questions for me, I will be happy to answer them.


* * *
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom