Care to Comment

[Toke]

Nobody is saying it can't eventually if heated long enough with a hot enough fire.
It depends on the size and heat capacity of the steel, the size and proximity of the fire, and whether the steel has a sink to transfer some of the heat to.

With the impact of the airplane to remove insulation, and multiple floors on fire, there are plenty of problems for the steel.

NIST found no evidence of the steel they received from the towers experiencing high temperatures. This would have been due to the size of the steel, the size of the fires, and the fact that the steel had large sinks to transfer heat to.

Have you considered the limitation's of NIST, that steel considered as evidence in the investigation had to be identifiable by it's chalk marks?

 

[WildCat]

How is gravity for instance automatically more powerful than a pool ball being shot at another pool ball? Are you saying that the cue ball is being slowed down by gravity? Nothing shot the upper part of the WTC down to the ground. Nothing. It started from a dead set position. And it was less in mass than what it is claimed to have destroyed.

 

[WildCat]

I have a good idea if you're all hooked on gravity being so destructive. Get a tube and drop all 9 ball down it straight up. Place the cue ball on top of all of them. Pull out the ball right underneath the cue ball really fast so that it drops down on the remaining eight balls. Then watch the cue ball destroy all eight balls all the way down. And really fast too!

Right debunkers?

 

[WildCat]

The steel itself has to get hot to weaken and there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. This isn't a belief, it is a reality.

I bet you'd even include this claim in a paper submitted to a real engineering journal, if you actually had the balls to do that.

But you won't of course. Because deep down you know you're just part of a fringe cult which is laughed at by 99.999% of all engineering professionals.

 

[WildCat]

The steel itself has to get hot to weaken and there is no physical evidence of high steel temperatures. This isn't a belief, it is a reality.

Ah, so we can rule out any form of thermite, right Tony?

Right Tony?

Right Tony?

Tony?

Tony?

Hello?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ah, so we can rule out any form of thermite, right Tony?

Right Tony?

Right Tony?

Tony?

Tony?

Hello?

Not at all. It is completely possible that heating from thermite may have been the reason NIST got so little of the steel (just 236 pieces out of about 50,000 from the towers), as the thermite temperatures would have been significantly higher than any fire could generate in the steel. And how would that be explained?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

With the impact of the airplane to remove insulation, and multiple floors on fire, there are plenty of problems for the steel.

NIST's own ballistic debris testing and aircraft debris velocity simulation show the debris was not moving fast enough by the time it reached the opposite side of the building in WTC 1 to remove SFRM.

Have you considered the limitation's of NIST, that steel considered as evidence in the investigation had to be identifiable by it's chalk marks?

That isn't true. Some of the markings on the steel were painted but none were chalk. Most if not all of the markings on the steel were stamped into them. You can't build a skyscraper of the magnitude of the twin towers without having a good way to identify the parts and they wouldn't want it coming off in transit or while waiting to be installed in the weather. Stamped part numbers and locations would not have come off in the collapses without a direct hit and serious collision right at that point, which has a low probability.

Additionally, an investigation isn't under a production schedule and the steel could have been identified by size as it was thinner walled the higher its location and depending on where it was for the central core.

 

[leftysergeant]

Not at all. It is completely possible that heating from thermite may have been the reason NIST got so little of the steel (just 236 pieces out of about 50,000 from the towers), as the thermite temperatures would have been significantly higher than any fire could generate in the steel. And how would that be explained?

There is no way that thermite could have been applied without leaving distinctive identifiable residues.

Residues were never reported anywhere by a rattional person.

Forget the thermite.

 

[BigAl]

Not at all. It is completely possible that heating from thermite may have been the reason NIST got so little of the steel (just 236 pieces out of about 50,000 from the towers), as the thermite temperatures would have been significantly higher than any fire could generate in the steel. And how would that be explained?

I'm still waiting for your cite for nano Hush-A-Boom in that DoD publication you were flogging a few days ago.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I'm still waiting for your cite for nano Hush-A-Boom in that DoD publication you were flogging a few days ago.

Apparently the phrases that described nano-thermite as tailorable and allowing for impulse management didn't mean much to you.

Oh well, some people just don't see the forest for the trees.

 

[BigAl]

Apparently the phrases that described nano-thermite as tailorable and allowing for impulse management didn't mean much to you.

Oh well, some people just don't see the forest for the trees.

You have yet to show me the paragraph in which those words occur. I guess the meaning of "citation" doesn't mean much to you.

 

[Seymour Butz]

Apparently the phrases that described nano-thermite as tailorable ......

Where does it say infinitely tailorable?

Old school racer fact - Super Trapp motorcycle mufflers were noise tailorable also by adding and subtracting baffles. There was tradeoff of course - less baffles meant less noise but more backpressure, and hence, less performance.

There is always a tradeoff.

And as always, Tony-the-Twoofer will never explain what they are.

 

[Seymour Butz]

as the thermite temperatures would have been significantly higher than any fire could generate in the steel. And how would that be explained?

First, you need to explain why you use this strawman, since NIST's hypothesis doesn't really rely on weakened from heat steel columns.

 

[leftysergeant]

Apparently the phrases that described nano-thermite as tailorable and allowing for impulse management didn't mean much to you.

You are stuck with the fact that thermite is not tailorable. It leaves a residue and characteristic damage. Neither was found. FAIL.

 

[Seymour Butz]

NIST's own ballistic debris testing and aircraft debris velocity simulation show the debris was not moving fast enough by the time it reached the opposite side of the building in WTC 1 to remove SFRM.

So their testing showed that the engines and landing gear couldn't shoot out the other side?

That isn't true. Some of the markings on the steel were painted but none were chalk. Most if not all of the markings on the steel were stamped into them. .

Yes, they were stamped. But many of the columns were identical, and so their SPECIFIC LOCATION was indeed painted on. It's in the report.

And since they're gone, how would one know which of the identical columns one was looking at if the paint's gone?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So their testing showed that the engines and landing gear couldn't shoot out the other side?

Of course, those heavy parts could go right through the building.

I am talking about the shredded debris that is claimed to have stripped the fireproofing off of the floor assemblies on the south side of WTC 1.

If you read the Appendix on ballistic debris testing in NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page 263 to 274 you will see that there was a misfire of the gun producing a debris velocity of 31 meters/second and that no SFRM was damaged by it and that that panel was used again.

Then take a look at the debris velocity simulation in NIST NCSTAR 1-2 where it can be determined from the normalized momentum vs. time charts that the debris velocity was less than 31 meters/second when it entered the floor assembly area outside of the core on the south side of the building. To do this you need to know the velocity of the aircraft at impact and use the chart to find the percentage of initial momentum at a specific time after impact. Since the mass is essentially the same the chart actually provides percentage of initial velocity at a specific time after impact.

Yes, they were stamped. But many of the columns were identical, and so their SPECIFIC LOCATION was indeed painted on. It's in the report.

And since they're gone, how would one know which of the identical columns one was looking at if the paint's gone?

The columns I have seen that were stamped had both weight and location stamped on them. It doesn't make sense that they couldn't stamp the location on because there were other identical columns and beams. You will have to show me where in the NIST report it says that identical structural members didn't have their specific locations stamped on them.

 

[Dog Town]

137

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Where does it say infinitely tailorable?

Old school racer fact - Super Trapp motorcycle mufflers were noise tailorable also by adding and subtracting baffles. There was tradeoff of course - less baffles meant less noise but more backpressure, and hence, less performance.

There is always a tradeoff.

And as always, Tony-the-Twoofer will never explain what they are.

Most people aren't usually responsive to dorks who call them names while asking for a reply. But since I have already replied to you in this thread, before you got offensive, I'll make this one exception.

The tradeoff is obvious here in the impulse strength. As the particle size is increased the impulse per unit mass will be less powerful. The amount needed for the job then has to be determined and with a tailorable substance the right combination of size and power can be engineered to minimize noise for a given function.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

You are stuck with the fact that thermite is not tailorable. It leaves a residue and characteristic damage. Neither was found. FAIL.

How do you know that there was no thermite residue? NIST said they didn't look for it and if you don't look for something you won't find it.

You seem to be presuming that just anyone can look at a piece of steel that was in a fire and discern that thermite had been used. I think you are wrong.

 

[BigAl]

Most people aren't usually responsive to dorks who call them names while asking for a reply. But since I have already replied to you in this thread, before you got offensive, I'll make this one exception.

The tradeoff is obvious here in the impulse strength. As the particle size is increased the impulse per unit mass will be less powerful. The amount needed for the job then has to be determined and with a tailorable substance the right combination of size and power can be engineered to minimize noise for a given function.

Until you come up with a relevant citation this is pure fiction.