OK, so how do thermite demolitions work again?

[jaydeehess]

This is coming from the man who believes that acceleration is constant even when resistance is not, and that steel columns can just up and decide not to offer any resistance to collapse.

Gotta love it.....

Tell me, if you are walk off a cliff does the fact that you are falling mere inches from the cliff face arrest your downward fall in the slightest?
Now! If a large mass of rubble is falling between columns is it possible for the columns to arrest the fall at all?

 

[Dragon37]

Suffice to say that you have all seen molten iron falling from the twin towers. No-one has missed that. Yet not everyone knew what it was they were watching.

There was molten metal falling from the south tower but if it was iron I haven't heard. From my understanding, and all toothers say the same, the fires were not hot enough to melt iron. So I have to assume it was some other metal.

If that video is all you have to prove your point that is very weak evidence.

 

[Thunder]

If? "If" "If is the middle word in life".

haa haa!!

movie references.

 

[tempesta29]

Did you read all of my above posts?
I asked about the result when tons of debris rupture gas tanks in autos.

Why would the deeper areas be particularily oxygen deprived? The rubble was a lattice of rubblized material and a subway tunnel ran to the towers, oxygen could easily get to the fires. It has been pointed out to you several times now that coal seam fires have been burning at higher temps than the WTC rubble for decades and they have even less access to oxygen.

Pull your head out from under the cloak of personal incredulity and think about that.

Coal is a fossil fuel and contains a considerable amount of hydrogen. The rubble at the WTC was predominantly steel. How can you even think of comparing them is beyond me. This isn't a coal seam fire.

It also noted that the basic resistance comes NOT from the columns but from the floor pans WHICH ARE ALL basically the same. I also pointed out that the MASS increases and the velocity increases, BOTH of which would increase the downward force, as the collapse progresses.

Nonsense. Are you implying that the upper sections just dodged the massive steel and concrete cores?

And even if your ridiculous "mass increases" theory were true, this would be a constant, and would be happening in the crash zone as well, so a discrepancy in resistance would still be measurable.

 

[adkinsjr]

Nonsense. Are you implying that the upper sections just dodged the massive steel and concrete cores?

No, he isn't.

And even if your ridiculous "mass increases" theory were true this would be a constant...

Ridiculous? Are you saying the falling mass remains constant? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. If you increase mass then you increase momentum, and thus the force imposed. It's as simple as that. Have you ever heard of impulse-momentum? Of course not...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_(physics)

and would be happening in the crash zone as well, so a discrepancy in resistance would still be measurable.

What?

 

[davefoc]

I don't think so. I think you've missed the molten iron in all three basements.

I think this is where a bit of the disconnect between you and some of the other participants in this thread is.

You may have missed this but some of them seem to be skeptical that there was molten metal in the basements. In fact, some of them seem to even question whether WTC7 had a basement for molten iron to be in.

What might be helpful here is if you could provide evidence for this molten iron. I realize you suggested that people look on the internet for this evidence. But this doesn't seem to have helped. Perhaps the skeptics participating in this thread lack your internet skills or perhaps they just have failed to recognize important evidence when they saw it.

As an aside I remain a little confused about this molten iron. Was it actually molten long after the towers came down or are you saying there were pools of molten iron that solidified into pools of iron soon after the WTC collapsed?

Thanks, Dave

 

[alienentity]

The rubble at the WTC was predominantly steel. How can you even think of comparing them is beyond me. This isn't a coal seam fire.

.

Oh how I wish we could get tempesta, Jammonius and WTCDust into a discussion..... sigh....

ETA whatever happened to dear old Dr. Blevins? Did she finally implode?

 

[Dave Rogers]

And even if your ridiculous "mass increases" theory were true, this would be a constant, and would be happening in the crash zone as well, so a discrepancy in resistance would still be measurable.

This is your fallacy. You've made no attempt even to estimate the magnitude of the discrepancy - in fact, you've scorned any attempt to do so - so how do you know it would be large enough to be measurable?

As usual, you're comparing two numbers you don't know - the reduction in acceleration when the upper block reaches the undamaged structure, and the lower limit of a measurable change in acceleration - and asserting without justification that one is greater than the other. Show it with numbers, or you have no argument.

Dave

 

[triforcharity]

Oh how I wish we could get tempesta, Jammonius and WTCDust into a discussion..... sigh....

Yeah, that would certainly be a sight to see.

ETA whatever happened to dear old Dr. Blevins? Did she finally implode?

She hasn't been seen since her little "presentation". I suspect that the only reason she was here, was to get some extra hits for her garbage display.

 

[tempesta29]

This is your fallacy. You've made no attempt even to estimate the magnitude of the discrepancy - in fact, you've scorned any attempt to do so - so how do you know it would be large enough to be measurable?

We can't estimate the magnitude of the discrepancy with any degree of certainty because we don't know what happened to the core structure. All we have been told is that the core was so badly weakened that it propagated collapse.

In essence, this question, "how do you know it would be measurable," is both a cop out and an attempt to have it both ways. The damage was so great, so crippling that it brought these massive, over-engineered buildings to piles of rubble, but the damage was not so great that it would produce a measurable discrepancy in resistance compared to undamaged structure.

Keep hiding behind that if you like.

As usual, you're comparing two numbers you don't know - the reduction in acceleration when the upper block reaches the undamaged structure, and the lower limit of a measurable change in acceleration - and asserting without justification that one is greater than the other. Show it with numbers, or you have no argument.

Nonsense. The measurements indicate there is no discrepancy in resistance.

 

[Chodorov]

Hey I checked out that molten iron story about five one years ago, and it turned out that

1. there is zero physical evidence for molten iron in any of the three basements
2. there is zero photographic or video evidence for molten iron in any of the three basements
3. there is not a single credible and competent witness testimony for molten iron in any of the three basements

In fact, many of the witness statements contain the proof that whatever they saw could not possibly have been molten iron.

This is just straight lying. So obviously it doesn't count in a scientific argument. Your statement has no relevance whatsoever. Since it it just a lie.

 

[Chodorov]

You may have missed this but some of them seem to be skeptical that there was molten metal in the basements.

Thats not what is happening. They refuse to believe the reality of it based on one thing only. WORKING BACKWARDS FROM THE FAITH-BASED CONCLUSION. So their evasive behavior is irrelevant to this question. As I've pointed out there is one internet and one internet only. It is at all of our fingertips, and if any of you are not interested in the evidence this is a matter for you. But you ought exempt yourself from the argument. Since you aren't part of the argument. You are only attempting to skew the argument to your faith-based position.

All of you have seen molten iron dripping out of the world trade centre. All of you and without exception have seen this.

 

[TJM]

This is just straight lying. So obviously it doesn't count in a scientific argument. Your statement has no relevance whatsoever. Since it it just a lie.

Where is your scientific argument?

 

[Chodorov]

haa haa!!

movie references.

Ha Ha. Did you have a point?

Isn't it just astonishing the lengths people will go to to maintain an untenable and faith-based position You know I am quite a fan of Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. But I think their position vis a vis Christians is pretty dated. Not illogical but a little dated. Because the real problem we are having these days is with faux-religious secular behavior.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

*bump*

Truthers always miss the 800lb gorilla in the room.

In order for it to be explosives at a minimum ALL of these criteria must be met:

1) The explosive device (this means all of the device, not just one part of it) must be able to withstand an impact from a 400+ MPH 767 along with its cargo and fuel. This means that not only can't it detonate but it also must remain 100% functional.

2) The explosive device must then be able to withstand a minimum of 45 minutes worth of unfought office type fires.

3) The explosive device and whatever type of protection that you used to meet 1 and 2 above cannot be detectable through casual observation to the untrained eye.

If you can't meet at least ONE of those minimum conditions then the entire theory falls apart.

The reality is that those are the absolute best possible case scenarios. I'm quite sure that in a real world application there are many other criteria that would need to be met but truthers haven't even met these basic truths yet so there's no point in continuing on.

I'm still waiting...

 

[davefoc]

This is just straight lying. So obviously it doesn't count in a scientific argument. Your statement has no relevance whatsoever. Since it it just a lie.

Well see, there you go. You've said essentially that several times in posts above and yet the skeptics just don't get it. Maybe a different tack is required. Perhaps you could help them out a bit by providing some evidence for your claim.

 

[Chodorov]

Where is your scientific argument?

Did you not see it? Let us go over it again. A scientific argument is like a pyramid, in that at the pinnacle you have a conclusion that is built on many networked assumptions. Some of these assumptions are implicit and ought to be made explicit. Some were explicit from the start. But all reasoning that goes into the conclusion at the top of the debate pyramid, is dependent on assumptions and arguments lower down. Introducing a flat out lie into the debate pyramid means that the entirety of the debate will be perverted from then on in. This is why I ruthlessly excise lies from the argument. And you must find a way, to learn a way, to begin to do the same.

 

[tempesta29]

Ridiculous? Are you saying the falling mass remains constant? What you're saying doesn't make any sense. If you increase mass then you increase momentum, and thus the force imposed. It's as simple as that. Have you ever heard of impulse-momentum? Of course not...

But you aren't increasing mass necessarily. In fact, mass, in this instance is probably decreasing. Not only is the upper section ejecting large quantities of mass laterally, the upper section itself is destroyed by the lower, ejecting its mass outward in the same fashion. In fact if you look at high quality collapse videos in slow motion, you can see that these lateral ejections are powerful and constant. Mass isn't just stacking up like pancakes; it is being blown outward with tremendous force.

Or did you think that the upper sections were just completely invulnerable to destruction? Did you ever stop to think how 10 floors of the North Tower could manage to take out 100 floors below it without first being destroyed by the forces of the lower section?

 

[Chodorov]

Well see, there you go. You've said essentially that several times in posts above and yet the skeptics just don't get it.

Stop calling them skeptics. They are not skeptics. They believe everything they are told no matter how ridiculous. Their entire belief system is based on the argument-from-authority. This is a mirror image of skepticism. This is anti-skepticism.

 

[Chodorov]

But you aren't increasing mass necessarily. In fact, mass, in this instance is probably decreasing.

Definitely decreasing.