The Great Thermate Debate

[TruthersLie]

Apparenlty Leslie Robertson, says different. Make some research !!!

ROFL.

You really do need to learn how to do research.

That statement "from" leslie robertson is a 2nd or 3rd hand account, and one he never made.

Please... take some basic research classes.

 

[applecorped]

This debate isn't that great.

 

[TruthersLie]

Radio Controlled Devices do work. However, the RF signal would need to be well above 1.6 ghz, need not be interfered by other RF devices, and not cause any other interfierence.

Do you have that?

Or even better, how about random radio transmissions which could have been on the same frequency that the RF detonator would be on...

Oopsie... I guess in truther world, it was planned by rain man, and then done by the A team.

 

[TruthersLie]

and I did ... and it seems like I did more then you
snipped for brevity

YOu really do need to actually learn what a primary source is, and what secondary sources are.

The newspaper reporters do not QUOTE leslie robertson, but they tried to paraphrase him. Take a basic english 105 university course to figure out the differences.

 

[WildCat]

This debate isn't that great.

You expected more from a RedIbis thread?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

He produced a hole in structural steel exactly like the kinds of holes found in the swiss cheese steel. It was the closest comparison to the swiss cheese steel that we've yet seen.

One more time...

As was said earlier, his holes would need to be tested and compared to those found on samples from the WTC.

(What is it with you people and your insistence that "eyeballing it" is the only analysis one could possibly need? God damn...)

 

[Alferd_Packer]

ROFL.

You really do need to learn how to do research.

That statement "from" leslie robertson is a 2nd or 3rd hand account, and one he never made.

Please... take some basic research classes.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html

NARRATOR: Before signing off on the design, Robertson and his team performed one last unprecedented safety check.

Leslie Robertson: One of my jobs was to look at all of the possible events that might take place in a highrise building. And of course there had been in New York two incidences of aircraft impact, the most famous one of course being on the Empire State Building. Now, we were looking at an aircraft not unlike the Mitchell bomber that ran into the Empire State Building. We were looking at aircraft that was lost in the fog, trying to land. It was a low-flying, slow-flying 707, which was the largest aircraft of its time. And so we made calculations, not anywhere near the level of sophistication that we could today. But inside of our ability, we made calculations of what happened when the airplane goes in and it takes out a huge section of the outside wall of the building. And we concluded that it would stand. It would suffer but it would stand. And the outside wall would have a big hole in it, and the building would be in place. What we didn't look at is what happens to all that fuel. And perhaps we could be faulted for that, for not doing so. But for whatever reason we didn't look at that question of what would happen to the fuel.

 

[TruthersLie]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/filmmore/pt.html

Alfred... My bad, I thought he was talking about the leslie robertson "quote" about seeing molten steel dripping...

that is what I was referring to.

 

[grandmastershek]

I love when truthers introduce new mechanisms to the CD theory yet fail to understand that they just introduced another mountain of evidence no one seemed to notice on site. Fire investigators, firemen, cops, FBI, structural & explosive engineers all on site...yet not 1 noticed any remnants of any materials associated with this so called controlled demolition. Any way you slice it this crap would have been all over the place.

Unless of course everything was coated in thermite! "This stuff could be everywhere!!!"

 

[kylebisme]

I understand the difference between thermite and thermate. Neither were used, the WPI study shows this.

Again, please quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe shows this. As long as you refuse to either substantiate or withdraw this claim here, your proving yourself incapable of engaging in rational discourse, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your arguments until that changes.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Alfred... My bad, I thought he was talking about the leslie robertson "quote" about seeing molten steel dripping...

that is what I was referring to.

maybe he was?

LOL

These threads tend to jump around a lot and I lose track of whose talking to whom.

 

[Quiproquo]

Both towers fell such that the upper block had rotated before striking the lower block, resulting in an impact spread out over time. This is the reason the towers do not show such a strong deceleration on striking the lower block, although some deceleration is visible.

No, because Newton's Third Law only specifies that the upper and lower blocks experience equal and opposite forces at any instant; it doesn't specify the magnitude or duration of those forces, which is what determines whether or not there's a jolt.

1. Where is your data to back up your claim that there was an observable deceleration of the upper block when it fell onto the lower block; and

2. Please explain why it is the "magnitude or duration of those forces (which) determine whether or not there's a jolt" and not the principle of opposing forces as stated by Newton.

Thanks.

 

[Miragememories]

I love when truthers introduce new mechanisms to the CD theory yet fail to understand that they just introduced another mountain of evidence no one seemed to notice on site. Fire investigators, firemen, cops, FBI, structural & explosive engineers all on site...yet not 1 noticed any remnants of any materials associated with this so called controlled demolition. Any way you slice it this crap would have been all over the place.

Unless of course everything was coated in thermite! "This stuff could be everywhere!!!"

There is so much love here.

It is truly touching.

Actually based on the examination of the random dust samples, the thermitic material was everywhere.

Go figure.

MM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Again, please quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe shows this.

I already told you: It was the Worcester studies. Go to Google Scholar and look up the steel sulfidation studies conducted by Barnett, Biederman, Sisson, et. al., as well as the further studies by Biederman, Sisson, Sullivan and Vander Voort. One of those articles written from those studies is Metal Removal via Slag Attack of the Steel from Building 7 of the World Trade Center in the October 2006 edition of the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention. You will also want to look up the article Assessment of Structural Steel from the World Trade Center Towers, Part IV (S.W. Banovic, T. Foecke) in that same month and journal for more discussion of the timeframes involved in formation of the microstructures observed in the recovered steel. One of Biederman's, Sullivan's, Vander Voort's, and Sisson's writeups indicates a period of hours for such sulfidation attack layers to form; Banovic and Foecke agree.

And add to those findings the fact that the FeO/FeS/Fe layers would have been obliterated by thermate: Recall that a euctectic formation was found upon examination, and that the differing layers were formed via diffusion. The iron oxide - aluminum redox would've been so hot, it would've rendered all those phases liquid rather than whichever one had the lowest melting point¹. Remember that thermite burns up to 2500^oC, and that thermate achieves higher temperatures. If you blast that eutectic formation with the temperatures that a thermate redox would reach, you would no longer have those layers; the iron oxide and iron sulfide would have merely dripped away as purely liquid species, and the remaining iron/carbon phases would be different as well (see here for an iron/carbon phase diagram to understand what I mean by that last).

In short: We have the published studies by the Worcester team that indicates a timeframe of hours for such a sulfidation attack to occur; that's strike one. We also know simply from the melting points of the species observed in the eutectic remains on the recovered steel that they would be rendered liquid at the temperatures thermite/mate reacts at and therefore would've been destroyed in a thermate reaction; that's strike two. For strike three, you can take your pick from all the other problems that exist: The fact that erosion was only noted on a limited number of steel components (and weren't noted in areas that would've indicated they were used to sever the components), the fact that there weren't recovered, hardened pools of previously molten iron, the fact that no truther can construct a coherent explanation for how demolitions containing thermate were installed, or even when the opportunity existed for their installation, etc. Regardless, whichever way you go, the convergence of the evidence demonstrates that thermate is an unsupportable proposition. QED.

As long as you refuse to either substantiate or withdraw this claim here, your proving yourself incapable of engaging in rational discourse, so I won't bother addressing the rest of your arguments until that changes.

You watch it. My previous post was eminently rational, and depended on zero pseudoscience and fact distortion, unlike your post. If you want to substantiate your charge that I was being "incapable or engaging in rational discourse" when that entire last post was nothing more than a fact based refutation of your argument, then you go back through that post and point out the errors you believe are there. In the absence of that, then you can wear the mantle of irrational discourse. You are not the one presenting fact, you are presenter truther distortions. Which I pointed out in that previous post. Pretending that it was irrational discourse is hiding from the fact that it was a fact-based refutation. You respond to the substance of the argument next time.


------

1. You must recall that FeO and FeS have lower melting points - 1370^oC and 1195^oC respectively - than iron (1536^oC). And yes, we're talking about iron at this point, not carbon alloyed steel; read the sources I'm directing you at and note that they observed that the steel they studied underwent decarburization.

 

[beachnut]

and I did ... and it seems like I did more then you

"After the bombing of the WTC in 1993, Leslie Robertson, one of the engineers who worked on the towers' structural design in the 1960s, claimed that each had been built to withstand the impact of a fully fueled 707. The 707 was the state-of-the-art airplane, and the Port Authority was quite amenable to considering the effect of an airplane as a design criterion...I don't know if we considered the fire damage that would cause. Anyway, the architect, not the engineer, is the one who specifies the fire system."

Hearsay, why do spew hearsay as your proof of your own failed moronic claims? Hearsay! Robertson never said fully fueled. You are a liar if you say he did. Are you a liar?

The other critical point was the effective speed of the two aircraft. Did the design call for a limitation of a Boeing 707 flying at 180 mph?

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.

The impact speed for the design of the WTC aircraft impact was 180 mph. It is the speed a plane lost in the fog trying to land, low on fuel, would be at, 180 mph. There is no reason a pilot would be in the fog lost if he had the fuel to fly to Miami or an airport in VFR conditions. Why would a plane be cruising at 600 mph at 700 feet? The speed limit for aircraft below 10,000 feet is 250 knots, why can't you do your research?

You failed to research this! Why?

Airliners don't cruise at 600 mph at 700 feet. How did you fail this big?

Robertson did the study at 180 mph, and the WTC towers would resist the damage and survive. On 911 the speed of impact gave 7 to 11 times greater KE; too bad you don't do physics. BTW, the Robertson 180 mph impact study was confirmed by a study, and 200 mph is the magic speed for the WTC towers. Why did you fail to research this fact? 9 years of failure?

On September 8, 2002, two reporters for the NY Times, James Glanz and Eric Lipton posted a story
under the heading The Height of Ambition: Part Four.
...
"Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber. He concluded that the towers would remain standing despite the force of the impact and
the hole it would punch out. The new technologies he had installed after the motion experiments and wind-tunnel work had created a structure more than strong enough to withstand such a blow.

This is true. A low speed is 180 mph. BINGO

Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report. Several engineers who worked with him at the time, including the director of his computer department, say they have no recollection of ever seeing the study.

Oops, a recent study proved the 180 mph impact was valid.

One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour.

Hearsay, failure.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.

The second problem was that no one thought to take into account the fires that would inevitably break out when the jetliner's fuel exploded, exactly as the B-25's had."

The study was for low fuel, almost out because the idiot pilot is lost, has to land. Robertson should be upset, the 600 mph is a lie, his design was at 180 mph.

Well difficult as it is to believe, Robertson, post 9/11 is now arguing his design work never called for the Towers to "withstand the impact of a fully fueled 707" which would also require a consideration of the fires that would result.

Because you can't do proper research. 180 mph impact would not do much damage.

But in his defence, Robertson was carrying a great guilt load following 9/11 and may have wanted to distance himself from his earlier claims about the Titanic-nature of the Twin Towers;

But he does not make up delusions like you do and lie.

Well, based on documentation that the NIST obtained in 2003, the Towers most definitely were designed to handle a 600 mph Boeing 707 impact.

False, the port authority had 600 mph in their white paper, no study, just talk. You are using hearsay, when the structural engineer who built the WTC says 180 mph; You failed.

In a followup article for the NY Times, published on December 3, 2003, the same reporter, James Glanz, now, in effect retracted his earlier story;

"The investigators also said that newly disclosed Port Authority documents suggested that the towers were designed to withstand the kind of airplane strike that they suffered on Sept. 11.

Earlier statements by Port Authority officials and outside engineers involved in designing the buildings suggested that the designers considered an accidental crash only by slower aircraft, moving at less than 200 miles per hour.

The newly disclosed documents, from the 1960's, show that the Port Authority considered aircraft moving at 600 m.p.h., slightly faster and therefore more destructive than the ones that did hit the towers, Dr. S. Shyam Sunder, who is leading the investigation for the National Institute of Standards and Technology in the Commerce Department said."

The reference to these documents appears in NCSTAR 1-2, 8.2 AIRCRAFT IMPACT DAMAGE ANALYSIS, 8.2.1 Safety of the WTC Towers in Aircraft Collision

"Finding 11 acknowledges that " The documents indicate that a Boeing 707, the largest commercial aircraft at the time, flying at 600 mph was considered and that the analysis indicated that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. No documentary evidence of the aircraft impact analysis was available to review the criteria and methods used in the analysis of the aircraft impact into the WTC towers, or to provide details on the ability of the WTC towers to withstand such impacts."

Hearsay, the new papers are from a white paper which is bragging about the WTC. The 600 mph was in the white paper, not from a study. Once again, Robertson is correct, the study was done for 180 mph. You failed, you used NIST and failed to research the truth.

Here are a few of the salient points that the NIST found in the discovered Port Authority documents from February 3, 1964:
...
3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

7. The design has been reviewed by some of the most knowledgeable people in the construction industry. In a letter to John Skilling, the Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center, the Chief Engineer of the American Bridge Division of U.S. Steel Corporation said:
"In reviewing this design with our Operating and Construction Departments, we are very optimistic that you have turned a new page in the design of structural steel."

This is directly from the white paper the port authority put out, it is hearsay. Some idiot must of looked up the top speed of a 707 and put it in the paper. Robertson would be upset, some idiot failed to check. Why did you fail?

http://911research.wtc7.n.../wtc/analysis/design.html
"John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8."

True, at 180 mph.

http://community.seattlet...19930227&slug=1687698
Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision
By Eric Nalder
as reported in the Seattle Times Februaury 27, 1993

"In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the Twin Towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.”

180 mph.

http://www2.ljworld.com/n...1/sep/12/towers_built_to/
Towers built to withstand jet impact
as reported in the Chicago Tribune September 12, 2001

"Les Robertson, the Trade Center's structural engineer, spoke last week at a conference on tall buildings in Frankfurt, Germany. He was asked during a question-and-answer session what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks, according to Joseph Burns, a principal at the Chicago firm of Thornton-Thomasetti Engineers.
Burns, who was present, said that Robertson said of the center, "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it."

180 mph, Got Physics?

The architect for the WTC was Minoru Yamasaki, with the structural engineering led by John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson."

http://www.nytimes.com/20...yregion/20towers.htm?_r=1
Study Suggests Design Flaws Didn't Doom Towers
By ERIC LIPTON
Published: October 20, 2004

"For Leslie E. Robertson, the structural engineer who helped design the twin towers as a young man back in the early 1960's, the latest findings buttress his longstanding assertion that the towers were fundamentally sound. His wife, Saw-Teen See, who is a managing partner at Mr. Robertson's New York design firm, said the report "validates the way we thought the structure would have performed."
The findings by the institute, however, still do not exonerate Mr. Robertson or the building's owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which, in defending the trade center project from critics in the 1960s, boasted that the design was so robust that the towers could be hit by a jet traveling at 600 miles per hour without collapsing or endangering the lives of occupants beyond the impact zone. In retrospect, such a claim was unjustified because the engineers had failed to consider the added stresses caused by the resulting fires."

600 mph is a lie, the study was 180 mph. This is where physics comes in handy. Why are you physics free?

... Contradictory statements by Leslie Robertson where he sometimes states that the WTC Towers were engineered for a slow moving B-707 flying in the fog, come across as a emotionally defensive reaction to his sense of guilt over the collapse of the WTC Towers.

Claiming the WTC Towers were never engineered for 600 mph 767 impacts, assuages his sense of guilt over those many lost lives.

There are no contradictory statements made by Robertson, you are using hearsay as your evidence; it makes your statement a lie. You make up lies about 911 out of ignorance and failure to do research. 9 years of failure.


The topic, the video about thermate proves thermate was not used at the WTC; do you know why?

 

[kylebisme]

I already told you: It was the Worcester studies.

I asked you, politely, to quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe proves your claim. As you've proven unwilling to do comply with that simple request, I've no interest in further discussion with you.

 

[leftysergeant]

Verinage clearly shows deceleration of the upper block when it hits the lower block, which the towers do not.

What's with the insults and condescension?

Because you are ignoring all of the pertinent information it is clerar that you are not trained in any of the subject areas we are discussing.

There is no evidence, for instance, that there was actually a gap across which the C blocks had to travel to impact the A blocks. They may have simpoly sagged until they were in contact with and thus over-loaded the A blocks at wierd angles. The point that verinage proves is that once a critical amount of energy is applied to the right elements of a structure, in the right direction, that sucker is coming down.

 

[leftysergeant]

I asked you, politely, to quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe proves your claim. As you've proven unwilling to do comply with that simple request, I've no interest in further discussion with you.

Dude, wake up. You quoted it in your post.

 

[excaza]

I asked you, politely, to quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe proves your claim. As you've proven unwilling to do comply with that simple request, I've no interest in further discussion with you.

He provided you a link to the paper in his post, you dolt.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I asked you, politely, to quote specifically whatever experimentation you believe proves your claim. As you've proven unwilling to do comply with that simple request, I've no interest in further discussion with you.

And I told you politely where to find them. I even sourced the titles and journals, and linked one of the multiple writeups. You were given exactly the information you requested. All you have to do is read the sources I gave you.

If you want to ignore substance, then that's your problem. But don't expect to be taken seriously by anyone else here.