Nope. It's just you.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Thermate + steel having the same characteristic corrosion as found by Barnett et al?
- Thread starter Senenmut
- Start date
Nope. It's just you.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
I can understand how, if you simply don't understand any of this, you might believe that one thing you can't understand contradicts another thing you can't understand. It's the entire basis of your belief system. Sadly, the rest of us do understand it, and we're beginning to see just how little you do know. It's time to give up on you, I think. Go to night school and take some science classes, and in a few years you might be competent to discuss these issues; at the moment, your posts are simply embarrassing to read.
Dave
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
More or less. I think we should find out what homeopaths have to say about 9/11; after all, if water has a memory, why not steel?
Dave
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
I was responding to Dave, not you. You stay out of this; I had posted in order to try to move the conversation to something productive, as opposed to what you've been doing. Furthermore, if you had read what he wrote, he was referring to the reversibility of expansion upon cooling; that's what he meant by writing "thermal expansion leaves no permanent deformation" i.e once it expands, it doesn't stay larger i.e. expansion and contraction is a thermal dependent property. And that is the precise point I was responding to, in that steel components themselves may contract, but the distortions that occur at their points of connection may in fact remain. And above and beyond that may in fact be identifiable to some degree. In short, I was expanding on the topic. And unlike you, I was contributing, not subtracting from the value of the conversation.
What in God's name has happened to you, Red? At least in the past you were arguing in favor of a belief; now, your whole purpose seems to be to simply take the opposite stance of whatever peoople here say just to be argumentative. You now contribute less and serve less of a purpose to either 9/11 "Truth" or this forum than you used to when you were retailing the conspiracy canon. Is this what you've reduced yourself to? Opposing just for the sake of opposition? I know I need to expand on my external hobbies, but if I need to, you doubly need to. Your contributions are a ghost of what they used to be.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Stop digging.
An alternative theory to RedIbis being completely ignorant of science is that he is just a liar and pretending to be so ignorant. Don't ask me why he would do this. But it is a proven fact that RedIbis will lie even if there is no rational reason for him to do so.
For proof, see this whopper.
For proof, see this whopper.
Last edited:
BillyRayValentine
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 329
Firstly, nice try, but you fool no one. It's quite clear what you meant when you said "I imagine if you found thermally expanded floor members...Did they find any of these thermally expanded floor members?". Enough said.
Second, even your amended version is idiotic. So you think that steel members that had experienced thermal expansion before the collapse would show "discernible evidence"? Discernible from, say, damage incurred during the collapse of a 47 story building and/or within the resulting pile of burning rubble?
Totally ridiculous. What motivates someone to indulge in such stupidity, especially when they must be aware of their own ignorance? Baffling, as ever.
Paint? Yes the samples Jones had match paint! Sorry you joined Jones? Jones is insane, that is his excuse for spreading lies and moronic delusions. Prove paint does not have the sized particles Jones delusions has? Prove anything about 911 Jones believes and you have a Pulitzer Prize; but they don't give Pulitzer Prizes to nut case insane ideas. Jones is failure; 8 years of constant lies and delusions.
I showed paint which has the same chemicals as thermite. Jones has no clue what he is doing in chemistry and Jones has no clue what he is trying to defend and what it means. It takes less than 0.33 seconds to find iron oxide in paint, it took Jones years to find some dust and make up delusions. Failure
Last edited:
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
Welcome to TrutherWorld, where gravity, thermal expansion, and the thermal weakening of steel are implausible, but silent explosives, rigging a demolition in a few hours in a burning building, cutting vertical steel columns with thermite, and space beams are plausible.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Stop lying. Quote where I said any of this.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Stop quote mining.
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
from your link
sunstealer quote:
"The mass of the reactants is twice that of the liquid iron produced so 1 litre (2.1Kg) thermite will produce 1.05Kg of liquid iron with a volume of 0.15 Litres (150 cm−3) given liquid iron density of 6.98 g·cm−3."
i think liquid iron is just on aspect of the overall picture. here is what henryco stated in a thread:
'This is what matters: power density
(Watt/g )and not energy density (J/g). I expect the oxydation in the air of an organic component to, may be, release much energy
but certainly not at such rate, and if it does i would again conclude that the chip is a very powerful staff even if cannot say that
this is due to a thermitic reaction."
just imagine a few hundred layers of the stuff along with a layer of sulfur here and there behind a few inches of blazeshield. if one could start the reaction close to the steel, it would be a machine gun effect with wave after wave of extremely hot molten iron and sulfur as layer after layer reacted destroying/corroding the steel. it would be interesting to see if the blazeshild would just melt or be blown off.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
He doesn't, but you do............
Steel expands with heat, that expansion could cause a failure to a joint in a building AND/OR a softened bean could buckle and fail bringing down the building AND/OR the collapsing building could break joints and buckle cool and heat softened beams, AND the pile could burn for weeks and beam could buckle in the fire quite independently of the original fire and collapse.
Please let us know how they could tell when a particular beam suffered damage? They couldn't so they modeled it and found a possible failure mechanism. Was it the right one?..........I don't know, I'm a mech eng but this is a little out of my field) but your alternative one has no evidence for it at all so why would I choose to believe your rather implausible CD theory and not NISTs perfectly plausible one or just accept that what EXACTLY caused the failure may never be known but since there is zero evidence for anything other than a impact and fire cause there is no point discussing it further?
SHOW US EVIDENCE OF CD!
Red,
Uh, no. He's not.
One of you does sound massively silly.
It just isn't who you think it is.
1. Can you articulate - in precise detail - exactly what NIST wanted to find out from the steel samples that they gathered? (No generic responses accepted.)
2. Can you articulate in precise terms the methodology that NIST stated from the very start of their investigation by which they intended to find out what caused the collapse of the towers & WTC7?
3. Can you articulate exactly what role the information found out from the examination of the steel (the first question) played in that overall analysis?
NIST has stated all of this precisely.
I've quoted it here a half dozen times. I'm certain that many others have as well.
The simple act of restating it in your own words will provide you with a far better understanding of the process than you simply re-reading my (or someone else's) 5th, or 50th, reiteration of the same info.
Furthermore, if you can state the above, you will understand why your quest for the straw that broke the camel's back is pointless & irrelevant.
___
Re: thermal expansion. It is not a guess that it happened. It is a certainty.
It is a certainty exactly how much occurred.
It is NOT a new, unrecognized or unique phenomenon. It is 100% guaranteed every single time you heat up a piece of steel.
Furthermore, IMHO, there is an approximately 99.999% probability that it has contributed to building (or other large structure) failure in the past. But simply went unrecognized.
The fact that it wasn't recognized previously does NOT mean that it never happened. It was recognized in the case of WTC7 precisely because of the extensive, unprecedented extent of the analyses performed.
You do realize, don't you, that thermal expansion alone was not sufficient to bring down WTC7. That there were other unique features of WTC7 design that combined with the expansion. And that, had those other features not existed, thermal expansion alone would likely not have brought down the building.
Tom
Uh, no. He's not.
One of you does sound massively silly.
It just isn't who you think it is.
1. Can you articulate - in precise detail - exactly what NIST wanted to find out from the steel samples that they gathered? (No generic responses accepted.)
2. Can you articulate in precise terms the methodology that NIST stated from the very start of their investigation by which they intended to find out what caused the collapse of the towers & WTC7?
3. Can you articulate exactly what role the information found out from the examination of the steel (the first question) played in that overall analysis?
NIST has stated all of this precisely.
I've quoted it here a half dozen times. I'm certain that many others have as well.
The simple act of restating it in your own words will provide you with a far better understanding of the process than you simply re-reading my (or someone else's) 5th, or 50th, reiteration of the same info.
Furthermore, if you can state the above, you will understand why your quest for the straw that broke the camel's back is pointless & irrelevant.
___
Re: thermal expansion. It is not a guess that it happened. It is a certainty.
It is a certainty exactly how much occurred.
It is NOT a new, unrecognized or unique phenomenon. It is 100% guaranteed every single time you heat up a piece of steel.
Furthermore, IMHO, there is an approximately 99.999% probability that it has contributed to building (or other large structure) failure in the past. But simply went unrecognized.
The fact that it wasn't recognized previously does NOT mean that it never happened. It was recognized in the case of WTC7 precisely because of the extensive, unprecedented extent of the analyses performed.
You do realize, don't you, that thermal expansion alone was not sufficient to bring down WTC7. That there were other unique features of WTC7 design that combined with the expansion. And that, had those other features not existed, thermal expansion alone would likely not have brought down the building.
Tom
Last edited:
[Emphasis added. -tk]
Why "imagine"?
Why not DO IT?
See if you can get your imagined hundred layers of the stuff to melt a WTC sized beam - stood vertically - in the REQUIRED 0.02 seconds.
For that matter, see if you can get it to melt in ANY time frame.
Others have tried.
And failed.
WTC steels
There were problems identifying where in the building the steel was from on WTC7 because it wasn't marked like the WTC steel was. However, since WTC's steel was marked as to where it went; that's why they can say beam xxxxx is from the 74 floor twenty columns in.
Please keep in mind that, that is merely an example. So, WTC1 & 2 had steel marked and these markings matched the blueprints that the kooks say no longer exist.
There were problems identifying where in the building the steel was from on WTC7 because it wasn't marked like the WTC steel was. However, since WTC's steel was marked as to where it went; that's why they can say beam xxxxx is from the 74 floor twenty columns in.
Please keep in mind that, that is merely an example. So, WTC1 & 2 had steel marked and these markings matched the blueprints that the kooks say no longer exist.