Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
So how exactly does fire cause steel to fail, according to you?

There is a difference between "melt" and "soften".

Melt means that it goes from a solid form to a liquid form. This is most common with ice. So, yes, there is a big difference. If you need additional help with tht concept, please consult a blacksmith.

That's not what I asked, so obviously you are the one having a lot of difficulty here.

I didn't ask "Does steel melt or soften?" I asked, "So how exactly does fire cause steel to fail, according to you?" As in, in a structure?


Not even NIST or FEMA (ie, no one) said the towers came down because the columns got too soft and hot. They said the floor trusses expanded, you know, thermal expansion?

Ever seen the Cardington tests?


That's what I'm talking about. Any comment on any of that?

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
Because whatever it does, the First Interstate Bank wasn't in any danger of collapse, neither have any other skyscrapers ever been.

Not according to the USFA.

According to demonstrated historical fact. You can keep your arguments from bureaucracy.

Now, since you were wrong about that, could you be wrong about the rest of your statement?

I said it wasn't in danger of collapse, because it never failed. This is a fact we have verified by now, I would think. You are talking about people speculating ('concerned') at the time whether or not it would collapse, and they were obviously wrong, so how in the hell does that prove me wrong? Keep dreaming.

Although there was concern for structural integrity during the incident, post fire analysis indicates that there was no danger of major or minor structural collapse. It was noted that quality control in the application of the sprayed-on fire protection was unusually good.

Found here

Do you know how long spray-on fireproofing is rated for? Not almost 4 hours. That means the fireproofing wasn't even relevant by the time the fires were put out, and the building still burned for at least as long as WTC2 did after it would have gone beyond its rating.

There is no evidence I've seen that the WTC Towers' fireproofing didn't at least pass its inspection, no matter how bad you claim it was, meaning the same rating would have originally applied there. Whether or not the impacts would have dislodged a large amount of it has not been proven, and I really doubt that it would have dislodged much outside of the immediately areas of the impacts.

On top of all that, the heating of the columns themselves was not going to pose a problem at the WTC according to anyone. So your whole shtick here with steel softening is not even to the tune of the government's own story. They're talking about thermal expansion of the trusses, not the columns getting soft like wet noodles.

I didn't say that, but yes, they do, as NIST explained.

1-Problems with SFRM pre-911, some dating back to 1992.

"Problems" meaning anything. The picture posted earlier showed one cross-brace on a truss exposed, everything else still covered in fireproofing. And the idea is that the guy took the picture of it because he thought this was a problem. And even without fireproofing, steel has to be very hot for anything to start happening, and you're still confused on what actually happened to it, to cause the towers to collapse according to the government.

2-No concrete used in fire protection.
3-No concrete in the core.

Those are not unique to the WTC Tower either. First Interstate Bank. We were just talking about it.

4-No firefighting efforts whatsoever

I just mentioned 2 other skyscraper fires were firefighting attempts were abandoned and the buildings were allowed to burn out.

5-Massive plane impact damage.

"Massive" is not a quantity. The planes took out less than 15% of the columns on the impacted floors in either tower. The buildings were not in danger of collapse from the plane impacts alone.

So, unless you can find me a steel structure that has no concrete core, that has had massive damage from a speeding 767, that had no firefighting efforts whatsoever, and had problems with the SFRM pre-incident, you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

Then all you are telling me is that you refuse to compare the WTC Towers to any other buildings, ever. You will always find some difference, no matter whether or not that difference actually makes a difference. If I did have a building that met all those requirements, then you'd probably ask for 110 stories or colored gray or etc. etc.

We were also talking about WTC7 earlier, but notice how quickly it gets thrown under the bus just because no plane hit it, and you can't keep retreating to that lame excuse.

Have you seen this one?

Mandarin Oriental Hotel. No concrete, not even fully constructed yet. All steel. Burned for over 5 hours.

There comes a point where it gets ridiculous.


Do you think the plane impacts alone brought down the towers or not?


If not, then what is it about the fire that you think caused the towers to explode everywhere, exactly?

edit on 30-3-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)

I'll address this post tomorrow night. It's late, and I have class in the morning.

reply to post by FDNY343

Like ignoring the fact that the "damage progression front" (call it whatever the **** you want, I don't really care really) is ABOVE the pieces that ARE in fact falling at free fall ACCELERATION.

You don’t need to shout, where all adults here.
If you cannot respond to me courteously then do not respond at all. Apparently you do care or you wouldn’t have responded. Again I will explain that your photo in question is not of any building falling down, but of a building exploding. When buildings fall down they do not hurl tons of heavy steel beams over five hundred feet away. If the building just fell down as you are trying to convince me they did, then the steel beams would have just dropped straight down, wouldn’t you agree? My eyes do not lie to me.

(FFA has no defined speed. It's not like ffs is 156.2 mph, it is a calculation that is different for every single inch of the planet)

So, please, show me the math of FFA from the top of the WTC, and show me that it falls within that timeframe. I'll wait.

Your way off topic and your question is of no significance to the fact that the WTC was blown to pieces.

I have never denied that fact. A PORTION of 7WTC's NORTH FACE, did in fact fall at FFA. HOWEVER< the collapse took WELL ABOVE 15 seconds, which is WELL ABOVE freefall acceleration.

You are yelling again.

Where do you get 15 seconds from? I can assure you it was under 15 seconds.

Originally posted by impressme
Here a question that you will never answer, what could have “caused” WTC to come down in the speed that it did?

Gravity.

So your saying WTC 7 just fell down at freefall speed because of “Gravity”?

So “Gravity” is what caused the WTC 7 to free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds. A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. What caused 2.25 freefall? You are saying “Gravity,” based on what?

Thank you for your scientific explanation of “Gravity” being the main caused that brought down a 47 story high-rise in less than 15 seconds.

Originally posted by impressme

Where do you get 15 seconds from? I can assure you it was under 15 seconds.


Thank you for your scientific explanation of “Gravity” being the main caused that brought down a 47 story high-rise in less than 15 seconds.

You're wrong. Even LaBTop, who thinks that the collapse was a demolition, has shown that the building came down in 16 seconds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by impressme
You don’t need to shout, where all adults here.
If you cannot respond to me courteously then do not respond at all. Apparently you do care or you wouldn’t have responded. Again I will explain that your photo in question is not of any building falling down, but of a building exploding. When buildings fall down they do not hurl tons of heavy steel beams over five hundred feet away. If the building just fell down as you are trying to convince me they did, then the steel beams would have just dropped straight down, wouldn’t you agree? My eyes do not lie to me.

I'm not yelling. If I was yelling, the entire sentence would be in caps. It's not. That is called emphasis. Sorry, it's easier for me to capatalize something than use the editing tools that are provided, as I have to allow scripted windows every single post I make.

You have yet to show me which steel beam was hurled over 500' away. Please, feel free to do so.

Originally posted by impressme

Your way off topic and your question is of no significance to the fact that the WTC was blown to pieces.

Then why did YOU bring it up? Remember? You said that WTC 1&2 fell at freefall speed. (Which, is a non-starter, as freefall HAS no listed speed, it is an acceleration)

Originally posted by impressme

You are yelling again.
[/quote

NO, THIS IS YELLING!! IF I WAS YELLING, IT WOULD BE IN ALL CAPITALS. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

Originally posted by impressme

Where do you get 15 seconds from? I can assure you it was under 15 seconds.
[/QUOTE]

Really?

See here.

www.youtube.com...

Collapse starts at :12 in the video, and doesn't disappear until :25, and that was not the end of the collapse.

Originally posted by impressme

So your saying WTC 7 just fell down at freefall speed because of “Gravity”?

So “Gravity” is what caused the WTC 7 to free-fall acceleration for a period of at least 2.25 seconds. A free-falling building means there is no supporting structure whatsoever below to slow the building’s fall. What caused 2.25 freefall? You are saying “Gravity,” based on what?

Thank you for your scientific explanation of “Gravity” being the main caused that brought down a 47 story high-rise in less than 15 seconds.

No, not less than 15 seconds. Not in any sense of the word.

Yes, gravity does that. Hence, why freefall is properly called "gravitational acceleration".

If you are asking what exactly caused it, a section of buckled columns. Please feel free to read the NIST report. It explains it.

reply to post by FDNY343


Good to see you're back and ready to resume the discussion.

reply to post by FDNY343

Originally posted by impressme

You are yelling again.


NO, THIS IS YELLING!! IF I WAS YELLING, IT WOULD BE IN ALL CAPITALS. SEE HOW THAT WORKS?

Your emotions and screaming is not helping your argument.

I'm not yelling. If I was yelling, the entire sentence would be in caps. It's not. That is called emphasis. Sorry, it's easier for me to capatalize something than use the editing tools that are provided, as I have to allow scripted windows every single post I make.

Emphasis? Some excuse, the fact is you where yelling.

Where do you get 15 seconds from? I can assure you it was under 15 seconds.

Really?

See here.

www.youtube.com...

Collapse starts at :12 in the video, and doesn't disappear until :25, and that was not the end of the collapse.

If you want to believe in someone’s “opinions” knock yourself out.

As far as the narrator that is doing the video, it is his opinion and not a proven fact. The fact is WTC 7 fell under 15 second.

Thank you for your scientific explanation of “Gravity” being the main caused that brought down a 47 story high-rise in less than 15 seconds.


No, not less than 15 seconds. Not in any sense of the word.

Yes, gravity does that. Hence, why freefall is properly called "gravitational acceleration".

If you are asking what exactly caused it, a section of buckled columns. Please feel free to read the NIST report. It explains it.

Most people know that NIST report is hogwash and base on pseudo science. No real scientist supports NIST or their lies. Apparently anyone that has been on ATS as long as some of you have and have seen the evidence contrary too the OS and NIST and continue to supports the OS and NIST are in my opinions being dishonest to the ATS readers. We are here to deny ignorance not to wallow in it as a few of you debunkers are doing.

If you want to play on peoples intelligent and play your juvenile games then carry on. People see what you’re doing and you are not fooling anyone. You have not disproved anything.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

You're wrong. Even LaBTop, who thinks that the collapse was a demolition, has shown that the building came down in 16 seconds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wrong, and LaBTop has been called out many times for his trolling tactics. So, LaBTop opinions outweighs science, interesting.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You're wrong. Even LaBTop, who thinks that the collapse was a demolition, has shown that the building came down in 16 seconds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wrong, and LaBTop has been called out many times for his trolling tactics. So, LaBTop opinions outweighs science, interesting.

The problem here is not the time it takes but the instantaneous acceleration demonstrated when the "global collapse" sequence begins. At that point, WTC7 begins free-falling as if it's in a vacuum through a deep span of floors.

This is was beat to death years ago but as usual the "debunkers" here only demonstrate a bare minimum understanding of physical concepts. They used to say WTC7 took so many seconds over-all, so let's just average it out and pretend the free-fall never happened. This was obviously before NIST itself was forced to recognize the instantaneous acceleration values, and confirmed that WTC7 did in fact free-fall through itself, as if it were falling into a vacuum for at least a number of floors.

I don't think any "debunkers" here even know what "instantaneous value" means in physics, or why it is meaningless to try to average a speed over a longer period of time when the building isn't even moving at all. NIST was the first to try it, but it was too stupid of an argument even for them, which is why they recanted.

To clarify, how long it took for the whole process to play out, has no bearing upon the fact that a free-fall drop requires all support to be taken out ahead of time, ie instantly at the exact same time the building is "collapsing." It would be impossible to take out all the structure, and then the building still stands like Wyle E. Coyote off the edge of a cliff before dropping. It was happening in real time, and the upper mass was never contacting the lower mass for any "resistance" to be offered at all. Free-fall vacuum acceleration. This is what NIST's theories can't account for. There has to be something besides the building itself that is removing the building, from the building's own path of movement.

That may be all well and good for you and me, but it's apparently impossible to teach this to any resident "debunkers" here. Many have tried. Being forced to take a physics class might help, but I doubt it.

reply to post by bsbray11

The problem here is not the time it takes but the instantaneous acceleration demonstrated when the "global collapse" sequence begins. At that point, WTC7 begins free-falling as if it's in a vacuum through a deep span of floors.

You’re correct

Here is an example I just posted from a scientist who explains this from A&E.

Freefall and Building 7 on 9/11

What if a heavy object falls through other objects, breaking them as it goes? Newton's third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in freefall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down, and by Newton's third law, the falling object cannot be pushing on anything else either.

We know that the falling section of Building 7 did not crush the lower section of the building because the top section of Building 7 fell at freefall. It didn't just fall at something close to freefall. It fell for about 2.5 seconds at a rate that was indistinguishable from freefall. [color=gold]If the falling section of the building had crushed the lower section, the lower section would have pushed back with an equal but opposite force. But that would have slowed the fall. Since the fall was not slowed in the slightest, we can conclude that the force of interaction was zero... in both directions.

[color=gold]Freefall is an embarrassment to the official story, because freefall is impossible for a naturally collapsing building. In a natural collapse there would be an interaction between the falling and the stationary sections of the building. This interaction would cause crushing of both sections and slowing of the falling section. I have done measurements on several known demolitions, using similar software tools, and found that they typically fall with accelerations considerably less than freefall. Building 7 was not only demolished, it was demolished with tremendous overkill.

www.ae911truth.org...

I have noticed when we apply the proper measurements and science to the videos of WTC 7 demolition as many scientists have, the debunkers in here will avoid discussing these facts and turn to straw man arguments. Denying ignorance is not what some debunkers want. Some are here to push the OS lies as we see demonstrated in this thread.

It is a scientific fact that only demolition could have caused the onset rapid collapse nothing else scientifically can explain the demise of WTC 7.

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

You're wrong. Even LaBTop, who thinks that the collapse was a demolition, has shown that the building came down in 16 seconds.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wrong, and LaBTop has been called out many times for his trolling tactics. So, LaBTop opinions outweighs science, interesting.

What science?

Time it from beginning to end and you'll see that you're wrong.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


What does time have to do with it again?

WTC7 still accelerated at free-fall. Even NIST has admitted this by now.


Are you really back-peddling by years now, to dumb yourself down enough to keep arguing with us?

reply to post by bsbray11


I'm not sure I could dumb myself down that far.

I merely mention the time aspect because it's a fact that the Truth Movement hotly - and wrongly - insisted was a suspicious aspect of the collapse for a long time. And I would have thought that getting it right might be considered of small importance.

If one looks at Truther sites now one will find shorter times for the collapse mentioned almost universally. I wonder why?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I'm not sure I could dumb myself down that far.

To be arguing with us? Obviously, since you're not arguing with us. You were trying to be clever though, I get it.

I merely mention the time aspect because it's a fact that the Truth Movement hotly - and wrongly - insisted was a suspicious aspect of the collapse for a long time.

No, my friend, that was the "debunker" shtick. Now you are so far in denial that you are re-writing internet history so that you were the ones claiming time was irrelevant, right? My ass. It was you "debunkers" who kept trying to focus on the collapse time rather than the instantaneous acceleration. "Truthers" had posted analyses of the instantaneous accelerations before NIST even did. You are still the only one here trying to argue the collapse took so long.

Originally posted by bsbray11

No, my friend, that was the "debunker" shtick. Now you are so far in denial that you are re-writing internet history so that you were the ones claiming time was irrelevant, right? My ass. It was you "debunkers" who kept trying to focus on the collapse time rather than the instantaneous acceleration.

Weird. because when I just googled "9/11 Building Seven ...seconds" the top two results both claim that the collapse took less than seven seconds. They both use this factoid as relevant "evidence" of the suspicious nature of the "CD". The third result is a Youtube video that makes the same claim.

So no, I'm not "rewriting history". It was, and still is, Truthers who are making this nonsense up and sticking to it.

A small note - I'm not responsible for what "debunkers" in general write. I know you think that people are being racist or something when they call you a Truther, so one might have thought you would extend the same courtesy to others that you demand for yourself. But I guess not.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Weird. because when I just googled "9/11 Building Seven ...seconds" the top two results both claim that the collapse took less than seven seconds.

It's not my problem or my issue if you choose to obsess over people who, like yourself, have a poor understanding of physics. You can obsess over holograms and space beams too if you want, too, but you're still not going to learn anything.

The fact remains that "truthers" demonstrated WTC7's instantaneous acceleration before NIST did. I was here when it happened, and I remember. The old poster/moderator WeComeInPeace did an analysis himself on these forums before NIST did theirs. Sucks for you.

A small note - I'm not responsible for what "debunkers" in general write

Yes, you are. If I'm a "truther" and what all other "truthers" say is apparently relevant when you talk to me as an individual, then yes, you too are responsible for what all these other people who aren't you say. Fair is fair. If you want your cake then I'm going to make you eat it too.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Weird. because when I just googled "9/11 Building Seven ...seconds" the top two results both claim that the collapse took less than seven seconds.

It's not my problem or my issue if you choose to obsess over people who, like yourself, have a poor understanding of physics.

I know that you claim to have once taken a Physics 101 course and can thus judge all posters with regard to their knowledge of physics. Do you include Steven Jones in those that have a poor understanding of physics?
911booger.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by pteridine
I know that you claim to have once taken a Physics 101 course and can thus judge all posters with regard to their knowledge of physics. Do you include Steven Jones in those that have a poor understanding of physics?
911booger.blogspot.com...

No.

Even Jones is able to comprehend and understands the difference between the terms "time" and "acceleration."

101 really would do you good.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
I know that you claim to have once taken a Physics 101 course and can thus judge all posters with regard to their knowledge of physics. Do you include Steven Jones in those that have a poor understanding of physics?
911booger.blogspot.com...

No.

Even Jones is able to comprehend and understands the difference between the terms "time" and "acceleration."

101 really would do you good.

Jones also screwed up the collapse time of WTC7. Maybe you and Jones could take Physics 101 together. You never did manage to explain the thermodynamics of the red chips. Is that a little beyond you? Both of you would also benefit from a chemistry course or two.

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones also screwed up the collapse time of WTC7.

Says the anonymous internet layman that still doesn't register the significance of "time" vs. "acceleration."

Maybe you and Jones could take Physics 101 together

Steven E. Jones

Education

Jones earned his bachelor's degree in physics, magna cum laude, from Brigham Young University in 1973, and his Ph.D. in physics from Vanderbilt University in 1978. Jones conducted his Ph.D. research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (from 1974 to 1977), and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility.[1] ...

Research interests and background

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho where, from 1979 to 1985, he was a senior engineering specialist. He was principal investigator for experimental muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones studied fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium under U.S. Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute sponsorship. Jones also collaborated in experiments at other physics labs, including TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University. ...

Recognition and awards

* 1968, David O. McKay Scholarship at BYU; National Merit Scholar[1]
* 1973-1978 Tuition Scholarship and Research Fellowship at Vanderbilt University
* 1989 Outstanding Young Scholar Award (BYU); Best of What's New for 1989 (Popular Science); Creativity Prize (Japanese Creativity Society)
* 1990 BYU Young Scholar Award; Annual Lecturer, BYU Chapter of Sigma Xi

en.wikipedia.org...



Let's see. Once again, an anonymous internet layman who obviously has difficulty with basic definitions and terminology, seriously trying to mock someone who dwarves him in education and other qualifications.


You have an awful sense of humor.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Jones also screwed up the collapse time of WTC7.

Says the anonymous internet layman that still doesn't register the significance of "time" vs. "acceleration."

Let's see. Once again, an anonymous internet layman who obviously has difficulty with basic definitions and terminology, seriously trying to mock someone who dwarves him in education and other qualifications.

You have an awful sense of humor.

Once again, you, an anonymous internet layman who obviously has difficulty reading and has an inflated view of his abilities, are still avoiding the question of the thermodynamics of the red chips. Your claims of technical knowledge have been noted and you are invited to discuss the thermodynamics of the red chips if you are capable.
Cole's backyard chemistry set experiment excites the true believers because they think that it proves something beyond "thermate cuts steel."