portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation | education

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

(14 mins.)  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

this is an outstanding, must-watch video produced a few years ago by an engineer, who clearly shows how existing high temperature pyrotechnic chemicals can be used to melt structural steel, of the type used in construction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers.

He first explains the context, and in the last half of the video demonstrates (using actual steel and thermate) how these chemicals can be used not only to melt, but also make precision cuts in heavy, thick steel beams - the kind used in skyscraper construction.
9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g

physicsandreason
Uploaded on Nov 10, 2010

What's wrong with mainstream experts?

homepage: homepage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g


oh please now 25.Nov.2014 22:45

really?

All this craziness is because people who are not engineers don't understand how fragile buildings really are.

If you had the proper education and had personally observed buckling failure during lab tests of metal structure under compressive loads, and understood that once any of the upper floors started moving downwards the momentum being stopped momentarily creates impulse loading of momentary infinite stress, if you knew how quickly metal softens at elevated temperatures, and if you had any idea how things actually fail you'd stop spreading this paranoid bullshit.

RE: " how fragile buildings really are. " 25.Nov.2014 23:24

-->

QUOTE:
------------
"proper education and had personally observed buckling failure"

"how quickly metal softens at elevated temperatures"
------------


Uh yeah, I have all of the above (and far more, than you)


Pathetic.

Did you watch the video?

In any case, the official cause as announced by NIST (U.S. government agency) regarding the into-own-footprint, free-fall velocity collapses of WTC Twin Towers, and WTC Building 7 -- which wasn't struck by an aircraft -- is:

" office fires "

That's right.

"Office fires" have officially caused the collapse of these 3 steel framed skyscrapers (one of which was not struck by an airliner).

First, and only, time in steel-framed building history this has occurred.


QUOTE:
------------
"once any of the upper floors started moving downwards the momentum being stopped momentarily creates impulse loading of momentary infinite stress"
------------

LOL, you (purportedly) attended school where?

oh right - this is from your cut-and-paste folder of internet DLs.


What you lamely attempted to describe above is an outright violation of basic physical laws, not to mention structural engineering and demolition engineering.

Even if some of the structural failure of could possibly (which it wasn't/didn't) be attributed to the "upper floors moving downwards" -- whatever that even means -- there is no way in the Physical Universe that such a small total mass, i.e. the upper 1/4 of that sckyscraper could possibly have "crushed" the far greater, larger and more robust mass of metal, concrete and synthetic office materials below it

AT

FREE

FALL

VELOCITY

which is so clearly demonstrated by those who witnessed the building collapses in person, not to mention the thousands of video clips which have been metrically stopwatched and otherwise analyzed/dissected. i.e. With such a profuse body of evidence, this isn't rocket science.


It is / does remain science, though. And NIST's fraudulent work on the WTC 7 collapse "explanation" (such as it is...) which took them 7 years to generate, makes a mockery of that science.


QUOTE:
------------
paranoid bullshit.
------------

Yep, the official U.S. government explanation(s) of what occurred on / who was 'responsible for' 11 September 2001 certainly are.

I agree with --> 26.Nov.2014 08:42

sick of the silliness

In this case, the steel-framed building was not fragile at all. That 'momentum downward' crap is just that. The building below the damage was designed to support the weight above with the usual generous allowance. Personally, I can't believe one who has worked iron could believe what they saw looking at the films. One has to remember, also, that despite all that steel and concrete, the volume of the building was mostly air. Even if one looks at the remaining rubble, one sees that the building was designed and constructed with the column connections in a rising spiral, not floor upon floor like the stacks you envision. A set of horizontally connected columns (I believe each set was 3 columns) that rose continuously for a number of floors columns was set, while the adjacent set of horizontally connected columns that rose continuously for a number of floors had its beginning a floor above, and the next adjacent set of horizonatally connected columns had its beginning connected then a floor above that, and so on...The number of actual connections of columns to the ones below them was only 1/3 of the total number of columns that existed at a single floor, maybe with some with some widely-spaced exceptions.

As for the softening of steel, yes, it happens, and actually is not a point in really?'s favor. Softening is a damned long way from melting. Do you understand latent heat? The fires, it was proven, have only a certain amount of potential based upon their source, and that potential was hardly applied universally. It's damned silly to think that actual physical models tested don't give corroboration of the proposed mechanism of fall. They couldn't even tweak those models successfully to make it even believable to a common man with some measure of objectivity without some other contribution to the mechanism, no less an actual engineer who has experience building these things or those who have forensic experience in examination of the mechanisms of destruction of large steel masses. (There was an excellent paper written by such a forensic researcher whose experience included fires and collisions of large ships. Look around to find it. It's worth the read as he address the properties of steel at temperature other than ambient in such damage and impacts.) Second, Christ, there are pictures of people standing in the holes the planes made not long after the actual collisions. Now I will give that the trusses of some of the floors above the fires sagged and maybe their end connections even broke, but again, this breaking below was WITHIN A CONTAINER of relatively cold (according to the models), non-damaged columns. The buildings within a few floors above the actual plane damage were still intact, and, again, cool, and actually must be so to have enough concerted mass to be a 'pile driver' that might be imagined. But even at that point, floors above had to have moved the mass within the perimeter of the undamaged columns and trusses above damage. As still undamaged, where would be the contact at which this undamaged mass above but column lines below designed with a generous allowance to support that mass? I'm not saying that there wouldn't be some collapse, just that unless there was a concerted, concentrated mass above, it would have stopped at some point before the damned basements. We see these things literally coming to pieces along with outward thrust of some of the mass, which is rather strange as the weakest sections below are the floors and trusses which, again, are inside a container of undamaged columns. Once the floors above started to disintegrate, they're losing the concert of their aggregate mass. It's like hitting something with a 2 oz hammer a number of times rather than hitting it once with a 2 lb hammer. Which one actually does more damage? Now, that's not even addressing the rather robust center section of the buildings, again a rectangular container, much of that especially air as in elevator shafts, plumbing and electrical raceways. And, though there's just too much to mention, there is really an unbelievable occurance of the building hit off-center. Don't you, really?, ask yourself how the intact structure above fell straight down when photographs and film show it leaning in the direction of that off-center hit at fall-initiation? Somehow the resistence of obviously undamaged columns on the opposite side of the damage gave up the strength to act as if there was nothing there at all? Even with the 'softening' you mentioned, and which I seriously doubt with those column's mass and lack of concentration of heat at any one point to have its tensile strength diminish to virtually nothing along the column height, these were still continuous, unbroken columns that would have stretched, as steel retains some tensile and compressive stress. I'm a metal-worker, have worked on and married an ironworker, and while my imagination has limits, it seems the mechanisms proposed by the government agencies or 'experts' such as Popular Mechanics which is geared to address amateurs and the easily astonished pubic surely exceeds mine. Building 7's fall was a joke, the straight-down fall of the mass of another building is almost implausible, made even moreso with the finding of a mass of steel which retained its heat for an unimaginable time to be still molten and visibly hot, which makes one question the mechanism for the third building that had some potential for yielding the results seen questionable.

Even at this point with just discussing really obvious deficiencies in the proposed mechanisms, there are just some unbelievable assumptions such as the ability of amateurs to fly multi-engine commercial jets in the way that they did. Talk to airline pilots privately sometime and ask what they think. But, then, that has already been done publicly, and somehow the general public doesn't have enough sense that we all assume common to connect that implausibility to all the other implausibilities here.

I don't give much to this video, or thermate, thermite, or whatever. I'm just saying that in the case of these buildings, all the models, and all the tests, the lack conclusive proof and overall credibility given to offical explanation, that it's reasonable to think that their lack of credibility is due to an unconsidered component.

continued bs 26.Nov.2014 10:06

one who is educated

This thread proves that the internet makes any fool who can post videos and write a thousand words an "expert".

Several decades ago the First Interstate Bank Building in downtown LA caught fire midway up, because a plumber was careless with a torch. In that case there was no impact damage from an airplane, there was no intensified fuel fire, only the natural fire made by the wall and office contents catching fire.

That fire burned out of control for several days (I watched) and the entire area was evacuated as the engineers and fire dept was concerned that due to the temperatures, the building would collapse. Once the fire was out, it took several months before engineers could determine for sure that the building could be repaired to be safe enough to occupy again.

I'm an engineer with masters degree coursework. You're a bunch of fools and idiots. If you don't understand momentum I hope you don't get yourself killed someday.

" one who is educated " 26.Nov.2014 15:46

well then

Please post a point-by-point rebuttal to the Originally Posted video,

which was not only produced by an Engineer but also contains field demonstrations of what he (and many others) have claimed is wrong with NIST analyses.

i.e. your ad hominem, backhand-strawman "one who is educated" pretensions gain you nothing nor do they advance any 'argument' or supportable case whatsoever.


RE: First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, May 1988.

Thanks for bringing that up. Correct, that building was severely damaged -

but it __did not__ (or even come close to) collapse into its own footprint, at near free-fall speed, in the manner of a controlled demolition within a few hours of merely burning.

as did the two main WTC towers, and WTC Building 7 (which wasn't struck by an airliner nor did it have fires or damage even close to what had happened to the 2 other towers that day).

You may click the link below to EDUCATE yourself on not only the First Interstate Bank Building fire incident with which you claim to have 'direct' experience, but also other examples of steel-frame high rise building fires -

None of which resulted in the free-fall collapses seen in NYC on 11 September 2001.


dummy 26.Nov.2014 20:24

yawn

The entire premise of all these nutty theories is that the buildings somehow couldn't fall unless deliberately destroyed by explosives. This is because 1) buildings did not fall often before and 2) crappy video from a distance thru smoke and debris make it appear that things went "poof" when each set of columns collapsed.

The fact that First Interstate did not collapse was because it was only subjected to the heat of a normal fire, not a fire enhanced by a full load of jet fuel ... AND the structure was not weakened by collapse.

The appearance of "explosions" is due to the violent reality of buckling failure of columns of steel that are coated with various compounds and surrounded by drywall etc. Buckling failures in compression are sudden, and very violent. I've put steel into presses and watched what happens when it lets loose.

So convenient that it looks like what you want to believe happened.

The building was owned by a private party, subject to regular inspections, and occupied by thousands. Are you really so crazy as to think that someone could hide in the structure explosive charges, and knew in advance that airplanes would be coming to crash into the buildings on a particular time and day, so that person could hide the intended demolition in a convenient cover story?

Oh yeah. Forgot. A bunch of nut case 911 truthers. Never mind.

" yawn " 26.Nov.2014 21:21

well then

QUOTE:
---------
"The entire premise of all these nutty theories is that the buildings somehow couldn't fall unless deliberately destroyed by explosives."
---------

Wrong.

The main premise i.e. problem dissenters have with the NIST and U.S. government explanation for the tower col

"We" _do_ _not_ _know_ or claim to know for certain at this time, how the towers were demolished.

But we know enough, to be certain that NIST and U.S. government explanations are woefully inadequate at best, and fraudulent lies at worst (cf. WTC 7)


QUOTE:
---------
"The fact that First Interstate did not collapse was because it was only subjected to the heat of a normal fire, not a fire enhanced by a full load of jet fuel ... AND the structure was not weakened by collapse."
---------

The two main WTC towers stayed up after the airliner impacts, just as designed to do.

Go and watch some (i.e. several different angles/vantage points) of the actual impacts of the planes into the two buildings. Then come back here.

furthermore,

Impacts of airliners had nothing to do with the two main WTC towers collapsing into their own footprint in less than 10 seconds each.

And, absolutely nothing to do with the likewise collapse of WTC Building 7.
(7 seconds free-fall, into-own-footprint collapse here)


The aircraft impacts, devastating though they were, did not cause whatsoever the building collapses. They impressively stayed up just as designed. Go watch those vids.

And WTC 7 had nothing at all to do with any aircraft impact. The building just spontaneously (?) collapsed in seven seconds, straight down into its own footprint shortly after 5 PM that day.


QUOTE:
---------
"The appearance of "explosions" is due to the violent reality of buckling failure of columns of steel that are very violent. I've put steel into presses and watched what happens when it lets loose."
---------

Yeah.

'very violent' ...

we get it.

You need to watch the originally posted video of this thread.

And address __that__ (instead of spewing your non-arguments which are non-helping your 'cause')


No one has called into question the physics and engineering processes by which steel frames buckle under stress.

The questions being raised, are directly related to the U.S. government's and NIST's explanations for the free-fall speed collapses of 1,400 foot high skyscrapers. Whole buildings, not just individual steel components/pieces.

i.e. there is an entire system mechanism here that has been utterly, inadequately explained/analyzed from official sources.


QUOTE:
---------
"So convenient that it looks like what you want to believe happened."
---------

No, that would be you. Wants to believe NIST and U.S. government's explanation.

"We" __don't know__ precisely what occurred, which is why new investigations are called for.

The only thing known for certain, is that the U.S. government and NIST explanations are exceedingly faulty at best, and outright fraudulent at worst (the WTC 7 explanation for example). Travesty to science and engineering.

Moreover, since the official cause of collapse in all 3 skyscrapers was 'office fires',

**AGAIN** - ***not*** "aircraft impacts". Those did __not__ officially cause the tower collapses, most definitely not in the case of WTC 7... which might perhaps explain why it took so many years for NIST to concoct a 'report' about the primary cause of 7-seconds-collapse-into-its-own-footprint for that building, being that it didn't fit with the 'OMG airliners smacked into it' meme.


No changes whatsoever have been made in structural engineering, design or fire safety codes/regulations for steel framed skyscrapers :

in New York, the U.S. or worldwide.

What does that tell you about the validity and observational respect within professional community of NIST's "technical" reports on the World Trade Center towers?

if office fires have possibility of being so structurally lethal to steel-framed skyscrapers, as the "internationally respected" NIST has insisted, then many engineering and building codes are sorely and belatedly in need of revision.

No such revisions occurred as a consequence of the NYC experiences on 11 September 2001.




QUOTE:
---------
"The building was owned by a private party, subject to regular inspections, and occupied by thousands. Are you really so crazy as to think that someone could hide in the structure explosive charges, and knew in advance that airplanes would be coming to crash into the buildings on a particular time and day, so that person could hide the intended demolition in a convenient cover story?"
---------

So here you go again with the ever-popular :

" Don't you see how nuts it is to even question the official explanation in the first place ??11!!!? "

trope.

RE: Demolition charges placed.

Obviously, it would have taken some time to place charges strategically throughout the skyscrapers. But it is verified that the Towers were closed for elevator maintenance in the weeks prior to 11 September. NYC Port Authority was in primary responsibility there.

RE: "Owned by private parties"

One huge liability for the WTC Towers as of the late 1990s-early 2000s was the vast amount of

ASBESTOS

within the buildings. Removing all of that asbestos within compliance of modern environmental regulations would have been a multi-billion dollar COST TO THE BUILDING OWNERS.

but the 11 September 2001 free-fall collapses (read: demolitions) into their own footprint solved the problem, conveniently enough natch.

Anyway I'm not going into detail here on that, ---> you can Google "9/11 WTC asbestos" and research on your own.



QUOTE:
---------
"Oh yeah. Forgot. A bunch of nut case 911 truthers. Never mind."
---------

Couldn't finish off the drivel without a parting ad hominem couldya ?
(+ penultimate "Never mind" ; whussat, supposed to be code for 'nothing to see here'? throw casual readers/ glance-clickers off a trail?)

par for course coming from a _+___ebag who presented even less than nothing as 'persuasion' or argument of a case.

first part of ^that reply post truncated in upload 26.Nov.2014 23:52

sorry

[answering first excerpt, top part of previous post]

The main premise i.e. problem dissenters have with the NIST and U.S. government explanation for the tower collapses, is that they simply don't satisfy physical or engineering models, in particular with regard to the speed and symmetrical configuration of the collapses. Add to this, NIST could _not_, i.e. from a technical and structural engineering perspective was absolutely unable to prove that, the __aircraft impacts__ were primarily responsible for the 2 main tower buildings' destruction.

(And, no aircraft impacted WTC 7 - which collapsed in an identical manner to the 2 larger towers)

So the NIST reports and modeling have centered upon "office fires" i.e. not the jet fuel fires, most of the jet fuel in the exploding-impacting airliners burned off and/or splashed away completely in the first few minutes. NIST claims it was the cumulative effects of the "office fires" i.e. materials within the WTC buildings' offices that continued burning after the main impact explosions and fires had subsided. But obviously, those were lower temperature than even the initial jet fuel explosions / burn-offs.

anyway all 3 of the WTC towers -- officially according to the U.S. government and NIST -- ultimately collapsed into their own footprints in under 10 seconds, due to "office fires" weakening the steel skyscraper structures. Something that has never, ever happened before or since.

[...continue ^^^ above again, see existing reply from top part of above post ]

Oh, yawn 27.Nov.2014 06:57

Matt

Yawn wrote: "The entire premise of all these nutty theories is that the buildings somehow couldn't fall unless deliberately destroyed by explosives."

Oh Yawn, this is so wrong. CIA, Israeli government, Jews, aliens--they all did this,maybe with explosives, maybe not, because...dear god, whatever.

Interesting 30.Nov.2014 20:03

Dude

This begs 90,000 liters of JP whatever did it. And cover up it did.
Its unclear as to how much went where.

It does not explain the molten metal pools too.



 http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html