IPBFacebook



POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG


DIGITAL DOWNLOADS

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Normal Thermite Can Cut Vertically Through Steel Proof, Debunkers claims finally destroyed

Paul
post Nov 11 2010, 08:51 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Hey look check this out guys this video is great this is flaming fantastic, it is a video of well known 9/11 truther who assembles
some structural steel the way it would have been assembled in the wtc twin towers and other buildings made of structural steel
and he cuts righ through the thick structural steel, well thats kind of a lie he cuts almost all the way through the entire length of
the steel member, using normal thermite using barrium nitrate and sulphur well if this is how it was really done on 911 those cuts even if they dont cut completely all the way still would have weakened the structural steel enough to cause the entire structure to loose alot of it strength enough to bring about a casatrophic global collapse resulting in a gravity driven CD, and watch when he uses the thermite and creates his own charges and the thermite explodes it even creates a hole giving a swiss cheese like appearance, similar to the samples found from the wtc buildings.

Does this video completely destroy the duh bunkers claims that thermite cannot create vertical cuts through steel beams, and also there
claims that you couldnt use normal thermite to demolish a steel framed building?

I have another question why would you use barrium nitrate and sulphur mixed in with normal thermite to cut through structural steel
how would these chemicals improve the thermites cutting power?

9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

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



whistle.gif whistle.gif whistle.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 11 2010, 02:39 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



Nice find Paul. thumbsup.gif thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Nov 11 2010, 07:42 PM
Post #3





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



If our military is anywhere near as competent and equipped as I have repeatedly heard it is today (Veteran's Day) then they have ten zillion ways to blow things up, this one included, and are further able to make it look however they like.
A veritable pyrotechnic smorgasbord. But I guess most people think that's the case on November 11 and all other days except September 11, which must be some kind of annual everything-falls-apart-day.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Nov 11 2010, 07:43 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 11 2010, 08:02 PM
Post #4





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



We always knew that thermite can cut steel as can thermate. Jon showed it could blast off bolts and be used to cut through vertical surfaces. Well done Jon.

So we know how steel could be "weakened" and connections made to fail. But most of the steel was not subject to that sort of attack. Most of the steel came apart of the stresses of a gravitational collapse showing no signs of what the few pieces of heat attacked steel show.

We now know conclusively that these materials could have initiated the collapse. Jon showed us. But he didn't show us anything about the actual collapse... such as how thermite/thermate would destroy concrete... of it did.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 11 2010, 10:01 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 09:32 AM) *
We always knew that thermite can cut steel as can thermate. Jon showed it could blast off bolts and be used to cut through vertical surfaces. Well done Jon.

So we know how steel could be "weakened" and connections made to fail. But most of the steel was not subject to that sort of attack. Most of the steel came apart of the stresses of a gravitational collapse showing no signs of what the few pieces of heat attacked steel show.

We now know conclusively that these materials could have initiated the collapse. Jon showed us. But he didn't show us anything about the actual collapse... such as how thermite/thermate would destroy concrete... of it did.


Ok SanderO why dont we just all throw up our hands and declare that the terrorist did it huh? If we have no
physical evidence of thermite or explosive cuts damage to the steel then what are we doing here i guess the existence of this forum is a waste of time and that rob balsamo should retire it to the dust bin right? I guess we should just all retire from the truth movement is this what you are saying? And also that it very existence is futile and meaningless and a complete waste of time, what you are say points to exactly all of this.

Why are you here doing here on this forum SanderO? It seems to me like you are support the OCT way too much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Nov 11 2010, 10:30 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



Very interesting find Paul. Cheers.

First time I've actually seen a pretty precise replication of the type of beams in the WTC being exposed to thermite/nanothermite. I'd personally love to see more practical experimentation like this done (especially for those of us who are laymen!).
I think it would be very interesting to see if a smaller replica scale model could be made (cement, weight, structure) and experimented on that way. Only problem is that it's a trial and error method so the closest hypothetical device(s) would have to be found first. The guy in the video made the first step. Here's hoping there's more to come.

thumbsup.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Nov 12 2010, 01:44 AM
Post #7





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 232
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



The other uploads on that guy's YT channel are excellent, as well.

SanderO, I know we've talked about the post-intiation collapse a little bit before, but I'm afraid I'm more convinced by the analyses in physicsandreason's (as he is known) videos. This guy is completely nuts, but his critique of NIST is utterly devastating. I would encourage everyone to take a look.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 12 2010, 08:19 AM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



Paul you just keep up the good work. I learned something from this video that I will share with many people. We all need everything we can to help wake up the masses. That is all we can do at this point. THANK YOU for posting the video!!!! cheers.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 12 2010, 08:34 AM
Post #9





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



SanderO you mention "what pulverized the concrete?" The concrete used was a lightweight mix poured on the floors without any reinforcment in it. I doubt it would take much to pulverize it. The fall would do the trick not to mention some explosives going off around it. Lightweight non reinforced concrete is not very strong. It's dense so it makes a great sound deadener which is why they use it instead of something like wood.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 12 2010, 09:17 AM
Post #10





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I agree with the assessment of the destruction of the concrete. I certainly do not support the pack of lies packaged and marketed as the official conspiracy theory. There is more wrong with it than there is correct. Not much makes sense and there are holes big enough to drive a Mack truck through.

My own research into the structure of the twin towers leads me to think that they could collapse by gravity of the tops were first destroyed or broken off and their mass, or a large portion of it descended on the lower section's floors.

The OCT doesn't actually explain the collapse. They explain their initiation and that's all BS. But since they DON'T explain the collapse AFTER initiation, most people assume that they are "hiding" an explosive explanation for the collapse.

The engineering analysis points to the fact that the towers could and likely did collapse once the floors were sufficiently overloaded.

The initiation certainly could involve the kinds of attacks on the steel structure which Jon's work in this video so well illustrates. And it's likely that the initiation DID involve such things. But once they tops were "released" by destroying or weakening the columns up top, and likely the WF ones which were much more vulnerable to attack the huge mass would crash down through the structure crushing everything in the process. The towers weight 500,000 tons and even subtracting the weight of the steel - 200,000 tons, you have 300,000 tons. That will do a lot of crushing.

What exactly about the OCT do I support? Nothing basically. However, I don't support the idea that the towers were exploded from top to bottom and that gravity was not part of their collapse. If gravity wasn't used.. why weaken any columns?

This post has been edited by SanderO: Nov 12 2010, 09:20 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 12 2010, 10:01 AM
Post #11





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 09:17 AM) *
The engineering analysis points to the fact that the towers could and likely did collapse once the floors were sufficiently overloaded.


Really? Please site your sources?


QUOTE
What exactly about the OCT do I support? Nothing basically. However, I don't support the idea that the towers were exploded from top to bottom and that gravity was not part of their collapse. If gravity wasn't used.. why weaken any columns?

No one is claiming that gravity wasn't part of the collapses. Of course it was.

But you want us to believe that it was only gravity and not explosives that destroyed these buildings. That's why the perps used nano-thermite and fuel/air explosives to get the collapses started. There would be very little explosive residue left behind this way and they wouldn't need as many cutter charges, that you can see going off ahead of the debris cloud when the buildings came down.

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Nov 12 2010, 10:03 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 12 2010, 10:11 AM
Post #12





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



They had to blow the core columns. Just blowing the top and relying on gravity to do the rest would never work. The top would have taken the path of least resistance. When we see the video of the top starts to fall sideways and then everything comes down. Had they not removed the core columns the top would have fell off to the side. Which is exactly what it started to do. I think they brought the core down just like they any other CD. From the bottom up.The difference is that the outer wall hid what was going on inside. I think they brought the outer wall down from the top a split second behind the core. Since the outer wall was stronger and taller on these buildings they couldn't rely on the core to pull it in and down on it's own. By weakening the outer walls the core was able to pull it down. This is just my opinion!!! I have been wrong before. cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 12 2010, 11:44 AM
Post #13





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



My engineering analysis is the source. You can read a discussion which lays this out quite well here:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/oos-dest...model-t264.html

If you PM with your email I can send you some the material.

1. There is no evidence in the debris that any of the core columns were "destroyed" at the bottom of the structure. In fact row 500 and 600 - a total of 16 core columns stood to a minimum of 40 stories, some to 50 and column 501 was 72 stories AFTER the floors collapsed and the facade peeled off.

2. The twins were similar to a CD but one initiated above the crash zones. In both towers the mass which came down was more than enough to crash through the floors. Any tenant floor outside the core was designed to support 100#/SF but with the tops crashing down on them (the 92nd to begin with) the loads quickly grew to almost 2000# (or there abouts). This was also a dynamic load as it was dropping down and it was dropping down in a disorganized pattern of debris over the time that the tops descended and broke apart. This force was more than enough to destroy any single tenant floor outside the core. That floor shattered and the same process repeated all the way to the ground growing in mass as it went.

3. The destruction of the twin towers was not caused by plane strikes or office fires. There had to be additional energy inputs to get the tops dislodged from their support so that they could (and did) descend down and impact the FLOORS.

4. The collapse was through the "path of least resistance" which was the floor system which by volume was 98% air. The path of MOST resistance would be crushing through the columns which were increasingly strong as you descend down. No columns in the lower sections were crushed or show signs of being exploded apart. The debris shows THAT sort of damage on the columns and beams ABOVE the strike zone which makes perfect sense as this is how the tops were able to be freed from their supports.

5. The top of WTC 2 was lost support on the South and East side before it did on the North and West. This is like removing two or 4 legs on a table. It will tilt down and fall to the side where the legs were removed. However in the case of tower two the remaining columns were not able to support the mass of the top and they buckled rather quickly. As they did the top which was tilting began to descend. It was both tilting AND descending down. At the plane where it was severed, the core and the floors then began colliding with the standing lower section. The SE lower corner of the tilting top dug into the SE corner of the standing part and these collisions caused mutual destruction of the floors on that side. The collisions of the floors AND the facade columns and the core columns as the tip tilted and dropped sent shocks up through the top and quickly the joints began to break apart. You can see the top 3 floors bend first, just before the entire top breaks apart and disappears into a cloud of dust and debris. The top was a much more rigid part of the structure because of the hat truss with diagonal beams providing that rigidity. Parts of the top did continue over the side, but the virtual hinge was through col 501 and was more than 150' from the East side. For the entire top section to go over the side, it would have to remain rigid and have a hinge on or about the East face. That hinge would have to be supported by the lower section. This is not possible and as it moved both horizontally and vertically the lower East side was destroyed as it collided with the lower section and so it did not only not go outside the foot print but it provided the mass to cause the lower section's floors to collapse.

In all three towers it was not gravity alone which destroyed them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DoYouEverWonder
post Nov 12 2010, 05:02 PM
Post #14





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 770
Joined: 1-February 09
Member No.: 4,096



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 11:44 AM) *
My engineering analysis is the source.


Are you saying you're Major Tom? If you want to quote his work, fine. But that's a bit different then doing you're own engineering analysis, which sorry dear, no can do on the email. Why don't you just post it here for the rest of the world to see?



QUOTE
4. The collapse was through the "path of least resistance" which was the floor system which by volume was 98% air. The path of MOST resistance would be crushing through the columns which were increasingly strong as you descend down. No columns in the lower sections were crushed or show signs of being exploded apart. The debris shows THAT sort of damage on the columns and beams ABOVE the strike zone which makes perfect sense as this is how the tops were able to be freed from their supports.


So going through a 100 layers of concrete and steel is the path of least resistance, compared to the empty air that surrounded the buildings. You've got to be kidding?


QUOTE
In all three towers it was not gravity alone which destroyed them.


So if it wasn't gravity alone, what was it?

This post has been edited by DoYouEverWonder: Nov 12 2010, 05:03 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 12 2010, 08:54 PM
Post #15





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I am not Tom, but I concur with that hypothesis and came upon it myself about 1 year ago. I would upload my slides and so forth, but I can't seem to figure out how to do it in this forum. If you are interested I would email them to anyone who is interested. I am referring others to read Tom's presentation which is basically what I believe accounts for the collapse after initiation.

The destruction of the twins involved several phases which were not distinct but blended one into the other. The last phase was the collapse of the "spire" preceded by the gravity driven collapse of the floors and the peeling off of the facade. The spire broke apart as predicted by Euler's equation for slender columns.

The destruction began with the plane strikes, then fires and then there likely was engineered weakening of the core, perhaps with thermite or similar. This led to the tops collapsing down onto and into the top of the lower section which then collapsed as a result of the large dynamic loads.

The initial damage was not enough to bring the towers down, and the fires from fuel and office contents without sprinklers likely did not weaken the remaining steel enough for it to buckle and set off the collapse of the tops.

Gravity pulls things down. There were 3 structural elements in the towers - the core with its 47 columns, the facade with its 236 columns and the floors suspended between the two. The floors were about 97% air by volume and there were no columns to arrest a floor collapse. The columns however would have to be crushed and buckle or topple over. Crushing them is the path of MOST resistance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 12 2010, 11:53 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Hi there i see that you can mix sulphur and barrillium in with thermite to create what i believe is called thermate basically
the same stuff maybe you will want to read this post of mine right NOW there was Barillium at ground zero no doubt about
it just ask first responder Glenn Kleinn if you dont believe me, the only problem is someone suggested that the copper pipes
in the wtc could have been made up of Barrilliium, but my only question would this be enough to poison the ground zero workers
and make them very sick, with this additional piece of evidence of the presence of Barillium at ground zero i am now convinced more
than ever that a form of nanothermite was used with a mixture of Barillium and sulphur the pieces are finally starting to fit together and
i can see them now.

Cheers guys Paul
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Nov 13 2010, 07:03 AM
Post #17





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



My take away from Jon's video is that thermite could be used to weaken the steel. He doesn't say which steel, how many columns or lateral beams were attacked, but he basically trades on the correct assumption that if the structure is destroy it can no longer carry the loads and gravity will cause it to collapse.

This work completely supports or dovetails into the notion that once initiated from structural weakening or dissociating.. and partial unloading of enough columns so that the remaining ones are overloaded and buckle... the mass once supported will collapse driven by gravity.

The other way to destroy the building is to explode them completely... or attack every structural element. But we did not see that and there is no evidence of this in the debris.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 13 2010, 07:45 AM
Post #18





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



Barrillium At Ground Zero

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...mp;pid=10787357

See my post maybe there was a mixture of thermite barillium and sulphur used to demolish the twin towers
combined together into a nanothermite mix the pieces are starting to fit together now more than ever what you
government wont tell you is it just wasnt asbestos that made the ground zero workers soo sick maybe it was
just all the barillium or maybe a mixture of both either way those bastards have to pay one way or another and
that i am sure of they are our enemies not the terrorsists not no citizens the are, they are the greatest threat to
to america and they must be stopped at any cost.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BADBURD
post Nov 13 2010, 09:24 AM
Post #19





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 83
Joined: 31-December 09
From: Mid-West
Member No.: 4,824



QUOTE (SanderO @ Nov 12 2010, 06:54 PM) *
Gravity pulls things down. There were 3 structural elements in the towers - the core with its 47 columns, the facade with its 236 columns and the floors suspended between the two. The floors were about 97% air by volume and there were no columns to arrest a floor collapse. The columns however would have to be crushed and buckle or topple over. Crushing them is the path of MOST resistance.


So what your saying is that if I wanted to make a huge white elephant fall directly on his belly it would be better to jump up and down on his back instead of pulling all of his legs out at the same time? The strength of the towers are in it legs (columns) just like the elephant. If you want to get something massive on the ground you take it's legs out. Nothing falls in the path of most resistance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paul
post Nov 13 2010, 11:06 AM
Post #20





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 241
Joined: 8-November 08
From: Australia
Member No.: 3,978



QUOTE (BADBURD @ Nov 13 2010, 10:54 PM) *
So what your saying is that if I wanted to make a huge white elephant fall directly on his belly it would be better to jump up and down on his back instead of pulling all of his legs out at the same time? The strength of the towers are in it legs (columns) just like the elephant. If you want to get something massive on the ground you take it's legs out. Nothing falls in the path of most resistance.


Actually you are wrong a one way crush down type demolition of the towers would have been entirely possible by initaitaing the collapse
with explosives. It is possible when there is enough energy & weight available to have the top crush the button all the way to freaken ground
which is very unfortunate for the people inside the building at the time what a god damn tradgedy.

Sry for the duh bunker type demolition but they are right on one thing only.

Démolition Balzac Vitry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syzKBBB_THE...feature=related

rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th August 2019 - 02:13 PM