Normal Thermite Can Cut Vertically Through Steel Proof, Debunkers claims finally destroyed Options

[Paul]

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#!



(IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/whistle.gif)

[SanderO]

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.

[DoYouEverWonder]

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?

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?

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