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)

[amazed!]

Welcome to the forum Trimble, but I do not find your post to be particularly persuasive.

Considering the nearly free fall rates of collapse, I see nothing whatsoever, including your random chaos theory, that would act as anvil to the hammer.

The concrete was not broke into smaller pieces, it was pulverized into a pyroclastic flow. An anvil of large proportions would have been required. The dust was so fine that it drifted for blocks in the air.

[trimble]

Considering the nearly free fall rates of collapse, I see nothing whatsoever, including your random chaos theory, that would act as anvil to the hammer.

I make no theory. I am merely stating basic mechanics.

To change the velocity of an object (ie apply an acceleration to it) requires a force. The resistance to that force is the object's inertia. The force is proportional to the object's mass and acceleration being applied. In the case of a floor slab, this inertial force is huge. An object travelling at 60mph is moving at around 30ms-1. A rigid floor is accelerated to this,despite a large safety factor, after what ... a 10cm drop? If you plug that into the standard motion equations (which is to make all sorts of invalid assumptions -- yes, yes, I am aware of this, but the purpose is to illustrate, not provide accurate numbers), you will get an acceleration of around 3000ms-2 over a hundredth of a second. Inertia = m.dv/dt . Once there is no more acceleration, there is no more inertial force -- ie the "anvil" is in existence for only as long as the debris from above is accelerating it. But for that fraction of a second, it is one hell of an anvil (and indeed one that in turn shatters) for the lower layer of debris and the slab itself.

The concrete was not broke into smaller pieces, it was pulverized into a pyroclastic flow. An anvil of large proportions would have been required. The dust was so fine that it drifted for blocks in the air.

Concrete is a brittle aggregate material susceptible to fractures. If you hit a block of concrete, shock waves will travel throughout the material, and there will be localised stresses resulting in shattering and dust. Hit it hard enough, and vigorously tumble your small pieces together, and you are going to get more dust than chunks. Comparable to a giant commercial VSI crusher, I suppose.

I am not, however, going to make any argument or point of how concrete is turned to dust. I am not a materials scientist (my field is far removed from anything related to 9/11). The sole point I am making (and that SanderO is making) is that there is no *need* for anything additional to help the building on its way, after collapse is initiated. Whether additional help is required to explain other observations (ie. the dust) is a completely different matter.

Unrelated niggle : do please avoid inaccurate terms like "pyroclastic flow" and "chaos theory". You dont mean either, thus its inaccurate and lazy language that may confuse another reader (probably fall into laziness myself sometimes, but I hope not over such specific terms).

[Paul]

I make no theory. I am merely stating basic mechanics.

To change the velocity of an object (ie apply an acceleration to it) requires a force. The resistance to that force is the object's inertia. The force is proportional to the object's mass and acceleration being applied. In the case of a floor slab, this inertial force is huge. An object travelling at 60mph is moving at around 30ms-1. A rigid floor is accelerated to this,despite a large safety factor, after what ... a 10cm drop? If you plug that into the standard motion equations (which is to make all sorts of invalid assumptions -- yes, yes, I am aware of this, but the purpose is to illustrate, not provide accurate numbers), you will get an acceleration of around 3000ms-2 over a hundredth of a second. Inertia = m.dv/dt . Once there is no more acceleration, there is no more inertial force -- ie the "anvil" is in existence for only as long as the debris from above is accelerating it. But for that fraction of a second, it is one hell of an anvil (and indeed one that in turn shatters) for the lower layer of debris and the slab itself.



Concrete is a brittle aggregate material susceptible to fractures. If you hit a block of concrete, shock waves will travel throughout the material, and there will be localised stresses resulting in shattering and dust. Hit it hard enough, and vigorously tumble your small pieces together, and you are going to get more dust than chunks. Comparable to a giant commercial VSI crusher, I suppose.

I am not, however, going to make any argument or point of how concrete is turned to dust. I am not a materials scientist (my field is far removed from anything related to 9/11). The sole point I am making (and that SanderO is making) is that there is no *need* for anything additional to help the building on its way, after collapse is initiated. Whether additional help is required to explain other observations (ie. the dust) is a completely different matter.

Unrelated niggle : do please avoid inaccurate terms like "pyroclastic flow" and "chaos theory". You dont mean either, thus its inaccurate and lazy language that may confuse another reader (probably fall into laziness myself sometimes, but I hope not over such specific terms).

I think a building would have to be very strong to arrest it's own collapse if you where to remove say ten or so floors cut of
the top lift it up and drop down on the remaining floors i think the case of a steel skyscraper you would have to have very thick
out core columns you would have to have very thick floor trussed more like thick long metal beams supporting the underneath of
the floors you would have to have very strong bolted connections you probably even have to have very strong welds as well just think
about like in the case of the wtc you have like 100 tonnes or probaly even more than that maybe like 300 tonnes of upper floors
suddenly dropping and hitting the floors below i think in order to arrest such a collapse you would have to have a building that
can support more than it's static load i think you would have to have a building that could support 1.5 times it's static load or maybe even
almost twice it's actual static load because when you take the top of a building and drop it you have a tremendous amount of energy
and weight that want to go only one way the way the gravity is pulling it and that is straight down, and in order to have a building that could areest it's own collapse it would have be strong enough to catch and hold the entire weight of the upper floors all without buckling having and bolts shear
come out due to the entire weigh of the upper floors that have just been dropped on it, and for a building to arrest it's own collapse in this
manner would be an incredible feat and i dont think most buildings could do it, anyway just an interesting though if the wtc twin towers where
built of a much tough stronger desighn and supposing the top section still did manage to drop give way fail buckle i wouldnt not be suprise if
if the top went straight over the side and crashing down into the streets below, this is what i would suspect would have happened if the wtc twin towers where of such a tough desighn that they could arrest themselves.

Anyway that's just a few thoughts of mine from a non engineer pretty good huh?

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