Normal Thermite Can Cut Vertically Through Steel Proof, Debunkers claims finally destroyed
Nov 11 2010, 08:51 AM
Group: Private Forum Pilot
Joined: 8-November 08
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
(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)
Nov 20 2010, 11:53 AM
Joined: 23-December 09
Member No.: 4,814
My arguments are not a red herring at all. First let me be quite clear on my position about what happened pre collapse - I can't assert anything with certainty, certainly with not as much confidence as I do about the collapse being gravity driven.
Let me also make a distinction in the stages of the collapse - the beginning of collapse for me is the period when the first discernible movement takes place (seen in the movement of the antenna) until the top section above the "impact" zone comes down and appears to disappear into or onto the section below the impact zone. This took about 4 seconds.
The collapse phase I refer to as gravity driven then begins and this lasts about 10 seconds or so.
The problem in initiation (phase I) is that buckling of the core columns alone from heat of any amount would likely not exhibit what happened at initiation. The application of heat from fires would accumulate over time weakening the steel which likely would show signs by beginning to deform. If these deformations were symmetrical, which seems unlikely... that is some columns would buckle north and equal number south and so forth so that the net effect was that the structure would sink down - not to the north or south, east or west or twist somewhat slowly until they gave way. And when they did they the above section of this heated portions would have to then descend acceleration as we saw. It was a "sudden" release (seen at the roof line) not a slow "deformation" and downward creep.
What we saw seems to indicate that not only did the columns let go almost simultaneous, but in so doing the top was offset a something less than 2 feet which is seen in the facades of the top slipping passed one another. The suddenness and the translation is hard to explain from a gradual build up of heat and easier to explain if there was some impulse or perhaps well timed diagonal cuts causing the top to slip over and then drop. The problem with the later is that we don't have evidence of such cuts but I believe some rather serious bent WF column sections from the area above the impact zone. And with the plane strike being rather symmetrical we need to account for the asymmetry of phase I. We note the Antenna tipping first to the east which does indicate asymmetry and east side compromise of it's support.
The asymmetry may be attributed to the failure of the hat truss on one side (east) which would show the antenna tipping its top to the east. And since the antenna DID lead the collapse in phase I there is reason to believe that whatever was directly supporting (underneath) was essentially "gone". Those 3 columns were not meant to provide the only support for the antenna - the hat truss distributed the loads to at least 8 perimeter core columns, 8 central core columns and 8 facade columns.
I have mixed feelings about WR. I am not sure he is not confused as to the timing and he told one interviewer that the blast he heard was micro seconds before the plane struck. I don't know who looks at their watch at such times but he seems to have. I also can't make sense of a massive destruction of the central columns - which is were the car 50 freight elevator was and the fact that no one else reported sagging further up in that location in the core up to the actually collapse.
He's also be a sort of "self promoter" sky rocketed into prominence as a hero and he seems to be milking this a bit. But I really can't tell. The explosions he and others heard are certainly troubling. Could have been a bomb to destroy the sprinkler pumps in advance of the plane strike? I can't tell.
Further, destroying the center of the core would not have much if any effect on the floor areas outside the core. Those three columns were quite small compared to all the other core columns because they supported so little floor loads within the core. My hunch is that the engineers used the hat truss to distribute the antenna loads instead of beefing up those three columns all the way to the top. The hat truss provided stiffness for the top of the facade combined with the stronger mechanical floors up top.
When looking at a "CD" explanation you need to look at what and how this would be done, what columns, connections etc would be attacked - what that would do and so forth. It has to make sense. Why would WTC 1 have a different plan than WTC 2?
Clearly explosive and incendiaries can destroy a building. But that doesn't mean that they did or if they did we need to show HOW they did what we saw.
I think that the planners understood that the building would collapse down by gravity and that could "conceal" the cause... initiation.., and they would expect it to be blamed on destruction from the planes and the fires. But this seems not to be enough energy to initiate phase I even if (though) once initiated it could set of the gravity driven collapse. These guys did some serious engineering analysis.
|Lo-Fi Version||Time is now: 25th May 2013 - 12:29 PM|