Originally posted by whiterabbit
Originally posted by bsbray11
Show me your calculations on this one. If it used, say, 100x finer particles, show me the math that indicates to you that it'd take "about the
same amount" of powder to accomplish the same mechanical work via heat. Namely, moving through the steel.
Don't have any. But I'll explain why I think that below.
Well, it was a pretty bad explanation, so let me try explaining why it
wouldn't be necessary to have "about the same amount".
We've established that finer particles = more surface area in contact between the aluminum and oxidizer. Finer particles also = more reactions per
amount of material.
If it takes 10 pounds of coarse thermite to produce enough heat to "cut" a column, a much finer reaction that produces 100x the heat per some
standard amount of thermite would only require 1/10th of a pound of thermite. I would venture that the particle size is also directly proportional to
the amount of heat put off by the heat given off by a standard amount of thermite undergoing a thermite reaction. Does that not make sense to you?
To survive being burned by the thermite itself, you'd need a big heavy device to force it sideways.
No you wouldn't. What do you think contains molten iron/steel when its being produced? There's insulation that will take the heat and not
deteriorate. I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but I think it's something to do with carbon.
Each of those small amounts, if they were burning at all when they got knocked off, would be surrounded by a burn zone where they set fire to
debris. They'd stand out like like pockets of unexplainable fire damage. You'd be able to see the black spots as they were digging it
out.
Unexplainable fire damage? You mean like the tons of vehicles blocks away from the towers that caught on fire? A whole parking lot, pretty much.
The debris piles themselves smoldered for months, and that was all exposed and extended to the above-ground as well immediately after the collapses.
There are even multiples of reports of molten metal flowing in places after the collapses. You dismiss all of this kind of evidence to say that there
was no evidence of extra heat. Don't even pretend you knew what the column ends looked like, because most of that was already hauled out before
anyone got to examine anything as part of an investigation.
Well then only give me enough to counter my list 1:1.
I don't even know that I could enough statements to match that. So, go ahead and draw whatever from that.
At least take this opportunity to remember not to say scientists and engineers all buy the official story. Disregarding NIST's farce of a report, I
would say most research literature into the events of 9/11 by this point has been pioneered by scientists, engineers, and others that disagree with
the official story, whether you realize it or not. Most relevant information that's available in general has been fleshed out by people pushing for
re-investigation.
NIST declared molten metal, sulfidation, etc., "irrelevant" to
its investigation, and didn't even try to analyze a global collapse.
Engineers that have come to disagree with the official story have now provided both despite NIST. NIST also failed to support its most critical
hypothesis when it tested the WTC trusses in 2-hour fires and could not produce failure, let alone failure of a perpendicular support column simply by
sagging. Even older fire research summed up in a 2000 report from the University of Edinburgh (following something like 15 years of research of the
effects of fire upon steel structures) showed that run-away collapses in steel buildings were unrealistic for
any steel frame building,
contradicting an assumption that had been made previously in concerns of safety. This is the kind of stuff standing in the way of the "official
story" that everyone is either totally in the dark about, or else ignores when I bring it up.
I think the fact that most civil engineers and scientists in the world aren't speaking out in support of the conspiracy theory (which could,
if true, get them fame and fortune) is a testament to it not being true, though.
You don't get fame and fortune for exposing a massive conspiracy. You get
fired, because engineering departments are federally funded, and
there have been similar fiascos in the past. Kevin Ryan was fired from Underwriters Laboratories when he wrote NIST's investigators and brought up
how fantastic their theory of massive column failure in <2 hours of fire was as the report and investigation was still incomplete. They weren't
interested in the least in his professional opinion; NIST knew what they had to report and they were going to report it regardless.
But none of that even matters until you realize something's wrong in the first place. Again, I doubt anyone but a very small fraction of engineers
have actually looked over the NIST report in any detail. That's probably one of the first things engineers would look to if they actually became
interested in the subject, and the report is full of scattered-out BS thats intentionally hard to draw conclusions from, and that contradicts itself
when you put it all together.
In a perfect world, maybe every single engineer would read it and think deeply over it and express all of his/her concerns to NIST at the proper time
before the release of the final report. Then maybe your logic would hold up. In reality, I'm sure nothing like that actually happened, and most
people that read the NIST report with a technical curiosity are very dissatisfied.
