Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Yankee451

 

You should post that here.

There is plenty in the Naudet footage alone that is damning to the OS. Just the fact that the lobby glass was blown out, and people were laying outside on the ground with their skin burned off but not injured from any fall, and tiles were hanging off the ceiling and elevators blown out there. And then firefighters talking about the floors coming down "boom boom boom boom boom," "as if there were detonators."

I suppose it could be too easy to miss all of that when you're busy waving your flag and crying along to the rest of it.

I guess you don't understand the power of a fuel-air explosion? Or that fact that if it was an EXPLOSIVE, those people in the lobby wouldn't be BURNED, they would have been BROKEN and suffering some baratrauma injuries.

But hey, forget about all that. It's cool. Oh, and forget that the collapse begins at the impact floors too. That's irrelevant....

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11I could refer you back to FEMA appendix C for residues exactly mirroring a eutectic reaction such as thermate occurring on WTC steel.

Um, you do realize that thermite does not leave the same marks as an acid attack, right? Which, BTW, is what a eutectic reaction is. It's an acid attack that occurs over a long period of time. Thermite/thermate/nano-thermite do not do long periods of time. They are, by nature, very fast.

Are you ADHD? This demonstration shows what thermate can do using easily available ingredients, and that it can do what the officials told us it couldn't do. Squirming out of that point doesn't change the point, does it? Instead of trying to find a way to deny the implications, why aren't you rethinking your position based on this information?

What this is is corroborating evidence which can explain the cuts in the walls of the WTC better than the impossible story given by the government.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by pteridine
Why do you think "bulk" would have a quantity attached? Bulk in this case means bulk and not painted on, a la Jonesy.

Oh, so now you think I'm Steven Jones. Delusion noted.

No, that is not what he said at all!! LOL!!! Is English your native language?

Because what he said was this.

"Why do you think "bulk" would have a quantity attached? Bulk in this case means [alot] and not painted on, [as Jones] claims [it was]. "

Does that make sense to you now?

reply to post by FDNY343


Before you go making assumptions about the damage to the lobby being caused by jet fuel (it couldn't have been), you need to explain your reasoning for assuming the existence of a jet, because from what I understand the media aren't very accurate.

reply to post by FDNY343


Not the way you said it.

The test was made with simple, over the counter ingredients. He was able to cut structural steel with the visible resulting reaction fitting the available photographic evidence for flame, popping-explosions, smoke puffs and sliced steel.

Being just a small test from a civilian, I'm sure that if the military had a version used by Controlled Demolition Inc. it would have been more powerful, more accurate and more effective.

Why would the officials bother to make a claim that thermate can't cut steel anyway? Since they did, why would they get it so wrong? Were they trying to sow confusion and disinformation?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451

 

The kinetic energy of the airplane against the the steel preventing its penetration is a more realistic equation. I asked you how the hole matches the profile of the aircraft. What is your logical conclusion?

This one's for you,
Professor Purdue

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Here is an interesting article on the common misconceptions of Newtons Third Law: www.eric.ed.gov... Page 16 and 17 of the paper are most important.

Good paper. It helps clear up some misconceptions of physics I've had.

Sure page 16 and 17 are important...since the author is lamenting the poor understanding of the third law by physics students after they've been taught the subject, much of this article focuses on those misconceptions, and they enumerate the difficulties in understanding at the top of page 16:

A possible solution to students' difficulties with the concept of force as an innate or acquired property of objects is to simply re-label their naive concept of force by calling it, for example, "momentum" or "kinetic energy"

you feel me FDNY343?

He goes on:

1) Momentum or kinetic energy do not cause motion (as students view force causing motion), they are simply properties of a moving object arising as a result of the motion of that object.

2) Momentum and kinetic energy vary with the fame of reference. If a student were to simply re-label his conception of force to be, for example, momentum, she might well ask how an object could have a lot of force (or strength of forcefulness) in one frame of reference, and none from another perspective.

3) If a student is encouraged to equate momentum with her naive conception of force, she is likely to add momentum to force in problem solving, or be confused about why it is improper to do so.

For the above reasons, re-labeling the student's naive concept of force is not a satisfactory solution to the problem of the naive view of force as a property and may lead to an even greater confusion (how many times have the students used the words "the force of momentum" in a physics class)...

How many times have the OSers used the words "kinetic energy" on these forums?

As good as page 16 is, I like page two and three the best:

A number of studies conducted in recent years have demonstrated a wide range of beliefs about physical phenomena which students have apparently formed on their own without the benefit of formal instruction. Particularly well documented have been student beliefs which are in contradiction with the ideas of Newtonian mechanics. For example, many students hold the belief that there is a force on or in an object in the direction of the object's motion, when in fact no force is necessary to keep an object moving at constant velocity...

...Thus some students view objects as inherently more "force-full" by virtue of their mass, speed, activity, etc.

reply to post by Yankee451


A professor explaining concepts to students does not negate the MIT paper. What is your point? Are your calculations giving you trouble?

reply to post by pteridine

A professor explaining concepts to students does not negate the MIT paper. What is your point? Are your calculations giving you trouble?

Were they intended to?

reply to post by Yankee451

Your post doesn't seem to have a point to it. What are you trying to say?

reply to post by pteridine


You're assuming that's my only post, Professor.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

You're assuming that's my only post, Professor.

I have seen and responded to many posts from you, so that statement doesn't make sense either. Are you at a loss for words or do you have a point to make?

reply to post by pteridine


Can you click the backspace button or should I get MIT to draw you a map?

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451

 

Your post doesn't seem to have a point to it. What are you trying to say?

Did you read what the professor was writing about his students? You did see your own quote at the top of my post, didn't you? In that context, then read what the professor wrote.

See now what I'm trying to say?

reply to post by Yankee451


I was responding to you at a reasonable level so I wouldn't be accused of overcomplicating things.

I provided the MIT paper that showed that the aircraft could penetrate the WTC structures after you insinuated that I gratuitously mentioned MIT for some unknown reason. If you don't like the paper or don't want to believe it, that is your choice and it makes no difference to me.
By the way, the professor's explanations were for physics problems that happen in physics class; frictionless environments with no air resistance or gravity. All collisions are elastic [think billiard balls] because deformations are difficult to calculate, as you can see by the MIT paper.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I was responding to you at a reasonable level so I wouldn't be accused of overcomplicating things.

I provided the MIT paper that showed that the aircraft could penetrate the WTC structures after you insinuated that I gratuitously mentioned MIT for some unknown reason. If you don't like the paper or don't want to believe it, that is your choice and it makes no difference to me.
By the way, the professor's explanations were for physics problems that happen in physics class; frictionless environments with no air resistance or gravity. All collisions are elastic [think billiard balls] because deformations are difficult to calculate, as you can see by the MIT paper.

So is that a fancy and pompous way of saying you don't want to address the reasons why your report is inaccurate, and that it didn't even address the question of the wing slicing the columns?

Care to comment on my comments? You can even use big words.

Originally posted by Yankee451
Before you go making assumptions about the damage to the lobby being caused by jet fuel (it couldn't have been),

Ok, please feel free to explain to me why that is not possible. Since the victims ALL have injuries consistant wth a fuel-air explosion, and not an EXPLOSIVE, please explain to me why.

Originally posted by Yankee451
you need to explain your reasoning for assuming the existence of a jet, because from what I understand the media aren't very accurate.

My eyes don't lie to me. I saw the second impact with my own two eyes. They don't typically lie to me about something like that. Not to mention the thousands of other people that were around that said "Holy **** a plane just hit!!"

I heard the jet, saw the jet, saw the explosion from the fuel, and felt the tremble. Sorry, CGI don't leave part strewn all about.

Originally posted by Yankee451

So is that a fancy and pompous way of saying you don't want to address the reasons why your report is inaccurate, and that it didn't even address the question of the wing slicing the columns?

Care to comment on my comments? You can even use big words.

First, it is not my report. It is a paper byTomasz Wierzbicki, Professor of Applied Mechanics at MIT and two of his colleagues. I provided this reference because you asked about the impact damage.

Second, it does address the wing slicing the columns. Possibly, you haven't read it or misunderstood it. It describes the methodology used in the model and states: "According to the calculation performed by Teng and Wierzbicki [2] the mass ratio is 0.0783, which means 7.83% of the initial kinetic energy of the wings (96MJ or 2.6% of the total initial kinetic energy) is lost in cutting the exterior columns."
If you need something more satisfying than this paper, you can get the address of Professor Wierzbicki and ask him your questions. You might even want to critique his failure to properly address the wings cutting the columns and possibly correct his calculations if you think they are in error.

Originally posted by FDNY343

Originally posted by bsbray11
Oh, so now you think I'm Steven Jones. Delusion noted.

No, that is not what he said at all!! LOL!!! Is English your native language?

Because what he said was this.

"Why do you think "bulk" would have a quantity attached? Bulk in this case means [alot] and not painted on, [as Jones] claims [it was]. "

Does that make sense to you now?

I never made the claim that the material had to be paint on. So he was arguing with a suggestion that was in a paper that others wrote, and in which the paper itself didn't even argue the suggestion as a fact (and even offered other ideas), and he was arguing with it to me as if I was Steven Jones.

So does my post make sense to you yet? Because all your response shows me is that it went way over your head.

Originally posted by FDNY343
I guess you don't understand the power of a fuel-air explosion?

Oh I understand, and I also understand that if an FAE was even created, it would have also destroyed the gypsum elevator shafts before traveling 1000+ feet down them to destroy the lobby and steel doors in the basement.

Or that fact that if it was an EXPLOSIVE, those people in the lobby wouldn't be BURNED, they would have been BROKEN and suffering some baratrauma injuries

The fact is that the testimony provided by the footage does not negate that possibility, unless you mean to tell me you can diagnose someone's trauma by a brief, blurry image.

Originally posted by pteridine
If the 'eutectic' bit is not part of your position why do you keep bringing it up?

Because it was already established as being at Ground Zero in the FEMA report. That is a commonality, period. I know you have excuses but you apparently don't realize that when you make something up, it isn't automatically proven, or necessarily even relevant. When you claim what Cole did shares no similarities with what happened at the WTC, you're denying (in denial) of the fact that steel that had suffered from a eutectic reaction was left after Cole was done, and it was left on structural steel at the WTC. That's not someone (like you) making something up. That's something you can verify, between this video, and FEMA appendix C.

It is also apparent that your grasp of language is tenuous at best. I didn't say I thought you were Steven Jones and don't know why you would interpret my comment that way.

It's ironic you should go straight for insulting my grasp of language when I was addressing you sarcastically for automatically putting something in Jones' paper in my mouth, which went right over your language-grasping head.

You do seem to defend Jones whenever he is the topic.

Only because you can't even interpret what's in his papers, like you just demonstrated. He didn't claim anything was painted on as a fact and even suggested that larger amounts were applied. Bottom line is you're attacking something that someone else said, and not even as a fact, instead of anything I actually posted about.

You wouldn't know how science works because you haven't done any.

I didn't realize you've been hovering over my shoulder my whole life. This coming from someone who has always refused or been too "afraid" to even say if they have a degree or what it's in. Stop preaching.

It seems that you were the one mainly demanding answers from people. You said that you wouldn't know that red paint wouldn't cause anything to collapse. Paint something red and see if it falls apart.

You've already been shown plenty of information to indicate that the material was not red paint, and you chose to ignore it. That's not my problem. If you want to see those videos again, or want me to type out all the reasons given in them as to why the material was not a match with paint, why don't you start another thread so we can make it a permanent reference?

You are also sure I've "never stepped foot inside a military explosive research lab or had any earthly experiences even remotely bordering on that," are you? You know what they say about assumptions.

I wouldn't call it an assumption given a lot of the things you've already said.

I haven't made any of the new nanoparticulate materials but I am familiar enough with them to synthesize them if necessary. The red paint that Jones "discovered" isn't remotely like any of the nanoparticulate thermites and Jones knows it.

Right, like you can do in your basement what Los Alamos is doing.

If you have evidence that would cause a reinvestigation, now is the time to bring it forward. Someone not satisfying you with the depth or directions of their investigation is not cause.

Now is the time it's being brought forward, and it is being brought forward, but not by me. More things have to happen beyond my control and it isn't like a freaking light switch. It took about 75 years before the USS Maine was proven to be an internal explosion. About two decades after the Vietnam war the NSA admitted the event that started it never actually happened, probably because they realized no one would care anymore. You act like what people know now is what they'll know forever. You can do better than that.