Thermite Cutting Steel Experimentally Demonstrated

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

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.
edit on 3/16/2011 by pteridine because: (no reason given)


It is the report you gave me...therefore to me it is your report, but I don't blame you for not wanting to take credit for it.

No, they did not calculate it, they created a model to explain it.


The “post-September 11th” structural engineer, while feeling the remorse and confusion that every other American has dealt with, is also privileged with the immense education an analysis of the WTC collapse can provide.


Why are they mentioning remorse in a scientific paper? I am angry about 911, not remorseful…who is remorseful? NORAD? Are they trying to appeal to our emotions or our logic?


As the fuselage and wings cut through the steel facade of the Towers, the affected portions of the column sheared off.


Where do they get this premise? Why would anyone suspect the wings could shear steel columns and not the reverse ? They seem to place a lot of importance on momentum, but don’t consider the density of materials, why?

Is the image in Figure 2 the same image published by Wolfgang Staehl, Tina Cart and Robert Clark? How can all three have captured the same perspective and if so, why would they use a fraudulent photo?


The exact position of the longitudinal axis of symmetry of the plane with respect to a floor is unknown.


The above text is directly below Figure 5 which is a close up of the damage. Why didn’t they try to at least get close to the real impact point based on the measurements available from the photo directly above? Were they afraid if they were more exact they’d find that the fuselage impacted directly with a floor, and not between floors?


At the same time, the 3m diameter engines and the wings could easily fit between office floors. This will be most probably the case with the North Tower impact, which occurred with less roll angle.


Why will this be most probably the case with the North Tower? Would it throw their model off if the engines connected with a floor behind an exterior wall? Did they see the video of the impact? It is very hard to tell what it is that hit the tower, much less the roll angle. How do they know there was less roll angle? Based on the slice marks? If they can tell roll angle why can’t they tell the exact impact point by measuring the hole and the position on the wall?


Upon impact into high-rise buildings, the situation is different. The framework of beams, columns, and trusses could deform plastically and fracture.


If they “could” deform plastically and fracture, that means they also may not plastically fracture. Are they trying to build a model to suit a fixed result?


Because the contact area is small, these members, which are relatively narrow compared to the fuselage diameter, can cut and slice into main elements of the airframe before being broken themselves. Thus there is a complex iterative failure sequence between the two “opponents”, building and airplane, that are of comparable strength.


The building beams, columns and spandrels can slice and dice the jet, presumably before being broken themselves. By what? The jet it’s slicing and dicing? Why do they state a jet’s strength is comparable to the building’s strength? Momentum? Is that a fair comparison? Wouldn’t they need to compare a jet’s engine to an external column backed by a spandrel plate, backed by a concrete floor, backed by tubular floor joists, backed by the central column or the opposite wall? With kinetic energy being equally shared, why would the whole plane enter the building instead of just the more massive parts entering the building while less massive parts bounced off? Can momentum explain this all the way down to the tail section?


The main structural part of the wing is the spar – a continuous beam that extends from one tip of the wing to the other. For modeling purposes, we assumed that the mass of the wings (excluding engine) was approximately 21300kg wing M . This mass does not include the mass of the fuel in the wing tanks. Assuming that this mass is now uniformly distributed over the whole wing span and the wing is modeled as a thin-walled square section cross section ...the equivalent thickness becomes 34.5mm.


So the wing mass, most of which is between the engine and the fuselage has now been equally distributed to the whole wing. All of the material used for support is now used to create a 34.5 mm thick wing-shaped box of aluminum for the sake of their model. Is this an accurate and fair representation to begin this test with?


The wings are swept at approximately 35o so that upon impact, external columns are contacted sequentially, one by one. However, the problem of a hollow beam striking another hollow column at a right angle and a speed of 240 m/s has not been analyzed in the literature. Therefore it is not possible, at this point in time, to give any detailed account on this interaction, between the wings and outer column, with a higher degree of accuracy than our approximate engineering analysis.


Even with making a wing into an aluminum machete, they don’t quite have enough modeling power to give a detailed account on this interaction? Why do they talk about their aluminum machete wing striking the columns at right angles? Wouldn’t a swept wing contact the corner of the column first, and isn’t the corner of the column the sturdiest part? With the wing striking the corner like that, would not the corner act like a more massive knife than even the massive machete-wing? Is this why they chose not to press this argument, settling instead with their lame approximated "engineering analysis"?


The equivalent thickness of the hollow wing beam is approximately four times larger than the thickness of the exterior columns, 9.5mm ext t . It is therefore reasonable to treat wings as rigid bodies upon impact with exterior columns.


They made a wing four times the thickness of the beam of a skyscraper...how is this reasonable?


In actuality the wings are constructed as a 3-dimensional lattice of open section beams, ribs and sheet metal skin that maybe of comparable strength to the floor trusses. However, interaction between two 3-dimensional space frames impacting each other is too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation.


First they make a machete-wing, and then they want it to be a 3 dimensional lattice work as strong as the floor trusses. How many trusses are they using for this estimate? It’s too difficult to carry out analytically at the present level of approximation? Is that a fancy way of admitting they’re talking out their bung holes?

Let me know if we need to continue.




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 




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.


You must be in your teens...there's a certain entitlement with that age. Well, you're not the boss of me! So there.

You tell me why it can't be jet fuel. I didn't say a fuel-air.




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!!"


You were there? Do tell, this can answer a lot of nagging questions! I can remember exactly what I was doing when I heard about it...down to the words spoken...most folks can. Where were you standing? Did you see Jules? Hooper has a sister who was there, did you see her?



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.


No kidding! Why don't you lead with this stuff man? Do you have your own website, or at least your own thread? What parts did you see? Did you get any pictures? Come on man...share the wealth, we're all dying for the lowdown from a real eye witness.
edit on 17-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
There is plenty of evidence to question the governments analysis of the 9/11 attacks found in the 9/11 Commission Report. Since they don't give good honest answers to the questions by the citizens, then they are hiding things from us. Hiding evidence and information comes from fear and the fear generates lies. There's absolutely no truth to be found because the people that know these answers will not speak about them. Most of the Muslims they had on the list who supposedly died in the planes used for the attacks are alive and well. This one question of why the list contains living people should be answered but they aren't about to tell us that this list was wrong. I studied this information for three months straight and it's so confusing that it's easy to see that it wasn't a simple attack by some Arabs who didn't like the way the U.S. citizens lived. It's obvious there's a whole lot more to it that no one seems to want to tell us.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

Let me know if we need to continue.


Let me know if I have this scenario right.

You went down to your shop and threw Budweiser cans at a "mountain of steel" anvil and noted that the cans just didn't cut it in half. Based on this, you decided that an airplane couldn't slice through the exterior steel columns of WTC#'s 1 and 2 because you threw those cans really fast. After having read Jones red-paint paper, you watched Cole make some thermate and demonstrate that it cuts steel much as it is formulated to do. Putting all of this together, you now believe that the outer columns must have been cut by thermate just as the plane/hologram arrived and that people threw turbofan parts out of the other side of the building just as the 10,000 gallon fuel bomb ignited to keep up the illusion of an impact.
You also know that matching the impact point of the hologram with thermate cutter charges is a piece of cake and it sure explains things better than an aircraft flying into the building. Craftily, you had planned that the paid Government agents on the thread would refer you to the structural engineering paper about the impact but wouldn't realize that you had been throwing cans at anvils and know that the paper is completely wrong and an NWO plant.
Quizzing those agents about the paper will soon have them confessing their involvement because they are unable to match wits with you. You plan to star on Cole's next video when you cut a beam in half with a stealth hacksaw and unbolt a few joints with a cleverly silenced ratchet and sound supressed socket.

Let me know if we need to continue.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Yankee451

Let me know if we need to continue.


Let me know if I have this scenario right.

You went down to your shop and threw Budweiser cans at a "mountain of steel" anvil and noted that the cans just didn't cut it in half. Based on this, you decided that an airplane couldn't slice through the exterior steel columns of WTC#'s 1 and 2 because you threw those cans really fast. After having read Jones red-paint paper, you watched Cole make some thermate and demonstrate that it cuts steel much as it is formulated to do. Putting all of this together, you now believe that the outer columns must have been cut by thermate just as the plane/hologram arrived and that people threw turbofan parts out of the other side of the building just as the 10,000 gallon fuel bomb ignited to keep up the illusion of an impact.
You also know that matching the impact point of the hologram with thermate cutter charges is a piece of cake and it sure explains things better than an aircraft flying into the building. Craftily, you had planned that the paid Government agents on the thread would refer you to the structural engineering paper about the impact but wouldn't realize that you had been throwing cans at anvils and know that the paper is completely wrong and an NWO plant.
Quizzing those agents about the paper will soon have them confessing their involvement because they are unable to match wits with you. You plan to star on Cole's next video when you cut a beam in half with a stealth hacksaw and unbolt a few joints with a cleverly silenced ratchet and sound supressed socket.

Let me know if we need to continue.


If I had done the above, as you describe, it was more research than you have done. What happened to your holy-than-thou persona? Aren't you out of character using all those small words? Won't people understand you now? Don't you think you sound like a troll instead of a cerebral know-it all?

I despise people who lie, don't you?

Pretentious, self-important liars are particularly loathsome.

To the readers:

Professor Purdue, AKA pteridine, provided a paper from MIT as evidence that the wings from a jet are able to cut steel columns in the real world...this world...planet Earth. The paper he provided was nothing more than a white wash study which he assumed I would not read, and if read, I wouldn't understand...thanks to all the technical details.

But I did read the report, much to Purdue's dismay...I didn't even get to the math before it was obvious what the intent of the MIT team was. I posted very detailed examples from this report and my corresponding comments.

This is a not so fancy way of admitting he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Pteridine pretends to be an intellectual, but If he was intellectually honest, he would suck it up and address the points I made.

Let this be a lesson to you, dear reader. When you have the facts, physics and evidence on your side, pretentious gas bags are left with two choices; arguing the facts, or releasing their air.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451

If I had done the above, as you describe, it was more research than you have done. What happened to your holy-than-thou persona? Aren't you out of character using all those small words? Won't people understand you now? Don't you think you sound like a troll instead of a cerebral know-it all?

I despise people who lie, don't you?

Pretentious, self-important liars are particularly loathsome.

To the readers:

Professor Purdue, AKA pteridine, provided a paper from MIT as evidence that the wings from a jet are able to cut steel columns in the real world...this world...planet Earth. The paper he provided was nothing more than a white wash study which he assumed I would not read, and if read, I wouldn't understand...thanks to all the technical details.

But I did read the report, much to Purdue's dismay...I didn't even get to the math before it was obvious what the intent of the MIT team was. I posted very detailed examples from this report and my corresponding comments.

This is a not so fancy way of admitting he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Pteridine pretends to be an intellectual, but If he was intellectually honest, he would suck it up and address the points I made.

Let this be a lesson to you, dear reader. When you have the facts, physics and evidence on your side, pretentious gas bags are left with two choices; arguing the facts, or releasing their air.

In answer to your questions:
Persona's have left the building. No. No. No. I don't despise people, in general.

I do not find you particularly loathsome, only a bit pugnacious.

I see you are using the "asides to the audience" trick and pretending to have " facts, physics and evidence on your side" as you unsuccessfully try to polarize the discussions. As is common amongst the desperate, you imply that I am a liar, apparently for no reason other than providing the paper for you to read. I must have been correct with the scenario to produce such a response.

Now, you expect me to defend the paper. People in Hell want icewater, too. If you don't like the paper, critique it in detail. Show how the paper is wrong and aluminum aircraft can't penetrate buildings despite what everyone saw in person and on many videos. Show how explosives cut the beams in the WTC's as the hologram planes arrived or whatever you think happened. If the oversimplification of modeling the wing as solid aluminum striking the 1/4" steel columns won't make the grade for you, buy a finite element program for your workstation, use the plans for the aircraft, and show how it makes a difference.
You may now release your air.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pteridine
 


Out of aluminum ammunition for your gun?

I didn't slip in the MIT paper as proof a wing can cut steel...you did that. Why aren't you prepared to defend your evidence?

The steel was 9.5mm thick according to the report, but it was also folded into square tubes, multiplying it's strength at the same time it is multiplying the layers of steel necessary for the silly sword-wing to slice through, so why didn't the MIT geniuses roll all that steel into a big column for the sake of their modeling, and why would you keep referring to 1/4 inch steel instead of referring to a tubular column of 1/4 inch steel? Are you still clutching at straw men?

Just for kicks, the next time you try to name-drop or try to use some technical school's "paper" as evidence to support your position, you might try reading the paper first.

We'll let the readers decide who's loathsome and who's pugnacious.

edit on 17-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
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.



Why would it turn and try to escape through the drywall? What force would act on it to do that? It doesn't just turn because of no reason at all. It had to reach a stopping point (basements) or find a path of minimal resistance (opening in the lobby).


Originally posted by bsbray11
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.


No, but you can look at some of the injuries and see that burns are present. Nobody to my knowledge reported any bleeding ears, or collapsed lungs that I am aware of.

You can also look at this archsurg.ama-assn.org... that includes a breakdown of injuries from 9/11 at Saint Vincent’s Hospital. This is where the VAST majority of victims of 9/11 went to.

Notice the lack of baratraumatic injuries listed? Oh, right, it's smoke inhalation, and blunt-force trauma. Not baratraumatic injuries.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

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.


Correct. Now, go GOOGLE what a eutectic reaction is. It's an ACID attack. It takes LOTS of time for this to occur. This is NOT something that occurs in 10 seconds.

Did Cole do a metalurgical analysis with a microscope to see if inner-granular melting occured? No, he did not.
Unless you can show otherwise.....

Now, go figure out what an eutectic reaction is, then come back. It's not what you think it is.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
You must be in your teens...there's a certain entitlement with that age. Well, you're not the boss of me! So there.


Nice try. I haven't seen teenage years in many many moons. But hey, nice insult there chief.


Originally posted by Yankee451

You tell me why it can't be jet fuel. I didn't say a fuel-air.


Well, I guess it could have been a FAE from grain.....




Originally posted by Yankee451
You were there? Do tell, this can answer a lot of nagging questions! I can remember exactly what I was doing when I heard about it...down to the words spoken...most folks can. Where were you standing? Did you see Jules? Hooper has a sister who was there, did you see her?


Yes, all day.

I was standing in the concourse area near the NW corner of 4WTC.

No, I did not see Jules, but on previous occasions, I did.

Yes, I made out with Hooper's sister on the 78th floor right after planting nano-thermite explosives! (Hooper, don't take any offense to this statement. This is purely mocking an assinine question, since I would have no idea who Hooper or his sister are in real life)



Originally posted by Yankee451
No kidding! Why don't you lead with this stuff man? Do you have your own website, or at least your own thread? What parts did you see? Did you get any pictures? Come on man...share the wealth, we're all dying for the lowdown from a real eye witness.
edit on 17-3-2011 by Yankee451 because: (no reason given)


No, I do not have a website or blog. I don't see the need.

What parts did I see? As in, engines, wings, lifejackts? Or like, Aft fuel door?

No, I do not have personal pictures, since I wasn't there to take pictures. I was there to save lives, which was lightyears more important to me.

Any other patronizing questions you want to ask? Feel free to U2U me.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


Interesting story.

Care to comment on the thermate cutting steel video and how it corroborates the evidence of cutting charges rather than wings? Do you want to point to a paper from MIT or anything?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 



You really should start your own thread. You can put a lot of speculation to rest.

Was there any intention to fight the fires, or were your instructions to just save lives?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Question. Even if thermite was used to cut the perimeter columns, what happened to the material in-between? If the explosion was inside the building, then the thermite charges going off and subsequently the interior explosion would have clearly blown the severed perimeter columns outward. This was not the case. They went inward...



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FDNY343
 


I mean no disrespect, but this is huge to meet someone who was there...

What was the ladder you were assigned to?

How long were you at the NW corner by WTC4?

Were you close to the building at the time the second plane hit?

Where were you when the buildings collapsed?

Why were thousands of people with you?

Where were you directed to go to save lives?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451
 


Question. Even if thermite was used to cut the perimeter columns, what happened to the material in-between? If the explosion was inside the building, then the thermite charges going off and subsequently the interior explosion would have clearly blown the severed perimeter columns outward. This was not the case. They went inward...


Some went inward, most stayed straight, and some bent outwards.

Can you apply the same critical thinking to a jet's wing impacting a structural steel column?

Have you read the MIT paper provided by Professor Pompous as proof that it is possible?



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by FDNY343
 



You really should start your own thread. You can put a lot of speculation to rest.

Was there any intention to fight the fires, or were your instructions to just save lives?




Do you think a firefighter knows how many years it took to make the plans to have all that coordinated and then all the evidience covered up within a very short time? Something like this can take many years to plan with a good reason to do it. If you look at how much money has been made by the military industrial corporations since those attacks, then you'll get a better idea of why these attacks were planned so well. Of course, we'll never know the truth of what happened because of how well those plans were made to cover themselves.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by godspeaker
 


I disagree...I think the truth will out, and it will out in our lifetimes. If I can help grease the skids, I will any way I can.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Yankee451
 


I'm not sure I understand what you're meaning here. I'm talking about the severed material. What happened to it? Did it exit the building or did it somehow get blown inside the building in reverse? I don't know anything about the MIT paper.
edit on 17-3-2011 by Varemia because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by godspeaker
 


I disagree...I think the truth will out, and it will out in our lifetimes. If I can help grease the skids, I will any way I can.


No truth will be known in this world until after it's destroyed soon. We still don't know the truth about the signing of the Constitution by the wealthy British people who had big plans for the U.S. I see all their new half billion dollar yachts parked in the Barcelona port as the world economy has been dumped on. Those old British people knew what they were doing and they've been prospering from the U.S. citizens ever since.

This 9/11 attack was planned many years ago by people who knew they would line their pockets with gold and get control of the economy. It's not some stupid Arabs in the mountains who attacked America. It was the wealthy people who think they own the world.

God has better plans coming and it won't be long before he destroys this earth by having the earth's crust melted with hot molten lava. Then we'll see those rich people trying to save their lives along with everyone else. God is much more powerful than any rich man or government and he planned his attacks way before creation.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





top topics
 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join