Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

9/11 Finally Debunked ; How to Make Thermite (Video) .. Steel Melting like Butter in 1sec

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
In the beginning...it was a definite...thermite could not cut or melt steel....you see it is step by step chipping away at the presented evidence by the OS....to what actually could have possibly occurred....what it does show is there was a collaborative effort made in some of the controlled MSM to have people believe something other than reality.

Thermite has always been able to melt steel. Can you find a single example of any debunker ever saying that it can't? I can't imagine why someone would, thermite is literally used to weld railway lines. It is expressly used because it produces molten iron.
edit on 30/5/12 by exponent because: correction




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube
the difference is it shows what was being said before ...(shortly after 911)...the difference to what is being stated now....11yrs later......In the beginning...it was a definite...thermite could not cut or melt steel....you see it is step by step chipping away at the presented evidence by the OS....to what actually could have possibly occurred....what it does show is there was a collaborative effort made in some of the controlled MSM to have people believe something other than reality.


I can't remember anyone claiming anywhere that thermite could not melt steel. Ever. Can you show me an example of someone claiming this?


you see what it does mean...is that a major presenter such as NAT GEO cannot ever again be trusted as a reliable source......now if someone can go out and make a vid showing simply what NAT GEO tried to show as an impossibility through collaborative efforts of some scientists and demo experts...then it shows how easily the mainstream is willing to lie to the people....I mean NAT GEO should have come out and just said...Thermite can be used to achieve a demolition.....BUT...we don't think it is probable.


I never regarded national geographic, or any other TV station, a reliable source to begin with. In fact, I don't fully trust any source as reliable. Aside from lies there are also (human) error and unintentional bias.

Just wondering, what source do you regard as "to be trusted as a reliable source" and why?



now people used the term controlled demolition....now i take difference to it...as this was a uncontrolled demolition....It did not need to be controlled ....it just had to demolish....job done.


Tell this to benrl. (S)he seems to think that 911 was suspicious because the collapses were "two perfect implosions".


was it a pre planned demolition...imho...I think it was....but we may never find out....I try not to argue semantics any more.....but i do know trying to get people to answer simple things doesn't even seem to work...Did you answer the question PLB....nope....instead you went with grinders cut steel...Did i mention grinders...nope....simple thing again....does thermite have the ability to cut or melt steel?


I think I did answer the question. Yes it can, and I never seen anyone claim otherwise.


don't worry your case does not fall apart because you might answer this.....just as my case does not get validated by showing it can. It is just agreement that thermite could possibly be used to cut steel.


Agreed, that is why I came with angle grinders.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 04:51 PM
link   
What is great is usually i go find the things..and put them back to you all...but this time i will use the words used by others from the OS....Why would i bother to go through hundreds of posting which have stated that thermite would not cut steel .....you can do the search yourself...cause also when it was shown that thermite would cut steel...the OS then started with..."well it won't cut vertical columns...and lo and behold...Steven Jones shows it could....But Doesn't matter because soon as i would show, the typical response would be i never said it.
Do we remember the pancake theory.......The OS still trys to use that as a possibility.


1 NIST is a nonregulatory agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The purpose of NIST investigations is to improve the safety and structural integrity of buildings in the United States, and the focus is on fact finding. NIST investigative teams are authorized to assess building performance and emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of any building failure that has resulted in substantial loss of life or that posed significant potential of substantial loss of life. NIST does not have the statutory authority to make findings of fault nor negligence by individuals or organizations. Further, no part of any report resulting from a NIST investigation into a building failure or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act may be used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report (15 USC 281a, as amended by P.L.107‑231).

2 The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the "probable collapse sequence," although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.

NIST

Now if that is not a disclaimer to....we don't know what happened i don't know what is.....you write a report upto initiation but don't explain the results.....they leave it as a THEORY produced by Bazant.

Do you see the word of importance there....it is a theory...yet the OS quotes it over and over as FACT....It is not fact.....it is as theoretical as thermite being used.....So please stop quoting from a therorectical paper as fact.

Now exponent you asked me what k-out was...i told you what it was....It was debris being expelled as the crushing front progressed...(theoretical)...It was not the total mass of the crushing block c.

but i will ask a question....a simple one...maybe it might get answered correctly....is energy required to expelled debris laterally?

now i was asked to show at some point a paper disputing the Bazant THEORY....remember if your going to quote from it....IT is Theoretical...it is not TRUTH.

but here is a paper written and for peer review....go ahead read it.

source

but of course i am sure a character assassination shall follow


Google Video Link


phd in physics from cal tech.....hmmmm

but i guess he is just some dumbass.

you see When the OS can only Quote from the same few documents put forward by the OS....it is a shame.

now i am speaking about (people who have been here a longtime know it is true) many many many posts from people who have stated that thermite could not have been used....was it used...I don't know...but could it have been used...It is possible.

but one thing is true....NIST and BAZANT are full of BS.

Now i will say that if you from the OS can only go off two false reports.....you had better sharpen up....


Dr. Grabbe's areas of expertise include:
Crockett Grabbe received his PhD in Applied Physics from Caltech in 1978, and is an experienced consultant with expertise in plasmas, electromagnetics, medical physics, programming, the internet, and space physics. He trains, speaks, and writes on a range of physical science, engineering, and mathematical applications. Crockett has spoken to audiences from California to Washington, DC, in several European countries, and in Israel and Canada. He has published 6 books and over 100 scientific papers, as well as over 25 articles for a general audience.

He is a member of the Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers, the National Speaker's Association, the American Physical Society, the International Union of Radio Science, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine, and the National Speakers Association. He has been honorarily profiled in Who's Who in Science & Engineering for over 10 years, and has received similar honorary profiling in Contemporary Authors and Writer's Biography.

Member of IEEE Chicago/Rockford Consultants Network


he was a speaker at a class of mine in Canada.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
now some will come in and say....oh that is from 2005....which it is....but guess what....he does not stop here .....his latest entry is in 2011.....

source

discussing the falsehoods of the liang bazant reports....i was accused of parroting...but i had always written in my own words....I post sources always...and always give credit where credit is due.....I have done videos...and shown my own analysis and work in the past...even to PLB when he said to me that i left out things in a analysis i would go back and enter the data or lines that he seems to require.....but then i quickly realize this is a ploy and have in the recent past....switch to the same tactics of the OSer.s prove me wrong.

Now i had a discussion with exponent about there not being enough potential energy to complete the collapse....well i just found the above paper....nice to know when i state something off my own back...I can find another professional saying the same things.

there is only so much PE available to complete the job.

So rather than just quoting Bazant....To ALL Oser's.....prove Bazant was correct....you won't be able to....because i have tried to prove it correct...not to prove myself wrong...but so that i could use these facts in future building design and planning.

It would seem that if one is to believe these results...then ALL skyscrapers are unsafe and not suitable for human occupancy....Do people not see the implications here. Remember it was not the planes according to NIST and Bazant that brought the buildings down.....WTC7 .... it was fires.




edit on 063131p://f11Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:00 PM
link   
I have MY opinion, everone else has their own,
BUT...and the big BUT is..that the American(or any other) government will NEVER EVER admit to their actions,
regarding 9/11 (or ANY other alleged false flag type conspiricies)...because their 'divide and conquer' tactics will forever remain their 'weapon' against ANY allegations of such alleged atrocities, THEY want us to argue and Disagree...because its takes the focus away from their next 'incident'....of which there will be many...chipping away at the people piece by piece..dividing further..to the point where you can't feel you can trust your neighbour or best friend, making everyone feel as though they are 'alone' in their particular crusade for truth.
The thing that makes me wonder about our so called 'leaders'...is why are they all extremely wealthy compared to the people that actually vote for them???...if you think about that for a while..the answer becomes quite clear.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Now i thought just for fun....I would add another little tidbit....this is from Gordon Ross....

Flaw after flaw in Bazants paper....I would have written all out in my own words....which i have done before...but again to show i am not parroting and how when i write in my own words...it is exactly that my own words...and when i want to use others work...i cite it always....I learned early on in ATS that is the proper way to do things...

so in Gordon Ross's words


CONCLUSIONS

Dr. Bazant has stated in his analysis, that his energy ratio would be increased in the event
of early failure of the column end connections. This is correct and examination of the
debris pile with specific regard for the numbered and identifiable columns from the area
in and around the aircraft impact area could have given more precise information from a
physical rather than a theoretical source.

The short cut taken by NIST in relying upon this theoretical work, allowed them to avoid
a continuation of their examination to include the physical evidence available from the
collapse. Such a continuation would have shown many points of evidence which cannot
be readily explained by a collapse whose initiation and progression was caused as a result
of aircraft impact and subsequent fires. It does however allow the authors of the NIST
report to pass responsibility to Dr. Bazant for this, the most important part of the
investigation.

A theory which can be so easily refuted is not an adequate foundation on which to
rest the conclusions of a report on an event with such far reaching global
consequences.



SOURCE

strange how several people say the same thing i had stated in my own words.....

but hey....I am sure it is good to just believe a theory rather than look at the facts of the day...look at the observable and then see if the observed fit the theoretical.

also as was stated...the first Bazant Zhou paper was written within 48hrs....and then after criticism...after criticism they have had to rewrite the thing on 4 different occasions.....and guess what...it is still theory.

yet for some reason the blinded OSer's keep over and over referring to these documents as though they are fact.

there is one simple fact....there was not enough kinetic energy available due to the force of gravity alone acting on the towers to complete the collapse to to ground through the path of greatest resistance.....now when NIST had to retract the pancake theory....there was one reason alone as to why......TIME....there was not enough time from start of collapse to completion of collapse to support the theory.

Now i put forward...a challenge to OSer's ......Prove without a shadow of a doubt....without using Bazants Theoretical BS that there was enough time from Gravity alone to force the collapse to occur within the time frame needed to allow these structures to come down in the time they did without any other force than gravity alone acting upon them.

Also keeping in mind the path through the path of greatest resistance.

WAITING
edit on 063131p://f10Wednesday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-

Originally posted by Ben81
The WTC steel skeleton were extremely solid
it was made to support earthquake .. fire .. and even planes crashing into it
any expert will be able to tell you that the fire a plane make when it crash
will never come close to 4000 F ( 2200 degres) of heat
only termites can acheive and cut through a solid thick steel bar
this is the reason why it was so fast for both tower to come down after the crash
someone remotly activate the termite placed on the 4 corner of both tower

and the result will be a prefectly controlled demolition that will make it fall verticaly and all egualy

Both tower came down to the ground the same way
under a mather of second and perfectly aligned
any controlled demiliton expert will tell you 9/11 was a controlled demolition for a fact
edit on 5/30/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)


As you seem to value the opinion of experts a lot, my advice would be to actually talk to them. Contact a couple of structural engineers at your local university and ask them what they think about it. I am pretty sure their opinion will differ greatly from yours.


There are structual engineers posting on here, but you still say they are wrong.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by plube
 


What does it matter? The question is about as relevant as "Can an angle grinder cut steel". Sure it can. So what?


It does matter because it's more plausible that thermite was used, and less plausible that angle grinders were used!




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

source




Thanks for the link. I really liked this part:


A measurement of how fast the top of the top segment started coming down yields about 24 m (± 1 m) in the initial 1.0 s. This distance is substantially greater than could be covered in that short time from gravity alone by over a factor of four. That rapid collapse cannot be caused by gravity. Rather it appears to be an internal force, much like that producing the white squibs coming out the lower segment at the 77th floor and the gray dust that is coming out the lower sides of the Tower's upper segment. The initial very fast rate of the top segment collapse (when the the bottom segment has at best barely started falling) shows that gravity is not causing it. The energetic ejections of gray dust from the lower part of that top segment indicates that it is likely being pulled down by a force created by a large pressure gradients. An explosion inside that top segment, producing a high pressure that is quickly relieved at lower levels by the gray dust coming out lower down, could produce the rapid collapse observed.


That's hilarious. He is suggesting that the negative pressure left in the wake of an imaginary explosion accelerated the top of the building downward at a rate greater than the force of gravity by a factor of 4.

Even if the explosion left a total vacuum in its wake it would only exert -14.7 pounds per square inch. A more realistic number would be -4 psi. Do you think thats enough force to accelerate the top of the building down at that rate ?

The floors above the explosion would also have to be strong enough to transmit this force into the rest of the upper buildings mass.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by waypastvne
 


well you sure aren't getting what he is saying....First off he is saying that gravity alone could not have caused the fall as fast as it had occurred....and that because of the horizontal ejections it suggests that things are exploding on the collapse front therefore creating the a vacuum at the crushing front.....this is from Observation of the collapse....not from theoretical ramblings.
you see this is why Bazants paper falls to pieces....It is because it did not ever consider what was observed on the day....well that is just one of the many reasons.....the collapsing upper blocks which Bazant had to correct several times but still to no avail.
strange how you laugh at professionals....you haven't any answers....just cutting remarks....But...I guess your still backing bazants paper....no matter what i take it......
the underlying fact....there was not enough energy in the gravity driven collapse alone to successfully progress the collapse fully.
also as i had showed in another thread.....his paper does not even hold true on a concrete structure so therefore how could it possibly hold true for a building of steel frame construction.



this as you see is a building that should perfectly fit bazants Paper...IT loses COMPLETE support from two floors
This is Bazants perfect scenario for his paper to show it holds true.....if it at all held true....this building should be crushing up.....it has a much higher percentage of mass compared to the over all structure....that is upper block c. yet...guess what.....even in this building....weaker structure....higher percentage of mass in the in upper block of this collapse....it should be best possible to enable bazants model to hold true....FAILS.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
What is great is usually i go find the things..and put them back to you all...but this time i will use the words used by others from the OS....Why would i bother to go through hundreds of posting which have stated that thermite would not cut steel .....you can do the search yourself

You would bother because we don't believe it exists, and we think you are making things up. I do at least, and I think PLB feels the same way.


Do you see the word of importance there....it is a theory...yet the OS quotes it over and over as FACT....It is not fact.....it is as theoretical as thermite being used.....So please stop quoting from a therorectical paper as fact.

"Evolution is just a theory". Please don't misuse words.


but i will ask a question....a simple one...maybe it might get answered correctly....is energy required to expelled debris laterally?

It is, it is covered as part of K_out and BLBG.


but one thing is true....NIST and BAZANT are full of BS.

Better go tell CTBUH or ASCE that. Cause they don't think so, and they have quite a lot more experience and education than we do.


this as you see is a building that should perfectly fit bazants Paper...IT loses COMPLETE support from two floors
This is Bazants perfect scenario for his paper to show it holds true.....if it at all held true....this building should be crushing up.....it has a much higher percentage of mass compared to the over all structure....that is upper block c. yet...guess what.....even in this building....weaker structure....higher percentage of mass in the in upper block of this collapse....it should be best possible to enable bazants model to hold true....FAILS.

Stop lying. This doesn't 'perfectly fit bazants paper'. Are you going to claim to be a structural engineer again despite not even understanding the basic principles of an equation?

You can't just make stuff up and expect people to believe it. Apparently you think that's a valid debate tactic.
edit on 31/5/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Exothermic reaction.
Here are some links to my post on another thread
Exothermic Reaction

In thermodynamics, the term exothermic ("outside heating") describes a process or reaction that releases energy from the system, usually in the form of heat, but also in the form of light (e.g. a spark, flame, or explosion), electricity (e.g. a battery), or sound (e.g. burning hydrogen). Its etymology stems from the prefix exo (derived from the Greek word ἔξω, exō, "outside") and the Greek word thermasi (meaning "to heat"). The term exothermic was first coined by Marcellin Berthelot. The opposite of an exothermic process is an endothermic process, one that absorbs energy in the form of heat. The concept is frequently applied in the physical sciences to chemical reactions, where chemical bond energy is converted to thermal energy (heat).



An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of light or heat. It is the opposite of an endothermic reaction. Expressed in a chemical equation: reactants → products + energy An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that is accompanied by the release of heat. It gives out energy to its surroundings. The energy needed for the reaction to occur is less than the total energy released. When using a calorimeter, the change in heat of the calorimeter is equal to the opposite of the change in heat of the system. This means that when the medium in which the reaction is taking place gains heat, the reaction is exothermic. The absolute amount of energy in a chemical system is extremely difficult to measure or calculate. The enthalpy change, ΔH, of a chemical reaction is much easier to measure and calculate. A bomb calorimeter is very suitable for measuring the energy change, ΔH, of a combustion reaction. Measured and calculated ΔH values are related to bond energies by: ΔH = energy used in bond breaking reactions − energy released in bond making products An energy profile of an exothermic reaction by definition the enthalpy change has a negative value: ΔH < 0 in an exothermic reaction, gives a negative value for ΔH, since a larger value (the energy released in the reaction) is subtracted from a smaller value (the energy used for the reaction). For example, when hydrogen burns: 2H2 + O2 → 2H2O ΔH = −483.6 kJ/mol of O2

Thermite

Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction. If aluminium is the reducing agent it is called an aluminothermic reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time. The thermite is simply a mixture of metal, often called the "fuel" and an oxidizer. Its form of action is very similar to other fuel-oxidizer mixtures like black powder. Thermites can be a diverse class of compositions. Some "fuels" that can be used include aluminium, magnesium, titanium, zinc, silicon, boron and others. One commonly-used fuel in thermite mixtures is aluminium, because of its high boiling point. The oxidizers can be boron(III) oxide, silicon(IV) oxide, chromium(III) oxide, manganese(IV) oxide, iron(III) oxide, iron(II,III) oxide, copper(II) oxide, and lead(II,III,IV) oxide and others

Asbestos
You do remember the asbestos concern?


Asbestos (pronounced /æsˈbɛstəs/ or /æzˈbɛstəs/) is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals used commercially for their desirable physical properties.[1] They all have in common their eponymous, asbestiform habit: long (ca. 1:20 aspect ratio), thin fibrous crystals. continued

Tremolite
Tremolite is a member of the amphibole group of silicate minerals with composition: Ca2Mg5Si8O22(OH)2. Tremolite forms by metamorphism of sediments rich in dolomite and quartz. Tremolite forms a series with actinolite and ferro-actinolite. Pure magnesium tremolite is creamy white, but the color grades to dark green with increasing iron content. It has a hardness on Mohs scale of 5 to 6. Nephrite, one of the two minerals of the gemstone jade, is a green variety of tremolite. The fibrous form of tremolite is one of the six recognised types of asbestos. This material is toxic and inhaling the fibers can lead to asbestosis, lung cancer and both pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma. Fibrous tremolite is sometimes found as a contaminant in vermiculite, chrysotile (itself a type of asbestos) and talc.
Serpentinite
Above also handy for nuclear reactors



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:30 AM
link   
You may also be interested in the following
Zonolite& Asbestos

W.R. Grace and CompanyLibby, Montana

W. R. Grace and Company is a Columbia, Maryland, United States based chemical conglomerate. The company has two main divisions, Davison Chemicals and Performance Chemicals. The Davison unit makes chemical catalysts, refining catalysts, and silica-based products that let other companies make products from refined crude oil. Its Performance Chemicals unit makes cement and concrete additives, fireproofing chemicals, and packaging sealants. The customers include chemicals companies, construction firms, and oil refiners.[1] Their self-description is "a premier specialty chemicals and materials company." Grace has more than 6,400 employees in nearly 40 countries, and annual sales of more than $2.5 billion.[1] The company's stock, with ticker symbol "GRA," listed in 1953, trades on the New York Stock Exchange



Contamination incidents W. R. Grace and Company has been involved in a number of controversial incidents of proven and alleged corporate crimes, including exposing workers and residents of an entire town to asbestos contamination in Libby[23] and Troy, Montana, water contamination (the basis of the book and film A Civil Action) in Woburn, Massachusetts, and an Acton, Massachusetts, Superfund site.



Asbestos court case In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice began criminal proceedings against W.R. Grace. On February 7, 2005, the department announced that a grand jury in Montana indicted W.R. Grace and seven current and former Grace executives for knowingly endangering residents of Libby, Montana, and concealing information about the health effects of its asbestos mining operations. According to the indictment, W. R. Grace and its executives, as far back as the 1970s, attempted to conceal information about the adverse health effects of the company’s vermiculite mining operations and distribution of vermiculite in the Libby, Montana, community. The defendants are also accused of obstructing the government’s cleanup efforts and wire fraud. To date, according to the indictment, approximately 1,200 residents of Libby area have been identified as suffering from some kind of asbestos-related abnormality.[25] The criminal trial began in February 2009 after years of pretrial proceedings which reached the United States Supreme Court.[26] By the time the trial was set to begin, one of the defendants, Alan Stringer, had died of cancer. On Friday, May 8, 2009, W.R. Grace was acquitted of "knowingly" harming the people of Libby, Montana. Fred Festa, chairman, president and CEO said in a statement, "the company worked hard to keep the operations in compliance with the laws and standards of the day." David Uhlmann, a former top environmental crimes prosecutor has been quoted as saying about the W.R. Grace: "There's never been a case where so many people were sickened or killed by environmental crime." The W.R. Grace case has long festered in the court system on a 10-count indictment including charges of wire fraud and obstruction of justice. W.R. Grace has voluntarily paid millions of dollars in medical bills for 900 Libby residents.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Now tell me,.... Is there a W. R. Grace and Company & World Trade Center connection?


Here are some interesting links regarding THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TENANTS

WTC 1
WTC 2
WTC 4
WTC 5
WTC 6
WTC 7

Just incase you need them.
edit on 31-5-2012 by jazz10 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


ahhh i see you are...hmmm seems to me you are parroting....you are parroting Bazant....I am not lying...if it holds true in one instance....It has to hold true in all instances....it seems that you do not understand what is being stated at all.

now please show me where in the bazant paper k-out represents the upper block C......as stated k-out represents the debris out at the crushing front not from the upper block C.

And yet again your taking the theoretical paper as fact...I have to question why?

now again if it occurs in one scenario...it needs to apply in all scenarios.....Especially in a scenario in which percentage of mass is far greater in block C compared to the lower structure.

did you see in the vid the expulsion of debris on the lower two floor in the demo vid....that is k-out....just as bazant is showing....Crush up needs to occur in this case just as it should do in the towers....you can't say well this is valid in one building....and then say...oh it does not apply in another where the parameters are more favourable for crush up to occur.

so who is lying here.....you want people to just believe in a bogus paper which does not work in the real world...over what was observed.

what was observed is there wasn't a upper (rigid) block C which would progress the collapse...through crush down....let alone crush up phase.

just for you...since your so clever...and your so sure that bazants paper is right....why not go over to Andres Bjorkmans site and collect your 100.00euros.

I mean i would love to prove Bazant correct...cause i could then go collect the prize.....But you know something....not one single person will be able to collect it......Simply because Bazants theory is incorrect.

I mean really....CD companies could save themselves a lot of money.....just start a fire below where the PE available would be sufficient to crush down the lower structure....keeping in mind this technique should be able to be used in demolishing unwanted steel structures...the saving will be great....no expensive explosives....no long man hours of setting charges and prep work.....light the fire...and voila.....collapse.

Am i being cynical...you bet as one can see how ridiculous it is.





edit on 063131p://f17Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
ahhh i see you are...hmmm seems to me you are parroting....you are parroting Bazant....I am not lying...if it holds true in one instance....It has to hold true in all instances....it seems that you do not understand what is being stated at all.

You clearly haven't bothered to spend the time needed to understand the paper. What applies to the towers applies only to a building of the same energy density and dissipation. Comparing concrete structures to steel structures is silly on its face.


now please show me where in the bazant paper k-out represents the upper block C......as stated k-out represents the debris out at the crushing front not from the upper block C.

K_out is the mass shedding fraction, if you had read the paper you would know this.


And yet again your taking the theoretical paper as fact...I have to question why?

now again if it occurs in one scenario...it needs to apply in all scenarios.....Especially in a scenario in which percentage of mass is far greater in block C compared to the lower structure.

You make the same mistake again in using the incorrect definition of a scientific theory, a theory is something which has met tests, as Bazants does. The equations he uses will apply in all scenarios, the values used will not. You are demanding that both buildings share the same values for the equation, despite their complete difference in every respect. No engineer would ever do this, it is a fundamental logical mistake.


did you see in the vid the expulsion of debris on the lower two floor in the demo vid....that is k-out....just as bazant is showing....Crush up needs to occur in this case just as it should do in the towers....you can't say well this is valid in one building....and then say...oh it does not apply in another where the parameters are more favourable for crush up to occur.

The parameters are not more favourable, concrete has exceptional compressive strength. Steel has better strength to weight. Strength is dominant here, weight was dominant in the towers. Your lack of understanding in no way reflects on Bazant's work.


so who is lying here.....you want people to just believe in a bogus paper which does not work in the real world...over what was observed.

This 'bogus paper' and several others have been published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics and other such auspicious journals. What basis do you have to accuse it of being bogus, when it has undergone peer review and been accepted? None other than your personal incredulity, despite the fact you do not even understand the papers.

edit: you added more before I could reply:

just for you...since your so clever...and your so sure that bazants paper is right....why not go over to Andres Bjorkmans site and collect your 100.00euros.

Anders Bjorkman is a fraud who doubts the existence of satellites, he's thrown in his lot with the cluesforum bunch. If you think this is the standard of proof to be met then you should claim Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge for proving evolution. When he gets out of jail of course.


I mean i would love to prove Bazant correct...cause i could then go collect the prize.....But you know something....not one single person will be able to collect it......Simply because Bazants theory is incorrect.

No, because the prize is a fraud, it is by its very definition uncollectable.


I mean really....CD companies could save themselves a lot of money.....just start a fire below where the PE available would be sufficient to crush down the lower structure....keeping in mind this technique should be able to be used in demolishing unwanted steel structures...the saving will be great....no expensive explosives....no long man hours of setting charges and prep work.....light the fire...and voila.....collapse.

Am i being cynical...you bet as one can see how ridiculous it is.

The collapses on 911 were uncontrolled and all damaged property. However, in france, they use a very similar technique called 'vérinage'


As you can see, when the buildings have suitable column strength, the principles in Bazant's papers do apply.
edit on 31/5/12 by exponent because: adding extra questions + answers



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


The mass that is shed from the tower, characterized by κ
out
, exits at various velocities
ranging from nearly 0 to almost either the air ejection velocity, for fine dust, or to roughly
˙ z, for large steel pieces. Instead of complicating our model by some distribution of these
velocities, we will simply assume that a certain fraction,κeκout
, gets ejected in any direction
(horizontal, inclined downward or upward, or almost vertical) at velocity ˙ z, while the remaining
mass (1−κe)κout
is shed at nearly vanishing velocity. For a certain empirical value of κe
, this
must be energetically equivalent to considering the actual distribution of velocities of ejected
solids. As the crushing front advances dz, the mass of solids (dust plus large fragments) that
is ejected at velocity ˙ zis κeκout
µ(z)dzand has kinetic energy κeκoutµ(z) dz( ˙z2/2). This mustbe equal toFe
dz, i.e., to the work of the resisting force Fe
over distance dz. It follows that
Fe =12κeκoutµ(z) ˙z2(10)
The computation results shown in figures have been run forκe= 0.2; however, a broad range
ofκe
has been considered in computations, as discussed later. For the crush-up,κe
must be
ignored because the compacted layer is stationary.

as stated it is NOT the mass loss of the upper block c it is the mass being expelled as the crushing front proceeds.

now if you go to figure 2 from the paper....you know the block drawings....
BLGB
upper block C is shown to remain....Rigid......is this what was observed.

so could you please stop saying i don't or haven't read the papers...i have posted...pasted...quoted....showed...and explored all his papers....and as each one of them come under fire...he has had to resubmit ......now the above is posted right from Bazants paper......

the upper block C still has to retain it's mass in order for crush up to occur.....and he shows this in his block drawings....now if it did not...then the block drawings would not have to show the block c continuing down.

not only that....you see in the block drawings the FACT that is what the crush up phase is all about.....It is suggesting that crush up DOES NOT occur until crush down has been completed.

this paper was done to try to address the fact since it was so blatantly pointed out by many people....myself included.....in emails to Mister Bazant.

Block C did not exist.....It was disintegrated defore the colapse was even close to completion.

edit on 073131p://f45Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by plube
as stated it is NOT the mass loss of the upper block c it is the mass being expelled as the crushing front proceeds.

The crushing front is what becomes of Block C as it is destroyed. The amount of mass shed is what you were complaining about, now you are complaining that the mass is not lost before it impacts? Come on man.


so could you please stop saying i don't or haven't read the papers...i have posted...pasted...quoted....showed...and explored all his papers....and as each one of them come under fire...he has had to resubmit

So you agree that the papers have in fact been peer-reviewed by experts?


the upper block C still has to retain it's mass in order for crush up to occur.....and he shows this in his block drawings....now if it did not...then the block drawings would not have to show the block c continuing down.

not only that....you see in the block drawings the FACT that is what the crush up phase is all about.....It is suggesting that crush up DOES NOT occur until crush down has been completed.

A limited amount of crush up does occur, but as the resistance of the lower block only provides about 1/3g total deceleration, the upper block receives only the force transmitted through the compacted rubble layer.


this paper was done to try to address the fact since it was so blatantly pointed out by many people....myself included.....in emails to Mister Bazant.

Block C did not exist.....It was disintegrated defore the colapse was even close to completion.

The paper represents the best scenario for collapse survival. In reality the upper block mostly damaged the floor sections, which requires much less energy, you're confusing a limiting case for reality. Even in the best possible case the WTC was doomed.



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


you used words of others and tried to use them as your own....the best scenario for collapse survival.....when you parrot make sure you don't just take others words and use them as your own.
Why would you do that...i have been discussing 911 since the day it happened....I was talking to colleagues in New York at the time of the event.....many people i talked to in the trade all thought the same thing....how could the buildings collapse...then within 48hrs Bazant and zhou write up this report...and NIST ends their investigation where the collapse initiates.
now you have been on here since 2008 and the only threads you reply in are none other than 911..(cept moon hoax)
..ODD
Even though it is of interest to myself....is it my only topic of discussion.....nope.

now soon as i see the parroting that sent up flags....you are only here for one reason and one reason alone....you do not want to discuss logically....you only want to troll.....sorry not going to feed the troll.

you were wrong about k out

I know exactly what k out refers to...also the block has to remain rigid...if it does not then Bazants paper fails....it Failed.

no more responses to you troll.

edit on 093131p://f30Thursday by plube because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by plube

well you sure aren't getting what he is saying...


Oh No, I understood perfectly, what he was saying. Thats why I quoted and posted it here for others to laugh at.

What I don"t see is any math to back up Ross's suck down theory.Ross should have provided us with:
A theoretical negative pressure value,
A theoretical area to distribute this pressure over,
A theoretical amount of time this negative pressure lasted,
A theoretical value for the total force created,
A theoretical increase in the downward acceleration created by this force.
Proof the area affected by negative pressure is strong enough to transmit this force into the rest of the building.
And does this increase in acceleration = a rate faster than gravity alone by over a factor of four.

Bazant showed his numbers. Where are Ross's numbers ?





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join