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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Google Video Link
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
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
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
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 factedit 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.
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?
Originally posted by plube
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.
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
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.
but i will ask a question....a simple one...maybe it might get answered correctly....is energy required to expelled debris laterally?
but one thing is true....NIST and BAZANT are full of BS.
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.
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 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 (pronounced /æsˈbɛstəs/ or /æzˈbɛstəs/) is a set of six naturally occurring silicate minerals used commercially for their desirable physical properties. They all have in common their eponymous, asbestiform habit: long (ca. 1:20 aspect ratio), thin fibrous crystals. continued
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. 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. 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 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. The criminal trial began in February 2009 after years of pretrial proceedings which reached the United States Supreme Court. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Originally posted by plube
well you sure aren't getting what he is saying...