Blanchard Doesn't Buy Thermite Myth

[BenBurch]

Welcome Arthur!

[Max Photon]

* * *


Are we done mopping the floor with Blanchard?

[T.A.M.]

rights after we clean the toilet bowl with S.Jones and R.Gage, then we are done.

TAM;)

[pomeroo]

* * *


Are we done mopping the floor with Blanchard?


Max, the water on the floor is your sweat. You never laid a glove on Blanchard. You were exposed, remember?

[Max Photon]

* * *

Brent Blanchard's paper was stolen from the parakeet's cage in a sad little attempt to refute Sir Maxwell C. Photon's claim that thermite was used to heat WTC steel to its critical temperature.

Yoohoo. Blanchard's narrow little paper - (sorry Peetie) - only addresses controlled demolition from the standpoints of EXPLOSIVE CUTTING, and THERMAL CUTTING.

Get it? Brent only addresses the possibility of controlled demolition by CUTTING.

Nowhere does Brent address the possibility - and fact - of controlled demolition by HEAT-WEAKENING.

Therefore Blanchard cannot be used to refute MAX-MIHOP. All you have done is point out to the world the Brent and Co. never even thought about controlled demolition using thermite to - you know - act like fire, and weaken the steel.

By the way, how's BB doing on his 10+1 questions from Max, plus that zesty 95% Apollo was wondering about?


Max

* * *

[JMarshall]

here does Brent address the possibility - and fact - of controlled demolition by HEAT-WEAKENING.


That couldn't be because it is an idiotic idea, could it?

[pomeroo]

* * *

Brent Blanchard's paper was stolen from the parakeet's cage in a sad little attempt to refute Sir Maxwell C. Photon's claim that thermite was used to heat WTC steel to its critical temperature.

Yoohoo. Blanchard's narrow little paper - (sorry Peetie) - only addresses controlled demolition from the standpoints of EXPLOSIVE CUTTING, and THERMAL CUTTING.

Get it? Brent only addresses the possibility of controlled demolition by CUTTING.

Nowhere does Brent address the possibility - and fact - of controlled demolition by HEAT-WEAKENING.

Therefore Blanchard cannot be used to refute MAX-MIHOP. All you have done is point out to the world the Brent and Co. never even thought about controlled demolition using thermite to - you know - act like fire, and weaken the steel.

By the way, how's BB doing on his 10+1 questions from Max, plus that zesty 95% Apollo was wondering about?


Max

* * *


But Brent's paper doesn't address Max's puerile fantasies. Brent is a demolition professional and Max is a know-nothing conspiracy liar who makes up stuff to slander innocent people. Demolition professionals don't use thermite to weaken steel, you silly goose.

[einsteen]

But Brent's paper doesn't address Max's puerile fantasies. Brent is a demolition professional and Max is a know-nothing conspiracy liar who makes up stuff to slander innocent people. Demolition professionals don't use thermite to weaken steel, you silly goose.

And don't forgot that in controlled demolitions the buildings are stripped, the astbestos is removed and probably a siren is going of before the collapse. That was absolutely not the case.

ps. Blanchard is a website maintainer, is a good photographer of demolitions, but he has never demolished a building.

[uk_dave]

ps. Blanchard is a website maintainer, is a good photographer of demolitions, but he has never demolished a building.

So? Have you ever designed a multistorey steel srructure? Have you ever built one? Have you ever demolished a building?

There are plenty of people in the 'truth' movement who have never designed or constructed a building, and yet they consider themselves fully competent to make the most astounding claims about the collapse of the wtc towers.

The difference between Blanchard and the 'truther' armchair experts is that he has ample experience to identify the signs of a controlled demolition, has knowledge of how such a demolition would have to be achieved and (most importantly) he works with people who do know how it could and couldn't be done.

Think I'll take his comments over those of people who think the towers could be free standing without any internal floors.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No, but I will if you give me the link!

Here it is.

http://www.mauinews.com/story.aspx?id=22618

[Max Photon]

* * *

CC is correct that the telltale signs of thermite placed inside box columns to heat the steel to its critical temperature would include:

iron
aluminum oxide
any ignition devices

I would add:

the iron would probably be heavily oxidized
the nearby steel would probably be heavily oxidized
there may be mud-cracking on the exterior paint
the nearby steel may show phase changes if its temperature were > 625 C.
there may be no ignition devices if a) thermite fuse were used, and it simply burned away, or b) sono-ignition were used (that is, if the shock from the jets' impacts were used as a remote ignition mechanism)


Telltale Max

* * *

[beachnut]

And don't forgot that in controlled demolitions the buildings are stripped, the astbestos is removed and probably a siren is going of before the collapse. That was absolutely not the case.

Do not forget the truth movement has zero evidence to support CD on 9/11. What does this post mean? You have zero point on 9/11? What is this was absolutely not the case? What does this mean for 9/11? Are you a evidence free 9/11 truth CD person too?

I have to take this as proof there was no CD on 9/11 because you fail to bring evidence. Any new hearsay junk?

[BenBurch]

Max?

I have a serious question for you?

Why do you so deeply NEED this to have been CD that you spend your time dreaming up a non-falsifiable hypothesis that goes against all common sense? (And which moreover IS falsifiable because it wouldn't have worked.)

I mean, I deeply NEED (well, not need, but I'd laugh for a week) George Bush to be found stinking drunk in the Rose Garden some morning, surrounded by used sex toys, but I'm not going to pretend it happened! :D

[afinemadness]

Max?

I have a serious question for you?

Why do you so deeply NEED this to have been CD that you spend your time dreaming up a non-falsifiable hypothesis that goes against all common sense? (And which moreover IS falsifiable because it wouldn't have worked.)

I mean, I deeply NEED (well, not need, but I'd laugh for a week) George Bush to be found stinking drunk in the Rose Garden some morning, surrounded by used sex toys, but I'm not going to pretend it happened! :D

Max just likes to see himself type. He has no real clue as to what is going on. When one point is proven that even he can not refute he just changes the theory. It does not matter that he has no proof nor has his scenario ever work anywhere else. Arguing with him is like picking up mercury. He just keeps moving away.

Now for what I need it may involve the alcohol and toys but trust me GWB is not there. I have other people in mind.

[Sparky]

I mean, I deeply NEED (well, not need, but I'd laugh for a week) George Bush to be found stinking drunk in the Rose Garden some morning, surrounded by used sex toys, but I'm not going to pretend it happened! :D

I feel the same way about Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer.:D

[Max Photon]

Max just likes to see himself type. He has no real clue as to what is going on. When one point is proven that even he can not refute he just changes the theory. It does not matter that he has no proof nor has his scenario ever work anywhere else. Arguing with him is like picking up mercury. He just keeps moving away.




Afinemadness my dear friend, you are confused.

If you go over to the thread on Ross's Momentum Paper you will see a process similar to mine. Note the parallels:

Benson looked at video
Max looked at video

Benson made observations
Max made observations

Benson is selecting statements (functions) to model his observations
Max is selecting statements (functions) to model his observations

Benson uses fit as a selection criterion
Max uses fit as a selection criterion

Benson asks others for input
Max asks others for input

Benson adapts his models to new input
Max adapts his models to new input

Benson is "making things up" as he goes along
Max is "making things up" as he goes along

Benson and Max are modeling.


You have watched MAX-MIHOP model evolve before your eyes:


Aluminum from the jets was used to create phreato-thermatic explosions to knock off SFRM, and create visually-spectacular explosions to be used as a media input signal (spike).
Thermite was planted at steel connections to heat the steel to its critical temperature.
Planter thermite was ignited by thermite fuse.
The thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impact.
Thermite inside perimeter columns caused hot material to spew from column bolt-access-holes, creating "fires on piles of debris" - fires that were visible from the exterior.
Choreographed synthetic fires created "migrating fires".
Thermite at gusset seats burned the visco-elastic dampers, causing floors to sag.
Thermite inside perimeter columns heated the columns, causing visco elastic creep.
Sagging floors caused creeping columns to bow inward and fail, thereby initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.



Here I am. There is my model (refined by everyone's gracious input).

Why do you claim I keep moving away?


Max

* * *

[lapman]

Aluminum from the jets was used to create phreato-thermatic explosions to knock off SFRM, and create visually-spectacular explosions to be used as a media input signal (spike).It was a fuel-air explosion and was consistent with the crash.
Thermite was planted at steel connections to heat the steel to its critical temperature.No evidence of the scorching that would be consistent with thermite.
Planter thermite was ignited by thermite fuse.No such thing as a thermite fuse. Magnesium is generally used.
The thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impact.It would not have been hot enough for long enough to ignite your imaginary fuse
Thermite inside perimeter columns caused hot material to spew from column bolt-access-holes, creating "fires on piles of debris" - fires that were visible from the exterior.Not even close. Fires were consistent with office fires. Besides, the thermite would have to defy gravity to perform this feat.
Choreographed synthetic fires created "migrating fires".Nope, not even close. The pipes, gas canisters, etc. would have been as hard to hide as the "thermite fuses."
Thermite at gusset seats burned the visco-elastic dampers, causing floors to sag.Wow, you really have no idea what your talking about. The visco-elastic dampers were not used for support. They were simply to dampen the lateral movement of the floors as the outer columns moved with the wind.
Thermite inside perimeter columns heated the columns, causing visco elastic creep. Again, no evidence of the scorching that would have accompanied the burning thermite.
Sagging floors caused creeping columns to bow inward and fail, thereby initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.OOOOOOO. So close. Remove the "creeping" and you finally have it.

Thank you for playing. Please pet the kitty when you leave and don't worry about the gun he's holding. It's really a toy. Trust me. ;)

[beachnut]

Choreographed synthetic fires created "migrating fires".
Max* * *
You make up the most ridiculous ideas on 9/11. Pathetic idiotic ideas!

[Max Photon]

Max?

I have a serious question for you?




Well then take that question mark down, son.




Why do you so deeply NEED this to have been CD that you spend your time dreaming up a non-falsifiable hypothesis that goes against all common sense? (And which moreover IS falsifiable because it wouldn't have worked.)




Careful son. Thinking is not a toy.

MAX-MIHOP is perfectly falsifiable - just look inside the fire-affected perimeter box columns from WTC 2.

The spoliation is not my fault.

No fire-affected perimeter columns from WTC 2 were gathered and studied by NIST.

And there is no way you can tell me people looked inside the fire-affected box columns for signs of thermite used merely to heat-weaken the steel.

Heck, none of you simpletonians ever even thought of the concept until I spoon-fed you. (Ohhhh, thaaat's cuuuute...Blanchard's dribbling. Could someone wipe his chin?)

So the evidence was destroyed before MAX-MIHOP could be tested - simply - even by a moron.

In fact, the evidence was destroyed exactly to destroy falsifiability.


The Real Max

* * *

[beachnut]

^ omg, moronic ideas from...

[pomeroo]

Afinemadness my dear friend, you are confused.

If you go over to the thread on Ross's Momentum Paper you will see a process similar to mine. Note the parallels:

Benson looked at video
Max looked at video

Benson made observations
Max made observations

Benson is selecting statements (functions) to model his observations
Max is selecting statements (functions) to model his observations

Benson uses fit as a selection criterion
Max uses fit as a selection criterion

Benson asks others for input
Max asks others for input

Benson adapts his models to new input
Max adapts his models to new input

Benson is "making things up" as he goes along
Max is "making things up" as he goes along

Benson and Max are modeling.


You have watched MAX-MIHOP model evolve before your eyes:

Aluminum from the jets was used to create phreato-thermatic explosions to knock off SFRM, and create visually-spectacular explosions to be used as a media input signal (spike).
Thermite was planted at steel connections to heat the steel to its critical temperature.
Planter thermite was ignited by thermite fuse.
The thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impact.
Thermite inside perimeter columns caused hot material to spew from column bolt-access-holes, creating "fires on piles of debris" - fires that were visible from the exterior.
Choreographed synthetic fires created "migrating fires".
Thermite at gusset seats burned the visco-elastic dampers, causing floors to sag.
Thermite inside perimeter columns heated the columns, causing visco elastic creep.
Sagging floors caused creeping columns to bow inward and fail, thereby initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Here I am. There is my model (refined by everyone's gracious input).

Why do you claim I keep moving away?


Max

* * *


No thermite was used at the TWC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. Why do you continue to lie?

[pomeroo]

Well then take that question mark down, son.





Careful son. Thinking is not a toy.

MAX-MIHOP is perfectly falsifiable - just look inside the fire-affected perimeter box columns from WTC 2.

The spoliation is not my fault.

No fire-affected perimeter columns from WTC 2 were gathered and studied by NIST.

And there is no way you can tell me people looked inside the fire-affected box columns for signs of thermite used merely to heat-weaken the steel.

Heck, none of you simpletonians ever even thought of the concept until I spoon-fed you. (Ohhhh, thaaat's cuuuute...Blanchard's dribbling. Could someone wipe his chin?)

So the evidence was destroyed before MAX-MIHOP could be tested - simply - even by a moron.

In fact, the evidence was destroyed exactly to destroy falsifiability.


The Real Max

* * *


No, Max, the moisture you see is your own flop sweat. Blanchard is much smarter than you and knows vastly more about demolition.

Incidentally, you've been caught lying again: No evidence was destroyed. You've been corrected on this falsehood several times. When will you stop trying to peddle it?

[pomeroo]

Brent Blanchard responded to my question (Dr. Greening's question, actually) about his estimate:

It's called "angle of repose". 95% or so fell almost straight down, then much of that spilled out onto adjacent streets since the basement cavity was unable to contain all of the debris. Above a certain angle, debris spills outward. Take a bucket of sand and pour it into a golf hole beyond capacity and you get the general idea....

bb

[Alt+F4]

So the evidence was destroyed before MAX-MIHOP could be tested

Who destroyed it?

[Max Photon]

Wow, you really have no idea what your talking about. The visco-elastic dampers were not used for support. They were simply to dampen the lateral movement of the floors as the outer columns moved with the wind.





http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2988996#post2988996

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2989222#post2989222


* * *

[T.A.M.]

Brent Blanchard responded to my question (Dr. Greening's question, actually) about his estimate:

It's called "angle of repose". 95% or so fell almost straight down, then much of that spilled out onto adjacent streets since the basement cavity was unable to contain all of the debris. Above a certain angle, debris spills outward. Take a bucket of sand and pour it into a golf hole beyond capacity and you get the general idea....

bb

That is a great explanation, although, does this account for the 3 storey high debris pile?

TAM:)

[Arus808]

well, when you consider that most of the buildings were to be air yes, a 3 story pile above ground (i have a feeling it was higher than that) and whatever BELOW ground, maybe it was like a 10 story pile?

[Max Photon]

Who destroyed it [the evidence]?





The process destroyed the evidence.

A process was set up to create the impression that there was nothing left to see.



* * *

[rwguinn]

Brent Blanchard responded to my question (Dr. Greening's question, actually) about his estimate:

It's called "angle of repose". 95% or so fell almost straight down, then much of that spilled out onto adjacent streets since the basement cavity was unable to contain all of the debris. Above a certain angle, debris spills outward. Take a bucket of sand and pour it into a golf hole beyond capacity and you get the general idea....

bb

I guess I'm on ignore by everybody:
I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3167247#post3167247)
that Dr. G had never piled stuff up and watched it slide downhill....

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

So Brent is replacing one "guestimate" with another?

Much spilled here, much spilled there!

Its all too much (of a muchness)...

But I still call it BS!

[T.A.M.]

well, when you consider that most of the buildings were to be air yes, a 3 story pile above ground (i have a feeling it was higher than that) and whatever BELOW ground, maybe it was like a 10 story pile?

Exactly, I mean I think the 95% outside the footprint is a bit of an exaggeration. If it was a 110 storey skyscraper, and most of it air, then lets say that if we took all the air out, the tower would stand at lets say 30 storeys. If we then estimate a debris pile of 10 storeys high, then that means only about 67% of the building was outside the footprint...

But I am no expert, and I am sure it is not as simple as that.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I guess I'm on ignore by everybody:
I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3167247#post3167247)
that Dr. G had never piled stuff up and watched it slide downhill....

You are not on ignore by me, I am just late to the game this evening, and the response from Blanchard as posted by Pomeroo caught my eye.

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

You are not on ignore by me, I am just late to the game this evening, and the response from Blanchard as posted by Pomeroo caught my eye.

TAM:)
:p
How did I miss P$$ing you off? I must be slipping...

[T.A.M.]

:p
How did I miss P$$ing you off? I must be slipping...

It's usually a bit harder to p$$ me off, or at least harder to get me to show it....lol

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

You know the only point I am trying to make is that Blanchard is giving a

quantitative estimate for something with no scientific basis for his number.

Where I worked, when we analyzed a sample for x, (where x was tritium or cobalt or whatever), and the number was very low,

we used to say that the sample had "five-halves of two-thirds of ***** all of x",

when all we really meant was that the sample had very little of x!

If Blanchard is going to quote a number, he should back it up with data or fact or calculation - not more BS, PLEASE!

[Max Photon]

* * *


Collapse Dynamics, with Brent Blanchard

Lecture 1: Angle of suppose



* * *

[Apollo20]

Max:

No, isn't it:

Angle of dangle or something like that?

[Arus808]

Collapse dynamics with Max Photon

Step one: max must first attend a class in high school physics
Step 2 ; max must then graduate high school and attend college
Step 3: max must then take all physic and engineering classe
Step 4: max must then practice what he has learned in the real world for 20 years
Step 5: only the max can comment on anything blanchard states (or any engineer states)

[BenBurch]

Angle of repose has almost nothing to do with how a pile forms initially.

Angle of repose is the angle it will assume over the course of years as it settles.

[Sunstealer]

the nearby steel may show phase changes if its temperature were > 625 C.Someone needs to learn their Iron Carbon phase diagram and it's relationship to A36 - a 0.26% plain carbon (mild) steel. You are way off. Sigh.

No thermite here

tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

only what would be expected due to a severe fire but then I know what I'm looking at and Max doesn't.

[pomeroo]

I guess I'm on ignore by everybody:
I said here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3167247#post3167247)
that Dr. G had never piled stuff up and watched it slide downhill....


I would never ignore your posts.

[T.A.M.]

You know the only point I am trying to make is that Blanchard is giving a

quantitative estimate for something with no scientific basis for his number.

Where I worked, when we analyzed a sample for x, (where x was tritium or cobalt or whatever), and the number was very low,

we used to say that the sample had "five-halves of two-thirds of ***** all of x",

when all we really meant was that the sample had very little of x!

If Blanchard is going to quote a number, he should back it up with data or fact or calculation - not more BS, PLEASE!

I suspect you are right, in that the 95% number is likely not accurate, but my contention is that Blanchard likely never meant it to be (of course I cannot speak for him). I suspect he was using the figure, as you have suggested, to mean "almost all". not to say exactly 95% fell outside.

I think that for the sake of clarification, given the fact that people here on both sides are very particular when it comes to NUMBERS, that if he meant the 95% to simply be a numeric representative of "almost all" than he should state as much...IMO.

TAM:)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You know the only point I am trying to make is that Blanchard is giving a

quantitative estimate for something with no scientific basis for his number.

Where I worked, when we analyzed a sample for x, (where x was tritium or cobalt or whatever), and the number was very low,

we used to say that the sample had "five-halves of two-thirds of ***** all of x",

when all we really meant was that the sample had very little of x!

If Blanchard is going to quote a number, he should back it up with data or fact or calculation - not more BS, PLEASE!

I have to agree it is totally BS, and sloppy, he would have been better off if he had used a good calculation of something to back it up!

There is no way to tell how the material in the pile in the bath tub landed, so that claim is meaning less.

[rwguinn]

Again:
Dom not get so caught up in being precise that you forget that it is accuracy we are after!

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I suspect you are right, in that the 95% number is likely not accurate, but my contention is that Blanchard likely never meant it to be (of course I cannot speak for him). I suspect he was using the figure, as you have suggested, to mean "almost all". not to say exactly 95% fell outside.

I think that for the sake of clarification, given the fact that people here on both sides are very particular when it comes to NUMBERS, that if he meant the 95% to simply be a numeric representative of "almost all" than he should state as much...IMO.

TAM:)

Which is great since Cters are using Blanchard's Numbers to try to prove that DR. Frank Greening is a lying paid shill.
I wonder why some one like Apollo20 would be pi$$ed at that, I mean it is not like he is putting his reputation out there and having it slandered on the INTERNET, by INTERNET Idiots because others are doing Incredibly sloppy BS. work, now is it?

One of the reasons we are in this mess is because of misunderstandings each one we can eliminated brings us one step closer the extinction of the truther cult.
We do not need people just pulling stuff out of a hat!

That is something Frank Explained quite a few times, data and or observation have to back up what is claimed.

Of course as rwguinn likes to point out engineers and Scientists unlike DR. Greening have magic Hats where they can just pull out factual claims with no surporting evidence, nothing to back it up!
It also looks like they do that quite a lot!

[Max Photon]

Collapse dynamics with Max Photon

Step one: max must first attend a class in high school physics
Step 2 ; max must then graduate high school and attend college
Step 3: max must then take all physic and engineering classe
Step 4: max must then practice what he has learned in the real world for 20 years
Step 5: only the max can comment on anything blanchard states (or any engineer states)



Wow, is that what it takes to become the Demolition Porn King these days?



* * *

[Max Photon]

[snip]

...only the max can comment on anything blanchard states (or any engineer states)





Remember that.



the max

* * *

[Max Photon]

Someone needs to learn their Iron Carbon phase diagram and it's relationship to A36 - a 0.26% plain carbon (mild) steel. You are way off. Sigh.

No thermite here

tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

only what would be expected due to a severe fire but then I know what I'm looking at and Max doesn't.




Sunstealer, you are correct!

I meant to say there might be a grain change (not a phase change) at 625 C.

The phase changes are at 725 C.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

The telltale signs of thermite placed inside box columns to heat the steel to its critical temperature would include:


iron (probably heavily oxidized)
aluminum oxide
the nearby steel would probably be heavily oxidized
there may be mud-cracking on the exterior paint
the nearby steel may show grain changes if its temperature were 625 C or greater for an extended period
any ignition devices
there may be no ignition devices if a) thermite fuse were used, and it simply burned away, or b) sono-ignition were used (that is, if the shock from the jets' impacts were used as a remote ignition mechanism)

[BenBurch]

Max,

You're simply making stuff up.

"the telltail signs?" As though somebody had ever see that happen in any building to have made the observations to even HAVE "telltale signs."

So, give us a break.

Seriously.

Go away and come up with a fairy tale that at least has practicability on its side, because you've wasted too many people's time with this one.

Please?

[Max Photon]

Max,

You're simply making stuff up.

"the telltail signs?" As though somebody had ever see that happen in any building to have made the observations to even HAVE "telltale signs."

So, give us a break.

Seriously.

Go away and come up with a fairy tale that at least has practicability on its side, because you've wasted too many people's time with this one.

Please?





Ben, you control where you spend your energy.



ETA: By the way, Blanchead discusses thermite's "telltale signs" as though they are obvious.

* * *

[lapman]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2988996#post2988996

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2989222#post2989222


* * *
What part of wrong are you not understanding. The dampers do not have to fail for the floor to sag. If the dampers were a part of the support system for the floor, they would have been on both sides and not one.

[rwguinn]

....
Of course as rwguinn likes to point out engineers and Scientists unlike DR. Greening have magic Hats where they can just pull out factual claims with no surporting evidence, nothing to back it up!
It also looks like they do that quite a lot!

Where did you get that load of fertilizer?

[Max Photon]

What part of wrong are you not understanding. The dampers do not have to fail for the floor to sag. If the dampers were a part of the support system for the floor, they would have been on both sides and not one.


I never said the dampers had to fail for the floors to sag.

I said the burned dampers caused the floors to sag.


* * *

[lapman]

I never said the dampers had to fail for the floors to sag.

I said the burned dampers caused the floors to sag.


* * *
Again, what part of wrong are you not understanding. The burning of the dampers would have no real effect on the floors.

[afinemadness]

Again, what part of wrong are you not understanding. The burning of the dampers would have no real effect on the floors.
I think we are coming dangerously close to Max saying that the load bearing drywall was the cause.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Where did you get that load of fertilizer?

He also has never piled stuff up in a random manner, and watched it slide downhill, quite obviously.

He may be a Chemist, but he is NO scientist. Ryan Mackey is, and Newton's Bit is also, as are several others here.
Aploolo20 is not. Degrees and Experience don't count for everything.
Is there some magic Chrystal ball that tells you who and Who is not a Scientist, I thought that hard work, and dedication to the search for facts though the use of Empirical data was science.

That is something that Apollo20 does very well even if he does sometimes have a crazy side to him, he always falls back to science for answers, he is also honest when he is wrong.

[rwguinn]

Is there some magic Chrystal ball that tells you who and Who is not a Scientist, I thought that hard work, and dedication to the search for facts though the use of Empirical data was science.

That is something that Apollo20 does very well even if he does sometimes have a crazy side to him, he always falls back to science for answers, he is also honest when he is wrong.

I'd like a link to that. Arrogance is not "honest".
The following are not signs of a scientist:
Falling in love with your own theories, summarily dismissing hypotheses outside his area of expertise simply because they were put forth by engineers, inability to differentiate cause and effect (fire melting galvanization, causing it to drip onto CRES pipe caused the damage that started the fire), Asserting as fact reactions that have never in the history of construction been observed (Concrete poured on galvanized steel==>H2 gas in large quantities, for example--oh, wait-that was yours).
When he does chemistry and basic physics, he is very good. When he attempts to do structural analysis, he is very bad. Too many are obsessed with precision, even when it matters not a whit. Dismissal of analysis because it is not 6 decimal place precise, when only 2 decimal place data is available is a sign of an obsessive, not a scientific, mindset.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I'd like a link to that. Arrogance is not "honest".
The following are not signs of a scientist:
Falling in love with your own theories, summarily dismissing hypotheses outside his area of expertise simply because they were put forth by engineers, inability to differentiate cause and effect (fire melting galvanization, causing it to drip onto CRES pipe caused the damage that started the fire), Asserting as fact reactions that have never in the history of construction been observed (Concrete poured on galvanized steel==>H2 gas in large quantities, for example--oh, wait-that was yours).
When he does chemistry and basic physics, he is very good. When he attempts to do structural analysis, he is very bad. Too many are obsessed with precision, even when it matters not a whit. Dismissal of analysis because it is not 6 decimal place precise, when only 2 decimal place data is available is a sign of an obsessive, not a scientific, mindset.

When have 2 large airliners ever hit a building and brought it down before 9/11/2001?

Could there be unique events in that collapse never before seen do to the way the collapse occured?

Was it just concrete that I put on the galvanized metal or something else with concrete that might have formed in the buildings in the fires?

I go where the data and experimentation lead me to go, and I report acturately the results.

So we should just accept claims based on who made the claim even with no data to back it up even if the claim is physically impossible, do you understand that is what you just said?

So if I am given 6 decimal data, but it is only 2 decimal precise then I should just accept it, is that what your saying?

[rwguinn]

When have 2 large airliners ever hit a building and brought it down before 9/11/2001?

Could there be unique events in that collapse never before seen do to the way the collapse occured?

Was it just concrete that I put on the galvanized metal or something else with concrete that might have formed in the buildings in the fires?

I go where the data and experimentation lead me to go, and I report acturately the results.

So we should just accept claims based on who made the claim even with no data to back it up even if the claim is physically impossible, do you understand that is what you just said?

So if I am given 6 decimal data, but it is only 2 decimal precise then I should just accept it, is that what your saying?:confused::confused::confused::jaw-dropp

[uruk]

Pomeroo:

So Brent is replacing one "guestimate" with another?

Much spilled here, much spilled there!

Its all too much (of a muchness)...

But I still call it BS!

Well things in the real world tend to follow the laws of physics.

You'll just have to get used to the idea that there are things that will never be known with arbitrary precision concerning the WTC tower collapse.

But I think the important notion here is that the majority of the debris did not collapse with in WTC footprint. 75%, 90% it doesn't really make a difference, does it.

[Narveson]

At first I was puzzled by Max-fantasies, thinking they were odd jokes that were in poor taste. For a while I thought that Max's posts could be considered a form of entertainment.

No longer. Now I have just tired of all the evasions and lies.

[einsteen]

Well things in the real world tend to follow the laws of physics.

You'll just have to get used to the idea that there are things that will never be known with arbitrary precision concerning the WTC tower collapse.

But I think the important notion here is that the majority of the debris did not collapse with in WTC footprint. 75%, 90% it doesn't really make a difference, does it.

But 20% (Bazant) or 95% (Blanchard) is a great difference! Who is right ?

The eminent (honoured and awarded) scientist or the Pile Driver/Photographer/Implosion Groupie

[Gravy]

So if I am given 6 decimal data, but it is only 2 decimal precise then I should just accept it, is that what your saying?That depends on what you need to know. Are you repairing cesium clocks or trying to answer 9/11 questions?

[T.A.M.]

But 20% (Bazant) or 95% (Blanchard) is a great difference! Who is right ?

The eminent (honoured and awarded) scientist or the Pile Driver/Photographer/Implosion Groupie

Well you can take your pick, since both in no way support MIHOP!!!

TAM;)

[einsteen]

The subdiscussion is not about MIHOP, LIHOP or HIPHOP but the percentage.

[Max Photon]

At first I was puzzled by Max-fantasies, thinking they were odd jokes that were in poor taste. For a while I thought that Max's posts could be considered a form of entertainment.

No longer. Now I have just tired of all the evasions and lies.



Yet you persist in following like a puppy.


Good boy,

Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

Max,

You're simply making stuff up.





Aren't we all?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3172693#post3172693



* * *

[TheRedWorm]

Difference, Max. Plausibility v. alternate reality.

[LastChild]

Collapse dynamics with Max Photon

Step one: max must first attend a class in high school physics
Step 2 ; max must then graduate high school and attend college
Step 3: max must then take all physic and engineering classe
Step 4: max must then practice what he has learned in the real world for 20 years
Step 5: only the max can comment on anything blanchard states (or any engineer states)

Why? When did Blanchard do all that? I thought he was just a photographer.

[T.A.M.]

The subdiscussion is not about MIHOP, LIHOP or HIPHOP but the percentage.

SO you'll take bazant's word on 20% versus 95% for the Footprint argument, but he is FOS on the elements that do not support controlled demolition or the like?

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Why? When did Blanchard do all that? I thought he was just a photographer.



You (or one of your sock puppets, or some other loon) have been corrected on this error/falsehood. Nobody thinks that Blanchard is "just a photographer."

[einsteen]

SO you'll take bazant's word on 20% versus 95% for the Footprint argument, but he is FOS on the elements that do not support controlled demolition or the like?

TAM:)

20% is indeed very conservative. I would like to see some scans of the book 'aftermath'. An other important question is of course the amount lost from the top block and when that happened. If I look at the videos of wtc2, the toppling block, then I would say that most of that mass is ejected, but whoami

[T.A.M.]

As I have said before, Blanchard is more likened to a Film Critic. They are experts on what is good, what is bad, plot, character arc, etc...They know what makes a movie work, and what does not, etc...However, they are not filmmakers (or usually not), and do not need to be, to be exceptional critics. Likewise, Blanchard has exceptional, and extensive knowledge on Demolitions. He know how they work, how they are created/set up, the details, etc...he has perhaps never set up a demolition, or handled an explosive (though I suspect he has with the latter) but is an expert in demolitions none the less.

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

* * *


Blanchard's kind of like a demolition air-guitarist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMlh7utZE0)


* * *

[T.A.M.]

* * *


Blanchard's kind of like a demolition air-guitarist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMlh7utZE0)


* * *

Your being unfair. An air guitarist usually has no idea how to really play guitar, where as Blanchard does know the ins and outs of demolition.

Wait, why am I even addressing this. You people would discredit him regardless of what he does or does not know anyway.

[Max Photon]

Your being unfair. An air guitarist usually has no idea how to really play guitar, where as Blanchard does know the ins and outs of demolition.

Wait, why am I even addressing this. You people would discredit him regardless of what he does or does not know anyway.


Wrong again TAM.

Blanchard discredited himself by failing to imagine that thermite could have been used, not to cut, but to heat-weaken WTC steel.

Blanchard discredited himself by failing to imagine a controlled demolition using incendiaries.


I'm just making fun of him because this thread was started in my honor, and Blanchard was supposed to make short work of me.

He's made short work of his and his company's reputations.


Max

* * *

[pomeroo]

Wrong again TAM.

Blanchard discredited himself by failing to imagine that thermite could have been used, not to cut, but to heat-weaken WTC steel.

Blanchard discredited himself by failing to imagine a controlled demolition using incendiaries.


I'm just making fun of him because this thread was started in my honor, and Blanchard was supposed to make short work of me.

He's made short work of his and his company's reputations.


Max

* * *


Not quite, Max. What most of noticed is that the demolition professionals ruled out the use of thermite to weaken the steel. That is not the same as failing to notice the possibility. You see, the key concept here is professionals vs. amateurs. You are an amateur. The problem is not that you have so much imagination; it's that you have so little knowledge and understanding.

Blanchard was not the only one to dismiss you as a flyweight. ALL the rationalists on this forum made short work of your puerile nonsense.

You never laid a glove on him. His and his company's reputation are perfectly intact.

[rwguinn]

Not quite, Max. What most of noticed is that the demolition professionals ruled out the use of thermite to weaken the steel. That is not the same as failing to notice the possibility. You see, the key concept here is professionals vs. amateurs. You are an amateur. The problem is not that you have so much imagination; it's that you have so little knowledge and understanding.

Blanchard was not the only one to dismiss you as a flyweight. ALL the rationalists on this forum made short work of your puerile nonsense.

You never laid a glove on him. His and his company's reputation are perfectly intact.

Anyone who can't figure out that all that office fires==>heat==>weakened steel is certainly not going to give up on his therm*te...

[uruk]

But 20% (Bazant) or 95% (Blanchard) is a great difference! Who is right ?

The eminent (honoured and awarded) scientist or the Pile Driver/Photographer/Implosion Groupie

Bazant says 20% dispite the aerial photographs? Or was that the Computer simulation?

I do understand that 95% is an exageration.

[Max Photon]

Bazant says 20% dispite the aerial photographs? Or was that the Computer simulation?

I do understand that 95% is an exageration.





Bazant heard it from Blanchard.

Here, from:

Collapse of World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It? (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf)

"According to [17], the crushing front initiates at the 96th in the North Tower, and the 81st
story in the South Tower. The effective compaction ratio [lambda is approximately] 0.18, as estimated in [5]. The mass ejection ratio, [kappa]out, is harder to estimate. A crude estimate can be based on the profile of the rubble pile after the collapse [5]. Bazant and Verdure estimated that about 20% of the rubble volume resided outside the footprint of the tower, and so [kappa-out is approximately] 0.20."


ETA:

Here is Bazant & Verdura's

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center
and Building Demolitions (http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf)

ETA2:

From Bazant & Verdura: (the format got messed up, but the key passage is clear)

Motion of Crushing Columns of One Story and Energy Dissipation
When the upper °oor crashes into the lower one, with a layer of rubble between them, the
initial height h of the story is reduced to ¸h, with ¸ denoting the compaction ratio (in ¯nite-
strain theory, ¸ is called the stretch). After that, the load can increase without bounds. In a
one-dimensional model pursued here, one may use the estimate:
¸ = (1 ¡ ·out)V1=V0 (1)
where V0 = initial volume of the tower, V1 ¼ volume of the rubble on the ground into which the
whole tower mass has been compacted, and ·out = correction representing mainly the fraction
of the rubble that has been ejected during collapse outside the perimeter of the tower and
thus does not resist compaction. The rubble that has not been ejected during collapse but was
pushed outside the tower perimeter only after landing on the heap on the ground should not be
counted in ·out. The volume of the rubble found outside the footprint of the tower, which can
be measured by surveying the rubble heap on the ground after the collapse, is an upper bound
on V1, but probably much too high a bound for serving as an estimate.


* * *

[BenBurch]

I've never started a nuclear reactor, but I was expert enough to design radiological evacuation models for nuclear reactors. And I can tell you a LOT about how they are operated (more complex than you might think!) So the "Air Guitar" thing was an unworthy attempt to discredit a good person.

[Max Photon]

I've never started a nuclear reactor, but I was expert enough to design radiological evacuation models for nuclear reactors. And I can tell you a LOT about how they are operated (more complex than you might think!) So the "Air Guitar" thing was an unworthy attempt to discredit a good person.


Actually Ben, this thread was an unworthy attempt to discredit a good person.

Blanchard was used as the tool to (attempt to) discredit this thread's target.

But what do we see?

Blanchard is not an explosives expert.
Blanchard does not handle explosives.
Blanchard's paper is not peer reviewed.
Blanchard's paper only attempts to rule out demolition-by-cutting.
Blanchard's paper DOES NOT rule out - or even consider - demolition-by-heat-weakening, therefore the paper cannot discredit MAX-MIHOP.
Plus, Blanchard's paper ignores explosive SURF-MIHOP (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263195231622148010&q=explosive+surfing&total=65&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

Also note that I answered Blanchard's questions to me, yet he never answered my questions to him. (What a wuss.)

Instead he punted (kind of like he did with his comments about WTC7).


Brent Blanchard is a complete BSer with an axe to grind (because it's dull).


Max Amplitude (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1616383127179414442&q=pipeline+ghost&total=11&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1)

* * *

[JMarshall]

Blanchard's paper only attempts to rule out demolition-by-cutting.
Blanchard's paper DOES NOT rule out - or even consider - demolition-by-heat-weakening, therefore the paper cannot discredit MAX-MIHOP.
Plus, Blanchard's paper ignores explosive

Demolitions are designed to cut, not heat weaken... Cutting is the standard, so why would he even consider, or try to rule out "demolition-by-heat-weakening? And his paper is a compilation against the theory of the use of explosives, so why would he include it in his paper?

Once again, I feel obligated to ask, what Controlled Demolitions, or Explosives experience in general do you have? Have you ever handled thermite, or other explosives?

[T.A.M.]

does it rule in MAX-HOPOUTTHEDOOR?

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

Demolitions are designed to cut, not heat weaken... Cutting is the standard, so why would he even consider, or try to rule out "demolition-by-heat-weakening? And his paper is a compilation against the theory of the use of explosives, so why would he include it in his paper?





Then why is his unimaginative little paper used in the OP to discredit MAX-MIHOP?

Doesn't that seem a little stupid?



* * *

[Apollo20]

TAM: When you cannot offer a worthwhile response to Max Photon, why do you have to resort to ludicrousness? Monty Python indeed .... complete with the foot in the face!

Why not try to answer MP's six "Blanchard Bullets"?

MAX: My next objection to your thermite theory, (after ignition problems), is this:

The thermite reaction, once started, is very vigorous and emits a lot of light and heat. It would not be a good way to heat-weaken steel gently and surreptitiously, and in a well-controlled way, which is what you want!

[twinstead]

Brent Blanchard is a complete BSer with an axe to grind (because it's dull).


The irony in this statement simply floors me.

[JMarshall]

Then why is his unimaginative little paper used in the OP to discredit MAX-MIHOP?

Doesn't that seem a little stupid?



* * *

I don't really think his paper has to be used to discredit "Max-MIHOP", since "Max-MIHOP" does a fine enough job on discrediting itself... It is simply a over thought out theory, that has very little basis in reality...

[T.A.M.]

TAM: When you cannot offer a worthwhile response to Max Photon, why do you have to resort to ludicrousness? Monty Python indeed .... complete with the foot in the face!

Why not try to answer MP's six "Blanchard Bullets"?


Listen, this is a forum. It is for conversation, interaction, debate, discussion. My comment was meant in humor, and I am sure Max not only got it, but hopefully found it amusing.

You are such a hypocrite. You whine and B**** about everyone else's behaviour, and within 6 posts, before or after, you have committed the same offenses you have complained about.

Why don't you just shut up, stick to your science, or move on.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

Then why is his unimaginative little paper used in the OP to discredit MAX-MIHOP?

Doesn't that seem a little stupid?



* * *


MAX-MIHOP is a lot stupid. By now, we understand that you have zero evidence for the use of thermite at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. Similarly, we understand that you don't know the first thing about thermite or its uses. You are silent about Apathoid's paper, which you were unable to comprehend, as it destroys the underpinnings of your absurd fantasies. MAX-MIHOP discredits itself: it falls under the weight of its own implausibility.

You may be an intellectual flyweight, but your purpose is clear enough. You want to slander innocent people and absolve America's enemies of all wrongdoing to draw attention to yourself.

[pomeroo]

TAM: When you cannot offer a worthwhile response to Max Photon, why do you have to resort to ludicrousness? Monty Python indeed .... complete with the foot in the face!

Why not try to answer MP's six "Blanchard Bullets"?

MAX: My next objection to your thermite theory, (after ignition problems), is this:

The thermite reaction, once started, is very vigorous and emits a lot of light and heat. It would not be a good way to heat-weaken steel gently and surreptitiously, and in a well-controlled way, which is what you want!


Frank, you understand perfectly well that the poseur who calls himself "Max Photon" is a complete charlatan. Refuting his pretentious gibberish is kinderspiel for you. Why give the impression of taking him seriously? He has brought absolutely nothing to the table.

[T.A.M.]

Frank, you understand perfectly well that the poseur who calls himself "Max Photon" is a complete charlatan. Refuting his pretentious gibberish is kinderspiel for you. Why give the impression of taking him seriously? He has brought absolutely nothing to the table.

I am guessing Frank did so to antagonize me...seems to be a thing he enjoys doing. I will admit my annoyed tone above was some success for Dr. Greening in that regard. Every now and then I just get fed up with it, and get "snippy".

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

TAM:

Sorry... but Max P. makes some interesting points even if his thermite theory remains totally unproven. And I did present him with a very difficult question.... Let's see if he can answer it!

And TAM, it was M.P. who reminded me of the importance of high temperature creep of the A36 steel.

Max:

I would estimate that WTC steel columns at 575 deg C, subject to compressive stresses that are 50 % of their room temperature yield strength, could fail individually and lead to rapid failure of the core. But Max, how long does a steel column need to be at that temperature to fail? 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour..........

[Max Photon]

TAM: When you cannot offer a worthwhile response to Max Photon, why do you have to resort to ludicrousness? Monty Python indeed .... complete with the foot in the face!

Why not try to answer MP's six "Blanchard Bullets"?

MAX: My next objection to your thermite theory, (after ignition problems), is this:

The thermite reaction, once started, is very vigorous and emits a lot of light and heat. It would not be a good way to heat-weaken steel gently and surreptitiously, and in a well-controlled way, which is what you want!



Apollo20,

Your objections are well taken, but remember, MILDEC's fundamental strategy is to trick the experts' minds, for in our society, what the experts say, goes.

MILDEC - perception control engineers - knows that experts see what they expect to see, not what is really there. MILDEC knows how to predict and exploit experts' strong first impressions.

May I suggest we spend a little time discussing the following, and see where that takes us:

- - -

NIST FAQ #2: Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

"[...] NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because:

(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and

(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly [heat-]weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

"This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

"[...] the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards."

- - -

NIST FAQ #12: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

"Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.

"Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially)."

- - -

So Apollo, let's consider a perimeter column with:

13.5" wide flanges and webs (averaged)
1/4" thick flanges and webs,
1 3/8" endplate


The density of A36 steel = 490 lbs per cubic foot.

(Sorry about the units.)

The endplate = 0.13 cubic feet of steel

The column (sans endplate) = 0.10 cubic feet of steel per foot of column length.

So the first foot of column end = 0.23 cubic feet of steel, or 113 lbs.

NIST says that would require 15 lbs of thermite to heat the section to 700 C.

Less thermite would be required to heat the steel to, say 525 C, where time-dependent deformation is possible.

Still less thermite would be required if only a 6" length of column were heated...

or just the endplate...

or just the A325 column bolts!


I guess everyone would argue that the quick energy release of the thermite would over-run heat transport, and the thermite would simply burn right through the endplate.

But is that so? We should discuss this more.


And wouldn't the box column contain the light?


Thanks for articulating your objections. As you say, no man is an island, and criticism makes one stronger.

I welcome your complete list of objections (but let's also discuss this objection more).


Max

* * *

[pomeroo]

Apollo20,

Your objections are well taken, but remember, MILDEC's fundamental strategy is to trick the experts' minds, for in our society, what the experts say, goes.

MILDEC - perception control engineers - knows that experts see what they expect to see, not what is really there. MILDEC knows how to predict and exploit experts' strong first impressions.

May I suggest we spend a little time discussing the following, and see where that takes us:

- - -

NIST FAQ #2: Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

"[...] NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because:

(1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and

(2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly [heat-]weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns.

"This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.

"[...] the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards."

- - -

NIST FAQ #12: Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."

"Thermite burns slowly relative to explosive materials and can require several minutes in contact with a massive steel section to heat it to a temperature that would result in substantial weakening.

"Separate from the WTC towers investigation, NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius (the temperature at which steel weakens substantially)."

- - -

So Apollo, let's consider a perimeter column with:

13.5" wide flanges and webs (averaged)
1/4" thick flanges and webs,
1 3/8" endplate
The density of A36 steel = 490 lbs per cubic foot.

(Sorry about the units.)

The endplate = 0.13 cubic feet of steel

The column (sans endplate) = 0.10 cubic feet of steel per foot of column length.

So the first foot of column end = 0.23 cubic feet of steel, or 113 lbs.

NIST says that would require 15 lbs of thermite to heat the section to 700 C.

Less thermite would be required to heat the steel to, say 525 C, where time-dependent deformation is possible.

Still less thermite would be required if only a 6" length of column were heated...

or just the endplate...

or just the A325 column bolts!


I guess everyone would argue that the quick energy release of the thermite would over-run heat transport, and the thermite would simply burn right through the endplate.

But is that so? We should discuss this more.


And wouldn't the box column contain the light?


Thanks for articulating your objections. As you say, no man is an island, and criticism makes one stronger.

I welcome your complete list of objections (but let's also discuss this objection more).


Max

* * *


Stop blathering. There isn't a shred of evidence for your nonsensical fabrications. You don't know what you're talking about. Your imaginary conspiracy is mathematically impossible.

[Max Photon]

TAM:

Sorry... but Max P. makes some interesting points even if his thermite theory remains totally unproven. And I did present him with a very difficult question.... Let's see if he can answer it!

And TAM, it was M.P. who reminded me of the importance of high temperature creep of the A36 steel.

Max:

I would estimate that WTC steel columns at 575 deg C, subject to compressive stresses that are 50 % of their room temperature yield strength, could fail individually and lead to rapid failure of the core. But Max, how long does a steel column need to be at that temperature to fail? 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour..........


Apollo,

Perhaps the columns were heated with thermite placed inside the columns to induce just a little bit of creep, to get the columns off perfect axial alignment, and therefore more susceptible to bowing from the pull of the sagging floors (caused by thermite plated at gusset seats burning the visco-elastic dampers).

The thermite inside the box columns would also heat the A325 column splice bolts. I suspect the heating of the bolts would reduce their ultimate moment capacity, and the eccentricity required exceed this capacity.


- - -
From FEMA Appendix B:

Figure B-7 [attached]
Bent and fractured bolts at an exterior column four-bolt connection.

"The simple moment capacity of the bolt group is 20 to 30 percent of the plastic moment capacity of a column fabricated from steels with a 50 to 100 ksi yield point, assuming no axial load in the columns. The end plates at the columns splice have a 11-3/4-inch x 14-inch cross-section. The columns are subjected to axial load from the dead load acting on the structure. For the as-built structure, the moments acting on the bolted splice are small, because the splices were located at the column inflection points and the resultant of the applied axial load and moment is within the middle third of the 12-inch-deep bearing connection. Assuming an axial stress of 20 ksi in the column, the corresponding axial force acting on the base plate is 280 kips. As the columns lose lateral support and deform out-of-plane from overloading eccentricities and from the thermal effects, the bending moment acting on the column splice does not introduce significant forces into the bolted end plate connection until the eccentricity exceeds 2 inches. As the eccentricity increases, the applied bending moment will exceed the bolt preload stress when the eccentricity reaches approximately 4 inches. Continued deformation will exceed the ultimate moment capacity of the connection and result in instability as the eccentricity approaches 4.5 inches.

"It also should be noted that the column splices were staggered mid-height at each floor, as was illustrated in Chapter 2. As a result, two-thirds of the perimeter columns were continuous at each floor's mid-height elevation. This resulted in staggered failure patterns, as the bolted end plate connections and spandrel beam connections failed during the resulting instability and collapse. The exception to this staggered pattern was the splices at mechanical floors, which were not staggered, and the bolts were supplemented with welds."

- - -

Apollo, you question was:

How long does a steel column need to be at 575 C to fail?


I have to think only one to several minutes would be required to heat a column to weaken it.

But I think demolition planners took time to gradually heat a few columns at a time, until close to a simple majority were weakened, collectively bowed inward, and - finally - some failed.


Max

* * *

[pomeroo]

Apollo,

Perhaps the columns were heated with thermite placed inside the columns to induce just a little bit of creep, to get the columns off perfect axial alignment, and therefore more susceptible to bowing from the pull of the sagging floors (caused by thermite plated at gusset seats burning the visco-elastic dampers).

The thermite inside the box columns would also heat the A325 column splice bolts. I suspect the heating of the bolts would reduce their ultimate moment capacity, and the eccentricity required exceed this capacity.


- - -
From FEMA Appendix B:

Figure B-7 [attached]
Bent and fractured bolts at an exterior column four-bolt connection.

"The simple moment capacity of the bolt group is 20 to 30 percent of the plastic moment capacity of a column fabricated from steels with a 50 to 100 ksi yield point, assuming no axial load in the columns. The end plates at the columns splice have a 11-3/4-inch x 14-inch cross-section. The columns are subjected to axial load from the dead load acting on the structure. For the as-built structure, the moments acting on the bolted splice are small, because the splices were located at the column inflection points and the resultant of the applied axial load and moment is within the middle third of the 12-inch-deep bearing connection. Assuming an axial stress of 20 ksi in the column, the corresponding axial force acting on the base plate is 280 kips. As the columns lose lateral support and deform out-of-plane from overloading eccentricities and from the thermal effects, the bending moment acting on the column splice does not introduce significant forces into the bolted end plate connection until the eccentricity exceeds 2 inches. As the eccentricity increases, the applied bending moment will exceed the bolt preload stress when the eccentricity reaches approximately 4 inches. Continued deformation will exceed the ultimate moment capacity of the connection and result in instability as the eccentricity approaches 4.5 inches.

"It also should be noted that the column splices were staggered mid-height at each floor, as was illustrated in Chapter 2. As a result, two-thirds of the perimeter columns were continuous at each floor's mid-height elevation. This resulted in staggered failure patterns, as the bolted end plate connections and spandrel beam connections failed during the resulting instability and collapse. The exception to this staggered pattern was the splices at mechanical floors, which were not staggered, and the bolts were supplemented with welds."

- - -

Apollo, you question was:

How long does a steel column need to be at 575 C to fail?


I have to think only one to several minutes would be required to heat a column to weaken it.

But I think demolition planners took time to gradually heat a few columns at a time, until close to a simple majority were weakened, collectively bowed inward, and - finally - some failed.


Max

* * *


And your imaginary "demolition planners" did all their work on the impact floors?!?! They knew exactly where hijacked planes would strike the buildings?

What a silly farce you've created.

[Apollo20]

Max:

The problem I see with the whole "creep buckling" scenario is the lack of data on the length of time a column needs to be at a particular temperature for the creep rate to be significant. NIST has reported the results of studies of high temperature creep in A36 or similar structural steels. In one such case NIST used a constant heating rate of 100 deg C per hour and reports the onset of "run-away" creep at about 525 deg C.... But NIST give no indication of important parameters such as the size of the specimen and the heat flux to its surface, thus the applicability of such data to steel exposed to the WTC fires is very questionable. I believe it is probable that the vast majority of columns on the fire-affected floors in WTC 1 & 2 would never reach 500 deg C in a 20 kg/m^2 "office fire" because fires with that kind of fuel load only last about 20 minutes at a specific location. Nevertheless, that doesn't lead me to conclude that thermite must have been used to boost the heating. What about chemical effects from the combustion of plastics such as PVC and the subsequent reactions of H2O/HCl/Cl2 with iron, zinc and aluminum? These provide a lot of extra joules!

And Max, your theory appears to focus only on heat-weakening of the perimeter columns, and ignores the core columns, (am I right?).

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Max:

The problem I see with the whole "creep buckling" scenario is the lack of data on the length of time a column needs to be at a particular temperature for the creep rate to be significant. NIST has reported the results of studies of high temperature creep in A36 or similar structural steels. In one such case NIST used a constant heating rate of 100 deg C per hour and reports the onset of "run-away" creep at about 525 deg C.... But NIST give no indication of important parameters such as the size of the specimen and the heat flux to its surface, thus the applicability of such data to steel exposed to the WTC fires is very questionable. I believe it is probable that the vast majority of columns on the fire-affected floors in WTC 1 & 2 would never reach 500 deg C in a 20 kg/m^2 "office fire" because fires with that kind of fuel load only last about 20 minutes at a specific location. Nevertheless, that doesn't lead me to conclude that thermite must have been used to boost the heating. What about chemical effects from the combustion of plastics such as PVC and the subsequent reactions of H2O/HCl/Cl2 with iron, zinc and aluminum? These provide a lot of extra joules!

And Max, your theory appears to focus only on heat-weakening of the perimeter columns, and ignores the core columns, (am I right?).

That is why I have been doing the resent modeling Frank I know now how to transfer the loading by uneven heating and cooling in the Columns do to a high temperature fire on one side, and cooling air coming in to feed the fires on the other, the Columns do not have constant heating instead they become brittle in the fires.

The heated portion above the fires undergoes Euler buckling while the welds that are heated unevenly below simply fail do to the metal becoming more brittle on one side of the Column, causing weld tear.

I have done models of the effect, it is similar to improper heat treating, making a piece of steel brittle, causing breakage.

IT does however require some added heat source or a longer duration fire, however not much longer than what NIST estimates.

IF the fire proofing is compromised to the degree that Nist says it is possible that cooling air has as much effect on the Columns failure as heating.

MY work also has lead me to believe there is one substance that could be used in the buildings to bring them down that would be untraceable and it would be the perfect Crime, However I do not wish to release that substance to anyone who might make a new conspiracy theory.
As I do not believe in Lihop.

At this point it is just speculation based on experimental data.

[Max Photon]

Max:

The problem I see with the whole "creep buckling" scenario is the lack of data on the length of time a column needs to be at a particular temperature for the creep rate to be significant. NIST has reported the results of studies of high temperature creep in A36 or similar structural steels. In one such case NIST used a constant heating rate of 100 deg C per hour and reports the onset of "run-away" creep at about 525 deg C.... But NIST give no indication of important parameters such as the size of the specimen and the heat flux to its surface, thus the applicability of such data to steel exposed to the WTC fires is very questionable.


Of course NIST doesn't provide all the information required. We are looking directly at plausible deniability, engineered with magnificent craftsmanship. NIST always tells the truth - just half of it. The other half is left uncertain. Certainty + uncertainty = ambiguity. Ambiguity is a cloaking device.


But so what? Those are simply the field conditions.

Let's look at the awesome point you made:

NIST has reported studies of high temperature creep in A36 and other structural steels, and in one case reports the onset of "run-away" creep at about 525 C.

(525 C was my refined steel temperature target, made just a few posts ago.)

In the study you mentioned, the steel was heated at 100 C per hour. That implies that it took (the last) 15 minutes to go from 500 C - (the temperature at which steels begin to creep) - to 525 C and the onset of "run-away" creep.

Isn't the key point that 525 C was the critical point at which creep took no time at all?

Well what if a tiny amount of thermite can very quickly heat a small section of column to 525 C? Won't the column experience run-away creep - that is, creep that takes no time at all?


Also Apollo, remember, I may be completely wrong about thermite being used to induce creep. Thermite could also be used to compromise the A325 bolts - even if just a bit. We should also discuss this angle.




I believe it is probable that the vast majority of columns on the fire-affected floors in WTC 1 & 2 would never reach 500 deg C in a 20 kg/m^2 "office fire" because fires with that kind of fuel load only last about 20 minutes at a specific location.


I hope everyone just read that.

Apollo, I would refine your statement a bit. I would add something like, "unless the energy of the fuel load, or of a comparably energetic catalyst, were applied to the columns in a very efficient manner."




Nevertheless, that doesn't lead me to conclude that thermite must have been used to boost the heating.


I would expect no different. Everything about thermite is ambiguous. (Pssst, that's why it was chosen.)




What about chemical effects from the combustion of plastics such as PVC and the subsequent reactions of H2O/HCl/Cl2 with iron, zinc and aluminum? These provide a lot of extra joules!


I think of chemical effects (and your AP model) as strong possible alternatives.

However, I don't believe either fits the observations found in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C as well as thermite does.

It may be a tall order, but everyone really need to become aware of, and see video examples of each of the bizarre phenomena described in 15-A/9/C. That is why I started Bedtime Stories, with Max Photon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3163411#post3163411).



And Max, your theory appears to focus only on heat-weakening of the perimeter columns, and ignores the core columns, (am I right?).



That is incorrect.

I think there is evidence that thermite was also planted at the seats where horizontal core members connect to core columns. (Hence the thermite would be exterior to core columns.)

The function of the thermite was to weaken the slices or connectors. This in effect partially unshored the core columns (and may account for claims of "low resistance" or "free-fall speeds", etc).

The evidence of the thermite is the heavy, continuous, fresh-looking, burnt sienna-colored oxidation layer at many core columns' seats. (NCSTAR 1-3B discusses high-temperature oxidation.)


I had actually intended to follow up on this idea with you guy on a different thread, so...here it is (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3185183#post3185183).


So Apollo, just so you are clear, I have put forth that thermite may have been placed at some or all of the following:


Inside some perimeter columns, to cause creep, and/or to compromise the bolts;
Inside some "spandrel splice gaps", to heat-weaken the thin splice plates;
Inside the "rectangular tube" that forms where two floor-truss top-chord juxtaposed on a truss seat, to cause the truss bolts to pull through the top chords;
At gusset seats, to cause the visco-elastic dampers to burn;
At the seats that connect core columns and horizontal core members, to heat-weaken the connections, to in effect partially unshore the core columns.


I also say that:


Improvised thermite was created using the jets' aluminum, and this improvised thermite was used to create a phreato-thermatic (or aluminum/water/(hydrogen)) explosions, designed to both knock of SFRM, and create visually-spectacular explosions.

Thermite was used to make some kind of a fuse. The thermite fuse could ignited planted thermite directly, without any intermediary.

The thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impacts.

In selected areas, burning thermite or thermite product was made to spew out onto piles of debris, creating fires on piles of debris.

Choreographing the fires burning of piles of debris created the illusion of migrating fires.


Max

* * *

[rwguinn]

That is why I have been doing the resent modeling Frank I know now how to transfer the loading by uneven heating and cooling in the Columns do to a high temperature fire on one side, and cooling air coming in to feed the fires on the other, the Columns do not have constant heating instead they become brittle in the fires.

The heated portion above the fires undergoes Euler buckling while the welds that are heated unevenly below simply fail do to the metal becoming more brittle on one side of the Column, causing weld tear.

I have done models of the effect, it is similar to improper heat treating, making a piece of steel brittle, causing breakage.

IT does however require some added heat source or a longer duration fire, however not much longer than what NIST estimates.

IF the fire proofing is compromised to the degree that Nist says it is possible that cooling air has as much effect on the Columns failure as heating.

MY work also has lead me to believe there is one substance that could be used in the buildings to bring them down that would be untraceable and it would be the perfect Crime, However I do not wish to release that substance to anyone who might make a new conspiracy theory.
As I do not believe in Lihop.

At this point it is just speculation based on experimental data.

Reinvent the wheel if you wish. There is a wealth of data and instruction out there

The problem you (Rule10)"scientist"s have is that you ASSuME that engineers guess. We don't . We have models, we have books--we have experience and test data.
Load transfer is not something that takes any significant time. Creep as you (rule10)'s ASSuME is not the problem here.
Steel grows continually weaker as temperature increases. It is a continuous function, sot some step-function ("Oh! I'm at 650C. Time to creep!") It is continuous. I ASSu ME that you can comprehend that?
So, as temperature increases, load capability decreases. CONTINUOUSLY. That means, if the structure is to remain standing, some other part of the structure must assume the load. Once enough load is transferred elsewhere, or enough structure gets hot, things fail.
Additionally, as the columns take excessive load (for their current environmental capability) , they begin to bend (or buckle). This is bending is increased by the non-symetrical heating of the column due to the heat input on one side.
due to the nature of steel, it expands when heated. So, if one side of the very large cross-section is hot, and the other not so, the beam bends away from the heat source.
Even when that bend is elastic, a non-vertical column cannot support the same load as a vertical column! It doesn't take much non-verticality to fail a column under heavy load. Add in the cross-sectional (internal) stress due to asymetrical heating, and the column is that much closer to failure.
THis is a continuous function. Not piece-wise contionuous, or a step function. It happens real-time.
Call it creep if you wish. It is a continuous process

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Reinvent the wheel if you wish. There is a wealth of data and instruction out there

The problem you (Rule10)"scientist"s have is that you ASSuME that engineers guess. We don't . We have models, we have books--we have experience and test data.
Load transfer is not something that takes any significant time. Creep as you (rule10)'s ASSuME is not the problem here.
Steel grows continually weaker as temperature increases. It is a continuous function, sot some step-function ("Oh! I'm at 650C. Time to creep!") It is continuous. I ASSu ME that you can comprehend that?
So, as temperature increases, load capability decreases. CONTINUOUSLY. That means, if the structure is to remain standing, some other part of the structure must assume the load. Once enough load is transferred elsewhere, or enough structure gets hot, things fail.
Additionally, as the columns take excessive load (for their current environmental capability) , they begin to bend (or buckle). This is bending is increased by the non-symetrical heating of the column due to the heat input on one side.
due to the nature of steel, it expands when heated. So, if one side of the very large cross-section is hot, and the other not so, the beam bends away from the heat source.
Even when that bend is elastic, a non-vertical column cannot support the same load as a vertical column! It doesn't take much non-verticality to fail a column under heavy load. Add in the cross-sectional (internal) stress due to asymetrical heating, and the column is that much closer to failure.
THis is a continuous function. Not piece-wise contionuous, or a step function. It happens real-time.
Call it creep if you wish. It is a continuous process

Really you do know the first thing I did was look up all models on any relevant studies done by Engineers, do you not and used them in my modeling!
If I can create a back up system to fireproofing, from known elements within a building that can give an extra 30-45 minutes to a building such as the twin towers, would you think that would be worth the cost of doing models?
PS. I know that Engineers use known models taken mostly from experimental data, DA that is what I am trying to do Chastise me if you wish for following known engineering manuals but I really do not see the point in that!
Have you ever thought that the Chillers used to cool the air in a building and the huge water supplies known to be in tanks above the collapse zone could be used to cool the inside of the box Columns and prevent or slow the collapse mechanism?

What is wrong with an experimental effort that might lead to a way to save lives in another terrorist attack or unforeseen natural occurrence?

I am only trying to find a way to retrofit existing known tube frame buildings with similar design to the twin towers, with a system built from known components the buildings already have installed.
Is that so bad?

PS. I have found a system of self sealing piping that could give substantial time to any buildings, undergoing similar known conditions like those in the towers, however right now I am working on the cost benefit ratio!

That is what will decide if the effort is a waste of time or if it was a valid effort to save lives, anyway it was a great intellectual exercise, based on Known engineering models and experimental data testing a hypothesis!

PS. I have great respect for Prof. Eagar, and other engineers, I also have relatives that are Engineers, and I have a Friend a retired engineer, that I taught to Chainsaw Sculpt, although he did almost cut off his own gentiles, from his own misunderstanding of the physics of Chainsaw operation.
That is why he came to me to learn the proper way to use a chainsaw for Sculpting with out being Injured.

Since I am using known engineering models and protocols, as following the advise of experienced engineers, and paying for everything myself I fail to see your objections to such experimentation based on known engineering.

I apologize for the ranting in this post.

[T.A.M.]

Is there an example, anywhere, in real life, published, of THERMITE being used to WEAKEN steel? Like show me an example where thermite was used to WEAKEN only, with no cutting, no melting through the steel, just weakening it...please...someone!!!!!

TAM:)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Is there an example, anywhere, in real life, published, of THERMITE being used to WEAKEN steel? Like show me an example where thermite was used to WEAKEN only, with no cutting, no melting through the steel, just weakening it...please...someone!!!!!

TAM:)

Actually there is one example I can think of I used it once to heat a bar of steel to bend it to make a weld, by holding the steel above the thermite after ignition.
I was out of acetylene for my torch, other than that I can think of no other physical example.
Although I would like to see Max hold up a buildings the size of the towers above the thermite charge so that just the heat is absorbed.

[T.A.M.]

Actually there is one example I can think of I used it once to heat a bar of steel to bend it to make a weld, by holding the steel above the thermite after ignition.
I was out of acetylene for my torch, other than that I can think of no other physical example.
Although I would like to see Max hold up a buildings the size of the towers above the thermite charge so that just the heat is absorbed.

Thank you, and that leads me into the next part, which is...

If you cannot provide an example of Thermite being applied to steel to "weaken" it only, with no cutting or melting, then please provide us with a description of the theoretical prototype applicator or mechanism that would allow such to occur?

TAM:)

[rwguinn]

Thank you, and that leads me into the next part, which is...

If you cannot provide an example of Thermite being applied to steel to "weaken" it only, with no cutting or melting, then please provide us with a description of the theoretical prototype applicator or mechanism that would allow such to occur?

TAM:)
WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO YOU NEED *&^&*(*& TherM*te?
There were huge (Rule10) fires started by the release of Jet Fuel and kinetic energy, fueled by the office supplies, furnishings and building materials!

[beachnut]

TAM:

Sorry... but Max P. makes some interesting points even if his thermite theory remains totally unproven. And I did present him with a very difficult question.... Let's see if he can answer it!

And TAM, it was M.P. who reminded me of the importance of high temperature creep of the A36 steel.

Max:

I would estimate that WTC steel columns at 575 deg C, subject to compressive stresses that are 50 % of their room temperature yield strength, could fail individually and lead to rapid failure of the core. But Max, how long does a steel column need to be at that temperature to fail? 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 1 hour..........
Funny stuff, the PhD, playing with the guy who has moronic ideas on 9/11. String along fantasy and insanity in his ideas. Good Job. What a waste on fantasy, trying to blame others for a few terrorist acts. How stupid to make up fantasy crap and try to blame those who did not do it.

Who did it, is what you should ask the disrespectful person who has no rational thoughts on 9/11. Nice job Doc. Perfect.

[T.A.M.]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO YOU NEED *&^&*(*& TherM*te?
There were huge (Rule10) fires started by the release of Jet Fuel and kinetic energy, fueled by the office supplies, furnishings and building materials!

I am sure you were directing your annoyance at MP, as you know I am not contemplating the use of Thermite. Exactly the opposite. My point is that to even begin to suggest such a mechanism, you have to prove that the technology exists to make it possible...this starting point has not even been reached yet.

TAM:)

[uk_dave]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO YOU NEED *&^&*(*& TherM*te?
There were huge (Rule10) fires started by the release of Jet Fuel and kinetic energy, fueled by the office supplies, furnishings and building materials!


Perhaps Max just isn't familiar with the events which occurred at the wtc in New York on September 11th 2001.




:bunpan

[BenBurch]

You know, Thermite would be the last thing I would use to weaken the joints... I'd pack them with coked coal or charcoal, and drill some vent holes into it. THAT is how to weaken steel.

[Max Photon]

Anyone who can't figure out that all that office fires==>heat==>weakened steel is certainly not going to give up on his therm*te...






WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO YOU NEED *&^&*(*& TherM*te?
There were huge (Rule10) fires started by the release of Jet Fuel and kinetic energy, fueled by the office supplies, furnishings and building materials!





rwguinn,

Given that you are a structural engineer, if your model is:

office fires => heat => weakened steel

then surely

thermite => heat => weakened steel

represents a physical possibility.


Given that it has not been determined who perpetrated 911, controlled-demolition is a perfectly legitimate hypothesis to be explored, developed, and compared to other hypotheses.

Therefore, controlled-demolition by thermite is a perfectly reasonable hypothesis that any logical person studying the WTC collapse initiations ought to seriously consider.


You act like this is your first time modeling.


Max

* * *

[Dave Rogers]

Given that it has not been determined who perpetrated 911,

There's your error, right there.

Dave

[Max Photon]

Is there an example, anywhere, in real life, published, of THERMITE being used to WEAKEN steel? Like show me an example where thermite was used to WEAKEN only, with no cutting, no melting through the steel, just weakening it...please...someone!!!!!

TAM:)


TAM, first of all, don't act like seeing something published would have any effect on you. When Apollo produced a paper discussing the ignition of thermite with lasers, did you metamorphose?

Second, don't act dumb. You know perfectly well thermite produces tremendous heat, that thermite can heat steel, and that heated steel gets weaker.

Thermite => heat => heat-weakened steel

You can do it TAM!




[snip]...that leads me into the next part, which is...

If you cannot provide an example of Thermite being applied to steel to "weaken" it only, with no cutting or melting, then please provide us with a description of the theoretical prototype applicator or mechanism that would allow such to occur?

TAM:)


How are you so lost?

Why are you asking about theoretical prototype applicators?

The real-world applicators were the:

Box columns;
Spandrel splice gaps;
The rectangular tubes that forms where floor truss top chord juxtapose on the truss seat;
Gusset seats
The seats connecting core columns horizontal core member.


I am sure you were directing your annoyance at MP, as you know I am not contemplating the use of Thermite. Exactly the opposite. My point is that to even begin to suggest such a mechanism, you have to prove that the technology exists to make it possible...this starting point has not even been reached yet.

TAM:)


Thermite fuse - ignited by the jets' impacts - ignited thermite planted at steel splices and connections.

TAM, I think we have the technology.


Max

* * *

[uk_dave]

rwguinn,

Given that you are a structural engineer, if your model is:

office fires => heat => weakened steel

then surely

thermite => heat => weakened steel

represents a physical possibility.




And right back atcha.

[rwguinn]

And right back atcha.

Did he really say that?
and that makes
(Space-based Beam Weapon)==>Heat==>weakened steel
and
Invisible Godzilla==>Heat==>weakened steel possibilities, too!

:dl: :dl: :dl:

[uk_dave]

Did he really say that?
and that makes
(Space-based Beam Weapon)==>Heat==>weakened steel
and
Invisible Godzilla==>Heat==>weakened steel possibilities, too!

:dl: :dl: :dl:

Maybe it's a multiple choice question....

"On 11th September 2001 at the WTC in New York, the world witnessed either...

a. Space beam => heat weakening of steel => collapse of towers

b. Uri Geller => bendy beam thingies => collapse of towers

c. Plane crash => fires => collapse of towers

d. Max Photon => Therm(?)te => Collapse of towers

e. Nothing

Choose one"

[BenBurch]

I think Max-Photon knows TOO MUCH about 9/11! So *he* must have been the Perp!

:D

[Jonnyclueless]

I think this thread alone pretty much handles all of November's stundie needs. Thanks Max!

[T.A.M.]

Max:

Care to tell me how you get the Thermite to ONLY weaken the steel, without cutting it or melting it. All real world examples I have seen of Thermite applied, result in HOLES THROUGH THE STEEL!!!

My point/question is simple, and NO IT HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED HERE YET. Is there a method available that has been shown capable to (A) House safely the Thermite, (B) apply it in such a way as to only allow steel WEAKENING, without cutting or melting, and (C) has been proven in a REAL WORLD EXAMPLE to work.

No this would not convince me that Thermite was used, only that the application of Thermite along a vertical steel column for the purpose of WEAKENING IT ONLY, was actually possible. Then, if this is proven, you need to provide evidence that such was used in the WTCs.

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

Max:

Care to tell me how you get the Thermite to ONLY weaken the steel, without cutting it or melting it. All real world examples I have seen of Thermite applied, result in HOLES THROUGH THE STEEL!!!

My point/question is simple, and NO IT HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED HERE YET. Is there a method available that has been shown capable to (A) House safely the Thermite, (B) apply it in such a way as to only allow steel WEAKENING, without cutting or melting, and (C) has been proven in a REAL WORLD EXAMPLE to work.

No this would not convince me that Thermite was used, only that the application of Thermite along a vertical steel column for the purpose of WEAKENING IT ONLY, was actually possible. Then, if this is proven, you need to provide evidence that such was used in the WTCs.

TAM:)


TAM,

You are making too strong an assumption that thermite will automatically melt through steel.

For thermite to melt through steel, it must first heat the steel to its melting temperature.

Chances are good you have seen video of thermite melting through isolated steel plate. Heat could not be transported away from the burn site.

But a WTC column can transport heat.

Now, ask yourself the following:

What would happen if the following amounts of thermite were put in a box column and ignited?

1/10,000 kg (1/10 gram)
1/1000 kg (1 gram)
1/100 kg (10 grams)
1/10 kg (100 grams)
1 kg
10 kg
100 kg
1000 kg

Will thermite always melt through the box column?

Remember, demolition planners only had to heat the steel to about 1/3 of steel's melting temperature.

The emotionally-potent oversimplification thermite slices through steel like a hot knife through butter cloaks (or rather, clogs) the truth that thermite was used to heat-weaken WTC steel.


P.S.

Your question about how thermite was applied along vertical columns seem to indicate that you do not understand that I am saying that thermite was placed inside box columns; it just sat there at the bottom end of columns. Look at my avatar photo. See where the guy is reaching in to put in a bolt? There.

So again, the column IS the applicator. So let go of "applicators" or "devices".


* * *

[Jonnyclueless]

Can fire heat the steel to 1/3 of it's melting temperature?

[JMarshall]

Chances are good you have seen video of thermite melting through isolated steel plate. Heat could not be transported away from the burn site.

But a WTC column can transport heat.


And how does WTC columns transport the heat away at such a rate that thermite can not burn through them? I mean if they had the ability to transport the heat so well wouldn't that lessen the effects of "heat-weakening"? PLUS... THERMITE CANNOT BE USED ON COLUMNS! Thermite is affected by gravity, and would migrate downward! I'm tired of all this thermite talk... The fact is you have never handled thermite, never seen the effects of it in person, and have no practical knowledge about thermite, so drop the act!

[Hellbound]

What would happen if the following amounts of thermite were put in a box column and ignited?

1/10,000 kg (1/10 gram)
1/1000 kg (1 gram)
1/100 kg (10 grams)
1/10 kg (100 grams)
1 kg
10 kg
100 kg
1000 kg

You'll get one of the following two results:

1. The thermite is packed densely enough to sustain a reaction, and results in varying sizes of pits melted into or holes melted through the steel.

2. The thermite is "spread out" in an inexperienced and ignorant attempt to slow the reaction and distribute the heat, which results in a non-sustainable reaction and no prolonged or significant heating.

Try here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite) under "Ignition" for a start on what I'm saying.
Conventional thermite reactions require very high temperatures for initiation. These cannot be reached with conventional black powder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_powder) fuses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuse_%28explosive%29), nitrocellulose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrocellulose) rods, detonators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonator), a suitable pyrotechnic initiator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_initiator), or other common igniting substances. Even when the thermite is hot enough to glow bright red, it will not ignite as it must be at or near white-hot to initiate the reaction. It is possible to start the reaction using a propane torch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propane_torch) if done correctly. The torch can preheat the entire pile of thermite which will make it explode instead of burning slowly when it finally reaches ignition temperature.

It needs a very high temp to ignite, and the reaction must maintain at least that temperature to continue (in layman's terms, it must be hot enough to self-ignite nearby portions of the mixture).

So yes, if it sustains reaction, it will always melt the steel. THe only way to avoid this is to have some sort of container/delivery system that will hold the themrite away from the steel while letting the thermite burn. This system must allow sufficient heat out to weaken the steel, cannot let the thermite out of the system after collapse, and must also have some way of "self-destructing" to leave behind neither evidence of the thermite or itself.

Of course, if you had any knowledge of incendiaries, their properties, and their uses, you would know this. Instead, it appears acceptible for you to convict others for your own ignorance. Bravo.

[uruk]

Bazant heard it from Blanchard.

Here, from:

Collapse of World Trade Center Towers:
What Did and Did Not Cause It? (http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf)

"According to [17], the crushing front initiates at the 96th in the North Tower, and the 81st
story in the South Tower. The effective compaction ratio [lambda is approximately] 0.18, as estimated in [5]. The mass ejection ratio, [kappa]out, is harder to estimate. A crude estimate can be based on the profile of the rubble pile after the collapse [5]. Bazant and Verdure estimated that about 20% of the rubble volume resided outside the footprint of the tower, and so [kappa-out is approximately] 0.20."
It looks like they made an estimate too, only their estimate is a bit on the conservative side. (see bolding)

But I think the point of the excerpt is that they were trying to figgure out how much of the mass should not be included in the calculations due to it being ejected away from the towers footprint during the collapse. Hence Kappa-out.

They are saying that 20% of the mass was not involved in the crushing calculations because it was ejected away from the towers footprint during collapse based on what they could estimate from the pile of rubble surrounding the buildings.


ETA:

Here is Bazant & Verdura's

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse:
Learning from World Trade Center
and Building Demolitions (http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-PROGRESSIVE-COLLAPSE-BAZANT.pdf)

ETA2:

From Bazant & Verdura: (the format got messed up, but the key passage is clear)

Motion of Crushing Columns of One Story and Energy Dissipation
When the upper °oor crashes into the lower one, with a layer of rubble between them, the
initial height h of the story is reduced to ¸h, with ¸ denoting the compaction ratio (in ¯nite-
strain theory, ¸ is called the stretch). After that, the load can increase without bounds. In a
one-dimensional model pursued here, one may use the estimate:
¸ = (1 ¡ ·out)V1=V0 (1)
where V0 = initial volume of the tower, V1 ¼ volume of the rubble on the ground into which the
whole tower mass has been compacted, and ·out = correction representing mainly the fraction
of the rubble that has been ejected during collapse outside the perimeter of the tower and
thus does not resist compaction. The rubble that has not been ejected during collapse but was
pushed outside the tower perimeter only after landing on the heap on the ground should not be
counted in ·out. The volume of the rubble found outside the footprint of the tower, which can
be measured by surveying the rubble heap on the ground after the collapse, is an upper bound
on V1, but probably much too high a bound for serving as an estimate.


* * *

Which looks exactly what they are saying here.

[uruk]

WHY ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH DO YOU NEED *&^&*(*& TherM*te?
There were huge (Rule10) fires started by the release of Jet Fuel and kinetic energy, fueled by the office supplies, furnishings and building materials!
MAX-MIHOP is only necessary if you want to believe in a conspiracy.

(It isn't really, URUK-LIHOP is easier, cheaper, and offers the highest degree of deniability.
And it is even harder to prove or disprove than MAX-MIHOP. URUK-LIHOP is more insideous and ingenious than MAX-MIHOP.)

Max wants or needs to think that the US government is willing to kill thousands of it's own citizens for some obscure reason. I think he mentioned something about gold.

He knows the thermite is totaly unecessary to cause the collapse of the towers. The impact and fires were more than necessary. He needs to have the thermite so that there can be a conspiracy.

[Max Photon]

MAX-MIHOP is only necessary if you want to believe in a conspiracy.

(It isn't really, URUK-LIHOP is easier, cheaper, and offers the highest degree of deniability.
And it is even harder to prove or disprove than MAX-MIHOP. URUK-LIHOP is more insideous and ingenious than MAX-MIHOP.)

Max wants or needs to think that the US government is willing to kill thousands of it's own citizens for some obscure reason. I think he mentioned something about gold.

He knows the thermite is totaly unecessary to cause the collapse of the towers. The impact and fires were more than necessary [Uruk means "sufficient"]. He needs to have the thermite so that there can be a conspiracy.




Uruk, the good news is that your thinking is as advanced as our resident structural engineer's.

The bad new is that structural engineer is rwguinn.


Instead of projecting all over me, why don't you take a good look at yourself for once? You are the one with such a desperate need to believe the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis, to the exclusion of everything else.

Tell me, on what basis are you certain that 19 hijackers were responsible? Because the US government told you so?

Suppose the US government did sponsor 911. What would you expect the government's story to be? (I suspect the government would blame someone else, like - say - 19 hijackers hopped up on Islam.)


Now, if you (and rwguinn) had a shred of integrity, you'd admit that it is not clear who perpetrated 911, and given that it is not clear, that you ought to be open to the idea - even if it seems remote - that 911 was an inside job.

And if it is possible that 911 were an inside job, then - if you had any reverence for the scientific process - you'd consider and develop and compare hypotheses for how the inside job was carried out.

Any researcher with integrity must fairly entertain:

NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Well, NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION is dominated by the NIST report (and protected by pseudo-gangs).

What is the dominant model for CONTROLLED DEMOLITION? (I personally believe MAX-MIHOP is the current best, but each to his own.)


You claim I need thermite to have a conspiracy. You are simply projecting onto me.

You need to not have thermite, to not have a conspiracy.


Max

* * *

[twinstead]

Max how many times do we have to explain to you that we don't believe the official story JUST because the government told us so?

Many here wouldn't trust the US government as far as they could throw it. The reason we believe is, ONE MORE TIME:

Because it fits ALL the available evidence more so than any other theory that has been put forth by those who think like you do. What part of that don't you understand?

[Pookster]

Max how many times do we have to explain to you that we don't believe the official story JUST because the government told us so?


As always, at least once more.

[uruk]

Uruk, the good news is that your thinking is as advanced as our resident structural engineer's.

The bad new is that structural engineer is rwguinn.


Instead of projecting all over me, why don't you take a good look at yourself for once? You are the one with such a desperate need to believe the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis, to the exclusion of everything else. Who's the one who has a website devoted to this stuff? I certainly don't have any fanatical investment it this other than to debate you.
I believe what I believe because the evidence fits to my satisfaction. The conspiracy theories do not.

Tell me, on what basis are you certain that 19 hijackers were responsible? Because the US government told you so? The evidence I've been able to see and read places the 19 hijackers and al-qaeda on top of the probability list.
Your thermite hypothesis is totaly useless except to push that our government is responsible for the murders of 4000 of it's own citizens.

Suppose the US government did sponsor 911. What would you expect the government's story to be? (I suspect the government would blame someone else, like - say - 19 hijackers hopped up on Islam.) I'm sure the story would be the same. But if there was a conspiracy there would be evidence. there would hundreds of people who would have to have planned and executed the act. there would be slip ups, leaks, whistle blowers, paper trails and hard evidence out there.
So far you got nothing to support your hypothesis.


Now, if you (and rwguinn) had a shred of integrity, you'd admit that it is not clear who perpetrated 911, and given that it is not clear, that you ought to be open to the idea - even if it seems remote - that 911 was an inside job. What do you mean it's not clear. How much more clear can it get than the guys admitting to planning the deed? What about the DNA evidence the paper trails?
If it was not them then there would be evidence of some sort to prove that they were not the ones who did it. Where is it?

And if it is possible that 911 were an inside job, then - if you had any reverence for the scientific process - you'd consider and develop and compare hypotheses for how the inside job was carried out. Well I might consider it if there was any science at all involved witht he conspiracy theories. So far there have only been questions and "coulda beens" and conjecture" Where is the science?

Any researcher with integrity must fairly entertain:

NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Well, NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION is dominated by the NIST report (and protected by pseudo-gangs). It has already been shown that it was not controlled demolition or planted explosives.

What is the dominant model for CONTROLLED DEMOLITION? (I personally believe MAX-MIHOP is the current best, but each to his own.)

You claim I need thermite to have a conspiracy. You are simply projecting onto me.

You need to not have thermite, to not have a conspiracy.

Max

* * *
Hey you are the one who is claiming thermite. I already showed you how there could be a conspiracy without thermite or explosives. Remember URUK-LIHOP?

[Max Photon]

Max how many times do we have to explain to you that we don't believe the official story JUST because the government told us so?

Many here wouldn't trust the US government as far as they could throw it. The reason we believe is, ONE MORE TIME:

Because it fits ALL the available evidence more so than any other theory that has been put forth by those who think like you do. What part of that don't you understand?


You put it well..."available evidence".

Available evidence is that which successfully passed through filters.

Why is much of the evidence "unavailable"?

Because the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis would not fit the unavailable evidence.

(In this case, the information is in the omissions.)


How are you so confident with filtered evidence?


* * *

[Sparky]

(In this case, the information is in the omissions.)


How are you so confident with filtered evidence?


* * *

I would love for you to provide proof for that statement!

[JMarshall]

You put it well..."available evidence".

Available evidence is that which successfully passed through filters.

Why is much of the evidence "unavailable"?

Because the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis would not fit the unavailable evidence.

(In this case, the information is in the omissions.)


How are you so confident with filtered evidence?


* * *

WHAT!? HAHAHA! You have got to be kidding me! Ok, lets just say there is "filtered" evidence, how on god's green earth do you expect to get to the "unfiltered" evidence? I mean if your theory is correct, then the government will never release this "unfiltered" evidence, thus your "fight for the truth" is a completely mute point... If you really think the government is behind it, overthrow the govt... If you don't then your battle is for not. Sh*t or get off the pot! Creating a drawn out, over thought, under provable, theory of the so called conspiracy doesn't do anything towards, your "cause"!

[BenBurch]

So, Max, how do you counter my alternative theory that the box joints were packed with coke, had vent holes drilled into them and were heat-weakened in that way? In what way could you differentiate between that scenario and the one you propose?

If you cannot differentiate the two cases, I submit you have no case for your hypothesis.

[Max Photon]

So, Max, how do you counter my alternative theory that the box joints were packed with coke, had vent holes drilled into them and were heat-weakened in that way? In what way could you differentiate between that scenario and the one you propose?

If you cannot differentiate the two cases, I submit you have no case for your hypothesis.


Your scenario does not fit observations.


* * *

[twinstead]

Your scenario does not fit observations.


* * *

Sadly, neither do yours to the satisfaction of every legitimate expert whom I have shown it to.

I'm a layman. I MUST rely on experts. I don't trust your observations because I don't think you are qualified to make them in the first place. Therefore, I need a second opinion.

Enter the experts.

You wouldn't want me to just take your opinion without seeking rational alternatives, right?

[twinstead]

You put it well..."available evidence".

Available evidence is that which successfully passed through filters.

Why is much of the evidence "unavailable"?

Because the 19-Hijacker Conspiracy Hypothesis would not fit the unavailable evidence.

(In this case, the information is in the omissions.)


How are you so confident with filtered evidence?


* * *

Filtered evidence? I have access to EVERY bit the same evidence as you do. I don't live in North Korea. This is the 21st century. I live in a nation where I have access to every imaginable source of information, from the ultra conservative to the ultra liberal, to anarchist, to libertarian.

It royally pisses me of to soundly declare my information 'filtered' just because YOU don't agree with it.

I've seen it all. This layman has heard every conceivable source of information concerning 911. And you know what? I DON'T BUY THE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

You don't have to agree, but don't play the 'well you obviously must watch Fox News exclusively' game.

[technoextreme]

Sadly, neither do yours to the satisfaction of every legitimate expert whom I have shown it to.

I'm a layman. I MUST rely on experts. I don't trust your observations because I don't think you are qualified to make them in the first place. Therefore, I need a second opinion.

Enter the experts.

You wouldn't want me to just take your opinion without seeking rational alternatives, right?
Myself and someone else actually called him on the fact that he uses terms not even knowing what it means.

[BenBurch]

Your scenario does not fit observations.


* * *

You need to say exactly how?

[Max Photon]

You need to say exactly how?


Your coked-up-columns scenario does not seem to fit the anomalies in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

Furthermore, I don't recall seeing drilled vent holes in the columns in the debris pile.

I could go on...but why?


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

Myself and someone else actually called him on the fact that he uses terms not even knowing what it means.



Feel free to list the terms you feel I use but don't understand.


* * *

[Max Photon]

Filtered evidence? I have access to EVERY bit the same evidence as you do. I don't live in North Korea. This is the 21st century. I live in a nation where I have access to every imaginable source of information, from the ultra conservative to the ultra liberal, to anarchist, to libertarian.

It royally pisses me of to soundly declare my information 'filtered' just because YOU don't agree with it.

I've seen it all. This layman has heard every conceivable source of information concerning 911. And you know what? I DON'T BUY THE CONSPIRACY THEORY.

You don't have to agree, but don't play the 'well you obviously must watch Fox News exclusively' game.



Did you get to look inside WTC2's fire-affected perimeter panel box columns?

(I didn't.)


* * *

[Max Photon]

WHAT!? HAHAHA! You have got to be kidding me! Ok, lets just say there is "filtered" evidence, how on god's green earth do you expect to get to the "unfiltered" evidence? I mean if your theory is correct, then the government will never release this "unfiltered" evidence, thus your "fight for the truth" is a completely mute point... If you really think the government is behind it, overthrow the govt... If you don't then your battle is for not. Sh*t or get off the pot! Creating a drawn out, over thought, under provable, theory of the so called conspiracy doesn't do anything towards, your "cause"!


Great, so now I have to - like - figure out 911 and overthrow the government?

Actually, I think 911 was carried out by a criminal rogue network within the government and the private sector. I don't want to overthrow the government; I'm trying to defend the Constitution.


Max


P.S. You're a bit like Dan Quail holding a rocket launcher. (Turn that thing around.)


* * *

[pomeroo]

Feel free to list the terms you feel I use but don't understand.


* * *


Thermite

Demolition

Thermite

Remote-Controlled

Thermite

[BenBurch]

But Max, they destroyed all that steel, didn't they? How do you know there were no vent holes and no coke or charcoal in the box columns?

[DavidJames]

Feel free to list the terms you feel I use but don't understand.
...I think...Is the one that comes quickly to mind...

[Hellbound]

I notice there's still no reply to my post, #374.

There's questions that must be answered, Max.

You've so far failed to support your theory with anything but a fallacious argument from ignorance ("you can't see the evidence, so I must be right!").

So, how did they manage to get thermite to not act like thermite?

[afinemadness]

Thermite

Demolition

Thermite

Remote-Controlled

Thermite

He also has a problem with these:

Proof

Thermate

perimeter panel box columns

openings

filling

[twinstead]

Great, so now I have to - like - figure out 911 and overthrow the government?

Actually, I think 911 was carried out by a criminal rogue network within the government and the private sector. I don't want to overthrow the government; I'm trying to defend the Constitution.



I always wonder about people who think stuff like that on the flimsiest of evidence. Tell you what, if I were to believe something like that I'd sure need to find a pile of REAL evidence, and a pile support from experts in the relevant fields and sciences before I shouted it from every rooftop.

But, religious folks don't need all that evidence and expert support, so I suppose that if you want to believe your little theory on faith, turn it into a world view, then more power to you.

That doesn't mean I have to. To me you're just accusing people of mass murder with no evidence and making stuff up on the fly.

[Gravy]

Has Max Photon done something that's worthy of all this attention?

[twinstead]

Has Max Photon done something that's worthy of all this attention?

It's a slow day

[Disbelief]

Has Max Photon done something that's worthy of all this attention?

He actually put together a story of what happened. So far, it would make him a nation of one for the truthers who tries (even if he fails) to explain what he believes happened. Everyone else jumps from theory to theory and works hard not to get tied down.

[twinstead]

He actually put together a story of what happened. So far, it would make him a nation of one for the truthers who tries (even if he fails) to explain what he believes happened. Everyone else jumps from theory to theory and works hard not to get tied down.

In his case it just means he has a more vivid imagination than most truthers ;)

[rwguinn]

He actually put together a story of what happened. So far, it would make him a nation of one for the truthers who tries (even if he fails) to explain what he believes happened. Everyone else jumps from theory to theory and works hard not to get tied down.
Yea, but so did Christ-3-inch-on-4-foot-ophera.

[Max Photon]

* * *


TAM,

I addressed some of your posts.

Response?



Apollo20,

Someone once wisely said:

"No man is an island."

"Criticism makes one stronger."


Max

* * *

[T.A.M.]

Max:

I really do not have much of a reply to it. You have dulled Occam's Razor so badly with the entire concept, that I am incapable of cutting the bits of wheat from the SILO of Chaff.

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

Has Max Photon done something that's worthy of all this attention?


Is our oldest child jealous?



He actually put together a story of what happened. So far, it would make him a nation of one for the truthers who tries (even if he fails) to explain what he believes happened. Everyone else jumps from theory to theory and works hard not to get tied down.


Thanks Disbelief. That is a fair assessment.

I would add that - other than maybe Apollo's AP model - MAX-MIHOP is the most reasonable and complete controlled-demolition model that exists.

NOT CD vs. CD = NIST vs. MAX-MIHOP


In his case it just means he has a more vivid imagination than most truthers ;)


If I am wrong, I'll get accused of having a vivid imagination.

If I am right, I'll get killed.


* * *

[Max Photon]

Max:

I really do not have much of a reply to it. You have dulled Occam's Razor so badly with the entire concept, that I am incapable of cutting the bits of wheat from the SILO of Chaff.

TAM:)


Time to give TAM a thrashing.


Using William of Ockham as a cloaking device (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3078010#post3078010)

Max Photon says: Ockham's Razor is being used as a CD cloaking device (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3086776#post3086776)

Weaponizing Ockham's Razor - For Dullards (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3094652#post3094652)


* * *

[pomeroo]

Time to give TAM a thrashing.


Using William of Ockham as a cloaking device (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3078010#post3078010)

Max Photon says: Ockham's Razor is being used as a CD cloaking device (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3086776#post3086776)

Weaponizing Ockham's Razor - For Dullards (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3094652#post3094652)


* * *


Max, you've been beating up everybody's fists with your chin for a long time. You keep forgetting that no thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. You were unable to comprehend Apathoid's paper destroying your fantasy about remote-controlled Boeing 757s and 767s (assuming you ever attempted to read it). You've been exposed.
Old frauds never die; they just rave to smaller and smaller audiences.

[Hellbound]

And you still haven't addressed the fact that thermite will melt into the steel, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. The only way is to have some sort of heat resistent standoff device, something you haven't elaborated on and of which no evidence was found.

In other words, you have nothig but your own imagination and fantasy...sorry, but that doesn't count as reasonable or complete.

[T.A.M.]

Time to give TAM a thrashing.


Using William of Ockham as a cloaking device (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3078010#post3078010)

Max Photon says: Ockham's Razor is being used as a CD cloaking device (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3086776#post3086776)

Weaponizing Ockham's Razor - For Dullards (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3094652#post3094652)


* * *

Oh brother...

TAM:)