Blanchard Doesn't Buy Thermite Myth

[pomeroo]

This thread is not meant to stand alone. It can be integrated into any thread started by Max Photon. I asked Brent Blanchard how people who work in the demolition industry satisfied themselves that no thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. He replied:

"How could it have been? How was it released or applied onto the columns in a manner to cause failure? How were its degenerative qualities calculated to ensure simultaneous failure of dozens if not hundreds of columns? And why weren't there telltale characteristics found on even a single bean retrieved from the site (poor photos of demo teams burning columns with torches notwithstanding)?

Once again, no sound hypothesis thought out end-to-end, and no evidence found whatsoever.

Works for me... "

BB

[CHF]

In other words, we know the 9/11 thermite theory is false because it's friggin' stupid.

So stupid, in fact, that twoofers themselves are afraid to submit it for review to anyone but fellow twoofers.

[cmcaulif]

Sort of off topic, but has he, or any of the other folks with explosives/CD experience that you have corresponded with ever mention thermal degradation of explosive substances?

I have found a few papers on the subject, but it would be great to have some opinions from people who actually work in CDs.

[Jonnyclueless]

I would imagine all the termites were destroyed in the collapse.

[Alferd_Packer]

Actually they were eaten by the Keebler Wood's elves.

[Furi]

But first all the thermites gnawed through the the furniture in the Games room, causing all the billiard balls to roll down the stairwells bouncing with a Clunkity-clunk.

With their beloved Slate bed Billiard tables now ruined, it was then that the Thermite Jihad was issued, and full and merciless war was waged, Both sides taking heavy losses the wood elves held through many a tough microsecond with tough trade and political sanctions from the United Faerie Folk strengthening their resolve,

Ultimately the Wood Elves won, and with the the few remaining thermites brought to the negotiating table requiring nothing less than total surrender and a games table, the Keebler Liberation Front ( A militant Splinter group unhappy with the liberal handling of the matter ) managed using their Pixie magic willed a complicitous attack using planes on key thermite civic/commercial centres...

(ok I will lay off the sugar and catnip)
=^..^=

[Max Photon]

* * *

Brent Blanchard wrote a paper in which he attempts to dismiss the use of thermite as a catalyst for destroying the WTC towers.

If you actually read his paper, you quickly realize that Blanchard ONLY addresses the issue from the perspective that thermite was used to heat WTC steel to its melting point, to cut or slice the steel. In other words, Blanchard only address the use of thermite as a cutting agent.

NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel.

Blanchard also sees it as next to impossible to devise a way to hold the thermite against the steel.

Perhaps if he understood the design of the towers, or thought about the design for five seconds, he would have seen that thermite could have easily been planted in "natural hiddy-holes" inside perimeter box columns, spandrel splice gaps, and at the "rectangular tube" formed where two floor truss top chords juxtapose at floor truss seats.

Blanchard never even discusses that thermite was also used to produce highly-visible, choregraphed fires.

Blanchard also never envisioned thermite-dusted shock-tube - or thermite fuse - as a simple, reliable ignition system.

As far as evidence of thermite is concerned, Blanchard knows - as everyone knows - that no fire affected perimeter panels from WTC2 were even collected or examined. So there is no way Blanchard can claim that there was no evidence of thermite use in or on these panels.


So kiddies, remember, Blanchard may have tackled Steven Jones and the THERMITE=CUTTING crew, but he never even touched Max Photon's MAX-MIHOP.

Sorry guys, Blanchard's paper is a sad, uncreative, bullying piece of cr@p. Only a total moron would parade that thing around.


Max


ETA: By the way, if Blanchard would like to debate me on this thread, in front of all you simpletonians, I'd be happy to.


* * *

[Newtons Bit]

Perhaps if he understood the design of the towers, or thought about the design for five seconds, he would have seen that thermite could have easily been planted in "natural hiddy-holes" inside perimeter box columns, spandrel splice gaps, and at the "rectangular tube" formed where two floor truss top cords juxtapose at floor truss seats.


Perhaps if you understood the design of the towers, or thought about the design for five seconds, you would have seen that the "natural hiddy-holes" would have been welded over after the erection bolts were tightened.

[twinstead]

ETA: By the way, if Blanchard would like to debate me on this thread, in front of all you simpletonians, I'd be happy to.


I would pay to see that, because although mostly your posts are entertaining, I think you would lose, and sometimes it's nice to see the arrogance knocked out of somebody.

[Max Photon]

Perhaps if you understood the design of the towers, or thought about the design for five seconds, you would have seen that the "natural hiddy-holes" would have been welded over after the erection bolts were tightened.



You are wrong.


The spandrel splice gaps were not welded over.

Nor were the "rectangular tubes" created where top chords were juxtaposed.


I assume you are saying the perimeter panel box column bolt-access-holes were welded closed after the A325 column splice bolts were tightened.

Prove it.

And while you are at it, please explain why all of the perimeter panel box columns in the debris pile show open bolt-access-holes.


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

I would pay to see that, because although mostly your posts are entertaining, I think you would lose, and sometimes it's nice to see the arrogance knocked out of somebody.





It would be fun.

I'd pulls his wings off.


* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

Self-deleted.

(I double posted #11 by accident)

[afinemadness]

You are wrong.


The spandrel splice gaps were not welded over.

Nor were the "rectangular tubes" created where top chords were juxtaposed.


I assume you are saying the perimeter panel box column bolt-access-holes were welded closed after the A325 column splice bolts were tightened.

Prove it.

And while you are at it, please explain why all of the perimeter panel box columns in the debris pile show open bolt-access-holes.


Max

* * *

Max,
I am sorry if this has been answered before but I am curious if you were ever in any of the WTC buildings? Did you ever see any of this first hand? Thank you and like I said sorry if it has been answered.

[Max Photon]

Max,

I am sorry if this has been answered before but I am curious if you were ever in any of the WTC buildings? Did you ever see any of this first hand? Thank you and like I said sorry if it has been answered.




Afinemadness,

No, I never had a chance to be next to or inside the WTC towers or complex. The closest I ever got was probably about a mile or so away.


* * *

[afinemadness]

Afinemadness,

No, I never had a chance to be next to or inside the WTC towers or complex. The closest I ever got was probably about a mile or so away.


* * *

I have to admit I have never seen the charges in the buildings and the last time I was in the towers was on 9/6/01. I was in them often. At one time I worked in them but I left that company in 1999. I then worked in the financial industry so I was in and around the buildings on a regular basis. I just find it amazing that you could see all of the openings that were breached and know that they were filled with thermite from such a great distance away. I have to tell you there was no hint of it from inside or next to the building. I am so glad that you have the ability to see these through the shell of the building that no one in the building saw. Just think if it was not for your innate abilities we would have never know that a never before or since used process was used to create a world where people sitting in their basements with a badly used thesaurus could spout theories that have no basis in reality.

[T.A.M.]

I have a question. Why on gods earth (dear god am I going there) would the evil Conspirators go to all the trouble and risk of planting Thermite, designing an apparatus to do so, through out the WTCs, only to weaken the steel. Seems to me if you are gonna take the risk, you would overkill...overshoot, to make sure there was NO CHANCE OF FAILURE.

I await what I am sure will be a "fascinating" response.

TAM:)

[Brainster]

I pointed out at SLC long ago that the kooks often claim that the steel was in convenient 30-foot segments. But if you buy that, you've got to claim that each column was cut over 40 times. Multiply that by the 290 or so columns and you can see that over 10,000 separate cuts were required.

[Spins]

I have a question. Why on gods earth (dear god am I going there) would the evil Conspirators go to all the trouble and risk of planting Thermite, designing an apparatus to do so, through out the WTCs, only to weaken the steel.Simple answer is they wouldn't.

Call me crazy but wouldn't it be easier just to hijack a couple of commercial airliners and fly them into the Twin Towers at full throttle? No that would be too easy it needs to be more complex than that, lets fill the towers with incendiaries and explosives etc just to be sure, no body invloved in the execution or planning of this task will ever speak out! :boggled: :boggled: :boggled:

It never ceases to amaze me how conspiracy theorists are seemingly incapable of taking into account the risks and problems associated with these loony controlled demolition (or related) theories.

[JMarshall]

no body invloved in the execution or planning of this task will ever speak out! :boggled: :boggled: :boggled:


Well of course they won't speak out, they want to keep their cushy gubment jobs...

[beachnut]

You are wrong.


The spandrel splice gaps were not welded over.

Nor were the "rectangular tubes" created where top chords were juxtaposed.


I assume you are saying the perimeter panel box column bolt-access-holes were welded closed after the A325 column splice bolts were tightened.

Prove it.

And while you are at it, please explain why all of the perimeter panel box columns in the debris pile show open bolt-access-holes.


Max

* * *
There is zero, zip, zilch, evidence of thermite. Thermite is the #3 top idiotic idea of the WTC demise and the most pathetic idea pushed with no evidence to consider since people who took care of me died on 9/11!! (nuke #1 stupid idea, beam weapon #2, but tied with the nuke)

This false information is an assault on me! To state this garbage talk of thermite is not even funny. I expect someone to look in the eyes, imagine the thousands of eyes of the dead who you spit on with this idiotic, pathetic idea of thermite! Thermite leaves evidence, you have zero evidence of thermite and persist at pathetically pushing an idea that can't even happen except in people's minds who make up pathetic lies about 9/11! You make up lies about 9/11 and disrespect those who died on 9/11 by not being correct and not having any evidence!

So as you post your themite insanity, just think about each person falling as the buildings failed from fire; and here you are dreaming up insane ideas about 9/11, making fun of lives lost. Real good zero evidence man. Max Photo, makes fun of 9/11 with pathetic thermite lies. Cool Max, you have spewed this crap for a while, continue and confirm to me your inability to care about facts and evidence and push your insane lie of thermite; you have company in other liars from 9/11 truth.

The people of 9/11 truth and you are pathetic since you can not support your lies with facts and evidence related to the events of 9/11. Idiotic ideas and lies are spewing from you after most the world figured out 9/11 6 years ago. Pathetic. I can see UBL laughing at the sad and pathetic ideas he sees you 9/11 truth liars publishing.

Your continued talk of thermite and the other BS you spew is sick junk about 9/11. Feel real proud of yourself for pushing on of the most insane ideas on 9/11 and disrespecting others. Why do people like you make up lies after 6 years about 9/11?

[Jonnyclueless]

* * *

As far as evidence of thermite is concerned, Blanchard knows - as everyone knows - that no fire affected perimeter panels from WTC2 were even collected or examined. So there is no way Blanchard can claim that there was no evidence of thermite use in or on these panels.


So kiddies, remember, Blanchard may have tackled Steven Jones and the THERMITE=CUTTING crew, but he never even touched Max Photon's MAX-MIHOP.

Sorry guys, Blanchard's paper is a sad, uncreative, bullying piece of cr@p. Only a total moron would parade that thing around.


Max


ETA: By the way, if Blanchard would like to debate me on this thread, in front of all you simpletonians, I'd be happy to.


* * *

So our proof for your theory is that there is no evidence for your theory. Yes, clearly Blanchard is the moron you claim him to be....

[Max Photon]

So our proof for your theory is that there is no evidence for your theory. Yes, clearly Blanchard is the moron you claim him to be....


I said those who parade his cr@ppy paper are morons.

Blanchard is simply wrong.


* * *

[Max Photon]

I have a question. Why on gods earth (dear god am I going there) would the evil Conspirators go to all the trouble and risk of planting Thermite, designing an apparatus to do so, through out the WTCs, only to weaken the steel. Seems to me if you are gonna take the risk, you would overkill...overshoot, to make sure there was NO CHANCE OF FAILURE.

I await what I am sure will be a "fascinating" response.

TAM:)




Well you won't have to wait long there, good buddy.

I answered your exact question yesterday:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3151832#post3151832

(Fast-track for the incrowd. :cool: )


Max

* * *

[Arus808]

I said those who parade his cr@ppy paper are morons.

Blanchard is simply wrong.


* * *


and of course you have the credentials to refute his claims.

Please point out what he gets wrong, and bring forth your expertise and show why (with evidence) that he is. You can take 1 point at a time.

Otherwise, you're nothing more than hot-air.

[Max Photon]

and of course you have the credentials to refute his claims.

Please point out what he gets wrong, and bring forth your expertise and show why (with evidence) that he is. You can take 1 point at a time.

Otherwise, you're nothing more than hot-air.



Actually, I am electromagnetic oscillations in spacetime.


* * *

[Max Photon]

Perhaps if you understood the design of the towers, or thought about the design for five seconds, you would have seen that the "natural hiddy-holes" would have been welded over after the erection bolts were tightened.





Sir Fig Newton is still busy scouring FEMA high-resolution debris photos for just one example of a perimeter panel box column with one of its bolt-access-holes welded shut.

(Here's the tricky part... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5982809019559974893&q=fig+newton+commercial&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0))


* * *

[Arus808]

Actually, I am electromagnetic oscillations in spacetime.


* * *


How does this answer my question? Bring forth your evidence and expertise on what Blanchard got wrong. You can do a point by point refutation if needed. One point - you prove wrong.

As we say, put-up-or-shut-up.

[afinemadness]

Sir Fig Newton is still busy scouring FEMA high-resolution debris photos for just one example of a perimeter panel box column with one of its bolt-access-holes welded shut.

(Here's the tricky part... (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5982809019559974893&q=fig+newton+commercial&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0))


* * *
No Max you have the burden of proof incorrect. You need to show us 1 that is filled with Thermite.

[Newtons Bit]

No Max you have the burden of proof incorrect. You need to show us 1 that is filled with Thermite.

I'd actually settle for seeing pictures of two columns (post collapse) that didn't have cover plates over the access holes.

[pomeroo]

It would be fun.

I'd pulls his wings off.


* * *


But, Max: Blanchard works in the demolition industry. You are an ignorant poseur who makes up nonsense to slander innocent people.

[Max Photon]

I'd actually settle for seeing pictures of two columns (post collapse) that didn't have cover plates over the access holes.





SirFig,

We can't possibly be talking about the same thing.

GoFig.


* * *

[pomeroo]

I said those who parade his cr@ppy paper are morons.

Blanchard is simply wrong.


* * *


Ah, but people who have actually read his paper disagree. Remember, unlike you, Blanchard knows something about demolition.

When Apathoid destroyed your fantasy about remote-controlled 757s and 767s, you lied and pretended to have read his paper. You didn't--if you made an attempt to read it, you weren't able to comprehend it.

Again, why should a megalomaniacal phony be able to disprove the conclusions of an expert in his field?

[T.A.M.]

Max:

I did not see anywhere in that post, a reference to why they only used enough Thermite to WEAKEN the steel, as opposed to using enough to cut the steel, which would insure the success of their sekrit plan.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

I received this e-mail from Blanchard last night:

"Just for yucks, ask him how the thermite/shock tubes utilize gravity sideways so that beams can be cut, and can affect the hundreds of beams required to cause sufficient failure. He's got a better argument saying his lasers simply cut the beams...at least that COULD happen in future-fantasyland."


Let us note that Blanchard asks in the OP several questions that Max refuses to respond to.

[T.A.M.]

MAx has stated the thermite did not cut the steel, but only "weakened" it. As to why the ebil conspirators took such a chance is beyond me.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Actually, I am electromagnetic oscillations in spacetime.
* * *
yes, and your oscillating lies about 9/11 in disrespect to all the other electromagnetic oscillations who can not speak to you due to 9/11. Why not go find some people who lost people on 9/11 and pedal these lies to them?

Someone how makes up lies about 9/11. No proof, just makes it up. Thanks for showing me how to be so disrespectful to others. Good job thermite person who makes up lies about 9/11. Thanks for showing me how to be a disrespectful. Go tell your friends and family you have do not it; made up lies and not give any care about those who were killed on 9/11. What is your goal? To be disrespectful and make up lies like Dylan Avery, Fetzer, Jones, and the rest of 9/11 truth?

[Jonnyclueless]

I think the other problem with the CD claims is that even in 2001 CDs were on their way out in favor of mp3 technology. I think perhaps the question should be, were the toweres brought down by mp3. BUt even that seems sill since both a CD or an mp3 loud enough to take the towers down would be heard by everyone there. Even if the government controlled media edited the CD or mp3 out of the video footage and used a delay, it still wouldn't account for the people who were actually there. I think maybe we should look for quotes of eyewitnesses hearing a CD or mp3.

[pomeroo]

MAx has stated the thermite did not cut the steel, but only "weakened" it. As to why the ebil conspirators took such a chance is beyond me.

TAM:)


One of the many problems with Max's fantasies is that thermite is not used to "weaken" steel. Max knows absolutely nothing about the use of thermite.

[Max Photon]

* * *


I see we've established contact with Mr. Blanchard.

I have some other commitments to attend to, but I look forward to addressing the issues he struggles with in the OP.


Max

* * *

[Arus808]

* * *


I see we've established contact with Mr. Blanchard.

I have some other commitments to attend to, but I look forward to addressing the issues he struggles with in the OP.


Max

* * *


coming from someone with no demolition experience, i believe, YOU"RE the one with issues here, not Blanchard.


why did you gloss over my request that you present your claims to refute blanchard and support it with evidence?

[pomeroo]

coming from someone with no demolition experience, i believe, YOU"RE the one with issues here, not Blanchard.


why did you gloss over my request that you present your claims to refute blanchard and support it with evidence?


The biggest obstacle for Max to surmount is the total absence of evidence for the use of thermite on 9/11/01. Unlike Max, Blanchard and other demolition experts are capable of recognizing thermite. They can tell when it has been used and when it hasn't. Max has no expertise in the filed. He is content to fabricate nonsense and slander innocent people.

[Hokulele]

Why on earth would they only do this to WTC 1 and 2? Wouldn't this imply that there are other buildings where this, um, unique construction technique has been used? I would love to see any evidence of any existing building, or any building currently under construction (Freedom Tower?) where this is/has been done. Meh, what a load of cow-patties.

[JMarshall]

why did you gloss over my request that you present your claims to refute blanchard and support it with evidence?

He can't provide evidence. Plain and simple. Max has a little understanding of the whole circumstance and the things he claims in his theories, but doesn't have any practical, or expertize in them. With the knowledge he does have, and the end result (Of course the towers came down) he has cobbled together something that looks good on paper, unless you have any practical knowledge, at which point it fails.

Even with my demolition and explosives knowledge, couldn't even come close to refuting Blachard's paper, in fact he is now my new hero! I have much to learn, in comparison with him...

[Arus808]

well, the closest i ever got to something "explosive" was rigging up cherrybombs to my gi-joe dolls while growing up


and minor sfx work to simulate being shot for short movies I did in high-school and college (working in the blood dye packs was cool)

[Max Photon]

Max:

I did not see anywhere in that post, a reference to why they only used enough Thermite to WEAKEN the steel, as opposed to using enough to cut the steel, which would insure the success of their sekrit plan.

TAM:)


Sorry TAM, now I get your question.

Why did they only used enough Thermite to WEAKEN the steel, as opposed to using enough to cut the steel?

Answer:

Because melting/slicing/cutting steel at 1536 C takes way, Way, WAY more energy than merely heating steel to its critical temperature - a bit below 625 C - to weaken it, as the "fires" are claimed by NIST to have done.

Brent can tell you:

Cool demolition planners use the least amount of catalyst possible.


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

I pointed out at SLC long ago that the kooks often claim that the steel was in convenient 30-foot segments. But if you buy that, you've got to claim that each column was cut over 40 times. Multiply that by the 290 or so columns and you can see that over 10,000 separate cuts were required.





Being the one bringing forth a model - MAX-MIHOP - I feel it is my responsibility to reach out to people of all speeds.


Brainster - heck, everyone with a brainsters - please from this day forward eliminate "cutting" from your cortex.

You are fighting ghosts from the past.


Thermite was used to heat-weaken a simple majority of box columns at impact floors on WTC2 to induce collapse.

As Bazant et. al. have pointed out, once the tower gets moving, total collapse is the strong strange attractor.


Columns were not "cut into convenient 30' lengths".

Core columns were found in their pre-fabricated 3-storey, 36' lengths because the core columns broke apart at the weld planes.

The core columns broke apart at the weld planes from forces from the collapse - not from any supplementary catalysts.

(However, thermite may have been used to heat the connections between core columns and horizontal steel members, to weaken the steel, to - in effect - partially unshore the core columns.)

I have a thread that discusses this topic:

How were WTC core columns separated at the weld planes? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=96473)



Anyone at JREF who continues to babble about cutting or melting steel is either deliberately generating noise, or is a complete idiot.

(Come to think of it, there is an inordinant number of noisy idiots.)


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

There is zero, zip, zilch, evidence of thermite. Thermite is the #3 top idiotic idea of the WTC demise and the most pathetic idea pushed with no evidence to consider since people who took care of me died on 9/11!! (nuke #1 stupid idea, beam weapon #2, but tied with the nuke)

This false information is an assault on me! To state this garbage talk of thermite is not even funny. I expect someone to look in the eyes, imagine the thousands of eyes of the dead who you spit on with this idiotic, pathetic idea of thermite! Thermite leaves evidence, you have zero evidence of thermite and persist at pathetically pushing an idea that can't even happen except in people's minds who make up pathetic lies about 9/11! You make up lies about 9/11 and disrespect those who died on 9/11 by not being correct and not having any evidence!

So as you post your themite insanity, just think about each person falling as the buildings failed from fire; and here you are dreaming up insane ideas about 9/11, making fun of lives lost. Real good zero evidence man. Max Photo, makes fun of 9/11 with pathetic thermite lies. Cool Max, you have spewed this crap for a while, continue and confirm to me your inability to care about facts and evidence and push your insane lie of thermite; you have company in other liars from 9/11 truth.

The people of 9/11 truth and you are pathetic since you can not support your lies with facts and evidence related to the events of 9/11. Idiotic ideas and lies are spewing from you after most the world figured out 9/11 6 years ago. Pathetic. I can see UBL laughing at the sad and pathetic ideas he sees you 9/11 truth liars publishing.

Your continued talk of thermite and the other BS you spew is sick junk about 9/11. Feel real proud of yourself for pushing on of the most insane ideas on 9/11 and disrespecting others. Why do people like you make up lies after 6 years about 9/11?



Witness the Tyranny of the Model...



* * *

[JamesB]

Anyone at JREF who continues to babble about cutting or melting steel is either deliberately generating noise, or is a complete idiot.


Max

* * *

Well I would have to agree with you that the people pushing this, Jones, Ryan, Griffin et al are complete idiots.

[A W Smith]

Max you fail at thermodynamics. You cannot "heat weaken" steel fast enough. The steel will cool too fast in a limited thermite ignition. Unless you cut it or melt it outright the remaining steel Will conduct heat away from the thermite source. Look at the perimeter box columns in any wreckage picture. every box column end cap is intact. The bolts are what broke being the weakest link. Max we also see that your attempting to cloak you blatant ignorance with humor but it ain't working.

[T.A.M.]

Sorry TAM, now I get your question.

Why did they only used enough Thermite to WEAKEN the steel, as opposed to using enough to cut the steel?

Answer:

Because melting/slicing/cutting steel at 1536 C takes way, Way, WAY more energy than merely heating steel to its critical temperature - a bit below 625 C - to weaken it, as the "fires" are claimed by NIST to have done.

Brent can tell you:

Cool demolition planners use the least amount of catalyst possible.


Max

* * *

Very weak argument IMO. You are talking about an alleged EXTREMELY powerful and wealthy group of people. (A) They could afford, and allegedly had the resources to place as much Thermite within as needed, and (B) the risk of failure goes up dramatically wrt insuring collapse, if you only WEAKEN the steel, versus CUTTING right through it.

I do not buy the argument.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Anyone at JREF who continues to babble about cutting or melting steel is either deliberately generating noise, or is a complete idiot.

(Come to think of it, there is an inordinant number of noisy idiots.)


Max

* * *

Be nice Max. I for one am neither making noise, nor an idiot.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Max you fail at thermodynamics. You cannot "heat weaken" steel fast enough. The steel will cool too fast in a limited thermite ignition. Unless you cut it or melt it outright the remaining steel Will conduct heat away from the thermite source. Look at the perimeter box columns in any wreckage picture. every box column end cap is intact. The bolts are what broke being the weakest link. Max we also see that your attempting to cloak you blatant ignorance with humor but it ain't working.

Exactly. You would have to time the weakening of the steel for the exact moment that the rest of the CD (with conventional explosives) occured, a narrow window for sure. Even then, as you said, it would likely not work.

TAM:)

[uruk]

* * *

NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel. Elsewhere you have cited an ounce of thermite was needed to heat one pound of steel to 625C. How many pounds of steel were in the column joint MAX? How much thermite would have been needed to the amount of damage you suggest? Could you have controled the amount so that it would not have concentrated in one area so that no hot spots developed where the thermite would burn through?

Blanchard also sees it as next to impossible to devise a way to hold the thermite against the steel.

Perhaps if he understood the design of the towers, or thought about the design for five seconds, he would have seen that thermite could have easily been planted in "natural hiddy-holes" inside perimeter box columns, spandrel splice gaps, and at the "rectangular tube" formed where two floor truss top chords juxtapose at floor truss seats. Do you know how much work that would have entaled? The drywall that had to be cut through, the flooring material, the cutting and welding in the plenum areas? And all this unnoticed and un reported by the survivors?

{snip}
As far as evidence of thermite is concerned, Blanchard knows - as everyone knows - that no fire affected perimeter panels from WTC2 were even collected or examined. So there is no way Blanchard can claim that there was no evidence of thermite use in or on these panels. Well duh. the fire damge was most prevalent in the floor support structures and core columns.
And you keep forgeting that the perimiter columns were inspected by FEMA, NIST, and FBI as the material was carted to the dump sites. Do I need to link you to all the PDFs and websites again?

[Apollo20]

People have asked what's wrong with Blanchard's paper.

I would say a lot!

Take his assertion #2 about the buildings falling into their own footprint.

Blanchard's comment is a joke:

"A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95 % of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter"

About 95%?

Was Blanchard's paper peer reviewed?

Obviously not!

Blanchard is good mind you... he can look at photos of the collapse and say without hesitation that "clearly" about 95 % of the mass landed OUTSIDE the building's footprint!

I can't tell if it is 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%. Why?

Because dust can be very deceptive with regards to the mass it represents. I thought a demolition expert would know this.

Blanchard should get together with Ace Baker to discuss this since they appear to see eye to eye on this one. Blown to kingdom come indeed!

And you know that other "experts" such as those at Risk Management Solutions Inc, a company that specializes in assessing damage to buildings from acts of terrorism issued a report on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and reached entirely different conclusions. So why would I believe Blanchard?

[lapman]

Apollo, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see to huge issues with Max's theory. To use thermite to heat the columns would require that the apparatus would have to survive the initial impact and fuel-air explosion and have a continuous tight seal against the column so the liquid iron does not flow out of it allowing the steel to cool.

[pomeroo]

Brent Blanchard is not rising to the bait. Here is his response to Max's typically uninformed comment:

(Max wrote)
"NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel."


(Blanchard wrote)
That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.

Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy....

[uruk]

People have asked what's wrong with Blanchard's paper.

I would say a lot!

Take his assertion #2 about the buildings falling into their own footprint.

Blanchard's comment is a joke:

"A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95 % of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter"

About 95%?

Was Blanchard's paper peer reviewed?

Obviously not!

Blanchard is good mind you... he can look at photos of the collapse and say without hesitation that "clearly" about 95 % of the mass landed OUTSIDE the building's footprint!

I can't tell if it is 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%. Why?

Because dust can be very deceptive with regards to the mass it represents. I thought a demolition expert would know this.

Blanchard should get together with Ace Baker to discuss this since they appear to see eye to eye on this one. Blown to kingdom come indeed!

And you know that other "experts" such as those at Risk Management Solutions Inc, a company that specializes in assessing damage to buildings from acts of terrorism issued a report on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and reached entirely different conclusions. So why would I believe Blanchard?

Well maybe he was using hindsight because the it becomes easier to tell in the aerial pictures after the dust cleared that a large majority of the debris of WTC 1&2 fell outside the thier footprint.

[uruk]

{snip}

(Blanchard wrote)
That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.

Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy....

AHA!!!! there we have it from the horses mouth. It was hundreds of genetically engineered and trained rats that gnawed on the steel to weaken the columns.

See?. It's so MILDEC that it's obvious!!!!!!!

[rwguinn]

Well maybe he was using hindsight because the it becomes easier to tell in the aerial pictures after the dust cleared that a large majority of the debris of WTC 1&2 fell outside the thier footprint.

Since when is it considered "Hindsight" to use data collected after an event to describe the event?

Collecting all the available data and not jumping to conclusions until its all in is Science.

[afinemadness]

Since when is it considered "Hindsight" to use data collected after an event to describe the event?

Collecting all the available data and not jumping to conclusions until its all in is Science.

It is not science. Science can only be found in online videos and though deciphering quotes taken out of context. The one caveat is there are certain people that can decide what is science just by looking at it and coming to a conclusion that has no basis in fact. These individuals have the ability to decide what is science and what is not

[rwguinn]

It is not science. Science can only be found in online videos and though deciphering quotes taken out of context. The one caveat is there are certain people that can decide what is science just by looking at it and coming to a conclusion that has no basis in fact. These individuals have the ability to decide what is science and what is not
Da*n.
Back to remedial NWO classes for me.;)
I guess I was getting too big for my britches, again.

Sorry.
:blush:

[pomeroo]

Let's not lose sight of the FACT that Max has never provided a shred of evidence suggesting that thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. Max, it must be remembered, is an aging hippie with no background in science or demolition. People who work in the demolition industry found no evidence of thermite. Why should uninformed fabrications trump professional expertise?

[pomeroo]

People have asked what's wrong with Blanchard's paper.

I would say a lot!

Take his assertion #2 about the buildings falling into their own footprint.

Blanchard's comment is a joke:

"A review of all photographic images clearly show about 95 % of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter"

About 95%?

Was Blanchard's paper peer reviewed?

Obviously not!

Blanchard is good mind you... he can look at photos of the collapse and say without hesitation that "clearly" about 95 % of the mass landed OUTSIDE the building's footprint!

I can't tell if it is 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%. Why?

Because dust can be very deceptive with regards to the mass it represents. I thought a demolition expert would know this.

Blanchard should get together with Ace Baker to discuss this since they appear to see eye to eye on this one. Blown to kingdom come indeed!

And you know that other "experts" such as those at Risk Management Solutions Inc, a company that specializes in assessing damage to buildings from acts of terrorism issued a report on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 and reached entirely different conclusions. So why would I believe Blanchard?


I'm a little curious as to the source of your ability to ridicule Blanchard's expertise in the demolition industry. His job is to photograph and assess demolitions. Why do you suppose he knows so little about his profession?

[Brainache]

AHA!!!! there we have it from the horses mouth. It was hundreds of genetically engineered and trained rats that gnawed on the steel to weaken the columns.

See?. It's so MILDEC that it's obvious!!!!!!!

And don't forget Blanchard wrote: "I'm part of the big conspiracy". What more proof do you sheeple need??!1!!!1!!!

[Max Photon]

* * *

Gentle readers, note the following:

The OP tries to bail ol' Maxwell C. by parading Brent Blanchard's paper as "proof" that MAX-MIHOP is meritless.

I was asked (well, baited) to explain why Blanchard's paper does not wipe MAX-MIHOP off the face of the universe.


I wrote:

"NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel."

[Blanchard only discusses using thermite to CUT steel. That ain't MAX-MIHOP.]


Blanchard responded:

"That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.

"Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy...."



Did I miss something?

Was my response unreasonable? (I thought is was clear and direct.)


I think Blanchard just lost.


Max

* * *

[A W Smith]

* * *

Gentle readers, note the following:

The OP tries to bail ol' Maxwell C. by parading Brent Blanchard's paper as "proof" that MAX-MIHOP is meritless.

I was asked (well, baited) to explain why Blanchard's paper does not wipe MAX-MIHOP off the face of the universe.


I wrote:

"NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel."




Blanchard responded:

"That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.

"Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy...."



Did I miss something?

Was my response unreasonable? (I thought is was clear and direct.)


[B]I think Blanchard just lost.


Max

* * *
No you just lost. Your response did not even qualify for a reply.
:dl:

[Max Photon]

* * *


I had a fun little insight this morning.

I figured out a better ignition mechanism for the thermite fuse!

(Thermite fuse is simpler than thermite-dusted shock-tube, and as I think about the problem, the tubing being hollow is a needless constraint - the tube could be packed. So...thermite fuse.)

The ignition mechanism of the thermite fuse is the impact of the jet.

Voilà!


MAX-MIHOP - Simplified



The aluminum from the jets was used to create improvised aluminum-water explosions. The functions were to knock off SFRM, and to create visually-spectacular explosions.

The jet that struck WTC2 crashed through a net of thermite-fuse placed between the perimeter-panel steel, and the aluminum cladding. The net had a system of delays.

Thermite-fuse lit pre-planted thermite - wrapped in black plastic and paper - at floor truss gusset seats.

The thermite did not melt the gusset seats or bottom chords, but rather caused the visco-elastic dampers to burn, causing the floor membrane to sag, which added a catenary force to the perimeter columns. (Evidence: The seven one-minute smoke releases from WTC2.)

Thermite in perimeter panel box columns heated the columns, and caused visco-elastic creep. (Evidence: the metal fire at the bolt-access-hole of Column 301 / 81.)

And as we all know "...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 2)


ETA: Here you can watch column 301 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1636836934749296112&q=south+tower+buckles&total=7&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0) - remember, the one with the 10-minute metal fire right by the bolt-access-hole? - bow inward and fail, thereby initiating the collapse of WTC2.

Remember, as Mr. Blanchard said, the key to understanding everything at Ground Zero is where the tower failed.

Well that's where (and how).


Max-Minimized

* * *

[pomeroo]

* * *


I had a fun little insight this morning.

I figured out a better ignition mechanism for the thermite fuse!

(Thermite fuse is simpler than thermite-dusted shock-tube, and as I think about the problem, the tubing being hollow is a needless constraint - the tube could be packed. So...thermite fuse.)

The ignition mechanism of the thermite fuse is the impact of the jet.

Voilà!


MAX-MIHOP - Simplified

The aluminum from the jets was used to create improvised aluminum-water explosions. The functions were to knock off SFRM, and to create visually-spectacular explosions.
The jet that struck WTC2 crashed through a net of thermite-fuse placed between the perimeter-panel steel, and the aluminum cladding. The net had a system of delays.
Thermite-fuse lit pre-planted thermite - wrapped in black plastic and paper - at floor truss gusset seats.
The thermite did not melt the gusset seats or bottom chordss, but rather caused the visco-elastic dampers to burn, causing the floor membrane to sag, which added a catenary force to the perimeter columns. (Evidence: The seven one-minute smoke releases from WTC2.)
Thermite in perimeter panel box columns heated the columns, and caused visco-elastic creep. (Evidence: the metal fire at the bolt-access-hole of Column 301 / 81.)
And as we all know "...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 2)

Max-Minimized

* * *


You have a little surprise coming.

[A W Smith]

* * *


I had a fun little insight this morning.

I figured out a better ignition mechanism for the thermite fuse!

* * *


Yes we know, Some of us always knew. You're just in it for the fun aren't you? Its just a plausibility ego boost game for you. Who can come closest to creating a plausible conspiracy theory. It has nothing to do with respecting the victims. Nothing to do with making a world safer, Nothing to do with exposing building practices which can become safer. Just someone who needs to double space the lines of every post just to differentiate themselves. So......Sad,

[JimBenArm]

AHA!!!! there we have it from the horses mouth. It was hundreds of genetically engineered and trained rats that gnawed on the steel to weaken the columns.

See?. It's so MILDEC that it's obvious!!!!!!!
<--My avatar denies any responsibility for the collapse. He was at Acme Labs that entire night.

[Max Photon]

Apollo, correct me if I'm wrong, but I see to huge issues with Max's theory. To use thermite to heat the columns would require that the apparatus would have to survive the initial impact and fuel-air explosion and have a continuous tight seal against the column so the liquid iron does not flow out of it allowing the steel to cool.


Lapman,

You are a bit confused.

Thermite was placed INSIDE perimeter box columns. There is no "apparatus" - the column itself is the thermite container.

Remember, just a dab'll do ya!

We are not cutting steel, juuuussssst heating it.

Cool.


Max

* * *

[beachnut]

Lapman,

You are a bit confused.

Thermite was placed INSIDE perimeter box columns. There is no "apparatus" - the column itself is the thermite container.

Remember, just a dab'll do ya!

We are not cutting steel, juuuussssst heating it.

Cool.


Max

* * *
A most pathetic theory, really poor in light of the lives lost to make fun of people who died by making a stupid theory with zero evidence. Since the impact and fire destroyed the WTC your theory becomes very crazy.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

<--My avatar denies any responsibility for the collapse. He was at Acme Labs that entire night.

NOT that easy we know he is a suspect!

Actually we know that he could have remotely detonated the thermite cutter melter charges the information has been known for years on how to do it using Sono Chemical reactions induced by Ultra Sound from mice.

ultrasound vocalizations emitted by isolated mouse pups and pairs of adult males and females have been digitally recorded and examined.

http://http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=JASMAN000114000006003412000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yesd:D

Cutter charges of thermite could have been designed and placed the trick is not to use hot iron to cut the steel but to use an Oxidant like that in an oxygen generator, in conjunction with high pressure super heated steam heated by a thermite charge.
That way the steel is the actual fuel and the mechanism is cooled and does not clog or fall off as the beam is cut!
You can actually pipe it into the water supply of the buildings to generate the steam with nothing more than an ordinary refrigerator ice maker water line tap.

OK now you know how I did it I built a device that could do it, but it is not that easy!
Applying a sufficient steam and means of oxidizing the steel is all you need, just make sure you can keep fresh steel exposed to the stream with out the build up of Fe304 on the surface and the cutting is easy and similar to that of an Oxyacetylene torch.
I however do not believe such devices are practical because of associated risks they are hard to handle and unsafe at best to to possible hydrogen generation!
The hydrogen is not a problem when cutting it actually helps heat the steel, but it is a significant danger during Ignition, the devices have a tendency to go Ka boom with a very loud Ka boom.

Franks AP Idea would work if it was not for the AP being so easy to ignite, however it would work for different reasons than I first expected AP is great in rockets because it produces a lot of hot gasses quickly, that would tend to make it not want to stick to the trusses, and columns, so a little AP and the fire proofing would be gone in a short time leaving the metal exposed to the fires heat.

As for Max's Ideas on thermite weakening of the structure it would work if you knew exactly where and when the planes were going to impact! And you could prevent Shock waves associated with and transmitted by the steel at impact though the structure from causing thermite sparking. Thermite sparking at the wrong time and in the wrong place and the building goes over in an uncontrolled manor.
One spark in one charge is all it takes to throw the buildings way off target for collapse down the center, that is the problem with Dr. Jone's and Max's Thermite Ideas thermite sparking is likely in any charges of thermite do to the friction of the grains in the Charges as they are excited by shock waves from the impacts.

PS. do not let this information out to the truth movement do not want them going nuts over this! :rolleyes:

[Max Photon]

[snip]

As for Max's Ideas on thermite weakening of the structure it would work if you knew exactly where and when the planes were going to impact! And you could prevent Shock waves associated with and transmitted by the steel at impact though the structure from causing thermite sparking. Thermite sparking at the wrong time and in the wrong place and the building goes over in an uncontrolled manor.

One spark in one charge is all it takes to throw the buildings way off target for collapse down the center, that is the problem with Dr. Jone's and Max's Thermite Ideas thermite sparking is likely in any charges of thermite do to the friction of the grains in the Charges as they are excited by shock waves from the impacts.




CC,

Would some kind of a binder - PlayDough, gum or resin, linseed oil - help reduce the chance of early ignition from friction?


Max

* * *

[Jonnyclueless]

Lapman,

You are a bit confused.

Thermite was placed INSIDE perimeter box columns. There is no "apparatus" - the column itself is the thermite container.

Remember, just a dab'll do ya!

We are not cutting steel, juuuussssst heating it.

Cool.


Max

* * *

:wackybiglaugh: :monlaugh: :tskaboom: :jaw: :crazy: :alc: :dl: :pigsfly :alien011:

[Crazy Chainsaw]

CC,

Would some kind of a binder - PlayDough, gum or resin, linseed oil - help reduce the chance of early ignition from friction?


Max

* * *

Binders only worsen the problem the beams move vibrate, and the Shock waves cause friction at all interfaces.
The shock waves actually break the binders apart and as they fracture they create even more fiction along the surface than the particles moving individually.
Fluids however tend to reduce the friction but lead to other problems, Binders are practically useless against the intense shock waves generated in the impacts.
It is just not a good environment for he survival of thermite or thermate. One spark of one aluminum particle with one particle of iron oxide and the whole charge goes up.
hhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/65-39b.htmttp://

THERMITE REACTION
5 A thermite spark, or thermite reaction, occurs when there is an impact between a light metal, or an alloy of that metal (e.g. an aluminium coupling), and rust on the surface of steel, or when some aluminium is smeared on a rusty steel object and that object impacts a hard surface, e.g. a concrete kerbstone. The thermite reaction is a chemical reaction in which an oxide is reduced by a reactive metal. Thermite sparks are more energetic than frictional sparks and therefore have a higher incendivity when they occur in a flammable environment.
Placing thermite in the column would be the dumbest move, I can think of Max that is were the shock waves would be strongest.
Why not just add a small amount of nano thermite compound to the insulation same effect and once the temperature of the fires reached a certain level the small pieces of aluminum would ignite destroying the insulation.
Or just add freaking air Bubbles under the insulation by injecting air into it, the expansion of the air bubbles would remove the insulation damaging the structure, just as Nist's fire proofing model suggests.
Any thing that compromises the buildings insulation brings the buildings down even with less damage to the core than Nist predicts there is simply to much gravitational PE. Once it gains momentum downward there is no way of stopping it.

I have thought of Hundreds of ways I could have done it, and tested each for merit on how it could have been done.

The easy simplest ways are more likely to work without raising suspicions and getting caught.

PS. my services are available to the New World Order for a price to design and engineer a perfect false flag operation for next time that will not be as complicated as 9/11/2001 and will be even less likely to be detected.
All I ask for compensation is my own little independent country, 30 trillion in gold and a never ending life time supply of young sports Illustrated swim suit models to date.
I guarantee a perfect, simple, undetectable Job, just for that little bit of compensation.;)

[pomeroo]

Binders only worsen the problem the beams move vibrate, and the Shock waves cause friction at all interfaces.
The shock waves actually break the binders apart and as they fracture they create even more fiction along the surface than the particles moving individually.
Fluids however tend to reduce the friction but lead to other problems, Binders are practically useless against the intense shock waves generated in the impacts.
It is just not a good environment for he survival of thermite or thermate. One spark of one aluminum particle with one particle of iron oxide and the whole charge goes up.
hhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/65-39b.htmttp://


Placing thermite in the column would be the dumbest move, I can think of Max that is were the shock waves would be strongest.
Why not just add a small amount of nano thermite compound to the insulation same effect and once the temperature of the fires reached a certain level the small pieces of aluminum would ignite destroying the insulation.
Or just add freaking air Bubbles under the insulation by injecting air into it, the expansion of the air bubbles would remove the insulation damaging the structure, just as Nist's fire proofing model suggests.
Any thing that compromises the buildings insulation brings the buildings down even with less damage to the core than Nist predicts there is simply to much gravitational PE. Once it gains momentum downward there is no way of stopping it.

I have thought of Hundreds of ways I could have done it, and tested each for merit on how it could have been done.

The easy simplest ways are more likely to work without raising suspicions and getting caught.

PS. my services are available to the New World Order for a price to design and engineer a perfect false flag operation for next time that will not be as complicated as 9/11/2001 and will be even less likely to be detected.
All I ask for compensation is my own little independent country, 30 trillion in gold and a never ending life time supply of young sports Illustrated swim suit models to date.
I guarantee a perfect, simple, undetectable Job, just for that little bit of compensation.;)



Chainsaw, you're taking unfair advantage of Max: You know what you're talking about. Blanchard ridiculed Max's idiocy about using lasers to ignite thermite when a responsible crackpot would have had the lasers do the job thermite is unsuited for.

[uruk]

Since when is it considered "Hindsight" to use data collected after an event to describe the event?

Collecting all the available data and not jumping to conclusions until its all in is Science.

I don't find anything wrong with that. But Apollo seems to call into question Blanchard's observation of the video / pictures.
I was trying to point out that Apollo's assement was pointless because you can clearly see the majority of the debris did in fact fall outside the buildings foot print from the pictures taken after the collapse.

[uruk]

<--My avatar denies any responsibility for the collapse. He was at Acme Labs that entire night.

How can we be sure that it wasn't a hologram or a guinepig painted like a trained geneticaly engineered steel chewing rat?

Hey I'm just asking questions.

[ElMondoHummus]

<--My avatar denies any responsibility for the collapse. He was at Acme Labs that entire night.


Liar. I distinctly heard him ask Pinky if he was pondering what he wa... er... uh... by "he", I mean Pinky... no, wait, "Brain"... damn, pronoun trouble... stream of consciousness writing has unpredictable linguistic pitfalls...

[rwguinn]

I don't find anything wrong with that. But Apollo seems to call into question Blanchard's observation of the video / pictures.
I was trying to point out that Apollo's assement was pointless because you can clearly see the majority of the debris did in fact fall outside the buildings foot print from the pictures taken after the collapse.

Sorry--it is/was a semantics issue. Science is about deliberation and finding out, not relying on incomplete data and initial impressions. Hindsight, to me, is second-guessing after the fact. "I shoulda..."
I was making a point to Dr. Greening--you base your hypothesis on the data after due deliberation, not simply on initial reports and impressions. many folks often have a problem with deliberation and data gathering, especially if they have an axe to grind.

[Max Photon]

I don't find anything wrong with that. But Apollo seems to call into question Blanchard's observation of the video / pictures.
I was trying to point out that Apollo's assement was pointless because you can clearly see the majority of the debris did in fact fall outside the buildings foot print from the pictures taken after the collapse.





Interesting. Interesting.


You are aware that the Bazantine models assume at least 80% of the debris falls within the footprint, or the building no fall down.

And NIST kind of - you know - builds on this failure analysis.


Meanwhile, Blanchard says 95% fell outside the footprint.


(I think it's cute Blanchard is at odds with Bazant and NIST.) :)


Uruk, maybe you AND Blanchard AND Ace Baker can get together.

Perhaps call yourselves The Smithereens (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3910637455405089192&q=the+smithereens+blood+and+roses&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1).


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

You don't suppose Blanchard and his colleagues in the demolition industry forgot to consider that maybe thermite was used not to cut, but to heat-weaken the steel?

Nah. That'd be too stupid, and these guys are pros (hence the name, Protec).


That thermite was used as an incendiary is not far-fetched.

After all, in the Bazant/NIST world, fires heated a simple majority of perimeter columns, and - once collapse was initiated - the energy in the towers finished the job.

MAX-MIHOP says those fires were deliberately catalyzed using thermite.


Come to think of it, I understand Blanchard's paper is from an explosives perspective, and there is no reason to expect demolition experts to imagine using thermite as an incendiary.

So I'd say his company's reputation is sound as a nut.


Cheers!

Max

ETA: Time to go ride some cusp catastrophes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmvjnbODqnM)!

* * *

[Arus808]

considering that THERMITE is NEVER used in demolitions, and BLanchard knows what he is talking about, you have yet to provide EVIDENCE of your claims.

Stop playing this game, Max, its really pathetic.

[BenBurch]

...Max, it must be remembered, is an aging hippie ...

Hey! I strenuously resemble that remark!

[ktesibios]

Max, it must be remembered, is an aging hippie Hey! I strenuously resemble that remark!

And I have it in my title, as any fool can plainly see.:D

[Jonnyclueless]

I've been using thermite to heat my soup. NOOO I am nawt trying to cut my soup, just heat it up.

[Pookster]

considering that THERMITE is NEVER used in demolitions, and BLanchard knows what he is talking about, you have yet to provide EVIDENCE of your claims.

Stop playing this game, Max, its really pathetic.

Isn't it interesting how the "first time in history" argument isn't invoked by twoofers in situations like this?

[beachnut]

Binders only worsen the problem the beams move vibrate, and the Shock waves cause friction at all interfaces.
The shock waves actually break the binders apart and as they fracture they create even more fiction along the surface than the particles moving individually.
Fluids however tend to reduce the friction but lead to other problems, Binders are practically useless against the intense shock waves generated in the impacts.
It is just not a good environment for he survival of thermite or thermate. One spark of one aluminum particle with one particle of iron oxide and the whole charge goes up.
hhttp://www.hse.gov.uk/lau/lacs/65-39b.htmttp://


Placing thermite in the column would be the dumbest move, I can think of Max that is were the shock waves would be strongest.
Why not just add a small amount of nano thermite compound to the insulation same effect and once the temperature of the fires reached a certain level the small pieces of aluminum would ignite destroying the insulation.
Or just add freaking air Bubbles under the insulation by injecting air into it, the expansion of the air bubbles would remove the insulation damaging the structure, just as Nist's fire proofing model suggests.
Any thing that compromises the buildings insulation brings the buildings down even with less damage to the core than Nist predicts there is simply to much gravitational PE. Once it gains momentum downward there is no way of stopping it.

I have thought of Hundreds of ways I could have done it, and tested each for merit on how it could have been done.

The easy simplest ways are more likely to work without raising suspicions and getting caught.

PS. my services are available to the New World Order for a price to design and engineer a perfect false flag operation for next time that will not be as complicated as 9/11/2001 and will be even less likely to be detected.
All I ask for compensation is my own little independent country, 30 trillion in gold and a never ending life time supply of young sports Illustrated swim suit models to date.
I guarantee a perfect, simple, undetectable Job, just for that little bit of compensation.;)
How is Max taking the feeding of his pathetic crap. I could care less how much it works or even it he says the 3 inches of wall board was thermite. His ideas are pathetic for reasons other than if they could work.

[beachnut]

* * *

You don't suppose Blanchard and his colleagues in the demolition industry forgot to consider that maybe thermite was used not to cut, but to heat-weaken the steel?

Nah. That'd be too stupid, and these guys are pros (hence the name, Protec).


That thermite was used as an incendiary is not far-fetched.

After all, in the Bazant/NIST world, fires heated a simple majority of perimeter columns, and - once collapse was initiated - the energy in the towers finished the job.

MAX-MIHOP says those fires were deliberately catalyzed using thermite.


Come to think of it, I understand Blanchard's paper is from an explosives perspective, and there is no reason to expect demolition experts to imagine using thermite as an incendiary.

So I'd say his company's reputation is sound as a nut.


Cheers!

Max

ETA: Time to go ride some cusp catastrophes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmvjnbODqnM)!

* * *
Your ideas are still are with the top pathetic crap on 9/11. Who did your pathetic scheme you can barely summarize? Who did it? What super secret evidence are you hiding in your lock box?

[Max Photon]

Your ideas are still are with the top pathetic crap on 9/11. Who did your pathetic scheme you can barely summarize? Who did it? What super secret evidence are you hiding in your lock box?


Beached Nut,

The super secret I am hiding in my lock box is that there is no secret -
they are hi din gev er ythi ngin p lainv iew.

M ax

* * *

[Pookster]

Beached Nut,

The super secret I am hiding in my lock box is that there is no secret -
they are hi din gev er ythi ngin p lainv iew.

M ax

* * *

That same argument can be used for Santa's Workshop at the North Pole too.

Just sayin'.

[uruk]

Interesting. Interesting.


You are aware that the Bazantine models assume at least 80% of the debris falls within the footprint, or the building no fall down.

{snip}

I'm sorry was Blanchard talking about WTC 7 or WTC 1&2?

I was refering to WTC 1&2. FEMA and others put the majority of the building debris well outside the footprint. And you can see it for yourself in the aerial photos.

Can you point me to the info you are refering to?

[uruk]

Beached Nut,

The super secret I am hiding in my lock box is that there is no secret -
they are hi din gev er ythi ngin p lainv iew.

M ax

* * *

Well we're happy for you, But What is your "evidence"? Specifically.
Just a good beddy bye story or do you have something solid?

[Max Photon]

I'm sorry was Blanchard talking about WTC 7 or WTC 1&2?

I was refering to WTC 1&2. FEMA and others put the majority of the building debris well outside the footprint. And you can see it for yourself in the aerial photos.

Can you point me to the info you are refering to?




Uruk,

Blanchard's comments on WTC7 are rather poultry.

He is talking about WTCs 1 & 2.

Here is the...paper...being discussed:


A Subcritical Analysis ... (http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf)


Max

* * *

[lapman]

Lapman,

You are a bit confused.

Thermite was placed INSIDE perimeter box columns. There is no "apparatus" - the column itself is the thermite container.

Remember, just a dab'll do ya!

We are not cutting steel, juuuussssst heating it.

Cool.


Max

* * *
Oh how wrong can you be. The thermite would have burned through the steel at a single point and flowed out and the heating would have been limited and dissipated in minutes before it would have been able to do what you claim. Nice try. Be sure to collect your consolation prize at the door.

[Max Photon]

Well we're happy for you, But What is your "evidence"? Specifically.
Just a good beddy bye story or do you have something solid?





NIST NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C


In fact, just a couple of evenings ago I started:

BedTime Stories, with Max Photon (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3152327#post3152327)

(Reading to children is important to their development.)


This is Brent's favorite story because not only does it tell the saga of WTC2 from impact to collapse-initiation, but also because it focuses on where the tower fails, and as Brent always has to shout out at juice time:

"When discussing similarities between the towers' collapse and an explosive demolition, many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It is not "how" or "when" the buildings failed, but "where" they failed. That answer holds the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero."


Where WTC2 failed is Column 301 at the 81st floor. (http://video.google.com/url?docid=1636836934749296112&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=50&q=south%2Btower%2Bbuckles&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D Frc2hRL4lfA&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D1636836934749296112% 26q%3Dsouth%2Btower%2Bbuckles%26total%3D7%26start% 3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plindex% 3D0&usg=AL29H237PtdrqRu9dpOB6QoFAKPPncTOFw)

(Don't forget: a 10-minute metal fire - consistent with burning aluminum or thermite - was observed by NIST right at two of Column 301's bolt-access-holes.)


I think you'd really enjoy 15A9C, Uruk.

I hope you join the reading group.


Max

* * *

[uk_dave]

I thought thermite was used to weld steel together.

Ho hum.

[Brainache]

Uruk,

Blanchard's comments on WTC7 are rather poultry.

...

Max

* * *

Are you calling him a chicken?

[Max Photon]

I thought thermite was used to weld steel together.





Viscous Thinking

A poem by Max Photon

Big idiots have little idiots
that feed on their lucidity.
Little idiots have tiny idiots,
and so on to stupidity.



Now that we've had our infusion of culture for the day, let's tackle the toughies:


Thermite is used to weld steel together.

Welding is just one of thermite's many uses.


You, UK Dave, are correct!

(By the way, where are you from?)


Max

* * *

[Apollo20]

URUK:

When you say that photos show that the MAJORITY of the debris fell outside the footprints of WTC 1 & 2, I would agree with you....

But Blanchard says it was 95 %.

Where I come from, 95 % means NEARLY ALL, not just the majority, which means OVER 50 %.

Blanchard offers no proof, calculation or evidence for his 95 %.

Sounds like a number he pulled out of a hat!

That is, its complete BS!!!

Take a look at the LIDAR data of the WTC recorded on September 19, 2001. It shows three major rubble piles - one each for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The LIDAR shows that the heights of the WTC 1 & 2 piles were about 25 meters. But this is deceptive because we know that there was at least partial collapse of the basement areas.... this is also evident in the LIDAR maps in the areas surrounding the WTC 1 & 2 rubble piles. Thus the effective height of the piles is probably closer to 35 meters.

If we treat each debris pile as a square pyramid we have a volume of about 48,000 m^3 within the footprint of each tower. Let's be generous and say 50% of this is void space, then we have 24,000 m^3 of solid rubblized material in the footprint of each tower. Let's say that the rubble pile was 50% concrete and 50% steel, so we have an average density of the solids in the rubble pile of about 4500 kg/m^3. Hence the mass of material WITHIN THE FOOTPRINTS of each tower was about 1 x 10^8 kg. With a tower mass of 4 x 10^8 we then have 25 % of the tower's mass in each footprint or 75 % OUTSIDE the footprint.

I challenge Brent Blanchard to show me how he arrived at his 95 % number or why my 75 % number is way off!

[Pookster]

... I challenge Brent Blanchard to show me how he arrived at his 95 % number or why my 75 % number is way off!

I'd be interested in seeing this too. I personally don't see how it could be 95% either given that the basement areas in the footprints contained a significant amount of debris.

I tend to suspect it was just a guesstimate based on what he knew at the time. It be good if he could clear this up.

[Jonnyclueless]

Thermite isn't reall used for welding, it's used to create slag which can then be poured between joints to hold them together. So it's not used to actually weld steel together.

[uruk]

Uruk,

Blanchard's comments on WTC7 are rather poultry.

He is talking about WTCs 1 & 2.

Here is the...paper...being discussed:


A Subcritical Analysis ... (http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf)


Max

* * *

Great just so we get that point straight.

But I was asking you where does the NIST say that the computer models show that 80% of the debris has to fall within WTC 1&2 foot print. I haven't been able to find it. Can you show where it is since you refrenced it?

[uruk]

NIST NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C


In fact, just a couple of evenings ago I started:

{snip}
I think you'd really enjoy 15A9C, Uruk.

I hope you join the reading group.


Max

* * *

I've been reading it.
I hope that you will one day you'll join the thinking group.

[uruk]

URUK:

When you say that photos show that the MAJORITY of the debris fell outside the footprints of WTC 1 & 2, I would agree with you....

But Blanchard says it was 95 %.

Where I come from, 95 % means NEARLY ALL, not just the majority, which means OVER 50 %.

Blanchard offers no proof, calculation or evidence for his 95 %.

Sounds like a number he pulled out of a hat!

That is, its complete BS!!!

Take a look at the LIDAR data of the WTC recorded on September 19, 2001. It shows three major rubble piles - one each for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The LIDAR shows that the heights of the WTC 1 & 2 piles were about 25 meters. But this is deceptive because we know that there was at least partial collapse of the basement areas.... this is also evident in the LIDAR maps in the areas surrounding the WTC 1 & 2 rubble piles. Thus the effective height of the piles is probably closer to 35 meters.

If we treat each debris pile as a square pyramid we have a volume of about 48,000 m^3 within the footprint of each tower. Let's be generous and say 50% of this is void space, then we have 24,000 m^3 of solid rubblized material in the footprint of each tower. Let's say that the rubble pile was 50% concrete and 50% steel, so we have an average density of the solids in the rubble pile of about 4500 kg/m^3. Hence the mass of material WITHIN THE FOOTPRINTS of each tower was about 1 x 10^8 kg. With a tower mass of 4 x 10^8 we then have 25 % of the tower's mass in each footprint or 75 % OUTSIDE the footprint.

I challenge Brent Blanchard to show me how he arrived at his 95 % number or why my 75 % number is way off!

My guess is that Blanchard made a rough estimate based on visual observations, since he does not provide any calculations.

But even by your own estimate three quarters of the buildings structure came to rest outside thier footprints

The fact that most of the debris was outside of the footprint was the point of the question Blanchard's paper was addressing.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Blanchard Doesn't Buy The Thermite Myth

(And he doesn't need to, because Max Photon provides it for free.)


This thread is not meant to stand alone. It can be integrated into any thread started by Max Photon.

Brent Blanchard was posed the following leading question:

How did people who work in the demolition industry satisfied themselves that no thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks.


Blanchard replied:

"How could it have been?


How was it released or applied onto the columns in a manner to cause failure?

How were its degenerative qualities calculated to ensure simultaneous failure of dozens if not hundreds of columns?

And why weren't there telltale characteristics found on even a single beam retrieved from the site (poor photos of demo teams burning columns with torches notwithstanding)?

Once again, no sound hypothesis thought out end-to-end, and no evidence found whatsoever.

Works for me... "

BB


Max Photon takes out his BB gun, aims, and fires:

Not explosives - incendiaries.


1.) How was thermite released or applied onto the columns in a manner to cause failure?

Thermite was simply poured into perimeter panel box columns through their bolt-access-holes. The function of the thermite was to heat the column splices to the steel's critical temperature to weaken the columns.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3030626#post3030626) I discuss how the target temperature was selected.

Similarly, thermite was poured into spandrel splice gaps.

In other locations, such as gusset seats, thermite was wrapped in black plastic and paper.


2.) How were its degenerative qualities calculated to ensure simultaneous failure of dozens if not hundreds of columns?

NIST FAQ #12 provides the answer:

"...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)."

The thermite was linked together and ignited by thermite fuse.

The thermite fuse was ignited by jet impact.


3.) And why weren't there telltale characteristics found on even a single beam retrieved from the site (poor photos of demo teams burning columns with torches notwithstanding)?

Thermite was only applied to a very small subset of steel members.

Bazant et. AL. showed that only a simple majority of perimeter columns at the impact floors needed to experience creep for the whole tower to fail.

Furthermore - and I am now starting to suspect Brent doesn't know this - no fire affected panels were collected or examined from WTC2, so there is no way it can be claimed that there was no evidence of thermite used to heat-weaken the steel.

And did any of Brent's pro-pals look INSIDE fire-affected box columns, or are these guys all trapped in the fixed thinking of THERMITE=CUTTING, and thus looked for or expected to see melted steel?

If Brent knew what he were talking about, he would have been able to give examples of evidence of heating by thermite, as Max did here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3023036#post3023036):

From that post...

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf) >
Chapter 6: Fire Exposure of the Structural Elements >
NIST pages 217-277

Pay special attention to recovered steel members:

C-115
C-131
K-1
K-2
K-16
N-8

These steel members are the evidence of heating and corrosion from thermite.

Pay extra-special attention to the section:

Section 6.3.4: Unique Cases of Damage Possibly Related to Elevated Temperature Exposure

- - -

Does Mr. Blanchard have any more questions?


I do:

Does anyone really believe that Brent Blanchard examined the possibility of controlled-demolition with an open mind, or did he approach his "critical analysis" with a heavy bias against it?

Consider his response to my reply to why I thought his paper did not dismiss MAX-MIHOP:

Max wrote:

"NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel."


Blanchard responded:

"That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.

"Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy...."


No Brent, just another number in a pseudo-chain-gang.

Max

* * *

[uruk]

* * *

{snip}
Thermite was simply poured into perimeter panel box columns through their bolt-access-holes. The function of the thermite was to heat the column splices to the steel's critical temperature to weaken the columns. Since the bolt access holes were welded shut the agents planting the thermite would have to cut the plate then pour the thermite in. then to conceal the tapmering they would have had to weld them shut again right? Don't you think re-welding the acces plates shut would have ignited the thermite that was just poured in?
Because if they glued or taped or left them open that would have shown up during the inspection of the steel that was performend my FEMA, NIST, and the FBI, not to mention the NYC Museaum.

{snip}

[pomeroo]

* * *

Blanchard Doesn't Buy The Thermite Myth

(And he doesn't need to, because Max Photon provides it for free.)


This thread is not meant to stand alone. It can be integrated into any thread started by Max Photon.

Brent Blanchard was posed the following leading question:

How did people who work in the demolition industry satisfied themselves that no thermite was used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks.


Blanchard replied:

"How could it have been?

How was it released or applied onto the columns in a manner to cause failure?
How were its degenerative qualities calculated to ensure simultaneous failure of dozens if not hundreds of columns?
And why weren't there telltale characteristics found on even a single beam retrieved from the site (poor photos of demo teams burning columns with torches notwithstanding)?Once again, no sound hypothesis thought out end-to-end, and no evidence found whatsoever.

Works for me... "

BB


Max Photon takes out his BB gun, aims, and fires:

Not explosives - incendiaries.


1.) How was thermite released or applied onto the columns in a manner to cause failure?

Thermite was simply poured into perimeter panel box columns through their bolt-access-holes. The function of the thermite was to heat the column splices to the steel's critical temperature to weaken the columns.

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3030626#post3030626) I discuss how the target temperature was selected.

Similarly, thermite was poured into spandrel splice gaps.

In other locations, such as gusset seats, thermite was wrapped in black plastic and paper.


2.) How were its degenerative qualities calculated to ensure simultaneous failure of dozens if not hundreds of columns?

NIST FAQ #12 provides the answer:

"...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)."

The thermite was linked together and ignited by thermite fuse.

The thermite fuse was ignited by jet impact.


3.) And why weren't there telltale characteristics found on even a single beam retrieved from the site (poor photos of demo teams burning columns with torches notwithstanding)?

Thermite was only applied to a very small subset of steel members.

Bazant et. AL. showed that only a simple majority of perimeter columns at the impact floors needed to experience creep for the whole tower to fail.

Furthermore - and I am now starting to suspect Brent doesn't know this - no fire affected panels were collected or examined from WTC2, so there is no way it can be claimed that there was no evidence of thermite used to heat-weaken the steel.

And did any of Brent's pro-pals look INSIDE fire-affected box columns, or are these guys all trapped in the fixed thinking of THERMITE=CUTTING, and thus looked for or expected to see melted steel?

If Brent knew what he were talking about, he would have been able to give examples of evidence of heating by thermite, as Max did here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3023036#post3023036):

From that post...

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C: Damage and Failure Modes of Structural Steel Components (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3Cchaps.pdf) >
Chapter 6: Fire Exposure of the Structural Elements >
NIST pages 217-277

Pay special attention to recovered steel members:

C-115
C-131
K-1
K-2
K-16
N-8These steel members are the evidence of heating and corrosion from thermite.

Pay extra-special attention to the section:

Section 6.3.4: Unique Cases of Damage Possibly Related to Elevated Temperature Exposure

- - -

Does Mr. Blanchard have any more questions?


I do:

Does anyone really believe that Brent Blanchard examined the possibility of controlled-demolition with an open mind, or did he approach his "critical analysis" with a heavy bias against it?

Consider his response to my reply to why I thought his paper did not dismiss MAX-MIHOP:

Max wrote:

"NOWHERE in Blanchard's paper does he address the use of thermite as a catalyst to merely heat the steel at impact floors to about 625 C - less than half steel's melting temperature - to HEAT-WEAKEN the steel."


Blanchard responded:

"That's correct. And NOWHERE in our paper did we address the possibility of hundreds of small rodents brainwashed for years in a top-secret underground government lab in New Mexico being released into the towers and gnawing at the steel until the columns finally failed. There are probably a few other theories we left out as well.

"Sorry Ron, I just don't have time for these idiots. And that in itself surely indicates I'm part of the Big Conspiracy...."


No Brent, just another number in a pseudo-chain-gang.

Max

* * *


But Max, you're just a know-nothing who makes up nonsense to slander innocent people. Blanchard works in the demolition industry and understands the uses of thermite.

[lapman]

How were those "thermite fuses" linked together Max?

[Max Photon]

Since the bolt access holes were welded shut the agents planting the thermite would have to cut the plate then pour the thermite in. then to conceal the tapmering they would have had to weld them shut again right? Don't you think re-welding the acces plates shut would have ignited the thermite that was just poured in?
Because if they glued or taped or left them open that would have shown up during the inspection of the steel that was performend my FEMA, NIST, and the FBI, not to mention the NYC Museaum.

{snip}



Newtons Bit made the same argument.

Why are you claiming the bolt-access-holes were welded shut?

Can you show me any photos - either from construction, or from the debris field or recovery effort - that show a perimeter column bolt-access-hole welded shut?

It should be easy; the Figster implied you can't find a photo that isn't brimming with bolt-access-holes welded shut.


You guys are simply guessing.

And you guessed wrong.


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

How were those "thermite fuses" linked together Max?




Planted thermite can serve as a one-to-one, or a one-to-many splice.


I suppose two fuses could also physically come together to form a Y, either by:

grafting (as one would rose stems),
simply taping a section together and counting on the merged section burning together.


Max

* * *

[Sparky]

Planted thermite can serve as a one-to-one, or a one-to-many splice.


I suppose two fuses could also physically come together to form a Y, either by:

grafting (as one would rose stems),
simply taping a section together and counting on the merged section burning together.


Max

* * *

But how would you hide the fuses?

[BenBurch]

But how would you hide the fuses?

This is Transparent thermite made from Transparent Aluminum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_aluminum).

[Crazy Chainsaw]

URUK:

When you say that photos show that the MAJORITY of the debris fell outside the footprints of WTC 1 & 2, I would agree with you....

But Blanchard says it was 95 %.

Where I come from, 95 % means NEARLY ALL, not just the majority, which means OVER 50 %.

Blanchard offers no proof, calculation or evidence for his 95 %.

Sounds like a number he pulled out of a hat!

That is, its complete BS!!!

Take a look at the LIDAR data of the WTC recorded on September 19, 2001. It shows three major rubble piles - one each for WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7. The LIDAR shows that the heights of the WTC 1 & 2 piles were about 25 meters. But this is deceptive because we know that there was at least partial collapse of the basement areas.... this is also evident in the LIDAR maps in the areas surrounding the WTC 1 & 2 rubble piles. Thus the effective height of the piles is probably closer to 35 meters.

If we treat each debris pile as a square pyramid we have a volume of about 48,000 m^3 within the footprint of each tower. Let's be generous and say 50% of this is void space, then we have 24,000 m^3 of solid rubblized material in the footprint of each tower. Let's say that the rubble pile was 50% concrete and 50% steel, so we have an average density of the solids in the rubble pile of about 4500 kg/m^3. Hence the mass of material WITHIN THE FOOTPRINTS of each tower was about 1 x 10^8 kg. With a tower mass of 4 x 10^8 we then have 25 % of the tower's mass in each footprint or 75 % OUTSIDE the footprint.

I challenge Brent Blanchard to show me how he arrived at his 95 % number or why my 75 % number is way off!

I agree with you one hundred percent on this Frank the claim of 95% is unquantifiable without the math or evidence to back it up!

Brent Blanchard must either back up the claim or retract it, it is not good Science to make false Claims.

[JMarshall]

Do you realize how regular fuses work? Normally you use two types of fuses, the first is Det-Cord, the second is Shock-tube, if you take into count time-fuse, then there is three total.

With all three there is a pretty constant burn rate, that can be sustained along the whole length of the piece, not to mention it isn't affected by gravity.

But with your "thermite-tube" the burn rate is not constant, and is affected by gravity. When thermite ignites it's byproduct of molten metal is drawn down by gravity, so the only way such a device could ever work would be if it was ignited from the top and allowed to burn down...

The next problem is the so called aluminum/water reactions. Aluminum oxidizes quickly, and as such can react to water to create both exothermic heat and hydrogen. But what you fail to realize is since it oxidizes quickly it develops a thin skin of aluminum oxide, that keeps it from reacting further. To make sure the reactions continue you have to supplant the aluminum oxide by creating a aluminum/gallium alloy. The problem with this is that when gallium is alloyed with aluminum it changes the crystal structure of aluminum, making it brittle, and therefore not suitable for construction of aircraft.

[uruk]

Newtons Bit made the same argument.

Why are you claiming the bolt-access-holes were welded shut?

Can you show me any photos - either from construction, or from the debris field or recovery effort - that show a perimeter column bolt-access-hole welded shut?

It should be easy; the Figster implied you can't find a photo that isn't brimming with bolt-access-holes welded shut.


You guys are simply guessing.

And you guessed wrong.


Max

* * *

Well, it would seem that you are right. The access holes were not covered.

But then why would you need heat weaken a bolted connection? Wouldn't the bolts just snap on thier own from the excessive lateral stresses? there were only four bolts

[uruk]

BTW Max, can you show me where the NIST says that the computer models show that 80% of the debris has to fall within WTC 1&2 foot print.
I haven't been able to find it. Can you show where it is since you refrenced it?

[Max Photon]

BTW Max, can you show me where the NIST says that the computer models show that 80% of the debris has to fall within WTC 1&2 foot print.
I haven't been able to find it. Can you show where it is since you refrenced it?


Uruk,

It is not explicit.

Bazant's models have 80% or more of the debris within the footprint.

The NIST reports are influenced by Bazant's input, and later, defended with it.


Max

* * *

[uruk]

Uruk,

It is not explicit.

Bazant's models have 80% or more of the debris within the footprint.

The NIST reports are influenced by Bazant's input, and later, defended with it.


Max

* * *

Again. Can you show me or point me to the report where Bazant's model says 80% of the debri fell with in the WTC 1&2 footprint. Bazant's paper for instance.

And don't you think that the fact that the model does not quite match up with reality mean that the computer model was an approximation?

And don't you think that NIST was more interested in the collapse initiation rather than where the debris ultimately winds up?

[Newtons Bit]

Newtons Bit made the same argument.

Why are you claiming the bolt-access-holes were welded shut?

Can you show me any photos - either from construction, or from the debris field or recovery effort - that show a perimeter column bolt-access-hole welded shut?

It should be easy; the Figster implied you can't find a photo that isn't brimming with bolt-access-holes welded shut.


You guys are simply guessing.

And you guessed wrong.


Max

* * *

Please find me some photos that show at least two columns without cover-plates over the access holes. Modern codes pretty much require those to be cover-plated, and with good reason. This building was designed in the 60's however, so it wouldn't be completely out of character for them not to cover-plated, but I'd need to see it to believe it.

[afinemadness]

Newtons Bit made the same argument.

Why are you claiming the bolt-access-holes were welded shut?

Can you show me any photos - either from construction, or from the debris field or recovery effort - that show a perimeter column bolt-access-hole welded shut?

It should be easy; the Figster implied you can't find a photo that isn't brimming with bolt-access-holes welded shut.


You guys are simply guessing.

And you guessed wrong.


Max

* * *

Once again you have the burden of proof backwards. Since you are the one making the claim that thermite was there you need to prove it was no one needs to prove the negative.

[Max Photon]

Please find me some photos that show at least two columns without cover-plates over the access holes. Modern codes pretty much require those to be cover-plated, and with good reason. This building was designed in the 60's however, so it wouldn't be completely out of character for them not to cover-plated, but I'd need to see it to believe it.






Once again you have the burden of proof backwards. Since you are the one making the claim that thermite was there you need to prove it was[.] no one needs to prove the negative.





Sorry kiddies, this is WTC Tower Design 101.

I don't need to prove the basic building design.

I think this speaks volumes about how...retro...you guys really are.


Uruk, since you were able to look at debris photos and satisfy yourself that perimeter column bolt-access-holes were NOT welded shut, we might need to move you up a grade.


* * *

[Gravy]

Present the photos and videos that show external columns being attacked by thermite, Max.

I await your evidence.

[BenBurch]

Present the photos and videos that show external columns being attacked by thermite, Max.

I await your evidence.

Max doesn't want to present evidence.

If he did, he knows we would only analyze it and find out what it really is.

And then he couldn't have his fun with us here where he pretends to be the only one on the planet who sees The Big Picture without evidence but with loads of taunting.

I guess what I'm saying is, Max, drop the pretense. You seem to be a nice enough guy. Hang around. Read. Listen. Learn. Other people, even those not your intellectual equals can teach you things you never knew, but you have to open you ears and your mind. And who knows, maybe along the way maybe you'll learn something to actually let you prove your case?

[JimBenArm]

Max doesn't want to present evidence.

If he did, he knows we would only analyze it and find out what it really is.

And then he couldn't have his fun with us here where he pretends to be the only one on the planet who sees The Big Picture without evidence but with loads of taunting.

I guess what I'm saying is, Max, drop the pretense. You seem to be a nice enough guy. Hang around. Read. Listen. Learn. Other people, even those not your intellectual equals can teach you things you never knew, but you have to open you ears and your mind. And who knows, maybe along the way maybe you'll learn something to actually let you prove your case?
Max can't drop the act or the pretense. He'd have nothing left.

[Max Photon]

* * *


Guys, please!

Mr. Blanchard is the honored guest of this thread (well, his reputation is, anyway).

Let's listen to what he has to say:

One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion
was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an
extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of
the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way
for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic
images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of
the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter.


A third-grader, without even looking up from his GameBoy, asks, "Pancakes?"

"No silly," says a second-grader, "Not pancakes, pancake. Remember what Mrs. Schmecklebender taught us in first grade? NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse. (to the tune of Frere Jacques)

Oh yeah. Right... Can I have syrup too?


* * *

[uk_dave]

A third-grader, without even looking up from his GameBoy, asks, "Pancakes?"

"No silly," says a second-grader, "Not pancakes, pancake. Remember what Mrs. Schmecklebender taught us in first grade? NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse. (to the tune of Frere Jacques)

Oh yeah. Right... Can I have syrup too?


* * *

Oh Max, not that old chestnut again.

Tsk tsk tsk.

ok boys and girls, for the benefit of max, here's 'understanding NIST 101 - The Janet and John Version':

Once upon a time the humble people of the land set a challenge - "Please explain how our towers failed" they cried.

The goodly NIST (an assembly of skilled and expert people) did step forth and lo they explained that the structural failure of the towers was caused by failure of the perimeter columns pulled inwards by sagging floor trusses which had been weakened by fire.

The people were happy, for they had their answer. But one little boy kept jumping up and down saying "Look at me! Look at me!! I'm great, I am. I figured out how the towers failed!!! Look at me! Pleaaaase!!"

But the people didn't look at the little boy for he had nothing useful to add to the discussion.

But that didn't stop him, for he believed that the initiation of the structural failure was being presented as a description of the progression of the failure down to the ground. He was a very earnest little boy, but no one cared what he believed because everyone knew he was wrong.

The end.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Shhh.



ASSERTION #1
"The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn't. It's the "where."

When discussing similarities between the towers' collapse and an explosive demolition,
many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It
is not "how" or "when" the buildings failed, but "where" they failed. That answer holds
the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building
implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters
always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller
supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize
control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the
basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, "to get the
structure moving."


Brent, do you mean like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixwx19t2IMQ)?


* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *


More from Mr. Blanchard:


"...for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact
impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree
Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected
throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the
buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately
explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A
scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive
compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the
columns or simply burning off prior to detonation."


Mr. Blanchard,

Thermite in perimeter box columns could survive the cool 1100F (600C) fires no problemo. Thermite ignites at twice that temperature.

Also, I am sure you can see that thermite sitting snug-as-a-bug-in-a-rug at the bottom of a box column is not going to get dislodged.

As for placing the thermite in box columns...remember, the bolt-access-holes were not welded shut, and they were about 2/3rd of the way up a window (from the floor), so access was easy.

A net of thermite fuse was ignited by the jet's impact.


So, Mr. Blanchard, I believe there are more possibilities than you considered.

(Remember, big children admit their mistakes.)


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *


Brent's got up a head of steam now...


"There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution
around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a
prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to
initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as
"pre-burning", to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare
the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially
removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture,
plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc."


See how the poor lad is all tangled up with explosives and cutting.

Sad.

Brent, BRENT! Wake up! Nappy-time is over.

Thermite was used to heat-weaken WTC steel.

Cutting went the way of Mr. Blankie.


Also, what the $%^! is he talking about with perimeter load-bearing I-beams?

Could someone go shake him - roughly?

[Arus808]

max, nothing in your posts proves that blanchard "is confused". Really.

Blanchard - works in the deomolition business, consults with demolition experts; knows his stuff


You - expert in nothing. let alone demolition


So stop right now. YOu are seriously embarrassing yourself. If Jones and Griffin can't refute blanchard, what makes you think you can?


Stop with the lies.

[technoextreme]

I thought thermite was used to weld steel together.

Ho hum.
Explosives are too. I don't remember why but I saw it on the Discovery channel.
Max can't drop the act or the pretense. He'd have nothing left.
True. We're the excellent conductors to his electromagnetic waves.

[Max Photon]

* * *


Can we have some evidence now? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3164060#post3164060)

[technoextreme]

Thermite in perimeter box columns could survive the cool 1100F (600C) fires no problemo. Thermite ignites at twice that temperature.


Ahhh woo at it's best. Aluminum melts at 660C which means your thermite would go flowing all over the dam place effectively rendering MaxMop impossible. You can't have a thermite reaction if the almunimum leaks out.

[technoextreme]

Argg what did I just do.

[uk_dave]

Looking at your sig max, how did thermite 'cloak' the controlled demolition when your claim is that thermite was used to demolish the towers?

Also, you insist that thermite was used to 'heat weaken' the structure, which is basically the premise of the official account only instead of thermite we have jet fuel and office fires heat weakening exposed steel members until failure occured. Why is thermite even needed?

Seems to me you have a solution in search of a problem.

[Crungy]

A net of thermite fuse was ignited by the jet's impact.

* * *
Can we have some evidence now? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3164060#post3164060)

Could you please provide said evidence for your Stundie.

[pomeroo]

* * *


Guys, please!

Mr. Blanchard is the honored guest of this thread (well, his reputation is, anyway).

Let's listen to what he has to say:

One primary difference between these two collapses and a typical building implosion
was that the initial failures occurred very high up on the structures, which lead to an
extended-duration "pancake" effect down to the ground. With the weight and mass of
the upper sections forcing the floor trusses below rapidly downward, there was no way
for outer perimeter walls to fall in, so they had to fall out. A review of all photographic
images clearly show about 95% of falling debris being forced away from the footprint of
the structure, creating a giant "mushroom" effect around its perimeter.


A third-grader, without even looking up from his GameBoy, asks, "Pancakes?"

"No silly," says a second-grader, "Not pancakes, pancake. Remember what Mrs. Schmecklebender taught us in first grade? NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse. (to the tune of Frere Jacques)

Oh yeah. Right... Can I have syrup too?


* * *


Sorry, Max, as your puerile lies have been systematically refuted and you have been revealed as an ignorant poseur, you are growing increasingly desperate. We all know that NIST specifically rejected the "pancake theory of collapse." We also know that although NIST explained the collapse mechanism, the floors certainly did pancake.

Your remote-controlled planes theory was demolished. There was no thermite used at the WTC complex on the day of the jihadist attacks. Your fact-free performance has grown very tiresome.

[pomeroo]

* * *


Brent's got up a head of steam now...


"There are other problems with both scenarios: Given the consistent weight distribution
around the outer perimeter of each structure, one would have needed access to a
prohibitively large quantity of load-bearing I-beam columns to allow "cutter charges" to
initiate failure. Those columns would have needed extensive preparation, also known as
"pre-burning", to allow the explosives to perform their function. And in order to prepare
the columns you first had to be able to see the columns, which means at least partially
removing the outer-perimeter interior walls of all blast floors, including furniture,
plumbing and conduit lines, insulation, etc."


See how the poor lad is all tangled up with explosives and cutting.

Sad.

Brent, BRENT! Wake up! Nappy-time is over.

Thermite was used to heat-weaken WTC steel.

Cutting went the way of Mr. Blankie.


Also, what the $%^! is he talking about with perimeter load-bearing I-beams?

Could someone go shake him - roughly?



Thermite is not used to weaken steel. You've been caught lying again.

[Max Photon]

* * *

"All steels lose strength with increasing temperature. By 600 °C, most structural steels have lost more than half their strength. At intermediate temperatures the strength is independent of time, but above 500 °C, creep, or time-dependent deformation, further reduces the load-carrying capability..."


NIST Metallurgy Division Publications - NISTIR 7248

[Arus808]

and your point Max? you are proving our claims with every post you make. Fire can reach up to temperatures exceeding the half-way melting point of steel. NORMAL structural office fires have seen this done.

In fact, the recent fire that closed part of I5 here in California, and the tunnels, the engineers had to go into double check the STEEL Reinforcements to make sure they were stable.

[Good Lt]

See, here's the thing. Max BELIEVES 9-11 was an inside job.

So it's difficult to convince him otherwise. It's like trying to convince Christians that Jesus didn't exist.

And as such, it's pointless to try to guide him to facts, because he won't believe the facts when presented with them.

SOP for Troofers heavily invested in the woooooo woo.

[Max Photon]

and your point Max? you are proving our claims with every post you make. Fire can reach up to temperatures exceeding the half-way melting point of steel. NORMAL structural office fires have seen this done.

In fact, the recent fire that closed part of I5 here in California, and the tunnels, the engineers had to go into double check the STEEL Reinforcements to make sure they were stable.




The fires were catalyzed.

A serious arson investigation would have shown the fires were catalyzed with thermite.

(Meanwhile, everyone has the emotionally-potent oversimplification that if thermite were used, it was used for cutting or melting steel, rather than as an incendiary.


Arus808, how did you rule out that thermite was used as an incendiary?


* * *

[T.A.M.]

Max:

How did they rule out Magic Leprachaun Dust as an incendiary?

Sound silly, but you get my point.

As for the pancake issue, Blanchard was speaking to the collapse, where as NIST is referring to the initiation, and that they do not support the "Pancake Theory" for that...remember, they did not analyze the COLLAPSE.

As for burden of proof, clearly it is on those who are trying to provide an ALTERNATE to the presently held theory, which as of 2007 is the Official Story, so the burden is on you and other truth movement advocates.

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

Max:

How did they rule out Magic Leprachaun Dust as an incendiary?

Sound silly, but you get my point.

TAM:)





No TAM, I don't get your point at all. What you said is really stupid.

(Blanchard made a similar idiotic comment.)

Thermite can be used as an incendiary. That is a fact. Magic Leprechaun Dust is not an incendiary.

NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.

TAM, I ask you a direct question:

How did you rule out - for certain - that thermite catalyzed the fires?


Max

* * *

[BenBurch]

Magic Leprechaun Dust is just as real as your Thermite.

Unless you have a sample of it to show us?

[uk_dave]

NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.



Jet fuel, coupled with the inevitable risk of fire in a seriously damaged building (electrical fires).

No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.

[technoextreme]

The fires were catalyzed.

A serious arson investigation would have shown the fires were catalyzed with thermite.

(Meanwhile, everyone has the emotionally-potent oversimplification that if thermite were used, it was used for cutting or melting steel, rather than as an incendiary.


Arus808, how did you rule out that thermite was used as an incendiary?


* * *
World Trade Center 5. As I pointed out in another thread the same type of damage that happened in WTC 1/2/7 happened in 5. It may have remained standing but it was clearly documented that some of those beams buckled.

[BenBurch]

Jet fuel, coupled with the inevitable risk of fire in a seriously damaged building (electrical fires).

No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.

Which risk has gotten greater in the last 30 years with the proliferation of "shoebox" UPS systems under people's desks. Now you can pull the main breakers and still have electrical fires starting in the building.

[Max Photon]

Jet fuel, coupled with the inevitable risk of fire in a seriously damaged building (electrical fires).

No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.





...and so on to stupidity.



No need for thermite. No reason to test for it.

What was NIST trying to do: validate a pre-engineered narrative, or determine what initiated the collapse of the WTCs?

Fires played a role in the collapse of the WTCs. That requires an arson investigation. Arson investigations have thermite as part of the routine checklist. Hence, it would have been perfectly natural to consider thermite, and to test for it - such as by looking inside fire-affected perimeter box columns from WTC2.

Also, are you guys so dense that you can't see that your own twisted logic (a cusp catastrophe, actually) means that thermite could have been used with impunity, and never tested for, because - well - thermite couldn't have been used?

In other words, can you see how your own stupidity cloaks the fact that thermite was used as an incendiary?

It doesn't matter. Your blankets of darkness will never be able to stop your ever-shining friend,

Max Photon

(The non-stupid guy over there...yeah, the one with the rugged good looks.)


Hey, speaking of stupid, why doesn't someone ask old Brent Blanchard what the "telltale signs" are when thermite is used not to cut or melt steel - like Brent fantasizes about - but to heat it to about 600C ? If you read his paper, he makes it sound like the "telltale signs" are obvious to even a simpleton, and that he and his buddies - all pros, mind you - know to to tell if the box columns were heated with thermite from the inside to the critical temperature of the steel.

(As Apollo note, Brent's good...)




Moderators: Can we rename this thread:

The Brent Blanchard's Reputation Memorial Thread

(Heck, you might as well toss Protec's in there while you're at it.)


* * *

[technoextreme]

Max my man. My naive man. What happened to WTC 5?

[rwguinn]

Which risk has gotten greater in the last 30 years with the proliferation of "shoebox" UPS systems under people's desks. Now you can pull the main breakers and still have electrical fires starting in the building.

so you admit the circuit breakers were subjected to a controlled Demolition using C4 and Therm*te?

[Alt+F4]

As for burden of proof, clearly it is on those who are trying to provide an ALTERNATE to the presently held theory, which as of 2007 is the Official Story, so the burden is on you and other truth movement advocates.

So you mean you want them to explain how the evil thermite people were able to rig every floor of both towers with thermite (after all, they couldn't know for sure where the planes would impact).

So you mean you want them to explain how thousands of tons of thermite were planted in the towers by the evil thermite people without anyone becoming suspicious.

So you mean you want them to explain how they evil thermite people were able to delay the collapse of the towers for over an hour after the planes crashed.

So you mean you want them to explain how that over six years later none of the evil thermite people have the slightest scruple of morality about mass murder and associated astrocities....still.

[uk_dave]

Arson investigations have thermite as part of the routine checklist.

:hit:

You be sure to let us know when the shuttle lands.

[Alt+F4]

Fires played a role in the collapse of the WTCs. That requires an arson investigation. Arson investigations have thermite as part of the routine checklist. Hence, it would have been perfectly natural to consider thermite, and to test for it

Why didn't FDNY Fire Marshalls, who are trained arson investigators, demand a search for trace evidence of thermite? There were thousands of other firefighters on the scene that day and fighting the fires for weeks afterwards. Everyone of these experienced professionals has said that the fires were caused by jet fuel igniting debris (wood, plastic, cleaning fluids, leather, pleather, paper, aluminum, carpet, wall board, fabrics, conduit, wire/cable insulation, etc.)

[T.A.M.]

No TAM, I don't get your point at all. What you said is really stupid.

(Blanchard made a similar idiotic comment.)

Thermite can be used as an incendiary. That is a fact. Magic Leprechaun Dust is not an incendiary.

NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.

TAM, I ask you a direct question:

How did you rule out - for certain - that thermite catalyzed the fires?


Max

* * *

Well you do not have to be rude about it Max. 99% of what you spit out here would qualify as STUPID!

My POINT, was that it is ridiculous to expect NIST and others to RULE OUT FOR CERTAIN, or for that matter even ADDRESS, every single concievable cause of the collapse. There is NO EVIDENCE for the use of THERMITE, just as there is no evidence for Leprachauns, or Santa Claus. The fact that you didn't get my point doesn't say much for your READING COMPREHENSION.

Should we also investigate the link between Area 51, secret alien technology, and the collapses??

Leprachaun Dust, being MAGIC, could act as an incendiary, if that is what the Leprachaun wanted it to be used as.:D

TAM:)

[Apollo20]

If Blanchard is unable to explain his 95 % number, why should I believe ANYTHING he has to say?

He may be a "professional demolition guy", but right now I see him as a complete BSer with an axe to grind until he proves otherwise...

Come on Brent!

Explain the 95% or withdraw this claim!

[Jonnyclueless]

I think Max wrote the next years worth of stundies.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Max Photon's Public Challenge to Brent Blanchard


Is it possible that a significant portion of the jets' aluminum burned on impact in the presence of water and iron oxide, creating an improvised phreato-thermatic, or aluminum/hydrogen explosion?

Is it possible that thermite was placed inside of perimeter box columns through their bolt-access-holes?

Is it possible that thermite was placed in spandrel splice gaps?

Is it possible that thermite was placed in the "rectangular tube" that forms where two floor truss top chords juxtapose at the truss seat?

Is it possible that thermite was placed at gusset seats and burned the visco-elastic dampers?

Is it possible that the thermite was linked together by thermite fuse?

Is it possible that the thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impacts?

Is it possible that thermite in box columns spewed out hot material onto debris, creating NIST numerous variations of "fires on piles of debris"?

Did you ever even consider that thermite was used not to cut or melt WTC steel, but to heat it to its critical temperature?

How did you and your professional colleagues rule out that thermite was used to heat WTC steel to its critical temperature, to induce collapse?


ETA:

11.) What are the "telltale signs" of thermite used to heat steel to its critical temperature?


ETA2:

If Mr. Blanchard has any questions for me, I will be happy to answer them.


* * *

[pomeroo]

No TAM, I don't get your point at all. What you said is really stupid.

(Blanchard made a similar idiotic comment.)

Thermite can be used as an incendiary. That is a fact. Magic Leprechaun Dust is not an incendiary.

NIST says fires played a role in the collapses. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to ask what caused the fires.

TAM, I ask you a direct question:

How did you rule out - for certain - that thermite catalyzed the fires?


Max

* * *


Max, the people who work in the demolition industry found no EVIDENCE of thermite. Conceptual thought is foreign to you, so you won't grasp this point. But, it's worth repeating: the people who are capable of recognizing thermite DID NOT FIND ANY.

It is important to draw a distinction between demolition professionals, who know a great deal about thermite, and you, who knows NOTHING about thermite.

The FBI has described its investigation as the most extensive in the bureau's history. You dishonestly pretend that there was no investigation. Why do you continue to lie and how do you expect to fool people who know more and are much smarter than you?

[pomeroo]

* * *

Max Photon's Public Challenge to Brent Blanchard

Is it possible that a significant portion of the jets' aluminum burned on impact in the presence of water and iron oxide, creating an improvised phreato-thermatic, or aluminum/hydrogen explosion?
Is it possible that thermite was placed inside of perimeter box columns through their bolt-access-holes?
Is it possible that thermite was placed in spandrel splice gaps?
Is it possible that thermite was placed in the "rectangular tube" that forms where two floor truss top chords juxtapose at the truss seat?
Is it possible that thermite was placed at gusset seats and burned the visco-elastic dampers?
Is it possible that the thermite was linked together by thermite fuse?
Is it possible that the thermite fuse was ignited by the jets' impacts?
Is it possible that thermite in box columns spewed out hot material onto debris, creating NIST numerous variations of "fires on piles of debris"?
Did you ever even consider that thermite was used not to cut or melt WTC steel, but to heat it to its critical temperature?
How did you and your professional colleagues rule out that thermite was used to heat WTC steel to its critical temperature, to induce collapse?
ETA:

11.) What are the "telltale signs" of thermite used to heat steel to its critical temperature?


ETA2:

If Mr. Blanchard has any questions for me, I will be happy to answer them.


* * *


But, Max, Blanchard is a professional and you are a know-nothing. Your lies and fabrications do not rise to the level of "answers."

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

You offer Blanchard as an "expert witness" and yet he is unable to support his own claim that 95% of the debris fell outside the footprints of the towers.

I am an expert on particle size analysis - I did such studies on radioactive dust from CANDU reactors and published a paper on it in Radiochemica Acta - so I could say 95 % of the WTC dust was larger than 100 microns. Now if I said that, would you take my word for it... just because I say so?

[T.A.M.]

If Blanchard is unable to explain his 95 % number, why should I believe ANYTHING he has to say?

He may be a "professional demolition guy", but right now I see him as a complete BSer with an axe to grind until he proves otherwise...

Come on Brent!

Explain the 95% or withdraw this claim!

Pot meet Kettle.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Pomeroo:

You offer Blanchard as an "expert witness" and yet he is unable to support his own claim that 95% of the debris fell outside the footprints of the towers.

I am an expert on particle size analysis - I did such studies on radioactive dust from CANDU reactors and published a paper on it in Radiochemica Acta - so I could say 95 % of the WTC dust was larger than 100 microns. Now if I said that, would you take my word for it... just because I say so?

Usually, if someone is an expert in a field, I will take their word for it, if (A) they seem to be honest, and (B) if it seems to fit with what the majority of experts agree on the given point (if applicable).

Of course, with many of the "agenda supersedes the truth" truth movement, my approach may fall flat.

TAM:)

[technoextreme]

I am an expert on particle size analysis - I did such studies on radioactive dust from CANDU reactors and published a paper on it in Radiochemica Acta - so I could say 95 % of the WTC dust was larger than 100 microns. Now if I said that, would you take my word for it... just because I say so?
The problem is Apollo the evidence says that a siginificant amount of debris fell outside the footprints. WTC 3 is the best example because it got pounded into oblivion by the two towers.

[Apollo20]

But TAM, if someone asks a so-called expert to backup one of his claims .... and he apparently cannot...

Well, then what would you think?

[Max Photon]

* * *


I remember when I first read Blanchard's paper I was stunned. Brent was so...bullying.

But now I see Apollo - arguably JREFs most prominent scientist - has found better language:

"...a complete BSer with an axe to grind..."


Indeed.


Max

* * *

[technoextreme]

But TAM, if someone asks a so-called expert to backup one of his claims .... and he apparently cannot...

Well, then what would you think?
There is plenty of evidence that he is right though.

[Apollo20]

technoextreme:

"Pounded into oblivion"?

Do I hear another Blachard speaking?

Please take a look at the photos in Joel Meyerowitz's book "Aftermath"

The book has MANY shots of WTC 3 with a lot of debris on its roof, but quite a lot of the structure still standing.

Is that your idea of "pounded into oblivion"?

Just as you apparently take the words: "a significant amount" to mean "about 95%"?

[T.A.M.]

But TAM, if someone asks a so-called expert to backup one of his claims .... and he apparently cannot...

Well, then what would you think?

Well of course, in general, it would remove much of the weight of authority from his claim.

However (I know where you are going with this), it depends on whether the claim was made as fact, or whether it was a generalization to make a point.

For instance, if I say,

"Pdoherty acts like an idiot 95% of the time" do I really mean that exactl 19 out of 20 times he posts he acts like an idiot...of course not. What I mean is he has a tendency to act like a moron for the majority of his posts.

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

* * *


What's happening real time on this thread is both historic, and hilarious.

Brent Blanchard of Protec and ImplosionWorld is being used as "the demolition expert" that can obliterate MAX-MIHOP.

Yet what is being exposed?

Our demolition expert NEVER CONSIDERED THAT THERMITE WAS USED AS AN INCENDIARY TO HEAT STEEL TO ITS CRITICAL TEMPERATURE!

Opps-a-doodle. Bigum Mistakeum.

And to think that innocent Protec employees' benefits are tied to the company's reputation, which is tied to Brent's loose lips.

(Steady as she sinks.)


I predict we will hear nothing but silence from BB King of Demolition.


Max

* * *

[T.A.M.]

Blanchards paper was also not written as a scientific paper, nor has it claimed to be. The use of language in it is both communicative and laymen where needed. I am sure, should he need to, he could create a "scientific" sounding paper on some of the topics, but do not forget he is not a scientist like you Frank. He is an expert on Demolitions through his work experience, rather than educational training.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

But TAM, if someone asks a so-called expert to backup one of his claims .... and he apparently cannot...

Well, then what would you think?


Frank, I have asked Blanchard to explain how he arrived at his figure of 95%. We'll see if he responds.

[Max Photon]

* * *


This is a great thread.

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

Excellent!

And thank you.

[pomeroo]

* * *


This is a great thread.


No, it is a silly waste of time. Blanchard is a demolition professional and you are an agenda-driven know-nothing.

[Max Photon]

Blanchards paper was also not written as a scientific paper, nor has it claimed to be. The use of language in it is both communicative and laymen where needed. I am sure, should he need to, he could create a "scientific" sounding paper on some of the topics, but do not forget he is not a scientist like you Frank. He is an expert on Demolitions through his work experience, rather than educational training.

TAM:)



To be clear, Brent doesn't actually handle explosives, or demolish structures.

He's just kind of likes to...watch.


* * *

[Crazy Chainsaw]

* * *


More from Mr. Blanchard:


"...for explosives to be considered as a primary or supplemental catalyst, one
would have to accept that either, a) dozens of charges were placed on those exact
impact floors in advance and survived the violent initial explosions and 1100+ degree
Fahrenheit fires, or b) while the fires were burning, charges were installed undetected
throughout the impact floors and wired together, ostensibly by people hiding in the
buildings with boxes of explosives. There is no third choice that could adequately
explain explosives causing failure at the exact impact points.

The chemical properties of explosives and their reaction to heat render scenario A
scientifically impossible and scenario B remarkably unlikely, as we know of no explosive
compound that could withstand such force and/or heat without detaching from the
columns or simply burning off prior to detonation."


Mr. Blanchard,

Thermite in perimeter box columns could survive the cool 1100F (600C) fires no problemo. Thermite ignites at twice that temperature.

Also, I am sure you can see that thermite sitting snug-as-a-bug-in-a-rug at the bottom of a box column is not going to get dislodged.

As for placing the thermite in box columns...remember, the bolt-access-holes were not welded shut, and they were about 2/3rd of the way up a window (from the floor), so access was easy.

A net of thermite fuse was ignited by the jet's impact.


So, Mr. Blanchard, I believe there are more possibilities than you considered.

(Remember, big children admit their mistakes.)


Max

* * *

Just one problem Max that is not exactly true.

hhttp://www.edpsciences.org/articles/jp4/pdf/2002/07/jp4Pr7p105.pdfttp://

J. Phys. IV France 12 (2002) Pr7-105
DOI: 10.1051/jp4:20020272

Shock wave ignition of aluminum particles
H. Tao

Institute of Applied Physics and Computational Mathematics, P.O. Box 8009, Beijing 100088, China



Abstract
In this paper a criterion to predict ignition delay time is proposed that the aluminum particles can be ignited behind shock waves at the melting point of aluminum 931.7K and all of the aluminum of the particle is melted. The process of rising of temperature of particle is calculated. The ignition delay times versus Mach number of incident shock waves are obtained and compared with experimental results of aluminum particles ignition behind shock waves in oxygen with initial pressure 0.0025MPa. The results show that as particle temperature reaches the melting point of aluminum and all of the aluminum of the particle is melted behind shock waves, an aluminum particle can be ignited if gas flow behind shock waves is able to enlarge the cracks on oxide coating and cause the disruption of oxide of aluminum particle. The ignition delay time obtained by this criterion is best agreed with the experimental results as the Mach number is larger than 5.86 with the condition of experiments. If the cracks on oxide coating can not be disrupted before its temperature rises to oxide melting point, aluminum particle can only be ignited as its temperature reaches oxide melting point.

I have tested thermite and thermate myself Max I do not see how they would survive.

Particle to particle friction can ignite thermate or thermite, and there is no way to prevent it. It is known as thermite sparking.

PS. 931K is 658.7 ºC so your only ignites at twice that temperature is misleading and false.

I tested Dr. Greening's AP theories, and while AP itself does not burn, AP quickly supports oxidation, one of the basic tests I did was a short circuit test, and found that the plastic on electrical wires would ignite at temperatures that were ridiculously low an over heated lamp could cause an uncontrollable AP inferno without any planes.

Frank
I am sorry the AP theory is just not something that I can support I can not prevent no matter what I try a rapid and runaway Oxidation process from the ignition sources that might have been in the buildings.
It is just not a very well conceived method do to the risk of accidentally triggering the AP and setting off a massive fire before the planes even hit the buildings.

There are a couple of ways that a controlled take down of the towers could have been done but I am keeping those to myself for now, because one I do not want Cters repeating them, and two I do not want to loose my New World Order membership, and my shills pay.

With all the experimenting I have done I can not afford to eat anywhere but the NWO cafeteria, and I am still holding out for my first shills pay check.
I guess I should have invested in Loose Change Final Cut and then I would be in on the real big pay off. :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

* * *


I remember when I first read Blanchard's paper I was stunned. Brent was so...bullying.

But now I see Apollo - arguably JREFs most prominent scientist - has found better language:

"...a complete BSer with an axe to grind..."


Indeed.


Max

* * *

Yes it must have been stunning to watch someone so easily crush all of your paranoid Conspiracy Theories.

As for Frank, he is a good scientist, no doubt, and one of the few who has made himself known, but we have lots of scientists on the board.

I understand, though, with his distaste for the "JREFers" why you would like him so much.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

To be clear, Brent doesn't actually handle explosives, or demolish structures.

He's just kind of likes to...watch.


* * *

yes, that is true. None of my teachers in med school actually interviewed patients, or resuscitated anyone, or performed surgery either...damn those arm chair scientists...lol

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

* * *


This is a great thread.

Yes, it is and I'm still waiting for you to explain why trained arson investigators with the FDNY did not request any of the WTC steel to be inspected for thermite.

You were correct in a recent post when you said a search for thermite was on arson investigator's checklists. So why didn't FDNY Fire Marshals look for thermite reactions in the steel? After all, 343 members of their department were just killed. Were they ordered to not make such an inspection?

In recent years the use of thermite reactions as incendiary devices has gained popularity with arsonists because they are easily ignited with a match, burn quickly and can generate a very intense heat in excess of 4000 degrees.

When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern, and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue.

MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.

Linky: http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html

[T.A.M.]

oh but Alt, did you forget the memo the NWO sent out EXPLICITLY telling them to do a full investigation, EXCEPT, no searching for Thermite/Thermate under ANY circumstances.

TAM;)

[Max Photon]

Just one problem Max that is not exactly true.

hhttp://www.edpsciences.org/articles/jp4/pdf/2002/07/jp4Pr7p105.pdfttp://

I have tested thermite and thermate myself Max I do not see how they would survive.

Particle to particle friction can ignite thermate or thermite, and there is no way to prevent it. It is known as thermite sparking.

PS. 931K is 658.7 ºC so your only ignites at twice that temperature is misleading and false.




CC,

With all due respect, I am not convinced.

First, how can you be sure that the jet impacts generated a sufficient shock to ignite thermite via thermite sparking?

Also, are you positive that there is no binder or method to mitigate sparking?

And are you saying thermite ignites at 660C ? What about in the absence of critical shocks?


Max

* * *

[einsteen]

If Blanchard is unable to explain his 95 % number, why should I believe ANYTHING he has to say?

He may be a "professional demolition guy", but right now I see him as a complete BSer with an axe to grind until he proves otherwise...

Come on Brent!

Explain the 95% or withdraw this claim!

What do you expect from someone who (with his mate) has been called the Beavis and Butthead of the demoliton industry. And that "report" is a scrap of paper. Something like that will not pass peer-review.

[T.A.M.]

What do you expect from someone who (with his mate) has been called the Beavis and Butthead of the demoliton industry. And that "report" is a scrap of paper. Something like that will not pass peer-review.

1. Please state who HIS peers would be.
2. Got any proof that someone besides the dumb*** truthers have labeled him (and his mate) "Beavis and Butthead"?
3. Please, state what problems you personally have with the paper.

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

What do you expect from someone who (with his mate) has been called the Beavis and Butthead of the demoliton industry. And that "report" is a scrap of paper. Something like that will not pass peer-review.


Ah, but the catch is, who called them those names? C'mon, fess up. It was low-IQ twoofer (there is no other kind, so I'm being redundant), wasn't it?

We can assume that you found no errors in the Protec paper.

Update: Geez, TAM, I hadn't even finished my post and you said eveything I wanted to say.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

CC,

With all due respect, I am not convinced.

First, how can you be sure that the jet impacts generated a sufficient shock to ignite thermite via thermite sparking?

Because I did tests and a 767 going about 120 mph would create enough shock wave to cause thermite sparking in a charge. I think the planes at the world trade center were going some what faster than that.
I did drop hammer tests with a thermite charge on a steel beam in a diesel fuel fire and not in a fire the results pretty well eliminated thermite.

Also, are you positive that there is no binder or method to mitigate sparking?
Binders make it worse because they always fracture, and as they fracture the edges slip an slide past one another.

Fluids help, but the only fluid that seemed to work well was a flamable heavy oil, it protects them against the shock ways but explodes and triggers the thermite in the fire.
And are you saying thermite ignites at 660C ? What about in the absence of critical shocks?
Thermite will react any time the aluminum inside the Aluminum oxide outer shell is molten and the oxide is compromised.
The Aluminum will actually jump from inside the aluminum oxide shell to the iron oxide do to weak electromagnetic atraction.
That is what happens in a thermite spark.
Max

* * *

I just could not make them work Max and I tried everything I could think of, eventually there was just nothing else left to try.

PS. I even tried freezing the charges in a binder in liquid nitrogen. It protected them against the shock waves but would have been almost impossible to do inside the buildings.

Sorry Max Thermite-Thermates just do not work.

[T.A.M.]

don't worry, your work will not slow him down or convince him CC...

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

I just could not make them work Max and I tried everything I could think of, eventually there was just nothing else left to try.

PS. I even tried freezing the charges in a binder in liquid nitrogen. It protected them against the shock waves but would have been almost impossible to do inside the buildings.

Sorry Max Thermite-Thermates just do not work.



Ah, but Max has already found his escape route. All you've proved is that his thermite lunacy doesn't work in the real world. Why should he care about that?

[Max Photon]

* * *


Thanks CC.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

don't worry, your work will not slow him down or convince him CC...

TAM:)

I know, Max is Max, but then again people still call me nuts when I tell them that the same shock wave temperature phenomena caused the aluminum of he planes, the aluminum of the facade, and some iron dust from the structure to make the fireball in the building somewhat themorbaric in nature.
I not saying thermorbaric like in the weapons but thermobaric like in coal mine explosions and grain elevator blasts however as soon as I mention the word Thermobaric they take me for a nutty Cter.
I guess they do no realize how much slight thermorbaric effects would explain the event that people find unusual in the buildings.
It is lonely to be right and have no one see it.
It is even lonelier to be wrong and have everyone see it.
Take your pick which is worse.

[jhunter1163]

I think CC just likes blowing stuff up. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[JimBenArm]

Blanchards paper was also not written as a scientific paper, nor has it claimed to be. The use of language in it is both communicative and laymen where needed. I am sure, should he need to, he could create a "scientific" sounding paper on some of the topics, but do not forget he is not a scientist like you Frank. He is an expert on Demolitions through his work experience, rather than educational training.

TAM:)
T.A.M.:
I'm sorry, but Frank isn't familiar with the term "work experience" since he's a scientist, and never actually had to do anything outside a classroom or laboratory setting. You'll have to translate this into terms he's familiar with. I would, but I'm only a lowly engineering tech, and as such am even lower than pond scum engineers in his eyes.
You might start with the terms "hyperbole" and "colloquial English".

[Alt+F4]

T.A.M.:
I'm sorry, but Frank isn't familiar with the term "work experience" since he's a scientist, and never actually had to do anything outside a classroom or laboratory setting.

So teaching isn't work? Hmmm, that's news to me.

[JimBenArm]

So teaching isn't work? Hmmm, that's news to me.
Well, okay, teaching is work. Sorry.

[T.A.M.]

Teaching is work, but I get what you mean JBA. I find many people who consider themselves "academics" tend to look down upon trades people, and those without Masters or PhDs. I am not saying Frank is one of these people, but he certainly has a chip on his shoulder for the engineering community (and some would argue understandably).

TAM:)

[pomeroo]

T.A.M.:
I'm sorry, but Frank isn't familiar with the term "work experience" since he's a scientist, and never actually had to do anything outside a classroom or laboratory setting. You'll have to translate this into terms he's familiar with. I would, but I'm only a lowly engineering tech, and as such am even lower than pond scum engineers in his eyes.
You might start with the terms "hyperbole" and "colloquial English".



Well, Franks says 75% and Blanchard says 95%. Maybe Frank is right.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Teaching is work, but I get what you mean JBA. I find many people who consider themselves "academics" tend to look down upon trades people, and those without Masters or PhDs. I am not saying Frank is one of these people, but he certainly has a chip on his shoulder for the engineering community (and some would argue understandably).

TAM:)

I can tell you from experience that Dr. Frank Greening does not care what degree you have as long as your dedicated to the pursuit of Science and truthful in your research!
He only gets upset when he finds inconsistency in the work, or claims that appear to be pulled out of a hat.
It's like he wants to know the secret behind each bolt failure, each weld snap, and each piece of dust that was created on 9/11/2001, because he knows that any mistake he makes will be instantly jumped on by the CTers.
He has place his reputation, and Academic standing on the line and he is determined to See the search for the truth though to the end!
I can only applaud him for that, that is what will make his effort valuable to generations to come who study 9/11/2001 and that truth about it for what ever reason they choose to research it.

PS. If he asks for your help you will learn what work truly is if you survive that is!

[Max Photon]

* * *


Sometimes I think our mighty Apollo lives the Myth of Keithyphus (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4341976309766154570&q=keith+partridge+girls&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0).

[twinstead]

Well, yea, as any otherwise intelligent person who dares disagree with the mighty MAX PHOTON must, right?

[rwguinn]

I can tell you from experience that Dr. Frank Greening does not care what degree you have as long as your dedicated to the pursuit of Science and truthful in your research!
He only gets upset when he finds inconsistency in the work, or claims that appear to be pulled out of a hat.
It's like he wants to know the secret behind each bolt failure, each weld snap, and each piece of dust that was created on 9/11/2001, because he knows that any mistake he makes will be instantly jumped on by the CTers.
He has place his reputation, and Academic standing on the line and he is determined to See the search for the truth though to the end!
I can only applaud him for that, that is what will make his effort valuable to generations to come who study 9/11/2001 and that truth about it for what ever reason they choose to research it.

PS. If he asks for your help you will learn what work truly is if you survive that is!

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.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Crazy Chainsaw,

Your objection to thermite that shock from the jet impact would ignite it is duly noted, and on my master list, along with Apollo's that thermite is very difficult to ignite, (and others).

Just to be clear, thermite in WTC2 was planted in columns mainly along the east and north faces.

It is not clear to me that these column - some distance from impact - would have received a critical shock. The building is designed to absorb and redistribute energy.

I also don't believe the flash fires at impact heated the steel or the thermite inside the columns significantly.

It is also not a given that thermite going off at impact presents a problem. This is not explosive controlled demolition.


Readers should note that CC's insights confirm that my thermite fuse could be reliably ignited by the jets' impacts.


Thanks CC!

Max

* * *

[twinstead]

Ah MAX you seem to be retreating into the world of 'I don't think...' and 'I don't believe...' and 'it's not clear to me...'

Isn't conjecture based on personal incredulity fun?

[afinemadness]

Ah MAX you seem to be retreating into the world of 'I don't think...' and 'I don't believe...' and 'it's not clear to me...'

Isn't conjecture based on personal incredulity fun?

The heck with conjecture he is making it up as he goes along. When he has no answer to something he changes the theory to fit a new scenario.

Hey Max just one bit of proof will win me over. Show me one picture or Thermite in the towers. Show me the shocktubes. I have a question has there ever been a building brought down by thermite set off by shocktubes? If show show us the study done on it. If not do you not think that maybe this may not have been the best test case.

[Jonnyclueless]

"Just to be clear, thermite in WTC2 was planted in columns mainly along the east and north faces."

Has max provided any proof yet for his claims, as he goes on trying to denounce others research?

[JMarshall]

* * *

Crazy Chainsaw,

Your objection to thermite that shock from the jet impact would ignite it is duly noted, and on my master list, along with Apollo's that thermite is very difficult to ignite, (and others).

Under regular conditions thermite isn't easy to ignite, nothing that happened on 9/11 was regular conditions!

Just to be clear, thermite in WTC2 was planted in columns mainly along the east and north faces.

It is not clear to me that these column - some distance from impact - would have received a critical shock. The building is designed to absorb and redistribute energy.

The buildings were designed to redistribute the forces enacted upon it by lost smaller landing aircraft and wind, not a fuel laden jetliner moving at 500+ MPH.

I also don't believe the flash fires at impact heated the steel or the thermite inside the columns significantly.

It is also not a given that thermite going off at impact presents a problem. This is not explosive controlled demolition.

If thermite were to "go off" at impact it would create an uncontrolled situation, and structural failure would be very hard to calculate.

Readers should note that CC's insights confirm that my thermite fuse could be reliably ignited by the jets' impacts.


Thanks CC!

Max

* * *
Yes it does supply proof of the chance that the "thermite-fuse" could be ignited by the jet's impact, but it doesn't offer any proof towards either the existence of the so called "thermite-fuse" or that it would work as you sumize it would!

[Apollo20]

Well, thanks for all the nice comments... and the nasty ones too!

I always welcome criticism more than praise.... Criticism makes you improve!

NO MAN IS AN ISLAND!

As for me being a non-hands-on-spaced-out-academic.. I beg to differ.

I always worked side by side with my technicians and had the motto: "I will not ask these guys to do anything I would not do." So I was irradiated as much as anybody.

While working on my Ph.D, I was subjected to a 2000 Volt electric shock that threw me ten feet across the lab. (That's why my hair is curly.)

I also made carbon diselenide on a regular basis.. Its got to be the most stinky gas there is. Rotten garlic smells sweet by comparison..... It would soak into your skin, so I would get funny looks riding the bus home.

CC: So you don't like my AP theory? That's fine... it was just speculation..... Talking about speculation, how about scalar energy from the vacuum? (See Speculation in Science and Technology Volume 13(4), 243 -295, (1990))

Max: While your ideas about thermite are most interesting, tell me this: why do Jones and Gage have the time, money and support for their themite shenanigans? Who else would want to support them in their mission to spread their distorted "truth" to the whole world - and that goes for Mr. NWO himself, Prof David R. Griffin - but the evil doers themselves? Agents provocateurs indeed.....

"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?"

[JimBenArm]

Well, Franks says 75% and Blanchard says 95%. Maybe Frank is right.
He more-than-likely is. My point is that Blanchard isn't a scientist, wasn't trying to be accurate, and Frank doing this posturing about demanding Blanchard withdraw the statement is just more of his chest-thumping nonsense. "I'm a scientist, look at me!" I see a poser who's way to enamored with himself, frankly. Pun intended.

[Max Photon]

Max: While your ideas about thermite are most interesting, tell me this: why do Jones and Gage have the time, money and support for their themite shenanigans?




I have no idea.


Who else would want to support them in their mission to spread their distorted "truth" to the whole world - and that goes for Mr. NWO himself, Prof David R. Griffin - but the evil doers themselves? Agents provocateurs indeed.....


It seems to me their false premise THERMITE=MELTING/CUTTING is being used to pollute everything thermite. This is being used to cloak the correct answer THERMITE=HEAT-WEAKENING.

I believe this is classic nonlinear feedback from Counter-Insurgency 101. It is a technique to provide real-time dynamic stabilization to the deception.

It keeps going, and going, and going...


Energizer Max

"Dn't y s tht th whl m f Nwspk s t nrrw th rng f thght?"


* * *

[Mr. Skinny]

I also made carbon diselenide on a regular basis.. Its got to be the most stinky gas there is. Rotten garlic smells sweet by comparison..... It would soak into your skin, so I would get funny looks riding the bus home.
Sounds like you were working without a lab hood or gloves, Apollo.

Aren't selenium compounds generally considered toxic? If you had them soaked into your skin, that sounds nasty.

[Max Photon]

* * *


Apollo - everyone - could you kindly explain how you rule out thermite with certainty?

I am sincerely interested, and am open to learning.

I would appreciate that everyone answer.


Max


ETA: Now's your opportunity to convince me.


* * *

[Newtons Bit]

* * *


Apollo - everyone - could you kindly explain how you rule out thermite with certainty?

I am sincerely interested, and am open to learning.

I would appreciate that everyone answer.


Max

* * *

Could you explain how you completely rule out collapse by fire without any catalysts (other than the plane)?

[cmcaulif]

CC: So you don't like my AP theory? That's fine... it was just speculation..... Talking about speculation, how about scalar energy from the vacuum? (See Speculation in Science and Technology Volume 13(4), 243 -295, (1990))


Wouldn't AP burn a bit too violently to make for a practical and covert collapse catalyst?

[JMarshall]

* * *


Apollo - everyone - could you kindly explain how you rule out thermite with certainty?

I am sincerely interested, and am open to learning.

I would appreciate that everyone answer.


Max


ETA: Now's your opportunity to convince me.


* * *

You know Max, I'm not a scientist, I don't have an engineering degree, or much formal education what-so-ever, but here's my answer to your question.

Because I have used thermite in more than a testing, or lab situation. I have seen it's effects in practical application, and as such though I may not have all the scientific answers and textbook understanding of how it works, I do understand how it works! Now granted most will say that isn't a very good answer for a skeptic, but in this case it works, because there is always something more you can learn from practical application than just lab testing.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

* * *


Apollo - everyone - could you kindly explain how you rule out thermite with certainty?

I am sincerely interested, and am open to learning.

I would appreciate that everyone answer.


Max


ETA: Now's your opportunity to convince me.


* * *

5100 meters per second, the towers rang like a bell from shock waves no structural steel would have be isolated from them.

Placement of the charges is irrelevant.
It was most likely the reflected shock waves from impact that William R. heard in the basement.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Wouldn't AP burn a bit too violently to make for a practical and covert collapse catalyst?

That is why it works it quickly produces a gas that removes the fire proofing.
However AP is not safe it is to dangerous for the task, I prefer other compounds that would do the same and be undetectable and could have been prepared in hours.

[BenBurch]

I rule out Thermite completely because nobody has ever shown me any from that site.

And you've had years.

I have physical evidence that corroborates and indicates my preferred theory.

Where's yours?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

CC: So you don't like my AP theory? That's fine... it was just speculation..... Talking about speculation, how about scalar energy from the vacuum? (See Speculation in Science and Technology Volume 13(4), 243 -295, (1990))



As far as the AP theory goes it is not about like or dislike it is simply not practical, since much more easy ways can be used in combination with the jet fuel and fuels in the buildings.

I can say no more yes a planned thermal take down of the structure could be done without leaving any traces of explosives or thermites and would be so simple it is laughable to even contemplate no one thought of it before.

A natural condition similar could have even played a part in the tragedy and no one would even know it without experimentation like I have done.


As far as scalar Vacuum Energy I will look into it, However since I have already figured out a fool proof undetectable way to do it, I do not know if we need to use hard to concentrate Scalar Vacuum Energy.

I can not say more right now, do not want wild theories flooding the Internet!

[cmcaulif]

That is why it works it quickly produces a gas that removes the fire proofing.
However AP is not safe it is to dangerous for the task, I prefer other compounds that would do the same and be undetectable and could have been prepared in hours.

I see, I had thought that the AP was meant to heat the steel, rather than to remove SFRM.

Though extra removal of SFRM does not even seem to be needed, Arup/Edinburgh's findings show that NIST may have overweighted the role of loss of fireproofing, even though NIST did not consider loss of SFRM due to vibration and the fuel-air explosion, and Dr Quintiere's work shows that the trusses may have been able to reach critical temperatures with SFRM intact.

[Max Photon]

Could you explain how you completely rule out collapse by fire without any catalysts (other than the plane)?




I didn't.

I have an open mind.


Max Headroom

* * *

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I see, I had thought that the AP was meant to heat the steel, rather than to remove SFRM.

Though extra removal of SFRM does not even seem to be needed, Arup/Edinburgh's findings show that NIST may have overweighted the role of loss of fireproofing, even though NIST did not consider loss of SFRM due to vibration and the fuel-air explosion, and Dr Quintiere's work shows that the trusses may have been able to reach critical temperatures with SFRM intact.

That was Dr. Greening original suggestion about AP. However AP is not a fuel but an oxidizer it has to be mixed with a fuel, like aluminum, and when it is heated it produces a lot of gases quickly meaning it would quickly start dislodging the fire proofing or binder it is contained in from the beams before the heating could occur.

It is a wonderful Rocket fuel because it produces a lot of quick hot gases that exit the rocket nozzle with high speed, it does not stick well though when unconfined and heated.

Yes I am aware of Dr. Quintiere's work, the question is not if fireproofing was lost but how much and how much fuel was in the critical area where the majority of the truss buckling occurred.
Anything that removes SFRM will reduce the fuel required to bring the steel to its critical temperature.
If we assume that temperature is 600c then the fuel is not so much, because I believe the trusses and floor pans might have played a role in the combustion in limited areas. However that is unsubstanciated so far though it is possible, experiments have proved it.
Experiments have also shown that compression ignition, Ignition of hot material as the building collapse from the compression of the air in the buildings.
A car engine like compression no diesel like mostly of hot carbons.
There are several hard to quantify factors at play, and I agree somewhat with Dr. Quintiere's work, but I am exploring all options trying to leave no loose ends!
I must admit I do not understand it all just doing the best I can with what limited resources I have.

[einsteen]

1. Please state who HIS peers would be.
2. Got any proof that someone besides the dumb*** truthers have labeled him (and his mate) "Beavis and Butthead"?
3. Please, state what problems you personally have with the paper.

TAM:)

1. You don't need to be an expert in demolition to count floors, what about the people that peer review NISTs work.
2. Demolitiondave@JREF, a debunker.
3. The 95% out of the footprint, if that is true then the collapse time would be "too high"

Here you are
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2319567#post2319567
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2319605#post2319605

[Max Photon]

* * *


Apollo20 earlier gave two NIST references, without links.

Pour vous...


NIST GCR 96-697:

Survey of Fuel Loads in Contemporary Office Buildings (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire96/PDF/f96080.pdf)


NIST GCR 04-872:

Fire Protection of Structural Steel in High-Rise
Buildings (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build04/PDF/b04047.pdf)



* * *

[Max Photon]

* * *

Crazy Chainsaw,

Your objection to thermite that shock from the jet impact would ignite it is duly noted, and on my master list, along with Apollo's that thermite is very difficult to ignite, (and others).

Just to be clear, thermite in WTC2 was planted in columns mainly along the east and north faces.

It is not clear to me that these column - some distance from impact - would have received a critical shock. The building is designed to absorb and redistribute energy.

I also don't believe the flash fires at impact heated the steel or the thermite inside the columns significantly.

It is also not a given that thermite going off at impact presents a problem. This is not explosive controlled demolition.


Readers should note that CC's insights confirm that my thermite fuse could be reliably ignited by the jets' impacts.


Thanks CC!

Max

* * *



Crazy Chainsaw,

My understanding is the conventional high-explosive shock-tube with a detonator at the end cannot ignite thermite.

Assuming one contained the thermite to keep it from blowing all over the place, wouldn't you think that - assuming your model SHOCK=THERMITE SPARK - the shock from the detonator would ignite the thermite by creating a thermite spark? Why the apparent contradiction?

(Note that I am not currently saying that conventional shock-tube with detonators was used; I am simply using this as an example of a shock that does not appear to ignite thermite.)


Max


P.S. When you use the hyperlink function, I think you are placing your target URL in the input box, without first erasing the "http://" that exists in the input box. I think this sometimes causes your links to not work.

Cheers!

* * *

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Crazy Chainsaw,

My understanding is the conventional high-explosive shock-tube with a detonator at the end cannot ignite thermite.

Assuming one contained the thermite to keep it from blowing all over the place, wouldn't you think that - assuming your model SHOCK=THERMITE SPARK - the shock from the detonator would ignite the thermite by creating a thermite spark? Why the apparent contradiction?

(Note that I am not currently saying that conventional shock-tube with detonators was used; I am simply using this as an example of a shock that does not appear to ignite thermite.)


Max


P.S. When you use the hyperlink function, I think you are placing your target URL in the input box, without first erasing the "http://" that exists in the input box. I think this sometimes causes your links to not work.

Cheers!

* * *

Because the shock tube does not could not resonate though the whole building, and is not followed by a jet fuel fireball.
Friction causes by intense wide area shock waves is what causes thermite sparks in the Trade Center Towers.
Your Shock tube analogy to the world trade center is like comparing a single Bean to a 200 pound water melon and assuming they are the same because they are both green plants.

The charge would absorb the shock tube energy by displacement with little friction, and not ignite.
However the shock in the twin towers comes from all directions at once the charge simply can not absorb it though simple displacement, in time to prevent ignition.

Also in the towers you have a shock followed by a fire ball and high temperature, and then another small shock from the fireballs Ignition.

[T.A.M.]

1. You don't need to be an expert in demolition to count floors, what about the people that peer review NISTs work.
2. Demolitiondave@JREF, a debunker.
3. The 95% out of the footprint, if that is true then the collapse time would be "too high"

Here you are
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2319567#post2319567
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2319605#post2319605

Thanks for the links.

I have gone through DemolitionDaves 17 post here on JREF, and he seems to be neither Debunker or Truther.

You still haven't told me who you think should peer review Blanchard's paper. Your suggestion of "The same people who reviewed NIST" is not specific enough.

TAM:)

[Max Photon]

Because the shock tube does not could not resonate though the whole building, and is not followed by a jet fuel fireball.
Friction causes by intense wide area shock waves is what causes thermite sparks in the Trade Center Towers.
Your Shock tube analogy to the world trade center is like comparing a single Bean to a 200 pound water melon and assuming they are the same because they are both green plants.

The charge would absorb the shock tube energy by displacement with little friction, and not ignite.
However the shock in the twin towers comes from all directions at once the charge simply can not absorb it though simple displacement, in time to prevent ignition.

Also in the towers you have a shock followed by a fire ball and high temperature, and then another small shock from the fireballs Ignition.


CC, I don't believe you understood what I was asking.

You claim shocks create thermite sparks.

My question is a general one - forget about the towers:

Why doesn't the shock from a detonator stuck in thermite create thermite sparks?

(Assume the thermite is contained from blowing away.)


Max


ETA: My mistake - you did answer.

Hmmmm. I don't know if I buy the argument though.

I have to think about what you are saying a bit more. Others?

* * *

[Swing Dangler]

I rule out Thermite completely because nobody has ever shown me any from that site.

And you've had years.

I have physical evidence that corroborates and indicates my preferred theory.

Where's yours?

Don't they have to test for explosive residue before they can show the results?

I'm sure you realize they did not test for said residue, correct?

[Unsecured Coins]

that might have something to do with the fact that none of the steel showed signs of been explosified.

[HyJinX]

Hey Swing...they didn't test for elephant crap either. So, since there is just as much proof that elephant crap brought down the towers as say...thermite...are both theories considered equally plausible?

[pomeroo]

Don't they have to test for explosive residue before they can show the results?

I'm sure you realize they did not test for said residue, correct?


We're sure that you realize that you're lying again. The FBI claims to have conducted the most extensive investigation in the bureau's history. The guy I spoke with says that they did not decide to omit the customary check for explosives.

[Pookster]

Don't they have to test for explosive residue before they can show the results?

I'm sure you realize they did not test for said residue, correct?

It's my understanding that thermite isn't an explosive, but I'm willing to call it such for purpose of the discussion.

I've heard the argument about not testing for explosive residue. I'll submit, for now, that there were no such tests. Now then, we have tons and tons of steal beams piled around. What would logically cause you to choose a specific beam, or beams, to test for thermite residue? Logically, I'd initially choose steel from an area within, and close to, the initial collapse zone for my possible sample. But, what would lead someone to test a specific steel beam for thermite residue? Or for that matter, a specific portion of a specific steel beam? What would even cause an investigator to even consider testing any of that steel for thermite residue? I usually don't search for things where there isn't some logical indication of it's existence. What would've caused the investigators to consider that thermite had been used?

Thanks.

[JimBenArm]

We're sure that you realize that you're lying again. The FBI claims to have conducted the most extensive investigation in the bureau's history. The guy I spoke with says that they did not decide to omit the customary check for explosives.
You actually called and spoke to someone? Doesn't that violate the Truther Investigative Standards Handbook?

[pomeroo]

You actually called and spoke to someone? Doesn't that violate the Truther Investigative Standards Handbook?


The twoofers know what they're doing. I spend hours on the phone, frequently dealing with highly uncooperative people. Once in great while, I actually uncover some useful information. The loons don't waste any time at all. They don't talk with anyone and simply make up whatever they need.

[pomeroo]

It's my understanding that thermite isn't an explosive, but I'm willing to call it such for purpose of the discussion.

I've heard the argument about not testing for explosive residue. I'll submit, for now, that there were no such tests. Now then, we have tons and tons of steal beams piled around. What would logically cause you to choose a specific beam, or beams, to test for thermite residue? Logically, I'd initially choose steel from an area within, and close to, the initial collapse zone for my possible sample. But, what would lead someone to test a specific steel beam for thermite residue? Or for that matter, a specific portion of a specific steel beam? What would even cause an investigator to even consider testing any of that steel for thermite residue? I usually don't search for things where there isn't some logical indication of it's existence. What would've caused the investigators to consider that thermite had been used?

Thanks.



Pookster, you do understand that the fantasist canard that no one tested for explosives is complete rubbish, right? They are called conspiracy liars, after all.

[BenBurch]

Pookster, you do understand that the fantasist canard that no one tested for explosives is complete rubbish, right? They are called conspiracy liars, after all.

Correct. Testing was done.

Nothing was found.

That is why they haul out Thermate and other exotic chemistries; Because they know conventional explosives have been totally ruled out by physical evidence, and they have to imagine something so exotic that no reasonable person would ever test for it.

I am just *waiting* for them to haul out Cubane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubane).

[Pookster]

Pookster, you do understand that the fantasist canard that no one tested for explosives is complete rubbish, right? They are called conspiracy liars, after all.

Oh, I understand that. But given that thermite isn't an explosive, I thought it would be interesting to just assume that there were no tests performed for it specifically. I was curious to see what would cause Swing Dangler to test for something that logically shouldn't be there. Visual evidence of its use would be such a thing for me. They didn't test for an infinite number of things because there was no logical reason presented at the time to test for any of them. Thermite leaves distinctive visual evidence. It would've stood out like a sore thumb. It would've looked like the proverbial elephant in the room to the investigators, even if they didn't know it was an obvious clue that thermite had been used.

I could've asked what would cause him to test for elephant crap like someone else did, but I stuck with thermite for now. :)

[Max Photon]

* * *


I challenge anyone to list the telltale signs of thermite placed inside a box column, to heat a small section of the column to its critical temperature.


Max

* * *

[Max Photon]

Correct. Testing was done.

Nothing was found.

That is why they haul out Thermate and other exotic chemistries; Because they know conventional explosives have been totally ruled out by physical evidence, and they have to imagine something so exotic that no reasonable person would ever test for it.

I am just *waiting* for them to haul out Cubane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubane).


Ben,

You avatar - which is a very important archetypal pattern - hints at higher intelligence than that displayed in your above post. I know you can do better.


Look, it is not clear who perpetrated 911. As Apollo says, how do we know its not the Ruskies?

A special case of whodunit is the reflexive case - the uroborus - the snake biting its tail. Nonlinear feedback. Synthetic terror.

Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable from the perspective of the scientific process to ask the question: Did controlled demolition initiate the collapse of the WTC towers?

It is also perfectly reasonable - as a modeling expedient - to view the problem from the perspective of the demolition and deception planners.

Here is where I am surprised that you - with your obvious intelligence - can't seem to imagine the problem from the perspective of the designers.

This is a basic design problem. And there are Principles of Design.


Anyway, it should be perfectly obvious that a simple way to cloak the demolition process is to flood the mind-market with the assumptive close that controlled demolitions mean either explosives were used, or thermite cutter charges were used.

If explosives were used, we'd see "telltale signs" of blast marks, seismic traces, explosive residues, etc.

If thermite cutter chargers were used (whatever the hell those are), we'd see "telltale signs" of melted steel, steel columns with melted ends, etc.

And we don't see the above, hence, no controlled-demolition.


But there's the trick.

People like you exclude even the possibility that thermite was used to heat the steel to its critical temperature. (What are the "telltale signs" then?)

Yet people here seem to be arguing both sides as it suits them - the FBI tested for thermite because - well - it was the most intensive investigation ever - vs. no one tested for thermite because - well - it's too stupid.

So the use of thermite to heat-weaken the steel - a third option - is being cloaked by the good ole' fashioned assumptive close - a sales favorite - that there are only two options - explosive cutter charges or thermite cutter charges.

There were no cutter charges - thermite was used only to heat the steel.


If you think about the controlled-demolitions from a design standpoint, thermite is the pigment of choice.


Maxnet

* * *

[acaj1]

Building 5

Building 5 was a nine story building, -smaller but technically still a high-rise building, -which had a serious interior multiple floor failure. According to the FEMA and ASCE Building Performance Study: “…the 8th floor collapsed onto the 7th floor and then both onto the 6th, and so on, down to the 4th floor. In Building 5 there were… shear failures … at connection ends in several of the beam web[s] … indicative of tensile forces that developed [because the] deformed structure subjected the bolted shear connections to a large tensile force. Tensile catenary action of floor framing members and their connections has been neither a design requirement nor a design consideration for most buildings. Further study of such mechanisms for member failures in fires should be conducted to determine whether current design parameters are adequate for performance under fire loads".

Arthur Scheuerman

[Crazy Chainsaw]

* * *


I challenge anyone to list the telltale signs of thermite placed inside a box column, to heat a small section of the column to its critical temperature.


Max

* * *

A lump of Iron covered in aluminum oxide, inside a box column joint. Along with the materials that were used to trigger the thermite.

Oh Max yes a shock tube has the potential to ignite thermite if the thermite is at the right temperature, and is contained in say a box made completely out of diamond, may be.
Remember aluminum oxide is 9 on the hardness scale it will always damage the container unless the container is harder than it is!
You will always have some compression and movement of the particles though, a shock tube simply does not produce enough energy over a large enough area to be effective! I could probably design a device that could, but it would be complicated and dangerous.

PS. people also told me that aluminum would not burn in air under 2000c well I guess they were wrong, cause here it is.
Well actually I guess they were right although the aluminum is about 660-700c the ignited aluminum is about 2800c it is a sono chemical reaction.

http://chainsawsanders.com/blackbody2.JPG

[BenBurch]

Actually, the only reason Aluminum does not burn in air with very low ignition temperatures is that it creates its own passivation later when it oxidizes. Successful burning of Aluminum requires mechanical or chemical effects to keep the passivation layer from forming. That is what Thermite does. Now, without these tricks, you need high heat to burn Aluminum because you need enough heat to melt the passivation layer and let oxygen through to the unreacted metal.

And were this not true, metallic Aluminum would have to be kept in jars of oil like metallic Sodium is.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Actually, the only reason Aluminum does not burn in air with very low ignition temperatures is that it creates its own passivation later when it oxidizes. Successful burning of Aluminum requires mechanical or chemical effects to keep the passivation layer from forming. That is what Thermite does. Now, without these tricks, you need high heat to burn Aluminum because you need enough heat to melt the passivation layer and let oxygen through to the unreacted metal.

And were this not true, metallic Aluminum would have to be kept in jars of oil like metallic Sodium is.

I know I was just pointing out to Max that he is proposing a situation that is not possible in the physical practical universe, you can never have a stable charge of small particles of aluminum that would not displace the small amount of energy in a shock tube.
However a great big shaking buildings would provide the friction mechanical action, necessary to ignite a thermite charge. Especially in a fire ball of kerosene and other hot burning metal particles.
It is like he is comparing fleas to elephants, because both have legs.
Have you read the article on thermite in the Maui news?

[pomeroo]

Building 5

Building 5 was a nine story building, -smaller but technically still a high-rise building, -which had a serious interior multiple floor failure. According to the FEMA and ASCE Building Performance Study: “…the 8th floor collapsed onto the 7th floor and then both onto the 6th, and so on, down to the 4th floor. In Building 5 there were… shear failures … at connection ends in several of the beam web[s] … indicative of tensile forces that developed [because the] deformed structure subjected the bolted shear connections to a large tensile force. Tensile catenary action of floor framing members and their connections has been neither a design requirement nor a design consideration for most buildings. Further study of such mechanisms for member failures in fires should be conducted to determine whether current design parameters are adequate for performance under fire loads".

Arthur Scheuerman



Welcome to the JREF, Arthur.

I have invited Arthur to join me and Mark, if he's interested, on 'Hardfire.'

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum acaj1 (Arthur).

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

David Benson and Arthur Scheuerman both on one day, did we earn some good karma somewhere...lol

TAM:)

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Welcome acaj1, hope you enjoy it here.

[BenBurch]

Have you read the article on thermite in the Maui news?

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

[Max Photon]

* * *


Welcome Chief, it's an honor!