Mechanical engineer fires torpedos at the 9-11 lie

BigT,

Thanks.

There is no explaining the 9-11 structural collapse speeds or molten metal existence in the aftermath. There is no engineer or technical adept on this planet than can overcome the obvious with all the bullshit in the universe at their disposal against basic principles of physics and building construction. All I'm doing is pointing out the obvious, and the folks at AE911Truth and North Texas for 9-11 Truth helped me a lot in that regard.

Doesn't the fact that there is thermite in the dust give you pause ? Can you think of a plausible explanation for it being there at all ? All the incinerated cars and trucks for blocks where these buildings went down. That sounds like overload to me, overload of explosive thermetic compounds. Can you think of another explanation for the metal in all these cars and trucks being attacked so far away from what was advertised as a pancake collapse. Jeese Ventura has eluded to this many times. When in doubt overload. If you had a limited amount of time to do such a HUGE demolition job which would you choose ? If any substantial portion of the edifice remains standing
are the odds greater that criminal activity will be exposed. Isn't it better to insure that that sucker is broken up as much as possible to insure a short scrapping operation then it's off to the barges for transport to China.
To be melted down and the job is complete. Sorry I just find it difficult to believe this is so hard to put together

We’ve created an online offline 1/2 PRICED GASOLINE CO-OP get half off at the pump through my site below.
http://www.fillerupclub.com/0000/?idFriend=1582

"1> You make a very non-scientific argument"

Where has science been applied yet to the tests of the fire hypothesis? Only once to my knowledge, and weight had to be used to get the predetermined result sought, which were still well short of symetrical sudden free fall collapse. My argument is simply that the scientific method has not been applied, and where it has, the results were ignored.

"showing several buildings not brought down by fire as an argument against the likelihood that the WTC collapses could have occurred by fire alone."

Where else has this occured? Anywhere? And would a thermal FEA solve this hypothesis? Has one beed done yet? Why not?

"However, as an ME, how do you account for not even acknowledging the structural damage (in segment 7) to not only WTC 1 & 2, but WTC 7 as well."

This statement alone proves you did not watch the video. Please watch the video and rephrase your question.

"2> You go into significant detail in your reply to rhino about welds, bolts and grades of steel and their load bearing strength, but conspicuously absent is any discussion of the effects of heat on those members, What is the effect on the load bearing strength of members, both in compression and tension (the base structure of WTC 7 is a truss spanning a pre-existing power station), when exposed to extended temperatures of say 400, 600 and 800 degrees C."

Again, you demonstrate that you didn't watch the video, and you seem to not understand the amount of heat transfer required to support what you suspect; that sufficient heat was transfered to one connection at column 79 that eventually (within a very short time actually) brought a 610-foot building down in less than 10 seconds. This is not only unviable, it is FEA provably impossible.

"Further, how do you know the temperature at which the fires burned?"

No, but I've forged and cast steel (10 inch cupola furnace) and I know that I need a lot of coke (think charcoal) and a lot of air (it's the oxygen that counts) to melt a relatively small amount of steel at 3300 degrees F. The fire in my wood burning stove right now is 1100 degrees F, I have a LP gas forge that anneals at 1800 degrees F. Even if all the combustibles were concentrated to the area around column 79 at floor 13 the amount of time required (not to mention additional oxygen) to transfer enough heat to break a moment connection from the floor beam to the column would not occur within one day. You would need more oxygen, more fuel, a controlled volume to prevent heat loss to even begin to approach what would be required (strong anneal or blast-like conditions) to get that bolted moment connection labelled as a root cause to even stress, let alone fail. Heat transfer just begins once (relative to the connection as cited for root cause) the heat reaches the outer skin of the metal, to heat the entire metal element (inches thick) to the core, anneal, elongate, and break is not possible under these constraints (mainly the unfavorable temperature gradient of an open office space in a relatively short amount of time), and again, multiphysics (thermal, static, dynamic) FEA will rule this out. As for the temperature of office fires, at the ignition center you will have maximum heat. Inches away you will have a very strong temperature gradient that will approach ambient without fire nearby. This argument gets more suspect when you consider the distance of the moment connection to the fire and the fact that the moment connection was covered in cementous fire proofing). Please review the images I will post below and ask, how much heat transfer (Q) would be required on floor 12-14 to break away the column 79 connection, and has a proper thermal FEA been performed to prove/disprove this matter? Why not?

"Did you have some magic sensors installed that no one else knows about?"

No, I had no magic sensors installed that no one else knows about. I was a senior in college, probably late to class, as usual, when all hell broke loose.

"What was the effect on the temperature of the fire (total heat) if say 10000 gallons of diesel fuel is added to the equation?"

You don't understand the principle of the control volume. Under the right conditions, any hydrocarbon can produce very high heat, but those conditions (called blast conditions in the foundry business) are not possible to meet in open space office buildings. Those conditions are difficult, still, in tightly controlled volumes such as blast furnaces, where small irregularities can and will stop a melt. 10,000 gallons of diesel can melt steel of delivered uniformly at the right pressure with the right amount of oxygen in a controlled volume with ideal conditions. Outside of this, 10,000 gallons will burn like hell and at the most impart a mild annealing on low carbon steel if no fireproofing were applied and the proximity was exact and other conditions were just right. In large, open spaces though, this is difficult if not unlikely.

"3> Does your finite element analysis take into account how much the steel was weakened by fire and compromised from the damage on the south side of the building from the collapse of the north tower?"

To ask this is to answer it, and you just answered it very well. Please point this missing element out to the good folks at Purdue and ARA, who did the "real" FEA work on the WTC structures.

"Finite element analysis programs are very powerful, even revolutionary, but garbage in still results in garbage out."

You make my point. Now share this with Purdue and ARA FEA teams, please.

"4> How do you get thermite to go sideways?"

Thermite reacts with steel. It is omnidirectional in this regard, but the molten steel will become subject to gravity until refrozen.

"Can you or have you managed to demonstrate it?"

Sure, give me sol-gel thermite, and I can cut any column at, say 45 degrees in opposing orientations in two places between floors and then knock in out of the way with a c4 charge. Easily done.

"How about on a member as large as a main support column?"

Yes, even on a very, very large main support column. More thermite, more time, more c4.

"Are we talking iron oxide and aluminum here, or some exotic form with "special" characteristics?"

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/000...

4 samples of the WTC dust were tested for elemental XED and soaked in MEK for paint removal and/or non chemical bind separation. The spectrum results after the MEK soak were Fe, Si, Al, O, and C with trace amounts of Ca, S, Zn, Cr, and K. The occurance of these traces are possibly due to contamination, such as the gypsum from the pulverized sheet rock. Refer to pages 12-15 in the report. This is what the dust contained, but does that make it thermitic material. No, but the amount of ELEMENTAL aluminum and iron oxide begs the thermite question, so a thermal analysis using differential scanning calorimetry confirmed the question that 1) there were signatures of thermite constituents within the matrix and 2) there were behaviors of unreacted thermite constituents within the matrix due to the exothermic reaction (impossible with other materials) from heat from the differential scanning calorimeter. So, yes, we are talking about elemental Al and iron oxide that behave like thermite in all 4 dust samples when given controlled DSC heat inputs.

"5> In the response to rhino you state "Could these connections fail within a short amount of time, say within 30 seconds?". How do you coordinate thermite to the exact structural failure point of multiple members, where they are of different sizes and different alloys"

This demonstrates that you do not understand the range of possible building materials. There are no "different alloys" in structural members. Columns that are tube steel are ASTM A500 low carbon steel, columns that are W shaped I beams, bent plate perimeter angle, kick braces, stiffner plates were all (with no exceptions) ASTM A36 low carbon steel at the time of this building's construction. The decking is a specific steel, as is the welded wire/rebar (concrete reinforcement). These are steels with a very specific alloying chemistry with an extremely tight tolerance for a very good reason. You misspoke.

"if not different materials"

Again, you don't understand the uniformity of contract documents. It is illegal, and not possible to contract a building to be built with, say, tool steel for structural members. The rebar/welded wire was grade 40, 60, or 75, the decking was specific, the concrete was specific, the steel members were specific. Otherwise, you can't legally contract by the standards of practice and care under which all building contract are bound to. If you worked in construction you would understand this.

"and have them all structurally fail to within a accuracy of 30 seconds?"

This is the hypothetical I put out mockingly, because this is what we are expected to buy off on, or something as absurd according to the NIST report. Anyway, you don't understand the geometrical relations of the members either, thick members would require commensurately larger portions of cutting materials and higher amounts of explosives. Whoever was clever enough to pull this off would be technically adept enought to understand that thick members take longer to cut, wouldn't they?

"In fact, one field modification at the time of construction that did not get reflected back into the drawings could throw off the timings entirely."

You also don't seem to understand what modifications are acceptable, and what are not. Fit ups can't be fixed with excessive shimming, or any at all, splices are almost always rejected requests, but weld in lieu of bolted connections are almost always accepted. If by your use of the word timing, you mean time to cut a column, then you simply ignore the fact then the column size change would never happen under a building contract scenario, therefore the timing of cutting columns would not change by RFI conditions. Only the harmonics, mainly damping, would shift, which are true for snug tight bolt conditions (think flex) to welded (analagous to fully tensioned bolted connections, think stiff), but a small number of these changes would have little overall damping frequency changes, and given that this building was built like a Sherman Tank, please read Silverstein statements in the first part of my presentation, there was nothing lacking. The time to cut columns wouldn't likely be dependent on RFI scenarios as you charge, this is largely, if not completely irrelevant.

"6> What detonation means could survive a seven hour fire and still reliably coordinate a demolition to an accuracy of 30 seconds and leave no trace in the rubble?"

Was there testing for explosive residue in the rubble? Was there active thermite in the 4 dust samples? Do you even understand what you are asking? You you think the explosives used to punch the columns out of the way were ACME dynamite sticks like Wylie Coyote (super genius) used in Road Runner cartoons with fuses coming out of a bundle of red tubes?

And again, you misinterperate my use of a 30 seconds hypothetical, and you are lacking in controlled demolition practice. The timing is, and must be tighter still than my hypothetical allotment.

"Granted magnesium, if that is what was use as an ignition source, would survive, but something had to set it off and in a coordinated manner. Even if copper or aluminum wire survives the fire, the insulation typically won't, and thus subject to shorting out."

I don't know the ignition sources of either the thermite or possible c4. In terms of exposive technologies alone, there may have not even been a need for a conventional explosive like c4, but is c4 was used, than the explosion were detonated with circuits, not heat sources. And the thermite technologies that National Laboratories and others have developed since the early eras have brought the ignition temperatures down to low levels with better control. The 221st National Meeting of the American Chemical Society help April 2001 in San Diego featured a symposium of Defense Applications of Nanomaterials which was about a decade in development at the time. The military services and academic laboratories were pushing and reporting the uniquie properties of nanomaterials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives for thermobaric and thermobaric (extended duration blast waves and pressures) like weapons due to their high degree of tailorability with regards to energy release and impulse management.
This implies that column specific and geometry specific formulations may be chosen to have optimal percussive effect to achieve the desired fragmentation while minimizing the noise level. Also, nano-thermite electric "matches" have been developed at Los Alamos National Laboritory for which applications include "triggering exposives for demolition." This is availible for you to read at

awards.lanl.gov/PDFfiles/Super-Thermite Electric Matches 2003.pdf

so the ignition technology is a tad more sophiticated than rubbing sticks together or scraping flint rock for spark. And drop the idea that this fire was a raging inferno that destroyed everything in its path. The WTC 7 fires had relatively little to consume, please take time to indulge here:

URL's for WTC 7 (just copy-paste them into your browser)

img10.imageshack.us/img10/5803/debrisdamagecomposit.jpg
img20.imageshack.us/img20/7306/floor8damageandstairway.jpg
img40.imageshack.us/img40/41/floor13debrisdamage.jpg
img251.imageshack.us/img251/6325/floor8layout.jpg
img132.imageshack.us/img132/4645/floorconnectionscomposi.jpg
img12.imageshack.us/img12/9093/floorpalncolumnnumbers.jpg
img34.imageshack.us/img34/5822/graphcompare.jpg
img151.imageshack.us/img151/341/fl8e3.png
img9.imageshack.us/img9/5199/columnlayoutgraphic.png
img5.imageshack.us/img5/1200/image002.png
img22.imageshack.us/img22/5810/fireoverlay4.jpg
img375.imageshack.us/img375/2725/floor12layoutwfiresim2ejy5.jpg
img76.imageshack.us/img76/4117/wtcfiresimcomparison080fm5.jpg
img504.imageshack.us/img504/8687/wtcfiresimcomparison080vs8.jpg
img171.imageshack.us/img171/3812/eastfireprogressionqc0.jpg
img524.imageshack.us/img524/8434/79wbeamandgirdergraphicwm9.jpg
img524.imageshack.us/img524/5198/girdertocolumn44connectgc9.jpg
img83.imageshack.us/img83/6118/column79seatconnectionecs6.gif
img512.imageshack.us/img512/1293/l49ecq4.jpg
img520.imageshack.us/img520/4499/t2eexj0.jpg

"7> How much thermite in total is required to bring down a building the size of WTC 7 (say to the nearest tractor-trailer load )?"

I discussed this in the video that you obviously did not watch, because this gets answered at length. Please watch the video, the entire video. Thank you. I will say they used enough to keep molten metal underground for several months. Please examine:

img383.imageshack.us/img383/3036/moltenmetalpp1.jpg
img76.imageshack.us/img76/3638/hotspotscompositrm5.jpg
img507.imageshack.us/img507/3366/bonefragmentsms9.jpg

"What efficiency ratio are you using for units of thermite used to units of steel (primarily) removed?"

I'm not using any "efficiency ratio" at all. I'm objecting to the collapse speed, the very existence of molten metal, the shit-FEA surveys (they were actually just visualizations) performed by ARA and Purdue, the removal of the evidence etc etc. Again, please don't do my like my 3 year old does and keep veering sideways, just watch the video, please.

"What is the minimum amount of steel (again primarily) which needed to be removed to result in an assured structural failure?"

All the columns have to be removed for a free fall (or near free fall) collapse at every floor for what we see in the video to happen. This is Newton's law. Therefore, were the columns removed? Or did office fire and falling debris from the north tower cause a near free fall collapse of a 610-foot building? Please watch my video, and please answer my questions.

Thanks Ed