Creative Speculation

gyroscope

(1,443 posts)

4. The fire theory is laughable

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 09:04 AM

Dec 2011

For the remotest chance of bringing down a steel building with fire, the structural steel of the ENTIRE building would have to be exposed to the flames not just a few floors at the top. The entire building would have to be engulfed in flames for days if not weeks. Burning a few floors at the top for less than an hour isn't going to do it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

300 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Great Thermite Debate... [View all] wildbilln864 Dec 2011 OP

If that nonsense is the "great thermate debate"... William Seger Dec 2011 #1

The Great Thermate Debate. I likes it! The problem, though, is there is ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #2

"two working eyes and a nose to sniff out the stench" William Seger Dec 2011 #6

Thanks, for the breezier read ... but, "thermate" didn't break the government's case for me ... T S Justly Dec 2011 #36

I think it's cute how you made up something called "Bush Theory Movement". zappaman Dec 2011 #37

I wouldn't say cute, but thanks! Lol. (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #40

What a pathetic concession speech (n/t) William Seger Dec 2011 #39

What? Lol! (nt) T S Justly Dec 2011 #41

[citation needed] OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #44

Here. T S Justly Dec 2011 #53

ROFL! OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #55

Arrogance AND irony, huh? Lol! T S Justly Dec 2011 #60

observation, not arrogance OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #61

1st... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #86

"At what temperature does Al begin to glow like any other metal?" Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #87

thankyou bolo... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #89

That's accurate AFAIK. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #94

So what contained the silvery molten aluminum so it could get super-heated Ace Acme Dec 2013 #131

That half-informed crap about aluminum glowing red probably came from Rush Limbaugh. GoneFishin Jan 2014 #293

Limbaugh is known for shooting off his mouth William Seger Jan 2014 #295

That's the half-information I was referring to. But some here may be fooled, so good luck to you. nt GoneFishin Jan 2014 #297

Well, I don't think YOU'RE fooling anyone William Seger Jan 2014 #299

and using the chart.... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #90

There are problems applying the chart to this picture. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #95

I don't think super hot glowing metal.... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #96

The light question is affecting how the camera takes the picture. n/t Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #98

which means? wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #99

and you think all metals... wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #97

What evidence have you that the lightweight concrete contained fly ash? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #130

Lightweight concrete can be made with either fly ash or pumice William Seger Dec 2013 #134

IOW, you don't know what their lightweight concrete recipe was. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #136

Fly ash was found William Seger Dec 2013 #139

Fly ash was found in the lungs of ONE first responder, says your link. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #141

Conspicuously absent from the dust analysis... William Seger Dec 2013 #142

Why would you expect the dust component inventory Ace Acme Dec 2013 #145

Pumice is mainly "vesicular" (pitted) volcanic glass William Seger Dec 2013 #148

I have no interest in the iron microspheres and make no claims about them. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #151

If you don't know all the other possible sources William Seger Dec 2013 #155

I couldn't care less about the burden on Jones & Co. They're not here, and they're not going to be Ace Acme Dec 2013 #156

Yes, I'm aware of how desperate you are to be right about something William Seger Dec 2013 #159

Keeping an issue open <> not giving a shit Ace Acme Dec 2013 #162

I didn't "invent" the fly ash claim William Seger Dec 2013 #166

Right. Lack of evidence is no reason for you not to believe what you want to believe. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #168

I guess it can! eom wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #3

The fire theory is laughable gyroscope Dec 2011 #4

[citation needed] OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #5

Can't buy the pancaking theory either gyroscope Dec 2011 #7

umm, I don't think so OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #8

To answer your second question gyroscope Dec 2011 #18

"they would not collapse neatly into a small pile using conventional demolition" Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #19

Yes, that is true gyroscope Dec 2011 #21

"the goal is to make the pile as small as possible." Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #26

Oh how nice to have Bolo to explain to us why bumblebees can not fly Ace Acme Dec 2013 #132

Straw-man William Seger Dec 2013 #135

Oh I see. Other buildings can topple, but WTC7 is topple proof. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #137

As I have said elsewhere... William Seger Dec 2013 #138

"We"? Who's "we"? You and your cadre of anonymous internet propagandists? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #140

"We" who haven't ignored the NIST reports (n/t) William Seger Dec 2013 #143

You have "Finite Element Analysis simulations that show Ace Acme Dec 2013 #144

The same place everyone else has them William Seger Dec 2013 #149

We were talking about WTC7. You claimed you had an FEA that showed that the columns could not Ace Acme Dec 2013 #153

1) Watch the sim animation William Seger Dec 2013 #158

In what sim animation does the top tip toward the south? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #160

You can see it in the animation that was posted here William Seger Dec 2013 #164

The sims bear no resemblance to reality. The real tower did not tip until the last phase Ace Acme Dec 2013 #169

Wrong again. William Seger Dec 2013 #171

You claimed in 158 that the sim animations of WTC7 showed tipping to the south. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #172

The tipping CAN be seen in the animation of the "with impact damage" sim William Seger Dec 2013 #174

There's nothing wrong with my observation skills. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #176

LOL, you've spun yourself into confusion again William Seger Dec 2013 #179

Where do you get this stuff? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #184

As I said, suit yourself William Seger Dec 2013 #195

So you refuse to tell us where you get this nonsense stuff. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #196

Your inability to see it William Seger Dec 2013 #199

I can see it just fine. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #201

Your inability to comprehend it William Seger Dec 2013 #212

You invent my alleged inabilities just as you invent your alleged facts. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #214

You're just wasting bandwidth and everyone's time now William Seger Dec 2013 #215

It's not entirely a waste of time to question you. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #216

I've answered, and you've ignored the answers William Seger Dec 2013 #217

I comprehend your nonsense just fine, thank you. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #218

LOL! zappaman Dec 2013 #219

Oh, it's the smileybot, back to demonstrate his erudition and analytical facility Ace Acme Dec 2013 #220

Been here the whole time! zappaman Dec 2013 #221

Yeah. But even that citation about the towers used the word "must" so many times GoneFishin Jan 2014 #294

You're entitled to your opinion William Seger Jan 2014 #296

He's prevaricating. Just as I stated. If you can't spot a snowjob it's fine with me. There may be GoneFishin Jan 2014 #298

LOL, no, he is not "prevaricating." William Seger Jan 2014 #300

one more thing gyroscope Dec 2011 #20

I don't understand this, either OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #24

Documents and Command Center Destroyed gyroscope Dec 2011 #27

meh OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #29

The NIST says BLDG 7 was brought down by fires gyroscope Dec 2011 #30

You're not representing the NIST explanation correctly at all. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #31

Have you read their report? gyroscope Dec 2011 #32

Yes, I have read that and the final report as well. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #33

I understand gyroscope Dec 2011 #34

As soon as you stop playing silly games and deal with your misrepresentations Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #35

I'm not sure how much you've thought about this OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #50

Why not just shred or move the documents? Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2012 #123

Because the office workers would notice that their files were missing? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #133

no kidding? zappaman Dec 2011 #22

I don't understand this OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #23

as I said, bolo is correct on that point gyroscope Dec 2011 #28

that's awfully fuzzy OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #51

You have it backwards cpwm17 Dec 2011 #10

Only one floor had to collapse to then cause the entire building to collapse cpwm17 Dec 2011 #9

Newton's third law of motion gyroscope Dec 2011 #12

Good question cpwm17 Dec 2011 #13

But in your previous post gyroscope Dec 2011 #14

The poster did not say the debris was turning into dust on the way down. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #15

The mass of the upper block destroyed the lower block cpwm17 Dec 2011 #25

exactly right! wildbilln864 Dec 2011 #16

And now we know it wasn't fire but thermate gyroscope Dec 2011 #17

"We" who "know" what?! William Seger Dec 2011 #38

Another thing not found in the rubble was steel that had been heated to the extent that NIST assumed eomer Dec 2011 #42

First, "... none of the samples were from zones where such heating was predicted.” William Seger Dec 2011 #43

No samples of the type predicted by NIST were found. eomer Dec 2011 #45

That's not stating it precisely right - the samples they found DID match their predictions. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #46

Oh, well, the samples that were found also matched the predictions of the thermite theory. eomer Dec 2011 #47

But it confirms the modeling. Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #48

That is the data that the model was fitted to in the first place. It confirms nothing. eomer Dec 2011 #49

You were expecting they'd find a model that wouldn't fit what physical evidence they had? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #52

No, I'm not surprised by what they did. I'm also not convinced by it. eomer Dec 2011 #56

Wrong William Seger Dec 2011 #58

They didn't demonstrate that no laws of physics were violated by the collapses. eomer Dec 2011 #63

Still wrong William Seger Dec 2011 #68

They did adjust laws of physics. eomer Dec 2011 #72

So a rigorous mathematical and professional modeling of the WTC tower structures checked Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #75

There are multiple models, some of which check and some of which don't. eomer Dec 2011 #76

Choosing the model that agreed the closest with all visual and physical evidence is circular? Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #78

If the point of the exercise is to demonstrate that there weren't other factors eomer Dec 2011 #79

The additional help was found in the more severe modeling Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #81

The modeling that was "within the margin of error" includes collapse and no collapse. eomer Jan 2012 #83

Perhaps I've goofed up terminology here. Bolo Boffin Jan 2012 #112

You're misunderstanding the "point of the exercise" William Seger Jan 2012 #88

I don't think that is correct OnTheOtherHand Dec 2011 #59

I hesitated to reply because I think this is going to be difficult to work through. eomer Jan 2012 #84

maybe part of the problem here is "the big question they were trying to answer" OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #85

One of the big questions NIST meant to address was how the towers collapsed. eomer Jan 2012 #91

sure, understanding the collapse is integral to learning from it OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #93

I'm arguing, rather, that NIST didn't demonstrate that therm*te wasn't *needed*. eomer Jan 2012 #100

OK, nu? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #102

I don't see a practical solution to it being circular. eomer Jan 2012 #105

I think you're drawing a bright line that doesn't exist OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #108

You make some good points, let me try to construct my position better. eomer Jan 2012 #115

perhaps it depends, again, on how one construes the problem OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #116

About manager engineers and then the circular logic. eomer Jan 2012 #118

the following is quoted from your source: OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #119

A quote from a couple of paragraphs earlier... eomer Jan 2012 #120

My answer about intervening to change assumptions, and other similar things. eomer Jan 2012 #121

I'll try to be somewhat brief OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #124

I'm not sure I see the distinction. eomer Jan 2012 #125

the way this thread (and the broader "debate") has gone, I think the distinction is huge OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #127

I still don't see the distinction between would and did, but let me not use that word. eomer Jan 2012 #128

"engineers at NASA"? OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #122

Engineers were pressured "to take off [their] engineering hat and put on [their] management hat". eomer Jan 2012 #126

I don't think your quotation is quite on point OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #129

LOL, unless you're claiming that there weren't any fires at all... William Seger Dec 2011 #57

The models that NIST chose did assume column temperatures exceeding 600 ºC. eomer Dec 2011 #64

But those column temperatures did not play any part in collapse initiation William Seger Dec 2011 #66

According to NIST they did. eomer Dec 2011 #69

Please highlight the part that says... William Seger Dec 2011 #70

That is one aspect of the model. Do you seriously propose that you can choose parts of the model eomer Dec 2011 #74

I'm "proposing" that the temperature of the columns did not affect the floor sagging William Seger Dec 2011 #80

Those temperatures are an integral part of the model and one that NIST spent several pages on. eomer Jan 2012 #82

Again: the temperature of the columns did not affect the floor sagging William Seger Jan 2012 #92

None of that has been demonstrated. eomer Jan 2012 #101

The floor sagging did require the higher temperatures William Seger Jan 2012 #103

What the video proves gyroscope Dec 2011 #54

Well, actually, he only proved that he could cut a little way through a small steel beam William Seger Dec 2011 #62

How could you twist off a big steel beam with your bare hands gyroscope Dec 2011 #65

That was just a weld that he managed to unweld, not cutting through a column. William Seger Dec 2011 #67

You're accusing him of forging the results? gyroscope Dec 2011 #71

No, what I said was that other parts of that video William Seger Dec 2011 #73

Fair enough, but gyroscope Dec 2011 #77

"didn't even bother to look for evidence of explosives and/or incendiaries" William Seger Jan 2012 #104

'No reason to chemically test for explosives.' gyroscope Jan 2012 #106

oh brother OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #109

NIST didn't test for explosives, period. gyroscope Jan 2012 #110

looks like you tried again for me n/t OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #113

'Did anyone test for the presence of thermite (in 1993)? gyroscope Jan 2012 #111

[citation needed] OnTheOtherHand Jan 2012 #114

Nonsense. The only reason to test for explosives in any of those cases... William Seger Jan 2012 #117

Far from being insane, it was proposed by experts immediately after the collapses, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #146

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? William Seger Dec 2013 #147

I didn't call Jennings and Rather experts. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #150

I just told you, Downey said he thought bombs might have been planted William Seger Dec 2013 #152

Please quote Captain Downey. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #154

If you're citing Downey as your expert, shouldn't you be the one quoting him? William Seger Dec 2013 #161

I cited Romero to the effect that a few charges in key places could have brought the buildings down. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #163

That Downey quote seems to be hearsay William Seger Dec 2013 #165

So you're calling Father John Delendick a liar? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #167

Argument from authority William Seger Dec 2013 #170

I didn't say Chief Downey was correct. I said his opinion was not insane. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #173

Controlled demolition of the WTC towers is an idiotic theory William Seger Dec 2013 #175

Says an anonymous internet poster who obsessively demonstrates his confusion Ace Acme Dec 2013 #177

There were no high-explosive sounds... William Seger Dec 2013 #182

How do you know? Were you there? Witnesses say there were. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #186

How do I know there were no sounds remotely like high-explosives? William Seger Dec 2013 #197

Upon what basis do you expect seismic events with controlled demolitions? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #202

Some more answers for you to ignore William Seger Dec 2013 #213

You mean, more ignorance for me to answer Ace Acme Dec 2013 #222

As predicted, you ignored most of what I said William Seger Dec 2013 #223

Who obstructed ASCE's site access? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #224

Yes, Fire Engineering Magazine was up in arms in January 2002. AZCat Dec 2013 #225

By the time NIST was approved, the damage was done. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #227

That's not quite true. AZCat Dec 2013 #229

The core steel samples only show heating to 480 F. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #232

What tests would you have suggested? AZCat Dec 2013 #233

I'm not a metallurgist. You seemed to be dismissive of the test results that were available, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #238

Your opinion of NIST's tests then seems ill-informed. AZCat Dec 2013 #241

So you're suggesting that there were not other, more edifying tests that could have been done Ace Acme Dec 2013 #247

This is why it's important to actually read the report... AZCat Dec 2013 #250

I know it wasn't. It's immaterial--as usual. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #254

Then why imply it was the only one? AZCat Dec 2013 #256

It was the one that showed heating to only 480 F. The other tests did not counterindicate that. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #259

But the collapse didn't begin with the core William Seger Dec 2013 #244

How do you know the collapse didn't begin with the core? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #252

I can't explain that William Seger Dec 2013 #262

The Saudet video shows that the antenna fell 18 feet before the building started falling. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #265

The Saudet video shows the antenna tilting away from the camera William Seger Dec 2013 #268

No it doesn't. The top of the N. wall would be moving if the building were tilting. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #270

From the east and west, the north wall IS seen to move William Seger Dec 2013 #275

Since your gif begins at the moment the tilt begins, we have no way of knowing Ace Acme Dec 2013 #278

As predicted, you're still ignoring most of what I said William Seger Dec 2013 #226

Who cares what an anonymous internet poster thinks? We need new investigations. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #228

So the anonymous internet poster who says we shouldn't listen to anonymous internet posters... AZCat Dec 2013 #230

I couldn't care less if you listen to me or not. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #234

Then who do you expect to listen to your cries for a new investigation? AZCat Dec 2013 #236

I expect reasonable people to look at the facts, to look at the demonstrably incomplete and corrupt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #239

From my admittedly limited surveying of people I consider to be reasonable... AZCat Dec 2013 #242

Your surveying is probably limited to people whose jobs depend on not seeing Ace Acme Dec 2013 #246

How do you figure? AZCat Dec 2013 #249

Any kind of job that demands conformity, obedience, and avoidance of controversy. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #251

That's a pretty naive view. AZCat Dec 2013 #257

Says the guy who apprently doesn't understand conflicts of interest. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #258

I didn't really expect you to answer directly William Seger Dec 2013 #231

Please don't attribute to me things I didn't say. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #235

Oh? So you think you CAN have it both ways? William Seger Dec 2013 #237

I didn't say it was thermite melting. You leap to facile conclusions. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #240

Actually, that's exactly what I'm getting at William Seger Dec 2013 #243

What makes you think the scientists didn't recognize theermite melting? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #245

Right, just keep making the conspiracy as big as it needs to be William Seger Dec 2013 #248

Why do you assume they're ambitious? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #253

Steel does not melt at 1000 degrees C William Seger Dec 2013 #263

If you had bothered to read Appendix C you would know that the sulfidated steel does melt at 1000 C. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #266

Read it again: "STEEL does not melt a 1000 degrees C" William Seger Dec 2013 #269

Liquefied steel is melted steel by any reasonable standard. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #272

Hypocritic bullshit William Seger Dec 2013 #274

The eutectic mixture liquefies the steel at a temperature below its normal melting point. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #276

And again: It was the eutectic mixture that was liquefied William Seger Dec 2013 #280

The eutectic mixture includes the iron from the steel. That's why the steel liquefies. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #282

You've got the cart before the horse again William Seger Dec 2013 #283

If the eutectic melting happened at 1000C you still have to explain where the sulfur came from, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #285

No, I don't William Seger Dec 2013 #287

Calcium Sulfate is not a possible source. It's already fully oxidized. It's inert. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #289

Do you ever research anything? William Seger Dec 2013 #291

Prove either one of those claims William Seger Dec 2013 #261

In all these years you never heard of FEMA Appendix C? Ace Acme Dec 2013 #267

That's NOT one of the two claims I'm asking you to prove William Seger Dec 2013 #271

Why would I claim something I can not possibly know? nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #279

Damn good question (n/t) William Seger Dec 2013 #281

The steel was subject to a high-temperature sulfidation attack causing intergranular melting. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #255

Still waiting William Seger Dec 2013 #260

So with Mr. Cole's report you discount what he did say and deny the evidence on specious grounds. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #264

So you're just making empty assertions about Cole's experiment William Seger Dec 2013 #273

You can see the video for yourself. It's pretty simple. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #277

No, from that video... William Seger Dec 2013 #284

So run some thermate on some steel and show that it's not the same as the FEMA samples. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #286

Nobody is required to disprove your claims (n/t) William Seger Dec 2013 #288

You're the one claiming that Mr. Cole's sulfidation attack on the steel is not the same as WPI's Ace Acme Dec 2013 #290

wrong! wildbilln864 Jan 2012 #107

This message was self-deleted by its author gyroscope Dec 2011 #11

Interesting set of experiments that should be taken seriously, but ... BlueStreak Dec 2013 #157

Maybe terrorists did invade the buildings and plant bombs. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #181

I can't see the "terrorists" doing this operation on the buildings BlueStreak Dec 2013 #183

Your argument from incredulity is noted. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #188

"I try to avoid having conclusive opinions and instead stick to established facts" zappaman Dec 2013 #189

Ah, the attitude bot! Just in time. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #190

I don't find the plane "successes" all that surprising BlueStreak Dec 2013 #192

It's not a question of lack of diligence Ace Acme Dec 2013 #194

Sorry, you can't build a case based on an expectation of government competence BlueStreak Dec 2013 #200

How do you know FBI protocols abot ignoring warnings? You must be highly placed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #204

Questions. If you have Thermite in close proximity to burning wreckage intaglio Dec 2013 #178

Thermite is difficult to ignite. Usually a magnesium fuse is employed. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #180

You can ignite thermite using a sparkler intaglio Dec 2013 #185

You don't need charges on the fire floors. WTC1 came apart in floors above the fire floors. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #187

So where the heat from the fires below was concentrated intaglio Dec 2013 #191

If there's reprogramable det sequences, that can all be adjusted after the fact Ace Acme Dec 2013 #193

And how do you use radio dets in an electromagnetically noisy environmment? intaglio Dec 2013 #198

Easy. You use insensitive receivers and very powerful transmitters. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #203

Oh what a lie! intaglio Dec 2013 #205

Radio control needn't interfere with other equipment if the frequency was chosen carefully, Ace Acme Dec 2013 #206

There are no microprocessor based dets intaglio Dec 2013 #207

I could make microprocessor-based detonators. Probably 400,000 people in the USA could. Ace Acme Dec 2013 #208

How could you make microprocessor based detonators? zappaman Dec 2013 #209

Says the attitude-bot. It ain't rocket science. nt Ace Acme Dec 2013 #210

No, you lie again intaglio Dec 2013 #211

Hey, ease up on the sarcasm lever, you might break it!...nt dougolat Dec 2013 #292