Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

tomk52

(46 posts)
63. Depends on what the word "survive" means...
Sat Mar 30, 2013, 12:23 PM
Mar 2013

Last edited Fri Apr 5, 2013, 06:59 AM - Edit history (1)

If you mean "will fires ignite it?", then the answer is "possibly, but not for certain". Takes a high temp to ignite. The igniters are hi temp (magnesium powder, IIRC). Grab a sparkler, put the tip (non-igniter) end in a fire, then in a barbecue, & see. I doubt that it'll ignite, but you might find a spot hot enough. Contrary to amateur opinion, fires do not burn at any one temp. They have a wide distribution of temps. You might find a hot spot.

"One experiment is worth 1000 theories."

But "resistance to ignition" is the least of the problems of collapsing columns with thermite. The biggest problem is keeping reacting termite physically in contact with column. (Yeah, I've seen Jon Cole's - really dumb - videos) and timing. The thermite wants to fly in all directions when it ignites. That's why most demos, the thermite cuts downward. Gravity holds it down. Tougher to do when trying to cut sideways.

The timing is impossible. Even if possible, it would take about 20 ±5 seconds (IIRC) for thermite to cut thru a 6" thick column. In order to execute the brain-dead "collapse at free fall speed" Truther delusion, the cutting of the columns would have to be sequenced within about 0.03 seconds. Impossible on its face.

There is a short list of reasons why the whole "thermite" thing is really, really stupid.
1. Despite the ballyhoo, no thermite was ever found in any dust. The people who claim it were incompetent amateurs who had never once performed that sort of analysis before.

2. The real confidence in ANY study comes only after replication by unbiased, independent, competent investigators.
2a) Harrit, Jones, et al have had years to get their results replicated. They've made zero effort to do so.
2b) When another qualified expert (James Millette) replicated tests, the results were conclusive: no thermite.
2c) When asked to share his samples with Millette, Jones & Ryan refused. This is the action of charlatans, not "seekers of the truth".

3. When one has earth-shaking, revolutionary results in ANY field, you bring your results (including absolute transparent disclosure of evidence, test methods, error analyses & any weaknesses you know about your own assertions) to bona fide experts in the explicit field. In other words, you cooperate with those who think that you are wrong. The truth has nothing to fear from being attacked. In fact, competent attack from competent attackers is the quickest way for some theory to be accepted.
You do NOT:
3a. present to college kids or "the public"
3b. present to "truther conventions"
3c. post on YouTube.
3d. create an "us vs. them" environment, and attribute disagreement to prejudice &/or evil
3e. ask amateurs to "decide for themselves"

Origins of thermite claim: From Steven Jones, in order to explain lack of "booms".
Jones' sequence of 'certainty':
"Thermite!"
"Oops, thermate.!"
"Sorry, thermite. For sure!"
"Uhh, nanothermite. Absolutely."
"Ahhh, weapons-grade superthermite. This time for sure."

And now...?
I have heard that he has joined Harrit in the "hundreds of tons of high explosives, with thermite used as fuses" delusion. It's difficult to know for sure, because he has chosen to abandon the whole discussion, and has moved on to "US underwater nuclear detonations have caused Asian tsunamis" garbage.

The "thermite as fuses" is simultaneously hilarious & incompetent, because:
1) thermite will NOT detonate high explosives.
2) after 5 incompetent years, it brings him right back to where he started: unable to explain the lack of "booms", the impetus for this Path of Stupidity in the first place..!!!

Better proofs that [ETA] NO thermite (nor explosives of any sort) were used:
Photos from Ground Zero, which you can examine today.

Look at the ends of the columns. If they were destroyed with explosives or melted with thermite, you'd be able to see that from 20' away with the naked eye. The resolution of these photos is plenty good enough to see the proof.

If melted with thermite, you'd see massive "slumps" of metal, as it transitioned between unmelted, semi-melted, melted steel. There is NOT ONE such end seen.

If cut with explosives or cutter charges, you'd see clear melted & "rubber-banded" (melted, forced in one direction from blast & quick re-solidified) metal. This metal would be unmistakably obvious to anyone experienced in detonations, & 100% provable from the grain structure. There is NOT ONE such end in the photos.

The vast majority of the ends of columns seen are "clean machined surfaces". That means that the connecting bolts snapped in tension. The column itself acted like a 36' long claw hammer, with its claw under the heads of 4 7/8" diameter bolts. Given the weight of those columns, I'd be shocked if the bolts would not fail if you just tilted a single upper column by 10° or so, just under its own weight, with no additional side load.

The remainder of the ends are "distorted machined surfaces", which means that the bolts held a little longer, enough to distort the end plates & tear a few welds, before the bolt heads snapped or the bolts pulled thru the plates.

There are zero melted column ends in the pile.
There are zero high-shear rate, explosive deformed ends in the pile.
Therefore there was zero explosives & zero thermite.

The whole 5 year tail-chase has been one, giant, amateur cluster-fork.

Most specifically not "JMO".
Fact.

Tom

Conspiracy v. fact 9/11 [View all] Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 OP
My favorite.... Frank_Norris_Lives Feb 2013 #1
Yup, ludicrous. But... tomk52 Mar 2013 #13
My apologies..... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #46
thanks for reply. tomk52 Mar 2013 #51
The engines of the plane that hit the Pentagon energetically dissasembled themselves when they diges AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #2
Ok Prog_gun_owner Feb 2013 #3
I don't know what the fuck "Thur-mate" is. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #4
The whole "official" 9/11 story is riddled with stinking-lying Republican holes Berlum Feb 2013 #5
You do realize, don't you ... tomk52 Mar 2013 #57
Could thermite cutters even survive a plane impact? Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2013 #62
Depends on what the word "survive" means... tomk52 Mar 2013 #63
Thank-you Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #70
An aside... tomk52 Mar 2013 #64
Here's a picture of what tomk52 is talking about. Bolo Boffin Mar 2013 #65
Thank-you -- I was about to "Press 1 for English" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #69
You do realize that the NIST animation Politicalboi May 2013 #73
Um, the south tower core columns up to floor 50 or so are visible standing in the dust AtheistCrusader May 2013 #78
LOL ocpagu May 2013 #79
I thought you truthers gave up... tomk52 May 2013 #81
The right way to ask questions... tomk52 Mar 2013 #6
In that case, I have a first question..... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #8
Jet engines don't leave thick, white exhaust trails until ... tomk52 Mar 2013 #9
Are you saying.... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #14
I am saying that ... tomk52 Mar 2013 #16
A well-reasoned explanation for the smoke trail: greyl Mar 2013 #19
Nice animation but.... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #20
Luckily, there's VIDEO of that exceedingly short period of time. Remember that? nt greyl Mar 2013 #22
Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, ... tomk52 Mar 2013 #23
Well, that's strange because..... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #26
Well, I have to agree that this is strange... tomk52 Mar 2013 #32
One certainly can't help but admire... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #39
OF COURSE you get to ignore all those witnesses. tomk52 Mar 2013 #40
Well said! zappaman Mar 2013 #41
Wow...... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #42
... said Frank, rubbing his sore ass. William Seger Mar 2013 #43
And here is your last bastion ... tomk52 Mar 2013 #44
You and.... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #47
LOL, I had forgotten that... William Seger Mar 2013 #48
What you scoffin' at, Willis?? tomk52 Mar 2013 #53
Well, there has to be SOME explanation William Seger Mar 2013 #55
Yup. tomk52 Mar 2013 #56
2nd last bastion... tomk52 Mar 2013 #52
They'll say anything Politicalboi May 2013 #74
Saying nonsense doesn't make it true. tomk52 May 2013 #82
How did the engines penetrate through a 10' hole? BobbyBoring Mar 2013 #10
5 sentences. So much misinformation... tomk52 Mar 2013 #12
Aren't we here.... Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #15
You went thru a lot of effort to be this lazy ... tomk52 Mar 2013 #17
Good Grief! Frank_Norris_Lives Mar 2013 #21
You got a bus to catch...?? tomk52 Mar 2013 #25
We have for years Politicalboi May 2013 #75
It wasn't a 10 foot hole hack89 Mar 2013 #27
This is a 90' hole? BobbyBoring Mar 2013 #49
That is the 10' EXIT hole in the Pentagon E ring - not the entrance hole in the facade. hack89 Mar 2013 #50
Bobby, anything more to say...? tomk52 Mar 2013 #45
You say you read the FEMA/ASCE Pentagon BPAT report? tomk52 Mar 2013 #54
I have questions that don't involve the collapses Politicalboi Mar 2013 #7
Here's an answer that doesn't involve collapses... tomk52 Mar 2013 #11
Wow... what a waste of time reading this. ocpagu Mar 2013 #18
Are you kidding? tomk52 Mar 2013 #24
Several of Bazant's explanations... ocpagu Mar 2013 #30
Again, tomk52 Mar 2013 #31
On NIST site ocpagu Mar 2013 #35
Yup, I didn't think you understood either one. tomk52 Mar 2013 #37
There are pictures of seats (with bodies attached) hack89 Mar 2013 #28
Because... ocpagu Mar 2013 #29
How do you pack so much "wrong"... tomk52 Mar 2013 #58
LOL. ocpagu Mar 2013 #60
This has become a pattern. tomk52 Mar 2013 #61
Ya can't have it both ways, government apologists AlwaysQuestion Mar 2013 #33
Yeah right zappaman Mar 2013 #34
Who in this planet has ever used the expression ocpagu Mar 2013 #36
it's 2005 all over again? tomk52 Mar 2013 #38
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place stevebreeze May 2013 #76
Because.... Frank_Norris_Lives May 2013 #77
He knows that... ocpagu May 2013 #80
There's nothing resembling sound premises or valid logical inferences in your argument William Seger Mar 2013 #59
Pro_gun_owner...Here's a link to a video that I encourage you to watch... truth2power Mar 2013 #66
"... not honestly searching for a resolution ..." tomk52 Apr 2013 #67
No thanks.... truth2power Apr 2013 #68
you seem to have a "legal" slant on things... tomk52 Apr 2013 #71
Welcome to the club Politicalboi May 2013 #72
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Creative Speculation»Conspiracy v. fact 9/11»Reply #63