NIST WTC7 study doesn't address the engineering aspects of the thermite theory.

[eomer]

The NIST WTC7 Report (Volume 1, Volume 2) includes a section that considers whether explosives could have been used to bring down the building. But that section focuses on high explosives like RDX and has no consideration of the theory that has been proffered more often: that a low explosive like thermite could have been used. They do some analysis on the sound that RDX would have produced and conclude that RDX is ruled out because such a sound wasn't heard. But thermite would not have produced any such sound and therefore can't be ruled out in this way.

They do give a bit of explanation in the companion Q&A (see excerpt at bottom of this post). They say that the use of thermite is unlikely because it is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into the building. But this line of reasoning collapses if one can believe that it is in fact possible that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into the building.

NIST doesn't provide any analysis or discussion to back up this spycraft conclusion and that probably makes sense since it is outside their expertise. What doesn't make sense is for them to take a leading theory and just declare it out of scope based on some non-engineering reason. They should have stipulated that it would have been possible to move in 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, and then they should have analyzed the scientific question of whether it could have been used and how it could have been used to bring the building down.

Such an analysis might have shed some light on the mechanical difficulty of keeping burning thermite in contact with a vertical surface, how many columns or other elements might reasonably have been attacked in such an approach, how many columns or other elements would have to be cut to bring the building down (apparently as little as one column?), to name a few examples.

Somebody please correct me if NIST has addressed thermite/WTC7 more thoroughly somewhere. I did a search in both Volume 1 and Volume 2 for both "thermite" and "thermate" and got no matches.

Is it possible that thermite or thermate contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
NIST has looked at the application and use of thermite and has determined that its use to sever columns in WTC 7 on 9/11/01 was unlikely.

Thermite is a combination of aluminum powder and a metal oxide that releases a tremendous amount of heat when ignited. It is typically used to weld railroad rails together by melting a small quantity of steel and pouring the melted steel into a form between the two rails.

To apply thermite to a large steel column, approximately 0.13 lb of thermite would be needed to heat and melt each pound of steel. For a steel column that weighs approximately 1,000 lbs. per foot, at least 100 lbs. of thermite would need to be placed around the column, ignited, and remain in contact with the vertical steel surface as the thermite reaction took place. This is for one column … presumably, more than one column would have been prepared with thermite, if this approach were to be used.

It is unlikely that 100 lbs. of thermite, or more, could have been carried into WTC 7 and placed around columns without being detected, either prior to Sept. 11 or during that day.

Given the fires that were observed that day, and the demonstrated structural response to the fires, NIST does not believe that thermite was used to fail any columns in WTC 7.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

[LARED]

1. What engineering aspects of the thermite theory?

What are you looking for? It is not clear what you mean by engineering aspects.

[eomer]

3. I listed a few in my OP.

The mechanical problem of applying thermite to a vertical surface and keeping it in contact.

To which structural elements would thermite need to be applied and to what extent in order to bring the building down.

In other words, do the NIST engineers find the use of thermite to bring the building down a feat that could be accomplished and, if so, what would the details of such an attack look like.

They went to the trouble to rule out some of the other alternative theories. My guess is that they didn't include a ruling out of thermite because there is no scientific basis on which it can be ruled out.

I've got be at an appt for 2 hours of dental work and oral surgery (which is probably more fun than hanging around here) so I've got to run. I'll check back later.

[LARED]

4. There are few engineering issues preventing Thermite from being used

to bring the building down. The issue is it possible from a practical view to have accomplished this in secret. The answer is no.

[wildbilln864]

5. Well thanks for your opinion.

Hopefully, you do realize it's just an opinion. :hi:

[LARED]

7. And hopefully you realize some opinions

are more worthy than others. An engineer stating an opinion about an engineering issue, surely is valued higher that a someone that posts debunked nonsense over and over like some people around here.

If you have an opinion about something you have experience I will take it seriously. What is your vocation anyway? Outside of 9/11 purveyor of silliness.

[wildbilln864]

8. Many engineers....

disagree with your particular engineers! Go figure. :shrug:

[LARED]

9. That was my opinion as an engineer.

Your opinions are based on what experience, expertise?

[wildbilln864]

19. well sure you are!

:eyes:

[LARED]

78. I'm' curious willbill, what training vocation,etc do you posses

that would cause me to take your opinions regarding engineering seriously. Mind you I not claiming someone needs to have any particular education for skills to have a valid opinion, only it would be helpful to understand your background to help you get over the ignorance "hump" that seems to be hindering you.

What what do you do? Clown, mime, Construction worker, Convenience store clerk, High School student, College student, VP of a conglomerate, investment banker, crossing guard, teacher, what?

[Fainter]

90. You Need To Work On Your Condescension "Hump" Champ. n/t

[LARED]

102. Nay, I think I have it down pretty good. - nt

[petgoat]

25. The claim that the thermite couldn't have been placed in secret is not an engineering issue. nt

[Realityhack]

82. No it isn't but it can be informed by engineering information.

For example the amount of thermite needed to melt through a beam is an engineering question.
As is how thermite could be applied so it would stay in contact with the beam long enough, and where thermite would need to be placed to achieve the effect seen.

[petgoat]

24. Why was it not practical? Barry Jennings seems to feel there was

nobody around the 8th floor to help him get out of the building.

Was there a troupe of tapdancers practicing in the mechanical rooms?

Was there a school group touring the elevator shafts?

[LARED]

31. OK PG,

To start, based on your comment you seem to believe thermite was placed in the building on 9/11?

Yes?

[petgoat]

32. Big leap from "planted in the mechanical room and the elevator shafts" to "planted on 9/11"?

Also, FEMA says floors 14 through 17 were vacant.

NIST says the collapse started at 13. Hmmm. Think their model can
distinguish a fire-induced collapse starting at 13 from a
thermite-induced collapse starting at 14?

[LARED]

33. Ok, I understand you now (I think)

I'm not sure if you are aware of this or not but it is a safe bet that every column in WTC 7 was fireproofed and hidden behind something to make them look nice in the building.

So in order to pull off a Demo job

They need to attached thermite to a bunch of steel column in a way that no one notices that the fireproofing and any facades were removed.

They obviously needed to know what columns to pick out so that the building collapsed the way it did. They must be incredibly skilled to know what columns created the exact collapse sequence the NIST found only after seven years of investigation. If they were really going to demo the building it would have collapsed like it was demo'ed by someone that would not have considered demolishing the building in the known sequence.

Floors that are vacant does not mean no one ever goes there. Most buildings have those security guys that must check each floor every night. Not to mention security cameras that might pick up the covert agents hustling thermite and all the equipment needed to attach it just right around the building.

Plus there is zero evidence of thermite. I know it's a small detail in the larger scope of the fantasy land CT'er live in, but not having thermite sort of makes a thermite created collapse somewhat impractical.

[petgoat]

38. Ever hear of a suspended ceiling?

Maybe they don't have them in Canalou?

I agree that a competent op would have toppled the
building across Vesey Street. Let's suppose that we
had a perfectionistic technician excessively proud of
his skill and a lunatic supervisor. 9/11 was a botched
op. But what do you expect from a scheme conceived and
executed by lunatics?

Security guys race through their rounds to punch their keys.
Once they've made the rounds, you know they're gone.

There is plenty of evidence of thermate. Molten iron,
elevated 1300 degree surface temps at the piles, sulfidation
attacks on steel samples, barium and potassium in the dust,
iron micropsheres, and 1,3 diphenylpropane are all evidence
of thermate.

[LARED]

39. What does a suspended ceiling have to do with anything? nt

[petgoat]

42. It has to do with your assumption that demo preps would be noticed.

When did you last look in the duct space above a suspended ceiling?

When did you last look in the plumbing raceway behind a bathroom?

When did you last inspect an elevator shaft?

When did you last trespass on a vacant office floor?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Petgoat....

most, if not all, of your posts seem to go in the direction of, "well, it's possible this could happen" which proves exactly nothing. Why is it you can't advance a coherent alternative hypothesis and provide evidence of it?

[LARED]

53. So lets see. So far

You're advocating that the thermite was hidden somewhere above the drop ceiling and although the building as designed to collapse like a classic demolition, something went wrong and the building just happened to collapse in a way that no one expected.

[petgoat]

64. What do you mean the building collapsed in a way no one expected?

It was as perfect a job as you can do on a 47-story building.

I haven't read the report yet, but at this point the notion
that the east penthouse collapse was created locally on the 46th
floor seems more reasonable than the notion that there was an
invisible 40-floor collapse that didn't damage the exterior wall.

[Realityhack]

81. "I haven't read the report yet, but..." LOL. n/t

[petgoat]

89. Have you? Or do you accept the impossibilities inherent in the summary on faith? nt

[hack89]

40. I disagree with most of your last paragraph

There are explanations out their - you have seen them and ignored them but they are there none-the-less:

1. This paper was written specifically to answer Appendix C steel issue. Does an eutectic reaction ring a bell?:

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

2. The molten metal was aluminum - there is absolutely no hard evidence at all that it was steel.

3. You have never explained a mechanism for how thermite would produce these temperature. You have never explained how termite could produce such a huge hot spot.

4. The EPA explains where the 1,3 diphenylpropane came from - the tons of plastic that were burned. You need to do a little research on what 1,3 diphenylpropane is used for.

[petgoat]

41. You have no hard evidence that the molten metal was aluminum.

You indulge in wild assumptions to support your complacency,
and demand impossible proofs of any challenges.

The molten metal pouring out of tower two was orange. Molten
aluminum is silvery. A couple of dozen witnesses--including
Leslie Robertson--described molten steel on the basements.
One of them described a beam lifted from within the pile
that had molten steel dripping off its ends.

Did anyone describe molten aluminum? Have you ever seen molten
aluminum? It looks like aluminum. It can not be mistaken for
steel.

Dr. Jones has done a chemical analysis from a sample of previously
molten metal. It was iron. The microspheres are iron, not aluminum.
The FEMA Appendix C sample is steel. not aluminum.

No one has proposed any mechanism by which the high temperatures in
the pile would be achieved--except those who wrongly assume that
long cooking in an 800 degree fire can raise the temperature of steel
to 2800 degrees, those who postulate that some kind of natural
blast furnace was formed in the pile, and those who recognize that
the thermate reaction proceeds at 4000 degrees, and produces molten
iron as a byproduct.

Where does the EPA explain where the 1,3 diphenylpropane comes from?
They said they had never encountered it at any site before.

[SDuderstadt]

45. "You indulge in wild assumptions to support your complacency"

You're talking about yourself here, right? And, BTW, the claim that Robertson said that it was "molten steel" has been repeatedly debunked and Robertson himself has stated he did not say that.

http://www.911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

This post just demonstrates your intellectual laziness and dishonesty, not to mention your utter lack of compunction about not fact-checking your claims, but pawning it off as the truth. I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but I don't really think you care.

[hack89]

50. There had to be melted aluminum - think what you are saying

You say that the rubble pile had surface temperatures of 1300 - well, what temperature does aluminum melt at? Less than 1300 F. There had to be melted aluminum - there were tons of it sitting for days in temperatures well above its melting point.

So tell me - how did all that melted steel stay separated from the melted aluminum?

As for your color analysis - need to think that one through again. There were no pure samples of melted anything. That molten metal contained soot, dry wall, melted plastics, all the other debris in those burning towers.

Are you really saying that thermite was reacting in the pile weeks after the collapse? Are you saying that there was really enough thermite to produce such a huge hot spot? Wouldn't have produce a massive iron ingot as it cooled? There is no evidence of one.

1,3 diphenylpropane is a common ingredient in plastics. Think about how many computers burned in the WTC - a truly unique event, wouldn't you say?

Here's the complete quote:

One molecule, described by the EPA's Erik Swartz, was present at levels "that dwarfed all others": 1,3-diphenylpropane. "We've never observed it in any sampling we've ever done," Swartz said. He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of tens of thousands of burning computers.

http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hsair0911,0,471193.story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area

[SDuderstadt]

43. Again, please provide the evidence that proves it was "molten iron"

Hint: People saying that's what they thought it was don't count.

[JackRiddler]

51. What if you control or are part of the security to the building? Is it possible then?

[LARED]

52. Lots of things are possible

If I recall the issue is practically.

[petgoat]

58. Elevator renovations brought materials, tools and components inside. Noise in elevator shafts. nt

[SDuderstadt]

60. There was noise in an elevator shaft???

Gee, I wonder why there would be noise in an elevator shaft? Perhaps...I don't know....ELEVATORS?


You're grasping at straws once more, Petgoat. Do you have any evidence at all of your goofy theories?

[LARED]

74. Just out of curiosity do you have any evidence of

elevator renovations? Or are you just guessing?

[SDuderstadt]

54. Now you're implying the Port Authority of NY was in on it? n/t

[JackRiddler]

72. No, you're insinuating something more specific than I said, in a *very* lame effort to discredit...

Soon as I want to accuse the Port Authority of anything, I'll do so directly.

My interest here is in investigative epistemology.

The claim that sabotage by thermite is impossible, because said thermite would have had to be carried into the building and attached to the columns, is fallacious on its face. Since when is it impossible to bring a few hundred pounds of material into a building undetected?

Said claim also has nothing to do with engineering questions, but relates to matters of security at the building and of human psychology, i.e., matters not in Sunder's province of expertise.

The only question for Sunder to answer here is, based on existing physical evidence as analyzed by the engineers and scientists, is thermite (or any other hypothesis)
a) strongly indicated or proven,
b) possible, but not proven,
c) impossible.

I don't have the impression that the question was seriously addressed, let alone that answer c) was reached, or we would have heard about it.

If the answer is a) or b), one could then proceed to considering various tenants, contractors, owners and other entities involved in the building (e.g., Blackstone, Silverstein, Port Authority), their respective motives or track records, their possibilities for conducting operations on their own authority or with sanction from the owners, etc. etc.

A tenants' list reveals a number of entities of interest, including two agencies (the CIA and the Pentagon) whose personnel historically and provably have considered themselves above and beyond any considerations of law; whose personnel in fact have frequently come to think of themselves as the true seat of sovereignty in the American system, empowered to take any and every measures for "national security" they see fit. These particular entities are also experienced in conducting secret operations and carry authorities that could serve them as cover (e.g., they of all tenants would be able to tell the owners that they need to conduct certain repairs or modifications to the building for security reasons and credibly expect the owner to allow it and ask no further questions).

They are interesting examples. OEM and other entities in the building would also be worth investigating, if there were ever a real 9/11 investigation. OEM after all was supposed to be the crisis and command center for New York in a 9/11-type emergency, and would have surely held authority over the building during such an emergency, perhaps at all times.

WTC 7 TENANTS AS OF AUGUST 2001
Courtesy of the FEMA report on WTC 7, as archived at wtc7.net

Owner: Silverstein Properties
Mortgage Holder: Blackstone Group

Floors 46-47 mechanical floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
1-6 Con Edison substation, mechanical floors, lobby and conference areas

[Bolo Boffin]

75. How about working on Jones to produce an actual thermite hypothesis?

You know, some actual way that thermite could have been used to bring down the building? Jones and company have steadfastly refused to produce any workable hypothesis that could be tested whatsoever.

Since Jones produced nothing for Sunder to test, Sunder came up with his own notion of how thermite could be used and saw it was idiotic, and thus dismissed thermite as a worthwhile avenue to pursue.

If Jones wants thermite to be taken seriously, he needs to come up with a testable way that thermite could have been used to bring down that building. And all your investigatory epistemology hashing over the agencies in the building is just pissing in the wind.

[Realityhack]

79. Too be entirely fair

In addition to the issue of the weight of thermite needed per column, NIST also pointed out that the material would need to be kept in contact with the column somehow.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. The major advocates of thermite have STEADFASTLY REFUSED to supply any "engineering aspects".

They continue to Just Ask Questions. They provide no mechanism and no plan whatsoever for how thermite could have been used. Gage waves a patent around with no evidence the device works or has been used ever.

Until the thermite pushers come up with a viable, robust theory, there is no reason to take them seriously at all.

[wildbilln864]

6. A viable, robust theory!?

Too bad you don't demand the same from your government. :banghead:

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Didn't read the first report, haven't read the latest report, think you can weigh in on it anyway.

Sad.

[wildbilln864]

20. sad indeed!

TRhat you ignorantly make such assumptions. Sad. But no surprise eh?

[Realityhack]

22. Are you claiming you read either report? n/t

[Realityhack]

12. I do. they seem to have delivered. care to point out the flaws? n/t

[petgoat]

61. Flaws:

20 minute office fires can't expand fireproofed steel enough

asymmetrical damage can not yield symmetrical collapses

any asymmetry provides toppling lateral forces

No indication on the perimeter wall of 40-story partial collapse? Absurd!

Doesn't account for 1300 degree surface temps, molten iron, sulfidation attack.

Explosive hypothesis discarded with straw man scenario.

That's for starters.

[SDuderstadt]

63. The offices were on fire for far more than 20 minutes, PetGoat....

More of your bullshit.

[petgoat]

65. NIST says offices burn for 20 minutes in one place before moving on to new sources of fuel. nt

[hack89]

68. And where do they say that?

wouldn't the length of the fire depend on the fuel loading?

[Realityhack]

70. IIRC

That was actually the figure they used for average office fuel loading.

The issue Petgoat is willfully ignorant of and or lying his teeth off about is that they also point out how the fires moving from spot to spot heat the gases in the area and result in widespread increased temperatures for a much longer period.

[SDuderstadt]

71. More bullshit from you, Petgoat....

Where, specifically, do they say that?

[petgoat]

103. Why are you asking me, if it's bullshit?

12/18/07, Shyam Sunder said it.

[SDuderstadt]

104. How about a link?

Or, are you afraid for someone to see what Sunder actually said vesus your characterization?

[petgoat]

105. How about if you google "12/18/07 Shyam Sunder" and read the first hit..

Learn to google, Sid, and then maybe your opinions won't be so peculiar.

[SDuderstadt]

106. Why don't you just provide a link, PG....

it's YOUR fucking claim! I'm calling bullshit on this, PG. At your suggestion, I googled "12/18/07 Shyam Sunder" and the below comes up:

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:_KE_yjLfFc4J:wtc.nist.gov/media/121807CommentNISTJerryLeaphart.pdf+shyam+sunder+12/18/07&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Please peruse that and tell me where Sunder or anyone in NIST at all claims that office fires only last twenty minutes before they move on to other sources. Otherwise, it's just what I thought, specifically, that you're misrepresenting either NIST or Sunder or both. Why am I not surprised?

[petgoat]

107. ...

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf

[SDuderstadt]

108. Just as I thought, PG....

Once again, you are misrepresenting what NIST said. They don't say that "offices" burn for 20 minutes before the fire moves on, it says the fires move from location to location. Are you seriously trying to argue "location" = "office"? Why can't you characterize things honestly? I find this hysterical given your constant questioning and maligning of the honesty of people who disagree with you. Here's what NIST actually said (so people can see you're hardly being honest:

Q: There was a previous mention of the day tanks and pressurized lines for diesel fuel in WTC 7. A 4 lb/ft2fuel load fire moved every 20 minutes; essentially it started and stopped every 20 minutes, so if you do not have fuel in WTC 7, how could fires burn for as long as they had and taken out this major structure that had good fireproofing?

A: The fires in the towers did not stop after 20 minutes. The fires moved from location to location, meaning that at any given location the combustibles needed about 20 minutes to beconsumed. While the combustibles at a location were being consumed, the fire front would beprogressing to adjacent combustibles. Also, recall that the 4 lb/ft2 is the fuel load that is actuallyconsumed. The total loading of furnishings could have been higher if there were substantial numbers of file cabinets, etc. Furthermore, the jet fuel led to widespread ignition of thecombustibles, but the jet fuel was consumed quickly and was a minimal contributor to thesustained fires that weakened the structures in WTC 1 and WTC 2.In the case of WTC 7, the estimated combusted fuel load was similar to the 4 lb/ft2 estimated in the towers. The initial fires were small enough that most were not visible at the windows forseveral hours. Most likely, these early fires involved only a small number of workstations at a time. The early fires raised the air temperatures, preheating other clusters of cubicles and leading to the larger fires seen during the afternoon. Once the fires had begun heating the air, the overall air temperatures on a floor continued to rise as new combustible material became involved. The local air temperatures began to fall when thelocal fuel supply was depleted and fresh air reached that area. The heating of the structurethrough its protective insulation was a result of both the high air temperatures that were reached and the duration of those high air temperatures, not just the duration of local burning.

[petgoat]

109. Run along Sid, Aunt Polly's calling you.

I said "NIST says offices burn for 20 minutes in one place before moving on to new sources of fuel. nt"

I shortened "office fires" to "offices" to shorten it. Have your lawyer call my lawyer.

[SDuderstadt]

110. No lawyers are needed when you continue to....

make a fool of yourself over and over again.

[petgoat]

111. You['re making a phony distinction between burning offices and office fires

that is nothing but a stupid attempt at "gotcha"

[SDuderstadt]

112. Please show me where I did anything at all like that....

YOU mischaracterized what NIST said, period.

[petgoat]

113. Do I detect an unintentional and unrecognized tautology? nt

[SDuderstadt]

114. No....wrong again, PG...

if there's an "unrecognized tautology", please point it out. I'll wait.

[AZCat]

66. It's not just about the length of the fires.

It's also about the gas temperatures. Gases in the space can continue to heat the contents (given sufficient temperatures) even though combustion no longer occurs in the vicinity.

The rest of your "flaws" are pretty much crap.

[Realityhack]

69. No go.

"20 minute office fires can't expand fireproofed steel enough"
1. Straw man. The 20 min figure is for a single location with a roving fire. Thus the temp. is elevated in the area for far longer.
2. Lack of evidence. I don't see your calculations. I do see the NIST calculations.

"asymmetrical damage can not yield symmetrical collapses"
That is one of the most profoundly stupid things I have ever heard. I would like to point out that many people including the NIST investigators have engineering experience that extends beyond playing with wooden blocks. These same people and others recognize that words have meaning. You seem to have neither of these traits.

"any asymmetry provides toppling lateral forces"
Holly fuck. Learn to define your fucking terms. WTF is a 'toppling lateral force'?
If you mean what I think you mean I refer you back to the issue of moving beyond playing with blocks.

"No indication on the perimeter wall of 40-story partial collapse? Absurd!"
Oh for fucks sake. Read the fucking report.

Do you have even one remotely true criticism?

[LARED]

73. You my friend are a heretic

"asymmetrical damage can not yield symmetrical collapses" is a belief informally adopted in the "9/11 Canon of the Faithful" during the great pods verses missile debates in the reformation period of the "9/11 Church of Invincible Ignorance"

The question this unshakable dogma by your attacks, quote- "That is one of the most profoundly stupid things I have ever heard." will surely get you sent to 9/11 purgatory.

[Realityhack]

76. Oh... does that mean I can't take communion at the church of the anti-Bush anymore? n/t

[LARED]

77. Yes, you are OK to take communion

Article 12.4.5 of the "9/11 Canon of the Faithful" instructs Proctors in the "9/11 Church of Invincible Ignorance (AKA 911CII)" to practice Close Communion at their church houses. (ie one must be a true believer to take communion) However articles 12.4.5a clearly states this requirement does not extend to those whom indulge in other acts of faith, so feel free to take communion at church of the anti-Bush whenever you like.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Too bad you don't demand the same from the...

"truth movement".

[Realityhack]

11. Well you are technicaly correct.

they only addressed them in passing. The only real engineering aspects would be the amount of thermite needed (really just a calculation), getting the thermite to cut through a vertical beam (no idea how you would do that), preventing the thermite from igniting prematurely, and getting the thermite to cut though all the beams simultaneously.

The issue of doing this simultaneously seems to me to be a bit of a problem. Presumably someone planning to demolish the building would not rely on a progressive collapse. Rather they would want to destroy all of the columns at once. Thermite burning through the columns could not be timed in the same way a high explosive could be to cause failure across all columns within a split second.
You could look at the issue and say that thermite could have initiated the progressive collapse and thus caused what we saw... but that would mean that what we saw was exactly what NIST claims as far as collapse progression... which means the only 'evidence' of CT (the look of the outside of the building) is irrelevant... thus removing any need for thermite to explain things.
This would also create an issue of why someone would risk a partial collapse by using thermite in the first place.

The other issues around thermite (non-engineering) are much larger.
In order for someone to have rigged the thermite they would need to know what was going to happen, so we now have a full 9-11 conspiracy with a high degree of detail rather than just one building being examined.
Assuming that someone knew the planes would hit the WTC buildings, and they overcame the technical issues, theoretically they could rig WTC7 to be demolished. It might even be able to be accomplished in secret with relatively few people. Of course everyone involved in the rigging would know 100% what they where doing and post 9-11 would know for a fact that the entire day was known about in advance... so this requires some fairly loyal people with very specific skills.
This still leaves some unanswered questions besides the obvious one of how they knew about the attacks in the first place.
1. Why bring down WTC7?
2. Why do so in a way that might be suspect later rather than say using another jet?
3. How do you know in advance that the building will not be heavily damaged by debits from the first two towers (ie how do you know your thermite will still be in place when you want to collapse the building).
4. How do you know the fires will not cause problems for your thermite? ie once the building is burning for a few hours wouldn't you become concerned that the uncontrolled fires would cause problems for your demo plan?
5. Why wait hours to trigger the collapse, wouldn't it make sense to do it along with the dropping of one of the other towers to make it look like it was caused by that?

And most importantly:
How did you think you were going to get away with it? What happens if the building doesn't collapse in quite the way you expect? Could you get caught? How do you know a theory that is acceptable to the engineering community can be found that does not rely on CD? How do you know their won't be a malfunction that causes the entire plan to fail?

If you hypothesize a conspiracy that knew about 9-11 in advance in high detail... you need to address why they would risk brining down WTC7 in such a manner. It doesn't make much sense.

In short, even if the engineering issues are overcome, thermite is not needed to explain the evidence and its use doesn't make a lot of sense. Therefore I see no reason to consider it further unless some actual evidence of its use is presented.

[William Seger]

14. Exactly right

Our story so far: A conventional demolition using high explosives doesn't make any sense and certainly isn't supported by the evidence, so thermite is postulated. Fair enough. But a thermite demolition doesn't make any sense and isn't supported by the evidence, either, and it has never even been demonstrated to be technically possible. But we want a demolition theory, so let's postulate both thermite and explosives, or maybe explosive thermite!

I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to solve the problem since it still doesn't make any sense, and you would now need evidence for both.

[Realityhack]

15. Well

I think I would change the wording a little.

An conventional explosive is contradicted by the evidence and thereby ruled out.

The evidence does not refute the possibility of thermite but no evidence exists (that I know of) to indicate it was used.
Add to that all the issues around thermite and the fact that it is inherently unnecessary to explain what occurred... and I don't see any reason to consider it unless some new evidence comes to light or the current theory is debunked leaving no explanation for what occurred.

[SDuderstadt]

16. Evidence?? Who needs evidence???

Don't you realize our government lies to us???? Why are you a Neocon enabler?????



I'm sorry. For a moment, I was channeling a "truther".

[petgoat]

27. You argue from personal incredulity, and claim wrongly that there's no evidence. nt

[eomer]

17. Another engineering aspect I would have liked them to address

is the melted steel found at WTC7. In An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7 (JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 18), the authors conclude that temperatures in the range of 1,000ºC combined with the presence of sulfur would be one theoretical explanation for the melted WTC7 steel that they studied (see photos in the article).

The study doesn't include (as far as I can find) the visual evidence that was published in that 2001 JOM article or any similar visual evidence of melted steel and it doesn't have any analysis of whether and how the conditions for such eutectic melting may have occurred. Why not? Isn't that a pretty important engineering aspect of the event and wouldn't it be important to know, from a fire safety point of view, whether and how such conditions occurred?

The Q&A almost addresses the issue, but not quite:

How hot did WTC 7’s steel columns and floor beams get?
Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees C (570 degrees F), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—that caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees C where thermal expansion dominates. Above 600 degrees C (1,100 degrees F), there is significant loss of steel strength and stiffness. In the WTC 7 collapse, the loss of steel strength or stiffness was not as important as the thermal expansion of steel structures caused by heat.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

You can almost conclude from that explanation that column and beam temperatures didn't get as high as 1,000ºC in the simulations, but not quite -- there is some ambiguity on the point.

Elsewhere in the Q&A they make another passing reference to the question, mainly to give a very brief (and week, if you ask me) excuse for why they didn't look into it:

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.html

I would have liked them to do a thorough study of how the temperatures could have gotten high enough and how the sulfur concentration could have gotten high enough to melt that steel, or alternatively how some other set of conditions sufficient to explain the physical evidence of melted steel at WTC7 could have occurred. I would think that fire safety engineers would also have been interested in such a study.

_{Edit: typo}

[Bolo Boffin]

18. The recent BBC documentary on 7 did, by talking to the scientist who has the sample.

He held it in his hand on camera. He talked about the extensive tests he had done on it. He blamed the fires under the Pile.

In New England the claims of the mysterious melted steel from Tower Seven has been unravelled at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute near Boston.

Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.

Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."

[petgoat]

29. It seems to have taken Dr. Sisson six years to arrive at this explanation.

Does Dr. Barnett, the fire engineer on the team, endorse this view?
If gypsum commonly erodes steel in fires, why was this answer not
provided years ago?

I have been told that the sulfur in gypsum is calcium sulfate, which
is relatively inert. The sulfides that attacked the Appendix C steel
were sulfides of iron and copper.

[AZCat]

67. Calcium sulfate is soluble in water.

It has a temperature dependence, hence its use as a desiccant within a certain temperature range.

NIST talks a bit about copper sulfides. Apparently this was the topic of a presentation at the International Metallographic Society in 2003.

They say:

In addition, copper containing sulfides were not found during the present analysis. Therefore, it was more likely that a localized, external source of copper was available to form these phases in the sample analyzed in the FEMA/BPAT report.

[Realityhack]

21. Well to be fair

NIST doesn't have a reason to be concerned with what happened after the collapse. They are only interested in what caused the collapse and how it progressed. Once the building collapses they are done.

As their model for collapse did not rely on melting anything they did not need to demonstrate how it was done.

[eomer]

23. Demonstrating one theoretically possible way that the building could have collapsed

does not mean that you have proved how the building collapsed. Anytime there is a murder, it is theoretically possible that the person died of natural causes. So just showing one theoretically possible cause is not the whole job. The next step is to look at the evidence and see whether it supports that cause or perhaps some other.

The melted steel may have been melted after the collapse, or it may have been melted before the collapse. I'd like to see the analysis that Professor Sisson did. Or, alternatively, I'd at least like to see the BBC documentary that has some clips of comments from him, but the BBC does not appear to offer it online. He wrote an early paper raising questions about the melted steel but hasn't published, as far as I can see, anything about his later conclusion that the melting occurred in the pile after the collapse. If anyone has found something more detailed that Sisson has released, or else a link to the BBC documentary video, I'd like to look at it.

[petgoat]

28. NIST's excuses for not considering important issues are very weak.

No reason to be concerned with what happened after the collapse? Why not, especially
if they can't be sure they did happen after the collapse? Isn't truth of interest?

NIST claims they don't have to think about the molten iron because they can't be
sure it melted before the collapse. What a crock!

[AZCat]

34. Let's be honest - these are issues YOU consider to be important.

Other people think they are not so relevant, particularly when considering the scope of the NIST investigations.

[petgoat]

35. Everybody should be concerned about the unexplained mystery of what caused the molten iron

and the 1300 degree F. surface temperatures recorded by AVARIS overflights.

Until it is explained the only plausible explanation is that the molten iron
is the byproduct of the thermate reaction.

[SDuderstadt]

36. Again, Petgoat....YOU need to prove it was molten iron....

as opposed to something else, otherwise, no one needs to prove anything to you about anything.

[petgoat]

37. How come I need to prove what it was and you needn't prove anything?

A couple of dozen witnesses, including Leslie Robertson, said it was molten steel.

What do you think it was? Molten coca cola syrup?

Answer the question: What was it and what caused it? Or endure it.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Look upthread and I debunked your silly Robertson claim.....

and YOU have to prove that it's molten steel because it's YOUR claim. All I have to do is demonstrate that you didn't prove it. I swear, you're like a walking logical fallacy.

[petgoat]

47. Molten steel is not my claim. Two dozen witnesses. No eyewitness says molten aluminum.

The AVARIS overflights record pile temps of 1300 degrees--much hotter than molten
aluminum, consistent with molten steel.

[SDuderstadt]

48. No offense, Petgoat, but it's really stupid to assume whatever was in the "pools"...

was a pure material, rather than some sort of "cocktail" of different materials.

Your point about Avaris is equally absurd, in that even temps of 1300 degrees are not high enough to have literally molten steel, as at least 2800 degrees farenheit is required for that. As usual, this is just more of your gumnastics. The bottom line is you have failed to prove it was "molten steel", you just have some people without the requisite training saying that's what they thought it was. I would be interested to know how you conclude that it's probable that whatever was in the pools was only steel, and not an admixture of various materials. Do you think in the collapse, all the materials were segregated? If there are "two dozen witnesses" (actually, this is just more of your usual quote-mining), then what are their names?

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html

[petgoat]

49. What makes purity an issue? The 1300 degrees were surface temps; much hotter below. nt

[SDuderstadt]

55. What do you THINK makes purity an issue? n/t

[petgoat]

56. I think it's a red herring you raise to try to distract from the presence of the molten iron. nt

[SDuderstadt]

57. Jesus, Petgoat....

Beyond the fact that you have NO proof that it was "molten iron", how in the world would a pool have formed with only "molten steel" in it? Can you remotely explain that? I've already pointed out that 1300 degrees farenheit is not high enough to produce and maintain "molten steel" and your feeble response is that we don't know how hot the temps were further down. The other thing that destroys your argument is that any temp allegedly hot enough to produce and maintain "molten steel" would obviously melt other materials with far lower melting points (for example, aluminum). Please provide some coherent explanation as to how the "steel" would have managed to stay segregated from the aluminum in the aftermath of the collapse. I'll save you some trouble...you can't.


Your gumnastics just keep getting sillier and sillier.

[petgoat]

59. Nobody says it was pure iron; stop gumming your straw man. nt.

[SDuderstadt]

62. Bullshit, Petgoat....

are you now claiming that you clamed something else? If so, why were you arguing againt my suggestion that the "pools" were a "cocktail" of different materials? Are you trying to avoid admitting you were wrong by trying to make it seem like you never claimed it was "molten iron"?


If I mix Sprite, Coca-cola, Dr. Pepper, Fresca, root beer and cream soda together and spill it on the floor, do I have a pool of Coca-Cola????

[petgoat]

26. Thermite is needed to explain the evidence

1. the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel
2. the molten metal in the basements
3. the 1300 degree surface temps on the pile, recorded by AVARIS overflights
4. 1,3 diphenylpropane reported by EPA in great quantities--here but nowhere else, ever
5. iron rich microspheres

Use on a beam is not so difficult. Cut a hole in the concrete floor to reach the
beam, and the thermate is contained.

[hack89]

30. There are other explanations for some of your points

1. This paper was written specifically to answer Appendix C steel issue. Does an eutectic reaction ring a bell?:

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

2. The molten metal was aluminum - there is absolutely no hard evidence at all that it was steel.

3. You have never explained a mechanism for how thermite would produce these temperature. You have never explained how termite could produce such a huge hot spot.

4. The EPA explains where the 1,3 diphenylpropane came from - the tons of plastic that were burned. You need to do a little research on what 1,3 diphenylpropane is used for.

5. I still have to research this one.

[Realityhack]

80. "the molten metal in the basements"

This is an argument I have always found intriguing.

Lets assume for the moment that their is no other explanation for the molten metal.
Now, how much molten metal was there?
It seems to me that the truth movement claims there was a hole bunch.
So...
How much thermite would be required to produce that much molten metal?

Now I am guessing that if you do this calculation you would find a shitload more than a few hundred pounds would be required. It IS a calculation that anyone attempting to use this as evidence of thermite should do.

IF thermite was not the only cause, what else was involved? Why couldn't the other factors be the only factors?

[Bolo Boffin]

83. "if you do this calculation" -- this will never be done by the JAQing off Truth Movement

They Just Ask Questions. They don't produce anything but sinister implications when it comes to "engineering aspects." And then they complain when NIST dismisses what they refuse to produce.

[Realityhack]

84. I don't know...

even young earth creationists do calculations. They are the wrong ones and often done incorrectly but they do them.

I just have always been confused by people who put forward the molten metal as evidence of thermite because many of the same people claim that only a small conspiracy is needed.

[wildbilln864]

85. obviously you're wrong as they did not....

address Jone's thermit analysis which is available had they asked.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Jones has no working hypothesis on how the thermite could have been used, wildbill

His observations are easily explained by the contents of the buildings as they stood.

NIST had no scientific reason whatsoever to "address Jone's thermit analysis."

[wildbilln864]

87. please easily explain the...

iron rich spherules he has found. Thanks in advance.

[SDuderstadt]

Where did the "spherules" come from?

How do you know they came from GZ? Has Jones authenticated the chain of possession? Or, is this just your confirmation bias at work again?

[eomer]

92. The provenance is described in the paper by Jones, et al, and there are also corroborating studies.

Excerpt from the http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf">paper by Stephen Jones, et al, describing the provenance of the samples:

Appendix
Provenance of dust samples analyzed in original work reported here.
Sample 1 was collected from inside the Potter Building located at 38 Park Row in New York City. It was
collected by a Ph.D. scientist on 9/14/2001, just three days after the 9/11/2001 and before any major steel-
cutting operations had begun at ground zero. Rescue operations were on-going at the time of sample collection.
Furthermore, the building is located about four blocks from ground zero and the sample was collected from dust
that had worked its way inside the building, landing on an interior window sill. Thus, contamination from steel-
cutting operations at ground zero (which can produce molten steel spheres) can be ruled out with a very high
degree of confidence. The iron-rich spheres collected in sample 1 are evidence of high-temperature melting and
violent fragmentation during the WTC destruction and dust formation.
Sample 2 was collected by Jeannette MacKinlay about a week after 9/11/2001, from inside her apartment at
113 Cedar St./110 Liberty St., New York City. WTC dust entered her apartment through two windows which
broke as the South Tower collapsed. The holes in the windows were approximately 0.5 m X 0.8 m, and the
apartment was on the fourth floor.
In both samples, elements besides iron are often present in the spheres which yield chemical signatures
distinct from that of structural steel (such as Al, Si, Cu, K, S; see Figs. 3 and 4). These chemical signatures
provide additional evidence that the spheres did not result from steel-cutting operations during clean-up. We
have recently obtained a WTC dust sample acquired within twenty minutes of the collapse of the North Tower,
near the Brooklyn Bridge, which also shows spherules like those shown in Figs. 1-5. These spheres cannot
have originated from the later clean-up operations. Further results from our on-going investigation will be
presented in future papers. Probing alternative chemical reactions which could have produced these spherules is
beyond the scope of this paper; but further analyses of these contaminants may provide important clues
regarding the processes which generated the observed iron-rich spheres and concomitant high temperatures.

Also, from the http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf">paper, this note about corroborating studies by RJ Lee and the USGS:

Iron-rich spherules were also observed in studies conducted by the RJ Lee company <1> and the US Geological
Survey (USGS) <2>. In particular, a USGS report on the WTC dust provides two micrographs of “iron-rich
spheres” <3> and a “bulbous” or tear-drop-shaped silicate droplet <4> (see images below).

RJ Lee and USGS studies, respectively:

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

[SDuderstadt]

93. And I asked about the chain of possession n/t

[eomer]

94. Provenance, chain of possession... same thing.

prov·e·nance
n.  
   1. Place of origin; derivation.
   2.    a. The history of the ownership of an object, 
               especially when documented or authenticated.
               Used of artworks, antiques, and books.
            b. The records or documents authenticating such 
               an object or the history of its ownership.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/provenance">American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com)

The excerpt I posted in #92 does give some information about the chain of possession, although admittedly it doesn't detail how the samples were passed from the original collectors to Jones or whether there were any intermediaries. None of the studies on WTC, not NIST's nor FEMA's, have provided documentation of an unbroken chain of custody for evidence that they used. I assume you assert, therefore, that we can believe nothing in them?

Anyway, the real question is the more basic one that you also asked -- how do we know that the spherules came from ground zero. Since similar spherules were found in two other studies, one by an independent testing lab and another by a government scientific agency, and since one of those studies went to significant effort to establish that their WTC dust samples had a signature composition that was clearly distinguishable from dust from other souces, there doesn't seem much doubt about spherules like this being present in the dust created during the WTC events. See my previous post for links to those two studies.

[Bolo Boffin]

95. But what was their provence BEFORE the towers fell?

Or do you think they vacuumed up all the microspheres formed by arc welding when they built the towers?

[petgoat]

96. Gage says microspheres were found in dust on Brooklyn Bridge and on rooftops across the street .nt

[eomer]

97. RJ Lee looked at that.

Excerpts from the http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTC%20Dust%20Signature.Composition%20and%20Morphology.Final.pdf">RJ Lee study (emphasis is mine):

Additionally, dust samples collected from the
New York City area collected and analyzed prior to 9/11/2001 were
reevaluated. The pre-WTC Event samples, collected in the spring of 2000,
included materials from both the interiors of the World Trade Center Towers
as well as exterior samples, taken in close proximity to the Towers. The
Background Building samples and the pre-WTC Event samples were
compared to known WTC Dust for the forensic evaluation, using the source
apportionment methodologies to determine the extent of the WTC Dust
impact.

Detailed characterization of WTC Dust revealed that it possessed a unique
set of characteristics by which it could be identified and differentiated to a
reasonable degree of scientific certainty from dust that had other origins.
Thus, dust that was found as a pervasive contaminant in the Building was
unequivocally identified as coming from the WTC Event. The conclusions
reached in this report regarding dust found in the Building are as follows:

...

• Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high
  temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common
  in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are
  not common in “normal” interior office dust.

[SDuderstadt]

98. If it doesn't detail how the samples were passed from the original collectors to Jones or whether...

there were any intermediaries", then it does NOT establish the chain of possession. I'm sure if you look, you will find suitable checks and balances practiced by relevant Federal agencies.

[eomer]

99. OK, good enough then. Since a federal agency (USGS) has corroborated the presence of the spherules,

and all federal agencies always use the appropriate checks and balances, then we rest assured that Jones' finding of the spherules is a correct and reliable conclusion.

[SDuderstadt]

100. And the spherules would prove?

You do know what other things would create them, right?

[eomer]

101. Actually I don't claim to know that. I would have liked NIST to study and report on it.

Did you have a list you wanted to share?

[SDuderstadt]

88. Unintentional dupe

[wildbilln864]

91. so I guess....

you could not answer post # 87? Got it. Thanks anyway.