| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 4:18 pm Post subject: Reply to Chek - Therm?te + high-explosive combination at WTC |
 |
|
| chek wrote: |
Also, it would seem to me that the conventionally required weakening cuts are exactly what the thermite compound would be used for, rather than some additional process.
|
In the course of the 9/11 CT saga I'm sure we've all learned that commercial CD of a steel-framed building requires "pre-cutting" of the columns, to weaken them before shaped charges finish the job and bring the building down.
chek is suggesting that therm?te would have been used in this capacity at the WTC on 9/11, with conventional high-explosives to complete the CD.
Some problems here (as I see it) ..
1) The core columns were enclosed in heavy, reinforced dry-walling. This would have to be removed, leaving substantial (to say the least) therm?te devices attached to the columns and in plain view of office spaces, corridors, stairways and so on.
The devices (based on chek's own diagrams - see his original post ) would be several times wider than the column thicknesses themselves. We're talking about feet here. Theorising about attachment mechanisms alone beggars belief.
2) The columns would all need to be stripped of their fireproofing in the attacked areas.
3) The high-explosives (survival temperature 300°C or so) - necessarily adjacent to the therm?te charges, in order to achieve the purpose as described by chek - would immediately be set off, melted or their detonators disabled by the temperatures (well in excess of 2000°C) created by the therm?te reaction.
The idea of therm?te in combination with high-explosives to bring down the Towers must rank only slightly lower than mini-nukes or space-beams in the grand scheme of 9/11 CT absurdity.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 06, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to Chek - Therm?te + high-explosive combination at |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Also, it would seem to me that the conventionally required weakening cuts are exactly what the thermite compound would be used for, rather than some additional process.
|
In the course of the 9/11 CT saga I'm sure we've all learned that commercial CD of a steel-framed building requires "pre-cutting" of the columns, to weaken them before shaped charges finish the job and bring the building down.
chek is suggesting that therm?te would have been used in this capacity at the WTC on 9/11, with conventional high-explosives to complete the CD.
Some problems here (as I see it) ..
1) The core columns were enclosed in heavy, reinforced dry-walling. This would have to be removed, leaving substantial (to say the least) therm?te devices attached to the columns and in plain view of office spaces, corridors, stairways and so on. |
The dry walling was applied to the outer face of the core area forming the interior walls of the occupied areas of the floors.
The columns themselves were accessible via the service area formed by the rectangular inner core layout. Nobody in the office spaces would necessarily be aware what happened on the other side of the drywall, particularly after hours and at weekends. Scott Forbes' after hours observations excepted, of course.
| sam wrote: | | The devices (based on chek's own diagrams - see his original post ) would be several times wider than the column thicknesses themselves. We're talking about feet here. Theorising about attachment mechanisms alone beggars belief. |
Prototypes can often vary significantly from production models, and your estimations are as usual prone to exaggeration. But quite apart from that the object was to cut columns - not beams - and could well have used a far simpler technique.
| sam wrote: | | 2) The columns would all need to be stripped of their fireproofing in the attacked areas. |
Though only if you're imagining external fixture.
| sam wrote: | | 3) The high-explosives (survival temperature 300°C or so) - necessarily adjacent to the therm?te charges, in order to achieve the purpose as described by chek - would immediately be set off, melted or their detonators disabled by the temperatures (well in excess of 2000°C) created by the therm?te reaction.. |
Why 'necessarily'? Seems quite an assumption to me...
| sam wrote: | | The idea of therm?te in combination with high-explosives to bring down the Towers must rank only slightly lower than mini-nukes or space-beams in the grand scheme of 9/11 CT absurdity. |
[/quote]
As I'm fairly sure does everything in your view, apart from acceptance of the findings of a flawed and loaded Report filed by a tame and controlled Commission.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sam
Wrecker
Joined: 29 Dec 2007
Posts: 343
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 6:18 am Post subject: Re: Reply to Chek - Therm?te + high-explosive combination at |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
The dry walling was applied to the outer face of the core area forming the interior walls of the occupied areas of the floors.
The columns themselves were accessible via the service area formed by the rectangular inner core layout. Nobody in the office spaces would necessarily be aware what happened on the other side of the drywall, particularly after hours and at weekends. Scott Forbes' after hours observations excepted, of course.
|
Are you making this up as you go along? :
The columns were heavily lined. The core area was a maze of corridors, storerooms,stairways,washrooms etc etc. All dry-walled. it wasn't a gaping void where MiB could get to work on a mass of free-standing columns unencumbered.
People routinely used the core area.
| chek wrote: |
Prototypes can often vary significantly from production models, and your estimations are as usual prone to exaggeration. But quite apart from that the object was to cut columns - not beams - and could well have used a far simpler technique.
|
My estimation is based on the patented device that you posted. And let me repeat, it's just a patent. Do you have any knowledge of it being put to commercial use?
I don't understand your point about "beams" at all. It's columns that require a much more complex technique, not "far simpler" as you claim.
| chek wrote: |
| sam wrote: | | 2) The columns would all need to be stripped of their fireproofing in the attacked areas. |
Though only if you're imagining external fixture.
|
Are you seriously suggesting internal fixture? To a box column??? If you are, then you haven't really thought it through, have you?
| sam wrote: | 3) The high-explosives (survival temperature 300°C or so) - necessarily adjacent to the therm?te charges, in order to achieve the purpose as described by chek - would immediately be set off, melted or their detonators disabled by the temperatures (well in excess of 2000°C) created by the therm?te reaction..
| chek wrote: |
Why 'necessarily'? Seems quite an assumption to me...
|
|
Because that would be the entire point of your "combination" would it not? To weaken the columns prior to detonating the explosives. If they are far apart this won't work.
_________________
Cryin' won't help you, prayin' won't do you no good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 07, 2008 7:42 pm Post subject: Re: Reply to Chek - Therm?te + high-explosive combination at |
|
|
| sam wrote: | | Are you making this up as you go along?: |
I see your attitude hasn't improved - let's proceed and see;
| sam wrote: |
The columns were heavily lined. The core area was a maze of corridors, storerooms,stairways,washrooms etc etc. All dry-walled. |
That statement is not true (according to NIST) -
"In the WTC a major fraction *(note - not all the core columns) of the core columns were enclosed or protected on several sides *(note - not all sides) by sheets of gypsum wallboard. The trusses, perimeter columns, spandrels, and one or more surfaces of the core columns
were coated with one of three different sprayed fire resistive material (SFRM).
Chapt1 p11 NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
Even were your assertion correct, which it isn't, preparation in the core interior could still be undertaken without causing concern to the majority of the building's inhabitants.
| sam wrote: | it wasn't a gaping void where MiB could get to work on a mass of free-standing columns unencumbered.
People routinely used the core area. |
Correction - people routinely used some areas within the core.
There were areas such as liftshafts and service areas that would only be available to authorised personnel.
| sam wrote: | | My estimation is based on the patented device that you posted. And let me repeat, it's just a patent. Do you have any knowledge of it being put to commercial use? |
Well I don't know about that specific device, but there is the oil rig demolition industry who specialise in taking apart steel structures.
"Pyrotechnic Cutting
Pyrotechnic cutting relies on an exothermic reaction that produces a high-velocity jet of molten iron that penetrates the target material. The equipment consists of a reusable torch and iron oxide reactants; an excess of aluminum that reacts with nickel to raise temperatures; and polytetrafluoroethylene, which helps expel the jet through the graphite focusing nozzle at high speed. The cutting action results from melting the target material, which produces a crater or hole. The charge is placed and detonated in the same way as an explosive charge and is self-sustaining once it is initiated. This technique requires highly efficient thermite mixtures and automated systems to produce linear cuts.
http://orsted.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9072&page=24
| sam wrote: | | I don't understand your point about "beams" at all. It's columns that require a much more complex technique, not "far simpler" as you claim.Are you seriously suggesting internal fixture? To a box column??? If you are, then you haven't really thought it through, have you? |
The point about the columns as opposed to beams is that they have hollow interiors and can therefore act as containers, and thermite compounds, being powders can be introduced to those interiors, thus addressing your concerns about vertical cutting. Probably by way of an internal inspection access panel, as shown below.
| sam wrote: | 3) The high-explosives (survival temperature 300°C or so) - necessarily adjacent to the therm?te charges, in order to achieve the purpose as described by chek - would immediately be set off, melted or their detonators disabled by the temperatures (well in excess of 2000°C) created by the therm?te reaction..
| sam wrote: | | chek wrote: |
Why 'necessarily'? Seems quite an assumption to me...
|
|
Because that would be the entire point of your "combination" would it not? To weaken the columns prior to detonating the explosives. If they are far apart this won't work. |
I'm not entirely clear how your imagination is working here, but you seem to be suggesting that explosives and thermite would need to be in the same location to be effective.
This isn't how Gordon Ross sees it, with the thermite component silently performing weakening at specific points and the explosives deployed slightly later and hidden within the ensuing collapse.
Maybe you haven't really thought it through?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
