http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...fig4new11-7.gif
Just wondering, how much would construction in lower manhattan contribute to these zinc levels/spheres.
Being from NY I know how much steel constrution goes on.
Is this a silly idea?
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...fig4new11-7.gif
Just wondering, how much would construction in lower manhattan contribute to these zinc levels/spheres.
Being from NY I know how much steel constrution goes on.
Is this a silly idea?
Calculations for 1 WTC floor:
650 tonnes of concrete + 50 tonnes of gypsum = 700 tonnes of material containing ~ 25 % Ca = 175 tonnes of calcium per floor.
Let’s assume, as a first guess, that 10 % of the concrete/gypsum material was pulverized to 10 micron or smaller particulate. This implies there was about 18 tonnes of calcium “fines” in the dust per floor.
Now let’s consider iron in the WTC dust. First, we can ignore the structural steel since it was not pulverized. The rust coating on the structural steel would have contributed some iron as iron oxide particulate but the oxide thickness on the structural steel and the observed amount of oxide spalling suggests that this contribution was less than 0.1 tonnes per floor
What are the other sources of iron particulate? The USGS note that the concrete and the MMVF contain ~ 1 % iron, so we estimate there should be about 0.18 tonnes of iron "fines" in the dust per floor.
However, looking at the US EPA data for airborne dust at Ground Zero about 1 week after 9/11, we find:
Calcium = 44 micrograms/m^3
Iron = 4.4 micrograms/m^3
Zinc = 6.3 micrograms/m^3
This implies that there was about 1.8 tonnes of iron “dust” per floor, or ten times the expected amount.
But things get even worse for zinc. The measured zinc/calcium ratio in the dust was 6.3/44 = 0.14. Working with our estimate of 18 tonnes of calcium dust per floor we conclude that there was 2.5 tonnes of zinc "fines" in the WTC dust. Where does this zinc come from? The main source of zinc in the WTC appears to be galvanized steel. This was used in the floor pans and in the air conditioning ductwork. If the zinc coating was ~ 50 microns on both sides of 22-gauge steel this implies a Zn/Fe ratio of about 0.1
By the end of October 2001, the Zn/Fe ratio in the airborne dust at Ground Zero had fallen to about 0.1 which is consistent with the zinc coming from the galvanized steel. But this does not explain why the Zn/Fe ratio in the airborne dust was 1.43 immediately after 9/11.
Thus we need to explain:
(i) Why was there so much iron in the WTC dust?
(ii) Why was there so much zinc?
I believe the answer to these questions lies in the MYSTERY OF THE SPHERES!
NF
650 tonnes of concrete + 50 tonnes of gypsum = 700 tonnes of material containing ~ 25 % Ca = 175 tonnes of calcium per floor.
Let’s assume, as a first guess, that 10 % of the concrete/gypsum material was pulverized to 10 micron or smaller particulate. This implies there was about 18 tonnes of calcium “fines” in the dust per floor.
Now let’s consider iron in the WTC dust. First, we can ignore the structural steel since it was not pulverized. The rust coating on the structural steel would have contributed some iron as iron oxide particulate but the oxide thickness on the structural steel and the observed amount of oxide spalling suggests that this contribution was less than 0.1 tonnes per floor
What are the other sources of iron particulate? The USGS note that the concrete and the MMVF contain ~ 1 % iron, so we estimate there should be about 0.18 tonnes of iron "fines" in the dust per floor.
However, looking at the US EPA data for airborne dust at Ground Zero about 1 week after 9/11, we find:
Calcium = 44 micrograms/m^3
Iron = 4.4 micrograms/m^3
Zinc = 6.3 micrograms/m^3
This implies that there was about 1.8 tonnes of iron “dust” per floor, or ten times the expected amount.
But things get even worse for zinc. The measured zinc/calcium ratio in the dust was 6.3/44 = 0.14. Working with our estimate of 18 tonnes of calcium dust per floor we conclude that there was 2.5 tonnes of zinc "fines" in the WTC dust. Where does this zinc come from? The main source of zinc in the WTC appears to be galvanized steel. This was used in the floor pans and in the air conditioning ductwork. If the zinc coating was ~ 50 microns on both sides of 22-gauge steel this implies a Zn/Fe ratio of about 0.1
By the end of October 2001, the Zn/Fe ratio in the airborne dust at Ground Zero had fallen to about 0.1 which is consistent with the zinc coming from the galvanized steel. But this does not explain why the Zn/Fe ratio in the airborne dust was 1.43 immediately after 9/11.
Thus we need to explain:
(i) Why was there so much iron in the WTC dust?
(ii) Why was there so much zinc?
I believe the answer to these questions lies in the MYSTERY OF THE SPHERES!
NF
NEU-FONZE --- Did you consider the wire mesh in the lightweight concrete?
Here's an EPA page. The levels varied greatly from sample to sample for airborne metals.
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/metal/
In Nov 2001 a sample showed Fe as 1.8 ug/m3 while in May 2002 a sample showed 21.1 ug/m3 at the Liberty and Trinity location.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/metal_monitoring...02&p_metal=IRON
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/metal/
In Nov 2001 a sample showed Fe as 1.8 ug/m3 while in May 2002 a sample showed 21.1 ug/m3 at the Liberty and Trinity location.
http://oaspub.epa.gov/nyr/metal_monitoring...02&p_metal=IRON
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 19 2007, 08:41 PM)
NEU-FONZE --- Did you consider the wire mesh in the lightweight concrete?
The fact is you can't do what Neu is trying to do and say "most of the zinc came from X"
Each of these towers were almost the same as SMALL CITIES, with a population of ~ 30,000 inhabitants each.
Trying to say WHAT was in them is impossible.
There was approx as much MATERIAL ON THE FLOORS as there was material used to construct the floors. Basing your analyis on ONLY THE HALF YOU KNOW is SILLY.
When it comes to a COMMON material like ZINC, then it gets even MORE SILLY.
The following are common uses for zinc: (the 4th most commonly used metal)
Brass contains from 20-45% of zinc, depending upon the type of brass.
Substitutes for brass are sometimes preferred because of the price of copper but these alloys also contain zinc.
Commercial bronze, spring brass, soft solder, and aluminum solder all contain zinc.
Zinc metal is used for dry batteries, in lightweight coins (for instance, our penny is zinc coated with bronze plate)
The oxide is used in the manufacture of paints, rubber products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, floor coverings, plastics, printing inks, soap, textiles and electrical equipment.
The sulphide is used in making luminous dials, TV screens, paints and fluorescent lights.
Arthur
The fact is you can't do what Neu is trying to do and say "most of the zinc came from X"
Each of these towers were almost the same as SMALL CITIES, with a population of ~ 30,000 inhabitants each.
Trying to say WHAT was in them is impossible.
There was approx as much MATERIAL ON THE FLOORS as there was material used to construct the floors. Basing your analyis on ONLY THE HALF YOU KNOW is SILLY.
When it comes to a COMMON material like ZINC, then it gets even MORE SILLY.
The following are common uses for zinc: (the 4th most commonly used metal)
Brass contains from 20-45% of zinc, depending upon the type of brass.
Substitutes for brass are sometimes preferred because of the price of copper but these alloys also contain zinc.
Commercial bronze, spring brass, soft solder, and aluminum solder all contain zinc.
Zinc metal is used for dry batteries, in lightweight coins (for instance, our penny is zinc coated with bronze plate)
The oxide is used in the manufacture of paints, rubber products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, floor coverings, plastics, printing inks, soap, textiles and electrical equipment.
The sulphide is used in making luminous dials, TV screens, paints and fluorescent lights.
Arthur
If the zinc was created by explosives, (Hypothetically) how much explosive would be needed to melt enough iron to cause this much zinc?
NEU-FONZE
I'm afraid I have to agree with adoucette on the zinc/iron sphericals distribution and amounts. The distribution was not uniform so extrapulating from small numbers of samples is not valid. The sources were so numerous as to preclude conclusions based on ???. This is just a side track leading nowhere.
Grumpy
I'm afraid I have to agree with adoucette on the zinc/iron sphericals distribution and amounts. The distribution was not uniform so extrapulating from small numbers of samples is not valid. The sources were so numerous as to preclude conclusions based on ???. This is just a side track leading nowhere.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 19 2007, 06:19 PM)
The fact is you can't do what Neu is trying to do and say "most of the zinc came from X"
Each of these towers were almost the same as SMALL CITIES, with a population of ~ 30,000 inhabitants each.
Trying to say WHAT was in them is impossible.
There was approx as much MATERIAL ON THE FLOORS as there was material used to construct the floors. Basing your analyis on ONLY THE HALF YOU KNOW is SILLY.
When it comes to a COMMON material like ZINC, then it gets even MORE SILLY.
The following are common uses for zinc: (the 4th most commonly used metal)
Brass contains from 20-45% of zinc, depending upon the type of brass.
Substitutes for brass are sometimes preferred because of the price of copper but these alloys also contain zinc.
Commercial bronze, spring brass, soft solder, and aluminum solder all contain zinc.
Zinc metal is used for dry batteries, in lightweight coins (for instance, our penny is zinc coated with bronze plate)
The oxide is used in the manufacture of paints, rubber products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, floor coverings, plastics, printing inks, soap, textiles and electrical equipment.
The sulphide is used in making luminous dials, TV screens, paints and fluorescent lights.
Arthur
This has to go down as the most DESPERATE or IDIOTIC post yet.
It is to FRIGGIN difficult to figure out what the CONTENTS of an office building might be?
HOW did your beloved NIST simulate the OFFICE FIRES or the PLANE CRASH?
With NIST not able to simulate the mechanism for collapse and Arthurs pointing out half the material of the building is UNKNOWN (impossible to estimate the properties). It is becoming clear how criminal removal of the forensic evidence really was (unless you are planning on running for president).
Each of these towers were almost the same as SMALL CITIES, with a population of ~ 30,000 inhabitants each.
Trying to say WHAT was in them is impossible.
There was approx as much MATERIAL ON THE FLOORS as there was material used to construct the floors. Basing your analyis on ONLY THE HALF YOU KNOW is SILLY.
When it comes to a COMMON material like ZINC, then it gets even MORE SILLY.
The following are common uses for zinc: (the 4th most commonly used metal)
Brass contains from 20-45% of zinc, depending upon the type of brass.
Substitutes for brass are sometimes preferred because of the price of copper but these alloys also contain zinc.
Commercial bronze, spring brass, soft solder, and aluminum solder all contain zinc.
Zinc metal is used for dry batteries, in lightweight coins (for instance, our penny is zinc coated with bronze plate)
The oxide is used in the manufacture of paints, rubber products, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, floor coverings, plastics, printing inks, soap, textiles and electrical equipment.
The sulphide is used in making luminous dials, TV screens, paints and fluorescent lights.
Arthur
This has to go down as the most DESPERATE or IDIOTIC post yet.
It is to FRIGGIN difficult to figure out what the CONTENTS of an office building might be?
HOW did your beloved NIST simulate the OFFICE FIRES or the PLANE CRASH?
With NIST not able to simulate the mechanism for collapse and Arthurs pointing out half the material of the building is UNKNOWN (impossible to estimate the properties). It is becoming clear how criminal removal of the forensic evidence really was (unless you are planning on running for president).
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 19 2007, 07:38 PM)
NEU-FONZE
I'm afraid I have to agree with adoucette on the zinc/iron sphericals distribution and amounts. The distribution was not uniform so extrapulating from small numbers of samples is not valid. The sources were so numerous as to preclude conclusions based on ???. This is just a side track leading nowhere.
Grumpy
Well Grumster , What should be debated then?
How great the NIST engineers and scientist are that can not simulate collapse or collapse initiation and are still paid $20,000,000 (one benefit of being government employees, even though NIST failed miserably they are still paid).
The 'MYSTERY OF THE SPHERES" is one of the most interesting subject discussed on this or the previous threads.
Finally, an anomaly is being looked at scientifically and honestly (except for Arthur and friends comical contributions) with forensic evidence.
I'm afraid I have to agree with adoucette on the zinc/iron sphericals distribution and amounts. The distribution was not uniform so extrapulating from small numbers of samples is not valid. The sources were so numerous as to preclude conclusions based on ???. This is just a side track leading nowhere.
Grumpy
Well Grumster , What should be debated then?
How great the NIST engineers and scientist are that can not simulate collapse or collapse initiation and are still paid $20,000,000 (one benefit of being government employees, even though NIST failed miserably they are still paid).
The 'MYSTERY OF THE SPHERES" is one of the most interesting subject discussed on this or the previous threads.
Finally, an anomaly is being looked at scientifically and honestly (except for Arthur and friends comical contributions) with forensic evidence.
Thanks Reasonwhy!
And I am NOT saying the zinc is coming from a pre-planted explosives - NOT AT ALL!
I am saying its MOSTLY coming from the floor pans. The other sources Arthur mentions are minor.... like BRASS!
Yes, brass is a good one! Just think of all those DOOR KNOBS in the WTC!
What Arthur and others are missing is that we are talking about the FINE DUST. The material that was suspended in the air after 9/11.
Arthur, could you please explain how a door knob could be pulverized to 10 micron dust.
Sure, some brass flakes could be scraped off a door knob, but that's all....
And I went through the calculation on fluorescent lights already.
DBB:
Why are you asking about the wire mesh in the concrete?
NF
And I am NOT saying the zinc is coming from a pre-planted explosives - NOT AT ALL!
I am saying its MOSTLY coming from the floor pans. The other sources Arthur mentions are minor.... like BRASS!
Yes, brass is a good one! Just think of all those DOOR KNOBS in the WTC!
What Arthur and others are missing is that we are talking about the FINE DUST. The material that was suspended in the air after 9/11.
Arthur, could you please explain how a door knob could be pulverized to 10 micron dust.
Sure, some brass flakes could be scraped off a door knob, but that's all....
And I went through the calculation on fluorescent lights already.
DBB:
Why are you asking about the wire mesh in the concrete?
NF
It would be good to know if there were any dust samples taken before the cutting operations began and if they showed the iron spheres. I would think the cutting operations would contribute significantly to the spheres, considering all the spatter that occurs during cutting. The elevated levels of manganese in air samples were probably due to cutting operations.
The sub-micron particles were studied by groups at UC Davis and LLNL. Their results suggest that chlorine released from plastics such as PVC in the pile combined with metals such as lead, vanadium, nickel, and titanium. That lowered the volatility temperature and metal chlorides rose to the top of the pile where they cooled, condensed, and formed fine particles that later went airborne. That would explain some of the unusually high concentations of lead in some of the air samples. The airborne fractions don't necessarily scale proportionately with the bulk percentages in the pile.
That explanation is interesting since the process doesn't require oxygen, only chlorine release and a temperature high enough for metal chlorides to form, conditions that were present in the pit. It also shows how the elements different classes of materials (such as plastics and metals) can end up reacting with each other and produce a phenomenon that initially seemed difficult to explain. It also explains how there can be high concentrations of airborne metals that were present in relatively small quantities in the pile.
I've done chemical vapor deposition of titanium, molybdenum, tungsten, and rhenium using similar chemical reactions. For rhenium, chlorine gas is flowed over the metal chips at about 600C and it forms a rhenium chloride vapor which then deposits on a heated substrate. In the reaction tube the rhenium chloride looks like dark brown smoke.
The sub-micron particles were studied by groups at UC Davis and LLNL. Their results suggest that chlorine released from plastics such as PVC in the pile combined with metals such as lead, vanadium, nickel, and titanium. That lowered the volatility temperature and metal chlorides rose to the top of the pile where they cooled, condensed, and formed fine particles that later went airborne. That would explain some of the unusually high concentations of lead in some of the air samples. The airborne fractions don't necessarily scale proportionately with the bulk percentages in the pile.
That explanation is interesting since the process doesn't require oxygen, only chlorine release and a temperature high enough for metal chlorides to form, conditions that were present in the pit. It also shows how the elements different classes of materials (such as plastics and metals) can end up reacting with each other and produce a phenomenon that initially seemed difficult to explain. It also explains how there can be high concentrations of airborne metals that were present in relatively small quantities in the pile.
I've done chemical vapor deposition of titanium, molybdenum, tungsten, and rhenium using similar chemical reactions. For rhenium, chlorine gas is flowed over the metal chips at about 600C and it forms a rhenium chloride vapor which then deposits on a heated substrate. In the reaction tube the rhenium chloride looks like dark brown smoke.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 06:58 AM)
I am NOT saying the zinc is coming from a pre-planted explosives - NOT AT ALL!
Thanks, though your new found friends will be disappointed.
I am saying its MOSTLY coming from the floor pans.
While PROBABLY true, you have NOT shown that this was the case. As I showed Zinc it the FOURTH most commonly used metal and it is used for a LOT of other things besides those galvanized floor plans.
Arthur
Thanks, though your new found friends will be disappointed.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 06:58 AM)
I am saying its MOSTLY coming from the floor pans.
While PROBABLY true, you have NOT shown that this was the case. As I showed Zinc it the FOURTH most commonly used metal and it is used for a LOT of other things besides those galvanized floor plans.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 20 2007, 12:56 AM)
It is to FRIGGIN difficult to figure out what the CONTENTS of an office building might be?
It is most difficult if you are basing a CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, and trying to ISOLATE the source of a PARTICULAR (and common) Metal from it, as Neu is trying to do.
It is most difficult if you are basing a CHEMICAL ANALYSIS, and trying to ISOLATE the source of a PARTICULAR (and common) Metal from it, as Neu is trying to do.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 20 2007, 12:56 AM)
HOW did your beloved NIST simulate the OFFICE FIRES or the PLANE CRASH?
NIST's task was only to simulate a typical office fire and for that they simply put in typical office contents, cubicles, chairs, filing cabinets, desks, computers, phones etc. and set it on fire. They were not concerned with the chemical makeup, particulary of NON-COMBUSTIBLE materials, but simply the heat release rate, a MUCH simpler task.
To help them they got pictures of the floors prior to 9/11, descriptions from people who worked on the floor, and floor layouts of most of the floors. Unlike NEU, their task was again much simpler in that they only needed to deal with the relatively few impact/fire floors, NEU's analysis must include both towers, WTC 7, the other damaged WTC buildings AND what happened in the rubble pile during clean up operations.
NIST's task was only to simulate a typical office fire and for that they simply put in typical office contents, cubicles, chairs, filing cabinets, desks, computers, phones etc. and set it on fire. They were not concerned with the chemical makeup, particulary of NON-COMBUSTIBLE materials, but simply the heat release rate, a MUCH simpler task.
To help them they got pictures of the floors prior to 9/11, descriptions from people who worked on the floor, and floor layouts of most of the floors. Unlike NEU, their task was again much simpler in that they only needed to deal with the relatively few impact/fire floors, NEU's analysis must include both towers, WTC 7, the other damaged WTC buildings AND what happened in the rubble pile during clean up operations.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 20 2007, 12:56 AM)
It is becoming clear how criminal removal of the forensic evidence really was (unless you are planning on running for president).
Your final point is of course BOGUS since we have learned that ALL the material was removed TO AN INSPECTION point, and virtually ALL THE MATERIAL was inspected, much of it TWICE, once at the site and again, sifted and hand inspected at the Fresh Kills inspection point, with both NYC police and FBI agents present.
Arthur
Your final point is of course BOGUS since we have learned that ALL the material was removed TO AN INSPECTION point, and virtually ALL THE MATERIAL was inspected, much of it TWICE, once at the site and again, sifted and hand inspected at the Fresh Kills inspection point, with both NYC police and FBI agents present.
Arthur
Shagster:
Thanks for the interesting post about CHLORINE at the WTC.
Analytical data reported by the US EPA derived from air monitoring at, or near, Ground Zero in the period September 2001 to May 2002 do indeed show that many chlorinated organic species were present at significant levels up to December 2001. These included aliphatic species such as chloroform, chloroethane and di-chloroethane as well as the aromatic compounds chlorobenzene and di-chlorobenzene.
Apart from HCl, which is indeed a major product of the thermal degradation of PVC, the major decomposition products from heating PVC in the temperature range 300 – 500 °C are: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, di-chlorobenzene and tri-chlorobenzene. All of these species were observed in the air at Ground Zero. Furthermore, the relative abundances of the PVC-derived compounds are consistent with literature data on the thermal decomposition of PVC. However, EPA data for other organic species clearly show that the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. This clearly demonstrates the presence of another major source of chlorine, above and beyond “the ubiquitous PVC” postulated by Prof. Cahill as the most likely source of the elevated levels of chlorine in air samples collected at Ground Zero up to December 2001.
An alternative source of chlorine suggested by Prof. Cahill, namely chlorine-bleached paper, may also be ruled out as a major contributor to chlorine emissions at Ground Zero. Thus, while there certainly was a large amount of paper in the Twin Towers, a reasonable upper limit would be 500 kg per office x 100 offices per floor, or 50 tonnes of paper per floor. However, paper typically contains no more than 0.5 wt. % of chlorine so that each floor would have contributed a maximum of only 250 kg of chlorine to the total inventory of chlorine in the Twin Towers.
It is interesting to note that the surface analytical data presented by S. W. Banovic in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C show that for the single column sample K-16, chlorine was the most abundant species (after iron of course!), and was generally HIGHER than the much debated sulfur. And if you look at the USGS Particle Atlas Table of XRF analyses for concrete particulate in WTC dust more than 50 % showed the presence of significant levels of chlorine. This chlorine cannot be indigenous to the concrete since chloride ion is specified to be less than 200 ppm in concrete because of its deleterious effects on this material.
Thus we are left wondering where all this chlorine was coming from….
NF
Thanks for the interesting post about CHLORINE at the WTC.
Analytical data reported by the US EPA derived from air monitoring at, or near, Ground Zero in the period September 2001 to May 2002 do indeed show that many chlorinated organic species were present at significant levels up to December 2001. These included aliphatic species such as chloroform, chloroethane and di-chloroethane as well as the aromatic compounds chlorobenzene and di-chlorobenzene.
Apart from HCl, which is indeed a major product of the thermal degradation of PVC, the major decomposition products from heating PVC in the temperature range 300 – 500 °C are: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, di-chlorobenzene and tri-chlorobenzene. All of these species were observed in the air at Ground Zero. Furthermore, the relative abundances of the PVC-derived compounds are consistent with literature data on the thermal decomposition of PVC. However, EPA data for other organic species clearly show that the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. This clearly demonstrates the presence of another major source of chlorine, above and beyond “the ubiquitous PVC” postulated by Prof. Cahill as the most likely source of the elevated levels of chlorine in air samples collected at Ground Zero up to December 2001.
An alternative source of chlorine suggested by Prof. Cahill, namely chlorine-bleached paper, may also be ruled out as a major contributor to chlorine emissions at Ground Zero. Thus, while there certainly was a large amount of paper in the Twin Towers, a reasonable upper limit would be 500 kg per office x 100 offices per floor, or 50 tonnes of paper per floor. However, paper typically contains no more than 0.5 wt. % of chlorine so that each floor would have contributed a maximum of only 250 kg of chlorine to the total inventory of chlorine in the Twin Towers.
It is interesting to note that the surface analytical data presented by S. W. Banovic in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C show that for the single column sample K-16, chlorine was the most abundant species (after iron of course!), and was generally HIGHER than the much debated sulfur. And if you look at the USGS Particle Atlas Table of XRF analyses for concrete particulate in WTC dust more than 50 % showed the presence of significant levels of chlorine. This chlorine cannot be indigenous to the concrete since chloride ion is specified to be less than 200 ppm in concrete because of its deleterious effects on this material.
Thus we are left wondering where all this chlorine was coming from….
NF
reasonless
Is your only contribution going to be lies and mocking of things you obviously don't (or can't) understand???
NEU-FONZE
The floor pans and any other galvinized metal are obvious sources of the zinc traces, as are many others. Floor pans exposed to high temps would cause the zinc to evaporate and condense, but how do you determine WHEN this occured??? As with the iron traces, were they artifacts of the original construction(welding, grinding), caused by high energy collisions during the collapse or were they formed during post collapse cleanup??? Could these types of dust have other sources outside of the collapses(construction elsewhere, etc). And how about the sulfidization of WTC7 steel and the erosion seen there??? That would be my main candidate for the source of iron/steel micro nodules, with construction artifacts a close second.
That metal at the micron level was melted is a far cry from melting at the macro level, it is this macro level melting for which there is no evidence(cooled pools and flows). Melting of steel frame members did not occur in the WTC site, nor did it contribute to the collapse initiation.
Grumpy
Is your only contribution going to be lies and mocking of things you obviously don't (or can't) understand???
NEU-FONZE
The floor pans and any other galvinized metal are obvious sources of the zinc traces, as are many others. Floor pans exposed to high temps would cause the zinc to evaporate and condense, but how do you determine WHEN this occured??? As with the iron traces, were they artifacts of the original construction(welding, grinding), caused by high energy collisions during the collapse or were they formed during post collapse cleanup??? Could these types of dust have other sources outside of the collapses(construction elsewhere, etc). And how about the sulfidization of WTC7 steel and the erosion seen there??? That would be my main candidate for the source of iron/steel micro nodules, with construction artifacts a close second.
That metal at the micron level was melted is a far cry from melting at the macro level, it is this macro level melting for which there is no evidence(cooled pools and flows). Melting of steel frame members did not occur in the WTC site, nor did it contribute to the collapse initiation.
Grumpy
NEU-FONZE
One obvious source of chlorine is SEA WATER, millions of gallons of which were pumped onto HOT METALS and evaporated instantly for months after the collapses. All that sodium chloride had to go somewhere.
Grumpy
One obvious source of chlorine is SEA WATER, millions of gallons of which were pumped onto HOT METALS and evaporated instantly for months after the collapses. All that sodium chloride had to go somewhere.
Grumpy
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 08:17 AM)
Thus we are left wondering where all this chlorine was coming from….
NF
NF
Grumpy:
Sodium Chloride from seawater cannot be a major source of the chlorine in the WTC dust for the following reasons:
(i) There were very high concentrations of HCl at Ground Zero; there is no simple chemical process for converting NaCl to HCl
(ii) Chlorine was NOT correlated with sodium in the WTC dust samples.
(iii) Sodium was NOT seen in the XRF spectra reported by Banovic in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C
(iv) Sodium was only seen in a few concrete spectra reported in the USGS Particle Atlas.
(v) Seawater was NOT present at Ground Zero in the first week or so after 9/11 when most of the samples we are discussing were collected.
NF
Sodium Chloride from seawater cannot be a major source of the chlorine in the WTC dust for the following reasons:
(i) There were very high concentrations of HCl at Ground Zero; there is no simple chemical process for converting NaCl to HCl
(ii) Chlorine was NOT correlated with sodium in the WTC dust samples.
(iii) Sodium was NOT seen in the XRF spectra reported by Banovic in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C
(iv) Sodium was only seen in a few concrete spectra reported in the USGS Particle Atlas.
(v) Seawater was NOT present at Ground Zero in the first week or so after 9/11 when most of the samples we are discussing were collected.
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 03:01 PM)
Grumpy:
Sodium Chloride from seawater cannot be a major source of the chlorine in the WTC dust for the following reasons:
(i) There were very high concentrations of HCl at Ground Zero; there is no simple chemical process for converting NaCl to HCl
(ii) Chlorine was NOT correlated with sodium in the WTC dust samples.
(iii) Sodium was NOT seen in the XRF spectra reported by Banovic in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C
(iv) Sodium was only seen in a few concrete spectra reported in the USGS Particle Atlas.
(v) Seawater was NOT present at Ground Zero in the first week or so after 9/11 when most of the samples we are discussing were collected.
NF
Chlorofluorocarbons, in plastic, and Chlorine in the water are a possible sources for chlorine as are many other man made materials. Sodium Chloride is not even the only source of chloride in the sea water calcium chloride is used in concrete as a drying agent.
The steel-H20 Hydrogen reaction could have been responsible for the HCl if chloride was in the water, of Calcium chloride was in the concrete.
It would also point to the Iron spiracles being the result of a natural oxidation of steel, with water-steam.
I must also point out that organics in the buildings can also contain iron in fact most do, that would also be a possible source for the Iron spiracles during the collapse.
Sodium Chloride from seawater cannot be a major source of the chlorine in the WTC dust for the following reasons:
(i) There were very high concentrations of HCl at Ground Zero; there is no simple chemical process for converting NaCl to HCl
(ii) Chlorine was NOT correlated with sodium in the WTC dust samples.
(iii) Sodium was NOT seen in the XRF spectra reported by Banovic in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C
(iv) Sodium was only seen in a few concrete spectra reported in the USGS Particle Atlas.
(v) Seawater was NOT present at Ground Zero in the first week or so after 9/11 when most of the samples we are discussing were collected.
NF
Chlorofluorocarbons, in plastic, and Chlorine in the water are a possible sources for chlorine as are many other man made materials. Sodium Chloride is not even the only source of chloride in the sea water calcium chloride is used in concrete as a drying agent.
The steel-H20 Hydrogen reaction could have been responsible for the HCl if chloride was in the water, of Calcium chloride was in the concrete.
It would also point to the Iron spiracles being the result of a natural oxidation of steel, with water-steam.
I must also point out that organics in the buildings can also contain iron in fact most do, that would also be a possible source for the Iron spiracles during the collapse.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 12:06 PM)
You guys are really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g it!
Example: Your typical fluorescent tube contains a zinc silicate phosphor applied as a THIN coating of about 5 mg/cm^2. For the surface area of an average office fluorescent tube of 1200 cm^2 that's about 6 grams of zinc per tube.
Now let's say there were 1000 such tubes per floor, we have 6 kilograms of zinc per floor from this source.
The zinc from the galvanized floor pans comes to about 1.5 tonnes per floor.
So the fluorescent tube contribution / galvanized floor contribution to the zinc is
6/1500 x 100 % = 0.4 %.
Hmmm, 1000 tubes per floor seems a bit low. If we assume that there was an average of 32,000 SF of lit space per floor, that equals 1 light fixture per ~125 SF. That is one light fixture in a 10’x12.5’ room. I’d estimate four fixtures for that size area, thus bringing the total tubes per floor to 4,000.
I’ll tell you what, I’ll be a bit conservative and go with 2500 tubes per floor.
Thus using your number of 6 grams zinc per tube, I get a total of 18 kg/ floor. Multiply this by 200 floors, and I get 3 metric tons of zinc dust.
I know that at least that much was released when the towers fell. While much of it was undoubtedly constrained to the debris pile itself, I have no doubt that a significant portion was in the dust as well.
We haven’t even addressed the zinc in the computer work stations that burned up in the fires either.
We know that these are valid sources for zinc in the dust. It is your assumption that the floor pans were vaporized that is the real stretch.
Example: Your typical fluorescent tube contains a zinc silicate phosphor applied as a THIN coating of about 5 mg/cm^2. For the surface area of an average office fluorescent tube of 1200 cm^2 that's about 6 grams of zinc per tube.
Now let's say there were 1000 such tubes per floor, we have 6 kilograms of zinc per floor from this source.
The zinc from the galvanized floor pans comes to about 1.5 tonnes per floor.
So the fluorescent tube contribution / galvanized floor contribution to the zinc is
6/1500 x 100 % = 0.4 %.
Hmmm, 1000 tubes per floor seems a bit low. If we assume that there was an average of 32,000 SF of lit space per floor, that equals 1 light fixture per ~125 SF. That is one light fixture in a 10’x12.5’ room. I’d estimate four fixtures for that size area, thus bringing the total tubes per floor to 4,000.
I’ll tell you what, I’ll be a bit conservative and go with 2500 tubes per floor.
Thus using your number of 6 grams zinc per tube, I get a total of 18 kg/ floor. Multiply this by 200 floors, and I get 3 metric tons of zinc dust.
I know that at least that much was released when the towers fell. While much of it was undoubtedly constrained to the debris pile itself, I have no doubt that a significant portion was in the dust as well.
We haven’t even addressed the zinc in the computer work stations that burned up in the fires either.
We know that these are valid sources for zinc in the dust. It is your assumption that the floor pans were vaporized that is the real stretch.
Palpatane:
"I get 3 metric tons of zinc dust."
You claim that would be the amount of zinc from all the fluorescent tubes in 1 tower?
First, I believe there was about 20,500 sq. ft. of usable office space per floor.
However, I get 1.5 x 110 tonnes = 165 tonnes of zinc from all the floor pans.
So the fluorescent tube's zinc contribution is 3/165 x 100 = 1.8 % of the floor pans
And you still haven't explained the mystery of the iron spheres.
Or the mystery of all the chlorine.
Or the SEVERE WASTAGE of NIST sample K-16....
NF
"I get 3 metric tons of zinc dust."
You claim that would be the amount of zinc from all the fluorescent tubes in 1 tower?
First, I believe there was about 20,500 sq. ft. of usable office space per floor.
However, I get 1.5 x 110 tonnes = 165 tonnes of zinc from all the floor pans.
So the fluorescent tube's zinc contribution is 3/165 x 100 = 1.8 % of the floor pans
And you still haven't explained the mystery of the iron spheres.
Or the mystery of all the chlorine.
Or the SEVERE WASTAGE of NIST sample K-16....
NF
More confirmation of the origin of airborne ZINC at Ground Zero:
In the R. J. Lee Report on Damage Assessment at 130 Liberty Street we read on page 3:
“The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particle such as metals (e.g. Fe, Zn, Pb)…”
In a paper by E. M. Fireman et al., entitled “Induced Sputum in Firefighters Exposed to WTC Dust” published in Environmental Health Perspectives 112(15), 1564, (2004), we read:
“Chemical analysis of the FDNY-FF samples revealed many elements, for example, titanium, zinc, mercury, gold, tin and nickel which were present as metal alloys or metal oxides in abundant large particles (size range 1 – 50 microns). The shape varied from irregular to SPHERICAL.”
Figure 5 of this report shows an X-ray spectrum of a zinc particle in a FDNY-FF’s sputum. The spectrum shows peaks for zinc and oxygen only. Zinc oxide is a major constituent of zinc “fume” which forms when zinc alloys or zinc-coated materials are welded, cut with a torch, or heated to very high temperatures.
NF
In the R. J. Lee Report on Damage Assessment at 130 Liberty Street we read on page 3:
“The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particle such as metals (e.g. Fe, Zn, Pb)…”
In a paper by E. M. Fireman et al., entitled “Induced Sputum in Firefighters Exposed to WTC Dust” published in Environmental Health Perspectives 112(15), 1564, (2004), we read:
“Chemical analysis of the FDNY-FF samples revealed many elements, for example, titanium, zinc, mercury, gold, tin and nickel which were present as metal alloys or metal oxides in abundant large particles (size range 1 – 50 microns). The shape varied from irregular to SPHERICAL.”
Figure 5 of this report shows an X-ray spectrum of a zinc particle in a FDNY-FF’s sputum. The spectrum shows peaks for zinc and oxygen only. Zinc oxide is a major constituent of zinc “fume” which forms when zinc alloys or zinc-coated materials are welded, cut with a torch, or heated to very high temperatures.
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 12:52 PM)
First, I believe there was about 20,500 sq. ft. of usable office space per floor.
Nope.
Tennent Floor space was 30,000 sq ft. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg 50)
However the Core area ALSO required lighting (Stairways, bathrooms, elevators, storage areas (including storage for all those SPARE bulbs )
So NET, NET you are assuming about 1/2 the actual space that was lighted and then assuming very little lighting, while MOST of the cubicles (and many of the floors were MOSTLY cubicles) have their OWN fluor lights BESIDES the overhead area lights, so in reality the Fl lamp load is probably 3 times your estimate.
Which just gives an idea of ONE of the MANY other sources of Zinc BESIDES the floor pans.
Arthur
Nope.
Tennent Floor space was 30,000 sq ft. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 pg 50)
However the Core area ALSO required lighting (Stairways, bathrooms, elevators, storage areas (including storage for all those SPARE bulbs
)So NET, NET you are assuming about 1/2 the actual space that was lighted and then assuming very little lighting, while MOST of the cubicles (and many of the floors were MOSTLY cubicles) have their OWN fluor lights BESIDES the overhead area lights, so in reality the Fl lamp load is probably 3 times your estimate.
Which just gives an idea of ONE of the MANY other sources of Zinc BESIDES the floor pans.
Arthur
Arthur:
Read my last post! The floor area is not the issue.....(nice diversionary tactic though)
I really think it's time all of you nay-sayers gave up and admitted that you have lost the zinc argument and move on to explaining the high temperatures and molten metals without your usual prejudice and denial...
But why do I get the feeling you guys are not interested in hearing evidence you don't like.
Evidence such as molten iron and zinc in the Twin Towers
Evidence such as chlorine and sulfur-induced wastage of steel
Evidence such as super-heated rubble piles
Only Shagster appears to be a genuine scientist among the recent batch of nay-sayer-posters.
Is this a scientific forum or a forum to defend the NIST Report no matter how obvious its faults and short-commings are?
The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!
If the NIST scientists are TRUE scientists they would WELCOME criticism and alternative ideas. What are they afraid of?
So, to all you NISTIANS on this site (and you know who I am referring to), even with your interference, diversionary tactics, denial, obfuscation, I say:
THE TRUTH WILL OUT!
NF
Read my last post! The floor area is not the issue.....(nice diversionary tactic though)
I really think it's time all of you nay-sayers gave up and admitted that you have lost the zinc argument and move on to explaining the high temperatures and molten metals without your usual prejudice and denial...
But why do I get the feeling you guys are not interested in hearing evidence you don't like.
Evidence such as molten iron and zinc in the Twin Towers
Evidence such as chlorine and sulfur-induced wastage of steel
Evidence such as super-heated rubble piles
Only Shagster appears to be a genuine scientist among the recent batch of nay-sayer-posters.
Is this a scientific forum or a forum to defend the NIST Report no matter how obvious its faults and short-commings are?
The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!
If the NIST scientists are TRUE scientists they would WELCOME criticism and alternative ideas. What are they afraid of?
So, to all you NISTIANS on this site (and you know who I am referring to), even with your interference, diversionary tactics, denial, obfuscation, I say:
THE TRUTH WILL OUT!
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 03:18 PM)
If the NIST scientists are TRUE scientists they would WELCOME criticism and alternative ideas. What are they afraid of?
Clearly they are NOT AFRAID.
The NIST scientists PUBLISHED their work for PUBLIC review.
They ANSWERED the questions the PUBLIC asked.
They then PUBLISHED the FINAL REPORT.
The NIST scientists are now working on WTC 7.
Their science has held up quite well, thank you.
MUCH better than YOURS.
All you can do is claim that you can't get YOUR HYPOTHESIS published because of Scientific Facists.
Arthur
Clearly they are NOT AFRAID.
The NIST scientists PUBLISHED their work for PUBLIC review.
They ANSWERED the questions the PUBLIC asked.
They then PUBLISHED the FINAL REPORT.
The NIST scientists are now working on WTC 7.
Their science has held up quite well, thank you.
MUCH better than YOURS.
All you can do is claim that you can't get YOUR HYPOTHESIS published because of Scientific Facists.
Arthur
NEU-FONZE
Actually you are the one claiming TONS of zinc and steel, yet you have only extrapulated from limited and varied samples, not very scientific. Reminds me of some who claim "dustification" of frame members.
The fact that microscopic sphericles were present does not necessarily indicate macroscopic melting and pools of liquid metal(for which NO evidence has been found). So what is your point???
I, myself pointed out the erosion of steel in 7, I have no doubt NIST will deal with this in their upcoming reports. Trying to discredit NIST's reports based on erronious interpretations of dust samples is a big stretch which you have so far failed to justify. There are just too many sources to validate the conclusions you seem to be moving toward. Yes there were some extremely high temps(1200 C) in places in those buildings and some zinc surely evaped from the floor pans(and many other sources), but NO STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOW SIGNIFICANT SIGNS OF MELTING and the WTC 7 samples ERODED in sulfide (or other) reactions, probably from the diesel fuel.
Poo poo NIST all you like, it just makes you look...less than bright. The NIST report was a professional scientific investigation which has yet to be touched by legitimate, peer reviewed criticism and while not perfect(nothing ever is) is still far and away the best explanations we have of the events of 9/11 given the evidence we have.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I really think it's time all of you nay-sayers gave up and admitted that you have lost the zinc argument and move on to explaining the high temperatures and molten metals without your usual prejudice and denial...
Actually you are the one claiming TONS of zinc and steel, yet you have only extrapulated from limited and varied samples, not very scientific. Reminds me of some who claim "dustification" of frame members.
The fact that microscopic sphericles were present does not necessarily indicate macroscopic melting and pools of liquid metal(for which NO evidence has been found). So what is your point???
I, myself pointed out the erosion of steel in 7, I have no doubt NIST will deal with this in their upcoming reports. Trying to discredit NIST's reports based on erronious interpretations of dust samples is a big stretch which you have so far failed to justify. There are just too many sources to validate the conclusions you seem to be moving toward. Yes there were some extremely high temps(1200 C) in places in those buildings and some zinc surely evaped from the floor pans(and many other sources), but NO STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOW SIGNIFICANT SIGNS OF MELTING and the WTC 7 samples ERODED in sulfide (or other) reactions, probably from the diesel fuel.
Poo poo NIST all you like, it just makes you look...less than bright. The NIST report was a professional scientific investigation which has yet to be touched by legitimate, peer reviewed criticism and while not perfect(nothing ever is) is still far and away the best explanations we have of the events of 9/11 given the evidence we have.
Grumpy
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 08:18 PM)
Arthur:
Read my last post! The floor area is not the issue.....(nice diversionary tactic though)
I really think it's time all of you nay-sayers gave up and admitted that you have lost the zinc argument and move on to explaining the high temperatures and molten metals without your usual prejudice and denial...
But why do I get the feeling you guys are not interested in hearing evidence you don't like.
Evidence such as molten iron and zinc in the Twin Towers
Evidence such as chlorine and sulfur-induced wastage of steel
Evidence such as super-heated rubble piles
Only Shagster appears to be a genuine scientist among the recent batch of nay-sayer-posters.
Is this a scientific forum or a forum to defend the NIST Report no matter how obvious its faults and short-commings are?
The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!
If the NIST scientists are TRUE scientists they would WELCOME criticism and alternative ideas. What are they afraid of?
So, to all you NISTIANS on this site (and you know who I am referring to), even with your interference, diversionary tactics, denial, obfuscation, I say:
THE TRUTH WILL OUT!
NF
One I never apologize of Nist, second I do not believe in anything that can not be proved, Also was there not PVC tubing in the world trade center, zinc coated electrical conduit, and hundreds of galvanized filing cabinets and other sources of zinc, including the ammo in world trade 6 some of it was encase in steel casings some in zinc casing?
I still see no reason to believe anything other than a natural collapse in the evidence.
Nist is not perfect and never will be!
Read my last post! The floor area is not the issue.....(nice diversionary tactic though)
I really think it's time all of you nay-sayers gave up and admitted that you have lost the zinc argument and move on to explaining the high temperatures and molten metals without your usual prejudice and denial...
But why do I get the feeling you guys are not interested in hearing evidence you don't like.
Evidence such as molten iron and zinc in the Twin Towers
Evidence such as chlorine and sulfur-induced wastage of steel
Evidence such as super-heated rubble piles
Only Shagster appears to be a genuine scientist among the recent batch of nay-sayer-posters.
Is this a scientific forum or a forum to defend the NIST Report no matter how obvious its faults and short-commings are?
The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!
If the NIST scientists are TRUE scientists they would WELCOME criticism and alternative ideas. What are they afraid of?
So, to all you NISTIANS on this site (and you know who I am referring to), even with your interference, diversionary tactics, denial, obfuscation, I say:
THE TRUTH WILL OUT!
NF
One I never apologize of Nist, second I do not believe in anything that can not be proved, Also was there not PVC tubing in the world trade center, zinc coated electrical conduit, and hundreds of galvanized filing cabinets and other sources of zinc, including the ammo in world trade 6 some of it was encase in steel casings some in zinc casing?
I still see no reason to believe anything other than a natural collapse in the evidence.
Nist is not perfect and never will be!
From NIST FAQ:
NIST doesn't deny the presence of molten steel, they just didn't find it relevant to the collapses of the towers. It's a fascinating subject, and I think worthy of further discussion, hopefully without the unnecessary ridicule.
QUOTE
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage
from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
from the WTC towers?
NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.
NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.
Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.
NIST doesn't deny the presence of molten steel, they just didn't find it relevant to the collapses of the towers. It's a fascinating subject, and I think worthy of further discussion, hopefully without the unnecessary ridicule.
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 20 2007, 10:20 PM)
It's a fascinating subject, and I think worthy of further discussion, hopefully without the unnecessary ridicule.
After shagster's post of sparks from steel grinding, I am sufficiently satisfied.
I completely agree with you regarding the tone of some comments...
After shagster's post of sparks from steel grinding, I am sufficiently satisfied.
I completely agree with you regarding the tone of some comments...
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 20 2007, 09:35 PM)
NEU-FONZE
Actually you are the one claiming TONS of zinc and steel, yet you have only extrapulated from limited and varied samples, not very scientific. Reminds me of some who claim "dustification" of frame members.
The fact that microscopic sphericles were present does not necessarily indicate macroscopic melting and pools of liquid metal(for which NO evidence has been found). So what is your point???
I, myself pointed out the erosion of steel in 7, I have no doubt NIST will deal with this in their upcoming reports. Trying to discredit NIST's reports based on erronious interpretations of dust samples is a big stretch which you have so far failed to justify. There are just too many sources to validate the conclusions you seem to be moving toward. Yes there were some extremely high temps(1200 C) in places in those buildings and some zinc surely evaped from the floor pans(and many other sources), but NO STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOW SIGNIFICANT SIGNS OF MELTING and the WTC 7 samples ERODED in sulfide (or other) reactions, probably from the diesel fuel.
Poo poo NIST all you like, it just makes you look...less than bright. The NIST report was a professional scientific investigation which has yet to be touched by legitimate, peer reviewed criticism and while not perfect(nothing ever is) is still far and away the best explanations we have of the events of 9/11 given the evidence we have.
Grumpy
Grumpy is Nist Omnipotent, all knowing, all seeing, and perfect if not there may be subjects which hold some fascinating possibility's for investigation!
I see no reasons to think anything other than a natural collapse, but I also know that NIST might not be a god a supernatural being and the more investigation might provide valuable Scientific data.
Actually you are the one claiming TONS of zinc and steel, yet you have only extrapulated from limited and varied samples, not very scientific. Reminds me of some who claim "dustification" of frame members.
The fact that microscopic sphericles were present does not necessarily indicate macroscopic melting and pools of liquid metal(for which NO evidence has been found). So what is your point???
I, myself pointed out the erosion of steel in 7, I have no doubt NIST will deal with this in their upcoming reports. Trying to discredit NIST's reports based on erronious interpretations of dust samples is a big stretch which you have so far failed to justify. There are just too many sources to validate the conclusions you seem to be moving toward. Yes there were some extremely high temps(1200 C) in places in those buildings and some zinc surely evaped from the floor pans(and many other sources), but NO STRUCTURAL STEEL SHOW SIGNIFICANT SIGNS OF MELTING and the WTC 7 samples ERODED in sulfide (or other) reactions, probably from the diesel fuel.
Poo poo NIST all you like, it just makes you look...less than bright. The NIST report was a professional scientific investigation which has yet to be touched by legitimate, peer reviewed criticism and while not perfect(nothing ever is) is still far and away the best explanations we have of the events of 9/11 given the evidence we have.
Grumpy
Grumpy is Nist Omnipotent, all knowing, all seeing, and perfect if not there may be subjects which hold some fascinating possibility's for investigation!
I see no reasons to think anything other than a natural collapse, but I also know that NIST might not be a god a supernatural being and the more investigation might provide valuable Scientific data.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Mar 20 2007, 05:43 PM)
is Nist Omnipotent, all knowing, all seeing, and perfect if not there may be subjects which hold some fascinating possibility's for investigation!
I see no reasons to think anything other than a natural collapse, but I also know that NIST might not be a god a supernatural being and the more investigation might provide valuable Scientific data.
There is a WORLD of difference in EXTENDING the investigation into other FACETS of the collapse, such as what Bazant did, or the USGS etc etc, but that is NOT what NEU is doing when he makes statements like:
I see no reasons to think anything other than a natural collapse, but I also know that NIST might not be a god a supernatural being and the more investigation might provide valuable Scientific data.
There is a WORLD of difference in EXTENDING the investigation into other FACETS of the collapse, such as what Bazant did, or the USGS etc etc, but that is NOT what NEU is doing when he makes statements like:
QUOTE (NEU+)
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NEU obviously has his OWN agenda and Hypothesis and is apparently upset that he can't get it published because of the prevalence of Scientific Facists.
Apparently this is not the first time that these Facists have prevented the publication of one of NEU's theories.
Arthur
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NEU obviously has his OWN agenda and Hypothesis and is apparently upset that he can't get it published because of the prevalence of Scientific Facists.
Apparently this is not the first time that these Facists have prevented the publication of one of NEU's theories.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 20 2007, 11:24 PM)
There is a WORLD of difference in EXTENDING the investigation into other FACETS of the collapse, such as what Bazant did, or the USGS etc etc, but that is NOT what NEU is doing when he makes statements like:
QUOTE (NEU+)
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NEU obviously has his OWN agenda and Hypothesis and is apparently upset that he can't get it published because of the prevalence of Scientific Facists.
Apparently this is not the first time that these Facists have prevented the publication of one of NEU's theories.
Arthur
Actually the very fact that the plane inters the building and the huge amount of fuel and debris carried with it makes the destruction of the fragile insulation almost certain.
The only question is how extensive was the damage to the Insulation, not if it was destroyed but where and how much.
Also the insulation is not critical above the fire zones it would actually act as a heat sink preventing the steel above the fire from cooling do to convection.
More damage could in fact be caused to the steel if the insulation in the impact zone was destroyed, and that above the impact zone was intact.
The temperature of the steel above the impact zone would actually reach a higher level if the steel had the insulation intact, because it would be impossible for it to conduct away the heat. It would instead retain the heat, until it softened to the point of collapse.
DBB, if you can get to a PC that can view videos I think it's well worth viewing some of these collapse videos. This one in particular, it really seems like the block is falling/rotating with no resistance beneath it.
Your final point is of course BOGUS since we have learned that ALL the material was removed TO AN INSPECTION point, and virtually ALL THE MATERIAL was inspected, much of it TWICE, once at the site and again, sifted and hand inspected at the Fresh Kills inspection point, with both NYC police and FBI agents present.
Arthur
Just to counter the NIST propaganda machine (Arthurs).
Let’s go back (again) to what the government said about destroying evidence:
QUOTE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Noon to 2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).
The NIST scientists are now working on WTC 7.
Their science has held up quite well, thank you.
Arthur
Why is Arthurs trying to take credit for the NIST report (Does NIST give credit to its PR department)?
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
NEU obviously has his OWN agenda and Hypothesis and is apparently upset that he can't get it published because of the prevalence of Scientific Facists.
Apparently this is not the first time that these Facists have prevented the publication of one of NEU's theories.
Arthur
Actually the very fact that the plane inters the building and the huge amount of fuel and debris carried with it makes the destruction of the fragile insulation almost certain.
The only question is how extensive was the damage to the Insulation, not if it was destroyed but where and how much.
Also the insulation is not critical above the fire zones it would actually act as a heat sink preventing the steel above the fire from cooling do to convection.
More damage could in fact be caused to the steel if the insulation in the impact zone was destroyed, and that above the impact zone was intact.
The temperature of the steel above the impact zone would actually reach a higher level if the steel had the insulation intact, because it would be impossible for it to conduct away the heat. It would instead retain the heat, until it softened to the point of collapse.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 20 2007, 07:55 PM)
deny this, matterfoggers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM
There's some footage I had never seen, at about 9:09, of the WTC1 collapse where you can really see the "upper block" fall quite clearly - and for longer than in other videos. Thanks for the link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIgoXQWiSlM
There's some footage I had never seen, at about 9:09, of the WTC1 collapse where you can really see the "upper block" fall quite clearly - and for longer than in other videos. Thanks for the link.
The UL test showed floors WITH fireproofing which sagged. Why wouldn't the trusses with fireproofing sag in the towers? Even though they wouldn't have been a major factor in pulling in the perimeter, it wouldn't be negligible given the amount of sagging combined over all the floors I think.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Mar 21 2007, 12:02 AM)
There's some footage I had never seen, at about 9:09, of the WTC1 collapse where you can really see the "upper block" fall quite clearly - and for longer than in other videos. Thanks for the link.
I am not in a position to watch. From what side of the tower is the video taken?
Anything else you may care to describe, too.
Thanks.
I am not in a position to watch. From what side of the tower is the video taken?
Anything else you may care to describe, too.
Thanks.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Mar 20 2007, 07:14 PM)
The UL test showed floors WITH fireproofing which sagged. Why wouldn't the trusses with fireproofing sag in the towers? Even though they wouldn't have been a major factor in pulling in the perimeter, it wouldn't be negligible given the amount of sagging combined over all the floors I think.
NIST could only do the test on the SHORTER of the two truss lengths. The sagging of the LONGER trusses would have been even worse.
Arthur
NIST could only do the test on the SHORTER of the two truss lengths. The sagging of the LONGER trusses would have been even worse.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 21 2007, 12:21 AM)
I am not in a position to watch. From what side of the tower is the video taken?
Anything else you may care to describe, too.
Thanks.
It doesn't have any new video angles I haven't seen before. It's just more of the same. It says you can't debunk it but it's all been debunked for over a year.
Hear Explosion = must be explosive
Collapse speed/direction = must be demolition
Everyone with Adobe Premier is a documentary writer now.
Anything else you may care to describe, too.
Thanks.
It doesn't have any new video angles I haven't seen before. It's just more of the same. It says you can't debunk it but it's all been debunked for over a year.
Hear Explosion = must be explosive
Collapse speed/direction = must be demolition
Everyone with Adobe Premier is a documentary writer now.
QUOTE (FactCheck+Mar 21 2007, 12:55 AM)
It doesn't have any new video angles I haven't seen before.
But I gather this is not the north side video which NIST used clips in the NCSTAR1 report. So which angle is it taken from? East? West?
Is it possible to see the tilt of the upper block?
Thanks.
But I gather this is not the north side video which NIST used clips in the NCSTAR1 report. So which angle is it taken from? East? West?
Is it possible to see the tilt of the upper block?
Thanks.
You guys are so predictable and one of you, you know the most opinionated one, is so inaccurate in what he has to say about what I have been writing about for the past while it is truly....., well, all I can say, it's friggin amazing.
NIST's theory is just that
A theory
And one, may I add, of many.
Only NIST and the NISTIAN APOLOGISTS on this site believe it's the FINAL theory.
So that's fine. I guess the NISTIAN APOLOGISTS are entitled to believe in anything and everything they are told by the "experts'
On no, that's right I forgot, they ARE the experts!
Trouble is these so-called experts are unable to explain so many things about the collapse of the Twin Towers.
But, then again, these experts ARE good at making unsubstantiated GUESSES about what happened to the towers just to come up with a theory to satisfy THE BOSS
It's called PAYMENT BY RESULTS; it always works!
The NIST Theory of the WTC tragedy is a typical engineering effort by typical engineers. Parts of it are very good.... other parts are .... well to be charitable, all I will say is that parts are so lacking in detail it is more like a sketch of a picture of a shadow.....
Now it's time for the NISTIANS to let someone else try to solve the puzzle.
Oh, and by the way,
if you NISTIAN APOLOGISTS think NIST have cracked the case,
why are you wasting time on this site talking to Doubting Thomases?
That is, unless your mission IS to SILENCE the Doubters.
But, you know, brow-beating never works, as in the horse-water-drinking thing
But engineers were never known for subtlety
NF
DBB:
What are you doing hanging out with engineers, I thought you were a scientist!
"So all day long the noise of battle rolled
Among the mountains by the sea
Until KING ARTHUR's knights had fallen..."
The Passing of Arthur by Alfred Lord Tennyson
NIST's theory is just that
A theory
And one, may I add, of many.
Only NIST and the NISTIAN APOLOGISTS on this site believe it's the FINAL theory.
So that's fine. I guess the NISTIAN APOLOGISTS are entitled to believe in anything and everything they are told by the "experts'
On no, that's right I forgot, they ARE the experts!
Trouble is these so-called experts are unable to explain so many things about the collapse of the Twin Towers.
But, then again, these experts ARE good at making unsubstantiated GUESSES about what happened to the towers just to come up with a theory to satisfy THE BOSS
It's called PAYMENT BY RESULTS; it always works!
The NIST Theory of the WTC tragedy is a typical engineering effort by typical engineers. Parts of it are very good.... other parts are .... well to be charitable, all I will say is that parts are so lacking in detail it is more like a sketch of a picture of a shadow.....
Now it's time for the NISTIANS to let someone else try to solve the puzzle.
Oh, and by the way,
if you NISTIAN APOLOGISTS think NIST have cracked the case,
why are you wasting time on this site talking to Doubting Thomases?
That is, unless your mission IS to SILENCE the Doubters.
But, you know, brow-beating never works, as in the horse-water-drinking thing
But engineers were never known for subtlety
NF
DBB:
What are you doing hanging out with engineers, I thought you were a scientist!
"So all day long the noise of battle rolled
Among the mountains by the sea
Until KING ARTHUR's knights had fallen..."
The Passing of Arthur by Alfred Lord Tennyson
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 01:39 AM)
What are you doing hanging out with engineers, I thought you were a scientist!
My Ph.D. was awarded in Engineering Science and Mathematics. But I've always thought of myself as a computer scientist. Most of my professional career was in a school of electrical engineering and computer science, part of a college of engineering and architecture. Maybe that explains it.
When I have the time to post it, I'll assign a provisional grade to NIST's NCSTAR1. (Generations of students learned I was not a easy grader.) For some time now I am posted that NIST provides an approximate probable scenario. Ok with that?
My Ph.D. was awarded in Engineering Science and Mathematics. But I've always thought of myself as a computer scientist. Most of my professional career was in a school of electrical engineering and computer science, part of a college of engineering and architecture. Maybe that explains it.
When I have the time to post it, I'll assign a provisional grade to NIST's NCSTAR1. (Generations of students learned I was not a easy grader.) For some time now I am posted that NIST provides an approximate probable scenario. Ok with that?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 21 2007, 12:21 AM)
I am not in a position to watch. From what side of the tower is the video taken?
Anything else you may care to describe, too.
Thanks.
Well, I generated these using the "print screen" button on the youtube window so the time spacing between the pictures isn't exactly constant. And the camera is shaking quite a bit so static screens don't capture the movement too well... but here you go:
Anything else you may care to describe, too.
Thanks.
Well, I generated these using the "print screen" button on the youtube window so the time spacing between the pictures isn't exactly constant. And the camera is shaking quite a bit so static screens don't capture the movement too well... but here you go:
DBB, if you can get to a PC that can view videos I think it's well worth viewing some of these collapse videos. This one in particular, it really seems like the block is falling/rotating with no resistance beneath it.
DBB:
An engineer eh?
NO, I'm not ok with that!
Sorry, the best I would say is:
An Approximate POSSIBLE THEORY
But I could dream up a POSSIBLE THEORY too.
Oxford Dictionary definition of theory: supposition or system of ideas explaining something.
That is at least one step up from an hypothesis.
But, as a chemist, I find possible 9/11 HYPOTHESES more interesting.
Perhaps I should post on Chemorg and find people who are more open to IDEAS
and not so PARANOID that someone might find some little hole in the NIST wall of 10,000 pages of engineering perfection.
NF
An engineer eh?
NO, I'm not ok with that!
Sorry, the best I would say is:
An Approximate POSSIBLE THEORY
But I could dream up a POSSIBLE THEORY too.
Oxford Dictionary definition of theory: supposition or system of ideas explaining something.
That is at least one step up from an hypothesis.
But, as a chemist, I find possible 9/11 HYPOTHESES more interesting.
Perhaps I should post on Chemorg and find people who are more open to IDEAS
and not so PARANOID that someone might find some little hole in the NIST wall of 10,000 pages of engineering perfection.
NF
Neu,
No one is PARANOID, but you, with your SCIENCE FACISTS.
Have fun on Chemorg discussing with other chemists the "Chemical Destruction of the WTC towers".
Arthur
No one is PARANOID, but you, with your SCIENCE FACISTS.
Have fun on Chemorg discussing with other chemists the "Chemical Destruction of the WTC towers".
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 02:16 AM)
DBB:
An engineer eh?
NO, I'm not ok with that!
Sorry, the best I would say is:
An Approximate POSSIBLE THEORY
But I could dream up a POSSIBLE THEORY too.
Oxford Dictionary definition of theory: supposition or system of ideas explaining something.
That is at least one step up from an hypothesis.
But, as a chemist, I find possible 9/11 HYPOTHESES more interesting.
Perhaps I should post on Chemorg and find people who are more open to IDEAS
and not so PARANOID that someone might find some little hole in the NIST wall of 10,000 pages of engineering perfection.
NF
There are obviously things that we do not know and will never know about 9/11/2001. Also it is about Science and not the NIST reports at all, anyone who denies that is simply crazier than I am.
Here is a site that anyone interested in Chemistry might want to look at.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1728777
There are several sources for the spears and I do not find them unusual, the car tires that burned would produce them, all car tire have wire inside there are literally thousands of sources both in the collapse, and around the buildings.
If your only looking at the towers in the air sample your making a flawed mistake.
In fact I expected such in the collapse to be formed, and have said so may times, steel burns and when subjected to extreme conditions it can burn quite well.
An engineer eh?
NO, I'm not ok with that!
Sorry, the best I would say is:
An Approximate POSSIBLE THEORY
But I could dream up a POSSIBLE THEORY too.
Oxford Dictionary definition of theory: supposition or system of ideas explaining something.
That is at least one step up from an hypothesis.
But, as a chemist, I find possible 9/11 HYPOTHESES more interesting.
Perhaps I should post on Chemorg and find people who are more open to IDEAS
and not so PARANOID that someone might find some little hole in the NIST wall of 10,000 pages of engineering perfection.
NF
There are obviously things that we do not know and will never know about 9/11/2001. Also it is about Science and not the NIST reports at all, anyone who denies that is simply crazier than I am.
Here is a site that anyone interested in Chemistry might want to look at.
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1728777
There are several sources for the spears and I do not find them unusual, the car tires that burned would produce them, all car tire have wire inside there are literally thousands of sources both in the collapse, and around the buildings.
If your only looking at the towers in the air sample your making a flawed mistake.
In fact I expected such in the collapse to be formed, and have said so may times, steel burns and when subjected to extreme conditions it can burn quite well.
This paper elaborates on the differences between fumes and spatter.
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar211.pdf
Trying to estimate the amount of particulate generated during cutting on the basis of fuming rates for welding is problematic. Spatter particles and fuming aren't the same phenomenon. Also, the cleanup crews were doing cutting operations by blasting the metal with oxygen to cut through the entire cross-section, as opposed to performing welds with inert gas which tends to reduce spatter. Welds usually don't penetrate the entire thickness, which is different than cutting through the entire thickness.
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar211.pdf
Trying to estimate the amount of particulate generated during cutting on the basis of fuming rates for welding is problematic. Spatter particles and fuming aren't the same phenomenon. Also, the cleanup crews were doing cutting operations by blasting the metal with oxygen to cut through the entire cross-section, as opposed to performing welds with inert gas which tends to reduce spatter. Welds usually don't penetrate the entire thickness, which is different than cutting through the entire thickness.
This paper elaborates on the differences between fumes and spatter.
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar211.pdf
Trying to estimate the amount of particulate generated during cutting on the basis of fuming rates for welding is problematic. Spatter particles and fuming aren't the same phenomenon. Also, the cleanup crews were doing cutting operations by blasting the metal with oxygen to melt through the entire cross-section, as opposed to performing welds with inert gas which tends to reduce spatter. Welds usually don't penetrate the entire thickness, which is different than cutting through the entire thickness.
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPapers/Eagar211.pdf
Trying to estimate the amount of particulate generated during cutting on the basis of fuming rates for welding is problematic. Spatter particles and fuming aren't the same phenomenon. Also, the cleanup crews were doing cutting operations by blasting the metal with oxygen to melt through the entire cross-section, as opposed to performing welds with inert gas which tends to reduce spatter. Welds usually don't penetrate the entire thickness, which is different than cutting through the entire thickness.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 20 2007, 05:08 AM)
Your final point is of course BOGUS since we have learned that ALL the material was removed TO AN INSPECTION point, and virtually ALL THE MATERIAL was inspected, much of it TWICE, once at the site and again, sifted and hand inspected at the Fresh Kills inspection point, with both NYC police and FBI agents present.
Arthur
Just to counter the NIST propaganda machine (Arthurs).
Let’s go back (again) to what the government said about destroying evidence:
QUOTE
QUOTE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
HEARING CHARTER
Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Wednesday, March 6, 2002
Noon to 2:00 p.m.
2318 Rayburn House Office Building
The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings
In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection.
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HEARING CHARTER Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Wednesday, March 6, 2002 Noon to 2:00 p.m. 2318 Rayburn House Office Building The 23-member BPAT team conducted an analysis of the wreckage on-site, at Fresh Kills Landfill and at the recycling yard from October 7-12, 2001, during which the team extracted samples from the scrap materials and subjected them to laboratory analysis. Why the analysis was conducted only after a delay of three weeks after the attacks remains unclear. Since November, members of the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) have volunteered to work on the BPAT team’s behalf and are visiting recycling yards and landfills two to three times a week to watch for pieces of scrap that may provide important clues with regard to the behavior of the buildings In the month that lapsed between the terrorist attacks and the deployment of the BPAT team, a significant amount of steel debris – including most of the steel from the upper floors – was removed from the rubble pile, cut into smaller sections, and either melted at the recycling plant or shipped out of the U.S. Some of the critical pieces of steel – including the suspension trusses from the top of the towers and the internal support columns – were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site. Fortunately, an NSF-funded independent researcher, recognizing that valuable evidence was being destroyed, attempted to intervene with the City of New York to save the valuable artifacts, but the city was unwilling to suspend the recycling contract. Ultimately, the researcher appealed directly to the recycling plant, which agreed to provide the researcher, and ultimately the ASCE team and the SEAoNY volunteers, access to the remaining steel and a storage area where they could temporarily store important artifacts for additional analysis. Despite this agreement, however, many pieces of steel still managed to escape inspection. |
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).
The NIST scientists are now working on WTC 7.
Their science has held up quite well, thank you.
Arthur
Why is Arthurs trying to take credit for the NIST report (Does NIST give credit to its PR department)?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 20 2007, 05:59 PM)
My Ph.D. was awarded in Engineering Science and Mathematics. But I've always thought of myself as a computer scientist. Most of my professional career was in a school of electrical engineering and computer science,
A former computer science professor that can't figure out how to watch videos on his computer.
I guess their is some truth to, "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach".
A former computer science professor that can't figure out how to watch videos on his computer.
I guess their is some truth to, "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach".
A paper by Jenkins on weld fuming and spatter.
http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/06-2005-JENKINS-s.pdf
http://www.aws.org/wj/supplement/06-2005-JENKINS-s.pdf
QUOTE (FactCheck+Mar 20 2007, 04:14 PM)
The UL test showed floors WITH fireproofing which sagged. Why wouldn't the trusses with fireproofing sag in the towers? Even though they wouldn't have been a major factor in pulling in the perimeter, it wouldn't be negligible given the amount of sagging combined over all the floors I think.
The floor assembly simulation shows the sagging. It also shows the floors pushing the walls out because of thermal expansion and not pulling-in as the photos indicate. Once they sag enough to pull on the walls the trusses become disconected and are no longer a factor.
The floor assembly simulation shows the sagging. It also shows the floors pushing the walls out because of thermal expansion and not pulling-in as the photos indicate. Once they sag enough to pull on the walls the trusses become disconected and are no longer a factor.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 21 2007, 07:01 AM)
A former computer science professor that can't figure out how to watch videos on his computer.
I guess their is some truth to, "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach".
That must be a firewall problem then maybe ? There is nothing to figure out with those online video sites, it works with default settings/installation.
I guess their is some truth to, "those that can, do. Those that can't, teach".
That must be a firewall problem then maybe ? There is nothing to figure out with those online video sites, it works with default settings/installation.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 21 2007, 07:21 AM)
The floor assembly simulation shows the sagging. It also shows the floors pushing the walls out because of thermal expansion and not pulling-in as the photos indicate. Once they sag enough to pull on the walls the trusses become disconected and are no longer a factor.
From the Bible(NIST NCSTAR 1-6D p 310):
Those that can learn, do. Those that can't, become truthers.
From the Bible(NIST NCSTAR 1-6D p 310):
QUOTE
Bowing and buckling of the entire exterior wall of the south tower occurred under the combined effects of temperature, redistributed gravity load, pull-in force from sagging trusses, and loss of lateral support due to sagging floor/wall disconnections. Floors with large sag did not restrain the exterior wall columns from buckling.
reasonwhy, do you have some redacted copy of the NIST report with all of the relevant portions blacked out? Or, are you trying to imitate Bush 43, and only see what you want to see.Those that can learn, do. Those that can't, become truthers.
Once again Arthur proves he is unable to discuss my chemical points. As for the NIST report, I've read it - CHAPTER AND VERSE - and we have gone beyond the material it covers, so it's time to move on......
May I therefore suggest Arthur that you switch to a NIST APOLOGISTS' site where you can preach to the choir. You clearly no longer have anything of value to offer here.
Shagster, I have said before most of the samples were collected before the major cutting operations. The cutting operations were mostly close to the ground so the fume/spatter could not disperse very far (Many USGS samples were collected 500 + meters from GZ; only dust produced high up in a building could travel that far). Your cutting theory does not explain the zinc fume.
NF
May I therefore suggest Arthur that you switch to a NIST APOLOGISTS' site where you can preach to the choir. You clearly no longer have anything of value to offer here.
Shagster, I have said before most of the samples were collected before the major cutting operations. The cutting operations were mostly close to the ground so the fume/spatter could not disperse very far (Many USGS samples were collected 500 + meters from GZ; only dust produced high up in a building could travel that far). Your cutting theory does not explain the zinc fume.
NF
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 21 2007, 01:46 AM)
I highlighted and added large fonts so maybe you can comprehend it this time (and quite repeating your BS).
NOPE,
Its you who continue to post this even though you have been shown REPEATEDLY that it was WRONG.
The part YOU quote and highlight from is from the BACKGROUND section of the MAY 6 hearing
It was obviously prepared by a congressional STAFFER.
But LATER THAT DAY, the HEAD of the BPAT team, Dr Gene Corley, who WAS AT THE WTC site and at Fresh Kills TESTIFIED to the committee that THAT background information was NOT CORRECT (for instance he corrected the dates that the backgrounder used and explained that while they weren't allowed on the WTC site until the 29th they had full access to the landfill where the steel was taken).
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
Then of course we learn that besides the Steel the actual MATERIAL from the towers was all sifted and HAND SEARCHED. So it makes your whole argument BOGUS.
Arthur
NOPE,
Its you who continue to post this even though you have been shown REPEATEDLY that it was WRONG.
The part YOU quote and highlight from is from the BACKGROUND section of the MAY 6 hearing
It was obviously prepared by a congressional STAFFER.
But LATER THAT DAY, the HEAD of the BPAT team, Dr Gene Corley, who WAS AT THE WTC site and at Fresh Kills TESTIFIED to the committee that THAT background information was NOT CORRECT (for instance he corrected the dates that the backgrounder used and explained that while they weren't allowed on the WTC site until the 29th they had full access to the landfill where the steel was taken).
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
Then of course we learn that besides the Steel the actual MATERIAL from the towers was all sifted and HAND SEARCHED. So it makes your whole argument BOGUS.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 07:03 AM)
As for the NIST report, I've read it - CHAPTER AND VERSE - and we have gone beyond the material it covers, so it's time to move on......
Maybe you should read it AGAIN, then you won't make GLARING ERRORS like this one:
Maybe you should read it AGAIN, then you won't make GLARING ERRORS like this one:
QUOTE (NEU+)
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
As it turns out your BELIEF that NIST's COLLAPSE THEORY had 'fallen apart' was apparently based on POOR comprehension skills.
Nope, I (and others) have shown that there are a GREAT MANY sources for the metals and chemicals found at the various sampling locations.
What YOU have failed to show is that they are:
A) unusual considering the size/magnitude of what happened
B ) That your extrapolations of quantity are valid
C) show that the presence of these chemicals/metals in ANY WAY have ANYTHING to do with the towers collapse.
D) That Science Facists prevent the publication of GOOD Scientific reports.
Arthur
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
As it turns out your BELIEF that NIST's COLLAPSE THEORY had 'fallen apart' was apparently based on POOR comprehension skills.
QUOTE
Once again Arthur proves he is unable to discuss my chemical points.
Nope, I (and others) have shown that there are a GREAT MANY sources for the metals and chemicals found at the various sampling locations.
What YOU have failed to show is that they are:
A) unusual considering the size/magnitude of what happened
B ) That your extrapolations of quantity are valid
C) show that the presence of these chemicals/metals in ANY WAY have ANYTHING to do with the towers collapse.
D) That Science Facists prevent the publication of GOOD Scientific reports.
Arthur
DBB, I think you have the ability to view gifs:
There is a larger version with 3x more frames here:
full gif anim (~2MB)
full gif anim slow motion(~2MB)
There is a larger version with 3x more frames here:
full gif anim (~2MB)
full gif anim slow motion(~2MB)
Granted this is anecdotal evidence and it doesn’t specifically address the fireproofing, it still is a valid testimony to the effects of the impacts on the floors above. This is from one of the survivors from the 84th floor, above the WTC 2 impact zone.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
QUOTE
I was looking him in the eye having a conversation with him when at apparently 9:03—I didn't check my watch—the second plane hit the south side of our building at approximately the 78th, 79th, and 80th floors. Our room fell apart at that moment, a complete destruction without an explosion—very strange things. The lights went out, but we were near the window so there was daylight. Again, there was this sort of thump, this explosion without fire and flame, a very strange sensation.
There was a twist, if you like, to the building when it got hit, and therefore the plane's hitting explained some things to me later, like why the ceiling fell apart. The ceiling tiles and some of the brackets and so on fell; some air conditioning ducts, speakers, cables, and things like that that were in the ceiling fell. I seem to have a sense that some of the floor tiles even buckled a bit or were moved. Some of the walls, I recall vaguely, were actually torn in a jagged direction rather than up and down. Again perhaps explained by the torque, some of the door frames popped out of the wall and partially fell or fully fell.
There was a twist, if you like, to the building when it got hit, and therefore the plane's hitting explained some things to me later, like why the ceiling fell apart. The ceiling tiles and some of the brackets and so on fell; some air conditioning ducts, speakers, cables, and things like that that were in the ceiling fell. I seem to have a sense that some of the floor tiles even buckled a bit or were moved. Some of the walls, I recall vaguely, were actually torn in a jagged direction rather than up and down. Again perhaps explained by the torque, some of the door frames popped out of the wall and partially fell or fully fell.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
Arthur:
You have failed to show ANYTHING other than the fact that you have read the NIST Report. But unfortunately you appear incapable of adding any INSIGHT beyond the NIST Report short of highschool science gleaned from a google search of a key word.
Hmm.... Let's see what I get if I google ZINC.......
And, by the way, in case you have forgotten, the NIST Report is totally inconsistent in its statements about the tipping of the upper sections of the towers. And please don't pretend you have forgotten that issue.......
Arthur, please accept the fact that NIST has simply provided some experimental, theoretical and observational evidence supporting a THEORY.
If you want to believe NIST's theory that's your option, but I and many others recognize an UNPROVEN THEORY when we see one.
So, Arthur, your comments are not helping to convince anyone that NIST have it nailed down. They simply reveal your dogmatism.
This is a physics forum not a NIST lovefest. You are not going to win by simply quoting CHAPTER and VERSE from the NIST bible.
Just because NIST failed to discuss a particular issue does not mean that issue is unimportant.
DO NIST estimate the RATE of tipping and falling during the first few seconds of collapse?
NO!
Well, that's pretty weak in my book...
NF
You have failed to show ANYTHING other than the fact that you have read the NIST Report. But unfortunately you appear incapable of adding any INSIGHT beyond the NIST Report short of highschool science gleaned from a google search of a key word.
Hmm.... Let's see what I get if I google ZINC.......
And, by the way, in case you have forgotten, the NIST Report is totally inconsistent in its statements about the tipping of the upper sections of the towers. And please don't pretend you have forgotten that issue.......
Arthur, please accept the fact that NIST has simply provided some experimental, theoretical and observational evidence supporting a THEORY.
If you want to believe NIST's theory that's your option, but I and many others recognize an UNPROVEN THEORY when we see one.
So, Arthur, your comments are not helping to convince anyone that NIST have it nailed down. They simply reveal your dogmatism.
This is a physics forum not a NIST lovefest. You are not going to win by simply quoting CHAPTER and VERSE from the NIST bible.
Just because NIST failed to discuss a particular issue does not mean that issue is unimportant.
DO NIST estimate the RATE of tipping and falling during the first few seconds of collapse?
NO!
Well, that's pretty weak in my book...
NF
Nice dodge.
The only FAILED THEORY, I've seen has been YOURS.
Oh I know, SCIENCE FACISTS are preventing publication of your work.
Oh, and are you going to ever ADMIT you were wrong about this?
The only FAILED THEORY, I've seen has been YOURS.
Oh I know, SCIENCE FACISTS are preventing publication of your work.
Oh, and are you going to ever ADMIT you were wrong about this?
QUOTE (NEU+)
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
Or did you miss my quote from NIST that showed that they only assumed that missing insulation was from DIRECT IMPACT of the debris?
Of course you are setting yourself up for some more:
I (and others) have shown that there are a GREAT MANY sources for the metals and chemicals found at the various sampling locations.
What YOU have failed to show is that they are:
A) unusual considering the size/magnitude of what happened
B ) That your extrapolations of quantity are valid
C) show that the presence of these chemicals/metals in ANY WAY have ANYTHING to do with the towers collapse.
D) That Science Facists prevent the publication of GOOD Scientific reports.
Arthur
Or did you miss my quote from NIST that showed that they only assumed that missing insulation was from DIRECT IMPACT of the debris?
Of course you are setting yourself up for some more:
I (and others) have shown that there are a GREAT MANY sources for the metals and chemicals found at the various sampling locations.
What YOU have failed to show is that they are:
A) unusual considering the size/magnitude of what happened
B ) That your extrapolations of quantity are valid
C) show that the presence of these chemicals/metals in ANY WAY have ANYTHING to do with the towers collapse.
D) That Science Facists prevent the publication of GOOD Scientific reports.
Arthur
Arthur:
Nice double-dodge to you too!
Quote by Arthur:
"Or did you miss my quote from NIST that showed that they only assumed that missing insulation was from DIRECT IMPACT of the debris? "
Assumed, Arthur, ASSUMED, ASSUMED, ASSUMED......
Definition of ASSUMED: To believe.
I believe some people, (let's call them latter-day NISTIANS), once ASSUMED (i.e. BELIEVED) that the earth was flat because it looked that way.
Thanks for making my point
Next!
NF
Nice double-dodge to you too!
Quote by Arthur:
"Or did you miss my quote from NIST that showed that they only assumed that missing insulation was from DIRECT IMPACT of the debris? "
Assumed, Arthur, ASSUMED, ASSUMED, ASSUMED......
Definition of ASSUMED: To believe.
I believe some people, (let's call them latter-day NISTIANS), once ASSUMED (i.e. BELIEVED) that the earth was flat because it looked that way.
Thanks for making my point
Next!
NF
Arthur:
"NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in Figure 9-14 (page 308) of Chapter 9 (I am sure you know which Section Arthur) we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:
“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”
However, on page 169 of the NIST Report, in a Section called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):
“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”
Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees as it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees before it began to fall.”
The citizens of the US paid NIST $20 million for a report that nobody at NIST bothered to PROOF READ!
Pity, I say, pity!
NEXT!
NF
"NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in Figure 9-14 (page 308) of Chapter 9 (I am sure you know which Section Arthur) we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:
“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”
However, on page 169 of the NIST Report, in a Section called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):
“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”
Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees as it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees before it began to fall.”
The citizens of the US paid NIST $20 million for a report that nobody at NIST bothered to PROOF READ!
Pity, I say, pity!
NEXT!
NF
Arthur:
NOW DODGE THIS:
Vitally important issues NOT addressed by $20 million NIST Report:
· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
· Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
· The completeness of the destruction of each tower
· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11
Remember, Arthur, NIST lost interest (or ran out of money) 2 milliseconds after collapse initiation.
Tell me Authur, how did NIST know that the collapse would be self-sustaining without MODELLING THE COLLAPSE?
NF
NOW DODGE THIS:
Vitally important issues NOT addressed by $20 million NIST Report:
· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
· Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
· The completeness of the destruction of each tower
· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11
Remember, Arthur, NIST lost interest (or ran out of money) 2 milliseconds after collapse initiation.
Tell me Authur, how did NIST know that the collapse would be self-sustaining without MODELLING THE COLLAPSE?
NF
This post is NOT for Arthur since it's on a topic NOT discussed by NIST.....
However, for anyone interested in further RESEARCH of the WTC collapse:
There is a new article in the April issue of ESQUIRE magazine that was pointed out to me by Prof. Cahill at U.C. Davis.
It's by Eric Gillin and it starts on page 133....
On page 141 of the article there are several pie-charts showing the composition of the dust cloud around the rubble pile at Ground Zero.
The chart for October 3rd 2001 is most interesting since it shows a breakdown of the 12 to 2.5 micron dust as follows:
70.1 % aggregate
5.8 % gypsum
4.0 % chlorine
3.9 % sulfur
12.2 % "other"
This level of chlorine is amazing! It's higher than sulfur and remember that gypsum is 19 % sulfur.
When you consider that the bulk dust was typically about 6000 ppm chlorine, this suggests a MAJOR source of HCl and/or Cl2 was being outgassed from the rubble pile. This means that there was a very REACTIVE source of chlorine at the WTC.
I have some ideas what the source of chlorine could be, but before I post them I want to see Grumpy suggest:
Seawater
And Palpatane suggest:
Bleach
NF
However, for anyone interested in further RESEARCH of the WTC collapse:
There is a new article in the April issue of ESQUIRE magazine that was pointed out to me by Prof. Cahill at U.C. Davis.
It's by Eric Gillin and it starts on page 133....
On page 141 of the article there are several pie-charts showing the composition of the dust cloud around the rubble pile at Ground Zero.
The chart for October 3rd 2001 is most interesting since it shows a breakdown of the 12 to 2.5 micron dust as follows:
70.1 % aggregate
5.8 % gypsum
4.0 % chlorine
3.9 % sulfur
12.2 % "other"
This level of chlorine is amazing! It's higher than sulfur and remember that gypsum is 19 % sulfur.
When you consider that the bulk dust was typically about 6000 ppm chlorine, this suggests a MAJOR source of HCl and/or Cl2 was being outgassed from the rubble pile. This means that there was a very REACTIVE source of chlorine at the WTC.
I have some ideas what the source of chlorine could be, but before I post them I want to see Grumpy suggest:
Seawater
And Palpatane suggest:
Bleach
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:00 PM)
Arthur:
Nice double-dodge to you too!
Quote by Arthur:
"Or did you miss my quote from NIST that showed that they only assumed that missing insulation was from DIRECT IMPACT of the debris? "
Assumed, Arthur, ASSUMED, ASSUMED, ASSUMED......
Definition of ASSUMED: To believe.
I believe some people, (let's call them latter-day NISTIANS), once ASSUMED (i.e. BELIEVED) that the earth was flat because it looked that way.
Thanks for making my point
Next!
NF
You are now so desperate that you are forced into attacking the NUANCES of the wording of my posts?
I used the word ASSUME, not NIST.
And I used it in the sense that NIST didn't assume ANY missing insulation that they couldn't predict based on their VERY DETAILED impact model.
As I pointed out to you before, NIST stated that the model only had missing insulation that was predicted to be removed by DIRECT IMPACT of the debris.
It was YOU who made the ERRONEOUS STATEMENT about the insulation.
Arthur
Nice double-dodge to you too!
Quote by Arthur:
"Or did you miss my quote from NIST that showed that they only assumed that missing insulation was from DIRECT IMPACT of the debris? "
Assumed, Arthur, ASSUMED, ASSUMED, ASSUMED......
Definition of ASSUMED: To believe.
I believe some people, (let's call them latter-day NISTIANS), once ASSUMED (i.e. BELIEVED) that the earth was flat because it looked that way.
Thanks for making my point
Next!
NF
You are now so desperate that you are forced into attacking the NUANCES of the wording of my posts?
I used the word ASSUME, not NIST.
And I used it in the sense that NIST didn't assume ANY missing insulation that they couldn't predict based on their VERY DETAILED impact model.
As I pointed out to you before, NIST stated that the model only had missing insulation that was predicted to be removed by DIRECT IMPACT of the debris.
It was YOU who made the ERRONEOUS STATEMENT about the insulation.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:12 PM)
"NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse.
“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”
vs
“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”
Gee, Neu's NEW SPORT.
Picking at NITS.
Arthur
“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”
vs
“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”
Gee, Neu's NEW SPORT.
Picking at NITS.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:21 PM)
Vitally important issues NOT addressed by $20 million NIST Report:
· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
Covered in 1-6, you need to do a better job of reading the NIST report.
. Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
Covered by Bazant and Zhou whom they reference in 1-6, Bazant showed that max fall time would be no more than 6% greater than free fall time.
· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
· The completeness of the destruction of each tower
Not part of their charge. (of course its friggin obvious that there was sufficient energy for both)
· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
Covered in 1-6, you need to do a better job of reading the NIST report.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:21 PM)
. Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
Covered by Bazant and Zhou whom they reference in 1-6, Bazant showed that max fall time would be no more than 6% greater than free fall time.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:21 PM)
· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
· The completeness of the destruction of each tower
Not part of their charge. (of course its friggin obvious that there was sufficient energy for both)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:21 PM)
Vitally important issues NOT addressed by $20 million NIST Report:
· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11
OBVIOUS, it was on fire. They showed in 1-5 how much material there was in the towers. The energy of the material was clearly enough to keep the pile hot for months.
I wonder how many of these you need to make a POOL?
I think the contention was how much iron in a molten pool is needed to make the spheres which would be produced by outgassing as in a steel mill.
I haven't seen any signs of aluminum spheres in spite of the fact that there appeared to be a large amount of molten aluminum in the south tower. There was probably a similar amount in the north tower. Then again, iron was mostly what was being cut with the torches during cleanup, not aluminum, and much spatter would be expected when blasting the steel with oxygen.
· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11
OBVIOUS, it was on fire. They showed in 1-5 how much material there was in the towers. The energy of the material was clearly enough to keep the pile hot for months.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:21 PM)
Tell me Authur, how did NIST know that the collapse would be self-sustaining without MODELLING THE COLLAPSE?
NF
They read Bazant's paper.
Arthur
NF
They read Bazant's paper.
Arthur
Are there particular samples referenced as coming from the first week after the collapse that show iron spherules? I'm aware that there are photos of them in reports, but I am referring to photos where the date and location of the sample collection is specified for a particular photo showing the spheres.
Is there any data showing micron-size spheres of aluminum metal? That would be of interest since there was molten aluminum from the aircraft before the collapse. Silver colored liquid was pouring out the south tower. Any pool that was still present in the tower would have been crushed during the collapse. It could form spatter that would later show up in the dust as spheres of aluminum metal.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 21 2007, 02:46 PM)
Granted this is anecdotal evidence and it doesn’t specifically address the fireproofing, it still is a valid testimony to the effects of the impacts on the floors above. This is from one of the survivors from the 84th floor, above the WTC 2 impact zone.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
The effect of the floors trusses buckling and vibrating during the aircraft impact on the fireproofing is of interest. One of the quotes mentioned the floor tiles possibly buckling. Buckling and vibrations are other possible scenarios that could cause insulation spalling in addition to direct impact by small particles at high velocity. The floors away from the impacted region could have insulation damage in such a case even though they weren't directly impacted by debris. I don't know how one would go about trying to reproduce that type of situation in a laboratory setting. It doesn't lend itself as readily to a laboratory setting as does firing small particles (machine nuts, lead shot, etc) at the insulation.
A section of hanging floor on the north side of WTC1 showed the primer color on the floor trusses. The primer colored sections appear straight, so it's not as if the truss had to get mangled for the insulation to dislodge.
There were a few people in the region above the impact that managed to climb down through the impacted regions who describe gypsum panels scattered about, so it's likely that some of the core insulation was dislodged.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/above.html
The effect of the floors trusses buckling and vibrating during the aircraft impact on the fireproofing is of interest. One of the quotes mentioned the floor tiles possibly buckling. Buckling and vibrations are other possible scenarios that could cause insulation spalling in addition to direct impact by small particles at high velocity. The floors away from the impacted region could have insulation damage in such a case even though they weren't directly impacted by debris. I don't know how one would go about trying to reproduce that type of situation in a laboratory setting. It doesn't lend itself as readily to a laboratory setting as does firing small particles (machine nuts, lead shot, etc) at the insulation.
A section of hanging floor on the north side of WTC1 showed the primer color on the floor trusses. The primer colored sections appear straight, so it's not as if the truss had to get mangled for the insulation to dislodge.
There were a few people in the region above the impact that managed to climb down through the impacted regions who describe gypsum panels scattered about, so it's likely that some of the core insulation was dislodged.
I was behind in reading here. I've just finished probably the last 15 pages to get caught up. Very interesting reading, to say the least. If I was to add anyting to the convo, it would be... not knowing the exact composition of emt (conduit), drywall studs, and a/c ducts, but by volume or surface area, I'd be willing to bet there's at least as much if not more of them than floor pans on each floor. Also, the floor plans do get alot of overspray on the fireproofing, but like was agreed, they aren't covered completely by a long shot.
Here's something of interest, and I'm sorry if I've posted it before on here, but...
union ironworkers working with galvanized steel, whether the floor plans or structural (alot refineries and chemical plants) when they are cutting/welding, etc... get supplied a pint of milk at lunch and then again at the end of the day. I bet NF could explain why, but it's something about breathing the fumes galvanized puts off when you have to cut or weld it. The milk keeps the guys from getting sick.
Here's something of interest, and I'm sorry if I've posted it before on here, but...
union ironworkers working with galvanized steel, whether the floor plans or structural (alot refineries and chemical plants) when they are cutting/welding, etc... get supplied a pint of milk at lunch and then again at the end of the day. I bet NF could explain why, but it's something about breathing the fumes galvanized puts off when you have to cut or weld it. The milk keeps the guys from getting sick.
I wonder how much floor pan, ducting, conduit, etc was cut with torches during cleanup.
Zinc melts at 420 C and boils at 907 C. It shouldn't be considered too anomalous that it would give off vapors in an office fire, in the pit, or during cleanup operations.
Zinc melts at 420 C and boils at 907 C. It shouldn't be considered too anomalous that it would give off vapors in an office fire, in the pit, or during cleanup operations.
lozenge124 --- Thank you! Yes, I can view gif files.
This video appears to be from the north-west. The tilt is clear, despite the camera shaking. The calculated resistance is about (1/2)g, so the upper block is accelerating at about (2/3)g for the first 3 seconds.
============================================
everybody --- This machine sits behind not one, but two firewalls. I have no ability whatsoever to influence what is allowed through the first, only the second. However, the primary reason is that this is a research machine, not your everyday, garden variety PC.
Yes, I can view gif files.This video appears to be from the north-west. The tilt is clear, despite the camera shaking. The calculated resistance is about (1/2)g, so the upper block is accelerating at about (2/3)g for the first 3 seconds.
============================================
everybody --- This machine sits behind not one, but two firewalls. I have no ability whatsoever to influence what is allowed through the first, only the second. However, the primary reason is that this is a research machine, not your everyday, garden variety PC.
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Mar 21 2007, 02:52 PM)
union ironworkers working with galvanized steel, whether the floor plans or structural (alot refineries and chemical plants) when they are cutting/welding, etc... get supplied a pint of milk at lunch and then again at the end of the day. I bet NF could explain why, but it's something about breathing the fumes galvanized puts off when you have to cut or weld it. The milk keeps the guys from getting sick.
High levels of dietary calcium are known to impair zinc absorption.
Arthur
High levels of dietary calcium are known to impair zinc absorption.
Arthur
Arthur:
To quote a well-known NIST APOLOGIST
"YAWN"
Arthur, you know these are NOT very convincing answers.....
Please explain in what way "its friggin obvious that there was sufficient energy" to pulverize and eject the concrete. This is a good example of your propensity to give a flippant response to a question you really can't answer - right Arthur?
I will have to fail you on this test unless you can come up with something better!
But you know, Arthur, I would love to be paid $20 million to write a report
to simply quote another report...
But I guess you NISTIANS know all about that since all you appear capable of is quoting from the NIST bible.
Why don't you tell me something new!
Alan:
Thanks for that info. I believe that zinc fume and manganese fume are very nasty and cause severe headaches in the short term, possibly linked to Parkinsons disease in the long term.
NF
To quote a well-known NIST APOLOGIST
"YAWN"
Arthur, you know these are NOT very convincing answers.....
Please explain in what way "its friggin obvious that there was sufficient energy" to pulverize and eject the concrete. This is a good example of your propensity to give a flippant response to a question you really can't answer - right Arthur?
I will have to fail you on this test unless you can come up with something better!
But you know, Arthur, I would love to be paid $20 million to write a report
to simply quote another report...
But I guess you NISTIANS know all about that since all you appear capable of is quoting from the NIST bible.
Why don't you tell me something new!
Alan:
Thanks for that info. I believe that zinc fume and manganese fume are very nasty and cause severe headaches in the short term, possibly linked to Parkinsons disease in the long term.
NF
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are another potential source for the chlorine. It's found in transformers and sometimes in older capacitors used in machinery and flourescent lighting. I haven't looked in detail as to how much of it was present in the WTC.
Anyone have any data about PCB in the Con Edison substation that was inside WTC7?
Anyone have any data about PCB in the Con Edison substation that was inside WTC7?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 12:53 PM)
This post is NOT for Arthur since it's on a topic NOT discussed by NIST.....
However, for anyone interested in further RESEARCH of the WTC collapse:
There is a new article in the April issue of ESQUIRE magazine that was pointed out to me by Prof. Cahill at U.C. Davis.
It's by Eric Gillin and it starts on page 133....
On page 141 of the article there are several pie-charts showing the composition of the dust cloud around the rubble pile at Ground Zero.
The chart for October 3rd 2001 is most interesting since it shows a breakdown of the 12 to 2.5 micron dust as follows:
70.1 % aggregate
5.8 % gypsum
4.0 % chlorine
3.9 % sulfur
12.2 % "other"
This level of chlorine is amazing! It's higher than sulfur and remember that gypsum is 19 % sulfur.
When you consider that the bulk dust was typically about 6000 ppm chlorine, this suggests a MAJOR source of HCl and/or Cl2 was being outgassed from the rubble pile. This means that there was a very REACTIVE source of chlorine at the WTC.
Most interesting.
The article is about this Eric Gillin guy who was caught up in the dust cloud from WTC 2's collapse.
He had a messenger bag and when he got home, he put the shirt he was wearing and it in a plastic bag on a shelf where it sat for over 5 years.
Prof Cahill helped figure out what the dust that was in the bag and shirt was made of:
From the article:
Finally, Cahill e-mails me an incomprehensible line graph tracking nanograms in the dust sample, plus a written analysis of the bag peppered with scary chemical formulas like CaSO4 . 2H2O and CaO2 and SiO2. Then he calls me on the phone. "I just want to tell you personally what a service you've done everybody," he says. My heart races. I wonder why he's telling me this again, wondering if he's stalling, wondering why he doesn't just come out and *** tell me the bad news already. And then: "Basically, you just got a big blast of drywall. Which is harmless."
What? Come again now? Where are the freaky microtoxins that will enter my bloodstream and attack my heart? Where's all that lead from the Chinese electrical cords?
"We saw a tiny amount of lead on your bag," Cahill says. "I mean, it was tiny. We can say the lead levels present in the cloud itself were essentially zero."
So what did I breathe? Construction materials, for the most part: cement dust from the square-acre floors of the tower; aggregate materials, which basically means particulates of rock and gravel; and drywall, which is made of a calcium-based substance called gypsum. The coarsest particles, the ones I presumably spit up in the bank lobby, consisted of all three materials, but the finest particles--the ones that invade your deep lung, never to leave--were also mostly gypsum. And gypsum is safe for human consumption. Matter of fact, it's used to enrich bread with calcium, can be found in toothpaste and blackboard chalk, and helps coagulate tofu. Tofu, for chrissakes.
"That doesn't mean there's not some harm there, but it's a different kind of harm," Cahill says. "Your lung got loaded up with stuff and your mouth and throat got irritated for a short period of time. But that's better than bearing the enormous body burden of very fine metals working from your bloodstream to your heart."
Evidently, these very fine metals didn't enter the air above lower Manhattan en masse until weeks later, when all those smashed computer parts, electrical cords, ceiling tiles, and ballpoint pens began to smolder at extremely high temperatures deep below the street. When the South Tower came down, the massive concrete floors fell like a giant stack of pancakes, slamming into one another and driving the contents of the building straight down, but the air in the building blew out the sides, like a balloon popping when a fat man sits on it. The wind that the building exhaled was hurricane force, instantly aerating the drywall and the glass and some of the concrete, which coated me a few seconds later. "It's no different from when you blow up an old thirty-story hotel," says Cahill. "That's the same kind of dust cloud. Heck, the older buildings are probably worse because they have more asbestos."
When Cahill's done, I have a weird thought: Good news! About September 11! Not a lot of people can say that.
By the way, he also had this to say, which ultimately is MORE interesting than the chemical makeup of the dust:
Oh, my God, they're falling!"
Whoever yelled this, I didn't believe it. Then I turned around and saw that the gash carved into the South Tower wasn't belching fire anymore. It wasn't belching anything. It simply wasn't. I had left my office nearby when I heard what had happened and was standing one block away, next to the giant red Noguchi cube in front of the HSBC building. From there I watched the World Trade Center peel like an enormous steel banana.
Right after that, I decided to run for my life.
Arthur
However, for anyone interested in further RESEARCH of the WTC collapse:
There is a new article in the April issue of ESQUIRE magazine that was pointed out to me by Prof. Cahill at U.C. Davis.
It's by Eric Gillin and it starts on page 133....
On page 141 of the article there are several pie-charts showing the composition of the dust cloud around the rubble pile at Ground Zero.
The chart for October 3rd 2001 is most interesting since it shows a breakdown of the 12 to 2.5 micron dust as follows:
70.1 % aggregate
5.8 % gypsum
4.0 % chlorine
3.9 % sulfur
12.2 % "other"
This level of chlorine is amazing! It's higher than sulfur and remember that gypsum is 19 % sulfur.
When you consider that the bulk dust was typically about 6000 ppm chlorine, this suggests a MAJOR source of HCl and/or Cl2 was being outgassed from the rubble pile. This means that there was a very REACTIVE source of chlorine at the WTC.
Most interesting.
The article is about this Eric Gillin guy who was caught up in the dust cloud from WTC 2's collapse.
He had a messenger bag and when he got home, he put the shirt he was wearing and it in a plastic bag on a shelf where it sat for over 5 years.
Prof Cahill helped figure out what the dust that was in the bag and shirt was made of:
From the article:
Finally, Cahill e-mails me an incomprehensible line graph tracking nanograms in the dust sample, plus a written analysis of the bag peppered with scary chemical formulas like CaSO4 . 2H2O and CaO2 and SiO2. Then he calls me on the phone. "I just want to tell you personally what a service you've done everybody," he says. My heart races. I wonder why he's telling me this again, wondering if he's stalling, wondering why he doesn't just come out and *** tell me the bad news already. And then: "Basically, you just got a big blast of drywall. Which is harmless."
What? Come again now? Where are the freaky microtoxins that will enter my bloodstream and attack my heart? Where's all that lead from the Chinese electrical cords?
"We saw a tiny amount of lead on your bag," Cahill says. "I mean, it was tiny. We can say the lead levels present in the cloud itself were essentially zero."
So what did I breathe? Construction materials, for the most part: cement dust from the square-acre floors of the tower; aggregate materials, which basically means particulates of rock and gravel; and drywall, which is made of a calcium-based substance called gypsum. The coarsest particles, the ones I presumably spit up in the bank lobby, consisted of all three materials, but the finest particles--the ones that invade your deep lung, never to leave--were also mostly gypsum. And gypsum is safe for human consumption. Matter of fact, it's used to enrich bread with calcium, can be found in toothpaste and blackboard chalk, and helps coagulate tofu. Tofu, for chrissakes.
"That doesn't mean there's not some harm there, but it's a different kind of harm," Cahill says. "Your lung got loaded up with stuff and your mouth and throat got irritated for a short period of time. But that's better than bearing the enormous body burden of very fine metals working from your bloodstream to your heart."
Evidently, these very fine metals didn't enter the air above lower Manhattan en masse until weeks later, when all those smashed computer parts, electrical cords, ceiling tiles, and ballpoint pens began to smolder at extremely high temperatures deep below the street. When the South Tower came down, the massive concrete floors fell like a giant stack of pancakes, slamming into one another and driving the contents of the building straight down, but the air in the building blew out the sides, like a balloon popping when a fat man sits on it. The wind that the building exhaled was hurricane force, instantly aerating the drywall and the glass and some of the concrete, which coated me a few seconds later. "It's no different from when you blow up an old thirty-story hotel," says Cahill. "That's the same kind of dust cloud. Heck, the older buildings are probably worse because they have more asbestos."
When Cahill's done, I have a weird thought: Good news! About September 11! Not a lot of people can say that.
By the way, he also had this to say, which ultimately is MORE interesting than the chemical makeup of the dust:
Oh, my God, they're falling!"
Whoever yelled this, I didn't believe it. Then I turned around and saw that the gash carved into the South Tower wasn't belching fire anymore. It wasn't belching anything. It simply wasn't. I had left my office nearby when I heard what had happened and was standing one block away, next to the giant red Noguchi cube in front of the HSBC building. From there I watched the World Trade Center peel like an enormous steel banana.
Right after that, I decided to run for my life.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 03:15 PM)
Arthur, I would love to be paid $20 million to write a report
From what I've heard, you'd love to be paid at all.
No one wanted a report on how much and to what extent the tower concrete was pulverized, but hey, if the last thousand or so pages have left you in doubt about where the energy came from to pulverize the concrete and eject various pieces of the towers then I'm sure not going to waste my time trying to teach you.
Arthur
From what I've heard, you'd love to be paid at all.
No one wanted a report on how much and to what extent the tower concrete was pulverized, but hey, if the last thousand or so pages have left you in doubt about where the energy came from to pulverize the concrete and eject various pieces of the towers then I'm sure not going to waste my time trying to teach you.
Arthur
Arthur --- That Eric Gillin quote was interesting!
But now I am puzzled about the micron sized metals in the dust samples.
But now I am puzzled about the micron sized metals in the dust samples.
Here's an SEM image of an iron-rich particle about 25 um size from the USGS WTC studies. It has a flat shape with jagged edges, something that might be expected from a grinding type of process as opposed to melting which tends to give a spherical shape.
An iron-rich spherical particle from the USGS WTC study. This one is about 8 um in diameter. Particles in the range of 1 to 10 um are expected to go airborne readily in air currents. The settling time is one factor that would limit the range from the WTC in still air, but wind can transport these size particles far away from the WTC. Other factors come into play, such as vehicle tires traveling over these particles that may have settled on the streets and propelling them into the air again.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 21 2007, 08:40 PM)
From what I've heard, you'd love to be paid at all.
No one wanted a report on how much and to what extent the tower concrete was pulverized, but hey, if the last thousand or so pages have left you in doubt about where the energy came from to pulverize the concrete and eject various pieces of the towers then I'm sure not going to waste my time trying to teach you.
Arthur
arthur, your character is 'shining', again.
NF has valid questions. NF is not even a conspiracy theorist. he's been fighting for the official story since he got here.
and yet, he posts a few FACTS from valid scientific STUDIES, and all of a sudden you're all over him like a fly on dip.
FACT: MOLTEN METAL, arthurs.
FACT: NIST is not THE DIVINE INFALLIBLE WORD.
of course, the first stage of disinfo is CLAIM IGNORANCE, and then comes DENY, and then, finally, COUNTER-ACCUSE.
how long until NF is labelled by the band of arthurs? is he a TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER? a M@R@N?
arthurs, you can't shine NF's shoes, and that from a guy who thinks NF is just a better mousetrap.
No one wanted a report on how much and to what extent the tower concrete was pulverized, but hey, if the last thousand or so pages have left you in doubt about where the energy came from to pulverize the concrete and eject various pieces of the towers then I'm sure not going to waste my time trying to teach you.
Arthur
arthur, your character is 'shining', again.
NF has valid questions. NF is not even a conspiracy theorist. he's been fighting for the official story since he got here.
and yet, he posts a few FACTS from valid scientific STUDIES, and all of a sudden you're all over him like a fly on dip.
FACT: MOLTEN METAL, arthurs.
FACT: NIST is not THE DIVINE INFALLIBLE WORD.
of course, the first stage of disinfo is CLAIM IGNORANCE, and then comes DENY, and then, finally, COUNTER-ACCUSE.
how long until NF is labelled by the band of arthurs? is he a TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER? a M@R@N?
arthurs, you can't shine NF's shoes, and that from a guy who thinks NF is just a better mousetrap.
QUOTE (newton+Mar 21 2007, 07:24 PM)
FACT: MOLTEN METAL
Yeah, NEU even provided pics.
I wonder how many of these you need to make a POOL?
Arthur
Yeah, NEU even provided pics.
I wonder how many of these you need to make a POOL?
Arthur
The mystery of 907:
I believe there is pleny of evidence showing that a lot of zinc was vaporized during the collapse of the Twin Towers.
One of the NISTIANS on this site has suggested that the WTC zinc came from fluorescent tubes. Zinc in fluorescent tubes is in the form of zinc silicate which MELTS at about 1500 deg C or zinc sulfide which MELTS at 1700 deg C.
The largest source of zinc in the WTC was the galvanized steel used in flooring AND in ducting.
I believe MOST of the airborne zinc would have come from the metallic zinc coating.
Pure metallic zinc BOILS at 907 deg C
The zinc was released as "zinc fume" which is usually zinc oxide but may have also contained zinc chloride because of the elevated levels of HCl vapor in the WTC emissions.
The bottom line is that zinc vaporizes at 907 deg C.
From the concentration of zinc in the WTC dust we know that tonnes of zinc was vaporized.
This means that a LARGE portion of floor pans and ductwork reached 907 deg C.
This provides a useful "WTC ceiling thermometer".
But is a widespread ceiling temperature of 907 deg C too high or too low for Arthur and his band of NISTIANS?
NF
I believe there is pleny of evidence showing that a lot of zinc was vaporized during the collapse of the Twin Towers.
One of the NISTIANS on this site has suggested that the WTC zinc came from fluorescent tubes. Zinc in fluorescent tubes is in the form of zinc silicate which MELTS at about 1500 deg C or zinc sulfide which MELTS at 1700 deg C.
The largest source of zinc in the WTC was the galvanized steel used in flooring AND in ducting.
I believe MOST of the airborne zinc would have come from the metallic zinc coating.
Pure metallic zinc BOILS at 907 deg C
The zinc was released as "zinc fume" which is usually zinc oxide but may have also contained zinc chloride because of the elevated levels of HCl vapor in the WTC emissions.
The bottom line is that zinc vaporizes at 907 deg C.
From the concentration of zinc in the WTC dust we know that tonnes of zinc was vaporized.
This means that a LARGE portion of floor pans and ductwork reached 907 deg C.
This provides a useful "WTC ceiling thermometer".
But is a widespread ceiling temperature of 907 deg C too high or too low for Arthur and his band of NISTIANS?
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 22 2007, 02:08 AM)
This means that a LARGE portion of floor pans and ductwork reached 907 deg C.
Perhaps this occurred by grinding during the collapse?
Perhaps this occurred by grinding during the collapse?
NEU-FONZE
Of course the temps got that high. But only limited numbers of floors were at that temp BEFORE the collapse, and large areas of steel were affected by high temps AFTER the collapse, and while interesting, are not relivant to the causes of collapse. This difference is not really detectable, that fact is joined by the multiple sources of both Zinc and Chlorides in making your analysis speculative at best and in no way invalidates the work done by the scientists at NIST.
Grumpy
QUOTE
This means that a LARGE portion of floor pans and ductwork reached 907 deg C.
This provides a useful "WTC ceiling thermometer".
But is a widespread ceiling temperature of 907 deg C too high or too low for Arthur and his band of NISTIANS?
This provides a useful "WTC ceiling thermometer".
But is a widespread ceiling temperature of 907 deg C too high or too low for Arthur and his band of NISTIANS?
Of course the temps got that high. But only limited numbers of floors were at that temp BEFORE the collapse, and large areas of steel were affected by high temps AFTER the collapse, and while interesting, are not relivant to the causes of collapse. This difference is not really detectable, that fact is joined by the multiple sources of both Zinc and Chlorides in making your analysis speculative at best and in no way invalidates the work done by the scientists at NIST.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 22 2007, 02:01 AM)
I wonder how many of these you need to make a POOL?
I think the contention was how much iron in a molten pool is needed to make the spheres which would be produced by outgassing as in a steel mill.
I haven't seen any signs of aluminum spheres in spite of the fact that there appeared to be a large amount of molten aluminum in the south tower. There was probably a similar amount in the north tower. Then again, iron was mostly what was being cut with the torches during cleanup, not aluminum, and much spatter would be expected when blasting the steel with oxygen.
Chlorine has a way of lowering the volatility temperature of metals, such as lead, as mentioned in a previous post.
Here's a paper that mentions a potential method of recovering metals in waste by chlorinating them with the help of waste PVC. The chlorinated compounds such as lead and zinc have a high volatility and their vapors can be recovered. It mentions the boiling point of zinc chloride is 731 C.
For the WTC pit, this chlorination process probably occurred but the vapors weren't recovered.
http://doc.tms.org/ezMerchant/prodtms.nsf/...pdf?OpenElement
"Recently, a new recovery process for heavy metals has been proposed in which heavy metals in the dust react with waste polyvinyl chloride to form heavy metal chlorides.[4–7] Steelmaking dusts mainly contain iron, lead, and zinc oxide. The stable phase of iron is oxide and those of zinc and lead are chloride at high partial pressures of oxygen and chlorine. These heavy metal chlorides show high vapor pressures at low temperature; for example, the boiling points of zinc and lead chlorides are 1004 K and 1223 K, respectively.[8] Therefore, heavy metals may be expected to be selectively chlorinated and recovered by a selective chlorination/evaporation process. Recovered heavy metal chlorides could be used as raw materials and the chlorinated residue, mainly iron oxide, also could be used as an ironmaking resource. The efficiency of selective chlorination has been investigated for extraction of metals,[9–12] mutual separation of rare earth elements,[13–18] and recovery of metals from spent catalysis,[19,20] polishes,[21] or bottom ash of incinerated municipal waste.[22]"
Here's a paper that mentions a potential method of recovering metals in waste by chlorinating them with the help of waste PVC. The chlorinated compounds such as lead and zinc have a high volatility and their vapors can be recovered. It mentions the boiling point of zinc chloride is 731 C.
For the WTC pit, this chlorination process probably occurred but the vapors weren't recovered.
http://doc.tms.org/ezMerchant/prodtms.nsf/...pdf?OpenElement
"Recently, a new recovery process for heavy metals has been proposed in which heavy metals in the dust react with waste polyvinyl chloride to form heavy metal chlorides.[4–7] Steelmaking dusts mainly contain iron, lead, and zinc oxide. The stable phase of iron is oxide and those of zinc and lead are chloride at high partial pressures of oxygen and chlorine. These heavy metal chlorides show high vapor pressures at low temperature; for example, the boiling points of zinc and lead chlorides are 1004 K and 1223 K, respectively.[8] Therefore, heavy metals may be expected to be selectively chlorinated and recovered by a selective chlorination/evaporation process. Recovered heavy metal chlorides could be used as raw materials and the chlorinated residue, mainly iron oxide, also could be used as an ironmaking resource. The efficiency of selective chlorination has been investigated for extraction of metals,[9–12] mutual separation of rare earth elements,[13–18] and recovery of metals from spent catalysis,[19,20] polishes,[21] or bottom ash of incinerated municipal waste.[22]"
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 21 2007, 09:08 PM)
is a widespread ceiling temperature of 907 deg C too high or too low for Arthur and his band of NISTIANS?
And here I thought you said you had read the NIST reports.
Bad memory perhaps?
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5F Fire Simulations
You will see, as in fig 6-11, 6-13, 6-15 etc ample examples of ceiling temps in excess of 900 C.
Arthur
And here I thought you said you had read the NIST reports.
Bad memory perhaps?
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5F Fire Simulations
You will see, as in fig 6-11, 6-13, 6-15 etc ample examples of ceiling temps in excess of 900 C.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 21 2007, 05:59 AM)
NOPE,
Its you who continue to post this even though you have been shown REPEATEDLY that it was WRONG.
The part YOU quote and highlight from is from the BACKGROUND section of the MAY 6 hearing
It was obviously prepared by a congressional STAFFER.
But LATER THAT DAY, the HEAD of the BPAT team, Dr Gene Corley, who WAS AT THE WTC site and at Fresh Kills TESTIFIED to the committee that THAT background information was NOT CORRECT (for instance he corrected the dates that the backgrounder used and explained that while they weren't allowed on the WTC site until the 29th they had full access to the landfill where the steel was taken).
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
Then of course we learn that besides the Steel the actual MATERIAL from the towers was all sifted and HAND SEARCHED. So it makes your whole argument BOGUS.
Arthur
How appropriate, the same person that lead the team helping cover up the evidence at Oklahoma City. Is the building evidence still fenced and guarded 24 hours a day?
You left out the next paragraph:
He obviously is BS’ing to try to get more funding. He is not going to admit the evidence is destroyed and all he has is photos and video evidence . As NIST found out you only get 20 million without real forensic evidence and also have to write thousands of pages of useless detailed information.
If he has the Forensic evidence that can prove the reason for any of the WTC collapses, he obviously did not share it with NIST.
Its you who continue to post this even though you have been shown REPEATEDLY that it was WRONG.
The part YOU quote and highlight from is from the BACKGROUND section of the MAY 6 hearing
It was obviously prepared by a congressional STAFFER.
But LATER THAT DAY, the HEAD of the BPAT team, Dr Gene Corley, who WAS AT THE WTC site and at Fresh Kills TESTIFIED to the committee that THAT background information was NOT CORRECT (for instance he corrected the dates that the backgrounder used and explained that while they weren't allowed on the WTC site until the 29th they had full access to the landfill where the steel was taken).
http://www.asce.org/pdf/3-6-02wtc_testimony.pdf
There has been some concern expressed by others that the work of the team has been hampered because debris was removed from the site and has subsequently been processed for recycling. This is not the case. The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples. At this point there is no indication that having access to each piece of steel from the World Trade Center would make a significant difference to understanding the performance of the structures.
Then of course we learn that besides the Steel the actual MATERIAL from the towers was all sifted and HAND SEARCHED. So it makes your whole argument BOGUS.
Arthur
How appropriate, the same person that lead the team helping cover up the evidence at Oklahoma City. Is the building evidence still fenced and guarded 24 hours a day?
You left out the next paragraph:
QUOTE
Resources are always an issue with building performance studies, particularly for one whose magnitude and scale is unprecedented. The total amount of resources being dedicated to support the team’s activities is approximately $1 million, which has allowed the team to do the initial reconnaissance of the site and the building materials, begin the process of hypothesis setting, and conduct some limited testing. This raises the question of what amount of money would be sufficient. It is our opinion that $40 million would be a sufficient amount to fully fund a comprehensive study of an event of this magnitude and complexity.
Thank you for the opportunity to express ASCE’s views. We offer you and all of
the agencies involved in the recovery efforts ASCE’s full resources to manage the nation's critical infrastructure needs. We are ready to help in any way possible, and I am eager to hear from you regarding ways that ASCE’s CIRI can support you as you examine our infrastructure needs in the coming months.
Thank you for the opportunity to express ASCE’s views. We offer you and all of
the agencies involved in the recovery efforts ASCE’s full resources to manage the nation's critical infrastructure needs. We are ready to help in any way possible, and I am eager to hear from you regarding ways that ASCE’s CIRI can support you as you examine our infrastructure needs in the coming months.
He obviously is BS’ing to try to get more funding. He is not going to admit the evidence is destroyed and all he has is photos and video evidence . As NIST found out you only get 20 million without real forensic evidence and also have to write thousands of pages of useless detailed information.
If he has the Forensic evidence that can prove the reason for any of the WTC collapses, he obviously did not share it with NIST.
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 21 2007, 02:56 AM)
From the Bible(NIST NCSTAR 1-6D p 310):
reasonwhy, do you have some redacted copy of the NIST report with all of the relevant portions blacked out? Or, are you trying to imitate Bush 43, and only see what you want to see.
Those that can learn, do. Those that can't, become truthers.
What relevant portions are you referring to?
Your quote helps backs up my statement.
You need a better version of the 'Scofield Reference NIST report (Bible)'. Ask Arthurs for his copy.
By the way, how much of the NIST budget is allocated to PR (if NIST did a better job on there reports they could lower the PR budet)?
Those that can reason logically, do. Those that can't, become NISTians.
reasonwhy, do you have some redacted copy of the NIST report with all of the relevant portions blacked out? Or, are you trying to imitate Bush 43, and only see what you want to see.
Those that can learn, do. Those that can't, become truthers.
What relevant portions are you referring to?
Your quote helps backs up my statement.
You need a better version of the 'Scofield Reference NIST report (Bible)'. Ask Arthurs for his copy.
By the way, how much of the NIST budget is allocated to PR (if NIST did a better job on there reports they could lower the PR budet)?
Those that can reason logically, do. Those that can't, become NISTians.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 05:47 AM)
What relevant portions are you referring to?
Your quote helps backs up my statement.
Your quote helps backs up my statement.
The fact that you think the quote agrees with your statement only proves my point, that you fail to see the complete picture, and only see what you want in order to further your agenda.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+ Mar 21 2007, 07:21 AM)
Once they sag enough to pull on the walls the trusses become disconnected and are no longer a factor.
The video & picture evidence show the walls bowing in.
Arthur
Could you post a video ? I've never seen this. Further after a while only material that ejects instead of bowing inwards.
QUOTE (John 8:32:+)
Bowing and buckling of the entire exterior wall of the south tower occurred under the combined effects of temperature, redistributed gravity load, pull-in force from sagging trusses, and loss of lateral support due to sagging floor/wall disconnections. Floors with large sag did not restrain the exterior wall columns from buckling.
Niether did floor trusses that became disconnected, which made them very much a factor.
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 21 2007, 11:06 PM)
The fact that you think the quote agrees with your statement only proves my point, that you fail to see the complete picture, and only see what you want in order to further your agenda.
Niether did floor trusses that became disconnected, which made them very much a factor.
Then prove it is very much a factor!!!
Get NIST, or even someone competent to simulate the FLOORS pulling- in the WALLS to initiate collapse without having to add lateral forces ( or make excuses on why the simulation showed the opposite force).
Or , Show an actual physical test that the trusses of a floor assembly exert a 5 KIP tensile force (not compressive as the floor assembly simulations showed) on the exterior wall without disconnecting.
Without significant lateral forces it does not matter if some of the trusses are disconnected.
Niether did floor trusses that became disconnected, which made them very much a factor.
Then prove it is very much a factor!!!
Get NIST, or even someone competent to simulate the FLOORS pulling- in the WALLS to initiate collapse without having to add lateral forces ( or make excuses on why the simulation showed the opposite force).
Or , Show an actual physical test that the trusses of a floor assembly exert a 5 KIP tensile force (not compressive as the floor assembly simulations showed) on the exterior wall without disconnecting.
Without significant lateral forces it does not matter if some of the trusses are disconnected.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 02:49 AM)
Then prove it is very much a factor!!!
The full floor models DO show the floors pulling in the walls.
The video & picture evidence show the walls bowing in.
Its a SLAM DUNK.
But you would argue that the walls WEREN'T pulled in?
Arthur
The full floor models DO show the floors pulling in the walls.
The video & picture evidence show the walls bowing in.
Its a SLAM DUNK.
But you would argue that the walls WEREN'T pulled in?
Arthur
A real Scholar for Truth
QUOTE
Vaporizing the World Trade Center
Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?
All That Dust
Is Much of the World Trade Center Missing?
All That Dust
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 22 2007, 01:20 PM)
The video & picture evidence show the walls bowing in.
Arthur
Could you post a video ? I've never seen this. Further after a while only material that ejects instead of bowing inwards.
Capracus, that's a GREAT FIND.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (No Reason At ALL+)
How appropriate, the same person that lead the team helping cover up the evidence at Oklahoma City. Is the building evidence still fenced and guarded 24 hours a day?
No WONDER Tin Foil is getting more expensive.
Wooooo Wooooo
Arthur
No WONDER Tin Foil is getting more expensive.
Wooooo Wooooo
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 22 2007, 01:40 PM)
I've never seen this.
A clip from the NYPD video is prominently displayed in both NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
A clip from the NYPD video is prominently displayed in both NCSTAR1-6 and 1-6D.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.