To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Physics Of 9/11 Events - Part 3
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108

Grumpy
22nd March 2007 - 08:08 PM
einsteen

QUOTE
Could you post a video ? I've never seen this. Further after a while only material that ejects instead of bowing inwards.


As the videos show, the outer frames first bowed inward(after a probable slight bowing outward from the initial expansion of the truss frames, followed by an inward pull as the trusses sagged) all along the wall. Even if the trusses subsequintly failed completely, the bow of the wall would continue to get worse due to the modulus of a bent frame member giving a lot more effective loading for the same weight(double the length of a beam means 4 times less resistence to bending forces, and WTC had several floors detached suddenly, with major damage to other critical frame and core elements, meaning loads on some sections greatly overloaded some structural frame systems).

In fact, it could be that those buildings would have eventually fallen even without the fires. It was a close thing, especially on two.

Most of what is seen "ejecting" from the collapses is actually the outer frames of the buildings FALLING OVER more or less intact(until the bolts holding them together failed), not horizontally ejected material(mostly dust, paper,etc), the majority of the concrete made it into the basement, compacted together in "meteors" like the one shown on nist.gov, kept as a sample.

Grumpy cool.gif
Palpatane
22nd March 2007 - 08:21 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 01:49 AM)


Without significant lateral forces it does not matter if some of the trusses are disconnected.

user posted image

What part of an inverse square law don't you understand?
reasonwhy
22nd March 2007 - 11:02 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 22 2007, 06:59 AM)
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

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Arthur

Oh NO , the HEAD NISTian is calling me a WOO WOO.

QUOTE
That’s not to say that these characters never deal with explosives, however, as Corley and Sozen were two of the four members of the Oklahoma City (OKC) engineering investigation, along with Paul Mlakar and Charles Thornton. The work they did followed the damage estimates found within the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) OKC report, written by Greenhorne & O’Mara. Although none of these credentialed experts even toured the site at OKC, Corley and Sozen were able to produce an engineering report that was a highly questionable extrapolation of minimal evidence, primarily the size of a bomb crater, provided to them by the FBI.[5] Their report was created in support of the “One Guy, One Truck Bomb” political story that directly contradicted testimony given by several leading experts, including USAF General Benton Partin.

After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He added “No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a…terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.”[6]

When speaking about the unprecedented destruction of evidence, General Partin was referring to the demolition of the Murrah Building by Mark Loizeaux’s company, just five days after Partin made his strong statements directly to the US Congress. But Partin might as well have been talking about the WTC six years later, where much of the steel evidence was destroyed in the month before engineering investigators began inspecting the scene. It was noted by the House Committee on Science, as they reviewed early shortcomings of the WTC investigation, that, “Some of the critical pieces of steel…were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.”[7] At the time of this destruction of evidence, Gene Corley was in charge of the investigation and his OKC partner Charles Thornton’s company was in charge of the site at Ground Zero.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=5071


Initial WTC ASCE team leaders (9/14/01)
Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Other volunteers

OKC Murrah building report
authors
Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny

http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html

They don't even Bother going to the Murrah building for the report and then are put in charge of the WTC investigation.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
That’s not to say that these characters never deal with explosives, however, as Corley and Sozen were two of the four members of the Oklahoma City (OKC) engineering investigation, along with Paul Mlakar and Charles Thornton. The work they did followed the damage estimates found within the Federal Emergency Management Administration’s (FEMA) OKC report, written by Greenhorne & O’Mara. Although none of these credentialed experts even toured the site at OKC, Corley and Sozen were able to produce an engineering report that was a highly questionable extrapolation of minimal evidence, primarily the size of a bomb crater, provided to them by the FBI.[5] Their report was created in support of the “One Guy, One Truck Bomb” political story that directly contradicted testimony given by several leading experts, including USAF General Benton Partin.

After spending 25 years dealing with explosive weaponry, General Partin independently studied the damage done to the Murrah building in the month before the evidence was destroyed, and made several strong statements to members of the US Congress. In July of 1995, General Partin wrote to Senator Trent Lott, stating, “The attached report contains conclusive proof that the bombing of the Aflred P. Murrah Federal Building…was not caused solely by the truck bomb. Evidence shows that the massive destruction was primarily the result of four demolition charges placed at critical structural points at the third floor level.” He added “No government law enforcement agency should be permitted to demolish, smash and bury evidence of a…terrorist attack without a thorough examination by an independent, technically competent agency.”[6]

When speaking about the unprecedented destruction of evidence, General Partin was referring to the demolition of the Murrah Building by Mark Loizeaux’s company, just five days after Partin made his strong statements directly to the US Congress. But Partin might as well have been talking about the WTC six years later, where much of the steel evidence was destroyed in the month before engineering investigators began inspecting the scene. It was noted by the House Committee on Science, as they reviewed early shortcomings of the WTC investigation, that, “Some of the critical pieces of steel…were gone before the first BPAT team member ever reached the site.”[7] At the time of this destruction of evidence, Gene Corley was in charge of the investigation and his OKC partner Charles Thornton’s company was in charge of the site at Ground Zero.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=5071


Initial WTC ASCE team leaders (9/14/01)
Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny
Other volunteers

OKC Murrah building report
authors
Gene Corley
Charles Thornton
Paul Mlaker
Mete Sozeny

http://911research.wtc7.net/non911/oklahoma/index.html

They don't even Bother going to the Murrah building for the report and then are put in charge of the WTC investigation.



A blizzard of OKC-inspired "domestic terrorism" bills were rushed into Congress in a matter of days, some of them pre-written and already printed up BEFORE THE BOMBING. These proposed laws cover everything from banning virtually all privately owned firearms to unlimited and court-admissible Federal wiretaps to censorship of the Internet to the suspension of habeas corpus in "terrorism" cases to the grotesque destruction of the First Amendment advocated in Charles Schumer’s bill H.R. 2580, which imposes a five-year prison sentence for publicly engaging in "unseemly speculation" and publishing or transmitting by wire or electronic means "baseless conspiracy theories regarding the Federal government of the United States". Who decides what is a "baseless conspiracy theory’? Why, the very same government, of course!

How was a normally cumbersome, inefficient, and glacially slow legislative branch able to move so quickly, so comprehensively, and so efficiently in introducing these laws which will strip Americans of what remaining freedoms they have?
Do these questions make you wonder if the real culprit has been found?

http://www.stopcovertwar.com/McVeigh.html

Just like 9/11 pre-written legislation was rushed through congress. If this law had passed you would not have a job. biggrin.gif
reasonwhy
22nd March 2007 - 11:04 PM
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 22 2007, 12:21 PM)
user posted image

What part of an inverse square law don't you understand?

You will have to take it up with NIST, it is their hypothesis.
reasonwhy
22nd March 2007 - 11:09 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 22 2007, 05:20 AM)
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?

laugh.gif

Arthur

Sure Arthur.

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
adoucette
22nd March 2007 - 11:18 PM
From Reasonwhy's link:

QUOTE
the Oklahoma City bombing COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE WAY THE FBI SAYS IT HAPPENED. IT IS A PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND THERMODYNAMIC IMPOSSIBILITY. Why is the FBI lying?


So Reasonwhy, you been chasing these conspiracy theories of yours since the Oklahoma bombing?

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

ROTFLMAO

Arthur
reasonwhy
22nd March 2007 - 11:41 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 22 2007, 03:18 PM)
From Reasonwhy's link:



So Reasonwhy, you been chasing these conspiracy theories of yours since the Oklahoma bombing?

ROTFLMAO

Arthur

So Arthurs, have you been arguing with conspiracy theorist since the Oklahoma bombing?

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

ROTFLMAO

I used to only read the MSM so I had no idea their even was a controversy.

Capracus
22nd March 2007 - 11:45 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 11:41 PM)
So Arthurs, have you been arguing with conspiracy theorist since the Oklahoma bombing?

laugh.gif  laugh.gif  laugh.gif

ROTFLMAO

I used to only read the MSM so I had no idea their even was a controversy.

Outside of CT land, there still isn't.
reasonwhy
22nd March 2007 - 11:51 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 22 2007, 03:45 PM)
Outside of CT land, there still isn't.

Right, only government sanctioned conspiracy theories for the OCT believers. biggrin.gif

adoucette
23rd March 2007 - 12:58 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 06:41 PM)
So Arthurs, have you been arguing with conspiracy theorist since the Oklahoma bombing?

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

ROTFLMAO

I used to only read the MSM so I had no idea their even was a controversy.

Nope, I ONLY argue with CT'ers on this Forum, and I ONLY started because Andrew Johnson (a Brit apparently) started this thread.

If you will notice, I was here BEFORE the first thread started.

I'll still be here when this thread eventually dies.

And it will.

And nothing will be different than when it started.

Except I (and others) will have learned a whole lot about the physics behind the WTC collapse, courtesy of our fellow debunkers and of course, NIST.

Arthur

NEU-FONZE
23rd March 2007 - 01:12 AM
Arthur:

"I'll still be here when this thread eventually dies."

So will I

Why?

Because the maximum floor steel temperature predicted by NIST is 760 deg C

Too low, my friend,

Too low............

NF
Palpatane
23rd March 2007 - 01:41 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 05:04 PM)
You will have to take it up with NIST, it is their hypothesis.

I can see where you said:

QUOTE
Without significant lateral forces it does not matter if some of the trusses are disconnected.


Please show me where NIST says that?

Palpatane
23rd March 2007 - 02:16 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 22 2007, 07:12 PM)

Because the maximum floor steel temperature predicted by NIST is 760 deg C

Too low, my friend,

Too low............

NF

not according to this model

FactCheck
23rd March 2007 - 02:25 AM
Actually, Alex Jones has been trying to push conspiracies since he said Clinton murdered children in Waco. I'm sure Reasonwhy is a long time fan of his.
reasonwhy
23rd March 2007 - 03:15 AM
QUOTE (FactCheck+Mar 22 2007, 06:25 PM)
Actually, Alex Jones has been trying to push conspiracies since he said Clinton murdered children in Waco. I'm sure Reasonwhy is a long time fan of his.


Only when he is debunking your website : laugh.gif


QUOTE
Debunking 9/11 Website Debunks Itself
Middle school grammar, contradictory arguments befit proponents of the official conspiracy theory

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 22 2006

A website which purports to disprove claims that there was government complicity in 9/11 and that the twin towers and Building 7 were demolished with explosives is riddled with errors, middle school grammar and arguments that both defy common sense and contradict one another.

Since the 9/11 truth movement's success in attracting an increasing crescendo of positive media attention, a backlash of websites and videos have sprung up that attempt to reinvigorate faith in the official conspiracy theory of the government fairy tale - a yarn that has about as much basis in reality as Humpty Dumpty.

The author of the Debunking 9/11 website refuses to reveal his or her identity but does admit to being part of the left gatekeeper crowd, confessing on the front page, "I am a flaming liberal and proud of it."

The website is littered with misspellings, inaccurate terms and middle school level grammar.

As writers we all make the occasional typo but when an entire website is cluttered with jerky and difficult statements it betrays a certain lack of intelligence on the part of the author.

For example, the term "conspiracy theorist," in the singular is used throughout the website in phrases such as, "In every major event there are coincidences, false, poor record keeping and unconfirmed news reports which make it to the public. Conspiracy theorist live for this."

The author seems unable to grasp the concept of the plural.

"Am I not publicly debating the issue? Why should a hall filled with conspiracy theorist clapping at every utterance from one of the "scholars" change the facts on this site?"

If a hall is filled one would presume the presence of more than one person.

Again, if I had found a few typos I would be nitpicking but if this individual can't even construct a basic sentence how can he or she be trusted to refute the scientific analysis of a career physics professor?

The author uses the buzzword of 9/11 official story conspiracy theorists in citing the "logical fallacies" allegedly associated with 9/11 skeptic's arguments and yet the website's Building 7 page betrays the biggest logical fallacy by completely contradicting itself.

The website first refutes claims that Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment meant to demolish the building by quoting Silverstein's spokesman.

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

Having established that there were firefighters in Building 7 and that those firefighters had to be "pulled" from the building, the website concludes that,

"There is no doubt "Pull" means pull the fireman out." (Again note the serious case of plural amnesia).

And yet in the second paragraph of the page the author claims that, "Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them." (another error).

So if the Building was subject to "unfought fires" which were the sole cause of its collapse how could there have been any firemen to "pull" out of the building?

To repeat Silverstein's spokesman, "The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires."

Popular Mechanics, which is cited by the Debunking 9/11 website in its links section, also quotes NIST in saying "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

Which is it to be? Firemen or no firemen? Pull or nothing to pull?

The contradiction proves one of two things - either Silverstein is lying about what his "pull it" comment meant or the so-called "unfought fires" which contributed to the building's collapse were actually being extinguished.



You can't have your cake and eat it.

The likelier scenario when one judges the length of time it took before Silverstein responded to the "pull it" controversy and an overview of firefighter's comments on the day strongly suggests that no firefighters ever entered WTC 7 - meaning Silverstein is lying about his 2002 comments on the PBS documentary.


The website seems to take unbridled joy in the threat to Professor Steven Jones' livelihood in the wake of his suspension, failing to mention that the suspension was preceded by a World Net Daily article that claimed Jones had called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government - a completely bogus and libelous charge that World Net Daily later retracted after the writer Jonathon Moseley was unable to cite his source for such comments during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.

In the links section, the website carries a You Tube video of Loose Change guru Dylan Avery's appearance on the Jack Blood Show. Mirroring other reactionary hit piece videos against the 9/11 truth movement, the clip slyly juxtaposes victim's family members looking solemn and images from beheading videos against Avery and Blood making dismissive remarks about the official story - implicating that trashing the official story is insulting to the victims. The contrast of the emotionally laden images of crying wives and children with Avery and Blood's light-hearted casual conversation is a trick to deceive the naive viewer into believing Avery and Blood are rude and unsympathetic to the tragedy of the event.

Even Avery's occasional use of the word "whatever" is portrayed as a sideswipe at the 9/11 dead.

As Avery and Blood discuss the incredulity of Arabs with box cutters being able to take on passengers and burly ex-military pilots, unconnected images of BBC articles about Britain's knife amnesty and how knife crime is rising are flashed.

This is all about emotional style over substance and is bluntly intended to characterize 9/11 skeptics as uncaring inhumane carpet baggers - without ever being able to address the evidence.

We urge our readers to comb through this website for themselves - it won't be long before you run across bizarre leftfield arguments (at one point the collapse of the twin towers is compared to two pool balls hitting each other), confounding statements that are an affront to the English language, and outright errors concerning the claims of the 9/11 truth movement.

We invite you to e mail the anonymous author of the website, maybe take pity on them and offer to buy them a dictionary.


http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september...bunksitself.htm
adoucette
23rd March 2007 - 04:02 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 22 2007, 08:12 PM)
the maximum floor steel temperature predicted by NIST is 760 deg C


Where did you come up with this erroneous piece of data?

Try reading NIST NCSTAR 1-5F - many sections, but Chap 6 - Simulations of the fires will do for a start.

Fig 6-1 shows nearly a quarter of the 94th floor of WTC 1 at ceiling temps of 900 - 1,000 C or higher.

As they say on page 60 - The red regions ....represent predicted temps in the neighborhood of 1,000 C., Typical of a fully engulfing compartment fire.

Since we know that they DIDN'T spray the thin galvinized steel pans, they would have VERY RAPIDLY reached the same temp as the ceiling layer.

Arthur
reasonwhy
23rd March 2007 - 04:16 AM
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 22 2007, 05:41 PM)
I can see where you said:



Please show me where NIST says that?

Please show me were NIST does not support this?
adoucette
23rd March 2007 - 05:20 AM
Say Reasonwhy, are you getting a TAD LONELY????

Seems most of your fellow CT'ers have SPLIT.

And you haven't had a decent post in a long time yourself.

newton is limited to ad hominums.

Foxx is Faux tense.

Metamars is Metagone.

MMC is OUT.

BeijingWanker is ancient history.

Quicknthedead is the latter.

AceBaker has folded.

Kallme don't call no more.

Blue74 is Boo.

Mel has Melted away.

Etc etc etc

Seems attrition has had its way with the CT'er ranks.

Will the last CT'er please turn off the light.

Thanks

laugh.gif

Arthur
reasonwhy
23rd March 2007 - 06:41 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 22 2007, 09:20 PM)
Say Reasonwhy, are you getting a TAD LONELY????

Seems most of your fellow CT'ers have SPLIT.

And you haven't had a decent post in a long time yourself.

newton is limited to ad hominums.

Foxx is Faux tense.

Metamars is Metagone.

MMC is OUT.

BeijingWanker is ancient history.

Quicknthedead is the latter.

AceBaker has folded.

Kallme don't call no more.

Blue74 is Boo.

Mel has Melted away.

Etc etc etc

Seems attrition has had its way with the CT'er ranks.

Will the last CT'er please turn off the light.

Thanks

laugh.gif

Arthur

TAD LONELY????

I don't need any help like the OCT believers.

You don't dare quote the NITS report in your responses now because you KNOW I will prove you WRONG! biggrin.gif

Then, your most persuasive expert, Dr Greening ,is now seeking the truth (even though he has ruled out CD and doesn't want to rock the OCT boat to much).

You and I both know it is not the floor pans creating ALL the MOLTEN STEEL (that is what is important). biggrin.gif

It must keep you up at night knowing a person of Dr. Greening's experience and knowledge is honestly looking at the forensic evidence. I new better then to argue with him about subjects in his field of expertise (chemistry). Some of the information he has posted I have not seen anywhere else on the Internet even though their are supposed chemist in the "truth movement".

I hope they pay you well because nobody (even a NIST apologist) should have to take the a$$ kicking you have been receiving lately. Get FactCheck to take a beating for the OCT team for awhile. The NISTian's should have a Mercy Rule were you automatically send in another team member when someone gets pummeled to severely in a debate. We could call it the CommonSence Rule, out of respect for the OCT'er that could have used it the most. laugh.gif
Capracus
23rd March 2007 - 08:59 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 07:49 AM)
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.
We don't need a test, we'll just ask an expert.

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.
Using the expert testimony of reasonwhy, we establish that a sagging floor truss will exert enough pull to surpass its connection strength. At room temperature, an exterior truss connection may have a horizontal tensile strength of 100 kip. At 1000 C degrees, its strength may be reduced to 13 kip. So even in a weakened state, a sagging truss can easily exert a 5 kip pull before it disconnects.
Capracus
23rd March 2007 - 09:42 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 06:41 AM)
You and I both  know it is not the floor pans creating ALL the MOLTEN STEEL (that is what is important).  biggrin.gif

You and Arthur are concealing the secret of the molten steel? Please, could one of you be kind enough to enlighten the rest of us?

QUOTE

I hope they pay you well because nobody (even a NIST apologist) should  have to take the a$$ kicking you have been receiving lately. Get FactCheck to take a beating for the OCT team for awhile. The NISTian's should have a Mercy Rule were you automatically send in another team member when someone gets pummeled to severely  in a debate. We could call it the CommonSence Rule, out of respect for the OCT'er that could have used it the most. laugh.gif
I recall Mel, aka The Black Night, spouting off in much the same manner just before he had his meltdown.

reasonwhy, beware of girls wearing ruby slippers and carrying pails of water.
reasonwhy
23rd March 2007 - 10:21 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 23 2007, 12:59 AM)
We don't need a test, we'll just ask an expert.

Using the expert testimony of reasonwhy, we establish that a sagging floor truss will exert enough pull to surpass its connection strength. At room temperature, an exterior truss connection may have a horizontal tensile strength of 100 kip. At 1000 C degrees, its strength may be reduced to 13 kip. So even in a weakened state, a sagging truss can easily exert a 5 kip pull before it disconnects.


Were are your numbers coming from?
Palpatane
23rd March 2007 - 10:41 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 10:16 PM)
Please show me were NIST does not support this?

rolleyes.gif

*** are you talking about?

Are you asking someone to prove a negative?

That is a sure sign of a losing argument.


Try again. laugh.gif
reasonwhy
23rd March 2007 - 10:43 AM
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 23 2007, 01:42 AM)
You and Arthur are concealing the secret of the molten steel? Please, could one of you be kind enough to enlighten the rest of us?

I recall Mel, aka The Black Night, spouting off in much the same manner just before he had his meltdown.

reasonwhy, beware of girls wearing ruby slippers and carrying pails of water.

The OCT copied ( as usual) using the Black Knight vidoe (photos) from one of my earlier post . I think Arthurs copied it before you ( I realize this was before you started your job).

The OCT can not come up with anything original and that is not surprising since you believe the OFFICIAL FAIRYTALE.

reasonwhy
23rd March 2007 - 10:55 AM
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 23 2007, 02:41 AM)
rolleyes.gif

*** are you talking about? 

Are you asking someone to prove a negative?

That is a sure sign of a losing argument.


Try again.  laugh.gif

Argument? blink.gif

I obviously made the mistake of answering your ridicules question.

That will not happen again.


Even if I win an argument with an idiot, I am still arguing with an idiot. biggrin.gif



Capracus
23rd March 2007 - 11:17 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 10:21 AM)

Were are your numbers coming from?

From the Bible, 1-6C, p.50, table 5-4
Capracus
23rd March 2007 - 11:39 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 10:43 AM)
The OCT copied ( as usual) using the Black Knight vidoe (photos) from one of my earlier post .  I think Arthurs copied it before you ( I realize this was before you started your job).

The OCT can not come up with anything original and that is not surprising since you believe the OFFICIAL FAIRYTALE.

I saw the Holy Grail long before Al Gore created the Internet, so no, you weren't the inspiration for the use of the video. Though I wouldn't be surprised if you were the inspiration for the character in the original movie. Maybe a lawsuit against Monty Python's Flying Circus is in order.
Capracus
23rd March 2007 - 11:53 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 10:55 AM)
Argument? blink.gif

I obviously made the mistake of answering your ridicules question.

That will not happen again. 


Even if I win an argument with an idiot, I am still arguing with an idiot.  biggrin.gif

Kind of like arguing with yourself.
adoucette
23rd March 2007 - 12:40 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 01:41 AM)
TAD LONELY????

I don't need any help like the OCT believers.

You don't dare quote the NITS report in your responses now because you KNOW I will prove you WRONG! biggrin.gif

Then, your most persuasive expert, Dr Greening ,is now seeking the truth (even though he has ruled out CD and doesn't want to rock the OCT boat to much).

You and I both  know it is not the floor pans creating ALL the MOLTEN STEEL (that is what is important).  biggrin.gif

It must keep you up at night knowing a person of Dr. Greening's  experience and knowledge  is honestly looking at the forensic evidence. I new better then to argue with him about subjects in his field of expertise (chemistry). Some of the information he has posted I have not seen anywhere else on the Internet even though their are supposed chemist in the "truth movement".

I hope they pay you well because nobody (even a NIST apologist) should  have to take the a$$ kicking you have been receiving lately. Get FactCheck to take a beating for the OCT team for awhile. The NISTian's should have a Mercy Rule were you automatically send in another team member when someone gets pummeled to severely  in a debate. We could call it the CommonSence Rule, out of respect for the OCT'er that could have used it the most. laugh.gif

This is CLASSIC CT'er (usually just pre-meltdown).

They post NOTHING of substance for page after page, and then unilaterally claim VICTORY.

Very predictable.

Notice how Reasonwhy has gone on and on and on, arguing about the minutia of the NIST modeling excercize. Trying to take things found by the ISOLATED models and pretend like they should be used EXACTLY the same way in the Global model.

Of course this is a LOSING argument since the NIST modelers explain in detail why this is not done, and in any SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS the NIST FEA modelers will obviously have amatures like Reasonwhy for breakfast. (not big enough for lunch)

Now he's trying to tie the Oklahoma bombing into the WTC bombing, claiming Dr Gene Corley and his team were ALSO IN ON IT.

Another sad LOSING argument, that ONLY a true BLACK KNIGHT would even resort to.

Flesh Wound my a$$.

laugh.gif

Arthur
NEU-FONZE
23rd March 2007 - 01:05 PM
Arthur:

So you dont like my quote from NIST?

We are talking about the temperature of a typical floor pan which would be somewhere between the temperature of the truss supporting it and the temperature of the concrete floor slab being supported.

Look at the temperatures quoted in NIST NCSTAR 1-5F, which are different to NIST NCSTAR 1-5G, which are different to NIST NCSTAR 1-5, which are different to the paper by S. K. Choi...

The joke is ALL THESE MODELLED TEMPERATURES IGNORE THE FLOOR PAN COMPLETELY!

They ASSUME it simply wasn't there.....

(Perhaps they too think it was VAPORIZED!!!!)

So Arthur, and all you NIST APOLOGISTS, pick a number, any number will do, then tell me that was the temperature of the floor pans on floors, 92, 93, 94, 95 96, 97, 98 and 99 in WTC 1 and on floors 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 in WTC 2.

Tell me it was 900, or 911, or 950, or 1050 deg C.....

You HAVE TO ADMIT these are all guesses - wild guesses - with different assumptions that may or may not be valid. Choi ASSUMES a completely unprotected composite truss. I doubt if all the insulation was blasted off.

Arthur says there was NO thermal insulation on the floor pans - complete and utter BS!

Simply put:

The fire models cannot explain the formation of vaporized zinc or the molten iron!

NF


Palpatane
23rd March 2007 - 01:40 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 04:55 AM)
Argument? blink.gif

I obviously made the mistake of answering your ridicules question.

That will not happen again. 


Even if I win an argument with an idiot, I am still arguing with an idiot.  biggrin.gif


Ah, the ad hominem abusive argument, the second sure sign of a loser.


adoucette
23rd March 2007 - 01:54 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 08:05 AM)
The joke is ALL THESE MODELLED TEMPERATURES IGNORE THE FLOOR PAN COMPLETELY!

They ASSUME it simply wasn't there.....


Not true, they performed a FULL SCALE model of the trusses WITH THE FLOOR PLAN (and overspray onto them) and so they found out how fast heat was conducted into the structures WITH THE FLOOR PLAN in place. This data was used in the later models, so inherently the floor plans are included in the HEATING effects.

Now as to STRUCTURAL issues, when you are doing a global model of the towers trying to understand the mechanism behind the collapse, the thin 20 gauge floor pans WEREN'T relevant.

Neu, the reason they WEREN'T sprayed with SFRM is they are NON STRUCTURAL, it wouldn't matter WHAT happened to them, they weren't, as you suggested earlier, holding up the concrete floors, nor were they providing any significant percentage of lateral stability to the towers.

What temp they got to and what happened to them is INSIGNIFICANT.

You want to try to prove OTHERWISE, be my guest.

Arthur
Palpatane
23rd March 2007 - 03:13 PM
Reasonwhy, lets just go back and recap this latest discussion of ours, shall we?

You originally stated:

QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 01:49 AM)

Without significant lateral forces it does not matter if some of the trusses are disconnected.


I think that your statement is pretty clear. You are clearly stating that disconnecting the floor trusses would have no effect on the exterior columns.

To that statement I replied:

QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 22 2007, 02:21 PM)
user posted image

What part of an inverse square law don't you understand?


Now I’ll grant you that my response to your statement was a bit obscure, deliberately so.

If you really understood the structural dynamics of the situation, you would have understood my point, but based on your following reply . . .

- - - - WHOOOOSH - - - -

QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 22 2007, 05:04 PM)
You will have to take it up with NIST, it is their hypothesis.


Which prompted the following exchange:

QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 22 2007, 07:41 PM)

Please show me where NIST says that?


QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 23 2007, 04:41 AM)

Are you asking someone to prove a negative?


At which point you apparently abandoned the discussion by launching an ad hominem attack.

So, If you want to get back to the original subject, here is your chance. Please explain why you think that disconnecting the floor trusses from the exterior columns would not have an effect on the bowing of said columns.

Let me put it this way.

Suppose you have a hypothetical column in a multi-storey building with an effective length of L between floors. The column is restrained from lateral movement by each of the floors.

Let’s call the critical load at which that column will buckle F(crit). Now suppose we take a floor out so that the effective length of that column in that location has now gone from L to 2L.

What happens to the value of F(crit)?

What if we take out two floors so that effective length of the column is now 3L?

This is a strictly hypothetical problem. Prove to me that you really understand the dynamics here.


NEU-FONZE
23rd March 2007 - 05:01 PM
In an article in the October 2003 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, L. Dalton has summarized the progress of the fires and the associated temperatures within the WTC rubble pile:

“The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS measured ground temperatures when it flew over the WTC site on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three-dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, researcher Clark said. However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October," said Thomas A. Cahill a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

Now why would concrete “FLASH INTO FIRE” simply by being “turned-over”?

The only answer could be that some kind of flammable coating was on the underside of the concrete!

The USGS XRF spectra of WTC dust include over a dozen spectra labeled as CONCRETE. Most of these spectra show peaks for chlorine, (K-alpha at 2.62 keV), and sulfur, (K-alpha at 2.31 keV). The height of these peaks relative to the height of the calcium peaks allows one to estimate the sulfur and chlorine content of the concrete particles being analyzed. This shows that these concrete particles contained up to 3 % chlorine!

The NIST Report NCSTAR 1-5 provides data for plastic materials in a typical WTC workstation. This data shows that there could have been no more than 1.5 tonnes of PVC derived chlorine per floor. If this was ALL combined with the 600 tonnes of concrete per floor you have a MAXIMUM concentration of 1.5/600 x 100 % or 0.25 % chlorine in the concrete. The measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been in the WTC concrete dust.

The chlorine is obviously a clue to the nature of the flammable coating.

So all you NIST APOLOGISTS, let’s see how you dance around this one…..

NF

Palpatane
23rd March 2007 - 05:11 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 11:01 AM)
In an article in the October 2003 issue of Chemical & Engineering News, L. Dalton has summarized the progress of the fires and the associated temperatures within the WTC rubble pile:

" And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

Now why would concrete “FLASH INTO FIRE” simply by being “turned-over”?

The only answer could be that some kind of flammable coating was on the underside of the concrete!

You are really reaching on this one. Are you actually taking that poorly stated or written sentence literally?

Do you actually think that the concrete was burning?

Sheeesh


I think they are talking about the building debris flashing into fire when it was exposed to oxygen, not the concrete itself.

laugh.gif

NEU-FONZE
23rd March 2007 - 06:22 PM
I've spoken to Dr. Cahill about the WTC dust!

Have you?

And thus the predicted DANCING starts....

NF
Agent_X
23rd March 2007 - 06:40 PM

Here's the video that Google Video pulled down!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA



----



adoucette
23rd March 2007 - 06:40 PM
Ohhh, NEU has talked to Cahill.

NICE Appeal to AUTHORITY.

laugh.gif

Arthur
Palpatane
23rd March 2007 - 07:54 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 11:01 AM)
. . . you have a MAXIMUM concentration of 1.5/600 x 100 % or 0.25 % chlorine in the concrete. The measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been in the WTC concrete dust.

NF


Are you (or Cahill) claiming that the chlorine was specifically in the concrete itself, or in the WTC dust as a whole? These are two separate things.

shagster
23rd March 2007 - 08:10 PM
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

Capracus
23rd March 2007 - 08:30 PM
NEU-FONZE, do you have a breakdown of the morphology the iron dust particles, i.e. spheres vs. non-spheres?
Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 12:55 AM
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 23 2007, 02:10 PM)
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

Hmmm


QUOTE
They weighed each sample and looked for trace elements using X-ray fluorescence.


Then how is New-Fonzie so sure that the source of the chlorine isn't from the sea water used to put out the fires?

what about my other question, New-Fonzie? Was the chlorine in the concrete itself or was it in the dust as a whole?
Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 01:54 AM
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 21 2007, 02:19 PM)
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?

Actually I doubt that the transformers contained significant quantities of PCBs, The flourescent light ballasts, on the other hand may have, if they were installed before 1977. I would guess thatthere were still a fair number of those left in the buildings. Especially in the stairs and service areas.

Burning PCBs produces furans and dioxins. Nasty stuff.

metamars
24th March 2007 - 01:58 AM
Another Structural Engineer takes CD Seriously

I tried to contact both Professors MacQueen and Professor Korol (with whom MacQueen is going to have a discussion tonight) this morning, asking them to discuss the Calladine and English paper (more on that below). I was under the mistaken notion that Korol doubted the CD hypothesis.

I was quite mistaken in this, as MacQueen's email to me points out:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"I'll forward this paper to Bob, but I doubt if he'll have time to look into
it before tonight's discussion. I should point out that Bob and I won't be
debating. We agree. I think the only difference is that Bob suspects it's an
inside job while I'm quite sure of it.

The event will be aimed mainly at people new to the subject, and for that
reason will contain a quite long film that explores the peculiar collapse of
the towers, but if you're able to come and add some more advanced knowledge,
so much the better!

Graeme"

<<<<<<<<<<<


As for why I wanted them to discuss the Calladine and English paper, here is my initial email to Professor MacQueen:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear Professor MacQueen,

Howdy. I sent the following email to the civil engineering department at McMaster University, in the hopes that they can get it to Professor Korol in time. I know that this is short notice, but if you could get a structural engineer or physicist to help you digest it's contents, I'd be thrilled to have it seriously commented upon by a structural engineer.

Basically, the Calladine and English paper seems to contradict the Bazant Zhou paper, which was used by NIST to "justify" not investigating the collapse, proper. I believe the key difference is due to treating the force applied on the topmost storey in a quasi-static fashion, while in actuality (as Gordon Ross has pointed out), energy is rapidly being carried away from the impact region.

Also, if you have Professor Korol's email address, would you be kind enough to forward a copy of this email, in case the engineering department does not do so? Thanks in advance.

==========================================================


The NIST studies of the WTC collapse referenced the Bazant Zhou paper, which supported NIST's notion of an "inevitable global collapse". However, the Bazant Zhou paper has absolutely no evidence supporting it, and similar investigations (but more sophisticated) were carried out by Calladine and English (and probably others, I believe the Calladine and English paper referenced below was a seminal paper). The Calladine and English paper most certainly DID have experimental evidence.

Would you be knd enough to study the CE paper and remark on it's implications in your debate with MacQueen? Also, I have been urging other members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice to study the paper, and either submit a Letter or a Journal article. I suggested that they investigate the differences between it and both the Bazant Zhou paper and the Gordon Ross paper.

It would be much appreciated if you would oblige me, also.

Calladine, C. R. and English, R. W., "Strain-rate and Inertia Effects in the Collapse of Two Types of Energy-Absorbing Structure", Int. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 26, No. 11/12, pp. 689-701, 1984.

Here is the summary from the paper:

Quote:
The dynamic collapse of energy-absorbing structures is more difficult to understand than the corresponding quasi-static collapse, on account of two effects which may be described as the "strain-rate factor" and the "inertia factor" respectively. The first of these is a material property whereby the yield stress is raised, while the second can affect the collapse mode, etc. It has recently been discovered that structures whose load-deflection curve falls sharply after an initial "peak" are much more "velocity sensitive" than structures whose load-deflection curve is "flat-topped"; that is, when a given amount of energy is delivered by a moving mass, the final deflection depends more strongly on the impact velocity. In this paper we investigate strain-rate and inertia effects in these two types of structure by means of some simple experiments performed in a "drop hammer" testing machine, together with some simple analysis which enables us to give a satisfactory account of the experimental observations. The work is motivated partly by difficulties which occur in small-scale model testing of energy-absorbing structures, on account of the fact that the "strain-rate" and "inertia" factors not only scale differently in general, but also affect the two destinct types of structure differently.


I will be sending a similar email to MacQueen, in the hopes that he can tap the expertise of structural engineers so that he can intelligently discuss the implications of the Calladine and English paper in your debate.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 02:05 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 09:01 AM)
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


But it is a simple process to form HCL by burning chlorine containing plastics, is it not?


QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 09:01 AM)

(ii) Chlorine was NOT correlated with sodium in the WTC dust samples.


Is sodium chloride the only salt of chlorine?


QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 09:01 AM)

(iii) Sodium was NOT seen in the XRF spectra reported by Banovic in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C


I haven’t looked at that data, what is the instrumental response for sodium in that particular analysis?


QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 09:01 AM)

(iv) Sodium was only seen in a few concrete spectra reported in the USGS Particle Atlas.


HMMMM, could there be another Chlorine based salt present? I wonder. . . .


QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 20 2007, 09:01 AM)

(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


I believe that they were pumping water from the River/harbor that afternoon. I don't know how brackish it is, but I'd imagine that it had a certain amount of chlorine in it.
adoucette
24th March 2007 - 02:22 AM
Metamars,

The Calladine/English paper was OBVIOUSLY not about the WTC towers.

I notice you have NO EVIDENCE that EITHER Calladine or English support your view.

Why is that?

Are they PUBLICITY SHY?

laugh.gif

Arthur
Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 02:24 AM
That wouldn’t happen to be Graeme MacQueen, PhD – Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University (ret.) would it?

As far as Robert M. Korol, goes, I’d like to see what he thinks in his own words, not second hand.


adoucette
24th March 2007 - 02:27 AM
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 23 2007, 09:24 PM)
That wouldn’t happen to be Graeme MacQueen, PhD – Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University (ret.) would it?

That's the rub, these guys try to tie this WTC CD BS into their anger at the war.

Arthur
Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 02:40 AM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 21 2007, 01:21 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.

one more time, different post, same B.S.



So, if the trusses (and thus the floor slab) became disconnected from the exterior columns, how does that change the structural strength of the exterior column?
lozenge124
24th March 2007 - 03:27 AM
I believe this is the event metamars is referring to:
http://tribes.tribe.net/vancouver911truthm...0c-02bc69ff8677

hopefully someone will tape it and post a video. (good to see another civil engineer in the debate)

here's a Graeme MacQueen piece:
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Fron...3/23/01417.html
NEU-FONZE
24th March 2007 - 04:07 AM
Water was not pumped onto the rubble pile immediately after 9/11 because there was hope that survivors would be found.

XRF is a surface sensitive technique with an information depth of a few microns depending on the X-ray energy and angle of incidence.

Sodium is perfectly well detected by XRF - it was seen in slagwool particles.

PCBs don't burn very well which is why incineration of PCBs is not an acceptable method for their disposal

Boy, you guys are dancing and clutching (at dry cut stalks) again.

NF
adoucette
24th March 2007 - 05:01 AM
QUOTE
"We took probably 200 people up to Pier 40 past the WTC, so they could walk home," said Chase B. Wells, the fireboat's principal owner. The crew then responded to a call to assist the other fireboats pumping water from the river to Ground Zero. Many of the fire command had been killed, and "there was a real vacuum of power," Wells said. But other fire officers stepped in to direct operations. "It was unbelievable," he said.


http://www.fireboat.org/press/prof_mariner_jan02_4.asp

Arthur
reasonwhy
24th March 2007 - 05:07 AM
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 23 2007, 06:40 PM)
one more time, different post, same B.S.  



So, if the trusses (and thus the floor slab) became disconnected from the exterior columns, how does that change the structural strength of the exterior column?


Not much becouse it was only in local areas.

If you think the walls buckled from the gravitational load and disconnected trusses ( leaving a longer sections of columns unsupported ), prove it. That is exactly what I have been asking.

My posts are in regard to the floor assembly simulation. You can read NISTNCSTAR1-6D and find out for yourself.

If NIST does not need the pull-in force of the trusses for collapse initiation. NIST should have used the data from the floor simulation without adding the MYTHICAL floor truss forces from the videos that they can not simulate because they claim it would cause a "significant loss of computational efficiency".
QUOTE
SGH developed global models that would simulate the key failure modes discovered in the analysis of components and subsystems. In addition, certain damage that could not be accurately modeled without significant loss of computational efficiency, such as certain fire-induced damage, were introduced to the global models at appropriate times. Types of fire-induced damage that were important in the collapse analysis of the global model included sagging of the floors that applied pull-in forces on the exterior columns and disconnections of floors from the exterior walls. The fire-induced damage incorporated in the global model is discussed in detail in Section 2.5.


I could care less about NIST's "computational efficiency" and would like NIST or someone competent to prove disconnected trusses can pull-in a wall.

NIST USES THE TRUSSES THAT WERE SLIGHTLY PUSHING THE WALLS-OUT TO PULL-IN THE WALLS IN THE GLOBAL MODEL. NIST THEN CLAIMS THIS INITIATED COLLAPSE.
GeneSplicer
24th March 2007 - 05:39 AM
A highly relevant argument applicable to the 9/11 conspiracy and related theories. I cannot take credit for the original work, nor would I, but I can at the very least let others know of this incredibly insightful argument.

Uncomfortable Questions

Enjoy.
adoucette
24th March 2007 - 05:39 AM
We did read 1-6d, what we found is that as NIST explains, they use OBSERVATION where they can to IMPROVE the models behavior and match what WAS OBSERVED.

As they said in E 2.5:

The magnitude of the pull in forces were determined by trial and error to match the observed inward bowing of the exterior walls.

So, once again Reasonwhy, are you trying to claim that the walls WEREN'T BOWED IN when and where NIST says they were?

If so provide some evidence to support this claim.

Are you trying to claim there is some other mechanism for them to have bowed in?

If so provide some alternative explanation for this slow bowing in of the exterior walls.

If not these, then WHAT are you claiming besides that you think NIST should have spent more time and resources to get the global model to simulate the collapse on its own without having to tweak it by making it conform to OBSERVATIONS.

laugh.gif

Arthur

Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 10:16 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 10:07 PM)

Water was not pumped onto the rubble pile immediately after 9/11 because there was hope that survivors would be found.


laugh.gif so they just let the fires burn, right?

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 10:07 PM)

XRF is a surface sensitive technique with an information depth of a few microns depending on the X-ray energy and angle of incidence.


Or it can penetrate the entire sample and give you a total concentration value. Which was it? What did the results reported as a few microns of the surface of the dusts or a total concentration of the elements in the dust?

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 10:07 PM)

Sodium is perfectly well detected by XRF - it was seen in slagwool particles.


No doubt, but you didn’t answer my question. Have you reviewed the actual reports? What is the analytical sensitivity for sodium? If you wish to use the data in the reports to advace your theory, then you should be aware of the limitations of that specific data.

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 10:07 PM)

PCBs don't burn very well which is why incineration of PCBs is not an acceptable method for their disposal


No $ hit Sherlock. I never said otherwise.

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 10:07 PM)

Boy, you guys are dancing and clutching (at dry cut stalks) again.

NF


The only one doing any dancing here is you.


Spit it out already, what is this great theory of yours.
Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 10:19 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 11:01 AM)


The only answer could be that some kind of flammable coating was on the underside of the concrete!

What, like jet fuel?

metamars
24th March 2007 - 11:16 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 24 2007, 02:22 AM)
Metamars,

The Calladine/English paper was OBVIOUSLY not about the WTC towers.


This is about as insightful as saying that Newton's Principia was obviously not about the WTC collapses. Better not quit your day job.

In point of fact, it seems far, far more relevant to the WTC collapses than Bazant Zhou ever will, even if Bazant Zhou mentions the WTC collapses, specifically. What matters, though, is what do structural engineers find insightful. Something you are obviously not.

QUOTE

I notice you have NO EVIDENCE that EITHER Calladine or English support your view.

Why is that?

Are they PUBLICITY SHY?

laugh.gif

Arthur


I haven't asked either Calladine or English. Of course, they said nothing at the time of publication, which was in the 1980's.

As far as what structural engineer Korol would say, I got the following response from MacQueen this morning:


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

I notice you have NO EVIDENCE that EITHER Calladine or English support your view.

Why is that?

Are they PUBLICITY SHY?

laugh.gif

Arthur


I haven't asked either Calladine or English. Of course, they said nothing at the time of publication, which was in the 1980's.

As far as what structural engineer Korol would say, I got the following response from MacQueen this morning:



Thanks for writing and giving us the reference. To my surprise, Bob did have
time to have a look at the article you mentioned, and he said it was very
well done.

We both gave pretty brief talks tonight so I doubt if you'd have learned
anything new from them. My remarks were essentially a summary of the article
"118 witnesses" which I published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies. But Frank
Greening was there as well as another engineer who thought we were all wet,
so we had some vigorous (but respectful) discussion. 911 blogger was there,
so I believe that if there was anything worth recording they've probably got
it.
NEU-FONZE
24th March 2007 - 01:17 PM
Palpatane:

No need to be so facetious over such a serious matter.

I am perfectly familiar with XRF - its capabilities and its limitations - having operated an EDAX spectrometer and an electron microscope for 15 years. If you are not up to speed on these technique, I'm sorry I don't have the time to help you.

The bottom line is you cannot , (or should I say, don't WANT TO), explain the vaporized zinc, nor the high chlorine.

I have seen an interesting theory, but it's not for the closed minded NISTIANS on this site who already THINK they know everything.

So, Palpatane, carry on thinking the way you do by all means. NIST's scientists have had their say. They have many good points and a lot of good data in their Reports.

However, most unfortunately, NIST's view is blinkered so it misses all the INTERESTING CHEMISTRY

Now its time for others to fill in the gaps....

NF


Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 01:52 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 11:01 AM)


. . . And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

Now why would concrete “FLASH INTO FIRE” simply by being “turned-over”?

The only answer could be that some kind of flammable coating was on the underside of the concrete!


Was that on the underside of the concrete or the underside of the steel deck?




QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 11:01 AM)

The USGS XRF spectra of WTC dust include over a dozen spectra labeled as CONCRETE.  Most of these spectra show peaks for chlorine, (K-alpha at 2.62 keV), and sulfur, (K-alpha at 2.31 keV). The height of these peaks relative to the height of the calcium peaks allows one to estimate the sulfur and chlorine content of the concrete particles being analyzed. This shows that these concrete particles contained up to 3 % chlorine!


Although that is a bit high by todays standards, it is not unheard of. Calcium chloride is a common admixture to concrete, especially in building construction.


QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 11:01 AM)

The NIST Report NCSTAR 1-5 provides data for plastic materials in a typical WTC workstation. This data shows that there could have been no more than 1.5 tonnes of PVC derived chlorine per floor.


You are assuming that the workstation was the only potential source of PVC. You are neglecting to take into account carpeting and vinyl floor tiles in other areas not covered by work stations. You are neglecting the huge mass of wire insulation in other areas.

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 23 2007, 11:01 AM)

If this was ALL combined with the 600 tonnes of concrete per floor you have a MAXIMUM concentration of 1.5/600 x 100 % or 0.25 % chlorine in the concrete. The measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been in the WTC concrete dust.

The chlorine is obviously a clue to the nature of the flammable coating.

So all you NIST APOLOGISTS, let’s see how you dance around this one…..

NF


Once again, you are the one doig the dance. I’ll call it the ‘New Fonzie Conclusion Jumping Bean Dance”
Chainsaw,
24th March 2007 - 02:10 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 24 2007, 01:17 PM)
Palpatane:

No need to be so facetious over such a serious matter.

I am perfectly familiar with XRF - its capabilities and its limitations - having operated an EDAX spectrometer and an electron microscope for 15 years. If you are not up to speed on these technique, I'm sorry I don't have the time to help you.

The bottom line is you cannot , (or should I say, don't WANT TO), explain the vaporized zinc, nor the high chlorine.

I have seen an interesting theory, but it's not for the closed minded NISTIANS on this site who already THINK they know everything.

So, Palpatane, carry on thinking the way you do by all means. NIST's scientists have had their say. They have many good points and a lot of good data in their Reports.

However, most unfortunately, NIST's view is blinkered so it misses all the INTERESTING CHEMISTRY

Now its time for others to fill in the gaps....

NF

Present the theory then, but I must caution against jumping to wild conclusions, since we do not know what the proper levels for zinc and chlorine are in the disaster, so that is what must first be proved to prove the theory.

How much Chlorine was in the building materials, when they burned including PVC plastics, computers, Carpeting, Cloths, eye glasses, wire insulation, Should I go on?
Also what was the concentration of trapped chlorine in the concrete from its manufacture, with chlorinated water, what was the concentration of Chlorine in the broken water mains that flowed for days into the rubble pile?
As for Zinc were talking about a 1970s era building, Zinc was used though out including in the Conduit in the walls, it was probably not replaced the main way to do a wire upgrade is to install new wire in existing conduit, using a wire snake.
The electrical boxes were also galvanized, as was much of the metal in the air handling system.
Zinc oxide can also be found naturally in some concrete, you also have the zinc used in the brass on the ammunition storage in world trade center 6, as well as tons of zinc on the burned cars and emergency vehicles.

Your main problem dear Neu Fonze is not that we do not believe you, it is just that the situation is to complex for one test to indicate much Do to the complexity of the situation, and the possible combination of random events leading to findings that are misleading. There are literally hundreds of of thousands of sources of Chlorine, and Zinc, in the buildings you must first eliminate those sources then any natural sources, to show that the findings are anything but a natural occurrence of the building fires and the events of that day.

From the department of Kentucky air quality.
http://www.air.ky.gov/homepage_repository/Open+Burning.htm

QUOTE
What we burn today is different than what was burned in the past. Many items contain low levels of chlorine, that when burned release a pollutant called dioxin, a toxic chemical.


If your theory is sound then present it, if not then I must conclude that it is not sound, not knowing the theory I can not say if it has merit or not, as there are other possible sources for everything you claim to be not a normal part of the buildings collapses.

adoucette
24th March 2007 - 02:28 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 24 2007, 06:16 AM)

I haven't asked either Calladine or English.

Why not?

According to you, their paper apparently refutes Bazant and Zhou.

So you think THEY don't see this but YOU do??????

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Yeah.

Right.

I love how CT'ers CLAIM that their ideas are supported by mainstream scientists, without ACTUALLY letting the scientists in on it.

Arthur
NEU-FONZE
24th March 2007 - 03:04 PM
Chainsaw:

I am sorry to see you too have become so close-minded. I thought you were one poster who was open to new ideas, but apparently I was wrong. Anyway, Chainsaw, this is obviously NOT the place to present anything that anyone might call a new theory of anything connected to 9/11 so I wont bother. It is clear to me that this so-called "discussion forum" is filled with close-minded NISTIAN nay-sayers who have but one mission: to stifle criticism of the NIST Report. That is why the NISTIANS on this site have one thing in common: they offer no new insights into 9/11. This is rather pathetic for a science-oriented site, but to be expected..... However, it is entertaining to watch the NIST APOLOGISTS preach the NISTIAN CREED like well-trained parrots.

NF

adoucette
24th March 2007 - 03:36 PM
QUOTE (NEU+)
this is obviously NOT the place to present anything that anyone might call a new theory of anything connected to 9/11 so I wont bother


Translation: Neu needs to find someplace where his ideas won't be challenged.

laugh.gif

NEU, Maybe you should try SCHOLARS FOR TRUTH.

I hear they will post just about anything and also call it PEER REVIEWED.


Arthur
FactCheck
24th March 2007 - 04:18 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 24 2007, 04:07 AM)
Water was not pumped onto the rubble pile immediately after 9/11 because there was hope that survivors would be found.

It rained in NY a few days after 9/11.

http://nitestorm.com/wtc/

In New York, crews working around the clock and battling airborne ash and dust had carted tons of debris away from the Trade Center wreckage.

Their grim task was made even more difficult early Friday when violent lightning ripped the night sky and rain pelted down. Rescue workers pulled on rain jackets and plastic bags and continued their work.

http://www.greatdreams.com/trade_military.htm

It was heavy at times.

"The weather has changed. It had been incongruously beautiful earlier this week. It is colder now, and it has been raining. The rain is problematic for the rescue efforts; workers are slipping, and, when the rain is heavy, they have poor visibility. Maybe the rain has reduced the smoke, but it hasn't yet eliminated it. "

http://www.symes.tv/Schubin/schubin_0109.htm

The issue of outdoor settled dust and smoke re-suspension persisted for about 3 days until a major rain event occurred on September 14, 2001.

http://www.nycosh.org/environment_wtc/WTC/...eorgopoulos.pdf

FactCheck
24th March 2007 - 04:40 PM
Also, where did all the water from the broken water mains go? What about the water already in the building which survivors said was flowing down the stairs?

I suspect there was plenty of places water could have come from outside fire hoses.
Grumpy
24th March 2007 - 04:40 PM
NEU-FONZE

QUOTE
The only answer could be that some kind flammable coating was on the underside of the concrete!


Actually there are other answers which do not involve a "coating". When fighting forrest fires(in my youth, as a volunteer) the main thing we did was go through burned over areas flipping over rocks looking for hot spots. When flipped the ground under them would often burst into flames as the hot material was exposed to oxygen. This was caused by the rock sheilding the hotspot from the air, not by any "coating" on the rocks. I would expect(though I do not claim to know it was the ONLY possible explanation) that simular reasons explain the phenomina you say MUST be some sort of fuel.

In addition you poo poo the contribution of seawater to the chlorine contaminates, even going so far as to lie about whether seawater was pumped onto the site from day one(google fireboat for the TRUE story). Seawater contains several chlorides as well as traces of metals etc which are set free when the water hits hot metals. Do you have any way of distinguishing chlorine and other contaminates from this source from those from other sources??? I didn't think so.

The point is you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence, and your scorn for the work of NIST is based on these erronious conclusions and therefore not warranted or valid.

I too suggest you take your unsupported(and unsupportable) "theories" to the 911 "troother" sites, they don't bother with silly things like "facts" or "the scientific method", you'll do much better there.

Grumpy cool.gif
FactCheck
24th March 2007 - 04:50 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 24 2007, 04:40 PM)
NEU-FONZE



Actually there are other answers which do not involve a "coating". When fighting forrest fires(in my youth, as a volunteer) the main thing we did was go through burned over areas flipping over rocks looking for hot spots. When flipped the ground under them would often burst into flames as the hot material was exposed to oxygen. This was caused by the rock sheilding the hotspot from the air, not by any "coating" on the rocks. I would expect(though I do not claim to know it was the ONLY possible explanation) that simular reasons explain the phenomina you say MUST be some sort of fuel.

In addition you poo poo the contribution of seawater to the chlorine contaminates, even going so far as to lie about whether seawater was pumped onto the site from day one(google fireboat for the TRUE story). Seawater contains several chlorides as well as traces of metals etc which are set free when the water hits hot metals. Do you have any way of distinguishing chlorine and other contaminates from this source from those from other sources??? I didn't think so.

The point is you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence, and your scorn for the work of NIST is based on these erronious conclusions and therefore not warranted or valid.

I too suggest you take your unsupported(and unsupportable) "theories" to the 911 "troother" sites, they don't bother with silly things like "facts" or "the scientific method", you'll do much better there.

Grumpy cool.gif

I'm troubled with "The only answer" of his comment. This suggests hes married to the idea and unwilling to keep an open mind to new, evidence on this issue. I hope I'm wrong.
Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 05:26 PM
Lets also consider that the idea of a “coating” is also illogical. You might have a coating on the top side of the concrete floor deck, namely carpet or floor tile mastic. But these would be rather thin. How could there be a coating on the bottom side of the concrete?

Are we talking about on the bottom of the metal deck, or are we talking about between the deck and the concrete?

The whole idea is just silly.

Also, New Fonzie hasn’t addressed the probability that there was chloride in the concrete itself as part of the admixture.

As for the zinc, I think enough alternative sources (lights, computers, plastics, paints, etc) existed in the building that to claim that it all came from the steel deck is just ludicrous.


Palpatane
24th March 2007 - 05:48 PM
My Question:
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 23 2007, 08:40 PM)
So, if the trusses (and thus the floor slab) became disconnected from the exterior columns, how does that change the structural strength of the exterior column?



Your answer:

QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 11:07 PM)

Not much becouse it was only in local areas.


is wrong

From this photograph, it is evident that the bowing extends across at least 6 floors.

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h118/mal.../wtc_bowing.jpg


Let’s just say 5 for argument sake. This means that at least 5 floors were no longer “pinned” in place laterally. In other words, the effective length for those columns had just increased from 1 floor to 5 floors.

You do understand that this is an inverse square law, don’t you?

Thus the critical load that the columns could withstand without spontaneous buckling would have been reduced to a mere 4% of its design value.


QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 23 2007, 11:07 PM)

If you think the walls buckled from the gravitational load and disconnected trusses ( leaving a longer sections of columns unsupported ), prove it. That is exactly what I have been asking.


I just did. smile.gif However, I have to clarify one thing. The buckling wasn’t just from the gravitational load alone, there was pull in also, both of these together worked to cause the exterior column wall to buckle. It is key to remember that once the floor slabs went catenary they were no longer providing lateral restraint to the columns.

Any area where the exterior walls can be seen to have bowed in indicates that lateral restraint is no longer a factor in that area.
adoucette
24th March 2007 - 05:57 PM
Reasonwhy, like so many CT'ers before him, seems to miss the fact that the inward bowing was caused mainly by the increased load due to other damage to the building along with the lack of lateral support from the sagging and/or disconnected floors. The relatively low pull in force (NIST estimated it at ~5 KIP) only insured that the floors bowed IN and not OUT. Because the columns were all connected by the wide spandrels, a pull in force on any set of columns was transmitted to the other columns, even if the floors by them were disconnected.

Arthur
metamars
24th March 2007 - 06:36 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 24 2007, 02:28 PM)
Why not?

According to you, their paper apparently refutes Bazant and Zhou.

So you think THEY don't see this but YOU do??????

laugh.gif  laugh.gif  laugh.gif

Yeah.

Right.

I love how CT'ers CLAIM that their ideas are supported by mainstream scientists, without ACTUALLY letting the scientists in on it.

Arthur

Thank-you for your annoying post. I will, indeed, ask Calladine and English (assuming they're still around). I will also report their replies, if any, without any editing.

The reason it's so annoying is because it's nothing but a red herring. This would be quite obvious to anybody who has read both Calladine and English on the one hand, and Bazant and Zhou on the other. It's obvious that Calladine and English's paper is relevant to the Bazant Zhou scenario. Whether or not it supports BZ's conclusion is highly doubtful, but I have no doubt that structural engineers can reach consensus on that point.*

But more importantly, the fact that two individuals in the world have no known comments on the WTC collapses makes not a fig of difference regarding the validity of the Calladine and English paper, nor to what it tells us about the WTC collapses (as approached with BZ assumptions). Even if those two individuals are Calladine and English. If you are pretending that I am pretending that Calladine and English are even aware of the BZ paper, then you are just effusing another putrid strawman.

If you read my posts carefully, you'll notice that I was trying to get Korol to contribute a Letter or Journal Article even when I assumed he doubted CD.

That is because rational arguments presented by a scientist with the requisite background are always of interest. It's the handwavers and the duckers that one shouldn't trust.

As is your custom, sophistry is you MO, your motives ignoble, or at least contrary to seeking the truth, and your tone abrasive.


* Which is why I find it a tad suspicious that BZ would not reference Calladine and English, and that NIST, with their large numbers of engineers, would not even make mention of relevant research, including Calladine and English. Instead, they mention the BZ paper as though they were oblivious to Calladine and English.

Perhaps it was a simple oversight, but even that raises questions as to NIST's thoroughness and desire to find the truth.
Chainsaw,
24th March 2007 - 07:20 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 24 2007, 03:04 PM)
Chainsaw:

I am sorry to see you too have become so close-minded. I thought you were one poster who was open to new ideas, but apparently I was wrong. Anyway, Chainsaw, this is obviously NOT the place to present anything that anyone might call a new theory of anything connected to 9/11 so I wont bother. It is clear to me that this so-called "discussion forum" is filled with close-minded NISTIAN nay-sayers who have but one mission: to stifle criticism of the NIST Report. That is why the NISTIANS on this site have one thing in common: they offer no new insights into 9/11. This is rather pathetic for a science-oriented site, but to be expected..... However, it is entertaining to watch the NIST APOLOGISTS preach the NISTIAN CREED like well-trained parrots.

NF

I am not closed minded, I am open to anything you can suggest, but I do know that there are a lot of possible sources for the materials that your referring too.
I say that if you have something that is scientifically viable that it should be published after all it is about Science and facts not about belief right or wrong.
Any one honestly investigating anything would want to know the truth and the truth is all that I have expressed here, and also the common way to combat dust and to stabilize it is to use Calcium chloride.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium_chloride

http://www.allstatesasphalt.com/nf-sp-7.htm

I believe that New York city began stabilization and removal operations of the dust within 24 hours after the disaster. The first priority is to stabilize the dust then to haul it away.

I have been criticized many times for what I expressed here on this very forum, but Criticism is a necessary evil of science.

If you expressed a theory I might be able to help you prove it or point out a way that it is flawed, but without knowing it I can not say, all I can do is point out what other avenues there are left unexplored.

I live on a farm with gravel roads I use calcium chloride to stabilize the dust, rather then having to breath it every time I go down the road.

I believe I have an Idea of your theory, but I am not sure, that I understand it well enough to totally formulate a conjecture into its possibility.

Your the one claiming a new theory, not me it is up to you if you wish to express it or not, but I know there was molten metal-steel at ground zero, I can produce it myself in similar circumstances.
IT is not that hard, the Hydrocarbon fuel is not the most efficient fuel that was available that day.
IN fact the thick black smoke right before the buildings fell tells me something else was at play, something even more dangerous than the kerosene-jet fuel.
Those fires were extremely fuel rich, and hot as they were producing huge amounts of unburned carbon, do to something using up the available oxygen and producing a high temperature in the process.
I have seen that in oil well fires I have also seen steel burning in air.
None of this is new to me.
metamars
24th March 2007 - 07:44 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 24 2007, 06:36 PM)
I will, indeed, ask Calladine and English (assuming they're still around).

I couldn't find English's contact info, but I sent the following to Calladine:

QUOTE

Howdy. I have been trying to get engineers and scientists to reconsider the paper by Bazant and Zhou, entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis"  ( http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/b.../Papers/405.pdf )

Having read both the Bazant and Zhou paper, as well as the Calladine and English paper (Calladine, C. R. and English, R. W., "Strain-rate and Inertia Effects in the Collapse of Two Types of Energy-Absorbing Structure", Int. J. Mech. Sci., Vol. 26, No. 11/12, pp. 689-701, 1984.), I believe that your paper is quite relevant to the Bazant Zhou collapse scenario.  And furthermore, it most likely would contradict their conclusion, and I believe that the reason for this is that the BZ analysis is too simple, using energy dissipation calculations relevant a the quasi-static scenario, while your paper more realistically considers dynamic considerations.

Would you be kind enough to answer the following questions?

1) Do you agree that the Calladine and English paper is relevant to the Bazant Zhou scenario?
2) If your answer to 1) is "yes", then do you feel it would most likely support or contradict the Bazant Zhou conclusion?
3) If you answered 2), some elaboration as to why would be appreciated.
4) Do you object if I post your reply, verbatim, on internet forums?


BTW, just yesterday I directed the attention of structural engineering Professor Korol ( http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/engalumni/macen...ineerofyear.htm ),  Hamilton-Wentworth's 1998 "Engineer of the Year", who pronounced it "very well done". However, no word from him, yet, as to it's relevance to BZ.


Finally, would you be kind enough to forward a copy of this email to R.W. English? I could not locate contact information for him.


Chainsaw,
24th March 2007 - 07:48 PM
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 24 2007, 04:40 PM)
NEU-FONZE



Actually there are other answers which do not involve a "coating". When fighting forrest fires(in my youth, as a volunteer) the main thing we did was go through burned over areas flipping over rocks looking for hot spots. When flipped the ground under them would often burst into flames as the hot material was exposed to oxygen. This was caused by the rock sheilding the hotspot from the air, not by any "coating" on the rocks. I would expect(though I do not claim to know it was the ONLY possible explanation) that simular reasons explain the phenomina you say MUST be some sort of fuel.

In addition you poo poo the contribution of seawater to the chlorine contaminates, even going so far as to lie about whether seawater was pumped onto the site from day one(google fireboat for the TRUE story). Seawater contains several chlorides as well as traces of metals etc which are set free when the water hits hot metals. Do you have any way of distinguishing chlorine and other contaminates from this source from those from other sources??? I didn't think so.

The point is you are jumping to conclusions not supported by the evidence, and your scorn for the work of NIST is based on these erronious conclusions and therefore not warranted or valid.

I too suggest you take your unsupported(and unsupportable) "theories" to the 911 "troother" sites, they don't bother with silly things like "facts" or "the scientific method", you'll do much better there.

Grumpy cool.gif

Grumpy

a paint layer on concrete will burn if the concrete is flipped over after a fire do to the same shielding factor, as will any trapped carbon, or gas under the concrete as long as the concrete Shields the material from oxygen.
What you and NEU Fonze both are describing is the combustion of a heated fuel layer when exposed to fresh oxygen.
The question is what is the fuel layer, gas, paint, carbon form the fires, or some coating that was used on the material when heated burned.

I think I know what Neu is referring too, but I would like him to spell it out so I am not mistaken.
metamars
24th March 2007 - 08:13 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 18 2007, 12:56 PM)


Take a look at the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC dust. Why would those guys use an electron microscope? Just for fun?


( emphasis mine )

Would you please provide a reference for this? Hopefully, an online reference...
adoucette
24th March 2007 - 08:19 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 24 2007, 02:44 PM)
I couldn't find English's contact info, but I sent the following to Calladine:


Now aren't you glad you finally got off your butt and DID something?

Arthur
shagster
24th March 2007 - 08:21 PM
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#toc

.
newton
24th March 2007 - 08:51 PM
the anomalous chlorine could have been from the seawater used to pour the concrete.
that's one of those pieces of info that comes from the web.
the web article also talks of high security and roped off areas only accessible by certain mysterious individuals during construction, and insinuates these people were planting bombs in the concrete.


christophera's site alogoxy

QUOTE
This was technology invented in the Cold War to make self-destruct missile silos and submarine bases, perfect for preplanned demolition. The C4 protected the steel from corrosion before the sea water was evacuated by the incoming concrete into the forms. The C4 was encapsulated in the concrete and its 10 year average shelf life extended by many times.




the forces of KAOS pulled the same shyte on "get smart". episode 52 showed the whole scenario. link to discussion thread

i have to agree that flare ups are a result of sheltered fuel being suddenly exposed to oxygen, and the testimony does not specifically indicate that the concrete itself was burning.
metamars
24th March 2007 - 08:55 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 24 2007, 08:19 PM)
Now aren't you glad you finally got off your butt and DID something?

Arthur

My butt was firmly planted in my chair when I "DID something", thank-you very much.

Having pointed out your sophistry (once again), I suspect it will not make a bit of difference in your MO, whether seated or not.

Nevertheless, what I'll call generously call merely "your implied suggestion" - that Calladine and English are ideal candidates to ask regarding their paper's applicability to BZ - is a good one.

Perhaps you'll reciprocate by sending an analogous email to Bazant and Zhou?
metamars
24th March 2007 - 08:57 PM
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 24 2007, 08:21 PM)
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html#toc

.

Thanks very much.
adoucette
24th March 2007 - 09:23 PM
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 24 2007, 03:55 PM)
Perhaps you'll reciprocate by sending an analogous email to Bazant and Zhou?

Nope,

From what I gather they have already received more then their share of emails on the subject.

At this point I'm sure they filter anything that doesn't come from a known source.

(I would)

Arthur
shagster
24th March 2007 - 09:48 PM
QUOTE (newton+Mar 24 2007, 08:51 PM)

the forces of KAOS pulled the same shyte on "get smart". episode 52 showed the whole scenario.  link to discussion thread

As Maxwell Smart would say, "Why of course! The old 'explosives hidden in the concrete' trick. That's the second time we fell for it this month!

Get Smart was hauntingly prophetic of things to come. The first episode was about the Statue of Liberty attempted to be blown up by a Kaos agent known as Mr. Big (who turned out to be a midget).

Another episode had a bin Laden type character from Hollywood who would go on the air regularly for Kaos and scare the public.

Still another episode had a Kaos agent who Control couldn't locate on the aircraft passenger list. He turned out to be the pilot.
Capracus
24th March 2007 - 10:42 PM
NEU-FONZE, I have always appreciated your intellectual talents, and I have no desire to treat your opinions with disrespect. Contrary to some of my posts, I don't regard the NIST report as the Bible on the subject of 9/11, but there is not a whole lot of reasonable alternatives to reference. So until someone like yourself can add to or modify its findings, NIST becomes the Bible by default.

Like Chainsaw mentioned, you can't get support or constructive criticism without posting your thoughts.

Anyone posting in this forum, or any other for that matter, should realize that hecklers are a fact of life, so that shouldn't be a factor in choosing to make your opinions public.
Chainsaw,
24th March 2007 - 11:02 PM
QUOTE (Capracus+Mar 24 2007, 10:42 PM)
NEU-FONZE, I have always appreciated your intellectual talents, and I have no desire to treat your opinions with disrespect. Contrary to some of my posts, I don't regard the NIST report as the Bible on the subject of 9/11, but there is not a whole lot of reasonable alternatives to reference. So until someone like yourself can add to or modify its findings, NIST becomes the Bible by default.

Like Chainsaw mentioned, you can't get support or constructive criticism without posting your thoughts.

Anyone posting in this forum, or any other for that matter, should realize that hecklers are a fact of life, so that shouldn't be a factor in choosing to make your opinions public.

I have to agree only be expressing Ideas do we learn and grow!

NEU FONZE you have shown to be an excelent poster, it would well be worth the effort ot listen to your Idea.

However if you feel that you can not post it here I understand, although I think that your making a mistake in that.
reasonwhy
25th March 2007 - 03:56 PM
For anyone that thinks Arthur’s has any credibility left (everything was inspected):

QUOTE
9/11 remains fill potholes, worker claims
________________________________________
BY THOMAS ZAMBITO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Saturday, March 24th 2007, 4:00 AM

________________________________________
The pulverized remains of bodies from the World Trade Center disaster site were used by city workers to fill ruts and potholes, a city contractor says in a sworn affidavit filed yesterday in Manhattan Federal Court.

Eric Beck says debris powders - known as fines - were put in a pothole-fill mixture by crews at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island, where more than 1.65 million tons of World Trade Center debris were deposited after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"I observed the New York City Department of Sanitation taking these fines from the conveyor belts of our machines, loading it onto tractors and using it to pave roads and fill in potholes, dips and ruts," Eric Beck said.

Beck was the senior supervisor for Taylor Recycling, a private contractor hired to sift through debris trucked to Fresh Kills after the trade center attacks. Before the arrival of Taylor's equipment at Fresh Kills in October 2001, the debris was sifted manually by workers using rakes and shovels.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/03/24...ker_claims.html
adoucette
25th March 2007 - 04:41 PM
Ok, my bad,

Everything from the towers collapse was not inspected BY a friggin MICROSCOPE.

Which apparently is the ONLY THING that would have satisfied No Reason Why.

laugh.gif

Arthur
Capracus
25th March 2007 - 08:16 PM
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 25 2007, 03:56 PM)
For anyone that thinks Arthur’s has any credibility left (everything was inspected):


http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/03/24...ker_claims.html

reasonwhy, this statement from the article is more supportive of your contention:
QUOTE
Other affidavits support Siegel's claim that the sifting process was shoddy.

One comes from Theodore Feaser, the retired director of mechanical operations for the city Sanitation Department.

"From my experience at Fresh Kills, I am absolutely convinced that if the City of New York unearthed, resifted and washed the debris at Fresh Kills ... it would find hundreds of human body parts and human remains," said Feaser, a 20-year veteran who supervised the recovery effort at Fresh Kills for the Sanitation Department.
And then then you were suppose to claim that not only body parts were missed, but also bomb residue and pieces of detonation hardware.

adoucette
25th March 2007 - 09:38 PM
Yeah, considering it was just a MEASLY 165 MILLION TONS of debris, there's NO EXCUSE for letting the PULVERIZED remains go un-detected.

Arthur

David B. Benson
25th March 2007 - 11:19 PM
Arthur --- You appear to be off by about 2+ orders of magnitude. But even 1 million tonnes is a lot.
newton
26th March 2007 - 01:55 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 25 2007, 04:41 PM)
Ok, my bad,

Everything from the towers collapse was not inspected BY a friggin MICROSCOPE.

Which apparently is the ONLY THING that would have satisfied No Reason Why.

laugh.gif

Arthur

only a soulless could laugh at this particular tragedy.

mad.gif

to quote charlton heston, "IT'S PEOPLE!".

the constant harping on the emotional appeal harp by the purveyors of the war on terror, is shown to be a farce by this particular tidbit. 'they' don't care a rat's arse for victims or victim's families.

and neither do you, apparently, arthur with the easy smile. is nothing 'sacred' to you?
Chainsaw,
26th March 2007 - 03:09 AM
QUOTE (newton+Mar 26 2007, 01:55 AM)
only a soulless could laugh at this particular tragedy.

mad.gif

to quote charlton heston, "IT'S PEOPLE!".

the constant harping on the emotional appeal harp by the purveyors of the war on terror, is shown to be a farce by this particular tidbit. 'they' don't care a rat's arse for victims or victim's families.

and neither do you, apparently, arthur with the easy smile. is nothing 'sacred' to you?

Actually it is the remains of what is left of people, and no some of it was never likely to be found, just like the plane crash in 1960 at tell city Indiana, the crater is now the grave of the people who were on the plane.
Sometimes people are asked to do the almost impossible, and sometimes things are just impossible to do.
Bone and concrete are both composed of calcium sometimes it is impossible to tell one from the other especially after a fire.
They shifted the debris to the point, of anything that could be identifiable human.
Sometimes you just have to do the best you can and admit the limitation of reality in the real world!
adoucette
26th March 2007 - 03:22 AM
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 25 2007, 06:19 PM)
Arthur --- You appear to be off by about 2+ orders of magnitude. But even 1 million tonnes is a lot.

OOPS, 1.65 million tons.

Still the point is the same.

As Chainsaw said: Sometimes you just have to do the best you can and admit the limitation of reality.

From all I can tell they did a VERY GOOD job of sifting and examining the debris, but clearly there are some who would use ANY EXCUSE to belittle the people who labored at the grim task.

As to newton, I LAUGH only at you and other CT'ers and your idiocy, never at the victims of that tragedy.

Its no surprise to me that you can't see that.

Arthur

shagster
26th March 2007 - 03:54 AM
Human bones have been found in a sewer pipe and in the Deutsche building within the past year. According to the relatives of the victims, the construction people are coming across these remains without the aid of forensic groups that could properly identify and collect them. Their argument is that the construction people have no expertise in forensics and are overlooking and discarding remains.

I'm surprised none of the relatives of the victims have gone off the deep end considering their frustration. It wouldn't surprise me if a McVeigh type of abberation surfaced from the within the relatives of the victims.

There was also frustration among the firefighters in the weeks that followed 911 over the decision to move material in bulk which contained the human remains away from the footprint. There was a large fight between firefighters and police shortly after 911 that didn't get much media coverage in the U.S. Nearly all of the firefighters arrested were later released, except one who punched a police officer in the face. One of the police officers in a 911 video that I have mentioned a firefighter who was sifting through the dust by hand and sniffing it to see if he could sense his son who was in the tower. Regardless of what really is the best way to handle the debris, the relatives have very strong emotions about it and at least need to be heard.

Raphie Frank
26th March 2007 - 05:10 AM
Just a couple thoughts to add to this thread re: the issue of an "inside job" on 9/11.

1) The towers needed very little help coming down and it has been shown, reasonably, that they could have come down without aid of explosives from inside.

2) There are other reasonable explanations for the appearance of "squibs," however unlikely, while there are few scenarios that allow for the combination of pre-planning, cover-up, means and opportunity, and conjunction with actual events (i.e. that suggest the buildings were not necessarily hit exactly where intended, etc, etc.)

The question in THIS instance is NOT if it was possible that the building was sabotaged from within or if there are shadow governments or whether or not this person or that person or this government or that government is to blame -- there are many misdeeds I believe our government capable of. And many I believe Al Qaeda capable -- the question IN THIS INSTANCE is "Was it likely?"

I don't think so. Not by a long shot. Too much would have had to go exactly right and that is just not how battle plans work out in practice. Not usually anyway.

Or rather, think of it this way...

"Conspiracy," or rather "second gunman" theorists deemed it MORE likely that there was a second gunman way back in 1963 than that JFK, as 44 years later a long forgotten old film reel has shown us, would have or could have ridden around with his suit all bunched up like that. Seriously. THINK about that.

In any case, there is a far, far, far more likely and explanation ready at the hand to explain U.S. complicity in 9/11 should one be disposed that way:

BENIGN NEGLECT

"I didn't know," you can say afterwards and you won't even be lying. It happens all the time and it's easy as pi.
einsteen
26th March 2007 - 09:16 AM
I still have to read the latest additions but wanted to let everyone know that there seems be some new construction info out, it seens that blueprints are available for download or something related with fire sprinklers, I still have to read the news. Wow! (sounds as wooooo+w)
Capracus
26th March 2007 - 10:31 AM
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 26 2007, 09:16 AM)
I still have to read the latest additions but wanted to let everyone know that there seems be some new construction info out, it seens that blueprints are available for download or something related with fire sprinklers, I still have to read the news. Wow! (sounds as wooooo+w)

Now we can figure out how the diesel fuel lines were surreptitiously connected to the fire sprinkler system in building 7.
reasonwhy
27th March 2007 - 02:52 AM
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 26 2007, 01:16 AM)
I still have to read the latest additions but wanted to let everyone know that there seems be some new construction info out, it seens that blueprints are available for download or something related with fire sprinklers, I still have to read the news. Wow! (sounds as wooooo+w)

http://911mysteries.yweb.sk/download/wtc_blueprints.zip
Comte de Fénix
27th March 2007 - 07:18 AM
I just downloaded the blueprints with a torrent client

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/torrents...d2e440e.torrent


They seem pretty comprehensive.

Approx 15 hi res tiffs of the foundations.

Half a dozen vector based 2D drawings of the tower elevations (including post impact models)

Text document with floor heights.

Individual floor plans in tiff format (again hi-res).

3no sub level plans.

TV mast plans (including exel document of roof trusses)

There is also approx 10 no unix executable files that i can't open.


I also downloaded these too
Sept 11, 2001 High Resolution Photos (118 jpegs-some as high as 6 mp) WTC + Pentagon during and after - many shot from copter (42mb)

http://conspiracycentral.net:6969/torrents...31a3b6b.torrent

There's some real interesting pictures I havn't seen before.
user posted image

click for hi res version

See you soon. this is my 100th and last post (until the next time).




lozenge124
27th March 2007 - 12:40 PM
I did a search about these blueprints and found that 911research has put something up:

QUOTE
Whistleblower Releases Blueprints
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are largely applicable to the South Tower.

The drawings contain a wealth of detail about the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members such as the core columns.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Whistleblower Releases Blueprints
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are largely applicable to the South Tower.

The drawings contain a wealth of detail about the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members such as the core columns.

Official Reports Misrepresented the Towers' Construction
The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Based on construction photographs exhibited in the Skyscraper Museum and illustrations from the Engineering News Record , 9-11 Research had established by mid-2005 that, low in the Towers, the sixteen core columns that bounded the long faces of the buildings' cores had dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The detailed drawings show that these columns maintained these dimensions through about the 66th floor.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

QUOTE
NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers
In 2005 NIST published its 'Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers' -- a 280-page report that was extremely vague in a number of respects, including any description of the structural systems of the Towers. It contains very little information about the core columns, the following being one of the only passages describing them:

"The 47 columns in this rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 36 ksi and 42 ksi steels and also decreased in size in the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth of the total gravity load on the core columns."

The passage implies that only the corner columns were "massive" when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

Illustrations in the Report depict the core columns at the North and South Tower crash zones as being the same size, when in fact the core columns were much broader around the 80th floor than around the 95th. NIST's failure to highlight this difference is especially interesting in light of its estimates of core column damage in the Towers. Those estimates show 10 of the South Tower's core columns severed, compared to only 6 of the North Tower's. How could the South Tower's core have had more damage when its impact-level columns were twice as large as the North Tower's and it sustained only a glancing rather than a head-on impact? Was NIST struggling to explain how the South Tower succumbed to "global collapse" almost twice as quickly as the North Tower despite having much smaller fires?

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

The blueprints are also available to view there.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/plans/frames.html

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.