QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 28 2007, 05:48 PM)
Interesting, Mr. Silverstein, but is NIST aware of this?
The antenna tower supported many different antennas. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that even a mere antenna fell on WTC 7. It was surely north wall sections of WTC 1.
Points 1 and 2 seem believable. Point 3 is just mistaken.
The antenna tower supported many different antennas. However, it is exceedingly unlikely that even a mere antenna fell on WTC 7. It was surely north wall sections of WTC 1.
Points 1 and 2 seem believable. Point 3 is just mistaken.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 29 2007, 12:48 AM)
I am still researching the ground impact location of the north tower antenna as a result of the WTC 1 collapse. This would appear to be a pretty important issue for any collapse theory. So far I have found THREE different answers...
1. A picture on pages 152 - 153 in Meyerowitz's book Aftermath showing a large, lower section of the antenna on Liberty Street about 200 meters due south of WTC 1. I believe some of the antenna section visible in this photograph wound up in Hanger 17 at Kennedy Airport.
2. A picture of what is claimed to be the uppermost section of the antenna. The picture was taken by Michael Rieger and is attributed to FEMA News Photos. This antenna section is located in the WTC Plaza about 100 meters due east of WTC 1.
3. A very interesting quote to be found at Bloomberg.com in an article by Dan Levy and Brian Sullivan about the redevelopment of the WTC site. The article includes comments attributed to none other than Larry Silverstein including this:
"The original 7 World Trade collapsed on Sept 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center's North Tower fell and cut through the facade of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City's emergency services."
So I would presume that the remains of the north tower antenna were to be found in the WTC 7 rubble pile?
Interesting, Mr. Silverstein, but is NIST aware of this?
There's a couple pictures in "Above Hallowed Ground" that show the antenna in the plaza right next to Fritz Koenig's "Sphere". They show the same piece as this one:
But to me it looks more like one of the small antennas:
I know you have mentioned in the past Barbara Fultz Martinez's quote "We stared in shock late on Saturday night when we realized that what we saw at the end of Greenwich Street in front of the 7 WTC rubble was the 15-story WTC antenna, square in the middle of the street, standing straight up. It was gone on Sunday."
But I don't know if you have seen the accompanying picture which is quite strange:
http://miscreports.blogspot.com/2006/09/we...monday-911.html
Reade Street is about 5 blocks away from WTC7 to give an idea of scale. If that is the antenna, it must have been moved there because none of the videos of the WTC1 collapse from the North show the antenna (or any debris) vaulting over WTC7.
1. A picture on pages 152 - 153 in Meyerowitz's book Aftermath showing a large, lower section of the antenna on Liberty Street about 200 meters due south of WTC 1. I believe some of the antenna section visible in this photograph wound up in Hanger 17 at Kennedy Airport.
2. A picture of what is claimed to be the uppermost section of the antenna. The picture was taken by Michael Rieger and is attributed to FEMA News Photos. This antenna section is located in the WTC Plaza about 100 meters due east of WTC 1.
3. A very interesting quote to be found at Bloomberg.com in an article by Dan Levy and Brian Sullivan about the redevelopment of the WTC site. The article includes comments attributed to none other than Larry Silverstein including this:
"The original 7 World Trade collapsed on Sept 11 when the antenna from the World Trade Center's North Tower fell and cut through the facade of Building 7, rupturing fuel lines leading to storage tanks used by New York City's emergency services."
So I would presume that the remains of the north tower antenna were to be found in the WTC 7 rubble pile?
Interesting, Mr. Silverstein, but is NIST aware of this?
There's a couple pictures in "Above Hallowed Ground" that show the antenna in the plaza right next to Fritz Koenig's "Sphere". They show the same piece as this one:
But to me it looks more like one of the small antennas:
I know you have mentioned in the past Barbara Fultz Martinez's quote "We stared in shock late on Saturday night when we realized that what we saw at the end of Greenwich Street in front of the 7 WTC rubble was the 15-story WTC antenna, square in the middle of the street, standing straight up. It was gone on Sunday."
But I don't know if you have seen the accompanying picture which is quite strange:
http://miscreports.blogspot.com/2006/09/we...monday-911.html
Reade Street is about 5 blocks away from WTC7 to give an idea of scale. If that is the antenna, it must have been moved there because none of the videos of the WTC1 collapse from the North show the antenna (or any debris) vaulting over WTC7.
There's also the hangar 17 pictures, but no indication where the pieces were found.
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=55
http://www.amny.com/entertainment/news/am-...allery?index=55
QUOTE (lozenge124+Jul 28 2007, 06:36 PM)
That's the aircraft warning antenna, AFAIK.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jul 29 2007, 11:13 AM)
Hurray Trippy has confirmed molten steel in the twin towers, however since the Duraluminum is unlikely to combine with steel into sphericals I prefer to think the spheres found were once part of the people on the plane that passed though a chemical reaction.
PS.Here is what the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, Has to say on Aluminum, PS, they received the information from OSHA who received the information from industrial accident investigations.
CCOHS
Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?
Interestingly enough I found that at the speed the plane was traveling some duraluminum would become pretty close to powder form.
Also Trippy I tested the duraluminum about a year and a half ago and it would not work the only way it would form spiracles was on impact unless the temperature in the buildings approached 1500c and melted steel.
The impacts did form spheres but not containing potassium.
Duraluminum is the easy answer not the correct one.
Well got to go I am leaving Physorg for a while things I wish to do and at this point debate has become worse than useless.
Oh and did I forget to mention that titanium powder in air can ignite at 450F,
Magnesiums is even lower than that.
Powder Igniting produces heat that can Ignite metal, that produces high shock waves, from heat, and hot hard particulates that increase fire proofing damage and weaken the structures of some steels ex specially exposed floor pans and trusses.
That sets off other chemical reactions and leads to increased localized energy releases near vital structures.
However I will probibly never prove it with half assed experiments, and people wanting to do real experiments on this simply do not exist, so what is the point in arguing something that no one will ever believe?
Well I am sad to be leaving Physorg but I do not see a way I can contribute much more to the discussions here.
The only ting I have ever doubted was the presence of molten steel as a result of the fires.
I've noticed that there's no mention of Iron present in the spherules (I haven't looked for the original paper yet, but it's on my list of things to do).
Gypsum is an evaporite.
Evaporites tend to occur together.
So, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be some KCl present in the evaporite, which explains all of the ingredients in the spherules without invoking molten steel.
And yes, I'm, willing to admit that there is perhaps some evidence of molten steel, and localized temperatures sufficient to do this, but please note, that in all of these cases, there was 0.05% Sulfur present in the steel, which againm, would seem to have come from the Gypsum, this is further backed up by the presence of Calcium and Potassium in the steel that demonstrated a high sulfur content.
It seems plausable, at least to me anyway, that the majority of this chemistry could have taken place during the time line of the impact.
I'm sure your experiments have managed to reproduce the pressures involved during the seconds of impact?
Also, every time i've ever ignited powdered metals, they've formed spherules of some sort, so... *Shrugs*
"Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?"
There's a relatively straight forward explanation for this.
Because it's a powder.
Powders ignite at lower temperatures then solids, because of their increased surface area.
The difference in ignition temperatures has nothing to do with the oxide layer. It's purely about surface area (Well, and technically volume as well) it boils down to, among other things, the thermal capacity of aluminium, and the activation energy (there's that word again) of the reaction.
Temperature represents a measure of thermal energy.
Reducing the volume/surface area ratio of a substance, reduces the number of joules required by individual particles to overcome the activation energy of the reaction. (a 20kg particle requires a lot more heat to give it enough energy to ignite then a 1 microgram particle).
Edit:
There's nothing in the CCOHS website (for aluminium) that's new to me.
PS.Here is what the Canadian Center for Occupational Health and Safety, Has to say on Aluminum, PS, they received the information from OSHA who received the information from industrial accident investigations.
CCOHS
Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?
Interestingly enough I found that at the speed the plane was traveling some duraluminum would become pretty close to powder form.
Also Trippy I tested the duraluminum about a year and a half ago and it would not work the only way it would form spiracles was on impact unless the temperature in the buildings approached 1500c and melted steel.
The impacts did form spheres but not containing potassium.
Duraluminum is the easy answer not the correct one.
Well got to go I am leaving Physorg for a while things I wish to do and at this point debate has become worse than useless.
Oh and did I forget to mention that titanium powder in air can ignite at 450F,
Magnesiums is even lower than that.
Powder Igniting produces heat that can Ignite metal, that produces high shock waves, from heat, and hot hard particulates that increase fire proofing damage and weaken the structures of some steels ex specially exposed floor pans and trusses.
That sets off other chemical reactions and leads to increased localized energy releases near vital structures.
However I will probibly never prove it with half assed experiments, and people wanting to do real experiments on this simply do not exist, so what is the point in arguing something that no one will ever believe?
Well I am sad to be leaving Physorg but I do not see a way I can contribute much more to the discussions here.
The only ting I have ever doubted was the presence of molten steel as a result of the fires.
I've noticed that there's no mention of Iron present in the spherules (I haven't looked for the original paper yet, but it's on my list of things to do).
Gypsum is an evaporite.
Evaporites tend to occur together.
So, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be some KCl present in the evaporite, which explains all of the ingredients in the spherules without invoking molten steel.
And yes, I'm, willing to admit that there is perhaps some evidence of molten steel, and localized temperatures sufficient to do this, but please note, that in all of these cases, there was 0.05% Sulfur present in the steel, which againm, would seem to have come from the Gypsum, this is further backed up by the presence of Calcium and Potassium in the steel that demonstrated a high sulfur content.
It seems plausable, at least to me anyway, that the majority of this chemistry could have taken place during the time line of the impact.
I'm sure your experiments have managed to reproduce the pressures involved during the seconds of impact?
Also, every time i've ever ignited powdered metals, they've formed spherules of some sort, so... *Shrugs*
"Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?"
There's a relatively straight forward explanation for this.
Because it's a powder.
Powders ignite at lower temperatures then solids, because of their increased surface area.
The difference in ignition temperatures has nothing to do with the oxide layer. It's purely about surface area (Well, and technically volume as well) it boils down to, among other things, the thermal capacity of aluminium, and the activation energy (there's that word again) of the reaction.
Temperature represents a measure of thermal energy.
Reducing the volume/surface area ratio of a substance, reduces the number of joules required by individual particles to overcome the activation energy of the reaction. (a 20kg particle requires a lot more heat to give it enough energy to ignite then a 1 microgram particle).
Edit:
There's nothing in the CCOHS website (for aluminium) that's new to me.
Ok, a small attempt for the data.
I used again virtualdub, used the motion blur filter, extracted 1xN bitmaps, combined them. Now it is really a problem to get the curve because of all gray values and stuff, what I did is maybe not the nicest method but I changed the brightness/contrast etc and primitively added a line by hand... All steps can be seen in the picture below
http://i18.tinypic.com/4m0dyev
It is rotated and mirrored (which doesn't care for the function, this is even easier), I used bmpToAscii and that gave an input ascii/text file like
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
........x..
etc
I wrote a small vbscript, where the following in fact does the work
Do While open.AtEndOfStream <> True
tpix=tpix+1
line = open.ReadLine
xPos=Instr(line,"x")
ascii.WriteLine(Cstr(tpix)+","+Cstr(xPos))
Loop
and the result follows below:
good luck folks
------
1,8
2,8
3,8
4,8
5,8
6,8
7,8
8,8
9,8
10,8
11,8
12,8
13,8
14,8
15,8
16,8
17,8
18,8
19,8
20,8
21,8
22,8
23,8
24,8
25,8
26,8
27,8
28,8
29,8
30,8
31,8
32,8
33,8
34,8
35,8
36,8
37,8
38,8
39,8
40,8
41,8
42,8
43,8
44,8
45,8
46,8
47,8
48,8
49,8
50,8
51,8
52,8
53,8
54,8
55,8
56,8
57,8
58,8
59,8
60,8
61,8
62,8
63,8
64,8
65,8
66,8
67,8
68,8
69,8
70,8
71,8
72,8
73,8
74,8
75,8
76,8
77,9
78,9
79,9
80,9
81,9
82,9
83,9
84,9
85,9
86,9
87,9
88,9
89,9
90,9
91,9
92,10
93,10
94,10
95,10
96,10
97,10
98,10
99,11
100,11
101,11
102,11
103,12
104,12
105,13
106,13
107,14
108,14
109,15
110,15
111,16
112,17
113,17
114,18
115,19
116,19
117,20
118,21
119,22
120,22
121,23
122,24
123,25
124,26
125,27
126,28
127,29
128,30
129,31
130,32
131,33
132,35
133,36
134,38
135,39
136,40
137,42
138,43
139,44
140,46
141,47
142,49
143,51
144,53
145,54
146,56
147,58
148,59
149,61
150,63
151,64
152,66
153,67
154,69
155,72
156,74
157,76
158,78
159,80
160,82
161,84
162,87
163,89
164,91
165,93
166,95
167,98
168,100
169,102
170,104
171,106
172,108
173,111
174,113
175,116
176,118
177,121
178,123
179,126
180,128
181,131
182,133
183,136
184,138
185,141
186,143
187,146
188,149
189,151
190,154
191,156
192,159
193,161
I used again virtualdub, used the motion blur filter, extracted 1xN bitmaps, combined them. Now it is really a problem to get the curve because of all gray values and stuff, what I did is maybe not the nicest method but I changed the brightness/contrast etc and primitively added a line by hand... All steps can be seen in the picture below
http://i18.tinypic.com/4m0dyev
It is rotated and mirrored (which doesn't care for the function, this is even easier), I used bmpToAscii and that gave an input ascii/text file like
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
........x..
etc
I wrote a small vbscript, where the following in fact does the work
Do While open.AtEndOfStream <> True
tpix=tpix+1
line = open.ReadLine
xPos=Instr(line,"x")
ascii.WriteLine(Cstr(tpix)+","+Cstr(xPos))
Loop
and the result follows below:
good luck folks
------
1,8
2,8
3,8
4,8
5,8
6,8
7,8
8,8
9,8
10,8
11,8
12,8
13,8
14,8
15,8
16,8
17,8
18,8
19,8
20,8
21,8
22,8
23,8
24,8
25,8
26,8
27,8
28,8
29,8
30,8
31,8
32,8
33,8
34,8
35,8
36,8
37,8
38,8
39,8
40,8
41,8
42,8
43,8
44,8
45,8
46,8
47,8
48,8
49,8
50,8
51,8
52,8
53,8
54,8
55,8
56,8
57,8
58,8
59,8
60,8
61,8
62,8
63,8
64,8
65,8
66,8
67,8
68,8
69,8
70,8
71,8
72,8
73,8
74,8
75,8
76,8
77,9
78,9
79,9
80,9
81,9
82,9
83,9
84,9
85,9
86,9
87,9
88,9
89,9
90,9
91,9
92,10
93,10
94,10
95,10
96,10
97,10
98,10
99,11
100,11
101,11
102,11
103,12
104,12
105,13
106,13
107,14
108,14
109,15
110,15
111,16
112,17
113,17
114,18
115,19
116,19
117,20
118,21
119,22
120,22
121,23
122,24
123,25
124,26
125,27
126,28
127,29
128,30
129,31
130,32
131,33
132,35
133,36
134,38
135,39
136,40
137,42
138,43
139,44
140,46
141,47
142,49
143,51
144,53
145,54
146,56
147,58
148,59
149,61
150,63
151,64
152,66
153,67
154,69
155,72
156,74
157,76
158,78
159,80
160,82
161,84
162,87
163,89
164,91
165,93
166,95
167,98
168,100
169,102
170,104
171,106
172,108
173,111
174,113
175,116
176,118
177,121
178,123
179,126
180,128
181,131
182,133
183,136
184,138
185,141
186,143
187,146
188,149
189,151
190,154
191,156
192,159
193,161
I got maple and it has a curve-fitting wizard in which you can use the least-squares method for a function you like, the problem is that we have only a half parabole, where is the starting point ??
Here is the same data with shifting it to 0:
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
13,0
14,0
15,0
16,0
17,0
18,0
19,0
20,0
21,0
22,0
23,0
24,0
25,0
26,0
27,0
28,0
29,0
30,0
31,0
32,0
33,0
34,0
35,0
36,0
37,0
38,0
39,0
40,0
41,0
42,0
43,0
44,0
45,0
46,0
47,0
48,0
49,0
50,0
51,0
52,0
53,0
54,0
55,0
56,0
57,0
58,0
59,0
60,0
61,0
62,0
63,0
64,0
65,0
66,0
67,0
68,0
69,0
70,0
71,0
72,0
73,0
74,0
75,0
76,0
77,1
78,1
79,1
80,1
81,1
82,1
83,1
84,1
85,1
86,1
87,1
88,1
89,1
90,1
91,1
92,2
93,2
94,2
95,2
96,2
97,2
98,2
99,3
100,3
101,3
102,3
103,4
104,4
105,5
106,5
107,6
108,6
109,7
110,7
111,8
112,9
113,9
114,10
115,11
116,11
117,12
118,13
119,14
120,14
121,15
122,16
123,17
124,18
125,19
126,20
127,21
128,22
129,23
130,24
131,25
132,27
133,28
134,30
135,31
136,32
137,34
138,35
139,36
140,38
141,39
142,41
143,43
144,45
145,46
146,48
147,50
148,51
149,53
150,55
151,56
152,58
153,59
154,61
155,64
156,66
157,68
158,70
159,72
160,74
161,76
162,79
163,81
164,83
165,85
166,87
167,90
168,92
169,94
170,96
171,98
172,100
173,103
174,105
175,108
176,110
177,113
178,115
179,118
180,120
181,123
182,125
183,128
184,130
185,133
186,135
187,138
188,141
189,143
190,146
191,148
192,151
193,153
Here is the same data with shifting it to 0:
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
11,0
12,0
13,0
14,0
15,0
16,0
17,0
18,0
19,0
20,0
21,0
22,0
23,0
24,0
25,0
26,0
27,0
28,0
29,0
30,0
31,0
32,0
33,0
34,0
35,0
36,0
37,0
38,0
39,0
40,0
41,0
42,0
43,0
44,0
45,0
46,0
47,0
48,0
49,0
50,0
51,0
52,0
53,0
54,0
55,0
56,0
57,0
58,0
59,0
60,0
61,0
62,0
63,0
64,0
65,0
66,0
67,0
68,0
69,0
70,0
71,0
72,0
73,0
74,0
75,0
76,0
77,1
78,1
79,1
80,1
81,1
82,1
83,1
84,1
85,1
86,1
87,1
88,1
89,1
90,1
91,1
92,2
93,2
94,2
95,2
96,2
97,2
98,2
99,3
100,3
101,3
102,3
103,4
104,4
105,5
106,5
107,6
108,6
109,7
110,7
111,8
112,9
113,9
114,10
115,11
116,11
117,12
118,13
119,14
120,14
121,15
122,16
123,17
124,18
125,19
126,20
127,21
128,22
129,23
130,24
131,25
132,27
133,28
134,30
135,31
136,32
137,34
138,35
139,36
140,38
141,39
142,41
143,43
144,45
145,46
146,48
147,50
148,51
149,53
150,55
151,56
152,58
153,59
154,61
155,64
156,66
157,68
158,70
159,72
160,74
161,76
162,79
163,81
164,83
165,85
166,87
167,90
168,92
169,94
170,96
171,98
172,100
173,103
174,105
175,108
176,110
177,113
178,115
179,118
180,120
181,123
182,125
183,128
184,130
185,133
186,135
187,138
188,141
189,143
190,146
191,148
192,151
193,153
QUOTE (Trippy+Jul 29 2007, 02:55 AM)
The only ting I have ever doubted was the presence of molten steel as a result of the fires.
I've noticed that there's no mention of Iron present in the spherules (I haven't looked for the original paper yet, but it's on my list of things to do).
Gypsum is an evaporite.
Evaporites tend to occur together.
So, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be some KCl present in the evaporite, which explains all of the ingredients in the spherules without invoking molten steel.
And yes, I'm, willing to admit that there is perhaps some evidence of molten steel, and localized temperatures sufficient to do this, but please note, that in all of these cases, there was 0.05% Sulfur present in the steel, which againm, would seem to have come from the Gypsum, this is further backed up by the presence of Calcium and Potassium in the steel that demonstrated a high sulfur content.
It seems plausable, at least to me anyway, that the majority of this chemistry could have taken place during the time line of the impact.
I'm sure your experiments have managed to reproduce the pressures involved during the seconds of impact?
Also, every time i've ever ignited powdered metals, they've formed spherules of some sort, so... *Shrugs*
"Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?"
There's a relatively straight forward explanation for this.
Because it's a powder.
Powders ignite at lower temperatures then solids, because of their increased surface area.
The difference in ignition temperatures has nothing to do with the oxide layer. It's purely about surface area (Well, and technically volume as well) it boils down to, among other things, the thermal capacity of aluminium, and the activation energy (there's that word again) of the reaction.
Temperature represents a measure of thermal energy.
Reducing the volume/surface area ratio of a substance, reduces the number of joules required by individual particles to overcome the activation energy of the reaction. (a 20kg particle requires a lot more heat to give it enough energy to ignite then a 1 microgram particle).
Edit:
There's nothing in the CCOHS website (for aluminium) that's new to me.
The spheres are mostly Iron, and no sulfur from Gypsum is not really an option, although other sources of sulfates are. IT is not easy to liberate the sulfur from the Gypsum.
The spheres are mostly Iron, and no sulfur from Gypsum is not really an option, although other sources of sulfates are. IT is not easy to liberate the sulfur from the Gypsum.
I'm sure your experiments have managed to reproduce the pressures involved during the seconds of impact?
Yes they have, they are impact studies at high velocity.
[
What ? I will inform NASA then that they are wrong then, in the mean time here is some good reading on it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...7e88fa14176e47c
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yes
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/SHOCK03/...bs/S540003.html
http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/GeorgeRe...up/pubs/235.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=44968&gTable=Paper
http://irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/2042/6269/1/1020.pdf
PS. ionic energy at the quantum level for a reaction to occur is constant, you invoked Quantum Mechanics now you can not get around that conditions in materials at a non Quantum level such as stored energy change the overall reaction to heat energy on a non Quantum level.
Which is exactly what I was saying all along, and what my half assed experiments pointed out.
What ? I will inform NASA then that they are wrong then, in the mean time here is some good reading on it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...7e88fa14176e47c
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yes
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/SHOCK03/...bs/S540003.html
http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/GeorgeRe...up/pubs/235.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=44968&gTable=Paper
http://irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/2042/6269/1/1020.pdf
PS. ionic energy at the quantum level for a reaction to occur is constant, you invoked Quantum Mechanics now you can not get around that conditions in materials at a non Quantum level such as stored energy change the overall reaction to heat energy on a non Quantum level.
Which is exactly what I was saying all along, and what my half assed experiments pointed out.
Temperature represents a measure of thermal energy.
Reducing the volume/surface area ratio of a substance, reduces the number of joules required by individual particles to overcome the activation energy of the reaction. (a 20kg particle requires a lot more heat to give it enough energy to ignite then a 1 microgram particle).
I know that Trippy I have not studied this for 5 years now and not know that.
However what your forgetting is that a small particle also expands more rapidly to less energy it is known as thermal expansion that ruptures the oxide layer bring pure aluminum and the oxide in contact rapidly, causing an almost instantaneous reaction.
Stored energy is the weakening of the oxide layer, though micro fissuring and Ionic bond degradation, it has been proved that Aluminum can store energy in this way, mechanically, and though radiation, or from an impact.
Sono chemistry, stores energy in aluminum though mechanical and by degrading to some degree the ionic bonding of the oxide Crystals. Remember they are Crystals.
In aluminum you scratch it it jumps to the first and eventually the second oxide state almost instantly. You scratch it rapidly enough and it jumps to the third state, on a small level. That is what keeps Aluminum from being Oxidized rapidly.
Did not think there would be, just wanted to point out the fallacy of your argument, On Ionic energy, because Ionic energy on the Quantum level does not change. However the way a material responds to ionic energy does as we move away from the Quantum level.
Did not think there would be, just wanted to point out the fallacy of your argument, On Ionic energy, because Ionic energy on the Quantum level does not change. However the way a material responds to ionic energy does as we move away from the Quantum level.
The only ting I have ever doubted was the presence of molten steel as a result of the fires.
As do I, I never said I was trying to explain How molten steel could have been formed, I was simply trying to refine the Nist report.
I have no doubt that some molten steel could have been formed, the reduction reaction with carbon and Iron oxide that you mentioned in fact could have formed some as Could the hydrogen reaction of hot Iron and H2O.
Neu's reaction like wise would have formed a small amount but not the Amount claimed by the conspiracy theorist.
IN fact I have seen very little evidence of molten steel, What I have seen is evidence of Chemical reactions that would have created spiracles and effects that are listed in the Nist report, and evidence that the events listed in the NIST report might have even been more intense than NIST STATED.
EVEN the Blood and body of the police dog killed on Duty could have led to formation of Spheres containing the elements that Dr. Jones lists, they simply have to be reacted with something that removes the Sodium Chloride, It has the lowest evaporation temp at about 1400c.
There are several possible reactions that could have occurred and done that and not resulted in large pools of molten steel, and since no credible evidence of Large amounts of molten steel exist, the reactions are the most likely source.
PS. here is the exact reaction of Steel oxidizing and falling onto carbon, that converting the iron oxide back to Iron with added heat, this reaction however is unlikely to create the spheres although it does create some sphericals.
I used a piece of Cannal Coal as fuel, the coal heats the steel hot enough that a blast of air from my air compressor though my cutting torch head can Oxidize the steel. That hot iron oxide will then react with the carbon in the coal and reform the iron oxide Fe 304 into Fe. The Acetylene valve was left off and the torch was UN lit for this experiment, I just used the torch head, because the steel tube I tried using before melted. The torch is an alloy that could stand the temperatures required to do the experiments, so it only made since to use it.
Notice that molten steel is white hot, and that none of the evidence claimed by the Conspiracy Theorist reaches these temperatures. About 3000c.
It was a joy debating you here Trippy, but it was really a waste of my time explaining all this again, and Again and Again.
PS, PS, Nano Aluminum particles ignite at 250c or with water at room temperature. Just thought I would though that in because it seems that other factors other than Ionic energy are relevant for that reaction.
I don't know if you are a liar or your memory sucks.
But you DID support the Mini-Nuke idea,
I supported the Mini-Nuke hypothesis, as well as pointed out problems with it. Your failure to mention this last is yet another (of an unending stream) which shows how you habitually twist and distort.
This is a physics board. On a physics board, you should know the difference between a hypothesis and a fact. From dictionary.reference.com:
hypothesis:
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Not only did I refer to the micro-nuke hypothesis, I also spoke to the rather obvious potential counter-argument - which is that radioactivity (AFAIK) should be easily detectable. The post you quote is from Jan 6, 2006. However, on Nov 21, 2005, I posted ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...indpost&p=36275 )
Speaking of micro-nukes (vs. conventional explosives)
One thing that always bothered me about the demolition-via-explosives hypothesis is that I never heard of any reports of explosive residues. How is that possible? Does anybody have info on this?
Even a "little" bit of radioactivity should have been observable. However, if you read the Vialls micro-nuke article noted above, you can see how this is not necessarily the case wrt radioactivity detected by conventional geiger counters. (So says Vialls, anyway.)
(emphasis mine)
On January 4, I posted:
(emphasis mine)
On January 4, I posted:
I note that I still have not abadoned my micro-nuke hypothesis (for the core), though I certainly can't prove it.
I later reported that Professor Jones, a nuclear physicist, has ruled out the nuclear hypothesis (giving the link), and at another post, merely noted this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=110049
Also, note that while tritium was found at GZ, Professor Jones has ruled out fusion mini-nukes via a quantitative argument. Gee whiz, a scientist making a quantitative argument - how shocking is that?
Finally, just to show how you recycle your lies and distortions:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...335&#entry82174
Finally, just to show how you recycle your lies and distortions:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...335&#entry82174
You're one sorry SOB to talk, you still think there were mini-nukes involved.
Since use of any nuclear device would mean Everybody and his Brother would have to be IN ON IT in order to cover up the radiation related injuries and fallout.
*****
Arthur
You're lying. I still think that mini-nukes, as a hypothesis, should not be dismissed out of hand, unless it can be shown absolutely that they are impossible. And yes, if each and every mini-nuke in the world had to create radiation, even in tiny amounts, they would be easily detectable, and thus we could be sure that no mini-nukes were used.
You're lying. I still think that mini-nukes, as a hypothesis, should not be dismissed out of hand, unless it can be shown absolutely that they are impossible. And yes, if each and every mini-nuke in the world had to create radiation, even in tiny amounts, they would be easily detectable, and thus we could be sure that no mini-nukes were used.
and the vaporization of the steel in the towers
Within the framework of the nuclear hypothesis, vaporization of some of the steel would be expected.
and Hoffman's idiotic Pyroclastic flow.
To this day, there has been no serious study of the "pyroclastic" flow, hydrodynamics and all. The term "pyroclastic" is inappropriate, and even when Hoffman first proposed his theory, he noted (IIRC) the contradictory problem of lack of 'cooking' at ground level.
You never showed, in a quantitative fashion, how expansion could not be followed by cooling away from the presumed source, in a plausible manner. I did (though I never posted the calculation), which is why I no longer believe the term "pyroclastic" is justified.
This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time that I've stated I don't believe this, anymore. But I don't recall you recanting your 'multiple symmetric collapse modes' for WTC7 flying pig.
To this day, there has been no serious study of the "pyroclastic" flow, hydrodynamics and all. The term "pyroclastic" is inappropriate, and even when Hoffman first proposed his theory, he noted (IIRC) the contradictory problem of lack of 'cooking' at ground level.
You never showed, in a quantitative fashion, how expansion could not be followed by cooling away from the presumed source, in a plausible manner. I did (though I never posted the calculation), which is why I no longer believe the term "pyroclastic" is justified.
This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time that I've stated I don't believe this, anymore. But I don't recall you recanting your 'multiple symmetric collapse modes' for WTC7 flying pig.
The fact is you have spent YEARS defending silly ideas, one after the other TRYING to find SOMETHING that will support your CONCLUSION that the towers were brought down by ANYTHING other than the planes.
Real Science doesn't work like that and your pathetic attempts to ACT as if you understood the scientific method are an insult to the actual scientists at NIST whose YEARS of hard work you dismiss so lightly.
Arthur
Actually, I think more of my posts were about attacking the silly and doubtful notions of the OCT's, than defending any particular theory. Also, as I have stated more times than I care to remember, I want to see a real, comprehensive study. That would mean an independent, international group of scientists and engineers, with full access to whatever hard evidence remains.
In any event, your characterization of me is lie, as well as your statement that I have dismissed the work of NIST lightly. (I have dismissed the Bazant Zhou paper, but that is another matter, and did not do so "lightly".)
The only aspect of NIST's work that I have dismissed ("lightly", if you will) is their claim of no evidence for CD. If NIST told me that pigs fly, I wouldn't believe that, either.
I've noticed that there's no mention of Iron present in the spherules (I haven't looked for the original paper yet, but it's on my list of things to do).
Gypsum is an evaporite.
Evaporites tend to occur together.
So, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be some KCl present in the evaporite, which explains all of the ingredients in the spherules without invoking molten steel.
And yes, I'm, willing to admit that there is perhaps some evidence of molten steel, and localized temperatures sufficient to do this, but please note, that in all of these cases, there was 0.05% Sulfur present in the steel, which againm, would seem to have come from the Gypsum, this is further backed up by the presence of Calcium and Potassium in the steel that demonstrated a high sulfur content.
It seems plausable, at least to me anyway, that the majority of this chemistry could have taken place during the time line of the impact.
I'm sure your experiments have managed to reproduce the pressures involved during the seconds of impact?
Also, every time i've ever ignited powdered metals, they've formed spherules of some sort, so... *Shrugs*
"Now why would aluminum ignite as a powder and not as a solid at 650c could it have something to do with the oxide layer that forms around it in air?"
There's a relatively straight forward explanation for this.
Because it's a powder.
Powders ignite at lower temperatures then solids, because of their increased surface area.
The difference in ignition temperatures has nothing to do with the oxide layer. It's purely about surface area (Well, and technically volume as well) it boils down to, among other things, the thermal capacity of aluminium, and the activation energy (there's that word again) of the reaction.
Temperature represents a measure of thermal energy.
Reducing the volume/surface area ratio of a substance, reduces the number of joules required by individual particles to overcome the activation energy of the reaction. (a 20kg particle requires a lot more heat to give it enough energy to ignite then a 1 microgram particle).
Edit:
There's nothing in the CCOHS website (for aluminium) that's new to me.
QUOTE
I've noticed that there's no mention of Iron present in the spherules (I haven't looked for the original paper yet, but it's on my list of things to do).
The spheres are mostly Iron, and no sulfur from Gypsum is not really an option, although other sources of sulfates are. IT is not easy to liberate the sulfur from the Gypsum.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've noticed that there's no mention of Iron present in the spherules (I haven't looked for the original paper yet, but it's on my list of things to do). |
The spheres are mostly Iron, and no sulfur from Gypsum is not really an option, although other sources of sulfates are. IT is not easy to liberate the sulfur from the Gypsum.
I'm sure your experiments have managed to reproduce the pressures involved during the seconds of impact?
Yes they have, they are impact studies at high velocity.
[
QUOTE
i]Because[/i] it's a powder.
Powders ignite at lower temperatures then solids, because of their increased surface area.
The difference in ignition temperatures has nothing to do with the oxide layer. It's purely about surface area (Well, and technically volume as well) it boils down to, among other things, the thermal capacity of aluminium, and the activation energy (there's that word again) of the reaction.
Powders ignite at lower temperatures then solids, because of their increased surface area.
The difference in ignition temperatures has nothing to do with the oxide layer. It's purely about surface area (Well, and technically volume as well) it boils down to, among other things, the thermal capacity of aluminium, and the activation energy (there's that word again) of the reaction.
What ? I will inform NASA then that they are wrong then, in the mean time here is some good reading on it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...7e88fa14176e47c
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yes
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/SHOCK03/...bs/S540003.html
http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/GeorgeRe...up/pubs/235.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=44968&gTable=Paper
http://irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/2042/6269/1/1020.pdf
PS. ionic energy at the quantum level for a reaction to occur is constant, you invoked Quantum Mechanics now you can not get around that conditions in materials at a non Quantum level such as stored energy change the overall reaction to heat energy on a non Quantum level.
Which is exactly what I was saying all along, and what my half assed experiments pointed out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| i]Because[/i] it's a powder. Powders ignite at lower temperatures then solids, because of their increased surface area. The difference in ignition temperatures has nothing to do with the oxide layer. It's purely about surface area (Well, and technically volume as well) it boils down to, among other things, the thermal capacity of aluminium, and the activation energy (there's that word again) of the reaction. |
What ? I will inform NASA then that they are wrong then, in the mean time here is some good reading on it.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...7e88fa14176e47c
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/Ge...=cvips&gifs=yes
http://flux.aps.org/meetings/YR03/SHOCK03/...bs/S540003.html
http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/GeorgeRe...up/pubs/235.pdf
http://pdf.aiaa.org/GetFileGoogle.cfm?gID=44968&gTable=Paper
http://irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/2042/6269/1/1020.pdf
PS. ionic energy at the quantum level for a reaction to occur is constant, you invoked Quantum Mechanics now you can not get around that conditions in materials at a non Quantum level such as stored energy change the overall reaction to heat energy on a non Quantum level.
Which is exactly what I was saying all along, and what my half assed experiments pointed out.
Temperature represents a measure of thermal energy.
Reducing the volume/surface area ratio of a substance, reduces the number of joules required by individual particles to overcome the activation energy of the reaction. (a 20kg particle requires a lot more heat to give it enough energy to ignite then a 1 microgram particle).
I know that Trippy I have not studied this for 5 years now and not know that.
However what your forgetting is that a small particle also expands more rapidly to less energy it is known as thermal expansion that ruptures the oxide layer bring pure aluminum and the oxide in contact rapidly, causing an almost instantaneous reaction.
Stored energy is the weakening of the oxide layer, though micro fissuring and Ionic bond degradation, it has been proved that Aluminum can store energy in this way, mechanically, and though radiation, or from an impact.
Sono chemistry, stores energy in aluminum though mechanical and by degrading to some degree the ionic bonding of the oxide Crystals. Remember they are Crystals.
In aluminum you scratch it it jumps to the first and eventually the second oxide state almost instantly. You scratch it rapidly enough and it jumps to the third state, on a small level. That is what keeps Aluminum from being Oxidized rapidly.
QUOTE
There's nothing in the CCOHS website (for aluminium) that's new to me.
Did not think there would be, just wanted to point out the fallacy of your argument, On Ionic energy, because Ionic energy on the Quantum level does not change. However the way a material responds to ionic energy does as we move away from the Quantum level.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There's nothing in the CCOHS website (for aluminium) that's new to me. |
Did not think there would be, just wanted to point out the fallacy of your argument, On Ionic energy, because Ionic energy on the Quantum level does not change. However the way a material responds to ionic energy does as we move away from the Quantum level.
The only ting I have ever doubted was the presence of molten steel as a result of the fires.
As do I, I never said I was trying to explain How molten steel could have been formed, I was simply trying to refine the Nist report.
I have no doubt that some molten steel could have been formed, the reduction reaction with carbon and Iron oxide that you mentioned in fact could have formed some as Could the hydrogen reaction of hot Iron and H2O.
Neu's reaction like wise would have formed a small amount but not the Amount claimed by the conspiracy theorist.
IN fact I have seen very little evidence of molten steel, What I have seen is evidence of Chemical reactions that would have created spiracles and effects that are listed in the Nist report, and evidence that the events listed in the NIST report might have even been more intense than NIST STATED.
EVEN the Blood and body of the police dog killed on Duty could have led to formation of Spheres containing the elements that Dr. Jones lists, they simply have to be reacted with something that removes the Sodium Chloride, It has the lowest evaporation temp at about 1400c.
There are several possible reactions that could have occurred and done that and not resulted in large pools of molten steel, and since no credible evidence of Large amounts of molten steel exist, the reactions are the most likely source.
PS. here is the exact reaction of Steel oxidizing and falling onto carbon, that converting the iron oxide back to Iron with added heat, this reaction however is unlikely to create the spheres although it does create some sphericals.
I used a piece of Cannal Coal as fuel, the coal heats the steel hot enough that a blast of air from my air compressor though my cutting torch head can Oxidize the steel. That hot iron oxide will then react with the carbon in the coal and reform the iron oxide Fe 304 into Fe. The Acetylene valve was left off and the torch was UN lit for this experiment, I just used the torch head, because the steel tube I tried using before melted. The torch is an alloy that could stand the temperatures required to do the experiments, so it only made since to use it.
Notice that molten steel is white hot, and that none of the evidence claimed by the Conspiracy Theorist reaches these temperatures. About 3000c.
It was a joy debating you here Trippy, but it was really a waste of my time explaining all this again, and Again and Again.
PS, PS, Nano Aluminum particles ignite at 250c or with water at room temperature. Just thought I would though that in because it seems that other factors other than Ionic energy are relevant for that reaction.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 29 2007, 12:29 PM)
Ok, a small attempt for the data.
I used again virtualdub, used the motion blur filter, extracted 1xN bitmaps, combined them. Now it is really a problem to get the curve because of all gray values and stuff, what I did is maybe not the nicest method but I changed the brightness/contrast etc and primitively added a line by hand... All steps can be seen in the picture below
http://i18.tinypic.com/4m0dyev
It is rotated and mirrored (which doesn't care for the function, this is even easier), I used bmpToAscii and that gave an input ascii/text file like
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
........x..
etc
I wrote a small vbscript, where the following in fact does the work
Do While open.AtEndOfStream <> True
tpix=tpix+1
line = open.ReadLine
xPos=Instr(line,"x")
ascii.WriteLine(Cstr(tpix)+","+Cstr(xPos))
Loop
and the result follows below:
good luck folks
------
1,8
2,8
3,8
4,8
5,8
6,8
7,8
8,8
9,8
10,8
11,8
12,8
13,8
14,8
15,8
16,8
17,8
18,8
19,8
20,8
21,8
22,8
23,8
24,8
25,8
26,8
27,8
28,8
29,8
30,8
31,8
32,8
33,8
34,8
35,8
36,8
37,8
38,8
39,8
40,8
41,8
42,8
43,8
44,8
45,8
46,8
47,8
48,8
49,8
50,8
51,8
52,8
53,8
54,8
55,8
56,8
57,8
58,8
59,8
60,8
61,8
62,8
63,8
64,8
65,8
66,8
67,8
68,8
69,8
70,8
71,8
72,8
73,8
74,8
75,8
76,8
77,9
78,9
79,9
80,9
81,9
82,9
83,9
84,9
85,9
86,9
87,9
88,9
89,9
90,9
91,9
92,10
93,10
94,10
95,10
96,10
97,10
98,10
99,11
100,11
101,11
102,11
103,12
104,12
105,13
106,13
107,14
108,14
109,15
110,15
111,16
112,17
113,17
114,18
115,19
116,19
117,20
118,21
119,22
120,22
121,23
122,24
123,25
124,26
125,27
126,28
127,29
128,30
129,31
130,32
131,33
132,35
133,36
134,38
135,39
136,40
137,42
138,43
139,44
140,46
141,47
142,49
143,51
144,53
145,54
146,56
147,58
148,59
149,61
150,63
151,64
152,66
153,67
154,69
155,72
156,74
157,76
158,78
159,80
160,82
161,84
162,87
163,89
164,91
165,93
166,95
167,98
168,100
169,102
170,104
171,106
172,108
173,111
174,113
175,116
176,118
177,121
178,123
179,126
180,128
181,131
182,133
183,136
184,138
185,141
186,143
187,146
188,149
189,151
190,154
191,156
192,159
193,161
Why not just dissect the videos, and snap each Bitmap to a grid, that would give you better information because you could compare known tilt angles with given reference points, that would take into account camera shaking?
I started to do that with an art program I had but it was very time consuming, although highly accurate.
I used again virtualdub, used the motion blur filter, extracted 1xN bitmaps, combined them. Now it is really a problem to get the curve because of all gray values and stuff, what I did is maybe not the nicest method but I changed the brightness/contrast etc and primitively added a line by hand... All steps can be seen in the picture below
http://i18.tinypic.com/4m0dyev
It is rotated and mirrored (which doesn't care for the function, this is even easier), I used bmpToAscii and that gave an input ascii/text file like
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
.......x...
........x..
etc
I wrote a small vbscript, where the following in fact does the work
Do While open.AtEndOfStream <> True
tpix=tpix+1
line = open.ReadLine
xPos=Instr(line,"x")
ascii.WriteLine(Cstr(tpix)+","+Cstr(xPos))
Loop
and the result follows below:
good luck folks
------
1,8
2,8
3,8
4,8
5,8
6,8
7,8
8,8
9,8
10,8
11,8
12,8
13,8
14,8
15,8
16,8
17,8
18,8
19,8
20,8
21,8
22,8
23,8
24,8
25,8
26,8
27,8
28,8
29,8
30,8
31,8
32,8
33,8
34,8
35,8
36,8
37,8
38,8
39,8
40,8
41,8
42,8
43,8
44,8
45,8
46,8
47,8
48,8
49,8
50,8
51,8
52,8
53,8
54,8
55,8
56,8
57,8
58,8
59,8
60,8
61,8
62,8
63,8
64,8
65,8
66,8
67,8
68,8
69,8
70,8
71,8
72,8
73,8
74,8
75,8
76,8
77,9
78,9
79,9
80,9
81,9
82,9
83,9
84,9
85,9
86,9
87,9
88,9
89,9
90,9
91,9
92,10
93,10
94,10
95,10
96,10
97,10
98,10
99,11
100,11
101,11
102,11
103,12
104,12
105,13
106,13
107,14
108,14
109,15
110,15
111,16
112,17
113,17
114,18
115,19
116,19
117,20
118,21
119,22
120,22
121,23
122,24
123,25
124,26
125,27
126,28
127,29
128,30
129,31
130,32
131,33
132,35
133,36
134,38
135,39
136,40
137,42
138,43
139,44
140,46
141,47
142,49
143,51
144,53
145,54
146,56
147,58
148,59
149,61
150,63
151,64
152,66
153,67
154,69
155,72
156,74
157,76
158,78
159,80
160,82
161,84
162,87
163,89
164,91
165,93
166,95
167,98
168,100
169,102
170,104
171,106
172,108
173,111
174,113
175,116
176,118
177,121
178,123
179,126
180,128
181,131
182,133
183,136
184,138
185,141
186,143
187,146
188,149
189,151
190,154
191,156
192,159
193,161
Why not just dissect the videos, and snap each Bitmap to a grid, that would give you better information because you could compare known tilt angles with given reference points, that would take into account camera shaking?
I started to do that with an art program I had but it was very time consuming, although highly accurate.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 28 2007, 04:50 AM)
I don't know if you are a liar or your memory sucks.
But you DID support the Mini-Nuke idea,
I supported the Mini-Nuke hypothesis, as well as pointed out problems with it. Your failure to mention this last is yet another (of an unending stream) which shows how you habitually twist and distort.
This is a physics board. On a physics board, you should know the difference between a hypothesis and a fact. From dictionary.reference.com:
hypothesis:
1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3. the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4. a mere assumption or guess.
fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
Not only did I refer to the micro-nuke hypothesis, I also spoke to the rather obvious potential counter-argument - which is that radioactivity (AFAIK) should be easily detectable. The post you quote is from Jan 6, 2006. However, on Nov 21, 2005, I posted ( http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...indpost&p=36275 )
QUOTE
Speaking of micro-nukes (vs. conventional explosives)
One thing that always bothered me about the demolition-via-explosives hypothesis is that I never heard of any reports of explosive residues. How is that possible? Does anybody have info on this?
Even a "little" bit of radioactivity should have been observable. However, if you read the Vialls micro-nuke article noted above, you can see how this is not necessarily the case wrt radioactivity detected by conventional geiger counters. (So says Vialls, anyway.)
(emphasis mine)
On January 4, I posted:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Speaking of micro-nukes (vs. conventional explosives) One thing that always bothered me about the demolition-via-explosives hypothesis is that I never heard of any reports of explosive residues. How is that possible? Does anybody have info on this? Even a "little" bit of radioactivity should have been observable. However, if you read the Vialls micro-nuke article noted above, you can see how this is not necessarily the case wrt radioactivity detected by conventional geiger counters. (So says Vialls, anyway.) |
(emphasis mine)
On January 4, I posted:
I note that I still have not abadoned my micro-nuke hypothesis (for the core), though I certainly can't prove it.
I later reported that Professor Jones, a nuclear physicist, has ruled out the nuclear hypothesis (giving the link), and at another post, merely noted this:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?act=ST&...ndpost&p=110049
QUOTE
Also, note that while tritium was found at GZ, Professor Jones has ruled out fusion mini-nukes via a quantitative argument. Gee whiz, a scientist making a quantitative argument - how shocking is that?
Finally, just to show how you recycle your lies and distortions:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...335&#entry82174
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Also, note that while tritium was found at GZ, Professor Jones has ruled out fusion mini-nukes via a quantitative argument. Gee whiz, a scientist making a quantitative argument - how shocking is that? |
Finally, just to show how you recycle your lies and distortions:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...335&#entry82174
QUOTE
You're one sorry SOB to talk, you still think there were mini-nukes involved.
Since use of any nuclear device would mean Everybody and his Brother would have to be IN ON IT in order to cover up the radiation related injuries and fallout.
*****
Arthur
You're lying. I still think that mini-nukes, as a hypothesis, should not be dismissed out of hand, unless it can be shown absolutely that they are impossible. And yes, if each and every mini-nuke in the world had to create radiation, even in tiny amounts, they would be easily detectable, and thus we could be sure that no mini-nukes were used.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
You're one sorry SOB to talk, you still think there were mini-nukes involved. Since use of any nuclear device would mean Everybody and his Brother would have to be IN ON IT in order to cover up the radiation related injuries and fallout. ***** Arthur |
You're lying. I still think that mini-nukes, as a hypothesis, should not be dismissed out of hand, unless it can be shown absolutely that they are impossible. And yes, if each and every mini-nuke in the world had to create radiation, even in tiny amounts, they would be easily detectable, and thus we could be sure that no mini-nukes were used.
and the vaporization of the steel in the towers
Within the framework of the nuclear hypothesis, vaporization of some of the steel would be expected.
QUOTE
and Hoffman's idiotic Pyroclastic flow.
To this day, there has been no serious study of the "pyroclastic" flow, hydrodynamics and all. The term "pyroclastic" is inappropriate, and even when Hoffman first proposed his theory, he noted (IIRC) the contradictory problem of lack of 'cooking' at ground level.
You never showed, in a quantitative fashion, how expansion could not be followed by cooling away from the presumed source, in a plausible manner. I did (though I never posted the calculation), which is why I no longer believe the term "pyroclastic" is justified.
This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time that I've stated I don't believe this, anymore. But I don't recall you recanting your 'multiple symmetric collapse modes' for WTC7 flying pig.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
and Hoffman's idiotic Pyroclastic flow. |
To this day, there has been no serious study of the "pyroclastic" flow, hydrodynamics and all. The term "pyroclastic" is inappropriate, and even when Hoffman first proposed his theory, he noted (IIRC) the contradictory problem of lack of 'cooking' at ground level.
You never showed, in a quantitative fashion, how expansion could not be followed by cooling away from the presumed source, in a plausible manner. I did (though I never posted the calculation), which is why I no longer believe the term "pyroclastic" is justified.
This is maybe the 3rd or 4th time that I've stated I don't believe this, anymore. But I don't recall you recanting your 'multiple symmetric collapse modes' for WTC7 flying pig.
The fact is you have spent YEARS defending silly ideas, one after the other TRYING to find SOMETHING that will support your CONCLUSION that the towers were brought down by ANYTHING other than the planes.
Real Science doesn't work like that and your pathetic attempts to ACT as if you understood the scientific method are an insult to the actual scientists at NIST whose YEARS of hard work you dismiss so lightly.
Arthur
Actually, I think more of my posts were about attacking the silly and doubtful notions of the OCT's, than defending any particular theory. Also, as I have stated more times than I care to remember, I want to see a real, comprehensive study. That would mean an independent, international group of scientists and engineers, with full access to whatever hard evidence remains.
In any event, your characterization of me is lie, as well as your statement that I have dismissed the work of NIST lightly. (I have dismissed the Bazant Zhou paper, but that is another matter, and did not do so "lightly".)
The only aspect of NIST's work that I have dismissed ("lightly", if you will) is their claim of no evidence for CD. If NIST told me that pigs fly, I wouldn't believe that, either.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 28 2007, 03:46 PM)
17.8 it's clear that the steel is "vaporizing", i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete)
Well, Einstein, what do you make of the fact that I put quotation marks around the word "vaporizing", and then immediately followed that by "i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete)"
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the quotes and the second phrase (BTW, i.e. means "that is to say"), is meant to explain how the word "vaporizing" is to be interpreted?
Do tell.
Well, Einstein, what do you make of the fact that I put quotation marks around the word "vaporizing", and then immediately followed that by "i.e, the steel beam is becoming "particularized" (I imagine into a fine powder, just like the concrete)"
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the quotes and the second phrase (BTW, i.e. means "that is to say"), is meant to explain how the word "vaporizing" is to be interpreted?
Do tell.
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 29 2007, 10:43 AM)
I supported the Mini-Nuke hypothesis,
blah, blah, blah
I still think that mini-nukes, as a hypothesis, should not be dismissed out of hand, unless it can be shown absolutely that they are impossible. And yes, if each and every mini-nuke in the world had to create radiation, even in tiny amounts, they would be easily detectable, and thus we could be sure that no mini-nukes were used.
blah, blah, blah
Within the framework of the nuclear hypothesis, vaporization of some of the steel would be expected.
blah, blah, blah
To this day, there has been no serious study of the "pyroclastic" flow, hydrodynamics and all. The term "pyroclastic" is inappropriate, and even when Hoffman first proposed his theory, he noted (IIRC) the contradictory problem of lack of 'cooking' at ground level.
You never showed, in a quantitative fashion, how expansion could not be followed by cooling away from the presumed source, in a plausible manner. I did (though I never posted the calculation), which is why I no longer believe the term "pyroclastic" is justified.
blah, blah, blah
Actually, I think more of my posts were about attacking the silly and doubtful notions of the OCT's, than defending any particular theory. Also, as I have stated more times than I care to remember, I want to see a real, comprehensive study. That would mean an independent, international group of scientists and engineers, with full access to whatever hard evidence remains.
In any event, your characterization of me is lie, as well as your statement that I have dismissed the work of NIST lightly. (I have dismissed the Bazant Zhou paper, but that is another matter, and did not do so "lightly".)
The only aspect of NIST's work that I have dismissed ("lightly", if you will) is their claim of no evidence for CD. If NIST told me that pigs fly, I wouldn't believe that, either.
Once AGAIN you miss the point.
TWO YEARS AGO you stated that it was A FACT that 9/11 was "an inside job" because a collapse "due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible"
No, not really.
Calling that "thought" is like dropping a cat on a piano and calling it "composing".
OK, for all the CDiots still working the Big Conspiracy angle, here's your last chance to have ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER.
SPEAK UP!!!
Do you think newton's got something here, or not?
Clearly, newton doesn't have a grasp of what reality is, so now I'm waiting to see if he still has the support of his fellow CDiots or not.
If they agree with newton, that just shows me that none of them have the first clue how anything works.
Either that, or so long as someone agrees that it was an "inside job", they'll back him up, even if he says it was carried-out by invisible leprechauns.
So, which is it? Are you backing newton's harebrained conjecture, or not?
blah, blah, blah
I still think that mini-nukes, as a hypothesis, should not be dismissed out of hand, unless it can be shown absolutely that they are impossible. And yes, if each and every mini-nuke in the world had to create radiation, even in tiny amounts, they would be easily detectable, and thus we could be sure that no mini-nukes were used.
blah, blah, blah
Within the framework of the nuclear hypothesis, vaporization of some of the steel would be expected.
blah, blah, blah
To this day, there has been no serious study of the "pyroclastic" flow, hydrodynamics and all. The term "pyroclastic" is inappropriate, and even when Hoffman first proposed his theory, he noted (IIRC) the contradictory problem of lack of 'cooking' at ground level.
You never showed, in a quantitative fashion, how expansion could not be followed by cooling away from the presumed source, in a plausible manner. I did (though I never posted the calculation), which is why I no longer believe the term "pyroclastic" is justified.
blah, blah, blah
Actually, I think more of my posts were about attacking the silly and doubtful notions of the OCT's, than defending any particular theory. Also, as I have stated more times than I care to remember, I want to see a real, comprehensive study. That would mean an independent, international group of scientists and engineers, with full access to whatever hard evidence remains.
In any event, your characterization of me is lie, as well as your statement that I have dismissed the work of NIST lightly. (I have dismissed the Bazant Zhou paper, but that is another matter, and did not do so "lightly".)
The only aspect of NIST's work that I have dismissed ("lightly", if you will) is their claim of no evidence for CD. If NIST told me that pigs fly, I wouldn't believe that, either.
Once AGAIN you miss the point.
TWO YEARS AGO you stated that it was A FACT that 9/11 was "an inside job" because a collapse "due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible"
QUOTE (Metamars+)
To anybody even roughly familiar with the physics involved, the collapse of WTC 1 or 2 due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible. That tells you immediately that it was an inside job, since whether you use explosives, a maser, or some other type of exotic weapon, you need an absolutely ENORMOUS source of energy, which OBL could not have supplied. Thus, we have known enough for quite a while to deduce that this was an inside job.
From your posts circa THAT time, you hypothesized all SORTS of additional energy sources, from MINI-NUKES to MASERS to EXPLOSIVES.
You went on and on about Pyroclastic flows, and vaporized spires.
But NONE of these wacky ideas panned out,
Nor, in two years have you been able to substantiate your ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC CLAIM that your conclusion was based on, that the collapse was "energetically impossible".
YET, you STICK to your ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.
So, what is it Metamars?
Are you claiming you came to the RIGHT CONCLUSION, EVEN though ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU USED TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE?
Even though you have NOT been able to substantiate the PREMISE your HYPOTHESIS was based on?
The fact is its only that you find the original conclusion APPEALING that you continue on your Quixotic QUEST to try to find evidence to support it.
Not that there is ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that makes it at all plausible.
With this mindset, a SCIENTIST, you will NEVER be.
Arthur
From your posts circa THAT time, you hypothesized all SORTS of additional energy sources, from MINI-NUKES to MASERS to EXPLOSIVES.
You went on and on about Pyroclastic flows, and vaporized spires.
But NONE of these wacky ideas panned out,
Nor, in two years have you been able to substantiate your ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC CLAIM that your conclusion was based on, that the collapse was "energetically impossible".
YET, you STICK to your ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.
So, what is it Metamars?
Are you claiming you came to the RIGHT CONCLUSION, EVEN though ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU USED TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE?
Even though you have NOT been able to substantiate the PREMISE your HYPOTHESIS was based on?
The fact is its only that you find the original conclusion APPEALING that you continue on your Quixotic QUEST to try to find evidence to support it.
Not that there is ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that makes it at all plausible.
With this mindset, a SCIENTIST, you will NEVER be.
Arthur
i watched most of "911, the explosive reality". easily the best 911 movie yet. admissible in court, i'd say. nearly 100% live mainstream coverage.
"transformers exploding"......no. clearly thermate or rdx flashes going off at demolition initiation. cleary some bombs went off before they were supposed to go off.
"crush up/crush down"...in your dreams
more like "blow up/fall down"
what's mind-bogging is the army of complicit corporate zombies who tow the party line(not you guise, er, guys, you're all high wizards of the inner rings, obviously), merely reading from a script.
one particularly interesting quote, is a talking head talking about the cloud, and how the dust consisted of tiny flecks of steel, marble, concrete, and all the hardest substances in the tower that were somehow 'vapourised', yet paper was left untouched. sounds like an nukey effect. perhaps the energy flux(of the mystery high-tech nuke weapon) was such that only dense materials could absorb the BRIEF flash of extreme heat.
the first tower to fall seems to have a LOT of steel with vapour trails pouring off. not 'entrained dust', when the steel is NOT MOVING. i'm speaking particularily of the core that remains briefly after the first collapse. there is no reason for white smoke to be pouring off those steel beams, yet, clearly it is.
as i watched the towers 'fall' over and over, i also noticed that the true PROOF is evident in nearly every video of the first collapse. it's all about the rate of descent. inside vs. outside.
also evident; "where are the bodies"? "too many doctors, not enough victims", so most the doctors went home without ever seeing a victim. victim's were either, not too severely injured, or plain missing.
if all the rubber, and GLASS can be burned off a car in a flash, how would a human fare? instant vapour, perhaps? rescue workers keep repeating, 'no bodies'.
maybe it was TWO NUKES! a fission device for the building, and a tight radius neutron device for just the people.
i don't have to know what it was to know what it wasn't. fire does not instantly vapourize steel, concrete and marble, nor does 12 seconds of smashing.
"transformers exploding"......no. clearly thermate or rdx flashes going off at demolition initiation. cleary some bombs went off before they were supposed to go off.
"crush up/crush down"...in your dreams
more like "blow up/fall down"
what's mind-bogging is the army of complicit corporate zombies who tow the party line(not you guise, er, guys, you're all high wizards of the inner rings, obviously), merely reading from a script.
one particularly interesting quote, is a talking head talking about the cloud, and how the dust consisted of tiny flecks of steel, marble, concrete, and all the hardest substances in the tower that were somehow 'vapourised', yet paper was left untouched. sounds like an nukey effect. perhaps the energy flux(of the mystery high-tech nuke weapon) was such that only dense materials could absorb the BRIEF flash of extreme heat.
the first tower to fall seems to have a LOT of steel with vapour trails pouring off. not 'entrained dust', when the steel is NOT MOVING. i'm speaking particularily of the core that remains briefly after the first collapse. there is no reason for white smoke to be pouring off those steel beams, yet, clearly it is.
as i watched the towers 'fall' over and over, i also noticed that the true PROOF is evident in nearly every video of the first collapse. it's all about the rate of descent. inside vs. outside.
also evident; "where are the bodies"? "too many doctors, not enough victims", so most the doctors went home without ever seeing a victim. victim's were either, not too severely injured, or plain missing.
if all the rubber, and GLASS can be burned off a car in a flash, how would a human fare? instant vapour, perhaps? rescue workers keep repeating, 'no bodies'.
maybe it was TWO NUKES! a fission device for the building, and a tight radius neutron device for just the people.
i don't have to know what it was to know what it wasn't. fire does not instantly vapourize steel, concrete and marble, nor does 12 seconds of smashing.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 29 2007, 12:39 PM)
maybe it was TWO NUKES! a fission device for the building, and a tight radius neutron device for just the people.
And with that, any semblence of being in touch with reality, is gone.
Arthur
And with that, any semblence of being in touch with reality, is gone.
Arthur
maybe i should put [wild speculation]TWO NUKES![/wild speculation] tags for you arthurs. you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
i actually though of something better immediately after my last post. the paper didn't burn because it was still falling. the hot blast at street level from the large bomb, conventional or otherwise, cannot burn paper that is still floating to the ground.
once again, [literal]i don't have to know what it was to know what it wasn't[/literal].
i actually though of something better immediately after my last post. the paper didn't burn because it was still falling. the hot blast at street level from the large bomb, conventional or otherwise, cannot burn paper that is still floating to the ground.
once again, [literal]i don't have to know what it was to know what it wasn't[/literal].
QUOTE
i actually thought of something
No, not really.
Calling that "thought" is like dropping a cat on a piano and calling it "composing".
HAHAHA!
sore losers.
sore losers.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 29 2007, 09:39 AM)
... clearly thermate or rdx flashes going off at demolition initiation. ...
Clearly.
Despite the lack of evidence of thermate or explosive residues or effects on steel members.
Despite the FBI and BATF looking.
Clearly you are completely wrong and fail to comprehend the physics involved.
Clearly.
Clearly.
Despite the lack of evidence of thermate or explosive residues or effects on steel members.
Despite the FBI and BATF looking.
Clearly you are completely wrong and fail to comprehend the physics involved.
Clearly.
QUOTE
the large bomb, conventional or otherwise, cannot burn paper that is still floating to the ground
OK, for all the CDiots still working the Big Conspiracy angle, here's your last chance to have ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER.
SPEAK UP!!!
Do you think newton's got something here, or not?
Clearly, newton doesn't have a grasp of what reality is, so now I'm waiting to see if he still has the support of his fellow CDiots or not.
If they agree with newton, that just shows me that none of them have the first clue how anything works.
Either that, or so long as someone agrees that it was an "inside job", they'll back him up, even if he says it was carried-out by invisible leprechauns.
So, which is it? Are you backing newton's harebrained conjecture, or not?
QUOTE (newton+Jul 29 2007, 03:53 PM)
HAHAHA!
sore losers.
Hardly,
You act as if we have lost, but you are EXACTLY where you were 2 years ago.
Clueless.
Meanwhile many of the OCTers have taken the time to read and understand the NIST report as well as the many other SCIENTIFIC studies around the WTC collapse, such that the typical CDidiot only lasts for a few pages before being shown as an idiot and then quickly self destructing.
In fact the activity in the thread has significantly decreased, most of the original CTers are now gone, the hit rate is down, and, if the post is by a CTer, rarely of any SCIENTIFIC substance.
Like you, newton.
While you still post occasionally, but again, your posts are nothing more substantial than:
Agreed, I feel the same way, especially when the people doing the camera-work often show how clueless they are, with something significant happening in one part of the shot, and they'll pan away from it right when you'd really like to see what happens next. Video-ADD. Everybody's become accustomed to the 3-second rule, which was something that advertisers figured out a long time ago, that the average viewer watching a commercial tunes-out after three seconds, so you'll notice that all commercials are shot like the shower scene from "Psycho". It's a pet-peeve of mine. Compare that to Kubrik's classics, or the great movies of the '40s, where they just held the camera steady and let the actors carry the scene. Dialog suffers, too, as any lines that take more than a few seconds to say get cut down, so actors end up reciting a few choice phrases and then it's off to the next scene. It's a vicious cycle, too, since most movies are made that way, the audience doesn't have the attention-span they used to have, so even if you've got a great script with great dialog, it can't get made that way or the audience *will* tune out and get bored because they aren't used to listening.
Grrr.
I wouldn't worry too much about synchronizing the videos, we can sync the data later in post-processing, especially if the data shows significant features (like, including the collapse event itself).
I want to add my thanks to everyone else's here, I really appreciate you taking the time and expending the effort.
A technique such as the one I described above can deliver a measure of change over time even though motion is only fractional pixel distance. If this was originally shot on (e.g.) miniDV, analyzing a lossless copy of the original would give a much better result.
Kathryn Butler and others used a similar type of sub-pixel approach to measure the sway of WTC2 just after the aircraft impact. They relied on the Moire effect in the video. They had the advantage that many vertical lines of the perimeter columns were available to generate a pattern over a large area. The single antenna mast is not as good but still gives a way of measuring very small displacements.
Once AGAIN you miss the point.
TWO YEARS AGO you stated that it was A FACT that 9/11 was "an inside job" because a collapse "due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible"
sore losers.
Hardly,
You act as if we have lost, but you are EXACTLY where you were 2 years ago.
Clueless.
Meanwhile many of the OCTers have taken the time to read and understand the NIST report as well as the many other SCIENTIFIC studies around the WTC collapse, such that the typical CDidiot only lasts for a few pages before being shown as an idiot and then quickly self destructing.
In fact the activity in the thread has significantly decreased, most of the original CTers are now gone, the hit rate is down, and, if the post is by a CTer, rarely of any SCIENTIFIC substance.
Like you, newton.
While you still post occasionally, but again, your posts are nothing more substantial than:
QUOTE (newton+)
i don't have to know what it was to know what it wasn't
Arthur
Arthur
I was gone the whole day, but wanted to fit a curve, soon I will be really really busy. I used the real-time information, which means the same ascii file as before but then with
t=tpix/29.97
x=17*3.8*xPos/245
here the 3.8 is the h, remember the old pic with the values
I've tried maples least squares, removed a couple of points in the beginning and stepwise removed points at the end until the curve fitted better, I'm no curve fitting expert of course and hope the data can be used by N-F, DBB
Original pic: http://i16.tinypic.com/52ybjg5.png
The starting points is really a problem I admit, but the double derivative gives
about 6 m/s^2, maybe I messed up the beginning points, the manual fitting gave 7 m/s^2 I remember, the problem of course is that here also a curve has been plotted manually because in general we have a gray zone, random fluctuations in video etc.
t=tpix/29.97
x=17*3.8*xPos/245
here the 3.8 is the h, remember the old pic with the values
I've tried maples least squares, removed a couple of points in the beginning and stepwise removed points at the end until the curve fitted better, I'm no curve fitting expert of course and hope the data can be used by N-F, DBB
Original pic: http://i16.tinypic.com/52ybjg5.png
The starting points is really a problem I admit, but the double derivative gives
about 6 m/s^2, maybe I messed up the beginning points, the manual fitting gave 7 m/s^2 I remember, the problem of course is that here also a curve has been plotted manually because in general we have a gray zone, random fluctuations in video etc.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 29 2007, 02:39 PM)
... hope the data can be used by N-F, DBB ...
Certainly can and will (in a bit).
I greatly appreciate your efforts!
Certainly can and will (in a bit).
I greatly appreciate your efforts!
You really can't expect it to fit a perfect curve of one equation or another, there are at least a couple of different things happening at different parts of the timeline.
First, the flat part of the timeline is where the structure is undergoing plastic stress due to fires/damage/overstressed structural members. That part might be logarithmic or ???. Then, there's the part where the perimeter wall columns are stating to buckle, that's probably going to have a geometric aspect from the buckling angle's increasingly disadvantaged geometery. Then there's the collapse part itself, which is probably some parabola, from the acceleration of gravity minus energy per floor it takes to break the structure, as in DBB's model.
First, the flat part of the timeline is where the structure is undergoing plastic stress due to fires/damage/overstressed structural members. That part might be logarithmic or ???. Then, there's the part where the perimeter wall columns are stating to buckle, that's probably going to have a geometric aspect from the buckling angle's increasingly disadvantaged geometery. Then there's the collapse part itself, which is probably some parabola, from the acceleration of gravity minus energy per floor it takes to break the structure, as in DBB's model.
have any of you people watched "911 explosive reality"?
have you not seen the multiple bright white flashes?
question part two: if you have seen them, do you immediately seek a "non-conspiracy" explanation for them?
part three: if you see them, and think there may have been something pre-planted, does it change your opinion in any way about the official story? is it all "just" a cover-up of incompetence, and not a cover-up of complicity/guilt?
many people will see these flashes in the future. pick your sides(again), folks.
have you not seen the multiple bright white flashes?
question part two: if you have seen them, do you immediately seek a "non-conspiracy" explanation for them?
part three: if you see them, and think there may have been something pre-planted, does it change your opinion in any way about the official story? is it all "just" a cover-up of incompetence, and not a cover-up of complicity/guilt?
many people will see these flashes in the future. pick your sides(again), folks.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 29 2007, 04:30 PM)
Then, there's the part where the perimeter wall columns are stating to buckle, that's probably going to have a geometric aspect from the buckling angle's increasingly disadvantaged geometery[sic].
Then there's the collapse part itself, which is probably some parabola, from the acceleration of gravity minus energy per floor it takes to break the structure, as in DBB's model.
"starting to buckle"? Do you mean the so-called bowing-in over 20 minutes or so?
The collapse itself is correctly modeled by either Greening's discrete formulation or the Bazant & Verdure crush-down differential equation. The solution to the latter has a power series expansion
sum(all n >1) a_n*t^n
where the coefficient a_2 dominates. The curve is close to a parabola without being one.
My only contribution has been (1) a slight refinement of Greening's formulation, using the equations in his "Energy Transfer" paper and (2) suitable computer programs for finding energy consumptions based on NEU-FONZE's data. So I am quite pleased that einsteen and OneWhiteEye have discovered, and applied, such interesting methods of obtaining lots of data. With this I shall be able to be much more precise about the first few seconds of the collapse of WTC 1.
Then there's the collapse part itself, which is probably some parabola, from the acceleration of gravity minus energy per floor it takes to break the structure, as in DBB's model.
"starting to buckle"? Do you mean the so-called bowing-in over 20 minutes or so?
The collapse itself is correctly modeled by either Greening's discrete formulation or the Bazant & Verdure crush-down differential equation. The solution to the latter has a power series expansion
sum(all n >1) a_n*t^n
where the coefficient a_2 dominates. The curve is close to a parabola without being one.
My only contribution has been (1) a slight refinement of Greening's formulation, using the equations in his "Energy Transfer" paper and (2) suitable computer programs for finding energy consumptions based on NEU-FONZE's data. So I am quite pleased that einsteen and OneWhiteEye have discovered, and applied, such interesting methods of obtaining lots of data. With this I shall be able to be much more precise about the first few seconds of the collapse of WTC 1.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 29 2007, 05:03 PM)
have any of you people watched "911 explosive reality"?
have you not seen the multiple bright white flashes?
(1) I have no way to view videos.
(2) Are you certain these were not dubbed in? From what authenticated source was this video footage obtained? Did you check that authentic, unaugmented video?
I go by the accounts of witnesses, as posted on Firehouse.com. Nobody seems to have seen 'multiple bright white flashes'. The accounts there are clearly of transformer explosions, by the distinctive triple bang and color sequence.
have you not seen the multiple bright white flashes?
(1) I have no way to view videos.
(2) Are you certain these were not dubbed in? From what authenticated source was this video footage obtained? Did you check that authentic, unaugmented video?
I go by the accounts of witnesses, as posted on Firehouse.com. Nobody seems to have seen 'multiple bright white flashes'. The accounts there are clearly of transformer explosions, by the distinctive triple bang and color sequence.
DBB:
I also hope more ways to generate reliable WTC collapse data, (in the form of displacement-time curves extracted from video images), can be developed.
As Einsteen has already mentioned, the selection of "t zero" is still a problem. However, I believe this can be overcome by plotting tilt angle vs. drop data extrapolated back to zero drop. This "backwards" extrapolation can be done independently of time. This is how I concluded the tilt of WTC 1 at "t zero" was about 1 degree and the tilt of WTC 2 at "t zero" was about 3 degrees.
I also hope more ways to generate reliable WTC collapse data, (in the form of displacement-time curves extracted from video images), can be developed.
As Einsteen has already mentioned, the selection of "t zero" is still a problem. However, I believe this can be overcome by plotting tilt angle vs. drop data extrapolated back to zero drop. This "backwards" extrapolation can be done independently of time. This is how I concluded the tilt of WTC 1 at "t zero" was about 1 degree and the tilt of WTC 2 at "t zero" was about 3 degrees.
QUOTE (newton+Jul 29 2007, 08:03 PM)
have any of you people watched "911 explosive reality"?
have you not seen the multiple bright white flashes?
No, nor do I intend to.
Because I have seen many videos of both towers collapsing, and they were from different sides and from different angles, and none of them show multiple white flashes.
You can't claim there was something there that the OTHER videos, shown PRE-CT days, didn't show.
At least not so as to claim that what the OTHER videos DIDN'T show was still somehow SIGNIFICANT.
Arthur
have you not seen the multiple bright white flashes?
No, nor do I intend to.
Because I have seen many videos of both towers collapsing, and they were from different sides and from different angles, and none of them show multiple white flashes.
You can't claim there was something there that the OTHER videos, shown PRE-CT days, didn't show.
At least not so as to claim that what the OTHER videos DIDN'T show was still somehow SIGNIFICANT.
Arthur
Einsteen, NEU-FONZE, David B. Benson:
Are there links to specific videos for which you want time-displacement curves? Even if the online quality is not as good as something in your possession, I'd like to have a look at the general scenarios.
Thanks.
Are there links to specific videos for which you want time-displacement curves? Even if the online quality is not as good as something in your possession, I'd like to have a look at the general scenarios.
Thanks.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 29 2007, 05:46 PM)
As Einsteen has already mentioned, the selection of "t zero" is still a problem.
With enough data, I can use a multi-parameter function estimation technique to minimize the error, probably using rms error as that is statistically robust.
I am currently considering using three parameters:
(1) R, the resistive force (taken as constant over the interval),
(2) lambda, the stretch (taken as constant over the interval),
(3) the zero time, t_0.
I believe this should work well, but it'll be two or three weeks to rewrite my programs for this.
With enough data, I can use a multi-parameter function estimation technique to minimize the error, probably using rms error as that is statistically robust.
I am currently considering using three parameters:
(1) R, the resistive force (taken as constant over the interval),
(2) lambda, the stretch (taken as constant over the interval),
(3) the zero time, t_0.
I believe this should work well, but it'll be two or three weeks to rewrite my programs for this.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jul 29 2007, 06:32 PM)
Einsteen, NEU-FONZE, David B. Benson:
Are there links to specific videos for which you want time-displacement curves? Even if the online quality is not as good as something in your possession, I'd like to have a look at the general scenarios.
Thanks.
What a wonderful offer!
Others will have to say which videos are the most important. For me, I'd first like as many of WTC 1, and as long as possible, as you have patience to produce. Well, three ought to do it.
Years of various forms of statistical estimation has caused me to prefer lots of data, preferably from several instruments of differing design so I get remove the systematic errors. Here the differing designs are the different perspectives.
Are there links to specific videos for which you want time-displacement curves? Even if the online quality is not as good as something in your possession, I'd like to have a look at the general scenarios.
Thanks.
What a wonderful offer!
Others will have to say which videos are the most important. For me, I'd first like as many of WTC 1, and as long as possible, as you have patience to produce. Well, three ought to do it.
Years of various forms of statistical estimation has caused me to prefer lots of data, preferably from several instruments of differing design so I get remove the systematic errors. Here the differing designs are the different perspectives.
David B. Benson:
OK. I'm not going to be able to do much on this for several weeks except think about it, unfortunately. I should be packing right now but the subject draws me in.
If I understand it, your method will allow you to obtain fairly precise results from large amounts of 'sloppy' data. The difficulty, of course, is in the tedium of extracting that data.
The process einsteen used to generate the bitmaps can be optimized and extended to pull many designated slices out (obviously horizontal as well as vertical), resulting in a number of images from each video, cropped and filtered if desired. I'd like to say that multiple slices of a given physical line (roofline or antenna marking) could be averaged into a single image prior to numeric extraction, but it may be best to extract separately and allow your program to merge the data. I realize that introduces a multiplicity of factors - which video, which physical feature of interest, which slice of that feature, hopefully that's OK.
I'd sketched out a method for extracting position values on the first image when I digitized manually in order to walk through the process and provide an independent means of verifying the accuracy of the automated method. I discovered there were ambiguities (even in that very decent image) which would confound the detection algorithm as well as artifacts that would require separate corrective processes. My eyes didn't really have that problem.
All in all, after digitizing manually, I can't see much reason to get fancy and perform region boundary detection and then calculate geometric color mean for a tracked point, etc. That's precisely what eyes are good at. It would be an interesting exercise but I doubt the results would be as good as doing it visually. Contamination of the image from smoke is the biggest problem for automated detection. It changes the rules so frequently across the image that it must be processed piecewise or masked, which is still manual intervention and requires even more parameterization of code. The time to prepare and debug such an effort given the variety and quality of available videos may exceed that required to just churn out significant numbers of curves visually once images been batch dumped from video.
As far as correction for viewing angle and camera-induced aberrations, calibration of the length scale, X-Y extractions, differential accelerations across surfaces... later.
At least the first three 1-D curves can be done manually. It seems an essential learning experience for automation, anyway. There are many way to skin this cat and, by a process analogous to simulated annealing, I hope to home in on at least one optimized approach.
OK. I'm not going to be able to do much on this for several weeks except think about it, unfortunately. I should be packing right now but the subject draws me in.
If I understand it, your method will allow you to obtain fairly precise results from large amounts of 'sloppy' data. The difficulty, of course, is in the tedium of extracting that data.
The process einsteen used to generate the bitmaps can be optimized and extended to pull many designated slices out (obviously horizontal as well as vertical), resulting in a number of images from each video, cropped and filtered if desired. I'd like to say that multiple slices of a given physical line (roofline or antenna marking) could be averaged into a single image prior to numeric extraction, but it may be best to extract separately and allow your program to merge the data. I realize that introduces a multiplicity of factors - which video, which physical feature of interest, which slice of that feature, hopefully that's OK.
I'd sketched out a method for extracting position values on the first image when I digitized manually in order to walk through the process and provide an independent means of verifying the accuracy of the automated method. I discovered there were ambiguities (even in that very decent image) which would confound the detection algorithm as well as artifacts that would require separate corrective processes. My eyes didn't really have that problem.
All in all, after digitizing manually, I can't see much reason to get fancy and perform region boundary detection and then calculate geometric color mean for a tracked point, etc. That's precisely what eyes are good at. It would be an interesting exercise but I doubt the results would be as good as doing it visually. Contamination of the image from smoke is the biggest problem for automated detection. It changes the rules so frequently across the image that it must be processed piecewise or masked, which is still manual intervention and requires even more parameterization of code. The time to prepare and debug such an effort given the variety and quality of available videos may exceed that required to just churn out significant numbers of curves visually once images been batch dumped from video.
As far as correction for viewing angle and camera-induced aberrations, calibration of the length scale, X-Y extractions, differential accelerations across surfaces... later.
At least the first three 1-D curves can be done manually. It seems an essential learning experience for automation, anyway. There are many way to skin this cat and, by a process analogous to simulated annealing, I hope to home in on at least one optimized approach.
I'm sorry. It isn't like simulated annealing, it is like drunken walk.
If I may make a suggestion, the way I'd approach getting data from the video imagery, once the images have been digitized, is to import them into PowerPoint, visually overlay a line, manually, over a specific linear feature, like the roofline, then get the angle from the Properties of the line (right-click it).
I wouldn't suggest working with every frame, I'd just pick frames at intervals where it seemed that there was some significant movement from the prior sampled frame. In all, I'd want maybe 50 points. The key would be to make sure the line was angled as well as I could eye-ball it, and to keep track of the timestamp of the datapoints.
In this manner, you'd only be keeping track of interesting data, rather than documenting the same angle over and over hundreds of times until the thing started moving.
The other benefit to this approach is that if you find an interesting area (where something has changed unexpectedly) you can easily just drop back in and collect more points to see what was happening there.
I'd recommend starting out with a horizontal line and rotating it to match the roofline (or whatever), as this way the rotation angle will be displayed under the line's properties when you right-click it, so you don't have to do any trig to get the angles.
Just a suggestion (backseat driving).
I wouldn't suggest working with every frame, I'd just pick frames at intervals where it seemed that there was some significant movement from the prior sampled frame. In all, I'd want maybe 50 points. The key would be to make sure the line was angled as well as I could eye-ball it, and to keep track of the timestamp of the datapoints.
In this manner, you'd only be keeping track of interesting data, rather than documenting the same angle over and over hundreds of times until the thing started moving.
The other benefit to this approach is that if you find an interesting area (where something has changed unexpectedly) you can easily just drop back in and collect more points to see what was happening there.
I'd recommend starting out with a horizontal line and rotating it to match the roofline (or whatever), as this way the rotation angle will be displayed under the line's properties when you right-click it, so you don't have to do any trig to get the angles.
Just a suggestion (backseat driving).
QUOTE (wcelliott+Jul 30 2007, 03:16 AM)
If I may make a suggestion, the way I'd approach getting data from the video imagery, once the images have been digitized, is to import them into PowerPoint, visually overlay a line, manually, over a specific linear feature, like the roofline, then get the angle from the Properties of the line (right-click it).
I wouldn't suggest working with every frame, I'd just pick frames at intervals where it seemed that there was some significant movement from the prior sampled frame. In all, I'd want maybe 50 points. The key would be to make sure the line was angled as well as I could eye-ball it, and to keep track of the timestamp of the datapoints.
In this manner, you'd only be keeping track of interesting data, rather than documenting the same angle over and over hundreds of times until the thing started moving.
The other benefit to this approach is that if you find an interesting area (where something has changed unexpectedly) you can easily just drop back in and collect more points to see what was happening there.
I'd recommend starting out with a horizontal line and rotating it to match the roofline (or whatever), as this way the rotation angle will be displayed under the line's properties when you right-click it, so you don't have to do any trig to get the angles.
Just a suggestion (backseat driving).
Nice idea, thank you. I hadn't given the 2-D aspect a lot of consideration yet. It is possible to open an image in an SVG editor and draw over the image with lines, curves, etc, and save the output as SVG, which is XML. So, points are given directly, lines as pairs of points, curves as parameters to beziers, etc. You could match outlines of structures.
The beauty of einsteen's method is the fact that it produced a graph straight away from a 1-D perspective. I see einsteen continues to move forward with refinement of that method and making it more automated. Hi, einsteen. When only considering the vertical dimension, it makes getting a curve (therefore numbers) pretty easy.
As far as not using every frame: I've already done a bit of that with what einsteen posted, as I was annoyed that I couldn't get nice differences with the first part of the data. So I chose more meaningful divisions than frames in the beginning but haven't finished looking at that yet. It is a good idea, but frames should be done, too.
I presume that David B. Benson's methodology prefers to gobble up a lot of data sets which are different snapshots of the same underlying event such that the noise will cancel out, yielding a clearer picture. With that in mind, having an accurate transcription of the data from multiple sources preserves the most accuracy in the aggregate result, even if individually a set looks like crap.
I wouldn't suggest working with every frame, I'd just pick frames at intervals where it seemed that there was some significant movement from the prior sampled frame. In all, I'd want maybe 50 points. The key would be to make sure the line was angled as well as I could eye-ball it, and to keep track of the timestamp of the datapoints.
In this manner, you'd only be keeping track of interesting data, rather than documenting the same angle over and over hundreds of times until the thing started moving.
The other benefit to this approach is that if you find an interesting area (where something has changed unexpectedly) you can easily just drop back in and collect more points to see what was happening there.
I'd recommend starting out with a horizontal line and rotating it to match the roofline (or whatever), as this way the rotation angle will be displayed under the line's properties when you right-click it, so you don't have to do any trig to get the angles.
Just a suggestion (backseat driving).
Nice idea, thank you. I hadn't given the 2-D aspect a lot of consideration yet. It is possible to open an image in an SVG editor and draw over the image with lines, curves, etc, and save the output as SVG, which is XML. So, points are given directly, lines as pairs of points, curves as parameters to beziers, etc. You could match outlines of structures.
The beauty of einsteen's method is the fact that it produced a graph straight away from a 1-D perspective. I see einsteen continues to move forward with refinement of that method and making it more automated. Hi, einsteen. When only considering the vertical dimension, it makes getting a curve (therefore numbers) pretty easy.
As far as not using every frame: I've already done a bit of that with what einsteen posted, as I was annoyed that I couldn't get nice differences with the first part of the data. So I chose more meaningful divisions than frames in the beginning but haven't finished looking at that yet. It is a good idea, but frames should be done, too.
I presume that David B. Benson's methodology prefers to gobble up a lot of data sets which are different snapshots of the same underlying event such that the noise will cancel out, yielding a clearer picture. With that in mind, having an accurate transcription of the data from multiple sources preserves the most accuracy in the aggregate result, even if individually a set looks like crap.
wcelliot:
After further consideration, I must clarify I agree with you about skipping repetitions offered by frames in a manual extraction. Absolutely. I've been wrapped up with the notion of automated extraction and large collections of datasets, where everything is frame driven and that nice set of zeros you see in the beginning of the manual extraction will be a set of fluctuating numbers close to zero but probably none of them will be zero. That doesn't look nice, but averaged over many slices from many videos might actually yield slow initial displacement information, or at least an easier choice of T0.
In the dataset I posted, there were some upward deflections I perceived that I eliminated because, obviously, they would look like crap. Later, I decided I was wrong on the first pass, anyway. Such is subjectivity and is why automation is a good thing, beyond gains in processing speed.
After further consideration, I must clarify I agree with you about skipping repetitions offered by frames in a manual extraction. Absolutely. I've been wrapped up with the notion of automated extraction and large collections of datasets, where everything is frame driven and that nice set of zeros you see in the beginning of the manual extraction will be a set of fluctuating numbers close to zero but probably none of them will be zero. That doesn't look nice, but averaged over many slices from many videos might actually yield slow initial displacement information, or at least an easier choice of T0.
In the dataset I posted, there were some upward deflections I perceived that I eliminated because, obviously, they would look like crap. Later, I decided I was wrong on the first pass, anyway. Such is subjectivity and is why automation is a good thing, beyond gains in processing speed.
The idea behind overlaying a line is that the human eye is pretty good at lining things up and averaging things out, so you have the noise filtering built-in to the database, and a line is a more accurate means of measurement than plotting a single point.
With data, naturally, more numbers is better, but you can get meaningful results with 50 points or less, especially with a well-behaved curve like we're dealing with, here. You aren't going to miss anything, even if those points are scattered about on an irregular time-basis. Most of the initial part is flat, but over the course of a half-hour or so, I'd expect some measurable change that'd be worth noting. It'd prove that the towers were already starting to collapse well-before the final event that the CDiots think was caused by a sudden explosion (or several). Slow creep over a half-hour is inconsistent with any CD theory. (I'm sure newton will postulate something anyway.)
The collapse event is what most people are interested in, so it'd make sense to plot more points as-needed to fully characterize the seconds before and during the collapse. With the plots, people can decide for themselves when the collapse started and how fast it went. (Second-derivative of the data points will yield accelerations, proving that they didn't fall "at free-fall speed", as many who should know better keep saying.)
So, yes, the data will be very useful, and my backseat-driving notwithstanding, I really appreciate your putting the effort into doing this.
Maybe it will help some people understand what really happened that day.
With data, naturally, more numbers is better, but you can get meaningful results with 50 points or less, especially with a well-behaved curve like we're dealing with, here. You aren't going to miss anything, even if those points are scattered about on an irregular time-basis. Most of the initial part is flat, but over the course of a half-hour or so, I'd expect some measurable change that'd be worth noting. It'd prove that the towers were already starting to collapse well-before the final event that the CDiots think was caused by a sudden explosion (or several). Slow creep over a half-hour is inconsistent with any CD theory. (I'm sure newton will postulate something anyway.)
The collapse event is what most people are interested in, so it'd make sense to plot more points as-needed to fully characterize the seconds before and during the collapse. With the plots, people can decide for themselves when the collapse started and how fast it went. (Second-derivative of the data points will yield accelerations, proving that they didn't fall "at free-fall speed", as many who should know better keep saying.)
So, yes, the data will be very useful, and my backseat-driving notwithstanding, I really appreciate your putting the effort into doing this.
Maybe it will help some people understand what really happened that day.
Good points. Thank you. I see many people here working towards a better understanding of things, it would be a true pleasure to contribute in some way.
I've been looking for appropriate videos. I'm afraid I really need help with finding a good source. The WTC1 videos I've found so far have too many problems. I'd never looked at them with this eye before so I didn't realize how few show the top, show the beginning, don't zoom/pan/cut, or are close enough to resolve small displacements. Not to mention conversion/compression losses.
It seems everyone is a movie-maker these days. Raw footage would be nice.
Need some good videos.
I've been looking for appropriate videos. I'm afraid I really need help with finding a good source. The WTC1 videos I've found so far have too many problems. I'd never looked at them with this eye before so I didn't realize how few show the top, show the beginning, don't zoom/pan/cut, or are close enough to resolve small displacements. Not to mention conversion/compression losses.
It seems everyone is a movie-maker these days. Raw footage would be nice.
Need some good videos.
QUOTE
I didn't realize how few show the top, show the beginning, don't zoom/pan/cut, or are close enough to resolve small displacements. Not to mention conversion/compression losses.
It seems everyone is a movie-maker these days. Raw footage would be nice.
It seems everyone is a movie-maker these days. Raw footage would be nice.
Agreed, I feel the same way, especially when the people doing the camera-work often show how clueless they are, with something significant happening in one part of the shot, and they'll pan away from it right when you'd really like to see what happens next. Video-ADD. Everybody's become accustomed to the 3-second rule, which was something that advertisers figured out a long time ago, that the average viewer watching a commercial tunes-out after three seconds, so you'll notice that all commercials are shot like the shower scene from "Psycho". It's a pet-peeve of mine. Compare that to Kubrik's classics, or the great movies of the '40s, where they just held the camera steady and let the actors carry the scene. Dialog suffers, too, as any lines that take more than a few seconds to say get cut down, so actors end up reciting a few choice phrases and then it's off to the next scene. It's a vicious cycle, too, since most movies are made that way, the audience doesn't have the attention-span they used to have, so even if you've got a great script with great dialog, it can't get made that way or the audience *will* tune out and get bored because they aren't used to listening.
Grrr.
Thanks that the data is appreciated, but the extraction of 1xN bitmaps not something very special… even a CT’er can do it , he he ;-) Neu-Fonze’s idea to use the information of toppling in it will indeed give the t=0 but the problem is that another video is needed then and they should be synchronized in time. Of course nobody who took the videos expected this to happen. In the Bob & Bri video we see that the camera was even turned of because of the stable situation. Rick Siegel filmed a long time but when the building started collapsing he zoomed in. In the ideal situation we would of course have a couple of high-speed hi-res cameras at several positions. I would expect that there is much more detailed video info available about wtc1 because wtc2 collapsed first, I that the reason that we have some videos with tripoded cameras?
I mass downloaded a lot of videos but have never seen a video in which you clearly can see the inward bowing taking place 20 minutes, the NIST seem to have it. If they analyzed 7,000 (wtc related) segments of video footage you can wonder why amateurs need to extract bitmaps… btw I have also a video in which you see the antenna toppling and later it moves back a little bit. As already mentioned there is a lot of problems with the videos, On www.archive.org there is a kind of 911 archive, but it is cumbersome to check that out, especially when you are interested in very specific things. One needs raw videos with unchanged framerate, resolution and sound. Most that you will find on the net is useless.
I mass downloaded a lot of videos but have never seen a video in which you clearly can see the inward bowing taking place 20 minutes, the NIST seem to have it. If they analyzed 7,000 (wtc related) segments of video footage you can wonder why amateurs need to extract bitmaps… btw I have also a video in which you see the antenna toppling and later it moves back a little bit. As already mentioned there is a lot of problems with the videos, On www.archive.org there is a kind of 911 archive, but it is cumbersome to check that out, especially when you are interested in very specific things. One needs raw videos with unchanged framerate, resolution and sound. Most that you will find on the net is useless.
QUOTE
it will indeed give the t=0 but the problem is that another video is needed then and they should be synchronized in time.
I wouldn't worry too much about synchronizing the videos, we can sync the data later in post-processing, especially if the data shows significant features (like, including the collapse event itself).
I want to add my thanks to everyone else's here, I really appreciate you taking the time and expending the effort.
You're too modest, einsteen. It is a simple concept but somehow it eluded a lot of people until you came up with it. It's the biggest time saver in the whole process.
I did find two videos so far; they're probably the same ones that einsteen has been working with! The location is 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html. Both appear to be taken from tripods. Each of the two should yield multiple curves from both adjacent and non-adjacent locations.
The first is wtc1_cisterns.mov (170 frames, 29.97fps). Unfortunately, there is a dissolve fade-in contaminating the first 16 frames and motion is already evident at the beginning of the clip. The good news is that there are numerous stationary foreground objects (water tanks) with good contrast against the background. The areas adjacent to the object edges (sky) can be sampled in red/blue channels to determine camera motion artifact - not so much to correct motion necessarily as to just be aware of its occurrence on the timeline. Despite the dissolve, it seems the first part is usable.
The other is n_tower_1st24.mpg (440 frames, ~15fps). This is lower resolution and frame rate than the first but starts well ahead of detectable motion. The camera shakes from frame 56 to past frame 120 but the rest seems to be steady. Now, the interesting thing about this one: prior to commencement of obvious downward motion, there is a horizontal dark band on the antenna that begins to fade progressively to a lighter color; once saturated, the downward motion is evident in the following frame. The duration is around a second and a half.
It seems to me that this is due to early motion of small magnitude, though proving that objectively is not necessarily easy. There is a long enough stretch between the shaking and the start of this sequence to establish a baseline color map and demonstrate surface brightness variation due to the nearby billowing smoke is likely not the cause of this effect. I can't say whether it represents tilting, descent or both, but it is an asymmetric effect.
Mapping the color transition of the region to physical displacement could also be difficult, though I have some ideas on how that could be done. At the very least, the magnitude of the change over time can easily be reduced to a single scalar value which, despite possible discontinuities, may reveal the character of early motion.
To put it simply, the band in question fades lighter from right to left over time - it is a bargraph - then the vertical motion begins.
PS one set of candidate events for synchronization are expulsions from the lower floors. Maybe, maybe not.
I did find two videos so far; they're probably the same ones that einsteen has been working with! The location is 911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/index.html. Both appear to be taken from tripods. Each of the two should yield multiple curves from both adjacent and non-adjacent locations.
The first is wtc1_cisterns.mov (170 frames, 29.97fps). Unfortunately, there is a dissolve fade-in contaminating the first 16 frames and motion is already evident at the beginning of the clip. The good news is that there are numerous stationary foreground objects (water tanks) with good contrast against the background. The areas adjacent to the object edges (sky) can be sampled in red/blue channels to determine camera motion artifact - not so much to correct motion necessarily as to just be aware of its occurrence on the timeline. Despite the dissolve, it seems the first part is usable.
The other is n_tower_1st24.mpg (440 frames, ~15fps). This is lower resolution and frame rate than the first but starts well ahead of detectable motion. The camera shakes from frame 56 to past frame 120 but the rest seems to be steady. Now, the interesting thing about this one: prior to commencement of obvious downward motion, there is a horizontal dark band on the antenna that begins to fade progressively to a lighter color; once saturated, the downward motion is evident in the following frame. The duration is around a second and a half.
It seems to me that this is due to early motion of small magnitude, though proving that objectively is not necessarily easy. There is a long enough stretch between the shaking and the start of this sequence to establish a baseline color map and demonstrate surface brightness variation due to the nearby billowing smoke is likely not the cause of this effect. I can't say whether it represents tilting, descent or both, but it is an asymmetric effect.
Mapping the color transition of the region to physical displacement could also be difficult, though I have some ideas on how that could be done. At the very least, the magnitude of the change over time can easily be reduced to a single scalar value which, despite possible discontinuities, may reveal the character of early motion.
To put it simply, the band in question fades lighter from right to left over time - it is a bargraph - then the vertical motion begins.
PS one set of candidate events for synchronization are expulsions from the lower floors. Maybe, maybe not.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jul 30 2007, 09:05 AM)
You're too modest, einsteen. It is a simple concept but somehow it eluded a lot of people until you came up with it.
I fully agree. The very best kind of idea.
The rest of the post is very interesting. In particular, the color change of the antenna tower, suggesting sensible tilting for a second and a half before sensible collapse.
I fully agree. The very best kind of idea.
The rest of the post is very interesting. In particular, the color change of the antenna tower, suggesting sensible tilting for a second and a half before sensible collapse.
Correction: rogue pressure pulse, not rouge pressure pulse. 
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 28 2007, 03:20 PM)
Shagster:
The images I used to time the descent of the "block" were taken from several well-known "video-clips", but the CNN footage was probably the most useful since it includes a time stamp. My 14 second number is from collapse initiation at 10:28:25. The block first emerges from the dust cloud about half way through the collapse and is approximately horizontal after about 11 seconds. By the way, if it is simply the west wall collapsing into the Winter Garden the geometry is all wrong because the "block" should then appear as a "line" when viewed from the north as it was in the CNN footage.
I assume you are referring to the object denoted by the white line in the following pics. That appears to be a section of perimeter wall. It has a curved dust trail immediately behind the wall. It wouldn't have that appearance if it had somehow been a block. It looks like nearly a line if seen from the north side at high elevation.
The other video stills are from the ground level in front of a coffee shop a few blocks north of the tower. The video was taken by a young woman right before some people pulled her into the shop. The wall from that view appears more like a plane rather than a line since the vantage point is from the ground level.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p3.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p4.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p1.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p2.jpg
The images I used to time the descent of the "block" were taken from several well-known "video-clips", but the CNN footage was probably the most useful since it includes a time stamp. My 14 second number is from collapse initiation at 10:28:25. The block first emerges from the dust cloud about half way through the collapse and is approximately horizontal after about 11 seconds. By the way, if it is simply the west wall collapsing into the Winter Garden the geometry is all wrong because the "block" should then appear as a "line" when viewed from the north as it was in the CNN footage.
I assume you are referring to the object denoted by the white line in the following pics. That appears to be a section of perimeter wall. It has a curved dust trail immediately behind the wall. It wouldn't have that appearance if it had somehow been a block. It looks like nearly a line if seen from the north side at high elevation.
The other video stills are from the ground level in front of a coffee shop a few blocks north of the tower. The video was taken by a young woman right before some people pulled her into the shop. The wall from that view appears more like a plane rather than a line since the vantage point is from the ground level.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p3.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p4.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p1.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc1/wtc1p2.jpg
David B. Benson:
I got to view the frames of the second video in a dark environment and what a difference it makes (another argument for software processing - and for taking care with analysis). It is motion, quite obviously - the earliest indication of motion observable in this lo-res video, and apparently evolves smoothly and continuously into more easily discernable drop and rotation.
The dark band is initially split between two rows of pixels, where the upper row is the 'bargraph' to which I refer. After about a second of shrinkage of the upper bar, the dark band begins to rapidly emerge in the row below. This point is probably where most people would start measuring the drop simply because there is nothing vertical to measure prior to that.
The asymmetry (fading right to left) seems to come from a combination of side illumination and the antenna shape at that angle. Symmetric lighting would have the bar shrink into the middle of the antenna.
A technique such as the one I described above can deliver a measure of change over time even though motion is only fractional pixel distance. If this was originally shot on (e.g.) miniDV, analyzing a lossless copy of the original would give a much better result.
I'm about at my limit of participation here for now. In a little while I'm going to be beachside on a tropical island listening to my beard grow. When I get back I can get more serious about this.
I got to view the frames of the second video in a dark environment and what a difference it makes (another argument for software processing - and for taking care with analysis). It is motion, quite obviously - the earliest indication of motion observable in this lo-res video, and apparently evolves smoothly and continuously into more easily discernable drop and rotation.
The dark band is initially split between two rows of pixels, where the upper row is the 'bargraph' to which I refer. After about a second of shrinkage of the upper bar, the dark band begins to rapidly emerge in the row below. This point is probably where most people would start measuring the drop simply because there is nothing vertical to measure prior to that.
The asymmetry (fading right to left) seems to come from a combination of side illumination and the antenna shape at that angle. Symmetric lighting would have the bar shrink into the middle of the antenna.
A technique such as the one I described above can deliver a measure of change over time even though motion is only fractional pixel distance. If this was originally shot on (e.g.) miniDV, analyzing a lossless copy of the original would give a much better result.
I'm about at my limit of participation here for now. In a little while I'm going to be beachside on a tropical island listening to my beard grow. When I get back I can get more serious about this.
From all the videos and stills I've seen, it doesn't appear that the WTC1 antenna hit WTC7, although it is difficult to say for sure only by looking at videos. Videos show that other debris struck the south facade of WTC7 near the roof level. This aerial view is one example.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc7/WTC7u8.jpg
This video still is from the video taken by the young woman in front of the coffee shop. The south facade near the roof level appears to be struck by what looks like an external panel. The position is closer to the west end of WTC7, near the location of the gash that was seen in the ABC video from the southwest side.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha.../wtc7/wt7n1.jpg
Video still from ABC video.
The gash may have been thought by some to have been done by a long section of antenna hitting vertically. This isn't what happened. The debris itself wouldn't cut such a well-defined gash down WTC7.
A piece of debris, probably a section of external panel, stuck the south facade near the roof. This caused a progressive collapse all the way down WTC7. A section of floor collapsed and stuck the next one below it which collapsed and so on. Sections of floor collapsed one after another all the way down. The width of the progressive collapse is sharply defined by the perimeter columns of WTC7.
That's indicates that WTC7 was not a robust structure. The design allowed a progessive collapse to occur. That may be a violation of building codes in NY.
Another important point is that the gash occurred in the same location where all the diesel fuel risers exited the core area. If the debris didn't hit the pipes directly, the vibrations could have damaged the pipes and started leaks.
Yet another issue is what would happen if the gash damaged the containment pipes that were supposed to collect diesel fuel in the event of a leak. If broken, leaking fuel wouldn't be able to make it's way back to collection containers and the leak detection system wouldn't detect the leak. If the pumps continued to run, fuel would continue to spill.
The risers for all the floors exited the core area in that same location where the gash occurred. It was unfortunate that the gash occurred where it did.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha.../wtc7/wtc7g.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...wtc7/WTC7u8.jpg
This video still is from the video taken by the young woman in front of the coffee shop. The south facade near the roof level appears to be struck by what looks like an external panel. The position is closer to the west end of WTC7, near the location of the gash that was seen in the ABC video from the southwest side.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha.../wtc7/wt7n1.jpg
Video still from ABC video.
The gash may have been thought by some to have been done by a long section of antenna hitting vertically. This isn't what happened. The debris itself wouldn't cut such a well-defined gash down WTC7.
A piece of debris, probably a section of external panel, stuck the south facade near the roof. This caused a progressive collapse all the way down WTC7. A section of floor collapsed and stuck the next one below it which collapsed and so on. Sections of floor collapsed one after another all the way down. The width of the progressive collapse is sharply defined by the perimeter columns of WTC7.
That's indicates that WTC7 was not a robust structure. The design allowed a progessive collapse to occur. That may be a violation of building codes in NY.
Another important point is that the gash occurred in the same location where all the diesel fuel risers exited the core area. If the debris didn't hit the pipes directly, the vibrations could have damaged the pipes and started leaks.
Yet another issue is what would happen if the gash damaged the containment pipes that were supposed to collect diesel fuel in the event of a leak. If broken, leaking fuel wouldn't be able to make it's way back to collection containers and the leak detection system wouldn't detect the leak. If the pumps continued to run, fuel would continue to spill.
The risers for all the floors exited the core area in that same location where the gash occurred. It was unfortunate that the gash occurred where it did.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha.../wtc7/wtc7g.jpg
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jul 31 2007, 04:26 AM)
A technique such as the one I described above can deliver a measure of change over time even though motion is only fractional pixel distance. If this was originally shot on (e.g.) miniDV, analyzing a lossless copy of the original would give a much better result.
Kathryn Butler and others used a similar type of sub-pixel approach to measure the sway of WTC2 just after the aircraft impact. They relied on the Moire effect in the video. They had the advantage that many vertical lines of the perimeter columns were available to generate a pattern over a large area. The single antenna mast is not as good but still gives a way of measuring very small displacements.
QUOTE (shagster+Jul 31 2007, 04:50 AM)
Kathryn Butler and others used a similar type of sub-pixel approach to measure the sway of WTC2 just after the aircraft impact. They relied on the Moire effect in the video. They had the advantage that many vertical lines of the perimeter columns were available to generate a pattern over a large area. The single antenna mast is not as good but still gives a way of measuring very small displacements.
The use of the moire pattern was very clever.
Would you happen to know if anyone has already mapped early motion in detail?
The use of the moire pattern was very clever.
Would you happen to know if anyone has already mapped early motion in detail?
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jul 31 2007, 05:18 AM)
The use of the moire pattern was very clever.
Would you happen to know if anyone has already mapped early motion in detail?
I don't know of anyone who has mapped early motion. It would be interesting to see the slow downward creep of the tower before the collapse.
The measured sway period of WTC2 using the Moire technique agrees with the period obtained using modal analysis in the SAP2000 global model. The mass in the model is just under 300E6 kg. The tower mass was likely close to 300E6 kg.
Would you happen to know if anyone has already mapped early motion in detail?
I don't know of anyone who has mapped early motion. It would be interesting to see the slow downward creep of the tower before the collapse.
The measured sway period of WTC2 using the Moire technique agrees with the period obtained using modal analysis in the SAP2000 global model. The mass in the model is just under 300E6 kg. The tower mass was likely close to 300E6 kg.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jul 30 2007, 09:35 AM)
In the Bob & Bri video we see that the camera was even turned of because of the stable situation.
The camera in the Bob and Bri video was apparently recording at the start of the collapse of WTC1. You can hear someone say 'oh my God' as WTC1 starts to collapse. Apparently, someone thought that the camera was on pause and hit the pause button. That paused it then they realized they had paused it and turned it back on.
It's difficult to find video of the south tower after it had collapsed. Just about everyone adds in their special effects, such as fades and dissolves, and the end is never seen. I'm still loooking for an unedited version of the video from one of the helicopters south of WTC2 that caught the end of the collapse and part of the core still standing. I have one version on a 911 DVD but it fades out before the core can be seen.
The camera in the Bob and Bri video was apparently recording at the start of the collapse of WTC1. You can hear someone say 'oh my God' as WTC1 starts to collapse. Apparently, someone thought that the camera was on pause and hit the pause button. That paused it then they realized they had paused it and turned it back on.
It's difficult to find video of the south tower after it had collapsed. Just about everyone adds in their special effects, such as fades and dissolves, and the end is never seen. I'm still loooking for an unedited version of the video from one of the helicopters south of WTC2 that caught the end of the collapse and part of the core still standing. I have one version on a 911 DVD but it fades out before the core can be seen.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 29 2007, 03:07 PM)
Once AGAIN you miss the point.
TWO YEARS AGO you stated that it was A FACT that 9/11 was "an inside job" because a collapse "due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible"
QUOTE (Metamars+)
To anybody even roughly familiar with the physics involved, the collapse of WTC 1 or 2 due to a single jetliner is energetically impossible. That tells you immediately that it was an inside job, since whether you use explosives, a maser, or some other type of exotic weapon, you need an absolutely ENORMOUS source of energy, which OBL could not have supplied. Thus, we have known enough for quite a while to deduce that this was an inside job.
From your posts circa THAT time, you hypothesized all SORTS of additional energy sources, from MINI-NUKES to MASERS to EXPLOSIVES.
You went on and on about Pyroclastic flows, and vaporized spires.
But NONE of these wacky ideas panned out,
You've been going on and on about "no evidence for CD", and I don't see where your wacky notion has panned out.
Contrary to the spurious claims of OCT's, not only is "no evidence for CD" false, it is more false now than it was 2 years ago.
What the final disposition of the new evidence is, is hard to say. I'm not happy with the snail pace of things, and have suggested, at least twice, that the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice appeal to the Union of Concerned Scientists for help in analyzing the spheres. This suggestion was met with approval by a few members, and by disapproval by none (that I recall), but as yet no such appeal has been made.
Regarding some 'old evidence', there is some very new discussion, including the fact (previously unknown to me) that the velocities of the squib were close to those characteristic for CD's. See High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers in the Journal of 911 Studies.
Calculations showing energy insufficiency in no way need to rely on Hoffman's notion, nor, for that matter on particular CD hypotheses, whether masers, mini-nuke, or good, old, RDX. E.g., Professor Morrone has also done calculations, calculations independent of any specific hypothesis regarding CD methodology. And, whether you like it or not, he came up with an extreme energy insufficiency.
And although he didn't say so, I'm sure that if I asked him he'd agree that OBL could not have provided this missing energy. Ergo, "inside job". Lacking conclusive proof of an exotic source of energy, though, it does not follow that the military is to blame.
Nor, in two years have you been able to substantiate your ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC CLAIM that your conclusion was based on, that the collapse was "energetically impossible".
YET, you STICK to your ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.
So, what is it Metamars?
Are you claiming you came to the RIGHT CONCLUSION, EVEN though ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU USED TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE?
Even though you have NOT been able to substantiate the PREMISE your HYPOTHESIS was based on?
The fact is its only that you find the original conclusion APPEALING that you continue on your Quixotic QUEST to try to find evidence to support it.
Not that there is ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that makes it at all plausible.
With this mindset, a SCIENTIST, you will NEVER be.
Arthur
Ha, ha, ha. "Original, scientific claim", eh? Although this is a physics board, and we should try to adhere to the culture of science, I don't consider what transipires on this board to be science. And you, of all people, "help" to make it so.
I do indeed believe in the conclusion of CD, though I much more tend to non-exotic hypotheses to explain the observations and data available to me.
I do think that there's a small chance that WTC 1 & 2 were not brought down by CD, but in the case of WTC 7, I think the odds of that are exactly zero, and, indeed, it's a laughable proposition. Clearly, the burden of proof showing WTC 7 is not CD falls on those making this wacky claim.
There is no energy insufficiency. There was, in fact, excess energy. Morrone got it wrong.
WTC7 got hit by a big chunk of debris, probably a section of perimeter wall, which plummeted through the roof and top floors, and that caused the fires and eventual collapse.
Every one of you CDiots WANT to believe that the government did it more than you want to know the TRUTH. Why is that? What's the appeal?
From your posts circa THAT time, you hypothesized all SORTS of additional energy sources, from MINI-NUKES to MASERS to EXPLOSIVES.
You went on and on about Pyroclastic flows, and vaporized spires.
But NONE of these wacky ideas panned out,
You've been going on and on about "no evidence for CD", and I don't see where your wacky notion has panned out.
Contrary to the spurious claims of OCT's, not only is "no evidence for CD" false, it is more false now than it was 2 years ago.
What the final disposition of the new evidence is, is hard to say. I'm not happy with the snail pace of things, and have suggested, at least twice, that the Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice appeal to the Union of Concerned Scientists for help in analyzing the spheres. This suggestion was met with approval by a few members, and by disapproval by none (that I recall), but as yet no such appeal has been made.
Regarding some 'old evidence', there is some very new discussion, including the fact (previously unknown to me) that the velocities of the squib were close to those characteristic for CD's. See High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers in the Journal of 911 Studies.
Calculations showing energy insufficiency in no way need to rely on Hoffman's notion, nor, for that matter on particular CD hypotheses, whether masers, mini-nuke, or good, old, RDX. E.g., Professor Morrone has also done calculations, calculations independent of any specific hypothesis regarding CD methodology. And, whether you like it or not, he came up with an extreme energy insufficiency.
And although he didn't say so, I'm sure that if I asked him he'd agree that OBL could not have provided this missing energy. Ergo, "inside job". Lacking conclusive proof of an exotic source of energy, though, it does not follow that the military is to blame.
QUOTE
Nor, in two years have you been able to substantiate your ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC CLAIM that your conclusion was based on, that the collapse was "energetically impossible".
YET, you STICK to your ORIGINAL CONCLUSION.
So, what is it Metamars?
Are you claiming you came to the RIGHT CONCLUSION, EVEN though ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU USED TO COME TO THAT CONCLUSION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE FALSE?
Even though you have NOT been able to substantiate the PREMISE your HYPOTHESIS was based on?
The fact is its only that you find the original conclusion APPEALING that you continue on your Quixotic QUEST to try to find evidence to support it.
Not that there is ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL that makes it at all plausible.
With this mindset, a SCIENTIST, you will NEVER be.
Arthur
Ha, ha, ha. "Original, scientific claim", eh? Although this is a physics board, and we should try to adhere to the culture of science, I don't consider what transipires on this board to be science. And you, of all people, "help" to make it so.
I do indeed believe in the conclusion of CD, though I much more tend to non-exotic hypotheses to explain the observations and data available to me.
I do think that there's a small chance that WTC 1 & 2 were not brought down by CD, but in the case of WTC 7, I think the odds of that are exactly zero, and, indeed, it's a laughable proposition. Clearly, the burden of proof showing WTC 7 is not CD falls on those making this wacky claim.
QUOTE
Professor Morrone has also done calculations, calculations independent of any specific hypothesis regarding CD methodology. And, whether you like it or not, he came up with an extreme energy insufficiency
There is no energy insufficiency. There was, in fact, excess energy. Morrone got it wrong.
WTC7 got hit by a big chunk of debris, probably a section of perimeter wall, which plummeted through the roof and top floors, and that caused the fires and eventual collapse.
Every one of you CDiots WANT to believe that the government did it more than you want to know the TRUTH. Why is that? What's the appeal?
Metamars
Once again, you miss the point.
Its specifically about YOU.
In two years YOU have been unable to substantiate your ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC CLAIM that your conclusion was based on, that the collapse was "energetically impossible".
Yet even without ANY PROOF you continue to adhere to your original conclusion?
Arthur
Once again, you miss the point.
Its specifically about YOU.
In two years YOU have been unable to substantiate your ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC CLAIM that your conclusion was based on, that the collapse was "energetically impossible".
Yet even without ANY PROOF you continue to adhere to your original conclusion?
Arthur
If the Govt. is at fault in any way it is solely from the fact that they had 4 different war games that day going on therefore crippling our Military's ability to stop it. That is the only possible way that our Govt. was involved. Even then I'm doubtful, I personally just think it was flat out ineptness of our entire Intelligence dept.
Metamars:
I have just taken a look at Morrone's alleged "proof" that there was an energy insufficiency in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. His argument is WRONG because he neglects CHEMICAL ENERGY!
Morrone only considers Mgh as a source of energy. This energy is actually quite small in comparison to the chemical energies available in the towers.
Just the jet fuel alone released about 45 MJ/kg of heat on combustion. And the office/workstations had an additional 20 MJ/kg of combustion energy.
So much for Morrone's "proof"!!!!
You know that back around 1900 some physicists "proved" that it was impossible to place an object in orbit around the earth because the energy required was 60MJ/kg, and 1 kilogram of H2/O2 could only provide 16 MJ/kg.....
I have just taken a look at Morrone's alleged "proof" that there was an energy insufficiency in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. His argument is WRONG because he neglects CHEMICAL ENERGY!
Morrone only considers Mgh as a source of energy. This energy is actually quite small in comparison to the chemical energies available in the towers.
Just the jet fuel alone released about 45 MJ/kg of heat on combustion. And the office/workstations had an additional 20 MJ/kg of combustion energy.
So much for Morrone's "proof"!!!!
You know that back around 1900 some physicists "proved" that it was impossible to place an object in orbit around the earth because the energy required was 60MJ/kg, and 1 kilogram of H2/O2 could only provide 16 MJ/kg.....
Even a tea-spoon contains more energy if you multiply it times c^2...
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jul 30 2007, 09:26 PM)
... I'm going to be beachside on a tropical island listening to my beard grow.
Your hearing must be much better tan mine.
I'll be very interested in your sub-pixel analysis of the collapse initiation sequence!
Your hearing must be much better tan mine.I'll be very interested in your sub-pixel analysis of the collapse initiation sequence!
Einsteen:
Are you proposing MICRO-NUKES?
Are you proposing MICRO-NUKES?
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 31 2007, 06:25 AM)
... the velocities of the squib ...
If you are referring to the escaping air from the ventilators on the mechanical floors of WTC 2, NEU-FONZE some time ago commented that the flow rate was the same as the descent rate of the crushed mass above.
The same idea works for the others. The mathematics is quite straightforward and I posted it somewhere in the first 150 pages of the previous thread.
If you are referring to the escaping air from the ventilators on the mechanical floors of WTC 2, NEU-FONZE some time ago commented that the flow rate was the same as the descent rate of the crushed mass above.
The same idea works for the others. The mathematics is quite straightforward and I posted it somewhere in the first 150 pages of the previous thread.
QUOTE (metamars+Jul 31 2007, 06:25 AM)
... analyzing the spheres. ...
Yawn.
I'm content with the fact that the report stated that these were to be expected. Nothing unusual.
Yawn.
Yawn.
I'm content with the fact that the report stated that these were to be expected. Nothing unusual.
Yawn.
DBB:
As a chemist, I find the spherical particles very interesting.... they may yet prove to be an important clue to why some steel got so hot... but I am NOT thinking about pre-planted explosives/incendiaries... that is an unfounded ASSUMPTION that becomes redundant when the actual multifarious chemical reactions in the WTC fires are properly considered....
Cue Arthur: "But you have no evidence for this" ....
YAWN!
As a chemist, I find the spherical particles very interesting.... they may yet prove to be an important clue to why some steel got so hot... but I am NOT thinking about pre-planted explosives/incendiaries... that is an unfounded ASSUMPTION that becomes redundant when the actual multifarious chemical reactions in the WTC fires are properly considered....
Cue Arthur: "But you have no evidence for this" ....
YAWN!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 31 2007, 05:15 PM)
As a chemist, I find the spherical particles very interesting.... they may yet prove to be an important clue to why some steel got so hot...
And so you should. The spheres certainly demonstrate that some very small proportion of steel did. Its similar, I suppose, to the sparks from a steel workpiece being sharpened with a grinder.
I'll suggest, but only suggest, that the 22 gauge floor pans, so few actually found at Ground Zero, were hammered and ground into unrecognizable fragments. Some of which are the microspheres resulting from the grinding.
And so you should. The spheres certainly demonstrate that some very small proportion of steel did. Its similar, I suppose, to the sparks from a steel workpiece being sharpened with a grinder.
I'll suggest, but only suggest, that the 22 gauge floor pans, so few actually found at Ground Zero, were hammered and ground into unrecognizable fragments. Some of which are the microspheres resulting from the grinding.
Hello everyone
This topic is extraordinary for learning physics, chemistry, and basic intuition of thoughts.
When ever I look at the presented theories of how the steel got so hot,it makes me wonder if it is possible that the simple fact of moving one I beam over another would create a chain reaction of heat.
Seems likely that a 1,000 lb. beam falling while another also falls will begin such intense friction that any other additive will just amplify and heat and a rapid increase of heat may of sky rocketed at a rate we have not considered.
In some of the short video clips, I thought I saw what looked like implosion along with explosion. However it seemed to show a very narrow fall pattern.
In this narrow path of compression, could it be possible that heat actually built up faster than we have ever tested or calculated?
This topic is extraordinary for learning physics, chemistry, and basic intuition of thoughts.
When ever I look at the presented theories of how the steel got so hot,it makes me wonder if it is possible that the simple fact of moving one I beam over another would create a chain reaction of heat.
Seems likely that a 1,000 lb. beam falling while another also falls will begin such intense friction that any other additive will just amplify and heat and a rapid increase of heat may of sky rocketed at a rate we have not considered.
In some of the short video clips, I thought I saw what looked like implosion along with explosion. However it seemed to show a very narrow fall pattern.
In this narrow path of compression, could it be possible that heat actually built up faster than we have ever tested or calculated?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 31 2007, 08:15 PM)
DBB:
As a chemist, I find the spherical particles very interesting.... they may yet prove to be an important clue to why some steel got so hot... but I am NOT thinking about pre-planted explosives/incendiaries... that is an unfounded ASSUMPTION that becomes redundant when the actual multifarious chemical reactions in the WTC fires are properly considered....
Cue Arthur: "But you have no evidence for this" ....
YAWN!
Not so.
You (and Chainsaw) have provided many descriptions of potential (even highly likely) energy releasing chemical reactions that one would expect to have occured.
I'm quite sure that some of them released considerable amounts of energy.
But while there may have been some UNIQUE reactions because of the introduction of the aircraft into the mix, I think most would be found in any office fire.
Which brings us to the point that seems to be in contention.
What you HAVEN'T shown is that the amount of the energy released by these reactions had a SIGNIFICANT impact on the collapse of the towers.
Arthur
As a chemist, I find the spherical particles very interesting.... they may yet prove to be an important clue to why some steel got so hot... but I am NOT thinking about pre-planted explosives/incendiaries... that is an unfounded ASSUMPTION that becomes redundant when the actual multifarious chemical reactions in the WTC fires are properly considered....
Cue Arthur: "But you have no evidence for this" ....
YAWN!
Not so.
You (and Chainsaw) have provided many descriptions of potential (even highly likely) energy releasing chemical reactions that one would expect to have occured.
I'm quite sure that some of them released considerable amounts of energy.
But while there may have been some UNIQUE reactions because of the introduction of the aircraft into the mix, I think most would be found in any office fire.
Which brings us to the point that seems to be in contention.
What you HAVEN'T shown is that the amount of the energy released by these reactions had a SIGNIFICANT impact on the collapse of the towers.
Arthur
I've never heard about micronukes, no, I'm no supporter of that.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 1 2007, 12:31 AM)
And so you should. The spheres certainly demonstrate that some very small proportion of steel did. Its similar, I suppose, to the sparks from a steel workpiece being sharpened with a grinder.
I'll suggest, but only suggest, that the 22 gauge floor pans, so few actually found at Ground Zero, were hammered and ground into unrecognizable fragments. Some of which are the microspheres resulting from the grinding.
No the 22 gauger floor pans grinding would not have produced the spheres in question because the spheres are too large, Friction tends to produce globs not spheres from the particles colliding with one another and with other compounds in th collapse.
However there is one way if energy is applied to energetic metals, to cause them to react such as dividing aluminum into powder where it then reacts with say Iron oxide in the collapse the resulting heat expands the air, and the Aluminum oxide cools so rapidly faster than the steel, that would create the spheres.
Also the Elements found in the spheres are common Chemicals in organics.
Molten aluminum sprayed into a fine mist in air takes very little energy to ignite in fact it has to ignite as long as it is molten just like powder it mixes with the air and the motion breaks the oxide layer.
IF the floor pans were penetrated, before collapse on the level the planes hit, that penetration might have cause a reaction, the pans would have begun reacting forming iron oxide, Carbon black in the smoke would react with that Iron oxide as even Trippy stated.
Eventually floor pan ignition would have occurred the PVC pipe makes it even worse. Water, Steam, or as Trippy stated H20 in a super heated state, would add to the problem.
The aluminum oxide fragments from the rib-its, and small particles that would have been small enough to react as they are shattered further by repeated impact cause the puncturing of the floor pans by Shattering Igniting, and Oxidizing, the oxide rapidly cools and acts almost like diamonds hitting the thin metal floor pans.
IN the rubble pile the floor pans are shredded mix with the debris and react providing more heat allowing other reactions to occur causing heating in the rubble pile.
I remind every one of the burned cars and car tire but with unexploded fuel tanks, That seems to be a Chemical process involving hot Iron oxide, because hot iron oxide will react with carbon, such as the rubber around car windows and in car tires, and hoses.
Such hot particles because of a cars aerodynamics could burn the rubber around a window, and not even touch the inside upholstery.
This would only require higher air pressure in the car cause by a blast of air wave sucking the air out as it moved across the window and lowered the air pressure, such a low pressure wave might be generated by the drag on falling debris as it falls though air. It would and could not however be generated by explosives.
Of corse this is just a theory from what I have learned by doing actual experiments on it.
I'll suggest, but only suggest, that the 22 gauge floor pans, so few actually found at Ground Zero, were hammered and ground into unrecognizable fragments. Some of which are the microspheres resulting from the grinding.
No the 22 gauger floor pans grinding would not have produced the spheres in question because the spheres are too large, Friction tends to produce globs not spheres from the particles colliding with one another and with other compounds in th collapse.
However there is one way if energy is applied to energetic metals, to cause them to react such as dividing aluminum into powder where it then reacts with say Iron oxide in the collapse the resulting heat expands the air, and the Aluminum oxide cools so rapidly faster than the steel, that would create the spheres.
Also the Elements found in the spheres are common Chemicals in organics.
Molten aluminum sprayed into a fine mist in air takes very little energy to ignite in fact it has to ignite as long as it is molten just like powder it mixes with the air and the motion breaks the oxide layer.
IF the floor pans were penetrated, before collapse on the level the planes hit, that penetration might have cause a reaction, the pans would have begun reacting forming iron oxide, Carbon black in the smoke would react with that Iron oxide as even Trippy stated.
Eventually floor pan ignition would have occurred the PVC pipe makes it even worse. Water, Steam, or as Trippy stated H20 in a super heated state, would add to the problem.
The aluminum oxide fragments from the rib-its, and small particles that would have been small enough to react as they are shattered further by repeated impact cause the puncturing of the floor pans by Shattering Igniting, and Oxidizing, the oxide rapidly cools and acts almost like diamonds hitting the thin metal floor pans.
IN the rubble pile the floor pans are shredded mix with the debris and react providing more heat allowing other reactions to occur causing heating in the rubble pile.
I remind every one of the burned cars and car tire but with unexploded fuel tanks, That seems to be a Chemical process involving hot Iron oxide, because hot iron oxide will react with carbon, such as the rubber around car windows and in car tires, and hoses.
Such hot particles because of a cars aerodynamics could burn the rubber around a window, and not even touch the inside upholstery.
This would only require higher air pressure in the car cause by a blast of air wave sucking the air out as it moved across the window and lowered the air pressure, such a low pressure wave might be generated by the drag on falling debris as it falls though air. It would and could not however be generated by explosives.
Of corse this is just a theory from what I have learned by doing actual experiments on it.
Chainsaw:
I haven't forgotten about your last post, and I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't had the time to reply to it, but, the two main points I want to address are:
1. Ionic energy doesn't change, and i've acknowledged already that it's not the only factor to consider, none of the papers you linked to actually disagree with what I've said, and none of them change surface area as being a significant factor in the difference of ignition temps between bulk solids and powders.
2. There are viable reaction pathways that can reduce Sulfates to Sulfites, metasulfites, and sulfides, I don't have time to go into details at the moment, but remember that we were dealing with a reducing environment, as evidenced by the colour of the smoke.
I haven't forgotten about your last post, and I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't had the time to reply to it, but, the two main points I want to address are:
1. Ionic energy doesn't change, and i've acknowledged already that it's not the only factor to consider, none of the papers you linked to actually disagree with what I've said, and none of them change surface area as being a significant factor in the difference of ignition temps between bulk solids and powders.
2. There are viable reaction pathways that can reduce Sulfates to Sulfites, metasulfites, and sulfides, I don't have time to go into details at the moment, but remember that we were dealing with a reducing environment, as evidenced by the colour of the smoke.
Chainsaw, see, for example, NASA Technical Paper 1511, Ferrographic analysis of Wear Debris from Full-Scale Bearing Fatigue Tests. The authors state in the abstract that "four particle types were observed: normal rubbing wear particles, spheres, nonferrous particles and severe wear (spall) fragments."
Edited to add this link:
Mike Barrett's Analytical Ferrography
Edited to add this link:
Mike Barrett's Analytical Ferrography
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 1 2007, 07:09 PM)
Chainsaw:
I haven't forgotten about your last post, and I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't had the time to reply to it, but, the two main points I want to address are:
1. Ionic energy doesn't change, and i've acknowledged already that it's not the only factor to consider, none of the papers you linked to actually disagree with what I've said, and none of them change surface area as being a significant factor in the difference of ignition temps between bulk solids and powders.
2. There are viable reaction pathways that can reduce Sulfates to Sulfites, metasulfites, and sulfides, I don't have time to go into details at the moment, but remember that we were dealing with a reducing environment, as evidenced by the colour of the smoke.
Trippy at the temperatures and pressures we are considering the material is no longer solid.
Were talking molten aluminum Molten aluminum is different from a solid or small particulates. We are talking particles enduring multiple impacts with each one converting velocity into friction and oxidation. Small oxidation events heating larger peaces of Aluminum. IN an environment of complex energy and gas reactions.
I have looked at all the reduction reactions of sulfates as has NEU who first proposed them I believe. If you would please post all you know, and the conditions that accompany them.
I am only human I might have made a mistake, I would rather be corrected than live in ignorance.
I have created spheres in about 30 different ways, though the use of reactions, but none seem to fit except those that come from reactions with aluminum mind you there is no way to tell a reaction of aluminum in the fires, from one in the Building to one in the Impacts.
Aluminum oxidation reactions are aluminum oxidation reactions.
The only way to tell what might have happened is to try to recreate it experimentally.
What I have tried to do is recreate the fire and impacts together, and I get a total different result. When I place a piece of 22 gage steel and some other elements such as electrical wires and conduit, the whole 22 gage steel goes up like tissue paper.
All it requires is the bending of the edge of the 22 gage metal downward from strike from above to cause a condition that traps and super heats gasses something else I was working on.
I perfectly agree with you Trippy that it is a reducing environment, as can be seen by the smoke, that is one of the things that I noticed early on, but that does not preclude other reactions from taking place.
I haven't forgotten about your last post, and I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't had the time to reply to it, but, the two main points I want to address are:
1. Ionic energy doesn't change, and i've acknowledged already that it's not the only factor to consider, none of the papers you linked to actually disagree with what I've said, and none of them change surface area as being a significant factor in the difference of ignition temps between bulk solids and powders.
2. There are viable reaction pathways that can reduce Sulfates to Sulfites, metasulfites, and sulfides, I don't have time to go into details at the moment, but remember that we were dealing with a reducing environment, as evidenced by the colour of the smoke.
Trippy at the temperatures and pressures we are considering the material is no longer solid.
Were talking molten aluminum Molten aluminum is different from a solid or small particulates. We are talking particles enduring multiple impacts with each one converting velocity into friction and oxidation. Small oxidation events heating larger peaces of Aluminum. IN an environment of complex energy and gas reactions.
I have looked at all the reduction reactions of sulfates as has NEU who first proposed them I believe. If you would please post all you know, and the conditions that accompany them.
I am only human I might have made a mistake, I would rather be corrected than live in ignorance.
I have created spheres in about 30 different ways, though the use of reactions, but none seem to fit except those that come from reactions with aluminum mind you there is no way to tell a reaction of aluminum in the fires, from one in the Building to one in the Impacts.
Aluminum oxidation reactions are aluminum oxidation reactions.
The only way to tell what might have happened is to try to recreate it experimentally.
What I have tried to do is recreate the fire and impacts together, and I get a total different result. When I place a piece of 22 gage steel and some other elements such as electrical wires and conduit, the whole 22 gage steel goes up like tissue paper.
All it requires is the bending of the edge of the 22 gage metal downward from strike from above to cause a condition that traps and super heats gasses something else I was working on.
I perfectly agree with you Trippy that it is a reducing environment, as can be seen by the smoke, that is one of the things that I noticed early on, but that does not preclude other reactions from taking place.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 1 2007, 09:25 PM)
Chainsaw, see, for example, NASA Technical Paper 1511, Ferrographic analysis of Wear Debris from Full-Scale Bearing Fatigue Tests. The authors state in the abstract that "four particle types were observed: normal rubbing wear particles, spheres, nonferrous particles and severe wear (spall) fragments."
Edited to add this link:
Mike Barrett's Analytical Ferrography
Dear DBB. I have already read it, and it is one of the things that I used in my research, Half assed experiments as Arthur refers to them.
Yes spheres can be produced from friction, by grinding of the floor pans, in the collapse but such tend to be Fe with zinc, or Fe203 with Zinc oxide, not much other compounds mixed in, except for Calcium sulfate+H20 gypsum. The metal of the floor pans when it is hot enough to form the spheres tends to rust and not be very magnetic.
PS, I also found similar spheres when rebuilding my old truck winch bearings, but not of the type that has the specific signature of the ones in the World Trade Center collapse.
I believe like NEU, there is something else going on there that has not been found, or at least that I am not telling you about right now, because I have not recreated the results of an experiment that I have done, and until I have a recreatable result I do not release any information.
That is the hard part, DBB. getting the right chemical signatures, the spheres are direct witnesses to what was occurring in the buildings.
When I do friction tests I literally get globs of semi spheres mixed with calcium and calcium sulfate from the limestone and Gypsum in the concrete.
Trippy is right about duraluminum though dependent on the alloy it does contain all the elements in the spheres but most duraluminum-a generic non specific reference to several aluminum alloys, also contains copper, and I see no way to remove it from the spheres before formation.
PS. and Arthur I really do not mind you calling my experiments half assed, because I know that is what they are, but they are all that I am capable of working on my own time, with limited resources, basically with scrounged JUNK.
Also as far as terrorizing my Neighbors goes, they are usually too drunk to mind, and it is just pay back for the all night parties and loud country music.
Edited to add this link:
Mike Barrett's Analytical Ferrography
Dear DBB. I have already read it, and it is one of the things that I used in my research, Half assed experiments as Arthur refers to them.
Yes spheres can be produced from friction, by grinding of the floor pans, in the collapse but such tend to be Fe with zinc, or Fe203 with Zinc oxide, not much other compounds mixed in, except for Calcium sulfate+H20 gypsum. The metal of the floor pans when it is hot enough to form the spheres tends to rust and not be very magnetic.
PS, I also found similar spheres when rebuilding my old truck winch bearings, but not of the type that has the specific signature of the ones in the World Trade Center collapse.
I believe like NEU, there is something else going on there that has not been found, or at least that I am not telling you about right now, because I have not recreated the results of an experiment that I have done, and until I have a recreatable result I do not release any information.
That is the hard part, DBB. getting the right chemical signatures, the spheres are direct witnesses to what was occurring in the buildings.
When I do friction tests I literally get globs of semi spheres mixed with calcium and calcium sulfate from the limestone and Gypsum in the concrete.
Trippy is right about duraluminum though dependent on the alloy it does contain all the elements in the spheres but most duraluminum-a generic non specific reference to several aluminum alloys, also contains copper, and I see no way to remove it from the spheres before formation.
PS. and Arthur I really do not mind you calling my experiments half assed, because I know that is what they are, but they are all that I am capable of working on my own time, with limited resources, basically with scrounged JUNK.
Also as far as terrorizing my Neighbors goes, they are usually too drunk to mind, and it is just pay back for the all night parties and loud country music.
QUOTE (rethinker+Aug 1 2007, 01:02 AM)
Hello everyone
This topic is extraordinary for learning physics, chemistry, and basic intuition of thoughts.
When ever I look at the presented theories of how the steel got so hot,it makes me wonder if it is possible that the simple fact of moving one I beam over another would create a chain reaction of heat.
Seems likely that a 1,000 lb. beam falling while another also falls will begin such intense friction that any other additive will just amplify and heat and a rapid increase of heat may of sky rocketed at a rate we have not considered.
In some of the short video clips, I thought I saw what looked like implosion along with explosion. However it seemed to show a very narrow fall pattern.
In this narrow path of compression, could it be possible that heat actually built up faster than we have ever tested or calculated?
Chainsaw,
Quote
(I have created spheres in about 30 different ways, though the use of reactions, but none seem to fit except those that come from reactions with aluminum mind you there is no way to tell a reaction of aluminum in the fires, from one in the Building to one in the Impacts.
Aluminum oxidation reactions are aluminum oxidation reactions.
The only way to tell what might have happened is to try to recreate it experimentally.)
This is exactly what I was thinking should happen.
I was thinking someone could do experiments with some junk aluminum and steel until I see you have already considered this.
This topic is extraordinary for learning physics, chemistry, and basic intuition of thoughts.
When ever I look at the presented theories of how the steel got so hot,it makes me wonder if it is possible that the simple fact of moving one I beam over another would create a chain reaction of heat.
Seems likely that a 1,000 lb. beam falling while another also falls will begin such intense friction that any other additive will just amplify and heat and a rapid increase of heat may of sky rocketed at a rate we have not considered.
In some of the short video clips, I thought I saw what looked like implosion along with explosion. However it seemed to show a very narrow fall pattern.
In this narrow path of compression, could it be possible that heat actually built up faster than we have ever tested or calculated?
Chainsaw,
Quote
(I have created spheres in about 30 different ways, though the use of reactions, but none seem to fit except those that come from reactions with aluminum mind you there is no way to tell a reaction of aluminum in the fires, from one in the Building to one in the Impacts.
Aluminum oxidation reactions are aluminum oxidation reactions.
The only way to tell what might have happened is to try to recreate it experimentally.)
This is exactly what I was thinking should happen.
I was thinking someone could do experiments with some junk aluminum and steel until I see you have already considered this.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 2 2007, 12:57 AM)
PS. and Arthur I really do not mind you calling my experiments half assed, because I know that is what they are, but they are all that I am capable of working on my own time, with limited resources, basically with scrounged JUNK.
Also as far as terrorizing my Neighbors goes, they are usually too drunk to mind, and it is just pay back for the all night parties and loud country music.
hey, why not make up a mix of chemicals, and just 'collapse' your neighbors? it should be a piece of junk cake for you.
do rednecks burn hotter than white collars?
Also as far as terrorizing my Neighbors goes, they are usually too drunk to mind, and it is just pay back for the all night parties and loud country music.
hey, why not make up a mix of chemicals, and just 'collapse' your neighbors? it should be a piece of junk cake for you.
do rednecks burn hotter than white collars?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 1 2007, 05:57 PM)
Dear DBB. ...
Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you for the clarification.
A "spherical chicken" thought experiment just occurred to me.
Let's take that fictional space-based death ray that newton feels is more plausible than gravity, and use it to disintegrate an entire floor of a WTC tower instantly, without imparting any impulse to the rest of the structure at all.
The now-unsupported top block falls exactly straight down, no side-slip whatever, such that the bottoms and tops of the severed structural members collide and match up perfectly with each other.
What would happen to the steel at the mating surfaces?
We know that the steel was at about 0.4 of it's ultimate load limit (DBB to provide the right terms and number), so what would the effect of the kinetic energy be?
I calculated before the simple relationship that if something falls 10 feet and decelerates uniformly to a stop in one foot, that it takes ((10:1)+1)g's for this to happen. I'd provided this calculation to illustrate that if the upper block tried to decelerate uniformly and stop within two feet after falling ten, that the bottom part would have to support an impossibly-high load, as an argument that the upper block couldn't have stopped once it started falling.
Using this same sort of relationship tailored for the steel-on-steel collision, we'll have to calculate how much "give" to expect from the steel below to replace that one-foot=>11gs.
Replacing that one-foot number with something much smaller (the amount of calculated compression of the lower steel structure) will result in much higher g's and much higher stresses.
Now the question is, what happens to steel when it's subjected to sudden-onsets of stresses far greater than steel's ultimate strength? Does it liquify and squirt out of the way? Does it splash? I remember discussions of this from what happens to tank armor when it's hit with a hypervelocity (Mach 5+) impactor round, and as I recall, the steel actually liquifies and splashes out of the way.
Steel spheres result.
Could the steel spheres be created simply by steel-on-steel collisions?
Let's take that fictional space-based death ray that newton feels is more plausible than gravity, and use it to disintegrate an entire floor of a WTC tower instantly, without imparting any impulse to the rest of the structure at all.
The now-unsupported top block falls exactly straight down, no side-slip whatever, such that the bottoms and tops of the severed structural members collide and match up perfectly with each other.
What would happen to the steel at the mating surfaces?
We know that the steel was at about 0.4 of it's ultimate load limit (DBB to provide the right terms and number), so what would the effect of the kinetic energy be?
I calculated before the simple relationship that if something falls 10 feet and decelerates uniformly to a stop in one foot, that it takes ((10:1)+1)g's for this to happen. I'd provided this calculation to illustrate that if the upper block tried to decelerate uniformly and stop within two feet after falling ten, that the bottom part would have to support an impossibly-high load, as an argument that the upper block couldn't have stopped once it started falling.
Using this same sort of relationship tailored for the steel-on-steel collision, we'll have to calculate how much "give" to expect from the steel below to replace that one-foot=>11gs.
Replacing that one-foot number with something much smaller (the amount of calculated compression of the lower steel structure) will result in much higher g's and much higher stresses.
Now the question is, what happens to steel when it's subjected to sudden-onsets of stresses far greater than steel's ultimate strength? Does it liquify and squirt out of the way? Does it splash? I remember discussions of this from what happens to tank armor when it's hit with a hypervelocity (Mach 5+) impactor round, and as I recall, the steel actually liquifies and splashes out of the way.
Steel spheres result.
Could the steel spheres be created simply by steel-on-steel collisions?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 1 2007, 08:57 PM)
Dear DBB. I have already read it, and it is one of the things that I used in my research, Half assed experiments as Arthur refers to them.
Excuse me?
doesn't explain cylindrical burnt out holes, but it does explain microspheres.
doesn't explain cylindrical burnt out holes, but it does explain microspheres.
Super also known as nano thermate because the nano particles are what make it so fast reacting has never reached the level of a true explosive, and it is unstable when exposed to temperatures above 250c or Chlorides that weaken the oxide layer on the aluminum.
Blood when the sodium cloride is removed at over 1400C has all those elements and is magnetic. That goes for several other organic compounds as well.
Bullsh*t.
Since it's instability that they're talking about, which is a vaguely defined term under the best of circumstances, I'd think it'd be difficult to quantify further than "rapidly".
The walls went from stable to unstable, and collapse happened soon thereafter. The transition from stable to unstable is kind of a question of definition, since it has no visible manifestation, other than the collapse that followed.
Sorry I couldn't provide a numerical answer to the question.
Excuse me?
QUOTE (Chainsaw July 18th+ 2007)
I have actually tested this in my half assed experiments, and provided proof that aluminum can oxidize and not be white right on this tread.
I may have REPEATED your description of your experiments, but I do believe twas YOU who coined the phrase.
Arthur
I may have REPEATED your description of your experiments, but I do believe twas YOU who coined the phrase.
Arthur
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 2 2007, 02:14 AM)
A "spherical chicken" thought experiment just occurred to me.
Let's take that fictional space-based death ray that newton feels is more plausible than gravity, and use it to disintegrate an entire floor of a WTC tower instantly, without imparting any impulse to the rest of the structure at all.
The now-unsupported top block falls exactly straight down, no side-slip whatever, such that the bottoms and tops of the severed structural members collide and match up perfectly with each other.
What would happen to the steel at the mating surfaces?
We know that the steel was at about 0.4 of it's ultimate load limit (DBB to provide the right terms and number), so what would the effect of the kinetic energy be?
I calculated before the simple relationship that if something falls 10 feet and decelerates uniformly to a stop in one foot, that it takes ((10:1)+1)g's for this to happen. I'd provided this calculation to illustrate that if the upper block tried to decelerate uniformly and stop within two feet after falling ten, that the bottom part would have to support an impossibly-high load, as an argument that the upper block couldn't have stopped once it started falling.
Using this same sort of relationship tailored for the steel-on-steel collision, we'll have to calculate how much "give" to expect from the steel below to replace that one-foot=>11gs.
Replacing that one-foot number with something much smaller (the amount of calculated compression of the lower steel structure) will result in much higher g's and much higher stresses.
Now the question is, what happens to steel when it's subjected to sudden-onsets of stresses far greater than steel's ultimate strength? Does it liquify and squirt out of the way? Does it splash? I remember discussions of this from what happens to tank armor when it's hit with a hypervelocity (Mach 5+) impactor round, and as I recall, the steel actually liquifies and splashes out of the way.
Steel spheres result.
Could the steel spheres be created simply by steel-on-steel collisions?
Yes some undoubtedly some were but the chemical signature does not match, and I have Also created spheres in a similar way, to that. The spheres speak of the way they were created by the Chemical finger print of the individual sphere.
Spheres that are combined of Aluminum and steel can form in two ways, either from dried solution that is reacted, or from steel and aluminum hotter than the point at witch aluminum oxide melts over 2000c.
I also want to point out that Iron oxide carbon reduction reactions melt steel, that is in fact how steel is formed, from Iron ore in the first place.
Let's take that fictional space-based death ray that newton feels is more plausible than gravity, and use it to disintegrate an entire floor of a WTC tower instantly, without imparting any impulse to the rest of the structure at all.
The now-unsupported top block falls exactly straight down, no side-slip whatever, such that the bottoms and tops of the severed structural members collide and match up perfectly with each other.
What would happen to the steel at the mating surfaces?
We know that the steel was at about 0.4 of it's ultimate load limit (DBB to provide the right terms and number), so what would the effect of the kinetic energy be?
I calculated before the simple relationship that if something falls 10 feet and decelerates uniformly to a stop in one foot, that it takes ((10:1)+1)g's for this to happen. I'd provided this calculation to illustrate that if the upper block tried to decelerate uniformly and stop within two feet after falling ten, that the bottom part would have to support an impossibly-high load, as an argument that the upper block couldn't have stopped once it started falling.
Using this same sort of relationship tailored for the steel-on-steel collision, we'll have to calculate how much "give" to expect from the steel below to replace that one-foot=>11gs.
Replacing that one-foot number with something much smaller (the amount of calculated compression of the lower steel structure) will result in much higher g's and much higher stresses.
Now the question is, what happens to steel when it's subjected to sudden-onsets of stresses far greater than steel's ultimate strength? Does it liquify and squirt out of the way? Does it splash? I remember discussions of this from what happens to tank armor when it's hit with a hypervelocity (Mach 5+) impactor round, and as I recall, the steel actually liquifies and splashes out of the way.
Steel spheres result.
Could the steel spheres be created simply by steel-on-steel collisions?
Yes some undoubtedly some were but the chemical signature does not match, and I have Also created spheres in a similar way, to that. The spheres speak of the way they were created by the Chemical finger print of the individual sphere.
Spheres that are combined of Aluminum and steel can form in two ways, either from dried solution that is reacted, or from steel and aluminum hotter than the point at witch aluminum oxide melts over 2000c.
I also want to point out that Iron oxide carbon reduction reactions melt steel, that is in fact how steel is formed, from Iron ore in the first place.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 2 2007, 02:18 AM)
Excuse me?
I may have REPEATED your description of your experiments, but I do believe twas YOU who coined the phrase.
Arthur
Actually it was Mel who first used the phrase on here to describe my experiments When I first came to Physorg.
Though the post was deleted for no scientific content.
Also I do not know if you can see it or not, but the pan in this larger photo,
is reflecting not glowing, reflecting the light from a reaction inside the oxide layer of the aluminum, a thermite reaction actually inside of the aluminum.
The larger spheres are Fe pure Fe from Iron oxide that I placed iside the oxide coating of the aluminum then reacted using sono chemistry.
With a lot of practice I got quite good at it.
I may have REPEATED your description of your experiments, but I do believe twas YOU who coined the phrase.
Arthur
Actually it was Mel who first used the phrase on here to describe my experiments When I first came to Physorg.
Though the post was deleted for no scientific content.
QUOTE
David,
It is YOU who is claiming that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY RELEASED was SO GREAT as to be equal to 1/3 MORE than NIST claimed.
Well they claimed 8,000 GJ of energy was released by the combustion of the contents of one building, so you are claiming that the Aluminum in the plane released 2,500 GJ of energy.
That is a LOT of energy. ~ 7 megawatts hours
In one hour that's equal to more than the total output of two of our largest nuclear power plants.
You can't then say, "oh but the Aluminum didn't BURN FIERCELY, it SLOWLY OXIDIZED"
Make up you mind.
And NO, I'm not forgetting about the soot, but still there is no way that you are going to BURN enough aluminum to create 2,500 GJ of energy and NOT SEE IT.
Burning Aluminum
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ingAluminum.jpg
PS (your half assed experiments have shown NOTHING more than you can heat aluminium with a friggin torch and get a slightly orangish glow, which coincidentally is the same orangish glow of the steel pan the aluminum is sitting on)
Arthur
It is YOU who is claiming that the AMOUNT OF ENERGY RELEASED was SO GREAT as to be equal to 1/3 MORE than NIST claimed.
Well they claimed 8,000 GJ of energy was released by the combustion of the contents of one building, so you are claiming that the Aluminum in the plane released 2,500 GJ of energy.
That is a LOT of energy. ~ 7 megawatts hours
In one hour that's equal to more than the total output of two of our largest nuclear power plants.
You can't then say, "oh but the Aluminum didn't BURN FIERCELY, it SLOWLY OXIDIZED"
Make up you mind.
And NO, I'm not forgetting about the soot, but still there is no way that you are going to BURN enough aluminum to create 2,500 GJ of energy and NOT SEE IT.
Burning Aluminum
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ingAluminum.jpg
PS (your half assed experiments have shown NOTHING more than you can heat aluminium with a friggin torch and get a slightly orangish glow, which coincidentally is the same orangish glow of the steel pan the aluminum is sitting on)
Arthur
Also I do not know if you can see it or not, but the pan in this larger photo,
is reflecting not glowing, reflecting the light from a reaction inside the oxide layer of the aluminum, a thermite reaction actually inside of the aluminum.
The larger spheres are Fe pure Fe from Iron oxide that I placed iside the oxide coating of the aluminum then reacted using sono chemistry.
With a lot of practice I got quite good at it.
QUOTE
So what does Torin think took down the WTC buildings? Different forms of thermite, such as thermate and one called super thermite. “If I was demolishing a building as high as the WTC, I would use thermite. It does what I want, when I want.” Torin then gets into the science of thermite, and what its actual chemical composition is. The same chemical composition found in the previously molten metal microspheres found in the WTC dust, discovered by professor Steven Jones. “The WTC 'microsphere' samples showed the presence of aluminum (Al), magnesium (Mg), manganese (Mn), potassium (K), copper (Cu), and sulphur (S).” Torins explanation continues, “The presence of sulphur in steel makes it brittle and lowers its melting point. Sulphur is NOT used in structural steel because of this. Powdered iron oxide (Fe2O4) and aluminum in equal parts make a compound called thermite. Add sulphur to thermite and you have a compound called thermate which is used in heavy demolition.”
Torin then explains super thermite, “Add potassium permanganate (KMnO4) and cupric sulphide (CuSO4) to thermate and you have something called 'Super Thermite' which is explosive and used in mega-demolition, such as WTC 1 & 2.” For obviously criminal reasons, “NIST refuses to comment on the presence of Al, Mg, S, K, or Cu in the samples.”
Torin then explains super thermite, “Add potassium permanganate (KMnO4) and cupric sulphide (CuSO4) to thermate and you have something called 'Super Thermite' which is explosive and used in mega-demolition, such as WTC 1 & 2.” For obviously criminal reasons, “NIST refuses to comment on the presence of Al, Mg, S, K, or Cu in the samples.”
doesn't explain cylindrical burnt out holes, but it does explain microspheres.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 2 2007, 04:19 PM)
doesn't explain cylindrical burnt out holes, but it does explain microspheres.
Super also known as nano thermate because the nano particles are what make it so fast reacting has never reached the level of a true explosive, and it is unstable when exposed to temperatures above 250c or Chlorides that weaken the oxide layer on the aluminum.
Blood when the sodium cloride is removed at over 1400C has all those elements and is magnetic. That goes for several other organic compounds as well.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 2 2007, 12:10 PM)
I perfectly agree with you Trippy that it is a reducing environment, as can be seen by the smoke, that is one of the things that I noticed early on, but that does not preclude other reactions from taking place.
I'll deal with this point for now.
yes, you're absolutely right, it doesn't preclude the occurence of other reactions, not completely, it does make certain kinds of reactions less probable, and it forces seemingly counter intuitive reactions, such as:
C + CO2 -> 2CO
One of the things that I've noticed is that most of your reactions seem to be occuring in Oxidizing, or strongly oxidizing conditions which does influence some aspects of the way the materials react and combust.
I'll deal with this point for now.
yes, you're absolutely right, it doesn't preclude the occurence of other reactions, not completely, it does make certain kinds of reactions less probable, and it forces seemingly counter intuitive reactions, such as:
C + CO2 -> 2CO
One of the things that I've noticed is that most of your reactions seem to be occuring in Oxidizing, or strongly oxidizing conditions which does influence some aspects of the way the materials react and combust.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 2 2007, 09:05 PM)
I'll deal with this point for now.
yes, you're absolutely right, it doesn't preclude the occurence of other reactions, not completely, it does make certain kinds of reactions less probable, and it forces seemingly counter intuitive reactions, such as:
C + CO2 -> 2CO
One of the things that I've noticed is that most of your reactions seem to be occuring in Oxidizing, or strongly oxidizing conditions which does influence some aspects of the way the materials react and combust.
The interesting ones however are not, occurring in strong Oxidizing conditions, the Diesel fuel and Kerosene I used caused a lot of thick black smoke as well as the burning wood and other materials.
In those conditions though I find it difficult to observe and Document doing the experiments alone as I do not want to take a chance on anyone else getting hurt.
I agree with you on more than you know Trippy, but the difference is I have discovered that there is more to reactive metal reactions than mere surface area, Prof. Thomas Eagar, expressed that the thermite reaction simply required a large surface area, years ago before I first talked to NEU, who kind of said the same the question I asked is why is a large surface area so important, and what I found out is it has to do with aluminums conductivity, the ability of aluminum to conduct away the heat, and the ability of the energy operating upon the aluminum to disrupted the tightly bonded Oxide layer.
The strength of the oxide layer is what places Aluminum Oxide at 9 on the mohs scale, that is what it takes the most energy to disrupt. The more you Oxidize aluminum the stronger the oxide layer becomes.
yes, you're absolutely right, it doesn't preclude the occurence of other reactions, not completely, it does make certain kinds of reactions less probable, and it forces seemingly counter intuitive reactions, such as:
C + CO2 -> 2CO
One of the things that I've noticed is that most of your reactions seem to be occuring in Oxidizing, or strongly oxidizing conditions which does influence some aspects of the way the materials react and combust.
The interesting ones however are not, occurring in strong Oxidizing conditions, the Diesel fuel and Kerosene I used caused a lot of thick black smoke as well as the burning wood and other materials.
In those conditions though I find it difficult to observe and Document doing the experiments alone as I do not want to take a chance on anyone else getting hurt.
I agree with you on more than you know Trippy, but the difference is I have discovered that there is more to reactive metal reactions than mere surface area, Prof. Thomas Eagar, expressed that the thermite reaction simply required a large surface area, years ago before I first talked to NEU, who kind of said the same the question I asked is why is a large surface area so important, and what I found out is it has to do with aluminums conductivity, the ability of aluminum to conduct away the heat, and the ability of the energy operating upon the aluminum to disrupted the tightly bonded Oxide layer.
The strength of the oxide layer is what places Aluminum Oxide at 9 on the mohs scale, that is what it takes the most energy to disrupt. The more you Oxidize aluminum the stronger the oxide layer becomes.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 3 2007, 09:39 AM)
The interesting ones however are not, occurring in strong Oxidizing conditions, the Diesel fuel and Kerosene I used caused a lot of thick black smoke as well as the burning wood and other materials.
In those conditions though I find it difficult to observe and Document doing the experiments alone as I do not want to take a chance on anyone else getting hurt.
I agree with you on more than you know Trippy, but the difference is I have discovered that there is more to reactive metal reactions than mere surface area, Prof. Thomas Eagar, expressed that the thermite reaction simply required a large surface area, years ago before I first talked to NEU, who kind of said the same the question I asked is why is a large surface area so important, and what I found out is it has to do with aluminums conductivity, the ability of aluminum to conduct away the heat, and the ability of the energy operating upon the aluminum to disrupted the tightly bonded Oxide layer.
The strength of the oxide layer is what places Aluminum Oxide at 9 on the mohs scale, that is what it takes the most energy to disrupt. The more you Oxidize aluminum the stronger the oxide layer becomes.
I understand all of that.
Just bare in mind that that is not the sole reason.
Coal displays the same behaviour as Aluminium
So does Flour.
As I said, a very important factor is the ratio of surface area to volume (or mass).
Cut a block in half, you increase the surface area by 50%, and this happens each time you cut a block in half, so when you divide a block of coal into 4 smaller pieces, you double it's surface area. Part of what this means is that the coal now has twice the opportunity to react with atmospheric oxygen. Another important consequence is that each block now has one quarter of the mass that it previousely had, which means it requires one quater the energy to ignite it, thus it can ignite at a lower temperature.
This is part of what I was trying to describe at one point.
Remember that the energy required to trigger a reaction is not measured in Joules, but Joules/Mol or, Joules/Kg.
In those conditions though I find it difficult to observe and Document doing the experiments alone as I do not want to take a chance on anyone else getting hurt.
I agree with you on more than you know Trippy, but the difference is I have discovered that there is more to reactive metal reactions than mere surface area, Prof. Thomas Eagar, expressed that the thermite reaction simply required a large surface area, years ago before I first talked to NEU, who kind of said the same the question I asked is why is a large surface area so important, and what I found out is it has to do with aluminums conductivity, the ability of aluminum to conduct away the heat, and the ability of the energy operating upon the aluminum to disrupted the tightly bonded Oxide layer.
The strength of the oxide layer is what places Aluminum Oxide at 9 on the mohs scale, that is what it takes the most energy to disrupt. The more you Oxidize aluminum the stronger the oxide layer becomes.
I understand all of that.
Just bare in mind that that is not the sole reason.
Coal displays the same behaviour as Aluminium
So does Flour.
As I said, a very important factor is the ratio of surface area to volume (or mass).
Cut a block in half, you increase the surface area by 50%, and this happens each time you cut a block in half, so when you divide a block of coal into 4 smaller pieces, you double it's surface area. Part of what this means is that the coal now has twice the opportunity to react with atmospheric oxygen. Another important consequence is that each block now has one quarter of the mass that it previousely had, which means it requires one quater the energy to ignite it, thus it can ignite at a lower temperature.
This is part of what I was trying to describe at one point.
Remember that the energy required to trigger a reaction is not measured in Joules, but Joules/Mol or, Joules/Kg.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 2 2007, 10:28 PM)
I understand all of that.
Just bare in mind that that is not the sole reason.
Coal displays the same behaviour as Aluminium
So does Flour.
As I said, a very important factor is the ratio of surface area to volume (or mass).
Cut a block in half, you increase the surface area by 50%, and this happens each time you cut a block in half, so when you divide a block of coal into 4 smaller pieces, you double it's surface area. Part of what this means is that the coal now has twice the opportunity to react with atmospheric oxygen. Another important consequence is that each block now has one quarter of the mass that it previousely had, which means it requires one quater the energy to ignite it, thus it can ignite at a lower temperature.
This is part of what I was trying to describe at one point.
Remember that the energy required to trigger a reaction is not measured in Joules, but Joules/Mol or, Joules/Kg.
Exactly and if an energy form can divide the material increasing the fractures, and oscillations, then the energy needed to ignite it drops significantly and it also has more area for Oxidation reactions to occur.
Wave energy and rapid motion can act on reactive metals in similar ways to dividing them, into smaller sections.
That is exactly what I have been saying however for the reaction to occur at all the oxide layer must be compromised to allow the reactive base metal to Oxidize.
Just bare in mind that that is not the sole reason.
Coal displays the same behaviour as Aluminium
So does Flour.
As I said, a very important factor is the ratio of surface area to volume (or mass).
Cut a block in half, you increase the surface area by 50%, and this happens each time you cut a block in half, so when you divide a block of coal into 4 smaller pieces, you double it's surface area. Part of what this means is that the coal now has twice the opportunity to react with atmospheric oxygen. Another important consequence is that each block now has one quarter of the mass that it previousely had, which means it requires one quater the energy to ignite it, thus it can ignite at a lower temperature.
This is part of what I was trying to describe at one point.
Remember that the energy required to trigger a reaction is not measured in Joules, but Joules/Mol or, Joules/Kg.
Exactly and if an energy form can divide the material increasing the fractures, and oscillations, then the energy needed to ignite it drops significantly and it also has more area for Oxidation reactions to occur.
Wave energy and rapid motion can act on reactive metals in similar ways to dividing them, into smaller sections.
That is exactly what I have been saying however for the reaction to occur at all the oxide layer must be compromised to allow the reactive base metal to Oxidize.
Chainsaw:
So the average size of the shredded aluminum from the aircraft would be worth knowing, as would the average size of the jet fuel droplets.
So the average size of the shredded aluminum from the aircraft would be worth knowing, as would the average size of the jet fuel droplets.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 3 2007, 01:01 AM)
Chainsaw:
So the average size of the shredded aluminum from the aircraft would be worth knowing, as would the average size of the jet fuel droplets.
Yes that is the point because small reactions can heat larger pieces into larger reactions. The energy to subdivide and fracture the aluminum even if the pieces do not totally separate, is what matters.
The pieces would be melting as they traveled though the fire ball.
I also noted that the piece of Fuse lodge posted on JERF, appeared to have a build up of aluminum oxide on it showing that it was oxidizing in the fire before it exited.
Remember even micro fractures increase the surface area, allowing greater energy release for less energy input.
Sono Chemistry affects solids at the melting point as well as Liquids, by creating micro fractures that disrupt the Conductivity of the particles.
Micro fractures also make aluminum more chemically reactive, that is what Dr. Steven E. Jones did not discover that impacts have a direct effect on what occurs to the material at a later date.
Dr. Steven E. Jones as far as I know has never tried impact studies, that is the greatest flaw in his science, he neglects a potential source of energy stored as fractures in the material, because he believes that only solid or molten materials are at play.
This is very complicated I once though exactly what Trippy has constantly stated, until I found out that it was more complicated than Just what I read in Chemistry text books. It is a Chemical energy relationship that can be quite complicated and even deceptive in a way.
Also remember were not just talking aluminum what happened to the titanium in the fans on the jet turbines, it is fragile and tends to fragment into small pieces.
It would be great to know the Droplet, and fragment sizes, but I do not know if a reliable measurement can be made.
So the average size of the shredded aluminum from the aircraft would be worth knowing, as would the average size of the jet fuel droplets.
Yes that is the point because small reactions can heat larger pieces into larger reactions. The energy to subdivide and fracture the aluminum even if the pieces do not totally separate, is what matters.
The pieces would be melting as they traveled though the fire ball.
I also noted that the piece of Fuse lodge posted on JERF, appeared to have a build up of aluminum oxide on it showing that it was oxidizing in the fire before it exited.
Remember even micro fractures increase the surface area, allowing greater energy release for less energy input.
Sono Chemistry affects solids at the melting point as well as Liquids, by creating micro fractures that disrupt the Conductivity of the particles.
Micro fractures also make aluminum more chemically reactive, that is what Dr. Steven E. Jones did not discover that impacts have a direct effect on what occurs to the material at a later date.
Dr. Steven E. Jones as far as I know has never tried impact studies, that is the greatest flaw in his science, he neglects a potential source of energy stored as fractures in the material, because he believes that only solid or molten materials are at play.
This is very complicated I once though exactly what Trippy has constantly stated, until I found out that it was more complicated than Just what I read in Chemistry text books. It is a Chemical energy relationship that can be quite complicated and even deceptive in a way.
Also remember were not just talking aluminum what happened to the titanium in the fans on the jet turbines, it is fragile and tends to fragment into small pieces.
It would be great to know the Droplet, and fragment sizes, but I do not know if a reliable measurement can be made.
Chainsaw:
One reference of interest to this discussion is in a paper entitled "Aluminum particles-air detonation at elevated pressures" in SHOCK WAVES Vol 15, page 313 (2006). The authors point out that even relatively inert particles such as corn starch can greatly influence detonation of fuel air mixures ....
Thus the dust thrown up into the fireballs in WTC 1 & 2 would be very important!
One reference of interest to this discussion is in a paper entitled "Aluminum particles-air detonation at elevated pressures" in SHOCK WAVES Vol 15, page 313 (2006). The authors point out that even relatively inert particles such as corn starch can greatly influence detonation of fuel air mixures ....
Thus the dust thrown up into the fireballs in WTC 1 & 2 would be very important!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 3 2007, 01:51 AM)
Chainsaw:
One reference of interest to this discussion is in a paper entitled "Aluminum particles-air detonation at elevated pressures" in SHOCK WAVES Vol 15, page 313 (2006). The authors point out that even relatively inert particles such as corn starch can greatly influence detonation of fuel air mixures ....
Thus the dust thrown up into the fireballs in WTC 1 & 2 would be very important!
Exactly what I have seen in experiments, that is what I have been talking about small reactions leading to bigger consequences.
One reference of interest to this discussion is in a paper entitled "Aluminum particles-air detonation at elevated pressures" in SHOCK WAVES Vol 15, page 313 (2006). The authors point out that even relatively inert particles such as corn starch can greatly influence detonation of fuel air mixures ....
Thus the dust thrown up into the fireballs in WTC 1 & 2 would be very important!
Exactly what I have seen in experiments, that is what I have been talking about small reactions leading to bigger consequences.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 2 2007, 09:51 PM)
One reference of interest to this discussion is in a paper entitled "Aluminum particles-air detonation at elevated pressures" in SHOCK WAVES Vol 15, page 313 (2006). The authors point out that even relatively inert particles such as corn starch can greatly influence detonation of fuel air mixures ....
Thus the dust thrown up into the fireballs in WTC 1 & 2 would be very important!
Not likely.
The dust from concrete and drywall IS inert, not "relatively inert" like corn starch and the initial conditions inside the towers were severely O2 limited and the overpressures that were developed were quite low.
Arthur
Thus the dust thrown up into the fireballs in WTC 1 & 2 would be very important!
Not likely.
The dust from concrete and drywall IS inert, not "relatively inert" like corn starch and the initial conditions inside the towers were severely O2 limited and the overpressures that were developed were quite low.
Arthur
Arthur:
Well, consider this:
About 300 gallons of jet fuel per floor (over about 3 floors) was combusted in the impact zones of the towers in a matter of seconds. If we take the heat of combustion of the fuel to be 40 MJ/kg, we have an acute heat release of about 30,000 MJ on an affected floor. The mass of air on one floor was about 15,000 kg.
The temperature increase, Delta(T), associated with this heat release is given by:
Delta(T) = [Heat Release]/ [Mass x Heat Capacity]
Hence, Delta(T) = [30,000 x 10^6] / [15,000 x 1000] = 2000 deg C.
At 2000 deg C aluminum "burns" in nitrogen forming aluminum nitride!
Well, consider this:
About 300 gallons of jet fuel per floor (over about 3 floors) was combusted in the impact zones of the towers in a matter of seconds. If we take the heat of combustion of the fuel to be 40 MJ/kg, we have an acute heat release of about 30,000 MJ on an affected floor. The mass of air on one floor was about 15,000 kg.
The temperature increase, Delta(T), associated with this heat release is given by:
Delta(T) = [Heat Release]/ [Mass x Heat Capacity]
Hence, Delta(T) = [30,000 x 10^6] / [15,000 x 1000] = 2000 deg C.
At 2000 deg C aluminum "burns" in nitrogen forming aluminum nitride!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jul 31 2007, 04:14 PM)
Metamars:
I have just taken a look at Morrone's alleged "proof" that there was an energy insufficiency in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. His argument is WRONG because he neglects CHEMICAL ENERGY!
Morrone only considers Mgh as a source of energy. This energy is actually quite small in comparison to the chemical energies available in the towers.
Just the jet fuel alone released about 45 MJ/kg of heat on combustion. And the office/workstations had an additional 20 MJ/kg of combustion energy.
So much for Morrone's "proof"!!!!
You know that back around 1900 some physicists "proved" that it was impossible to place an object in orbit around the earth because the energy required was 60MJ/kg, and 1 kilogram of H2/O2 could only provide 16 MJ/kg.....
Morrone's paper at journalof911studies.com regards melted steel. I heard him talk (as part of a 'debate', for which his opponent - an architect who helped design the WTC buildings - did absolutely no preparation) in Brooklyn wherein he described other research of his, including calculations of collapse energies.
BTW, he also has studied the stills of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, and detected fraud. However, he has not published this, though he submitted it to (IIRC) mediamatters.org. I wish I could remember the specifics of his interaction with the media vehicle, but basically, whoever he submitted it to, suppressed it.
Your complaint about not ignoring energy from chemical reactions has some merit. Why don't you write it up (as quantitatively as you can) and submit it?
I have just taken a look at Morrone's alleged "proof" that there was an energy insufficiency in the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. His argument is WRONG because he neglects CHEMICAL ENERGY!
Morrone only considers Mgh as a source of energy. This energy is actually quite small in comparison to the chemical energies available in the towers.
Just the jet fuel alone released about 45 MJ/kg of heat on combustion. And the office/workstations had an additional 20 MJ/kg of combustion energy.
So much for Morrone's "proof"!!!!
You know that back around 1900 some physicists "proved" that it was impossible to place an object in orbit around the earth because the energy required was 60MJ/kg, and 1 kilogram of H2/O2 could only provide 16 MJ/kg.....
Morrone's paper at journalof911studies.com regards melted steel. I heard him talk (as part of a 'debate', for which his opponent - an architect who helped design the WTC buildings - did absolutely no preparation) in Brooklyn wherein he described other research of his, including calculations of collapse energies.
BTW, he also has studied the stills of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, and detected fraud. However, he has not published this, though he submitted it to (IIRC) mediamatters.org. I wish I could remember the specifics of his interaction with the media vehicle, but basically, whoever he submitted it to, suppressed it.
Your complaint about not ignoring energy from chemical reactions has some merit. Why don't you write it up (as quantitatively as you can) and submit it?
How long did it take for a wall to buckle at collapse initiation? I would prefer any of the three walls of WTC 1, but nobody seems to know of a video which shows this.
It seems that there is a video showing the buckling of the east wall of WTC 2. I guess I'll have to go with the time it took that wall to buckle. Something more quantitative than "damned fast", please.
Thank you.
It seems that there is a video showing the buckling of the east wall of WTC 2. I guess I'll have to go with the time it took that wall to buckle. Something more quantitative than "damned fast", please.
Thank you.
QUOTE
BTW, he also has studied the stills of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, and detected fraud.
Bullsh*t.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 3 2007, 01:25 PM)
Arthur:
Well, consider this:
About 300 gallons of jet fuel per floor (over about 3 floors) was combusted in the impact zones of the towers in a matter of seconds. If we take the heat of combustion of the fuel to be 40 MJ/kg, we have an acute heat release of about 30,000 MJ on an affected floor. The mass of air on one floor was about 15,000 kg.
The temperature increase, Delta(T), associated with this heat release is given by:
Delta(T) = [Heat Release]/ [Mass x Heat Capacity]
Hence, Delta(T) = [30,000 x 10^6] / [15,000 x 1000] = 2000 deg C.
At 2000 deg C aluminum "burns" in nitrogen forming aluminum nitride!
NOPE
If the floor was 50% larger the temp wouldn't equal 3,000 C
Recheck your formula and its APPLICABILITY to the situation.
Arthur
Well, consider this:
About 300 gallons of jet fuel per floor (over about 3 floors) was combusted in the impact zones of the towers in a matter of seconds. If we take the heat of combustion of the fuel to be 40 MJ/kg, we have an acute heat release of about 30,000 MJ on an affected floor. The mass of air on one floor was about 15,000 kg.
The temperature increase, Delta(T), associated with this heat release is given by:
Delta(T) = [Heat Release]/ [Mass x Heat Capacity]
Hence, Delta(T) = [30,000 x 10^6] / [15,000 x 1000] = 2000 deg C.
At 2000 deg C aluminum "burns" in nitrogen forming aluminum nitride!
NOPE
If the floor was 50% larger the temp wouldn't equal 3,000 C
Recheck your formula and its APPLICABILITY to the situation.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 4 2007, 05:25 AM)
Arthur:
Well, consider this:
About 300 gallons of jet fuel per floor (over about 3 floors) was combusted in the impact zones of the towers in a matter of seconds. If we take the heat of combustion of the fuel to be 40 MJ/kg, we have an acute heat release of about 30,000 MJ on an affected floor. The mass of air on one floor was about 15,000 kg.
The temperature increase, Delta(T), associated with this heat release is given by:
Delta(T) = [Heat Release]/ [Mass x Heat Capacity]
Hence, Delta(T) = [30,000 x 10^6] / [15,000 x 1000] = 2000 deg C.
At 2000 deg C aluminum "burns" in nitrogen forming aluminum nitride!
Chainsaw: And wasn't "It's more complicated then that" one of the first things I said on this thread? As for Sono-chemistry. Have you investigated the Sonochemistry of Gypsum in a reducing environment - remembering that Aluminium wasn't the only thing subject to vibrations There was something else I wanted tos ay, but i'm not sure how to word it.
Neu-fonze: It's at this stage that I feel compelled to point a couple of things out to you:
2000 °C is enough to melt steel (mp: 1535 °C) so I find that sort of scenario unlikely, as there is no evidence for this (aside from localized eutectic mixtures with a high FeS content).
Second point: It's all very well to invoke temperatures of 200°C, but it takes time for bulk materials of any sort and particle size to change temperature, it also takes time for reactions to initiate, but, in a relatively short time, the fireball expands, and the temperature drops (and yes, I know that in some respects, this point sort of contradicts my last point, and yet they're still both equally valid.
Oh, and I notice that no ones taken up my challenge of how a fire fueled only by paper could burn hot enough to turn concrete into powder (something that normally takes thermite like temperatures) and hot enough to reduce Water to reduce elemental Oxygen and hydrogen.
Well, consider this:
About 300 gallons of jet fuel per floor (over about 3 floors) was combusted in the impact zones of the towers in a matter of seconds. If we take the heat of combustion of the fuel to be 40 MJ/kg, we have an acute heat release of about 30,000 MJ on an affected floor. The mass of air on one floor was about 15,000 kg.
The temperature increase, Delta(T), associated with this heat release is given by:
Delta(T) = [Heat Release]/ [Mass x Heat Capacity]
Hence, Delta(T) = [30,000 x 10^6] / [15,000 x 1000] = 2000 deg C.
At 2000 deg C aluminum "burns" in nitrogen forming aluminum nitride!
Chainsaw: And wasn't "It's more complicated then that" one of the first things I said on this thread? As for Sono-chemistry. Have you investigated the Sonochemistry of Gypsum in a reducing environment - remembering that Aluminium wasn't the only thing subject to vibrations There was something else I wanted tos ay, but i'm not sure how to word it.
Neu-fonze: It's at this stage that I feel compelled to point a couple of things out to you:
2000 °C is enough to melt steel (mp: 1535 °C) so I find that sort of scenario unlikely, as there is no evidence for this (aside from localized eutectic mixtures with a high FeS content).
Second point: It's all very well to invoke temperatures of 200°C, but it takes time for bulk materials of any sort and particle size to change temperature, it also takes time for reactions to initiate, but, in a relatively short time, the fireball expands, and the temperature drops (and yes, I know that in some respects, this point sort of contradicts my last point, and yet they're still both equally valid.
Oh, and I notice that no ones taken up my challenge of how a fire fueled only by paper could burn hot enough to turn concrete into powder (something that normally takes thermite like temperatures) and hot enough to reduce Water to reduce elemental Oxygen and hydrogen.
NCSTAR1--6D, page 314 (378 ordinal):
"The section of the building above the impact zone titled to the south ... as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls ..." (emphasis added)
How fast is that? A small fraction of a second, about a second, more?
A few pages further on, similar phasing is used for the east wall of WTC 2, rapidly.
Suggestions will be appreciated.
Measurements (on say, the east wall of WTC 2) greatly appreciated!
"The section of the building above the impact zone titled to the south ... as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls ..." (emphasis added)
How fast is that? A small fraction of a second, about a second, more?
A few pages further on, similar phasing is used for the east wall of WTC 2, rapidly.
Suggestions will be appreciated.
Measurements (on say, the east wall of WTC 2) greatly appreciated!
Trippy/Arthur:
First I have to admit that my formula ignores the mass of the fuel, but this is relatively small compared to the mass of air...
The formula says that IF the mass of air that is heated by burning the fuel is increased, the rise in temperature is smaller, as expected.
Please note that my calculation is only for the initial heating of the GAS on a floor. I am NOT saying this means that the steel reached 2000 deg C. Obviously if you want to include this you would need an extra term that would involve the heat capacity of steel and other factors that depend on thermal conductivities, etc, etc.
I would expect that most of the heating of the steel was from the later combustion of workstation materials such as furniture, paper, cardboard, textiles, and plastics.
First I have to admit that my formula ignores the mass of the fuel, but this is relatively small compared to the mass of air...
The formula says that IF the mass of air that is heated by burning the fuel is increased, the rise in temperature is smaller, as expected.
Please note that my calculation is only for the initial heating of the GAS on a floor. I am NOT saying this means that the steel reached 2000 deg C. Obviously if you want to include this you would need an extra term that would involve the heat capacity of steel and other factors that depend on thermal conductivities, etc, etc.
I would expect that most of the heating of the steel was from the later combustion of workstation materials such as furniture, paper, cardboard, textiles, and plastics.
QUOTE
as column instability progressed rapidly from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls ..." (emphasis added)
How fast is that? A small fraction of a second, about a second, more?
How fast is that? A small fraction of a second, about a second, more?
Since it's instability that they're talking about, which is a vaguely defined term under the best of circumstances, I'd think it'd be difficult to quantify further than "rapidly".
The walls went from stable to unstable, and collapse happened soon thereafter. The transition from stable to unstable is kind of a question of definition, since it has no visible manifestation, other than the collapse that followed.
Sorry I couldn't provide a numerical answer to the question.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 3 2007, 06:20 PM)
Since it's instability that they're talking about, which is a vaguely defined term under the best of circumstances, I'd think it'd be difficult to quantify further than "rapidly".
The walls went from stable to unstable, and collapse happened soon thereafter. The transition from stable to unstable is kind of a question of definition, since it has no visible manifestation, other than the collapse that followed.
What I need is the amount of time required for a wall to buckle, not just bow-in.
This might be seen on the south wall of WTC 1 in some video from a helicopter, but, alas, it doesn't appear to exist.
This, it appears, can be seen for the east wall of WTC 2, where the buckling progressed rapidly along the entire length of the wall.
So it ought to be possible, for those who can watch the appropriate videos, to estimate the time.
(Fingers crossed.)
The walls went from stable to unstable, and collapse happened soon thereafter. The transition from stable to unstable is kind of a question of definition, since it has no visible manifestation, other than the collapse that followed.
What I need is the amount of time required for a wall to buckle, not just bow-in.
This might be seen on the south wall of WTC 1 in some video from a helicopter, but, alas, it doesn't appear to exist.
This, it appears, can be seen for the east wall of WTC 2, where the buckling progressed rapidly along the entire length of the wall.
So it ought to be possible, for those who can watch the appropriate videos, to estimate the time.
(Fingers crossed.)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 3 2007, 09:15 PM)
Trippy/Arthur:
First I have to admit that my formula ignores the mass of the fuel, but this is relatively small compared to the mass of air...
The formula says that IF the mass of air that is heated by burning the fuel is increased, the rise in temperature is smaller, as expected.
Please note that my calculation is only for the initial heating of the GAS on a floor. I am NOT saying this means that the steel reached 2000 deg C. Obviously if you want to include this you would need an extra term that would involve the heat capacity of steel and other factors that depend on thermal conductivities, etc, etc.
I would expect that most of the heating of the steel was from the later combustion of workstation materials such as furniture, paper, cardboard, textiles, and plastics.
But in the building, in those first few seconds, you didn't have 300 gallons of fuel burning at a 16/1 ratio with air.
You had a HIGHLY rich mixture resulting in mainly incomplete combustion and resulting lower flame temps.
Finally, your simplistic formula allows the resulting gas temps to exceed the normal combustion temperature of the fuel.
And while you DIDN'T say the steel reached that temp, you sorta IMPLIED the aluminum did.
Arthur
First I have to admit that my formula ignores the mass of the fuel, but this is relatively small compared to the mass of air...
The formula says that IF the mass of air that is heated by burning the fuel is increased, the rise in temperature is smaller, as expected.
Please note that my calculation is only for the initial heating of the GAS on a floor. I am NOT saying this means that the steel reached 2000 deg C. Obviously if you want to include this you would need an extra term that would involve the heat capacity of steel and other factors that depend on thermal conductivities, etc, etc.
I would expect that most of the heating of the steel was from the later combustion of workstation materials such as furniture, paper, cardboard, textiles, and plastics.
But in the building, in those first few seconds, you didn't have 300 gallons of fuel burning at a 16/1 ratio with air.
You had a HIGHLY rich mixture resulting in mainly incomplete combustion and resulting lower flame temps.
Finally, your simplistic formula allows the resulting gas temps to exceed the normal combustion temperature of the fuel.
And while you DIDN'T say the steel reached that temp, you sorta IMPLIED the aluminum did.
Arthur
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.