QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 4 2007, 02:16 PM)
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
Not only that, but if you want to get anything remotely resembling an accurate guestimate, you have to factor in the thermal properties of everything in the three floors, the concrete, the steel, the miscellania representing the office eqiupment...
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
Not only that, but if you want to get anything remotely resembling an accurate guestimate, you have to factor in the thermal properties of everything in the three floors, the concrete, the steel, the miscellania representing the office eqiupment...
I am focussing on the first few seconds or so after impact. The jet fuel was violently released and became atomized into small droplets. This was ignited and formed a fuel air deflagration. There were aluminum particles, concrete dust, etc, in the expanding fireball; these could have been involved in further gaseous or heterogeneous reactions.
My "simplistic" calculation was an attempt to estimate the temperatures generated by the fireball. The chemical reaction of the fuel created hot CO2 and H2O so it is legitimate to consider the air on one floor as the first heat sink. Heat was then transferred to the walls, floors, furniture, etc .... although I suspect most of the heat was carried out of the building with the expanding gases.
The temperature I estimate could be on the high side because some of the chemical energy was released in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
My "simplistic" calculation was an attempt to estimate the temperatures generated by the fireball. The chemical reaction of the fuel created hot CO2 and H2O so it is legitimate to consider the air on one floor as the first heat sink. Heat was then transferred to the walls, floors, furniture, etc .... although I suspect most of the heat was carried out of the building with the expanding gases.
The temperature I estimate could be on the high side because some of the chemical energy was released in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 4 2007, 05:19 AM)
Not only that, but if you want to get anything remotely resembling an accurate guestimate, you have to factor in the thermal properties of everything in the three floors, the concrete, the steel, the miscellania representing the office eqiupment...
Even more complicated than that since steel burns at 1375C, with water, you also have to factor in every available fuel source, and oxidant or oxidation like reaction.
Including other metals and possible reactions that it he real problem to it.
Steel exposed to aluminum burning in air will oxidize to air, or steam.
It if essentially more complex than simple combustion of JET fuel in air, that is what I have been saying all along. The inert dust that is more responsible for aluminum oxidation is steel dust from friction, and collision. Along with others substances such as plastic dust, wood dust, and others concrete and wall board in a fire release H20 so the concrete and Drywall dust are oxidants.
It is so Complicated I find it hard to explain, however what I have been seeing in experiments is what NEU has hypothesized, independently.
I do not believe that large amounts of steel melted, though some localized melting obviously occurred, what I am saying is that a Metal fuel slurry reaction occurred, that lead to the catilization of other events that would have damaged the buildings even if the fire proofing was not as severely damaged as NIST believes in their Assumption.
I even believe the conditions in the Metal fuel Slurry reaction is the reason that NIST Adopted the fire proofing destruction theory first proposed by the society of engineers, and why they used the worst case scenario.
I agree it takes time for the compounds to mix but when Drywall and concrete are subjected to intense pressure in impacts the release of H20 can be instant.
Also if drywall is fragmented the heat energy necessary to release the H20 from it or concrete is considerably less do to the increased surface area.
PS. Arthur I am not trying to put down the NIST report just saying that NIST may have over looked something important, by allowing a theory the was proposed in the early investigation to unknowingly prejudiced their investigation.
Undoubtedly some fire proofing was dislodged and some metals were consumed by oxidation on impact and in the fuel air explosion that followed impact.
Even more complicated than that since steel burns at 1375C, with water, you also have to factor in every available fuel source, and oxidant or oxidation like reaction.
Including other metals and possible reactions that it he real problem to it.
Steel exposed to aluminum burning in air will oxidize to air, or steam.
It if essentially more complex than simple combustion of JET fuel in air, that is what I have been saying all along. The inert dust that is more responsible for aluminum oxidation is steel dust from friction, and collision. Along with others substances such as plastic dust, wood dust, and others concrete and wall board in a fire release H20 so the concrete and Drywall dust are oxidants.
It is so Complicated I find it hard to explain, however what I have been seeing in experiments is what NEU has hypothesized, independently.
I do not believe that large amounts of steel melted, though some localized melting obviously occurred, what I am saying is that a Metal fuel slurry reaction occurred, that lead to the catilization of other events that would have damaged the buildings even if the fire proofing was not as severely damaged as NIST believes in their Assumption.
I even believe the conditions in the Metal fuel Slurry reaction is the reason that NIST Adopted the fire proofing destruction theory first proposed by the society of engineers, and why they used the worst case scenario.
I agree it takes time for the compounds to mix but when Drywall and concrete are subjected to intense pressure in impacts the release of H20 can be instant.
Also if drywall is fragmented the heat energy necessary to release the H20 from it or concrete is considerably less do to the increased surface area.
PS. Arthur I am not trying to put down the NIST report just saying that NIST may have over looked something important, by allowing a theory the was proposed in the early investigation to unknowingly prejudiced their investigation.
Undoubtedly some fire proofing was dislodged and some metals were consumed by oxidation on impact and in the fuel air explosion that followed impact.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 4 2007, 12:04 PM)
I am focussing on the first few seconds or so after impact. The jet fuel was violently released and became atomized into small droplets. This was ignited and formed a fuel air deflagration. There were aluminum particles, concrete dust, etc, in the expanding fireball; these could have been involved in further gaseous or heterogeneous reactions.
My "simplistic" calculation was an attempt to estimate the temperatures generated by the fireball. The chemical reaction of the fuel created hot CO2 and H2O so it is legitimate to consider the air on one floor as the first heat sink. Heat was then transferred to the walls, floors, furniture, etc .... although I suspect most of the heat was carried out of the building with the expanding gases.
The temperature I estimate could be on the high side because some of the chemical energy was released in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The early fireballs would have been white hot, if much of the energy in the first few seconds were released in the visible spectrum, something was absorbing a good part of the energy probably the fuel and metals. Fine particles of aluminum themselves would have been oxidizing even in the first few seconds of the fireballs as the oxide expanded. The Hot CO2 and H2O in a plasma like state, would be reacting with the metals.
Nitration of reactive metals would also be occurring,
some very good links to articles that might be interesting.
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/2005...505A0620631.php
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/journal/P/Z0951A/2005.php
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070093062.html
I also must point out I believe I have found another source for spheres, Computers the thin metal in computers do to Cl, can react and form spheres, of multiple size and Composition.
IN fact it is an excellent source, good by my old Texas instruments cassette drive piece of junk, also other electronics equipment might be equally reactive especially to Cl.
I do not believe though that that is the only source yet to be discovered, I also do not know if the spheres the exact chemical fingerprint until I have them tested.
But computers do contain all the elements required, when combined with organics in the fires.
My "simplistic" calculation was an attempt to estimate the temperatures generated by the fireball. The chemical reaction of the fuel created hot CO2 and H2O so it is legitimate to consider the air on one floor as the first heat sink. Heat was then transferred to the walls, floors, furniture, etc .... although I suspect most of the heat was carried out of the building with the expanding gases.
The temperature I estimate could be on the high side because some of the chemical energy was released in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The early fireballs would have been white hot, if much of the energy in the first few seconds were released in the visible spectrum, something was absorbing a good part of the energy probably the fuel and metals. Fine particles of aluminum themselves would have been oxidizing even in the first few seconds of the fireballs as the oxide expanded. The Hot CO2 and H2O in a plasma like state, would be reacting with the metals.
Nitration of reactive metals would also be occurring,
some very good links to articles that might be interesting.
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/2005...505A0620631.php
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/journal/P/Z0951A/2005.php
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20070093062.html
I also must point out I believe I have found another source for spheres, Computers the thin metal in computers do to Cl, can react and form spheres, of multiple size and Composition.
IN fact it is an excellent source, good by my old Texas instruments cassette drive piece of junk, also other electronics equipment might be equally reactive especially to Cl.
I do not believe though that that is the only source yet to be discovered, I also do not know if the spheres the exact chemical fingerprint until I have them tested.
But computers do contain all the elements required, when combined with organics in the fires.
Have anyone seen this video ?
Source: 911.wtc.1.demolition.north.3 (divx 5.1).avi
It shows that during the collapse the antenna topples of course, but later
it comes back to its original position, very 'strange' behaviour.....
Maybe I'll tube it if anyone interested.
http://i11.tinypic.com/62j40ad.jpg
Source: 911.wtc.1.demolition.north.3 (divx 5.1).avi
It shows that during the collapse the antenna topples of course, but later
it comes back to its original position, very 'strange' behaviour.....
Maybe I'll tube it if anyone interested.
http://i11.tinypic.com/62j40ad.jpg
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 4 2007, 11:00 AM)
It shows that during the collapse the antenna topples of course, but later
it comes back to its original position, very 'strange' behaviour.....
During the collapse, the asymmetry should tend to become less since the south side impacts before the north. I'm surprised it is possible to see this effect, which I had thought to be quite small.
it comes back to its original position, very 'strange' behaviour.....
During the collapse, the asymmetry should tend to become less since the south side impacts before the north. I'm surprised it is possible to see this effect, which I had thought to be quite small.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 4 2007, 06:00 PM)
Have anyone seen this video ?
Source: 911.wtc.1.demolition.north.3 (divx 5.1).avi
It shows that during the collapse the antenna topples of course, but later
it comes back to its original position, very 'strange' behaviour.....
Maybe I'll tube it if anyone interested.
http://i11.tinypic.com/62j40ad.jpg
If you have a link or can upload it, that would be great, thanks.
Source: 911.wtc.1.demolition.north.3 (divx 5.1).avi
It shows that during the collapse the antenna topples of course, but later
it comes back to its original position, very 'strange' behaviour.....
Maybe I'll tube it if anyone interested.
http://i11.tinypic.com/62j40ad.jpg
If you have a link or can upload it, that would be great, thanks.
Lozenge,
Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e64yr9SZb-Q
David,
Since you are unable to watch videos, here are cropped extracted video frames in
a single webpage.
http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/topple.html
The framerate of the video was 25 and the cameraman zoomes in (of course).
ps. it is also visible in this video that very great blocks fall away from the building, huge massive parts, although it is impossible to prove I would say that there is absolutely no collapsing mass left from the top block
Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e64yr9SZb-Q
David,
Since you are unable to watch videos, here are cropped extracted video frames in
a single webpage.
http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/topple.html
The framerate of the video was 25 and the cameraman zoomes in (of course).
ps. it is also visible in this video that very great blocks fall away from the building, huge massive parts, although it is impossible to prove I would say that there is absolutely no collapsing mass left from the top block
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 4 2007, 12:57 PM)
David,
Since you are unable to watch videos, here are cropped extracted video frames in a single webpage.
Thank you!
The leaning feature which appears towards the end, and then becomes upright, I take to be a wall section which lent out and then assumed a more vertical position.
But then I am far from the best at photo-interpretation.
Since you are unable to watch videos, here are cropped extracted video frames in a single webpage.
Thank you!
The leaning feature which appears towards the end, and then becomes upright, I take to be a wall section which lent out and then assumed a more vertical position.
But then I am far from the best at photo-interpretation.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 4 2007, 08:07 PM)
Thank you!
The leaning feature which appears towards the end, and then becomes upright, I take to be a wall section which lent out and then assumed a more vertical position.
But then I am far from the best at photo-interpretation.
The antenna leans then straitens in the video do to the restraining effect of the outer walls on the top block, as the lower outer walls of the top block are shredded.
Einstein has just provided evidence that the outer perimeter walls provided resistance to Guide the top block down, like a spit wad in a straw, in elementary school.
Same general principal.
The leaning feature which appears towards the end, and then becomes upright, I take to be a wall section which lent out and then assumed a more vertical position.
But then I am far from the best at photo-interpretation.
The antenna leans then straitens in the video do to the restraining effect of the outer walls on the top block, as the lower outer walls of the top block are shredded.
Einstein has just provided evidence that the outer perimeter walls provided resistance to Guide the top block down, like a spit wad in a straw, in elementary school.
Same general principal.
Actually, if you look closely enough, you can see it swinging from left to right and back again (or was it the other way) I think 3 or 4 times as it falls. And yeah, you're right, it would seem to suggest that the walls were providing some resistance, because if it was bouncing aroun like that then it was probably doing so in 3D
It's a pitty we don't have more then one angle, because then it should be possible to compare the motions, and get an idea of what it's 3D movement was.
It's a pitty we don't have more then one angle, because then it should be possible to compare the motions, and get an idea of what it's 3D movement was.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 4 2007, 07:57 PM)
Lozenge,
Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e64yr9SZb-Q
David,
Since you are unable to watch videos, here are cropped extracted video frames in
a single webpage.
http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/topple.html
The framerate of the video was 25 and the cameraman zoomes in (of course).
ps. it is also visible in this video that very great blocks fall away from the building, huge massive parts, although it is impossible to prove I would say that there is absolutely no collapsing mass left from the top block
Thanks, this same video was in the "explosive reality" video but without the start, so that the antenna motion was not apparent.
I must say, it's a very interesting find, and another feature of collapse to be taken into account when advancing theories. If indeed the upper block was rigidly attached to the antenna then it must also have rotated back into a more horizontal plane. This is in contrast to the South tower where the topple angle seems to only increase with time.
The video also makes it more difficult to envisage how the antenna ended up on Liberty Street - if indeed that is where it came to rest - because it didn't simply topple in that direction (southward) from the get go.
Here is the video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e64yr9SZb-Q
David,
Since you are unable to watch videos, here are cropped extracted video frames in
a single webpage.
http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/topple.html
The framerate of the video was 25 and the cameraman zoomes in (of course).
ps. it is also visible in this video that very great blocks fall away from the building, huge massive parts, although it is impossible to prove I would say that there is absolutely no collapsing mass left from the top block
Thanks, this same video was in the "explosive reality" video but without the start, so that the antenna motion was not apparent.
I must say, it's a very interesting find, and another feature of collapse to be taken into account when advancing theories. If indeed the upper block was rigidly attached to the antenna then it must also have rotated back into a more horizontal plane. This is in contrast to the South tower where the topple angle seems to only increase with time.
The video also makes it more difficult to envisage how the antenna ended up on Liberty Street - if indeed that is where it came to rest - because it didn't simply topple in that direction (southward) from the get go.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 5 2007, 03:32 AM)
Thanks, this same video was in the "explosive reality" video but without the start, so that the antenna motion was not apparent.
I must say, it's a very interesting find, and another feature of collapse to be taken into account when advancing theories. If indeed the upper block was rigidly attached to the antenna then it must also have rotated back into a more horizontal plane. This is in contrast to the South tower where the topple angle seems to only increase with time.
The video also makes it more difficult to envisage how the antenna ended up on Liberty Street - if indeed that is where it came to rest - because it didn't simply topple in that direction (southward) from the get go.
At the end of the collapse is when the antenna would have had the most energy-momentum and off sideways impact at that point could cause it to bounce and land on Liberty street.
I must say, it's a very interesting find, and another feature of collapse to be taken into account when advancing theories. If indeed the upper block was rigidly attached to the antenna then it must also have rotated back into a more horizontal plane. This is in contrast to the South tower where the topple angle seems to only increase with time.
The video also makes it more difficult to envisage how the antenna ended up on Liberty Street - if indeed that is where it came to rest - because it didn't simply topple in that direction (southward) from the get go.
At the end of the collapse is when the antenna would have had the most energy-momentum and off sideways impact at that point could cause it to bounce and land on Liberty street.
WTC Modeling and Simulation
Sorry if this is already posted. Lon Waters of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice, and also of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, is centralizing data and analysis from WTC buildings, here.
He could use some help. The US Government is not going to give us $20, much less $20 million.
Sorry if this is already posted. Lon Waters of Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice, and also of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, is centralizing data and analysis from WTC buildings, here.
He could use some help. The US Government is not going to give us $20, much less $20 million.
What Water's site shows is that NIST has not hid anything about the construction of the WTC towers or their modeling of it.
I wonder what the CT'ers will complain they don't have now?
Arthur
I wonder what the CT'ers will complain they don't have now?
Arthur
QUOTE
He could use some help.
Sure thing, here's the best help I can provide:
THERE WEREN'T ANY EXPLOSIVES!!! GIVE IT UP!!! YOU'RE WASTING YOUR TIME!!!
Let me know if he needs any more help.
The top block of WTC 1 massed over 33,100 tonnes. I doubt that it rocked back and forth very much in the 4+ seconds of that video clip. However, the top of the antenna tower could probably be whipped back and forth fairly rapidly.
Crockett Grabbe did some squib calculations, FYI
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...onsEvidence.pdf
Just found it after a quick JREF look (they already categorize it as stoopid, probably without recalculating it), I'll read it later, I don't think Grabbe is a fruitcake like Judy Wood.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...onsEvidence.pdf
Just found it after a quick JREF look (they already categorize it as stoopid, probably without recalculating it), I'll read it later, I don't think Grabbe is a fruitcake like Judy Wood.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 5 2007, 03:20 PM)
Crockett Grabbe did some squib calculations, FYI
In two online dictionaries, the second meaning of explosion is a violent bursting as a result of internal pressure. A thesaurus also includes the act of emerging violently from limits or restraints.
In those senses, yes, the expulsion of air from the towers was explosive. In BLGB we calculated that near the end of crush-down the expulsion speed was about Mach 1.0. So the effects on automobiles that Grabbe writes about are simply the result of progressive collapse. And many, many pages ago I posted about the so-called squibs...
Not evidence of the first meaning of explosion, a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction.
In two online dictionaries, the second meaning of explosion is a violent bursting as a result of internal pressure. A thesaurus also includes the act of emerging violently from limits or restraints.
In those senses, yes, the expulsion of air from the towers was explosive. In BLGB we calculated that near the end of crush-down the expulsion speed was about Mach 1.0. So the effects on automobiles that Grabbe writes about are simply the result of progressive collapse. And many, many pages ago I posted about the so-called squibs...
Not evidence of the first meaning of explosion, a violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 6 2007, 08:26 AM)
The top block of WTC 1 massed over 33,100 tonnes. I doubt that it rocked back and forth very much in the 4+ seconds of that video clip. However, the top of the antenna tower could probably be whipped back and forth fairly rapidly.
I didn't say anything about the top block of the WTC. I only said that the antenna could be seen to be rocking back and forth.
Nothing about this disagrees with what Nist said, in fact, it's probably arguable that it should be expected as a consequence of what NIST is saying.
Also, if you look, it looks like it curves at a couple of points, one of the reasons I say that it's compatible with what NIST says. This is also consistent with the fact that it fragmented,a nd some of the damage that seems to have occured in the hangar 17 photos.
I didn't say anything about the top block of the WTC. I only said that the antenna could be seen to be rocking back and forth.
Nothing about this disagrees with what Nist said, in fact, it's probably arguable that it should be expected as a consequence of what NIST is saying.
Also, if you look, it looks like it curves at a couple of points, one of the reasons I say that it's compatible with what NIST says. This is also consistent with the fact that it fragmented,a nd some of the damage that seems to have occured in the hangar 17 photos.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 5 2007, 04:01 PM)
... I only said that the antenna could be seen to be rocking back and forth. ...
Right.
I was just laying it all out for lurkers...
Right.
I was just laying it all out for lurkers...
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 4 2007, 12:57 PM)
ps. it is also visible in this video that very great blocks fall away from the building, huge massive parts, ...
Those are almost surely exterior wall sections. I presume they are from the lower portion of the tower as the upper portion and crushed mass removes the connections and the over-pressure pushed them out to break off.
Those are almost surely exterior wall sections. I presume they are from the lower portion of the tower as the upper portion and crushed mass removes the connections and the over-pressure pushed them out to break off.
David, it would be nice if you could watch them, I know it is not my business but could the institute not setup a machine for videos ? For youtube you even don't need very special tools, a browser with a flash plug-in.
I'm not sure about those blocks, in the left of the video in the beginning you see those panels, with the ### shapes, at the right you see heavy blocks, it is dense, no light through it, but not completely dust because dust has no straight shapes. It could indeed also be an exterior section, this is further in the video, the antenna is long gone.
The swinging of the antenna implies that it is still connected, it could be only a few top stories. Indeed a heavy block has too much inertia?? In those 4 seconds it dropped about 13 stories (assuming 0.7g). It also doesn't look like the core columns prick through the top block, I would say that the core is destroyed and the perimeter columns still give some resistance, but the resistance is of course also the stuff in the building, it was fully populated.
I'm not sure about those blocks, in the left of the video in the beginning you see those panels, with the ### shapes, at the right you see heavy blocks, it is dense, no light through it, but not completely dust because dust has no straight shapes. It could indeed also be an exterior section, this is further in the video, the antenna is long gone.
The swinging of the antenna implies that it is still connected, it could be only a few top stories. Indeed a heavy block has too much inertia?? In those 4 seconds it dropped about 13 stories (assuming 0.7g). It also doesn't look like the core columns prick through the top block, I would say that the core is destroyed and the perimeter columns still give some resistance, but the resistance is of course also the stuff in the building, it was fully populated.
einsteen
The "stuff in the building" were already headed for the basement or already IN the basement by the time of the outer frames demise, the so called'squibs' you mentioned are the result of pancaking floors, well ahead of the visible collapse front.
Grumpy
The "stuff in the building" were already headed for the basement or already IN the basement by the time of the outer frames demise, the so called'squibs' you mentioned are the result of pancaking floors, well ahead of the visible collapse front.
Grumpy
Grumpy, I remember of course you told that before. In your model the block triggered the pancaking which is an event that is totally hidden from the outside.. goes faster than the visible collapse. And then the visible collapse is only the block (or part of it) crushing the perimeter columns ?
If the visible collapse front is not the real demolition wave and those few localized squibs are caused by pancaking then you have a big problem to explain the demolition wave because that is a collection of those so-called squibs. And why are there only a few isolated ones while a mass bigger than the whole block is pancaking there ? Then it is more realistic to assume that it is air being pushed in elevator shafts, or air that have to find its way out in one way or another.
The demolition wave from top to down is really the moment at which the floors are detached from the building, the core is destroyed, perimeter columns break and the stories are compacted. There is no pancaking that goes faster than the visible collapse, because the theoretical acceleration cannot be higher than g. The point of initiation is when the antenna starts moving, if the squibs are due to the same process as the visible collapse (and I've seen them 30 stories lower) then that implies that something goes really faster than freefall, you can also see that because the squibs are even lower than the material that falls away from the building. Air of course can go faster than freefall, like a full pipe with marbles in which you stick another marble.
If the visible collapse front is not the real demolition wave and those few localized squibs are caused by pancaking then you have a big problem to explain the demolition wave because that is a collection of those so-called squibs. And why are there only a few isolated ones while a mass bigger than the whole block is pancaking there ? Then it is more realistic to assume that it is air being pushed in elevator shafts, or air that have to find its way out in one way or another.
The demolition wave from top to down is really the moment at which the floors are detached from the building, the core is destroyed, perimeter columns break and the stories are compacted. There is no pancaking that goes faster than the visible collapse, because the theoretical acceleration cannot be higher than g. The point of initiation is when the antenna starts moving, if the squibs are due to the same process as the visible collapse (and I've seen them 30 stories lower) then that implies that something goes really faster than freefall, you can also see that because the squibs are even lower than the material that falls away from the building. Air of course can go faster than freefall, like a full pipe with marbles in which you stick another marble.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 6 2007, 02:01 PM)
Grumpy, I remember of course you told that before. In your model the block triggered the pancaking which is an event that is totally hidden from the outside.. goes faster than the visible collapse. And then the visible collapse is only the block (or part of it) crushing the perimeter columns ?
If the visible collapse front is not the real demolition wave and those few localized squibs are caused by pancaking then you have a big problem to explain the demolition wave because that is a collection of those so-called squibs. And why are there only a few isolated ones while a mass bigger than the whole block is pancaking there ? Then it is more realistic to assume that it is air being pushed in elevator shafts, or air that have to find its way out in one way or another.
The demolition wave from top to down is really the moment at which the floors are detached from the building, the core is destroyed, perimeter columns break and the stories are compacted. There is no pancaking that goes faster than the visible collapse, because the theoretical acceleration cannot be higher than g. The point of initiation is when the antenna starts moving, if the squibs are due to the same process as the visible collapse (and I've seen them 30 stories lower) then that implies that something goes really faster than freefall, you can also see that because the squibs are even lower than the material that falls away from the building. Air of course can go faster than freefall, like a full pipe with marbles in which you stick another marble.
Energy from impacts is still transmitted though the central core beams at 5100 meters per second, the squibs could very well be a reactions generated by energy in the collapse traveling down the beams.
Such energy would cause a multitude of reactions, that would account for the Squibs as well as other effects I have seen in the videos that others have not noticed.
Such as shockwave propogation in the stucture, beyond the collapse front.
Grid each video Bit map then watch the video in slow motion that will give you a more acturate view. Of 3d movement.
If the visible collapse front is not the real demolition wave and those few localized squibs are caused by pancaking then you have a big problem to explain the demolition wave because that is a collection of those so-called squibs. And why are there only a few isolated ones while a mass bigger than the whole block is pancaking there ? Then it is more realistic to assume that it is air being pushed in elevator shafts, or air that have to find its way out in one way or another.
The demolition wave from top to down is really the moment at which the floors are detached from the building, the core is destroyed, perimeter columns break and the stories are compacted. There is no pancaking that goes faster than the visible collapse, because the theoretical acceleration cannot be higher than g. The point of initiation is when the antenna starts moving, if the squibs are due to the same process as the visible collapse (and I've seen them 30 stories lower) then that implies that something goes really faster than freefall, you can also see that because the squibs are even lower than the material that falls away from the building. Air of course can go faster than freefall, like a full pipe with marbles in which you stick another marble.
Energy from impacts is still transmitted though the central core beams at 5100 meters per second, the squibs could very well be a reactions generated by energy in the collapse traveling down the beams.
Such energy would cause a multitude of reactions, that would account for the Squibs as well as other effects I have seen in the videos that others have not noticed.
Such as shockwave propogation in the stucture, beyond the collapse front.
Grid each video Bit map then watch the video in slow motion that will give you a more acturate view. Of 3d movement.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 6 2007, 05:06 AM)
The swinging of the antenna implies that it is still connected, it could be only a few top stories. Indeed a heavy block has too much inertia?? In those 4 seconds it dropped about 13 stories (assuming 0.7g). It also doesn't look like the core columns prick through the top block, I would say that the core is destroyed and the perimeter columns still give some resistance, but the resistance is of course also the stuff in the building, it was fully populated.
The antenna is connected to the Hat Truss, which is quite rigid and connected to BOTH the perimeter walls and the core columns.
I don't think its at all surprising that as the top block descends the Hat Truss along with that long and somewhat flexible antenna rocks back and forth.
Arthur
The antenna is connected to the Hat Truss, which is quite rigid and connected to BOTH the perimeter walls and the core columns.
I don't think its at all surprising that as the top block descends the Hat Truss along with that long and somewhat flexible antenna rocks back and forth.
Arthur
I agree with that energy transfer in the core, I'm a big supporter of that. But I try to visualize things. And that hat truss will really be massive and strong, maybe if someone got time the swing can say something about the mass, if it swings fast the upper part will not be connected with a massive block, but it cannot be the antenna only (like a car antenna) that swings on a big rigid block, the period is the antenna+hat truss+some material from the top.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 6 2007, 02:45 PM)
I agree with that energy transfer in the core, I'm a big supporter of that. But I try to visualize things. And that hat truss will really be massive and strong, maybe if someone got time the swing can say something about the mass, if it swings fast the upper part will not be connected with a massive block, but it cannot be the antenna only (like a car antenna) that swings on a big rigid block, the period is the antenna+hat truss+some material from the top.
We need more information on the mounting of the antenna some have mounts that allow movement, expansion joints, or restrict movement dampeners, we need a better Idea of the design to be sure how it will act and react.
We need more information on the mounting of the antenna some have mounts that allow movement, expansion joints, or restrict movement dampeners, we need a better Idea of the design to be sure how it will act and react.
Have you seen this antenna?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...FRC:en%26sa%3DN
It was 360 ft tall and I dont' think it was designed to move.
This picture shows the top of the hat truss, before the antenna is mounted.
http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/wtc026.JPG
Arthur
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...FRC:en%26sa%3DN
It was 360 ft tall and I dont' think it was designed to move.
This picture shows the top of the hat truss, before the antenna is mounted.
http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/wtc026.JPG
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 6 2007, 04:26 PM)
Have you seen this antenna?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...FRC:en%26sa%3DN
It was 360 ft tall and I dont' think it was designed to move.
This picture shows the top of the hat truss, before the antenna is mounted.
http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/wtc026.JPG
Arthur
Are you sure there are not expansion joints to allow for the heating and cooling of the structure as the sun hits it, seems to me that they Would have been Important, to keep the antenna from being stressed do to Expansion of the metals it was made from.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...FRC:en%26sa%3DN
It was 360 ft tall and I dont' think it was designed to move.
This picture shows the top of the hat truss, before the antenna is mounted.
http://www.wtc-terrorattack.com/wtc026.JPG
Arthur
Are you sure there are not expansion joints to allow for the heating and cooling of the structure as the sun hits it, seems to me that they Would have been Important, to keep the antenna from being stressed do to Expansion of the metals it was made from.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 6 2007, 02:06 AM)
David, it would be nice if you could watch them, ...
Thanks, but only nice and not particularly useful as I am so poor at the interpretation of those dust-filled videos clips. I doubt I would be able to see anything informative.
However, the only part of the towers capable of looking like blocks were the exterior walls. When no windows are apparent there is something blocking the light. I suggest crushed materials or fines behind the wall sections.
And, oh yes. The hat truss outriggers were immensely strong, capable of holding up about 20 stories of exterior wall. But the core columns couldn't take that much.
Thanks, but only nice and not particularly useful as I am so poor at the interpretation of those dust-filled videos clips. I doubt I would be able to see anything informative.
However, the only part of the towers capable of looking like blocks were the exterior walls. When no windows are apparent there is something blocking the light. I suggest crushed materials or fines behind the wall sections.
And, oh yes. The hat truss outriggers were immensely strong, capable of holding up about 20 stories of exterior wall. But the core columns couldn't take that much.
einsteen
It is not simply the "squibs, it is also the descriptions of the firefighters, saying "Boom, boom, boom..." and indicating with his hands the floors falling PRIOR to the main collapse.
There is also the fact that almost 100% of the floor contents below the impact zones were found in the basement areas of BOTH towers, indicating the floor collapse occured some moments before the outer wall destruction, thus ahead of the visible collapse zone.
The visible collapse zone encountered sufficient resistence to slow it's progress to less than G. This would not be as true for the collapsing floors, giving them a head start and more speed(at least initially). The floor connections experienced many multiples of their yeild strength, getting worse with each floor that failed and providing little or no resistence.
"Destruction Wave"??? Below the visible collapse I see nothing but air puffs ejected wherever the course of least resistence is from between baggleing floors.
Grumpy
It is not simply the "squibs, it is also the descriptions of the firefighters, saying "Boom, boom, boom..." and indicating with his hands the floors falling PRIOR to the main collapse.
There is also the fact that almost 100% of the floor contents below the impact zones were found in the basement areas of BOTH towers, indicating the floor collapse occured some moments before the outer wall destruction, thus ahead of the visible collapse zone.
The visible collapse zone encountered sufficient resistence to slow it's progress to less than G. This would not be as true for the collapsing floors, giving them a head start and more speed(at least initially). The floor connections experienced many multiples of their yeild strength, getting worse with each floor that failed and providing little or no resistence.
"Destruction Wave"??? Below the visible collapse I see nothing but air puffs ejected wherever the course of least resistence is from between baggleing floors.
Grumpy
Are you serious with your idea that floors pancake into the building with acceleration a1 and the visible collapse follows with acceleration a2, i.e. a1<a2<g
You are making jokes Grumpy or playing games.
You are making jokes Grumpy or playing games.
I'm in 99% agreement with Grumpy, the other 1% being a nitpick.
I think the concept of "bagelling" needs to incorporate one last refinement. I think the perimeter-floor supports failed on each floor before that floor's core-floor supports failed, so I'm thinking that there were some floors still hanging off the core for perhaps one second even after they had disconnected from the perimeter walls. They'd have broken away from the core once the angles got too great, and would've eventually flattened out in the collapse, but the significance is that they'd be exerting huge side forces at the core after the perimeter wall brackets dropped their load, and that would've contributed to the core columns' getting mangled in the collapse.
We should perhaps come up with another term for this that makes the concept easier to visualize. I was thinking "Chistmas Tree", until the coffee soaked-in and I realized that the tree limbs are actually angled up from the middle, not down. I'm open to suggestions.
I think the concept of "bagelling" needs to incorporate one last refinement. I think the perimeter-floor supports failed on each floor before that floor's core-floor supports failed, so I'm thinking that there were some floors still hanging off the core for perhaps one second even after they had disconnected from the perimeter walls. They'd have broken away from the core once the angles got too great, and would've eventually flattened out in the collapse, but the significance is that they'd be exerting huge side forces at the core after the perimeter wall brackets dropped their load, and that would've contributed to the core columns' getting mangled in the collapse.
We should perhaps come up with another term for this that makes the concept easier to visualize. I was thinking "Chistmas Tree", until the coffee soaked-in and I realized that the tree limbs are actually angled up from the middle, not down. I'm open to suggestions.
I mean of course a2<a1<g
Wasn't there a brand new preprint from Dr Bazant et al in which also the extreme fast air being pressed out is treated in some detail ? This requires slabs of concrete colliding with each other, that is of course 1-1 with the visible effect at the outside. Pancaking inside=squibs outside, there is absolutely no other way to look at it. There is of course an alternative view and that is that the perimeter columns still stand after the total bypass, then the trusses are broken in the same speed as the floors collide, due to the chaos and the collapsing mass they will immediately be ejected, but are they really bypassed ? If that hat truss is extremely strong and we look at the behavior of the antenna+hat truss during the collapse of the first 13 stories it is clear that the hat truss is tangled with the perimeter columns, it has the same surface area as the building.
Wasn't there a brand new preprint from Dr Bazant et al in which also the extreme fast air being pressed out is treated in some detail ? This requires slabs of concrete colliding with each other, that is of course 1-1 with the visible effect at the outside. Pancaking inside=squibs outside, there is absolutely no other way to look at it. There is of course an alternative view and that is that the perimeter columns still stand after the total bypass, then the trusses are broken in the same speed as the floors collide, due to the chaos and the collapsing mass they will immediately be ejected, but are they really bypassed ? If that hat truss is extremely strong and we look at the behavior of the antenna+hat truss during the collapse of the first 13 stories it is clear that the hat truss is tangled with the perimeter columns, it has the same surface area as the building.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 7 2007, 08:55 AM)
Wasn't there a brand new preprint from Dr Bazant et al in which also the extreme fast air being pressed out is treated in some detail ? This requires slabs of concrete colliding with each other, that is of course 1-1 with the visible effect at the outside. Pancaking inside=squibs outside, there is absolutely no other way to look at it.
There is of course an alternative view and that is that the perimeter columns still stand after the total bypass, ...
(1) Yes, the paper by Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson is available on Professor Bazant's web site. It is completely obvious that almost twelve acre-feet of air has to be moved out of the way of the descending mass. About 93% of that forms the visible collapse front, the air being full of fines.
That air is moved out before the crushed mass impacts the next floor down. So the air ejection is slightly before the crushed mass arrives.
There is no possibility of the trussed floors hanging momentarily to the core, except possibly for floor 97 in WTC 1, and then only for a small fraction of a second. On the interior the truss seats were much weaker horizontally than vertically. But except for floor 97 of WTC 1, there was vastly more energy available to destroy the truss seats than needed.
(2) The visual evidence for WTC 1 is that the exterior wall was partially bypassed by the crushing front, to be broken apart somewhat later by the pressure of the crushed materials and possibly the top block.
The top block exterior wall columns are somewhat wedged in and the bottom block exterior wall is somewhat wedged out. Enough wedging out and the walls fail, often in very large sections.
There is of course an alternative view and that is that the perimeter columns still stand after the total bypass, ...
(1) Yes, the paper by Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson is available on Professor Bazant's web site. It is completely obvious that almost twelve acre-feet of air has to be moved out of the way of the descending mass. About 93% of that forms the visible collapse front, the air being full of fines.
That air is moved out before the crushed mass impacts the next floor down. So the air ejection is slightly before the crushed mass arrives.
There is no possibility of the trussed floors hanging momentarily to the core, except possibly for floor 97 in WTC 1, and then only for a small fraction of a second. On the interior the truss seats were much weaker horizontally than vertically. But except for floor 97 of WTC 1, there was vastly more energy available to destroy the truss seats than needed.
(2) The visual evidence for WTC 1 is that the exterior wall was partially bypassed by the crushing front, to be broken apart somewhat later by the pressure of the crushed materials and possibly the top block.
The top block exterior wall columns are somewhat wedged in and the bottom block exterior wall is somewhat wedged out. Enough wedging out and the walls fail, often in very large sections.
The ant-enna's connected to the, hat truss.
The hat truss is connected to the, core columns.
The core column's connected to the, floor pans.
Dem bones, dem bones dem...
Sorry, got a little carried away.
Floors collapsing, brackets breaking, starting from an assymetric load.
Each floor that collapses, more mass collides with the next floor.
And people are surprised to see the antenna wobbling back and forth a little?
The hat truss is connected to the, core columns.
The core column's connected to the, floor pans.
Dem bones, dem bones dem...
Sorry, got a little carried away.
Floors collapsing, brackets breaking, starting from an assymetric load.
Each floor that collapses, more mass collides with the next floor.
And people are surprised to see the antenna wobbling back and forth a little?
What's so special about floor 97 of WTC-1?
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 7 2007, 11:34 AM)
What's so special about floor 97 of WTC-1?
NIST takes the breaking apart of the three exterior walls to occur at floor 98. The descent, via tilting, begins. After tilting for 1.0 seconds, the impact of floor 98 reaches the center parts of floor 97 with a speed of about 6.7 m/s. This does not appear to deliver enough energy to immediately destroy the interior truss seats vertically. But at 1.2 seconds the speed is 8.0 m/s, which supplies enough energy, for sure.
After that, there is a superabundance of energy available to destroy all the truss seats in the lowed block.
NIST takes the breaking apart of the three exterior walls to occur at floor 98. The descent, via tilting, begins. After tilting for 1.0 seconds, the impact of floor 98 reaches the center parts of floor 97 with a speed of about 6.7 m/s. This does not appear to deliver enough energy to immediately destroy the interior truss seats vertically. But at 1.2 seconds the speed is 8.0 m/s, which supplies enough energy, for sure.
After that, there is a superabundance of energy available to destroy all the truss seats in the lowed block.
einsteen
Yes, the floors were ahead of the outside visible collapse. They did not fall faster than G, but probably got a second or so head start because when the outer frame initially started falling there was an instant of slowing as the floors first came together(resistence and hinging) and neither tower top fell more than 2/3 G average. A process of several floors falling on top of another floor INSTANTLY stripped the floor supports(as NIST found on almost all of the mostly intact outer frame members below the impact zone) DOES not travel at much less than G(8 or 9/10). So yes, one process(bagelling) started at the same point and time of the other major process(the visible(and invisible) destruction of the inner and outer frames) can nevertheless end up outpacing the second process over a distance, if the first process is faster accelerating and faster travelling, as the floor collapse was. Very little of the concrete and steel and other content of the lower floors(those below impact) was found anywhere other than the basement, where it was found in STRATA representing individual floors. No outer frame member was found within the building footprint except those of the top blocks, the rest were layed out like chopped up banana peels, with no debris from the floors of the building(other than the dust generated by the blending/chrushing/funneling action of the outer frame prior to it's destruction.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I mean of course a2<a1<g
Yes, the floors were ahead of the outside visible collapse. They did not fall faster than G, but probably got a second or so head start because when the outer frame initially started falling there was an instant of slowing as the floors first came together(resistence and hinging) and neither tower top fell more than 2/3 G average. A process of several floors falling on top of another floor INSTANTLY stripped the floor supports(as NIST found on almost all of the mostly intact outer frame members below the impact zone) DOES not travel at much less than G(8 or 9/10). So yes, one process(bagelling) started at the same point and time of the other major process(the visible(and invisible) destruction of the inner and outer frames) can nevertheless end up outpacing the second process over a distance, if the first process is faster accelerating and faster travelling, as the floor collapse was. Very little of the concrete and steel and other content of the lower floors(those below impact) was found anywhere other than the basement, where it was found in STRATA representing individual floors. No outer frame member was found within the building footprint except those of the top blocks, the rest were layed out like chopped up banana peels, with no debris from the floors of the building(other than the dust generated by the blending/chrushing/funneling action of the outer frame prior to it's destruction.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 7 2007, 12:52 PM)
... the floors were ahead of the outside visible collapse.
... A process of several floors falling on top of another floor INSTANTLY stripped the floor supports(as NIST found on almost all of the mostly intact outer frame members below the impact zone) DOES not travel at much less than G(8 or 9/10).
So yes, one process(bagelling) started at the same point and time of the other major process(the visible(and invisible) destruction of the inner and outer frames) can nevertheless end up outpacing the second process over a distance, if the first process is faster accelerating and faster travelling[sic], as the floor collapse was.
(1) It depends, I suppose, on what one means by outside visible collapse. For most, the expulsion of the air preceding the impact of the crushed mass upon the floors is taken as both outside and visible. And for me, at least, the breakup of the exterior wall is largely invisible, due to all the dusts.
(2) Actually, it was about (2/3)g for the first few seconds of the collapse of WTC 1. The air expulsion does not noticeably track ahead of the descent of the top.
I take this as indicating quite substantial resistance from somewhere, perhaps just friction. Possibly the turbulence of the intermixed air, as in an avalanche.
(3) In principle, yes. And observed for the exterior walls of WTC 1. But there is a sound reason based on inertial effects, to suppose that the destroyed portions of the core kept pace with the crushing front, +/- 3 floors or so.
... A process of several floors falling on top of another floor INSTANTLY stripped the floor supports(as NIST found on almost all of the mostly intact outer frame members below the impact zone) DOES not travel at much less than G(8 or 9/10).
So yes, one process(bagelling) started at the same point and time of the other major process(the visible(and invisible) destruction of the inner and outer frames) can nevertheless end up outpacing the second process over a distance, if the first process is faster accelerating and faster travelling[sic], as the floor collapse was.
(1) It depends, I suppose, on what one means by outside visible collapse. For most, the expulsion of the air preceding the impact of the crushed mass upon the floors is taken as both outside and visible. And for me, at least, the breakup of the exterior wall is largely invisible, due to all the dusts.
(2) Actually, it was about (2/3)g for the first few seconds of the collapse of WTC 1. The air expulsion does not noticeably track ahead of the descent of the top.
I take this as indicating quite substantial resistance from somewhere, perhaps just friction. Possibly the turbulence of the intermixed air, as in an avalanche.
(3) In principle, yes. And observed for the exterior walls of WTC 1. But there is a sound reason based on inertial effects, to suppose that the destroyed portions of the core kept pace with the crushing front, +/- 3 floors or so.
David, if air is pressed out is it required that the slabs of concrete touch very symmetrically ? In this image sequence you can see that the whole collection of squibs travels down randomly, of course with an average group velocity, but it doesn't look like the slabs collide very nicely.
http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/wtc2collapse.html
ps. I would say that there is an angle varying from 20-45 degrees
lemme add another pic
http://i18.tinypic.com/62xt9ub.jpg
http://members.lycos.nl/einsteen/forum/wtc2collapse.html
ps. I would say that there is an angle varying from 20-45 degrees
lemme add another pic
http://i18.tinypic.com/62xt9ub.jpg
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 7 2007, 01:51 PM)
David, if air is pressed out is it required that the slabs of concrete touch very symmetrically?
No.
For WTC 2 the one dimensional equations are more of an idealization than for WTC 1, with much less of a tilt and no rotation.
For example, in WTC 1, the first floor impacted was floor 97. Taking the tilting to the south into account, the south half of the floor was destroyed in 0.4+ seconds, but the north half had yet to receive its impact. I would expect the remaining air to be largely blown out the north windows and breaking-off wall.
But that is the slowest of the impacts. By 1.6 seconds, floor 93 is just being impacted at the south side, floor 94 is about 40% destroyed, floor 95 is about 80% destroyed and at the north sode, just floors 97 and 98 form the crushing front. Interestingly, there is so much crushed material along the south side that about 8% of floor 99 appears to have joined in.
All from measurements provided by Greening and put into a program which generates graphics of these times. So this is, of course, somewhat approximate.
No.
For WTC 2 the one dimensional equations are more of an idealization than for WTC 1, with much less of a tilt and no rotation.
For example, in WTC 1, the first floor impacted was floor 97. Taking the tilting to the south into account, the south half of the floor was destroyed in 0.4+ seconds, but the north half had yet to receive its impact. I would expect the remaining air to be largely blown out the north windows and breaking-off wall.
But that is the slowest of the impacts. By 1.6 seconds, floor 93 is just being impacted at the south side, floor 94 is about 40% destroyed, floor 95 is about 80% destroyed and at the north sode, just floors 97 and 98 form the crushing front. Interestingly, there is so much crushed material along the south side that about 8% of floor 99 appears to have joined in.
All from measurements provided by Greening and put into a program which generates graphics of these times. So this is, of course, somewhat approximate.
Possibly relevant, I am reading a popular article about bubbles and cavitation. If the pressure suddenly drops, a vapor phase can suddenly form, even in solids. To quote the article,
"... cavitation can turn steel into Swiss cheese."
I think this just means that the cavitation of liquid around propellers and other turbines can do so. There are certainly such pictures in the article.
However, somebody may care to follow up regarding the 'Swiss cheese' steel recovered from the WTC site.
"... cavitation can turn steel into Swiss cheese."
I think this just means that the cavitation of liquid around propellers and other turbines can do so. There are certainly such pictures in the article.
However, somebody may care to follow up regarding the 'Swiss cheese' steel recovered from the WTC site.
Just below the tilting top. notice the puffs of dust.
It was even more obvious on WTC 1.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 7 2007, 03:32 PM)
Just below the tilting top. notice the puffs of dust.
Sorry, all I can see the the expulsion of the fines entrained in the air. I don't see anything further down in this view.
However, I have seen puffs of duct well below the crushing front in other clips. This is a result of the fact that about 7% of the total floor area was voids in the core. One route for the air the escape is down these voids, over-pressurizing lower floors. Some small portion of this air escaped, either through ventilators on mechanical floors or through cracked or broken windows.
Sorry, all I can see the the expulsion of the fines entrained in the air. I don't see anything further down in this view.
However, I have seen puffs of duct well below the crushing front in other clips. This is a result of the fact that about 7% of the total floor area was voids in the core. One route for the air the escape is down these voids, over-pressurizing lower floors. Some small portion of this air escaped, either through ventilators on mechanical floors or through cracked or broken windows.
Einsteen:
Yes, I have to agree with DBB on this..... I can't get too excited about a few little
"squibs" compared to what is coming down the tower a couple of seconds later.
Yes, I have to agree with DBB on this..... I can't get too excited about a few little
"squibs" compared to what is coming down the tower a couple of seconds later.
David B. Benson
Yes, there are better views, and the other evidence pointing to an early collapse of the floors is more conclusive than outward appearances anyway, it is a simple fact that the floors had to be stripped PRIOR to the outer frame being torn apart(NIST found the connections stripped off in a vertical direction). Whether visible or not, the floor collapse happened BEFORE the outer frame moved and those intact outer frame members funneled that debris straight into the basements of both buildings. I see no other way to explain the physical evidence.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Sorry, all I can see the the expulsion of the fines entrained in the air. I don't see anything further down in this view.
Yes, there are better views, and the other evidence pointing to an early collapse of the floors is more conclusive than outward appearances anyway, it is a simple fact that the floors had to be stripped PRIOR to the outer frame being torn apart(NIST found the connections stripped off in a vertical direction). Whether visible or not, the floor collapse happened BEFORE the outer frame moved and those intact outer frame members funneled that debris straight into the basements of both buildings. I see no other way to explain the physical evidence.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 7 2007, 05:06 PM)
... Whether visible or not, the floor collapse happened BEFORE the outer frame moved ...
We seem to be in agreement. However, the visible evidence for the floors being crushed is the expulsion of the twelve acre-feet of air between the actual floors. That is what I see in all of these clips which offer a view of the crushing front.
A something of an aside, assume perfect symmetry in a one dimensional collapse. With 7% of the floor area being voids in the core, assume 7% of the air escaped downwards. Then after the collapse of only about two floors the floor immediately below is already over-pressurized to almost the asymptotic limit of 1.075 atm. That is more that one psi over-pressure, surely enough to break the glass in the windows.
So the lowest level of air expulsion, in this model, occurs just below the progress of the crushing front, because the floor below that is only over-pressurized to 1.005 atm, which is only about 0.07 psi over-pressure.
We seem to be in agreement. However, the visible evidence for the floors being crushed is the expulsion of the twelve acre-feet of air between the actual floors. That is what I see in all of these clips which offer a view of the crushing front.
A something of an aside, assume perfect symmetry in a one dimensional collapse. With 7% of the floor area being voids in the core, assume 7% of the air escaped downwards. Then after the collapse of only about two floors the floor immediately below is already over-pressurized to almost the asymptotic limit of 1.075 atm. That is more that one psi over-pressure, surely enough to break the glass in the windows.
So the lowest level of air expulsion, in this model, occurs just below the progress of the crushing front, because the floor below that is only over-pressurized to 1.005 atm, which is only about 0.07 psi over-pressure.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 7 2007, 09:21 PM)
Possibly relevant, I am reading a popular article about bubbles and cavitation. If the pressure suddenly drops, a vapor phase can suddenly form, even in solids. To quote the article,
"... cavitation can turn steel into Swiss cheese."
I think this just means that the cavitation of liquid around propellers and other turbines can do so. There are certainly such pictures in the article.
However, somebody may care to follow up regarding the 'Swiss cheese' steel recovered from the WTC site.
OF course that is what I have been trying to tell every one here for years now.
It is called Sono Chemistry, that is what makes it work.
Of course I would like to think NEU-FONZE for pointing out that is why I was blowing things up when others could not.
Sono Chemistry is very tricky and involves cavitations, and is a catalyzing effect in other explosive reaction and is the reason that I have had to rebuild 4 diesel engines from aviations in the cooling fluid actually boring holes in the steel cylinder walls.
Anybody know where I can get a bigger cannon a six pounder is all Dixie gun works sells, it is just not providing the kick I need when loaded with aluminum rib-its, sure there is a reaction but not as big as I am looking for when the aluminum hits the diesel fuel-(substitute for jet fuel), steel and water I want to find out what the protential energy release is like.
"... cavitation can turn steel into Swiss cheese."
I think this just means that the cavitation of liquid around propellers and other turbines can do so. There are certainly such pictures in the article.
However, somebody may care to follow up regarding the 'Swiss cheese' steel recovered from the WTC site.
OF course that is what I have been trying to tell every one here for years now.
It is called Sono Chemistry, that is what makes it work.
Of course I would like to think NEU-FONZE for pointing out that is why I was blowing things up when others could not.
Sono Chemistry is very tricky and involves cavitations, and is a catalyzing effect in other explosive reaction and is the reason that I have had to rebuild 4 diesel engines from aviations in the cooling fluid actually boring holes in the steel cylinder walls.
Anybody know where I can get a bigger cannon a six pounder is all Dixie gun works sells, it is just not providing the kick I need when loaded with aluminum rib-its, sure there is a reaction but not as big as I am looking for when the aluminum hits the diesel fuel-(substitute for jet fuel), steel and water I want to find out what the protential energy release is like.
status report on OCT world:
-having convinced themselves that no extra energy was needed, they now seek alternative EXPLOSIVE, CORROSIVE events to explain where the extra energy came from
-having convinced themselves that 'squibs' are to be expected, they continue to vaguely make the situation seem remotely possible with a combination of cracked(!?) windows and sealed passages
-having convinced themselves that 'bagelling' is a fact, they explain as fact a sequence of events that was not even TOUCHED by the NIST, because the modelling was:
A. WAY too complicated and beyond budget and objectives, or
B. moot
don't fell like playing in the sandbox, just now, but i thought i'd WEIGH in with my two sense.
-newton, the guy who took the name of the guy who wrote the laws of motion, and was fascinated by alchemy
-having convinced themselves that no extra energy was needed, they now seek alternative EXPLOSIVE, CORROSIVE events to explain where the extra energy came from
-having convinced themselves that 'squibs' are to be expected, they continue to vaguely make the situation seem remotely possible with a combination of cracked(!?) windows and sealed passages
-having convinced themselves that 'bagelling' is a fact, they explain as fact a sequence of events that was not even TOUCHED by the NIST, because the modelling was:
A. WAY too complicated and beyond budget and objectives, or
B. moot
don't fell like playing in the sandbox, just now, but i thought i'd WEIGH in with my two sense.
-newton, the guy who took the name of the guy who wrote the laws of motion, and was fascinated by alchemy
newton, feel free to stay away longer next time.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 8 2007, 03:40 AM)
status report on OCT world:
-having convinced themselves that no extra energy was needed, they now seek alternative EXPLOSIVE, CORROSIVE events to explain where the extra energy came from
-having convinced themselves that 'squibs' are to be expected, they continue to vaguely make the situation seem remotely possible with a combination of cracked(!?) windows and sealed passages
-having convinced themselves that 'bagelling' is a fact, they explain as fact a sequence of events that was not even TOUCHED by the NIST, because the modelling was:
A. WAY too complicated and beyond budget and objectives, or
B. moot
don't fell like playing in the sandbox, just now, but i thought i'd WEIGH in with my two sense.
-newton, the guy who took the name of the guy who wrote the laws of motion, and was fascinated by alchemy
And the real Newton is shaking the church, where he is buried doing because of doing back flips in his grave.
After that post he at least understood the power of gravity.
-having convinced themselves that no extra energy was needed, they now seek alternative EXPLOSIVE, CORROSIVE events to explain where the extra energy came from
-having convinced themselves that 'squibs' are to be expected, they continue to vaguely make the situation seem remotely possible with a combination of cracked(!?) windows and sealed passages
-having convinced themselves that 'bagelling' is a fact, they explain as fact a sequence of events that was not even TOUCHED by the NIST, because the modelling was:
A. WAY too complicated and beyond budget and objectives, or
B. moot
don't fell like playing in the sandbox, just now, but i thought i'd WEIGH in with my two sense.
-newton, the guy who took the name of the guy who wrote the laws of motion, and was fascinated by alchemy
And the real Newton is shaking the church, where he is buried doing because of doing back flips in his grave.
After that post he at least understood the power of gravity.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 5 2007, 01:45 PM)
What Water's site shows is that NIST has not hid anything about the construction of the WTC towers or their modeling of it.
I wonder what the CT'ers will complain they don't have now?
Arthur
You know to get this far Lon Waters had to reverse engineer the SAP2000 model (that was only provided by NIST after 2 FOIA requests were filed) by laboriously analyzing the FEA model and nodes to determine the perimeter and core column schedules and all the other necessary information in the blueprints.
The problem with this approach, aside from taking a long time, is that it doesn't provide a way to validate or crosscheck NIST's conversion of the blueprints to the SAP2000 model. In a truly open process the blueprints and the NIST computer models would have been made freely available for download.
Still, hats off to Lon Waters for getting this far. We still have absolutely no independent validation of the NIST theories past the aircraft collapse damage, so it will be interesting to see if any of the results can be reproduced.
I wonder what the CT'ers will complain they don't have now?
Arthur
You know to get this far Lon Waters had to reverse engineer the SAP2000 model (that was only provided by NIST after 2 FOIA requests were filed) by laboriously analyzing the FEA model and nodes to determine the perimeter and core column schedules and all the other necessary information in the blueprints.
The problem with this approach, aside from taking a long time, is that it doesn't provide a way to validate or crosscheck NIST's conversion of the blueprints to the SAP2000 model. In a truly open process the blueprints and the NIST computer models would have been made freely available for download.
Still, hats off to Lon Waters for getting this far. We still have absolutely no independent validation of the NIST theories past the aircraft collapse damage, so it will be interesting to see if any of the results can be reproduced.
If the air theory is true, then the implication is that if the building collapsed from the bottom the same effect should be seen, even much more extremely. The current official story implies that the removement of the lowest story leads to a symmetrical and total implosion of the wtc1,2 buildings. This means that a 'normal' implosion would bring down such a complete building very easily. The air theory, correction, the complete wedging of parts, the funneling of parts, the ejection of material should also happen for such an implosion, because an implosion is nothing more than a gravitational collapse. The ejection of air would be
even more heavier than in the wtc1,2.
Why don't we see those ejections in a building implosion ?
even more heavier than in the wtc1,2.
Why don't we see those ejections in a building implosion ?
The towers were not monolithic, homogeneous structures. They were complex combinations of several, different systems.
The floor systems were diaphragms spanning the space between..
The core structure and the...
Outer frame structure.
The impact of the planes damaged all three major structures, each reacted and failed in different ways.
The intense, but asymmetric heat (>600C)caused the floor structures to bow into quaternary like structures which pulled inward on the outer frame, the subsequent cooling intensified this inward pull.
The outer frame, no longer stiffened and kept vertical by the floors, bowed inward. Eventually this bowing reduced the load bearing ability and the walls folded, again asymmetrically(one wall folded, the opposite wall acted as a hinge, moreso in two). This was the initiating event.
The floors, damaged and overloaded in the impact area pulled loose from the supports tying them to the outer frame. This process too was asymmetrical and messy, but as soon as the first floor failed and fell on the one below this process had a huge over abundance of energy compared to that the next floor could resist and once the pancaking started it proceeded at a faster rate than...
The tilting top block falls on the intact structure below, crushing the overloaded core columns and wedging inside the still intact(though floorless) outer frame. The outer frame is simply pushed aside, not crushed, like a ships prow pushes aside the water.
The core provided most of the Resistance to the top blocks descent.
The above is not idle speculation. The failure modes of the floor supports were straight down in the lower sections of the towers, this means the outer frame was still intact when the collapse front of the floors came by. The buildings contents and floors were found as strata in the basements AND NOWHERE ELSE, this indicates the outer frame was intact and confining the debris, funneling it into the basements, this also indicates that the floor crush front was entirely separate from the outer frame/core/top block crush front and that the floor crushing was OVER by the time the main crush front arrived. The outer frame members were found intact, sometimes in long strips, splayed out from the footprints. The huge amounts of dust visible entrained with the falling outer frame pieces was probably generated by the floor crushing, which had a huge excess of energy left after the supports were stripped.
So, the floors required little energy to totally collapse. It had huge excesses of energy left for commutation and making dust.
The outer frame required little energy to be pushed aside. It simply fell over, uncrushed, and destroyed the buildings around the towers(3,4,5,6 and, yes, 7) when they fell on them.
The core bore the brunt of the energy of the top blocks.
Now, if someone better at math would calculate the energies involved(not in monoblock form as Bazant) I think you will find the numbers match. It is not only important to know the energies involved, but also the way the energies acted on the diverse pieces of this event.
Grumpy
The floor systems were diaphragms spanning the space between..
The core structure and the...
Outer frame structure.
The impact of the planes damaged all three major structures, each reacted and failed in different ways.
The intense, but asymmetric heat (>600C)caused the floor structures to bow into quaternary like structures which pulled inward on the outer frame, the subsequent cooling intensified this inward pull.
The outer frame, no longer stiffened and kept vertical by the floors, bowed inward. Eventually this bowing reduced the load bearing ability and the walls folded, again asymmetrically(one wall folded, the opposite wall acted as a hinge, moreso in two). This was the initiating event.
The floors, damaged and overloaded in the impact area pulled loose from the supports tying them to the outer frame. This process too was asymmetrical and messy, but as soon as the first floor failed and fell on the one below this process had a huge over abundance of energy compared to that the next floor could resist and once the pancaking started it proceeded at a faster rate than...
The tilting top block falls on the intact structure below, crushing the overloaded core columns and wedging inside the still intact(though floorless) outer frame. The outer frame is simply pushed aside, not crushed, like a ships prow pushes aside the water.
The core provided most of the Resistance to the top blocks descent.
The above is not idle speculation. The failure modes of the floor supports were straight down in the lower sections of the towers, this means the outer frame was still intact when the collapse front of the floors came by. The buildings contents and floors were found as strata in the basements AND NOWHERE ELSE, this indicates the outer frame was intact and confining the debris, funneling it into the basements, this also indicates that the floor crush front was entirely separate from the outer frame/core/top block crush front and that the floor crushing was OVER by the time the main crush front arrived. The outer frame members were found intact, sometimes in long strips, splayed out from the footprints. The huge amounts of dust visible entrained with the falling outer frame pieces was probably generated by the floor crushing, which had a huge excess of energy left after the supports were stripped.
So, the floors required little energy to totally collapse. It had huge excesses of energy left for commutation and making dust.
The outer frame required little energy to be pushed aside. It simply fell over, uncrushed, and destroyed the buildings around the towers(3,4,5,6 and, yes, 7) when they fell on them.
The core bore the brunt of the energy of the top blocks.
Now, if someone better at math would calculate the energies involved(not in monoblock form as Bazant) I think you will find the numbers match. It is not only important to know the energies involved, but also the way the energies acted on the diverse pieces of this event.
Grumpy
So, in fact you are saying that the construction of the wtc was too special to lead to a perfect implosion, i.e. it couldn't be imploded without debris flying away in all directions ? Apart from that, the air theory is still not explained because each building that can be imploded needs to get rid of its air. We don't see those plooms of air in building implosions.
einsteen
Several factors contribute to the difference.
1) CDs are of the bottom up type, the air between floors is ejected at the bottom as the floors collapse and would be hard to distinguish from the general expulsion of dust at the bottom.
2) CDs take a lot of preparation, large holes are cut in the floors and walls, windows are removed or broken and supports are pre-cut to weaken them. There is also an effort made to MINIMIZE the production or expulsion of dust, especially asbestos dust.
3) Buildings that are brought down by CD are not set on fire first, and are not ON FIRE at the time of their destruction.
None of the above are relevant to the Twin Towers.
Grumpy
QUOTE
So, in fact you are saying that the construction of the wtc was too special to lead to a perfect implosion, i.e. it couldn't be imploded without debris flying away in all directions ? Apart from that, the air theory is still not explained because each building that can be imploded needs to get rid of its air. We don't see those plooms of air in building implosions.
Several factors contribute to the difference.
1) CDs are of the bottom up type, the air between floors is ejected at the bottom as the floors collapse and would be hard to distinguish from the general expulsion of dust at the bottom.
2) CDs take a lot of preparation, large holes are cut in the floors and walls, windows are removed or broken and supports are pre-cut to weaken them. There is also an effort made to MINIMIZE the production or expulsion of dust, especially asbestos dust.
3) Buildings that are brought down by CD are not set on fire first, and are not ON FIRE at the time of their destruction.
None of the above are relevant to the Twin Towers.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The towers were not monolithic, homogeneous structures. They were complex combinations of several, different systems.
...
The core bore the brunt of the energy of the top blocks.
...
The core bore the brunt of the energy of the top blocks.
They should put this on a bronze plaque at the WTC site.
That was the best-written summary of the collapses that I've ever read.
Grumpy, you're my new hero.
carterelliott
Awww, shucks!!!
But people like adoucette, Chainsaw, Gene Splicer, Reality Check and David Benson and many others on this forum make it as good as it is. When these guys start talking over my head, the best thing I can do is shut up and listen!!! I am proud and humbled to be included in such company.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Grumpy, you're my new hero.
Awww, shucks!!!
But people like adoucette, Chainsaw, Gene Splicer, Reality Check and David Benson and many others on this forum make it as good as it is. When these guys start talking over my head, the best thing I can do is shut up and listen!!! I am proud and humbled to be included in such company.
Grumpy
Assuming the effect at the bottom (remember the cars) of the wtc was caused by a stream of air and its material inside then for a normal implosion it would be a factor 55 bigger, assuming a lineair influence, 0 for the first one and 110 for the last one. It would really be a hell then. The official theory would also say that all the floors pancake and all columns would still stand, the inner and outer ones.
A drop of the complete building one story releases an energy of about 19 GJ (assuming M_wtc=5 x 10^8 kg), if you need 0.17GJ to detach a floor that will happen, if it takes 0.5 GJ it is impossible. I'm waiting for the new energy calculation, if the drop of the top block is consistent with the 0.6GJ then we can easily assume that an intact story would at least take 1GJ to be compacted.
A drop of the complete building one story releases an energy of about 19 GJ (assuming M_wtc=5 x 10^8 kg), if you need 0.17GJ to detach a floor that will happen, if it takes 0.5 GJ it is impossible. I'm waiting for the new energy calculation, if the drop of the top block is consistent with the 0.6GJ then we can easily assume that an intact story would at least take 1GJ to be compacted.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 8 2007, 02:08 PM)
OF course that is what I have been trying to tell every one here for years now.
It is called Sono Chemistry, that is what makes it work.
Of course I would like to think NEU-FONZE for pointing out that is why I was blowing things up when others could not.
Sono Chemistry is very tricky and involves cavitations, and is a catalyzing effect in other explosive reaction and is the reason that I have had to rebuild 4 diesel engines from aviations in the cooling fluid actually boring holes in the steel cylinder walls.
Anybody know where I can get a bigger cannon a six pounder is all Dixie gun works sells, it is just not providing the kick I need when loaded with aluminum rib-its, sure there is a reaction but not as big as I am looking for when the aluminum hits the diesel fuel-(substitute for jet fuel), steel and water I want to find out what the protential energy release is like.
Sonochemistry isn't just about cavatation though.
Heh.
It is called Sono Chemistry, that is what makes it work.
Of course I would like to think NEU-FONZE for pointing out that is why I was blowing things up when others could not.
Sono Chemistry is very tricky and involves cavitations, and is a catalyzing effect in other explosive reaction and is the reason that I have had to rebuild 4 diesel engines from aviations in the cooling fluid actually boring holes in the steel cylinder walls.
Anybody know where I can get a bigger cannon a six pounder is all Dixie gun works sells, it is just not providing the kick I need when loaded with aluminum rib-its, sure there is a reaction but not as big as I am looking for when the aluminum hits the diesel fuel-(substitute for jet fuel), steel and water I want to find out what the protential energy release is like.
Sonochemistry isn't just about cavatation though.
Heh.
einsteen
Not following your reasoning, please elaborate.
Grumpy
Not following your reasoning, please elaborate.
Grumpy
Chainsaw:
Here's a sample reaction of the kind that I was talking about.
If memory serves, it should be spontaneous in acidic, reducing conditions, which we can reasonably justify being present:
8Fe_3O_4 + SO_4^2- + 12H_2O -> 24FeOOH + HS^-
And
2FeOOH + 2HS^- + 4H^+ -> FeS_2 + Fe^2+ + 4H_2O
Also worth pointing out is that:
2HS^- + Fe^2+ -> FeS_2 + H_2
Note that these reactions are aqueous in nature, but, in this thread it has been being posited that there was liquid water available for reaction directly with the metals, so I don't see why this should be a problem.
But this is just one example of some of the pathways I was referring to.
Edit: I've tried to stick with a convention of using ^ to denote superscript, and _ to denot subscript.
Here's a sample reaction of the kind that I was talking about.
If memory serves, it should be spontaneous in acidic, reducing conditions, which we can reasonably justify being present:
8Fe_3O_4 + SO_4^2- + 12H_2O -> 24FeOOH + HS^-
And
2FeOOH + 2HS^- + 4H^+ -> FeS_2 + Fe^2+ + 4H_2O
Also worth pointing out is that:
2HS^- + Fe^2+ -> FeS_2 + H_2
Note that these reactions are aqueous in nature, but, in this thread it has been being posited that there was liquid water available for reaction directly with the metals, so I don't see why this should be a problem.
But this is just one example of some of the pathways I was referring to.
Edit: I've tried to stick with a convention of using ^ to denote superscript, and _ to denot subscript.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 8 2007, 04:18 PM)
... there was liquid water available ...
There certainly was. Even reports of water running down the stairwells...
There certainly was. Even reports of water running down the stairwells...
Another interesting 911 firefighter interview. According to this first hand account the elevators exploded a full 5 minutes after the plane hit.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10488
QUOTE
Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. “We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?’ and then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could.”
As they were making their way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
As they were making their way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10488
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 8 2007, 11:18 PM)
Chainsaw:
Here's a sample reaction of the kind that I was talking about.
If memory serves, it should be spontaneous in acidic, reducing conditions, which we can reasonably justify being present:
8Fe_3O_4 + SO_4^2- + 12H_2O -> 24FeOOH + HS^-
And
2FeOOH + 2HS^- + 4H^+ -> FeS_2 + Fe^2+ + 4H_2O
Also worth pointing out is that:
2HS^- + Fe^2+ -> FeS_2 + H_2
Note that these reactions are aqueous in nature, but, in this thread it has been being posited that there was liquid water available for reaction directly with the metals, so I don't see why this should be a problem.
But this is just one example of some of the pathways I was referring to.
Edit: I've tried to stick with a convention of using ^ to denote superscript, and _ to denot subscript.
Yes I know those reactions would have occurred, but I was looking into other reactions that most people would not have thought of.
reactions that are unusual, yet likely to occur in the right environment.
The reactions are environmentally dependent, provide the right environment and undoubtedly they will occur.
The water was present because of the design factors of the towers, they had water tanks the lowered the pressure of the main pumps, to prevent pluming hardware from being damaged by the pressure needed to raise the water the distance to the top of the buildings. The tanks were concentrated on the mechanical floors.
You place a standard faucet on a high pressure system you can literally have an explosion.
Here's a sample reaction of the kind that I was talking about.
If memory serves, it should be spontaneous in acidic, reducing conditions, which we can reasonably justify being present:
8Fe_3O_4 + SO_4^2- + 12H_2O -> 24FeOOH + HS^-
And
2FeOOH + 2HS^- + 4H^+ -> FeS_2 + Fe^2+ + 4H_2O
Also worth pointing out is that:
2HS^- + Fe^2+ -> FeS_2 + H_2
Note that these reactions are aqueous in nature, but, in this thread it has been being posited that there was liquid water available for reaction directly with the metals, so I don't see why this should be a problem.
But this is just one example of some of the pathways I was referring to.
Edit: I've tried to stick with a convention of using ^ to denote superscript, and _ to denot subscript.
Yes I know those reactions would have occurred, but I was looking into other reactions that most people would not have thought of.
reactions that are unusual, yet likely to occur in the right environment.
The reactions are environmentally dependent, provide the right environment and undoubtedly they will occur.
The water was present because of the design factors of the towers, they had water tanks the lowered the pressure of the main pumps, to prevent pluming hardware from being damaged by the pressure needed to raise the water the distance to the top of the buildings. The tanks were concentrated on the mechanical floors.
You place a standard faucet on a high pressure system you can literally have an explosion.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 9 2007, 01:43 AM)
Another interesting 911 firefighter interview. According to this first hand account the elevators exploded a full 5 minutes after the plane hit.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10488
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53...687186956&hl=en
^^^^^^^on google, john schroeder, peed off firefighter/witness. ^^^^^^^^
"distinct time delay"
you'll see lots of quotes from this interview.
a TRUE hero.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10488
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=53...687186956&hl=en
^^^^^^^on google, john schroeder, peed off firefighter/witness. ^^^^^^^^
"distinct time delay"
you'll see lots of quotes from this interview.
a TRUE hero.
Grumpy, sorry, I was not really fresh when I posted that. The thing I wanted to say is that the ejection of air is much more energetic then in that case. I’ve also seen CDs and you indeed see a lot of dust at the bottom, but it doesn’t look as energetic as you see in the wtc. Forgot about the calculations, that’s something related with the energy consumed after collapse initiation, I was wondering how you have to see that within the context of floors bypassing. I think I have an other idea how to determine it but I wish I had more time. Doing the hard math is not easy, you really need to concentrate, I always get inspiration when I’m locked up in a boring hotel room, but then I have no graphical tools..
Two interesting chemical reactions that produce HYDROGEN:
3Fe + 4H2O = Fe3O4 + 4H2
This reaction has an equilibrium constant of 7.4 at 427 deg C and a Delta(H) of 120 kJ/mole at this temperature.
2Zn + Ca(OH)2 + 6H2O = Ca[Zn(OH)3]2.2H2O + 2H2
This reaction is known to occur at the interface between galvanized steel and concrete.
3Fe + 4H2O = Fe3O4 + 4H2
This reaction has an equilibrium constant of 7.4 at 427 deg C and a Delta(H) of 120 kJ/mole at this temperature.
2Zn + Ca(OH)2 + 6H2O = Ca[Zn(OH)3]2.2H2O + 2H2
This reaction is known to occur at the interface between galvanized steel and concrete.
newton and Lozenge124
Nothing that firefighter says in any way contradicts the known events of that day. Fireballs and explosions occured for some time after the planes hit and are understood to be caused by jet fuel concentrating in the elevator shafts, giving effects like the firefighter described. Nothing new here.
Grumpy
Nothing that firefighter says in any way contradicts the known events of that day. Fireballs and explosions occured for some time after the planes hit and are understood to be caused by jet fuel concentrating in the elevator shafts, giving effects like the firefighter described. Nothing new here.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 9 2007, 12:10 PM)
newton and Lozenge124
Nothing that firefighter says in any way contradicts the known events of that day. Fireballs and explosions occured for some time after the planes hit and are understood to be caused by jet fuel concentrating in the elevator shafts, giving effects like the firefighter described. Nothing new here.
Grumpy
No, not 5 minutes after the plane hit.
Nothing that firefighter says in any way contradicts the known events of that day. Fireballs and explosions occured for some time after the planes hit and are understood to be caused by jet fuel concentrating in the elevator shafts, giving effects like the firefighter described. Nothing new here.
Grumpy
No, not 5 minutes after the plane hit.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 9 2007, 08:15 AM)
Grumpy, sorry, I was not really fresh when I posted that. The thing I wanted to say is that the ejection of air is much more energetic then in that case. I’ve also seen CDs and you indeed see a lot of dust at the bottom, but it doesn’t look as energetic as you see in the wtc. Forgot about the calculations, that’s something related with the energy consumed after collapse initiation, I was wondering how you have to see that within the context of floors bypassing. I think I have an other idea how to determine it but I wish I had more time. Doing the hard math is not easy, you really need to concentrate, I always get inspiration when I’m locked up in a boring hotel room, but then I have no graphical tools..
What happens when the high pressure steam pipes in the basement are ruptured similar to the ones that were ruptured in the recent steam explosion it is a steam heated building after all.
There was a very good discussion on this on the Bad Astronomy website years ago but I can not find it now.
There were several Eye witness accounts of steam explosions in the towers, and the buildings were steam heated, and climate controlled what happens when high pressure lines rupture.
A lot of Catalysts were in the building that could catalyze a lot of other reactions, the number of reactions that could have occurred might be UN calculable because of unknown constraints though.
What happens when the high pressure steam pipes in the basement are ruptured similar to the ones that were ruptured in the recent steam explosion it is a steam heated building after all.
There was a very good discussion on this on the Bad Astronomy website years ago but I can not find it now.
There were several Eye witness accounts of steam explosions in the towers, and the buildings were steam heated, and climate controlled what happens when high pressure lines rupture.
A lot of Catalysts were in the building that could catalyze a lot of other reactions, the number of reactions that could have occurred might be UN calculable because of unknown constraints though.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 9 2007, 01:46 PM)
No, not 5 minutes after the plane hit.
Actually if you have been listening up the fires can Catalyze other reactions one of those is a hydrogen accelerated Carbon dust explosion, since carbon can build up in shafts during fires, all you have to do is have a way to oxygenate, and then ignite it! Hydrogen works well at that and NEU has just pointed out one reaction that can produce it I know of others as well.
To think that explosions could not occur, 5-10- 20-30- or an hour after impact is faulty logic and not anything to do with a realistic View of the chemical and physical constraints of the fires, or the events of September 11/2001.
It is total and utter fallacy to provide such as evidence of anything other than a chemical reaction taking place in the building.
Actually if you have been listening up the fires can Catalyze other reactions one of those is a hydrogen accelerated Carbon dust explosion, since carbon can build up in shafts during fires, all you have to do is have a way to oxygenate, and then ignite it! Hydrogen works well at that and NEU has just pointed out one reaction that can produce it I know of others as well.
To think that explosions could not occur, 5-10- 20-30- or an hour after impact is faulty logic and not anything to do with a realistic View of the chemical and physical constraints of the fires, or the events of September 11/2001.
It is total and utter fallacy to provide such as evidence of anything other than a chemical reaction taking place in the building.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 9 2007, 01:55 PM)
Actually if you have been listening up the fires can Catalyze other reactions one of those is a hydrogen accelerated Carbon dust explosion, since carbon can build up in shafts during fires, all you have to do is have a way to oxygenate, and then ignite it! Hydrogen works well at that and NEU has just pointed out one reaction that can produce it I know of others as well.
To think that explosions could not occur, 5-10- 20-30- or an hour after impact is faulty logic and not anything to do with a realistic View of the chemical and physical constraints of the fires, or the events of September 11/2001.
It is total and utter fallacy to provide such as evidence of anything other than a chemical reaction taking place in the building.
Perhaps there is something to these chemical reaction speculations, but let's not forget that they are not a part of the official NIST report. Note also that the witness claims the elevator doors near the bottom of the building "exploded" 5 minutes after the plane hit. This is 80 or so floors below the plane impact zone and the location of the main fires. Perhaps this can be explained by some kind of chemical reaction, but to hand wave like this is definitive and not worthy of further discussion is absurd.
To recap the other observations of the firefighter:
1) plane hits North tower
2) he enters lobby, which "looked like a bomb went off"
3) starts making his way up stairs, ~5 minutes after plane impact, "The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it"
4) when the 2nd plane hits South tower (he hears this over the radio), he is at 23rd floor of NORTH tower when: "We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building"
To think that explosions could not occur, 5-10- 20-30- or an hour after impact is faulty logic and not anything to do with a realistic View of the chemical and physical constraints of the fires, or the events of September 11/2001.
It is total and utter fallacy to provide such as evidence of anything other than a chemical reaction taking place in the building.
Perhaps there is something to these chemical reaction speculations, but let's not forget that they are not a part of the official NIST report. Note also that the witness claims the elevator doors near the bottom of the building "exploded" 5 minutes after the plane hit. This is 80 or so floors below the plane impact zone and the location of the main fires. Perhaps this can be explained by some kind of chemical reaction, but to hand wave like this is definitive and not worthy of further discussion is absurd.
To recap the other observations of the firefighter:
1) plane hits North tower
2) he enters lobby, which "looked like a bomb went off"
3) starts making his way up stairs, ~5 minutes after plane impact, "The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it"
4) when the 2nd plane hits South tower (he hears this over the radio), he is at 23rd floor of NORTH tower when: "We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building"
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 9 2007, 02:21 PM)
Perhaps there is something to these chemical reaction speculations, but let's not forget that they are not a part of the official NIST report. Note also that the witness claims the elevator doors near the bottom of the building "exploded" 5 minutes after the plane hit. This is 80 or so floors below the plane impact zone and the location of the main fires. Perhaps this can be explained by some kind of chemical reaction, but to hand wave like this is definitive and not worthy of further discussion is absurd.
To recap the other observations of the firefighter:
1) plane hits North tower
2) he enters lobby, which "looked like a bomb went off"
3) starts making his way up stairs, ~5 minutes after plane impact, "The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it"
4) when the 2nd plane hits South tower (he hears this over the radio), he is at 23rd floor of NORTH tower when: "We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building"
lozenge124 the fuel will not burn in liquid form it has to form a vapor the fuel vapor can even be above the combustion temperature of the fuel, and ready to burn if in an oxygen starved environment such as a shaft with close doors with a fire above.
In the oil fields your taught about instances just like described caused by fuel vapor explosions fuel vapor explosions are more common than you think.
If the elevator shaft was sealed at the bottom and the doors closed the descending burning fuel could have used up all the oxygen, creating a hot oxygen starved environment in which Fuel vapor could have survive above combustion temperature, opening the doors to one elevator connected to the shaft or a sudden air in rush can then ignite the vapor by giving it the oxidant.
The problems is we can not go back in time and go back to the buildings and see for ourselves, the environment of the fires in the twin towers and the exact reactions will never be known. All we can do is say that reaction A is possible and because Reaction A is possible and reaction A is the most likely to fit the evidence then reaction A is the most likely occurrence.
Jet fuel Vapor is a fuel air vapor, Hydrogen causes fuel air explosions, Hydrogen with Carbon causes fuel air explosions. Flour can cause a fuel air explosion.
There is simply no way to tell what the Fuel Vapor was but the evidence definitely points to a fuel vapor explosion, because other explosions would have been recorded in the seismic data.
The first world trade center bomb was a Hydrogen accelerated device that resulted in a fuel air explosion, that did not register on Seismographs.
The first Air blast of Krakatoa's was an air blast that did not register on the Seismographs of that time either.
It was registered though in Jakarta Indonesia, as an air blast.
The big eruption of Krakatau did register on seismic instruments around the world, and was heard as far away as Australia.
Sometimes there are things that just cannot be quantified and probable occurrences are all we have.
To recap the other observations of the firefighter:
1) plane hits North tower
2) he enters lobby, which "looked like a bomb went off"
3) starts making his way up stairs, ~5 minutes after plane impact, "The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it"
4) when the 2nd plane hits South tower (he hears this over the radio), he is at 23rd floor of NORTH tower when: "We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building"
lozenge124 the fuel will not burn in liquid form it has to form a vapor the fuel vapor can even be above the combustion temperature of the fuel, and ready to burn if in an oxygen starved environment such as a shaft with close doors with a fire above.
In the oil fields your taught about instances just like described caused by fuel vapor explosions fuel vapor explosions are more common than you think.
If the elevator shaft was sealed at the bottom and the doors closed the descending burning fuel could have used up all the oxygen, creating a hot oxygen starved environment in which Fuel vapor could have survive above combustion temperature, opening the doors to one elevator connected to the shaft or a sudden air in rush can then ignite the vapor by giving it the oxidant.
The problems is we can not go back in time and go back to the buildings and see for ourselves, the environment of the fires in the twin towers and the exact reactions will never be known. All we can do is say that reaction A is possible and because Reaction A is possible and reaction A is the most likely to fit the evidence then reaction A is the most likely occurrence.
Jet fuel Vapor is a fuel air vapor, Hydrogen causes fuel air explosions, Hydrogen with Carbon causes fuel air explosions. Flour can cause a fuel air explosion.
There is simply no way to tell what the Fuel Vapor was but the evidence definitely points to a fuel vapor explosion, because other explosions would have been recorded in the seismic data.
The first world trade center bomb was a Hydrogen accelerated device that resulted in a fuel air explosion, that did not register on Seismographs.
The first Air blast of Krakatoa's was an air blast that did not register on the Seismographs of that time either.
It was registered though in Jakarta Indonesia, as an air blast.
The big eruption of Krakatau did register on seismic instruments around the world, and was heard as far away as Australia.
Sometimes there are things that just cannot be quantified and probable occurrences are all we have.
Grumpy --- Your intuition is quite good. Upon further reflection regarding the acceleration of the crushing front, I realized there is a small, subtle error in my computer program. The main effect is that my estimate of E1 is about 15% too high. The other matter to be changed is to report the speed of the crushing front, which since this is constantly accruing mass, is faster than the drop of the tower top.
I'll fix in program and report the results here in a few days.
Thanks!
I'll fix in program and report the results here in a few days.
Thanks!
I hope to live long enough to see the day when a CDiot describing a "bomb" going off attempts to show how that "bomb" had anything to do with causing the tower to collapse.
A "bomb" went off five minutes after the plane impact? And how long after that "bomb" going off did the tower collapse?
If there was some sort of conspiracy to do a CONTROLLED-demolition, wouldn't you think they'd have either TIMED it better (like simultaneous-to-impact) or MADE IT MORE EFFECTIVE (such that its detonation actually dropped the tower immediately, not an hour later)?
You're asserting a complex wide-ranging conspiracy that would've taken lots of planning and expert covert execution, but at the same time you're asserting that they're also making the biggest amateurish blunders possible. If they'd planted explosives, those explosives should've detonated at the time of impact and dropped the tower(s) immediately. Otherwise you have lots of witnesses and lots of questions raised. If it'd been a covert operation, they'd have had the building collapse moments after the plane hit, no extra explosions at random intervals, and no witnesses to the planted explosives' detonations.
You're asserting that the planners were simultaneously Machiavellian and oafish.
A "bomb" went off five minutes after the plane impact? And how long after that "bomb" going off did the tower collapse?
If there was some sort of conspiracy to do a CONTROLLED-demolition, wouldn't you think they'd have either TIMED it better (like simultaneous-to-impact) or MADE IT MORE EFFECTIVE (such that its detonation actually dropped the tower immediately, not an hour later)?
You're asserting a complex wide-ranging conspiracy that would've taken lots of planning and expert covert execution, but at the same time you're asserting that they're also making the biggest amateurish blunders possible. If they'd planted explosives, those explosives should've detonated at the time of impact and dropped the tower(s) immediately. Otherwise you have lots of witnesses and lots of questions raised. If it'd been a covert operation, they'd have had the building collapse moments after the plane hit, no extra explosions at random intervals, and no witnesses to the planted explosives' detonations.
You're asserting that the planners were simultaneously Machiavellian and oafish.
OCT LOGIC 102
there were no devices because, if there were preplanted explosives, some would go off accidentally because of the extreme and chaotic conditions. obviously, any chaotic flashes and explosions seen and heard before the collapses on various floors, and from the basement were aerosol cans and transformers, and fuel air explosions.
"911, the explosive reality"
soon the shadows hope to set off nukes in america. hard times a'comin'.
there were no devices because, if there were preplanted explosives, some would go off accidentally because of the extreme and chaotic conditions. obviously, any chaotic flashes and explosions seen and heard before the collapses on various floors, and from the basement were aerosol cans and transformers, and fuel air explosions.
"911, the explosive reality"
soon the shadows hope to set off nukes in america. hard times a'comin'.
David B. Benson
Boy am I glad someone else is doing the math!!!
newton
No, there were no devices because there is no evidence of their existence, whereas there is conclusive evidence that there was fuel there so fuel/air explosions were to be EXPECTED, given that liquid fuel travels downward all by itself and when confined(say,in an elevator shaft), explosive mixtures are almost certain. And these explosive mixtures can go off at any time(say, five minutes after impact) and can also happen multiple times in the same shaft.
So intentional explosives=no evidence, unintentional explosions=likely.
Grumpy
Boy am I glad someone else is doing the math!!!
newton
QUOTE
there were no devices because, if there were preplanted explosives, some would go off accidentally because of the extreme and chaotic conditions. obviously, any chaotic flashes and explosions seen and heard before the collapses on various floors, and from the basement were aerosol cans and transformers, and fuel air explosions.
No, there were no devices because there is no evidence of their existence, whereas there is conclusive evidence that there was fuel there so fuel/air explosions were to be EXPECTED, given that liquid fuel travels downward all by itself and when confined(say,in an elevator shaft), explosive mixtures are almost certain. And these explosive mixtures can go off at any time(say, five minutes after impact) and can also happen multiple times in the same shaft.
So intentional explosives=no evidence, unintentional explosions=likely.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 9 2007, 08:59 PM)
there is conclusive evidence that there was fuel there so fuel/air explosions were to be EXPECTED, given that liquid fuel travels downward all by itself and when confined(say,in an elevator shaft), explosive mixtures are almost certain. And these explosive mixtures can go off at any time(say, five minutes after impact) and can also happen multiple times in the same shaft.
Source?
And let's not forget what the elevator system actually looked like:
"Essentially, each tower functioned as three buildings stacked on top of one another."
Source?
And let's not forget what the elevator system actually looked like:
"Essentially, each tower functioned as three buildings stacked on top of one another."
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 9 2007, 06:21 PM)
And let's not forget what the elevator system actually looked like:
That's not AT ALL what the elevator system looked like.
Arthur
That's not AT ALL what the elevator system looked like.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 9 2007, 10:26 PM)
That's not AT ALL what the elevator system looked like.
Arthur
really?
Arthur
really?
OK, I'm game.
Here is the layout according to NIST:
And here is the schematic from "howstuffworks":
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
Massively different.
Here is the layout according to NIST:
And here is the schematic from "howstuffworks":
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
Massively different.
Lozenge, you've just illustrated the distinction between a schematic and a layout drawing.
Schematics are symbolic, created to illustrate concepts.
Layouts are literal drawings of what was there.
The express elevators weren't at the corners of the buildings, they were in the middle, like all the other elevators.
(Never bet against Arthur.)
Schematics are symbolic, created to illustrate concepts.
Layouts are literal drawings of what was there.
The express elevators weren't at the corners of the buildings, they were in the middle, like all the other elevators.
(Never bet against Arthur.)
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 9 2007, 06:08 PM)
Grumpy --- Your intuition is quite good. Upon further reflection regarding the acceleration of the crushing front, I realized there is a small, subtle error in my computer program. The main effect is that my estimate of E1 is about 15% too high. The other matter to be changed is to report the speed of the crushing front, which since this is constantly accruing mass, is faster than the drop of the tower top.
I'll fix in program and report the results here in a few days.
Thanks!
DBB I notice you have not corrected Grumpy's assertion that the WTC floors "bageled" a few floors ahead of the upper block. Do you then agree with this?
If so, how do you reconcile this with this statement in the BLGB paper?
I'll fix in program and report the results here in a few days.
Thanks!
DBB I notice you have not corrected Grumpy's assertion that the WTC floors "bageled" a few floors ahead of the upper block. Do you then agree with this?
If so, how do you reconcile this with this statement in the BLGB paper?
QUOTE
In the structural engineering community, one early speculation was that, because of a supposedly insufficient strength of the connections between the floor trusses and the columns, the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which later lost stability. This hypothesis, however, was invalidated at NIST by careful examination of the photographic record, which shows some perimeter columns to be deflected by about 1 m inward. NIST explains this deflection by a horizontal pull from catenary action of floor trusses as they sag due to differential thermal expansion as well as creep. Such action would have been impossible if the floor trusses disconnected from the perimeter columns.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 9 2007, 03:41 PM)
Do you then agree with this?
If so, how do you reconcile this with this statement in the BLGB paper?
(1) Yes. The upper block, zone A, remains largely intact throughout crush-down, at least for WTC 1. The crushed mass, zone B, continually grows by bageling onto the next floor down. At a stretch of 0.14, each pair of stories occupy about 1 meter vertically. So after just a few impacts, the bageling is noticeably below the top, zone A, block.
(2) That is attempting to discuss collapse initiation, not the progressive collapse itself.
If so, how do you reconcile this with this statement in the BLGB paper?
(1) Yes. The upper block, zone A, remains largely intact throughout crush-down, at least for WTC 1. The crushed mass, zone B, continually grows by bageling onto the next floor down. At a stretch of 0.14, each pair of stories occupy about 1 meter vertically. So after just a few impacts, the bageling is noticeably below the top, zone A, block.
(2) That is attempting to discuss collapse initiation, not the progressive collapse itself.
Corrected estimate of E1 is only 72% of the previous estimate. The new estimate is
367 megajoules,
which is the smallest estimate I have (so far) seen. This is good, because it drives down the embarrassingly large amount of unexplained energy consumption.
367 megajoules,
which is the smallest estimate I have (so far) seen. This is good, because it drives down the embarrassingly large amount of unexplained energy consumption.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 9 2007, 10:49 PM)
(1) Yes. The upper block, zone A, remains largely intact throughout crush-down, at least for WTC 1. The crushed mass, zone B, continually grows by bageling onto the next floor down. At a stretch of 0.14, each pair of stories occupy about 1 meter vertically. So after just a few impacts, the bageling is noticeably below the top, zone A, block.
(2) That is attempting to discuss collapse initiation, not the progressive collapse itself.
Just to be clear, are zones A & B touching, or are the floors bageling ahead completely independent of zone A?
I am also surprised that you claim that "the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which later lost stability" is referring to "initiation". To obtain "an empty framed tube" you presumably need to lose the floors over a few stories at least - which would mean the collapse is well past "initiation".
(2) That is attempting to discuss collapse initiation, not the progressive collapse itself.
Just to be clear, are zones A & B touching, or are the floors bageling ahead completely independent of zone A?
I am also surprised that you claim that "the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which later lost stability" is referring to "initiation". To obtain "an empty framed tube" you presumably need to lose the floors over a few stories at least - which would mean the collapse is well past "initiation".
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 9 2007, 04:09 PM)
Just to be clear, are zones A & B touching, ...
I am also surprised that you claim that "the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which later lost stability" is referring to "initiation". To obtain "an empty framed tube" you presumably need to lose the floors over a few stories at least - which would mean the collapse is well past "initiation".
(1) Yes, zone A rides down on top of zone B.
(2) No, that part is certainly an attempt to explain progressive collapse. Except the tube was not empty, being filled to overflowing with zone A.
For WTC 1, zone B was into the basement levels at the time massive portions of the west and north walls fell over, being pushed by the passing zone B crushed mass at about floor 9.
I am also surprised that you claim that "the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which later lost stability" is referring to "initiation". To obtain "an empty framed tube" you presumably need to lose the floors over a few stories at least - which would mean the collapse is well past "initiation".
(1) Yes, zone A rides down on top of zone B.
(2) No, that part is certainly an attempt to explain progressive collapse. Except the tube was not empty, being filled to overflowing with zone A.
For WTC 1, zone B was into the basement levels at the time massive portions of the west and north walls fell over, being pushed by the passing zone B crushed mass at about floor 9.
QUOTE (carterelliott+Aug 9 2007, 06:40 PM)
Lozenge, you've just illustrated the distinction between a schematic and a layout drawing.
Schematics are symbolic, created to illustrate concepts.
Layouts are literal drawings of what was there.
The express elevators weren't at the corners of the buildings, they were in the middle, like all the other elevators.
(Never bet against Arthur.)
These might help you to realize a bit better how the elevators were actually arranged.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...levators-3d.jpg
This shows the actual number of elevators and the floors they serviced.
A great deal of the elevators overlapped and thus there were multiple independent pathways to the lower levels.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...WTC9712Fi10.gif
This shows that they were all grouped in the center
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
This shows how the Express Elevators were on both sides with the locals in the middle.
There were also various Service elevators, one that stopped at ALL floors.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard..._and_Elevat.jpg
Arthur
Schematics are symbolic, created to illustrate concepts.
Layouts are literal drawings of what was there.
The express elevators weren't at the corners of the buildings, they were in the middle, like all the other elevators.
(Never bet against Arthur.)
These might help you to realize a bit better how the elevators were actually arranged.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...levators-3d.jpg
This shows the actual number of elevators and the floors they serviced.
A great deal of the elevators overlapped and thus there were multiple independent pathways to the lower levels.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...WTC9712Fi10.gif
This shows that they were all grouped in the center
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...eshilouette.jpg
This shows how the Express Elevators were on both sides with the locals in the middle.
There were also various Service elevators, one that stopped at ALL floors.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard..._and_Elevat.jpg
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 9 2007, 11:37 PM)
(...)
Arthur
Nothing new there. The last pic you posted is the NIST schematic which I posted and matches perfectly the initial graphic that illustrates the three-tier system.
Aside from the few elevators that spanned the entire floors, the pathway that the jet fuel would have had to travel to reach the lower floors (through two sets of mechanical floors delimiting the tiers) would have been quite the gauntlet.
See for example NISTNCSTAR1 p.13
Arthur
Nothing new there. The last pic you posted is the NIST schematic which I posted and matches perfectly the initial graphic that illustrates the three-tier system.
Aside from the few elevators that spanned the entire floors, the pathway that the jet fuel would have had to travel to reach the lower floors (through two sets of mechanical floors delimiting the tiers) would have been quite the gauntlet.
See for example NISTNCSTAR1 p.13
QUOTE
At the top of each elevator bank, the machinery to lift the cabs occupied one additional floor. From the next floor up to the bottom of the next bank, there was no need for an elevator shaft. The concrete floor was extended into this space, providing additional rentable floor area.
There are three different accelerations of interest in the progressive collapses:
(1) The acceleration of the tower tops, about (2/3)g for WTC 1 as an average for the first 3 seconds.
(2) The acceleration of the crushing front (which may be approximately taken as the level with air being evacuated). For WTC 1, this starts at 0.83g and negatively surges to 0.76g at 3 seconds. Near the end of crush-down the value drops to 0.58g.
(3) But since the crushing front continues to accrete mass, no particle is actually accelerated that much. The incremental acceleration of the material at/near the bottom of the zone B crushed mass begins at 0.83g, as expected, but drops to only 0.56g at 3 seconds.
(1) The acceleration of the tower tops, about (2/3)g for WTC 1 as an average for the first 3 seconds.
(2) The acceleration of the crushing front (which may be approximately taken as the level with air being evacuated). For WTC 1, this starts at 0.83g and negatively surges to 0.76g at 3 seconds. Near the end of crush-down the value drops to 0.58g.
(3) But since the crushing front continues to accrete mass, no particle is actually accelerated that much. The incremental acceleration of the material at/near the bottom of the zone B crushed mass begins at 0.83g, as expected, but drops to only 0.56g at 3 seconds.
adoucette
When speaking of the elevator shafts, some of those shafts had elevators above lower elevators in virtually the same shaft, and most of the walls between elevator shafts consisted of nothing but two sheets of gypsum board.
Also, lozenge, you need to realize that what to you is a barrier is to a fluid like water a clear passage, it naturally seeks the lowest level and can pass beneath a wall we see as a barrier, or through expansion joints in the floor, or into the elevator shaft through the leaky seals of the doors that were on every floor. Did you expect the floors to become separate swimming pools when splashed with several TONS of liquid fuel??? And since both planes hit the core(where the elevator shafts were) then several shafts were bound to be involved, burst open and allowing that liquid fuel to pour down the core, so yes, fuel/air explosions would be almost certain. It would be more surprising if they HADN'T happened and it explains the destruction in the lower levels without having to resort to thermite fairies.
Grumpy
When speaking of the elevator shafts, some of those shafts had elevators above lower elevators in virtually the same shaft, and most of the walls between elevator shafts consisted of nothing but two sheets of gypsum board.
Also, lozenge, you need to realize that what to you is a barrier is to a fluid like water a clear passage, it naturally seeks the lowest level and can pass beneath a wall we see as a barrier, or through expansion joints in the floor, or into the elevator shaft through the leaky seals of the doors that were on every floor. Did you expect the floors to become separate swimming pools when splashed with several TONS of liquid fuel??? And since both planes hit the core(where the elevator shafts were) then several shafts were bound to be involved, burst open and allowing that liquid fuel to pour down the core, so yes, fuel/air explosions would be almost certain. It would be more surprising if they HADN'T happened and it explains the destruction in the lower levels without having to resort to thermite fairies.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 10 2007, 12:44 AM)
adoucette
When speaking of the elevator shafts, some of those shafts had elevators above lower elevators in virtually the same shaft, and most of the walls between elevator shafts consisted of nothing but two sheets of gypsum board.
Also, lozenge, you need to realize that what to you is a barrier is to a fluid like water a clear passage, it naturally seeks the lowest level and can pass beneath a wall we see as a barrier, or through expansion joints in the floor, or into the elevator shaft through the leaky seals of the doors that were on every floor. Did you expect the floors to become separate swimming pools when splashed with several TONS of liquid fuel??? And since both planes hit the core(where the elevator shafts were) then several shafts were bound to be involved, burst open and allowing that liquid fuel to pour down the core, so yes, fuel/air explosions would be almost certain. It would be more surprising if they HADN'T happened and it explains the destruction in the lower levels without having to resort to thermite fairies.
Grumpy
The magic jet-fuel theory...
When speaking of the elevator shafts, some of those shafts had elevators above lower elevators in virtually the same shaft, and most of the walls between elevator shafts consisted of nothing but two sheets of gypsum board.
Also, lozenge, you need to realize that what to you is a barrier is to a fluid like water a clear passage, it naturally seeks the lowest level and can pass beneath a wall we see as a barrier, or through expansion joints in the floor, or into the elevator shaft through the leaky seals of the doors that were on every floor. Did you expect the floors to become separate swimming pools when splashed with several TONS of liquid fuel??? And since both planes hit the core(where the elevator shafts were) then several shafts were bound to be involved, burst open and allowing that liquid fuel to pour down the core, so yes, fuel/air explosions would be almost certain. It would be more surprising if they HADN'T happened and it explains the destruction in the lower levels without having to resort to thermite fairies.
Grumpy
The magic jet-fuel theory...
Also there were other shafts in the core for air and also utilities.
lozenge124
No magic to it, just simple GRADE SCHOOL physics. Water(or fuel) will find every hole in a floor, it can't do anything else, gravity drags it ever downward and if that downward was an express elevator shaft the first bit of fuel will reach the subbasement in about 15 seconds, give or take. What part of this EXTREMELY SIMPLE CONCEPT are you having trouble with??? Do you think the people on the floor below impact would be swimming in fuel, because, OH DEAR, the fuel refuses to drain down all the holes in the floor!!
You're not stupid, stop acting like it simply because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas. Fuel going down(and that includes elevator shafts) is a no brainer, dude.
Grumpy
QUOTE
The magic jet-fuel theory...
No magic to it, just simple GRADE SCHOOL physics. Water(or fuel) will find every hole in a floor, it can't do anything else, gravity drags it ever downward and if that downward was an express elevator shaft the first bit of fuel will reach the subbasement in about 15 seconds, give or take. What part of this EXTREMELY SIMPLE CONCEPT are you having trouble with??? Do you think the people on the floor below impact would be swimming in fuel, because, OH DEAR, the fuel refuses to drain down all the holes in the floor!!
You're not stupid, stop acting like it simply because it doesn't fit your preconceived ideas. Fuel going down(and that includes elevator shafts) is a no brainer, dude.
Grumpy
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 9 2007, 08:02 PM)
Nothing new there. The last pic you posted is the NIST schematic which I posted and matches perfectly the initial graphic that illustrates the three-tier system.
Aside from the few elevators that spanned the entire floors, the pathway that the jet fuel would have had to travel to reach the lower floors (through two sets of mechanical floors delimiting the tiers) would have been quite the gauntlet.
See for example NISTNCSTAR1 p.13
You're right, there is NOTHING NEW here.
Its FRIGGIN OBVIOUS how the fuel made it to the basement.
Again:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...levators-3d.jpg
So what do you mean ASIDE FROM THE FEW ELEVATORS that spanned the entire floors?
As the graphic shows they are all co-located.
And as the LAST graphic of the floor layout shows those large Express Elevators are HUGE, and NO they DIDN'T have walls between ADJACENT shafts.
What ELSE do you need to get fuel all the way to the basement?
Also notice the tops of the Shafts on the Express Elevators to the Upper lobby.
Notice they are OPEN.
Notice they GO PAST the mechanical floors.
Notice they run all the way to the bottom floors.
You don't think of the THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel from the plane that possibly hundreds of gallons might not have made it to THOSE open shafts?
Say after a few minutes?
Arthur
Aside from the few elevators that spanned the entire floors, the pathway that the jet fuel would have had to travel to reach the lower floors (through two sets of mechanical floors delimiting the tiers) would have been quite the gauntlet.
See for example NISTNCSTAR1 p.13
You're right, there is NOTHING NEW here.
Its FRIGGIN OBVIOUS how the fuel made it to the basement.
Again:
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...levators-3d.jpg
So what do you mean ASIDE FROM THE FEW ELEVATORS that spanned the entire floors?
As the graphic shows they are all co-located.
And as the LAST graphic of the floor layout shows those large Express Elevators are HUGE, and NO they DIDN'T have walls between ADJACENT shafts.
What ELSE do you need to get fuel all the way to the basement?
Also notice the tops of the Shafts on the Express Elevators to the Upper lobby.
Notice they are OPEN.
Notice they GO PAST the mechanical floors.
Notice they run all the way to the bottom floors.
You don't think of the THOUSANDS of gallons of fuel from the plane that possibly hundreds of gallons might not have made it to THOSE open shafts?
Say after a few minutes?
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.