Newtonnjd:
I would say that the trails of dust you refer to are coming from things like insulation and/or fireproofing that were initially attached to the columns. As these columns were ejected and accelerated under essentially free fall conditions the aerodynamic forces tended to peel off this coating, which being friable, would tend to break up and leave a trail of dust.....
Lozenge124:
I don't think anyone is saying the collapse mechanisms of WTC 1 & 2 were simple. Models such as B&V's are a convenient way to quantify the collapse times. There appear to be no other models out there that match the observations as well as B&V's model. The Ross model, for example, predicts an infinite collapse time which does NOT agree with observations.... Besides the Ross model itself is highly approximete since it ignores both the reflected stress waves that would move UP the upper section of the collapsing tower, and the so-called flexural waves that move in lateral directions. The proper way to deal with the propagation of the impact stress pulse is via the equations of Pochhammer and Chree which allow for dispersion effects. But good luck in working with those Bessel functions...
NF
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 03:14 PM)
The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load,
Nope
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2a Chap 5. See tables that explain the Demand to Capacity Ratios of the Perimeter and Core columns.
Arthur
Nope
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2a Chap 5. See tables that explain the Demand to Capacity Ratios of the Perimeter and Core columns.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 19 2007, 08:31 PM)
I was talking about the top section falling on the foor[sic] system/truss bolts.
Could the weight of the perimeter, core columns and hat truss above the impact floors be held up by one story/truss system? Even at a dead stop it seems impossible to me.
Was impossible at a dead stop. I did the calculations.
Could the weight of the perimeter, core columns and hat truss above the impact floors be held up by one story/truss system? Even at a dead stop it seems impossible to me.
Was impossible at a dead stop. I did the calculations.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 19 2007, 08:51 PM)
Newtonnjd:
I would say that the trails of dust you refer to are coming from things like insulation and/or fireproofing that were initially attached to the columns. As these columns were ejected and accelerated under essentially free fall conditions the aerodynamic forces tended to peel off this coating, which being friable, would tend to break up and leave a trail of dust.....
Thanks. First impressions, this sounds inadequate to me to explain the volume and density of the dust trails seen. Do you have any references regarding the coating these perimeter columns would have had? What color would it be?
It should be easy to test if this sort of stuff would come off as a thick and consistent trail of dust when a coated piece of steel is dropped.
I would say that the trails of dust you refer to are coming from things like insulation and/or fireproofing that were initially attached to the columns. As these columns were ejected and accelerated under essentially free fall conditions the aerodynamic forces tended to peel off this coating, which being friable, would tend to break up and leave a trail of dust.....
Thanks. First impressions, this sounds inadequate to me to explain the volume and density of the dust trails seen. Do you have any references regarding the coating these perimeter columns would have had? What color would it be?
It should be easy to test if this sort of stuff would come off as a thick and consistent trail of dust when a coated piece of steel is dropped.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 19 2007, 09:04 PM)
Nope
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2a Chap 5. See tables that explain the Demand to Capacity Ratios of the Perimeter and Core columns.
Arthur
This is from Kevin Ryan's piece:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
[3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.
[4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-2a Chap 5. See tables that explain the Demand to Capacity Ratios of the Perimeter and Core columns.
Arthur
This is from Kevin Ryan's piece:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
QUOTE
It would help to begin with an accurate description of the WTC towers in terms of quality of design and construction. In July of 1971, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) presented a national award judging the buildings to be "the engineering project that demonstrates the greatest engineering skills and represents the greatest contribution to engineering progress and mankind."3 Others noted that "the World Trade Center towers would have an inherent capacity to resist unforeseen calamities." This capacity stemmed from the use of special high-strength steels. In particular, the perimeter columns were designed with tremendous reserve strength whereby "live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs."4
[3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.
[4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
You (and Ryan) are quoting from a text labeled "How columns WILL BE DESIGNED"
The NIST on the other hand dealt with how they WERE ACTUALLY BUILT.
Apparently there were changes on the long road from WILL BE to WERE BUILT.
Also notice they were only talking about excess LIVE loads.
Arthur
The NIST on the other hand dealt with how they WERE ACTUALLY BUILT.
Apparently there were changes on the long road from WILL BE to WERE BUILT.
Also notice they were only talking about excess LIVE loads.
Arthur
Newtonnjd:
I don't have details to hand but I believe the exterior columns had about a 1 inch thickness of CAFCO "Blaze-Shield" Type D spray-on fireproofing. And I think there was also vermiculite plaster aggregate and even, in some cases, a finished plaster coating on exterior columns and spandrel beams. These materials would be gray to white in color.
If the trails of dust and debris were not these materials, what do you suggest they were?
NF
I don't have details to hand but I believe the exterior columns had about a 1 inch thickness of CAFCO "Blaze-Shield" Type D spray-on fireproofing. And I think there was also vermiculite plaster aggregate and even, in some cases, a finished plaster coating on exterior columns and spandrel beams. These materials would be gray to white in color.
If the trails of dust and debris were not these materials, what do you suggest they were?
NF
lozenge124 --- I followed Arthur to NCSTAR1-2A, Chapter 5, to determine that under maximum design wind loading, the exterior columns had a DCR of about 0.76.
Just dead+live loads ought to give a DCR of about 0.50. So, if little wind, the exterior columns could withstand, in principle, twice that loading. Some might choose to write 200% for that (although it is strictly incorrect to do so...)
I suggest that the 2000% is a misprint.
Just dead+live loads ought to give a DCR of about 0.50. So, if little wind, the exterior columns could withstand, in principle, twice that loading. Some might choose to write 200% for that (although it is strictly incorrect to do so...)
I suggest that the 2000% is a misprint.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 06:07 PM)
I suggest that the 2000% is a misprint.
If the perimeter columns COULD handle 2000% of their normal load as lozenge124 (and Kevin Ryan) tried to suggest, then one could take the 90th story perimeter columns and use them on the FIRST floor of the towers and they would still only be at a DCR of ~0.5.
To believe people are this ignorant of building construction but then want to seriously debate why NIST or Bazant are wrong is the HEIGHT of arrogance that can ONLY come from insurmountable incompetence.
Arthur
If the perimeter columns COULD handle 2000% of their normal load as lozenge124 (and Kevin Ryan) tried to suggest, then one could take the 90th story perimeter columns and use them on the FIRST floor of the towers and they would still only be at a DCR of ~0.5.
To believe people are this ignorant of building construction but then want to seriously debate why NIST or Bazant are wrong is the HEIGHT of arrogance that can ONLY come from insurmountable incompetence.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 19 2007, 11:12 PM)
... insurmountable incompetence.
Maybe, just maybe, some precious few will surmount it.
It certainly does help to read (parts of) the NIST report, tho'...
Maybe, just maybe, some precious few will surmount it.
It certainly does help to read (parts of) the NIST report, tho'...
I've pretty much given up on that David.
If someone is so ignorant in science as to believe in Mini-Nukes, Vaporization of Steel, Thermate or High Explosive demolition of the towers, Pools of MELTED STEEL, Pyroclastic flows, 90+% pulverized to 30 micron dust, Missing Steel, Faster than Freefall, No Plane etc etc
Then BY DEFINITION, they are not going to suddenly wise up and understand the NIST report, or Bazant or Greening.
It just isn't going to happen.
What's more, most of these people STARTED with an ingrained PARANOIA (like newton) and now these people have clearly incorporated this belief into their view of themselves, such that being a 9/11 skeptic becomes a big part of WHO THEY ARE, thus the huge chasm of cognizant dissonance that would need to be jumped for them to accept that they have been wrong all this time seems to be a barrier that few if any of these unfortunate paranoid people will ever cross.
They are doomed to muddle around claiming that THEY know the TRUTH till they have chased all but people with similar paranoid and disturbed minds away from them.
Arthur
If someone is so ignorant in science as to believe in Mini-Nukes, Vaporization of Steel, Thermate or High Explosive demolition of the towers, Pools of MELTED STEEL, Pyroclastic flows, 90+% pulverized to 30 micron dust, Missing Steel, Faster than Freefall, No Plane etc etc
Then BY DEFINITION, they are not going to suddenly wise up and understand the NIST report, or Bazant or Greening.
It just isn't going to happen.
What's more, most of these people STARTED with an ingrained PARANOIA (like newton) and now these people have clearly incorporated this belief into their view of themselves, such that being a 9/11 skeptic becomes a big part of WHO THEY ARE, thus the huge chasm of cognizant dissonance that would need to be jumped for them to accept that they have been wrong all this time seems to be a barrier that few if any of these unfortunate paranoid people will ever cross.
They are doomed to muddle around claiming that THEY know the TRUTH till they have chased all but people with similar paranoid and disturbed minds away from them.
Arthur
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 19 2007, 07:19 PM)
Question for the debunking crowd...
How does your purely gravity-driven collapse explain how thick trails of dust follow, and stick to, sections of perimeter steel all the way to the ground?
How did this dust keep up with the steel, and get well ahead of the pancaking?
The drywall attached to the beams and the vacuum created by a rapidly moving object traveling in air.
Really you should at least try to find something hard to debunk.
How does your purely gravity-driven collapse explain how thick trails of dust follow, and stick to, sections of perimeter steel all the way to the ground?
How did this dust keep up with the steel, and get well ahead of the pancaking?
The drywall attached to the beams and the vacuum created by a rapidly moving object traveling in air.
Really you should at least try to find something hard to debunk.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 09:45 PM)
This is from Kevin Ryan's piece:
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
[3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.
[4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
The columns your correct were designed like that, but the connections were not, they were only bolts and non contiguous welds. They could not keep the columns attached.
It was the connections that failed not the columns themselves!
http://911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html
[3] Angus K. Gillespie, Twin Towers: The Life of New York City's World Trade Center (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press 1999), 117.
[4] "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings," Engineering News-Record, April 2, 1964: 48-49.
The columns your correct were designed like that, but the connections were not, they were only bolts and non contiguous welds. They could not keep the columns attached.
It was the connections that failed not the columns themselves!
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 20 2007, 12:12 AM)
I've pretty much given up on that David.
If someone is so ignorant in science as to believe in Mini-Nukes, Vaporization of Steel, Thermate or High Explosive demolition of the towers, Pools of MELTED STEEL, Pyroclastic flows, 90+% pulverized to 30 micron dust, Missing Steel, Faster than Freefall, No Plane etc etc
Then BY DEFINITION, they are not going to suddenly wise up and understand the NIST report, or Bazant or Greening.
It just isn't going to happen.
What's more, most of these people STARTED with an ingrained PARANOIA (like newton) and now these people have clearly incorporated this belief into their view of themselves, such that being a 9/11 skeptic becomes a big part of WHO THEY ARE, thus the huge chasm of cognizant dissonance that would need to be jumped for them to accept that they have been wrong all this time seems to be a barrier that few if any of these unfortunate paranoid people will ever cross.
They are doomed to muddle around claiming that THEY know the TRUTH till they have chased all but people with similar paranoid and disturbed minds away from them.
Arthur
Well I thought we had a civil discussion going there. I guess I was mistaken, it's a shame.
adoucette your problem is you don't make any effort to read the substance of other people's posts, you just hone in on small things and then respond with a barrage of insults. If the 2000% figure is wrong it doesn't affect anything I have said in my posts.
When I joined this forum one of my goals was to understand where all the math in the posts I was seeing was coming from and how much value it really had. Now that I know that Bazant & Greening assumptions are the corner stones underlying much of what I've seen, I have the answer I was looking for. I thank the posters in this forum who have helped me to see this.
To anyone else looking for answers around 911 who stumbles across this forum, I urge you to not be intimidated by the math. Do your research, look things up, but do not be intimidated if someone posts something about inverted pendulum oscillations, Euler equations, Bazant & Verdure differential equations, etc... Focus on the assumptions that are made in the math models, focus on the science...
If someone is so ignorant in science as to believe in Mini-Nukes, Vaporization of Steel, Thermate or High Explosive demolition of the towers, Pools of MELTED STEEL, Pyroclastic flows, 90+% pulverized to 30 micron dust, Missing Steel, Faster than Freefall, No Plane etc etc
Then BY DEFINITION, they are not going to suddenly wise up and understand the NIST report, or Bazant or Greening.
It just isn't going to happen.
What's more, most of these people STARTED with an ingrained PARANOIA (like newton) and now these people have clearly incorporated this belief into their view of themselves, such that being a 9/11 skeptic becomes a big part of WHO THEY ARE, thus the huge chasm of cognizant dissonance that would need to be jumped for them to accept that they have been wrong all this time seems to be a barrier that few if any of these unfortunate paranoid people will ever cross.
They are doomed to muddle around claiming that THEY know the TRUTH till they have chased all but people with similar paranoid and disturbed minds away from them.
Arthur
Well I thought we had a civil discussion going there. I guess I was mistaken, it's a shame.
adoucette your problem is you don't make any effort to read the substance of other people's posts, you just hone in on small things and then respond with a barrage of insults. If the 2000% figure is wrong it doesn't affect anything I have said in my posts.
When I joined this forum one of my goals was to understand where all the math in the posts I was seeing was coming from and how much value it really had. Now that I know that Bazant & Greening assumptions are the corner stones underlying much of what I've seen, I have the answer I was looking for. I thank the posters in this forum who have helped me to see this.
To anyone else looking for answers around 911 who stumbles across this forum, I urge you to not be intimidated by the math. Do your research, look things up, but do not be intimidated if someone posts something about inverted pendulum oscillations, Euler equations, Bazant & Verdure differential equations, etc... Focus on the assumptions that are made in the math models, focus on the science...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 19 2007, 10:07 PM)
lozenge124 --- I followed Arthur to NCSTAR1-2A, Chapter 5, to determine that under maximum design wind loading, the exterior columns had a DCR of about 0.76.
Just dead+live loads ought to give a DCR of about 0.50. So, if little wind, the exterior columns could withstand, in principle, twice that loading. Some might choose to write 200% for that (although it is strictly incorrect to do so...)
I suggest that the 2000% is a misprint.
It is not a misprint, the beams can support 2000, in direct compression load on the ends of the beams, not the way they were connected to the trusses though.
IT is the difference in the compression strength of the beams Vs the tension strength of the connections.
It is just another fake cter argument, confusing compression strength with tension load strength.
Just dead+live loads ought to give a DCR of about 0.50. So, if little wind, the exterior columns could withstand, in principle, twice that loading. Some might choose to write 200% for that (although it is strictly incorrect to do so...)
I suggest that the 2000% is a misprint.
It is not a misprint, the beams can support 2000, in direct compression load on the ends of the beams, not the way they were connected to the trusses though.
IT is the difference in the compression strength of the beams Vs the tension strength of the connections.
It is just another fake cter argument, confusing compression strength with tension load strength.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 20 2007, 01:01 AM)
Well I thought we had a civil discussion going there.
... Focus on the assumptions that are made in the math models, focus on the science...
Oh, everybody is being noticeably civil compared to some of the (much) earlier posts.
Right. Focus on the math models. B&V specifically state four simplifying assumptions to develop their differential equation. So far you haven't said a word regarding these four. You have said something about collapse initiation, which is not the point of the B&V paper, IMO.
By all means focus on the science. Do the energy calculations.
I also encourage focus on the engineering. Read (parts of) the NIST report.
... Focus on the assumptions that are made in the math models, focus on the science...
Oh, everybody is being noticeably civil compared to some of the (much) earlier posts.
Right. Focus on the math models. B&V specifically state four simplifying assumptions to develop their differential equation. So far you haven't said a word regarding these four. You have said something about collapse initiation, which is not the point of the B&V paper, IMO.
By all means focus on the science. Do the energy calculations.
I also encourage focus on the engineering. Read (parts of) the NIST report.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 20 2007, 01:01 AM)
Well I thought we had a civil discussion going there. I guess I was mistaken, it's a shame.
adoucette your problem is you don't make any effort to read the substance of other people's posts, you just hone in on small things and then respond with a barrage of insults. If the 2000% figure is wrong it doesn't affect anything I have said in my posts.
When I joined this forum one of my goals was to understand where all the math in the posts I was seeing was coming from and how much value it really had. Now that I know that Bazant & Greening assumptions are the corner stones underlying much of what I've seen, I have the answer I was looking for. I thank the posters in this forum who have helped me to see this.
To anyone else looking for answers around 911 who stumbles across this forum, I urge you to not be intimidated by the math. Do your research, look things up, but do not be intimidated if someone posts something about inverted pendulum oscillations, Euler equations, Bazant & Verdure differential equations, etc... Focus on the assumptions that are made in the math models, focus on the science...
I would also add check the credibility, and reliability of the source, Kevin Ryan was fired for lying, now were supposed to believe his science is valid?
What true Peer Reviewed Journals was his work published in again?
adoucette your problem is you don't make any effort to read the substance of other people's posts, you just hone in on small things and then respond with a barrage of insults. If the 2000% figure is wrong it doesn't affect anything I have said in my posts.
When I joined this forum one of my goals was to understand where all the math in the posts I was seeing was coming from and how much value it really had. Now that I know that Bazant & Greening assumptions are the corner stones underlying much of what I've seen, I have the answer I was looking for. I thank the posters in this forum who have helped me to see this.
To anyone else looking for answers around 911 who stumbles across this forum, I urge you to not be intimidated by the math. Do your research, look things up, but do not be intimidated if someone posts something about inverted pendulum oscillations, Euler equations, Bazant & Verdure differential equations, etc... Focus on the assumptions that are made in the math models, focus on the science...
I would also add check the credibility, and reliability of the source, Kevin Ryan was fired for lying, now were supposed to believe his science is valid?
What true Peer Reviewed Journals was his work published in again?
Each floor had insulation, ceiling tile and gypsum. ALL would have contributed to the dust we see. Because the falling floors would have ingulfed the columns in a thick cloud of this mixed debris, then the negative pressue of the falling column trees would have sucked the dust down behind it.
Were the columns areo dynamic? NO! So they pushed air out of the way in front and the air/dust rushed in behind it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this.
Why is it all the people here with the name 'Newton' don't know simple physics?
Let me save you the trouble newt, you don't agree. What a suprise...
Now show me a photo of steel being turned to dust after an explosion... NONSENSE! Heh!
Were the columns areo dynamic? NO! So they pushed air out of the way in front and the air/dust rushed in behind it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this.
Why is it all the people here with the name 'Newton' don't know simple physics?
Let me save you the trouble newt, you don't agree. What a suprise...
Now show me a photo of steel being turned to dust after an explosion... NONSENSE! Heh!
Ryan is lying because he KNOWS UL doesn't certify "steel". Now these conspiracy theorists know it but I bet they will still repeat the lie.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 19 2007, 09:01 PM)
adoucette your problem is you don't make any effort to read the substance of other people's posts, you just hone in on small things and then respond with a barrage of insults. If the 2000% figure is wrong it doesn't affect anything I have said in my posts.
Right,
You are asked what your problem is with B&V and you highlight a section and this is your discussion.
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged.
I point out that the NIST documents answer the question of load and its NOT 2000%
You apparently DIDN'T READ the NIST document I referred you to but come back with a Kevin Ryan supplied quote from a book before the buildings were even built.
Of course you don't even consider the fact that there is no way that the builder is going to use enough steel in a column to support 2000% of the design load. The whole point of the WTC tower building was they used ONLY ENOUGH MATERIAL to meet the MINIMUM DCRs required (and then were even above 1 on the DCRs now and again). The WTC towers were NOT OVERBUILT by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You also add the lie that "aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged."
Which IGNORES the obvious weakening effect of the fires and IGNORES the widely photographed and discussed BOWING in of the Perimeter columns and the SAGGING of the critical floor trusses that eliminated the critical LATERAL support to these perimeter columns.
So its pretty clear you have an AGENDA and that AGENDA has NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH.
Arthur
Right,
You are asked what your problem is with B&V and you highlight a section and this is your discussion.
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged.
I point out that the NIST documents answer the question of load and its NOT 2000%
You apparently DIDN'T READ the NIST document I referred you to but come back with a Kevin Ryan supplied quote from a book before the buildings were even built.
Of course you don't even consider the fact that there is no way that the builder is going to use enough steel in a column to support 2000% of the design load. The whole point of the WTC tower building was they used ONLY ENOUGH MATERIAL to meet the MINIMUM DCRs required (and then were even above 1 on the DCRs now and again). The WTC towers were NOT OVERBUILT by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You also add the lie that "aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged."
Which IGNORES the obvious weakening effect of the fires and IGNORES the widely photographed and discussed BOWING in of the Perimeter columns and the SAGGING of the critical floor trusses that eliminated the critical LATERAL support to these perimeter columns.
So its pretty clear you have an AGENDA and that AGENDA has NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 19 2007, 07:18 PM)
Right,
You are asked what your problem is with B&V and you highlight a section and this is your discussion.
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged.
I point out that the NIST documents answer the question of load and its NOT 2000%
You apparently DIDN'T READ the NIST document I referred you to but come back with a Kevin Ryan supplied quote from a book before the buildings were even built.
Of course you don't even consider the fact that there is no way that the builder is going to use enough steel in a column to support 2000% of the design load. The whole point of the WTC tower building was they used ONLY ENOUGH MATERIAL to meet the MINIMUM DCRs required (and then were even above 1 on the DCRs now and again). The WTC towers were NOT OVERBUILT by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You also add the lie that "aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged."
Which IGNORES the obvious weakening effect of the fires and IGNORES the widely photographed and discussed BOWING in of the Perimeter columns and the SAGGING of the critical floor trusses that eliminated the critical LATERAL support to these perimeter columns.
So its pretty clear you have an AGENDA and that AGENDA has NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH.
Arthur
Talk about paranoid, Arthur’s has gone off the deep end!
Everyone is a liar or paranoid that doesn’t agree with Arthur’s .
The entire world is turning paranoid because they don’t believe the OCT, according to Arthur’s.
They are doomed to muddle around claiming that THEY know the TRUTH till they have chased all but people with similar paranoid and disturbed minds away from them.
Arthur
And you spend every day arguing with them over trivial points.
Please, take your medication's.
Are you really in that much trouble because nobody believes your BS anymore?
You are asked what your problem is with B&V and you highlight a section and this is your discussion.
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged.
I point out that the NIST documents answer the question of load and its NOT 2000%
You apparently DIDN'T READ the NIST document I referred you to but come back with a Kevin Ryan supplied quote from a book before the buildings were even built.
Of course you don't even consider the fact that there is no way that the builder is going to use enough steel in a column to support 2000% of the design load. The whole point of the WTC tower building was they used ONLY ENOUGH MATERIAL to meet the MINIMUM DCRs required (and then were even above 1 on the DCRs now and again). The WTC towers were NOT OVERBUILT by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You also add the lie that "aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged."
Which IGNORES the obvious weakening effect of the fires and IGNORES the widely photographed and discussed BOWING in of the Perimeter columns and the SAGGING of the critical floor trusses that eliminated the critical LATERAL support to these perimeter columns.
So its pretty clear you have an AGENDA and that AGENDA has NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH.
Arthur
Talk about paranoid, Arthur’s has gone off the deep end!
Everyone is a liar or paranoid that doesn’t agree with Arthur’s .
The entire world is turning paranoid because they don’t believe the OCT, according to Arthur’s.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 19 2007, 04:12 PM)
They are doomed to muddle around claiming that THEY know the TRUTH till they have chased all but people with similar paranoid and disturbed minds away from them.
Arthur
And you spend every day arguing with them over trivial points.
Please, take your medication's.
Are you really in that much trouble because nobody believes your BS anymore?
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 20 2007, 03:18 AM)
Right,
You are asked what your problem is with B&V and you highlight a section and this is your discussion.
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged.
I point out that the NIST documents answer the question of load and its NOT 2000%
You apparently DIDN'T READ the NIST document I referred you to but come back with a Kevin Ryan supplied quote from a book before the buildings were even built.
Of course you don't even consider the fact that there is no way that the builder is going to use enough steel in a column to support 2000% of the design load. The whole point of the WTC tower building was they used ONLY ENOUGH MATERIAL to meet the MINIMUM DCRs required (and then were even above 1 on the DCRs now and again). The WTC towers were NOT OVERBUILT by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You also add the lie that "aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged."
Which IGNORES the obvious weakening effect of the fires and IGNORES the widely photographed and discussed BOWING in of the Perimeter columns and the SAGGING of the critical floor trusses that eliminated the critical LATERAL support to these perimeter columns.
So its pretty clear you have an AGENDA and that AGENDA has NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH.
Arthur
The 2000% is static compression load, if all movement was avoided, the columns could support 2000% static compression load.
The beams could support 200% or one tenth the static load as active load. Since you can never remove all movement, the static load is meaningless a waste to even mention.
IT is merely the difference between a static system, and a dynamic system.
You are asked what your problem is with B&V and you highlight a section and this is your discussion.
1) I don't think that B&V have proven at all that the upper part of the tower fell "with little resistance, through at least one floor height". The perimeter columns could withstand 2000% of their normal load, and aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged.
I point out that the NIST documents answer the question of load and its NOT 2000%
You apparently DIDN'T READ the NIST document I referred you to but come back with a Kevin Ryan supplied quote from a book before the buildings were even built.
Of course you don't even consider the fact that there is no way that the builder is going to use enough steel in a column to support 2000% of the design load. The whole point of the WTC tower building was they used ONLY ENOUGH MATERIAL to meet the MINIMUM DCRs required (and then were even above 1 on the DCRs now and again). The WTC towers were NOT OVERBUILT by ANY stretch of the imagination.
You also add the lie that "aside from the damage incurred in the region where the plane hit, there is no indication that the other perimeter columns were damaged."
Which IGNORES the obvious weakening effect of the fires and IGNORES the widely photographed and discussed BOWING in of the Perimeter columns and the SAGGING of the critical floor trusses that eliminated the critical LATERAL support to these perimeter columns.
So its pretty clear you have an AGENDA and that AGENDA has NO INTEREST IN THE TRUTH.
Arthur
The 2000% is static compression load, if all movement was avoided, the columns could support 2000% static compression load.
The beams could support 200% or one tenth the static load as active load. Since you can never remove all movement, the static load is meaningless a waste to even mention.
IT is merely the difference between a static system, and a dynamic system.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 20 2007, 02:15 AM)
Each floor had insulation, ceiling tile and gypsum. ALL would have contributed to the dust we see. Because the falling floors would have ingulfed the columns in a thick cloud of this mixed debris, then the negative pressue of the falling column trees would have sucked the dust down behind it.
Were the columns areo dynamic? NO! So they pushed air out of the way in front and the air/dust rushed in behind it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this.
Why is it all the people here with the name 'Newton' don't know simple physics?
Let me save you the trouble newt, you don't agree. What a suprise...
Now show me a photo of steel being turned to dust after an explosion... NONSENSE! Heh!
Hello CommonSense.
I know that dust can stick to things. But when it does, it is generally a fairly thin layer, correct? You would only expect a small % of the pulverised gypsum etc to stick to the steel, and quite a bit of that would be knocked off when the steel was broke away from the building. So, not enough to create those dense clouds pouring off the steel all the way down. But if it was non-pulverised insulation still attached to the steel, could it really have disintegrated into dust simply due to aerodynamic pressure? Maybe you can secure a piece of gypsum to a concrete block, drop it from a cliff and see if the gypsum flows away as dust?
Were the columns areo dynamic? NO! So they pushed air out of the way in front and the air/dust rushed in behind it. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to know this.
Why is it all the people here with the name 'Newton' don't know simple physics?
Let me save you the trouble newt, you don't agree. What a suprise...
Now show me a photo of steel being turned to dust after an explosion... NONSENSE! Heh!
Hello CommonSense.
I know that dust can stick to things. But when it does, it is generally a fairly thin layer, correct? You would only expect a small % of the pulverised gypsum etc to stick to the steel, and quite a bit of that would be knocked off when the steel was broke away from the building. So, not enough to create those dense clouds pouring off the steel all the way down. But if it was non-pulverised insulation still attached to the steel, could it really have disintegrated into dust simply due to aerodynamic pressure? Maybe you can secure a piece of gypsum to a concrete block, drop it from a cliff and see if the gypsum flows away as dust?
Yes Newton, I've been on about these "Fizzies" for a long time. The dust that trails behind the steel is thick, dense, and it belches out of the steel the entire way down. It appears to expand and remain relatively seperate from the surrounding air for some time. In short, it behaves nothing like gypsum drywall dust or spray-on fire retardant.
As for the "negative air pressure" "sucking" the dust behind the falling steel . . .
No.
First, I can post a picture of this effect occuring to a large section of core columns which are still standing, not falling at all. Second, the dust is not merely following the falling steel, it is coming from falling steel.
Excellent experiment suggestion. Chainsaw, this sounds like it's right up your alley. Why don't you attach some some drywall or insulation to some solid material and drop it off a building or a cliff and see if you can get anything remotely resembling what we observe on 9/11.
I think it is abundantly clear that steel was turning to dust.
As for the "negative air pressure" "sucking" the dust behind the falling steel . . .
No.
First, I can post a picture of this effect occuring to a large section of core columns which are still standing, not falling at all. Second, the dust is not merely following the falling steel, it is coming from falling steel.
Excellent experiment suggestion. Chainsaw, this sounds like it's right up your alley. Why don't you attach some some drywall or insulation to some solid material and drop it off a building or a cliff and see if you can get anything remotely resembling what we observe on 9/11.
I think it is abundantly clear that steel was turning to dust.
Please check out the "spire" in this Aman Zafar pic. No "negative air pressure" going on there. Copious quantities of what I think is steel dust coming from the core columns. Also, notice the patterns of lines coming down through the spire dust. Do they not look like the same kinds of diverging lines that we see when sun shines from behind clouds? Lines that are parallel in reality appear to diverge because they are coming towards the eye (parallax). It looks as though sunshine is coming down through this spire dust, from above, down and to the right. But sunlight would be coming from above, down and to the left in this picture.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 19 2007, 11:06 PM)
Hello CommonSense.
I know that dust can stick to things. But when it does, it is generally a fairly thin layer, correct? You would only expect a small % of the pulverised gypsum etc to stick to the steel, and quite a bit of that would be knocked off when the steel was broke away from the building. So, not enough to create those dense clouds pouring off the steel all the way down. But if it was non-pulverised insulation still attached to the steel, could it really have disintegrated into dust simply due to aerodynamic pressure? Maybe you can secure a piece of gypsum to a concrete block, drop it from a cliff and see if the gypsum flows away as dust?
You are purposely lying again. You can't be that stupid. YOU KNOW I didn't say "Stick" so why are you injecting that nonsense here? You also KNOW "a thick cloud of this mixed debris" means DUST and not gypsum pieces stuck to steel. The collapse would have broken more than a few sheets of gypsum don't you think? If the concrete broke apart creating dust what makes you think the gypsum wouldn't have created even more? Or do you think you need a space laser to pulverize gypsum... Heh! Just cutting gypsum with a utility blade creates dust. And what about the flimsy ceiling tile system? You think it could withstand the collapse of 15 to 30 stories? Heh!
DUST, as in light particals, would FOLLOW the steel down because of the negative pressue behind the falling column. I said this in a way which leaves NO confusion so leave your straw men at the next conspiracy theorist love fest. Gypsum from the core would go in any direction it could, including out the perimeter windows. Some would have ingulfed the columns before they fell out of the debris cloud. It doesn't have to "Stick" to the columns.
Do you know ANYTHING about the insulation? It's not hard you putz. It can be blown off. As in during the airliner impact and collapse. If you would have done even the smallest amount of research you would know this. Instead you waste time asking the dumbest of questions. Sad...
What's the conspiracy story to explain the dust? Space lasers? Heh!
HAHAHA!!! The evil doers not only wanted to collapse the building but make the crime obvious by turning the steel into dust.
I thought they said the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? I never saw a controlled demolition turn steel into dust! HEHEHE!!!
I know that dust can stick to things. But when it does, it is generally a fairly thin layer, correct? You would only expect a small % of the pulverised gypsum etc to stick to the steel, and quite a bit of that would be knocked off when the steel was broke away from the building. So, not enough to create those dense clouds pouring off the steel all the way down. But if it was non-pulverised insulation still attached to the steel, could it really have disintegrated into dust simply due to aerodynamic pressure? Maybe you can secure a piece of gypsum to a concrete block, drop it from a cliff and see if the gypsum flows away as dust?
You are purposely lying again. You can't be that stupid. YOU KNOW I didn't say "Stick" so why are you injecting that nonsense here? You also KNOW "a thick cloud of this mixed debris" means DUST and not gypsum pieces stuck to steel. The collapse would have broken more than a few sheets of gypsum don't you think? If the concrete broke apart creating dust what makes you think the gypsum wouldn't have created even more? Or do you think you need a space laser to pulverize gypsum... Heh! Just cutting gypsum with a utility blade creates dust. And what about the flimsy ceiling tile system? You think it could withstand the collapse of 15 to 30 stories? Heh!
DUST, as in light particals, would FOLLOW the steel down because of the negative pressue behind the falling column. I said this in a way which leaves NO confusion so leave your straw men at the next conspiracy theorist love fest. Gypsum from the core would go in any direction it could, including out the perimeter windows. Some would have ingulfed the columns before they fell out of the debris cloud. It doesn't have to "Stick" to the columns.
Do you know ANYTHING about the insulation? It's not hard you putz. It can be blown off. As in during the airliner impact and collapse. If you would have done even the smallest amount of research you would know this. Instead you waste time asking the dumbest of questions. Sad...
What's the conspiracy story to explain the dust? Space lasers? Heh!
HAHAHA!!! The evil doers not only wanted to collapse the building but make the crime obvious by turning the steel into dust.
I thought they said the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? I never saw a controlled demolition turn steel into dust! HEHEHE!!!
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 19 2007, 11:33 PM)
The entire world is turning paranoid because they don’t believe the OCT, according to Arthur’s.
Nope, from what I can tell there are relatively few who believe the towers were brought down by CD, mini-nukes or space beams.
The poll results (zagby) showed that most of these tended to be young males with a high school education or less.
Arthur
Nope, from what I can tell there are relatively few who believe the towers were brought down by CD, mini-nukes or space beams.
The poll results (zagby) showed that most of these tended to be young males with a high school education or less.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 19 2007, 01:16 PM)
Obviously we can argue about what those alleged eyewitness reports about "molten metal/steel" in the rubble pile really mean.... FOR EVER!
But are we getting anywhere with this?
I think we all agree on a few points:
* that near surface temperatures as high as 1100 K (not C!) were recorded.
Sometimes I feel like I was born to beat a dead horse.
From OSHA's, A Dangerous Worksite:
In this case I think that 1100 C does apply.
Thanks for the distinction between Kelvin and Celsius. Not being a chemist such as yourself, the difference in the two scales has not been relevant to me for a few decades.
But are we getting anywhere with this?
I think we all agree on a few points:
* that near surface temperatures as high as 1100 K (not C!) were recorded.
Sometimes I feel like I was born to beat a dead horse.
From OSHA's, A Dangerous Worksite:
QUOTE
Identifying Risks and Hazards:
HOT STEEL
Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity.
Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.
HOT STEEL
Even as the steel cooled, there was concern that the girders had become so hot that they could crumble when lifted by overhead cranes. As a result, additional safeguards were put in place to limit the dangers associated with lifting the damaged steel and to protect the workers in the vicinity.
Another danger involved the high temperature of twisted steel pulled from the rubble. Underground fires burned at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees. As the huge cranes pulled steel beams from the pile, safety experts worried about the effects of the extreme heat on the crane rigging and the hazards of contact with the hot steel. And they were concerned that applying water to cool the steel could cause a steam explosion that would propel nearby objects with deadly force. Special expertise was needed. OSHA called in structural engineers from its national office to assess the situation. They recommended a special handling procedure, including the use of specialized rigging and instruments to reduce the hazards.
In this case I think that 1100 C does apply.
Thanks for the distinction between Kelvin and Celsius. Not being a chemist such as yourself, the difference in the two scales has not been relevant to me for a few decades.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 20 2007, 01:11 AM)
Nope, from what I can tell there are relatively few who believe the towers were brought down by CD, mini-nukes or space beams.
The poll results (zagby) showed that most of these tended to be young males with a high school education or less.
Arthur
Yeah, I bet these same people want to legalize marijuana. Drug induced paranoia.
The poll results (zagby) showed that most of these tended to be young males with a high school education or less.
Arthur
Yeah, I bet these same people want to legalize marijuana. Drug induced paranoia.
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 19 2007, 10:19 PM)
Yes Newton, I've been on about these "Fizzies" for a long time. The dust that trails behind the steel is thick, dense, and it belches out of the steel the entire way down. It appears to expand and remain relatively seperate from the surrounding air for some time. In short, it behaves nothing like gypsum drywall dust or spray-on fire retardant.
Please enlighten us on your qualifications to make this statement. Are you a demolition expert? Are you experienced in construction and demolition of buildings? Are you a fireproofing expert? Do you work for U.S.Gypsum?
As for the "negative air pressure" "sucking" the dust behind the falling steel . . .
I think the process was more a case of cavitation pockets behind the falling wall sections eroding the fireproofing from the substrate.
I think the process was more a case of cavitation pockets behind the falling wall sections eroding the fireproofing from the substrate.
Copious quantities of what I think is steel dust coming from the core columns.
Steel dust.
Ace, why don’t you go out and get a summer job working construction. Find a company doing interior gut and rebuild of office spaces.
You can learn fist hand just how much dust a relatively benign demolition of a suspended ceiling or a few gypboard walls can generate.
Keep in mind that sprayed-on fireproofing is defined as friable. Friable means that it can be crumbled and reduced to powder by hand pressure alone.
You think the material in the red outline, and much of what's above, is ALL sprayed on fireproofing from perimeter beams?
No, I suspect that there is quite a lot of other debris in there as well, such as various sized chunks of concrete, drywall, ceiling tiles, office debris etc.
And by the way, observe how the smoke above WTC1 here begins to expand and attain a cauliflower shape as the building is falling away from it. This is irrefutable proof of a large heat energy input to this smoke, an energy input that was not present in the moments before the disintegration began.
Please enlighten us on your qualifications to make this statement. Are you a demolition expert? Are you experienced in construction and demolition of buildings? Are you a fireproofing expert? Do you work for U.S.Gypsum?
QUOTE
As for the "negative air pressure" "sucking" the dust behind the falling steel . . .
I think the process was more a case of cavitation pockets behind the falling wall sections eroding the fireproofing from the substrate.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
As for the "negative air pressure" "sucking" the dust behind the falling steel . . . |
I think the process was more a case of cavitation pockets behind the falling wall sections eroding the fireproofing from the substrate.
Copious quantities of what I think is steel dust coming from the core columns.
Steel dust.
Ace, why don’t you go out and get a summer job working construction. Find a company doing interior gut and rebuild of office spaces.
You can learn fist hand just how much dust a relatively benign demolition of a suspended ceiling or a few gypboard walls can generate.
Keep in mind that sprayed-on fireproofing is defined as friable. Friable means that it can be crumbled and reduced to powder by hand pressure alone.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 20 2007, 09:41 AM)
I think the process was more a case of cavitation pockets behind the falling wall sections eroding the fireproofing from the substrate.
I think it may have been a combination. There is no doubt the fireproofing came off the steel since it's hard to find a single column with a normal amount of fireproofing. Also, large column trees would pull dust behind them as they fell flat.
I think it may have been a combination. There is no doubt the fireproofing came off the steel since it's hard to find a single column with a normal amount of fireproofing. Also, large column trees would pull dust behind them as they fell flat.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 20 2007, 05:00 AM)
You are purposely lying again. You can't be that stupid. YOU KNOW I didn't say "Stick" so why are you injecting that nonsense here? You also KNOW "a thick cloud of this mixed debris" means DUST and not gypsum pieces stuck to steel. The collapse would have broken more than a few sheets of gypsum don't you think? If the concrete broke apart creating dust what makes you think the gypsum wouldn't have created even more? Or do you think you need a space laser to pulverize gypsum... Heh! Just cutting gypsum with a utility blade creates dust. And what about the flimsy ceiling tile system? You think it could withstand the collapse of 15 to 30 stories? Heh!
DUST, as in light particals, would FOLLOW the steel down because of the negative pressue behind the falling column. I said this in a way which leaves NO confusion so leave your straw men at the next conspiracy theorist love fest. Gypsum from the core would go in any direction it could, including out the perimeter windows. Some would have ingulfed the columns before they fell out of the debris cloud. It doesn't have to "Stick" to the columns.
Do you know ANYTHING about the insulation? It's not hard you putz. It can be blown off. As in during the airliner impact and collapse. If you would have done even the smallest amount of research you would know this. Instead you waste time asking the dumbest of questions. Sad...
What's the conspiracy story to explain the dust? Space lasers? Heh!
HAHAHA!!! The evil doers not only wanted to collapse the building but make the crime obvious by turning the steel into dust.
I thought they said the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? I never saw a controlled demolition turn steel into dust! HEHEHE!!!
I never purposefully lie. I took "engulfed the columns" to mean this caused some amount of attachment between the dust and the columns. Because otherwise, there is no way the falling columns are going to pull this "engulfing" dust down 100s of feet due to negative pressure alone. Where is the turbulence dispersing it? Where are the eddys? What about the air passing between the columns reducing the pressure gradient?
DUST, as in light particals, would FOLLOW the steel down because of the negative pressue behind the falling column. I said this in a way which leaves NO confusion so leave your straw men at the next conspiracy theorist love fest. Gypsum from the core would go in any direction it could, including out the perimeter windows. Some would have ingulfed the columns before they fell out of the debris cloud. It doesn't have to "Stick" to the columns.
Do you know ANYTHING about the insulation? It's not hard you putz. It can be blown off. As in during the airliner impact and collapse. If you would have done even the smallest amount of research you would know this. Instead you waste time asking the dumbest of questions. Sad...
What's the conspiracy story to explain the dust? Space lasers? Heh!
HAHAHA!!! The evil doers not only wanted to collapse the building but make the crime obvious by turning the steel into dust.
I thought they said the collapse looked like a controlled demolition? I never saw a controlled demolition turn steel into dust! HEHEHE!!!
I never purposefully lie. I took "engulfed the columns" to mean this caused some amount of attachment between the dust and the columns. Because otherwise, there is no way the falling columns are going to pull this "engulfing" dust down 100s of feet due to negative pressure alone. Where is the turbulence dispersing it? Where are the eddys? What about the air passing between the columns reducing the pressure gradient?
Let us not forget that the floors pancaking in front of the visible collapse front would have created large VOLUMES of concrete and gypsum dust(though it would be mere fractions of the MASS of the concrete) which would have filled the inside of the tube formed by the outer frame. As the outer frame peeled away this dust would have been entrained behind the pieces due to aerodynamic forces.
Grumpy
Grumpy
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 12:30 PM)
I never purposefully lie. I took "engulfed the columns" to mean this caused some amount of attachment between the dust and the columns. Because otherwise, there is no way the falling columns are going to pull this "engulfing" dust down 100s of feet due to negative pressure alone. Where is the turbulence dispersing it? Where are the eddys? What about the air passing between the columns reducing the pressure gradient?
You always try to rationalize your ignorance into reason. It doesn't work that way.
In fact there ARE photos of the columns which moved farther away from the dust cloud and the dust thins out accordingly. You just want to fixate on the columns which just came out of the dust cloud which are pulling the dust.
No columns below the dust line...
Note the columns on the left with dust thining out...
Of course when the column is close to the majority of dust it will drag some down with it. Then it thins to the amount expected.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Heh!
You always try to rationalize your ignorance into reason. It doesn't work that way.
In fact there ARE photos of the columns which moved farther away from the dust cloud and the dust thins out accordingly. You just want to fixate on the columns which just came out of the dust cloud which are pulling the dust.
No columns below the dust line...
Note the columns on the left with dust thining out...
Of course when the column is close to the majority of dust it will drag some down with it. Then it thins to the amount expected.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Heh!
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 20 2007, 05:36 PM)
Let us not forget that the floors pancaking in front of the visible collapse front would have created large VOLUMES of concrete and gypsum dust(though it would be mere fractions of the MASS of the concrete) which would have filled the inside of the tube formed by the outer frame. As the outer frame peeled away this dust would have been entrained behind the pieces due to aerodynamic forces.
Grumpy
No, the dust shown here has followed the steel for 100s of feet without thinning out.
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid... well, maybe you should go kick up some dust somewhere and see if you can get it to closely follow a moving object for any significant distance..
Grumpy
No, the dust shown here has followed the steel for 100s of feet without thinning out.
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid... well, maybe you should go kick up some dust somewhere and see if you can get it to closely follow a moving object for any significant distance..
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 20 2007, 05:51 PM)
You always try to rationalize your ignorance into reason. It doesn't work that way.
In fact there ARE photos of the columns which moved farther away from the dust cloud and the dust thins out accordingly. You just want to fixate on the columns which just came out of the dust cloud which are pulling the dust.
No columns below the dust line...
Note the columns on the left with dust thining out...
Of course when the column is close to the majority of dust it will drag some down with it. Then it thins to the amount expected.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Heh!
I don't see anything thinning out..
And in my picture above, the lowest columns trailing dust have NOT "just come out of the dust cloud".
I'm not offering any alternate explanations. I just have trouble with negative pressure pulling so much dust so far, without any sign of thinning out or the normal turbulence associated with pressure gradients.
Also in this one:
The dust plumes are fanning outwards from the steel but still has a defined boundary. This is not consistent with negative pressure - this effect pulls material in, it doesn't bulge outwards. Whereas material being released, not dragged, would be more likely to behave like that.
In fact there ARE photos of the columns which moved farther away from the dust cloud and the dust thins out accordingly. You just want to fixate on the columns which just came out of the dust cloud which are pulling the dust.
No columns below the dust line...
Note the columns on the left with dust thining out...
Of course when the column is close to the majority of dust it will drag some down with it. Then it thins to the amount expected.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Heh!
I don't see anything thinning out..
And in my picture above, the lowest columns trailing dust have NOT "just come out of the dust cloud".
I'm not offering any alternate explanations. I just have trouble with negative pressure pulling so much dust so far, without any sign of thinning out or the normal turbulence associated with pressure gradients.
Also in this one:
The dust plumes are fanning outwards from the steel but still has a defined boundary. This is not consistent with negative pressure - this effect pulls material in, it doesn't bulge outwards. Whereas material being released, not dragged, would be more likely to behave like that.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 12:55 PM)
No, the dust shown here has followed the steel for 100s of feet without thinning out.
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid...
The perimeter wall sections wern't solid?
Oh, yeah, the steel had been "disintegrated."
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid...
The perimeter wall sections wern't solid?
Oh, yeah, the steel had been "disintegrated."
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 01:55 PM)
No, the dust shown here has followed the steel for 100s of feet without thinning out.
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid... well, maybe you should go kick up some dust somewhere and see if you can get it to closely follow a moving object for any significant distance..
You make my point. The dust cloud isn't far from the column. You make my point because you CAN'T find a single photo of a column tree that ISN'T coming out of the dust cloud.
I've seen every video and in ALL cases the columns come out of the dust cloud. NONE begin falling before the dust cloud hit it. So in every case the columns could be pulling dust with it depending on size and how deep in the dust cloud it was from.
The next post should be of either a video (Not photo after the fact) of a column tree falling before the dust cloud or answering my original question which you are content to dodge.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Unless you can answer this, your suggestion may as well be out of a star trek episode. I doubt even they would have such an absurd idea. Heh!
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid... well, maybe you should go kick up some dust somewhere and see if you can get it to closely follow a moving object for any significant distance..
You make my point. The dust cloud isn't far from the column. You make my point because you CAN'T find a single photo of a column tree that ISN'T coming out of the dust cloud.
I've seen every video and in ALL cases the columns come out of the dust cloud. NONE begin falling before the dust cloud hit it. So in every case the columns could be pulling dust with it depending on size and how deep in the dust cloud it was from.
The next post should be of either a video (Not photo after the fact) of a column tree falling before the dust cloud or answering my original question which you are content to dodge.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Unless you can answer this, your suggestion may as well be out of a star trek episode. I doubt even they would have such an absurd idea. Heh!
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 20 2007, 07:17 PM)
The perimeter wall sections wern't solid?
Oh, yeah, the steel had been "disintegrated."
By not solid I meant there are gaps between the columns for air to flow through.
Oh, yeah, the steel had been "disintegrated."
By not solid I meant there are gaps between the columns for air to flow through.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 20 2007, 07:27 PM)
You make my point. The dust cloud isn't far from the column. You make my point because you CAN'T find a single photo of a column tree that ISN'T coming out of the dust cloud.
I've seen every video and in ALL cases the columns come out of the dust cloud. NONE begin falling before the dust cloud hit it. So in every case the columns could be pulling dust with it depending on size and how deep in the dust cloud it was from.
The next post should be of either a video (Not photo after the fact) of a column tree falling before the dust cloud or answering my original question which you are content to dodge.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Unless you can answer this, your suggestion may as well be out of a star trek episode. I doubt even they would have such an absurd idea. Heh!
Of course all the columns travel through the dust cloud - as it was blown out before the steel, there was no way to avoid it. But after leaving the dust cloud, they should not travel hundreds more feet retaining a high density, cleanly defined plume of dust right up against them.
As I said before, I am not offering an alternate explanation, just seeing a possible problem with the official story.
I've seen every video and in ALL cases the columns come out of the dust cloud. NONE begin falling before the dust cloud hit it. So in every case the columns could be pulling dust with it depending on size and how deep in the dust cloud it was from.
The next post should be of either a video (Not photo after the fact) of a column tree falling before the dust cloud or answering my original question which you are content to dodge.
You STILL haven't explained what explosive or whatever would have turned steel into dust in thin air.
Unless you can answer this, your suggestion may as well be out of a star trek episode. I doubt even they would have such an absurd idea. Heh!
Of course all the columns travel through the dust cloud - as it was blown out before the steel, there was no way to avoid it. But after leaving the dust cloud, they should not travel hundreds more feet retaining a high density, cleanly defined plume of dust right up against them.
As I said before, I am not offering an alternate explanation, just seeing a possible problem with the official story.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 07:47 PM)
... the official story.
What official story?
Turbulent flow is an extremely difficult subject. Vortexes and all that...
What official story?
Turbulent flow is an extremely difficult subject. Vortexes and all that...
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 01:37 PM)
By not solid I meant there are gaps between the columns for air to flow through.
Er, you mean the window openings, don't you?
If the windows were still in place then there wouldn't be a gap, but if the windows were gone, then the enclosure around the column was probably gone or ripped open as well, thus exposing the friable sprayed on fireproofing to the erosive blasts of the wind as the wall section fell.
Er, you mean the window openings, don't you?
If the windows were still in place then there wouldn't be a gap, but if the windows were gone, then the enclosure around the column was probably gone or ripped open as well, thus exposing the friable sprayed on fireproofing to the erosive blasts of the wind as the wall section fell.
Palpatane --- Surely there was no glass left in the windows. The bellows effect of the descending mass quickly over-pressurized each floor and blew the dusty air out through broken windows. Wedging off the perimeter wall sections followed.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 02:47 PM)
Of course all the columns travel through the dust cloud - as it was blown out before the steel, there was no way to avoid it. But after leaving the dust cloud, they should not travel hundreds more feet retaining a high density, cleanly defined plume of dust right up against them.
As I said before, I am not offering an alternate explanation, just seeing a possible problem with the official story.
This has NOTHING to do with an official story. Where in the NIST does it say anything about the dust.
Let me guess, you're just inventing anomalies to try and cast doubt on the scientific report created by the NIST and many others.
You don't even try to connect the dust to a demolition method! RICH!!! Heh!
As I said before, I am not offering an alternate explanation, just seeing a possible problem with the official story.
This has NOTHING to do with an official story. Where in the NIST does it say anything about the dust.
Let me guess, you're just inventing anomalies to try and cast doubt on the scientific report created by the NIST and many others.
You don't even try to connect the dust to a demolition method! RICH!!! Heh!
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 20 2007, 08:03 PM)
Er, you mean the window openings, don't you?
If the windows were still in place then there wouldn't be a gap, but if the windows were gone, then the enclosure around the column was probably gone or ripped open as well, thus exposing the friable sprayed on fireproofing to the erosive blasts of the wind as the wall section fell.
You think the material in the red outline, and much of what's above, is ALL sprayed on fireproofing from perimeter beams?
If the windows were still in place then there wouldn't be a gap, but if the windows were gone, then the enclosure around the column was probably gone or ripped open as well, thus exposing the friable sprayed on fireproofing to the erosive blasts of the wind as the wall section fell.
You think the material in the red outline, and much of what's above, is ALL sprayed on fireproofing from perimeter beams?
Like I said before, we are most CLEARLY dealing with the bottom of the CT'er barrel.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 20 2007, 02:11 PM)
Palpatane --- Surely there was no glass left in the windows. The bellows effect of the descending mass quickly over-pressurized each floor and blew the dusty air out through broken windows. Wedging off the perimeter wall sections followed.
It doesn't really matter, does it?
In either case, there was a cloud of dust and debris falling.
It doesn't really matter, does it?
In either case, there was a cloud of dust and debris falling.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 03:16 PM)
You think the material in the red outline, and much of what's above, is ALL sprayed on fireproofing from perimeter beams?
No, I suspect that there is quite a lot of other debris in there as well, such as various sized chunks of concrete, drywall, ceiling tiles, office debris etc.
Newtonnjd:
Several posters, (including me!), have suggested what we think those trails of dust are caused by.
If you think these explanations are inadequate you really DO need to offer us something better. This is a physics forum after all, so a theory based on known laws of physics would be preferred....
Judy Wood and AceBaker's "DUSTIFIED" steel is not good enough; I at least would need to know how steel can turn to dust in mid air.
Once we enter the realm of science fiction, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and we can all pack up and go home!
NF
Several posters, (including me!), have suggested what we think those trails of dust are caused by.
If you think these explanations are inadequate you really DO need to offer us something better. This is a physics forum after all, so a theory based on known laws of physics would be preferred....
Judy Wood and AceBaker's "DUSTIFIED" steel is not good enough; I at least would need to know how steel can turn to dust in mid air.
Once we enter the realm of science fiction, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and we can all pack up and go home!
NF
Mysterious dust chasing steel --- Hmm, these visuals remind me a little of a volcano shooting out solid lava so-called bombs. Maybe somewhere there are pictures. I vaguely recall seeing one with roughly similar trails...
When you look at that picture consider the distance it is taken from and that it is only 250 pixels wide.
A pixel in that photo is larger than a bowling ball.
in this picture, taken closer,
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard..._attack_048.jpg
If you look you will see an unfortunate person falling by the top of the Vista hotel.
Using him for scale one can see that in this picture a pixel is about twice as small as the previus picture and you can see that the smoke is a lot less dense as well.
Arthur
A pixel in that photo is larger than a bowling ball.
in this picture, taken closer,
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard..._attack_048.jpg
If you look you will see an unfortunate person falling by the top of the Vista hotel.
Using him for scale one can see that in this picture a pixel is about twice as small as the previus picture and you can see that the smoke is a lot less dense as well.
Arthur
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 06:55 PM)
No, the dust shown here has followed the steel for 100s of feet without thinning out.
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid... well, maybe you should go kick up some dust somewhere and see if you can get it to closely follow a moving object for any significant distance..
If you think such a high density of dust could be pulled that distance by an object that isn't even solid... well, maybe you should go kick up some dust somewhere and see if you can get it to closely follow a moving object for any significant distance..
When you're driving on a busy freeway, do you suspect that everyone you see in your rear view mirror is following you?
Or, could it be that all of those cars trailing you have their own intended destination.
The dust and debris ejected from the towers all had their intended destinations decided for them by gravity.
So why is so surprising to see these different elements traveling to the ground on more or less the same highway?
In fluid mechanics, a condition known as base drag exists in moving objects, where flow around the object creates an area of low pressure in the trailing end.
So because of the low pressure zones behind the falling debris, you would expect to see some dust being dragged along by those objects.
Mostly the appearance of dust following other objects, was due to the fact that the dust was going in that direction regardless of the presence of those objects.
Or, could it be that all of those cars trailing you have their own intended destination.
The dust and debris ejected from the towers all had their intended destinations decided for them by gravity.
So why is so surprising to see these different elements traveling to the ground on more or less the same highway?
In fluid mechanics, a condition known as base drag exists in moving objects, where flow around the object creates an area of low pressure in the trailing end.
So because of the low pressure zones behind the falling debris, you would expect to see some dust being dragged along by those objects.
Mostly the appearance of dust following other objects, was due to the fact that the dust was going in that direction regardless of the presence of those objects.
I think they are suggesting the "Andromeda Strain" space bacteria evolved into eating steel. CALL THE NIST to reinvestigate! We are being attacked by space bacteria! Heh!
They just don't have an open mind... HAHAHA!!
They just don't have an open mind... HAHAHA!!
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 20 2007, 04:19 AM)
Yes Newton, I've been on about these "Fizzies" for a long time. The dust that trails behind the steel is thick, dense, and it belches out of the steel the entire way down. It appears to expand and remain relatively seperate from the surrounding air for some time. In short, it behaves nothing like gypsum drywall dust or spray-on fire retardant.
As for the "negative air pressure" "sucking" the dust behind the falling steel . . .
No.
First, I can post a picture of this effect occuring to a large section of core columns which are still standing, not falling at all. Second, the dust is not merely following the falling steel, it is coming from falling steel.
Excellent experiment suggestion. Chainsaw, this sounds like it's right up your alley. Why don't you attach some some drywall or insulation to some solid material and drop it off a building or a cliff and see if you can get anything remotely resembling what we observe on 9/11.
I think it is abundantly clear that steel was turning to dust.
Do not even have to I have seen the phenomena before, with burned dry wall.
There is always a low pressure zone created behind a falling beam, it does not suck the drywall dust down it only keeps it from shedding as rapidly.
Because of this it breaks up form the edge inward.
Myself and a Cter discussed this very issue, years ago until I found some footage of a building demolition where the drywall did the same thing.
PS. it was a wreaking ball demolition, not explosive.
I have no reason to have to disprove the phooey argument you are making again.
I think the footage is now available from this site but not sure. The original site is no longer active.
http://www.ecofootage.com/09-04.html
As for the "negative air pressure" "sucking" the dust behind the falling steel . . .
No.
First, I can post a picture of this effect occuring to a large section of core columns which are still standing, not falling at all. Second, the dust is not merely following the falling steel, it is coming from falling steel.
Excellent experiment suggestion. Chainsaw, this sounds like it's right up your alley. Why don't you attach some some drywall or insulation to some solid material and drop it off a building or a cliff and see if you can get anything remotely resembling what we observe on 9/11.
I think it is abundantly clear that steel was turning to dust.
Do not even have to I have seen the phenomena before, with burned dry wall.
There is always a low pressure zone created behind a falling beam, it does not suck the drywall dust down it only keeps it from shedding as rapidly.
Because of this it breaks up form the edge inward.
Myself and a Cter discussed this very issue, years ago until I found some footage of a building demolition where the drywall did the same thing.
PS. it was a wreaking ball demolition, not explosive.
I have no reason to have to disprove the phooey argument you are making again.
I think the footage is now available from this site but not sure. The original site is no longer active.
http://www.ecofootage.com/09-04.html
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 20 2007, 05:45 PM)
I think they are suggesting the "Andromeda Strain" space bacteria evolved into eating steel.
no, it was synthetic rubber.
no, it was synthetic rubber.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 20 2007, 09:17 PM)
no, it was synthetic rubber.
Yes, it "evolved" from eating synthetic rubber to steel I guess. HEHEHE
AS is one of my favorite movies.
Conspiracy theorists are "looking for a fly on an elephant with a microscope".
Yes, it "evolved" from eating synthetic rubber to steel I guess.
HEHEHEAS is one of my favorite movies.
Conspiracy theorists are "looking for a fly on an elephant with a microscope".
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Feb 21 2007, 12:33 AM)
Do not even have to I have seen the phenomena before, with burned dry wall.
There is always a low pressure zone created behind a falling beam, it does not suck the drywall dust down it only keeps it from shedding as rapidly.
Because of this it breaks up form the edge inward.
Myself and a Cter discussed this very issue, years ago until I found some footage of a building demolition where the drywall did the same thing.
PS. it was a wreaking ball demolition, not explosive.
I have no reason to have to disprove the phooey argument you are making again.
I think the footage is now available from this site but not sure. The original site is no longer active.
http://www.ecofootage.com/09-04.html
OCTers need to get their stories straight here.. half of you are saying it is due to dust dragged downwards by the pressure gradient. The other half is saying it is dust still attached to the steel that is gradually released during the fall (this one agrees more with the images which suggest material flowing directly off the perimeter sections, not being pulled by it).
So in this wrecking ball footage, is the debris falling hundreds of feet?
There is always a low pressure zone created behind a falling beam, it does not suck the drywall dust down it only keeps it from shedding as rapidly.
Because of this it breaks up form the edge inward.
Myself and a Cter discussed this very issue, years ago until I found some footage of a building demolition where the drywall did the same thing.
PS. it was a wreaking ball demolition, not explosive.
I have no reason to have to disprove the phooey argument you are making again.
I think the footage is now available from this site but not sure. The original site is no longer active.
http://www.ecofootage.com/09-04.html
OCTers need to get their stories straight here.. half of you are saying it is due to dust dragged downwards by the pressure gradient. The other half is saying it is dust still attached to the steel that is gradually released during the fall (this one agrees more with the images which suggest material flowing directly off the perimeter sections, not being pulled by it).
So in this wrecking ball footage, is the debris falling hundreds of feet?
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 20 2007, 10:58 PM)
When you're driving on a busy freeway, do you suspect that everyone you see in your rear view mirror is following you?
Or, could it be that all of those cars trailing you have their own intended destination.
The dust and debris ejected from the towers all had their intended destinations decided for them by gravity.
So why is so surprising to see these different elements traveling to the ground on more or less the same highway?
In fluid mechanics, a condition known as base drag exists in moving objects, where flow around the object creates an area of low pressure in the trailing end.
So because of the low pressure zones behind the falling debris, you would expect to see some dust being dragged along by those objects.
Mostly the appearance of dust following other objects, was due to the fact that the dust was going in that direction regardless of the presence of those objects.
My goodness... you are comparing the aerodynamic properties of steel beams relative to those of dust, to cars travelling along a highway?
Do you need to go back to elementary school and drop a brick and a feather at the same time?
Or, could it be that all of those cars trailing you have their own intended destination.
The dust and debris ejected from the towers all had their intended destinations decided for them by gravity.
So why is so surprising to see these different elements traveling to the ground on more or less the same highway?
In fluid mechanics, a condition known as base drag exists in moving objects, where flow around the object creates an area of low pressure in the trailing end.
So because of the low pressure zones behind the falling debris, you would expect to see some dust being dragged along by those objects.
Mostly the appearance of dust following other objects, was due to the fact that the dust was going in that direction regardless of the presence of those objects.
My goodness... you are comparing the aerodynamic properties of steel beams relative to those of dust, to cars travelling along a highway?
Do you need to go back to elementary school and drop a brick and a feather at the same time?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 20 2007, 09:45 PM)
Newtonnjd:
Several posters, (including me!), have suggested what we think those trails of dust are caused by.
If you think these explanations are inadequate you really DO need to offer us something better. This is a physics forum after all, so a theory based on known laws of physics would be preferred....
Judy Wood and AceBaker's "DUSTIFIED" steel is not good enough; I at least would need to know how steel can turn to dust in mid air.
Once we enter the realm of science fiction, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and we can all pack up and go home!
NF
Fully agree that Judy Wood's "dustification" of steel is not adequate. I would go even further than that, and say that Judy Wood is an utter embarrasment. The lady can't even see falling debris, laughs at the word "collapse", and mistakes the smoke from the fires for upward ejections of dust.
As for an alternate theory, that is still being discussed elsewhere.. no real concensus yet.
Several posters, (including me!), have suggested what we think those trails of dust are caused by.
If you think these explanations are inadequate you really DO need to offer us something better. This is a physics forum after all, so a theory based on known laws of physics would be preferred....
Judy Wood and AceBaker's "DUSTIFIED" steel is not good enough; I at least would need to know how steel can turn to dust in mid air.
Once we enter the realm of science fiction, ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE and we can all pack up and go home!
NF
Fully agree that Judy Wood's "dustification" of steel is not adequate. I would go even further than that, and say that Judy Wood is an utter embarrasment. The lady can't even see falling debris, laughs at the word "collapse", and mistakes the smoke from the fires for upward ejections of dust.
As for an alternate theory, that is still being discussed elsewhere.. no real concensus yet.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 11:56 PM)
Fully agree that Judy Wood's "dustification" of steel is not adequate. I would go even further than that, and say that Judy Wood is an utter embarrasment. The lady can't even see falling debris, laughs at the word "collapse", and mistakes the smoke from the fires for upward ejections of dust.
Well now there is something we can ALL agree on.
As to it being DUST.
That is just an ILLUSION from the fact that the towers were SO FRIGGIN MASSIVE that typical pictures had such low resolution that they made BOWLING BALL size pieces appear as DUST.
Look at Ace's collection of shots (ignore the misleading title as ACE left off the fact that it took a plane crash PLUS the multifloor fires started by the fuel on the plane to do this).
Compare the motion of this alleged DUST on the South side of the tower with the Smoke on the top and north side of the tower.
Note how, unlike the lingering smoke on the North side of the tower, the air on the South side of the tower IS PERFECTLY CLEAR after the RAPID PASSAGE of this "DUST CLOUD".
That's because its NOT DUST, dust wouldn't settle that fast.
Arthur
Well now there is something we can ALL agree on.
As to it being DUST.
That is just an ILLUSION from the fact that the towers were SO FRIGGIN MASSIVE that typical pictures had such low resolution that they made BOWLING BALL size pieces appear as DUST.
Look at Ace's collection of shots (ignore the misleading title as ACE left off the fact that it took a plane crash PLUS the multifloor fires started by the fuel on the plane to do this).
Compare the motion of this alleged DUST on the South side of the tower with the Smoke on the top and north side of the tower.
Note how, unlike the lingering smoke on the North side of the tower, the air on the South side of the tower IS PERFECTLY CLEAR after the RAPID PASSAGE of this "DUST CLOUD".
That's because its NOT DUST, dust wouldn't settle that fast.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 19 2007, 10:11 PM)
Nope, from what I can tell there are relatively few who believe the towers were brought down by CD, mini-nukes or space beams.
The poll results (zagby) showed that most of these tended to be young males with a high school education or less.
Arthur
http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006
And the educated Republican male with good income doesn’t think WTC7 should be investigated.
The polls don't prove anything (except how little people really know about 9/11).
The poll results (zagby) showed that most of these tended to be young males with a high school education or less.
Arthur
QUOTE
25. World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?
I am not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse 43%
I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it 38%
I am aware of it and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse 14%
Neither/Not sure 5%
Republicans , college graduates, people with household income of $75,000 or more and men are among the most likely to be aware of the building’s collapse and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse.
I am not aware of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse 43%
I am aware of it and think the Commission should have investigated it 38%
I am aware of it and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse 14%
Neither/Not sure 5%
Republicans , college graduates, people with household income of $75,000 or more and men are among the most likely to be aware of the building’s collapse and think the Commission was right to investigate just the Twin Towers' collapse.
http://www.911truth.org/page.php?page=zogby_2006
And the educated Republican male with good income doesn’t think WTC7 should be investigated.
The polls don't prove anything (except how little people really know about 9/11).
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 21 2007, 06:07 AM)
Well now there is something we can ALL agree on.
As to it being DUST.
That is just an ILLUSION from the fact that the towers were SO FRIGGIN MASSIVE that typical pictures had such low resolution that they made BOWLING BALL size pieces appear as DUST.
Look at Ace's collection of shots (ignore the misleading title as ACE left off the fact that it took a plane crash PLUS the multifloor fires started by the fuel on the plane to do this).
Compare the motion of this alleged DUST on the South side of the tower with the Smoke on the top and north side of the tower.
Note how, unlike the lingering smoke on the North side of the tower, the air on the South side of the tower IS PERFECTLY CLEAR after the RAPID PASSAGE of this "DUST CLOUD".
That's because its NOT DUST, dust wouldn't settle that fast.
Arthur
Arthur, you're on to something. Call it dust, call it whatever. The clouds of material fall very rapidly. This indicates that they are very dense. They are also large. High density and large volume means a lot of mass. A lot of mass in these clouds of material means little mass left in the footprint.
I have posed the following question before, and no one has commented. I'll try again.
Treating the "material" as a fluid, couldn't we estimate its density based on its fall time? And then, couldn't we estimate its volume, in comparison with the size of the towers? Then, with density and volume, we could know its mass, and subtract that from the total mass of the towers, to see how much remained in the footprint.
Our observations tell us what the answer should be. The answer is that very little mass remained in the footprint.
As to it being DUST.
That is just an ILLUSION from the fact that the towers were SO FRIGGIN MASSIVE that typical pictures had such low resolution that they made BOWLING BALL size pieces appear as DUST.
Look at Ace's collection of shots (ignore the misleading title as ACE left off the fact that it took a plane crash PLUS the multifloor fires started by the fuel on the plane to do this).
Compare the motion of this alleged DUST on the South side of the tower with the Smoke on the top and north side of the tower.
Note how, unlike the lingering smoke on the North side of the tower, the air on the South side of the tower IS PERFECTLY CLEAR after the RAPID PASSAGE of this "DUST CLOUD".
That's because its NOT DUST, dust wouldn't settle that fast.
Arthur
Arthur, you're on to something. Call it dust, call it whatever. The clouds of material fall very rapidly. This indicates that they are very dense. They are also large. High density and large volume means a lot of mass. A lot of mass in these clouds of material means little mass left in the footprint.
I have posed the following question before, and no one has commented. I'll try again.
Treating the "material" as a fluid, couldn't we estimate its density based on its fall time? And then, couldn't we estimate its volume, in comparison with the size of the towers? Then, with density and volume, we could know its mass, and subtract that from the total mass of the towers, to see how much remained in the footprint.
Our observations tell us what the answer should be. The answer is that very little mass remained in the footprint.
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 21 2007, 03:56 AM)
Fully agree that Judy Wood's "dustification" of steel is not adequate. I would go even further than that, and say that Judy Wood is an utter embarrasment. The lady can't even see falling debris, laughs at the word "collapse", and mistakes the smoke from the fires for upward ejections of dust.
As for an alternate theory, that is still being discussed elsewhere.. no real concensus yet.
Newtonnjd -
Dr. Wood never said there was NO falling debris. Her website is full of pictures of debris at ground zero. She is perfectly correct in her rejection of the word "collapse", and it's about time. Do you think the towers "collapsed"? I don't. Here is a nice article on the importance of categories, "explosion" or "collapse".
http://truememes.com/semantics.html
If you do not like her coined word "dustification", what word would you prefer? We have all now recently been reviewing the photos and videos, and the steel is emitting dust. All of it. As it falls, and before it falls. It appears to disintegrate into dust. I have studied the spire videos. Sorry, guys, it turns into dust.
When it is all over, there is a lot of steel missing. I know that's very difficult to explain, but this is the task we must undertake. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
Newtonnjd, what is your explanation for the dustification (or "fizzies" or whatever you'd like to call it)? If steel did not disintegrate, then where in the hell is the north face of WTC1?
What happened to WTC6? Collapsed by falling debris? What debris? It's not there.
What happened to WTC4? The south wing went bye bye.
As for an alternate theory, that is still being discussed elsewhere.. no real concensus yet.
Newtonnjd -
Dr. Wood never said there was NO falling debris. Her website is full of pictures of debris at ground zero. She is perfectly correct in her rejection of the word "collapse", and it's about time. Do you think the towers "collapsed"? I don't. Here is a nice article on the importance of categories, "explosion" or "collapse".
http://truememes.com/semantics.html
If you do not like her coined word "dustification", what word would you prefer? We have all now recently been reviewing the photos and videos, and the steel is emitting dust. All of it. As it falls, and before it falls. It appears to disintegrate into dust. I have studied the spire videos. Sorry, guys, it turns into dust.
When it is all over, there is a lot of steel missing. I know that's very difficult to explain, but this is the task we must undertake. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
Newtonnjd, what is your explanation for the dustification (or "fizzies" or whatever you'd like to call it)? If steel did not disintegrate, then where in the hell is the north face of WTC1?
What happened to WTC6? Collapsed by falling debris? What debris? It's not there.
What happened to WTC4? The south wing went bye bye.
Here is Dr. Wood's famous snowball picture that was the subject of the Jenkins interview.
Ignoring the smoke from WTC1, there are still "dark explosions" coming from WTC2. The macroscopic debris that we see is mostly aluminum cladding.
Banker's Trust building in the foreground is 40 stories, so WTC2 appears to be about 55 or 60 stories tall at this moment. Dr. Wood's point is that the falling material doesn't appear to be large enough to account for 50-55 stories worth of tower, nor does it appear to contain significant amounts of steel perimeter sections.
Ignoring the smoke from WTC1, there are still "dark explosions" coming from WTC2. The macroscopic debris that we see is mostly aluminum cladding.
Banker's Trust building in the foreground is 40 stories, so WTC2 appears to be about 55 or 60 stories tall at this moment. Dr. Wood's point is that the falling material doesn't appear to be large enough to account for 50-55 stories worth of tower, nor does it appear to contain significant amounts of steel perimeter sections.
And by the way, observe how the smoke above WTC1 here begins to expand and attain a cauliflower shape as the building is falling away from it. This is irrefutable proof of a large heat energy input to this smoke, an energy input that was not present in the moments before the disintegration began.
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 21 2007, 07:15 AM)
Newtonnjd -
Dr. Wood never said there was NO falling debris. Her website is full of pictures of debris at ground zero. She is perfectly correct in her rejection of the word "collapse", and it's about time. Do you think the towers "collapsed"? I don't. Here is a nice article on the importance of categories, "explosion" or "collapse".
http://truememes.com/semantics.html
If you do not like her coined word "dustification", what word would you prefer? We have all now recently been reviewing the photos and videos, and the steel is emitting dust. All of it. As it falls, and before it falls. It appears to disintegrate into dust. I have studied the spire videos. Sorry, guys, it turns into dust.
When it is all over, there is a lot of steel missing. I know that's very difficult to explain, but this is the task we must undertake. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
Newtonnjd, what is your explanation for the dustification (or "fizzies" or whatever you'd like to call it)? If steel did not disintegrate, then where in the hell is the north face of WTC1?
What happened to WTC6? Collapsed by falling debris? What debris? It's not there.
What happened to WTC4? The south wing went bye bye.
Ace, every piece of steel that went into the construction of the towers was recovered in one form or another.
None of it was disintegrated.
It was either shipped off to be recycled, warehoused as evidence, or used in memorial statues.
If some exotic process were used to vaporize the steel, did it completely consume some elements, but leave others intact?
Why is there no evidence of partially consumed pieces of steel?
With all of the engineers and demolition personnel at ground zero, don't you think at least one of them would have mentioned such a find?
Or, did the evil doers in the clean up operation destroy or hide the evidence?
Dr. Wood never said there was NO falling debris. Her website is full of pictures of debris at ground zero. She is perfectly correct in her rejection of the word "collapse", and it's about time. Do you think the towers "collapsed"? I don't. Here is a nice article on the importance of categories, "explosion" or "collapse".
http://truememes.com/semantics.html
If you do not like her coined word "dustification", what word would you prefer? We have all now recently been reviewing the photos and videos, and the steel is emitting dust. All of it. As it falls, and before it falls. It appears to disintegrate into dust. I have studied the spire videos. Sorry, guys, it turns into dust.
When it is all over, there is a lot of steel missing. I know that's very difficult to explain, but this is the task we must undertake. Pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.
Newtonnjd, what is your explanation for the dustification (or "fizzies" or whatever you'd like to call it)? If steel did not disintegrate, then where in the hell is the north face of WTC1?
What happened to WTC6? Collapsed by falling debris? What debris? It's not there.
What happened to WTC4? The south wing went bye bye.
Ace, every piece of steel that went into the construction of the towers was recovered in one form or another.
None of it was disintegrated.
It was either shipped off to be recycled, warehoused as evidence, or used in memorial statues.
If some exotic process were used to vaporize the steel, did it completely consume some elements, but leave others intact?
Why is there no evidence of partially consumed pieces of steel?
With all of the engineers and demolition personnel at ground zero, don't you think at least one of them would have mentioned such a find?
Or, did the evil doers in the clean up operation destroy or hide the evidence?
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 21 2007, 03:04 AM)
Ace, every piece of steel that went into the construction of the towers was recovered in one form or another.
None of it was disintegrated.
It was either shipped off to be recycled, warehoused as evidence, or used in memorial statues.
If some exotic process were used to vaporize the steel, did it completely consume some elements, but leave others intact?
Why is there no evidence of partially consumed pieces of steel?
With all of the engineers and demolition personnel at ground zero, don't you think at least one of them would have mentioned such a find?
Or, did the evil doers in the clean up operation destroy or hide the evidence?
What is Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study then?
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
None of it was disintegrated.
It was either shipped off to be recycled, warehoused as evidence, or used in memorial statues.
If some exotic process were used to vaporize the steel, did it completely consume some elements, but leave others intact?
Why is there no evidence of partially consumed pieces of steel?
With all of the engineers and demolition personnel at ground zero, don't you think at least one of them would have mentioned such a find?
Or, did the evil doers in the clean up operation destroy or hide the evidence?
What is Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study then?
QUOTE
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 21 2007, 03:48 AM)
My goodness... you are comparing the aerodynamic properties of steel beams relative to those of dust, to cars travelling along a highway?
Do you need to go back to elementary school and drop a brimmck and a feather at the same time?
I used the highway analogy to point out that for the most part, the elements of falling debris were falling independently of one another, just as commuters on a freeway do.
You seem to have this need to associate objects such as columns and dust, simply because they are falling in the same direction. That's why I asked you if you thought you were being tailed by other drivers.
This may surprise you, but all objects moving through air are subject to the same aerodynamic laws.
The drag coefficient of those columns would be equal to or higher than a lot of those small debris particles.
So where is there mention of cars and highways in these statements?
Do you need to go back to elementary school and drop a brimmck and a feather at the same time?
I used the highway analogy to point out that for the most part, the elements of falling debris were falling independently of one another, just as commuters on a freeway do.
You seem to have this need to associate objects such as columns and dust, simply because they are falling in the same direction. That's why I asked you if you thought you were being tailed by other drivers.
This may surprise you, but all objects moving through air are subject to the same aerodynamic laws.
The drag coefficient of those columns would be equal to or higher than a lot of those small debris particles.
So where is there mention of cars and highways in these statements?
QUOTE (Capracus+ Feb 20 2007, 10:58 PM)
In fluid mechanics, a condition known as base drag exists in moving objects, where flow around the object creates an area of low pressure in the trailing end.
So because of the low pressure zones behind the falling debris, you would expect to see some dust being dragged along by those objects.
Mostly the appearance of dust following other objects, was due to the fact that the dust was going in that direction regardless of the presence of those objects.
So because of the low pressure zones behind the falling debris, you would expect to see some dust being dragged along by those objects.
Mostly the appearance of dust following other objects, was due to the fact that the dust was going in that direction regardless of the presence of those objects.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 21 2007, 11:53 AM)
What is Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study then?
[/SIZE][/b]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
QUOTE
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
Ace, every piece of steel that went into the construction of the towers was recovered in one form or another.
Just what I thought the OCT "HERO" would be,"Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry".
His paper is almost as ridiculous as the OCT website:
http://www.debunking911.com
Don’t stack to many steel beams together they will start on fire!
Figures Beavis and Butthead is on your mind. I'm sure you go to every convention.
Ad homs' aren't going to convince anyone but your Beavis and Butthead conspiracy friends. Why don't you try attacking the facts with facts. Oh yeah, You're a m@r@n, I forgot.
reasonwhy has a "raging clue" and it's pointing THAT way!
[/SIZE][/b]
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m.../WTC_apndxC.htm
QUOTE
QUOTE
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
QUOTE The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires. |
Ace, every piece of steel that went into the construction of the towers was recovered in one form or another.
Corrosion is a process of chemically altering the affected material, not disintegrating it.
When steel reacts with water and oxygen to form rust, it doesn't disappear, it just changes form.
Are you suggesting that acid rain brought down the towers?
When steel reacts with water and oxygen to form rust, it doesn't disappear, it just changes form.
Are you suggesting that acid rain brought down the towers?
QUOTE (newtonnjd+Feb 20 2007, 10:42 PM)
OCTers need to get their stories straight here.. half of you are saying it is due to dust dragged downwards by the pressure gradient. The other half is saying it is dust still attached to the steel that is gradually released during the fall (this one agrees more with the images which suggest material flowing directly off the perimeter sections, not being pulled by it).
So in this wrecking ball footage, is the debris falling hundreds of feet?
You're lying again, we are all saying it's more than one thing. Only one dimentional conspiracy theorists think it can only be one thing or another. It's a combination of things.
ALL OF THE ABOVE CAN BE TRUE.
Space lasers (Or anything else for that matter) haven't even been proven to turn steel into dust so you have NOTHING!
So in this wrecking ball footage, is the debris falling hundreds of feet?
You're lying again, we are all saying it's more than one thing. Only one dimentional conspiracy theorists think it can only be one thing or another. It's a combination of things.
ALL OF THE ABOVE CAN BE TRUE.
Space lasers (Or anything else for that matter) haven't even been proven to turn steel into dust so you have NOTHING!
AceBaker:
You ask: "Treating the "material" as a fluid, couldn't we estimate its density based on its fall time?"
I would simply look at settling velocities as a function of particle size and compare them to velocities for free fall in a vacuum.
For example: In a vacuum a particle falling 200 meters (half the height of a Twin Tower) hits the ground with a velocity = Sqrt{ 2.g.h } = 62.6 m/s
The settling velocities of particles with a density of 2 g/cc as a funtion of the diameter of the particle is as follows:
10 microns: v = 0.006 m/s
100 microns: v = 0.52 m/s
1 millimeter: v = 6 m/s
1 centimeter: v = 15 m/s
10 centimeters: v = 50 m/s
So we see that air resistance starts to kick in for particles smaller than about 10 centimeters.
By the way, when you say that almost no debris fell in the footprint of each tower you are ignoring all the steel columns and beams. The fall of most of this large and very dense material was obscured by the clouds of concrete/gypsum/glass/insulation/etc.
Nevertheless, I am sure 99 % of the core steel fell straight down into the footprint.
NF
You ask: "Treating the "material" as a fluid, couldn't we estimate its density based on its fall time?"
I would simply look at settling velocities as a function of particle size and compare them to velocities for free fall in a vacuum.
For example: In a vacuum a particle falling 200 meters (half the height of a Twin Tower) hits the ground with a velocity = Sqrt{ 2.g.h } = 62.6 m/s
The settling velocities of particles with a density of 2 g/cc as a funtion of the diameter of the particle is as follows:
10 microns: v = 0.006 m/s
100 microns: v = 0.52 m/s
1 millimeter: v = 6 m/s
1 centimeter: v = 15 m/s
10 centimeters: v = 50 m/s
So we see that air resistance starts to kick in for particles smaller than about 10 centimeters.
By the way, when you say that almost no debris fell in the footprint of each tower you are ignoring all the steel columns and beams. The fall of most of this large and very dense material was obscured by the clouds of concrete/gypsum/glass/insulation/etc.
Nevertheless, I am sure 99 % of the core steel fell straight down into the footprint.
NF
AceBaker
If you are interested in the amount of material that fell within the footprint, there is an easier and much more accurate way of determining that.
WEIGHT the rubble as you dig it out and haul it away.
This is the method used at WTC. And they removed 1.6 MILLION TONS of debris from the footprints of those two buildings. MOST of the remains of those buildings was found in the basement levels. The visible collapse is only of the exterior frame members, which all fell outside of the footprint.
None of the steel in those buildings is missing, none of the floors is missing, nothing was "Dustified"(what a stupid word).
You've been shown repeatedly the steel only you cannot see, sounds like a personal problem to me. IE...
There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Treating the "material" as a fluid, couldn't we estimate its density based on its fall time? And then, couldn't we estimate its volume, in comparison with the size of the towers? Then, with density and volume, we could know its mass, and subtract that from the total mass of the towers, to see how much remained in the footprint.
Our observations tell us what the answer should be. The answer is that very little mass remained in the footprint.
Our observations tell us what the answer should be. The answer is that very little mass remained in the footprint.
If you are interested in the amount of material that fell within the footprint, there is an easier and much more accurate way of determining that.
WEIGHT the rubble as you dig it out and haul it away.
This is the method used at WTC. And they removed 1.6 MILLION TONS of debris from the footprints of those two buildings. MOST of the remains of those buildings was found in the basement levels. The visible collapse is only of the exterior frame members, which all fell outside of the footprint.
None of the steel in those buildings is missing, none of the floors is missing, nothing was "Dustified"(what a stupid word).
You've been shown repeatedly the steel only you cannot see, sounds like a personal problem to me. IE...
There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.
Grumpy
I just did a simple calculation about the maximum distance that ejected debris can reach assuming the maximum horizontal velocity is the current collapse velocity and the ejection is horizontal. The answer is simple that is just the height of the tower.
Einsteen:
Shagster posted some interesting debris ejection calculations a while back complete with some nice graphs....
Of course, if you factor in air resistance, particles smaller than about 100 microns can be transported by the wind for distances over 1 km.
Arthur's point that the debris cloud in AceBaker's video descends rapidly is very important because it confirms that most of the debris was NOT fine dust even though many "Truthers" claim that more than 90 % of the non-metallic material in the Twin Towers was reduced to 60 micron, 30 micron, 10 micron, 5 micron (pick a number) dust.
NF
Shagster posted some interesting debris ejection calculations a while back complete with some nice graphs....
Of course, if you factor in air resistance, particles smaller than about 100 microns can be transported by the wind for distances over 1 km.
Arthur's point that the debris cloud in AceBaker's video descends rapidly is very important because it confirms that most of the debris was NOT fine dust even though many "Truthers" claim that more than 90 % of the non-metallic material in the Twin Towers was reduced to 60 micron, 30 micron, 10 micron, 5 micron (pick a number) dust.
NF
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 21 2007, 02:46 AM)
And the educated Republican male with good income doesn’t think WTC7 should be investigated.
Nope, educated people KNOW that the purpose of the COMMISSION was NOT to investigate how the Towers fell, that was the job of FEMA and NIST.
Poll questions and the answers you can choose from can also be written in such a way as to get an answer you want.
For instance, answer this question:
Is it TRUE that you stopped beating your wife?
YES
NO
Arthur
Nope, educated people KNOW that the purpose of the COMMISSION was NOT to investigate how the Towers fell, that was the job of FEMA and NIST.
Poll questions and the answers you can choose from can also be written in such a way as to get an answer you want.
For instance, answer this question:
Is it TRUE that you stopped beating your wife?
YES
NO
Arthur
I remember his pictures. I was just thinking, we have the velocity as function of the height that is
v(x)=sqr(2g(L-x))
and the time is t(x)=sqr(2x/g)
The maximum distance is simply d(x)=v(x)t(x)=2sqr(Lx-x^2)
As expected d'(x)=(1/2d(x))(L-2x)=0 gives x=L/2
and d_max=d(L/2)=L, but that is of course the distance at ground zero.
Since NIST doesn't care about the collapse my question is if there are already official papers that explain the ejection, use a speed (I remember someone told the half of the impact) and also the energy it takes.
v(x)=sqr(2g(L-x))
and the time is t(x)=sqr(2x/g)
The maximum distance is simply d(x)=v(x)t(x)=2sqr(Lx-x^2)
As expected d'(x)=(1/2d(x))(L-2x)=0 gives x=L/2
and d_max=d(L/2)=L, but that is of course the distance at ground zero.
Since NIST doesn't care about the collapse my question is if there are already official papers that explain the ejection, use a speed (I remember someone told the half of the impact) and also the energy it takes.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 21 2007, 10:54 AM)
Nope, educated people KNOW that the purpose of the COMMISSION was NOT to investigate how the Towers fell, that was the job of FEMA and NIST.
Poll questions and the answers you can choose from can also be written in such a way as to get an answer you want.
For instance, answer this question:
Is it TRUE that you stopped beating your wife?
YES
NO
Arthur
This is how stupid the zogby polls are...
http://www.debunking911.com/zogby.htm
Did they ask "Do you think the government blew up the towers?" Of couse they didn't. The cowards. They know it would be about 1% who agree.
Amount of libertarians who believe the government blew up the towers might be higher.
Stop the lies!
Poll questions and the answers you can choose from can also be written in such a way as to get an answer you want.
For instance, answer this question:
Is it TRUE that you stopped beating your wife?
YES
NO
Arthur
This is how stupid the zogby polls are...
http://www.debunking911.com/zogby.htm
Did they ask "Do you think the government blew up the towers?" Of couse they didn't. The cowards. They know it would be about 1% who agree.
Amount of libertarians who believe the government blew up the towers might be higher.
Stop the lies!
Does anyone of you know DemolitionDave ? He wrote this about the praised Implosionworld report 
I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs. He is a self proclaimed "expert"
Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. "Quit Bothhering me boy"
There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the "Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry"
I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs. He is a self proclaimed "expert"
Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. "Quit Bothhering me boy"
There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the "Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry"
Typical pointless ad hominum attack.
Arthur
Arthur
einsteen
Brent Blanchard: Author of "A History of Structural Demolition in America" You can get a copy at Amizon.com
Brent Blanchard: an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services. "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition."
Brent Blanchard: senior editor at Implosion World (Implosionworld, a professional online journal).
And DemolitionDave is what??? Another tin hat clown on the internet. At least Blanchard has the sense to consult the experts and workers on site and ask them if they saw any evidence of explosives(they did not), instead of the uninformed musings of a dental hygenist, a failed cold fusion professor and a water tester from UL.
Instead of refuting his paper(because you cannot) you try to lie(or post lies) about the author. You guys are getting more desperate all the time.
Grumpy
Brent Blanchard: Author of "A History of Structural Demolition in America" You can get a copy at Amizon.com
Brent Blanchard: an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services. "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition."
Brent Blanchard: senior editor at Implosion World (Implosionworld, a professional online journal).
And DemolitionDave is what??? Another tin hat clown on the internet. At least Blanchard has the sense to consult the experts and workers on site and ask them if they saw any evidence of explosives(they did not), instead of the uninformed musings of a dental hygenist, a failed cold fusion professor and a water tester from UL.
Instead of refuting his paper(because you cannot) you try to lie(or post lies) about the author. You guys are getting more desperate all the time.
Grumpy
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 21 2007, 02:13 PM)
AceBaker:
You ask: "Treating the "material" as a fluid, couldn't we estimate its density based on its fall time?"
I would simply look at settling velocities as a function of particle size and compare them to velocities for free fall in a vacuum.
For example: In a vacuum a particle falling 200 meters (half the height of a Twin Tower) hits the ground with a velocity = Sqrt{ 2.g.h } = 62.6 m/s
The settling velocities of particles with a density of 2 g/cc as a funtion of the diameter of the particle is as follows:
10 microns: v = 0.006 m/s
100 microns: v = 0.52 m/s
1 millimeter: v = 6 m/s
1 centimeter: v = 15 m/s
10 centimeters: v = 50 m/s
So we see that air resistance starts to kick in for particles smaller than about 10 centimeters.
By the way, when you say that almost no debris fell in the footprint of each tower you are ignoring all the steel columns and beams. The fall of most of this large and very dense material was obscured by the clouds of concrete/gypsum/glass/insulation/etc.
Nevertheless, I am sure 99 % of the core steel fell straight down into the footprint.
NF
If 99% of the core columns fell into the footprint, then why do they not appear in the photographs? Each tower had better than 10 miles worth of core columns. 10 miles. Please show me a photo and point out the 10 miles of core columns per towers.
In your table, you are assuming a density of 2 grams per cc. Steel is more like 7.8 grams per cc. So we're back to the same problem. Are we talking about smaller particles with higher density, or larger particles with lower density? That's why I wanted to try and treat the whole mess as a fluid, and try to find its mass.
You ask: "Treating the "material" as a fluid, couldn't we estimate its density based on its fall time?"
I would simply look at settling velocities as a function of particle size and compare them to velocities for free fall in a vacuum.
For example: In a vacuum a particle falling 200 meters (half the height of a Twin Tower) hits the ground with a velocity = Sqrt{ 2.g.h } = 62.6 m/s
The settling velocities of particles with a density of 2 g/cc as a funtion of the diameter of the particle is as follows:
10 microns: v = 0.006 m/s
100 microns: v = 0.52 m/s
1 millimeter: v = 6 m/s
1 centimeter: v = 15 m/s
10 centimeters: v = 50 m/s
So we see that air resistance starts to kick in for particles smaller than about 10 centimeters.
By the way, when you say that almost no debris fell in the footprint of each tower you are ignoring all the steel columns and beams. The fall of most of this large and very dense material was obscured by the clouds of concrete/gypsum/glass/insulation/etc.
Nevertheless, I am sure 99 % of the core steel fell straight down into the footprint.
NF
If 99% of the core columns fell into the footprint, then why do they not appear in the photographs? Each tower had better than 10 miles worth of core columns. 10 miles. Please show me a photo and point out the 10 miles of core columns per towers.
In your table, you are assuming a density of 2 grams per cc. Steel is more like 7.8 grams per cc. So we're back to the same problem. Are we talking about smaller particles with higher density, or larger particles with lower density? That's why I wanted to try and treat the whole mess as a fluid, and try to find its mass.
AceBaker --- Six basement levels were full of crushed materials. Even so the pile for WTC 1, within the footprint, rose about 9--11 stories high.
That's a lot of crushed materials!
That's a lot of crushed materials!
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 21 2007, 02:44 PM)
AceBaker
If you are interested in the amount of material that fell within the footprint, there is an easier and much more accurate way of determining that.
WEIGHT the rubble as you dig it out and haul it away.
This is the method used at WTC. And they removed 1.6 MILLION TONS of debris from the footprints of those two buildings. MOST of the remains of those buildings was found in the basement levels. The visible collapse is only of the exterior frame members, which all fell outside of the footprint.
None of the steel in those buildings is missing, none of the floors is missing, nothing was "Dustified"(what a stupid word).
You've been shown repeatedly the steel only you cannot see, sounds like a personal problem to me. IE...
There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.
Grumpy
Grumpy/Chainsaw, if we were inclined to believe the government reports, we wouldn't be here. I'm aware that the reports agree with the official story.
If you are interested in the amount of material that fell within the footprint, there is an easier and much more accurate way of determining that.
WEIGHT the rubble as you dig it out and haul it away.
This is the method used at WTC. And they removed 1.6 MILLION TONS of debris from the footprints of those two buildings. MOST of the remains of those buildings was found in the basement levels. The visible collapse is only of the exterior frame members, which all fell outside of the footprint.
None of the steel in those buildings is missing, none of the floors is missing, nothing was "Dustified"(what a stupid word).
You've been shown repeatedly the steel only you cannot see, sounds like a personal problem to me. IE...
There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see.
Grumpy
Grumpy/Chainsaw, if we were inclined to believe the government reports, we wouldn't be here. I'm aware that the reports agree with the official story.
AceBaker
If you(and all the other tin hatters) weren't inclined to dismiss the facts we could all be doing something else. Something constructive, maybe, instead of correcting the disinformation spread by a bunch of know nothing paranoids.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Grumpy/Chainsaw, if we were inclined to believe the government reports, we wouldn't be here. I'm aware that the reports agree with the official story.
If you(and all the other tin hatters) weren't inclined to dismiss the facts we could all be doing something else. Something constructive, maybe, instead of correcting the disinformation spread by a bunch of know nothing paranoids.
Grumpy
A collapse initiation question for all you conspiracy theorists out there:
A self-sustaining collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was triggered by:
1. Explosives (conventional or nuclear)/incendiaries pre-planted in the towers
2. An external energy "beam"
3. The tilting of the top of each tower as a result of asymmetric structural failures brought on by initial (localized) impact damage and on-going fire-induced weakening.
4. Another mechanism (Please specify!)
To elaborate on item No.3:
Let's assume a situation arose in which the spring-like force resisting further tilting of the hinged upper section of a tower was insufficient to counter continued tilting. This was possible in the first place because:
1. One side/corner of each tower was severely damaged
and
2. The support structures in the accompanying damage zones were compromised and were being further weakened by fire-induced heating.
Collapse was assured once the rate of loss of strength of the structural steel in areas needed to resist further tilting exceeded the rate of change of potential energy from tilting.
A spring normally follows Hooke's Law whereby the restoring force increases in direct proportion to the displacement or F = k.x. ..... But if the resisting steel looses it's "springiness" by thermal "softening", k is reduced and a greater displacement is possible for the same force. This simply allows more PE drain..... Eventually a positive feedback situation is created. Global collapse ensues...
NF
A self-sustaining collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was triggered by:
1. Explosives (conventional or nuclear)/incendiaries pre-planted in the towers
2. An external energy "beam"
3. The tilting of the top of each tower as a result of asymmetric structural failures brought on by initial (localized) impact damage and on-going fire-induced weakening.
4. Another mechanism (Please specify!)
To elaborate on item No.3:
Let's assume a situation arose in which the spring-like force resisting further tilting of the hinged upper section of a tower was insufficient to counter continued tilting. This was possible in the first place because:
1. One side/corner of each tower was severely damaged
and
2. The support structures in the accompanying damage zones were compromised and were being further weakened by fire-induced heating.
Collapse was assured once the rate of loss of strength of the structural steel in areas needed to resist further tilting exceeded the rate of change of potential energy from tilting.
A spring normally follows Hooke's Law whereby the restoring force increases in direct proportion to the displacement or F = k.x. ..... But if the resisting steel looses it's "springiness" by thermal "softening", k is reduced and a greater displacement is possible for the same force. This simply allows more PE drain..... Eventually a positive feedback situation is created. Global collapse ensues...
NF
QUOTE (AceBaker+Feb 22 2007, 01:35 AM)
Grumpy/Chainsaw, if we were inclined to believe the government reports, we wouldn't be here. I'm aware that the reports agree with the official story.
Please do not confuse Grumpy and Myself it was proved that we are two separate people, we both posted at almost the same time separate posts.
Plus the moderators of the forum know our identities are separate.
Please do not confuse Grumpy and Myself it was proved that we are two separate people, we both posted at almost the same time separate posts.
Plus the moderators of the forum know our identities are separate.
Chainsaw, you are arguing with someone who apparently believes that the steel could have been vaporized by beam weapons.
Trust me, no amount of LOGIC or REASONING will make someone THAT FAR REMOVED from reality, "see the light"
Like I said before, we are at the BOTTOM of the BARREL when it comes to CT'ers.
They are out of rational arguments and have sent in the ones who don't realize that Star Trek is Science Fiction.
My only wish is that Scotty was around to "beam them up".
Arthur
Trust me, no amount of LOGIC or REASONING will make someone THAT FAR REMOVED from reality, "see the light"
Like I said before, we are at the BOTTOM of the BARREL when it comes to CT'ers.
They are out of rational arguments and have sent in the ones who don't realize that Star Trek is Science Fiction.
My only wish is that Scotty was around to "beam them up".
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 21 2007, 04:48 PM)
einsteen
Brent Blanchard: Author of "A History of Structural Demolition in America" You can get a copy at Amizon.com
Brent Blanchard: an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services. "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition."
Brent Blanchard: senior editor at Implosion World (Implosionworld, a professional online journal).
And DemolitionDave is what??? Another tin hat clown on the internet. At least Blanchard has the sense to consult the experts and workers on site and ask them if they saw any evidence of explosives(they did not), instead of the uninformed musings of a dental hygenist, a failed cold fusion professor and a water tester from UL.
Instead of refuting his paper(because you cannot) you try to lie(or post lies) about the author. You guys are getting more desperate all the time.
Grumpy
But note how Blanchard is an "expert" when it suits them.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltennothing.jpg
Liars, all of them!
Brent Blanchard: Author of "A History of Structural Demolition in America" You can get a copy at Amizon.com
Brent Blanchard: an implosion expert with the demolition consulting firm Protec Documentation Services. "one of the world's most knowledgeable independent authorities on explosive demolition."
Brent Blanchard: senior editor at Implosion World (Implosionworld, a professional online journal).
And DemolitionDave is what??? Another tin hat clown on the internet. At least Blanchard has the sense to consult the experts and workers on site and ask them if they saw any evidence of explosives(they did not), instead of the uninformed musings of a dental hygenist, a failed cold fusion professor and a water tester from UL.
Instead of refuting his paper(because you cannot) you try to lie(or post lies) about the author. You guys are getting more desperate all the time.
Grumpy
But note how Blanchard is an "expert" when it suits them.
http://www.debunking911.com/moltennothing.jpg
Liars, all of them!
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 21 2007, 11:57 AM)
Does anyone of you know DemolitionDave ? He wrote this about the praised Implosionworld report
I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs. He is a self proclaimed "expert"
Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. "Quit Bothhering me boy"
There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the "Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry"
Just what I thought the OCT "HERO" would be,"Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry".
His paper is almost as ridiculous as the OCT website:
http://www.debunking911.com
Don’t stack to many steel beams together they will start on fire!
I wouldn't read Blanchard's garbage. He has no experience with explosives,blasting or demolition. He is not an engineer either. He maintains an implosion website and during the day he monitors vibrations on pile driving jobs. He is a self proclaimed "expert"
Brent Blanchard is to the implosion industry as the Chickenhawk is to Foghorn Leghorn. "Quit Bothhering me boy"
There was an ABC Documentary on Explosives demolition where they referred to Blanchard and his sidekick as the "Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry"
Just what I thought the OCT "HERO" would be,"Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry".
His paper is almost as ridiculous as the OCT website:
http://www.debunking911.com
Don’t stack to many steel beams together they will start on fire!
Grumpy, as a lay man we only can use the available information, I just saw he
posted that at JREF by coincident. I've mailed DemolitionDave of course about some clarification etc. but no answer at the moment, the question is also if this JREF DD is the same person as the one of the dotcom domain.
posted that at JREF by coincident. I've mailed DemolitionDave of course about some clarification etc. but no answer at the moment, the question is also if this JREF DD is the same person as the one of the dotcom domain.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 21 2007, 03:54 PM)
the purpose of the COMMISSION was NOT to investigate how the Towers fell
The Commission that was only set up after a huge outcry from the victims' relatives, became the investigation you have when you're not having an investigation.
The Commission that was only set up after a huge outcry from the victims' relatives, became the investigation you have when you're not having an investigation.
Well the Dems are in charge of both houses now.
Don't see any rush to get a new investigation on 9/11 started.
Are the Democrats "IN ON IT" with Bush too?
Arthur
Don't see any rush to get a new investigation on 9/11 started.
Are the Democrats "IN ON IT" with Bush too?
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 22 2007, 01:03 AM)
Just what I thought the OCT "HERO" would be,"Beavis and Butthead of the Implosion industry".
His paper is almost as ridiculous as the OCT website:
http://www.debunking911.com
Don’t stack to many steel beams together they will start on fire!
Figures Beavis and Butthead is on your mind. I'm sure you go to every convention.
Ad homs' aren't going to convince anyone but your Beavis and Butthead conspiracy friends. Why don't you try attacking the facts with facts. Oh yeah, You're a m@r@n, I forgot.
reasonwhy has a "raging clue" and it's pointing THAT way!
Reasonwhy long ago ran out of anything worth posting about, he is now into whining and ad hominums.
Arthur
Arthur
Anyone seen this ?
http://www.911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/data...uments/3424.htm
i think 600,000 pounds is exaggerated, don't know what kind of beam it was
http://www.911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/data...uments/3424.htm
i think 600,000 pounds is exaggerated, don't know what kind of beam it was
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 22 2007, 04:57 PM)
Anyone seen this ?
http://www.911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/data...uments/3424.htm
i think 600,000 pounds is exaggerated, don't know what kind of beam it was
Here's a better look at the beam that's not a beam.
It's a perimeter column assembly from one of the towers.
http://www.911da.org/crr/images/CRRDB/data...uments/3424.htm
i think 600,000 pounds is exaggerated, don't know what kind of beam it was
Here's a better look at the beam that's not a beam.
It's a perimeter column assembly from one of the towers.
The 600,000 was an obvious error.
This column was explored in the first 9/11 thread
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=60939
Arthur
This column was explored in the first 9/11 thread
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=60939
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 22 2007, 01:35 AM)
AceBaker --- Six basement levels were full of crushed materials. Even so the pile for WTC 1, within the footprint, rose about 9--11 stories high.
That's a lot of crushed materials!
Six basement levels were full of crushed materials? Evidence please.
Rubble within WTC1 footprint was 9--11 stories high? Interesting choice of numbers, and evidence please.
That's a lot of crushed materials!
Six basement levels were full of crushed materials? Evidence please.
Rubble within WTC1 footprint was 9--11 stories high? Interesting choice of numbers, and evidence please.
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.