QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 29 2007, 12:11 AM)
Trippy:
A simple calculation of the conversion of the Twin Tower's PE to KE and then to HEAT shows that the PE was NOT the source of heat in the rubble pile:
PE of two towers = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's assume ALL the PE -> KE so KE = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's also assume ALL the KE -> HEAT
HEAT = Mass (kg) x Heat Capacity (J/kg. deg C) x Delta (T)
The mass of the two towers was ~ 1,000,000 tonnes
A reasonable average heat capacity for the materials in the rubble pile would be ~ 500 J/kg.deg C, hence
Delta(T) = 2 x 10^12 / [10^9 x 500] = 4 deg C
This shows that the heating of the rubble pile must have been mainly from the release of CHEMICAL ENERGY. I would estimate from the mass of combustibles that the chemical energy available in the rubble pile was at least 10^14 J or 50 times the PE stored in the towers.
Eh, whatever, I got the impression from... I think it was greenings report that there was more to it then that, also I notive that you're calculations assume that the heat was distributed evenly throughout the entire falling mass, which may or may not be an accurate assumption.
Besides, my point was that I was offering up an energy source that was being ignored by the CD'ers, nothing more.
Edit: Also, please take the time to notice that NOWHERE did I attribute ALL of the heat energy as being from the collapse of the towers, I simply stated that it was one of the sources, note that I also said
If you meant I should do the arithmetic, sure thing!
Haha, yes that's what I meant. It's a silly CYA thing. I just want to emphasize that the scaling is derived through different processes. Any consumer of this data should have the original measurements and conversion value on hand. One way to ensure that is to supply only those items. But I could just as easily have fields for both pixel and meter distances or post two datasets - one with pixels the other with meters. Whichever works best for you.
Yes, definitely. I need to find better videos!
How tall are the windows in this slice of wall?
If you've ever done much camera work, you'll know that a camera's natural state is in motion and out-of-focus. You have to exert Jedi-like mind control over the things to get them steady and keep them focused.
One possible explanation was that when the guy first set up the camera and started filming, he was still close to it in case it needed extra tweeking to get it working right, and when he saw the puff of whatever, it startled him. Or, maybe he was stepping away from the tripod and it snagged his foot as he went past.
If you're trying to link the camera shake to the puff-event (as he's undoubtedly hoping you will) don't forget to factor-in the speed of sound and the distance between the camera and the event. He probably overlooked that when he manipulated the video. People routinely forget that and will add sound effects that happen concurrent with the imagery, a dead giveaway that the footage has been tampered with.
I saw it, and I agree that it's very good.
Is it just my eyesight, or is there a slight angle from vertical visible in the upper section? It appears to be leaning slightly to the left throughout the video.
OK, just some quick answers.
The molten orange flow was probably lead from Uninterruptable Power Supplies on floor 81, which use banks of lead-acid batteries. It *couldn't* have been thermite/thermate, because it has no effect on the metal sheathing of the building, also clearly visible on the same videos showing the flowing lead. If it had been thermite/thermate, it would've melted straight through the material, and it didn't.
No possibility of it being thermate. None. Zero. Give it up.
Regarding signatures of accelerants, there was only one accelerant, it was called "jet fuel", and there was lots of that present, both planes were loaded with it.
Welcome back to reality.
There you go again, changing the laws of physics...
well, colour me pink.
i think an absolute absence of stutter indicates that nothing was smashing into anything else, floorwise.
i don't think it is only me who thinks impacts should cause velocity changes.
newton would agree.
A simple calculation of the conversion of the Twin Tower's PE to KE and then to HEAT shows that the PE was NOT the source of heat in the rubble pile:
PE of two towers = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's assume ALL the PE -> KE so KE = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's also assume ALL the KE -> HEAT
HEAT = Mass (kg) x Heat Capacity (J/kg. deg C) x Delta (T)
The mass of the two towers was ~ 1,000,000 tonnes
A reasonable average heat capacity for the materials in the rubble pile would be ~ 500 J/kg.deg C, hence
Delta(T) = 2 x 10^12 / [10^9 x 500] = 4 deg C
This shows that the heating of the rubble pile must have been mainly from the release of CHEMICAL ENERGY. I would estimate from the mass of combustibles that the chemical energy available in the rubble pile was at least 10^14 J or 50 times the PE stored in the towers.
Eh, whatever, I got the impression from... I think it was greenings report that there was more to it then that, also I notive that you're calculations assume that the heat was distributed evenly throughout the entire falling mass, which may or may not be an accurate assumption.
Besides, my point was that I was offering up an energy source that was being ignored by the CD'ers, nothing more.
Edit: Also, please take the time to notice that NOWHERE did I attribute ALL of the heat energy as being from the collapse of the towers, I simply stated that it was one of the sources, note that I also said
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 28 2007,11:24 AM )
Come on, get real, confinement, insulation and reburning are some of the easiest ways of cranking up the temperature of a fire.
A view that was echoed by WCElliot with his reference to furnacing, and furnace effects.
A view that was echoed by WCElliot with his reference to furnacing, and furnace effects.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Aug 28 2007, 09:24 AM)
The bigger effort, in that case, is obtaining reliable scaling factors for the conversion from pixels to meters. The data will be in pixels and I'll provide the best conversion numbers I can get get at this time - you take responsibility for converting to meters!
Alas, I'll have to rely on your conversion numbers. Poster einsteen suggested a technique which seems robust: count the number of pixels from the top of a window to the top of the window above (below).
If you meant I should do the arithmetic, sure thing!
Alas, I'll have to rely on your conversion numbers. Poster einsteen suggested a technique which seems robust: count the number of pixels from the top of a window to the top of the window above (below).
If you meant I should do the arithmetic, sure thing!
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 28 2007, 03:46 PM)
If the whole top block drops for example 10 stories then it has enough kinetic energy to destroy the whole structure below, the whole structure then falls down like an implosion from the bottom.
That's possible if there was a way of conveying the energy of the falling mass to the rest of the tower below the front within a short time interval. How would that be done in the WTC towers where columns were tilted and laterally offset from one another through the collapse front? That causes connections to fail and columns to buckle in the region of the front before a large amount of energy can be conveyed far away from the front.
Most of the falling mass that accumulated at the front was intercepted by the floor slabs between the core and perimeter. The lightweight trusses and their connections failed before the columns did, since the columns had a much higher axial compressive strength than the strength of the trusses or connections.
Even in a situation of perfect axial strikes through the collapse front, which doesn't occur in the real world, buckling during severe overloading of columns and fracture of trusses and their connections in the region of the front would somehow have to be prevented in order to convey a large fraction of energy of the falling mass far away from the front.
That's possible if there was a way of conveying the energy of the falling mass to the rest of the tower below the front within a short time interval. How would that be done in the WTC towers where columns were tilted and laterally offset from one another through the collapse front? That causes connections to fail and columns to buckle in the region of the front before a large amount of energy can be conveyed far away from the front.
Most of the falling mass that accumulated at the front was intercepted by the floor slabs between the core and perimeter. The lightweight trusses and their connections failed before the columns did, since the columns had a much higher axial compressive strength than the strength of the trusses or connections.
Even in a situation of perfect axial strikes through the collapse front, which doesn't occur in the real world, buckling during severe overloading of columns and fracture of trusses and their connections in the region of the front would somehow have to be prevented in order to convey a large fraction of energy of the falling mass far away from the front.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 28 2007, 10:04 PM)
If you meant I should do the arithmetic, sure thing!
Haha, yes that's what I meant. It's a silly CYA thing. I just want to emphasize that the scaling is derived through different processes. Any consumer of this data should have the original measurements and conversion value on hand. One way to ensure that is to supply only those items. But I could just as easily have fields for both pixel and meter distances or post two datasets - one with pixels the other with meters. Whichever works best for you.
QUOTE
Poster einsteen suggested a technique which seems robust: count the number of pixels from the top of a window to the top of the window above (below).
Yes, definitely. I need to find better videos!
How tall are the windows in this slice of wall?
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 28 2007, 09:48 PM)
Eh, whatever, I got the impression from... I think it was greenings report that there was more to it then that....
Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah, over at JREF. It was funnier over there, though.
Where have I seen this before? Oh yeah, over at JREF. It was funnier over there, though.
Maybe I should try reading greening's report.....
The best movie that I currently have is this one
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/w...emolition-4.avi
(check also the other ones in that index) And that is the one I've used to generate the images, it has the best resolution but no sound. There is a smaller movie which has sound (I believe also a different frame-rate), there you hear a chopper, I also don't think that sound is genuine because you hear no sound at all during the collapse and the sound is tremendous (in other collapse videos)
This is a bizarre video, about 10 seconds before initiation the camera shakes, a possible debunk is that someone hit it at that time (although it must be on that tripod for a while) but at that moment also some debris is ejected from the open zone in the building, probably it could be that initiation already started there, but the antenna still didn't start dropping. During the collapse the camera is not really moving but when the first debris hits the ground (the ejected panels originating from the 14 story top block) a smaller movement of the camera could be observed, This movement is consistent with a free fall of that debris in air and gives about the same time as the NIST gave. The first movement of the camera (10 seconds before) has a bigger amplitude than when the debris hits the ground which doesn't make sense for me, someone could have hit hit, but then why does a piece of debris leave the building ?
I'm not sure what the distance between (the center of) two floors is, 3.7m is mentioned, 3.8m also. Depends on the base on which the towers were standing
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/w...emolition-4.avi
(check also the other ones in that index) And that is the one I've used to generate the images, it has the best resolution but no sound. There is a smaller movie which has sound (I believe also a different frame-rate), there you hear a chopper, I also don't think that sound is genuine because you hear no sound at all during the collapse and the sound is tremendous (in other collapse videos)
This is a bizarre video, about 10 seconds before initiation the camera shakes, a possible debunk is that someone hit it at that time (although it must be on that tripod for a while) but at that moment also some debris is ejected from the open zone in the building, probably it could be that initiation already started there, but the antenna still didn't start dropping. During the collapse the camera is not really moving but when the first debris hits the ground (the ejected panels originating from the 14 story top block) a smaller movement of the camera could be observed, This movement is consistent with a free fall of that debris in air and gives about the same time as the NIST gave. The first movement of the camera (10 seconds before) has a bigger amplitude than when the debris hits the ground which doesn't make sense for me, someone could have hit hit, but then why does a piece of debris leave the building ?
I'm not sure what the distance between (the center of) two floors is, 3.7m is mentioned, 3.8m also. Depends on the base on which the towers were standing
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 29 2007, 01:20 PM)
Maybe I should try reading greening's report.....
Or learn something from Apollo20..
ps. did you recently post at the LC'ers ?
Or learn something from Apollo20..
ps. did you recently post at the LC'ers ?
QUOTE
This is a bizarre video, about 10 seconds before initiation the camera shakes, a possible debunk is that someone hit it at that time (although it must be on that tripod for a while)
If you've ever done much camera work, you'll know that a camera's natural state is in motion and out-of-focus. You have to exert Jedi-like mind control over the things to get them steady and keep them focused.
One possible explanation was that when the guy first set up the camera and started filming, he was still close to it in case it needed extra tweeking to get it working right, and when he saw the puff of whatever, it startled him. Or, maybe he was stepping away from the tripod and it snagged his foot as he went past.
If you're trying to link the camera shake to the puff-event (as he's undoubtedly hoping you will) don't forget to factor-in the speed of sound and the distance between the camera and the event. He probably overlooked that when he manipulated the video. People routinely forget that and will add sound effects that happen concurrent with the imagery, a dead giveaway that the footage has been tampered with.
Here's a question that I've asked on many forums, but have not received an answer...
How does this fit into the equation? If these dampers are strong enough to correct a 3ft from center sway...How would they affect the collapse?
Thanks
How does this fit into the equation? If these dampers are strong enough to correct a 3ft from center sway...How would they affect the collapse?
Thanks
QUOTE
Damping the sway
Each of the Twin Towers had 11,000 built-in shock absorbers to lessen the buildings' sway in strong wind.
As sturdy as these towers would be, Robertson and Skilling knew they would still be flexible in high winds. Indeed, they designed them to be so. But they realized the swaying effect, especially in strong gusts, might bother tenants high in the building. So they fashioned yet another innovation, a state-of-the-art damping system. Like door closers or car shocks, the dampers absorbed the wind's punch, easing the towers one way or the other so smoothly that office workers hardly noticed the movement.
The dampers were made of visco-elastic material. "These are materials that are partially viscous, that is, partially flowable like oil, and also elastic, which means they act somewhat like steel, in that if you strain them they return to their original shape," Robertson says. "So the material is in between those two materials—it's not like oil, it's not like steel, it's visco-elastic."
Robertson's crew placed the dampers, 11,000 of them in each building, between the bottom of the floor trusses and the columns—two parts of the building that tended to move with respect to each other when the edifice swayed. When it did so, those two parts would shear the visco-elastic dampers. This shearing caused the material to heat up, and that heat was transferred to the building. "So we take the energy of the wind, and we heat the building with it," Robertson says with a note of pride in his voice.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html
Each of the Twin Towers had 11,000 built-in shock absorbers to lessen the buildings' sway in strong wind.
As sturdy as these towers would be, Robertson and Skilling knew they would still be flexible in high winds. Indeed, they designed them to be so. But they realized the swaying effect, especially in strong gusts, might bother tenants high in the building. So they fashioned yet another innovation, a state-of-the-art damping system. Like door closers or car shocks, the dampers absorbed the wind's punch, easing the towers one way or the other so smoothly that office workers hardly noticed the movement.
The dampers were made of visco-elastic material. "These are materials that are partially viscous, that is, partially flowable like oil, and also elastic, which means they act somewhat like steel, in that if you strain them they return to their original shape," Robertson says. "So the material is in between those two materials—it's not like oil, it's not like steel, it's visco-elastic."
Robertson's crew placed the dampers, 11,000 of them in each building, between the bottom of the floor trusses and the columns—two parts of the building that tended to move with respect to each other when the edifice swayed. When it did so, those two parts would shear the visco-elastic dampers. This shearing caused the material to heat up, and that heat was transferred to the building. "So we take the energy of the wind, and we heat the building with it," Robertson says with a note of pride in his voice.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/innovation.html
QUOTE (John A+Aug 29 2007, 09:58 AM)
Here's a question that I've asked on many forums, but have not received an answer...
How does this fit into the equation? If these dampers are strong enough to correct a 3ft from center sway...How would they affect the collapse?
Thanks
Minimal at best.
They joined at the bottom of the truss, so for them to absorb any energy in the vertical direction, the truss seat above it would essentially have had to already have failed.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...te/trusscon.jpg
They clearly were not designed to handle vertical loads and so would have then immediately failed, with their contribution being roughly the amount of energy needed to shear ~80 of these visco-elastic dampers per floor (1 per tree).
Arthur
How does this fit into the equation? If these dampers are strong enough to correct a 3ft from center sway...How would they affect the collapse?
Thanks
Minimal at best.
They joined at the bottom of the truss, so for them to absorb any energy in the vertical direction, the truss seat above it would essentially have had to already have failed.
http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...te/trusscon.jpg
They clearly were not designed to handle vertical loads and so would have then immediately failed, with their contribution being roughly the amount of energy needed to shear ~80 of these visco-elastic dampers per floor (1 per tree).
Arthur
I think you should first watch the movie wcelliot. I don’t believe someone was near the camera, it was steady on a tripod. If someone was near the camera he or she would zoom in during the collapse. And who is hoping I will ? This is (as far as I know) a raw footage and nothing has been cut ‘n pasted. The speed of sound is irrelevant as I said that the movie doesn’t contain audio. I don’t say there is a direct relation with that piece of ejected debris and the shaking, maybe someone saw or heard something and hit that thing, or there is an other cause. The only difference between the camera position before and after the shaking is a few pixels, nothing has been changed manually in the setting, no zoom in, no rotation, no colour change. I also don’t believe that piece of debris has been added to the movie, I’ve seen it often, I’ve seen it frame by frame. No I’m not the kind of person checking plane videos and looking for compression artifacts or a green flame in wtc7 (ps I debunked the no-plane theory using two different movies with the same frame extraction method, posted it at LC because I’m sick of that) but this is a very interesting video.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 29 2007, 09:36 AM)
which doesn't make sense for me, someone could have hit hit, but then why does a piece of debris leave the building ?
But YOU are making a correlation when there is NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE to support it.
Arthur
But YOU are making a correlation when there is NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE to support it.
Arthur
I'm not making a correlation, that correlation is there. Don't shoot the messenger...
Thanks Arthur,
Would there be any horizontal affect? Also, what color would these dampers be if they were melting?
Here's another question that no one will answer...
Why was there combustible gas present in the subway before the first plane hit?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=59...earch&plindex=6
In this video, you will see an inspector and a news crew preparing to do a news story on a gas leak. (My opinion) The inspector places his TIF 8800 detector against the grid and the gas is detected. Remember, the subways exploded.
Would there be any horizontal affect? Also, what color would these dampers be if they were melting?
Here's another question that no one will answer...
Why was there combustible gas present in the subway before the first plane hit?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=59...earch&plindex=6
In this video, you will see an inspector and a news crew preparing to do a news story on a gas leak. (My opinion) The inspector places his TIF 8800 detector against the grid and the gas is detected. Remember, the subways exploded.
QUOTE (John A+Aug 29 2007, 03:28 PM)
Would there be any horizontal affect?
Yes. Huge.
Yes. Huge.
I believe the visco-elastic dampers were made with a 3M butyl rubber compound. This would degrade at about 300 deg C and be a useless char by 400 deg C.
Ok, I have to be very precise with the words used, correlation is no (direct) causal relation. I can't really remember.
Because when the panels hit the ground I would expect that it is related with the shaking. To say something about the correlation of the first shaking we should for example have a 20 minute video, when there is then movement of those two variables there is a correlation. but let's forgot about the first movement, it is more interesting to assume that there is a relation between the piece of debris that leaves the building and the collapse initiation. I will soon check if there are other wtc1 movies in which something can be found about it , bad thing is that there is a lot of crap around.
Because when the panels hit the ground I would expect that it is related with the shaking. To say something about the correlation of the first shaking we should for example have a 20 minute video, when there is then movement of those two variables there is a correlation. but let's forgot about the first movement, it is more interesting to assume that there is a relation between the piece of debris that leaves the building and the collapse initiation. I will soon check if there are other wtc1 movies in which something can be found about it , bad thing is that there is a lot of crap around.
Thanks for the video link, einsteen. It's from the same source video as the one I've been looking at the hardest, now the third version I've run across. This is the best quality, though.
I've got more to say about this video but I have to run.
Well, before I run:
OK, you got me. I'm the original source for the video, and yes I did jiggle the camera before the collapse to deceive the gullible into believing the collapse was brought on by explosives.
I've got more to say about this video but I have to run.
Well, before I run:
QUOTE
If you're trying to link the camera shake to the puff-event (as he's undoubtedly hoping you will)...
OK, you got me. I'm the original source for the video, and yes I did jiggle the camera before the collapse to deceive the gullible into believing the collapse was brought on by explosives.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 29 2007, 06:20 AM)
Maybe I should try reading greening's report.....
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 30 2007, 01:20 AM)
Maybe I should try reading greening's report.....
No, that's not what I was saying (or even trying to imply).
Take that partr of my post as meaning "I may have screwed up and remembered some things wrong, attaching more importance to something then I should have" Also known as "I seem to recall this, but I can't recall any specific numbers."
Take the rest of my post as meaning "Yeah, I said that already didn't I?"
Take the antsy in my post as "I've been getting a really hard time from cranks recently,"
No, that's not what I was saying (or even trying to imply).
Take that partr of my post as meaning "I may have screwed up and remembered some things wrong, attaching more importance to something then I should have" Also known as "I seem to recall this, but I can't recall any specific numbers."
Take the rest of my post as meaning "Yeah, I said that already didn't I?"
Take the antsy in my post as "I've been getting a really hard time from cranks recently,"
QUOTE
The best movie that I currently have is this one
I saw it, and I agree that it's very good.
Is it just my eyesight, or is there a slight angle from vertical visible in the upper section? It appears to be leaning slightly to the left throughout the video.
Arthur:
If a whole bunch of visco-elastic dampers failed through over-heating in the fire-affected zones of the towers do you think the upper sections would have been more flexible and prone to tilting in the presence of asymmetric damage.
I have tried to find data on just how much energy the dampers absorbed - so far without any success - but I would imagine it would be quite significant or why bother to install them....
If a whole bunch of visco-elastic dampers failed through over-heating in the fire-affected zones of the towers do you think the upper sections would have been more flexible and prone to tilting in the presence of asymmetric damage.
I have tried to find data on just how much energy the dampers absorbed - so far without any success - but I would imagine it would be quite significant or why bother to install them....
Smoldering Fire
Nineteen days ago a nearby grain elevator caught fire and burned to the ground. Four fire departments responded to the initial fire and after about 34 hours, left about 100,000 bushels of smoldering wheat.
Since then, almost daily, the volunteer Rural Fire Department has to take their tanker truck out to the site to dampen the 8 to 10 foot flames which flare up.
Notice the fire is still not out!
Even though most of the time there is neither smoke nor flame...
Nineteen days ago a nearby grain elevator caught fire and burned to the ground. Four fire departments responded to the initial fire and after about 34 hours, left about 100,000 bushels of smoldering wheat.
Since then, almost daily, the volunteer Rural Fire Department has to take their tanker truck out to the site to dampen the 8 to 10 foot flames which flare up.
Notice the fire is still not out!
Even though most of the time there is neither smoke nor flame...
This from Appendix B.1 of the FEMA report .
"The bottom chord of each pair of trusses was attached to the spandrel with visco-elastic dampers that had a slip capacity of 5 kips."
I've also come across this:
From Mahmoodi, P, Robertson, L.E. et others (1987), "Performance of Viscoelastic Dampers in World Trade Center Towers", Dynamic of Structures, Proceedings of the Sessions at Structural Congress'87, Orlando, FL, Aug. 17-20.
Which may have more relevantinformation in it if you can track it down (I thought I had, but it 404'd on me).
"The bottom chord of each pair of trusses was attached to the spandrel with visco-elastic dampers that had a slip capacity of 5 kips."
I've also come across this:
From Mahmoodi, P, Robertson, L.E. et others (1987), "Performance of Viscoelastic Dampers in World Trade Center Towers", Dynamic of Structures, Proceedings of the Sessions at Structural Congress'87, Orlando, FL, Aug. 17-20.
Which may have more relevantinformation in it if you can track it down (I thought I had, but it 404'd on me).
Table 5.2 of the draft of NCSTAR 1-1A gives the acceptance criteria for the Viscoelastic dampers (3M Brand Vibration Damping Elastomer, #Y-9274) used in WTC 1&2 - note there were actually two different kinds, but as near as I can see at this point, they both used the same materials, just one was a little bigger.
Loss factor (dimensionless) 0.7
Stiffness between 6,000 lbs and 20,000 lbs
Ultimate Strength 40,000 lbs at 75 °F
Fatigue between 5,400 lbs and 22,000 lbs.
When I get home, I'll have a nose around and see if I can find the specs on the material from 3M.
Loss factor (dimensionless) 0.7
Stiffness between 6,000 lbs and 20,000 lbs
Ultimate Strength 40,000 lbs at 75 °F
Fatigue between 5,400 lbs and 22,000 lbs.
When I get home, I'll have a nose around and see if I can find the specs on the material from 3M.
.
Trippy:
Yes, I also tried to get the 1987 conference paper by Mahmoodi et al.
I believe it provides real data for the WTC visco-elastic dampers.
Yes, I also tried to get the 1987 conference paper by Mahmoodi et al.
I believe it provides real data for the WTC visco-elastic dampers.
QUOTE (Daru+Aug 29 2007, 11:51 AM)
Yes. Huge.
No, MINIMAL.
Compared to the strength of the STRUCTURAL connections the ~80 VE dampers per floor would have had minimal impact on either the forces imparted by the impact of the plane (loads applied too fast) or the progression of the collapse (loads applied in wrong direction).
As to the impact on the fire floors, as per Neu's question.
There they may have had a slight impact, since they would have been destroyed over a fairly large area by both the impact and the fires, thus making the already damaged and subsequentyly heated areas slightly more flexible than it would otherwise have been.
If you EXAGGERATE the effect you would perceive the towers would act somewhat like a pair of bobble head dolls
Thus HAD the winds been higher that day, I think it may have possibly had an effect, but my gut feeling is that for the light wind conditions that existed that day, the QUANTIFIABLE impact to the towers would probably not be significant.
Arthur
No, MINIMAL.
Compared to the strength of the STRUCTURAL connections the ~80 VE dampers per floor would have had minimal impact on either the forces imparted by the impact of the plane (loads applied too fast) or the progression of the collapse (loads applied in wrong direction).
As to the impact on the fire floors, as per Neu's question.
There they may have had a slight impact, since they would have been destroyed over a fairly large area by both the impact and the fires, thus making the already damaged and subsequentyly heated areas slightly more flexible than it would otherwise have been.
If you EXAGGERATE the effect you would perceive the towers would act somewhat like a pair of bobble head dolls
Thus HAD the winds been higher that day, I think it may have possibly had an effect, but my gut feeling is that for the light wind conditions that existed that day, the QUANTIFIABLE impact to the towers would probably not be significant.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 29 2007, 01:36 PM)
The best movie that I currently have is this one
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/w...emolition-4.avi
That clip is at the start of one of the 911 documentaries I have on DVD but I don't remember which one right now. It's full resolution on the DVD. The DVD shows that video clip with the natural sound of the people on the street with no commentary.
Which debris are you referring to 10 seconds before the collapse? There is at least one person who jumps off the west side of the tower at that time. I would guess that sections of floor may have started to collapse and pushed hot air into people near the windows, which could have been enough for someone to decide to jump.
One of my other DVD documentaries showed the father of someone who was stuck in WTC1 near the aircraft impact region. He was on the phone with his son as the collapse started. The last thing his son said a few seconds before the global collapse was that the ceiling was starting to fall down. The father saw the collapse live on TV just after the line went dead.
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/w...emolition-4.avi
That clip is at the start of one of the 911 documentaries I have on DVD but I don't remember which one right now. It's full resolution on the DVD. The DVD shows that video clip with the natural sound of the people on the street with no commentary.
Which debris are you referring to 10 seconds before the collapse? There is at least one person who jumps off the west side of the tower at that time. I would guess that sections of floor may have started to collapse and pushed hot air into people near the windows, which could have been enough for someone to decide to jump.
One of my other DVD documentaries showed the father of someone who was stuck in WTC1 near the aircraft impact region. He was on the phone with his son as the collapse started. The last thing his son said a few seconds before the global collapse was that the ceiling was starting to fall down. The father saw the collapse live on TV just after the line went dead.
QUOTE (shagster+Aug 30 2007, 01:19 AM)
That clip is at the start of one of the 911 documentaries I have on DVD but I don't remember which one right now. It's full resolution on the DVD. The DVD shows that video clip with the natural sound of the people on the street with no commentary.
Is it WTC - The First 24 Hours?
Is it WTC - The First 24 Hours?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 29 2007, 08:42 PM)
Is it just my eyesight, or is there a slight angle from vertical visible in the upper section? It appears to be leaning slightly to the left throughout the video.
About a degree for the right edge and about 0.6 degrees for the left. For a particular frame, anyway. Non-orthographic projection. I hope!
About a degree for the right edge and about 0.6 degrees for the left. For a particular frame, anyway. Non-orthographic projection. I hope!
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 29 2007, 11:20 PM)
.
?
?
Thanks Shagster, I got all my vids from the net (and received material) and never odered DVDs. Is it a person ? On my video it looks like a more rounder object. Could you extract some frames?
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 30 2007, 08:21 AM)
Thanks Shagster, I got all my vids from the net (and received material) and never odered DVDs. Is it a person ? On my video it looks like a more rounder object. Could you extract some frames?
I will look up which DVD it was. I can try to post some frames. Although I didn't measure the acceleration, the object that falls from the west side falls quickly like a body does. It has the same appearance as other people that jumped.
I will look up which DVD it was. I can try to post some frames. Although I didn't measure the acceleration, the object that falls from the west side falls quickly like a body does. It has the same appearance as other people that jumped.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Aug 30 2007, 05:35 AM)
Is it WTC - The First 24 Hours?
I have that DVD. That's probably the one but I have to check to make sure.
I have that DVD. That's probably the one but I have to check to make sure.
Just a quick question regarding the molten orange flow seen, possilbilities of thermate, and results from some samples of debris from the towers, showing signatures indicating accelerants.
Has anyone thought to resample buildings surrounding the WTC tower locations/resample the debris that was cleared?
Has anyone thought to resample buildings surrounding the WTC tower locations/resample the debris that was cleared?
I have finally done it, found a means to cause rapid explosions in the collapses, I tried it in experiments and it works well a little too well.
Take air, at 700c add steam, sprinkle iron dust, aluminum dust or molten aluminum, add carbon. then rapidly compress the result is I am still picking out little pieces of metal sparks, out of my left leg not bad though.
Compressing the air causes overheating of the compounds leading to a steam steel reaction releasing energy the resulting hydrogen and Iron Oxide with carbon releases more energy and ignites some aluminum causing expanding shock waves.
Compressing the air is the key though it allows the air to release considerable heat to the surrounding metals and steam super heating it to H2O in vapor phase, where it reacts with steel dust from broken welds, and beams and crushed concrete reinforcing wire. That triggers further reactions.
The reactions would increase as the buildings picked up speed during the collapses. the faster the compression the more rapid the heating.
I am still working on this but it is incredible the difference just compressing the air makes on the energy values available.
It also caused the formation of little metal spheres from organics, drywall, and aluminum similar to duraluminum, and the steel dust.
Trippy's Ideas on Duraluminum are valid, as are the Ideas about organics it is likely a combination of both lead to the metal spheres.
explosions in the collapse would have been as unavoidable as Aluminum Oxidation was.
I have posted this in hopes it helps in your investigations to know a possible trigger mechanism to explosions and added energy to the collapses.
Take air, at 700c add steam, sprinkle iron dust, aluminum dust or molten aluminum, add carbon. then rapidly compress the result is I am still picking out little pieces of metal sparks, out of my left leg not bad though.
Compressing the air causes overheating of the compounds leading to a steam steel reaction releasing energy the resulting hydrogen and Iron Oxide with carbon releases more energy and ignites some aluminum causing expanding shock waves.
Compressing the air is the key though it allows the air to release considerable heat to the surrounding metals and steam super heating it to H2O in vapor phase, where it reacts with steel dust from broken welds, and beams and crushed concrete reinforcing wire. That triggers further reactions.
The reactions would increase as the buildings picked up speed during the collapses. the faster the compression the more rapid the heating.
I am still working on this but it is incredible the difference just compressing the air makes on the energy values available.
It also caused the formation of little metal spheres from organics, drywall, and aluminum similar to duraluminum, and the steel dust.
Trippy's Ideas on Duraluminum are valid, as are the Ideas about organics it is likely a combination of both lead to the metal spheres.
explosions in the collapse would have been as unavoidable as Aluminum Oxidation was.
I have posted this in hopes it helps in your investigations to know a possible trigger mechanism to explosions and added energy to the collapses.
QUOTE
Just a quick question regarding the molten orange flow seen, possilbilities of thermate, and results from some samples of debris from the towers, showing signatures indicating accelerants.
OK, just some quick answers.
The molten orange flow was probably lead from Uninterruptable Power Supplies on floor 81, which use banks of lead-acid batteries. It *couldn't* have been thermite/thermate, because it has no effect on the metal sheathing of the building, also clearly visible on the same videos showing the flowing lead. If it had been thermite/thermate, it would've melted straight through the material, and it didn't.
No possibility of it being thermate. None. Zero. Give it up.
Regarding signatures of accelerants, there was only one accelerant, it was called "jet fuel", and there was lots of that present, both planes were loaded with it.
Welcome back to reality.
QUOTE (t0m+Aug 31 2007, 02:04 PM)
Just a quick question regarding the molten orange flow seen, possilbilities of thermate, and results from some samples of debris from the towers, showing signatures indicating accelerants.
Has anyone thought to resample buildings surrounding the WTC tower locations/resample the debris that was cleared?
What would sampling the buildings surrounding the twin towers gain you since all the compounds would be naturally occurring in the collapses anyway?
Finding evidence of natural occurrences is not evidence of anything but natural occurrences.
Has anyone thought to resample buildings surrounding the WTC tower locations/resample the debris that was cleared?
What would sampling the buildings surrounding the twin towers gain you since all the compounds would be naturally occurring in the collapses anyway?
Finding evidence of natural occurrences is not evidence of anything but natural occurrences.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 31 2007, 10:18 AM)
I have finally done it, found a means to cause rapid explosions in the collapses, I tried it in experiments and it works well a little too well.
Take air, at 700c add steam, sprinkle iron dust, aluminum dust or molten aluminum, add carbon. then rapidly compress the result is I am still picking out little pieces of metal sparks, out of my left leg not bad though.
Compressing the air causes overheating of the compounds leading to a steam steel reaction releasing energy the resulting hydrogen and Iron Oxide with carbon releases more energy and ignites some aluminum causing expanding shock waves.
But Chainsaw, the only air that would be near 700C would be on the fire/impact floors.
Since the collapse STARTED at those floors, the collapse rate would not have been fast enough to create any serious over-pressure.
By the time the collapse rate really picks up speed, near the lower floors, you aren't dealing with 700C air anymore or for that matter iron dust or aluminum dust.
Arthur
Take air, at 700c add steam, sprinkle iron dust, aluminum dust or molten aluminum, add carbon. then rapidly compress the result is I am still picking out little pieces of metal sparks, out of my left leg not bad though.
Compressing the air causes overheating of the compounds leading to a steam steel reaction releasing energy the resulting hydrogen and Iron Oxide with carbon releases more energy and ignites some aluminum causing expanding shock waves.
But Chainsaw, the only air that would be near 700C would be on the fire/impact floors.
Since the collapse STARTED at those floors, the collapse rate would not have been fast enough to create any serious over-pressure.
By the time the collapse rate really picks up speed, near the lower floors, you aren't dealing with 700C air anymore or for that matter iron dust or aluminum dust.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 31 2007, 04:44 PM)
But Chainsaw, the only air that would be near 700C would be on the fire/impact floors.
Since the collapse STARTED at those floors, the collapse rate would not have been fast enough to create any serious over-pressure.
By the time the collapse rate really picks up speed, near the lower floors, you aren't dealing with 700C air anymore or for that matter iron dust or aluminum dust.
Arthur
That is what I thought Until I realized that rapid decent would cause heating of carbons and more rapid oxidation of said carbons.
Nist reports the debris at 700-800c when it falls into the rubble pile, it would pick up heat not lose it in the collapses from friction, and faster oxidation and any compression of air would not only intensify the heat, but combustion as well.
As little as 130c compressed sufficiently would cause the reaction of steel and steam by giving heat up to the steel and super heating the H2O, into vapor phase.
Plus steel dust is easy to ignite in air very easy because of increased surface area.
In the early collapse the event would be small but would increase though out the duration of the collapses, until the gravitational energy needed to collapse the air was expended.
Steel dust is just the trigger, carbon, aluminum, and hydrogen are the main reactants.
The main steel dust though would come from the floor pans and the wire in the concrete much of which was never found.
The closer you get to the end of the collapse the more added thermal energy you have.
Since the collapse STARTED at those floors, the collapse rate would not have been fast enough to create any serious over-pressure.
By the time the collapse rate really picks up speed, near the lower floors, you aren't dealing with 700C air anymore or for that matter iron dust or aluminum dust.
Arthur
That is what I thought Until I realized that rapid decent would cause heating of carbons and more rapid oxidation of said carbons.
Nist reports the debris at 700-800c when it falls into the rubble pile, it would pick up heat not lose it in the collapses from friction, and faster oxidation and any compression of air would not only intensify the heat, but combustion as well.
As little as 130c compressed sufficiently would cause the reaction of steel and steam by giving heat up to the steel and super heating the H2O, into vapor phase.
Plus steel dust is easy to ignite in air very easy because of increased surface area.
In the early collapse the event would be small but would increase though out the duration of the collapses, until the gravitational energy needed to collapse the air was expended.
Steel dust is just the trigger, carbon, aluminum, and hydrogen are the main reactants.
The main steel dust though would come from the floor pans and the wire in the concrete much of which was never found.
The closer you get to the end of the collapse the more added thermal energy you have.
Regarding motion data from video - I've had some for a while now, but only in pixels. The video from einsteen's link is the best so far by quite a margin. It's pretty easy to measure floor height. The problem is that there is a significant difference between the scaling of horizontal and vertical, indicating the video has been resampled without preserving the aspect ratio OR my methods suck. Either way, it's not acceptable.
The copy has undergone, as a minimum, dump from device to PC, conversion to DivX (from the watermark) then to AVI, with a likely resize thrown in somewhere for 'good measure'. There are compression blocks (DivX is nice but it does let you slaughter the image quality if desired).
I trust the pixel data as being accurate manual digitization of the apparent vertical motion of a small feature through the image plane (with all the cautionary principles of interpretation implied). I can also accept that resampling does not automatically invalidate the picture for motion analysis. However, the notion that I'm too cheap, lazy, or stupid to get my hands on commercially available footage to analyze does not sit well with me so I will be buying at least one DVD in the hopes that the original dump of the video has been faithfully reproduced.
No units of meters from internet videos.
The copy has undergone, as a minimum, dump from device to PC, conversion to DivX (from the watermark) then to AVI, with a likely resize thrown in somewhere for 'good measure'. There are compression blocks (DivX is nice but it does let you slaughter the image quality if desired).
I trust the pixel data as being accurate manual digitization of the apparent vertical motion of a small feature through the image plane (with all the cautionary principles of interpretation implied). I can also accept that resampling does not automatically invalidate the picture for motion analysis. However, the notion that I'm too cheap, lazy, or stupid to get my hands on commercially available footage to analyze does not sit well with me so I will be buying at least one DVD in the hopes that the original dump of the video has been faithfully reproduced.
No units of meters from internet videos.
QUOTE (adoucette+Aug 31 2007, 04:44 PM)
But Chainsaw, the only air that would be near 700C would be on the fire/impact floors.
Since the collapse STARTED at those floors, the collapse rate would not have been fast enough to create any serious over-pressure.
By the time the collapse rate really picks up speed, near the lower floors, you aren't dealing with 700C air anymore or for that matter iron dust or aluminum dust.
Arthur
Aurthor I just did a sculpture for an expert in ceramic engineering, he refered me to some interesting aspects of coal wastes tailings being used to heat up refractories, by inducing heated sand particles to cause the normally in combustible coal wastes to combust. Simular effect can occur with heated particles in the collapses and the unburned carbons in the buildings.
Since the carbon black would be converted directily by the reaction into Co1-Co2 there would be no smoke just heat.
http://www.power.alstom.com/_eLibrary/pres...pload_51284.pdf
Since the collapse STARTED at those floors, the collapse rate would not have been fast enough to create any serious over-pressure.
By the time the collapse rate really picks up speed, near the lower floors, you aren't dealing with 700C air anymore or for that matter iron dust or aluminum dust.
Arthur
Aurthor I just did a sculpture for an expert in ceramic engineering, he refered me to some interesting aspects of coal wastes tailings being used to heat up refractories, by inducing heated sand particles to cause the normally in combustible coal wastes to combust. Simular effect can occur with heated particles in the collapses and the unburned carbons in the buildings.
Since the carbon black would be converted directily by the reaction into Co1-Co2 there would be no smoke just heat.
http://www.power.alstom.com/_eLibrary/pres...pload_51284.pdf
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Aug 31 2007, 06:11 PM)
Regarding motion data from video - I've had some for a while now, but only in pixels. The video from einsteen's link is the best so far by quite a margin. It's pretty easy to measure floor height. The problem is that there is a significant difference between the scaling of horizontal and vertical, indicating the video has been resampled without preserving the aspect ratio OR my methods suck. Either way, it's not acceptable.
The copy has undergone, as a minimum, dump from device to PC, conversion to DivX (from the watermark) then to AVI, with a likely resize thrown in somewhere for 'good measure'. There are compression blocks (DivX is nice but it does let you slaughter the image quality if desired).
I trust the pixel data as being accurate manual digitization of the apparent vertical motion of a small feature through the image plane (with all the cautionary principles of interpretation implied). I can also accept that resampling does not automatically invalidate the picture for motion analysis. However, the notion that I'm too cheap, lazy, or stupid to get my hands on commercially available footage to analyze does not sit well with me so I will be buying at least one DVD in the hopes that the original dump of the video has been faithfully reproduced.
No units of meters from internet videos.
the window width is published by NIST. as well as the width of perimeter columns.
if i remember correctly, it is 22 inches for the windows.
just popping in. no time to research and hand you the data. sorry, but there's some bread crumbs, anyway.
incidentally, i was just discussing einsteen's first attempt at ATS, with his excellent .gif of the dark band on the antenna's descent.
remarkably linear, it is. looks more like a velocity than an acceleration or deceleration, and there is definitely no stutter, indicating a complete absence of momentum transfers in the "crush up/crush down" fantasy.
that post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=5805#
The copy has undergone, as a minimum, dump from device to PC, conversion to DivX (from the watermark) then to AVI, with a likely resize thrown in somewhere for 'good measure'. There are compression blocks (DivX is nice but it does let you slaughter the image quality if desired).
I trust the pixel data as being accurate manual digitization of the apparent vertical motion of a small feature through the image plane (with all the cautionary principles of interpretation implied). I can also accept that resampling does not automatically invalidate the picture for motion analysis. However, the notion that I'm too cheap, lazy, or stupid to get my hands on commercially available footage to analyze does not sit well with me so I will be buying at least one DVD in the hopes that the original dump of the video has been faithfully reproduced.
No units of meters from internet videos.
the window width is published by NIST. as well as the width of perimeter columns.
if i remember correctly, it is 22 inches for the windows.
just popping in. no time to research and hand you the data. sorry, but there's some bread crumbs, anyway.
incidentally, i was just discussing einsteen's first attempt at ATS, with his excellent .gif of the dark band on the antenna's descent.
remarkably linear, it is. looks more like a velocity than an acceleration or deceleration, and there is definitely no stutter, indicating a complete absence of momentum transfers in the "crush up/crush down" fantasy.
that post:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=5805#
Here a small filedump
http://91.121.24.223/911%20Body%20of%20Evi...%20and%20Video/
http://aldebaran.feld.cvut.cz/~xmyslik/.911/
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/vid/
http://www.911archive.info/video/
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/01/
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/
I always bulk download complete sites and then later sort out the videos. I see 'improbable collapse' is also on it, never seen that show. I disagree with the naming, the collapse was not improbable otherwise it wouldn't happen...
http://91.121.24.223/911%20Body%20of%20Evi...%20and%20Video/
http://aldebaran.feld.cvut.cz/~xmyslik/.911/
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/vid/
http://www.911archive.info/video/
http://cleveland.indymedia.org/uploads/2007/01/
http://911research.com/wtc/evidence/videos/docs/
I always bulk download complete sites and then later sort out the videos. I see 'improbable collapse' is also on it, never seen that show. I disagree with the naming, the collapse was not improbable otherwise it wouldn't happen...
Thanks, einsteen, that's a goldmine!
QUOTE (newton+Aug 31 2007, 01:13 PM)
... indicating a complete absence of momentum transfers ...
There you go again, changing the laws of physics...
There you go again, changing the laws of physics...
QUOTE (newton+Aug 31 2007, 08:13 PM)
the window width is published by NIST. as well as the width of perimeter columns.
if i remember correctly, it is 22 inches for the windows.
just popping in. no time to research and hand you the data. sorry, but there's some bread crumbs, anyway.
Crumbs gratefully consumed.
For vertical, I measure a number of floors by the equidistant horizontal lines that run the face of the building, as they are the only distinguishing horizontal feature that can be reliably measured. So, I assume those are floors and I set them equal to 3.7m.
To get horizontal scaling, I measure the entire width of the wall facing the camera in the video and set that number of pixels equal to a wall width of 207' 2", somewhat taking into account the bevel as best as possible.
In the video, the ratio of the number of horizontal pixels subtended by the walls is greater than 40, meaning that the camera is looking almost directly at that face. However, the disagreement between horizontal and vertical scaling is around 15% and that seemed a bit much for perspective distortions.
By way of comparison, I did the same procedure on one of the hi-res still photos from the Aman Zafar collection. In this case, the view is such that you are looking at a corner with a better view of one wall than the other. The ratio of wall areas in this case is only 1.9. Measuring on the larger face, I obtained a disagreement of 19% for horizontal and vertical, only slightly larger than the video.
The video should not have roughly the same distortion as the still picture, but it does.
if i remember correctly, it is 22 inches for the windows.
just popping in. no time to research and hand you the data. sorry, but there's some bread crumbs, anyway.
Crumbs gratefully consumed.
For vertical, I measure a number of floors by the equidistant horizontal lines that run the face of the building, as they are the only distinguishing horizontal feature that can be reliably measured. So, I assume those are floors and I set them equal to 3.7m.
To get horizontal scaling, I measure the entire width of the wall facing the camera in the video and set that number of pixels equal to a wall width of 207' 2", somewhat taking into account the bevel as best as possible.
In the video, the ratio of the number of horizontal pixels subtended by the walls is greater than 40, meaning that the camera is looking almost directly at that face. However, the disagreement between horizontal and vertical scaling is around 15% and that seemed a bit much for perspective distortions.
By way of comparison, I did the same procedure on one of the hi-res still photos from the Aman Zafar collection. In this case, the view is such that you are looking at a corner with a better view of one wall than the other. The ratio of wall areas in this case is only 1.9. Measuring on the larger face, I obtained a disagreement of 19% for horizontal and vertical, only slightly larger than the video.
The video should not have roughly the same distortion as the still picture, but it does.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 31 2007, 09:04 PM)
There you go again, changing the laws of physics...
well, colour me pink.
i think an absolute absence of stutter indicates that nothing was smashing into anything else, floorwise.
i don't think it is only me who thinks impacts should cause velocity changes.
newton would agree.
QUOTE (t0m+Sep 1 2007, 02:04 AM)
Just a quick question regarding the molten orange flow seen, possilbilities of thermate, and results from some samples of debris from the towers, showing signatures indicating accelerants.
This is one of the things that Chainsaw and myself have been discussing - the fact that you have Water vapour, Sulfates (Which an be coverted into sulfides) Duralumin (which is mostly aluminium) and Iron sitting around, all mooshed in together, exposed to sustained temps of 600-800 °C and peak gas temps of something like 1000-1200 °C, with burning PVC which is known to produce HCl.
And what are the ingredients of Thermite?
Aluminium - we've got that in the air craft wreckage.
Iron Oxide - We can make that by exposing the iron we have in the building to air and heating it.
The ingredients of Thermate:
Aluminium - We've got that from the aircraft wreckage.
Iron Oxide - We can make that by exposing the iron we have in the building to air and heating it.
Sulfur - We can make Sulfides (just as effective) by involving the Sulfate from the gypsum in the walls.
So there's nothing in those spheres that were found that can't be accounted for by taking into account the composition of the plane, the building, and perhaps the people within them.
And it could also be expected that if we've got these ingredients 'sitting around' together in an energetic environment, then people are going to find things that look like evidence of thermite/thermate. But it all comes down to the interpretation.
This is one of the things that Chainsaw and myself have been discussing - the fact that you have Water vapour, Sulfates (Which an be coverted into sulfides) Duralumin (which is mostly aluminium) and Iron sitting around, all mooshed in together, exposed to sustained temps of 600-800 °C and peak gas temps of something like 1000-1200 °C, with burning PVC which is known to produce HCl.
And what are the ingredients of Thermite?
Aluminium - we've got that in the air craft wreckage.
Iron Oxide - We can make that by exposing the iron we have in the building to air and heating it.
The ingredients of Thermate:
Aluminium - We've got that from the aircraft wreckage.
Iron Oxide - We can make that by exposing the iron we have in the building to air and heating it.
Sulfur - We can make Sulfides (just as effective) by involving the Sulfate from the gypsum in the walls.
So there's nothing in those spheres that were found that can't be accounted for by taking into account the composition of the plane, the building, and perhaps the people within them.
And it could also be expected that if we've got these ingredients 'sitting around' together in an energetic environment, then people are going to find things that look like evidence of thermite/thermate. But it all comes down to the interpretation.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Sep 1 2007, 07:00 AM)
Aurthor I just did a sculpture for an expert in ceramic engineering, he refered me to some interesting aspects of coal wastes tailings being used to heat up refractories, by inducing heated sand particles to cause the normally in combustible coal wastes to combust. Simular effect can occur with heated particles in the collapses and the unburned carbons in the buildings.
Since the carbon black would be converted directily by the reaction into Co1-Co2 there would be no smoke just heat.
http://www.power.alstom.com/_eLibrary/pres...pload_51284.pdf
Here's something that I don't know if you were aware of or not, but...
Carbon Monoxide has a UN hazard code of 2.1 - which means it's considered a flamable substance.
It has a HMIS Flammibility rating of 4 (0-4, 0= Stable, materials don't burn unless heated, and 4 is Severe hazad, very flamable).
It also has an HMIS reactivity hazard rating of 3 (0-4, 0= Minimal hazard, materils normally stable even under fire conditions, no reactivity towards water; 4=Severe hazard materials that are readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition at STP) 3 is defined as "Serious hazard materials that are readily capable of detonation or explosive reaction but require a strong initiating source or must be heated under confinement before initiation; or materials that react explosively with water. "
The explosion limits of Carbon Monoxide are 12.5% - 74% by volume in air, and it's autoignition temperature is 620°C.
Under it's saftey phrases (and elsewhere) it requires basically the same saftey precautions as handling LPG.
Since the carbon black would be converted directily by the reaction into Co1-Co2 there would be no smoke just heat.
http://www.power.alstom.com/_eLibrary/pres...pload_51284.pdf
Here's something that I don't know if you were aware of or not, but...
Carbon Monoxide has a UN hazard code of 2.1 - which means it's considered a flamable substance.
It has a HMIS Flammibility rating of 4 (0-4, 0= Stable, materials don't burn unless heated, and 4 is Severe hazad, very flamable).
It also has an HMIS reactivity hazard rating of 3 (0-4, 0= Minimal hazard, materils normally stable even under fire conditions, no reactivity towards water; 4=Severe hazard materials that are readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition at STP) 3 is defined as "Serious hazard materials that are readily capable of detonation or explosive reaction but require a strong initiating source or must be heated under confinement before initiation; or materials that react explosively with water. "
The explosion limits of Carbon Monoxide are 12.5% - 74% by volume in air, and it's autoignition temperature is 620°C.
Under it's saftey phrases (and elsewhere) it requires basically the same saftey precautions as handling LPG.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 31 2007, 03:32 PM)
well, colour me pink.
i think ...
How about cherry red with embarrassment?
Nope.
And you haven't been paying attention either.
Greening's model is a simplification.
B & V use homogenization, so no distinct floors.
This is justified by the tilt of the top block, as I have posted regarding many times.
i think ...
How about cherry red with embarrassment?
Nope.
And you haven't been paying attention either.
Greening's model is a simplification.
B & V use homogenization, so no distinct floors.
This is justified by the tilt of the top block, as I have posted regarding many times.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 31 2007, 11:38 PM)
How about cherry red with embarrassment?
Nope.
And you haven't been paying attention either.
Greening's model is a simplification.
B & V use homogenization, so no distinct floors.
This is justified by the tilt of the top block, as I have posted regarding many times.
well, all that math is lovely, but, real world momentum transfers require velocity changes, or incredibly delicately balanced systems(like a house of cards).
enjoy your make believe world.
the actual curve shown by the video is linear.
Nope.
And you haven't been paying attention either.
Greening's model is a simplification.
B & V use homogenization, so no distinct floors.
This is justified by the tilt of the top block, as I have posted regarding many times.
well, all that math is lovely, but, real world momentum transfers require velocity changes, or incredibly delicately balanced systems(like a house of cards).
enjoy your make believe world.
the actual curve shown by the video is linear.
QUOTE (newton+Sep 1 2007, 01:12 PM)
well, all that math is lovely, but, real world momentum transfers require velocity changes, or incredibly delicately balanced systems(like a house of cards).
enjoy your make believe world.
the actual curve shown by the video is linear.
You seem to be assuming that the top stories fell as a coherent block, and that the visible falling roof corresponds to the falling floors.
If the floors fell before the roof (which has been stated repeatedly as what happened) then there would have been no stepwise resistance for the falling block that represents th visible collapse of the roof to encounter, therefore, no logical reason that stuttering should occur.
Enjoy your imaginary world, and take care of your imaginary friends.
enjoy your make believe world.
the actual curve shown by the video is linear.
You seem to be assuming that the top stories fell as a coherent block, and that the visible falling roof corresponds to the falling floors.
If the floors fell before the roof (which has been stated repeatedly as what happened) then there would have been no stepwise resistance for the falling block that represents th visible collapse of the roof to encounter, therefore, no logical reason that stuttering should occur.
Enjoy your imaginary world, and take care of your imaginary friends.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Aug 31 2007, 05:17 PM)
Crumbs gratefully consumed.
The window width though is probably not what you can see/measure.
The columns had aluminum covers, the windows were recessed a bit behind it.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 fig 6-3 pg 159 to see what these aluminum covers would look like in relation to the columns
The SAFE scale measurement is the columns were all the same width and spaced 40" on center.
Arthur
The window width though is probably not what you can see/measure.
The columns had aluminum covers, the windows were recessed a bit behind it.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 fig 6-3 pg 159 to see what these aluminum covers would look like in relation to the columns
The SAFE scale measurement is the columns were all the same width and spaced 40" on center.
Arthur
Thanks, adoucette. It's always helpful to get info without having to search, I appreciate that. Anything you have on antenna dimensions (length is 360' I understand, I know nothing else) would be greatly appreciated.
Indeed. How frigging STUPID are you?
The core columns didn't fail simultaneously. Each was under sufficient load to compress it about a foot. When unloaded (by fracture above), that column, now unloaded, would shoot skyward at enormous speeds, trying to take the attached floors along with it. That would've flexed the floors, and concrete doesn't flex well, it tends to pulverize. As each core column failed in-turn, it'd send pulverized concrete into the air, as dust.
In general, whenever one of the floor trusses would fail under load, the reaction force of the failed sections would pulverize the concrete nearest the point of failure.
There were a lot of trusses that failed, each creating concrete dust.
It would be nice if the real genuine video is available and we are not restricted to crap-in crap-out, I think the rotation (of the vid itself) is not really a problem because the correction factor cancels out (that is also the case when counting stories). One should also add error margins, I'm not sure how to determine the error in time, a frame ? It would be small, in the vertical direction it would be a pixel (or maybe two in the case of a difference between two values), an empirical value always has an error margin, but for theoretical calculations one could use the most favourable one as input.
There are two terms that are being applied loosely here. "Footprint" can strictly be misapplied to mean the 208'-square that the building(s) each occupied, with everything that ends up one inch outside the perimeter being counted as "falling outside the footprint". I think we should discount any statement that relies on such strict misapplication as being misleading.
The other term is "falling", as when something loose falls straight down, it generally lands on top of a pile of similar stuff that's already fallen before it. It being loose, it tends to establish a conical pile, with rubble landing on top sliding off to the side of the pile as sand falls in an hourglass. Sand ending up outside the "footprint" of the narrow aperture connecting the two globes of the hourglass isn't indicative of how the sand either fell or landed. The sand falls straight down, and lands directly beneath the aperture, then slides down the talus slope to the point where it stops flowing.
The rubble of the WTC towers did likewise. Attempting to draw inferences from where the rubble ended up while ignoring how it got there is a pointless effort.
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Elangford/wtc/01121617m.jpg
The columns on the left are core columns, on the right and to the rear are the outer wall. The thick rubble in between is what's left of the compacted floors. Cleanup was well under way when this was taken.
Grumpy
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 1 2007, 03:11 AM)
The window width though is probably not what you can see/measure.
In a video it seems the only way to get horizontal scale is measure the width of the entire face. There is a great deal of antialiasing compounded by the projection's deviations from pixel space axes. Features that are of a meter or less are difficult to place precisely but if you measure many of them (looks like einsteen did 17 floors; I did 10 and 18 floors and our scale factors are very close) the small error in placing the endpoints is transformed away by averaging. Measuring the width of the wall does the same thing for horizontal.
Since there is an average of about 0.85 degree deviation from vertical and a 1.33 degree deviation from horizontal in the measurable regions, the need to do all the trig to adjust for perspective is not so strong. The projection onto the orthogonal pixel axes is within 0.1% accuracy of a rotationally corrected length in both dimensions (small angles for this video), so I feel pretty comfortable ignoring the correction.
Generally, with these small angles, one does not really care about the horizontal dimension at all when making vertical measurements. I did a sanity check, however, and found a pretty huge discrepancy between horizontal and vertical on this video. This is not expected.
So I just want to get the best video possible. I already have time and position points in seconds and meters from this one video but they're not defensible. einsteen has posted his un-scaled data and I see we have very good agreement on position from about 4 pixels in deflection until the end. Our means of digitization was a little different. I'm comparing results but I'd say that einsteen has effectively already posted the data for the antenna in (frames, pixels) and the scale factors as well.
In a video it seems the only way to get horizontal scale is measure the width of the entire face. There is a great deal of antialiasing compounded by the projection's deviations from pixel space axes. Features that are of a meter or less are difficult to place precisely but if you measure many of them (looks like einsteen did 17 floors; I did 10 and 18 floors and our scale factors are very close) the small error in placing the endpoints is transformed away by averaging. Measuring the width of the wall does the same thing for horizontal.
Since there is an average of about 0.85 degree deviation from vertical and a 1.33 degree deviation from horizontal in the measurable regions, the need to do all the trig to adjust for perspective is not so strong. The projection onto the orthogonal pixel axes is within 0.1% accuracy of a rotationally corrected length in both dimensions (small angles for this video), so I feel pretty comfortable ignoring the correction.
Generally, with these small angles, one does not really care about the horizontal dimension at all when making vertical measurements. I did a sanity check, however, and found a pretty huge discrepancy between horizontal and vertical on this video. This is not expected.
So I just want to get the best video possible. I already have time and position points in seconds and meters from this one video but they're not defensible. einsteen has posted his un-scaled data and I see we have very good agreement on position from about 4 pixels in deflection until the end. Our means of digitization was a little different. I'm comparing results but I'd say that einsteen has effectively already posted the data for the antenna in (frames, pixels) and the scale factors as well.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 31 2007, 06:12 PM)
the actual curve shown by the video is linear.
Poster einsteen's curve is mostly certainly not linear.
Have you had your eyes checked recently?
Poster einsteen's curve is mostly certainly not linear.
Have you had your eyes checked recently?
This is what concrete looks like failing in COMPRESSION:
http://www.ce.ufl.edu/activities/cdrom/civil/concrete.html
IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html
The dust shown is NOT fine enough to cause death from LUNG SILICOSIS in neither dogs nor humans!
The dust shown is NOT a fine powder because in order for COMPRESSION forces to create fine powders the surface area across which the forces must be applied has to be less than 100 microns apart.
Why do you think they DO NOT turn wheat kernels into flour by cheaply COMPRESSING them, and instead they expensively MILL them?
Well duh it is because you cannot create any appreciable amount of fine powder because you must trap it between two hard surfaces that are smooth to within the particle size of the powder that you want!
THIS IS A PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUD:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html
The dust shown did NOT blow up in the air into a pyroclastic cloud high up in the air nor did it rain down out in a mushroom cone area around the testing machine.
Before the introduction of EXPLOSIVES it was IMPOSSIBLE to create a dust cloud from INTACT material in one step yet alone a pyroclastic one!
You had to first break it up and grind it into dust, then drop a heavy weight into a collected pile, even they the dust could not rise ABOVE the point where the weight was dropped.
Since we all KNOW for a FACT that less than 100 micron sized silicon powder rained down for blocks around the site, and we KNOW for a FACT that the COMPRESSION forces in the environment of a tower could not have created it, we must determine what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could have done it, right?
But what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could be available in the environment of a tower that could create that fine powder in mere seconds?
MILLING, ABRADING, GRINDING, POLISHING, RUBBING, ERODING are out because they take more than seconds and require that all the WTC floor concrete be trapped within 100 microns between two hard surfaces, which is silly to even consider.
By process of elimination EXPLODING is the the only MECHANICAL PROCESS left!
To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!
The official lie is IMPOSSIBLE according to the LAWS OF MATERIAL SCIENCE, and only because people are so ignorant of those laws, could the evil men and women in the US government get away with this false flag attack which killed thousands of US citizens!
It is easy to "believe" the official LIE story if you "believe" that wheat flour mills use CHEAP PRESSES and in only SECONDS make flour dust clouds rain that down around the presses!
Sorry, but wheat flour mills use EXPENSIVE MILLS and it takes MINUTES to make flour, because wheat just like any other MATERIAL cannot be made into a fine powder in SECONDS, without EXPLOSIVES!
Concrete at the top of the Grand Canyon has WAY MORE potential energy than the concrete at the top of a WTC tower, so if the "official lie" were true we would be able to drop concrete off the rim and throw some debris on top of it, and we would be able to create a less than 100 micron sized pyroclastic dust cloud that would give people at the bottom breathing it SILICOSIS!
How frigging STUPID do you have to be to believe such nonsense!
http://www.ce.ufl.edu/activities/cdrom/civil/concrete.html
IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html
The dust shown is NOT fine enough to cause death from LUNG SILICOSIS in neither dogs nor humans!
The dust shown is NOT a fine powder because in order for COMPRESSION forces to create fine powders the surface area across which the forces must be applied has to be less than 100 microns apart.
Why do you think they DO NOT turn wheat kernels into flour by cheaply COMPRESSING them, and instead they expensively MILL them?
Well duh it is because you cannot create any appreciable amount of fine powder because you must trap it between two hard surfaces that are smooth to within the particle size of the powder that you want!
THIS IS A PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUD:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html
The dust shown did NOT blow up in the air into a pyroclastic cloud high up in the air nor did it rain down out in a mushroom cone area around the testing machine.
Before the introduction of EXPLOSIVES it was IMPOSSIBLE to create a dust cloud from INTACT material in one step yet alone a pyroclastic one!
You had to first break it up and grind it into dust, then drop a heavy weight into a collected pile, even they the dust could not rise ABOVE the point where the weight was dropped.
Since we all KNOW for a FACT that less than 100 micron sized silicon powder rained down for blocks around the site, and we KNOW for a FACT that the COMPRESSION forces in the environment of a tower could not have created it, we must determine what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could have done it, right?
But what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could be available in the environment of a tower that could create that fine powder in mere seconds?
MILLING, ABRADING, GRINDING, POLISHING, RUBBING, ERODING are out because they take more than seconds and require that all the WTC floor concrete be trapped within 100 microns between two hard surfaces, which is silly to even consider.
By process of elimination EXPLODING is the the only MECHANICAL PROCESS left!
To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!
The official lie is IMPOSSIBLE according to the LAWS OF MATERIAL SCIENCE, and only because people are so ignorant of those laws, could the evil men and women in the US government get away with this false flag attack which killed thousands of US citizens!
It is easy to "believe" the official LIE story if you "believe" that wheat flour mills use CHEAP PRESSES and in only SECONDS make flour dust clouds rain that down around the presses!
Sorry, but wheat flour mills use EXPENSIVE MILLS and it takes MINUTES to make flour, because wheat just like any other MATERIAL cannot be made into a fine powder in SECONDS, without EXPLOSIVES!
Concrete at the top of the Grand Canyon has WAY MORE potential energy than the concrete at the top of a WTC tower, so if the "official lie" were true we would be able to drop concrete off the rim and throw some debris on top of it, and we would be able to create a less than 100 micron sized pyroclastic dust cloud that would give people at the bottom breathing it SILICOSIS!
How frigging STUPID do you have to be to believe such nonsense!
QUOTE (criticalthinker+Sep 3 2007, 12:03 AM)
This is what concrete looks like failing in COMPRESSION:
http://www.ce.ufl.edu/activities/cdrom/civil/concrete.html
IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html
The dust shown is NOT fine enough to cause death from LUNG SILICOSIS in neither dogs nor humans!
The dust shown is NOT a fine powder because in order for COMPRESSION forces to create fine powders the surface area across which the forces must be applied has to be less than 100 microns apart.
Why do you think they DO NOT turn wheat kernels into flour by cheaply COMPRESSING them, and instead they expensively MILL them?
Well duh it is because you cannot create any appreciable amount of fine powder because you must trap it between two hard surfaces that are smooth to within the particle size of the powder that you want!
THIS IS A PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUD:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html
The dust shown did NOT blow up in the air into a pyroclastic cloud high up in the air nor did it rain down out in a mushroom cone area around the testing machine.
Before the introduction of EXPLOSIVES it was IMPOSSIBLE to create a dust cloud from INTACT material in one step yet alone a pyroclastic one!
You had to first break it up and grind it into dust, then drop a heavy weight into a collected pile, even they the dust could not rise ABOVE the point where the weight was dropped.
Since we all KNOW for a FACT that less than 100 micron sized silicon powder rained down for blocks around the site, and we KNOW for a FACT that the COMPRESSION forces in the environment of a tower could not have created it, we must determine what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could have done it, right?
But what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could be available in the environment of a tower that could create that fine powder in mere seconds?
MILLING, ABRADING, GRINDING, POLISHING, RUBBING, ERODING are out because they take more than seconds and require that all the WTC floor concrete be trapped within 100 microns between two hard surfaces, which is silly to even consider.
By process of elimination EXPLODING is the the only MECHANICAL PROCESS left!
To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!
The official lie is IMPOSSIBLE according to the LAWS OF MATERIAL SCIENCE, and only because people are so ignorant of those laws, could the evil men and women in the US government get away with this false flag attack which killed thousands of US citizens!
It is easy to "believe" the official LIE story if you "believe" that wheat flour mills use CHEAP PRESSES and in only SECONDS make flour dust clouds rain that down around the presses!
Sorry, but wheat flour mills use EXPENSIVE MILLS and it takes MINUTES to make flour, because wheat just like any other MATERIAL cannot be made into a fine powder in SECONDS, without EXPLOSIVES!
Concrete at the top of the Grand Canyon has WAY MORE potential energy than the concrete at the top of a WTC tower, so if the "official lie" were true we would be able to drop concrete off the rim and throw some debris on top of it, and we would be able to create a less than 100 micron sized pyroclastic dust cloud that would give people at the bottom breathing it SILICOSIS!
How frigging STUPID do you have to be to believe such nonsense!
Did you include the added energy in the collapses do to Adiabatic process in the collapses?
Causing ignition of previously unignited materials in explosive reactions as the compressed air releases heat?
The more rapid the collapse the more pronounced the Adiabatic effects and the resulting reactions and high temperatures they create will be.
http://www.ce.ufl.edu/activities/cdrom/civil/concrete.html
IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html
The dust shown is NOT fine enough to cause death from LUNG SILICOSIS in neither dogs nor humans!
The dust shown is NOT a fine powder because in order for COMPRESSION forces to create fine powders the surface area across which the forces must be applied has to be less than 100 microns apart.
Why do you think they DO NOT turn wheat kernels into flour by cheaply COMPRESSING them, and instead they expensively MILL them?
Well duh it is because you cannot create any appreciable amount of fine powder because you must trap it between two hard surfaces that are smooth to within the particle size of the powder that you want!
THIS IS A PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUD:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html
The dust shown did NOT blow up in the air into a pyroclastic cloud high up in the air nor did it rain down out in a mushroom cone area around the testing machine.
Before the introduction of EXPLOSIVES it was IMPOSSIBLE to create a dust cloud from INTACT material in one step yet alone a pyroclastic one!
You had to first break it up and grind it into dust, then drop a heavy weight into a collected pile, even they the dust could not rise ABOVE the point where the weight was dropped.
Since we all KNOW for a FACT that less than 100 micron sized silicon powder rained down for blocks around the site, and we KNOW for a FACT that the COMPRESSION forces in the environment of a tower could not have created it, we must determine what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could have done it, right?
But what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could be available in the environment of a tower that could create that fine powder in mere seconds?
MILLING, ABRADING, GRINDING, POLISHING, RUBBING, ERODING are out because they take more than seconds and require that all the WTC floor concrete be trapped within 100 microns between two hard surfaces, which is silly to even consider.
By process of elimination EXPLODING is the the only MECHANICAL PROCESS left!
To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!
The official lie is IMPOSSIBLE according to the LAWS OF MATERIAL SCIENCE, and only because people are so ignorant of those laws, could the evil men and women in the US government get away with this false flag attack which killed thousands of US citizens!
It is easy to "believe" the official LIE story if you "believe" that wheat flour mills use CHEAP PRESSES and in only SECONDS make flour dust clouds rain that down around the presses!
Sorry, but wheat flour mills use EXPENSIVE MILLS and it takes MINUTES to make flour, because wheat just like any other MATERIAL cannot be made into a fine powder in SECONDS, without EXPLOSIVES!
Concrete at the top of the Grand Canyon has WAY MORE potential energy than the concrete at the top of a WTC tower, so if the "official lie" were true we would be able to drop concrete off the rim and throw some debris on top of it, and we would be able to create a less than 100 micron sized pyroclastic dust cloud that would give people at the bottom breathing it SILICOSIS!
How frigging STUPID do you have to be to believe such nonsense!
Did you include the added energy in the collapses do to Adiabatic process in the collapses?
Causing ignition of previously unignited materials in explosive reactions as the compressed air releases heat?
The more rapid the collapse the more pronounced the Adiabatic effects and the resulting reactions and high temperatures they create will be.
QUOTE (criticalthinker+Sep 2 2007, 05:03 PM)
... The dust shown ...
NEU-FONZE has several times posted regarding to papers which show that explosives are about the worst way of doing comminution.
In the case of the towers, see the Baznat/Le/Greening/Benson preprint, available on Professor Bazant's web site, for a science=based exposition of the concrete comminution.
You are seriously misled and mal-informed I fear...
NEU-FONZE has several times posted regarding to papers which show that explosives are about the worst way of doing comminution.
In the case of the towers, see the Baznat/Le/Greening/Benson preprint, available on Professor Bazant's web site, for a science=based exposition of the concrete comminution.
You are seriously misled and mal-informed I fear...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 3 2007, 01:45 AM)
NEU-FONZE has several times posted regarding to papers which show that explosives are about the worst way of doing comminution.
In the case of the towers, see the Baznat/Le/Greening/Benson preprint, available on Professor Bazant's web site, for a science=based exposition of the concrete comminution.
You are seriously misled and mal-informed I fear...
Absolutely DBB. heat will break down concrete better than about anything else.
Explosives actually spread and reduce heat buildup in the concrete.
Heat from fiction and compression works nicely, as well as heat from chemical reactions.
The combined energies in the collapses works quite well at destroying the concrete and creating the debris cloud.
In the case of the towers, see the Baznat/Le/Greening/Benson preprint, available on Professor Bazant's web site, for a science=based exposition of the concrete comminution.
You are seriously misled and mal-informed I fear...
Absolutely DBB. heat will break down concrete better than about anything else.
Explosives actually spread and reduce heat buildup in the concrete.
Heat from fiction and compression works nicely, as well as heat from chemical reactions.
The combined energies in the collapses works quite well at destroying the concrete and creating the debris cloud.
QUOTE (criticalthinker+Sep 2 2007, 08:03 PM)
This is what concrete looks like failing in COMPRESSION:
http://www.ce.ufl.edu/activities/cdrom/civil/concrete.html
IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html
The dust shown is NOT fine enough to cause death from LUNG SILICOSIS in neither dogs nor humans!
The dust shown is NOT a fine powder because in order for COMPRESSION forces to create fine powders the surface area across which the forces must be applied has to be less than 100 microns apart.
Why do you think they DO NOT turn wheat kernels into flour by cheaply COMPRESSING them, and instead they expensively MILL them?
Well duh it is because you cannot create any appreciable amount of fine powder because you must trap it between two hard surfaces that are smooth to within the particle size of the powder that you want!
THIS IS A PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUD:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html
The dust shown did NOT blow up in the air into a pyroclastic cloud high up in the air nor did it rain down out in a mushroom cone area around the testing machine.
Before the introduction of EXPLOSIVES it was IMPOSSIBLE to create a dust cloud from INTACT material in one step yet alone a pyroclastic one!
You had to first break it up and grind it into dust, then drop a heavy weight into a collected pile, even they the dust could not rise ABOVE the point where the weight was dropped.
Since we all KNOW for a FACT that less than 100 micron sized silicon powder rained down for blocks around the site, and we KNOW for a FACT that the COMPRESSION forces in the environment of a tower could not have created it, we must determine what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could have done it, right?
But what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could be available in the environment of a tower that could create that fine powder in mere seconds?
MILLING, ABRADING, GRINDING, POLISHING, RUBBING, ERODING are out because they take more than seconds and require that all the WTC floor concrete be trapped within 100 microns between two hard surfaces, which is silly to even consider.
By process of elimination EXPLODING is the the only MECHANICAL PROCESS left!
To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!
The official lie is IMPOSSIBLE according to the LAWS OF MATERIAL SCIENCE, and only because people are so ignorant of those laws, could the evil men and women in the US government get away with this false flag attack which killed thousands of US citizens!
It is easy to "believe" the official LIE story if you "believe" that wheat flour mills use CHEAP PRESSES and in only SECONDS make flour dust clouds rain that down around the presses!
Sorry, but wheat flour mills use EXPENSIVE MILLS and it takes MINUTES to make flour, because wheat just like any other MATERIAL cannot be made into a fine powder in SECONDS, without EXPLOSIVES!
Concrete at the top of the Grand Canyon has WAY MORE potential energy than the concrete at the top of a WTC tower, so if the "official lie" were true we would be able to drop concrete off the rim and throw some debris on top of it, and we would be able to create a less than 100 micron sized pyroclastic dust cloud that would give people at the bottom breathing it SILICOSIS!
How frigging STUPID do you have to be to believe such nonsense!
This BS about a pyroclastic flow has been discussed previously on this thread and clearly shown to be false.
There were THOUSANDS of people engulfed by both clouds.
There were NO EXAMPLES of PEOPLE burned to death by said pyroclastic cloud.
There were PLENTY of flamable materials in the debris cloud which did not ignite.
The Debris cloud was only a SMALL portion of the building.
The Debris cloud was NOT hot.
The Debris cloud was mainly GYPSUM dust.
If you PERSIST in spreading these lies then you CLEARLY are NOT a Critical Thinker.
Arthur
http://www.ce.ufl.edu/activities/cdrom/civil/concrete.html
IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THIS:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...s/streets1.html
The dust shown is NOT fine enough to cause death from LUNG SILICOSIS in neither dogs nor humans!
The dust shown is NOT a fine powder because in order for COMPRESSION forces to create fine powders the surface area across which the forces must be applied has to be less than 100 microns apart.
Why do you think they DO NOT turn wheat kernels into flour by cheaply COMPRESSING them, and instead they expensively MILL them?
Well duh it is because you cannot create any appreciable amount of fine powder because you must trap it between two hard surfaces that are smooth to within the particle size of the powder that you want!
THIS IS A PYROCLASTIC DUST CLOUD:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p.../wtc2dust1.html
The dust shown did NOT blow up in the air into a pyroclastic cloud high up in the air nor did it rain down out in a mushroom cone area around the testing machine.
Before the introduction of EXPLOSIVES it was IMPOSSIBLE to create a dust cloud from INTACT material in one step yet alone a pyroclastic one!
You had to first break it up and grind it into dust, then drop a heavy weight into a collected pile, even they the dust could not rise ABOVE the point where the weight was dropped.
Since we all KNOW for a FACT that less than 100 micron sized silicon powder rained down for blocks around the site, and we KNOW for a FACT that the COMPRESSION forces in the environment of a tower could not have created it, we must determine what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could have done it, right?
But what other MECHANICAL PROCESS could be available in the environment of a tower that could create that fine powder in mere seconds?
MILLING, ABRADING, GRINDING, POLISHING, RUBBING, ERODING are out because they take more than seconds and require that all the WTC floor concrete be trapped within 100 microns between two hard surfaces, which is silly to even consider.
By process of elimination EXPLODING is the the only MECHANICAL PROCESS left!
To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!
The official lie is IMPOSSIBLE according to the LAWS OF MATERIAL SCIENCE, and only because people are so ignorant of those laws, could the evil men and women in the US government get away with this false flag attack which killed thousands of US citizens!
It is easy to "believe" the official LIE story if you "believe" that wheat flour mills use CHEAP PRESSES and in only SECONDS make flour dust clouds rain that down around the presses!
Sorry, but wheat flour mills use EXPENSIVE MILLS and it takes MINUTES to make flour, because wheat just like any other MATERIAL cannot be made into a fine powder in SECONDS, without EXPLOSIVES!
Concrete at the top of the Grand Canyon has WAY MORE potential energy than the concrete at the top of a WTC tower, so if the "official lie" were true we would be able to drop concrete off the rim and throw some debris on top of it, and we would be able to create a less than 100 micron sized pyroclastic dust cloud that would give people at the bottom breathing it SILICOSIS!
How frigging STUPID do you have to be to believe such nonsense!
This BS about a pyroclastic flow has been discussed previously on this thread and clearly shown to be false.
There were THOUSANDS of people engulfed by both clouds.
There were NO EXAMPLES of PEOPLE burned to death by said pyroclastic cloud.
There were PLENTY of flamable materials in the debris cloud which did not ignite.
The Debris cloud was only a SMALL portion of the building.
The Debris cloud was NOT hot.
The Debris cloud was mainly GYPSUM dust.
If you PERSIST in spreading these lies then you CLEARLY are NOT a Critical Thinker.
Arthur
QUOTE
How frigging STUPID do you have to be to believe such nonsense!
Indeed. How frigging STUPID are you?
The core columns didn't fail simultaneously. Each was under sufficient load to compress it about a foot. When unloaded (by fracture above), that column, now unloaded, would shoot skyward at enormous speeds, trying to take the attached floors along with it. That would've flexed the floors, and concrete doesn't flex well, it tends to pulverize. As each core column failed in-turn, it'd send pulverized concrete into the air, as dust.
In general, whenever one of the floor trusses would fail under load, the reaction force of the failed sections would pulverize the concrete nearest the point of failure.
There were a lot of trusses that failed, each creating concrete dust.
The curve is of course not linear in the beginning that would even be physically impossible (to be more precise a non-differentiable sawtooth kind of function), but probably Newton means that it looks linear after a while, that would be suspicious of course. The problem is that it is near impossible to determine the real x(t) function because the ejected debris covers the view, in a perfect pancaking it could be measured. There are however a few wtc2 movies in which some camera people/firemen run away, I think I have two of them. Maybe a few points could be obtained from that movie but as far as I remember they are cropped in time and the initial fall cannot be determined, then another movie which shows the initial fall should be synchronized with that movie, that could maybe be done when looking at some unique smoke/debris patterns.
About the initial curve: if the aspect ratio is modified we don't have to worry of course, also not if the movie is rotated, the framerate is a bigger problem but 29.97 looks like a genuine NTSC framerate. The acceleration can be written in terms of h, the distance between the floors, in the picture of the building that can easily be determined, I believe it was 14 or 15 pixels.
About the initial curve: if the aspect ratio is modified we don't have to worry of course, also not if the movie is rotated, the framerate is a bigger problem but 29.97 looks like a genuine NTSC framerate. The acceleration can be written in terms of h, the distance between the floors, in the picture of the building that can easily be determined, I believe it was 14 or 15 pixels.
Criticalthinker:
I must disagree with your ideas about the pulverization of concrete during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. The concrete does NOT need to be compressed to a gap of 100 microns in order to be commuted to 100 micron particles as you suggest.
We are dealing with the destruction of concrete by IMPACT. This is quite different to the slow compression of concrete shown in the video you posted.
The impact strength of concrete and other brittle materials such as rocks, minerals, glass and ceramics, may be determined by a number of techniques:
· The Drop Hammer: See for example: B. P. Hughes, “Concrete Subjected to High Rates of Loading in Compression.” Magazine of Concrete Research 24, 25, (1972) and P. H. Bischoff et al. “Impact Behavior of Plain Concrete Loaded in Uniaxial Compression.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121, 685, (1995)
· The Ballistic Pendulum: See for example: H. Green, “Impact Strength of Concrete.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 28, 383, (1964) and B. P. Hughes et al. “The Impact Strength of Concrete Using Green’s Ballistic Pendulum.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 41, 731, (1968).
· The Split Hopkinson Bar: See for example: B. Lundberg “A Split Hopkinson Bar Study of Energy Absorption in Dynamic Rock Fragmentation.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 13, 187, (1976) and C. A. Ross et al. “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression.” ACI Materials Journal 86, 475, (1989).
These techniques show that concrete is indeed pulverized differently by impact
than by slow compression because of the effects of dynamic loading.
I must disagree with your ideas about the pulverization of concrete during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. The concrete does NOT need to be compressed to a gap of 100 microns in order to be commuted to 100 micron particles as you suggest.
We are dealing with the destruction of concrete by IMPACT. This is quite different to the slow compression of concrete shown in the video you posted.
The impact strength of concrete and other brittle materials such as rocks, minerals, glass and ceramics, may be determined by a number of techniques:
· The Drop Hammer: See for example: B. P. Hughes, “Concrete Subjected to High Rates of Loading in Compression.” Magazine of Concrete Research 24, 25, (1972) and P. H. Bischoff et al. “Impact Behavior of Plain Concrete Loaded in Uniaxial Compression.” Journal of Engineering Mechanics 121, 685, (1995)
· The Ballistic Pendulum: See for example: H. Green, “Impact Strength of Concrete.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 28, 383, (1964) and B. P. Hughes et al. “The Impact Strength of Concrete Using Green’s Ballistic Pendulum.” Proceedings of the Inst. of Civil Engineers 41, 731, (1968).
· The Split Hopkinson Bar: See for example: B. Lundberg “A Split Hopkinson Bar Study of Energy Absorption in Dynamic Rock Fragmentation.” International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mineral Science 13, 187, (1976) and C. A. Ross et al. “Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar Tests on Concrete and Mortar in Tension and Compression.” ACI Materials Journal 86, 475, (1989).
These techniques show that concrete is indeed pulverized differently by impact
than by slow compression because of the effects of dynamic loading.
They shut down my thread on the Mass and Potential Energy in WTC1 so I am continuing it here. I have rewritten my paper after discussion with people at JREF, the STJ911 forum and a little here. I am interested in comments before I submit it. The new paper is here.
Significant changes from my original paper (published as a letter) at Journal of 9/11 Studies are:
- Better sourcing and detailed description of motivations.
- Scaling of core column steel mass based on NIST' SAP2000 model data.
- Separate scaling of both external column and spandrel steel mass.
- Floor types taken into account (partial beam, half floors, no floors etc.)
- Empty space in core taken into account
- Hat truss and antenna added
- Columns below floor 9 handled separately including bifurcation columns
- Steel floor support in sublevels
- Handling of SDLs and SLLs more in line with NIST and original design documents
- Comparison to other buildings
- Comparison to NIST's SAP2000 model data.
- Comparison to amount of debris removed from ground zero.
Regarding water tanks:
The architectural drawings give no indication of water tanks on the roof of WTC1. There are however water tanks on the mechanical floors 108-110 if I remember correctly. I'll check up on this. The mechanical floors had SDLs of 75 psf for mechanical equipment (I assume this would include the water tanks) throughout which is equivalent to approx 1575 tons whereas 200,000 gallons of water is a little more than 800 tons. I'm pretty sure there were water tanks throughout the building.
Significant changes from my original paper (published as a letter) at Journal of 9/11 Studies are:
- Better sourcing and detailed description of motivations.
- Scaling of core column steel mass based on NIST' SAP2000 model data.
- Separate scaling of both external column and spandrel steel mass.
- Floor types taken into account (partial beam, half floors, no floors etc.)
- Empty space in core taken into account
- Hat truss and antenna added
- Columns below floor 9 handled separately including bifurcation columns
- Steel floor support in sublevels
- Handling of SDLs and SLLs more in line with NIST and original design documents
- Comparison to other buildings
- Comparison to NIST's SAP2000 model data.
- Comparison to amount of debris removed from ground zero.
Regarding water tanks:
The architectural drawings give no indication of water tanks on the roof of WTC1. There are however water tanks on the mechanical floors 108-110 if I remember correctly. I'll check up on this. The mechanical floors had SDLs of 75 psf for mechanical equipment (I assume this would include the water tanks) throughout which is equivalent to approx 1575 tons whereas 200,000 gallons of water is a little more than 800 tons. I'm pretty sure there were water tanks throughout the building.
criticalthinker
It appears you think an appreciable fraction of the concrete in those towers was "dustified"(to use the CTer's term). It was not, over 90% of the concrete was found in the subbasement area in chunks, not dust. Every impact of the concrete creates dust in small amounts(huge numbers, little total mass), pebbles in greater amount(as a fraction of mass), boulders in a smaller amount(as numbers, not as mass) and slabs(again less in numbers, greater as a fraction of the mass), this is the size distribution of impact commutation. The small size of the dust means air resistance will carry it further and for a longer period, meaning the concrete that fell outside the footprint was mostly the fine dust, with the finest particles being carried the furthest distance. SOME(a very small amount) of that dust was 100 micron or less. ANY of that fine dust can cause Silicosis, and since it is the easiest to be carried by the air, it tends to be what is breathed into the lungs, concentrating it there. Most of the dust was much larger, did not get carried in the air, and was not breathed in.
Explosives are very poor at commutation of concrete, tending to cracking and spalling and creating very little dust.
Grumpy
QUOTE
To believe the official lie means believing that EVERY square inch of concrete in a tower got trapped between two hard surfaces less than 100 microns apart, yet "magically" that same concrete got untrapped to be thrown up in the air as pyroclastic clouds!
It appears you think an appreciable fraction of the concrete in those towers was "dustified"(to use the CTer's term). It was not, over 90% of the concrete was found in the subbasement area in chunks, not dust. Every impact of the concrete creates dust in small amounts(huge numbers, little total mass), pebbles in greater amount(as a fraction of mass), boulders in a smaller amount(as numbers, not as mass) and slabs(again less in numbers, greater as a fraction of the mass), this is the size distribution of impact commutation. The small size of the dust means air resistance will carry it further and for a longer period, meaning the concrete that fell outside the footprint was mostly the fine dust, with the finest particles being carried the furthest distance. SOME(a very small amount) of that dust was 100 micron or less. ANY of that fine dust can cause Silicosis, and since it is the easiest to be carried by the air, it tends to be what is breathed into the lungs, concentrating it there. Most of the dust was much larger, did not get carried in the air, and was not breathed in.
Explosives are very poor at commutation of concrete, tending to cracking and spalling and creating very little dust.
Grumpy
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 3 2007, 10:46 AM)
About the initial curve: if the aspect ratio is modified we don't have to worry of course, also not if the movie is rotated, the framerate is a bigger problem but 29.97 looks like a genuine NTSC framerate. The acceleration can be written in terms of h, the distance between the floors, in the picture of the building that can easily be determined, I believe it was 14 or 15 pixels.
No argument - at least for manual digitization. That's why I do have numbers for myself.
I realized after putting the word 'indefensible' in a previous post, I was unintentionally painting your data posts with that brush. What I mean is that it is defensible by lengthy technical explanation but the chances of getting anyone to listen is about nil when they can sweep it all aside with something like "you obtained this data from a 3rd generation video off the internet?" even if it's not fair.
Data can be used to confirm or refute, it can be inapplicable or ignored, or it can be invalidated. It's the last I'm trying to avoid.
Our numbers agree quite well and they should, despite the differences in procedure. Since you've posted this set in pixels with scale factors, I've nothing to add concerning this video at this level of detail, except maybe multiple measurements.
The projection in this video is the closest to orthographic as I've seen or could reasonably expect. If ever there was a video in which one could be justified in using a single value (instead of a 2-D field of values) to scale vertically across large position ranges, this is it.
Unfortunately, the apparent change of aspect ratio requires correction to be employed for subpixel changes. Maybe not so for a better copy, where I can do all of the work in one place.
No argument - at least for manual digitization. That's why I do have numbers for myself.
I realized after putting the word 'indefensible' in a previous post, I was unintentionally painting your data posts with that brush. What I mean is that it is defensible by lengthy technical explanation but the chances of getting anyone to listen is about nil when they can sweep it all aside with something like "you obtained this data from a 3rd generation video off the internet?" even if it's not fair.
Data can be used to confirm or refute, it can be inapplicable or ignored, or it can be invalidated. It's the last I'm trying to avoid.
Our numbers agree quite well and they should, despite the differences in procedure. Since you've posted this set in pixels with scale factors, I've nothing to add concerning this video at this level of detail, except maybe multiple measurements.
The projection in this video is the closest to orthographic as I've seen or could reasonably expect. If ever there was a video in which one could be justified in using a single value (instead of a 2-D field of values) to scale vertically across large position ranges, this is it.
Unfortunately, the apparent change of aspect ratio requires correction to be employed for subpixel changes. Maybe not so for a better copy, where I can do all of the work in one place.
Yeah, I did the scaling back from pixels to x(t) (meters and seconds, normal units 
) using this vbscript sample (on the bmp2gif'ed text file containing ...x..... etc)
Do While open.AtEndOfStream <> True
tpix=tpix+1
t=tpix/29.97
line = open.ReadLine
xPos=Instr(line,"x")-1
x=17*3.8*xPos/245
ascii.WriteLine("["+Cstr(t)+","+Cstr(x)+"],")
Loop
) using this vbscript sample (on the bmp2gif'ed text file containing ...x..... etc)CODE
Do While open.AtEndOfStream <> True
tpix=tpix+1
t=tpix/29.97
line = open.ReadLine
xPos=Instr(line,"x")-1
x=17*3.8*xPos/245
ascii.WriteLine("["+Cstr(t)+","+Cstr(x)+"],")
Loop
It would be nice if the real genuine video is available and we are not restricted to crap-in crap-out, I think the rotation (of the vid itself) is not really a problem because the correction factor cancels out (that is also the case when counting stories). One should also add error margins, I'm not sure how to determine the error in time, a frame ? It would be small, in the vertical direction it would be a pixel (or maybe two in the case of a difference between two values), an empirical value always has an error margin, but for theoretical calculations one could use the most favourable one as input.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 3 2007, 04:18 PM)
It appears you think an appreciable fraction of the concrete in those towers was "dustified"(to use the CTer's term). It was not, over 90% of the concrete was found in the subbasement area in chunks, not dust.
Grumpy
[removed]
Grumpy
[removed]
Hambone--I was wondering what is the purpose of determining the mass of the towers?
QUOTE (occidental+Sep 3 2007, 11:18 PM)
Hambone--I was wondering what is the purpose of determining the mass of the towers?
May I suggest reading the introduction?
May I suggest reading the introduction?
Yes, I read your introduction. Please allow me to be more specific and rephrase my question.
I understand your stated purpose, "The purpose of this paper is to establish a substantiated mass, mass distribution and potential energy in World Trade Center Tower 1 (north tower) within a reasonable margin of error."
I also understand this statement "To be valid, further analyses and models must be based on the correct mass and mass distribution throughout the building."
My question is, to what end? What is it you are trying to prove by figuring the mass of the building?
I understand your stated purpose, "The purpose of this paper is to establish a substantiated mass, mass distribution and potential energy in World Trade Center Tower 1 (north tower) within a reasonable margin of error."
I also understand this statement "To be valid, further analyses and models must be based on the correct mass and mass distribution throughout the building."
My question is, to what end? What is it you are trying to prove by figuring the mass of the building?
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 3 2007, 04:18 PM)
criticalthinker
It appears you think an appreciable fraction of the concrete in those towers was "dustified"(to use the CTer's term). It was not, over 90% of the concrete was found in the subbasement area in chunks, not dust.
Grumpy
for some reason, my on topic comment was removed.
i will rephrase it, then, in hopes that it may stand.
please substantiate this comment about over 90% of the concrete being in the basement. do you have a reference to this alleged fact?
'dustified' is not a CTer term, it is only used by judy woods' 'camp' of investigators.
however, in a live broadcast i referenced earlier, the narrator states that the roiling dust cloud that comes speeding out over the street consist of tiny particles of concrete, steel, marble and all the hardest components of the tower.
dustified is not a bad choice of words, in my opinion.
It appears you think an appreciable fraction of the concrete in those towers was "dustified"(to use the CTer's term). It was not, over 90% of the concrete was found in the subbasement area in chunks, not dust.
Grumpy
for some reason, my on topic comment was removed.
i will rephrase it, then, in hopes that it may stand.
please substantiate this comment about over 90% of the concrete being in the basement. do you have a reference to this alleged fact?
'dustified' is not a CTer term, it is only used by judy woods' 'camp' of investigators.
however, in a live broadcast i referenced earlier, the narrator states that the roiling dust cloud that comes speeding out over the street consist of tiny particles of concrete, steel, marble and all the hardest components of the tower.
dustified is not a bad choice of words, in my opinion.
newton
And this narrator knew the chemical composition of that cloud of dust how??? Did he have a mass spectrometer in one eye so he could tell by just looking what was in the dust???I don't think so, so whatever he said was his uninformed guess.
Sure, there was dust, but the vast majority of the concrete(over 600,000 tons) was removed from the basement areas of the towers during cleanup. It was stratified into layers representing the floors of the buildings. A sample "meteor" cam be seen in the samples NIST still keeps in a Hangar at JFK. The "troother" claim that the buildings just turned into dust is pure BS.
Grumpy
QUOTE
however, in a live broadcast i referenced earlier, the narrator states that the roiling dust cloud that comes speeding out over the street consist of tiny particles of concrete, steel, marble and all the hardest components of the tower.
dustified is not a bad choice of words, in my opinion.
dustified is not a bad choice of words, in my opinion.
And this narrator knew the chemical composition of that cloud of dust how??? Did he have a mass spectrometer in one eye so he could tell by just looking what was in the dust???I don't think so, so whatever he said was his uninformed guess.
Sure, there was dust, but the vast majority of the concrete(over 600,000 tons) was removed from the basement areas of the towers during cleanup. It was stratified into layers representing the floors of the buildings. A sample "meteor" cam be seen in the samples NIST still keeps in a Hangar at JFK. The "troother" claim that the buildings just turned into dust is pure BS.
Grumpy
Brent Blanchard of Protec said in his 'report' that the towers didn't fall into its footprint. He said 95% fell away from the footprint. How should we interpret these numbers ? A desperate remedy to debunk the 'into its footprint' argument ?
QUOTE (newton+Sep 4 2007, 10:42 AM)
for some reason, my on topic comment was removed.
i will rephrase it, then, in hopes that it may stand.
please substantiate this comment about over 90% of the concrete being in the basement. do you have a reference to this alleged fact?
'dustified' is not a CTer term, it is only used by judy woods' 'camp' of investigators.
however, in a live broadcast i referenced earlier, the narrator states that the roiling dust cloud that comes speeding out over the street consist of tiny particles of concrete, steel, marble and all the hardest components of the tower.
dustified is not a bad choice of words, in my opinion.
Actually the best numbers I've seen were just recently published by Hambone.
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/MassAndPeWtc1.pdf
See Section 4.3.
Seems that most of the debris is pretty well accounted for by what was removed from Ground Zero.
Since I've seen NO pictures of large scale operations of collecting DUST from the surrounding streets, it would seem that the 90% number is probably on the LOW side.
Grumpy's post didn't say basement, it said "basement areas", there is a difference.
Arthur
i will rephrase it, then, in hopes that it may stand.
please substantiate this comment about over 90% of the concrete being in the basement. do you have a reference to this alleged fact?
'dustified' is not a CTer term, it is only used by judy woods' 'camp' of investigators.
however, in a live broadcast i referenced earlier, the narrator states that the roiling dust cloud that comes speeding out over the street consist of tiny particles of concrete, steel, marble and all the hardest components of the tower.
dustified is not a bad choice of words, in my opinion.
Actually the best numbers I've seen were just recently published by Hambone.
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/MassAndPeWtc1.pdf
See Section 4.3.
Seems that most of the debris is pretty well accounted for by what was removed from Ground Zero.
Since I've seen NO pictures of large scale operations of collecting DUST from the surrounding streets, it would seem that the 90% number is probably on the LOW side.
Grumpy's post didn't say basement, it said "basement areas", there is a difference.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 4 2007, 11:53 AM)
Brent Blanchard of Protec said in his 'report' that the towers didn't fall into its footprint. He said 95% fell away from the footprint. How should we interpret these numbers ? A desperate remedy to debunk the 'into its footprint' argument ?
No, it was CTidiots who incessently claimed that it was "proof" of CD that the towers "fell into their footprint".
Blanchard simply pointed out that the WTC tower collapses were not reasonably contained like Controlled Demolitons are.
The walls of the towers splayed out in all directions, damaging MANY other buildings.
Again, not at all like a CD.
Arthur
No, it was CTidiots who incessently claimed that it was "proof" of CD that the towers "fell into their footprint".
Blanchard simply pointed out that the WTC tower collapses were not reasonably contained like Controlled Demolitons are.
The walls of the towers splayed out in all directions, damaging MANY other buildings.
Again, not at all like a CD.
Arthur
QUOTE
Brent Blanchard of Protec said in his 'report' that the towers didn't fall into its footprint. He said 95% fell away from the footprint. How should we interpret these numbers ?
There are two terms that are being applied loosely here. "Footprint" can strictly be misapplied to mean the 208'-square that the building(s) each occupied, with everything that ends up one inch outside the perimeter being counted as "falling outside the footprint". I think we should discount any statement that relies on such strict misapplication as being misleading.
The other term is "falling", as when something loose falls straight down, it generally lands on top of a pile of similar stuff that's already fallen before it. It being loose, it tends to establish a conical pile, with rubble landing on top sliding off to the side of the pile as sand falls in an hourglass. Sand ending up outside the "footprint" of the narrow aperture connecting the two globes of the hourglass isn't indicative of how the sand either fell or landed. The sand falls straight down, and lands directly beneath the aperture, then slides down the talus slope to the point where it stops flowing.
The rubble of the WTC towers did likewise. Attempting to draw inferences from where the rubble ended up while ignoring how it got there is a pointless effort.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 4 2007, 02:52 PM)
newton
And this narrator knew the chemical composition of that cloud of dust how??? Did he have a mass spectrometer in one eye so he could tell by just looking what was in the dust???I don't think so, so whatever he said was his uninformed guess.
Sure, there was dust, but the vast majority of the concrete(over 600,000 tons) was removed from the basement areas of the towers during cleanup. It was stratified into layers representing the floors of the buildings. A sample "meteor" cam be seen in the samples NIST still keeps in a Hangar at JFK. The "troother" claim that the buildings just turned into dust is pure BS.
Grumpy
once again, no reference. just a spurious claim about how much concrete was in the basement.
looking at the debris pile tells me that there is very little steel from the core there, and not concrete.
how can 'large chunks of concrete' fall straight down, while steel is spread in a BLAST RADIUS 1200 ft. across(not including the dust).
i present(again), 'handwaving' physics.
and for the first time, rockefeller admits it all to russo.
i assume the narrator on a major news broadcast didn't just pull it out his *hat*, as you are prone to do. talking heads just read what is put in front of them. someone else(ie. a professional journalist or two or three, and an editor) had to have done the legwork.
i have pointed out that there is slag in the 'meteor'. ie. solidified MOLTEN METAL/ROCK that is not in microsphere form.
yeah, i didn't see much dust, either. just thousands of tons of it. a dust cloud made up of "steel, concrete and marble" said the authoritative news report.
it turns out they could have included:
plastic
wood
people
glass
and on the less sensational end of the dustifiables: gypsum
And this narrator knew the chemical composition of that cloud of dust how??? Did he have a mass spectrometer in one eye so he could tell by just looking what was in the dust???I don't think so, so whatever he said was his uninformed guess.
Sure, there was dust, but the vast majority of the concrete(over 600,000 tons) was removed from the basement areas of the towers during cleanup. It was stratified into layers representing the floors of the buildings. A sample "meteor" cam be seen in the samples NIST still keeps in a Hangar at JFK. The "troother" claim that the buildings just turned into dust is pure BS.
Grumpy
once again, no reference. just a spurious claim about how much concrete was in the basement.
looking at the debris pile tells me that there is very little steel from the core there, and not concrete.
how can 'large chunks of concrete' fall straight down, while steel is spread in a BLAST RADIUS 1200 ft. across(not including the dust).
i present(again), 'handwaving' physics.
and for the first time, rockefeller admits it all to russo.
i assume the narrator on a major news broadcast didn't just pull it out his *hat*, as you are prone to do. talking heads just read what is put in front of them. someone else(ie. a professional journalist or two or three, and an editor) had to have done the legwork.
i have pointed out that there is slag in the 'meteor'. ie. solidified MOLTEN METAL/ROCK that is not in microsphere form.
yeah, i didn't see much dust, either. just thousands of tons of it. a dust cloud made up of "steel, concrete and marble" said the authoritative news report.
it turns out they could have included:
plastic
wood
people
glass
and on the less sensational end of the dustifiables: gypsum
If you look at wtc7's pile you see that all mass contributes and that is what I mean. Of course when the twin towers's collapsing mass hit the ground the pile in which it ends will probably fall outside the footprint, but I would like to see a picture of that stack in the basement, that should contain 110 floors. A bottom area of of 64 meter x 64 meter and a height of say 110 times 0.3 meter . This gives an aspect ratio of about 2:1, that will end up very nicely.
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 4 2007, 12:45 PM)
If you look at wtc7's pile you see that all mass contributes and that is what I mean. Of course when the twin towers's collapsing mass hit the ground the pile in which it ends will probably fall outside the footprint, but I would like to see a picture of that stack in the basement, that should contain 110 floors. A bottom area of of 64 meter x 64 meter and a height of say 110 times 0.3 meter . This gives an aspect ratio of about 2:1, that will end up very nicely.
Actually the debris pile is just about that height.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/wtc1-g-1.jpg
The midline of those Trident columns are 110 ft above the foundation.
Arthur
Actually the debris pile is just about that height.
http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f290/pjs501/wtc1-g-1.jpg
The midline of those Trident columns are 110 ft above the foundation.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Sep 4 2007, 12:37 PM)
i have pointed out that there is slag in the 'meteor'. ie. solidified MOLTEN METAL/ROCK that is not in microsphere form.
Its friggin amazing what passes for "evidence" to newton.
Arthur
Its friggin amazing what passes for "evidence" to newton.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Sep 4 2007, 08:53 AM)
He said 95% fell away from the footprint.
This is certainly true of the exterior wall panels. As for the remainder, the debris was in the near vicinity of the footprint, if not in it.
I view Blanchard's report as misleading one this one point.
This is certainly true of the exterior wall panels. As for the remainder, the debris was in the near vicinity of the footprint, if not in it.
I view Blanchard's report as misleading one this one point.
QUOTE (newton+Sep 4 2007, 12:37 PM)
i present(again), 'handwaving' physics.
And to second the response to the article:
As is typical of CT'ers, all talk, no PEER REVIEWED papers.
Arthur
And to second the response to the article:
QUOTE
Looks like you're doing a lot of hand waving yourself in this paragraph!
Certainly a man who's written 108 articles himself can write one more refuting the NIST report and publish it in a scientific journal, right?
Certainly a man who's written 108 articles himself can write one more refuting the NIST report and publish it in a scientific journal, right?
As is typical of CT'ers, all talk, no PEER REVIEWED papers.
Arthur
newton
There was NO slag in the meteor, but there was a lot of unburned paper, wood and carpet. No part of the meteor was molten, that is just a CT lie.
einstein
7 had no basement to fall into, it was built above a preexisting power station, therefore it's rubble pile was completely visible. Both towers had large underground areas below street level, even then the pile's top was visible, giving a total height of 90+ feet. The meteor kept by NIST was typical of the compacted debris, with three distinct floor pans visible.
Notice the unburned paper and carpet, this was what the basements were full of(the pancaking floors were compressed). Newton, see all the concrete??? The floor truss steel and pans??? The unburned paper??? Carpets???
This is what is called evidence, not the OPINION or GUESS or even the EXAGGERATION of some talking head news reader on TV. Just like those who said that loud noises sounded like explosions are not EVIDENCE of explosives being planted.
Geeze, we've been over and over this stuff, just how stupid can you be????
Grumpy
There was NO slag in the meteor, but there was a lot of unburned paper, wood and carpet. No part of the meteor was molten, that is just a CT lie.
einstein
QUOTE
If you look at wtc7's pile you see that all mass contributes and that is what I mean.
7 had no basement to fall into, it was built above a preexisting power station, therefore it's rubble pile was completely visible. Both towers had large underground areas below street level, even then the pile's top was visible, giving a total height of 90+ feet. The meteor kept by NIST was typical of the compacted debris, with three distinct floor pans visible.
Notice the unburned paper and carpet, this was what the basements were full of(the pancaking floors were compressed). Newton, see all the concrete??? The floor truss steel and pans??? The unburned paper??? Carpets???
This is what is called evidence, not the OPINION or GUESS or even the EXAGGERATION of some talking head news reader on TV. Just like those who said that loud noises sounded like explosions are not EVIDENCE of explosives being planted.
Geeze, we've been over and over this stuff, just how stupid can you be????
Grumpy
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Elangford/wtc/01121617m.jpg
The columns on the left are core columns, on the right and to the rear are the outer wall. The thick rubble in between is what's left of the compacted floors. Cleanup was well under way when this was taken.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 4 2007, 02:56 PM)
http://home.hiwaay.net/%7Elangford/wtc/01121617m.jpg
In the lower right corner there appear to be several sizable chucks of concrete.
In the lower right corner there appear to be several sizable chucks of concrete.
i love how pretenders of knowledge like to imagine that things like computers, desks, partitions, people, filing cabinets, reams of paper, etc. are NOT part of the debris pile, and have NO volume or mass.
NEXT!
NEXT!
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 4 2007, 07:15 PM)
This is certainly true of the exterior wall panels. As for the remainder, the debris was in the near vicinity of the footprint, if not in it.
I view Blanchard's report as misleading one this one point.
I view the Blanchard report as misleading also. It's hard to believe he meant 95% of the total mass. If he did, this is obviously wrong. I also think BLBG's 20% number is likely to be somewhat low. Nonetheless, the actual values is probably closer to the lower number.
I will be looking into the issue in more detail over the next few weeks.
I view Blanchard's report as misleading one this one point.
I view the Blanchard report as misleading also. It's hard to believe he meant 95% of the total mass. If he did, this is obviously wrong. I also think BLBG's 20% number is likely to be somewhat low. Nonetheless, the actual values is probably closer to the lower number.
I will be looking into the issue in more detail over the next few weeks.
QUOTE (occidental+Sep 4 2007, 06:27 AM)
Yes, I read your introduction. Please allow me to be more specific and rephrase my question.
I understand your stated purpose, "The purpose of this paper is to establish a substantiated mass, mass distribution and potential energy in World Trade Center Tower 1 (north tower) within a reasonable margin of error."
I also understand this statement "To be valid, further analyses and models must be based on the correct mass and mass distribution throughout the building."
My question is, to what end? What is it you are trying to prove by figuring the mass of the building?
I want support modeling the collapse based on a realistic mass. To date, we have no reliable models that fall down in 12 seconds using a realistic mass.
I understand your stated purpose, "The purpose of this paper is to establish a substantiated mass, mass distribution and potential energy in World Trade Center Tower 1 (north tower) within a reasonable margin of error."
I also understand this statement "To be valid, further analyses and models must be based on the correct mass and mass distribution throughout the building."
My question is, to what end? What is it you are trying to prove by figuring the mass of the building?
I want support modeling the collapse based on a realistic mass. To date, we have no reliable models that fall down in 12 seconds using a realistic mass.
QUOTE (Hambone+Sep 5 2007, 09:27 AM)
I want support modeling the collapse based on a realistic mass. To date, we have no reliable models that fall down in 12 seconds using a realistic mass.
The observed collapse duration is longer than initially estimated. Video of WTC2 from the ground level shows the front near the top of WTC3 at about the 12 second mark. A less massive tower and a significant amount of mass shedding (20% or more) help explain this. The total tower mass and E1 that Greening used with no shedding give too short a total collapse duration, although they yield an accurate collapse rate for the first 3 to 4 seconds of collapse.
It may be that the percentage of mass shedding increased as the collapse progressed as it became more difficult for all the accumulated mass at the collapse front to stay within the footprint. It's also possible that for WTC2 a significant amount of the upper block fell outside the footprint a few seconds into the collapse as a result of its tilt. Either of those scenarios could help explain the lengthy collapse durations.
The observed collapse duration is longer than initially estimated. Video of WTC2 from the ground level shows the front near the top of WTC3 at about the 12 second mark. A less massive tower and a significant amount of mass shedding (20% or more) help explain this. The total tower mass and E1 that Greening used with no shedding give too short a total collapse duration, although they yield an accurate collapse rate for the first 3 to 4 seconds of collapse.
It may be that the percentage of mass shedding increased as the collapse progressed as it became more difficult for all the accumulated mass at the collapse front to stay within the footprint. It's also possible that for WTC2 a significant amount of the upper block fell outside the footprint a few seconds into the collapse as a result of its tilt. Either of those scenarios could help explain the lengthy collapse durations.
QUOTE (shagster+Sep 5 2007, 12:21 PM)
The observed collapse duration is longer than initially estimated. Video of WTC2 from the ground level shows the front near the top of WTC3 at about the 12 second mark. A less massive tower and a significant amount of mass shedding (20% or more) help explain this. The total tower mass and E1 that Greening used with no shedding give too short a total collapse duration, although they yield an accurate collapse rate for the first 3 to 4 seconds of collapse.
It may be that the percentage of mass shedding increased as the collapse progressed as it became more difficult for all the accumulated mass at the collapse front to stay within the footprint. It's also possible that for WTC2 a significant amount of the upper block fell outside the footprint a few seconds into the collapse as a result of its tilt. Either of those scenarios could help explain the lengthy collapse durations.
Explosions in the late collapse phase-Air blasts do to Adiabatic heating would actually slow the collapse, by causing excessive shedding of mass leading to loss of speed from momentum transfer.
They also produce Sulfidication and Chlorination of steel structures by actually pressurizing the compounds though the oxide coatings.
Heat, and decomposition of concrete would be accelerated, as would air expansion effects, dust clouds. However the overall collapse rate would actually slow, because the main driving force in the collapse is gravity and momentum transfer.
I have been looking into if the core of the twin towers and the elevator shafts could act as a precombustion chamber the model is a Duel fuel Diesel-Gasoline internal precombustion cylinder.
What I have found is the core and elevator shafts Make great precombustion chambers injecting air and hot carbon-metal particles and reactants into collapsing air spaces.
I have abandoned the experiments because I can not find another Caterpillar D9D Dozer Cylinder to use as a containment vessel for the reaction in the smaller hydraulic cylinders that model the core.
Bomber I just ran out of junk to work with on this!
A compression ratio of 3.4 to 1 is enough to ignite the hot carbons in compressed air the carbon then being compressed ignite steel and other metal dusts which cause other reactions.
Moisture in compressed air is not compressible and is forced under oxide coatings in thin steel, when heated it reacts violently with the steel.
Steam is compressible, and loses heat to the environment However it still can provide a source of Oxygen for reactions.
The principals are sound just wish I could have done more work on it.
PS. The head truss did not smash down the core, on (WTC 2) as the core was seen in photos standing for seconds above the collapse front so the head truss had to be ejected to the side, that also would have slowed the collapses.
It may be that the percentage of mass shedding increased as the collapse progressed as it became more difficult for all the accumulated mass at the collapse front to stay within the footprint. It's also possible that for WTC2 a significant amount of the upper block fell outside the footprint a few seconds into the collapse as a result of its tilt. Either of those scenarios could help explain the lengthy collapse durations.
Explosions in the late collapse phase-Air blasts do to Adiabatic heating would actually slow the collapse, by causing excessive shedding of mass leading to loss of speed from momentum transfer.
They also produce Sulfidication and Chlorination of steel structures by actually pressurizing the compounds though the oxide coatings.
Heat, and decomposition of concrete would be accelerated, as would air expansion effects, dust clouds. However the overall collapse rate would actually slow, because the main driving force in the collapse is gravity and momentum transfer.
I have been looking into if the core of the twin towers and the elevator shafts could act as a precombustion chamber the model is a Duel fuel Diesel-Gasoline internal precombustion cylinder.
What I have found is the core and elevator shafts Make great precombustion chambers injecting air and hot carbon-metal particles and reactants into collapsing air spaces.
I have abandoned the experiments because I can not find another Caterpillar D9D Dozer Cylinder to use as a containment vessel for the reaction in the smaller hydraulic cylinders that model the core.
Bomber I just ran out of junk to work with on this!
A compression ratio of 3.4 to 1 is enough to ignite the hot carbons in compressed air the carbon then being compressed ignite steel and other metal dusts which cause other reactions.
Moisture in compressed air is not compressible and is forced under oxide coatings in thin steel, when heated it reacts violently with the steel.
Steam is compressible, and loses heat to the environment However it still can provide a source of Oxygen for reactions.
The principals are sound just wish I could have done more work on it.
PS. The head truss did not smash down the core, on (WTC 2) as the core was seen in photos standing for seconds above the collapse front so the head truss had to be ejected to the side, that also would have slowed the collapses.
QUOTE (shagster+Sep 5 2007, 12:21 PM)
The observed collapse duration is longer than initially estimated. Video of WTC2 from the ground level shows the front near the top of WTC3 at about the 12 second mark. A less massive tower and a significant amount of mass shedding (20% or more) help explain this. The total tower mass and E1 that Greening used with no shedding give too short a total collapse duration, although they yield an accurate collapse rate for the first 3 to 4 seconds of collapse.
It may be that the percentage of mass shedding increased as the collapse progressed as it became more difficult for all the accumulated mass at the collapse front to stay within the footprint. It's also possible that for WTC2 a significant amount of the upper block fell outside the footprint a few seconds into the collapse as a result of its tilt. Either of those scenarios could help explain the lengthy collapse durations.
Hi Shagster,
The top of WTC3 was 22 floors up...28 floors to go before hitting the bedrock. If the velocity at that point is maintained how much longer does it take to hit the bedrock? This doesn't seem to agree with the common interpretations of the seismic data. Any ideas on the discrepancy?
I also suspect the shedding increased as the collapse progressed.
It may be that the percentage of mass shedding increased as the collapse progressed as it became more difficult for all the accumulated mass at the collapse front to stay within the footprint. It's also possible that for WTC2 a significant amount of the upper block fell outside the footprint a few seconds into the collapse as a result of its tilt. Either of those scenarios could help explain the lengthy collapse durations.
Hi Shagster,
The top of WTC3 was 22 floors up...28 floors to go before hitting the bedrock. If the velocity at that point is maintained how much longer does it take to hit the bedrock? This doesn't seem to agree with the common interpretations of the seismic data. Any ideas on the discrepancy?
I also suspect the shedding increased as the collapse progressed.
QUOTE (Hambone+Sep 5 2007, 09:27 AM)
I want support modeling the collapse based on a realistic mass. To date, we have no reliable models that fall down in 12 seconds using a realistic mass.
If all E1=0 then the collapse time is totally independent on the mass, further in an equal mass/E1 per story the collapse time is only a function of the ratio E1/m. I ran maple some time ago and found that the collapse time could even become about 20 seconds if all mass is ejected when the block hits it. From video observation I would say that wtc2 took at least 15 seconds (the bulk of the collapsing mass) but I will later try to figure it out precisely. If the collapse takes more than the theoretical maximum then the model should also be wrong.
If all E1=0 then the collapse time is totally independent on the mass, further in an equal mass/E1 per story the collapse time is only a function of the ratio E1/m. I ran maple some time ago and found that the collapse time could even become about 20 seconds if all mass is ejected when the block hits it. From video observation I would say that wtc2 took at least 15 seconds (the bulk of the collapsing mass) but I will later try to figure it out precisely. If the collapse takes more than the theoretical maximum then the model should also be wrong.
QUOTE (Hambone+Sep 5 2007, 10:54 AM)
The top of WTC3 was 22 floors up...28 floors to go before hitting the bedrock.
Look at the pictures.
The collapse front never got within 100 ft of bedrock.
Arthur
Look at the pictures.
The collapse front never got within 100 ft of bedrock.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Sep 5 2007, 09:13 AM)
The collapse front never got within 100 ft of bedrock.
I assume that the bottom of the Bathtub had about 5 feet of concrete. So the collapse front reached about that elevation, with the crushed mass completely filling all 6 basement levels and about another 6--8 stories above that.
Regarding the collapse time for WTC 1. The best estimate is about 18 seconds for crush-up to complete.
I assume that the bottom of the Bathtub had about 5 feet of concrete. So the collapse front reached about that elevation, with the crushed mass completely filling all 6 basement levels and about another 6--8 stories above that.
Regarding the collapse time for WTC 1. The best estimate is about 18 seconds for crush-up to complete.
Correct,
That's what I was trying to point out, (but failed miserably), the compaction would have occurred while the collapse was still in progress, but the seismic coupling would have decreased as the height of the rubble pile increased.
Arthur
That's what I was trying to point out, (but failed miserably), the compaction would have occurred while the collapse was still in progress, but the seismic coupling would have decreased as the height of the rubble pile increased.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Sep 5 2007, 04:33 PM)
I assume that the bottom of the Bathtub had about 5 feet of concrete. So the collapse front reached about that elevation, with the crushed mass completely filling all 6 basement levels and about another 6--8 stories above that.
Regarding the collapse time for WTC 1. The best estimate is about 18 seconds for crush-up to complete.
Didn't you just put out a paper with Bazant and Greening giving the end of crush-down at around 12.7 seconds?
Regarding the collapse time for WTC 1. The best estimate is about 18 seconds for crush-up to complete.
Didn't you just put out a paper with Bazant and Greening giving the end of crush-down at around 12.7 seconds?
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.