A constant force is of course a useful approach to describe what we see, but not really what is happening during the collisions of the floors, but as long as the integral of the force equals E1 (as I proved with relatively simple math) the velocity change is exactly the same between that distance. Since the average resistive force in the beginning is only 1/3 of the static force and the integral equals E1 the peak force must be much higher in order to get the same area under the function.
QUOTE
What load profile does Seffen calculate? I haven't read the paper through, but I'd be willing to guess that he doesn't bother. If that's the case, that's not the best way to study an impact problem, now is it?
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
For a solution of 2 exactly equal rods impacting longitudinally (zero gravity ) , elastic regime, see Impact by Goldsmith. Interestingly, when they part company, they are undergoing no (intra-rod) longitudinal motion, at all.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
For a solution of 2 exactly equal rods impacting longitudinally (zero gravity ) , elastic regime, see Impact by Goldsmith. Interestingly, when they part company, they are undergoing no (intra-rod) longitudinal motion, at all.
In terms of studying the impacts of 9/11, longitudinal rods impacting coaxially is squarely in the "spherical chicken" realm. I can't think of a single instance where it would apply. Overstressed box-beams with large torques (for which they were never designed) coupled with high temperatures and multiple shock-loads, sure. But that puts the real-world model less in terms of spherical chickens and more in the realm of upside-down underwater helicopters.
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Nov 20 2007, 04:20 AM)
thanks for the article on the blackboxes, beijingyankee. I did say "allegedly" not found!
wcelliot
= = = = = = = = = =
All those echoes smear-out the 10 microsecond impulse into something that's low-enough frequency
for your ears to hear.
= = = = = = = = = =
FALSE:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...rb_spectral.gif
--- 88kHz sampling rate
--- 0.01 second burst of 30kHz sine wave with reverberation in a simulated church.
--- spectral distribution (Blackman-Harris, 4096 bands).
= = = = = = = = = =
I was PROGRAMMING sonogram software for IDENTIFYING small aircraft by their engine/prop-noises back in 1985. Were you even born yet?
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I also designed an acoustic phased-array aperture,
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I'm currently working on a DARPA program
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I'm mainly a "sensors and systems" guy,
and I've written software that does the "sonogram/spectrogram/voice-print" conversion
from time-based digital signals to spectrum-based signal processing,
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I've designed a digital signal processor that did acoustic "beamforming",
focussing (sic) sound from multiple sensors
to create a "virtual microphone" positioned anywhere in the environment (software selectable position),
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
and I've computer-modelled sound propagation through various environments.
= = = = = = = = = =
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...G/reverb_01.gif
= = = = = = = = = =
The N-shaped waveform that Trippy provided showed a vertical leading edge
= = = = = = = = = =
FALSE:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...infra-spike.gif
(0.49 Hz pulse, at low resolution on the time axis)
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...-pulse-zoom.gif
(0.49Hz, at high resolution on the time axis)
Trippys' 0.49Hz infrasonic triangular waveform at an intermediate resolution:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...9Hz_N-pulse.gif
The triangular waveform has a fundamental component (0.49Hz) and odd-numbered (N) harmonics (3rd/5th/7th, etc), which decrease rapidly in amplitude at the rate of 1/N[sup]2[/sup] (ref.)
Therefore,
the 3rd harmonic (1.47Hz) will be present at 1/9th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 5th harmonic (2.45Hz )will be present at 1/25th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 7th harmonic (3.43Hz) will be present at 1/49th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 9th harmonic (4.41Hz) will be present at 1/81th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 11th harmonic (5.39Hz) will be present at 1/144th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 13th harmonic (6.37Hz) will be present at 1/169th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 15th harmonic (7.35Hz) will be present at 1/225th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 17th harmonic (8.33Hz) will be present at 1/289th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 19th harmonic (9.31Hz) will be present at 1/361th the amplitude of the fundamental,
and so on into indiscriminable obscurity----in this case, before the lowest frequency in the human spectrum has been reached
( i.e., at the 41st harmonic (20.09Hz), being at 1/1681th the amplitude of the fundamental frequency).
Trippys' 0.49Hz infrasonic triangular waveform:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...-spect_tall.gif
Fast-Fourier-Transform Spectral Distribution
(16384 bands, Blackman-Harris window)
quod erat demonstrandum
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
chainsaw
==========
the relative propagation time of shock waves to piezoelectric sensors
==========
SHHHH! Don't let the "sensors and systems guy" see this - he might think that you need a MICROPHONE in order to record the pressure and duration of a blast. On the other hand, his multiple sensor-sound beamformed virtual microphone placed anywhere in the explosive environment (software selectable) might perform better than your quaint little crystal!
chainsaw
=============
All I was trying to point out is that it takes longer than AL claimed for a charge to ignite and burn and trigger the main charge.
=============
I made no claims about how long it takes to detonate a charge, or how long it takes for the entire mass of explosive to be consumed. I refrained from doing so because a chemical reaction is not a sound, and in much the same way that DC isn't.
Sound is a cascade of particle collisions (only 1.5kb!) propagating as a pattern of compressed and rarified regions in a medium ---- or something like that.
You are welcome K.
These octs are in total delusion. No molten metal found at the base of the three towers?
"Is that all you got?" says Dusheit.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my great uncle.
One of the first to ride a motorcycle, a courier during WWI, survivor of the Battle of Verdun, with many decorations from the U.S. and France, he told me a story... He was escorting German prisoners to the rear when a German officer pulled out a derringer and shot the commanding lieutenant in the arse. The lieutenant responded by pulling out his Colt 45 and after putting a round between the eyes of the German with the derringer, he limped away for medical attention while giving orders for my uncle to inspect the body. My uncle approached the body and looking down said to himself, "is that all you got?"
The German had one drop of blood between his eyes. Using his bayonet, he lifted the body over and discovered the complete back of his head was gone.
My uncle was a great man. I will never forget his story of "is that all you got?"
wcelliot
= = = = = = = = = =
All those echoes smear-out the 10 microsecond impulse into something that's low-enough frequency
for your ears to hear.
= = = = = = = = = =
FALSE:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...rb_spectral.gif
--- 88kHz sampling rate
--- 0.01 second burst of 30kHz sine wave with reverberation in a simulated church.
--- spectral distribution (Blackman-Harris, 4096 bands).
= = = = = = = = = =
I was PROGRAMMING sonogram software for IDENTIFYING small aircraft by their engine/prop-noises back in 1985. Were you even born yet?
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I also designed an acoustic phased-array aperture,
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I'm currently working on a DARPA program
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I'm mainly a "sensors and systems" guy,
and I've written software that does the "sonogram/spectrogram/voice-print" conversion
from time-based digital signals to spectrum-based signal processing,
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
I've designed a digital signal processor that did acoustic "beamforming",
focussing (sic) sound from multiple sensors
to create a "virtual microphone" positioned anywhere in the environment (software selectable position),
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = = = =
and I've computer-modelled sound propagation through various environments.
= = = = = = = = = =
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...G/reverb_01.gif
= = = = = = = = = =
The N-shaped waveform that Trippy provided showed a vertical leading edge
= = = = = = = = = =
FALSE:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...infra-spike.gif
(0.49 Hz pulse, at low resolution on the time axis)
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...-pulse-zoom.gif
(0.49Hz, at high resolution on the time axis)
Trippys' 0.49Hz infrasonic triangular waveform at an intermediate resolution:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...9Hz_N-pulse.gif
The triangular waveform has a fundamental component (0.49Hz) and odd-numbered (N) harmonics (3rd/5th/7th, etc), which decrease rapidly in amplitude at the rate of 1/N[sup]2[/sup] (ref.)
Therefore,
the 3rd harmonic (1.47Hz) will be present at 1/9th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 5th harmonic (2.45Hz )will be present at 1/25th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 7th harmonic (3.43Hz) will be present at 1/49th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 9th harmonic (4.41Hz) will be present at 1/81th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 11th harmonic (5.39Hz) will be present at 1/144th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 13th harmonic (6.37Hz) will be present at 1/169th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 15th harmonic (7.35Hz) will be present at 1/225th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 17th harmonic (8.33Hz) will be present at 1/289th the amplitude of the fundamental,
the 19th harmonic (9.31Hz) will be present at 1/361th the amplitude of the fundamental,
and so on into indiscriminable obscurity----in this case, before the lowest frequency in the human spectrum has been reached
( i.e., at the 41st harmonic (20.09Hz), being at 1/1681th the amplitude of the fundamental frequency).
Trippys' 0.49Hz infrasonic triangular waveform:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...-spect_tall.gif
Fast-Fourier-Transform Spectral Distribution
(16384 bands, Blackman-Harris window)
quod erat demonstrandum
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
chainsaw
==========
the relative propagation time of shock waves to piezoelectric sensors
==========
SHHHH! Don't let the "sensors and systems guy" see this - he might think that you need a MICROPHONE in order to record the pressure and duration of a blast. On the other hand, his multiple sensor-sound beamformed virtual microphone placed anywhere in the explosive environment (software selectable) might perform better than your quaint little crystal!
chainsaw
=============
All I was trying to point out is that it takes longer than AL claimed for a charge to ignite and burn and trigger the main charge.
=============
I made no claims about how long it takes to detonate a charge, or how long it takes for the entire mass of explosive to be consumed. I refrained from doing so because a chemical reaction is not a sound, and in much the same way that DC isn't.
Sound is a cascade of particle collisions (only 1.5kb!) propagating as a pattern of compressed and rarified regions in a medium ---- or something like that.
You are welcome K.
These octs are in total delusion. No molten metal found at the base of the three towers?
"Is that all you got?" says Dusheit.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my great uncle.
One of the first to ride a motorcycle, a courier during WWI, survivor of the Battle of Verdun, with many decorations from the U.S. and France, he told me a story... He was escorting German prisoners to the rear when a German officer pulled out a derringer and shot the commanding lieutenant in the arse. The lieutenant responded by pulling out his Colt 45 and after putting a round between the eyes of the German with the derringer, he limped away for medical attention while giving orders for my uncle to inspect the body. My uncle approached the body and looking down said to himself, "is that all you got?"
The German had one drop of blood between his eyes. Using his bayonet, he lifted the body over and discovered the complete back of his head was gone.
My uncle was a great man. I will never forget his story of "is that all you got?"
QUOTE (beijingyankee+Nov 20 2007, 12:26 PM)
You are welcome K.
These octs are in total delusion. No molten metal found at the base of the three towers?
"Is that all you got?" says Dusheit.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my great uncle.
One of the first to ride a motorcycle, a courier during WWI, survivor of the Battle of Verdun, with many decorations from the U.S. and France, he told me a story... He was escorting German prisoners to the rear when a German officer pulled out a derringer and shot the commanding lieutenant in the arse. The lieutenant responded by pulling out his Colt 45 and after putting a round between the eyes of the German with the derringer. He limped away for medical attention while giving orders for my uncle to inspect the body. My uncle approached the body and looking down said to himself, "is that all you got?" The German had one drop of blood between his eyes. Using his bayonet, he lifted the body over and discovered the complete back of his head was gone.
My uncle was a great man. I will never forget his story of "is that all you got?"
Show me the chemical tests done on this molten metal then to prove it is molten steel.
NO MOLTEN STEEL WAS EVER FOUND.
You have made the claim over and over that molten steel was found yet you can provide no empirical that proves your contention.
IS it to much to ask you to provide the data?
The micro Spheres are only evidence of chemical reactions in the buildings!
There are no pictures that show molten steel, none Nada zip.
Please take your religious beliefs to another forum.
These octs are in total delusion. No molten metal found at the base of the three towers?
"Is that all you got?" says Dusheit.
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my great uncle.
One of the first to ride a motorcycle, a courier during WWI, survivor of the Battle of Verdun, with many decorations from the U.S. and France, he told me a story... He was escorting German prisoners to the rear when a German officer pulled out a derringer and shot the commanding lieutenant in the arse. The lieutenant responded by pulling out his Colt 45 and after putting a round between the eyes of the German with the derringer. He limped away for medical attention while giving orders for my uncle to inspect the body. My uncle approached the body and looking down said to himself, "is that all you got?" The German had one drop of blood between his eyes. Using his bayonet, he lifted the body over and discovered the complete back of his head was gone.
My uncle was a great man. I will never forget his story of "is that all you got?"
Show me the chemical tests done on this molten metal then to prove it is molten steel.
NO MOLTEN STEEL WAS EVER FOUND.
You have made the claim over and over that molten steel was found yet you can provide no empirical that proves your contention.
IS it to much to ask you to provide the data?
The micro Spheres are only evidence of chemical reactions in the buildings!
There are no pictures that show molten steel, none Nada zip.
Please take your religious beliefs to another forum.
Dear Physics guy, Pencil necks, Brethren in the Sciences, I appeal to you.
The impure sciences are screaming inside job 911. I come to this site and I am perplexed as to the delusion of many in their apology.
Christ! Physics is cut and dry! Yes or no!
"Beijingyank," family member of the deceased at 911 was banned for un-physics activity on this off-topic physics forum. (I am guessing, because my questions as to why beijingyank was booted to 2031 goes unanswered.)
OK, here is the "magilla."
"Was there an energy sink at 911 and where did the molten metal come from?"
Come on physics! Think of the grant money when Ron Paul becomes President.
(Don't believe me? Check the odds in Vegas on Ron Paul becoming the next President.)
The impure sciences are screaming inside job 911. I come to this site and I am perplexed as to the delusion of many in their apology.
Christ! Physics is cut and dry! Yes or no!
"Beijingyank," family member of the deceased at 911 was banned for un-physics activity on this off-topic physics forum. (I am guessing, because my questions as to why beijingyank was booted to 2031 goes unanswered.)
OK, here is the "magilla."
"Was there an energy sink at 911 and where did the molten metal come from?"
Come on physics! Think of the grant money when Ron Paul becomes President.
(Don't believe me? Check the odds in Vegas on Ron Paul becoming the next President.)
I'm wondering if the Bazant equations have ever been applied to wtc7 ?
Btw, I did a small visual basic script test and assuming the collapse time is about 6-6.5 seconds the discrete crush-up model says that we have
E1/M_wtc7=6.6
This makes wtc7 about 3 or 4 times 'stronger' than wtc1,2.
Btw, I did a small visual basic script test and assuming the collapse time is about 6-6.5 seconds the discrete crush-up model says that we have
E1/M_wtc7=6.6
This makes wtc7 about 3 or 4 times 'stronger' than wtc1,2.
QUOTE (beijingyankee+Nov 20 2007, 01:02 PM)
Dear Physics guy, Pencil necks, Brethren in the Sciences, I appeal to you.
The impure sciences are screaming inside job 911. I come to this site and I am perplexed as to the delusion of many in their apology.
Christ! Physics is cut and dry! Yes or no!
"Beijingyank," family member of the deceased at 911 was banned for un-physics activity on this off-topic physics forum. (I am guessing, because my questions as to why beijingyank was booted to 2031 goes unanswered.)
OK, here is the "magilla."
"Was there an energy sink at 911 and where did the molten metal come from?"
Come on physics! Think of the grant money when Ron Paul becomes President.
(Don't believe me? Check the odds in Vegas on Ron Paul becoming the next President.)
If you had a loved one lost on 9/11 then you have my sympathy for that, however religion and politics have no place in finding out the truth of what happened.
Molten metal is to be expected in the collapses even some molten steel, even though I saw no evidence of that!
I simply asked you to back up your claims with factual evidence, and physics simply depends on the energy and how it is apply to create the conditions observed.
The physical constants in the universe were not disrupted on 9/11/2001, most of the problems are simply lack of understanding of the physics involved as the conditions are so complex.
So I ask you again to show evidence of molten steel real evidence or retract the claim, other wise your only repeating and parroting claims you have heard that have no corresponding or factual data to back them up.
PS. I would like to see more tests done on the micro spheres they are the only possible evidence of molten steel that I have seen, but it appears they are from an organic source or one of the other thousands of chemical reactions that occurred on that day in those buildings from natural causes.
Emotional pleas because you have lost a loved one do nothing to help you find the truth you seek, Science does, let us stick to that, because it is cut and dry!
The impure sciences are screaming inside job 911. I come to this site and I am perplexed as to the delusion of many in their apology.
Christ! Physics is cut and dry! Yes or no!
"Beijingyank," family member of the deceased at 911 was banned for un-physics activity on this off-topic physics forum. (I am guessing, because my questions as to why beijingyank was booted to 2031 goes unanswered.)
OK, here is the "magilla."
"Was there an energy sink at 911 and where did the molten metal come from?"
Come on physics! Think of the grant money when Ron Paul becomes President.
(Don't believe me? Check the odds in Vegas on Ron Paul becoming the next President.)
If you had a loved one lost on 9/11 then you have my sympathy for that, however religion and politics have no place in finding out the truth of what happened.
Molten metal is to be expected in the collapses even some molten steel, even though I saw no evidence of that!
I simply asked you to back up your claims with factual evidence, and physics simply depends on the energy and how it is apply to create the conditions observed.
The physical constants in the universe were not disrupted on 9/11/2001, most of the problems are simply lack of understanding of the physics involved as the conditions are so complex.
So I ask you again to show evidence of molten steel real evidence or retract the claim, other wise your only repeating and parroting claims you have heard that have no corresponding or factual data to back them up.
PS. I would like to see more tests done on the micro spheres they are the only possible evidence of molten steel that I have seen, but it appears they are from an organic source or one of the other thousands of chemical reactions that occurred on that day in those buildings from natural causes.
Emotional pleas because you have lost a loved one do nothing to help you find the truth you seek, Science does, let us stick to that, because it is cut and dry!
QUOTE
FALSE:
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...infra-spike.gif
(0.49 Hz pulse, at low resolution on the time axis)
http://www.myfilestash.com/userfiles/alrea...infra-spike.gif
(0.49 Hz pulse, at low resolution on the time axis)
Trippy's waveform has at least one problem that you should've noticed as a recording artifact - It goes about the same distance below zero as it went above zero.
As I've explained before, an "AC-Coupled" recording must have the same area below as above the zero-line, otherwise the recorded signal would have a "DC Component". Most microphones don't have "DC Response" (piezoelectrics do), and most audio amplifiers are "AC-Coupled" to their mikes anyway. So a pressure-pulse in real life from an explosive ends up looking like the curve Trippy provided, which isn't an accurate representation of what really happened.
See, that first "up" spike is supposedly proportional to the pressure released during the detonation, right? So, if that's enough pressure to rip steel apart, that's maybe 20,000psi, right? So, that next "down" spike, that must be from where the explosion created a -20,000psi vacuum, right?
See anything wrong with your logic, yet?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Nov 20 2007, 02:14 PM)
If you had a loved one lost on 9/11 then you have my sympathy for that, however religion and politics have no place in finding out the truth of what happened.
Molten metal is to be expected in the collapses even some molten steel, even though I saw no evidence of that!
I simply asked you to back up your claims with factual evidence, and physics simply depends on the energy and how it is apply to create the conditions observed.
The physical constants in the universe were not disrupted on 9/11/2001, most of the problems are simply lack of understanding of the physics involved as the conditions are so complex.
So I ask you again to show evidence of molten steel real evidence or retract the claim, other wise your only repeating and parroting claims you have heard that have no corresponding or factual data to back them up.
PS. I would like to see more tests done on the micro spheres they are the only possible evidence of molten steel that I have seen, but it appears they are from an organic source or one of the other thousands of chemical reactions that occurred on that day in those buildings from natural causes.
Emotional pleas because you have lost a loved one do nothing to help you find the truth you seek, Science does, let us stick to that, because it is cut and dry!
This is the third time I have been suspended for what?
When you get flack, you are over the target.
This is an off topic physics board. I have read the disclaimer and I have posted nothing to justify a suspension to the year 2035.
I promise you bozos when the worm turns, you guys are going to feel the heat. You can kiss the thirty pieces of silver now, because later....oh I feel sorry for you. I will pray for you.l
No one can murder 3000 New Yorkers and pass down a magic bullet fable and get away with it.
"No molten steel" indeed.
Molten metal is to be expected in the collapses even some molten steel, even though I saw no evidence of that!
I simply asked you to back up your claims with factual evidence, and physics simply depends on the energy and how it is apply to create the conditions observed.
The physical constants in the universe were not disrupted on 9/11/2001, most of the problems are simply lack of understanding of the physics involved as the conditions are so complex.
So I ask you again to show evidence of molten steel real evidence or retract the claim, other wise your only repeating and parroting claims you have heard that have no corresponding or factual data to back them up.
PS. I would like to see more tests done on the micro spheres they are the only possible evidence of molten steel that I have seen, but it appears they are from an organic source or one of the other thousands of chemical reactions that occurred on that day in those buildings from natural causes.
Emotional pleas because you have lost a loved one do nothing to help you find the truth you seek, Science does, let us stick to that, because it is cut and dry!
This is the third time I have been suspended for what?
When you get flack, you are over the target.
This is an off topic physics board. I have read the disclaimer and I have posted nothing to justify a suspension to the year 2035.
I promise you bozos when the worm turns, you guys are going to feel the heat. You can kiss the thirty pieces of silver now, because later....oh I feel sorry for you. I will pray for you.l
No one can murder 3000 New Yorkers and pass down a magic bullet fable and get away with it.
"No molten steel" indeed.
einsteen
The collapse of building 7 took at least 18 seconds, according to the seismic record of the event. The disappearance of the penthouses gave a good indication that the underlying structure was already gone seconds before the visible north wall started to fall, indicating the progressive collapse of the south side of the building well before any effect could be seen in the video where the 6.6 seconds comes from.
Grumpy
The collapse of building 7 took at least 18 seconds, according to the seismic record of the event. The disappearance of the penthouses gave a good indication that the underlying structure was already gone seconds before the visible north wall started to fall, indicating the progressive collapse of the south side of the building well before any effect could be seen in the video where the 6.6 seconds comes from.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Nov 20 2007, 04:48 PM)
einsteen
The collapse of building 7 took at least 18 seconds, according to the seismic record of the event. The disappearance of the penthouses gave a good indication that the underlying structure was already gone seconds before the visible north wall started to fall, indicating the progressive collapse of the south side of the building well before any effect could be seen in the video where the 6.6 seconds comes from.
Grumpy
I fail to see how that has any bearing on what einsteen said.
The collapse of building 7 took at least 18 seconds, according to the seismic record of the event. The disappearance of the penthouses gave a good indication that the underlying structure was already gone seconds before the visible north wall started to fall, indicating the progressive collapse of the south side of the building well before any effect could be seen in the video where the 6.6 seconds comes from.
Grumpy
I fail to see how that has any bearing on what einsteen said.
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 20 2007, 12:15 AM)
... the impacts ...
In a quasi-static calculation, peak load = static load, and it's duration is infinite.
In a real life impact, things are different.....
If that's the case, that's not the best way to study an impact problem, now is it?
No impacts in collapse initiation.
This is better. Read something about it.
No impacts in collapse initiation.
No impacts in collapse initiation.
Just column buckling.
In a quasi-static calculation, peak load = static load, and it's duration is infinite.
In a real life impact, things are different.....
If that's the case, that's not the best way to study an impact problem, now is it?
No impacts in collapse initiation.
This is better. Read something about it.
No impacts in collapse initiation.
No impacts in collapse initiation.
Just column buckling.
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 20 2007, 06:37 AM)
I'm wondering if the Bazant equations have ever been applied to wtc7 ?
Yes. Poster shagster applied the crush-up equation and obtained good results.
Yes. Poster shagster applied the crush-up equation and obtained good results.
QUOTE (beijingyankees+Nov 20 2007, 11:34 AM)
This is the third time I have been suspended for what?
Maybe you aren't CLEAR on what SUSPENDED means?
It does NOT mean that you get to come back under a different name.
Arthur
Maybe you aren't CLEAR on what SUSPENDED means?
It does NOT mean that you get to come back under a different name.
Arthur
OneWhiteEye
I would think that if one was going to apply an equation to the collapse of 7 it might be more accurate to apply it to the entire duration of that collapse rather than just to the last 6.6 seconds, don't you??? By the time visible effects are seen in the video we have all seen, large portions of that structure were already on the ground or falling toward the ground. The collapse of 7 was of an entirely different sort that that of the towers and the crush down equations would seem to be a rather poor fit anyway.
At least, that is my opinion. I have been wrong in the past, likely I will be wrong in the future.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I fail to see how that has any bearing on what einsteen said
I would think that if one was going to apply an equation to the collapse of 7 it might be more accurate to apply it to the entire duration of that collapse rather than just to the last 6.6 seconds, don't you??? By the time visible effects are seen in the video we have all seen, large portions of that structure were already on the ground or falling toward the ground. The collapse of 7 was of an entirely different sort that that of the towers and the crush down equations would seem to be a rather poor fit anyway.
At least, that is my opinion. I have been wrong in the past, likely I will be wrong in the future.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Nov 20 2007, 06:06 PM)
I would think that if one was going to apply an equation to the collapse of 7 it might be more accurate to apply it to the entire duration of that collapse rather than just to the last 6.6 seconds, don't you??? By the time visible effects are seen in the video we have all seen, large portions of that structure were already on the ground or falling toward the ground. The collapse of 7 was of an entirely different sort that that of the towers and the crush down equations would seem to be a rather poor fit anyway.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
In that case we should fill in 18 seconds in the formula leading to an even higher E1 value. That makes the collapse even more suspicious.
Why do you think the crush-up equation is a poor fit ? For wtc1,2 it is, by some people, also believed that the inner structure already failed before the visible collapse (although I'm a big rejecter of that theory) And David Benson is a master in fitting the crush-down equation with the visible collapse, because isn't it the visual collapse that has been measured in great detail using advanced Ruby scripts, following the pattern of an antenna within some upper and lower colour/contrast tolerance or however that works precisely.
OneWhiteEye,
I recently discovered avisynth which is a 100% script based (and free) video processor, using anavi synth (text based) script, I found one in which you can slow down a video without adjusting the framerate, it is a kind of artificial slow motion because it interpolates frames between the original ones (instead of blurring them together) this of course doesn't provide more information than the original, but when looking at it 'with the eye' it is easier to see things. It is a nice tool, when you dump the script (referring to the video) on virtualdub it uses the result of avisynth as input and you can edit it as usual.
Grumpy
Grumpy,
In that case we should fill in 18 seconds in the formula leading to an even higher E1 value. That makes the collapse even more suspicious.
Why do you think the crush-up equation is a poor fit ? For wtc1,2 it is, by some people, also believed that the inner structure already failed before the visible collapse (although I'm a big rejecter of that theory) And David Benson is a master in fitting the crush-down equation with the visible collapse, because isn't it the visual collapse that has been measured in great detail using advanced Ruby scripts, following the pattern of an antenna within some upper and lower colour/contrast tolerance or however that works precisely.
OneWhiteEye,
I recently discovered avisynth which is a 100% script based (and free) video processor, using anavi synth (text based) script, I found one in which you can slow down a video without adjusting the framerate, it is a kind of artificial slow motion because it interpolates frames between the original ones (instead of blurring them together) this of course doesn't provide more information than the original, but when looking at it 'with the eye' it is easier to see things. It is a nice tool, when you dump the script (referring to the video) on virtualdub it uses the result of avisynth as input and you can edit it as usual.
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 20 2007, 02:08 PM)
In that case we should fill in 18 seconds in the formula leading to an even higher E1 value. That makes the collapse even more suspicious.
The collapse progressed in a totally different fashion in WTC 7 then in either WTC 1 or 2.
What we do know is that there were quite a bit of internal failures PRIOR to the final curtain wall coming down.
There is NOTHING suspicious about WTC 7.
Well, execpt maybe how it managed to stand for so long.
Arthur
The collapse progressed in a totally different fashion in WTC 7 then in either WTC 1 or 2.
What we do know is that there were quite a bit of internal failures PRIOR to the final curtain wall coming down.
There is NOTHING suspicious about WTC 7.
Well, execpt maybe how it managed to stand for so long.
Arthur
einsteen
Aurthur beat me to it, what he said. WTC 7 was not a top down crushing situation, but a bottom up, crumble out from beneath situation. Perfectly natural, given the type and location of the damage and fires.
Grumpy
Aurthur beat me to it, what he said. WTC 7 was not a top down crushing situation, but a bottom up, crumble out from beneath situation. Perfectly natural, given the type and location of the damage and fires.
Grumpy
Exactly Grumpy, a bottom-up, i.e. a crush up, the same what happens if the top block of wtc1,2 hits ground zero but then not with 50m/s but starting with 0 m/s
I made this picture about a year ago when I first heard about NEU-FONZE's paper. In fact the Bazant model is the same, 1st stage of collapse is the crush-down and 2nd stage of collapse is the crush-up.
http://i15.tinypic.com/6s8rtol.gif
I made this picture about a year ago when I first heard about NEU-FONZE's paper. In fact the Bazant model is the same, 1st stage of collapse is the crush-down and 2nd stage of collapse is the crush-up.
http://i15.tinypic.com/6s8rtol.gif
David!
I remember you talked about that Mark Heath video, I got two different versions on my computer, the one that says "I hope I live" that seems to be an edited video where two parts morph into each other but I got another one where you see that it consists of only one part.
I googled and it is still online, genuine
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/E...fter%20Plan.avi
This is from Fox5, please ask someone to watch videos because a modern scientist can't without. At least 39 seconds of sound, I'm convinced that the crush-up and crush-down take a very long time. There is a lot to fit Mr Benson.
I remember you talked about that Mark Heath video, I got two different versions on my computer, the one that says "I hope I live" that seems to be an edited video where two parts morph into each other but I got another one where you see that it consists of only one part.
I googled and it is still online, genuine
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/E...fter%20Plan.avi
This is from Fox5, please ask someone to watch videos because a modern scientist can't without. At least 39 seconds of sound, I'm convinced that the crush-up and crush-down take a very long time. There is a lot to fit Mr Benson.
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 20 2007, 04:47 PM)
Exactly Grumpy, a bottom-up, i.e. a crush up, the same what happens if the top block of wtc1,2 hits ground zero but then not with 50m/s but starting with 0 m/s
But it WASN'T.
Its pretty clear the internal structure started to fail well before the global collapse ensued.
Then there is the problem that we don't know what floor the collapse started on, but based on the preliminary work done by FEMA and NIST, it doesn't appear like it would be the first floor.
Finally, NONE of the videos show the whole collapse of WTC 7. I haven't seen one that didn't end 20+ stories up, so trying to extrapolate what you can see of the curtain wall collapsing to the total collapse time of WTC 7 is impossible.
Arthur
But it WASN'T.
Its pretty clear the internal structure started to fail well before the global collapse ensued.
Then there is the problem that we don't know what floor the collapse started on, but based on the preliminary work done by FEMA and NIST, it doesn't appear like it would be the first floor.
Finally, NONE of the videos show the whole collapse of WTC 7. I haven't seen one that didn't end 20+ stories up, so trying to extrapolate what you can see of the curtain wall collapsing to the total collapse time of WTC 7 is impossible.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 20 2007, 03:11 PM)
At least 39 seconds of sound, I'm convinced that the crush-up and crush-down take a very long time.
That is a long time! (But first crush-down and then crush-up.)
I just passed on what poster shagster had to say about it: rumbling sounds followed by a loud bang 18 seconds after collapse initiation. NIST states that the spire fell apart and down 10 seconds after that. Being about 72 stories tall, it would need several seconds to come to rest.
You'll have to tell me what you hear and when you hear what. (This is quite interesting.)
That is a long time! (But first crush-down and then crush-up.)
I just passed on what poster shagster had to say about it: rumbling sounds followed by a loud bang 18 seconds after collapse initiation. NIST states that the spire fell apart and down 10 seconds after that. Being about 72 stories tall, it would need several seconds to come to rest.
You'll have to tell me what you hear and when you hear what. (This is quite interesting.)
Here a 628k mp3 file
http://www.megaupload.com/nl/?d=1E0BBD60
At 36 seconds I hear still booms and we should notice that the clip even didn't start at the beginning!
http://www.megaupload.com/nl/?d=1E0BBD60
At 36 seconds I hear still booms and we should notice that the clip even didn't start at the beginning!
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 20 2007, 03:45 PM)
At 36 seconds I hear still booms and we should notice that the clip even didn't start at the beginning!
'hear still booms'? Maybe 'still hear booms'?
Yes, if I've done the timing correctly, the spire finishes falling done about 37 seconds after collapse initiation.
'hear still booms'? Maybe 'still hear booms'?
Yes, if I've done the timing correctly, the spire finishes falling done about 37 seconds after collapse initiation.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 20 2007, 10:15 PM)
But it WASN'T.
Its pretty clear the internal structure started to fail well before the global collapse ensued.
Then there is the problem that we don't know what floor the collapse started on, but based on the preliminary work done by FEMA and NIST, it doesn't appear like it would be the first floor.
Finally, NONE of the videos show the whole collapse of WTC 7. I haven't seen one that didn't end 20+ stories up, so trying to extrapolate what you can see of the curtain wall collapsing to the total collapse time of WTC 7 is impossible.
Arthur
You also have the problem of unknown Mass unless someone can tell me the mass of the debris that would have hit world trade center 6 and bounced off to the critical support structure of 7, The Cantilever beams that support it over the coned substation.
It might be possible however to do a backward calculation and see how much weight would be necessary to start the collapse of the cantilever support beam and if that weight might have been available in the dust and debris that fell on 7.
Its pretty clear the internal structure started to fail well before the global collapse ensued.
Then there is the problem that we don't know what floor the collapse started on, but based on the preliminary work done by FEMA and NIST, it doesn't appear like it would be the first floor.
Finally, NONE of the videos show the whole collapse of WTC 7. I haven't seen one that didn't end 20+ stories up, so trying to extrapolate what you can see of the curtain wall collapsing to the total collapse time of WTC 7 is impossible.
Arthur
You also have the problem of unknown Mass unless someone can tell me the mass of the debris that would have hit world trade center 6 and bounced off to the critical support structure of 7, The Cantilever beams that support it over the coned substation.
It might be possible however to do a backward calculation and see how much weight would be necessary to start the collapse of the cantilever support beam and if that weight might have been available in the dust and debris that fell on 7.
after 5 hours sleep, 9.5 hours work, two hours traffic jam and a time to go to bed it is 'hear still booms'.
ps. you are able to fit it ? Are you going to publish it once ?
ps. you are able to fit it ? Are you going to publish it once ?
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 20 2007, 05:10 PM)
ps. you are able to fit it ? Are you going to publish it once ?
Maybe after a good night's sleep you can explain just what you are asking...
Maybe after a good night's sleep you can explain just what you are asking...
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 20 2007, 01:37 PM)
I'm wondering if the Bazant equations have ever been applied to wtc7 ?
Btw, I did a small visual basic script test and assuming the collapse time is about 6-6.5 seconds the discrete crush-up model says that we have
E1/M_wtc7=6.6
This makes wtc7 about 3 or 4 times 'stronger' than wtc1,2.
What values are you using for the E1/m for the towers?
Btw, I did a small visual basic script test and assuming the collapse time is about 6-6.5 seconds the discrete crush-up model says that we have
E1/M_wtc7=6.6
This makes wtc7 about 3 or 4 times 'stronger' than wtc1,2.
What values are you using for the E1/m for the towers?
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 20 2007, 06:00 PM)
Maybe you aren't CLEAR on what SUSPENDED means?
It does NOT mean that you get to come back under a different name.
Arthur
Is that all you got?
It does NOT mean that you get to come back under a different name.
Arthur
Is that all you got?
The (2/3)g acceleration of wtc1 implies that the ratio is about 1.5. I'm not sure about that wtc7 one, I based it on the collapse time using a crappy script in which I adjusted E1 manually, but we should use smear-o-grams with fitting functions.
DBB,
I mean the crush-up time is too large for the model. The relative quick collapse cannot explain a 30 seconds crush-up sound.
DBB,
I mean the crush-up time is too large for the model. The relative quick collapse cannot explain a 30 seconds crush-up sound.
QUOTE
I mean the crush-up time is too large for the model. The relative quick collapse cannot explain a 30 seconds crush-up sound.
It's probably due to the cantelever-support being more complex than the WTC towers.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 20 2007, 12:39 PM)
There is NOTHING suspicious about WTC 7.
Now that's a hoot!!!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Nov 21 2007, 10:00 AM)
It's probably due to the cantelever-support being more complex than the WTC towers.
It could also be resonance from the buildings materials and beams hitting the huge fuel tanks the basement. As well as sounds coming from the Con Edison substation.
All that has to be taken into account before and Idea can be gained into what is occurring.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Nov 21 2007, 06:20 AM)
Now that's a hoot!!!
So Quick, how you coming on your theory that the Lobby of WTC 7 was blown out BEFORE either of the towers fell?
Arthur
So Quick, how you coming on your theory that the Lobby of WTC 7 was blown out BEFORE either of the towers fell?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 21 2007, 03:24 PM)
So Quick, how you coming on your theory that the Lobby of WTC 7 was blown out BEFORE either of the towers fell?
Arthur
Un likely but not impossible, and I have seen no evidence of it, Damage to world trade 7 before the fall of the towers.
However access tunnels do lead under the world trade center complex to the substation under 7 Jet fuel fireball blast could propagate though the tunnels like the blast in a coal mine.
There are actual reports of coal mine workers in the center of tunnels not being injured by a blast that kills people at both ends.
It has to do with how the structures confine the Blasts Shock waves.
It is about a billion to one shot, but it is theoretical possible that the planes impact in one of the towers or both could have sent shock waves propagating though the utility tunnels.
This however is only conjecture, and should be taken only as such.
Arthur
Un likely but not impossible, and I have seen no evidence of it, Damage to world trade 7 before the fall of the towers.
However access tunnels do lead under the world trade center complex to the substation under 7 Jet fuel fireball blast could propagate though the tunnels like the blast in a coal mine.
There are actual reports of coal mine workers in the center of tunnels not being injured by a blast that kills people at both ends.
It has to do with how the structures confine the Blasts Shock waves.
It is about a billion to one shot, but it is theoretical possible that the planes impact in one of the towers or both could have sent shock waves propagating though the utility tunnels.
This however is only conjecture, and should be taken only as such.
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 21 2007, 12:10 AM)
after 5 hours sleep, 9.5 hours work, two hours traffic jam and a time to go to bed it is 'hear still booms'.
Haha, good laugh!
Excellent tip, thanks!
Haha, good laugh!
QUOTE
I recently discovered avisynth which is a 100% script based (and free) video processor, using anavi synth (text based) script, I found one in which you can slow down a video without adjusting the framerate, it is a kind of artificial slow motion because it interpolates frames between the original ones (instead of blurring them together) this of course doesn't provide more information than the original, but when looking at it 'with the eye' it is easier to see things. It is a nice tool, when you dump the script (referring to the video) on virtualdub it uses the result of avisynth as input and you can edit it as usual.
Excellent tip, thanks!
Chainsaw, while your conjecture is plausible, the actual events from that morning clearly show that situation wasn't the case.
The Lobby of WTC 7 was used as a Triage center, which would not have been a good choice if it was severely damaged as Quick asserts.
Then if you read the other reports its quite clear that the WTC 7 lobby is functioning fairly normally prior to the collapse of WTC 2, for instance:
”I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was being evacuated. We proceeded down to the lobby where the various agency representatives were present. We collectively started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.”
It does make you wonder what Quick's motivation is for promoting these series of false stories about 9/11. Clearly TRUTH is not part of his agenda.
Arthur
The Lobby of WTC 7 was used as a Triage center, which would not have been a good choice if it was severely damaged as Quick asserts.
Then if you read the other reports its quite clear that the WTC 7 lobby is functioning fairly normally prior to the collapse of WTC 2, for instance:
”I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was being evacuated. We proceeded down to the lobby where the various agency representatives were present. We collectively started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.”
It does make you wonder what Quick's motivation is for promoting these series of false stories about 9/11. Clearly TRUTH is not part of his agenda.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Nov 20 2007, 06:06 PM)
I would think that if one was going to apply an equation to the collapse of 7 it might be more accurate to apply it to the entire duration of that collapse rather than just to the last 6.6 seconds, don't you???
Does a rhetorical tie-down followed by three question marks denote incredulity? I'll assume, from the way you closed your post, it doesn't.
No, I'm certain that it would not be more accurate to use the entire duration of the collapse. One can question the hypotheses leading to the model, the derivation of the equations of motion and their solution, the assumption of values for factors that aren't known, the measurement quality of the observables, and finally the applicability of the model to a given problem domain. But, if you are going to use the model, you really need to use the correct time.
If einsteen added the extra time, as he mentioned, it would only serve to further his point (by a considerable factor). Is that the direction you expected the result to go? In any case, it would only matter for a calculation for which the time interval is plugged in willfully and with intent to screw up; in a correct analysis, t0 would have been already chosen to be when the first detectable motion takes place. If the point you're tracking is the upper NW corner, t0 is when that artifact begins to move. If video were available showing the opposite corner, which went down first, the same analysis could be done starting at the t0 you mention, but concluding when that point was stopped or no longer observable. The final time is of no consequence in the analysis so long as the displacement associated with the time is accurately known.
The analysis being discussed is one dimensional, solving for the motion of a given point over time and subsequently fitting parameters appearing in the relationships; it would be same for any similar scheme and isn't peculiar to the crush down / crush up methodology. If the point is not in motion, by definition, the analysis yields a very simple result: x=x0, v=v0=0, and a=0. The acceleration, a, being zero, means net force equals zero (from F=ma, mass independent), in turn meaning the resistive force is still greater than or equal to that required to maintain the constant position of the point under the influence of gravity. The resistive force will decline over time but the characteristics can't be known from displacement, which remains zero. The analysis does not begin until the resistive force drops below this threshold value such that the observed point begins to move, thus establishing an approximate t0 empirically.
An extreme example would be if the WTC7 suffered a partial collapse on the afternoon of 9/11 but the remaining portion collapsed the following day. Surely you wouldn't argue that the time interval for analyzing either partial collapse should be of the order of a day. The situation is no different here. Yes, the portions collapsing are undoubtedly coupled (don't argue for too strong a coupling or you'll have to explain why it didn't go down as a unit across the horizontal dimensions) as they also would be in the extreme example but these effects are subsumed under a time-varying resistive force in a one-dimensional analysis, anyway.
(edits to correct stupid errors)
Does a rhetorical tie-down followed by three question marks denote incredulity? I'll assume, from the way you closed your post, it doesn't.
No, I'm certain that it would not be more accurate to use the entire duration of the collapse. One can question the hypotheses leading to the model, the derivation of the equations of motion and their solution, the assumption of values for factors that aren't known, the measurement quality of the observables, and finally the applicability of the model to a given problem domain. But, if you are going to use the model, you really need to use the correct time.
If einsteen added the extra time, as he mentioned, it would only serve to further his point (by a considerable factor). Is that the direction you expected the result to go? In any case, it would only matter for a calculation for which the time interval is plugged in willfully and with intent to screw up; in a correct analysis, t0 would have been already chosen to be when the first detectable motion takes place. If the point you're tracking is the upper NW corner, t0 is when that artifact begins to move. If video were available showing the opposite corner, which went down first, the same analysis could be done starting at the t0 you mention, but concluding when that point was stopped or no longer observable. The final time is of no consequence in the analysis so long as the displacement associated with the time is accurately known.
The analysis being discussed is one dimensional, solving for the motion of a given point over time and subsequently fitting parameters appearing in the relationships; it would be same for any similar scheme and isn't peculiar to the crush down / crush up methodology. If the point is not in motion, by definition, the analysis yields a very simple result: x=x0, v=v0=0, and a=0. The acceleration, a, being zero, means net force equals zero (from F=ma, mass independent), in turn meaning the resistive force is still greater than or equal to that required to maintain the constant position of the point under the influence of gravity. The resistive force will decline over time but the characteristics can't be known from displacement, which remains zero. The analysis does not begin until the resistive force drops below this threshold value such that the observed point begins to move, thus establishing an approximate t0 empirically.
An extreme example would be if the WTC7 suffered a partial collapse on the afternoon of 9/11 but the remaining portion collapsed the following day. Surely you wouldn't argue that the time interval for analyzing either partial collapse should be of the order of a day. The situation is no different here. Yes, the portions collapsing are undoubtedly coupled (don't argue for too strong a coupling or you'll have to explain why it didn't go down as a unit across the horizontal dimensions) as they also would be in the extreme example but these effects are subsumed under a time-varying resistive force in a one-dimensional analysis, anyway.
(edits to correct stupid errors)
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 21 2007, 02:14 AM)
I mean the crush-up time is too large for the model. The relative quick collapse cannot explain a 30 seconds crush-up sound.
Listen again. You should hear a loud bang at about 18 seconds. Then of interest is whether it is fairly quiet for about 10 seconds. After that you are hearing the spire members striking the ground.
Listen again. You should hear a loud bang at about 18 seconds. Then of interest is whether it is fairly quiet for about 10 seconds. After that you are hearing the spire members striking the ground.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 21 2007, 04:54 PM)
Chainsaw, while your conjecture is plausible, the actual events from that morning clearly show that situation wasn't the case.
The Lobby of WTC 7 was used as a Triage center, which would not have been a good choice if it was severely damaged as Quick asserts.
Then if you read the other reports its quite clear that the WTC 7 lobby is functioning fairly normally prior to the collapse of WTC 2, for instance:
”I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was being evacuated. We proceeded down to the lobby where the various agency representatives were present. We collectively started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.”
It does make you wonder what Quick's motivation is for promoting these series of false stories about 9/11. Clearly TRUTH is not part of his agenda.
Arthur
Politics and profit would be the most likely answer to that question and both have no place here, on a science forum.
The Lobby of WTC 7 was used as a Triage center, which would not have been a good choice if it was severely damaged as Quick asserts.
Then if you read the other reports its quite clear that the WTC 7 lobby is functioning fairly normally prior to the collapse of WTC 2, for instance:
”I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was being evacuated. We proceeded down to the lobby where the various agency representatives were present. We collectively started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort. Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.”
It does make you wonder what Quick's motivation is for promoting these series of false stories about 9/11. Clearly TRUTH is not part of his agenda.
Arthur
Politics and profit would be the most likely answer to that question and both have no place here, on a science forum.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Nov 20 2007, 02:14 PM)
If you had a loved one lost on 9/11 then you have my sympathy for that, however religion and politics have no place in finding out the truth of what happened.
Molten metal is to be expected in the collapses even some molten steel, even though I saw no evidence of that!
I simply asked you to back up your claims with factual evidence, and physics simply depends on the energy and how it is apply to create the conditions observed.
The physical constants in the universe were not disrupted on 9/11/2001, most of the problems are simply lack of understanding of the physics involved as the conditions are so complex.
So I ask you again to show evidence of molten steel real evidence or retract the claim, other wise your only repeating and parroting claims you have heard that have no corresponding or factual data to back them up.
PS. I would like to see more tests done on the micro spheres they are the only possible evidence of molten steel that I have seen, but it appears they are from an organic source or one of the other thousands of chemical reactions that occurred on that day in those buildings from natural causes.
Emotional pleas because you have lost a loved one do nothing to help you find the truth you seek, Science does, let us stick to that, because it is cut and dry!
John Gross' NIST talk was a year ago on 10/18/06...
Long after "contradicting evidence had been collected and disseminated".
And for posterity's sake: below is a list of some of the numerous reports concerning the molten steel/metal at Ground Zero:
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"
..
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
and again on September 21, 2001,
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
Most all 9/11 researchers have no funding whatsoever, and could easily find the numerous reports of molten steel reported at Ground Zero using their computer and a search engine. The NIST was funded 20 million for their investigation and couldn't find ONE report about the molten steel (according to John Gross)???
Once again, here are the words of John Gross, one of the NIST's lead engineers, denying there were reports of molten steel...
Dr. Frank Greening, a scientist who has recently become very critical of the NIST report, has gone on record several times to say that he believes molten steel was present at Ground Zero:
"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"
-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007
Frank Greening's Bio:
Here are just some of Dr. Greening's remarks and criticisms concerning the NIST investigation into why the WTC fell down on 9/11/01:
"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91
"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92
"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!" -Dr. Frank Greening
SORRY not to have the links included above however the links can be found here:
www.911bloggerDOTcom/node/12002
+++++++++++++++
Please think. Think the big picture. Think about how history will look at the oct apology. Do you want your legacy contaminated with ridicule for eternity?
Molten metal is to be expected in the collapses even some molten steel, even though I saw no evidence of that!
I simply asked you to back up your claims with factual evidence, and physics simply depends on the energy and how it is apply to create the conditions observed.
The physical constants in the universe were not disrupted on 9/11/2001, most of the problems are simply lack of understanding of the physics involved as the conditions are so complex.
So I ask you again to show evidence of molten steel real evidence or retract the claim, other wise your only repeating and parroting claims you have heard that have no corresponding or factual data to back them up.
PS. I would like to see more tests done on the micro spheres they are the only possible evidence of molten steel that I have seen, but it appears they are from an organic source or one of the other thousands of chemical reactions that occurred on that day in those buildings from natural causes.
Emotional pleas because you have lost a loved one do nothing to help you find the truth you seek, Science does, let us stick to that, because it is cut and dry!
John Gross' NIST talk was a year ago on 10/18/06...
Long after "contradicting evidence had been collected and disseminated".
And for posterity's sake: below is a list of some of the numerous reports concerning the molten steel/metal at Ground Zero:
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"
..
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
and again on September 21, 2001,
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
Most all 9/11 researchers have no funding whatsoever, and could easily find the numerous reports of molten steel reported at Ground Zero using their computer and a search engine. The NIST was funded 20 million for their investigation and couldn't find ONE report about the molten steel (according to John Gross)???
Once again, here are the words of John Gross, one of the NIST's lead engineers, denying there were reports of molten steel...
Dr. Frank Greening, a scientist who has recently become very critical of the NIST report, has gone on record several times to say that he believes molten steel was present at Ground Zero:
"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"
-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007
Frank Greening's Bio:
Here are just some of Dr. Greening's remarks and criticisms concerning the NIST investigation into why the WTC fell down on 9/11/01:
"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91
"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92
"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!" -Dr. Frank Greening
SORRY not to have the links included above however the links can be found here:
www.911bloggerDOTcom/node/12002
+++++++++++++++
Please think. Think the big picture. Think about how history will look at the oct apology. Do you want your legacy contaminated with ridicule for eternity?
Other than the microspheres, which could have been the result of using welders as steel cutters, there is no evidence of actually molten, that is, melted steel.
Obviously a report of a 'molten steel beam' is not using the word molten to be melted.
All the remaining reports are observations of molten metal, not likely to be steel since molten steel is intensely bright. Possibilities include lead and Babbitt metal, the later in elevator shafts.
The reports of something dripping off of steel members are probably actually reports of molten insulation, like lava, although possibly molten glass.
Lead, Babbitt metal, rock wool, and glass are molten at temperatures agreeing with the measured temperatures of the Ground Zero fires, consistent with the observed pieces of red-hot steel. Steel melts only at a significantly higher temperature.
Read what the Blanchard report has to say about the matter. In this regard at least, it can be taken as definitive.
Obviously a report of a 'molten steel beam' is not using the word molten to be melted.
All the remaining reports are observations of molten metal, not likely to be steel since molten steel is intensely bright. Possibilities include lead and Babbitt metal, the later in elevator shafts.
The reports of something dripping off of steel members are probably actually reports of molten insulation, like lava, although possibly molten glass.
Lead, Babbitt metal, rock wool, and glass are molten at temperatures agreeing with the measured temperatures of the Ground Zero fires, consistent with the observed pieces of red-hot steel. Steel melts only at a significantly higher temperature.
Read what the Blanchard report has to say about the matter. In this regard at least, it can be taken as definitive.
QUOTE (beijingyankees+Nov 21 2007, 06:30 PM)
John Gross' NIST talk was a year ago on 10/18/06...
Long after "contradicting evidence had been collected and disseminated".
And for posterity's sake: below is a list of some of the numerous reports concerning the molten steel/metal at Ground Zero:
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"
..
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
and again on September 21, 2001,
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
Most all 9/11 researchers have no funding whatsoever, and could easily find the numerous reports of molten steel reported at Ground Zero using their computer and a search engine. The NIST was funded 20 million for their investigation and couldn't find ONE report about the molten steel (according to John Gross)???
Once again, here are the words of John Gross, one of the NIST's lead engineers, denying there were reports of molten steel...
Dr. Frank Greening, a scientist who has recently become very critical of the NIST report, has gone on record several times to say that he believes molten steel was present at Ground Zero:
"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"
-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007
Frank Greening's Bio:
Here are just some of Dr. Greening's remarks and criticisms concerning the NIST investigation into why the WTC fell down on 9/11/01:
"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91
"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92
"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!" -Dr. Frank Greening
SORRY not to have the links included above however the links can be found here:
www.911bloggerDOTcom/node/12002
+++++++++++++++
Please think. Think the big picture. Think about how history will look at the oct apology. Do you want your legacy contaminated with ridicule for eternity?
beijingyankees,
Answer me just one Question please, all those people who said they saw molten steel why are they not dead?
Steel only melts at 1565c some of the accounts I have heard from people mean that the heat from the steel would have damaged equipment, or killed them if it actually was molten steel.
It is just not possible in this universe for the claims to be taken as fact of anything other that misinterpretation of other lower melting point metals or substances mis identified as steel.
No one has the power to counteract the physical constants of the universe, and they say themselves that those claims can not be fact!
Long after "contradicting evidence had been collected and disseminated".
And for posterity's sake: below is a list of some of the numerous reports concerning the molten steel/metal at Ground Zero:
The head of a team of scientists studying the potential health effects of 9/11, reported, "Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel."
As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel."
The structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, described fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.
"These reports came from two men involved in the removal of the rubble: Peter Tully of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., and Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition, Inc. of Phoenix, Md.
Tully told AFP that he had seen pools of “literally molten steel” in the rubble.
Loizeaux confirmed this: “Yes, hot spots of molten steel in the basements,” he said, “at the bottom of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven levels.”
The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” he said. He confirmed that molten steel was also found at WTC 7 [...]"
..
A public health advisor who arrived at Ground Zero on September 12, said that "feeling the heat" and "seeing the molten steel" there reminded him of a volcano.
New York firefighters recalled in a documentary film, "heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel."
According to a worker involved with the organizing of demolition, excavation and debris removal operations at ground zero, "Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6."
An expert stated about World Trade Center building 7, "A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures" (pay-per-view).
Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.
An employee of New Jersey's Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue witnessed "Fires burning and molten steel flowing in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet."
A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams."
The same journalist also refers to "the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." (pages 31-32)
An engineer stated in the September 3, 2002 issue of The Structural Engineer, "They showed us many fascinating slides ranging from molten metal, which was still red hot weeks after the event."
An Occupational Safety and Health Administration Officer at the Trade Center reported a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, "its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel."
According to a member of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing, who was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6, "One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots."
A fireman stated that there were "oven" like conditions at the trade centers six weeks after 9/11.
Firemen and hazardous materials experts also stated that, six weeks after 9/11, "There are pieces of steel being pulled out [from as far as six stories underground] that are still cherry red" and "the blaze is so 'far beyond a normal fire' that it is nearly impossible to draw conclusions about it based on other fires."
A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...."
Indeed, the trade center fire was "the longest-burning structural fire in history",
even though it rained heavily on September 14, 2001
and again on September 21, 2001,
and the fires were sprayed with high tech fire-retardands,
and "firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on" ground zero."
Indeed, "You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."
Most all 9/11 researchers have no funding whatsoever, and could easily find the numerous reports of molten steel reported at Ground Zero using their computer and a search engine. The NIST was funded 20 million for their investigation and couldn't find ONE report about the molten steel (according to John Gross)???
Once again, here are the words of John Gross, one of the NIST's lead engineers, denying there were reports of molten steel...
Dr. Frank Greening, a scientist who has recently become very critical of the NIST report, has gone on record several times to say that he believes molten steel was present at Ground Zero:
"There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2"
"I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed."
"The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes... Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses."
"...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings."
"Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC."
"This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST's own studies."
"I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel."
"NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!"
"How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?"
-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member "NEU-FONZE", and as "Apollo20" at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007
Frank Greening's Bio:
Here are just some of Dr. Greening's remarks and criticisms concerning the NIST investigation into why the WTC fell down on 9/11/01:
"I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!"
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91
"NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92
"The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists' plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: "CASE CLOSED!"
Well, sorry to tell you, it won't work!"
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted at Physorg.com as forum member "NEU-FONZE", Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
____________________
"If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!... The trouble with the NIST Report is that it isn’t even science because it's not capable of being verified or negated!" -Dr. Frank Greening
SORRY not to have the links included above however the links can be found here:
www.911bloggerDOTcom/node/12002
+++++++++++++++
Please think. Think the big picture. Think about how history will look at the oct apology. Do you want your legacy contaminated with ridicule for eternity?
beijingyankees,
Answer me just one Question please, all those people who said they saw molten steel why are they not dead?
Steel only melts at 1565c some of the accounts I have heard from people mean that the heat from the steel would have damaged equipment, or killed them if it actually was molten steel.
It is just not possible in this universe for the claims to be taken as fact of anything other that misinterpretation of other lower melting point metals or substances mis identified as steel.
No one has the power to counteract the physical constants of the universe, and they say themselves that those claims can not be fact!
QUOTE
Please think. Think the big picture. Think about how history will look at the oct apology. Do you want your legacy contaminated with ridicule for eternity?
Please think, yourself. There's NO EVIDENCE that your conspiracy is correct, and there's every reason to believe that the terrorists who openly hated America did it. The net upshot of your efforts is to try to divert the blame from those responsible for killing 3000 innocent Americans (and bragging about it later) to the administration that's trying to prevent any such thing from happening again.
You're a tool that the terrorists are trying to use to duck the responsibility for their atrocities.
Wake up!
I just have a moment to say that I'm not entirely pleased with my explanation above. Particularly annoying is resorting to fictitious forces like a resistive force which, as written, reads as if for crush down. It's a useful conceptual simplification but is only that.
Suffice to say, where x is a measurable point and when x' and x" are zero within resolution of measurement, the regime of interest has not yet been entered. Add as many zeroes as you want on the front (or back) end of any such analysis, and nothing will change a whit.
Suffice to say, where x is a measurable point and when x' and x" are zero within resolution of measurement, the regime of interest has not yet been entered. Add as many zeroes as you want on the front (or back) end of any such analysis, and nothing will change a whit.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Nov 21 2007, 09:37 PM)
Please think, yourself. There's NO EVIDENCE that your conspiracy is correct, and there's every reason to believe that the terrorists who openly hated America did it. The net upshot of your efforts is to try to divert the blame from those responsible for killing 3000 innocent Americans (and bragging about it later) to the administration that's trying to prevent any such thing from happening again.
You're a tool that the terrorists are trying to use to duck the responsibility for their atrocities.
Wake up!
is this a physics argument?
OFF TOPIC!!!! not of the body!!!!! not of the body!!!!!
p.s. you're rubber, he's glue, bounces off him, and sticks to you.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Nov 21 2007, 05:47 PM)
Listen again. You should hear a loud bang at about 18 seconds.
[rhetorical]like an explosion?[/rhetorical]
[rhetorical]like an explosion?[/rhetorical]
Every explosion makes a bang but not every bang is an explosion.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (beijingyankees+Nov 22 2007, 03:08 AM)
Dude, you are the law of negation personified. The "net upshot of my efforts" is to find the truth.
It's six years after "the event" and the debate of whether or not molten steel was present continues. You are in delusion.
Terrorists remove forensic evidence from the crime scene.
Terrorists proclaim "the air is safe to breath and the water is safe to drink."
Terrorists torture.
Terrorists murder babies.
Terrorists salt depleted uranium like confetti.
Terrorists have secret prisons.
Terrorists suspend habeas corpus.
Terrorists start illegal wars based on yellow cake lies.
Terrorists attack the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
Terrorists use anthrax traced to government stock.
The country has fallen into tyranny.
Forget the thirty pieces of grant silver. Think about your legacy.
The terrorists inside the Beltway will be prosecuted.
Can you do anything here but rant politics, that is worthless in the search for truth.
Separate the emotion from the mind and the truth you might just find, lets stick to science!
There is no debate on molten steel, it might have been their but there is very little credible evidence of its existence.
There is a ton of evidence that it did not exist, for me it is not about money but the truth, and the truth only I do not like lies past as truth.
It's six years after "the event" and the debate of whether or not molten steel was present continues. You are in delusion.
Terrorists remove forensic evidence from the crime scene.
Terrorists proclaim "the air is safe to breath and the water is safe to drink."
Terrorists torture.
Terrorists murder babies.
Terrorists salt depleted uranium like confetti.
Terrorists have secret prisons.
Terrorists suspend habeas corpus.
Terrorists start illegal wars based on yellow cake lies.
Terrorists attack the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
Terrorists use anthrax traced to government stock.
The country has fallen into tyranny.
Forget the thirty pieces of grant silver. Think about your legacy.
The terrorists inside the Beltway will be prosecuted.
Can you do anything here but rant politics, that is worthless in the search for truth.
Separate the emotion from the mind and the truth you might just find, lets stick to science!
There is no debate on molten steel, it might have been their but there is very little credible evidence of its existence.
There is a ton of evidence that it did not exist, for me it is not about money but the truth, and the truth only I do not like lies past as truth.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 22 2007, 02:09 AM)
Every explosion makes a bang but not every bang is an explosion.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
hehehe. I wonder what a CDer/CTer would make of the phrase "Cambrian Explosion" if taken out of context (as they just luuurve to do repeatedly and often, hehehe)?.
RC.
.
Arthur
Hi adoucette!
hehehe. I wonder what a CDer/CTer would make of the phrase "Cambrian Explosion" if taken out of context (as they just luuurve to do repeatedly and often, hehehe)?.
RC.
.
Hi RC,
Obviously there was an explosives involved,
How else would you "blow up" a scorpion to be larger than a man?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112100301.html
Arthur
Obviously there was an explosives involved,
How else would you "blow up" a scorpion to be larger than a man?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7112100301.html
Arthur
QUOTE (beijingyankees+Nov 21 2007, 10:08 PM)
Dude, you are the law of negation personified. The "net upshot of my efforts" is to find the truth.
It's six years after "the event" and the debate of whether or not molten steel was present continues. You are in delusion.
Terrorists remove forensic evidence from the crime scene.
Terrorists proclaim "the air is safe to breath and the water is safe to drink."
Terrorists torture.
Terrorists murder babies.
Terrorists salt depleted uranium like confetti.
Terrorists have secret prisons.
Terrorists suspend habeas corpus.
Terrorists start illegal wars based on yellow cake lies.
Terrorists attack the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
Terrorists use anthrax traced to government stock.
The country has fallen into tyranny.
Forget the thirty pieces of grant silver. Think about your legacy.
The terrorists inside the Beltway will be prosecuted.
YAWN
Oh, I see BeijingWanker is back.
Same ol bunch of nothing posts though.
Let me know if he actually posts something of SCIENTIFIC INTEREST.
Arthur
It's six years after "the event" and the debate of whether or not molten steel was present continues. You are in delusion.
Terrorists remove forensic evidence from the crime scene.
Terrorists proclaim "the air is safe to breath and the water is safe to drink."
Terrorists torture.
Terrorists murder babies.
Terrorists salt depleted uranium like confetti.
Terrorists have secret prisons.
Terrorists suspend habeas corpus.
Terrorists start illegal wars based on yellow cake lies.
Terrorists attack the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
Terrorists use anthrax traced to government stock.
The country has fallen into tyranny.
Forget the thirty pieces of grant silver. Think about your legacy.
The terrorists inside the Beltway will be prosecuted.
YAWN
Oh, I see BeijingWanker is back.
Same ol bunch of nothing posts though.
Let me know if he actually posts something of SCIENTIFIC INTEREST.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 21 2007, 08:24 AM)
QUOTE (quicknthedead @ Nov 21 2007+ 06:20 AM)
Now that's a hoot!!!
So Quick, how you coming on your theory that the Lobby of WTC 7 was blown out BEFORE either of the towers fell?
Arthur
Doc, please, let's deal in facts (or close to them).
To your question, the matter of the lobby destruction at WTC 7, based upon seemingly credible testimony of others, needs to be investigated, but this is not my bailiwick.
Explosions in the sub-basements of WTC1, and explosions in both towers before they collapsed. But what caused them is unknown. OCT's here have proffered good explanations for these explosions; however, whether they explain them all is another thing.
The jet fuel did make it down to the bottom of WTC1 and kill and burn many people; as you know, this is based upon many testimonies. But the explosions in the sub-basements, and the destruction caused by them, seem to indicate a higher magnitude.
The theory made at this forum regarding transmission of energy from the plane's impact through the core's steel structure, traveling down to the bedrock at a very high rate of speed, sounds plausible; perhaps this did cause the damage down there. Further investigation by experts would be great...
Then again, there is still the unexplained difference between the two impact times at WTC1 (radar vs seismic), an ~10-second difference...but let's leave this alone this time (sit back in your chair and relax, Grumpy); no sense in rehashing something we cannot seem to get anywhere on.
But further investigating would be good in that too...
Your remark that there is nothing suspicious about WTC 7 goes against what many millions of people now believe to be a most highly suspicious event; and this includes expert demolitionist Danny Jowenko, who stated he was absolutely sure WTC 7 was a CD...
Then again, Jowenko also said the towers were not CD's...
All the above indicate the need for further investigation...
And, yes, your comment was a hoot!
Arthur:
=============
No, METAMARS claimed it was published.
=============
==========
We have no idea what caused the jets below the collapse fronts.
==========
==========
We have no idea what caused the jets below the collapse fronts.
==========
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis. But after being forced to field many “frequently asked questions”, NIST’s Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts “puffs of dust”, and explained "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window.[below the collapse front] Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor pancaking [below the collapfe front] that leads to that perception."
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in the summer of 2006, saying “NIST’s findings do not support the ‘pancake theory’ of collapse.” In an
attempt to maintain their faltering fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so by saying “the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.”
High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan, 6/13/2007
==========
I doubt it was caused in the manner you illustrated,
=========
So do I.
"the sensor and systems guy"
===========================
How do we know that the "microspheres" weren't just left over from that [93] attack and restoration effort?
===========================
We read stuff, such as the word "infrasonic" on the very page from which Trippy sourced his waveform, for instance ---- instead of just making things up.
chainsaw:
===============
Iron oxide and Aluminum oxide are also used in paint.
It is not a problem we can not find sources of micro-spheres...
===============
Oxide of oxide = metal spheres--- awesome!
micro and macro-spheres:
Some details are of course hard to sort out from the EDS spectra, such as the exact species of oxidizer used. (E.g., zinc oxide or zinc nitrate?). Ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer may be difficult to detect in thermite-analog residues. Since I presented much of my own research on possible thermite residues found in the WTC dust, Frank Greening has commented on the possibility of ammonium perchlorate contributing somehow to the destruction of the WTC Towers and the formation of iron-rich spheres in the dust (private communication). His explanation does not, however, take into consideration the detailed chemical content (including significant aluminum) of these iron-rich microspheres which has been discovered in our current EDS measurements of actual samples from the WTC dust.
The metallic element ingredients along with sulfur can be determined with considerable certainty. Of course, owing to the nature of the thermite reaction and the high-temperatures during spherule formation, the content of the various metals varies somewhat from sphere to sphere and even from one spot to another on a single sphere.
Done carefully, the presence of the aluminothermic reaction signature is quite unambiguous; as stated by Materials Engineering, Inc. (MEi):
• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue…
• MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.”47
Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states: “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from
thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”48
This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues.
Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”? NIST was asked:
• Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
• Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” 49
Jones, op. cit.
chainsaw
http://history-bytes.blogspot.com/2006/09/...-migration.html
http://history-bytes.blogspot.com/2006/09/...etal-magic.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Left: Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots from September 18 to September 25 "
GeoNews, October, 2001
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ees/october2001.pdf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
You're a tool that the terrorists are trying to use to duck the responsibility for their atrocities.
Wake up!
Now who is spouting political rhetoric?
If you do this, someone is liable to respond with the opposite, e.g.:
Look to motive (Iraq, Afghanistan).
Keep to the science and the facts, please. You're much better when you do.
If threats = facts, then you've just committed a felony.
It's too bad that you didn't learn more physics back in school so that you could understand that nothing you think is "evidence" of a CD is just what you *should* expect to see under the circumstances.
But political rhetoric is SO much easier than physics, isn't it?
No need to apologize, I enjoyed it!
No need to apologize, I enjoyed it!
Ok now I get it, it is often used for glowing metal and not something that already cooled down.
Those firepeople talked about a kind of foundry that they saw and I guess those folks are experienced people. But I'm a lay man and don't know much about that subject, I even have no idea if thermite or explosives lead to so-called pools of metal.
The thing of it is, there was a lot of stuff there in the towers that was flammable, and when the towers collapsed, the fires didn't go out. At that point, you had lots of flammable stuff sandwiched between insulating material (concrete), with enough porosity of the rubble to allow the materials to continue burning, but not anough airflow to allow the heat to easily escape the rubble. It isn't easy to guess how hot the rubble pile got, but even if it did get hot enough to melt steel completely to its fully-liquid state, that's not evidence of thermite/thermate/ninja-fairies planting that real quiet, slow-burning C-4, that just means that the fuel on the floors that didn't burn before the collapse burned AFTER the collapse, with noplace for that heat to go, hence high temperatures.
Look at how old staged pottery kilns were set up, with the exhaust from one fire pre-heating the kiln one layer above it. In the towers, this pancaked rubble would be a naturally occurring (unintended) stacked kiln structure - insulation, combustible fuel, steel, insulation, combustible material, steel... 110 layers of that, with just enough porosity to allow the fuel to continue burning.
I'd be surprised if there *weren't* any molten metal/molten glass in that rubble pile.
For any such thing to be assumed to be due to thermite/thermate? Just how f*ing much thermate are you suggesting those ninja-fairies managed to sneak into the building? Is it your position that the "molten steel" (found when?) was still hot because thermate started out real hot when the towers collapsed? How long do you think it stayed hot?
Just answer me that *one* question - How long are you saying the thermate/thermite that you claim caused the collapse of the towers STAYED HOT in the rubble pile????
(Note to Einsteen - I'm not mad at you, I was actually meaning to aim the question at the proponents of the "pools of molten steel means thermate dropped the building" crowd. Sorry I used your post as the quote to start the discussion.)
running rivers of molten metal has been used to describe running rivers of molten metal, too.
pools of molten metal, dripping molten metal have also been used to describe molten metal that is actually in a molten state.
english is so nebulous sometimes.
The crush-up model for WTC7 predicts a collapse duration of about 6.6 s if the E1/mh is considered constant and similar to the value of that for the upper regions of the WTC towers, if I did the math correctly.
The crush-up diffeq for a constant E1/mh simplifies to
t = sqrt(2H/[g-E1/(mh)])
where H is the building height, m is the mass above the collapse front, and h is the inter-story height.
For an E1/mh of 1.57 m/s^2, the collapse duration for WTC7 is about 6.6 seconds, which is close to the observed collapse duration of the final global crush-up of WTC7.
t = sqrt(2H/[g-E1/(mh)])
t= sqrt(2*178/[9.81-1.57])
t = 6.57 s
Doubling E1/mh doesn't have a large effect on the duration for WTC7 when E1/mh is small relative to g. The square root function in the crush-up equation also makes the duration insensitive to E1/mh.
Increasing E1/mh to 3 m/s^2 gives a WTC7 collapse duration of 7.2 s.
Reducing E1/mh to 0.8 m/s^2 gives a WTC7 collapse duration of 6.3 s.
When E1 is zero, the crush-up equation reduces to the familiar
t = sqrt(2H/g)
=============
No, METAMARS claimed it was published.
=============
QUOTE
A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic
PhysOrg, September 11, 2007
http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html
PhysOrg, September 11, 2007
http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html
==========
We have no idea what caused the jets below the collapse fronts.
==========
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic PhysOrg, September 11, 2007 http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html |
==========
We have no idea what caused the jets below the collapse fronts.
==========
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis. But after being forced to field many “frequently asked questions”, NIST’s Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts “puffs of dust”, and explained "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window.[below the collapse front] Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor pancaking [below the collapfe front] that leads to that perception."
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in the summer of 2006, saying “NIST’s findings do not support the ‘pancake theory’ of collapse.” In an
attempt to maintain their faltering fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so by saying “the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.”
High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan, 6/13/2007
==========
I doubt it was caused in the manner you illustrated,
=========
So do I.
"the sensor and systems guy"
===========================
How do we know that the "microspheres" weren't just left over from that [93] attack and restoration effort?
===========================
We read stuff, such as the word "infrasonic" on the very page from which Trippy sourced his waveform, for instance ---- instead of just making things up.
chainsaw:
===============
Iron oxide and Aluminum oxide are also used in paint.
It is not a problem we can not find sources of micro-spheres...
===============
Oxide of oxide = metal spheres--- awesome!
micro and macro-spheres:
QUOTE
The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay, and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower, the South Tower.
During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment.
[...]
I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust, pulling upwards to the top the magnetic material and pulling this aside for further analysis. These magnetic particles were, as one might expect, rich in iron. There was a surprising amount of this iron-rich material. Although others have reported the presence of iron-rich particles in the dust41, I was surprised to find the abundance of spherical particles in this iron-rich component some of which were considerably larger than previously reported. It was exciting to me to find for the first time iron-rich spheres up to about 1.5 mm in diameter in a 32.1-gram sample of dust.
[...]
It has also been suggested that thermate may have been used at ground zero (GZ) during steelcutting operations for clean-up there. However, no documentation whatsoever that thermate was so used has been provided, and so for this suggestion to be seriously considered, the proponents will need to provide documentation for the use of thermate and disclosure of the composition – including KMnO4, S, etc. In this way, we can compare the alleged thermate use with what is observed in the dust. What is thoroughly documented is the use of oxyacetylene torches in the cutting of the steel at ground zero.
Furthermore, Janette MacKinlay collected the dust inside her apartment just about a week after the buildings collapsed, so there was very little time for any molten-metal spheres created somehow by the clean-up itself to have made its way into her 4th-floor to be mingled in with the dust up there. This is a compelling argument against “accidental” contamination of the dust she collected in her apartment even if thermate had been used during clean-up (which is highly unlikely due to safety/liability issues.)
In addition, the distance to the apartment from the clean-up operation is about 100 meters (about a football-field length), while in our experiments with thermite/thermate, the glowing sparks (metallic droplets) are seen to travel only a few meters or yards. The holes formed in the two broken windows of this apartment were about two feet by three feet, increasing the unlikelihood that any metallic spheres from the (improbable) use of thermate at GZ could have entered the apartment during the few days before the dust was collected. (On the other hand, the fast-moving dust clouds on 9/11/2001 traveled for many blocks and certainly would have carried small residues with them, for example, residues from thermite cutter-charges used to help destroy the Towers.) Furthermore, iron-rich spheres were found in the WTC dust several blocks away from GZ43 in large numbers which essentially eliminates the possibility that these spherules could be due to thermite used at ground zero.
Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Dr. Steven E. Jones
During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment.
[...]
I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust, pulling upwards to the top the magnetic material and pulling this aside for further analysis. These magnetic particles were, as one might expect, rich in iron. There was a surprising amount of this iron-rich material. Although others have reported the presence of iron-rich particles in the dust41, I was surprised to find the abundance of spherical particles in this iron-rich component some of which were considerably larger than previously reported. It was exciting to me to find for the first time iron-rich spheres up to about 1.5 mm in diameter in a 32.1-gram sample of dust.
[...]
It has also been suggested that thermate may have been used at ground zero (GZ) during steelcutting operations for clean-up there. However, no documentation whatsoever that thermate was so used has been provided, and so for this suggestion to be seriously considered, the proponents will need to provide documentation for the use of thermate and disclosure of the composition – including KMnO4, S, etc. In this way, we can compare the alleged thermate use with what is observed in the dust. What is thoroughly documented is the use of oxyacetylene torches in the cutting of the steel at ground zero.
Furthermore, Janette MacKinlay collected the dust inside her apartment just about a week after the buildings collapsed, so there was very little time for any molten-metal spheres created somehow by the clean-up itself to have made its way into her 4th-floor to be mingled in with the dust up there. This is a compelling argument against “accidental” contamination of the dust she collected in her apartment even if thermate had been used during clean-up (which is highly unlikely due to safety/liability issues.)
In addition, the distance to the apartment from the clean-up operation is about 100 meters (about a football-field length), while in our experiments with thermite/thermate, the glowing sparks (metallic droplets) are seen to travel only a few meters or yards. The holes formed in the two broken windows of this apartment were about two feet by three feet, increasing the unlikelihood that any metallic spheres from the (improbable) use of thermate at GZ could have entered the apartment during the few days before the dust was collected. (On the other hand, the fast-moving dust clouds on 9/11/2001 traveled for many blocks and certainly would have carried small residues with them, for example, residues from thermite cutter-charges used to help destroy the Towers.) Furthermore, iron-rich spheres were found in the WTC dust several blocks away from GZ43 in large numbers which essentially eliminates the possibility that these spherules could be due to thermite used at ground zero.
Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Dr. Steven E. Jones
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The provenience of the dust sample used in my study is from an apartment at 113 Cedar St. in New York City. This fourth-floor apartment was the residence of Janette MacKinlay, and was approximately 100 meters or so from the closest Tower, the South Tower. During the collapse of the South Tower on 9/11/2001, the windows of this apartment broke and the apartment was flooded with dust. About a week later, she re-entered the apartment and began clean-up and preserved some of the dust in her apartment. [...] I collected iron-rich particles in the dust by pulling a magnet across the outside of a plastic bag containing the dust, pulling upwards to the top the magnetic material and pulling this aside for further analysis. These magnetic particles were, as one might expect, rich in iron. There was a surprising amount of this iron-rich material. Although others have reported the presence of iron-rich particles in the dust41, I was surprised to find the abundance of spherical particles in this iron-rich component some of which were considerably larger than previously reported. It was exciting to me to find for the first time iron-rich spheres up to about 1.5 mm in diameter in a 32.1-gram sample of dust. [...] It has also been suggested that thermate may have been used at ground zero (GZ) during steelcutting operations for clean-up there. However, no documentation whatsoever that thermate was so used has been provided, and so for this suggestion to be seriously considered, the proponents will need to provide documentation for the use of thermate and disclosure of the composition – including KMnO4, S, etc. In this way, we can compare the alleged thermate use with what is observed in the dust. What is thoroughly documented is the use of oxyacetylene torches in the cutting of the steel at ground zero. Furthermore, Janette MacKinlay collected the dust inside her apartment just about a week after the buildings collapsed, so there was very little time for any molten-metal spheres created somehow by the clean-up itself to have made its way into her 4th-floor to be mingled in with the dust up there. This is a compelling argument against “accidental” contamination of the dust she collected in her apartment even if thermate had been used during clean-up (which is highly unlikely due to safety/liability issues.) In addition, the distance to the apartment from the clean-up operation is about 100 meters (about a football-field length), while in our experiments with thermite/thermate, the glowing sparks (metallic droplets) are seen to travel only a few meters or yards. The holes formed in the two broken windows of this apartment were about two feet by three feet, increasing the unlikelihood that any metallic spheres from the (improbable) use of thermate at GZ could have entered the apartment during the few days before the dust was collected. (On the other hand, the fast-moving dust clouds on 9/11/2001 traveled for many blocks and certainly would have carried small residues with them, for example, residues from thermite cutter-charges used to help destroy the Towers.) Furthermore, iron-rich spheres were found in the WTC dust several blocks away from GZ43 in large numbers which essentially eliminates the possibility that these spherules could be due to thermite used at ground zero. Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method Dr. Steven E. Jones |
Some details are of course hard to sort out from the EDS spectra, such as the exact species of oxidizer used. (E.g., zinc oxide or zinc nitrate?). Ammonium nitrate as an oxidizer may be difficult to detect in thermite-analog residues. Since I presented much of my own research on possible thermite residues found in the WTC dust, Frank Greening has commented on the possibility of ammonium perchlorate contributing somehow to the destruction of the WTC Towers and the formation of iron-rich spheres in the dust (private communication). His explanation does not, however, take into consideration the detailed chemical content (including significant aluminum) of these iron-rich microspheres which has been discovered in our current EDS measurements of actual samples from the WTC dust.
The metallic element ingredients along with sulfur can be determined with considerable certainty. Of course, owing to the nature of the thermite reaction and the high-temperatures during spherule formation, the content of the various metals varies somewhat from sphere to sphere and even from one spot to another on a single sphere.
Done carefully, the presence of the aluminothermic reaction signature is quite unambiguous; as stated by Materials Engineering, Inc. (MEi):
• “When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue…
• MEi has conducted Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) on minute traces of residue, identifying the presence of these chemical elements. The results, coupled with visual evidence at the scene, provide absolute certainty that thermite reaction compounds were present, indicating the fire was deliberately set, and not of natural causes.”47
Note that the NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations clearly states: “Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from
thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”48
This is the standard procedure for fire and explosion investigations – looking for thermite residues.
Was it applied to the WTC “crime scene”? NIST was asked:
• Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues?
The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
• Answer; “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.” 49
Jones, op. cit.
chainsaw
http://history-bytes.blogspot.com/2006/09/...-migration.html
http://history-bytes.blogspot.com/2006/09/...etal-magic.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Left: Thermal Imagery of the progression of molten steel hotspots from September 18 to September 25 "
GeoNews, October, 2001
http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ees/october2001.pdf
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 21 2007, 09:54 AM)
Chainsaw, while your conjecture is plausible, the actual events from that morning clearly show that situation wasn't the case.
The Lobby of WTC 7 was used as a Triage center, which would not have been a good choice if it was severely damaged as Quick asserts.
Then if you read the other reports its quite clear that the WTC 7 lobby is functioning fairly normally prior to the collapse of WTC 2, for instance:
{ARTHUR BEGINS ON PAGE 8, ctf}
”I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was being evacuated. We proceeded down to the lobby where the various agency representatives were present. We collectively started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort. {ARTHUR THEN SEAMLESSLY JUMPS OUT TO PAGE 19, ctf}Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.”
It does make you wonder what Quick's motivation is for promoting these series of false stories about 9/11. Clearly TRUTH is not part of his agenda.
Arthur
My motivation is the truth. That and a real investigation.
False stories? SERIES of false stories?
You make this stuff up as you go along, huh?
Your quote above from EMS Division Chief Peruggia begins with the time period just after the 2nd plane hit. This can be determined if you read it in context. You, however, combined your excerpts to deceptively give a false impression of the time period involved, starting at page 8 and then jumping to page 19.
Do they call you, "Slick"?
Or maybe...What "truth" agenda are you on, Doc?
Peruggia had just gotten there right after the 2nd plane hit, and they were in the process of evacuating WTC 7 (there were reports of an in-bound 3rd plane).
This means there was still time for the explosions to occur in WTC7 that Jennings and Hess say they experienced. (Yes, the dead people in the lobby were probably from the triaging that had been going on.)
Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110160.PDF
Jennings & Hess
http://www.nogw.com/download/_07_hanging_around_wtc7.pdf
What is interesting is what Peruggia said around this time about his being told about the imminent collapse of WTC1 (before WTC2 had even collapsed).
Who were these people who so early on were so positive WTC1 would be collapsing? How could they be so positive so early on? Peruggia did not put much stock in what they told him (which can be seen from the 2nd excerpt that follows this first one).
1st excerpt:
{Top Page 17}
At that point I went back into the building. I was in a
discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a
representative from the Department of Buildings, but
I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several
of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was
brought to my attention, it was believed that the
structural damage that was suffered to the towers was
quite significant and they were very confident that the
building's stability was compromised and they felt that
the north tower was in danger of a near imminent
collapse.
Peruggia did not believe this at the time.
2nd excerpt:
{Bottom Page 17}
The information we got at that time was that
they felt both buildings were significantly damaged,
but they felt that the north tower, which was the first
one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of
collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you
could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was
significant structural damage to the exterior of the
building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this
is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
collapsing ever entered into my mind.
I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the
bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the
building and with all the post-incident critiques and
debriefings with various agencies. We were always told
by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could
withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way
they were designed. They went through all of this
architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my
knowledge.
It was hit by an airplane. That's okay.
It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think
everyone may have believed that. We were all told
years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.
To reiterate, Jennings and Hess testified of explosions in 7 before WTC2 came down.
An investigation would be in order to get to the bottom of that as well as all the other troubling aspects of 9/11.
Arthur Adoucette: "There is NOTHING suspicious about WTC 7."
What a hoot!
The Lobby of WTC 7 was used as a Triage center, which would not have been a good choice if it was severely damaged as Quick asserts.
Then if you read the other reports its quite clear that the WTC 7 lobby is functioning fairly normally prior to the collapse of WTC 2, for instance:
{ARTHUR BEGINS ON PAGE 8, ctf}
”I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there, Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had indicated that the building was being evacuated. We proceeded down to the lobby where the various agency representatives were present. We collectively started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort. {ARTHUR THEN SEAMLESSLY JUMPS OUT TO PAGE 19, ctf}Just moments before the south tower collapsed and, you know, when it happened we didn't know it was the south tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge. I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the direction of where we were all in the south corner and there was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the loading bays. Everybody started to run through that. Never made it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.”
It does make you wonder what Quick's motivation is for promoting these series of false stories about 9/11. Clearly TRUTH is not part of his agenda.
Arthur
My motivation is the truth. That and a real investigation.
False stories? SERIES of false stories?
You make this stuff up as you go along, huh?
Your quote above from EMS Division Chief Peruggia begins with the time period just after the 2nd plane hit. This can be determined if you read it in context. You, however, combined your excerpts to deceptively give a false impression of the time period involved, starting at page 8 and then jumping to page 19.
Do they call you, "Slick"?
Or maybe...What "truth" agenda are you on, Doc?
Peruggia had just gotten there right after the 2nd plane hit, and they were in the process of evacuating WTC 7 (there were reports of an in-bound 3rd plane).
This means there was still time for the explosions to occur in WTC7 that Jennings and Hess say they experienced. (Yes, the dead people in the lobby were probably from the triaging that had been going on.)
Peruggia
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/...HIC/9110160.PDF
Jennings & Hess
http://www.nogw.com/download/_07_hanging_around_wtc7.pdf
What is interesting is what Peruggia said around this time about his being told about the imminent collapse of WTC1 (before WTC2 had even collapsed).
Who were these people who so early on were so positive WTC1 would be collapsing? How could they be so positive so early on? Peruggia did not put much stock in what they told him (which can be seen from the 2nd excerpt that follows this first one).
1st excerpt:
{Top Page 17}
At that point I went back into the building. I was in a
discussion with Mr. Rotanz and I believe it was a
representative from the Department of Buildings, but
I'm not sure. Some engineer type person, and several
of us were huddled talking in the lobby and it was
brought to my attention, it was believed that the
structural damage that was suffered to the towers was
quite significant and they were very confident that the
building's stability was compromised and they felt that
the north tower was in danger of a near imminent
collapse.
Peruggia did not believe this at the time.
2nd excerpt:
{Bottom Page 17}
The information we got at that time was that
they felt both buildings were significantly damaged,
but they felt that the north tower, which was the first
one to be struck, was going to be in imminent danger of
collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you
could see through the smoke or whatever, that there was
significant structural damage to the exterior of the
building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this
is not a scene where the thought of both buildings
collapsing ever entered into my mind.
I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the
bomb went off. I operated some 16 hours at the
building and with all the post-incident critiques and
debriefings with various agencies. We were always told
by everyone, the experts, that these buildings could
withstand direct hits from airplanes. That's the way
they were designed. They went through all of this
architectural stuff, way beyond the scope of my
knowledge.
It was hit by an airplane. That's okay.
It's made to be hit by an airplane. I mean I think
everyone may have believed that. We were all told
years ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.
To reiterate, Jennings and Hess testified of explosions in 7 before WTC2 came down.
An investigation would be in order to get to the bottom of that as well as all the other troubling aspects of 9/11.
Arthur Adoucette: "There is NOTHING suspicious about WTC 7."
What a hoot!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Nov 21 2007, 02:37 PM)
You're a tool that the terrorists are trying to use to duck the responsibility for their atrocities.
Wake up!
Now who is spouting political rhetoric?
If you do this, someone is liable to respond with the opposite, e.g.:
Look to motive (Iraq, Afghanistan).
Keep to the science and the facts, please. You're much better when you do.
QUOTE
I do not rant politics. I merely am stating facts.
...
Choose your sides, because if you sit on the fence I promise, you will be impaled.
...
Choose your sides, because if you sit on the fence I promise, you will be impaled.
If threats = facts, then you've just committed a felony.
It's too bad that you didn't learn more physics back in school so that you could understand that nothing you think is "evidence" of a CD is just what you *should* expect to see under the circumstances.
But political rhetoric is SO much easier than physics, isn't it?
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Nov 22 2007, 03:16 AM)
Your quote above from EMS Division Chief Peruggia begins with the time period just after the 2nd plane hit. This can be determined if you read it in context. You, however, combined your excerpts to deceptively give a false impression of the time period involved, starting at page 8 and then jumping to page 19.
Do they call you, "Slick"?
Or maybe...What "truth" agenda are you on, Doc?
I did no such thing, I just got it from a source which apparently had done so.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/...omments&cnum=12
But the ESSENSE of the post is the SAME:
From the NYT (original source):
First excerpt:
when I got off the Verrazano Bridge. I grabbed my Department radio from the
trunk, turned it on to the frequency and advised the dispatcher
that I was responding. I continued then in on my response. As I
was passing through the Battery Tunnel, probably around midway
through the Battery Tunnel, I heard the report come over the
radio ~ha~ a second plane had struck the second tower ...
==> So all the rest of this is AFTER both towers have been hit.
I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the
lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I
checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the
escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator
on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as
I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director
Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there,
Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had
indicated that the building was being evacuated.
I questioned as to what the nature of the
evacuation was. I was told that it was not because of what was
occurring across the street. No one feared that the building was
in any danger as a result of two airplane attacks and subsequent
fires, but that there were reports of a third plane chat had
been hijacked. It was unidentified, the location, and they
thought it may be coming in for an additional strike. Therefore,
they were evacuating the building.
==> Clearly the LOBBY IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL as he "checks in at the security desk", so CLEARLY there a bomb has not destroyed the lobby.
Then they are discussing the reason that they are evacuating WTC 7 and its because of the fear of a THIRD plane. NOT because of fear of the other towers collapsing and NOT because a bomb had gone off in the WTC 7 building.
We proceeded down to the lobby where the
various agency representatives were present. We collectively
started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies
to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort.
At that point, I also had a face to face discussion
with Battalion Chief Mike Maggio from the First Battalion. He
was the person who was sent up to be the rep at OEM. Mike is
someone who assists us on lots of our event planning. He was
detailed there. He didnít have any gear with him. He was a light
duty Chief on administrative assignment there. So I told Captain
Yakimovich that we are not going to send a Chief back. At that
point he indicated that he was going to run over to 10 and 10
and secure gear and then report back to the command post and
assist the Chief there. I told him that would be fine. I didnít
need a lot of people inside. They needed more help outside.
As we were having discussions in the lobby as to what
to do with OEM, a number of people came in the lobby as patients.
Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo started to look at them, put them
off to the side and talk to them. A~that point I stepped outside.
I was going to request some EMS resources and I had face to face
contac: with Captain Mark Stone of the EMS S
==> Reinforces the fact that WTC 7 was seen as a SAFETY zone. They were bringing patients in.
Battalion.
Q. What kind of patients were you seeing?
A. There was two or three people who had smoke
inhalation. There was another person who was bleeding
significantly from his lower leg and unable to stand. He
was trying to limp and crawl.
Q. They came from outside?
A. Yes. Later it was determined that he had a
fracture of his leg, so we put him on a chair and the
other people, we put them off to the side. I ran into
Captain Stone. He had, I believe it was two EMTs with him.
I told him that -- he was in his full gear and radio. I
directed him to respond over, report into the EMS command
post and I told him that I put Captain Nahmod in charge of
whatever little treatment sector that we would establish
here in the lobby.
Q. Where was the EMS command post?
A. I donít know where the EMS command post was at
that time. Again I didnít hear much. There was lots of
stuff going on the radio. My mission at that time was not
that of an EMS Chief responding to the operation. My
mission was, as the Chief of Planning for the Fire
Department, to respond in to handle the agency liaison
stuff.
I told Captain Stone he could respond over to
the EMS command post so he could take a field assignment
or whatever, ~ince he was appropriately dressed. ENT
Zarrillo and Captain Nahmod responded from headquarters
without turnout gear, helmets or --EMT Zarrillo had his
helmet with him. So Captain Abdo Nahmod established a
treatment center. I requested over the Citywide radio for
two BLS units to respond to my location at 7 World Trade
Center where we established treatment.
At that point I continued to liaison with my
counterparts over at OEM. A short while later, just maybe a
few moments, Dr. Asaeda, Office of Medical Affairs, and the
EMT or paramedic that was with him, showed up. I told him
we were seeing a number of people. In other words, more
than 3 at that point in time, but again I wasnít directly
involved, so I couldnít tell you the number. He said fine.
He said he would stay over at our location and work with us
there. We were in close proximity to the building. If you
are familiar, Iíll mark it with number 3 on the map, in
front of 7 World Trade Center.
Directly across the street there are some
escalators that come down from the promenade. There is
also an overhead pedestrian walkway that connects the World
Trade Center plaza to the lobby of number 7. There was people
coming down both exits. So it was a good position for us to
find people who may require medical attention and get them into
a secured area of the lobby. I didnít have any EMS people
working out on Vesey Street proper, because it was not a safe
location. There was people jumping out of the windows of the
World Trade Center. We were witnessing that. There was debris
falling down from the north tower and making its way on to the
street and promenade where we were located.
A few moments after Dr. Asaeda arrived and started
talking to Captain Nahmod about the patients, a gentleman from
the building identified himself as a security person or a
security director. He asked me if there is anything that we
needed or he could provide me with regard to the EMS. We
questioned him as to the ability to open up the loading bays
which are associated to number 7 World Trade Center. The
entrances are located directly under the pedestrian foot bridge.
I figured it was protected there, so debris wouldnít fall down.
He said he would do that. I directed Captain Nahmod to move the
patients into that area. Again, the lobby of number 7 is all glass
facade. I was concerned that if something should come off
the building, go through the glass or hit the glass, we
would have an extraordinary amount of patients in addition
to what was already being seen.
==> So CLEARLY the glass is intact, since that's why he's worried about it breaking.
Further we took everyone from OEM and moved
them to what would be the most southeasterly corner inside
that first floor entrance of the 7 World Trade. There is a
big granite or marble security desk and we started to
establish around that as we were trying to figure out what
we were going to do.
==> Again, clearly establishing that the Lobby of WTC 7 is a SECURE SAFE are.
At that point again, I went out front to see
what was going on and where the ambulances I had requested
were. I had a face to face with Fire Commissioner Thomas
Von Essen. He was there with his driver. He was wearing his
protective gear and his helmet. He questioned me as to -- I
told him I was there for OEM, operating in the lobby, that
the building was being evacuated and the nature of that. He
indicated if I knew the whereabouts of the Mayor. told him
that as I was approaching OEM and coming up Vesey Street, I
saw a large contingency of gentlemen in suits exiting down
Vesey Street proceeding north on West toward Barclay. I
recognized some of the peoplein that group as staff and TAs for the Mayor. I told him more than likely that was probably the direction the Mayor
went.
He asked me what was going on. I told him what
was going on. I told him where the command post was and that
Chief Ganci, Chief Nigro and I had just spoken a few minutes
earlier at that location. He said okay and he proceeded then
westbound on Vesey towards West.
Q. Who was he with, was he with some of his aides?
A. He was with his driver or somebody again, I
donít remember exactly who he was with. Time proceeded. We
were listening to the radio for updates of what was going
on. Our patient count was probably a half dozen to a dozen
at that point. We had maybe three or four EMTs working under
Captain Nahmod with Dr. Asaeda. We had a whole treatment
center set up inside those bays. They got folding chairs
from the building security.
They had back boards, they had oxygen. It was
working out real nice. Everyone was stable so there was no
rush to start screaming for additional ambulances. I felt at
that point we were in a fairly secure location in those bays. That was one less
concern that I needed to be worried about at that point.
===> Now he states CLEARLY that he felt SECURE in the loading bays of WTC 7 which are just off the lobby.
Several minutes passed by. I then encountered Chief Nigro in front of the building.
Q. What building was he in front of?
A. In front of 7 World Trade Center. He indicated
he was in the process of doing a perimeter survey of the
complex to get a good grip on the extent of damage in the
fire. I guess he would then bring that back and he and
Chief Ganci were going to discuss strategy. We spoke for
several minutes. I briefed him on everything that was going
on, where the Fire Commissioner had gone, that the Mayor
was out and the building was evacuated. Told him about
treatment. Told him that I was the liaison. Told him that I
would keep Chief Ganci abreast of any significant
information that was provided.
He thanked me and told me to be careful. He
continued westbound on Vesey Street towards Church. He
continued his perimeter search. Shortly thereafter, I
noriced three firefighters operating on the southbound
side of Vesey directly underneath the pedestrian
promenade, beuween the pedestriar~ bridge and the
escalators. One of them signaled over to me. I went over to
talk with them. I noticed they were without an officer. They
told me they got separated from their officer when they were
operating up on the plaza. I donít recall what company they
were from. I do remember that at least one, if not two of them,
were probies, by the orange plates on the helmet.
They indicated that there was lots of people on the
plaza, that they thought were dead and people were jumping out
and said you know, what should we do. I indicated to them that
if people were jumping out, more than likely they were correct,
the patients were dead. There was nothing that anybody could do
for them and that in light of what was going on, operating on
the plaza wasnít safe for them.
I further went on to tell them that since they were
separated from their officer it was probably a good idea if they
were to proceed eastbound on Vesey towards Church. There were
some several companies, I noticed, operating up on Church and
Vesey. I told them they could hook up with one of those companies
or officer. At least this way they would be with a group, they
would be accounted for.
They were in the process of securing a
hydrant and then they said they would move on. At that point I
went back into the building. I was in a discussion with Mr.
Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the
Department of Buildings, but Iím not sure. Some engineer type
person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and
it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the
structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite
significant and they were very confident that the buildingís
stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower
was in danger of a near imminent collapse.
===> The lobby he has returned to is the FUNCTIONING LOBBY of WTC 7
I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that
information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the
command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it
was across the street from number i World Trade Center. I told
him ìYou see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with
the information that the building integrity is severely
compromised and they believe the building is in danger of
imminent collapse.î So, he left off in that direction.
Q. They felt that just the one building or both of them?
A. They felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the
north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent
danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through
the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the
exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a
scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind.
I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I
operated.some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques
and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the
experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. Thatís
the way they were designed. They went through all of this architecturaT stuff,
way beyond the scope of my knowledge.
It was hit by an airplane. Thatís okay. Itís made to be hit by an
airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years
ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.
Some amount of time passed by, probably not long, again, I wasnít checking my watch. Actually we were just really disgusted, maybe we were going to move what
we were going to do and how we were going to try to
coordinate. Things were hectic. We didnít have the tools that
we normally have to communicate with our agency, you know,
cellular phones were not working properly, radio was very
difficult to get through. I work for the Chief of the
Department, I donít have a fire ground radio, so I had no
direct communications with my boss at that time, which is one
of the reasons I needed to send EMT Zarrillo with that
message, which I felt was very significant, to the command
post.
Just moments before the south tower collapsed and,
you know, when it happened we didnít know it was the south
tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter
of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an
oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade
Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge.
==> So NOW we are JUST MOMENTS BEFORE THE SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSES and the WTC 7 lobby is still undamaged. (because otherwise he would have mentioned that a BOMB had gone off in his TRIAGE area
I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At
least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue
with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I
looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I
grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving
doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She
fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the
direction of where we were all in the south corner and there
was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the
loading bays.
==> So CLEARLY the lobby is ok, they went inside, they started to RUN inside the lobby, something that would not be able to be done if the lobby had been damaged by a BOMB
Everybody started to run through that. Never made
it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was
covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing
through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.
Q. Were you injured?
A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didnít
believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I
was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but
once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and
cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very
thick dust, you couldnít see. We heard some sounds. We reached
out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people
in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where
we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked
open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We
made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3 fourths of
the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief MaggiO
and Captain Nahmod. They told me -- I said do whatever you need
to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water.
==> So its QUITE CLEAR that the Damage to WTC 7's lobby FIRST happened when WTC 2 collapsed, not before.
Which also means that the LONGER VERSION of his testimony in NO WAY CONTRADICTS the shorter version I previously found.
Arthur
Do they call you, "Slick"?
Or maybe...What "truth" agenda are you on, Doc?
I did no such thing, I just got it from a source which apparently had done so.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/...omments&cnum=12
But the ESSENSE of the post is the SAME:
From the NYT (original source):
First excerpt:
when I got off the Verrazano Bridge. I grabbed my Department radio from the
trunk, turned it on to the frequency and advised the dispatcher
that I was responding. I continued then in on my response. As I
was passing through the Battery Tunnel, probably around midway
through the Battery Tunnel, I heard the report come over the
radio ~ha~ a second plane had struck the second tower ...
==> So all the rest of this is AFTER both towers have been hit.
I reached 7 World Trade Center. We walked into the
lobby and we were going up the escalators to the main level. I
checked in at the security desk. As we reached the top of the
escalators, there were lots of people running down the escalator
on the promenade. I spoke to one of the Deputy Directors and as
I was speaking with him, I believe it was Deputy Director
Rotanz, who is a Fire Department Captain on detail over there,
Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo approached as well. They had
indicated that the building was being evacuated.
I questioned as to what the nature of the
evacuation was. I was told that it was not because of what was
occurring across the street. No one feared that the building was
in any danger as a result of two airplane attacks and subsequent
fires, but that there were reports of a third plane chat had
been hijacked. It was unidentified, the location, and they
thought it may be coming in for an additional strike. Therefore,
they were evacuating the building.
==> Clearly the LOBBY IS FULLY FUNCTIONAL as he "checks in at the security desk", so CLEARLY there a bomb has not destroyed the lobby.
Then they are discussing the reason that they are evacuating WTC 7 and its because of the fear of a THIRD plane. NOT because of fear of the other towers collapsing and NOT because a bomb had gone off in the WTC 7 building.
We proceeded down to the lobby where the
various agency representatives were present. We collectively
started to set up in the lobby and try to think of strategies
to where we could move the inter-agency cooperation effort.
At that point, I also had a face to face discussion
with Battalion Chief Mike Maggio from the First Battalion. He
was the person who was sent up to be the rep at OEM. Mike is
someone who assists us on lots of our event planning. He was
detailed there. He didnít have any gear with him. He was a light
duty Chief on administrative assignment there. So I told Captain
Yakimovich that we are not going to send a Chief back. At that
point he indicated that he was going to run over to 10 and 10
and secure gear and then report back to the command post and
assist the Chief there. I told him that would be fine. I didnít
need a lot of people inside. They needed more help outside.
As we were having discussions in the lobby as to what
to do with OEM, a number of people came in the lobby as patients.
Captain Nahmod and EMT Zarrillo started to look at them, put them
off to the side and talk to them. A~that point I stepped outside.
I was going to request some EMS resources and I had face to face
contac: with Captain Mark Stone of the EMS S
==> Reinforces the fact that WTC 7 was seen as a SAFETY zone. They were bringing patients in.
Battalion.
Q. What kind of patients were you seeing?
A. There was two or three people who had smoke
inhalation. There was another person who was bleeding
significantly from his lower leg and unable to stand. He
was trying to limp and crawl.
Q. They came from outside?
A. Yes. Later it was determined that he had a
fracture of his leg, so we put him on a chair and the
other people, we put them off to the side. I ran into
Captain Stone. He had, I believe it was two EMTs with him.
I told him that -- he was in his full gear and radio. I
directed him to respond over, report into the EMS command
post and I told him that I put Captain Nahmod in charge of
whatever little treatment sector that we would establish
here in the lobby.
Q. Where was the EMS command post?
A. I donít know where the EMS command post was at
that time. Again I didnít hear much. There was lots of
stuff going on the radio. My mission at that time was not
that of an EMS Chief responding to the operation. My
mission was, as the Chief of Planning for the Fire
Department, to respond in to handle the agency liaison
stuff.
I told Captain Stone he could respond over to
the EMS command post so he could take a field assignment
or whatever, ~ince he was appropriately dressed. ENT
Zarrillo and Captain Nahmod responded from headquarters
without turnout gear, helmets or --EMT Zarrillo had his
helmet with him. So Captain Abdo Nahmod established a
treatment center. I requested over the Citywide radio for
two BLS units to respond to my location at 7 World Trade
Center where we established treatment.
At that point I continued to liaison with my
counterparts over at OEM. A short while later, just maybe a
few moments, Dr. Asaeda, Office of Medical Affairs, and the
EMT or paramedic that was with him, showed up. I told him
we were seeing a number of people. In other words, more
than 3 at that point in time, but again I wasnít directly
involved, so I couldnít tell you the number. He said fine.
He said he would stay over at our location and work with us
there. We were in close proximity to the building. If you
are familiar, Iíll mark it with number 3 on the map, in
front of 7 World Trade Center.
Directly across the street there are some
escalators that come down from the promenade. There is
also an overhead pedestrian walkway that connects the World
Trade Center plaza to the lobby of number 7. There was people
coming down both exits. So it was a good position for us to
find people who may require medical attention and get them into
a secured area of the lobby. I didnít have any EMS people
working out on Vesey Street proper, because it was not a safe
location. There was people jumping out of the windows of the
World Trade Center. We were witnessing that. There was debris
falling down from the north tower and making its way on to the
street and promenade where we were located.
A few moments after Dr. Asaeda arrived and started
talking to Captain Nahmod about the patients, a gentleman from
the building identified himself as a security person or a
security director. He asked me if there is anything that we
needed or he could provide me with regard to the EMS. We
questioned him as to the ability to open up the loading bays
which are associated to number 7 World Trade Center. The
entrances are located directly under the pedestrian foot bridge.
I figured it was protected there, so debris wouldnít fall down.
He said he would do that. I directed Captain Nahmod to move the
patients into that area. Again, the lobby of number 7 is all glass
facade. I was concerned that if something should come off
the building, go through the glass or hit the glass, we
would have an extraordinary amount of patients in addition
to what was already being seen.
==> So CLEARLY the glass is intact, since that's why he's worried about it breaking.
Further we took everyone from OEM and moved
them to what would be the most southeasterly corner inside
that first floor entrance of the 7 World Trade. There is a
big granite or marble security desk and we started to
establish around that as we were trying to figure out what
we were going to do.
==> Again, clearly establishing that the Lobby of WTC 7 is a SECURE SAFE are.
At that point again, I went out front to see
what was going on and where the ambulances I had requested
were. I had a face to face with Fire Commissioner Thomas
Von Essen. He was there with his driver. He was wearing his
protective gear and his helmet. He questioned me as to -- I
told him I was there for OEM, operating in the lobby, that
the building was being evacuated and the nature of that. He
indicated if I knew the whereabouts of the Mayor. told him
that as I was approaching OEM and coming up Vesey Street, I
saw a large contingency of gentlemen in suits exiting down
Vesey Street proceeding north on West toward Barclay. I
recognized some of the peoplein that group as staff and TAs for the Mayor. I told him more than likely that was probably the direction the Mayor
went.
He asked me what was going on. I told him what
was going on. I told him where the command post was and that
Chief Ganci, Chief Nigro and I had just spoken a few minutes
earlier at that location. He said okay and he proceeded then
westbound on Vesey towards West.
Q. Who was he with, was he with some of his aides?
A. He was with his driver or somebody again, I
donít remember exactly who he was with. Time proceeded. We
were listening to the radio for updates of what was going
on. Our patient count was probably a half dozen to a dozen
at that point. We had maybe three or four EMTs working under
Captain Nahmod with Dr. Asaeda. We had a whole treatment
center set up inside those bays. They got folding chairs
from the building security.
They had back boards, they had oxygen. It was
working out real nice. Everyone was stable so there was no
rush to start screaming for additional ambulances. I felt at
that point we were in a fairly secure location in those bays. That was one less
concern that I needed to be worried about at that point.
===> Now he states CLEARLY that he felt SECURE in the loading bays of WTC 7 which are just off the lobby.
Several minutes passed by. I then encountered Chief Nigro in front of the building.
Q. What building was he in front of?
A. In front of 7 World Trade Center. He indicated
he was in the process of doing a perimeter survey of the
complex to get a good grip on the extent of damage in the
fire. I guess he would then bring that back and he and
Chief Ganci were going to discuss strategy. We spoke for
several minutes. I briefed him on everything that was going
on, where the Fire Commissioner had gone, that the Mayor
was out and the building was evacuated. Told him about
treatment. Told him that I was the liaison. Told him that I
would keep Chief Ganci abreast of any significant
information that was provided.
He thanked me and told me to be careful. He
continued westbound on Vesey Street towards Church. He
continued his perimeter search. Shortly thereafter, I
noriced three firefighters operating on the southbound
side of Vesey directly underneath the pedestrian
promenade, beuween the pedestriar~ bridge and the
escalators. One of them signaled over to me. I went over to
talk with them. I noticed they were without an officer. They
told me they got separated from their officer when they were
operating up on the plaza. I donít recall what company they
were from. I do remember that at least one, if not two of them,
were probies, by the orange plates on the helmet.
They indicated that there was lots of people on the
plaza, that they thought were dead and people were jumping out
and said you know, what should we do. I indicated to them that
if people were jumping out, more than likely they were correct,
the patients were dead. There was nothing that anybody could do
for them and that in light of what was going on, operating on
the plaza wasnít safe for them.
I further went on to tell them that since they were
separated from their officer it was probably a good idea if they
were to proceed eastbound on Vesey towards Church. There were
some several companies, I noticed, operating up on Church and
Vesey. I told them they could hook up with one of those companies
or officer. At least this way they would be with a group, they
would be accounted for.
They were in the process of securing a
hydrant and then they said they would move on. At that point I
went back into the building. I was in a discussion with Mr.
Rotanz and I believe it was a representative from the
Department of Buildings, but Iím not sure. Some engineer type
person, and several of us were huddled talking in the lobby and
it was brought to my attention, it was believed that the
structural damage that was suffered to the towers was quite
significant and they were very confident that the buildingís
stability was compromised and they felt that the north tower
was in danger of a near imminent collapse.
===> The lobby he has returned to is the FUNCTIONING LOBBY of WTC 7
I grabbed EMT Zarrillo, I advised him of that
information. I told him he was to proceed immediately to the
command post where Chief Ganci was located. Told him where it
was across the street from number i World Trade Center. I told
him ìYou see Chief Ganci and Chief Ganci only. Provide him with
the information that the building integrity is severely
compromised and they believe the building is in danger of
imminent collapse.î So, he left off in that direction.
Q. They felt that just the one building or both of them?
A. They felt both buildings were significantly damaged, but they felt that the
north tower, which was the first one to be struck, was going to be in imminent
danger of collapse. Looking up at it, you could see that, you could see through
the smoke or whatever, that there was significant structural damage to the
exterior of the building. Very noticeable. Now you know, again, this is not a
scene where the thought of both buildings collapsing ever entered into my mind.
I was there in 1993, 14 minutes after the bomb went off. I
operated.some 16 hours at the building and with all the post-incident critiques
and debriefings with various agencies. We were always told by everyone, the
experts, that these buildings could withstand direct hits from airplanes. Thatís
the way they were designed. They went through all of this architecturaT stuff,
way beyond the scope of my knowledge.
It was hit by an airplane. Thatís okay. Itís made to be hit by an
airplane. I mean I think everyone may have believed that. We were all told years
ago it was made to be hit by an airplane.
Some amount of time passed by, probably not long, again, I wasnít checking my watch. Actually we were just really disgusted, maybe we were going to move what
we were going to do and how we were going to try to
coordinate. Things were hectic. We didnít have the tools that
we normally have to communicate with our agency, you know,
cellular phones were not working properly, radio was very
difficult to get through. I work for the Chief of the
Department, I donít have a fire ground radio, so I had no
direct communications with my boss at that time, which is one
of the reasons I needed to send EMT Zarrillo with that
message, which I felt was very significant, to the command
post.
Just moments before the south tower collapsed and,
you know, when it happened we didnít know it was the south
tower. We thought it was the north tower. There was a reporter
of some sort, female with blond hair and her cameraman, an
oriental fellow. They were setting up outside 7 World Trade
Center, just east of the pedestrian bridge.
==> So NOW we are JUST MOMENTS BEFORE THE SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSES and the WTC 7 lobby is still undamaged. (because otherwise he would have mentioned that a BOMB had gone off in his TRIAGE area
I told them it would probably be better off to be set up under the bridge. At
least it was protected. I was just about to enter a dialogue
with her when I heard a sound I never heard before. I
looked up and saw this huge cloud. I told him run. I
grabbed the female, I threw her through the revolving
doors of number 7. We were proceeding inside. She
fell to the ground. I helped her out, I pushed her towards the
direction of where we were all in the south corner and there
was a little doorway behind that desk which led into the
loading bays.
==> So CLEARLY the lobby is ok, they went inside, they started to RUN inside the lobby, something that would not be able to be done if the lobby had been damaged by a BOMB
Everybody started to run through that. Never made
it to that door. The next thing that I remember was that I was
covered in some glass and some debris. Everything came crashing
through the front of number 7. It was totally pitch black.
Q. Were you injured?
A. Yes, I saw some stuff had fallen on me. I didnít
believe that I was injured at that time. I discovered later on I
was injured. I had some shards of glass impaled in my head, but
once I was able to get all this debris and rubble off of me and
cover my face with my jacket so that I could breathe, it was very
thick dust, you couldnít see. We heard some sounds. We reached
out and felt our way around. I managed to find some other people
in this lower lobby. We crawled over towards the direction where
we thought the door was and as we approached it the door cracked
open a little, so we had the lights from the loading bay. We
made our way over there. The loading bay doors were 3 fourths of
the way shut when this happened, so they took a lot of dust in there, but everyone in those bays was safe and secure. We had face to face contact with Chief MaggiO
and Captain Nahmod. They told me -- I said do whatever you need
to do, get these people out of here. Go, go towards the water.
==> So its QUITE CLEAR that the Damage to WTC 7's lobby FIRST happened when WTC 2 collapsed, not before.
Which also means that the LONGER VERSION of his testimony in NO WAY CONTRADICTS the shorter version I previously found.
Arthur
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+Nov 22 2007, 02:29 AM)
==========
We have no idea what caused the jets below the collapse fronts.
==========
QUOTE
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis. But after being forced to field many “frequently asked questions”, NIST’s Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts “puffs of dust”, and explained "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window.[below the collapse front] Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor pancaking [below the collapfe front] that leads to that perception."
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in the summer of 2006, saying “NIST’s findings do not support the ‘pancake theory’ of collapse.” In an
attempt to maintain their faltering fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so by saying “the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.”
High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan, 6/13/2007
What a pile of Bovine Poo.
First, we have no idea of what caused the jets means we have no PROOF of what caused them, not that we all can't SPECULATE on possible causes.
As Saunders did.
But your quote of Ryan is TYPICAL CT'er abuse of the truth.
NIST never said the floors didn't Pancake as the collapse progressed.
In fact they explicitly said they did.
What NIST said was that the INITIATION of the collapse was not STARTED by the pancaking of floors as had been theorized in the FEMA report (and other places).
This is CLEAR to anyone who has studied the structure of the towers and then watched the videos of the collapse.
The fact that CT'ers still try to take this NIST comment OUT OF CONTEXT (collapse INITIATION vs collapse PROGRESSION) shows just how dishonest they are and how truth is not something they have ANY interest in.
Not unlike them using the EUPHEMISM of MOLTEN to mean MELTED, then to turn everything that is Molten into STEEL when clearly they have yet to show any EVIDENCE OF MELTED STEEL at the WTC site.
NONE.
Arthur
We have no idea what caused the jets below the collapse fronts.
==========
QUOTE
These bursts were ignored by government investigators for a period of several years, as was all other evidence for the demolition hypothesis. But after being forced to field many “frequently asked questions”, NIST’s Shyam Sunder finally provided a semiofficial explanation. In a March 2005 article by Popular Mechanics, Sunder called these bursts “puffs of dust”, and explained "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window.[below the collapse front] Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, but it is the floor pancaking [below the collapfe front] that leads to that perception."
Unfortunately for Sunder, NIST was forced to abandon that answer, in the summer of 2006, saying “NIST’s findings do not support the ‘pancake theory’ of collapse.” In an
attempt to maintain their faltering fire-induced collapse hypothesis, NIST tried to retain the essence of the explanation, despite having forsaken pancaking floors. They did so by saying “the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.”
High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the WTC Towers
Kevin Ryan, 6/13/2007
What a pile of Bovine Poo.
First, we have no idea of what caused the jets means we have no PROOF of what caused them, not that we all can't SPECULATE on possible causes.
As Saunders did.
But your quote of Ryan is TYPICAL CT'er abuse of the truth.
NIST never said the floors didn't Pancake as the collapse progressed.
In fact they explicitly said they did.
What NIST said was that the INITIATION of the collapse was not STARTED by the pancaking of floors as had been theorized in the FEMA report (and other places).
This is CLEAR to anyone who has studied the structure of the towers and then watched the videos of the collapse.
The fact that CT'ers still try to take this NIST comment OUT OF CONTEXT (collapse INITIATION vs collapse PROGRESSION) shows just how dishonest they are and how truth is not something they have ANY interest in.
Not unlike them using the EUPHEMISM of MOLTEN to mean MELTED, then to turn everything that is Molten into STEEL when clearly they have yet to show any EVIDENCE OF MELTED STEEL at the WTC site.
NONE.
Arthur
It is indeed the block as a whole that falls down to the next floor. And the collapse itself, there is no other way than pancaking.
Could someone explain to me what the difference is between MELTED and MOLTEN?
If I use the dictionary at work and fill in gesmolten I get:
melted (butter)
molten (lead)
If I type in the verb 'smelten' I get
melt, fuse
My conclusion is that molten is used for Pb and therefore should be used for metal and melted for butter. If liquid metal was found then what's wrong with the word 'molten'
Could someone explain to me what the difference is between MELTED and MOLTEN?
If I use the dictionary at work and fill in gesmolten I get:
melted (butter)
molten (lead)
If I type in the verb 'smelten' I get
melt, fuse
My conclusion is that molten is used for Pb and therefore should be used for metal and melted for butter. If liquid metal was found then what's wrong with the word 'molten'
Unfortunately, while molten MAY mean melted, it has been used for years simply to mean "brilliantly glowing, from or as if from intense heat"
As in: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" Richard Wright.
Arthur
As in: "A huge red bed of coals blazed and quivered with molten fury" Richard Wright.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 22 2007, 01:45 PM)
It is indeed the block as a whole that falls down to the next floor. And the collapse itself, there is no other way than pancaking.
Could someone explain to me what the difference is between MELTED and MOLTEN?
If I use the dictionary at work and fill in gesmolten I get:
melted (butter)
molten (lead)
If I type in the verb 'smelten' I get
melt, fuse
My conclusion is that molten is used for Pb and therefore should be used for metal and melted for butter. If liquid metal was found then what's wrong with the word 'molten'
I agree the terms should be plasticized, plasticized steel occurs at any temperature where the integrandular matrix is warm enough to move and realigned, under mechanical force, starting at about 500c however the steel will not Liquid.
Molten or melted, the steel is able to take the shape of the container, or mold it is poured into, and is 1565c at that temperature the steel is white hot.
None of the photos that I have seen even comes close to white hot temperatures similar to those of thermite or molten steel.
Almost all the claims of molten steel except for the micro-spheres can not be true, for obvious reasons.
There would be fried and dead people, and disabled machines from the very heat, I was just pushing in a brush pile with my little dozer just wood and the fire only burned for a day, an I ruined my hydraulic cylinders.
So tell me how the Hydraulics of that excavator are still able to function if that is molten steel at 1565c it is freaking impossible in this universe!
The claim made by Cters is the steel is molten so it has to be 1565c, and liquid that is a false claim a lie, it is not possible in the physical universe, for any of the evidence so far given as proof except for the micro-spheres to be, truly Liquid steel!
Cters like to point out that the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11/2001 and constantly give evidence that shows they do not understand the physical constants of the universe that the laws of physics relate too.
Sorry did not mean to rant.
Could someone explain to me what the difference is between MELTED and MOLTEN?
If I use the dictionary at work and fill in gesmolten I get:
melted (butter)
molten (lead)
If I type in the verb 'smelten' I get
melt, fuse
My conclusion is that molten is used for Pb and therefore should be used for metal and melted for butter. If liquid metal was found then what's wrong with the word 'molten'
I agree the terms should be plasticized, plasticized steel occurs at any temperature where the integrandular matrix is warm enough to move and realigned, under mechanical force, starting at about 500c however the steel will not Liquid.
Molten or melted, the steel is able to take the shape of the container, or mold it is poured into, and is 1565c at that temperature the steel is white hot.
None of the photos that I have seen even comes close to white hot temperatures similar to those of thermite or molten steel.
Almost all the claims of molten steel except for the micro-spheres can not be true, for obvious reasons.
There would be fried and dead people, and disabled machines from the very heat, I was just pushing in a brush pile with my little dozer just wood and the fire only burned for a day, an I ruined my hydraulic cylinders.
So tell me how the Hydraulics of that excavator are still able to function if that is molten steel at 1565c it is freaking impossible in this universe!
The claim made by Cters is the steel is molten so it has to be 1565c, and liquid that is a false claim a lie, it is not possible in the physical universe, for any of the evidence so far given as proof except for the micro-spheres to be, truly Liquid steel!
Cters like to point out that the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11/2001 and constantly give evidence that shows they do not understand the physical constants of the universe that the laws of physics relate too.
Sorry did not mean to rant.
Ok now I get it, it is often used for glowing metal and not something that already cooled down.
Those firepeople talked about a kind of foundry that they saw and I guess those folks are experienced people. But I'm a lay man and don't know much about that subject, I even have no idea if thermite or explosives lead to so-called pools of metal.
Those firepeople talked about a kind of foundry that they saw and I guess those folks are experienced people. But I'm a lay man and don't know much about that subject, I even have no idea if thermite or explosives lead to so-called pools of metal.
QUOTE
Cters like to point out that the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11/2001 and constantly give evidence that shows they do not understand the physical constants of the universe that the laws of physics relate too.
Sorry did not mean to rant.
Sorry did not mean to rant.
No need to apologize, I enjoyed it!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cters like to point out that the laws of physics were suspended on 9/11/2001 and constantly give evidence that shows they do not understand the physical constants of the universe that the laws of physics relate too. Sorry did not mean to rant. |
No need to apologize, I enjoyed it!
Ok now I get it, it is often used for glowing metal and not something that already cooled down.
Those firepeople talked about a kind of foundry that they saw and I guess those folks are experienced people. But I'm a lay man and don't know much about that subject, I even have no idea if thermite or explosives lead to so-called pools of metal.
The thing of it is, there was a lot of stuff there in the towers that was flammable, and when the towers collapsed, the fires didn't go out. At that point, you had lots of flammable stuff sandwiched between insulating material (concrete), with enough porosity of the rubble to allow the materials to continue burning, but not anough airflow to allow the heat to easily escape the rubble. It isn't easy to guess how hot the rubble pile got, but even if it did get hot enough to melt steel completely to its fully-liquid state, that's not evidence of thermite/thermate/ninja-fairies planting that real quiet, slow-burning C-4, that just means that the fuel on the floors that didn't burn before the collapse burned AFTER the collapse, with noplace for that heat to go, hence high temperatures.
Look at how old staged pottery kilns were set up, with the exhaust from one fire pre-heating the kiln one layer above it. In the towers, this pancaked rubble would be a naturally occurring (unintended) stacked kiln structure - insulation, combustible fuel, steel, insulation, combustible material, steel... 110 layers of that, with just enough porosity to allow the fuel to continue burning.
I'd be surprised if there *weren't* any molten metal/molten glass in that rubble pile.
For any such thing to be assumed to be due to thermite/thermate? Just how f*ing much thermate are you suggesting those ninja-fairies managed to sneak into the building? Is it your position that the "molten steel" (found when?) was still hot because thermate started out real hot when the towers collapsed? How long do you think it stayed hot?
Just answer me that *one* question - How long are you saying the thermate/thermite that you claim caused the collapse of the towers STAYED HOT in the rubble pile????
(Note to Einsteen - I'm not mad at you, I was actually meaning to aim the question at the proponents of the "pools of molten steel means thermate dropped the building" crowd. Sorry I used your post as the quote to start the discussion.)
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 22 2007, 04:15 PM)
Ok now I get it, it is often used for glowing metal and not something that already cooled down.
Those firepeople talked about a kind of foundry that they saw and I guess those folks are experienced people. But I'm a lay man and don't know much about that subject, I even have no idea if thermite or explosives lead to so-called pools of metal.
Thermite would lead to molten Iron in the first few minutes however that would cool quickly, it was argued by Cters that Chemical reactions catalyzed by thermite would continue to heat up the rubble pile for weeks and that was what lead to the observed molten metal.
However the collapse is the perfect environment for catalyzing those reactions as well so you would see some of them anyway, so the thermite claim is basically Irrelevant.
Your going to find high energy catalyzed chemical reactions in a high energy collapse they are supposed to be there if they are not there, there is something wrong with the laws of the universe.
One of the reactions is the oxidation of aluminum chloride, another is the reaction or Iron oxide to carbon, the oxidation of iron chloride into Fe304 that most probably lead to the production of Dr. Jones micro spheres.
Neu could explain more of this I wish he was still here.
Well I have to go looking up information for a theory I have about transiting asymmetrical collapse into symmetrical collapse, though damage caused in welds by uneven temperature fluctuations that weaken weld strength.
In experiments on models it works every time.
Those firepeople talked about a kind of foundry that they saw and I guess those folks are experienced people. But I'm a lay man and don't know much about that subject, I even have no idea if thermite or explosives lead to so-called pools of metal.
Thermite would lead to molten Iron in the first few minutes however that would cool quickly, it was argued by Cters that Chemical reactions catalyzed by thermite would continue to heat up the rubble pile for weeks and that was what lead to the observed molten metal.
However the collapse is the perfect environment for catalyzing those reactions as well so you would see some of them anyway, so the thermite claim is basically Irrelevant.
Your going to find high energy catalyzed chemical reactions in a high energy collapse they are supposed to be there if they are not there, there is something wrong with the laws of the universe.
One of the reactions is the oxidation of aluminum chloride, another is the reaction or Iron oxide to carbon, the oxidation of iron chloride into Fe304 that most probably lead to the production of Dr. Jones micro spheres.
Neu could explain more of this I wish he was still here.
Well I have to go looking up information for a theory I have about transiting asymmetrical collapse into symmetrical collapse, though damage caused in welds by uneven temperature fluctuations that weaken weld strength.
In experiments on models it works every time.
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 22 2007, 09:15 AM)
Ok now I get it, it is often used for glowing metal and not something that already cooled down.
Molten also has been used to describe something which was formed by prior melting, as in molten image.
Molten also has been used to describe something which was formed by prior melting, as in molten image.
running rivers of molten metal has been used to describe running rivers of molten metal, too.
pools of molten metal, dripping molten metal have also been used to describe molten metal that is actually in a molten state.
english is so nebulous sometimes.
QUOTE (newton+Nov 22 2007, 12:44 PM)
running rivers of molten metal has been used to describe running rivers of molten metal, too.
pools of molten metal, dripping molten metal have also been used to describe molten metal that is actually in a molten state.
english is so nebulous sometimes.
Absolutely,
BUT what is described as "Molten Metal" MIGHT not even be Metal, let alone be steel.
There is hyperbole as well, as CLEARLY there were NO RUNNING RIVERS of melted metal in the towers.
Because a RUNNING RIVER of metal would end up being both a CHANNEL of solidified metal and ultimately a POOL of SOLIDIFIED METAL (if its running its going to come to an end)
But NO such CHANNELS or SOLIDIFIED POOLS of metal were found.
No such MELTED piece of Structural Steel was found.
What I find INTERESTING is that in ALL the pictures taken at ground zero and the clean up, one can't find a SINGLE one that supports these RIVERS or POOLS of molten metal. (regardless of the metal involved)
The best one can come up with is the slag drippings where they were cutting the columns with torches during the clean up.
The length of the drips giving you a decent idea of how far melted steel will actually run.
The FACT is there were plenty of other metals that would melt at temps far below that of Steel and also at the temps one would expect in the rubble pile and thus are a far more likely explanation.
Arthur
pools of molten metal, dripping molten metal have also been used to describe molten metal that is actually in a molten state.
english is so nebulous sometimes.
Absolutely,
BUT what is described as "Molten Metal" MIGHT not even be Metal, let alone be steel.
There is hyperbole as well, as CLEARLY there were NO RUNNING RIVERS of melted metal in the towers.
Because a RUNNING RIVER of metal would end up being both a CHANNEL of solidified metal and ultimately a POOL of SOLIDIFIED METAL (if its running its going to come to an end)
But NO such CHANNELS or SOLIDIFIED POOLS of metal were found.
No such MELTED piece of Structural Steel was found.
What I find INTERESTING is that in ALL the pictures taken at ground zero and the clean up, one can't find a SINGLE one that supports these RIVERS or POOLS of molten metal. (regardless of the metal involved)
The best one can come up with is the slag drippings where they were cutting the columns with torches during the clean up.
The length of the drips giving you a decent idea of how far melted steel will actually run.
The FACT is there were plenty of other metals that would melt at temps far below that of Steel and also at the temps one would expect in the rubble pile and thus are a far more likely explanation.
Arthur
The only solid report of a flow of molten metal is from an engineer inspecting WTC 6. He stated that he saw a stream of molten metal pouring out of something higher up.
Given that WTC 6 had over a million rounds of target ammunition stored in it, lead is a likely metal in this case.
Given that WTC 6 had over a million rounds of target ammunition stored in it, lead is a likely metal in this case.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Nov 22 2007, 06:26 PM)
The only solid report of a flow of molten metal is from an engineer inspecting WTC 6. He stated that he saw a stream of molten metal pouring out of something higher up.
Given that WTC 6 had over a million rounds of target ammunition stored in it, lead is a likely metal in this case.
I agree that is the most probable source, I have muzzle loading rifles and have melted lead in a camp fire many times to make mini balls for ammunition.
I would also like to point out the cases are often steel and brass with nickel coatings so some of the cases would have formed micro spheres when the cordite inside exploded. However I doubt that they would be similar to the ones found by Dr. Jones.
Given that WTC 6 had over a million rounds of target ammunition stored in it, lead is a likely metal in this case.
I agree that is the most probable source, I have muzzle loading rifles and have melted lead in a camp fire many times to make mini balls for ammunition.
I would also like to point out the cases are often steel and brass with nickel coatings so some of the cases would have formed micro spheres when the cordite inside exploded. However I doubt that they would be similar to the ones found by Dr. Jones.
I found an extremely interesting video:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TH1EE8PN
Some frames for David
http://i9.tinypic.com/86pd1de.jpg
There is a lot to see in this video, a lot
especially in a frame by frame analysis.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TH1EE8PN
Some frames for David
http://i9.tinypic.com/86pd1de.jpg
There is a lot to see in this video, a lot
especially in a frame by frame analysis.
QUOTE (einsteen+Nov 22 2007, 08:38 PM)
I found an extremely interesting video:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TH1EE8PN
Some frames for David
http://i9.tinypic.com/86pd1de.jpg
There is a lot to see in this video, a lot
especially in a frame by frame analysis.
Hi einsteen!
I note that in the lower frames there are 'jets' of dust/debris forming/issuing from lower floor windows even though the top 'box' has hardly fallen into the bottom 'box'.
Are there any further frames available that show how these and other jets may have proceeded/developed as the top box went further into the lower box?
Cheers and see ya'll tomorrow I hope!
RC.
.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=TH1EE8PN
Some frames for David
http://i9.tinypic.com/86pd1de.jpg
There is a lot to see in this video, a lot
especially in a frame by frame analysis.
Hi einsteen!
I note that in the lower frames there are 'jets' of dust/debris forming/issuing from lower floor windows even though the top 'box' has hardly fallen into the bottom 'box'.
Are there any further frames available that show how these and other jets may have proceeded/developed as the top box went further into the lower box?
Cheers and see ya'll tomorrow I hope!
RC.
.
Yes, very interesting, einsteen. I see in one of the buildings the slowing of the 'crush up' towards the end. The time scale is an impediment to analysis, but some very interesting dimensionless work can be done.
The United Statesians are currently busy engorging themselves with protein, tryptophan, and booze. The best of them ( the ones with no lives) will be back shortly. Me, too.
Edited to change crush-down to crush-up. Must not confuse the two, even if they share boundary conditions in some systems.
The United Statesians are currently busy engorging themselves with protein, tryptophan, and booze. The best of them ( the ones with no lives) will be back shortly. Me, too.
Edited to change crush-down to crush-up. Must not confuse the two, even if they share boundary conditions in some systems.
The crush-up model for WTC7 predicts a collapse duration of about 6.6 s if the E1/mh is considered constant and similar to the value of that for the upper regions of the WTC towers, if I did the math correctly.
The crush-up diffeq for a constant E1/mh simplifies to
t = sqrt(2H/[g-E1/(mh)])
where H is the building height, m is the mass above the collapse front, and h is the inter-story height.
For an E1/mh of 1.57 m/s^2, the collapse duration for WTC7 is about 6.6 seconds, which is close to the observed collapse duration of the final global crush-up of WTC7.
t = sqrt(2H/[g-E1/(mh)])
t= sqrt(2*178/[9.81-1.57])
t = 6.57 s
Doubling E1/mh doesn't have a large effect on the duration for WTC7 when E1/mh is small relative to g. The square root function in the crush-up equation also makes the duration insensitive to E1/mh.
Increasing E1/mh to 3 m/s^2 gives a WTC7 collapse duration of 7.2 s.
Reducing E1/mh to 0.8 m/s^2 gives a WTC7 collapse duration of 6.3 s.
When E1 is zero, the crush-up equation reduces to the familiar
t = sqrt(2H/g)
Greening used E1=0.8 GJ for WTC2 so that the observed collapse duration matched the one predicted by his algebraic collapse model. The mass of the upper upper block using his mass value is approximately
510E6*29/110 = 134E6 kg.
That gives
E1/mh = 0.8 GJ / (134E6 kg * 3.78 m) = 1.57 m/s^2
That value gives a crush-up collapse duration of 6.6 s for WTC7.
The E1/mh for WTC7 appears to be similar to that of the WTC towers. That's not unexpected since all three were metal-framed buildings with no concrete in the vertical structural elements and all were of the core-in-tube design with longspan floors. WTC7 also had about the same footprint area as the towers, so it's overall footprint area relative to the size of structural elements such as columns was similar to that of the towers.
The value of E1/mh may be higher for the case of a narrow tower with concrete in the vertical structural elements or one with columns distributed throughout the entire footprint with narrow-span floors, as opposed to a large footprint metal-frame core-in-tube design.
510E6*29/110 = 134E6 kg.
That gives
E1/mh = 0.8 GJ / (134E6 kg * 3.78 m) = 1.57 m/s^2
That value gives a crush-up collapse duration of 6.6 s for WTC7.
The E1/mh for WTC7 appears to be similar to that of the WTC towers. That's not unexpected since all three were metal-framed buildings with no concrete in the vertical structural elements and all were of the core-in-tube design with longspan floors. WTC7 also had about the same footprint area as the towers, so it's overall footprint area relative to the size of structural elements such as columns was similar to that of the towers.
The value of E1/mh may be higher for the case of a narrow tower with concrete in the vertical structural elements or one with columns distributed throughout the entire footprint with narrow-span floors, as opposed to a large footprint metal-frame core-in-tube design.
Shagster:
In my latest foray on the WTC 7 problem I ran my spreadsheet program with the following parameters:
40 floors in crush up mode.
Mass of 40 floors = 185,454,560 kg
Height of 1 floor = 3.96 meters
E1 = 1.8 GJ (To allow for extra strength of WTC 7 vs. WTC 1 & 2)
I let E1 decrease somewhat going down the building (Sorry I don't have the exact numbers handy)
Collapse time = 6.65 seconds (Then you have to consider what happens to the 7 floors at the base of the building!)
The effective g over the first half of the collapse is over 7 m/s^2 which is higher than WTC 1 & 2 because WTC 7 had the heaviest hammer (3 times heavier than WTC 1)
The height vs. time plot shows a nice up-turn at the end of the collapse profile, (unlike WTC 1 & 2 which show a monotonic increase all the way down).
In my latest foray on the WTC 7 problem I ran my spreadsheet program with the following parameters:
40 floors in crush up mode.
Mass of 40 floors = 185,454,560 kg
Height of 1 floor = 3.96 meters
E1 = 1.8 GJ (To allow for extra strength of WTC 7 vs. WTC 1 & 2)
I let E1 decrease somewhat going down the building (Sorry I don't have the exact numbers handy)
Collapse time = 6.65 seconds (Then you have to consider what happens to the 7 floors at the base of the building!)
The effective g over the first half of the collapse is over 7 m/s^2 which is higher than WTC 1 & 2 because WTC 7 had the heaviest hammer (3 times heavier than WTC 1)
The height vs. time plot shows a nice up-turn at the end of the collapse profile, (unlike WTC 1 & 2 which show a monotonic increase all the way down).
Ken Holden: "Underground, it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6..." 
www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing1/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm#panel_three
Now, the fact is that first after 9/11, everybody was talking about molten steel. It was reported everywere.
But then a little problem popped up. Namely, that it is in fact impossible for 400-600°c office fire to "melt a steel"
Then they had to cover up the molten steel.
www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing1/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-04-01.htm#panel_three
Now, the fact is that first after 9/11, everybody was talking about molten steel. It was reported everywere.
But then a little problem popped up. Namely, that it is in fact impossible for 400-600°c office fire to "melt a steel"
Then they had to cover up the molten steel.
There is NOTHING to cover up.
What you ignore is that these DESCRIPTIONS are NOT scientific EVIDENCE.
What you ignore is that MOLTEN does not necessarily mean MELTED, simply GLOWING HOT.
What you ignore is that there were many other metals (in large quantities (ammunition in WTC 6, Batteries in WTC towers, aluminum all over)) that could and would melt at the temps seen in the towers (over 600 C, but still well less than the 1565 C needed to melt steel)
What NO ONE ever came up with was a SAMPLE of this melted STEEL.
You know like where that supposed "flowing river" of melted steel ended up?
Just more troofer BS, re-presented here for the umpteenth time as if THIS TIME it is going to mean more than it did the last time.
Arthur
What you ignore is that these DESCRIPTIONS are NOT scientific EVIDENCE.
What you ignore is that MOLTEN does not necessarily mean MELTED, simply GLOWING HOT.
What you ignore is that there were many other metals (in large quantities (ammunition in WTC 6, Batteries in WTC towers, aluminum all over)) that could and would melt at the temps seen in the towers (over 600 C, but still well less than the 1565 C needed to melt steel)
What NO ONE ever came up with was a SAMPLE of this melted STEEL.
You know like where that supposed "flowing river" of melted steel ended up?
Just more troofer BS, re-presented here for the umpteenth time as if THIS TIME it is going to mean more than it did the last time.
Arthur
Ofcource there were no molten/melt steel. The witnesses were all lying !! 
Nope, most didn't even say STEEL, they said metal.
Most didn't say MELTED, they said MOLTEN.
The few that did, say Melted Steel, offer no corroboration or, indeed, any proof (via relevant qualifications) that it WAS steel.
So Daru,
If you saw a MOLTEN stream of a material HOW would YOU determine what it was?
What words would you use to describe it?
Do the words you CHOOSE to describe it then become EVIDENCE?
Arthur
Most didn't say MELTED, they said MOLTEN.
The few that did, say Melted Steel, offer no corroboration or, indeed, any proof (via relevant qualifications) that it WAS steel.
So Daru,
If you saw a MOLTEN stream of a material HOW would YOU determine what it was?
What words would you use to describe it?
Do the words you CHOOSE to describe it then become EVIDENCE?
Arthur
DAru
Lying, no. Mistaken, certainly.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Ofcource there were no molten/melt steel. The witnesses were all lying !! biggrin.gif
Lying, no. Mistaken, certainly.
Grumpy
I found the clip yesterday but didn't watch it properly, it contains two scenes. In the first one it looks like they only placed charges at 2/3, but from the other parts we can see that they didn't do that, if I'm right at 3 levels including the bottom. But in the other building they placed it only on the bottom. The strange thing is that it looks like the one with only charges at the bottom collapses faster, but I'm not sure if they started at the same time, that cannot be seen in the video. Maybe it was a comparison test, I have no further background info
http://i16.tinypic.com/6xaj9fc.jpg
The clip has been posted on youtube, and the person was friendly enough to provide the large xvid, I will check it out later in detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k
http://i16.tinypic.com/6xaj9fc.jpg
The clip has been posted on youtube, and the person was friendly enough to provide the large xvid, I will check it out later in detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d77E0E46c2k
einsteen, I've now watched that CD video several dozen times. Unfortunately, I don't have my toolset with me to do anything with it (maybe I'll download VDub here at least so I can frame-by-frame it).
I take back what I said about the time base... and this video is much more interesting than it seemed at first glance - which was pretty interesting.
I take back what I said about the time base... and this video is much more interesting than it seemed at first glance - which was pretty interesting.
On this "melted" vs. "molten" debate - regardless of what the dictionary says - I think everyone is missing the important point that these terms are used according to the melting point of the material in question.
"To melt", and "melted" are generally used to describe something becoming liquid at a relatively LOW temperature. We say: "The ice melted"; "The butter melted" because these phase changes occur at relatively low temperatures. But we never say that the liqiud that formed was "molten". After all, molten ice is simply liquid water and is not necessarily very hot!
Now as for the term "molten", I think in common usage it implies something that is very hot. We say "molten lead", or "molten glass" or "molten lava" or "molten steel", meaning something that has been heated to a high temperature to cause it to melt. Thus I see no ambiguity in the phrase "molten metal". It means a metal that has been heated to a temperature above its melting point and is therefore in its liquid state. Since most metals, with a few exceptions such as Hg, Ga, etc, have HIGH melting points, the term "molten" as applied to a metal implies something that is VERY HOT.
"To melt", and "melted" are generally used to describe something becoming liquid at a relatively LOW temperature. We say: "The ice melted"; "The butter melted" because these phase changes occur at relatively low temperatures. But we never say that the liqiud that formed was "molten". After all, molten ice is simply liquid water and is not necessarily very hot!
Now as for the term "molten", I think in common usage it implies something that is very hot. We say "molten lead", or "molten glass" or "molten lava" or "molten steel", meaning something that has been heated to a high temperature to cause it to melt. Thus I see no ambiguity in the phrase "molten metal". It means a metal that has been heated to a temperature above its melting point and is therefore in its liquid state. Since most metals, with a few exceptions such as Hg, Ga, etc, have HIGH melting points, the term "molten" as applied to a metal implies something that is VERY HOT.
Since the estimates of fuel load per floor on the floors that burned were so high, I see no reason to expect that the collapsed floors in the rubble pile had any less fuel to burn. The fires lasted weeks in the rubble piles, and where did that heat go? Concrete is a pretty good insulator, and while there was air permeating the rubble-pile sufficient (obviously) to sustain the fire, there wasn't enough to allow a lot of that heat to escape the pile itself.
I would think it'd be a relatively simple thermodynamic problem (never my strong suit) to calculate the fuel load in the rubble-pile, the average insulation value of the layer-cake concrete rubble, and the time it took to consume the fuel, and come up with an estimate of the expected average temperature distribution.
It should also be noted that steel gets plastic at temperatures well below melting, and that the stresses applied were applied in some cases for weeks at a time, so even relatively slow "creep" rates could result in gross deformations of otherwise solid beams.
I would think it'd be a relatively simple thermodynamic problem (never my strong suit) to calculate the fuel load in the rubble-pile, the average insulation value of the layer-cake concrete rubble, and the time it took to consume the fuel, and come up with an estimate of the expected average temperature distribution.
It should also be noted that steel gets plastic at temperatures well below melting, and that the stresses applied were applied in some cases for weeks at a time, so even relatively slow "creep" rates could result in gross deformations of otherwise solid beams.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Nov 23 2007, 12:24 PM)
Now as for the term "molten", I think in common usage it implies something that is very hot.
Alas, not always. A "molten steel beam" clearly is not liquid, nor even necessarily very hot. It refers to a steel beam which was subject to stress while red-hot, I believe. It is similar to the usage of "molten image" to describe an art object formed via casting. It is not liquid nor even hot anymore.
Edited to add: So it might be better to state liquid metal to be unambiguous...
Alas, not always. A "molten steel beam" clearly is not liquid, nor even necessarily very hot. It refers to a steel beam which was subject to stress while red-hot, I believe. It is similar to the usage of "molten image" to describe an art object formed via casting. It is not liquid nor even hot anymore.
Edited to add: So it might be better to state liquid metal to be unambiguous...
wcelliott:
The heat release rate of the fires in WTC 1 & 2 in the time period just before the collapse of these buildings was about 0.5 gigawatts. Let's assume that burning material and fresh combustible live load material was transferred en masse to a depth several meters below the top of the rubble pile where it continued to burn. Initially the heat flux near the top of the rubble pile would have been about 100 kW/m2 with an inferred combustion rate of about 25 kg/s. However, as the initial oxygen supply from air pockets within the rubble pile declined, the combustion rate and associated heat flux would also have declined until reduced to a stable, quiescent, state referred to as smoldering.
Smoldering is a well-studied and quite reproducible phenomenon. It is observed in man-made situations such as garbage dump, or tire-pile fires, and in the natural environment in forest fires. Smoldering is usually quantified in terms of the velocity at which the char front advances, as in the well-known example of a cigarette. In stationary air, the smoldering of compressed cellulose-based material proceeds at very consistent rates in the range 10^-3 cm/s. This implies that a 25-meter high rubble pile, rich in cellulose-based fuel, could burn in a smoldering fire lasting approximately 29 days!
Calorimetric measurements show that smoldering occurs over a remarkably narrow range of heat flux, typically 8 – 16 kW/m2. Above 16 kW/m2 smoldering almost always becomes flaming combustion, while below 8 kW/m2 smoldering is no longer self-sustaining. We may therefore assume that the minimum smoldering rate of the rubble pile sustained a heat flux of 8 kW/m2. As a first approximation it is useful to consider the rubble pile behaving as an ideal black body radiator at a fixed average temperature. For a radiant power of 8 kW/m2 this temperature is 613 Kelvin or 340° C. This predicted average temperature is significant because it is precisely the temperature at which cellulose-based material exhibits a maximum rate of decomposition into flammable and volatile products.
In the period immediately after 9-11, a “hot zone” would have existed several meters below the top of the rubble pile where combustible material burned in a self-sustaining, smoldering condition. Furthermore, in the presence of an adequate supply of oxygen, this smoldering combustion could have continued until the supply of fuel was exhausted and sustained a temperature in the range 300 - 400° C.
Propagation of smoldering combustion within the rubble pile was sustained by the indigenous supply of live load “fuel”, consisting of office furniture, paper, textiles and plastic materials, and oxygen. Setting aside the issue of oxygen availability, let us consider how long the available fuel could last. If we assume that the effective area of smoldering material from each Tower was 4000 m2, the heat release rate from the rubble pile would have been 32 MW. This heat was released by the smoldering of material with an average heat of combustion of 20 MJ/kg. Thus the average fuel consumption rate within the rubble pile was about 1.6 kg/s.
NIST estimate that there was initially about 50,000 kg of combustible material on each floor of WTC 1 & 2. If we assume that material from about 5 floors was consumed before the Towers collapsed, about 5,250,000 kg of “fuel” was initially available within the rubble from each Tower. This fuel, burning at a rate of 1.6 kg/s, would therefore be able to sustain the rubble pile fires for {5,250,000/1.6} seconds or 38 days.
The heat release rate of the fires in WTC 1 & 2 in the time period just before the collapse of these buildings was about 0.5 gigawatts. Let's assume that burning material and fresh combustible live load material was transferred en masse to a depth several meters below the top of the rubble pile where it continued to burn. Initially the heat flux near the top of the rubble pile would have been about 100 kW/m2 with an inferred combustion rate of about 25 kg/s. However, as the initial oxygen supply from air pockets within the rubble pile declined, the combustion rate and associated heat flux would also have declined until reduced to a stable, quiescent, state referred to as smoldering.
Smoldering is a well-studied and quite reproducible phenomenon. It is observed in man-made situations such as garbage dump, or tire-pile fires, and in the natural environment in forest fires. Smoldering is usually quantified in terms of the velocity at which the char front advances, as in the well-known example of a cigarette. In stationary air, the smoldering of compressed cellulose-based material proceeds at very consistent rates in the range 10^-3 cm/s. This implies that a 25-meter high rubble pile, rich in cellulose-based fuel, could burn in a smoldering fire lasting approximately 29 days!
Calorimetric measurements show that smoldering occurs over a remarkably narrow range of heat flux, typically 8 – 16 kW/m2. Above 16 kW/m2 smoldering almost always becomes flaming combustion, while below 8 kW/m2 smoldering is no longer self-sustaining. We may therefore assume that the minimum smoldering rate of the rubble pile sustained a heat flux of 8 kW/m2. As a first approximation it is useful to consider the rubble pile behaving as an ideal black body radiator at a fixed average temperature. For a radiant power of 8 kW/m2 this temperature is 613 Kelvin or 340° C. This predicted average temperature is significant because it is precisely the temperature at which cellulose-based material exhibits a maximum rate of decomposition into flammable and volatile products.
In the period immediately after 9-11, a “hot zone” would have existed several meters below the top of the rubble pile where combustible material burned in a self-sustaining, smoldering condition. Furthermore, in the presence of an adequate supply of oxygen, this smoldering combustion could have continued until the supply of fuel was exhausted and sustained a temperature in the range 300 - 400° C.
Propagation of smoldering combustion within the rubble pile was sustained by the indigenous supply of live load “fuel”, consisting of office furniture, paper, textiles and plastic materials, and oxygen. Setting aside the issue of oxygen availability, let us consider how long the available fuel could last. If we assume that the effective area of smoldering material from each Tower was 4000 m2, the heat release rate from the rubble pile would have been 32 MW. This heat was released by the smoldering of material with an average heat of combustion of 20 MJ/kg. Thus the average fuel consumption rate within the rubble pile was about 1.6 kg/s.
NIST estimate that there was initially about 50,000 kg of combustible material on each floor of WTC 1 & 2. If we assume that material from about 5 floors was consumed before the Towers collapsed, about 5,250,000 kg of “fuel” was initially available within the rubble from each Tower. This fuel, burning at a rate of 1.6 kg/s, would therefore be able to sustain the rubble pile fires for {5,250,000/1.6} seconds or 38 days.
Except we know the fires burned for ~ three times as long.
So, once more Neu presents his own brand of "Sperical Chicken" nonsense.
I'm sure the CT'ers will figure out how to add ONE MORE of Frank's quotes to their growing list of Greeningisms.
Arthur
So, once more Neu presents his own brand of "Sperical Chicken" nonsense.
I'm sure the CT'ers will figure out how to add ONE MORE of Frank's quotes to their growing list of Greeningisms.
Arthur
Arthur - Neu-F was answering a question that I'd asked regarding the expected temperatures of the burning fuel remaining in the rubble-pile.
Neu-F - Thanks for the analysis.
It seems like the numbers fit the observations at least to a first-order. Good job!
I would only add that due to the fact that the rubble pile isn't completely homogeneous, I'd expect there to be naturally-occurring areas where cracks formed "chimneys" where some of the fuels would've burned faster and therefore hotter, and vice-versa. I wouldn't be a bit surprised, given the size and complexity of the rubble pile, if much higher temperatures were achieved in a few places due merely to coincidental arrangements simulating deliberately constructed early foundries, with molten metals as a natural consequence.
After all, what did the early foundries look like? Insulated rooms with fires fanned by convection/chimneys, with metal ore/fragments contained in earthenware pottery, heated for days until the metal fragments melted...
Can anybody prove that no such accidental arrangements in the rubble pile met those conditions?
Even if someone *had* found steel slag at the site - So what?!? There was literally hundreds of tons of combustible materials burning in an insulating medium, you should *expect* high temperatures to be achieved in *some* places.
Neu-F - Thanks for the analysis.
It seems like the numbers fit the observations at least to a first-order. Good job!
I would only add that due to the fact that the rubble pile isn't completely homogeneous, I'd expect there to be naturally-occurring areas where cracks formed "chimneys" where some of the fuels would've burned faster and therefore hotter, and vice-versa. I wouldn't be a bit surprised, given the size and complexity of the rubble pile, if much higher temperatures were achieved in a few places due merely to coincidental arrangements simulating deliberately constructed early foundries, with molten metals as a natural consequence.
After all, what did the early foundries look like? Insulated rooms with fires fanned by convection/chimneys, with metal ore/fragments contained in earthenware pottery, heated for days until the metal fragments melted...
Can anybody prove that no such accidental arrangements in the rubble pile met those conditions?
Even if someone *had* found steel slag at the site - So what?!? There was literally hundreds of tons of combustible materials burning in an insulating medium, you should *expect* high temperatures to be achieved in *some* places.
With the current WTC 1 data, as good as anything is the simple
F(Z,S) = k*Z*S*S
for the resistive force (consumption of some of the kinetic energy), together with
s(Z,S) = s0*exp(-S1*Z*S*S)
for the stretch (squash, inverse compaction ratio).
Now s0 = 0.5. approximately, from the design of the tower, and indeed that's what parameter estimation gives within 5% or so. In order of ease of crushing, I suppose
(1) office furnishings
(2) ceiling systems
(3) trusses
(4) concrete (to make finely ground)
I don't suppose that the decaying exponential represents this all that well (only approximately), but I don't have anything better (more physical) to suggest just now.
Comments and suggestions welcome!
F(Z,S) = k*Z*S*S
for the resistive force (consumption of some of the kinetic energy), together with
s(Z,S) = s0*exp(-S1*Z*S*S)
for the stretch (squash, inverse compaction ratio).
Now s0 = 0.5. approximately, from the design of the tower, and indeed that's what parameter estimation gives within 5% or so. In order of ease of crushing, I suppose
(1) office furnishings
(2) ceiling systems
(3) trusses
(4) concrete (to make finely ground)
I don't suppose that the decaying exponential represents this all that well (only approximately), but I don't have anything better (more physical) to suggest just now.
Comments and suggestions welcome!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Nov 23 2007, 07:24 PM)
On this "melted" vs. "molten" debate - regardless of what the dictionary says - I think everyone is missing the important point that these terms are used according to the melting point of the material in question.
"To melt", and "melted" are generally used to describe something becoming liquid at a relatively LOW temperature. We say: "The ice melted"; "The butter melted" because these phase changes occur at relatively low temperatures. But we never say that the liqiud that formed was "molten". After all, molten ice is simply liquid water and is not necessarily very hot!
Now as for the term "molten", I think in common usage it implies something that is very hot. We say "molten lead", or "molten glass" or "molten lava" or "molten steel", meaning something that has been heated to a high temperature to cause it to melt. Thus I see no ambiguity in the phrase "molten metal". It means a metal that has been heated to a temperature above its melting point and is therefore in its liquid state. Since most metals, with a few exceptions such as Hg, Ga, etc, have HIGH melting points, the term "molten" as applied to a metal implies something that is VERY HOT.
Anything that is hot enough to emit black body radiation can be termed molten.
Molten (definition)
(definition) by Webster 1913 Wed Dec 22 1999 at 1:15:40
8 ¶, 9 s, 55 w, 415 c
Mol"ten (?), a. [See Melt.]
1.
Melted; being in a state of fusion, esp. when the liquid state is produced by a high degree of heat; as, molten iron.
2.
Made by melting and casting the substance or metal of which the thing is formed; as, a molten image.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=28...ytype=printable
It simply means a high degree of heat energy to plasticity it is not even a scientific term.
The debate is if the material in the physical universe can be considered to be at 1565C other than small localized early heating, no in this physical universe it can not be!
I hate to say it but Dr. Judy woods (gag) (gag) has done some good work on why the Liquid steel claims are unjustified.
It is just physically impossible for it to be anything other than small localized heating early one, any other claims can not be anything other than low temperature liquefied metal by all accounts the temperatures in the piles were way to low and all the data shows that.
Can we go back to science now I am working on a physical model of the collapse, an experiment of transfering aysemetrical collapse to symetrical collapse, by the way the Column act in thermal do to uneven heating and cooling.
I would like to see a little more data.
"To melt", and "melted" are generally used to describe something becoming liquid at a relatively LOW temperature. We say: "The ice melted"; "The butter melted" because these phase changes occur at relatively low temperatures. But we never say that the liqiud that formed was "molten". After all, molten ice is simply liquid water and is not necessarily very hot!
Now as for the term "molten", I think in common usage it implies something that is very hot. We say "molten lead", or "molten glass" or "molten lava" or "molten steel", meaning something that has been heated to a high temperature to cause it to melt. Thus I see no ambiguity in the phrase "molten metal". It means a metal that has been heated to a temperature above its melting point and is therefore in its liquid state. Since most metals, with a few exceptions such as Hg, Ga, etc, have HIGH melting points, the term "molten" as applied to a metal implies something that is VERY HOT.
Anything that is hot enough to emit black body radiation can be termed molten.
Molten (definition)
(definition) by Webster 1913 Wed Dec 22 1999 at 1:15:40
8 ¶, 9 s, 55 w, 415 c
Mol"ten (?), a. [See Melt.]
1.
Melted; being in a state of fusion, esp. when the liquid state is produced by a high degree of heat; as, molten iron.
2.
Made by melting and casting the substance or metal of which the thing is formed; as, a molten image.
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=28...ytype=printable
It simply means a high degree of heat energy to plasticity it is not even a scientific term.
The debate is if the material in the physical universe can be considered to be at 1565C other than small localized early heating, no in this physical universe it can not be!
I hate to say it but Dr. Judy woods (gag) (gag) has done some good work on why the Liquid steel claims are unjustified.
It is just physically impossible for it to be anything other than small localized heating early one, any other claims can not be anything other than low temperature liquefied metal by all accounts the temperatures in the piles were way to low and all the data shows that.
Can we go back to science now I am working on a physical model of the collapse, an experiment of transfering aysemetrical collapse to symetrical collapse, by the way the Column act in thermal do to uneven heating and cooling.
I would like to see a little more data.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Nov 23 2007, 05:30 PM)
Arthur - Neu-F was answering a question that I'd asked regarding the expected temperatures of the burning fuel remaining in the rubble-pile.
I know, but Neu should also know that the 30 days estimate he puts out is BS.
The fires lasted over 90 days.
Because they weren't smoldering, and they weren't spreading like a smoldering fire but moving around as HOT POCKETS within the pile.
See: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Clearly NOT smoldering.
Very FURNACE LIKE.
6 WEEKS after the collapse (well PAST the time that Neu thinks it should have run out of fuel )
Arthur
I know, but Neu should also know that the 30 days estimate he puts out is BS.
The fires lasted over 90 days.
Because they weren't smoldering, and they weren't spreading like a smoldering fire but moving around as HOT POCKETS within the pile.
See: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Clearly NOT smoldering.
Very FURNACE LIKE.
6 WEEKS after the collapse (well PAST the time that Neu thinks it should have run out of fuel )
Arthur
Oh yes. In determining the stretch, it is not assumed that all the materials remain in the crushed block. For example, both the office materials and the concrete, once sufficiently fine particles, could be blown out of the tower in the wind of the departing air.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 23 2007, 10:42 PM)
I know, but Neu should also know that the 30 days estimate he puts out is BS.
The fires lasted over 90 days.
Because they weren't smoldering, and they weren't spreading like a smoldering fire but moving around as HOT POCKETS within the pile.
See: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Clearly NOT smoldering.
Very FURNACE LIKE.
6 WEEKS after the collapse (well PAST the time that Neu thinks it should have run out of fuel )
Arthur
Arthur,
Your the one talking nonsense, the fuel is limited, however the maximum duration depends on oxidation, and also on chemical reactions that also cause heating!
The fuel as was stated was enough to last 38 days at a constant oxidation rate in air.
That does not negate fuel effect similar to those that form charcoal.
Nor does it negate Chemical oxidation effects like those of aluminum chloride and iron chloride with water.
NEU's estimate is simply a maximum amount of fuel it has no barring on the oxidation rate, or how long the fuel actually burned!
Think of a wood stove if I leave the air intake open the stove heats up, quickly and the fire burns out, but if I leave the air intake only opened a little the same fire can last two or three days however it has less heat!
The fires lasted over 90 days.
Because they weren't smoldering, and they weren't spreading like a smoldering fire but moving around as HOT POCKETS within the pile.
See: http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...low_quality.wmv
Clearly NOT smoldering.
Very FURNACE LIKE.
6 WEEKS after the collapse (well PAST the time that Neu thinks it should have run out of fuel )
Arthur
Arthur,
Your the one talking nonsense, the fuel is limited, however the maximum duration depends on oxidation, and also on chemical reactions that also cause heating!
The fuel as was stated was enough to last 38 days at a constant oxidation rate in air.
That does not negate fuel effect similar to those that form charcoal.
Nor does it negate Chemical oxidation effects like those of aluminum chloride and iron chloride with water.
NEU's estimate is simply a maximum amount of fuel it has no barring on the oxidation rate, or how long the fuel actually burned!
Think of a wood stove if I leave the air intake open the stove heats up, quickly and the fire burns out, but if I leave the air intake only opened a little the same fire can last two or three days however it has less heat!
I don't have a big issue with his estimate of the fuel (except he left out the entire Marriott hotel and the massive amount of material in the 6 below ground levels), what I have a problem with is his comparison of how a compressed cellulose pile smolders with the way the much more complex pile of material burned in the WTC pit.
The idea that the WTC fire would spread at a constant rate of 36 cm per hour through the pile is simply out of touch with reality.
Arthur
The idea that the WTC fire would spread at a constant rate of 36 cm per hour through the pile is simply out of touch with reality.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 24 2007, 12:01 AM)
I don't have a big issue with his estimate of the fuel (except he left out the entire Marriott hotel and the massive amount of material in the 6 below ground levels), what I have a problem with is his comparison of how a compressed cellulose pile smolders with the way the much more complex pile of material burned in the WTC pit.
The idea that the WTC fire would spread at a constant rate of 36 cm per hour through the pile is simply out of touch with reality.
Arthur
The rate of heating gives you the rate the fuel burns, Arthur.
Yes the fuel from the hotel was there, as was sewage which can also burn, if dryed by heating.
The problem is the rate of heating does not match the amount of fuel to produce the heat.
However their is the report of flowing molten steel, although I do not believe it is flowing molten steel it might very well be Aluminum Chloride oxidizing in water, or Iron chloride doing the same.
That would produce a temperature of about 700c and possibly a faint orange glow, and could very well be flowing, also the aluminum would form aluminum Hydroxide and simply wash away leaving no trace it was there.
That might be why no evidence of said reaction was found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_hydroxide
NEU is not saying there was not enough fuel in the collapsing buildings he is simply saying there was another fuel involved besides the carbons, to cause the long duration temperatures.
In that I have to agree, with him because I have looked into it myself.
The idea that the WTC fire would spread at a constant rate of 36 cm per hour through the pile is simply out of touch with reality.
Arthur
The rate of heating gives you the rate the fuel burns, Arthur.
Yes the fuel from the hotel was there, as was sewage which can also burn, if dryed by heating.
The problem is the rate of heating does not match the amount of fuel to produce the heat.
However their is the report of flowing molten steel, although I do not believe it is flowing molten steel it might very well be Aluminum Chloride oxidizing in water, or Iron chloride doing the same.
That would produce a temperature of about 700c and possibly a faint orange glow, and could very well be flowing, also the aluminum would form aluminum Hydroxide and simply wash away leaving no trace it was there.
That might be why no evidence of said reaction was found.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_hydroxide
NEU is not saying there was not enough fuel in the collapsing buildings he is simply saying there was another fuel involved besides the carbons, to cause the long duration temperatures.
In that I have to agree, with him because I have looked into it myself.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 23 2007, 10:30 PM)
So, once more Neu presents his own brand of "Sperical Chicken" nonsense.
Arthur
As long as he doesn't use chicken wire to create scale models it is probably no nonsense.
Arthur
As long as he doesn't use chicken wire to create scale models it is probably no nonsense.
Chainsaw:
Thanks! You have explained my post very well. Smoldering is the SLOWEST the piles could burn! Therefore smoldering combustion gives the LONGEST possible burn time.... Flare ups only SHORTEN the burn time.
Thanks! You have explained my post very well. Smoldering is the SLOWEST the piles could burn! Therefore smoldering combustion gives the LONGEST possible burn time.... Flare ups only SHORTEN the burn time.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Nov 23 2007, 07:20 PM)
The problem is the rate of heating does not match the amount of fuel to produce the heat.
I have seen NOTHING to substantiate this conclusion.
The formula that Neu supplied is HOPELESSLY SIMPLISTIC.
This assumes a half ball shape that is burning from the center and EXPANDING the area it consumes on a day by day basis such that:
On day one of the fire only ~ 1.4 cubic meters of the material would have burnt up.
On day two, 9 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day three, 26 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day four, 50 cubic meters
On day five, 82 cubic meters
...
by day 16 we are over 1,000 cubic meters per day.
By day 23 we pass 2,000 cubic meters per day
The rate material was consumed (and the amount of heat released) would have to have kept increasing such that on the last day, day 29, over 3,200 cubic meters would have burnt.
Thus on the 29th day, Neu's hypothetical SMOLDERING fire will consume over 2 cubic meters per minute, or in other words, Neu's SMOLDERING fire will burn almost TWICE as much in one minute on the last day, as it does on the entire first day.
That is NOT at all a reasonable representation of how the fire at the WTC site progressed.
Its much more realistic to think of several different MEANDERING/OPPORTUNISTIC fires that are burning a relatively steady quantity of fuel, not one that INCREASES in VOLUME of material consumed each day. In fact as the days went on, the amount of fuel consumed per day would be on a slow decline, NOT INCREASING.
Arthur
I have seen NOTHING to substantiate this conclusion.
The formula that Neu supplied is HOPELESSLY SIMPLISTIC.
This assumes a half ball shape that is burning from the center and EXPANDING the area it consumes on a day by day basis such that:
On day one of the fire only ~ 1.4 cubic meters of the material would have burnt up.
On day two, 9 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day three, 26 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day four, 50 cubic meters
On day five, 82 cubic meters
...
by day 16 we are over 1,000 cubic meters per day.
By day 23 we pass 2,000 cubic meters per day
The rate material was consumed (and the amount of heat released) would have to have kept increasing such that on the last day, day 29, over 3,200 cubic meters would have burnt.
Thus on the 29th day, Neu's hypothetical SMOLDERING fire will consume over 2 cubic meters per minute, or in other words, Neu's SMOLDERING fire will burn almost TWICE as much in one minute on the last day, as it does on the entire first day.
That is NOT at all a reasonable representation of how the fire at the WTC site progressed.
Its much more realistic to think of several different MEANDERING/OPPORTUNISTIC fires that are burning a relatively steady quantity of fuel, not one that INCREASES in VOLUME of material consumed each day. In fact as the days went on, the amount of fuel consumed per day would be on a slow decline, NOT INCREASING.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 24 2007, 01:26 AM)
I have seen NOTHING to substantiate this conclusion.
The formula that Neu supplied is HOPELESSLY SIMPLISTIC.
This assumes a half ball shape that is burning from the center and EXPANDING the area it consumes on a day by day basis such that:
On day one of the fire only ~ 1.4 cubic meters of the material would have burnt up.
On day two, 9 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day three, 26 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day four, 50 cubic meters
On day five, 82 cubic meters
...
This rate material was consumed (and the amount of heat released) would have to have kept increasing such that on day 29 over 3,200 cubic meters would have burnt.
Thus on the 29th day, Neu's hypothetical SMOLDERING fire will consume over 2 cubic meters per minute, or in other words, Neu's SMOLDERING fire will burn almost TWICE as much in one minute on the last day, as it does on the entire first day.
That is NOT at all how the fire progressed.
Its much more realistic to think of several different MEANDERING/OPPORTUNISTIC fires that are burning a relatively steady rate of fuel, not one that INCREASES in VOLUME of material consumed each day. In fact as the days went on, the amount of fuel consumed per day would be on a slow decline, NOT INCREASING.
Arthur
I know NEU assumes a constant oxidation rate, I do not, nor do I assume opportunistic fires.
The problem I see is there are problems with both, I believe chemical reactions lead to heating producing Charcoal like deposits, those deposits remained hot and auto ignited on exposure to air, in the clean up.
As the clean up progressed new chemical reactions were created for a while, by the disturbance involved in the very clean up operations themselves.
Those could have kept the now hot Carbonized deposits, hot for a long time until they were exposed and auto ignited.
It is a more plausible theory given experimental data, and what little evidence we have, it is Important to note the difference between carbonization and combustion carbonization is caused by heating of material to drive of the organic compounds, leaving an unburned carbon black residue.
I know I am probably just Crazy Arthur but it seems a more likely explanation of the events than either opportunistic fires or a constant combustion, oxidation rate.
Sorry I did not make myself clearer on that!
The formula that Neu supplied is HOPELESSLY SIMPLISTIC.
This assumes a half ball shape that is burning from the center and EXPANDING the area it consumes on a day by day basis such that:
On day one of the fire only ~ 1.4 cubic meters of the material would have burnt up.
On day two, 9 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day three, 26 cubic meters would have burnt up
On day four, 50 cubic meters
On day five, 82 cubic meters
...
This rate material was consumed (and the amount of heat released) would have to have kept increasing such that on day 29 over 3,200 cubic meters would have burnt.
Thus on the 29th day, Neu's hypothetical SMOLDERING fire will consume over 2 cubic meters per minute, or in other words, Neu's SMOLDERING fire will burn almost TWICE as much in one minute on the last day, as it does on the entire first day.
That is NOT at all how the fire progressed.
Its much more realistic to think of several different MEANDERING/OPPORTUNISTIC fires that are burning a relatively steady rate of fuel, not one that INCREASES in VOLUME of material consumed each day. In fact as the days went on, the amount of fuel consumed per day would be on a slow decline, NOT INCREASING.
Arthur
I know NEU assumes a constant oxidation rate, I do not, nor do I assume opportunistic fires.
The problem I see is there are problems with both, I believe chemical reactions lead to heating producing Charcoal like deposits, those deposits remained hot and auto ignited on exposure to air, in the clean up.
As the clean up progressed new chemical reactions were created for a while, by the disturbance involved in the very clean up operations themselves.
Those could have kept the now hot Carbonized deposits, hot for a long time until they were exposed and auto ignited.
It is a more plausible theory given experimental data, and what little evidence we have, it is Important to note the difference between carbonization and combustion carbonization is caused by heating of material to drive of the organic compounds, leaving an unburned carbon black residue.
I know I am probably just Crazy Arthur but it seems a more likely explanation of the events than either opportunistic fires or a constant combustion, oxidation rate.
Sorry I did not make myself clearer on that!
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.