QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 21 2007, 02:55 AM)
When Larry Silverstein said 'pull it' I had no idea he literally meant pull it to the ground faster than gravity could.
http://i9.tinypic.com/85f9y8m.jpg
It doesn't.
That building is 47 stories.
Your picture isn't.
Arthur
http://i9.tinypic.com/85f9y8m.jpg
It doesn't.
That building is 47 stories.
Your picture isn't.
Arthur
It's a joke, Arthur, lighten up. The point is the perils of mis-scaling: Had the magnitude of the curve been less than g, it might be accepted with little or no question but, because it's greater than g, it has to be BS. Unfortunately, that's not much of a sieve.
OK, suppose the data was good, and the acceleration of the feature really was greater than g. Would it matter if the graph showed 47 stories or 1? (Hint: the answer is no).
QUOTE
That building is 47 stories.
Your picture isn't.
Your picture isn't.
OK, suppose the data was good, and the acceleration of the feature really was greater than g. Would it matter if the graph showed 47 stories or 1? (Hint: the answer is no).
Measuring the change of size between the roofline and the CBS banner gives a 150% vertical resize in shagster's smear. Assuming the aspect ratio is preserved and scaling the time accordingly, the data fits very well with einsteen's. Still, I'll hold off posting.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 21 2007, 06:35 PM)
It's a joke, Arthur, lighten up. The point is the perils of mis-scaling: Had the magnitude of the curve been less than g, it might be accepted with little or no question but, because it's greater than g, it has to be BS. Unfortunately, that's not much of a sieve.
OK, suppose the data was good, and the acceleration of the feature really was greater than g. Would it matter if the graph showed 47 stories or 1? (Hint: the answer is no).
Actually a speed faster than g might indicate another effect of gravitational energy stored in a collapsing lower base structure such as a cantilevered beam.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
OK, suppose the data was good, and the acceleration of the feature really was greater than g. Would it matter if the graph showed 47 stories or 1? (Hint: the answer is no).
Actually a speed faster than g might indicate another effect of gravitational energy stored in a collapsing lower base structure such as a cantilevered beam.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 21 2007, 07:14 PM)
Actually a speed faster than g might indicate another effect of gravitational energy stored in a collapsing lower base structure such as a cantilevered beam.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
Hehehe. Chainsaw...you and I see things very much more 'in depth' than seems to be the norm! hehehe.
I recall posting something a while ago about pre-falling lift cars etc that when they reach the 'ends of the cable' would PULL DOWN on the already damaged floor sections and make them 'fall' internally SEEMINGLY FASTER than 'g' and hence with the added MOMENTUM/ENERGY of the ARRESTED lift cars that thereby transerred THEIR erstwhile momentum energies to the UPPER 'anchor' FLOOR section above them! hehehe.
And I think I also mentioned the CABLE TENSIONS where already 'pendulous' loads were pulling on the lift motors before those MASSIVE/HEAVY lift motors themselves were 'set free to TENSION-RELEASE EXPEDITED fall' by plane impact and load-redistribution/fire damage etc.
So let's add SUDDEN SHEDDING of CANTILEVER LOADINGS energies to 'unusual' design/structure-SPECIFIC ENERGY DELAY/REROUTING etc! hehehe.
I dig the way you OBSERVE and WORK, mate. Kudos.
Gotta rush off. Cheers all!
RC.
.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
Hehehe. Chainsaw...you and I see things very much more 'in depth' than seems to be the norm! hehehe.
I recall posting something a while ago about pre-falling lift cars etc that when they reach the 'ends of the cable' would PULL DOWN on the already damaged floor sections and make them 'fall' internally SEEMINGLY FASTER than 'g' and hence with the added MOMENTUM/ENERGY of the ARRESTED lift cars that thereby transerred THEIR erstwhile momentum energies to the UPPER 'anchor' FLOOR section above them! hehehe.
And I think I also mentioned the CABLE TENSIONS where already 'pendulous' loads were pulling on the lift motors before those MASSIVE/HEAVY lift motors themselves were 'set free to TENSION-RELEASE EXPEDITED fall' by plane impact and load-redistribution/fire damage etc.
So let's add SUDDEN SHEDDING of CANTILEVER LOADINGS energies to 'unusual' design/structure-SPECIFIC ENERGY DELAY/REROUTING etc! hehehe.
I dig the way you OBSERVE and WORK, mate. Kudos.
Gotta rush off. Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 21 2007, 07:14 PM)
Actually a speed faster than g might indicate another effect of gravitational energy stored in a collapsing lower base structure such as a cantilevered beam.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
Hello, Chainsaw. I've been meaning to tell you how much I enjoy your escapades. Can't let the DHS get ahold of your credit card receipts from the hardware store.. they might think you're a security risk. Remember there are certain liberties (like the right to bring home a truckload of ANFO) we must be willing to sacrifice for a small measure of security, because, because... well, I don't know why but I know how to follow orders.
Have you talked to Harry Eagar recently? Say hi for me; wish him well.
Now to the idea you propose. Stored strain energy in a cantilevered beam, unless WTC7 was architected like a massive downward-pointing crossbow, could come only from deflection under the load it was designed to support. If we imagine the load suddenly being removed from the side opposite the one being measured, the beam will snap up on that side in recoil but let's say that all that energy goes into pulling the other side down.
How much downward force could The Beam apply to that side of the building? I don't know the properties of the beam but we can safely say that the deflection under load would be small compared to the beam dimensions or WTC7 would've collapsed the day it was built. So, to save myself the calculation of force through deflected distance on a cantilevered beam to achieve work done and thus energy stored, I'll skip straight to the amount of deflection. I'll even give you as many beams as you need to impart the downward force required to measurably accelerate a rigid body like say, the top 40 stories of WTC7, gratis.
Aside: That is quite a force, by the way. Anything that could impart sufficent force to accelerate a massive body possessing that sort of inertia downwards could also impart that same force in the opposite direction to decelerate it. Once you're in a free-fall coordinate frame, a force is just a force and only inertia counts, not weight. That would be a mighty strong set of beams, so strong I dare say I have hard time imagining such a support even allowing the building to collapse at all!
But wait... this is a cantilever arrangement, I almost forgot. A big teeter-totter. Well, if essentially free to rotate as about a fulcrum point, then all it will be able to do is fall and vibrate a little while it does, so let's make it fixed. Just thinking about the normal and tangent forces on that coupling after load on one side disappears leads me to believe it would have to be REALLY strong just to survive THAT, forget about pulling the other side down! Let's make it diamondite, so it can be as strong as we need to stay affixed to the fulcrum.
We now have a set of beams poised to spring downward as soon as the load on the other side suddenly disappears (instead of collapsing on top of it, like we've been told it did because, if that were the case, the cantilever would resist collapse of the other side, not aid it). They are strong enough to pull the 40 story box downward, in a direction none of the connections were built to withstand load (i.e., tension, not compression), though we know they were not strong enough to withstand their normal gravity load, in the direction for which their design was intended.
I'm going to take a short break and come back.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
Hello, Chainsaw. I've been meaning to tell you how much I enjoy your escapades. Can't let the DHS get ahold of your credit card receipts from the hardware store.. they might think you're a security risk. Remember there are certain liberties (like the right to bring home a truckload of ANFO) we must be willing to sacrifice for a small measure of security, because, because... well, I don't know why but I know how to follow orders.
Have you talked to Harry Eagar recently? Say hi for me; wish him well.
Now to the idea you propose. Stored strain energy in a cantilevered beam, unless WTC7 was architected like a massive downward-pointing crossbow, could come only from deflection under the load it was designed to support. If we imagine the load suddenly being removed from the side opposite the one being measured, the beam will snap up on that side in recoil but let's say that all that energy goes into pulling the other side down.
How much downward force could The Beam apply to that side of the building? I don't know the properties of the beam but we can safely say that the deflection under load would be small compared to the beam dimensions or WTC7 would've collapsed the day it was built. So, to save myself the calculation of force through deflected distance on a cantilevered beam to achieve work done and thus energy stored, I'll skip straight to the amount of deflection. I'll even give you as many beams as you need to impart the downward force required to measurably accelerate a rigid body like say, the top 40 stories of WTC7, gratis.
Aside: That is quite a force, by the way. Anything that could impart sufficent force to accelerate a massive body possessing that sort of inertia downwards could also impart that same force in the opposite direction to decelerate it. Once you're in a free-fall coordinate frame, a force is just a force and only inertia counts, not weight. That would be a mighty strong set of beams, so strong I dare say I have hard time imagining such a support even allowing the building to collapse at all!
But wait... this is a cantilever arrangement, I almost forgot. A big teeter-totter. Well, if essentially free to rotate as about a fulcrum point, then all it will be able to do is fall and vibrate a little while it does, so let's make it fixed. Just thinking about the normal and tangent forces on that coupling after load on one side disappears leads me to believe it would have to be REALLY strong just to survive THAT, forget about pulling the other side down! Let's make it diamondite, so it can be as strong as we need to stay affixed to the fulcrum.
We now have a set of beams poised to spring downward as soon as the load on the other side suddenly disappears (instead of collapsing on top of it, like we've been told it did because, if that were the case, the cantilever would resist collapse of the other side, not aid it). They are strong enough to pull the 40 story box downward, in a direction none of the connections were built to withstand load (i.e., tension, not compression), though we know they were not strong enough to withstand their normal gravity load, in the direction for which their design was intended.
I'm going to take a short break and come back.
OK, where was I? Yes, I've postulated:
- a downward-pointing crossbow of near infinite strength and unlimited available energy, ready to pull building 7, on command of the fates.
But how long and over what distance is this force applied?
I don't know, but I can say it's of the order of the deflection under load, which is, we must admit, at most a few inches. The only reason I don't say exactly the same deflection is because I've played minor deity and screwed the laws of physics to give you the recoil energy from the other side. Let's make the deflection, then, twice the deflection under static load of a cantilevered beam as long as the width of the building.
I think that buys you a foot or so of deflection, measurable on video. Now, I have half of a huge crossbow, and a building that was architected to withstand unlimited tension (but obviously not enough compression!). What on earth keeps this stick of butter standing day after day? Never mind.
Now that I know this thing can only provide a foot or so of impulse, I also know the only downward kick this arrangement could provide is at the beginning of travel, in the first foot. After that, sadly, the beam will start resisting collapse. It's OK, it was built to provide downward force - it's butter going the other direction, when acting as a support! We've determined an acceleration of up to a g is expected, implying of course, no resistance whatever to compression.
At this point, I have to put my foot down and stop invoking invisible stored strain energy fairies and magic foci and say this: after the first foot, it would be back to g only, and the subsequent equation of motion simply has a non zero initial velocity term.
So, no, that's not possible. It is thinking outside the box, though (or should I say 'inside the curtain wall'?).
- a downward-pointing crossbow of near infinite strength and unlimited available energy, ready to pull building 7, on command of the fates.
But how long and over what distance is this force applied?
I don't know, but I can say it's of the order of the deflection under load, which is, we must admit, at most a few inches. The only reason I don't say exactly the same deflection is because I've played minor deity and screwed the laws of physics to give you the recoil energy from the other side. Let's make the deflection, then, twice the deflection under static load of a cantilevered beam as long as the width of the building.
I think that buys you a foot or so of deflection, measurable on video. Now, I have half of a huge crossbow, and a building that was architected to withstand unlimited tension (but obviously not enough compression!). What on earth keeps this stick of butter standing day after day? Never mind.
Now that I know this thing can only provide a foot or so of impulse, I also know the only downward kick this arrangement could provide is at the beginning of travel, in the first foot. After that, sadly, the beam will start resisting collapse. It's OK, it was built to provide downward force - it's butter going the other direction, when acting as a support! We've determined an acceleration of up to a g is expected, implying of course, no resistance whatever to compression.
At this point, I have to put my foot down and stop invoking invisible stored strain energy fairies and magic foci and say this: after the first foot, it would be back to g only, and the subsequent equation of motion simply has a non zero initial velocity term.
So, no, that's not possible. It is thinking outside the box, though (or should I say 'inside the curtain wall'?).
Professor Jones announcing a discovery: Red/gray bi-layered chips in the WTC dust
http://911blogger.com/node/13090#comment
Perhaps Crazy Chainsaw can cook up some red/gray chips in one of his famous frying pan experiments!?
======================================
Also, Physorg.com has an article entitled
Explosives on a chip
http://www.physorg.com/news117207324.html
This work is still in development, but perhaps similar, non-mass produced technology existed in 2001.
Pictured is a very thin copper plate, with the caption
First paragraph:
First paragraph:
Developed by a team of scientists from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, the highly-uniform copper structures will be incorporated into integrated circuits – then chemically converted to millimeter-diameter explosives. Because they can be integrated into standard microelectronics fabrication processes, the copper materials will enable micro-electromechanical (MEMS) fuzes for military munitions to be mass-produced like computer chips.
One could see the possible usefulness of a smart detonator. If the firing of the detonator can be controlled by integrated circuit, perhaps the rest of circuit could be made to communicate with a GPS system. The detonator could then be armed if it's location was the desired one, and disarmed otherwise.
In a WTC demolition scenario, I suppose such an integrated circuit could be used to receive radio or other EM radiation signals to detonate, thus enabling remote control.
Since you like poetry, I will send you a poem tomorrow
I tried to send it today, but your inbox is full.
How about Iron oxide Fe 203 exposed to a reduction reaction with carbon the surface would be transformed into Iron a Grey iron, with a red backing.
I can go on and on Metarmars.
Such flakes, chips can easily be found in water tanks, form deposits of Chemicals in the water.
Fine. Tell us how to create chips with Carbon on one side, and Fe 203 on the other. Afterwards, you can tell us how to modify the formula to, say, reproduce a couple of the other peaks shown in Professor Jones' spectrograph.
I can go on and on Metarmars.
Such flakes, chips can easily be found in water tanks, form deposits of Chemicals in the water.
Do such chips, which you assure us (correct?) have carbon on one side, and some red ferric compound on the other side, have the same spectrographic pattern as Professor Jones has showed (or, as NEU-FONZE would expect, as would be seen in fly ash)?
http://911blogger.com/node/13090#comment
Perhaps Crazy Chainsaw can cook up some red/gray chips in one of his famous frying pan experiments!?
======================================
Also, Physorg.com has an article entitled
Explosives on a chip
http://www.physorg.com/news117207324.html
This work is still in development, but perhaps similar, non-mass produced technology existed in 2001.
Pictured is a very thin copper plate, with the caption
QUOTE
Copper structure shown here is a precursor material for explosive compounds used in military detonators. The copper structure can be formed on chips, then converted to an explosive compound. The compound is being used to improve US Navy detonator devices.
First paragraph:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Copper structure shown here is a precursor material for explosive compounds used in military detonators. The copper structure can be formed on chips, then converted to an explosive compound. The compound is being used to improve US Navy detonator devices. |
First paragraph:
Developed by a team of scientists from the Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) and the Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, the highly-uniform copper structures will be incorporated into integrated circuits – then chemically converted to millimeter-diameter explosives. Because they can be integrated into standard microelectronics fabrication processes, the copper materials will enable micro-electromechanical (MEMS) fuzes for military munitions to be mass-produced like computer chips.
One could see the possible usefulness of a smart detonator. If the firing of the detonator can be controlled by integrated circuit, perhaps the rest of circuit could be made to communicate with a GPS system. The detonator could then be armed if it's location was the desired one, and disarmed otherwise.
In a WTC demolition scenario, I suppose such an integrated circuit could be used to receive radio or other EM radiation signals to detonate, thus enabling remote control.
Metamars:
I have addressed this latest "finding" over at the JREF Forum. Basically I am NOT impressed because Jones is now ignoring S, an element that was so important a few months ago, and saying that Si is a signature of thermite! This is nonsense.... Also Ca is quite common in the spectra but is ignored by Jones.
I have addressed this latest "finding" over at the JREF Forum. Basically I am NOT impressed because Jones is now ignoring S, an element that was so important a few months ago, and saying that Si is a signature of thermite! This is nonsense.... Also Ca is quite common in the spectra but is ignored by Jones.
Gregory Urich publishes "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of WTC Tower 1" in the Journal of 9/11 Studies December 2007 Volume.
Abstract
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures in terms of mass per unit floor area, NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007...assAndPeWtc.pdf
Abstract
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures in terms of mass per unit floor area, NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007...assAndPeWtc.pdf
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 22 2007, 03:46 PM)
Metamars:
I have addressed this latest "finding" over at the JREF Forum. Basically I am NOT impressed because Jones is now ignoring S, an element that was so important a few months ago, and saying that Si is a signature of thermite! This is nonsense.... Also Ca is quite common in the spectra but is ignored by Jones.
Got link?
Also, what do you think the red stuff is? Paint?
BTW, welcome back. Am I correct that you have had surgery recently?
I have addressed this latest "finding" over at the JREF Forum. Basically I am NOT impressed because Jones is now ignoring S, an element that was so important a few months ago, and saying that Si is a signature of thermite! This is nonsense.... Also Ca is quite common in the spectra but is ignored by Jones.
Got link?
Also, what do you think the red stuff is? Paint?
BTW, welcome back. Am I correct that you have had surgery recently?
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 05:07 PM)
Got link?
Also, what do you think the red stuff is? Paint?
BTW, welcome back. Am I correct that you have had surgery recently?
I suppose you meant this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3269112#post3269112
Do you know anybody that would be willing to examine the chips? I'd be happy to ask Professor Jones to have you or somebody you trust examine them.
Also, what do you think the red stuff is? Paint?
BTW, welcome back. Am I correct that you have had surgery recently?
I suppose you meant this:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3269112#post3269112
Do you know anybody that would be willing to examine the chips? I'd be happy to ask Professor Jones to have you or somebody you trust examine them.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 05:07 PM)
Got link?
Also, what do you think the red stuff is? Paint?
BTW, welcome back. Am I correct that you have had surgery recently?
I also heard that, hope you're doing well N-F.
Also, what do you think the red stuff is? Paint?
BTW, welcome back. Am I correct that you have had surgery recently?
I also heard that, hope you're doing well N-F.
Thanks Metamars, yes I did have nasty bowel surgery last week and I am still in quite a lot of pain, but nothing that some Christmas "cheer" can't fix.
Metamars, I have compared Jones' X-ray spectra to spectra in McCrone's "Particle Atlas" and they are a perfect fit for FLY ASH from municipal incinerators burning paper, wood and plastics.... just like the WTC fires!
Jones is being less that honest I am afraid to say since he is now refering in his talk to "thermite", not "thermate". (Check out the 6 minute video clip you posted a link to and you will see what I mean!). Why has Jones dropped thermate? Because he knows his latest spectra have very little S, but lots of Si.
Si is a smoking gun for silicates not thermite.... silicates (iron, calcium, potassium and aluminum silicates to be precise), are always found in fly ash. Yet Jones can stand in front of an audience and glibbly claim that Al, Fe and Si, yes Si, are evidence of thermite. Since when is there any Si in thermite?
Metamars, I have compared Jones' X-ray spectra to spectra in McCrone's "Particle Atlas" and they are a perfect fit for FLY ASH from municipal incinerators burning paper, wood and plastics.... just like the WTC fires!
Jones is being less that honest I am afraid to say since he is now refering in his talk to "thermite", not "thermate". (Check out the 6 minute video clip you posted a link to and you will see what I mean!). Why has Jones dropped thermate? Because he knows his latest spectra have very little S, but lots of Si.
Si is a smoking gun for silicates not thermite.... silicates (iron, calcium, potassium and aluminum silicates to be precise), are always found in fly ash. Yet Jones can stand in front of an audience and glibbly claim that Al, Fe and Si, yes Si, are evidence of thermite. Since when is there any Si in thermite?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Dec 21 2007, 07:14 PM)
Actually a speed faster than g might indicate another effect of gravitational energy stored in a collapsing lower base structure such as a cantilevered beam.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
Isn't that conflicting with the stepwise assumption ? If a story cannot transmit its energy to the next structure, it is also impossible that one story 'pulls' the whole building down, it would break there.
The Beam would be accelerating before the start of the collapse storing energy as the beam Accelerated downward.
Such strain energy released suddenly could be released in an instant making it appear to be a greater than g collapse, when it was not.
IT is simply the release of strain energy, induced in another part of the buildings structure.
Isn't that conflicting with the stepwise assumption ? If a story cannot transmit its energy to the next structure, it is also impossible that one story 'pulls' the whole building down, it would break there.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 22 2007, 05:23 PM)
Thanks Metamars, yes I did have nasty bowel surgery last week and I am still in quite a lot of pain, but nothing that some Christmas "cheer" can't fix.
Metamars, I have compared Jones' X-ray spectra to spectra in McCrone's "Particle Atlas" and they are a perfect fit for FLY ASH from municipal incinerators burning paper, wood and plastics.... just like the WTC fires!
Jones is being less that honest I am afraid to say since he is now refering in his talk to "thermite", not "thermate". (Check out the 6 minute video clip you posted a link to and you will see what I mean!). Why has Jones dropped thermate? Because he knows his latest spectra have very little S, but lots of Si.
Si is a smoking gun for silicates not thermite.... silicates (iron, calcium, potassium and aluminum silicates to be precise), are always found in fly ash. Yet Jones can stand in front of an audience and glibbly claim that Al, Fe and Si, yes Si, are evidence of thermite. Since when is there any Si in thermite?
Not sure if 911 stuff is compatible with Christmas cheer, but I'll let you decide that.
Since you like poetry, I will send you a poem tomorrow that I think you like, and I'm sure you've not read. Not to worry, I didn't write it.
Professor Jones has previously referred to 2 different types of thermite or thermate (can't remember his exact statement). Perhaps one was thermite, another thermate?
I have posted your fly ash comment on 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090#comment-172326
Perhaps the deciding issue in this matter will prove to be geometry: does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
Metamars, I have compared Jones' X-ray spectra to spectra in McCrone's "Particle Atlas" and they are a perfect fit for FLY ASH from municipal incinerators burning paper, wood and plastics.... just like the WTC fires!
Jones is being less that honest I am afraid to say since he is now refering in his talk to "thermite", not "thermate". (Check out the 6 minute video clip you posted a link to and you will see what I mean!). Why has Jones dropped thermate? Because he knows his latest spectra have very little S, but lots of Si.
Si is a smoking gun for silicates not thermite.... silicates (iron, calcium, potassium and aluminum silicates to be precise), are always found in fly ash. Yet Jones can stand in front of an audience and glibbly claim that Al, Fe and Si, yes Si, are evidence of thermite. Since when is there any Si in thermite?
Not sure if 911 stuff is compatible with Christmas cheer, but I'll let you decide that.
Since you like poetry, I will send you a poem tomorrow that I think you like, and I'm sure you've not read. Not to worry, I didn't write it.
Professor Jones has previously referred to 2 different types of thermite or thermate (can't remember his exact statement). Perhaps one was thermite, another thermate?
I have posted your fly ash comment on 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090#comment-172326
Perhaps the deciding issue in this matter will prove to be geometry: does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 12:51 PM)
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
Pass the Tin Foil.
Arthur
Pass the Tin Foil.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 05:51 PM)
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
Just to complete the almost obvious thought:
If the red/gray chips are detonators based on integrated circuit technology, they would have a ready source of Si.
If what they are detonating is thermate, there is your source of S.
With a nod to our Spanish friends, is this posible, Si o no? (pun intended).
Another question that comes to mind is, can radio or other EM radiation used to trigger a chip detonator also power it? That should be an easy order of magnitude estimate for most electronic engineers, I would think.
I suppose I could just ask the Navy, also....
Just to complete the almost obvious thought:
If the red/gray chips are detonators based on integrated circuit technology, they would have a ready source of Si.
If what they are detonating is thermate, there is your source of S.
With a nod to our Spanish friends, is this posible, Si o no? (pun intended).
Another question that comes to mind is, can radio or other EM radiation used to trigger a chip detonator also power it? That should be an easy order of magnitude estimate for most electronic engineers, I would think.
I suppose I could just ask the Navy, also....
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 05:51 PM)
Not sure if 911 stuff is compatible with Christmas cheer, but I'll let you decide that.
Since you like poetry, I will send you a poem tomorrow that I think you like, and I'm sure you've not read. Not to worry, I didn't write it.
Professor Jones has previously referred to 2 different types of thermite or thermate (can't remember his exact statement). Perhaps one was thermite, another thermate?
I have posted your fly ash comment on 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090#comment-172326
Perhaps the deciding issue in this matter will prove to be geometry: does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
How hard can I laugh one of the first things I found was that burning PVC can in the presents of IRON, form ferric Chloride, and that can affect computer printed circuit boards.
Dr. Jones found something that I already knew would exist.
Expose a Copper circuit board to Ferric Chloride, to air at low temperatures and you get a nice red and pink with copper chip. Burn away the plastic and you form exactly what DR. Jones found.
PS. I also told you guys that Dr. Jones spheres could be formed from paper because it has all the necessary compounds because of the way paper is made.
Everything I have been saying seems to be backed up by the evidence, except for he cantilever beam part I admit that is a mistake, I simply witness another steel structure collapse faster than gravity, and thought it was tension in the underlying beam of the bridge as the beam rebounded.
From the pressure exerted by the water flow when the end of the beam snapped it imparted energy to the other side of the bridge inducing a very rapid collapse of the opposite side.
The bridge actually jumped side ways and downward, faster than would normally be possible.
In fact I was trapped across he bridge until the water went down and a temporary crossing could be constructed, it was a dead end road, no way out except that bridge.
I have always wondered about that incident because it has never made since how a structure could rebound like that it does not seem possible, however I know that there has to be a logical explanation that does not defy the physical constants of the universe.
After that I and My girl friend stopped going out there, could you Imagine explaining to your Girl friends parents when you are a teen, why your two days late bringing her home?
That was really an awkward time.
Since you like poetry, I will send you a poem tomorrow that I think you like, and I'm sure you've not read. Not to worry, I didn't write it.
Professor Jones has previously referred to 2 different types of thermite or thermate (can't remember his exact statement). Perhaps one was thermite, another thermate?
I have posted your fly ash comment on 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090#comment-172326
Perhaps the deciding issue in this matter will prove to be geometry: does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
How hard can I laugh one of the first things I found was that burning PVC can in the presents of IRON, form ferric Chloride, and that can affect computer printed circuit boards.
Dr. Jones found something that I already knew would exist.
Expose a Copper circuit board to Ferric Chloride, to air at low temperatures and you get a nice red and pink with copper chip. Burn away the plastic and you form exactly what DR. Jones found.
QUOTE
Etchants:
There are 2 popular etchants. Both are effective. Ammonium Persulfate is my favorite. It has a couple of advantages. First, it's clear which allows you to better see what you're doing. It is also less likely to stain everything it comes in contact with. One disadvantage it that it comes in powder form. This means that you have to get the mix right for it to be most efficient. Ferric Chloride is the other etchant. It's a reddish-orange colored liquid. It comes pre-mixed and is more widely available. It's stocked at most Radio Shack stores.
There are 2 popular etchants. Both are effective. Ammonium Persulfate is my favorite. It has a couple of advantages. First, it's clear which allows you to better see what you're doing. It is also less likely to stain everything it comes in contact with. One disadvantage it that it comes in powder form. This means that you have to get the mix right for it to be most efficient. Ferric Chloride is the other etchant. It's a reddish-orange colored liquid. It comes pre-mixed and is more widely available. It's stocked at most Radio Shack stores.
PS. I also told you guys that Dr. Jones spheres could be formed from paper because it has all the necessary compounds because of the way paper is made.
Everything I have been saying seems to be backed up by the evidence, except for he cantilever beam part I admit that is a mistake, I simply witness another steel structure collapse faster than gravity, and thought it was tension in the underlying beam of the bridge as the beam rebounded.
From the pressure exerted by the water flow when the end of the beam snapped it imparted energy to the other side of the bridge inducing a very rapid collapse of the opposite side.
The bridge actually jumped side ways and downward, faster than would normally be possible.
In fact I was trapped across he bridge until the water went down and a temporary crossing could be constructed, it was a dead end road, no way out except that bridge.
I have always wondered about that incident because it has never made since how a structure could rebound like that it does not seem possible, however I know that there has to be a logical explanation that does not defy the physical constants of the universe.
After that I and My girl friend stopped going out there, could you Imagine explaining to your Girl friends parents when you are a teen, why your two days late bringing her home?
That was really an awkward time.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 22 2007, 07:12 PM)
How hard can I laugh one of the first things I found was that burning PVC can in the presents of IRON, form ferric Chloride, and that can affect computer printed circuit boards.
Dr. Jones found something that I already knew would exist.
Expose a Copper circuit board to Ferric Chloride, to air at low temperatures and you get a nice red and pink with copper chip. Burn away the plastic and you form exactly what DR. Jones found.
AFAIK, Dr. Jones did not say that the grey part of the chip was copper or a copper printed circuit board. I don't think he said what it was, at all. As for the red part, that is the part that he is claiming is thermite.
Please be more specific in telling us your recipe for the red/gray chips that Professor Jones is studying. Are there 2 layers, 1 layer, or more than 2 layers? How do we make one side turn red, and the other gray? How thick is each layer?
Regarding frying-pan science, it's best to remember that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
Dr. Jones found something that I already knew would exist.
Expose a Copper circuit board to Ferric Chloride, to air at low temperatures and you get a nice red and pink with copper chip. Burn away the plastic and you form exactly what DR. Jones found.
AFAIK, Dr. Jones did not say that the grey part of the chip was copper or a copper printed circuit board. I don't think he said what it was, at all. As for the red part, that is the part that he is claiming is thermite.
Please be more specific in telling us your recipe for the red/gray chips that Professor Jones is studying. Are there 2 layers, 1 layer, or more than 2 layers? How do we make one side turn red, and the other gray? How thick is each layer?
Regarding frying-pan science, it's best to remember that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 05:51 PM)
Since you like poetry, I will send you a poem tomorrow
I tried to send it today, but your inbox is full.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 08:08 PM)
AFAIK, Dr. Jones did not say that the grey part of the chip was copper or a copper printed circuit board. I don't think he said what it was, at all. As for the red part, that is the part that he is claiming is thermite.
Please be more specific in telling us your recipe for the red/gray chips that Professor Jones is studying. Are there 2 layers, 1 layer, or more than 2 layers? How do we make one side turn red, and the other gray? How thick is each layer?
Regarding frying-pan science, it's best to remember that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
It depends on the Chemical reaction that creates the chips, they can actuarially be multi layered.
RED shows Iron oxide not iron, which would be gray, there are several different types of chips that will form naturally that is what I formed most often while trying to produce the spheres.
Some multi layered, some Duel layered some just iron on ones side iron oxide under that.
There would literally be thousands of chips produced, picking just a few as indication of thermite is as dumb as saying the sulfur in the towers indicates thermite.
It is like picking one grain of salt from the oceans and saying that because that one grain is sodium chloride that all the salt in the oceans is sodium chloride and no other salt exists on earth.
PS. I have also just won a bet that he would do that, thanks to Dr. Jones I am 100 USD, richer than I was yesterday. I just need to do more predictions on what Dr. Jones will do next and I could make a lot more money.
Also I will be donating the money to charity, at least something good has come out of Dr. Joneses research that way.
Please be more specific in telling us your recipe for the red/gray chips that Professor Jones is studying. Are there 2 layers, 1 layer, or more than 2 layers? How do we make one side turn red, and the other gray? How thick is each layer?
Regarding frying-pan science, it's best to remember that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
It depends on the Chemical reaction that creates the chips, they can actuarially be multi layered.
RED shows Iron oxide not iron, which would be gray, there are several different types of chips that will form naturally that is what I formed most often while trying to produce the spheres.
Some multi layered, some Duel layered some just iron on ones side iron oxide under that.
There would literally be thousands of chips produced, picking just a few as indication of thermite is as dumb as saying the sulfur in the towers indicates thermite.
It is like picking one grain of salt from the oceans and saying that because that one grain is sodium chloride that all the salt in the oceans is sodium chloride and no other salt exists on earth.
PS. I have also just won a bet that he would do that, thanks to Dr. Jones I am 100 USD, richer than I was yesterday. I just need to do more predictions on what Dr. Jones will do next and I could make a lot more money.
Also I will be donating the money to charity, at least something good has come out of Dr. Joneses research that way.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 22 2007, 07:12 PM)
Everything I have been saying seems to be backed up by the evidence, except for he cantilever beam part I admit that is a mistake, I simply witness another steel structure collapse faster than gravity, and thought it was tension in the underlying beam of the bridge as the beam rebounded.
The notion is viable for portions of many structures. Keep in mind, however, it would also generally be a very short-lived action, an impulse. Acceleration will only occur while force is being applied (sorry for the F=ma card). For deflected or compressed elastic materials, the distance over which the restoring force can be applied to release stored energy is limited to the extent of the deformation.
Consider the ejected tower perimeter columns during collapse. They have, in addition to the given potential energy of their initial height, strain energy from initial assembled load, and possible transient strain imposed by impacting bodies and kinetic energy imparted from such impacts. Finally, there's lever action akin to a catapult, a force which may be applied over a substantial time interval.
The important thing from the standpoint of video motion is this: the accelerations observed, with the exception of perhaps the catapult effect, will be solely due to the force of gravity. All other distances over which force is applied to accelerate a body are too small to show up. So you may see a portion of a structure with greater velocity than would occur simply from conversion of its potential to kinetic energy, but you won't see the velocity change as anything but a discrete step change. Unless you happen to see a collision of bodies, all you will see is greater (or non-zero) initial velocity.
The acceleration of the top of a falling building can only exceed g if an additional force is acting on it. This force would have to come from below, obviously, so something would have to be pulling it down. If the acceleration were sustained for more than a frame interval, I'd start looking for a rocket motor on top of the building.
The notion is viable for portions of many structures. Keep in mind, however, it would also generally be a very short-lived action, an impulse. Acceleration will only occur while force is being applied (sorry for the F=ma card). For deflected or compressed elastic materials, the distance over which the restoring force can be applied to release stored energy is limited to the extent of the deformation.
Consider the ejected tower perimeter columns during collapse. They have, in addition to the given potential energy of their initial height, strain energy from initial assembled load, and possible transient strain imposed by impacting bodies and kinetic energy imparted from such impacts. Finally, there's lever action akin to a catapult, a force which may be applied over a substantial time interval.
The important thing from the standpoint of video motion is this: the accelerations observed, with the exception of perhaps the catapult effect, will be solely due to the force of gravity. All other distances over which force is applied to accelerate a body are too small to show up. So you may see a portion of a structure with greater velocity than would occur simply from conversion of its potential to kinetic energy, but you won't see the velocity change as anything but a discrete step change. Unless you happen to see a collision of bodies, all you will see is greater (or non-zero) initial velocity.
The acceleration of the top of a falling building can only exceed g if an additional force is acting on it. This force would have to come from below, obviously, so something would have to be pulling it down. If the acceleration were sustained for more than a frame interval, I'd start looking for a rocket motor on top of the building.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 22 2007, 08:47 PM)
It depends on the Chemical reaction that creates the chips, they can actuarially be multi layered.
RED shows Iron oxide not iron, which would be gray, there are several different types of chips that will form naturally that is what I formed most often while trying to produce the spheres.
Some multi layered, some Duel layered some just iron on ones side iron oxide under that.
There would literally be thousands of chips produced, picking just a few as indication of thermite is as dumb as saying the sulfur in the towers indicates thermite.
It is like picking one grain of salt from the oceans and saying that because that one grain is sodium chloride that all the salt in the oceans is sodium chloride and no other salt exists on earth.
PS. I have also just won a bet that he would do that, thanks to Dr. Jones I am 100 USD, richer than I was yesterday. I just need to do more predictions on what Dr. Jones will do next and I could make a lot more money.
Also I will be donating the money to charity, at least something good has come out of Dr. Joneses research that way.
Well, then, it should be easy for you to provide us with cookbook instructions on how to create one such chip, with grey on one side and red on the other. Unfortunately, I don't know what dimensions to specify.
Just to get the ball rolling, why don't I let you specify the dimensions, subject to the constraint that both layers are equal depth. So, e.g., you can pick a chip size with red = 1 mm, grey = 1 mm, and area = 100 mm^^2.
I would say, though, that a maximum total width of 2 cm should be the limit.
Of course, since the reactants were (presumably) chaotically interacting, you should not be using anything that smacks of a 1-off manufacturing process. No molds, micro-forceps, whatever.
Just a frying pan, your etching reactants, your favorite spatula, and macroscopic pieces of "stuff" that you will make flake off (or whatever) into specks with red on one side, grey on the other.
RED shows Iron oxide not iron, which would be gray, there are several different types of chips that will form naturally that is what I formed most often while trying to produce the spheres.
Some multi layered, some Duel layered some just iron on ones side iron oxide under that.
There would literally be thousands of chips produced, picking just a few as indication of thermite is as dumb as saying the sulfur in the towers indicates thermite.
It is like picking one grain of salt from the oceans and saying that because that one grain is sodium chloride that all the salt in the oceans is sodium chloride and no other salt exists on earth.
PS. I have also just won a bet that he would do that, thanks to Dr. Jones I am 100 USD, richer than I was yesterday. I just need to do more predictions on what Dr. Jones will do next and I could make a lot more money.
Also I will be donating the money to charity, at least something good has come out of Dr. Joneses research that way.
Well, then, it should be easy for you to provide us with cookbook instructions on how to create one such chip, with grey on one side and red on the other. Unfortunately, I don't know what dimensions to specify.
Just to get the ball rolling, why don't I let you specify the dimensions, subject to the constraint that both layers are equal depth. So, e.g., you can pick a chip size with red = 1 mm, grey = 1 mm, and area = 100 mm^^2.
I would say, though, that a maximum total width of 2 cm should be the limit.
Of course, since the reactants were (presumably) chaotically interacting, you should not be using anything that smacks of a 1-off manufacturing process. No molds, micro-forceps, whatever.
Just a frying pan, your etching reactants, your favorite spatula, and macroscopic pieces of "stuff" that you will make flake off (or whatever) into specks with red on one side, grey on the other.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 10:25 PM)
Well, then, it should be easy for you to provide us with cookbook instructions on how to create one such chip, with grey on one side and red on the other. Unfortunately, I don't know what dimensions to specify.
Just to get the ball rolling, why don't I let you specify the dimensions, subject to the constraint that both layers are equal depth. So, e.g., you can pick a chip size with red = 1 mm, grey = 1 mm, and area = 100 mm^^2.
I would say, though, that a maximum total width of 2 cm should be the limit.
Of course, since the reactants were (presumably) chaotically interacting, you should not be using anything that smacks of a 1-off manufacturing process. No molds, micro-forceps, whatever.
Just a frying pan, your etching reactants, your favorite spatula, and macroscopic pieces of "stuff" that you will make flake off (or whatever) into specks with red on one side, grey on the other.
The dimensions are also specific to the chemical reactions ever notice flakes of rust or might I say Fe 203 and Fe 304 which would produce chips though exposure of a rusted surface to HCl then oxidation of that surface do to heating.
How about Iron oxide Fe 203 exposed to a reduction reaction with carbon the surface would be transformed into Iron a Grey iron, with a red backing.
I can go on and on Metarmars.
Such flakes, chips can easily be found in water tanks, form deposits of Chemicals in the water.
Until a chemical analysis is published this debate is pointless and after that I will tell you how the chips were formed.
Let me also inform you that crystal formation, can govern the minimum and maximum size limits of particles formed by chemical reactions.
Just to get the ball rolling, why don't I let you specify the dimensions, subject to the constraint that both layers are equal depth. So, e.g., you can pick a chip size with red = 1 mm, grey = 1 mm, and area = 100 mm^^2.
I would say, though, that a maximum total width of 2 cm should be the limit.
Of course, since the reactants were (presumably) chaotically interacting, you should not be using anything that smacks of a 1-off manufacturing process. No molds, micro-forceps, whatever.
Just a frying pan, your etching reactants, your favorite spatula, and macroscopic pieces of "stuff" that you will make flake off (or whatever) into specks with red on one side, grey on the other.
The dimensions are also specific to the chemical reactions ever notice flakes of rust or might I say Fe 203 and Fe 304 which would produce chips though exposure of a rusted surface to HCl then oxidation of that surface do to heating.
How about Iron oxide Fe 203 exposed to a reduction reaction with carbon the surface would be transformed into Iron a Grey iron, with a red backing.
I can go on and on Metarmars.
Such flakes, chips can easily be found in water tanks, form deposits of Chemicals in the water.
Until a chemical analysis is published this debate is pointless and after that I will tell you how the chips were formed.
Let me also inform you that crystal formation, can govern the minimum and maximum size limits of particles formed by chemical reactions.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 10:25 PM)
Well, then, it should be easy for you to provide us with cookbook instructions on how to create one such chip, with grey on one side and red on the other. Unfortunately, I don't know what dimensions to specify.
Just to get the ball rolling, why don't I let you specify the dimensions, subject to the constraint that both layers are equal depth. So, e.g., you can pick a chip size with red = 1 mm, grey = 1 mm, and area = 100 mm^^2.
I would say, though, that a maximum total width of 2 cm should be the limit.
Of course, since the reactants were (presumably) chaotically interacting, you should not be using anything that smacks of a 1-off manufacturing process. No molds, micro-forceps, whatever.
Just a frying pan, your etching reactants, your favorite spatula, and macroscopic pieces of "stuff" that you will make flake off (or whatever) into specks with red on one side, grey on the other.
Hi meta!
You know the variety of shapes/arrangements of Fullerines that can be made naturally in a uncontrolled (uncatalysed-undirected) Hydrocarbon flames situations?
You know the variety of chemical byproducts that can be made in 'uncontrolled' (uncatalysed-undirected) batch chemical reactions in situations containing MANY diverse starting ingredients?
The same Ranomdness-distribution of by-products of the kind you are interested in would arise in such an uncontrolled (catalyst-non-specific and undirected) vast and random MESS of hight temp and low temp combustions/reactions in 9/11.
Edited to add: ESPECIALLY given that some of the huge quantities of computers and electric/electronic office fittings/equipment consisted of a large variety of STARTER MATERIALS ALREADY in MICRO-CHIP form...and (as Chainsaw says) OTHER PRE-CONSTRUCTED MATERIALS that could act as READY-MADE SUB-STRATES etc that would catalyse and or make it the path of least resistance for some reactions that may not have been able to properlly go to completion at all if not for the pre-existing 'template' effects etc.
Like Chainsaw intimated, "take your pick" of the possible range of such that were produced....and then cry "controlled by ninja fairies" in the case of one tiny "selected" sample of the MANY possible by-products in that vein...and ignore the likelyhood of that selected sample being IN THE RANGE of what would be expected without "controlling ninja fairey" involvement.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Just to get the ball rolling, why don't I let you specify the dimensions, subject to the constraint that both layers are equal depth. So, e.g., you can pick a chip size with red = 1 mm, grey = 1 mm, and area = 100 mm^^2.
I would say, though, that a maximum total width of 2 cm should be the limit.
Of course, since the reactants were (presumably) chaotically interacting, you should not be using anything that smacks of a 1-off manufacturing process. No molds, micro-forceps, whatever.
Just a frying pan, your etching reactants, your favorite spatula, and macroscopic pieces of "stuff" that you will make flake off (or whatever) into specks with red on one side, grey on the other.
Hi meta!
You know the variety of shapes/arrangements of Fullerines that can be made naturally in a uncontrolled (uncatalysed-undirected) Hydrocarbon flames situations?
You know the variety of chemical byproducts that can be made in 'uncontrolled' (uncatalysed-undirected) batch chemical reactions in situations containing MANY diverse starting ingredients?
The same Ranomdness-distribution of by-products of the kind you are interested in would arise in such an uncontrolled (catalyst-non-specific and undirected) vast and random MESS of hight temp and low temp combustions/reactions in 9/11.
Edited to add: ESPECIALLY given that some of the huge quantities of computers and electric/electronic office fittings/equipment consisted of a large variety of STARTER MATERIALS ALREADY in MICRO-CHIP form...and (as Chainsaw says) OTHER PRE-CONSTRUCTED MATERIALS that could act as READY-MADE SUB-STRATES etc that would catalyse and or make it the path of least resistance for some reactions that may not have been able to properlly go to completion at all if not for the pre-existing 'template' effects etc.
Like Chainsaw intimated, "take your pick" of the possible range of such that were produced....and then cry "controlled by ninja fairies" in the case of one tiny "selected" sample of the MANY possible by-products in that vein...and ignore the likelyhood of that selected sample being IN THE RANGE of what would be expected without "controlling ninja fairey" involvement.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (einsteen to Chainsaw+Dec 22 2007, 05:25 PM)
Isn't that conflicting with the stepwise assumption ? If a story cannot transmit its energy to the next structure, it is also impossible that one story 'pulls' the whole building down, it would break there.
Hi Einsteen, Chainsaw, OneWhiteEye, everyone.
Yeah, I initially had the same thought when I first heard it.
But on second thought I realised that the forces involved in a push-down/guillotine floor-separation from columns by upper floor weight/debris is significantly different from the 'pull-down' tendion of the WHOLE column and its attachments.
Just like if we were to 'trim' a standing tree's branches by the sudden push-doqn/guillotining effect of a heavy/fast-moving weight as compared to cutting the legs out from under the tree and THEN pulling DOWN on its trunk from the cut end....which will only cause the branches to 'swing towards' the trunk BUT STAY ATTACHED because the axial force on the trunk is acting IN TENSION mode....and NOT in compression/guillotine mode.
A very different case with very different outcomes and effects at the branch-to-trunk ATTACHMENT points/structures.
And of course the ACTION/REACTION times required in the different cases for 'connection separation' would be different too.
Your further thoughts, Ein, CS?
PS: OneWhiteEye.... If it hasn't already been posited and I missed it, have we considered where ther is an accidental/design interconnection between two or more cantilevers such that the 'up-pushing' end of one cantilever is already loading the 'down-loaded' end of the other so that the actual load was THEN more than just 'dead weight' of the design load on the second cantilever....which then actually had a further 'sprung' load TRANSFERRING to it momentarily from the first cantilever? Perhaps this may have occurred given the possibility of one or more of the cantilever structures being swung HORIZONTALLY off line and pushed under/atop its neighbours? A bit rushed now. Hope I've made that clear enough! hehehe.
Back tomorrow!
RC.
.
Hi Einsteen, Chainsaw, OneWhiteEye, everyone.
Yeah, I initially had the same thought when I first heard it.
But on second thought I realised that the forces involved in a push-down/guillotine floor-separation from columns by upper floor weight/debris is significantly different from the 'pull-down' tendion of the WHOLE column and its attachments.
Just like if we were to 'trim' a standing tree's branches by the sudden push-doqn/guillotining effect of a heavy/fast-moving weight as compared to cutting the legs out from under the tree and THEN pulling DOWN on its trunk from the cut end....which will only cause the branches to 'swing towards' the trunk BUT STAY ATTACHED because the axial force on the trunk is acting IN TENSION mode....and NOT in compression/guillotine mode.
A very different case with very different outcomes and effects at the branch-to-trunk ATTACHMENT points/structures.
And of course the ACTION/REACTION times required in the different cases for 'connection separation' would be different too.
Your further thoughts, Ein, CS?
PS: OneWhiteEye.... If it hasn't already been posited and I missed it, have we considered where ther is an accidental/design interconnection between two or more cantilevers such that the 'up-pushing' end of one cantilever is already loading the 'down-loaded' end of the other so that the actual load was THEN more than just 'dead weight' of the design load on the second cantilever....which then actually had a further 'sprung' load TRANSFERRING to it momentarily from the first cantilever? Perhaps this may have occurred given the possibility of one or more of the cantilever structures being swung HORIZONTALLY off line and pushed under/atop its neighbours? A bit rushed now. Hope I've made that clear enough! hehehe.
Back tomorrow!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Dec 22 2007, 10:50 PM)
How about Iron oxide Fe 203 exposed to a reduction reaction with carbon the surface would be transformed into Iron a Grey iron, with a red backing.
I can go on and on Metarmars.
Such flakes, chips can easily be found in water tanks, form deposits of Chemicals in the water.
Fine. Tell us how to create chips with Carbon on one side, and Fe 203 on the other. Afterwards, you can tell us how to modify the formula to, say, reproduce a couple of the other peaks shown in Professor Jones' spectrograph.
QUOTE
I can go on and on Metarmars.
Such flakes, chips can easily be found in water tanks, form deposits of Chemicals in the water.
Do such chips, which you assure us (correct?) have carbon on one side, and some red ferric compound on the other side, have the same spectrographic pattern as Professor Jones has showed (or, as NEU-FONZE would expect, as would be seen in fly ash)?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 22 2007, 11:39 PM)
Your further thoughts, Ein, CS?
Not directed at me, but I'll take a stab.
No.
I really dig how einsteen managed to summarize it all in one sentence, I thought I'd try it in one word.
Not directed at me, but I'll take a stab.
No.
I really dig how einsteen managed to summarize it all in one sentence, I thought I'd try it in one word.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 22 2007, 11:48 PM)
Not directed at me, but I'll take a stab.
No.
I really dig how einsteen managed to summarize it all in one sentence, I thought I'd try it in one word.
Hi OneWhiteEye!
It was just a thought. Thanks anyway! hehehe.
PS: Did you catch the rest of my post edit that WAS later addressed to you?...as follows.....
No.
I really dig how einsteen managed to summarize it all in one sentence, I thought I'd try it in one word.
Hi OneWhiteEye!
It was just a thought. Thanks anyway! hehehe.
PS: Did you catch the rest of my post edit that WAS later addressed to you?...as follows.....
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 22 2007, 11:39 PM)
..
..
PS: OneWhiteEye.... If it hasn't already been posited and I missed it, have we considered where ther is an accidental/design interconnection between two or more cantilevers such that the 'up-pushing' end of one cantilever is already loading the 'down-loaded' end of the other so that the actual load was THEN more than just 'dead weight' of the design load on the second cantilever....which then actually had a further 'sprung' load TRANSFERRING to it momentarily from the first cantilever? Perhaps this may have occurred given the possibility of one or more of the cantilever structures being swung HORIZONTALLY off line and pushed under/atop its neighbours? A bit rushed now. Hope I've made that clear enough! hehehe.
Back tomorrow!
RC.
.
Probably another wild surmise will bite the dust! hehehe. But I just had to consider it nonetheless!
Thanks for your response anyway, mate!
Cheers!
RC.
..
PS: OneWhiteEye.... If it hasn't already been posited and I missed it, have we considered where ther is an accidental/design interconnection between two or more cantilevers such that the 'up-pushing' end of one cantilever is already loading the 'down-loaded' end of the other so that the actual load was THEN more than just 'dead weight' of the design load on the second cantilever....which then actually had a further 'sprung' load TRANSFERRING to it momentarily from the first cantilever? Perhaps this may have occurred given the possibility of one or more of the cantilever structures being swung HORIZONTALLY off line and pushed under/atop its neighbours? A bit rushed now. Hope I've made that clear enough! hehehe.
Back tomorrow!
RC.
.
Probably another wild surmise will bite the dust! hehehe. But I just had to consider it nonetheless!
Thanks for your response anyway, mate!
Cheers!
RC.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 11:46 PM)
Fine. Tell us how to create chips with Carbon on one side, and Fe 203 on the other. Afterwards, you can tell us how to modify the formula to, say, reproduce a couple of the other peaks shown in Professor Jones' spectrograph.
Do such chips, which you assure us (correct?) have carbon on one side, and some red ferric compound on the other side, have the same spectrographic pattern as Professor Jones has showed (or, as NEU-FONZE would expect, as would be seen in fly ash)?
metamars,
Actually it would be red Fe 2O3 on one side, and Fe 304 or Fe-iron on the other dependent on if he chip was exposed to Carbon or Chloride. The un exposed side would be red the exposed side would be gray. layering of said particles could form the chips.
The same chemistry that forms the micro spheres could easily be at play for both the micro spheres and the chips.
Give me a good chemical analysis and I can recreate them, based on what I have done in the past.
No problem at all.
Do such chips, which you assure us (correct?) have carbon on one side, and some red ferric compound on the other side, have the same spectrographic pattern as Professor Jones has showed (or, as NEU-FONZE would expect, as would be seen in fly ash)?
metamars,
Actually it would be red Fe 2O3 on one side, and Fe 304 or Fe-iron on the other dependent on if he chip was exposed to Carbon or Chloride. The un exposed side would be red the exposed side would be gray. layering of said particles could form the chips.
The same chemistry that forms the micro spheres could easily be at play for both the micro spheres and the chips.
Give me a good chemical analysis and I can recreate them, based on what I have done in the past.
No problem at all.
Distance (due north; east inclination not accounted for) of camera from the north wall of WTC 1:
1562 +/- 0.5 meters
assuming OneWhiteEye measured from floor 88 to floor 106 and assuming the camera is 1.25 meters above World Trade Center ground level.
1562 +/- 0.5 meters
assuming OneWhiteEye measured from floor 88 to floor 106 and assuming the camera is 1.25 meters above World Trade Center ground level.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 23 2007, 12:07 AM)
PS: Did you catch the rest of my post edit that WAS later addressed to you?...as follows.....
RealityCheck:
No, sorry, I missed the addendum. Posted and then went off immediately for some much needed sleep.
I wouldn't rule out some boneheaded architect trying to design a better 47-story mousetrap, I'd just hope someone would catch it in the planning stage. Ha.
Should it get past the planning stage, however, I do doubt any part of the building could transfer such loads without buckling. Very important to remember, the falling portion of the building has just proven itself incapable of supporting it's own weight. It's hard to imagine those crushed and utterly destroyed connections passing on sufficient (or any) force to accelerate the crumbling mass of non-resistant jelly faster than gravity could do so by itself.
Stored strain energy in solids has a deformation associated with it. Releasing the deforming force can at most result in an oscillation of 2x the magnitude of deformation along a given coordinate, ignoring dissipative forces. That's if the load were suddenly removed. But we're talking about the material providing motive force for a tremendous mass, quite the contrary situation to a rapid unloading. Truth is, the force previously maintaining the deformation, thus strain energy, would have to dwarf the inertia of the part of the building to be pulled to the ground. I mean, we're talking about a beam or set of beams that would be strong enough, and have enough stored strain energy, to throw a HUGE chunk of a HUGE skyscraper to the ground or, if oriented oppositely, to toss that same chunk into the air.
This is not consistent with beams so weak they cannot support the weight for which they were designed, in fact offer little more resistance than air, which I happen to be drawing into my lungs right now with virtually no effort.
Again, the distance over which the force can act is limited to the amount of deformation. For a cantilevered beam, it's the deflection at the end. For a well-designed building, that's neglible! I have a cantilevered wooden deck; my guess is I'd have a hard time measuring the sag even with a few rotund people standing at the edge. A few more and it snaps, too bad!
But when the fat people jump, my house doesn't get driven into the ground by the reaction force, either jumping or landing!
Neither does the deck sag UP when the weight is on it. What would I have to preinstall on my deck to to have the stored strain energy to fling them to the ground? Well, whatever it is, it needs a safety catch about strong as the deck itself or it'll go off on its own. And it would be a heck of thing to try to wind up / pull back / cock, if you get my drift. (why does the Road Runner cartoon keep popping in to my head during this discussion?)
None of this applies to dropping a load onto a cantilever or even, say, the middle of a beam supported at both end where one support breaks. We can discuss that possibility, if you'd like.
So, assume we've answered the question of what's doing the pulling when the support is severed or buckled: it's a big*** mousetrap or crossbow cleverly designed into an architecture that, under normal circumstances, would be designed to resist load, not artificially add to it by a factor of 100% or more by building downwardly-directed restoring forces. The force being directed downward is obviously not helping to support the load above it, it adds to it.
What on earth prevents that fury from being unleashed at construction time? A restraining force that must be considerably stronger than that required to hold the building up, that's what! So, the strongest part of this building, by far, is the portion that is inexplicably designed to drive it into the ground.
I'll take conventional explosives as a theory anyday, is all I'm saying.
But it does not matter. The pertinent aspect is the limitation on distance over which the force can be applied. Either the force is applied over that distance slowly (force weak or mass high) or quickly and briefly, as an impulse. The latter is the choice for making even a measurable difference in acceleration. But that means high force, high speed, high power, brief duration. Will that force get transmitted through connections, or will it break them (if not already broken)?
RealityCheck:
No, sorry, I missed the addendum. Posted and then went off immediately for some much needed sleep.
I wouldn't rule out some boneheaded architect trying to design a better 47-story mousetrap, I'd just hope someone would catch it in the planning stage. Ha.
Should it get past the planning stage, however, I do doubt any part of the building could transfer such loads without buckling. Very important to remember, the falling portion of the building has just proven itself incapable of supporting it's own weight. It's hard to imagine those crushed and utterly destroyed connections passing on sufficient (or any) force to accelerate the crumbling mass of non-resistant jelly faster than gravity could do so by itself.
Stored strain energy in solids has a deformation associated with it. Releasing the deforming force can at most result in an oscillation of 2x the magnitude of deformation along a given coordinate, ignoring dissipative forces. That's if the load were suddenly removed. But we're talking about the material providing motive force for a tremendous mass, quite the contrary situation to a rapid unloading. Truth is, the force previously maintaining the deformation, thus strain energy, would have to dwarf the inertia of the part of the building to be pulled to the ground. I mean, we're talking about a beam or set of beams that would be strong enough, and have enough stored strain energy, to throw a HUGE chunk of a HUGE skyscraper to the ground or, if oriented oppositely, to toss that same chunk into the air.
This is not consistent with beams so weak they cannot support the weight for which they were designed, in fact offer little more resistance than air, which I happen to be drawing into my lungs right now with virtually no effort.
Again, the distance over which the force can act is limited to the amount of deformation. For a cantilevered beam, it's the deflection at the end. For a well-designed building, that's neglible! I have a cantilevered wooden deck; my guess is I'd have a hard time measuring the sag even with a few rotund people standing at the edge. A few more and it snaps, too bad!
But when the fat people jump, my house doesn't get driven into the ground by the reaction force, either jumping or landing!
Neither does the deck sag UP when the weight is on it. What would I have to preinstall on my deck to to have the stored strain energy to fling them to the ground? Well, whatever it is, it needs a safety catch about strong as the deck itself or it'll go off on its own. And it would be a heck of thing to try to wind up / pull back / cock, if you get my drift. (why does the Road Runner cartoon keep popping in to my head during this discussion?)
None of this applies to dropping a load onto a cantilever or even, say, the middle of a beam supported at both end where one support breaks. We can discuss that possibility, if you'd like.
QUOTE
...and THEN pulling DOWN on its trunk from the cut end...
So, assume we've answered the question of what's doing the pulling when the support is severed or buckled: it's a big*** mousetrap or crossbow cleverly designed into an architecture that, under normal circumstances, would be designed to resist load, not artificially add to it by a factor of 100% or more by building downwardly-directed restoring forces. The force being directed downward is obviously not helping to support the load above it, it adds to it.
What on earth prevents that fury from being unleashed at construction time? A restraining force that must be considerably stronger than that required to hold the building up, that's what! So, the strongest part of this building, by far, is the portion that is inexplicably designed to drive it into the ground.
I'll take conventional explosives as a theory anyday, is all I'm saying.
But it does not matter. The pertinent aspect is the limitation on distance over which the force can be applied. Either the force is applied over that distance slowly (force weak or mass high) or quickly and briefly, as an impulse. The latter is the choice for making even a measurable difference in acceleration. But that means high force, high speed, high power, brief duration. Will that force get transmitted through connections, or will it break them (if not already broken)?
And then there's the problem of conservation of momentum: as you fling a major portion of the building to the ground, what's keeping the other end of the moustrap on the ground? That's one heck of a restraining structure on the fulcrum. Perhaps if they made the building out of that substance, it wouldn't have collapsed at all?
Remember, the motive force would also be applied over several seconds to get the results I saw. Quite a beam deflection; fifteen or twenty stories of initial deflection, built in! No buckling!
This all started 'cause I had a bad time scale! And I knew it! Many people have spent much time arguing no energy other than potential from gravitation is required. Surely it isn't necessary to invoke giant crossbows for the missing energy to account for improperly scaled data!
Remember, the motive force would also be applied over several seconds to get the results I saw. Quite a beam deflection; fifteen or twenty stories of initial deflection, built in! No buckling!
This all started 'cause I had a bad time scale! And I knew it! Many people have spent much time arguing no energy other than potential from gravitation is required. Surely it isn't necessary to invoke giant crossbows for the missing energy to account for improperly scaled data!
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 02:16 AM)
RealityCheck:
No, sorry, I missed the addendum. Posted and then went off immediately for some much needed sleep.
I wouldn't rule out some boneheaded architect trying to design a better 47-story mousetrap, I'd just hope someone would catch it in the planning stage. Ha.
Should it get past the planning stage, however, I do doubt any part of the building could transfer such loads without buckling. Very important to remember, the falling portion of the building has just proven itself incapable of supporting it's own weight. It's hard to imagine those crushed and utterly destroyed connections passing on sufficient (or any) force to accelerate the crumbling mass of non-resistant jelly faster than gravity could do so by itself.
Stored strain energy in solids has a deformation associated with it. Releasing the deforming force can at most result in an oscillation of 2x the magnitude of deformation along a given coordinate, ignoring dissipative forces. That's if the load were suddenly removed. But we're talking about the material providing motive force for a tremendous mass, quite the contrary situation to a rapid unloading. Truth is, the force previously maintaining the deformation, thus strain energy, would have to dwarf the inertia of the part of the building to be pulled to the ground. I mean, we're talking about a beam or set of beams that would be strong enough, and have enough stored strain energy, to throw a HUGE chunk of a HUGE skyscraper to the ground or, if oriented oppositely, to toss that same chunk into the air.
This is not consistent with beams so weak they cannot support the weight for which they were designed, in fact offer little more resistance than air, which I happen to be drawing into my lungs right now with virtually no effort.
Again, the distance over which the force can act is limited to the amount of deformation. For a cantilevered beam, it's the deflection at the end. For a well-designed building, that's neglible! I have a cantilevered wooden deck; my guess is I'd have a hard time measuring the sag even with a few rotund people standing at the edge. A few more and it snaps, too bad!
But when the fat people jump, my house doesn't get driven into the ground by the reaction force, either jumping or landing!
Neither does the deck sag UP when the weight is on it. What would I have to preinstall on my deck to to have the stored strain energy to fling them to the ground? Well, whatever it is, it needs a safety catch about strong as the deck itself or it'll go off on its own. And it would be a heck of thing to try to wind up / pull back / cock, if you get my drift. (why does the Road Runner cartoon keep popping in to my head during this discussion?)
None of this applies to dropping a load onto a cantilever or even, say, the middle of a beam supported at both end where one support breaks. We can discuss that possibility, if you'd like.
So, assume we've answered the question of what's doing the pulling when the support is severed or buckled: it's a big*** mousetrap or crossbow cleverly designed into an architecture that, under normal circumstances, would be designed to resist load, not artificially add to it by a factor of 100% or more by building downwardly-directed restoring forces. The force being directed downward is obviously not helping to support the load above it, it adds to it.
What on earth prevents that fury from being unleashed at construction time? A restraining force that must be considerably stronger than that required to hold the building up, that's what! So, the strongest part of this building, by far, is the portion that is inexplicably designed to drive it into the ground.
I'll take conventional explosives as a theory anyday, is all I'm saying.
But it does not matter. The pertinent aspect is the limitation on distance over which the force can be applied. Either the force is applied over that distance slowly (force weak or mass high) or quickly and briefly, as an impulse. The latter is the choice for making even a measurable difference in acceleration. But that means high force, high speed, high power, brief duration. Will that force get transmitted through connections, or will it break them (if not already broken)?
That sleep deprivation is a mnonster, ain't it! hehehe.
And yeah, I see what your saying.
I was really thinking of things that were happening by accident during the load-shifting and rumbles before/while all the major 'sprung elements' had spent their energy at failure/ground impact crushing. Things were unusual in the way WTC7 was SERIOUSLY A-symmetrically groaning and 'out of whack' (as the transit survey showed), and the lower cantilever floors/structures must have been TAKING THE ENORMOUS STRAIN, since the structure stood for as long as it did.
And of course, since I was thinking of during-collapse cross-inte4ference/entanglements of lower structures/beams etc, I don't have any idea what could have been going on that might have produced the one-in-a-million 'temporary compound cantiler' with the necessary loads and configurations for the job, hehehe.
And as for 'pull-down' power, well, if the upper structures were ALREADY JUST STARTED on their way down, the ADDED 'pull-down' would not really be acting against a STANDING START WHOLE UPPER STRUCTURE.....so it would not have to be as strong and as well-connected to work in tension on a few columns.
And if nothing else, EVEN IF the cantilevers DIDN'T actually 'pull down' the upper stories per se, their OWN 'springing' REMOVAL down and away from the upper structure/debris front would effectively remove the 'legs' DOWNWARDS INDEPENDENTLY ahead of the upper stuff, which would in that case, wherever it may have occurred (OR NOT! hehehehe!) there would have been little 'resistance' to free fall (even less than would be the case for 'simply failed' lower structure.
By the way, I hope your house is not already collapssing when the balcony cantilever does separate from its load and transfers its (still intact!) SPRUNG force around the fulcrum and onto an already 'legless' house! hehehe.
Anyway, it was just a very unlikely shot in the dark, hehehe. Another hypothesis bites the dust!
Cheers and thanks to you and Chainsaw for an interesting exercise in 'destructive testing' of a 'wild surmise', hehehe!
Cheers and safe holidays, all!
RC.
.
No, sorry, I missed the addendum. Posted and then went off immediately for some much needed sleep.
I wouldn't rule out some boneheaded architect trying to design a better 47-story mousetrap, I'd just hope someone would catch it in the planning stage. Ha.
Should it get past the planning stage, however, I do doubt any part of the building could transfer such loads without buckling. Very important to remember, the falling portion of the building has just proven itself incapable of supporting it's own weight. It's hard to imagine those crushed and utterly destroyed connections passing on sufficient (or any) force to accelerate the crumbling mass of non-resistant jelly faster than gravity could do so by itself.
Stored strain energy in solids has a deformation associated with it. Releasing the deforming force can at most result in an oscillation of 2x the magnitude of deformation along a given coordinate, ignoring dissipative forces. That's if the load were suddenly removed. But we're talking about the material providing motive force for a tremendous mass, quite the contrary situation to a rapid unloading. Truth is, the force previously maintaining the deformation, thus strain energy, would have to dwarf the inertia of the part of the building to be pulled to the ground. I mean, we're talking about a beam or set of beams that would be strong enough, and have enough stored strain energy, to throw a HUGE chunk of a HUGE skyscraper to the ground or, if oriented oppositely, to toss that same chunk into the air.
This is not consistent with beams so weak they cannot support the weight for which they were designed, in fact offer little more resistance than air, which I happen to be drawing into my lungs right now with virtually no effort.
Again, the distance over which the force can act is limited to the amount of deformation. For a cantilevered beam, it's the deflection at the end. For a well-designed building, that's neglible! I have a cantilevered wooden deck; my guess is I'd have a hard time measuring the sag even with a few rotund people standing at the edge. A few more and it snaps, too bad!
But when the fat people jump, my house doesn't get driven into the ground by the reaction force, either jumping or landing!
Neither does the deck sag UP when the weight is on it. What would I have to preinstall on my deck to to have the stored strain energy to fling them to the ground? Well, whatever it is, it needs a safety catch about strong as the deck itself or it'll go off on its own. And it would be a heck of thing to try to wind up / pull back / cock, if you get my drift. (why does the Road Runner cartoon keep popping in to my head during this discussion?)
None of this applies to dropping a load onto a cantilever or even, say, the middle of a beam supported at both end where one support breaks. We can discuss that possibility, if you'd like.
So, assume we've answered the question of what's doing the pulling when the support is severed or buckled: it's a big*** mousetrap or crossbow cleverly designed into an architecture that, under normal circumstances, would be designed to resist load, not artificially add to it by a factor of 100% or more by building downwardly-directed restoring forces. The force being directed downward is obviously not helping to support the load above it, it adds to it.
What on earth prevents that fury from being unleashed at construction time? A restraining force that must be considerably stronger than that required to hold the building up, that's what! So, the strongest part of this building, by far, is the portion that is inexplicably designed to drive it into the ground.
I'll take conventional explosives as a theory anyday, is all I'm saying.
But it does not matter. The pertinent aspect is the limitation on distance over which the force can be applied. Either the force is applied over that distance slowly (force weak or mass high) or quickly and briefly, as an impulse. The latter is the choice for making even a measurable difference in acceleration. But that means high force, high speed, high power, brief duration. Will that force get transmitted through connections, or will it break them (if not already broken)?
That sleep deprivation is a mnonster, ain't it! hehehe.
And yeah, I see what your saying.
I was really thinking of things that were happening by accident during the load-shifting and rumbles before/while all the major 'sprung elements' had spent their energy at failure/ground impact crushing. Things were unusual in the way WTC7 was SERIOUSLY A-symmetrically groaning and 'out of whack' (as the transit survey showed), and the lower cantilever floors/structures must have been TAKING THE ENORMOUS STRAIN, since the structure stood for as long as it did.
And of course, since I was thinking of during-collapse cross-inte4ference/entanglements of lower structures/beams etc, I don't have any idea what could have been going on that might have produced the one-in-a-million 'temporary compound cantiler' with the necessary loads and configurations for the job, hehehe.
And as for 'pull-down' power, well, if the upper structures were ALREADY JUST STARTED on their way down, the ADDED 'pull-down' would not really be acting against a STANDING START WHOLE UPPER STRUCTURE.....so it would not have to be as strong and as well-connected to work in tension on a few columns.
And if nothing else, EVEN IF the cantilevers DIDN'T actually 'pull down' the upper stories per se, their OWN 'springing' REMOVAL down and away from the upper structure/debris front would effectively remove the 'legs' DOWNWARDS INDEPENDENTLY ahead of the upper stuff, which would in that case, wherever it may have occurred (OR NOT! hehehehe!) there would have been little 'resistance' to free fall (even less than would be the case for 'simply failed' lower structure.
By the way, I hope your house is not already collapssing when the balcony cantilever does separate from its load and transfers its (still intact!) SPRUNG force around the fulcrum and onto an already 'legless' house! hehehe.
Anyway, it was just a very unlikely shot in the dark, hehehe. Another hypothesis bites the dust!
Cheers and thanks to you and Chainsaw for an interesting exercise in 'destructive testing' of a 'wild surmise', hehehe!
Cheers and safe holidays, all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Dec 22 2007, 08:57 AM)
Gregory Urich publishes "Analysis of the Mass and Potential Energy of WTC Tower 1" in the Journal of 9/11 Studies December 2007 Volume.
Abstract
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures in terms of mass per unit floor area, NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007...assAndPeWtc.pdf
You should take a look at this paper. Urich has devoted meticulous attention to data and detail, much of which came from NIST; you can even download his Excel spreadsheet file.
He has some of Shagster's work taken from JREF, and he calculates from NEU-FONZE / DBB's work.
Again, his conclusion is a calculated mass of 288,100 tons.
This refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons.
He shows his calculation for Bazant et al. (2007) that yields 576,000 tons.
Abstract
The mass and potential energy of one of the Twin Towers is calculated based on available data. The mass for each floor is established based on floor types, documented design loads, and estimated in-service live loads. The calculated mass of 288,100 metric tons (317,500 short tons) is found to correspond with two other comparable structures in terms of mass per unit floor area, NIST’s SAP2000 model, and the reported amount of recovered debris. The calculated mass refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007...assAndPeWtc.pdf
You should take a look at this paper. Urich has devoted meticulous attention to data and detail, much of which came from NIST; you can even download his Excel spreadsheet file.
He has some of Shagster's work taken from JREF, and he calculates from NEU-FONZE / DBB's work.
Again, his conclusion is a calculated mass of 288,100 tons.
This refutes the popular notion that the building weighed 500,000 tons.
He shows his calculation for Bazant et al. (2007) that yields 576,000 tons.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 23 2007, 03:15 AM)
I was really thinking of things that were happening by accident during the load-shifting and rumbles before/while all the major 'sprung elements' had spent their energy at failure/ground impact crushing.
I agree that 'sprung elements' can probably result in some interesting and non-intuitive mechanics in a large, collapsing structure. On a relatively local scale.
All that strain comes from downwardly directed force (which is a vector, remember). It's no more total strain energy than was there before... infinitesimally less, actually, as the beams are yielding, producing the sag. Gravitational potential energy is the original source for all deformational energy in the structure. It is the only gas station in town, so to speak. Columns are lifted into place, rested on cantilevers or columns below, which in turn deform slightly - gravitational potential energy is converted to material strain energy by deflection. This energy is available to be released at some later time.
When it does, it will either return to equilibrium by snapping the deflected end up, snapping the other end down, or some mix, depending on the forces concurrently acting on it. I think I see some of what you're getting at. It's the down part.
All that strain comes from downwardly directed force (which is a vector, remember). It's no more total strain energy than was there before... infinitesimally less, actually, as the beams are yielding, producing the sag. Gravitational potential energy is the original source for all deformational energy in the structure. It is the only gas station in town, so to speak. Columns are lifted into place, rested on cantilevers or columns below, which in turn deform slightly - gravitational potential energy is converted to material strain energy by deflection. This energy is available to be released at some later time.
When it does, it will either return to equilibrium by snapping the deflected end up, snapping the other end down, or some mix, depending on the forces concurrently acting on it. I think I see some of what you're getting at. It's the down part.
By the way, I hope your house is not already collapssing when the balcony cantilever does separate from its load and transfers its (still intact!) SPRUNG force around the fulcrum and onto an already 'legless' house! hehehe.
Put an SUV on my deck, then remove the lower floor instantaneously, David Copperfield style, what happens? The house, the deck and the SUV drop together. The center of mass of this system falls at one g. The deck exerts force on the SUV and the house and, if there's time, loses all of its strain energy and returns to equilibrium (no deflection). Otherwise, it will be in process of losing that energy when crush-up begins. Ha.
Indeed, the house will get pushed down. Also away - this was a bending moment, recall! So it will drop a little faster than by gravity alone. But, the SUV will get pushed UP and away. It will drop, for sure, but not quite as fast as would otherwise. Equal and opposite reaction. The SUV will absorb some energy from the deck, which will be a push up and away along with a torque causing rotation, just like the house, but inversely proportional by mass.
Well, I support speculation, even wild speculation. It makes people think. Sometimes it's correct.
I agree that 'sprung elements' can probably result in some interesting and non-intuitive mechanics in a large, collapsing structure. On a relatively local scale.
QUOTE
Things were unusual in the way WTC7 was SERIOUSLY A-symmetrically groaning and 'out of whack' (as the transit survey showed), and the lower cantilever floors/structures must have been TAKING THE ENORMOUS STRAIN, since the structure stood for as long as it did.
All that strain comes from downwardly directed force (which is a vector, remember). It's no more total strain energy than was there before... infinitesimally less, actually, as the beams are yielding, producing the sag. Gravitational potential energy is the original source for all deformational energy in the structure. It is the only gas station in town, so to speak. Columns are lifted into place, rested on cantilevers or columns below, which in turn deform slightly - gravitational potential energy is converted to material strain energy by deflection. This energy is available to be released at some later time.
When it does, it will either return to equilibrium by snapping the deflected end up, snapping the other end down, or some mix, depending on the forces concurrently acting on it. I think I see some of what you're getting at. It's the down part.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Things were unusual in the way WTC7 was SERIOUSLY A-symmetrically groaning and 'out of whack' (as the transit survey showed), and the lower cantilever floors/structures must have been TAKING THE ENORMOUS STRAIN, since the structure stood for as long as it did. |
All that strain comes from downwardly directed force (which is a vector, remember). It's no more total strain energy than was there before... infinitesimally less, actually, as the beams are yielding, producing the sag. Gravitational potential energy is the original source for all deformational energy in the structure. It is the only gas station in town, so to speak. Columns are lifted into place, rested on cantilevers or columns below, which in turn deform slightly - gravitational potential energy is converted to material strain energy by deflection. This energy is available to be released at some later time.
When it does, it will either return to equilibrium by snapping the deflected end up, snapping the other end down, or some mix, depending on the forces concurrently acting on it. I think I see some of what you're getting at. It's the down part.
By the way, I hope your house is not already collapssing when the balcony cantilever does separate from its load and transfers its (still intact!) SPRUNG force around the fulcrum and onto an already 'legless' house! hehehe.
Put an SUV on my deck, then remove the lower floor instantaneously, David Copperfield style, what happens? The house, the deck and the SUV drop together. The center of mass of this system falls at one g. The deck exerts force on the SUV and the house and, if there's time, loses all of its strain energy and returns to equilibrium (no deflection). Otherwise, it will be in process of losing that energy when crush-up begins. Ha.
Indeed, the house will get pushed down. Also away - this was a bending moment, recall! So it will drop a little faster than by gravity alone. But, the SUV will get pushed UP and away. It will drop, for sure, but not quite as fast as would otherwise. Equal and opposite reaction. The SUV will absorb some energy from the deck, which will be a push up and away along with a torque causing rotation, just like the house, but inversely proportional by mass.
QUOTE
Anyway, it was just a very unlikely shot in the dark, hehehe. Another hypothesis bites the dust!
Cheers and thanks to you and Chainsaw for an interesting exercise in 'destructive testing' of a 'wild surmise', hehehe!
Cheers and thanks to you and Chainsaw for an interesting exercise in 'destructive testing' of a 'wild surmise', hehehe!
Well, I support speculation, even wild speculation. It makes people think. Sometimes it's correct.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 23 2007, 01:27 AM)
Distance (due north; east inclination not accounted for) of camera from the north wall of WTC 1:
1562 +/- 0.5 meters
Cool. We're real close.
I was mistaken about zero elevation in my rendering. The real coordinates are:
-326, 1.5, 5223 (feet)
Don't ask me why I had the camera at knee height. It was my intention to do zero, but I think I had to get it above all the maps I threw down on the ground plane.
1562 +/- 0.5 meters
Cool. We're real close.
I was mistaken about zero elevation in my rendering. The real coordinates are:
-326, 1.5, 5223 (feet)
Don't ask me why I had the camera at knee height. It was my intention to do zero, but I think I had to get it above all the maps I threw down on the ground plane.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 05:29 AM)
I agree that 'sprung elements' can probably result in some interesting and non-intuitive mechanics in a large, collapsing structure. On a relatively local scale.
All that strain comes from downwardly directed force (which is a vector, remember). It's no more total strain energy than was there before... infinitesimally less, actually, as the beams are yielding, producing the sag. Gravitational potential energy is the original source for all deformational energy in the structure. It is the only gas station in town, so to speak. Columns are lifted into place, rested on cantilevers or columns below, which in turn deform slightly - gravitational potential energy is converted to material strain energy by deflection. This energy available to be released at some later time.
When it does, it will either return to equilibrium by snapping the deflected end up, snapping the other end down, or some mix, depending on the forces concurrently acting on it. I think I see some of what you're getting at. It's the down part.
Put an SUV on my deck, then remove the lower floor instantaneously, David Copperfield style, what happens? The house, the deck and the SUV drop together. The center of mass of this system falls at one g. The deck exerts force on the SUV and the house and, if there's time, loses all of its strain energy and returns to equilibrium (no deflection). Otherwise, it will be in process of losing that energy when crush-up begins. Ha.
Indeed, the house will get pushed down. Also away - this was a bending moment, recall! So it will drop a little faster than by gravity alone. But, the SUV will get pushed UP and away. It will drop, for sure, but not quite as fast as would otherwise. Equal and opposite reaction. The SUV will absorb some energy from the deck, which will be a push up and away along with a torque causing rotation, just like the house, but inversely proportional by mass.
Well, I support speculation, even wild speculation. It makes people think. Sometimes it's correct.
Yeah. I get where you're coming from! And the 'house/balcony' thing would only 'work' as I speculated IF the 'fulcrum part between the 'leg-less house' and the released-spring section was still active...and not itself part of the, as it were, 'greater leglessness' (hehehe).
And I can speculate with the best CDer/CTer, mate!.....only with one foot still on this planet, heh! hehehe.
Thanks for the interesting------short but sweet, hehehe-----but still-interseting conversation, OWE!
May Santa reward your patience and kindness to an old man this time round!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
All that strain comes from downwardly directed force (which is a vector, remember). It's no more total strain energy than was there before... infinitesimally less, actually, as the beams are yielding, producing the sag. Gravitational potential energy is the original source for all deformational energy in the structure. It is the only gas station in town, so to speak. Columns are lifted into place, rested on cantilevers or columns below, which in turn deform slightly - gravitational potential energy is converted to material strain energy by deflection. This energy available to be released at some later time.
When it does, it will either return to equilibrium by snapping the deflected end up, snapping the other end down, or some mix, depending on the forces concurrently acting on it. I think I see some of what you're getting at. It's the down part.
Put an SUV on my deck, then remove the lower floor instantaneously, David Copperfield style, what happens? The house, the deck and the SUV drop together. The center of mass of this system falls at one g. The deck exerts force on the SUV and the house and, if there's time, loses all of its strain energy and returns to equilibrium (no deflection). Otherwise, it will be in process of losing that energy when crush-up begins. Ha.
Indeed, the house will get pushed down. Also away - this was a bending moment, recall! So it will drop a little faster than by gravity alone. But, the SUV will get pushed UP and away. It will drop, for sure, but not quite as fast as would otherwise. Equal and opposite reaction. The SUV will absorb some energy from the deck, which will be a push up and away along with a torque causing rotation, just like the house, but inversely proportional by mass.
Well, I support speculation, even wild speculation. It makes people think. Sometimes it's correct.
Yeah. I get where you're coming from! And the 'house/balcony' thing would only 'work' as I speculated IF the 'fulcrum part between the 'leg-less house' and the released-spring section was still active...and not itself part of the, as it were, 'greater leglessness' (hehehe).
And I can speculate with the best CDer/CTer, mate!.....only with one foot still on this planet, heh! hehehe.
Thanks for the interesting------short but sweet, hehehe-----but still-interseting conversation, OWE!
May Santa reward your patience and kindness to an old man this time round!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 05:38 AM)
-326, 1.5, 5223 (feet)
My coordinate system:
x = horizontal (lateral offset from y-z plane)
y = elevation
z = depth
is 3D graphics convention. The origin of the coordinate system is the center of the WTC1 footprint at ground level. The x axis is parallel to the north and south walls and the z axis is parallel to the east and west walls. Please note this means the axes are not aligned with map compass points.
The x and y coordinates, in this scheme, have the same directions in both 2D and 3D graphics, therefore simplifying my work but perhaps introducing confusion to others.
I expect to vary the camera coordinates in 20 ft increments to examine the ranges:
x : (-360, -280)
y : (-20,+100)
z : (5180, 5300)
The view angle gets varied as required to make floor heights, roofline, tower width, building spacing, and building corner locations as correct as possible. The best fit in appearance becomes the nominal point in a non-rectangular volume which becomes my fuzzy camera location for any subsequent calculations. The best associated view angle is used, with a certain margin of error.
Unfortunately, this is not a process where the results can be judged automatically. It requires visual inspection and a certain amount of subjectivity. It is therefore slow and approximate.
My coordinate system:
x = horizontal (lateral offset from y-z plane)
y = elevation
z = depth
is 3D graphics convention. The origin of the coordinate system is the center of the WTC1 footprint at ground level. The x axis is parallel to the north and south walls and the z axis is parallel to the east and west walls. Please note this means the axes are not aligned with map compass points.
The x and y coordinates, in this scheme, have the same directions in both 2D and 3D graphics, therefore simplifying my work but perhaps introducing confusion to others.
I expect to vary the camera coordinates in 20 ft increments to examine the ranges:
x : (-360, -280)
y : (-20,+100)
z : (5180, 5300)
The view angle gets varied as required to make floor heights, roofline, tower width, building spacing, and building corner locations as correct as possible. The best fit in appearance becomes the nominal point in a non-rectangular volume which becomes my fuzzy camera location for any subsequent calculations. The best associated view angle is used, with a certain margin of error.
Unfortunately, this is not a process where the results can be judged automatically. It requires visual inspection and a certain amount of subjectivity. It is therefore slow and approximate.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Dec 23 2007, 12:21 AM)
metamars,
Actually it would be red Fe 2O3 on one side, and Fe 304 or Fe-iron on the other dependent on if he chip was exposed to Carbon or Chloride. The un exposed side would be red the exposed side would be gray. layering of said particles could form the chips.
The same chemistry that forms the micro spheres could easily be at play for both the micro spheres and the chips.
Give me a good chemical analysis and I can recreate them, based on what I have done in the past.
No problem at all.
Well, when I find out not only composition, but also geometry, I will post it.
Actually it would be red Fe 2O3 on one side, and Fe 304 or Fe-iron on the other dependent on if he chip was exposed to Carbon or Chloride. The un exposed side would be red the exposed side would be gray. layering of said particles could form the chips.
The same chemistry that forms the micro spheres could easily be at play for both the micro spheres and the chips.
Give me a good chemical analysis and I can recreate them, based on what I have done in the past.
No problem at all.
Well, when I find out not only composition, but also geometry, I will post it.
My apologies for not keeping up with the discussion, but is someone actually saying that WTC7 fell at *greater* than one g at some point in its collapse?
Is this data derived from more than one video?
If it's from one video, are we certain that the camera's aspect angle was fixed (didn't move at all) during the collapse?
Remember, some video cameras have automatic image stabilization, which usually helps, but can introduce unintended deviations of camera-pointing. Usually too slight to notice, but maybe just enough to make something several hundred feet away appear to be accelerating at greater than one g.
It should be noted that >1g acceleration towards the ground doesn't even fit with the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories.
I would expect *some* degree of camera-induced image shake, given the seismic environment on a tripod-mounted camera and/or natural human reactions to a scary event like seeing a building collapse.
If this data comes from one camera, I think we need to examine the assumptions regarding the camera's stability before we look for new physics in a falling building.
Is this data derived from more than one video?
If it's from one video, are we certain that the camera's aspect angle was fixed (didn't move at all) during the collapse?
Remember, some video cameras have automatic image stabilization, which usually helps, but can introduce unintended deviations of camera-pointing. Usually too slight to notice, but maybe just enough to make something several hundred feet away appear to be accelerating at greater than one g.
It should be noted that >1g acceleration towards the ground doesn't even fit with the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories.
I would expect *some* degree of camera-induced image shake, given the seismic environment on a tripod-mounted camera and/or natural human reactions to a scary event like seeing a building collapse.
If this data comes from one camera, I think we need to examine the assumptions regarding the camera's stability before we look for new physics in a falling building.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 11:49 AM)
My apologies for not keeping up with the discussion, but is someone actually saying that WTC7 fell at *greater* than one g at some point in its collapse?
No...Unless you can find a quote?
I'm guessing you can't, so this argument only happened inside your head.
Is this data derived from more than one video?
If it's from one video, are we certain that the camera's aspect angle was fixed (didn't move at all) during the collapse?
Remember, some video cameras have automatic image stabilization, which usually helps, but can introduce unintended deviations of camera-pointing. Usually too slight to notice, but maybe just enough to make something several hundred feet away appear to be accelerating at greater than one g.
It should be noted that >1g acceleration towards the ground doesn't even fit with the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories.
I would expect *some* degree of camera-induced image shake, given the seismic environment on a tripod-mounted camera and/or natural human reactions to a scary event like seeing a building collapse.
If this data comes from one camera, I think we need to examine the assumptions regarding the camera's stability before we look for new physics in a falling building.
Do you get your questions from Wurzel Gummidge??
Please leave the debate as it's getting interesting and doesn't need sidetracking from the likes of you....
Or me for that matter!
I have posted your fly ash comment on 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090#comment-172326
Professor Jones replied on 911blogger.com:
Metamars, you said: "According to Greening, "I have compared Jones' X-ray spectra to spectra in McCrone's "Particle Atlas" and they are a perfect fit for FLY ASH from municipal incinerators burning paper, wood and plastic". I'm not a chemist or physical chemist, so I don't know what to make of this claim."
Where is the claim made? And where does he show the fly-ash spectra? Without providing data for all to see (as I have done!), his claim is just doubt-generation without data to support it. Very typical of some, I might add.
First of all, do his spectra come from SPHERES?
Second, do the iron and aluminum contents come out high as I have shown for the iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust, generally with iron above the aluminum content and both above 10% (typically)? I'd like to see it. The iron content of these spheres (I have looked at hundreds of them now, in the WTC dust) is often above 20%, which seems high to me to have an origin from "paper, wood and plastic."
High iron content in spheres, from incinerating "paper, wood and plastic" -- enough to form iron-aluminum rich spheres attracted with a magnet -- would surprise me. But let him show his data, per his claims. Or better, let him do the actual test/experiment to generate such iron-aluminum-rich spheres without igniting thermite. I would like to see this.
Note that Greening's credibility is on the line (not just mine) when he makes such claims, especially if he does not provide data publicly to support his assertions. He has told me in the past that he used to do SEM/EDS work, but that he no longer has access to such equipment.
Finally, what experiments would he do to determine whether or not the red chips I found are in fact a form of thermite?
I have had the sad experience in the past collaborating with some who turn out to be "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries, with less regard for experiments and the scientific method, evidently more for doubt-generation and personal aggrandizement.
But if Greening can show that he is sincerely interested in learning and presenting the facts and not "ego-tripping", then I'm sure that something can be worked out.
Let him start by answering the questions posed above.
And later:
And later:
PS -- I sent the above set of questions and comments (starting with "Metamars, you said") to Frank Greening by direct email. Will let you know of any response...
Am still awaiting your answer to these questions:
Perhaps the deciding issue in this matter will prove to be geometry: does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
So, Professor Jones has also focussed on the question of geometry, though of spheres. The question(s) are not simply that of chemical composition, but composition occurring in certain forms. In nature, one may find an uncut diamond, but (AFAIK) one will not find a diamond with atoms arranged the same as in a diamond cut by a human.
I've made Professor Jones aware of the fact that you have had major surgery recently, are still in pain, and thus may not reply as quickly as otherwise.
Thanks! Got it now.
Thanks! Got it now.
does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology,
I have a bag of potato *chips*, and *not one* of them will work in a computer.
This sort of equivocation is symptomatic of pure "tin-foil-hat" delusional association. It's two people using one term that has multiple meanings as if the one is identical with the other.
I have a bag of potato *chips*, and *not one* of them will work in a computer.
This sort of equivocation is symptomatic of pure "tin-foil-hat" delusional association. It's two people using one term that has multiple meanings as if the one is identical with the other.
Thank you for this stunning insight. It must be tough for somebody with such a superior IQ as yourself, to deal with us lesser mortals.
The article states,
It further speaks of the end-product as being fuzes
It further speaks of the end-product as being fuzes each about a centimeter square
While no amount of breadboarding will allow you make any circuits you create with potato chips do anything, much less trigger explosions or non-fuze thermite/thermate, I will go out on a limb here and make what, to me, is the very plausible assumption that the micro-electromechanical fuzes being developed by the Navy could be incorporated into a breadboard circuit.
While the word "chips" caught my attention, the word micro-electromechanical did not escape my attention, either.
How is it that you missed this?
It's quite possible that even though this technology involves
OTOH, that may be completely irrelevant, in a WTC demolition scenario. We are told merely that
You have no idea.
The first reference to "chips" was that "chips" of something chemically-similar to fly-ash were found at the scene. "Chips" in that context were probably meant to mean "small flakes", not "integrated circuits".
It's a lot easier to explain why fly ash could form into "small flakes" than into "integrated circuits", but if you can find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash", by all means, show us!
I was merely pointing out that not every "chip" is electronic.
Incidentally, that sinister-sounding "MEMS" technology is readily available in projection HDTVs.
And even if somebody *had* made a tiny detonator, there's still no evidence of any explosive at any of the WTC sites. Nor is any needed, nor is the evidence available compatible with any CD theory. The collapses happened slowly, over time, with significant deformation of the structures visible well before the final collapse.
You have no idea.
The first reference to "chips" was that "chips" of something chemically-similar to fly-ash were found at the scene. "Chips" in that context were probably meant to mean "small flakes", not "integrated circuits".
It's a lot easier to explain why fly ash could form into "small flakes" than into "integrated circuits", but if you can find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash", by all means, show us!
I was merely pointing out that not every "chip" is electronic.
Incidentally, that sinister-sounding "MEMS" technology is readily available in projection HDTVs.
And even if somebody *had* made a tiny detonator, there's still no evidence of any explosive at any of the WTC sites. Nor is any needed, nor is the evidence available compatible with any CD theory. The collapses happened slowly, over time, with significant deformation of the structures visible well before the final collapse.
OH it gets even better if you look at how many electronic devices actually use Bilateral coatings.
http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index...?ArticleID=3309
My gutters have a coat of paint over a coat of primer.
Proving....?
You have no idea.
The first reference to "chips" was that "chips" of something chemically-similar to fly-ash were found at the scene. "Chips" in that context were probably meant to mean "small flakes", not "integrated circuits".
I have interpreted "chips" to mean thin, flattish objects. Professor Jones spoke of eggshells as an analogy. I in no way assumed that Professor Jones intended to suggest that they were computer chips. I was the one who made mention of that article, as an avenue to explore.
It's a lot easier to explain why fly ash could form into "small flakes" than into "integrated circuits", but if you can find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash", by all means, show us!
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
I was merely pointing out that not every "chip" is electronic.
Agreed. 100%.
Incidentally, that sinister-sounding "MEMS" technology is readily available in projection HDTVs.
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
And even if somebody *had* made a tiny detonator, there's still no evidence of any explosive at any of the WTC sites.
If somebody had made a tiny detonator and if, furthermore, ubiquitous remnants of same were found in dust samples, perhaps a re-investigation of whatever debris remains would be initiated. To this day, NIST has not told us which explosives they tested for.
Correct? I believe that the FBI also looked for traces of explosives. Or so they said. This is the same FBI whose head, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to throw 12,000 American in jail during the Korean War who he suspected of being disloyal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_on_...dCL2jjvzqCs0NUE
This is the FBI that prepared evidence for the Warren Commission.
I like to believe, and do believe, that the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are decent and honest Americans. I make no such presumption - quite the opposite - for people at the top.
In any event, I don't believe the FBI has supplied a complete list of whatever explosives that they were supposed to have tested for.
Nor is any needed, nor is the evidence available compatible with any CD theory.
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
The collapses happened slowly, over time, with significant deformation of the structures visible well before the final collapse.
This is actually a good point. I have wondered about the slowness of the collapse, myself. One theory is that core columns were pre-weakened. Recall the accounts of explosions in the basement floors (in at least one of the buildings). This may mean that "pre-weakening" simply means taking some of them out, at the base.
Weakened core columns would mean more load on the perimeter, predisposing it to buckle.
Another theory is NIST's, which is basically similar, though lays the genesis of the core column weakening on the initial impact, but much more so the fires.
AFAIK, no analysis has been done to distinguish (if possible) the tilting that would be seen due to NIST vs. demolitionist-pre-weakening theories.
I looked at the screens provided, and I can't honestly make heads or tails of any of it.
The first plot looks like the initial pop of an amplifier when the sound system gets turned on, followed by dead silence. I'd expect at least to see some background wind noise, or somebody talking in the background if a microphone was plugged-in. (I'd even expect EVPs if there was *any* signal there.)
The vertical axis appears to be in decibels, except that it goes from +100dB through 0dB to -100dB, and nothing has 200dB dynamic range, and why is the line solidly at 0dB? Decibels are logarithmic, meaning, they have some reference-value at 0dB. So maybe the unmarked vertical axis isn't in dB but in millivolts? That might make more sense, but it's still pretty featureless.
The other two screenshots are also pretty confusing, not knowing the timescale (or if the vertical represents the actual voltage or some dB version of it). The time interval cited as being zero at the beginning and zero at the end doesn't help a lot, either.
Without more info...
???
I looked at the screens provided, and I can't honestly make heads or tails of any of it.
The first plot looks like the initial pop of an amplifier when the sound system gets turned on, followed by dead silence. I'd expect at least to see some background wind noise, or somebody talking in the background if a microphone was plugged-in. (I'd even expect EVPs if there was *any* signal there.)
The vertical axis appears to be in decibels, except that it goes from +100dB through 0dB to -100dB, and nothing has 200dB dynamic range, and why is the line solidly at 0dB? Decibels are logarithmic, meaning, they have some reference-value at 0dB. So maybe the unmarked vertical axis isn't in dB but in millivolts? That might make more sense, but it's still pretty featureless.
The other two screenshots are also pretty confusing, not knowing the timescale (or if the vertical represents the actual voltage or some dB version of it). The time interval cited as being zero at the beginning and zero at the end doesn't help a lot, either.
Without more info...
???
Thanks WC, I've also no idea how to interpret it, I extracted the wave from the avi with virtualdub, the specs of the 'original' soundtrack are
http://i8.tinypic.com/7y3peth.gif
the wave editor (the one that I have by default using NERO) says
sample: 22.1 kHz, 16 bits, stereo
bmp: 175.19
total rec length: 00:00:40:045
and if I zoom in for example at the beginning we see
http://i19.tinypic.com/6l0kms8.gif
I'm wondering if it is possible to extract relevant info from audio like this, I'm really a lay man. In the example I wanted to compare it with silence but I understand that makes no sense if you don't know anything about the original amplitude, this audio could be edited also
The first has a resistive force of k*Z*S*S (vertical avalanche), the other two a resistive force of
k0*S*S + k1*(Z-Z0)*S*S
OK, now it's starting to make more sense.
But as to the original question, can we extract information from the sound file, that's hard to answer. There's information there, but interpreting it would be a nightmare, IMO. Here's the problem: Every data point is the summation of all sounds emitted that arrived during that one data sample. It's a "many-to-few" mapping, which is generally a "lossy transformation".
There is, however, prior knowledge of the acoustic environment, so it's theoretically possible to run this data through an "inverse-filter" to get a representation of the original sounds, but this is still a "few-to-many" mapping, so it will, in general, be fundamentally ambiguous.
The fact that it's a stereo recording would help resolve the ambiguities, but you'd really need a third recording to "dis-ambiguate" (if that's really a word) the data to find where in 3-space each sound came from.
A similar process was used to attempt to resolve how many shots were fired in Dallas, and where from, and that study's results have been argued ever since. And that was much, much simpler analysis, as it's easier to detect gunshots from background noises than structural crunches and windows shattering.
So saying "No, there's no information in the file" would be inaccurate, but saying "Sure, let do some number-crunching" would be fairly pointless.
The first has a resistive force of k*Z*S*S (vertical avalanche), the other two a resistive force of
k0*S*S + k1*(Z-Z0)*S*S
Excellent.
Could you explain the interpretation of a vertical avalanche? I'm guessing, in this case, it represents a compaction of a weak material over time. Unlike an avalance which flows out and across a surface as well as gaining kinetic energy from falling, a vertical avalanche would seem to be missing components such as particle velocity distribution and dissipative collisions.
I can see where picking up mass as part of a destruction wave is implicit in an avalanche, but isn't that a secondary effect in most land avalanches, where an initiating event releases a large amount of mass which then pulverizes, etc, but little additional mass is accrued? Or is this like a snow avalanche, where accumulation can be a dominant effect?
If a big pile of snow is dropped vertically, it will fall as a unit (excluding air drag peel-off) until it splats. If a big pile is dropped onto another, bigger, pile that's already there, they will both be compacted (and deformed and scattered and so on).
The form is dissipative. Is this like a sphere dropping through oil? (edit: laminar layers of oil with increasing viscosity with depth?)
No...Unless you can find a quote?
I'm guessing you can't, so this argument only happened inside your head.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 11:49 AM)
Is this data derived from more than one video?
If it's from one video, are we certain that the camera's aspect angle was fixed (didn't move at all) during the collapse?
Remember, some video cameras have automatic image stabilization, which usually helps, but can introduce unintended deviations of camera-pointing. Usually too slight to notice, but maybe just enough to make something several hundred feet away appear to be accelerating at greater than one g.
It should be noted that >1g acceleration towards the ground doesn't even fit with the tin-foil-hat conspiracy theories.
I would expect *some* degree of camera-induced image shake, given the seismic environment on a tripod-mounted camera and/or natural human reactions to a scary event like seeing a building collapse.
If this data comes from one camera, I think we need to examine the assumptions regarding the camera's stability before we look for new physics in a falling building.
Do you get your questions from Wurzel Gummidge??
Please leave the debate as it's getting interesting and doesn't need sidetracking from the likes of you....
Or me for that matter!
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 23 2007, 09:57 AM)
Well, when I find out not only composition, but also geometry, I will post it.
OH you really need to study the crystalline nature of metals layering and geometrical Christal formation is one of the properties of Crystalline substances.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/ph...etal/index.html
OH you really need to study the crystalline nature of metals layering and geometrical Christal formation is one of the properties of Crystalline substances.
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resources/ph...etal/index.html
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 22 2007, 05:51 PM)
I have posted your fly ash comment on 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13090#comment-172326
Professor Jones replied on 911blogger.com:
QUOTE
Metamars, you said: "According to Greening, "I have compared Jones' X-ray spectra to spectra in McCrone's "Particle Atlas" and they are a perfect fit for FLY ASH from municipal incinerators burning paper, wood and plastic". I'm not a chemist or physical chemist, so I don't know what to make of this claim."
Where is the claim made? And where does he show the fly-ash spectra? Without providing data for all to see (as I have done!), his claim is just doubt-generation without data to support it. Very typical of some, I might add.
First of all, do his spectra come from SPHERES?
Second, do the iron and aluminum contents come out high as I have shown for the iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust, generally with iron above the aluminum content and both above 10% (typically)? I'd like to see it. The iron content of these spheres (I have looked at hundreds of them now, in the WTC dust) is often above 20%, which seems high to me to have an origin from "paper, wood and plastic."
High iron content in spheres, from incinerating "paper, wood and plastic" -- enough to form iron-aluminum rich spheres attracted with a magnet -- would surprise me. But let him show his data, per his claims. Or better, let him do the actual test/experiment to generate such iron-aluminum-rich spheres without igniting thermite. I would like to see this.
Note that Greening's credibility is on the line (not just mine) when he makes such claims, especially if he does not provide data publicly to support his assertions. He has told me in the past that he used to do SEM/EDS work, but that he no longer has access to such equipment.
Finally, what experiments would he do to determine whether or not the red chips I found are in fact a form of thermite?
I have had the sad experience in the past collaborating with some who turn out to be "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries, with less regard for experiments and the scientific method, evidently more for doubt-generation and personal aggrandizement.
But if Greening can show that he is sincerely interested in learning and presenting the facts and not "ego-tripping", then I'm sure that something can be worked out.
Let him start by answering the questions posed above.
And later:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Metamars, you said: "According to Greening, "I have compared Jones' X-ray spectra to spectra in McCrone's "Particle Atlas" and they are a perfect fit for FLY ASH from municipal incinerators burning paper, wood and plastic". I'm not a chemist or physical chemist, so I don't know what to make of this claim." Where is the claim made? And where does he show the fly-ash spectra? Without providing data for all to see (as I have done!), his claim is just doubt-generation without data to support it. Very typical of some, I might add. First of all, do his spectra come from SPHERES? Second, do the iron and aluminum contents come out high as I have shown for the iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust, generally with iron above the aluminum content and both above 10% (typically)? I'd like to see it. The iron content of these spheres (I have looked at hundreds of them now, in the WTC dust) is often above 20%, which seems high to me to have an origin from "paper, wood and plastic." High iron content in spheres, from incinerating "paper, wood and plastic" -- enough to form iron-aluminum rich spheres attracted with a magnet -- would surprise me. But let him show his data, per his claims. Or better, let him do the actual test/experiment to generate such iron-aluminum-rich spheres without igniting thermite. I would like to see this. Note that Greening's credibility is on the line (not just mine) when he makes such claims, especially if he does not provide data publicly to support his assertions. He has told me in the past that he used to do SEM/EDS work, but that he no longer has access to such equipment. Finally, what experiments would he do to determine whether or not the red chips I found are in fact a form of thermite? I have had the sad experience in the past collaborating with some who turn out to be "hell-bent" on discrediting discoveries, with less regard for experiments and the scientific method, evidently more for doubt-generation and personal aggrandizement. But if Greening can show that he is sincerely interested in learning and presenting the facts and not "ego-tripping", then I'm sure that something can be worked out. Let him start by answering the questions posed above. |
And later:
PS -- I sent the above set of questions and comments (starting with "Metamars, you said") to Frank Greening by direct email. Will let you know of any response...
Am still awaiting your answer to these questions:
QUOTE
Perhaps the deciding issue in this matter will prove to be geometry: does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology, that may be the source of the Si, no? (See the article on physorg re chip detonators.)
So, Professor Jones has also focussed on the question of geometry, though of spheres. The question(s) are not simply that of chemical composition, but composition occurring in certain forms. In nature, one may find an uncut diamond, but (AFAIK) one will not find a diamond with atoms arranged the same as in a diamond cut by a human.
I've made Professor Jones aware of the fact that you have had major surgery recently, are still in pain, and thus may not reply as quickly as otherwise.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 11:49 AM)
My apologies for not keeping up with the discussion, but is someone actually saying that WTC7 fell at *greater* than one g at some point in its collapse?
No one claimed that it did, just a couple of people saying how it might be possible. Don't worry, I put the notion to bed, and tucked it in.
No, it was from a smear-o-gram that was resized. Didn't know about the resize when I took the data; resizing affects time as well as space in a smear-o-gram. After extracting, I figured out it was resized because the magnitudes were too great.
Then speculation began on how WTC7 could fall faster than it would under the influence of gravity.
No one claimed that it did, just a couple of people saying how it might be possible. Don't worry, I put the notion to bed, and tucked it in.
QUOTE
Is this data derived from more than one video?
No, it was from a smear-o-gram that was resized. Didn't know about the resize when I took the data; resizing affects time as well as space in a smear-o-gram. After extracting, I figured out it was resized because the magnitudes were too great.
Then speculation began on how WTC7 could fall faster than it would under the influence of gravity.
Regarding publication of his study of the dust constituents:
Publishing a paper typically takes several months, from submission through peer-review and responses, and then waiting for final publication. I'm co-author on two papers currently in this process, with mainstream technical journals.
(emphasis mine)
I can only assume that the omission of further details, including the names of the mainstream journals, is deliberate. Very understandable, since one wouldn't want the journal spammed either with true believers telling them how the future of Western Civilization depends on publication of the papers, nor of potty-mouthed "debunkers", who are quite sure the paper must be non-sense and Professor Jones a crackpot.
QUOTE
Publishing a paper typically takes several months, from submission through peer-review and responses, and then waiting for final publication. I'm co-author on two papers currently in this process, with mainstream technical journals.
(emphasis mine)
I can only assume that the omission of further details, including the names of the mainstream journals, is deliberate. Very understandable, since one wouldn't want the journal spammed either with true believers telling them how the future of Western Civilization depends on publication of the papers, nor of potty-mouthed "debunkers", who are quite sure the paper must be non-sense and Professor Jones a crackpot.
QUOTE
No one claimed that it did, just a couple of people saying how it might be possible. Don't worry, I put the notion to bed, and tucked it in.
Thanks! Got it now.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No one claimed that it did, just a couple of people saying how it might be possible. Don't worry, I put the notion to bed, and tucked it in. |
Thanks! Got it now.
does fly ash occur in a chip form?
Also, if the chips are some sort of chip detonator, wedded to or derived from integrated circuit technology,
I have a bag of potato *chips*, and *not one* of them will work in a computer.
This sort of equivocation is symptomatic of pure "tin-foil-hat" delusional association. It's two people using one term that has multiple meanings as if the one is identical with the other.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 23 2007, 03:47 PM)
Professor Jones replied on 911blogger.com:
And later:
Am still awaiting your answer to these questions:
So, Professor Jones has also focussed on the question of geometry, though of spheres. The question(s) are not simply that of chemical composition, but composition occurring in certain forms. In nature, one may find an uncut diamond, but (AFAIK) one will not find a diamond with atoms arranged the same as in a diamond cut by a human.
I've made Professor Jones aware of the fact that you have had major surgery recently, are still in pain, and thus may not reply as quickly as otherwise.
A little education into the chemistry of paper making and the fact that Iron Chlorides and Aluminum Chlorides are used in paper making might infact aid in your research Metamars.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/pol.1960.1204714905
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5976322.html
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/ips...insley-jr_h.pdf
I would produce some micro spheres for Dr. Jones however I am now interested in the reactions in the electrical conduits, which I have observed can create molten Fe,Fe203,Fe304 in the towers before collapse initiation.
As well as some respectable shock waves and expulsions although not quite of the high explosive variety, they are quite respectable. Similar to other carbon gas explosions.
And later:
Am still awaiting your answer to these questions:
So, Professor Jones has also focussed on the question of geometry, though of spheres. The question(s) are not simply that of chemical composition, but composition occurring in certain forms. In nature, one may find an uncut diamond, but (AFAIK) one will not find a diamond with atoms arranged the same as in a diamond cut by a human.
I've made Professor Jones aware of the fact that you have had major surgery recently, are still in pain, and thus may not reply as quickly as otherwise.
A little education into the chemistry of paper making and the fact that Iron Chlorides and Aluminum Chlorides are used in paper making might infact aid in your research Metamars.
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/pol.1960.1204714905
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5976322.html
http://etd.gatech.edu/theses/available/ips...insley-jr_h.pdf
I would produce some micro spheres for Dr. Jones however I am now interested in the reactions in the electrical conduits, which I have observed can create molten Fe,Fe203,Fe304 in the towers before collapse initiation.
As well as some respectable shock waves and expulsions although not quite of the high explosive variety, they are quite respectable. Similar to other carbon gas explosions.
Video tape burned in low oxygen environments produces fine bilateral chips, it contains magnetite and Carbon polymers. When burn a reduction reaction takes place. Expose that to moisture and you have your bilateral chips.
The reaction is Fe 304+Carbon, = Fe+CO2. Add Fe and H2O you have Fe 203,Fe, Fe304. I remember seeing similar specimens in magnetic computer tapes that I burned for a friend for legal reasons.
The reaction is Fe 304+Carbon, = Fe+CO2. Add Fe and H2O you have Fe 203,Fe, Fe304. I remember seeing similar specimens in magnetic computer tapes that I burned for a friend for legal reasons.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 06:04 PM)
I have a bag of potato *chips*, and *not one* of them will work in a computer.
This sort of equivocation is symptomatic of pure "tin-foil-hat" delusional association. It's two people using one term that has multiple meanings as if the one is identical with the other.
Thank you for this stunning insight. It must be tough for somebody with such a superior IQ as yourself, to deal with us lesser mortals.
The article states,
QUOTE
the copper materials will enable micro-electromechanical (MEMS) fuzes for military munitions to be mass-produced like computer chips.
It further speaks of the end-product as being fuzes
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| the copper materials will enable micro-electromechanical (MEMS) fuzes for military munitions to be mass-produced like computer chips. |
It further speaks of the end-product as being fuzes each about a centimeter square
While no amount of breadboarding will allow you make any circuits you create with potato chips do anything, much less trigger explosions or non-fuze thermite/thermate, I will go out on a limb here and make what, to me, is the very plausible assumption that the micro-electromechanical fuzes being developed by the Navy could be incorporated into a breadboard circuit.
While the word "chips" caught my attention, the word micro-electromechanical did not escape my attention, either.
How is it that you missed this?
It's quite possible that even though this technology involves
QUOTE
Designing materials on the nano-scale, micron-scale and even the millimeter-scale simultaneously
, that it is still not readily interfaced with large scale circuits.OTOH, that may be completely irrelevant, in a WTC demolition scenario. We are told merely that
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Designing materials on the nano-scale, micron-scale and even the millimeter-scale simultaneously |
, that it is still not readily interfaced with large scale circuits.
OTOH, that may be completely irrelevant, in a WTC demolition scenario. We are told merely that The fuze is ‘smart’ in that it knows the exact environment that the weapon needs to be in, and detonates it at the right time.
OTOH, that may be completely irrelevant, in a WTC demolition scenario. We are told merely that The fuze is ‘smart’ in that it knows the exact environment that the weapon needs to be in, and detonates it at the right time.
So, I will guess that it is not designed to be interfaced with any other circuit, but merely computes whatever it needs to compute based on mechanical inputs and/or EM inputs, such as radio waves. I.e., the chip is 'stand alone'.
Somebody wishing to pursue this hypothesis would obviously try to find stuff like this out, and furthermore find out if a silicon substrate is used, as in other integrated circuit technology.
Also, somebody wishing to pursue this hypothesis would have to try and determine how robust this technology is wrt to fire. As one can expect many fires in a war zone, this may turn out to be a non-issue.
Somebody wishing to pursue this hypothesis would obviously try to find stuff like this out, and furthermore find out if a silicon substrate is used, as in other integrated circuit technology.
Also, somebody wishing to pursue this hypothesis would have to try and determine how robust this technology is wrt to fire. As one can expect many fires in a war zone, this may turn out to be a non-issue.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Dec 23 2007, 06:37 PM)
Video tape burned in low oxygen environments produces fine bilateral chips, it contains magnetite and Carbon polymers. When burn a reduction reaction takes place. Expose that to moisture and you have your bilateral chips.
The reaction is Fe 304+Carbon, = Fe+CO2. Add Fe and H2O you have Fe 203,Fe, Fe304. I remember seeing similar specimens in magnetic computer tapes that I burned for a friend for legal reasons.
Since you burned similar specimens yourself, please tell us clearly if the tape ended up red on one side, and grey on the other.
The reaction is Fe 304+Carbon, = Fe+CO2. Add Fe and H2O you have Fe 203,Fe, Fe304. I remember seeing similar specimens in magnetic computer tapes that I burned for a friend for legal reasons.
Since you burned similar specimens yourself, please tell us clearly if the tape ended up red on one side, and grey on the other.
QUOTE
Thank you for this stunning insight. It must be tough for somebody with such a superior IQ as yourself, to deal with us lesser mortals.
You have no idea.
The first reference to "chips" was that "chips" of something chemically-similar to fly-ash were found at the scene. "Chips" in that context were probably meant to mean "small flakes", not "integrated circuits".
It's a lot easier to explain why fly ash could form into "small flakes" than into "integrated circuits", but if you can find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash", by all means, show us!
I was merely pointing out that not every "chip" is electronic.
Incidentally, that sinister-sounding "MEMS" technology is readily available in projection HDTVs.
And even if somebody *had* made a tiny detonator, there's still no evidence of any explosive at any of the WTC sites. Nor is any needed, nor is the evidence available compatible with any CD theory. The collapses happened slowly, over time, with significant deformation of the structures visible well before the final collapse.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 23 2007, 06:44 PM)
Since you burned similar specimens yourself, please tell us clearly if the tape ended up red on one side, and grey on the other.
Red Fe 203 on the carbon exposed side, and Grey Fe 304 remained on the unexposed side. Some of the tapes incorperated aluminum, a non magnetic metal that does not interfer with the tapes operation just adds strengh to the tape, so that was red and silverish,Not red and Grey.
Were similar main frame computers present in the world trade center with similar magnetic tapes? I remember hearing a lot about main frame computer UPS backup systems.
Although those tapes would not explain the Micro spheres they would explain the chips.
The Aluminum Chlorides, Iron Chlorides used in paper would and do explain the micro spheres.
The reason for the greater percentage of Fe in them is because of Fe tendency to form stronger bonds with carbons than Al does.
There are literally thousands of potential sources of reactions of Fe304 with carbons that can produce thin layered chips, even pre 20th century documents include Fe 304 as Iron gall ink, that can react with carbon to form Iron in the same process that produces iron from Fe 3O4 in iron ore.
Red Fe 203 on the carbon exposed side, and Grey Fe 304 remained on the unexposed side. Some of the tapes incorperated aluminum, a non magnetic metal that does not interfer with the tapes operation just adds strengh to the tape, so that was red and silverish,Not red and Grey.
Were similar main frame computers present in the world trade center with similar magnetic tapes? I remember hearing a lot about main frame computer UPS backup systems.
Although those tapes would not explain the Micro spheres they would explain the chips.
The Aluminum Chlorides, Iron Chlorides used in paper would and do explain the micro spheres.
The reason for the greater percentage of Fe in them is because of Fe tendency to form stronger bonds with carbons than Al does.
There are literally thousands of potential sources of reactions of Fe304 with carbons that can produce thin layered chips, even pre 20th century documents include Fe 304 as Iron gall ink, that can react with carbon to form Iron in the same process that produces iron from Fe 3O4 in iron ore.
Any sound engineers here? I remember there are two around..... Al-Step-by-step and his opponent..
I'm currently not in the mood for math...I'll look later at the wtc7 stuff, but I was
reading about Gravy's new video in which he attempts to prove that there is no sound. But I'm wondering if we take this video, which looks genuine to me
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/E...fter%20Plan.avi
and I extract a wave file (.wav) and open it with a wave editor it is at its maximum
amplitude at the beginning
http://i12.tinypic.com/71otmpx.gif
Cropping a part in the beginning we get
http://i17.tinypic.com/6kf572f.gif
if we assume this is due to a row of independent cracks/booms then
we have to compare it with silence, let's mute some parts of it,
that gives
http://i16.tinypic.com/6ljwt1d.gif
How does that sound ? That sounds like
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EW0EKKFO (81k not really mega...)
IMHO there is no reason to call the collapse a silent collapse, this follows of course
also directly from the still not debunked 40sec video.
I'm currently not in the mood for math...I'll look later at the wtc7 stuff, but I was
reading about Gravy's new video in which he attempts to prove that there is no sound. But I'm wondering if we take this video, which looks genuine to me
http://youthfulindiscretions.com/vid/911/E...fter%20Plan.avi
and I extract a wave file (.wav) and open it with a wave editor it is at its maximum
amplitude at the beginning
http://i12.tinypic.com/71otmpx.gif
Cropping a part in the beginning we get
http://i17.tinypic.com/6kf572f.gif
if we assume this is due to a row of independent cracks/booms then
we have to compare it with silence, let's mute some parts of it,
that gives
http://i16.tinypic.com/6ljwt1d.gif
How does that sound ? That sounds like
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=EW0EKKFO (81k not really mega...)
IMHO there is no reason to call the collapse a silent collapse, this follows of course
also directly from the still not debunked 40sec video.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 07:04 PM)
You have no idea.
The first reference to "chips" was that "chips" of something chemically-similar to fly-ash were found at the scene. "Chips" in that context were probably meant to mean "small flakes", not "integrated circuits".
It's a lot easier to explain why fly ash could form into "small flakes" than into "integrated circuits", but if you can find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash", by all means, show us!
I was merely pointing out that not every "chip" is electronic.
Incidentally, that sinister-sounding "MEMS" technology is readily available in projection HDTVs.
And even if somebody *had* made a tiny detonator, there's still no evidence of any explosive at any of the WTC sites. Nor is any needed, nor is the evidence available compatible with any CD theory. The collapses happened slowly, over time, with significant deformation of the structures visible well before the final collapse.
OH it gets even better if you look at how many electronic devices actually use Bilateral coatings.
http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index...?ArticleID=3309
OneWhiteEye --- I actually meant 1562 meters between the camera and the north wall.
QUOTE
OH it gets even better if you look at how many electronic devices actually use Bilateral coatings.
My gutters have a coat of paint over a coat of primer.
Proving....?
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 07:04 PM)
You have no idea.
The first reference to "chips" was that "chips" of something chemically-similar to fly-ash were found at the scene. "Chips" in that context were probably meant to mean "small flakes", not "integrated circuits".
I have interpreted "chips" to mean thin, flattish objects. Professor Jones spoke of eggshells as an analogy. I in no way assumed that Professor Jones intended to suggest that they were computer chips. I was the one who made mention of that article, as an avenue to explore.
QUOTE
It's a lot easier to explain why fly ash could form into "small flakes" than into "integrated circuits", but if you can find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash", by all means, show us!
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
It's a lot easier to explain why fly ash could form into "small flakes" than into "integrated circuits", but if you can find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash", by all means, show us! |
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
I was merely pointing out that not every "chip" is electronic.
Agreed. 100%.
QUOTE
Incidentally, that sinister-sounding "MEMS" technology is readily available in projection HDTVs.
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Incidentally, that sinister-sounding "MEMS" technology is readily available in projection HDTVs. |
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
And even if somebody *had* made a tiny detonator, there's still no evidence of any explosive at any of the WTC sites.
If somebody had made a tiny detonator and if, furthermore, ubiquitous remnants of same were found in dust samples, perhaps a re-investigation of whatever debris remains would be initiated. To this day, NIST has not told us which explosives they tested for.
Correct? I believe that the FBI also looked for traces of explosives. Or so they said. This is the same FBI whose head, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to throw 12,000 American in jail during the Korean War who he suspected of being disloyal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_on_...dCL2jjvzqCs0NUE
This is the FBI that prepared evidence for the Warren Commission.
I like to believe, and do believe, that the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are decent and honest Americans. I make no such presumption - quite the opposite - for people at the top.
In any event, I don't believe the FBI has supplied a complete list of whatever explosives that they were supposed to have tested for.
QUOTE
Nor is any needed, nor is the evidence available compatible with any CD theory.
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Nor is any needed, nor is the evidence available compatible with any CD theory. |
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
The collapses happened slowly, over time, with significant deformation of the structures visible well before the final collapse.
This is actually a good point. I have wondered about the slowness of the collapse, myself. One theory is that core columns were pre-weakened. Recall the accounts of explosions in the basement floors (in at least one of the buildings). This may mean that "pre-weakening" simply means taking some of them out, at the base.
Weakened core columns would mean more load on the perimeter, predisposing it to buckle.
Another theory is NIST's, which is basically similar, though lays the genesis of the core column weakening on the initial impact, but much more so the fires.
AFAIK, no analysis has been done to distinguish (if possible) the tilting that would be seen due to NIST vs. demolitionist-pre-weakening theories.
QUOTE
and I extract a wave file (.wav) and open it with a wave editor it is at its maximum
amplitude at the beginning
amplitude at the beginning
I looked at the screens provided, and I can't honestly make heads or tails of any of it.
The first plot looks like the initial pop of an amplifier when the sound system gets turned on, followed by dead silence. I'd expect at least to see some background wind noise, or somebody talking in the background if a microphone was plugged-in. (I'd even expect EVPs if there was *any* signal there.)
The vertical axis appears to be in decibels, except that it goes from +100dB through 0dB to -100dB, and nothing has 200dB dynamic range, and why is the line solidly at 0dB? Decibels are logarithmic, meaning, they have some reference-value at 0dB. So maybe the unmarked vertical axis isn't in dB but in millivolts? That might make more sense, but it's still pretty featureless.
The other two screenshots are also pretty confusing, not knowing the timescale (or if the vertical represents the actual voltage or some dB version of it). The time interval cited as being zero at the beginning and zero at the end doesn't help a lot, either.
Without more info...
???
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 23 2007, 09:02 PM)
I have interpreted "chips" to mean thin, flattish objects. Professor Jones spoke of eggshells as an analogy. I in no way assumed that Professor Jones intended to suggest that they were computer chips. I was the one who made mention of that article, as an avenue to explore.
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
Agreed. 100%.
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
If somebody had made a tiny detonator and if, furthermore, ubiquitous remnants of same were found in dust samples, perhaps a re-investigation of whatever debris remains would be initiated. To this day, NIST has not told us which explosives they tested for.
Correct? I believe that the FBI also looked for traces of explosives. Or so they said. This is the same FBI whose head, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to throw 12,000 American in jail during the Korean War who he suspected of being disloyal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_on_...dCL2jjvzqCs0NUE
This is the FBI that prepared evidence for the Warren Commission.
I like to believe, and do believe, that the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are decent and honest Americans. I make no such presumption - quite the opposite - for people at the top.
In any event, I don't believe the FBI has supplied a complete list of whatever explosives that they were supposed to have tested for.
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
This is actually a good point. I have wondered about the slowness of the collapse, myself. One theory is that core columns were pre-weakened. Recall the accounts of explosions in the basement floors (in at least one of the buildings). This may mean that "pre-weakening" simply means taking some of them out, at the base.
Weakened core columns would mean more load on the perimeter, predisposing it to buckle.
Another theory is NIST's, which is basically similar, though lays the genesis of the core column weakening on the initial impact, but much more so the fires.
AFAIK, no analysis has been done to distinguish (if possible) the tilting that would be seen due to NIST vs. demolitionist-pre-weakening theories.
NO NEU-FONZE said that the data so far on the micro spheres matched the chemical composition of fly ash, his comment was not on the chips.
The chemical Composition of the chips would be much simpler than the chemical composition of he micro spheres Also because they are chips that means that they do not require being molten when they were formed.
There is one Chip in this picture on the right that was created using chlorides the rest are thermite created particles can you find the chloride reacted chip?
I will give you a clue the thermite reaction is significantly more energetic than ferric chloride oxidation, or the reduction reaction of Carbon on hot Fe 304.
When you have that information the Chloride induced formation should stand out easy.
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
Agreed. 100%.
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
If somebody had made a tiny detonator and if, furthermore, ubiquitous remnants of same were found in dust samples, perhaps a re-investigation of whatever debris remains would be initiated. To this day, NIST has not told us which explosives they tested for.
Correct? I believe that the FBI also looked for traces of explosives. Or so they said. This is the same FBI whose head, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to throw 12,000 American in jail during the Korean War who he suspected of being disloyal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_on_...dCL2jjvzqCs0NUE
This is the FBI that prepared evidence for the Warren Commission.
I like to believe, and do believe, that the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are decent and honest Americans. I make no such presumption - quite the opposite - for people at the top.
In any event, I don't believe the FBI has supplied a complete list of whatever explosives that they were supposed to have tested for.
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
This is actually a good point. I have wondered about the slowness of the collapse, myself. One theory is that core columns were pre-weakened. Recall the accounts of explosions in the basement floors (in at least one of the buildings). This may mean that "pre-weakening" simply means taking some of them out, at the base.
Weakened core columns would mean more load on the perimeter, predisposing it to buckle.
Another theory is NIST's, which is basically similar, though lays the genesis of the core column weakening on the initial impact, but much more so the fires.
AFAIK, no analysis has been done to distinguish (if possible) the tilting that would be seen due to NIST vs. demolitionist-pre-weakening theories.
NO NEU-FONZE said that the data so far on the micro spheres matched the chemical composition of fly ash, his comment was not on the chips.
The chemical Composition of the chips would be much simpler than the chemical composition of he micro spheres Also because they are chips that means that they do not require being molten when they were formed.
There is one Chip in this picture on the right that was created using chlorides the rest are thermite created particles can you find the chloride reacted chip?
I will give you a clue the thermite reaction is significantly more energetic than ferric chloride oxidation, or the reduction reaction of Carbon on hot Fe 304.
When you have that information the Chloride induced formation should stand out easy.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 09:02 PM)
I looked at the screens provided, and I can't honestly make heads or tails of any of it.
The first plot looks like the initial pop of an amplifier when the sound system gets turned on, followed by dead silence. I'd expect at least to see some background wind noise, or somebody talking in the background if a microphone was plugged-in. (I'd even expect EVPs if there was *any* signal there.)
The vertical axis appears to be in decibels, except that it goes from +100dB through 0dB to -100dB, and nothing has 200dB dynamic range, and why is the line solidly at 0dB? Decibels are logarithmic, meaning, they have some reference-value at 0dB. So maybe the unmarked vertical axis isn't in dB but in millivolts? That might make more sense, but it's still pretty featureless.
The other two screenshots are also pretty confusing, not knowing the timescale (or if the vertical represents the actual voltage or some dB version of it). The time interval cited as being zero at the beginning and zero at the end doesn't help a lot, either.
Without more info...
???
Thanks WC, I've also no idea how to interpret it, I extracted the wave from the avi with virtualdub, the specs of the 'original' soundtrack are
http://i8.tinypic.com/7y3peth.gif
the wave editor (the one that I have by default using NERO) says
sample: 22.1 kHz, 16 bits, stereo
bmp: 175.19
total rec length: 00:00:40:045
and if I zoom in for example at the beginning we see
http://i19.tinypic.com/6l0kms8.gif
I'm wondering if it is possible to extract relevant info from audio like this, I'm really a lay man. In the example I wanted to compare it with silence but I understand that makes no sense if you don't know anything about the original amplitude, this audio could be edited also
Dear me. I just discovered a bug in my program and squashed it --- while fixing the perspective code to be more precise. But this means that all previous conclusions are invalidated.
Here is the first successful run (using C449):
Here is the first successful run (using C449):
CODE
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.092
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.1 sd= 0.089
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.5 sd= 0.101
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.1 sd= 0.089
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.5 sd= 0.101
The first has a resistive force of k*Z*S*S (vertical avalanche), the other two a resistive force of
k0*S*S + k1*(Z-Z0)*S*S
QUOTE
sample: 22.1 kHz, 16 bits, stereo
bmp: 175.19
total rec length: 00:00:40:045
and if I zoom in for example at the beginning we see
bmp: 175.19
total rec length: 00:00:40:045
and if I zoom in for example at the beginning we see
OK, now it's starting to make more sense.
But as to the original question, can we extract information from the sound file, that's hard to answer. There's information there, but interpreting it would be a nightmare, IMO. Here's the problem: Every data point is the summation of all sounds emitted that arrived during that one data sample. It's a "many-to-few" mapping, which is generally a "lossy transformation".
There is, however, prior knowledge of the acoustic environment, so it's theoretically possible to run this data through an "inverse-filter" to get a representation of the original sounds, but this is still a "few-to-many" mapping, so it will, in general, be fundamentally ambiguous.
The fact that it's a stereo recording would help resolve the ambiguities, but you'd really need a third recording to "dis-ambiguate" (if that's really a word) the data to find where in 3-space each sound came from.
A similar process was used to attempt to resolve how many shots were fired in Dallas, and where from, and that study's results have been argued ever since. And that was much, much simpler analysis, as it's easier to detect gunshots from background noises than structural crunches and windows shattering.
So saying "No, there's no information in the file" would be inaccurate, but saying "Sure, let do some number-crunching" would be fairly pointless.
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 23 2007, 09:02 PM)
I have interpreted "chips" to mean thin, flattish objects. Professor Jones spoke of eggshells as an analogy. I in no way assumed that Professor Jones intended to suggest that they were computer chips. I was the one who made mention of that article, as an avenue to explore.
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
Agreed. 100%.
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
If somebody had made a tiny detonator and if, furthermore, ubiquitous remnants of same were found in dust samples, perhaps a re-investigation of whatever debris remains would be initiated. To this day, NIST has not told us which explosives they tested for.
Correct? I believe that the FBI also looked for traces of explosives. Or so they said. This is the same FBI whose head, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to throw 12,000 American in jail during the Korean War who he suspected of being disloyal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_on_...dCL2jjvzqCs0NUE
This is the FBI that prepared evidence for the Warren Commission.
I like to believe, and do believe, that the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are decent and honest Americans. I make no such presumption - quite the opposite - for people at the top.
In any event, I don't believe the FBI has supplied a complete list of whatever explosives that they were supposed to have tested for.
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
This is actually a good point. I have wondered about the slowness of the collapse, myself. One theory is that core columns were pre-weakened. Recall the accounts of explosions in the basement floors (in at least one of the buildings). This may mean that "pre-weakening" simply means taking some of them out, at the base.
Weakened core columns would mean more load on the perimeter, predisposing it to buckle.
Another theory is NIST's, which is basically similar, though lays the genesis of the core column weakening on the initial impact, but much more so the fires.
AFAIK, no analysis has been done to distinguish (if possible) the tilting that would be seen due to NIST vs. demolitionist-pre-weakening theories.
Are you kidding me, pre weaken the Columns at the bottom and the buildings fall over topple the idea behind controlled demolition is cutting the beams with thermite, then applying a pusher charges to guide the beams off the lower columns then controlled explosives though the entire length of the structure.
IT is to complicated and impossible, not even nano thermites could survive the fires.
Oh PS. a detonator for nano thermite on a chip, all you need is a resister capable of reaching 250c or a spark either one has the thermal energy to start the reaction at 250c, OH the fires would also do that!
I actually tested the theories experimentally, and they do not work.
The theories have to work and make sense, or they can not be sustained, and are falsified.
NEU-FONZE is the one claiming that Professor Jones' chips are merely fly-ash, not Jones or me. Until the chips are shown to be fly ash, your challenge to "find someone who actually has an "integrated circuit" that's made of "fly ash" " is a non-starter.
I don't know what the chips are, though it's Professor Jones and a group of other scientists that are studying them.
The objective reader will notice that NEU-FONZE has expressed a desire to have the data published, and (were the facilities available) to study the chips or microspheres, himself. While he may have tentatively concluded that the chips are fly-ash, he is at least open to changing his conclusion.
The contrast between NEU-FONZE and you couldn't be starker. I would never, ever, suggest to Professor Jones that he turn over any dust material to the likes of you.
Agreed. 100%.
"MEMS" doesn't sound sinister to me, in general. However, a MEMS with super-thermite on one side does. So the question is, did this specific case pertain, or not?
If somebody had made a tiny detonator and if, furthermore, ubiquitous remnants of same were found in dust samples, perhaps a re-investigation of whatever debris remains would be initiated. To this day, NIST has not told us which explosives they tested for.
Correct? I believe that the FBI also looked for traces of explosives. Or so they said. This is the same FBI whose head, J. Edgar Hoover, wanted to throw 12,000 American in jail during the Korean War who he suspected of being disloyal.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071222/ap_on_...dCL2jjvzqCs0NUE
This is the FBI that prepared evidence for the Warren Commission.
I like to believe, and do believe, that the overwhelming majority of FBI agents are decent and honest Americans. I make no such presumption - quite the opposite - for people at the top.
In any event, I don't believe the FBI has supplied a complete list of whatever explosives that they were supposed to have tested for.
I don't agree, in general, though specific CD theories are few and far between. AFAIK, only Gordon Ross has proposed anything specific, involving sequencing and locations.
This is actually a good point. I have wondered about the slowness of the collapse, myself. One theory is that core columns were pre-weakened. Recall the accounts of explosions in the basement floors (in at least one of the buildings). This may mean that "pre-weakening" simply means taking some of them out, at the base.
Weakened core columns would mean more load on the perimeter, predisposing it to buckle.
Another theory is NIST's, which is basically similar, though lays the genesis of the core column weakening on the initial impact, but much more so the fires.
AFAIK, no analysis has been done to distinguish (if possible) the tilting that would be seen due to NIST vs. demolitionist-pre-weakening theories.
Are you kidding me, pre weaken the Columns at the bottom and the buildings fall over topple the idea behind controlled demolition is cutting the beams with thermite, then applying a pusher charges to guide the beams off the lower columns then controlled explosives though the entire length of the structure.
IT is to complicated and impossible, not even nano thermites could survive the fires.
Oh PS. a detonator for nano thermite on a chip, all you need is a resister capable of reaching 250c or a spark either one has the thermal energy to start the reaction at 250c, OH the fires would also do that!
I actually tested the theories experimentally, and they do not work.
The theories have to work and make sense, or they can not be sustained, and are falsified.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 23 2007, 10:44 PM)
Dear me. I just discovered a bug in my program and squashed it --- while fixing the perspective code to be more precise. But this means that all previous conclusions are invalidated.
Here is the first successful run (using C449):
Here is the first successful run (using C449):
CODE
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.092
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.1 sd= 0.089
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.5 sd= 0.101
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.1 sd= 0.089
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.5 sd= 0.101
The first has a resistive force of k*Z*S*S (vertical avalanche), the other two a resistive force of
k0*S*S + k1*(Z-Z0)*S*S
Excellent.
Could you explain the interpretation of a vertical avalanche? I'm guessing, in this case, it represents a compaction of a weak material over time. Unlike an avalance which flows out and across a surface as well as gaining kinetic energy from falling, a vertical avalanche would seem to be missing components such as particle velocity distribution and dissipative collisions.
I can see where picking up mass as part of a destruction wave is implicit in an avalanche, but isn't that a secondary effect in most land avalanches, where an initiating event releases a large amount of mass which then pulverizes, etc, but little additional mass is accrued? Or is this like a snow avalanche, where accumulation can be a dominant effect?
If a big pile of snow is dropped vertically, it will fall as a unit (excluding air drag peel-off) until it splats. If a big pile is dropped onto another, bigger, pile that's already there, they will both be compacted (and deformed and scattered and so on).
The form is dissipative. Is this like a sphere dropping through oil? (edit: laminar layers of oil with increasing viscosity with depth?)
Dear ME. A landslide is a landslide, an avalanche is snow. I knew that, but it slipped my mind.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 04:15 PM)
Could you explain the interpretation of a vertical avalanche?
The resistive force of a flowing snow avalanche has two terms: the first is (to use more conventional symbols) kMv^2 where k is a product which we will simply take as a single constant, M is the mass of the moving snow (which may grow or shrink over time) and v is the downslope speed; the second is a standard sliding friction force, which depends upon the cosine of the angle. If the angle is vertical, this term is zero. Hence the notion of a vertical avalanche.
A flowing snow avalanche needs a channel to flow in, else it may dissipate. For WTC 1, the exterior walls acted (for long enough) as that channel.
The resistive force of a flowing snow avalanche has two terms: the first is (to use more conventional symbols) kMv^2 where k is a product which we will simply take as a single constant, M is the mass of the moving snow (which may grow or shrink over time) and v is the downslope speed; the second is a standard sliding friction force, which depends upon the cosine of the angle. If the angle is vertical, this term is zero. Hence the notion of a vertical avalanche.
A flowing snow avalanche needs a channel to flow in, else it may dissipate. For WTC 1, the exterior walls acted (for long enough) as that channel.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 23 2007, 11:40 PM)
The resistive force of a flowing snow avalanche has two terms: the first is (to use more conventional symbols) kMv^2 where k is a product which we will simply take as a single constant, M is the mass of the moving snow (which may grow or shrink over time) and v is the downslope speed; the second is a standard sliding friction force, which depends upon the cosine of the angle. If the angle is vertical, this term is zero. Hence the notion of a vertical avalanche.
A flowing snow avalanche needs a channel to flow in, else it may dissipate. For WTC 1, the exterior walls acted (for long enough) as that channel.
Interesting, I get it now. Thanks.
Growing would be the accumulation of mass initially at rest, shrinking would be the shedding of mass with kinetic energy. Two things come to mind about this process.
The first is, what is the body coordinate for such a system, how is it defined?
Second, does the analysis simply account for mass loss or does it also siphon away the corresponding kinetic energy associated with the lost mass? I'm thinking of something akin to the Joule-Thompson effect. Some of the most energetic material will be that which is shed.
A flowing snow avalanche needs a channel to flow in, else it may dissipate. For WTC 1, the exterior walls acted (for long enough) as that channel.
Interesting, I get it now. Thanks.
Growing would be the accumulation of mass initially at rest, shrinking would be the shedding of mass with kinetic energy. Two things come to mind about this process.
The first is, what is the body coordinate for such a system, how is it defined?
Second, does the analysis simply account for mass loss or does it also siphon away the corresponding kinetic energy associated with the lost mass? I'm thinking of something akin to the Joule-Thompson effect. Some of the most energetic material will be that which is shed.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 04:49 PM)
The first is, what is the body coordinate for such a system, how is it defined?
Second, does the analysis simply account for mass loss or does it also siphon away the corresponding kinetic energy associated with the lost mass? I'm thinking of something akin to the Joule-Thompson effect. Some of the most energetic material will be that which is shed.
The review paper I read did not go into any of these details.
However, in a real flowing snow avalanche, once it leaves a well-defined channel, it (often) spreads out. Some of the outlying portions may stop (friction). Those portions may then provide channel walls for the rest.
Research on snow avalanches is centered about the practical issue of how far avalanches go before stopping. Once the slopes are set, plugging in the flowing snow avalanche resistive force enables a (crude) calculation of where it stops. Obviously, one has to guesstimate the mass involved at each stage.
If I were going to do that and it was known than some mass was lost at some point, whatever KE that part possessed would certainly have to be taken into account. However, from the little I know about flowing snow avalanches, it is stopped components which do not keep up.
A term of the form k1*(Z-Z0)*S*S is much the same, but derived by assuming that all the crushed mass, (Z-Z0) is continuously being re-crushed as the collapse progresses. I don't know why the vertical avalanche resistive force gives a (very slightly) better answer.
Second, does the analysis simply account for mass loss or does it also siphon away the corresponding kinetic energy associated with the lost mass? I'm thinking of something akin to the Joule-Thompson effect. Some of the most energetic material will be that which is shed.
The review paper I read did not go into any of these details.
However, in a real flowing snow avalanche, once it leaves a well-defined channel, it (often) spreads out. Some of the outlying portions may stop (friction). Those portions may then provide channel walls for the rest.
Research on snow avalanches is centered about the practical issue of how far avalanches go before stopping. Once the slopes are set, plugging in the flowing snow avalanche resistive force enables a (crude) calculation of where it stops. Obviously, one has to guesstimate the mass involved at each stage.
If I were going to do that and it was known than some mass was lost at some point, whatever KE that part possessed would certainly have to be taken into account. However, from the little I know about flowing snow avalanches, it is stopped components which do not keep up.
A term of the form k1*(Z-Z0)*S*S is much the same, but derived by assuming that all the crushed mass, (Z-Z0) is continuously being re-crushed as the collapse progresses. I don't know why the vertical avalanche resistive force gives a (very slightly) better answer.
Thanks again.
No, it was from a smear-o-gram that was resized. Didn't know about the resize when I took the data; resizing affects time as well as space in a smear-o-gram. After extracting, I figured out it was resized because the magnitudes were too great.
I reduced the width of the smear without maintaining the aspect ratio. I didn't mean to send you on a wild goose chase.
Smears are useful for seeing the shape of the collapse curve. The smear for WTC7 shows that the collapse appears to slow near the end, although there are other issues such as the camera angle that could affect this.
So long as no one observes him, according to quantum mechanics, he can be at all places at the same time.
Note that only two of the hypotheses are disconfirmed.
hahahaha (wink)
hahahaha (wink)
JERF is simply not up to physorg standards nor is it meant to be.
Well put.
I agree, and I could only add two names to that list: Apollo20 (of course) and OneRedEye. The venom is not directed towards the decent folk, and you know who you are.
There are, I believe, exactly two people over there not in the above list who actually have some neurons firing. Unfortunately, they aren't very nice - but not as bad as the others.
Sorry for the OT, I just had to vent. I've always held my nose when going over there, but now I'm done with that place.
Edit: I've also never been to a place where so many of the avatars make me want to puke.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 24 2007, 12:14 AM)
However, from the little I know about flowing snow avalanches, it is stopped components which do not keep up.
A distinct difference from a collapsing building, perhaps not too significant.
I started and rode a small avalanche once on a steep hill with about a meter of snow. Very slow, I could have walked faster. It did continue to accrue mass though, best as I could tell, no additional velocity after the early stages. I got more concerned the bigger it became (growing laterally) and wondered how stupid was I to stay on this thing. As the slope decreased slightly, it stopped rather abruptly.
There was no channel per se but the hill was quite steep.
Edit: I was at the initiating point, which became the back end of the flow, the front of which was slowly getting farther and farther ahead of me.
A distinct difference from a collapsing building, perhaps not too significant.
I started and rode a small avalanche once on a steep hill with about a meter of snow. Very slow, I could have walked faster. It did continue to accrue mass though, best as I could tell, no additional velocity after the early stages. I got more concerned the bigger it became (growing laterally) and wondered how stupid was I to stay on this thing. As the slope decreased slightly, it stopped rather abruptly.
There was no channel per se but the hill was quite steep.
Edit: I was at the initiating point, which became the back end of the flow, the front of which was slowly getting farther and farther ahead of me.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 05:29 PM)
There was no channel per se but the hill was quite steep.
Wow.
There was a channel, it being the snow to either side which did not join the avalanche. Not much of one, to be sure.
Wow.
There was a channel, it being the snow to either side which did not join the avalanche. Not much of one, to be sure.
It was quite a bit slower than normal walking speed. I was thinking of the speed I was walking on the snow-covered hill.
----
Could you post the coefficients obtained from the best fits?
----
Could you post the coefficients obtained from the best fits?
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 06:18 PM)
Could you post the coefficients obtained from the best fits?
I could, but I am using normalized dimensions wherein g = H = M = 1, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, H is the tower height and M its mass. So the parameters would have to be converted to SI units before becoming comparable to anything.
I could, but I am using normalized dimensions wherein g = H = M = 1, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, H is the tower height and M its mass. So the parameters would have to be converted to SI units before becoming comparable to anything.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 24 2007, 01:26 AM)
I could, but I am using normalized dimensions wherein g = H = M = 1, where g is the acceleration due to gravity, H is the tower height and M its mass. So the parameters would have to be converted to SI units before becoming comparable to anything.
Oh, that's OK. Better, in fact. I'm more interested in comparisons between fits (column to column and model to model) than with reality, anyway. At this point.
I don't want to make more work for you. Only if it's not a hassle. (back later)
Oh, that's OK. Better, in fact. I'm more interested in comparisons between fits (column to column and model to model) than with reality, anyway. At this point.
I don't want to make more work for you. Only if it's not a hassle. (back later)
Data for C447:
CODE
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.079
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.3 sd= 0.092
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.4 sd= 0.102
BV-linZS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 1.6 sd= 0.135
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.156
BV-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.164
BV-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 4.3 sd= 0.184
Sef-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 5.6 sd= 0.205
BV-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 7.4 sd= 0.232
Sef-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 9.9 sd= 0.256
Sef-linZS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB=24.1 sd= 0.385
BV-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB=62.8 sd= 0.611
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.3 sd= 0.092
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.4 sd= 0.102
BV-linZS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 1.6 sd= 0.135
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.156
BV-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.164
BV-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 4.3 sd= 0.184
Sef-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 5.6 sd= 0.205
BV-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 7.4 sd= 0.232
Sef-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 9.9 sd= 0.256
Sef-linZS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB=24.1 sd= 0.385
BV-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB=62.8 sd= 0.611
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 23 2007, 05:32 PM)
No, it was from a smear-o-gram that was resized. Didn't know about the resize when I took the data; resizing affects time as well as space in a smear-o-gram. After extracting, I figured out it was resized because the magnitudes were too great.
I reduced the width of the smear without maintaining the aspect ratio. I didn't mean to send you on a wild goose chase.
Smears are useful for seeing the shape of the collapse curve. The smear for WTC7 shows that the collapse appears to slow near the end, although there are other issues such as the camera angle that could affect this.
QUOTE (shagster+Dec 24 2007, 06:08 AM)
I reduced the width of the smear without maintaining the aspect ratio. I didn't mean to send you on a wild goose chase.
No problem. It was a useful exercise, in a way. Just the kind of thing to keep me on my toes when I start to trust video too much.
Edit: And you never asked, I just jumped on it.
No problem. It was a useful exercise, in a way. Just the kind of thing to keep me on my toes when I start to trust video too much.
Edit: And you never asked, I just jumped on it.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 23 2007, 11:00 PM)
OK, now it's starting to make more sense.
...
So saying "No, there's no information in the file" would be inaccurate, but saying "Sure, let do some number-crunching" would be fairly pointless.
thanks again, I simply tried to slow it down with a kind of digital pitch control, but not much could be found from that. yeah I understand that in a many to few mapping we have a whole set of possibilities, those techniques are beyond me and is pro stuff of course.
...
So saying "No, there's no information in the file" would be inaccurate, but saying "Sure, let do some number-crunching" would be fairly pointless.
thanks again, I simply tried to slow it down with a kind of digital pitch control, but not much could be found from that. yeah I understand that in a many to few mapping we have a whole set of possibilities, those techniques are beyond me and is pro stuff of course.
Shagster/OWE,
I also noticed the slow down even in the more limited smear-o that I first created. That is indeed what we would expect and that is also what the plots show. This indeed (if the visual effects are not relevant) then would suggest that the crush-up is a good approach to describe wtc7s collapse. What is happening before the global collapse is also a big question. I remember that there were some discussions ongoing like, 6.5 seconds, no 15 seconds, no 6.5 seconds, etc. For a complete collapse (assume thickness floors=0) there is even a maximum value about 7.4 seconds. In other words if there is a collapse and it is complete then it will be a fast one. I'm sure that for wtc1,2 there will also be a upper and lower limit.
I also noticed the slow down even in the more limited smear-o that I first created. That is indeed what we would expect and that is also what the plots show. This indeed (if the visual effects are not relevant) then would suggest that the crush-up is a good approach to describe wtc7s collapse. What is happening before the global collapse is also a big question. I remember that there were some discussions ongoing like, 6.5 seconds, no 15 seconds, no 6.5 seconds, etc. For a complete collapse (assume thickness floors=0) there is even a maximum value about 7.4 seconds. In other words if there is a collapse and it is complete then it will be a fast one. I'm sure that for wtc1,2 there will also be a upper and lower limit.
And just how much faster than the speed of light does Santa have to go tonight? 
Merry Christmas to all.
Merry Christmas to all.
yes a good xmas for soon @everyone
QUOTE
And just how much faster than the speed of light does Santa have to go tonight?
So long as no one observes him, according to quantum mechanics, he can be at all places at the same time.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Dec 24 2007, 03:47 PM)
... he can be at all places at the same time.
Aha! That's why everybody has to go to bed before midnight.
Aha! That's why everybody has to go to bed before midnight.
I found some interesting animations/simulations/emulations I would like to share
http://www.extremeloading.com/Demolition.a...ion&type=common
http://www.extremeloading.com/Demolition.a...ive&type=common
http://www.extremeloading.com/Demolition.a...ast&type=common
The latter shows a simulation of the Oklahoma blast
ps. after googling I found out that DBB already linked once to the main site
http://www.extremeloading.com/Demolition.a...ion&type=common
http://www.extremeloading.com/Demolition.a...ive&type=common
http://www.extremeloading.com/Demolition.a...ast&type=common
The latter shows a simulation of the Oklahoma blast
ps. after googling I found out that DBB already linked once to the main site
QUOTE (einsteen+Dec 25 2007, 03:46 PM)
ps. after googling I found out that DBB already linked once to the main site
I did?
I did?
Results using C449:
CODE
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.077
BV-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.081
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.3 sd= 0.092
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.4 sd= 0.089
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.9 sd= 0.101
BV-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 1.1 sd= 0.123
BV-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 1.3 sd= 0.139
Sef-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.6 sd= 0.163
BV-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 3.5 sd= 0.189
BV-K+Z-F-const-stretch dB= 3.6 sd= 0.206
Sef-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 5.0 sd= 0.216
BV-const-F-const-stretch dB=28.8 sd= 0.530
BV-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.081
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.3 sd= 0.092
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.4 sd= 0.089
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.9 sd= 0.101
BV-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 1.1 sd= 0.123
BV-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 1.3 sd= 0.139
Sef-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.6 sd= 0.163
BV-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 3.5 sd= 0.189
BV-K+Z-F-const-stretch dB= 3.6 sd= 0.206
Sef-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 5.0 sd= 0.216
BV-const-F-const-stretch dB=28.8 sd= 0.530
Note that only two of the hypotheses are disconfirmed.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 25 2007, 11:16 PM)
I did?
Sorry, you're right it was Arthur
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=2775
In one way or another google finds link to loli.physorg which is hard to read and locks up your whole browser.
Enjoy xmas there, the first day is gone here...
Sorry, you're right it was Arthur
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=2775
In one way or another google finds link to loli.physorg which is hard to read and locks up your whole browser.
Enjoy xmas there, the first day is gone here...
Several hypotheses are disconfirmed using C447 data:
CODE
BV-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.0 sd= 0.079
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.3 sd= 0.092
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.4 sd= 0.102
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.156
BV-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.164
BV-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 4.3 sd= 0.184
Sef-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 5.6 sd= 0.205
BV-K+Z-F-const-stretch dB= 5.8 sd= 0.212
BV-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 7.4 sd= 0.232
Sef-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 9.9 sd= 0.256
BV-const-F-const-stretch dB=34.5 sd= 0.482
BV-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB=62.8 sd= 0.611
Sef-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.3 sd= 0.092
Sef-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 0.4 sd= 0.102
Sef-SS+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.156
BV-ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 2.8 sd= 0.164
BV-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 4.3 sd= 0.184
Sef-K+Z+SS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 5.6 sd= 0.205
BV-K+Z-F-const-stretch dB= 5.8 sd= 0.212
BV-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 7.4 sd= 0.232
Sef-K+Z-F-exp-pow-stretch dB= 9.9 sd= 0.256
BV-const-F-const-stretch dB=34.5 sd= 0.482
BV-K+Z+ZSS-F-exp-pow-stretch dB=62.8 sd= 0.611
David B. Benson:
How did you arrive at a value for t0? As I recall, with some of the hypotheses, t0 comes out of the fitting process, whereas for others it's chosen in advance and is fixed.
I've noticed that C448 is not as frequently used for testing fitness. Or is that simply my perception?
How did you arrive at a value for t0? As I recall, with some of the hypotheses, t0 comes out of the fitting process, whereas for others it's chosen in advance and is fixed.
I've noticed that C448 is not as frequently used for testing fitness. Or is that simply my perception?
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 27 2007, 07:09 PM)
How did you arrive at a value for t0?
As I recall, with some of the hypotheses, t0 comes out of the fitting process, whereas for others it's chosen in advance and is fixed.
I've noticed that C448 is not as frequently used for testing fitness.
The initial estimate is done by parameter estimation to the previous work using NEU-FONZE's data. Then the high-grade hypotheses can estimate a deltaT from that. It is always small, at most 20 milliseconds.
Yes. For the low-grade hypotheses, no deltaT can possibly upgrade those, so I didn't bother to put in a deltaT estimator for those.
C448, for some reason, is not able to distinguish hypotheses well. So While I do run it, I don't always post the results.
As I recall, with some of the hypotheses, t0 comes out of the fitting process, whereas for others it's chosen in advance and is fixed.
I've noticed that C448 is not as frequently used for testing fitness.
The initial estimate is done by parameter estimation to the previous work using NEU-FONZE's data. Then the high-grade hypotheses can estimate a deltaT from that. It is always small, at most 20 milliseconds.
Yes. For the low-grade hypotheses, no deltaT can possibly upgrade those, so I didn't bother to put in a deltaT estimator for those.
C448, for some reason, is not able to distinguish hypotheses well. So While I do run it, I don't always post the results.
I've never seen that new Seffen paper, could someone summarize the difference between Bazant's one ? I remember he came in the news with it and I'm wondering what's so special about it if Bazant did it before.
QUOTE (einsteen+Dec 29 2007, 02:04 AM)
I've never seen that new Seffen paper, could someone summarize the difference between Bazant's one ? I remember he came in the news with it and I'm wondering what's so special about it if Bazant did it before.
(1-s)(ZZ" + k(Z')^2) - Z = -F
where s is the stretch, F is the resistive force and Z is the location of the crushing front. In Bazant & Verdure, k = 1, wheras in Seffen's work, k = 1/2.
Seffen worked out his equation using energetics, and calls the B&V form the "Newtonian approximation", without even referencing B&V's paper.
(1-s)(ZZ" + k(Z')^2) - Z = -F
where s is the stretch, F is the resistive force and Z is the location of the crushing front. In Bazant & Verdure, k = 1, wheras in Seffen's work, k = 1/2.
Seffen worked out his equation using energetics, and calls the B&V form the "Newtonian approximation", without even referencing B&V's paper.
Thanks, DBB.
I'm pretty close to having a 2D extraction routine that should give some very good results.
-------------
I just requested a permanent ban from the JREF forum, and asked that my meager dozen posts there be deleted. Why request a ban when I could simply refrain from posting? Because, should they honor that request, it would be one of the few honest actions performed by the so-called moderators over there.
Since I know there are JREFers lurking here, I thought I'd take the opportunity to pass this on: Your forum is cesspool of imbeciles who fancy themselves intellectuals. Your Lord-of-the-Flies gang mentality is an embarrassment. Few of your members are capable of stringing two logical thoughts together, let alone critical thinking.
I take great pleasure in knowing that your 'moderators' cannot reach me over here (hope there are none in common!) to censor and substantially alter the content of my posts to conform your standards of ignorance.
I'm pretty close to having a 2D extraction routine that should give some very good results.
-------------
I just requested a permanent ban from the JREF forum, and asked that my meager dozen posts there be deleted. Why request a ban when I could simply refrain from posting? Because, should they honor that request, it would be one of the few honest actions performed by the so-called moderators over there.
Since I know there are JREFers lurking here, I thought I'd take the opportunity to pass this on: Your forum is cesspool of imbeciles who fancy themselves intellectuals. Your Lord-of-the-Flies gang mentality is an embarrassment. Few of your members are capable of stringing two logical thoughts together, let alone critical thinking.
I take great pleasure in knowing that your 'moderators' cannot reach me over here (hope there are none in common!) to censor and substantially alter the content of my posts to conform your standards of ignorance.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 30 2007, 05:30 AM)
Since I know there are JREFers lurking here, I thought I'd take the opportunity to pass this on: Your forum is cesspool of imbeciles who fancy themselves intellectuals. Your Lord-of-the-Flies gang mentality is an embarrassment. Few of your members are capable of stringing two logical thoughts together, let alone critical thinking.
"lord of the flies"
LOL! good one, white eye. hoist up that pig's head, and worship it, JREFers.
"lord of the flies"
LOL! good one, white eye. hoist up that pig's head, and worship it, JREFers.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 30 2007, 05:30 AM)
Thanks, DBB.
I'm pretty close to having a 2D extraction routine that should give some very good results.
-------------
I just requested a permanent ban from the JREF forum, and asked that my meager dozen posts there be deleted. Why request a ban when I could simply refrain from posting? Because, should they honor that request, it would be one of the few honest actions performed by the so-called moderators over there.
Since I know there are JREFers lurking here, I thought I'd take the opportunity to pass this on: Your forum is cesspool of imbeciles who fancy themselves intellectuals. Your Lord-of-the-Flies gang mentality is an embarrassment. Few of your members are capable of stringing two logical thoughts together, let alone critical thinking.
I take great pleasure in knowing that your 'moderators' cannot reach me over here (hope there are none in common!) to censor and substantially alter the content of my posts to conform your standards of ignorance.
Running has always been a good way out, although I understand completely your feelings about JERF.
I have also had trouble with the herd mentality there as has NEU-FONZE.
JERF is simply not up to physorg standards nor is it meant to be.
I'm pretty close to having a 2D extraction routine that should give some very good results.
-------------
I just requested a permanent ban from the JREF forum, and asked that my meager dozen posts there be deleted. Why request a ban when I could simply refrain from posting? Because, should they honor that request, it would be one of the few honest actions performed by the so-called moderators over there.
Since I know there are JREFers lurking here, I thought I'd take the opportunity to pass this on: Your forum is cesspool of imbeciles who fancy themselves intellectuals. Your Lord-of-the-Flies gang mentality is an embarrassment. Few of your members are capable of stringing two logical thoughts together, let alone critical thinking.
I take great pleasure in knowing that your 'moderators' cannot reach me over here (hope there are none in common!) to censor and substantially alter the content of my posts to conform your standards of ignorance.
Running has always been a good way out, although I understand completely your feelings about JERF.
I have also had trouble with the herd mentality there as has NEU-FONZE.
JERF is simply not up to physorg standards nor is it meant to be.
OneWhiteEye:
Wow! I am amazed that you feel so strongly about the JREF forum. I agree that there are some pretty scary people posting over there, but not everyone is as bad as you say. DBB, Chainsaw, einsteen, metamars, for example, (who also post here) are occasional JREF posters who stand firmly entrenched on one side or the other of the great 9/11 debate, but are always civil in tone and respectful of others.
It is indeed a challenge to find ways to control "the beast" that is JREF, while remaining cool, calm and collected, but I think I have won a few battles with some of the "bad guys" over there!
However, even here on good old PhysOrg:
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
(Paul Simon .... The Boxer)
Is this not true of all of us to some extent?
Wow! I am amazed that you feel so strongly about the JREF forum. I agree that there are some pretty scary people posting over there, but not everyone is as bad as you say. DBB, Chainsaw, einsteen, metamars, for example, (who also post here) are occasional JREF posters who stand firmly entrenched on one side or the other of the great 9/11 debate, but are always civil in tone and respectful of others.
It is indeed a challenge to find ways to control "the beast" that is JREF, while remaining cool, calm and collected, but I think I have won a few battles with some of the "bad guys" over there!
However, even here on good old PhysOrg:
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
(Paul Simon .... The Boxer)
Is this not true of all of us to some extent?
When I was new there I once lost my cool and even got an official warning, that was not nice what I said, personally and even not the worst guy out there... lol
I signed up there because google brought me there, just like this one.
I signed up there because google brought me there, just like this one.
QUOTE
hoist up that pig's head, and worship it, JREFers
hahahaha (wink)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| hoist up that pig's head, and worship it, JREFers |
hahahaha (wink)
JERF is simply not up to physorg standards nor is it meant to be.
Well put.
QUOTE
...not everyone is as bad as you say. DBB, Chainsaw, einsteen, metamars, for example...
I agree, and I could only add two names to that list: Apollo20 (of course) and OneRedEye. The venom is not directed towards the decent folk, and you know who you are.
There are, I believe, exactly two people over there not in the above list who actually have some neurons firing. Unfortunately, they aren't very nice - but not as bad as the others.
Sorry for the OT, I just had to vent. I've always held my nose when going over there, but now I'm done with that place.
Edit: I've also never been to a place where so many of the avatars make me want to puke.
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.