To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Physics Of 9/11 Events - Part 3
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108

David B. Benson
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 30 2007, 08:27 AM)
Edit: I've also never been to a place where so many of the avatars make me want to puke.

rolleyes.gif Even Newton's Bit's. (Who seemed quite reasonable.)
adoucette
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Dec 30 2007, 12:30 AM)
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 don't post at JREF, but I do occasionally read some of the threads, could you tell us whose name you posted under at JREF and in what thread the moderators altered the content of your post?

Arthur
einsteen
I just posted something and I think it will be the last one for a long time, I should not discuss about passports and vaporized planes because I don't know much about it. The below is more interesting for here I think, but I posted it there because of a (sub)discussion I had there.
--------------------------------
http://rapidshare.com/files/80160735/911.w...headon.avi.html

The Rumbling starts at 0.8 seconds (0.77 seconds precisely) for which I used a wave editor. Assuming the camera is about 344 meter away (a very conservative estimation) the 1 second sound delay when corrected should start even before the first frame of the video. In order to determine if the top section has already fallen on the next floor I used an other (and another) video, that one didn't contain sound except a narrator, I looked at the first row of 'squibs' and some pieces of debris that have fallen in order to sync them.

User posted image
http://i16.tinypic.com/8fw9m5c.jpg

Now they are synced in time and we can use the 2nd (soundless) video which we have to shift back 1.9+0.2 seconds in time

User posted image
http://i19.tinypic.com/82nazgj.jpg

Now judge for yourself, do we have a rumbling that is proportional with the velocity ? Do we have rumble ~ v(t) ~ sound escaped air pressed out by falling floors ? The damned top section even didn't move.
David B. Benson
From the discussion section of John Skilling's paper Foundations? in 27th International Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Maximum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering, AIP Conference Proc. #954 (2007):

... We always process models of the truth. We do not see "the truth", and even if one of our models happens to be true, we would never know it. We may motivate ourselves by aiming to search out the truth, but it is a myth. ...
Science is commonly, but wrongly, perceived as truth seeking. Actually, it is a quest for predictive connections, and those connections are of practical value. In science's war with the irrational, we should fight on the firm ground of practicality, and not on the weak ground of some supposedly-authoritative knowledge of mythical truth.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (einsteen+Dec 30 2007, 03:17 PM)
The damned top section even didn't move.

Buckling of exterior walls on the far side(s)? Collapsing floors inside?
metamars
This has probably been posted before, but I'd never seen it.


Progressive Collapse – Historical Perspective
einsteen
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 30 2007, 10:52 PM)
Buckling of exterior walls on the far side(s)? Collapsing floors inside?

But I thought the NIST rejected pancake initiation.
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Dec 30 2007, 07:06 PM)
rolleyes.gif  Even Newton's Bit's.  (Who seemed quite reasonable.)

Right on the money. I was thinking of Newton's Bit and Totovader as I wrote that, though there plenty of others. Hurts my eyes.

Newton's Bit writes good stuff, when choosing to be scientific.

There's nothing like 14 hours in planes and airports to effect a brainwipe. Not that I've softened my attitudes one iota, but I'm compelled to be fair (something I rarely see over there) and add:

- I've learned quite a lot, when I can stomach it
- There are probably more than two people there with half a brain that don't also post over here
- I don't waste enough of my time there to claim sufficient exposure to make a sweeping judgement on intelligence - but I'll stick by the judgement anyway
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (adoucette+Dec 30 2007, 09:01 PM)
I don't post at JREF, but I do occasionally read some of the threads, could you tell us whose name you posted under at JREF and in what thread the moderators altered the content of your post?

Arthur

I'm OneRedEye. All 12 of my posts at JREF are fluff.

The thread is here. The post that got altered is this. The moderator, LibraryLady, removed this text:

"I'll tell you what's stupid: "

It wasn't nice but it is not calling the poster stupid, though that is plain to see.

I know it's not a big deal in itself but, compared to the volumes spewed there daily with nary a moderation, it does peeve me a great deal that it took some unknown dweeb all of 27 minutes to seek and censor that.

Arthur, if I have bitten my tongue once there, I've bitten it a thousand times. That clown had it coming. I've scrolled past beachnut's hostile and generally uninformed drivel more than I've read it, but I've still racked up a fair bit of time on that fool out of some neurotic compulsion of mine I'll never understand.

I simply could not let slide the use of 'antidotal' TWICE in the same post. SOMEBODY had to administer the necessary b**chslap, and if no one else was going to step to the plate...
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 30 2007, 02:22 PM)
Is this not true of all of us to some extent?

Yes. It has been one of the greatest challenges of my life to keep the envelope not just pushed, but flapping in the breeze. I try to believe 2PI impossible things before breakfast; usually by the time my head hits the pillow PI/4 of them have stuck.
OneWhiteEye
Max Photon deserves special mention because he's always civil and frequently entertaining, with his gift of gab.
einsteen
Max got his own site, check this part of it...

http://maxphoton.com/2007/07/13/max-photon-gets-flamed.aspx
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (einsteen+Dec 30 2007, 10:17 PM)
I just posted something and I think it will be the last one for a long time, I should not discuss about passports and vaporized planes because I don't know much about it. The below is more interesting for here I think, but I posted it there because of a (sub)discussion I had there.
--------------------------------
http://rapidshare.com/files/80160735/911.w...headon.avi.html

The Rumbling starts at 0.8 seconds (0.77 seconds precisely) for which I used a wave editor. Assuming the camera is about 344 meter away (a very conservative estimation) the 1 second sound delay when corrected should start even before the first frame of the video. In order to determine if the top section has already fallen on the next floor I used an other (and another) video, that one didn't contain sound except a narrator, I looked at the first row of 'squibs' and some pieces of debris that have fallen in order to sync them.

User posted image
http://i16.tinypic.com/8fw9m5c.jpg

Now they are synced in time and we can use the 2nd (soundless) video which we have to shift back 1.9+0.2 seconds in time

User posted image
http://i19.tinypic.com/82nazgj.jpg

Now judge for yourself, do we have a rumbling that is proportional with the velocity ? Do we have rumble ~ v(t) ~ sound escaped air pressed out by falling floors ? The damned top section even didn't move.

Very interesting. Must spend some time with this...
OneWhiteEye
QUOTE (einsteen+Dec 31 2007, 11:48 AM)
Max got his own site, check this part of it...

http://maxphoton.com/2007/07/13/max-photon-gets-flamed.aspx

Haha, that guy is something else. No matter his ideas, he dances around the clubfoot herd.

Notice all the insults directed toward him at JREF. I'd be willing to bet the majority stand uncensored. I'm cool with that, obviously so is he! Guess I need to make a donation to get a pass.
einsteen
I cannot check if this is the same video as I used home because I'm at work, but I think the 2nd is the top video of this one

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/

The narrator says the tower just came down and the woman is probably a zombie.
quicknthedead
QUOTE (metamars+Dec 30 2007, 08:45 PM)
This has probably been posted before, but I'd never seen it.


Progressive Collapse – Historical Perspective

Did you notice they failed to mention WTC7 anywhere, just like the 9/11 Commission Report?
David B. Benson
QUOTE (einsteen+Dec 31 2007, 02:37 AM)
But I thought the NIST rejected pancake initiation.

Yes. But for WTC 1 partial floor collapses preceded progressive collapse by many minutes.
metamars
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Dec 31 2007, 07:31 PM)
Did you notice they failed to mention WTC7 anywhere, just like the 9/11 Commission Report?

Actually, no. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that. Nevertheless, that may simply be because I find it hard to image WTC 7 not being CD, and thus not belonging in a document on 'natural' progressive collapse + progressive collapses triggered by bombs.
adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2008, 01:42 AM)
Actually, no. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that. Nevertheless, that may simply be because I find it hard to image WTC 7 not being CD, and thus not belonging in a document on 'natural' progressive collapse + progressive collapses triggered by bombs.

What they actually said:

Ten Major Buildings Experienced Partial or Total Collapse.

WTC 7 was one of those MAJOR buildings.

Arthur
metamars
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 1 2008, 01:24 PM)
What they actually said:

Ten Major Buildings Experienced Partial or Total Collapse.

WTC 7 was one of those MAJOR buildings.

Arthur

You're right. There's just no explicit mention of WTC7, or pictures.

I posted this mostly for the pictures. I'd heard about some other cases of progressive collapse, but hadn't seen photos.

Unfortunately, AFAIK there are no video of other progressive collapses. One cannot get a sense of dust creation, nor of what column failure would look like. I believe an unassisted (via CD, that is) WTC progressive collapse would mostly have columns easily piercing through floor elements, with perimeter walls breaking off mostly in large chunks and interior sections collapsing more or less 'independently'**, and thus not nearly as symmetrically as was (apparently) observed. Most of the pictures, where collapse was partial, show flattish vertical 'cuts', leaving vertical sections more or less untouched, save the missing walls.

This NIST scenario portrays the columns as poised to collapse, so a chain reactions of failures is so rapid that the collapse's symmetry is unremarkable. However, I don't trust the NIST report. Furthermore, they don't actually do or reveal an analysis which predicts failure sequence and timing - not even one which, like most of the rest of their report, we can't verify!

This is my best guess re an unassisted WTC collapse, but it is just a guess. Perhaps someday we will see a detailed analysis that does not presuppose one-dimensionality and/or symmetry, but which does try to account for the differing granularity in the main supporting column type (peripheral vs. interior) expected failures.


** I don't expect one or two initial, interior column collapses (plus adjacent floors) to be visible through an intact perimeter below the initial impact zone, but maybe the this explains the so-called squibs? I'd previously posted that left-over jet fuel seemed the most plausible of the OCT ideas, but maybe not.
OTOH, I'd expect a collapse to make such a ruckus that it would shake the perimeter all the way down, so I'm not signing on to this notion, merely commenting on it as a logical possibility.
adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 1 2008, 10:06 AM)
I don't trust the NIST report.

And your DISTRUST is based on WHAT REASONS??????

Arthur

Grumpy
metamars

QUOTE
and thus not nearly as symmetrically as was (apparently) observed.


There was nothing "symmetrical" about those collapses, but the sheer scale of the buildings "smeared" the details so that, externally, we get the appearance of symmetricality. Once the collapses had started, in addition, the natural forces and vectors allowed no variance from the straight down "symmetry". Large sections of the external frame DID peel off to fall, and the internal core structure DID have many individual responses(see the spires) to the stresses. But like when you crush an aluminum can, individual folding events will be highly random, but overall they tend to appear uniform and symmetrical, with the top and bottom ending up being parallel to each other.

The energy was not available to make the collapses appear anything but highly symmetrical, it would have taken a significant portion of the energy of a nuclear bomb to move the tops sideways enough to fall off to the sides.

Grumpy cool.gif
quicknthedead
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 1 2008, 06:24 AM)

QUOTE (metamars @ Jan 1 2008+ 01:42 AM)

Actually, no. I'm a little embarrassed to admit that. Nevertheless, that may simply be because I find it hard to image WTC 7 not being CD, and thus not belonging in a document on 'natural' progressive collapse + progressive collapses triggered by bombs.

What they actually said:

Ten Major Buildings Experienced Partial or Total Collapse.

WTC 7 was one of those MAJOR buildings.

Arthur


I had noticed that when I read it, but this does not qualify as being mentioned.

In producing their report much time and effort was spent covering other buildings (some of lesser magnitude), and yet they do not mention WTC7, a 47-story skyscraper?

I firmly believe this omission is due to the fact WTC7 had the appearance and characteristics of a CD.

Both government groups were not going to go near "a hot potato" and therefore each omitted WTC7 for the very same reason.

metamar's reply is much closer to the truth, while yours does not even address the question. No surprise there.

einsteen
This is already the 2nd time I can wish everyone a happy new year here.

Tempus Fugit.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jan 1 2008, 10:31 AM)
... yet they do not mention WTC7, a 47-story skyscraper?

At the time of that report, the collapse of WTC 7 had not been the impetus for changing design guidelines. The others did.
Chainsaw,
Just want to wish everyone a Happy New year.

I also agree at the time of the report Building 7 was not important enough to included.
Common Sense
It's absurd... In one side of their argument the government plans the perfect crime thinking of every little thing. In the other side of their poorly thought out argument they are too stupid to collapse the building with a ready made collapse hypothesis. If I were planning such a thing I would conceive of the collapse mechanism before placing the bombs. I would want the collapse mechanism to cover my deed. Yet the fact that they still haven't finished a report is not evidence of a normal collapse due to impacts from the tower and fire??? They spin this to suggest it is evidence of demolition???

If the government did it you would think the government would have the collapse hypothesis already finished before the building hit the ground.

Sorry if I soured your koolaid.
adoucette
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jan 1 2008, 12:31 PM)
QUOTE
What they actually said:

Ten Major Buildings Experienced Partial or Total Collapse.

WTC 7 was one of those MAJOR buildings.

Arthur


I had noticed that when I read it, but this does not qualify as being mentioned.

In producing their report much time and effort was spent covering other buildings (some of lesser magnitude), and yet they do not mention WTC7, a 47-story skyscraper?

I firmly believe this omission is due to the fact WTC7 had the appearance and characteristics of a CD.

Both government groups were not going to go near "a hot potato" and therefore each omitted WTC7 for the very same reason.

metamar's reply is much closer to the truth, while yours does not even address the question. No surprise there.

Craig,

Its apparent that in your WARPED view of the world, apparently EVERYONE is IN ON IT.

Even the guy who produced this report apparently KNOWS that he is not supposed to bring up WTC 7.

Was there a MEMO about WTC 7 that the rest of us missed?????

Arthur
quicknthedead
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 1 2008, 07:56 PM)

Craig,

Its apparent that in your WARPED view of the world, apparently EVERYONE is IN ON IT.

Arthur


Many ARE in on it, Arthur.

See the newest video that just came out Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007 for an honest appraisal of the real scope of the problem.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679

This is the best video to come out on 9/11 truth so far, a follow-up to "Press For Truth" entitled:
IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES

And yes, you were right when you wrote that the 9/11 Commission DID have the power of subpoena. The problem is they didn't use it...watch the movie.

The demand for an independent investigation into 9/11 is not going to go away any day soon.
wcelliott
QUOTE

If the government did it you would think the government would have the collapse hypothesis already finished before the building hit the ground.



I really think you've hit the nail on the head confounding every CDiot's theory - The Secret Government has to be simultaneously extraordinarily competent and at the same time stupid beyond belief.

Bangs heard ahead of the collapse (cited as "proof" of explosives) in areas that would have no effect on the structural integrity of the buildings, plenty of time to evacuate witnesses to the ill-timed "blasts", advanced-technology nanoMEMS detonators of tiny quantities of thermate/thermite/C-4/Fuel-Air Bombs (they can't make up their minds)...

If they had explosives in the buildings, it'd have been much cleaner and easier to sell to the dumb half of the population (which is usually about 2/3rds) if each tower collapsed the instant it was hit. Plane hits tower, tower collapses immediately. No witnesses from the inside to report oddly-timed explosions. Easy to sell, easy to cover up.

Or, pick more symbolic targets with fewer casualties, like the Statue of Liberty or sink a USNavy ship that's about to be decommissioned anyway, and reassign all the "casualties" to counter-terror squads.

And, for that matter, New York itself isn't all that dear to most of the US population (and New Yorkers don't seem to mind much that they're generally disliked). They'd have gotten more Americans upset if they'd attacked Disneyland. The simple fact that they chose the targets they did shows how out-of-touch whoever planned the attack was with the way Americans think. That, in itself, tells me it was planned by someone who's never been in America long enough to figure out what makes us tick.

Like Osama bin Laden, for instance.
Grumpy
quicknthedead

QUOTE
Many ARE in on it, Arthur.


Like, for instance, everybody who DIDN'T see the fire truck in the back window of that BMW???

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Many ARE in on it, Arthur.


Like, for instance, everybody who DIDN'T see the fire truck in the back window of that BMW???

See the newest video that just came out Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007 for an honest appraisal of the real scope of the problem.


Brought to you by the same idiots who brought you the fire truck in the back window of a BMW???

No thanks, I prefer my comedies to be intentionally funny, and not based on the tragic deaths of a deliberate terrorist attack. Just because we call you a clown, Craig, does not mean we think you're the least bit funny. And, at this point, even quoting Jesus won't keep you from being a laughing stock.

Grumpy cool.gif
einsteen
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2008, 12:56 AM)
It's absurd... In one side of their argument the government plans the perfect crime thinking of every little thing. In the other side of their poorly thought out argument they are too stupid to collapse the building with a ready made collapse hypothesis. If I were planning such a thing I would conceive of the collapse mechanism before placing the bombs. I would want the collapse mechanism to cover my deed. Yet the fact that they still haven't finished a report is not evidence of a normal collapse due to impacts from the tower and fire??? They spin this to suggest it is evidence of demolition???

If the government did it you would think the government would have the collapse hypothesis already finished before the building hit the ground.

Sorry if I soured your koolaid.

Hi CommonSense,

I really don't understand what you are trying to tell, the government is no single person or something like that. Wasn't it the NISTs job to investigate collapse initiation ? What has the NIST to do with an inside job ? They have to prove collapse initiation with a plane impact as input.

What is perfect about the government's crime? Why do you think the government should have a working collapse hypothesis, do they have to deliver that to the NIST ? Of course not.

I don't believe that the fact that it is hard to explain wtc7s collapse is an indication that they are "in on it". If a detective couldn't solve a case then why should he be "in on it" ?
adoucette
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Jan 2 2008, 12:13 AM)

Many ARE in on it, Arthur.

See the newest video that just came out Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007 for an honest appraisal of the real scope of the problem.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679

This is the best video to come out on 9/11 truth so far, a follow-up to "Press For Truth" entitled:
IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES

And yes, you were right when you wrote that the 9/11 Commission DID have the power of subpoena.  The problem is they didn't use it...watch the movie.

The demand for an independent investigation into 9/11 is not going to go away any day soon.

Sorry Craig, I don't have 2 hours to wade through this video which apparently only claims some teasers about things which have ALREADY been beat to death such as "insider trading", "Top Official Whereabouts", "hijackers (names) are wrong", "War Games coinciding with 9/11", PNAC etc

If you have something SPECIFIC you want to discuss then bring THAT subject up (I listened to a bit about the discussion of the timeline concerning POTUS and clearly they get it WRONG with the assumption that everyone knows its a terrorist attack as soon as the first plane hit).

Oh, and Craig, WHAT demand for a new investigation are you talking about?

Arthur

Common Sense
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 2 2008, 09:13 AM)
Hi CommonSense,

I really don't understand what you are trying to tell, the government is no single person or something like that. Wasn't it the NISTs job to investigate collapse initiation ? What has the NIST to do with an inside job ? They have to prove collapse initiation with a plane impact as input.

What is perfect about the government's crime? Why do you think the government should have a working collapse hypothesis, do they have to deliver that to the NIST ?  Of course not.

I don't believe that the fact that it is hard to explain wtc7s collapse is an indication that they are "in on it". If a detective couldn't solve a case then why should he be "in on it" ?

The conspiracy industry once again needs it both ways and they can't. In the conspiracy industries story, the detective (NIST) is in on it and covering up the crime. Yet said detective didn't help plan the crime to begin with? All neat and tiddy and wrapped up in a pink ribbon for the media??? Billions of dollars at stake and they enlist the help of the NIST AFTER the deed is done??? DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT???

How gullible can anyone be... Heh!

PS I'm talking about building 7.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Common Sense+Jan 2 2008, 04:25 PM)
How gullible can anyone be... Heh!

Who was it that said there's a sucker born every minute?
Max Photon
Greetings everyone.

(It sure is quiet.)
OneWhiteEye
Welcome Max.
Max Photon
As most of you probably know, I have put forth the notion that thermite was used to help heat-weaken the towers to initiate collapse.

Basically I am arguing that arson was hidden in the fire.

When I consider the responses of various experts to the allegations of controlled demolition, I can't help but notice that all of the experts view (and dismiss) the problem solely from the perspective of demolition by explosive- or thermal-cutting.

With the exception of Neu-Fonze (and his AP model), none of the experts seem to have considered demolition by heat-weakening.

Why not? Bazant suggests that if half the perimeter columns on one storey creep and fail, the towers are doomed. So what precludes the possibility that thermite or some other incendiary was placed at impact floors to augment the fires, and to heat steel connections to weaken them?

NIST says it found no evidence of controlled demolition by explosives. NIST also says thermite is an unlikely substance for a controlled demolition. But NIST does not say that it found no evidence of controlled demolition by thermite/incendiaries/supplementary catalysts.

Note that NIST gathered and studied ZERO fire-affected perimeter panels from WTC2!


Bazant's upcoming paper says that his findings PROVE the controlled-demolition allegations have zero scientific merit.

Did Bazant et al. ever even consider whether incendiaries helped to heat the steel that crept? If not, how can they justify that claim?

Blanchard (Protec) also ruled out CD, yet he only considered demolition by cutting, and - apparently - never even thought of the possibility of controlled demolition by heat-weakening.

I suspect if we survey most of the big hitters, we would find that they too are trapped in the fixed thinking that controlled demolition requires cutting, and that they never even considered that demolition planner hid fire in fire, and that deliberate, catalyzed heat-weakening initiated collapse.


Question: How do you rule out that thermite heat-weakened the WTC towers to initiate collapse?
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 2 2008, 09:03 PM)
Question: How do you rule out that thermite heat-weakened the WTC towers to initiate collapse?

How do you rule out Steel Softening Beams from Space?

That's NOT how science works.

What evidence do you have that Thermite was used?

What evidence do you have that an additional energy source was even needed?

Why have NONE of the hundreds of people who worked on the fire/impact floors, but did not die on 9/11, talked about all the PREP WORK that would have had to have been done prior to 9/11?

Arthur
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 2 2008, 07:03 PM)
Question: How do you rule out that thermite heat-weakened the WTC towers to initiate collapse?

Blanchard points out that there was ample time for many people to inspect the structural steel before in was shipped away for recycling. NIST inspected far more pieces than they kept for later analysis. Any heat-weakened perimeter columns would have been noticed, since for almost all, the blots failed, not the built-up columns. NIST selected for further study some of those columns which failed in other manners.

All this suggests that any heat-weakened exterior columns would have been noticed.
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 02:18 AM)
How do you rule out Steel Softening Beams from Space?

That's NOT how science works.

What evidence do you have that Thermite was used?

What evidence do you have that an additional energy source was even needed?

Why have NONE of the hundreds of people who worked on the fire/impact floors, but did not die on 9/11, talked about all the PREP WORK that would have had to have been done prior to 9/11?

Arthur

Arthur,

We live in a world where degree often counts. My model is a bit more plausible than the space beams.


The evidence for thermite in WTC2 best reveals itself when one considers the anomalous phenomena described by NIST in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C, which describes the facade of WTC2 between impact and collapse.

That NIST report is evidence. I say that thermite being used to heat-weaken the tower explains the anomalies in that report with greater evidentiary harmony than does NIST's model.

You might not agree.


To your next question, I don't have evidence that thermite was needed. But it is a fact that jets crashed into the towers, and they remained globally stable for some time. NIST says that without the loss of SFRM, the towers probably (might, whatever) not have collapsed. The point is, the jets crashing into the towers left uncertain situations. Thermite was used in a manner that created progressive heat-weakening, until collapse initiated (after which, gravity did the rest). Thermite was collapse insurance. So, it is probably correct to say that more than enough energy was required (from a demolition standpoint).


To your next...I suspect that very little work needed to be done (certainly relative to rigging the building with cutter charges). Furthermore, all of the perimeter connections are easy to access.

Remember, they only needed to ensure that the equivalent of 1/2 the columns on one floor be compromised.

Also, people are notorious for not noticing others who simply go about their business. We live in a very self-centered world. (Well, not me.)

Max

911-God

NEU-FONZE
Hi Max:

Taking a break from JREF?

Can't say I blame you!

By the way, isn't it NIST's theory that heat-weakened exterior columns started the collapse of each tower?

So you and NIST have the same theory,

sort of....

You just want to add more fuel to the fire,

so to speak...
Max Photon
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 3 2008, 02:28 AM)
Blanchard points out that there was ample time for many people to inspect the structural steel before in was shipped away for recycling.  NIST inspected far more pieces than they kept for later analysis.  Any heat-weakened perimeter columns would have been noticed, since for almost all, the blots failed, not the built-up columns.  NIST selected for further study some of those columns which failed in other manners.

All this suggests that any heat-weakened exterior columns would have been noticed.


Blanchard may not be the best choice of examples, David.

I do not know this for a fact, but I believe - judging by some of his comments to Oprah at JREF - that Blanchard had never even thought about - conceived of - imagined - the notion that the demolition could have been done by heat-weakening.

Well if Blanchard never thought of it, perhaps others never thought of it. [ETA: Did Bazant think of it? Did you think of it?]

Do you personally know of people - experts - who have even considered WTC demolition by heat-weakening? (Please let me know if you do.)

Please be fair. The hyper-patriotic atmosphere at the time was that Al-Qaeda did it, so no one would have been thinking inside job.

Furthermore, with the spectacular images of the fireball and so forth, few are going to imagine arson.

I think it is fair to say that no one looked at the steel from the perspective that arson - heat-weakening - helped initiate collapse.

I doubt anyone looked inside box columns, given that the fires were external. "Examining steel" only meant looking at the exteriors.

Note that had there not been spoliation, it would have been a simple affair to falsify MAX-MIHOP. One could simply look inside select perimeter columns. (Odd that NIST examined zero fire-affected panels from WTC2.)

Also note that my model calls for heating the steel to only about 600C. Heating at this temperature does not leave glaring evidence.

WRT box columns and their bolts...

What if, for example, a cup of thermite were placed in box columns, just to heat the A325 column bolts to heat-weaken them. What great telltale signs would you expect to see on the exterior? I suspect there would be little to see.

I find widespread column bolt failure not inconsistent with my model.

Max
Max Photon
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 3 2008, 03:12 AM)
Hi Max:

Taking a break from JREF?

Can't say I blame you!

By the way, isn't it NIST's theory that heat-weakened exterior columns started the collapse of each tower?

So you and NIST have the same theory,

sort of....

You just want to add more fuel to the fire,

so to speak...

I just had a hankering for something intelligent.

Thanks for noticing that my model and NIST's model are virtually the same. You watch, people get very upset when they realize this for the first time. They think I'm cheating.

By the way, "adding fuel to the fire" is a great way to put it!
newton
i'm curious about why NIST picked the steel they did. for sure you would want to pick the most severe cases of deformation and destruction as some of your samples.

but, they had ONE BEAM which showed signs of being at 600˚C, and only three at 250˚C, so they obviously couldn't find much steel that was affected by high temperature, or, THEY DIDN'T CHOOSE THAT STEEL, and preferred to ship it off to china.

hi, max. my problem with slow heating with thermite is that it doesn't explain the flashes or the explosive noises that were reported, and also doesn't explain the dust. it does explain molten metal pouring from the tower, though, which is nice. i believe multiple methods were used for different tasks, and certainly your theory is a good choice for plausibility as one of them, but i won't rule out conventional charges being used in concert with 'slow thermite', or space beams, for that matter. until it is known, it is unknown.

quicknthedead
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jan 2 2008, 05:45 AM)

No thanks, I prefer my comedies to be intentionally funny, and not based on the tragic deaths of a deliberate terrorist attack.

Grumpy cool.gif

Well, look who's back with more BS and nothing of substance to add (you never could address a post honestly). Still sitting with your thumb in ear and head in clouds of imagined aluminum flak & supposed false radar returns, grumpy?

Why don't you take your mickey mouse business elsewhere...go watch a movie where you might learn something. Then perhaps you wouldn't whine and blather on so much and come off looking as dumb as you appear. Remember, you're supposed to be grumpy, not dopey.

If you really cared about those who have suffered real, tragic loss of family in 9/11, people like those found in this movie who have FACTS THAT GO CONTRARY TO ALL OF YOUR BS, you would at least watch their movie. But you haven't and you don't.

If you watched their movie, you would at least know what a lot of other people know, and you would not appear so stupid. But as the saying goes, you can lead a horse (or a mule) to water, but you can't make it drink...your lack of compassion, and indifference to finding out the truth about 9/11, is truly pathetic.

See the newest video that just came out Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007 for an honest appraisal of the real scope of the problem.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679

This is the best video to come out on 9/11 truth so far, a follow-up to "Press For Truth" entitled: IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES


Here is a great scripture for us to ponder now and then, where the Lord "cut them no slack".
John 8:44
{Jesus speaking to the "blind" Pharisees, those who thought they could "see"}

YOU ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL
AND YOU WANT TO DO THE DESIRES OF YOUR FATHER
HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING
AND DOES NOT STAND IN THE TRUTH
BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM
WHENEVER HE SPEAKS A LIE HE SPEAKS FROM HIS OWN NATURE
FOR HE IS A LIAR AND THE FATHER OF LIES
quicknthedead
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 2 2008, 07:25 AM)
Sorry Craig, I don't have 2 hours to wade through this video which apparently only claims some teasers about things which have ALREADY been beat to death such as "insider trading", "Top Official Whereabouts", "hijackers (names) are wrong", "War Games coinciding with 9/11", PNAC etc

If you have something SPECIFIC you want to discuss then bring THAT subject up (I listened to a bit about the discussion of the timeline concerning POTUS and clearly they get it WRONG with the assumption that everyone knows its a terrorist attack as soon as the first plane hit).

Oh, and Craig, WHAT demand for a new investigation are you talking about?

Arthur

Pull-leasze, don't hand out your pitiful excuse, your cop-out that you just can't wade through two hours of a movie. Poor baby. "No time for the truth" is the translation on that.

The first movie was even called, "Press For The Truth". But no, you have better things to do than deal with a movies of that sort, even when they have much new information to add to the cauldron.

What investigation, you ask?! If you saw the movie, you would not ask.

Regarding the facts in a movie you have no time for, you have a right to remain ignorant. This right of yours is not in jeopardy.

But to borrow from my post just now to grumpy:
If you really cared about those who have suffered real, tragic loss of family in 9/11, people like those found in this movie who have FACTS THAT GO CONTRARY TO ALL OF YOUR BS, you would at least watch their movie. But you haven't and you don't.


Again, I invite any and all to see the newest video that just came out Sunday, Dec. 30, 2007 for an honest appraisal of the real scope of America's problem.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4399917864007973679

This is the best video to come out on 9/11 truth so far, a follow-up to "Press For Truth" entitled: IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES

If you can watch this movie and then walk away thinking everything is just fine and OK, you are living in a dream world.


***

MANY ARE "IN ON IT" {take your pick: LIHOP, MIHOP, COVERUP, ET}, AND CONVERSELY MANY WILL CONTINUE TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH ABOUT 9/11 NO MATTER WHERE IT MAY LEAD.

And another thing. There never has been a real criminal investigation into 9/11. The government looking into itself half-heartedly is no investigation at all...and it wasn't even a criminal one at that.

***



These things are obvious.

Max Photon
QUOTE (newton+Jan 3 2008, 04:06 AM)
i'm curious about why NIST picked the steel they did.  for sure you would want to pick the most severe cases of deformation and destruction as some of your samples.

but, they had ONE BEAM which showed signs of being at 600˚C, and only three at 250˚C, so they obviously couldn't find much steel that was affected by high temperature, or, THEY DIDN'T CHOOSE THAT STEEL, and preferred to ship it off to china.

hi, max.  my problem with slow heating with thermite is that it doesn't explain the flashes or the explosive noises that were reported, and also doesn't explain the dust.  it does explain molten metal pouring from the tower, though, which is nice.  i believe multiple methods were used for different tasks, and certainly your theory is a good choice for plausibility as one of them, but i won't rule out conventional charges being used in concert with 'slow thermite', or space beams, for that matter.  until it is known, it is unknown.

Hi Newton,

You ask how NIST picked the steel they did (from the subset of steel that they had practical access to).

Let me first say that it is perfectly conceivable that everyone at NIST acted with perfect scientific propriety within the boundaries imposed. (I suspect that 99% might be more realistic.) Personally, I look at the NIST Reports as telling the impeccable truth, but in an ambiguous manner.

Let me also say that I suspect that the demolition modes for WTCs 1 and 2, while having similarities, also had - by design - enough orthogonality so that during the investigation and write-up, the sins of one could be cloaked by the graces of the other. That zero fire-affected perimeter panels (trees) were collected from WTC2, despite the bizarre fire behavior in WTC2, is - I believe - an artifact of just such a strategy.

However NIST picked the steel they did, it certainly was not based on looking for evidence of incendiaries planted at a tiny subset of steel connections to heat-weaken those connections.


Thermite was planted at various connections, and in varying amounts, depending on the task. For example, small amounts of thermite - just enough to make the column bolts ductile - placed inside perimeter columns around the impact level, were ignited sequentially by thermite fuse.

As the thermite fuse burned horizontally, and ignited thermite in columns sequentially, we see puffs of white smoke "reminiscent of an old fashioned steam driven pipe organs" (NIST 15A9C). The "smoke" is actually aluminum oxide.

The first 4 seconds of this video one of these coordinated (white!) smoke releases moving horizontally from right to left. Also note the large puff of smoke that obviously emerged from the right corner just before the video starts - which would also coincide with the coordinated smoke puffs' location at that earlier time.

Is this not consistent with my model that column bolts are being heat-weakened right before collapse? Or truss bolts? Or spandrel splice plates? Thermite at gusset seats caused visco-elastic dampers to ignite, thereby destabilizing the floor membrane. The burning dampers accounts for the 7 major black smoke releases that all lasted 1 minute +/- a few seconds, which suggests all 7 smoke releases had a common mechanism. (Note that the 7 major smoke releases are not the same set of anomalies as the coordinated smoke puff reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs - two different beasts altogether.)

Seconds 6-16 of this video also show the coordinated white(!) smoke puffs moving from right to left. Note how they then coincide with the sustained white flash that emerges and travels up the column. Again, we are looking at evidence that thermite fuse is igniting planted thermite at the various connections. (There is a slow motion, stabilized version of this 10 second clip at 4:40 or so, if I remember correctly.)

Finally, this video shows faint white flickering flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left. Everyone immediately discounts these as debris. Not so fast. I claim those are white flashes from thermite fuse. Given that these flashes are occurring right near metal fires and molten metal and white glows, and all this right where Column 301 fails (remember, the one with the 10 minute metal fire right at its bolt-access hole?), I'd say they are worthy of a little more consideration.
newton
hey, i liked "911 explosive reality", which is 98% live television news broadcasts from that day, and "zietgeist", which has the whole giant historical conspiracy in a two hour "nutshell"(thought i'd throw the apologists a straight line bone), including three chapters: religion, 911, and banking.

there can never be enough of these documentaries.

"the pentacon" and "911 eyewitness" are also excellent.

in other news, henry paulson was assassinated, and george bush woke up with his $350,000 horse's head in his bed.
einsteen
Hello Max, welcome.

You are in fact very interested in collapse initiation and if I understand it well then you accept the "towers are doomed" argument? Most people find it hard to believe that in that plane inferno anything would survive. I think Neu-Fonze is the person
to say anything about that.

And how are you looking at building #7 from your thermite point of view ?
newton
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 06:29 AM)
Hi Newton,

You ask how NIST picked the steel they did (from the subset of steel that they had practical access to).

Let me first say that it is perfectly conceivable that everyone at NIST acted with perfect scientific propriety within the boundaries imposed. (I suspect that 99% might be more realistic.) Personally, I look at the NIST Reports as telling the impeccable truth, but in an ambiguous manner.

Let me also say that I suspect that the demolition modes for WTCs 1 and 2, while having similarities, also had - by design - enough orthogonality so that during the investigation and write-up, the sins of one could be cloaked by the graces of the other. That zero fire-affected perimeter panels (trees) were collected from WTC2, despite the bizarre fire behavior in WTC2, is - I believe - an artifact of just such a strategy.

However NIST picked the steel they did, it certainly was not based on looking for evidence of incendiaries planted at a tiny subset of steel connections to heat-weaken those connections.


Thermite was planted at various connections, and in varying amounts, depending on the task. For example, small amounts of thermite - just enough to make the column bolts ductile - placed inside perimeter columns around the impact level, were ignited sequentially by thermite fuse.

As the thermite fuse burned horizontally, and ignited thermite in columns sequentially, we see puffs of white smoke "reminiscent of an old fashioned steam driven pipe organs" (NIST 15A9C). The "smoke" is actually aluminum oxide.

The first 4 seconds of this video one of these coordinated (white!) smoke releases moving horizontally from right to left. Also note the large puff of smoke that obviously emerged from the right corner just before the video starts - which would also coincide with the coordinated smoke puffs' location at that earlier time.

Is this not consistent with my model that column bolts are being heat-weakened right before collapse? Or truss bolts? Or spandrel splice plates? Thermite at gusset seats caused visco-elastic dampers to ignite, thereby destabilizing the floor membrane. The burning dampers accounts for the 7 major black smoke releases that all lasted 1 minute +/- a few seconds, which suggests all 7 smoke releases had a common mechanism. (Note that the 7 major smoke releases are not the same set of anomalies as the coordinated smoke puff reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs - two different beasts altogether.)

Seconds 6-16 of this video also show the coordinated white(!) smoke puffs moving from right to left. Note how they then coincide with the sustained white flash that emerges and travels up the column. Again, we are looking at evidence that thermite fuse is igniting planted thermite at the various connections. (There is a slow motion, stabilized version of this 10 second clip at 4:40 or so, if I remember correctly.)

Finally, this video shows faint white flickering flashes moving diagonally from the upper right to the lower left. Everyone immediately discounts these as debris. Not so fast. I claim those are white flashes from thermite fuse. Given that these flashes are occurring right near metal fires and molten metal and white glows, and all this right where Column 301 fails (remember, the one with the 10 minute metal fire right at its bolt-access hole?), I'd say they are worthy of a little more consideration.

wow. sorry. i guess i was typing while your response came in.

i love your theory, but i love gordon ross' theory, too.
they work well, together, i think.
gordon ross focused(mathematically) on the elastic response of the lower part.
in other words, he was 'uninterested' in what caused the initial freefall(ish) descent of the (severed) top section onto the bottom section. instead, he took it as a given that the top part fell one storey onto the storey below. unlike apologists, he KNEW that the lower section was not a stack of pancakes, but rather, a steel mesh which could act in concert, instead of 'one floor at a time', which is the physical response all the apologists hold so dearly.

so, regardless of the method that caused collapse initiation, the towers STILL should have had sufficient resistance to significantly slow, if not even ARREST, the collapse(hence the necessity of the flashes, and the 'boom, boom, boom' and the 'massive secondary explosion').

i personally don't think "global collapse was inevitable" once local collapse was initiated. people bandy about energy equations, but, the fact is, a lead pencil has enough energy in it to power a country, but there is no mechanism for retrieving that energy. like there is no mechanism to make thousands of tons of fine dust. thermite can start the drop of the building, but it can't make 2.5 micron dust particles or eject massive steel beams horizontally that's why, the thermite weakening would HAVE to be 'assisted'.

i totally agree that the white smoke is probably thermite spoor, and that NIST was being honest when they said there was a metal fire. what amazes me is how very few 'qualified' people raised their collective eyebrow over the fact that there was a metal fire in the midst of a 'normal office fire', or how few ripples in the pond the 'eroded metal' from tower seven caused.

on the bright side, i have learned tons and tonnes about the power of media and 'thought inertia'.

Chainsaw,
QUOTE (newton+Jan 3 2008, 09:36 AM)
wow. sorry. i guess i was typing while your response came in.

i love your theory, but i love gordon ross' theory, too.
they work well, together, i think.
gordon ross focused(mathematically) on the elastic response of the lower part.
in other words, he was 'uninterested' in what caused the initial freefall(ish) descent of the (severed) top section onto the bottom section. instead, he took it as a given that the top part fell one storey onto the storey below. unlike apologists, he KNEW that the lower section was not a stack of pancakes, but rather, a steel mesh which could act in concert, instead of 'one floor at a time', which is the physical response all the apologists hold so dearly.

so, regardless of the method that caused collapse initiation, the towers STILL should have had sufficient resistance to significantly slow, if not even ARREST, the collapse(hence the necessity of the flashes, and the 'boom, boom, boom' and the 'massive secondary explosion').

i personally don't think "global collapse was inevitable" once local collapse was initiated. people bandy about energy equations, but, the fact is, a lead pencil has enough energy in it to power a country, but there is no mechanism for retrieving that energy. like there is no mechanism to make thousands of tons of fine dust. thermite can start the drop of the building, but it can't make 2.5 micron dust particles or eject massive steel beams horizontally that's why, the thermite weakening would HAVE to be 'assisted'.

i totally agree that the white smoke is probably thermite spoor, and that NIST was being honest when they said there was a metal fire. what amazes me is how very few 'qualified' people raised their collective eyebrow over the fact that there was a metal fire in the midst of a 'normal office fire', or how few ripples in the pond the 'eroded metal' from tower seven caused.

on the bright side, i have learned tons and tonnes about the power of media and 'thought inertia'.

The question you should ask yourself Newton is why you would not expect a metals fire and what metals are burning and in what quantity.
The first theory was that a metal fire caused heat weakening that was abandoned when the metal showed no sings of extensive heat weakening from high temperatures.
The next theory was the pancake theory, that was abandoned when it was shown that the impacts caused sever damage and that the impacts played a significant role in the collapses.
PS. Max's theory just about rules out explosives other than those of natural origin in fires, high explosives degrade when heated. They can not survive temperatures of over 250c.
Theories Should actually be understood before they are proposed.
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 2 2008, 10:07 PM)
Arthur,

We live in a world where degree often counts. My model is a bit more plausible than the space beams.

....

We live in a very self-centered world. (Well, not me.)

Max

911-God

Actually Max your model is no more plausible since, like the space beams, your idea has not a shred of EVIDENCE supporting it.

But, while the Space Beams might have been missed since they are supposedly invisible, its hardly a reasonable assumption that the many hundreds of workers who survived but worked on the fire/damage floors ALL missed the construction on their floors.

People NOTICE those kind of changes in their work environment.

To claim they don't, is, well SILLY.

Arthur

PS What are you referencing with this: NIST 15A9C? If you are referencing the ENTIRE PDF of the 1-5A report that starts at Chapter 9 and goes thru Appendix C then I must ask you to be a TAD more precise in your references as this is a friggin 500 page report.
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 2 2008, 10:33 PM)
I just had a hankering for something intelligent.

Thanks for noticing that my model and NIST's model are virtually the same. You watch, people get very upset when they realize this for the first time. They think I'm cheating.


Sorry Max but your "model" adds NOTHING to the Scientific NIST model.

Because so far you have shown NO EVIDENCE for ANY of your ideas.

Can you add any actual data to this discussion?

What floor(s) do you see this black smoke coming from?
When do you see this black smoke coming from the towers?
What is the Ignition Temperature of the ViscoElastic Dampers?
What is the Mass of the ViscoElastic Dampers?
How do the ViscoElastic Dampers STABILIZE the floors (specifics here please)?

Arthur



adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 01:29 AM)
Let me also say that I suspect that the demolition modes for WTCs 1 and 2, while having similarities, also had - by design - enough orthogonality so that during the investigation and write-up, the sins of one could be cloaked by the graces of the other. That zero fire-affected perimeter panels (trees) were collected from WTC2, despite the bizarre fire behavior in WTC2, is - I believe - an artifact of just such a strategy.


They recovered 94 exterior panels, but even after prep/cleanup could eventually only identify 42 of them, thus its clear that the steel recovery team (volunteers and FEMA, not NIST) would likely not know during the selection process where the panels came from.

What you BELIEVE is a NIST STRATEGY is not relevant to the discussion.

Arthur
Grumpy
quicknthedead

QUOTE
clouds of imagined aluminum flak & supposed false radar returns, grumpy?


Then you can explain how a cloud of aluminum fascia covers would NOT act to give an extended(timewise) direct radar return, which, coincidently, blows your timeline clean out of the water.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
clouds of imagined aluminum flak & supposed false radar returns, grumpy?


Then you can explain how a cloud of aluminum fascia covers would NOT act to give an extended(timewise) direct radar return, which, coincidently, blows your timeline clean out of the water.

IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES


And these family members would know squat about what happened in those buildings???

Grumpy cool.gif

PS Look out for those firetrucks jumping out of the back window of BMWs. Sneaky bastards.
Grumpy
Max Photon

So now we are back to the "Invisible Ninja Thermite Fairies" theory. Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense and is unnecessary to explain the collapses. Occam's Razor shaves this off even without considering the fact that no evidence of thermite was found.

The NIST reports give us the most scientific explanations for those events without invoking such ridiculous ideas.

Grumpy cool.gif
Max Photon
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 3 2008, 08:08 AM)
Hello Max, welcome.

You are in fact very interested in collapse initiation and if I understand it well then you accept the "towers are doomed" argument? Most people find it hard to believe that in that plane inferno anything would survive. I think Neu-Fonze is the person
to say anything about that.

And how are you looking at building #7 from your thermite point of view ?

By the way, Einsteen suggested I come over here, so blame him. (Nice going Einsteen.)


Einsteen, and everyone,

I hope you can appreciate that since I am the sole person developing MAX-MIHOP, it is incumbent on me to think through the fields of possibilities for all dimensions of the demolition and the deception. For those who do not view my task from that perspective, it looks to them (understandably) like I am all over the board, and that I contradict myself.

To your comments...

With respect to the collapse of the towers (collapse progression), what is the field of possibilities, post collapse-initiation? The towers collapsed:

- By gravity alone;

- By gravity, plus the towers were heat-weakened - beyond just the impact floors - just before and during collapse;

- By gravity, plus the towers were cut (explosively or thermally).


My model argues against high-explosives because high-explosives leave strong information scents. Plus, NIST said it found no evidence of CD using high explosives, and there is no way in God's creation that sentence would be there if high-explosives had been used.

My model argues against thermal cutting. NIST said it found no evidence of melted steel. My own observations of the high-resolution debris photos in FEMA photo set #1391 revealed no evidence of cutting. Plus, thermal cutting is about as inefficient as one can get (under the conditions envisioned by proponents).

So that leaves us with the question: Did incendiaries heat-weaken the towers BEYOND just the impact floors to initiate collapse? Did incendiaries heat-weaken the towers to also expedite collapse progression?

Please bear in mind that heat-weakening wouldn't imply every joint! It might have been the case that only a little heat-weakening outside of the impact floors was needed to help facilitate collapse progression.

For just one example of possible heat-weakening during collapse, please see my JREF posts:

That ain't no squib! That's a wisp of aluminum oxide!

A discussion of WTC2's lower ejections

Max

ETA: Opps! I forgot WTC7.

Surely the model of heat-weakening to initiate collapse fits WTC7 like a glove.
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 2 2008, 10:25 PM)
WRT box columns and their bolts...

What if, for example, a cup of thermite were placed in box columns, just to heat the A325 column bolts to heat-weaken them. What great telltale signs would you expect to see on the exterior? I suspect there would be little to see.

I find widespread column bolt failure not inconsistent with my model.

Max

Besides the lack of ANY EVIDENCE to support any of this besides your imagination?


Consider that the columns were 3 stories.
Consider that the bolt hole openings were ONLY at the bottom/tops of the 3 story columns and thus the openings are at the middle of the WINDOW level.
Consider that only the bottom bolt hole openings were at all close to the Gussets for the Visco Elastic Dampers
Consider that the columns were Staggered such that only every 9 columns would have the bottom holes anywhere near the Gussets.

Finally, from a logic standpoint:

Consider that for the MINIMAL amount of extra heating that the thermite could provide the extensive preparation work and the potential post collapse discovery would obviously increase the chances that something would expose the operation. Would all this RISK be WORTH it to a covert op, you know, one where keeping those IN ON IT to a MINIMUM is a KEY strategy?

Etc etc etc.

Arthur
Max Photon
QUOTE (newton+Jan 3 2008, 09:36 AM)
wow.  sorry.  i guess i was typing while your response came in.

i love your theory, but i love gordon ross' theory, too.
they work well, together, i think.
gordon ross focused(mathematically) on the elastic response of the lower part.
in other words, he was 'uninterested' in what caused the initial freefall(ish) descent of the (severed) top section onto the bottom section.  instead, he took it as a given that the top part fell one storey onto the storey below.  unlike apologists, he KNEW that the lower section was not a stack of pancakes, but rather, a steel mesh which could act in concert, instead of 'one floor at a time', which is the physical response all the apologists hold so dearly. 

so, regardless of the method that caused collapse initiation, the towers STILL should have had sufficient resistance to significantly slow, if not even ARREST, the collapse(hence the necessity of the flashes, and the 'boom, boom, boom' and the 'massive secondary explosion'). 

i personally don't think "global collapse was inevitable" once local collapse was initiated.  people bandy about energy equations, but, the fact is, a lead pencil has enough energy in it to power a country, but there is no mechanism for retrieving that energy.  like there is no mechanism to make thousands of tons of fine dust.  thermite can start the drop of the building, but it can't make 2.5 micron dust particles or eject massive steel beams horizontally  that's why, the thermite weakening would HAVE to be 'assisted'.

i totally agree that the white smoke is probably thermite spoor, and that NIST was being honest when they said there was a metal fire.  what amazes me is how very few 'qualified' people raised their collective eyebrow over the fact that there was a metal fire in the midst of a 'normal office fire', or how few ripples in the pond the 'eroded metal' from tower seven caused.

on the bright side, i have learned tons and tonnes about the power of media and 'thought inertia'.



Sir Newton,

I would think that the expanded version of heat-weakening - that is, heat-weakening beyond just the impact floors, to expedite collapse - is more compatible with Gordon's work than are high-explosives.

Newton, everything about thermite is ambiguous. Everything about high-explosives is unambiguous. Ambiguity is THE key cloaking mechanism. Ours requires TWO ORTHOGONAL Occam's Razors, one for the demolition, and one for the deception. The deception's Occam's Razor argues for THERMITE ONLY.

Note that MAX-MIHOP uses thermite fuse to ignite planted thermite. The thermite fuse is ignited by jet-impact. The WTC steel holds the thermite. No other ignition mechanisms are needed. No devices are needed. Simple. Practically trace-free.


I am not convinced whatsoever that BOOM BOOM BOOM = high explosives.

I am not convinced whatsoever that explosives were needed to break apart the concrete.

As to beams being ejected horizontally (or even vertically), I am puzzled why so many have trouble with this. First off, note that many people look at the width of the ejected debris, and they include the aluminum cladding, which is silly because those things are practically kites. Regardless, the chaos of collapse will impart the full spectrum of direction and spin on members. (Neu-Fonze has a nose for this concept, I believe.)


To your point that it is amazing how little energy is focused around the metal fire (and the many other bizarre correlated phenomena) I couldn't agree more. I am going to put energy into focusing attention there.

About high-temperature phenomena, corroded metal, and other goodies ... NCSTAR 1-3C has a very interest section:

Section 6.3.4: Unique Cases of Damage Possibly Related to Elevated Temperature Exposure

Here is a short JREF post on this:

NCSTAR 1-3C/6 + NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C + Paul's Magic Filter = Collapse initiation laid bare

My model says that NIST will hide in plain view at least one example of all naughty-naughties, to preserve plausible deniability.

I think Section 6.3.4 (and surrounding sections) is the rug under which evidence of thermite was swept. So the evidence is being hidden in plain view, but just sort of placed off the beaten path.

Max
Max Photon
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jan 3 2008, 12:39 PM)
The question you should ask yourself Newton is why you would not expect a metals fire and what metals are burning and in what quantity.
  The first theory was that a metal fire caused heat weakening that was abandoned when the metal showed no sings of extensive heat weakening from high temperatures.
  The next theory was the pancake theory, that was abandoned when it was shown that the impacts caused sever damage and that the impacts played a significant role in the collapses.
  PS. Max's theory just about rules out explosives other than those of natural origin in fires, high explosives degrade when heated.  They can not survive temperatures of over 250c.
   Theories Should actually be understood before they are proposed.

Chainsaw, with all due respect, yours is a muddled post.


The first theory was that a metal fire caused heat weakening. That was abandoned when the metal showed no signs of extensive heat weakening from high temperatures.

The metal fire was at Column 301/81, right at the bolt-access-holes. NIST never looked at THAT column! NIST's temperature comments are from fire progression models, and little coupons taken mostly from irrelevant steel members. Your muddling of the issue is a confluence of the worst that everyone at JREF accuses truthers of doing. Please be more clear.


The next theory was the pancake theory, that was abandoned when it was shown that the impacts caused sever damage and that the impacts played a significant role in the collapses.

I can't imagine you are relating this to the metal fire, but it comes across that way.


PS. Max's theory just about rules out explosives other than those of natural origin in fires, high explosives degrade when heated. They can not survive temperatures of over 250c.

Again CC, why create confusion? While I am not an explosives proponent, I fail to see how my model precludes high-explosives place above or below the impact floors, outside of the critical heat zone.


Theories should actually be understood before they are proposed

... or critiqued.



Chainsaw, you really shouldn't blow up things and type at the same time.

And wear eye-protection! (After reading your post, I know I will.)


Max
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 03:22 PM)
Actually Max your model is no more plausible since, like the space beams, your idea has not a shred of EVIDENCE supporting it.

But, while the Space Beams might have been missed since they are supposedly invisible, its hardly a reasonable assumption that the many hundreds of workers who survived but worked on the fire/damage floors ALL missed the construction on their floors.

People NOTICE those kind of changes in their work environment.

To claim they don't, is, well SILLY.

Arthur

PS What are you referencing with this: NIST 15A9C? If you are referencing the ENTIRE PDF of the 1-5A report that starts at Chapter 9 and goes thru Appendix C then I must ask you to be a TAD more precise in your references as this is a friggin 500 page report.

Arthur,

I see you're firmly planted in the Flatlandish perspective that the collapse initiation of the WTC towers is a scientific problem.

That is silly. 911 is a teleological problem. There is a difference.

Also, I've presented my ideas to enough people to where I can see the same pattern over and over and over again - reactionary criticisms before even understanding the basic ideas. You appear to be fitting the pattern. May I suggest a smidge of openness, just for a few days or something?

Also, I hope you see the incredible asymmetry of the situation. If I am wrong, what is the cost to society to have one idiot tapping incoherently on his keyboard? If you are wrong, and 911 is an inside job, then your output is (you fill in the blank).

I would think that prospect alone would make you a little more open minded. (It just seems like conservative science to me.)


To say there is no evidence of thermite-catalyzed fires is preposterous. The evidence is the NIST Report. All that matters is which model has the greatest evidentiary harmony with the evidence. If you think NIST's collapse initiation mechanism has a better fit with observations, such as those in the catalog of WTC2 evidence - National Institute of Science and Technology NCSTAR 1-5A, Chapter 9, Appendix C (or, for those who can handle JMAX compression - 15A9C), fine, but don't say MAX-MIHOP has no evidence. It has exactly the same amount of evidence as NIST's model!

Also, to say MAX-MIHOP adds nothing is nonsensical. MAX-MIHOP explains what NIST's model explains, PLUS it explains the anomalies in 15A9C, AND the extreme temperature phenomena seen in NCSTAR 1-3C (both of which NIST explains poorly).

I'd say MAX-MIHOP is very value-added thankyou.


To your comments about "all the construction".

You are simply unaware of how accessible all the perimeter connections are. Thus you are creating obstacles in your own mind.

Maxrice
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 03:56 PM)
Sorry Max but your "model" adds NOTHING to the Scientific NIST model.

Because so far you have shown NO EVIDENCE for ANY of your ideas.

Can you add any actual data to this discussion?

What floor(s) do you see this black smoke coming from?
When do you see this black smoke coming from the towers?
What is the Ignition Temperature of the ViscoElastic Dampers?
What is the Mass of the ViscoElastic Dampers?
How do the ViscoElastic Dampers STABILIZE the floors (specifics here please)?

Arthur

Arthur,

I think in due time, after you have read NCSTAR 15A9C, you will look back at this post of yours in embarrassment.

I will skip your irrelvant questions, and suspect that you will eventually appreciate the courtesy.

adoucette
When I asked you to be more precise I mean by specifing the friggin PAGE you are referring to.

QUOTE
I think in due time, after you have read NCSTAR 15A9C, you will look back at this post of yours in embarrassment.

I will skip your irrelvant questions, and suspect that you will eventually appreciate the courtesy.


I've read all of 1-5A, so forget "courtesy" and answer the "irrelvant" questions.

Also please describe how you could ACCESS these openings with NO ONE KNOWING you had done so.

Don't forget this one.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I think in due time, after you have read NCSTAR 15A9C, you will look back at this post of yours in embarrassment.

I will skip your irrelvant questions, and suspect that you will eventually appreciate the courtesy.


I've read all of 1-5A, so forget "courtesy" and answer the "irrelvant" questions.

Also please describe how you could ACCESS these openings with NO ONE KNOWING you had done so.

Don't forget this one.

Consider that for the MINIMAL amount of extra heating that the thermite could provide the extensive preparation work and the potential post collapse discovery would obviously increase the chances that something would expose the operation. Would all this RISK be WORTH it to a covert op, you know, one where keeping those IN ON IT to a MINIMUM is a KEY strategy?


But thanks for this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...860#post3148860

What a LAUGH.

Particularly since this shows you can't explain how the hijackers knew to hit the exact floors that the prepositioned thermite was on.

Arthur
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 04:09 PM)
They recovered 94 exterior panels, but even after prep/cleanup could eventually only identify 42 of them, thus its clear that the steel recovery team (volunteers and FEMA, not NIST) would likely not know during the selection process where the panels came from.

What you BELIEVE is a NIST STRATEGY is not relevant to the discussion.

Arthur

I love it.

The greatest crime against the US, ever, ever, and some volunteers(!) and FEMA can't find any fire-affected panels from WTC2 before the evidence was shipped off to the Neocon's mortal enemy, and destroyed. (Oh well guys, you tried. That's all that counts.)

But we're positive it was Al Qaeda.

And we've ruled out that WTC2 couldn't possibly have collapsed from arson heat-weakening the perimeter, even though ZERO fire-affected panels were retrieved from WTC2.


Wait...

How did we rule out arson again?


Inquiring minds want to know.


ETA: I also loved that evidence was sent for "cleanup" - ostensibly asbestos removal. I wonder what else they "cleaned up?"
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 06:47 PM)
When I asked you to be more precise I mean by specifing the friggin PAGE you are referring to.



I've read all of 1-5A, so forget "courtesy" and answer the "irrelvant" questions.

Also please describe how you could ACCESS these openings with NO ONE KNOWING you had done so.

Don't forget this one.



But thanks for this:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...860#post3148860

What a LAUGH.

Particularly since this shows you can't explain how the hijackers knew to hit the exact floors that the prepositioned thermite was on.

Arthur

Arthur,

There is no way you can convince me that you read 15A9C yet still asked those questions. No way. So, I'm going to assume that you either didn't read it, and in haste thought you'd puff up and pretend that you did, or you read it, but the information had the shelf life of warm milk.


Arthur, I hate to break this to you, but there were no hijackers. Sorry. (It's MAX-MIHOP, not MAX-LIHOP.)


But the patented Max Photon-brand All-Weather All Temperature Thermite Fuse (MPBAWATTF) - now with jet-impact ignition! - sure is the envy of the LIHOPers. A net made with MPBAWATTF could have ignited thermte at the impact zones, regardless of where jets hit.

But I'm MIHOP. The jets were targeted, so the thermite placement problem was a non-issue. (And the amount of thermite to be placed represents - by far - the least amount of catalyst of all leading demolition models.)


As to access:

Perimeter column splices: No more than 120 needed to be accessed. (That's just the maximum theoretical number.) The real number was probably less than half of that. Column splices are 2/3 up windows. The bolt-access-holes were NOT welded shut. The webs and flanges are thin. Access was not difficult.

Spandrel splices gaps: The spandrels rose 13" above the floors. The spandrel splice plates only 12". This left a 1" gap into which one could simply pour thermite into the spandrel splice gap. Access was not difficult.

Top chords at the truss seats: Two floor trusses juxtaposed per truss seat. Where the top chords of two trusses met, a horizontal rectangular tube formed. I claim thermite was places in these tubes (and not directly on the truss seats). This was accessible through truss seat access openings in the floors. Access was not difficult.

Gusset seats: Gusset seats were just inches above the ceiling tiles. Simply remove one tile. Access was not difficult.


Now, as to people noticing the work...

Perhaps it was done, closed office by closed office, at times when people were absent.

Perhaps the work was done all at once during WTC2's powerdown.

Perhaps the work was done in front of people under some other pretense.


My mind does not buckle under the thought that Special Forces-type - true technical experts - could solve the placement issue. But that's just me.
Max Photon
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jan 3 2008, 04:34 PM)
Max Photon

So now we are back to the "Invisible Ninja Thermite Fairies" theory. Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense and is unnecessary to explain the collapses. Occam's Razor shaves this off even without considering the fact that no evidence of thermite was found.

The NIST reports give us the most scientific explanations for those events without invoking such ridiculous ideas.

Grumpy cool.gif


Occam's Razor is being used as a cloaking device.

Max
Chainsaw,
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 05:44 PM)
Chainsaw, with all due respect, yours is a muddled post.


The first theory was that a metal fire caused heat weakening. That was abandoned when the metal showed no signs of extensive heat weakening from high temperatures.



The next theory was the pancake theory, that was abandoned when it was shown that the impacts caused sever damage and that the impacts played a significant role in the collapses.

I can't imagine you are relating this to the metal fire, but it comes across that way.


PS. Max's theory just about rules out explosives other than those of natural origin in fires, high explosives degrade when heated. They can not survive temperatures of over 250c.

Again CC, why create confusion? While I am not an explosives proponent, I fail to see how my model precludes high-explosives place above or below the impact floors, outside of the critical heat zone.


Theories should actually be understood before they are proposed

... or critiqued.



Chainsaw, you really shouldn't blow up things and type at the same time.

And wear eye-protection! (After reading your post, I know I will.)


Max

QUOTE
The metal fire was at Column 301/81, right at the bolt-access-holes. NIST never looked at THAT column! NIST's temperature comments are from fire progression models, and little coupons taken mostly from irrelevant steel members. Your muddling of the issue is a confluence of the worst that everyone at JREF accuses truthers of doing. Please be more clear.


The society of engineers looked at that column, I believe they were trying to find evidence of a metal fires first theory.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The metal fire was at Column 301/81, right at the bolt-access-holes. NIST never looked at THAT column! NIST's temperature comments are from fire progression models, and little coupons taken mostly from irrelevant steel members. Your muddling of the issue is a confluence of the worst that everyone at JREF accuses truthers of doing. Please be more clear.


The society of engineers looked at that column, I believe they were trying to find evidence of a metal fires first theory.

Again CC, why create confusion? While I am not an explosives proponent, I fail to see how my model precludes high-explosives place above or below the impact floors, outside of the critical heat zone.


Steel is a good conductor of heat any explosive in contact with the steel would degrade.
Anything not in contact would do little damage.
Plus there is no explosive ejecta, or other high energy effects and no Monroe effects or deformations from explosions evident.

I would expect if explosive were used, there would at least be some sign of them in the rubble on the beams themselves that would be visible in the photos.

From what I have seen in the air data there are no conclusive thermite derived species in that data, I would expect to see some in the data.

I am just asking for some evidence Max that is all, I just do not see any, because a metal fire could come from many sources.
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 05:02 PM)
Besides the lack of ANY EVIDENCE to support any of this besides your imagination?


Consider that the columns were 3 stories.
Consider that the bolt hole openings were ONLY at the bottom/tops of the 3 story columns and thus the openings are at the middle of the WINDOW level.
Consider that only the bottom bolt hole openings were at all close to the Gussets for the Visco Elastic Dampers
Consider that the columns were Staggered such that only every 9 columns would have the bottom holes anywhere near the Gussets.

Finally, from a logic standpoint:

Consider that for the MINIMAL amount of extra heating that the thermite could provide the extensive preparation work and the potential post collapse discovery would obviously increase the chances that something would expose the operation. Would all this RISK be WORTH it to a covert op, you know, one where keeping those IN ON IT to a MINIMUM is a KEY strategy?

Etc etc etc.

Arthur

Arthur,

I am not sure what your descriptions of the columns are supposed to invoke, hence I don't know how to respond. Please clarify.

As to this...

"Consider that for the MINIMAL amount of extra heating that the thermite could provide the extensive preparation work and the potential post collapse discovery would obviously increase the chances that something would expose the operation. Would all this RISK be WORTH it to a covert op, you know, one where keeping those IN ON IT to a MINIMUM is a KEY strategy?"

O ye of little marginal thinking.

You are looking at the role of the thermite from the wrong perspective.

Neu-Fonze has pointed out (at JREF) that NIST's stated fuel loads are roughly 1/3 of what is typically expected.

I say that difference represents a measure of the total "equivalent fuel load," if you will, of the planted thermite. In other words, the impact floors deliberately had fuel loads below what was expected, and the difference was in the form of planted thermite. This way, total heat energy would appear as expected, cloaking the arson.

Another way of saying this is that expected fuel loads minus actual fuel loads represented demolition planners' energy budget in the form of thermite. This could be spent more efficiently than naturally-progressing fires. First, select steel connections could be target. Second, whereas most of the heat from fires simply exhausts, heat from thermite IN box columns, or IN spandrel splice gaps, or IN the tube created between two floor trusses, is much more efficient in heating the steel.

Thermite was energy thrift.


Therefore, the "minimal" extra heating provided by thermite was actually CRITICAL heating. Do not diminish it so carelessly.

Demolition planners had to devise a way to migrate the towers from global stability to global instability - without being detected - and if detected, to be protected from prosecution by plausible deniability.

Thermite was the solution to demolition planners' brachistochrone problem.


Max (minimized)

David B. Benson
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 12:33 PM)
Occam's Razor is being used as a cloaking device.

Since it is clear that your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts, I'll just point out that my reference to Blanchard was solely to the fact that many people had access to the steel pile.

Also, do note that the engineers selecting steel to be saved could easily (and would) look inside the access ports once noticing the pattern of destroyed bolts. Do note that thermite goes though steel like a hot knife through butter.
Max Photon
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jan 3 2008, 07:58 PM)


The society of engineers looked at that column, I believe they were trying to find evidence of a metal fires first theory.

Steel is a good conductor of heat any explosive in contact with the steel would degrade.
  Anything not in contact would do little damage.
  Plus there is no explosive ejecta, or other high energy effects and no Monroe effects or deformations from explosions evident.

  I would expect if explosive were used, there would at least be some sign of them in the rubble on the beams themselves that would be visible in the photos.

  From what I have seen in the air data there are no conclusive thermite derived species in that data, I would expect to see some in the data.

  I am just asking for some evidence Max that is all, I just do not see any, because a metal fire could come from many sources.

CC,

Again, you are creating confusion.

You had said that MAX-MIHOP precludes explosives because heat degrades explosives.

I said that although I don't espouse explosives, MAX-MIHOP does not preclude explosives. (Surely explosives would not be heated 70 floors - for example - away from the impact zone!)

As to other comments about the lack of evidence for explosives, I agree!

That's why I don't think explosives were used.

(So why are you asking me for evidence of explosives? I'm on your side.)

Max

ETA: CC, do you have a reference to the study of Column 301?
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 02:30 PM)
Arthur,

There is no way you can convince me that you read 15A9C yet still asked those questions. No way. So, I'm going to assume that you either didn't read it, and in haste thought you'd puff up and pretend that you did, or you read it, but the information had the shelf life of warm milk.


Arthur, I hate to break this to you, but there were no hijackers. Sorry.  (It's MAX-MIHOP, not MAX-LIHOP.)


You're new here so I'll ignore your point about me not reading &/or understanding the NIST report.

But since you claim there are NO HIJACKERS.

Well what can I say but ....

laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

This is a PHYSICS SITE.

We don't discuss fairytales.

Arthur
Max Photon
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 3 2008, 08:12 PM)
Since it is clear that your mind is made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts, I'll just point out that my reference to Blanchard was solely to the fact that many people had access to the steel pile.

Also, do note that the engineers selecting steel to be saved could easily (and would) look inside the access ports once noticing the pattern of destroyed bolts.  Do note that thermite goes though steel like a hot knife through butter.

David,

My mind is not made up. I am completely open. Please do not confuse my trying to prove up a hypothesis - which requires a certain amount of championing - with fixed thinking.

I take it that your mind is not made up, and that you are open minded?


As to "the fact that many people had access to the steel pile", is it not possible David, that given the emotional charge of the situation, given the relentless media message it was terrorism, given the great natural resistance to the horrible idea that one's own government could have committed mass murder on the citizenry, is there any room in your mind that that might - just might - have infused a systemic bias to the steel evaluation process?

At a minimum, I am sure you can admit that the steel evaluation process was not the same a one, say, in which expert investigators, charged with examining the possibility - the hypothesis - of an inside job - had been given training and instructions, and FULL access to the steel?


Let us also not forget that even among investigators, humans are extremely prone to yielding to pressures to conform. Again, everyone was thinking terrorists.


Thermite slices through steel like a hot knife through butter.

Always? You mean if one puts a gram in a box column, it will melt right through?


You're the scientist,

Max

Max Photon
So Arthur, David,

I take it that you ruled out arson because:

- Setting up the arson would have been too risky;
- There were too many technical challenges;
- Investigators would have discovered arson;
- There is no evidence of arson;
- Occam's razor elimnates arson.

Any other reasons?
RealityCheck
.
Hi guys and gals.

These tidbits caught my eye as I was 'just reading through'. And I just had to ask......

QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 08:08 PM)
Arthur,....
.....
.....
.....

Therefore, the "minimal" extra heating provided by thermite was actually CRITICAL heating. Do not diminish it so carelessly......
.......



Does the above imply that the damage felt and seen immediately upon impact and fire of a huge planeload of fuel and metal, plus the loadshifting and heating/cooling expansion-contracting stresses on all jojnts/connections were not 'minimal' or 'critical' enough factors to fatally compromise the steel wickerwork's 'integral support' system given the impact-removal of fireproofing and total lack of firefighting of any kind at all?

Is/was there steel structure in the world, ever, where NO firefighting AND NO fireproofing is 'survivable' even WITHOUT all that plane-impact damage etc?




QUOTE (newton+Jan 3 2008, 09:36 AM)
.....
......
......
i personally don't think "global collapse was inevitable" once local collapse was initiated.  people bandy about energy equations, but, the fact is, a lead pencil has enough energy in it to power a country, but there is no mechanism for retrieving that energy.  like there is no mechanism to make thousands of tons of fine dust.  thermite can start the drop of the building, but it can't make 2.5 micron dust particles or eject massive steel beams horizontally  that's why, the thermite weakening would HAVE to be 'assisted'....
...



Since it is now (finally) acknowledged by a CDer/CTer that a 'mechanism' for tranferring forces is critical to one system component 'accessing' the strength/energy of another system component, does it not strike these same CDers/CTers (especially gordon ross) that the floor-to-wall connection failure behaviour ALSO provided 'NO mechanism' for the column strength to exhibit during internal collapse...such that no 'bottom spring' is ever able to come into play at all before the connections-failure 'guillotining front' has passed on?

And then of course, the undesigned-for high impulse loadings on the connections would have them fail and leave the columns 'high and dry' without lateral support that was integral to their erstwhile structural stability/survivability...and so they fell away as seen in the videos.

Or is the 'no transfer/accessibility mechanism' argument only valid when CDers/CTers use it?


Cheers and carry on guys and gals.

RC.
.
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 03:33 PM)
As to "the fact that many people had access to the steel pile", is it not possible David, that given the emotional charge of the situation, given the relentless media message it was terrorism, given the great natural resistance to the horrible idea that one's own government could have committed mass murder on the citizenry, is there any room in your mind that that might - just might - have infused a systemic bias to the steel evaluation process?


Just the opposite.

Seeing a piece of unusual looking steel is a LONG way from coming up with any theory as to how it got in that condition and when the scientists were examing steel in those first months after 9/11 there was no "Troother" sites on the Web, no conspiracy books yet written, no ghouls profiteering off the dead, so if one of them saw a strange looking piece of steel, its HIGHLY UNLIKELY one would say, "oh, I better cover this up, it could implicate the govt."

Thus unusual pieces like the "meteorite" are in the inventory because they are unusual and the one Biederman found WERE part of the FEMA report even though it would take until the NIST report came out to begin to make sense of that eaten up piece of steel.

Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 03:08 PM)
Arthur,

I am not sure what your descriptions of the columns are supposed to invoke, hence I don't know how to respond. Please clarify.


Sure:

User posted image

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ionimage017.jpg

User posted image


http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...te/trusscon.jpg


now

Consider that the columns were 3 stories.
Consider that the bolt hole openings were ONLY at the bottom/tops of the 3 story columns and thus the openings are at the middle of the WINDOW level.
Consider that only the bottom bolt hole openings were at all close to the Gussets for the Visco Elastic Dampers
Consider that the columns were Staggered such that only every 9 columns would have the bottom holes anywhere near the Gussets.

As to your points:

QUOTE (Max+)
As to access:

Perimeter column splices: No more than 120 needed to be accessed. (That's just the maximum theoretical number.) The real number was probably less than half of that. Column splices are 2/3 up windows. The bolt-access-holes were NOT welded shut. The webs and flanges are thin. Access was not difficult.

Spandrel splices gaps: The spandrels rose 13" above the floors. The spandrel splice plates only 12". This left a 1" gap into which one could simply pour thermite into the spandrel splice gap. Access was not difficult.

Top chords at the truss seats: Two floor trusses juxtaposed per truss seat. Where the top chords of two trusses met, a horizontal rectangular tube formed. I claim thermite was places in these tubes (and not directly on the truss seats). This was accessible through truss seat access openings in the floors. Access was not difficult.

Gusset seats: Gusset seats were just inches above the ceiling tiles. Simply remove one tile. Access was not difficult.


Only every THIRD column tree had accessible bolt holes at window height (per floor) but access was NOT easy. They had sprayed on insulation and then whatever office interior the client wanted over that.

Please see the Spandrels and point out this 1" gap that you are referring to.

The two trusse did make a tube and access was not difficult, but damage here would have caused the floors to disconnect and thus they couldn't pull in on the exterior columns, which they clearly did.

While access to the VD gusset seat would not be difficult, severing the Visco-Damper gusset seat would have zip impact on the structure.


Arthur
David B. Benson
Max Photon --- I do my very best to be a Bayesian.
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 08:57 PM)
Just the opposite.

Seeing a piece of unusual looking steel is a LONG way from coming up with any theory as to how it got in that condition and when the scientists were examining steel in those first months after 9/11 there was no "Troother" sites on the Web, no conspiracy books yet written, no ghouls profiteering off the dead, so if one of them saw a strange looking piece of steel, its HIGHLY UNLIKELY one would say, "oh, I better cover this up, it could implicate the govt."

Thus unusual pieces like the "meteorite" are in the inventory because they are unusual and the one Biederman found WERE part of the FEMA report even though it would take until the NIST report came out to begin to make sense of that eaten up piece of steel.

Arthur

Arthur,

I in no way meant to imply that steel examiners would see an unusual piece and cover it up.

I am simply saying is that their mindsets were probably such that they missed the evidence that the thermite heating would have produced.

I was looking at the works of a couple of Wharton marketing professors. Bear in mind Wharton has arguably the top marketing department on earth, and these folks know a lot about perception and expectation engineering.

Here's their current grand unified field theory:

People see what they expect to see, not what is really there.

Indeed.

Steel examiners saw what they expected to see, not what was really there.


Military-deception is but marketing - weaponized.


By the way, any investigation of military-deception (MILDEC) is a teleological problem, not a scientific problem. If one doesn't understand this, one is lost.

Max
Max Photon
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 3 2008, 09:22 PM)
Max Photon --- I do my very best to be a Bayesian.

I'll be watchian.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 02:38 PM)
Steel examiners saw what they expected to see, not what was really there.

Not so.

Nobody expected to see the 'swiss-cheese' steel.

Nobody expected to see the accordioned wall column.
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 09:03 PM)
Sure:

User posted image

http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...ionimage017.jpg

User posted image


http://i117.photobucket.com/albums/o72/ard...te/trusscon.jpg


now

Consider that the columns were 3 stories.
Consider that the bolt hole openings were ONLY at the bottom/tops of the 3 story columns and thus the openings are at the middle of the WINDOW level.
Consider that only the bottom bolt hole openings were at all close to the Gussets for the Visco Elastic Dampers
Consider that the columns were Staggered such that only every 9 columns would have the bottom holes anywhere near the Gussets.

As to your points:

QUOTE (Max+)
As to access:

Perimeter column splices: No more than 120 needed to be accessed. (That's just the maximum theoretical number.) The real number was probably less than half of that. Column splices are 2/3 up windows. The bolt-access-holes were NOT welded shut. The webs and flanges are thin. Access was not difficult.

Spandrel splices gaps: The spandrels rose 13" above the floors. The spandrel splice plates only 12". This left a 1" gap into which one could simply pour thermite into the spandrel splice gap. Access was not difficult.

Top chords at the truss seats: Two floor trusses juxtaposed per truss seat. Where the top chords of two trusses met, a horizontal rectangular tube formed. I claim thermite was places in these tubes (and not directly on the truss seats). This was accessible through truss seat access openings in the floors. Access was not difficult.

Gusset seats: Gusset seats were just inches above the ceiling tiles. Simply remove one tile. Access was not difficult.


Only every THIRD column tree had accessible bolt holes at window height (per floor) but access was NOT easy. They had sprayed on insulation and then whatever office interior the client wanted over that.

Please see the Spandrels and point out this 1" gap that you are referring to.

The two trusse did make a tube and access was not difficult, but damage here would have caused the floors to disconnect and thus they couldn't pull in on the exterior columns, which they clearly did.

While access to the VD gusset seat would not be difficult, severing the Visco-Damper gusset seat would have zip impact on the structure.


Arthur

Arthur,

About the column bolt-access-holes only being every third tree on a floor, yes, I know that.

To heat-weaken - for example - perimeter columns along one face, three floors would be involved.

(Incidentally, it's good to remember that the 3-storey panels spanned 4 floors.)


About the column bolt-access-holes being covered by fire protection and decorative facades - well at least they are not welded shut, as some have argued.

My model does require some - by hardly overwhelming - "work" to be done.

And that "work" would be in office spaces.


To your points about the column bolt-access-holes' positions relative to gussets - you are confusing a couple of ideas, so allow me to untangle them.

Thermite planted inside box columns would be to heat the column bolts, or a small cross-section of the column. Thermite planted inside box columns would not be for affecting the dampers.

Thermite planted at the gusset seats - wrapped in paper and black plastic - and in an amount that would only heat the gusset, but ignite the damper - is what accounts for the 7 major smoke releases from WTC2, all 1 minute long +/- a few seconds. (See NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C, page 409 (nominal), table 9.4)

The serial ignition of the planted thermite by thermite fuse accounts for the "coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs" as described in the same report. Note that the report says that these phenomena (and others) are correlated.

My model explains these phenomena better than NIST's model

NIST says the major smoke releases are burning pools of jet fuel (all perfectly equally sized for your convenience).

NIST has no explanation for who's playing the steam driven pipe organ.

NIST's...inadequacies...become more apparent if you actually READ the report.


WRT spandrel splice gaps and the little 1" access holes. Well, you can almost see them in your photo, but unfortunately the splice plates are not bolted down yet.

For photos, see this link (If you read the text, please note that much has changed over time. I am presenting this link for the photos.)


In these photos you can see that:

- Spandrels did not touch, but rather, had a gap between them;

- Spandrel splice plates sandwiched the gap, and created a slender vertical tube;

- Spandrel splice plates are shorter than the spandrels are wide;

- This creates a small hole, through which the spandrel splice gap "tube" could be filled with thermite.


On to the trusses: you picked the perfect image!!!

For other readers, look at the RH image. Look between the words "gusset" and "Section X-X". Do you see how two top chords juxtapose to create a rectangular tube?

Thermite was planted in the "tubes," wrapped in paper and black plastic. (Note that the black plastic burning helps mask the white aluminum oxide. Thermite at gussets was masked by the black smoke from the dampers, and the black plastic wrap.

See this post for a discussion of NIST recovered steel member N8, which reveals NIST's one necessary exposure of evidence of planted thermite, and thermite fuse (previously called thermite-dusted shock-tube).

Arthur, the thermite planted at truss top chords was not intended to make the floors disconnect from the spandrels, but rather, would help the floors to sag near the spandrel.

WRT dampers, I know they are not load bearing. But NIST says, and Neu-Fonze agreed (if I understood him correctly) that compromised dampers destabilized the floor membranes.

I suspect if the top chords were heated, the floors would be more prone to sagging if the dampers were burned away first.

By the way, the burning of thermite at gussets, and the burning of dampers as a consequence, sure fits NIST's observations of fires along the tops of windows. That might be better phrased as at the bottom of spandrels!

Max
Max Photon
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 3 2008, 10:13 PM)
Not so.

Nobody expected to see the 'swiss-cheese' steel.

Nobody expected to see the accordioned wall column.

Do you honestly believe examiners were equally open to INSIDE JOB, as they were TERRORIST ATTACK?

This is a very simple question: Was there bias or not?


By the way, about the swiss cheese and accordian (sounds like a fondu party), just so we're on the same page, which recovered members are you referring to?


Max
adoucette
So Max, when are you going to produce ANY EVIDENCE to support all of your speculations?

Because one can speculate all you want, but ultimately you need some proof.

Considering the relative sizes of those openings and the numbers that you speculate, it would be apparent that there would be hundreds of thermite affected/melted pieces in the debris.

Considering the large number of pictures taken of the debris at GZ do you have ONE that supports your theory?

Arthur
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 11:02 PM)
So Max, when are you going to produce ANY EVIDENCE to support all of your speculations?

Because one can speculate all you want, but ultimately you need some proof.

Considering the relative sizes of those openings and the numbers that you speculate, it would be apparent that there would be hundreds of thermite affected/melted pieces in the debris.

Considering the large number of pictures taken of the debris at GZ do you have ONE that supports your theory?

Arthur

I have produced evidence Arthur.

You simple choose not to see it as such, which is very strange because the evidence is the collective set of observations, and is the same regardless of the model being fitted to it.

You think NIST's model fits the observations the best.

I disagree. I think my model, which is NIST's model but augmented with incendiaries, fits the observations better.

Your charge of NO EVIDENCE is very ... JREF.

Max
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 05:46 PM)
WRT spandrel splice gaps and the little 1" access holes. Well, you can almost see them in your photo, but unfortunately the splice plates are not bolted down yet.

For photos, see this link (If you read the text, please note that much has changed over time. I am presenting this link for the photos.)


In these photos you can see that:

- Spandrels did not touch, but rather, had a gap between them;

- Spandrel splice plates sandwiched the gap, and created a slender vertical tube;

- Spandrel splice plates are shorter than the spandrels are wide;

- This creates a small hole, through which the spandrel splice gap "tube" could be filled with thermite.



Except, as NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Table 2-1 shows, the thickness at the impact zones of the spandrel plates was but 3/8". They give no dimension for how far the spandrels were apart from each other, but viewing the pics I'd guess its ~ 1/2" to 3/4".

Thus your TUBE is but 3/8" wide x 3/4" wide by 52" long.

So the question that YOU have to answer Max, is WHAT thermal impact would that SMALL amount of Thermite have in a VERTICAL tube of those dimensions?

Remember thermite burns fairly quickly so the impact is going to be MAINLY at the bottom of the tube.

Arthur

Grumpy
Max Photon

Occam's razor only informs us not to add entities beyond what is needed to explain the evidence. Your "theory" not only adds unneeded entities(thermite charges+nets of det/ignition cord on every floor) but also adds entities which can not possibly exist(the Invisible Ninja Thermite Fairies) who had the job of placing all these unnecessary thermite charges and networks of fuses totally unseen and unnoticed by those working on the affected floors. Especially on the bolted flanges of the external frames, which were a particularly important part of the inspection of the steel, surveys having been done on the failure modes of the bolts and flanges, and NONE of which failed due to excess heat, as your theory posits.

Your answer to my post was just a cover for the fact that you have no evidence for your inane assertions, meaning that, at best, they are just baseless, useless speculations, nothing more.

Grumpy cool.gif
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 3 2008, 11:38 PM)
Except, as NIST NCSTAR 1-3C Table 2-1 shows, the thickness at the impact zones of the spandrel plates was but 3/8". They give no dimension for how far the spandrels were apart from each other, but viewing the pics I'd guess its ~ 1/2" to 3/4".

Thus your TUBE is but 3/8" wide x 3/4" wide by 52" long.

So the question that YOU have to answer Max, is WHAT thermal impact would that SMALL amount of Thermite have in a VERTICAL tube of those dimensions?

Remember thermite burns fairly quickly so the impact is going to be MAINLY at the bottom of the tube.

Arthur

Arthur, quick quiz just to see how you are coming along...

If thermite were planted in spandrel splice gaps and ignited right before and during collapse, the thermal impact would:

a.) strengthen the splice plate?

b.) weaken the splice plate?


You will be graded.
Max Photon
David / Arthur,

Please answer me honestly.

1.) Did you ever seriously consider demolition by heat-weakening?

2.) Do you know of any of the big hitters - true experts able to comment on the WTCs - who seriously considered demolition by heat-weakening?

Max
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 03:51 PM)
Do you honestly believe examiners were equally open to INSIDE JOB, as they were TERRORIST ATTACK?

By the way, about the swiss cheese and accordian[sic] (sounds like a fondu[sic] party), just so we're on the same page, which recovered members are you referring to?

I know some Professional Engineers, an earned title. All are members of ASCE. I am sure that the steel examiners were of the same quality. They would just look at the failure mode of the steel and, I am quite certain, did not (professionally) speculate upon what caused the failure.

NCSTAR1-3B is the Steel Inventory. You can find the accordioned external column in there, since it is where I found it. The 'swiss-cheesed' piece of steel is all over the web, since various RCTers have attempted to make much ought of the fact that no immediate funding could be made available to study it. I believe it was found in WTC 7 clean-up. If so, it would not be part of the WTC 1 & 2 steel inventory.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 04:56 PM)
1.) Did you ever seriously consider demolition by heat-weakening?

2.) Do you know of any of the big hitters - true experts able to comment on the WTCs - who seriously considered demolition by heat-weakening?

1.) If by demolition, you mean collapse, yes, because

2.) That is what NIST states as a main conclusion: damage + fire, neither alone would do it.
Max Photon
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 12:02 AM)
1.) If by demolition, you mean collapse, yes, because

2.) That is what NIST states as a main conclusion: damage + fire, neither alone would do it.

David, your response seems very JREF.

I consider it a non-answer.

I'd appreciate an answer without my having to reword the obvious.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 05:05 PM)
David, your response seems very JREF.

I consider it a non-answer.

I'd appreciate an answer without my having to reword the obvious.

That's certainly insulting. wink.gif

No, you don't. The inference should be clear.

Your hypothesis is not exactly a demolition, so it isn't completely clear what you are asking. (This method of communicating is fairly low bandwidth.) If you were asking whether I had previously considered your hypothesis, then my answer is the same as NIST would provide: There is no evidence, so no point in considered such a complex plot.
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 06:56 PM)
David / Arthur,

Please answer me honestly.

1.) Did you ever seriously consider demolition by heat-weakening?

2.) Do you know of any of the big hitters - true experts able to comment on the WTCs - who seriously considered demolition by heat-weakening?

Max

Max, if you mean demolition by heat-weakening as you have described it (i.e. thermite at various joints that goes off just prior to collapse), then no, I'd never seriously considered it until you presented it as a hypothesis.

Can't speak for anyone else but myself.

So far you have provided ZIP evidence that would motivate me (or I imagine anyone) to spend more then a few moments dismissing it as foolish and without a shred of merit.

That is even ignoring that the starting hypothesis, that it wasn't an American and United 767 and that there were NO HIJACKERS, is downright silly.

Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 06:52 PM)
Arthur, quick quiz just to see how you are coming along...

If thermite were planted in spandrel splice gaps and ignited right before and during collapse, the thermal impact would:

a.) strengthen the splice plate?

b.) weaken the splice plate?


You will be graded.

Of course it would heat the splice plate and in doing so it would be somewhat weaker.

Of course, how much it would do so is the real question isn't it?.

Your implication is that WITHOUT this weakening the towers would have stood.

Thus its up to YOU to show the impact of this trivial amount of thermate on these structures was CRUCIAL.

Arthur
RealityCheck
QUOTE (adoucette to Max Photon+Jan 4 2008, 12:29 AM)
Of course it would heat the splice plate and in doing so it would be somewhat weaker.

Of course, how much it would do so is the real question isn't it?.

Your implication is that WITHOUT this weakening the towers would have stood.

Thus its up to YOU to show the impact of this trivial amount of thermate on these structures was CRUCIAL.

Arthur



Hi all. Just passing by again. Question re thermite in those quantities/places:...

Wouldn't those small amounts between such closely-spaced edges etc just result in a WELD?

See y'all next time!

RC.
.
Max Photon
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 12:16 AM)
That's certainly insulting.  wink.gif

No, you don't.  The inference should be clear.

Your hypothesis is not exactly a demolition, so it isn't completely clear what you are asking.  (This method of communicating is fairly low bandwidth.)  If you were asking whether I can previously considered your hypothesis, then my answer is the same as NIST would provide:  There is no evidence, so no point in considered such a complex plot.

Sorry David, I meant to be descriptive, not insulting.

I will try a different angle...

Numerous CD models have "floated" around.

Thermite was but one.

My impression is that the emotionally-potent oversimplification THERMITE=CUTTING has completely dominated everyone's thinking. That is to say, people ONLY considered demolition using thermite from a cutting perspective.

However, I don't believe any of the major players ever considered demolition using thermite to heat-weaken the steel, and fuel some of the fires.

Thermite used to cut is completely at odds with the NIST Report.

Thermite used to heat-weaken is harmonious with the NIST Report.

(MAX-MIHOP is actually just a different interpretation of the NIST Report.)


So my question is, when you (or others) considered demolition by thermite, before you rejected it, did you consider thermite to cut (obviously yes), AND thermite to heat-weaken (I suspect no)?

If you never considered controlled demolition using thermite to heat-weaken the towers, perhaps you dimissed it prematurely. Perhaps everyone dismissed controlled demolition using thermite prematurely.

Max
David B. Benson
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 3 2008, 05:38 PM)
Sorry David, I meant to be descriptive, not insulting.

... thermite to heat-weaken ...

It was meant to be light-hearted. De nada.

You'll have to prove this is possible. Probably Chainsaw has done the experiment to show it cannot be done.

Irrespective of that, it seems that part of your hypothesis is that the aircraft were remote-controlled. That's just blink.gif
Max Photon
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 4 2008, 12:52 AM)
It was meant to be light-hearted.  De nada.

You'll have to prove this is possible.  Probably Chainsaw has done the experiment to show it cannot be done.

Irrespective of that, it seems that part of your hypothesis is that the aircraft were remote-controlled.  That's just  blink.gif

I'm still waiting for an answer.

The question is just two storeys above my name.


ETA: I do appreciate that you were being light-hearted. Thank you.
Max Photon
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 4 2008, 12:29 AM)
Of course it would heat the splice plate and in doing so it would be somewhat weaker.

Of course, how much it would do so is the real question isn't it?.

Your implication is that WITHOUT this weakening the towers would have stood.

Thus its up to YOU to show the impact of this trivial amount of thermate on these structures was CRUCIAL.

Arthur

Your implication is that WITHOUT this weakening the towers would have stood.


WRONG!

I am saying thermite was collapse insurance. The towers very likely would have collapsed without supplementary catalysts, but...

look at it this way...

Suppose we had 100 WTCs, and we crashed 100 jets into them, and observed what happened.

What would we see?

Well, given that the impacts will vary, the damage will vary, the ventilation will vary, the fire progressions will vary, and so forth, I'd expect to see different behaviors of the towers.

I'd expect a spectrum of behaviors.

I'd expect cases where the towers collapsed immediately.

I'd expect cases where the towers stood indefinitely.

I'd expect a spectrum of collapse times for the collapse cases.

There could be partial collapses.

So, demolition planners realized - using simple analytical methods like Neu-Fonze's - that total collapse was highly likely, but it was not guaranteed.

By overlaying a progressive heat-weakening scheme on the natural fire progressions - a heat-weakening scheme that was sure to exceed criticality - demolition planners guaranteed total collapse AND cloaked the arson in fire.

Max Clean-Air System
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.