adoucette,
The slow-mo video does not prove the pancake collapse theory - it only makes the idea of it seem more convincing (as I see it) because that video is in slow motion.
Yes, I do get your point about the difference between hearing explosions and being mistaken about them. Which is why I quoted several bits of supporting evidence. The squibs in the pictures for example, the firemen saying they could take the fire down at 1 point in the building with 2 lines etc. There is also fireman's testimony to the dust cloud popping out of each floor. There is also the pulverisation of building material - also not explained by pancake collapse.
This is all repitition - yet again.
Regards
Andrew
QUOTE
Just remember, three skyscrapers fell into their footprint in under 12 seconds.
Skyscrapers do that, they fall down!!
Skyscrapers do that, they fall down!!
Manifespo, Just to clarify a small discrepancy... Only one of the three buildings (WTC 7) fell into it's footprint. This is a mark of IMPLOSIVE demolition.
The twin towers did not fall into their 'footprint' (although close to)... see the FEMA diagram above in this thread. This was a mark of EXPLOSIVE demolition.
metamars, I don't know whether you are receiving notices from the ApolloHoax board (I don't seem to get any), but in case you haven't noticed JayUtah has made a reply to your question there.
arthur I have answered your bullet/ball/watermelon nonsense above, and when I find the time will address your more intelligent post regarding the slow motion video later.
Andrew Still correct, no one seems capable of addressing the rate of free fall quantitatively and scientifically yet (because it can't be done to fit the official fairy tale.
frater Please don't feed the Trolls
(Type into Google > Troll < quite a good article at wikipedia).QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Nov 5 2005, 12:02 AM)
adoucette,
The slow-mo video does not prove the pancake collapse theory - it only makes the idea of it seem more convincing (as I see it) because that video is in slow motion.
Yes, I do get your point about the difference between hearing explosions and being mistaken about them. Which is why I quoted several bits of supporting evidence. The squibs in the pictures for example, the firemen saying they could take the fire down at 1 point in the building with 2 lines etc. There is also fireman's testimony to the dust cloud popping out of each floor. There is also the pulverisation of building material - also not explained by pancake collapse.
This is all repitition - yet again.
Regards
Andrew
Slow motion doesn't negate the fact that the tower is collapsing towards this corner and there is NOTHING to even suggest an explosion prior to the tower tilting over and starting down.
Even when the tower is clearly falling at a good rate (even in slow motion it is moving fairly quickly), there is STILL no evidence of an explosion.
WORSE, for your argument, is there is NO WAY, explosives could still be usable on the floors that were burning. While it is true that a number of explosives won't go off without a shock from a blasting cap. Blasting caps DO explode when heated, so even if the primary charge is not temp sensitive, the blasting caps are.
They would have ALL gone off on the floors near the impact zone well prior to the collapse.
Explosive ABOVE the failure point can't explain the collapse and it is CLEAR that the structure is not solid below the failure point yet no explosives have gone off in that area.
The ONE place they could have possibly created the scene on the Video, is the ONE place they couldn't survive.
As to the "squibs", first you have NO PROOF they WERE squibs. Equally importantly, squibs fire off charges, but there is NO EVIDENCE of larger explosions.
Additionally it makes NO SENSE to have as few "squibs" as you claim from the videos, as the previous data on the controlled demolition suggests, one would need THOUSANDS of these, and there is NO evidence of that. Of course one could say they used less, say in the hundreds, but if so they would have had to be larger individual charges, and again, there is no evidence of that either, as the larger the charge the more obvious they would be.
We've SEEN the video of the fires, anyone saying they could take the fire down with one or two hoses was speaking of ONE SECTION of the fire. NO FIREMAN could have seen it all, it was just too extensive for that kind of reconnaissance.
Of course as it PISTONED down, dust would pop out of each floor, So?
I do believe the pulverization was covered quite well earlier. The total kinetic force was certainly sufficient to pulverize the concrete. I find it quite weird that you argue this point. Charges to demolish the building ARE NOT aimed at pulverizing the concrete, but in SEVERING LOAD BEARING MEMBERS. Even IF it was brought down by explosives, the explosives would NOT be used to pulverize the concrete. So, the concrete WAS pulverized, thus there was enough energy in the COLLAPSE to do so.
Arthur
The slow-mo video does not prove the pancake collapse theory - it only makes the idea of it seem more convincing (as I see it) because that video is in slow motion.
Yes, I do get your point about the difference between hearing explosions and being mistaken about them. Which is why I quoted several bits of supporting evidence. The squibs in the pictures for example, the firemen saying they could take the fire down at 1 point in the building with 2 lines etc. There is also fireman's testimony to the dust cloud popping out of each floor. There is also the pulverisation of building material - also not explained by pancake collapse.
This is all repitition - yet again.
Regards
Andrew
Slow motion doesn't negate the fact that the tower is collapsing towards this corner and there is NOTHING to even suggest an explosion prior to the tower tilting over and starting down.
Even when the tower is clearly falling at a good rate (even in slow motion it is moving fairly quickly), there is STILL no evidence of an explosion.
WORSE, for your argument, is there is NO WAY, explosives could still be usable on the floors that were burning. While it is true that a number of explosives won't go off without a shock from a blasting cap. Blasting caps DO explode when heated, so even if the primary charge is not temp sensitive, the blasting caps are.
They would have ALL gone off on the floors near the impact zone well prior to the collapse.
Explosive ABOVE the failure point can't explain the collapse and it is CLEAR that the structure is not solid below the failure point yet no explosives have gone off in that area.
The ONE place they could have possibly created the scene on the Video, is the ONE place they couldn't survive.
As to the "squibs", first you have NO PROOF they WERE squibs. Equally importantly, squibs fire off charges, but there is NO EVIDENCE of larger explosions.
Additionally it makes NO SENSE to have as few "squibs" as you claim from the videos, as the previous data on the controlled demolition suggests, one would need THOUSANDS of these, and there is NO evidence of that. Of course one could say they used less, say in the hundreds, but if so they would have had to be larger individual charges, and again, there is no evidence of that either, as the larger the charge the more obvious they would be.
We've SEEN the video of the fires, anyone saying they could take the fire down with one or two hoses was speaking of ONE SECTION of the fire. NO FIREMAN could have seen it all, it was just too extensive for that kind of reconnaissance.
Of course as it PISTONED down, dust would pop out of each floor, So?
I do believe the pulverization was covered quite well earlier. The total kinetic force was certainly sufficient to pulverize the concrete. I find it quite weird that you argue this point. Charges to demolish the building ARE NOT aimed at pulverizing the concrete, but in SEVERING LOAD BEARING MEMBERS. Even IF it was brought down by explosives, the explosives would NOT be used to pulverize the concrete. So, the concrete WAS pulverized, thus there was enough energy in the COLLAPSE to do so.
Arthur
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 5 2005, 12:19 AM)
arthur I have answered your bullet/ball/watermelon nonsense above, and when I find the time will address your more intelligent post regarding the slow motion video later.
You mean your NON-ANSWERS are to be considered ANSWERS?
That is weird, even for you.
Arthur
HEY MR ADOUCETTE...
DON'T YOU KNOW THAT NON-ANSWERS ARE CONSIDERED "NORMAL" FOR CONSPIRACY-CONSPIRATORS....?? SO FOXXY AIN'T WEIRD.....JUST SEEMS THAT WAY TO ALL US NON-CONSPIRACY-CONSPIRATORS! MAN, THE NUTJOB FACTORIES MUST BE GOING FULL STEAM!!!!
oh, for those wondering why some guests don't register and give real names....I mean, man, would you want one of these nutjobs on YOUR tail?...especially considering how they react to anyone who disagrees with whatever fashionable raving lunatic script they just bought from the highly profitable 'conspiracy stores' selling everything from area51, to moonlanding to little green men conspiracies to gullible sheep with more money than brains to count it. Sad. See you next time I'm back this way, MR A. For some of us its too depressing to stay more than the few minutes it takes to catch up with 'which weirdo is being the weirdest' in these threads. toodles all.
DON'T YOU KNOW THAT NON-ANSWERS ARE CONSIDERED "NORMAL" FOR CONSPIRACY-CONSPIRATORS....?? SO FOXXY AIN'T WEIRD.....JUST SEEMS THAT WAY TO ALL US NON-CONSPIRACY-CONSPIRATORS! MAN, THE NUTJOB FACTORIES MUST BE GOING FULL STEAM!!!!
oh, for those wondering why some guests don't register and give real names....I mean, man, would you want one of these nutjobs on YOUR tail?...especially considering how they react to anyone who disagrees with whatever fashionable raving lunatic script they just bought from the highly profitable 'conspiracy stores' selling everything from area51, to moonlanding to little green men conspiracies to gullible sheep with more money than brains to count it. Sad. See you next time I'm back this way, MR A. For some of us its too depressing to stay more than the few minutes it takes to catch up with 'which weirdo is being the weirdest' in these threads. toodles all.
Here one important article that isn't online:
Death Care Business Advisor
October 3, 2002
New York medical examiner continues efforts to identify remains;
New DNA profiling may help establish victim identities
SECTION: Terrorist attack; Vol. 7, No. 7
LENGTH: 607 words
Even though its been more than a year since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, New York City's medical examiner continues to verify the identities of many of the dead.Robert Shaler, the director of forensic biology, said the office is committed to identifying as many victims as possible because of the importance of doing so to the families of the missing people.Shaler said it's also important to the medical examiner's office to end the uncertainty for as many families as possible, enabling them to hold funerals.
Andrew Boucher, a funeral director at Boucher Funeral Home in Gardner, Mass., said the relatives of the missing are "still hoping for proof of death." Boucher, who worked at the medical examiner's office early this year, said families just need to know their loved ones are actually dead. "I've never experienced that," he said. "Most people hope for proof of life."The remains of 1,401 WTC victims have been positively identified. An additional 1,400 are missing. Near Washington, 184 people were killed when hijackers crashed American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon. United Airlines flight 93 crashed into a field near Pittsburgh, killing 40 people. The total death toll from Sept. 11 was 3,025 - not including the 19 terrorists. Different DNA testing used
Boucher said he was really struck by how hard the medical examiner's office worked to identify people. In the cooler, there were rows and rows of remains in bags, stacked up, he said. It didn't matter if the deceased were janitors or CEOs, he said. "The city was strongly determined to find out the identities of these people. It was just another lesson - we're all equal in death." In New York, 655 people were identified using the standard comparison of mitochondrial DNA from remains with samples provided by relatives. The technique requires DNA fragments of at least 400 base pairs long, but the intensity of the WTC fire and collapse incinerated or badly degraded much of the DNA. It is believed over half the 20,000 remains recovered have insufficient DNA, so officials are trying a different type of DNA comparison.The medical examiner's office realized that single nucleotide polymorphism analysis could be done with DNA sections less than 100 base pairs long. That realization came while working on sexual assault cases in which DNA samples were collected with kits made by Orchid Cellmark of Princeton, N.J.
"We were all astounded at how high a proportion of those samples were giving us perfectly interpretable profiles," said executive director Mark Stolorow.How the process worksSingle nucleotide polymorphisms are single-base differences in DNA. Medical researchers use them to determine the genetic basis for different responses to medications. Comparing 48 single nucleotide polymorphism markers in two DNA samples is sufficient to make a positive identification, Stolorow said."It is rare to encounter such a large proportion of heavily decomposed DNA in a forensic environment, and it would be presumptuous to say what proportion of samples are going to be successfully tested," Stolorow said. However, with this testing method, he expects the analysis of the WTC remains could be complete within about six months. Stolorow said it is impossible to predict how many people will be identified from the remains.
"We have to bear in mind that many of the individuals who were located in the WTC towers above the impact point were subjected to temperatures higher than cremation temperatures," Stolorow said. "Many of these people may never be identified because they were incinerated."
LOAD-DATE: October 3, 2002
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
Copyright 2002 LRP Publications [B][/B]
Death Care Business Advisor
October 3, 2002
New York medical examiner continues efforts to identify remains;
New DNA profiling may help establish victim identities
SECTION: Terrorist attack; Vol. 7, No. 7
LENGTH: 607 words
Even though its been more than a year since the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, New York City's medical examiner continues to verify the identities of many of the dead.Robert Shaler, the director of forensic biology, said the office is committed to identifying as many victims as possible because of the importance of doing so to the families of the missing people.Shaler said it's also important to the medical examiner's office to end the uncertainty for as many families as possible, enabling them to hold funerals.
Andrew Boucher, a funeral director at Boucher Funeral Home in Gardner, Mass., said the relatives of the missing are "still hoping for proof of death." Boucher, who worked at the medical examiner's office early this year, said families just need to know their loved ones are actually dead. "I've never experienced that," he said. "Most people hope for proof of life."The remains of 1,401 WTC victims have been positively identified. An additional 1,400 are missing. Near Washington, 184 people were killed when hijackers crashed American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon. United Airlines flight 93 crashed into a field near Pittsburgh, killing 40 people. The total death toll from Sept. 11 was 3,025 - not including the 19 terrorists. Different DNA testing used
Boucher said he was really struck by how hard the medical examiner's office worked to identify people. In the cooler, there were rows and rows of remains in bags, stacked up, he said. It didn't matter if the deceased were janitors or CEOs, he said. "The city was strongly determined to find out the identities of these people. It was just another lesson - we're all equal in death." In New York, 655 people were identified using the standard comparison of mitochondrial DNA from remains with samples provided by relatives. The technique requires DNA fragments of at least 400 base pairs long, but the intensity of the WTC fire and collapse incinerated or badly degraded much of the DNA. It is believed over half the 20,000 remains recovered have insufficient DNA, so officials are trying a different type of DNA comparison.The medical examiner's office realized that single nucleotide polymorphism analysis could be done with DNA sections less than 100 base pairs long. That realization came while working on sexual assault cases in which DNA samples were collected with kits made by Orchid Cellmark of Princeton, N.J.
"We were all astounded at how high a proportion of those samples were giving us perfectly interpretable profiles," said executive director Mark Stolorow.How the process worksSingle nucleotide polymorphisms are single-base differences in DNA. Medical researchers use them to determine the genetic basis for different responses to medications. Comparing 48 single nucleotide polymorphism markers in two DNA samples is sufficient to make a positive identification, Stolorow said."It is rare to encounter such a large proportion of heavily decomposed DNA in a forensic environment, and it would be presumptuous to say what proportion of samples are going to be successfully tested," Stolorow said. However, with this testing method, he expects the analysis of the WTC remains could be complete within about six months. Stolorow said it is impossible to predict how many people will be identified from the remains.
"We have to bear in mind that many of the individuals who were located in the WTC towers above the impact point were subjected to temperatures higher than cremation temperatures," Stolorow said. "Many of these people may never be identified because they were incinerated."
LOAD-DATE: October 3, 2002
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
Copyright 2002 LRP Publications [B][/B]
QUOTE
metamars, I don't know whether you are receiving notices from the ApolloHoax board (I don't seem to get any), but in case you haven't noticed JayUtah has made a reply to your question there.
I don't get email, either. Really, it should be an option, as it is on the Randi Rhodes forum. Another thing these forums should have turned on is an Outline Mode option. Not having that forces us to do a lot of quoting.
Have posted some additional questions there.
QUOTE (Andrew Johnson+Nov 4 2005, 10:25 PM)
the basic physics to which I refer has still not been properly addressed by anyone.
The point is that basic physics DOES NOT APPLY to huge collapsing structures. There are simply too many forces involved.
For a simple example, say you drop a rotating baton. It's true that the center of mass of the baton will fall according to 1/2*g*t^2, but you can't apply that to all the particles in the baton - the end of the baton that is rotating towards the ground will be falling "faster than freefall" and the end of the baton that is rotating away from the ground will be falling "slower than freefall". This isn't because basic physics is wrong, it's because there are an almost infinite number of internal forces in the baton that will make some sections fall at different speeds, so it's not truly freefall.
I'm also reminded of the true story of my friend Chris, who had just learned basic physics. He calculated that, even allowing for a good amount of air resistance, etc., he should easily be able to jump from the roof of his porch to the roof of his neighbor's porch. Unfortunately, he ended up smacking his chin right into his neighbor's roof and painfully learning the lesson that basic physics has limited application to extended bodies like people.
Anyway, the point is that I think you'll have a hard time arguing that a collapsing skyscraper can be modeled as a particle falling at 1/2*g*t^2. And even if you do want to make some very rough estimates using the equation, it's quite possible (as Bazant and Zhu suggest) that the resistance was small enough compared to the downward weight (their estimate was that the weight would be 8 times the resisting force) to cause a "near-freefall" time, within our rough approximation.
-Chris
P.S. I'm not the Chris in the story - I'm an electrical engineer, so I'm more into applied physics than jumping off roofs.
The point is that basic physics DOES NOT APPLY to huge collapsing structures. There are simply too many forces involved.
For a simple example, say you drop a rotating baton. It's true that the center of mass of the baton will fall according to 1/2*g*t^2, but you can't apply that to all the particles in the baton - the end of the baton that is rotating towards the ground will be falling "faster than freefall" and the end of the baton that is rotating away from the ground will be falling "slower than freefall". This isn't because basic physics is wrong, it's because there are an almost infinite number of internal forces in the baton that will make some sections fall at different speeds, so it's not truly freefall.
I'm also reminded of the true story of my friend Chris, who had just learned basic physics. He calculated that, even allowing for a good amount of air resistance, etc., he should easily be able to jump from the roof of his porch to the roof of his neighbor's porch. Unfortunately, he ended up smacking his chin right into his neighbor's roof and painfully learning the lesson that basic physics has limited application to extended bodies like people.
Anyway, the point is that I think you'll have a hard time arguing that a collapsing skyscraper can be modeled as a particle falling at 1/2*g*t^2. And even if you do want to make some very rough estimates using the equation, it's quite possible (as Bazant and Zhu suggest) that the resistance was small enough compared to the downward weight (their estimate was that the weight would be 8 times the resisting force) to cause a "near-freefall" time, within our rough approximation.
-Chris
P.S. I'm not the Chris in the story - I'm an electrical engineer, so I'm more into applied physics than jumping off roofs.
The point is that basic physics DOES NOT APPLY to huge collapsing structures.
Your example isn't very convincing. If you chuck a 1 kg baton horizonally from 100 ft in the air, and do the same with with a 1 kg brick, with the same force, if the baton lands in x seconds you can be confident that the brick should land in close to this time.
How much detail you need and how much you can safely subsume into your model depends on the situation.
Abstracting into a model where the mass is falling under constant acceleration, figuring out what this tells you about the forces of resistance, and then comparing to what is known about the strength of the building column might be a useful approximation if your main goal is to figure out whether or not explosives were used.
However, I agree that a definitive conclusion would necessitate not only a more detailed approach, but almost certainly a computer simulation. The greater detail would not only involve geometric structural considerations, but also the effects of fracturing. (I'm convinced global collapse is impossible without fracturing.*) If you have a system of more than 2 equations, what are the odds that you can solve analytically (in 1 human lifetime
? )
Luckily, Hoffman's paper shows that, utilizing basic physics/chemistry calculations the FEMA Fairy Tale violate conservation of energy, and it is not necessary to be concerned with the structural details. Modeling the pyroclastic flows on computer might change the energy budget somewhat that Hoffman indicates, but I'm not aware of anybody who seriously expects doing so would change the outcome much.
This is different than in the case of collapsing steel columns, because if they did fracture, without the use of explosives, you would not dissipate as much of the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass, so you might have enough left over to drive a global collapse. (I don't believe this to be the case, and even if it were, I believe it wouldn't happen nearly as quickly, but the reason for calculating these things is so that you don't have to believe.)
Your example isn't very convincing. If you chuck a 1 kg baton horizonally from 100 ft in the air, and do the same with with a 1 kg brick, with the same force, if the baton lands in x seconds you can be confident that the brick should land in close to this time.
How much detail you need and how much you can safely subsume into your model depends on the situation.
Abstracting into a model where the mass is falling under constant acceleration, figuring out what this tells you about the forces of resistance, and then comparing to what is known about the strength of the building column might be a useful approximation if your main goal is to figure out whether or not explosives were used.
However, I agree that a definitive conclusion would necessitate not only a more detailed approach, but almost certainly a computer simulation. The greater detail would not only involve geometric structural considerations, but also the effects of fracturing. (I'm convinced global collapse is impossible without fracturing.*) If you have a system of more than 2 equations, what are the odds that you can solve analytically (in 1 human lifetime
? )Luckily, Hoffman's paper shows that, utilizing basic physics/chemistry calculations the FEMA Fairy Tale violate conservation of energy, and it is not necessary to be concerned with the structural details. Modeling the pyroclastic flows on computer might change the energy budget somewhat that Hoffman indicates, but I'm not aware of anybody who seriously expects doing so would change the outcome much.
This is different than in the case of collapsing steel columns, because if they did fracture, without the use of explosives, you would not dissipate as much of the Kinetic Energy of the collapsing mass, so you might have enough left over to drive a global collapse. (I don't believe this to be the case, and even if it were, I believe it wouldn't happen nearly as quickly, but the reason for calculating these things is so that you don't have to believe.)
QUOTE
The point is that basic physics DOES NOT APPLY to huge collapsing structures.
There is another way that basic physics does apply. And that is to debunk particular explanations of the WTC collapse.
Matthys Levy is a founding partner of Weidlinger Associates, that studied the WTC collapses.. He is also author of "Why Buildings Fall Down".
He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing (I suppose he might have meant core + outer columns) "simultaneously"
But he has also said,
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point is that basic physics DOES NOT APPLY to huge collapsing structures. |
There is another way that basic physics does apply. And that is to debunk particular explanations of the WTC collapse.
Matthys Levy is a founding partner of Weidlinger Associates, that studied the WTC collapses.. He is also author of "Why Buildings Fall Down".
He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing (I suppose he might have meant core + outer columns) "simultaneously"
But he has also said,
"What happens to steel as a result of fire is that it loses its strength," explained Matthys Levy, a founding partner of Weidlinger Associates. "By the time the temperature inside the buildings reached 400 degrees, the steel would have lost approximately 50% of its strength. Eventually, gravity took over and the towers began to fall."
However, I have calculated how hot the steel of the WTC buildings could have gotten, assuming all energy from burning fuel went into the steel. It's been pointed out to me on this board that ignoring the heat energy from combustibles is not justified. However, even if you did take realistic estimates of combustibles into account, you still will not get anywhere near a 50% decrease in the strength of the steel, globally.
So, Levy is at least implying that failure of the columns is due to heat/softening, not fracturing, but the temperatures he suggests, on a global basis, can be easily debunked via basic physics. Thus, for Levy to be even half-right, you need to accept that fracturing (and "simultaneous" fracturing at that) must have been the failure mechanism.
I don't know how susceptible metal fracturing is to calculation, but I will be trying to find out.
QUOTE
"What happens to steel as a result of fire is that it loses its strength," explained Matthys Levy, a founding partner of Weidlinger Associates. "By the time the temperature inside the buildings reached 400 degrees, the steel would have lost approximately 50% of its strength. Eventually, gravity took over and the towers began to fall."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "What happens to steel as a result of fire is that it loses its strength," explained Matthys Levy, a founding partner of Weidlinger Associates. "By the time the temperature inside the buildings reached 400 degrees, the steel would have lost approximately 50% of its strength. Eventually, gravity took over and the towers began to fall." |
However, I have calculated how hot the steel of the WTC buildings could have gotten, assuming all energy from burning fuel went into the steel. It's been pointed out to me on this board that ignoring the heat energy from combustibles is not justified. However, even if you did take realistic estimates of combustibles into account, you still will not get anywhere near a 50% decrease in the strength of the steel, globally.
As I recall, your calculation was the energy needed to heat ALL the steel in the building.
Did you recalculate for the floors actually affected by the fire?
If so I missed it, post link.
Arthur
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 5 2005, 09:12 PM)
Your example isn't very convincing. If you chuck a 1 kg baton horizonally from 100 ft in the air, and do the same with with a 1 kg brick, with the same force, if the baton lands in x seconds you can be confident that the brick should land in close to this time.
Not necessarily - say the baton is 50 ft long and you drop it spinning from 100 ft. The end of the baton will hit the ground well before the center of mass of the baton gets to the ground, so the baton will hit the ground in less time than the brick. Of course, there weren't any 50 ft batons on 9/11, but the point is that freefall equations are only relevant with respect to the center of mass of an object. There's no way we can possibly determine the center of mass of this collapsing structure, so any measurement of "freefall time" should be taken with a grain of salt. I definitely agree that computer simulations would be more effective, but they may be hard to generate due to lack of info about exactly how much energy was in the aircraft, etc.
I'm not very impressed by Hoffman's paper - he completely ignores the energy input from the aircraft, and his modeling of a dust cloud as an ideal gas seems sketchy at best. The source he cites for the energy needed to smash the concrete sports the following disclaimer: "this analysis assumes that the concrete was mostly smashed when it hit the ground, which is most likely incorrect" and many of Hoffman's other statements have similar catches. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not an analysis that is self-described as "most likely incorrect"
-Chris
P.S. Your disclaimer about "the same force" suggests that you haven't taken physics in a while - the horizontal force would have no impact on the vertical drop time.
Not necessarily - say the baton is 50 ft long and you drop it spinning from 100 ft. The end of the baton will hit the ground well before the center of mass of the baton gets to the ground, so the baton will hit the ground in less time than the brick. Of course, there weren't any 50 ft batons on 9/11, but the point is that freefall equations are only relevant with respect to the center of mass of an object. There's no way we can possibly determine the center of mass of this collapsing structure, so any measurement of "freefall time" should be taken with a grain of salt. I definitely agree that computer simulations would be more effective, but they may be hard to generate due to lack of info about exactly how much energy was in the aircraft, etc.
I'm not very impressed by Hoffman's paper - he completely ignores the energy input from the aircraft, and his modeling of a dust cloud as an ideal gas seems sketchy at best. The source he cites for the energy needed to smash the concrete sports the following disclaimer: "this analysis assumes that the concrete was mostly smashed when it hit the ground, which is most likely incorrect" and many of Hoffman's other statements have similar catches. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not an analysis that is self-described as "most likely incorrect"
-Chris
P.S. Your disclaimer about "the same force" suggests that you haven't taken physics in a while - the horizontal force would have no impact on the vertical drop time.
QUOTE
As I recall, your calculation was the energy needed to heat ALL the steel in the building.
Correct. Levy has also stated that all the vertical columns failed simultaneously, like in "managed demolitions"
QUOTE
Not necessarily - say the baton is 50 ft long and you drop it spinning from 100 ft. The end of the baton will hit the ground well before the center of mass of the baton gets to the ground,
A typical baton is all of 18 inches or so. Assuming it struck in a completely vertical position, the delta in time is what you get by computing the center of mass falling an additional distance of less than 1% from the point of release. I don't call this "well before" the cm hits.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not necessarily - say the baton is 50 ft long and you drop it spinning from 100 ft. The end of the baton will hit the ground well before the center of mass of the baton gets to the ground, |
A typical baton is all of 18 inches or so. Assuming it struck in a completely vertical position, the delta in time is what you get by computing the center of mass falling an additional distance of less than 1% from the point of release. I don't call this "well before" the cm hits.
I'm not very impressed by Hoffman's paper - he completely ignores the energy input from the aircraft,
Do you have any idea of the relative energies involved?
QUOTE
and his modeling of a dust cloud as an ideal gas seems sketchy at best.
Not sure what you want from him. In a lab, we would have gasses in pistons, but the key idea is to find delta volume. He is not estimating volume down to the last cubic centimeter, and given his results, doesn't need to. What would you do to make the paper less sketchy, given that nobody is paying him to make exact measurements?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and his modeling of a dust cloud as an ideal gas seems sketchy at best. |
Not sure what you want from him. In a lab, we would have gasses in pistons, but the key idea is to find delta volume. He is not estimating volume down to the last cubic centimeter, and given his results, doesn't need to. What would you do to make the paper less sketchy, given that nobody is paying him to make exact measurements?
The source he cites for the energy needed to smash the concrete sports the following disclaimer: "this analysis assumes that the concrete was mostly smashed when it hit the ground, which is most likely incorrect"
If he makes assumptions in FEMA's favor, you have no cause for complaint, since he is trying to show them wrong. There is far less kinetic energy available at the top of the collapse to convert into work in grinding concrete. And you are complaining?
QUOTE
and many of Hoffman's other statements have similar catches.
Such as? And do they also favor FEMA, or do they favor Hoffman?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| and many of Hoffman's other statements have similar catches. |
Such as? And do they also favor FEMA, or do they favor Hoffman?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not an analysis that is self-described as "most likely incorrect"
Describing something as extraordinary is subjective, and depends largely on experience. I consider the official Fairy Tale versions of the collapses extraordinary. Where is your proof of your claim? And your side got $20 million to study the issue, and didn't bother showing how a local collapse could turn into a global collapse.
Tell me, don't you find that fact just a little extraordinary?
QUOTE
-Chris
P.S. Your disclaimer about "the same force" suggests that you haven't taken physics in a while - the horizontal force would have no impact on the vertical drop time.
I may have forgotten most of my physics, but definitely not that.
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 5 2005, 11:41 PM)
QUOTE
As I recall, your calculation was the energy needed to heat ALL the steel in the building.
Correct. Levy has also stated that all the vertical columns failed simultaneously, like in "managed demolitions"
Sorry, that assumption is ludicrous.
You take the LOCAL fire and use the energy applied to the steel in the ENTIRE structure, to make your case that there wasn't enough energy LOCALLY to cause the LOCAL collapse?
The LOCAL collapse precipitated the GLOBAL collapse, as can be seen in the slow mo video I linked to.
CLEARLY, the steel several floors above the fires was not heated significantly, nor was the steel several floors below the fires. The majority of the fire's energy went into just several floors, so it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE to apply your figures to the GLOBAL amount of steel.
I have no idea who Levy is, but if he is claiming all vertical columns failed simultaneously ON A GLOBAL basis, then that is also CLEARLY not true. As can be seen in the videos, the collapse PROGRESSES downward. A simultaneous failure would have the bottom of the tower collapsing at the same time as the top.
What is MUCH MORE LIKELY is that if Levy has the credentials you describe then he was most likely talking about the columns IN THE FIRE AREA. IF you have it, then please post a part of his paper that indicates otherwise.
Arthur
QUOTE (hidden tiger+)
P.S. Your disclaimer about "the same force" suggests that you haven't taken physics in a while - the horizontal force would have no impact on the vertical drop time.
No, I have said more than once, I believe, that I can't be sure whether the collapse of a floor or two or 10 is possible (though I doubt it.) What has not been explained, and is surely inexplainable (in a scientific, quantitative sense) with only the energy sources admitted to by FEMA, et. al., is a global collapse. Hoffman's results clearly show that impossibility. (And numerous other facets of the collapse clearly point away from a purely gravity driven collapse - e.g., my set of questions that FEMA did not explain, that you attempted to trivialize, and refused to answer yourself.)
Levy did indeed say that there was simultaneous failure of the columns. Listen to him at http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...e/discovery.wmv .
I may have read more into his remarks than is warranted, because although he blames the fires as leading to the simultaneous failures of the columns, and compares them to demolitions, it's conceivable that he believes that the simultaneous failures of the columns initially were due to softening due to heating, and then transitioned to simultaneous failure due to fracturing, (most likely simultaneously, due to symmetry arguments
)
AFAIK he has explicitly blamed fires, and been silent on fracturing. Since heat conducts metal rather well, I have assumed he is blaming heat from fires as allowing the columns, in toto, to lose sufficient strength to allow "gravity to do the rest". But conservation of energy constraints tell you this can't be.
Does the phrase "nit-picking" mean anything to you? You focus on irrelevancies, but refuse to answer, or attempt to answer, major questions regarding the collapse.
What is your purpose here? I am trying to learn, and refine and, if necessary, correct my arguments. In fact, I will be spending less time here and more on apollohoax.net, where qualified engineers will actually try and give straightforward answers (or so I believe) On this board, it has proven difficult to get anybody to do simple physics calculations, with the exception of Schneibster, who doesn't do so in this thread anymore.
I also say "to.MAY.to" and not "to.MA.to". Would you like to criticize me for that, also? It's equally as germane to the issue.
If I say that I SUPPOSE he MIGHT have meant core + .... this means that I am putting words in his mouth?
Just to be clear, I basically agree with your conclusion.
I think you can get everybody to agree that the collapse took less than 12 seconds or so. So, if you made simplifying assumptions that favored FEMA, and tried to compute what that tells you about the characteristics of the collapse, and compared to what you know about the strength of the building, you might be able to get a handle on impossibility/possibility.
The main reason you can only take such calculations with lots of grains of salt are, at the very least, if fracturing is significant, that could easily change everything. Normally, in every day life, one doesn't observe significant fracturing in metal. I think I've seen some hollow traffic light posts with fractures. I really can't remember if cars in junk yards have significant fractures, but I think not.
Even if you had no fractures, I'm getting the impression that you still wouldn't convince engineers without doing detailed, engineering-type analysis.
Whoa. Let's see, steel framed building collapses globally, most of the structural strength comes from steel, how to refine my arguments???
Hmmmm.
Oh, I got it! Why, IGNORE THE STEEL! Why didn't I think of that?
Whoa. Let's see, steel framed building collapses globally, most of the structural strength comes from steel, how to refine my arguments???
Hmmmm.
Oh, I got it! Why, IGNORE THE STEEL! Why didn't I think of that?
Your repeated statements that you have "proved" that the steel didn't get that hot, when you apply a local energy release to a global value are most clearly not proof of anything.
I see. So if you burn a single candle in a huge cathedral, and then make the claim that it could not have heated the temperature of the air by 100 degrees, using conservation of energy arguments, that is also a false claim. You can't say you've proved it because, after all, you are "applying a local energy release to a global value".
This may make sense to you, but I find it funny.
Saying that Huffman 'Proved' anything is also a major stretch as Schneibster here and others on apollohoax have shown.
As I recall, Schneibster's biggest complain wrt Hoffman was that grinding concrete into dust would make it "HOT" (not just "hot" ) . In other words, he presumed that the grinding of the concrete into dust was was creating a huge amount of heat energy, and that this heat energy was enough to drive the expansion and heating of the dust cloud (at least in sufficient measure to negate the conclusion).
In other words, he is basically saying, "OK, grinding is an energy sink, but part of that energy can go into heating the dust cloud, so Hoffman should move part of it back into the 'Source' column of the energy budget.
I showed IN DETAIL, examining various interpretations of the published numbers, how this concern had no merit.
Even if you quadrupled the mass of the building to the Schneibster-approved value, you are still deficient in energy. Not to mention that concrete was not the only substance being turned into powder. If you roughly quadruple your mass estimate, (thus quadrupling your PE energy source) it seems more than fair to treble or quadruple the amount of powder you have to expand. Since the energy required to "powderize" the concrete was very small (about 5%, as I recall) compared to the energy needed to expand and heat the dust cloud, you can grant FEMA that energy associated with grinding. I.e., don't deduct the energy for grinding from the energy sources, at all. Of course, if you don't deduct it, you sure don't have to add it back.*
The overall conclusion is the same. An unexplainable (ito FEMA Fairy Tale) energy deficit.
What are the links in apollohoax that you are referring to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* the energy sink represented by the heating of concrete ALONE is more than 10x the energy source Hoffman works with.
If you quadruple the value you take for the mass of the building, and assume you only increase the mass of powderized "stuff" by 20%, instead of 300%, you still have made the energy deficit WORSE, in absolute values.
( I'm assuming the same specific heats. Of course, there are a range of these. However, plastic weighs in at
1.720 x 10^3 J kg-1 K-1
while concrete is
925 J / kg deg
so variations in s.h. probably boils down to yet another gift to FEMA)
You and I believe both believe that WTC1 & 2 were demolished. The problem with your argument is that, even though it's quantitative, in the sense that you are comparing two numbers, it is not quantitative enough to convince physicists. You have not attempted to account for how the possibility of local collapse might lead to global collapse, and further just how quick that can be.
Perhaps this makes no difference to you. But if so, why post on a physics board?
Or, perhaps you don't believe this. In this case, I suggest you go to your local State university, take about 5 minutes of, say, 8 different physicists' time, and ask them for their honest opinion?
I firmly believe that they will tell you that your argument is not conclusive.
Now, in the case of WTC7, this type of argument does suffice for me, as there seems to be no plausible reason for such a perfect, telescoping collapse. Plus, Silverstein did say to "pull it". Not sure what working physicists would say about this one, though.
Why don't you do such a mini-survey and post the results?
And if you do this, please take a copy of Hoffman's dust cloud energy paper, and see if you can get them to give it a look. I can almost guarantee you that they'll be much more interested, because there will not be the same 'expertise-gap' wrt the contents. The collapse of WTC1 & 2 really requires more of an engineering analysis, but not so a dust cloud energy analysis.
So, if you really want to make it a day, why don't you head off to the civil engineering dept. and ask them what sort of approach would be necessary to understand the WTC 1 & 2 collapses, and prove demolition or it's opposite? I suspect every last one of them will indicate that you need some kind of computer modeling.
Whoa. Let's see, steel framed building collapses globally, most of the structural strength comes from steel, how to refine my arguments???
Hmmmm.
Oh, I got it! Why, IGNORE THE STEEL! Why didn't I think of that?
Let me rephrase that, as you clearly misunderstood, though based on the previous arguments it should have been clear.
If you are truly trying to "refine" your analysis, then I suggest you start by ignoring attempts to use local energy to raise the temperature of all the steel in the building and concentrate on the potential heat rise of the steel in the areas where the fire was burning.
Sheesh.
Arthur
Exactly. Well put.
Exactly. Well put.
I go to The Ohio State University, where I'm pursuing an engineering major. In fact, I have a Statics midterm tomorrow.
Ah, to be young and developing your knowledge of an exact science. Hopefully, you love engineering even half as much as I loved physics and math. If so, it won't be work, more like a revelation.
I don't think one should take the attitude that the masses can't be pushed to a higher level. A more realistic world view than what one is taught at school can be depressing, which can lead to paralysis. If Martin Luther King, Mother Jones, and other reformers had focussed on the problems and nay-sayers, rather than the solution and honest attempts to reach out to people who had even a trace of receptitivity, we might still have child labor and segregated busses.
One of the things young people need to learn is patience. "Learning" despair won't help you or help society, but will make you "part of the problem".
I recommend you dig up some of Krishnamurti's writings on Education. Or, you can skip it and remember this one line of his: "The purpose of education is to find out what it is you love to do." (not sure if this is exact, but you get the idea.) Also, don't waste too much time or energy on people who are not receptive, and for sure don't waste any time and energy on people who are downright hostile. What's the point?
Perhaps you can take advantage of your location to run Hoffman's paper past a few professors?
Sounds like you have a strong creative steak. Good for you.
Sounds like you have a strong creative steak. Good for you.
I'll be up all night studying for my midterm, wish me luck!
Best of luck to you, righteous dude!
Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force. This could be applied through the use of some kind of 'explosive' force of course, but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under.
Here is a paper I found by Bazant which goes way beyond what my understanding capabilities are, but as near as I can determine gives some theory on structural failure and fracturing. You or others who are into higher math might find it useful.
Scaling theory for quasibrittle structural failure -
Zdenek Bazant...
Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force. This could be applied through the use of some kind of 'explosive' force of course, but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under.
Here is a paper I found by Bazant which goes way beyond what my understanding capabilities are, but as near as I can determine gives some theory on structural failure and fracturing. You or others who are into higher math might find it useful.
Scaling theory for quasibrittle structural failure -
Zdenek Bazant...
This inaugural article has a twofold purpose: (i) to present a simpler and more general justification of the fundamental scaling laws of quasibrittle fracture, bridging the asymptotic behaviors of plasticity, linear elastic fracture mechanics, and Weibull statistical theory of brittle failure, and (ii) to give a broad but succinct overview of various applications and ramifications covering many fields, many kinds of quasibrittle materials, and many scales (from 10–8 to 106 m). The justification rests on developing a method to combine dimensional analysis of cohesive fracture with second-order accurate asymptotic matching. This method exploits the recently established general asymptotic properties of the cohesive crack model and nonlocal Weibull statistical model. The key idea is to select the dimensionless variables in such a way that, in each asymptotic case, all of them vanish except one. The minimal nature of the hypotheses made explains the surprisingly broad applicability of the scaling laws.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/37/13400
BTW, some are waiting for your response on the Bazant-Zhou calcs you did where you arrived at the possible 13 floor limit to collapse (at apolloH).
Some very interesting stuff being posted here lately. Keep up the good work, guys!
If the metal on a given floor fractures completely everywhere that matters, there's essentially no resistance from that point until you hit the next floor.
If you have to expend enough energy to create those complete fractures (which includes turning small fractures that exists as a matter of course into big, complete ones) , you will slow the collapse down sufficiently to prevent a local collapse turning into a global one.
If not (I'm ignoring other factors, of course), then you will get a global collapse.
It turns out I know somebody personally that's made a fortune (presumably) building a worldwide company which detects metal fractures in large structures using phonons. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I know a damn thing, myself, about fracturing in metals.
Simply put, I don't have the expertise to do much more than guess about the effects of fracturing. Do I believe that a correct account of fracturing would allow a global collapse without demolition of WTC 1 or 2? No.
Do I know this to be the case? No, and I don't see how anybody else could know, one way or another, without studying the issue.
NIST did indeed study fracturing of columns wrt the plane impact. That tells me they have a good handle on how to go about it. So why didn't they do so wrt a plausible local collapse, to see if it could turn into a global collapse?
We can only guess, but I'm sure your guess and mine would be the same.
JayUtah indicated that there's nothing suspicious (please read his post for his exact words) about such a situation. If I understand him correctly, the mindset of structural engineers is "What does it take to reach failure? If we understand this, there's not much point in going beyond that."
My problem with that is that there is more than 1 type of critical failure that engineers should be concerned about. Obviously, you want to try and design a hi-rise so that you do not get even a 1 floor collapse. However, as tragic and expensive as a 1 floor collapse might be, it's going to be much worse if it turns into a global collapse.
I'm not a structural engineer, but it boggles my mind that you would either 1) design a building to keep standing after a plane implact, and not consider how to prevent a local -> global collapse 2) not look into this in a post-mortem, such as NIST's.
I was working until 5 am, may not be able to post to ApolloHoax for a while...
If the metal on a given floor fractures completely everywhere that matters, there's essentially no resistance from that point until you hit the next floor.
If you have to expend enough energy to create those complete fractures (which includes turning small fractures that exists as a matter of course into big, complete ones) , you will slow the collapse down sufficiently to prevent a local collapse turning into a global one.
If not (I'm ignoring other factors, of course), then you will get a global collapse.
It turns out I know somebody personally that's made a fortune (presumably) building a worldwide company which detects metal fractures in large structures using phonons. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I know a damn thing, myself, about fracturing in metals.
Simply put, I don't have the expertise to do much more than guess about the effects of fracturing. Do I believe that a correct account of fracturing would allow a global collapse without demolition of WTC 1 or 2? No.
Do I know this to be the case? No, and I don't see how anybody else could know, one way or another, without studying the issue.
NIST did indeed study fracturing of columns wrt the plane impact. That tells me they have a good handle on how to go about it. So why didn't they do so wrt a plausible local collapse, to see if it could turn into a global collapse?
We can only guess, but I'm sure your guess and mine would be the same.
JayUtah indicated that there's nothing suspicious (please read his post for his exact words) about such a situation. If I understand him correctly, the mindset of structural engineers is "What does it take to reach failure? If we understand this, there's not much point in going beyond that."
My problem with that is that there is more than 1 type of critical failure that engineers should be concerned about. Obviously, you want to try and design a hi-rise so that you do not get even a 1 floor collapse. However, as tragic and expensive as a 1 floor collapse might be, it's going to be much worse if it turns into a global collapse.
I'm not a structural engineer, but it boggles my mind that you would either 1) design a building to keep standing after a plane implact, and not consider how to prevent a local -> global collapse 2) not look into this in a post-mortem, such as NIST's.
I was working until 5 am, may not be able to post to ApolloHoax for a while...
but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under.
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
In fact, the visible part of the building essentially remains perfectly straight during the collapse, which suggests to me that collapsing floors would have had to fracture floor by floor, simultaneously with the collapse of the lateral part of the floor.
I think Levy's assurance to us that this is NOT what occured essentially rules out fracturing, and I suspect he has actually calculated this. (Perhaps if you have time, you can contact his office and ask about any such calculations.) Thus you are left with a heating/softening/bending alternative, which can be ruled out by conservation of energy considerations.
Re BZ: I believe I could completely digest the original paper in a week or two if I had all the relevant info. Not so this other paper you quote from. My guess is it would take a couple of months, with full time study.
Of course, I'm not going to invest any more time in even the simple BZ paper, if it turns out that structural engineers don't use it in the way that BZ did, or don't think that it's useful for studying collapses.
Metamars Reply
If the metal on a given floor fractures completely everywhere that matters, there's essentially no resistance from that point until you hit the next floor.[/i]
Zdenek Bazant is certainly no dummy. I've been spending time looking into his writings, and based upon his qualifications and the areas of study which he has been involved with for the past 20 or so years, it certainly looks like he is a leader in his particular field of civil engineering and materials science. His area of expertise seems to be in structural dynamics related to vibrational fracturing.
You seem to be leaning in the direction of 'fracturing' also.
But this still does not explain (to me) how the 'leap' is made from the 'official stance' of fire 'softening' the steel to the point that it enters the elastic / plastic stage... to fracturing of cold steel (of those unaffected floors beneath the impact zone).
This seems to me to be opposing circumstances.
The heating of steel is a gradual process. As it heats and reaches a certain internal temperature it will enter the elastic stage ( that is, when it cools - it will return to its original shape and configuration)...
heat it more, and it will enter the plastic stage (that is, when it cools - it will not return to it's original shape, but will retain it's 'buckled' shape).
But 'fracturing' IMHO requires either a sudden (virtually instantaneous) dynamic force... as in explosive cutting of steel, OR... a long term tensile stressing such as bending 'back and forth' to extend microscopic fractures to fractures which actually 'break' the steel... [what I presume you are referring to as "complete fractures"]...OR (if I understand your reasoning) that at a certain point of reaching the extreme plasticization state... the steel will break / completely fracture.
I'm afraid my mind will just not let me accept this theory, (at this point in time), that even IF there was some dynamic elastic/plastic 'fracturing' of ALL (or at least the majority of columns within the impact zone as per the BZ theory), to allow the initial alleged dynamic 'drop' of the upper stories onto the lower; how this 'drop' can suddenly 'fracture' all columns below the the impact zone Instantly... to commence a disproportionate progressive 'chain reaction' of failure throughout the entire 'fire-unaffected' lower portions of the building.
Theories can be made to sound 'plausible' to the 'great unwashed', however based upon my understanding of the materials properties of composite materials... I'm afraid that I cannot envison such a scenario taking place apart from some utterly exhorbitant forces being applied ... such as a meteor falling fom heaven to exert such forces.
I'm afraid my mind will just not let me accept this theory, (at this point in time), that even IF there was some dynamic elastic/plastic 'fracturing' of ALL (or at least the majority of columns within the impact zone as per the BZ theory), to allow the initial alleged dynamic 'drop' of the upper stories onto the lower; how this 'drop' can suddenly 'fracture' all columns below the the impact zone Instantly... to commence a disproportionate progressive 'chain reaction' of failure throughout the entire 'fire-unaffected' lower portions of the building.
Theories can be made to sound 'plausible' to the 'great unwashed', however based upon my understanding of the materials properties of composite materials... I'm afraid that I cannot envison such a scenario taking place apart from some utterly exhorbitant forces being applied ... such as a meteor falling fom heaven to exert such forces.
JayUtah indicated that there's nothing suspicious (please read his post for his exact words) about such a situation. If I understand him correctly, the mindset of structural engineers is "What does it take to reach failure? If we understand this, there's not much point in going beyond that."
If I understand correctly what you imply, you are invoking the appeal to the generally-agreed-upon NIST proposal that... once this magical 'chain-reaction' starts... there is no stopping it!
This (to me) seems like an unsupportable position.
In order to support such a novel physics phenomena, one must be able to model it either by scientific repeatability through some form of actual test... OR be able to quantify the numbers involved through computer analysis and modeling.
Neither of these tests (as far as I can see) have been demonstrated through the FEMA or NIST 'fairy tale' theoretical analyses.
*************
Having gone through the Weidlinger analysis, it seems he is definately refuting the Eagar 'collapsing truss' model /theory.
Then ... if we consider the Clifton analysis (which seems in some ways to support the Weidlinger analysis) but rejects the NIST fire-related analysis...
I'm lost.
Although the 'official story' seems to want to present the position that "ALL structural engineers are in agreement" as to the causes regarding this WTC phenomena, when you study what all these structural engineers say... there still seems to be no 'consensual agreement' accepted by ALL?
Having gone through the Weidlinger analysis, it seems he is definately refuting the Eagar 'collapsing truss' model /theory.
Then ... if we consider the Clifton analysis (which seems in some ways to support the Weidlinger analysis) but rejects the NIST fire-related analysis...
I'm lost.
Although the 'official story' seems to want to present the position that "ALL structural engineers are in agreement" as to the causes regarding this WTC phenomena, when you study what all these structural engineers say... there still seems to be no 'consensual agreement' accepted by ALL?
Will the Real 'Slim Shady' please stand up... please stand up !
(With apologies to eminem)
I feel we need to rise above this 'CT' animosity and discuss these things openly amongst engineers with various backgrounds, and I feel it is possible that there are 'engineers' at AH who can rise above the 'conspiracy aspects' to discuss these things in an intelligent, objective, and rational manner.
Cheers
Once you prove a 90% energy deficit, the burden of proof showing that only explosives could have been used falls on the FFT believers (or anybody else who believes the only alternative is explosives).
Hoffman himself has gone into detail about the problems with the explosives-only hypothesis. While he has since recanted his maser hypothesis, I don't think he has stated that he now believes that only explosives were used to accomplish the demolition.
Demolition <> Explosives
Rather, explosives are a subset of demolition modalities.
Talk a look at the uber weird telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire. If you can explain that, then I think you'll be able to explain the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Lol.
I take that back. What I meant was, even if you showed columnar collapse (other than falling over) could not have taken place, when the columns are considered individually, you will still not convert most FFT believers. To convert them, you will still have to show a collapse of at least a few floors.
Of course, this seems to be exactly what NIST is not giving us, one way or the other.
Man, I need to get more sleep....
This should read: "To convert them, you will still have to show a collapse of at least a few floors cannot occur (via computer simulation)"
Once you prove a 90% energy deficit, the burden of proof showing that only explosives could have been used falls on the FFT believers (or anybody else who believes the only alternative is explosives).
Hoffman himself has gone into detail about the problems with the explosives-only hypothesis. While he has since recanted his maser hypothesis, I don't think he has stated that he now believes that only explosives were used to accomplish the demolition.
Demolition <> Explosives
Rather, explosives are a subset of demolition modalities.
Talk a look at the uber weird telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire. If you can explain that, then I think you'll be able to explain the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Lol.
????
If there was not enough energy due to gravity by a factor of ten, then it is encumabnt upon the person calulating that there was not enough energy to show that his figures are not wildly skewed. I have suggested two ways to do that, both should be done.
1) explain another mode of inputting energy into the collapse to make up for that ten fold energy deficit. Explosives come to mind immediatly. If explosive are a subset of demolition modalities then list a few more that would make sense in this case. Earthquake would seem to be out since no record of a quake on that day is in evidence on 9/11. Masers and other superweapons should only be considered a remote possibility otherwise we might as well also include magic as a possibility IMHO.
2) do the same calculations on a known demolition where all gravity and explosive energy can be accounted for and for which video records are available to show the extent of the dust cloud. Of the calculations show no energy deficit or one within the range of error then this goes a long way to validating Hoffman's method. On the other hand if the calculations still show an energy deficit well above the range of error then it illustrates a problem with the method.
Doing this would simply be adhereing to good scientific method.http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
Really? So, what is your preferred explanation of the telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire?
Ahhhhh, that clears up a lot. yes the truss floor connections would 'fracture'. I was confused and thinking about vertical columns fracturing... which makes no sense to me... i.e. virtually impossible (as I see it)
Really? So, what is your preferred explanation of the telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire?
Powderizing of the spire??? What evidence is there that this portion of the steel core turned to powder? Yes there was a lot of dust as it fell but there was a lot of dust around at that time.
As far as it collapsing it just was a freak thing that it was standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building came down in much the same way that a freak of the chaotic collapse also had several people in a pocket of debris but unharmed. Looking at the structure of the "spire" it is pretty obvious that it would be unstable even if one could say that it was undamaged.
Do we now have metamars claiming that super secret weaponry for which there is NO evidence is a valid explanation for the collapse of the towers? Perhaps then some supernatural or magic force would also be a valid explanation? Perhaps some form of telekinesis?
Really, how far from the commonplace do we have to go with this?
Ahhhhh, that clears up a lot. yes the truss floor connections would 'fracture'. I was confused and thinking about vertical columns fracturing... which makes no sense to me... i.e. virtually impossible (as I see it)
IIRC the column sections after the collapse were on the oder of 30 feet long. This is the length of each section of column that was bolted/welded together. This suggests that the columns broke/failed/fractured at the connections between sections. This is going to be the weak point in the columns in a bending or shearing action. Obviously at the initiation of collapse there is going to be a lot of stress and bending force put on all core columns as the upper section's core falls. Those upper section core columns are not likely to simply fall between the lower section coulmns.
While the video could be clearer, I find your non-explanation of what I see very unimpressive.
While the video could be clearer, I find your non-explanation of what I see very unimpressive.
As far as it collapsing it just was a freak thing that it was standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building came down in much the same way that a freak of the chaotic collapse also had several people in a pocket of debris but unharmed. Looking at the structure of the "spire" it is pretty obvious that it would be unstable even if one could say that it was undamaged.
Yet another non-explanation. At least here, you're not just out and out denying the visible evidence. Unfortunately for you, a telescoping collapse of a metal structure that stood above 500 ft., even ignoring the dust issue, is something you don't explain. Most likely because you can't.
The quick loss of stiffness of the spire, in a matter of seconds, also is another wierd aspect of the spire collapse, somewhat consistent with its telescoping aspect (as both imply softening) Note the obvious curvature, simultaneous with the shortened height in the photos below. The videos show that the curvature, while significant, in no way explains the loss of height. It really is a telescoping collapse.)
Hmmm. Telesccoping collapse of steel framed structure, which turned much of much of the building into powder sub 100 microns, on the one hand. Followed by the telescoping, powderizing collapse of a surviving steel spire, within minutes (or seconds - don't recall, exactly) of the first collapse.
Hmmm. Hmmmmmmm.
Could there be a connection? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Naah! Silly me! Looks like metamars has gone metalunar!
Do we now have metamars claiming that super secret weaponry for which there is NO evidence is a valid explanation for the collapse of the towers?
metamars is claiming that the FEMA Fairy Tale version of collapse violates conservation of energy, doesn't believe that explosives explain all the facets of the collapse, either, and, unlike FEMA, doesn't try to convince anybody that he does know what brought the towers down.
Unfortunately, also, for your lame attempt to explain away something that isn't just weird, but uber-weird, metamars has heard from a second hand source that the US has secret, beam type weapons that can take out ICBMS. This is suggestive, but certainly not proof that such a device exists or was used.
In conclusion, if my hypothesis strikes you as lame, let me assure you, yours strikes me as lamer.
Note to Foxx: The extreme height of the spire no doubt factors into the debate about the stability of the towers with respect to minimal, and broken bracing. I don't know the exact height, but plaguepuppy is stating 60-70 floors.
QUOTE (metamars+)
I may have forgotten most of my physics, but definitely not that.
Then why did you feel the need to add this qualification to your example?
You certainly implied that the use of the same force was relevant to the result.
You might want to consult with Foxx, as he also seems to be stumped by the impact of a horizontal velocity on gravitational behavior.
Arthur
Then why did you feel the need to add this qualification to your example?
You certainly implied that the use of the same force was relevant to the result.
You might want to consult with Foxx, as he also seems to be stumped by the impact of a horizontal velocity on gravitational behavior.
Arthur
QUOTE
You take the LOCAL fire and use the energy applied to the steel in the ENTIRE structure, to make your case that there wasn't enough energy LOCALLY to cause the LOCAL collapse?
No, I have said more than once, I believe, that I can't be sure whether the collapse of a floor or two or 10 is possible (though I doubt it.) What has not been explained, and is surely inexplainable (in a scientific, quantitative sense) with only the energy sources admitted to by FEMA, et. al., is a global collapse. Hoffman's results clearly show that impossibility. (And numerous other facets of the collapse clearly point away from a purely gravity driven collapse - e.g., my set of questions that FEMA did not explain, that you attempted to trivialize, and refused to answer yourself.)
Levy did indeed say that there was simultaneous failure of the columns. Listen to him at http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...e/discovery.wmv .
I may have read more into his remarks than is warranted, because although he blames the fires as leading to the simultaneous failures of the columns, and compares them to demolitions, it's conceivable that he believes that the simultaneous failures of the columns initially were due to softening due to heating, and then transitioned to simultaneous failure due to fracturing, (most likely simultaneously, due to symmetry arguments
)AFAIK he has explicitly blamed fires, and been silent on fracturing. Since heat conducts metal rather well, I have assumed he is blaming heat from fires as allowing the columns, in toto, to lose sufficient strength to allow "gravity to do the rest". But conservation of energy constraints tell you this can't be.
QUOTE
Then why did you feel the need to add this qualification to your example?
You certainly implied that the use of the same force was relevant to the result.
You might want to consult with Foxx, as he also seems to be stumped by the impact of a horizontal velocity on gravitational behavior.
You certainly implied that the use of the same force was relevant to the result.
You might want to consult with Foxx, as he also seems to be stumped by the impact of a horizontal velocity on gravitational behavior.
Does the phrase "nit-picking" mean anything to you? You focus on irrelevancies, but refuse to answer, or attempt to answer, major questions regarding the collapse.
What is your purpose here? I am trying to learn, and refine and, if necessary, correct my arguments. In fact, I will be spending less time here and more on apollohoax.net, where qualified engineers will actually try and give straightforward answers (or so I believe) On this board, it has proven difficult to get anybody to do simple physics calculations, with the exception of Schneibster, who doesn't do so in this thread anymore.
I also say "to.MAY.to" and not "to.MA.to". Would you like to criticize me for that, also? It's equally as germane to the issue.
Hello everyone.
Did I read somewhere that 'temperature differentials' between the opposite faces of columns would cause great 'distortions' stresses which would be 'permanent' and then further exacerbated by continued 'local heating' to further reduce the steel's geometry-dependent rigidity/strength indexes?
Perhaps this INITIAL WARPING due to thermal stress should be considered AS WELL AS the strength loss from 'creep flow' due to overall heating?
That's it from me, guys.
RealityCheck.
.
PS: METAMARS....When you were talking of Matthys Levy, you said...."He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing (I suppose he might have meant core + outer columns) "simultaneously"."......Why do you put words in his mouth by adding that last bit in parentheses?...either he said it or he didn't...just for the record (and my curiosity), which is it? Thanks. RC.
Did I read somewhere that 'temperature differentials' between the opposite faces of columns would cause great 'distortions' stresses which would be 'permanent' and then further exacerbated by continued 'local heating' to further reduce the steel's geometry-dependent rigidity/strength indexes?
Perhaps this INITIAL WARPING due to thermal stress should be considered AS WELL AS the strength loss from 'creep flow' due to overall heating?
That's it from me, guys.
RealityCheck.
.
PS: METAMARS....When you were talking of Matthys Levy, you said...."He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing (I suppose he might have meant core + outer columns) "simultaneously"."......Why do you put words in his mouth by adding that last bit in parentheses?...either he said it or he didn't...just for the record (and my curiosity), which is it? Thanks. RC.
QUOTE
PS: METAMARS....When you were talking of Matthys Levy, you said...."He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing (I suppose he might have meant core + outer columns) "simultaneously"."......Why do you put words in his mouth by adding that last bit in parentheses?...either he said it or he didn't...just for the record (and my curiosity), which is it? Thanks. RC.
If I say that I SUPPOSE he MIGHT have meant core + .... this means that I am putting words in his mouth?
QUOTE
There's no way we can possibly determine the center of mass of this collapsing structure, so any measurement of "freefall time" should be taken with a grain of salt.
Just to be clear, I basically agree with your conclusion.
I think you can get everybody to agree that the collapse took less than 12 seconds or so. So, if you made simplifying assumptions that favored FEMA, and tried to compute what that tells you about the characteristics of the collapse, and compared to what you know about the strength of the building, you might be able to get a handle on impossibility/possibility.
The main reason you can only take such calculations with lots of grains of salt are, at the very least, if fracturing is significant, that could easily change everything. Normally, in every day life, one doesn't observe significant fracturing in metal. I think I've seen some hollow traffic light posts with fractures. I really can't remember if cars in junk yards have significant fractures, but I think not.
Even if you had no fractures, I'm getting the impression that you still wouldn't convince engineers without doing detailed, engineering-type analysis.
Hello metamars.
If read WITHOUT your paranthetic commentary, ie: "He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing "simultaneously".".....it effectively implies that the whole 'core' structure ITSELF collapsed simultaneously from top to bottom, and the weight of the now-unsupported floors would have pulled down the 'outer' columns in their turn.
Whereas....
If read WITH your paranthetic comments, ie, "He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing (I suppose he might have meant core + outer columns) "simultaneously".".....it subtly changes the possible inferences drawn by anyone not awake to the subtle difference, to wit, that the 'core' AND 'outer' colums BOTH collapsed simultaneously (rather than the 'outer' columns collapsing AFTER THE CORE COLLAPSED AND LEFT THE NOW-UNSUPPORTED FLOORS TO PULL DOWN THE OUTER CORE AS A RESULT).
I hope you can see the difference. If you REALLY are genuine in wishing an impartial and effective analysis of the event, it behoves you to take care about what you present as 'fact' SEPARATELY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY from what you present as 'supposition'. So intimately mixing the two does you no favours; and does a disservice to anyone not already acquainted with the actual situation you are presenting. Just some friendly/impartial advice...not mandatory for you to take heed of it, of course. Good luck.
RC.
.
PS...Any thoughts on what I alluded to regarding 'temperature-differential-distortion' weakening BEFORE overall heating 'creep-flow-distortion' weakening? RC.
.
If read WITHOUT your paranthetic commentary, ie: "He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing "simultaneously".".....it effectively implies that the whole 'core' structure ITSELF collapsed simultaneously from top to bottom, and the weight of the now-unsupported floors would have pulled down the 'outer' columns in their turn.
Whereas....
If read WITH your paranthetic comments, ie, "He has stated that collapse is definitely not due to floors collapsing, but rather because of the core collapsing (I suppose he might have meant core + outer columns) "simultaneously".".....it subtly changes the possible inferences drawn by anyone not awake to the subtle difference, to wit, that the 'core' AND 'outer' colums BOTH collapsed simultaneously (rather than the 'outer' columns collapsing AFTER THE CORE COLLAPSED AND LEFT THE NOW-UNSUPPORTED FLOORS TO PULL DOWN THE OUTER CORE AS A RESULT).
I hope you can see the difference. If you REALLY are genuine in wishing an impartial and effective analysis of the event, it behoves you to take care about what you present as 'fact' SEPARATELY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY from what you present as 'supposition'. So intimately mixing the two does you no favours; and does a disservice to anyone not already acquainted with the actual situation you are presenting. Just some friendly/impartial advice...not mandatory for you to take heed of it, of course. Good luck.
RC.
.
PS...Any thoughts on what I alluded to regarding 'temperature-differential-distortion' weakening BEFORE overall heating 'creep-flow-distortion' weakening? RC.
.
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 6 2005, 03:26 AM)
I am trying to learn, and refine and, if necessary, correct my arguments. In fact, I will be spending less time here and more on apollohoax.net, where qualified engineers will actually try and give straightforward answers (or so I believe) On this board, it has proven difficult to get anybody to do simple physics calculations, with the exception of Schneibster, who doesn't do so in this thread anymore.
If you are truely trying to "refine" your analysis, then I suggest you start by ignoring all the steel in the building and concentrate on the potential heat rise in the areas where the fire was burning.
Your repeated statements that you have "proved" that the steel didn't get that hot, when you apply a local energy release to a global value are most clearly not proof of anything.
Saying that Huffman 'Proved' anything is also a major stretch as Schneibster here and others on apollohoax have shown.
Arthur
If you are truely trying to "refine" your analysis, then I suggest you start by ignoring all the steel in the building and concentrate on the potential heat rise in the areas where the fire was burning.
Your repeated statements that you have "proved" that the steel didn't get that hot, when you apply a local energy release to a global value are most clearly not proof of anything.
Saying that Huffman 'Proved' anything is also a major stretch as Schneibster here and others on apollohoax have shown.
Arthur
QUOTE
If you are truely trying to "refine" your analysis, then I suggest you start by ignoring all the steel in the building and concentrate on the potential heat rise in the areas where the fire was burning.
Whoa. Let's see, steel framed building collapses globally, most of the structural strength comes from steel, how to refine my arguments???
Hmmmm.
Oh, I got it! Why, IGNORE THE STEEL! Why didn't I think of that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you are truely trying to "refine" your analysis, then I suggest you start by ignoring all the steel in the building and concentrate on the potential heat rise in the areas where the fire was burning. |
Whoa. Let's see, steel framed building collapses globally, most of the structural strength comes from steel, how to refine my arguments???
Hmmmm.
Oh, I got it! Why, IGNORE THE STEEL! Why didn't I think of that?
Your repeated statements that you have "proved" that the steel didn't get that hot, when you apply a local energy release to a global value are most clearly not proof of anything.
I see. So if you burn a single candle in a huge cathedral, and then make the claim that it could not have heated the temperature of the air by 100 degrees, using conservation of energy arguments, that is also a false claim. You can't say you've proved it because, after all, you are "applying a local energy release to a global value".
This may make sense to you, but I find it funny.
QUOTE
Saying that Huffman 'Proved' anything is also a major stretch as Schneibster here and others on apollohoax have shown.
As I recall, Schneibster's biggest complain wrt Hoffman was that grinding concrete into dust would make it "HOT" (not just "hot"
) . In other words, he presumed that the grinding of the concrete into dust was was creating a huge amount of heat energy, and that this heat energy was enough to drive the expansion and heating of the dust cloud (at least in sufficient measure to negate the conclusion).In other words, he is basically saying, "OK, grinding is an energy sink, but part of that energy can go into heating the dust cloud, so Hoffman should move part of it back into the 'Source' column of the energy budget.
I showed IN DETAIL, examining various interpretations of the published numbers, how this concern had no merit.
Even if you quadrupled the mass of the building to the Schneibster-approved value, you are still deficient in energy. Not to mention that concrete was not the only substance being turned into powder. If you roughly quadruple your mass estimate, (thus quadrupling your PE energy source) it seems more than fair to treble or quadruple the amount of powder you have to expand. Since the energy required to "powderize" the concrete was very small (about 5%, as I recall) compared to the energy needed to expand and heat the dust cloud, you can grant FEMA that energy associated with grinding. I.e., don't deduct the energy for grinding from the energy sources, at all. Of course, if you don't deduct it, you sure don't have to add it back.*
The overall conclusion is the same. An unexplainable (ito FEMA Fairy Tale) energy deficit.
What are the links in apollohoax that you are referring to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
* the energy sink represented by the heating of concrete ALONE is more than 10x the energy source Hoffman works with.
If you quadruple the value you take for the mass of the building, and assume you only increase the mass of powderized "stuff" by 20%, instead of 300%, you still have made the energy deficit WORSE, in absolute values.
( I'm assuming the same specific heats. Of course, there are a range of these. However, plastic weighs in at
1.720 x 10^3 J kg-1 K-1
while concrete is
925 J / kg deg
so variations in s.h. probably boils down to yet another gift to FEMA)
hello all
quick thought about the free fall esque collapse times
as you know free fall is the acceleration at which a particle will fall to the earth. 9.8 m/s^2
as you also know, a particle falls faster through air than through water
Do i have to explain this one? Okay might as well, water has MORE resistance than air, thus the particle takes a longer time to fall a certain distance
rewind to my birthday, the towers are standing thank god, the lady is looking out the impact hole, etc etc
suddently the south tower, after burning for less than an hour, drops to the ground in about
10-12 seconds...
whoever says you can't judge complex building failures based on basic physics is absolutely right
that's why you should graduate high school and come to college
the top of the building travelled over 1000 feet to the ground in 10 seconds, a little more than the time it would take for a particle to fall 1000 feet
Let's repeat to make sure you read it:
the top of the building travelled over 1000 feet to the ground in 10 seconds, a little more than the time it would take for a particle to fall toward th Earth 1000 feet
the top of the building travelled over 1000 feet to the ground in 10 seconds, a little more than the time it would take for a particle to fall through air at free fall 1000 feet
The top of the building travelled through the entire height of the building. let's look at this again for all of you selective listeners (adieu!) The entire building undressed itself in 10 seconds. That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!! That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!!That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!!
Ponder that for a second...now if That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!! the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!!
then.........
how did gravity collapse all the support columns of 3 steel buildings- turning them into air?
there MUST be another source of energy, as the polite ones have pointed out...
I'm sorry for repitition repeating but it seems to be the only thing to make me listen.
Cheerful Chao Love you All!
quick thought about the free fall esque collapse times
as you know free fall is the acceleration at which a particle will fall to the earth. 9.8 m/s^2
as you also know, a particle falls faster through air than through water
Do i have to explain this one? Okay might as well, water has MORE resistance than air, thus the particle takes a longer time to fall a certain distance
rewind to my birthday, the towers are standing thank god, the lady is looking out the impact hole, etc etc
suddently the south tower, after burning for less than an hour, drops to the ground in about
10-12 seconds...
whoever says you can't judge complex building failures based on basic physics is absolutely right
that's why you should graduate high school and come to college
the top of the building travelled over 1000 feet to the ground in 10 seconds, a little more than the time it would take for a particle to fall 1000 feet
Let's repeat to make sure you read it:
the top of the building travelled over 1000 feet to the ground in 10 seconds, a little more than the time it would take for a particle to fall toward th Earth 1000 feet
the top of the building travelled over 1000 feet to the ground in 10 seconds, a little more than the time it would take for a particle to fall through air at free fall 1000 feet
The top of the building travelled through the entire height of the building. let's look at this again for all of you selective listeners (adieu!) The entire building undressed itself in 10 seconds. That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!! That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!!That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!!
Ponder that for a second...now if That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!! the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!!
then.........
how did gravity collapse all the support columns of 3 steel buildings- turning them into air?
there MUST be another source of energy, as the polite ones have pointed out...
I'm sorry for repitition repeating but it seems to be the only thing to make me listen.
Cheerful Chao Love you All!
"Your logic is impeccable mr. Zulu"...
And to sum it up, the clarity of your argument is amazingly ...clear.
b
And to sum it up, the clarity of your argument is amazingly ...clear.
b
QUOTE
Ponder that for a second...now if That means the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!! the entire building's support provided MINISCULE more resistance THAN AIR!!
You and I believe both believe that WTC1 & 2 were demolished. The problem with your argument is that, even though it's quantitative, in the sense that you are comparing two numbers, it is not quantitative enough to convince physicists. You have not attempted to account for how the possibility of local collapse might lead to global collapse, and further just how quick that can be.
Perhaps this makes no difference to you. But if so, why post on a physics board?
Or, perhaps you don't believe this. In this case, I suggest you go to your local State university, take about 5 minutes of, say, 8 different physicists' time, and ask them for their honest opinion?
I firmly believe that they will tell you that your argument is not conclusive.
Now, in the case of WTC7, this type of argument does suffice for me, as there seems to be no plausible reason for such a perfect, telescoping collapse. Plus, Silverstein did say to "pull it". Not sure what working physicists would say about this one, though.
Why don't you do such a mini-survey and post the results?
QUOTE
In this case, I suggest you go to your local State university, take about 5 minutes of, say, 8 different physicists' time, and ask them for their honest opinion?
And if you do this, please take a copy of Hoffman's dust cloud energy paper, and see if you can get them to give it a look. I can almost guarantee you that they'll be much more interested, because there will not be the same 'expertise-gap' wrt the contents. The collapse of WTC1 & 2 really requires more of an engineering analysis, but not so a dust cloud energy analysis.
So, if you really want to make it a day, why don't you head off to the civil engineering dept. and ask them what sort of approach would be necessary to understand the WTC 1 & 2 collapses, and prove demolition or it's opposite? I suspect every last one of them will indicate that you need some kind of computer modeling.
Metamars, greetings friend- I agree with you on all points- my argument is not quantitatively conclusive, rather it is qualitatively suggestive.
I go to The Ohio State University, where I'm pursuing an engineering major. In fact, I have a Statics midterm tomorrow. Honestly I don't think people want to hear anything different about 911. The sheeple could care less about the SHAD O government, corruption, etc. They care about getting their grass, not the hyena along the fence.
Therefore convincing people of quantitative reality on a physics board seems to do little good- since we've seen that nothing less than contrived computer models "convinces" certain folks. It will take one coherent meme to break 911 into the public consciousness. I just hope that meme surfaces before 1012 does. 911 was my birthday, and I care a great deal about those people who we lost and what happened to our country afterwards.
But as the wise proverb goes, you can't wake people pretending to be asleep.
I go to The Ohio State University, where I'm pursuing an engineering major. In fact, I have a Statics midterm tomorrow. Honestly I don't think people want to hear anything different about 911. The sheeple could care less about the SHAD O government, corruption, etc. They care about getting their grass, not the hyena along the fence.
Therefore convincing people of quantitative reality on a physics board seems to do little good- since we've seen that nothing less than contrived computer models "convinces" certain folks. It will take one coherent meme to break 911 into the public consciousness. I just hope that meme surfaces before 1012 does. 911 was my birthday, and I care a great deal about those people who we lost and what happened to our country afterwards.
But as the wise proverb goes, you can't wake people pretending to be asleep.
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 6 2005, 09:08 AM)
QUOTE
If you are truly trying to "refine" your analysis, then I suggest you start by ignoring all the steel in the building and concentrate on the potential heat rise in the areas where the fire was burning.
Whoa. Let's see, steel framed building collapses globally, most of the structural strength comes from steel, how to refine my arguments???
Hmmmm.
Oh, I got it! Why, IGNORE THE STEEL! Why didn't I think of that?
Let me rephrase that, as you clearly misunderstood, though based on the previous arguments it should have been clear.
If you are truly trying to "refine" your analysis, then I suggest you start by ignoring attempts to use local energy to raise the temperature of all the steel in the building and concentrate on the potential heat rise of the steel in the areas where the fire was burning.
Sheesh.
Arthur
manifespo,
Thanks for your additional comments - maybe yours will be the comment that jolts the analytical mind back on track.
All the best
(Sorry to other folks, but it is getting repitive - like manifespo said...)
Thanks for your additional comments - maybe yours will be the comment that jolts the analytical mind back on track.
All the best
(Sorry to other folks, but it is getting repitive - like manifespo said...)
QUOTE
my argument is not quantitatively conclusive, rather it is qualitatively suggestive.
Exactly. Well put.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| my argument is not quantitatively conclusive, rather it is qualitatively suggestive. |
Exactly. Well put.
I go to The Ohio State University, where I'm pursuing an engineering major. In fact, I have a Statics midterm tomorrow.
Ah, to be young and developing your knowledge of an exact science. Hopefully, you love engineering even half as much as I loved physics and math. If so, it won't be work, more like a revelation.
QUOTE
The sheeple could care less about the SHAD O government, corruption, etc. They care about getting their grass, not the hyena along the fence.
Therefore convincing people of quantitative reality on a physics board seems to do little good- since we've seen that nothing less than contrived computer models "convinces" certain folks.
Therefore convincing people of quantitative reality on a physics board seems to do little good- since we've seen that nothing less than contrived computer models "convinces" certain folks.
I don't think one should take the attitude that the masses can't be pushed to a higher level. A more realistic world view than what one is taught at school can be depressing, which can lead to paralysis. If Martin Luther King, Mother Jones, and other reformers had focussed on the problems and nay-sayers, rather than the solution and honest attempts to reach out to people who had even a trace of receptitivity, we might still have child labor and segregated busses.
One of the things young people need to learn is patience. "Learning" despair won't help you or help society, but will make you "part of the problem".
I recommend you dig up some of Krishnamurti's writings on Education. Or, you can skip it and remember this one line of his: "The purpose of education is to find out what it is you love to do." (not sure if this is exact, but you get the idea.) Also, don't waste too much time or energy on people who are not receptive, and for sure don't waste any time and energy on people who are downright hostile. What's the point?
Perhaps you can take advantage of your location to run Hoffman's paper past a few professors?
For a physicomath-man you are surely insightful metamars! Ironically, my uncle Joe just referred me to some of krishnamurti's writings just the other day- he has quite a transcendent yet realistic philosophy.
I must say I do enjoy engineering, but at heart I'd rather divergently brainstorm than convergently thoughtstorm, if that makes sense. I'll be up all night studying for my midterm, wish me luck!
Here's my thing about the masses: the media has turned most americans into emotional vampires, overwhelmed with petty ego attachments (desires, problems, fears). Most people I know, even my father who is the chairman of neurology at Univ of Cin, would rather check the 24/7 ESPN scoreboard or read US Weekly than to objectively discuss any important issue. If you do manage to intertwine someone in a serious discussion they feel like you're trying to act smart or prove them wrong, or they will attempt repeatedly to change the subject.
Uncomfortable issues like war, money, corruption, pollution, and death cause actual deliberative thought and reasoning- not an emotional shifting of prejudices. It has been my experience that most Americans will respond, "yea so what the world is violent, what can we do" and then go back to watching the NBA finals, or D-Hoes or whatever.
The few that ARE not sleeping are scattered and do not possess much power. Information is powe, especially well produced condensed and easily followed information. People aren't going to read a novel and change their minds- they will change their minds after being repetitively exposed to a simple idea. As the saying goes, a human mind reacts to a foreign idea much like the human body reacts to a foreign antigen- it rejects it.
Again I agree with your comments on raising the consciousness of the masses- it is much better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. If the masses are to be enlightened, it must be through television/magazines/short pamphlets/movies. Use what is dominant in a culture to change it the fastest. Things haven't changed much since the superficial American revolution- people can read but they don't have long attention spans- they need everything spelled out for them- like the 20 second news bites.
However hopeful that maxim is, though, the fact is that darkness is a fact of our world, and doesn't seem to be retreating. In fact it seems the dark ignorant violent powerlusting side of humanity is winning through deception and addiction. The internet seems to be the only refuge for positive/constructive media, but even the good is drowned out in disinformation.
I will work on showing Hoffman's paper to some professors, although I am quite busy in innovating the new societal paradigm of GRINT (grid of renewable integrated networked technology) through focused optimism and efficient transport. Transportation comprises civilization.
I guess I have an uneasy feeling about exposing the 911 truth, because it might just lead to more 911s from the CarErrorists. So instead I spend my waking hours creating a new global paradigm from which people may draw hope for humanity.
http://www.spoey.com contains 10% of my ideas, it is being updated daily. I'd rather break through the mainstream with an unstoppable organization dedicated to saving the world than another conspiracy theory (however valid it may be). There is a time for action and a time for organizing/planning.
The social/networking/efficiency/information/convergence/wireless/compassionate/transport/consciousness revolution will succeed, eventually.
SolaPhilmOnEverything = SPOE Average ~1000 Watts/ m^2 of earth
GRINT = Grid of renewable integrated Networked technology
SpoDeaS I need feedback!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I must say I do enjoy engineering, but at heart I'd rather divergently brainstorm than convergently thoughtstorm, if that makes sense. I'll be up all night studying for my midterm, wish me luck!
Here's my thing about the masses: the media has turned most americans into emotional vampires, overwhelmed with petty ego attachments (desires, problems, fears). Most people I know, even my father who is the chairman of neurology at Univ of Cin, would rather check the 24/7 ESPN scoreboard or read US Weekly than to objectively discuss any important issue. If you do manage to intertwine someone in a serious discussion they feel like you're trying to act smart or prove them wrong, or they will attempt repeatedly to change the subject.
Uncomfortable issues like war, money, corruption, pollution, and death cause actual deliberative thought and reasoning- not an emotional shifting of prejudices. It has been my experience that most Americans will respond, "yea so what the world is violent, what can we do" and then go back to watching the NBA finals, or D-Hoes or whatever.
The few that ARE not sleeping are scattered and do not possess much power. Information is powe, especially well produced condensed and easily followed information. People aren't going to read a novel and change their minds- they will change their minds after being repetitively exposed to a simple idea. As the saying goes, a human mind reacts to a foreign idea much like the human body reacts to a foreign antigen- it rejects it.
Again I agree with your comments on raising the consciousness of the masses- it is much better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. If the masses are to be enlightened, it must be through television/magazines/short pamphlets/movies. Use what is dominant in a culture to change it the fastest. Things haven't changed much since the superficial American revolution- people can read but they don't have long attention spans- they need everything spelled out for them- like the 20 second news bites.
However hopeful that maxim is, though, the fact is that darkness is a fact of our world, and doesn't seem to be retreating. In fact it seems the dark ignorant violent powerlusting side of humanity is winning through deception and addiction. The internet seems to be the only refuge for positive/constructive media, but even the good is drowned out in disinformation.
I will work on showing Hoffman's paper to some professors, although I am quite busy in innovating the new societal paradigm of GRINT (grid of renewable integrated networked technology) through focused optimism and efficient transport. Transportation comprises civilization.
I guess I have an uneasy feeling about exposing the 911 truth, because it might just lead to more 911s from the CarErrorists. So instead I spend my waking hours creating a new global paradigm from which people may draw hope for humanity.
http://www.spoey.com contains 10% of my ideas, it is being updated daily. I'd rather break through the mainstream with an unstoppable organization dedicated to saving the world than another conspiracy theory (however valid it may be). There is a time for action and a time for organizing/planning.
The social/networking/efficiency/information/convergence/wireless/compassionate/transport/consciousness revolution will succeed, eventually.
SolaPhilmOnEverything = SPOE Average ~1000 Watts/ m^2 of earth
GRINT = Grid of renewable integrated Networked technology
SpoDeaS I need feedback!
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
I have spent much of the day reading NIST's final report.
It totally quashes the folly presented in these threads.
Question, have the people who are claiming it was a demolition job ACTUALLY read this report?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
So many of the questions that have been posed on this thread are answered in the report, which makes me wonder why we are guessing at them.
The sophistication of their analysis is impressive.
The details of the construction of the towers provides many pieces of info not covered in these threads, many important to understanding the collapse.
I specifically refer you to section 6.14 Collapse Analysis of the Towers
Arthur
It totally quashes the folly presented in these threads.
Question, have the people who are claiming it was a demolition job ACTUALLY read this report?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
So many of the questions that have been posed on this thread are answered in the report, which makes me wonder why we are guessing at them.
The sophistication of their analysis is impressive.
The details of the construction of the towers provides many pieces of info not covered in these threads, many important to understanding the collapse.
I specifically refer you to section 6.14 Collapse Analysis of the Towers
Arthur
QUOTE
I must say I do enjoy engineering, but at heart I'd rather divergently brainstorm than convergently thoughtstorm, if that makes sense.
Sounds like you have a strong creative steak. Good for you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I must say I do enjoy engineering, but at heart I'd rather divergently brainstorm than convergently thoughtstorm, if that makes sense. |
Sounds like you have a strong creative steak. Good for you.
I'll be up all night studying for my midterm, wish me luck!
Best of luck to you, righteous dude!
Any mention of WTC7 in that NIST report?
And for your information the Towers exploded in mid-air from the top down - they did not collapse.
And for your information the Towers exploded in mid-air from the top down - they did not collapse.
No, the paper was on WTC 1 & 2. WTC 7 will be in a separate report.
Exploded in mid air?
Earth to Temp, come in Temp?
Try reading the report and disputing its conclusions, but bring facts to back it up.
Arthur
Exploded in mid air?
Earth to Temp, come in Temp?
Try reading the report and disputing its conclusions, but bring facts to back it up.
Arthur
Has anyone ever seen or heard of a pyroclastic building collapse before?
Can anyone here explain how the passengers made calls from their cell fones before it was possible?
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121399,00.asp
"Hello mum, it's me, Mark Bingham"
Can anyone here explain how the passengers made calls from their cell fones before it was possible?
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,121399,00.asp
"Hello mum, it's me, Mark Bingham"
My those are some large clouds.
Here is a great Link....It seems 911 is getting back into the mainstream (in a ?ing light)
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/n...yc-nynews-print
Here is a link where you can find twenty plus videos of the collapse in avi format.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...1.html#comments
Here is another link with endless 911 files.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/
Here is a great Link....It seems 911 is getting back into the mainstream (in a ?ing light)
http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/n...yc-nynews-print
Here is a link where you can find twenty plus videos of the collapse in avi format.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...1.html#comments
Here is another link with endless 911 files.
http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/
Experts Identify WTC Remains with DNA Science 试听
DNA[1] molecule[2] provide the unique genetic codes[3] that differentiate[4] one person from another. Examiners are using the latest DNA technology in an ongoing[5] effort to identify the more than 2,800 victims from the September 11 attacks at the World Trade Center.
The newest DNA company to officially join the huge project of identifying remains is Orchid Cellmark, which is based in Germantown, Maryland. The company's executive director[6], Mark Stolorow, says the DNA samples recovered from the World Trade Center have posed[7] special challenges to researchers. "They are in the process of decomposing[8] because of the high temperature and pressure of water that was poured onto that site for over three months while they were trying to put the fire out[9]," he said.
Mr. Stolorow says Orchid Cellmark is using a technology that focuses on single nucleotide polymorphisms[10], or SNP technology, that he says has been used in molecular biology for nearly a decade, but is relatively new to forensics[11]. He says SNP technology provides interpretable[12] identifications using smaller pieces of DNA than the longer fragments[13] that were required in other tests.
"We then modified our panel so that it was designed to test fragments of DNA that were only 60 to 80 nucleotides long. And that has proved to be very successful in determining interpretable DNA profiles from samples from Ground Zero[14]," he said.
He refused to predict an overall[15] success rate, but said the company is very enthusiastic about its findings from several batches[16] of experimental samples.
Meanwhile, Kevin McElfresh, the senior vice president of one of the longest-serving DNA companies in the post-September 11 effort, Bode Technology Group, acknowledges that the results from the first round of testing were less than perfect. "Typically, you expect to get between 80-and-95-percent of the samples in a mass disaster to work, and I'm talking now, in the American Airlines flight that went down in Queens[17] [New York] in November of last year, we actually did the bone work on that and we got about 90 percent of those samples to work. And, of course, you always want to get 100 percent, you know, we all start there, but reality is reality. In the case of the Trade Center, on our first pass through, we were getting about 50 percent and that just wasn't palatable[18] to us," Dr. McElfresh said.
He says Bode has been able to raise its percentages of success by adapting and refining its DNA-extracting techniques. But both he and Mr. Stolorow say that some of the remains from the site were so badly burned or decomposed that it is impossible to identify them with any technology.
"There are some samples that are literally just charcoal, and there's nothing to be gotten out of them. And that's about 10 percent of the samples, I would say, are just never going to work, Dr. McElfresh said.
He says another difficulty has been juggling[19] the company's regular criminal justice forensics responsibilities with the huge volume of samples recovered from the World Trade Center. "How do you tell a rape victim that their case isn't important, even though the towers fell? Those people are important. Rape victims are important. Crime victims are important. And you have to just keep all those balls in the air at the same time," he said.
He said one thing Bode learned that will help it in future cases is how to handle and process large numbers of DNA samples.
For the survivors, though, identifying the remains may not be enough. Nikki Stern says she was not comforted by receiving the remains of her husband, Jim Portorti, who worked on the 96th floor of the first tower that was hit.
"What was recovered, bluntly[20], was the size of a quarter[21] (coin), and it hasn't provided any kind of closure[22] for me," Ms. Stern said.
But she says she has sent his remains to his parents, in the hopes that it will provide them with some sort of solace[23]. "It's just never going to be enough for me and it's never going to make any sense[24] to me," she said.
Out of more than 1,300 total identifications, the New York City Medical Examiner's office has so far identified more than 630 victims using DNA, alone.
http://goabroad.sohu.com/63/51/article212735163.shtml
Some shadows were cast by people caught by the explosion.
The museum has this section of a bank wall and steps which illustrates this. The circular grey patch on the steps is a shadow formed by a woman who was sitting there waiting for the bank to open for business.
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Japan...idualArtifacts/
DNA[1] molecule[2] provide the unique genetic codes[3] that differentiate[4] one person from another. Examiners are using the latest DNA technology in an ongoing[5] effort to identify the more than 2,800 victims from the September 11 attacks at the World Trade Center.
The newest DNA company to officially join the huge project of identifying remains is Orchid Cellmark, which is based in Germantown, Maryland. The company's executive director[6], Mark Stolorow, says the DNA samples recovered from the World Trade Center have posed[7] special challenges to researchers. "They are in the process of decomposing[8] because of the high temperature and pressure of water that was poured onto that site for over three months while they were trying to put the fire out[9]," he said.
Mr. Stolorow says Orchid Cellmark is using a technology that focuses on single nucleotide polymorphisms[10], or SNP technology, that he says has been used in molecular biology for nearly a decade, but is relatively new to forensics[11]. He says SNP technology provides interpretable[12] identifications using smaller pieces of DNA than the longer fragments[13] that were required in other tests.
"We then modified our panel so that it was designed to test fragments of DNA that were only 60 to 80 nucleotides long. And that has proved to be very successful in determining interpretable DNA profiles from samples from Ground Zero[14]," he said.
He refused to predict an overall[15] success rate, but said the company is very enthusiastic about its findings from several batches[16] of experimental samples.
Meanwhile, Kevin McElfresh, the senior vice president of one of the longest-serving DNA companies in the post-September 11 effort, Bode Technology Group, acknowledges that the results from the first round of testing were less than perfect. "Typically, you expect to get between 80-and-95-percent of the samples in a mass disaster to work, and I'm talking now, in the American Airlines flight that went down in Queens[17] [New York] in November of last year, we actually did the bone work on that and we got about 90 percent of those samples to work. And, of course, you always want to get 100 percent, you know, we all start there, but reality is reality. In the case of the Trade Center, on our first pass through, we were getting about 50 percent and that just wasn't palatable[18] to us," Dr. McElfresh said.
He says Bode has been able to raise its percentages of success by adapting and refining its DNA-extracting techniques. But both he and Mr. Stolorow say that some of the remains from the site were so badly burned or decomposed that it is impossible to identify them with any technology.
"There are some samples that are literally just charcoal, and there's nothing to be gotten out of them. And that's about 10 percent of the samples, I would say, are just never going to work, Dr. McElfresh said.
He says another difficulty has been juggling[19] the company's regular criminal justice forensics responsibilities with the huge volume of samples recovered from the World Trade Center. "How do you tell a rape victim that their case isn't important, even though the towers fell? Those people are important. Rape victims are important. Crime victims are important. And you have to just keep all those balls in the air at the same time," he said.
He said one thing Bode learned that will help it in future cases is how to handle and process large numbers of DNA samples.
For the survivors, though, identifying the remains may not be enough. Nikki Stern says she was not comforted by receiving the remains of her husband, Jim Portorti, who worked on the 96th floor of the first tower that was hit.
"What was recovered, bluntly[20], was the size of a quarter[21] (coin), and it hasn't provided any kind of closure[22] for me," Ms. Stern said.
But she says she has sent his remains to his parents, in the hopes that it will provide them with some sort of solace[23]. "It's just never going to be enough for me and it's never going to make any sense[24] to me," she said.
Out of more than 1,300 total identifications, the New York City Medical Examiner's office has so far identified more than 630 victims using DNA, alone.
http://goabroad.sohu.com/63/51/article212735163.shtml
Some shadows were cast by people caught by the explosion.
The museum has this section of a bank wall and steps which illustrates this. The circular grey patch on the steps is a shadow formed by a woman who was sitting there waiting for the bank to open for business.
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Japan...idualArtifacts/
How Soon during a collapse did we have energy conservation violation?
The following is sketchy, but I think adequate to communicate the idea:
I was staring at one of the WTC collapse pictures the other day, and realized there's another type of analysis that nobody has done (AFAIK).
If anybody reading this has a high school level of math/physics skills, you should be able to do the following:
Study the pictures of collapse at T0 + .1 sec, T0 + .2 sec, T0 + .3 sec, etc., where T0 is when collapse began.
Get a value for the volume of the dust cloud, assume equal distribution of mass with height, and use Hoffman's approach to figure out the energy sources and sinks at each of the time values.
Plot the enegy source values vs time, and on top of that plot. the energy sink values vs. time.
If you ended up getting sinks exceeding sources from the very first floor collapse, you'd have an indication that not even local collapse occured (as per FEMA, et. al.) Probably, you cannot determine this with sufficient precision to come to a firm conclusion, as collapse times per floor were about .1 sec., and this seems far too short to nail down an even more precise estimate of T0.
However, it should be possible to come up with a semi-reasonable number corresponding to when the energy budget goes negative.
Furthermore, the shapes of the graphs would also be of interest, though I think to extract meaning from them you'd probably have to plug the values you get into a system of equations which models a pyroclastic flow and the details of the dust cloud constituents. Roughly speaking, though, if you got the same delta of energy sink vs. energy source [B]per floor[/], (i.e., if the deficit increases linearly with time) that is an argument for demolition (I would think
), since I expect you'd use approximately the same energy per floor for a demolition. *
However, absent demolition, you would expect that there would be a disproportionately increasing energy deficit when the collapse had proceeded to the bottom floors, and probably a huget spike corresponding to rubble hitting the ground.
If you get a more or less constant energy deficit per floor, you might be able to relate this to how much energy per floor a demolition team would actually use, and perhaps also relate it to the lateral ejection velocities of the 30 ft. metal pieces that occurred. Try and get a handle on pressures, not just energies. Of course, here we are going beyond a high school level.
No doubt NIST and FEMA thought of this approach, too, and the results are there, just waiting to be read.
* Maybe not, as demolitions mostly involve breaking the structure up, and letting gravity do the rest. However, I think the columns were about twice as thick on the bottom than near the top.
The following is sketchy, but I think adequate to communicate the idea:
I was staring at one of the WTC collapse pictures the other day, and realized there's another type of analysis that nobody has done (AFAIK).
If anybody reading this has a high school level of math/physics skills, you should be able to do the following:
Study the pictures of collapse at T0 + .1 sec, T0 + .2 sec, T0 + .3 sec, etc., where T0 is when collapse began.
Get a value for the volume of the dust cloud, assume equal distribution of mass with height, and use Hoffman's approach to figure out the energy sources and sinks at each of the time values.
Plot the enegy source values vs time, and on top of that plot. the energy sink values vs. time.
If you ended up getting sinks exceeding sources from the very first floor collapse, you'd have an indication that not even local collapse occured (as per FEMA, et. al.) Probably, you cannot determine this with sufficient precision to come to a firm conclusion, as collapse times per floor were about .1 sec., and this seems far too short to nail down an even more precise estimate of T0.
However, it should be possible to come up with a semi-reasonable number corresponding to when the energy budget goes negative.
Furthermore, the shapes of the graphs would also be of interest, though I think to extract meaning from them you'd probably have to plug the values you get into a system of equations which models a pyroclastic flow and the details of the dust cloud constituents. Roughly speaking, though, if you got the same delta of energy sink vs. energy source [B]per floor[/], (i.e., if the deficit increases linearly with time) that is an argument for demolition (I would think
), since I expect you'd use approximately the same energy per floor for a demolition. *However, absent demolition, you would expect that there would be a disproportionately increasing energy deficit when the collapse had proceeded to the bottom floors, and probably a huget spike corresponding to rubble hitting the ground.
If you get a more or less constant energy deficit per floor, you might be able to relate this to how much energy per floor a demolition team would actually use, and perhaps also relate it to the lateral ejection velocities of the 30 ft. metal pieces that occurred. Try and get a handle on pressures, not just energies. Of course, here we are going beyond a high school level.
No doubt NIST and FEMA thought of this approach, too, and the results are there, just waiting to be read.
* Maybe not, as demolitions mostly involve breaking the structure up, and letting gravity do the rest. However, I think the columns were about twice as thick on the bottom than near the top.
QUOTE
Originally posted by metamars
However, I agree that a definitive conclusion would necessitate not only a more detailed approach, but almost certainly a computer simulation. The greater detail would not only involve geometric structural considerations, but also the effects of fracturing. (I'm convinced global collapse is impossible without fracturing.*)
However, I agree that a definitive conclusion would necessitate not only a more detailed approach, but almost certainly a computer simulation. The greater detail would not only involve geometric structural considerations, but also the effects of fracturing. (I'm convinced global collapse is impossible without fracturing.*)
Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force. This could be applied through the use of some kind of 'explosive' force of course, but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under.
Here is a paper I found by Bazant which goes way beyond what my understanding capabilities are, but as near as I can determine gives some theory on structural failure and fracturing. You or others who are into higher math might find it useful.
Scaling theory for quasibrittle structural failure -
Zdenek Bazant...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by metamars However, I agree that a definitive conclusion would necessitate not only a more detailed approach, but almost certainly a computer simulation. The greater detail would not only involve geometric structural considerations, but also the effects of fracturing. (I'm convinced global collapse is impossible without fracturing.*) |
Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force. This could be applied through the use of some kind of 'explosive' force of course, but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under.
Here is a paper I found by Bazant which goes way beyond what my understanding capabilities are, but as near as I can determine gives some theory on structural failure and fracturing. You or others who are into higher math might find it useful.
Scaling theory for quasibrittle structural failure -
Zdenek Bazant...
This inaugural article has a twofold purpose: (i) to present a simpler and more general justification of the fundamental scaling laws of quasibrittle fracture, bridging the asymptotic behaviors of plasticity, linear elastic fracture mechanics, and Weibull statistical theory of brittle failure, and (ii) to give a broad but succinct overview of various applications and ramifications covering many fields, many kinds of quasibrittle materials, and many scales (from 10–8 to 106 m). The justification rests on developing a method to combine dimensional analysis of cohesive fracture with second-order accurate asymptotic matching. This method exploits the recently established general asymptotic properties of the cohesive crack model and nonlocal Weibull statistical model. The key idea is to select the dimensionless variables in such a way that, in each asymptotic case, all of them vanish except one. The minimal nature of the hypotheses made explains the surprisingly broad applicability of the scaling laws.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/37/13400
BTW, some are waiting for your response on the Bazant-Zhou calcs you did where you arrived at the possible 13 floor limit to collapse (at apolloH).
Some very interesting stuff being posted here lately. Keep up the good work, guys!
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 7 2005, 04:41 AM)
I have spent much of the day reading NIST's final report.
It totally quashes the folly presented in these threads.
Question, have the people who are claiming it was a demolition job ACTUALLY read this report?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
So many of the questions that have been posed on this thread are answered in the report, which makes me wonder why we are guessing at them.
The sophistication of their analysis is impressive.
The details of the construction of the towers provides many pieces of info not covered in these threads, many important to understanding the collapse.
I specifically refer you to section 6.14 Collapse Analysis of the Towers
Arthur
I love how this "small" piece of information is ignored by everyone except for a nonsense reply from Temp. It seems that real facts and analysis tend to get pushed to the side in favor of speculation. They say they want answers, but give them 300 pages of answers and they act like it's not there. Interesting...
It totally quashes the folly presented in these threads.
Question, have the people who are claiming it was a demolition job ACTUALLY read this report?
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf
So many of the questions that have been posed on this thread are answered in the report, which makes me wonder why we are guessing at them.
The sophistication of their analysis is impressive.
The details of the construction of the towers provides many pieces of info not covered in these threads, many important to understanding the collapse.
I specifically refer you to section 6.14 Collapse Analysis of the Towers
Arthur
I love how this "small" piece of information is ignored by everyone except for a nonsense reply from Temp. It seems that real facts and analysis tend to get pushed to the side in favor of speculation. They say they want answers, but give them 300 pages of answers and they act like it's not there. Interesting...
QUOTE
Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force.
If the metal on a given floor fractures completely everywhere that matters, there's essentially no resistance from that point until you hit the next floor.
If you have to expend enough energy to create those complete fractures (which includes turning small fractures that exists as a matter of course into big, complete ones) , you will slow the collapse down sufficiently to prevent a local collapse turning into a global one.
If not (I'm ignoring other factors, of course), then you will get a global collapse.
It turns out I know somebody personally that's made a fortune (presumably) building a worldwide company which detects metal fractures in large structures using phonons. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I know a damn thing, myself, about fracturing in metals.
Simply put, I don't have the expertise to do much more than guess about the effects of fracturing. Do I believe that a correct account of fracturing would allow a global collapse without demolition of WTC 1 or 2? No.
Do I know this to be the case? No, and I don't see how anybody else could know, one way or another, without studying the issue.
NIST did indeed study fracturing of columns wrt the plane impact. That tells me they have a good handle on how to go about it. So why didn't they do so wrt a plausible local collapse, to see if it could turn into a global collapse?
We can only guess, but I'm sure your guess and mine would be the same.
JayUtah indicated that there's nothing suspicious (please read his post for his exact words) about such a situation. If I understand him correctly, the mindset of structural engineers is "What does it take to reach failure? If we understand this, there's not much point in going beyond that."
My problem with that is that there is more than 1 type of critical failure that engineers should be concerned about. Obviously, you want to try and design a hi-rise so that you do not get even a 1 floor collapse. However, as tragic and expensive as a 1 floor collapse might be, it's going to be much worse if it turns into a global collapse.
I'm not a structural engineer, but it boggles my mind that you would either 1) design a building to keep standing after a plane implact, and not consider how to prevent a local -> global collapse 2) not look into this in a post-mortem, such as NIST's.
I was working until 5 am, may not be able to post to ApolloHoax for a while...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force. |
If the metal on a given floor fractures completely everywhere that matters, there's essentially no resistance from that point until you hit the next floor.
If you have to expend enough energy to create those complete fractures (which includes turning small fractures that exists as a matter of course into big, complete ones) , you will slow the collapse down sufficiently to prevent a local collapse turning into a global one.
If not (I'm ignoring other factors, of course), then you will get a global collapse.
It turns out I know somebody personally that's made a fortune (presumably) building a worldwide company which detects metal fractures in large structures using phonons. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I know a damn thing, myself, about fracturing in metals.
Simply put, I don't have the expertise to do much more than guess about the effects of fracturing. Do I believe that a correct account of fracturing would allow a global collapse without demolition of WTC 1 or 2? No.
Do I know this to be the case? No, and I don't see how anybody else could know, one way or another, without studying the issue.
NIST did indeed study fracturing of columns wrt the plane impact. That tells me they have a good handle on how to go about it. So why didn't they do so wrt a plausible local collapse, to see if it could turn into a global collapse?
We can only guess, but I'm sure your guess and mine would be the same.
JayUtah indicated that there's nothing suspicious (please read his post for his exact words) about such a situation. If I understand him correctly, the mindset of structural engineers is "What does it take to reach failure? If we understand this, there's not much point in going beyond that."
My problem with that is that there is more than 1 type of critical failure that engineers should be concerned about. Obviously, you want to try and design a hi-rise so that you do not get even a 1 floor collapse. However, as tragic and expensive as a 1 floor collapse might be, it's going to be much worse if it turns into a global collapse.
I'm not a structural engineer, but it boggles my mind that you would either 1) design a building to keep standing after a plane implact, and not consider how to prevent a local -> global collapse 2) not look into this in a post-mortem, such as NIST's.
I was working until 5 am, may not be able to post to ApolloHoax for a while...
but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under.
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
In fact, the visible part of the building essentially remains perfectly straight during the collapse, which suggests to me that collapsing floors would have had to fracture floor by floor, simultaneously with the collapse of the lateral part of the floor.
I think Levy's assurance to us that this is NOT what occured essentially rules out fracturing, and I suspect he has actually calculated this. (Perhaps if you have time, you can contact his office and ask about any such calculations.) Thus you are left with a heating/softening/bending alternative, which can be ruled out by conservation of energy considerations.
Re BZ: I believe I could completely digest the original paper in a week or two if I had all the relevant info. Not so this other paper you quote from. My guess is it would take a couple of months, with full time study.
Of course, I'm not going to invest any more time in even the simple BZ paper, if it turns out that structural engineers don't use it in the way that BZ did, or don't think that it's useful for studying collapses.
QUOTE (Temp+Nov 7 2005, 12:23 PM)
Has anyone ever seen or heard of a pyroclastic building collapse before?
not until Hoffman said it was a 'pryoclastic flow". I could be wrong but I believe that term does not show up in any official reports. I wonder why?
Hoffman does an energy sink calculation that shows that there is a requirement for 10 times as much energy as was available due to gravity in order to do what was observed to occur.
Taking the idea that explosives must have been used to supplement the gravity energy that then requires a 1.5 million pounds of TNT equivalent to have been utilized. A TNT equivalent of RDX, a common demolition explosive IIRC, would still be over a million pounds of RDX. That would require dozens of semi-trailer loads of explosives, detonators and remote control systems to be installed in the towers that were not detected early, did not suffer any damage or go off prematurely due to the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. Frankly I find this so incredible that it certainly borders on the ridiculous.
Hoffman also does not bother to run a check on his method by using it on a known explosive demolition where the gravity element of energy and the explosive energy would be well docuemented and there would be ample video of the resultant dust cloud. If he did this he could validate his method or it would show that his method is in error.
not until Hoffman said it was a 'pryoclastic flow". I could be wrong but I believe that term does not show up in any official reports. I wonder why?
Hoffman does an energy sink calculation that shows that there is a requirement for 10 times as much energy as was available due to gravity in order to do what was observed to occur.
Taking the idea that explosives must have been used to supplement the gravity energy that then requires a 1.5 million pounds of TNT equivalent to have been utilized. A TNT equivalent of RDX, a common demolition explosive IIRC, would still be over a million pounds of RDX. That would require dozens of semi-trailer loads of explosives, detonators and remote control systems to be installed in the towers that were not detected early, did not suffer any damage or go off prematurely due to the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires. Frankly I find this so incredible that it certainly borders on the ridiculous.
Hoffman also does not bother to run a check on his method by using it on a known explosive demolition where the gravity element of energy and the explosive energy would be well docuemented and there would be ample video of the resultant dust cloud. If he did this he could validate his method or it would show that his method is in error.
Why do You assume they are using TNT? That was invented in the 19th century. Welcome to the 21st! All you need is a few suitcases buddy!
QUOTE (manifespo+Nov 8 2005, 12:47 AM)
Why do You assume they are using TNT? That was invented in the 19th century. Welcome to the 21st! All you need is a few suitcases buddy!
No, you need to spread out the explosive according to hypothesis such as Foxx's and metamars and Hoffman. They state that each floor was blown out as the building fell resulting in the "near free fall" time of collapse. A "few suitcases" necessarily means concentrating your explosive power in a "few" places wjich would certainly be very noticeable.
In fact I assume you are referring to suitcase nukes and the amount of explosive power I am saying Hoffman's conclusions require is about 0.75 kilotons. That is a very small yield nuke by itself, if you are suggesting more than one then divide that yield by whatever number you want "few" to represent. Now try to tell me that it is even possible to scale down a nuke explosion to that yield level.
No, in order to satisfy Hoffman's conclusion that there is a 90% energy deficit by employing explosives there is a trade off in using more powerful explosives and not being able spread that explosive power throughout the building and using a lower power explosive and requiring more of it.
I gave that explosive power in TNT equivalent because it is a common way of describing explosive power. What do you think the term kiloton refers to in a nuclear bomb? I also gave the amount of RDX which is more powerful than TNT, for example. I do not assume TNT but the non-believers in official theories (man that is a lot of typing to avoid the supposedly offensive term, 'CT') have also not said what explosive was used. Come up with something less ridiculous than nukes and we can find what amount would be needed.
There are a few more problems with a mini-nuke hypothesis but neither Foxx nor metamars have even suggested a nuke(at least not seriously ).
No, you need to spread out the explosive according to hypothesis such as Foxx's and metamars and Hoffman. They state that each floor was blown out as the building fell resulting in the "near free fall" time of collapse. A "few suitcases" necessarily means concentrating your explosive power in a "few" places wjich would certainly be very noticeable.
In fact I assume you are referring to suitcase nukes and the amount of explosive power I am saying Hoffman's conclusions require is about 0.75 kilotons. That is a very small yield nuke by itself, if you are suggesting more than one then divide that yield by whatever number you want "few" to represent. Now try to tell me that it is even possible to scale down a nuke explosion to that yield level.
No, in order to satisfy Hoffman's conclusion that there is a 90% energy deficit by employing explosives there is a trade off in using more powerful explosives and not being able spread that explosive power throughout the building and using a lower power explosive and requiring more of it.
I gave that explosive power in TNT equivalent because it is a common way of describing explosive power. What do you think the term kiloton refers to in a nuclear bomb? I also gave the amount of RDX which is more powerful than TNT, for example. I do not assume TNT but the non-believers in official theories (man that is a lot of typing to avoid the supposedly offensive term, 'CT') have also not said what explosive was used. Come up with something less ridiculous than nukes and we can find what amount would be needed.
There are a few more problems with a mini-nuke hypothesis but neither Foxx nor metamars have even suggested a nuke(at least not seriously ).
QUOTE
Originally posted by Foxx
Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force.
Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Foxx Hi Metamars. I have been struggling to understand what the heck 'fracturing' would have to do with the collapse in a gravity-driven event. I don't see how the fracturing of columns could occur without sudden (virtually instantaneous) force. |
Metamars Reply
If the metal on a given floor fractures completely everywhere that matters, there's essentially no resistance from that point until you hit the next floor.[/i]
Zdenek Bazant is certainly no dummy. I've been spending time looking into his writings, and based upon his qualifications and the areas of study which he has been involved with for the past 20 or so years, it certainly looks like he is a leader in his particular field of civil engineering and materials science. His area of expertise seems to be in structural dynamics related to vibrational fracturing.
You seem to be leaning in the direction of 'fracturing' also.
But this still does not explain (to me) how the 'leap' is made from the 'official stance' of fire 'softening' the steel to the point that it enters the elastic / plastic stage... to fracturing of cold steel (of those unaffected floors beneath the impact zone).
This seems to me to be opposing circumstances.
The heating of steel is a gradual process. As it heats and reaches a certain internal temperature it will enter the elastic stage ( that is, when it cools - it will return to its original shape and configuration)...
heat it more, and it will enter the plastic stage (that is, when it cools - it will not return to it's original shape, but will retain it's 'buckled' shape).
But 'fracturing' IMHO requires either a sudden (virtually instantaneous) dynamic force... as in explosive cutting of steel, OR... a long term tensile stressing such as bending 'back and forth' to extend microscopic fractures to fractures which actually 'break' the steel... [what I presume you are referring to as "complete fractures"]...OR (if I understand your reasoning) that at a certain point of reaching the extreme plasticization state... the steel will break / completely fracture.
QUOTE
by metamars
If you have to expend enough energy to create those complete fractures (which includes turning small fractures that exists as a matter of course into big, complete ones) , you will slow the collapse down sufficiently to prevent a local collapse turning into a global one.
If not (I'm ignoring other factors, of course), then you will get a global collapse.
It turns out I know somebody personally that's made a fortune (presumably) building a worldwide company which detects metal fractures in large structures using phonons.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I know a damn thing, myself, about fracturing in metals.
Simply put, I don't have the expertise to do much more than guess about the effects of fracturing. Do I believe that a correct account of fracturing would allow a global collapse without demolition of WTC 1 or 2? No.
Do I know this to be the case? No, and I don't see how anybody else could know, one way or another, without studying the issue.
NIST did indeed study fracturing of columns wrt the plane impact. That tells me they have a good handle on how to go about it. So why didn't they do so wrt a plausible local collapse, to see if it could turn into a global collapse?
We can only guess, but I'm sure your guess and mine would be the same.
If you have to expend enough energy to create those complete fractures (which includes turning small fractures that exists as a matter of course into big, complete ones) , you will slow the collapse down sufficiently to prevent a local collapse turning into a global one.
If not (I'm ignoring other factors, of course), then you will get a global collapse.
It turns out I know somebody personally that's made a fortune (presumably) building a worldwide company which detects metal fractures in large structures using phonons.
Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I know a damn thing, myself, about fracturing in metals.
Simply put, I don't have the expertise to do much more than guess about the effects of fracturing. Do I believe that a correct account of fracturing would allow a global collapse without demolition of WTC 1 or 2? No.
Do I know this to be the case? No, and I don't see how anybody else could know, one way or another, without studying the issue.
NIST did indeed study fracturing of columns wrt the plane impact. That tells me they have a good handle on how to go about it. So why didn't they do so wrt a plausible local collapse, to see if it could turn into a global collapse?
We can only guess, but I'm sure your guess and mine would be the same.
I'm afraid my mind will just not let me accept this theory, (at this point in time), that even IF there was some dynamic elastic/plastic 'fracturing' of ALL (or at least the majority of columns within the impact zone as per the BZ theory), to allow the initial alleged dynamic 'drop' of the upper stories onto the lower; how this 'drop' can suddenly 'fracture' all columns below the the impact zone Instantly... to commence a disproportionate progressive 'chain reaction' of failure throughout the entire 'fire-unaffected' lower portions of the building.
Theories can be made to sound 'plausible' to the 'great unwashed', however based upon my understanding of the materials properties of composite materials... I'm afraid that I cannot envison such a scenario taking place apart from some utterly exhorbitant forces being applied ... such as a meteor falling fom heaven to exert such forces.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by metamars If you have to expend enough energy to create those complete fractures (which includes turning small fractures that exists as a matter of course into big, complete ones) , you will slow the collapse down sufficiently to prevent a local collapse turning into a global one. If not (I'm ignoring other factors, of course), then you will get a global collapse. It turns out I know somebody personally that's made a fortune (presumably) building a worldwide company which detects metal fractures in large structures using phonons. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean I know a damn thing, myself, about fracturing in metals. Simply put, I don't have the expertise to do much more than guess about the effects of fracturing. Do I believe that a correct account of fracturing would allow a global collapse without demolition of WTC 1 or 2? No. Do I know this to be the case? No, and I don't see how anybody else could know, one way or another, without studying the issue. NIST did indeed study fracturing of columns wrt the plane impact. That tells me they have a good handle on how to go about it. So why didn't they do so wrt a plausible local collapse, to see if it could turn into a global collapse? We can only guess, but I'm sure your guess and mine would be the same. |
I'm afraid my mind will just not let me accept this theory, (at this point in time), that even IF there was some dynamic elastic/plastic 'fracturing' of ALL (or at least the majority of columns within the impact zone as per the BZ theory), to allow the initial alleged dynamic 'drop' of the upper stories onto the lower; how this 'drop' can suddenly 'fracture' all columns below the the impact zone Instantly... to commence a disproportionate progressive 'chain reaction' of failure throughout the entire 'fire-unaffected' lower portions of the building.
Theories can be made to sound 'plausible' to the 'great unwashed', however based upon my understanding of the materials properties of composite materials... I'm afraid that I cannot envison such a scenario taking place apart from some utterly exhorbitant forces being applied ... such as a meteor falling fom heaven to exert such forces.
JayUtah indicated that there's nothing suspicious (please read his post for his exact words) about such a situation. If I understand him correctly, the mindset of structural engineers is "What does it take to reach failure? If we understand this, there's not much point in going beyond that."
If I understand correctly what you imply, you are invoking the appeal to the generally-agreed-upon NIST proposal that... once this magical 'chain-reaction' starts... there is no stopping it!
This (to me) seems like an unsupportable position.
In order to support such a novel physics phenomena, one must be able to model it either by scientific repeatability through some form of actual test... OR be able to quantify the numbers involved through computer analysis and modeling.
Neither of these tests (as far as I can see) have been demonstrated through the FEMA or NIST 'fairy tale' theoretical analyses.
*************
QUOTE
by metamars...but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under.
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
In fact, the visible part of the building essentially remains perfectly straight during the collapse, which suggests to me that collapsing floors would have had to fracture floor by floor, simultaneously with the collapse of the lateral part of the floor.
I think Levy's assurance to us that this is NOT what occured essentially rules out fracturing, and I suspect he has actually calculated this. (Perhaps if you have time, you can contact his office and ask about any such calculations.) Thus you are left with a heating/softening/bending alternative, which can be ruled out by conservation of energy considerations.
Re BZ: I believe I could completely digest the original paper in a week or two if I had all the relevant info. Not so this other paper you quote from. My guess is it would take a couple of months, with full time study.
Of course, I'm not going to invest any more time in even the simple BZ paper, if it turns out that structural engineers don't use it in the way that BZ did, or don't think that it's useful for studying collapses.
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
In fact, the visible part of the building essentially remains perfectly straight during the collapse, which suggests to me that collapsing floors would have had to fracture floor by floor, simultaneously with the collapse of the lateral part of the floor.
I think Levy's assurance to us that this is NOT what occured essentially rules out fracturing, and I suspect he has actually calculated this. (Perhaps if you have time, you can contact his office and ask about any such calculations.) Thus you are left with a heating/softening/bending alternative, which can be ruled out by conservation of energy considerations.
Re BZ: I believe I could completely digest the original paper in a week or two if I had all the relevant info. Not so this other paper you quote from. My guess is it would take a couple of months, with full time study.
Of course, I'm not going to invest any more time in even the simple BZ paper, if it turns out that structural engineers don't use it in the way that BZ did, or don't think that it's useful for studying collapses.
Having gone through the Weidlinger analysis, it seems he is definately refuting the Eagar 'collapsing truss' model /theory.
Then ... if we consider the Clifton analysis (which seems in some ways to support the Weidlinger analysis) but rejects the NIST fire-related analysis...
I'm lost.
Although the 'official story' seems to want to present the position that "ALL structural engineers are in agreement" as to the causes regarding this WTC phenomena, when you study what all these structural engineers say... there still seems to be no 'consensual agreement' accepted by ALL?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| by metamars...but I just can't fathom how steel could fracture at the speed required to simply 'give up the ghost' in a normal gravity driven collapse... especially in compressive stresses such as columns would be under. Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns. In fact, the visible part of the building essentially remains perfectly straight during the collapse, which suggests to me that collapsing floors would have had to fracture floor by floor, simultaneously with the collapse of the lateral part of the floor. I think Levy's assurance to us that this is NOT what occured essentially rules out fracturing, and I suspect he has actually calculated this. (Perhaps if you have time, you can contact his office and ask about any such calculations.) Thus you are left with a heating/softening/bending alternative, which can be ruled out by conservation of energy considerations. Re BZ: I believe I could completely digest the original paper in a week or two if I had all the relevant info. Not so this other paper you quote from. My guess is it would take a couple of months, with full time study. Of course, I'm not going to invest any more time in even the simple BZ paper, if it turns out that structural engineers don't use it in the way that BZ did, or don't think that it's useful for studying collapses. |
Having gone through the Weidlinger analysis, it seems he is definately refuting the Eagar 'collapsing truss' model /theory.
Then ... if we consider the Clifton analysis (which seems in some ways to support the Weidlinger analysis) but rejects the NIST fire-related analysis...
I'm lost.
Although the 'official story' seems to want to present the position that "ALL structural engineers are in agreement" as to the causes regarding this WTC phenomena, when you study what all these structural engineers say... there still seems to be no 'consensual agreement' accepted by ALL?
Will the Real 'Slim Shady' please stand up... please stand up !
(With apologies to eminem)
I feel we need to rise above this 'CT' animosity and discuss these things openly amongst engineers with various backgrounds, and I feel it is possible that there are 'engineers' at AH who can rise above the 'conspiracy aspects' to discuss these things in an intelligent, objective, and rational manner.
Cheers
Just a quick reply, for now:
Any complete account of the collapse must consider both fracturing and buckling/bending. While it would be easier to consider these in isolation, and in very simple scenarios, for a definitive answer you must pay heed to the principle, as JayUtah has stated, that "the devil is in the details"
Fortunately, JayUtah has confirmed that failure of the structure basically amounts to "just" fracturing and bending.
To debunk the notion that a local collapse turned into a global collapse, it's seems to me much easier to just go ahead and grant a local collapse. I did a calculation assuming a 5 floor free fall. However, if the lateral portions, alone, of 5 floors fell onto the one below, I would expect the lateral portion of this next floor to collapse, and eventually, you would have a global/lateral collapse, with the columns either standing or, probably more likely, falling over.
As for my belief that the lateral parts of the floor would fail via fracturing, that is because I am considering that the columns would not buckle significantly. If they don't, and you know that the lateral parts of the floor must fail, then I assume you MUST get a fracture (perhaps of attaching bolts), because for sure the metal can't bend, silly putty like, even to the next floor, much less the bottom of the WTC buildings.
So, if you'll allow me to be a little silly, if you rent a helicopter and drop a stack of pancakes onto an International House of Pancakes restaurant from 1000 feet, I would expect the pancakes to break into little pieces, but the most damage of the restaurant building I would expect is a slight dent. You might get a bigger dent with a heavier pancake (say, banana pancakes) but that would be the extent of it.
So, I don't have a problem with "pancaking", per se, as long as it's understood that we're talking about the lateral portions of the floors, and not the columns that the lateral portions attach to.
A more useful analogy (perhaps ) is this: take a sledge hammer, and start banging on a tree branch, from any angle you choose. What will happen? Will the branch bend, and eventually break, or will the tree fall down?
The FFT believers will state that as the lateral parts of the floor broke off, the columns were significantly damaged, to the point of collapse. (and not just from this process, but also from the stuff above falling on the columns.) I don't believe this, but to prove or disprove it, you really do need a computer solution, which takes this and a whole lot of other factors into account.
Frankly, although JayUtah might disagree (I will have to ask him), engineers should be able to get a very good handle on what would happen to a column in a bunch of worse case scenarios, and this could rule out certain collapse scenarios. By analogy, take not a sledge hammer but instead a ball and crane, and start smacking not the branches, but the tree itself, any way you choose. My prediction is that either the tree will fall over, or it will break somewhere in the middle. I do not believe that it will break into 30 foot pieces.
Luckily for us, the efficiency of the WTC construction, wherein the lateral connections were not over-over-engineered, may make such an anaysis useful.
At the end of the day, though, to convince FFT believers, you will still have to show a complete computer simulation of at least a few floors collapsing, which accelerates.
Any complete account of the collapse must consider both fracturing and buckling/bending. While it would be easier to consider these in isolation, and in very simple scenarios, for a definitive answer you must pay heed to the principle, as JayUtah has stated, that "the devil is in the details"
Fortunately, JayUtah has confirmed that failure of the structure basically amounts to "just" fracturing and bending.
To debunk the notion that a local collapse turned into a global collapse, it's seems to me much easier to just go ahead and grant a local collapse. I did a calculation assuming a 5 floor free fall. However, if the lateral portions, alone, of 5 floors fell onto the one below, I would expect the lateral portion of this next floor to collapse, and eventually, you would have a global/lateral collapse, with the columns either standing or, probably more likely, falling over.
As for my belief that the lateral parts of the floor would fail via fracturing, that is because I am considering that the columns would not buckle significantly. If they don't, and you know that the lateral parts of the floor must fail, then I assume you MUST get a fracture (perhaps of attaching bolts), because for sure the metal can't bend, silly putty like, even to the next floor, much less the bottom of the WTC buildings.
So, if you'll allow me to be a little silly, if you rent a helicopter and drop a stack of pancakes onto an International House of Pancakes restaurant from 1000 feet, I would expect the pancakes to break into little pieces, but the most damage of the restaurant building I would expect is a slight dent. You might get a bigger dent with a heavier pancake (say, banana pancakes) but that would be the extent of it.
So, I don't have a problem with "pancaking", per se, as long as it's understood that we're talking about the lateral portions of the floors, and not the columns that the lateral portions attach to.
A more useful analogy (perhaps
) is this: take a sledge hammer, and start banging on a tree branch, from any angle you choose. What will happen? Will the branch bend, and eventually break, or will the tree fall down?The FFT believers will state that as the lateral parts of the floor broke off, the columns were significantly damaged, to the point of collapse. (and not just from this process, but also from the stuff above falling on the columns.) I don't believe this, but to prove or disprove it, you really do need a computer solution, which takes this and a whole lot of other factors into account.
Frankly, although JayUtah might disagree (I will have to ask him), engineers should be able to get a very good handle on what would happen to a column in a bunch of worse case scenarios, and this could rule out certain collapse scenarios. By analogy, take not a sledge hammer but instead a ball and crane, and start smacking not the branches, but the tree itself, any way you choose. My prediction is that either the tree will fall over, or it will break somewhere in the middle. I do not believe that it will break into 30 foot pieces.
Luckily for us, the efficiency of the WTC construction, wherein the lateral connections were not over-over-engineered, may make such an anaysis useful.
At the end of the day, though, to convince FFT believers, you will still have to show a complete computer simulation of at least a few floors collapsing, which accelerates.
QUOTE
No, in order to satisfy Hoffman's conclusion that there is a 90% energy deficit by employing explosives
Once you prove a 90% energy deficit, the burden of proof showing that only explosives could have been used falls on the FFT believers (or anybody else who believes the only alternative is explosives).
Hoffman himself has gone into detail about the problems with the explosives-only hypothesis. While he has since recanted his maser hypothesis, I don't think he has stated that he now believes that only explosives were used to accomplish the demolition.
Demolition <> Explosives
Rather, explosives are a subset of demolition modalities.
Talk a look at the uber weird telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire. If you can explain that, then I think you'll be able to explain the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Lol.
QUOTE
At the end of the day, though, to convince FFT believers, you will still have to show a complete computer simulation of at least a few floors collapsing, which accelerates.
I take that back. What I meant was, even if you showed columnar collapse (other than falling over) could not have taken place, when the columns are considered individually, you will still not convert most FFT believers. To convert them, you will still have to show a collapse of at least a few floors.
Of course, this seems to be exactly what NIST is not giving us, one way or the other.
QUOTE
To convert them, you will still have to show a collapse of at least a few floors.
Man, I need to get more sleep....
This should read: "To convert them, you will still have to show a collapse of at least a few floors cannot occur (via computer simulation)"
Yesitdid said,
"A "few suitcases" necessarily means concentrating your explosive power in a "few" places wjich would certainly be very noticeable."
A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
Observations suggesting use of small hydrobombs:
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7
2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)
3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.
Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.
4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident).
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/thermal.JPG
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm - source
"A "few suitcases" necessarily means concentrating your explosive power in a "few" places wjich would certainly be very noticeable."
A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
Observations suggesting use of small hydrobombs:
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7
2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)
3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.
Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.
4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident).
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/thermal.JPG
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm - source
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 8 2005, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE
No, in order to satisfy Hoffman's conclusion that there is a 90% energy deficit by employing explosives
Once you prove a 90% energy deficit, the burden of proof showing that only explosives could have been used falls on the FFT believers (or anybody else who believes the only alternative is explosives).
Hoffman himself has gone into detail about the problems with the explosives-only hypothesis. While he has since recanted his maser hypothesis, I don't think he has stated that he now believes that only explosives were used to accomplish the demolition.
Demolition <> Explosives
Rather, explosives are a subset of demolition modalities.
Talk a look at the uber weird telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire. If you can explain that, then I think you'll be able to explain the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Lol.
????
If there was not enough energy due to gravity by a factor of ten, then it is encumabnt upon the person calulating that there was not enough energy to show that his figures are not wildly skewed. I have suggested two ways to do that, both should be done.
1) explain another mode of inputting energy into the collapse to make up for that ten fold energy deficit. Explosives come to mind immediatly. If explosive are a subset of demolition modalities then list a few more that would make sense in this case. Earthquake would seem to be out since no record of a quake on that day is in evidence on 9/11. Masers and other superweapons should only be considered a remote possibility otherwise we might as well also include magic as a possibility IMHO.
2) do the same calculations on a known demolition where all gravity and explosive energy can be accounted for and for which video records are available to show the extent of the dust cloud. Of the calculations show no energy deficit or one within the range of error then this goes a long way to validating Hoffman's method. On the other hand if the calculations still show an energy deficit well above the range of error then it illustrates a problem with the method.
Doing this would simply be adhereing to good scientific method.http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
$hit
before Foxx reams me for it
encumabnt????
should be " incumbent "
before Foxx reams me for it
encumabnt????
should be " incumbent "
QUOTE (manifespo+Nov 8 2005, 05:43 PM)
Yesitdid said,
"A "few suitcases" necessarily means concentrating your explosive power in a "few" places wjich would certainly be very noticeable."
A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
Observations suggesting use of small hydrobombs:
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7
2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)
3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.
Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.
4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident).
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/thermal.JPG
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm - source
A few points that suggesting no nuclear explosive
1) Collapse is very much the same all the way down. A concentrated explosion or small number of concentrated explosions would be very noticable.
2) the speed of collapse is much slower than the shock wave of a nuclear weapon which would propagate at the speed of sound or faster.
3)no record of greatly elevated background radiation. Some increase is noted but can be explained by the DU used in the ballast in the aircraft.
4) underground temps after the collapse, if attributed to nuclear explosions would require that the bomb was set off in the basement. If this occured prior to the collapse then it would have resulted in the building toppling, if after one would wonder why it was planted to simply shake the rubble.
Nor would an underground nuclear explosion contribute to the dust cloud in the fashion observed. Once again if it was set off prior to collapse a great dust cloud woul emante from lower floors prior to collapse reaching the ground and if set off after collapse then it would be sending dust against the falling debris which would have the effect of choking off the expelling of dust from underground.
Sorry IMHO nuclear weapons are just slightly more possible that pods and holograms.
"A "few suitcases" necessarily means concentrating your explosive power in a "few" places wjich would certainly be very noticeable."
A working solution is a nuclear missile that directs 96% of its yield into a thin, all penetrating heat+blast wave forward, tunneling hundreds of meters downwards into solid rock. This type of a hydrogen bomb was developed somewhere in the early 1990's. Nowadays, both the yield and the direction of the destructive force of a small tactical hydrogen bomb can be somewhat controlled. The amount of fusion-able materials control the yield (effect) and the shape of the charge as well as the initiation arrangements impress the direction of the explosion wave.
Observations suggesting use of small hydrobombs:
1) The concrete pulverized into fine dust, 70…300 micron particles (just this could take more energy than the total gravitational energy available). See Gehue plates 6 and 7
2) Very energetic – hot – dust after the explosions. (Demolition charges would produce white clouds of dust, which would not move much, and a gravity-driven collapse would produce much less and more coarse dust.)
3) Brown shades of color seen in the air – these are produced by nuclear reactions of a thermonuclear device. The reactions use (gamma radiation caused by free neutrons, N2, O2, H2O > nitrid acid, NO2, NO3). These clouds soon get their usual white color after some minutes as the heat and fast movement of the clouds cease becoming ordinary clouds with some water.
Note: many of the pictures taken regarding the WTC Towers and the clouds seem to have been developed too blue, killing shades of brown. (This may have been an attempt to suppress the evidence.) Also there was supposed to be 200 000+ gallons of water on the roof of each tower – this water was spilled into stairwells etc, but was later all converted into water vapour reducing the brown color.
4) Superheated steel objects, disintegrating into steel vapour. Molten ponds of steel were found in the elevator shafts. There were lots of burned cars in the parking areas of the towers. The fire department did not announce until 12/19/2001 that the fires under the WTC rubble have been distinguished (more than 3 months after the incident).
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/thermal.JPG
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm - source
A few points that suggesting no nuclear explosive
1) Collapse is very much the same all the way down. A concentrated explosion or small number of concentrated explosions would be very noticable.
2) the speed of collapse is much slower than the shock wave of a nuclear weapon which would propagate at the speed of sound or faster.
3)no record of greatly elevated background radiation. Some increase is noted but can be explained by the DU used in the ballast in the aircraft.
4) underground temps after the collapse, if attributed to nuclear explosions would require that the bomb was set off in the basement. If this occured prior to the collapse then it would have resulted in the building toppling, if after one would wonder why it was planted to simply shake the rubble.
Nor would an underground nuclear explosion contribute to the dust cloud in the fashion observed. Once again if it was set off prior to collapse a great dust cloud woul emante from lower floors prior to collapse reaching the ground and if set off after collapse then it would be sending dust against the falling debris which would have the effect of choking off the expelling of dust from underground.
Sorry IMHO nuclear weapons are just slightly more possible that pods and holograms.
QUOTE
Masers and other superweapons should only be considered a remote possibility otherwise we might as well also include magic as a possibility IMHO.
Really? So, what is your preferred explanation of the telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire?
QUOTE
by metamars
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
Ahhhhh, that clears up a lot. yes the truss floor connections would 'fracture'. I was confused and thinking about vertical columns fracturing... which makes no sense to me... i.e. virtually impossible (as I see it)
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 8 2005, 07:55 PM)
QUOTE
Masers and other super weapons should only be considered a remote possibility otherwise we might as well also include magic as a possibility IMHO.
Really? So, what is your preferred explanation of the telescoping, powderizing collapse of the spire?
Powderizing of the spire??? What evidence is there that this portion of the steel core turned to powder? Yes there was a lot of dust as it fell but there was a lot of dust around at that time.
As far as it collapsing it just was a freak thing that it was standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building came down in much the same way that a freak of the chaotic collapse also had several people in a pocket of debris but unharmed. Looking at the structure of the "spire" it is pretty obvious that it would be unstable even if one could say that it was undamaged.
Do we now have metamars claiming that super secret weaponry for which there is NO evidence is a valid explanation for the collapse of the towers? Perhaps then some supernatural or magic force would also be a valid explanation? Perhaps some form of telekinesis?
Really, how far from the commonplace do we have to go with this?
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 8 2005, 10:25 PM)
QUOTE
by metamars
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
Actually, I would expect that the lateral parts of the floors would primarly fail via fracturing, once you loaded them beyond their capability. However, I sincerely doubt that the columns would fail, even via fracturing, anywhere near the level of loading that would fracture the lateral floor. If the "non-catastrophic" difference in load capacity varies by 2 order of magnitude, I would expect the floors to pancake without so much as a visible kink in the columns.
Ahhhhh, that clears up a lot. yes the truss floor connections would 'fracture'. I was confused and thinking about vertical columns fracturing... which makes no sense to me... i.e. virtually impossible (as I see it)
IIRC the column sections after the collapse were on the oder of 30 feet long. This is the length of each section of column that was bolted/welded together. This suggests that the columns broke/failed/fractured at the connections between sections. This is going to be the weak point in the columns in a bending or shearing action. Obviously at the initiation of collapse there is going to be a lot of stress and bending force put on all core columns as the upper section's core falls. Those upper section core columns are not likely to simply fall between the lower section coulmns.
CORE COLUMN PHOTO
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap5.html
1) I FOUND THIS PHOTO IN INTERNET
2) I PRESSED RIGHT CLICK (PC) OR CTRL CLICK (MAC) AND COPIED THE IMAGE LOCATION
3) I THEN CAME TO THE PHYSICS FORUM, LOGGED IN TO THIS FORUM THEN STARTED TO POST
4) SELECTED "IMG" FROM THE POST MENU.
5) PASTE THE IMAGE LOCATION WHEN ASKED TO. (FROM STEP 2)
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzap5.html
1) I FOUND THIS PHOTO IN INTERNET
2) I PRESSED RIGHT CLICK (PC) OR CTRL CLICK (MAC) AND COPIED THE IMAGE LOCATION
3) I THEN CAME TO THE PHYSICS FORUM, LOGGED IN TO THIS FORUM THEN STARTED TO POST
4) SELECTED "IMG" FROM THE POST MENU.
5) PASTE THE IMAGE LOCATION WHEN ASKED TO. (FROM STEP 2)
QUOTE
Electronic Civil Disobedience 19 -20. CRITICAL ART ENSEMBLE
This model, although it seems so easy to grasp, is still science fiction. No alliance exists between hackers and specific political organizations. In spite of the fact that eachwould benefit through interaction and cooperation, the alienating structure of a complex division of labor keeps these two social segments separated more successfully than could the best police force. Hacking requires a continuous
technical education in order to keep skills up to date and razor sharp.
This educational need has two consequences:
First, it is time-consuming, leaving little or no leisure time for collecting information about specific political causes, building critical perspective, or designating contestational sites. Without such information, hacker politics will continue to be extraordinarily vague.
Second, continuous reeducation keeps hackers tied into their own hermetically-sealed classroom. Little interaction occurs with others outside this technocratic subclass. Traditional political activists do not fare any better. Left behind in the dust of history, this political subgroup knows what to do and what to target, but has no effective means to carry out its desires. Political activists, as knowledgeable as they might be about their causes, are too often stuck in assembly meetings debating which monument to dead capital they should strike next. Here are two groups motivated to accomplish similar anti-authoritarian ends, but which cannot seem to find a point of intersection. While the former group lives on-line, the latter group lives in the street, and both are unknowingly being defeated by a communication gap forwhich neither is responsible.
The schism between knowledge and technical skill has to be closed, to eliminate the prejudices held by each side (hacker intolerance for the technologically impaired, and activist intolerance for those who are not politically correct).
http://www.critical-art.net/books/ecd/index.htmlThis model, although it seems so easy to grasp, is still science fiction. No alliance exists between hackers and specific political organizations. In spite of the fact that eachwould benefit through interaction and cooperation, the alienating structure of a complex division of labor keeps these two social segments separated more successfully than could the best police force. Hacking requires a continuous
technical education in order to keep skills up to date and razor sharp.
This educational need has two consequences:
First, it is time-consuming, leaving little or no leisure time for collecting information about specific political causes, building critical perspective, or designating contestational sites. Without such information, hacker politics will continue to be extraordinarily vague.
Second, continuous reeducation keeps hackers tied into their own hermetically-sealed classroom. Little interaction occurs with others outside this technocratic subclass. Traditional political activists do not fare any better. Left behind in the dust of history, this political subgroup knows what to do and what to target, but has no effective means to carry out its desires. Political activists, as knowledgeable as they might be about their causes, are too often stuck in assembly meetings debating which monument to dead capital they should strike next. Here are two groups motivated to accomplish similar anti-authoritarian ends, but which cannot seem to find a point of intersection. While the former group lives on-line, the latter group lives in the street, and both are unknowingly being defeated by a communication gap forwhich neither is responsible.
The schism between knowledge and technical skill has to be closed, to eliminate the prejudices held by each side (hacker intolerance for the technologically impaired, and activist intolerance for those who are not politically correct).
QUOTE
Powderizing of the spire??? What evidence is there that this portion of the steel core turned to powder? Yes there was a lot of dust as it fell but there was a lot of dust around at that time.
While the video could be clearer, I find your non-explanation of what I see very unimpressive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Powderizing of the spire??? What evidence is there that this portion of the steel core turned to powder? Yes there was a lot of dust as it fell but there was a lot of dust around at that time. |
While the video could be clearer, I find your non-explanation of what I see very unimpressive.
As far as it collapsing it just was a freak thing that it was standing for a few seconds after the rest of the building came down in much the same way that a freak of the chaotic collapse also had several people in a pocket of debris but unharmed. Looking at the structure of the "spire" it is pretty obvious that it would be unstable even if one could say that it was undamaged.
Yet another non-explanation. At least here, you're not just out and out denying the visible evidence. Unfortunately for you, a telescoping collapse of a metal structure that stood above 500 ft., even ignoring the dust issue, is something you don't explain. Most likely because you can't.
The quick loss of stiffness of the spire, in a matter of seconds, also is another wierd aspect of the spire collapse, somewhat consistent with its telescoping aspect (as both imply softening) Note the obvious curvature, simultaneous with the shortened height in the photos below. The videos show that the curvature, while significant, in no way explains the loss of height. It really is a telescoping collapse.)
Hmmm. Telesccoping collapse of steel framed structure, which turned much of much of the building into powder sub 100 microns, on the one hand. Followed by the telescoping, powderizing collapse of a surviving steel spire, within minutes (or seconds - don't recall, exactly) of the first collapse.
Hmmm. Hmmmmmmm.
Could there be a connection? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.
Naah! Silly me! Looks like metamars has gone metalunar!
QUOTE
Do we now have metamars claiming that super secret weaponry for which there is NO evidence is a valid explanation for the collapse of the towers?
metamars is claiming that the FEMA Fairy Tale version of collapse violates conservation of energy, doesn't believe that explosives explain all the facets of the collapse, either, and, unlike FEMA, doesn't try to convince anybody that he does know what brought the towers down.
Unfortunately, also, for your lame attempt to explain away something that isn't just weird, but uber-weird, metamars has heard from a second hand source that the US has secret, beam type weapons that can take out ICBMS. This is suggestive, but certainly not proof that such a device exists or was used.
In conclusion, if my hypothesis strikes you as lame, let me assure you, yours strikes me as lamer.
Note to Foxx: The extreme height of the spire no doubt factors into the debate about the stability of the towers with respect to minimal, and broken bracing. I don't know the exact height, but plaguepuppy is stating 60-70 floors.
http://www.911digitalarchive.org/objects/114.pdf
52% to 63% of the mass of each sample was greater than 53 microns.
No where in this study do I find that the authors claim that this sample is representative of the size of the total of the pulverized material. this study was done specifically downwind of the WTC in order to collect samples of dust that would be easily inhaled or ingested.
52% to 63% of the mass of each sample was greater than 53 microns.
No where in this study do I find that the authors claim that this sample is representative of the size of the total of the pulverized material. this study was done specifically downwind of the WTC in order to collect samples of dust that would be easily inhaled or ingested.
The purposes
for collecting the samples were a) to determine
the chemical and physical characteristics
of the material that was present in the
dust and smoke that settled from the initial
plume, and B) to determine the absence or
presence of contaminants that could affect
acute or long-term human health by inhalation
or ingestion.
Somehow though Hoffman states
This is in error in two ways. First the Lioy et al study does indeed characterize the constituents of the dust. Read it and see.
second Hoffman still does not state how he arrives at a figure of 60 microns for the size of the pulverization of most of the concrete. The Lioy et al study certainly does not state this. Instead Hoffman simply says "diverse evidence". Fact is Hoffman has no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size. He is simply using Russell's statement as gospel it seems and Russell says nothing about how he arrives at this number on this page.
Hoffman also takes Russell as gospel in the energy required topulverize concrete to 60 microns. The reference Russell gives does not specify what type of concrete is being pulverized and in the WTC descriptions of the concrete used it is predominantly referred to as "lightweight" concrete. One can assume this is in contrast to denser, common structural concrete and that the more common concrete is what that reference is speaking about.
So, Hoffman has two immediate problems with his method,
1) he cannot show that most of the concrete of the WTC structures was pulverized to less than 60 microns.
2) He cannot demonstrate that the energy required to pulverize the WTC concrete to 60 microns is as he states it is.
I've little doubt that a survey of unbiased people would, upon viewing the video, mostly see what I see. If I am correct, then your opinion is of no consequence. And if I am incorrect, my opinion is of no consequence.
Conducting such a survey is more of a bother than I care to indulge in. However, if you feel so inclined, knock yourself out!
I've little doubt that a survey of unbiased people would, upon viewing the video, mostly see what I see. If I am correct, then your opinion is of no consequence. And if I am incorrect, my opinion is of no consequence.
Conducting such a survey is more of a bother than I care to indulge in. However, if you feel so inclined, knock yourself out!
As for the "telescoping" had this "spire" or indeed the whole core been a solid piece then this might be odd but the distance between columns is still much greater than the width of the column. There is ample room therefore for them to fall largely within the area of the core's base.
This strikes me as mere sophistry. In any event, I don't understand you. AFAIK, there were only about 5 floors below ground. Somehow, a spire 60 some odd stories tall can collapse into those 5, strewn with rubbish as they are, and your explanation of this is that "the distance between columns is still much greater than the width of the columns"?
To me, this is not just an implausible explanation, it is a non-explanation. Perhaps if you drew us a picture.....
You know, pictures like this (from http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/ne-spire.htm )
These certainly seem like more serious arguments/criticisms. I'll try and respond this weekend, but as Foxx has already looked more deeply into this, I'd like to read his posts, first.
I believe this is just 'playing with words'. The calculations have been performed by Hoffman, and according to his calculations he shows an energy sink deficit. It is not up to Hoffman to show that his figures are not 'wildly skewed'. If someone thinks that his calculations are 'off' or 'wildly skewed' then it is their responsibility to show that.
Yesitdid says...
I believe this is just 'playing with words'. The calculations have been performed by Hoffman, and according to his calculations he shows an energy sink deficit. It is not up to Hoffman to show that his figures are not 'wildly skewed'. If someone thinks that his calculations are 'off' or 'wildly skewed' then it is their responsibility to show that.
Yesitdid says...
I have suggested two ways to do that, both should be done.
1) explain another mode of inputting energy into the collapse to make up for that ten fold energy deficit.
This is not Hoffmans duty. His energy calcs show the energy deficit, (and although he suggests that one 'explaination' for that must consider the input of additional energy which may include 'explosives')... if you read all of his works, he leaves the door open to other explainations, and in fact in other parts of his writings clearly states that conventional 'explosives' do NOT account for all aspects of the 'disintegration / 'demo' of the towers.
It is not Hoffmans duty to come up with numerous explainations or 'other modes' of inputting energy to explain the energy deficit. On the other hand it IS incumbant for any who wish to dispute his energy-deficit, (and claim that that energy deficit CAN be explained through normal gravity-driven collapse), for THEM to prove such...or alternatively prove that his energy-budget is seriously 'out-of-wack', and that there IS NO energy deficit.
Yesitdid Quote: 2) do the same calculations on a known demolition where all gravity and explosive energy can be accounted for and for which video records are available to show the extent of the dust cloud.
Again ... NOT Hoffman's responsibility... that falls to those who wish to debunk or refute his energy budget. If the 'debunkers' feel that such comparative studies are worthwhile, then let them prove through comparative studies that Hoffmans calculations are in error.
As the sophists and rhetoricians always seek something to debunk, any other comparative studies on other 'demolitions' would simply be met with scoffings that the chosen comparative model is somehow different to the towers and so it is not comparative anyway.
However, Yesitdid... if you truly believe that this could prove or disprove Hoffmans calculations, then I'd suggest you get to work on that, so as to prove that he is full of bunk. Perhaps doing exactly what you suggest Hoffman do, would be a valid way for YOU to 'prove' him wrong?
You are still hung up on this 60 micron figure. As Hoffman points out this is a median figure. It does not mean (as you insist on implying) that "Hoffman states categorically that ALL concrete was pulverized to exactly 60 microns". You are simply using semantics to attempt top make a case that the 60 micron size he used to do his calculations is never stated in any official documents... therefore he is wrong.
If you read & understand everything Hoffman states, and everything that is contained in official documents regarding the pulverization there is no such thing as a 'specific' size to which ALL constituents were pulverized to, so sophistically you are correct that there is " no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size."... because it wasn't.
One must study ALL the pulverization reports in depth (as Hoffman has done) to come to some kind of median size for use in his dust-cloud analysis. You balk at Hoffmans statement that he has used 'diverse evidence', yet seem to have no understanding of what he refers to as this diverse evidence. There has not been just one study (the Lioy report) on this pulverization effect but numerous from which Hoffman has determined a logical assumption of choosing the median figure of 60 microns for a figure in his dust cloud calculations. I can think of a couple right off the top, like the USGS study and other medical investigations of this dust. here are just a couple of other links...
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/results.html
Here is what Hoffman states about the Lioy study...(and the locations from which they obtained their samples) -
You are still hung up on this 60 micron figure. As Hoffman points out this is a median figure. It does not mean (as you insist on implying) that "Hoffman states categorically that ALL concrete was pulverized to exactly 60 microns". You are simply using semantics to attempt top make a case that the 60 micron size he used to do his calculations is never stated in any official documents... therefore he is wrong.
If you read & understand everything Hoffman states, and everything that is contained in official documents regarding the pulverization there is no such thing as a 'specific' size to which ALL constituents were pulverized to, so sophistically you are correct that there is " no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size."... because it wasn't.
One must study ALL the pulverization reports in depth (as Hoffman has done) to come to some kind of median size for use in his dust-cloud analysis. You balk at Hoffmans statement that he has used 'diverse evidence', yet seem to have no understanding of what he refers to as this diverse evidence. There has not been just one study (the Lioy report) on this pulverization effect but numerous from which Hoffman has determined a logical assumption of choosing the median figure of 60 microns for a figure in his dust cloud calculations. I can think of a couple right off the top, like the USGS study and other medical investigations of this dust. here are just a couple of other links...
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/results.html
Here is what Hoffman states about the Lioy study...(and the locations from which they obtained their samples) -
Unfortunately, despite the detail of the study, it fails to provide satisfying answers to these questions. The report does not quantify what proportion of the dust was pulverized concrete, though it does note that the samples were very alkaline. It notes that signifcant portion of the dust were glass fibers and cellulose fibers, and that the samples were fluffy. Thus, it appears that the samples were not representative of the dust that settled in open areas in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Being from sheltered areas, their samples were likely biased greatly in favor of lightweight fibrous debris, which would tend to stay aloft much longer than powdered concrete.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html
[BTW --- when you quote Hoffman, it would be appropriate to give the reference source - he is constantly updating his pages and quite often corrects or modifes past statements based on new evidence]
Many often make the statement that no 'official documents' state that the 'majority' of the concrete was pulverized to micron sized dust, and you have often made this 'challenge'. This rebuttal flies in the face of many reports which outright state this to be fact...
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
Check the graph here for the calcium percentages (as well as the other graphs at the USGS site) which show high percentages of calcium from concrete and gypsum...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...w11-7.small.gif
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
Check the graph here for the calcium percentages (as well as the other graphs at the USGS site) which show high percentages of calcium from concrete and gypsum...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...w11-7.small.gif
"...the extremely large mass of material (> 10 106 tons) reduced to dust and smoke..."
---------------
"The Cherry Avenue sample is mainly composed of construction debris (including cement, vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, mineral wool fibers, paint particles, glass fibers, metals, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes."
---------------
"Thus, on the first and second days after the attack on the WTC, > 70% of the mass was associated with construction materials, including pulverized cement, wallboard, and office furnishings, which included a large percentage by weight of glass fiber."
---------------
"The high pH of the samples was probably caused by cement and other basic materials associated with construction debris in the deposited particles."
---------------
"The vast majority of the mass was pulverized building and construction materials including cement, cellulose, and glass fibers."
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
You seem to want to simplify a very complex question of 'how much' and to 'what specific size' the concrete was pulverized by reducing the question to...
"Show me the exact statement in an official document which says...THE CONCRETE WAS PULVERIZED TO 60 MICRONS"...
There is no such statement. This approximation (for use in Hoffmans calculations) is deduced from numerous clues and evidence regarding the entire body of works which have addressed the pulverization of (NOT ONLY the concrete, but virtually ALL other non-steel), contents of the buildings. Here is one 'clue' from the Lioy report which gives a percentage by mass of constituents of this pulverized dust...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
As can be seen ~ 50% of the mass consisted of cement and other non-fibrous constituents. Of course, this still does not give us an [b]exact amount of concrete / cement that was in that ~ 50%, but we can see that a high percentage of the dust consisted of pulverized concrete. In any estimation such as the calculations Hoffman makes to arrive at his energy budget there will never be an exactly defineable size and quantity of concrete that WAS pulverized and there will have to be some informed guesstimate and averaging to arrive at some figure which can be used in such calculations. Nevertheless the orders of magnitude differnces arrived at are so large that it would take some seriously blatant error to change his calculations to the degree that it would seriously alter the energy deficit even granting different micron sizes, etc.
Besides all the above, you are so narrowly focused on attempting to debunk his concrete dust calculations you are missing the larger picture here.
It is not just a case that the majority of the concrete was pulverized to talcum powder sized particulate... so was virtually all other contents apart from steel.
There is absolutely no other precedent that I know of for this phemomena in the world of physics (or other building 'progressive collapses'). If you know of any, please feel free to bring them forward to support your position that this phenomena accompanies building collapses... even building demolitions. This is an utterly huge physics anomaly which defies explanation through known physics. Not only was concrete pulverized to micron sized dust but so was window glass, foam padding from chairs etc, wood and other cellulose products such as paper...(Imagine that for a moment -paper shredded to micron sized particles simply by a building falling down !)...
The paint on the walls ! was pulverized to micron sized particulate dust. We know this because of the lead and titanium particulates (which came from the chemical make-up of various paints)... look at the size of lead particles...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
Here is a picture of calcium carbonate (one of the main constituents of cement)...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
In breaking down the dust to elemental constituents we find the following...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
If this does not astound you, you are really missing the big picture regarding this pulverization phenomena. Hoffman looked at it very simply in 'just' analyzing the concrete aspect.
When one considers that virtually all (or the majority of all) contents of the building from carpets, to paint from the walls, to plastics from computers and other office contents, to paper, to everything else [apart from steel] was pulverized this is mind-boggling from a physics perspective. For officials to just blighthly dismiss such a phenomena as nothing more than a possible health concern, goes beyond credulity. The mechanics of HOW such a phenomena COULD occur through an alleged 'gravity-driven' event should have elicited far more interest and study from the scientific community.
It doesn't because the officials in charge of determining what is, and what is not important related to these building 'collapses' surely recognize that further study into the actual mechanics of HOW such a phenomena can occur, can only lead to discussions where they fear to tread... better to just shuffle it under the carpet, and not spend to much time investigating this aspect of the 'collapses'. As far as I am concerned there is NO WAY this phenomena can occur to the extent it did in a normal gravity-driven event. Anyone who thinks it can, is quite welcome to bring forward any historical evidence that such phenomena DOES occur in gravity-driven events.
Absolutely untrue Foxx. In any experiment when the results show a huge difference from the calculated outcome the experimenter immediately searches for the reason for this. It is either a problem with the experiment, was it set up properly, were all elements in place AND there is a check of the method of calculation and the arithmetic. In the case of using calculations to describe an occurrence such as the collapse of the towers again if the calculations are very much off from what is observed then the theorist searches for the reason for this. One way to check the method is to use it on a control experiment and a known building demolition fits the bill on this 100%
I am not "playing with words Foxx. I question why Hoffman stops at the point where he has calculated an energy usage an order of magnitude above that which he uses as the available energy. Why is my questioning of Hoffman's methods "playing" when his results clearly have something unanswered? You ask the same of NIST when you see something wrong with their not going beyond the initial collapse.
Absolutely untrue Foxx. In any experiment when the results show a huge difference from the calculated outcome the experimenter immediately searches for the reason for this. It is either a problem with the experiment, was it set up properly, were all elements in place AND there is a check of the method of calculation and the arithmetic. In the case of using calculations to describe an occurrence such as the collapse of the towers again if the calculations are very much off from what is observed then the theorist searches for the reason for this. One way to check the method is to use it on a control experiment and a known building demolition fits the bill on this 100%
I am not "playing with words Foxx. I question why Hoffman stops at the point where he has calculated an energy usage an order of magnitude above that which he uses as the available energy. Why is my questioning of Hoffman's methods "playing" when his results clearly have something unanswered? You ask the same of NIST when you see something wrong with their not going beyond the initial collapse.
he leaves the door open to other explanations, and in fact in other parts of his writings clearly states that conventional 'explosives' do NOT account for all aspects of the 'disintegration / 'demo' of the towers.
It is not Hoffmans duty to come up with numerous explanations or 'other modes' of inputting energy to explain the energy deficit.
This just compounds the reasons why Hoffman should be searching for a way to validate his method. If he states that conventional explosives do not explain it then what does? I understand that at one time he postulated added energy via a MASER but has abandoned that. IMHO going to such extremes as to postulate this type of weaponry is a reach. If he is going to go to so much time and trouble to look for a way to input enough energy to satisfy the 90% energy deficit then why not do the simple act of applying the method to a controlled demolition to validate the method? IMHO it only makes sense not to go that route if one is
a) too egotistical to consider that one may be wrong.
OR
B) One is too fragile in the ego to risk finding out that one is wrong
OR
c) Being deliberately misleading
These certainly seem like more serious arguments/criticisms. I'll try and respond this weekend, but as Foxx has already looked more deeply into this, I'd like to read his posts, first.
Ok, Foxx has done it and his answer is, "it isn't Hoffman's responsibility". I disagree strongly but beyond that all we can do is agree that we see that differently.
I will settle for my believing the you and Foxx are wrong, that Hoffman has not completed his work , and you believing that Hoffman's work is just fine as it is and that I am wrong.
I don't have time to go into a long analysis of your quick response at the moment. It is obvious that you haven't investigated the links I provided. But one question which immediately jumped out at me in your first sentence.
a. it wasn't an 'experiment' but rather a mathematical calculation
b. how do you figure the 'results' of that calculation shows a 'huge difference from the {expected} outcome. As far as I know there was no 'expected' outcome to begin with so how could there be a 'difference' between an 'alleged' expected outcome and results? Your statement 'calculated outcome of the experimenter', makes no sense to me. It wasn't an 'experiment'. It was a pretty basic mathematical calculation.
The results may surprise and shock you, but the figures are clearly provided... if you find errors with the math either point them out, or find someone who can. Sophistry doesn't work with mathematics equations... (the last time I checked).
I feel quite sure he checked his figures numerous times before publishing. What else do you feel he needs to check? He needs do nothing more as far as I can see. The figures are published. I have seen no valid refutations yet of the mathematical equation. That is for others to perform, Not him.
How on earth can people tout the ridiculous argument that this is a collapse event? They would have to pay me good, to repeat that lie over and over.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
How on earth can people tout the ridiculous argument that this is a collapse event? They would have to pay me good, to repeat that lie over and over.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
Hi Temp. I think the answer to your question lies in 'GroupThink'...
The 8 characteristics of GroupThink are as follows:
1. Illusion of Invulnerability - members believe the official story is beyond reproach
2. Collective Rationalization - members seek to discredit and explain away any 'red flags' which might be contrary to the official story
3. Illusion of Morality - members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping - the members construct negative stereotypes of any outside the group.
(lets classify them as CT's, tin-hats, etc.)
5. Pressure for Conformity - Members pressure any in the group who express arguements against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or committments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6 Self-Censorship - members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments in fear of ostracization from the group.
7 Illusion of Unanimity - members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8 Mindguards - Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
The above list of characteristics can clearly be seen in any gathering of those who believe, support, and promote the 'official' story of 9/11.
QUOTE
Samples of the total settled dust and
smoke were collected at three different locations.
The first sample was collected from
protected external ledges around the entrance
of a building on Cortlandt Street, which is
one block east of the WTC building complex.
The initial direction of the plume was
from west to east (Figure 1); thus, the other
two samples were collected at locations to the
east of Cortlandt Street. These two samples
were collected from 10–15 cm-thick deposits
that were on the top of two automobiles
about 0.7 km from the WTC site. The automobiles
were in locations protected from rain
that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001.
One automobile was located on Cherry Street,
and the other was on Market Street, one and
two city blocks, respectively, west of the East
River between the Manhattan and Brooklyn
Bridges. These cars appeared to have been in
their respective locations since 11 September,
but it is possible that each could have been
moved from an adjacent thoroughfare on the
east side of NYC (FDR Drive).
Aerodynamically separated sample (% mass)
...............................Cortlandt..... Cherry..... Market
< 2.5 µm diameter 1.12 0.88 1.30
2.5–10 µm diameter 0.35 0.30 0.40
10–53 µm diameter 37.03 46.61 34.69
> 53 µm diameter 61.50 52.21 63.60
smoke were collected at three different locations.
The first sample was collected from
protected external ledges around the entrance
of a building on Cortlandt Street, which is
one block east of the WTC building complex.
The initial direction of the plume was
from west to east (Figure 1); thus, the other
two samples were collected at locations to the
east of Cortlandt Street. These two samples
were collected from 10–15 cm-thick deposits
that were on the top of two automobiles
about 0.7 km from the WTC site. The automobiles
were in locations protected from rain
that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001.
One automobile was located on Cherry Street,
and the other was on Market Street, one and
two city blocks, respectively, west of the East
River between the Manhattan and Brooklyn
Bridges. These cars appeared to have been in
their respective locations since 11 September,
but it is possible that each could have been
moved from an adjacent thoroughfare on the
east side of NYC (FDR Drive).
Aerodynamically separated sample (% mass)
...............................Cortlandt..... Cherry..... Market
< 2.5 µm diameter 1.12 0.88 1.30
2.5–10 µm diameter 0.35 0.30 0.40
10–53 µm diameter 37.03 46.61 34.69
> 53 µm diameter 61.50 52.21 63.60
52% to 63% of the mass of each sample was greater than 53 microns.
No where in this study do I find that the authors claim that this sample is representative of the size of the total of the pulverized material. this study was done specifically downwind of the WTC in order to collect samples of dust that would be easily inhaled or ingested.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at three different locations. The first sample was collected from protected external ledges around the entrance of a building on Cortlandt Street, which is one block east of the WTC building complex. The initial direction of the plume was from west to east (Figure 1); thus, the other two samples were collected at locations to the east of Cortlandt Street. These two samples were collected from 10–15 cm-thick deposits that were on the top of two automobiles about 0.7 km from the WTC site. The automobiles were in locations protected from rain that occurred on Friday, 15 September 2001. One automobile was located on Cherry Street, and the other was on Market Street, one and two city blocks, respectively, west of the East River between the Manhattan and Brooklyn Bridges. These cars appeared to have been in their respective locations since 11 September, but it is possible that each could have been moved from an adjacent thoroughfare on the east side of NYC (FDR Drive). Aerodynamically separated sample (% mass) ...............................Cortlandt..... Cherry..... Market < 2.5 µm diameter 1.12 0.88 1.30 2.5–10 µm diameter 0.35 0.30 0.40 10–53 µm diameter 37.03 46.61 34.69 > 53 µm diameter 61.50 52.21 63.60 |
52% to 63% of the mass of each sample was greater than 53 microns.
No where in this study do I find that the authors claim that this sample is representative of the size of the total of the pulverized material. this study was done specifically downwind of the WTC in order to collect samples of dust that would be easily inhaled or ingested.
The purposes
for collecting the samples were a) to determine
the chemical and physical characteristics
of the material that was present in the
dust and smoke that settled from the initial
plume, and B) to determine the absence or
presence of contaminants that could affect
acute or long-term human health by inhalation
or ingestion.
Somehow though Hoffman states
QUOTE
Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al., characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size,,,
This is in error in two ways. First the Lioy et al study does indeed characterize the constituents of the dust. Read it and see.
second Hoffman still does not state how he arrives at a figure of 60 microns for the size of the pulverization of most of the concrete. The Lioy et al study certainly does not state this. Instead Hoffman simply says "diverse evidence". Fact is Hoffman has no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size. He is simply using Russell's statement as gospel it seems and Russell says nothing about how he arrives at this number on this page.
Hoffman also takes Russell as gospel in the energy required topulverize concrete to 60 microns. The reference Russell gives does not specify what type of concrete is being pulverized and in the WTC descriptions of the concrete used it is predominantly referred to as "lightweight" concrete. One can assume this is in contrast to denser, common structural concrete and that the more common concrete is what that reference is speaking about.
So, Hoffman has two immediate problems with his method,
1) he cannot show that most of the concrete of the WTC structures was pulverized to less than 60 microns.
2) He cannot demonstrate that the energy required to pulverize the WTC concrete to 60 microns is as he states it is.
Re: the "spire"
The engineers that JU spoke of to Foxx in another forum were unanimous that the core could not stand on its own in the presence of any lateral forces. That would be for a pristine core. The spire is far from pristine condition , in fact in order for it to be that "spire" it had to have had the rest of the core ripped away. Is this a description of a "stiff" structure? It stood for about 30 seconds then succumbed to buckling forces. This is absolutely no surprise to any structural engineer.
I still see NO evidence that the steel spire was turned to "dust". A grainy video does not do it for me since everything looks like dust in a grainy video. Metamars, you say I offer no explanation, you show me nothing to explain.
As for the "telescoping" had this "spire" or indeed the whole core been a solid piece then this might be odd but the distance between columns is still much greater than the width of the column. There is ample room therefore for them to fall largely within the area of the core's base.
The engineers that JU spoke of to Foxx in another forum were unanimous that the core could not stand on its own in the presence of any lateral forces. That would be for a pristine core. The spire is far from pristine condition , in fact in order for it to be that "spire" it had to have had the rest of the core ripped away. Is this a description of a "stiff" structure? It stood for about 30 seconds then succumbed to buckling forces. This is absolutely no surprise to any structural engineer.
I still see NO evidence that the steel spire was turned to "dust". A grainy video does not do it for me since everything looks like dust in a grainy video. Metamars, you say I offer no explanation, you show me nothing to explain.
As for the "telescoping" had this "spire" or indeed the whole core been a solid piece then this might be odd but the distance between columns is still much greater than the width of the column. There is ample room therefore for them to fall largely within the area of the core's base.
QUOTE
still see NO evidence that the steel spire was turned to "dust". A grainy video does not do it for me since everything looks like dust in a grainy video. Metamars, you say I offer no explanation, you show me nothing to explain.
I've little doubt that a survey of unbiased people would, upon viewing the video, mostly see what I see. If I am correct, then your opinion is of no consequence. And if I am incorrect, my opinion is of no consequence.
Conducting such a survey is more of a bother than I care to indulge in. However, if you feel so inclined, knock yourself out!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| still see NO evidence that the steel spire was turned to "dust". A grainy video does not do it for me since everything looks like dust in a grainy video. Metamars, you say I offer no explanation, you show me nothing to explain. |
I've little doubt that a survey of unbiased people would, upon viewing the video, mostly see what I see. If I am correct, then your opinion is of no consequence. And if I am incorrect, my opinion is of no consequence.
Conducting such a survey is more of a bother than I care to indulge in. However, if you feel so inclined, knock yourself out!
As for the "telescoping" had this "spire" or indeed the whole core been a solid piece then this might be odd but the distance between columns is still much greater than the width of the column. There is ample room therefore for them to fall largely within the area of the core's base.
This strikes me as mere sophistry. In any event, I don't understand you. AFAIK, there were only about 5 floors below ground. Somehow, a spire 60 some odd stories tall can collapse into those 5, strewn with rubbish as they are, and your explanation of this is that "the distance between columns is still much greater than the width of the columns"?
To me, this is not just an implausible explanation, it is a non-explanation. Perhaps if you drew us a picture.....
metamars...
Ohhh... so you have discovered yourself that 'Yesitdid' (aka 'the YID' at Pravda... and 'jaydeehess' at ApolloH) is well known for sophistry which he tries to imply is 'scientific analysis' & logic.
I'll do an expose of his sophistry and rhetorics regarding his nonsensical attacks against Hoffman (and Hoffmans pulverization of concrete calcs) tomorrow. I try not to feed trolls and government shills but I just can't resist responding to the nonsense in the attack on Hoffman in his post above.
He makes constant sophist assaults on Hoffman's energy sink calcs, because he recognizes that the energy sink expose is really the complete refutation of the official fairy tale.
Later.
Ohhh... so you have discovered yourself that 'Yesitdid' (aka 'the YID' at Pravda... and 'jaydeehess' at ApolloH) is well known for sophistry which he tries to imply is 'scientific analysis' & logic.
I'll do an expose of his sophistry and rhetorics regarding his nonsensical attacks against Hoffman (and Hoffmans pulverization of concrete calcs) tomorrow. I try not to feed trolls and government shills but I just can't resist responding to the nonsense in the attack on Hoffman in his post above.
He makes constant sophist assaults on Hoffman's energy sink calcs, because he recognizes that the energy sink expose is really the complete refutation of the official fairy tale.
Later.
yesitdid, I'd like to thank you for your post. You made me took a closer look at the photographic evidence, and I can now state the following:
First, note that these pictures are much clearer than the video, as the angle of the video is approximately on the other side, and you are looking through smoke originating from that huge smoke/dust cloud to the right of the spire in the video.
Second, if you want to double check my measurements, Google WADRuler for a freeware pixel measurement program.
Call the top picture below PicA, and the bottom one PicB.
Note that these two photos are clearly taken from different angles (sight the street lamp with the building behind it to see this), hence my method is that much more approximate. I'd guesstimate the angle subtended by the two pictures is only about 20 degrees, but that mostly is a guess.
I establish a ruler by measuring the building on the right (that has a shiny exterior). In PicB, it's mostly covered with the dust cloud, but if you look carefully, you can see the right edge of the bright part of the side of the building facing you, and sighting upwards, and comparing to PicA, we can see that we can measure the top.
In PicA, I measure 234 pixels high, in PicB, 156 pixels high. So, roughly, we have an adustment factor of 1.5. (Bottom was sighted as the top of the curb or fence)
Now, measuring from the top of the spire to the top of the curb/fence, I get:
Pic A: 332 pix
Pic B: 204 pix
Multiplying Pic B's value by 1.5, I find that it equals, ito PicA's perspective,
204 x 1.5 = 306 pixels
Thus, it is now only about 92.2% of it's previous height.
But, 5.6% of 60 floors = 4.68 floors.
So, it's fallen approximately 46 feet, and still no dust.
Don't you think if dust we see in the video was just stuck on there, it would have fallen off as soon as the spire started collapsing? You know, like after 6 inches, not 46 feet?
I do. If you disagree, please tell us how dust could get such a tight grip, and then lose it.
Note to Foxx: There are honest and decent skeptics out there, and the problem with assigning them labels and making accusations of bad motives is that you could be wrong.
Which is not to say that I didn't search for the ignore feature on this forum.
Honestly, it's much more often the people who disagreed with me (or just were paying more careful attention, like to the hopelessly wrong faster than free fall time value) that elicited a response from me that, hopefully, contributed to the debate.
Thus, besides being wrong, you might miss an important insight, which is more of a loss.
First, note that these pictures are much clearer than the video, as the angle of the video is approximately on the other side, and you are looking through smoke originating from that huge smoke/dust cloud to the right of the spire in the video.
Second, if you want to double check my measurements, Google WADRuler for a freeware pixel measurement program.
Call the top picture below PicA, and the bottom one PicB.
Note that these two photos are clearly taken from different angles (sight the street lamp with the building behind it to see this), hence my method is that much more approximate. I'd guesstimate the angle subtended by the two pictures is only about 20 degrees, but that mostly is a guess.
I establish a ruler by measuring the building on the right (that has a shiny exterior). In PicB, it's mostly covered with the dust cloud, but if you look carefully, you can see the right edge of the bright part of the side of the building facing you, and sighting upwards, and comparing to PicA, we can see that we can measure the top.
In PicA, I measure 234 pixels high, in PicB, 156 pixels high. So, roughly, we have an adustment factor of 1.5. (Bottom was sighted as the top of the curb or fence)
Now, measuring from the top of the spire to the top of the curb/fence, I get:
Pic A: 332 pix
Pic B: 204 pix
Multiplying Pic B's value by 1.5, I find that it equals, ito PicA's perspective,
204 x 1.5 = 306 pixels
Thus, it is now only about 92.2% of it's previous height.
But, 5.6% of 60 floors = 4.68 floors.
So, it's fallen approximately 46 feet, and still no dust.
Don't you think if dust we see in the video was just stuck on there, it would have fallen off as soon as the spire started collapsing? You know, like after 6 inches, not 46 feet?
I do. If you disagree, please tell us how dust could get such a tight grip, and then lose it.
Note to Foxx: There are honest and decent skeptics out there, and the problem with assigning them labels and making accusations of bad motives is that you could be wrong.
Which is not to say that I didn't search for the ignore feature on this forum.
Honestly, it's much more often the people who disagreed with me (or just were paying more careful attention, like to the hopelessly wrong faster than free fall time value) that elicited a response from me that, hopefully, contributed to the debate.
Thus, besides being wrong, you might miss an important insight, which is more of a loss.
Two more observations:
The secondary spire peaks (and the "nodule") are about 84% of the distance from the curb/fence to the top of the spire. You can clearly see from the video that the spire starts "powderizing" before it's peak has telescoped down to the original height of the secondary spires.
So, PicB is a bit too soon to capture the powderizing, and unfortunatly from this angle, not much of the powderization would have been observable even after it did begin.
Can anybody post good pictures of the powderizing spire, taken from closer in, and at a stage after powderization begins?
The second observation is that there are apparently 2 different dust clouds, one much darker than the other (even adjusting for the strange glow)
I would consider this as evidence pointing away from a gravity driven collapse, though I sure can't explain it, either.
The secondary spire peaks (and the "nodule") are about 84% of the distance from the curb/fence to the top of the spire. You can clearly see from the video that the spire starts "powderizing" before it's peak has telescoped down to the original height of the secondary spires.
So, PicB is a bit too soon to capture the powderizing, and unfortunatly from this angle, not much of the powderization would have been observable even after it did begin.
Can anybody post good pictures of the powderizing spire, taken from closer in, and at a stage after powderization begins?
The second observation is that there are apparently 2 different dust clouds, one much darker than the other (even adjusting for the strange glow)
I would consider this as evidence pointing away from a gravity driven collapse, though I sure can't explain it, either.
QUOTE
Can anybody post good pictures of the powderizing spire, taken from closer in, and at a stage after powderization begins?
You know, pictures like this (from http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/ne-spire.htm )
metamars
Man, those are certainly the best pictures I've ever seen of the 'spire'.
To be honest, I was never convinced myself of the 'turning to dust' claims of the spire based upon the grainy video which I'd seen before. To me it struck me as just hype somewhat akin to the "Amazing Pod' analyses done by Jayhan and crew. The photos you posted are much more convincing, but I still reserve judgement on this 'turning to dust' appearance, although your pixel analysis is the most convincing arguement I've seen so far on this aspect.
Regardless of the 'turning to dust' appearance, I believe the greater (and more undeniable) aspect is the telescoping aspect. I think even the most skeptical critic would be hard pressed to come up with some kind of rational explanation for this phenomena. How is it possible for a vertical column of steel to fall vertically through itself... straight down !!!?
The only possible way to achieve this behaviour in my opinion, in the real world of physics would be to somehow 'instantly' remove a great length of the lowest portion of the 'column' so that the upper portion can fall vertically. I don't see any way of having this occur in the real world... apart from the lower section to be taken out instantly through explosive actions, or some other means of instantly removing the support from lower sections, in order for the upper section to fall in this vertical 'telescoping' action.
I have seen some skeptics attempt to explain this telescoping action by claiming that due to collapsing debris, some of this debris knocked out the support from the lower section. This 'explaination' has never worked for me because:
first ... it is quite apparent that by the time the 'spire' began telescoping all falling debris had already reached the ground, and
second... even granting that some mass of debris at the bottom of the spire had shifted (or settled) in some way as to knock out the bottom portion of the 'spire columns', and given it's tall slender ratio, it would have surely then toppled-over as opposed to telescoping straight downwards in a vertical fall.
Re: 'Yesitdid'... I do see the points you were making about the 'titles' I have assigned him, and recognize that a quick assignment of 'titles' is unwarranted.
However, I have spent over a year attempting to engage him in rational logic at Pravda, only to be insulted by him, and his arrogant sophistry and rhetorics. When he first arrived at Pravda, I had hopes that he was intelligent enough to put aside biases and discuss issues without prejudice.
There are many who have a deep-set belief that anyone even discussing the anomalous aspects of 9/11, is somehow less intelligent, and are paranoid delusionists.
There once was a time that I also thought that anyone believing that there was a conspiracy (opposed to the official story) was 'nuts'. The 'anomalous' thing that I find about the people who still think that believers in alternatives to the official story are 'crazy nuts' is this...
When I was of that persuasion, I certainly wouldn't have wasted countless hours of my time conversing online with people I truly thought were 'wackos'. Such a waste of personal time seems ridiculous to me, if in fact, that person believes he is speaking to crazy wackos. I can't see any logical reason to waste ones time on such ventures ... at least I would never have invested such energy into a 'waste' of my own time.
For example... I think the promoters of the 'Pod' theory are delusional, but I certainly don't waste any of my time attempting to discuss the 'pod story' with those people.
If they want to believe it in the face of ample scientific debunkings, ces't la vie. Why would I spend countless hours attempting to debunk 'crazy' people. It just makes no logical sense to me at all.
No.... there are some other 'important' personal reasons that a person would waste countless hours conversing with those he considers 'crazy'.
The 'titles' I assign these people are 'trolls' and 'shills'.
These have become internet descriptions of certain types of character. e.g. "Troll"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Google either term to see what I mean. I don't really mean to imply that I believe all these people are on 'Homeland Security payrolls', (even though I believe that many are).
There are other psychological factors at play which can induce a person to become an internet 'troll' or 'shill-for-the-official-story'.
These other psychological factors are even less flattering than if these people were actually on the government payroll and just performing a mundane government job.
I'll address the YID's Hoffman attack and the Lioy study later.
Good work finding those spire pictures !
Man, those are certainly the best pictures I've ever seen of the 'spire'.
To be honest, I was never convinced myself of the 'turning to dust' claims of the spire based upon the grainy video which I'd seen before. To me it struck me as just hype somewhat akin to the "Amazing Pod' analyses done by Jayhan and crew. The photos you posted are much more convincing, but I still reserve judgement on this 'turning to dust' appearance, although your pixel analysis is the most convincing arguement I've seen so far on this aspect.
Regardless of the 'turning to dust' appearance, I believe the greater (and more undeniable) aspect is the telescoping aspect. I think even the most skeptical critic would be hard pressed to come up with some kind of rational explanation for this phenomena. How is it possible for a vertical column of steel to fall vertically through itself... straight down !!!?
The only possible way to achieve this behaviour in my opinion, in the real world of physics would be to somehow 'instantly' remove a great length of the lowest portion of the 'column' so that the upper portion can fall vertically. I don't see any way of having this occur in the real world... apart from the lower section to be taken out instantly through explosive actions, or some other means of instantly removing the support from lower sections, in order for the upper section to fall in this vertical 'telescoping' action.
I have seen some skeptics attempt to explain this telescoping action by claiming that due to collapsing debris, some of this debris knocked out the support from the lower section. This 'explaination' has never worked for me because:
first ... it is quite apparent that by the time the 'spire' began telescoping all falling debris had already reached the ground, and
second... even granting that some mass of debris at the bottom of the spire had shifted (or settled) in some way as to knock out the bottom portion of the 'spire columns', and given it's tall slender ratio, it would have surely then toppled-over as opposed to telescoping straight downwards in a vertical fall.
Re: 'Yesitdid'... I do see the points you were making about the 'titles' I have assigned him, and recognize that a quick assignment of 'titles' is unwarranted.
However, I have spent over a year attempting to engage him in rational logic at Pravda, only to be insulted by him, and his arrogant sophistry and rhetorics. When he first arrived at Pravda, I had hopes that he was intelligent enough to put aside biases and discuss issues without prejudice.
There are many who have a deep-set belief that anyone even discussing the anomalous aspects of 9/11, is somehow less intelligent, and are paranoid delusionists.
There once was a time that I also thought that anyone believing that there was a conspiracy (opposed to the official story) was 'nuts'. The 'anomalous' thing that I find about the people who still think that believers in alternatives to the official story are 'crazy nuts' is this...
When I was of that persuasion, I certainly wouldn't have wasted countless hours of my time conversing online with people I truly thought were 'wackos'. Such a waste of personal time seems ridiculous to me, if in fact, that person believes he is speaking to crazy wackos. I can't see any logical reason to waste ones time on such ventures ... at least I would never have invested such energy into a 'waste' of my own time.
For example... I think the promoters of the 'Pod' theory are delusional, but I certainly don't waste any of my time attempting to discuss the 'pod story' with those people.
If they want to believe it in the face of ample scientific debunkings, ces't la vie. Why would I spend countless hours attempting to debunk 'crazy' people. It just makes no logical sense to me at all.
No.... there are some other 'important' personal reasons that a person would waste countless hours conversing with those he considers 'crazy'.
The 'titles' I assign these people are 'trolls' and 'shills'.
These have become internet descriptions of certain types of character. e.g. "Troll"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Google either term to see what I mean. I don't really mean to imply that I believe all these people are on 'Homeland Security payrolls', (even though I believe that many are).
There are other psychological factors at play which can induce a person to become an internet 'troll' or 'shill-for-the-official-story'.
These other psychological factors are even less flattering than if these people were actually on the government payroll and just performing a mundane government job.
I'll address the YID's Hoffman attack and the Lioy study later.
Good work finding those spire pictures !
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 9 2005, 03:54 PM)
Two more observations:
The secondary spire peaks (and the "nodule") are about 84% of the distance from the curb/fence to the top of the spire. You can clearly see from the video that the spire starts "powderizing" before it's peak has telescoped down to the original height of the secondary spires.
So, PicB is a bit too soon to capture the powderizing, and unfortunatly from this angle, not much of the powderization would have been observable even after it did begin.
Can anybody post good pictures of the powderizing spire, taken from closer in, and at a stage after powderization begins?
The second observation is that there are apparently 2 different dust clouds, one much darker than the other (even adjusting for the strange glow)
I would consider this as evidence pointing away from a gravity driven collapse, though I sure can't explain it, either.
First picture-the standing spire
Second picture the spire is dropping
Third picture the steel spire has dropped and what remains in the air is the dust that was on the spire.
Was that so difficult?
If this is NOT the case then please come up with some modality in which steel is "powderized". Please refrain from invoking weaponry or processes that are not known to even exist. Such things belong in sci-fi novels.
The secondary spire peaks (and the "nodule") are about 84% of the distance from the curb/fence to the top of the spire. You can clearly see from the video that the spire starts "powderizing" before it's peak has telescoped down to the original height of the secondary spires.
So, PicB is a bit too soon to capture the powderizing, and unfortunatly from this angle, not much of the powderization would have been observable even after it did begin.
Can anybody post good pictures of the powderizing spire, taken from closer in, and at a stage after powderization begins?
The second observation is that there are apparently 2 different dust clouds, one much darker than the other (even adjusting for the strange glow)
I would consider this as evidence pointing away from a gravity driven collapse, though I sure can't explain it, either.
First picture-the standing spire
Second picture the spire is dropping
Third picture the steel spire has dropped and what remains in the air is the dust that was on the spire.
Was that so difficult?
If this is NOT the case then please come up with some modality in which steel is "powderized". Please refrain from invoking weaponry or processes that are not known to even exist. Such things belong in sci-fi novels.
metamars, have you any comment at all on my thoughts about Hoffman's dust calcs?
Whatever is doing this to the spire, it's doing it very quickly. Apparently, it loss it's structural stength so quickly (looks like in about 1 second), that it didn't have time to fall over. Maximum stress was, of course, at the bottom of the spire.
So, once you get past the rapid loss of strength, I guess it's really not surprising that it would telescope. What else could it do?
Of course, this spire is not being "exploded" either, or the dust would have been ejected radially at high speed. This is one reason I don't believe explosives were necessarily the main source of the missing energy.
Another is that, though we observe squibs and ejections of dust clouds from collapsing floors, in order to get fine dust, I would think (though I'm guessing here, being ignorant of how to calculate explosions) that an explosion strong enough to turn most of the concrete into dust would have blown up half of Manhattan. Of course, you always get dust production during an explosion, but as a percentage of the mass, I doubt it would be more than 5-10%. (If you have time to research this, say by talking to professors at mining colleges, I'd appreciate the info. I've always wondered about this.)
So, once you get past the rapid loss of strength, I guess it's really not surprising that it would telescope. What else could it do?
Of course, this spire is not being "exploded" either, or the dust would have been ejected radially at high speed. This is one reason I don't believe explosives were necessarily the main source of the missing energy.
Another is that, though we observe squibs and ejections of dust clouds from collapsing floors, in order to get fine dust, I would think (though I'm guessing here, being ignorant of how to calculate explosions) that an explosion strong enough to turn most of the concrete into dust would have blown up half of Manhattan. Of course, you always get dust production during an explosion, but as a percentage of the mass, I doubt it would be more than 5-10%. (If you have time to research this, say by talking to professors at mining colleges, I'd appreciate the info. I've always wondered about this.)
QUOTE
metamars, have you any comment at all on my thoughts about Hoffman's dust calcs?
These certainly seem like more serious arguments/criticisms. I'll try and respond this weekend, but as Foxx has already looked more deeply into this, I'd like to read his posts, first.
Regarding the pictures from plagepuppy...
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/ne-spire.htm
I still think it is possible that if the spire had been covered with dust, and then suddenly fell straight down, this might account for the dust (being much lighter than the steel) for it to have been suspended in the air and it would not have fallen as fast as the heavier steel, so may give the illusion that the steel had vapourized. Nevertheless, this would still leave skeptics in the untenable position of explaining how... given the speed which the steel telescopes...HOW it would be possible for that steel spire to fall vertically through itself apart from somehow removing a very tall section of the base of the spire so fast as to allow the top portion of the spire to plummet vertically. As can be seen in the 5th picture down (on the above page) the topmost portion is seriously leaning...
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/P9111202.jpg
Any disruption to the base, (apart from instantaneous removal or disintegration of the base) would surely have meant that the uppermost portion would have continued the lean, and it would have appeared to fall to the side like a tree toppling, as opposed to its obvious vertical straight-down drop. Even should one discount the 'turning to dust' appearance, the vertical descent is unexplainable through basic physics (as far as I can determine).
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/ne-spire.htm
I still think it is possible that if the spire had been covered with dust, and then suddenly fell straight down, this might account for the dust (being much lighter than the steel) for it to have been suspended in the air and it would not have fallen as fast as the heavier steel, so may give the illusion that the steel had vapourized. Nevertheless, this would still leave skeptics in the untenable position of explaining how... given the speed which the steel telescopes...HOW it would be possible for that steel spire to fall vertically through itself apart from somehow removing a very tall section of the base of the spire so fast as to allow the top portion of the spire to plummet vertically. As can be seen in the 5th picture down (on the above page) the topmost portion is seriously leaning...
http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/vid...ve/P9111202.jpg
Any disruption to the base, (apart from instantaneous removal or disintegration of the base) would surely have meant that the uppermost portion would have continued the lean, and it would have appeared to fall to the side like a tree toppling, as opposed to its obvious vertical straight-down drop. Even should one discount the 'turning to dust' appearance, the vertical descent is unexplainable through basic physics (as far as I can determine).
QUOTE
Originally posted by Yesitdid
If there was not enough energy due to gravity by a factor of ten, then it is encumabnt upon the person calulating that there was not enough energy to show that his figures are not wildly skewed.
If there was not enough energy due to gravity by a factor of ten, then it is encumabnt upon the person calulating that there was not enough energy to show that his figures are not wildly skewed.
I believe this is just 'playing with words'. The calculations have been performed by Hoffman, and according to his calculations he shows an energy sink deficit. It is not up to Hoffman to show that his figures are not 'wildly skewed'. If someone thinks that his calculations are 'off' or 'wildly skewed' then it is their responsibility to show that.
Yesitdid says...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Yesitdid If there was not enough energy due to gravity by a factor of ten, then it is encumabnt upon the person calulating that there was not enough energy to show that his figures are not wildly skewed. |
I believe this is just 'playing with words'. The calculations have been performed by Hoffman, and according to his calculations he shows an energy sink deficit. It is not up to Hoffman to show that his figures are not 'wildly skewed'. If someone thinks that his calculations are 'off' or 'wildly skewed' then it is their responsibility to show that.
Yesitdid says...
I have suggested two ways to do that, both should be done.
1) explain another mode of inputting energy into the collapse to make up for that ten fold energy deficit.
This is not Hoffmans duty. His energy calcs show the energy deficit, (and although he suggests that one 'explaination' for that must consider the input of additional energy which may include 'explosives')... if you read all of his works, he leaves the door open to other explainations, and in fact in other parts of his writings clearly states that conventional 'explosives' do NOT account for all aspects of the 'disintegration / 'demo' of the towers.
It is not Hoffmans duty to come up with numerous explainations or 'other modes' of inputting energy to explain the energy deficit. On the other hand it IS incumbant for any who wish to dispute his energy-deficit, (and claim that that energy deficit CAN be explained through normal gravity-driven collapse), for THEM to prove such...or alternatively prove that his energy-budget is seriously 'out-of-wack', and that there IS NO energy deficit.
Yesitdid Quote: 2) do the same calculations on a known demolition where all gravity and explosive energy can be accounted for and for which video records are available to show the extent of the dust cloud.
Again ... NOT Hoffman's responsibility... that falls to those who wish to debunk or refute his energy budget. If the 'debunkers' feel that such comparative studies are worthwhile, then let them prove through comparative studies that Hoffmans calculations are in error.
As the sophists and rhetoricians always seek something to debunk, any other comparative studies on other 'demolitions' would simply be met with scoffings that the chosen comparative model is somehow different to the towers and so it is not comparative anyway.
However, Yesitdid... if you truly believe that this could prove or disprove Hoffmans calculations, then I'd suggest you get to work on that, so as to prove that he is full of bunk. Perhaps doing exactly what you suggest Hoffman do, would be a valid way for YOU to 'prove' him wrong?
QUOTE
Originally posted by Yesitdid regarding Hoffmans comments on the Lioy study
This is in error in two ways. First the Lioy et al study does indeed characterize the constituents of the dust... second Hoffman still does not state how he arrives at a figure of 60 microns for the size of the pulverization of most of the concrete. The Lioy et al study certainly does not state this. Instead Hoffman simply says "diverse evidence". Fact is Hoffman has no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size.
This is in error in two ways. First the Lioy et al study does indeed characterize the constituents of the dust... second Hoffman still does not state how he arrives at a figure of 60 microns for the size of the pulverization of most of the concrete. The Lioy et al study certainly does not state this. Instead Hoffman simply says "diverse evidence". Fact is Hoffman has no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size.
You are still hung up on this 60 micron figure. As Hoffman points out this is a median figure. It does not mean (as you insist on implying) that "Hoffman states categorically that ALL concrete was pulverized to exactly 60 microns". You are simply using semantics to attempt top make a case that the 60 micron size he used to do his calculations is never stated in any official documents... therefore he is wrong.
If you read & understand everything Hoffman states, and everything that is contained in official documents regarding the pulverization there is no such thing as a 'specific' size to which ALL constituents were pulverized to, so sophistically you are correct that there is " no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size."... because it wasn't.
One must study ALL the pulverization reports in depth (as Hoffman has done) to come to some kind of median size for use in his dust-cloud analysis. You balk at Hoffmans statement that he has used 'diverse evidence', yet seem to have no understanding of what he refers to as this diverse evidence. There has not been just one study (the Lioy report) on this pulverization effect but numerous from which Hoffman has determined a logical assumption of choosing the median figure of 60 microns for a figure in his dust cloud calculations. I can think of a couple right off the top, like the USGS study and other medical investigations of this dust. here are just a couple of other links...
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/results.html
Here is what Hoffman states about the Lioy study...(and the locations from which they obtained their samples) -
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Originally posted by Yesitdid regarding Hoffmans comments on the Lioy study This is in error in two ways. First the Lioy et al study does indeed characterize the constituents of the dust... second Hoffman still does not state how he arrives at a figure of 60 microns for the size of the pulverization of most of the concrete. The Lioy et al study certainly does not state this. Instead Hoffman simply says "diverse evidence". Fact is Hoffman has no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size. |
You are still hung up on this 60 micron figure. As Hoffman points out this is a median figure. It does not mean (as you insist on implying) that "Hoffman states categorically that ALL concrete was pulverized to exactly 60 microns". You are simply using semantics to attempt top make a case that the 60 micron size he used to do his calculations is never stated in any official documents... therefore he is wrong.
If you read & understand everything Hoffman states, and everything that is contained in official documents regarding the pulverization there is no such thing as a 'specific' size to which ALL constituents were pulverized to, so sophistically you are correct that there is " no data to back up the claim that most of the concrete was pulverized to 60 micron size."... because it wasn't.
One must study ALL the pulverization reports in depth (as Hoffman has done) to come to some kind of median size for use in his dust-cloud analysis. You balk at Hoffmans statement that he has used 'diverse evidence', yet seem to have no understanding of what he refers to as this diverse evidence. There has not been just one study (the Lioy report) on this pulverization effect but numerous from which Hoffman has determined a logical assumption of choosing the median figure of 60 microns for a figure in his dust cloud calculations. I can think of a couple right off the top, like the USGS study and other medical investigations of this dust. here are just a couple of other links...
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/chem1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/leach1/index.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/results.html
Here is what Hoffman states about the Lioy study...(and the locations from which they obtained their samples) -
Unfortunately, despite the detail of the study, it fails to provide satisfying answers to these questions. The report does not quantify what proportion of the dust was pulverized concrete, though it does note that the samples were very alkaline. It notes that signifcant portion of the dust were glass fibers and cellulose fibers, and that the samples were fluffy. Thus, it appears that the samples were not representative of the dust that settled in open areas in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Being from sheltered areas, their samples were likely biased greatly in favor of lightweight fibrous debris, which would tend to stay aloft much longer than powdered concrete.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/dust.html
[BTW --- when you quote Hoffman, it would be appropriate to give the reference source - he is constantly updating his pages and quite often corrects or modifes past statements based on new evidence]
Many often make the statement that no 'official documents' state that the 'majority' of the concrete was pulverized to micron sized dust, and you have often made this 'challenge'. This rebuttal flies in the face of many reports which outright state this to be fact...
QUOTE
"The collapse of the towers generated thousands of tons of particulate matter comprised of cement dust..."
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
Check the graph here for the calcium percentages (as well as the other graphs at the USGS site) which show high percentages of calcium from concrete and gypsum...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...w11-7.small.gif
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "The collapse of the towers generated thousands of tons of particulate matter comprised of cement dust..." |
http://www.sinusnews.com/Articles2004/worl...ade-center.html
Check the graph here for the calcium percentages (as well as the other graphs at the USGS site) which show high percentages of calcium from concrete and gypsum...
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/c...w11-7.small.gif
"...the extremely large mass of material (> 10 106 tons) reduced to dust and smoke..."
---------------
"The Cherry Avenue sample is mainly composed of construction debris (including cement, vermiculite, plaster, synthetic foam, glass fragments, mineral wool fibers, paint particles, glass fibers, metals, calcite grains, and paper fragments), quartz grains, low-temperature combustion material (including charred woody fragments), and metal flakes."
---------------
"Thus, on the first and second days after the attack on the WTC, > 70% of the mass was associated with construction materials, including pulverized cement, wallboard, and office furnishings, which included a large percentage by weight of glass fiber."
---------------
"The high pH of the samples was probably caused by cement and other basic materials associated with construction debris in the deposited particles."
---------------
"The vast majority of the mass was pulverized building and construction materials including cement, cellulose, and glass fibers."
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
You seem to want to simplify a very complex question of 'how much' and to 'what specific size' the concrete was pulverized by reducing the question to...
"Show me the exact statement in an official document which says...THE CONCRETE WAS PULVERIZED TO 60 MICRONS"...
There is no such statement. This approximation (for use in Hoffmans calculations) is deduced from numerous clues and evidence regarding the entire body of works which have addressed the pulverization of (NOT ONLY the concrete, but virtually ALL other non-steel), contents of the buildings. Here is one 'clue' from the Lioy report which gives a percentage by mass of constituents of this pulverized dust...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
As can be seen ~ 50% of the mass consisted of cement and other non-fibrous constituents. Of course, this still does not give us an [b]exact amount of concrete / cement that was in that ~ 50%, but we can see that a high percentage of the dust consisted of pulverized concrete. In any estimation such as the calculations Hoffman makes to arrive at his energy budget there will never be an exactly defineable size and quantity of concrete that WAS pulverized and there will have to be some informed guesstimate and averaging to arrive at some figure which can be used in such calculations. Nevertheless the orders of magnitude differnces arrived at are so large that it would take some seriously blatant error to change his calculations to the degree that it would seriously alter the energy deficit even granting different micron sizes, etc.
Besides all the above, you are so narrowly focused on attempting to debunk his concrete dust calculations you are missing the larger picture here.
It is not just a case that the majority of the concrete was pulverized to talcum powder sized particulate... so was virtually all other contents apart from steel.
There is absolutely no other precedent that I know of for this phemomena in the world of physics (or other building 'progressive collapses'). If you know of any, please feel free to bring them forward to support your position that this phenomena accompanies building collapses... even building demolitions. This is an utterly huge physics anomaly which defies explanation through known physics. Not only was concrete pulverized to micron sized dust but so was window glass, foam padding from chairs etc, wood and other cellulose products such as paper...(Imagine that for a moment -paper shredded to micron sized particles simply by a building falling down !)...
The paint on the walls ! was pulverized to micron sized particulate dust. We know this because of the lead and titanium particulates (which came from the chemical make-up of various paints)... look at the size of lead particles...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
Here is a picture of calcium carbonate (one of the main constituents of cement)...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
In breaking down the dust to elemental constituents we find the following...
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/members/2002/110p.../lioy-full.html
If this does not astound you, you are really missing the big picture regarding this pulverization phenomena. Hoffman looked at it very simply in 'just' analyzing the concrete aspect.
When one considers that virtually all (or the majority of all) contents of the building from carpets, to paint from the walls, to plastics from computers and other office contents, to paper, to everything else [apart from steel] was pulverized this is mind-boggling from a physics perspective. For officials to just blighthly dismiss such a phenomena as nothing more than a possible health concern, goes beyond credulity. The mechanics of HOW such a phenomena COULD occur through an alleged 'gravity-driven' event should have elicited far more interest and study from the scientific community.
It doesn't because the officials in charge of determining what is, and what is not important related to these building 'collapses' surely recognize that further study into the actual mechanics of HOW such a phenomena can occur, can only lead to discussions where they fear to tread... better to just shuffle it under the carpet, and not spend to much time investigating this aspect of the 'collapses'. As far as I am concerned there is NO WAY this phenomena can occur to the extent it did in a normal gravity-driven event. Anyone who thinks it can, is quite welcome to bring forward any historical evidence that such phenomena DOES occur in gravity-driven events.
QUOTE
I believe this is just 'playing with words'. The calculations have been performed by Hoffman, and according to his calculations he shows an energy sink deficit. It is not up to Hoffman to show that his figures are not 'wildly skewed'. If someone thinks that his calculations are 'off' or 'wildly skewed' then it is their responsibility to show that.
Absolutely untrue Foxx. In any experiment when the results show a huge difference from the calculated outcome the experimenter immediately searches for the reason for this. It is either a problem with the experiment, was it set up properly, were all elements in place AND there is a check of the method of calculation and the arithmetic. In the case of using calculations to describe an occurrence such as the collapse of the towers again if the calculations are very much off from what is observed then the theorist searches for the reason for this. One way to check the method is to use it on a control experiment and a known building demolition fits the bill on this 100%
I am not "playing with words Foxx. I question why Hoffman stops at the point where he has calculated an energy usage an order of magnitude above that which he uses as the available energy. Why is my questioning of Hoffman's methods "playing" when his results clearly have something unanswered? You ask the same of NIST when you see something wrong with their not going beyond the initial collapse.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I believe this is just 'playing with words'. The calculations have been performed by Hoffman, and according to his calculations he shows an energy sink deficit. It is not up to Hoffman to show that his figures are not 'wildly skewed'. If someone thinks that his calculations are 'off' or 'wildly skewed' then it is their responsibility to show that. |
Absolutely untrue Foxx. In any experiment when the results show a huge difference from the calculated outcome the experimenter immediately searches for the reason for this. It is either a problem with the experiment, was it set up properly, were all elements in place AND there is a check of the method of calculation and the arithmetic. In the case of using calculations to describe an occurrence such as the collapse of the towers again if the calculations are very much off from what is observed then the theorist searches for the reason for this. One way to check the method is to use it on a control experiment and a known building demolition fits the bill on this 100%
I am not "playing with words Foxx. I question why Hoffman stops at the point where he has calculated an energy usage an order of magnitude above that which he uses as the available energy. Why is my questioning of Hoffman's methods "playing" when his results clearly have something unanswered? You ask the same of NIST when you see something wrong with their not going beyond the initial collapse.
he leaves the door open to other explanations, and in fact in other parts of his writings clearly states that conventional 'explosives' do NOT account for all aspects of the 'disintegration / 'demo' of the towers.
It is not Hoffmans duty to come up with numerous explanations or 'other modes' of inputting energy to explain the energy deficit.
This just compounds the reasons why Hoffman should be searching for a way to validate his method. If he states that conventional explosives do not explain it then what does? I understand that at one time he postulated added energy via a MASER but has abandoned that. IMHO going to such extremes as to postulate this type of weaponry is a reach. If he is going to go to so much time and trouble to look for a way to input enough energy to satisfy the 90% energy deficit then why not do the simple act of applying the method to a controlled demolition to validate the method? IMHO it only makes sense not to go that route if one is
a) too egotistical to consider that one may be wrong.
OR
B) One is too fragile in the ego to risk finding out that one is wrong
OR
c) Being deliberately misleading
No, the fact that so much of the non-steel constituents of the towers was shredded or pulverized does not lead me to believe that there was anything other than gravity at work during the collapse. These collapses are unigue in all the world.
a) no other building even half the height of these ones has ever collapsed
no other building of comparable depth (width) has had a large jetliner crash into it and spew thousands of gallons of fuel into it
Are the results of these collapses fascinating? Most certainly but just because there are aspects of it that have not been observed in previous collapses does not immediately lead me to a gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy involving super secret, super weaponry.
Getting back to Hoffman, I have queried several times now on how he gets his figure of 60 microns as a typical size for most (assumed to be 51%)of the concrete. So far you keep saying it is derived from his looking at many reports. Lioy et al is the only one mentioned but that study was one specifically looking at the aerosolized dust. that is why the collected dust from blocks downwind. there simply would not be any chunks in their samples. they were not interested in larger pieces, they were interested in what people were ingesting and inhaling.
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularily surprising except in one way. The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon. It is also the largest constituent of soot yet as I scan that list I do not see carbon listed. Other elements are not surprising giventhe wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
a) no other building even half the height of these ones has ever collapsed
no other building of comparable depth (width) has had a large jetliner crash into it and spew thousands of gallons of fuel into itAre the results of these collapses fascinating? Most certainly but just because there are aspects of it that have not been observed in previous collapses does not immediately lead me to a gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy involving super secret, super weaponry.
Getting back to Hoffman, I have queried several times now on how he gets his figure of 60 microns as a typical size for most (assumed to be 51%)of the concrete. So far you keep saying it is derived from his looking at many reports. Lioy et al is the only one mentioned but that study was one specifically looking at the aerosolized dust. that is why the collected dust from blocks downwind. there simply would not be any chunks in their samples. they were not interested in larger pieces, they were interested in what people were ingesting and inhaling.
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularily surprising except in one way. The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon. It is also the largest constituent of soot yet as I scan that list I do not see carbon listed. Other elements are not surprising giventhe wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 9 2005, 06:57 PM)
QUOTE
metamars, have you any comment at all on my thoughts about Hoffman's dust calcs?
These certainly seem like more serious arguments/criticisms. I'll try and respond this weekend, but as Foxx has already looked more deeply into this, I'd like to read his posts, first.
Ok, Foxx has done it and his answer is, "it isn't Hoffman's responsibility". I disagree strongly but beyond that all we can do is agree that we see that differently.
I will settle for my believing the you and Foxx are wrong, that Hoffman has not completed his work , and you believing that Hoffman's work is just fine as it is and that I am wrong.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Yesitdid
In any experiment when the results show a huge difference from the calculated outcome the experimenter immediatly searchs for the reason for this.
In any experiment when the results show a huge difference from the calculated outcome the experimenter immediatly searchs for the reason for this.
I don't have time to go into a long analysis of your quick response at the moment. It is obvious that you haven't investigated the links I provided. But one question which immediately jumped out at me in your first sentence.
a. it wasn't an 'experiment' but rather a mathematical calculation
b. how do you figure the 'results' of that calculation shows a 'huge difference from the {expected} outcome. As far as I know there was no 'expected' outcome to begin with so how could there be a 'difference' between an 'alleged' expected outcome and results? Your statement 'calculated outcome of the experimenter', makes no sense to me. It wasn't an 'experiment'. It was a pretty basic mathematical calculation.
The results may surprise and shock you, but the figures are clearly provided... if you find errors with the math either point them out, or find someone who can. Sophistry doesn't work with mathematics equations... (the last time I checked).
I feel quite sure he checked his figures numerous times before publishing. What else do you feel he needs to check? He needs do nothing more as far as I can see. The figures are published. I have seen no valid refutations yet of the mathematical equation. That is for others to perform, Not him.
yesitdid
It seems here that those people who have been paid to investigate this issue have failed to answer fundamental questions. At least 2 professors are already publicly questioning the official versions of the collapse - that's Morgan Reynolds and David Ray Griffin.
Check them out and make your own mind up
Professor David Ray Griffin - one of his addresses - video: (Broadband, Quicktime Required) http://66.111.201.132/video/cte_14_lo.mov
Professor Morgan Reynolds Interview - audio - here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2016%202005.mp3 (2.5 megs, 15 minutes playback)
(Yes, this is departing a bit from the basic physics, but this is what they both also discuss in their own analyses).
And... yet another handle... hmmmm
It seems here that those people who have been paid to investigate this issue have failed to answer fundamental questions. At least 2 professors are already publicly questioning the official versions of the collapse - that's Morgan Reynolds and David Ray Griffin.
Check them out and make your own mind up
Professor David Ray Griffin - one of his addresses - video: (Broadband, Quicktime Required) http://66.111.201.132/video/cte_14_lo.mov
Professor Morgan Reynolds Interview - audio - here:
http://www.checktheevidence.com/audio/911/...2016%202005.mp3 (2.5 megs, 15 minutes playback)
(Yes, this is departing a bit from the basic physics, but this is what they both also discuss in their own analyses).
And... yet another handle... hmmmm
Time to inject some reason into yesitdid's fallacious rhetoric. I hate to single you out, but it does not seem you expect people to take you seriously.
No, the fact that so much of the non-steel constituents of the towers was shredded or pulverized does not lead me to believe that there was anything other than gravity at work during the collapse.
What pertinence does your belief have on the basic physics of the collapse? My little brother believes in Santa Claus.
a) no other building even half the height of these ones has ever collapsed
no other building of comparable depth (width) has had a large jetliner crash into it and spew thousands of gallons of fuel into it
These collapses are unigue in all the world.
A plane weighs 150 tons, while the towers 500,000 tons of concrete and steel...for some reference that is like a bee running into an ape- its sting might cause a bit of pain- but the towers took those plane hits no problem. They fulfilled their designers prediction that they could withstand two plane impacts. The WTC Skyscrapers were designed with almost 800% safety ratio. For you non-engineering types, that means the structural load from gravity is about 10% of the maximum stress before failure. For three such buildings to fall into their footprint in <12 seconds in the same area, one would at least question the design of the buildings- which hasn't happened. These are three of the biggest engineering failures EVER, but no heads have rolled.
Are the results of these collapses fascinating?
Is it fascinating to sacrifice people under the name of terrorism?
Most certainly but just because there are aspects of it that have not been observed in previous collapses does not immediately lead me to a gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy involving super secret, super weaponry.
Whoa, you are getting ahead of yourself. You provided no physical explanation of your reasoning, yet you mention a super government conspiracy with secret weapons. No one here is talking about that. Suitcase nukes aren't top secret. Neither is C4. And neither are planes full of jet fuel. This is a thread about the BASIC physics of the WTC collapse.
What agenda are you furthering?
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularily surprising except in one way.
What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the breakdown of elements?
The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon.
You recall incorrectly. The top two elements in the earth's crust are oxygen and silicon . In the air it is nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon isn't even in the top ten elements of earth.
Other elements are not surprising giventhe wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
AGAIN!!? What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the basic physics of the collapse? You provide no logic from your surprise. I'm suprised by birthday gifts and afternoon showers. Neither mine nor nor mind states change objective reality.
hands flag to Foxx and metamars- you know what to do...keep up the constructive truthful onslaught, time to study for mech eng class!
Manifespo Out, 10-4
No, the fact that so much of the non-steel constituents of the towers was shredded or pulverized does not lead me to believe that there was anything other than gravity at work during the collapse.
What pertinence does your belief have on the basic physics of the collapse? My little brother believes in Santa Claus.
a) no other building even half the height of these ones has ever collapsed
no other building of comparable depth (width) has had a large jetliner crash into it and spew thousands of gallons of fuel into it
These collapses are unigue in all the world.
A plane weighs 150 tons, while the towers 500,000 tons of concrete and steel...for some reference that is like a bee running into an ape- its sting might cause a bit of pain- but the towers took those plane hits no problem. They fulfilled their designers prediction that they could withstand two plane impacts. The WTC Skyscrapers were designed with almost 800% safety ratio. For you non-engineering types, that means the structural load from gravity is about 10% of the maximum stress before failure. For three such buildings to fall into their footprint in <12 seconds in the same area, one would at least question the design of the buildings- which hasn't happened. These are three of the biggest engineering failures EVER, but no heads have rolled.
Are the results of these collapses fascinating?
Is it fascinating to sacrifice people under the name of terrorism?
Most certainly but just because there are aspects of it that have not been observed in previous collapses does not immediately lead me to a gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy involving super secret, super weaponry.
Whoa, you are getting ahead of yourself. You provided no physical explanation of your reasoning, yet you mention a super government conspiracy with secret weapons. No one here is talking about that. Suitcase nukes aren't top secret. Neither is C4. And neither are planes full of jet fuel. This is a thread about the BASIC physics of the WTC collapse.
What agenda are you furthering?
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularily surprising except in one way.
What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the breakdown of elements?
The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon.
You recall incorrectly. The top two elements in the earth's crust are oxygen and silicon . In the air it is nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon isn't even in the top ten elements of earth.
Other elements are not surprising giventhe wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
AGAIN!!? What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the basic physics of the collapse? You provide no logic from your surprise. I'm suprised by birthday gifts and afternoon showers. Neither mine nor nor mind states change objective reality.
hands flag to Foxx and metamars- you know what to do...keep up the constructive truthful onslaught, time to study for mech eng class!
Manifespo Out, 10-4
How on earth can people tout the ridiculous argument that this is a collapse event? They would have to pay me good, to repeat that lie over and over.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
QUOTE (Temp+Nov 10 2005, 02:38 AM)
How on earth can people tout the ridiculous argument that this is a collapse event? They would have to pay me good, to repeat that lie over and over.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
Hi Temp. I think the answer to your question lies in 'GroupThink'...
The 8 characteristics of GroupThink are as follows:
1. Illusion of Invulnerability - members believe the official story is beyond reproach
2. Collective Rationalization - members seek to discredit and explain away any 'red flags' which might be contrary to the official story
3. Illusion of Morality - members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping - the members construct negative stereotypes of any outside the group.
(lets classify them as CT's, tin-hats, etc.)
5. Pressure for Conformity - Members pressure any in the group who express arguements against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or committments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6 Self-Censorship - members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments in fear of ostracization from the group.
7 Illusion of Unanimity - members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8 Mindguards - Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
The above list of characteristics can clearly be seen in any gathering of those who believe, support, and promote the 'official' story of 9/11.
Ah, so that's the formula for Kool Aid!!
I wondered what it was composed of.
Fortunatley, it's not available here in Europe.
I wondered what it was composed of.
Fortunatley, it's not available here in Europe.
well well foxxy, so THAT's what you and your cronies group-wanking sessions are all about, 'GroupThink' sessions!
a pefect description, I'd say! hahahahaha.
Anyway its good to see you lunatics are safely engaged in babbling among yourselves and not bothering the nice people who dole out your 'medicine' every hour on the hour, hahahahahahah. what a riot! definitely worth good money to drop in now and then to see who is the greatest 'groupthinker' of the group!!!hahahahaha what a riot!!!!
a pefect description, I'd say! hahahahaha.
Anyway its good to see you lunatics are safely engaged in babbling among yourselves and not bothering the nice people who dole out your 'medicine' every hour on the hour, hahahahahahah. what a riot! definitely worth good money to drop in now and then to see who is the greatest 'groupthinker' of the group!!!hahahahaha what a riot!!!!
Much better video of the collapse of the spire can be downloaded at:
better video of mysterious, collapsing-telescoping-powderizing spire
Clearly, not just telescoping collapse, but powderization, also. The collapse of the spire commences about 55 seconds into the video.
better video of mysterious, collapsing-telescoping-powderizing spire
Clearly, not just telescoping collapse, but powderization, also. The collapse of the spire commences about 55 seconds into the video.
SOMEBODY SENT ME THIS THIS MORNING..
ABSTRACT
SEPTEMBER 11 AS “MACHIAVELLIAN STATE TERROR”
David MacGregor
Pyrotechnic effects and spectacular death belong to the symbolism of terror and political assassination—bizarre techniques of miscommunication through fear practiced on the innocent and designed to effect social change. While focusing on the use of terror in 9-11, this article deals with both terror and political assassination as closely related communicative practices of death. It outlines a theory of terrorism that suggests September 11 may be an example of expedient terrorist destruction ordered from within the state, a macabre instance of a state protection racket. Commentators on the left tend to see terrorism as a blow extended by the oppressed against exploiters. However, terrorism is much less likely to be a manifestation of a revolt by—or on behalf of—the underprivileged than a demonstration of brute force by the state or its agents. Machiavellian state terrorism is terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and—most important—secretly perpetrated by, or on behalf, of the violated state itself. Machiavellian state terror advances the ruling agenda while disguising itself as the work of individuals or groups opposed to the state’s fundamental principles. As an example, the article reviews a mysterious 1971 assassination in Paris that obliquely foreshadows some critical elements of the official story of 9-11. The article underlines the importance of oppositional theorizing: questioning government and looking for connections between events are critical features of what it means to be vitally active in the political universe.
ABSTRACT
SEPTEMBER 11 AS “MACHIAVELLIAN STATE TERROR”
David MacGregor
Pyrotechnic effects and spectacular death belong to the symbolism of terror and political assassination—bizarre techniques of miscommunication through fear practiced on the innocent and designed to effect social change. While focusing on the use of terror in 9-11, this article deals with both terror and political assassination as closely related communicative practices of death. It outlines a theory of terrorism that suggests September 11 may be an example of expedient terrorist destruction ordered from within the state, a macabre instance of a state protection racket. Commentators on the left tend to see terrorism as a blow extended by the oppressed against exploiters. However, terrorism is much less likely to be a manifestation of a revolt by—or on behalf of—the underprivileged than a demonstration of brute force by the state or its agents. Machiavellian state terrorism is terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and—most important—secretly perpetrated by, or on behalf, of the violated state itself. Machiavellian state terror advances the ruling agenda while disguising itself as the work of individuals or groups opposed to the state’s fundamental principles. As an example, the article reviews a mysterious 1971 assassination in Paris that obliquely foreshadows some critical elements of the official story of 9-11. The article underlines the importance of oppositional theorizing: questioning government and looking for connections between events are critical features of what it means to be vitally active in the political universe.
To the uninitated,
Please continue this posting if you have nothing better to do.
Otherwise please stop.
911 is history.
Observer
Please continue this posting if you have nothing better to do.
Otherwise please stop.
911 is history.
Observer
Dearest observer, 9-11 was presented as "history". Whether it is, or not, remains to be proved.
11 September 2001: coping by retreat into a world view
More than any particular map or narrative we might develop, we
need to retain the crucial awareness that any and all of these
narratives are mere models for behavioural, social, economic or
political success. Though provisionally functional, none of them are
absolutely true. To mistake any of them for reality would be to
mistake the map for the territory. This, more than anything, is the
terrible lesson of the twentieth century.Many people, institutions and
nations have yet to adopt strategies that take this lesson into account.
The oil industry and its representatives (some now elected in
government) are, for example, incapable of understanding a profit
model that does not involve the exploitation of fixed and limited
resources. They continue to push the rest of the industrialised world
towards the unnecessary bolstering of cooperative, if oppressive
dictatorships, as well as the wars these policies invariably produce.
The chemical and agriculture industries, incapable of envisioning a
particular crop as anything but a drug-addicted, genetically altered
species, cannot conceive of the impact of their innovations on the
planet’s topsoil or ecosystems. In more readily appreciated examples,
the Church of England is still consumed with its defence of the literal
interpretation of biblical events, and many fundamentalists sects in
the United States still fight, quite successfully, to prevent the theory of
evolution from being taught in state schools.
Although the terrorist attacks on the United States can find their
roots, at least partially, in a legacy of misguided American foreign and
energy policy decisions, they have also increased our awareness of a
great chasm between peoples with seemingly irreconcilable stories
about the world and humankind’s role within it. And the lines
between these world views are anything but clear.
Hours after the attacks, two of America’s own fundamentalist
ministers, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, were quick to fit the tragic
events into their own concrete narrative for God’s relationship to
humankind. Unable, or unwilling, to understand the apocalyptic
moment as anything but the wrath of God, they blamed the feminists,
homosexuals and civil libertarians of New York City for having
brought this terrible but heavenly decree on themselves.
In a less strident but equally fundamentalist impulse, many
American patriots interpreted the attacks as the beginning of a war
against our nation’s sacred values. This was to be seen as a war against
capitalism and a free society. As American flags were raised in
defiance of our Middle Eastern antagonists, just as many American
freedoms were sacrificed to the new war on terrorism. Our
nationalism overshadowed our national values, but our collective
story was saved from deconstruction.
Meanwhile, free-market capitalism’s stalwarts, who had already
suffered the collapse of the dot.com bubble and the faith-challenging
reality of an economic recession, were also reeling from the attack on
their most visible symbol of global trade. With its dependence on
perpetual expansion, the story of global capitalism was not helped by
this sure sign of resistance. Might the world not really be ready to
embrace the World Trade Organisation’s gifts? With a utopian future
of global economic prosperity as central to its basic premise as any
fundamentalist vision of a perfect past era in harmony with God,
believers in the capitalist narrative responded the only way they
could. They sought a war to defend their story.
The most injurious rupture, of course, was to the narrative we use
to feel safe and protected in an increasingly global society. The attacks
on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, pinpointed, devastating,
and worst of all perfectly executed, challenged the notion that we
were the world’s singularly invincible nation. The people we
appointed to protect us had proved their inability to do so. President
Bush’s quick rise to an over 90 per cent popularity rating shows just
how much we needed to believe in his ability to provide us with the
omnipotent fatherly protection that his rhetoric commanded. But like
a child realising that his parents can’t save him from the bully at
school, Americans were forced to consider that our leaders, our
weapons and our wealth offer only so much insulation from a big bad
world.
Our nurtured complacency and our sense of absolute security had
always been unfounded, of course. But waking up to the great
existential dilemma as suddenly as we did was a traumatic experience.
It led us to revert to old habits.Anti-Semites (and latent anti-Semites)
around the world used the catastrophe as new evidence of the ‘Jewish
problem’. Tsarist and Nazi propaganda books, such as Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, hit the bestseller lists in countries like Saudi Arabia
where they are still being published by official government presses.
Newspaper stories revived blood libel (that Jews drink the blood of
murdered non-Jewish teens) and spread the disinformation that Jews
were warned about the attacks by their rabbis through special radios
they keep in their homes. Indeed, such informational treachery is
nothing new. But in the destabilised atmosphere of disrupted
narrative, it spread faster, wider and with greater effect than it
otherwise would have.
Efforts to package America’s NewWar on news channels like CNN
further alienated the more cynical viewers from the mainstream
account of what had happened. Conspiracy theorists, Web activists
and open-minded leftists, already suspicious of the narratives
presented through television, found themselves falling prey to a
falsified email letter from a Brazilian schoolteacher claiming that
video footage of Palestinians celebrating the attacks had actually been
shot years earlier during the Gulf War. Like any other narrative, the
extreme counterculture’s saga of a ‘new world order’, directed by the
Bush family, had to be wrapped around the new data.
Meanwhile, many Jews and Christians who hadn’t even thought
about their religion or their ethnicity for years found themselves
instinctively asking: ‘how will this impact Israel?’ or ‘is the
Armageddon upon us?’ They bought memberships in religious
institutions for the first time in decades, and packed into their
churches and synagogues looking for reassurance, for a way to fit
these catastrophes into a bigger story. Like everyone else, they hoped
to reconstruct the narrative that had been shattered.
But surely our world views, political outlooks and religions aren’t
functioning at their best when they provide pat answers to life’s
biggest questions. The challenge to all thinking people is to resist the
temptation to fall into yet another polarised, nationalist or, God
forbid, holy posture. Rather than retreating into the simplistic and
childlike, if temporarily reassuring, belief that the answers have
already been written along with the entire human story, we must
resolve ourselves to participate actively in w riting the story ourselves.
It is not enough to go back to our old models, particularly when they
have been revealed to be inadequate at explaining the complexity of
the human condition. It is too late for the Western world to retreat
into Christian fundamentalism, accelerating global conflict in an
effort to bring on the messianic age. It is too late to push blindly
towards a purely capitalist model of human culture. There is simply
too much evidence that the short-term bottom line does not serve the
needs of people or the environment. There are too many alternative
values and cultural threads surrendered to profit efficiency that may
yet prove vital to our cultural ecosystem.
Instead, we must forge ahead into the challenging but necessary
task of inventing new models ourselves, using the collaborative
techniques learned over the past decade, and based in the real
evidence around us.
http://www.rushkoff.com/downloads/opensourcedemocracy.pdf
Open Source Democracy (download) -
PDF version of Rushkoff's book for UK policy thinktank Demos.
Another is that, though we observe squibs and ejections of dust clouds from collapsing floors, in order to get fine dust, I would think (though I'm guessing here, being ignorant of how to calculate explosions) that an explosion strong enough to turn most of the concrete into dust would have blown up half of Manhattan. Of course, you always get dust production during an explosion, but as a percentage of the mass, I doubt it would be more than 5-10%. (If you have time to research this, say by talking to professors at mining colleges, I'd appreciate the info. I've always wondered about this.)
I know that "explosiveness" is dependent on the speed of reaction of the material that is undergoing detonation. Thus, small quantities of a highly explosive materials will produce different types of damage (more severe) than larger quantities of less explosive materials, even though this material may contain higher potential energy. The more rapid the speed of detonation, the more powerful the "explosive shock". So the power of an explosion is dependent on the quantity of explosives AND the speed of reaction for the type of explosive material. That's just my two cents... I am not sure of the nomenclature I have used, but the concept is valid.
No, not for you. For me, though, it would be intellectually dishonest. I have shown you that the spire must have collapsed about 46 feet before any dust was emitted. The only possible mundane explanation that has a chance of being correct, that would invalidate the powderization observation (but only at the beginning of the collapse, since we can see enough of ithe collapse to realize that it is indeed turning into powder) is if the spire fell over, and it happened to be in exactly the vertical plane defined be the camera and the spire.
Since you have views from at least 2 different angles showing a telescoping collapse through the beginning of the powder cloud, and since they're not at 180 degrees from each other, this possibility is discounted.
So, you are left with denying the telescoping collapse because, well because you simply state it as a fact, and deny what is clearly visible. I call this sophistry.
Actually, after I wrote the above, I looked up the exact definition of sophistry:
soph·is·try Audio pronunciation of "sophistry" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
However, considering the facts I listed above, your explanation is not even plausible. It is a non-explanation. Perhaps you hadn't thought this through......
No, not for you. For me, though, it would be intellectually dishonest. I have shown you that the spire must have collapsed about 46 feet before any dust was emitted. The only possible mundane explanation that has a chance of being correct, that would invalidate the powderization observation (but only at the beginning of the collapse, since we can see enough of ithe collapse to realize that it is indeed turning into powder) is if the spire fell over, and it happened to be in exactly the vertical plane defined be the camera and the spire.
Since you have views from at least 2 different angles showing a telescoping collapse through the beginning of the powder cloud, and since they're not at 180 degrees from each other, this possibility is discounted.
So, you are left with denying the telescoping collapse because, well because you simply state it as a fact, and deny what is clearly visible. I call this sophistry.
Actually, after I wrote the above, I looked up the exact definition of sophistry:
soph·is·try Audio pronunciation of "sophistry" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
However, considering the facts I listed above, your explanation is not even plausible. It is a non-explanation. Perhaps you hadn't thought this through......
If this is NOT the case then please come up with some modality in which steel is "powderized". Please refrain from invoking weaponry or processes that are not known to even exist. Such things belong in sci-fi novels.
I would love to do so, but explaining an out-of-the-box phenomenon via inside-the-box, widely known physics is something that
1) I can't do and
2) is your problem, not mine, since you are the one in denial of the evidence
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularly surprising except in one way. The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon. It is also the largest constituent of soot yet as I scan that list I do not see carbon listed. Other elements are not surprising giventhe wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
Actually, the most common element in the Earth's crust (where our building materials ultimately come from) is Silicon. I noticed that many of the common elements (Si, C, Ca, Fe, etc.) are not listed in the breakdown above. I think this is because the elements listed are all toxic metals, and like you said earlier, I think this is because whoever did the analyses was concentrating on health effects from inhaled and/or ingested dust... So, I wouldn't consider the above list to be inclusive of the total chemical make-up of the dust.
I did find interesting: the high levels of Titanium, strontium, and some other metals that are not very abundant in the earth's crust... Any thoughts on this?
Time to inject some reason into yesitdid's fallacious rhetoric. I hate to single you out, but it does not seem you expect people to take you seriously.
No, the fact that so much of the non-steel constituents of the towers was shredded or pulverized does not lead me to believe that there was anything other than gravity at work during the collapse.
What pertinence does your belief have on the basic physics of the collapse? My little brother believes in Santa Claus.
So far nothing that anyone has attributed to basic physics has shown that the shredding and pulverization is unusual. That is what backs my belief. On the other hand I am being told that i should follow the beliefs of others who do not have any more reason to be believed than I do. So your point is what then?
a) no other building even half the height of these ones has ever collapsed
no other building of comparable depth (width) has had a large jetliner crash into it and spew thousands of gallons of fuel into it
These collapses are unique in all the world.
A plane weighs 150 tons, while the towers 500,000 tons of concrete and steel...for some reference that is like a bee running into an ape- its sting might cause a bit of pain- but the towers took those plane hits no problem. They fulfilled their designers prediction that they could withstand two plane impacts. The WTC Skyscrapers were designed with almost 800% safety ratio. For you non-engineering types, that means the structural load from gravity is about 10% of the maximum stress before failure. For three such buildings to fall into their footprint in <12 seconds in the same area, one would at least question the design of the buildings- which hasn't happened. These are three of the biggest engineering failures EVER, but no heads have rolled.
What possible relevance is there to the ratio of mass of the plane and the total building to the causes of collapse? No has ever stated that the impact of the plane caused the collapse. It did cause damage you cannot deny that. The damage was caused to the floors impacted so if you think you need to compare masses then you should be comparing masses of the plane and the mass of the objects that it hit at that floor level There is also a misrepresentation of that 800% "safety" ratio. I am not sure where you got that figure from but even if correct then it refers to what, the lateral loading? The vertical loading? If it refers to the lateral loading , fine, no one has ever claimed that the impact was THE cause of the collapse. If it refers to the vertical loading then it refers to an even distribution of 800% more load than was thought would have to be supported. This does not translate into every element of the towers being designed to 800% more than anticipated load. It does not translate into being able to remove 1% of the columns from one side of the tower and still have 99% of the vertical load capacity. An even distribution of removal of 1% of the perimeter columns would come closer to having 99% of the original load capacity but would still not reach that 99%.
Are the results of these collapses fascinating?
Is it fascinating to sacrifice people under the name of terrorism?
It is fascinating to know that terrorists have no compunction about killing innocents, but hardly surprising.
Most certainly but just because there are aspects of it that have not been observed in previous collapses does not immediately lead me to a gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy involving super secret, super weaponry.
Whoa, you are getting ahead of yourself. You provided no physical explanation of your reasoning, yet you mention a super government conspiracy with secret weapons. No one here is talking about that. Suitcase nukes aren't top secret. Neither is C4. And neither are planes full of jet fuel. This is a thread about the BASIC physics of the WTC collapse.
Would you prefer "exotic" rather than "super secret"? Now where did I claim that C4 or jet fuel was either secret or super? I was replying in reference to one poster who seemed to be arguing in favor of a mini nuke. The ability to create one might not be secret but if you have detailed plans for one please post them here, then sit quietly until the FBI arrives. If you have evidence that a massively powerful MASER exists then post it here. If you have evidence that one was set up in Manhattan on 9/11 post that here as well.
What agenda are you furthering?
Pray tell, is that a suggestion that I might be a secret agent of a gov't or shadow gov't. It certainly sounds like one. I have no other agenda than to combat what I see as nonsense. Satisfied? (I thought not) If you wish to believe that I am a paid disinformationalist(gee I wonder where I learned that term?) then there is nothing I can do about it. However it does not make you particularly stable in my humble opinion. Yes, your opinion of me is about as important to me as my is of you.
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularly surprising except in one way.
What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the breakdown of elements?
It seems that many are surprised or at least find some telling evidence of something in the breakdown of elements. Do you?
The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon.
You recall incorrectly. The top two elements in the earth's crust are oxygen and silicon . In the air it is nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon isn't even in the top ten elements of earth.
I stand corrected. However I am curious that carbon does not make the list in the study since carbon should be a major constituent of smoke from the burning of organic materials should it not? Minor point tough, I am not attempting to de-bunk Lioy. If that seemed my intent it was not.
Other elements are not surprising given the wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
AGAIN!!? What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the basic physics of the collapse? You provide no logic from your surprise. I'm surprised by birthday gifts and afternoon showers. Neither mine nor nor mind states change objective reality.
Again some seem to see some evidence in this that the collapses were not as reported. That would suggest some surprising result in the list would it not? I do not see the relevance and am thus not surprised. What do you see in it?
How on earth can people tout the ridiculous argument that this is a collapse event? They would have to pay me good, to repeat that lie over and over.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
Hi Temp. I think the answer to your question lies in 'GroupThink'...
The 8 characteristics of GroupThink are as follows:
1. Illusion of Invulnerability - members believe the official story is beyond reproach
2. Collective Rationalization - members seek to discredit and explain away any 'red flags' which might be contrary to the official story
3. Illusion of Morality - members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping - the members construct negative stereotypes of any outside the group.
(lets classify them as CT's, tin-hats, etc.)
5. Pressure for Conformity - Members pressure any in the group who express arguements against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or committments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6 Self-Censorship - members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments in fear of ostracization from the group.
7 Illusion of Unanimity - members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8 Mindguards - Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
The above list of characteristics can clearly be seen in any gathering of those who believe, support, and promote the 'official' story of 9/11.
From where I sit everyone of those points can also be attributed to the non-belivers in the official theory of the events of 9/11/01, Foxx.
You believe that your sources of info are beyond reproach
You will not consider any problems with your theory of the events of 9/11
You characterize what you do as a search for the truth or a battle to bring the truth forward
You characterize those who argue with you as "shills" and "trolls" and are unabashed about it.
I recall a dust up between you and another non-believer in the official theory in which he called you a "shill".
Well I stand corrected. There is no way anyone could prove that either side hasd people who are withholding dissenting views.
Silence can simply mean that one does not have enough training to render an opinion. So again I stand corrected. Your side does not seem to have a problem with silence though the guest poster you responded to said nothing substantial.
Mindgaurds such as you or the aforementioined one who called you a "shill"?
June 9, 2005
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.
S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
QUOTE
'This sense of immediacy and truthfulness which is the result of watching a steady stream of images interpreted with authority is what George Gerbner warned about as'instant history' - that is, history constructed by technology which 'concentrates power, shrinks time, and speeds action to the point where reporting, making and writing history
merge'
merge'
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 'This sense of immediacy and truthfulness which is the result of watching a steady stream of images interpreted with authority is what George Gerbner warned about as'instant history' - that is, history constructed by technology which 'concentrates power, shrinks time, and speeds action to the point where reporting, making and writing history merge' |
11 September 2001: coping by retreat into a world view
More than any particular map or narrative we might develop, we
need to retain the crucial awareness that any and all of these
narratives are mere models for behavioural, social, economic or
political success. Though provisionally functional, none of them are
absolutely true. To mistake any of them for reality would be to
mistake the map for the territory. This, more than anything, is the
terrible lesson of the twentieth century.Many people, institutions and
nations have yet to adopt strategies that take this lesson into account.
The oil industry and its representatives (some now elected in
government) are, for example, incapable of understanding a profit
model that does not involve the exploitation of fixed and limited
resources. They continue to push the rest of the industrialised world
towards the unnecessary bolstering of cooperative, if oppressive
dictatorships, as well as the wars these policies invariably produce.
The chemical and agriculture industries, incapable of envisioning a
particular crop as anything but a drug-addicted, genetically altered
species, cannot conceive of the impact of their innovations on the
planet’s topsoil or ecosystems. In more readily appreciated examples,
the Church of England is still consumed with its defence of the literal
interpretation of biblical events, and many fundamentalists sects in
the United States still fight, quite successfully, to prevent the theory of
evolution from being taught in state schools.
Although the terrorist attacks on the United States can find their
roots, at least partially, in a legacy of misguided American foreign and
energy policy decisions, they have also increased our awareness of a
great chasm between peoples with seemingly irreconcilable stories
about the world and humankind’s role within it. And the lines
between these world views are anything but clear.
Hours after the attacks, two of America’s own fundamentalist
ministers, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, were quick to fit the tragic
events into their own concrete narrative for God’s relationship to
humankind. Unable, or unwilling, to understand the apocalyptic
moment as anything but the wrath of God, they blamed the feminists,
homosexuals and civil libertarians of New York City for having
brought this terrible but heavenly decree on themselves.
In a less strident but equally fundamentalist impulse, many
American patriots interpreted the attacks as the beginning of a war
against our nation’s sacred values. This was to be seen as a war against
capitalism and a free society. As American flags were raised in
defiance of our Middle Eastern antagonists, just as many American
freedoms were sacrificed to the new war on terrorism. Our
nationalism overshadowed our national values, but our collective
story was saved from deconstruction.
Meanwhile, free-market capitalism’s stalwarts, who had already
suffered the collapse of the dot.com bubble and the faith-challenging
reality of an economic recession, were also reeling from the attack on
their most visible symbol of global trade. With its dependence on
perpetual expansion, the story of global capitalism was not helped by
this sure sign of resistance. Might the world not really be ready to
embrace the World Trade Organisation’s gifts? With a utopian future
of global economic prosperity as central to its basic premise as any
fundamentalist vision of a perfect past era in harmony with God,
believers in the capitalist narrative responded the only way they
could. They sought a war to defend their story.
The most injurious rupture, of course, was to the narrative we use
to feel safe and protected in an increasingly global society. The attacks
on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, pinpointed, devastating,
and worst of all perfectly executed, challenged the notion that we
were the world’s singularly invincible nation. The people we
appointed to protect us had proved their inability to do so. President
Bush’s quick rise to an over 90 per cent popularity rating shows just
how much we needed to believe in his ability to provide us with the
omnipotent fatherly protection that his rhetoric commanded. But like
a child realising that his parents can’t save him from the bully at
school, Americans were forced to consider that our leaders, our
weapons and our wealth offer only so much insulation from a big bad
world.
Our nurtured complacency and our sense of absolute security had
always been unfounded, of course. But waking up to the great
existential dilemma as suddenly as we did was a traumatic experience.
It led us to revert to old habits.Anti-Semites (and latent anti-Semites)
around the world used the catastrophe as new evidence of the ‘Jewish
problem’. Tsarist and Nazi propaganda books, such as Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, hit the bestseller lists in countries like Saudi Arabia
where they are still being published by official government presses.
Newspaper stories revived blood libel (that Jews drink the blood of
murdered non-Jewish teens) and spread the disinformation that Jews
were warned about the attacks by their rabbis through special radios
they keep in their homes. Indeed, such informational treachery is
nothing new. But in the destabilised atmosphere of disrupted
narrative, it spread faster, wider and with greater effect than it
otherwise would have.
Efforts to package America’s NewWar on news channels like CNN
further alienated the more cynical viewers from the mainstream
account of what had happened. Conspiracy theorists, Web activists
and open-minded leftists, already suspicious of the narratives
presented through television, found themselves falling prey to a
falsified email letter from a Brazilian schoolteacher claiming that
video footage of Palestinians celebrating the attacks had actually been
shot years earlier during the Gulf War. Like any other narrative, the
extreme counterculture’s saga of a ‘new world order’, directed by the
Bush family, had to be wrapped around the new data.
Meanwhile, many Jews and Christians who hadn’t even thought
about their religion or their ethnicity for years found themselves
instinctively asking: ‘how will this impact Israel?’ or ‘is the
Armageddon upon us?’ They bought memberships in religious
institutions for the first time in decades, and packed into their
churches and synagogues looking for reassurance, for a way to fit
these catastrophes into a bigger story. Like everyone else, they hoped
to reconstruct the narrative that had been shattered.
But surely our world views, political outlooks and religions aren’t
functioning at their best when they provide pat answers to life’s
biggest questions. The challenge to all thinking people is to resist the
temptation to fall into yet another polarised, nationalist or, God
forbid, holy posture. Rather than retreating into the simplistic and
childlike, if temporarily reassuring, belief that the answers have
already been written along with the entire human story, we must
resolve ourselves to participate actively in w riting the story ourselves.
It is not enough to go back to our old models, particularly when they
have been revealed to be inadequate at explaining the complexity of
the human condition. It is too late for the Western world to retreat
into Christian fundamentalism, accelerating global conflict in an
effort to bring on the messianic age. It is too late to push blindly
towards a purely capitalist model of human culture. There is simply
too much evidence that the short-term bottom line does not serve the
needs of people or the environment. There are too many alternative
values and cultural threads surrendered to profit efficiency that may
yet prove vital to our cultural ecosystem.
Instead, we must forge ahead into the challenging but necessary
task of inventing new models ourselves, using the collaborative
techniques learned over the past decade, and based in the real
evidence around us.
http://www.rushkoff.com/downloads/opensourcedemocracy.pdf
Open Source Democracy (download) -
PDF version of Rushkoff's book for UK policy thinktank Demos.
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 9 2005, 06:54 PM)
Another is that, though we observe squibs and ejections of dust clouds from collapsing floors, in order to get fine dust, I would think (though I'm guessing here, being ignorant of how to calculate explosions) that an explosion strong enough to turn most of the concrete into dust would have blown up half of Manhattan. Of course, you always get dust production during an explosion, but as a percentage of the mass, I doubt it would be more than 5-10%. (If you have time to research this, say by talking to professors at mining colleges, I'd appreciate the info. I've always wondered about this.)
I know that "explosiveness" is dependent on the speed of reaction of the material that is undergoing detonation. Thus, small quantities of a highly explosive materials will produce different types of damage (more severe) than larger quantities of less explosive materials, even though this material may contain higher potential energy. The more rapid the speed of detonation, the more powerful the "explosive shock". So the power of an explosion is dependent on the quantity of explosives AND the speed of reaction for the type of explosive material. That's just my two cents... I am not sure of the nomenclature I have used, but the concept is valid.
QUOTE
First picture-the standing spire
Second picture the spire is dropping
Third picture the steel spire has dropped and what remains in the air is the dust that was on the spire.
Was that so difficult?
Second picture the spire is dropping
Third picture the steel spire has dropped and what remains in the air is the dust that was on the spire.
Was that so difficult?
No, not for you. For me, though, it would be intellectually dishonest. I have shown you that the spire must have collapsed about 46 feet before any dust was emitted. The only possible mundane explanation that has a chance of being correct, that would invalidate the powderization observation (but only at the beginning of the collapse, since we can see enough of ithe collapse to realize that it is indeed turning into powder) is if the spire fell over, and it happened to be in exactly the vertical plane defined be the camera and the spire.
Since you have views from at least 2 different angles showing a telescoping collapse through the beginning of the powder cloud, and since they're not at 180 degrees from each other, this possibility is discounted.
So, you are left with denying the telescoping collapse because, well because you simply state it as a fact, and deny what is clearly visible. I call this sophistry.
Actually, after I wrote the above, I looked up the exact definition of sophistry:
soph·is·try Audio pronunciation of "sophistry" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
However, considering the facts I listed above, your explanation is not even plausible. It is a non-explanation. Perhaps you hadn't thought this through......
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| First picture-the standing spire Second picture the spire is dropping Third picture the steel spire has dropped and what remains in the air is the dust that was on the spire. Was that so difficult? |
No, not for you. For me, though, it would be intellectually dishonest. I have shown you that the spire must have collapsed about 46 feet before any dust was emitted. The only possible mundane explanation that has a chance of being correct, that would invalidate the powderization observation (but only at the beginning of the collapse, since we can see enough of ithe collapse to realize that it is indeed turning into powder) is if the spire fell over, and it happened to be in exactly the vertical plane defined be the camera and the spire.
Since you have views from at least 2 different angles showing a telescoping collapse through the beginning of the powder cloud, and since they're not at 180 degrees from each other, this possibility is discounted.
So, you are left with denying the telescoping collapse because, well because you simply state it as a fact, and deny what is clearly visible. I call this sophistry.
Actually, after I wrote the above, I looked up the exact definition of sophistry:
soph·is·try Audio pronunciation of "sophistry" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sf-str)
n. pl. soph·is·tries
1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
However, considering the facts I listed above, your explanation is not even plausible. It is a non-explanation. Perhaps you hadn't thought this through......
If this is NOT the case then please come up with some modality in which steel is "powderized". Please refrain from invoking weaponry or processes that are not known to even exist. Such things belong in sci-fi novels.
I would love to do so, but explaining an out-of-the-box phenomenon via inside-the-box, widely known physics is something that
1) I can't do and
2) is your problem, not mine, since you are the one in denial of the evidence
QUOTE (yesitdid+Nov 9 2005, 11:06 PM)
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularly surprising except in one way. The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon. It is also the largest constituent of soot yet as I scan that list I do not see carbon listed. Other elements are not surprising giventhe wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
Actually, the most common element in the Earth's crust (where our building materials ultimately come from) is Silicon. I noticed that many of the common elements (Si, C, Ca, Fe, etc.) are not listed in the breakdown above. I think this is because the elements listed are all toxic metals, and like you said earlier, I think this is because whoever did the analyses was concentrating on health effects from inhaled and/or ingested dust... So, I wouldn't consider the above list to be inclusive of the total chemical make-up of the dust.
I did find interesting: the high levels of Titanium, strontium, and some other metals that are not very abundant in the earth's crust... Any thoughts on this?
QUOTE (manifespo+Nov 10 2005, 01:19 AM)
Time to inject some reason into yesitdid's fallacious rhetoric. I hate to single you out, but it does not seem you expect people to take you seriously.
No, the fact that so much of the non-steel constituents of the towers was shredded or pulverized does not lead me to believe that there was anything other than gravity at work during the collapse.
What pertinence does your belief have on the basic physics of the collapse? My little brother believes in Santa Claus.
So far nothing that anyone has attributed to basic physics has shown that the shredding and pulverization is unusual. That is what backs my belief. On the other hand I am being told that i should follow the beliefs of others who do not have any more reason to be believed than I do. So your point is what then?
a) no other building even half the height of these ones has ever collapsed
no other building of comparable depth (width) has had a large jetliner crash into it and spew thousands of gallons of fuel into it
These collapses are unique in all the world.
A plane weighs 150 tons, while the towers 500,000 tons of concrete and steel...for some reference that is like a bee running into an ape- its sting might cause a bit of pain- but the towers took those plane hits no problem. They fulfilled their designers prediction that they could withstand two plane impacts. The WTC Skyscrapers were designed with almost 800% safety ratio. For you non-engineering types, that means the structural load from gravity is about 10% of the maximum stress before failure. For three such buildings to fall into their footprint in <12 seconds in the same area, one would at least question the design of the buildings- which hasn't happened. These are three of the biggest engineering failures EVER, but no heads have rolled.
What possible relevance is there to the ratio of mass of the plane and the total building to the causes of collapse? No has ever stated that the impact of the plane caused the collapse. It did cause damage you cannot deny that. The damage was caused to the floors impacted so if you think you need to compare masses then you should be comparing masses of the plane and the mass of the objects that it hit at that floor level There is also a misrepresentation of that 800% "safety" ratio. I am not sure where you got that figure from but even if correct then it refers to what, the lateral loading? The vertical loading? If it refers to the lateral loading , fine, no one has ever claimed that the impact was THE cause of the collapse. If it refers to the vertical loading then it refers to an even distribution of 800% more load than was thought would have to be supported. This does not translate into every element of the towers being designed to 800% more than anticipated load. It does not translate into being able to remove 1% of the columns from one side of the tower and still have 99% of the vertical load capacity. An even distribution of removal of 1% of the perimeter columns would come closer to having 99% of the original load capacity but would still not reach that 99%.
Are the results of these collapses fascinating?
Is it fascinating to sacrifice people under the name of terrorism?
It is fascinating to know that terrorists have no compunction about killing innocents, but hardly surprising.
Most certainly but just because there are aspects of it that have not been observed in previous collapses does not immediately lead me to a gov't or shadow gov't conspiracy involving super secret, super weaponry.
Whoa, you are getting ahead of yourself. You provided no physical explanation of your reasoning, yet you mention a super government conspiracy with secret weapons. No one here is talking about that. Suitcase nukes aren't top secret. Neither is C4. And neither are planes full of jet fuel. This is a thread about the BASIC physics of the WTC collapse.
Would you prefer "exotic" rather than "super secret"? Now where did I claim that C4 or jet fuel was either secret or super? I was replying in reference to one poster who seemed to be arguing in favor of a mini nuke. The ability to create one might not be secret but if you have detailed plans for one please post them here, then sit quietly until the FBI arrives. If you have evidence that a massively powerful MASER exists then post it here. If you have evidence that one was set up in Manhattan on 9/11 post that here as well.
What agenda are you furthering?
Pray tell, is that a suggestion that I might be a secret agent of a gov't or shadow gov't. It certainly sounds like one. I have no other agenda than to combat what I see as nonsense. Satisfied? (I thought not) If you wish to believe that I am a paid disinformationalist(gee I wonder where I learned that term?) then there is nothing I can do about it. However it does not make you particularly stable in my humble opinion. Yes, your opinion of me is about as important to me as my is of you.
I also do not find the breakdown of elements particularly surprising except in one way.
What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the breakdown of elements?
It seems that many are surprised or at least find some telling evidence of something in the breakdown of elements. Do you?
The most common element on Earth IIRC is carbon.
You recall incorrectly. The top two elements in the earth's crust are oxygen and silicon . In the air it is nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon isn't even in the top ten elements of earth.
I stand corrected. However I am curious that carbon does not make the list in the study since carbon should be a major constituent of smoke from the burning of organic materials should it not? Minor point tough, I am not attempting to de-bunk Lioy. If that seemed my intent it was not.
Other elements are not surprising given the wide variety of materials that would be in a building and two airliners.
AGAIN!!? What pertinence does YOUR surprise have on the basic physics of the collapse? You provide no logic from your surprise. I'm surprised by birthday gifts and afternoon showers. Neither mine nor nor mind states change objective reality.
Again some seem to see some evidence in this that the collapses were not as reported. That would suggest some surprising result in the list would it not? I do not see the relevance and am thus not surprised. What do you see in it?
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 10 2005, 04:06 AM)
QUOTE (Temp+Nov 10 2005, 02:38 AM)
How on earth can people tout the ridiculous argument that this is a collapse event? They would have to pay me good, to repeat that lie over and over.
http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm
Hi Temp. I think the answer to your question lies in 'GroupThink'...
The 8 characteristics of GroupThink are as follows:
1. Illusion of Invulnerability - members believe the official story is beyond reproach
2. Collective Rationalization - members seek to discredit and explain away any 'red flags' which might be contrary to the official story
3. Illusion of Morality - members believe their decisions are morally correct, ignoring the ethical consequences of their decisions.
4. Excessive Stereotyping - the members construct negative stereotypes of any outside the group.
(lets classify them as CT's, tin-hats, etc.)
5. Pressure for Conformity - Members pressure any in the group who express arguements against the group's stereotypes, illusions, or committments, viewing such opposition as disloyalty.
6 Self-Censorship - members withhold their dissenting views and counter-arguments in fear of ostracization from the group.
7 Illusion of Unanimity - members perceive falsely that everyone agrees with the group's decision; silence is seen as consent.
8 Mindguards - Some members appoint themselves to the role of protecting the group from adverse information that might threaten group complacency.
The above list of characteristics can clearly be seen in any gathering of those who believe, support, and promote the 'official' story of 9/11.
From where I sit everyone of those points can also be attributed to the non-belivers in the official theory of the events of 9/11/01, Foxx.
You believe that your sources of info are beyond reproach
You will not consider any problems with your theory of the events of 9/11
You characterize what you do as a search for the truth or a battle to bring the truth forward
You characterize those who argue with you as "shills" and "trolls" and are unabashed about it.
I recall a dust up between you and another non-believer in the official theory in which he called you a "shill".
Well I stand corrected. There is no way anyone could prove that either side hasd people who are withholding dissenting views.
Silence can simply mean that one does not have enough training to render an opinion. So again I stand corrected. Your side does not seem to have a problem with silence though the guest poster you responded to said nothing substantial.
Mindgaurds such as you or the aforementioined one who called you a "shill"?
I thought this document was relevant, as the quintessential reason for the geopolitical shift in American foreign policy towards (certain) Middle Eastern countries.
...great catch from Team8+ researchers Brad M. and CCW.
This document below is apparently from at least September 12th, when both flights had been officially established already.
Please read carefully point a) and:
"...At ...8:48 am UA175 struck a tower...
...At approximately 9:08 am flight 11 struck the other tower..."
This is in opposite to the official story, where 'flight 11' hit first (remember that this is also the same flight, which wasn't listed at all in the BTS/FAA/ACARS database during that week!)
Introduction says:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resour...iaffidavit9.htm
"...This document was lodged in the US District Court of Maine by FBI Agent, James K. Lechner..."
http://tinyurl.com/6jch6
SERIOUS ANALYSIS
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/new...php?storyid=858
...great catch from Team8+ researchers Brad M. and CCW.
This document below is apparently from at least September 12th, when both flights had been officially established already.
Please read carefully point a) and
:"...At ...8:48 am UA175 struck a tower...
...At approximately 9:08 am flight 11 struck the other tower..."
This is in opposite to the official story, where 'flight 11' hit first (remember that this is also the same flight, which wasn't listed at all in the BTS/FAA/ACARS database during that week!)
Introduction says:
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/atta/resour...iaffidavit9.htm
"...This document was lodged in the US District Court of Maine by FBI Agent, James K. Lechner..."
QUOTE
Flight 11 survived the North Tower crash
...therefore it cannot have been the plane that hit the tower.
Flight 11 was spotted on the radar screens at 8:48 by New York ARTCC controllers:
At 8:48, while the controller was still trying to locate American 11, a New York Center manager provided the following report on a Command Center teleconference about American 11:
Manager, New York Center: Okay. This is New York Center. We’re watching the airplane. I also had conversation with American Airlines, and they ’ve told us that they believe that one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft, and that ’s all the information they have right now. 124
The New York Center controller and manager were unaware that American 11 had already crashed. 9/11 report, p.21
Flight 11 was reported at 9:21 by Washington ARTCC controllers as "heading towards Washington":
Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11.
At 9:21, NEADS received a report from the FAA:
FAA: Military,Boston Center.I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it ’s on its way towards —heading towards Washington.
NEADS: Okay.American 11 is still in the air?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: On its way towards Washington?
FAA: That was another — it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower. That ’s the latest report we have.
NEADS: Okay.
FAA: I ’m going to try to confirm an ID for you,but I would assume
he ’s somewhere over,uh,either New Jersey or somewhere further south.
NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn ’t the hijack at all then,right?
FAA: No,he is a hijack.
NEADS: He —American 11 is a hijack?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: And he ’s heading into Washington?
FAA: Yes. This could be a third aircraft.148
The mention of a “third aircraft ”was not a reference to American 77.There was confusion at that moment in the FAA.Two planes had struck the World Trade Center, and Boston Center had heard from FAA headquarters in Washington that American 11 was still airborne. We have been unable to identify the
source of this mistaken FAA information. 9/11 report, p.26
At 9:24, Langley fighters were ordered to intercept the southbound Flight 11 in the Baltimore area:
The NEADS technician who took this call from the FAA immediately passed the word to the mission crew commander, who reported to the NEADS battle commander:
Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.149
After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued the order at 9:23:"Okay . . . scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area.. . . if they're there then we'll run on them.. . .These guys are smart." That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 9:24. Radar data show the Langley fighters airborne at 9:30. NEADS decided to keep the Otis fighters over New York. The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area. The mission crew commander explained to us that the purpose was to position the Langley fighters between the reported southbound American 11 and the nation's capital.150
The Air National Guard was informed by the FAA that Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower crash:
03:54:35 LT COLONEL DAWNE DESKINS, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
They told us that they showed the American Airlines Flight 11 was still airborne. So now, we're looking at this, well if, if an aircraft hit the World Trade Center, who was that?http://www.billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/abcnews0911...
General Myers knew of a hijacked plane, coming from the New York area and heading to Washington:
General Richard Myers, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that before the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550...
So who wants to deny that Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower crash?
...therefore it cannot have been the plane that hit the tower.
Flight 11 was spotted on the radar screens at 8:48 by New York ARTCC controllers:
At 8:48, while the controller was still trying to locate American 11, a New York Center manager provided the following report on a Command Center teleconference about American 11:
Manager, New York Center: Okay. This is New York Center. We’re watching the airplane. I also had conversation with American Airlines, and they ’ve told us that they believe that one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft, and that ’s all the information they have right now. 124
The New York Center controller and manager were unaware that American 11 had already crashed. 9/11 report, p.21
Flight 11 was reported at 9:21 by Washington ARTCC controllers as "heading towards Washington":
Instead, the NEADS air defenders heard renewed reports about a plane that no longer existed: American 11.
At 9:21, NEADS received a report from the FAA:
FAA: Military,Boston Center.I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it ’s on its way towards —heading towards Washington.
NEADS: Okay.American 11 is still in the air?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: On its way towards Washington?
FAA: That was another — it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower. That ’s the latest report we have.
NEADS: Okay.
FAA: I ’m going to try to confirm an ID for you,but I would assume
he ’s somewhere over,uh,either New Jersey or somewhere further south.
NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn ’t the hijack at all then,right?
FAA: No,he is a hijack.
NEADS: He —American 11 is a hijack?
FAA: Yes.
NEADS: And he ’s heading into Washington?
FAA: Yes. This could be a third aircraft.148
The mention of a “third aircraft ”was not a reference to American 77.There was confusion at that moment in the FAA.Two planes had struck the World Trade Center, and Boston Center had heard from FAA headquarters in Washington that American 11 was still airborne. We have been unable to identify the
source of this mistaken FAA information. 9/11 report, p.26
At 9:24, Langley fighters were ordered to intercept the southbound Flight 11 in the Baltimore area:
The NEADS technician who took this call from the FAA immediately passed the word to the mission crew commander, who reported to the NEADS battle commander:
Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.149
After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued the order at 9:23:"Okay . . . scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area.. . . if they're there then we'll run on them.. . .These guys are smart." That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 9:24. Radar data show the Langley fighters airborne at 9:30. NEADS decided to keep the Otis fighters over New York. The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area. The mission crew commander explained to us that the purpose was to position the Langley fighters between the reported southbound American 11 and the nation's capital.150
The Air National Guard was informed by the FAA that Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower crash:
03:54:35 LT COLONEL DAWNE DESKINS, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
They told us that they showed the American Airlines Flight 11 was still airborne. So now, we're looking at this, well if, if an aircraft hit the World Trade Center, who was that?http://www.billstclair.com/911timeline/2002/abcnews0911...
General Myers knew of a hijacked plane, coming from the New York area and heading to Washington:
General Richard Myers, vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that before the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550...
So who wants to deny that Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower crash?
http://tinyurl.com/6jch6
SERIOUS ANALYSIS
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/new...php?storyid=858
lots of confusion that day and it is also not unusual to have two similar incidents get with info reversed in early reports. It simply happens.
In fact your abc.net report states that the document was "lodged" in District Court by the FBI. That should be "logged" if I am not mistaken. So is there some evidence of conspiracy in that whoever wrote"lodged" actually meant "lodged" and that it was just jammed into the doorway clandestinely by FBI agents?
In fact your abc.net report states that the document was "lodged" in District Court by the FBI. That should be "logged" if I am not mistaken. So is there some evidence of conspiracy in that whoever wrote"lodged" actually meant "lodged" and that it was just jammed into the doorway clandestinely by FBI agents?
QUOTE
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?
by Morgan Reynolds
"It didn’t seem real… There are thousands of these steel beams that just fell like pickup sticks."
~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer
"What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."
~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),
General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE
To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.
Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.
The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.
As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured – separated from each other – yet there is no direct evidence of "severe" structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the broken perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its counterpart column below. We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors 95–98 at the opening, the aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the perimeter.
The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns. Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North Tower showed no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening itself. Of course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors.
The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 95–98, photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts the likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities – primarily FEMA – had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable.
Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong (claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.
Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.
While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.
The preliminary NIST Response claims that "the wall section above the impact zone moved downward" (pdf, p. 36) on WTC 1 but offers no evidence. It offers photographic evidence, however, for a "hanging floor slab" on the 82d floor of the South Tower at 9:55 a.m. This looks minor though because there is no sag on adjacent floors and the integrity of the structure looks very much intact. The fire looks weak too, yet the South Tower collapsed only four minutes later. This would be quite a puzzle without a demolition theory.
About a dozen of the fragmented ends of exterior columns in the North Tower hole were bent but the bends faced the "wrong way" because they pointed toward the outside of the Tower. This fact is troublesome for the official theory that a plane crash created the hole and subsequent explosion between floors 94 and 98. The laws of physics imply that a high-speed airplane with fuel-filled wings breaking through thin perimeter columns would deflect the shattered ends of the columns inward, if deflected in any direction, certainly not bend them outward toward the exterior.
A possible response would be that, well, yes, an airliner crash would bend a column inward rather than outward, if bent at all, but the subsequent force of a jet fuel blast would act in the opposite direction: any inward bends caused by plane impact would straighten toward vertical or even reverse the bent steel columns toward the exterior under blast pressure. However, such a proposed steel "reversal theory" (first bend inward by collision, then bend outward by explosion) suffers two major handicaps:
1.
No "inward-bending columns" were observed and it would be unlikely that each and every one would be reversed by subsequent explosion, and
2.
the hypothesis is ad hoc and lacks simplicity, both scientific negatives.
Occam’s razor would suggest that the outward bends in the perimeter columns were caused by explosions from inside the tower rather than bends caused by airliner impact from outside. Also supporting this theory is the fact that the uniformly neat ends of the blown perimeter columns are consistent with the linear shaped charges demolition experts use to slice steel as thick as 10 inches. The hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures), as well as the rather-neatly shorn steel everywhere.
The engineering establishment’s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68–9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.
Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is that some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the northeast hole were so short, probably less than three feet (p. 105) high (p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its frontal area. The engines are a special problem because each engine is enormous and dense, consisting mainly of tempered steel and weighing 5–6 tons, depending upon model. No engine was recovered in the rubble yet no hydrocarbon fire could possibly vaporize it.
The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not even have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead contained substantial WTC material (p. 27) just left of center (pp. 62, 105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration by a jumbo jet. These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons.
In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower. Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are unconvincing, to put it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can testify to the contrary. Further contradicting the official account, the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was completely intact upon initial impact. The government never produced a jet engine yet claimed it recovered the passport of alleged hijacker Satam al Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic collapse of the North Tower. The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack either, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes.
Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by FEMA or other government agents. I’ve never seen any objective analysis of this wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.
The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller than the North Tower hole.
The next question is whether the fires were hot enough to cause the WTC buildings to collapse. In defending the official account and its clones that try to explain the unprecedented collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers without demolition, heat arguably is more important than structural impact. That’s obviously true for building WTC 7 because there was no alleged airplane impact.
First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.
Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing.
Third, the impact opening was 15 floors lower in the South Tower than in the North Tower, where core columns were thicker, so the South Tower fire had to produce more heat to raise the steel temperatures to soften up (thermally weaken) the steel columns. Yet its fires were considerably smaller and 30 minutes shorter in duration. The Tower collapsed after burning only 56 minutes. A prime candidate to explain why "the wrong tower fell first" is that the small dying fire in the South Tower forced the hand of the mass murderers who decided to trigger demolition earlier than planned in order to sustain the lie that fire caused the collapse. The North Tower stood for another 29 minutes and its core steel was thinner at its upper stories. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not collapse.
Fourth, implicitly trying to explain away these difficulties, the current NIST investigation, conducted by "an extended investigation team of 236 people," makes "dislodged fireproofing" the key variable to explain the collapses. Supposedly, "the probable collapse sequence for the WTC towers are (sic) based on the behavior of thermally weakened structural components that had extensive damage to fireproofing or gypsum board fire protection induced by the debris field generated by aircraft impact" (p. 111). "Had fireproofing not been dislodged by debris field," this team of government-paid experts claims, "temperature rise of structural components would likely have been insufficient to induce global collapse" (p. 108). Perhaps acknowledging the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that "a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112). The NIST will have to boost its creativity to plausibly explain the WTC 7 collapse because it won’t have the benefit of tales of aircraft and debris fields.
Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:
* Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
* By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
* The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
* FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
* Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:
1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.
1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.
A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret.
Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that the perpetrators used Mayor Giuliani’s sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer might set his victim’s dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in four fires is arson). Giuliani’s "undisclosed secret location" was perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers.
There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely prove to be sound. Revised engineering and construction practices, for example, based on the belief that the twin towers collapsed through airplane damage and subsequent fires is premature, to say the least.
More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in today’s "security state" demands daring because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
http://www.physics911.net/reynolds.htmby Morgan Reynolds
"It didn’t seem real… There are thousands of these steel beams that just fell like pickup sticks."
~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer
"What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable."
~ Michael Henderson (p. 93),
General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE
To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.
Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day.
The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns.
As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured – separated from each other – yet there is no direct evidence of "severe" structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the broken perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its counterpart column below. We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors 95–98 at the opening, the aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the perimeter.
The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns. Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North Tower showed no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening itself. Of course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors.
The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 95–98, photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts the likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities – primarily FEMA – had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable.
Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong (claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system.
Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames.
While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired.
The preliminary NIST Response claims that "the wall section above the impact zone moved downward" (pdf, p. 36) on WTC 1 but offers no evidence. It offers photographic evidence, however, for a "hanging floor slab" on the 82d floor of the South Tower at 9:55 a.m. This looks minor though because there is no sag on adjacent floors and the integrity of the structure looks very much intact. The fire looks weak too, yet the South Tower collapsed only four minutes later. This would be quite a puzzle without a demolition theory.
About a dozen of the fragmented ends of exterior columns in the North Tower hole were bent but the bends faced the "wrong way" because they pointed toward the outside of the Tower. This fact is troublesome for the official theory that a plane crash created the hole and subsequent explosion between floors 94 and 98. The laws of physics imply that a high-speed airplane with fuel-filled wings breaking through thin perimeter columns would deflect the shattered ends of the columns inward, if deflected in any direction, certainly not bend them outward toward the exterior.
A possible response would be that, well, yes, an airliner crash would bend a column inward rather than outward, if bent at all, but the subsequent force of a jet fuel blast would act in the opposite direction: any inward bends caused by plane impact would straighten toward vertical or even reverse the bent steel columns toward the exterior under blast pressure. However, such a proposed steel "reversal theory" (first bend inward by collision, then bend outward by explosion) suffers two major handicaps:
1.
No "inward-bending columns" were observed and it would be unlikely that each and every one would be reversed by subsequent explosion, and
2.
the hypothesis is ad hoc and lacks simplicity, both scientific negatives.
Occam’s razor would suggest that the outward bends in the perimeter columns were caused by explosions from inside the tower rather than bends caused by airliner impact from outside. Also supporting this theory is the fact that the uniformly neat ends of the blown perimeter columns are consistent with the linear shaped charges demolition experts use to slice steel as thick as 10 inches. The hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures), as well as the rather-neatly shorn steel everywhere.
The engineering establishment’s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68–9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1.
Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is that some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the northeast hole were so short, probably less than three feet (p. 105) high (p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its frontal area. The engines are a special problem because each engine is enormous and dense, consisting mainly of tempered steel and weighing 5–6 tons, depending upon model. No engine was recovered in the rubble yet no hydrocarbon fire could possibly vaporize it.
The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not even have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead contained substantial WTC material (p. 27) just left of center (pp. 62, 105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration by a jumbo jet. These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons.
In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower. Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are unconvincing, to put it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can testify to the contrary. Further contradicting the official account, the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was completely intact upon initial impact. The government never produced a jet engine yet claimed it recovered the passport of alleged hijacker Satam al Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic collapse of the North Tower. The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack either, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes.
Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by FEMA or other government agents. I’ve never seen any objective analysis of this wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.
The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller than the North Tower hole.
The next question is whether the fires were hot enough to cause the WTC buildings to collapse. In defending the official account and its clones that try to explain the unprecedented collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers without demolition, heat arguably is more important than structural impact. That’s obviously true for building WTC 7 because there was no alleged airplane impact.
First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC.
Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing.
Third, the impact opening was 15 floors lower in the South Tower than in the North Tower, where core columns were thicker, so the South Tower fire had to produce more heat to raise the steel temperatures to soften up (thermally weaken) the steel columns. Yet its fires were considerably smaller and 30 minutes shorter in duration. The Tower collapsed after burning only 56 minutes. A prime candidate to explain why "the wrong tower fell first" is that the small dying fire in the South Tower forced the hand of the mass murderers who decided to trigger demolition earlier than planned in order to sustain the lie that fire caused the collapse. The North Tower stood for another 29 minutes and its core steel was thinner at its upper stories. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not collapse.
Fourth, implicitly trying to explain away these difficulties, the current NIST investigation, conducted by "an extended investigation team of 236 people," makes "dislodged fireproofing" the key variable to explain the collapses. Supposedly, "the probable collapse sequence for the WTC towers are (sic) based on the behavior of thermally weakened structural components that had extensive damage to fireproofing or gypsum board fire protection induced by the debris field generated by aircraft impact" (p. 111). "Had fireproofing not been dislodged by debris field," this team of government-paid experts claims, "temperature rise of structural components would likely have been insufficient to induce global collapse" (p. 108). Perhaps acknowledging the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that "a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112). The NIST will have to boost its creativity to plausibly explain the WTC 7 collapse because it won’t have the benefit of tales of aircraft and debris fields.
Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it:
* Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor).
* By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes.
* The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires.
* FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.
* Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk.
Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts:
1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.
2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.
3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.
4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9).
5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.
6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."
7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.
Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.
1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).
2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.
3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said").
4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse.
5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.
6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.
7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.
8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).
9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.
10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).
11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70).
Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection.
A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret.
Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that the perpetrators used Mayor Giuliani’s sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer might set his victim’s dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in four fires is arson). Giuliani’s "undisclosed secret location" was perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers.
There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test.
If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up.
It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely prove to be sound. Revised engineering and construction practices, for example, based on the belief that the twin towers collapsed through airplane damage and subsequent fires is premature, to say the least.
More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in today’s "security state" demands daring because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11.
June 9, 2005
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.
S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? by Morgan Reynolds "It didn’t seem real… There are thousands of these steel beams that just fell like pickup sticks." ~ John Albanese, volunteer firefighter and amateur photographer "What struck us – guys like Warren Jennings and myself, who have spent basically all our lives in the scrap business – we’d never seen steel this heavy, this huge, this massive. It was just unbelievable." ~ Michael Henderson (p. 93), General Manager, Marine Terminals, Metal Management NE To explain the unanticipated free-fall collapses of the twin towers at the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, mainstream experts (also see The American Professional Constructor, October 2004, pp. 12–18) offer a three-stage argument: 1) an airplane impact weakened each structure, 2) an intense fire thermally weakened structural components that may have suffered damage to fireproofing materials, causing buckling failures, which, in turn, 3) allowed the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below. Many will nod their head, OK, that does it and go back to watching the NBA finals or whatever, but I find this theory just about as satisfying as the fantastic conspiracy theory that "19 young Arabs acting at the behest of Islamist extremists headquartered in distant Afghanistan" caused 9/11. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms, but its blinkered narrowness and lack of breadth is the paramount defect unshared by its principal scientific rival – controlled demolition. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapses of WTC 1 (North Tower), WTC 2 (South Tower), and the much-overlooked collapse of the 47-story WTC building 7 at 5:21 pm on that fateful day. The scientific controversy over the initial structural weakening has two parts: what caused the original tower damage and did that damage "severely" weaken the structures? Photos show a stable, motionless North Tower (WTC 1) after the damage suffered at 8:46 am and the South Tower after its 9:03 am impact. If we focus on the North Tower, close examination of photos reveals arguably "minor" rather than "severe" damage in the North Tower and its perimeter columns. As many as 45 exterior columns between floors 94 and 98 on the northeast (impact) side of the North Tower were fractured – separated from each other – yet there is no direct evidence of "severe" structural weakening. None of the upper sections of the broken perimeter columns visibly sags or buckles toward its counterpart column below. We can infer this because of the aluminum covers on the columns: each seam uniformly aligns properly across the Tower, forming a horizontal "dashed line" in the façade from beveled end to end. Despite an impact hole, gaps in perimeter columns, and missing parts of floors 95–98 at the opening, the aluminum façade shows no evidence of vertical displacement in the columns, suggestive of little or no wider floor buckling at the perimeter. The aluminum covers attached to the columns also aligned vertically after impact, that is, separated columns continued to visually remain "plumb" (true vertical), lining up top to bottom around the aperture, implying no perceptible horizontal displacement of the columns. Photographic evidence for the northeast side of the North Tower showed no wider secondary structural impact beyond the opening itself. Of course, there was smoke pouring out of the upper floors. The fact that perimeter columns were not displaced suggests that the floors did not buckle or sag. Despite missing parts of floors 95–98, photos show no buckling or sag on other floors. If so, that boosts the likelihood that there was little damage to the core. Photos do not document what happened within the interior/core and no one was allowed to inspect and preserve relevant rubble before government authorities – primarily FEMA – had it quickly removed. Eyewitness testimony by those who escaped from inside the North Tower concerning core damage probably is unavailable. Photos do not allow us to peer far into the interior of the building; in fact the hole is black, with no flames visible. We know that the structural core and its steel was incredibly strong (claimed 600% redundancy) making it unlikely that the core was "severely" damaged at impact. There were 47 core columns connected to each other by steel beams within an overall rectangular core floor area of approximately 87 feet x 137 feet (26.5 m x 41.8 m). Each column had a rectangular cross section of approximately 36" x 14" at the base (90 cm x 36 cm) with steel 4" thick all around (100 mm), tapering to ¼" (6 mm) thickness at the top. Each floor was also extremely strong (p. 26), a grid of steel, contrary to claims of a lightweight "truss" system. Those who support the official account like Thomas Eagar (p. 14), professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at MIT, usually argue that the collapse must be explained by the heat from the fires because the loss of loading-bearing capacity from the holes in the Towers was too small. The transfer of load would have been within the capacity of the towers. Since steel used in buildings must be able to bear five times its normal load, Eagar points out, the steel in the towers could have collapsed only if heated to the point where it "lost 80 percent of its strength, " around 1,300oF. Eagar believes that this is what happened, though the fires did not appear to be extensive and intense enough, quickly billowing black smoke and relatively few flames. While some experts claim that airliner impact severely weakened the entire structural system, evidence is lacking. The perimeters of floors 94–98 did not appear severely weakened, much less the entire structural system. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be saved for forensic analysis but FEMA had it destroyed before anyone could seriously investigate it. FEMA was in position to take command because it had arrived the day before the attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, "Tripod II," quite a coincidence. The authorities apparently considered the rubble quite valuable: New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and had one truck driver who took an unauthorized 1 ½ hour lunch fired. The preliminary NIST Response claims that "the wall section above the impact zone moved downward" (pdf, p. 36) on WTC 1 but offers no evidence. It offers photographic evidence, however, for a "hanging floor slab" on the 82d floor of the South Tower at 9:55 a.m. This looks minor though because there is no sag on adjacent floors and the integrity of the structure looks very much intact. The fire looks weak too, yet the South Tower collapsed only four minutes later. This would be quite a puzzle without a demolition theory. About a dozen of the fragmented ends of exterior columns in the North Tower hole were bent but the bends faced the "wrong way" because they pointed toward the outside of the Tower. This fact is troublesome for the official theory that a plane crash created the hole and subsequent explosion between floors 94 and 98. The laws of physics imply that a high-speed airplane with fuel-filled wings breaking through thin perimeter columns would deflect the shattered ends of the columns inward, if deflected in any direction, certainly not bend them outward toward the exterior. A possible response would be that, well, yes, an airliner crash would bend a column inward rather than outward, if bent at all, but the subsequent force of a jet fuel blast would act in the opposite direction: any inward bends caused by plane impact would straighten toward vertical or even reverse the bent steel columns toward the exterior under blast pressure. However, such a proposed steel "reversal theory" (first bend inward by collision, then bend outward by explosion) suffers two major handicaps: 1. No "inward-bending columns" were observed and it would be unlikely that each and every one would be reversed by subsequent explosion, and 2. the hypothesis is ad hoc and lacks simplicity, both scientific negatives. Occam’s razor would suggest that the outward bends in the perimeter columns were caused by explosions from inside the tower rather than bends caused by airliner impact from outside. Also supporting this theory is the fact that the uniformly neat ends of the blown perimeter columns are consistent with the linear shaped charges demolition experts use to slice steel as thick as 10 inches. The hypothesis of linear shaped charges also explains the perfectly formed crosses found in the rubble (crucifix-shaped fragments of core column structures), as well as the rather-neatly shorn steel everywhere. The engineering establishment’s theory has further difficulties. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. "The last few feet at the tips of the wings did not even break through the exterior columns," comments Hufschmid (p. 27). But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way. The small size of the holes in both towers casts doubt on the airliner-impact hypothesis and favors professional demolition again. There were no reports of plane parts, especially wings, shorn off in the collision and bounced to the ground on the northeast side of the tower, to my knowledge, though FEMA reported a few small pieces to the south at Church street (pp. 68–9) and atop WTC-5 to the east of WTC-1. Adding to the suspicious nature of the small aperture in WTC 1 is that some vertical gaps in the columns on the left side of the northeast hole were so short, probably less than three feet (p. 105) high (p. 27). Not much of a jumbo jet could pass through such an opening, especially since a fuel-laden plane would not minimize its frontal area. The engines are a special problem because each engine is enormous and dense, consisting mainly of tempered steel and weighing 5–6 tons, depending upon model. No engine was recovered in the rubble yet no hydrocarbon fire could possibly vaporize it. The hole in the North Tower also is suspicious because it did not even have a continuous opening at the perimeter, but instead contained substantial WTC material (p. 27) just left of center (pp. 62, 105). This material appears integral to that area, so it did not move much, suggesting minimal displacement and no clean penetration by a jumbo jet. These huge airliners weigh 82 tons empty and have a maximum takeoff weight of up to 193 tons. In the case of the South Tower, an engine from UAL Flight 175 (tail number N612UA and FAA-registered as still valid!) has not been recovered despite the fact that the flight trajectory of the video plane implied that the right engine would miss the South Tower. Photos showing minor engine parts on the ground are unconvincing, to put it mildly. Perhaps independent jet engine experts (retired?) can testify to the contrary. Further contradicting the official account, the beveled edge of the southeast side of the south tower was completely intact upon initial impact. The government never produced a jet engine yet claimed it recovered the passport of alleged hijacker Satam al Suqami unharmed by a fiery crash and catastrophic collapse of the North Tower. The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack either, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes. Adding to the problems of the official theory is the fact that photos of the North Tower hole show no evidence of a plane either. There is no recognizable wreckage or plane parts at the immediate crash site. While the issue probably takes us too far afield, the landing wheel assembly that allegedly flew out of the North Tower and was found several streets away could easily have been planted by FEMA or other government agents. I’ve never seen any objective analysis of this wheel assembly though it would be welcome. In fact, the government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day. The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania (The 9/11 Commission Report, Ch. 9) shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes. The WTC 1 and Pentagon holes were not alone in being too small. Photos show that the hole in WTC 2 also was too small to have been caused by the crash of a Boeing 767. In fact, the South Tower hole is substantially smaller than the North Tower hole. The next question is whether the fires were hot enough to cause the WTC buildings to collapse. In defending the official account and its clones that try to explain the unprecedented collapses of three steel-framed skyscrapers without demolition, heat arguably is more important than structural impact. That’s obviously true for building WTC 7 because there was no alleged airplane impact. First, no steel-framed skyscraper, even engulfed in flames hour after hour, had ever collapsed before. Suddenly, three stunning collapses occur within a few city blocks on the same day, two allegedly hit by aircraft, the third not. These extraordinary collapses after short-duration minor fires made it all the more important to preserve the evidence, mostly steel girders, to study what had happened. On fire intensity, consider this benchmark: A 1991 FEMA report on Philadelphia’s Meridian Plaza fire said that the fire was so energetic that "[b]eams and girders sagged and twisted," but "[d]espite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage" (quoted by Griffin, p. 15). Such an intense fire with consequent sagging and twisting steel beams bears no resemblance to what we observed at the WTC. Second, severe structural damage to the WTC towers would have required fires that were not only large but growing throughout the buildings and burning for a considerable period of time. None of these conditions was present. "The lack of flames is an indication that the fires were small, and the dark smoke is an indication that the fires were suffocating," points out Hufschmid (p. 35). Eyewitnesses in the towers, as well as police and firefighters, reported (pp. 199–200) the same thing. Third, the impact opening was 15 floors lower in the South Tower than in the North Tower, where core columns were thicker, so the South Tower fire had to produce more heat to raise the steel temperatures to soften up (thermally weaken) the steel columns. Yet its fires were considerably smaller and 30 minutes shorter in duration. The Tower collapsed after burning only 56 minutes. A prime candidate to explain why "the wrong tower fell first" is that the small dying fire in the South Tower forced the hand of the mass murderers who decided to trigger demolition earlier than planned in order to sustain the lie that fire caused the collapse. The North Tower stood for another 29 minutes and its core steel was thinner at its upper stories. The 1991 Meridian Plaza fire burned for 19 hours and the fire was so extreme that flames came from dozens of windows on many floors. It did not collapse. Fourth, implicitly trying to explain away these difficulties, the current NIST investigation, conducted by "an extended investigation team of 236 people," makes "dislodged fireproofing" the key variable to explain the collapses. Supposedly, "the probable collapse sequence for the WTC towers are (sic) based on the behavior of thermally weakened structural components that had extensive damage to fireproofing or gypsum board fire protection induced by the debris field generated by aircraft impact" (p. 111). "Had fireproofing not been dislodged by debris field," this team of government-paid experts claims, "temperature rise of structural components would likely have been insufficient to induce global collapse" (p. 108). Perhaps acknowledging the lack of direct evidence for its conjectures, the NIST admits that "a full collapse of the WTC floor system would not occur even with a number of failed trusses or connections" and it "recognizes inherent uncertainties" (pp. 110 and 112). The NIST will have to boost its creativity to plausibly explain the WTC 7 collapse because it won’t have the benefit of tales of aircraft and debris fields. Aside from specific defects in the fire collapse theory, a wide variety of facts undermine it: * Photos show people walking around in the hole in the North Tower "where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were supposedly burning. The women (p. 27) seem to (sic) looking down to the ground" (the NIST "Response" pdf, p. 62, also shows a similar photo of the same blond woman with light-colored slacks looking over the edge of the 94th floor). * By the time the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes. * The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating rather than the sprinkler system dousing the fires. * FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order. * Even the 9/11 Commission (Kean-Zelikow) Report acknowledges that "none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible" (Ch. 9, p. 302). It shocked everyone that day, amateur and professional alike, although some firefighters realized that so-called secondary explosive devices were a risk. Griffin (pp. 25–7) succinctly identifies the primary defects in the official account of the WTC collapses, and its sister theories. These problems were entirely ignored by The 9/11 Commission Report (2004), so the government appointees must have found it difficult to account for the following facts: 1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11. 2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small. 3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds. 4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68–9). 5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, "…maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it. 6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence." 7. It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting. Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself" (p. 44). In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on 9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives. 1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less). 2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint. 3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone ("…workers can’t even find concrete. ‘It’s all dust,’ [the official] said"). 4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower’s collapse. 5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air. 6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were. 7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete. 8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences). 9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings. 10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108). 11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). Controlled demolition would have required unimpeded access to the WTC, access to explosives, avoiding detection, and the expertise to orchestrate the deadly destruction from a nearby secure location. Such access before 9/11 likely depended on complicity by one or more WTC security companies. These companies focus on "access control" and as security specialist Wayne Black says, "When you have a security contract, you know the inner workings of everything." Stratesec, a now-defunct company that had security contracts at the World Trade Center and Dulles International Airport, should be investigated, among others, because of the strange coincidence that President Bush’s brother, Marvin P. Bush, and his cousin, Wirt D. Walker III, were principals in the company, with Walker acting as CEO from 1999 until January 2002 and Marvin reportedly in New York on 9/11. At least one report claims that a "power down" condition prevailed on September 8–9 (pdf, p. 45) at WTC to complete a "cabling upgrade," presenting an opportunity to plant explosives with low risk of detection. A related point is that demolition companies go to considerable expense to wire steel-framed skyscrapers with explosives to produce safe implosions, and they would love to do it more cheaply by simply setting two small fires like those that (allegedly) caved in building 7. Apparently, the terrorist-inventors have kept this new technology secret. Why would the killers destroy WTC-7, especially since a collapse would arouse suspicion in some quarters? A logical if unproven theory is that the perpetrators used Mayor Giuliani’s sealed OEM "bunker" on the 23d story of WTC-7 to conduct the twin tower implosions and then destroyed the building and evidence to cover up their crimes, just as a murderer might set his victim’s dwelling ablaze to cover up the crime (one in four fires is arson). Giuliani’s "undisclosed secret location" was perfect because it had been evacuated by 9:45 a.m. on 9/11, it enabled unmolested work, provided a ringside seat, was bullet- and bomb-resistant, had its own secure air and water supply, and could withstand winds of 160 mph, necessary protection from the wind blasts generated by collapsing skyscrapers. There is special import in the fact of free-fall collapse (item one in the list immediately above), if only because everyone agrees that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This makes pancake collapse with one floor progressively falling onto the floor below an unattractive explanation. Progressive pancaking cannot happen at free-fall speed ("g" or 9.8 m/s2). Free-fall would require "pulling" or removing obstacles below before they could impede (slow) the acceleration of falling objects from above. Sequenced explosions, on the other hand, explain why the lower floors did not interfere with the progress of the falling objects above. The pancake theory fails this test. If we put the murder of 2,749 innocent victims momentarily aside, the only unusual technical feature of the collapses of the twin towers was that the explosions began at the top, immediately followed by explosions from below. WTC-7, by contrast, was entirely conventional, imploding from bottom up. It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely prove to be sound. Revised engineering and construction practices, for example, based on the belief that the twin towers collapsed through airplane damage and subsequent fires is premature, to say the least. More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an "inside job" and a government attack on America would be compelling. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9/11 right, "though heaven should fall." Unfortunately, getting it right in today’s "security state" demands daring because explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9/11. |
http://www.physics911.net/reynolds.htm
June 9, 2005
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.
S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
Members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven come from a variety of professional backgrounds. Some investigate aspects of the 9/11 attacks, others search the web for useful information, and some write up new material. We have tried to maintain professional standards in both the analysis and presentation of the evidence we have assembled, as well as in the scenarios we have constructed.
General Statement by the Panel:
"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."
June 9, 2005
Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D. [send him mail], is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University and former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis headquartered in Dallas, TX. He served as chief economist for the US Department of Labor during 2001–2, George W. Bush's first term.
S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
Members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven come from a variety of professional backgrounds. Some investigate aspects of the 9/11 attacks, others search the web for useful information, and some write up new material. We have tried to maintain professional standards in both the analysis and presentation of the evidence we have assembled, as well as in the scenarios we have constructed.
General Statement by the Panel:
"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."
http://www.physics911.net/
Morgan Reynolds Ph.D.
Ph.D. in economics that is, does not seem to have looked at the NIST report in which photos clearly show the floors sagging. Are there any Ph.D.'s in engineering who subscribe to this? What is the general consensus amoung structural engineers on this subject?
I don't have time to get into it today and my work sched is busy for a while but I will try to get back to this soon.
F.P. you might try going through some of the NIST reports yourself and see if M.R. has anything else wrong.
Ph.D. in economics that is, does not seem to have looked at the NIST report in which photos clearly show the floors sagging. Are there any Ph.D.'s in engineering who subscribe to this? What is the general consensus amoung structural engineers on this subject?
I don't have time to get into it today and my work sched is busy for a while but I will try to get back to this soon.
F.P. you might try going through some of the NIST reports yourself and see if M.R. has anything else wrong.
QUOTE (Foxx+)
The results may surprise and shock you, but the figures are clearly provided... if you find errors with the math either point them out, or find someone who can.
I did, and you lied to avoid the consequences of it. It's all there, yesitdid, go read it. These guys just plain fold up and start lying if they don't like what you say. My recommendation is that you forget it and move on; they're never going to give it up, and even if you prove them wrong, they'll just lie to avoid acknowledging it, like they did with me.
On page 13 of this thread, I detailed the lies that Foxx engaged in, point by point. I suggest reading them, and the follow-up by adoucette on page 14, in which he re-iterates that the amount of fuel (fuel for a fire, Foxx, not jet fuel- "burnables," you with me here?) present, even if cut by 75%, was more than enough to cause the collapse. Then on page 26, eventually, Foxx runs out of answers for adoucette (congratulations, BTW, on far more patience than I had, adoucette) and out-and-out lies again; he has not one single answer for any of the relatively obvious points adoucette raises, so he dismisses it as all bullshit without ever justifying that dismissal. adoucette is in fact correct, and there is no truthful response to him but, "You are right and there was no demolition," just as there is no other truthful response to the points I raised.
adoucette gives up at the top of page 30, his questions of Foxx still unanswered, as mine are. And Foxx has responded to adoucette (or rather, failed to respond) with lies of exactly the same type as he attempted to use on me. They are no more effective, and the questions remain unanswered- and the answers to both sets of questions, mark me well here, are such as to render demolition fantasies completely untenable; that's why Foxx has to lie, and cannot respond to them. This stands as an open challenge to Foxx: answer those questions, and answer mine; otherwise, it is obvious to all that you are a liar, and that your demolition fantasies are precisely that: fantasies, that cannot stand the light of true physics and correct calculations. I contend that your answers (if they are not lies) MUST prove that demolition is a fantasy. You are free to prove me wrong, but you cannot. And I confidently predict that you will dismiss this post in exactly the same way: with lies.
yesitdid, you are wasting your time; prove them wrong conclusively and they will merely lie. And there is no answer to lies but to identify them as such and walk away. I recommend that you do so.
On page 13 of this thread, I detailed the lies that Foxx engaged in, point by point. I suggest reading them, and the follow-up by adoucette on page 14, in which he re-iterates that the amount of fuel (fuel for a fire, Foxx, not jet fuel- "burnables," you with me here?) present, even if cut by 75%, was more than enough to cause the collapse. Then on page 26, eventually, Foxx runs out of answers for adoucette (congratulations, BTW, on far more patience than I had, adoucette) and out-and-out lies again; he has not one single answer for any of the relatively obvious points adoucette raises, so he dismisses it as all bullshit without ever justifying that dismissal. adoucette is in fact correct, and there is no truthful response to him but, "You are right and there was no demolition," just as there is no other truthful response to the points I raised.
adoucette gives up at the top of page 30, his questions of Foxx still unanswered, as mine are. And Foxx has responded to adoucette (or rather, failed to respond) with lies of exactly the same type as he attempted to use on me. They are no more effective, and the questions remain unanswered- and the answers to both sets of questions, mark me well here, are such as to render demolition fantasies completely untenable; that's why Foxx has to lie, and cannot respond to them. This stands as an open challenge to Foxx: answer those questions, and answer mine; otherwise, it is obvious to all that you are a liar, and that your demolition fantasies are precisely that: fantasies, that cannot stand the light of true physics and correct calculations. I contend that your answers (if they are not lies) MUST prove that demolition is a fantasy. You are free to prove me wrong, but you cannot. And I confidently predict that you will dismiss this post in exactly the same way: with lies.
yesitdid, you are wasting your time; prove them wrong conclusively and they will merely lie. And there is no answer to lies but to identify them as such and walk away. I recommend that you do so.
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.