To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Basic Physics
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Other Sci-Tech Topics
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148

RealityCheck
Hello Guest.

I was commenting on YOUR behaviour/attitude in this instance. Please don't try to justify that behaviour/attitude by resorting to juvenile excuses like "But, Mom!...the OTHER kids were doing it!"

If one is a 'grown up', one is expected to be reponsible for one's OWN behaviour.

Your statement about others may or may not be true...but only by going back through the complete thread, and getting all the 'backgorund' as to why some people react the way they do, will you have any 'ammunition' for possibly/justifiably criticising others' behaviour. Get that 'ammunition', and then present it to support your criticisms of others behaviour/attitudes; instead of making 'generalised' statements (tarring everyone with the same broad brush).

Until then, and always, it does not relieve you of the responsibility as a lady/gentleman, of looking to your own conduct here in these forums. Thanks.

RealityCheck.
.
Guest
I'm sooooo sorrwy if I hurt someone's wittle feewings....


"You're not my Mom, thank God." Me
Schneibster
Forget it, RC- it's prolly just Faux using a sock-puppet, anyway.
RealityCheck
Hello Guest.

Apology accepted.

And if I WERE your Mom, you would be grounded for a week and told to stop annoying people...cos you might one day annoy someone who won't be so polite or 'virtual' about 'correcting' your behaviour/attitude (especially if you live in the US; where every crazy seems to have a 'saturday night special' shooting apparatus that can do you some 'serious correction'). Think on it.

RealityCheck.
.
metamars
QUOTE
He subtracts the energy of the pulverization of the concrete, and never adds the heat it turns into back in to the equation. In other words, he claims that the heat just disappears. And then he adds more energy, to heat things up- as if they're stone cold after falling four hundred meters to the ground.


There he goes, again. Pray tell us Schneibster, how much energy he subtracted from the 'sources' side of the energy budget. Physics is, after all, a quantitative science. Writing that the concrete was HOT (not just hot), doesn't really do it for me.

After you figure this out, figure out what the temperature rise of this much concrete is, due to the grinding as per his energy figures. As I recall, it was about 4 degrees. Now compare that to the baseline temperature he used for his calculation of of the heating of the concrete. Notice anything pertinent to the argument? (Hint: look at my posts) Tell us, Schneibster, what this difference in temperature is, and what this tells you.


If you complain that the concrete had to be hotter than this, by the time the towers finished collapsing, you are no doubt correct. But what does that imply?. Come on, Schneibster, I'm sure you can complete the thought....

Well, due to conservation of energy, which you repeatedly kept flapping your wings about, it means that additional energy to heat the concrete beyond the point calculated above must be subtracted from the source(s).

Or, perhaps in Schneibster's reality, you think it's fine and dandy to say that concrete being heated hundreds of degrees doesn't need a source of energy to bring this about?

I think not. I think you're too smart to believe in such an absurdity. In my reality, you need a whole lot of energy. And I'd like to believe in Schneibster's reality, you need exactly the same amount of energy.

Do you agree with this statement, or not? If you agree, please calculate how much energy this is, and give us one good reason why we should not subtract it from the energy sources. The energy needed to heat the concrete beyond 'the grinding point' is enormous. It' not going to appear out of nowhere because you wave a magic wand.

This is, after all, physorg.com, not magicorg.com.

In fact, between the energy needed to heat the concrete and the gasses, the energy is so enormous that it swamps the energy sources by a factor of 10. (Under the assumption of water not being supply limited. The deficit is worse, otherwise.)

Since Hoffman has clearly stated that he considers that concrete in the dust cloud to have been rapidly heated to the temperature of gasses whisking it along (eminently believable, due to the phenomenally tiny - sub 100 micron - size of the dust particles), you also cannot present as credible scenarios of energy sinks turning into energy sources which violate this condition. If you want to challenge his assumption, kindly do a calculation showing how it is unphysical in the time scales and particle sizes involved.

Nobody is pretending that Hoffman's finding are the last word in the energy/dust calcutions. It is not only readily admitted that a hydrodynamics model would be superior, but I really wish somebody would do so. The truth doesn't scare me. *

Your continued attempt to discredit Hoffman's findings by pretending that he doesn't know what conservation of energy is, is ludicrous, and unfortunate. I believe you are capable of much better.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
He subtracts the energy of the pulverization of the concrete, and never adds the heat it turns into back in to the equation. In other words, he claims that the heat just disappears. And then he adds more energy, to heat things up- as if they're stone cold after falling four hundred meters to the ground.


There he goes, again. Pray tell us Schneibster, how much energy he subtracted from the 'sources' side of the energy budget. Physics is, after all, a quantitative science. Writing that the concrete was HOT (not just hot), doesn't really do it for me.

After you figure this out, figure out what the temperature rise of this much concrete is, due to the grinding as per his energy figures. As I recall, it was about 4 degrees. Now compare that to the baseline temperature he used for his calculation of of the heating of the concrete. Notice anything pertinent to the argument? (Hint: look at my posts) Tell us, Schneibster, what this difference in temperature is, and what this tells you.


If you complain that the concrete had to be hotter than this, by the time the towers finished collapsing, you are no doubt correct. But what does that imply?. Come on, Schneibster, I'm sure you can complete the thought....

Well, due to conservation of energy, which you repeatedly kept flapping your wings about, it means that additional energy to heat the concrete beyond the point calculated above must be subtracted from the source(s).

Or, perhaps in Schneibster's reality, you think it's fine and dandy to say that concrete being heated hundreds of degrees doesn't need a source of energy to bring this about?

I think not. I think you're too smart to believe in such an absurdity. In my reality, you need a whole lot of energy. And I'd like to believe in Schneibster's reality, you need exactly the same amount of energy.

Do you agree with this statement, or not? If you agree, please calculate how much energy this is, and give us one good reason why we should not subtract it from the energy sources. The energy needed to heat the concrete beyond 'the grinding point' is enormous. It' not going to appear out of nowhere because you wave a magic wand.

This is, after all, physorg.com, not magicorg.com.

In fact, between the energy needed to heat the concrete and the gasses, the energy is so enormous that it swamps the energy sources by a factor of 10. (Under the assumption of water not being supply limited. The deficit is worse, otherwise.)

Since Hoffman has clearly stated that he considers that concrete in the dust cloud to have been rapidly heated to the temperature of gasses whisking it along (eminently believable, due to the phenomenally tiny - sub 100 micron - size of the dust particles), you also cannot present as credible scenarios of energy sinks turning into energy sources which violate this condition. If you want to challenge his assumption, kindly do a calculation showing how it is unphysical in the time scales and particle sizes involved.

Nobody is pretending that Hoffman's finding are the last word in the energy/dust calcutions. It is not only readily admitted that a hydrodynamics model would be superior, but I really wish somebody would do so. The truth doesn't scare me. *

Your continued attempt to discredit Hoffman's findings by pretending that he doesn't know what conservation of energy is, is ludicrous, and unfortunate. I believe you are capable of much better.

I do not hope for anything. I do not fear anything. I am free

-- Nikos Kazantzakis' tomb stone engraving


(Disclaimer: I do indeed hope and fear, but not when it comes to how physics calculations will turn out. tongue.gif )
RealityCheck

Hi Schneibster!

I suspected as much.

Nevertheless, he is an object lesson to us all as to how to annoy others.

The attempt to 'civilise' "Guest" was, as many posts ARE in these forums, intended for a wider audience....just in case any 'newbies' wish to engage in 'debate' in these forums.

Thanks nonetheless for your timely concern for my 'time/patience management' situation, hehehe. See ya round, mate!

RealityCheck.
.
B_Sharp
QUOTE (metamars+)
Print out Schneibsters "physics and math" WTC 7 arguments, and show them to a couple of physicists and engineers at your local state university. I believe the engineers will tell you, straight off the bat, that this is much more of an engineering problem than a physics problem*.

I r a engineer. Mechanical electrical instead of civil but did some structural analysis of bridges & buildings. This is beyond civil structural though since it heavily relies upon unique chemistry. Beyond only physics but rather multidisciplines.

As such, I browsed this thread. After reading a few pages past page 10, I noticed enormous errors, so I quit there. Good math, good science but non-trivial errors.

The colorful ad hominems were every entertaining. At least there was no censoring. That is more important than a little mud slinging. Because censorship drives away expertise while mud slinging is just a nuisance.

Engineering problem?? Yes. An engineer would not post 40 pages of point and rebuttal continuing the same non-trivial errors. As such, little point to reading from approx page 10 onward. Truth is, neither side of the argument caught these errors for 40 pages. ohmy.gif

QUOTE (Schneibster+)
I invite examination of my post on Page 13 of this thread, posted at 7:58PM Pacific time 20 Oct 2005. I note that I caught Faux in no less than six lies. ... In neither case has he responded to a single one of these accusations, which are perfectly obvious and are available for anyone's inspection at any time.

Let us inspect.
Enormous errors from page 10 onward. I will just point out a biggie (following). Since this currently is page 50+, still discussing page 13 errors, that is 40 pages that neither position corrected ... yikes.

A major point then is Jim Hoffman ambiguities. This can be applied to any of the 3 towers.

QUOTE (metamars+)
Heat Transfer Flow -- Jim Hoffman
energy, KWH source or sink
+ 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)
- 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)
    ignoring water vaporization
- 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
- 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)
    assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited
- 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)
- 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)
- 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)

Jim Hoffman's energy analysis is correct in principle but Hoffman has a software background. Software "engineers" are weak at engineering. Engineers are weak at software.

His source and sink are 'unconventional' use. Standard use is 'infinite' sense. It's okay to break standard just define assumptions. Clarifying there are two kinds: 'infinite' source/sink and 'temporary' source/sink.
EG: Auto engine coolant is a 'temporary' sink & source for heat (from pistons). That transfers heat to an 'infinite' sink for heat, the atmospheric air via radiator.

There is also Heat Tranfer Rate like fast or slow.

The burning building Tower has a 'fast infinite' sink above into the atmosphere via fire to wind currents to the sky. The sky is an infinite sink. That is why the fire burned out in minutes.

The ground is also an 'infinite' sink for heat although slow.
EG Sleep on a concrete apartment floor with no air space insulator, just a sleeping bag, you can die of pneumonia overnight. INFINITE Sink for your heat.

2 PART PROBLEM

Another buggaboo. Building collapse is 2 parts. Part 1: burning fuel (slow) Part 2: collapse (fast).

EXO ENDO

Jim Hoffman's biggest sin is ambigious use of source/sink when he actually means Exothermic and Endothermic reactions. Jim's basic principle is correct. Renamed as:

For Part 2 Collapse:
The ONLY Exothermic, heat creating, reaction is "falling building mass". ALL other reactions are Endothermic, heat absorbing.

EXO falling mass = ENDO All Others = crushing, burning etc.

QUOTE (Schneibster Oct 20 2005+ 07:58 PM)
Meanwhile, for the second time, who cares how much jet fuel there was? If we completely ignore the jet fuel, there is still more than enough burnable material to completely melt every scrap of steel on one of those floors twice over

Not true.

For a material to be burnable, it requires Oxygen O2 in sufficient quantity. The 'chemical reaction rate' needs all parts of equation. There are 2 burn rates: fast and slow.

SOLID, LIQUID, GAS

Roughly a gas has around 2000 times it's liquid or solid volume. Could be 1500 or 2500, so 2K is a good number.

DYNAMITE - CRYSTALS

What makes dynamite explode?? First it requires less oxygen per volume but more important, it is a crystal. Therefore, the gaps between crystals hold suffient gas for it to react and explode quickly. Else the inside would not burn at all. Soak & remove crystal gaps, no exploding.

Take 10 bottom floors of dynamite, no crystal, no gap, and smash any building tower on top of it. No explosion.

Likewise, all "burnable material" whether it be garbage like paper, plastics, diesel fuel will be completely ENDOTHERMIC. It adds no energy. It only absorbs energy. No gas. No Oxygen. No Exothermic. Only ENDO.

ENDO to EXO

A piece of paper or jet fuel or diesel fuel burns slowly because it requires 2000 times it's volume of air. Slow EXO. In a collapsing building, all gas is pushed out broken windows. Even 10 floors of diesel fuel is ENDOTHERMIC during mere seconds of collapse because there is little oxygen.

After building is leveled, then there is a slow EXO burn. But only afterwards taking hours and days.

Unambiguous Hoffman is correct:
EXOTHERMIC falling building = ENDOTHERMIC All Others


Now whoever wishes to edit the previous 40 pages is welcome. smile.gif
frater plecticus
THANKYOU FOR A PHYSICS BASED ANSWER
Schneibster
QUOTE (metamars+)
Pray tell us Schneibster, how much energy he subtracted from the 'sources' side of the energy budget.
135,000 kWh from the crushing of the concrete. It's never added back in as heat. It's right there, in the table in the summary. And it's not a typo- this is version 3 of the document.

Like has already been pointed out by RealityCheck, go pump up a bicycle tire. Feel the tire and the bottom of the pump. They get warm. That's because the work you put in pushing down on the pump turns into heat, via friction- which is the same way the concrete gets heated up, via friction.


QUOTE (metamars+)
After you figure this out,
I figured it out long ago.

QUOTE (metamars+)
figure out what the temperature rise of this much concrete is, due to the grinding as per his energy figures.
The specific heat of concrete, according to this table, is 1,000 J/kgK. Thus, 1kJ will raise the temperature of 1kg of concrete by 1K. According to Hoffman, the WTC towers had 90,000 tons of concrete in them; that's 81,464 metric tonnes. A metric tonne is a thousand kilograms, which means that it would take 1MJ to raise one metric tonne 1K, and 1GJ to raise a thousand metric tonnes 1K; thus, it would take 81GJ to raise the temperature of all the concrete in a WTC tower by 1K. Assuming, of course, that that was the only place the energy went.

We have 980GJ counting only the kinetic energy of the falling building and contents. That would raise the temperature by 12K- thus, assuming the building started out at room temperature, 20C, it would be at 32C, which is 90F. Now, we have a hot cloud of dust, but not so hot as to fry people alive- which is precisely what the witnesses reported. Isn't that curious? Gee, we do the calculations, and guess what? We get just what people on the scene reported. Amazing how that works, isn't it? What does that tell you, meta?

QUOTE (metamars+)
concrete being heated hundreds of degrees
Please produce references to show that there was a 700C cloud of concrete dust. Other than Hoffman.

QUOTE (metamars+)
give us one good reason why we should not subtract it from the energy sources.
Conservation of energy. As I've pointed out repeatedly.
Schneibster
QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
Let us inspect.
Well, the problem is, you inspected the wrong thing for the quote you presented. But I'll assume you actually meant to rebut a different post than the one you quoted me on.

QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
His source and sink are 'unconventional' use. Standard use is 'infinite' sense.
Errrrrmmmmm, basic problem here.

He presents the crushing of the concrete as a sink; but does not later present the crushed concrete as a source of heat.

Please show where the heat went.

QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
The burning building Tower has a 'fast infinite' sink above into the atmosphere via fire to wind currents to the sky. The sky is an infinite sink. That is why the fire burned out in minutes.
What fire burned out in minutes? Both WTC buildings were clearly burning from the time they were hit by the aircraft to the time they collapsed. The videos of the collapse are sufficient proof of that. There's one that shows the burning floor collapsing in 1 WTC. It's pretty straightforward.

QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
Another buggaboo.
What? You're "all done?" You haven't shown anything at all; just waved your hands. You'll have to do much better than this. As was commented elsewhere, this is a physics site, not a magic site.

QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
Jim Hoffman's biggest sin is ambigious use of source/sink when he actually means Exothermic and Endothermic reactions.
Whaaaaaaaaat? How is crushing concrete either an endothermic or exothermic reaction? Endothermic and exothermic reactions are chemistry; but we're not discussing chemistry here. We're discussing mechanical crushing of concrete. Fire is an exothermic reaction, but we're not discussing fire; we're discussing mechanical crushing of concrete.

Your post is rapidly turning into a word salad.

QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
The ONLY Exothermic, heat creating, reaction is "falling building mass". ALL other reactions are Endothermic, heat absorbing.
Oh, really? How about the fires? Are those endothermic too?

QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
For a material to be burnable, it requires Oxygen O2 in sufficient quantity.
Gee, ya THINK??? I don't suppose all those shattered windows that we see in all the pictures could have had anything to do with where the oxygen came from... nawww, nor the huge hole in the side of the building, either. Oxygen can't come in through broken windows or huge holes in the sides of buildings, can it? No, no way. /sarcasm

QUOTE (B_Sharp+)
Likewise, all "burnable material" whether it be garbage like paper, plastics, diesel fuel will be completely ENDOTHERMIC. It adds no energy. It only absorbs energy. No gas. No Oxygen. No Exothermic. Only ENDO.
Are you for real?

Endothermic FIRE? You HAVE to be kidding. Or really, really dumb.

Basically what you're saying is that the fire absorbed all the heat. Uh huh. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Schneibster
Hey, Reality, it's your time and patience. Do with it what you will. wink.gif
RealityCheck
Hi Schneibster!

On second thought, I'll take your advice! Give "Guest" enough rope and he'll hang himself quickly and effectively enough without my help! hehehe. Heh, mate? I wonder what 'apparition' we're likely to encounter next? "Son-of-Guest", perhaps?

Good luck with your own blood pressure/time management mate, you'll need it if some of these other posters get any more obtuse than they are already.

From your fellow-traveller in Reason & Objectivity: RealityCheck.
.
PS: And there's that apparition I was predicting! Is this "B_SHARP" character pulling the conspiracy theorists' collective leg; or what? Can't recall when I've laughed so much in my life! He'll be talking 'Phlogiston' next! Ho! RC.
.
adoucette
I thought I'd take a deeper look into Hoffman's paper:

link.


QUOTE

The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center
by Jim Hoffman
October 16, 2003
[Version 3]


On September 11th, Both of the Twin Towers disintegrated into vast clouds of concrete and other materials, which blanketed Lower Manhattan. This paper shows that the energy required to produce the expansion of the dust cloud observed immediately following the collapse of 1 World Trade Center (the North Tower) was much greater than the gravitational energy available from its elevated mass. It uses only basic physics.
Introduction

Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses. The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure." That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.

Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers. It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. (See http://www.911-strike.com/powder.htm.) That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy. However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. 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, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

A second energy sink, that has apparently been overlooked, was many times the magnitude of the gravitational energy: the energy needed to expand the dust clouds to several times the volume of each tower within 30 seconds of the onset of their collapses. Note that the contents of the dust clouds had to come from building constituents -- gases and materials inside of or intrinsic to the building -- modulo any mixing with outside air. Given that the Twin Towers' dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows, with distinct boundaries and rapidly expanding frontiers (averaging perhaps 35 feet/second on the ground for the first 30 seconds), it is doubtful that mixing with ambient air accounted for a significant fraction of their volume. Therefore the dust clouds' expansion must have been primarily due to an expansion of building constituents. Possible sources of expansion include:

    * thermodynamic expansion of gases
    * vaporization of liquids and solids
    * chemical reactions resulting in a net increase in gaseous phase molecules

The evidence does not support the idea that chemical reactions in the dust cloud liberated vast quantities of gases. That leaves increases in gas temperatures and vaporization of solids and liquids, primarily water, to drive the expansion.

How much heat energy was involved in expanding the dust clouds? To calculate the energy we need to answer three questions:

   1. What was the volume of the dust clouds from a collapse at some time soon after it started (before the clouds began to diffuse)?
   2. How did the mixing of the dust cloud with ambient air contribute to its size, and how can this be factored out to obtain the volume occupied by gases and suspended materials originally inside the building?
   3. What is the ratio of that volume to the volume of the intact building?
   4. How much heat energy was required to produce that ratio of expansion?

Since I have better photographs for North Tower dust, I did the calculation for it.
1. Quantifying Dust Cloud Volume

To answer question 1, I made estimates based on photographs taken at approximately 30 seconds after the onset of the collapse. The photo in Figure 1 appears to have been taken around 30 seconds after the initiation of the collapse of the North Tower. The fact that the spire is visible directly behind Building 7 indicates the photo was not taken later than the 30 seconds, since video records show that the spire started to collapse at the around 29 seconds. In this photograph, as in other ones taken around that time, the dust clouds still have distinct boundaries.
Figure 1. Photograph from Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report.

I used landmarks in this photo to make several approximate measurements of the frontier of the dust cloud. The following table lists some of them. Measurements are in feet. The first column lists heights above the street, and the second lists distances from the vertical axis of the North Tower.
label height distance description
3 230 1011 west corner of 45 Park Place
5 228 729 top of south corner of building with stepped roof
6 204 658 east corner of Building 7, 30 stories below top
7 600 776 upwell towering over southeast end of Post Office
8 700 ? upwell slightly higher than the top of Building 7
11 190 870 top of west corner of 22 Cortland St tower
12 508 588 8 stories below top of face of WFC 3
13 498 517 3 stories below top of upper face of WFC 2

To approximate the volume I used a cylinder, coaxial with the vertical axis of the North Tower, with a radius of 800 feet, and a height of 200 feet. All the above reference points lie outside of this volume. Although the cylinder does not lie entirely within the dust cloud, there are large parts of the cloud outside of it, such as the 700 foot high upwelling column south of Building 7. The cylinder has a volume of:

pi * (800 feet)^2 * 200 feet = 402,000,000 feet^3.

I subtract about a quarter for volume occupied by other buildings, giving 300,000,000 feet^3.

2. Factoring out Mixing and Diffusion

To accurately answer question 2 would require detailed knowledge of the fluid dynamics involved. However it does appear that for at least a minute, the dust cloud behaved as a separate fluid from the ambient air, maintaining a distinct boundary. There are several pieces of evidence that support this:

    * The WTC dust clouds inexorably advanced down streets at around 25 MPH. This is far faster than can be explained by mixing and diffusion.
    * As the dust clouds advanced outward, features on their frontiers evolved relatively slowly compared to the clouds' rates of advance. This indicates that that clouds were expanding from within and that if surface turbulence was incorporating ambient air, it's contribution to expansion was minor.
    * The top surface of the clouds looked like the surface of a boiling viscous liquid - churning but not mixing with the air above. Sinking portions of the clouds were replaced by clear air, not a mixture of the cloud and air.
    * The dust clouds maintained distinct interfaces for well over a minute. Mixing and diffusion would have produced diffuse interfaces.
    * There are reports of people being picked up and carried distances by the South Tower dust cloud, which felt solid. New York Daily News photographer David Handschuh recalled:

          Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was [an urge] to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave-- a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet and I wound up about a block away.

Initially the dust clouds must have been much heavier than air, given the mass of the concrete they carried and the distances they transported it. As time went on the cloud became more diffuse, but all of the photographs that can be verified as being within the first minute show opaque clouds with distinct boundaries, indicating the dominant mode of growth was expansion, not mixing or diffusion. It seems reasonable to assume that mixing with ambient air did not account for a significant fraction of the expansion in the volume of the dust cloud by 30 seconds of the start of the North Tower collapse. Nevertheless, I reduce the estimate of the dust cloud volume of building origin to 200,000,000 feet^3, imagining that a third of the growth may have been due to assimilation of ambient air.

3. Computing the Expansion Ratio

The answer to question 3 is easy. The volume of a tower, with it's 207 foot width and 1368 foot height, is:

1368 feet * 207 feet * 207 feet = 58,617,432 feet^3.

So the ratio of the expanded gasses and suspended materials from the tower to the original volume of the tower is:

200,000,000 feet^3 / 58,617,432 feet^3 = 3.41.

4. Computing the Required Heat Input

Above I identified two energy sinks that could have driven expansion of the dust cloud: thermodynamic expansion of gases, and vaporization of liquids and solids. Since most constituents and contents of the building other than water would require very high temperatures to vaporize, I consider only the vaporization of water in evaluating the second sink.

It is clearly not possible to determine with any precision the relative contributions of these two sinks to the expansion of the dust cloud. If the cloud remained uniform in temperature and density for the first 30 seconds, then the expansion would consist of three distinct phases:

    * The temperature would increase to 100 C, accompanied by thermodynamic expansion.
    * The temperature would remain at 100 C until all of the water was vaporized.
    * The temperature would increase above 100 C, again accompanied by thermodynamic expansion.

Since such uniform conditions were not present, I will first treat the two energy sinks separately, and will compute the energy requirements for each if it alone were responsible for the expansion.

4.1. The Thermodynamic Expansion Sink

The ideal gas law can be used to compute a lower bound for the amount of heat energy required to induce the observed expansion of the dust cloud, assuming that the expansion was entirely due to thermodynamic expansion. That law states that the product of the volume and pressure of a parcel of a gas is proportional to absolute temperature. It is written PV = nRT, where:

P = pressure
V = volume
T = absolute temperature
n = molar quantity
R = constant

Absolute temperature is expressed in Kelvin (K), which is Celsius + 273. Applied to the tower collapse, the equation holds that the ratio of volumes of gasses from the building before and after expansion is roughly equal to the ratio of temperatures of the gasses before and after heating. That allows us to compute the minimum energy needed to achieve a given expansion ratio knowing only the thermal mass of the gasses and their average temperature before the collapse.

I say that the ideal gas law allows the computation of only the lower bound of the required energy input due to the following four factors.
# The finite size of molecules leads to a slight departure from the ideal gas law wherein the expansion of a parcel of gas leads to a decrease in its temperature. This means that slightly more heat energy is needed to achieve a given expansion ratio than is predicted by the ideal gas law.
# The dust cloud at the time of the photograph used to estimate its volume had not finished expanding. Videos show that it continued to expand well after the 1 minute mark.
# The suspended dust in the cloud had many times the mass of the gasses. This increased the energy needed to expand the dust cloud since it takes energy to lift and accelerate mass.
# The suspended dust in the cloud had many times the thermal mass of the gasses. Increasing in temperature of the dust cloud to a level needed to induce the observed expansion entailed raising the temperature of the gasses and suspended solids by similar amounts. Since the solids had many times the thermal capacity of the gasses, this multiplied the energy requirements.

In this paper I examine only the fourth factor. Before considering its effect on energy requirements, I first consider the energy requirements of heating only the gasses in the clouds to the level needed to achieve the observed expansion.

According to the ideal gas law, expanding the gasses 3.4-fold requires raising their absolute temperature by the same ratio. If we assume the tower was at 300 degrees K before the collapse, then the target temperature would be 1020 degrees K, an increase of 720 degrees. Given a density of 36 g/foot^3 for air, the tower held about 2,000,000,000 g of air. Air has a specific heat of 0.24 (relative to 1 for water), so one calorie will raise one g of air 1 / 0.24 = 4.16 degrees. To raise 2,000,000,000 g by 720 degrees requires:

2,000,000,000 g * 720 degrees * 0.24 = 345,600,000,000 calories
                                             = 399,500 KWH

To evaluate the energy requirements of the fourth factor, it is necessary to consider the composition of the dust cloud. The cloud was a suspension of fine particles of concrete and other solids in gasses consisting mostly of air. Since concrete was the dominant solid, I will ignore the others, which included glass, gypsum, asbestos, and various hydrocarbons. The small size of the particles, being in the 10-60 micron range, would assure rapid equalization between their temperature and that of the embedding air. Therefore any heat source acting to raise the temperature of the air would have to raise the temperature of the suspended concrete by the same amount. Assuming all 90,000,000,000 g of concrete was raised 720 degrees (300 K to 1020 K), the necessary heat, given a specific heat of concrete of 0.15 is:

90,000,000,000 g * 720 degrees * 0.15 = 9,720,000,000,000 calories
                                             = 11,300,000 KWH.

If we assume that the water vaporization sink absorbed all available energy once temperatures reached water's boiling point, we can compute the size of the heat sink of thermodynamic expansion that was in play as temperatures rose from room temperature to 100 C, or from 300 K to 373 K:

2,000,000,000 g * 73 degrees * 0.24 = 35,040,000,000 calories
                                           =  40,744 KWH

The associated sink of heating the suspended solids to this temperature would be:

90,000,000,000 g * 73 degrees * 0.15 = 985,500,000,000 calories
                                           = 1,145,000 KWH.

4.2. The Water Vaporization Sink

At 100 C at sea-level, water expands by a factor of 1680 when converted to steam. Hence it is reasonable to expect that water in the building accounted for a significant part of the expansion. How much energy would be required to expand the volume of the cloud by the 3.41 ratio if water vaporization were entirely responsible for the expansion? Since water vaporization involves the introduction of volumes steam from comparatively negligible volumes of water, I assume that all the incremental volume was occupied by steam. The estimated 3.41 expansion ratio means that the incremental volume was:

200,000,000 feet^3 - 58,617,000 feet^3 = 141,383,000 feet^3
                                     = 4,003,542,000 liters

Given the 1680 to 1 ratio between the volume steam and liquid water, 2,383,000 liters of water would have been required. The heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories/gram at 100 C. Therefore the heat energy required to produce the expansion is:

2,383,000,000 g * 540 = 1,286,820,000,000 calories
                              = 1,496,000 KWH

Was there enough water in the building for this sink to be anywhere near this large? That is a matter of great uncertainty. Even well-cured concrete has a significant moisture content. Assuming that the estimated 90,000 tons of concrete in the tower was 1 percent water by weight, that would have provided 900 tons of water or about 900,000 liters -- well short of the 2,383,000 liter estimate above. However, there is a large amount of uncertainty in the water content of the concrete, which, like the rest of the remains of the disaster, was apparently disposed of with little or no examination. Moreover there were other sources of water in the building, such as the plumbing system, which could have accounted for tens of thousands of liters, and, gruesomely, people. The thousand victims never identified could have accounted for about 30,000 liters of water.
4.3. Which Energy Sink Was Dominant?

Both thermodynamic expansion and water vaporization have the capacity to produce vast expansion in gas volume given sufficient heat. Two major difference in the features of these sinks may help in understanding the relative contributions of each. First, thermodynamic expansion to the observed ratio requires very high temperatures, whereas vaporization-driven expansion occurs at a constant temperature of 100 C. Second, vaporization-driven expansion would be limited by the available supply of water.

If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at lest the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures.

If enough water was present for vaporization to drive most of the expansion, temperatures in much of the cloud would have remained around 100 C until most of the water had vaporized. Thermodynamic expansion would occur in regions with liquid phase water until 100 C was reached, and again after the water was vaporized.

To the extent that thermodynamic expansion was the dominant factor driving the expansion, the distribution of concrete dust in the cloud, and its relationship to the temperature distribution in the cloud, would greatly affect the total energy requirements. Less energy would be required if the hotter portions of the cloud had a lower density of dust. The density was probably greater toward the central portions of the cloud, which also seem to have experienced the most heating. On the other hand, much of the dust may have settled out by the 30 second mark. The violent churning of the cloud, and the opaque appearance of its frontier, suggest that most of the dust had not settled that early.
Summary

The dominant energy source assumed to be in play during the leveling of each of the Twin Towers was the gravitational energy due to their elevated mass. The energy sinks included the thorough pulverization of each tower's concrete, the vaporization of water, and the heating of air and suspended concrete dust in the ensuing dust cloud. Estimates for these energies are:
energy, KWH source or sink
+ 111,000 falling of mass (1.97e11 g falling average of 207 m)
- 135,000 crushing of concrete (9e10 g to 60 micron powder)
     ignoring water vaporization
- 400,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 1020 K)
- 11,300,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 1020 K)
     assuming water vaporization sink was not supply-limited
- 1,496,000 vaporization of water (2.38e9 g water)
- 41,000 heating of gasses (2e9 g air from 300 to 373 K)
- 1,145,000 heating of suspended concrete (9e10 g from 300 to 373 K)

The imbalance between sources and sinks is striking, no matter the relative shares of the thermodynamic and water vaporization sinks in accounting for the expansion. Moreover, it is very difficult to imagine how the gravitational energy released by falling mass could have contributed much to any of the sinks, since the vast majority of the tower's mass landed outside its footprint. The quantity for the crushing of concrete appears to be conservative since some reports indicate the average particle size was closer to 10 microns than 60 microns. The quantity for the heating of suspended concrete has a large amount of uncertainty, but the energy imbalances remain huge even when it is ignored entirely. All of these energy sink estimates are conservative in several respects.

    * They are based on an estimate of dust cloud volume at a time long before the cloud stopped growing.
    * They use a liberal estimate of the contribution of mixing to the volume.
    * They ignore thermal losses due to radiation.
    * They ignore the resistance to expansion due to the inertia of the suspended materials, and energy requirements to overcome it.

Conclusion

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments.

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.



Well, it certainly makes some gross assumptions with very little supporting evidence.

First assumption is that the entire cloud is based upon expansion from heating but not from ambient air.

==> But the tremendous outflow of air from the collapse would have dragged in a huge ambient air flow behind it.

See this pic:

User posted image

Clearly this is not a uniform cylinder and the rolling cloud like motions are distinct evidence that ambient air is being included into the expanding cloud

Thus the next assumption is that the entire "cylinder" as he describes it is ONLY heated gas, thus the validity of first assumption is quite suspect and it is this assumption which drives the required energy.

Second assumption is that ALL of the concrete in the WTC towers was pulverized to an average of 60 microns.

==> The validity of this assertion is not proven, the particle collection tests done were OUTSIDE the main debris field as provided in the NIST report.

Then there is the assumption that the entire cloud (and debris within it) were heated to 1020K. In fact he gives a report of someone who was blown a block by the "cloud". If the cloud was 1024K he would be dead. In fact everyone touched by a cloud of gas that hot (746 C) would not only be dead they would be incinerated.

Didn't happen.

See pic:

User posted image

Gosh, those chunks look a tad larger than 60 microns.

or this pic:

User posted image

or this pic:

User posted image

or this:

User posted image

or

user posted image

or

User posted image

or

User posted image

or

user posted image


Arthur

metamars
QUOTE

QUOTE (metamars)
Pray tell us Schneibster, how much energy he subtracted from the 'sources' side of the energy budget.
135,000 kWh from the crushing of the concrete. It's never added back in as heat. It's right there, in the table in the summary. And it's not a typo- this is version 3 of the document.
.
.
.
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda



Schneibster waves the magic wand, again!


When I was just a kid, I had the idea of borrowing all the money from a bank, buying the bank with that money, and then not having to pay back the money - or, alternatively, paying it back to myself.

I somehow knew that couldn't work, though I wasn't sure precisely why.

Not to mention any names, but it seems some of us never grow up.

Not wishing to waste gobs of time trying to figure out why Schneibster would still be trying to push his Magic Energy Wand Theory, I decided to go directly to the heart of the matter.


So, I did a calculation in Schneibster-Space.

My calculations clearly showed the following:

Take a building 1000 feet tall, and crash a jet plane into it. It does not collapse into it's own footprint.

NOW, wave the Schneibster Magic Wand. (These are very easy to locate - there are uncountably infinitely many at every point in Schneibster-Space!) To work, one must wave the wand with one's hand. This trick doesn't work if you do the waving with your feet or even your mouth.

You will see that the building DOES collapse into it's footprint. However, there's a problem. The collapse takes approximately 250 million years. (give or take)


Fortunately, in Schneibster-Space, this need not be the end of the story. Because in Schneibster-Space, if you waive the Magic-Wand-With-Your-Hands while simultaneously crying out "I am Schneibster the king of Schneibster-Space. Conservation of Energy. Yadda Yadda Yadda. You're an idiot." you will readily see that the building collapses in 12 - 16 seconds.*

So, I think I finally understand where Schneibster is coming from. It's just that, Schneibster-Space is so radically different from the real world, that I don't think it's a very useful approximation.


* Sometimes, you have to repeat the "I am Schneibster" and "You're an idiot" parts. So, e.g., we have:

"I am Schneibster the king of Schneibster-Space. Conservation of Energy. Yadda Yadda Yadda. I am Schneibster. You're an idiot."

and occasionally:


"I am Schneibster the king of Schneibster-Space. Conservation of Energy. Yadda Yadda Yadda. I am Schneibster. You're an idiot. I am Schniebster. You're an idiot."


However, DO NOT, I repeat, DO NOT repeat the "Yadda Yadda Yadda" part, or the "the king of Schneibster-space" part, or the "Conservation of Energy" part. If you do that, you find that all the steel columns within a 50 mile radius undergo telescoping, "powderizing" collapses.




tongue.gif
adoucette
How long did the falls take?

User posted image

Hmmm?

And guess what, NO SEISMIC EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS.

Arthur
Schneibster
Arthur, AWESOME! You just provided not just one piece, but EXTENSIVE evidence I've been looking for for quite some time: that all of the concrete was NOT pulverized! Thanks very much!
Schneibster
I note that metamars has not posted anything of any physics or even scientific substance, has not responded to my call to show where it "proved" anything I said was wrong, and has become abusive. All of these are precisely what one would expect, given its history.
B_Sharp
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 22 2005, 12:29 AM)
Hi Schneibster!
PS: And there's that apparition I was predicting! Is this "B_SHARP" character pulling the conspiracy theorists' collective leg; or what?

Please explain how you would continuosly burn a candle or paper in an upside down bottle??
There is trivial to no exothermic reaction because Oxygen is gone.

Please explain how you can completely burn a log of wood in seconds??
Instead it requires minutes and hours to react layers of wood with a massive volume of Oxygen.

Please explain how anything combusts rapidly with little or no Oxygen??

A building collapse has only one creation point of energy. That is Potential Energy pre collapse. There are no more sources of energy creation.

RealityCheck and Schneibster have created "free energy" machines. Reactants without oxidizers.


BTW -- Hoffman is also missing crucial elements that solves this entire dilemma in under 50 pages. You will never figure out what it is.
Schneibster
Please explain where the heat went.
stallion4
Explosions at the WTC caught on tape. Listen to them here:

('9/11 Eyewitness' WTC1 Clip - 13mb WMV)
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=YOHQAH7D

After clicking the link above you'll be asked to wait until the timer ticks down to zero. After it does, click the download button.
Schneibster
Well, Reality, it looks like B_Sharp was (mmmmfffffffBWAHAHAHAHAmmmmfff) serious. At least to the extent that anyone who is maintaining that fire took all the heat out of the concrete CAN be serious, at any rate. Heh.
metamars
adoucette
================


QUOTE
Clearly this is not a uniform cylinder


No?? That's funny! Now why on earth would Hoffman base his calculations on perfect geometric shapes that aren't observed in the photographs? Why, the NOIVE of the guy. Clearly, he uses this trick to over-estimate the volume of the cloud, right?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Clearly this is not a uniform cylinder


No?? That's funny! Now why on earth would Hoffman base his calculations on perfect geometric shapes that aren't observed in the photographs? Why, the NOIVE of the guy. Clearly, he uses this trick to over-estimate the volume of the cloud, right?

I thought I'd take a deeper look into Hoffman's paper:


Apparently, you didn't look too deeply, since you say,


QUOTE

and the rolling cloud like motions are distinct evidence that ambient air is being included into the expanding cloud


Hint: search on the word "ambient" in Hoffman's article.

I know you can do this, adoucette!



schneibster
================
QUOTE (->
QUOTE

and the rolling cloud like motions are distinct evidence that ambient air is being included into the expanding cloud


Hint: search on the word "ambient" in Hoffman's article.

I know you can do this, adoucette!



schneibster
================
Arthur, AWESOME! You just provided not just one piece, but EXTENSIVE evidence I've been looking for for quite some time: that all of the concrete was NOT pulverized! Thanks very much!


Well, this is quite a scream!

Shucks, the only picture in which I can make out something that looks like chunks of concrete is the second one. Now, if a single floor is 40,000 sq ft, and the concrete is 4 inches deep, pray tell us, Schneibster, what percentage of a single floor's concrete do you see in that picture? Do you also see a reflection of the 20 story hole in WTC 7? How about the passports? Do you see them also?

Please tell us about everything that you see that, once again, confirms the FEMA Fairy Tale. After all, if we learn to see it, also, we may end up switching sides. Wouldn't that be exciting!

I bet if you really focused, you could make out the the markings on the steel that tell you which floor they belong to. Hey, can you make out the microscopic shear patterns where the trusses got ripped off the columns?

Don't be bashful, now! I could be wrong, but somehow I don't think I'm the only one who has your powers of x-ray vision.

One thing I don't get. I find it amazing that your eyes are so good that they can pick out chunks of concrete in all these pictures (apparently), and yet your eyes can't see the symmetry of the collapse. Nor, I'm sure, the telescoping, powederizing collapse of the spire.

RealityCheck
Hi B_Sharp.

Do you mean to tell me that a building which BY FUNCTIONAL DESIGN is ALREADY REPLETE with cavities, windows, OMNI-DIRECTED/DISTRIBUTED air/ventilation systems shafts, as WELL as LARGE VERTICAL elevator/services shafts, is some sort of 'hermetically sealed' container?...and that when such an 'air-sieve by design' of a building structure is struck by a huge/heavy/fast plane like some great big bomb which shatters/severs/EXTENDS many of these PRE-EXISTING openings/shafts above, at and below the vicinity of impact, that this same structure is any LESS of an 'air-sieve' than beforehand?

Please don't embarass yourself any further. Experiential reality and common-sense information have a nasty habit of getting in the way of fantasy, no matter HOW desperate the denial.

RealityCheck.
.PS SCHNEIBSTER (hi ADOUCETTE!)....NO, No, No, No!....p-p-please tell me it ain't so!....about B-Sharp being (erk!) 'serious'!...or I will worry about the long term fate of the human race! It's difficult, to say the least, to maintain my former OPTIMISM about that fate! Again, pleeease say it ain't so! RC.
metamars
QUOTE
I note that metamars has not posted anything of any physics or even scientific substance, has not responded to my call to show where it "proved" anything I said was wrong, .


Yes, of course, and anybody doubting this should print out both my posts and Schneibster's, take them to your local physics department, and confirm this. Especially show them Schneibster's "refutation" of Hoffman's paper wrt conservation of energy, which I have answered in detail earlier in this thread. No doubt Schneibster will welcome this opportunity for confirmation of his stellar arguments, as well as low opinion of mine.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I note that metamars has not posted anything of any physics or even scientific substance, has not responded to my call to show where it "proved" anything I said was wrong, .


Yes, of course, and anybody doubting this should print out both my posts and Schneibster's, take them to your local physics department, and confirm this. Especially show them Schneibster's "refutation" of Hoffman's paper wrt conservation of energy, which I have answered in detail earlier in this thread. No doubt Schneibster will welcome this opportunity for confirmation of his stellar arguments, as well as low opinion of mine.

(metamars) and has become abusive. All of these are precisely what one would expect, given its history


I have mocked your ludicrous attempts to discredit Hoffman, as noted above, 'tis true. I don't consider this abuse, and small potatoes compared to the insulting tone of some of your posts to me.

To be perfectly honest, I thought you might actually enjoy my tale of Schneibster-Space. I'm a little disappointed that you didn't.

Perhaps I need to rewrite it, and call it "FEMA-Space" !

If it makes you feel any better, I remind you that I do respect some of your arguments, most of your calculations (non-hand-waving, of course), and many of the facts you bring to the forum.

I'm sure you don't feel that way about me, but I'll survive.
Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Arthur, AWESOME! You just provided not just one piece, but EXTENSIVE evidence I've been looking for for quite some time: that all of the concrete was NOT pulverized! Thanks very much!


I guess Schneibster, 'et al' see things that Lioy, Meeker, and FEMA technical engineer Allen Morse could not see.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Arthur, AWESOME! You just provided not just one piece, but EXTENSIVE evidence I've been looking for for quite some time: that all of the concrete was NOT pulverized! Thanks very much!


I guess Schneibster, 'et al' see things that Lioy, Meeker, and FEMA technical engineer Allen Morse could not see.


The dust "was unlike any dust and smoke mixture I had ever seen before," Lioy said. The fluffy, pink and gray powder "was basically a complex mixture of everything that makes up our workplaces and lives."

Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7 million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators, and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

QUOTE
Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps, says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/anal...age_cleanup.htm


Schneibster
Now, tell me the truth, meta and Faux: you don't REALLY BELIEVE that everyone else is going to look at those pictures and go, "gee, I don't see any chunks of cement there," do you? The other shots I've seen, there was some question as to what was what; but several of THESE shots have the concrete chunks RIGHT THERE IN THE FOREGROUND, and there's no question what those irregular, grey lumps sitting RIGHT THERE IN YOUR FACE are. Unless, of course, you need to see a psychiatrist. And there're some of them that are TEN FEET ACROSS. And a whole s**tload that are bigger than your HEAD (which in your case isn't saying much). Doesn't leave much room for doubt, does it?

The giant hissing sound you hear is the air coming out of your balloon. Happy landing.
Schneibster
So Faux, I got a question: you gonna respond to EVEN A SINGLE ONE of the thirty-forty times I called you out for lying and proved it?

Oh, and by the way, the whole sock-puppet thing? It's passe'. Nobody buys it any more. If you got somethin to say to me, come out and say it.
Schneibster
QUOTE (metamars+)
Yes, of course, and anybody doubting this should print out both my posts and Schneibster's, take them to your local physics department, and confirm this.
Why should they bother with yours? Doesn't have any physics content in it.

QUOTE (metamars+)
Especially show them Schneibster's "refutation" of Hoffman's  paper wrt conservation of energy, which I have answered in detail earlier in this thread.
No, you haven't, and saying so isn't going to prove it, either. Please show precisely what post you made that "answered" it. Please give the page number and the time and date of the post.

Schneibster
QUOTE (Faux+)
I guess Schneibster, 'et al' see things that Lioy, Meeker, and FEMA technical engineer Allen Morse could not see.
I have no idea what those folks saw- but I know what I see in those pictures, and denying it is a complete waste of time. It's RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.

Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by Yesitdid
In the NIST WTC 7 report (appendix L) , figures L-23a and L-23b show the south face of WTC 7 and the debris on Vesey Street(which ran along the south side of WTC7.


This the one, YID ???

user posted image

I see the collapsed walkway. Seems to be a lightweight structure. It is certainly collapsed but not crushed to nothing. Now let's look at the WTC debris map again to see where this walkway was located.

Oh, that's right the southeast corner of WTC 7...

User posted image

Now what is that straight line edge which appears near the end of that walkway and to the right? Gee, I'd guess that is the corner of the US Post Office. The gap between that and WTC 7 (which you seem to be claiming is the 20 story hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7) is actually WEST Broadway... NOT some impact damage in the center of the south face wall of WTC 7.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Originally posted by Yesitdid
In the NIST WTC 7 report (appendix L) , figures L-23a and L-23b show the south face of WTC 7 and the debris on Vesey Street(which ran along the south side of WTC7.


This the one, YID ???

user posted image

I see the collapsed walkway. Seems to be a lightweight structure. It is certainly collapsed but not crushed to nothing. Now let's look at the WTC debris map again to see where this walkway was located.

Oh, that's right the southeast corner of WTC 7...

User posted image

Now what is that straight line edge which appears near the end of that walkway and to the right? Gee, I'd guess that is the corner of the US Post Office. The gap between that and WTC 7 (which you seem to be claiming is the 20 story hole in the center of the south face of WTC 7) is actually WEST Broadway... NOT some impact damage in the center of the south face wall of WTC 7.


by YIDIn the pictures you see the distinctive WTC tower perimeter columns in the debris right up to WTC7, some appear to actually be leaning on the WTC 7.


REALLY !!! If you can make out distinctive shapes in all that darkness and call what you see there perimeter columns, I suggest you sign up at Phil Jayhans Pod site. Your photographic analysis skills will be much appreciated there.

QUOTE
Also noticeable is the large gap in the face of WTC7 though the smoke and dust partially obscure the view into #7, in L-23a damaged columns are visible (directly under the "Wille Cirone" copyright label on the photo.)


YID, get a grip... the 'void' which you claim is a hole in the center of the south face is nowhere near the center of the building (which is easily determined from the location of the walkway). Your so-called evidence is the street on the east face (West Broadway). I think someone else already suggested you might look into seeing an optometrist.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Also noticeable is the large gap in the face of WTC7 though the smoke and dust partially obscure the view into #7, in L-23a damaged columns are visible (directly under the "Wille Cirone" copyright label on the photo.)


YID, get a grip... the 'void' which you claim is a hole in the center of the south face is nowhere near the center of the building (which is easily determined from the location of the walkway). Your so-called evidence is the street on the east face (West Broadway). I think someone else already suggested you might look into seeing an optometrist.


Originally posted by Yesitdid
I must point out that you still state you have no firefighter witness reports of massive damage to the south face of WTC 7 despite the fact the Boyle states exactly that.


What Boyle states exactly is...

QUOTE
"So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.


He doesn't say this hole was in the center of the south side. He says the 'hole' had to be 20 stories tall. We know there was a hole at the sw corner about that high. We know that other firefighters (when describing the sw corner hole) spoke of fires on multiple floors in that hole.

IF you and the Schneibster are correct... that; he is talking about another hole in the center of the south side of # 7 ... then Boyle is apparently the only firefighter in the world (or at wtc that day) who allegedly saw this imaginary hole in the center of the south side of WTC 7.

Don't you find that a little curious given all the other firefighters wandering about the pile in front of wtc 7 ???

Do you not see how ludicrous your 'arguement' is ???

Boyle was obviously referring to the hole in the southwest corner that was about 20 stories tall, had multiple fires on various floors within that hole, and that numerous other firefighters reported.

As I have said before you cherry-pick words from a sentence and then try to build an entire case out of the one word which you twist to support your sophist statements. Show us where Boyle states 'exactly' 'the hole in the center of the south side'.

Here again is the unsupported lie of NIST. There is absolutely NO evidence of this massive debris damage to the center of the south face of WTC 7 (apart from sophist dances and hand-wavings of yourself , Schneibster and other 'gravity-driven' collapse supporters).

User posted image

And, I hate to point this out, But... EVEN IF THERE WAS, that would completely undermine the theory of a perfectly symmetrical collapse. There is no question that such a massive hole (in conjunction with the southwest corner damage) would lead to an asymmetric collapse...(apart from some form of demolition which could take out all supporting columns on other sides of the building at the same time as the initiation of collapse.

You don't need to be a structural engineer to demonstrate this. Remove one leg from your kitchen table, and let me know if the table falls straight down vertically, or whether it 'collapses' in the direction of the compromised column?


adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 22 2005, 02:47 AM)
adoucette
================


QUOTE
Clearly this is not a uniform cylinder


No?? That's funny! Now why on earth would Hoffman base his calculations on perfect geometric shapes that aren't observed in the photographs? Why, the NOIVE of the guy. Clearly, he uses this trick to over-estimate the volume of the cloud, right?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Clearly this is not a uniform cylinder


No?? That's funny! Now why on earth would Hoffman base his calculations on perfect geometric shapes that aren't observed in the photographs? Why, the NOIVE of the guy. Clearly, he uses this trick to over-estimate the volume of the cloud, right?

I thought I'd take a deeper look into Hoffman's paper:


Apparently, you didn't look too deeply, since you say,


QUOTE

and the rolling cloud like motions are distinct evidence that ambient air is being included into the expanding cloud



I did miss his including ambient air.

The point of the cylinder reference is that there are a LOT of gaps in the clouds BESIDES buildings.

But, even if the size of the cloud is reasonably correct, the heat content of the cloud is obviously off by an enormous amount.

Look at the wrecked fire trucks, very near ground zero.

They HAVEN'T been subjected to temps anywhere near 740 C.

As to the pulverized concrete. I have no doubt that MUCH if not MOST of it was pulverized. I DO have a problem with stating its size as being an AVERAGE of 60 microns though.

The sampling at locations like Cortland St were OUTSIDE the main debris field, and so OF COURSE the particles landing so far away would be the smallest, but that IN NO WAY suggests that the MAJORITY of the concrete was pulverized to this degree.

The pictures CLEARLY show that there are large quantities of RUBBLE lying around, not beds of 60 micron dust.

User posted image

User posted image

User posted image

There are HUNDREDS of photos like this, all over the debris field. It is FILLED with LARGE pieces of debris.

By the way, in the pictures one can see a tremendous number of pieces of steel structure, FIND ONE that shows ANY evidence of being ripped apart by an EXPLOSIVE. Explosive leave pretty distinct edges. What is more, explosives leave EMBEDDED residue in the metal (see the analysis of the Lockerbie bombing for how this is done and how they could tell exactly where the bomb was located and what damage it did even after the aircraft crashed from over 25,000 ft up). This, along with the distinctive marks of an explosive demolition, would have been easily found.

Arthur
RealityCheck
Hi metamars!

>>>You say of your own ‘work’ in this thread: “But I have not been hasty. As I have said before, I examined this in detail, and Schneibster's arguments have no merit. And I took my time writing those posts.”

Unfortunately, 'more' time spent on ‘work’ does not always automatically/proportionately translate into 'more' accuracy/validity in 'output'. Hoffman’s and Jones’ ‘works’ amply demonstrate this realistic observation; since I’m sure they TOO would say they "took THEIR time writing those ‘works’" of theirs; which, unfortunately for them, even you and Foxx can see THOSE ‘works’ are far from uniformly accurate/valid.

Again, cheers and good luck, mate!

RealityCheck.
.
Foxx
QUOTE
by Schneibster
I have no idea what those folks saw- but I know what I see in those pictures, and denying it is a complete waste of time. It's RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.


You dream what you want to dream, Schneibster. As the Chinese say, "It is impossible to wake up a man who is pretending to be asleep".

Lioy, Meeker, and FEMA technical engineer Allen Morse were at the scene. Were you? You carry on imagining whatever you want to see in the previously posted pictures. If you're seeing what these government officials claim was not there, you are simply fooling yourself. Sure, If I squint real hard I can imagine I see chunks of concrete in those pictures, but it is far from conclusive what is actually there. Get some better close-ups. And I'll tell you what else... nobody says ALL: (100%) of the concrete was pulverized anyway. You are just setting up a strawman. The truth is that the majority of; (not only concrete), but virtually ALL other contents apart from steel was pulverized. Hoffman didn't even try to take into account the energy required to pulverize ALL the rest of the contents.

Here again are the statements from your favourite government officials...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
by Schneibster
I have no idea what those folks saw- but I know what I see in those pictures, and denying it is a complete waste of time. It's RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.


You dream what you want to dream, Schneibster. As the Chinese say, "It is impossible to wake up a man who is pretending to be asleep".

Lioy, Meeker, and FEMA technical engineer Allen Morse were at the scene. Were you? You carry on imagining whatever you want to see in the previously posted pictures. If you're seeing what these government officials claim was not there, you are simply fooling yourself. Sure, If I squint real hard I can imagine I see chunks of concrete in those pictures, but it is far from conclusive what is actually there. Get some better close-ups. And I'll tell you what else... nobody says ALL: (100%) of the concrete was pulverized anyway. You are just setting up a strawman. The truth is that the majority of; (not only concrete), but virtually ALL other contents apart from steel was pulverized. Hoffman didn't even try to take into account the energy required to pulverize ALL the rest of the contents.

Here again are the statements from your favourite government officials...

The dust "was unlike any dust and smoke mixture I had ever seen before," Lioy said. The fluffy, pink and gray powder "was basically a complex mixture of everything that makes up our workplaces and lives."

Six million sq ft of masonry, 5 million sq ft of painted surfaces, 7 million sq ft of flooring, 600,000 sq ft of window glass, 200 elevators, and everything inside came down as dust, said Greg Meeker of USGS. The only thing that didn't get pulverized was the WTC towers' 200,000 tons of structural steel. That was just bent, Meeker said.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

QUOTE
Most of the concrete from the WTC site was pulverized into dust in the Sept. 11 attacks. But huge amounts of structural steel remained scattered in tangled heaps, says Allen Morse, USACE chief debris expert and FEMA technical advisor.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/anal...age_cleanup.htm

But, I forgot - they just disagree with your eyes, so I expect you will just class them as 'Liars' (or call me a liar for bringing up the links)... biggrin.gif


Schneibster
Keep it comin', adoucette. Those pictures are a beautiful thing. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, lying about it is obvious to everyone; and that's concrete, and it's not powdered, and there's a s**tload of it. And sitting right in the middle of all of it is a link plate that holds the perimeter columns together. Beautiful.
Schneibster
QUOTE (Faux+)
Lioy, Meeker, and FEMA technical engineer Allen Morse were at the scene. Were you?
Doesn't matter. That's photographic evidence, and its incontrovertible. Unless you think FEMA (or perhaps it was S.P.E.C.T.R.E.? heh) is making this stuff up too.

What are those large grey irregularly shaped objects in the foreground, Faux? Are they pieces of steel? Perhaps they're just little bits of powder that got on the camera lens. Certainly they can't be CONCRETE, can they? Nawww, no way.
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 22 2005, 05:14 AM)
Sure, If I squint real hard I can imagine I see chunks of concrete in those pictures, but it is far from conclusive what is actually there. Get some better close-ups. And I'll tell you what else... nobody says ALL: (100%) of the concrete was pulverized anyway. You are just setting up a strawman. The truth is that the majority of; (not only concrete), but virtually ALL other contents apart from steel was pulverized. Hoffman didn't even try to take into account the energy required to pulverize ALL the rest of the contents.


I've put in some new pictures, you don't even need to squint.

user posted image

User posted image

User posted image

User posted image

user posted image

And if you truncate the picture's URLs you can easily get to the original pictures which are even higher res then what I can post.

If you can't figure that out go here:

http://www.carson.army.mil/dpw/fcfes/images/074.jpg

BUT HOFFMAN does use ALL when he calculates how much concrete was pulverized and futher, he claims it was ALL pulverized to an average of 60 microns and he claims it was ALL part of a pyroclastic cloud that had a temp of 1020 Kelvin.

Which is where he comes up with his ABSURD energy requirements.

Besides, if I can find the photos from the Dump site I'll show you them SORTING the debris, and CLEARLY one can see from the various piles that it wasn't ALL pulverized, not even close.

Arthur
Foxx
User posted image

Ok, now here is a better picture. I can see chunks of rocky-looking material.

Nevertheless, these certainly don't look like 4" thick concrete. They appear to be much thicker. Just a guess on my part, but I'd say they are masonry facia / or perhaps concrete walls from periphery buildings that were collapsed in the fall.

It's all smoke & mirrors this arguement anyway. I have provided three government officials who were involved at ground zero, and all three say (or at least imply) that the vast majority of the concrete in the towers was pulverized along with virtually all other building contents. There is no question that 100% of it was NOT pulverized, but high level witnesses at the scene all remarked that the 'majority' of contents were pulverized to dust. Paper, wood, cushions, upholstery, floor tiles, everything !!!


Schneibster
Oh, and by the way, are you ever going to respond to a single one of those times I called you out for lying and proved you had done it?
Schneibster
So Faux, what're you going to say as the pictures keep coming and the amount of concrete that was pulverized keeps getting smaller and smaller? Keep 'em coming, adoucette.

We get far enough along, we might even be able to take a stab at the mass of the piles of concrete.

Faux, they're RIGHT IN THE FREAKING MIDDLE OF THE DEBRIS PILE. "Fascia from the surrounding buildings" my ***. You are PWNED.

X0 <- Faux

Get it?
Foxx
QUOTE
Schneibster
Doesn't matter. That's photographic evidence, and its incontrovertible. Unless you think FEMA (or perhaps it was S.P.E.C.T.R.E.? heh) is making this stuff up too.

What are those large grey irregularly shaped objects in the foreground, Faux? Are they pieces of steel? Perhaps they're just little bits of powder that got on the camera lens. Certainly they can't be CONCRETE, can they? Nawww, no way.


Your wit is absolutely scintillating, Scneibster. There was no foot thick concrete in the towers, and the grey debris we can all see are certainly not 4" concrete flooring. Again, I'd have to guess that it is rock facia or concrete walls from surrounding buildings, and didn't originate from the WTC towers (unless you know any areas in the towers which had concrete that thick)... maybe this was from lower in the pile and was concrete from the undergound parking or subway tunnels. I don't know, but it certainly isn't the 4" thick flooring concrete broken into chunks.

I don't think anyone has suggested that the underground or lobby areas were pulverized? Nor that other buildings suffering debris impact were pulverized?





Foxx
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Faux, they're RIGHT IN THE FREAKING MIDDLE OF THE DEBRIS PILE. "Fascia from the surrounding buildings" my ***. You are PWNED.


I have no idea what "PWNED" is, but anyway...

Looks like they are demolishing that periphery building.

User posted image

What's all that grey 'concrete' looking stuff?

These photos were taken in Oct (long after the collapses)... or did you conveniently miss that Adoucette?

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview.html

Nice photos, though.


adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 22 2005, 05:31 AM)
It's all smoke & mirrors this arguement anyway. I have provided three government officials who were involved at ground zero, and all three say (or at least imply) that the vast majority of the concrete in the towers was pulverized along with virtually all other building contents. There is no question that 100% of it was NOT pulverized, but high level witnesses at the scene all remarked that the 'majority' of contents were pulverized to dust. Paper, wood, cushions, upholstery, floor tiles, everything !!!

Oh, Sure, take someone's offhand comments from the day and then use it as the basis for a scientific analysis????


OF COURSE, anyone would say, it was ALL pulverized.

What, you expect him to say, "94% of it was pulverized"

BUT,

HE DID NOT SAY that "ALL of the concrete was pulverized to an average size of 60 microns"

And THAT is the issue.

It takes CONSIDERABLY more energy to crush concrete down to 60 micron size than say 600 micron size, but they are BOTH dust.

What is CLEAR from the pictures is the DUST type coating is GRAINY. But 60 micron is TALCUM powder size. This stuff (near Ground Zero) is significantly larger than the average size Hoffman used.

And YOU STILL HAVEN'T addressed the MAJOR point, that the cloud was supposedly 1020 Kelvin, yet everything it touched wasn't killed/burnt/melted.

Arthur

Schneibster
Never mind, Faux, the most amusing part of watching you get pwnt has been hearing you say you don't know what pwned means.
adoucette
QUOTE (Foxx+Nov 22 2005, 06:03 AM)
QUOTE
Originally posted by Schneibster
Faux, they're RIGHT IN THE FREAKING MIDDLE OF THE DEBRIS PILE. "Fascia from the surrounding buildings" my ***. You are PWNED.


I have no idea what "PWNED" is, but anyway...

Looks like they are demolishing that periphery building.

User posted image

What's all that grey 'concrete' looking stuff?

These photos were taken in Oct (long after the collapses)... or did you conveniently miss that Adoucette?

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/Overview.html

Nice photos, though.

Bull Sh!T

I didn't use the photos from that other demolition.

The photo I posted is from the WTC 1-2 site.

As is THIS ONE:

User posted image

Note the DIFFERENCES

Arthur
adoucette
More

User posted image

User posted image

User posted image

and then there is this:

User posted image

I guess that must be FIRE RETARDENT PAPER, since it didn't ignite while floating around in that pyroclastic cloud.

Arthur
RealityCheck
Hi all!

(1) Has anyone else spotted the contradiction inherent in some people saying that the DUST cloud CAN reach 1000+F deg. yet, according to the same people, the INFERNO-COMBUSTION GASES and SURFACES/MATERIALS in the impact-zone CANNOT do AT LEAST LIKEWISE?

(2) Also, regarding 'dust' versus 'chunks': Has anyone witnessed what happens when 'chunks' and 'dust' fall onto an area from a great height? The CHUNKS hit first (less surface area per unit mass, hence less per unit mass air-resistance). Only afterward does the DUST 'settle' onto the chunks below; thus blanketing and hiding the 'chunky' debris-field under a 'smoothing' covering of dust. This is what happens during volcanic eruptions: the 'rocks' kill you first; then the dust hides the resulting 'untidiness' under a 'smoothing' covering of 'ash'. Heaven knows WHAT SIZE chunks could have been hidden under the dust blanket that settled on top of everything on the ground.

Ciao, all!

RealityCheck.
.
Schneibster
Lovely, adoucette, keep 'em comin.

Reality, good one. I didn't catch that.

Faux, notice you still haven't responded to the fact that I've proven you lied over thirty times on this very thread. You going to respond to a single one of those?
RealityCheck

Everyone.

I added a second point to my last post.

RC.
.

frater plecticus
Can we please stop this puerile name calling, please.

Mathematics don´t lie. People do.
metamars
QUOTE
The truth is that the majority of; (not only concrete), but virtually ALL other contents apart from steel was pulverized. Hoffman didn't even try to take into account the energy required to pulverize ALL the rest of the contents.


Correct (basically). More significantly, he didn't try to take into account the energy required to heat any solids after they were powderized, other than concrete. Furthermore, you can see from the pictures of the collapse that large chunks of building are falling over the side, streaming powder. It's pretty obvious not not every last cubic millimiter of these chunks is converted to powder.

Of course, when you say "virtually ALL", you'd probably best put a number on it, lest we spend another 10 pages basically quibbling over how near is near, (this time, though, the argument would be how virtually is virtually all) with Schneibster calling you a liar. If you give a reference, please don't make any spelling mistakes in the URL, or you may be called a liar for that, also.

So, it would have been shocking if there was not any chunks at all. To make explicit Hoffman's thought process: since nearly all the non-steel content was turned to powder, an approximation of 100% is quite reasonable. If you wish to show that this is a bad approximation, please make your own, based on the photographic (in toto, of course) and eyewitness testimony, and then plug this number into model. Does it change the result? (Hint: correct answer is "no")


Hey, here's another explication: when Hoffman, for the sake of argument, pretendeded that 100% of the PE could represent as an energy source for the formation of the dust cloud, he's not really saying that fully, exactly 100% of this PE could actually have been used up to this end. If that were the case, then the chunks of building referred to above would have sufficient KE to convert themselves to dust upon impact with the ground. But nobody believes that.

Hoffman's dust cloud calculations did FEMA a favor of ignoring the expansion of non-concrete dust. E.g., glass dust. adoucette's close-up that does show a fair amount of concrete chunks shows not one shard of glass. Care to explain?

Speaking of pieces of falling building that are streaming powder, that strikes me as a rather damning to the FEMA Fairy Tale just in and of itself. I mean, if you take a piece of concrete of any size you please and toss it off of the top of a skyscraper, does it stream powder all the way down? Repeat this experiment with a piece of a telephone. Repeat it again with a piece of a desk. Repeat it again with a piece of glass.

Perhaps adoucette can also get us close-ups of the streaming chunks of building on the way down.?? If so, please share.


One of these pictures in adoucette's second set does show a fair amount of chunks of concrete. Now, from the testimony of a fireman, not a single desk was found in all of the rubble, nor any piece of a telephone bigger than half a keypad. Tell us, adoucette, do you see any sign of desk or telephone in these pictures? Stapler, perhaps? Perhaps even half a telephone handset? How about a hole puncher - some of those are quite sturdy, and I don't think they had any rule that you couldn't have a hole puncher in the upper floors. Also, even without examining any floor plans, I can tell you for a fact that there were toilet bowls on each and every floor. Hundreds of employees on every floor would probably be answering the call of nature several times a day. Can you point out even 1 toilet bowl in the rubble? Half a one?

Maybe some stair steps? I'd settle for either metal or stone. A handrail? No, I don't see any. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmm.

I've got it! A pipe! There must be a pipe! How do I know? Because pipes are used to carry water, which enable the flushing of the afore-mentioned toilet bowls.

Now, all of these objects that I've mentioned should have a pretty even distribution throughout the floors of the WTC building. Correct?

But I see none of them. Which is a tidge surprising, since the upper floors, at the very least, should not have had these objects "squished" into, into, into.... WHAT?

Do tell us, adoucette, what your theory is. You seem quite sure that most of the non-metal contents of the towers were not turned into dust. Were they then turned into some intermediate size particle - say, the size of grains of sand? The size of marbles? Baseballs?

By all means, if you have more closeups, that would shed light on these mysteries, please share that also.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
The truth is that the majority of; (not only concrete), but virtually ALL other contents apart from steel was pulverized. Hoffman didn't even try to take into account the energy required to pulverize ALL the rest of the contents.


Correct (basically). More significantly, he didn't try to take into account the energy required to heat any solids after they were powderized, other than concrete. Furthermore, you can see from the pictures of the collapse that large chunks of building are falling over the side, streaming powder. It's pretty obvious not not every last cubic millimiter of these chunks is converted to powder.

Of course, when you say "virtually ALL", you'd probably best put a number on it, lest we spend another 10 pages basically quibbling over how near is near, (this time, though, the argument would be how virtually is virtually all) with Schneibster calling you a liar. If you give a reference, please don't make any spelling mistakes in the URL, or you may be called a liar for that, also.

So, it would have been shocking if there was not any chunks at all. To make explicit Hoffman's thought process: since nearly all the non-steel content was turned to powder, an approximation of 100% is quite reasonable. If you wish to show that this is a bad approximation, please make your own, based on the photographic (in toto, of course) and eyewitness testimony, and then plug this number into model. Does it change the result? (Hint: correct answer is "no")


Hey, here's another explication: when Hoffman, for the sake of argument, pretendeded that 100% of the PE could represent as an energy source for the formation of the dust cloud, he's not really saying that fully, exactly 100% of this PE could actually have been used up to this end. If that were the case, then the chunks of building referred to above would have sufficient KE to convert themselves to dust upon impact with the ground. But nobody believes that.

Hoffman's dust cloud calculations did FEMA a favor of ignoring the expansion of non-concrete dust. E.g., glass dust. adoucette's close-up that does show a fair amount of concrete chunks shows not one shard of glass. Care to explain?

Speaking of pieces of falling building that are streaming powder, that strikes me as a rather damning to the FEMA Fairy Tale just in and of itself. I mean, if you take a piece of concrete of any size you please and toss it off of the top of a skyscraper, does it stream powder all the way down? Repeat this experiment with a piece of a telephone. Repeat it again with a piece of a desk. Repeat it again with a piece of glass.

Perhaps adoucette can also get us close-ups of the streaming chunks of building on the way down.?? If so, please share.


One of these pictures in adoucette's second set does show a fair amount of chunks of concrete. Now, from the testimony of a fireman, not a single desk was found in all of the rubble, nor any piece of a telephone bigger than half a keypad. Tell us, adoucette, do you see any sign of desk or telephone in these pictures? Stapler, perhaps? Perhaps even half a telephone handset? How about a hole puncher - some of those are quite sturdy, and I don't think they had any rule that you couldn't have a hole puncher in the upper floors. Also, even without examining any floor plans, I can tell you for a fact that there were toilet bowls on each and every floor. Hundreds of employees on every floor would probably be answering the call of nature several times a day. Can you point out even 1 toilet bowl in the rubble? Half a one?

Maybe some stair steps? I'd settle for either metal or stone. A handrail? No, I don't see any. Hmmm. Hmmmmmmm.

I've got it! A pipe! There must be a pipe! How do I know? Because pipes are used to carry water, which enable the flushing of the afore-mentioned toilet bowls.

Now, all of these objects that I've mentioned should have a pretty even distribution throughout the floors of the WTC building. Correct?

But I see none of them. Which is a tidge surprising, since the upper floors, at the very least, should not have had these objects "squished" into, into, into.... WHAT?

Do tell us, adoucette, what your theory is. You seem quite sure that most of the non-metal contents of the towers were not turned into dust. Were they then turned into some intermediate size particle - say, the size of grains of sand? The size of marbles? Baseballs?

By all means, if you have more closeups, that would shed light on these mysteries, please share that also.


And YOU STILL HAVEN'T addressed the MAJOR point, that the cloud was supposedly 1020 Kelvin, yet everything it touched wasn't killed/burnt/melted.


I'm not sure if Foxx did or didn't, but I did. Recall the sauna and hair dryer analogies. My arguments were intuitive and qualitative. They need to be confirmed or disconfirmed by a quantitative hydrodynamics model..

If anybody has the time and patience, I'm curous what would happen if you measured the temperature at the muzzle of a hair dryer on "hi", the temperature from a foot away, and the temperature from 2 feet away. I'd do this experiment myself, but lack the thermometer.

Furthermore, Hoffman is not claiming the the temperature throughout the dust cloud was uniformly 1020 deg K :

(emphasis mine)
QUOTE

If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at lest the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE

If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at lest the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures.


By the way, in the pictures one can see a tremendous number of pieces of steel structure, FIND ONE that shows ANY evidence of being ripped apart by an EXPLOSIVE.


Thermite would cut through steel like a knife through butter. Why, then, would you need so much of if that the the steel structure is "ripped apart"? Also, for purposes of comparison, please find us pictures of a demolition site so that we can compare. Your verbal description of what it is that you think we should be seeing can't do justice to what we would actually see if you provided us with pictures of same, now can it?


Then too, don't forget that there were more than explosives involved in demolishing the buildings:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/spi..._from_north.avi

Do tell: can you find us close-ups of this collapse/powderization? I'll give you $10.00 if you can!

Speaking of which: you don't think that maybe, just maybe, amongst the thousands of 911 photographs and videos that physics Professor Steven E. Jones has complained about that the government is sitting on, there is included close-ups of the collapsing spire?

And if you deny that the 500+ ft spire turned into powder, could you please find us a picture of it laying on the ground?


Maybe it's just me, but I would think a 500 foot long steel column would be rather noticeable, don't you?


Just to refresh your memory further:

User posted image

The remaining spire is in the shade, on the right. For a better view, look at it on plaguepuppy's site:

http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%2...pire_hi-res.jpg

==================

Although I've noticed it when viewing this picture before, I hadn't thought about it too carefully. There is another "spire", clearly illuminated, broken into 2 long pieces, obviously still elevated significantly.

What I hadn't thought about before was: if you could straighten this puppy out (pun semi-intended), it might well also be as tall as the straight spire.

metamars
Great Video of 911 Pyroclastic Flows at:

ttp://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/video%20archive/pyroclastic_flow.avi
metamars
As if that's not enough! How deep does this rabbit hole go?????????????:

Can anybody confirm the following? In particular, the U Cal tritium claim? How on earth could this be kept under wraps? Disinfo?

from http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/soldier4.htm

QUOTE

        Observations Suggesting the Use of Small Hydrogen Bombs

        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). For more, see (Gehue plate 8)

               
                location  F  C  name
                A  1341  727  WTC7
                B  1034  557  WTC7
                C  1161  627  WTC1
                D  963  517  WTC1
                E  819  437  WTC3
                F  801  427  WTC2
                G  1377  747  WTC2
                H  1017  547  WTC4

        The thermal survey of the WTC 9/16/2001 (NASA /US Geological Survey). Despite of fire department having cooled the rubble, aluminium would still be melting in some sites 5 days after the incident.


        5) Elevated values of tritium in this area, but not elsewhere in New York. The University of California found elevated values on 9/13/2001 and 9/21/2001 within bounds of the WTC. They found them harmless for health. In pure hydrogen bomb isotopes of hydrogen are fused (D + T > n + a + 17.6 MeV).


        6) An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers. See Gehue plate 5

        7) A wave of pressure was witnessed in the root of the tower at the moment when the so-called collapse was progressing just about two hundred meters and nothing had fallen down to earth. The blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of the dust cloud. The burst of the dust cloud on the root of the tower was photographed as well. In the image at the left below is what probably was the explosion of WTC 6. The Customs building was deliberately exploded for some reason - it was not damaged because of the falling girders as they had not yet reached the roof of WTC 7 when the photo was taken. A couple of seconds later the clouds of the explosion were already partly above the roof of WTC 7, which was too energetical to be caused by usual blasting agents. This suggests it was the second hydrogen bomb in the WTC block. The first hydrogen bomb is discharging upwards (pulverized concrete) exactly in the picture, and the steel structures vaporized by the bomb are already falling down 100 meters (approx. 328 ft.) farther down. The mass of cloud, caused by vaporized steel, is seen in the center of the picture and even more clearly in the picture at the right.



        8) In the cellar, out of all the 47 ultra strong steel pillars, the steel was melted completely at the length of more than 20 meters (approx. 65 ft). Even cars were melted and burned in the cellar. The pillars were far too thick for thermite, which some have suggested. An explosion of a thermonuclear bomb explains the phenomenon well.

        9) Steel columns and pillars were ejected in the surroundings of the building. In the beginning of the so-called collapse, exists no such energy exists that could throw steel pillars outwards from 60 to 175 meters (approx. from 170 to 574 ft.) from trunk. Not even cutting charges can do that. Instead, the blast wave from a nuclear bomb is capable to do that.

adoucette
Total BS.

Lets see now, we set off a Nuke in the basement of WTC 2 but it collapses from the TOP DOWN?

Tricky.

What's MORE TRICKY, is the WTC 1 & 2 shared a common underground area, but even though we set off a Nuke in WTC 2, WTC 1 remains standing,

But the MAIN REASON is it is BS is there is NO evidence of a BOMB going off at the start of the collapse.

See Seismic evidence already posted.

Finally, and this is a tad outside my area of expertise, but I thought that a Hydrogen Bomb used a Fission bomb as its initiator. If so, then while one could theoretically make a relatively low yield Fission bomb (~1 Kiloton, but it would be DIRTY), you can't make a similarly low yield Fusion bomb.

In any case, no 1 Kiloton bomb went off in EITHER WTC tower that day, as is OBVIOUS from the video footage.

Arthur
Igor Sodetski
Thomas Eagar: "Well, the building failed. That's true, but nothing is indestructible. The question is, why did it fail? In this case, as I've explained, it was the fire covering all the floors in a few seconds that made this different from any other fire that anyone had ever designed for."

Fire covering all the floors in a few seconds??? Look again.

User posted image

User posted image

adoucette
QUOTE
Speaking of which: you don't think that maybe, just maybe, amongst the thousands of 911 photographs and videos that physics Professor Steven E. Jones has complained about that the government is sitting on, there is included close-ups of the collapsing spire?


You mean the same wacky professor that claimed he had achieved cold-fusion?

What a guy.

Always in the news.

Just goes to show Tenure ain't necessarily a good thing.

Arthur
adoucette
Another pic:

LOTS of debris, most unrecognizable but clearly not sturtural members either.

User posted image

By the way, load the actual JPG into a decent viewer and you can examine it in much greater detail than is displayed on this page.

Arthur
metamars
QUOTE
Total BS.


Really? Did you actually try to track down the info on tritium?

If the tritium claim is true, and if it's also true that no residues of chemical explosives were ever found, I'd say that suggests that micro-nukes are a more interesting hypothesis to pursue than chemical explosives.

Also, adoucette, still waiting eagerly for your picture of a WTC toilet bowl. Lacking that, I think it's clear that your notions of gravity driven collapse are crap.

Toilet bowls or crap, which is it? biggrin.gif

Also, your eyes still have not located the 500+ foot tall spire? After it obviously must have fallen on top of the rubble pile, proper, if indeed, it really fell and didn't undergo a telescoping, powderizing collapse. adoucette, you disappoint me. However, if you keep looking, you surely find it, if your theory is correct! Please let us know as soon as you do!

adoucette
I suspect the toilet bowls are somewhere in this HUGE heap of rubble.

User posted image

As to the spires, obviously they were not stable and broke apart as they fell. The powderizing is simply the dust hanging in the air after the supporting spire fell.

Or do you know of ANYTHING which could powerize them AFTER the collapse?

Arthur
adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 22 2005, 04:48 PM)
Did you actually try to track down the info on tritium?

If the tritium claim is true, and if it's also true that no residues of chemical explosives were ever found, I'd say that suggests that micro-nukes are a more interesting hypothesis to pursue than chemical explosives.


I will track down the Tritium claim as SOON as you provide evidence that a FUSION bomb can be set off WITHOUT a FISSION bomb as its initiator.

Arthur
yesitdid
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 22 2005, 04:48 PM)
Also, your eyes still have not located the 500+ foot tall spire? After it obviously must have fallen on top of the rubble pile, proper, if indeed, it really fell and didn't undergo a telescoping, powderizing collapse. adoucette, you disappoint me. However, if you keep looking, you surely find it, if your theory is correct! Please let us know as soon as you do!

???? Locate the remnants of the 'spire'? That would have consisted of the same structural members that the rest of the building was constructed with so just how is one supposed to identify the columns that stood for a few seconds more than the rest of the towers from those that were already on the ground.

adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 22 2005, 04:48 PM)

Also, your eyes still have not located the 500+ foot tall spire? After it obviously must have fallen on top of the rubble pile, proper, if indeed, it really fell and didn't undergo a telescoping, powderizing collapse.


Take a look at the remains of the spire to the middle to top right.

User posted image

load this image into a good viewer to show at full size.

Note damage to corner of building, also top right.

Looks like it might have been hit by a tall spire on the way down.

Arthur

You have YET to offer ANY conceivable way a spire could be "powderized" AFTER the main building collapsed.
adoucette
QUOTE (yesitdid+Nov 22 2005, 06:26 PM)

???? Locate the remnants of the 'spire'? That would have consisted of the same structural members that the rest of the building was constructed with so just how is one supposed to identify the columns that stood for a few seconds more than the rest of the towers from those that were already on the ground.

I assume they would be on top of the pile.

See previous photo, it appears that most of the spire is there. The higher levels I think went down that side street.

Arthur
metamars
(emphasis mine)
QUOTE
As to the spires, obviously they were not stable and broke apart as they fell.



That's funny, it's not at all obvious to me! And, in fact, it doesn't seem to be obvious to anybody who doesn't believe in the FEMA Fairy Tale. In fact, when you actually look at the visual evidence, it's quite clear that the spire turns to dust well before it's telescoping collapse could possibly allow the top of the spire to be anywhere near ground level.

But let's pretend that you are correct. Pray tell, how big would these pieces be? The picture of the spire's 'twin' on the left, obviously has broken. The two - count them, two - pieces you see are straight. Since the top piece (and almost certainly, the bottom one also) is obviously falling to the ground, pray tell us what happened to this large piece of column? I've eyeballed the pieces that are at highest elevation, at around 20 stories or more. Pray tell us, what would have happened to this 150 - 200 ft. piece of steel column?

Let me guess - it spontaneously breaks into smaller pieces on the way down? Is that it?

Or, does it shatter into pieces when it hits the rubble pile? Like an icycle, perhaps? Please explain this one to us!

Surely, amongst your fine collection of photographs, there has to be a picture to support your theory!

adoucette
The smallest Nuke the US ever made had a yield of (as low as) 10 tons of TNT.

There is obviously NO evidence of 20,000 lbs of high explosives going off at one time during the collapse.

Of course the bomb also created an instantly lethal dose > 10,000 rem to anyone within 500 ft and a lethal dose > 600 rem to anyone within 1,200 ft and severe radiation sickness out quite a bit further. Nothing like this was seen.

In its lowest setting (it could produce 250 tons) it was also a very dirty weapon as significanty less of the fission material was consumed in the blast.

Had this gone off in WTC they would have found EXTENSIVE fallout, and the fallout would have been widespead over NY.

In the absense of evidence to the contrary, one can assume that this would also be the smallest possible initiator for a FUSION bomb, whose minimum yield would not have left either tower standing.

Arthur
Schneibster
Most people don't know what the tritium used in a nuclear weapon is for; many aren't aware that tritium is used. Arthur, you apparently aren't aware of it either; that's OK, you'll find out all about it now. (Perhaps I'm wrong and you're merely pointing out what I'll point out at the end of this post; you're right, it is total BS, but not quite for the reasons you think.)

One of the main problems in constructing a nuclear weapon is getting the fissionable material to stay together long enough for a sizeable fraction of it to undergo fission. Fission happens at the level of a single nucleus when a neutron hits it. A fissioning nucleus releases a few neutrons, along with a lot of heat and strong gamma rays (the fission fragments carry the heat off). So as a result, because more neutrons are created than are used up, a chain reaction can form; one neutron splits an atom, which releases a few neutrons, which split a few atoms, which release more neutrons, and so forth. Despite the fact that this happens very quickly, the heat can also build up very quickly, and when the fissile material gets hot enough to vaporize before most of it has reacted, you can get a "fizzle." Fizzles are very dirty, but not very powerful. And the chance of a fizzle is much higher when a small amount of fissile material is used, rather than a relatively large amount.

That's where tritium comes in. Tritium is a hydrogen nucleus with two extra neutrons. That means that it makes a good source of neutrons. So if you use some tritium in the bomb, then you can reliably get more complete fission than you would just with the bare fissile material. When the tritium releases its neutrons, instead of just starting at a few places in the pit (the compressed core of fissile material), the chain reaction starts at many places. This makes it build up much faster, and prevents the possibility of a fizzle.

This is particularly important when dealing with a very small amount of fissile material, but is useful (for increasing the efficiency) in any fission weapon; thus, tritium is generally used in them. Using a very small ion accelerator and a metal hydride target, it is possible to ionize tritium, forming tritons, and accelerate them into the metal hydride (actually a metal tritide, technically), which causes a very small amount of fusion; this isn't enough to contribute anything to the yield of the weapon in and of itself, but it releases a s**tload of neutrons, and if it's properly aimed, it directs them into the pit (the compressed, supercritical mass of fissile material) at the moment of implosion. (It's also possible to use polonium-210, a very powerful alpha emitter, and beryllium, which captures the alpha particles and releases neutrons; however, the polonium only has a halflife of 140 days, so it must be replaced frequently, and combining the two (since it must happen just as the pit is formed, not before and not after) can be an engineering problem; tritium, on the other hand, has a halflife of many years, so it doesn't need to be replaced as often, and the ion accelerator can be controlled to the microsecond by an electric pulse, and therefore is much more widely used. Deuterium can also be used in place of the tritium in the ions, but then tritium must be used in the metal hydride; or vice-versa.)

This assembly (either polonium-210/beryllium, or tritium/metal tritide) is called an "initiator," for obvious reasons. A gun-type weapon (in which two hemispheres of fissile material are slapped and held together to form the pit) doesn't actually need an initiator (because the pit will remain for many seconds), but only uranium works in a gun-type weapon; if you have plutonium, you have to use an imploding hollow sphere to form the pit (and this method also works with uranium), and the initiator is needed because the pit doesn't last very long (milliseconds at most) and if the chain reaction doesn't start at the moment of highest compression, you'll have a fizzle. An initiator can also increase the efficiency (and therefore the yield) of a gun-type weapon, as well as making its detonation precise to the desired millisecond and allowing the chain reaction to begin when the pit is at its highest compression, which also increases the efficiency and yield.

Now, in a fusion weapon, which is far more powerful, a fission weapon is used to provide the enormous heat and pressure required to create the conditions for fusion; and fusion weapons also use tritium as a fuel for the fusion reaction. This can be a source of confusion. Now we're using tritium in two places in the weapon, for two different purposes: one as a neutron source for the initiator, and two as a fuel for the fusion reaction. But you can't make a small fusion weapon; minimum yield is on the order of 500kt, which wouldn't knock the towers over, it would vaporize them (along with a substantial portion of Manhattan island) and knock everything for tens of miles around over. So if a small nuclear weapon was used (which is impossible for other reasons that adoucette has already pointed out, and others I'll get to in a moment), it had to have been a fission weapon.

The smallest weapons ever acknowledged to have been made were the ones used in the "Davy Crockett" recoilless rifle round, which were also used in the Mk84 SADM (Small Atomic Demolition Munition), a backpack-sized device. The weight was about 50 pounds, so the device was barely man-portable, really requiring two people to carry it under practical considerations. These had a maximum yield of about 2kt. By controlling the action of the initiator, lower yields, down to about 1/4kt, were possible by not allowing complete fission of the fissile material; this was referred to as "dial-a-yield." But this of course made them very "dirty," that is, a great deal of fissile material, which is highly radioactive, would be spread about because it had not undergone fission. In other words, the smaller the yield, the "dirtier" the detonation.

There are rumors that a small "suitcase" weapon was designed and built by the former USSR KGB; due to the physics of the situation, this could not have weighed much less than the SADM, nor have been of much less yield, and at very low yield would be very "dirty," as the SADM was, and for the same reasons. Boris Putin has denied that any such was ever made; questions remain, but the physics of the situation dictate the minimum size no matter how ingenious the KGB might have been.

Now, the tritium cannot make a weapon by itself; uranium-235 or plutonium-239 is required. And whether tritium was found or not (I strongly suspect not, but that's just me), there is no claim that either uranium or plutonium were found. Not only that, but as adoucette pointed out, the buildings shared a common underground structure, and the detonation of the putative weapon under 2 WTC could hardly have been limited to its structure; 1 WTC would also have been affected, and most likely would have fallen; in addition, the physics of the collapse are that the collapse started high on the buildings, not at the bottom, so it would be a very neat piece of magic to make a detonation at the bottom initiate a collapse at the top, and a quarter-kiloton detonation at the top wouldn't collapse the top of the building, it would vaporize it.

There is, then, no realistic way for such a weapon to have been used, no realistic way involving such a weapon for tritium to have been found in the absence of plutonium or uranium, no way (realistic or not) for plutonium and uranium to have been missed if tritium was found, and no realistic way for a "micro-nuke" to be constructed in the first place. Given three total impossibilities, I don't think that there's any reason to examine this claim further; it is, as adoucette points out, "total BS."
yesitdid
QUOTE
An EMP-type phenomenon blacked out cellular phones at the moment when the first (southern) tower started to 'fall down', at the exact moment when a small thermonuclear bomb was detonated. Even in electronic cameras and videos a strange afterglow was seen in the late phase of the 'collapse' of both of the towers.


I wonder what the snapping of steel supports and other spark producing events would have as far as the production of EMP. Actually I do not wonder at all. I have witnessed a bad relay that sparked whenever it made contact wiping out a digital signal at 4 Ghz. The same would apply at 2 Ghz.

When did the cell phone tranceiver on the roof of the towers go off line, at impact or when the tower started to collapse. If it remained on until collapse then it was not EMP (how was EMP disruption determined?) but rather that any phone connection to that cell station was immediatly cut off when it lost the connection to the backbone service.
metamars
QUOTE
Take a look at the remains of the spire to the middle to top right.


Wrong. The long piece of building facade that you see fell at a 45 degree angle, and that fell on top the building that you refer to below, is obviously far too wide to be the spire.

If you mean the long "thing", that runs along the right side, slightly to the left as you look up towards the top in the photo, explain how it got underneath the piece of building noted above.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Take a look at the remains of the spire to the middle to top right.


Wrong. The long piece of building facade that you see fell at a 45 degree angle, and that fell on top the building that you refer to below, is obviously far too wide to be the spire.

If you mean the long "thing", that runs along the right side, slightly to the left as you look up towards the top in the photo, explain how it got underneath the piece of building noted above.



load this image into a good viewer to show at full size.


I did. That's how I know you're wrong.

QUOTE

Note damage to corner of building, also top right.

Looks like it might have been hit by a tall spire on the way down.



I didn't ask about A tall spire. I asked about THE tall spire. You know, the one that survived the initial demolition. Err, excuse me, collapse. tongue.gif


Perhaps you have another photograph in your wonderful collection?


yesitdid
QUOTE
A wave of pressure was witnessed in the root of the tower at the moment when the so-called collapse was progressing just about two hundred meters and nothing had fallen down to earth. The blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of the dust cloud. The burst of the dust cloud on the root of the tower was photographed as well. In the image at the left below is what probably was the explosion of WTC 6. The Customs building was deliberately exploded for some reason - it was not damaged because of the falling girders as they had not yet reached the roof of WTC 7 when the photo was taken. A couple of seconds later the clouds of the explosion were already partly above the roof of WTC 7, which was too energetical to be caused by usual blasting agents. This suggests it was the second hydrogen bomb in the WTC block. The first hydrogen bomb is discharging upwards (pulverized concrete) exactly in the picture, and the steel structures vaporized by the bomb are already falling down 100 meters (approx. 328 ft.) farther down. The mass of cloud, caused by vaporized steel, is seen in the center of the picture and even more clearly in the picture at the right.


This is simply confusing. It would be great if someone with better English skills translated for this author.

However the one line "The blast wave turned over for example a photographer and a fireman close to the entrance, who was taking photos of the dust cloud." is particularily odd. If the photographer is taking pictures of a dust cloud then this is obviously AFTER the collapse!
Schneibster
Now they're just gettin' WACKY.

"What fnord spire? I don't fnord see any spire fnord."

"Micro-nukes! It was micro-nukes! They found tritium!"

Maybe teh a1i3n2 did it. Sure, sure, that was it- they tried to anal-probe teh terr5its and set off a nucular expulozion.

C'mon. Let's try to stay in the realm of at least SANITY, if not CREDIBILITY- if you CAN, that is.
adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 22 2005, 06:57 PM)
Wrong. The long piece of building facade that you see fell at a 45 degree angle, and that fell on top the building that you refer to below, is obviously far too wide to be the spire.


What does the angle have to do with it?

The top could have snapped off and fell while the bottom, more firmly anchored fell at an angle.

Give me a break.

What condition do you expect this spire to be in after the fall?

Pristine it won't be.

And come on, you have YET to mention ANYTHING which can vaporize steel columns, AFTER the main collapse.

Arthur
adoucette
Schneibster,

I was unaware that Tritium is used in a Fusion bomb.

Thanks for the detailed description.

Let me ask a logical question though. Assuming that Tritium was used in a nuclear fusion device, that would put it at the center of the reaction, as you described it is also, at least partly, consumed as part of the chain reaction.

Considering that the smallest nuke weighs in at ~50 lbs, one would assume that most of it would be fissile material, initiator, power supply, casing etc, thus the assumption is the amount of Tritium would be quite minor.

Assuming that is correct what would be the chances of finding ANY tritium after said explosion?

Arthur
metamars
QUOTE
Most people don't know what the tritium used in a nuclear weapon is for; many aren't aware that tritium is used.


etc.

Well, thank you for this post. This is certainly an example where you are contributing to this thread in a way that few, if any, others are contributing.

Thinking out of the box which you have sketched, I can still rather easily think of an approach to triggering a fusion bomb, of the 'right' size without a fission trigger. I will not, however, post this idea. While my ignorance of the requisite physics may be obscuring obvious (to others) obstacles with my idea, I can live with that. The last thing I want to do is give any wack-jobs with a technical bent any ideas.

While I have essentially no doubt that 911 was government sposored terrorism, my attempts to shine a light on their evil deeds would be contradicted if I somehow enabled "real", non-governmental terrorists.

Thus, unlike Schneibster, I will not drop the micro-fusion-nuke hypothesis, even if I don't care to speculate as to too many details of implementation.

If anybody has time to burn, please consider tracking down the U Cal tritium story, as well as blast characteristics of a micro-fusion-nuke, should such an object be feasible. Vialls' paper, e.g., described a flash. While there was a weird illumination on 911 following the collapse of the towers, proper, that was certainly no nuclear weapon flash. So, one question I have is, with a small enough micro-fusion-nuke, do you have to have a flash?

Guest
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 22 2005, 06:53 PM)
Boris Putin has denied that any such was ever made...

Would this be Vladimir Boris Yeltsin Putin?
adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 22 2005, 08:23 PM)
If anybody has time to burn, please consider tracking down the U Cal tritium story, as well as blast characteristics of a micro-fusion-nuke, should such an object be feasible. Vialls' paper, e.g., described a flash. While there was a weird illumination on 911 following the collapse of the towers, proper, that was certainly no nuclear weapon flash. So, one question I have is, with a small enough micro-fusion-nuke, do you have to have a flash?

Yeah, sure you've figured out how to make a Hydrogen bomb without a Fission trigger. Damn sure glad you didn't post it. Kids would be making them in their basement.

Get real.

Time to burn, hardly, type in "WTC Tritium" and poof:

http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcont...78&context=lbnl

Turns out the Tritium came from the exit signs on the planes, tritium sights on guns and peoples watches.

Next WACKY idea.

Arthur
Guest
Hi Guys!

Another couple of (hopefully helpful) observations:-

(1) Regarding Radioactivity/isotopes: Has it occurred to anyone just how MUCH/MANY RADIO-ISOTOPES are in 'GENERAL' use today? That is, in 'consumer', 'medical'/'consumer/office/industry' materials/equipment/gadgets-----AS WELL AS FIRE DETECTORS & EQUIPMENT in the towers and surrounding buildings/businesses?

Knowing this widespread use of such material nowadays, I would have thought it would have been MORE 'remarkable' if at least SOME small indicators of 'readioactivity' had NOT been present after the wholesale 'compromising' of whatever 'containment' these 'everyday use' isotopes previously had!

(2) Regarding 'collateral damage' to surrounding WTC buildings: People seem to be 'limiting' the collateral-damage EVENTS to just the 'collapse' phase. I hope no-one is seriously excluding the possibility that SOME collateral damage might ALSO have occurred EARLIER, from the IMPACT/EXPLOSIVE-FIREBALL 'explosive-burning' debris ejected AT TIME OF PLANE IMPACT. Long BEFORE damage from global collapse, there MUST have been SOME 'collateral-building' fires/damage that were ADDED TO by 'collapse-debris' scattering.

Gotta go now. I wish you all good luck and good manners, guys! Ciao.

RealityCheck.
.
adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 22 2005, 03:02 PM)
To make explicit Hoffman's thought process: since nearly all the non-steel content was turned to powder, an approximation of 100% is quite reasonable. If you wish to show that this is a bad approximation, please make your own, based on the photographic (in toto, of course) and eyewitness testimony, and then plug this number into model. Does it change the result? (Hint: correct answer is "no")



Hoffman makes FOUR key assumptions.

One, that 100 % of the concrete was pulverized

Two, that 100 % of the concrete was pulverized to an average 60 micron size

Three, that 100% of the concrete was heated to 1020 K

Four, that the expansion of the cloud was due to heating


One, patently false and as it applies to number 2

Two, unproven, and a gross assumption based on tests of distant fallout, ignoring the HUGE pile of rubble at or near ground zero

Three, unproven, but also unlikely, if so then no one would have walked on that rubble pile for weeks and we wouldn't see steel beams with primer still attached.

Four, unproven, but also unlikely, consider the dynamic forces at play as that much air gets expelled from the building. We see similar dust clouds from other buildings that fall that are nowhere near the size of the WTC.

Arthur
RealityCheck
Hi everyone.

That last Guest was me of course. Just goes to show how rushed I am at the moment!

RC.
.PS: G'day adoucette!
Dillon
I'm sick and tired of these conspiracy nuts.

Admit it, the ragheads did it. It's as simple as that. If you idiots can't seem to understand this simple simple fact, then it goes to show you aren't real Americans and are liars.

Shneibster is right and he has yet to post anything false. The conspiracy nuts on the otherhand make impossible claims such as controlled demolitions and mini nukes.

I bet all these conspiracy nuts are all but one person. Metamars Fractuer Foxxx and whoever is the same person.
Schneibster
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 22 2005, 07:46 PM)
Schneibster,

I was unaware that Tritium is used in a Fusion bomb.

Thanks for the detailed description.

Let me ask a logical question though. Assuming that Tritium was used in a nuclear fusion device, that would put it at the center of the reaction, as you described it is also, at least partly, consumed as part of the chain reaction.

Considering that the smallest nuke weighs in at ~50 lbs, one would assume that most of it would be fissile material, initiator, power supply, casing etc, thus the assumption is the amount of Tritium would be quite minor.

Assuming that is correct what would be the chances of finding ANY tritium after said explosion?

Arthur

Heh, we have a terminology problem.

"Fission" happens with heavy elements, like plutonium and uranium, whose nuclei are split into smaller fragments; "Fusion" happens when the nuclei of light elements like hydrogen and helium are combined into heavier nuclei. Most fusion involves hydrogen and its isotopes deuterium and tritium. When this kind of fusion happens, particularly when it involves tritium, there is a release of excess neutrons.

A bomb made using one of these methods is called a "nuclear weapon," or "device."

Now, a fission device is an "atomic bomb," in common parlance; a fusion device is a "hydrogen bomb." The second is FAR more powerful than the first.

Fission bombs of certain design require a neutron source; and tritium makes an excellent source of neutrons. And any fission bomb will benefit from such a source. So neutron sources are generally used in fission devices, and since tritium is the easiest to handle, it's very common, almost ubiquitous. The process in which tritium is used to produce neutrons is fusion; however, it's a very tiny amount, and doesn't contribute to the yield of the fission device.

Fusion bombs require light element fuel, such as hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, and lithium. They also require a strong source of heat and pressure, because the fusion reaction is thermonuclear; that is, it proceeds only under extreme heat and pressure. Thus, "hydrogen bombs" are also sometimes referred to as "thermonuclear." And all fusion devices require a fission device to "light them off," that is, provide the enormous temperatures and pressures required for the thermonuclear reaction to proceed. IF it happens that the fusion device uses tritium, then you might find quite a lot of it around; on the other hand, it is possible (and efficient) to use deuterium and lithium-6 exclusively, and there would in this case be almost no tritium. Finally, tritium can be formed in some fusion reactions, so there might be some from that even if there were none in the fusion fuel. I'll point out again, however, that fusion reactions are extremely powerful; minimum yield is in the neighborhood of half a megaton.

Very small fusion reactions inside a fission device can be used to construct the infamous "neutron bomb," but of course, everyone in the area would have died of radiation poisoning from that, and everyone who went into the area for several days afterward as well, and that didn't happen.

The neutron source in a fission device is relatively close to the pit, but not in it; it projects neutrons into the pit. So it's next to it, but far enough away not to be destroyed by the detonation of the chemical explosives that drive either the gun or the implosion before it has the time to inject the neutrons. A few inches, I'd say. Far enough that the neutrons, which are unaffected by the blast wave, are emitted before the initiator is destroyed by the blast wave. But obviously, all parts of the bomb will be vaporized, unless it is a fizzle, and even then it is unlikely that any parts would survive as other than vapor deposited on surrounding surfaces.

With mass spectrometry, and enough time and material to do it properly, the presence of the amount of tritium that would be left over after detonation could be verified; in addition, tritium's radioactivity is of unique spectrum, as the radioactivity of most radioisotopes is.

However, finding tritium and NOT FINDING PLUTONIUM OR URANIUM is not merely unlikely but ludicrous, since there would be far more unexpended plutonium or uranium EVEN FROM A PERFECTLY FUNCTIONING WEAPON than there would be tritium, and from a "dial-a-yield" device dialed down, the amount would be overwhelming, and highly radioactive (and thus far more easily detected than the tritium).

It remains ridiculous to assert that "micro-nukes" were used; don't worry, adoucette, there's no holes in it. I was and am being pedantic, since I have about as detailed a knowledge as it is practical for a civilian who is not involved in nuclear weapon design to obtain. All of what I have said here is available to the diligent in the library and on the 'Net, in open documents; none of it is secret or concealed. The principles are well-known; it is the execution of the engineering that is the difficult part.
Schneibster
QUOTE (Guest+Nov 22 2005, 09:16 PM)
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 22 2005, 06:53 PM)
Boris Putin has denied that any such was ever made...

Would this be Vladimir Boris Yeltsin Putin?

Guess I got confused- Vladimir Putin, of course. See the Wikipedia article (Wikipedia is currently down so google "wikipedia suitcase bomb" and look at the cached copy, or if Wikipedia is back up by the time you get to this, simply look at the article of that title).
adoucette
QUOTE (Schneibster+Nov 22 2005, 10:19 PM)
Heh, we have a terminology problem.


And I had been careful in keeping Fusion and Fission straight,

Up until that post,

I'd blame it on my typists (Hunt and Peck) but it was just a brain fart.

But to get to the meat of the argument, excepting that someone with the huge intellect of Metamars has come up with a means of creating a fusion reaction without a fission device, there is no way any nuke could have been detonated without detection.

Further, even if a fusion device was available without a fission initiator, there is no way a nuke of even the minimal yield could have caused the collapse in the manner in which it progressed.

Arthur
Schneibster
Micro-fusion??? You've GOT to be kidding. First, all of the "small fusion" devices known don't fuse enough material to make a bomb. Second, if they did fuse enough material, their reactions don't proceed fast enough to explode as you are assuming. Third, such a device would provide the solution to every energy problem we have ever had or ever will, and anybody who could build it would not only be rich beyond the dreams of Midas, but a national hero as well. Think somebody wouldn't see the political advantages, not to mention the social, cultural, military, technological, and financial advantages? If we had this, there wouldn't BE a Middle East crisis; nobody would CARE about the Middle East. We'd ALL be rich beyond the dreams of Midas. Fourth, by what means are the enormous temperatures and pressures needed to produce not merely fusion, but fusion of enough material fast enough to produce a BOMB, as opposed to a POWER SOURCE, to be produced, without the use of a fission device? Even if THAT problem had a solution, we'd have technology that couldn't be beat for a hundred years WITHOUT fusion.

This is wilder than the last one, by quite a lot.

Give it up; there weren't any "micro-nukes." There AREN'T any "micro-nukes," and there likely WON'T EVER BE any "micro-nukes." Once you can do THAT, there are far more effective things to do with it than make bombs.
zoktoberfest
Quote; IMAGINATION IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN KNOWLEDGE------Albert Einstein

I've said it before and I'll say it again, Schneibster is knowledgeable. The compliments abruptly end there. He's also mentally bound, like the proverbial weight lifter who works out too much, with too many steroids and thus becomes petrified through his own success.--- We are discussing the after math of a crime scene. The "official" perpetrators are dead. The weapons and all traces of evidence were compromised in the act and prematurely removed. There was no CSI. The circumstances were unprecedented and therefore not easily conducive to comparative analysis. It's impractical, to say the least, that the crime scene could ever be re-enacted. So, what's left? Speculation!-- ooh--- Thinking outside the box is frightening and I dare say uncomfortable to people like Schneibster. He's all button down and uptight. He's the guy who at a lazy, Sunday picnic is walking around menacingly with a base ball bat. Who's payroll are you on dude??? I'm a recreational, forum participant. I'm experiencing some down time and I'm polishing up my technical writing skills while contributing when possible to a subject, I find interesting. You would think that a guy with skills as deep as Schneibsters' would be immersed in engaging employment instead of coming here to swat flies with a flame thrower. Don't you get it; the American people excepted the JFK assassination story and they will except the 911 story. As arthur implied, the red flags we are throwing down in absentia are about as threatening as a bee-bee gun is to a tank. The American people need to believe that there best interests are being looked after. If and when they detect a "drift" some react but most go into denial like the mother of a troubled son. The family, the neighbors, the school and the police all know that he's not right but to momma, he'll ALWAYS be her good little boy. The official 911 story will stand the test of time no matter how many holes we punch through it. Not accepting it would instigate nothing short of a collective, national, nervous breakdown.
Schneibster
As far as imagination goes, I suggest you don't what imagination IS, zoktober. It's what fuels realistic speculation; but it isn't necessarily realistic itself. You have to take what it comes up with and fit it to the real world for it to be useful. I could imagine that we're all being sekritly controlled by reptilian aliens (and in fact, there is an individual who does), but that doesn't make it SO. You have to compare it to the real world, and to do that you have to actually know how the real world works. And particularly for wild speculations, you have to know quite a lot about how the real world works; and I'm interested in some pretty wild ones. But not just as fiction; I want to be able to find the ones that ACTUALLY MIGHT BE TRUE. And that means I have to be able to weed out the ones that are EASILY PROVEN FALSE.

That's a major distinction between HAVING imagination, and USING it, one that people who don't know how to USE it often fail to recognize or acknowledge. Like you, for instance.

As far as employment goes, I've got plenty of free time on my hands waiting for various things to complete themselves and provide the next thing I have to work on; you might want to look up what I do for a living before you start shootin' off yer yap.

As far as my employer, I don't care to have my personal information revealed on the open 'Net, as has been done to others here; it's a personal choice, for which I make no apology nor ever will. If the reasons aren't clear to you, well, I guess that would be a failure of imagination on YOUR part, wouldn't it?

As far as being mentally bound, you mean to the REAL WORLD as opposed to my speculations? Well, yeah; most SANE people are.

I suggest you employ your trolling elsewhere; you seem to be failing miserably here. Do you, perchance, have some PHYSICS to contribute to the BASIC PHYSICS thread on the PHYSICS site?
Schneibster
adoucette, cool. Just making sure it's all accurate and people know how this stuff really works, as opposed to certain other individuals' wild speculations and claims of sekrit knowledge.
bolt
QUOTE (shneibster+)
As far as employment goes, I've got plenty of free time on my hands waiting for various things to complete themselves and provide the next thing I have to work on; you might want to look up what I do for a living before you start shootin' off yer yap.


Well...I for one find your extreme persistence in this thread rather odd to say the least. You seem to be spending a great deal of time trying to debunk every conspiracy theory about 9/11 (and this is a clear pattern amongst many defenders of the official story all over the internet). And you have been doing this day in and day out (for weeks). That type of persistence is for the most part, a characteristic that is usually only common when a profession is undertaken.
Schneibster
I want to KNOW, insofar as it is possible to do so given I can't go to the site myself and look for myself and perform tests on the debris myself and interview the witnesses myself, one way or the other. Currently, I have an opinion, which I have already expressed, and it is supported by all the reliable evidence I have been able to gather; but I'm still looking to make sure that I didn't miss something.

I find it incredibly irritating to have to read through a bunch of horsepucky that is posted by people with a political agenda to pursue in order to see if they've stumbled across something I haven't seen that might change my opinion, and even more irritating when I've done as much research as I have, to have these same credulous idiots, totally incapable of critically examining the data they have or any more they might get, become insulting when I reject their claims on real-world grounds. But I have to keep looking, for a while longer, to make sure I didn't miss something. I'll grow tired of it eventually and stop. For the moment, I have to wade through a pile of s**t in order to see if there's anything besides s**t in it. I don't, however, have to like it, and I don't have to be polite to people who keep picking up turds and claiming they're solid gold and insulting me when I observe that they're obviously turds when you cut them in half. Pardon me if I am less than entirely polite, or even tolerable, when my irritation overcomes my good judgement.

I also have a political agenda in this activity: I already have the opinion that this administration was INVOLVED, however, not at the level most of the "conspiracy theorists" seem to believe. Nevertheless, if I could come across further evidence either that they WERE involved in the way I think, or evidence that they were involved more directly than it is my opinion they were at this time, it would forward my POLITICAL agenda. On the other hand, if I come across proof they were NOT involved, that might change my agenda somewhat (although after the bungling (Katrina, Iraq, the economy, the "western energy crisis," Enron) and outright dishonesty (two apparently stolen elections, numerous lies about what evidence was available to show what happened in various circumstances and what we should do about it, numerous short-sighted policies pursued that have made most peoples' problems worse but benefitted minorities who already had plenty of benefit) I've witnessed, I'm not sure how or how much).

But to allow that agenda to dictate my opinion would be the worst kind of fallacy. Worst of all, it could BLIND me to what I'm ACTUALLY LOOKING FOR. And these self-same credulous idiots push everyone around them to surrender to THEIR agenda and believe things because they WANT them to be so, rather than because there is EVIDENCE to suggest they are so. This is a threat to my objectivity, because, you see, I'd really like to do precisely that if I weren't so interested in finding out what REALLY happened. And when I was younger, I might have done just exactly that. But I got older and (I hope) wiser, and decided really knowing is better than just believing. So onward I plod. For now.

What's YOUR agenda, friend?
bolt
Shneibster, perhaps you are as you say, someone who doesn't trust the government. But the condescension you display in these discussions towards your opponents is evident as well. Looking at the progression of this thread, I have noticed more people bringing out far more credible references than you have provided for your own "opinion". Yet despite the amount of credible references they continue to provide to this discussion, you have completely ignored them as if to say your own arguements are beyond compromise. Now wouldn't this be a sign of arrogance in your part?

How can you say that you are against the government to some degree, but at the same time, clearly reject every single anti-official 9/11 report reference in this entire discussion? Are you telling us that all the anti-official story sources in this discussion are false? If you think that way, then wouldn't it be more suitable to call yourself a persistent defender of the official story instead?

You may say that you do not trust the goverment, but all I see from you is that you are clearly and vigorously defending the official story to the highest extent possible. Your condescension and name-calling towards your opposition does not help your cause to appear more objective as well. Certainly, if you took a more objective point of view, then by now (after all the sources that have been provided in this debate) that you would have at least opened up to some of those references. If you truly are "objective" as you say, then you are making it extremely difficult for us to notice it in your posts.
Schneibster
QUOTE (bolt+)
I have noticed more people bringing out far more credible references than you have provided for your own "opinion". Yet despite the amount of credible references they continue to provide to this discussion, you have completely ignored them as if to say your own arguements are beyond compromise.
First, credible according to whom? Second, why do you assume it's the first time I've seen them?

Did it ever occur to you that I might have been doing this a lot longer than I've been on this thread? Particularly considering as how I stated I had, quite clearly and quite early? Do you suppose I just might have seen a great deal of the evidence before I even got here?

And given that I know a lot of physics and other physical sciences, don't you think I might have a rather more stringent definition of "credible" than you do? Not to be insulting; I rarely meet anyone who knows as much about the physical sciences as I do who is not a professional scientist, so it's certainly no insult to guess you might not, particularly when you make the point you do. I have an abiding fascination with the physical sciences, and I have pursued it for many years, and I have a good memory and an extensive library.

QUOTE (bolt+)
How can you say that you are against the government to some degree, but at the same time, clearly reject every single anti-official 9/11 report reference in this entire discussion?
Because I haven't found any that are credible; i.e., that don't violate known physical law, or contradict information from more reliable sources. The vast majority contradict known physical law; it's the area that the least number of people are qualified to examine, and therefore the most likely to be either mistaken or taken advantage of by the unscrupulous. As the large number of scams involving perpetual motion show. And they never stop coming, either. Seems week by week there's a new one going, and a new bunch of suckers "investing" in it. Like P.T. Barnum famously said, "there's a sucker born every minute."

QUOTE (bolt+)
Are you telling us that all the anti-official story sources in this discussion are false?
All I've seen so far, yes. Got something new?

QUOTE (bolt+)
If you think that way, then wouldn't it be more suitable to call yourself a persistent defender of the official story instead?
I'm not defending anything; I am in fact looking actively for credible evidence that I'm wrong. Got something new?

Meanwhile, I don't buy the official story, if by "official story" you mean that OBL woke up one fine day and hatched a plot to crash airliners into buildings in the US and did it with his ten bestest Al CIAda buddies providing the planning and the money, and it just happened that there was an exercise precisely calculated to thwart the response the very day they carried it out, no, I don't buy that.

On the other hand, I do buy that nothing beyond airplanes was required, with the exception of the planning, money, personnel, and skulduggery. It's a classic op, with complete compartmentalization, complete deniability, and no threads leading back to the real perpetrators. Why screw it up with demolition explosives? It's not merely incredible (i.e., un-credible), but stupid beyond words.

In addition, considering the crap I have seen Karl Rove do, I don't put it beyond him (or someone thinking like him) to start a bunch of FUD about demolitions in order to screen out the fact that such an op is not merely credible, but has motive, means, and opportunity to help support it. And here we are, everybody dismisses the "conspiracy theorists," throwing the baby out with the bathwater (the evidence of actual conspiracy out with the faked evidence of demolitions). Gee, what do you know? Isn't it interesting that it should work like that. And just enough withheld information by the FBI, and cutesie little Popular Mechnics and Scientific American articles with technical mistakes, to help promote this nice little piece of disinformation, too. My, how convenient. Isn't that interesting. Now how do you suppose that happened? Gee, I haven't a clue.

It's called "framing the debate." You might want to read up on that if you oppose the current administration.

QUOTE (bolt+)
all I see from you is that you are clearly and vigorously defending the official story to the highest extent possible
Oh, really? My goodness, how underhanded of me. Gee, I guess saying that I think they planned and funded it fits right in with that "highest extent possible," doesn't it? Particularly considering there IS evidence to give means, motive, and opportunity to THAT theory, as opposed to stupid demolition theories that deny physical law.

QUOTE (bolt+)
Your condescension and name-calling towards your opposition does not help your cause to appear more objective as well.
I'm not interested in "appearing objective;" I'm interested in gathering information. I don't care what you think, and as far as I'm concerned, it's just as likely that you're perpetuating the smokescreen as that you're some sort of disinterested observer. I don't give a s**t what you or anyone else but myself thinks of the evidence. Opinons are like a**holes: everybody's got one, and they all stink. Evidence, on the other hand, is rare and difficult to obtain.

QUOTE (bolt+)
Certainly, if you took a more objective point of view, then by now (after all the sources that have been provided in this debate) that you would have at least opened up to some of those references.
You assume, erroneously, that I have not. I deliberately shut up for quite a while after stirring the pot to see what would turn up. It's all there in black and white. Nothing turned up; at least nothing I hadn't seen before.

If you've got some evidence to present, present it. Again, got something new?

Like I said, what's YOUR agenda, friend? Since I don't see any new information, it kind of limits my guesses a bit, no?
bolt
I have no agenda. All I want is to research and find the truth. I came to this thread to study the information given. Also keep in mind that just like many other people here, I continue to notice your arrogance and condescension towards opposing points. You simply don't know how to take criticism.

Your arrogance is apparent as you seem to be highly confrontational towards anyone who doesn't seem to see things the same way you do. You love to gloat about your "Expertise" and "Experience" but yet, at the same time, never provide us with concrete evidence except giving us your word that you are an "Expert" and such. That is the only basis of your arguements in this discussion. All you do is repeat your arguments and advertise that you are an expert. And because you are arrogant about your "expertise" you fail to see the potential credibility of arguements that do not necessarily comply to your "knowledge".

Whoever made you the sole judge of your oppositions' arguements and decide whether they are credible or not? Who are you? Where are your credentials? Why do you continue to claim that you are "far more experienced" than anyone else here and that you are a highly "credible" expert? Why do you claim to "KNOW" that you are right and other's are automatically wrong? Is your "knowledge" more credible than their "knowledge" just because you keep on claiming that you are so wise and experienced and such? Your oppositions continue to provide numerous sources, while all you do is give us your word that you are an "expert".

Furthermore, since you refuse to provide your credentials, then all your claims are basically unconfirmed now isn't it? On top of that, you are arrogant and unable to take objective criticism from others. In fact, you have already made the early commitment to decide that you are right and that your oppositions are automatically wrong. That is a very flawed approach to debating and is self-righteous at best. You have made the decision to falsely believe that all your oppositions arguements have been debunked already. However, you are unaware that many still do not share your points of view. You are self-righteous at best.

If you are unwilling to provide your credentials, then please DO NOT proclaim that you are an "expert", otherwise, the debate will inevitably demand for your evidence . You will only put yourself in a vulnerable position and I believe that you have already done that.
RealityCheck
Hello bolt.

Perhaps you may be missing the point of what 'scientific debate' is all about....namely that it is the 'objective information provided' that 'speaks' to all participants in these science forums, not the provider. It is then fair to apply 'validity/veracity' tests to that information by your own information, which will also face the same tests by participants. Putting and rebutting is done by 'information transfer', not ny innuendo. So far Schneibster has presented MOST of the 'objective information' with the LEAST of 'unsubstantiated opinions' than anyone here. The same cannot be said for all other participants in this thread.

For example, there seems to be 'zero objective information' in your own posts so far; as they mainly consist of disparaging remarks against the poster with MOST 'objective' information presented in support of his observations/stance. Perhaps you should apply the same 'test' to 'the other side' posters as you do to Schneibster. Do it criterion by criterion according to your 'good'/'bad' assessment and then present your findings in a consistent and specific manner, rather than in an unsubstantiated fahion as you are doing now. Otherwise, how do you expect anyone to even consider what you are saying is 'objective' rather than 'agenda-driven'?

Good luck, all the way from 'Down Under', you guys!

RealityCheck.
.
zoktoberfest
Schneibster;

Your must realize that you are coming across, as among other things, an unpredictable entity. You've been engaging in vicious hand to hand combat for the entire thread and NOW you reveal, out of the blue, your complete antipathy toward our government. But you've attacked others who are implying, more or less, the same thing with "WHAT"S YOUR AGENDA???" among other expressions. Don't you understand that you just short circuited the path some people in this thread have been on from the beginning. Step A: Prove that the buildings were brought down by means other that a plane. Step: B: allow the ensuing mass condemnation to expose the grotesque malignancies with in our government. You will never get to step B without an equivalency to step A. The American people have been brainwashed into a very deep sleep. Where else can you find a wake up call of that magnitude?
bolt
QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
So far Schneibster has presented MOST of the 'objective information' with the LEAST of 'unsubstantiated opinions' than anyone here. The same cannot be said for all other participants in this thread.


What "objective information" has he actually provided? All he does is give us his lengthy word that he is "far more experienced" than anyone else in this debate and then at the same time, saying that he presents "Knowledge" and that other people's arguements are nothing but "ridiculous" conjecture. Let's not forget that he does not even give sources. All he does is give us his repetitive proclamation that he is an "expert" and such.

Also, why do you favor him the most? Based on your post above, you have elevated him above everyone else in this thread. Despite the fact that there a few others who also share his point of view. How come you didn't include them as well?
yesitdid
All the administration needed to say on 9/11 was that planes were hijacked and that no one was claiming responsibility. That way they could blame whoever they wanted to. This would certainly get them into Iraq sooner.
You see IF 9/11 was done in order to get a war with Saddam Hussein then it was quite the convoluted path that was taken to get from 9/11 attacks to war with Iraq.

In fact the whole of the non-believer's in the official theory take on the attacks of 9/11 tends to allow for such complicated, convoluted, Rube-Goldberg type machinations.

The towers were blasted to bits rather than simply imploded, the towers had the cover story of aircraft impact but WTC7 didn't because the other two aircraft and the falling towers would cover that., WTC 7 was demolished in order to maximize insurance claims for Larry Silverstein which means that a real estate developer and property manager was let in on the most secret black op ever conceived, four hijacked planes but at least one was caused to disappear and was substituted with a smaller jet full of explosives(or a missile, or a Global Hawk), weapons worthy of a sci-fi novel being invoked.

All of these represent a huge investment in making the plan of attack much more complicated and involving more people. This flies in the face of the fact that anyone from an office of power in the USA (or for that matter Israel,since that country does come up in some hypothesis) simply had to keep this operation as simple and as secret as could possibly be managed. In fact the very simplest way to accomplish this would be to allow a terrorist group that had already hatched the plan to get through and hijack some planes and fly them into buildings.

That is the LIHOP(Let It Happen On Purpose) style of conspiracy theory. Frankly it has a lot more to back it up than the MIHOP(Made It Happen On Purpose) theories. Yet what permeates the community that does not believe the official theory of the attacks of 9/11? Various and myriad MIHOP conspiracies, and little is heard about any LIHOP theories.

This, to my mind, says a lot about the psyche of those who are promoting gov't involvement in 9/11. It says that conspiracy by TPTB must be found at any cost, that any tiny unexplained detail must be blown up("Pull it", large dust clouds, and conflicting eyewitness accounts for example) and then claimed to be the smoking gun evidence of gov't MIHOP.



Now I don't entirely buy the LIHOP theory either and I have no problem believing that BinLaden's Al-Qeada is a truly anti-American, Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organization that has declared war on the USA and the non-Islamic west. Yes Bin Laden accepted weapons from the CIA when he was fighting the Russians. That does not mean he liked Americans nor that the CIA thought he was a great guy. They simply had a common enemy, they could use each other. Same goes for Hussein. He got weapons from the USA when he was fighting Iran. The USA had reason to want to punish Iran but Hussein did not like the US(because of US backing of Israel for one thing) and the USA had no love for such a brutal dictator. The USA has a long record of using brutal dictators as proxy fighters against what the USA deems a threat but doesn't necessarily love them.
metamars
QUOTE
How can you say that you are against the government to some degree, but at the same time, clearly reject every single anti-official 9/11 report reference in this entire discussion?


I wouldn't sweat one person's opinion, even if they have a technical background.


It's rather obvious that Schneibster and adoucette are "popes" - they are infallible, and thus cannot admit error (except for typos, misspeaking, and such), nor will they ever concede that there is glaring evidence directly contradicting their beliefs. So, if you present evidence of truly strange phenomena which point anywhere but to the government Fairy Tales - as in 500+ feet of evidence in the case of the telescoping, powderizing spire, which was pointed out to them, once again, in the very recent past - none of that matters. Their eyes cannot see it or, if they can, things are not as they appear, but something else entirely.

And if you present mundane but equally glaring evidence showing their position is untenable, the result will be exactly the same.

Tell me, if there had been a 1000 foot spire which survived the initial collapse, and if it stood for a day, and THEN underwent a telescoping, powderizing collapse, caught on video and camera from multiple angles, do you really think they would find anything in that to change their minds? I sure don't. They would just say, "well, it OBVIOUSLY fell into pieces", or something equally ludicrous.

You will just have to take Schneibster and adoucette (and their ilk) exactly as they are. Some "popes" do make some positive contributions, to be sure. Carlos Merida, the great Mexican (originally from Guatemala, IIRC) , noted that when engaged in a creative process, it is necessary to "decant" - i.e., don't pour out any vile flotsam and jetsam from your soul, but only what is worthwhile. I suggest you do something similar with people who disagree with you - look to see if their arguments have any merit, and either ignore the ones that don't, or at least don't get worked up over them. Life is too short.

Note well: if you want the input of technical people, in any significant numbers, you aren't going to get it here.

BUT
, the chances are that, if you are in the US, there is a college with a physics and engineering department not more than a 3 hour drive (just guessing at this figure - I live in a highly populated state) . Why not take evidence and technical analyses to them, and see what they say? You can then help introduce more insight into this forum (by posting what you come up with), from people who at least have the technical background which makes their input of more value. And, at the same time, you can help spread awareness of the official Fairy Tales being just that

Plus, you at least have the chance of being pleasantly surprised. Schneibster is quite predictable, as you have noticed, and other posters are equally so.


There is another reason to do this: it very likely that they have never heard serious arguments and evidence of demolition. My guess is that only 1% of physicists know about Jones' paper. I did a search at physicstoday.com for Steven Jones and came up with exactly nothing.


Should you decide to do this, I recommend printing out Professor Steven E. Jones' paper, Hoffman's paper, and also the Trumpman paper. None of these offer much in the way of engineering, but the physics arguments presented, both qualitative and quantitative, should impress any open minded physicist or other physical scientist.

Indeed, this is exactly what happened after Professor Steven E. Jones presented a talk at BYU. The results bear repeating:


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
How can you say that you are against the government to some degree, but at the same time, clearly reject every single anti-official 9/11 report reference in this entire discussion?


I wouldn't sweat one person's opinion, even if they have a technical background.


It's rather obvious that Schneibster and adoucette are "popes" - they are infallible, and thus cannot admit error (except for typos, misspeaking, and such), nor will they ever concede that there is glaring evidence directly contradicting their beliefs. So, if you present evidence of truly strange phenomena which point anywhere but to the government Fairy Tales - as in 500+ feet of evidence in the case of the telescoping, powderizing spire, which was pointed out to them, once again, in the very recent past - none of that matters. Their eyes cannot see it or, if they can, things are not as they appear, but something else entirely.

And if you present mundane but equally glaring evidence showing their position is untenable, the result will be exactly the same.

Tell me, if there had been a 1000 foot spire which survived the initial collapse, and if it stood for a day, and THEN underwent a telescoping, powderizing collapse, caught on video and camera from multiple angles, do you really think they would find anything in that to change their minds? I sure don't. They would just say, "well, it OBVIOUSLY fell into pieces", or something equally ludicrous.

You will just have to take Schneibster and adoucette (and their ilk) exactly as they are. Some "popes" do make some positive contributions, to be sure. Carlos Merida, the great Mexican (originally from Guatemala, IIRC) , noted that when engaged in a creative process, it is necessary to "decant" - i.e., don't pour out any vile flotsam and jetsam from your soul, but only what is worthwhile. I suggest you do something similar with people who disagree with you - look to see if their arguments have any merit, and either ignore the ones that don't, or at least don't get worked up over them. Life is too short.

Note well: if you want the input of technical people, in any significant numbers, you aren't going to get it here.

BUT
, the chances are that, if you are in the US, there is a college with a physics and engineering department not more than a 3 hour drive (just guessing at this figure - I live in a highly populated state) . Why not take evidence and technical analyses to them, and see what they say? You can then help introduce more insight into this forum (by posting what you come up with), from people who at least have the technical background which makes their input of more value. And, at the same time, you can help spread awareness of the official Fairy Tales being just that

Plus, you at least have the chance of being pleasantly surprised. Schneibster is quite predictable, as you have noticed, and other posters are equally so.


There is another reason to do this: it very likely that they have never heard serious arguments and evidence of demolition. My guess is that only 1% of physicists know about Jones' paper. I did a search at physicstoday.com for Steven Jones and came up with exactly nothing.


Should you decide to do this, I recommend printing out Professor Steven E. Jones' paper, Hoffman's paper, and also the Trumpman paper. None of these offer much in the way of engineering, but the physics arguments presented, both qualitative and quantitative, should impress any open minded physicist or other physical scientist.

Indeed, this is exactly what happened after Professor Steven E. Jones presented a talk at BYU. The results bear repeating:




Yes, I did present a seminar on the puzzling collapse of WTC-7 and other 9-11 anomalies, on 9-22-05. Sorry I don't have time to post very often, but this from an email I sent out to colleagues on 9-23-5:


Approximately 50 were in attendance, with representatives from the following Brigham Young University and UVSC (Utah Valley St. College) departments:

Physics, Civil Eng., Mechanical Eng., EE, Geology, Psychology, Mathematics. There were several I did not recognize, so other departments were probably represented also. I’ve had particularly encouraging comments from four Physics Profs. and a Math Prof especially, and one of the psychology profs., himself an active democrat...



As you can imagine, there was considerable hostility especially at first. A lot of questions – which I fielded throughout the presentation.

The EE Prof. emailed me before the seminar that this was all “conspiracy theory” and “claptrap.” However, he did – to his credit – look at the website referenced in a previous email, which is Jim Hoffman’s site. <http://911research.wtc7.net/sitemap.html >



During the seminar, it was clear he -- and many others -- were coming around. He admitted that the collapse of WTC 7 was VERY strange, very hard to explain as due to fires. And he’s reading up on all this now.



We started just after 3 pm and had to quit at 4:55 pm as there was a class coming in at 5 pm. One or two left at about 4 pm, when I had covered most of the WTC7 material, but I was pleased that most of the group stayed and we carried on for NEARLY TWO HOURS. Many favorable comments were received afterwards and this morning. People were impressed by the DATA and my critiques of the FEMA and NIST and 9-11 Commission reports.



The most “hostile” was a geology professor. He raised the point that “the Twin Towers were a special case since hit by jets.” Fortunately, I had previously shown a slide discussing “Pathological Science” – and this business of “special case” is one of the red flags for bad science. (I’m well known around here for being among the first, if not the first, to debunk claims of Pons and Fleischmann in 1989.) And he had to admit that WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane.



The approach I took was that we need to have data released (not destroyed, as were most of the steel beams) – and an independent investigation conducted. This was the approach also encouraged by Prof. Weyland – thanks, Jack – it worked extremely well. My goal was clear, and all except one (the geology prof.) agreed with my conclusion that data held by NIST, etc. should be released – and an independent investigation conducted. And several in the group are now doing some investigation on their own – climbing the learning curve.



The next day <9-23-05>, this geology Prof. told me privately that he hoped I could get the information for further investigation. I’m particularly after a sample of the molten metal found in the basement of WTC7 (also in the basements of the Towers).



The tilting of the South Tower was also intriguing to many, squibs from the North Tower less so – but I spent most of the time on WTC 7. Also, the letter of Kevin Ryan carried weight evidently, along with protests about the destruction of the steel beams. My slides on Pathological Science were very useful in countering claims of the "official" theory.



That’s it for now.
Oh, you’ll notice in my talk an appeal to the Book of Mormon – which speaks over and over about “secret combinations”, “secret plans”, “secret societies” in the “last days.” This provided a means to overcome the barrier of “conspiracy theory nonsense” with this group. Won’t work for everyone, but this really is something we Mormons believe in and watch for….



Best Regards,

Steven E. Jones 



Finally, if you are one of the many people who believe that this forum and other forums are being deliberately manipulated, you may be correct. I suspect so much, myself. (I part company with those who assume that they KNOW who the paid shills are, as distinct from the stubborn (and often vile) amateurs.)

If you want to to learn more about how are media is deliberately manipulated, and how even "alternative media" can have substantial connections to intelligence agencies and elitist foundations, and how these facts may explain the near universal silence of the "alternative media" when it comes to 911, you can do no better than to start your reading at leftgatekeepers.com
RealityCheck
Hi bolt!

I base my observation on the physics information he has posted throughout the discussion. Apparently, while I have read all earlier posts, you have not...otherwise you would not have made that last assertion. Please don't ascribe to me motives which are not there. I was in these forums long before such threads as these sprang up. I make my observations on information presented, not fear or favour. You have only to call up my own posting history across all forums to see that I am only interested in 'reality', not 'fantasy' (hence my 'nom de plume')----IRRESPECTIVE of which area of knowledge is involved.

Again, just as you made your 'observations' re Schneibster/others, I made mine: the difference is, I seem to have based MY observations on previously-presented 'objective information', whereas you have not done likewise. So please refrain from personal attacks on my character, as that character respects ONLY 'objective' information; and because it is that information that 'speaks', not I. If you think otherwise, please collate a comparative treatment of previous posts and show where others have provided more 'objective information' in support of their stance/opinions than Schneibster (and I mean 'objective').

Frankly, whether I respect/acknowledge other's contributions and/or participatory excellence, it is MY business, not YOURS. The only reason I alluded to same, was that your post seemed to require some sort of response 'in kind', from persons OTHER than the target of your OWN gratuitous and unsubstantiated disparagements of his knowledge and his stance.

"People in glass houses should not throw stones" is a handy guide in matters such as these. Ciao.

RealityCheck.
.
metamars
QUOTE
Further, even if a fusion device was available without a fission initiator, there is no way a nuke of even the minimal yield could have caused the collapse in the manner in which it progressed.


Well thank you for your detailed argument. I'm sure you convinced everybody.
bolt
QUOTE (yesitdid+)
Yet what permeates the community that does not believe the official theory of the attacks of 9/11?


You do know that so much evidence was concealed and taken away from the destruction site almost immediately, right? Why would you even question the motives of the non-believers out there when such an obvious oddity in the behaviour of FEMA and the Government is easily observable?

None of us can prove anything at this point. Not you, not me, not Shneibster, not anyone. The reason being, there just isn't enough evidence. On the other hand, the government's high level efforts to suspend any type of national investigation and access to the confiscated evidence is more than apparent. I really don't see the need to be surprised to the notion that people are skeptical of the official story.

However, I do recognize your objectivity and openmindedness to different theories and scenarios. And that is something I can appreciate in this discussion.


QUOTE (RealityCheck+)
So please refrain from personal attacks on my character


Excuse me? Personal attacks? When? Can you please show me a quote in which I attacked your character? Because, I honestly don't remember even remotely attacking you.

QUOTE (metamars+)
I suggest you do something similar with people who disagree with you - look to see if their arguments have any merit, and either ignore the ones that don't, or at least don't get worked up over them. Life is too short.


Thanks for the advice. I'll keep those things in mind.
Schneibster
QUOTE (zoktober+)
You've been engaging in vicious hand to hand combat for the entire thread and NOW you reveal, out of the blue, your complete antipathy toward our government.
No, not out of the blue; I was asked, directly, "what's your agenda?" And I answered. If you were curious, you might have asked yourself.

QUOTE (zoktober+)
Don't you understand that you just short circuited the path some people in this thread have been on from the beginning. Step A: Prove that the buildings were brought down by means other that a plane. Step: B: allow the ensuing mass condemnation to expose the grotesque malignancies with in our government. You will never get to step B without an equivalency to step A.
If you didn't know waaaaaay back in '69 which side of the bread the butter's on, I can't help you. If you didn't know in '80, I can't help you. If you didn't know in '94, 2000, or 2004, I can't help you.

QUOTE (zoktober+)
Where else can you find a wake up call of that magnitude?
Good luck; but I suggest that proposing a fake scenario is useless. And I think this one's a fake.
adoucette
QUOTE (metamars+Nov 23 2005, 05:27 AM)
QUOTE
Further, even if a fusion device was available without a fission initiator, there is no way a nuke of even the minimal yield could have caused the collapse in the manner in which it progressed.


Well thank you for your detailed argument. I'm sure you convinced everybody.

Never expected to convince you.

You think there is some SUPER RAY GUN (or some such) that can turn steel to powder.

If you believe that, what WON'T you believe?

Is obvious your logical analysis allows for a step called "A Miracle Occurs".

Arthur
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.