It would be interesting to sample the dust from other building collapses that have a mesh in the concrete and see if there are any spherical iron particles in it.
Shagster:
When I worked for a large Electrical Utility here in Canada, I ran two EDAX spectrometers and a scanning Auger Microprobe. We analyzed individual particles using a focussed spot ~ 1 micron across. Spherical particles were a known sign of melting - we would see them in coal flyash all the time where they were called cenospheres.
We would use argon-ion sputtering to remove the surface layer of the particle. Often the particle would look like iron oxide, but after a bit of sputter "cleaning" we would get a pure iron spectrum.
NF
When I worked for a large Electrical Utility here in Canada, I ran two EDAX spectrometers and a scanning Auger Microprobe. We analyzed individual particles using a focussed spot ~ 1 micron across. Spherical particles were a known sign of melting - we would see them in coal flyash all the time where they were called cenospheres.
We would use argon-ion sputtering to remove the surface layer of the particle. Often the particle would look like iron oxide, but after a bit of sputter "cleaning" we would get a pure iron spectrum.
NF
"The perpetually perplexed will show you a photo of the Oklahoma City Federal Building and say "Gee, that didn't fall. If that didn't fall with more visible damage why should the WTC 7 fall?".
In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are."
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
In someone’s need to question authority and seem smarter than the rest, they may forget an important fact. The OKC Federal building wasn't constructed the same as WTC7 and did not have its lower floors on fire for 6 hours. We can see clear as day that the building was not a tube in a tube design. We can see its lower floors weren't on fire. We can see the columns are covered in concrete. All from the same photo the conspiracy theorists use to show us how incredibly intelligent they are."
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 16 2007, 05:18 PM)
Arthur --- Earlier NEU-FONZE estimated about 800 tonnes of iron powder...
Yes, but that would not necessarily be 800 tons of iron spericals.
The fact that there was SOME iron that melted in NO WAY indicates there was large quantities (i.e. molten pools) of steel.
Which is the POINT that Neu doesn't get.
Its NOT the existance of these that is the issue, its ONLY if the quantity is out of line with the NATURAL event.
From ALL I've seen so far that is NOT the case.
The SAD fact is than in order to bolster HIS theories he is trying to disparage the excellent work done by the NIST scientists.
Arthur
Yes, but that would not necessarily be 800 tons of iron spericals.
The fact that there was SOME iron that melted in NO WAY indicates there was large quantities (i.e. molten pools) of steel.
Which is the POINT that Neu doesn't get.
Its NOT the existance of these that is the issue, its ONLY if the quantity is out of line with the NATURAL event.
From ALL I've seen so far that is NOT the case.
The SAD fact is than in order to bolster HIS theories he is trying to disparage the excellent work done by the NIST scientists.
Arthur
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 16 2007, 08:03 AM)
Section 2.5.2 of NCSTAR1-6d explains the limitations of the full floor model and their effect on limiting the ability to capture the pull-in forces on the exterior columns:
"Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analyses, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analyses:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
However, locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated by the full floor models for the following reasons:
• The full floor models did not and could not have an accurate set of boundary conditions on the columns. Columns extended from one floor below to one floor above, and the top and bottom of exterior columns were restrained in the direction normal to the exterior wall. These boundary conditions could not accurately portray the thermally-induced movements of floors above and below the floor being analyzed and could not accurately capture the stiffness of columns in the exterior walls. Photographs of the towers taken before collapse indicated that the exterior walls bowed inward over a height of several floors. Bowing of exterior columns as observed could not be captured in the floor model because the boundary condition of a full floor model could not be formulated to represent the observed bowing of the exterior wall over several floors.
• In the actual buildings, the strap anchors and studs must have been capable of transmitting a significant amount of force between the floor system and exterior wall. However, the full floor analysis with the strap anchors and studs resulted in sequential failure of these components and an extremely slow convergence in the analyses. Because these components were found to fail at early stages of fire, these elements were then removed from all the full floor models to obtain solution within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in these analyses, the only structural elements in the full floor model that could transfer horizontal interface forces between the floor system and the exterior walls were the gusset plates and seat bolts. This caused premature failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts in the analyses, which resulted in horizontal floor/wall disconnections. In addition, friction between bearing angles and seats was not modeled in the full floor analyses. Therefore, the full-floor model did not show significant tension at the floor/exterior wall interface. In the real structures, tension forces could develop between the floor system and walls following failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts through the mechanism of friction between the truss seats and bearing angles and through the strap anchors that had not failed.
• Creep at high temperature was found to significantly increase the sag of a floor system. A thermal response analysis of a simplified truss model removed from the full floor model showed a significant increase in vertical deflection when creep was considered, as shown in Fig. 2–27. However, full floor models were made with BEAM188/189 element types and were not run with creep due to inherent convergence problems of BEAM188/189 when used under thermal loadings with materials having temperature-dependent creep property.
• In the full floor models, crushing or cracking of the concrete slab was neglected. Extreme temperatures can crack and spall concrete, further reducing the floor stiffness, and increasing both the floor sag and the floor/wall pull-in forces.
• NIST may have underestimated the amount of thermal insulation that was damaged by the aircraft impacts. The estimates developed by NIST were limited to the insulation on sections of framing that were exposed to direct abrasion by the debris field, predicted in the impact analyses. Potential loss of insulation due to impact shock and vibration effects was not included. More severe insulation damage would have resulted in higher temperatures of the trusses than those used in the full floor analyses. This in turn would result in larger areas in which the floors would have sagged.
"
Glad you steeped up to the plate, shagster.
Arthurs are not even a challenge any more (NF kicked his a$$ with forensic evidence and facts. Now Arthurs are left with character assassination and pleading to the emotions of the gullible) .
Do you believe what NIST claims in your quote?
The TWO criteria that NIST used for pull in force:
Now look at page 146 NISTNCSTAR1-6c figure 5-110. The east face of floor 80 is connected and pushing out from columns 300 – 340.
Now go to page 59 NISTNCSTAR1-6d Figure 2–43. Locations of floor/wall disconnections and pull-in forces for the global analysis of WTC 2 between 50 min and 60 min for Case D conditions.
They show all the floor 80 columns pulling-in for the global model.
So this proves NIST did not even follow its own criteria and applied pull-in forces to columns that should be pushing-out (or lied as the OTC would claim).
"Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analyses, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analyses:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
However, locations and magnitudes of pull-in forces were not accurately simulated by the full floor models for the following reasons:
• The full floor models did not and could not have an accurate set of boundary conditions on the columns. Columns extended from one floor below to one floor above, and the top and bottom of exterior columns were restrained in the direction normal to the exterior wall. These boundary conditions could not accurately portray the thermally-induced movements of floors above and below the floor being analyzed and could not accurately capture the stiffness of columns in the exterior walls. Photographs of the towers taken before collapse indicated that the exterior walls bowed inward over a height of several floors. Bowing of exterior columns as observed could not be captured in the floor model because the boundary condition of a full floor model could not be formulated to represent the observed bowing of the exterior wall over several floors.
• In the actual buildings, the strap anchors and studs must have been capable of transmitting a significant amount of force between the floor system and exterior wall. However, the full floor analysis with the strap anchors and studs resulted in sequential failure of these components and an extremely slow convergence in the analyses. Because these components were found to fail at early stages of fire, these elements were then removed from all the full floor models to obtain solution within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, in these analyses, the only structural elements in the full floor model that could transfer horizontal interface forces between the floor system and the exterior walls were the gusset plates and seat bolts. This caused premature failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts in the analyses, which resulted in horizontal floor/wall disconnections. In addition, friction between bearing angles and seats was not modeled in the full floor analyses. Therefore, the full-floor model did not show significant tension at the floor/exterior wall interface. In the real structures, tension forces could develop between the floor system and walls following failure of the gusset plates and seat bolts through the mechanism of friction between the truss seats and bearing angles and through the strap anchors that had not failed.
• Creep at high temperature was found to significantly increase the sag of a floor system. A thermal response analysis of a simplified truss model removed from the full floor model showed a significant increase in vertical deflection when creep was considered, as shown in Fig. 2–27. However, full floor models were made with BEAM188/189 element types and were not run with creep due to inherent convergence problems of BEAM188/189 when used under thermal loadings with materials having temperature-dependent creep property.
• In the full floor models, crushing or cracking of the concrete slab was neglected. Extreme temperatures can crack and spall concrete, further reducing the floor stiffness, and increasing both the floor sag and the floor/wall pull-in forces.
• NIST may have underestimated the amount of thermal insulation that was damaged by the aircraft impacts. The estimates developed by NIST were limited to the insulation on sections of framing that were exposed to direct abrasion by the debris field, predicted in the impact analyses. Potential loss of insulation due to impact shock and vibration effects was not included. More severe insulation damage would have resulted in higher temperatures of the trusses than those used in the full floor analyses. This in turn would result in larger areas in which the floors would have sagged.
"
Glad you steeped up to the plate, shagster.
Arthurs are not even a challenge any more (NF kicked his a$$ with forensic evidence and facts. Now Arthurs are left with character assassination and pleading to the emotions of the gullible) .
Do you believe what NIST claims in your quote?
The TWO criteria that NIST used for pull in force:
QUOTE
"Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analyses, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analyses:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
Now look at page 146 NISTNCSTAR1-6c figure 5-110. The east face of floor 80 is connected and pushing out from columns 300 – 340.
Now go to page 59 NISTNCSTAR1-6d Figure 2–43. Locations of floor/wall disconnections and pull-in forces for the global analysis of WTC 2 between 50 min and 60 min for Case D conditions.
They show all the floor 80 columns pulling-in for the global model.
So this proves NIST did not even follow its own criteria and applied pull-in forces to columns that should be pushing-out (or lied as the OTC would claim).
Arthur:
On page 24 of R. J. Lee's Damage Assessment Report there is a Table 3 in which a typical dust sample is reported to have 5.87 % iron spheres. Compare this to the 1.27 % glass fiber or 2.36 % vermiculite quoted in the same Table 3 and you are looking at A LOT of molten iron.
DBB correctly noted that I estimated that there was about 800 tonnes of iron in the 100,000 tonnes of WTC dust deposited OUTSIDE the WTC footprint. I would estimate about HALF of this was iron spheres.
In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). First note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September 13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period.
Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 microns of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, and an estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor, I would conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. It follows that if the steel decking MELTED on some floors, the zinc coating would have been VAPORIZED since zinc BOILS at about 900 deg C.
NF
P.S.
Arthur, your remark about my motives is uncalled for!
Show me where I disparage NIST's scientists! I simply am drawing attention to what I believe is the weakest part of the NIST Report. Is this a debate about the science of the WTC collapse or about how wonderful NIST's scientists are?
On page 24 of R. J. Lee's Damage Assessment Report there is a Table 3 in which a typical dust sample is reported to have 5.87 % iron spheres. Compare this to the 1.27 % glass fiber or 2.36 % vermiculite quoted in the same Table 3 and you are looking at A LOT of molten iron.
DBB correctly noted that I estimated that there was about 800 tonnes of iron in the 100,000 tonnes of WTC dust deposited OUTSIDE the WTC footprint. I would estimate about HALF of this was iron spheres.
In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). First note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September 13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period.
Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 microns of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, and an estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor, I would conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. It follows that if the steel decking MELTED on some floors, the zinc coating would have been VAPORIZED since zinc BOILS at about 900 deg C.
NF
P.S.
Arthur, your remark about my motives is uncalled for!
Show me where I disparage NIST's scientists! I simply am drawing attention to what I believe is the weakest part of the NIST Report. Is this a debate about the science of the WTC collapse or about how wonderful NIST's scientists are?
The following is not physics related, but revelations coming from a serious investigation into Sibel Edmonds' gagged information might lead to progress in a scientific investigation of the WTC collapses.
Sibel Edmonds is a real patriot, and much of her revelations (which she has been prevented from speaking about due to a "state secrets" gag order) are 911-related.
Congressman Henry Waxman is going to be deciding whether or not to hold hearings on Sibel's gagged revelations, in the very near future. 911Truth.org is calling for citizens to support such hearings.
See http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20070309215834746
Those of you who care about the truth will know what to do.
Other groups supporting a serious investigation are:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Anthony Romero, National Director
National Coalition against Censorship, Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director
Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), Nancy Talanian, Director
OMB Watch, Sean Moulton, Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, Bill Weaver, Board Member
Liberty Coalition, Michael Ostrolenk, Co-founder & Director
National Whistleblower Center, Steve Kohn, Chair
Open the Government .Org, Patrice McDermott, Executive Director
U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC), Ross Vartian, Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), Melanie Sloan, Director
Citizen Outreach, Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy
Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Daniel Hirsch, Board Member
People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, President
Fairfax County Privacy Council, Mike Stollenwerk, Director
Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association, Sandalio Gonzalez, Director
Government Accountability Project (GAP), Tom Devine, Legal Director
National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation, Gail Dunham, President
Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation, Scott Pullins, Chairman & CEO
Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Danielle Brian, Executive Director
September 11th Advocates, Mindy Kleinberg, Director
Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition (VAWBC), Dr. Jeffrey Fudin, President
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), Aram Hamparian, Executive Director
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation (USBOR), Dane Von Breichenruchardt, President
Center for Financial Privacy & Human Rights, J. Bradley, Jansen, Director
Consumer Action, Linda Sherry, Director
Privacy Activism, Linda Ackerman, Staff Counsel
The Multiracial Activists, James Landrith, Founder
The New Grady Coalition, Ron Marshall, Director
Doctors for Open Government, Dr. Jim Murtagh, Director
Georgian for Open Government, Gwen Marshall, Director
Ethics in Government Group (EGG), George Anderson, Director
DemocracyRising.US, Kevin Zeese, Executive Director
Sibel Edmonds is a real patriot, and much of her revelations (which she has been prevented from speaking about due to a "state secrets" gag order) are 911-related.
Congressman Henry Waxman is going to be deciding whether or not to hold hearings on Sibel's gagged revelations, in the very near future. 911Truth.org is calling for citizens to support such hearings.
See http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20070309215834746
Those of you who care about the truth will know what to do.
Other groups supporting a serious investigation are:
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Anthony Romero, National Director
National Coalition against Censorship, Joan E. Bertin, Executive Director
Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), Nancy Talanian, Director
OMB Watch, Sean Moulton, Director
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director
National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, Bill Weaver, Board Member
Liberty Coalition, Michael Ostrolenk, Co-founder & Director
National Whistleblower Center, Steve Kohn, Chair
Open the Government .Org, Patrice McDermott, Executive Director
U.S.-Armenia Public Affairs Committee (USAPAC), Ross Vartian, Executive Director
Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington (CREW), Melanie Sloan, Director
Citizen Outreach, Doug Bandow, Vice President of Policy
Concerned Foreign Service Officers, Daniel Hirsch, Board Member
People for the American Way, Ralph Neas, President
Fairfax County Privacy Council, Mike Stollenwerk, Director
Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association, Sandalio Gonzalez, Director
Government Accountability Project (GAP), Tom Devine, Legal Director
National Air Disaster Alliance/Foundation, Gail Dunham, President
Ohio Taxpayers Association & OTA Foundation, Scott Pullins, Chairman & CEO
Project on Government Oversight (POGO), Danielle Brian, Executive Director
September 11th Advocates, Mindy Kleinberg, Director
Veterans Affairs Whistleblowers Coalition (VAWBC), Dr. Jeffrey Fudin, President
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), Aram Hamparian, Executive Director
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation (USBOR), Dane Von Breichenruchardt, President
Center for Financial Privacy & Human Rights, J. Bradley, Jansen, Director
Consumer Action, Linda Sherry, Director
Privacy Activism, Linda Ackerman, Staff Counsel
The Multiracial Activists, James Landrith, Founder
The New Grady Coalition, Ron Marshall, Director
Doctors for Open Government, Dr. Jim Murtagh, Director
Georgian for Open Government, Gwen Marshall, Director
Ethics in Government Group (EGG), George Anderson, Director
DemocracyRising.US, Kevin Zeese, Executive Director
metamars
Sibel Edmonds IS a real patriot, her warnings about al Queda WERE ignored, but they were squelched not to cover criminal activity, but to cover incompetence. She in no way supports your paranoid conspiracy theories(she is, after all, not stupid). I too would support hearings to expose this administration's incompetence.
Grumpy
Sibel Edmonds IS a real patriot, her warnings about al Queda WERE ignored, but they were squelched not to cover criminal activity, but to cover incompetence. She in no way supports your paranoid conspiracy theories(she is, after all, not stupid). I too would support hearings to expose this administration's incompetence.
Grumpy
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 17 2007, 05:10 AM)
Arthur:
On page 24 of R. J. Lee's Damage Assessment Report there is a Table 3 in which a typical dust sample is reported to have 5.87 % iron spheres. Compare this to the 1.27 % glass fiber or 2.36 % vermiculite quoted in the same Table 3 and you are looking at A LOT of molten iron.
DBB correctly noted that I estimated that there was about 800 tonnes of iron in the 100,000 tonnes of WTC dust deposited OUTSIDE the WTC footprint. I would estimate about HALF of this was iron spheres.
In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). First note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September 13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period.
Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 microns of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, and an estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor, I would conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. It follows that if the steel decking MELTED on some floors, the zinc coating would have been VAPORIZED since zinc BOILS at about 900 deg C.
NF
P.S.
Arthur, your remark about my motives is uncalled for!
Show me where I disparage NIST's scientists! I simply am drawing attention to what I believe is the weakest part of the NIST Report. Is this a debate about the science of the WTC collapse or about how wonderful NIST's scientists are?
Neu,
My characterization of you IS called for.
This is BS and you know it.
You don't care about the NIST report, you care about how WONDERFUL we think NEU is.
Which is ultimately PATHETIC.
Are you GLAD that REASONWHY now thinks you are on HIS side of the debate?
Neu you WASTE your talents since your desire for personal recognition causes you to OVERLOOK the obvious and focus on irrelevant MINUTIA.
No wonder you got sacked.
Arthur
On page 24 of R. J. Lee's Damage Assessment Report there is a Table 3 in which a typical dust sample is reported to have 5.87 % iron spheres. Compare this to the 1.27 % glass fiber or 2.36 % vermiculite quoted in the same Table 3 and you are looking at A LOT of molten iron.
DBB correctly noted that I estimated that there was about 800 tonnes of iron in the 100,000 tonnes of WTC dust deposited OUTSIDE the WTC footprint. I would estimate about HALF of this was iron spheres.
In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). First note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September 13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period.
Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 microns of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, and an estimate of 16 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor, I would conclude that there was about 1.6 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2. It follows that if the steel decking MELTED on some floors, the zinc coating would have been VAPORIZED since zinc BOILS at about 900 deg C.
NF
P.S.
Arthur, your remark about my motives is uncalled for!
Show me where I disparage NIST's scientists! I simply am drawing attention to what I believe is the weakest part of the NIST Report. Is this a debate about the science of the WTC collapse or about how wonderful NIST's scientists are?
Neu,
My characterization of you IS called for.
This is BS and you know it.
You don't care about the NIST report, you care about how WONDERFUL we think NEU is.
Which is ultimately PATHETIC.
Are you GLAD that REASONWHY now thinks you are on HIS side of the debate?
Neu you WASTE your talents since your desire for personal recognition causes you to OVERLOOK the obvious and focus on irrelevant MINUTIA.
No wonder you got sacked.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 17 2007, 01:32 PM)
metamars
Sibel Edmonds IS a real patriot, her warnings about al Queda WERE ignored, but they were squelched not to cover criminal activity, but to cover incompetence. She in no way supports your paranoid conspiracy theories(she is, after all, not stupid). I too would support hearings to expose this administration's incompetence.
Grumpy
You got your talking points screwed up. Sibel Edmonds was hired after 9/11.
It's hard to know exactly what 911 theory she may support, since she's been gagged. However, it is true that she does not know where the 911 bodies are buried (so to speak).
Nevertheless, we know that her revelations will point to high level corruption involving well known neocons, as well as drug running through Turkey, which helps fill Al-Queda's coffers. There are American traitors amongst us, and their treason has helped fund (even if indirectly, by simply facilitating parts of a drug/weapons/nuclear/terrorism nexus) Al-Queda, not to mention transfer nuclear materials through parts of same.
You apparently like to believe that unraveling this criminal nexus (were such to happen), which would shed light on criminal intent on the part of some American traitors, including (especially) neocons, would shed no light on criminal intent on the part of these same individuals with respect to 911.
I believe you're dreaming, but you have your own axe to grind, don't you? Your "oops" talking point must be protected, no matter how absurdly unlikely....
============================================
I was fascinated to read that this treasonous mess was privy to the blown Brewster Jennings' cover, before the Valerie Plame affair:
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/ (Fri, March 16, 2007)
The thing is, Brewster Jennings was 'outed' (privately, within the criminal network) long before Valerie Plame was officially outed. In fact, Brewster Jennings' cover was blown in the Summer of 2001 by Marc Grossman.
The implications are, I believe, that the treasonous elements of the criminal nexus are the ones that blew Brewster Jennings cover.
Sibel Edmonds IS a real patriot, her warnings about al Queda WERE ignored, but they were squelched not to cover criminal activity, but to cover incompetence. She in no way supports your paranoid conspiracy theories(she is, after all, not stupid). I too would support hearings to expose this administration's incompetence.
Grumpy
You got your talking points screwed up. Sibel Edmonds was hired after 9/11.
It's hard to know exactly what 911 theory she may support, since she's been gagged. However, it is true that she does not know where the 911 bodies are buried (so to speak).
Nevertheless, we know that her revelations will point to high level corruption involving well known neocons, as well as drug running through Turkey, which helps fill Al-Queda's coffers. There are American traitors amongst us, and their treason has helped fund (even if indirectly, by simply facilitating parts of a drug/weapons/nuclear/terrorism nexus) Al-Queda, not to mention transfer nuclear materials through parts of same.
You apparently like to believe that unraveling this criminal nexus (were such to happen), which would shed light on criminal intent on the part of some American traitors, including (especially) neocons, would shed no light on criminal intent on the part of these same individuals with respect to 911.
I believe you're dreaming, but you have your own axe to grind, don't you? Your "oops" talking point must be protected, no matter how absurdly unlikely....
============================================
I was fascinated to read that this treasonous mess was privy to the blown Brewster Jennings' cover, before the Valerie Plame affair:
QUOTE
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/ (Fri, March 16, 2007)
The thing is, Brewster Jennings was 'outed' (privately, within the criminal network) long before Valerie Plame was officially outed. In fact, Brewster Jennings' cover was blown in the Summer of 2001 by Marc Grossman.
The implications are, I believe, that the treasonous elements of the criminal nexus are the ones that blew Brewster Jennings cover.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 17 2007, 04:10 AM)
Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers.
You left out the conctributions to the total zinc from other sources, namely flourescent lamps and computers.
Those sources would have much more readily released zinc then the galvanized steel.
Oh, and batteries, also.
You left out the conctributions to the total zinc from other sources, namely flourescent lamps and computers.
Those sources would have much more readily released zinc then the galvanized steel.
Oh, and batteries, also.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 11:01 AM)
On April 13, 1970, New York City issued a ban on the use of all sprayed on thermal insulations containing asbestos, the notorious fibrous silicate mineral that was a major component of Blaze-shield Type D. The use of asbestos-containing insulation was discontinued at this time at the 38th floor of WTC 1.
In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material (SFRM) to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
Actually the biggest problem revealed by the 1975 fire was the lack of firestop between the floors in the utility chases. A different can of worms entirely.
But it is true that the fireproofing applied to the structural steel was sub-par, what do you expect when the mob does it?
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material (SFRM) to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
Actually the biggest problem revealed by the 1975 fire was the lack of firestop between the floors in the utility chases. A different can of worms entirely.
But it is true that the fireproofing applied to the structural steel was sub-par, what do you expect when the mob does it?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 11:01 AM)
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 16 2007, 11:06 AM)
Most of the impact and fire regions of WTC2 weren't yet upgraded if I read all of that right. That may have had a bearing on why WTC2 failed sooner than WTC1, although there are many other factors as well.
There are also issues about how the original insulation was applied and what its adhesion would be after 30 years compared with newly applied insulation used in the NIST tests.
There is one photo of the north side of WTC1 that shows the truss insulation removed as a result of the impact.
True, most of it was in the original areas.
Furthermore, at first, it may seem counter intuitive, but if you think about it, you will realize that increasing the thickness of the SFRM on the trusses would have just made the material that much easier to knock off.
Remember that the trusses consisted of chords and diagonals with small cross sections.
Therefore a 1” rod with 1.5” of SFRM on it would have a 4” cross section, of which only 25% was actually backed up by the substrate.
There are also issues about how the original insulation was applied and what its adhesion would be after 30 years compared with newly applied insulation used in the NIST tests.
There is one photo of the north side of WTC1 that shows the truss insulation removed as a result of the impact.
True, most of it was in the original areas.
Furthermore, at first, it may seem counter intuitive, but if you think about it, you will realize that increasing the thickness of the SFRM on the trusses would have just made the material that much easier to knock off.
Remember that the trusses consisted of chords and diagonals with small cross sections.
Therefore a 1” rod with 1.5” of SFRM on it would have a 4” cross section, of which only 25% was actually backed up by the substrate.
metamars
I thought you were talking about the FBI agent who warned the admin about terrorists taking flight training, my bad.
So, if this woman was hired after 9/11 and she has been gagged, how do you know anything about what she has to say, and how would she have any pertinent information about 9/11??? You're making no sense.
I am for anyone coming forward with info on the malfeasence of this admin(look at the political firings of US attorneys, for instence). I have no doubts about the corruption in the far right(neocons), it's evident on the news almost nightly, but so is their incompetence. And they are not the only evil people in this world, nor are they responsible for every evil act. OBL is responsible(through his outfit) for 9/11, noone else.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Sibel Edmonds was hired after 9/11.
I thought you were talking about the FBI agent who warned the admin about terrorists taking flight training, my bad.
So, if this woman was hired after 9/11 and she has been gagged, how do you know anything about what she has to say, and how would she have any pertinent information about 9/11??? You're making no sense.
I am for anyone coming forward with info on the malfeasence of this admin(look at the political firings of US attorneys, for instence). I have no doubts about the corruption in the far right(neocons), it's evident on the news almost nightly, but so is their incompetence. And they are not the only evil people in this world, nor are they responsible for every evil act. OBL is responsible(through his outfit) for 9/11, noone else.
Grumpy
QUOTE (metamars+Mar 17 2007, 05:26 AM)
The following is not physics related, but revelations coming from a serious investigation into Sibel Edmonds' gagged information might lead to progress in a scientific investigation of the WTC collapses.
Sibel Edmonds is a real patriot, and much of her revelations (which she has been prevented from speaking about due to a "state secrets" gag order) are 911-related.
Bull.
The State Secret Privilige ONLY applies to a SPECIFIC LEGAL PROCEEDING.
Sibel can get on ANY SOAPBOX ANYWHERE and sing to her heart's content.
Arthur
Sibel Edmonds is a real patriot, and much of her revelations (which she has been prevented from speaking about due to a "state secrets" gag order) are 911-related.
Bull.
The State Secret Privilige ONLY applies to a SPECIFIC LEGAL PROCEEDING.
Sibel can get on ANY SOAPBOX ANYWHERE and sing to her heart's content.
Arthur
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 17 2007, 10:16 AM)
it may seem counter intuitive, but if you think about it, you will realize that increasing the thickness of the SFRM on the trusses would have just made the material that much easier to knock off.
Remember that the trusses consisted of chords and diagonals with small cross sections.
Therefore a 1” rod with 1.5” of SFRM on it would have a 4” cross section, of which only 25% was actually backed up by the substrate.
True
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
This is all Neu Bull.
The estimates (of insulation removal) developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
They didn't account for ANY that was knocked off by impact vibrations or prior damage, though photos showed that to be common.
Spraying MORE insulation over insulation that was already coming off would NOT increase its adhesion.
Finally NIST found that much of the insulation WOULD JUST BARELY ADHERE to PRIMED surfaces (based on type of primer) and then found that much of the insulation had in fact been applied to steel that had been covered with an incompatible primer.
Arthur
Remember that the trusses consisted of chords and diagonals with small cross sections.
Therefore a 1” rod with 1.5” of SFRM on it would have a 4” cross section, of which only 25% was actually backed up by the substrate.
True
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE @ Mar 16 2007+ 11:01 AM)
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
This is all Neu Bull.
The estimates (of insulation removal) developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
They didn't account for ANY that was knocked off by impact vibrations or prior damage, though photos showed that to be common.
Spraying MORE insulation over insulation that was already coming off would NOT increase its adhesion.
Finally NIST found that much of the insulation WOULD JUST BARELY ADHERE to PRIMED surfaces (based on type of primer) and then found that much of the insulation had in fact been applied to steel that had been covered with an incompatible primer.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2007, 01:01 AM)
Now look at page 146 NISTNCSTAR1-6c figure 5-110. The east face of floor 80 is connected and pushing out from columns 300 – 340.
Now go to page 59 NISTNCSTAR1-6d Figure 2–43. Locations of floor/wall disconnections and pull-in forces for the global analysis of WTC 2 between 50 min and 60 min for Case D conditions.
They show all the floor 80 columns pulling-in for the global model.
So this proves NIST did not even follow its own criteria and applied pull-in forces to columns that should be pushing-out (or lied as the OTC would claim).
Nope.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D pg 52
Middle paragraph and note how NIST used the OBSERVATIONS of actual bowing to make the MODEL more ACCURATE.
All you are doing is pointing out that AS GOOD AS THE MODEL was, it wasn't able to EXACTLY match what was observed.
NO Sh!T.
NO model of such a COMPLEX structure/event would be expected to be able to model the PROGRESSION of an event like the fires within the WTC tower to that degree of accuracy.
So, OF COURSE, NIST adjusted the model WHEN they had VISUAL evidence to SUPPORT these adjustments.
Which only serves to make the MODEL more accurate than it OTHERWISE would be.
As much as you might be enjoying this squable, I don't think you will find that NF supports your contention that the towers were brought down by CD. NF might have some of his OWN AGENDA items, but that doesn't mean he is, like you, totally bonkers.
Arthur
Now go to page 59 NISTNCSTAR1-6d Figure 2–43. Locations of floor/wall disconnections and pull-in forces for the global analysis of WTC 2 between 50 min and 60 min for Case D conditions.
They show all the floor 80 columns pulling-in for the global model.
So this proves NIST did not even follow its own criteria and applied pull-in forces to columns that should be pushing-out (or lied as the OTC would claim).
Nope.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D pg 52
Middle paragraph and note how NIST used the OBSERVATIONS of actual bowing to make the MODEL more ACCURATE.
All you are doing is pointing out that AS GOOD AS THE MODEL was, it wasn't able to EXACTLY match what was observed.
NO Sh!T.
NO model of such a COMPLEX structure/event would be expected to be able to model the PROGRESSION of an event like the fires within the WTC tower to that degree of accuracy.
So, OF COURSE, NIST adjusted the model WHEN they had VISUAL evidence to SUPPORT these adjustments.
Which only serves to make the MODEL more accurate than it OTHERWISE would be.
QUOTE
NF kicked his a$$ with forensic evidence
As much as you might be enjoying this squable, I don't think you will find that NF supports your contention that the towers were brought down by CD. NF might have some of his OWN AGENDA items, but that doesn't mean he is, like you, totally bonkers.
Arthur
We all like comparisons don't we? the Madrid Tower, The Murray building. And if there are differences we always easily can say: "different building, different damage, different fire, different construction" And after 6 years still no explanation.
What's going on here, trouble folks ? So only some fireproofing at the impact zone has been removed ? That's what I also would expect, of course not all 110 stories became weak and were losing strength. E1=0.63GJ was based on an intact building wasn't it ?
What's going on here, trouble folks ? So only some fireproofing at the impact zone has been removed ? That's what I also would expect, of course not all 110 stories became weak and were losing strength. E1=0.63GJ was based on an intact building wasn't it ?
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 17 2007, 01:11 PM)
And after 6 years still no explanation.
You think its EASY to figure out how a 47 story building, which burned out of control for 7 hours and for which you only have limited information on how it was damaged by the fall of WTC 1, collapsed?
Well I know that CT'ers think that one can simply LOOK at some grainy videos and make WILD conclusions, but if you want a SCIENTIFIC report it takes a LOT MORE WORK than that.
Oh, and NIST has NOT been working on it for 6 years. NIST didn't get involved at all till well into 2002 and while NIST did some preliminary work on WTC 7, they decided to concentrate their full resources on WTC 1 and 2 and complete that report and THEN do WTC 7.
So their focused investigation on WTC 7 has been going on for ~ 2 years.
Arthur
You think its EASY to figure out how a 47 story building, which burned out of control for 7 hours and for which you only have limited information on how it was damaged by the fall of WTC 1, collapsed?
Well I know that CT'ers think that one can simply LOOK at some grainy videos and make WILD conclusions, but if you want a SCIENTIFIC report it takes a LOT MORE WORK than that.
Oh, and NIST has NOT been working on it for 6 years. NIST didn't get involved at all till well into 2002 and while NIST did some preliminary work on WTC 7, they decided to concentrate their full resources on WTC 1 and 2 and complete that report and THEN do WTC 7.
So their focused investigation on WTC 7 has been going on for ~ 2 years.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Mar 17 2007, 06:11 PM)
... E1=0.63GJ was based on an intact building wasn't it ?
Yes. Strictly speaking, one which is homogeneous below the split between upper and lower blocks.
Yes. Strictly speaking, one which is homogeneous below the split between upper and lower blocks.
adoucette
Another source for iron/steel sphericals would be from the welding as the building was erected. The sphericals could have been in and around the joints since the early 70's, to be spread by the collapse.
Grumpy
Another source for iron/steel sphericals would be from the welding as the building was erected. The sphericals could have been in and around the joints since the early 70's, to be spread by the collapse.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 17 2007, 02:32 PM)
adoucette
Another source for iron/steel sphericals would be from the welding as the building was erected. The sphericals could have been in and around the joints since the early 70's, to be spread by the collapse.
Grumpy
When were these samples collected?
How many cutting torches were in use in the hours and days following the collapse?
Another source for iron/steel sphericals would be from the welding as the building was erected. The sphericals could have been in and around the joints since the early 70's, to be spread by the collapse.
Grumpy
When were these samples collected?
How many cutting torches were in use in the hours and days following the collapse?
I never saw evidence suggesting Sibel Edmonds thought the buildings were blown up. Her focus was narrow and seems to be taken out of context by conspiracy theorists.
Also, the UL tests showed a 45 min rating with only 1/2" of fireproofing. That means the fire proofing didn't have to all come off. Though many photos show steel picked clean of fireproofing. Mainly coming from inside the impact zone which could be seen from outside.
From
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
Elsevier, 2006, page 31
"... we will demonstrate the type of buckling known as snapthrough or oil-canning."
oil-canning?
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
Elsevier, 2006, page 31
"... we will demonstrate the type of buckling known as snapthrough or oil-canning."
oil-canning?
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories
concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”
George W. Bush
"Let us not tolerate vicious ad hominem attacks by those who are ignorant of the truth"
NF
concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”
George W. Bush
"Let us not tolerate vicious ad hominem attacks by those who are ignorant of the truth"
NF
Just the inrageous ones! 
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 17 2007, 06:41 PM)
From
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
Elsevier, 2006, page 31
"... we will demonstrate the type of buckling known as snapthrough or oil-canning."
oil-canning?
I believe that is like "Shell buckling" this is importand in shell strucutrures like silos and oil tanks.
you could also call it "Beer-Canning."
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
Elsevier, 2006, page 31
"... we will demonstrate the type of buckling known as snapthrough or oil-canning."
oil-canning?
I believe that is like "Shell buckling" this is importand in shell strucutrures like silos and oil tanks.
you could also call it "Beer-Canning."
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 06:34 PM)
Shagster:
When I worked for a large Electrical Utility here in Canada, I ran two EDAX spectrometers and a scanning Auger Microprobe. We analyzed individual particles using a focussed spot ~ 1 micron across. Spherical particles were a known sign of melting - we would see them in coal flyash all the time where they were called cenospheres.
We would use argon-ion sputtering to remove the surface layer of the particle. Often the particle would look like iron oxide, but after a bit of sputter "cleaning" we would get a pure iron spectrum.
NF
What is the possibility that the light weight concrete used in the floor slabs were made with fly-ash?
When I worked for a large Electrical Utility here in Canada, I ran two EDAX spectrometers and a scanning Auger Microprobe. We analyzed individual particles using a focussed spot ~ 1 micron across. Spherical particles were a known sign of melting - we would see them in coal flyash all the time where they were called cenospheres.
We would use argon-ion sputtering to remove the surface layer of the particle. Often the particle would look like iron oxide, but after a bit of sputter "cleaning" we would get a pure iron spectrum.
NF
What is the possibility that the light weight concrete used in the floor slabs were made with fly-ash?
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 16 2007, 04:33 PM)
Ok Neu, I've tracked down one of these reports:
The one RJ Lee did on the Liberty Trust building (right next to the WTC 2 tower)
Well what do you know, the signature for the dust doesn't even include Iron.
See http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...304.1646.mp.pdf
See page 10 Figure 1
Arthur
from the first paragraph
The one RJ Lee did on the Liberty Trust building (right next to the WTC 2 tower)
Well what do you know, the signature for the dust doesn't even include Iron.
See http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liber...304.1646.mp.pdf
See page 10 Figure 1
Arthur
from the first paragraph
QUOTE
Dr. Richard J. Lee has spent 30 years developing techniques for
characterizing respirable particles. Dr. Lee has used these techniques to
investigate dust and debris in buildings throughout the United States. He
has studied respirable asbestos, mineral wool, lead, fly ash, and other
particle types found in WTC Dust.
characterizing respirable particles. Dr. Lee has used these techniques to
investigate dust and debris in buildings throughout the United States. He
has studied respirable asbestos, mineral wool, lead, fly ash, and other
particle types found in WTC Dust.
Flyash particles - cenospheres - are not metallic; they are molten aluminosilicates; therefore they are more like slag. With an electron microprobe you couldn't possibly confuse these different types of particles.
NF
NF
Arthur:
When you say:
"You don't care about the NIST report, you care about how WONDERFUL we think NEU is."
Are you talking about how you feel about me?
If you are, that's a very nice thing to say... Thank you!
But I am curious: Why does the presence, I mean the FACT, of molten steel in the Twin Towers bother you so much?
NF
When you say:
"You don't care about the NIST report, you care about how WONDERFUL we think NEU is."
Are you talking about how you feel about me?
If you are, that's a very nice thing to say... Thank you!
But I am curious: Why does the presence, I mean the FACT, of molten steel in the Twin Towers bother you so much?
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 17 2007, 09:20 PM)
Flyash particles - cenospheres - are not metallic; they are molten aluminosilicates; therefore they are more like slag. With an electron microprobe you couldn't possibly confuse these different types of particles.
NF
Well I am a bit confused by your two different posts on this matter.
It doesn't BOTHER me.
And when you have to find it with an electron microscope it doesn't surprise me AT ALL.
Arthur
NF
Well I am a bit confused by your two different posts on this matter.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 16 2007, 06:34 PM)
Shagster:
When I worked for a large Electrical Utility here in Canada, I ran two EDAX spectrometers and a scanning Auger Microprobe. We analyzed individual particles using a focussed spot ~ 1 micron across. Spherical particles were a known sign of melting - we would see them in coal flyash all the time where they were called cenospheres.
We would use argon-ion sputtering to remove the surface layer of the particle. Often the particle would look like iron oxide, but after a bit of sputter "cleaning" we would get a pure iron spectrum.
NF
Are they non-metalic or pure iron?
Are you saying that there are no iron spheres in fly ash?
When I worked for a large Electrical Utility here in Canada, I ran two EDAX spectrometers and a scanning Auger Microprobe. We analyzed individual particles using a focussed spot ~ 1 micron across. Spherical particles were a known sign of melting - we would see them in coal flyash all the time where they were called cenospheres.
We would use argon-ion sputtering to remove the surface layer of the particle. Often the particle would look like iron oxide, but after a bit of sputter "cleaning" we would get a pure iron spectrum.
NF
Are they non-metalic or pure iron?
Are you saying that there are no iron spheres in fly ash?
QUOTE
Why does the presence, I mean the FACT, of molten steel in the Twin Towers bother you so much?
It doesn't BOTHER me.
And when you have to find it with an electron microscope it doesn't surprise me AT ALL.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 17 2007, 09:49 AM)
Nope.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D pg 52
Middle paragraph and note how NIST used the OBSERVATIONS of actual bowing to make the MODEL more ACCURATE.
All you are doing is pointing out that AS GOOD AS THE MODEL was, it wasn't able to EXACTLY match what was observed.
NO Sh!T.
NO model of such a COMPLEX structure/event would be expected to be able to model the PROGRESSION of an event like the fires within the WTC tower to that degree of accuracy.
So, OF COURSE, NIST adjusted the model WHEN they had VISUAL evidence to SUPPORT these adjustments.
Which only serves to make the MODEL more accurate than it OTHERWISE would be.
As much as you might be enjoying this squable, I don't think you will find that NF supports your contention that the towers were brought down by CD. NF might have some of his OWN AGENDA items, but that doesn't mean he is, like you, totally bonkers.
Arthur
I knew you would not object to the fact NIST LIED about the CRITERIA used and THAT shows the TYPE of PERSON you ARE.
The NIST report should have stated:
"Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analysis, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analysis:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Compressive forces were REPLACED by Tensile forces between the exterior wall and the floor system when OBSERVATION CONTRADICTED the FEA SIMULATION (AND THAT WAS MORE OFTEN THEN NOT).
Where the mythical lateral forces really came from:
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D page 53
The more I read this JOKE of a report, the more OBVIOUS it is that NIST can not simulate the WTC collapse using only gravity.
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D page 53
The more I read this JOKE of a report, the more OBVIOUS it is that NIST can not simulate the WTC collapse using only gravity.
Are you GLAD that REASONWHY now thinks you are on HIS side of the debate?
Arthur
Someone from the OCT side gets a idea of his own (well supported with forensic evidence) and you are worried that I will think he is on my side (getting paranoid Arthurs) ?
AS the OCT unravels it is amusing the way you attack anyone that criticizes the NIST report .
The Molten Steel was obvious to anyone who examined the evidence (NF just showed, with out a doubt, what a BS'er you are with your new DEFINITION of MOLTEN). Only you, NIST and the hard core OCT continue to deny their was any evidence .
Dr. Greening did NIST's job examining the reports on the forensic evidence (what little is left). NIST should have investigated and found the reason for the molten steel.
Next will be a post from Capracus, quoting “The Beavis and Butthead of the Demolition Industry”, claiming there was no molten steel.
Factcheck, Cspam or whatever you are posting by, have you updated your website to add NF's information on molten steel?
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D pg 52
Middle paragraph and note how NIST used the OBSERVATIONS of actual bowing to make the MODEL more ACCURATE.
All you are doing is pointing out that AS GOOD AS THE MODEL was, it wasn't able to EXACTLY match what was observed.
NO Sh!T.
NO model of such a COMPLEX structure/event would be expected to be able to model the PROGRESSION of an event like the fires within the WTC tower to that degree of accuracy.
So, OF COURSE, NIST adjusted the model WHEN they had VISUAL evidence to SUPPORT these adjustments.
Which only serves to make the MODEL more accurate than it OTHERWISE would be.
As much as you might be enjoying this squable, I don't think you will find that NF supports your contention that the towers were brought down by CD. NF might have some of his OWN AGENDA items, but that doesn't mean he is, like you, totally bonkers.
Arthur
I knew you would not object to the fact NIST LIED about the CRITERIA used and THAT shows the TYPE of PERSON you ARE.
The NIST report should have stated:
"Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analysis, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analysis:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Compressive forces were REPLACED by Tensile forces between the exterior wall and the floor system when OBSERVATION CONTRADICTED the FEA SIMULATION (AND THAT WAS MORE OFTEN THEN NOT).
Where the mythical lateral forces really came from:
QUOTE
As is discussed in Section 3.2.2, the magnitude of the pull-in force was estimated through a trial and error process by applying different levels of pull-in forces to the isolated wall models and by comparing the resulting inward bowing to that estimated from observations at 9:21 a.m. and 9:53 a.m. From these comparative analysis, the magnitude of pull-in forces were determined to range from 1.0 to 2.0 kip on the south side of the east wall and 4.0 to 5.0 kip on the north side of the east wall. It was necessary to apply larger pull-in forces on the north side than on the south side of the east wall because column temperatures on the north side were higher than the column temperatures on the south side of the east wall. Higher temperatures resulted in more outward bowing of columns, and thus larger pull-in forces were required to overcome this outward bowing.
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D page 53
The more I read this JOKE of a report, the more OBVIOUS it is that NIST can not simulate the WTC collapse using only gravity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As is discussed in Section 3.2.2, the magnitude of the pull-in force was estimated through a trial and error process by applying different levels of pull-in forces to the isolated wall models and by comparing the resulting inward bowing to that estimated from observations at 9:21 a.m. and 9:53 a.m. From these comparative analysis, the magnitude of pull-in forces were determined to range from 1.0 to 2.0 kip on the south side of the east wall and 4.0 to 5.0 kip on the north side of the east wall. It was necessary to apply larger pull-in forces on the north side than on the south side of the east wall because column temperatures on the north side were higher than the column temperatures on the south side of the east wall. Higher temperatures resulted in more outward bowing of columns, and thus larger pull-in forces were required to overcome this outward bowing. |
NIST NCSTAR 1-6D page 53
The more I read this JOKE of a report, the more OBVIOUS it is that NIST can not simulate the WTC collapse using only gravity.
Are you GLAD that REASONWHY now thinks you are on HIS side of the debate?
Arthur
Someone from the OCT side gets a idea of his own (well supported with forensic evidence) and you are worried that I will think he is on my side (getting paranoid Arthurs) ?
AS the OCT unravels it is amusing the way you attack anyone that criticizes the NIST report .
The Molten Steel was obvious to anyone who examined the evidence (NF just showed, with out a doubt, what a BS'er you are with your new DEFINITION of MOLTEN). Only you, NIST and the hard core OCT continue to deny their was any evidence .
Dr. Greening did NIST's job examining the reports on the forensic evidence (what little is left). NIST should have investigated and found the reason for the molten steel.
Next will be a post from Capracus, quoting “The Beavis and Butthead of the Demolition Industry”, claiming there was no molten steel.
Factcheck, Cspam or whatever you are posting by, have you updated your website to add NF's information on molten steel?
NIST didn't LIE about what they did, which is why there is a section called 2.5.2 Pull In Forces.
The pull in forces weren't MYTHICAL.
They were OBVIOUS.
The OCT is not 'unraveling' as there remains NO PEER REVIEWED PAPER critical of its primary findings.
When you find a peer reviewed paper which actually critisizes the NIST report let us know.
Yeah, forensic evidence indeed, you have to find the molten steel with an Electron Microscope.
Arthur
The pull in forces weren't MYTHICAL.
They were OBVIOUS.
The OCT is not 'unraveling' as there remains NO PEER REVIEWED PAPER critical of its primary findings.
When you find a peer reviewed paper which actually critisizes the NIST report let us know.
Yeah, forensic evidence indeed, you have to find the molten steel with an Electron Microscope.
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 17 2007, 10:20 PM)
Flyash particles - cenospheres - are not metallic; they are molten aluminosilicates; therefore they are more like slag.
NOPE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
Use in Concrete
http://hubpages.com/hub/high_volume_flyash_concrete
Arthur
NOPE
QUOTE
fly ash particles are generally spherical in shape and range in size from 0.5 µm to 100 µm. They consist mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3), and are hence a suitable source of aluminum and silicon for geopolymers. They are also pozzolanic in nature and react with calcium hydroxide and alkali to form cementitious compounds. Fly ash also contains some heavy metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_ash
Use in Concrete
http://hubpages.com/hub/high_volume_flyash_concrete
Arthur
Arthur:
OH DEAR! You really are out of your depth when it come to analytical chemistry and it shows!
An electron microscope IS the way to go in analysing WTC dust because it reveals the particle MORPHOLOGY which tells you the physicochemical/thermal history of a particle. Can you suggest a BETTER way to get this kind of information?
Take a look at the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC dust. Why would those guys use an electron microscope? Just for fun?
So go on googling on flyash all you want! I have 25 years hands-on experience analysing samples for an electric utility that operated coal, oil, gas and nuclear reactors..... An electron microscope/scanning Auger/SIMS instrument is the industry standard for analysing dusts, corrosion deposits, etc.
Arthur, the more you say on this, basing your comments on little scraps of information gleaned from a quicky computer search, the funnier it gets!
And the more it proves my point: Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC.
Now as for your DESPERATE point about flyash containing metals, I guess I had better explain somethings to you since you obviously don't understand very much about metals in flyash:
When you do surface/micro-analysis you find all sorts of odd things: lron surfaces for example, often simply give a carbon spectrum with some sodium chloride (from finger-prints!) until you use argon-ion sputtering. After you have sputtered off about 50 nanometers you can do a real analysis. The carbon on the iron surface gives way to iron oxide and/or essentially pure iron. A sputtered flyash particle may show a small peak for iron too, or copper or lead or whatever. If you sputter some more, say 100 nanometers, the iron peak may disappear.
This is the typical behavior of TRACE elements. Do you understand what a TRACE element is Arthur? I can send you a trace-metal analysis for an ASTM standard flyash that I published in a report back in 1985 if that would help you.....
I used to do trace element analysis of coal, bunker-C oil and flyash. You find half the periodic table in these materials, but in the ppm or ppb concentration range.
So keep the silly posts coming Arthur ..... but all you will be doing is demonstrating the truth of the old addage:
A LITTLE LEARNING IS A DANGEROUS THING
DRINK DEEP OR TASTE NOT THE PIERIAN SPRING
An Essay on Criticism by A. Pope (1688 - 1744)
And Arthur, I quite expect a barrage of pathetic insults to follow this post since this appears to be your stock-in-trade, but they will mean nothing because they will not deflect from the truth of my arguments.
So, would it be too much to ask you to be CIVIL for a change, you know, like a true gentleman and scholar would behave....
NF
OH DEAR! You really are out of your depth when it come to analytical chemistry and it shows!
An electron microscope IS the way to go in analysing WTC dust because it reveals the particle MORPHOLOGY which tells you the physicochemical/thermal history of a particle. Can you suggest a BETTER way to get this kind of information?
Take a look at the USGS Particle Atlas of WTC dust. Why would those guys use an electron microscope? Just for fun?
So go on googling on flyash all you want! I have 25 years hands-on experience analysing samples for an electric utility that operated coal, oil, gas and nuclear reactors..... An electron microscope/scanning Auger/SIMS instrument is the industry standard for analysing dusts, corrosion deposits, etc.
Arthur, the more you say on this, basing your comments on little scraps of information gleaned from a quicky computer search, the funnier it gets!
And the more it proves my point: Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC.
Now as for your DESPERATE point about flyash containing metals, I guess I had better explain somethings to you since you obviously don't understand very much about metals in flyash:
When you do surface/micro-analysis you find all sorts of odd things: lron surfaces for example, often simply give a carbon spectrum with some sodium chloride (from finger-prints!) until you use argon-ion sputtering. After you have sputtered off about 50 nanometers you can do a real analysis. The carbon on the iron surface gives way to iron oxide and/or essentially pure iron. A sputtered flyash particle may show a small peak for iron too, or copper or lead or whatever. If you sputter some more, say 100 nanometers, the iron peak may disappear.
This is the typical behavior of TRACE elements. Do you understand what a TRACE element is Arthur? I can send you a trace-metal analysis for an ASTM standard flyash that I published in a report back in 1985 if that would help you.....
I used to do trace element analysis of coal, bunker-C oil and flyash. You find half the periodic table in these materials, but in the ppm or ppb concentration range.
So keep the silly posts coming Arthur ..... but all you will be doing is demonstrating the truth of the old addage:
A LITTLE LEARNING IS A DANGEROUS THING
DRINK DEEP OR TASTE NOT THE PIERIAN SPRING
An Essay on Criticism by A. Pope (1688 - 1744)
And Arthur, I quite expect a barrage of pathetic insults to follow this post since this appears to be your stock-in-trade, but they will mean nothing because they will not deflect from the truth of my arguments.
So, would it be too much to ask you to be CIVIL for a change, you know, like a true gentleman and scholar would behave....
NF
OH DEAR?
QUOTE (Neu+)
I quite expect a barrage of pathetic insults to follow this post since this appears to be your stock-in-trade, but they will mean nothing because they will not deflect from the truth of my arguments.
So your START out with an INSULT.
Typical.
The fact is you went on this TANGENT after YOUR INSULT to all the NIST scientists:
So your START out with an INSULT.
Typical.
The fact is you went on this TANGENT after YOUR INSULT to all the NIST scientists:
QUOTE (Neu+)
NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST's collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
And then later he INSULTS me and other people who have patiently explained the NIST report to those who choose NOT to actually read/learn from it
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory
And then later he INSULTS me and other people who have patiently explained the NIST report to those who choose NOT to actually read/learn from it
QUOTE (Neu+)
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
Which is not only NOT true:
Which shows HOW SUPERFICIAL NEU's analysis of the NIST report was.
WHY?
Well apparently this superficiality is NEU's "Stock in Trade", and when his "TRUTH" is rejected he responds with a CHEAP SHOT (INSULT) because it conflicts with his own PET THEORY on how the WTC towers collapsed.
A theory that he can obviously not get published.
Which we see an allusion to here after I point out that:
"NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal to any of its (NIST's) findings"
WHOA, does NEU jump right on that or what?
Which shows HOW SUPERFICIAL NEU's analysis of the NIST report was.
WHY?
Well apparently this superficiality is NEU's "Stock in Trade", and when his "TRUTH" is rejected he responds with a CHEAP SHOT (INSULT) because it conflicts with his own PET THEORY on how the WTC towers collapsed.
A theory that he can obviously not get published.
Which we see an allusion to here after I point out that:
"NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal to any of its (NIST's) findings"
WHOA, does NEU jump right on that or what?
I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!
I believe the same thing is happening with research questioning the "official" position on global warming.
And the same thing has happened to me with regard to work I tried to publish on problems with Canada's nuclear reactors...
I call it SCIENTIFIC FASCISM....
Except this is BULL on SO MANY LEVELS.
I do like how he relates it to FASCISM though.
The FACT is GOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPERS will find a publisher. If a GOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPER existed that DISPUTED NIST'S findings there are any NUMBER of volume outlets on the Internet who would host it.
The fact is THERE ARE NONE.
Arthur
The TWO criteria that NIST used for pull in force:
Now look at page 146 NISTNCSTAR1-6c figure 5-110. The east face of floor 80 is connected and pushing out from columns 300 – 340.
Now go to page 59 NISTNCSTAR1-6d Figure 2–43. Locations of floor/wall disconnections and pull-in forces for the global analysis of WTC 2 between 50 min and 60 min for Case D conditions.
They show all the floor 80 columns pulling-in for the global model.
So this proves NIST did not even follow its own criteria and applied pull-in forces to columns that should be pushing-out (or lied as the OTC would claim).
No, they didn't lie. They stated the limitations of the full floor model. The full floor model captured some of the inward forces on the perimeter wall along the southern side of the east face of WTC2.
Not surprisingly, both towers showed bowing on the sides with the longest span floors and the global collapse started by the towers leaning toward those sides. Ideally a full floor model should capture all of the inward forces. A more elaborate full floor model is needed.
From NIST 1-6d p52:
"As previously described above for the case of WTC 1, the photographic and video evidence was also reviewed by NIST to determine the extent of inward bowing of the east wall of WTC 2. These displacement measurements were used to update the location and the magnitude of the pull-in forces applied to the global model. The earliest observations of inward bowing for WTC 2 were made at 9:21 a.m., 18 min after impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-6), when the east wall was observed to be bowing inward between Column 301 and Column 345 between Floor 78 and Floor 83. At this time, NIST estimated the maximum inward deformation to be about 10 in. at Floors 80 and 81 between Column 322 and Column 329. To replicate this inward bowing, pull-in forces were applied at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82. The full floor analyses correctly predicted the floors that were pulled in, but underestimated the location of the pull-in forces across the width of the east wall, relative to that required to replicate the observed bowing. The locations of pull-in forces predicted by the full-floor analyses were concentrated toward the south side of the east wall and typically ranged between Columns 329 and 359 at Floor 82 and between Columns 357 and 359 at Floor 79. The locations of pull-in forces estimated from the observation were used to augment those obtained from the full floor analyses. Based on this augmented data, at 20 min after imact, pull-in forces were applied over the entire width of the east wall at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82 in the global analysis."
An estimate can be made on how much energy is needed to eject trees across the street to WFC and Winter Garden. It turns out to be a very small fraction of the KE of the total falling mass.
From a previous post, the trees from the 83rd to 96th level were in the range of 3.5 to 7 tons (3200 to 6400 kg) each.
Videos show that trees that were ejected across West Street were traveling laterally about 15 to 20 m/s. They originated from the upper levels of the tower in order to reach 500 feet at that observed lateral speed. To eject 3 stories worth of tree mass (80 complete trees covering 3 stories) from the 83rd level laterally to 500 feet requires about 78 MJ.
KE = 80*0.5mv^2 = 80*0.5*6400*17.5^2 = 78 MJ
The KE of the total falling mass at the 83rd level for WTC1 after 13 impacts and about 4 seconds into the collapse was approximately 16 GJ. The speed of the total falling mass can be measured directly from the videos or calculated using a Greening type of model, which show a front speed of about 20 m/s at the 83rd level. The falling mass at that point was 27 stories or approximately 81E6 kg using an average mass of 3E6 kg per story. The KE of the falling mass at that point was:
KE = 0.5*(27*3E6)*20^2 = 16 GJ (KE of total falling mass)
For WTC1, the ratio of KE of ejecting all trees at the 83rd level (3 stories worth of trees) across the street to the KE of total falling mass is:
0.078 GJ / 16 GJ = 0.0049
The ratio of the KE of 3 ejected trees striking the WFC to that of the KE of the falling mass of the tower at the 83rd level is:
0.0049*(3/80) = 0.00018
Regarding the trees in the WFC, some of the alternative sites have asked, "Where could all of that enormous energy have come from?" The answer is that it was only about 0.00018 the KE of the falling mass, which came from gravitational energy.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
Which is not only NOT true:
QUOTE
The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
Which shows HOW SUPERFICIAL NEU's analysis of the NIST report was.
WHY?
Well apparently this superficiality is NEU's "Stock in Trade", and when his "TRUTH" is rejected he responds with a CHEAP SHOT (INSULT) because it conflicts with his own PET THEORY on how the WTC towers collapsed.
A theory that he can obviously not get published.
Which we see an allusion to here after I point out that:
"NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal to any of its (NIST's) findings"
WHOA, does NEU jump right on that or what?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal. The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis. |
Which shows HOW SUPERFICIAL NEU's analysis of the NIST report was.
WHY?
Well apparently this superficiality is NEU's "Stock in Trade", and when his "TRUTH" is rejected he responds with a CHEAP SHOT (INSULT) because it conflicts with his own PET THEORY on how the WTC towers collapsed.
A theory that he can obviously not get published.
Which we see an allusion to here after I point out that:
"NOT ONE REPUTABLE SCIENTIST has published a significant rebuttal in a peer reviewed journal to any of its (NIST's) findings"
WHOA, does NEU jump right on that or what?
I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST's findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!
I believe the same thing is happening with research questioning the "official" position on global warming.
And the same thing has happened to me with regard to work I tried to publish on problems with Canada's nuclear reactors...
I call it SCIENTIFIC FASCISM....
Except this is BULL on SO MANY LEVELS.
I do like how he relates it to FASCISM though.
The FACT is GOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPERS will find a publisher. If a GOOD SCIENTIFIC PAPER existed that DISPUTED NIST'S findings there are any NUMBER of volume outlets on the Internet who would host it.
The fact is THERE ARE NONE.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 17 2007, 06:01 AM)
The TWO criteria that NIST used for pull in force:
Now look at page 146 NISTNCSTAR1-6c figure 5-110. The east face of floor 80 is connected and pushing out from columns 300 – 340.
Now go to page 59 NISTNCSTAR1-6d Figure 2–43. Locations of floor/wall disconnections and pull-in forces for the global analysis of WTC 2 between 50 min and 60 min for Case D conditions.
They show all the floor 80 columns pulling-in for the global model.
So this proves NIST did not even follow its own criteria and applied pull-in forces to columns that should be pushing-out (or lied as the OTC would claim).
No, they didn't lie. They stated the limitations of the full floor model. The full floor model captured some of the inward forces on the perimeter wall along the southern side of the east face of WTC2.
Not surprisingly, both towers showed bowing on the sides with the longest span floors and the global collapse started by the towers leaning toward those sides. Ideally a full floor model should capture all of the inward forces. A more elaborate full floor model is needed.
From NIST 1-6d p52:
"As previously described above for the case of WTC 1, the photographic and video evidence was also reviewed by NIST to determine the extent of inward bowing of the east wall of WTC 2. These displacement measurements were used to update the location and the magnitude of the pull-in forces applied to the global model. The earliest observations of inward bowing for WTC 2 were made at 9:21 a.m., 18 min after impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-6), when the east wall was observed to be bowing inward between Column 301 and Column 345 between Floor 78 and Floor 83. At this time, NIST estimated the maximum inward deformation to be about 10 in. at Floors 80 and 81 between Column 322 and Column 329. To replicate this inward bowing, pull-in forces were applied at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82. The full floor analyses correctly predicted the floors that were pulled in, but underestimated the location of the pull-in forces across the width of the east wall, relative to that required to replicate the observed bowing. The locations of pull-in forces predicted by the full-floor analyses were concentrated toward the south side of the east wall and typically ranged between Columns 329 and 359 at Floor 82 and between Columns 357 and 359 at Floor 79. The locations of pull-in forces estimated from the observation were used to augment those obtained from the full floor analyses. Based on this augmented data, at 20 min after imact, pull-in forces were applied over the entire width of the east wall at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82 in the global analysis."
According to the flow chart, the floor subsystem, observed damage, and the isolated wall and core were all inputs to the global model.
Someone posted the Broadgate photos a while back. There are a number of features that are worth noting. The first pic shows two trusses meeting at an intermediate column. This is a different design compared with wtc1, wtc2, and wtc7 where trusses spanned from the core to perimeter unsupported.
The second photo shows the moment resisting floor-column connections consisting of a plate and a vertical line of fasteners. This is different than the pin-type connections used in the wtc towers which had little to no moment-resisting ability. Those two features of the Broadgate design are a more judicious way of designing a building in terms of resisting a fire. The trusses at Broadgate sagged as much as half meter but the columns didn't collapse completely and floor sections didn't fall. The floors had alternative pathways through the intermediate columns to transfer their loads during sagging.
The moment-resisting connections also provided a means of reducing the amount of inward pull on the columns and transferring some of the floor load as vertical loading on the columns in spite of truss sagging. The pin connections of the towers are expected to transfer the load of sagging floors as an inward force on the walls parallel with the truss chords with less vertical loading than would be the case for moment-resisting connections. The moment-resisting connections and intermediate columns also gave the overall column-truss structure an ability to maintain its box-like lattice structure, as opposed to the towers where the perimeter walls bowed and buckled inward.
The diagonals of Broadgate are not circular like the rods used in the trusses of the WTC but appear to be the geometry of angle iron. It's not known if that geometry has a greater ability to resist buckling at elevated temperature.
The Broadgate fire occurred when the building was under construction, so the live loads would have been small, which would have lessened the degree of sagging compared with full live loads. The trusses and columns were damaged but the structure survived without the insulation. Broadgate was one of the rationales for the Cardington tests since it was an unusual example of a metal trussed structure surviving a fire with no insulation.
The second photo shows the moment resisting floor-column connections consisting of a plate and a vertical line of fasteners. This is different than the pin-type connections used in the wtc towers which had little to no moment-resisting ability. Those two features of the Broadgate design are a more judicious way of designing a building in terms of resisting a fire. The trusses at Broadgate sagged as much as half meter but the columns didn't collapse completely and floor sections didn't fall. The floors had alternative pathways through the intermediate columns to transfer their loads during sagging.
The moment-resisting connections also provided a means of reducing the amount of inward pull on the columns and transferring some of the floor load as vertical loading on the columns in spite of truss sagging. The pin connections of the towers are expected to transfer the load of sagging floors as an inward force on the walls parallel with the truss chords with less vertical loading than would be the case for moment-resisting connections. The moment-resisting connections and intermediate columns also gave the overall column-truss structure an ability to maintain its box-like lattice structure, as opposed to the towers where the perimeter walls bowed and buckled inward.
The diagonals of Broadgate are not circular like the rods used in the trusses of the WTC but appear to be the geometry of angle iron. It's not known if that geometry has a greater ability to resist buckling at elevated temperature.
The Broadgate fire occurred when the building was under construction, so the live loads would have been small, which would have lessened the degree of sagging compared with full live loads. The trusses and columns were damaged but the structure survived without the insulation. Broadgate was one of the rationales for the Cardington tests since it was an unusual example of a metal trussed structure surviving a fire with no insulation.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Mar 18 2007, 12:41 AM)
From
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
Elsevier, 2006, page 31
"... we will demonstrate the type of buckling known as snapthrough or oil-canning."
oil-canning?
I have some pics of silos and similar structures buckling unexpectantly. I'll try to post a few.
G.J. Simitses & D.H. Hodges
Fundamentals of Structural Stability
Elsevier, 2006, page 31
"... we will demonstrate the type of buckling known as snapthrough or oil-canning."
oil-canning?
I have some pics of silos and similar structures buckling unexpectantly. I'll try to post a few.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Mar 17 2007, 08:32 PM)
adoucette
Another source for iron/steel sphericals would be from the welding as the building was erected. The sphericals could have been in and around the joints since the early 70's, to be spread by the collapse.
Grumpy
Or all of the 'welding' afterwards during cleanup operations.
I could see how this could inject air to a molten pool and lead to sputtering of fine particles of iron during the melting and solidification. There's an issue as to how easily such particles could go airborn and end up outside the footprint.
Other elements related to the torch cuts during cleanup were noticed in the air samples, such as manganese, IIRC.
It would be worth looking at dust samples taken from tall buildings that are intentionally demolished, such as the Hudson.
Another source for iron/steel sphericals would be from the welding as the building was erected. The sphericals could have been in and around the joints since the early 70's, to be spread by the collapse.
Grumpy
Or all of the 'welding' afterwards during cleanup operations.
I could see how this could inject air to a molten pool and lead to sputtering of fine particles of iron during the melting and solidification. There's an issue as to how easily such particles could go airborn and end up outside the footprint.
Other elements related to the torch cuts during cleanup were noticed in the air samples, such as manganese, IIRC.
It would be worth looking at dust samples taken from tall buildings that are intentionally demolished, such as the Hudson.
Shagster:
About your suggestion that the iron spherules came from cutting operations:
1. It does NOT account for the high concentrations of airborne ZINC.
2. Steel cutting operations (according to OSHA data) usually generate "fume" concentrations less than 1 mg/m^3 in the vicinity of a typical torch-cutting operation and less than 10 g of iron fume is released per operation. If there were 10,000 cutting operations at ground zero during site clean-up at GZ that is a total of only 100 kg of iron fume. I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
3. The iron spherules were ubiquitous in the WTC dust. Thus they were easy to find in a total of say 50,000 tonnes of dust. Try finding 100 kg of something in 50,000 tonnes of material.
4. Cutting operations were carried out on average within 5 meters of the ground. Iron particles in the size range we are considering (~ 10 microns) have settling velocities such that the particles would all settle-out within 200 meters of GZ given the wind speeds recorded in Lower Manhattan in September 2001.
5. The USGS samples were collected WITHIN ONE WEEK of 9/11 well BEFORE there had been major cutting operations and some USGS samples were collected up to 1 km from GZ. Many of the The R.J. Lee Group's samples were collected high up in 130 Liberty Street.
NF
About your suggestion that the iron spherules came from cutting operations:
1. It does NOT account for the high concentrations of airborne ZINC.
2. Steel cutting operations (according to OSHA data) usually generate "fume" concentrations less than 1 mg/m^3 in the vicinity of a typical torch-cutting operation and less than 10 g of iron fume is released per operation. If there were 10,000 cutting operations at ground zero during site clean-up at GZ that is a total of only 100 kg of iron fume. I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
3. The iron spherules were ubiquitous in the WTC dust. Thus they were easy to find in a total of say 50,000 tonnes of dust. Try finding 100 kg of something in 50,000 tonnes of material.
4. Cutting operations were carried out on average within 5 meters of the ground. Iron particles in the size range we are considering (~ 10 microns) have settling velocities such that the particles would all settle-out within 200 meters of GZ given the wind speeds recorded in Lower Manhattan in September 2001.
5. The USGS samples were collected WITHIN ONE WEEK of 9/11 well BEFORE there had been major cutting operations and some USGS samples were collected up to 1 km from GZ. Many of the The R.J. Lee Group's samples were collected high up in 130 Liberty Street.
NF
An estimate can be made on how much energy is needed to eject trees across the street to WFC and Winter Garden. It turns out to be a very small fraction of the KE of the total falling mass.
From a previous post, the trees from the 83rd to 96th level were in the range of 3.5 to 7 tons (3200 to 6400 kg) each.
Videos show that trees that were ejected across West Street were traveling laterally about 15 to 20 m/s. They originated from the upper levels of the tower in order to reach 500 feet at that observed lateral speed. To eject 3 stories worth of tree mass (80 complete trees covering 3 stories) from the 83rd level laterally to 500 feet requires about 78 MJ.
KE = 80*0.5mv^2 = 80*0.5*6400*17.5^2 = 78 MJ
The KE of the total falling mass at the 83rd level for WTC1 after 13 impacts and about 4 seconds into the collapse was approximately 16 GJ. The speed of the total falling mass can be measured directly from the videos or calculated using a Greening type of model, which show a front speed of about 20 m/s at the 83rd level. The falling mass at that point was 27 stories or approximately 81E6 kg using an average mass of 3E6 kg per story. The KE of the falling mass at that point was:
KE = 0.5*(27*3E6)*20^2 = 16 GJ (KE of total falling mass)
For WTC1, the ratio of KE of ejecting all trees at the 83rd level (3 stories worth of trees) across the street to the KE of total falling mass is:
0.078 GJ / 16 GJ = 0.0049
The ratio of the KE of 3 ejected trees striking the WFC to that of the KE of the falling mass of the tower at the 83rd level is:
0.0049*(3/80) = 0.00018
Regarding the trees in the WFC, some of the alternative sites have asked, "Where could all of that enormous energy have come from?" The answer is that it was only about 0.00018 the KE of the falling mass, which came from gravitational energy.
This is a RED HERRING.
Metal sphericals of this infintesimal size in the dust are NOT evidence of preplanted Thermate or Thermite or any other such nonsense.
Neu has shown NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for his estimate of the amount of Iron SPHERICALS.
Arthur
Metal sphericals of this infintesimal size in the dust are NOT evidence of preplanted Thermate or Thermite or any other such nonsense.
Neu has shown NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for his estimate of the amount of Iron SPHERICALS.
Arthur
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 18 2007, 06:51 AM)
No, they didn't lie. They stated the limitations of the full floor model. The full floor model captured some of the inward forces on the perimeter wall along the southern side of the east face of WTC2.
Not surprisingly, both towers showed bowing on the sides with the longest span floors and the global collapse started by the towers leaning toward those sides. Ideally a full floor model should capture all of the inward forces. A more elaborate full floor model is needed.
From NIST 1-6d p52:
"As previously described above for the case of WTC 1, the photographic and video evidence was also reviewed by NIST to determine the extent of inward bowing of the east wall of WTC 2. These displacement measurements were used to update the location and the magnitude of the pull-in forces applied to the global model. The earliest observations of inward bowing for WTC 2 were made at 9:21 a.m., 18 min after impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-6), when the east wall was observed to be bowing inward between Column 301 and Column 345 between Floor 78 and Floor 83. At this time, NIST estimated the maximum inward deformation to be about 10 in. at Floors 80 and 81 between Column 322 and Column 329. To replicate this inward bowing, pull-in forces were applied at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82. The full floor analyses correctly predicted the floors that were pulled in, but underestimated the location of the pull-in forces across the width of the east wall, relative to that required to replicate the observed bowing. The locations of pull-in forces predicted by the full-floor analyses were concentrated toward the south side of the east wall and typically ranged between Columns 329 and 359 at Floor 82 and between Columns 357 and 359 at Floor 79. The locations of pull-in forces estimated from the observation were used to augment those obtained from the full floor analyses. Based on this augmented data, at 20 min after imact, pull-in forces were applied over the entire width of the east wall at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82 in the global analysis."
So, you like the other apologist claim this is true:
What the NIST report should have stated (if they wanted to tell the truth):
What the NIST report should have stated (if they wanted to tell the truth):
Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analysis, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analysis:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Compressive forces were REPLACED by Tensile forces between the exterior wall and the floor system when OBSERVATION CONTRADICTED the FEA SIMULATION (AND THAT WAS MORE OFTEN THEN NOT).
Not surprisingly, both towers showed bowing on the sides with the longest span floors and the global collapse started by the towers leaning toward those sides. Ideally a full floor model should capture all of the inward forces. A more elaborate full floor model is needed.
From NIST 1-6d p52:
"As previously described above for the case of WTC 1, the photographic and video evidence was also reviewed by NIST to determine the extent of inward bowing of the east wall of WTC 2. These displacement measurements were used to update the location and the magnitude of the pull-in forces applied to the global model. The earliest observations of inward bowing for WTC 2 were made at 9:21 a.m., 18 min after impact (NIST NCSTAR 1-6), when the east wall was observed to be bowing inward between Column 301 and Column 345 between Floor 78 and Floor 83. At this time, NIST estimated the maximum inward deformation to be about 10 in. at Floors 80 and 81 between Column 322 and Column 329. To replicate this inward bowing, pull-in forces were applied at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82. The full floor analyses correctly predicted the floors that were pulled in, but underestimated the location of the pull-in forces across the width of the east wall, relative to that required to replicate the observed bowing. The locations of pull-in forces predicted by the full-floor analyses were concentrated toward the south side of the east wall and typically ranged between Columns 329 and 359 at Floor 82 and between Columns 357 and 359 at Floor 79. The locations of pull-in forces estimated from the observation were used to augment those obtained from the full floor analyses. Based on this augmented data, at 20 min after imact, pull-in forces were applied over the entire width of the east wall at Floors 79, 80, 81, and 82 in the global analysis."
So, you like the other apologist claim this is true:
QUOTE
Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analyses, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analyses:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system
What the NIST report should have stated (if they wanted to tell the truth):
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analyses, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analyses: • Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected) • Tensile force between the exterior wall and the floor system |
What the NIST report should have stated (if they wanted to tell the truth):
Pull-in force was applied to the exterior column in the global analysis, where either one of the following conditions was encountered in the full floor analysis:
• Gusset plate failure + bolt shear-off + significant deflection (>25 in.) of the floor slab in that area (floor remains vertically connected)
• Compressive forces were REPLACED by Tensile forces between the exterior wall and the floor system when OBSERVATION CONTRADICTED the FEA SIMULATION (AND THAT WAS MORE OFTEN THEN NOT).
YAWN
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 18 2007, 09:31 AM)
This is a RED HERRING.
Metal sphericals of this infintesimal size in the dust are NOT evidence of preplanted Thermate or Thermite or any other such nonsense.
Neu has shown NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for his estimate of the amount of Iron SPHERICALS.
Arthur
Keep repeating it Arthurs , sooner or later someone might believe you!
I don’t recall NF saying anything about thermite/thermite.
You have made obvious now why you are panicking.
Metal sphericals of this infintesimal size in the dust are NOT evidence of preplanted Thermate or Thermite or any other such nonsense.
Neu has shown NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS for his estimate of the amount of Iron SPHERICALS.
Arthur
Keep repeating it Arthurs , sooner or later someone might believe you!
I don’t recall NF saying anything about thermite/thermite.
You have made obvious now why you are panicking.
Panic?
Me?
No way Jose'.
I believe that NEU is off on a wild goose chase which I think is unlikely to shed any new light on how or why the towers fell.
I object to his catagorization of me (and others) as NIST APPOLOGISTS and have SHOWN where he was WRONG about the NIST SFRM assumptions.
But regardless of our differences on THIS SPECIFIC AREA, Neu isn't a CT'er and so far has done/said nothing that supports the CT'er view that the buildings were brought down by anything but the planes, the fires and ultimately gravity.
Arthur
Me?
No way Jose'.
I believe that NEU is off on a wild goose chase which I think is unlikely to shed any new light on how or why the towers fell.
I object to his catagorization of me (and others) as NIST APPOLOGISTS and have SHOWN where he was WRONG about the NIST SFRM assumptions.
But regardless of our differences on THIS SPECIFIC AREA, Neu isn't a CT'er and so far has done/said nothing that supports the CT'er view that the buildings were brought down by anything but the planes, the fires and ultimately gravity.
Arthur
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 18 2007, 05:43 PM)
What the NIST report should have stated (if they wanted to tell the truth):
NIST stated that in Appendix A of NCSTAR1-6d. The full floor models captured some of the pull-in force but not most of it.
"Although the floor sagging was captured by the floor models in the heated area, the pull-in force on the exterior columns was not captured in most of the full floor model anlyses."
NIST stated that in Appendix A of NCSTAR1-6d. The full floor models captured some of the pull-in force but not most of it.
"Although the floor sagging was captured by the floor models in the heated area, the pull-in force on the exterior columns was not captured in most of the full floor model anlyses."
NF, thanks for the iron spherule data. I haven't looked into it in great detail. It's an intriguing artifact.
Maybe someone has some data on what micron-size steel particles look like that result from grinding operations. Glowing pieces of metal are seen during grinding operations on metals. A small particle of metal can heat quickly since it has a high surface area to volume ratio. The floor pans and wire mesh in the concrete were the most intimate with the concrete when it was being pulverized.
Maybe someone has some data on what micron-size steel particles look like that result from grinding operations. Glowing pieces of metal are seen during grinding operations on metals. A small particle of metal can heat quickly since it has a high surface area to volume ratio. The floor pans and wire mesh in the concrete were the most intimate with the concrete when it was being pulverized.
Beer-canning 
That I can relate to. Thanks to all who responded. 
reasonwhy --- You'll find NIST's own summary of simplifications in the FEA modeling by reading NCSTAR1-6's so-called Executive Summary.
NEU-FONZE --- Does anything in comminution studies help to explain the micron sized particles of iron?
That I can relate to. Thanks to all who responded. reasonwhy --- You'll find NIST's own summary of simplifications in the FEA modeling by reading NCSTAR1-6's so-called Executive Summary.
NEU-FONZE --- Does anything in comminution studies help to explain the micron sized particles of iron?
Iron particles that are 10 microns in diameter are not infinitesimal, as somebody recently suggested, and I don't know why anyone would want to say that. (Actually in the world of airborne particulate, 10 microns is LARGE - so-called respirable particles are sub-micron.) The whole friggin UNIVERSE is made up of atoms which are close to being infinitesimal in size the last I heard.....
The amount of iron I estimated a while back is based on a simple calculation from the analytical data reported by the USGS, EPA, etc, etc, so it most assuredly has a scientific basis..... if anyone has a problem with this they should talk to the scientists at the USGS and the US EPA, which like NIST are also US government agencies.
ZINC, at the concentrations reported by many researchers is very consistent with the proposed vaporization of zinc in the galvanized steel floor pans. There would obviously be other contributions to zinc in the WTC dust but they would be small in comparison to the galvanized steel contributions.
MANGANESE is another element of interest and it displays strange concentrations relative to iron that indicate the melting of iron since Mn and Fe are almost always found together.
Anyway, I am puzzled that so many NISTIANS on this thread are getting all in a tizzy over these observations.
NIST lost interest in the collapses of the towers 1 millisecond after it got the collapse started with its model. At least Bazant, Cherepanov, et al. have taken an interest in looking a little further.
I don't think NIST uses the words, pulverized, dust, rubble pile, aerosol, spherule or molten anywhere in its report so NIST lost a great chance to consider forensic evidence that may have helped its study.
But thank God the analytical chemists came to the rescue and have assembled a great resource for 9/11 researchers.
(Ok, time for the "NIST is wonderful mantra" from you know who)
NF
The amount of iron I estimated a while back is based on a simple calculation from the analytical data reported by the USGS, EPA, etc, etc, so it most assuredly has a scientific basis..... if anyone has a problem with this they should talk to the scientists at the USGS and the US EPA, which like NIST are also US government agencies.
ZINC, at the concentrations reported by many researchers is very consistent with the proposed vaporization of zinc in the galvanized steel floor pans. There would obviously be other contributions to zinc in the WTC dust but they would be small in comparison to the galvanized steel contributions.
MANGANESE is another element of interest and it displays strange concentrations relative to iron that indicate the melting of iron since Mn and Fe are almost always found together.
Anyway, I am puzzled that so many NISTIANS on this thread are getting all in a tizzy over these observations.
NIST lost interest in the collapses of the towers 1 millisecond after it got the collapse started with its model. At least Bazant, Cherepanov, et al. have taken an interest in looking a little further.
I don't think NIST uses the words, pulverized, dust, rubble pile, aerosol, spherule or molten anywhere in its report so NIST lost a great chance to consider forensic evidence that may have helped its study.
But thank God the analytical chemists came to the rescue and have assembled a great resource for 9/11 researchers.
(Ok, time for the "NIST is wonderful mantra" from you know who)
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 18 2007, 03:22 PM)
The amount of iron I estimated a while back is based on a simple calculation from the analytical data reported by the USGS, EPA, etc, etc, so it most assuredly has a scientific basis..... if anyone has a problem with this they should talk to the scientists at the USGS and the US EPA, which like NIST are also US government agencies.
So, WHERE are these calculations that show where your estimate of the 200 TONS of iron spericals comes from? I've looked and can't find a single reference that indicates what part of the Fe found in the dust was spericals vs an Fe shaving or an Fe compound.
Also please note that the results from the DUST analysis are a POOR basis for calculating percent in the towers. Dust was collected from where it was FOUND, there is NO EVIDENCE that the dust was uniformly distributed in any manner which lends itself to simple mathematical analysis, in fact there is ample evidence that it was not. Just as important, the dust was SEIVED prior to analysis which would of course make SMALL particles artificially appear to have a larger concentration than they actually do.
Without the "dislodged fire protection material" facet, the NIST theory has no standing.
NF/Dr. Greening appears to be in search of the scientific basis for the truth no matter where it may lead.
So, no matter what anyone says, this is commendable.
Its not commendable if its WRONG.
The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
Arthur
So, WHERE are these calculations that show where your estimate of the 200 TONS of iron spericals comes from? I've looked and can't find a single reference that indicates what part of the Fe found in the dust was spericals vs an Fe shaving or an Fe compound.
Also please note that the results from the DUST analysis are a POOR basis for calculating percent in the towers. Dust was collected from where it was FOUND, there is NO EVIDENCE that the dust was uniformly distributed in any manner which lends itself to simple mathematical analysis, in fact there is ample evidence that it was not. Just as important, the dust was SEIVED prior to analysis which would of course make SMALL particles artificially appear to have a larger concentration than they actually do.
QUOTE (EPA+)
Sieving was performed on bulk samples prior to distribution, thus all dust was sieved using the same method. It was necessary to sieve samples in order to have a sample conducive to SEM analysis. Sieve size is 150 microns, large enough to let slag wool fibers through but small enough to keep out most large debris.
As to your catagorization of NIST "losing interest", NOPE, they REFERENCE Bazant and AGREE that his extimate of the excess of energy available for collapse progression was the LOWER bound. Thus it is/was POINTLESS to go further for what NIST was charged with.
Arthur
As to your catagorization of NIST "losing interest", NOPE, they REFERENCE Bazant and AGREE that his extimate of the excess of energy available for collapse progression was the LOWER bound. Thus it is/was POINTLESS to go further for what NIST was charged with.
Arthur
I did find this which was interesting:
During a 10-month period rescue workers screened and sifted 1.2 million tons of material that came from the WTC site to Fresh Kills. The screened and sifted WTC materials remaining at Fresh Kills were placed in a 48-acre area. The screened material sifted during the course of the recovery effort included fines, materials that passed through a quarter-inch sieve. These fines amounted to approximately 360,000-480,000 tons.
Thus I think I have found a decent breakdown of the material by size.
~ 1/3 would go through a quarter-inch sieve while ~ 2/3 would not.
The doc was from the EPA
Its not numbered but this paragraph is found in Charge Question 9
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/final-re...nts-dec2006.pdf
Arthur
During a 10-month period rescue workers screened and sifted 1.2 million tons of material that came from the WTC site to Fresh Kills. The screened and sifted WTC materials remaining at Fresh Kills were placed in a 48-acre area. The screened material sifted during the course of the recovery effort included fines, materials that passed through a quarter-inch sieve. These fines amounted to approximately 360,000-480,000 tons.
Thus I think I have found a decent breakdown of the material by size.
~ 1/3 would go through a quarter-inch sieve while ~ 2/3 would not.
The doc was from the EPA
Its not numbered but this paragraph is found in Charge Question 9
http://www.epa.gov/wtc/panel/pdfs/final-re...nts-dec2006.pdf
Arthur
Photo of the pile with the bowtie level seen in the background.
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 18 2007, 10:59 AM)
Panic?
But regardless of our differences on THIS SPECIFIC AREA, Neu isn't a CT'er and so far has done/said nothing that supports the CT'er view that the buildings were brought down by anything but the planes, the fires and ultimately gravity.
Arthur
(emphasis mine)
Actually, his writing of this post below strikes deep at the NIST theory (which basically is: plane's impact.... plus dislodged fire protection material.... plus intense fires.... yields collapse initiation):
His post at Mar 16 2007, 10:01 AM
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1380#
On April 13, 1970, New York City issued a ban on the use of all sprayed on thermal insulations containing asbestos, the notorious fibrous silicate mineral that was a major component of Blaze-shield Type D. The use of asbestos-containing insulation was discontinued at this time at the 38th floor of WTC 1.
In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material (SFRM) to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
Without the "dislodged fire protection material" facet, the NIST theory has no standing.
NF/Dr. Greening appears to be in search of the scientific basis for the truth no matter where it may lead.
So, no matter what anyone says, this is commendable.
But regardless of our differences on THIS SPECIFIC AREA, Neu isn't a CT'er and so far has done/said nothing that supports the CT'er view that the buildings were brought down by anything but the planes, the fires and ultimately gravity.
Arthur
(emphasis mine)
Actually, his writing of this post below strikes deep at the NIST theory (which basically is: plane's impact.... plus dislodged fire protection material.... plus intense fires.... yields collapse initiation):
His post at Mar 16 2007, 10:01 AM
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=12383&st=1380#
QUOTE
On April 13, 1970, New York City issued a ban on the use of all sprayed on thermal insulations containing asbestos, the notorious fibrous silicate mineral that was a major component of Blaze-shield Type D. The use of asbestos-containing insulation was discontinued at this time at the 38th floor of WTC 1.
In February 1975, a fire occurred in WTC 1 that affected floors 9 to 19 and led to a review of the adequacy of the existing thermal insulation in the entire WTC. The need to upgrade the passive fire protection in the Twin Towers was finally addressed in 1995 when, after yet another study, it was decided to apply a 1½ inch thickness of an asbestos-free spray-on mineral fiber fire protection material (SFRM) to selected steel surfaces. Thus, between 1995 and 2001, thermal protection was upgraded specifically on 18 floors in WTC 1, including floors 92 to 100 and 102; and on 13 floors in WTC 2 including floors 77, 78, 88, 89, 92 and 97. (See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A page xxxvii).
We may conclude that:
(i) The SFRM was upgraded SPECIFICALLY IN THOSE AREAS OF WTC 1 & 2 THAT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY EXPOSED TO FIRES DURING 9/11.
(ii) The newly sprayed surfaces would have been inspected and approved as meeting thickness requirements.
The NIST tests of the force needed to dislodge the SFRM by impact show that the material was NOT easily dislodged by impact.
You could try to get out of this problem by suggesting SFRM was scraped off by the impacting aircraft but this would not have disloged SFRM in the crucial areas ABOVE the impact zones.
This really is the WEAKEST part of the NIST REPORT, I don't care what all the NIST apologists say!
NF
Without the "dislodged fire protection material" facet, the NIST theory has no standing.
NF/Dr. Greening appears to be in search of the scientific basis for the truth no matter where it may lead.
So, no matter what anyone says, this is commendable.
Arthur:
Thanks for posting the information you found on the sieving of WTC material. Yes, I agree it is important to know if a sample was sieved before analysis.
The most important sources of data on WTC dust are those obtained by research groups associated with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS), as contained in reports authored by P.J. Lioy, J. K. McGee, G. A. Swayze, G. P. Meeker. There is also the data set obtained by the private consulting firm the RJ Lee Group.
The chemical analyses reported by all these authors depend on three major factors.
(i) How soon after 9/11 the samples were collected.
(ii) Where, in relation to Ground Zero, the samples were collected.
(iii) Whether or not the sample was size-fractionated (usually by sieving) before analysis.
The ideal WTC dust sample would be one collected immediately after 9/11 because periods of rain, (such as those that actually occurred in the days following September 11th 2001), no doubt altered its composition, especially with regard to soluble species such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl-, etc.
Factors (ii) and (iii) are important because a natural size-fractionation of the WTC dust occurred as it deposited over Lower Manhattan - the coarser particles settling closer to Ground Zero while the smaller, (less than 1 micron in diameter), particles were transported by the prevailing winds to Staten Island, Brooklyn, New Jersey, etc, namely locations many kilometers from the WTC site. Thus coarse high-density fragments such as shards of metal were enriched in samples collected at Ground Zero while fine, low-density particles such as soot or other carbonaceous materials and man-made vitreous fibers were enriched in samples collected at more remote locations.
With the above considerations in mind it is probable that the analytical data obtained by the USGS are the most representative of “as-formed” WTC dust because these analyses are reported for samples collected within one week of 9/11. However, it is important to recognize that the data reported by Lioy and McGee are for sieved samples and the results for the < 2.5 micron fraction are emphasized by these authors because this material represents the respirable particulate of interest in toxicological assessment of the WTC dust. By comparison, the data reported by Swayze are for “as-collected” material and should be quite representative of the composition of the bulk WTC dust.
Quicknthedead:
Thank you for your comment.
NF
Thanks for posting the information you found on the sieving of WTC material. Yes, I agree it is important to know if a sample was sieved before analysis.
The most important sources of data on WTC dust are those obtained by research groups associated with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS), as contained in reports authored by P.J. Lioy, J. K. McGee, G. A. Swayze, G. P. Meeker. There is also the data set obtained by the private consulting firm the RJ Lee Group.
The chemical analyses reported by all these authors depend on three major factors.
(i) How soon after 9/11 the samples were collected.
(ii) Where, in relation to Ground Zero, the samples were collected.
(iii) Whether or not the sample was size-fractionated (usually by sieving) before analysis.
The ideal WTC dust sample would be one collected immediately after 9/11 because periods of rain, (such as those that actually occurred in the days following September 11th 2001), no doubt altered its composition, especially with regard to soluble species such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl-, etc.
Factors (ii) and (iii) are important because a natural size-fractionation of the WTC dust occurred as it deposited over Lower Manhattan - the coarser particles settling closer to Ground Zero while the smaller, (less than 1 micron in diameter), particles were transported by the prevailing winds to Staten Island, Brooklyn, New Jersey, etc, namely locations many kilometers from the WTC site. Thus coarse high-density fragments such as shards of metal were enriched in samples collected at Ground Zero while fine, low-density particles such as soot or other carbonaceous materials and man-made vitreous fibers were enriched in samples collected at more remote locations.
With the above considerations in mind it is probable that the analytical data obtained by the USGS are the most representative of “as-formed” WTC dust because these analyses are reported for samples collected within one week of 9/11. However, it is important to recognize that the data reported by Lioy and McGee are for sieved samples and the results for the < 2.5 micron fraction are emphasized by these authors because this material represents the respirable particulate of interest in toxicological assessment of the WTC dust. By comparison, the data reported by Swayze are for “as-collected” material and should be quite representative of the composition of the bulk WTC dust.
Quicknthedead:
Thank you for your comment.
NF
If I have the time, I'll try to collect some glowing steel particles from a grinding wheel operation. I have access to an SEM to observe them.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 01:36 AM)
Arthur:
Thanks for posting the information you found on the sieving of WTC material. Yes, I agree it is important to know if a sample was sieved before analysis.
The most important sources of data on WTC dust are those obtained by research groups associated with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS), as contained in reports authored by P.J. Lioy, J. K. McGee, G. A. Swayze, G. P. Meeker. There is also the data set obtained by the private consulting firm the RJ Lee Group.
The chemical analyses reported by all these authors depend on three major factors.
(i) How soon after 9/11 the samples were collected.
(ii) Where, in relation to Ground Zero, the samples were collected.
(iii) Whether or not the sample was size-fractionated (usually by sieving) before analysis.
The ideal WTC dust sample would be one collected immediately after 9/11 because periods of rain, (such as those that actually occurred in the days following September 11th 2001), no doubt altered its composition, especially with regard to soluble species such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl-, etc.
Factors (ii) and (iii) are important because a natural size-fractionation of the WTC dust occurred as it deposited over Lower Manhattan - the coarser particles settling closer to Ground Zero while the smaller, (less than 1 micron in diameter), particles were transported by the prevailing winds to Staten Island, Brooklyn, New Jersey, etc, namely locations many kilometers from the WTC site. Thus coarse high-density fragments such as shards of metal were enriched in samples collected at Ground Zero while fine, low-density particles such as soot or other carbonaceous materials and man-made vitreous fibers were enriched in samples collected at more remote locations.
With the above considerations in mind it is probable that the analytical data obtained by the USGS are the most representative of “as-formed” WTC dust because these analyses are reported for samples collected within one week of 9/11. However, it is important to recognize that the data reported by Lioy and McGee are for sieved samples and the results for the < 2.5 micron fraction are emphasized by these authors because this material represents the respirable particulate of interest in toxicological assessment of the WTC dust. By comparison, the data reported by Swayze are for “as-collected” material and should be quite representative of the composition of the bulk WTC dust.
Quicknthedead:
Thank you for your comment.
NF
Would not a major fire igniting the zinc coated-Galvanized steel in the building account for the Iron spiracles? In addition to the air handling system there was a lot of small sheet metal with a zinc coating in he world trade center.
Thanks for posting the information you found on the sieving of WTC material. Yes, I agree it is important to know if a sample was sieved before analysis.
The most important sources of data on WTC dust are those obtained by research groups associated with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS), as contained in reports authored by P.J. Lioy, J. K. McGee, G. A. Swayze, G. P. Meeker. There is also the data set obtained by the private consulting firm the RJ Lee Group.
The chemical analyses reported by all these authors depend on three major factors.
(i) How soon after 9/11 the samples were collected.
(ii) Where, in relation to Ground Zero, the samples were collected.
(iii) Whether or not the sample was size-fractionated (usually by sieving) before analysis.
The ideal WTC dust sample would be one collected immediately after 9/11 because periods of rain, (such as those that actually occurred in the days following September 11th 2001), no doubt altered its composition, especially with regard to soluble species such as Na+, K+, Ca2+, Cl-, etc.
Factors (ii) and (iii) are important because a natural size-fractionation of the WTC dust occurred as it deposited over Lower Manhattan - the coarser particles settling closer to Ground Zero while the smaller, (less than 1 micron in diameter), particles were transported by the prevailing winds to Staten Island, Brooklyn, New Jersey, etc, namely locations many kilometers from the WTC site. Thus coarse high-density fragments such as shards of metal were enriched in samples collected at Ground Zero while fine, low-density particles such as soot or other carbonaceous materials and man-made vitreous fibers were enriched in samples collected at more remote locations.
With the above considerations in mind it is probable that the analytical data obtained by the USGS are the most representative of “as-formed” WTC dust because these analyses are reported for samples collected within one week of 9/11. However, it is important to recognize that the data reported by Lioy and McGee are for sieved samples and the results for the < 2.5 micron fraction are emphasized by these authors because this material represents the respirable particulate of interest in toxicological assessment of the WTC dust. By comparison, the data reported by Swayze are for “as-collected” material and should be quite representative of the composition of the bulk WTC dust.
Quicknthedead:
Thank you for your comment.
NF
Would not a major fire igniting the zinc coated-Galvanized steel in the building account for the Iron spiracles? In addition to the air handling system there was a lot of small sheet metal with a zinc coating in he world trade center.
We should look at the iron-zinc phase diagram and see the various phases and melting points. Does anyone know if only iron was seen in these spherules?
QUOTE (quicknthedead+Mar 18 2007, 07:39 PM)
Without the "dislodged fire protection material" facet, the NIST theory has no standing.
NF/Dr. Greening appears to be in search of the scientific basis for the truth no matter where it may lead.
So, no matter what anyone says, this is commendable.
Its not commendable if its WRONG.
The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
Arthur
Anyone know the page of NIST that stated the 1 MJ per square meter figure for insulation removal that was quoted in a post a while back?
Were any tests done to see the effect of vibration of trusses on insulation removal as opposed to direct impacts by debris?
Were any tests done to see the effect of vibration of trusses on insulation removal as opposed to direct impacts by debris?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 18 2007, 08:36 PM)
Thanks for posting the information you found on the sieving of WTC material. Yes, I agree it is important to know if a sample was sieved before analysis.
So, WHERE are these calculations that show where your estimate of the 200 TONS of iron spericals comes from? I've looked and can't find a single reference that indicates what part of the Fe found in the dust was spericals vs an Fe shaving or an Fe compound.
As for the distribution:
See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/dustplume.html
and
Ferrous distribution
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/w...n.tgif.icon.gif
Still waiting.
Arthur
So, WHERE are these calculations that show where your estimate of the 200 TONS of iron spericals comes from? I've looked and can't find a single reference that indicates what part of the Fe found in the dust was spericals vs an Fe shaving or an Fe compound.
As for the distribution:
See: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/dustplume.html
and
Ferrous distribution
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/w...n.tgif.icon.gif
Still waiting.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 18 2007, 06:24 PM)
Its not commendable if its WRONG.
The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
Arthur
And what is your point?
NIST has shown how incompetent they are at simulations.
Now you want people to believe they accurately simulated the insulation removal?
If NIST tried to simulate a CD the building would explode and not collapse on itself!
Then they would have a couple of pages of excuses on why the forces went the opposite direction (plus an appendix).
The NIST report CLEARLY states (see NIST NCSTAR 1-2 and 1-6D) that they were CONSERVATIVE in their estimates of insulation removal.
The estimates developed by NIST were LIMITED TO THE INSULATION ON SECTIONS OF FRAMING THAT WERE EXPOSED TO DIRECT ABRASION BY THE DEBRIS FIELD, predicted in the impact analysis.
Arthur
And what is your point?
NIST has shown how incompetent they are at simulations.
Now you want people to believe they accurately simulated the insulation removal?
If NIST tried to simulate a CD the building would explode and not collapse on itself!
Then they would have a couple of pages of excuses on why the forces went the opposite direction (plus an appendix).
Never mind. I located it. Appendix C of 1-6a covers the impact tests.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 18 2007, 10:22 PM)
And what is your point?
NIST has shown how incompetent they are at simulations.
Now you want people to believe they accurately simulated the insulation removal?
If NIST tried to simulate a CD the building would explode and not collapse on itself!
Then they would have a couple of pages of excuses on why the forces went the opposite direction (plus an appendix).
So that's the extent of your argument?
Reasonwhy's lack of UNDERSTANDING has now morphed in his mind into an issue with NIST's competence at modeling.
Arthur
NIST has shown how incompetent they are at simulations.
Now you want people to believe they accurately simulated the insulation removal?
If NIST tried to simulate a CD the building would explode and not collapse on itself!
Then they would have a couple of pages of excuses on why the forces went the opposite direction (plus an appendix).
So that's the extent of your argument?
Reasonwhy's lack of UNDERSTANDING has now morphed in his mind into an issue with NIST's competence at modeling.
Arthur
as the worm turns.
NF, nice to see you not ignoring perfectly good evidence.
arthurs, nice to see you still ignore perfectly good evidence in favour of appeals to authority.
reasonwhy, ....nice.
NF, nice to see you not ignoring perfectly good evidence.
arthurs, nice to see you still ignore perfectly good evidence in favour of appeals to authority.
reasonwhy, ....nice.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 11 2007, 03:49 AM)
If I had the time and resources (to get the model from EAI), I would start by asking ENGINEERING ANALYSIS INC. for the model of the WTC and take a HEXDAM, VEXDAM, VASDIP, HEXFRAG TRAINING COURSE.
http://jmcleland.home.mindspring.com/EAIprs83.html
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/5WTCanim.gif
Notice the vapor cloud explosion does not go down the elevator shafts.
QUOTE
October 29, 2001, As part of a company-funded study, based on its earlier analysis of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Engineering Analysis Inc. has produced a preliminary three-dimensional graphical representation of the September 11 World Trade Center attack. The view presented is looking from west to east with the North Tower on the left and the South Tower on the right. Also included are World Trade Center Buildings #3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This representation was generated by means of the VEXDAM 5.2 software, utilizing the concept of distributed vapor cloud explosions.
Then I could experiment with all the different explosives until the model matched what we saw on 9/11.
For some reason their are models of most everything al qaida and domestic terrorist have blown up.
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/
I could also use the model of WTC7 and show how CD could bring the building down.
http://jmcleland.home.mindspring.com/EAIprs83.html
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/5WTCanim.gif
Notice the vapor cloud explosion does not go down the elevator shafts.
QUOTE
October 29, 2001, As part of a company-funded study, based on its earlier analysis of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Engineering Analysis Inc. has produced a preliminary three-dimensional graphical representation of the September 11 World Trade Center attack. The view presented is looking from west to east with the North Tower on the left and the South Tower on the right. Also included are World Trade Center Buildings #3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. This representation was generated by means of the VEXDAM 5.2 software, utilizing the concept of distributed vapor cloud explosions.
Then I could experiment with all the different explosives until the model matched what we saw on 9/11.
For some reason their are models of most everything al qaida and domestic terrorist have blown up.
http://eai.home.mindspring.com/
I could also use the model of WTC7 and show how CD could bring the building down.
When NIST adjusts their models to reflect known observations, reasonwhy labels it junk science. If and when reasonwhy attempts to do the same thing, it becomes legitimate experimentation.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Mar 19 2007, 02:04 AM)
Would not a major fire igniting the zinc coated-Galvanized steel in the building account for the Iron spiracles? In addition to the air handling system there was a lot of small sheet metal with a zinc coating in he world trade center.
Also the metal studs in the wall partitions were formed from galvanized sheet.
Also the metal studs in the wall partitions were formed from galvanized sheet.
Shagster:
Interestingly the x-ray spectra of the iron spherules given in the USGS particle atlas and the R.J. Lee article appear to show essentially pure iron.
Arthur:
The R.J. Lee article gives a table on page 24 showing they measured 5.87 % iron spherules ..... this allows you to estimate the total amount of iron present as spherules assuming x-amount of dust.
NF
Interestingly the x-ray spectra of the iron spherules given in the USGS particle atlas and the R.J. Lee article appear to show essentially pure iron.
Arthur:
The R.J. Lee article gives a table on page 24 showing they measured 5.87 % iron spherules ..... this allows you to estimate the total amount of iron present as spherules assuming x-amount of dust.
NF
From Damage Assessment130 Liberty Street Property:
Table 3 Statistical P-values for the comparison of TP-01 dust and dust in Background Buildings.
Mean of Composition (%)
Class Particle Type Background TP-01
Buildings
A Mineral Wool 1.05 13.70
A Glass Fragments 0.52 0.50
A Glass Fiber 0.23 1.27
A Perlite 0.26 0.45
A Vermiculite 0 2.36
A Ca/Si 0.35 5.11
A Fe Sphere 0.04 5.87
A Vesicular Carbonaceous 0.05 1.23
A Hi Temp Si/Al-rich 0.08 0.54
A Vermiculite/Gypsum 0 2.72
A Chrysotile 0 1.84
C C fiber 5.20 1.02
C C flake 35.95 1.14
Class A Combined 2.57 35.58
Class C Combined 41.15 2.16
This building was RIGHT NEXT TO WTC 2 and suffered a major gash in its side.
You can't extrapolate its findings to the entire dust footprint unless you show that these spericals are found at similar concentrations at greater distances from the tower collapse. Every report I've seen BESIDES Lee's shows a significantly lower % of Fe and doesn't distinguish between spericals and oxides.
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Arthur
Arthur, the Liberty Street samples may not be representative of the total dispersal of iron sphericals, but it does seem to indicate some kind of high temperature process that took place in the WTC complex. I believe that NF is correct in the assumption that molten steel did exist in some fashion at the site.
So, Arthur, please explain how jet-fuel fires can MELT IRON!
By making the FRIGGIN 110 STORY BUILDING FALL DOWN.
The necessary energy was released DURING the collapse.
Arthur
The elevated level of zinc is GOOD EVIDENCE that the floor pans MELTED!
Or that a lot of fluorescent bulbs broke, along with a number of computer monitors, etc.
QUOTE
Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high
temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common
in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are
not common in “normal” interior office dust.
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel).
temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common
in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are
not common in “normal” interior office dust.
Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC
Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high
heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the
melting of iron (or steel).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust. Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension. Figure 21 and Figure 22 show a spherical iron particle resulting from the melting of iron (or steel). |
Table 3 Statistical P-values for the comparison of TP-01 dust and dust in Background Buildings.
Mean of Composition (%)
Class Particle Type Background TP-01
Buildings
A Mineral Wool 1.05 13.70
A Glass Fragments 0.52 0.50
A Glass Fiber 0.23 1.27
A Perlite 0.26 0.45
A Vermiculite 0 2.36
A Ca/Si 0.35 5.11
A Fe Sphere 0.04 5.87
A Vesicular Carbonaceous 0.05 1.23
A Hi Temp Si/Al-rich 0.08 0.54
A Vermiculite/Gypsum 0 2.72
A Chrysotile 0 1.84
C C fiber 5.20 1.02
C C flake 35.95 1.14
Class A Combined 2.57 35.58
Class C Combined 41.15 2.16
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 07:08 AM)
Arthur:
The R.J. Lee article gives a table on page 24 showing they measured 5.87 % iron spherules ..... this allows you to estimate the total amount of iron present as spherules assuming x-amount of dust.
NF
This building was RIGHT NEXT TO WTC 2 and suffered a major gash in its side.
You can't extrapolate its findings to the entire dust footprint unless you show that these spericals are found at similar concentrations at greater distances from the tower collapse. Every report I've seen BESIDES Lee's shows a significantly lower % of Fe and doesn't distinguish between spericals and oxides.
As this map shows, 130 Liberty street was in a SMALL area (in comparison to the debris plume) of Higher Than Normal Fe deposits.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/w...ermhtn.tgif.gif
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Arthur
The R.J. Lee article gives a table on page 24 showing they measured 5.87 % iron spherules ..... this allows you to estimate the total amount of iron present as spherules assuming x-amount of dust.
NF
This building was RIGHT NEXT TO WTC 2 and suffered a major gash in its side.
You can't extrapolate its findings to the entire dust footprint unless you show that these spericals are found at similar concentrations at greater distances from the tower collapse. Every report I've seen BESIDES Lee's shows a significantly lower % of Fe and doesn't distinguish between spericals and oxides.
As this map shows, 130 Liberty street was in a SMALL area (in comparison to the debris plume) of Higher Than Normal Fe deposits.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/w...ermhtn.tgif.gif
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 19 2007, 01:55 PM)
This building was RIGHT NEXT TO WTC 2 and suffered a major gash in its side.
You can't extrapolate its findings to the entire dust footprint unless you show that these spericals are found at similar concentrations at greater distances from the tower collapse. Every report I've seen BESIDES Lee's shows a significantly lower % of Fe and doesn't distinguish between spericals and oxides.
Also note that RJ Lee (who has quite a bit of experience in this) states:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
Arthur
Arthur, the Liberty Street samples may not be representative of the total dispersal of iron sphericals, but it does seem to indicate some kind of high temperature process that took place in the WTC complex. I believe that NF is correct in the assumption that molten steel did exist in some fashion at the site.
The issue is only relevant IF the amount of these sphericals is OUT OF LINE with expectations.
Now here we have a very experienced investigator into this sort of thing and what does he say:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
So while Neu quotes this as his source he LEAVES THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OUT.
As to his ESTIMATE:
So here we have ANOTHER illogical leap.
It isn't STRUCTURAL steel that is likely to have been vaporized, its that THIN steel found thoughout the towers in much more mundane things like the galvanized floor decking (22 gauge), or the galvanized framing for the sheetrock as well as office machinery, lighting fixtures etc etc etc.
Arthur
Now here we have a very experienced investigator into this sort of thing and what does he say:
Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials
So while Neu quotes this as his source he LEAVES THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OUT.
As to his ESTIMATE:
QUOTE
On the topic of "dustified" steel:
If some of the steel in the Twin Towers was vaporized or "dustified" a corresponding amount of iron should be found in the WTC dust.
The USGS data for WTC dust samples collected in September 2001 show there was an average of only 1.6 % of iron.
If the total amount of dust produced by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was 50,000 tonnes. Then no more than 800 tonnes of structural steel could have been vaporized or dustified during, or immediately after, the collapse.
NF
If some of the steel in the Twin Towers was vaporized or "dustified" a corresponding amount of iron should be found in the WTC dust.
The USGS data for WTC dust samples collected in September 2001 show there was an average of only 1.6 % of iron.
If the total amount of dust produced by the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was 50,000 tonnes. Then no more than 800 tonnes of structural steel could have been vaporized or dustified during, or immediately after, the collapse.
NF
So here we have ANOTHER illogical leap.
It isn't STRUCTURAL steel that is likely to have been vaporized, its that THIN steel found thoughout the towers in much more mundane things like the galvanized floor decking (22 gauge), or the galvanized framing for the sheetrock as well as office machinery, lighting fixtures etc etc etc.
Arthur
Arthur:
You said it!
"Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials"
You only get spherical iron particles if the iron was molten!
Iron melts at 1539 deg C.
I know you dont like the idea of molten iron at the WTC, but it was there!
By the way, the USGS map you posted is irrelevant to the present discussion because it was for ferrous iron. That is Fe2+, which is chemically combined iron. You cannot detect metallic IRON by infrared reflectance spectroscopy....
So, Arthur, please explain how jet-fuel fires can MELT IRON!
NF
You said it!
"Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials"
You only get spherical iron particles if the iron was molten!
Iron melts at 1539 deg C.
I know you dont like the idea of molten iron at the WTC, but it was there!
By the way, the USGS map you posted is irrelevant to the present discussion because it was for ferrous iron. That is Fe2+, which is chemically combined iron. You cannot detect metallic IRON by infrared reflectance spectroscopy....
So, Arthur, please explain how jet-fuel fires can MELT IRON!
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 10:46 AM)
So, Arthur, please explain how jet-fuel fires can MELT IRON!
By making the FRIGGIN 110 STORY BUILDING FALL DOWN.
The necessary energy was released DURING the collapse.
Arthur
Arthur:
The quote you gave from me was on the topic of "dustification" as proposed by Ace Baker. I was trying to explain to AB that the amount of STRUCTURAL STEEL that could have been "dustified" would have to be a small fraction of the 200,000 tonnes of structural steel in WTC 1 & 2.
So, Arthur, I had not considered the galvanized steel flooring at that time. But if you think about it you will have to admit that you need a lot LESS energy input to heat a thin 1 mm sheet of steel to a particular temperature than to heat a massive steel column to the same temperature.
The elevated level of zinc is GOOD EVIDENCE that the floor pans MELTED!
We need to explain how this happened!
NF
The quote you gave from me was on the topic of "dustification" as proposed by Ace Baker. I was trying to explain to AB that the amount of STRUCTURAL STEEL that could have been "dustified" would have to be a small fraction of the 200,000 tonnes of structural steel in WTC 1 & 2.
So, Arthur, I had not considered the galvanized steel flooring at that time. But if you think about it you will have to admit that you need a lot LESS energy input to heat a thin 1 mm sheet of steel to a particular temperature than to heat a massive steel column to the same temperature.
The elevated level of zinc is GOOD EVIDENCE that the floor pans MELTED!
We need to explain how this happened!
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 10:59 AM)
The elevated level of zinc is GOOD EVIDENCE that the floor pans MELTED!
We need to explain how this happened!
NF
Knock yourself out.
BUT please EXPLAIN to your new set of pals (Reasonwhy, QuickntheDead and newton) that MELTING OF THE THIN FLOOR PANS (and more likely the other UBIQUITOUS galvanized steel found within your typical office building) would have NOTHING to do with the collapse of the towers by a Controlled Demolition.
Thanks
Arthur
We need to explain how this happened!
NF
Knock yourself out.
BUT please EXPLAIN to your new set of pals (Reasonwhy, QuickntheDead and newton) that MELTING OF THE THIN FLOOR PANS (and more likely the other UBIQUITOUS galvanized steel found within your typical office building) would have NOTHING to do with the collapse of the towers by a Controlled Demolition.
Thanks
Arthur
Mass of steel trough decking per floor = 14 tonnes
Heat capacity of iron = 0.45 kJ/kg
Heat required to raise the temperature of 16 tonnes of steel by 1 °C = 14,000 x 0.45 kJ = 6.3 MJ
Heat required to raise the temp of decking on one floor to m.p. of iron ~ 10 GJ
NF
P.S. Arthur, do you really think melting the floor pans would have NO EFFECT on the integrity of the Twin Towers?
Heat capacity of iron = 0.45 kJ/kg
Heat required to raise the temperature of 16 tonnes of steel by 1 °C = 14,000 x 0.45 kJ = 6.3 MJ
Heat required to raise the temp of decking on one floor to m.p. of iron ~ 10 GJ
NF
P.S. Arthur, do you really think melting the floor pans would have NO EFFECT on the integrity of the Twin Towers?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 09:59 AM)
The elevated level of zinc is GOOD EVIDENCE that the floor pans MELTED!
Or that a lot of fluorescent bulbs broke, along with a number of computer monitors, etc.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 11:05 AM)
Arthur, do you really think melting the floor pans would have NO EFFECT on the integrity of the Twin Towers?
NOPE.
Those THIN 20 gauge sheets were not STRUCTURAL, they were there to hold the concrete until it had SET UP. The concrete and the trusses (with knuckles into the concrete) provided the strength, NOT that relatively flimsy floor plan.
Secondly there would have been a SUBSTANTIAL amount of OTHER THIN galvanized steel within the towers.
Arthur
NOPE.
Those THIN 20 gauge sheets were not STRUCTURAL, they were there to hold the concrete until it had SET UP. The concrete and the trusses (with knuckles into the concrete) provided the strength, NOT that relatively flimsy floor plan.
Secondly there would have been a SUBSTANTIAL amount of OTHER THIN galvanized steel within the towers.
Arthur
Oh, and let's not forget about the zinc oxide pigments in the paints and floor tiles.
Did you account for those NF?
Did you account for those NF?
You guys are really s-t-r-e-t-c-h-i-n-g it!
Example: Your typical fluorescent tube contains a zinc silicate phosphor applied as a THIN coating of about 5 mg/cm^2. For the surface area of an average office fluorescent tube of 1200 cm^2 that's about 6 grams of zinc per tube.
Now let's say there were 1000 such tubes per floor, we have 6 kilograms of zinc per floor from this source.
The zinc from the galvanized floor pans comes to about 1.5 tonnes per floor.
So the fluorescent tube contribution / galvanized floor contribution to the zinc is
6/1500 x 100 % = 0.4 %.
But hold on a second! The average human body contains about 3 grams of zinc!
So, Palpatane, should we worry about that source!
I don't think so............
And, by the way Arthur, there were 435 tonnes of lightweight concrete and 193 tonnes of regular concrete per floor.
As you say, Arthur, that concrete was sitting in those flimsy 1 mm thick galvanized steel pans. Now melt the steel pans.
Where would the 628 tonnes of concrete go?
And by the way, concrete undergoes loss of integrity and explosive spalling at temperature well below the vaporization temperature of zinc!
This type of thermal failure of concrete has been seen in fires in TUNNELS.
NF
Example: Your typical fluorescent tube contains a zinc silicate phosphor applied as a THIN coating of about 5 mg/cm^2. For the surface area of an average office fluorescent tube of 1200 cm^2 that's about 6 grams of zinc per tube.
Now let's say there were 1000 such tubes per floor, we have 6 kilograms of zinc per floor from this source.
The zinc from the galvanized floor pans comes to about 1.5 tonnes per floor.
So the fluorescent tube contribution / galvanized floor contribution to the zinc is
6/1500 x 100 % = 0.4 %.
But hold on a second! The average human body contains about 3 grams of zinc!
So, Palpatane, should we worry about that source!
I don't think so............
And, by the way Arthur, there were 435 tonnes of lightweight concrete and 193 tonnes of regular concrete per floor.
As you say, Arthur, that concrete was sitting in those flimsy 1 mm thick galvanized steel pans. Now melt the steel pans.
Where would the 628 tonnes of concrete go?
And by the way, concrete undergoes loss of integrity and explosive spalling at temperature well below the vaporization temperature of zinc!
This type of thermal failure of concrete has been seen in fires in TUNNELS.
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 01:06 PM)
Arthur, there were 435 tonnes of lightweight concrete and 193 tonnes of regular concrete per floor.
As you say, Arthur, that concrete was sitting in those flimsy 1 mm thick galvanized steel pans. Now melt the steel pans.
Where would the 628 tonnes of concrete go?
NOWHERE.
Once the concrete sets up you can remove the steel pan and it wouldn't budge.
The TRUSSES are providing the LATERAL support, not the friggin floor pans.
But never mind about the zinc vaporizing at 907 deg C, the iron spherules prove that the iron melted so the temperature actually got over 1500 deg C at some locations in the towers.
These are inescapable facts.
NF
Or during the grinding effects during collapse or cutting operations during cleanup.
The issue of trying to extrapolate a percentage of spheres in the total dust based on a sample from the Deutsche building close to the tower is along the lines of trying to claim all the concrete was pulverized to micron size based on a measurement of dust size far away from the tower.
Nevertheless, I believe NIST themselves claim that no structural components of the towers saw temperatures much above about 600 deg C. This is not hot enough to evaporate tonnes of zinc, yet the zinc/iron ratio in airborne samples reported by the EPA suggest this happened.
Those are structural members NIST referred to, not thin zinc-coated non-structural components such as ducts, components related to drywall, floor decking, etc which could have seen higher temperatures. Heat may not be conducted away as readily for a component with a thin cross-section. Consider a duct near a ceiliing with the tops of the flames heating it. The highest temperatures can often be found in the upper levels of a room.
NOPE.
It could simply mean that SOME steel absorbed sufficient ENERGY during the collapse to be vaporized.
Remember, the guy you are using as a souce says that these sphericals are TO BE EXPECTED.
Arthur
As you say, Arthur, that concrete was sitting in those flimsy 1 mm thick galvanized steel pans. Now melt the steel pans.
Where would the 628 tonnes of concrete go?
NOWHERE.
Once the concrete sets up you can remove the steel pan and it wouldn't budge.
The TRUSSES are providing the LATERAL support, not the friggin floor pans.
QUOTE (Neu+)
And by the way, concrete undergoes loss of integrity and explosive spalling at temperature well below the vaporization temperature of zinc!
Yes, but it takes a LONG time for the heat to penetrate the concrete and cause such spallilng, NOT so for the thin UNINSULATED steel pans.
That's right, they DIDN'T spray the SFRM onto the steel pans.
Why?
They were NOT STRUCTURAL.
Arthur
Yes, but it takes a LONG time for the heat to penetrate the concrete and cause such spallilng, NOT so for the thin UNINSULATED steel pans.
That's right, they DIDN'T spray the SFRM onto the steel pans.
Why?
They were NOT STRUCTURAL.
Arthur
Don't know much about HVAC, but there must have been quite a bit of sheet metal used for HVAC purposes.
I would look there for sources of those sphericals before the floor pans.
I would look there for sources of those sphericals before the floor pans.
Arthur!
I thought you had the NIST Report MEMORIZED!!!!!
Obviously not.....
I will leave you to find this quote from said Report:
"The data sheet for floor 29 of WTC 1 states the following for the South West quadrant of the floor:
Fluffy spray-on fireproofing coating the support beams, joists, AND DECK ABOVE THE CEILING....
Similar statements were recorded for the remaining quadrants of the floor."
Even if the fireproofing spec didn't require the floor decking to be coated, the coating nevertheless covered most of the deck from over-spraying.
NF
I thought you had the NIST Report MEMORIZED!!!!!
Obviously not.....
I will leave you to find this quote from said Report:
"The data sheet for floor 29 of WTC 1 states the following for the South West quadrant of the floor:
Fluffy spray-on fireproofing coating the support beams, joists, AND DECK ABOVE THE CEILING....
Similar statements were recorded for the remaining quadrants of the floor."
Even if the fireproofing spec didn't require the floor decking to be coated, the coating nevertheless covered most of the deck from over-spraying.
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 18 2007, 05:26 PM)
Shagster:
About your suggestion that the iron spherules came from cutting operations:
1. It does NOT account for the high concentrations of airborne ZINC.
2. Steel cutting operations (according to OSHA data) usually generate "fume" concentrations less than 1 mg/m^3 in the vicinity of a typical torch-cutting operation and less than 10 g of iron fume is released per operation. If there were 10,000 cutting operations at ground zero during site clean-up at GZ that is a total of only 100 kg of iron fume. I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
The presence of zinc doesn't necessarily mean that the presence of iron spheres couldn't have come from cutting operations. You seem to be implying that the presence of iron spheres must include the presence of airborne zinc. Zinc has a melting point of 420 C and a boiling point of 907 C. It's coatings on ducting and floor decking could vaporize in an office fire without steel melting.
Regarding fume concentration of iron during cutting, that depends on how one defines fume. That could mean iron vapor or iron vapor plus spattered particulates. Does fume include particulates? One would also have to consider the prevailing winds coming from the north during the months of cleanup operations carrying particles toward Deutsche which was south of the WTC complex.
In the Lee report I didn't see any info regarding where exactly the specimens that contained iron spheres were obtained. It could have been lower levels or higher or both.
Lee started taking samples June 2002 after most of the cutting operations had been completed. I haven't gone through the USGS reports yet.
Are there USGS reports that show iron spheres in samples taken within the first week after 911 and other locations and distances from the WTC?
About your suggestion that the iron spherules came from cutting operations:
1. It does NOT account for the high concentrations of airborne ZINC.
2. Steel cutting operations (according to OSHA data) usually generate "fume" concentrations less than 1 mg/m^3 in the vicinity of a typical torch-cutting operation and less than 10 g of iron fume is released per operation. If there were 10,000 cutting operations at ground zero during site clean-up at GZ that is a total of only 100 kg of iron fume. I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
The presence of zinc doesn't necessarily mean that the presence of iron spheres couldn't have come from cutting operations. You seem to be implying that the presence of iron spheres must include the presence of airborne zinc. Zinc has a melting point of 420 C and a boiling point of 907 C. It's coatings on ducting and floor decking could vaporize in an office fire without steel melting.
Regarding fume concentration of iron during cutting, that depends on how one defines fume. That could mean iron vapor or iron vapor plus spattered particulates. Does fume include particulates? One would also have to consider the prevailing winds coming from the north during the months of cleanup operations carrying particles toward Deutsche which was south of the WTC complex.
In the Lee report I didn't see any info regarding where exactly the specimens that contained iron spheres were obtained. It could have been lower levels or higher or both.
Lee started taking samples June 2002 after most of the cutting operations had been completed. I haven't gone through the USGS reports yet.
Are there USGS reports that show iron spheres in samples taken within the first week after 911 and other locations and distances from the WTC?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 02:46 PM)
Arthur!
I thought you had the NIST Report MEMORIZED!!!!!
Obviously not.....
I will leave you to find this quote from said Report:
"The data sheet for floor 29 of WTC 1 states the following for the South West quadrant of the floor:
Fluffy spray-on fireproofing coating the support beams, joists, AND DECK ABOVE THE CEILING....
Similar statements were recorded for the remaining quadrants of the floor."
Even if the fireproofing spec didn't require the floor decking to be coated, the coating nevertheless covered most of the deck from over-spraying.
NF
Haphazard overspray does NOT equal fireproofing, since metal conducts heat fairly well, gaps and thin spots rapidly negate the value of the SFRM fireproofing.
So, yes while there most certainly WAS overspray, they did NOT fireproof the decking.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A. Chap 3 pg 20
On the letter from Roth to the NYPA:
"Since the deck is non-structural it will not be fireproofed"
Similarly the SCHEDULE in 3-2 shows that the trusses, beams and columns needed to be sprayed, but NOT the decking.
See picture 3-9 on pg 35 for an example of the MINIMAL amount that overspray would have covered.
Arthur
I thought you had the NIST Report MEMORIZED!!!!!
Obviously not.....
I will leave you to find this quote from said Report:
"The data sheet for floor 29 of WTC 1 states the following for the South West quadrant of the floor:
Fluffy spray-on fireproofing coating the support beams, joists, AND DECK ABOVE THE CEILING....
Similar statements were recorded for the remaining quadrants of the floor."
Even if the fireproofing spec didn't require the floor decking to be coated, the coating nevertheless covered most of the deck from over-spraying.
NF
Haphazard overspray does NOT equal fireproofing, since metal conducts heat fairly well, gaps and thin spots rapidly negate the value of the SFRM fireproofing.
So, yes while there most certainly WAS overspray, they did NOT fireproof the decking.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A. Chap 3 pg 20
On the letter from Roth to the NYPA:
"Since the deck is non-structural it will not be fireproofed"
Similarly the SCHEDULE in 3-2 shows that the trusses, beams and columns needed to be sprayed, but NOT the decking.
See picture 3-9 on pg 35 for an example of the MINIMAL amount that overspray would have covered.
Arthur
So if there wasn't much insulation on the decking, that means the decking would have got very hot in areas exposed to the WTC fires. And the decking, being a good conductor, would have transferred a lot of heat to the concrete flooring. The NIST ASTM E-119 tests of the floor assemblies did indeed show major detrimental effects on the concrete from exposure to high temperatures.
Nevertheless, I believe NIST themselves claim that no structural components of the towers saw temperatures much above about 600 deg C. This is not hot enough to evaporate tonnes of zinc, yet the zinc/iron ratio in airborne samples reported by the EPA suggest this happened.
But never mind about the zinc vaporizing at 907 deg C, the iron spherules prove that the iron melted so the temperature actually got over 1500 deg C at some locations in the towers.
These are inescapable facts.
NF
Nevertheless, I believe NIST themselves claim that no structural components of the towers saw temperatures much above about 600 deg C. This is not hot enough to evaporate tonnes of zinc, yet the zinc/iron ratio in airborne samples reported by the EPA suggest this happened.
But never mind about the zinc vaporizing at 907 deg C, the iron spherules prove that the iron melted so the temperature actually got over 1500 deg C at some locations in the towers.
These are inescapable facts.
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 09:21 PM)
But never mind about the zinc vaporizing at 907 deg C, the iron spherules prove that the iron melted so the temperature actually got over 1500 deg C at some locations in the towers.
These are inescapable facts.
NF
Or during the grinding effects during collapse or cutting operations during cleanup.
The issue of trying to extrapolate a percentage of spheres in the total dust based on a sample from the Deutsche building close to the tower is along the lines of trying to claim all the concrete was pulverized to micron size based on a measurement of dust size far away from the tower.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 09:21 PM)
... the iron spherules prove that the iron melted so the temperature actually got over 1500 deg C at some locations in the towers.
At some time prior to the collection of the dust samples.
My suggestion as to the time and method is as shagster's: During the collapse itself, since 200 tonnes of iron seems a bit much for exploding transformers...
At some time prior to the collection of the dust samples.
My suggestion as to the time and method is as shagster's: During the collapse itself, since 200 tonnes of iron seems a bit much for exploding transformers...
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Mar 19 2007, 09:21 PM)
Nevertheless, I believe NIST themselves claim that no structural components of the towers saw temperatures much above about 600 deg C. This is not hot enough to evaporate tonnes of zinc, yet the zinc/iron ratio in airborne samples reported by the EPA suggest this happened.
Those are structural members NIST referred to, not thin zinc-coated non-structural components such as ducts, components related to drywall, floor decking, etc which could have seen higher temperatures. Heat may not be conducted away as readily for a component with a thin cross-section. Consider a duct near a ceiliing with the tops of the flames heating it. The highest temperatures can often be found in the upper levels of a room.
Here's the problem in a nut shell:
EPA data for metals in air samples collected at GZ on Sept 23 2001:
Calcium = 44 mcg/m3
Iron = 4.4 mcg/m3
Zinc = 6.3 mcg/m3
NF
EPA data for metals in air samples collected at GZ on Sept 23 2001:
Calcium = 44 mcg/m3
Iron = 4.4 mcg/m3
Zinc = 6.3 mcg/m3
NF
QUOTE (shagster+Mar 19 2007, 09:47 PM)
The highest temperatures can often be found in the upper levels of a room.
Yes. Also, I believe that there have been examples of ordinary frame house fires in which some steel components melted.
Yes. Also, I believe that there have been examples of ordinary frame house fires in which some steel components melted.
QUOTE
But never mind about the zinc vaporizing at 907 deg C, the iron spherules prove that the iron melted so the temperature actually got over 1500 deg C at some locations in the towers.
These are inescapable facts.
These are inescapable facts.
NOPE.
It could simply mean that SOME steel absorbed sufficient ENERGY during the collapse to be vaporized.
Remember, the guy you are using as a souce says that these sphericals are TO BE EXPECTED.
Arthur
There would have been a huge amount of zinc-coated surface area abraded during the comminution.
Steel sparks, oxidizes, and heats readily during grinding compared with metals such as copper or brass. It's something that would need to be considered when studying iron spheres or other shapes. An average grinding wheel runs at about 20 m/s, on the order of the collapse front speed after the first dozen impacts.
Steel sparks, oxidizes, and heats readily during grinding compared with metals such as copper or brass. It's something that would need to be considered when studying iron spheres or other shapes. An average grinding wheel runs at about 20 m/s, on the order of the collapse front speed after the first dozen impacts.
Post 911!
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.