QUOTE (reasonwhy+May 17 2007, 11:12 AM)
Lightwight Iron spheres?
ground, granulated blast furnace slag is a common component in lightweight concrete.
ground, granulated blast furnace slag is a common component in lightweight concrete.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 17 2007, 02:36 PM)
Chainsaw
Could the source of these spheres be the welding done during erection??? The collapse would have spread them far and wide from all the nooks and cranies they had been hiding in for years. I don't know of any construction site which is completely cleaned of this type of particle, do you???
Grumpy
Not likely, because the iron would rust and fall apart over time the small spheres produced during welding turn to Iron oxide from exposure to atmospheric moisture.
Also if they were created during welding where are the compounds from the flux on the rods that should also be evident.
They seem to be from Chemical reactions taking place in the fires one of which is hydrogen attack, because the hydrogen flame is buoyant it can get trapped below the floor pans and literally cause a recycling reaction where each time the hydrogen is burned it produces water that causes the now hot iron to Oxidize and produce more hydrogen. Eventually the Buoyant flame escapes though the hole it makes unless something above it traps it and causes it to interact with the edge of the remaining steel.
There are several natural reactions if fire that can produce the spheres, but the indicate higher temperatures than those achieved in the NIST studies.
The main problem with Nist fire studies is they did not include the active Chemicals in the fire such as steam, HCI, and sulfur if they did a much different result would have occurred in the experiments NIST preformed.
ONE of the most power ful steel oxidation chemicals is super heated steam, it is almost never found in fires because the water usually boils off at 210 f, but if hydrogen reacts with Oxygen the flame front is actually super heated steam that can damage steel.
HCl also causes the formation of both Zinc Chloride and Aluminum Chloride the aluminum Chloride breaks down when heated above 700c and the Aluminum Oxidizes, happens when Calcium Chloride falls on Galvanized metal and forms Zinc Chloride in a simple replacement reaction. The Zinc Chloride then melts at 350c I believe and falls on aluminum, a little iron oxide mixed in and when the aluminum Oxidizes it rips the oxygen molecule right off the Iron molecule creating a pure iron sphere.
I have found several reactions that can produce spheres of that nature and larger. However all release enough energy in themselves to make Nist fire tests basically useless in trying to understand the collapse.
That is what Neu F. was trying to tell you there is more energy here than meets the eye, just from the chemical reactions in the fires and they could have occurred lower in the core and gone UN noticed.
Because they would not show on the videos.
Could the source of these spheres be the welding done during erection??? The collapse would have spread them far and wide from all the nooks and cranies they had been hiding in for years. I don't know of any construction site which is completely cleaned of this type of particle, do you???
Grumpy
Not likely, because the iron would rust and fall apart over time the small spheres produced during welding turn to Iron oxide from exposure to atmospheric moisture.
Also if they were created during welding where are the compounds from the flux on the rods that should also be evident.
They seem to be from Chemical reactions taking place in the fires one of which is hydrogen attack, because the hydrogen flame is buoyant it can get trapped below the floor pans and literally cause a recycling reaction where each time the hydrogen is burned it produces water that causes the now hot iron to Oxidize and produce more hydrogen. Eventually the Buoyant flame escapes though the hole it makes unless something above it traps it and causes it to interact with the edge of the remaining steel.
There are several natural reactions if fire that can produce the spheres, but the indicate higher temperatures than those achieved in the NIST studies.
The main problem with Nist fire studies is they did not include the active Chemicals in the fire such as steam, HCI, and sulfur if they did a much different result would have occurred in the experiments NIST preformed.
ONE of the most power ful steel oxidation chemicals is super heated steam, it is almost never found in fires because the water usually boils off at 210 f, but if hydrogen reacts with Oxygen the flame front is actually super heated steam that can damage steel.
HCl also causes the formation of both Zinc Chloride and Aluminum Chloride the aluminum Chloride breaks down when heated above 700c and the Aluminum Oxidizes, happens when Calcium Chloride falls on Galvanized metal and forms Zinc Chloride in a simple replacement reaction. The Zinc Chloride then melts at 350c I believe and falls on aluminum, a little iron oxide mixed in and when the aluminum Oxidizes it rips the oxygen molecule right off the Iron molecule creating a pure iron sphere.
I have found several reactions that can produce spheres of that nature and larger. However all release enough energy in themselves to make Nist fire tests basically useless in trying to understand the collapse.
That is what Neu F. was trying to tell you there is more energy here than meets the eye, just from the chemical reactions in the fires and they could have occurred lower in the core and gone UN noticed.
Because they would not show on the videos.
QUOTE (adoucette+May 17 2007, 03:05 PM)
Dr Lee would not likely have been so inclined:
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. He is widely regarded as a pioneer in this
area, having developed the first computer-controlled electron microscope
methods for determining the size and composition of airborne particles in an
automated fashion. As early as 1980, he was retained by EPA to design a
state-of-the-art particle characterization laboratory. His laboratory, RJ Lee
Group, Inc., is the largest commercial electron microscope laboratory in the
world. His company employs over 200, including personnel with advanced
and specialized degrees in the areas of biology, chemistry, mineralogy,
physics, geology, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, computer
science, materials science, environmental science/engineering, civil
engineering, mechanical engineering and industrial hygiene. Dr. Lee has
published more than 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals, and has
presented invited papers both nationally and internationally.
What he said:
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
He didn't say WHY he expected them, only THAT THEY WERE EXPECTED.
I agree with you Chainsaw, NIST left out many of the things that would have added heat to the fire (and even localized intense heat) as they were being CONSERVATIVE.
Their model showed that WITHOUT accounting for these MISCELLANEOUS sources there was sufficient energy in the building materials to bring down the towers.
Arthur
I know Dr Lee's Qualifications, but he himself stated because of the high temperatures, which NIST practically ruled out.
You do know that Dr. Greening I believe contacted Dr. Lee on this, do you not?
The temperature to form the spheres would have to have been high enough for steel to off gas carbon, in other words steel had to be at least semi molten.
One possibility is Hydrogen attack, another is oxidation by hot steam from hydrogen combustion, one is a reaction with Chlorides and sulfates.
The reactions are complicated but very likely given the dynamics of the environment of the twin towers 0n sept. 11, 2001.
I do not want to comment to much on this subject until I hear back from Dr. Jones.
I simply believe that NIST missed something critical and that leaving it out makes all the difference in the world because the same Chemistry is involved in all three building and at the pentagon.
If I am right it could make a plane dissolve in water even without a fire.
Everyone here probably has seen this experiment demonstration.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/demos/CanRipper.html
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. He is widely regarded as a pioneer in this
area, having developed the first computer-controlled electron microscope
methods for determining the size and composition of airborne particles in an
automated fashion. As early as 1980, he was retained by EPA to design a
state-of-the-art particle characterization laboratory. His laboratory, RJ Lee
Group, Inc., is the largest commercial electron microscope laboratory in the
world. His company employs over 200, including personnel with advanced
and specialized degrees in the areas of biology, chemistry, mineralogy,
physics, geology, chemical engineering, electrical engineering, computer
science, materials science, environmental science/engineering, civil
engineering, mechanical engineering and industrial hygiene. Dr. Lee has
published more than 100 papers in peer-reviewed journals, and has
presented invited papers both nationally and internationally.
What he said:
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
He didn't say WHY he expected them, only THAT THEY WERE EXPECTED.
I agree with you Chainsaw, NIST left out many of the things that would have added heat to the fire (and even localized intense heat) as they were being CONSERVATIVE.
Their model showed that WITHOUT accounting for these MISCELLANEOUS sources there was sufficient energy in the building materials to bring down the towers.
Arthur
I know Dr Lee's Qualifications, but he himself stated because of the high temperatures, which NIST practically ruled out.
You do know that Dr. Greening I believe contacted Dr. Lee on this, do you not?
The temperature to form the spheres would have to have been high enough for steel to off gas carbon, in other words steel had to be at least semi molten.
One possibility is Hydrogen attack, another is oxidation by hot steam from hydrogen combustion, one is a reaction with Chlorides and sulfates.
The reactions are complicated but very likely given the dynamics of the environment of the twin towers 0n sept. 11, 2001.
I do not want to comment to much on this subject until I hear back from Dr. Jones.
I simply believe that NIST missed something critical and that leaving it out makes all the difference in the world because the same Chemistry is involved in all three building and at the pentagon.
If I am right it could make a plane dissolve in water even without a fire.
Everyone here probably has seen this experiment demonstration.
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/demos/CanRipper.html
QUOTE (Palpatane+May 17 2007, 08:10 PM)
ground, granulated blast furnace slag is a common component in lightweight concrete.
Yes it is however it is unlikely the particles came from there because those particles and not spherical.
Yes it is however it is unlikely the particles came from there because those particles and not spherical.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+May 17 2007, 02:45 PM)
Yes it is however it is unlikely the particles came from there because those particles and not spherical.
how do you know? we are talking about microsperes here.
Is there any data indicating the percentage of microspherical particles in slag?
how do you know? we are talking about microsperes here.
Is there any data indicating the percentage of microspherical particles in slag?
QUOTE (Palpatane+May 17 2007, 10:02 PM)
Is there any data indicating the percentage of microspherical particles in slag?
There are papers, easily accessible, indicating that of the microspheres in fly ash and slag, more than 3% are iron oxide with much the rest silicates.
There are papers, easily accessible, indicating that of the microspheres in fly ash and slag, more than 3% are iron oxide with much the rest silicates.
QUOTE (Palpatane+May 17 2007, 02:02 PM)
how do you know? we are talking about microsperes here.
Is there any data indicating the percentage of microspherical particles in slag?
I think it would be obvious the difference between ground slag and microsperes formed from molten steel :
Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag
Although portland blast furnace slag cement, which is made by intergrinding the granulated slag with portland cement clinker (blended cement), has been used for more than 60 years, the use of separately ground slag combined with portland cement at the mixer as a mineral admixture did not start until the late 1970s (Lewis 1981). Ground granulated blast-furnace slag is the granular material formed when molten iron blast furnace slag is rapidly chilled (quenched) by immersion in water. It is a granular product with very limited crystal formation, is highly cementitious in nature and, ground to cement fineness, hydrates like portland cement (Admixtures and ground slag 1990; Lewis 1981; ACI Comm. 226 1987a).
Specifications
ASTM C 989-82 and AASHTO M 302 were developed to cover ground granulated blast furnace slag for use in concrete and mortar. The three grades are 80, 100, and 120.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/mat...lsgrp/ggbfs.htm
Is there any data indicating the percentage of microspherical particles in slag?
I think it would be obvious the difference between ground slag and microsperes formed from molten steel :
QUOTE
Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag
Although portland blast furnace slag cement, which is made by intergrinding the granulated slag with portland cement clinker (blended cement), has been used for more than 60 years, the use of separately ground slag combined with portland cement at the mixer as a mineral admixture did not start until the late 1970s (Lewis 1981). Ground granulated blast-furnace slag is the granular material formed when molten iron blast furnace slag is rapidly chilled (quenched) by immersion in water. It is a granular product with very limited crystal formation, is highly cementitious in nature and, ground to cement fineness, hydrates like portland cement (Admixtures and ground slag 1990; Lewis 1981; ACI Comm. 226 1987a).
Specifications
ASTM C 989-82 and AASHTO M 302 were developed to cover ground granulated blast furnace slag for use in concrete and mortar. The three grades are 80, 100, and 120.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/mat...lsgrp/ggbfs.htm
QUOTE (reasonwhy+May 18 2007, 01:10 AM)
I think it would be obvious the difference between ground slag and microsperes[sic] formed from molten steel ...
But this material was not used until the late 1970s. Rather late for the WTC towers...
But this material was not used until the late 1970s. Rather late for the WTC towers...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 17 2007, 05:32 PM)
But this material was not used until the late 1970s. Rather late for the WTC towers...
I don't care what year you make the slag
, it is not the source of the iron spheres:
Blast furnace slag is a nonmetallic coproduct produced in the process.
I was actually amazed and appalled by the extent andthe religious zeal with which you have spewed your garbage throughout the internet. The post I quoted was particularly offensive because you claim that anyone who doesn't believe the lies you post is...
Well, I am not ignorant, don't have my head in the sand, am not afraid of the truth, nor am I in league with the bad guys and I don't see a reflection of a firetruck in the back window of a BMW, understand that 7 was brought down by debris from 1 and 7 1/2 hours of fuel fed fires and hold Osama Ben Laden and his 19 henchmen SOLELY responsible for the attacks of 911(though the incompetence of W's administration didn't do anything to stop them).
Of course this is all about you!!! You want to be the one who finds the smoking gun that justifies your paranoia, you want to be known throughout the kookosphere as the great Craig T. Fulong. You have spread your garbage about explosions before impact everywhere and called those who don't agree murderers.You have called the professional scientists liars and shills of the gov't and impunged the integrity of thousands of loyal Americans, saying they were complicit in the murders of our own citizens.
But it is you who are wrong, there were no explosives used anywhere in the WTC complex, no physical evidence has been found backing up your claims. IT IS JUST NOT TRUE.
Those families would be better served if the real perpitrators of that crime are brought to justice, not if some kook squad interupts their mourning at ground zero by calling firemen and police murderers, or by harrassing the lady who took the picture of the smoke from flt 93 trying to get her to admit she was "in on it", or making a living selling videos and T-shirts about their tradgedy to the like minded and the gullible.
No, you don't think. Your holier than thou attitude has the same stench as that given off by the Muslim fundamentalists responsible for 911. Just as they misuse and hide behind the Koran, you hide behind the Bible and your "concern for the families". But it is really about the promotion of you and your thouroughly trashed, totally refuted "paper" to the point that you will not even admit you see firetrucks where it is impossible for you to see them all in an attempt to discredit a legitimate video proving the timeline in that paper to be WRONG. It is a lie no matter how many Bible verses you quote.
No, you desperately want to be known as the person who found the "smoking gun". And you are willing to Lie-for-Jesus if that's what it takes.
Grumpy
Wrong, as usual. So what else is new?
AND HE HIMSELF BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY ON THE CROSS
THAT WE MIGHT DIE TO SIN AND LIVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS
FOR BY HIS WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED
I don't care what year you make the slag
, it is not the source of the iron spheres:QUOTE
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
If the molten slag is cooled and solidified by rapid water quenching to a glassy state, little or no crystallization occurs. This process results in the formation of sand size (or frit-like) fragments, usually with some friable clinkerlike material. The physical structure and gradation of granulated slag depend on the chemical composition of the slag, its temperature at the time of water quenching, and the method of production. When crushed or milled to very fine cement-sized particles, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) has cementitious properties, which make a suitable partial replacement for or additive to Portland cement.
It is estimated that approximately 14 million metric tons (15.5 million tons) of blast furnace slag is produced annually in the United States.(1)
Additional information on processed blast furnace slag use in the United States can be obtained from:
National Slag Association
808 North Fairfax Street
Arlington, Virginia 22314
If the molten slag is cooled and solidified by rapid water quenching to a glassy state, little or no crystallization occurs. This process results in the formation of sand size (or frit-like) fragments, usually with some friable clinkerlike material. The physical structure and gradation of granulated slag depend on the chemical composition of the slag, its temperature at the time of water quenching, and the method of production. When crushed or milled to very fine cement-sized particles, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) has cementitious properties, which make a suitable partial replacement for or additive to Portland cement.
It is estimated that approximately 14 million metric tons (15.5 million tons) of blast furnace slag is produced annually in the United States.(1)
Additional information on processed blast furnace slag use in the United States can be obtained from:
National Slag Association
808 North Fairfax Street
Arlington, Virginia 22314
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Granulated Blast Furnace Slag If the molten slag is cooled and solidified by rapid water quenching to a glassy state, little or no crystallization occurs. This process results in the formation of sand size (or frit-like) fragments, usually with some friable clinkerlike material. The physical structure and gradation of granulated slag depend on the chemical composition of the slag, its temperature at the time of water quenching, and the method of production. When crushed or milled to very fine cement-sized particles, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) has cementitious properties, which make a suitable partial replacement for or additive to Portland cement. It is estimated that approximately 14 million metric tons (15.5 million tons) of blast furnace slag is produced annually in the United States.(1) Additional information on processed blast furnace slag use in the United States can be obtained from: National Slag Association 808 North Fairfax Street Arlington, Virginia 22314 |
Blast furnace slag is a nonmetallic coproduct produced in the process.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 16 2007, 06:30 AM)
I was actually amazed and appalled by the extent andthe religious zeal with which you have spewed your garbage throughout the internet. The post I quoted was particularly offensive because you claim that anyone who doesn't believe the lies you post is...
Well, I am not ignorant, don't have my head in the sand, am not afraid of the truth, nor am I in league with the bad guys and I don't see a reflection of a firetruck in the back window of a BMW, understand that 7 was brought down by debris from 1 and 7 1/2 hours of fuel fed fires and hold Osama Ben Laden and his 19 henchmen SOLELY responsible for the attacks of 911(though the incompetence of W's administration didn't do anything to stop them).
Of course this is all about you!!! You want to be the one who finds the smoking gun that justifies your paranoia, you want to be known throughout the kookosphere as the great Craig T. Fulong. You have spread your garbage about explosions before impact everywhere and called those who don't agree murderers.You have called the professional scientists liars and shills of the gov't and impunged the integrity of thousands of loyal Americans, saying they were complicit in the murders of our own citizens.
But it is you who are wrong, there were no explosives used anywhere in the WTC complex, no physical evidence has been found backing up your claims. IT IS JUST NOT TRUE.
Those families would be better served if the real perpitrators of that crime are brought to justice, not if some kook squad interupts their mourning at ground zero by calling firemen and police murderers, or by harrassing the lady who took the picture of the smoke from flt 93 trying to get her to admit she was "in on it", or making a living selling videos and T-shirts about their tradgedy to the like minded and the gullible.
No, you don't think. Your holier than thou attitude has the same stench as that given off by the Muslim fundamentalists responsible for 911. Just as they misuse and hide behind the Koran, you hide behind the Bible and your "concern for the families". But it is really about the promotion of you and your thouroughly trashed, totally refuted "paper" to the point that you will not even admit you see firetrucks where it is impossible for you to see them all in an attempt to discredit a legitimate video proving the timeline in that paper to be WRONG. It is a lie no matter how many Bible verses you quote.
No, you desperately want to be known as the person who found the "smoking gun". And you are willing to Lie-for-Jesus if that's what it takes.
Grumpy
Wrong, as usual. So what else is new?
AND HE HIMSELF BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY ON THE CROSS
THAT WE MIGHT DIE TO SIN AND LIVE TO RIGHTEOUSNESS
FOR BY HIS WOUNDS YOU WERE HEALED
QUOTE (adoucette+May 16 2007, 09:25 AM)
Except someone with EXPERIENCE in this field (unlike the chemist Greening) claims that they are NO MYSTERY and in fact WERE TO BE EXPECTED.
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=190080
Arthur
Thanks. I just passed it on to Steven Jones.
THIS IS LOVE
NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD
BUT THAT HE LOVED US
AND SENT HIS SON AS AN ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS
See: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=190080
Arthur
Thanks. I just passed it on to Steven Jones.
THIS IS LOVE
NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD
BUT THAT HE LOVED US
AND SENT HIS SON AS AN ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 18 2007, 01:32 AM)
But this material was not used until the late 1970s. Rather late for the WTC towers...
Actually Limestone and gypsum were used in the towers instead of slag, and slag micro spheres are distinctly different because some silicates tend to form around the spheres as they are themselves forming in the slag.
What is being referred to as blast furnace slag is actually coke furnace slag most people do not know the difference the coke furnace refines iron ore to pig iron, using Carbon-coal and Limestone Calcium carbonate, while the blast furnace a relatively ancient term that has little to do with modern steel making furnaces refines pig iron to steel with alloying elements added.
Actually If the steel is silicon killed steel then the silicon can be reused as aggregate in concrete. Aluminum Oxide from Aluminum killed steels is also used in concrete.
The spheres at the world trade center exhibit magnetic tendencies, from what I have been informed, they stick to magnets unlike iron oxide compounds and they are not associated with silicates that tend to slightly deform the spheres into oval shapes, and less spherical shapes.
The spheres at the world trade center also contain common elements used in the manufacture of structural steel and other steels such as 22 gage galvanized steel.
As I said before the spheres in furnace slag tend not to be actually truly spherical. The world trade center particles are true spherical, indication of a different formation.
If any one has more information on this I would like to hear it, I admit I could be wrong but as of this time I have seen no Data that shows that I am.
IF any one has anything to add I would be glad to look at it.
The main slag used in concrete is from electrical generation-power plants not blast furnaces.
They actually can contain a higher iron content than so called blast furnace slag.
Actually Limestone and gypsum were used in the towers instead of slag, and slag micro spheres are distinctly different because some silicates tend to form around the spheres as they are themselves forming in the slag.
What is being referred to as blast furnace slag is actually coke furnace slag most people do not know the difference the coke furnace refines iron ore to pig iron, using Carbon-coal and Limestone Calcium carbonate, while the blast furnace a relatively ancient term that has little to do with modern steel making furnaces refines pig iron to steel with alloying elements added.
Actually If the steel is silicon killed steel then the silicon can be reused as aggregate in concrete. Aluminum Oxide from Aluminum killed steels is also used in concrete.
The spheres at the world trade center exhibit magnetic tendencies, from what I have been informed, they stick to magnets unlike iron oxide compounds and they are not associated with silicates that tend to slightly deform the spheres into oval shapes, and less spherical shapes.
The spheres at the world trade center also contain common elements used in the manufacture of structural steel and other steels such as 22 gage galvanized steel.
As I said before the spheres in furnace slag tend not to be actually truly spherical. The world trade center particles are true spherical, indication of a different formation.
If any one has more information on this I would like to hear it, I admit I could be wrong but as of this time I have seen no Data that shows that I am.
IF any one has anything to add I would be glad to look at it.
The main slag used in concrete is from electrical generation-power plants not blast furnaces.
They actually can contain a higher iron content than so called blast furnace slag.
quicklybraindead
Pathetic, as usual. Never anything new.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Wrong, as usual. So what else is new?
Pathetic, as usual. Never anything new.
Grumpy
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 18 2007, 03:57 AM)
Thanks. I just passed it on to Steven Jones.
THIS IS LOVE
NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD
BUT THAT HE LOVED US
AND SENT HIS SON AS AN ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS
Actually I am waiting on test from Dr. Jones right now, he said it should take a couple of weeks.
THIS IS LOVE
NOT THAT WE LOVED GOD
BUT THAT HE LOVED US
AND SENT HIS SON AS AN ATONING SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS
Actually I am waiting on test from Dr. Jones right now, he said it should take a couple of weeks.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+May 18 2007, 12:05 PM)
The main slag used in concrete is from electrical generation-power plants not blast furnaces. They actually can contain a higher iron content than so called blast furnace slag.
Yes, the paper I found was a study of waste from burning coal for electric power generation. They floated out, using various chemicals, the microspheres. Their microphotographs showed highly symmetrical particles. About 3% were iron oxide, some pyrite and a bit of more complex compounds containing iron.
But there was no mention of elemental iron in the (translation from the) Russian study.
Yes, the paper I found was a study of waste from burning coal for electric power generation. They floated out, using various chemicals, the microspheres. Their microphotographs showed highly symmetrical particles. About 3% were iron oxide, some pyrite and a bit of more complex compounds containing iron.
But there was no mention of elemental iron in the (translation from the) Russian study.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 18 2007, 06:32 PM)
Yes, the paper I found was a study of waste from burning coal for electric power generation. They floated out, using various chemicals, the microspheres. Their microphotographs showed highly symmetrical particles. About 3% were iron oxide, some pyrite and a bit of more complex compounds containing iron.
But there was no mention of elemental iron in the (translation from the) Russian study.
Russian power plants do not use the same systems as plants in the USA, and form different compounds, do to the fact that American plants have had scrubbing technology for quite some time now.
That would be like comparing apples to tangerines, If slag were used it would probably come from American plants as it tends to be produce and used locally not worth the transportation cost of shipping it across the ocean.
It is basically a waste by product.
I thank you for trying though D.B.B. every little bit of information helps when the truth is actually what you seek.
The blast furnace slag does contain elemental iron but not in Spherical form always in combination with something else, that was what I was referring to when I said it was not spherical it usually sticks on to something during formation.
However in this photo you can see sphericals of iron oxide framing from Iron chloride on zinc.
I have found four reactions that can convert them into elemental iron particles.
But there was no mention of elemental iron in the (translation from the) Russian study.
Russian power plants do not use the same systems as plants in the USA, and form different compounds, do to the fact that American plants have had scrubbing technology for quite some time now.
That would be like comparing apples to tangerines, If slag were used it would probably come from American plants as it tends to be produce and used locally not worth the transportation cost of shipping it across the ocean.
It is basically a waste by product.
I thank you for trying though D.B.B. every little bit of information helps when the truth is actually what you seek.
The blast furnace slag does contain elemental iron but not in Spherical form always in combination with something else, that was what I was referring to when I said it was not spherical it usually sticks on to something during formation.
However in this photo you can see sphericals of iron oxide framing from Iron chloride on zinc.
I have found four reactions that can convert them into elemental iron particles.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,May 18 2007, 06:52 PM)
Russian power plants do not use the same systems as plants in the USA, and form different compounds, do to the fact that American plants have had scrubbing technology for quite some time now.
Yes, but the towers were built before scrubbers were required?
Indeed, the particular coal makes quite a difference. There were substantially different proportions of the elements in the micsosphere waste depending upon the particular plant and so the coal bed being used.
The study appears to have been conducted because uses for these microspheres in chemical plants had been discovered. (I didn't find a date on the report.)
Yes, but the towers were built before scrubbers were required?
Indeed, the particular coal makes quite a difference. There were substantially different proportions of the elements in the micsosphere waste depending upon the particular plant and so the coal bed being used.
The study appears to have been conducted because uses for these microspheres in chemical plants had been discovered. (I didn't find a date on the report.)
Here is some data on the beginning of collapse for wtc 1. The drop data is obtained by the best fit of the B & V crush-down equation to NEU-FONZE's measurements.
The table has, in order, the time in seconds, the drop of the south edge(wall) as the tower tilts to the south hinged on the north wall, given in meters and then in stories, the angle of the tilt in degrees and minutes of arc, written as XdY' (since I don't know how to make a degree symbol).
0.2 0.28 0.042 0d15'
0.4 1.10 0.165 0d59'
0.6 2.46 0.370 2d13'
0.8 4.36 0.655 3d55'
1.0 6.78 1.018 6d05'
1.2 9.74 1.463 8d42'
Recall that NIST stated up to 8 degrees, so the best estimate is that the north wall broke and tilting ceased between 1.0 and 1.2 seconds into the collapse.
Those interested in producing accurate graphics of the collapse are welcome to use this data. For everybody, note that the impacted floors are then hit progressively from south to north, starting at about 1.0 second into the collapse. Therefore the bageling of a floor is not instantaneous across the entire floor.
The table has, in order, the time in seconds, the drop of the south edge(wall) as the tower tilts to the south hinged on the north wall, given in meters and then in stories, the angle of the tilt in degrees and minutes of arc, written as XdY' (since I don't know how to make a degree symbol).
0.2 0.28 0.042 0d15'
0.4 1.10 0.165 0d59'
0.6 2.46 0.370 2d13'
0.8 4.36 0.655 3d55'
1.0 6.78 1.018 6d05'
1.2 9.74 1.463 8d42'
Recall that NIST stated up to 8 degrees, so the best estimate is that the north wall broke and tilting ceased between 1.0 and 1.2 seconds into the collapse.
Those interested in producing accurate graphics of the collapse are welcome to use this data. For everybody, note that the impacted floors are then hit progressively from south to north, starting at about 1.0 second into the collapse. Therefore the bageling of a floor is not instantaneous across the entire floor.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 18 2007, 07:06 AM)
quicklybraindead
Pathetic, as usual. Never anything new.
Grumpy
Wrong again. I just posted Steven Jones' new paper pointing out the microspheres.
It is you who is same-o, same-o. Why don't you go babysit Snow White, or maybe go back to working in the mine with the other Dwarfs.
But like I just wrote, I am not writing to you anymore because you don't get it. (Although you do bring new meaning to the word "pathetic".)
BUT HE SAID
ON THE CONTRARY
BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD
AND OBSERVE IT
Pathetic, as usual. Never anything new.
Grumpy
Wrong again. I just posted Steven Jones' new paper pointing out the microspheres.
It is you who is same-o, same-o. Why don't you go babysit Snow White, or maybe go back to working in the mine with the other Dwarfs.
But like I just wrote, I am not writing to you anymore because you don't get it. (Although you do bring new meaning to the word "pathetic".)
BUT HE SAID
ON THE CONTRARY
BLESSED ARE THOSE WHO HEAR THE WORD OF GOD
AND OBSERVE IT
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,May 18 2007, 10:32 AM)
Actually I am waiting on test from Dr. Jones right now, he said it should take a couple of weeks.
Yes, I thought you might have been in touch with him about this from reading your recent post. I even mentioned you to him (said you were a very good chemist).
Thanks.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE KEPT THE WORD OF MY PERSEVERANCE
I ALSO WILL KEEP YOU FROM THE HOUR OF TESTING
THAT HOUR WHICH IS ABOUT TO COME UPON THE WHOLE WORLD
TO TEST THOSE WHO DWELL UPON THE EARTH
Yes, I thought you might have been in touch with him about this from reading your recent post. I even mentioned you to him (said you were a very good chemist).
Thanks.
BECAUSE YOU HAVE KEPT THE WORD OF MY PERSEVERANCE
I ALSO WILL KEEP YOU FROM THE HOUR OF TESTING
THAT HOUR WHICH IS ABOUT TO COME UPON THE WHOLE WORLD
TO TEST THOSE WHO DWELL UPON THE EARTH
quicklybraindead
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I am not writing to you anymore because you don't get it.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Grumpy
File this one under "Peer Reviewed <> Absolute Truth", as well as "Even Ph.D.'s will shoehorn their 'analysis' according to their biasses" categories.
I just completed my first pass through "Subquantum Kinetics" (2nd Edition) by Paul LaViolette, Ph.D. In Appendix B, "The Differential Number Count Test: Unjustified Criticisms Rebutted", he writes (pp. 276-277):
Big bang theorist Edward Wright has claimed that the no-evolution tired-light cosmology should be ruled out because, when compared to differential number count test data similar to that shown in Figure B-1, it does not fit the data trend dip evident for the brightest source counts. Thus his conclusion to rule out the tired-light model as a viable cosmology is based on the inability of the no-evolution version of this model to fit a data anomaly comprised of one hundredth of one percent of the total number of counted sources. As mentioned above, Kellermann and others have questioned whether this number-count deficiency is real, suggesting that it may be an artifact of the poor sampling statistics in that part of the data set.
By most standards a model that fits 99.99 percent of a data trend would be considered to be a desirable choice, especially when compared with the non-evolving q0 = 0 Friedmann cosmology which fits only a small fraction of the data points (<10^^-4). In response to a letter pointing out to him that there were few data points to support his refutation of the no-evolution tired-light model, Wright in desperation argued that "a valid theory must fit all the data, not just 99.99 percent of it." But, given that number count data is inherently stochastic, is it not meaningless to distinguish 99.99 percent from 100 percent?
In effect, Wright was willing to reject the no-evolution tired-light model based on its lack of perfection of being a factor of two too high in fitting 0.01 percent of the data, data which may be prone to selection effects. At the same time he advocated his support for the expanding universe cosmology whose no-evolution prediction deviated from the other 99.99 percent of the data by a factor of five or more, also overlooking the fact that the tired-light model had been shown to make a superior fit on three other cosmology tests.
In his paper, Wright chose to adjust his favored cosmology, the Friedmann cosmology, so that it would fit all 100 percent of the number-count data trend by introducing ad hoc assumptions about luminosity evolution. However, if one so wished, one could just as well make evolutionary corrections to the tired-light cosmology to make it fit 100 percent of the data, and the amount of required adjustment would be far less than what is needed to get a fit for the expanding universe cosmology. But it does not make sense to force a model to fit a data trend feature that may just be a statistical anomaly. So Wright's bold statement to reject the tired-light alternative does not seem warranted.
BTW, if there are any physicists reading this thread who are interested in cosmology and foundational physics issues, I suggest checking out LaViolette's book. Comments by qualified individuals on a physorg thread I started on this topic would be appreciated.
The big bang theory seems to have a lot more problems than just being poor in comparison to tired-light models (at least by some measures.) See "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang" http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
I just completed my first pass through "Subquantum Kinetics" (2nd Edition) by Paul LaViolette, Ph.D. In Appendix B, "The Differential Number Count Test: Unjustified Criticisms Rebutted", he writes (pp. 276-277):
QUOTE
Big bang theorist Edward Wright has claimed that the no-evolution tired-light cosmology should be ruled out because, when compared to differential number count test data similar to that shown in Figure B-1, it does not fit the data trend dip evident for the brightest source counts. Thus his conclusion to rule out the tired-light model as a viable cosmology is based on the inability of the no-evolution version of this model to fit a data anomaly comprised of one hundredth of one percent of the total number of counted sources. As mentioned above, Kellermann and others have questioned whether this number-count deficiency is real, suggesting that it may be an artifact of the poor sampling statistics in that part of the data set.
By most standards a model that fits 99.99 percent of a data trend would be considered to be a desirable choice, especially when compared with the non-evolving q0 = 0 Friedmann cosmology which fits only a small fraction of the data points (<10^^-4). In response to a letter pointing out to him that there were few data points to support his refutation of the no-evolution tired-light model, Wright in desperation argued that "a valid theory must fit all the data, not just 99.99 percent of it." But, given that number count data is inherently stochastic, is it not meaningless to distinguish 99.99 percent from 100 percent?
In effect, Wright was willing to reject the no-evolution tired-light model based on its lack of perfection of being a factor of two too high in fitting 0.01 percent of the data, data which may be prone to selection effects. At the same time he advocated his support for the expanding universe cosmology whose no-evolution prediction deviated from the other 99.99 percent of the data by a factor of five or more, also overlooking the fact that the tired-light model had been shown to make a superior fit on three other cosmology tests.
In his paper, Wright chose to adjust his favored cosmology, the Friedmann cosmology, so that it would fit all 100 percent of the number-count data trend by introducing ad hoc assumptions about luminosity evolution. However, if one so wished, one could just as well make evolutionary corrections to the tired-light cosmology to make it fit 100 percent of the data, and the amount of required adjustment would be far less than what is needed to get a fit for the expanding universe cosmology. But it does not make sense to force a model to fit a data trend feature that may just be a statistical anomaly. So Wright's bold statement to reject the tired-light alternative does not seem warranted.
BTW, if there are any physicists reading this thread who are interested in cosmology and foundational physics issues, I suggest checking out LaViolette's book. Comments by qualified individuals on a physorg thread I started on this topic would be appreciated.
The big bang theory seems to have a lot more problems than just being poor in comparison to tired-light models (at least by some measures.) See "The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang" http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp
Not concentrically axial in wtc 1 --- The top block (zone A) tilted up to 8 arc-degrees. For simplicity, I used the data posted yesterday for 1.0 seconds, about 6 arc-degrees. This means that the center of the core has moved north about 0.18 meters, say 7 inches. We'll suppose this amount applies to all the core columns coming down, as an entire column member in each column has already buckled sufficiently to break its connections and be shoved out of the way.
So tilted just this much zone A makes its way straight down about 11- meters. Assuming no translation of zone A, the bottom of the upper core column impacts the top of the lower core column at about 1.8 seconds into the collapse at a speed of about 12 m/s. (We assume the crushed three core floors do not matter.) These do line up enough, assuming no other imperfections. From Table B-4 of NCSTAR1-5G, page 286 (330 ordinal), the typical dimensions of the wide flange steel is about 14--16 inches, twice or more the off-center of the descending columns.
The gives an eccentricity ratio of 0.0165 for the suddenly applied load of infinite duration. From Simitses & Hodges, page 38, we have that this eccentricity lowers the critical load on the bottom portion of the column to 0.91 of that for a non-eccentric load. From general considerations of sudden loads of infinite duration, we have that the critical load in this case is only half that for quasi-static loads. So the critical load is only
(0.5)(0.91) = 0.455
the critical load for typical design considerations. Worse, the kinetic energy contribution is about 144 times that for the first 0.2 seconds of collapse, which was already enough to buckle the degraded column members. So, qualitatively, the connections on the impacted member fail and the collapse in the core continues...
So tilted just this much zone A makes its way straight down about 11- meters. Assuming no translation of zone A, the bottom of the upper core column impacts the top of the lower core column at about 1.8 seconds into the collapse at a speed of about 12 m/s. (We assume the crushed three core floors do not matter.) These do line up enough, assuming no other imperfections. From Table B-4 of NCSTAR1-5G, page 286 (330 ordinal), the typical dimensions of the wide flange steel is about 14--16 inches, twice or more the off-center of the descending columns.
The gives an eccentricity ratio of 0.0165 for the suddenly applied load of infinite duration. From Simitses & Hodges, page 38, we have that this eccentricity lowers the critical load on the bottom portion of the column to 0.91 of that for a non-eccentric load. From general considerations of sudden loads of infinite duration, we have that the critical load in this case is only half that for quasi-static loads. So the critical load is only
(0.5)(0.91) = 0.455
the critical load for typical design considerations. Worse, the kinetic energy contribution is about 144 times that for the first 0.2 seconds of collapse, which was already enough to buckle the degraded column members. So, qualitatively, the connections on the impacted member fail and the collapse in the core continues...
An interesting aspect of the collapse of the Twin Towers is the fact that the designers/architects/civil engineers legally RESPONSIBLE for the safe construction of the WTC complex claimed to have considered the possibility of an aircraft impact and CALCULATED that the buildings would survive.
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 19 2007, 11:19 PM)
But does this let everyone off the hook?
The architect is responsible for fire safety.
The architect is responsible for fire safety.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 19 2007, 11:19 PM)
An interesting aspect of the collapse of the Twin Towers is the fact that the designers/architects/civil engineers legally RESPONSIBLE for the safe construction of the WTC complex claimed to have considered the possibility of an aircraft impact and CALCULATED that the buildings would survive.
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
What I find interesting about all this is, that before 9/11 wtc was belived to be designed to withstand B707 hit.
...
A three-page white paper “Salient points with regard to the structural design of the World Trade Center towers”, February 1964, from the PANYNJ (see Appendix A) indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 or DC 8 aircraft flying at a speed of 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.
...
One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour
...
And the famous statement from Skilling, one of the two head structural enginer 1993
...
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.
Now, but what happened after 9/11 ? Yes Robertson, the other structural head said this:
...
It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, (180 mph) seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft
...
Here is a good overview about all this from German site.
www.werboom.de/vt/html/body_707_vs_767.html
But... ok. Then we look at the analysis of the aircraft impact from Robertson...
And now came the strange thing to me! It is not possible! And why ?
Yes, simply because: "Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report"
I dont know ... but it is just so hard for me to belive this! All the documents about the analysis is lost! No copy!
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner... first time in the history... and what did people with this historical analysis ?? Throwed it in the garbage ?? Nothing importand ... just lost it!
To me it makes no sense. They are (in my opinion) hiding something.
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
What I find interesting about all this is, that before 9/11 wtc was belived to be designed to withstand B707 hit.
...
A three-page white paper “Salient points with regard to the structural design of the World Trade Center towers”, February 1964, from the PANYNJ (see Appendix A) indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 or DC 8 aircraft flying at a speed of 600 mph was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers.
...
One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour
...
And the famous statement from Skilling, one of the two head structural enginer 1993
...
Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.
Now, but what happened after 9/11 ? Yes Robertson, the other structural head said this:
...
It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, (180 mph) seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft
...
Here is a good overview about all this from German site.
www.werboom.de/vt/html/body_707_vs_767.html
But... ok. Then we look at the analysis of the aircraft impact from Robertson...
And now came the strange thing to me! It is not possible! And why ?
Yes, simply because: "Exactly how Robertson performed these calculations is apparently lost -- he says he cannot find a copy of the report"
I dont know ... but it is just so hard for me to belive this! All the documents about the analysis is lost! No copy!
The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner... first time in the history... and what did people with this historical analysis ?? Throwed it in the garbage ?? Nothing importand ... just lost it!
To me it makes no sense. They are (in my opinion) hiding something.
Daru
Just because someone says it does not make it so. Several sources claim the Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact, but it was not claimed prior to a NYT article questioning the safety of such large buildings and comparing the impact of a B25 on the Empire State Building. This article appeared AFTER all the design work for the Towers was already complete. There is no documentary evidence that aircraft impact was even considered during the design phase, no matter what anyone claimed to answer the NYT article, thus there IS NO CALCULATIONS TO FIND, THEY WERE NEVER DONE. The only document in the whole design package that even mentioned a 707 was a memo written after the NYT article appeared.
But the point is moot, both towers DID survive the impacts, it was the additional damage done by the massive, widespread fires that brought those buildings down.
Grumpy
Just because someone says it does not make it so. Several sources claim the Towers were designed to withstand a 707 impact, but it was not claimed prior to a NYT article questioning the safety of such large buildings and comparing the impact of a B25 on the Empire State Building. This article appeared AFTER all the design work for the Towers was already complete. There is no documentary evidence that aircraft impact was even considered during the design phase, no matter what anyone claimed to answer the NYT article, thus there IS NO CALCULATIONS TO FIND, THEY WERE NEVER DONE. The only document in the whole design package that even mentioned a 707 was a memo written after the NYT article appeared.
But the point is moot, both towers DID survive the impacts, it was the additional damage done by the massive, widespread fires that brought those buildings down.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Daru+May 19 2007, 11:35 PM)
... just lost it!
To me it makes no sense.
Archival quality librarianship is not easy. Papers get lost.
For example, the PANYNJ copies of the tower plans were stored in OEM, located in WTC 7. Oops!
The sole remaining copy was in the LERA office. But there was no access for two days due to the WTC disaster.
Note that there was no archival copy kept by the New York State Archivist. That's because, I suppose, PANYNJ is not a State of New York agency. And it seems that PANYNJ had no archivist...
To me it makes no sense.
Archival quality librarianship is not easy. Papers get lost.
For example, the PANYNJ copies of the tower plans were stored in OEM, located in WTC 7. Oops!
The sole remaining copy was in the LERA office. But there was no access for two days due to the WTC disaster.
Note that there was no archival copy kept by the New York State Archivist. That's because, I suppose, PANYNJ is not a State of New York agency. And it seems that PANYNJ had no archivist...
But the question remains:
Did no one even THINK about the effects of an aircraft impact on the Twin Towers?
I don't think so!
It was a "hot" topic with the nuclear industry of the day.........
So, if WE thought about it.... "the other side" must have thought about it.....
So, I still see negligence here somewhere.
Did no one even THINK about the effects of an aircraft impact on the Twin Towers?
I don't think so!
It was a "hot" topic with the nuclear industry of the day.........
So, if WE thought about it.... "the other side" must have thought about it.....
So, I still see negligence here somewhere.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 20 2007, 12:07 AM)
Did no one even THINK about the effects of an aircraft impact on the Twin Towers?
....
So, I still see negligence here somewhere.
As mentioned in another post, both Skilling and Robertson said yes, they studied the matter. Both are professional engineers and so I presume they follow the code of professional ethics and hence do not tell lies.
The architect was possibly negligent. Maybe Skilling was negligent in not informing the architect.
Possibly the nature of the contract between the AE team and PANYNJ was such that nobody was legally negligent. Perhaps there was professional negligence.
Edited to add: And perhaps not. The AE team has to consider many risks, some of which cannot be guarded against. As an example, no building in NYC is designed to withstand a magnitude 9.5 earthquake. Why not? Earthquakes are rather minor in that area.
The solution regarding an potential aircraft impact was to include (at some point) an aircraft warning antenna on the WTC 1 antenna tower and assuming that pilots would thence stay away...
....
So, I still see negligence here somewhere.
As mentioned in another post, both Skilling and Robertson said yes, they studied the matter. Both are professional engineers and so I presume they follow the code of professional ethics and hence do not tell lies.
The architect was possibly negligent. Maybe Skilling was negligent in not informing the architect.
Possibly the nature of the contract between the AE team and PANYNJ was such that nobody was legally negligent. Perhaps there was professional negligence.
Edited to add: And perhaps not. The AE team has to consider many risks, some of which cannot be guarded against. As an example, no building in NYC is designed to withstand a magnitude 9.5 earthquake. Why not? Earthquakes are rather minor in that area.
The solution regarding an potential aircraft impact was to include (at some point) an aircraft warning antenna on the WTC 1 antenna tower and assuming that pilots would thence stay away...
David:
I still wonder if the perpetrators expected the Towers to collapse from aircraft impacts alone, or not...
It's VERY important to know the answer to this question!
If they could figure this vulnerability out, why couldn't we?
I still wonder if the perpetrators expected the Towers to collapse from aircraft impacts alone, or not...
It's VERY important to know the answer to this question!
If they could figure this vulnerability out, why couldn't we?
NEU-FONZE
OBL himself said he expected many casualties in the impact and fire floors, but that the buildings collapse was more than he expected. And he had some engineering experience.
Being the first such buildings hit by aircraft of that size, why is it surprising that some surprising and unanticipated things happened???
Grumpy
OBL himself said he expected many casualties in the impact and fire floors, but that the buildings collapse was more than he expected. And he had some engineering experience.
Being the first such buildings hit by aircraft of that size, why is it surprising that some surprising and unanticipated things happened???
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 19 2007, 07:24 AM)
quicklybraindead
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Grumpy
My Response:
Silence Is Golden
WAIT FOR THE LORD
BE STRONG AND LET YOUR HEART TAKE COURAGE
YES
WAIT FOR THE LORD
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Grumpy
My Response:
Silence Is Golden
WAIT FOR THE LORD
BE STRONG AND LET YOUR HEART TAKE COURAGE
YES
WAIT FOR THE LORD
http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
QUOTE (Scott Aaronson+May 8th, 2007 01:54 PM)
I saw this xkcd cartoon, which succinctly captures a point that I’ve been trying to make for the last fifteen years, in arguments against conspiracy-mongers and other associated doofiati.
QUOTE (morgan+May 18th, 2007, 15:03 PM)
Thank you for providing the plural of doofus! The xkcd cartoon was delightful! Congratulations on your job offer at MIT as well.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 19 2007, 11:19 PM)
An interesting aspect of the collapse of the Twin Towers is the fact that the designers/architects/civil engineers legally RESPONSIBLE for the safe construction of the WTC complex claimed to have considered the possibility of an aircraft impact and CALCULATED that the buildings would survive.
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
It's almost like you design a bulletproof vest and finally it doesn't work.
Some people mention that a building is never designed to withstand a plane, but this one was designed for that. I remember you compared it with the Titanic in your paper but as far as I understand you have a different view now.
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
It's almost like you design a bulletproof vest and finally it doesn't work.
Some people mention that a building is never designed to withstand a plane, but this one was designed for that. I remember you compared it with the Titanic in your paper but as far as I understand you have a different view now.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 20 2007, 11:17 AM)
It's almost like you design a bulletproof vest and finally it doesn't work.
Some people mention that a building is never designed to withstand a plane, but this one was designed for that. I remember you compared it with the Titanic in your paper but as far as I understand you have a different view now.
The towers were not designed to withstand a high speed impact by a large aircraft, nor were they designed to stand up to a category 3 hurricane, because statistically neither was considered likely. I'm not aware of any studies that existed at the time of construction of the towers that indicated a threat from intentional assault using large aircraft.
Some people mention that a building is never designed to withstand a plane, but this one was designed for that. I remember you compared it with the Titanic in your paper but as far as I understand you have a different view now.
The towers were not designed to withstand a high speed impact by a large aircraft, nor were they designed to stand up to a category 3 hurricane, because statistically neither was considered likely. I'm not aware of any studies that existed at the time of construction of the towers that indicated a threat from intentional assault using large aircraft.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 19 2007, 06:19 PM)
An interesting aspect of the collapse of the Twin Towers is the fact that the designers/architects/civil engineers legally RESPONSIBLE for the safe construction of the WTC complex claimed to have considered the possibility of an aircraft impact and CALCULATED that the buildings would survive.
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
The buildings DID survive the impacts.
Impacts at speeds MUCH worse than would have been rationally considered.
(The 600 MPH press release was bogus because planes don't fly at 600 MPH when landing or taking off, nor do they cruise at that speed below about 30,000 ft. )
No, NIST did NOT say that they fell because of the planes impacts. NIST points out that the buildings took the hit and would have "stood indefinately" were it not for the fires. The good news that day wast that they in fact stood long enough for MOST of the people to exit the buildings. They ultimately fell because of damage caused by BOTH the impacts and the subsequent fires. The fires did more total damage.
By far, the aspect of the tower design that contributed to most of the deaths that day was the overly central placement of the three stairways and their use of Sheetrock instead of a reinforced concrete to ensure they remained passable.
Arthur
But NIST argue that the towers fell BECAUSE of the aircraft impacts.
The fact that the calculations ignored the effects of jet-fueled fires is offered as an explanation for this discrepancy. But does this let everyone off the hook?
The buildings DID survive the impacts.
Impacts at speeds MUCH worse than would have been rationally considered.
(The 600 MPH press release was bogus because planes don't fly at 600 MPH when landing or taking off, nor do they cruise at that speed below about 30,000 ft. )
No, NIST did NOT say that they fell because of the planes impacts. NIST points out that the buildings took the hit and would have "stood indefinately" were it not for the fires. The good news that day wast that they in fact stood long enough for MOST of the people to exit the buildings. They ultimately fell because of damage caused by BOTH the impacts and the subsequent fires. The fires did more total damage.
By far, the aspect of the tower design that contributed to most of the deaths that day was the overly central placement of the three stairways and their use of Sheetrock instead of a reinforced concrete to ensure they remained passable.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+May 20 2007, 11:17 AM)
... but this one was designed for that.
Nope. LERA (and maybe Skilling) asked PANYNJ if they would be interested in an aircraft impact study ($$ for LERA) after the tower design was essentially complete.
Nope. LERA (and maybe Skilling) asked PANYNJ if they would be interested in an aircraft impact study ($$ for LERA) after the tower design was essentially complete.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 20 2007, 11:17 AM)
It's almost like you design a bulletproof vest and finally it doesn't work.
Some people mention that a building is never designed to withstand a plane, but this one was designed for that. I remember you compared it with the Titanic in your paper but as far as I understand you have a different view now.
An easy understanding would be Bullet proof vest, Teflon bullet.
I can not speak for NEU-FONZE, but I can say that my view goes only where the evidence points. The evidence other than the planes impacts with the buildings does not point to NIST's conclusion there is something missing.
I am not a Chemist, but I can see from actually trying stuff and watching what happens that Chemistry played a big part in what happened and NIST almost totally ignores it.
Some people mention that a building is never designed to withstand a plane, but this one was designed for that. I remember you compared it with the Titanic in your paper but as far as I understand you have a different view now.
An easy understanding would be Bullet proof vest, Teflon bullet.
I can not speak for NEU-FONZE, but I can say that my view goes only where the evidence points. The evidence other than the planes impacts with the buildings does not point to NIST's conclusion there is something missing.
I am not a Chemist, but I can see from actually trying stuff and watching what happens that Chemistry played a big part in what happened and NIST almost totally ignores it.
Before 9/11, wtc was designed for B707 hit at top speed. After 9/11 it all changed.
Now, they dont want to show people the study that proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner. They magically "lost" it!
It is so obvous that they are hiding something. The wtc was really designed for jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour... and I have figured out how it was possible!
Key word: flexible, swaying and damping system in the towers!
That is, wtc was designed to swayed (because of the huge wind up there) and also the damping system in the floors.
Now, when something hit it... it would never be a "direct hit" if I can say so... because the swaying and damping system simply eat up the energy from the hit!
That fact is ignored in the official version. But I have figured it out by using common sense.
Now, they dont want to show people the study that proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner. They magically "lost" it!
It is so obvous that they are hiding something. The wtc was really designed for jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour... and I have figured out how it was possible!
Key word: flexible, swaying and damping system in the towers!
That is, wtc was designed to swayed (because of the huge wind up there) and also the damping system in the floors.
Now, when something hit it... it would never be a "direct hit" if I can say so... because the swaying and damping system simply eat up the energy from the hit!
That fact is ignored in the official version. But I have figured it out by using common sense.
QUOTE (Daru+May 20 2007, 09:26 PM)
... wtc was designed for B707 hit at top speed.
... That fact is ignored in the official version.
No, the towers were not so designed. See my previous post replying to einsteen.
NIST studied the tower sway due to aircraft impacts.
... That fact is ignored in the official version.
No, the towers were not so designed. See my previous post replying to einsteen.
NIST studied the tower sway due to aircraft impacts.
Daru
There was no study of the impacts of aircraft, so there was nothing to lose. Claims made of the Towers being so designed were nothing but CYA after news reports questioning the buildings safety.
There was no study of the impacts of aircraft, so there was nothing to lose. Claims made of the Towers being so designed were nothing but CYA after news reports questioning the buildings safety.
Now, when something hit it... it would never be a "direct hit" if I can say so... because the swaying and damping system simply eat up the energy from the hit!
That fact is ignored in the official version. But I have figured it out by using common sense.
I wish you would show some common sense. Despite any design considerations, the impacts did massive damage to those buildings and the fires finished them off.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Now, they dont want to show people the study that proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner. They magically "lost" it!
There was no study of the impacts of aircraft, so there was nothing to lose. Claims made of the Towers being so designed were nothing but CYA after news reports questioning the buildings safety.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, they dont want to show people the study that proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner. They magically "lost" it! |
There was no study of the impacts of aircraft, so there was nothing to lose. Claims made of the Towers being so designed were nothing but CYA after news reports questioning the buildings safety.
Now, when something hit it... it would never be a "direct hit" if I can say so... because the swaying and damping system simply eat up the energy from the hit!
That fact is ignored in the official version. But I have figured it out by using common sense.
I wish you would show some common sense. Despite any design considerations, the impacts did massive damage to those buildings and the fires finished them off.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Daru+May 20 2007, 04:26 PM)
I have figured it out by using common sense.
ROTFLMAO
Good one.
Arthur
ROTFLMAO
Good one.
Arthur
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 20 2007, 01:17 AM)
... And he had some engineering experience.
AFAIK, the only engineers who even thought about the possibility of collapse, before the aircraft strikes, were at LERA. After all, Leslie E. Robertson Associates had the responsibility of being sure the towers did not.
After the aircraft strikes, the fire chiefs were expecting partial collapses. AFAIK, the only person to confidently predict total collapses was Mark L., the president of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. He attempted to phone OEM, but could not get through. For more details, see Byles's book, Rubble.
AFAIK, the only engineers who even thought about the possibility of collapse, before the aircraft strikes, were at LERA. After all, Leslie E. Robertson Associates had the responsibility of being sure the towers did not.
After the aircraft strikes, the fire chiefs were expecting partial collapses. AFAIK, the only person to confidently predict total collapses was Mark L., the president of Controlled Demolitions, Inc. He attempted to phone OEM, but could not get through. For more details, see Byles's book, Rubble.
From the Leslie E. Robertson Associates, R.L.L.P., page on WTC --- Sept. 11, 2001:
"We designed the towers to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land."
Also see
Leslie E. Robertson
Reflections on the World Trade Center
The Bridge (National Academy of Engineering) v. 32 #1, Spring 2002
for a similar, but more lengthy, account.
"We designed the towers to withstand the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land."
Also see
Leslie E. Robertson
Reflections on the World Trade Center
The Bridge (National Academy of Engineering) v. 32 #1, Spring 2002
for a similar, but more lengthy, account.
How much of the kinetic energy of the aircraft was eat up by the swaying and damping system of the towers according to NIST ?
But ofcource all above lead to the forbidden truth. Something is wrong with the videos of 2.plane impact.
But ofcource all above lead to the forbidden truth. Something is wrong with the videos of 2.plane impact.
Daru
WHATTT????????
Grumpy
QUOTE
But ofcource all above lead to the forbidden truth. Something is wrong with the videos of 2.plane impact.
WHATTT????????
Grumpy
QUOTE (Daru+May 20 2007, 10:49 PM)
How much of the kinetic energy of the aircraft was eat up by the swaying and damping system of the towers according to NIST ?
But ofcource all above lead to the forbidden truth. Something is wrong with the videos of 2.plane impact.
The energy imparted to the building is recorded in the Seismic data, those records are a direct recording of how much energy was transfered to the structure of the towers.
But ofcource all above lead to the forbidden truth. Something is wrong with the videos of 2.plane impact.
The energy imparted to the building is recorded in the Seismic data, those records are a direct recording of how much energy was transfered to the structure of the towers.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 20 2007, 11:16 PM)
Daru
WHATTT????????
Grumpy
Yes. But it is forbidden. We can not talk about it.
But the fact is, that the energy of the aircraft that was eaten up by the swaying and damping system... can not be used to cut exterior wall concrete floors inner columns sfrm etc etc.
I am the first person to figure this simple fact out!!
WHATTT????????
Grumpy
Yes. But it is forbidden. We can not talk about it.
But the fact is, that the energy of the aircraft that was eaten up by the swaying and damping system... can not be used to cut exterior wall concrete floors inner columns sfrm etc etc.
I am the first person to figure this simple fact out!!
QUOTE (Daru+May 20 2007, 11:37 PM)
I am the first person to figure this simple fact out!!
Nope.
Many before you...
Nope.
Many before you...
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 20 2007, 11:44 PM)
Nope.
Many before you...
DBB. I love, it that he has not figured out that the Seismic record also records the buildings resistance to sway, it records both force applied and absorbed energy converted to Seismic energy do to resistance.
All that information is recorded in the Seismic record, available to anyone.
Many before you...
DBB. I love,
it that he has not figured out that the Seismic record also records the buildings resistance to sway, it records both force applied and absorbed energy converted to Seismic energy do to resistance. All that information is recorded in the Seismic record, available to anyone.
Daru
WHATTT???
WHATTT???
But the fact is, that the energy of the aircraft that was eaten up by the swaying and damping system... can not be used to cut exterior wall concrete floors inner columns sfrm etc etc.
Then the aircraft just bounced off the exterior walls??? This is what you just figured out???
RIGHT!!!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
Yes. But it is forbidden. We can not talk about it.
WHATTT???
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes. But it is forbidden. We can not talk about it. |
WHATTT???
But the fact is, that the energy of the aircraft that was eaten up by the swaying and damping system... can not be used to cut exterior wall concrete floors inner columns sfrm etc etc.
Then the aircraft just bounced off the exterior walls??? This is what you just figured out???
QUOTE
I am the first person to figure this simple fact out!!
RIGHT!!!!!
Grumpy
Jeff King MIT Engeneer explaine it very well.
www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/kingblacktech.mp3 (05:15)
www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/kingblacktech.mp3 (05:15)
That has to be one of the DUMBEST things I've EVER heard.
Shirley, You jest?
Arthur
Shirley, You jest?
Arthur
Daru
King's whole MP3 is full of nothing but misinformation. HE EXPLAINS NOTHING!!!
Now, What the *^&$%# are you talking about???
Grumpy
King's whole MP3 is full of nothing but misinformation. HE EXPLAINS NOTHING!!!
Now, What the *^&$%# are you talking about???
Grumpy
QUOTE (Daru+May 21 2007, 12:23 AM)
Jeff King MIT Engineer explain it very well.
www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/kingblacktech.mp3 (05:15)
yes. he does explain it very well.
he is a very intelligent dude, who is willing to leave the blanks unfilled, if they can't be filled correctly. a hallmark of a good thinker.
unlike the 'we know everything' team of disinfo specialists singing like mockingbirds around this campfire.
www.members.shaw.ca/truth912/kingblacktech.mp3 (05:15)
yes. he does explain it very well.
he is a very intelligent dude, who is willing to leave the blanks unfilled, if they can't be filled correctly. a hallmark of a good thinker.
unlike the 'we know everything' team of disinfo specialists singing like mockingbirds around this campfire.
newton
So the aircraft bounced off the side of both buildings???
You know, sometime or another you have to face the facts, the world does not care what you believe and the laws of physics will not be violated.
(And there are no thermite fairies, either)
Grumpy
So the aircraft bounced off the side of both buildings???
You know, sometime or another you have to face the facts, the world does not care what you believe and the laws of physics will not be violated.
(And there are no thermite fairies, either)
Grumpy
Correction --- The number of stories dropped along the south side of the collapse of wtc 1 reported in a post yesterday is wrong. Here is the correct number of stories, following the time:
0.2 0.077
0.4 0.300
0.6 0.673
0.8 1.190
1.0 1.854
1.2 2.663
0.2 0.077
0.4 0.300
0.6 0.673
0.8 1.190
1.0 1.854
1.2 2.663
QUOTE (Daru+May 20 2007, 06:23 PM)
Jeff King MIT Engeneer explaine it very well.
Well, he certainly doesn't sound like an engineer, with MIT or anybody else. So I searched MIT and guess what... he's not listed. haha
"There were 35 matches to your request." That was for "KING", and none of 'em are Jeffs.
MIT People Directory
Take a look. The closest is a 'John G.' in the Physics dept. Again, no Jeff.
Maybe that's why he sounded like an idiot, talking about a plane is mostly just thin aluminum. Most people know what the "A" is in an "A and P" card... AIRFRAME AND POWERPLANT.
Well, he certainly doesn't sound like an engineer, with MIT or anybody else. So I searched MIT and guess what... he's not listed. haha
"There were 35 matches to your request." That was for "KING", and none of 'em are Jeffs.
MIT People Directory
Take a look. The closest is a 'John G.' in the Physics dept. Again, no Jeff.
Maybe that's why he sounded like an idiot, talking about a plane is mostly just thin aluminum. Most people know what the "A" is in an "A and P" card... AIRFRAME AND POWERPLANT.
Jeff King = Plague Puppy.
He apparently got an ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING degree from MIT in the 70s.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/lofive...ex.php?t54.html
Arthur
He apparently got an ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING degree from MIT in the 70s.
http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/lofive...ex.php?t54.html
Arthur
Here is how the OCT myth was sold from the get-go:
Video "The 9/11 Solution"
http://brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
This nine minute video shows that even as the World Trade Center was burning and immediately after the collapses, a stream of disinformation laying down the key official 9/11 myths was being actively being put in place via the US mass media (i.e. the impact of the planes weakened the structures, the "intense" fires caused the collapses, Bin Laden was the only possible suspect.)
Shown in the video are three disinformation agents immediately on the scene that morning, one of which is Jerome Hauer, whose Wikipedia page is worth referencing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer
Per Wikipedia, he was connected with the following:
- Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM, located in WTC7)
- West Nile virus
- Anthrax / U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
- Managing Director of Kroll Associates (on 9/11, Kroll was in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex)
- John O'Neill, foremost and former FBI counter-terror specialist (he was the head of security at the WTC on September 11, 2001, and was given the WTC position by his old friend Jerome Hauer, Managing Director of Kroll)
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
The OCT is the myth, 9/11 was an inside job, and more and more people are realizing this every day.
ROLL YOUR WORKS TO THE LORD
AND YOUR PLANS WILL BE ESTABLISHED
Video "The 9/11 Solution"
http://brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
This nine minute video shows that even as the World Trade Center was burning and immediately after the collapses, a stream of disinformation laying down the key official 9/11 myths was being actively being put in place via the US mass media (i.e. the impact of the planes weakened the structures, the "intense" fires caused the collapses, Bin Laden was the only possible suspect.)
Shown in the video are three disinformation agents immediately on the scene that morning, one of which is Jerome Hauer, whose Wikipedia page is worth referencing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer
Per Wikipedia, he was connected with the following:
- Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM, located in WTC7)
- West Nile virus
- Anthrax / U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID)
- Managing Director of Kroll Associates (on 9/11, Kroll was in charge of security for the entire World Trade Center complex)
- John O'Neill, foremost and former FBI counter-terror specialist (he was the head of security at the WTC on September 11, 2001, and was given the WTC position by his old friend Jerome Hauer, Managing Director of Kroll)
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
The OCT is the myth, 9/11 was an inside job, and more and more people are realizing this every day.
ROLL YOUR WORKS TO THE LORD
AND YOUR PLANS WILL BE ESTABLISHED
Ahh, ok. Thanks Arthur.
Speaking on planes we have of course the famous video of Frank DeMartini in which he said that the building could withstand multiple plane impacts. It is sad that he died in his own building.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 21 2007, 08:58 AM)
Speaking on planes we have of course the famous video of Frank DeMartini in which he said that the building could withstand multiple plane impacts. It is sad that he died in his own building.
Except DeMartini was the CONSTRUCTION manager.
What he said:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
But KE goes up with the square of the velocity.
Its unlikely DeMartini or ANYONE was considering the forces unleashed by the impact of a plane at > 500 MPH.
Large commercial planes at that altitude, which would be configured to either land or take off, are NORMALLY flying below 200 mph.
The damage from a 767 at those speeds would have been substantially less.
Even two 707's at 200 mph would have had LESS impact than one 767 at 500 mph.
So DeMartini was probably correct, the towers would quite possibly have withstood the impact of SEVERAL 707s flying at NORMAL speeds for the altitude they would have been at.
Arthur
Except DeMartini was the CONSTRUCTION manager.
What he said:
The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
But KE goes up with the square of the velocity.
Its unlikely DeMartini or ANYONE was considering the forces unleashed by the impact of a plane at > 500 MPH.
Large commercial planes at that altitude, which would be configured to either land or take off, are NORMALLY flying below 200 mph.
The damage from a 767 at those speeds would have been substantially less.
Even two 707's at 200 mph would have had LESS impact than one 767 at 500 mph.
So DeMartini was probably correct, the towers would quite possibly have withstood the impact of SEVERAL 707s flying at NORMAL speeds for the altitude they would have been at.
Arthur
Well, he didn't explicitly talk about the speed of the plane (what if a plane is lost or there are some errors), but one thing is for sure, the designers would be aware of the fuel. But if we are going to discuss in this way, wasn't it mainly the fire and fireproofing that collapsed the buildings after an hour? Energy is no magical entity that exactly determines how something will behave depending on its value, it's no matter of "the building will be destroyed if the impact is over 2GJ", if it is 1.9GJ the building will survive and if it is 2.1GJ the tower is doomed.
If you have a plane that goes 100,000 mph and hits the tower it probably cuts a perfect Wile E Coyote-like silhouette in the building but there is no fire and no fuel that flows into the building. No, I don't believe it is only a matter of calculating the kinetic energy, there are also things like probability and statistical mechanics that matter.
If you have a plane that goes 100,000 mph and hits the tower it probably cuts a perfect Wile E Coyote-like silhouette in the building but there is no fire and no fuel that flows into the building. No, I don't believe it is only a matter of calculating the kinetic energy, there are also things like probability and statistical mechanics that matter.
QUOTE (einsteen+May 21 2007, 09:31 AM)
Well, he didn't explicitly talk about the speed of the plane (what if a plane is lost or there are some errors), but one thing is for sure, the designers would be aware of the fuel. But if we are going to discuss in this way, wasn't it mainly the fire and fireproofing that collapsed the buildings after an hour? Energy is no magical entity that exactly determines how something will behave depending on its value, it's no matter of "the building will be destroyed if the impact is over 2GJ", if it is 1.9GJ the building will survive and if it is 2.1GJ the tower is doomed.
If you have a plane that goes 100,000 mph and hits the tower it probably cuts a perfect Wile E Coyote-like silhouette in the building but there is no fire and no fuel that flows into the building. No, I don't believe it is only a matter of calculating the kinetic energy, there are also things like probability and statistical mechanics that matter.
Regardless if the plane is LOST or not, speed limits apply based on ALTITUDE, so NO, at < 1,000 ft the plane would NOT be expected to be above 200 mph. The fact is the ONLY time a commercial jet is below 1,000 ft is when it is in the process of LANDING or TAKING OFF, but when taking off, it passes 1,000 ft within the airport boundary, so the only LOGICAL time a commercial jet could conceivably run into the towers accidentally is if it was lost on an approach to land and then it would be configured for low speed flight, flaps/slats deployed, LG down and below 200 mph.
Sure there are other things that matter, but the energy IMPARTED to the towers is probably the KEY metric.
Sure, in your example, there would likely be a speed where not all the kinetic energy of the impacting body would be transmitted to the towers (the through shot) but that example far exceeds the normal RANGE of speeds/energies being discussed as to be pointless.
Yes, the fire did more damage and that was primarily because the large amount of SFRM that was disloged, but the disloging of the SFRM and the widespread fires WERE a factor based on the KE the plane delivered into the INTERIOR of multiple floors of the building.
Had the plane been traveling at < 200 mph than a MUCH smaller percent of SFRM would have been disloged and more than likely NONE of the core columns would have been severed, thus the shifting of loads would have been much less and the fire suppressing standpipes would still have been working. Similarly the damage would have been to one or two fewer floors, more fuel would likely have been lost outside the building and extent of the initial fires substantially reduced.
All and all, a significantly more surviavable scenario for both people and tower.
Arthur
If you have a plane that goes 100,000 mph and hits the tower it probably cuts a perfect Wile E Coyote-like silhouette in the building but there is no fire and no fuel that flows into the building. No, I don't believe it is only a matter of calculating the kinetic energy, there are also things like probability and statistical mechanics that matter.
Regardless if the plane is LOST or not, speed limits apply based on ALTITUDE, so NO, at < 1,000 ft the plane would NOT be expected to be above 200 mph. The fact is the ONLY time a commercial jet is below 1,000 ft is when it is in the process of LANDING or TAKING OFF, but when taking off, it passes 1,000 ft within the airport boundary, so the only LOGICAL time a commercial jet could conceivably run into the towers accidentally is if it was lost on an approach to land and then it would be configured for low speed flight, flaps/slats deployed, LG down and below 200 mph.
Sure there are other things that matter, but the energy IMPARTED to the towers is probably the KEY metric.
Sure, in your example, there would likely be a speed where not all the kinetic energy of the impacting body would be transmitted to the towers (the through shot) but that example far exceeds the normal RANGE of speeds/energies being discussed as to be pointless.
Yes, the fire did more damage and that was primarily because the large amount of SFRM that was disloged, but the disloging of the SFRM and the widespread fires WERE a factor based on the KE the plane delivered into the INTERIOR of multiple floors of the building.
Had the plane been traveling at < 200 mph than a MUCH smaller percent of SFRM would have been disloged and more than likely NONE of the core columns would have been severed, thus the shifting of loads would have been much less and the fire suppressing standpipes would still have been working. Similarly the damage would have been to one or two fewer floors, more fuel would likely have been lost outside the building and extent of the initial fires substantially reduced.
All and all, a significantly more surviavable scenario for both people and tower.
Arthur
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 20 2007, 11:39 PM)
- John O'Neill, foremost and former FBI counter-terror specialist (he was the head of security at the WTC on September 11, 2001, and was given the WTC position by his old friend Jerome Hauer, Managing Director of Kroll)
9/11 was his second day on the job.
He died that day.
Was he IN ON IT?
Arthur
9/11 was his second day on the job.
He died that day.
Was he IN ON IT?
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+May 14 2007, 08:09 PM)
Shagster, I'm not sure if I understand what you mean.
What would be holding up the upper block with the columns disconnected from each other through the front?
What would be holding up the upper block with the columns disconnected from each other through the front?
QUOTE (adoucette+May 21 2007, 05:37 PM)
9/11 was his second day on the job.
He died that day.
Was he IN ON IT?
Arthur
no, he was against it. that's why they killed him under cover of the attack.
he is the one whose investigations into shady middle eastern terrorists, like bin laden and assoc., and their threat levels, like they're planning something, were stonewalled by higher ups.
he obviously knew too much, and was placed in the towers so he could be murdered 'quietly'.
He died that day.
Was he IN ON IT?
Arthur
no, he was against it. that's why they killed him under cover of the attack.
he is the one whose investigations into shady middle eastern terrorists, like bin laden and assoc., and their threat levels, like they're planning something, were stonewalled by higher ups.
he obviously knew too much, and was placed in the towers so he could be murdered 'quietly'.
QUOTE (newton+May 21 2007, 03:50 PM)
no, he was against it. that's why they killed him under cover of the attack.
he is the one whose investigations into shady middle eastern terrorists, like bin laden and assoc., and their threat levels, like they're planning something, were stonewalled by higher ups.
he obviously knew too much, and was placed in the towers so he could be murdered 'quietly'.
And you KNOW this because?????
Arthur
he is the one whose investigations into shady middle eastern terrorists, like bin laden and assoc., and their threat levels, like they're planning something, were stonewalled by higher ups.
he obviously knew too much, and was placed in the towers so he could be murdered 'quietly'.
And you KNOW this because?????
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 21 2007, 08:59 PM)
And you KNOW this because?????
Arthur
just watch the movie, 'who killed john o'neill'.
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
Arthur
just watch the movie, 'who killed john o'neill'.
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
newton
He knew about it, was against it, yet he went to work as usual?????
[removed]
He knew about it, was against it, yet he went to work as usual?????
[removed]
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 21 2007, 09:09 PM)
newton
He knew about it, was against it, yet he went to work as usual?????
You are truly an imbecile!!! The depths of stupidity that you are capable of are astounding!!!
your view of reality is pretty two dimensional.
He knew about it, was against it, yet he went to work as usual?????
You are truly an imbecile!!! The depths of stupidity that you are capable of are astounding!!!
your view of reality is pretty two dimensional.
newton
At least I am looking at reality, not your idiotic fantasies.
Grumpy
QUOTE
your view of reality is pretty two dimensional.
At least I am looking at reality, not your idiotic fantasies.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+May 21 2007, 04:03 PM)
just watch the movie, 'who killed john o'neill'.
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
That's it?
"Here it is on YOU TUBE"
You HAVE to be kidding me.
Do you have ANY working neurons?
Arthur
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
That's it?
"Here it is on YOU TUBE"
You HAVE to be kidding me.
Do you have ANY working neurons?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 21 2007, 09:56 PM)
That's it?
"Here it is on YOU TUBE"
You HAVE to be kidding me.
Do you have ANY working neurons?
Arthur
everything is on youtube. there is nothing wrong with youtube.
the movie was done on film, originally, and the research that went into it is extensive.
here's something closer to the source(john, that is)...youtube link, september 10th
"Here it is on YOU TUBE"
You HAVE to be kidding me.
Do you have ANY working neurons?
Arthur
everything is on youtube. there is nothing wrong with youtube.
the movie was done on film, originally, and the research that went into it is extensive.
here's something closer to the source(john, that is)...youtube link, september 10th
QUOTE (newton+May 21 2007, 10:24 PM)
everything is on youtube.
Everything?
Everything?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 22 2007, 02:02 AM)
Everything?
what i mean is it is not biased towards anything. leftist, rightist, anarchist, totalitarian, flotsamist....
it's all there.
what i mean is it is not biased towards anything. leftist, rightist, anarchist, totalitarian, flotsamist....
it's all there.
QUOTE (Grumpy+May 21 2007, 02:42 PM)
newton
At least I am looking at reality, not your idiotic fantasies.
Grumpy
"Idiotic fantasies"?
There seems to be some sidestepping going on here regarding this video presented.
Why doesn't a defender of the OCT have something to say about this video "The 9/11 Solution"? Facts too tough to deal with that show what a myth the OCT is?
C'mon, be brave -- it is only 9 minutes long.
Let's try a "Take-Two":
Video "The 9/11 Solution"
http://brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
ONLY BE VERY STRONG AND COURAGEOUS
At least I am looking at reality, not your idiotic fantasies.
Grumpy
"Idiotic fantasies"?
There seems to be some sidestepping going on here regarding this video presented.
Why doesn't a defender of the OCT have something to say about this video "The 9/11 Solution"? Facts too tough to deal with that show what a myth the OCT is?
C'mon, be brave -- it is only 9 minutes long.
Let's try a "Take-Two":
Video "The 9/11 Solution"
http://brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
ONLY BE VERY STRONG AND COURAGEOUS
QUOTE (newton+May 21 2007, 02:03 PM)
just watch the movie, 'who killed john o'neill'.
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
I've seen it -- good movie, newton. Thanks.
Did you notice adoucette pretend not to get it, how he did not have even a clue about the link between Hauer and O'Neill?
Arthur's question should have been, "Was Hauer in on it?", not O'Neill, the one who died.
And yes, Hauer was in on it...Kroll...
THE MIND OF MAN PLANS HIS WAY
BUT THE LORD DIRECTS HIS STEPS
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
I've seen it -- good movie, newton. Thanks.
Did you notice adoucette pretend not to get it, how he did not have even a clue about the link between Hauer and O'Neill?
Arthur's question should have been, "Was Hauer in on it?", not O'Neill, the one who died.
And yes, Hauer was in on it...Kroll...
THE MIND OF MAN PLANS HIS WAY
BUT THE LORD DIRECTS HIS STEPS
Craig, I can't wait until someone you SLANDER on the internet "yes, Hauer was in on it", sues your butt off.
I didn't watch either of the YOU TUBE videos.
Life is too short to WASTE it watching BS.
If you have some FACTS that PROVE Hauer's guilt, then simply put them down in WRITING.
If you don't, then I'll assume that this, like all your previous claims, is BOGUS.
Arthur
I didn't watch either of the YOU TUBE videos.
Life is too short to WASTE it watching BS.
If you have some FACTS that PROVE Hauer's guilt, then simply put them down in WRITING.
If you don't, then I'll assume that this, like all your previous claims, is BOGUS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 21 2007, 08:52 PM)
Craig, I can't wait until someone you SLANDER on the internet "yes, Hauer was in on it", sues your butt off.
I didn't watch either of the YOU TUBE videos.
Life is too short to WASTE it watching BS.
If you have some FACTS that PROVE Hauer's guilt, then simply put them down in WRITING.
If you don't, then I'll assume that this, like all your previous claims, is BOGUS.
Arthur
Arthur, I believe you say you did not watch the nine minute video because it shows the OCT is a myth...a fake...a lie.
I believe you feel these nine minutes reveal the truth about 9/11 in such a way that it destroys the OCT; more than likely, you have already viewed it and this is why you will not respond.
These nine minutes are simply selected TV replays of that first hour and a half.
adoucette: "Life is too short to WASTE it watching BS." -- This is not an answer.
Do not fear nine minutes of truth. The video casts a spotlight on Jerome Hauer, I slander no one, and you must finally either put up or shut up. If you don't respond to this, you lose (again) -- so enough of the kid games.
In addition, anyone else in defense of the OCT is invited to comment on the "The 9/11 Solution". Please take a look. These are real facts about 9/11. All it takes is 9 minutes of your life, nothing compared to those who lost it all on 9/11.
The choice is yours. Comment if you like.
Thanks.
Video "The 9/11 Solution"
http://brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
BUT IMMEDIATELY JESUS SPOKE TO THEM SAYING
TAKE COURAGE
IT IS I
DO NOT BE AFRAID
{when He walked upon the water on the Sea of Galilee during the storm at night}
I didn't watch either of the YOU TUBE videos.
Life is too short to WASTE it watching BS.
If you have some FACTS that PROVE Hauer's guilt, then simply put them down in WRITING.
If you don't, then I'll assume that this, like all your previous claims, is BOGUS.
Arthur
Arthur, I believe you say you did not watch the nine minute video because it shows the OCT is a myth...a fake...a lie.
I believe you feel these nine minutes reveal the truth about 9/11 in such a way that it destroys the OCT; more than likely, you have already viewed it and this is why you will not respond.
These nine minutes are simply selected TV replays of that first hour and a half.
adoucette: "Life is too short to WASTE it watching BS." -- This is not an answer.
Do not fear nine minutes of truth. The video casts a spotlight on Jerome Hauer, I slander no one, and you must finally either put up or shut up. If you don't respond to this, you lose (again) -- so enough of the kid games.
In addition, anyone else in defense of the OCT is invited to comment on the "The 9/11 Solution". Please take a look. These are real facts about 9/11. All it takes is 9 minutes of your life, nothing compared to those who lost it all on 9/11.
The choice is yours. Comment if you like.
Thanks.
Video "The 9/11 Solution"
http://brasschecktv.com/page/92.html
BUT IMMEDIATELY JESUS SPOKE TO THEM SAYING
TAKE COURAGE
IT IS I
DO NOT BE AFRAID
{when He walked upon the water on the Sea of Galilee during the storm at night}
QUOTE (newton+May 21 2007, 09:03 PM)
just watch the movie, 'who killed john o'neill'.
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
here it is on youtube...clink link to one hour and forty minutes of connecting the dots
The video is basically a one man play. It's the Tree Faces of Eve meets The X Files meets The Manchurian Candidate. Every conspiracy theory known to man is morphed into a single grand conspiracy.
Who Killed John O'Neil? Well according to this video the list includes, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bush 41 and 43, Jerome Haure, and John O'Neil himself. If the video was allowed to run long enough, it would probably name just about anyone you could think of, including newton's sheep and Craig's gerbil.
Who Killed John O'Neil? Well according to this video the list includes, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Bush 41 and 43, Jerome Haure, and John O'Neil himself. If the video was allowed to run long enough, it would probably name just about anyone you could think of, including newton's sheep and Craig's gerbil.
quicklybraindead
Everything said in that video is just plain common sense!!! Except the captions, which are just more idiocy by the CTer crowd.
The first guy was voicing the opinion of anyone who witnessed the events and had a little understanding of the forces involved.
Hauer was expressing his opinion("My sense is...") which matched the opinion of John O'Neal that OBL was responsible for planning attacks on America, nothing new or sinister there.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I believe you say you did not watch the nine minute video because it shows the OCT is a myth...a fake...a lie.
Everything said in that video is just plain common sense!!! Except the captions, which are just more idiocy by the CTer crowd.
The first guy was voicing the opinion of anyone who witnessed the events and had a little understanding of the forces involved.
Hauer was expressing his opinion("My sense is...") which matched the opinion of John O'Neal that OBL was responsible for planning attacks on America, nothing new or sinister there.
Grumpy
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 22 2007, 05:30 AM)
In addition, anyone else in defense of the OCT is invited to comment on the "The 9/11 Solution". Please take a look. These are real facts about 9/11.
By the logic used in this video, Dan Rather who implies explosives were involved, must have been privy to the real plan.
QUOTE (Capracus+May 22 2007, 01:13 PM)
By the logic used in this video, Dan Rather who implies explosives were involved, must have been privy to the real plan.
that's right. i think rather was trying to tell us.
look. he was trying to get bush ousted, and for that, he went down like a kite in a hurricane.
got his big start by lying about JFK...
and got ousted for telling the truth....
and got ousted for telling the truth....
Rather's career featured highs and lows of popularity with viewers in the 1980s and '90s, and for the controversial and questionable 2004 documentary report about President George W. Bush's military service, which may have led to Mr. Rather's departure from CBS.
wiki dan
wiki dan
"In many ways on many days, [reporters] have sort of adopted the attitude of 'go along, get along.'"
"What many of us need is a spine transplant", Rather added. "Whether it's City Hall, the State House, or the White House, part of our job is to speak truth to power."
that's right. i think rather was trying to tell us.
look. he was trying to get bush ousted, and for that, he went down like a kite in a hurricane.
got his big start by lying about JFK...
QUOTE
The newsman has been the subject of controversy sporadically throughout his career. As he wrote in an autobiography, Rather was the first network television journalist to report that U.S. President John F. Kennedy died in the November 22, 1963 shooting in Dallas. He was also one of the first to see the Zapruder film taken by an eyewitness to the passing Dallas motorcade and reported that JFK's head went "violently forward" when he was hit. It in fact went violently backwards, after jerking forward briefly.
and got ousted for telling the truth....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The newsman has been the subject of controversy sporadically throughout his career. As he wrote in an autobiography, Rather was the first network television journalist to report that U.S. President John F. Kennedy died in the November 22, 1963 shooting in Dallas. He was also one of the first to see the Zapruder film taken by an eyewitness to the passing Dallas motorcade and reported that JFK's head went "violently forward" when he was hit. It in fact went violently backwards, after jerking forward briefly. |
and got ousted for telling the truth....
Rather's career featured highs and lows of popularity with viewers in the 1980s and '90s, and for the controversial and questionable 2004 documentary report about President George W. Bush's military service, which may have led to Mr. Rather's departure from CBS.
QUOTE
Blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs created the animation, and to most people this one Word recreation was highly convincing that the documents were indeed forged. However, the other three memos do not recreate nearly as well in Word, as demonstrated with this attempt, and no authoritative investigation has ever rendered any conclusion on the authenticity of the documents or their initial source. Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that because the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries, that both the documents and underlying story are true
wiki dan
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Blogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs created the animation, and to most people this one Word recreation was highly convincing that the documents were indeed forged. However, the other three memos do not recreate nearly as well in Word, as demonstrated with this attempt, and no authoritative investigation has ever rendered any conclusion on the authenticity of the documents or their initial source. Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that because the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries, that both the documents and underlying story are true |
wiki dan
"In many ways on many days, [reporters] have sort of adopted the attitude of 'go along, get along.'"
"What many of us need is a spine transplant", Rather added. "Whether it's City Hall, the State House, or the White House, part of our job is to speak truth to power."
This is a PhysOrgForum thread. Let's stick to sci-tech, exclusively. 
QUOTE (David B. Benson+May 22 2007, 06:22 PM)
This is a PhysOrgForum thread. Let's stick to sci-tech, exclusively.
really?
i thought it was a sandbox.
i was just going with the flow, dude.
really?
i thought it was a sandbox.
i was just going with the flow, dude.
For those interested, another Steven Jones lecture has been made available where he talks mainly about the microspheres found in WTC dust and their composition.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3933508807350233932
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3933508807350233932
Lozenge 124:
Why does Dr. Jones not consider other sources of manganese, copper, zinc, etc, than thermate?
Why does Dr. Jones not consider other sources of manganese, copper, zinc, etc, than thermate?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 23 2007, 12:00 AM)
Lozenge 124:
Why does Dr. Jones not consider other sources of manganese, copper, zinc, etc, than thermate?
Well, I'm not a spectroscopy or X-EDS expert. I just thought the presentation might be of interest to people here, without necessarily endorsing it fully. I would of course be interested in anyone's comments on the validity of the results especially if knowledgeable in spectroscopy/X-EDS.
The meat of Steven Jones talk is the comparison of the composition of a metallic microsphere from Janette MacKinlay's apartment (which was filled with WTC dust) with a microsphere obtained through a thermate reaction (both compositions obtained through X-EDS). They appear to be very close, except from the excess Oxygen in Jones' sample which he attributes to a stoichiometric imbalance (ie. too much oxide).
Are you suggesting that during (or before) the collapse, temperatures could have been produced to create such microspheres; and more importantly perhaps, that the ratios of the observed elements would have been so close to the composition of thermate? Or do you suspect a "natural" thermate reaction caused by metals/chemicals already present in the WTC?
Why does Dr. Jones not consider other sources of manganese, copper, zinc, etc, than thermate?
Well, I'm not a spectroscopy or X-EDS expert. I just thought the presentation might be of interest to people here, without necessarily endorsing it fully. I would of course be interested in anyone's comments on the validity of the results especially if knowledgeable in spectroscopy/X-EDS.
The meat of Steven Jones talk is the comparison of the composition of a metallic microsphere from Janette MacKinlay's apartment (which was filled with WTC dust) with a microsphere obtained through a thermate reaction (both compositions obtained through X-EDS). They appear to be very close, except from the excess Oxygen in Jones' sample which he attributes to a stoichiometric imbalance (ie. too much oxide).
Are you suggesting that during (or before) the collapse, temperatures could have been produced to create such microspheres; and more importantly perhaps, that the ratios of the observed elements would have been so close to the composition of thermate? Or do you suspect a "natural" thermate reaction caused by metals/chemicals already present in the WTC?
QUOTE (quicknthedead+May 22 2007, 12:30 AM)
Do not fear nine minutes of truth. The video casts a spotlight on Jerome Hauer, I slander no one, and you must finally either put up or shut up. If you don't respond to this, you lose (again) -- so enough of the kid games.
I watched it.
It was, as I suspected a complete waste of time.
No evidence of ANYTHING.
NADA
NOTHING.
ZIP
ZILCH.
Once AGAIN, QuickandtheTiresome, SWINGS and MISSES.
Wiiifffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Arthur
I watched it.
It was, as I suspected a complete waste of time.
No evidence of ANYTHING.
NADA
NOTHING.
ZIP
ZILCH.
Once AGAIN, QuickandtheTiresome, SWINGS and MISSES.
Wiiifffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
Arthur
Lozenge 124:
I spent 25 years running an EDAX spectrometer, a scanning electron microscope, and XPS, Auger and SIMS analytical instruments. I am therefore very familiar with these techniques.
Jones' results while very interesting, are not definitive I would say. First he fails to show the published USGS spectra for WTC iron-rich spheres, which would have been a good comparison. Unfortunately for Jones' thermite theory, the two spectra reported by the USGS show very little (traces) or no K, Al, and S.
Jones also finds great variability in his data, both on the same particle and from particle to particle. This is typical of SURFACE CONTAMINATION of the iron spheres. I would have washed the particles with a little methanol, preferably in an ultrasonic bath, and re-analyzed them. I suspect the peaks for Al, S, etc would then be dramatically reduced.
The best analytical technique to use on these particles, in my opinion, would be scanning Auger spectroscopy with argon-ion sputtering. This would facilitate the removal of the surface contamination layer, which should be less than a micron thick, and allow the true composition of the spheres to be revealed. It is also a good way to find out if there is an outer oxide layer on these particles with an underlying metal core. I suspect if sputtering was used you would find that the iron-rich particles would prove to be oxide free and consistently 95 % or more iron, with 1-5 % Mn. You could then use the Fe/Mn ratio to say something about the origin of the spheres......
I spent 25 years running an EDAX spectrometer, a scanning electron microscope, and XPS, Auger and SIMS analytical instruments. I am therefore very familiar with these techniques.
Jones' results while very interesting, are not definitive I would say. First he fails to show the published USGS spectra for WTC iron-rich spheres, which would have been a good comparison. Unfortunately for Jones' thermite theory, the two spectra reported by the USGS show very little (traces) or no K, Al, and S.
Jones also finds great variability in his data, both on the same particle and from particle to particle. This is typical of SURFACE CONTAMINATION of the iron spheres. I would have washed the particles with a little methanol, preferably in an ultrasonic bath, and re-analyzed them. I suspect the peaks for Al, S, etc would then be dramatically reduced.
The best analytical technique to use on these particles, in my opinion, would be scanning Auger spectroscopy with argon-ion sputtering. This would facilitate the removal of the surface contamination layer, which should be less than a micron thick, and allow the true composition of the spheres to be revealed. It is also a good way to find out if there is an outer oxide layer on these particles with an underlying metal core. I suspect if sputtering was used you would find that the iron-rich particles would prove to be oxide free and consistently 95 % or more iron, with 1-5 % Mn. You could then use the Fe/Mn ratio to say something about the origin of the spheres......
NEU-FONZE:
Thanks, that's some interesting information.
In terms of the surface contamination issue, Steven Jones mentioned that he had given the microsphere(s) to an independant entity for analysis to see if they would get the same results (without telling them the origin of the spherules). Presumably they would have known to wash the particles, but I don't know for sure.
On a side note, I guess Steven Jones could be faulted for making sweeping conclusions based on very small - perhaps unrepresentative - samples. But on the other hand, Mrs. MacKinlay only came forward with the dust because she read Jones' initial paper "Why Indeed did the WTC collapse" and perhaps now more people will come forward in response to his requests for more dust samples. It all seems to be leading to a solid peer reviewed paper in a major journal, but in order to get there he has to lay the groundwork with these presentations where he shows preliminary results and calls for more data/investigation.
Thanks, that's some interesting information.
In terms of the surface contamination issue, Steven Jones mentioned that he had given the microsphere(s) to an independant entity for analysis to see if they would get the same results (without telling them the origin of the spherules). Presumably they would have known to wash the particles, but I don't know for sure.
On a side note, I guess Steven Jones could be faulted for making sweeping conclusions based on very small - perhaps unrepresentative - samples. But on the other hand, Mrs. MacKinlay only came forward with the dust because she read Jones' initial paper "Why Indeed did the WTC collapse" and perhaps now more people will come forward in response to his requests for more dust samples. It all seems to be leading to a solid peer reviewed paper in a major journal, but in order to get there he has to lay the groundwork with these presentations where he shows preliminary results and calls for more data/investigation.
Lozenge 124:
I believe the analysis of those iron-rich spheres could prove to be very important -but not because thermite was used! I wish I still had access to my array of instruments and some WTC dust samples.....
Jones' work is being discussed over at JREF forum even as I write! Unfortunately, some of those JREFers object to Mrs. Mackinlay being the source of the sample simply because she appears to be a Truther! I suppose she knew she was supposed to add those iron-rich particles to the dust before she handed it over to Jones!
Interestingly, the JREFers have reached the same conclusion that Arthur did here when we discussed this topic a few months ago: The iron-rich spheres are of no interest because experts such as R. J. Lee have said they were to be expected!
Of course no one has been able to say WHY they were expected!
I believe the analysis of those iron-rich spheres could prove to be very important -but not because thermite was used! I wish I still had access to my array of instruments and some WTC dust samples.....
Jones' work is being discussed over at JREF forum even as I write! Unfortunately, some of those JREFers object to Mrs. Mackinlay being the source of the sample simply because she appears to be a Truther! I suppose she knew she was supposed to add those iron-rich particles to the dust before she handed it over to Jones!
Interestingly, the JREFers have reached the same conclusion that Arthur did here when we discussed this topic a few months ago: The iron-rich spheres are of no interest because experts such as R. J. Lee have said they were to be expected!
Of course no one has been able to say WHY they were expected!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 23 2007, 06:44 PM)
Lozenge 124:
I believe the analysis of those iron-rich spheres could prove to be very important -but not because thermite was used! I wish I still had access to my array of instruments and some WTC dust samples.....
Jones' work is being discussed over at JREF forum even as I write! Unfortunately, some of those JREFers object to Mrs. Mackinlay being the source of the sample simply because she appears to be a Truther! I suppose she knew she was supposed to add those iron-rich particles to the dust before she handed it over to Jones!
Interestingly, the JREFers have reached the same conclusion that Arthur did here when we discussed this topic a few months ago: The iron-rich spheres are of no interest because experts such as R. J. Lee have said they were to be expected!
Of course no one has been able to say WHY they were expected!
extreme heat was the excuse from the 'authority', *APPEAL, COUGH*.
so, we're back to 'what extreme heat, exactly, and how extreme?'.
I believe the analysis of those iron-rich spheres could prove to be very important -but not because thermite was used! I wish I still had access to my array of instruments and some WTC dust samples.....
Jones' work is being discussed over at JREF forum even as I write! Unfortunately, some of those JREFers object to Mrs. Mackinlay being the source of the sample simply because she appears to be a Truther! I suppose she knew she was supposed to add those iron-rich particles to the dust before she handed it over to Jones!
Interestingly, the JREFers have reached the same conclusion that Arthur did here when we discussed this topic a few months ago: The iron-rich spheres are of no interest because experts such as R. J. Lee have said they were to be expected!
Of course no one has been able to say WHY they were expected!
extreme heat was the excuse from the 'authority', *APPEAL, COUGH*.
so, we're back to 'what extreme heat, exactly, and how extreme?'.
Friction ?
QUOTE (einsteen+May 23 2007, 08:09 PM)
Friction ?
well, there was bound to be friction, fer sure. but does banging i-beams together create spheroids?
well, there was bound to be friction, fer sure. but does banging i-beams together create spheroids?
My understanding is that the floor pans were only 22 gauge steel. That thin, the pans would have been shredded by a variety of materials. The shredded steel bits then might well give off sparks (microspheres?) when struck by harder substances.
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.