QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 20 2007, 08:57 PM)
newton, meet DAru. Now here's some crayons, go sit at the table and try to keep between the lines. NO, newton, don't eat them!!! I know it looks like an Orange, but you color with them, they taste really bad!!!
Grumpy
you made me laugh. thanks.
Grumpy
you made me laugh. thanks.
7 or 14 seconds, who cares, it shouldn't collapse at all. I upped this months ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
From far away you would not see that behavior at the top, but it would add seconds to the collapse. This is an official CD btw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab0CSd-SSBQ
From far away you would not see that behavior at the top, but it would add seconds to the collapse. This is an official CD btw.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 20 2007, 01:26 PM)
Trippy:
The WTC micro-spheres appear to contain significant amounts of potassium as well as iron and aluminum. Where does the potassium come from?
Neu all cellular life has those compounds, although aluminum is toxic to cellular life it is contained in almost all cells, because it is so abundant and because it reacts similarly to iron in cellular biology.
Reactions with sulfates, and Chlorides, combined with heating can produce metal spheres, from almost any residue of cellular organisms.
Dr. Steven E. Jones did not find thermite, he found the remnants of Death, the end of living organisms in the impacts, fires, and collapses.
That is why the spheres were expected they are organic in origin.
The WTC micro-spheres appear to contain significant amounts of potassium as well as iron and aluminum. Where does the potassium come from?
Neu all cellular life has those compounds, although aluminum is toxic to cellular life it is contained in almost all cells, because it is so abundant and because it reacts similarly to iron in cellular biology.
Reactions with sulfates, and Chlorides, combined with heating can produce metal spheres, from almost any residue of cellular organisms.
Dr. Steven E. Jones did not find thermite, he found the remnants of Death, the end of living organisms in the impacts, fires, and collapses.
That is why the spheres were expected they are organic in origin.
That is a very interesting video, it shows that a non-funneling non-pancaking progressive collapse is possible, even when there is no mass at all to collapse the building. All cards fall away from the footprint. The reason is that there is absolutely no supporting structure, it will collapse already if you remove a story without providing kinetic energy. And the slightest wind will blow it away.
I see that many of your typical CTers can't see any distinction between a tower of cards and the WTC.
Friggin AMAZING.
Arthur
Friggin AMAZING.
Arthur
einsteen
I have been laboring under the misconception that you were not that stupid.Newton I expect it from.
It is a sad day...
Grumpy
QUOTE
That is a very interesting video...
I have been laboring under the misconception that you were not that stupid.Newton I expect it from.
It is a sad day...
Grumpy
QUOTE (newton+Aug 21 2007, 03:20 PM)
a real progressive collapse. impressive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx_XMV6Etgo&NR=1
Interesting, thanks for posting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx_XMV6Etgo&NR=1
Interesting, thanks for posting.
If I say it is an interesting video then the reaction is : we have to disagree with it because a house of cards is no wtc
If I say it is a nonsense video which has nothing to do with the wtc the reaction will probably be: you disagree because it shows a progressive collapse is possible.
Conclusion: A house of cards is no wtc, a house of cards will collapse, the wtc will not..
If I say it is a nonsense video which has nothing to do with the wtc the reaction will probably be: you disagree because it shows a progressive collapse is possible.
Conclusion: A house of cards is no wtc, a house of cards will collapse, the wtc will not..
einsteen
But they DID collapse.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Conclusion: A house of cards is no wtc, a house of cards will collapse, the wtc will not..
But they DID collapse.
Grumpy
Interesting new article:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10779
Though he does not support the controlled demolition theory, it is gratifying to see someone so close to NIST echo the calls for an independent peer review of the NIST report made by so many members here and elsewhere, as well as point out the basic flaws in the report and ultimately its profound shortcomings as a satisfactory explanation for the events of 9/11.
QUOTE
Former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/scien...sy24133_0f.ht... ]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?c...a&page=7&osCs...
James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.
Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”
“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”
Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.
In his hour-long presentation, Dr. Quintiere discussed many elements of NIST’s investigation that he found problematic. He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”
Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”
World Trade Center Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane on 9/11, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 8 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, NIST has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to NIST’s failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." [To watch a video of the collapse, click here http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/WTC7_Collapse.wmv ]
Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”
In his presentation, Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions. “I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.”
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”
Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Dr. Quintiere’s presentation at the World Fire Safety Conference echoed his earlier statement to the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, on October 26, 2005, during a hearing on “The Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapse: Findings, Recommendations, and Next Steps”, at which he stated:
“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.
"I have over 35 years of fire research in my experience. I worked in the fire program at NIST for 19 years, leaving as a division chief. I have been at the University of Maryland since. I am a founding member and past-Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science—the principal world forum for fire research. ...
"All of these have been submitted to NIST, but never acknowledged or answered. I will list some of these.
1. Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? ...
2. Why were not alternative collapse hypotheses investigated and discussed as NIST had stated repeatedly that they would do? ...
3. Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?
4. NIST used computer models that they said have never been used in such an application before and are the state of the art. For this they should be commended for their skill. But the validation of these modeling results is in question. Others have computed aspects with different conclusions on the cause mechanism of the collapse. Moreover, it is common in fire investigation to compute a time-line and compare it to known events. NIST has not done that.
5. Testing by NIST has been inconclusive. Although they have done fire tests of the scale of several work stations, a replicate test of at least & [sic] of a WTC floor would have been of considerable value. Why was this not done? ...
6. The critical collapse of WTC 7 is relegated to a secondary role, as its findings will not be complete for yet another year. It was clear at the last NIST Advisory Panel meeting in September [2005] that this date may not be realistic, as NIST has not demonstrated progress here. Why has NIST dragged on this important investigation?"
[The full text of Dr. Quintiere’s statement to the Science Committee can be found at http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/scien...sy24133_0f.ht... ]
Dr. Quintiere is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers. He served in the Fire Science and Engineering Division of NIST for 19 years and rose to the position of Chief of the Division. He left NIST in 1990 to join the faculty of the Department of Fire Protection Engineering at the University of Maryland, where he still serves.
Quintiere is a founding member and Past Chair of the International Association for Fire Safety Science (IAFSS). He is also a Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineering and a Fellow of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. He has received numerous awards for his contributions to fire science research and engineering, including:
· The Department of Commerce Bronze Medal (1976) and Silver Medal (1982)
· The Howard W. Emmons Lecture Award from the IAFSS in 1986
· The Sjölin Award in 2002 for outstanding contribution to the science of fire safety by the International Forum of Fire Research Directors, NIST
· The 2006 Guise Medal by the National Fire Protection Association
His presentation “Questions on the WTC Investigations” was given twice at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference; Education Session M21 on June 4 (69 minutes) and Spotlight Session T54 on June 5 (102 minutes). Recordings of the presentations can be purchased from the National Fire Protection Association at http://www.fleetwoodonsite.com/index.php?c...a&page=7&osCs...
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10779
Though he does not support the controlled demolition theory, it is gratifying to see someone so close to NIST echo the calls for an independent peer review of the NIST report made by so many members here and elsewhere, as well as point out the basic flaws in the report and ultimately its profound shortcomings as a satisfactory explanation for the events of 9/11.
QUOTE
Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives.
OK, so, bottom-line, yet another expert in the field thinks the CDiots are wrong.
Um... it is unclear where he stands ... but he offer a theory "Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said."
But he knows and understand obviously that something is very wrong... but ofcource he dont say to much... he is very careful.
But he knows and understand obviously that something is very wrong... but ofcource he dont say to much... he is very careful.
Dr. Quintiere cannot have read the NIST report with any great care. I've seen a timeline of the events that NIST found to be important. There is also a quite complete listing of the collected evidence and a long discussion of the fire related events in the NCSTAR1--5 series.
Now some researchers at the Univ. of Edinburgh had previously done an analysis indicating that sufficient fires would eventually destroy insulated trusses. Looks to me that Dr. Quintiere has done much the same.
Now check this against NIST's analysis for WTC 1. You'll find highly similar conclusions, regarding the south side of floor 97 and 98, in portions not considering to be significantly damaged.
Worse, he has failed to consider the evidence, including the firemen's interviews, which, without the slightest doubt, show that WTC 7 was damaged.
I'm having trouble taking him very seriously...
Now some researchers at the Univ. of Edinburgh had previously done an analysis indicating that sufficient fires would eventually destroy insulated trusses. Looks to me that Dr. Quintiere has done much the same.
Now check this against NIST's analysis for WTC 1. You'll find highly similar conclusions, regarding the south side of floor 97 and 98, in portions not considering to be significantly damaged.
Worse, he has failed to consider the evidence, including the firemen's interviews, which, without the slightest doubt, show that WTC 7 was damaged.
I'm having trouble taking him very seriously...
QUOTE
Um... it is unclear where he stands ...
To you, maybe, but he stated explicitly that he doesn't believe any explosives were used. His theory, which you quoted, was that fire alone was sufficient to bring down the towers.
His students' models showed that there was another fire-only mechanism other than the one NIST identified that was ALSO capable of causing the collapses.
That doesn't imply that the fire+impact theory was wrong, that just says that FIRE ALONE WAS ENOUGH TO BRING THEM DOWN!!!
In no way does that imply that explosives were required, in fact, it makes the explosives-needed argument that much weaker.
Remember my story about the upside-down/underwater helicopter? Either being upside-down OR being underwater is sufficient to prevent the helicopter from taking-off.
Buy a clue.
Well, I think Prof. Quintiere may be on to something about the inadequacy of the insulation in the Twin Towers, and once again NIST has another hypothesis to explain away...
NIST need to stop protecting the WTC owners, operators and contractors from culpability in 9/11. After all, the Port Authority lied when it said the Towers could withstand aircraft impacts. What engineer believes aircraft don't carry fuel?
The Port Authority KNEW that the insulation in the upper half of the Towers was not good enough, but dragged its feet about fixing the problem. After all, according to NIST, if the insulation was intact, the buildings would have survived.
The NIST ad hoc hypothesis that the aircraft scraped insulation off the steel in the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2, and down came the Towers, lets everyone off the hook.
IT IS THE POLITICALLY CORRECT SOLUTION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE CORRECT ONE!
NIST need to stop protecting the WTC owners, operators and contractors from culpability in 9/11. After all, the Port Authority lied when it said the Towers could withstand aircraft impacts. What engineer believes aircraft don't carry fuel?
The Port Authority KNEW that the insulation in the upper half of the Towers was not good enough, but dragged its feet about fixing the problem. After all, according to NIST, if the insulation was intact, the buildings would have survived.
The NIST ad hoc hypothesis that the aircraft scraped insulation off the steel in the impact zones of WTC 1 & 2, and down came the Towers, lets everyone off the hook.
IT IS THE POLITICALLY CORRECT SOLUTION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE CORRECT ONE!
QUOTE
IT IS THE POLITICALLY CORRECT SOLUTION, BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE CORRECT ONE!
Would you suggest that the blame for the towers' destruction be shared between the designers and Al Qaeda?
What fraction would you assign to each? 60/40? 80/20?
Are you really suggesting that we compare the designers of the WTC to terrorists who deliberately killed thousands of people?
Because when you start assigning blame to the designers of the terrorists' targets, that's a whole lot like suggesting that rape victims share in the responsibility for their rape on the premise that if they'd done something differently, maybe the rapist wouldn't have raped them.
I think the designers have beat themselves up enough over the issue, let's not try to make scapegoats out of them, too.
The towers stood without problems until they were attacked as no other skyscrapers have ever been attacked, and it's a tribute to their design and construction that they survived as long as they did.
house of cards.
Most interesting to me is, how strongly critical of NIST he is.
He talks about many many things which in his opinion NIST did wrong.
But then he suddenly offer a theory about "that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact"
That is the strange part, because it is return to the FEMA "truss failur theory"
So, it is very confusing where exactly he is going. Strongly critical of NIST... but then suddenly his theory is that the plane did not have to remove the SFRM.
And why be so strongly critical of NIST if all they in fact did wrong was, that the SFRM did not need to be removed.
He talks about many many things which in his opinion NIST did wrong.
But then he suddenly offer a theory about "that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact"
That is the strange part, because it is return to the FEMA "truss failur theory"
So, it is very confusing where exactly he is going. Strongly critical of NIST... but then suddenly his theory is that the plane did not have to remove the SFRM.
And why be so strongly critical of NIST if all they in fact did wrong was, that the SFRM did not need to be removed.
QUOTE
And why be so strongly critical of NIST if all they in fact did wrong was, that the SFRM did not need to be removed.
Probably because he was being a pain in the @ss while everyone at NIST was too busy to take his calls, and now he's psst at them and wants everyone to think that the NIST study would've been a whole lot better if *he'd* written it.
In any case, he said explicitly that it was fire, not explosives, that brought the towers down.
Frankly, I think he's overlooking the obvious, namely, that a structure compromized by damage will weaken faster by fire than an intact structure, and what was there were damaged structures AND fires...
Saying that fires alone would've been sufficient is interesting, but there was significant structural damage before there was fire. The fire further weakened structures that were barely standing after the impacts.
It would indead be much more realistic to assume that the fireproofing was already not functioning properly. That question has nothing to do with who is reponsible for it, yes we had damned hijackers. If you look at responsibility then you can wonder why NORADs success rate dropped dramatically that day.
QUOTE
It would indead be much more realistic to assume that the fireproofing was already not functioning properly. That question has nothing to do with who is reponsible for it, yes we had damned hijackers. If you look at responsibility then you can wonder why NORADs success rate dropped dramatically that day.
In the instance of the floor trusses, the fireproofing has to be uniform over the entire length of the truss (i.e., no gaps) in order for it to function as protecting the truss from fire damage. The stresses will just concentrate on whatever section of truss that the fireproofing wasn't covering adequately, and from there, it's a matter of a chain being only as strong as the weakest link.
Visualize a 60foot long chain under load, and you've got a torch. You only have to heat up one link of the chain in order to get the chain to drop its load. Assumptions that the fireproofing was either fully-intact the entire length of all the trusses or that it was all blown off are in the "spherical chicken" realm. All it took was for a few inches of each truss to be lacking coverage of the fireproofing material, and each truss would fail in a significant fire.
As for NORAD's responsibility, prior to 9/11, would *you* have ordered those passenger jets to be shot down? Blaming NORAD for not shooting down the hijacked jets is Monday Morning Quarterbacking at its worst. Imagine having to hold a press conference and justify shooting down four passenger jets on the off-chance that they were going to be used to attack unspecified buildings when no passenger jets prior to that day had ever been used to destroy buildings. If Bush himself had given the order, he'd have been impeached.
Get real.
If they didn't know for which they were used then that is indeed consistent. But they could theoretically shoot down the 2nd if the first crashed into tower 1.
wcelliott:
You claim that "All it took was for a few inches of each truss to be lacking coverage of the fireproofing material, and each truss would fail in a significant fire."
If this is true ALL buildings using floor trusses in their construction are ticking time bombs. There are photos showing that there were trusses in the towers with missing insulation BEFORE the aircraft hit. You appear to be saying you don't need aircraft impacts on steel truss buildings... you just need a good fire .... and down they'll come.
You can blame the terrorists all you want for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, but I would still like to know what was the role of the thermal insulation in the disaster. According to NIST the buildings would have survived if the insulation had not beed scraped off or disloged in some way. Quintiere is suggesting otherwise. What if he is right?
You claim that "All it took was for a few inches of each truss to be lacking coverage of the fireproofing material, and each truss would fail in a significant fire."
If this is true ALL buildings using floor trusses in their construction are ticking time bombs. There are photos showing that there were trusses in the towers with missing insulation BEFORE the aircraft hit. You appear to be saying you don't need aircraft impacts on steel truss buildings... you just need a good fire .... and down they'll come.
You can blame the terrorists all you want for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, but I would still like to know what was the role of the thermal insulation in the disaster. According to NIST the buildings would have survived if the insulation had not beed scraped off or disloged in some way. Quintiere is suggesting otherwise. What if he is right?
QUOTE
You claim that "All it took was for a few inches of each truss to be lacking coverage of the fireproofing material, and each truss would fail in a significant fire."
If this is true ALL buildings using floor trusses in their construction are ticking time bombs. There are photos showing that there were trusses in the towers with missing insulation BEFORE the aircraft hit. You appear to be saying you don't need aircraft impacts on steel truss buildings... you just need a good fire .... and down they'll come.
You can blame the terrorists all you want for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, but I would still like to know what was the role of the thermal insulation in the disaster. According to NIST the buildings would have survived if the insulation had not beed scraped off or disloged in some way. Quintiere is suggesting otherwise. What if he is right?
If this is true ALL buildings using floor trusses in their construction are ticking time bombs. There are photos showing that there were trusses in the towers with missing insulation BEFORE the aircraft hit. You appear to be saying you don't need aircraft impacts on steel truss buildings... you just need a good fire .... and down they'll come.
You can blame the terrorists all you want for the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, but I would still like to know what was the role of the thermal insulation in the disaster. According to NIST the buildings would have survived if the insulation had not beed scraped off or disloged in some way. Quintiere is suggesting otherwise. What if he is right?
Unlike newton, I don't derive my physics from my politics. The truss structure is a space-frame made up (functionally) of triangles, and the strength of the truss is determined by the geometry of the triangles. It is very much like a chain, and each triangle is a link. As it's been noted many times here (and ignored every time by the CDiots), when steel gets hot it gets soft and taffy-like. Lose a few inches of insulation and the steel in that triangle starts stretching and the truss is no longer capable of supporting the load it was designed for.
In the WTC towers, this truss was tacked to the steel floor pan periodically, so the floor pan would've taken some of the load that the truss was intended to take once the truss started stretching. The floor pans weren't designed to take that load, so they'd fail sooner or later, too. (And when they'd fail, they'd shoot that lightweight concrete in all directions, pulverizing most of it.)
And that's how a floor fails. It starts out stiff, which is easy to support on both ends, just hold up half the total weight on each end, all the load is straight down, and after it crumples up like a cracker, it's saggy so the load is mostly directed inward, like trying to pull a chain straight. But the maximum that it can pull in on the perimeter wall and core structure is determined by how strong those connections are to that sort of load. The problem there is that those connections weren't designed to carry loads of that magnitude, nor in that direction. So they break, too. In which order depends on the details of the design, whichever connection was overdesigned less would break first.
So, the ticking time bomb thing? Probably. And also unlike what the CDiots seem to believe, steel-truss buildings DO collapse in fires all the time. Firemen know that when a building with steel-trussed roof structures start to "make noises" (creaks, growls, screeches, bangs...) that it's time to get out of the building, it's about to collapse.
The insulation is there to slow the heat, it can't stop it. That's why fire-ratings are based on time - how many hours will the insulation keep the steel from getting hot enough to start stretching. IIRC, the WTC insulation was rated at 2hours. A one-floor fire would probably burn itself out in less than that, but the damage to the WTC towers was more than one floor, so the fire burned hotter than expected. That, plus the damage to the structure from the impacts meant that the remaining structure was already overstressed, so could withstand less heat. In the WTC7 case, the fire lasted a lot longer than 2 hours, so the insulation performed better than expected.
And I do blame the terrorists for the attacks and for all the consequences thereafter. It wasn't the designers' fault in any stretch of the imagination, those buildings stood 30 years without any problems, and stood longer after they were hit than anyone could've expected them to. Blaming the designers for not designing the buildings better is blaming the victim for the crime.
Great videos, newton. Thanks.
In 1975 WTC 1 had an office fire which eventually burned over many floors. It took more than 100 firemen several hours (4? 6?) to extinguish the blaze.
AFAIK, no trusses were replaced.
AFAIK, no trusses were replaced.
DBB:
About that 1975 WTC fire... It occurred on the lower floors of WTC 1 where ASBESTOS insulation was used. The lack of damage to the trusses says a lot about the efficacy of asbestos as a thermal insulator!
About that 1975 WTC fire... It occurred on the lower floors of WTC 1 where ASBESTOS insulation was used. The lack of damage to the trusses says a lot about the efficacy of asbestos as a thermal insulator!
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Aug 22 2007, 05:23 PM)
Great videos, newton. Thanks.
*wink*
*wink*
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 22 2007, 08:40 PM)
DBB:
About that 1975 WTC fire... It occurred on the lower floors of WTC 1 where ASBESTOS insulation was used. The lack of damage to the trusses says a lot about the efficacy of asbestos as a thermal insulator!
Yes the insulation was changed shortly after that fire because of the danger of Asbestos, Non Asbestos spray on insulation was a bad Idea, and also I would like to point out the UL fire test were done using the Asbestos insulation.
I am still working on the spheres and it is driving me nuts, sometimes they are created sometimes not it seems to be a very temperature, and chemical dependent phenomena.
It is the exposure of organics to chlorides and then sulfates that allows for the break down of the organics into constituent metals chlorides and sulfates thermal decomposition of those allows the spheres to form.
Some of the spheres though come from other sources one of those is oxidation of galvanize metal.
There is a full range of possible spheres though.
About that 1975 WTC fire... It occurred on the lower floors of WTC 1 where ASBESTOS insulation was used. The lack of damage to the trusses says a lot about the efficacy of asbestos as a thermal insulator!
Yes the insulation was changed shortly after that fire because of the danger of Asbestos, Non Asbestos spray on insulation was a bad Idea, and also I would like to point out the UL fire test were done using the Asbestos insulation.
I am still working on the spheres and it is driving me nuts, sometimes they are created sometimes not it seems to be a very temperature, and chemical dependent phenomena.
It is the exposure of organics to chlorides and then sulfates that allows for the break down of the organics into constituent metals chlorides and sulfates thermal decomposition of those allows the spheres to form.
Some of the spheres though come from other sources one of those is oxidation of galvanize metal.
There is a full range of possible spheres though.
Chainsaw:
Yes, I agree about the multiplicity of possible reactions involved in the formation of metal microspheres.
Aluminum still bugs me though!
Only Jones appears to be reporting Al as a major component!
Yes, I agree about the multiplicity of possible reactions involved in the formation of metal microspheres.
Aluminum still bugs me though!
Only Jones appears to be reporting Al as a major component!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 22 2007, 04:40 PM)
DBB:
About that 1975 WTC fire... It occurred on the lower floors of WTC 1 where ASBESTOS insulation was used. The lack of damage to the trusses says a lot about the efficacy of asbestos as a thermal insulator!
While its true that the WTC 1 had asbestos up to floor 38.
They also had a SECOND LAYER of SFRM applied as a 'sealant' over the asbestos Blaze Shield type D.
As NIST reports, based on TESTS, the new Blaze Shield that was applied (type DC/F) was 'slightly better' then the previous Asbestos version.
As far as damage during the fires in 69, there WAS damage to the trusses, including buckling of the top chords, bridging trusses etc.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A
Arthur
About that 1975 WTC fire... It occurred on the lower floors of WTC 1 where ASBESTOS insulation was used. The lack of damage to the trusses says a lot about the efficacy of asbestos as a thermal insulator!
While its true that the WTC 1 had asbestos up to floor 38.
They also had a SECOND LAYER of SFRM applied as a 'sealant' over the asbestos Blaze Shield type D.
As NIST reports, based on TESTS, the new Blaze Shield that was applied (type DC/F) was 'slightly better' then the previous Asbestos version.
As far as damage during the fires in 69, there WAS damage to the trusses, including buckling of the top chords, bridging trusses etc.
See NIST NCSTAR 1-6A
Arthur
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 23 2007, 12:32 AM)
Chainsaw:
Yes, I agree about the multiplicity of possible reactions involved in the formation of metal microspheres.
Aluminum still bugs me though!
Only Jones appears to be reporting Al as a major component!
The aluminum ratio is highly variable, dependent on which reaction is responsible for the aluminum in he spheres, paper is high in aluminum sulfate, and also contains many of the other metals entrapped in it, however a combination of acid dissolved organics works well.
Frank I am not feeling well I will get back to work on this when I can.
Yes, I agree about the multiplicity of possible reactions involved in the formation of metal microspheres.
Aluminum still bugs me though!
Only Jones appears to be reporting Al as a major component!
The aluminum ratio is highly variable, dependent on which reaction is responsible for the aluminum in he spheres, paper is high in aluminum sulfate, and also contains many of the other metals entrapped in it, however a combination of acid dissolved organics works well.
Frank I am not feeling well I will get back to work on this when I can.
QUOTE
Only Jones appears to be reporting Al as a major component!
In keeping with the CDiots' tradition of accusing everyone who disagrees with their conclusions of being liars, how do we know that Jones didn't falsify his findings and exaggerate the amount of aluminum in the spherules just to support his conclusion that thermate was present in the debris?
Just asking.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 23 2007, 08:11 AM)
In keeping with the CDiots' tradition of accusing everyone who disagrees with their conclusions of being liars, how do we know that Jones didn't falsify his findings and exaggerate the amount of aluminum in the spherules just to support his conclusion that thermate was present in the debris?
Just asking.
Because that is what should occur, from a hydrogen reaction with dissolved flesh and aluminum, in sulfonic, sulfuric, and Hydrochloric acid.
In the collapses where the oxide layer on heated molten aluminum is broken rapidly and violently.
The potassium has to be potassium sulfate though, probably from exposure of flesh to released sulfates and water.
When an acid is formed in water it releases hydrogen, hydrogen in air burns hot enough to cause a small reaction in aluminum if the aluminum particle is small enough, dust like. If there is dissolved flesh in the acid or in the water or other dissolved organ-rich material, both reactions can create spheres of iron Fe or magnetite fe304 with large amounts of AL-Aluminum oxide as a byproduct.
The hydrogen flame in air is just the right temperature to create the spheres from thermal decomposition of sulfates, and Chlorides as well, without vaporizing the Potassium Sulfate.
As in Thermite the reason for this is that the Iron absorbs most of the heat to become molten while the Potassium sulfate does not absorb heat that well.
It points to a very reactive reducing Environment inside the buildings similar to that in waste incinerators!
Now who proposed that?
I would also add that Dr. Jones is not a big fan of hydrogen reactions.
I could not create the spheres by friction, but they can be created by rapidly exposing Aluminum and dissolved organics in acids together.
Similar to what happens in the Aluminum plants when molten aluminum is dropped into water, causing small explosions, only this time the explosions are with dissolved organics in water, during the collapses.
That is why I could not create them by friction, they can not be created without organics, acids, and water.
I might want to add that Dr. Joneses spheres under the conditions present on Sept. 11/2001, could have come from a ham sandwich, with red tomato or ketchup, wrapped in Reynolds wrap aluminum foil.
Dr. Jones might have accidentally discovered some ones Bagged lunch or a dish at a restaurant inside the buildings.
We simply do not know, but it is certainly not evidence of thermite as there are natural causes, natural causes rule out the spheres as evidence of un natural causes.
Dr. Jones might have accidentally discovered some ones Bagged lunch or a dish at a restaurant inside the buildings.
We simply do not know, but it is certainly not evidence of thermite as there are natural causes, natural causes rule out the spheres as evidence of un natural causes.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Aug 23 2007, 02:34 PM)
Dr. Jones might have accidentally discovered some ones Bagged lunch...
sublime
sublime
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 23 2007, 02:34 PM)
I might want to add that Dr. Joneses spheres under the conditions present on Sept. 11/2001, could have come from a ham sandwich, with red tomato or ketchup, wrapped in Reynolds wrap aluminum foil.
Dr. Jones might have accidentally discovered some ones Bagged lunch or a dish at a restaurant inside the buildings.
We simply do not know, but it is certainly not evidence of thermite as there are natural causes, natural causes rule out the spheres as evidence of un natural causes.
My understanding is that he has found these spherules in multiple dust samples from different locations, including Janette MacKinlay's apartmen ~100 meters away from the closest tower, and a briefcase that was in the tower during the collapse and was returned to the owner afterwards.
Dr. Jones might have accidentally discovered some ones Bagged lunch or a dish at a restaurant inside the buildings.
We simply do not know, but it is certainly not evidence of thermite as there are natural causes, natural causes rule out the spheres as evidence of un natural causes.
My understanding is that he has found these spherules in multiple dust samples from different locations, including Janette MacKinlay's apartmen ~100 meters away from the closest tower, and a briefcase that was in the tower during the collapse and was returned to the owner afterwards.
By the way, did anyone else watch the history channel piece on 911 conspiracy theories? There were a couple of very short videos apparently showing an FEA modeling of the initial collapse of each tower, superimposed on video footage. Both times the video was shown a little beyond "initiation" but not as far as the point the lower block begins to sustain damage from the top.
Does anyone know where these are from?
Does anyone know where these are from?
QUOTE (lozenge124+Aug 25 2007, 12:09 AM)
By the way, did anyone else watch the history channel piece on 911 conspiracy theories?
Yeah, I saw that, it was an awesome documentary. Totally restored my faith in the official story of events on 9/11. I just hope they do the same thing for 7/7, and then my conspiracy theorist nutjob friend, will finally shut up!
I seriously recommend everyone watches it. It looks like it's on the Torrent network, if anyone feels like downloading it.
The great thing is, it systematically debunks nearly all of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. I don't even know if they have any left!!
Yeah, I saw that, it was an awesome documentary. Totally restored my faith in the official story of events on 9/11. I just hope they do the same thing for 7/7, and then my conspiracy theorist nutjob friend, will finally shut up!
I seriously recommend everyone watches it. It looks like it's on the Torrent network, if anyone feels like downloading it.
The great thing is, it systematically debunks nearly all of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. I don't even know if they have any left!!
QUOTE
The great thing is, it systematically debunks nearly all of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. I don't even know if they have any left!!
Keep watching this space. Somebody will add another "jet fuel can't melt steel" post and it'll start all over.
(Note, this is page 410, on the *second* thread on this topic.)
Video of the afore mentioned FEA-like animations can be found here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tdfLYKOKhNI
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tdfLYKOKhNI
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 20 2007, 11:43 PM)
Yes it is at temperatures well over 2000c the aluminum oxide must be molten to allow the steel to combine with the aluminum to form the spheres, I just think that 1400c would be an easier temperature range and would occur with virtually any organic.
Then again were only talking over 600c in difference here.
Sorry - i've been horribly ill, we're just coming out of winter here (sot of) and I got a flu/chest infectio.
While I agree in principle with this statement, we come back to the fact that we have 10's of thousands of pounds of Duralumin hitting steel bars at 400-500mph, combined with at the very least emperical evidence of the ignition of vaporised aluminium on impact. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect temperatures on the order of melting steel to have occured because of the combination of pressure and friction.
The other thing to bare in mind is that the steel doesn not neccessarily have to be molten.
I'd be interested in finding out how many mega-pascals the duralium/steel/gypsum interface is thought to have been subjected to, just so I can have a nose around the net for some diamond-anvil studies. I know they've recently discovered that Iron does some bizzare things around the 5 Megapascal mark.
Then again were only talking over 600c in difference here.
Sorry - i've been horribly ill, we're just coming out of winter here (sot of) and I got a flu/chest infectio.
While I agree in principle with this statement, we come back to the fact that we have 10's of thousands of pounds of Duralumin hitting steel bars at 400-500mph, combined with at the very least emperical evidence of the ignition of vaporised aluminium on impact. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect temperatures on the order of melting steel to have occured because of the combination of pressure and friction.
The other thing to bare in mind is that the steel doesn not neccessarily have to be molten.
I'd be interested in finding out how many mega-pascals the duralium/steel/gypsum interface is thought to have been subjected to, just so I can have a nose around the net for some diamond-anvil studies. I know they've recently discovered that Iron does some bizzare things around the 5 Megapascal mark.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Aug 21 2007, 01:26 AM)
Trippy:
The WTC micro-spheres appear to contain significant amounts of potassium as well as iron and aluminum. Where does the potassium come from?
I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but Gypsum is an evaporite, and evaporites typically occur together, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that the Gypsum that was used conatined potassium impurities. The two most obviouse sources would be Sylvite.
Probably a more likely source would be Polyhalite, or polyhalite like impurities in the Gypsum. Polyhalite is also an evaporite and occurs as K_2SO_4 . MgSO_4 . 2 CaSO_4 . 2 H_2O
The WTC micro-spheres appear to contain significant amounts of potassium as well as iron and aluminum. Where does the potassium come from?
I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but Gypsum is an evaporite, and evaporites typically occur together, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that the Gypsum that was used conatined potassium impurities. The two most obviouse sources would be Sylvite.
Probably a more likely source would be Polyhalite, or polyhalite like impurities in the Gypsum. Polyhalite is also an evaporite and occurs as K_2SO_4 . MgSO_4 . 2 CaSO_4 . 2 H_2O
QUOTE
I got a flu/chest infection
I've recently discovered something that's worked for everything I've tried it on, colloidal silver.
It cured a chronic sinus infection that I'd had for years, and blepharitis that'd resisted four 6-week courses of antibiotics.
It's also been shown to be effective against a wide range of viruses, up to and including the AIDS virus.
You can get it at any health food store, I'd recommend getting some 10ppm colloidal silver in a spray bottle (~$12) and spritzing it up each nostril maybe five sprays, each, and another ten into your mouth, 4x/day until it goes away (probably two days, if my experience is any indication).
You can also just spritz it into your mouth as you take a deep breath to get it straight into your lungs.
It isn't toxic in any reasonable doses, so there isn't much risk.
I'd be interested in hearing if it works for you as well as it did with me.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 24 2007, 07:12 PM)
(Note, this is page 410, on the *second* thread on this topic.)
Third.
Third.
What has smoke to do in a finite element simulation ? It looks like a normal video with some extra structure added to it. Or did they merge the two pictures ? I haven't watched the show yet and as far as I can see it doesn't really add something to what we know already or do not know already.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 25 2007, 08:22 PM)
What has smoke to do in a finite element simulation ? It looks like a normal video with some extra structure added to it. Or did they merge the two pictures ? I haven't watched the show yet and as far as I can see it doesn't really add something to what we know already or do not know already.
It's the simulation on top of a WTC video. The WTC video is where the smoke is coming from obviously, they appear to have placed the model on top to prove it out - ie. make it match the real tower.
The history channel program doesn't describe what the models are, and they are about 10 minutes apart. Just before one of them is shown, Matthys Levy ('debunker' structural engineer) says something about how they developed "analytical models" that showed the collapse and only fire and structural damage were necessary.The model video is then shown implying that this is his analytical model, though this isn't stated explicitly.
Levy was involved with the report developed for the Silverstein trial, so these models could be from there. They could also be from the NIST LS-DYNA models - which haven't been seen before AFAIK. I hadn't seen them before so I'd be interested to know.
It's the simulation on top of a WTC video. The WTC video is where the smoke is coming from obviously, they appear to have placed the model on top to prove it out - ie. make it match the real tower.
The history channel program doesn't describe what the models are, and they are about 10 minutes apart. Just before one of them is shown, Matthys Levy ('debunker' structural engineer) says something about how they developed "analytical models" that showed the collapse and only fire and structural damage were necessary.The model video is then shown implying that this is his analytical model, though this isn't stated explicitly.
Levy was involved with the report developed for the Silverstein trial, so these models could be from there. They could also be from the NIST LS-DYNA models - which haven't been seen before AFAIK. I hadn't seen them before so I'd be interested to know.
David B. Benson:
After spending considerable time killing off the weak and sick brain cells, I've achieved sufficient clarity to approach the problem of extracting small motion information from video. Never given it much thought before but it resembles other more familiar problem domains.
I've written a pair of scripts that produce einsteen images and extract pixel RGB information from selected ranges of frames, colums, and rows then outputs CSV files. This is the (very) easy part and is the only product composed of objective results and which contributes no error.
Do you consider spatio-temporally located red-green-blue values (the raw data) useful? I'd assume that the ideal case is (t, y(t)) pairs but, as you'd guess, there's quite a gap between that and the raw data. There are good reasons to apply corrections prior to aggregative procedures, which must precede the mapping from pixels to meters. I have my own ideas as to methodology but I gather that you have the tools to analyze datasets to isolate random and systematic error. My feeling is that it might be valuable to use such methods as a complementary approach to separating signal from noise and thus achieve greater confidence in the scaling.
The raw data looks like this:
170 209 0 187 196 202
171 209 0 173 182 188
172 209 0 181 191 196
173 209 0 187 197 199
174 209 0 193 203 206
175 209 0 178 186 189
176 209 0 181 189 190
177 209 0 184 193 194
where the record format is (all integers):
It goes without saying that, lacking context and interpretation, a large collection of trash data can be generated in seconds. With a little context, the picture improves. The following series of graphs represent the 'passage' of a dark feature through adjacent vertical pixels 'at the onset of motion' (read that as early on). Each successive graph is the RGB intensities over time of the next pixel down. It looks like a detectable object passing by a series of detectors, because essentially that's what it is... if you ignore four other degrees of freedom as well as the associated effect on surface properties and incident light.
After spending considerable time killing off the weak and sick brain cells, I've achieved sufficient clarity to approach the problem of extracting small motion information from video. Never given it much thought before but it resembles other more familiar problem domains.
I've written a pair of scripts that produce einsteen images and extract pixel RGB information from selected ranges of frames, colums, and rows then outputs CSV files. This is the (very) easy part and is the only product composed of objective results and which contributes no error.
Do you consider spatio-temporally located red-green-blue values (the raw data) useful? I'd assume that the ideal case is (t, y(t)) pairs but, as you'd guess, there's quite a gap between that and the raw data. There are good reasons to apply corrections prior to aggregative procedures, which must precede the mapping from pixels to meters. I have my own ideas as to methodology but I gather that you have the tools to analyze datasets to isolate random and systematic error. My feeling is that it might be valuable to use such methods as a complementary approach to separating signal from noise and thus achieve greater confidence in the scaling.
The raw data looks like this:
QUOTE
170 209 0 187 196 202
171 209 0 173 182 188
172 209 0 181 191 196
173 209 0 187 197 199
174 209 0 193 203 206
175 209 0 178 186 189
176 209 0 181 189 190
177 209 0 184 193 194
where the record format is (all integers):
- [optional] Video ID - associates data with a particular video source
- [optional] Dump ID - associates data with a particular frame dump of a video
- Frame - Frame number referenced to source video (relative time)
- Column - horizontal pixel location
- Row - vertical pixel location
- Red - Red channel intensity (0-255)
- Green - Green channel intensity (0-255)
- Blue - Blue channel intensity (0-255)
It goes without saying that, lacking context and interpretation, a large collection of trash data can be generated in seconds. With a little context, the picture improves. The following series of graphs represent the 'passage' of a dark feature through adjacent vertical pixels 'at the onset of motion' (read that as early on). Each successive graph is the RGB intensities over time of the next pixel down. It looks like a detectable object passing by a series of detectors, because essentially that's what it is... if you ignore four other degrees of freedom as well as the associated effect on surface properties and incident light.
The above is not necessarily vertical motion (at all) but, if it were interpreted as only vertical motion along with a host of reasonable but potentially incorrect assumptions, one can develop datasets like this:
The first series of points in blue are derived by one method, the later green ones from a second. Both were done roughly and could stand improvements too tedious to enumerate.
There are so many sources of contamination prior to numerical extraction. Many of these can be isolated if the data is processed correctly. The graphs above are raw in the sense that no error corrections have been applied. There are several similar candidate regions for analysis on this one video.
Let me know what sort of deliverable form you prefer.
------
If anyone has (at their fingertips) links to sources for good videos or detailed structural info about the antenna, and you're so inclined, I'd be much obliged.
The first series of points in blue are derived by one method, the later green ones from a second. Both were done roughly and could stand improvements too tedious to enumerate.
There are so many sources of contamination prior to numerical extraction. Many of these can be isolated if the data is processed correctly. The graphs above are raw in the sense that no error corrections have been applied. There are several similar candidate regions for analysis on this one video.
Let me know what sort of deliverable form you prefer.
------
If anyone has (at their fingertips) links to sources for good videos or detailed structural info about the antenna, and you're so inclined, I'd be much obliged.
In regards to the history channel video, I did like how they explained the psychology behind conspiracy theorists, and how such things are about the 'self', rather than about truth.
Basically, even if all conspiracy theories are debunked, there will still be fanatical conspiracy theorists out there, because they don't care about the truth, they just want their anti-government beliefs, to come true, to match the scale of the event.
The video argued "JFK, the most powerful man in the free world. Shot and killed by a nobody?? C'mon, nobody will believe that!" - The same thing applies with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They don't want to accept, never ever, not in a million years, that it was a bunch of Arabs, sent by Osama, with 'box-cutters' (Scissors?) and flight training. Because yet again it's "A bunch of nobodies" carrying out this devastating attack. They just don't want to accept that it's really that simple.
And really, I think the solution behind all this, is basically to debunk ALL the theories, leave not a single one standing, and then inject some hardcore Islam education into these people, by people such as Robert Spencer.
Basically, even if all conspiracy theories are debunked, there will still be fanatical conspiracy theorists out there, because they don't care about the truth, they just want their anti-government beliefs, to come true, to match the scale of the event.
The video argued "JFK, the most powerful man in the free world. Shot and killed by a nobody?? C'mon, nobody will believe that!" - The same thing applies with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. They don't want to accept, never ever, not in a million years, that it was a bunch of Arabs, sent by Osama, with 'box-cutters' (Scissors?) and flight training. Because yet again it's "A bunch of nobodies" carrying out this devastating attack. They just don't want to accept that it's really that simple.
And really, I think the solution behind all this, is basically to debunk ALL the theories, leave not a single one standing, and then inject some hardcore Islam education into these people, by people such as Robert Spencer.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 25 2007, 07:20 AM)
I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but Gypsum is an evaporite, and evaporites typically occur together, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that the Gypsum that was used conatined potassium impurities. The two most obviouse sources would be Sylvite.
Probably a more likely source would be Polyhalite, or polyhalite like impurities in the Gypsum. Polyhalite is also an evaporite and occurs as K_2SO_4 . MgSO_4 . 2 CaSO_4 . 2 H_2O
Some of the columns still had gypsum panels attached during cleanup operations. I don't know if the cleanup people cut away a piece of the panel then cut the steel each time or if they sometimes cut right into the steel through the gypsum. Some of the elements of the gypsum could have gotten incorporated into the steel during the cuts either way. Gypsum gives off a yellow-green smoke when torched. It's known that cutting steel with a torch produces microspheres in the 1 to 10 um range.
There was probably a thin layer of fireproofing on the perimeter columns, even though most of it got ablated away during collapse. Whatever elements were in the freproofing probably got into the steel microspheres when the perimeter columns were cut with the torches during cleanup.
Probably a more likely source would be Polyhalite, or polyhalite like impurities in the Gypsum. Polyhalite is also an evaporite and occurs as K_2SO_4 . MgSO_4 . 2 CaSO_4 . 2 H_2O
Some of the columns still had gypsum panels attached during cleanup operations. I don't know if the cleanup people cut away a piece of the panel then cut the steel each time or if they sometimes cut right into the steel through the gypsum. Some of the elements of the gypsum could have gotten incorporated into the steel during the cuts either way. Gypsum gives off a yellow-green smoke when torched. It's known that cutting steel with a torch produces microspheres in the 1 to 10 um range.
There was probably a thin layer of fireproofing on the perimeter columns, even though most of it got ablated away during collapse. Whatever elements were in the freproofing probably got into the steel microspheres when the perimeter columns were cut with the torches during cleanup.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 25 2007, 07:20 AM)
I don't know if you saw my post earlier, but Gypsum is an evaporite, and evaporites typically occur together, so it would not be unreasonable to expect that the Gypsum that was used conatined potassium impurities. The two most obviouse sources would be Sylvite.
Probably a more likely source would be Polyhalite, or polyhalite like impurities in the Gypsum. Polyhalite is also an evaporite and occurs as K_2SO_4 . MgSO_4 . 2 CaSO_4 . 2 H_2O
Sorry to hear you are sick hope you are in well soon.
I agree with you that duraluminum could have formed some spheres but given the chemical and physical properities of Duraluminum it is more likely that the spheres are of an organic origin.
The temperatures produced by oxidizing vaporized aluminum are 2800°C the vaporization point of iron is 2861 °C
The potassium would vaporize at those temperatures and would not likely be included in the spheres.
They hydrogen reaction with steel, organics, and aluminum oxide, or the combustion of small amounts of steel are more likely to form spheres because it is less energetic, also if duraluminum were the source should not all the spheres have a similar chemical foot print to the duraluminum in the planes?
That does not seem to be the case, so how is that explained?
I am looking into the fact that when compressed in volume that air releases heat into contained materials, explosive compression of a volume of air in the towers could have cause a dramatic rise in localized temperatures, and resulted if sphere formation, I tried an experiment of this but only recovered a 1/2 inch by 1/4th inch piece of the experiment, the rest was scattered in the air and blown away with the wind, forgot to factor in the hydrogen explosions strength into the experiment.
Probably a more likely source would be Polyhalite, or polyhalite like impurities in the Gypsum. Polyhalite is also an evaporite and occurs as K_2SO_4 . MgSO_4 . 2 CaSO_4 . 2 H_2O
Sorry to hear you are sick hope you are in well soon.
I agree with you that duraluminum could have formed some spheres but given the chemical and physical properities of Duraluminum it is more likely that the spheres are of an organic origin.
The temperatures produced by oxidizing vaporized aluminum are 2800°C the vaporization point of iron is 2861 °C
The potassium would vaporize at those temperatures and would not likely be included in the spheres.
They hydrogen reaction with steel, organics, and aluminum oxide, or the combustion of small amounts of steel are more likely to form spheres because it is less energetic, also if duraluminum were the source should not all the spheres have a similar chemical foot print to the duraluminum in the planes?
That does not seem to be the case, so how is that explained?
I am looking into the fact that when compressed in volume that air releases heat into contained materials, explosive compression of a volume of air in the towers could have cause a dramatic rise in localized temperatures, and resulted if sphere formation, I tried an experiment of this but only recovered a 1/2 inch by 1/4th inch piece of the experiment, the rest was scattered in the air and blown away with the wind, forgot to factor in the hydrogen explosions strength into the experiment.
QUOTE
I am looking into the fact that when compressed in volume that air releases heat into contained materials, explosive compression of a volume of air in the towers could have cause a dramatic rise in localized temperatures,
Please note that whenever I'm confronted by a "Jet fuel can't melt steel" CDiot, my standard response is, "Yes, it can, that's why we don't use steel in jet engines".
This response is sometimes criticized on the grounds that the conditions in jet engines are so different from room temperature and pressure that the answer is misleading.
But has anyone ever considered the environment *during impact*?
Jet engines compress the air prior to combustion, and at elevated pressures, the normal heat of combustion takes place in a smaller physical volume, raising the temperature. More fuel and more air in less space means a hotter flame.
Calculations of the fuel+air combustion temperature in the WTC towers were assumed to be at ambient pressure, but has anyone estimated the pressure spikes associated with the aircraft debris going 500mph through the fireball? There had to be a lot of localized pressure transients that would've significantly increased the temperatures of the flames, if only for scant milliseconds.
But then, how big were those spheres? Collisions between aluminum and steel make scrapings containing elements of each, and following debris compressing the fireball via turbulence instantaneously heating the scrapings beyond the melting point of steel...
Anybody have any idea of how to go about estimating the compression expected from 500mph aircraft debris?
wcelliott
There is also the consideration of the effects of a certain amout of heat energy on very small pieces. Instantanious flares of high temperatures would affect those very small pieces very rapidly (IE their temps would closely follow air temps and could have melted in milliseconds) where larger pieces would not show signs of melting because of their mass spreading heat(especially Aluminum).
Grumpy
There is also the consideration of the effects of a certain amout of heat energy on very small pieces. Instantanious flares of high temperatures would affect those very small pieces very rapidly (IE their temps would closely follow air temps and could have melted in milliseconds) where larger pieces would not show signs of melting because of their mass spreading heat(especially Aluminum).
Grumpy
QUOTE
There is also the consideration...
Agreed.
Just for the record... kerosene burns at low temp.
In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC , kerosene will burn at around 500-700 degrees Fahrenheit.
"jet fuel burn very hot" is a myth.
In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC , kerosene will burn at around 500-700 degrees Fahrenheit.
"jet fuel burn very hot" is a myth.
QUOTE (Daru+Aug 26 2007, 06:24 PM)
Just for the record... kerosene burns at low temp.
In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC , kerosene will burn at around 500-700 degrees Fahrenheit.
"jet fuel burn very hot" is a myth.
Try again.
Consider, if you will, that the IGNITION temperature for paper is 451 F.
Consider that the adiabatic combustion temperature is 2150 °C for oil and 2000 °C for natural gas.
Consider that you have ZERO credibiliity.
Arthur
In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC , kerosene will burn at around 500-700 degrees Fahrenheit.
"jet fuel burn very hot" is a myth.
Try again.
Consider, if you will, that the IGNITION temperature for paper is 451 F.
Consider that the adiabatic combustion temperature is 2150 °C for oil and 2000 °C for natural gas.
Consider that you have ZERO credibiliity.
Arthur
What some peolple seems to not understand is, that all information about burning fuel is availible on the net.
One can just research it...it will take some time.
People will only find "jet fuel burn very hot" myth, from OCTers talking about wtc.
One can just research it...it will take some time.
People will only find "jet fuel burn very hot" myth, from OCTers talking about wtc.
QUOTE
Just for the record... kerosene burns at low temp.
In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC , kerosene will burn at around 500-700 degrees Fahrenheit.
"jet fuel burn very hot" is a myth.
In an open-air office fire such as that at WTC , kerosene will burn at around 500-700 degrees Fahrenheit.
"jet fuel burn very hot" is a myth.
Didn't I just say that some CDiot would post the "jet fuel won't melt steel" crap again?
Daru, the only people who are claiming that jet fuel DOESN'T burn hot are CDiots like yourself.
Fuel-air mixtures release HEAT when they burn, they DON'T burn at one specific TEMPERATURE. IF the environment is already HOT TO BEGIN WITH, then WHEN HEAT IS ADDED, IT GETS HOTTER!!!
When you COMPRESS the fuel+air mixture IT GETS HOTTER!!! First-semester Thermodynamics. Get a book from the library, look it up.
And jet engine manufacturers DON'T use steel in the hot sections of their engines BECAUSE IT'D MELT!!!
BUY A CLUE!!!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 27 2007, 12:25 AM)
Didn't I just say that some CDiot would post the "jet fuel won't melt steel" crap again?
Daru, the only people who are claiming that jet fuel DOESN'T burn hot are CDiots like yourself.
Fuel-air mixtures release HEAT when they burn, they DON'T burn at one specific TEMPERATURE. IF the environment is already HOT TO BEGIN WITH, then WHEN HEAT IS ADDED, IT GETS HOTTER!!!
When you COMPRESS the fuel+air mixture IT GETS HOTTER!!! First-semester Thermodynamics. Get a book from the library, look it up.
And jet engine manufacturers DON'T use steel in the hot sections of their engines BECAUSE IT'D MELT!!!
BUY A CLUE!!!
wcelliott
Here I have to get on you for being intellectually Dishonest with Daru!
Jet engines do not melt steel, they com bust Oxidize it similar to what an oxygen lance does. The steel is converted with air into Fe 304, and the jet engine either explodes or locks up resulting in failure of the engine crash of the plane and death of the crew and passengers.
I mean come on we are talking temperatures of 3000c produced by the oxidation of steel in the air stream.
The method of oxidation is critical to flame temperatures, not only does jet fuel com bust but it forms super heated steam as part of that combustion process, that can itself react as an oxygen source with reactive metals releasing hydrogen and that can go on where ever the conditions exist for entrapment of the super heated steam.
Saying that Jet fuel fires can not melt steel is stupid, because they produce other fuels merely by combustion in air that can melt steel easily. Those being Carbon Black, and water if elements that can convert it to hydrogen exist in the environment!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 26 2007, 04:39 PM)
Please note that whenever I'm confronted by a "Jet fuel can't melt steel" CDiot, my standard response is, "Yes, it can, that's why we don't use steel in jet engines".
This response is sometimes criticized on the grounds that the conditions in jet engines are so different from room temperature and pressure that the answer is misleading.
But has anyone ever considered the environment *during impact*?
Jet engines compress the air prior to combustion, and at elevated pressures, the normal heat of combustion takes place in a smaller physical volume, raising the temperature. More fuel and more air in less space means a hotter flame.
Calculations of the fuel+air combustion temperature in the WTC towers were assumed to be at ambient pressure, but has anyone estimated the pressure spikes associated with the aircraft debris going 500mph through the fireball? There had to be a lot of localized pressure transients that would've significantly increased the temperatures of the flames, if only for scant milliseconds.
But then, how big were those spheres? Collisions between aluminum and steel make scrapings containing elements of each, and following debris compressing the fireball via turbulence instantaneously heating the scrapings beyond the melting point of steel...
Anybody have any idea of how to go about estimating the compression expected from 500mph aircraft debris?
Now your beginning to see why the fuel air explosions had caricteristics similar to a fuel air reactive metal slurry and why they spawn associated reactions in the towers on impact.
I actually did experiment on this, There are so many ways too make those spheres that to promote them as evidence of anything is laughable. Every time I look I find another way to create them although the easiest way is with organics not with aluminum, although it is possible.
QUOTE (Daru+Aug 26 2007, 07:14 PM)
What some peolple seems to not understand is, that all information about burning fuel is availible on the net.
One can just research it...it will take some time.
People will only find "jet fuel burn very hot" myth, from OCTers talking about wtc.
Daru,
You are WRONG.
All your typical hydrocarbons burn at ~ 2,000 degrees CENTIGRADE in air.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature
In daily life, the vast majority of flames one encounters are those of organic compounds including wood, wax, fat, common plastics, propane, and gasoline. The constant-pressure adiabatic flame temperature of such substances in air is in a relatively-narrow range around 1950°C. This is because, in terms of stoichiometry, the combustion of an organic compound with n carbons involves breaking roughly 2n C–H bonds, n C–C bonds, and 1.5n O2 bonds to form roughly n CO2 molecules and n H2O molecules.
Arthur
One can just research it...it will take some time.
People will only find "jet fuel burn very hot" myth, from OCTers talking about wtc.
Daru,
You are WRONG.
All your typical hydrocarbons burn at ~ 2,000 degrees CENTIGRADE in air.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_flame_temperature
In daily life, the vast majority of flames one encounters are those of organic compounds including wood, wax, fat, common plastics, propane, and gasoline. The constant-pressure adiabatic flame temperature of such substances in air is in a relatively-narrow range around 1950°C. This is because, in terms of stoichiometry, the combustion of an organic compound with n carbons involves breaking roughly 2n C–H bonds, n C–C bonds, and 1.5n O2 bonds to form roughly n CO2 molecules and n H2O molecules.
Arthur
QUOTE
Saying that Jet fuel fires can not melt steel is stupid,
Agreed.
My point was that jet engines, burning jet fuel as they normally do, create temperatures in their combustion chambers that would exceed steel's maximum working temperature. It would be more accurate to say that a jet engine made with steel components in the combustion chamber would fail due to the steel's inability to maintain structural integrity at elevated temperatures, but if somebody's so stupid that I need to point this out, then that explanation would probably just go over their head anyway.
Also, I'd still like the point I just raised to be considered further, about how much compression (and therefore temperature of combustion increase) one should expect from air being accelerated by aircraft debris going 500mph.
I'm not sure how to go about calculating the pressure increase, other than to assign random coefficients of drag to random-sized chunks of debris and assuming that the drag energy is compressing the air in front of it, inferring a delta-pressure*volume from the loss of kinetic energy of the debris. Then, the increased pressure combustion yields an increased combustion temperature.
Can anyone think of a more elegant approach? This one gives me a headache just thinking about it.
OneWhiteEye,
Thanks for your information, I received your program to create the bitmaps and I got it to work. I'm a little bit busy (and weekends are always too short... ;-]) but will certainly use it later for a couple of videos in order to get an average value. The colour splitting RGB is a little bit beyond me. Didn't you also say in the past that the human eye is needed to judge the image ? In the case that smoke and dust covers a part of the fall we should use interpolation methods and take a look at the videos and pictures.
I think it is now a big challenge to determine the acceleration in the y direction of the block(s) if they wouldn't topple. They do of course but what would the value be if they don't, this is very important because if one uses 1d models you also need to correct for the toppling.
Thanks for your information, I received your program to create the bitmaps and I got it to work. I'm a little bit busy (and weekends are always too short... ;-]) but will certainly use it later for a couple of videos in order to get an average value. The colour splitting RGB is a little bit beyond me. Didn't you also say in the past that the human eye is needed to judge the image ? In the case that smoke and dust covers a part of the fall we should use interpolation methods and take a look at the videos and pictures.
I think it is now a big challenge to determine the acceleration in the y direction of the block(s) if they wouldn't topple. They do of course but what would the value be if they don't, this is very important because if one uses 1d models you also need to correct for the toppling.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 27 2007, 12:25 AM)
Didn't I just say that some CDiot would post the "jet fuel won't melt steel" crap again?
Daru, the only people who are claiming that jet fuel DOESN'T burn hot are CDiots like yourself.
Fuel-air mixtures release HEAT when they burn, they DON'T burn at one specific TEMPERATURE. IF the environment is already HOT TO BEGIN WITH, then WHEN HEAT IS ADDED, IT GETS HOTTER!!!
When you COMPRESS the fuel+air mixture IT GETS HOTTER!!! First-semester Thermodynamics. Get a book from the library, look it up.
And jet engine manufacturers DON'T use steel in the hot sections of their engines BECAUSE IT'D MELT!!!
BUY A CLUE!!!
And I was always thinking that the official theorists deny the existence of pools of molten metal...
QUOTE
And I was always thinking that the official theorists deny the existence of pools of molten metal...
You mean the molten lead from the Uninterruptable Power Supplies' lead-acid batteries?
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 27 2007, 12:49 PM)
The method of oxidation is critical to flame temperatures, not only does jet fuel com bust but it forms super heated steam as part of that combustion process, that can itself react as an oxygen source with reactive metals releasing hydrogen and that can go on where ever the conditions exist for entrapment of the super heated steam.
Minor point, and I think I've pointed this out before.
It's not super heated steam that's produced by standard combustion reactions, it's water in the gas phase, or water vapour.
Superheated steam is something different (more or less).
Steam (generally) refers to condensed water droplets suspended in the air, where as what's produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons is water vapour, or water in the gas phase. It's a subtle difference, but it's also a very important distinction to make.
Minor point, and I think I've pointed this out before.
It's not super heated steam that's produced by standard combustion reactions, it's water in the gas phase, or water vapour.
Superheated steam is something different (more or less).
Steam (generally) refers to condensed water droplets suspended in the air, where as what's produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons is water vapour, or water in the gas phase. It's a subtle difference, but it's also a very important distinction to make.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 27 2007, 11:18 AM)
Minor point, and I think I've pointed this out before.
It's not super heated steam that's produced by standard combustion reactions, it's water in the gas phase, or water vapour.
Superheated steam is something different (more or less).
Steam (generally) refers to condensed water droplets suspended in the air, where as what's produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons is water vapour, or water in the gas phase. It's a subtle difference, but it's also a very important distinction to make.
Yes you did bring it up before, but H2O in the gas phase is still H2O, and it is only when H2O is heated to at or near the gas phase that it effects steel super heated steam can only be produced by compression of the H2O gas Trippy, because when the gas is released from a compressed state, it reverts to water in the gas phase.
So your basically comparing apples to apples, were talking about the same reaction because gas phase H2O is what causes the reaction in the first place.
That or actual steam from the cooling water phase H2O encountering steel heated to near 900c.
A buoyant hydrogen flame will create water in the gas phase at the steel gas interface causing a sustained reaction until the gas phase water and hydrogen are vented.
However once steel oxidation has started as long as temperatures can be maintained by air flow over the steel the steel will continue to Oxidize.
I am simply using steam and super heated steam to put it in laymens terms!
It's not super heated steam that's produced by standard combustion reactions, it's water in the gas phase, or water vapour.
Superheated steam is something different (more or less).
Steam (generally) refers to condensed water droplets suspended in the air, where as what's produced by the combustion of hydrocarbons is water vapour, or water in the gas phase. It's a subtle difference, but it's also a very important distinction to make.
Yes you did bring it up before, but H2O in the gas phase is still H2O, and it is only when H2O is heated to at or near the gas phase that it effects steel super heated steam can only be produced by compression of the H2O gas Trippy, because when the gas is released from a compressed state, it reverts to water in the gas phase.
So your basically comparing apples to apples, were talking about the same reaction because gas phase H2O is what causes the reaction in the first place.
That or actual steam from the cooling water phase H2O encountering steel heated to near 900c.
A buoyant hydrogen flame will create water in the gas phase at the steel gas interface causing a sustained reaction until the gas phase water and hydrogen are vented.
However once steel oxidation has started as long as temperatures can be maintained by air flow over the steel the steel will continue to Oxidize.
I am simply using steam and super heated steam to put it in laymens terms!
QUOTE (wcelliott+Aug 27 2007, 05:12 AM)
Agreed.
My point was that jet engines, burning jet fuel as they normally do, create temperatures in their combustion chambers that would exceed steel's maximum working temperature. It would be more accurate to say that a jet engine made with steel components in the combustion chamber would fail due to the steel's inability to maintain structural integrity at elevated temperatures, but if somebody's so stupid that I need to point this out, then that explanation would probably just go over their head anyway.
Also, I'd still like the point I just raised to be considered further, about how much compression (and therefore temperature of combustion increase) one should expect from air being accelerated by aircraft debris going 500mph.
I'm not sure how to go about calculating the pressure increase, other than to assign random coefficients of drag to random-sized chunks of debris and assuming that the drag energy is compressing the air in front of it, inferring a delta-pressure*volume from the loss of kinetic energy of the debris. Then, the increased pressure combustion yields an increased combustion temperature.
Can anyone think of a more elegant approach? This one gives me a headache just thinking about it.
Actually the tests in actual jet engines pointed to H2O vapor phase combustion of steel components, in the early jet engines leading to Compressor failure, as the most likely cause of flame out and lockup in jet engines primarily in the Messerschmidt of World War 2.
The early jets were known to actually explode do to lockup of the compressors.
The only thing people have to do is, get some kerosene, spray it on and all over a steel structure and set it on fire. See what will happen.
(but I can tell you, nothing serious will happen to the structure, it will be some fire, yes, but no collapse and no total destruction in CD style)
But did you know that there was no sprinkler in the Deutsche Bank Building and workers told officials they had been stripping asbestos from beams, and the fire spread quickly through gaps and holes in the structure.
(but I can tell you, nothing serious will happen to the structure, it will be some fire, yes, but no collapse and no total destruction in CD style)
But did you know that there was no sprinkler in the Deutsche Bank Building and workers told officials they had been stripping asbestos from beams, and the fire spread quickly through gaps and holes in the structure.
QUOTE (Daru+Aug 27 2007, 10:48 AM)
The only thing people have to do is, get some kerosene, spray it on and all over a steel structure and set it on fire. See what will happen.
(but I can tell you, nothing serious will happen to the structure, it will be some fire, yes, but no collapse and no total destruction in CD style)
Why do you keep acting like ignorance is a virtue?
The kerosene's heat impact on the structure was relatively little, the MAIN fire damage was caused by the FLAMABLE CONTENTS of the building, ~ 128,000 lbs per floor.
The kerosene's main contribution was to start widespread fires on multiple floors, thus increasing significantly the RATE of heat release.
The multiple floor fires released GIGAJOULES of energy into the structure.
WHY, if you think NOTHING would happen from fire to the structure, do you think they spray the whole friggin structure with costly SFRM?
Arthur
(but I can tell you, nothing serious will happen to the structure, it will be some fire, yes, but no collapse and no total destruction in CD style)
Why do you keep acting like ignorance is a virtue?
The kerosene's heat impact on the structure was relatively little, the MAIN fire damage was caused by the FLAMABLE CONTENTS of the building, ~ 128,000 lbs per floor.
The kerosene's main contribution was to start widespread fires on multiple floors, thus increasing significantly the RATE of heat release.
The multiple floor fires released GIGAJOULES of energy into the structure.
WHY, if you think NOTHING would happen from fire to the structure, do you think they spray the whole friggin structure with costly SFRM?
Arthur
QUOTE (Daru+Aug 27 2007, 02:48 PM)
The only thing people have to do is, get some kerosene, spray it on and all over a steel structure and set it on fire. See what will happen.
(but I can tell you, nothing serious will happen to the structure, it will be some fire, yes, but no collapse and no total destruction in CD style)
But did you know that there was no sprinkler in the Deutsche Bank Building and workers told officials they had been stripping asbestos from beams, and the fire spread quickly through gaps and holes in the structure.
Hey Daru, try entrapping the hot exhaust gasses where they accumulate next to a thin steel structure like OH say a floor pan, so that they heat up. That will definitely change the reaction experienced!
Also adoucette is right your ignoring the other combustibles, and chemical reactions!
It shows just how ignorant of reality, your claims actually are!
(but I can tell you, nothing serious will happen to the structure, it will be some fire, yes, but no collapse and no total destruction in CD style)
But did you know that there was no sprinkler in the Deutsche Bank Building and workers told officials they had been stripping asbestos from beams, and the fire spread quickly through gaps and holes in the structure.
Hey Daru, try entrapping the hot exhaust gasses where they accumulate next to a thin steel structure like OH say a floor pan, so that they heat up. That will definitely change the reaction experienced!
Also adoucette is right your ignoring the other combustibles, and chemical reactions!
It shows just how ignorant of reality, your claims actually are!
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 27 2007, 08:38 AM)
The colour splitting RGB is a little bit beyond me. Didn't you also say in the past that the human eye is needed to judge the image ?
I think the best way to obtain curves from the latter parts where motion is obvious and quick is through the eye. Automated methods would produce noisier data if they would work, but there are too many instances where they really won't work at all without a lot of manual intervention. So, eyeballing will be much easier and faster for getting the gross curve.
The automated methods are useful for the smaller, initial displacements. One method looks at color transition over time (before obvious motion), another tracks average spatiotemporal location of pixel-sized features (at the onset of motion that is too small to get good discrete pixel measurements). Together, the three methods span the full time period with overlap and redundancy.
The manual eyeball method should be done over the whole range, starting with position well before the collapse, then a point that appears to just precede collapse (Tzero guess), and subsequently point density that seems appropriate. If enough locations of a 'rigid body' are done in this fashion, it will sharpen the Tzero estimation and data values. Best if it were done by a variety of people. Then, applying the two automated methods will increase the early resolution even farther.
Right now my concern is in establishing early rotation since it has a tremendous impact on the fine vertical measurements. It seems easier to establish the rotation first and then choose suitable locations for vertical measurements and correct for rotation effects.
I think the best way to obtain curves from the latter parts where motion is obvious and quick is through the eye. Automated methods would produce noisier data if they would work, but there are too many instances where they really won't work at all without a lot of manual intervention. So, eyeballing will be much easier and faster for getting the gross curve.
The automated methods are useful for the smaller, initial displacements. One method looks at color transition over time (before obvious motion), another tracks average spatiotemporal location of pixel-sized features (at the onset of motion that is too small to get good discrete pixel measurements). Together, the three methods span the full time period with overlap and redundancy.
The manual eyeball method should be done over the whole range, starting with position well before the collapse, then a point that appears to just precede collapse (Tzero guess), and subsequently point density that seems appropriate. If enough locations of a 'rigid body' are done in this fashion, it will sharpen the Tzero estimation and data values. Best if it were done by a variety of people. Then, applying the two automated methods will increase the early resolution even farther.
Right now my concern is in establishing early rotation since it has a tremendous impact on the fine vertical measurements. It seems easier to establish the rotation first and then choose suitable locations for vertical measurements and correct for rotation effects.
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 27 2007, 02:43 AM)
And I was always thinking that the official theorists deny the existence of pools of molten metal...
I don't know what you mean by official theorists, but I have yet to see any credible report or evidence for pools of molten metal.
Stories grow in the telling, like the big fish that got away...
I don't know what you mean by official theorists, but I have yet to see any credible report or evidence for pools of molten metal.
Stories grow in the telling, like the big fish that got away...
QUOTE (einsteen+Aug 27 2007, 04:43 AM)
And I was always thinking that the official theorists deny the existence of pools of molten metal...
Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to create mass quantities of melted steel. However, it can burn hot enough to soften beams and and cause a building to collapse. There is no evidence of any streams of metal.
Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to create mass quantities of melted steel. However, it can burn hot enough to soften beams and and cause a building to collapse. There is no evidence of any streams of metal.
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Aug 27 2007, 09:40 AM)
I think the best way to obtain curves from the latter parts where motion is obvious and quick is through the eye. Automated methods would produce noisier data if they would work, but there are too many instances where they really won't work at all without a lot of manual intervention. So, eyeballing will be much easier and faster for getting the gross curve.
The automated methods are useful for the smaller, initial displacements. One method looks at color transition over time (before obvious motion), another tracks average spatiotemporal location of pixel-sized features (at the onset of motion that is too small to get good discrete pixel measurements). Together, the three methods span the full time period with overlap and redundancy.
The manual eyeball method should be done over the whole range, starting with position well before the collapse, then a point that appears to just precede collapse (Tzero guess), and subsequently point density that seems appropriate. If enough locations of a 'rigid body' are done in this fashion, it will sharpen the Tzero estimation and data values. Best if it were done by a variety of people. Then, applying the two automated methods will increase the early resolution even farther.
Right now my concern is in establishing early rotation since it has a tremendous impact on the fine vertical measurements. It seems easier to establish the rotation first and then choose suitable locations for vertical measurements and correct for rotation effects.
For WTC 1 the tilting is probably not significant from the standpoint of making vertical measurements. For example, a tilt of one degree of arc of the top block means that the antenna tower has descended about 0.55 meters. So measuring the descent can be used to determine the tilt angle for at least the first 0.8 seconds, before the north wall breaks.
The notion of a t_0 is artificial, albeit useful. What is very interesting is the descent (tilt) starting at the time that floors 98 and 97 expressed smoke and actual flames. This occurs about two seconds before NIST's t_0, and measuring this descent for that time and, say, the following two seconds would provide some useful data regarding collapse initiation hypotheses.
The automated methods are useful for the smaller, initial displacements. One method looks at color transition over time (before obvious motion), another tracks average spatiotemporal location of pixel-sized features (at the onset of motion that is too small to get good discrete pixel measurements). Together, the three methods span the full time period with overlap and redundancy.
The manual eyeball method should be done over the whole range, starting with position well before the collapse, then a point that appears to just precede collapse (Tzero guess), and subsequently point density that seems appropriate. If enough locations of a 'rigid body' are done in this fashion, it will sharpen the Tzero estimation and data values. Best if it were done by a variety of people. Then, applying the two automated methods will increase the early resolution even farther.
Right now my concern is in establishing early rotation since it has a tremendous impact on the fine vertical measurements. It seems easier to establish the rotation first and then choose suitable locations for vertical measurements and correct for rotation effects.
For WTC 1 the tilting is probably not significant from the standpoint of making vertical measurements. For example, a tilt of one degree of arc of the top block means that the antenna tower has descended about 0.55 meters. So measuring the descent can be used to determine the tilt angle for at least the first 0.8 seconds, before the north wall breaks.
The notion of a t_0 is artificial, albeit useful. What is very interesting is the descent (tilt) starting at the time that floors 98 and 97 expressed smoke and actual flames. This occurs about two seconds before NIST's t_0, and measuring this descent for that time and, say, the following two seconds would provide some useful data regarding collapse initiation hypotheses.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Aug 28 2007, 01:10 AM)
Yes you did bring it up before, but H2O in the gas phase is still H2O, and it is only when H2O is heated to at or near the gas phase that it effects steel super heated steam can only be produced by compression of the H2O gas Trippy, because when the gas is released from a compressed state, it reverts to water in the gas phase.
So your basically comparing apples to apples, were talking about the same reaction because gas phase H2O is what causes the reaction in the first place.
That or actual steam from the cooling water phase H2O encountering steel heated to near 900c.
A buoyant hydrogen flame will create water in the gas phase at the steel gas interface causing a sustained reaction until the gas phase water and hydrogen are vented.
However once steel oxidation has started as long as temperatures can be maintained by air flow over the steel the steel will continue to Oxidize.
I am simply using steam and super heated steam to put it in laymens terms!
I get all that, I really do, but none of that changes the fact that the usage of the 'Steam' or 'super heated steam' when talking about water vapour is a misnomer, and inaccurate.
I know it's a bit of... The word I'm searching for escapes me for some reason, I want to say pedantic, but it's more about accuracy.
Steam is a condensate, and requires cooling to form (This includes reducing pressure, which causes cooling), but what you're dealing with is water vapour (and generally talking about). I get that you're trying to put it in laymans terms, but you really would be better off talking about water vapour rather then steam. Most people should be able to figure out what you're talking about, and those that can't should ask or look it up.
So your basically comparing apples to apples, were talking about the same reaction because gas phase H2O is what causes the reaction in the first place.
That or actual steam from the cooling water phase H2O encountering steel heated to near 900c.
A buoyant hydrogen flame will create water in the gas phase at the steel gas interface causing a sustained reaction until the gas phase water and hydrogen are vented.
However once steel oxidation has started as long as temperatures can be maintained by air flow over the steel the steel will continue to Oxidize.
I am simply using steam and super heated steam to put it in laymens terms!
I get all that, I really do, but none of that changes the fact that the usage of the 'Steam' or 'super heated steam' when talking about water vapour is a misnomer, and inaccurate.
I know it's a bit of... The word I'm searching for escapes me for some reason, I want to say pedantic, but it's more about accuracy.
Steam is a condensate, and requires cooling to form (This includes reducing pressure, which causes cooling), but what you're dealing with is water vapour (and generally talking about). I get that you're trying to put it in laymans terms, but you really would be better off talking about water vapour rather then steam. Most people should be able to figure out what you're talking about, and those that can't should ask or look it up.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart...183119&Disp=107
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...hot-enough.html
One of the things that I find amusing is this: Okay, sure, there may or may not have been molten metal (steel?) present at ground zero after the collapse, but how, precisely is that relevant to the collapse itself again?
Are people really assming that the molten metal must have been present before the collapse?
Come on, get real, confinement, insulation and reburning are some of the easiest ways of cranking up the temperature of a fire. Have any of the CDiots stopped to consider the fact that maybe the presence of molten metal after the collapse could have been solely the result of the collapse, and the fires afterwards and that the hours to weeks between the collapse occuring and people finding these things is plenty of time for such a mechanism to occur.
Doubly so when you take into account how much of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat energy.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...hot-enough.html
One of the things that I find amusing is this: Okay, sure, there may or may not have been molten metal (steel?) present at ground zero after the collapse, but how, precisely is that relevant to the collapse itself again?
Are people really assming that the molten metal must have been present before the collapse?
Come on, get real, confinement, insulation and reburning are some of the easiest ways of cranking up the temperature of a fire. Have any of the CDiots stopped to consider the fact that maybe the presence of molten metal after the collapse could have been solely the result of the collapse, and the fires afterwards and that the hours to weeks between the collapse occuring and people finding these things is plenty of time for such a mechanism to occur.
Doubly so when you take into account how much of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat energy.
My apologies if this has already been posted, but I thought it was pretty fricking amaizng, and seems to address some of the things being discussed here.
Edit:
Of course, it helps if I include the actual link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg
Edit:
Of course, it helps if I include the actual link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH02Eh44yUg
Purdue links and the high resolution versions.
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/
ftp://ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/sozen/OHIO/
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase3/
ftp://ftp.ecn.purdue.edu/sozen/OHIO/
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 27 2007, 11:24 PM)
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart...183119&Disp=107
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...hot-enough.html
One of the things that I find amusing is this: Okay, sure, there may or may not have been molten metal (steel?) present at ground zero after the collapse, but how, precisely is that relevant to the collapse itself again?
Are people really assming that the molten metal must have been present before the collapse?
Come on, get real, confinement, insulation and reburning are some of the easiest ways of cranking up the temperature of a fire. Have any of the CDiots stopped to consider the fact that maybe the presence of molten metal after the collapse could have been solely the result of the collapse, and the fires afterwards and that the hours to weeks between the collapse occuring and people finding these things is plenty of time for such a mechanism to occur.
Doubly so when you take into account how much of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat energy.
this "CDidiot" has considered that the extreme temperature of the debris pile is all/mostly underneath. and yet, the fire was at the top of the pile!
oh. my. lions, tigers and bears.
this CDidiot has noticed that the pile was hottest immediately after the collapse, and could not be put out with water, and so pyrocool was used..
oh. my.
this CDidiot has noticed that childish insults are now a requirement of all OCT posts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evid...ubblefires.html
people often abandon their stance and shrug shyte off when being heavily derided. others just think it's a pathetic tactic.
that's a report 12 weeks after the attacks.
the fire was up top, and was rather out of fuel at the time of collapse. the underground inferno was most likely the result of a different energy source. there were 70 storeys of steel and concrete between the fires and the ground.
the OCT wants chaos to conform to some bizarre orwellian regimen. just like that sentence.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/...hot-enough.html
One of the things that I find amusing is this: Okay, sure, there may or may not have been molten metal (steel?) present at ground zero after the collapse, but how, precisely is that relevant to the collapse itself again?
Are people really assming that the molten metal must have been present before the collapse?
Come on, get real, confinement, insulation and reburning are some of the easiest ways of cranking up the temperature of a fire. Have any of the CDiots stopped to consider the fact that maybe the presence of molten metal after the collapse could have been solely the result of the collapse, and the fires afterwards and that the hours to weeks between the collapse occuring and people finding these things is plenty of time for such a mechanism to occur.
Doubly so when you take into account how much of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat energy.
this "CDidiot" has considered that the extreme temperature of the debris pile is all/mostly underneath. and yet, the fire was at the top of the pile!
oh. my. lions, tigers and bears.
this CDidiot has noticed that the pile was hottest immediately after the collapse, and could not be put out with water, and so pyrocool was used..
oh. my.
this CDidiot has noticed that childish insults are now a requirement of all OCT posts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evid...ubblefires.html
people often abandon their stance and shrug shyte off when being heavily derided. others just think it's a pathetic tactic.
that's a report 12 weeks after the attacks.
the fire was up top, and was rather out of fuel at the time of collapse. the underground inferno was most likely the result of a different energy source. there were 70 storeys of steel and concrete between the fires and the ground.
the OCT wants chaos to conform to some bizarre orwellian regimen. just like that sentence.
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 27 2007, 04:24 PM)
Doubly so when you take into account how much of the kinetic energy would have been converted into heat energy.
Most of the energy available in/at Ground Zero was chemical energy from the buildings' flammable contents.
Most of the energy available in/at Ground Zero was chemical energy from the buildings' flammable contents.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 28 2007, 12:53 PM)
Most of the energy available in/at Ground Zero was chemical energy from the buildings' flammable contents.
I beg to differ.
The GPE of the floors had to be converted into something.
Some of it was used up in the compaction of the floors/during the collapse.
Some of it was used up to pulverize the concrete.
But there was a large portion of it that would have been converted into heat energy (Some of which invariably would have caused the ignition of flammable materials).
I beg to differ.
The GPE of the floors had to be converted into something.
Some of it was used up in the compaction of the floors/during the collapse.
Some of it was used up to pulverize the concrete.
But there was a large portion of it that would have been converted into heat energy (Some of which invariably would have caused the ignition of flammable materials).
I suspect that arguing this with you is going to be an exercise in futility, however.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 28 2007, 12:40 PM)
this "CDidiot" has considered that the extreme temperature of the debris pile is all/mostly underneath. and yet, the fire was at the top of the pile!
oh. my. lions, tigers and bears.
Hmmm, let me see. The floors contained the combustible materials. According to the official explanation the floors went first, then the walls came down, so that would put the fuel for the fire at the bottom of the pile, and the original burning floors somewhere near the middle.
Wrong again, Oh my.
oh. my. lions, tigers and bears.
Hmmm, let me see. The floors contained the combustible materials. According to the official explanation the floors went first, then the walls came down, so that would put the fuel for the fire at the bottom of the pile, and the original burning floors somewhere near the middle.
Wrong again, Oh my.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 28 2007, 12:40 PM)
this CDidiot has noticed that the pile was hottest immediately after the collapse, and could not be put out with water, and so pyrocool was used..
oh. my.
As would be expected, oh my. Radiative heat has a cooling effect KE->Heat energy, and is radiated away causing cooling, oh my. Fires run out of fuel as they burn it, and cool, oh my.
Wrong again, oh my.
oh. my.
As would be expected, oh my. Radiative heat has a cooling effect KE->Heat energy, and is radiated away causing cooling, oh my. Fires run out of fuel as they burn it, and cool, oh my.
Wrong again, oh my.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 28 2007, 12:40 PM)
this CDidiot has noticed that childish insults are now a requirement of all OCT posts.
That's funny, because my experience tells me that CD'ers are usually the first to refer to 'OCT'ers' as being evil mindless puppets.
That's funny, because my experience tells me that CD'ers are usually the first to refer to 'OCT'ers' as being evil mindless puppets.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 28 2007, 12:40 PM)
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/evid...ubblefires.html
people often abandon their stance and shrug shyte off when being heavily derided. others just think it's a pathetic tactic.
I have no idea what you're getting at here, again, it's been my experience that it's usually the CD'ers that start throwing out insults when they're cornered, an experience that has been confirmed in this thread.
people often abandon their stance and shrug shyte off when being heavily derided. others just think it's a pathetic tactic.
I have no idea what you're getting at here, again, it's been my experience that it's usually the CD'ers that start throwing out insults when they're cornered, an experience that has been confirmed in this thread.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 28 2007, 12:40 PM)
that's a report 12 weeks after the attacks.
the fire was up top, and was rather out of fuel at the time of collapse. the underground inferno was most likely the result of a different energy source. there were 70 storeys of steel and concrete between the fires and the ground.
Did you bother to read that report? Or did you just ignore the part at the end where it talks about how the fires were allowed to burn for 17 days before anything serious was done about fighting them because it was being treated as a rescue operation. The fact that they used Pyrocool FEF is largely meaningless, apart from the fact that it says that they wanted to fight the fires in the most effective general purpose way they could.
There's that classic physics problem where you calculate the temperature difference between the water at Niagra Falls, before and after, and the temperature rises a surprisingly small amount from the fall, on the order of a degree or so. Nothing that would start a fire.
The extreme temperatures found in the rubble pile can better be explained by comparing the rubble pile to a foundry, where the heat released from burning fuel is confined by insulating materials, but airflow is relatively unrestricted. That's how people used to make glass and melt iron.
The part that you're missing is that not all of the force applied at floor X will be transmitted to floor X-1, only the force that the structure below floor X can sustain will be transmitted through the structure. In other words, if the structure holding up floor X-1 can, at most, support 100,000tons (picking a number from mid-air), and the force applied to floor X-1 is 500,000tons, then only 100,000tons is transmitted to the structure, the other 400,000tons can't be transmitted via the structure, so goes into acceleration of the material making up floor X (and destroying anything that can't withstand the forces involved).
This is the key to understanding why the floors collapse one-by-one, from the top down. The intact structure below the crush zone is overloaded, but still only by an amount that the structure can sustain. It's outside its normal design limits but the forces have an upper limit which is determined by the yield limit of the structure in the crush zone.
(Maybe after the coffee has soaked in, I'll be able to state this explanation in clearer language.)
the fire was up top, and was rather out of fuel at the time of collapse. the underground inferno was most likely the result of a different energy source. there were 70 storeys of steel and concrete between the fires and the ground.
Did you bother to read that report? Or did you just ignore the part at the end where it talks about how the fires were allowed to burn for 17 days before anything serious was done about fighting them because it was being treated as a rescue operation. The fact that they used Pyrocool FEF is largely meaningless, apart from the fact that it says that they wanted to fight the fires in the most effective general purpose way they could.
QUOTE (newton+Aug 28 2007, 12:40 PM)
the OCT wants chaos to conform to some bizarre orwellian regimen. just like that sentence.
Meaningless paranoid delusional drivel. Did you forget to take your antipsychotics today?
Meaningless paranoid delusional drivel. Did you forget to take your antipsychotics today?
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 28 2007, 01:37 AM)
Meaningless paranoid delusional drivel. Did you forget to take your antipsychotics today?
gee. a reference to mental health problems.
i'm so surprised you didn't deride me.
so, as to your first supposition that we have an exercise in futility, i'll have to agree, as you have already decided the truth, and so have i.
gee. a reference to mental health problems.
i'm so surprised you didn't deride me.
so, as to your first supposition that we have an exercise in futility, i'll have to agree, as you have already decided the truth, and so have i.
QUOTE
*OFF TOPIC!!!!!*
According to Sir Isaac Newton, the mark of the Beast is three crosses.
*OFF TOPIC!!!!!*
According to Sir Isaac Newton, the mark of the Beast is three crosses.
*OFF TOPIC!!!!!*
QUOTE (Trippy+Aug 27 2007, 06:24 PM)
One of the things that I find amusing is this: Okay, sure, there may or may not have been molten metal (steel?) present at ground zero after the collapse, but how, precisely is that relevant to the collapse itself again?
It goes back to one or two forums ago (yes, they just won't give it up!!!) where they mor@ns argue that jet fuel could not have hosted an explosion that resulted in pouring rivers of melted steel they showed in "authentic" pictures they got off nut job sites.
It goes back to one or two forums ago (yes, they just won't give it up!!!) where they mor@ns argue that jet fuel could not have hosted an explosion that resulted in pouring rivers of melted steel they showed in "authentic" pictures they got off nut job sites.
There is some footage, I'm not going to comment on validity, that appears to show molten metal in one corner of one building, however, IIRC, its in the corner that Arthur said that NIST had found evidence of flowing molten metal, or it might have been metal fires, which would seem to go hand in hand with molten metal, it's also in the corner of the building where, from an emperical perspective, I would have expected to be a hotspot.
Sorry, this post was meant to be in reply to Joshua's post - i'm sitting outside in the freezing cold, and the pitch black, with my laptop trying to observe a lunar eclipse (but it's clouded over).
Sorry, this post was meant to be in reply to Joshua's post - i'm sitting outside in the freezing cold, and the pitch black, with my laptop trying to observe a lunar eclipse (but it's clouded over).
I am happy with the progress which groups like popular mechanics have made, regarding 9/11, but I wish they would also investigate 7/7 too, because my Truther friend has not stopped going on about it, after he switched from 9/11 conspiracies, in the wake of the debunkings. He's also a bit crazy about the whole WTC 7 business nowadays too.
He made the switch, because they are less debunked than the twin towers, pentagon and the flight 93 crash are. Conspiracy theories love a vacuum, after all...
Does anyone know of a mass-debunking of 7/7 conspiracies, anywhere on the net? (Similar to the popular mechanic debunking of 9/11)
He made the switch, because they are less debunked than the twin towers, pentagon and the flight 93 crash are. Conspiracy theories love a vacuum, after all...
Does anyone know of a mass-debunking of 7/7 conspiracies, anywhere on the net? (Similar to the popular mechanic debunking of 9/11)
Trippy:
A simple calculation of the conversion of the Twin Tower's PE to KE and then to HEAT shows that the PE was NOT the source of heat in the rubble pile:
PE of two towers = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's assume ALL the PE -> KE so KE = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's also assume ALL the KE -> HEAT
HEAT = Mass (kg) x Heat Capacity (J/kg. deg C) x Delta (T)
The mass of the two towers was ~ 1,000,000 tonnes
A reasonable average heat capacity for the materials in the rubble pile would be ~ 500 J/kg.deg C, hence
Delta(T) = 2 x 10^12 / [10^9 x 500] = 4 deg C
This shows that the heating of the rubble pile must have been mainly from the release of CHEMICAL ENERGY. I would estimate from the mass of combustibles that the chemical energy available in the rubble pile was at least 10^14 J or 50 times the PE stored in the towers.
A simple calculation of the conversion of the Twin Tower's PE to KE and then to HEAT shows that the PE was NOT the source of heat in the rubble pile:
PE of two towers = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's assume ALL the PE -> KE so KE = 2 x 10^12 J
Let's also assume ALL the KE -> HEAT
HEAT = Mass (kg) x Heat Capacity (J/kg. deg C) x Delta (T)
The mass of the two towers was ~ 1,000,000 tonnes
A reasonable average heat capacity for the materials in the rubble pile would be ~ 500 J/kg.deg C, hence
Delta(T) = 2 x 10^12 / [10^9 x 500] = 4 deg C
This shows that the heating of the rubble pile must have been mainly from the release of CHEMICAL ENERGY. I would estimate from the mass of combustibles that the chemical energy available in the rubble pile was at least 10^14 J or 50 times the PE stored in the towers.
Interesting Neu-Fonze, could that amount of energy be explained by combustion processes on the first initial floors ? I don't believe that during that fast collapse the whole rubble pile could heat up, although the calculation doesn't say at which time the temperature is measured, if it is homogeneous etc. The temperature after the collapse would be very interesting.
QUOTE
The temperature after the collapse would be very interesting.
There's that classic physics problem where you calculate the temperature difference between the water at Niagra Falls, before and after, and the temperature rises a surprisingly small amount from the fall, on the order of a degree or so. Nothing that would start a fire.
The extreme temperatures found in the rubble pile can better be explained by comparing the rubble pile to a foundry, where the heat released from burning fuel is confined by insulating materials, but airflow is relatively unrestricted. That's how people used to make glass and melt iron.
Einsteen:
I believe about 200 tonnes of solid material, such as paper, books, plastics and office furniture, was set on fire by the burning jet fuel spilled in each Twin Tower. Interestingly, however, most of the available jet fuel was probably consumed within 4 minutes of the aircraft impacts. Nevertheless, by this time, the fires had attained a heat energy release rate of about 1 gigawatt and were propagating by the combustion of cellulose and plastic-based solid “fuels” derived from live load materials within WTC 1 & 2.
NIST suggest that the initial 1 gigawatt heat release rate associated with the fires had fallen to about 0.5 gigawatts at the time of the collapse of each Tower. From these data I would estimate that about 2000 gigajoules of heat energy was released in each Tower prior to collapse, of which about 200 GJ was from liquid fuel and 1800 GJ was derived from solid fuel.
If we assume that this solid fuel had an effective heat of combustion of 20 MJ/kg I would conclude that the pre-collapse consumption of solid combustible material in each Tower was about 90 tonnes, out of a possible 200 tonnes, leaving about 110 tonnes of un-burnt material.
I would therefore assume that when each Tower collapsed, over 100 tonnes of burning material and smoldering “embers” at 500 - 700° C, fell into the rubble pile.
There were also fires burning in the basements of the towers at the time of their collapse. I therefore see no problem in getting a real furnace raging at least in some pockets within the rubble pile.
I also think the idea that the PATH subway tunnels may have acted like giant tuyeres and fed air into the heart of the fires is quite possible.
I believe about 200 tonnes of solid material, such as paper, books, plastics and office furniture, was set on fire by the burning jet fuel spilled in each Twin Tower. Interestingly, however, most of the available jet fuel was probably consumed within 4 minutes of the aircraft impacts. Nevertheless, by this time, the fires had attained a heat energy release rate of about 1 gigawatt and were propagating by the combustion of cellulose and plastic-based solid “fuels” derived from live load materials within WTC 1 & 2.
NIST suggest that the initial 1 gigawatt heat release rate associated with the fires had fallen to about 0.5 gigawatts at the time of the collapse of each Tower. From these data I would estimate that about 2000 gigajoules of heat energy was released in each Tower prior to collapse, of which about 200 GJ was from liquid fuel and 1800 GJ was derived from solid fuel.
If we assume that this solid fuel had an effective heat of combustion of 20 MJ/kg I would conclude that the pre-collapse consumption of solid combustible material in each Tower was about 90 tonnes, out of a possible 200 tonnes, leaving about 110 tonnes of un-burnt material.
I would therefore assume that when each Tower collapsed, over 100 tonnes of burning material and smoldering “embers” at 500 - 700° C, fell into the rubble pile.
There were also fires burning in the basements of the towers at the time of their collapse. I therefore see no problem in getting a real furnace raging at least in some pockets within the rubble pile.
I also think the idea that the PATH subway tunnels may have acted like giant tuyeres and fed air into the heart of the fires is quite possible.
Ok, that's all fine of course. Let me explain precisely the problem that I have with the gravitational collapse, you asked it at JREF. The theory is that the removement of the supporting structure between two floors, say at floor 100 leads to a total global collapse, stepwise. Let's assume that all E1 values are equal and all masses are equal. the block that drops on the remaining structure cannot only destroy the story below. I understand that there must be a small crush up and crush down resulting in a layer that protects the rest of the upper floors from being damaged. That's fine.
But then ? The static load is largest at the bottom in this model, then the dynamic load is added to it. I don't believe that the observed behaviour is consistent with gravitational collapse, and I'm very sure about that. If the whole top block drops for example 10 stories then it has enough kinetic energy to destroy the whole structure below, the whole structure then falls down like an implosion from the bottom. When the strength of the building increases (lineairly for example) with the distance from the top then the observed stepwise behaviour makes sense for me. But that leads to other 'problems' because with a few integrals you can prove that the energy will be absorbed by the building when you take into account the initial motion of the top block.
But then ? The static load is largest at the bottom in this model, then the dynamic load is added to it. I don't believe that the observed behaviour is consistent with gravitational collapse, and I'm very sure about that. If the whole top block drops for example 10 stories then it has enough kinetic energy to destroy the whole structure below, the whole structure then falls down like an implosion from the bottom. When the strength of the building increases (lineairly for example) with the distance from the top then the observed stepwise behaviour makes sense for me. But that leads to other 'problems' because with a few integrals you can prove that the energy will be absorbed by the building when you take into account the initial motion of the top block.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Aug 27 2007, 06:16 PM)
For WTC 1 the tilting is probably not significant from the standpoint of making vertical measurements. For example, a tilt of one degree of arc of the top block means that the antenna tower has descended about 0.55 meters. So measuring the descent can be used to determine the tilt angle for at least the first 0.8 seconds, before the north wall breaks.
The notion of a t_0 is artificial, albeit useful. What is very interesting is the descent (tilt) starting at the time that floors 98 and 97 expressed smoke and actual flames. This occurs about two seconds before NIST's t_0, and measuring this descent for that time and, say, the following two seconds would provide some useful data regarding collapse initiation hypotheses.
I see what you're saying, and I'm going to attend to things in a different order because you may not need the level of detail I'll eventually have.
As I mentioned, there are three types of methods I'm using to extract numeric data, each with an associated resolution and applicable timeline range. They could loosely be categorized as fine, medium and coarse measurements:
The third method, while weak in the early timeline, may be sufficient for what you describe. Rotation doesn't enter in to making that measurement. I can produce several datasets of that type from at least 3 videos in a day or two; no need for you to wait for other stuff to be complete. The bigger effort, in that case, is obtaining reliable scaling factors for the conversion from pixels to meters. The data will be in pixels and I'll provide the best conversion numbers I can get get at this time - you take responsibility for converting to meters!
Now a long-winded explanation of the problem of rotation.
Rotation is an impediment for the first two methods, especially the first which attempts to map the motion of a feature through pairs of adjacent pixels. This method could yield position resolution of 0.05 meters (not that I'm claiming or guaranteeing that). A tilt of one degree in this context is a whale flopping in a minnow pond.
When lateral translation occurs concurrently with vertical translation of a similar order, the problem becomes 2D in the (x,y) plane. This is a minor hassle but can't be ignored. If lateral motion (x) can be independently measured first - and in this case it can - a linear correction can be calculated and the vertical motion can then be processed in 1D as opposed to simultaneously solving both dimensions in a discrete space with a 3x3 mesh.
But the biggest problem with rotation is how small amounts can radically change the appearance of a feature compared to translation. Simple and extreme example: take a hand mirror outside, hold it at arm's length and adjust the orientation so the sun is reflected directly into your eye. Lower the mirror a couple of millimeters while preserving the orientation; chances are your retina is still on fire. Now tilt it so one edge drops the same amount, the intensity drops off substantially.
The antenna is a 3D object with components having different surface properties and appendages. That can be a good thing; the tiny white 'orbs' show up in one video as gray-brown crosshairs, two on each side. Generally, however, a small rotation can change pixel brightness quite a bit without (hypothetically) any accompanying translation. The distribution of smoke in the scene influences the incident light (ambient and diffuse) and the irregular antenna surface, with its specular properties, could be expected to exhibit unpredictable variations of reflectivity under rotation. Not so with translation.
The tapering of the antenna alone is enough to drive me nuts! Then there's the deviation of the frame from true vertical, but at least that's static over time and changes insignificantly over small pixel regions.
The notion of a t_0 is artificial, albeit useful. What is very interesting is the descent (tilt) starting at the time that floors 98 and 97 expressed smoke and actual flames. This occurs about two seconds before NIST's t_0, and measuring this descent for that time and, say, the following two seconds would provide some useful data regarding collapse initiation hypotheses.
I see what you're saying, and I'm going to attend to things in a different order because you may not need the level of detail I'll eventually have.
As I mentioned, there are three types of methods I'm using to extract numeric data, each with an associated resolution and applicable timeline range. They could loosely be categorized as fine, medium and coarse measurements:
- Slow transition of pixel-sized features across single pixel distances (earliest motion)
- Faster transition of pixel-sized features across several pixels (first obvious vertical motion on video - the elbow of the curve)
- Manual digitizing of multi-pixel features from frame sequences and einsteen images (entire sequence)
The third method, while weak in the early timeline, may be sufficient for what you describe. Rotation doesn't enter in to making that measurement. I can produce several datasets of that type from at least 3 videos in a day or two; no need for you to wait for other stuff to be complete. The bigger effort, in that case, is obtaining reliable scaling factors for the conversion from pixels to meters. The data will be in pixels and I'll provide the best conversion numbers I can get get at this time - you take responsibility for converting to meters!
Now a long-winded explanation of the problem of rotation.
Rotation is an impediment for the first two methods, especially the first which attempts to map the motion of a feature through pairs of adjacent pixels. This method could yield position resolution of 0.05 meters (not that I'm claiming or guaranteeing that). A tilt of one degree in this context is a whale flopping in a minnow pond.
When lateral translation occurs concurrently with vertical translation of a similar order, the problem becomes 2D in the (x,y) plane. This is a minor hassle but can't be ignored. If lateral motion (x) can be independently measured first - and in this case it can - a linear correction can be calculated and the vertical motion can then be processed in 1D as opposed to simultaneously solving both dimensions in a discrete space with a 3x3 mesh.
But the biggest problem with rotation is how small amounts can radically change the appearance of a feature compared to translation. Simple and extreme example: take a hand mirror outside, hold it at arm's length and adjust the orientation so the sun is reflected directly into your eye. Lower the mirror a couple of millimeters while preserving the orientation; chances are your retina is still on fire. Now tilt it so one edge drops the same amount, the intensity drops off substantially.
The antenna is a 3D object with components having different surface properties and appendages. That can be a good thing; the tiny white 'orbs' show up in one video as gray-brown crosshairs, two on each side. Generally, however, a small rotation can change pixel brightness quite a bit without (hypothetically) any accompanying translation. The distribution of smoke in the scene influences the incident light (ambient and diffuse) and the irregular antenna surface, with its specular properties, could be expected to exhibit unpredictable variations of reflectivity under rotation. Not so with translation.
The tapering of the antenna alone is enough to drive me nuts! Then there's the deviation of the frame from true vertical, but at least that's static over time and changes insignificantly over small pixel regions.
QUOTE
the whole structure then falls down like an implosion from the bottom
The part that you're missing is that not all of the force applied at floor X will be transmitted to floor X-1, only the force that the structure below floor X can sustain will be transmitted through the structure. In other words, if the structure holding up floor X-1 can, at most, support 100,000tons (picking a number from mid-air), and the force applied to floor X-1 is 500,000tons, then only 100,000tons is transmitted to the structure, the other 400,000tons can't be transmitted via the structure, so goes into acceleration of the material making up floor X (and destroying anything that can't withstand the forces involved).
This is the key to understanding why the floors collapse one-by-one, from the top down. The intact structure below the crush zone is overloaded, but still only by an amount that the structure can sustain. It's outside its normal design limits but the forces have an upper limit which is determined by the yield limit of the structure in the crush zone.
(Maybe after the coffee has soaked in, I'll be able to state this explanation in clearer language.)
The force that is working on story i in order to get it compacted can only be provided by the reaction force provided by story i+1 (one lower). Since there is absolutely no movement of the stories/floors below the implication is that the whole underlying structure is still in the elastic phase, not much energy needs to be transferred in the case that the value F'(0) is extremely large, which is the case. But it should move a little bit in order to provide the reaction force. Assume a model in which we have the top block and in a thought experiment and we set all masses of the floors below equal to zero. In this model the forces will balance each other out and the energy can be provided. I have to say that it is still something for which I have had no time and mood to work out completely. You are right that the masses of the floors below are very inert and that that may play a role in the behavior but then one should set up a very complex set of differential equations. these are then a couple of masses connected by forces of the form F=F(|y1-y2|), good luck to solve it. No I am still not convinced at all that this closed system called building is able to behave in that way (only taking into account mechanical energy) but we are never too old to learn, one day I probably will say. Yes, now I see, stupid, I really had a big blind spot and then everything is fine.
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.