QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 09:08 PM)
To be honest RealityCheck, your posts just seem badgering, so I haven't really been taking them seriously.
Plus, there is only one of me to answer your and others' questions, and yours seem tertiary in their degree of relevance.
Put those together, and you can see why I haven't been answering you.
Max
Hehehe. How 'expedient and convenient' rationalising of you.
Honest? You? That seems a way-out hypothesis, based on the evidence of your 'avoidance' so far, isn't it?
Check out my 'nom de plume'. It says "RealityCheck".
That's what I do here; and that's what you've been getting. Hello?
Only so far you haven't 'honestly' faced any of the embarrassing implications of those reality checks of your insipid questions/challenges/speculations.
What will it take to get you to answer them 'honestly'? Or aren't you into answering others' questions/challenges at all?
If you can't understand and/or honestly face up to your responsibilities like you expect of others here, then please just have the integrity to say so. hehehe.
Answer the questions or just admit you are just pulling everyone's leg. hahaha. That's how you have come across so far. Good joke, Max Photon!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Plus, there is only one of me to answer your and others' questions, and yours seem tertiary in their degree of relevance.
Put those together, and you can see why I haven't been answering you.
Max
Hehehe. How 'expedient and convenient' rationalising of you.
Honest? You? That seems a way-out hypothesis, based on the evidence of your 'avoidance' so far, isn't it?
Check out my 'nom de plume'. It says "RealityCheck".
That's what I do here; and that's what you've been getting. Hello?
Only so far you haven't 'honestly' faced any of the embarrassing implications of those reality checks of your insipid questions/challenges/speculations.
What will it take to get you to answer them 'honestly'? Or aren't you into answering others' questions/challenges at all?
If you can't understand and/or honestly face up to your responsibilities like you expect of others here, then please just have the integrity to say so. hehehe.
Answer the questions or just admit you are just pulling everyone's leg. hahaha. That's how you have come across so far. Good joke, Max Photon!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (debbie77+Jan 5 2008, 09:05 PM)
Max Photon,
I don't know about all the politics or religious views on 9/11, but I do know that the laws of physics state that explosives were used to bring the tower down, NOT MAYBE, but in fact were used and there is no debating that issue at least on a scientific level, because of the speed of the fall of the buildings alone. It defies the most basic law of physics to suggest that the towers could descend and hit the ground as fast as objects fall through air.
Free fall means objects that fall WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION, and the fact is the WTC buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed, (as fast as objects fall through the air, un-obstructed)
So even if one were going to try and sell the pancake theory they would not be successful due to the fact that the buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed. This is not only obvious, but it's an insult to people's intelligence when people try to suggest otherwise.
The only legitimate question one needs to ask is why people are so persistent at trying to prove an impossible theory? It seems that there must some underlying motive, but if we stick with the laws of science and physics then one must conclude the buildings collapsed via control demolition, NOT MAYBE, but they had, otherwise it would be impossible.
Is this a physics discussion board or a political place where people try to sell impossible make believe stories about pancake theories that defy logic and common sense
Debbie77,
If you feel the WTC fall-times are too brief for a gravity-driven collapse, and you feel the need for an explanation beyond just gravity for the brief fall-times, note that explosives are not your only option. Incendiaries could have been used to heat-weaken the towers beyond just the impact floors. In other words, incendiaries could have been used not only for collapse initiation, but also for collapse progression.
High explosives create loud noises, bright flashes, strong smells, complex residues that are detectable and traceable.
Furthermore, had high explosives been used - even a smidge - that would be at direct odds with NIST's claim that NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition from high explosives.
Just for that reason alone, I simply cannot imagine that high explosives were used.
In contrast, note that NIST did not make such a definitive statement ruling out controlled-demolition using thermite to heat-weaken the towers. On the contrary, NIST only commits to saying that thermite was "an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition." Well that's a plausible-deniability opening big enough to drive a truck through. Thermite could have been used to heat-weaken the towers, and yet NIST cannot be accused of having covered that up.
Debbie77, forget explosives.
Think heat-weakening.
(You too Arthur and David.)
Max
I don't know about all the politics or religious views on 9/11, but I do know that the laws of physics state that explosives were used to bring the tower down, NOT MAYBE, but in fact were used and there is no debating that issue at least on a scientific level, because of the speed of the fall of the buildings alone. It defies the most basic law of physics to suggest that the towers could descend and hit the ground as fast as objects fall through air.
Free fall means objects that fall WITHOUT OBSTRUCTION, and the fact is the WTC buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed, (as fast as objects fall through the air, un-obstructed)
So even if one were going to try and sell the pancake theory they would not be successful due to the fact that the buildings fell at virtual free-fall speed. This is not only obvious, but it's an insult to people's intelligence when people try to suggest otherwise.
The only legitimate question one needs to ask is why people are so persistent at trying to prove an impossible theory? It seems that there must some underlying motive, but if we stick with the laws of science and physics then one must conclude the buildings collapsed via control demolition, NOT MAYBE, but they had, otherwise it would be impossible.
Is this a physics discussion board or a political place where people try to sell impossible make believe stories about pancake theories that defy logic and common sense
Debbie77,
If you feel the WTC fall-times are too brief for a gravity-driven collapse, and you feel the need for an explanation beyond just gravity for the brief fall-times, note that explosives are not your only option. Incendiaries could have been used to heat-weaken the towers beyond just the impact floors. In other words, incendiaries could have been used not only for collapse initiation, but also for collapse progression.
High explosives create loud noises, bright flashes, strong smells, complex residues that are detectable and traceable.
Furthermore, had high explosives been used - even a smidge - that would be at direct odds with NIST's claim that NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition from high explosives.
Just for that reason alone, I simply cannot imagine that high explosives were used.
In contrast, note that NIST did not make such a definitive statement ruling out controlled-demolition using thermite to heat-weaken the towers. On the contrary, NIST only commits to saying that thermite was "an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition." Well that's a plausible-deniability opening big enough to drive a truck through. Thermite could have been used to heat-weaken the towers, and yet NIST cannot be accused of having covered that up.
Debbie77, forget explosives.
Think heat-weakening.
(You too Arthur and David.)
Max
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 5 2008, 02:28 PM)
Good joke, Max Photon!
Yes, but don't you think it is beginning to pall?
Yes, but don't you think it is beginning to pall?
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 5 2008, 09:34 PM)
Yes, but don't you think it is beginning to pall?
It IS a-pall-ing, DBB; I grant you that.
It would be even funnier if it wasn't for the joke being at the expense of 9/11 victims and their family/friends. Otherwise the Max Photon 'joke' would be even 'funnier' than it is.
.
It IS a-pall-ing, DBB; I grant you that.
It would be even funnier if it wasn't for the joke being at the expense of 9/11 victims and their family/friends. Otherwise the Max Photon 'joke' would be even 'funnier' than it is.
.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 02:31 PM)
If you feel the WTC fall-times are too brief for a gravity-driven collapse, ...
On the contrary, NIST only commits to saying that thermite was "an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."
I do hope that Debbie77 knows more physics than that! What are you proposing now, rocket engines on the tops of the towers to drive them down faster than free fall? Even free fall is only possible if all resistance to the force of gravity is simultaneously removed in all portions of the tower below the top section. Go read a decent high school physics book and then come back.
Where did NIST say this? I've never seen it.
On the contrary, NIST only commits to saying that thermite was "an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."
I do hope that Debbie77 knows more physics than that! What are you proposing now, rocket engines on the tops of the towers to drive them down faster than free fall? Even free fall is only possible if all resistance to the force of gravity is simultaneously removed in all portions of the tower below the top section. Go read a decent high school physics book and then come back.
Where did NIST say this? I've never seen it.
einsteen --- If you are interested, there is (at least) one remaining puzzle regarding World Trade Center: the destruction of the buildings on the east side. Clearly exterior wall columns, maybe even whole panels, repeatedly struck those buildings. Yet the visual evidence does not plainly offer up the idea that the east wall(s) fell over intact; it is simply a mess.
So how far would those columns have to be 'thrown'? I'm just trying to narrow the likely causes for that damage.
So how far would those columns have to be 'thrown'? I'm just trying to narrow the likely causes for that damage.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 5 2008, 09:47 PM)
I do hope that Debbie77 knows more physics than that! What are you proposing now, rocket engines on the tops of the towers to drive them down faster than free fall? Even free fall is only possible if all resistance to the force of gravity is simultaneously removed in all portions of the tower below the top section. Go read a decent high school physics book and then come back.
David, I did not say collapse was faster than free fall. That would be stupid.
Debbie77 believes the WTCs fell faster than expected.
All I did was suggest that if she thinks demolition accounts for what she believes to be fall times that are too short to be simply gravity-driven, that she should consider heat-weakening also (and not just explosives).
Please don't ascribe your confusion to me.
NIST FAQ 12:
"This makes [thermite] an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."
Max
David, I did not say collapse was faster than free fall. That would be stupid.
Debbie77 believes the WTCs fell faster than expected.
All I did was suggest that if she thinks demolition accounts for what she believes to be fall times that are too short to be simply gravity-driven, that she should consider heat-weakening also (and not just explosives).
Please don't ascribe your confusion to me.
QUOTE
Where did NIST say this? I've never seen it.
NIST FAQ 12:
"This makes [thermite] an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition."
Max
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 4 2008, 06:47 PM)
Uneven heating of such an assembly would make it bow like a bi-metallic strip even without axial loading.
It would be of interest to see some quantitative estimates of this effect.
I've never been very happy with NIST's 'pull-in force' giving rise to the bowing-in of the south wall of WTC 1. First, the simulations do not look that much like the reality. Second, the load on the south wall was not excessive, assuming normal temperatures (and maybe even assuming somewhat elevated temperatures).
So you may well have discovered a means by which the bowing-in could be initiated. (After there is some, of course, the wall progressively weakens and bows still further.)
It would be of interest to see some quantitative estimates of this effect.
I've never been very happy with NIST's 'pull-in force' giving rise to the bowing-in of the south wall of WTC 1. First, the simulations do not look that much like the reality. Second, the load on the south wall was not excessive, assuming normal temperatures (and maybe even assuming somewhat elevated temperatures).
So you may well have discovered a means by which the bowing-in could be initiated. (After there is some, of course, the wall progressively weakens and bows still further.)
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 04:00 PM)
David, I did not say collapse was faster than free fall.
That would be stupid.
... fall times that are too short to be simply gravity-driven, ...
NIST FAQ 12:
Go back and look at what you wrote. I didn't change it.
It was indeed stupid.
And you just did it again.
Thanks for the reference to the NIST FAQ. I haven't bothered to read that.
That would be stupid.
... fall times that are too short to be simply gravity-driven, ...
NIST FAQ 12:
Go back and look at what you wrote. I didn't change it.
It was indeed stupid.
And you just did it again.
Thanks for the reference to the NIST FAQ. I haven't bothered to read that.
When we're done talking about thermite-induced CD, can we get back to my Invisible Godzilla theory?
I think it's at least as plausible, and I'd like to ask Max if he's ever considered it.
I think it's at least as plausible, and I'd like to ask Max if he's ever considered it.
David:
All I can add at the moment is this simplistic analysis:
The thermal expansion of a 10 meter perimeter column is given by:
Delta(L) = Lo x alpha x Delta(T)
where Delta(L) is the increase in length of the column
Lo is the original length of the column
Alpha is the coeff of therm expansion of structural steel = 10^-5 per deg C
Delta(T) is the temperature increase
So for columns heated by 500 deg C,
we have an increase in length of 10 x 10^-5 x 500 = 0.05 m = 5 cm.
This expansion stores compressive energy in one wall (the east wall) of perimeter columns near the 81st floor. This is given by:
Stored Energy = M g h
where M is the mass supported by the perimeter columns and h is the vertical displacement due to thermal expansion.
Now for WTC 2 , the mass above the 81st floor was ~ 1 x 10^8 kg, and about 50 % of this was supported by the perimeter columns so at equilibrium with bowing allowing about 1/2 Mgh to be stored in the columns we have:
Stored E = 0.5 x 0.5 x 10^8 x 9.8 x 0.05 ~ 12 MJ
Now the perimeter columns at the 80th floor were about 100 kg of steel per meter length. Hence, for the east wall, we have 60 columns x 10 meters x 100 kg/m = 60 tonnes of structural steel storing 12 MJ of elastic strain energy or 12 x 10^6/60,000 kg = 200 J/kg.
HOWEVER, the elastic strain energy capacity of structural steel is only about 50 J/kg.
Hence the steel fails!
All I can add at the moment is this simplistic analysis:
The thermal expansion of a 10 meter perimeter column is given by:
Delta(L) = Lo x alpha x Delta(T)
where Delta(L) is the increase in length of the column
Lo is the original length of the column
Alpha is the coeff of therm expansion of structural steel = 10^-5 per deg C
Delta(T) is the temperature increase
So for columns heated by 500 deg C,
we have an increase in length of 10 x 10^-5 x 500 = 0.05 m = 5 cm.
This expansion stores compressive energy in one wall (the east wall) of perimeter columns near the 81st floor. This is given by:
Stored Energy = M g h
where M is the mass supported by the perimeter columns and h is the vertical displacement due to thermal expansion.
Now for WTC 2 , the mass above the 81st floor was ~ 1 x 10^8 kg, and about 50 % of this was supported by the perimeter columns so at equilibrium with bowing allowing about 1/2 Mgh to be stored in the columns we have:
Stored E = 0.5 x 0.5 x 10^8 x 9.8 x 0.05 ~ 12 MJ
Now the perimeter columns at the 80th floor were about 100 kg of steel per meter length. Hence, for the east wall, we have 60 columns x 10 meters x 100 kg/m = 60 tonnes of structural steel storing 12 MJ of elastic strain energy or 12 x 10^6/60,000 kg = 200 J/kg.
HOWEVER, the elastic strain energy capacity of structural steel is only about 50 J/kg.
Hence the steel fails!
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 5 2008, 11:11 PM)
Go back and look at what you wrote. I didn't change it.
It was indeed stupid.
And you just did it again.
Thanks for the reference to the NIST FAQ. I haven't bothered to read that.
Yes David, now I understand how you are reading it, and yes from that perspective it is stupid, but as you said this medium has low bandwidth, and - although my wording was not great - surely you can fight your way out of that wet paper bag of confusion using context and author's intent.
Here's a thought: why not use some of that energy productively?
Consider looking for merit in what I am saying, rather than engineering problems.
Max
It was indeed stupid.
And you just did it again.
Thanks for the reference to the NIST FAQ. I haven't bothered to read that.
Yes David, now I understand how you are reading it, and yes from that perspective it is stupid, but as you said this medium has low bandwidth, and - although my wording was not great - surely you can fight your way out of that wet paper bag of confusion using context and author's intent.
Here's a thought: why not use some of that energy productively?
Consider looking for merit in what I am saying, rather than engineering problems.
Max
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 6 2008, 01:35 AM)
David:
All I can add at the moment is this simplistic analysis:
The thermal expansion of a 10 meter perimeter column is given by:
Delta(L) = Lo x alpha x Delta(T)
where Delta(L) is the increase in length of the column
Lo is the original length of the column
Alpha is the coeff of therm expansion of structural steel = 10^-5 per deg C
Delta(T) is the temperature increase
So for columns heated by 500 deg C,
we have an increase in length of 10 x 10^-5 x 500 = 0.05 m = 5 cm.
This expansion stores compressive energy in one wall (the east wall) of perimeter columns near the 81st floor. This is given by:
Stored Energy = M g h
where M is the mass supported by the perimeter columns and h is the vertical displacement due to thermal expansion.
Now for WTC 2 , the mass above the 81st floor was ~ 1 x 10^8 kg, and about 50 % of this was supported by the perimeter columns so at equilibrium with bowing allowing about 1/2 Mgh to be stored in the columns we have:
Stored E = 0.5 x 0.5 x 10^8 x 9.8 x 0.05 ~ 12 MJ
Now the perimeter columns at the 80th floor were about 100 kg of steel per meter length. Hence, for the east wall, we have 60 columns x 10 meters x 100 kg/m = 60 tonnes of structural steel storing 12 MJ of elastic strain energy or 12 x 10^6/60,000 kg = 200 J/kg.
HOWEVER, the elastic strain energy capacity of structural steel is only about 50 J/kg.
Hence the steel fails!
Neu-Fonze,
I assume 5cm would be for an entire length of column - spanning four floors - being heated to 500C, not just a section.
Also, would redistribution of loads via the hat truss - or even resistance from the hat truss - affect your calculations?
Max
All I can add at the moment is this simplistic analysis:
The thermal expansion of a 10 meter perimeter column is given by:
Delta(L) = Lo x alpha x Delta(T)
where Delta(L) is the increase in length of the column
Lo is the original length of the column
Alpha is the coeff of therm expansion of structural steel = 10^-5 per deg C
Delta(T) is the temperature increase
So for columns heated by 500 deg C,
we have an increase in length of 10 x 10^-5 x 500 = 0.05 m = 5 cm.
This expansion stores compressive energy in one wall (the east wall) of perimeter columns near the 81st floor. This is given by:
Stored Energy = M g h
where M is the mass supported by the perimeter columns and h is the vertical displacement due to thermal expansion.
Now for WTC 2 , the mass above the 81st floor was ~ 1 x 10^8 kg, and about 50 % of this was supported by the perimeter columns so at equilibrium with bowing allowing about 1/2 Mgh to be stored in the columns we have:
Stored E = 0.5 x 0.5 x 10^8 x 9.8 x 0.05 ~ 12 MJ
Now the perimeter columns at the 80th floor were about 100 kg of steel per meter length. Hence, for the east wall, we have 60 columns x 10 meters x 100 kg/m = 60 tonnes of structural steel storing 12 MJ of elastic strain energy or 12 x 10^6/60,000 kg = 200 J/kg.
HOWEVER, the elastic strain energy capacity of structural steel is only about 50 J/kg.
Hence the steel fails!
Neu-Fonze,
I assume 5cm would be for an entire length of column - spanning four floors - being heated to 500C, not just a section.
Also, would redistribution of loads via the hat truss - or even resistance from the hat truss - affect your calculations?
Max
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 5 2008, 11:07 PM)
It would be of interest to see some quantitative estimates of this effect.
I've never been very happy with NIST's 'pull-in force' giving rise to the bowing-in of the south wall of WTC 1. First, the simulations do not look that much like the reality. Second, the load on the south wall was not excessive, assuming normal temperatures (and maybe even assuming somewhat elevated temperatures).
So you may well have discovered a means by which the bowing-in could be initiated. (After there is some, of course, the wall progressively weakens and bows still further.)
Wow, you're casual.
NIST's entire model is based on perimeter columns bowing inward and failing.
Millions of engineers looked at trillions of photos and ran bazillions of computer simulations, yet no one thought that columns would lose insulation from and get heated from the inside of the building, creating differential column heating, and bowing?
Yet you bandy this circus about as the scientific end-all, confident to 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that NIST missed nothing...(except that).
Too funny.
Well, at least there is zero chance that NIST missed that incendiaries are what heated the columns to 500 C to make our little thermostats.
Right?
Max
I've never been very happy with NIST's 'pull-in force' giving rise to the bowing-in of the south wall of WTC 1. First, the simulations do not look that much like the reality. Second, the load on the south wall was not excessive, assuming normal temperatures (and maybe even assuming somewhat elevated temperatures).
So you may well have discovered a means by which the bowing-in could be initiated. (After there is some, of course, the wall progressively weakens and bows still further.)
Wow, you're casual.
NIST's entire model is based on perimeter columns bowing inward and failing.
Millions of engineers looked at trillions of photos and ran bazillions of computer simulations, yet no one thought that columns would lose insulation from and get heated from the inside of the building, creating differential column heating, and bowing?
Yet you bandy this circus about as the scientific end-all, confident to 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 that NIST missed nothing...(except that).
Too funny.
Well, at least there is zero chance that NIST missed that incendiaries are what heated the columns to 500 C to make our little thermostats.
Right?
Max
post deleted
Max:
Yes, of course, my "back of the envelope" calculation depends on how those east wall perimeter columns were restrained.
I was just trying to estimate the magnitude of the thermal expansion and the forces it would induce......
Yes, of course, my "back of the envelope" calculation depends on how those east wall perimeter columns were restrained.
I was just trying to estimate the magnitude of the thermal expansion and the forces it would induce......
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 6 2008, 01:35 AM)
David:
All I can add at the moment is this simplistic analysis:
The thermal expansion of a 10 meter perimeter column is given by:
Delta(L) = Lo x alpha x Delta(T)
where Delta(L) is the increase in length of the column
Lo is the original length of the column
Alpha is the coeff of therm expansion of structural steel = 10^-5 per deg C
Delta(T) is the temperature increase
So for columns heated by 500 deg C,
we have an increase in length of 10 x 10^-5 x 500 = 0.05 m = 5 cm.
This expansion stores compressive energy in one wall (the east wall) of perimeter columns near the 81st floor. This is given by:
Stored Energy = M g h
where M is the mass supported by the perimeter columns and h is the vertical displacement due to thermal expansion.
Now for WTC 2 , the mass above the 81st floor was ~ 1 x 10^8 kg, and about 50 % of this was supported by the perimeter columns so at equilibrium with bowing allowing about 1/2 Mgh to be stored in the columns we have:
Stored E = 0.5 x 0.5 x 10^8 x 9.8 x 0.05 ~ 12 MJ
Now the perimeter columns at the 80th floor were about 100 kg of steel per meter length. Hence, for the east wall, we have 60 columns x 10 meters x 100 kg/m = 60 tonnes of structural steel storing 12 MJ of elastic strain energy or 12 x 10^6/60,000 kg = 200 J/kg.
HOWEVER, the elastic strain energy capacity of structural steel is only about 50 J/kg.
Hence the steel fails!
This is an intriguing post, and one that I suggest that you pursue. Perhaps Dr. Bazant would care to help? Frankly, it reminds of of Richard Feynman's dunking of O-rings in ice water. His demonstration was simple, to the point, and he seemed to have out-witted all of NASA.
Your calculation strikes me as more plausible than NIST's mysterious pull-in force. That always struck me as ludicrous, but I don't talk much about it because I know so little about FEA's.
Of course, somebody would eventually have to do sophisticated fire modeling to show how asymmetrical a floor's column temperatures could be.
If fire models don't support a non-CD hypothesis, we may have to seriously consider MMAX-MIHOP. This is, of course, Modified Max-MIHOP, wherein heat weakening is applied to the inside of a perimeter wall just along a story's worth of columns. This certainly seems easier to pull off than sticking thermite in bolt-holes throughout the building.
All I can add at the moment is this simplistic analysis:
The thermal expansion of a 10 meter perimeter column is given by:
Delta(L) = Lo x alpha x Delta(T)
where Delta(L) is the increase in length of the column
Lo is the original length of the column
Alpha is the coeff of therm expansion of structural steel = 10^-5 per deg C
Delta(T) is the temperature increase
So for columns heated by 500 deg C,
we have an increase in length of 10 x 10^-5 x 500 = 0.05 m = 5 cm.
This expansion stores compressive energy in one wall (the east wall) of perimeter columns near the 81st floor. This is given by:
Stored Energy = M g h
where M is the mass supported by the perimeter columns and h is the vertical displacement due to thermal expansion.
Now for WTC 2 , the mass above the 81st floor was ~ 1 x 10^8 kg, and about 50 % of this was supported by the perimeter columns so at equilibrium with bowing allowing about 1/2 Mgh to be stored in the columns we have:
Stored E = 0.5 x 0.5 x 10^8 x 9.8 x 0.05 ~ 12 MJ
Now the perimeter columns at the 80th floor were about 100 kg of steel per meter length. Hence, for the east wall, we have 60 columns x 10 meters x 100 kg/m = 60 tonnes of structural steel storing 12 MJ of elastic strain energy or 12 x 10^6/60,000 kg = 200 J/kg.
HOWEVER, the elastic strain energy capacity of structural steel is only about 50 J/kg.
Hence the steel fails!
This is an intriguing post, and one that I suggest that you pursue. Perhaps Dr. Bazant would care to help? Frankly, it reminds of of Richard Feynman's dunking of O-rings in ice water. His demonstration was simple, to the point, and he seemed to have out-witted all of NASA.
Your calculation strikes me as more plausible than NIST's mysterious pull-in force. That always struck me as ludicrous, but I don't talk much about it because I know so little about FEA's.
Of course, somebody would eventually have to do sophisticated fire modeling to show how asymmetrical a floor's column temperatures could be.
If fire models don't support a non-CD hypothesis, we may have to seriously consider MMAX-MIHOP. This is, of course, Modified Max-MIHOP, wherein heat weakening is applied to the inside of a perimeter wall just along a story's worth of columns. This certainly seems easier to pull off than sticking thermite in bolt-holes throughout the building.
Metamars,
For a while now I have been arguing that the heat-weakening was limited to impact floors, and that once the towers got moving, gravity did the rest.
Modified MAX-MIHOP would be that heat-weakening took place beyond just the impact zone.
Perhaps clearer nomenclature would be:
MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse.
Modified MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse, and thermite heat-weakened the towers - beyond impact floors - to expedite collapse progression.
Max (sans modifiers)
For a while now I have been arguing that the heat-weakening was limited to impact floors, and that once the towers got moving, gravity did the rest.
Modified MAX-MIHOP would be that heat-weakening took place beyond just the impact zone.
Perhaps clearer nomenclature would be:
MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse.
Modified MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse, and thermite heat-weakened the towers - beyond impact floors - to expedite collapse progression.
Max (sans modifiers)
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 6 2008, 11:19 AM)
Max:
Yes, of course, my "back of the envelope" calculation depends on how those east wall perimeter columns were restrained.
I was just trying to estimate the magnitude of the thermal expansion and the forces it would induce......
Understood.
(Sorry about that. My post - between stating the obvious and a poorly worded question - didn't leave you a whole lot to work with there.)
By the way, I think the hat truss would only amplify your main point.
Yes, of course, my "back of the envelope" calculation depends on how those east wall perimeter columns were restrained.
I was just trying to estimate the magnitude of the thermal expansion and the forces it would induce......
Understood.
(Sorry about that. My post - between stating the obvious and a poorly worded question - didn't leave you a whole lot to work with there.)
By the way, I think the hat truss would only amplify your main point.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 09:27 PM)
Neu-Fonze,
I assume 5cm would be for an entire length of column - spanning four floors - being heated to 500C, not just a section.
Also, would redistribution of loads via the hat truss - or even resistance from the hat truss - affect your calculations?
Max
Neu, AFAIK, has not claimed that his calculations equal the conditions in the towers.
Max Photon.
Can you point all here to where you have honestly answered the questions/challenges I already put to you, your logic and your claims yet?
No?
OK now......
Let's try a little experiment regarding your honesty and integrity, shall we?
I will AGAIN put to you those questions/challenges ONE at a time, so as not to give you any excuse for not getting it.
FIRST question:
Can your "thermite-assisted arson demolition" speculations explain why the tower hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse in YOUR "scenario"?
We are all waiting for your honest answer.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Can your "thermite-assisted arson demolition" speculations explain why the tower hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse in YOUR "scenario"?
Certainly, though I don't find it a particularly interesting question.
First, the initial conditions were different.
Second, the boundary conditions were different.
Third, the heat-weakening work differed in each tower.
Fourth, although WTCs 1 & 2's collapse initiation mechanisms had similarities, they also had significant differences. (My collapse initiation mechanisms are easy to understand. They are the same as NIST's!)
The heat-weakening process for each tower proceeded until each tower simply collapsed. There is no reason to expect the trajectories to be identical.
That 2 fell before 1 is simply an artifact of all of the above.
Max
I assume 5cm would be for an entire length of column - spanning four floors - being heated to 500C, not just a section.
Also, would redistribution of loads via the hat truss - or even resistance from the hat truss - affect your calculations?
Max
Neu, AFAIK, has not claimed that his calculations equal the conditions in the towers.
QUOTE (Neu+)
my "back of the envelope" calculation depends on how those east wall perimeter columns were restrained.
I was just trying to estimate the magnitude of the thermal expansion and the forces it would induce......
Neu assumed in his calculations that all the 10 meter perimeter columns were heated to 500C over their entire length over multiple floors.
Of course these conditions never happened (in either tower).
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 starting at Section 6-10 for a graphic display of column temps over time based on NIST's simulations in WTC 1 and 6-12 for WTC-2.
David, as to NIST's WTC 1 not looking like reality, please see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Fig E9.
Arthur
I was just trying to estimate the magnitude of the thermal expansion and the forces it would induce......
Neu assumed in his calculations that all the 10 meter perimeter columns were heated to 500C over their entire length over multiple floors.
Of course these conditions never happened (in either tower).
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 starting at Section 6-10 for a graphic display of column temps over time based on NIST's simulations in WTC 1 and 6-12 for WTC-2.
David, as to NIST's WTC 1 not looking like reality, please see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Fig E9.
Arthur
Max Photon
Are you ever going to provide any evidence to support you lunatic speculations???
Character is something to have, not something to be.
Grumpy
Are you ever going to provide any evidence to support you lunatic speculations???
Character is something to have, not something to be.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jan 6 2008, 11:21 AM)
Max Photon
Are you ever going to provide any evidence to support you lunatic speculations???
Character is something to have, not something to be.
Grumpy
Max has a long posting history over at JREF.
That's the exact same complaint they made about him over there.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...458#post2768458
Seems Max is All Talk, No Evidence.
Arthur
Are you ever going to provide any evidence to support you lunatic speculations???
Character is something to have, not something to be.
Grumpy
Max has a long posting history over at JREF.
That's the exact same complaint they made about him over there.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?pos...458#post2768458
Seems Max is All Talk, No Evidence.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 5 2008, 10:24 PM)
einsteen --- If you are interested, there is (at least) one remaining puzzle regarding World Trade Center: the destruction of the buildings on the east side. Clearly exterior wall columns, maybe even whole panels, repeatedly struck those buildings. Yet the visual evidence does not plainly offer up the idea that the east wall(s) fell over intact; it is simply a mess.
So how far would those columns have to be 'thrown'? I'm just trying to narrow the likely causes for that damage.
Hello DBB,
you mean those big ## I guess. I think there is so much more to look at after collapse started. In the vid I rently posted I saw some rows of squibs that absolutely didn't look like they were seperated the distance of a story, further I'm wondering what caused these squibs in the very beginning of the collapse because the top section was toppling and the floors didn't hit precisely, I guess it is ejected concrete.
So how far would those columns have to be 'thrown'? I'm just trying to narrow the likely causes for that damage.
Hello DBB,
you mean those big ## I guess. I think there is so much more to look at after collapse started. In the vid I rently posted I saw some rows of squibs that absolutely didn't look like they were seperated the distance of a story, further I'm wondering what caused these squibs in the very beginning of the collapse because the top section was toppling and the floors didn't hit precisely, I guess it is ejected concrete.
Arthur, David, Grumpy, RealityCheck,
You can insult me;
you can ridicule me;
you can summon every version of you're no scientist;
you can evade my questions (boy can you evade my questions);
you can bait me for calculations;
you can bait me for evidence;
none of your behavior matters to me whatsoever (and it only reflects negatively on you).
I am confident that I currently have the best controlled-demolition model to date, regardless of how rough the sketch.
I am perfectly satisfied with the progress of my humble one-man efforts.
I care little whether I am right or wrong; what matters is if my work triggers productive lines of thinking in others.
Castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually.
Max
You can insult me;
you can ridicule me;
you can summon every version of you're no scientist;
you can evade my questions (boy can you evade my questions);
you can bait me for calculations;
you can bait me for evidence;
none of your behavior matters to me whatsoever (and it only reflects negatively on you).
I am confident that I currently have the best controlled-demolition model to date, regardless of how rough the sketch.
I am perfectly satisfied with the progress of my humble one-man efforts.
I care little whether I am right or wrong; what matters is if my work triggers productive lines of thinking in others.
Castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually.
Max
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 6 2008, 03:57 PM)
Neu assumed in his calculations that all the 10 meter perimeter columns were heated to 500C over their entire length over multiple floors.
Of course these conditions never happened (in either tower).
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 starting at Section 6-10 for a graphic display of column temps over time based on NIST's simulations in WTC 1 and 6-12 for WTC-2.
What, like NIST's simulation of column temperatures equals what happened in the towers?
You are imprisoned by the tyranny of the model.
Max
Of course these conditions never happened (in either tower).
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 starting at Section 6-10 for a graphic display of column temps over time based on NIST's simulations in WTC 1 and 6-12 for WTC-2.
What, like NIST's simulation of column temperatures equals what happened in the towers?
You are imprisoned by the tyranny of the model.
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 6 2008, 02:10 PM)
What, like NIST's simulation of column temperatures equals what happened in the towers?
You are imprisoned by the tyranny of the model.
Max
No Max, I'm not.
The models are simply tools to help visualize what could not be directly measured.
There are multiple NIST models and I compared the MORE SEVERE NIST model to see an approximate number of columns that were heated and on how many floors at one time.
And then I allowed for NIST to have underestimated the heating even in their more severe senario.
Then I looked at the facade maps because NIST's simulation is also backed up by OBSERVATION and both the impact modeling and the observations show that there was not sufficient damage on the East side to remove insulation across three whole floors (remember the plane hit at a downward angle so the lower impact floors on the SE quadrant of the tower were essentially untouched by debris and fire) and it was pretty clear that there were no simultaneous fires on the East side that spanned 3 whole floors long enough to heat all the columns across 3 floors to 500C at the same time.
But Nue did not say that his calculations were meant to reflect specifically what was going on in the towers at a specific time.
Nue gave the ASSUMPTIONS that he used to do the calculation with.
I simply pointed out that the assumptions he used did not match reality.
This is not surprising because often when doing 'back of the envelope' calculations one makes simplifing assumptions (such as using whole column lengths, whole floors involved etc).
Now, that said, even with his simplifing assumptions the calculations do indicte that any specific column heated over its entire length to 500C would experience the amount of expansion and ~ the forces that Nue worked out and there were some columns in the NE quadrant of WTC 2 that probably came close to Neu's assumptions (if not greater).
Arthur
You are imprisoned by the tyranny of the model.
Max
No Max, I'm not.
The models are simply tools to help visualize what could not be directly measured.
There are multiple NIST models and I compared the MORE SEVERE NIST model to see an approximate number of columns that were heated and on how many floors at one time.
And then I allowed for NIST to have underestimated the heating even in their more severe senario.
Then I looked at the facade maps because NIST's simulation is also backed up by OBSERVATION and both the impact modeling and the observations show that there was not sufficient damage on the East side to remove insulation across three whole floors (remember the plane hit at a downward angle so the lower impact floors on the SE quadrant of the tower were essentially untouched by debris and fire) and it was pretty clear that there were no simultaneous fires on the East side that spanned 3 whole floors long enough to heat all the columns across 3 floors to 500C at the same time.
But Nue did not say that his calculations were meant to reflect specifically what was going on in the towers at a specific time.
Nue gave the ASSUMPTIONS that he used to do the calculation with.
I simply pointed out that the assumptions he used did not match reality.
This is not surprising because often when doing 'back of the envelope' calculations one makes simplifing assumptions (such as using whole column lengths, whole floors involved etc).
Now, that said, even with his simplifing assumptions the calculations do indicte that any specific column heated over its entire length to 500C would experience the amount of expansion and ~ the forces that Nue worked out and there were some columns in the NE quadrant of WTC 2 that probably came close to Neu's assumptions (if not greater).
Arthur
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 6 2008, 02:01 PM)
I am perfectly satisfied with the progress of my humble one-man efforts.
As am I.
Arthur
As am I.
Arthur
Max Photon
I am confident that I currently have the best controlled-demolition model to date, regardless of how rough the sketch.
Yeah, like the guy who makes the best steam car in the world, nobody's buying it.
Grumpy
QUOTE
I am confident that I currently have the best controlled-demolition model to date, regardless of how rough the sketch.
Yeah, like the guy who makes the best steam car in the world, nobody's buying it.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 07:19 PM)
... author's intent.
Consider looking for merit in what I am saying, ...
It appears to me that your intent is to confuse and mislead.
I have already. Then is no merit. Previously I posted the many problems with your hypothesis. You have not addressed any of them (except for a few where you say you don't know). Inadequate.
Consider looking for merit in what I am saying, ...
It appears to me that your intent is to confuse and mislead.
I have already. Then is no merit. Previously I posted the many problems with your hypothesis. You have not addressed any of them (except for a few where you say you don't know). Inadequate.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 6 2008, 07:01 PM)
Arthur, David, Grumpy, RealityCheck,
You can insult me;
you can ridicule me;
you can summon every version of you're no scientist;
you can evade my questions (boy can you evade my questions);
you can bait me for calculations;
you can bait me for evidence;
none of your behavior matters to me whatsoever (and it only reflects negatively on you).
I am confident that I currently have the best controlled-demolition model to date, regardless of how rough the sketch.
I am perfectly satisfied with the progress of my humble one-man efforts.
I care little whether I am right or wrong; what matters is if my work triggers productive lines of thinking in others.
Castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually.
Max
Max Photon.
Can you point all here to where you have honestly answered the questions/challenges I already put to you, your logic and your claims yet?
No?
OK now......
Let's try a little experiment regarding your honesty and integrity, shall we?
I will AGAIN put to you those questions/challenges ONE at a time, so as not to give you any excuse for not getting it.
FIRST question:
Can your "thermite-assisted arson demolition" speculations explain why the tower hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse in YOUR "scenario"?
We are all waiting for your honest answer.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
You can insult me;
you can ridicule me;
you can summon every version of you're no scientist;
you can evade my questions (boy can you evade my questions);
you can bait me for calculations;
you can bait me for evidence;
none of your behavior matters to me whatsoever (and it only reflects negatively on you).
I am confident that I currently have the best controlled-demolition model to date, regardless of how rough the sketch.
I am perfectly satisfied with the progress of my humble one-man efforts.
I care little whether I am right or wrong; what matters is if my work triggers productive lines of thinking in others.
Castles made of sand melt into the sea, eventually.
Max
Max Photon.
Can you point all here to where you have honestly answered the questions/challenges I already put to you, your logic and your claims yet?
No?
OK now......
Let's try a little experiment regarding your honesty and integrity, shall we?
I will AGAIN put to you those questions/challenges ONE at a time, so as not to give you any excuse for not getting it.
FIRST question:
Can your "thermite-assisted arson demolition" speculations explain why the tower hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse in YOUR "scenario"?
We are all waiting for your honest answer.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 6 2008, 08:57 AM)
David, as to NIST's WTC 1 not looking like reality, please see NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Fig E9.
Thanks, but better is to compare Figure 5--6 with Figure 5--7 in NCSTAR1--6A (pages 317--318, 381--382 ordinal).
There you will observe that the fit is only qualitative: the modeled bowing is symmetric about the center while in reality it was concentrated towards the east side of the south wall; in reality the bowing extended over more floors than in the model.
Thanks, but better is to compare Figure 5--6 with Figure 5--7 in NCSTAR1--6A (pages 317--318, 381--382 ordinal).
There you will observe that the fit is only qualitative: the modeled bowing is symmetric about the center while in reality it was concentrated towards the east side of the south wall; in reality the bowing extended over more floors than in the model.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 6 2008, 08:57 AM)
See NIST NCSTAR 1-5 starting at Section 6-10 for a graphic display of column temps over time based on NIST's simulations in WTC 1 ...
These are interesting to compare to the actual location of the bowing on the south wall. The firs simulation heats the south wall only in the central portion, where the previous aircraft impact simulation removed insulation.
It seems to me that this damage might have been greater towards the east. In any case, these simulations do not allow for as extensive a height nor as high a temperature as NEU-FONZE's first attempt. That does not matter, methinks. What does is that this effect might have contributed somewhat to the bowing, along with the semi0cantenary shape of heated trusses.
These are interesting to compare to the actual location of the bowing on the south wall. The firs simulation heats the south wall only in the central portion, where the previous aircraft impact simulation removed insulation.
It seems to me that this damage might have been greater towards the east. In any case, these simulations do not allow for as extensive a height nor as high a temperature as NEU-FONZE's first attempt. That does not matter, methinks. What does is that this effect might have contributed somewhat to the bowing, along with the semi0cantenary shape of heated trusses.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2008, 07:17 AM)
... NIST's mysterious pull-in force.
Heated trusses droop into a semi-catenary shape. Thus pull-in rather than just sit on the truss seats.
Heated trusses droop into a semi-catenary shape. Thus pull-in rather than just sit on the truss seats.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 07:43 PM)
... yet no one thought that columns would lose insulation from and get heated from the inside of the building, creating differential column heating, and bowing?
Who knows whether NIST (sponsored) engineers thought of it. They may have found the effect too small to be worth mentioning. However, the final FEA to simulate pull-in had all the thermal properties of steel in the model. Then case B heating patterns were applied along with a 5 kip pull-in force.
So the effect was contained in the modeling, assuming they modeled the SFRM insulation on the columns.
Who knows whether NIST (sponsored) engineers thought of it. They may have found the effect too small to be worth mentioning. However, the final FEA to simulate pull-in had all the thermal properties of steel in the model. Then case B heating patterns were applied along with a 5 kip pull-in force.
So the effect was contained in the modeling, assuming they modeled the SFRM insulation on the columns.
NEU-FONZE,
I am having trouble out of my email server, however here is something I thought you would want.
It is used by All banks on checks.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5356712.html
I am having trouble out of my email server, however here is something I thought you would want.
It is used by All banks on checks.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5356712.html
Chainsaw:
Are these particles spherical?
Anyway, let's add them to the list along with fly ash, wear particles, welding fume, cutting particles, iron powder cores, pyrotechnic agents..........
Arthur:
Tisk, tisk!
Found another error in the NIST REPORT!
See FIG E-4 in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-6.
Now check out FIG 5-13, page 135, of NCSTAR 1-6.
This just shows that NIST can't keep track of its alphabet soup / numerologies of cases / methodologies and buildings....
Now let me see ....., how could that be Case A for WTC 2?
And look at the orientation of the core of WTC 2 in FIG E-4 ........
More bad editing by NIST!
Are these particles spherical?
Anyway, let's add them to the list along with fly ash, wear particles, welding fume, cutting particles, iron powder cores, pyrotechnic agents..........
Arthur:
Tisk, tisk!
Found another error in the NIST REPORT!
See FIG E-4 in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-6.
Now check out FIG 5-13, page 135, of NCSTAR 1-6.
This just shows that NIST can't keep track of its alphabet soup / numerologies of cases / methodologies and buildings....
Now let me see ....., how could that be Case A for WTC 2?
And look at the orientation of the core of WTC 2 in FIG E-4 ........
More bad editing by NIST!
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 7 2008, 01:30 AM)
Chainsaw:
Are these particles spherical?
Anyway, let's add them to the list along with fly ash, wear particles, welding fume, cutting particles, iron powder cores, pyrotechnic agents..........
There is more about it on JERF, they are micro spheres with silicon, about 1-1.1,
I agree, also I have found they are used on checks by almost every bank and on bonds and negotiable document, also by he post office, and packaging.
I did not know where you would look first so I posted on both forums, I did not want to post to much here because I knew that DDB. and the rest would be working so I wanted to keep it short.
Here is the thread on JERF.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102912
I found out about them though my banker friend.
Are these particles spherical?
Anyway, let's add them to the list along with fly ash, wear particles, welding fume, cutting particles, iron powder cores, pyrotechnic agents..........
There is more about it on JERF, they are micro spheres with silicon, about 1-1.1,
I agree, also I have found they are used on checks by almost every bank and on bonds and negotiable document, also by he post office, and packaging.
I did not know where you would look first so I posted on both forums, I did not want to post to much here because I knew that DDB. and the rest would be working so I wanted to keep it short.
Here is the thread on JERF.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=102912
I found out about them though my banker friend.
magnetite transitions to maghetite (Fe3O4) upon sufficient temperature exposure. Maghetite is used in toner cartridges:
Toner Patent
Toner Patent
A preliminary analysis suggests that the thermal bending effect recently suggested by NEU-FONZE is of only small import in the bowing and then buckling of the south wall of WTC 1.
For: According to NIST's fire analysis, only the center portion of the south wall on a few floors was significantly heated. This heating of wall and trusses led to the trusses disconnecting in the central portion, transferring load onto trusses further to both the west and the east. The bowing-in was most obvious on the eastern portion of the south wall, where about half of the additional, asymmetric load was transfer ed. However, the south wall first actually buckled on the west side. Neither the east nor west sides had insulation removed nor were subject to highly elevated temperatures.
For WTC 1, it remains to consider the west wall, where the fire model suggests elevated temperatures along the wall and where bowing-in was observed (according to NIST).
For: According to NIST's fire analysis, only the center portion of the south wall on a few floors was significantly heated. This heating of wall and trusses led to the trusses disconnecting in the central portion, transferring load onto trusses further to both the west and the east. The bowing-in was most obvious on the eastern portion of the south wall, where about half of the additional, asymmetric load was transfer ed. However, the south wall first actually buckled on the west side. Neither the east nor west sides had insulation removed nor were subject to highly elevated temperatures.
For WTC 1, it remains to consider the west wall, where the fire model suggests elevated temperatures along the wall and where bowing-in was observed (according to NIST).
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 7 2008, 01:54 AM)
magnetite transitions to maghetite (Fe3O4) upon sufficient temperature exposure. Maghetite is used in toner cartridges:
Toner Patent
I think I am going crazy, everywhere I look I see micro-spheres.
They appear to be quite common.
Toner Patent
I think I am going crazy, everywhere I look I see micro-spheres.
They appear to be quite common.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Jan 6 2008, 07:08 PM)
... going crazy, ...
Just going?
Not gone already?
Take care.
Just going?
Not gone already?
Take care.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 6 2008, 03:00 PM)
Metamars,
For a while now I have been arguing that the heat-weakening was limited to impact floors, and that once the towers got moving, gravity did the rest.
Sorry about that. I stand corrected.
Modified MAX-MIHOP would be that heat-weakening took place beyond just the impact zone.
Perhaps clearer nomenclature would be:
MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse.
Modified MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse, and thermite heat-weakened the towers - beyond impact floors - to expedite collapse progression.
Max (sans modifiers)
What do you think of the notion of aluminotherics used in thermobarics? Say, for psychological impact? Doubtless you have heard of the accounts of extreme pulverization not only of the concrete, but of things like phones, filing cabinets, chairs,....
Or do you think that the level of pulverization is quite as expected?
Personally, I've never read of any other accounts like this. When you consider that London was blitzed in WW2, and the allies bombed German cities to smithereens, one would think that accounts of pulverized buildings would be ubiquitous, if such were the norm. Instead, one hears of buildings and cities "reduced to rubble". And that's wrt buildings whose collapses definitely were triggered by high explosives.
Something doesn't jive, here, and it may take a creative mind such as that of Max-Photon to come up with novel hypotheses!
For a while now I have been arguing that the heat-weakening was limited to impact floors, and that once the towers got moving, gravity did the rest.
Sorry about that. I stand corrected.
QUOTE
Modified MAX-MIHOP would be that heat-weakening took place beyond just the impact zone.
Perhaps clearer nomenclature would be:
MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse.
Modified MAX-MIHOP: Thermite heat-weakened the towers at impact floors to initiate collapse, and thermite heat-weakened the towers - beyond impact floors - to expedite collapse progression.
Max (sans modifiers)
What do you think of the notion of aluminotherics used in thermobarics? Say, for psychological impact? Doubtless you have heard of the accounts of extreme pulverization not only of the concrete, but of things like phones, filing cabinets, chairs,....
Or do you think that the level of pulverization is quite as expected?
Personally, I've never read of any other accounts like this. When you consider that London was blitzed in WW2, and the allies bombed German cities to smithereens, one would think that accounts of pulverized buildings would be ubiquitous, if such were the norm. Instead, one hears of buildings and cities "reduced to rubble". And that's wrt buildings whose collapses definitely were triggered by high explosives.
Something doesn't jive, here, and it may take a creative mind such as that of Max-Photon to come up with novel hypotheses!
QUOTE (metamars to Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 02:44 AM)
Sorry about that. I stand corrected.
What do you think of the notion of aluminotherics used in thermobarics? Say, for psychological impact? Doubtless you have heard of the accounts of extreme pulverization not only of the concrete, but of things like phones, filing cabinets, chairs,....
Or do you think that the level of pulverization is quite as expected?
Personally, I've never read of any other accounts like this. When you consider that London was blitzed in WW2, and the allies bombed German cities to smithereens, one would think that accounts of pulverized buildings would be ubiquitous, if such were the norm. Instead, one hears of buildings and cities "reduced to rubble". And that's wrt buildings whose collapses definitely were triggered by high explosives.
Something doesn't jive, here, and it may take a creative mind such as that of Max-Photon to come up with novel hypotheses!
How many buildings bombed in WW2 were a wickerwork of steel the acreage and height of WTC1/2?
How much of the buildings in WW2 fell and tumbled down such long distances to ground from TOP to BOTTOM through the macerating wickerwork/processes exhibiting during internal collapse of WTC1/2?
What did you miss about the fact that it was mostly plasterboard 'dust' in 9/11?
Have you been through a 'memory wiping' process or something? Or haven't you been reading while posting in all these 9/11 threads old and new?
And Max Photon can't even answer one pertinent question (see my recent posts to him)....and you call him "creative"? More like "weak", heh!
RC.
.
What do you think of the notion of aluminotherics used in thermobarics? Say, for psychological impact? Doubtless you have heard of the accounts of extreme pulverization not only of the concrete, but of things like phones, filing cabinets, chairs,....
Or do you think that the level of pulverization is quite as expected?
Personally, I've never read of any other accounts like this. When you consider that London was blitzed in WW2, and the allies bombed German cities to smithereens, one would think that accounts of pulverized buildings would be ubiquitous, if such were the norm. Instead, one hears of buildings and cities "reduced to rubble". And that's wrt buildings whose collapses definitely were triggered by high explosives.
Something doesn't jive, here, and it may take a creative mind such as that of Max-Photon to come up with novel hypotheses!
How many buildings bombed in WW2 were a wickerwork of steel the acreage and height of WTC1/2?
How much of the buildings in WW2 fell and tumbled down such long distances to ground from TOP to BOTTOM through the macerating wickerwork/processes exhibiting during internal collapse of WTC1/2?
What did you miss about the fact that it was mostly plasterboard 'dust' in 9/11?
Have you been through a 'memory wiping' process or something? Or haven't you been reading while posting in all these 9/11 threads old and new?
And Max Photon can't even answer one pertinent question (see my recent posts to him)....and you call him "creative"? More like "weak", heh!
RC.
.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 6 2008, 10:48 PM)
Heated trusses droop into a semi-catenary shape. Thus pull-in rather than just sit on the truss seats.
That one would resolve the forces due to sagging trusses at the seats with both horizontal and vertical components is to be expected.
However, even if we accept that the net horizontal forces are inwards, why should we accept NIST's quantitative valuation of these? Again, I know little re FEA's, but I'm under the impression that their quantization of it was ad hoc. Sure, they may have justified this as fitting observations, but I should think that if NIST can model a whole building, they should be able to model a drooping truss and have such a model tell them what the pull-in force should be.
Put another way, if they can't even do this, why should we accept anything else they say?
Does anybody recall typical values of ad-hoc pullin force vs. generated by the model pullin forces? I sure don't......
That one would resolve the forces due to sagging trusses at the seats with both horizontal and vertical components is to be expected.
However, even if we accept that the net horizontal forces are inwards, why should we accept NIST's quantitative valuation of these? Again, I know little re FEA's, but I'm under the impression that their quantization of it was ad hoc. Sure, they may have justified this as fitting observations, but I should think that if NIST can model a whole building, they should be able to model a drooping truss and have such a model tell them what the pull-in force should be.
Put another way, if they can't even do this, why should we accept anything else they say?
Does anybody recall typical values of ad-hoc pullin force vs. generated by the model pullin forces? I sure don't......
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 6 2008, 09:15 PM)
Max Photon.
Can you point all here to where you have honestly answered the questions/challenges I already put to you, your logic and your claims yet?
No?
OK now......
Let's try a little experiment regarding your honesty and integrity, shall we?
I will AGAIN put to you those questions/challenges ONE at a time, so as not to give you any excuse for not getting it.
FIRST question:
Can your "thermite-assisted arson demolition" speculations explain why the tower hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse in YOUR "scenario"?
We are all waiting for your honest answer.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Can your "thermite-assisted arson demolition" speculations explain why the tower hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse in YOUR "scenario"?
Certainly, though I don't find it a particularly interesting question.
First, the initial conditions were different.
Second, the boundary conditions were different.
Third, the heat-weakening work differed in each tower.
Fourth, although WTCs 1 & 2's collapse initiation mechanisms had similarities, they also had significant differences. (My collapse initiation mechanisms are easy to understand. They are the same as NIST's!)
The heat-weakening process for each tower proceeded until each tower simply collapsed. There is no reason to expect the trajectories to be identical.
That 2 fell before 1 is simply an artifact of all of the above.
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 6 2008, 03:00 PM)
Metamars,
For a while now I have been arguing that the heat-weakening was limited to impact floors, and that once the towers got moving, gravity did the rest.
I'm sure you'll find this interesting:
http://911blogger.com/node/13272
Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?
In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]
This relationship is unmistakable for WTC 1. Some investigators have pointed out that a number of floors failed simultaneously in this tower, in accordion-like fashion, before the rest of the building began to 'collapse'. These floors seem to match up almost exactly with the floors that were upgraded. See the film clip below, and the following Powerpoint sequence created by Gregory Urich.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...r_collapse.mpeg
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt
Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit.
We have also seen video of molten metal pouring from WTC 2 prior to its destruction. The relationship between fireproofing upgrades and the pouring metal is close but not exact, as the molten metal seen in videos appears to be coming from floors 80 and 81. Communication to the NIST team from Frank Lombardi of the Port Authority, in 2002, indicated that only floor 78 of the impact failure floors of WTC 2 had been upgraded. But NCSTAR 1-6A (table 4-2, p 45) lists floor 85 as an upgraded floor as well. Could it be that certain areas within floors 79 to 84 were upgraded also, and not reported because the floors were not fully upgraded?
For the north tower at least, it is difficult to accept that this relationship is yet another unbelievable coincidence related to 9/11. Certainly the upgrade work allowed for access to critical areas. But in considering this, a number of other, admittedly far-fetched questions come to mind. Why was the upgraded fireproofing measured to be twice the thickness specified?[2] Could incendiary or explosive materials have been embedded within the upgraded fireproofing? Could these “construction” activities have involved installing mechanisms to direct the planes to the specific areas in which they hit each building?
In any case, the demolition hypothesis should be considered more than just simple demolition. If the idea was to create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse, then a fiery presentation was needed, much more than the jet fuel/office furnishings would have been able to provide. It seems that thermate may have been used not only to weaken or cut the steel infrastructure throughout the buildings, but also to help create that fiery presentation near the floors of impact.
It seems possible that a thermate-like material, and/or other devices contributing to the destruction of the towers, could have been incorporated on the floors of impact and failure during the fireproofing upgrades. The access for such an operation would have been facilitated by the activity surrounding the fireproofing upgrades.
[1] NCSTAR 1-6A, page xxxvii, indicates which exact floors were upgraded. NCSTAR 1-6, page 20 repeats these claims, as noted in the figure above. Elsewhere in NCSTAR 1-6, on page lxxi, NIST muddies the water by saying “18 floors in WTC 1, including all the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fires" and “"13 floors in WTC 2, although none were directly affected by the aircraft impact and fires.". On this last part, NIST contradicts itself yet again in NCSTAR 1-6 (on page lxvii-lxix) by stating that some of the floors upgraded in WTC 2 were affected by the impacts and fires (notably floor 78). As with the contradictory amounts of jet fuel referenced throughout NIST’s report, these fireproofing upgrade statements appear to be another example of how detailed findings in the NIST team’s lower level reports were confused or made vague in higher-level reports.
[2] NCSTAR 1-6A (p xl) states “The overall average thickness determined from the 356 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in, with a standard deviation of 0.6 in.” The same report (p 44) says “Note that some of the average thicknesses shown in Table 4-2 equal or exceed 3.5 in. No photos were available of upgraded floors to show the appearance of such high average thickness of SFRM.” Floor 94 of WTC 1 stands out in this data, with a SFRM thickness of more than 4 in. The specification for these upgrades was only 1.5 in, increased from the as-built specification of 0.75 in.
Just for the record, I made my post before Kevin Ryan, and I had no knowledge whatsoever that he would do so or on what topic he would do write.
Perhaps Max Photons travel faster than the speed of light?
This reminds me of a famous quip, supposedly by Isaac Asimov. (Now I see it was made up. Anyway....)
Just for the record, I made my post before Kevin Ryan, and I had no knowledge whatsoever that he would do so or on what topic he would do write.
Perhaps Max Photons travel faster than the speed of light?
This reminds me of a famous quip, supposedly by Isaac Asimov. (Now I see it was made up. Anyway....)
[Mort] Weisinger, a couple of years ago, made up the following story:
"Isaac Asimov was asked how Superman could fly faster than the speed of light, which was supposed to be an absolute limit. To this Asimov replied, 'That the speed of light is a limit is a theory; that Superman can travel faster than light is a fact.'"
All that you say is ALREADY known.
You still have not answered the question I put INSOFAR AS YOUR SPECULATIONS re "thermite assisted demolition" is concerned.
Again: WHY were the thermite assisted collapses NOT in the order of "first hit, first assisted" if someone was controlling demolition charges of thermite etc as you speculate?
Please give an actual answer instead of an evasive non-answer like that above.
RC.
.
Who said someone was controlling demolition charges?
Max
Spit it out, man.
Do you maintain it was thermite-assisted demolition or not?
If yes: how was it co-ordinated to go "second tower hit, first tower demolished"?
RC.
.
Who said it was co-ordinated to go "second tower hit, first tower demolished"?
Max
For a while now I have been arguing that the heat-weakening was limited to impact floors, and that once the towers got moving, gravity did the rest.
I'm sure you'll find this interesting:
http://911blogger.com/node/13272
QUOTE
Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC
There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?
In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]
This relationship is unmistakable for WTC 1. Some investigators have pointed out that a number of floors failed simultaneously in this tower, in accordion-like fashion, before the rest of the building began to 'collapse'. These floors seem to match up almost exactly with the floors that were upgraded. See the film clip below, and the following Powerpoint sequence created by Gregory Urich.
http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...r_collapse.mpeg
http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt
Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit.
We have also seen video of molten metal pouring from WTC 2 prior to its destruction. The relationship between fireproofing upgrades and the pouring metal is close but not exact, as the molten metal seen in videos appears to be coming from floors 80 and 81. Communication to the NIST team from Frank Lombardi of the Port Authority, in 2002, indicated that only floor 78 of the impact failure floors of WTC 2 had been upgraded. But NCSTAR 1-6A (table 4-2, p 45) lists floor 85 as an upgraded floor as well. Could it be that certain areas within floors 79 to 84 were upgraded also, and not reported because the floors were not fully upgraded?
For the north tower at least, it is difficult to accept that this relationship is yet another unbelievable coincidence related to 9/11. Certainly the upgrade work allowed for access to critical areas. But in considering this, a number of other, admittedly far-fetched questions come to mind. Why was the upgraded fireproofing measured to be twice the thickness specified?[2] Could incendiary or explosive materials have been embedded within the upgraded fireproofing? Could these “construction” activities have involved installing mechanisms to direct the planes to the specific areas in which they hit each building?
In any case, the demolition hypothesis should be considered more than just simple demolition. If the idea was to create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse, then a fiery presentation was needed, much more than the jet fuel/office furnishings would have been able to provide. It seems that thermate may have been used not only to weaken or cut the steel infrastructure throughout the buildings, but also to help create that fiery presentation near the floors of impact.
It seems possible that a thermate-like material, and/or other devices contributing to the destruction of the towers, could have been incorporated on the floors of impact and failure during the fireproofing upgrades. The access for such an operation would have been facilitated by the activity surrounding the fireproofing upgrades.
[1] NCSTAR 1-6A, page xxxvii, indicates which exact floors were upgraded. NCSTAR 1-6, page 20 repeats these claims, as noted in the figure above. Elsewhere in NCSTAR 1-6, on page lxxi, NIST muddies the water by saying “18 floors in WTC 1, including all the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fires" and “"13 floors in WTC 2, although none were directly affected by the aircraft impact and fires.". On this last part, NIST contradicts itself yet again in NCSTAR 1-6 (on page lxvii-lxix) by stating that some of the floors upgraded in WTC 2 were affected by the impacts and fires (notably floor 78). As with the contradictory amounts of jet fuel referenced throughout NIST’s report, these fireproofing upgrade statements appear to be another example of how detailed findings in the NIST team’s lower level reports were confused or made vague in higher-level reports.
[2] NCSTAR 1-6A (p xl) states “The overall average thickness determined from the 356 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in, with a standard deviation of 0.6 in.” The same report (p 44) says “Note that some of the average thicknesses shown in Table 4-2 equal or exceed 3.5 in. No photos were available of upgraded floors to show the appearance of such high average thickness of SFRM.” Floor 94 of WTC 1 stands out in this data, with a SFRM thickness of more than 4 in. The specification for these upgrades was only 1.5 in, increased from the as-built specification of 0.75 in.
Just for the record, I made my post before Kevin Ryan, and I had no knowledge whatsoever that he would do so or on what topic he would do write.
Perhaps Max Photons travel faster than the speed of light?
This reminds me of a famous quip, supposedly by Isaac Asimov. (Now I see it was made up. Anyway....)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time? In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1] This relationship is unmistakable for WTC 1. Some investigators have pointed out that a number of floors failed simultaneously in this tower, in accordion-like fashion, before the rest of the building began to 'collapse'. These floors seem to match up almost exactly with the floors that were upgraded. See the film clip below, and the following Powerpoint sequence created by Gregory Urich. http://www.911research.com/wtc/evidence/vi...r_collapse.mpeg http://www.cool-places.0catch.com/docs/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt Two blueprints for the 1999, 2000 construction upgrades to WTC 2, provided by a supporter, indicated that the work was done at almost exactly the point of impact and failure in that tower. That is, the southeast quadrant of WTC 2 was the focus of the work, at least on the 78th floor (the blueprints provided were for floors 77 and 78 only). It was the southeast quadrant of WTC 2, at and just above floor 78, where flight 175 hit. We have also seen video of molten metal pouring from WTC 2 prior to its destruction. The relationship between fireproofing upgrades and the pouring metal is close but not exact, as the molten metal seen in videos appears to be coming from floors 80 and 81. Communication to the NIST team from Frank Lombardi of the Port Authority, in 2002, indicated that only floor 78 of the impact failure floors of WTC 2 had been upgraded. But NCSTAR 1-6A (table 4-2, p 45) lists floor 85 as an upgraded floor as well. Could it be that certain areas within floors 79 to 84 were upgraded also, and not reported because the floors were not fully upgraded? For the north tower at least, it is difficult to accept that this relationship is yet another unbelievable coincidence related to 9/11. Certainly the upgrade work allowed for access to critical areas. But in considering this, a number of other, admittedly far-fetched questions come to mind. Why was the upgraded fireproofing measured to be twice the thickness specified?[2] Could incendiary or explosive materials have been embedded within the upgraded fireproofing? Could these “construction” activities have involved installing mechanisms to direct the planes to the specific areas in which they hit each building? In any case, the demolition hypothesis should be considered more than just simple demolition. If the idea was to create the appearance of a fire-induced collapse, then a fiery presentation was needed, much more than the jet fuel/office furnishings would have been able to provide. It seems that thermate may have been used not only to weaken or cut the steel infrastructure throughout the buildings, but also to help create that fiery presentation near the floors of impact. It seems possible that a thermate-like material, and/or other devices contributing to the destruction of the towers, could have been incorporated on the floors of impact and failure during the fireproofing upgrades. The access for such an operation would have been facilitated by the activity surrounding the fireproofing upgrades. [1] NCSTAR 1-6A, page xxxvii, indicates which exact floors were upgraded. NCSTAR 1-6, page 20 repeats these claims, as noted in the figure above. Elsewhere in NCSTAR 1-6, on page lxxi, NIST muddies the water by saying “18 floors in WTC 1, including all the floors affected by the aircraft impact and fires" and “"13 floors in WTC 2, although none were directly affected by the aircraft impact and fires.". On this last part, NIST contradicts itself yet again in NCSTAR 1-6 (on page lxvii-lxix) by stating that some of the floors upgraded in WTC 2 were affected by the impacts and fires (notably floor 78). As with the contradictory amounts of jet fuel referenced throughout NIST’s report, these fireproofing upgrade statements appear to be another example of how detailed findings in the NIST team’s lower level reports were confused or made vague in higher-level reports. [2] NCSTAR 1-6A (p xl) states “The overall average thickness determined from the 356 individual measurements was found to be 2.5 in, with a standard deviation of 0.6 in.” The same report (p 44) says “Note that some of the average thicknesses shown in Table 4-2 equal or exceed 3.5 in. No photos were available of upgraded floors to show the appearance of such high average thickness of SFRM.” Floor 94 of WTC 1 stands out in this data, with a SFRM thickness of more than 4 in. The specification for these upgrades was only 1.5 in, increased from the as-built specification of 0.75 in. |
Just for the record, I made my post before Kevin Ryan, and I had no knowledge whatsoever that he would do so or on what topic he would do write.
Perhaps Max Photons travel faster than the speed of light?
This reminds me of a famous quip, supposedly by Isaac Asimov. (Now I see it was made up. Anyway....)
[Mort] Weisinger, a couple of years ago, made up the following story:
"Isaac Asimov was asked how Superman could fly faster than the speed of light, which was supposed to be an absolute limit. To this Asimov replied, 'That the speed of light is a limit is a theory; that Superman can travel faster than light is a fact.'"
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 03:31 AM)
Can your "thermite-assisted arson demolition" speculations explain why the tower hit SECOND was the FIRST to collapse in YOUR "scenario"?
Certainly, though I don't find it a particularly interesting question.
First, the initial conditions were different.
Second, the boundary conditions were different.
Third, the heat-weakening work differed in each tower.
Fourth, although WTCs 1 & 2's collapse initiation mechanisms had similarities, they also had significant differences. (My collapse initiation mechanisms are easy to understand. They are the same as NIST's!)
The heat-weakening process for each tower proceeded until each tower simply collapsed. There is no reason to expect the trajectories to be identical.
That 2 fell before 1 is simply an artifact of all of the above.
Max
All that you say is ALREADY known.
You still have not answered the question I put INSOFAR AS YOUR SPECULATIONS re "thermite assisted demolition" is concerned.
Again: WHY were the thermite assisted collapses NOT in the order of "first hit, first assisted" if someone was controlling demolition charges of thermite etc as you speculate?
Please give an actual answer instead of an evasive non-answer like that above.
RC.
.
Certainly, though I don't find it a particularly interesting question.
First, the initial conditions were different.
Second, the boundary conditions were different.
Third, the heat-weakening work differed in each tower.
Fourth, although WTCs 1 & 2's collapse initiation mechanisms had similarities, they also had significant differences. (My collapse initiation mechanisms are easy to understand. They are the same as NIST's!)
The heat-weakening process for each tower proceeded until each tower simply collapsed. There is no reason to expect the trajectories to be identical.
That 2 fell before 1 is simply an artifact of all of the above.
Max
All that you say is ALREADY known.
You still have not answered the question I put INSOFAR AS YOUR SPECULATIONS re "thermite assisted demolition" is concerned.
Again: WHY were the thermite assisted collapses NOT in the order of "first hit, first assisted" if someone was controlling demolition charges of thermite etc as you speculate?
Please give an actual answer instead of an evasive non-answer like that above.
RC.
.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 7 2008, 02:44 AM)
Sorry about that. I stand corrected.
What do you think of the notion of aluminotherics used in thermobarics? Say, for psychological impact? Doubtless you have heard of the accounts of extreme pulverization not only of the concrete, but of things like phones, filing cabinets, chairs,....
Or do you think that the level of pulverization is quite as expected?
Personally, I've never read of any other accounts like this. When you consider that London was blitzed in WW2, and the allies bombed German cities to smithereens, one would think that accounts of pulverized buildings would be ubiquitous, if such were the norm. Instead, one hears of buildings and cities "reduced to rubble". And that's wrt buildings whose collapses definitely were triggered by high explosives.
Something doesn't jive, here, and it may take a creative mind such as that of Max-Photon to come up with novel hypotheses!
Metamars,
My poor eyeballs aren't accustom to anything remotely resembling a compliment, so next time, please warn me so I can grab my welding goggles first.
Asses to asses...dust to dust.
As to the possibility of some synthetic explosive force, I am quite satisfied that:
1) The moment capacity of column welds was less than that of the columns, and that collapse dynamics - not any explosive forces - separated core columns at weld plane. Same for (most) bolted column splices.
2) The light-weight concrete floors - broad, thin, and unreinforced - were easily crushed.
3) Plasterboard and ceiling tiles were easily crushed
4) Fire protection materials were easily dislodged and crushed
As to all the contents being "pulverized," the FEMA debris photos reveal variation in debris size, and not all of it is pulverized by any means. I think the "pulverized" part gets over-stated.
I feel pretty satisfied at this point that collapse dynamics account for the degree of crushing and dust seen.
Max
What do you think of the notion of aluminotherics used in thermobarics? Say, for psychological impact? Doubtless you have heard of the accounts of extreme pulverization not only of the concrete, but of things like phones, filing cabinets, chairs,....
Or do you think that the level of pulverization is quite as expected?
Personally, I've never read of any other accounts like this. When you consider that London was blitzed in WW2, and the allies bombed German cities to smithereens, one would think that accounts of pulverized buildings would be ubiquitous, if such were the norm. Instead, one hears of buildings and cities "reduced to rubble". And that's wrt buildings whose collapses definitely were triggered by high explosives.
Something doesn't jive, here, and it may take a creative mind such as that of Max-Photon to come up with novel hypotheses!
Metamars,
My poor eyeballs aren't accustom to anything remotely resembling a compliment, so next time, please warn me so I can grab my welding goggles first.
Asses to asses...dust to dust.
As to the possibility of some synthetic explosive force, I am quite satisfied that:
1) The moment capacity of column welds was less than that of the columns, and that collapse dynamics - not any explosive forces - separated core columns at weld plane. Same for (most) bolted column splices.
2) The light-weight concrete floors - broad, thin, and unreinforced - were easily crushed.
3) Plasterboard and ceiling tiles were easily crushed
4) Fire protection materials were easily dislodged and crushed
As to all the contents being "pulverized," the FEMA debris photos reveal variation in debris size, and not all of it is pulverized by any means. I think the "pulverized" part gets over-stated.
I feel pretty satisfied at this point that collapse dynamics account for the degree of crushing and dust seen.
Max
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2008, 03:42 AM)
All that you say is ALREADY known.
You still have not answered the question I put INSOFAR AS YOUR SPECULATIONS re "thermite assisted demolition" is concerned.
Again: WHY were the thermite assisted collapses NOT in the order of "first hit, first assisted" if someone was controlling demolition charges of thermite etc as you speculate?
Please give an actual answer instead of an evasive non-answer like that above.
RC.
.
Who said someone was controlling demolition charges?
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 04:04 AM)
Who said someone was controlling demolition charges?
Max
Spit it out, man.
Do you maintain it was thermite-assisted demolition or not?
If yes: how was it co-ordinated to go "second tower hit, first tower demolished"?
RC.
.
Max
Spit it out, man.
Do you maintain it was thermite-assisted demolition or not?
If yes: how was it co-ordinated to go "second tower hit, first tower demolished"?
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2008, 04:09 AM)
Spit it out, man.
Do you maintain it was thermite-assisted demolition or not?
If yes: how was it co-ordinated to go "second tower hit, first tower demolished"?
RC.
.
Who said it was co-ordinated to go "second tower hit, first tower demolished"?
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 04:28 AM)
Who said it was deliberately co-ordinated to go "second tower hit, first tower demolished"?
Max
Why, YOU did, mate! A reminder....
Why, YOU did, mate! A reminder....
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
RC.
.
RealityCheckers,
You seem confused.
It's pretty amusing.
Max
Max
Why, YOU did, mate! A reminder....
QUOTE (Max Photon to newton+Jan 3 2008, 05:28 PM)
....
....
Note that MAX-MIHOP uses thermite fuse to ignite planted thermite. The thermite fuse is ignited by jet-impact. The WTC steel holds the thermite. No other ignition mechanisms are needed. No devices are needed. Simple. Practically trace-free.
....
....
....
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
RC.
.
....
Note that MAX-MIHOP uses thermite fuse to ignite planted thermite. The thermite fuse is ignited by jet-impact. The WTC steel holds the thermite. No other ignition mechanisms are needed. No devices are needed. Simple. Practically trace-free.
....
....
....
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
RC.
.
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 7 2008, 03:33 AM)
Just for the record, I made my post before Kevin Ryan, and I had no knowledge whatsoever that he would do so or on what topic he would do write.
Perhaps Max Photons travel faster than the speed of light?
I am the Illuminati.
Max
Perhaps Max Photons travel faster than the speed of light?
I am the Illuminati.
Max
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2008, 04:31 AM)
Why, YOU did, mate! A reminder....
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
RC.
.
RealityCheckers,
You seem confused.
It's pretty amusing.
Max
.
Max Photon.
Let's try again.
Max Photon.
Let's try again.
QUOTE (Max Photon to newton+Jan 3 2008, 05:28 PM)
....
....
Note that MAX-MIHOP uses thermite fuse to ignite planted thermite. The thermite fuse is ignited by jet-impact. The WTC steel holds the thermite. No other ignition mechanisms are needed. No devices are needed. Simple. Practically trace-free.
....
....
....
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first if the thermite was ignited at jet impact as you claim above.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
No more 'wiggle room' for you, mate. Answer the question and don't evade again or you will be a self-demonstrated dishonest evasion-merchant unwilling to support your claims straightforwardly.
RC.
.
....
Note that MAX-MIHOP uses thermite fuse to ignite planted thermite. The thermite fuse is ignited by jet-impact. The WTC steel holds the thermite. No other ignition mechanisms are needed. No devices are needed. Simple. Practically trace-free.
....
....
....
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first if the thermite was ignited at jet impact as you claim above.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
No more 'wiggle room' for you, mate. Answer the question and don't evade again or you will be a self-demonstrated dishonest evasion-merchant unwilling to support your claims straightforwardly.
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2008, 04:46 AM)
.
Max Photon.
Let's try again.
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first if the thermite was ignited at jet impact as you claim above.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
No more 'wiggle room' for you, mate. Answer the question and don't evade again or you will be a self-demonstrated dishonest evasion-merchant unwilling to support your claims straightforwardly.
RC.
.
One possibility that leaps to mind is quality control issues.
The best laid plans of mice and men, you know!
However, I believe this question deserves an answer from none other than the penetrating mind of Max Photon, himself. In which answer, he can tell us the connection with laser ignition of thermite dusted shock tubes. (or something like that)
As I stated previously, I haven't really read most of MP's posts. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I saw a discussion of the above.
Max Photon.
Let's try again.
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first if the thermite was ignited at jet impact as you claim above.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
No more 'wiggle room' for you, mate. Answer the question and don't evade again or you will be a self-demonstrated dishonest evasion-merchant unwilling to support your claims straightforwardly.
RC.
.
One possibility that leaps to mind is quality control issues.
The best laid plans of mice and men, you know!
However, I believe this question deserves an answer from none other than the penetrating mind of Max Photon, himself. In which answer, he can tell us the connection with laser ignition of thermite dusted shock tubes. (or something like that)
As I stated previously, I haven't really read most of MP's posts. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure I saw a discussion of the above.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 04:01 AM)
As to all the contents being "pulverized," the FEMA debris photos reveal variation in debris size, and not all of it is pulverized by any means. I think the "pulverized" part gets over-stated.
I feel pretty satisfied at this point that collapse dynamics account for the degree of crushing and dust seen.
Max
I've worked in 4 hi-rise building in Manhattan in the last 2 years, and, well, the cubicles there are like cubicles elsewhere. Everybody has at least 1 chair, 1 phone, 1 computer, and 1 monitor.
Yet, in the photos of WTC 1/2 I've seen, it's hard to find anything that looks like the remains of these ubiquitous items (we have seen pancaked floors from, I believe, the basement level). Can you point me to photos, from FEMA or anybody else, that shows these? (smashed up, ok, but still identifiable)
Also, the men that hauled away the debris reported that floor panels were awol. I believe it was Benson that posted a picture of a mangled floor panel, but the exception proves the rule.
Oh, and crushed wallboard is one thing. But cubicles typically have metal walls. Invoking "collapse dynamics" to explain their absence - or even some sort of shredded presence - is extremely unconvincing. There should be hundreds if not thousands of squashed cubicles, still identifiable as such.
Where are they?
I feel pretty satisfied at this point that collapse dynamics account for the degree of crushing and dust seen.
Max
I've worked in 4 hi-rise building in Manhattan in the last 2 years, and, well, the cubicles there are like cubicles elsewhere. Everybody has at least 1 chair, 1 phone, 1 computer, and 1 monitor.
Yet, in the photos of WTC 1/2 I've seen, it's hard to find anything that looks like the remains of these ubiquitous items (we have seen pancaked floors from, I believe, the basement level). Can you point me to photos, from FEMA or anybody else, that shows these? (smashed up, ok, but still identifiable)
Also, the men that hauled away the debris reported that floor panels were awol. I believe it was Benson that posted a picture of a mangled floor panel, but the exception proves the rule.
Oh, and crushed wallboard is one thing. But cubicles typically have metal walls. Invoking "collapse dynamics" to explain their absence - or even some sort of shredded presence - is extremely unconvincing. There should be hundreds if not thousands of squashed cubicles, still identifiable as such.
Where are they?
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2008, 04:46 AM)
The implied 'co-ordination' was from YOU....except that you can't explain why the second tower went first if the thermite was ignited at jet impact as you claim above.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
Although I'm a MAX-MIHOP-Agnost I think that answer is very easy.
Wasn't it the gravity that is important ? 29 stories or 14 stories makes a big difference. I say again that I absolutely know nothing about the ignition of thermite and all that stuff, but if thermite is a helping hand it is by definition transparant for the NIST collapse initiation theory.
So was it "intelligent thermite" that could stop the first-hit tower from being "demolished" before the second-hit tower?
Although I'm a MAX-MIHOP-Agnost I think that answer is very easy.
Wasn't it the gravity that is important ? 29 stories or 14 stories makes a big difference. I say again that I absolutely know nothing about the ignition of thermite and all that stuff, but if thermite is a helping hand it is by definition transparant for the NIST collapse initiation theory.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 7 2008, 06:46 AM)
Although I'm a MAX-MIHOP-Agnost I think that answer is very easy.
Wasn't it the gravity that is important ? 29 stories or 14 stories makes a big difference. I say again that I absolutely know nothing about the ignition of thermite and all that stuff, but if thermite is a helping hand it is by definition transparant for the NIST collapse initiation theory.
Any planted DEMOLITION 'collapse insurance' thermite charges would have to be at EXPECTED EFFECTIVE LEVELS in both cases......or NOT AT ALL in either case.
Unless one is suggesting that the alleged 'thermite' conspirators new in advance the RESPECTIVE extent of damage in both cases?
Let's face it......the least 'suspicious' way would have been to do it in 'sequence' of first hit, first collapsed.
One possibility that leaps to mind is quality control issues.
The best laid plans of mice and men, you know!
Hehehe. So these conspirators were good enough to do the 'fine tuning' of 'intelligent thermite' to anticipate the actual extent/type of damage/fires in each case...and then were 'unlucky'?
If Max Photon's thermite fuses were set off by the jet impacts, what could go wrong? Either they DID go off or they didn't.
Rationalising and speculating upon speculations only adds to the improbability of it all as speculated.
Cheers!
RC.
.
Wasn't it the gravity that is important ? 29 stories or 14 stories makes a big difference. I say again that I absolutely know nothing about the ignition of thermite and all that stuff, but if thermite is a helping hand it is by definition transparant for the NIST collapse initiation theory.
Any planted DEMOLITION 'collapse insurance' thermite charges would have to be at EXPECTED EFFECTIVE LEVELS in both cases......or NOT AT ALL in either case.
Unless one is suggesting that the alleged 'thermite' conspirators new in advance the RESPECTIVE extent of damage in both cases?
Let's face it......the least 'suspicious' way would have been to do it in 'sequence' of first hit, first collapsed.
QUOTE (metamars+)
One possibility that leaps to mind is quality control issues.
The best laid plans of mice and men, you know!
Hehehe. So these conspirators were good enough to do the 'fine tuning' of 'intelligent thermite' to anticipate the actual extent/type of damage/fires in each case...and then were 'unlucky'?
If Max Photon's thermite fuses were set off by the jet impacts, what could go wrong? Either they DID go off or they didn't.
Rationalising and speculating upon speculations only adds to the improbability of it all as speculated.
Cheers!
RC.
.
RC,
I'm sorry I don't see the problem. The damage in advance ? The planes were real of course and that caused the damage. Plane lower more mass above the impact zone.
@All
Just found this in a post
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....dule=photoalbum
I have no idea what the position of this site is (I have to go through it) but I see they have some photos and that is always great.
I'm sorry I don't see the problem. The damage in advance ? The planes were real of course and that caused the damage. Plane lower more mass above the impact zone.
@All
Just found this in a post
http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index....dule=photoalbum
I have no idea what the position of this site is (I have to go through it) but I see they have some photos and that is always great.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 5 2008, 09:31 PM)
Debbie77,
If you feel the WTC fall-times are too brief for a gravity-driven collapse, and you feel the need for an explanation beyond just gravity for the brief fall-times, note that explosives are not your only option. Incendiaries could have been used to heat-weaken the towers beyond just the impact floors. In other words, incendiaries could have been used not only for collapse initiation, but also for collapse progression.
High explosives create loud noises, bright flashes, strong smells, complex residues that are detectable and traceable.
Furthermore, had high explosives been used - even a smidge - that would be at direct odds with NIST's claim that NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition from high explosives.
Just for that reason alone, I simply cannot imagine that high explosives were used.
In contrast, note that NIST did not make such a definitive statement ruling out controlled-demolition using thermite to heat-weaken the towers. On the contrary, NIST only commits to saying that thermite was "an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition." Well that's a plausible-deniability opening big enough to drive a truck through. Thermite could have been used to heat-weaken the towers, and yet NIST cannot be accused of having covered that up.
Debbie77, forget explosives.
Think heat-weakening.
(You too Arthur and David.)
Max
Max,
You could be correct regarding the type of device or charges used, but whatever it was it sure went off like clock work and in perfect timing for all three buildings. In fact a top engineer immediately said it was a classic case of control demolition, but then a few days later he retracted his statement and said it wasn't control demolition and he didn't give any reason why he changed his mind.
But he did get a big raise and a promotion and his university got a big grant by the government. Do you think that might have had something to do with him changing his opinion or is it just another coincidence?
If you feel the WTC fall-times are too brief for a gravity-driven collapse, and you feel the need for an explanation beyond just gravity for the brief fall-times, note that explosives are not your only option. Incendiaries could have been used to heat-weaken the towers beyond just the impact floors. In other words, incendiaries could have been used not only for collapse initiation, but also for collapse progression.
High explosives create loud noises, bright flashes, strong smells, complex residues that are detectable and traceable.
Furthermore, had high explosives been used - even a smidge - that would be at direct odds with NIST's claim that NIST found no evidence of controlled demolition from high explosives.
Just for that reason alone, I simply cannot imagine that high explosives were used.
In contrast, note that NIST did not make such a definitive statement ruling out controlled-demolition using thermite to heat-weaken the towers. On the contrary, NIST only commits to saying that thermite was "an unlikely substance for achieving a controlled demolition." Well that's a plausible-deniability opening big enough to drive a truck through. Thermite could have been used to heat-weaken the towers, and yet NIST cannot be accused of having covered that up.
Debbie77, forget explosives.
Think heat-weakening.
(You too Arthur and David.)
Max
Max,
You could be correct regarding the type of device or charges used, but whatever it was it sure went off like clock work and in perfect timing for all three buildings. In fact a top engineer immediately said it was a classic case of control demolition, but then a few days later he retracted his statement and said it wasn't control demolition and he didn't give any reason why he changed his mind.
But he did get a big raise and a promotion and his university got a big grant by the government. Do you think that might have had something to do with him changing his opinion or is it just another coincidence?
Just for that reason alone, I simply cannot imagine that high explosives were used.
Has the government ever lied even once in the past?
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have NOT?
If you are truely a scientific minded person you must consider all possibilities.
debbie77, you have a good point. I tried saying the same thing long ago.
It does no good when you are talking to people who swore an oath to the state.
They sold their souls for free and now work for the other side, which is not our side...
Has the government ever lied even once in the past?
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have NOT?
If you are truely a scientific minded person you must consider all possibilities.
debbie77, you have a good point. I tried saying the same thing long ago.
It does no good when you are talking to people who swore an oath to the state.
They sold their souls for free and now work for the other side, which is not our side...
QUOTE (ArchAngel+Jan 7 2008, 12:57 PM)
Just for that reason alone, I simply cannot imagine that high explosives were used.
Has the government ever lied even once in the past?
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have NOT?
If you are truely a scientific minded person you must consider all possibilities.
Not only that, if you have a lick of common sense, you will exhibit greater skepticism towards sources that have a clear history of lying or spinning. That includes organizations under political control, that can set the boundaries of "acceptable" inquiry.
The fine art of the cover up is a skill well known in Washington, and we have every reason to believe that Washington politicos can extend their unscientific and dishonest goals to all organizations under their purview.
Certainly, in the interest of open inquiry and public service (let's not forget that, theoretically, the US government is "of, for and by the people"), NIST should have been happy to tell us all of the explosives that had been tested for, and to explain what the tests were*.
Also, experimental science depends on replication by multiple parties. To this day, NIST is hogging evidence that remains. Oh, my, that's real scientific!
Finally, I believe NIST should have considered thermobarics, which have less intense but more sustained pressure profiles that seems more consistent with what was observed.
* it's conceivable that some tests would be classified, which presents an immediate problem, to be sure
Has the government ever lied even once in the past?
Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have NOT?
If you are truely a scientific minded person you must consider all possibilities.
Not only that, if you have a lick of common sense, you will exhibit greater skepticism towards sources that have a clear history of lying or spinning. That includes organizations under political control, that can set the boundaries of "acceptable" inquiry.
The fine art of the cover up is a skill well known in Washington, and we have every reason to believe that Washington politicos can extend their unscientific and dishonest goals to all organizations under their purview.
Certainly, in the interest of open inquiry and public service (let's not forget that, theoretically, the US government is "of, for and by the people"), NIST should have been happy to tell us all of the explosives that had been tested for, and to explain what the tests were*.
Also, experimental science depends on replication by multiple parties. To this day, NIST is hogging evidence that remains. Oh, my, that's real scientific!
Finally, I believe NIST should have considered thermobarics, which have less intense but more sustained pressure profiles that seems more consistent with what was observed.
* it's conceivable that some tests would be classified, which presents an immediate problem, to be sure
RealityCheck,
You are lost, and hardly worth saving.
- - -
Einsteen,
You seem to be considerably smarter than RealityCheck. You seem to understand there is no reason it should be first hit / first collapse because the situations are different. That WTC2's upper block was much more massive than WTC1's is but one of MANY differences.
- - -
Metamars,
I really understand the arguments presented for why there must have been explosive forces. Just a few points...
First, language can take on a life of its own. When people say everything was pulverized to dust - nothing remained - well that's a pretty strong statement. When I look at FEMA photos, that statement does not appear correct. (By the way, one can find floor pans in the FEMA photos.)
Second, if high explosives were used throughout the towers (to account for the alleged anomalous degree of pulverization), I would think that 1) the cloud of explosives residue would have been asphyxiating, 2) traces of high explosives would have been everywhere, 3) people would have probably reported strong smells, as many explosives have very distinctive smells after ignition.
Third, if thermobarics were used, I am hard-pressed to see how thermobarics would pulverize all of the objects that you think collapse dynamics couldn't. I don't know much about thermobarics, but I tend to think of them having much slower detonation velocities than that of high explosives.
- - -
Debbie77,
Which engineer are you referring to? Are you referring to Jowenko the demolition expert?
Regardless, I doubt I would have any information to comment.
Do bear in mind that 911 is an ambiguous figure, so we must allow for people - even experts - to be all over the board, and to change their minds (possibly repeatedly).
- - -
ArchAngel,
Perhaps you don't understand my position.
Governments lie all the time. That is not in dispute.
MAX-MIHOP is a model about how the government is carrying out a strategic deception, a hoax, a grand illusion.
The trick is that they are hiding the truth in plain view.
The mistake truthers are making is that they automatically assume the NIST Reports are a 4 foot stack of lies. This causes truthers to ignore or contest the information contained in the Reports.
What a perfect place to hide the truth. Truthers won't look there. And if they do, and see the truth, they'll think it's a lie. Perfect! The truth is cloaked by the truth-seekers!
Bravo MILDEC. Very simple, very clever.
Max
You are lost, and hardly worth saving.
- - -
Einsteen,
You seem to be considerably smarter than RealityCheck. You seem to understand there is no reason it should be first hit / first collapse because the situations are different. That WTC2's upper block was much more massive than WTC1's is but one of MANY differences.
- - -
Metamars,
I really understand the arguments presented for why there must have been explosive forces. Just a few points...
First, language can take on a life of its own. When people say everything was pulverized to dust - nothing remained - well that's a pretty strong statement. When I look at FEMA photos, that statement does not appear correct. (By the way, one can find floor pans in the FEMA photos.)
Second, if high explosives were used throughout the towers (to account for the alleged anomalous degree of pulverization), I would think that 1) the cloud of explosives residue would have been asphyxiating, 2) traces of high explosives would have been everywhere, 3) people would have probably reported strong smells, as many explosives have very distinctive smells after ignition.
Third, if thermobarics were used, I am hard-pressed to see how thermobarics would pulverize all of the objects that you think collapse dynamics couldn't. I don't know much about thermobarics, but I tend to think of them having much slower detonation velocities than that of high explosives.
- - -
Debbie77,
Which engineer are you referring to? Are you referring to Jowenko the demolition expert?
Regardless, I doubt I would have any information to comment.
Do bear in mind that 911 is an ambiguous figure, so we must allow for people - even experts - to be all over the board, and to change their minds (possibly repeatedly).
- - -
ArchAngel,
Perhaps you don't understand my position.
Governments lie all the time. That is not in dispute.
MAX-MIHOP is a model about how the government is carrying out a strategic deception, a hoax, a grand illusion.
The trick is that they are hiding the truth in plain view.
The mistake truthers are making is that they automatically assume the NIST Reports are a 4 foot stack of lies. This causes truthers to ignore or contest the information contained in the Reports.
What a perfect place to hide the truth. Truthers won't look there. And if they do, and see the truth, they'll think it's a lie. Perfect! The truth is cloaked by the truth-seekers!
Bravo MILDEC. Very simple, very clever.
Max
This is the same US government that can't produce a single weapon of mass destruction to bolster their decision to go to war with Iraq?
Can't build secret telecommunications closets for snooping without someone dropping a dime on them, suing them, and giving the exact locations?
Or fly nuclear tipped cruise missiles to the middle east without some military personell reporting it?
As much as I find some interesting items about 9/11, I stand by the statement that our government is too damn stupid and incompetent to pull off anything of this magnitude.
They might have let it happen, knowing that something "wicked this way comes", but doubtful they thought it would be of the magnitude that it ended up being. Kind of like hoping for a small meal and getting served a 12 course dinner with all the trimmings.
Who?What?Me?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX-MIHOP is a model about how the government is carrying out a strategic deception, a hoax, a grand illusion.
The trick is that they are hiding the truth in plain view.
Can't build secret telecommunications closets for snooping without someone dropping a dime on them, suing them, and giving the exact locations?
Or fly nuclear tipped cruise missiles to the middle east without some military personell reporting it?
As much as I find some interesting items about 9/11, I stand by the statement that our government is too damn stupid and incompetent to pull off anything of this magnitude.
They might have let it happen, knowing that something "wicked this way comes", but doubtful they thought it would be of the magnitude that it ended up being. Kind of like hoping for a small meal and getting served a 12 course dinner with all the trimmings.
Who?What?Me?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAX-MIHOP is a model about how the government is carrying out a strategic deception, a hoax, a grand illusion.
The trick is that they are hiding the truth in plain view.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 7 2008, 01:30 AM)
Chainsaw:
Are these particles spherical?
Anyway, let's add them to the list along with fly ash, wear particles, welding fume, cutting particles, iron powder cores, pyrotechnic agents..........
Arthur:
Tisk, tisk!
Found another error in the NIST REPORT!
See FIG E-4 in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-6.
Now check out FIG 5-13, page 135, of NCSTAR 1-6.
This just shows that NIST can't keep track of its alphabet soup / numerologies of cases / methodologies and buildings....
Now let me see ....., how could that be Case A for WTC 2?
And look at the orientation of the core of WTC 2 in FIG E-4 ........
More bad editing by NIST!
The plane the plane the Plane, could it have been full of fly ash?
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5786785-description.html
Maybe this gets added to the list too? Plane paint.
Are these particles spherical?
Anyway, let's add them to the list along with fly ash, wear particles, welding fume, cutting particles, iron powder cores, pyrotechnic agents..........
Arthur:
Tisk, tisk!
Found another error in the NIST REPORT!
See FIG E-4 in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-6.
Now check out FIG 5-13, page 135, of NCSTAR 1-6.
This just shows that NIST can't keep track of its alphabet soup / numerologies of cases / methodologies and buildings....
Now let me see ....., how could that be Case A for WTC 2?
And look at the orientation of the core of WTC 2 in FIG E-4 ........
More bad editing by NIST!
The plane the plane the Plane, could it have been full of fly ash?
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5786785-description.html
QUOTE
Complex multi-layer arrangements of partially electrically conductive materials spaced with non-electrically conductive dielectrics to give a laminate with graded electrical properties have been prepared in the form of tiles with fair absorptive properties, but these are very difficult to apply to complex structures such as aircraft and suffer from a appreciable thickness and considerable weight.
Preferably, the micro-spheres comprise ceramic magnetic micro-spheres derived from the ash from coal fired furnaces, and these micro-spheres possess permanent magnetic properties.
Preferably, the micro-spheres comprise ceramic magnetic micro-spheres derived from the ash from coal fired furnaces, and these micro-spheres possess permanent magnetic properties.
Maybe this gets added to the list too? Plane paint.
Arthur,
Earlier I presented the following:
WTC Stabilized Thermite Video (17 second)
(Click the video viewer's lower right icon to watch the video in Full-Screen mode.)
(Note that this video is made up of two spliced segments.)
If one downloads this video from the internet, and uses video-processing software to watch the video frame-by-frame, one can see that in the first 1/2 second, there is a series of quick flashes at the tops and bottoms of spandrels.
Looking frame-by-frame, one also sees a series of fleeting white flashes traveling from the upper right to the lower left at a diagonal consistent with the diagonal of the offset panel splices.
The flashes - when viewed frame-by-frame - appear to be traveling along a wire-of-sorts. And it appears that the flashes intersect column splices and spandrel splices.
Note that the flashes are only visible where the cladding is missing, suggesting that the "wire" the flashes are traveling along was between the cladding and the steel, and has been exposed when over-pressures removed the cladding.
Note that after a sequence of flashes goes by, a white smoke tail appears, as if the "wire" burned, or as if discrete things burned sequentially along the flash's trajectory. (These are NIST's "coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs", described in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.)
Note, just to the left of the metal flow, a white glow - much like a mini-supernova - that appears, correlated with the flash sequences.
Now Arthur, your first best guess was that the white flashes are falling debris.
What's your second best guess?
Max
Earlier I presented the following:
WTC Stabilized Thermite Video (17 second)
(Click the video viewer's lower right icon to watch the video in Full-Screen mode.)
(Note that this video is made up of two spliced segments.)
If one downloads this video from the internet, and uses video-processing software to watch the video frame-by-frame, one can see that in the first 1/2 second, there is a series of quick flashes at the tops and bottoms of spandrels.
Looking frame-by-frame, one also sees a series of fleeting white flashes traveling from the upper right to the lower left at a diagonal consistent with the diagonal of the offset panel splices.
The flashes - when viewed frame-by-frame - appear to be traveling along a wire-of-sorts. And it appears that the flashes intersect column splices and spandrel splices.
Note that the flashes are only visible where the cladding is missing, suggesting that the "wire" the flashes are traveling along was between the cladding and the steel, and has been exposed when over-pressures removed the cladding.
Note that after a sequence of flashes goes by, a white smoke tail appears, as if the "wire" burned, or as if discrete things burned sequentially along the flash's trajectory. (These are NIST's "coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs", described in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.)
Note, just to the left of the metal flow, a white glow - much like a mini-supernova - that appears, correlated with the flash sequences.
Now Arthur, your first best guess was that the white flashes are falling debris.
What's your second best guess?
Max
Chainsaw,
I too am starting to see the little orbs everywhere.
(Heck, even Arthur's ideas are made up of iron microspheres.)
So don't go over the edge, or we'll end up having to bury you (in flyash of course).
Max
I too am starting to see the little orbs everywhere.
(Heck, even Arthur's ideas are made up of iron microspheres.)
So don't go over the edge, or we'll end up having to bury you (in flyash of course).
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 04:25 PM)
Chainsaw,
I too am starting to see the little orbs everywhere.
(Heck, even Arthur's ideas are made up of iron microspheres.)
So don't go over the edge, or we'll end up having to bury you (in flyash of course).
Max
I am even finding out that magnetic microspheres are in Lipstick, mascara, and fingernail polish.
http://www.patentalpha.com/encapsulation_s...es_5648095.html
The question would seem to be where in the world would you not find magnetic Mircospheres?
I too am starting to see the little orbs everywhere.
(Heck, even Arthur's ideas are made up of iron microspheres.)
So don't go over the edge, or we'll end up having to bury you (in flyash of course).
Max
I am even finding out that magnetic microspheres are in Lipstick, mascara, and fingernail polish.
http://www.patentalpha.com/encapsulation_s...es_5648095.html
The question would seem to be where in the world would you not find magnetic Mircospheres?
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 7 2008, 08:52 AM)
RC,
I'm sorry I don't see the problem. The damage in advance ? The planes were real of course and that caused the damage. Plane lower more mass above the impact zone.
Any planted DEMOLITION 'collapse insurance' thermite charges would have to be at EXPECTED EFFECTIVE LEVELS in both cases......or NOT AT ALL in either case.
Unless one is suggesting that the alleged 'thermite' conspirators (k)new in advance the RESPECTIVE extent of damage in both cases?
Let's face it......the least 'suspicious' way would have been to do it in 'sequence' of first hit, first collapsed.
Hi einsteen,
Note please that I said "(k)new in advance" ABOUT the extent of damage in both towers.
I said nothing about "advance damage", hehehe.
So your reply is not to the point I made. Thanks.
RC.
.
Metamars,
I really understand the arguments presented for why there must have been explosive forces. Just a few points...
First, language can take on a life of its own. When people say everything was pulverized to dust - nothing remained - well that's a pretty strong statement. When I look at FEMA photos, that statement does not appear correct. (By the way, one can find floor pans in the FEMA photos.)
Which is why people shouldn't say that "everything was pulverized to dust" - including Richard Gage. Between "everything was pulverized to dust" and "the building collapsed, crushing wallboard, concrete, office contents" there's more than a few shades of in between.
Both verbal and photographs don't jive with what I'd expect an unassisted collapse aftermath to look like. Of course, neither does the video, but that's another matter.
Second, if high explosives were used throughout the towers (to account for the alleged anomalous degree of pulverization), I would think that 1) the cloud of explosives residue would have been asphyxiating, 2) traces of high explosives would have been everywhere, 3) people would have probably reported strong smells, as many explosives have very distinctive smells after ignition.
I don't know what to make of 1). The powder residue was somewhat asphyxiating, already. I've never heard anybody make such a claim re explosives, themselves, before.
2) maybe, but identifiable as such, within the chemical soup that resulted? Furthermore, if you don't look for a particular substance, are you going to find it?
3) well, then we can probably discount explosives that people can detect with their noses!
I don't know what to make of 1). The powder residue was somewhat asphyxiating, already. I've never heard anybody make such a claim re explosives, themselves, before.
2) maybe, but identifiable as such, within the chemical soup that resulted? Furthermore, if you don't look for a particular substance, are you going to find it?
3) well, then we can probably discount explosives that people can detect with their noses!
Third, if thermobarics were used, I am hard-pressed to see how thermobarics would pulverize all of the objects that you think collapse dynamics couldn't. I don't know much about thermobarics, but I tend to think of them having much slower detonation velocities than that of high explosives.
I previously posted a pressure vs. time graph from an Australian military web site. While the graph was heuristic - the unidentified thermobaric was had a peak pressure of exactly half the peak pressure of the comparison unidentified high explosive - one can at least tentatively conclude that at least some real thermobarics will get you peak pressures of 2,000 psi. For a wave hitting a floor panel, some reflection off a steel pan might get you 4,000 psi, which I expect would pulverize 3,000 psi quite readily.
Furthermore, these are more diffuse than either high explosives or, I presume, the maximal impact area that all the columns could impact during a collapse.
Just speculating, but I believe the diffuseness combined with the longer duration allow more pressure waves to enter any give physical object from more directions, thus creating a 'crazy quilt' or 'choppy sea' of internal pressure waves. The net effect might be more pulverization, since, e.g., reinforcing peaks would only rupture the object in random locations, but only after the body had become 'loaded' with sufficient pressure waves to continue the rupturing process as subsequent wave peaks coincided.
There has been some discussion of explosives and thermobarics on the physorg threads. However, I don't recall anything quantitative that would relate thermobarics to pulverization granularity.
I'm sorry I don't see the problem. The damage in advance ? The planes were real of course and that caused the damage. Plane lower more mass above the impact zone.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Jan 7 2008, 07:51 AM)
Any planted DEMOLITION 'collapse insurance' thermite charges would have to be at EXPECTED EFFECTIVE LEVELS in both cases......or NOT AT ALL in either case.
Unless one is suggesting that the alleged 'thermite' conspirators (k)new in advance the RESPECTIVE extent of damage in both cases?
Let's face it......the least 'suspicious' way would have been to do it in 'sequence' of first hit, first collapsed.
Hi einsteen,
Note please that I said "(k)new in advance" ABOUT the extent of damage in both towers.
I said nothing about "advance damage", hehehe.
So your reply is not to the point I made. Thanks.
RC.
.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 03:04 PM)
RealityCheck,
You are lost, and hardly worth saving.
- - -
And you didn't disappoint, hehehe.
More evasion.
Even metamars was waiting for YOUR answer to the part about YOUR 'thermite assisted' speculations; and why a 'collapse insurance' charge in either case is NOT effective in the order of impact-ignition.
The damage/heat/fires/stresses in BOTH towers were horrendous....and more than enough to produce what was observed.
YOUR additional 'hidden quantities' must EITHER HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO BE EFFECTIVE UNDER ALL POSSIBLE IMPACT SCENARIOS....or NOT AT ALL.
So again, how is your intelligent thermite supposed to 'know' IN ADVANCE what the ACTUAL plane IMPACT LEVELS and DAMAGE EXTENT were going to be in each case?
Wouldn't "COLLAPSE INSURANCE" charges be designed to ENSURE collapse? If so, they must have been EFFECTIVE CHARGES for a variety of possible impact scenarios.
So WHY did the first-hit not collapse with your 'collapse insurance' thermite until after the second-hit tower?
Please take us all through your detailed reasoning.
Even metamars seems to think you WILL eventually answer the question without personal ad hominems and evasions.
Do it "for the troofers" if not for lost little ol' me, mate!
RC.
.
You are lost, and hardly worth saving.
- - -
And you didn't disappoint, hehehe.
More evasion.
Even metamars was waiting for YOUR answer to the part about YOUR 'thermite assisted' speculations; and why a 'collapse insurance' charge in either case is NOT effective in the order of impact-ignition.
The damage/heat/fires/stresses in BOTH towers were horrendous....and more than enough to produce what was observed.
YOUR additional 'hidden quantities' must EITHER HAVE BEEN ENOUGH TO BE EFFECTIVE UNDER ALL POSSIBLE IMPACT SCENARIOS....or NOT AT ALL.
So again, how is your intelligent thermite supposed to 'know' IN ADVANCE what the ACTUAL plane IMPACT LEVELS and DAMAGE EXTENT were going to be in each case?
Wouldn't "COLLAPSE INSURANCE" charges be designed to ENSURE collapse? If so, they must have been EFFECTIVE CHARGES for a variety of possible impact scenarios.
So WHY did the first-hit not collapse with your 'collapse insurance' thermite until after the second-hit tower?
Please take us all through your detailed reasoning.
Even metamars seems to think you WILL eventually answer the question without personal ad hominems and evasions.
Do it "for the troofers" if not for lost little ol' me, mate!
RC.
.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 6 2008, 08:30 PM)
Arthur:
Tisk, tisk!
Found another error in the NIST REPORT!
See FIG E-4 in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-6.
Now check out FIG 5-13, page 135, of NCSTAR 1-6.
This just shows that NIST can't keep track of its alphabet soup / numerologies of cases / methodologies and buildings....
Now let me see ....., how could that be Case A for WTC 2?
And look at the orientation of the core of WTC 2 in FIG E-4 ........
More bad editing by NIST!
Aw Golly Gee,
Frank found an EDITING error.
You get 2 Brownie Points.
Arthur
(By the way, Foxx first pointed that error out a LONG time ago)
Tisk, tisk!
Found another error in the NIST REPORT!
See FIG E-4 in the Executive Summary of NCSTAR 1-6.
Now check out FIG 5-13, page 135, of NCSTAR 1-6.
This just shows that NIST can't keep track of its alphabet soup / numerologies of cases / methodologies and buildings....
Now let me see ....., how could that be Case A for WTC 2?
And look at the orientation of the core of WTC 2 in FIG E-4 ........
More bad editing by NIST!
Aw Golly Gee,
Frank found an EDITING error.
You get 2 Brownie Points.
Arthur
(By the way, Foxx first pointed that error out a LONG time ago)
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 6 2008, 04:53 PM)
Thanks, but better is to compare Figure 5--6 with Figure 5--7 in NCSTAR1--6A (pages 317--318, 381--382 ordinal).
??????
Arthur
??????
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jan 7 2008, 03:20 PM)
??????
Oops. NCSTAR1--6D
Oops. NCSTAR1--6D
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 6 2008, 08:06 PM)
... why should we accept NIST's quantitative valuation of these?
Does anybody recall typical values of ad-hoc pullin force vs. generated by the model pullin forces? I sure don't......
The study kept cranking up the pull-in force until (1) approximate agreement with observations was obtained and (2) further increase led to premature collapse.
5 kips. Not much.
================
As for why we should accept the report, do recall there were several draft documents, each of which went through a period of public comment. This meant that interested structural engineers (P.E, S.E.) and professors of structural engineering had an opportunity to review and help improve the report.
Does anybody recall typical values of ad-hoc pullin force vs. generated by the model pullin forces? I sure don't......
The study kept cranking up the pull-in force until (1) approximate agreement with observations was obtained and (2) further increase led to premature collapse.
5 kips. Not much.
================
As for why we should accept the report, do recall there were several draft documents, each of which went through a period of public comment. This meant that interested structural engineers (P.E, S.E.) and professors of structural engineering had an opportunity to review and help improve the report.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 6 2008, 09:01 PM)
I feel pretty satisfied at this point that collapse dynamics account for the degree of crushing and dust seen.
One of the best-fitting resistive force functions is
kMv^2
where M is the mass of the moving portion and v is the speed of the crushing front, k being a constant. This is the equation for a vertical avalanche, purely inertial effects.
In effect, this implies that all crushed materials were being continually re-crushed during the descent, with a tremendous re-crushing went everything sudden came to a stop whilst going about 50 m/s.
One of the best-fitting resistive force functions is
kMv^2
where M is the mass of the moving portion and v is the speed of the crushing front, k being a constant. This is the equation for a vertical avalanche, purely inertial effects.
In effect, this implies that all crushed materials were being continually re-crushed during the descent, with a tremendous re-crushing went everything sudden came to a stop whilst going about 50 m/s.
QUOTE (einsteen+Jan 7 2008, 01:52 AM)
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 7 2008, 10:41 PM)
One of the best-fitting resistive force functions is
kMv^2
where M is the mass of the moving portion and v is the speed of the crushing front, k being a constant. This is the equation for a vertical avalanche, purely inertial effects.
In effect, this implies that all crushed materials were being continually re-crushed during the descent, with a tremendous re-crushing went everything sudden came to a stop whilst going about 50 m/s.
David,
The vertical avalanche metaphor is a fascinating choice. (Is the idea yours?)
Scott Forbes - who worked on WTC 2 / 97, but who was at home across the Hudson in view of the towers on 911 - said the towers collapsed "like pillars of sand."
Videos of the collapses that show the entire buildings, and were taken on tripods for stability - when played back and forth sped up just a little - really show the "pillars of sand" Scott described. It's very pronounced.
The vertical avalanche would seem to fit these visual - even visceral - observations beautifully.
Max
kMv^2
where M is the mass of the moving portion and v is the speed of the crushing front, k being a constant. This is the equation for a vertical avalanche, purely inertial effects.
In effect, this implies that all crushed materials were being continually re-crushed during the descent, with a tremendous re-crushing went everything sudden came to a stop whilst going about 50 m/s.
David,
The vertical avalanche metaphor is a fascinating choice. (Is the idea yours?)
Scott Forbes - who worked on WTC 2 / 97, but who was at home across the Hudson in view of the towers on 911 - said the towers collapsed "like pillars of sand."
Videos of the collapses that show the entire buildings, and were taken on tripods for stability - when played back and forth sped up just a little - really show the "pillars of sand" Scott described. It's very pronounced.
The vertical avalanche would seem to fit these visual - even visceral - observations beautifully.
Max
QUOTE (debbie77+Jan 7 2008, 05:09 AM)
... but whatever it was it sure went off like clock work and in perfect timing for all three buildings.
In fact a top engineer immediately said ...
It was damage + fire which degraded the structure in all three buildings. Whatever 'clock work' and 'perfect timing' are supposed to mean.
I know of no such authenticated quote. Looks like MSU (Making Stuff Up) to me.
In fact a top engineer immediately said ...
It was damage + fire which degraded the structure in all three buildings. Whatever 'clock work' and 'perfect timing' are supposed to mean.
I know of no such authenticated quote. Looks like MSU (Making Stuff Up) to me.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 04:23 PM)
The vertical avalanche metaphor is a fascinating choice. (Is the idea yours?)
"like pillars of sand."
Yes. I found a review on snow avalanches which gave the resistive force function form for flowing snow avalanches. If vertical, the functional form reduces to what I stated above. I plugged this into my computer program which does parameter estimation in comparison to the data for the first 3.8 seconds of the collapse of WTC 1 provided by OneWhiteEye to obtain one of the best fits between hypothesis and data. (The other good fits use a rather similar resistive force function form.)
Yes. I would have to check, but I am quite confident that the stated resistive force function also applies to sand pillars.
============
One intriguing idea has recently arisen. It may be possible to determine the constant k from first principles. (Are you following this, NEU-FONZE?) If so, it gives an excellent means of determining whether another function, for the stretch (compression ratio), s near to being correct.
I do encourage looking through the photo portfolio that einsteen linked. Many of the photos of debris show large pieces of concrete and one r two shows what appear to be pieces of the steel floor pans.
"like pillars of sand."
Yes. I found a review on snow avalanches which gave the resistive force function form for flowing snow avalanches. If vertical, the functional form reduces to what I stated above. I plugged this into my computer program which does parameter estimation in comparison to the data for the first 3.8 seconds of the collapse of WTC 1 provided by OneWhiteEye to obtain one of the best fits between hypothesis and data. (The other good fits use a rather similar resistive force function form.)
Yes. I would have to check, but I am quite confident that the stated resistive force function also applies to sand pillars.
============
One intriguing idea has recently arisen. It may be possible to determine the constant k from first principles. (Are you following this, NEU-FONZE?) If so, it gives an excellent means of determining whether another function, for the stretch (compression ratio), s near to being correct.
I do encourage looking through the photo portfolio that einsteen linked. Many of the photos of debris show large pieces of concrete and one r two shows what appear to be pieces of the steel floor pans.
David:
Yes I am following...
I would think that the pulverization during the collapse of the towers was essentially a ONE-STEP process. Thus it would be like the planetary disruptions used to explain the formation of the asteroids, etc, namely: Two large masses collide and break up. The ejecta exit the impact zone with very few secondary collisions. However, the KE of the ejected material may very well be a constant fraction of the total KE.
Yes I am following...
I would think that the pulverization during the collapse of the towers was essentially a ONE-STEP process. Thus it would be like the planetary disruptions used to explain the formation of the asteroids, etc, namely: Two large masses collide and break up. The ejecta exit the impact zone with very few secondary collisions. However, the KE of the ejected material may very well be a constant fraction of the total KE.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 7 2008, 11:44 PM)
I do encourage looking through the photo portfolio that einsteen linked. Many of the photos of debris show large pieces of concrete and one r two shows what appear to be pieces of the steel floor pans.
David,
I believe you meant aluminum floor pans.
Max
David,
I believe you meant aluminum floor pans.
Max
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 05:04 PM)
I believe you meant aluminum floor pans.
No, my understanding is that the floor pans were 22 guage galvanized corrugated steel.
No, my understanding is that the floor pans were 22 guage galvanized corrugated steel.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 7 2008, 05:00 PM)
I would think that the pulverization during the collapse of the towers was essentially a ONE-STEP process.
The ejecta exit the impact zone with very few secondary collisions.
However, the KE of the ejected material may very well be a constant fraction of the total KE.
I doubt it, myself. The first impacted floor is not hit very hard, and so is only partially crushed. Put the twentieth impacted floor is hit quite hard, sending pressure pulses back up through the crushed zone, re-crushing the materials above. All my simulations give (much) better fits to the data by assuming a stretch function which is monotonically decreasing (although I suppose this alone does not imply re-crushing).
These are not collisions in the ordinary sense, but rather a repacking of already packed materials.
Assume a vertical avalanche, which implies no ejected materials (this largely agrees with observations for WTC 1). Let dt be a small time interval, so that the force action distance to consider is
v*dt
and so
F*v*dt = k*M*v^3*dt = 2k*((1/2)M*v^2)v*dt
The ejecta exit the impact zone with very few secondary collisions.
However, the KE of the ejected material may very well be a constant fraction of the total KE.
I doubt it, myself. The first impacted floor is not hit very hard, and so is only partially crushed. Put the twentieth impacted floor is hit quite hard, sending pressure pulses back up through the crushed zone, re-crushing the materials above. All my simulations give (much) better fits to the data by assuming a stretch function which is monotonically decreasing (although I suppose this alone does not imply re-crushing).
These are not collisions in the ordinary sense, but rather a repacking of already packed materials.
Assume a vertical avalanche, which implies no ejected materials (this largely agrees with observations for WTC 1). Let dt be a small time interval, so that the force action distance to consider is
v*dt
and so
F*v*dt = k*M*v^3*dt = 2k*((1/2)M*v^2)v*dt
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 7 2008, 10:33 PM)
The study kept cranking up the pull-in force until (1) approximate agreement with observations was obtained and (2) further increase led to premature collapse.
5 kips. Not much.
================
As for why we should accept the report, do recall there were several draft documents, each of which went through a period of public comment. This meant that interested structural engineers (P.E, S.E.) and professors of structural engineering had an opportunity to review and help improve the report.
How did this compare with with the quantity predicted by the floor element model(s)?
5 kips. Not much.
================
As for why we should accept the report, do recall there were several draft documents, each of which went through a period of public comment. This meant that interested structural engineers (P.E, S.E.) and professors of structural engineering had an opportunity to review and help improve the report.
How did this compare with with the quantity predicted by the floor element model(s)?
Just ran into this, though I haven't read it. From the description, it seems very relevant to axial strike collapse models:
Buckling of columns under variably distributed axial loads.
Vaziri, H H; Xie, J
Computers and Structures. Vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 505-509. 1992
A new numerical model for analyzing the buckling of columns with variably distributed axial loads is proposed in this paper. The presented method transforms the traditional eigenvalue problem into an initial boundary value problem which can be solved by numerical integrations. The buckling load is determined by a proposed two-step iterative procedure. Because of its concise and easy-to-implement form, the proposed method can be coded and used for analysis with a minimum requirement for the in-core memory storage of a computer. The proposed model is verified for a column with uniformly distributed axial loads, and the application of the method is demonstrated by analyzing columns with variably distributed axial loads and columns with varying cross-sections. Some interesting conclusions are made.
Descriptors: Buckling; Mathematical models; Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions; Structural analysis; Boundary value problems; Integration; Computer applications
Buckling of columns under variably distributed axial loads.
Vaziri, H H; Xie, J
Computers and Structures. Vol. 45, no. 3, pp. 505-509. 1992
A new numerical model for analyzing the buckling of columns with variably distributed axial loads is proposed in this paper. The presented method transforms the traditional eigenvalue problem into an initial boundary value problem which can be solved by numerical integrations. The buckling load is determined by a proposed two-step iterative procedure. Because of its concise and easy-to-implement form, the proposed method can be coded and used for analysis with a minimum requirement for the in-core memory storage of a computer. The proposed model is verified for a column with uniformly distributed axial loads, and the application of the method is demonstrated by analyzing columns with variably distributed axial loads and columns with varying cross-sections. Some interesting conclusions are made.
Descriptors: Buckling; Mathematical models; Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions; Structural analysis; Boundary value problems; Integration; Computer applications
QUOTE (metamars+Jan 7 2008, 05:27 PM)
How did this compare with with the quantity predicted by the floor element model(s)?
It is in NCSTAR1--6D but one should also read the Executive Summary of NCSTAR1--6, where NIST lays out all the little problems. If I remember correctly, in the final loading analysis runs, the floors were modeled as sheets with certain properties. So these didn't give any pull-in force. Thus the special runs to simulate the bowing-in.
It is in NCSTAR1--6D but one should also read the Executive Summary of NCSTAR1--6, where NIST lays out all the little problems. If I remember correctly, in the final loading analysis runs, the floors were modeled as sheets with certain properties. So these didn't give any pull-in force. Thus the special runs to simulate the bowing-in.
DBB:
When you say: "no ejected materials (this largely agrees with observations for WTC 1)."
You really think this agrees with observations!
Are we looking at the same collapse?
When you say: "no ejected materials (this largely agrees with observations for WTC 1)."
You really think this agrees with observations!
Are we looking at the same collapse?
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Jan 7 2008, 06:40 PM)
You really think this agrees with observations!
Yes, on a mass basis. Almost all materials funnel downwards, as is determined by the debris field of Ground Zero. The air leaving the tower carries out some tiny fraction of the mass. The exterior walls provide the funnel and fall over later, not considered part of the descending, crushed materials.
Once the collapse front reaches about floor 10, the rest of the collapse is more complex. I am only considering the first 3.8 seconds, during which about 17 stories were crushed (and then extrapolating that).
Yes, on a mass basis. Almost all materials funnel downwards, as is determined by the debris field of Ground Zero. The air leaving the tower carries out some tiny fraction of the mass. The exterior walls provide the funnel and fall over later, not considered part of the descending, crushed materials.
Once the collapse front reaches about floor 10, the rest of the collapse is more complex. I am only considering the first 3.8 seconds, during which about 17 stories were crushed (and then extrapolating that).
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 8 2008, 12:09 AM)
No, my understanding is that the floor pans were 22 guage galvanized corrugated steel.
Interesting!
David, I don't doubt you - I just don't know now. I've been exposed to countless mentions of the floor pans being aluminum. So I guess I'll have to check.
In the meantime, Mr. Chainsaw, haven't you discussed aluminum floor pans many times (usually in the context of the many possible reactions of the aluminum with other materials in the towers)?
Max
Interesting!
David, I don't doubt you - I just don't know now. I've been exposed to countless mentions of the floor pans being aluminum. So I guess I'll have to check.
In the meantime, Mr. Chainsaw, haven't you discussed aluminum floor pans many times (usually in the context of the many possible reactions of the aluminum with other materials in the towers)?
Max
Assuming a vertical avalanche resistive force, it is easy to determine a terminal speed of
1/(rk)
where r is the average density of the tower (not including exterior walls) and k is the constant for the resistive force. So now I am less confident that k is anything but empirical, and I withdraw my previous claim that this terminal speed would be about 67 m/s.
1/(rk)
where r is the average density of the tower (not including exterior walls) and k is the constant for the resistive force. So now I am less confident that k is anything but empirical, and I withdraw my previous claim that this terminal speed would be about 67 m/s.
Max Photon --- NCSTAR1--2A Figure 1--6, page 7 (41 ordinal) clearly states steel deck.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 8 2008, 02:35 AM)
Interesting!
David, I don't doubt you - I just don't know now. I've been exposed to countless mentions of the floor pans being aluminum. So I guess I'll have to check.
In the meantime, Mr. Chainsaw, haven't you discussed aluminum floor pans many times (usually in the context of the many possible reactions of the aluminum with other materials in the towers)?
Max
NO I discussed the Zinc and Steel 22 gage floor pans reaction with Acids, and moisture that cause the steel to oxidize rapidly. IN the wiring accesses designed into the floor pans because they can entrap the hot gases necessary for such a reaction to take place.
David, I don't doubt you - I just don't know now. I've been exposed to countless mentions of the floor pans being aluminum. So I guess I'll have to check.
In the meantime, Mr. Chainsaw, haven't you discussed aluminum floor pans many times (usually in the context of the many possible reactions of the aluminum with other materials in the towers)?
Max
NO I discussed the Zinc and Steel 22 gage floor pans reaction with Acids, and moisture that cause the steel to oxidize rapidly. IN the wiring accesses designed into the floor pans because they can entrap the hot gases necessary for such a reaction to take place.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+,Jan 8 2008, 03:16 AM)
NO I discussed the Zinc and Steel 22 gage floor pans reaction with Acids, and moisture that cause the steel to oxidize rapidly. IN the wiring accesses designed into the floor pans because they can entrap the hot gases necessary for such a reaction to take place.
Thanks CC.
David, clearly I am wrong.
Thanks for clarifying (my clarification).
Max
Thanks CC.
David, clearly I am wrong.
Thanks for clarifying (my clarification).
Max
OneWhiteEye, Neu, David,
FYI, I found out how to synchronize two videos now in one screen using avisynth. This is very interesting. Both videos ( I tested) have the same framerate and the unique patterns of the debris make it possible to synch precisely with an error of 1/29.97 seconds. If the framerate differs then it is of course also possible but the error will be bigger. I'm sure there are a lot of programs out that can do that already, but I like free/clean/tiny softsware tools. I'll soon post a small debunking challenge if I don't debunk it myself......
FYI, I found out how to synchronize two videos now in one screen using avisynth. This is very interesting. Both videos ( I tested) have the same framerate and the unique patterns of the debris make it possible to synch precisely with an error of 1/29.97 seconds. If the framerate differs then it is of course also possible but the error will be bigger. I'm sure there are a lot of programs out that can do that already, but I like free/clean/tiny softsware tools. I'll soon post a small debunking challenge if I don't debunk it myself......
Arthur,
I asked what your second best guess was for the white flashes.
Shall I take it you are busy busting out the video into individual frames so you can map the flashes on a splice map?
Or are you contacting buddies at NIST to get the video of the entire 7 minutes so you can show that pesky Max Photon that there is no way - not even a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance - that those white flashes are related to some idiotic ignition mechanism?
Max White Flash Photon
RealtyChick, Grouchy:
You guys can get in on it too if you want.
What is your best explanation for the white flashes, after "falling debris"?
* * *
I asked what your second best guess was for the white flashes.
Shall I take it you are busy busting out the video into individual frames so you can map the flashes on a splice map?
Or are you contacting buddies at NIST to get the video of the entire 7 minutes so you can show that pesky Max Photon that there is no way - not even a 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance - that those white flashes are related to some idiotic ignition mechanism?
Max White Flash Photon
RealtyChick, Grouchy:
You guys can get in on it too if you want.
What is your best explanation for the white flashes, after "falling debris"?
* * *
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 7 2008, 06:16 PM)
Useful find!
I posted it because of the photos not what they make from it
Here another archive
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...pher=&SEndDate=
very hi-res ones available, but not taken directly after the collapse as far as I know. Restricting the date to 09/12/2001 does only give the pentagon.
Here another archive
http://www.photolibrary.fema.gov/photolibr...pher=&SEndDate=
very hi-res ones available, but not taken directly after the collapse as far as I know. Restricting the date to 09/12/2001 does only give the pentagon.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jan 8 2008, 12:35 AM)
It is in NCSTAR1--6D but one should also read the Executive Summary of NCSTAR1--6, where NIST lays out all the little problems. If I remember correctly, in the final loading analysis runs, the floors were modeled as sheets with certain properties. So these didn't give any pull-in force. Thus the special runs to simulate the bowing-in.
Not very impressive, especially when you consider their importance to the collapse scenario they're pushing.
Not very impressive, especially when you consider their importance to the collapse scenario they're pushing.
QUOTE (Max Photon+Jan 7 2008, 03:04 PM)
Metamars,
I really understand the arguments presented for why there must have been explosive forces. Just a few points...
First, language can take on a life of its own. When people say everything was pulverized to dust - nothing remained - well that's a pretty strong statement. When I look at FEMA photos, that statement does not appear correct. (By the way, one can find floor pans in the FEMA photos.)
Which is why people shouldn't say that "everything was pulverized to dust" - including Richard Gage. Between "everything was pulverized to dust" and "the building collapsed, crushing wallboard, concrete, office contents" there's more than a few shades of in between.
Both verbal and photographs don't jive with what I'd expect an unassisted collapse aftermath to look like. Of course, neither does the video, but that's another matter.
QUOTE
Second, if high explosives were used throughout the towers (to account for the alleged anomalous degree of pulverization), I would think that 1) the cloud of explosives residue would have been asphyxiating, 2) traces of high explosives would have been everywhere, 3) people would have probably reported strong smells, as many explosives have very distinctive smells after ignition.
I don't know what to make of 1). The powder residue was somewhat asphyxiating, already. I've never heard anybody make such a claim re explosives, themselves, before.
2) maybe, but identifiable as such, within the chemical soup that resulted? Furthermore, if you don't look for a particular substance, are you going to find it?
3) well, then we can probably discount explosives that people can detect with their noses!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Second, if high explosives were used throughout the towers (to account for the alleged anomalous degree of pulverization), I would think that 1) the cloud of explosives residue would have been asphyxiating, 2) traces of high explosives would have been everywhere, 3) people would have probably reported strong smells, as many explosives have very distinctive smells after ignition. |
I don't know what to make of 1). The powder residue was somewhat asphyxiating, already. I've never heard anybody make such a claim re explosives, themselves, before.
2) maybe, but identifiable as such, within the chemical soup that resulted? Furthermore, if you don't look for a particular substance, are you going to find it?
3) well, then we can probably discount explosives that people can detect with their noses!
Third, if thermobarics were used, I am hard-pressed to see how thermobarics would pulverize all of the objects that you think collapse dynamics couldn't. I don't know much about thermobarics, but I tend to think of them having much slower detonation velocities than that of high explosives.
I previously posted a pressure vs. time graph from an Australian military web site. While the graph was heuristic - the unidentified thermobaric was had a peak pressure of exactly half the peak pressure of the comparison unidentified high explosive - one can at least tentatively conclude that at least some real thermobarics will get you peak pressures of 2,000 psi. For a wave hitting a floor panel, some reflection off a steel pan might get you 4,000 psi, which I expect would pulverize 3,000 psi quite readily.
Furthermore, these are more diffuse than either high explosives or, I presume, the maximal impact area that all the columns could impact during a collapse.
Just speculating, but I believe the diffuseness combined with the longer duration allow more pressure waves to enter any give physical object from more directions, thus creating a 'crazy quilt' or 'choppy sea' of internal pressure waves. The net effect might be more pulverization, since, e.g., reinforcing peaks would only rupture the object in random locations, but only after the body had become 'loaded' with sufficient pressure waves to continue the rupturing process as subsequent wave peaks coincided.
There has been some discussion of explosives and thermobarics on the physorg threads. However, I don't recall anything quantitative that would relate thermobarics to pulverization granularity.
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.