[continued from 9/11 Events - New thread ]
Previous two threads :
Basic Physics, Correct Analysis of WTC Towers Collapse
911 WTC - Evidence of an Nuclear explosion?
This thread is solely for sci-tech discussion of 9-11. If you want to discuss politics or other things, please find another board.
A. N. Kounadis
Nonlinear Dynamic Buckling and Stability of Autonomous Dissipative Discrete Structural; Systems : Potential Systems
in
NONLINEAR STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: THEORY AND COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES
A.N. Kounadis & W.B. Kratzig (eds.)
Springer, 1995, pp 73--142
has a fine example of a two degree-of-freedom model of a bent, imperfect column. This approximates the condition of the intact core columns in WTC 1 just before collapse initiation. Kounadis then subjects the column model to a suddenly applied load of infinite duration, which again approximates the state of WTC 1 immediately following the wedge-in.
Amazingly, for certain values of the parameters, the column undergoes nonlinear oscillations 'of very small amplitude ... for a period of 45 times the fundamental period of the unloaded undamped system, and thereafter an escaped motion leading to a dynamic buckling is initiated.'
Nonlinear Dynamic Buckling and Stability of Autonomous Dissipative Discrete Structural; Systems : Potential Systems
in
NONLINEAR STABILITY OF STRUCTURES: THEORY AND COMPUTATIONAL TECHNIQUES
A.N. Kounadis & W.B. Kratzig (eds.)
Springer, 1995, pp 73--142
has a fine example of a two degree-of-freedom model of a bent, imperfect column. This approximates the condition of the intact core columns in WTC 1 just before collapse initiation. Kounadis then subjects the column model to a suddenly applied load of infinite duration, which again approximates the state of WTC 1 immediately following the wedge-in.
Amazingly, for certain values of the parameters, the column undergoes nonlinear oscillations 'of very small amplitude ... for a period of 45 times the fundamental period of the unloaded undamped system, and thereafter an escaped motion leading to a dynamic buckling is initiated.'
QUOTE (Skeptik + Feb 1 2007, 5:40 PM)
ASSERTION #3
“But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.
Maybe it is the same reason squibs are seen at the demolition of Southwark Towers as seen in their own demolition video. (Third video from the left on the bottom row)
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htmFrom Implosion world.
You'll notice that in Southwark implosion that the demolition squibs precede the implosion, not follow it as in the case of the WTC collapses.
The speed of the air compressed in the WTC collapse is higher than the speed of the descending debris front, allowing for the appearance of "squibs" ahead of the collapse front.
Another explanation for the appearance of "squibs" ahead of the collapse front might be that massive structural elements, due of their greater momentum, were either able to outpace the main collapse front, or simply got a head start on it.
Is it possible that some massive elements such as elevator motors could have achieved enough momentum on their own to overcome the strength of a given area of truss/slab floor?
“But explosive charges (aka plumes, squibs, etc.) can clearly be seen shooting from several floors just prior to collapse.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No, air and debris can be seen pushing violently outward, which is a natural and predictable effect of rapid structural collapse.
Maybe it is the same reason squibs are seen at the demolition of Southwark Towers as seen in their own demolition video. (Third video from the left on the bottom row)
http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htmFrom Implosion world.
You'll notice that in Southwark implosion that the demolition squibs precede the implosion, not follow it as in the case of the WTC collapses.
The speed of the air compressed in the WTC collapse is higher than the speed of the descending debris front, allowing for the appearance of "squibs" ahead of the collapse front.
Another explanation for the appearance of "squibs" ahead of the collapse front might be that massive structural elements, due of their greater momentum, were either able to outpace the main collapse front, or simply got a head start on it.
Is it possible that some massive elements such as elevator motors could have achieved enough momentum on their own to overcome the strength of a given area of truss/slab floor?
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 2 2007, 12:04 AM)
You'll notice that in Southwark implosion that the demolition squibs precede the implosion, not follow it as in the case of the WTC collapses.
The speed of the air compressed in the WTC collapse is higher than the speed of the descending debris front, allowing for the appearance of "squibs" ahead of the collapse front.
Another explanation for the appearance of "squibs" ahead of the collapse front might be that massive structural elements, due of their greater momentum, were either able to outpace the main collapse front, or simply got a head start on it.
Is it possible that some massive elements such as elevator motors could have achieved enough momentum on their own to overcome the strength of a given area of truss/slab floor?
Another reason for the Squibs could be, fuel air explosions inside the twin towers core. Since the dense black smoke is essentially carbon dust.
The inside of the buildings is coated with carbon dust that plus small particles of Iron dust from fracturing beams could lead to explosions.
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 2 2007, 12:04 AM)
Is it possible that some massive elements such as elevator motors could have achieved enough momentum on their own to overcome the strength of a given area of truss/slab floor?
Seems most unlikely. The so-called squibs from WTC 2 appear to be coming out the ventilators at stories 75--76. So these appear to be just compressed air escaping down the air shafts.
I previously worked out just how easy it was to overpressurize the towers once the collapse was well started. At just 7% overpressure the windows will begin breaking. Furthermore, NEU-FONZE states that the so-called squibs are moving laterally at about the same speed as the descending mass. This strongly suggests that these are just compressed air.
Seems most unlikely. The so-called squibs from WTC 2 appear to be coming out the ventilators at stories 75--76. So these appear to be just compressed air escaping down the air shafts.
I previously worked out just how easy it was to overpressurize the towers once the collapse was well started. At just 7% overpressure the windows will begin breaking. Furthermore, NEU-FONZE states that the so-called squibs are moving laterally at about the same speed as the descending mass. This strongly suggests that these are just compressed air.
Over a year of debate on the technical aspects, begs the question why there was no similar forensic analysis of the incident on behalf of the US government.
I feel this thread has served its purpose.
I feel this thread has served its purpose.
Wow!
This thread morphs yet again!
But I guess it's the thread that won't die...
The last thread began with this bold proclamation from the moderators:
"This thread will be excessively moderated:
all off-topic, offensive posts and spam will be removed and violators will be banned! This thread is ONLY for discussion of physics behind the fall of the WTC. No politics! No useless links! No irrelevant images! "
Well, so much for that promise (until recently)!
Anyway, lateral and even backwards ejection of debris is to be expected when a brittle target (concrete), undergoes hard impact. The ejecta velocities are in a statistical range that spans values that are less than or equal to the impact velocity. Some impact energy may even be converted to rotational energy of the ejected material but experimental data show this contribution to be relatively small.
NF
This thread morphs yet again!
But I guess it's the thread that won't die...
The last thread began with this bold proclamation from the moderators:
"This thread will be excessively moderated:
all off-topic, offensive posts and spam will be removed and violators will be banned! This thread is ONLY for discussion of physics behind the fall of the WTC. No politics! No useless links! No irrelevant images! "
Well, so much for that promise (until recently)!
Anyway, lateral and even backwards ejection of debris is to be expected when a brittle target (concrete), undergoes hard impact. The ejecta velocities are in a statistical range that spans values that are less than or equal to the impact velocity. Some impact energy may even be converted to rotational energy of the ejected material but experimental data show this contribution to be relatively small.
NF
For those who want to tinker with a continuum model, there's free software on the web called ODE Toolkit that uses Java. It can be used to predict the position and velocity of the collapse front. See the plots below of front position x vs. t and front velocity v vs. t.
http://odetoolkit.hmc.edu/download.html
For definitions enter:
v' = 9.81 - v^2/x
x' = v
and hit 'enter ODE'. These are the ODEs for stage 1 crush-down for conditions of no resistive force (E1=0), stretch=0 (100% compaction), no mass shedding, and constant mass density.
For initial conditions enter:
t: 0
v: 0
x: 52.92 (the height of the 14-story upper block in m)
Hit 'solve forward'. The graph will show the v vs. t or x vs. t plot. The graphs sometimes get skewed a little when switching back and forth between graphs. Hit the 'clear all' and then 'solve forward' button to refresh if needed.
x equals 416 m when the front reaches the ground (x is measured from the top of the tower). The x vs. t graph shows that t equals about 11.7 s at 416 m. This is the duration for stage 1 and is close to Greening's discrete model value of 11.6 s (see first pic).
At x=416 m the v vs. t graph shows that front speed v is about 52 m/s. That value also agrees with Greening's value of 51.2 m/s (second pic).
t = 11.7 s (stage 1 duration)
v = 52 m/s (front velocity at ground)
Different values of x can be tried to see what happens to the duration for different upper block sizes.
For WTC2, x=109.6 m (size of upper block)
t: 0
v: 0
x: 109.6
The ODE solver at x=416m gives:
t = 9.8 s
v = 52 m/s
Those values agree with Greening's 9.7 s and 50.7 m/s.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...E/wtc1ode1x.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...DE/wtc1odev.jpg
http://odetoolkit.hmc.edu/download.html
For definitions enter:
v' = 9.81 - v^2/x
x' = v
and hit 'enter ODE'. These are the ODEs for stage 1 crush-down for conditions of no resistive force (E1=0), stretch=0 (100% compaction), no mass shedding, and constant mass density.
For initial conditions enter:
t: 0
v: 0
x: 52.92 (the height of the 14-story upper block in m)
Hit 'solve forward'. The graph will show the v vs. t or x vs. t plot. The graphs sometimes get skewed a little when switching back and forth between graphs. Hit the 'clear all' and then 'solve forward' button to refresh if needed.
x equals 416 m when the front reaches the ground (x is measured from the top of the tower). The x vs. t graph shows that t equals about 11.7 s at 416 m. This is the duration for stage 1 and is close to Greening's discrete model value of 11.6 s (see first pic).
At x=416 m the v vs. t graph shows that front speed v is about 52 m/s. That value also agrees with Greening's value of 51.2 m/s (second pic).
t = 11.7 s (stage 1 duration)
v = 52 m/s (front velocity at ground)
Different values of x can be tried to see what happens to the duration for different upper block sizes.
For WTC2, x=109.6 m (size of upper block)
t: 0
v: 0
x: 109.6
The ODE solver at x=416m gives:
t = 9.8 s
v = 52 m/s
Those values agree with Greening's 9.7 s and 50.7 m/s.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...E/wtc1ode1x.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...DE/wtc1odev.jpg
The ODEs had to be written as follows for the software to recognize them.
v' = 9.81 - v^2/x
x' = v
The original diffeq that was derived in a previous post for stage 1 was:
x'x' + xx'' = xg
The software wants primes to be on only the left side of the equation. Solving for x'' gives:
x'' = g - x'x'/x
The software also can't deal with double primes, so an extra equation is needed:
x' = v
That gives:
v' = g - v^2/x
x' = v
v' = 9.81 - v^2/x
x' = v
v' = 9.81 - v^2/x
x' = v
The original diffeq that was derived in a previous post for stage 1 was:
x'x' + xx'' = xg
The software wants primes to be on only the left side of the equation. Solving for x'' gives:
x'' = g - x'x'/x
The software also can't deal with double primes, so an extra equation is needed:
x' = v
That gives:
v' = g - v^2/x
x' = v
v' = 9.81 - v^2/x
x' = v
The two graphs below are plots of x vs. t and v vs. t for three cases: WTC1, WTC2, and a hypothetical case where the upper block is of infinitesimal height. For the third case, I selected x=0.001. The solver hiccups if x is zero.
Notice that for the case of x=0.001, the velocity is linear with time which means the acceleration is constant. The slope of v vs. t is about 52.5/16 = 3.28 m/s^2 which is g/3. At x=416m, t is about 16 seconds. This is the boundary condition for the case that Cherenapov was referring to. It doesn't represent the towers since the size of the upper blocks were 52.92 m for WTC1 and 109.6 m for WTC2. Those sizes give stage 1 collapse durations of 11.7 and 9.8 seconds, which are much shorter than 16 seconds.
When the upper block is of finite height, the front acceleration varies with elapsed time.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...ODE/wtcode4.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...DE/wtc3ode5.jpg
Notice that for the case of x=0.001, the velocity is linear with time which means the acceleration is constant. The slope of v vs. t is about 52.5/16 = 3.28 m/s^2 which is g/3. At x=416m, t is about 16 seconds. This is the boundary condition for the case that Cherenapov was referring to. It doesn't represent the towers since the size of the upper blocks were 52.92 m for WTC1 and 109.6 m for WTC2. Those sizes give stage 1 collapse durations of 11.7 and 9.8 seconds, which are much shorter than 16 seconds.
When the upper block is of finite height, the front acceleration varies with elapsed time.
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...ODE/wtcode4.jpg
http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...DE/wtc3ode5.jpg
" -v^2 + a. v^2 / 2a = - g. v^2 / 2a,
in which case a = g !!!!!!.
Perhaps this explains why the WTC 7's collapse, which was entirely crush up, was so fast.....
NF"
For the case of E1=0, stretch=0, and constant mass density, a bottom-up will occur at an acceleration of g. Even with a moderate value of E1, the duration will be close to that of free fall since the collapse starts with the entire mass of the buildng falling.
See the last set of figures in BV. For the towers collapsing bottom-up, the duration would be 10 seconds or less for values of E1 of 2 GJ per story or less. For E1=0.5 GJ, the duration is nearly the same as that for free-fall.
in which case a = g !!!!!!.
Perhaps this explains why the WTC 7's collapse, which was entirely crush up, was so fast.....
NF"
For the case of E1=0, stretch=0, and constant mass density, a bottom-up will occur at an acceleration of g. Even with a moderate value of E1, the duration will be close to that of free fall since the collapse starts with the entire mass of the buildng falling.
See the last set of figures in BV. For the towers collapsing bottom-up, the duration would be 10 seconds or less for values of E1 of 2 GJ per story or less. For E1=0.5 GJ, the duration is nearly the same as that for free-fall.
QUOTE (Chainsaw+ Feb 1 2007, 4:40 PM)
As soon as the weather clears and I can find the time I will be doing a video tape of kerosene causing melted steel does anyone want a copy?
It is a simple process, first confinement causing the fuel air blast to have thermobaric effects inside the buildings, causes elevators and the fire shutters on the mechanical access ways to be blown out, permitting air passage.
Second, the kerosene burns producing smoke, (Carbon Black), Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and steam.
The Steam, and the Carbon Monoxide react with the surface area of the steel, causing a layer of rust like scale, and the Carbon Black is included in the Scale.
Along with a thick layer of carbon black deposited on the steel and surfaces all over the building, above the fire.
I remember reading comments by a FDNY fire chief who detailed how unburned combustible gases could collect in the floors above the fires in the WTC towers, and then upon mixing with sufficient oxygen, could ignite and explode.
Until reading the chimney fire article, it hadn't occurred to me that those same exhaust elements could also condense out onto structural members, and in time build up and ignite.
It was a way to transport combustibles from the fuel rich office areas to the fuel deficient areas of the cores.
While the areas of combustion constantly moved, the pathways for exhaust seemed to remain constant. This would allow for the deposition of reactive exhaust products to concentrate in specific pathways.
If the ignition of these combustible layers in turn led to ignition of structural members themselves, it could have been a contributing cause of the collapses.
Chainsaw, you've probably been making this argument for some time, but in my case it didn't sink in until now.
It is a simple process, first confinement causing the fuel air blast to have thermobaric effects inside the buildings, causes elevators and the fire shutters on the mechanical access ways to be blown out, permitting air passage.
Second, the kerosene burns producing smoke, (Carbon Black), Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, and steam.
The Steam, and the Carbon Monoxide react with the surface area of the steel, causing a layer of rust like scale, and the Carbon Black is included in the Scale.
Along with a thick layer of carbon black deposited on the steel and surfaces all over the building, above the fire.
I remember reading comments by a FDNY fire chief who detailed how unburned combustible gases could collect in the floors above the fires in the WTC towers, and then upon mixing with sufficient oxygen, could ignite and explode.
Until reading the chimney fire article, it hadn't occurred to me that those same exhaust elements could also condense out onto structural members, and in time build up and ignite.
It was a way to transport combustibles from the fuel rich office areas to the fuel deficient areas of the cores.
While the areas of combustion constantly moved, the pathways for exhaust seemed to remain constant. This would allow for the deposition of reactive exhaust products to concentrate in specific pathways.
If the ignition of these combustible layers in turn led to ignition of structural members themselves, it could have been a contributing cause of the collapses.
Chainsaw, you've probably been making this argument for some time, but in my case it didn't sink in until now.
QUOTE (MMC+Feb 2 2007, 02:23 AM)
Over a year of debate on the technical aspects, begs the question why there was no similar forensic analysis of the incident on behalf of the US government.
I feel this thread has served its purpose.
MMC,
Yes the thread has proved a purpose. As my favorite sport casters like to say "Let's go to the tape!"
Most scientific polls are pointing to better than 85% of the American population feel they are not being told the truth about 911.
The information stage is getting into the end game. It will soon be time to clarify and promote patriotic and legal action.
NIST has had 6 years and despite changing their story more than once, they still can't tell us why the buildings fell. Six years later and they are just getting around to showing their ignorance about Building 7.
Alright, so let's clarify the issues.
1. Molten steel is heading the list. NIST's discovery of sulferization of the steel is confirming evidence to Dr. Jones' theory of thermite/thermate. Occam's Razor is favoring this as being the most probable cause for the "molten steel" pools that burned for a 100 days. (OT: Perhaps Robert Hawkins is right and we should find out "who" those "cable up" guys were just before 911. Still not physics or science related to 911 unless you include criminology as an acceptable venue for these boards. I don't think the moderators will buy it)
2. "Cancer Cluster" in the 911 on site people and the following medical examinations should rule out, or for, a nuclear event being the cause for the molten steel.
3. Dust studies are in the works and probably will be studied for a century to come.
4. Seismic evidence will be hotly debated.
5. Action: NIST/FEMA must release all the data. The data must at a bare minimum be public information for the scientific community.
Please feel free to add to the list of scientific study yet to come. There are so many!
I think this thread did a lot to wake up a few people. Where it goes is another thing. We all saw Building 7 going into almost perfect free fall, and "lucky" Larry confessing to "pull it," but to date, nothing changed.
Help me identify the French Philosopher that discovered "the only constant in life is change." Or did he say "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
I feel this thread has served its purpose.
MMC,
Yes the thread has proved a purpose. As my favorite sport casters like to say "Let's go to the tape!"
Most scientific polls are pointing to better than 85% of the American population feel they are not being told the truth about 911.
The information stage is getting into the end game. It will soon be time to clarify and promote patriotic and legal action.
NIST has had 6 years and despite changing their story more than once, they still can't tell us why the buildings fell. Six years later and they are just getting around to showing their ignorance about Building 7.
Alright, so let's clarify the issues.
1. Molten steel is heading the list. NIST's discovery of sulferization of the steel is confirming evidence to Dr. Jones' theory of thermite/thermate. Occam's Razor is favoring this as being the most probable cause for the "molten steel" pools that burned for a 100 days. (OT: Perhaps Robert Hawkins is right and we should find out "who" those "cable up" guys were just before 911. Still not physics or science related to 911 unless you include criminology as an acceptable venue for these boards. I don't think the moderators will buy it)
2. "Cancer Cluster" in the 911 on site people and the following medical examinations should rule out, or for, a nuclear event being the cause for the molten steel.
3. Dust studies are in the works and probably will be studied for a century to come.
4. Seismic evidence will be hotly debated.
5. Action: NIST/FEMA must release all the data. The data must at a bare minimum be public information for the scientific community.
Please feel free to add to the list of scientific study yet to come. There are so many!
QUOTE
I feel this thread has served its purpose.
I think this thread did a lot to wake up a few people. Where it goes is another thing. We all saw Building 7 going into almost perfect free fall, and "lucky" Larry confessing to "pull it," but to date, nothing changed.
Help me identify the French Philosopher that discovered "the only constant in life is change." Or did he say "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
I was under the impression that the wings of the planes pretty much shredded upon entering the towers, until I read this statement by Stanley Praimnath, who was on the 81st floor of WTC 2 when the plane struck.
His office was in the southwest corner of the 81st floor, which would put his office door and the plane wing on the interior of the floor, possibly close to the core.
I assumed most of the wreckage ended up in the northeast corner.
A wing in the vicinity of the core would make a potent source of heat if ignited.
QUOTE
PRAIMNATH: And, I'm shuddering. And I'm trembling. And I'm crying. Lord, don't leave me to die. And I realized I'm covered with debris when I try to get up. Picking through the rubble when all I could see was the plane wing wedged at my office door, 20 feet from where I was.
His office was in the southwest corner of the 81st floor, which would put his office door and the plane wing on the interior of the floor, possibly close to the core.
I assumed most of the wreckage ended up in the northeast corner.
A wing in the vicinity of the core would make a potent source of heat if ignited.
beijingyank
About the same percentage think the Creation story in Genisis is a factual acount. Never underestimate the ability of the general public to be misinformed. Science is NEVER a popularity contest.
About the same percentage think the Creation story in Genisis is a factual acount. Never underestimate the ability of the general public to be misinformed. Science is NEVER a popularity contest.
NIST has had 6 years and despite changing their story more than once, they still can't tell us why the buildings fell. Six years later and they are just getting around to showing their ignorance about Building 7.
NIST did an excellent investigation and explanation of the towers collapse. Just because you have not read/understood it does not change the FACT that it stands unchallenged.
You have yet to show a single instance where molten STEEL was found anywhere in the WTC complex. Molten steel is still just a disinformation mantra from the know-nothing crowd. All such reports turned out to be bogus.
You have yet to show a single instance where molten STEEL was found anywhere in the WTC complex. Molten steel is still just a disinformation mantra from the know-nothing crowd. All such reports turned out to be bogus.
2. "Cancer Cluster" in the 911 on site people and the following medical examinations should rule out, or for, a nuclear event being the cause for the molten steel.
The cancer and other ailments are caused by the inhalation of dust, according to the medical community. Any speculation about nuclear devices is illogical and foolish. A nuclear event would have been obvious and would have immediately destroyed everything for blocks around the complex. The smallest nuclear explosion possible would have left a glass lined smoking crater and the electro-magnetic pulse would have wiped the memories of every video camera within line of site. There was no nuclear event on 9/11, this is just the speculations of an ignorant mind and a red herring.
Not by the experts(expert=someone who knows what he is talking about), they have already ruled out any explosives(which leave distinctive traces absent in all the data).
Not by the experts(expert=someone who knows what he is talking about), they have already ruled out any explosives(which leave distinctive traces absent in all the data).
5. Action: NIST/FEMA must release all the data. The data must at a bare minimum be public information for the scientific community.
Already done(which you would know if you bothered to look).
Grumpy
And another one bites the dust.
Arthur
And another one bites the dust.
Arthur
that makes you the dust, funnyman.
Already done(which you would know if you bothered to look).
Hi,
Many people are very interested in taking a look at the computer models the NIST used. To my knowledge these have never been released. Do you know otherwise?
Also, according to the NIST report, they had access to "6,977 segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 300 hours." and "6,899 photographs from at least 200 photographers. As with the videos, many of the photographs were unpublished." My understanding is that these have never been released to the public. I have only come across one obscure website/blog where a certain Trevor Ycas claims to have submitted a FOIA request for this information and was quoted a price of $13,278 ( zirkonyx.gnn.tv/articles/2009/_13K_for_911_truth ) To my knowledge, noone has actually gone through with this and obtained the set.
Do you know of anyone other than the NIST who has gotten access to this collection?
Regards.
And another one bites the dust.
Arthur
Whistle by the graveyard Douchesheit.
"The air is safe to breath and the water is safe to drink." Now if the government lied about this, they will lie about anything and everything.
Scientific polls show 85% of Americans think the government is lying when it comes to the fairy tale they attached to 911.
You are in the minority with a small willy Douchesheit. You and your oct entourage are worthless zeros to the left.
QUOTE
Most scientific polls are pointing to better than 85% of the American population feel they are not being told the truth about 911.
About the same percentage think the Creation story in Genisis is a factual acount. Never underestimate the ability of the general public to be misinformed. Science is NEVER a popularity contest.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Most scientific polls are pointing to better than 85% of the American population feel they are not being told the truth about 911. |
About the same percentage think the Creation story in Genisis is a factual acount. Never underestimate the ability of the general public to be misinformed. Science is NEVER a popularity contest.
NIST has had 6 years and despite changing their story more than once, they still can't tell us why the buildings fell. Six years later and they are just getting around to showing their ignorance about Building 7.
NIST did an excellent investigation and explanation of the towers collapse. Just because you have not read/understood it does not change the FACT that it stands unchallenged.
QUOTE
1. Molten steel is heading the list. NIST's discovery of sulferization of the steel is confirming evidence to Dr. Jones' theory of thermite/thermate. Occam's Razor is favoring this as being the most probable cause for the "molten steel" pools that burned for a 100 days.
You have yet to show a single instance where molten STEEL was found anywhere in the WTC complex. Molten steel is still just a disinformation mantra from the know-nothing crowd. All such reports turned out to be bogus.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1. Molten steel is heading the list. NIST's discovery of sulferization of the steel is confirming evidence to Dr. Jones' theory of thermite/thermate. Occam's Razor is favoring this as being the most probable cause for the "molten steel" pools that burned for a 100 days. |
You have yet to show a single instance where molten STEEL was found anywhere in the WTC complex. Molten steel is still just a disinformation mantra from the know-nothing crowd. All such reports turned out to be bogus.
2. "Cancer Cluster" in the 911 on site people and the following medical examinations should rule out, or for, a nuclear event being the cause for the molten steel.
The cancer and other ailments are caused by the inhalation of dust, according to the medical community. Any speculation about nuclear devices is illogical and foolish. A nuclear event would have been obvious and would have immediately destroyed everything for blocks around the complex. The smallest nuclear explosion possible would have left a glass lined smoking crater and the electro-magnetic pulse would have wiped the memories of every video camera within line of site. There was no nuclear event on 9/11, this is just the speculations of an ignorant mind and a red herring.
QUOTE
4. Seismic evidence will be hotly debated.
Not by the experts(expert=someone who knows what he is talking about), they have already ruled out any explosives(which leave distinctive traces absent in all the data).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4. Seismic evidence will be hotly debated. |
Not by the experts(expert=someone who knows what he is talking about), they have already ruled out any explosives(which leave distinctive traces absent in all the data).
5. Action: NIST/FEMA must release all the data. The data must at a bare minimum be public information for the scientific community.
Already done(which you would know if you bothered to look).
Grumpy
Shagster:
Thanks for the nice plots! The observed rate of collapse of WTC 1 & 2, limited as the data is to the first 3 or 4 seconds, nevertheless confirms that the acceleration was certainly more that g/3 and, more importantly, was not constant, unlike Cherepanov's model in the case of a uniform mass distribution.
Beijingyank:
Let's say there WAS molten metal in the rubble pile.....
please explain how thermite could "cause molten steel pools to burn for a 100 days."
Are you suggesting there was "left-over" thermite that burned AFTER the collapse?
And do you have any data on the RATE of a typical thermite reaction?
NF
Thanks for the nice plots! The observed rate of collapse of WTC 1 & 2, limited as the data is to the first 3 or 4 seconds, nevertheless confirms that the acceleration was certainly more that g/3 and, more importantly, was not constant, unlike Cherepanov's model in the case of a uniform mass distribution.
Beijingyank:
Let's say there WAS molten metal in the rubble pile.....
please explain how thermite could "cause molten steel pools to burn for a 100 days."
Are you suggesting there was "left-over" thermite that burned AFTER the collapse?
And do you have any data on the RATE of a typical thermite reaction?
NF
shagster --- Great, but be sure to add 8.8 stories to both top blocks. This is the additional mass within the top mechanical floors and also the hat truss.
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 2 2007, 12:59 PM)
I remember reading comments by a FDNY fire chief who detailed how unburned combustible gases could collect in the floors above the fires in the WTC towers, and then upon mixing with sufficient oxygen, could ignite and explode.
Until reading the chimney fire article, it hadn't occurred to me that those same exhaust elements could also condense out onto structural members, and in time build up and ignite.
It was a way to transport combustibles from the fuel rich office areas to the fuel deficient areas of the cores.
While the areas of combustion constantly moved, the pathways for exhaust seemed to remain constant. This would allow for the deposition of reactive exhaust products to concentrate in specific pathways.
If the ignition of these combustible layers in turn led to ignition of structural members themselves, it could have been a contributing cause of the collapses.
Chainsaw, you've probably been making this argument for some time, but in my case it didn't sink in until now.
Exactly the reason that kerosene can not burn hot enough to melt steel, is because it produces water, and heats air, the kerosene Also has to vaporize before igniting, Losing energy in the vaporization boiling process.
The carbon black can ignite without the heat loss to vaporization making it a more efficient fuel even in plain air. IT can even ignite with oxidizing compounds such as iron oxide if the temperature is hot enough.
The temperature that is produced by wood could never melt Iron, to much water and contamination, however charcoal was the preferred method of making Iron in the early years of the Iron age.
Coke, Charcoal, and Creosote, along with hydrocarbon smoke are all purified forms of carbon black and they can melt Iron or steel if conditions are right, they can also explode.
Until reading the chimney fire article, it hadn't occurred to me that those same exhaust elements could also condense out onto structural members, and in time build up and ignite.
It was a way to transport combustibles from the fuel rich office areas to the fuel deficient areas of the cores.
While the areas of combustion constantly moved, the pathways for exhaust seemed to remain constant. This would allow for the deposition of reactive exhaust products to concentrate in specific pathways.
If the ignition of these combustible layers in turn led to ignition of structural members themselves, it could have been a contributing cause of the collapses.
Chainsaw, you've probably been making this argument for some time, but in my case it didn't sink in until now.
Exactly the reason that kerosene can not burn hot enough to melt steel, is because it produces water, and heats air, the kerosene Also has to vaporize before igniting, Losing energy in the vaporization boiling process.
The carbon black can ignite without the heat loss to vaporization making it a more efficient fuel even in plain air. IT can even ignite with oxidizing compounds such as iron oxide if the temperature is hot enough.
The temperature that is produced by wood could never melt Iron, to much water and contamination, however charcoal was the preferred method of making Iron in the early years of the Iron age.
Coke, Charcoal, and Creosote, along with hydrocarbon smoke are all purified forms of carbon black and they can melt Iron or steel if conditions are right, they can also explode.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 2 2007, 05:09 PM)
shagster --- Great, but be sure to add 8.8 stories to both top blocks. This is the additional mass within the top mechanical floors and also the hat truss.
Yes. Do you know which particular NIST documents describe the tower mass on a floor by floor basis?
The problem with Cherenapov's model isn't really the mass distribution but rather a lack of applying the appropriate boundary conditions. There's an infinite number of solutions to the diffeq but only two are meaningful for the towers.
Yes. Do you know which particular NIST documents describe the tower mass on a floor by floor basis?
The problem with Cherenapov's model isn't really the mass distribution but rather a lack of applying the appropriate boundary conditions. There's an infinite number of solutions to the diffeq but only two are meaningful for the towers.
NCSTAR1-6D Tables 4-7 and 4-8, p 176 (240 ordinal)
NCSTAR1-6 Tables 8-2 and 8-3, p 242 (324 ordinal)
NCSTAR1-6 Tables 8-2 and 8-3, p 242 (324 ordinal)
The ejection velocity of concrete fragments under low velocity impact loading of a typical floor appears to follow an equation of the form:
V ~ A constant x (Sigma)y. c / E
where Sigma y is the yield strength,
c, the wave velocity
E is Youngs modulus
For the first impact of the upper section of about 14 floors with the lower section of WTC 1 this gives a concrete fragment ejection velocity in the range 4 - 6 m/s.
NF
V ~ A constant x (Sigma)y. c / E
where Sigma y is the yield strength,
c, the wave velocity
E is Youngs modulus
For the first impact of the upper section of about 14 floors with the lower section of WTC 1 this gives a concrete fragment ejection velocity in the range 4 - 6 m/s.
NF
Chainsaw:
Do you know anything about pyrophoric iron?
I think it would form in oxygen-starved zones rich in hydrocarbons and sulfur.
For example near a lead-acid battery fire.
Iron exposed to such an environment would subsequently IGNITE on exposure to oxygen
NF
Do you know anything about pyrophoric iron?
I think it would form in oxygen-starved zones rich in hydrocarbons and sulfur.
For example near a lead-acid battery fire.
Iron exposed to such an environment would subsequently IGNITE on exposure to oxygen
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 3 2007, 01:25 AM)
Chainsaw:
Do you know anything about pyrophoric iron?
I think it would form in oxygen-starved zones rich in hydrocarbons and sulfur.
For example near a lead-acid battery fire.
Iron exposed to such an environment would subsequently IGNITE on exposure to oxygen
NF
NO do not know a thing about them, now what did happen to that 100 barrel oil tank that used to set on the farm where I live, oh ya it melted after they took the oil out.
Your Quite correct the lead Acid battery fire could have ignited the iron, I also Should point out that a similar reaction for world trade center 7 is not unfeasible when the fuel day tanks were drained.
Water can form in diesel fuel though bacterial action and cause the same effect in high sulfur diesel fuel, I have seen it myself when a friends barn and tractor burned because the tank next to the tractor ignited, and melted.
Unfortunately I grew up in the oil fields of Kentucky playing with chainsaws and Dynamite, thermites, and some low grade explosives too.
It was simply something for a Young boy to do.
I also thought that you guys and any ladies on the forum would like to see this,
Some times things just do not go as expected that is why we need Science and Math.
Do you know anything about pyrophoric iron?
I think it would form in oxygen-starved zones rich in hydrocarbons and sulfur.
For example near a lead-acid battery fire.
Iron exposed to such an environment would subsequently IGNITE on exposure to oxygen
NF
NO do not know a thing about them, now what did happen to that 100 barrel oil tank that used to set on the farm where I live, oh ya it melted after they took the oil out.
Your Quite correct the lead Acid battery fire could have ignited the iron, I also Should point out that a similar reaction for world trade center 7 is not unfeasible when the fuel day tanks were drained.
Water can form in diesel fuel though bacterial action and cause the same effect in high sulfur diesel fuel, I have seen it myself when a friends barn and tractor burned because the tank next to the tractor ignited, and melted.
Unfortunately I grew up in the oil fields of Kentucky playing with chainsaws and Dynamite, thermites, and some low grade explosives too.
It was simply something for a Young boy to do.
I also thought that you guys and any ladies on the forum would like to see this,
Some times things just do not go as expected that is why we need Science and Math.
This is shagster's evidence against thermite...
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.
*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.
*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 3 2007, 01:18 AM)
The ejection velocity of concrete fragments under low velocity impact loading of a typical floor appears to follow an equation of the form:
V ~ A constant x (Sigma)y. c / E
where Sigma y is the yield strength,
c, the wave velocity
E is Youngs modulus
For the first impact of the upper section of about 14 floors with the lower section of WTC 1 this gives a concrete fragment ejection velocity in the range 4 - 6 m/s.
NF
I've been looking into this also. One of the videos shows people running west down a side street west of West Street and getting pelted with what looks like concrete chips about the size of gravel. Someone pulled up his suit over his head to try to keep from getting hit. That was hundreds of feet from WTC2. The air resistance would need to be considered for small concrete chips. It will increase the fall duration but probably wouldn't effect the lateral speed as much. It's expected to increase the lateral distance that the pieces could reach. Also, the chips in that video were reaching the ground later than that predicted by freefall, which could be accounted for by air resistance effects or even chips leaving with an upward velocity.
It would also be worth looking into what happened to the strain energy in the perimeter columns. All of them became unloaded as the main floors pancaked down and no longer loaded them. That energy is small compared with the gravitational energy but could propel trees outward or even upward.
V ~ A constant x (Sigma)y. c / E
where Sigma y is the yield strength,
c, the wave velocity
E is Youngs modulus
For the first impact of the upper section of about 14 floors with the lower section of WTC 1 this gives a concrete fragment ejection velocity in the range 4 - 6 m/s.
NF
I've been looking into this also. One of the videos shows people running west down a side street west of West Street and getting pelted with what looks like concrete chips about the size of gravel. Someone pulled up his suit over his head to try to keep from getting hit. That was hundreds of feet from WTC2. The air resistance would need to be considered for small concrete chips. It will increase the fall duration but probably wouldn't effect the lateral speed as much. It's expected to increase the lateral distance that the pieces could reach. Also, the chips in that video were reaching the ground later than that predicted by freefall, which could be accounted for by air resistance effects or even chips leaving with an upward velocity.
It would also be worth looking into what happened to the strain energy in the perimeter columns. All of them became unloaded as the main floors pancaked down and no longer loaded them. That energy is small compared with the gravitational energy but could propel trees outward or even upward.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 3 2007, 12:24 AM)
NCSTAR1-6D Tables 4-7 and 4-8, p 176 (240 ordinal)
NCSTAR1-6 Tables 8-2 and 8-3, p 242 (324 ordinal)
Thanks.
NCSTAR1-6 Tables 8-2 and 8-3, p 242 (324 ordinal)
Thanks.
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 3 2007, 03:39 AM)
This is shagster's evidence against thermite...
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.
*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
You might also want to add to that, the fact that thermite is Sono Chemically reactive and un likely to survive even a small exposure to heat and high intensity sound, or ultra sound. Especially when mounted on perfect sound conduits, hollow steel beams.
Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php
Note how much thermite is used. The pot is about a liter, but how much thermite is that?
Stoichiometric thermite requires 2 moles of Al per 1 mole of Fe2O3
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
2 moles of Al weigh 54 g
1 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 160 g
density of Al=2.64 g/cc
density of Fe2O3=5.24 g/cc
54 grams of Al is equivalent to 20.5 cc of Al.
160g of Fe2O3 is equivalent to 30.5 cc of Fe2O3
Therefore, 51 cc of fully dense powder of 20.5 cc Al and 30.5 cc Fe2O3 weighs (54+160) g = 214 g.
A volume of 1000 cc would weigh (1000/51)*214 = 4.2 kg
For a powder packing density of 50%, the powder would weigh:
0.5*4.2 kg = 2.1 kg = 4.8 lb
That much just to burn a small hole in a small car engine. I bet it's even an aluminum block but lets say it isn't. How much do you think it would take to burn a massive core column? Then add enough to burn for 6 weeks! You see where we're going. You'd need tons.
Here's a Debunking911 Fun Fact!
How much mass would be required to produce molten iron from thermite equal to the same volume of molten aluminum droplets shown flowing from the south tower window:
A mole of Fe weighs 54 g. For every mole of Fe produced by thermite, one mole of Al and 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 is needed.
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe
One mole of Al weighs 27 g. 0.5 mole of Fe2O3 weighs 80 g.
Therefore, (27 + 80) g = 107 g of Al and Fe2O3 is needed to produce 54 g of Fe.
That means the mass of the reactants to that of Fe produced is a ratio of 107/54 = 2. The mass of thermite reactants (Al, Fe2O3) is twice that of the molten iron produced.
Comparing the weight of molten aluminum droplets compared with iron:
Iron is 7.9 g/cc. Aluminum is 2.64 g/cc. Fe is denser than Al by a factor of 3. For the same volume of droplets, Fe would have three times the mass as Al.
To produce the iron from thermite requires a reactant mass that is a factor of 2 more than the iron produced. Also, Fe is 3 times as dense as Al. So, it would take 2*3 = 6 times as much mass to produce the same volume of molten iron droplets from thermite compared with molten aluminum droplets.
Example:
Assume 3000 lbs of aluminum fell from the towers. If it had been molten iron produced by thermite, then 6*3000 = 18,000 lbs of thermite reactants would have been required to produce that same volume of falling mass.
Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.
*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum.
http://www.coolmagnetman.com/magconda.htm
The weight of a gallon of aluminum is about 22.5 pounds. A hundred of these would already be 2250 lbs. A gallon size is not unlike the size of the slugs that were pouring out the window. Look at them relative to the window size. They look small at first, but when you realize how big the towers were, the slugs were fairly large. It must have been in the thousands of pounds.
Some of the video stills show what look like 50 to 100 slugs in just one frame.
http://www.debunking911.com/capture7.jpg
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage. They include possible uses for welding molecular devices and possible use as a heat signature flare decoy. Then there is a patent of a device which has been brought up but as of yet, there is no evidence the idea went any further. Does it even work? Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. Once again the answer to this from the "scholars" is "rationalized technology". They need this technology to exist so it exists. There is some secret super thermite which can be placed in a canister which can survive 1,100 degree C so the primary charge doesn't go off.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
You might also want to add to that, the fact that thermite is Sono Chemically reactive and un likely to survive even a small exposure to heat and high intensity sound, or ultra sound. Especially when mounted on perfect sound conduits, hollow steel beams.
"As soon as the weather clears and I can find the time I will be doing a video tape of kerosene causing melted steel does anyone want a copy?
It is a simple process, first confinement causing the fuel air blast to have thermobaric effects inside the buildings, causes elevators and the fire shutters on the mechanical access ways to be blown out, permitting air passage."
Be careful with all of this, Chainsaw. We don't want you ending up like an entertainer on Celebrity Farm Blow-up with John Candy and Pat Flaherty. "He blowed up good, didn't he?" "Yeah. Blowed up real good!"
It is a simple process, first confinement causing the fuel air blast to have thermobaric effects inside the buildings, causes elevators and the fire shutters on the mechanical access ways to be blown out, permitting air passage."
Be careful with all of this, Chainsaw. We don't want you ending up like an entertainer on Celebrity Farm Blow-up with John Candy and Pat Flaherty. "He blowed up good, didn't he?" "Yeah. Blowed up real good!"
I tried Greening's model for various total number of stories for the same WTC1 height of 416 m and upper block height of 52.92 m. E1 and stretch are zero, and the mass per story is constant. The larger the total number of stories, the more closely the discrete model resembles a continuum model.
NT is the total number of stories and t is the duration of the stage 1 collapse.
Discrete model:
NT=3300, t=11.696 s
NT=1100, t=11.698 s
NT=550, t=11.701 s
NT=110, t=11.723 s
NT=55, t=11.742 s
The continuum model using differential equations gives a duration of 11.7 s.
Going from discrete to a continuum has little effect on the collapse duration when the total number of floors is 55 or higher. The differences become more pronounced when the total number of stories is small, on the order of 10 or less.
NT is the total number of stories and t is the duration of the stage 1 collapse.
Discrete model:
NT=3300, t=11.696 s
NT=1100, t=11.698 s
NT=550, t=11.701 s
NT=110, t=11.723 s
NT=55, t=11.742 s
The continuum model using differential equations gives a duration of 11.7 s.
Going from discrete to a continuum has little effect on the collapse duration when the total number of floors is 55 or higher. The differences become more pronounced when the total number of stories is small, on the order of 10 or less.
Neu Fonze said:
Frank, what are you talking about?
QUOTE
(The same way I don't understand Ace Baker's issue with his "faked" videos....)
Frank, what are you talking about?
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 3 2007, 05:16 AM)
"As soon as the weather clears and I can find the time I will be doing a video tape of kerosene causing melted steel does anyone want a copy?
It is a simple process, first confinement causing the fuel air blast to have thermobaric effects inside the buildings, causes elevators and the fire shutters on the mechanical access ways to be blown out, permitting air passage."
Be careful with all of this, Chainsaw. We don't want you ending up like an entertainer on Celebrity Farm Blow-up with John Candy and Pat Flaherty. "He blowed up good, didn't he?" "Yeah. Blowed up real good!"
Do not worry Dear shagster I am not as dumb as I used to be and I know how explosives and explosions work, I once shot myself out over a lake on a 55 gallon barrel, and Let me repeat I only did it once.
I simply used enough dynamite down a flooded ground hog hole, to cause the water to be ejected with force out of the other hole I was really no where near the actual small charge, and a huge oak tree 4 foot diameter shielded me from the blast.
I did it to impress a young lady, dumbest thing I ever did in my whole life!
I really do now want to the test and the video, but some one I feel should show what carbon based fuels can actually do!
It is a simple process, first confinement causing the fuel air blast to have thermobaric effects inside the buildings, causes elevators and the fire shutters on the mechanical access ways to be blown out, permitting air passage."
Be careful with all of this, Chainsaw. We don't want you ending up like an entertainer on Celebrity Farm Blow-up with John Candy and Pat Flaherty. "He blowed up good, didn't he?" "Yeah. Blowed up real good!"
Do not worry Dear shagster I am not as dumb as I used to be and I know how explosives and explosions work, I once shot myself out over a lake on a 55 gallon barrel, and Let me repeat I only did it once.
I simply used enough dynamite down a flooded ground hog hole, to cause the water to be ejected with force out of the other hole I was really no where near the actual small charge, and a huge oak tree 4 foot diameter shielded me from the blast.
I did it to impress a young lady, dumbest thing I ever did in my whole life!
I really do now want to the test and the video, but some one I feel should show what carbon based fuels can actually do!
Someone is claiming thermite caused the holes made by the aircraft impact.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 3 2007, 02:49 PM)
Someone is claiming thermite caused the holes made by the aircraft impact.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
Wow, that must have been some kind of super duper "automatic pilot" to hit those holes exactly.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
Wow, that must have been some kind of super duper "automatic pilot" to hit those holes exactly.
I was looking at Greening's estimate of tower lateral deflection as a result of the aircraft strike. He estimates about a 1 foot lateral deflection at the tower top. That is close to the measured 1.5 foot deflection stated by the group that analyzed the Moire pattern.
Greening figures:
vb = 0.16 m/s for mt=510E6 kg
Y = 0.28 m = 0.92 ft
Greening was using 510E6 kg for above ground mass which is on the high side. If 330E6 kg is used then:
vb = 0.25 m/s for mt=330E6 kg
Y = 0.433 m = 1.4 ft
1.4 ft is close to the measured value of 1.5 ft. 330E6 kg is probably closer to the values stated in the NIST report. The towers acted like a pendulum which offers a method for estimating their mass.
Greening figures:
vb = 0.16 m/s for mt=510E6 kg
Y = 0.28 m = 0.92 ft
Greening was using 510E6 kg for above ground mass which is on the high side. If 330E6 kg is used then:
vb = 0.25 m/s for mt=330E6 kg
Y = 0.433 m = 1.4 ft
1.4 ft is close to the measured value of 1.5 ft. 330E6 kg is probably closer to the values stated in the NIST report. The towers acted like a pendulum which offers a method for estimating their mass.
QUOTE (Palpatane+Feb 3 2007, 09:01 PM)
Wow, that must have been some kind of super duper "automatic pilot" to hit those holes exactly.
I heard someone else say that it was intelligent thermite that was able to relocate itself when it saw the plane coming.
I heard someone else say that it was intelligent thermite that was able to relocate itself when it saw the plane coming.
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Feb 3 2007, 05:32 PM)
Do not worry Dear shagster I am not as dumb as I used to be and I know how explosives and explosions work, I once shot myself out over a lake on a 55 gallon barrel, and Let me repeat I only did it once.
shagster --- The period of the towers was 10--11 seconds. Just how does this allow for a mass estimate? 
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 3 2007, 08:49 PM)
Someone is claiming thermite caused the holes made by the aircraft impact.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
I think it had more to do with the hardness of the thin layer of Aluminum Oxide on the Aluminum!
Mohs hardness scale.
I use aluminum oxide to cut steel all the time.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
I think it had more to do with the hardness of the thin layer of Aluminum Oxide on the Aluminum!
Mohs hardness scale.
I use aluminum oxide to cut steel all the time.
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 3 2007, 09:38 PM)
http://s134.photobucket.com/albums/q91/sha...rent=blowup.flv
Thanks for the video it made me laugh, I do want to add though when I did the barrel over the lake thing I was only about 11-11.5 years old.
I have gained just a little wisdom and a lot more respect for explosives since then because I found out skipping over the waters surface like a rock is like sliding across sand paper.
I got the charge right my trajectory though left a lot to be desired, I simply took to much structure out of one side of the barrel that caused a sidewards effect that threw me to low near the waters surface.
I had a lot of fun growing up, but that is probably why I am in so much pain now, or at least part of the problem, structural damage leading to asymmetrical collapse.
I must stress that no one should try experiment with the Compounds and elements that I have because they are dangerous if improperly handled.
Thanks for the video it made me laugh, I do want to add though when I did the barrel over the lake thing I was only about 11-11.5 years old.
I have gained just a little wisdom and a lot more respect for explosives since then because I found out skipping over the waters surface like a rock is like sliding across sand paper.
I got the charge right my trajectory though left a lot to be desired, I simply took to much structure out of one side of the barrel that caused a sidewards effect that threw me to low near the waters surface.
I had a lot of fun growing up, but that is probably why I am in so much pain now, or at least part of the problem, structural damage leading to asymmetrical collapse.
I must stress that no one should try experiment with the Compounds and elements that I have because they are dangerous if improperly handled.
QUOTE (shagster+Feb 3 2007, 08:49 PM)
Someone is claiming thermite caused the holes made by the aircraft impact.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
From the land of the paranoid and delusional.
Here's where the thermite assisted plane entrance comment originated.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...ds_booted_spine
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/th...haped_holes.htm
From the land of the paranoid and delusional.
Here's where the thermite assisted plane entrance comment originated.
http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&...ds_booted_spine
Without winking smileys or other overt indications of irony it is impossible to post a parody of a "troother" that someone will not believe is "trooth".
Grumpy
Grumpy
Just to be fair, there was a thermite reaction when the planes struck the towers.
The impact of the aluminum plane and the aluminum facade on the steel structure would have caused thermite sparking.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/384292/how_t...thermite_balls/
This is a far different cry from claiming that there was thermite deliberately planted, however.
The impact of the aluminum plane and the aluminum facade on the steel structure would have caused thermite sparking.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/384292/how_t...thermite_balls/
This is a far different cry from claiming that there was thermite deliberately planted, however.
After you look at all the parameters that affect the debris ejection velocity, including material dependent factors such as yield strenght, Young's modulus and density, you find that these may be lumped into one constant and the debris ejection velocity is then directly proportional to the impact velocity.
However, as you increase the impact velocity above about 10 m/s, strain rate effects need to be considered.
NF
However, as you increase the impact velocity above about 10 m/s, strain rate effects need to be considered.
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 4 2007, 02:40 AM)
... the debris ejection velocity is then directly proportional to the impact velocity.
Same direction? Maybe
debris ejection speed is directly proportional to impact speed?
Anyway, it is certainly quiet on this new, part 3, thread.
Same direction? Maybe
debris ejection speed is directly proportional to impact speed?
Anyway, it is certainly quiet on this new, part 3, thread.
DBB:
Yes, upon reflection, I'm not so sure the debris velocity is ever directly proportional to the impact velocity.... I have seen some Japanese reserchers suggest that the fragment velocity varies as the mass-specific impact energy to the power 0.76.
And yes, where are all the 9-11 skeptics from the old thread?
Like Foxx, Metamars, Newton, Reasonwhy .......
Not that I really miss them....
perhaps they have seen the light....
or are more interested in the Super Ball, or is that Bowl ?!
NF
Yes, upon reflection, I'm not so sure the debris velocity is ever directly proportional to the impact velocity.... I have seen some Japanese reserchers suggest that the fragment velocity varies as the mass-specific impact energy to the power 0.76.
And yes, where are all the 9-11 skeptics from the old thread?
Like Foxx, Metamars, Newton, Reasonwhy .......
Not that I really miss them....
perhaps they have seen the light....
or are more interested in the Super Ball, or is that Bowl ?!
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 4 2007, 08:16 PM)
Like Foxx, Metamars, Newton, Reasonwhy .......
Metamars is currently sitting a course on General Relativity which probably uses up all his spare time. He was (and will be again) a good critic of poorly thought out proposals. And of those you named, the only one who appeared ready to accept reality just before he went off-line.
I'm having a difficult time with the idea that debris ejection speed is proportional to mse raised to the 2/3 power. This implies the rest of the KE goes into other processes in a rather strange way. I'm not saying this is wrong, just that I don't (yet) see it...
Metamars is currently sitting a course on General Relativity which probably uses up all his spare time. He was (and will be again) a good critic of poorly thought out proposals. And of those you named, the only one who appeared ready to accept reality just before he went off-line.
I'm having a difficult time with the idea that debris ejection speed is proportional to mse raised to the 2/3 power. This implies the rest of the KE goes into other processes in a rather strange way. I'm not saying this is wrong, just that I don't (yet) see it...
DBB/Shagster:
I believe, but please correct me if I'm wrong, that the precise details of the laws governing the ejection of material - concrete and steel in particular - from impact damage during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, are yet to be worked out. Nevertheless, it looks like these velocities are in the range 3 - 30 m/s. Strain rate effects come in to play in this range. These effects are quite different for concrete vs. steel.
NF
I believe, but please correct me if I'm wrong, that the precise details of the laws governing the ejection of material - concrete and steel in particular - from impact damage during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, are yet to be worked out. Nevertheless, it looks like these velocities are in the range 3 - 30 m/s. Strain rate effects come in to play in this range. These effects are quite different for concrete vs. steel.
NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 4 2007, 08:16 PM)
DBB:
Yes, upon reflection, I'm not so sure the debris velocity is ever directly proportional to the impact velocity.... I have seen some Japanese reserchers suggest that the fragment velocity varies as the mass-specific impact energy to the power 0.76.
And yes, where are all the 9-11 skeptics from the old thread?
Like Foxx, Metamars, Newton, Reasonwhy .......
Not that I really miss them....
perhaps they have seen the light....
or are more interested in the Super Ball, or is that Bowl ?!
NF
well, buddy, frankly i'm done waltzing on the endless staircase.
i don't watch sports. i think they're stupid(smart, fun and healthy to participate, stupid to watch).
the FACT remains....
a complete fascist takeover of concensus reality occured on 9/11.
foxx, bless his heart, knows it. metamars, bless his calculator, knows it. gordon ross, bless him, knows it. i know it. MILLIONS of people KNOW it. it is an (black) tribute to the power of media and the tiny maze of POWER that stops JUSTICE from being done.
the 'trusted institutions' are all on the take.
the shill circle wank has proven nothing except the ability of people to ignore data in favour of their MANUFACTURED REALITY's viewpoint.
sure, condi lied about the health risk at ground zero. no biggie, right?
sure, they lied about the WMD in iraq, and DOOMED america to perpetual war with shadowy, shifting, nigh invisible enemies. no biggie, right?
sure, they published completely wrong fall times in both the NIST report, and the 9/11 commision report. no biggie, right?
sure, they wrongly arrested and tortured innocent people.
sure they bullied science into saying what they want to hear about global warming.
sure, they had plans to go to war with afghanistan months before it happened.
sure, they ignored all the warnings and then lied about ever even considering the 'planes as missiles' scenario.
sure, they were running drills that exactly mimicked the actual event on 9/11.
all this and more is NO BIGGIE to a (illuminati shadow) GOVERNMENT SHILL.
and, lastly, but not leastly, SURE THIS SITE FAVOURS THE OFFICIAL LIE
there is NOTHING that can crush itself completely('nothing bigger than a phone keypad') using one tenth of it's mass.
and, NOTHING can fall straight down with ZERO resistance from itself, the way WTC7 did. not even a pile of ballbearings could do that.
i will no longer help big brother hone his BS. you shills are on your own.
third thread. how bogus.
have a nice con-science.
newton saw the light.
Yes, upon reflection, I'm not so sure the debris velocity is ever directly proportional to the impact velocity.... I have seen some Japanese reserchers suggest that the fragment velocity varies as the mass-specific impact energy to the power 0.76.
And yes, where are all the 9-11 skeptics from the old thread?
Like Foxx, Metamars, Newton, Reasonwhy .......
Not that I really miss them....
perhaps they have seen the light....
or are more interested in the Super Ball, or is that Bowl ?!
NF
well, buddy, frankly i'm done waltzing on the endless staircase.
i don't watch sports. i think they're stupid(smart, fun and healthy to participate, stupid to watch).
the FACT remains....
a complete fascist takeover of concensus reality occured on 9/11.
foxx, bless his heart, knows it. metamars, bless his calculator, knows it. gordon ross, bless him, knows it. i know it. MILLIONS of people KNOW it. it is an (black) tribute to the power of media and the tiny maze of POWER that stops JUSTICE from being done.
the 'trusted institutions' are all on the take.
the shill circle wank has proven nothing except the ability of people to ignore data in favour of their MANUFACTURED REALITY's viewpoint.
sure, condi lied about the health risk at ground zero. no biggie, right?
sure, they lied about the WMD in iraq, and DOOMED america to perpetual war with shadowy, shifting, nigh invisible enemies. no biggie, right?
sure, they published completely wrong fall times in both the NIST report, and the 9/11 commision report. no biggie, right?
sure, they wrongly arrested and tortured innocent people.
sure they bullied science into saying what they want to hear about global warming.
sure, they had plans to go to war with afghanistan months before it happened.
sure, they ignored all the warnings and then lied about ever even considering the 'planes as missiles' scenario.
sure, they were running drills that exactly mimicked the actual event on 9/11.
all this and more is NO BIGGIE to a (illuminati shadow) GOVERNMENT SHILL.
and, lastly, but not leastly, SURE THIS SITE FAVOURS THE OFFICIAL LIE
there is NOTHING that can crush itself completely('nothing bigger than a phone keypad') using one tenth of it's mass.
and, NOTHING can fall straight down with ZERO resistance from itself, the way WTC7 did. not even a pile of ballbearings could do that.
i will no longer help big brother hone his BS. you shills are on your own.
third thread. how bogus.
have a nice con-science.
newton saw the light.
QUOTE
i will no longer help big brother hone his BS. you shills are on your own
And another one bites the dust.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 5 2007, 05:54 AM)
And another one bites the dust.
Arthur
that makes you the dust, funnyman.
If one is talking about mass ejection one needs to be sure what it is that is ejected, if parts of the slabs of concrete are ejected after the collisions it is difficult because there are only vertical forces involved in the pancake collapse (ignoring puffs by pressed air etc). It will be a though problem, the most plausible explanation will be the wedge kind of effect but that is also a hard one because then only perimeter material may account for it. And the first collision is inner core columns on inner core columns and perimeter columns on perimeter columns and a concrete slab on a concrete slab, after a while the bottom of the accumulated mass is effectively a compressed amount of slabs which then no longer functions as a wedge. Then strictly perimeter columns are ejected. But we know more mass is ejected during the process. As a lay-man I would say that if two slabs of concrete collide and the ejected material is due to pulverizing it is a conservation of mass problem, but that is only a first thought.. the real problem will be a difficult numerical problem especially if you do all those difficult strain energy things being released etc...good luck folks.
I'm still wondering which values can be used for calculations, didn't the Blanchard report mention that 95% fell outside the footprint ? Does this mean that when the demolition wave hits the ground about 4.8x10^8 kg already was away from the footprint ? Or after the collapse the core fell away and the pile of rubble left fell to a new balance ? 95% is really a lot...
I'm still wondering which values can be used for calculations, didn't the Blanchard report mention that 95% fell outside the footprint ? Does this mean that when the demolition wave hits the ground about 4.8x10^8 kg already was away from the footprint ? Or after the collapse the core fell away and the pile of rubble left fell to a new balance ? 95% is really a lot...
Newton:
You know I may actually agree with some of your points - the outrageous cover-up of the toxic nightmare at Ground Zero for example - but not even the evil Bush clan can re-write the laws of physics.
I don't think ANYONE expected the Twin Towers would fall the way they did, but in order to make sense of what happened on 9-11 we need to look at what is POSSIBLE vs. what is IMPOSSIBLE:
That thermite could have caused the observed top-down collapse is IMPOSSIBLE.
That some space-based energy-beam "dustified" the steel is IMPOSSIBLE.
That a mini-nuke exploded in the basement is IMPOSSIBLE.
On the other hand,
That damage from the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires was sufficient to initiate a gravity driven collapse is physically quite POSSIBLE.
So blame Bush for negligence and/or incompetence in protecting and defending the U.S. if you want, but don't blame him for some 21st century gunpowder plot!
NF
You know I may actually agree with some of your points - the outrageous cover-up of the toxic nightmare at Ground Zero for example - but not even the evil Bush clan can re-write the laws of physics.
I don't think ANYONE expected the Twin Towers would fall the way they did, but in order to make sense of what happened on 9-11 we need to look at what is POSSIBLE vs. what is IMPOSSIBLE:
That thermite could have caused the observed top-down collapse is IMPOSSIBLE.
That some space-based energy-beam "dustified" the steel is IMPOSSIBLE.
That a mini-nuke exploded in the basement is IMPOSSIBLE.
On the other hand,
That damage from the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires was sufficient to initiate a gravity driven collapse is physically quite POSSIBLE.
So blame Bush for negligence and/or incompetence in protecting and defending the U.S. if you want, but don't blame him for some 21st century gunpowder plot!
NF
And N-F also don't forgot to add building number seven to the list.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 5 2007, 03:11 AM)
that makes you the dust, funnyman.
Nope, you've been posting your funny ditties for over a year now but in that entire time have shed no light on how the collapse of the towers was in any substantial way different than reported by NIST.
Apparently the current CT'er ploy is to take Blanchard's guess as to the amount of material that fell within the foot print and
A ) treat it as a fact
B ) assume that material that eventually ended outside the footprint was ejected outside the footprint at the earliest possible time and therefore did not help sustain the collapse.
Neither is true.
Arthur
Nope, you've been posting your funny ditties for over a year now but in that entire time have shed no light on how the collapse of the towers was in any substantial way different than reported by NIST.
Apparently the current CT'er ploy is to take Blanchard's guess as to the amount of material that fell within the foot print and
A ) treat it as a fact
B ) assume that material that eventually ended outside the footprint was ejected outside the footprint at the earliest possible time and therefore did not help sustain the collapse.
Neither is true.
Arthur
From what I've seen (And I've seen just about every photo on the net of ground zero. Not to mention every video of the event) the perimeter columns leaned away from the building. Some large sections broke apart quickly and landed near the towers footprint (You can see these hit the ground first. but other very large sections must have leaned out pretty far before breaking off. (There is a video of a large piece of a tower falling flat on the ground after SOMETING obviously caused it to pivot. Pivoting on the columns below doesn't seem unreasonable to me.) I suspect it has to do with the different strength given to parts of the building for wind resistance, as well as the planes impact.
On my site there is a flash video of the top section falling behind the lower section walls (And debris cloud) and pushing a large section of perimeter wall outward. It seems impossible to me that the top section fell quickly, then the face peeled out. It seems more logical that the already tilted perimeter columns of the top section aided in pushing the bottom section of perimeter columns outward from behind. The top sections perimeter columns must have aided in shaving the floors off the lower sections perimeter columns.
Just how much distance was due to this possible push from the perimeter columns of the top section?
Can it account for more than the ejection of debris?
Look about halfway down this page -> http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
On my site there is a flash video of the top section falling behind the lower section walls (And debris cloud) and pushing a large section of perimeter wall outward. It seems impossible to me that the top section fell quickly, then the face peeled out. It seems more logical that the already tilted perimeter columns of the top section aided in pushing the bottom section of perimeter columns outward from behind. The top sections perimeter columns must have aided in shaving the floors off the lower sections perimeter columns.
Just how much distance was due to this possible push from the perimeter columns of the top section?
Can it account for more than the ejection of debris?Look about halfway down this page -> http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
Einsteen:
I would put a gravity driven collapse of WTC 7 on my "POSSIBLE" list, but I would like to hear what NIST has to say on that one...
And as for the ejection of debris, even though the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was essentially vertical, debris can be ejected in almost any direction. In fact, spalling is a common failure mode for hard impacts on concrete. In this case chunks fly off in the OPPOSITE direction to an incoming projectile because the reflection of the elastic wave at a free surface puts the concrete into tension. The yield strength of concrete is about ten times LOWER for this material under tension compared to compression.
This effect has been studied in great detail because of concerns about the strength of nuclear reactor containment buildings under impact by an aircraft or missile. In fact there is renewed interest in this issue given that nuclear regulators have to consider the increased probability of such an event in a post-9/11 world.
NF
I would put a gravity driven collapse of WTC 7 on my "POSSIBLE" list, but I would like to hear what NIST has to say on that one...
And as for the ejection of debris, even though the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was essentially vertical, debris can be ejected in almost any direction. In fact, spalling is a common failure mode for hard impacts on concrete. In this case chunks fly off in the OPPOSITE direction to an incoming projectile because the reflection of the elastic wave at a free surface puts the concrete into tension. The yield strength of concrete is about ten times LOWER for this material under tension compared to compression.
This effect has been studied in great detail because of concerns about the strength of nuclear reactor containment buildings under impact by an aircraft or missile. In fact there is renewed interest in this issue given that nuclear regulators have to consider the increased probability of such an event in a post-9/11 world.
NF
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 5 2007, 09:38 AM)
Nope, you've been posting your funny ditties for over a year now but in that entire time have shed no light on how the collapse of the towers was in any substantial way different than reported by NIST.
Apparently the current CT'er ploy is to take Blanchard's guess as to the amount of material that fell within the foot print and
A ) treat it as a fact
B ) assume that material that eventually ended outside the footprint was ejected outside the footprint at the earliest possible time and therefore did not help sustain the collapse.
Neither is true.
Arthur
What's really funny is that Newton went to ST911's forum to enlist some help. He called us "KNOWN GOVERNMENT SHILLS". Heh!
Apparently the current CT'er ploy is to take Blanchard's guess as to the amount of material that fell within the foot print and
A ) treat it as a fact
B ) assume that material that eventually ended outside the footprint was ejected outside the footprint at the earliest possible time and therefore did not help sustain the collapse.
Neither is true.
Arthur
What's really funny is that Newton went to ST911's forum to enlist some help. He called us "KNOWN GOVERNMENT SHILLS". Heh!
Hey Newton!
You've done a great job! Tenacious to the end! IMHO (in my humungous opinion) there are still big chinks in the OS. #7 and the fall times are still indefensible, and Newton is still here trying to find the truth. Good work, man.
You've done a great job! Tenacious to the end! IMHO (in my humungous opinion) there are still big chinks in the OS. #7 and the fall times are still indefensible, and Newton is still here trying to find the truth. Good work, man.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 2 2007, 02:44 PM)
QUOTE
5. Action: NIST/FEMA must release all the data. The data must at a bare minimum be public information for the scientific community.
Already done(which you would know if you bothered to look).
Hi,
Many people are very interested in taking a look at the computer models the NIST used. To my knowledge these have never been released. Do you know otherwise?
Also, according to the NIST report, they had access to "6,977 segments of video footage, totaling in excess of 300 hours." and "6,899 photographs from at least 200 photographers. As with the videos, many of the photographs were unpublished." My understanding is that these have never been released to the public. I have only come across one obscure website/blog where a certain Trevor Ycas claims to have submitted a FOIA request for this information and was quoted a price of $13,278 ( zirkonyx.gnn.tv/articles/2009/_13K_for_911_truth ) To my knowledge, noone has actually gone through with this and obtained the set.
Do you know of anyone other than the NIST who has gotten access to this collection?
Regards.
The models are based on Commercial Software.
Just buy yourself a copy and then spend the money to get the NIST data on CD.
Then have fun.
Of course, CT'ers apparently tend to be a CHEAP and/or LAZY bunch so I certainly don't expect any will actually go through with this.
Arthur
Just buy yourself a copy and then spend the money to get the NIST data on CD.
Then have fun.
Of course, CT'ers apparently tend to be a CHEAP and/or LAZY bunch so I certainly don't expect any will actually go through with this.
Arthur
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 5 2007, 04:27 PM)
What's really funny is that Newton went to ST911's forum to enlist some help. He called us "KNOWN GOVERNMENT SHILLS". Heh!
oh perjurous one, common sense, i never joined st911. perhaps you're thinking of newtonnjd, an entirely different human.
here's why i didn't join: any enemy insufficiently fortified cannot be beaten. notice how when these (good) people joined together to form a unified front that that is what made them susceptable to being shattered. if they'd stayed granular in the beginning, they could have survived.
i thought of joining, but felt i would be better off on my own, 'rocking from decentral'.
rove's shill, thank you for the kind words.
neu-fonze, we will have to agree to disagree.
arthur, you're the blind fool holding the elephant tail, and telling everyone it's a snake.
oh perjurous one, common sense, i never joined st911. perhaps you're thinking of newtonnjd, an entirely different human.
here's why i didn't join: any enemy insufficiently fortified cannot be beaten. notice how when these (good) people joined together to form a unified front that that is what made them susceptable to being shattered. if they'd stayed granular in the beginning, they could have survived.
i thought of joining, but felt i would be better off on my own, 'rocking from decentral'.
rove's shill, thank you for the kind words.
neu-fonze, we will have to agree to disagree.
arthur, you're the blind fool holding the elephant tail, and telling everyone it's a snake.
Well, talk about deja vu!
I see a post by a "Newbie" who calls himself Roves Shill. Newbie? Really?
Then why does that name sound so familiar?
After a little digging into old Physorg posts, surprise, surprise: Roves Shill was on the old 9-11 thread EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO discussing collapse times with - you guessed it - Newton!
So dear "Oldbie" Roves Shill, still singing the same old song: "the fall times are indefensible".
What a strange statement! The fall times are the fall times, (even if the precise values are a little uncertain), just like the Boeing aircraft velocities are the aircraft velocities....
And the weather in NYC on 9-11 was sunny and the wind was from the north at 5 mph - are these also indefensible?
Why do collapse times have to be "defended" anyway?
Defended from what?
NF
I see a post by a "Newbie" who calls himself Roves Shill. Newbie? Really?
Then why does that name sound so familiar?
After a little digging into old Physorg posts, surprise, surprise: Roves Shill was on the old 9-11 thread EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO discussing collapse times with - you guessed it - Newton!
So dear "Oldbie" Roves Shill, still singing the same old song: "the fall times are indefensible".
What a strange statement! The fall times are the fall times, (even if the precise values are a little uncertain), just like the Boeing aircraft velocities are the aircraft velocities....
And the weather in NYC on 9-11 was sunny and the wind was from the north at 5 mph - are these also indefensible?
Why do collapse times have to be "defended" anyway?
Defended from what?
NF
QUOTE (newton+)
when these (good) people joined together to form a unified front that that is what made them susceptable to being shattered.
Nope, they were "shattered" because they weren't UNIFIED.
They clearly SELF DESTRUCTED.
As all "Troother" groups will, since there is no TRUTH in them.
And no one can stick to the same twisted trail of lies.
Screws em up EVERY TIME.
OCT'ers on the other hand, can simply refer back to the PEER REVIEWED papers and of course the ever popular NIST report.
So far after years of mostly humorus attacks by the CT'ers it has yet to have any serious flaws shown in its 20,000 page published body of work.
Not bad for Govt work.
Arthur
Nope, they were "shattered" because they weren't UNIFIED.
They clearly SELF DESTRUCTED.
As all "Troother" groups will, since there is no TRUTH in them.
And no one can stick to the same twisted trail of lies.
Screws em up EVERY TIME.
OCT'ers on the other hand, can simply refer back to the PEER REVIEWED papers and of course the ever popular NIST report.
So far after years of mostly humorus attacks by the CT'ers it has yet to have any serious flaws shown in its 20,000 page published body of work.
Not bad for Govt work.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 5 2007, 08:37 PM)
The models are based on Commercial Software.
Just buy yourself a copy and then spend the money to get the NIST data on CD.
Then have fun.
Of course, CT'ers apparently tend to be a CHEAP and/or LAZY bunch so I certainly don't expect any will actually go through with this.
Arthur
Well, I'd be very interested in a link for this NIST CD with the computer models, as their unavailability is a key complaint from CTers like Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffmann.
for example:
911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#opaque
911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#nisttheory
Just buy yourself a copy and then spend the money to get the NIST data on CD.
Then have fun.
Of course, CT'ers apparently tend to be a CHEAP and/or LAZY bunch so I certainly don't expect any will actually go through with this.
Arthur
Well, I'd be very interested in a link for this NIST CD with the computer models, as their unavailability is a key complaint from CTers like Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffmann.
for example:
911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html#opaque
911research.wtc7.net/reviews/kevin_ryan/newstandard.html#nisttheory
wtc.nist.gov
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 5 2007, 09:40 PM)
wtc.nist.gov
Arthur
Yes, I'm familiar with the site. More specifically:
wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
for the final report.
you can get a CD set containing all the reports, but no indication that the computer models are available.
If you can be more specific that would be much appreciated.
Arthur
Yes, I'm familiar with the site. More specifically:
wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm
for the final report.
QUOTE
(For a printed copy of NIST-NCSTAR 1, contact NIST at inquiries@nist.gov. Also available are CD sets containing all of the reports, from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), www.ntis.gov or 800-553-6847. NTIS order number: PB2006-100819)
you can get a CD set containing all the reports, but no indication that the computer models are available.
If you can be more specific that would be much appreciated.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 5 2007, 05:54 AM)
And another one bites the dust.
Arthur
Whistle by the graveyard Douchesheit.
"The air is safe to breath and the water is safe to drink." Now if the government lied about this, they will lie about anything and everything.
Scientific polls show 85% of Americans think the government is lying when it comes to the fairy tale they attached to 911.
You are in the minority with a small willy Douchesheit. You and your oct entourage are worthless zeros to the left.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 5 2007, 09:16 PM)
... like Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffmann.
I seriously doubt that either of the gentlemen would know what to do with the computer models.
On the other hand, a research group at Purdue University did have access to the NIST database so they could run their own models. (And essentially agree with NIST regarding the aircraft impact, the only portion studied...
)
I seriously doubt that either of the gentlemen would know what to do with the computer models.
On the other hand, a research group at Purdue University did have access to the NIST database so they could run their own models. (And essentially agree with NIST regarding the aircraft impact, the only portion studied...
)
QUOTE (beijingWanker+Feb 5 2007, 05:47 PM)
Scientific polls show 85% of Americans think the government is lying when it comes to the fairy tale they attached to 911.
Well if that WERE true, then probably SOMETHING would be done about it.
Like maybe it would be part of the upcoming Election campaign.
But its NOT true.
85% of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE that the Govt Blew up the WTC Towers.
Which is why its not even NEWS on the questionable outlets.
And those guys will publish damn near anything.
Arthur
Well if that WERE true, then probably SOMETHING would be done about it.
Like maybe it would be part of the upcoming Election campaign.
But its NOT true.
85% of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE that the Govt Blew up the WTC Towers.
Which is why its not even NEWS on the questionable outlets.
And those guys will publish damn near anything.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 5 2007, 09:51 PM)
I seriously doubt that either of the gentlemen would know what to do with the computer models.
On the other hand, a research group at Purdue University did have access to the NIST database so they could run their own models. (And essentially agree with NIST regarding the aircraft impact, the only portion studied... )
Well, with the whole official report hinging on this model (even if they only took it to 'collapse initiation' and didn't model the subsequent collapse), it seems reasonable that it be released for all to see and study.
I don't really understand your point about Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffmann - they may not be Finite Element Analysis whizs, but I'm sure they could find someone who is. I have to say, I tend to agree with them that keeping the computer model(s), initial conditions, datasets secret doesn't lend much confidence to the NIST model.
Quoting from another article "WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation"
Shouldn't 3rd parties be able to take a look at those "simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls"? After all the scientific method is about reproducable results, not tweaking computer models until you get what you want and then keeping the whole thing secret.
On the other hand, a research group at Purdue University did have access to the NIST database so they could run their own models. (And essentially agree with NIST regarding the aircraft impact, the only portion studied...
)Well, with the whole official report hinging on this model (even if they only took it to 'collapse initiation' and didn't model the subsequent collapse), it seems reasonable that it be released for all to see and study.
I don't really understand your point about Kevin Ryan and Jim Hoffmann - they may not be Finite Element Analysis whizs, but I'm sure they could find someone who is. I have to say, I tend to agree with them that keeping the computer model(s), initial conditions, datasets secret doesn't lend much confidence to the NIST model.
Quoting from another article "WTC Investigators Resist Call for Collapse Visualisation"
QUOTE
"The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls. This doesn't mean NIST has got it wrong in principle, but it does mean it would be hard to produce a definitive visualisation from the analysis so far."
( 911review.com/coverup/nist.html )Shouldn't 3rd parties be able to take a look at those "simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls"? After all the scientific method is about reproducable results, not tweaking computer models until you get what you want and then keeping the whole thing secret.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 5 2007, 09:58 PM)
Well if that WERE true, then probably SOMETHING would be done about it.
Like maybe it would be part of the upcoming Election campaign.
But its NOT true.
85% of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE that the Govt Blew up the WTC Towers.
Which is why its not even NEWS on the questionable outlets.
And those guys will publish damn near anything.
Arthur
Some people are not drinking the fluoride kool aid. Your attempt at propaganda is a failure.
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Little willy, you are in DELUSION.
Like maybe it would be part of the upcoming Election campaign.
But its NOT true.
85% of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE that the Govt Blew up the WTC Towers.
Which is why its not even NEWS on the questionable outlets.
And those guys will publish damn near anything.
Arthur
Some people are not drinking the fluoride kool aid. Your attempt at propaganda is a failure.
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Little willy, you are in DELUSION.
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 5 2007, 06:18 PM)
Well, with the whole official report hinging on this model (even if they only took it to 'collapse initiation' and didn't model the subsequent collapse), it seems reasonable that it be released for all to see and study.
Well, like I said, dial up NIST and ASK for the data.
I know you WON'T.
But I know you will bitch that the data wasn't released.
Even though WE KNOW it has been released to others.
Except the DATA is a fairly massive database and I simply can't see them making that available over the internet.
When you read the NIST reports they describe the database in terms that only have meaning if you have access to the database, so I'm guessing you CAN get it on the CD.
Arthur
Well, like I said, dial up NIST and ASK for the data.
I know you WON'T.
But I know you will bitch that the data wasn't released.
Even though WE KNOW it has been released to others.
Except the DATA is a fairly massive database and I simply can't see them making that available over the internet.
When you read the NIST reports they describe the database in terms that only have meaning if you have access to the database, so I'm guessing you CAN get it on the CD.
Arthur
QUOTE (beijingyank+Feb 5 2007, 06:21 PM)
Some people are not drinking the fluoride kool aid. Your attempt at propaganda is a failure.
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Little willy, you are in DELUSION.
Nope,
Tis YOU who are delusional.
http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collateral..._October2k6.pdf
This was the poll question
82. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Oct. 2006
Telling the truth 16%
MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH but hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure/No Answer 3%
So, in reality, the poll shows that 69% think the Bush govt is Telling the truth or MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH.
Now someone who believed that the Bush govt was BEHIND the attacks would NEVER answer that they thought that they were MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH.
MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH would NOT COVER things like BlOWING UP THE TOWERS.
Get a GRIP, and try to get to the SOURCE of these numbers that you have been quoting OUT OF CONTEXT and with CT'er SPIN applied.
Arthur
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Little willy, you are in DELUSION.
Nope,
Tis YOU who are delusional.
http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collateral..._October2k6.pdf
This was the poll question
82. When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Oct. 2006
Telling the truth 16%
MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH but hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure/No Answer 3%
So, in reality, the poll shows that 69% think the Bush govt is Telling the truth or MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH.
Now someone who believed that the Bush govt was BEHIND the attacks would NEVER answer that they thought that they were MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH.
MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH would NOT COVER things like BlOWING UP THE TOWERS.
Get a GRIP, and try to get to the SOURCE of these numbers that you have been quoting OUT OF CONTEXT and with CT'er SPIN applied.
Arthur
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 5 2007, 10:18 PM)
"simplifications, extrapolations and judgement[sic] calls"?
These are discussed in NIST NCSTAR1. Start reading.
Also, towards the end of the part 2 thread, somebody posted a link to a paper filled with criticisms of NCSTAR1. I didn't bother to read it (the link, that is) since it did not appear to be very scientific...
These are discussed in NIST NCSTAR1. Start reading.
Also, towards the end of the part 2 thread, somebody posted a link to a paper filled with criticisms of NCSTAR1. I didn't bother to read it (the link, that is) since it did not appear to be very scientific...
Little willy, the trend is not your friend, my boiler room propagandist.
Oct. 2006 May 2002
Telling the truth
16% 21%
Hiding something
53% 65%
Mostly lying
28% 8%
Not sure
3% 6%
ONLY 16% ARE BUYING THE BULLSHEIT. 911 Omission Report, FEMA (concentration camp builders) and the baffle with the BS boyz at NIST.
What part of 16% of Americans believe the government is telling the truth don't you understand.
No matter how much you have tried Douchescheit, your propaganda campaign is a FAILURE!
The midnight train is leading to the gallows for the baby killing, war profiteering, war criminals.
I recommend you change your mode of travel, before as MMC states, they "brake every bone in your body!"
Oct. 2006 May 2002
Telling the truth
16% 21%
Hiding something
53% 65%
Mostly lying
28% 8%
Not sure
3% 6%
ONLY 16% ARE BUYING THE BULLSHEIT. 911 Omission Report, FEMA (concentration camp builders) and the baffle with the BS boyz at NIST.
What part of 16% of Americans believe the government is telling the truth don't you understand.
No matter how much you have tried Douchescheit, your propaganda campaign is a FAILURE!
The midnight train is leading to the gallows for the baby killing, war profiteering, war criminals.
I recommend you change your mode of travel, before as MMC states, they "brake every bone in your body!"
QUOTE (BeijingWanker+)
The midnight train is leading to the gallows for the baby killing, war profiteering, war criminals.
I recommend you change your mode of travel, before as MMC states, they "brake every bone in your body!"
One more CT'er resorting to THREATS.
On the internet.
Talk about DELUDED.
As to your last post, noope, just CT'er spin.
According to the poll 69% think that the Bush admin is either telling the truth or MOSTLY telling the truth
You FAILED to explain how someone could believe that the Bush admin was COMPLICIT in the attacks or was involved in blowing up the WTC towers but then would answer that the Bush Admin was MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH.
Which is why you AGAIN left off the MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH QUALIFIER to the second poll response.
Because the POLL does NOT say what you WANT it to say (nor does the poll question have ANYTHING to do with the NIST report)
Which is why YOU posted your BOGUS interpretation of the poll, but it was me who found and posted the actual POLL with the ACTUAL question and the ACTUAL ANSWERS they had to choose from.
Which I'm GLAD to do again.
http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collateral..._October2k6.pdf
Because the QUALIFIER MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH shows that you were LYING about what the poll meant. (Which of course is a typical CT'er tactic)
I, like I believe most of the OCT'ers on this board, would probably ALSO answer that question, that the Bush admin was MOSTLY telling the truth but hiding something.
But that doesn't mean that any of us believe the towers were blown up by CD.
Arthur
I recommend you change your mode of travel, before as MMC states, they "brake every bone in your body!"
One more CT'er resorting to THREATS.
On the internet.
Talk about DELUDED.
As to your last post, noope, just CT'er spin.
According to the poll 69% think that the Bush admin is either telling the truth or MOSTLY telling the truth
You FAILED to explain how someone could believe that the Bush admin was COMPLICIT in the attacks or was involved in blowing up the WTC towers but then would answer that the Bush Admin was MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH.
Which is why you AGAIN left off the MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH QUALIFIER to the second poll response.
Because the POLL does NOT say what you WANT it to say (nor does the poll question have ANYTHING to do with the NIST report)
Which is why YOU posted your BOGUS interpretation of the poll, but it was me who found and posted the actual POLL with the ACTUAL question and the ACTUAL ANSWERS they had to choose from.
Which I'm GLAD to do again.
http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collateral..._October2k6.pdf
Because the QUALIFIER MOSTLY TELLING THE TRUTH shows that you were LYING about what the poll meant. (Which of course is a typical CT'er tactic)
I, like I believe most of the OCT'ers on this board, would probably ALSO answer that question, that the Bush admin was MOSTLY telling the truth but hiding something.
But that doesn't mean that any of us believe the towers were blown up by CD.
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+Feb 5 2007, 03:47 PM)
oh perjurous one, common sense, i never joined st911. perhaps you're thinking of newtonnjd, an entirely different human.
here's why i didn't join: any enemy insufficiently fortified cannot be beaten. notice how when these (good) people joined together to form a unified front that that is what made them susceptable to being shattered. if they'd stayed granular in the beginning, they could have survived.
i thought of joining, but felt i would be better off on my own, 'rocking from decentral'.
rove's shill, thank you for the kind words.
neu-fonze, we will have to agree to disagree.
arthur, you're the blind fool holding the elephant tail, and telling everyone it's a snake.
Your right! It's "The study of 911"... BIG DIFFERENCE! ST911 wouldn't even take you. Heh!
Don't try to lie and say it's not you. Two guys who are caplock challenged and go by the name of newton talking about 911 and this forum is all the evidence I need. Heh!
Such pathetic dishonesty...
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...hl=debunking911
here's why i didn't join: any enemy insufficiently fortified cannot be beaten. notice how when these (good) people joined together to form a unified front that that is what made them susceptable to being shattered. if they'd stayed granular in the beginning, they could have survived.
i thought of joining, but felt i would be better off on my own, 'rocking from decentral'.
rove's shill, thank you for the kind words.
neu-fonze, we will have to agree to disagree.
arthur, you're the blind fool holding the elephant tail, and telling everyone it's a snake.
Your right! It's "The study of 911"... BIG DIFFERENCE! ST911 wouldn't even take you. Heh!
QUOTE
basic physics
this thread reached almost 1000 pages of debate, and (and some relentless spam).
currently, there are 456, 000 views.
why i linked to this forum thread, is because it seemed to be a focal point in the infowar.
many of the apologists there have admitted to working for, or knowing, NIST scientists. another rabid pitbull of disinfo has admitted to programming voting machines (he even went so far as to post the code that steals votes, talk about rubbing it in our faces). another is the author of 'debunking911' ('common sense' at that forum).
and, on the 'good guys' side, we have gordon ross, of scholar's for truth, as well as 'metamars', and 'foxx'(who has quite an extensive website which analyses moslty the fires). another scholar, 'newtonnjd'(not me) was there briefly, and many others.
in short, there is a lot of great information, links and pictures and it is worth it, i think, to literally WADE through it for some of the things you will see.
what is also obvious, is the typical 'debating' tactics of the big brother squad, and the typical flying off the handle of truthseekers suppressed.
i was in the thread from the start, and i know there are some things in there that are not commonly refered to.
like, there are some photos from inside tower five, which show clean cuts on horizontal beams. another controlled demo, it looks like.
on page three, or something, a blue collar guy talks about his experience of a million gallon tank of fuel that burned for days after a lightning strike, and the relatively thin steel was completely unaffected.
somewhere, there is a report about 50? or 100? elevator workers who evacuated the towers.
that seems like a lot of elevator workers to me.
anyway, i've been arguing with these guys for nearly a year, now, and they are as transparent as air on a cloudless day.
shills. covering up mass murder and machavellian mayhem.
the mods closed down the thread, for no apparent reason, and now, it is getting buried deep in the dungeon, however, it is still (happily) gets TONS of views. about 100, 000 more than when it was closed.
one of my 'best' arguments was one of the last.
make a 110 layer stack of ANYTHING. drop the top 20 things on the bottom 90. are you able to crush the whole stack with the top piece?
of course not, is the answer.
a stack of eggs, taped together.
a stack of grand pianos.
a stack of crackers.
a stack of anvils.
anything.
nothing can crush itself 5 times over.
things which are very brittle have the best chance, but steel is not brittle.
as the top breaks apart, and the layer it is hitting breaks apart, the force of these things becomes decoupled, whereas, all the molecular bonds of the lower intact portion are able to act in concert, transfering stress throughout the whole stack.
this thread reached almost 1000 pages of debate, and (and some relentless spam).
currently, there are 456, 000 views.
why i linked to this forum thread, is because it seemed to be a focal point in the infowar.
many of the apologists there have admitted to working for, or knowing, NIST scientists. another rabid pitbull of disinfo has admitted to programming voting machines (he even went so far as to post the code that steals votes, talk about rubbing it in our faces). another is the author of 'debunking911' ('common sense' at that forum).
and, on the 'good guys' side, we have gordon ross, of scholar's for truth, as well as 'metamars', and 'foxx'(who has quite an extensive website which analyses moslty the fires). another scholar, 'newtonnjd'(not me) was there briefly, and many others.
in short, there is a lot of great information, links and pictures and it is worth it, i think, to literally WADE through it for some of the things you will see.
what is also obvious, is the typical 'debating' tactics of the big brother squad, and the typical flying off the handle of truthseekers suppressed.
i was in the thread from the start, and i know there are some things in there that are not commonly refered to.
like, there are some photos from inside tower five, which show clean cuts on horizontal beams. another controlled demo, it looks like.
on page three, or something, a blue collar guy talks about his experience of a million gallon tank of fuel that burned for days after a lightning strike, and the relatively thin steel was completely unaffected.
somewhere, there is a report about 50? or 100? elevator workers who evacuated the towers.
that seems like a lot of elevator workers to me.
anyway, i've been arguing with these guys for nearly a year, now, and they are as transparent as air on a cloudless day.
shills. covering up mass murder and machavellian mayhem.
the mods closed down the thread, for no apparent reason, and now, it is getting buried deep in the dungeon, however, it is still (happily) gets TONS of views. about 100, 000 more than when it was closed.
one of my 'best' arguments was one of the last.
make a 110 layer stack of ANYTHING. drop the top 20 things on the bottom 90. are you able to crush the whole stack with the top piece?
of course not, is the answer.
a stack of eggs, taped together.
a stack of grand pianos.
a stack of crackers.
a stack of anvils.
anything.
nothing can crush itself 5 times over.
things which are very brittle have the best chance, but steel is not brittle.
as the top breaks apart, and the layer it is hitting breaks apart, the force of these things becomes decoupled, whereas, all the molecular bonds of the lower intact portion are able to act in concert, transfering stress throughout the whole stack.
Don't try to lie and say it's not you. Two guys who are caplock challenged and go by the name of newton talking about 911 and this forum is all the evidence I need. Heh!
Such pathetic dishonesty...
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...hl=debunking911
I believe the bush administration is hidding something too. But not blowing up the towers. That's pure BULLSHAIT!
http://www.debunking911.com/zogby.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/zogby.htm
Common Sense
Of couse they are hiding something(or, rather trying to), their total incompetence, at almost everything they do. They are not competent enough to hide the fact(IF it were a fact)that they were involved with 9/11, therefore they were not involved(directly). It's called logic, I think.
Grumpy
Of couse they are hiding something(or, rather trying to), their total incompetence, at almost everything they do. They are not competent enough to hide the fact(IF it were a fact)that they were involved with 9/11, therefore they were not involved(directly). It's called logic, I think.
Grumpy
QUOTE (Common Sense+Feb 5 2007, 09:00 PM)
Don't try to lie and say it's not you. Two guys who are caplock challenged and go by the name of newton talking about 911 and this forum is all the evidence I need. Heh!
Such pathetic dishonesty...
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...hl=debunking911
I found this pretty funny:
newton, you REALLY have to change your name.
Its an INSULT to its original owner.
Ok, for the test to be valid these conditions ALSO have to be met.
The things in the stack have to be 12 ft apart.
In other words, for ANY comparison to be valid you have to have the same drop distance, floor to floor, as the towers since gravity is not scalable. This requires your model to be, unfortunately, 1,400 ft tall.
Second: The things in the stack have to be suspended to the vertical support stucture such that the supports for each of the things stacked are ONLY able to hold TWO of whatever it is that is stacked up before the supports fail. REMEMBER, the stacked floors in the towers were ONLY supported by the truss seats which would fail WELL BEFORE the columns would themselves fail.
Now drop the top 20 stacked items 9 feet onto the bottom structure of 90 stacked items and I guarandamntee you, its all coming down in a nice progressive collapse.
Arthur
newton, you REALLY have to change your name.
Its an INSULT to its original owner.
Ok, for the test to be valid these conditions ALSO have to be met.
The things in the stack have to be 12 ft apart.
In other words, for ANY comparison to be valid you have to have the same drop distance, floor to floor, as the towers since gravity is not scalable. This requires your model to be, unfortunately, 1,400 ft tall.
Second: The things in the stack have to be suspended to the vertical support stucture such that the supports for each of the things stacked are ONLY able to hold TWO of whatever it is that is stacked up before the supports fail. REMEMBER, the stacked floors in the towers were ONLY supported by the truss seats which would fail WELL BEFORE the columns would themselves fail.
Now drop the top 20 stacked items 9 feet onto the bottom structure of 90 stacked items and I guarandamntee you, its all coming down in a nice progressive collapse.
Arthur
wrong, fool.
the floors were not free floating in space, 12 ft. apart. there were over two hundred and fifty columns to overcome, per floor. as much as you'd like for the vertical support to just not exist, it did exist, and sustaining collapse is not a matter of just breeaking the joist seats.
we've been over this. we disagree. of course, i'm right, and you're wrong.
you can keep your name, douche, and wear it well.
geez. you guys really don't want me to go. perhaps it's the old 'criminals want to get caught' psychology 101.
common sense, i never asked anyone to come to this site. i did join studyof911.com(an EXCELLENT bunch, there) but, i bitch slapped all you shills well enough on my own, thank you very much. i never even TRIED to join scholarsfor911truth. you're a cheney's first name.
if you can copy some text where i ask for support, i'll be Very surprised. provide a link, perjury king.
Well, talk about deja vu!
I see a post by a "Newbie" who calls himself Roves Shill. Newbie? Really?
Then why does that name sound so familiar?
After a little digging into old Physorg posts, surprise, surprise: Roves Shill was on the old 9-11 thread EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO discussing collapse times with - you guessed it - Newton!
Yeah NEU-FONZE, it is a diabolical posting conspiracy you immediately were able to see through, good work!
Such pathetic dishonesty...
http://www.studyof911.com/forum/index.php?...hl=debunking911
I found this pretty funny:
QUOTE (newton+)
another rabid pitbull of disinfo has admitted to programming voting machines (he even went so far as to post the code that steals votes, talk about rubbing it in our faces).
I BELIEVE that newton is talking about me.
Of course its ALL A BIG FRIGGIN LIE.
But what did I expect.
When you got NOTHING I guess you have to resort to lies.
Arthur
I BELIEVE that newton is talking about me.
Of course its ALL A BIG FRIGGIN LIE.
But what did I expect.
When you got NOTHING I guess you have to resort to lies.
Arthur
QUOTE
one of my 'best' arguments was one of the last.
make a 110 layer stack of ANYTHING. drop the top 20 things on the bottom 90. are you able to crush the whole stack with the top piece?
of course not, is the answer.
a stack of eggs, taped together.
a stack of grand pianos.
a stack of crackers.
a stack of anvils.
anything.
nothing can crush itself 5 times over.
things which are very brittle have the best chance, but steel is not brittle.
as the top breaks apart, and the layer it is hitting breaks apart, the force of these things becomes decoupled, whereas, all the molecular bonds of the lower intact portion are able to act in concert, transfering stress throughout the whole stack.
make a 110 layer stack of ANYTHING. drop the top 20 things on the bottom 90. are you able to crush the whole stack with the top piece?
of course not, is the answer.
a stack of eggs, taped together.
a stack of grand pianos.
a stack of crackers.
a stack of anvils.
anything.
nothing can crush itself 5 times over.
things which are very brittle have the best chance, but steel is not brittle.
as the top breaks apart, and the layer it is hitting breaks apart, the force of these things becomes decoupled, whereas, all the molecular bonds of the lower intact portion are able to act in concert, transfering stress throughout the whole stack.
newton, you REALLY have to change your name.
Its an INSULT to its original owner.
Ok, for the test to be valid these conditions ALSO have to be met.
The things in the stack have to be 12 ft apart.
In other words, for ANY comparison to be valid you have to have the same drop distance, floor to floor, as the towers since gravity is not scalable. This requires your model to be, unfortunately, 1,400 ft tall.
Second: The things in the stack have to be suspended to the vertical support stucture such that the supports for each of the things stacked are ONLY able to hold TWO of whatever it is that is stacked up before the supports fail. REMEMBER, the stacked floors in the towers were ONLY supported by the truss seats which would fail WELL BEFORE the columns would themselves fail.
Now drop the top 20 stacked items 9 feet onto the bottom structure of 90 stacked items and I guarandamntee you, its all coming down in a nice progressive collapse.
Arthur
I think the real problem with the DEMOLITIONISTS is that they have not considered the incredible energies/forces involved in maintaining a tall structure such as a Twin Tower in a gravity field.
Each Tower was in a state of metastable equilibrium but if NOT subjected to severe lateral forces, or asymmetric damage, it could survive "forever", or let's say 30 years, with no problem....
But if our tall structure was to be damaged in a certain way.... Well, all bets are off!
Because of this omission, the DEMOLITIONISTS have falsely arrived at the conclusion that a building cannot "crush itself."
Well, most aptly named NEWTON, consider this:
The basic laws of physics fix the energy required to transport an object of given mass into space...... and the laws of chemistry determine the maximum energy available to do this.
Thus, for a small rocket engine powered by 1 kg of a high performance fuel such as O2/H2 , O2/hydrocarbon, , O2/alcohol, etc, the work done (against gravity) to move a 1 kg object from the surface of the earth into deep space is about 60 Mega joules.
By comparison, the energy released by the combustion of 1 kg of O2/ H2 (in stoichiometric proportion) is about 16 Mega joules.
Therefore a problem arises not only with the need for 4 kg of fuel to put 1 kg of mass into orbit, but also with the energy wasted in lifting the fuel itself......
This demonstrates the magnitude of gravitational PE!
So, Newton, the issue is whether or not a tower's gravitational potential energy could exceed the chemical energy stored in the joints holding the structure together.
This chemical energy would be manifest in the fracture energy of the connections - namely the fracture energy of the hundreds of bolts and welds holding each tower together.
This fracture energy, derivable from the modulus of toughness of structural steel, would be ~ 10,000 J/kg
If we assume that 1000 kg of steel contributed to the connections on a typical floor we have:
100 floors x 1000 kg x 10,000 J of chemical energy stored in the connections in one tower.
That is 1 x 10^9 J ....... a very small fraction of the 1 x 10^12 J of PE in a tower,
So a cage-like structure such as WTC 1 & 2 is more than capable of crushing itself
if subjected to sufficient asymmetric damage.
NF
Each Tower was in a state of metastable equilibrium but if NOT subjected to severe lateral forces, or asymmetric damage, it could survive "forever", or let's say 30 years, with no problem....
But if our tall structure was to be damaged in a certain way.... Well, all bets are off!
Because of this omission, the DEMOLITIONISTS have falsely arrived at the conclusion that a building cannot "crush itself."
Well, most aptly named NEWTON, consider this:
The basic laws of physics fix the energy required to transport an object of given mass into space...... and the laws of chemistry determine the maximum energy available to do this.
Thus, for a small rocket engine powered by 1 kg of a high performance fuel such as O2/H2 , O2/hydrocarbon, , O2/alcohol, etc, the work done (against gravity) to move a 1 kg object from the surface of the earth into deep space is about 60 Mega joules.
By comparison, the energy released by the combustion of 1 kg of O2/ H2 (in stoichiometric proportion) is about 16 Mega joules.
Therefore a problem arises not only with the need for 4 kg of fuel to put 1 kg of mass into orbit, but also with the energy wasted in lifting the fuel itself......
This demonstrates the magnitude of gravitational PE!
So, Newton, the issue is whether or not a tower's gravitational potential energy could exceed the chemical energy stored in the joints holding the structure together.
This chemical energy would be manifest in the fracture energy of the connections - namely the fracture energy of the hundreds of bolts and welds holding each tower together.
This fracture energy, derivable from the modulus of toughness of structural steel, would be ~ 10,000 J/kg
If we assume that 1000 kg of steel contributed to the connections on a typical floor we have:
100 floors x 1000 kg x 10,000 J of chemical energy stored in the connections in one tower.
That is 1 x 10^9 J ....... a very small fraction of the 1 x 10^12 J of PE in a tower,
So a cage-like structure such as WTC 1 & 2 is more than capable of crushing itself
if subjected to sufficient asymmetric damage.
NF
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 5 2007, 09:18 PM)
Common Sense
Of couse they are hiding something(or, rather trying to), their total incompetence, at almost everything they do. They are not competent enough to hide the fact(IF it were a fact)that they were involved with 9/11, therefore they were not involved(directly). It's called logic, I think.
Grumpy
You have just presented the best evidence against CD their is.
Of couse they are hiding something(or, rather trying to), their total incompetence, at almost everything they do. They are not competent enough to hide the fact(IF it were a fact)that they were involved with 9/11, therefore they were not involved(directly). It's called logic, I think.
Grumpy
You have just presented the best evidence against CD their is.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 6 2007, 02:42 AM)
newton, you REALLY have to change your name.
Its an INSULT to its original owner.
Ok, for the test to be valid these conditions ALSO have to be met.
The things in the stack have to be 12 ft apart.
In other words, for ANY comparison to be valid you have to have the same drop distance, floor to floor, as the towers since gravity is not scalable. This requires your model to be, unfortunately, 1,400 ft tall.
Second: The things in the stack have to be suspended to the vertical support stucture such that the supports for each of the things stacked are ONLY able to hold TWO of whatever it is that is stacked up before the supports fail. REMEMBER, the stacked floors in the towers were ONLY supported by the truss seats which would fail WELL BEFORE the columns would themselves fail.
Now drop the top 20 stacked items 9 feet onto the bottom structure of 90 stacked items and I guarandamntee you, its all coming down in a nice progressive collapse.
Arthur
wrong, fool.
the floors were not free floating in space, 12 ft. apart. there were over two hundred and fifty columns to overcome, per floor. as much as you'd like for the vertical support to just not exist, it did exist, and sustaining collapse is not a matter of just breeaking the joist seats.
we've been over this. we disagree. of course, i'm right, and you're wrong.
you can keep your name, douche, and wear it well.
geez. you guys really don't want me to go. perhaps it's the old 'criminals want to get caught' psychology 101.
common sense, i never asked anyone to come to this site. i did join studyof911.com(an EXCELLENT bunch, there) but, i bitch slapped all you shills well enough on my own, thank you very much. i never even TRIED to join scholarsfor911truth. you're a cheney's first name.
if you can copy some text where i ask for support, i'll be Very surprised. provide a link, perjury king.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 6 2007, 02:42 AM)
Second: The things in the stack have to be suspended to the vertical support stucture such that the supports for each of the things stacked are ONLY able to hold TWO of whatever it is that is stacked up before the supports fail. REMEMBER, the stacked floors in the towers were ONLY supported by the truss seats which would fail WELL BEFORE the columns would themselves fail.
Can you show me how you got this number two? I presume you are referring to the safety factor of the undamaged buildings.
Can you show me how you got this number two? I presume you are referring to the safety factor of the undamaged buildings.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 3 2007, 09:44 PM)
shagster --- The period of the towers was 10--11 seconds. Just how does this allow for a mass estimate?
See Greening's treatment on sway on p11 of his report. He uses the sway period to calculate the maximum lateral displacement after the aircraft strike based on the mass of the upper third of the tower, the aircraft mass and speed, and momentum transfer. His value is 0.28 m.
I'm still trying to locate the paper about the Moire pattern. I think it was done by a group at Northwestern or Purdue. I recall the deflection being 1.5 feet, which agrees fairly well with Greening's estimate. The Moire analysis also showed a small amplitude of the first harmonic riding on the fundamental frequency. It also showed a fundamental period of 11 sec, IIRC.
The lateral displacement would be higher if the tower mass was lower but the sway period would also be smaller for less mass. Those two effects would tend to cancel each other but probably not completely. The sway period as a function of known tower mass would be more difficult to determine.
There's probably a more refined way of estimating the tower mass based on the sway after the aircraft impact than what Greening used. The towers were like a distributed mass pendulum. The spring constant was fixed by the behavior of the perimeter walls. NIST gave some deflection values for wind loading, IIRC. That would give an effective lateral spring constant for the tower (force vs. displacement in the lateral direction). The towers would sway at a particular period based on that spring constant and how much mass was distributed throughout the tower. It could give a way of estimating just how much live load was in the tower at the time of the aircraft impact.
Top-heavy is usually an advantage for a tall building since it increases the sway period which make the sway less noticeable to occupants. It's like a metronome with the weight up at the top. Some buildings use large masses on the roof that move either passively or actively controlled by acceleration sensors and a computer to help null out the sway.
See Greening's treatment on sway on p11 of his report. He uses the sway period to calculate the maximum lateral displacement after the aircraft strike based on the mass of the upper third of the tower, the aircraft mass and speed, and momentum transfer. His value is 0.28 m.
I'm still trying to locate the paper about the Moire pattern. I think it was done by a group at Northwestern or Purdue. I recall the deflection being 1.5 feet, which agrees fairly well with Greening's estimate. The Moire analysis also showed a small amplitude of the first harmonic riding on the fundamental frequency. It also showed a fundamental period of 11 sec, IIRC.
The lateral displacement would be higher if the tower mass was lower but the sway period would also be smaller for less mass. Those two effects would tend to cancel each other but probably not completely. The sway period as a function of known tower mass would be more difficult to determine.
There's probably a more refined way of estimating the tower mass based on the sway after the aircraft impact than what Greening used. The towers were like a distributed mass pendulum. The spring constant was fixed by the behavior of the perimeter walls. NIST gave some deflection values for wind loading, IIRC. That would give an effective lateral spring constant for the tower (force vs. displacement in the lateral direction). The towers would sway at a particular period based on that spring constant and how much mass was distributed throughout the tower. It could give a way of estimating just how much live load was in the tower at the time of the aircraft impact.
Top-heavy is usually an advantage for a tall building since it increases the sway period which make the sway less noticeable to occupants. It's like a metronome with the weight up at the top. Some buildings use large masses on the roof that move either passively or actively controlled by acceleration sensors and a computer to help null out the sway.
QUOTE (newton+Feb 6 2007, 12:16 AM)
the floors were not free floating in space, 12 ft. apart. there were over two hundred and fifty columns to overcome, per floor. as much as you'd like for the vertical support to just not exist, it did exist, and sustaining collapse is not a matter of just breeaking the joist seats.
we've been over this. we disagree. of course, i'm right, and you're wrong.
Nope,
The columns, particularly the external columns which were simply bolted together, simply fell away from the structure. One can CLEARLY see in the overhead views of ground zero the many hundreds upon hundreds of them laid out rather neatly all around where the towers stood. Since they, for the most part, weren't buckled at all, they did not provide much vertical restraint to the fall.
The floors though were the mass of the structure, ~ 32,000 sq ft of 4" concrete on top of relatively lightweight trusses and carrying almost all of the live load of the towers (~= to the weight of the floors themselves) and the ONLY thing that kept them from falling to the next floor WAS the truss seats.
Which is why ~90% of the truss seats FAILED DOWNWARD below the point of collapse while it was ~ equal above the impact zone.
We've been over this before and shown you pictures of how the towers were constructed.
You don't WANT to believe it, but you CAN'T refute it.
Arthur
we've been over this. we disagree. of course, i'm right, and you're wrong.
Nope,
The columns, particularly the external columns which were simply bolted together, simply fell away from the structure. One can CLEARLY see in the overhead views of ground zero the many hundreds upon hundreds of them laid out rather neatly all around where the towers stood. Since they, for the most part, weren't buckled at all, they did not provide much vertical restraint to the fall.
The floors though were the mass of the structure, ~ 32,000 sq ft of 4" concrete on top of relatively lightweight trusses and carrying almost all of the live load of the towers (~= to the weight of the floors themselves) and the ONLY thing that kept them from falling to the next floor WAS the truss seats.
Which is why ~90% of the truss seats FAILED DOWNWARD below the point of collapse while it was ~ equal above the impact zone.
We've been over this before and shown you pictures of how the towers were constructed.
You don't WANT to believe it, but you CAN'T refute it.
Arthur
Anyone know of any photos or videos that show sections of main floors still attached to the perimeter or core during or after collapse? If there are any, they are quite rare.
QUOTE (eigenvalue+Feb 6 2007, 12:58 AM)
Can you show me how you got this number two? I presume you are referring to the safety factor of the undamaged buildings.
I'm being generous.
The floor weight as built = X.
The live load was ~ = to the structure weight. Thus 2 X.
The live floor loads were estimated at ~ 1/2 of the design load for the floor.
Thus design load = 3X
I increased the truss seat capacity to be able to handle 50% more than design for a safety margin to arrive at a 4X load capacity.
Don't like those estimates?
Fine, make the truss seats good enough to handle 6X.
The tower will STILL fail as the KE of the falling mass will be MANY MORE times the ability of the truss seats to withstand the impact.
Arthur
I'm being generous.
The floor weight as built = X.
The live load was ~ = to the structure weight. Thus 2 X.
The live floor loads were estimated at ~ 1/2 of the design load for the floor.
Thus design load = 3X
I increased the truss seat capacity to be able to handle 50% more than design for a safety margin to arrive at a 4X load capacity.
Don't like those estimates?
Fine, make the truss seats good enough to handle 6X.
The tower will STILL fail as the KE of the falling mass will be MANY MORE times the ability of the truss seats to withstand the impact.
Arthur
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 5 2007, 12:46 PM)
I'm still wondering which values can be used for calculations, didn't the Blanchard report mention that 95% fell outside the footprint ? Does this mean that when the demolition wave hits the ground about 4.8x10^8 kg already was away from the footprint ? Or after the collapse the core fell away and the pile of rubble left fell to a new balance ? 95% is really a lot...
It would be better to look at the debris in the pit instead of basing conclusions on quote mining. The bottom of the pit up to the bowtie to trident level was probably about 120 ft or 37m or about 9.7 story heights. A compaction ratio can be estimated that would say how many stories could fit in that 120 feet. A compaction ratio of 8 would mean that 9.7*8 or 77 stories could fit in there. That's a shedding of 30%. For a ratio of 8.5, the shedding would be 25%. For 90% the shedding would be 12%.
Those are rough figures. Others can look up the exact height of the pile from bottom to top and come up with a more accurate figure.
Shedding ratios of 10 to 30% from the front increase the collapse duration by about 1 second or less according to a modified Greening model that I wrote. The collapse duration is relatively insensitive to variable mass per story, mass shedding, and variable E1.
There's also the effect of debris that fell within the footprint but got pushed out laterally as it struck the pile. That gives the impression that the shedding was greater than it really was.
It would be better to look at the debris in the pit instead of basing conclusions on quote mining. The bottom of the pit up to the bowtie to trident level was probably about 120 ft or 37m or about 9.7 story heights. A compaction ratio can be estimated that would say how many stories could fit in that 120 feet. A compaction ratio of 8 would mean that 9.7*8 or 77 stories could fit in there. That's a shedding of 30%. For a ratio of 8.5, the shedding would be 25%. For 90% the shedding would be 12%.
Those are rough figures. Others can look up the exact height of the pile from bottom to top and come up with a more accurate figure.
Shedding ratios of 10 to 30% from the front increase the collapse duration by about 1 second or less according to a modified Greening model that I wrote. The collapse duration is relatively insensitive to variable mass per story, mass shedding, and variable E1.
There's also the effect of debris that fell within the footprint but got pushed out laterally as it struck the pile. That gives the impression that the shedding was greater than it really was.
It's even worse if you look at the floor load rating. NIST states that the long span floors were rated at 70 psf, the short-span at 82.5 psf, and the two-way at 55 psf. Those are the section between the core and perimeter. They represent 71 percent of the total cross-sectional area of a story and would intercept most of the mass of the falling upper block.
70 psf is 343 kg/m2 if I did the math right. The net floor area was 2909 m2. Using the 70 psf figure, that means the floors between the core and perimeter could safely hold 343*2909 = 1E6 kg.
The average mass of a story was about 3E6 kg in the upper part of the tower. So, the section of floor between the core and perimeter could safely support an additional mass of one-third the mass of a story. There was probably a safety factor in the floor rating that would increase that additional mass figure.
The floor was already holding it's own weight, which accounts for why the load rating gives the impression that the connection couldn't even hold the weight of a single story. The load rating is for mass in addition to what the floor connections were already supporting.
Using the connection strength of 100 kips per connection stated in NIST and 236 effective connections (118 on each side), the connections could support 10E6 kg total. That's about 3 stories worth of mass total or about 2 extra stories of mass in addition to the floor that the connection were supporting to begin with.
70 psf is 343 kg/m2 if I did the math right. The net floor area was 2909 m2. Using the 70 psf figure, that means the floors between the core and perimeter could safely hold 343*2909 = 1E6 kg.
The average mass of a story was about 3E6 kg in the upper part of the tower. So, the section of floor between the core and perimeter could safely support an additional mass of one-third the mass of a story. There was probably a safety factor in the floor rating that would increase that additional mass figure.
The floor was already holding it's own weight, which accounts for why the load rating gives the impression that the connection couldn't even hold the weight of a single story. The load rating is for mass in addition to what the floor connections were already supporting.
Using the connection strength of 100 kips per connection stated in NIST and 236 effective connections (118 on each side), the connections could support 10E6 kg total. That's about 3 stories worth of mass total or about 2 extra stories of mass in addition to the floor that the connection were supporting to begin with.
The only intact truss to column connection I could find.
The demolition charge at this connection must have failed to detonate.
The demolition charge at this connection must have failed to detonate.
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 6 2007, 08:30 AM)
The only intact truss to column connection I could find.
The demolition charge at this connection must have failed to detonate.
Did you notice that 3 of the people have respirators but are NOT using them?
Arthur
The demolition charge at this connection must have failed to detonate.
Did you notice that 3 of the people have respirators but are NOT using them?
Arthur
QUOTE (newton+)
another rabid pitbull of disinfo has admitted to programming voting machines (he even went so far as to post the code that steals votes, talk about rubbing it in our faces).
So newton, are you going to provide PROOF to back up this statement or should we just assume you LIED?
Arthur
So newton, are you going to provide PROOF to back up this statement or should we just assume you LIED?
Arthur
shagster --- Which Greening report? I don't recall seeing anything regarding the sway.
And incidentally, the towers did have extra mass at the top. 8.8 stories worth.
Also, your estimate of the mass of a typical trussed-floor story in the upper part of the towers is too high. From NIST we get that story 98 weighed about 1530 tonnes, courtesy of poster Pierre Normand on the part 2 thread.
Anyway, for poster newton the calculation that only about 0.01 GJ was required to destroy the truss seats ought to be sufficient. Determine a suitable mass falling through 12 feet to develop this much KE. Won't take much.
NEU-FONZE --- Here is a quotation for you, although I can't say I fully understand it.
"Statistical physicist[sic] have studied randomly distributed strength elastic networks by numerical simulations ... They discover that in an initial regime both force and displacement scale both like L^(0.75) with the system size L. The number of bounds that break during the whole process scales like L^(1.7). These laws seem to be universal. Experimentally we observe such scalling[sic] effects on concrete ..."
Alain Ehrlacher & Bernard Fedelich "Stability and Bifurcation of Simple Dissipative Systems: Application to Brutal Damage" in Cracking and Damage: String Localization and Size Effect, J. Mazars & Z.P. Bazant (eds.), Elsevier, 1989, pp 217--227.
And incidentally, the towers did have extra mass at the top. 8.8 stories worth.
Also, your estimate of the mass of a typical trussed-floor story in the upper part of the towers is too high. From NIST we get that story 98 weighed about 1530 tonnes, courtesy of poster Pierre Normand on the part 2 thread.
Anyway, for poster newton the calculation that only about 0.01 GJ was required to destroy the truss seats ought to be sufficient. Determine a suitable mass falling through 12 feet to develop this much KE. Won't take much.
NEU-FONZE --- Here is a quotation for you, although I can't say I fully understand it.
"Statistical physicist[sic] have studied randomly distributed strength elastic networks by numerical simulations ... They discover that in an initial regime both force and displacement scale both like L^(0.75) with the system size L. The number of bounds that break during the whole process scales like L^(1.7). These laws seem to be universal. Experimentally we observe such scalling[sic] effects on concrete ..."
Alain Ehrlacher & Bernard Fedelich "Stability and Bifurcation of Simple Dissipative Systems: Application to Brutal Damage" in Cracking and Damage: String Localization and Size Effect, J. Mazars & Z.P. Bazant (eds.), Elsevier, 1989, pp 217--227.
QUOTE
NIST completely fail to deal with the IMPORTANT dynamic aspects of the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 since the Final Report only deals with tipping as a problem of STATICS. NIST's "global collapse ensued" mantra is a total cop-out, whereby the problem of the collapse is abandoned before it has begun!
To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors, (or should that be arthurs?!?).
Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived.
TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos)
So, the bottom line is this:
The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is
physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base!
Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading
and the problem only gets worse!
I would therefore ask all of you NIST fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast.
Yes, folks, some physics for a change.......
NF
To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors, (or should that be arthurs?!?).
Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived.
TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos)
So, the bottom line is this:
The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is
physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base!
Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading
and the problem only gets worse!
I would therefore ask all of you NIST fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast.
Yes, folks, some physics for a change.......
NF
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NIST completely fail to deal with the IMPORTANT dynamic aspects of the tipping of WTC 1 & 2 since the Final Report only deals with tipping as a problem of STATICS. NIST's "global collapse ensued" mantra is a total cop-out, whereby the problem of the collapse is abandoned before it has begun! To make matters worse, NIST give TWO descriptions of the pre-collapse events: one where the upper section tilts BEFORE collapse, and the other where the upper section TILTS AND FALLS at the same time. I guess NIST had too many authors, (or should that be arthurs?!?). Even Bazant and Zhou (B&Z) do a better job than NIST on this problem since they at least consider the ANGULAR VELOCITY, d(theta)/dt, of the upper section of the South Tower. Their formula shows that, for a given angle of tilt the angular velocity depends on SQRT {3g/h)} where h is the height of the upper section. Hence the rate of tipping is fixed by the dimensions of the upper section. B& Z's formula is ok but it uses an approximation for the moment of inertia, I, of the upper block that ignores the WIDTH of the Tower. Fortunately, it is a simple matter to correct this using I = 1/3 M{h^2 + 1/4w^2} where w is the width of the Tower. If this improved formula is used, reliable values of d(theta)/dt may be calculated for any tilt angle. Integration of the equations also allows the time to reach a particular tilt angle to be derived. TROUBLE IS, THESE THEORETICAL TIMES ARE MUCH LONGER THAN THE OBSERVED TIMES (which may be measured quite accurately from any of a number of available videos) So, the bottom line is this: The top section of WTC 2 tipped at a FASTER angular velocity than is physically possible for a body freely rotating about a pivot at its base! Now add in some resistance to the tipping from column loading and the problem only gets worse! I would therefore ask all of you NIST fans out there to put away those finite element calculations for a while and check this out..... then please explain how the top of WTC 2 tipped so fast. Yes, folks, some physics for a change....... NF |
Well, talk about deja vu!
I see a post by a "Newbie" who calls himself Roves Shill. Newbie? Really?
Then why does that name sound so familiar?
After a little digging into old Physorg posts, surprise, surprise: Roves Shill was on the old 9-11 thread EXACTLY ONE YEAR AGO discussing collapse times with - you guessed it - Newton!
Yeah NEU-FONZE, it is a diabolical posting conspiracy you immediately were able to see through, good work!
The tipping of the upper section of WTC 2, and even WTC 1, is a very interesting problem that needs to be addressed.
However, in terms of the relative magnitude of the rotational KE and the associated change in PE, the potential energy term predominates for tilt angles less than 25 deg. This is readily determined by inserting appropriate values for h and theta into the formula:
Initial Energy = 1/6Mh^2 (dtheta/dt)^2 + 1/2Mgh. cos(theta)
where h is the height of the upper tilting section, and theta is the tilt angle.
The first term is the rotational KE, the second term is the associated PE.....
NF
However, in terms of the relative magnitude of the rotational KE and the associated change in PE, the potential energy term predominates for tilt angles less than 25 deg. This is readily determined by inserting appropriate values for h and theta into the formula:
Initial Energy = 1/6Mh^2 (dtheta/dt)^2 + 1/2Mgh. cos(theta)
where h is the height of the upper tilting section, and theta is the tilt angle.
The first term is the rotational KE, the second term is the associated PE.....
NF
Many videos clearly show that the upper section of WTC 2 was crushed as it collapsed. This loss of rigidity of the upper section effectively reduced h from its initial value of (30 x 3.7) or 111 meters, to something significantly smaller by the time the upper section had rotated 25° or so.
NF
NF
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 6 2007, 07:39 PM)
shagster --- Which Greening report? I don't recall seeing anything regarding the sway.
And incidentally, the towers did have extra mass at the top. 8.8 stories worth.
Also, your estimate of the mass of a typical trussed-floor story in the upper part of the towers is too high. From NIST we get that story 98 weighed about 1530 tonnes, courtesy of poster Pierre Normand on the part 2 thread.
The original Greening paper, p11. ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE
I was using an average based on the mass of the upper 14 stories. Adding up the NIST numbers at the 95/96 level gives 83282 kips or 3.79E6 kg That's about 2.7E6 kg per story. I've been using an average 3E6 kg per story in my computer models.
The 81st floor sections of WTC2 were apparently strengthened to hold extra computer equipment. If it had to be strengthened for a static load such as that, how would it be able to stand up to 29 stories falling on it.
And incidentally, the towers did have extra mass at the top. 8.8 stories worth.
Also, your estimate of the mass of a typical trussed-floor story in the upper part of the towers is too high. From NIST we get that story 98 weighed about 1530 tonnes, courtesy of poster Pierre Normand on the part 2 thread.
The original Greening paper, p11. ENERGY TRANSFER IN THE WTC COLLAPSE
I was using an average based on the mass of the upper 14 stories. Adding up the NIST numbers at the 95/96 level gives 83282 kips or 3.79E6 kg That's about 2.7E6 kg per story. I've been using an average 3E6 kg per story in my computer models.
The 81st floor sections of WTC2 were apparently strengthened to hold extra computer equipment. If it had to be strengthened for a static load such as that, how would it be able to stand up to 29 stories falling on it.
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 6 2007, 03:39 AM)
Therefore a problem arises not only with the need for 4 kg of fuel to put 1 kg of mass into orbit, but also with the energy wasted in lifting the fuel itself......
This demonstrates the magnitude of gravitational PE!
That's why when you watch all of those old 60s space clips they always show the stages separating. The engineers found out that it was better to dump the useless mass rather than waste energy propelling it into space. They were so proud of that accomplishment that they showed it again and again in the videos.
That's also a reason behind developing air breathing engines. The weight of the oxidizer doesn't have to be carried along with the vehicle.
When Robert Goddard mentioned in the 30s that his rockets would eventually be able to reach the Moon, some journalists (laymen when it came to physics) wrote a sarcastic article and 'proved' that Goddard was wrong. They calculated the weight of the chemicals and rocket and came to the conclusion that reaching the Moon was impossible. They neglected the fact that the mass of spent stages could be jettisoned, allowing the craft to reach the Moon. They accused Goddard of not even understanding basic high school chemistry and physics.
This demonstrates the magnitude of gravitational PE!
That's why when you watch all of those old 60s space clips they always show the stages separating. The engineers found out that it was better to dump the useless mass rather than waste energy propelling it into space. They were so proud of that accomplishment that they showed it again and again in the videos.
That's also a reason behind developing air breathing engines. The weight of the oxidizer doesn't have to be carried along with the vehicle.
When Robert Goddard mentioned in the 30s that his rockets would eventually be able to reach the Moon, some journalists (laymen when it came to physics) wrote a sarcastic article and 'proved' that Goddard was wrong. They calculated the weight of the chemicals and rocket and came to the conclusion that reaching the Moon was impossible. They neglected the fact that the mass of spent stages could be jettisoned, allowing the craft to reach the Moon. They accused Goddard of not even understanding basic high school chemistry and physics.
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.