Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject:
Anti-sophist wrote:
kbo234 wrote:
....and 9/11 truthers only need free-fall collapse established for one of the 3 towers to have pure unchallengeable certainty that this building, and therefore the rest, were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Rofl. That's up there with the all-time dumbest things I've read on this board.
You might not understand why this is true but anyone with a brain and knowledge of the law of conservation of energy does.
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:28 pm Post subject:
kbo234
Quote:
I did not mention the fact that I teach physics as a boast (it doesn't mean much, other than I am not a complete fool), rather as a defensive reaction to the pontifications of an individual who is either genuinely stupid or genuinely dishonest.......like yourself
No lessons learned from Steven E Jones (who taught physics) and is now out of a job (as I predicted here eight months ago) for promoting junk science?
Quote:
and 9/11 truthers only need free-fall collapse established for one of the 3 towers to have pure unchallengeable certainty that this building, and therefore the rest, were brought down by controlled demolitions
You are no physicist (unless of the Steven E Jones variety). Do you get paid to 'teach physics' or are you a bit of a hobbyist, 'boosting' the conspiracy theorists' 'case' by misrepresenting yourself? _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
....and 9/11 truthers only need free-fall collapse established for one of the 3 towers to have pure unchallengeable certainty that this building, and therefore the rest, were brought down by controlled demolitions.
Rofl. That's up there with the all-time dumbest things I've read on this board.
You might not understand why this is true but anyone with a brain and knowledge of the law of conservation of energy does.
Please don't lecture me on the laws of thermodynamics, son. It's not a fight you can win.
More importantly, the claim that "falling at freefall" automatically means it was a controlled demolition is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Anyone who honestly believes that is defective in the head.
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject:
Anti-sophist wrote:
Please don't lecture me on the laws of thermodynamics, son. It's not a fight you can win.
But you haven't won. Calling me 'son' doesn't make you any kind of winner.
You haven't answered any of the questions relating to conservation of energy that I have raised. That means actually that, if there has been a fight, you have lost it.
Free-fall necessarily means controlled demolition. Get used to it. Gravity alone simply cannot supply the energy to do the damage of 9/11.....and you know it.
Also, I am not interested in arguing with people who have no interest in the truth.
Determined (and, almost certainly paid) liars are very low creatures in my book, particularly considering the crimes in which such lies make them complicit.
I withdrew from such pointless engagements as this some months ago and stumbled into this thread by mistake.
Determined (and, almost certainly paid) liars are very low creatures in my book, particularly considering the crimes in which such lies make them complicit.
Where's my money !?!?!?!!?
I demand payment now !!! _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2006 11:45 pm Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
kbo234 wrote:
Determined (and, almost certainly paid) liars are very low creatures in my book, particularly considering the crimes in which such lies make them complicit.
Where's my money !?!?!?!!?
I demand payment now !!!
I would suggest 'where's your case?' is a more relevant question.
Floundering, yet again.
......i.e pieces of WTC1 falling well ahead of the collapse zone, and yet you claim :
"The WTC North tower is estimated to have collapsed with an acceleration that slightly exceeds that of gravity (i.e. faster than free-fall). "
You are not a physics teacher. You're a liar.
(change tack now, start a different line of discussion - it's the lying CT way)
I have never seen this photo before and coming from you, particularly, I do not trust it. Let us assume though that it is genuine...
How about this one, "physics teacher" :
Freefall? My arse. The collapse zone is not even in sight yet, many storeys up.
You've just made a total idiot of yourself. Go away and teach homeopathy or something else you might be qualified for. _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Are you sure you teach physics, not creative writing?
Here is NIST ignoring the speed of collapse, according to you:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
Now this is what I would call creative writing.
The NIST report does acknowledge the undeniable but it completely fails to offer anything resembling a reasonable explanation for the free-fall nature of the collapses.
Accepting (the unacceptable) that the collapse initiated in a way that no steel-framed building in history had done before or since, the failure of the supports at each successive level would have caused collapse ....but ...... the law of conservation of momentum dictates that such successive collapses would have significantly increased the total time of each collapse. G. Ross (I think that was his name) carried out a lengthy analysis and concluded that given such failures as asserted by the NIST, then the total collapse time of the twin towers should have been in the region of 40 seconds.
A much bigger problem arises with the law of conservation of energy. As I said in a previous post, given that all the gravitational energy turned into kinetic energy (this is what happens during free-fall), where did the energy come from to pulverise the concrete, sever the columns and produce the pools of molten metal.
Another even larger problem is the dissonance the NIST 'explanations' create re the COMMON SENSE of the average human being.
The collapse of WTC7 is an OBVIOUS controlled demolition (as you well know....this is why it does not get shown on any mainstream media). The news blackout on WTC7, in particular weighs hugely on the consciousness of anyone who comes across film of this. The question screams itself out..... "Why have I not been shown this before!!!"
How could any collapse cause the destruction of a core of massive vertical steel beams....etc, etc.
The NIST is slippery 'sleight of hand' by persons who can truly be called creative writers. What they wrote in no way amounts to an analysis of the collapses. They address not a single one of the above serious questions about what happened in Manhattan on 9/11.
The collapses approached freefall speed, certainly, but did not quite reach it. You would not accept the photo posted, but most of the videos of the towers falling show debris falling faster than the advancing wave. Many steel framed buildings have collapsed before and since 9/11, no other sky-scrapers have collapsed similarly, but no other sky-scrapers have had fully laden jetliners flown into them at high speed.
Some of the concrete was pulverised but certainly not all, and not necessarily in mid air, most of the dust cloud was probably gypsum from internal walls and finishes. The molten metal story is very much hearsay, no one has claimed to have seen it personally, no solidified remains have been found and what metal it was, if any, is unknown. Why the conspiracists believe a controlled demolition by any means would keep steel molten for weeks is quite a mystery.
I do not recognise any dissonance between the NIST account and either common sense or professional expertise. The world's structural engineers are not denouncing the findings, the demolition experts are not recognising the demolition. (Except Jowenko about WTC7 and not the towers, having been shown one video and been fed false information). Shouting and noise is a poor substitute for proper analysis, and a proper analysis is what NIST have done. Or are they all, every man and woman, among the thousands in on the plot?
Tim Wilkinson, University of Sydney, Civil Engineering Dept
"Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance."
Tim Wilkinson, University of Sydney, Civil Engineering Dept
"Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance."
Did the dynamic loads also pulverize the concrete? Watch any of the collapse videos - almost no parts of the WTC 1 and 2 fall down whole. As the collapse is progressing, each floor appears to pulverize, it literally becomes dust and *then* falls to the ground. (WTC7 is noticeably different in this respect.)
Did the dynamic loads also pulverize the concrete? Watch any of the collapse videos - almost no parts of the WTC 1 and 2 fall down whole. As the collapse is progressing, each floor appears to pulverize, it literally becomes dust and *then* falls to the ground.
Your assumption that the entire (or most of the) floor became pulverized is unfounded.
Quote:
And do those dynamic forces also act upwards?
Uhm, yes. When you drop an egg, does some of the egg go up? Why? More importantly, there is virtually no material that goes "upward". And the tiny amount that does can explained relatively simply. This "upward" evidence of the CT baffles me greatly, as it's quite easy to explain.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:55 am Post subject:
Bushwacker wrote:
A view from down under:
Tim Wilkinson, University of Sydney, Civil Engineering Dept
"Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance."
And once the terms 'very quickly' are distanced from 'instantaneously', and 'little resistance' from 'no resistance', then things begin to look a little different.
Each consequent event must have occurred over time, and could be quantified with proper modelling, but NIST declined to proceed that far.
Could it be, as seems likely, because no model could match the speed observed in the real world?
Did the dynamic loads also pulverize the concrete? Watch any of the collapse videos - almost no parts of the WTC 1 and 2 fall down whole. As the collapse is progressing, each floor appears to pulverize, it literally becomes dust and *then* falls to the ground.
Your assumption that the entire (or most of the) floor became pulverized is unfounded.
Quote:
And do those dynamic forces also act upwards?
Uhm, yes. When you drop an egg, does some of the egg go up? Why? More importantly, there is virtually no material that goes "upward". And the tiny amount that does can explained relatively simply. This "upward" evidence of the CT baffles me greatly, as it's quite easy to explain.
Lets keep this simple for the overly-intellectually challenged:
There we're many reports of explosions in the tower's.
William Rodriguez reported activity on the 34 floor of the north tower. The 34 was and empty floor, and had been for eight months, which was completely gutted and awaiting a refit. So who was on the 34 floor? Rodriguez also notes in other reports he made that explosions were going off all over the north tower and that you could feel the building begin of oscillate minutes before collapse.
We all agree that if the twin tower's were demolished by explosive that the core columns would have to be compromissed to facilliate a collapse. Explosions in the basements of both towers would be consistent with controlled demolition (CD). Continued explosions in both tower often heard in series would also be consistent with CD.
Enough mass, in the form of twenty to thirty floors of core structure, pulling down would possibly yield a collapse as scene in the video evidence. The core falling through the building would randomley sever internal floor truss joins. The effect created by this would be the eterior would be seen to, and is seen, to peel away. The kenetic energy of truss joins braking may explain the percieved explosive nature of the collapses.
The main difference between the official theory and the CD theory is explosives! Explosive to weaken the structures of the tower cores and then allowing the mass of the tower in conjunction with kenetic energy to pull the building down, in and on and through itself. This keeps it all simple and within the bounds of reason.
The evidence is explosives heard by almost everybody near the towers. Not just one or two but many explosions!
As for “Lucky 7”: Why was the fire alarm for 7 in test mode that day? The alarm system for 7 would normally report the exact location of any fire in the building but on that fateful day was esentially
turned off.
Quote:
Finding 2.25: The fire alarm system that was monitoring WTC 7 sent to the monitoring company only one signal (at 10:00:52 a.m. shortly after the collapse of WTC 2) indicating a fire condition in the building on September 11, 2001. This signal did not contain any specific information about the location of the fire within the building. From the alarm system monitor service view, the building had only one zone, “AREA 1.” The building fire alarm system was placed on TEST for a period of 8 h beginning at 6:47:03 a.m. on September 11, 2001. Ordinarily, this is requested when maintenance or other testing is being performed on the system, so that any alarms that are received from the system are considered the result of the maintenance or testing and are ignored. NIST was told by the monitoring company that for systems placed in the TEST condition, alarm signals are not shown on the operator’s display, but records of the alarm are recorded into the history file.
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/chapter1.pdf (pg28)
So we have no evidence as to where fire stated in the building but also initially no firefighters would have been called! There would always have been the chance of debris falling on 7 which might explain why the mayors bunking had been strengthened and had bullet proof glass put in. So a plan was in place to demolish 7 if needed. Advanced planning would have meant a team could have rigged 7 on the day and we do have a verbal rumor that seemed to have spread very shortly after it was hit by debris that “it's coming down”. No aircraft hit 7 and therefore no fuel yet strangely the idea it was going to collapse was almost taken for granted. So what about that fire alarm system being turned off? _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:27 am Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
Freefall? My arse. The collapse zone is not even in sight yet, many storeys up.
This is fun sometimes...One last time........NIST accept (they have no choice) that the time of collapse of WTC2 was 9 seconds approximately.
Using one of the standard formulae for uniformly accelerated motion, assuming g=9.81m/s2 and the height of WTC2 was 415metres then,
s=1/2gt2
415=1/2 times (9.81) times t2
therefore t2=84.61 , therefore t=9.2 seconds
This is the MINIMUM time that a body could take to reach the ground if dropped from the WTC2 roof. Therefore WTC2 came down at free-fall speed.
This can ONLY be explained by controlled demolition.
This is so simple and indisputable that you cannot reasonably argue about it.
Maybe you are expert in a whole different physics from some parallel universe but being abused and called a liar by a troll like you is simultaneously hilarious and sad because you are either very stupid or very, very dishonest or possibly both.
The people you are supporting are turning your country into sh*t. Do yourself a favour. Reconsider your position and what is really in your own and your family's long-term interests.
This is fun sometimes...One last time........NIST accept (they have no choice) that the time of collapse of WTC2 was 9 seconds approximately.
Using one of the standard formulae for uniformly accelerated motion, assuming g=9.81m/s2 and the height of WTC2 was 415metres then,
s=1/2gt2
415=1/2 times (9.81) times t2
therefore t2=84.61 , therefore t=9.2 seconds
"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."
The collapse of WTC2 didn't start at the roof, it started in the impact zone. Why are you using 415m in your calculation?
You're not actually a physics teacher, are you? _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car
Joined: 19 Feb 2006 Posts: 237 Location: In the van with the blacked out windows, parked outside your home.
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject:
Not got the mathematical symbols on your computer figured out yet kbo234? And 'times' instead of 'X'?
s=½gt²
Easy when you know how. A physicist would and would have transposed the formula for 't' at the outset. I smell copy and paste. _________________ "It's been my policy to view the Internet not as an 'information highway,' but as an electronic asylum filled with babbling loonies.” Mike Royko
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject:
Ignatz wrote:
kbo234 wrote:
This is fun sometimes...One last time........NIST accept (they have no choice) that the time of collapse of WTC2 was 9 seconds approximately.
Using one of the standard formulae for uniformly accelerated motion, assuming g=9.81m/s2 and the height of WTC2 was 415metres then,
s=1/2gt2
415=1/2 times (9.81) times t2
therefore t2=84.61 , therefore t=9.2 seconds
"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2."
The collapse of WTC2 didn't start at the roof, it started in the impact zone. Why are you using 415m in your calculation?
You're not actually a physics teacher, are you?
You don't live under bridge either Ignatz, but that doesn't stop you being a troll does it?
Are you somehow suggesting the upper part of the building is still up there?
Of course not. Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure).
ps Forwarded the Roberts account to NIST yet?
Thought not.
The collapse of WTC2 didn't start at the roof, it started in the impact zone.
It started at the core below the impact zone as there is footage showing the skin being pulled in and down.
We then see, for the north tower, the top of the building being pulled down and the skin of the upper floors simply crumble away.
The radio tower is seen to move about a second before the skin proving without doubt that the core is collapsing before the skin.
So it's the core falling through the tower but the lower structure doesn't seem to show much resistance indicating that it may have been compromised as well as being cut at the lower floors.
There is no pancaking but rather a large chunk of core falling through the tower with minimal resistance being in evidence.
Ignore the people's voices as the audio is from a different video that was taken two miles away and the sound of explosions when synced means the people voices are early by about 9 seconds because of the speed of sound through air.
God I love when you parrots repeat tripe so often that there's already a FAQ debunking it...
Quote:
5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?
The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
wtc.nist.gov
So, the moral of the story is, the CTer who made that video didn't correlate times correctly and misinterpreted the data. The professionals are laughing at you.
God I love when you parrots repeat tripe so often that there's already a FAQ debunking it...
Quote:
5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?
The seismic spikes for the collapse of the WTC Towers are the result of debris from the collapsing towers impacting the ground. The spikes began approximately 10 seconds after the times for the start of each building’s collapse and continued for approximately 15 seconds. There were no seismic signals that occurred prior to the initiation of the collapse of either tower. The seismic record contains no evidence that would indicate explosions occurring prior to the collapse of the towers.
wtc.nist.gov
So, the moral of the story is, the CTer who made that video didn't correlate times correctly and misinterpreted the data. The professionals are laughing at you.
Balls
Kevin Ryan wrote:
Responses to NISTs FAQs K. Ryan 9/01/06
Here are my initial responses to NIST’s FAQs, with additional comments from Professors James Fetzer and Steven Jones. The answers given by NIST are considered in each case. Another good source of information on these FAQs can be found at Jim Hoffman’s site. (http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html )
NIST Question 1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?
The real question here is, since the WTC tower’s design engineer, John Skilling, said that he took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires in to account and then stated clearly that “the building structure would still be there”, why was NIST so sure from the start that fires brought down the buildings? Then, when NIST started to use Mr. Skilling’s words in their later presentations, why did they suggest this was only an anonymous view? Finally, in what places did NIST look for Skilling’s aircraft impact analysis?
For Mr. Skilling’s comments, see Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, p138
As Professor Fetzer notes, the WTC’s Construction manager, Frank DeMartini, was the last person known to have made the comments about the building’s potential to withstand multiple impacts and he said the effect would have been similar to "sticking a pencil through mosquito netting". But NIST fails to recognize Mr. Martini’s remarks at all. Why? NIST failing to locate the documentation does not prove that the design and construction engineers were mistaken.
NIST Question 2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.
NIST did not consider the demolition hypothesis at all. They did insert an eleventh hour disclaimer about having found “no evidence” to support this hypothesis, but if you look through their presentations you see that they never analyzed or tested any aspect of the demolition hypothesis.
NIST provided no scientific support for their primary contention that thousands of shotgun blasts could be created to cause the fireproofing to be widely dislodged, but yet there IS evidence that energy was not available to affect this fireproofing loss.
Additionally, NIST was deceptive and unscientific at every step of their investigation. An excellent example of this is their computer manipulations to prove that perimeter columns could be bowed inward. After having eliminated all the fireproofing, and exaggerated the temperatures and fire duration times, NIST “disconnected” their virtual columns from the floors before applying an inward force. Where does the inward force come from when the floors are disconnected?
(For details, see my essay “What is 9/11 Truth? – The First Steps” at www.journalof911studies.com.)
It is gratifying that NIST finally admits their findings do not support the “Pancake Theory” of collapse. Note that this is in direct contradiction to Shyam Sunder’s comments reported by Popular Mechanics Magazine in March 2005, four months after NIST’s final draft came out (but six months before their final, final draft appeared).
The statement “NIST found no corroborating evidence for …controlled demolition using explosives” is blatantly false. As any attorney can tell you, eyewitness testimony is evidence, and there are numerous eyewitness testimonies to the presence of explosives on 9/11/01.
Additionally, as the national fire investigation standard (NFPA 921) states, [Sulfur] residue on the steel could indicate the use of thermite or other pyrotechnic materials.
NIST Question 3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.
A better question is - What is the probability that three buildings could have suffered this fate on one day, and in three different scenarios? Has a maximum likelihood calculation, or any other probability calculation, been performed?
Additionally, Dr. Fetzer points out that the February 1975 fire on the 11th floor of the North Tower burned hotter and longer (for more than three hours), yet none of the steel had to be replaced.
NIST Question 4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?
By what mechanism was the air compressed if pancaking did not occur? How were the puffs or squibs ejected in highly directed jets or bursts, far below the collapse front, without pancaking floors?
These certainly don’t look like “puffs of gas”. They look like jets of smoke and debris.
5. Why were two distinct spikes—one for each tower—seen in seismic records before the towers collapsed? Isn't this indicative of an explosion occurring in each tower?
See Furlong and Ross, Journal of 911 Studies, vol. 2 (coming soon).
Additionally, there were reports of massive explosions in the sub-basements from custodians in the buildings, including William Rodriquez, who was in the North Tower. Mr. Rodriguez contends that the NIST team ignored his testimony.
6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
What was the potential energy NIST refers to, and how did the release of such energy develop? What recommendations has NIST made for architects and engineers to help avoid the wrong combination of potential energy and potential for aircraft impacts so that this cannot happen again?
On NIST’s poorly defined statement “global collapse ensued”, see Ross, Journal of 911 Studies, vol 1.
7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?
A number of people calling themselves experts, just after 9/11, claimed that the jet fuel fires melted the steel as they were trying to justify the official explanation. Those who sought more logical explanations pointed out that this was impossible, and NIST now agrees. But why did NIST use contractors who had previously stated that the jet fuel fire melted the steel? One notable example is Eduardo Kausel, as reported by Scientific American.
NIST’s WTC report often confuses computer results with physical testing results, and gas temperatures with steel temperatures. We might assume they confused these details because, in every case, the physical tests they performed failed to support their pre-determined conclusions.
For example, NIST’s testing of the few steel samples saved showed that steel temperatures were only about 250 C. This matches with thermodynamic calculations considering the available amounts of fuel, and the masses and specific heats of materials in the failure zones.
NIST’s workstation burn tests to establish gas temperatures were “over-ventilated” and this, among other reasons, shows they were not representative of fires in the WTC. Nonetheless, these tests did result in gas temperatures of ~ 800 C for a few seconds. Added to NIST’s computer, these results mysteriously climbed to 1000 C, and then were used in other analyses where they were applied for 90 minutes or more. This is deceptive to say the least. But are these gas temperatures what NIST is referring to when they suggest the steel reached 1000 C for long periods of time over a vast area of the building?
NIST has misrepresented my comments, and the continued use of the “steel vs. steel components” diversion is shameful. According to UL’s CEO, Loring Knoblauch, UL did test steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings.* We realize that since that time, the documents have “come up missing”, but has Mr. Knoblauch been interviewed? Why is it that neither NIST nor UL can simply say that “UL was in no way involved in testing materials related to the construction of the World Trade Center”?
*See “Propping Up the War on Terror: Lies About the WTC by NIST and Underwriters Laboratories,” to be published in 9/11 & American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out, ed. David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006) (http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/lies_about_wtc.html )
Professor Fetzer notes that steel is an excellent thermal conductor, which means that the steel temperature increases needed would have required raising the temperature of major portions of the whole structure.
8. We know that the sprinkler systems were activated because survivors reported water in the stairwells. If the sprinklers were working, how could there be a 'raging inferno' in the WTC towers?
Jim Fetzer has pointed out that the massive fire in the North Tower in February 1975 led to the installation of more sophisticated sprinkler systems and other measures that enhanced the buildings' capacity to withstand fires. Not only were people in the buildings looking out the impact holes, the windows on the buildings remained intact. If the fires had been as hot as NIST maintains, then those windows could not have remained intact.
9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?
It appears that, with this response, NIST is admitting that the fires were not very hot. If this is not the case, what thermodynamic calculations did NIST perform to estimate the temperatures that the steel and other materials within the WTC buildings could have realistically experienced? Can we see these please?
These black, low heat fires must have consumed a portion of the available fuel. How much fuel remained for the presumably much hotter, and much longer-lasting fires in the failure zones?
10. Why were people seen in the gaps left by the plane impacts if the heat from the fires behind them was so excessive?
NIST has told us that the times required for fires to migrate around the core of the buildings to the points of failure (east wall in WTC2 and south wall in WTC1) would allow for, in each case, only about 45 minutes of fire in the failure zones. Why then were NIST’s tests designed to expose floor assemblies and virtual reality column segments to 90 or 120 minutes of fire?
11. Why do some photographs show a yellow stream of molten metal pouring down the side of WTC2 that NIST claims was aluminum from the crashed plane although aluminum burns with a white glow?
Despite the fact that NIST has no evidence for the temperatures required to melt Aluminum, their response describes a counterintuitive result. If organic material mixed with molten Aluminum, it would likely burn, darken, and distribute in spots, not appear to dissolve within, and change the color of, the molten metal. Why did the Aluminum melt and pour out in such a symmetric fashion, when both the damage and fires were clearly asymmetric?
Does NIST have analyses that show the aircraft debris distributed and then reassembled in a symmetric way to form localized pools of molten Aluminum? If so, did all this occur before or after the debris turned into 0.3 inch pellets arranged as thousands of shotgun blasts, shearing off all the fireproofing in every direction around several floors within and outside of the building?
Has NIST melted Aluminum and then added the expected organic materials to form streams of falling, uniformly yellow solution?
See tests performed by Steven Jones, et. al., with results that contradict NIST’s contention on this subject.
12. Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
Again, as NFPA standard 921 states, residue on the steel suggests the use of thermite or other pyrotechnic materials. Why would the National Institute of Standards not follow the national standard for fire investigation?
Can we see the documents where “NIST researchers estimated that at least 0.13 pounds of thermite would be required to heat each pound of a steel section to approximately 700 degrees Celsius”? This does not sound like the superthermite that Dr. Jones suggests.
Dr. Jones has noted that NIST’s discussion on the amount of thermite needed to bring down a Tower ignores his and other’s research on explosive superthermite, a form using ultra-fine aluminum and metal-oxide powders. Superthermite is explosive so that much less of this form of thermite would be needed to bring the buildings down.
Researchers including Dr. Jones are testing for the residue of thermite-reaction compounds (aluminothermics) both in the toxic WTC dust and in the solidified metal. They are finding an abundance of Fluorine, Zinc and other elements commonly used in aluminothermics, but not in building materials in the concentrations found. They are investigating the possibility of thermite-based arson and demolition.
Dr. Jones has noted that the presence of aluminothermic-reaction residues in the WTC rubble and dust indicates that some persons brought these compounds into the buildings prior to their collapses. The “fingerprint” of abundant fluorine and zinc in these residues, along with 1,3 diphenylpropane and other unusual compounds, may very well allow us to trace who purchased the chemicals used and in what quantities. We are therefore calling for an independent, in-depth investigation.
13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?
See Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Towers Collapse? (http://www.journalof911studies.com/ )
As explained by Dr. Fetzer, the presence of molten metal weeks later cannot be "irrelevant" to the NIST explanation of the collapse, since it was an effect of that event. If the NIST cannot explain it, then the NIST's account is incomplete and fails to satisfy a fundamental requirement of scientific reasoning, known as the requirement of total evidence, which states scientific reasoning must be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Evidence is relevant when its presence or absence, truth or falsity, makes a difference to (affects the support for) the truth or falsity of a conclusion. NIST is evading the issue. It cannot account for important, relevant evidence.
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?
Since “NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse”, why did NIST not consider this with the WTC towers?
Does NIST plan to challenge the clear statement from the beginning of FEMA’s BPAT report (Chapter 5) that says “The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers.”
Haven't read it yet but I will! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk Get the Steven E Jones reports>HERE<
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure).
Seriously, mate, you might want to see a head-shrinker. Your addiction to misrepresentation seems to be getting worse.
This quote from NIST was in the post you quoted:
Quote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
Is this getting through?
First debris to strike ground, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure)
is very different from
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (CT figure) _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:15 pm Post subject:
Ignatz thinks one shouldn't use the height of the building when calculating the time for a free-fall collapse. Ho-ho. He thinks I am not a physics teacher (as if that really f***ing matters. I could have carried out these calculations when I was a 15 year old schoolboy).
You are right Ignatz, I am an expert in the dynamics of collapsing marmalade.
A Sharp Major attacks the way I typed the relevant formula. Here is a formidable thinker who really sees to the heart of these matters.
Cut the nonsense and answer the question. Most of us move away from these engagements because this is the trolls real area of expertise....changing the subject....
Again, Where did all the energy come from to mash up the entire building, sever the massive steele beams (simultaneously at the same heights, or else it would not have landed with minimal spreading) and create the pools of molten steel in the basement? The gravitational energy is completely accounted for by the speed of fall. Everything in those buildings was absolutely pulverised........concrete, insulation, office furniture, human bones (fragments less than 1/16th inch long were recently discovered on the roof of the Deutsche Bank some large distance away from the towers...think about that for a minute) and the beams were severed into convenient lengths for putting on lorries.
The gravitational energy is completely accounted for by the speed of fall
You really havn't done any physics have you?
You propose that a brick dropping has exactly the same force behind it as a 30 story building then?
I tell you, for "TRUTH" seekers, you don't half see a lot of bending the facts to try to fit incorrect assumptions here.
Quote:
(fragments less than 1/16th inch long were recently discovered on the roof of the Deutsche Bank some large distance away from the towers...think about that for a minute)
What distance? 1000 miles? That's quite large?
And the only possible explaination for these bone fragments is that they came from the collapsing WTC? _________________
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure).
Seriously, mate, you might want to see a head-shrinker. Your addiction to misrepresentation seems to be getting worse.
This quote from NIST was in the post you quoted:
Quote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
Is this getting through?
First debris to strike ground, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure)
is very different from
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (CT figure)
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:04 pm Post subject:
chipmunk stew wrote:
chek wrote:
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure).
Seriously, mate, you might want to see a head-shrinker. Your addiction to misrepresentation seems to be getting worse.
This quote from NIST was in the post you quoted:
Quote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
Is this getting through?
First debris to strike ground, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure)
is very different from
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (CT figure)
Behold CS the master of obfuscation at work!
The split second difference between your take on 'approx 9 seconds' and mine is really all the point you can make here? Ohhh dear.
Sure you don't want to extend it by the time it took the core 'spire' to turn to dust and drift away on the breeze?
Notice how you don't have to squint to see it? See how there is NO INTERPRETATION necessary? That's usually the way explosions behave. There's a very energetic shock wave associated with it. At WTC, you just don't see that.
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure).
Seriously, mate, you might want to see a head-shrinker. Your addiction to misrepresentation seems to be getting worse.
This quote from NIST was in the post you quoted:
Quote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
Is this getting through?
First debris to strike ground, approx 9 secs. (NIST figure)
is very different from
Top to bottom collapse, approx 9 secs. (CT figure)
The split second difference between your take on 'approx 9 seconds' and mine is really all the point you can make here? Ohhh dear.
The time between the first debris striking the ground and the top of the building striking the ground was a "split second"? Prove it.
NIST does not assert a top to bottom collapse time of "approx 9 secs." That is your misrepresentation.
If you don't think getting the time right is critical to making your case, consider that for every fraction shaved off the downward acceleration, you get a tremendous increase in energy available for other work. _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
