| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Friction? Friction?? The energy deficit you propose is staggeringly short of what's required, reducing the available potential and kinetic energy
|
Oh really? Sounds like you've run the numbers. Post them, please. I'd love to see how you came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough energy. |
The numbers are beyond me, but Hoffman calculates the deficit in the energy required to grind the concrete to powder and expand the dustcloud alone.
How can you subtract from available energy shortfall to convert part of it to friction in a transient phase and come out of it with the concrete powder, the expansion rate of the dust cloud and still have extra heat left over to melt steel?
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
And before you proceed to suggest it, I don't buy the spontaneous corrosion reaction theory either, so save your breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Friction? Friction?? The energy deficit you propose is staggeringly short of what's required, reducing the available potential and kinetic energy
|
Oh really? Sounds like you've run the numbers. Post them, please. I'd love to see how you came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough energy. |
The numbers are beyond me, but Hoffman calculates the deficit in the energy required to grind the concrete to powder and expand the dustcloud alone.
How can you subtract from available energy shortfall to convert part of it to friction in a transient phase and come out of it with the concrete powder, the expansion rate of the dust cloud and still have extra heat left over to melt steel?
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
And before you proceed to suggest it, I don't buy the spontaneous corrosion reaction theory either, so save your breath. |
Hoffman's calculations are easily shown to be pseudo-scientific and dramatically erroneous. e.g. -
"Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink (energy consumption). " - my parentheses
He blatantly misuses the concept of "average" here.
To illustrate, take 1 million particles at 60microns and one lump containing 1 million such particles. The average size of these 1,000,0001 pieces of concrete is still (as near as makes no difference) 60microns, yet his calculation presumes that 2,000,000 particles worth of concrete - by weight - have been produced by explosive pulverisation.
His calculations are therefore worthless.
Now chek, please don't try to say that all the concrete was pulverised to dust. It wasn't.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | | Anti-sophist wrote: | | Quote: |
Friction? Friction?? The energy deficit you propose is staggeringly short of what's required, reducing the available potential and kinetic energy
|
Oh really? Sounds like you've run the numbers. Post them, please. I'd love to see how you came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough energy. |
The numbers are beyond me, but Hoffman calculates the deficit in the energy required to grind the concrete to powder and expand the dustcloud alone.
How can you subtract from available energy shortfall to convert part of it to friction in a transient phase and come out of it with the concrete powder, the expansion rate of the dust cloud and still have extra heat left over to melt steel?
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html
And before you proceed to suggest it, I don't buy the spontaneous corrosion reaction theory either, so save your breath. |
Hoffman's calculations are easily shown to be pseudo-scientific and dramatically erroneous. e.g. -
"Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink (energy consumption). " - my parentheses
He blatantly misuses the concept of "average" here.
To illustrate, take 1 million particles at 60microns and one lump containing 1 million such particles. The average size of these 1,000,0001 pieces of concrete is still (as near as makes no difference) 60microns, yet his calculation presumes that 2,000,000 particles worth of concrete - by weight - have been produced by explosive pulverisation.
His calculations are therefore worthless.
Now chek, please don't try to say that all the concrete was pulverised to dust. It wasn't. |
Well, it sure looks like it was (which is not conclusive but telling), and many witnesses report not finding any large non-metallic macro pieces, only dust and metal.
But no doubt you can justify why your contention is the correct one and Hoffman is wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Well, it sure looks like it was (which is not conclusive but telling), and many witnesses report not finding any large non-metallic macro pieces, only dust and metal.
But no doubt you can justify why your contention is the correct one and Hoffman is wrong? |
Of course I can. So could you if you wanted to. But you don't want to. You have a belief and you shy away from anything that might shake it.
p.s. regarding 60microns - do you know how small that is? Think in terms of grains of flour and you won't be far wrong.
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Well, it sure looks like it was (which is not conclusive but telling), and many witnesses report not finding any large non-metallic macro pieces, only dust and metal.
But no doubt you can justify why your contention is the correct one and Hoffman is wrong? |
Of course I can. So could you if you wanted to. But you don't want to. You have a belief and you shy away from anything that might shake it.
p.s. regarding 60microns - do you know how small that is? Think in terms of grains of flour and you won't be far wrong. |
Hoffman is careful to point out that not all particles were that small, and he uses an average - which is a perfectly legitimate method, that happily also coincides with people's experiences.
Yes I undertand what you are saying, but surely you must see that situation is a result of the cover up that was actively taking place under Giuliani's express orders.
Why are there no competing calculations for Hoffman's work, which of course must be based on estimates in lieu of hard data for the reasons stated?
And why are you so determined to belittle his approach?
His paper is in it's fourth revision - I'm sure he would welcome any legitimate concerns you have to share. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: | Hoffman is careful to point out that not all particles were that small, and he uses an average - which is a perfectly legitimate method, that happily also coincides with people's experiences.
Yes I undertand what you are saying, but surely you must see that situation is a result of the cover up that was actively taking place under Giuliani's express orders.
Why are there no competing calculations for Hoffman's work, which of course must be based on estimates in lieu of hard data for the reasons stated?
And why are you so determined to belittle his approach?
His paper is in it's fourth revision - I'm sure he would welcome any legitimate concerns you have to share. |
Because Hoffman actually quotes the study he took his "average" figures from, which you could have followed if you had wanted.
I quote :
"Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001"
They only studied dust, therefore they only have figures for dust.
Meanwhile at GZ they were using jackhammers to break up the concrete rubble.
Hoffman is either stupid or a crook, which is why I belittle his approach.
Are you beginning to get it chek? That taking all your "evidence" from CT sites is a bad idea??
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Hoffman is careful to point out that not all particles were that small, and he uses an average - which is a perfectly legitimate method, that happily also coincides with people's experiences.
Yes I undertand what you are saying, but surely you must see that situation is a result of the cover up that was actively taking place under Giuliani's express orders.
Why are there no competing calculations for Hoffman's work, which of course must be based on estimates in lieu of hard data for the reasons stated?
And why are you so determined to belittle his approach?
His paper is in it's fourth revision - I'm sure he would welcome any legitimate concerns you have to share. |
Because Hoffman actually quotes the study he took his "average" figures from, which you could have followed if you had wanted.
I quote :
"Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001"
They only studied dust, therefore they only have figures for dust.
Meanwhile at GZ they were using jackhammers to break up the concrete rubble.
Hoffman is either stupid or a crook, which is why I belittle his approach.
Are you beginning to get it chek? That taking all your "evidence" from CT sites is a bad idea?? |
You seem keen to give the impression that I am somehow credulous when it comes to CT sites, yet you are not when it come sto backing the OCT. That's highly curious to me.
No mention of rubble in this responders descriptions:
A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods (and) Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
nor here:
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.
http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html
The use of 'wreckage' is indicative of steel wreckage rather than building 'rubble'. Even here:
"NPR's Eric Westervelt visits what rescue workers in New York are calling "the pile" -- the twisted rubble of the World Trade Center."
(Obviously rubble being masonry can't twist - they again and significantly mean metallic wreckage.)
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/091102reflections/ground_zero_photos/ index.html
You can check out the photos that accompany the articles and many others - you won't find large chunks of masonry. It is conspicuous by its absence.
Nobody would claim 'all' the concrete had turned to dust, but a highly unusual - not to say unprecedented volume of it most certainly did.
Very few scientists have backed the CT position, but that seems to me more likely due to the professional suicide that would likely follow in the political climate of the hysterical barely pre-fascist torture state that is the US today. 911 has been covered up even from before day one was over.
Remember, that is what all your arcane and unlikely probabilities and excuses are supporting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chek wrote: |
No mention of rubble in this responders descriptions:
A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods (and) Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
nor here:
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.
http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html
The use of 'wreckage' is indicative of steel wreckage rather than building 'rubble'. Even here:
"NPR's Eric Westervelt visits what rescue workers in New York are calling "the pile" -- the twisted rubble of the World Trade Center."
(Obviously rubble being masonry can't twist - they again and significantly mean metallic wreckage.)
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/091102reflections/ground_zero_photos/ index.html
|
Regrettably I can't reliably post images from my work system - it's heavily filtered - so that will have to wait until tomorrow. It'll be worth the wait.
Meanwhile - do you accept that the study Hoffman quotes specifically looked at dust ? And that, if so, using the average sizes found in the study to extrapolate calculations for the total TT concrete load is false physics?
Are you going to stick with this discussion chek? Or walk away like you did when your arguments over "Minor fires in WTC7" were refuted?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: |
No mention of rubble in this responders descriptions:
A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods (and) Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said.
http://www.neha.org/9-11%20report/index-The.html
nor here:
“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said.
http://www.gcn.com/print/21_27a/19930-1.html
The use of 'wreckage' is indicative of steel wreckage rather than building 'rubble'. Even here:
"NPR's Eric Westervelt visits what rescue workers in New York are calling "the pile" -- the twisted rubble of the World Trade Center."
(Obviously rubble being masonry can't twist - they again and significantly mean metallic wreckage.)
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/091102reflections/ground_zero_photos/ index.html
|
Regrettably I can't reliably post images from my work system - it's heavily filtered - so that will have to wait until tomorrow. It'll be worth the wait.
Meanwhile - do you accept that the study Hoffman quotes specifically looked at dust ? And that, if so, using the average sizes found in the study to extrapolate calculations for the total TT concrete load is false physics?
Are you going to stick with this discussion chek? Or walk away like you did when your arguments over "Minor fires in WTC7" were refuted? |
Apologies - I hadn't realised about the other thread with mkpdavies was going on until you referred to it here. I'll reply here to that first if thats not too confusing.
I checked out your references and I agree that it is smoke, and although the souce of the dark smoke is not visible, it is most likely from from Building 7.
Looked at against the building, the smoke does appear very thick.
In
http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Smoke.avi
the smoke appears to be originating from the lower left of the building, out of our sight.
I can't be sure that the smoke is also emanating from the side windows, (although the windows facing the viewer appear unlit and undamaged) or if it's clinging to the side of the building in a sort of coanda effect, as it lightens and thins considerably further towards the roof line with what appears to be wind tubulence.
I also checked out the photos at http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
and this one, showing the SW corner damage.
backup URL for attached image:
http://wtc7.net/docs/June2004WTC7_Page_16_cropped.jpg
It's immediately apparent that there isn't any evidence of flames from the south face either - much less so than the oft derided and commonly seen north face flames.
So I'll have to conclude from the evidence so far there is an impressive looking plume of dark oxygen-poor smoke no doubt, but little evidence of catastrophic fire and less evidence of a likely cause of universal total symmetric collapse.
Ok back to the rubble.
I'll wait for your photos till they're available. Is it possible to tell from where they were taken?
Just to remind you, I don't dispute the presence of conventional demolition rubble at WTC7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ignatz wrote: | | chek wrote: | Hoffman is careful to point out that not all particles were that small, and he uses an average - which is a perfectly legitimate method, that happily also coincides with people's experiences.
Yes I undertand what you are saying, but surely you must see that situation is a result of the cover up that was actively taking place under Giuliani's express orders.
Why are there no competing calculations for Hoffman's work, which of course must be based on estimates in lieu of hard data for the reasons stated?
And why are you so determined to belittle his approach?
His paper is in it's fourth revision - I'm sure he would welcome any legitimate concerns you have to share. |
Because Hoffman actually quotes the study he took his "average" figures from, which you could have followed if you had wanted.
I quote :
"Three bulk samples of the total settled dust and smoke were collected at weather-protected locations east of the WTC on 16 and 17 September 2001"
They only studied dust, therefore they only have figures for dust.
Meanwhile at GZ they were using jackhammers to break up the concrete rubble.
Hoffman is either stupid or a crook, which is why I belittle his approach.
Are you beginning to get it chek? That taking all your "evidence" from CT sites is a bad idea?? |
Hoffman was studying the dustcloud as a means of calculating the volume expansion and energy that represented. That is his ongoing interest, it wasn't to catalogue rubble, which was a very small percentage of the debris.
Which as many photos of the site and firemen witness, showed little sign of rubble pieces in any case, or any non-metallic material. Although paper also seemed to survive.
As one fireman commented:
"You have two 110 story office buildings...you don't find a desk, a chair, a telephone, a computer. The biggest piece of a telephone I found was half of the key pad. The building collapsed to dust."
While anecdotal, what he says agrees with what many videos and photos show.
The rubble at GZ would also of course include the other minor destroyed buildings in the WTC complex, which weren't blown to smithereens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
