Fact: Kerosine does not burn hot enough to melt iron.
Fact: Thermite was involved in destroying the Twin Towers in NYC and it was not left over from the first failed attempt in 1993 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Fact: The intelligence community knew ahead of time something was going on and personally warned some of us (me in particular) and "disappeared" as a result of that warning.
Fact: Explosives were set off to take down buildings and were heard prior to the planes being absorbed by the buildings.
Fact: People were murdered in Building 7 and the building was destroyed in an attempt to hide the evidence. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=55f_1214238650
http://oneworlddeath.blogspot.com/2006/ ... ing-7.html
Fact: No plane hit Building 7. http://www.dictatorshipwatch.com/2008/1 ... -line.html
Fact: Building 7 was also downed using thermite - http://www.rense.com/general83/wtc7.htm
Fact: The Committee of 300 is alive and well and pushing for the New World Economic Order.
Fact: We live in the "End Times".
Fact: The Latter-day Prophets and Apostles have warned us time and again to prepare, but the Saints are still "asleep".
Fact: The US Constitution has been shredded and is hanging by a swinging chad (not a pregnant one).
If you were a terrorist...
-
pritchet1
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3600
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Last edited by pritchet1 on December 30th, 2008, 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
[I read your posts, you have not proven anything. why do you think I replied to you?]
I asked you to re-read them because apparently you do not see or understand my point of view. I can see your but you seem to either ignore or poo poo mine.
[There are dozens of smoking guns related to 911 and the coverup. You (or anyone else with an open mind) need only one of those ‘smoking guns’. Science is science; this is not about a difference of opinion. Things can be proven scientifically; end of story. Here is one of the scientific proofs, let’s see what you do with it.
Hydrocarbon fires can only reach a certain maximum temperature under optimal conditions. (A fact of science.) The fires of 911 were hydrocarbon fires. (fact) There is abundant testimony, photo and video evidence of molten steel (as in flowing liquid steel) at numerous 911 sites. (A fact.) Hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to produce molten steel under any condition. (Another fact of science.) When was the last time your Barbeque melted on you?]
Please read the following articles from:http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
(Sorry, the pictures did not translate onto my post)
The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.
They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. 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? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist.
________________________________________
Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.
INTRODUCTION
Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.
http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1
Note it doesn't say this type of thermite takes the place of explosives, only "to enhance air blast". None of the suggested uses scream POWERFUL to me. The towers were not underwater, and their is no evidence rockets were strapped to the columns. That they would use it as a primer and not an actual explosive seems to be good evidence it's not as powerful as the conspiracy theorist suggest.
________________________________________
Now that you have the ignorance of "Scholars for 911 truth" we can continue...
To be honest, I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientists of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionists', of which I'm not one. Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a halt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catcher's mitt.
Here are some graphics showing where the airliner ended up.
One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.
More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximately 22 minutes. whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/projec ... re/Design/
performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm
The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.
One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.
Jones writes: "This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum.
________________________________________
Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.
Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.
The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"
First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.
I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]
Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."
If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.
Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?
The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8
Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.
Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.
The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.
THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.
Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.
I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.
Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
Stephen D. Chastain
________________________________________
The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.
The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.
http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education ... pyhow.html
In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.
The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Jones says something I can't help but find incredible...
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."
The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were in to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we begin to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dam? In fact, I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner. In 5 years, Jones couldn't envision a sag in the floor enough to hold melted aluminum?
The above is what the floors may have looked like.
Yet another possibility is the flow creating a temporary dam by doing exactly what Jones describes. Like a candle which has melted to the floor, the aluminum may have melted and cooled as it flowed away from the heat source. This cooled aluminum builds up and creates a shallow pool of aluminum. Much like candle wax pooling around the wick while cooler wax, away from the wick, builds up creating a levee/dam around the liquid wax. Once the floors sagged toward the window as shown in the NIST Report the pool may have spilled over and out of the window.
Now, I'm no "Professor" but I think there was a "high probability" aluminum could have pooled near a heat source.
Interestingly, the conspiracy theorists have grasped onto another straw. The photo below shows another stream of fluid in another place but this time it's the color Jones points to as aluminum.
Note as with the other flow, it's also where the building sustained heavy damage from the airliner and also has a very heavy fire.
Another source of heat hasn't been touched by any conspiracy theorist. There were many chemical oxygen generators in the airliner. They just happen to be wrapped with aluminum.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/16/oxygen.ge ... index.html
Here is what a chemical oxygen generator looks like when it's burning.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/19/valujet.f ... act.47.mov
These are NOT oxygen tanks. They are generators which make oxygen under chemical reaction.
Yet there is even evidence this isn't thermite...
Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.
During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.
pg 412,413,114 chap 9
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Thermite can't walk from one window to another. A pool of aluminum which is guided by floors sagging at different stages can shift directions. A POOL of metal melted by thermite could move with sagging floors just like the aluminum but not according to Jones because...
"it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point"
But what of Jones evidence for thermite like this?
"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce."
Yet, once again, we find in his own paper that it states..
Under section 11
"Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000 ºC." (Eagar and Musso, 2001) While this is the maximum air temperature possible in the WTC fires, this does not mean that the structural steel reached this temperature in the time the fires acted. Indeed, NIST emphasizes that there was no evidence that "any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC." This statement is consistent with their data plots of "predicted column temperatures", which "shows maximum temperature reached by each column" in that no temperature above 600 ºC is given for any of the steel columns. (NIST, 2005.)
Jones goes on to talk about structural steel but we aren't talking about the "predicted column temperatures" are we. Nor was the NIST suggesting the structural steel had to melt in order to collapse the building. No one is. This is a straw man. 600C is good enough to weaken structural steel. Now back to the aluminum...
It's not unreasonable to expect the aluminum to be a mix of other things in the towers that day. There could be all kinds of things in the towers. Even wood might have affected the color...
This is the Yosemite Firefall at Yosemite National Park. That's just embers from bark being thrown from the top. While it's safe to say there was no bark in the towers it's also safe to say there was wood from office furniture. But I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this is what we see coming from the window. What I'm suggesting is that it is probably a molten metal mix of aluminum and something else. Don't limit yourself here. I'm not saying aluminum and wood only. One of my biggest criticisms with the conspiracy theorists is the one dimensional thinking.
The main point is, jumping to the conclusion that it's thermite is intellectually lazy given all the other possibilities. It's a logical fallacy to conclude a lack of evidence is evidence of something. Yet this is the conspiracy theorist credo.
Below are some quotes from different sources concerning the flow...
The NY Times article
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyreg ... i=5007&en=
a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1
Here's another article on the aluminum
But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.
The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/a ... /30/129774
A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.
NIST H-7-2
Molten Material
It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_jun ... endixh.pdf
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
http://www.scieneering.com/wtc_update.html
I highlighted the qualifiers because some conspiracy theorists seem to be 'qualifier challenged'. Sounded like, looks like, appear to be, possibly, suggest, as if... these are just a few qualifiers the conspiracy theorists ignore. In keeping with this trend, the conspiracy theorists have said the NIST was SURE it was aluminum using the above quotes. They are just saying what I'm saying. The evidence points to it being aluminum. They conclude it's aluminum.
________________________________________
Update:
Italian debunker uncovers yet another possible cause of the what we see coming from the 81st floor window.
Abstract: research into the causes of a conspicuous flow of glowing material from the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower leads to the finding of evidence of a highly flammable UPS system at that location and suggests a possible triggering event for the flow and associated fire. Photographic evidence of floor failures is provided. Molten steel is ruled out as an ingredient of the flow.
This is not a photo of the WTC battery banks. For illustration only.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... -wtc2.html
This also adds even more sulfur to debris pile.
________________________________________
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.
In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.
I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.
Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.
The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.
Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.
ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:
METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN
WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
- NEU-FONZE
________________________________________
More on this iron-H2O reaction:
Modern Commercial Hydrogen generation:
"steam contacts molten iron to form iron oxide and release hydrogen....
The hydrogen production step is the same chemical reaction that occurs in the steam-iron process which was used to produce hydrogen commercially 100 years ago. In that technology steam was passed over iron particles to produce hydrogen and iron oxide. However, the rate of hydrogen production declined as the iron oxidized and was covered with rust and the cost of replenishing iron ultimately rendered this process uneconomical"
http://www.alchemix.net/index.php?modul ... =10&ceid=2 or http://www.alchemix.us/TechnologyDescriptionweb710.pdf
Hydrogen generation from "steam" and iron Performed as a school-lab experiment without "molten" iron:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:pd ... =clnk&cd=8
Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material." http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html
In a vehicle application, the hydrogen is generated by passing water or low-temperature steam over desirably freshly-ground iron, which then becomes iron oxide."
"The instantaneous grinding of the iron particles in situ is necessitated because iron becomes rapidly oxidized after grinding."
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html
Also: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login ... mber=29811
Evidently, iron will oxidize about the same rate in air, or in a steam-atmosphere. The addition of water to the piles from the top or pools of it at the bottom thus may have served as an additional source of oxygen, upon combining with hot steel or aluminum.
The hydrogen generated may have then combined with other materials in the piles, or with oxygen in air, to produce additional heat. (Net thermal result would be same as directly oxidizing iron with oxygen). - Mark Ferran
________________________________________
Abbreviations: gigaJoules (gJ) = 1,000 megaJoules (MJ). To heat steel to the melting point requires about 0.68 gJ of heat to be added for each tonne (metric ton) of steel. Enough more heat has to be added to melt it. Total is about 1 gJ/tonne. All we require is enough heat to obtain yellow hot steel, approximately 0.6 gJ/tonne. However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?).
This could easily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.
Again, for simplicity of analysis, assume 100 floors each supplied the same sized pulse of energy down the box column. Then each floor supplied 10 MJ. Calculations shows that this amount of energy, distributed over the horizontal area of the box columns, only provides a small fraction of the pressure required to cause structural steel to yield. So ignoring the top 10 floors to allow a further 10% loss in energy transfer, all that is required to obtain yellow hot steel in the basements is the modest contribution of 10 MJ per floor per tonne of yellow hot steel.
Pressure calculations: Above I determined that each floor needed to deliver 10 MJ of energy down the box column to the bottom in order to supply more than sufficient heat to cause a tonne of steel to become yellow hot. Here we need to assure ourselves that this energy delivery does not stress the box column into yielding. Now just yielding is not failure, but might be noticed in a post-collapse inspection of box columns. From wikipedia, structural steel has a yield strength of 400 MPa and an ultimate strength of 650 MPa.
Reminders: Pascal = Newton/m^2, Joule = Newton-meter (N.m). The meters-squared, m^2, will refer to the cross-sectional area of the box column. The meters in the Joule part will refer to the vertical height of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column. The speed of sound in steel is 5100--5960 m/s, depending upon the source one uses. For simplicity in the following I will assume that the speed of the pressure pulse is just the rounded-off 5000 m/s.
Since we are attempting to find the highest possible reasonable figure for the pressure delivered to the box column by the pressure pulse, assume that the pressure pulse lasts only for 0.001 s = 1 millisecond. Then this square wave of pressure extends vertically for 5 meters. Thus the force over these 5 meters is 2 MN, 10 MJ = 2 MN x 5 m. So the force applied to the cross-sectional area of the box column is 2 megaNewtons.
Now assume that this force is applied equally across the cross-sectional area of the box column. (We will return to this assumption. It certainly applies to all parts of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column except at the moment of initiation.) Now assume the box column is a square 1 meter on a side and is 3" = .0762 m thick. Thus the steel cross-sectional area is 4 x 0.0762 = 0.3048 m^2.
We have now determined that the pressure on the box columns due to the pressure pulse traveling down it is 6.56 MPa = 2 MN/0.3048 m^2. This is trivial compared to the 400 MPa yield strength of the structural steel. No yielding will be observed, and indeed, none was in the majority of the structural steel. The exceptions are in the basement, where stresses and temperatures were high. The 400 MPa figure applies to ordinary temperatures, not elevated ones.
At the moment of the initiation of the pressure pulse due to floors stripping off, the initial forces will all be on just the outside edges of the most exterior of the box columns in the core. But as the calculation shows, the pressure required is less than 1/40th of the yield strength. So the box columns would not show signs of yielding, even with highly asymmetric patterns of the initial forces.
"Roaring oven" Ok, it was indeed hot in the rubble piles of WTC 1 & 2. More important, there were definite hot spots which were the hottest. We have seen ample evidence of potential fuels, including ordinary office materials, gasoline in the automobiles in the basement(?) and transformer oil. However, heat always flows from higher temperatures to lower ones. So to obtain yellow hot steel requires not only sufficient energy, but if heated from the exterior, high temperatures. If the energy was supplied by pressure pulses, as suggested, then simply the friction of repeated slamming the bottom of a box column into unyielding concrete or granite suffices.
Further, perhaps the estimated temperature of the hot spots, obtained via infrared scanning, was 1500 F = (810+273)K = 1083K. Assuming approximately black body radiation. 1000K is red hot, maybe 1500K is orange hot. Yellow hot, then is very close to the melting temperature of iron, (1535+273)K = 1808K. It seems to me a higher temperature than can be reached by burning ordinary office materials. That gasoline was in close proximity seems unlikely. I don't know the temperature of burning transformer oil, but I suppose it is less than gasoline(?) The point behind this addendum is that the pressure pulse hypothesis is highly robust under alternative scenarios and is not dependent on an external source of chemical energy. - David B. Benson, edited by Debunking 911
To Be Continued:
I asked you to re-read them because apparently you do not see or understand my point of view. I can see your but you seem to either ignore or poo poo mine.
[There are dozens of smoking guns related to 911 and the coverup. You (or anyone else with an open mind) need only one of those ‘smoking guns’. Science is science; this is not about a difference of opinion. Things can be proven scientifically; end of story. Here is one of the scientific proofs, let’s see what you do with it.
Hydrocarbon fires can only reach a certain maximum temperature under optimal conditions. (A fact of science.) The fires of 911 were hydrocarbon fires. (fact) There is abundant testimony, photo and video evidence of molten steel (as in flowing liquid steel) at numerous 911 sites. (A fact.) Hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to produce molten steel under any condition. (Another fact of science.) When was the last time your Barbeque melted on you?]
Please read the following articles from:http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
(Sorry, the pictures did not translate onto my post)
The molten metal that conspiracy theorists point to are a glowing flow coming from the south tower window and molten steel found under ground zero.
They suggest the above glow is steel which is being cut by a thermite cutter charge reaction. They show photos of a thermite reaction burning a hole downward through a metal plate. Let's forget for a moment that thermite doesn't explode so the claims of hearing explosions become meaningless. The argument that there was thermite and explosives seems to be rationalization of this dilemma. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? No theory exist to explain this but the faithful simply say "We're still working on it". I'm sure they are. Let's also give ourselves selective amnesia and pretend thermite can burn sideways to melt vertical columns. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work. While there are relatively large canisters which can burn small holes sideways, I have yet to see this elusive steel cutting technique used to cut a vertical column. 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? Anyone can make a patent but it doesn't mean it exists or even works. Even if it did, they are "Ganged" together to make the cut according to the patent. You would still need these boxes all over the columns. It would be pretty absurd to suggest they moved the walls away from the columns just to fit these things around the columns. Of course they'll say they didn't suggest that but it goes without saying. Anyway, physicists aren't supposed to know these things. The last thing we are to ignore is that this thermite charge didn't go off during the impact and decided to go off later. Yes, thermite needs a very hot source or primary explosive to go off but this primary explosive didn't go off either. (Enter sound of explosives right? Wrong, the sounds were described as happening at the time of collapse. From what I've seen of thermite, it needs longer than microseconds to work on thick steel.) Jones' torch on the thermite proves it needs other means of setting it off but it doesn't prove a thing for whatever is supposed to set it off. That would still be very volatile in the fires. I have yet to see this 1,100C fireproof container and radio controlled primary explosive combination some have rationalized. This seems to exist because they need it to exist.
________________________________________
Since I first wrote this, the conspiracy theorists did not disappoint. Enter "Nanothermite!" They offer these links to prove its explosive properties. The problem is the links do the exact opposite.
INTRODUCTION
Aluminum powder is a common ingredient in
energetic materials. The aluminum is used to
increase the energy and raise the flame temperature
in rocket propellants. It is also incorporated in
explosives to enhance air blast, increase bubble
energies in underwater weapons, raise reaction
temperatures and create incendiary effects. In
explosives, it is generally assumed that combustion
of aluminum particles occurs behind the reaction
front (during the expansion of the gaseous detonation
products), so that the particles do not participate in
the reaction zone, but rather act as inert ingredients.
http://www.intdetsymp.org/detsymp2002/PaperSubmit/
FinalManuscript/pdf/Brousseau-193.pdf
Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices, primers for igniting firearms, and as fuel propellants for rockets.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/
wo_gartner012105.asp?p=1
Note it doesn't say this type of thermite takes the place of explosives, only "to enhance air blast". None of the suggested uses scream POWERFUL to me. The towers were not underwater, and their is no evidence rockets were strapped to the columns. That they would use it as a primer and not an actual explosive seems to be good evidence it's not as powerful as the conspiracy theorist suggest.
________________________________________
Now that you have the ignorance of "Scholars for 911 truth" we can continue...
To be honest, I don't like this kind of evidence. It's not something which the scientists of the NIST or anyone else can prove. It's for 'assumptionists', of which I'm not one. Yet, there is enough evidence to point to the glow being aluminum. (Anyone saying they KNOW what the substance is would be lying. I won't pretend to KNOW it's aluminum because I don't. The NIST doesn't say they KNOW either. They only conclude it's aluminum because it's the most likely, given the evidence.)
"NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning.
Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
One of the glaringly OBVIOUS pieces of evidence is the place the flow is coming from. It just happens to be where the airliner crashed to a halt. You can tell by the way the perimeter columns look. They're bowed out like a catcher's mitt.
Here are some graphics showing where the airliner ended up.
One of the arguments for thermite that conspiracy theorists use is the temperature of the fire. They say the fires at the towers weren't hot enough to melt aluminum, which suggests they need an unnatural source for the melted aluminum. (Hint, hint) Yet, the aluminum outer skin of other airliners have melted without even hitting anything. Sparked only by friction...
Air France flight 358 didn't hit a steel building at 500 miles an hour. It didn't even burn the fuel in the wings, yet its aluminum skin melted to the ground. It simply went off the runway and caught fire. What melted the airliner was its contents, like seats, clothing and other combustibles including chemical oxygen generators. It's not unreasonable to conclude the airliner and contents didn't even need the contents of the building to melt. Yet the NIST replicated the fires by burning office furniture in a controlled experiment and found the ceiling temperature to reach 1,100 degrees C. (They say "Yeah but that's the ceiling" to which I say "Now imagine what the actual flame is.. Do you think it's cooler?") More than enough to melt aircraft aluminum as well. Unfortunately, they weren't charged with putting conspiracy theorists fears to rest so they didn't include a piece of aircraft aluminum in the test.
More evidence that normal fires without jet fuel added can reach over 1000 degrees C is an experiment conducted by One Stop Shop in Structural Fire Engineering, Professor Colin Bailey, University of Manchester.
Figure 1 shows the various nominal fire curves for comparison. It can be seen that, over a period of 2 hours, the hydrocarbon fire is the most severe followed by the standard fire, with the external fire being the least severe fire although the slow heating fire represents the lowest temperature up to 30 minutes. It is noteworthy that for standard and smouldering fires, the temperature continuously increases with increasing time. For the external fire, the temperature remains constant at 680°C after approximately 22 minutes. whereas for the hydrocarbon fires, the temperatures remain constant at 1100°C and 1120°C after approximate 40 minutes.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/projec ... re/Design/
performance/fireModelling/nominalFireCurves/default.htm
The next piece of evidence they point to is the color, which is a bright yellow at the center. They say aluminum is silver when melted. While this is true, at higher temperatures it can be yellow.
One of the pieces of evidence Jones points to is a snapshot of the flow falling down the side the building. This pyrotechnic show seems ominous, that is until you look at it closely...
Note the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of its journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. One thing it's not, and that's black.
Jones writes: "This is a point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"
I think at a cooler temperature, he's right.
What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) Below is a screenshot from National Geographic's "Inside 911".
The droplets on the outside of the center of the fall seem to be the color of aluminum siding to me.. As I said, the evidence points to it being aluminum.
________________________________________
Below is a message from Stephen D. Chastain of Metal Talk.
Several times over the last year I have been asked to comment on a photo of one of the Trade Center Towers. The photo shows a molten flow from one of the windows. The flow falls down along the building. It appears orange and turns to a gray color as it cools.
The questions usually want me to address "Is this photo a fake?" and "Is the flow steel or aluminum?" "Is this situation possible?"
First, I will address the temperature range, then the color of the flow.
I am working in imperial units and temperature in degrees F [To convert to C use this link]
Metals lose about 50% of their strength at 60% of their melting temperature. This is common knowledge and may be found in any undergraduate text regarding "Fracture and Deformation of Materials."
If the approximate melting temperature of steel is 2750 F the the material would be plastic at 1650 F. Even assuming a safety factor of 3, you would expect the bolts or other structural members to deform and fail near this temperature, especially with the additional weight if a jet air liner. I would assume that the live load calculations did not include the typical office equipment and an airliner plus a factor of 3. THEREFORE I assume that the flow is not steel and that the temperature of the steel members at the time of the photo is less than 1650 F.
Assuming that the flow would be molten aluminum from the airliner and the color of molten aluminum is silver then why is the flow orange?
The color of pure molten aluminum is silver, It has an emissivity of .12. Steel has an emissivity of .4 and appears orange in the temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of aluminum oxide is .44 and also appears orange in the melting temperature range of molten aluminum.
The emissivity of plate glass is .937 It begins to soften at 1000 F and flows around 1350 F. Silica has an emissivity of .8
Copper oxide also has an emissivity of .8. however I will assume that their effect is negligible.
Aluminum oxidizes readily in the foundry under ideal melting conditions. Large surface area relative to thickness, turbulence, the presence of water or oil greatly increases the oxidation of aluminum. A jet airliner is made of thin aluminum sheet and most probably suffered considerable oxidation especially in contact with an open flame and being in contact with jet fuel. If you don't believe this, try melting a few soda cans over coals or open flame. If you are lucky you will end up with only 50% aluminum oxide. However, the cans may completely burn up.
The specific gravity of aluminum is 2.7. The specific gravity of aluminum oxide (Al2O3-3H2O) is 2.42 the specific gravity of Si = 2.40 and Glass is 2.65 these are all very similar and likely to be entrained in a molten aluminum flow. Don't believe it? lightly stir the dross into molten aluminum. The surface tension is so high is is almost impossible to separate them.
THEREFORE assuming that the flow consist of molten aluminum and considerable oxides, and assuming that the windows in the trade center were plate glass and also in a plastic state and that they were also likely entrained in the molten aluminum. I would expect the flow to appear to be orange in color. Especially since both the entrained materials have emissivities equal to or more than twice that of iron.
Also since dross cools to a gray color and glass with impurities also turns dark. I would expect that the flow would darken upon cooling.
I would also suggest that not only is the photo possible, but entirely likely.
Summary: The flow is not steel because the structural steel would fail well below the melting temperature. The flow is likely to be a mixture of aluminum, aluminum oxides, molten glass and coals of whatever trash the aluminum flowed over as it reached the open window. Such a flow would appear orange and cool to a dark color.
Stephen D. Chastain
________________________________________
The color means nothing. The color can be misleading, and because it can be misleading, it means nothing as evidence. This is not aluminum in a foundry which hasn't mixed with anything. This is a cocktail of whatever was on the plane and in the towers which happens to come together. It wouldn't be unreasonable to suspect Aluminum and some other properties has changed its color.
The material flowing out the window that was glowing wasn't necessarily due to black body radiation but could have been due to spectra generated by chemical reactions in various materials in the melt that may have interacted with each other. A third factor that affects color would be reflection of ambient light, which isn't black body radiation and isn't spectra due to chemical reactions.
http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education ... pyhow.html
In the videos some of the falling drops appeared silver and turned orange briefly when they struck the facade and then turned back to silver. The orange glow in that case wasn't due to black body radiation. The material couldn't have heated and cooled that quickly if it had been black body radiation. One explanation is that molten aluminum, which is very reactive, interacted chemically with impurities on the facade and emitted spectra. The silver appearance is consistent with molten aluminum near its melting point.
The glowing material would need to be observed with a spectrometer to know if the light was due to black body radiation or spectra due to chemical reactions or both. For example, it could have been glowing red as a black body (or approximate black body) and emitting spectra in the orange region due to chemical reactions.
One last thing about the photo. In the NIST report where the photo came from it clearly states under the photo "Intensity levels have been adjusted". So how can you conclude the color of something from a photo which has been "Adjusted"?
Jones says something I can't help but find incredible...
"If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability."
The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were in to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we begin to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dam? In fact, I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner. In 5 years, Jones couldn't envision a sag in the floor enough to hold melted aluminum?
The above is what the floors may have looked like.
Yet another possibility is the flow creating a temporary dam by doing exactly what Jones describes. Like a candle which has melted to the floor, the aluminum may have melted and cooled as it flowed away from the heat source. This cooled aluminum builds up and creates a shallow pool of aluminum. Much like candle wax pooling around the wick while cooler wax, away from the wick, builds up creating a levee/dam around the liquid wax. Once the floors sagged toward the window as shown in the NIST Report the pool may have spilled over and out of the window.
Now, I'm no "Professor" but I think there was a "high probability" aluminum could have pooled near a heat source.
Interestingly, the conspiracy theorists have grasped onto another straw. The photo below shows another stream of fluid in another place but this time it's the color Jones points to as aluminum.
Note as with the other flow, it's also where the building sustained heavy damage from the airliner and also has a very heavy fire.
Another source of heat hasn't been touched by any conspiracy theorist. There were many chemical oxygen generators in the airliner. They just happen to be wrapped with aluminum.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/16/oxygen.ge ... index.html
Here is what a chemical oxygen generator looks like when it's burning.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/19/valujet.f ... act.47.mov
These are NOT oxygen tanks. They are generators which make oxygen under chemical reaction.
Yet there is even evidence this isn't thermite...
Release of the molten material (possibly aluminum) that began pouring from window 80-255 on the north side of the 80th floor at 9:51:51 am provides evidence for the extensive heating that had taken place from the fire that had been burning in the area for nearly 50 min. The melting point range for the relevant aluminum alloys varies from 475C to 635C, and a great deal of heat would have been required to melt the large volume of liquid metal observed pouring from the tower. The sudden appearance of the flow at the top of the window was likely the result of the formation of a pathway from the 81st floor where the aluminum possibly had pooled on top of the floor slab as it melted. This, in turn suggests that the 81st floor slab possibly sank down or pulled away from the spandrel at this time.
During the 7 min between when the flow of molten metal was first observed and the tower collapsed, the amount of material flowing from the 80th floor increased and decreased repeatedly. At one point the flow shifted from window 80-255 to window 80-256. The change in the source window for the liquid suggests that the lowest local point with pooled aluminum somehow moved to the east. These observations suggest that the 81st floor slab in the immediate vicinity was possibly shifting almost continuously during this time, and in the process, spilling more and more of the pooled liquid. A similar release of liquid occurred from window 78-238 on the 78th floor around 9:27. It is possible that this material came from the pile of debris immediately above on the 79th floor. Since this flow was only observed for a few seconds, it is not appropriate to speculate further concerning its source.
pg 412,413,114 chap 9
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
Thermite can't walk from one window to another. A pool of aluminum which is guided by floors sagging at different stages can shift directions. A POOL of metal melted by thermite could move with sagging floors just like the aluminum but not according to Jones because...
"it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point"
But what of Jones evidence for thermite like this?
"The yellow color implies a molten-metal temperature of approximately 1000 C, evidently above that which the dark-smoke hydrocarbon fires in the Towers could produce."
Yet, once again, we find in his own paper that it states..
Under section 11
"Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000 ºC." (Eagar and Musso, 2001) While this is the maximum air temperature possible in the WTC fires, this does not mean that the structural steel reached this temperature in the time the fires acted. Indeed, NIST emphasizes that there was no evidence that "any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC." This statement is consistent with their data plots of "predicted column temperatures", which "shows maximum temperature reached by each column" in that no temperature above 600 ºC is given for any of the steel columns. (NIST, 2005.)
Jones goes on to talk about structural steel but we aren't talking about the "predicted column temperatures" are we. Nor was the NIST suggesting the structural steel had to melt in order to collapse the building. No one is. This is a straw man. 600C is good enough to weaken structural steel. Now back to the aluminum...
It's not unreasonable to expect the aluminum to be a mix of other things in the towers that day. There could be all kinds of things in the towers. Even wood might have affected the color...
This is the Yosemite Firefall at Yosemite National Park. That's just embers from bark being thrown from the top. While it's safe to say there was no bark in the towers it's also safe to say there was wood from office furniture. But I want to make this clear, I'm not saying this is what we see coming from the window. What I'm suggesting is that it is probably a molten metal mix of aluminum and something else. Don't limit yourself here. I'm not saying aluminum and wood only. One of my biggest criticisms with the conspiracy theorists is the one dimensional thinking.
The main point is, jumping to the conclusion that it's thermite is intellectually lazy given all the other possibilities. It's a logical fallacy to conclude a lack of evidence is evidence of something. Yet this is the conspiracy theorist credo.
Below are some quotes from different sources concerning the flow...
The NY Times article
Last spring, the standards institute found the first photographic evidence on the east face of the south tower that a single floor — with its lightweight support system, called a truss — had sagged in the minutes before it started collapsing. Now, detailed analysis of photos and videos has revealed at least three more sagging floors on that face, said William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory.
In addition, Dr. Pitts said, sudden expansions of the fires across whole floors in each tower shortly before they fell suggested internal collapses — burning floors above suddenly giving way and spreading the blaze below.
Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.
"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyreg ... i=5007&en=
a2c62eb2b42cf30c&ex=1385874000&adxnnl=1
Here's another article on the aluminum
But the fires continued to burn. Black smoke poured from shattered windows on floor after floor, fresh oxygen sucked in from the gaping holes caused by the impacts. In the northeast corner of the south tower's 80th floor, where office furniture had been shoved by the plane, the fire burned so hot that a stream of molten metal began to pour over the side like a flaming waterfall.
The apparent source of this waterfall: molten aluminum from the jet's wings and fuselage, which had also piled up in that corner. Within minutes, portions of the 80th floor began to give way, as evidenced by horizontal lines of dust blowing out the side of the building. Seconds later, near the heavily damaged southeasterly portion of this same floor, close to where the aircraft had entered, exterior columns began to buckle.
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/a ... /30/129774
A photograph leaked from the ASCE-FEMA investigation shows a stream of what appears to be molten aluminum exiting from the northeast corner. This would indicate that what was left of the aircraft when it reached the north end of its travel was massive enough to have destroyed at least one floor.
NIST pg 43 Section H.9 App H Vol 4
Starting at around 9:52 a.m. a molten material began to pour from the top of the window 80-256 on the North face of WTC 2. The material appears intermittently until the tower collapses at 9:58:59. The observation of piles of debris in this area combined with the melting point behaviors of the primary alloys used in a Boeing 767 suggest that the material is molten aluminum derived from aircraft debris located on floor 81.
NIST H-7-2
Molten Material
It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner. This is the area where the sustained fires were seen. Video records and photography indicate that the material first appeared at 9:51:52 am and continued to pour intermittently from the building until the time of the collapse. Some of that material can be seen falling in Fig. H-21. Close up video and photographs of the area where the material is pouring from have been examined and show that it is falling from near the top of window 80-256. The most likely explanation for this observation is that the material had originally pooled on the floor above, that is 81, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when this floor either pulled away from the outer spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The fact that the material appears intermittently over a several minute period suggests that the floor was giving way bit by bit
http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_jun ... endixh.pdf
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior is consistent with it being molten aluminum. Visual evidence suggest that a significant wreckage from the plane passed thought the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower in the vicinity of the location where the material is observed.
Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminum alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 closely related alloys. These alloys do not melt at a single temp, but melt over a temp range from the lower end of the range to the upper as the fraction of the liquid increases. The Aluminum association handbook lists the melting point as roughly 500C to 638 C and 475 C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075 respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca 1000C ) and any aluminum present is likely to be at least partially melted by the intense fires in the area.
http://www.scieneering.com/wtc_update.html
I highlighted the qualifiers because some conspiracy theorists seem to be 'qualifier challenged'. Sounded like, looks like, appear to be, possibly, suggest, as if... these are just a few qualifiers the conspiracy theorists ignore. In keeping with this trend, the conspiracy theorists have said the NIST was SURE it was aluminum using the above quotes. They are just saying what I'm saying. The evidence points to it being aluminum. They conclude it's aluminum.
________________________________________
Update:
Italian debunker uncovers yet another possible cause of the what we see coming from the 81st floor window.
Abstract: research into the causes of a conspicuous flow of glowing material from the corner of the 81st floor of the South Tower leads to the finding of evidence of a highly flammable UPS system at that location and suggests a possible triggering event for the flow and associated fire. Photographic evidence of floor failures is provided. Molten steel is ruled out as an ingredient of the flow.
This is not a photo of the WTC battery banks. For illustration only.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/0 ... -wtc2.html
This also adds even more sulfur to debris pile.
________________________________________
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.
In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.
I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.
Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.
The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.
Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.
ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:
METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN
WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
- NEU-FONZE
________________________________________
More on this iron-H2O reaction:
Modern Commercial Hydrogen generation:
"steam contacts molten iron to form iron oxide and release hydrogen....
The hydrogen production step is the same chemical reaction that occurs in the steam-iron process which was used to produce hydrogen commercially 100 years ago. In that technology steam was passed over iron particles to produce hydrogen and iron oxide. However, the rate of hydrogen production declined as the iron oxidized and was covered with rust and the cost of replenishing iron ultimately rendered this process uneconomical"
http://www.alchemix.net/index.php?modul ... =10&ceid=2 or http://www.alchemix.us/TechnologyDescriptionweb710.pdf
Hydrogen generation from "steam" and iron Performed as a school-lab experiment without "molten" iron:
http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:pd ... =clnk&cd=8
Patent involving the process, without "molten" iron:
"The generation of hydrogen by passing steam at or about 700.degree. C. over a bed of iron is well known in the art."
"a hydrogen-generating process wherein H.sub.2 O is passed over a bed of iron material. The hydrogen generating process uses a catalyst, or freshly-ground iron material, or both, and generates the hydrogen for the fuel cell in situ at lower-than-normal temperatures when the H.sub.2 O reacts with the iron material." http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html
In a vehicle application, the hydrogen is generated by passing water or low-temperature steam over desirably freshly-ground iron, which then becomes iron oxide."
"The instantaneous grinding of the iron particles in situ is necessitated because iron becomes rapidly oxidized after grinding."
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6093501.html
Also: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login ... mber=29811
Evidently, iron will oxidize about the same rate in air, or in a steam-atmosphere. The addition of water to the piles from the top or pools of it at the bottom thus may have served as an additional source of oxygen, upon combining with hot steel or aluminum.
The hydrogen generated may have then combined with other materials in the piles, or with oxygen in air, to produce additional heat. (Net thermal result would be same as directly oxidizing iron with oxygen). - Mark Ferran
________________________________________
Abbreviations: gigaJoules (gJ) = 1,000 megaJoules (MJ). To heat steel to the melting point requires about 0.68 gJ of heat to be added for each tonne (metric ton) of steel. Enough more heat has to be added to melt it. Total is about 1 gJ/tonne. All we require is enough heat to obtain yellow hot steel, approximately 0.6 gJ/tonne. However, for simplicity and to allow for losses, assume 1 gJ/tonne of yellow hot steel in the basement(s) of WTC 1 & 2(?).
This could easily be supplied by a pressure pulse down the box columns as each floor is stripped off.
Again, for simplicity of analysis, assume 100 floors each supplied the same sized pulse of energy down the box column. Then each floor supplied 10 MJ. Calculations shows that this amount of energy, distributed over the horizontal area of the box columns, only provides a small fraction of the pressure required to cause structural steel to yield. So ignoring the top 10 floors to allow a further 10% loss in energy transfer, all that is required to obtain yellow hot steel in the basements is the modest contribution of 10 MJ per floor per tonne of yellow hot steel.
Pressure calculations: Above I determined that each floor needed to deliver 10 MJ of energy down the box column to the bottom in order to supply more than sufficient heat to cause a tonne of steel to become yellow hot. Here we need to assure ourselves that this energy delivery does not stress the box column into yielding. Now just yielding is not failure, but might be noticed in a post-collapse inspection of box columns. From wikipedia, structural steel has a yield strength of 400 MPa and an ultimate strength of 650 MPa.
Reminders: Pascal = Newton/m^2, Joule = Newton-meter (N.m). The meters-squared, m^2, will refer to the cross-sectional area of the box column. The meters in the Joule part will refer to the vertical height of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column. The speed of sound in steel is 5100--5960 m/s, depending upon the source one uses. For simplicity in the following I will assume that the speed of the pressure pulse is just the rounded-off 5000 m/s.
Since we are attempting to find the highest possible reasonable figure for the pressure delivered to the box column by the pressure pulse, assume that the pressure pulse lasts only for 0.001 s = 1 millisecond. Then this square wave of pressure extends vertically for 5 meters. Thus the force over these 5 meters is 2 MN, 10 MJ = 2 MN x 5 m. So the force applied to the cross-sectional area of the box column is 2 megaNewtons.
Now assume that this force is applied equally across the cross-sectional area of the box column. (We will return to this assumption. It certainly applies to all parts of the pressure pulse traveling down the box column except at the moment of initiation.) Now assume the box column is a square 1 meter on a side and is 3" = .0762 m thick. Thus the steel cross-sectional area is 4 x 0.0762 = 0.3048 m^2.
We have now determined that the pressure on the box columns due to the pressure pulse traveling down it is 6.56 MPa = 2 MN/0.3048 m^2. This is trivial compared to the 400 MPa yield strength of the structural steel. No yielding will be observed, and indeed, none was in the majority of the structural steel. The exceptions are in the basement, where stresses and temperatures were high. The 400 MPa figure applies to ordinary temperatures, not elevated ones.
At the moment of the initiation of the pressure pulse due to floors stripping off, the initial forces will all be on just the outside edges of the most exterior of the box columns in the core. But as the calculation shows, the pressure required is less than 1/40th of the yield strength. So the box columns would not show signs of yielding, even with highly asymmetric patterns of the initial forces.
"Roaring oven" Ok, it was indeed hot in the rubble piles of WTC 1 & 2. More important, there were definite hot spots which were the hottest. We have seen ample evidence of potential fuels, including ordinary office materials, gasoline in the automobiles in the basement(?) and transformer oil. However, heat always flows from higher temperatures to lower ones. So to obtain yellow hot steel requires not only sufficient energy, but if heated from the exterior, high temperatures. If the energy was supplied by pressure pulses, as suggested, then simply the friction of repeated slamming the bottom of a box column into unyielding concrete or granite suffices.
Further, perhaps the estimated temperature of the hot spots, obtained via infrared scanning, was 1500 F = (810+273)K = 1083K. Assuming approximately black body radiation. 1000K is red hot, maybe 1500K is orange hot. Yellow hot, then is very close to the melting temperature of iron, (1535+273)K = 1808K. It seems to me a higher temperature than can be reached by burning ordinary office materials. That gasoline was in close proximity seems unlikely. I don't know the temperature of burning transformer oil, but I suppose it is less than gasoline(?) The point behind this addendum is that the pressure pulse hypothesis is highly robust under alternative scenarios and is not dependent on an external source of chemical energy. - David B. Benson, edited by Debunking 911
To Be Continued:
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Here is the rest of the article, Red Pill. (I had too many Characters)
From a physics blogger:
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of [pounds*] of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
# Demonstrates the kinetic energy of the WTC collapses, to debunk 9/11 conspiracies # http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
#
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
# Variables for calculations
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step $p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far $a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant) $t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories) $mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section # # Calculations for WTC Tower One $fc = 13; # floor count of falling section (13 floors for WTC One) $rfc = 110 - $fc; # initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors print("Data for WTC Tower One\n"); print("\n"); while($rfc > 0) { print("Data for story ", $rfc, " -\n");
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2*$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula print("Impact velocity: ", $v2, "\n"); $p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact print("Impulse delivered: ", $p, "\n");
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact print("Impact kinetic energy: ", $ke1, "\n"); $fc++; # increment falling floor count $mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print("Velocity after impact: ", $v3, "\n");
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact print("Remaining kinetic energy: ", $ke2, "\n"); $de += $ke1 - $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total print("Kinetic energy dissipated: ", $ke1 - $ke2, "\n");
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula print("Time spent collapsing: ", $t1, "\n"); $t += $t1; # add step time to running total $rfc--; # decrement remaining floor count print("\n"); } print("Overall WTC Tower One data -\n"); print("Total collapse time: ", $t, "\n"); print("Total energy dissipated during the collapse: ", $de, "\n"); print("Remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse: ", $ke2, "\n"); print("\n"); # # Calculations for WTC Tower Two $fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for WTC Two) $rfc = 110 - $fc; # initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors print("Data for WTC Tower Two\n"); print("\n"); while($rfc > 0) { print("Data for story ", $rfc, " -\n");
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2*$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula print("Impact velocity: ", $v2, "\n"); $p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact print("Impulse delivered: ", $p, "\n");
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact print("Impact kinetic energy: ", $ke1, "\n"); $fc++; # increment falling floor count $mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print("Velocity after impact: ", $v3, "\n");
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact print("Remaining kinetic energy: ", $ke2, "\n"); $de += $ke1 - $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total print("Kinetic energy dissipated: ", $ke1 - $ke2, "\n");
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula print("Time spent collapsing: ", $t1, "\n"); $t += $t1; # add step time to running total $rfc--; # decrement remaining floor count print("\n"); } print("Overall WTC Tower Two data -\n"); print("Total collapse time: ", $t, "\n"); print("Total energy dissipated during the collapse: ", $de, "\n"); print("Remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse: ", $ke2, "\n");
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
The Perl program was fixed by seandiggity
* Edited the bloggers contribution to remove "tons" and replace it with "pounds". It doesn't change what the blogger point was which is there is more than enough combustibles on hand. He did not use the general figure of "Millions of tons" to calculate anything. Of course any silly error like this will be exaggerated as if it means something. This is what conspiracy theorist do.
At 32,000 sq feet of tenant space per floor and at 4lbs per sq ft of combustible material (at 5 lbs per sq ft NIST found that the fires moved too slowly) for 110 floors (-6 floors for mechanical + 6 for underground) is equal to 14 Million POUNDS of combustible material. Or 7,000 TONS. Clearly a RESPECTABLE amount of burnable material per TOWER. Thus the rubble pile had ~ 28 MILLION POUNDS of combustible material not including what was in the Marriot hotel and its parking garage.
________________________________________
From a contributor.
One of the conspiracy sites published an article called "Popular Mechanics Attack on 9/11 Truth." I was pointed in that direction during a debate on a forum, after citing the Popular Mechanics article.
Since we had been talking about the "melted steel" argument, I scrolled down to that area, which claimed this:
"Here PM's counter claim implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF."
That seemed strange to me. They made a point of how steel temperatures are different from the atmospheric temperatures surrounding it, then went on to cite a study and only mentioned the steel temperatures, not the atmospheric. So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:
"With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C."
So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.
I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty. The conspiracy theorist site could not have found that Corus study without finding the question on the atmospheric temperature, but left that part out. Some "truth movement"...
One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.
There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.
They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.
The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.
Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...
Timeline and Firemen
The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.
Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.
The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.
The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html
Below are photos of firemen well after September 11.
October
December 15th 2001
So the fact that there are firemen in the photo doesn't mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.
Angle and yellow residue
Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can't be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn't one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle.
Once again, a close up of their column...
Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Maybe I just happened to get this from some obscure site. Maybe I work for the government and have a stash of photos the scholars aren't privy to... No, actually I got this from the same place the scholars got their photo.
Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb. ... &picnum=13
The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb. ... &picnum=73
Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.
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.
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, 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. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
BTW I have experience cutting steel I-beams with torches, both plasma and acetylene, and it looks exactly like the angle cut "thermite" column.
[That simple paragraph, if you will look into it, disproves the official account just as simply as the global warming sham you figured out.]
To make an educated opinion, Red Pile, you have to look at both sides, not just one.
[Rather than accept the harsh reality and its numerous implications on your world view, you will resist the facts. Denial is at the root of it. You’re not the first, nor certainly not the last person I have run into with this condition. It is epidemic.]
Which “fact” should I believe?
[As stated above, this is not about a difference of opinion or point of view. There are objective facts and realities in the world which can be proven true or false by science. May I suggest you read Dr. Stephen Jones’ research on the matter. You are lucky enough that he posts on this site.]
I respect Dr. Jones and his research. I have nothing at all against him or his opinions, they just differ from mine AND many others. You just need to go find it and deside for yourself.
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
[Your continued use of the word “myth” is astounding. You act as if no hard factual scientific evidence has been presented concerning the 911 inside job/coverup. It’s everywhere you look, it’s as obvious as
"who’s buried in Grants tomb?” Look at reality, it is not hard to find, if you are looking for the truth.]
I have looked at both sides, have you?
[By the way, I take care of all my church responsibilities as well as having served in a bishopric. I found the time, my friend. I never have and never will consider it a waste of time to search for the truth.]
Good for you, Red Pill.
I on the other hand have a hard time handling; family, the Scout Troop, Bishopric, Gospel study, Temple attendance, genealogy, and work. 
You’ll have to give me some pointers on that.
From a physics blogger:
Despite repeated calculations showing that the energy released simply from the kinetic collapse is on the close order of a small nuclear weapon, without even mentioning the energy contents of the millions of [pounds*] of paper, wood, plastic, etc. that were on the floors and a large percentage of which would be in the rubble pile and heated to ignition point by the heat from the kinetic energy dissipated by the collapse.
My best estimate at 13 psf by 35,000 sf/floor by 110 floors by about 30% combustibles, 60% metal and other non-combustible items, by the energy content of common garbage, gives a lot more energy than the energy of the collapse. The insulation provided in that debris pile was apparently pretty good, and that’s not surprising. Rock and concrete really are bad heat conductors, air isn’t much better, and steel while capable isn’t all that good, as you can tell from the fact that the jaws of the shovel aren’t melting. Ever hear of “rock wool?” It’s insulation; look it up. You’ll get the idea pretty quick.
There’s two more factors I’ll throw in: first, a certain amount of the office materials didn’t make it into the debris pile, perhaps as much as 10% of it just got scattered all over lower Manhattan island. Second, a few floors worth had already burned. So when the time comes, I’ll take three floors out, and then another 10%. You’ll be surprised, I think, at how much energy there is involved.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics). The energy dissipated during the fall is about 250 or 300 GJ, and the leftover energy at impact is about 600 GJ. So it’s about a quarter kiloton of TNT for the North tower and about a fifth of a kiloton for the South tower; that’s still a hell of a lot of energy, more than sufficient to liquefy a pretty healthy chunk of steel, and it doesn’t change the fact that there’s a lot more energy in the office contents.
You should be aware that anytime you do mechanical work, the energy you do it with doesn’t just “go away” or “get used up.” Energy that does work gets dissipated, and when that happens, it turns to heat. This is a well known fact of physics, specifically thermodynamics, that was proven early (or maybe it was late? no, I’m pretty sure it was EARLY) in the nineteenth century by the gentleman for whom the SI unit of energy is named, James Prescott Joule. Go look him up on Wikipedia, or elsewhere if you’re a newbie and believe what you read in the newspapers about Wikipedia. He did this experiment where he stirred water in buckets and showed it got hotter.
This, by the way, is a place where Jim Hoffman makes a serious mistake; in his paper on the dust cloud, he fails to note that he has to ADD THE HEAT BACK IN when he’s totaling things up at the end. This is a violation of conservation of energy, the First Law of Thermodynamics (and a foundational law of physics).
What distance do you drop the load from? The floor of initial collapse: 79 for the South tower, 97 for the North. It’s a variable in the program, you can change it for yourself and run it yourself, it’s a perl. Interestingly, going from a 39-story to a 13-story falling section doesn’t make a great deal of difference in the energy, and makes even less difference in the energy that’s left over when the building hits the ground.
A falling building is not like a bomb or a laser beam. But it makes heat all the same- just like all work makes heat. Feel the bottom of the bicycle pump after you’ve pumped the tire up. Where does that heat come from? Same place as this does.
While a 600GJ bomb would take out ten blocks in any direction, the WTC collapse obviously did not. While that’s true, you need to know that conservation of energy says that energy NEVER disappears. It ALWAYS winds up SOMEWHERE, and if this is energy capable of knocking buildings over for many blocks in all directions, and it didn’t knock them over, then where did it go and what did it do? Answer: it went into the rubble pile, and it melted and burned stuff in there.
There was energy spent “pancaking” or “snapping supports” if you believe those theories (I do not). Whether it was explosives or whether it was sheer mass and momentum that snapped them (and I have excellent reason to believe it was nothing but mass- you’ll see shortly), it STILL made heat, and that heat STILL went into the debris pile at the bottom. Heat is energy and energy NEVER just “goes away.”
All the collapse theories say that the weight of the top of the building is what caused the collapse… well that is HALF true. It was also pushing UP WITH EQUAL FORCE. This force was largely transmitted into the ground during the collapse, not the rubble afterwards. The STATIC FORCE of the building pushes down and the ground pushes up, when the DYNAMIC FORCE of the collapse occurs, it is local to whatever is moving; this is because it’s the MOTION that causes the DYNAMIC force, and that force is (and must be, to collapse the building) many times the static forces of the building just standing there.
Now, for the program:
**BEGIN PROGRAM**
# Demonstrates the kinetic energy of the WTC collapses, to debunk 9/11 conspiracies # http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/moltensteel.htm
#
#!/usr/bin/perl
#
# Variables for calculations
$m = 4285500; # mass of one floor (kg)
$mt = 0; # mass of falling section
$v1 = 0; # beginning velocity for the current step
$v2 = 0; # velocity at impact
$v3 = 0; # ending velocity for prior step $p = 0; # current momentum
$ke1 = 0; # kinetic energy at impact
$ke2 = 0; # kinetic energy after impact
$de = 0; # total energy dissipated so far $a = 9.80665; # acceleration of gravity (constant) $t = 0; # cumulative time taken
$t1 = 0; # time taken for this step
$d = 3.8; # distance between floors (418m/110 stories) $mt = $fc*$m; # initialize mass of falling section # # Calculations for WTC Tower One $fc = 13; # floor count of falling section (13 floors for WTC One) $rfc = 110 - $fc; # initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors print("Data for WTC Tower One\n"); print("\n"); while($rfc > 0) { print("Data for story ", $rfc, " -\n");
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2*$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula print("Impact velocity: ", $v2, "\n"); $p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact print("Impulse delivered: ", $p, "\n");
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact print("Impact kinetic energy: ", $ke1, "\n"); $fc++; # increment falling floor count $mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print("Velocity after impact: ", $v3, "\n");
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact print("Remaining kinetic energy: ", $ke2, "\n"); $de += $ke1 - $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total print("Kinetic energy dissipated: ", $ke1 - $ke2, "\n");
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula print("Time spent collapsing: ", $t1, "\n"); $t += $t1; # add step time to running total $rfc--; # decrement remaining floor count print("\n"); } print("Overall WTC Tower One data -\n"); print("Total collapse time: ", $t, "\n"); print("Total energy dissipated during the collapse: ", $de, "\n"); print("Remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse: ", $ke2, "\n"); print("\n"); # # Calculations for WTC Tower Two $fc = 39; # floor count of falling section (39 floors for WTC Two) $rfc = 110 - $fc; # initialize remaining floor count of uncollapsed floors print("Data for WTC Tower Two\n"); print("\n"); while($rfc > 0) { print("Data for story ", $rfc, " -\n");
$v1 = $v3; # starting velocity is ending for last step
$v2 = (($v1*2)+((2*$a)*$d))**0.5; # impact velocity for this step by formula print("Impact velocity: ", $v2, "\n"); $p = $mt*$v2; # momentum at impact print("Impulse delivered: ", $p, "\n");
$ke1 = ($mt*($v2**2))/2; # kinetic energy at impact print("Impact kinetic energy: ", $ke1, "\n"); $fc++; # increment falling floor count $mt = $fc*$m; # update mass of falling section
$v3 = $p/$mt; # new velocity
print("Velocity after impact: ", $v3, "\n");
$ke2 = ($mt*($v3**2))/2; # kinetic energy after impact print("Remaining kinetic energy: ", $ke2, "\n"); $de += $ke1 - $ke2; # add dissipated kinetic energy to total print("Kinetic energy dissipated: ", $ke1 - $ke2, "\n");
$t1 = $d/(($v2 + $v1)/2); # time for this step by formula print("Time spent collapsing: ", $t1, "\n"); $t += $t1; # add step time to running total $rfc--; # decrement remaining floor count print("\n"); } print("Overall WTC Tower Two data -\n"); print("Total collapse time: ", $t, "\n"); print("Total energy dissipated during the collapse: ", $de, "\n"); print("Remaining kinetic energy at the end of the collapse: ", $ke2, "\n");
**END PROGRAM**
It’s a perl, you can download perl for just about anything from www.perl.org or somewhere they point. If you’re going to get involved in CS, somewhere you’re going to encounter perl, and now’s as good a time to learn it as any. I highly recommend the O’Reilly Press perl book which happens to be by the inventors of the language. Just so you can muddle your way through and derive the equations from the code above, * is multiplication, ** is raising to a power (and don’t forget that a fractional power is a root; so **0.5 is the square-root operation). The rest of the symbols are obvious, and the parentheses work the same way as they do in standard math notation. You should be aware that the single = in most languages simply ASSIGNS the value of what’s on the right to the thing on the left; usually, you’re required to put a single variable on the left of an =. The double == TESTS whether one value is equal to another, returning 1 or TRUE if it is, and 0 or FALSE if it is not.
The Perl program was fixed by seandiggity
* Edited the bloggers contribution to remove "tons" and replace it with "pounds". It doesn't change what the blogger point was which is there is more than enough combustibles on hand. He did not use the general figure of "Millions of tons" to calculate anything. Of course any silly error like this will be exaggerated as if it means something. This is what conspiracy theorist do.
At 32,000 sq feet of tenant space per floor and at 4lbs per sq ft of combustible material (at 5 lbs per sq ft NIST found that the fires moved too slowly) for 110 floors (-6 floors for mechanical + 6 for underground) is equal to 14 Million POUNDS of combustible material. Or 7,000 TONS. Clearly a RESPECTABLE amount of burnable material per TOWER. Thus the rubble pile had ~ 28 MILLION POUNDS of combustible material not including what was in the Marriot hotel and its parking garage.
________________________________________
From a contributor.
One of the conspiracy sites published an article called "Popular Mechanics Attack on 9/11 Truth." I was pointed in that direction during a debate on a forum, after citing the Popular Mechanics article.
Since we had been talking about the "melted steel" argument, I scrolled down to that area, which claimed this:
"Here PM's counter claim implies that flame temperatures and steel temperatures are synonymous, ignoring the thermal conductivity and thermal mass of steel, which wicks away heat. In actual tests of uninsulated steel structures subjected to prolonged hydrocarbon-fueled fires conducted by Corus Construction Co. the highest recorded steel temperatures were 680ºF."
That seemed strange to me. They made a point of how steel temperatures are different from the atmospheric temperatures surrounding it, then went on to cite a study and only mentioned the steel temperatures, not the atmospheric. So I went to the website of Corus Construction Co, and found a section in their Research area that said this about the difference in temperatures between steel and atmosphere:
"With regard to steel temperatures, these depend upon the size of the member but for typical unprotected beams and columns these would lag behind the compartment temperatures by around 100°C to 200°C."
So the tests that the conspiracy theorist cited only had atmospheric temperatures ranging around 800-900 degrees, while the Popular Mechanics article (and NIST report) mentions that pockets of the World Trade Center reached 1800 degrees. This would put the steel temperature in those locations at around 1600-1700 degrees, which is far above the 1100 degree mark that steel loses 50% of its structural integrity.
I just thought it was a pretty striking example of dishonesty. The conspiracy theorist site could not have found that Corus study without finding the question on the atmospheric temperature, but left that part out. Some "truth movement"...
One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.
There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.
They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.
The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.
Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...
Timeline and Firemen
The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.
Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.
The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.
The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.
http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html
Below are photos of firemen well after September 11.
October
December 15th 2001
So the fact that there are firemen in the photo doesn't mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.
Angle and yellow residue
Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can't be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn't one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle.
Once again, a close up of their column...
Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Maybe I just happened to get this from some obscure site. Maybe I work for the government and have a stash of photos the scholars aren't privy to... No, actually I got this from the same place the scholars got their photo.
Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb. ... &picnum=13
The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb. ... &picnum=73
Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.
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.
The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, 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. "Gee debunking, you're so dumb."
http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
BTW I have experience cutting steel I-beams with torches, both plasma and acetylene, and it looks exactly like the angle cut "thermite" column.
[That simple paragraph, if you will look into it, disproves the official account just as simply as the global warming sham you figured out.]
To make an educated opinion, Red Pile, you have to look at both sides, not just one.
[Rather than accept the harsh reality and its numerous implications on your world view, you will resist the facts. Denial is at the root of it. You’re not the first, nor certainly not the last person I have run into with this condition. It is epidemic.]
Which “fact” should I believe?
[As stated above, this is not about a difference of opinion or point of view. There are objective facts and realities in the world which can be proven true or false by science. May I suggest you read Dr. Stephen Jones’ research on the matter. You are lucky enough that he posts on this site.]
I respect Dr. Jones and his research. I have nothing at all against him or his opinions, they just differ from mine AND many others. You just need to go find it and deside for yourself.
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
[Your continued use of the word “myth” is astounding. You act as if no hard factual scientific evidence has been presented concerning the 911 inside job/coverup. It’s everywhere you look, it’s as obvious as
"who’s buried in Grants tomb?” Look at reality, it is not hard to find, if you are looking for the truth.]
I have looked at both sides, have you?
[By the way, I take care of all my church responsibilities as well as having served in a bishopric. I found the time, my friend. I never have and never will consider it a waste of time to search for the truth.]
Good for you, Red Pill.
I on the other hand have a hard time handling; family, the Scout Troop, Bishopric, Gospel study, Temple attendance, genealogy, and work. You’ll have to give me some pointers on that. -
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: If you were a terrorist...
OMD, so you see nothing wrong with the laws of physics that the alleged terrorists broke or the physical and scientific evidence proving demolition of three buildings???
-
The Red Pill
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1681
- Location: Southern Utah
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Believe what you want to believe. But when you have seen half-baked debunkers like Popular Science lie and distort in order to make a point, you lose patience with those who quote it.Mark wrote:What kind of condesending tone is that red pill? What you accuse others of who don't buy into your premise can very easily be said of you Bro. Many have made assuptions that their version of any one particular conspiracy is "fact". Yet they have been far from proven as such in events like 9-11 and others on American soil.Rather than accept the harsh reality and its numerous implications on your world view, you will resist the facts. Denial is at the root of it. You’re not the first, nor certainly not the last person I have run into with this condition. It is epidemic.
Many here point fingers at certain individuals in this country as having planned and carried out these events like 9-11 and OKC. How can anyone here know exactly without a doubt who carried out these events? Were you in on the meetings of the conspiracy? Did you somehow gain first hand knowledge of what was done? No, you just make assumptions. I can make assumptions all day long about a lot of things but that does not necessarily make them true or factual.
If one has already made up their minds about things like this how can they ever really find the truth. They will just look at things that back up their own assumptions and ignore anything that does not. What kind of search for truth is that? Dalton has not denied to my knowledge that there are serious questions involving events like 9-11. He just hasn't determined that the standard conspiracy theories of the day are totally accurate. I haven't either.
So many theories kicked around today are conflicting and some are downright bizzare. If one is not open to all arguments and evidence they will never find the truth. Just their own version of what they already "knew" to be true. Has there ever been an event like 9-11 before where jumbo jets full of fuel have flown into large skyscrapers? I have enjoyed reading Dr. Jones research and I am open to much there but I also do not outright discount alternative explanations that have come forward as to the events of those tragic days. CB and others here including Dalton have brought forward compelling arguments as well. I think we need to look at all sides with an unbiased attitude and see what conclusions can be drawn from examining all the evidence fairly.
If you don't understand the science that is fine, few people do. But don't mistake a long "FIRE HOSE" post from Dalton hiding behind debunkers.com's long drawn out drivel (made to sound very scientific) as truth.
This really is not that hard to get. When your barbeque melts down around your ankles or that grate over your campfire oozes down into your foil dinner, then I will know the laws of physics must be changing. But until then...
-
pritchet1
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3600
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Apparently he is knee-deep in the thick of thin things.
The whole 9/11 thing has been pretty much "proven" as another of many toys that the Committee of 300 play with. The lives of humanity have no real worth in their eyes. Somehow, their hearts need to turn back from the cold.
BTW, the FACTS I posted earlier are beyond refute. As far as the scientific studies pro and con, just remember who is footing the bill and follow the money.
Watch the videos of witnesses who survived to tell about it. They didn't go deaf. Bombs and explosions went off before the planes hit two of the buildings (and the extra weight alone does not explain the complete and utter collapse of otherwise sound structures) and Building 7 didn't have any wings or airplane engines poking out of it. Other structures closer to the Twin Towers with more damage survived just fine.
As far as molten metal flowing out of windows, that alone should have reduced the weight internally and not have assisted in pancaking the rest of the structures below the surface.
No way, no how, can jetfuel cause structural steel to melt and cause formed concrete to vaporize into dust instead of rubble or cause around 3,000 people to essentially evaporate. Collapsing structures don't spontaneously combust and "steam" below ground is not going to turn steel into fluid.
As far as thermite cutting steel girders, watch any demolition video on the History or Discovery channels and what them shape charges to slice girders in half. Yews, they do use explosives to do the cutting. Pay no attention to Mythbusters. I have caught them in so many half-truths, I have to believe they misinform on purpose. They are for infotainment only.
The pre-positioning of rescue operations for a possible disaster was not coincidence either.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:T ... _Anomalies
Personally, I do not want to put myself in terrorist shoes. Back in the day, we used to call them "freedom fighters" and Minute Men.
The whole 9/11 thing has been pretty much "proven" as another of many toys that the Committee of 300 play with. The lives of humanity have no real worth in their eyes. Somehow, their hearts need to turn back from the cold.
BTW, the FACTS I posted earlier are beyond refute. As far as the scientific studies pro and con, just remember who is footing the bill and follow the money.
Watch the videos of witnesses who survived to tell about it. They didn't go deaf. Bombs and explosions went off before the planes hit two of the buildings (and the extra weight alone does not explain the complete and utter collapse of otherwise sound structures) and Building 7 didn't have any wings or airplane engines poking out of it. Other structures closer to the Twin Towers with more damage survived just fine.
As far as molten metal flowing out of windows, that alone should have reduced the weight internally and not have assisted in pancaking the rest of the structures below the surface.
No way, no how, can jetfuel cause structural steel to melt and cause formed concrete to vaporize into dust instead of rubble or cause around 3,000 people to essentially evaporate. Collapsing structures don't spontaneously combust and "steam" below ground is not going to turn steel into fluid.
As far as thermite cutting steel girders, watch any demolition video on the History or Discovery channels and what them shape charges to slice girders in half. Yews, they do use explosives to do the cutting. Pay no attention to Mythbusters. I have caught them in so many half-truths, I have to believe they misinform on purpose. They are for infotainment only.
The pre-positioning of rescue operations for a possible disaster was not coincidence either.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:T ... _Anomalies
Personally, I do not want to put myself in terrorist shoes. Back in the day, we used to call them "freedom fighters" and Minute Men.
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
[OMD, so you see nothing wrong with the laws of physics that the alleged terrorists broke or the physical and scientific evidence proving demolition of three buildings???]
Which “law” did I miss, Col Flagg? I thought I answered your posts from above. Did I miss something by mistake?
[Believe what you want to believe. But when you have seen half-baked debunkers like Popular Science lie and distort in order to make a point, you lose patience with those who quote it.
If you don't understand the science that is fine, few people do. But don't mistake a long "FIRE HOSE" post from Dalton hiding behind debunkers.com's long drawn out drivel (made to sound very scientific) as truth.]
Which part of the above article was “drivel (made to sound very scientific) as truth”? Please be specific, Red Pill. Thanks.
Actually I felt it necessary to “copy and paste” the article because I doubted you would bother going to the link to study the other side of the issue. Apparently I wasted my time trying to make it easy, since you didn’t even bother reading what I posted with an open mind. Did you close your eyes and ears and go La La La as you scrolled down past the article? JK
[This really is not that hard to get. When your barbeque melts down around your ankles or that grate over your campfire oozes down into your foil dinner, then I will know the laws of physics must be changing. But until then...]
I answered this in my previous posts. If you had read them you would have my answer for the “BBQ argument”. BTW the above article answers this too.
Here’s a challenge for you Red Pill. Go over my posts and articles and take out what you disagree with, then I will attempt to responds to your concerns if I neglected to do so previously. I am more than willing to answer anything that you fell I am wrong on as I have done with Col. Flagg, Robert, truthseeds, Stephen, Aussie, and you Red Pill. If any of you feel I have not answered a concern adequately, just let me know. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my posts. I try to be as thorough as I can so there are no misunderstandings or bad feelings.
I can understand your frustrations, Red Pill. When someone attacks your world view it can get your blood up. Don’t worry, I have an open mind. My opinion just differs from yours on the 9/11 “myth”/false flag. I bet that we have many other opinions in common. I am not a lost sole who will be damned forever for not believing in your theory.
Here is another challenge for you Red Pill. As you go back over my posts looking for the fallacies, try and put yourself in my position as an unbeliever. Try and see my point of view, it might help you see my argument.
Love You Guys,
Old Man Dalton
Which “law” did I miss, Col Flagg? I thought I answered your posts from above. Did I miss something by mistake?
[Believe what you want to believe. But when you have seen half-baked debunkers like Popular Science lie and distort in order to make a point, you lose patience with those who quote it.
If you don't understand the science that is fine, few people do. But don't mistake a long "FIRE HOSE" post from Dalton hiding behind debunkers.com's long drawn out drivel (made to sound very scientific) as truth.]
Which part of the above article was “drivel (made to sound very scientific) as truth”? Please be specific, Red Pill. Thanks.
Actually I felt it necessary to “copy and paste” the article because I doubted you would bother going to the link to study the other side of the issue. Apparently I wasted my time trying to make it easy, since you didn’t even bother reading what I posted with an open mind.
Did you close your eyes and ears and go La La La as you scrolled down past the article? JK [This really is not that hard to get. When your barbeque melts down around your ankles or that grate over your campfire oozes down into your foil dinner, then I will know the laws of physics must be changing. But until then...]
I answered this in my previous posts. If you had read them you would have my answer for the “BBQ argument”. BTW the above article answers this too.
Here’s a challenge for you Red Pill. Go over my posts and articles and take out what you disagree with, then I will attempt to responds to your concerns if I neglected to do so previously. I am more than willing to answer anything that you fell I am wrong on as I have done with Col. Flagg, Robert, truthseeds, Stephen, Aussie, and you Red Pill. If any of you feel I have not answered a concern adequately, just let me know. Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my posts. I try to be as thorough as I can so there are no misunderstandings or bad feelings.
I can understand your frustrations, Red Pill. When someone attacks your world view it can get your blood up. Don’t worry, I have an open mind. My opinion just differs from yours on the 9/11 “myth”/false flag. I bet that we have many other opinions in common. I am not a lost sole who will be damned forever for not believing in your theory.
Here is another challenge for you Red Pill. As you go back over my posts looking for the fallacies, try and put yourself in my position as an unbeliever. Try and see my point of view, it might help you see my argument.
Love You Guys,
Old Man Dalton
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
[Apparently he is knee-deep in the thick of thin things.Good one Richard 
The whole 9/11 thing has been pretty much "proven" as another of many toys that the Committee of 300 play with. The lives of humanity have no real worth in their eyes. Somehow, their hearts need to turn back from the cold.
BTW, the FACTS I posted earlier are beyond refute. As far as the scientific studies pro and con, just remember who is footing the bill and follow the money.
Watch the videos of witnesses who survived to tell about it. They didn't go deaf. Bombs and explosions went off before the planes hit two of the buildings (and the extra weight alone does not explain the complete and utter collapse of otherwise sound structures) and Building 7 didn't have any wings or airplane engines poking out of it. Other structures closer to the Twin Towers with more damage survived just fine.]
For bombs going off see: http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_o ... sions.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_ev ... e_wtc.html
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm
For the buildings collapse see: http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html
For Building 7 see: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_water_supply.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
[As far as molten metal flowing out of windows, that alone should have reduced the weight internally and not have assisted in pancaking the rest of the structures below the surface.
No way, no how, can jetfuel cause structural steel to melt and cause formed concrete to vaporize into dust instead of rubble or cause around 3,000 people to essentially evaporate. Collapsing structures don't spontaneously combust and "steam" below ground is not going to turn steel into fluid.
As far as thermite cutting steel girders, watch any demolition video on the History or Discovery channels and what them shape charges to slice girders in half. Yews, they do use explosives to do the cutting.]
These are answered in the articles in my above post. Read them.
[Pay no attention to Mythbusters. I have caught them in so many half-truths, I have to believe they misinform on purpose. They are for infotainment only.]
Please let me know which are the half-truths, Robert. I would like to know.
[The pre-positioning of rescue operations for a possible disaster was not coincidence either.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:T ... _Anomalies
Personally, I do not want to put myself in terrorist shoes. Back in the day, we used to call them "freedom fighters" and Minute Men.]
I have to strongly disagree with you here Robert. The goal of the terrorist is to cause terror. They attack civilian targets. They are causing this terror to affect the hearts and mind of the target population. They are evil men. The Minute Men were those who fought the army of King George to win our freedom from tyranny. The Islamic Terrorists are fighting FOR tyranny not against it. If they want to fight tyranny they should look to their own back yard; Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and all the other ‘stans out there!
Peace, Brother
OMD
The whole 9/11 thing has been pretty much "proven" as another of many toys that the Committee of 300 play with. The lives of humanity have no real worth in their eyes. Somehow, their hearts need to turn back from the cold.
BTW, the FACTS I posted earlier are beyond refute. As far as the scientific studies pro and con, just remember who is footing the bill and follow the money.
Watch the videos of witnesses who survived to tell about it. They didn't go deaf. Bombs and explosions went off before the planes hit two of the buildings (and the extra weight alone does not explain the complete and utter collapse of otherwise sound structures) and Building 7 didn't have any wings or airplane engines poking out of it. Other structures closer to the Twin Towers with more damage survived just fine.]
For bombs going off see: http://www.911myths.com/html/accounts_o ... sions.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/seismic_ev ... e_wtc.html
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm
For the buildings collapse see: http://www.911myths.com/html/progressive_collapse.html
For Building 7 see: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_water_supply.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_squibs.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
[As far as molten metal flowing out of windows, that alone should have reduced the weight internally and not have assisted in pancaking the rest of the structures below the surface.
No way, no how, can jetfuel cause structural steel to melt and cause formed concrete to vaporize into dust instead of rubble or cause around 3,000 people to essentially evaporate. Collapsing structures don't spontaneously combust and "steam" below ground is not going to turn steel into fluid.
As far as thermite cutting steel girders, watch any demolition video on the History or Discovery channels and what them shape charges to slice girders in half. Yews, they do use explosives to do the cutting.]
These are answered in the articles in my above post. Read them.
[Pay no attention to Mythbusters. I have caught them in so many half-truths, I have to believe they misinform on purpose. They are for infotainment only.]
Please let me know which are the half-truths, Robert. I would like to know.
[The pre-positioning of rescue operations for a possible disaster was not coincidence either.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:T ... _Anomalies
Personally, I do not want to put myself in terrorist shoes. Back in the day, we used to call them "freedom fighters" and Minute Men.]
I have to strongly disagree with you here Robert. The goal of the terrorist is to cause terror. They attack civilian targets. They are causing this terror to affect the hearts and mind of the target population. They are evil men. The Minute Men were those who fought the army of King George to win our freedom from tyranny. The Islamic Terrorists are fighting FOR tyranny not against it. If they want to fight tyranny they should look to their own back yard; Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and all the other ‘stans out there!
Peace, Brother
OMD
-
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Oldemandalton wrote:[OMD, so you see nothing wrong with the laws of physics that the alleged terrorists broke or the physical and scientific evidence proving demolition of three buildings???]
Which “law” did I miss, Col Flagg? I thought I answered your posts from above. Did I miss something by mistake?
The two glaring ones are the law of conservation of momentum and the law of conservation of energy...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion
Love You Guys,
Old Man Dalton
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
[The two glaring ones are the law of conservation of momentum and the law of conservation of energy...]
Thanks Col. Flagg for your response. Please explain how these laws were broken when the Towers fell. Remember, some of us are the strong back weak mind types.
OMD
Thanks Col. Flagg for your response. Please explain how these laws were broken when the Towers fell. Remember, some of us are the strong back weak mind types.
OMD
-
The Red Pill
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 1681
- Location: Southern Utah
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Have you seen the movie God’s Army by Richard Dutcher? There are some remarkable parallels to our discussion in it. One missionary, Elder Kinegar, got a hold of and studied some anti-Mormon literature. He was convinced that if he could just get the other elders to read his pamphlets they would see his point of view. The naive and myopic Kinegar did not understand that Elder Dalton (great irony don’t you think?) had done that long ago and researched it all out before he joined the church. Elder Dalton, because of his extensive study, was aware of the straw-man arguments, the disinformation, and the outright deception in the literature. Elder Kinegar was not, he knew just enough to be dangerous.
OMD you mistakingly and incessantly interpret a lack of agreement with not having read the literature. I and others are fully aware of the Popular Mechanics and debunkers arguments and point of view. If you and others cannot yet see through the straw-man arguments, disinformation, and deception then that is your problem, not mine.
If you want someone to bash with you in detail, may I suggest picking up a copy of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory” by David Ray Griffin. He will bash with you for 392 pages. It’s at Amazon for a mere $13.60.
I have seen how fruitful your exchange with Col. Flagg, myself and others has been so far. You keep thinking that we don’t get it. We do, ad Nauseam! For someone who says they lack the time to study much or who does not like to waste time, you sure seem to have plenty of time to blow in this forum trying to get others to see it your way.
If you want to hitch your horse to the Popular Mechanics/debunkers.com post, your certainly free to do so. You have your free agency. I think it best at this point to simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. Neither Flagg, I or others are going to convince you of anything, and you are most certainly not going to convince me. I would call that a dead-end.
OMD you mistakingly and incessantly interpret a lack of agreement with not having read the literature. I and others are fully aware of the Popular Mechanics and debunkers arguments and point of view. If you and others cannot yet see through the straw-man arguments, disinformation, and deception then that is your problem, not mine.
If you want someone to bash with you in detail, may I suggest picking up a copy of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory” by David Ray Griffin. He will bash with you for 392 pages. It’s at Amazon for a mere $13.60.
I have seen how fruitful your exchange with Col. Flagg, myself and others has been so far. You keep thinking that we don’t get it. We do, ad Nauseam! For someone who says they lack the time to study much or who does not like to waste time, you sure seem to have plenty of time to blow in this forum trying to get others to see it your way.
If you want to hitch your horse to the Popular Mechanics/debunkers.com post, your certainly free to do so. You have your free agency. I think it best at this point to simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. Neither Flagg, I or others are going to convince you of anything, and you are most certainly not going to convince me. I would call that a dead-end.
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
I understand totally how you feel, Red Pill. I feel exactly the same way about you guys. 
I have a friend who believes in global warming and can’t get him to see the “facts” either. Facts are funny things. We hang onto the ones that support our world view and ignore the rest.
Still Love Ya Man
OMD
I have a friend who believes in global warming and can’t get him to see the “facts” either. Facts are funny things. We hang onto the ones that support our world view and ignore the rest.
Still Love Ya Man
OMD
-
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: If you were a terrorist...
In laments terms, the law of conservation of momentum basically states that when something encounters resistance (such as the top 20 floors of the WTC that began 'collapsing'), the momentum speed of that collapse will not increase or remain steady, but slow down. This was not the case on 9/11 however. The other one (law of conservation of energy), basically means that the total amount of energy in an isolated system (in this case, a supposed 'collapse' of a building) remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, what do we see with the collapse of the towers... concrete, metal, steel, office furniture, etc. being practically pulverized and disintegrated into dust DURING collapse. This is physically impossible without the use of explosives or some other form of thermal energy.Oldemandalton wrote:[The two glaring ones are the law of conservation of momentum and the law of conservation of energy...]
Thanks Col. Flagg for your response. Please explain how these laws were broken when the Towers fell. Remember, some of us are the strong back weak mind types.
OMD
-
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: If you were a terrorist...
I know a few people who seem to want to refuse to believe that 9/11 could have been anything other than 19 Arab terrorists and bin Laden. It's almost as if they are afraid to consider or accept the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and that there was direct involvement by officials within our own government and/or military) because it would upset their belief system. Truth is truth, but for some people, like Jack Nicholson once said, they 'can't handle the truth'... for whatever reason, and so denial is easier to implement than accepting the truth.The Red Pill wrote:Have you seen the movie God’s Army by Richard Dutcher? There are some remarkable parallels to our discussion in it. One missionary, Elder Kinegar, got a hold of and studied some anti-Mormon literature. He was convinced that if he could just get the other elders to read his pamphlets they would see his point of view. The naive and myopic Kinegar did not understand that Elder Dalton (great irony don’t you think?) had done that long ago and researched it all out before he joined the church. Elder Dalton, because of his extensive study, was aware of the straw-man arguments, the disinformation, and the outright deception in the literature. Elder Kinegar was not, he knew just enough to be dangerous.
OMD you mistakingly and incessantly interpret a lack of agreement with not having read the literature. I and others are fully aware of the Popular Mechanics and debunkers arguments and point of view. If you and others cannot yet see through the straw-man arguments, disinformation, and deception then that is your problem, not mine.
If you want someone to bash with you in detail, may I suggest picking up a copy of “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory” by David Ray Griffin. He will bash with you for 392 pages. It’s at Amazon for a mere $13.60.
I have seen how fruitful your exchange with Col. Flagg, myself and others has been so far. You keep thinking that we don’t get it. We do, ad Nauseam! For someone who says they lack the time to study much or who does not like to waste time, you sure seem to have plenty of time to blow in this forum trying to get others to see it your way.
If you want to hitch your horse to the Popular Mechanics/debunkers.com post, your certainly free to do so. You have your free agency. I think it best at this point to simply agree to disagree and leave it at that. Neither Flagg, I or others are going to convince you of anything, and you are most certainly not going to convince me. I would call that a dead-end.
-
Mark
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6929
Re: If you were a terrorist...
But when you have seen half-baked debunkers like Popular Science lie and distort in order to make a point, you lose patience with those who quote it.
..And you haven't seen any half baked 9-11 truther conspiracy arguments that have been distorted or twisted to make their point Red Pill? Come on Bro. the sword cuts both ways here.
Come on now Col. you are again making assumptions that have yet to be proven correct. To you in your mind this is cut and dry. To many others it is just theory based on assumption and supposition. Tell me how you can say without a doubt that there was direct involvement by our govt. officials and military in carrying out 9-11. I am not aware that even Dr. Jones has made specific accusations as to who exactly was involved in planning and carrying out 9-11. You have your hunches and theories and that is fine. But to give those hunches as though there is irrefutable proof to back them up is just a tad presumptuous don't you think? You may turn out to be correct here but there is a lot more proof needed before that is established as a proven fact. If evidence came forward to punch holes into your assumptions would you ignore and discount that evidence outright? Are you looking for the truth here or are you just trying to substanciate what you already "know" to be true?It's almost as if they are afraid to consider or accept the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and that there was direct involvement by officials within our own government and/or military) because it would upset their belief system.
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
[In laments terms, the law of conservation of momentum basically states that when something encounters resistance (such as the top 20 floors of the WTC that began 'collapsing'), the momentum speed of that collapse will not increase or remain steady, but slow down. This was not the case on 9/11 however.]
If you watch the videos you see debris raining down and passing the falling Towers. Thus no freefall. Dr. Frank Greening did a paper that describes a transfer of momentum in the collapse. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave. BTW I have seen estimated collapse times anywhere from 8-18 seconds. Freefall would be 9.
[The other one (law of conservation of energy), basically means that the total amount of energy in an isolated system (in this case, a supposed 'collapse' of a building) remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, what do we see with the collapse of the towers... concrete, metal, steel, office furniture, etc. being practically pulverized and disintegrated into dust DURING collapse. This is physically impossible without the use of explosives or some other form of thermal energy.]
Not everything was pulverized. Looking at pictures of the repackage I see huge sections of; Steel, concrete, framing, etc. You are right, Col Flagg, it is physically impossible.
[I know a few people who seem to want to refuse to believe that 9/11 could have been anything other than 19 Arab terrorists and bin Laden. It's almost as if they are afraid to consider or accept the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and that there was direct involvement by officials within our own government and/or military) because it would upset their belief system. Truth is truth, but for some people, like Jack Nicholson once said, they 'can't handle the truth'... for whatever reason, and so denial is easier to implement than accepting the truth.]
I feel the same way about my “global warming” friends, Col Flagg. Did you know that the 11” of snow we got here in the Las Vegas valley “proves” that global warming is a threat to the world? DOH!
I don’t trust my government and I sure as heck didn’t vote for Bush in the Last election. I just can’t get past the idea that some idiot would want to plant explosives in the towers when they were going to be struck by airliners full of fuel anyway and probably condemned because of the damage.
Thanks Col. Flagg for your challenges and reasonable debate.
Have a Happy and Safe New Year to All
Old Man
P.S Thanks for the back up Mark. By the mouth of two witnesses shall His word be established.
If you watch the videos you see debris raining down and passing the falling Towers. Thus no freefall. Dr. Frank Greening did a paper that describes a transfer of momentum in the collapse. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave. BTW I have seen estimated collapse times anywhere from 8-18 seconds. Freefall would be 9.
[The other one (law of conservation of energy), basically means that the total amount of energy in an isolated system (in this case, a supposed 'collapse' of a building) remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, what do we see with the collapse of the towers... concrete, metal, steel, office furniture, etc. being practically pulverized and disintegrated into dust DURING collapse. This is physically impossible without the use of explosives or some other form of thermal energy.]
Not everything was pulverized. Looking at pictures of the repackage I see huge sections of; Steel, concrete, framing, etc. You are right, Col Flagg, it is physically impossible.
[I know a few people who seem to want to refuse to believe that 9/11 could have been anything other than 19 Arab terrorists and bin Laden. It's almost as if they are afraid to consider or accept the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and that there was direct involvement by officials within our own government and/or military) because it would upset their belief system. Truth is truth, but for some people, like Jack Nicholson once said, they 'can't handle the truth'... for whatever reason, and so denial is easier to implement than accepting the truth.]
I feel the same way about my “global warming” friends, Col Flagg. Did you know that the 11” of snow we got here in the Las Vegas valley “proves” that global warming is a threat to the world? DOH!
I don’t trust my government and I sure as heck didn’t vote for Bush in the Last election. I just can’t get past the idea that some idiot would want to plant explosives in the towers when they were going to be struck by airliners full of fuel anyway and probably condemned because of the damage.Thanks Col. Flagg for your challenges and reasonable debate.
Have a Happy and Safe New Year to All
Old Man
P.S Thanks for the back up Mark. By the mouth of two witnesses shall His word be established.
-
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Mark wrote:But when you have seen half-baked debunkers like Popular Science lie and distort in order to make a point, you lose patience with those who quote it.
..And you haven't seen any half baked 9-11 truther conspiracy arguments that have been distorted or twisted to make their point Red Pill? Come on Bro. the sword cuts both ways here.
Come on now Col. you are again making assumptions that have yet to be proven correct.It's almost as if they are afraid to consider or accept the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and that there was direct involvement by officials within our own government and/or military) because it would upset their belief system.
You're right Mark, my comment was simply an opinion here because after someone is presented with all of the physical and scientific evidence, not to mention incredible coincidences on that fateful day proving it was an inside job, yet, one still accepts the official 'government' version, deducing anything else becomes difficult.
To you in your mind this is cut and dry. To many others it is just theory based on assumption and supposition.
I know, but how many times does science and physics have to be shown and explained in simple, easy to get terms before you begin to understand the lies we were told? My goal is simply to try and wake up others to what I have learned... if they don't want to believe or accept it as truth, that's their perogative. I guess the reason I keep trying to convince our good buddy Old Man Dalton is out of frustration that he still accepts the official story as truth... maybe I should just leave well enough alone because I've exhausted most of my convincing?
Tell me how you can say without a doubt that there was direct involvement by our govt. officials and military in carrying out 9-11.
Easy... here's a few (of dozens I might add)... have you heard Norman Mineta's testimony about the exchange a young soldier had with Dick Cheney regarding the plane that was headed for the Pentagon (this is the stand-down order)? How about the $100,000 wired to Atta by Pakistan? How about the HUGE spike in put options on the two airlines that were affected that day? How about Ashcroft canceling plans to fly that day a few days before? How about members of bin Laden's family being flown out of the country after all air space over the U.S. had been shut down? How about Bush continuing for another 20 minutes to read a story about a pet goat to school kids after he learns the nation is 'under attack'? He knew exactly what was going on and that there was no danger to his life. How about the incredible failure and neglect of duty by Gen. Richard Myers that morning (to which he was promoted for)? How about the wargames taking place that morning (which would have been a perfect way to confuse military and FAA personnel of what was real and what wasn't)? Need I go on?
I am not aware that even Dr. Jones has made specific accusations as to who exactly was involved in planning and carrying out 9-11.
Considering the attention his research into 9/11 has garnered, he'd be stupid to make accusations.
You have your hunches and theories and that is fine.
True, I have my speculation as to the true perpetrators, however, this is irrelevant given the fact that science, physics and many amazing coincidences have proven 9/11 to be much more than a terrorist attack.
But to give those hunches as though there is irrefutable proof to back them up is just a tad presumptuous don't you think?
Give me some examples here... I don't recall every having said the evidence proves it was Israel's Mossad, the U.S. Military-Industrial Complex, the CIA, etc... these are just educated guesses based upon what the physical and scientific evidence has uncovered.
You may turn out to be correct here but there is a lot more proof needed before that is established as a proven fact.
Agree 100%, which is why there needs to be an independent inbestigation, which, by the way, will never occur (IMO anyway). There is too much money and power behind what happened for a true, thorough, independent investigation that could shed new light on what happened and why.
If evidence came forward to punch holes into your assumptions would you ignore and discount that evidence outright?
I can ask you and others the same question because evidence has come forward proving three buildings were demolished that day, not to mention a host of other strange coincidences (such as 50+ Auditors and Accountants, who were investigating the $2.3 trillion missing Pentagon money and other fraud cases involving the federal government and Wall Street) dying from the impact at the Pentagon.
Are you looking for the truth here or are you just trying to substanciate what you already "know" to be true?
Come on Mark... you should know me better than that. Substantiate what? The truth? Truth does not need to be substantiated. Questioning the validity of the scientific and physical evidence proving the demolition of three buildings on 9/11 is like questioning the validity of a DNA test.
-
pritchet1
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3600
Re: If you were a terrorist...
"Nobody" believed the towers could be bombed in 1993 either. The towers were "damaged goods".
I read the links to the apologist pages. Those do not explain the countless witnesses that heard explosions going on prior to the planes hitting the towers.
The destruction was a "secret combination" of "all of the above".
So by combining the views of all the blind wise men who were describing the elephant, a whole view was accomplished, if one were listening to all the descriptions and not just to one or two.
The question is not how they tumbled down. It should be who had the most to gain by their destruction. The Fact is they fell. Innocents were destroyed. Others were murdered.
Focus should be on who was liquidated.
Who were the names on the death list at Building 7?
I read the links to the apologist pages. Those do not explain the countless witnesses that heard explosions going on prior to the planes hitting the towers.
The destruction was a "secret combination" of "all of the above".
So by combining the views of all the blind wise men who were describing the elephant, a whole view was accomplished, if one were listening to all the descriptions and not just to one or two.
The question is not how they tumbled down. It should be who had the most to gain by their destruction. The Fact is they fell. Innocents were destroyed. Others were murdered.
Focus should be on who was liquidated.
Who were the names on the death list at Building 7?
-
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Oldemandalton wrote:[In laments terms, the law of conservation of momentum basically states that when something encounters resistance (such as the top 20 floors of the WTC that began 'collapsing'), the momentum speed of that collapse will not increase or remain steady, but slow down. This was not the case on 9/11 however.]
If you watch the videos you see debris raining down and passing the falling Towers. Thus no freefall.
*sigh*... Dalton... the towers were gone in 10-12 seconds... if you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the top of one of the towers, it would hit the ground in about 10 seconds... obviously, there was no resistance from the lower floors, which is a physical impossibility, period.
Dr. Frank Greening did a paper that describes a transfer of momentum in the collapse. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gave. BTW I have seen estimated collapse times anywhere from 8-18 seconds. Freefall would be 9.
I've already gone over this part many times, but let's assume for a moment that the 'transfer of momentum' theory is correct... how would one explain the pools of molten metal found beneath all three buildings, sometimes flowing like lava that first responders and firemen could not even extinguish with water (sometimes weeks after the attack)???
[The other one (law of conservation of energy), basically means that the total amount of energy in an isolated system (in this case, a supposed 'collapse' of a building) remains constant. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. However, what do we see with the collapse of the towers... concrete, metal, steel, office furniture, etc. being practically pulverized and disintegrated into dust DURING collapse. This is physically impossible without the use of explosives or some other form of thermal energy.]
Not everything was pulverized.
True, it would be impossible to do that to those massive steel columns, but first responders commented that while on the scene to look for bodies in the rubble, etc., they didn't even see a desk, computer, table, furniture... nothing... everything had been reduced to small fragments and dust.
Looking at pictures of the repackage I see huge sections of; Steel, concrete, framing, etc. You are right, Col Flagg, it is physically impossible.
[I know a few people who seem to want to refuse to believe that 9/11 could have been anything other than 19 Arab terrorists and bin Laden. It's almost as if they are afraid to consider or accept the fact that 9/11 was allowed to happen (and that there was direct involvement by officials within our own government and/or military) because it would upset their belief system. Truth is truth, but for some people, like Jack Nicholson once said, they 'can't handle the truth'... for whatever reason, and so denial is easier to implement than accepting the truth.]
I feel the same way about my “global warming” friends, Col Flagg. Did you know that the 11” of snow we got here in the Las Vegas valley “proves” that global warming is a threat to the world? DOH!
I'm 100% with you here... man-made global warming is nothing but a government-sponsored hoax to dupe people into supporting even more government, regulations and taxes.
It was more than one or an idiot.
would want to plant explosives in the towers when they were going to be struck by airliners full of fuel anyway and probably condemned because of the damage.
Do a little research on the New York Port Authority and their attempts to get a permit from the city of New York many times to demolish the twin towers. They were faced with having to remove the asbestos due to new city ordianances and the cost would have been more than what the buildings were worth. Also, do some homework on Larry Silverstein and PNAC (Project for a New American Century). The pieces of the puzzle will begin to come together.
Thanks Col. Flagg for your challenges and reasonable debate.
Have a Happy and Safe New Year to All
You too my friend!
Old Man
P.S Thanks for the back up Mark. By the mouth of two witnesses shall His word be established.
Mark is a good guy... he just hasn't been able to see anything yet but a communist conspiracy and/or the latest J.R. Nyquist rant.
-
Mark
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 6929
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Questioning the validity of the scientific and physical evidence proving the demolition of three buildings on 9/11 is like questioning the validity of a DNA test.
Once again Col. you look at this so cut and dry like anyone in their right mind would not question that these towers fell because of demolition. However many well respected scientists and engineers worldwide have provided alternative explanations to the demolition theory. Dalton provided you with one such alternative below. There are several others out in internet land if you care to look. You accept Dr. Jones conclusions hook line and sinker yet many other respected building engineers and scientists have refuted his conclusions on the collapse of these towers. Are all these people in on some giant conspiracy to not let the truth stand? Why are Dr. Jones conclusions accepted as absolute truth and yet other experts in science and engineering out there who are just as qualified as he on this issue and disagree with him out to lunch? There seems to be a just bit of bias here because of everyones feelings about the US govt. being involved knee deep in secret combinations. The attitude seems to be "why wouldn't they bring the towers down. We all know they are gadiantons and thats what gadiantons do." Yet when alternative explanations have come forward to the demolition theory they are dismissed as lies and half baked idiocy. Just sayin..
Update:
Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/20 ... -Nov07.pdf
Yet another peer reviewed paper from a respected Journal finds the towers were doomed to collapse.
9/11 demolition theory challenged
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
The study by a Cambridge University, UK, engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".
The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.
Resistance to collapse
Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localized failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.
"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.
Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.
His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.
This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behavior of the buildings.
The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronized rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.
This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.
Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm
Dr. Keith A. Seffen
http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/~kas14/
Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...
For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...
"Walter P. Murphy Professor of
Civil Engineering and Materials Science
Northwestern University
The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:
Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).
That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.
I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."
http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/
The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf
http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html
Editor:
Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
[email protected]
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/pe ... gi?corotis
Editorial Board:
Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html
Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html
Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/
Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php
Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/
Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html
Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/
Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/
Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/ ... p?profid=5
Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/20 ... cAlpha.htm
Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/c ... y_list.htm
Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm
Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592
George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voy ... s_Gbio.htm
Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/pe ... ple.cgi?xi
Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee
Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/
James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/
Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml
Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i
Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa ... ry&op=show
Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact
Journal of Engineering Mechanics
More links to civil engineering papers and other information concerning the WTC collapse...
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
-
natasha
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2184
-
Col. Flagg
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 16961
- Location: Utah County
Re: If you were a terrorist...
Mark, I respect your point of view and agree that it is indeed perplexing why many in the field of engineering, architecture and/or physics with the same credentials as Dr. Jones and others, have alternative theories for the towers' demise. That, I cannot answer. However, everything else aside... here's the biggest smoking gun and question that can't be answered by anyone... how is it that molten metal and steel could possibly exist in the basements of all three buildings for days, weeks and in some cases, months after 9/11, in some cases, flowing like lava, that not even firefighters could extinguish? If you research thermite and/or thermate, you'll find that it has all of the characteristics of this phenomena.
-
lundbaek
- Level 34 Illuminated
- Posts: 11123
- Location: Mesa, Arizona
Re: If you were a terrorist...
One of the things I learned in my engineering career is that any time more than one person is involved in addressing a technical issue there will be differences of opinion. I also learned that some people get paid big bucks to promote certain cases when much is at stake. I saw that kind of dishonesty in both of the major companies I worked for. In the bean counting business, it goes that figurres cannot lie, but liars can figure.
-
Oldemandalton
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 2226
- Location: Las Vegas
- Contact:
Re: If you were a terrorist...
[*sigh*... Dalton... the towers were gone in 10-12 seconds... if you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the top of one of the towers, it would hit the ground in about 10 seconds... obviously, there was no resistance from the lower floors, which is a physical impossibility, period.]
10 seconds? Why not 18 or 8. How do you explain the debris falling faster than the building collapsing?
[ I've already gone over this part many times, but let's assume for a moment that the 'transfer of momentum' theory is correct... how would one explain the pools of molten metal found beneath all three buildings, sometimes flowing like lava that first responders and firemen could not even extinguish with water (sometimes weeks after the attack)??? ]
Mark Ferran explains this way.” The Truth is that: Glowing HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON. It is important to understand that general rule in chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher temperatures. This is especially true of iron oxidation. This means, that the hotter iron metal in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn). For example, it is a familiar sight at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams. This hot rust usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between iron and rust). Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue). It will just thin away (and turn into rust), as illustrated by a photo of burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC towers. “
There is a lot more out there explaining the molten metal and easy to find if you do a cursory search on google. Basically what you had in the basement of the towers was a furnace that burned for weeks.
"Temperature" inside of a furnace system is solely a function of how much heat enters the system versus how much leaves the system, over time, and not a function of the type of fuel. Insulation, or a large enough mass, slows the exit of heat from the system. (Note: melting things removes energy from a system) A large pile of debris forms an insulating furnace retaining much of the heat of combustion, raising the internal temperature, evidently high enough to melt iron. That is how the ancients used piles to make and refine and melt iron from ore.”
“It is hard to believe that someone would assume that molten iron found weeks or months later in the bowels of a huge pile of continuously burning debris (containing tons of combustible iron and other materials) would have to have been generated at the very beginning of the fire, or even before the pile was formed. It is even more nonsensical for someone to presume that a molten metal supposedly formed before the buildings collapsed would remain molten for months without some subsequent source of heat being applied to it. And, it is totally absurd to presume that a molten (liquid) metal supposedly formed in the top floors before the buildings collapsed (the "thermite" theory) would remain both molten and intact after it fell 70+ stories in a chaotic collapse while even more solid objects (bones, concrete, flesh) were obliterated on the way down. Some also seem to be oblivious that (aircraft) aluminum is itself a high-energy fuel, that would not be found in bright molten form weeks later (because it burns continuously when molten and exposed to air). (They use Aluminum metal as fuel to propel the Space Shuttle into Orbit around the Earth BTW). “
[True, it would be impossible to do that to those massive steel columns, but first responders commented that while on the scene to look for bodies in the rubble, etc., they didn't even see a desk, computer, table, furniture... nothing... everything had been reduced to small fragments and dust.]
I am not surprised to hear that there was not much left of the furniture, etc. Can you imagine the weight and mass of that structure collapsing down upon itself and crushing everything as it fell. Maybe not to dust, but at least to little pieces.
[Do a little research on the New York Port Authority and their attempts to get a permit from the city of New York many times to demolish the twin towers. They were faced with having to remove the asbestos due to new city ordianances and the cost would have been more than what the buildings were worth. Also, do some homework on Larry Silverstein and PNAC (Project for a New American Century). The pieces of the puzzle will begin to come together.]
Don’t you think the New York Port Authority could have easily gotten a permit after the top floors would have been destroyed by fire if it hadn’t collapsed? Especially with a little payola for the city inspectors. The city would have condemned the place. Can you imagine how unsafe that structure would have been after a fire and plane impacts? You don’t need conspiracy theories to figure that one out.
Keep your powder dry Col. Flagg. We are all going to need God’s blessing here in the near future.
Peace Out,
OMD
the towers were gone in 10-12 seconds... if you took a billiard ball and dropped it from the top of one of the towers, it would hit the ground in about 10 seconds... obviously, there was no resistance from the lower floors, which is a physical impossibility, period.]10 seconds? Why not 18 or 8. How do you explain the debris falling faster than the building collapsing?
[ I've already gone over this part many times, but let's assume for a moment that the 'transfer of momentum' theory is correct... how would one explain the pools of molten metal found beneath all three buildings, sometimes flowing like lava that first responders and firemen could not even extinguish with water (sometimes weeks after the attack)??? ]
Mark Ferran explains this way.” The Truth is that: Glowing HOT STEEL WILL CONTINUE TO UNDERGO EXOTHERMIC OXIDATION REACTIONS WHILE EXPOSED TO AIR, CAUSING IRON TO INCREASE ITS TEMPERATURE UNTIL IT MELTS, FORMING POOLS OF MOLTEN IRON. It is important to understand that general rule in chemistry that most chemical reactions (e.g., oxidation of iron) are accelerated by higher temperatures. This is especially true of iron oxidation. This means, that the hotter iron metal in contact with oxygen is, the faster it will oxidize (burn). For example, it is a familiar sight at iron foundries to see hot iron rust forming instantaneously on red-hot iron beams. This hot rust usually falls off spontaneously (because of the difference in thermal expansion properties between iron and rust). Meaning, a hot iron beam, if combined with a large enough number of other hot iron beams in a confined or semi insulated pile (e.g., covered with cement dust), will burn CONTINUOUSLY until it consumes itself, (and thus will appear to have been "vaporized" to those not looking for the rust residue). It will just thin away (and turn into rust), as illustrated by a photo of burned and thinned I-beam metal recovered from the rubble of the WTC towers. “
There is a lot more out there explaining the molten metal and easy to find if you do a cursory search on google. Basically what you had in the basement of the towers was a furnace that burned for weeks.
"Temperature" inside of a furnace system is solely a function of how much heat enters the system versus how much leaves the system, over time, and not a function of the type of fuel. Insulation, or a large enough mass, slows the exit of heat from the system. (Note: melting things removes energy from a system) A large pile of debris forms an insulating furnace retaining much of the heat of combustion, raising the internal temperature, evidently high enough to melt iron. That is how the ancients used piles to make and refine and melt iron from ore.”
“It is hard to believe that someone would assume that molten iron found weeks or months later in the bowels of a huge pile of continuously burning debris (containing tons of combustible iron and other materials) would have to have been generated at the very beginning of the fire, or even before the pile was formed. It is even more nonsensical for someone to presume that a molten metal supposedly formed before the buildings collapsed would remain molten for months without some subsequent source of heat being applied to it. And, it is totally absurd to presume that a molten (liquid) metal supposedly formed in the top floors before the buildings collapsed (the "thermite" theory) would remain both molten and intact after it fell 70+ stories in a chaotic collapse while even more solid objects (bones, concrete, flesh) were obliterated on the way down. Some also seem to be oblivious that (aircraft) aluminum is itself a high-energy fuel, that would not be found in bright molten form weeks later (because it burns continuously when molten and exposed to air). (They use Aluminum metal as fuel to propel the Space Shuttle into Orbit around the Earth BTW). “
[True, it would be impossible to do that to those massive steel columns, but first responders commented that while on the scene to look for bodies in the rubble, etc., they didn't even see a desk, computer, table, furniture... nothing... everything had been reduced to small fragments and dust.]
I am not surprised to hear that there was not much left of the furniture, etc. Can you imagine the weight and mass of that structure collapsing down upon itself and crushing everything as it fell. Maybe not to dust, but at least to little pieces.
[Do a little research on the New York Port Authority and their attempts to get a permit from the city of New York many times to demolish the twin towers. They were faced with having to remove the asbestos due to new city ordianances and the cost would have been more than what the buildings were worth. Also, do some homework on Larry Silverstein and PNAC (Project for a New American Century). The pieces of the puzzle will begin to come together.]
Don’t you think the New York Port Authority could have easily gotten a permit after the top floors would have been destroyed by fire if it hadn’t collapsed? Especially with a little payola for the city inspectors.
The city would have condemned the place. Can you imagine how unsafe that structure would have been after a fire and plane impacts? You don’t need conspiracy theories to figure that one out. Keep your powder dry Col. Flagg.
We are all going to need God’s blessing here in the near future. Peace Out,
OMD
-
pritchet1
- captain of 1,000
- Posts: 3600
Re: If you were a terrorist...
I think I'll stick with the first-hand accounts of the survivors that escaped the buildings after bombs went off - before the planes hit. Ordinary folks who have no reason to "lie" and are not being paid to explain away what happened were interviewed and gave first-hand accounts of what happened to them.
Why was I personally warned away?
Why did the person contracted to NSA who warned me, "disappear" after I went public much later?
Why was I personally warned away?
Why did the person contracted to NSA who warned me, "disappear" after I went public much later?
Last edited by pritchet1 on December 31st, 2008, 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
