Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117

David B. Benson
QUOTE (lozenge124+Feb 27 2007, 07:24 PM)
Incidentally, on top of the fact that a hypothetical rotation "about the hinge of the north wall" is no proof of a wedge-in.

Not hypothetical. Observed in several videos.
einsteen
thanks, got that one, will try a few pages per day if I don't get bored.

When I first saw that WTC NIST website I downloaded a few random PDFs and searched for collapse* and was wondering why I only indeed saw things like possible collapse scenario, hypothetical collapse..., working collapse...
I'm more a person that likes Greening type of papers.
einsteen
Observed from videos, I've observed so much....

btw 8 degrees is more than the inverse sinus of (3.8/64)

How far does NISTs initiation go ? Someone knows that ? Is it only really the initial movement or do they also prove that the strain energy cannot hold it ? And I've asked 10 times about what happenes with tangled core columns.
David B. Benson
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 27 2007, 07:56 PM)
How far does NISTs initiation go ?

For WTC 1, the fire+FEA analysis stopped 2 minutes before collapse initiation. The point was to demonstrate the observed pull-in of the walls.

Regarding the core columns at collapse initiation, there is sufficient data in NCSTAR1-6D to determine that the DCR of the overloaded, surviving core columns was about 2. This guarantees inelastic behavior of some form, for example, buckling followed by connection failures.
einsteen
thanks, I remember that pull-in animation and found at strange.

btw about wtc7, I assume we all have seen the current important 9/11 news item

It's amazing
Grumpy
I wish NIST would get off it's high horse and produce a paper laymen could easily understand(though, even then, some would reject it), not everyone understands the forces involved. Example...

Einsteen

QUOTE
How far does NISTs initiation go ? Someone knows that ? Is it only really the initial movement or do they also prove that the strain energy cannot hold it ? And I've asked 10 times about what happenes with tangled core columns.

And you have been shown(if you were paying attention) that the force of the falling mass is at least an order of magnitude(IE 10 times) more than the force needed to continue the collapse, given the resistive ability of the remaining structure. And the force only gets worse and worse as the collapse continues. This point is so obvious to engineers that NIST did not feel it necessary to continue their investigation beyond the point of collapse initiation. The fact is no one knows precisely the fate of every core column or floor bolt, it is too chaotic to model on the most sophisticated computers on Earth!!! But what we do know, from videos, etc. is that the lower part of the building offered so little resistence to that overwhelming force that it could barely slow it from free-fall speed by about a third, and most of that slowing probably occured in the upper part, while energy levels were still relatively low, in the lower sections the debris was plowing through the remaining structure at close to 200 mph, faster than a stock car at Daytona.

Grumpy
David B. Benson
einsteen --- Thanks for the correction!

sine of 8 arc-degrees = 0.13917
width of tower = 63.7 meters
south wall drop at 8 arc-degrees = 8.865 meters

2.4 stories worth.
QUOTE (einsteen+)
about wtc7, I assume we all have seen the current important 9/11 news item

It's amazing

Why?

I take it you IGNORE what she says right at the start?

DETAILS ARE VERY VERY SKETCHY.

Someone apparently told them that WTC 7 was ABOUT TO COLLAPSE.

Which apparently they could tell because of the BEHAVIOR of the building.

Which in the retelling somehow became HAD COLLAPSED.

Considering they are British there was probably a problem in understanding New Yorkers.

Arthur
lozenge124
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 27 2007, 08:26 PM)

And you have been shown(if you were paying attention) that the force of the falling mass is at least an order of magnitude(IE 10 times) more than the force needed to continue the collapse, given the resistive ability of the remaining structure. And the force only gets worse and worse as the collapse continues. This point is so obvious to engineers that NIST did not feel it necessary to continue their investigation beyond the point of collapse initiation. The fact is no one knows precisely the fate of every core column or floor bolt, it is too chaotic to model on the most sophisticated computers on Earth!!! But what we do know, from videos, etc. is that the lower part of the building offered so little resistence to that overwhelming force that it could barely slow it from free-fall speed by about a third, and most of that slowing probably occured in the upper part, while energy levels were still relatively low, in the lower sections the debris was plowing through the remaining structure at close to 200 mph, faster than a stock car at Daytona.

Grumpy

What a breathtaking display of intellectual superiority right there!

No wonder that Gordon Ross, metamars etc left this forum, I mean how can they even begin to compete with this kind of rigorous, cerebral analysis?
einsteen
Well, wasn't metamars doing his course special relativity...
David B. Benson
QUOTE (einsteen+Feb 27 2007, 09:33 PM)
Well, wasn't metamars doing his course special relativity...

AceBaker
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 08:28 PM)

Why?

I take it you IGNORE what she says right at the start?

DETAILS ARE VERY VERY SKETCHY.

Someone apparently told them that WTC 7 was ABOUT TO COLLAPSE.

Which apparently they could tell because of the BEHAVIOR of the building.

Which in the retelling somehow became HAD COLLAPSED.

Considering they are British there was probably a problem in understanding New Yorkers.

Arthur

Skipping the ad-hominems, and considering this report aired 30 minutes prior to the WTC7 event, what exactly am I supposed to believe about this:

“Now, more on the latest building collapse. You might have heard a few moments ago, I was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has. Apparently that’s only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack, it was because the building had been weakened during this morning’s attack.”
FactCheck
www.debunking911.com/pull.htm#reporter

Has anyone seen this?
David B. Benson
Reporter

At the end of the page.
roves shill
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 27 2007, 09:39 PM)

That is some BS coming from someone who has been wearing his as^ for hat the last two threads.

hat

David B. Benson

kahlmyishmael
http://www.geocities.com/streakingobject/0...mes7WTCwhy.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/29/nyregion/29TOWE.html

QUOTE
Francis E. McCarton, a spokesman for the emergency management office, confirmed that assessment. "We did have a diesel tank in the facility," he said. "Yes, it was used for our generating system."

The manager of the building when it collapsed, Walter Weems, said the larger tank sat on a steel-and-concrete pedestal on the second floor and held 6,000 gallons of diesel fuel. He said an even larger cache, four tanks containing a total of 36,000 gallons of diesel fuel, sat just below ground level in the loading dock near the southwest corner of the building.

"I'm sure that with enough heat it would have burned," Mr. Hauer said of the diesel. "The question is whether the collapse caused the tank to rupture, or whether the material hitting the building caused the tank to rupture and enhance the fire."

Falling debris also caused major structural damage to the building, which soon began burning on multiple floors, said Francis X. Gribbon, a spokesman for the Fire Department. By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons.

A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said.

WTC 7 "steel members appear to have been partailly evaporated"

1)What would cause the experts to say that the steel members APPEARED that way?

We know from chemistry studies on "physical states of matter" that "dry ice" sublimates directly from "solid" to "gas" without first going through a liquid state.

If they APPEARED to have been evaporated then the TERMINAL END of the steel member must have looked "molten", perhaps?

If "steel evaporation" did indeed occur...SOMETHING must have been present at the TERMINAL END of the steel member for them to even MAKE THAT guess of "evaporation"

2)What source of energy in WTC 7 , not excluded by the experts quoted in that article, would have been able to turn the terminal end of that steel member "molten"?

This pre-supposes that steel would first turn to a "liquid/molten" state before becoming "gasseous" and that the terminal end of the steel member would show evidence.

How hot must steel get to soften?

How hot must steel get to turn molten?

How hot must steel get to turn "gasseous"?

How hot does burning "diesel fuel" get?

Did an airliner hit WTC 7 also? Do we have to consider "jet fuel" as a possible source of heat? How hot does burning "jet fuel" get?
YAWN

Arthur
Grumpy
kahlmyishmael

Diesel fuel contains sulfur(jet fuel, not so much), when burned it produces sulfur dioxide which combines with water and oxygen in the air to produce H2SO4 or sulfuric acid, which , at high temps ERODES steel fairly rapidly. We know of 10s of thousands of gallons of deisel fuel that burned in WTC 7, is it not reasonable to see eroded steel after 7+ hours of fire fueled by that diesel???

Grumpy
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 12:03 AM)
YAWN

Arthur

Well, thank you for the reply, Arthur.

That was also good work producing the photo of George Bush watching the WTC burning on TV...however the principal of the school stated positively that from his entry into the school to his entrance to the classroom... Bush never was in front of a TV screen.

So how did Bush see WTC 1 get struck by the first plane("I said to myself, "that's one terrible pilot'") IF IT DID NOT show on broadcast/cable TV till the next day?

..and Bush stated this on TWO OCCASIONS...

The only way he could have seen the first plane strike is if it was en route to the school... and that would have implied it was in his limousine AND THAT closed-circuit cameras were trained on WTC 1 prior to the attack.

The Bush team knew the WTC Towers were about to be attacked and they set up closed-circuit cameras.

Yes...there are "possible" causes for the buildings' collapses and their are PROBABLE causes.

This was an "inside job", Arthur... just like the USS Liberty & the Gladio bombings at Bologna, Italy and Piazza del Fountain)
OH MY GOSH, Ishmael FIGURED IT OUT.

It was them DAMN closed-circuit cameras trained on WTC 1 prior to the attack. put there just cause Bush didn't want to miss that first plane hitting a tower.

WE TRIED TO TELL HIM IT WASN'T WORTH THE RISK.

RUN FOR THE HILLS BOYS, THEY WILL BE COMIN' FOR US ONCE THIS GETS OUT.

ROTFLMAO.

Arthur
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 28 2007, 12:23 AM)
kahlmyishmael

Diesel fuel contains sulfur(jet fuel, not so much), when burned it produces sulfur dioxide which combines with water and oxygen in the air to produce H2SO4 or sulfuric acid, which , at high temps ERODES steel fairly rapidly. We know of 10s of thousands of gallons of deisel fuel that burned in WTC 7, is it not reasonable to see eroded steel after 7+ hours of fire fueled by that diesel???

Grumpy

Thank you, Grumpy... it is good talking to you and Arthur again...even though I disagree with you both.

NEU-FONZE
Ishmael (You did ask me to call you that didn't you?):

You have absolutely no basis for limiting your consideration of the evaporation of WTC steel to one end of a column as in: "If they APPEARED to have been evaporated then the TERMINAL END of the steel member must have looked "molten", perhaps?"

You sound like a Jones supporter trying to foist his thermate theory on us!

You will have to do better than that.....

But Ishmael have you seen the latest 9/11 video on YouTube?

"MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WTC: THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH"

NF
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 27 2007, 07:34 PM)

But Ishmael have you seen the latest 9/11 video on YouTube?

"MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WTC: THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH"

NF

Wonder if it will be up for an Oscar?

Capracus
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 28 2007, 12:34 AM)
Ishmael (You did ask me to call you that didn't you?):

You have absolutely no basis for limiting your consideration of the evaporation of WTC steel to one end of a column as in: "If they APPEARED to have been evaporated then the TERMINAL END of the steel member must have looked "molten", perhaps?"

You sound like a Jones supporter trying to foist his thermate theory on us!

You will have to do better than that.....

But Ishmael have you seen the latest 9/11 video on YouTube?

"MOLTEN STEEL AT THE WTC: THE INCONVENIENT TRUTH"

NF

You mean this one?

I think a few posters on this thread had some staring roles.
reasonwhy
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 09:49 AM)
The wall bowed in over 5 or 6 floors, so your statement is again, just another PATHETIC attempt at DISINFORMATION, there were many DOZENS of sagging trusses applying a pull in force, not just 2 or 3.

Truly pathetic.

It would appear you are working on the side of Al Queda by trying to show that they weren't responsible.

Arthur

You are a frigging lying about many dozens of trusses sagging over 5 OR 6 floors.

IT'S THERE FOR ALL TO SEE:

NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316

Then the BBC must be working on the side of AL CIAda , claiming it does not exist:

QUOTE
CREATING AL QAEDA TO
MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION?

"The nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden
organization waiting to strike our societies is an illusion.
Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organization, from the
mountains of Afghanistan to the 'sleeper cells' in America,
the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy."
- BBC Documentary

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/3755686.stm

Just like the deparment of (shills) misinformation.

Let's us the shill's website and put the OCT to the test of misinformation:

How to Identify Misinformation
How can a journalist or a news consumer tell if a story is true or false? There are no exact rules, but the following clues can help indicate if a story or allegation is true.
• Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory?
• Does the story fit the pattern of an “urban legend?”
• Does the story contain a shocking revelation about a highly controversial issue?
• Is the source trustworthy?
• What does further research tell you?

Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory?
Does the story claim that vast, powerful, evil forces are secretly manipulating events? If so, this fits the profile of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are rarely true, even though they have great appeal and are often widely believed. In reality, events usually have much less exciting explanations.
Yes , the evil muslum extremist are trying to kill all non muslims.

Does the story fit the pattern of an “urban legend?”
Is the story startlingly good, bad, amazing, horrifying, or otherwise seemingly “too good” or “too terrible” to be true? If so, it may be an “urban legend.” Urban legends, which often circulate by word of mouth, e-mail, or the Internet, are false claims that are widely believed because they put a common fear, hope, suspicion, or other powerful emotion into story form.
Yes, 19 highjacker with boxcutter succeded in terriorizing the lone superpower in the world.

Highly controversial issues
AIDS, organ transplantation, international adoption, and the September 11 attacks are all new, frightening or, in some ways, discomforting topics. Such highly controversial issues are natural candidates for the rise of false rumors, unwarranted fears and suspicions. Another example of a highly controversial issue is depleted uranium, a relatively new armor-piercing substance that was used by the U.S. military for the first time during the 1991 Gulf War.
They admit it is a Highly controversial issue

Consider the source
Certain websites, publications, and individuals are known for spreading false stories, including:
Unreliable sorce,The US government and White House lied about WMD to go to war with Iraq.

Research the allegations
The only way to determine whether an allegation is true or false is to research it as thoroughly as possible. Of course, this may not always be possible given publication deadlines and time pressures, but there is no substitute for thorough research, going back to the original sources. Using the Internet, many allegations can be fairly thoroughly researched in a matter of hours.
Almost every aspect of the OCT falls apart when thoroughly researched.

That proves it, the OCT is misinformation by The State Departments own standards.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../27-595713.html

counter-misinformation team ?
Capracus
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 28 2007, 03:47 AM)

That proves it, the OCT is misinformation by The State Departments own standards.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005.../27-595713.html
QUOTE (Al Queda's reasonwhy+Feb 27 2007, 10:47 PM)
You are a frigging lying about many dozens of trusses sagging over 5 OR 6  floors.

IT'S THERE FOR ALL TO SEE:

NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316

More DISINFORMATION from Reasonwhy as he again tries to remove the blame from Atta and Co.

Would you expect any less from him?

See NIST NCSTAR 1-6 D Fig 5-6, you can SEE the pull in forces at work in this picture of the bowing South wall that extends over and across multiple floors.

This of course represents sagging by many DOZENS of Trusses.

The wall CAN NOT bow in UNLESS the floor is disconnected or sags.

There WEREN'T that many disconnected trusses

See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 2-36 location of inward pull forces - South Face WTC 1 between 80 & 90 minutes. (which also shows the few disconnects)

Arthur
Capracus
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Feb 28 2007, 03:47 AM)
You are a frigging lying about many dozens of trusses sagging over 5 OR 6  floors.

IT'S THERE FOR ALL TO SEE:

NISTNCSTAR1-6D figure 5-4 page 316

reasonwhy, go to NIST NCSTAR 1-6D figure 5-4 page 316, and count the affected columns of the south face in the modeling graphic.

My tally:

Floor 95 = 59

Floor 96 = 43

Floor 97 = 20

Floor 98 = 20

Total = 142

Divide the total by 2, and you have 71 floor trusses sagging to one degree or another.

Even if my count is a bit liberal, it still amounts to many dozens.
Grumpy
reasonless

QUOTE
Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory?
Does the story claim that vast, powerful, evil forces are secretly manipulating events? If so, this fits the profile of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are rarely true, even though they have great appeal and are often widely believed. In reality, events usually have much less exciting explanations.
Yes , the evil muslum extremist are trying to kill all non muslims.

And you disagree that the radical Islamists are not out to kill or convert everyone else??? Are you saying these terrorists do not exist??? Do you work for AlQuida and OBL??? I hear he pays good.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Does the story fit the pattern of a conspiracy theory?Does the story claim that vast, powerful, evil forces are secretly manipulating events? If so, this fits the profile of a conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories are rarely true, even though they have great appeal and are often widely believed. In reality, events usually have much less exciting explanations.Yes , the evil muslum extremist are trying to kill all non muslims.

And you disagree that the radical Islamists are not out to kill or convert everyone else??? Are you saying these terrorists do not exist??? Do you work for AlQuida and OBL??? I hear he pays good.

Does the story fit the pattern of an “urban legend?”
Is the story startlingly good, bad, amazing, horrifying, or otherwise seemingly “too good” or “too terrible” to be true? If so, it may be an “urban legend.” Urban legends, which often circulate by word of mouth, e-mail, or the Internet, are false claims that are widely believed because they put a common fear, hope, suspicion, or other powerful emotion into story form.
Yes, 19 highjacker with boxcutter succeded in terriorizing the lone superpower in the world.

!9 hijackers succeeded in hijacking 4 planes, yes. And those were not the first planes ever hijacked in the world, were they??? For someone willing to kill it is not very hard to hijack a plane, the only new thing here is the planning and the number of planes involved. And using them as suicide bombs??? Who in the world would use suicide bombs??? Oh, yeah, those same fanatic muslim Aholes who want to convert or kill all infadels, that's who. Like the guy who signs your checks, OBL.

QUOTE
Highly controversial issues
AIDS, organ transplantation, international adoption, and the September 11 attacks are all new, frightening or, in some ways, discomforting topics. Such highly controversial issues are natural candidates for the rise of false rumors, unwarranted fears and suspicions. Another example of a highly controversial issue is depleted uranium, a relatively new armor-piercing substance that was used by the U.S. military for the first time during the 1991 Gulf War.
They admit it is a Highly controversial issue

...that leads to the rise of false rumors, unwarranted fears and suspicions(like government conspiracies involving MILLIONS of co-conspiritors).

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Highly controversial issuesAIDS, organ transplantation, international adoption, and the September 11 attacks are all new, frightening or, in some ways, discomforting topics. Such highly controversial issues are natural candidates for the rise of false rumors, unwarranted fears and suspicions. Another example of a highly controversial issue is depleted uranium, a relatively new armor-piercing substance that was used by the U.S. military for the first time during the 1991 Gulf War.They admit it is a Highly controversial issue

...that leads to the rise of false rumors, unwarranted fears and suspicions(like government conspiracies involving MILLIONS of co-conspiritors).

Consider the source
Certain websites, publications, and individuals are known for spreading false stories, including:
Unreliable sorce,The US government and White House lied about WMD to go to war with Iraq.

True, this administration makes "Slick Willy" look like "Honest Abe", but that does not mean we should buy the crap a failed cold fusion physicist, a dental hygenist and a water tester are peddling for cash.

QUOTE
Research the allegations
The only way to determine whether an allegation is true or false is to research it as thoroughly as possible. Of course, this may not always be possible given publication deadlines and time pressures, but there is no substitute for thorough research, going back to the original sources. Using the Internet, many allegations can be fairly thoroughly researched in a matter of hours.
Almost every aspect of the OCT falls apart when thoroughly researched.

NIST stands unchallenged, not one of it's findings has been touched by your preconceptual science. You've not been able to support a single one of your allegations of gov't conspiracy and your "scholar" sites are crumbling out from under you about as fast as they were originally set up. You're all such a pathetic bunch of losers!!!

Grumpy
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 12:28 AM)
OH MY GOSH, Ishmael FIGURED IT OUT.

It was them DAMN closed-circuit cameras trained on WTC 1 prior to the attack. put there just cause Bush didn't want to miss that first plane hitting a tower.

WE TRIED TO TELL HIM IT WASN'T WORTH THE RISK.

RUN FOR THE HILLS BOYS, THEY WILL BE COMIN' FOR US ONCE THIS GETS OUT.

ROTFLMAO.

Arthur

...so in answer as to how YOUR prior explanation squares up against with what is known about that morning.

Repeat what you maintained it was that Andrew Card was whispering into Bush's ear,Arthur.

I'll give you a couple of opportunities to hyperlink the readership to it along with the pertinent text in quotes.

I'm all for a goood laugh, Arthur... I think re-visiting what you stated back then is the way to get the best chuckle...
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 27 2007, 07:23 PM)
however the principal of the school stated positively that from his entry into the school to his entrance to the classroom... Bush never was in front of a TV screen.

Source?

Arthur
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 28 2007, 12:23 AM)
kahlmyishmael

Diesel fuel contains sulfur(jet fuel, not so much), when burned it produces sulfur dioxide which combines with water and oxygen in the air to produce H2SO4 or sulfuric acid, which , at high temps ERODES steel fairly rapidly. We know of 10s of thousands of gallons of deisel fuel that burned in WTC 7, is it not reasonable to see eroded steel after 7+ hours of fire fueled by that diesel???

Grumpy

Again, thanks for the reply Grumpy...

So we have all these experts standing around, scratching their heads and saying amongst themselves, "Gee! We sure wish Grumpy was here to explain this for us all"...

..."but we'll state to the reporters that their was insufficient thermal energy to account for what we observed"

..and we'll make sure we have Grumpy with us in the future".... is that eutatectic mixture able to be explained by the generated temperatures within WTC 7, Grumpy?

I'm talking about something else the FEMA-hired experts observed

I'm asking about what Barnett and the other experts observed that caused them to state it COULDN't be accounted for by the generated thermal energy within WTC 7....

...or in the alternative, the hyperlink where Barnett admitted to the misstatement.

Grumpy, ...remind me again as to what Arthur maintained as to what it was that Andrew Card was whispering into Bush' s ear in that Florida classroom on 9/11?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html

QUOTE
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000şC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

Gee, temps were approching ~ 1,000 C.

Wonder what could have caused that?

Arthur
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 02:07 PM)
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html

Gee, temps were approching ~ 1,000 C.

Wonder what could have caused that?

Arthur

Actually. I'm referring to the fire experts stating WHAT THEY themselves OBSERVED that COULD NOT be explained by temperatures gnerated by the diesel fuel.

So what was it that the fire experts observed that THEY THEMSELVES stated could NOT be explained by 1000 degree temperatures, Arthur?
kahlmyishmael
BBC NEWS VIDEO of 9/11/2001 confirms MODERN SCIENCE's FIRST successful 23-minute warping of space-time continuum in collapse of WTC #7

Friends, Physicists, Countrymen....lend me your ears.

This is a momentous day in Physics as we see Modern Science's First Proof of the space-time continuum being SUCCESSFULLY warped on the following BBC News broadcast....

The successful 23-minute time warp far exceeds ANYTHING that that arrogant Admiral Adama has accomplished on Battlestar Galactica....

...and also MUCH BETTER than that meely-mouthed Scottish Engineer on Star Trek ever accomplished (that fool never even got "manual override" to work properly in even one episode...always bragging about how he could give Captain Kirk "warp factor eight and maybe a wee bit more"

We Terrans here on Planet Earth can be truly proud of ourselves...let's uncork the champagne bottles.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 11:20 AM)
Actually. I'm referring to the fire experts stating WHAT THEY themselves OBSERVED that COULD NOT be explained by temperatures gnerated by the diesel fuel.

So what was it that the fire experts observed that THEY THEMSELVES stated could NOT be explained by 1000 degree temperatures, Arthur?

Apparently when Barnett and Biederman got the piece back to the lab and could LOOK AT IT UNDER A MICROSCOME, they then wrote the report I cited and said the temps only needed to get to 1,000 C.

They MAY have thought differently when they were at the site or when they talked to a reporter, but when they had time to do the SCIENCE, that apparently wasn't what they concluded.

First impressions don't necessarily hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Arthur
Palpatane
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 27 2007, 06:23 PM)
We know of 10s of thousands of gallons of deisel fuel that burned in WTC 7, is it not reasonable to see eroded steel after 7+ hours of fire fueled by that diesel???

Grumpy

Try several weeks.

Those "eroded" steel columns were pulled out of the burning debris pile weeks after 9/11.

Palpatane
Deisel fuel in WTC 7.

First to clarify the terminology.

AST: Above-ground Storage Tank. Technically this is defined as a tank that you can see all four sides of and in most modern installations; you can see the bottom of the tank as well. Usually a steel, double walled tank in a specially constructed storage room.

There were two (2) ASTs in WTC 7. There was the 6,000 AST on the first floor as part of the OEM system and there was

UST: Under-ground Storage Tank. This is obviously a tank that is under ground. These can be steel or fiberglass, and are generally bedded in sand of pea gravel.

There were four (4) USTs at WTC 7. there were two (2), 12,000 gallon fiberglass tanks as part of the base building system and there were two (2) 6,000 gallon fiberglass USTs as part of the Solomon Brothers system.

Day Tank: technically the same as an AST, the term day tank refers to a small 50 or 275 gallon tank associated with a generator set. Usually these are built right into the generator set itself as part of the base of the system. Sometimes these are stand alone tanks adjacent to a generator set. These are essentially an emergency reserve for the generator. Fuel is pumped from the bulk storage tank (either an AST or a UST) to the day tank where it is then fed directly to the diesel engine’s fuel system.

There were three, 275 gallon day tanks on the 5th, 7th, and 8th floors and a 50 gallon tank on 9. with a total capacity of 875 gallons located on various floors of the building. (note that this doesn’t include the volume of fuel in the riser piping and pump systems.

Also note that the Solomon emergency generator sets did not use day tanks, as this would have exceeded the maximum fuel oil storage allowed per floor by the building code. Instead, these generators were fed directly from the bulk storage tanks using a pressurized line system.

Transfer pumps: these are the pumps that transfer the fuel from the bulk tanks to the day tanks, or in the case of the Solomon system, powered a pressurized supply and return fuel piping system. It should be noted that since all of these systems were for emergency power generation, the transfer pumps were designed to run on battery power, independent of the building power system.

A good overview of the systems can be found here:

http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire05/PDF/f05137.pdf

Now, here are a couple of things to consider.
The electric company cut the power to WTC 7 about 5 minutes before the collapse of WTC 1.

The emergency generator systems would have automatically come on line once the power to the building was cut.

When they finally got down to the ground level, during the clean up of WTC 7, they found that the base building tanks were intact and largely full.

The Solomon Bros. USTs were also intact. But they were empty. No sign of the 12,000 gallons of fuel was found in the backfill of the tanks.

The transfer pump systems were wiped out by the building collapse.

1) What happened to the 12,000 gallons?

Now Consider the following picture:

All of the generator sets were located on floors well below the dust cloud. The diesel engine air intakes were right out the side of the building.

2) How long would the diesel engine been able to run before the intake air filters clogged up with dust?

kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 05:25 PM)
Apparently when Barnett and Biederman got the piece back to the lab and could LOOK AT IT UNDER A MICROSCOME, they then wrote the report I cited and said the temps only needed to get to 1,000 C.

They MAY have thought differently when they were at the site or when they talked to a reporter, but when they had time to do the SCIENCE, that apparently wasn't what they concluded.

First impressions don't necessarily hold up to scientific scrutiny.

Arthur

The old card trick, "apparently"...?

"Apparently" what?

Why is it "apparent", Arthur?...

What did they cite in that eutectic article about their prior assertions being replaced by this analysis... as any good "scientific report" would do to avoid misunderstanding?

You yourself, Arthur, stated in a prior post they used the term "eutectic" because the NY Times readership would easier understand "evaporate"...

Well, "eutectic" would imply knowledge of the temperatures necessary; these are, after all, Fire Expert PhDs hired by the American Society of Civil Engeineers on behalf of FEMA....

Any "eutectic" argument could be explained by a RANGE of temperatures... fire experts with PhDs would know that BEFORE making the statement they made to the NY Times Reporter

No Arthur, we're talking about something that could not be explained by 1000 degree temperatures.

You've flip-flopped, Arthur.

What post of yours do you want the PhysOrg Forum readership to accept, Arthur?

That they used the word "evaporate" at the scene of WTC because the NY Times readership would understand "evaporate"...and that these same experts would not know eutectic involved a range of temperatures?

Oh boy, swatting at NITS again I see.

I say apparently only because I'm not Barnett.

Why did he use the term use evaportate?

Don't know.

I believe I speculated before that they may have used that term so lay people could understand it, but MAYBE they thought it did evaporate.

How would I know exactly what he was thinking?

But, since YOU think this is an important point, why don't YOU ask HIM?

You want to make something of what he said, well, WHAT'S STOPPING YOU?.

In the meantime the PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC REPORT on the piece of steel is what we have to go on, not some comments, that for all we know, COULD HAVE BEEN MISQUOTED, to the NY Times.

Arthur
David B. Benson
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 07:03 PM)
:

QUOTE

lol:

Oh boy, swatting at NIST again I see.

Actually, the Chief NIST investigator/engineer does pretty good at swatting himself,Arthur...no "molten pools" of steel...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

Arthur...you should have been at that classroom and you could have provided that chap with your "eutectic steel" hyperlink

"eutectic aluminum" or eutectic steel", Arthur as pertaining to the "molten pools" still hot 6 weeks later.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE lol: Oh boy, swatting at NIST again I see.

Actually, the Chief NIST investigator/engineer does pretty good at swatting himself,Arthur...no "molten pools" of steel...

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

Arthur...you should have been at that classroom and you could have provided that chap with your "eutectic steel" hyperlink

"eutectic aluminum" or eutectic steel", Arthur as pertaining to the "molten pools" still hot 6 weeks later.

Is the most devastating proof of an inside job along with free fall speed of collapse. You can't break the laws of physics.

1. There is lots of testimony of molten steel by eye-witnesses

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/...etal-under.html

2.  It was analyzed in the FEMA report!! Therefore it exists!

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/eviden...urgy/index.html

3. NIST completely ignored it and called it "irrelevant to their investigation" as if the structural support of a building is somehow "irrelevant".

4. Normal fires (i.e. jet fuel) fires are incapable of melting steel

5. ONLY a thermate/thermite reaction can explain molten metal for WEEKS after 9/11. Explosives can also melt steel.

6. Steven Jones found thermate.

7. Dust Samples independently analyzed confirm the explosives hypothesis.

Building designer Les Robertson claimed to have seen the molten steel 21 days after the buildings fell to the ground. Later in an interview with Steven Jones he claimed he didn’t know of anyone who saw molten steel! Guess what—he supports the NIST report and also claims that they didn’t consider jet fuel (a lie) and that they also didn’t consider planes moving faster than 180 mph (another lie). These people are lying and we know it. We can hold them accountable for their lies.

QUOTE
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6040

In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had “never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.” This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: “Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.”[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]

The only question is: Given this devastating evidence that we can use to force another 9/11 investigation, why are certain individuals focusing on un-testable theories. Why are they downplaying thermate when it PROVES an inside job.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE http://www.911blogger.com/node/6040 In an interview with Steven Jones, Robertson claims that he had “never run across anyone who has said that they had in fact seen molten metal.” This statement is extremely suspicious considering the fact that Robertson himself claimed to have seen it in a published news report! This contradicts his own statement about seeing molten metal: “Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the design of the WTC, describes fires still burning and molten steel still running 21 days after the attacks.”[19]. As well, substantial eye-witness testimony supports observations of Molten Steel.[20]

The only question is: Given this devastating evidence that we can use to force another 9/11 investigation, why are certain individuals focusing on un-testable theories. Why are they downplaying thermate when it PROVES an inside job.

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

I say apparently only because I'm not Barnett.

Why did he use the term use evaporate?

No, Arthur... you're INTENTIONALLY misstating the scientific issue.... Eutectic would imply a wide range of temperatures... Barnett and the other experts would have known that and would NEVER have made such a statement.... they were talking about something else THAT COULD NOT be explained by temperatures at 1000 degrees BUT INSTEAD much hotter than anything acknowledged in the way of fuel sources could generate in the terms of thermal energy.

QUOTE

In the meantime the PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC REPORT on the piece of steel is what we have to go on, not some comments, that for all we know, COULD HAVE BEEN MISQUOTED, to the NY Times.

Arthur

Ohhhhh!... a misquote..... sorry, buddy---- but when a "trained reporter" hears about something ATYPICAL in the way of the unexplained/unexplainable...their ears automatically perk up

no, arthur...no misquote

You're quotes, though Arthur...hmmmm, let's see...

"eutectic aluminum" or "eutectic steel", Arthur.... The "molten pools" six weeks after the attack that melted steel-toed boots of ground zero workers
Well I'm GLAD that YOU know what Barnett "Would have known"

Us mere mortals have to go on his PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC WORKS.

QUOTE
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000şC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

Pity.

But, like I said, why not ASK HIM?

Arthur
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 08:10 PM)
Well I'm GLAD that YOU know what Barnett "Would have known"

Us mere mortals have to go on his PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC WORKS.

Pity.

But, like I said, why not ASK HIM?

Arthur

well, so do I go on his published works... but YET AGAIN you are dodging the issue that HE KNEW eutectic would imply a wide range of temperatures...and YET he and the others SPOKE OF effects outside the range of temperatures.

Arthur, after Andrew Card whispered something in the ear of George Bush(what was it you stated he was whispering? hyperlink us to that..or would you prefer I hyperlink the readership to what you stated)

Andrew Card should have whispered into this guy's ear;to wit....
The Chief NIST investigator/engineer ...no "molten pools" of steel...

....but plenty of Dr. Barnett's "eutectic aluminum"WHICH WHEN MIXED IN THE PROPER PROPORTIONS with the "intelligent thermite" and a teaspoonful of "the jet fuel kerosene" comingled with "the pulverized 60 micron dust" will yield us "the fruit crumble" that one chap was talking about

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

Arthur, was there "molten steel" crashing into the twin towers designed to withstand impacts of 707s traveling at BOTH 180 mph and 600 mph?

Does FEMA talk about "molten steel"< Arthur... I'm a CTer... I'll believe just about anythingggggg.
YAWN

Arthur
FactCheck
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 08:54 PM)
well, so do I go on his published works... but YET AGAIN you are dodging the issue that HE KNEW eutectic would imply a wide range of temperatures...and YET he and the others SPOKE OF effects outside the range of temperatures.

Arthur, after Andrew Card whispered something in the ear of George Bush(what was it you stated he was whispering? hyperlink us to that..or would you prefer I hyperlink the readership to what you stated)

Andrew Card should have whispered into this guy's ear;to wit....
The Chief NIST investigator/engineer ...no "molten pools" of steel...

....but plenty of Dr. Barnett's "eutectic aluminum"WHICH WHEN MIXED IN THE PROPER PROPORTIONS with the "intelligent thermite" and a teaspoonful of "the jet fuel kerosene" comingled with "the pulverized 60 micron dust" will yield us "the fruit crumble" that one chap was talking about

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

Arthur, was there "molten steel" crashing into the twin towers designed to withstand impacts of 707s traveling at BOTH 180 mph and 600 mph?

Does FEMA talk about "molten steel"< Arthur... I'm a CTer... I'll believe just about anythingggggg.

You need to check your facts.

www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 09:07 PM)
YAWN

Arthur

Translation: Arthur has danced himself into a corner that he can no longer dance his way out of by proffering more specious arguments

1)Arthur...hyperlink us to what you stated that Andrew was whispering into George Bush's ear in the Florida classroom on 9/11.

2)Was their "molten steel" at the WTC?.. molten "eutectic aluminum" OR "molten eutectic steel"?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

3)Were the twin towers designed to withstand 707 impacts at 180 mph or 600 mph?

4)Where in the debunking sites do they acknowledge the disabling of the satellite link 5 minutes before the collapse and respond to that?
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 04:15 PM)
3)Were the twin towers designed to withstand 707 impacts at 180 mph or 600 mph?

Translation: you're a bore, with your irrelevant questions about what Card whispered or what some reporter got wrong.

"Hey Man, the BBC KNEW about the collapse ahead of time, Bush sent them the script for the day but they read it early"

or

"Hey Man, that Bozo Bush forgot that only he saw the first plane crash into the towers on closed circuit tv to his limo and then BLEW IT on Natl TV. Not once but a couple of times.. "

BS like that just makes you sound all the more LOONY TOONS.

Which helps the people who believe in the scientific explanation of 9/11, because SANE people realize you are, like the people who put out Loose Change, Prof Woods with her "dustification" etc, are in fact a few tokes over the line.

So, PARTY ON, Dude.

on # 3 the answer is:

NEITHER.

The towers weren't DESIGNED to resist an aircraft impact.

Arthur
NEU-FONZE
Kahlmyishmael:

Could you please explain this statement:

"ONLY a thermate/thermite reaction can explain molten metal for WEEKS after 9/11."

The thermite reaction, once started, is VERY FAST and is something like your typical FIREWORK.

But you know as well as I do that if I set off a firework on the night of November 5th (I'm a Brit), the firework burns for about a minute and gets very hot, true....

However, the morning of November 6th, the burnt out firework is STONE COLD!

So, I'm sorry, Kahlmy, your equation:

Molten metal = thermate = proof of inside job

Is just nonsense

NF
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 28 2007, 09:14 PM)
You need to check your facts.

www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm#molten

Well, thank you for the hyperlink, Fact Check... That was an interesting discussion by NEU- FONZE

...a "moot discussion", apparently since we have the Chief NIST engineer here stating there was no "molten steel".

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

Was there? OR wasn't there? Only his hairdresser knows for sure!

Was there pools of "molten steel" or was it "eutectic aluminum"?

Were the WTC towers designed to withstand an impact of....

a 707 traveling at 180 mph

or

a 707 traveling at 600 mph.....????

kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 28 2007, 09:21 PM)
Kahlmyishmael:

Could you please explain this statement:

"ONLY a thermate/thermite reaction can explain molten metal for WEEKS after 9/11."

The thermite reaction, once started, is VERY FAST and is something like your typical FIREWORK.

But you know as well as I do that if I set off a firework on the night of November 5th (I'm a Brit), the firework burns for about a minute and gets very hot, true....

However, the morning of November 6th, the burnt out firework is STONE COLD!

So, I'm sorry, Kahlmy, your equation:

Molten metal = thermate = proof of inside job

Is just nonsense

NF

That was a quote from the poster who was cited at:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

I just read your article, NEU-FONZE and I must admit..it is very interesting and perhaps scientifically valid.

I'll write Professor Jones and submit what you posted.

1) How, in my letter to Srtephen Jones, should I approach the issue of whether there was even pools of "molten steel" at all, NEU-FONZE

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

Were there pools or not?

The other points were quite well substantiated/sourced in that same post, NEU-FONZE

2) Were the towers designed to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 180 mph according to Leslie Robertson

or a

707 traveling at 600 mph according to that dingbat Professor Stephen Jo...nope, nope...acording to that crackpot Dr. Judy Wo.... no...wrong again, according to that birdbrain Jim Hoffm...

Help me out here, NEU-FONZE... just who was it that stated the twin towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 travelling at 600 mph.

a) Was it that chap/lassie who disabled the BBC satellite link 5 minutes before WTC 7 collapsed?

or was it....

the same fellow who stated the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 180 mph

or was it

c) the fireman who stated they were getting ready to "pull" building #6...(somebody should tell that stupid fireman that "pull" means to "evacuate the firefighting contingent")
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 04:38 PM)
..a "moot discussion", apparently since we have the Chief NIST engineer here stating there was no "molten steel".

Nope,

He said he had seen no reports of pools of MELTED STEEL.

MOLTEN can simply mean GLOWING HOT, it does not necessarily mean MELTED.

Do you have any links to pictures of a POOL OF MELTED STEEL (hot or solidified) along with the test that shows that the material was, in fact, steel?

Arthur
FactCheck
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 09:38 PM)
Well, thank you for the hyperlink, Fact Check... That was an interesting discussion by NEU- FONZE

...a "moot discussion", apparently since we have the Chief NIST engineer here stating there was no "molten steel".

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

Was there? OR wasn't there? Only his hairdresser knows for sure!

Was there pools of "molten steel" or was it "eutectic aluminum"?

Were the WTC towers designed to withstand an impact of....

a 707 traveling at 180 mph

or

a 707 traveling at 600 mph.....????

There is perfectly predictable scientific explination if there was molten metal. The fact remains there is NO absolute scientific proof of molten metal. That means your question is a moot point.

However (And this is very important...)

If it was there it CAN'T be thermite because thermite burns up rapidly. Answer me this question... Why would they put more thermite than was needed to collapse the tower? To put on a show?
Alan (ex elevator man)
QUOTE
c) the fireman who stated they were getting ready to "pull" building #6...

The really did "pull" #6. In a classic example of what "pull" means to demo ppl, they literally attached cables and pulled it over with dozers.
Alan (ex elevator man)
I'd sure like to see a picture of those melted steel-toed boots too. Maybe with a quote from a named source to go along with it. Maybe a Dr.'s report of the burned toes... Or, is that something that was made up for a snide remark?
NEU-FONZE
Kahlmyishmael:

I am NOT denying the existance of molten metal in the rubble pile.

In fact I believe there IS direct physical evidence for molten iron/steel at the WTC that has not even been considered by anyone as far as I know.....

Nevertheless, I AM saying that the presence of any such molten metal is NOT PROOF of the use of thermite/thermate. In fact I am saying that thermite/thermate is a totally unsatisfactory explanation.

As for other explanations, why don't you ask Dr Wood or AceBaker. I believe they don't believe in the thermite hypothesis either....

Arthur:

You have criticized others for claiming to know what somebody meant by a word or phrase. Sounds like you are doing the same thing!

Molten means "hot and glowing". To who?

Not to me!

NF
David B. Benson
Molten substances at Ground Zero --- As in liquid, melted:

The fires were hot enough to melt lead, rock wool, babbitt metal, solder, etc.

The one report of molten metal running down a wall, by a LERA structural engineer, was in the sub-basement of WTC 6. Where about one million rounds of ammunition had been stored. Conclusion: He saw molten lead.

The remaining cases of molten material dripping from beams is best explained as the lava-like molten rock wool insulation.

And so it goes...
Grumpy
Alan (ex elevator man)

Actually what was reported was the RUBBER on the boots melting. A pool of melted steel would burn their leg off at least to the knee and THEN it might melt the steel toes of their shoes.

kahlmyishmael

QUOTE
Were there pools or not?

Not a single pool of melted steel was found anywhere on the WTC site. That is a stone cold fact. All eyewitness accounts of there being such were later proven to be erronious.

Several instances of hot corrosive erosion were found in WTC7 and scientific tests indicate they were caused by the presence of sulfur and sulfates at high temps. This is chemistry not normally seen in this type of building fires but is likely caused by the 10 of thousands of gallons of deisel fuel containing sulfur(which I have explained if you had been paying attention, as did adoucette, if you are too stupid to comprehend is that our fault???) that fueled those fires.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Were there pools or not?

Not a single pool of melted steel was found anywhere on the WTC site. That is a stone cold fact. All eyewitness accounts of there being such were later proven to be erronious.

Several instances of hot corrosive erosion were found in WTC7 and scientific tests indicate they were caused by the presence of sulfur and sulfates at high temps. This is chemistry not normally seen in this type of building fires but is likely caused by the 10 of thousands of gallons of deisel fuel containing sulfur(which I have explained if you had been paying attention, as did adoucette, if you are too stupid to comprehend is that our fault???) that fueled those fires.

Were the twin towers designed to withstand 707 impacts at 180 mph or 600 mph?

Neither, they were designed to provide the most space for the least amount of structure. No documentation has ever been found that the engineers factored in ANY aircraft collisions(though their designers are quoted as saying so, it was just bravado, having no basis in engineering, one even compared it to poking a pencil through a screen door, we all saw how well that analogy worked)

Grumpy

kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Feb 28 2007, 10:03 PM)

The really did "pull" #6. In a classic example of what "pull" means to demo ppl, they literally attached cables and pulled it over with dozers.

ohhhhh! well, thank you....and in the "classic fashion"... could you point me to the debunking911.org hyperlink where they stated that?

...and was the firefighting contingent evacuated at 11:23 AM.... so "what was Silverstein saying later?

How many hours did it take for Silverstein to say he meant "something else" other than a controlled demolition... if not in "hours", how many "days" before he clarified that statement.

the debunking911.org site should have the answer.

How many hours transpired before Silverstein's reps clarified the "pulled" statement as meaning "pull the firefighting contingebnt that had already been pulled 5 hours ago"?

Alex--- ex elevator man--- after 3 years of NIST not being able to find steel-toed melted boots...what else could they not find?

They couldn't find a 707 willing to make impact at 180 mph like Leslie Robertson wanted them to.

And NIST couldn't find the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING reports dealing with "fire" nor "damge from impact"

QUOTE

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...a022793skilling

In the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” ....

......But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. .....

Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]

The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001).

However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration [by structural engineers] of the extent of  impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [/B][National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]
Entity Tags: John Skilling, World Trade Center
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Feb 28 2007, 10:07 PM)
I'd sure like to see a picture of those melted steel-toed boots too. Maybe with a quote from a named source to go along with it. Maybe a Dr.'s report of the burned toes... Or, is that something that was made up for a snide remark?

It was content contained in a part of the cited video that was hyperlinked.
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 28 2007, 10:01 PM)
There is perfectly predictable scientific explination if there was molten metal. The fact remains there is NO absolute scientific proof of molten metal. That means your question is a moot point.

However (And this is very important...)

If it was there it CAN'T be thermite because thermite burns up rapidly. Answer me this question... Why would they put more thermite than was needed to collapse the tower? To put on a show?

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6040#_ftn21

[21] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/eviden...urgy/index.html

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

kahlmyishmael
so chaps,...David Benson, NEU-FONZE, Fact Check, etc.

1) Were the twin towers designed to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 180 mph OR were they designed to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph.

2) Was consideration of the jet fuel ignition the FOURTH biggest probelem the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS were concerned with OR was it the FIFTH biggest problem they were concerned with?

David B. Benson
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 11:00 PM)
1) Were the twin towers designed to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 180 mph OR were they designed to withstand the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph.

2) Was consideration of the jet fuel ignition the FOURTH biggest probelem[sic] the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS were concerned with OR was it the FIFTH biggest problem they were concerned with?

1) Who cares? They did indeed withstand the impacts that they suffered.

2) Fire safety is the responsibility of the architect, not the structural engineers.
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 28 2007, 09:19 PM)

on # 3 the answer is:

NEITHER.

The towers weren't DESIGNED to resist an aircraft impact.

Arthur

QUOTE
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090301robertson#a090301robertson

Leslie Robertson. [Source: Publicity photo]Leslie Robertson, one of the two original structural engineers for the World Trade Center, is asked at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany what he had done to protect the twin towers from terrorist attacks. He replies, “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it,” though does not elaborate further. [Chicago Tribune, 9/12/2001; Knight Ridder, 9/12/2001] The twin towers were in fact the first structures outside the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airplane. [Robertson, 3/2002; Federal Emergency Management Agency, 5/1/2002, pp. 1-17] The Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing. However, no official report of his study has ever surfaced publicly. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 138-139, 366] A previous analysis, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing (see February 27, 1993).

In 2002, though, Robertson will write, “To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance.” [Robertson, 3/2002] The planes that hit the WTC on 9/11 are 767s, which are almost 20 percent heavier than 707s. [Scientific American, 10/9/2001; New Yorker, 11/19/2001]

Hmmmm.... their 7th biggest problem was the thousands of gallons of fuel and "no designs were prepared for that circumstance"

QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Feb 28 2007, 05:18 PM)

Arthur:

You have criticized others for claiming to know what somebody meant by a word or phrase. Sounds like you are doing the same thing!

Molten means "hot and glowing". To who?

Not to me!

NF

I recall saying that you couldn't believe that "the admin mostly told the truth about 9/11" and also believe that they PARTICIPATED in the killing of 3,000 people.

That's not the same thing.

The problem is MANY of those reports of MOLTEN material were written by WRITERS and they are known for using valid, if not common definitions of words.

Molten DOES mean GLOWING HOT, and so without the ability to ask these people what they actually saw, we can't PRESUME that their use of MOLTEN means MELTED.

Further, we can't PRESUME that if the MOLTEN material was in fact MELTED, that it was STEEL.

Arthur
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Feb 28 2007, 11:05 PM)
1) Who cares? They did indeed withstand the impacts that they suffered.

2) Fire safety is the responsibility of the architect, not the structural engineers.

Whose people did the analysis? The structural engineer's OR the architect's

What was their 9th biggest problem?

QUOTE

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...a022793skilling

Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

Skilling was later quoted by ace PhysOrg Forum journalist, Arthur as stating:

"However, the buildings are "dead meat" and will come down like a house of cards if a 757 hits it at 360 mph" and especially if the wind draft from Andrew Card whispering in George Bush's ear migrates NORTH from florida
This quote PROVES that the towers weren't DESIGNED to handle an aircraft impact:

QUOTE
Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

Which clearly shows the towers WERE ALREADY DESIGNED before the question of an airplane impact was even brought up.

Which if you read the history of the towers construction you will find that the issue of the plane impact was brought up late in the project by the owner of the Empire State Building. You will find that 600 mph quote didn't originate from Skilling or Robertson but from a press release from the PANYNJ.

But as David points out, its MOOT.

The towers withstood the impact of the planes.

They stood long enough for most people to evacuate the buildings.

And the issue has NO BEARING on the conclusions of the NIST report.

So WHO CARES?

Arthur
Grumpy
kahlmyishmael

QUOTE
Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.” But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

Skilling and his people turned out to be mistaken(wrong) as the events of 9/11 showed, the buildings could withstand the initial impacts, but could not withstand the subsequint fires.

Grumpy
David B. Benson
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 11:23 PM)
Whose people did the analysis? The structural engineer's OR the architect's

Skilling was a structural engineer.
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 28 2007, 11:38 PM)
kahlmyishmael

Skilling and his people turned out to be mistaken(wrong) as the events of 9/11 showed, the buildings could withstand the initial impacts, but could not withstand the subsequint fires.

Grumpy

Well, according to David Benson...they were wrong in even analyzing the fire problem in the first place? "Call in the architectsssssss!!!!"

Grumpy,...so on the topic of what was their 11th biggest problem(fire from jet fuel subsequent to impact), these guys NOT ONLY got it wrong ...they also didn't even know enough to consult David Benson [/B] who would have told them that they needed to rustle up some architects

Grumpy.... The chief NIST engineer states he saw no reports from Arthur on "eutectic aluminum" or "molten steel"....

...and DESPITE A 3-YEAR SEARCH they couldn't find the "structural engineering" "considerations from the very offices of the STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS regarding "aircraft impact" or "jet fuel fires"......

I think the Chief NIST engineer should have just asked the Skilling/Robertson Structural Engineering offices to place a package of "crystal meth" and let Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Nicole Ritchie ferret out the pertinent Structural Engineering Studies as part of a "reality TV show" from the file cabinets in the Structural Engineering offices.

QUOTE

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...a022793skilling

However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]

...where does debunking911.org talk about that, Grumpy...could you give us the hyperlink?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context...a022793skillingHowever, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]

...where does debunking911.org talk about that, Grumpy...could you give us the hyperlink?

February 27, 1993: WTC Engineer Says Building Would Survive Jumbo Jet Hitting ItIn the wake of the WTC bombing, the Seattle Times interviews John Skilling who was one of the two structural engineers responsible for designing the Trade Center. Skilling recounts his people having carried out an analysis which found the twin towers could withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

He says, “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed.”

But, he says, “The building structure would still be there.” [Seattle Times, 2/27/1993] The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: “The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour.

Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.” However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 131-132; Lew, Bukowski, and Carino, 10/2005, pp. 70-71]

The other structural engineer who designed the towers, Leslie Robertson, carried out a second study later in 1964, of how the towers would handle the impact of a 707 (see Between September 3, 2001 and September 7, 2001).

However, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), following its three-year investigation into the WTC collapses, will in 2005 state that it has been “unable to locate any evidence to indicate consideration of the extent of impact-induced structural damage or the size of a fire that could be created by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.” [National Institute of Standards and Technology, 9/2005, pp. 13 ]
Entity Tags: John Skilling, World Trade Center
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline

David B. Benson
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Mar 1 2007, 01:13 AM)
Well, according to David Benson...they were wrong in even analyzing the fire problem in the first place? "Call in the architectsssssss[sic]!!!!"

I have no idea what you are carrying on about.

The architect contracts with one or more engineering firms. The combination is called the AE team.
In the division of responsibilities, the architect is responsible for fire safety. The structural engineers make sure the architect's conception is buildable and will stand up. This is completely standard division of the work, at least in the USA.

I doubt that anyone attempted to address the fire problem before the NIST study.
Chainsaw,
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 10:55 PM)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6040#_ftn21

[21] See here for pictures and comments in FEMA’s report mentioning the melted steel:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/eviden...urgy/index.html

“Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform "limited metallurgical examination" of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence.” 1

“The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.”

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”

Evidence of evaporated steel as reported by the New York Times:

“Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened… ‘Fire and the structural damage… would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated’” from:

Glanz, James (2001). “Engineers are baffled over the collapse of 7 WTC; Steel members have been partly evaporated,” New York Times, November 29. 2001.

Given the conditions present on 9/11/2001 why do I not find any of your claims to be out of the ordinary for the actual conditions, melted Steel I have no doubt in my mind that some melted steel was formed after all the collapse was the perfect environment for energetic reactions including natural exothermic ones like thermite.

The problem is no explosive or thermite like compound could survive the blast and fires, making controlled demolition with thermite a complete lunny bin fantasy fallacy.

NO evidence of explosives has been found, and none are likely to be found now, What i question is where is the evidence of your claim?

Your talking about finding molten metal in the perfect environment to create it so what would be unusual about finding it there? DA.
kahlmyishmael
QUOTE (Chainsaw,+Mar 1 2007, 01:27 AM)
Given the conditions present on 9/11/2001 why do I not find any of your claims to be out of the ordinary for the actual conditions, melted Steel I have no doubt in my mind that some melted steel was formed after all the collapse was the perfect environment for energetic reactions including natural exothermic ones like thermite.

The problem is no explosive or thermite like compound could survive the blast and fires, making controlled demolition with thermite a complete lunny bin fantasy fallacy.

NO evidence of explosives has been found, and none are likely to be found now, What i question is where is the evidence of your claim?

Your talking about finding molten metal in the perfect environment to create it so what would be unusual about finding it there? DA.

Well when I was composing my report for the Federal Government on the analysis of the steel conducted in a "mobile lab (dump truck)" as it was hauled off to being sold to China for scrap(get rid of the evidence)...

Wait a minute!... It wasn't me after all who did the work in the hyperlinks I cited.... It was guys like Dr. Barnett with their eutectic thingamabobs and the "photo of the steam shovel" and the reports of the firemen.

Chainsaw....why do you think the satellite link was disabled 5 minutes before the WTC 7 collapsed and 18 minutes after it was announced that it had collapsed?

Where does the debunking911.org site mimic Grumpy's explanation and also explain that BBC no longer has the video?

Chainsaw.... Why could the Chief NIST engineer not only find no reports of eutectic "molten steel" BUT ALSO after a 3-year investigation of the filing cabinets in the offices of the TWO Structural Engineers who designed the towers NOT FIND the ANALYSIS or the WHITE PAPER which dealt with "jet impact" and "fires from jet fuel"?

The Chief NIST engineer was just too surprised, as Grumpy might say, to think that any fools would talk of molten steel, "jet impact" analyses, "fuel fire from jet impact" white papers...

..and besides...the CHIEF NIST Engineer searched for the documents in Paris Hilton's handbag INSTEAD OF the offices of the TWO Structural Engineers who, after allll, designed the building in the first place.
Alan (ex elevator man)
QUOTE (kahlmyishmael+Feb 28 2007, 04:43 PM)
ohhhhh! well, thank you....and in the "classic fashion"... could you point me to the debunking911.org hyperlink where they stated that?

"It's not every day you try to pull down an 8-story building with cables."

My bad, it wasn't bulldozers, it was backhoes.

WTC 6 was PULLED

You asked for proof, so watch this short clip.
Alan (ex elevator man)
kahlmyishmael,

You might've meant to type wtc 7 when you talked about "pull", but you typed wtc 6, and that's why I said it really was pulled. I also said that is the classic and only use of the word "pull" that demo people use. You can gripe and point out what Silverstein said all you want, BUT HE'S NOT A DEMO GUY or a FIREFIGHTER.

Since I 'butted in' so to speak, I've seen how you rant and rave about all kinds of wild topics, so you'll have to forgive me if I put you on 'ignore' from now on. Though let me suggest one thing... DECAFF dude. You need to ease up.

*I corrected a misspelled word.
NEU-FONZE
One place to start looking for PHYSICAL evidence for the formation of vaporized steel during 9/11 would be the Mn/Fe ratio in the WTC dust.

The Mn/Fe ratio in WTC dust is ~ 2 times its value in structural steel.... i.e. manganese IS enriched in the WTC dust relative to its concentration in structural steel.

Jones thinks Mn enrichment is evidence for the presence of the oxidizing agent, (thermite additive), POTASSIUM PERMANGANATE.

I think not......

HOWEVER,

An elevated Mn/Fe ratio in the WTC dust IS evidence for vaporized iron bacause manganese IS enriched in mild (A-36 steel) FUME produced when this material is vaporized by intense heating......... The enrichment of manganese is due to the relative melting points/boiling points of manganese and iron:

m.p. of iron is 1539 deg C; m.p. of manganese is 1244 deg C.

b.p. of iron is 2887 deg C; b.p. of manganese is 2041 deg C.

NF
Palpatane
QUOTE (Alan (ex elevator man)+Feb 28 2007, 08:12 PM)
"It's not every day you try to pull down an 8-story building with cables."

My bad, it wasn't bulldozers, it was backhoes.

WTC 6 was PULLED

You asked for proof, so watch this short clip.

Smackdown!

Poor kallmeakook.

roves shill
QUOTE (FactCheck+Feb 28 2007, 10:01 PM)
There is perfectly predictable scientific explination if there was molten metal. The fact remains there is NO absolute scientific proof of molten metal. That means your question is a moot point.

However (And this is very important...)

If it was there it CAN'T be thermite because thermite burns up rapidly. Answer me this question... Why would they put more thermite than was needed to collapse the tower? To put on a show?

Answer me this Cspam...errrr Fastchek Two towers almost identical, hit in different spots' upon 'collapse initiation', pancake completely to the ground within a second of each other. Is this probable? Is it probable FEMA showed up the night before the sneak attack?
Palpatane
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 28 2007, 09:27 PM)
Two towers almost identical, hit in different spots' upon 'collapse initiation', pancake completely to the ground within a second of each other. Is this probable? Is it probable

What are you babbling about, now?
roves shill
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 1 2007, 03:31 AM)
What are you babbling about, now?

Put the full quote in the box Palpatine. Scared?
Palpatane
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 28 2007, 10:02 PM)
Put the full quote in the box Palpatine. Scared?

Again with the babble.

Explain yourself on your claim that the two buildings collapsed within seconds of each other.

roves shill
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 1 2007, 04:09 AM)
Again with the babble.

Explain yourself on your claim that the two buildings collapsed within seconds of each other.

Address it, don't dance,show some bone Palpatine, why was FEMA there the night before the event?
Palpatane
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 28 2007, 10:14 PM)
Address it, don't dance,show some bone Palpatine, why was FEMA there the night before the event?

I have never seen any hard proof that they were.

Surely there are some hotel receipts / records etc., expense reports, etc. FOIA FEMA for the data.

otherwise, I claim that it was nothing more than a simple mistake from someone exhasuted from working very long hours for many days.

Don't sidestep my question to you. Explain yourself. Your claim that thet fell within seconds of each other makes little sense.
roves shill
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 1 2007, 04:25 AM)
I have never seen any hard proof that they were.

Surely there are some hotel receipts / records etc., expense reports, etc. FOIA FEMA for the data.

otherwise, I claim that it was nothing more than a simple mistake from someone exhasuted from working very long hours for many days.

Don't sidestep my question to you. Explain yourself. Your claim that thet fell within seconds of each other makes little sense.

Perfect sense. At collapse initiation how long did it take wtc 1 to pancake......wtc 2?
The CT group has obviously hit ROCK BOTTOM???

The current crop of CT'ers have to be among the LEAST RATIONAL of the bunch we have dealt with over the last 2 years.

Any thought of PHYSICS seems an ancient memory.

We're back to What Bush saw and when he saw it or what Silverstein meant by "pull it".

Now Rove's shill is complaining that the two towers fall was too similar.

Arthur
roves shill
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 1 2007, 04:45 AM)
The CT group has obviously hit ROCK BOTTOM???

The current crop of CT'ers have to be among the LEAST RATIONAL of the bunch we have dealt with over the last 2 years.

Any thought of PHYSICS seems an ancient memory.

We're back to What Bush saw and when he saw it or what Silverstein meant by "pull it".

Now Rove's shill is complaining that the two towers fall was too similar.

Arthur

Not complaining Arthur(s). Just wondering why you big brains don't find it interesting that the fall times are so close, yet the plane damage wasn't. I'm sure you guys know a statistician.
Palpatane
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 28 2007, 10:50 PM)
Not complaining Arthur(s). Just wondering why you big brains don't find it interesting that the fall times are so close, yet the plane damage wasn't. I'm sure you guys know a statistician.

Hmm, two identical buildings, same height, same potential energy, same sequence of collapse initiation.

stands to reason that the collapse times should be similar.

But I’m sure you will be happy to provide us with some really bad science to prove otherwise.
It has to do with the nature of acceleration.

An object falling at 9 m sec^2 for 10 seconds will cover 1476 ft.
An object falling at 9 m sec^2 for 11 seconds will cover 1786 ft.

So even though the distance is 310 ft more the longer fall only took a second more.

What if the rate of fall is significantly slower, say 7 m sec^2?
Then
An object falling at 7 m sec^2 for 11 seconds will cover 1389 ft.
An object falling at 7 m sec^2 for 12.5 seconds will cover 1794 ft.

So even at a significantly slower rate, still now it only takes one and a half second more to fall an additonal 400 ft.

Now ALL of those times are within the estimates of how long the towers took and yet they cover falls over significantly longer distances and at rates much lower than free fall.

So considering the nature of acceleration over the distances involved, one would not expect any significant difference in the times the towers took to collapse.

Arthur
roves shill
QUOTE (Palpatane+Mar 1 2007, 04:56 AM)
Hmm, two identical buildings, same height, same potential energy, same sequence of collapse initiation.

stands to reason that the collapse times should be similar.

But I’m sure you will be happy to provide us with some really bad science to prove otherwise.

How much resistance(time) was under the point of collapse initiation in WTC 1....WTC 2?
reasonwhy
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 09:22 PM)

The wall CAN NOT bow in UNLESS the floor is disconnected or sags.

True, and you need a connected sagging truss to pull the wall in. All the trusses that were sagging were also disconnected when the supposed collapse occurred as you pointed out .

QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 09:22 PM)

There WEREN'T that many disconnected trusses

Correct again, just the trusses that were sagging and supposedly pulling the wall in. You must be starting to understand my point.

QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 27 2007, 09:22 PM)

See NIST NCSTAR 1-6D Fig 2-36 location of inward pull forces - South Face WTC 1 between 80 & 90 minutes. (which also shows the few disconnects)

A smoke filled, photoshopped picture is your evidence (looks like a photo from FactChecks website)?
reasonwhy
QUOTE (Capracus+Feb 28 2007, 02:45 AM)
reasonwhy, go to NIST NCSTAR 1-6D figure 5-4 page 316, and count the affected columns of the south face in the modeling graphic.

My tally:

Floor 95 = 59

Floor 96 = 43

Floor 97 = 20

Floor 98 = 20

Total = 142

Divide the total by 2, and you have 71 floor trusses sagging to one degree or another.

Even if my count is a bit liberal, it still amounts to many dozens.

You don't have a clue what was being discussed, do you?

Why don't you calculate the force on the wall from a 1.5 inch sagging truss?
reasonwhy
QUOTE (roves shill+Feb 28 2007, 07:27 PM)
Answer me this Cspam...errrr Fastchek Two towers almost identical, hit in different spots' upon 'collapse initiation', pancake completely to the ground within a second of each other. Is this probable? Is it probable FEMA showed up the night before the sneak attack?

It really is amazing how the terror drills turn into real terrorist attacks.

All the governments need to do to stop the terror attacks is stop the drills.

How do terrorist always find out when the government is going to run multiple drills at once to plan their attcks?
Capracus
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2007, 07:30 AM)

You don't have a clue what was being discussed, do you?
I assumed that the topic was the bowing in of the south wall of WTC 1, given that is what NIST NCSTAR 1-6D figure 5-4 attempts to address.

Did you actually read and attempt to understand what chapter 5 attempts to explain?

From page 310:
QUOTE
Bowing and buckling of the entire exterior wall of the south tower occurred under the combined effects of temperature, redistributed gravity load, pull-in force from sagging trusses, and loss of lateral support due to sagging floor/wall disconnections. Floors with large sag did not restrain the exterior wall columns from buckling.
Sagging floor trusses were not the sole explanation of the observed inward bowing of the south wall, only a contributing factor.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Bowing and buckling of the entire exterior wall of the south tower occurred under the combined effects of temperature, redistributed gravity load, pull-in force from sagging trusses, and loss of lateral support due to sagging floor/wall disconnections. Floors with large sag did not restrain the exterior wall columns from buckling.
Sagging floor trusses were not the sole explanation of the observed inward bowing of the south wall, only a contributing factor.

Why don't you calculate the force on the wall from a 1.5 inch sagging truss?
If you noticed in the quoted post, I stated that the affected floor trusses were sagging to one degree or another.

A large percentage of them significantly.

If a column were critically loaded, even the pull caused by 1.5" of sagging truss would be enough to cause the column to buckle and fail.
Capracus
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2007, 07:20 AM)
A smoke filled, photoshopped picture is your evidence (looks like a photo from FactChecks website)?

9/11 photos must be properly labeled and explained to be legitimate.

9/11 videos to be credible, must be be accompanied by a sh*t for brains narrator and porn music.
einsteen
Back to the wedge.

I just was trying to draw a wedge effect and was thinking how I have to do that, but I failed. Now it is very trivial to draw a building and take a part from the top and rotate it around one or two axes, but what then ? If you take into account the structure of the building, perimeter columns and core columns with trusses it is impossible to find a wedge effect in which the upper part wedges the lower part, you can understand that by symmetry this does not make sense.

I will be a wedger if someone can convince me that it really takes place possibly with the help of a peer reviewed paper.
QUOTE (reasonwhy+Mar 1 2007, 02:20 AM)

you need a connected sagging truss to pull the wall in. All the trusses that were sagging were also disconnected when the supposed collapse occurred as you pointed out .

What was connected at 100 min (time of collapse) is not relevant for the prior pull in to occur.

You rely on the simulation at 100 minutes but the sagging and pull in began 20 min earlier.

The BOW IN of the wall is caused by the heating of the wall, the increased load on the wall and the lack of horizontal support. The relatively small pull in force from the sagging truss (~5 kip) is what primarilay directs which way the wall will bow, but it is the MUCH LARGER force from above which is responsible for the bowing of the wall. Because of the spandrels connecting the perimeter columns, the pull in force would be felt by all the columns even if some are disconnected and they would bow in based on how much lateral motion the trusses between them and the core would allow.

QUOTE (NoReasonwhy+)
A smoke filled, photoshopped picture is your evidence?

Yes, and a damn good picture it is as it shows via the photoshopped GRID superimposed upon it the amount of bowing that has occured on that wall of the tower. There is NO EVIDENCE that the actual underlying picture of the tower has been distorted.

Too bad that there are similar pics of the bowing in of the other tower.

Arthur
Grumpy
einsteen

I have no trouble whatsoever seeing that the above could lead to wedging in as it falls straight down, why do you???

Grumpy