More pictures of molten aluminum pours.
===============================================
"Foundry colors"
A reader passed on this:
But there is still something that I cannot understand, though. The problem
has to do with the temperature scale. In earlier times when foundries
weren't equipped with thermometers it was common to judge the temperature by
the incandescent color. I quote from a book: (no ref)
"Assuming there is little light other than that emitted by the glowing
charge in the furnace, you can judge a dull red glow to be from about 950°F
(783K) to 1000°F (811K). Thereafter, as the temperature climbs, the red glow
will brighten noticeably at about each 100 degree increment until it changes
to orange at about 1600°F (1144K). The orange glow brightens through about
1900°F (1311K) where it begins to show a yellow tone. It will be quite
yellow at about 2100°F (1422K), and it will show white at about 2400°F
(1589K). It will be dazzling white at about 2600°F (1700K)."
http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/blac.../different.html
===========================================
Although this indoor photo in low lighting is certainly aluminum, it is not the pour you claimed it to be, Arthur. Is is also a dull orange color - in case you hadn't noticed.
"Assuming there is little light other than that emitted by the glowing..."
 It's pitch black inside this foundry. And the dull glow is cherry!
"Assuming there is little light other than that emitted by the glowing..."
QUOTE  This last one is from an add for (") Combat® Solid Boron Nitride Grade HP is our most commonly used solid for molten light-metal applications up to 850°C.(")http://www.bn.saint-gobain.com/Data/Elemen...000000000001326 This "last one" is not a caption for the photo at all - it is a statement about a product that is a good material for sub 850C crucibles, particularly those used for aluminium. This statement is on a page showing an uncaptioned indoor pour of who-knows-what at a temperature that is certainly well above 850C!! The photo you mis-labelled is from here: http://www.eaglesign.com
- and it also doesn't claim to be aluminium.
metalico.com - Alumnium, daylight, pour.
You can't invent new properties for aluminium or its alloys.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/uploads/metalscomp.jpg
I have some alloy 7075 if anyone wants to suggest some experiments for reproducing the appearance of the molten cascade.
NEU-FONZE
29th May 2006 - 12:01 PM
AA:
Here's where NIST is wrong:
NIST use a complex finite element computer model to calculate the magnitude of downward displacements of upper sections of the Towers after aircraft impact and thereby estimate maximum displacements of only about 30 cm. On the other hand, using a simple energy analysis of the collapse, it is a simple matter to show that NIST’s small downward displacements lead to inferred collapse energies that are too low to be acceptable – we know the Twin Towers would not collapse that easily. Further, from the geometry of a “Leaning Tower” with the dimensions of WTC 1 or 2, a downward displacement of 30 cm requires a tilt angle of less than ˝ degree. Remarkably, however, NIST suggest that tilt angles before collapse initiation were more than 4° for WTC 1 & 2. Thus it is evident that the NIST Final Report first underestimates the downward displacements within the Twin Towers, only to later overestimate the initial tilt angles to justify the collapse.
NF
brian
29th May 2006 - 01:20 PM
If science is to be applied to the question of the WTC collapses is it not necessary to deal with the reality of these collapses rather than the fiction NIST worked to?
We can all SEE the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 were a world away from the scenario the NIST report addresses. We can all SEE the pulverisation and distribution of the upper portion meaning the forces being calculated in the fictional scenario COULD NOT EXIST.
NIST understanably felt able only to take the fiction so far.
No doubt it would be highly significant if physics proves that even had this fictional scenario been the actuality it is untenable. But, it is at the same time misleading and serves only the objective of those trying to hide the fact that the buildings were demolished. The Arthurs will gladly spend forever it appears debating this fiction but it would serve the cause of the truth better if the fact that it is a fiction that is being debated is made clear.
ITS A FICTION.
Back to story time.
adoucette
29th May 2006 - 01:30 PM
QUOTE (NU-FU+) On the other hand, using a simple energy analysis of the collapse, it is a simple matter to show that NIST’s small downward displacements lead to inferred collapse energies that are too low to be acceptable – we know the Twin Towers would not collapse that easily. <br>So Nu-FU WHEN can we expect YOUR paper to be published showing that NIST was WRONG? Since according to you ITS SIMPLE to show that NIST IS WRONG then what is TAKING SO LONG to get a paper showing the GLARING ERROR that NIST made published? This is IMPORANT, the ENTIRE 9/11 Truth Movement has been waiting nearly 5 years for ANY EVIDENCE and then a MESSIAH like YOU to comes along. As soon as you publish your paper (in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL) they will forget BYU-Jones and all the CT'ers will be posting praises to your name on ALL the conspiracy sites. Can't you just see it: All HAIL NU-FU, our SAVIOR.You'll FOR SURE be invited to speak at their next gathering. I bet you can't wait. But you gotta publish your paper first, so lets get to it. Arthur PS You just MIGHT want to compare your brilliant deductive powers to the collapse analysis found in NCSTAR 1-6d.
adoucette
29th May 2006 - 01:46 PM
QUOTE (Al K-SbS+) What material candidates could plausibly transform that silvery stream of molten aluminium alloy into one that takes on a bright-yellow glowing appearance similar to the molten metal we see in the video and photos?
Can you find any aluminium alloy flow that glows a bright yellow?
Can you find images of a viable non-ferrous candidate for the molten cascade? <br>I have shown any number of bright yellow pours of aluminum or alloys of other NON-FERROUS metals. The FACT is, if you DON'T KNOW what the material IS then you CAN'T tell how HOT it is or WHAT the material is JUST BY THE COLOR taken from a video camera. You are forced to make TOO MANY ASSUMPTIONS. What you CERTAINLY can't do is compare what is coming out of a BURNING building/plane crash to what comes out of a PURE METAL SMELTING OPERATION. And I notice you DIDN'T upload this PICTURE.  Why, because it is an ALUMINUM POUR and the picture was taken OUTSIDE. Gosh, and it looks about the SAME as the material coming out of the TOWERS. Arthur
metamars
29th May 2006 - 02:42 PM
QUOTE (shagster+May 28 2006, 10:44 PM) QUOTE (adoucette+May 28 2006, 10:39 PM) QUOTE (shagster+May 28 2006, 06:17 PM) Then that's one more factor that would have to be considered. Which is why NIST went to a model, because the simplistic analysis that B&Z did can only take you so far. Which in fact they pointed out. Arthur People sometimes get tunnel vision and put too much faith in a particular model. BZ was a first order type of model that looked at failure mechanisms that were optimistic for trying to stop the collapse front. It gives a sort of baseline with which to compare other failure modes. There are certain groups that seem to think that if they could just reinterpret BZ enough that it no longer predicts collapse that somehow that means the towers were brought down by explosives and we need a whole new NIST investigation. You're damn straight about that, although who in the CT camp can trust NIST to do a more serious investigation which tries to account for all the evidence, and doesn't stop at "collapse initiation"? Also, your phrase " reinterpret BZ" is curious. How about the phrase " interpret BZ correctly, and realize that their analysis is pretty useless and comes to the wrong conclusion" (as compared to a more realistic, yet still simple model), which is exactly the opposite fo the NIST'ian handwaving re "inevitable global collapse"? Which is one more reason not to trust NIST? Also, CD'ers (I believed) overwhelming believe in explosives/thermite, etc as the full story for the CD, but I've seen no serious evidence or arguments, by anybody, that conventional agents can account for the pulverisation of the non-steel contents. NIST is just one more entity turning a blind eye to this phenomena. Thus, I have many problems with the wording of your post, but you do recognize the essence of the problem.
metamars
29th May 2006 - 02:44 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 01:30 PM) QUOTE (NU-FU+) On the other hand, using a simple energy analysis of the collapse, it is a simple matter to show that NIST’s small downward displacements lead to inferred collapse energies that are too low to be acceptable – we know the Twin Towers would not collapse that easily. <br>So Nu-FU WHEN can we expect YOUR paper to be published showing that NIST was WRONG? Since according to you ITS SIMPLE to show that NIST IS WRONG then what is TAKING SO LONG to get a paper showing the GLARING ERROR that NIST made published? This is IMPORANT, the ENTIRE 9/11 Truth Movement has been waiting nearly 5 years for ANY EVIDENCE and then a MESSIAH like YOU to comes along. As soon as you publish your paper (in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL) they will forget BYU-Jones and all the CT'ers will be posting praises to your name on ALL the conspiracy sites. Can't you just see it: All HAIL NU-FU, our SAVIOR.You'll FOR SURE be invited to speak at their next gathering. I bet you can't wait. But you gotta publish your paper first, so lets get to it. Arthur PS You just MIGHT want to compare your brilliant deductive powers to the collapse analysis found in NCSTAR 1-6d. The article that one of the photos adoucette has recently posted states that liquid aluminum can dissolve iron. Could it be iron within the aluminum which is glowing orange? Is so, how much is needed to create this color?
adoucette
29th May 2006 - 04:04 PM
QUOTE (Metalazy+) although who in the CT camp can trust NIST to do a more serious investigation which tries to account for all the evidence <br>Apparently everyone who is TOO LAZY too actually READ the NIST reports. Metalazy, why don't you give JUST ONE SUB-REPORT a try. Here's a good one: NCSTAR 1-6d Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the WTC Towers to the Impact Damage and Fires Arthur
steve1957
29th May 2006 - 06:39 PM
| QUOTE | brian
No doubt it would be highly significant if physics proves that even had this fictional scenario been the actuality it is untenable. But, it is at the same time misleading and serves only the objective of those trying to hide the fact that the buildings were demolished. The Arthurs will gladly spend forever it appears debating this fiction but it would serve the cause of the truth better if the fact that it is a fiction that is being debated is made clear.
ITS A FICTION.
<br>Brian, even though there are so many people on this board like Arthur, who are too afraid to deal with the truth and must hide behind some of the most obvious fiction stories on the planet, there are a few people, that still appreciate the truth enough to be pleasantly refreshed to read posts like yours. If any thing it re-assure a few of us that there still is a small remnant of people who haven't completely SOLD THEMSELVES OUT to the fairy tale belief perpetrated by some of the most obvious deceivers on the planet.
 
What makes it difficult at times is when the entire main stream media supports the lie, so that anyone with enough guts to point out the emperor has no clothes is given a public flogging, much like Charlie Sheen and anyone else who simply points out some of these MOST OBVIOUS DECEPTIONS.
But it helps to remember that the main stream media has to answer to their sponsors, and many of their sponsors are in fact war profiteers.
But it also goes deeper than that because I'm sure that much of the media personal KNOWS FOR A FACT that the buildings were demolished with explosives, yet they probably feel that if the truth were exposed it might send a national panic, even worse than the depression.
People like Arthur, with little pee brains just wouldn't be able to handle all that that truth and so their little minds might explode making him even crazier and more withdrawn from reality than he already is. I know that seems hard to believe that Arthur could be any less attached from reality than he already is, but remember these people are like serious drug addicts, strung out on so much heroin that if you took away their little lies and fantasies they'd go through withdrawals symptoms that could be devastating.
So when you post honest, intelligent, truthful facts regarding the logic of physics, it scares the hell out of them. All that truth represents the enemy to them, as they've made lies their allies. So it's not so much you, or me or other promoters of the truth that they hate, but it's the truth itself that threatens their way of life, and because they can't kill the message, all they can do is attempt to discredit the messenger.
But in reality, they haven't succeeded at doing anything other than pat themselves on the back for telling more lies, as anyone who really does value the truth understands that these fairy tale supporters are only embarrassing themselves and getting themselves deeper and deeper into a pit of deception that they themselves have fallen into.
So keep up the good work and try not to let the fairies bring you into their fairy tale land.
NEU-FONZE
29th May 2006 - 07:07 PM
AA:
I am not so naďve as to think that publishing an article in a journal, even an ASCE journal, is going to change the world. Not when the world is full of AAs and AHs…. Whose ears have walls; whose minds are but a barren soil and souls were sold for fifty shekels.
Shakespeare said: “Truth will come to light; murder cannot be hid long.”
Unfortunately, this aphorism is no longer true in a world of sound bites and media hype controlled by the Military-Industrial complex. In such an environment, publishing a counter view is like rattling a stick inside a swill bucket.
Yes, Arthur, we are all in the gutter, BUT SOME OF US ARE LOOKING AT THE STARS.
You like to quote NIST, Chapter and Verse?
I prefer Milton:
“Long is the way
And hard,
That out of hell
Leads up to light”
Paradise Lost, Book 2, line 43
NF
steve1957
29th May 2006 - 08:05 PM
| QUOTE | Arthur
Apparently everyone who is TOO LAZY too actually READ the NIST reports.
<br>Speaking of lazy, try not to be too hypocritical, and read this report. Remember he's one of the most creadible Phd's in physics in the country.
Click here to read a report by a physicist, regarding what really happened on 9/11
metamars
29th May 2006 - 08:24 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 04:04 PM) QUOTE (Metalazy+) although who in the CT camp can trust NIST to do a more serious investigation which tries to account for all the evidence <br>Apparently everyone who is TOO LAZY too actually READ the NIST reports. Metalazy, why don't you give JUST ONE SUB-REPORT a try. Here's a good one: NCSTAR 1-6d Global Structural Analysis of the Response of the WTC Towers to the Impact Damage and Fires Arthur You know perfectly well that NIST ignored evidence, which, not coincidentally, is not consistent with their gravity + impact + fire Fairy Tale.* These were not minor details.... Once again, we see the selective memory of a pope at work, which conveniently forgets counterarguments long since posted, as well as failing to proactively note even the most obvious counterarguments. Your "inability" to learn is directly related to curious habits of mind such as these. To refresh your memory: I believe both the weak and strong form of the NIST'ian claims should be attacked. Oh, and by the way, it'd be just swell if NIST actually defended and debated ANY form of their claims, but they have other priorities.If I were the one to attack the weak form (ignoring the "anomalies") , then I'd have to read the NIST report. Is NIST also lazy for ignoring obvious evidence, which they in no way account for, or is there another reason for their questionable behavior? You'll perhaps recall that I refused to wade through Schneibster's computer program, since he did not address energy sinks associated with squashing/breaking the steel structure. You can call that laziness, too, but I call it not wasting my time. That being said, some day I hope to have time to at least read the summary report. I tend to think I'd find it interesting. * The lateral ejection of dust clouds in the collapse zone may well be an exception, though the huge volume of powder (pick any reasonable median size) is not. I also no longer believe that Hoffman's pyroclastic cloud argument is worthwhile, at least in terms of an unexplainable energy deficit, so I no longer claim they can be faulted for that.
adoucette
29th May 2006 - 08:29 PM
QUOTE (NU-FU+) I am not so naďve as to think that publishing an article in a journal, even an ASCE journal, is going to change the world. <br>Gotta start somewhere. If you think publishing a counter view is like rattling a stick inside a swill bucket. then do you think you are making a difference by ranting in an obscure internet Forum claiming again and again that NIST is wrong and that you can prove it? I guess so, because instead of ACTUALLY doing anything you prefer to quote Milton. Suit yourself. Arthur
brian
29th May 2006 - 08:38 PM
Contact: Ed Haas - office (843) 278-5021 mobile (843) 327-7598 efhaas@comcast.net http://www.teamliberty.net May 29, 2006 An Open Letter to the 9/11 Commission Dear 9/11 Commissioners, Abraham Lincoln once said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand." The United States is now divided on what it believes about September 11, 2001. A CNN poll conducted on March 25, 2006 revealed that 84% of the 52 thousand people polled now believe that the U.S. government has not thoroughly answered 9/11 questions. 84 percent! Between May 12, 2006 and May 16, 2006, Zogby International conducted a nationwide poll pertaining to the government’s account of 9/11. Here are the results: Bush exploited Sept. 11th attacks 44% US government and 9/11 Commission are covering up 42% 9/11 should be reinvestigated 45% I believe this government, our country, cannot endure permanently with tens of millions believing that the government is involved in a cover-up regarding September 11th 2001. The United States of America is divided. The division is so great that resolution must now be found. In my opinion, re-opening 9/11 is a matter of national defense. “Debate” is the answer. The National 9/11 Debate will be an outward sign of an inward desire to resolve the unanswered and persistent questions that remain about what really happened in the United States on September 11, 2001. So what should patriotic Americans do with our grievances? We have called for a debate. Not just a few Americans want this debate – Tens of millions of Americans are demanding answers to be derived from a public – people’s forum. It is the enormity of those that oppose the government’s account of 9/11 that has prompted me to draw the line in the sand, to pick a date, time, and location to have a public debate on 9/11. I then sought out the most reputable and credentialed experts from the 9/11 Truth Movement to debate members of the 9/11 Commission and the NIST scientists. The seven-member debate team that will dispute the government account of 9/11 is as follows: Philip J. Berg, Esquire is a Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, and the attorney for plaintiffs in 9-11 RICO Suit vs. Bush. His web site, 911forthetruth.com covers the RICO lawsuit against Bush, Cheney, and 53 other defendants in Federal Court. James H. Fetzer a Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, the author or editor of 27 books, and founder and co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. David Ray Griffin is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy and Theology at the Claremont Graduate School, where he taught for over 30 years, retiring in 2004. He has authored or edited over thirty books, including "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and “Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11”. Steven E. Jones is the co-chairman of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, a Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University, an expert in cold fusion and solar energy who earned his Ph.D. at Vanderbilt, and who has authored an influential study of the collapse of the Twin Towers (WTC-1, WTC-2). George Nelson, Colonel, USAF (retired) is a trained aircraft accident investigator who served as an Aircraft Maintenance Manager for more than 30 years and who was assigned additional duties as a member of aircraft accident investigation teams for the United States Air Force. Morgan Reynolds is a Professor Emeritus of Economics at Texas A&M. He is the former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush. He is also the former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis. In June 2005, Lew Rockwell published Reynolds’ article: Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? Judy D. Wood is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Clemson University with degrees in Civil Engineering, Engineering Mechanics, and Materials Engineering Science. Professor Wood teaches courses in the areas of engineering mechanics and experimental stress analysis. If your initial reaction regarding The National 9/11 Debate was negative - to not participate, I ask you to please reconsider for the sake of the nation. I recognize that such a debate could put the government in a vulnerable position, but based on the polls, to ignore the fact that nearly half your countrymen are not satisfied with what the government has reported on 9/11 will only deepen the division that is destroying the United States of America. It is my belief that the lack of support for the War in Iraq is rooted in the fact that nearly half the nation doesn’t believe the 9/11 Commission Report. After all, if you believe that the World Trade Center Building Seven collapsed as the result of controlled demolition – which it did, then it is easier to believe that the twin towers were also brought down with the aid of pre-planted explosives. With such a belief intact, how can an American support the so-called global war on terrorism and the war in Iraq? The problem can no longer be ignored. Please take a lead role in assembling a seven-member government debate team that will debate the aforementioned seven-member civilian debate team in Charleston, SC on September 16, 2006. This event will confirm truths, uncover truths, and beg for truths, and while it will not possibly be able to satisfy all people, it will go a long way to heal some open wounds of a troubled nation. The National 9/11 Debate will receive national media attention. Don’t let there be seven empty seats with the names of the 9/11 Commissioners and NIST scientists pasted on them for the world to see. Let’s do this debate. Let’s get it done. Yours in Liberty, E.F. Haas ACTION ALERT: Please write your own letters to the 9/11 Commissioners and encourage their participation in The National 9/11 Debate. Thomas Kean – Chairman The National Campaign To Prevent Teen Pregnancy 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Suite 200 Washington, DC 20036 Lee H. Hamilton Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center One Woodrow Wilson Plaza 1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004-3027 Slade Gorton Preston Gates & Ellis LLP 1735 New York Ave. NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006-5221 Bob Kerrey The New School in NYC 66 W. 12th St. Rm. 800 NY, NY 10011 James R. Thompson Winston & Strawn LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601–9703 Jamie Gorelick WilmerHale 1875 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Richard Ben-Veniste Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw 1909 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 Timothy J. Roemer Center for National Policy One Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 333 Washington, DC 20001 Fred F. Fielding Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 John F. Lehman J.F. Lehman & Co. 2001 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 607 Arlington, VA 22202
yesitdid
29th May 2006 - 10:36 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 08:29 PM) QUOTE (NU-FU+) I am not so naďve as to think that publishing an article in a journal, even an ASCE journal, is going to change the world. <br>Gotta start somewhere. Or maybe you think you are making a difference by ranting in an obscure internet Forum claiming again and again that NIST is wrong and that you can prove it. But instead of ACTUALLY doing anything you prefer to quote Milton. Suit yourself. Arthur Indeed, and steve1957 suggests Jones' paper as a start. However Jones has not been able to get his paper to pass any (relevant) peer review and get published. We get told again and again how easy it is to see that NIST and B-Z are wrong, wrong, wrong and yet, yet, yet no one at all has ever published a paper managing to show significant and glaring errors in either paper let alone publish a paper outlining a plausible, controlled demolition sequence for either the WTC towers or WTC 7. Can it be that every US domestic and all foreign engineering and hard sciences publications have an editorial staff that is under the thumb of TPTB/Illuminati/Zionist world shadow gov't? Are all those in charge of these publications then either in-on-it or being threatened/manipulated such that it would be obvious to them that suppression of the truth of controlled demolition of the WTC structures is happening? I think not. No, the reason that no one can get published is because the buildings were not felled by preplanted demolition charges and B-Z is accurate as far as the authors themselves go to great pains to describe, and NIST is also accurate as can be expected given the variables involved. NIST does a good job at describing the situation in the towers and their analysis matches closely, what is seen in the pictures and videos. As for the glowing and falling material in ONE corner of ONE tower, just what can be said about this? Not much really. Is it molten aluminum? Maybe, it certainly would not be pure given that there is a raging office fire within meters of it. However, whatever it is there is no evidence to suggest that it actually is thermite as some would have us believe. Whatever it is, why is it only visible on ONE column of ONE tower? Having this hot material fall from ONE column of ONE tower hardly suggests widespread distribution of whatever it is that is causing this.
yesitdid
29th May 2006 - 10:42 PM
| QUOTE | I believe this government, our country, cannot endure permanently with tens of millions believing that the government is involved in a cover-up regarding September 11th 2001.
<br>So about 10% of the population of the USA believes in a cover up then?
Not that the stat given can even be backed up with any accuracy at all.
This whole 'debate' is a grandstanding, public relations, rally the believers bit of propaganda.
adoucette
29th May 2006 - 11:38 PM
QUOTE (yesitdid+May 29 2006, 06:42 PM) | QUOTE | I believe this government, our country, cannot endure permanently with tens of millions believing that the government is involved in a cover-up regarding September 11th 2001.
<br>So about 10% of the population of the USA believes in a cover up then?
Not that the stat given can even be backed up with any accuracy at all.
This whole 'debate' is a grandstanding, public relations, rally the believers bit of propaganda. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I believe this government, our country, cannot endure permanently with tens of millions believing that the government is involved in a cover-up regarding September 11th 2001.
<br>So about 10% of the population of the USA believes in a cover up then?
Not that the stat given can even be backed up with any accuracy at all.
This whole 'debate' is a grandstanding, public relations, rally the believers bit of propaganda. It is my belief that the lack of support for the War in Iraq is rooted in the fact that nearly half the nation doesn’t believe the 9/11 Commission Report.
<br>Of course there is no evidence to support this contention.
This guy will make ANYTHING up, including The National 9/11 Debate will receive national media attention.
Not likely.
But Jay Leno might mention it in his monolog.
Arthur
David B. Benson
29th May 2006 - 11:48 PM
Nobody seems to have followed up on my long post of yesterday, so I will. The more I look a visuals claiming to be 'molten metal' puring out of 80th floor south tower windows, the less I believe it is anything more than burning ordinary office materials (mostly). So I have several questions. How far away were the video camera(s)? What is the visual acuity of the videos? That is, what is the minimum size object that can be resolved? (I make an estimate of about 10 cm. If so, it is impossible to tell a liquid from a mass of small, hot coals coming from the fire above.) Is this video the only evidence for 'molten metal'? Are there witness accounts stating 'molten metal'? If so, how far away were they and what is their visual acuity? Finally, note I am not stating that no molten metal at all fell out the window. Rather, I am stating that the majority of the substances were hot coals from the combustion of ordinary office materials. So here, Arthur, I depart from the NIST script, since it appears they uncritically claim that these substances were 'molten metal'. On another topic, Neu-Fonze, in your analysis of the heat in the rubble piles, did you include the heat worth 693 tonnes of molten steel? I somehow missed it. In any case, it seems that a substantial portion of the actual heat has yet to be properly accounted for... 
NEU-FONZE
30th May 2006 - 12:06 AM
AA:
"Or maybe you think you are making a difference by ranting in an obscure internet Forum claiming again and again that NIST is wrong and that you can prove it."
I am sorry you think I have been ranting. In future I will try not to rant.
Funny, though, I thought it was you who was doing the ranting a while back....
As for Milton, he's good but so is Dante. Both of these guys are decidedly more interesting than some sections of the NIST report. Now there's a rant for you. A 10,000 page rant no less. Actually the fire engineering stuff in the NIST Report is very well done, as is the "metallurgical properties of steel" section. But when it comes to the collapse "modelling", its back to Milton and Dante for me! You know I worked for a nuclear engineering company that had a big group modelling pressure tube behavior. They used finite element programs. Some of the time these programs gave good predictions, but more often than not THEY WERE WAY OFF. Certainly none of these programs successfully predicted a pressure tube failure.........
"Consider your origins: you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge."
Inferno, canto 26, line 118
NF
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 12:33 AM
| QUOTE | You know I worked for a nuclear engineering company that had a big group modelling pressure tube behavior. They used finite element programs. Some of the time these programs gave good predictions, but more often than not THEY WERE WAY OFF
<br>Why don't I believe you?
Because If THAT WERE TRUE, why would they use a TOOL that MORE OFTEN THAN NOT doesn't work?
Somehow I don't believe that THIS is how it went at the Nuke plant:
"Oh the FEA tool we use gives the WRONG answer most of the time, but that's ok because knowing its WRONG more than its RIGHT, we JUST REVERSE THE SIGN OF THE RESULTS and use that. That way we are RIGHT MORE OFTEN THAN NOT"
But comparing an FEA program used back then to the one that NIST used means nothing, different programs, differerent results. What YOU CAN'T fault is the EXTENSIVE nature of the input that NIST used to model the plane, the towers and the fires, that and the fact that they had the ADVANTAGE of hundreds of VIDEOS and thousands of STILL pictures of the collapse of the towers, as additional input to constrain the model's behavior.
Arthur
NEU-FONZE
30th May 2006 - 12:39 AM
DBB:
I previously posted this about steel:
Specific heat of structural steel = 0.449 kJ/kg
Melting Point of structural steel = 1538 degrees C
Heat of fusion of structural steel = 247 kJ/kg
Energy to heat one tonne of steel from 25 to 1538 C = 1000 x 1513 x 0.449 kJ = 679 MJ
Energy to melt 1 tonne of steel at 1538 C = 247 MJ
Total energy required to melt 1 tonne of steel = 926 MJ
Total potential energy released by the collapse of one WTC Tower = 1000 GJ
Energy consumed in collapsing one floor (from Greening) = 2 GJ
Energy consumed in collapsing 110 floors = 110 x 2 GJ = 220 GJ
Energy consumed crushing concrete on one floor (from Greening) = v x 0.025 GJ, where v is the impact velocity of a block of floors on the floor below.
Collapse calculations show that v averages 50 m/s.
Hence average energy to crush concrete = 1.25 GJ per floor
Energy consumed crushing concrete on 110 floors = 138 GJ
Hence, energy consumed in WTC collapse = (220 + 138) GJ = 358 GJ
Energy remaining to heat basement core columns = (1000 – 358) GJ = 642 GJ
This heat was released in about 12 seconds! Hence heating rate = 54 gigawatts!!!
Mass of structural steel that could be melted, M, is given by: 926 M = 642,000
Hence M = 693 tonnes!!!!
For the cellulose-based combustibles in the rubble pile (RP) we have:
Total mass of combustibles = 5,000,000 kg (= 5000 tonnes!)
Let's assume that only 10 % actually burned.
Delta H of combustion = 10 MJ/kg
Total heat energy available from combustion in RP = 5000 GJ
NF
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 12:43 AM
| QUOTE | So here, Arthur, I depart from the NIST script, since it appears they uncritically claim that these substances were 'molten metal'.
<br>Fine, I don't think NIST thought it was a big deal one way or the other.
As I've been pointing out, this is dealing with MINUTIA.
NIST said it was PROBABLY molten Aluminum from the plane.
Makes sense.
A lot of the plane was in that section, the fires were hot, aluminum melts at the temps the towers were at, a sagging floor would have held the molten aluminum and also OTHER MATERIALS and metals forming a MIXTURE and the sagging floors would also provide a crucible like insulation layer, and yet the temp of the mix would not necessarily lead to explosive spalling of the concrete (as Steel/Thermite would most assuredly would do)
Further, NISTs description of the sagging floor and how that resulted in the release of the flowing material MAKES SENSE if the material is a LIQUID, not so well if its just burning debris.
But again, there wasn't sufficient material for it to be pertinent to the collapse of the Tower.
So while INTERESTING, its not particularly important.
Arthur
NEU-FONZE
30th May 2006 - 12:50 AM
AA:
I am talking about CANDU reactors. Why would they use programs that don't work? Because that's the best they have to go on. Hydride blister formation of zirconium alloys is very hard to model. I have seen the same problem with engineering predictions of carbon steel feeder pipe corrosion under high coolant flow rates.
AA get out of that engineering bubble for a moment and face reality. Engineering failure analysis is a crap shoot. But the regulatory agencies allow for a wide margin of error - Astaire's SAFETY FACTOR! So most of the time its "good enough."
NF
David B. Benson
30th May 2006 - 01:00 AM
Neu-Fonze: So at least about 6000 GJ available. Then you calculated how long this would take to cool, and I think it came up rather much too short. So what about turning that calculation around? That is, given how hot the rubble piles stayed for how ever long, determining what proportion of the combustibles potentially available were consumed? (I would think this proportion ought to be rather large, myself...)
Arthur, I agree that it OUGHT to be a side show. Unfortunately, for some it is not. I have difficulty seeing how in the chaos of a uncontrolled fire actually melting that high a proportion of the aluminum. Some burns, some is elsewhere, etc. So I am proposing that the hot material was mostly hot coals, on a surface far from flat. That might be enough to mobilize the coals as the fire progresses, changing the sizes, shapes, and configuration of the coals. In addition, some molten metal might form behind a temporary, mobile dam of hot coals. This would be roughly like the front of a flash flood, where the water is behind a moving wall of wood, dirt and rocks.
Anyway, it is an alternate to assuming a rather large quantity of molten metal, and just ignoring the hot coals.
tikay
30th May 2006 - 01:10 AM
QUOTE (steve1957+May 29 2006, 01:05 PM) | QUOTE | Arthur
Apparently everyone who is TOO LAZY too actually READ the NIST reports.
<br>Speaking of lazy, try not to be too hypocritical, and read this report. Remember he's one of the most creadible Phd's in physics in the country.
Click here to read a report by a physicist, regarding what really happened on 9/11
Reading the report from you link and others I read today were very revelatory.
Sorry to say I have succumbed to the truth of the statements made by some of these experts~ and non-experts alike...those who swear they heard/ felt something from the basement areas....and near to the ground floors just before the plane hit the tower. I have officially decided with the information provided in the link you provided...and a couple of others that I no longer can honestly believe that those planes felled those two buildings. Since I have no authority this will not sway anyone i am sure but I must admit that now I am changed in my thinking ...for the record.
What a strange Memorial Day it is indeed.
I wish you all the best.
I wont be coming to this debate nearly as much, now i think, since my mind is made up and I have no reason to decide anymore.
I have many other fish to fry...it has been eye opening!
I will see you dear Arthur in other places. i adore you still... and Common Sense I am sure to see you too.
Goodbye to any who I wont see anymore. I hope to have never offended you terribly. Please. Let this change of heart be the apology itself.
I have diminished need to explore this facet of the forum now so...
Adieu, adios, au revoir, aureva derchi, ciao, et all... my fellows
Keep Up Your Lovely Truth Search All of YOU
~AND the rest who go elsewhere, I will see you in other areas.
Tracey/Tikay 
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 01:33 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 29 2006, 08:50 PM) AA:
I am talking about CANDU reactors. Why would they use programs that don't work? Because that's the best they have to go on. Hydride blister formation of zirconium alloys is very hard to model. I have seen the same problem with engineering predictions of carbon steel feeder pipe corrosion under high coolant flow rates.
AA get out of that engineering bubble for a moment and face reality. Engineering failure analysis is a crap shoot. But the regulatory agencies allow for a wide margin of error - Astaire's SAFETY FACTOR! So most of the time its "good enough."
NF Sorry, your WORD isn't good enough. Particularly given your, shall we say, tendency towards hyperbole. NO ONE USES A SOFTWARE TOOL THAT IS WRONG MORE OFTEN THAN IT IS RIGHT. You can SAY it all you want. Futher, relating this to Astaire's Saftey factor is ABSURD since the way B&Z structured their equations (Using the ACTUAL strenght of the steel) the saftey factor was INCORPORATED in. And I would compare you to Astaire, but at least he has the gonads to put his ideas down IN WRITING, unlike you, who can just TALK the TALK but obviously not WALK the WALK. Arthur
newton
30th May 2006 - 01:53 AM
QUOTE (adoucette+May 30 2006, 01:33 AM) QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 29 2006, 08:50 PM) AA:
I am talking about CANDU reactors. Why would they use programs that don't work? Because that's the best they have to go on. Hydride blister formation of zirconium alloys is very hard to model. I have seen the same problem with engineering predictions of carbon steel feeder pipe corrosion under high coolant flow rates.
AA get out of that engineering bubble for a moment and face reality. Engineering failure analysis is a crap shoot. But the regulatory agencies allow for a wide margin of error - Astaire's SAFETY FACTOR! So most of the time its "good enough."
NF Sorry, your WORD isn't good enough. Particularly given your, shall we say, tendency towards hyperbole. NO ONE USES A SOFTWARE TOOL THAT IS WRONG MORE OFTEN THAN IT IS RIGHT. You can SAY it all you want. Futher, relating this to Astaire's Saftey factor is ABSURD since the way B&Z structured their equations (Using the ACTUAL strenght of the steel) the saftey factor was INCORPORATED in. And I would compare you to Astaire, but at least he has the gonads to put his ideas down IN WRITING, unlike you, who can just TALK the TALK but obviously not WALK the WALK. Arthur oh, arthurs. you are still here? never tire of fighting truthseekers (clowns), eh? it's the ultimate fighting challenge of forums, with gladiarthur 'thrashing' all comers. too bad noone told gladiarthur that his sword is actually a rotten tuna fish, and the only 'stink of death' is that which has rubbed off of his 'weapon' onto his 'victims". p.s. the above is arlegory. not for the weak of mind. arni, ardi, arci
newton
30th May 2006 - 02:09 AM
god's yardsticki couldn't let page 864 pass without bringing a little ILLUMINATI style thinking. 864000 miles is the diameter of the sun. 2160 miles is the moon's. oh, look! a harmonic! an EXACT harmonic. much the same as the mystery of the moon and sun APPEARING to be the EXACT SAME SIZE from our perspective on earth, it's 'just a coincidence'. why don't they teach this in school, i wonder?
Foxx
30th May 2006 - 03:30 AM
| QUOTE | by YID
As for the glowing and falling material in ONE corner of ONE tower, just what can be said about this? Not much really. Is it molten aluminum? Maybe, it certainly would not be pure given that there is a raging office fire within meters of it. However, whatever it is there is no evidence to suggest that it actually is thermite as some would have us believe. Whatever it is, why is it only visible on ONE column of ONE tower? Having this hot material fall from ONE column of ONE tower hardly suggests widespread distribution of whatever it is that is causing this.
<br>Why do you claim this material fell from only one location, YiD???
You know this is not true... (that is if you have actually studied ALL of my postings on this issue).
The molten stream at the northwest corner of the south tower is the best known because it is the most documented, however I have on numerous occasions posted the following link to sections of the NIST report which speak of molten flows issuing from many points in the south tower...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/moltnist.html
All you Oct's also fail to associate these flows with the immediately preceeding circumstances of sudden eruptions of curious WHITE smoke 'puffs'... such as this...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/002thermNF942.jpg
NIST Claims...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | by YID
As for the glowing and falling material in ONE corner of ONE tower, just what can be said about this? Not much really. Is it molten aluminum? Maybe, it certainly would not be pure given that there is a raging office fire within meters of it. However, whatever it is there is no evidence to suggest that it actually is thermite as some would have us believe. Whatever it is, why is it only visible on ONE column of ONE tower? Having this hot material fall from ONE column of ONE tower hardly suggests widespread distribution of whatever it is that is causing this.
<br>Why do you claim this material fell from only one location, YiD???
You know this is not true... (that is if you have actually studied ALL of my postings on this issue).
The molten stream at the northwest corner of the south tower is the best known because it is the most documented, however I have on numerous occasions posted the following link to sections of the NIST report which speak of molten flows issuing from many points in the south tower...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/moltnist.html
All you Oct's also fail to associate these flows with the immediately preceeding circumstances of sudden eruptions of curious WHITE smoke 'puffs'... such as this...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/002thermNF942.jpg
NIST Claims...
"Just before 9:52 a.m., puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a BRIGHT SPOT appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location."
<br>So far in this thread the 'pat' answer thrown out by the OCTs to explain the 'puffs-of-dust', and molten streams is that the floors suddenly collapsed in those areas and allowed accumulated molten pools of aluminum to suddenly pour out from these locations.
This is a somewhat 'possible' postulation... {sophistry}... IF one fails to take into account ALL the circumstances which led to these molten streams.
Suddenly shifting 'floors' might account for 'puffs of dust and/or debris'... but suddenly shifting floors DO NOT emit WHITE puffs of smoke... which even NIST admits are an indication of 'metal fires'... (Thermite/Thermate/Nano-thermite... IS a 'metal-fire')
Fig 44 ---
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/040thermZM.jpg
| QUOTE |
"In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.
The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning. ...
<br>Source: {Page 344} NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
As I have stated above IF you had studied diligently all of the relevant links I have posted in regards to these anomalous metal fires and "puffs-of-dust" ...
(that you OCTs allege ONLY occured AFTER the initiation of collapse - and are 'explained' by you as air expulsions caused by the "Piston Theory"), you would not make statements as to their being ONLY ONE of these molten flows from the ONE renowned location of the northeast corner.
As NIST states in the above linked documents...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
"In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.
The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, suggests that some type of metal is burning. ...
<br>Source: {Page 344} NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
As I have stated above IF you had studied diligently all of the relevant links I have posted in regards to these anomalous metal fires and "puffs-of-dust" ...
(that you OCTs allege ONLY occured AFTER the initiation of collapse - and are 'explained' by you as air expulsions caused by the "Piston Theory"), you would not make statements as to their being ONLY ONE of these molten flows from the ONE renowned location of the northeast corner.
As NIST states in the above linked documents...
"MANY such liquid flows were observed from near this location PRIOR to the collapse of the tower. SEVERAL were accompanied by PUFFS of DUST and smoke that were now occuring frequently...
Smoke puffs, SIMILAR TO THOSE SEEN EARLIER occured MULTIPLE times during the period.
<br>Similar to those seen earlier ?... do they mean the WHITE puffs of smoke?
Yes they do.
| QUOTE |
"Additional UNUSUAL BEHAVIOURS observed for WTC 2 included the correlated 'smoke puffs' observed over large areas of the facade and the roughly one-minute periods during which the smoke flows increased dramatically, OFTEN accompanied by external flames. These event were usually most evident on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face, but could often be detected on other floors and faces as well. At least 65 occurences of 'smoke puffs' were documented along with 7 times when the one-minute long smoke releases took place.
<br>Smoke Puffs acting in a 'correlated' fashion?
Geee... I sure would like to see that video myself --- very much sounds to me like they mean 'sequential' releases.
The word 'correlated' (to me) seems to indicate an association between these 'smoke puffs'.
Another interesting quote related to these smoke and/or dust 'puffs' (that the OCTs vehemenantly argue were due to the Piston Theory DURING collapse), shows that these 'Puffs of dust and/or debris' were occuring EVEN PRIOR to the initiation of collapse...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
"Additional UNUSUAL BEHAVIOURS observed for WTC 2 included the correlated 'smoke puffs' observed over large areas of the facade and the roughly one-minute periods during which the smoke flows increased dramatically, OFTEN accompanied by external flames. These event were usually most evident on the 79th and 80th floors of the east face, but could often be detected on other floors and faces as well. At least 65 occurences of 'smoke puffs' were documented along with 7 times when the one-minute long smoke releases took place.
<br>Smoke Puffs acting in a 'correlated' fashion?
Geee... I sure would like to see that video myself --- very much sounds to me like they mean 'sequential' releases.
The word 'correlated' (to me) seems to indicate an association between these 'smoke puffs'.
Another interesting quote related to these smoke and/or dust 'puffs' (that the OCTs vehemenantly argue were due to the Piston Theory DURING collapse), shows that these 'Puffs of dust and/or debris' were occuring EVEN PRIOR to the initiation of collapse...
"The video shot from the WTC plaza captured an intriguing event at 9:37:04 a.m. A jet of air, dust, and a LARGE piece of debris was ejected from a window, 77-355, on the 77th floor at an EXTREMELY HIGH VELOCITY.
<br>Well, golly gee, Elmer... that doesn't sound like the description of an explosion at all does it? Maybe it was a 'transformer' exploding, eh?... CSPAM ??? Still waiting for you to provide evidence of WHERE in the towers the 'transformers' were located. Were any located in the vicinity of the 77th floor near window 355 ???
Note that this is at least 2 floors BELOW the fire-impact damage area, and that even NIST does not include the 77th floor as an active fire area... Sooooo...
one MUST honestly ask oneself ..."what is the origination or source of this apparently well documented occurence of an explosion from below the fire zone shortly before collapse?
NIST refers to this 'video' from the plaza, as if everyone knows about it... but I have never seen it.
Anyone else have info on this video ???
Of course NIST throws out highly unsubstantiated postulations as to what could cause all of the above, and the OCTs will seize readily on these possible dismissals of the evidence documented in...
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
...but they offer NO evidence to support such postulations, and completely ignore how closely these descriptions of 'correlated puffs' and metal fires and explosions relate to the descriptions of controlled demolition.
Don't listen to me ... OR the OCT half-witted rebuttals to this post. Read the links above objectively, and come to your own conclusions. Don't ignore the documented explosion on the 77th floor. Don't ignore the 'Puffs of White Smoke' associated with the metal flows. And Don't believe YID that there was ONLY ONE documented molten metal flow from the towers.
I don't have time to get into nit-picking sophistry with AA or YID or the rest of the OCTs on this issue --- my current 'real-life' work-load is busier than it has been in the past 5 years ---, but the evidence I have pointed out above in this one NIST document is only the tip of the iceberg of what is contained in that report.
I think any who take the time to go through this particular NIST document (and are objective and not swayed by 'authority worship') will find ample evidence that these towers did not 'Just Fall Down by Themselves'.
BTW - great work Astaire on your examinations of the BZ folly. (I say this with NO predjudice towards Bazant - I have followed his writings related to Composites Technology and consider him a wizard in some engineering theories - I just think he got caught up in the heat of the moment (a couple of days after the event - when we were ALL still in shock). Personally, I WONDER whether he IS STILL adamant about the theory he and Zhou came up with, and whether in actual fact he still supports it today. After all - it was just a knee-jerk (work backwards theory) to try to explain what was initially seen. There has been much water under the bridge since then. Any OCTs care to write him and get him to confirm that he currently believes his own knee-jerk speculations ???
steve1957
30th May 2006 - 03:51 AM
It's not that Steven Jones report is necessarily all that brilliant, as any honest person will agree that all he did was demonstrate simple, obvious mathematics, but the thing that is awesome is his willingness to speak some truth in the midst of all this Nazi propoganda, which does take a little guts. It's similar to pointing out some of Hitlers flaws, while living in Nazi Germany, you can call it guts, while others call it insane, but I choose to call it what it is truth. It's like going to the store, buying $25. worth of merchandise and handing the guy a $50.  But he only gives you $5. in change  The 9/11 fairy tale promoters are trying to cheat everyone out of their common sense, and all too many people are falling for it. And so back to the analogy. You tell the guy he owes you $25. in change, because you gave him a $50. and the cost of the merchandise was $25., hence $50. - $25. = $25. Pretty simple huh? But the guy argues and argues that he only owes you $5. in change. He even agrees that you bought $25. in merchandise but that acording to the $bill you gave him he only owes you $5. Like the 9/11 fantasy you know that's not only untrue, but rediculous, because in order for him to only owe you $5. from a $25. purchase that would mean you would have had to give him a $30. bill, which is impossible because $30 bills don't exist, at least not in American currency. But everybody agrees with the guy in that he only owes you $5., and so when you bring up the fact that $30 bills don't exist they fight with you tooth and nail and call you a conspiracy nut for doubting the majority of the people. The 9/11 fairy tales are so rediculous that the issue is not about being a brilliant physicist to figure it out, but rather just being honest.
yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 03:54 AM
QUOTE (newton+May 30 2006, 02:09 AM) god's yardsticki couldn't let page 864 pass without bringing a little ILLUMINATI style thinking. 864000 miles is the diameter of the sun. 2160 miles is the sun. oh, look! a harmonic! an EXACT harmonic. much the same as the mystery of the moon and sun APPEARING to be the EXACT SAME SIZE from our perspective on earth, it's 'just a coincidence'. why don't they teach this in school, i wonder? At least regurgitate the crap correctly newton 2160 is the diameter of the MOON. ,,,, and this IS why the Moon and the Sun take up the same size arc of the sky(+ or -) Why = or - you may ask? Because the distance from Earth to the Sun is NOT CONSTANT. In fact we in the northern hemisphere are actually closer to the Sun in winter and farther away in summer. This is the result of our orbit being somewhat elliptical. Since the distance from Earth to Sun changes so does the apparent size. Your author is a sloppy writer and displays an ignorance that is astounding. | QUOTE | In a previous essay (Earth/matriX No. 36), we have already shown how the maya long count numbers coincide exactly with the distances in miles reflected in the numbers of the solar system in some respects. We shall explore in greater detail now further relationships along this same line of analysis. The logic of the numbers of the ancient reckoning system would appear to reflect relationships that achieve comparisons for distances and velocities of the Sun and the Earth, along with other bodies within the solar system. In fact, the numbers would appear to reflect some of the essential aspects and measurements of the Universe; especially, the numbers that correspond to the measurement in light-years (186,000 miles per second
<br>First off there is no reason in assuming that the ancient Maya would have a distance measurement , the mile, which was invented by the Romans. The two societies never mixed. A mile was 1000 paces(double stride). For the Mayan "mile" to exactly match the Roman 'mile' the two races would have to be the same height. They weren't. This would also require that the number 1000 be significant in both cultures. Perhaps it was and both used 1000 double stride paces as a long distance measurement. So what? The two measurements, although close would not be exactly the same. The author makes a typical mistake of a non-mathematician in assuming that rounded off numbers are sacrosanct. They are not.
The next bolded part of the quote is simply wrong. A light year is not 186,000 miles per second. Light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, a light year is the DISTANCE light travels in one year. Then again he is using a rounded off number at 186000 mps anyway since the speed of light is closer to 186 282.397 mps . BTW a light-year is 5,874,601,673,407.301 miles and although this is a commonly seen measurement in popular press another in more in use in astronomical circles. That is the parsec which is 19,173,514,177,205.12 miles which is 3.2637982 times the distance of one light-year.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | In a previous essay (Earth/matriX No. 36), we have already shown how the maya long count numbers coincide exactly with the distances in miles reflected in the numbers of the solar system in some respects. We shall explore in greater detail now further relationships along this same line of analysis. The logic of the numbers of the ancient reckoning system would appear to reflect relationships that achieve comparisons for distances and velocities of the Sun and the Earth, along with other bodies within the solar system. In fact, the numbers would appear to reflect some of the essential aspects and measurements of the Universe; especially, the numbers that correspond to the measurement in light-years (186,000 miles per second
<br>First off there is no reason in assuming that the ancient Maya would have a distance measurement , the mile, which was invented by the Romans. The two societies never mixed. A mile was 1000 paces(double stride). For the Mayan "mile" to exactly match the Roman 'mile' the two races would have to be the same height. They weren't. This would also require that the number 1000 be significant in both cultures. Perhaps it was and both used 1000 double stride paces as a long distance measurement. So what? The two measurements, although close would not be exactly the same. The author makes a typical mistake of a non-mathematician in assuming that rounded off numbers are sacrosanct. They are not.
The next bolded part of the quote is simply wrong. A light year is not 186,000 miles per second. Light travels at a speed of 186,000 miles per second, a light year is the DISTANCE light travels in one year. Then again he is using a rounded off number at 186000 mps anyway since the speed of light is closer to 186 282.397 mps . BTW a light-year is 5,874,601,673,407.301 miles and although this is a commonly seen measurement in popular press another in more in use in astronomical circles. That is the parsec which is 19,173,514,177,205.12 miles which is 3.2637982 times the distance of one light-year.
The Earth travels 1,608,000 miles in one day (24 hours). The Sun travels during that same time frame 11,520,000 miles. And, at a much greater velocity, light travels at 186,000 miles per second, covering 16,070,400,000 miles in a single day. These are some of the numbers of the Universe; fixed rates of speed of the solar system and one of its planetary bodies (Earth), along with the velocity of light itself. In a sense one may consider these numbers or rates of speed to represent constants as well, since they would appear to be invariant over long stretches of time. Under specific conditions, such may not be the case, but a discussion of the variable rate of speed of the Sun, the Earth or, especially that of light, would not be relevant to our subject at this point. At a later date it may be required to enter into just such an analysis however in order to better comprehend the measurement of spacetime.
<br>gobbledygook, Something either is or isn't a constant. In fact he admits that the velocity of the Earth and the Sun are NOT constant.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, annnywaaay , none of this is in any way, whatsoever, in any form or manner relevant to the discussion.
Go fold some money.
yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 04:30 AM
| QUOTE | NIST Claims...
QUOTE
"Just before 9:52 a.m., puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a BRIGHT SPOT appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location."
So far in this thread the 'pat' answer thrown out by the OCTs to explain the 'puffs-of-dust', and molten streams is that the floors suddenly collapsed in those areas and allowed accumulated molten pools of aluminum to suddenly pour out from these locations.
This is a somewhat 'possible' postulation... {sophistry}... IF one fails to take into account ALL the circumstances which led to these molten streams.
Suddenly shifting 'floors' might account for 'puffs of dust and/or debris'... but suddenly shifting floors DO NOT emit WHITE puffs of smoke... which even NIST admits are an indication of 'metal fires'... (Thermite/Thermate/Nano-thermite... IS a 'metal-fire')
<br>Sophistry Foxx??? You completely ignore NIST saying "smoke and/or dust " and go on to insist it is indeed white smoke and you accuse others of sophistry.
So are all ejections of white smoke and/or dust to be assumed to be thermite Foxx?
Does the Vatican burn thermite to indicate that a new Pope has been elected?
Do diesel engines that belch puffs of white smoke have a thermite injection system?
Ever witness a forest fire up close? Pine needles give off white smoke when burning. Maybe pine needles contain thermite Foxx, whadda ya think?
Formaldehyde resins such as are used in some wood furniture and even in some ceiling tiles(IIRC) give off white smoke when heated. Is formaldehyde part thermite Foxx?
,,,and indeed fires in telecommunications rooms(usually little more than closets) also emit relatively large amounts of white smoke.
From:
http://www.firetactics.com/service.htm
This isn't a picture taken on 9/11/01
Seems that white smoke is an indication of an impending 'smoke explosion'.
yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 04:36 AM
| QUOTE | Don't listen to me ... OR the OCT half-witted rebuttals to this post. Read the links above objectively, and come to your own conclusions. Don't ignore the documented explosion on the 77th floor. Don't ignore the 'Puffs of White Smoke' associated with the metal flows. And Don't believe YID that there was ONLY ONE documented molten metal flow from the towers.
<br>Actualy I did not say that there was only one. It seemed that the CT side was seizing on this ONE episode as THE end all and be all of proof of thermite. I point out that such is simply NOT true and now Foxx I show that the other , shall we call them 'lesser examples' are no indication of thermite either.
Now perhaps you would like to again explain how thermite causes 'explosions'. I must have missed it first time you mentioned it.
yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 04:44 AM
QUOTE (steve1957+May 30 2006, 03:51 AM) It's not that Steven Jones report is necessarily all that brilliant, as any honest person will agree that all he did was demonstrate simple, obvious mathematics, but the thing that is awesome is his willingness to speak some truth in the midst of all this Nazi propaganda, which does take a little guts. It's similar to pointing out some of Hitlers flaws, while living in Nazi Germany, you can call it guts, while others call it insane, but I choose to call it what it is truth. It's like going to the store, buying $25. worth of merchandise and handing the guy a $50. But he only gives you $5. in change The 9/11 fairy tale promoters are trying to cheat everyone out of their common sense, and all too many people are falling for it. And so back to the analogy.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and yada yada yada steve1957, I have to admit, you and newton are usually good for making quite literally laugh out friggin loud. Just the coincidence of you showing the images of paper money was so ironic(say it wasn't planned to make me laugh) that I burst out. If newton weren't such a new age, crystal power, hoodoo, numerology, mystic guru, then you two might make a good pair. Then again your brand of "Christianity" bears some similarities to newtons beliefs IMHO. BTW, Jones owes everyone a lot more change if they bought into his 'analysis'.
Foxx
30th May 2006 - 04:54 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+May 30 2006, 04:30 AM) | QUOTE | NIST Claims...
QUOTE
"Just before 9:52 a.m., puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a BRIGHT SPOT appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location."
So far in this thread the 'pat' answer thrown out by the OCTs to explain the 'puffs-of-dust', and molten streams is that the floors suddenly collapsed in those areas and allowed accumulated molten pools of aluminum to suddenly pour out from these locations.
This is a somewhat 'possible' postulation... {sophistry}... IF one fails to take into account ALL the circumstances which led to these molten streams.
Suddenly shifting 'floors' might account for 'puffs of dust and/or debris'... but suddenly shifting floors DO NOT emit WHITE puffs of smoke... which even NIST admits are an indication of 'metal fires'... (Thermite/Thermate/Nano-thermite... IS a 'metal-fire')
<br>Sophistry Foxx??? You completely ignore NIST saying "smoke and/or dust " and go on to insist it is indeed white smoke and you accuse others of sophistry.
So are all ejections of white smoke and/or dust to be assumed to be thermite Foxx?
Does the Vatican burn thermite to indicate that a new Pope has been elected?
Do diesel engines that belch puffs of white smoke have a thermite injection system?
Ever witness a forest fire up close? Pine needles give off white smoke when burning. Maybe pine needles contain thermite Foxx, whadda ya think?
Formaldehyde resins such as are used in some wood furniture and even in some ceiling tiles(IIRC) give off white smoke when heated. Is formaldehyde part thermite Foxx?
,,,and indeed fires in telecommunications rooms(usually little more than closets) also emit relatively large amounts of white smoke.
From:
http://www.firetactics.com/service.htm
This isn't a picture taken on 9/11/01
Seems that white smoke is an indication of an impending 'smoke explosion'.
Perhaps you should register your rebuttal with NIST, Yid ???
Were there pine needles in the WTC towers?
Probably NOT.
NIST CLAIMS...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | NIST Claims...
QUOTE
"Just before 9:52 a.m., puffs of smoke and/or dust were expelled from multiple locations on the north face near the east edge. Almost immediately a BRIGHT SPOT appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor four removed from the east edge, and a glowing liquid began to pour from this location."
So far in this thread the 'pat' answer thrown out by the OCTs to explain the 'puffs-of-dust', and molten streams is that the floors suddenly collapsed in those areas and allowed accumulated molten pools of aluminum to suddenly pour out from these locations.
This is a somewhat 'possible' postulation... {sophistry}... IF one fails to take into account ALL the circumstances which led to these molten streams.
Suddenly shifting 'floors' might account for 'puffs of dust and/or debris'... but suddenly shifting floors DO NOT emit WHITE puffs of smoke... which even NIST admits are an indication of 'metal fires'... (Thermite/Thermate/Nano-thermite... IS a 'metal-fire')
<br>Sophistry Foxx??? You completely ignore NIST saying "smoke and/or dust " and go on to insist it is indeed white smoke and you accuse others of sophistry.
So are all ejections of white smoke and/or dust to be assumed to be thermite Foxx?
Does the Vatican burn thermite to indicate that a new Pope has been elected?
Do diesel engines that belch puffs of white smoke have a thermite injection system?
Ever witness a forest fire up close? Pine needles give off white smoke when burning. Maybe pine needles contain thermite Foxx, whadda ya think?
Formaldehyde resins such as are used in some wood furniture and even in some ceiling tiles(IIRC) give off white smoke when heated. Is formaldehyde part thermite Foxx?
,,,and indeed fires in telecommunications rooms(usually little more than closets) also emit relatively large amounts of white smoke.
From:
http://www.firetactics.com/service.htm
This isn't a picture taken on 9/11/01
Seems that white smoke is an indication of an impending 'smoke explosion'.
Perhaps you should register your rebuttal with NIST, Yid ???
Were there pine needles in the WTC towers?
Probably NOT.
NIST CLAIMS...
"In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.
The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, SUGGESTS that some type of metal is burning. ...
<br>Source: {Page 344} NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
I guess you know more than them...
they should have given you the 20 million and you could have obfuscated the issue 20 fold.
Although you could be right... maybe the white smoke was just a sign of new 'popes' being elected... just psyopts, maybe?
You have often stood behind these OCT-o-NIST 'engineers' 100 %... NOW you want to argue with them that they don't know what they are talking about when they state...
| QUOTE | "the white smoke, SUGGESTS that some type of metal is burning"
<br>Lemme get this straight, YID? ...
are you now arguing that the photo below does NOT show 'smoke', but rather a 'white dust' ??? ...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/002thermNF942.jpg
metamars
30th May 2006 - 04:56 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+May 29 2006, 10:36 PM) QUOTE (adoucette+May 29 2006, 08:29 PM) QUOTE (NU-FU+) I am not so naďve as to think that publishing an article in a journal, even an ASCE journal, is going to change the world. <br>Gotta start somewhere. Or maybe you think you are making a difference by ranting in an obscure internet Forum claiming again and again that NIST is wrong and that you can prove it. But instead of ACTUALLY doing anything you prefer to quote Milton. Suit yourself. Arthur Indeed, and steve1957 suggests Jones' paper as a start. However Jones has not been able to get his paper to pass any (relevant) peer review and get published. We get told again and again how easy it is to see that NIST and B-Z are wrong, wrong, wrong and yet, yet, yet no one at all has ever published a paper managing to show significant and glaring errors in either paper let alone publish a paper outlining a plausible, controlled demolition sequence for either the WTC towers or WTC 7. Can it be that every US domestic and all foreign engineering and hard sciences publications have an editorial staff that is under the thumb of TPTB/Illuminati/Zionist world shadow gov't? Are all those in charge of these publications then either in-on-it or being threatened/manipulated such that it would be obvious to them that suppression of the truth of controlled demolition of the WTC structures is happening? I think not. Once again, we see an example of pope-ean thinking. The counter arguments are obvious, and mostly have been already posted. It is extremely unusual for a non=Ph.D. to get published in scientific journals, and the Ph.D. is effectively a "price of admission". Furthermore, what evidence to you have that there is a significant group of construction engineers, capable of being published in journals, that have both studied the NIST report as well as best evidence to the contrary, such as Professor Jones' paper? I have evidence to the contrary (my mini-survey), which I posted, here. Then there's the usual straw men arguments, along the line of "everybody in on it". BTW, you forgot to mention UFO's, Atlantis and Elvis sightings. | QUOTE |
No, the reason that no one can get published is because the buildings were not felled by preplanted demolition charges
<br>This statement is absurd, and apparently presupposes that anti-BZ and anti-NIST engineering/scientific papers, other than Jones' , have been submitted to journals. Where is your proof that Ph.D. scientists and engineers have submitted these papers, or that they were submitted and rejected? For that matter, where is your proof that the scientific/engineering community has seriously studied the issue, as opposed to trusting NIST to do their job?
You also seem incapble of accepting that scientists/engineers who have studied the issues, and find fault with BZ and/or NIST, might nevertheless not submit papers with their objections/refutations.
Ah, but noting such counter-arguments is not part of the pope-ean talking points, now is it?
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
No, the reason that no one can get published is because the buildings were not felled by preplanted demolition charges
<br>This statement is absurd, and apparently presupposes that anti-BZ and anti-NIST engineering/scientific papers, other than Jones' , have been submitted to journals. Where is your proof that Ph.D. scientists and engineers have submitted these papers, or that they were submitted and rejected? For that matter, where is your proof that the scientific/engineering community has seriously studied the issue, as opposed to trusting NIST to do their job?
You also seem incapble of accepting that scientists/engineers who have studied the issues, and find fault with BZ and/or NIST, might nevertheless not submit papers with their objections/refutations.
Ah, but noting such counter-arguments is not part of the pope-ean talking points, now is it?
and B-Z is accurate as far as the authors themselves go to great pains to describe,
<br>So you say. Do you really think anybody who has followed this thread believes you, except for the usual suspects?
| QUOTE |
and NIST is also accurate as can be expected given the variables involved.
<br>The "variables involved" are the ones NIST chose to work with! Nice dodge - you completely obscured the criticism of the strong form of the NIST'ian claims. Which have been listed how many times? 5? 50?
You also dodged NEU-FONZE's NIST criticisms, which apply to the weak form of the NIST work.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
and NIST is also accurate as can be expected given the variables involved.
<br>The "variables involved" are the ones NIST chose to work with! Nice dodge - you completely obscured the criticism of the strong form of the NIST'ian claims. Which have been listed how many times? 5? 50?
You also dodged NEU-FONZE's NIST criticisms, which apply to the weak form of the NIST work.
NIST does a good job at describing the situation in the towers and their analysis matches closely, what is seen in the pictures and videos.
<br>Posters here say otherwise. In any event, the strong form of the NIST'ian claims, which would not ignore the so-called "anomalies", only does a good job of avoiding explanation, or even mere mention, with an explanation as to why such anomalies are not worth explaining.
| QUOTE |
As for the glowing and falling material in ONE corner of ONE tower, just what can be said about this? Not much really. Is it molten aluminum? Maybe, it certainly would not be pure given that there is a raging office fire within meters of it. However, whatever it is there is no evidence to suggest that it actually is thermite as some would have us believe. Whatever it is, why is it only visible on ONE column of ONE tower? Having this hot material fall from ONE column of ONE tower hardly suggests widespread distribution of whatever it is that is causing this.
<br>Well, there's much to agree with you here, except that the pour is consistent with the thermite hypothesis, even if it's consistent with others.
As examining the the dinosaur-egg-sized slag would help settle the matter, you support the immediate release, to Professor Jones and Scholars for 911 Truth, of such evidence, right?
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 05:11 AM
Has Jones requested permission to examine ANY evidence?
Has Jones been OFFICIALLY turned down?
Arthur
Foxx
30th May 2006 - 05:28 AM
| QUOTE | by metamars
As examining the the dinosaur-egg-sized slag would help settle the matter, you support the immediate release, to Professor Jones and Scholars for 911 Truth, of such evidence, right?
<br>I concur. Is the 'dinosaur egg' evidence in the Moussuoani {sp ?} trial ???
Oh yeah, that's right - the trial is finished... no more excuses about 'forensic evidence'.
Any OCTs out there who support the refusal of having this forensic evidence tested by independant authorities ???
C'mon, this should be good --- give us a legitimate reason WHY Professor Jones 'et al' should NOT have access to this material....
...and while we're at it, why not give Barnett & Biederman further samples of the 'NEVER Recovered' WTC 7 euctectic forensic evidence --- (Which they requested and were rejected) to continue their studies as suggested by FEMA, BPAT, and the ASCE.... OR alternatively turn it over to competent independant investigations for examination.
Metallurgical examinations are much cheaper than complex NISTian computer programs (which have never been proven regarding the parameters of the questions at hand).
The following space is reserved for some Arthurian Legends... (reasons why this should NOT be done)...
yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 05:32 AM
metamars, Jones IS a Ph.D. and does have a paper. He can't get it published. Why not? (forget the socialist economics journal, it isn't even close to real 'peer' review)
I have been told in these pages , that Van Romero and others were probably threatened, that engineers will not speak out for fear of reprisals and that others as well have been stifled. Therefore I believe it is relevant to ask why no paper has appeared in any scientific or engineering journal(in the USA, Japan, Canada, Germany, G.Britain, Sweden, France,,, etc., in which the case for CD is given, or why there is no paper significantly disputing NIST report and the B-Z paper.
Why not metamars, please tell me why, in all the hundreds of thousands, millions perhaps, of persons with requisite qualifications ther is not a one (other than Jones so far, and his paper languishes) who can get a paper published?
If Elvis , Ufos or Atlantis (or for that matter folding paper money) ever becomes relevant I would be suprised. However I do notice that you try to set such topics on me and those who believe as I do. Please note that none of us usually brings up such nonsense. Just review the previous page for two common offenders in this regard. then again, I don't recall if you actually came out and stated that folding paper money was completely irrellevant. I know Foxx wouldn't. If it won't be disavowed then its still in play and fair game. Same goes for who's in-on-it. So, please tell me why no papers? While you're at it disavow the notion that all engineering journals and scientific journals have been somehow instructed or coerced into not publishing such papers.
| QUOTE | QUOTE
and B-Z is accurate as far as the authors themselves go to great pains to describe,
So you say. Do you really think anybody who has followed this thread believes you, except for the usual suspects?
<br>,,,, and certainly no one with any relevant training has been driven to come up with a paper disputing it. How about over at BAUT or AH besides this forum.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | QUOTE
and B-Z is accurate as far as the authors themselves go to great pains to describe,
So you say. Do you really think anybody who has followed this thread believes you, except for the usual suspects?
<br>,,,, and certainly no one with any relevant training has been driven to come up with a paper disputing it. How about over at BAUT or AH besides this forum.
QUOTE
and NIST is also accurate as can be expected given the variables involved.
The "variables involved" are the ones NIST chose to work with! Nice dodge - you completely obscured the criticism of the strong form of the NIST'ian claims. Which have been listed how many times? 5? 50?
<br>strong form??? NIST uses the terms such as 'probable' and 'possible' throughout the reports. You and other have attacked NIST for this and now their form is too strong??
If Jones has a well defined set of tests he wants to do then by all means let him submit his plans to those in charge of the 'evidence'. As Arthur asks, has he done this?
Foxx
30th May 2006 - 06:25 AM
QUOTE (Foxx+May 30 2006, 04:54 AM)
Perhaps you should register your rebuttal with NIST, Yid ???
Were there pine needles in the WTC towers?
Probably NOT.
NIST CLAIMS...
| QUOTE | "In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.
The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, SUGGESTS that some type of metal is burning. ...
<br>Source: {Page 344} NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
I guess you know more than them...
they should have given you the 20 million and you could have obfuscated the issue 20 fold.
Although you could be right... maybe the white smoke was just a sign of new 'popes' being elected... just psyopts, maybe?
You have often stood behind these OCT-o-NIST 'engineers' 100 %... NOW you want to argue with them that they don't know what they are talking about when they state...
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | "In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out.
The brightness of the flame, along with the white smoke, SUGGESTS that some type of metal is burning. ...
<br>Source: {Page 344} NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
I guess you know more than them...
they should have given you the 20 million and you could have obfuscated the issue 20 fold.
Although you could be right... maybe the white smoke was just a sign of new 'popes' being elected... just psyopts, maybe?
You have often stood behind these OCT-o-NIST 'engineers' 100 %... NOW you want to argue with them that they don't know what they are talking about when they state...
"the white smoke, SUGGESTS that some type of metal is burning"
<br>Lemme get this straight, YID? ...
are you now arguing that the photo below does NOT show 'smoke', but rather a 'white dust' ??? ...
http://oceanmirage.homestead.com/files/002thermNF942.jpg
Care to address ???
shagster
30th May 2006 - 11:26 AM
QUOTE (astaire+May 29 2006, 09:06 AM) QUOTE (shagster+May 28 2006, 09:22 PM)
If the safety factor would have been included in Wg, then it would have made the value of Wg/Wp even higher, 3 times higher if the safety factor was three.
<!--emo&:o-->  That would be a serious error. The safetyFactor implies that the capacity is greater than demand. If you know the capacity of a given floor and you know the DCR (demand to capacity ratio) you can calculate Wg by multiplying by DCR which is similar to the reciprocal of the safetyFactor. Using the safetyFactor in reverse would be an aberration to common sense. <br>My point about Wg is that if you consider it to be the actual mass above the floor in question, it's going to be lower than the hypothetical maximum mass that could have been up there if the safety factor was reached. Including the safety factor will make the Wg/Wp ratio even higher, favoring collapse. If 8.4 is the ratio using the actual mass above the floor in question, then including the safety factor would make it about 25 for a safety factor of about 3. What should be done is to calculate Wp for each column knowing an Mp for each column based on the geometry of the column. The Wp for all columns is then summed up. That will give a value of maximum energy that could ever have been absorbed by the hinges. Safety factor doesn't even have to be considered for Wp calculated that way. The plastic limit used in calculating Wp already takes it into account. Wg we can agree upon. It is based on the actual mass that was above the floor where the collapse started, not the maximum that could have even been there. The maximum that could ever have been there (taking safety factor into account) would unfairly favor collapse. That mass was not there, although it could hypothetically be if one was right at the limit of the safety factor. You can calculate the mass above floor 80 and the maximum load that could be supported based on the cross-sectional area of all columns times the yield strength. The ratio of the two comes out to be about 3 to 4. I did this in a previous post. So we know that the building at floor 80 was designed properly. The way you are doing it Astaire is also correct, though. You are using the actual mass above the floor and then multiplying by the safety factor in order to find a Wp not knowing ahead of time what the yield stress is. You are also relying heavily on the BZ graph in Fig 5d. I prefer to find Wp per column using a valid Mp for perimeter and core columns and add them all up. I'm not trusting what is in Fig 5d. Something is not right about Fig. 5d as it gives a Wp on the order of 5GJ when BZ stated a value of 0.5GJ. Also, BZ say that curve is for a single column. When I use their value of Mp=0.3MN-m for a perimeter column, the curve drops quickly and bottoms out at about 0.022. I need to find proper values of Mp for both perimeter and core columns. BZ don't state what their value of 0.3MN-m is for, perimeter or core or some sort of average for the two.
newton
30th May 2006 - 11:27 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+May 30 2006, 03:54 AM) At least regurgitate the crap correctly newton
2160 is the diameter of the MOON.
,,,, and this IS why the Moon and the Sun take up the same size arc of the sky(+ or -)
Your author is a sloppy writer and displays an ignorance that is astounding.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, annnywaaay , none of this is in any way, whatsoever, in any form or manner relevant to the discussion.
Go fold some money. hmmmm. one beer over the line, i guess. i actually just grabbed the first hit off a google search that published the diameter of both the sun and the sun, er, moon. (that WAS a fairly OBVIOUS typo, wasn't it?, lol) try this one... great dreamsas to relevence to this discussion, i agree. it is mostly irrelevent. of course, the implications of this mostly unrelated subject matter force a more accurate rewrite of history. but, to those who are trying to rewrite the present, as well as maintain a stranglehold on the 'truth' of the past, and to those who would prevent them, it is an interesting footnote. everyone not interested, please ignore. p.s. 432(another harmonic of 864) squared = the speed of light.
newton
30th May 2006 - 11:43 AM
QUOTE (yesitdid+May 30 2006, 04:44 AM) steve1957, I have to admit, you and newton are usually good for making quite literally laugh out friggin loud. Just the coincidence of you showing the images of paper money was so ironic(say it wasn't planned to make me laugh) that I burst out. If newton weren't such a new age, crystal power, hoodoo, numerology, mystic guru, then you two might make a good pair. Then again your brand of "Christianity" bears some similarities to newtons beliefs IMHO. BTW, Jones owes everyone a lot more change if they bought into his 'analysis'. that's 'christianity BEERS some similarites' i believe people are ignorant worms writhing in the dirt of 'reality' as they perceive it. pass the dirt, christ. god have merci on our souls. a good read is 'vatican assassasins', by eric phelps, for those interested in organised crime/religion. tower seven freefell.
shagster
30th May 2006 - 12:08 PM
QUOTE (astaire+May 29 2006, 07:39 AM)
Wp = 0.5 GJ
Look at figure 5d assuming the energy absorbed for crushing the 1st half of the distance L is zero (as BZ describe).
The remaining energy on the right side is Wp=12%*Po*L
Po=Wp/(L*12%) = 0.551 GN
This value of Po implies that the towers were design with a safety factor of 0.551/0.555 or approximately 1. This implies that the architects did not account for any safety margin. That's a flawed interpretation. To begin with, safety factor isn't a ratio of energies during a collapse. It's a ratio of loads when the building is in a normal static (non-collapsing) state and when floors haven't been damaged by aircraft and fire. You've already erased the left side of the area of Fig. 5d which is wiping out much of the ability of the columns to absorb energy (since the curve falls off rapidly) which is a situation that isn't the state of the building when it is standing normally under static loading conditions. It's flawed to try to calculate a safety factor for static loading conditions based on energies in a situation where one floor is severely damaged. In the static state, the columns were able to withstand a loading about 3 times the actual load they were supporting. You can do your own calcation of this based on cross-sectional area of the columns and their yield strength. I did it properly in a previous post for floor 80. It comes out to be about 3 to 4.
shagster
30th May 2006 - 12:29 PM
QUOTE (metamars+May 30 2006, 04:56 AM)
It is extremely unusual for a non=Ph.D. to get published in scientific journals, and the Ph.D. is effectively a "price of admission". That's not true. I've published in science journals without a PhD. There are many articles published by people with various backgrounds and degee levels.
shagster
30th May 2006 - 01:05 PM
We can ask people at the Vatican what they burn to make white smoke when they make their decisions about a new pope.
Pyrolysis can generate white smoke for paper, wood, and a number of other materials.
metamars
30th May 2006 - 01:12 PM
QUOTE (yesitdid+May 30 2006, 05:32 AM) metamars, Jones IS a Ph.D. and does have a paper. He can't get it published. Why not? (forget the socialist economics journal, it isn't even close to real 'peer' review)
I have been told in these pages , that Van Romero and others were probably threatened, that engineers will not speak out for fear of reprisals and that others as well have been stifled. Therefore I believe it is relevant to ask why no paper has appeared in any scientific or engineering journal(in the USA, Japan, Canada, Germany, G.Britain, Sweden, France,,, etc., in which the case for CD is given, or why there is no paper significantly disputing NIST report and the B-Z paper.
Why not metamars, please tell me why, in all the hundreds of thousands, millions perhaps, of persons with requisite qualifications ther is not a one (other than Jones so far, and his paper languishes) who can get a paper published?
You know very well that Jones' paper, at least in the end, was peer reviewed by some gents including, IIRC, 2 physicists. As it's not cutting edge physics, I see no more hope of having gotten published in Physical Reviews than in a journal of molecular biology. To call his paper a paper in civil engineering is ludicrous. The argument that it is, but not good enough to be published in a civil engineering journal because it doesn't pass muster with civil engineers, strikes me as laughable. My arguments were about the other papers which have not been published, which you presuppose must be there if serious objections to BZ and NIST were to have any merit. I say "baloney", and "you have no evidence", and I just listed a few counter arguments along this line. Do I really need repeat them? Already? Here we see not the curious selective memory of a pope (as you just read the post), but rather a curious blindness. In mentioning the lack of civil engineers in foreign countries, you at least attempt to respond to one counter argument (which has been posted previously, more than once). However, the rest of the arguments apply overseas, also. So where is your hypothesis explaining why the fear factor is the predominant one? And why should we take it seriously, anyway? Not that fear does not exist (I've seen this first hand), but rather, as stated, that the fear factor is the predominant one? In my mini-survey, did I indicate that any of the civil engineers were afraid? I did not. | QUOTE |
If Elvis , Ufos or Atlantis (or for that matter folding paper money) ever becomes relevant I would be suprised. However I do notice that you try to set such topics on me and those who believe as I do. Please note that none of us usually brings up such nonsense. Just review the previous page for two common offenders in this regard. then again, I don't recall if you actually came out and stated that folding paper money was completely irrellevant. I know Foxx wouldn't. If it won't be disavowed then its still in play and fair game. Same goes for who's in-on-it. So, please tell me why no papers? While you're at it disavow the notion that all engineering journals and scientific journals have been somehow instructed or coerced into not publishing such papers.
<br>Oh, please. Somebody on my side of the main argument links the WTC Towers collapse to UFO's or Elvis, right? (I mean one of the more regular posters on this forum.) And if somebody on my side, in a physics forum, chooses to write about paper money, what has that got to do with me?
It is your side which characteristically uses straw men arguments and irrelevant smearing. And while we're on the subject, in our recent exchange you claimed that your description of "mini nukes, space weapons", etc. were "contorted" explanations, but you did not mean to imply that the word "contorted" meant that these had to all apply. Two points:
1) I'll formally give you the benefit of the doubt, though writing this way, which you have done on other occassions, suggests otherwise. I suggest you write more clearly.
2) You haven't presented arguments why these are each, separately, intrinsically "convoluted". And furthermore, you probably never will, because you can't. As was pointed out repeatedly, items such as particle weapons and micro-nukes are classified. You want us to believe they are "convoluted", because you say so.
I wouldn't describe using "regular" explosives as convoluted, as these are regularly used for CD.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
If Elvis , Ufos or Atlantis (or for that matter folding paper money) ever becomes relevant I would be suprised. However I do notice that you try to set such topics on me and those who believe as I do. Please note that none of us usually brings up such nonsense. Just review the previous page for two common offenders in this regard. then again, I don't recall if you actually came out and stated that folding paper money was completely irrellevant. I know Foxx wouldn't. If it won't be disavowed then its still in play and fair game. Same goes for who's in-on-it. So, please tell me why no papers? While you're at it disavow the notion that all engineering journals and scientific journals have been somehow instructed or coerced into not publishing such papers.
<br>Oh, please. Somebody on my side of the main argument links the WTC Towers collapse to UFO's or Elvis, right? (I mean one of the more regular posters on this forum.) And if somebody on my side, in a physics forum, chooses to write about paper money, what has that got to do with me?
It is your side which characteristically uses straw men arguments and irrelevant smearing. And while we're on the subject, in our recent exchange you claimed that your description of "mini nukes, space weapons", etc. were "contorted" explanations, but you did not mean to imply that the word "contorted" meant that these had to all apply. Two points:
1) I'll formally give you the benefit of the doubt, though writing this way, which you have done on other occassions, suggests otherwise. I suggest you write more clearly.
2) You haven't presented arguments why these are each, separately, intrinsically "convoluted". And furthermore, you probably never will, because you can't. As was pointed out repeatedly, items such as particle weapons and micro-nukes are classified. You want us to believe they are "convoluted", because you say so.
I wouldn't describe using "regular" explosives as convoluted, as these are regularly used for CD.
| QUOTE | QUOTE
and B-Z is accurate as far as the authors themselves go to great pains to describe,
So you say. Do you really think anybody who has followed this thread believes you, except for the usual suspects?
<br>,,,, and certainly no one with any relevant training has been driven to come up with a paper disputing it. How about over at BAUT or AH besides this forum.
<br>Who cares about BAUT or AH? I've seen the "logicians" at work there, and besides JayUtah, I'm not impressed, which is not to say that less gifted "debunkers" never make a good point, either. It might be interesting to get JayUtah's response to the more serious, technical defects of BZ pointed out on this thread, but I'm doubtful he has the expertise to respond. If he can solve regular ODE's, why did he speak well of BZ's elastic dynamic analysis? Perhaps he could be pursuaded to enlist the aide of structural engineers known to him to reply to the specific criticisms of BZ and NIST on this thread, but I'm doubtful. What do you think?
The lack of the equivalent of a paper debunking BZ on BAUT or AH means nothing to me, and I don't see why it should mean anything to you, either. As far as I can tell, there are precious few engineers there, just as there are precious few physicists here (on this particular thread). And, as noted previously, some have problems with straightforward interpretations of the word "few" and the phrase "more than a few", as well as the transitive inequality propery of integers. If those guys are engineers, I'm Marco Polo.
As for the "real world" or scientists and engineers, that was just discussed. Again.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | QUOTE
and B-Z is accurate as far as the authors themselves go to great pains to describe,
So you say. Do you really think anybody who has followed this thread believes you, except for the usual suspects?
<br>,,,, and certainly no one with any relevant training has been driven to come up with a paper disputing it. How about over at BAUT or AH besides this forum.
<br>Who cares about BAUT or AH? I've seen the "logicians" at work there, and besides JayUtah, I'm not impressed, which is not to say that less gifted "debunkers" never make a good point, either. It might be interesting to get JayUtah's response to the more serious, technical defects of BZ pointed out on this thread, but I'm doubtful he has the expertise to respond. If he can solve regular ODE's, why did he speak well of BZ's elastic dynamic analysis? Perhaps he could be pursuaded to enlist the aide of structural engineers known to him to reply to the specific criticisms of BZ and NIST on this thread, but I'm doubtful. What do you think?
The lack of the equivalent of a paper debunking BZ on BAUT or AH means nothing to me, and I don't see why it should mean anything to you, either. As far as I can tell, there are precious few engineers there, just as there are precious few physicists here (on this particular thread). And, as noted previously, some have problems with straightforward interpretations of the word "few" and the phrase "more than a few", as well as the transitive inequality propery of integers. If those guys are engineers, I'm Marco Polo.
As for the "real world" or scientists and engineers, that was just discussed. Again.
| QUOTE |
QUOTE
and NIST is also accurate as can be expected given the variables involved.
The "variables involved" are the ones NIST chose to work with! Nice dodge - you completely obscured the criticism of the strong form of the NIST'ian claims. Which have been listed how many times? 5? 50?
<br>strong form??? NIST uses the terms such as 'probable' and 'possible' throughout the reports. You and other have attacked NIST for this and now their form is too strong??
If Jones has a well defined set of tests he wants to do then by all means let him submit his plans to those in charge of the 'evidence'. As Arthur asks, has he done this?
<br>
You've misunderstood what I meant by "strong form", which is mostly not your fault. I introduced such language long ago on this thread, and nobody else picked up on it.
The NIST report has more validity if you ignore the substantial "anomalies". ( Claiming only NIST can decide what is properly deemed an anomaly, worthy even of mention, is a circular argument that also presupposes trust in NIST , as well as our government, in general. A trust I don't share, apparently along with many millions of Americans who support another investigation. )
So, by "strong form", I mean "NIST explains the collapses but does not ignore the anomalies, most of which seem completely (and often dramatically) at odds with their hand-waving claims of "inevitable global collapse".
Closing one's eyes to the "anomalies" is central to taking the NIST Fairy Tale seriously. In what I call the strong form of the NIST claims, this is forbidden.
JayUtah had correctly identified this as the "meat" of our disagreement. Unfortunately, I dallied in replying, and now the thread is locked. Even so, it seems quite clear that in my mind, the issues boil down to trust, while in JayUtah's mind, they boil down to expertise. I trust my eyes and intuition, not to mention calculations ala Gordon Ross. I certainly don't trust NIST.
That is why it's so important to get more non-NIST'ian structural engineers on record, on either side of the issue, specifically wrt the "anomalies". Oh, and by the way, I do feel that will happen, eventually, though very likely outside the US.
Finally, althogh I'm speculating, I fully expect Professor Jones to trust NIST as little as I do. Why should he be a fool, then, and let NIST take care of things?
steve1957
30th May 2006 - 01:38 PM
yesitdid
Still trying to hawk off those $30 bills? It's apparent that your money's good with some of the people on this board, but there are a few people that know better.
Building 7 wasn't even hit by an airplane, yet in one day, on the same day it defied all laws of logic and reason and completely shattered, just like control demolition.
But never mind the facts, as long as you can hide behind what is politically correct then maybe nobody will know that you've thrown out all forms of logic, physics and mathematics to make your fantasy stand.
The Jones report is not correct because Steven Jones wrote it, but rather Steven Jones is correct for what he said. If a mormon speaks the truth, it's the truth, if a christian or a Jew, or a muslim or an athiest speaks the truth, it's truth. If a republican speaks the truth, it's truth and if a democrat speaks the truth, then it's truth, but if any of them speak lies, no matter what their philosophical orientation happens to be then guess what? It's still a lie.
So maybe people should look more seriously at the facts being spoken and determine whether it's true or not, rather than focus on what kind of under wear someone is wearing, or the type of ice cream he likes to eat.
If a guy says someone gave him a $30 bill, and that $30 bill is American legal tender, I think you better re-examine his credability
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
30th May 2006 - 01:56 PM
QUOTE I did not forget this photo. I just can't pretend that it's alumimium at anything less than 1100C (if it is aluminium, the orange spill should be highly reflective in daylight). It's a curious pretence for you to maintain, because on the same webpage, from the same book, are these words: ------------------------------------------- PART III. MELTING PRACTICE 28. MELTING ALUMINUM IN THE FOUNDRY: When melting aluminum, the best results are obtained when the melting is rapid. Maintaining molten heel of aluminum in the crucible speeds the melting process. If multiple charges are to be heated, it is good practice to leave 1/3 of the crucible filled with molten aluminum to reduce the thermal shock to the crucible and speed melting of the new charge. All tools, fluxes, pots, or anything that comes in contact with the molten metal must be preheated to minimize the water present on their surfaces, or in the flux. Keep the temperature of the aluminum as low as possible, only as high as needed to properly pour. -----------------------------------------------   What temperature is required to make a molten alumimium pour glow bright yellow? What temperature is required to properly pour alumninium?
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 03:13 PM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+May 30 2006, 09:56 AM) QUOTE I did not forget this photo. I just can't pretend that it's alumimium at anything less than 1100C (if it is aluminium, the orange spill should be highly reflective in daylight). It's a curious pretence for you to maintain, because on the same webpage, from the same book, are these words: ------------------------------------------- PART III. MELTING PRACTICE 28. MELTING ALUMINUM IN THE FOUNDRY: When melting aluminum, the best results are obtained when the melting is rapid. Maintaining molten heel of aluminum in the crucible speeds the melting process. If multiple charges are to be heated, it is good practice to leave 1/3 of the crucible filled with molten aluminum to reduce the thermal shock to the crucible and speed melting of the new charge. All tools, fluxes, pots, or anything that comes in contact with the molten metal must be preheated to minimize the water present on their surfaces, or in the flux. Keep the temperature of the aluminum as low as possible, only as high as needed to properly pour. ----------------------------------------------- What temperature is required to make a molten alumimium pour glow bright yellow? What temperature is required to properly pour alumninium? You CAN'T PRETEND its aluminum????? Its a picture from a BOOK on building a FURNACE for melting ALUMINUM. See: http://www.metalwebnews.com/howto/furnace2/furnace.htmlFuel fired furnaces are either direct-fired where the products of combustion come in direct contact with the metal charge as in the case of a reverberatory furnace or indirect-fired where the products of combustion do not come directly in contact with the metal charge as in a crucible furnace. The different types of furnaces influence the melting loss and chemical composition of the aluminum.
The direct-fired reverberatory furnace is an efficient, fast melting, high volume unit. Because of the direct contact with the flame, the reverberatory furnace produces more dross and has a higher rate of gas absorption. Large reverberatory furnaces are claimed to melt with as little as 1500 Btu per pound and have a melting capacity of 40 pounds of aluminum per square foot of bath area per hour. The WHOLE BOOK is about Building a Furnace for MELTING ALUMINUM. But ol Al K SbS DISMISSES this picture because it DOESN'T SUPPORT HIS POSITION. He COMPLAINS the orange spill should be highly reflective in daylightLike a guy writing a book about building a Furnace for Aluminum melting is going to have a picture of his home made furnace melting something BESIDES Aluminum. Just ONE MORE EXAMPLE of CT'ers who WANT SO DESPERATELY to believe, they will obviously believe (or disbelieve) damn near ANYTHING, to MAKE IT FIT. Sorry Al Khwarizmi but apparently REALITY doesn't always CONFORM to your LIMITED IMAGINATION and or KNOWLEDGE As to the temp, From the book: Keep the temperature of the aluminum as low as possible, only as high as needed to properly pour. Do not hold the metal at high temperatures for long periods of time. Melt quickly and pour. The pouring temperature of aluminum is approximately 1380 deg. F. Pouring temperature is dictated by the fluidity of the particular alloy and the type of casting. Long thin castings require higher temperatures than thick chunky castings. Now DO YOU REALLY THINK HE WOULD ILLUSTRATE HIS BOOK WITH PICTURES THAT GO AGAINST WHAT HE CLAIMS ARE THE IMPORTANT RULES OF HOME FOUNDRY WORK? And there is ALSO other info in the book, which in our "WTC Foundry", ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR. Also from the Book: Aluminum reduces many oxides. If any iron oxide (rust) is present, then the reaction below occurs.
Fe2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2Fe
When in contact with siliceous materials, the following reaction takes place:
4Al + 3SiO2 -> 3Si + 2Al2 O3
The silicon goes into solution, and dross is formed.
Aluminum dissolves iron. Steel is more soluble than cast iron. However, chromium steels are the most resistant to liquid aluminum's corrosive action. The type of alloy melted also has an effect on molten aluminum's attack on steel with zinc containing alloys being the most corrosive. Washes are used over steel tools and crucibles to prevent pick up of iron. Which is what I've been saying all along, the material generated within that CHAOTIC mix would not be ANYTHING LIKE the PURE ALLOYS that you keep showing pictures of. Which means one would NOT NECESSARILY EXPECT it to LOOK LIKE those pictures either. Which is why YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS DESTROYED BY THIS ONE PICTURE. Arthur
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
30th May 2006 - 03:25 PM
ME: | QUOTE | I just can't pretend that it's alumimium at anything less than 1100C
<br>Arthur's version:
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | I just can't pretend that it's alumimium at anything less than 1100C
<br>Arthur's version:
I just can't pretend that it's alumimium
<br>You misrepresent my statements in exactly the way those whacky no-planers misrepresent and butcher the Pentagon witness testimony.
Why?
Colour vision is as old as the need to distinguish ripe fruit from poison.
Answer my questions without obfuscation or anti-scientific appeals to ridicule, Arthur. I will repeat them until you do exactly that:
1.) What temperature is required to make a molten alumimium pour glow bright yellow?
2.) What temperature is required to properly pour alumninium?
3. How can I convert my alloy 7075 into a brightly glowing yellow-white pour in daylight?
bolt
30th May 2006 - 03:50 PM
QUOTE (adoucette+) You CAN'T PRETEND its aluminum????? <br>That's not what he typed. You are twisting his words. Below is what he typed: QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step+) I just can't pretend that it's alumimium at anything less than 1100C <br>Arthur, how do you expect to appear credible in this debate if you are purposely twisting other people's words? Aren't you even aware that by twisting other's words you are engaging in the most common disinformation tactic around? Why do persist on proving "facts" and make people believe that what you support are "facts" if you must resort to word twisting in order to make a point? By continuing to reinforce your arguements via the method of manipulating other people's words, your intention in this debate could be parallel to a possible disinformation campaign.
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 04:33 PM
I KNOW what he typed, IN FACT I INCLUDED HIS ENTIRE POST JUST SO THEIR WOULD BE NO MISUNDERSTANDING
BUT, you have to take that STATEMENT (the one you are focusing on) in CONTEXT with the NEXT statement.
(if it is aluminium, the orange spill should be highly reflective in daylight).
Which IS MOST CERTAINLY implying that what we are seeing IS NOT aluminum.
Now via a TWISTED interpretation of that one COULD say he really meant that IF IT WAS aluminum then it has to be at over 2,000 d F.
Which is WHY I included this from the book:
The pouring temperature of aluminum is approximately 1380 deg. F. Pouring temperature is dictated by the fluidity of the particular alloy and the type of casting. Long thin castings require higher temperatures than thick chunky castings.
Followed by my comment:
Now DO YOU REALLY THINK HE WOULD ILLUSTRATE HIS BOOK WITH PICTURES THAT GO AGAINST WHAT HE CLAIMS ARE THE IMPORTANT RULES OF HOME FOUNDRY WORK?
You know, like adding over 600 d F to the estimated pour temp.
Arthur
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 04:55 PM
| QUOTE |
1.) What temperature is required to make a molten alumimium pour glow bright yellow?
2.) What temperature is required to properly pour alumninium?
3. How can I convert my alloy 7075 into a brightly glowing yellow-white pour in daylight?
<br>Why?
We are NOT TALKING ABOUT PURE ALLOYS.
We are NOT TALKING ABOUT FOUNDRY CONDITIONS.
We are talking about the UNKNOWN MIXTURE that would form in the CHAOTIC conditions in the TOWERS. Where there are MANY different metals in use as well as MANY different CHEMICAL REACTIONS taking place.
Thus there is NO WAY to determine EXACTLY WHAT the material was.
Since YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MATERIAL in question was you CAN NOT deduce the TEMPERATURE from the COLOR in these pictures.
You can RANT all you want about what happens in a FOUNDRY producing PURE ALUMINUM, but that is NOT APPLICABLE to what was going on in the WTC that day.
Arthur
shagster
30th May 2006 - 05:08 PM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 24 2006, 08:00 PM)
What is odd too is that B & Z have an Appendix II with the title "Why Didn't the Upper Part Pivot About Its Base?" where we have a discussion of the fact that the upper part of WTC 2 DID indeed pivot, as we all know!
Ploughing through Appendix II we find B & Z reaching the conclusion:
".....(T)he reaction at the base of the upper part of the South Tower must have begun shearing the columns plastically already at an inclination theta ~ 2.8 degrees"
THIS DEGREE OF TILT IS MUCH SMALLER THAN the 4 - 8 degrees of tilt NIST claim as the pre-collapse tilt angle of WTC 2. (An issue I have raised before, and one that was fluffed off by the "popes" on this forum.)
BZ were referring to the fact that the top section didn't pivot completely and reach a horizontal orientation like a tree falling. It did pivot, but according to the BZ model when an angle of 2.8 is reached, the structure near the base is already compromised and the section starts falling downward. Greening noticed, as you did, that NIST came up with a higher angle. Greening's angle is similar to that calculated by BZ. Greening attributed the difference in the NIST value as the result of the parameters they used for their FEA. Greening and BZ did an analytical treatment.
yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 05:22 PM
QUOTE (metamars+May 30 2006, 01:12 PM) QUOTE (yesitdid+May 30 2006, 05:32 AM) metamars, Jones IS a Ph.D. and does have a paper. He can't get it published. Why not? (forget the socialist economics journal, it isn't even close to real 'peer' review)
I have been told in these pages , that Van Romero and others were probably threatened, that engineers will not speak out for fear of reprisals and that others as well have been stifled. Therefore I believe it is relevant to ask why no paper has appeared in any scientific or engineering journal(in the USA, Japan, Canada, Germany, G.Britain, Sweden, France,,, etc., in which the case for CD is given, or why there is no paper significantly disputing NIST report and the B-Z paper.
Why not metamars, please tell me why, in all the hundreds of thousands, millions perhaps, of persons with requisite qualifications their is not a one (other than Jones so far, and his paper languishes) who can get a paper published?
<br> | QUOTE | You know very well that Jones' paper, at least in the end, was peer reviewed by some gents including, IIRC, 2 physicists. As it's not cutting edge physics, I see no more hope of having gotten published in Physical Reviews than in a journal of molecular biology.
<br>No, I do not know that. What were their names and for what publication? B-Z's paper was also not cutting edge yet they got published.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | You know very well that Jones' paper, at least in the end, was peer reviewed by some gents including, IIRC, 2 physicists. As it's not cutting edge physics, I see no more hope of having gotten published in Physical Reviews than in a journal of molecular biology.
<br>No, I do not know that. What were their names and for what publication? B-Z's paper was also not cutting edge yet they got published.
To call his paper a paper in civil engineering is ludicrous. The argument that it is, but not good enough to be published in a civil engineering journal because it doesn't pass muster with civil engineers, strikes me as laughable.
<br>He is commenting on a civil engineering topic is he not? If his arguments cannot stand up to civil engineering review then they do not have merit do they?
| QUOTE | My arguments were about the other papers which have not been published, which you presuppose must be there if serious objections to BZ and NIST were to have any merit. I say "baloney", and "you have no evidence", and I just listed a few counter arguments along this line. Do I really need repeat them? Already? Here we see not the curious selective memory of a pope (as you just read the post), but rather a curious blindness.
<br>OK have it your way then. There are no other papers that have been written by anyone let alone submitted for review and publication. Why not, metamars? You have made no argument that explains why there is either no other paper than Jones' which it seems cannot get published in any relevant journal or magazine.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | My arguments were about the other papers which have not been published, which you presuppose must be there if serious objections to BZ and NIST were to have any merit. I say "baloney", and "you have no evidence", and I just listed a few counter arguments along this line. Do I really need repeat them? Already? Here we see not the curious selective memory of a pope (as you just read the post), but rather a curious blindness.
<br>OK have it your way then. There are no other papers that have been written by anyone let alone submitted for review and publication. Why not, metamars? You have made no argument that explains why there is either no other paper than Jones' which it seems cannot get published in any relevant journal or magazine.
In mentioning the lack of civil engineers in foreign countries, you at least attempt to respond to one counter argument (which has been posted previously, more than once). However, the rest of the arguments apply overseas, also. So where is your hypothesis explaining why the fear factor is the predominant one? And why should we take it seriously, anyway? Not that fear does not exist (I've seen this first hand), but rather, as stated, that the fear factor is the predominant one?
In my mini-survey, did I indicate that any of the civil engineers were afraid? I did not.
<br> I made a suggestion that this was the case and you know very well that others have stated this to be the reason for no other papers. Again, have it your way. Take fear and coercion out of the picture entirely then.Why are there no papers?
| QUOTE |
Oh, please. Somebody on my side of the main argument links the WTC Towers collapse to UFO's or Elvis, right? (I mean one of the more regular posters on this forum.) And if somebody on my side, in a physics forum, chooses to write about paper money, what has that got to do with me
<br>Perhaps you should go back a page and note that YOU mentioned first Elvis and UFO's not me. You did it sarcastically, do you have reason to suspect that I wasn't?
As for the folding money, it was indeed brought up and when I attacked it I was told it was a straw man attack. therefore I believe I asked those who called it such to disavow it. I know that Foxx would not do so, even defended it. I don't recall what your position was. Am I arguing with a new age mystic or someone grounded in science. I from whence newton comes and Foxx defended him so i know where Foxx is coming from. ,,,, and you???
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE |
Oh, please. Somebody on my side of the main argument links the WTC Towers collapse to UFO's or Elvis, right? (I mean one of the more regular posters on this forum.) And if somebody on my side, in a physics forum, chooses to write about paper money, what has that got to do with me
<br>Perhaps you should go back a page and note that YOU mentioned first Elvis and UFO's not me. You did it sarcastically, do you have reason to suspect that I wasn't?
As for the folding money, it was indeed brought up and when I attacked it I was told it was a straw man attack. therefore I believe I asked those who called it such to disavow it. I know that Foxx would not do so, even defended it. I don't recall what your position was. Am I arguing with a new age mystic or someone grounded in science. I from whence newton comes and Foxx defended him so i know where Foxx is coming from. ,,,, and you???
It is your side which characteristically uses straw men arguments and irrelevant smearing. And while we're on the subject, in our recent exchange you claimed that your description of "mini nukes, space weapons", etc. were "contorted" explanations, but you did not mean to imply that the word "contorted" meant that these had to all apply. Two points:
..............
<br>The very fact that you find it necessary to go in search of exotic weaponry and suggest that 'A' explains one effect and 'B' explains another and 'C' yet another but that they are not all necessarily in play all at once is ludicrous. I am not saying that you or anyone else has stated that they were all in play but which ones were? trying to nail you guys down to a position is like trying to hang Jello on a wall.
The C' Theorists it seems cannot stand a simple explanation if a more complex one will do.
It IS convoluted to suggest that the buildings HAD to be completely demolished and kill as many as possible in order to give the US administration the justification to go to war against Iraq. Hijacking 4 planes full of people and crashing them into buildings would be more than enough to warrant going to war and in fact the USA went to war against Afghanistan for the attacks of 9/11 NOT Iraq. If Iraq had been the reason for a gov't to cause the attacks of 9/11 then Iraq would have been the original country marked for war.
It IS convoluted to suggest that weaponry for which there is no evidence that such things were in place on site (thermobaric bomb or thermite) and for which there is no evidence that they even exist was in play that day. (space based beam weaponry or strict fusion mini-nuke)
"Regular explosives", again, no evidence that they were in place. There is also the contention by some that the towers were quite literally blown to bits, absolutely demolished in order to cause widespread death and damage and to make sure that evidence was destroyed yet at the same time building 7 was only let down relatively gently so as to not damage nearby buildings too much. What kind of contortions are required to hold both of those notions at the same time?
| QUOTE | Who cares about BAUT or AH? I've seen the "logicians" at work there, and besides JayUtah, I'm not impressed, which is not to say that less gifted "debunkers" never make a good point, either.
<br>You asked who believed as I do other than the usual suspects on this one forum. Seems to me that it is quite easy to show that on other forums there are many who believe as I do and on the two forums I mention they are in the great majority. Again, you brought it up. (beliefs on internet forums)
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | Who cares about BAUT or AH? I've seen the "logicians" at work there, and besides JayUtah, I'm not impressed, which is not to say that less gifted "debunkers" never make a good point, either.
<br>You asked who believed as I do other than the usual suspects on this one forum. Seems to me that it is quite easy to show that on other forums there are many who believe as I do and on the two forums I mention they are in the great majority. Again, you brought it up. (beliefs on internet forums)
So, by "strong form", I mean "NIST explains the collapses but does not ignore the anomalies, most of which seem completely (and often dramatically) at odds with their hand-waving claims of "inevitable global collapse".
<br>Anomalies exist in all facets of non-laboratory experiences(and a good many in the lab) NIST's responsibility was mainly to determine what factors in the design and construction of the buildings were of interest in order to better the building codes. White smoke occurs and NIST suggests that it may be a metal fire caused as shredded aluminum of the plane ignites. They did not pursue this further. Why would they? If it was burning aircraft aluminum then there is little that could be written into a fire code that could protect against that. If it was a smoke explosion then that is already part of the scenario for building fires.
Now I am sorry but what 'anomalies' directly contradict the idea of "inevitable global collapse"?
NIST does not address a few anomalies and YOU claim that NIST is saying it is forbidden to do so? Where do they say that? Where is it even suggested?
ahhhh, trust in Gov't and gov't financed institutions, we get back to the paranoia factor. Ok I admit it , I am not as paranoid of either the US gov't or of my own as you are.
| QUOTE | That is why it's so important to get more non-NIST'ian structural engineers on record, on either side of the issue, specifically wrt the "anomalies". Oh, and by the way, I do feel that will happen, eventually, though very likely outside the US.
<br>Fine, then get'em. I await the results.
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | That is why it's so important to get more non-NIST'ian structural engineers on record, on either side of the issue, specifically wrt the "anomalies". Oh, and by the way, I do feel that will happen, eventually, though very likely outside the US.
<br>Fine, then get'em. I await the results.
Finally, althogh I'm speculating, I fully expect Professor Jones to trust NIST as little as I do. Why should he be a fool, then, and let NIST take care of things?
<br>No problem , but NIST is not the reason why his paper is not published in any relevant journal or magazine.
Has Jones asked for a chance to work on the evidence himself? You know and certainly must accept that if he does that he will have to state what plans he has in the way of tests. What are they?
Common Sense
30th May 2006 - 05:44 PM
This is the kind of "Research" the scholars for misrepresenting 911 truth do. You want to talk about laughable! "If aluminum (e.g., from the plane) had melted, it would melt and flow away from the heat source at its melting point of about 650 oC and thus would not reach the yellow color observed for this molten metal. Thus, molten aluminum is already ruled out with high probability." The obvious question is how does he know what condition the floors were to suggest they were flat enough not to pool aluminum near a heat source? I guess this is where we are asked to forget again... We are to forget an airliner just rammed into the floors possibly bending/warping them. No? Don't like that? What about concrete, steel columns, steel sheets which held the concrete, airliner parts and office furniture which could have created a temporary dame? In fact I think it's a "high probability" that the floors weren't in pristine shape after the impact of an airliner.  http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/damage.jpgThe above is what the floors may have looked like. I'm no "Professor" but I think there was a "high probability" aluminum could have pooled near a heat source. Heh! What MORONS!!! If this is the kind of research physicist do then I'm GLADE they didn't investigate this. WHAT FU<KING MORONS!!!How much do you want to bet he changes this now...
Common Sense
30th May 2006 - 05:57 PM
Ooh but what! There's more! Jones also says: "This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray"  http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Moltenal.jpgNote the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of it's journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. This substance is grayish. Dare I say SILVER? One thing it's not, and that's black. What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) MORONS!!!
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 07:07 PM
QUOTE (Common Sense+May 30 2006, 01:57 PM) Ooh but what! There's more! Jones also says: "This is point worth emphasizing: aluminum has low emissivity and high reflectivity, so that in daylight conditions molten aluminum will appear silvery-gray" http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/Moltenal.jpgNote the color of the substance as it cools and solidifies toward the end of it's journey. Molten steel would turn almost black. This substance is grayish. Dare I say SILVER? One thing it's not, and that's black. What's telling about this photo isn't that it's proof of the substance being aluminum, It's that it's a zoom and crop of the photo from Jones own paper. (Time for him to change yet another one of his photos.) MORONS!!! Jones is also making the SAME MISTAKE Al K SbS makes and that is to refer to the material AS IF IT IS PURE ALUMINUM. Which is another reason why Jone's paper will never pass PEER REVIEW, no one with ANY INTEGRITY would allow him to get away with these kind of UNFOUNDED ASSERTIONS. To then take THAT unfounded assumption and LEAP to the conclusion that it is PROOF of Thermite is not only absurd, it is fundamentally DISHONEST. Which brings me to the conclusion, a debate with DISHONEST people is pointless. The majority of the CT'ers clearly weren't interested in the TRUTH from the start, so why do I think that pointing out the TRUTH will affect them? I'm semi-kicking myself for wasting this much time on this. Others warned me at the start, but I thought I'd post rebuttals to their idiocy so that others would see the errors, but alas, apparently if you are TOO LAZY to read the NIST report and NOT SMART ENOUGH to see past their distortions of the truth, you are a SUCKER for their pitch. Obviously, as we approach 900 pages, its more and more clear that TRUTH is NOT what they are here for, its to spread their FALSE STORIES as if they were truth. Arthur
Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step
30th May 2006 - 08:20 PM
QUOTE We are NOT TALKING ABOUT PURE ALLOYS.
We are NOT TALKING ABOUT FOUNDRY CONDITIONS. We are not talking about SILICA or SAND, Arthur. But we are talking about something that is certainly over 1100C. The official fire tempertature maximum hypothetical - which is clearly ridiculous as I shall demonstrate - does not permit this colour of molten anything. And what on earth do you think your alloy is going to assimilate at sub-1000C temperatures, anway? I ALREADY ASKED THAT QUESTION WHILE REMINDING YOU OF THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND LEAST PATH OF RESISTANCE. REMEMBER? YOU SEEM TO HAVE A VERY SHORT AND VERY SELECTIVE MEMORY, ARTHUR. DO YOU LIKE BEING SHOUTED AT LIKE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT WHO NEEDS TO BE SHOWN HIS PLACE? We are talking about a molten cascade that was, according to NIST, significant in quantity and duration. QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | We are NOT TALKING ABOUT PURE ALLOYS.
We are NOT TALKING ABOUT FOUNDRY CONDITIONS.
We are not talking about SILICA or SAND, Arthur.
But we are talking about something that is certainly over 1100C.
The official fire tempertature maximum hypothetical - which is clearly ridiculous as I shall demonstrate - does not permit this colour of molten anything.
And what on earth do you think your alloy is going to assimilate at sub-1000C temperatures, anway?
I ALREADY ASKED THAT QUESTION WHILE REMINDING YOU OF THE 2ND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS AND LEAST PATH OF RESISTANCE. REMEMBER?
YOU SEEM TO HAVE A VERY SHORT AND VERY SELECTIVE MEMORY, ARTHUR.
DO YOU LIKE BEING SHOUTED AT LIKE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT WHO NEEDS TO BE SHOWN HIS PLACE?
We are talking about a molten cascade that was, according to NIST, significant in quantity and duration.
It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner prior to the collapse of WTC2. This is the area where the sustained fires on the 81st and 82nd had been burning since the aircraft impact. The likely explanation for the observation of pouring liquid is that the material had originally pooled on the floor slab above, i.e., the 81st floor, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when the floor slab in the immediate vicinity either pulled away from the spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the release of the material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a pressure pulse that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum. Visual evidence already discussed shows that significant wreckage from the aircraft passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower on the 81st floor, i.e., at the location where the molten material apparently originated. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminium alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 (NISTSTAR 1-3). The melting points for these alloys vary as the material melts. The Aluminum Association handbook (The Aluminum Assosciation 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500C to 638C and 475C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1000C), and any aluminum present is likely to have been at least partially melted by the intense fires that had been in the area for nearly 48 min.
NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C
Fire Behavior in WTC2
p. 375-376
(pdf P79-89 of 268)
------------------------------------------------
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
<br>
There were no reported injuries except for three firefighters who suffered smoke inhalation and exhaustion.
At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday.
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4127075
============================
pre-collapse "minutia":
| QUOTE | 
But right before the south tower collapsed, I noticed a lot of people just left the lobby, and I heard we had a crew of all different people, high-level people in government, everybody was gone,
almost like they had information that we didn't have.
- Chief Joseph Pfeifer, Battalion 1,
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW,
October 23, 2001
New York Times NAUDET Bros. 911, Main Feature - narration:
0:44:26 - "as busy as a beehive"
0:49:58 - "I think at that point, the lobby was pretty empty."
Richard J. Sheirer of OEM is one of those high-level people who is seen fleeing at escape velocity 10 minutes before the Southtower came down: minutia.
Guest_yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 09:45 PM
But right before the south tower collapsed, I noticed a lot of people just left the lobby, and I heard we had a crew of all different people, high-level people in government, everybody was gone,
almost like they had information that we didn't have.
- Chief Joseph Pfeifer, Battalion 1,
WORLD TRADE CENTER TASK FORCE INTERVIEW,
October 23, 2001
New York Times
[/QUOTE]
,,, and yes they did have info the FF's didn't. A police (NYPD) helicopter gave out a warning that the building was in danger of coming down. This info went out to NYPD in the area but since NYPD and NYFD did not operate on the same freq or have any set way to communicate such info to the NYFD command they did not get that info. NYPD were told to evacuate, some members told the FF's this as they evacuated but some of the FF's, not having gotten orders to leave, stayed and died.
shagster
30th May 2006 - 10:14 PM
Maybe someone in the helicopter or someone else noticed the east wall buckling in. A copter would give a good vantage point for noticing buckling.
yesitdid
30th May 2006 - 10:48 PM
QUOTE (shagster+May 30 2006, 10:14 PM) Maybe someone in the helicopter or someone else noticed the east wall buckling in. http://www.skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html | QUOTE | The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.
In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.
But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.
<br>
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XXI/GW...1-Report-9.html
QUOTE (-> | QUOTE | The World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground, scientists probing the Sept. 11, 2001, disaster said yesterday.
In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m.
But emergency responders inside the tower never got the order to evacuate due to faulty communications equipment and garbled lines of command, investigators with the National Institute of Standards and Technology said in its second interim report on the collapse's causes.
<br>
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AMH/XXI/GW...1-Report-9.html
FDNY North Tower Operations. Command and control decisions were affected by the lack of knowledge of what was happening 30, 60, 90, and 100 floors above. According to one of the chiefs in the lobby, "One of the most critical things in a major operation like this is to have information. We didn't have a lot of information coming in. We didn't receive any reports of what was seen from the [NYPD] helicopters. It was impossible to know how much damage was done on the upper floors, whether the stairwells were intact or not."106 According to another chief present, "People watching on TV certainly had more knowledge of what was happening a hundred floors above us than we did in the lobby. . . . [W]ithout critical information coming in . . . it's very difficult to make informed, critical decisions
..................
(in reference to the South tower)
At 9:51, an aviation unit warned units of large pieces of debris hanging from the building. Prior to 9:59, no NYPD helicopter pilot predicted that either tower would collapse
...........
(in reference to the North tower)
A member of the NYPD Aviation Unit radioed that the South Tower had collapsed immediately after it happened, and further advised that all people in the WTC complex and nearby areas should be evacuated. At 10:04, NYPD aviation reported that the top 15 stories of the North Tower "were glowing red" and that they might collapse. At 10:08, a helicopter pilot warned that he did not believe the North Tower would last much longer.
...............
The three plainclothes NYPD officers who had made it up to the 54th floor of the North Tower felt the building shake violently at 9:59 as the South Tower collapsed (though they did not know the cause). Immediately thereafter, they were joined by three firefighters from an FDNY engine company. One of the firefighters apparently heard an evacuation order on his radio, but responded in a return radio communication, "We're not *** coming out!" However, the firefighters urged the police officers to descend because they lacked the protective gear and equipment needed to handle the increasing smoke and heat. The police officers reluctantly began descending, checking that the lower floors were clear of civilians. They proceeded down stairwell B, poking their heads into every floor and briefly looking for civilians.
<br>
adoucette
30th May 2006 - 11:22 PM
QUOTE (Al Khwarizmi - step-by-step into the ditch+May 30 2006, 04:20 PM) we are talking about something that is certainly over 1100C.
The official fire tempertature maximum hypothetical - which is clearly ridiculous as I shall demonstrate - does not permit this colour of molten anything.
And what on earth do you think your alloy is going to assimilate at sub-1000C temperatures, anway?
We are talking about a molten cascade that was, according to NIST, significant in quantity and duration.
| QUOTE | It has been reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) as well as in the media that what appeared to be molten metal was observed pouring from the north face near the northeast corner prior to the collapse of WTC2. This is the area where the sustained fires on the 81st and 82nd had been burning since the aircraft impact. The likely explanation for the observation of pouring liquid is that the material had originally pooled on the floor slab above, i.e., the 81st floor, and that it was allowed to pour out of the building when the floor slab in the immediate vicinity either pulled away from the spandrel or sank down to the point where the window was exposed. The puff of smoke and/or dust just prior to the release of the material occurred suddenly, in the process creating a pressure pulse that forced smoke and/or dust out of open windows over three floors.
The composition of the flowing material can only be the subject of speculation, but its behavior suggests it could have been molten aluminum. Visual evidence already discussed shows that significant wreckage from the aircraft passed through the building and came to rest in the northeast corner of the tower on the 81st floor, i.e., at the location where the molten material apparently originated. Much of the structure of the Boeing 767 is formed from two aluminium alloys that have been identified as 2024 and 7075 (NISTSTAR 1-3). The melting points for these alloys vary as the material melts. The Aluminum Association handbook (The Aluminum Assosciation 2003) lists the melting point ranges for the alloys as roughly 500C to 638C and 475C to 635C for alloys 2024 and 7075, respectively. These temperatures are well below those characteristic of fully developed fires (ca. 1000C), and any aluminum present is likely to have been at least partially melted by the intense fires that had been in the area for nearly 48 min.
NISTNCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C
Fire Behavior in WTC2
p. 375-376
(pdf P79-89 of 268)
------------------------------------------------
http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf
<br>[
You have NOT proved that EITHER picture is of something above 1100C.
You may think you have, but YOU HAVEN'T.
What on Earth will it assimilate?
Who knows?
Its up to YOU to prove it DIDN'T assimilate the many materials that were in the plane, and the offices, you know in the computers, office furniture, plumbing, light ballasts, which would include (but not be limited to) cast iron, tin, copper, lead, brass, bronze, gold, silver etc etc
Not up to me to prove it DID.
And thanks for posting that snippet from the NIST report, since it CLEARLY shows that the temps were sufficient to MELT the aluminum, and a lot of other metals as well.
any aluminum present is likely to have been at least partially melted by the intense fires that had been in the area for nearly 48 min.
You see, when they say ANY ALUMINUM was AT LEAST partially melted, that also means that SOME OF IT was COMPLETELY MELTED. And there were TONS of it to melt.
If you read THE WHOLE CHAPTER you can learn about how the sagging floors played a role as well as the INTENSE fires in that corner.
What you ALSO know is the MIX would have been HIGHLY CONTAMINATED and thus would NOT BE EXPECTED to look like PURE ALUMINUM.
As far as being shown my place, YOU HAVEN'T SHOWN ME ANYTHING, well except that you like to focus on MINUTIA and things which have little relevance to the actual collapse of the towers.
And now you are off into La La land, quoting a fireman totally out of context and posting irrelevant pictures of the Madrid fire.
What next? Going to tell us the meaning of "PULL IT"???
You have quickly degenerated into the typical TRASH post from a CT'er.
So what are you going to post about now that you have had your ONE IDEA DESTROYED and apparently don't have any new IDEAS of your own?
PATHETIC but PREDICTABLE.
And just so you won't forget the PICTURE THAT DESTROYED YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT
Arthur
David B. Benson
31st May 2006 - 12:22 AM
Foxx posted a link to Appendix C to Chapter 9 of the NIST report and had some questions about it. I just finished (rapidly) reading the appendix, while some time taken to use my magnifier on several of the included visuals. First of all, other than a rather early on visual of 'molten metal' flowing from a floor 78 window, towards the west end of the north side of WTC 2, none of the rest appear to me to be the 'molten metal' which this part of the NIST report repeatedly states that it was. This is an inference on their part for which I see no justification. The case of the floor 78 flow I'll just pass off as maybe molten aluminum (it is about the right color) but it also might be that an office water bottle just broke and the water poured out (it is about the right color for that as well.)
The main issue is the repeated falls of globules or coarse particles, glowing yellow to orange, from window 80-256 and then window 80-255. Looks like hot coals falling from under a wood fire grate to me. Indeed, the windows themselves look roughly like the underside of a wood fire grate. Some of the visuals in the NIST report are of sufficiently high resolution that my magnifier was of some use. Briefly, the glowing portions appeared to be rather coarse coals, sticking together until sufficiently consumed to fall. So I see no direct evidence of 'molten metal' from 80th floor windows from the NIST report.
That does not mean that other visuals, not in the NIST report, might not offer some evidence of molten metal. I believe I have seen one, but it might have been altered to enhance the idea that it was more a liquid than a collection of hot coals...
There is evidence, in the NIST report, of at least two occasions with extremely hot fires, hot enough to "essentially saturate" the pixels, according to the report. Both occur at or below the location of most of the airplane parts, so there are many substances available to produce these two flairups. In both cases no ejection of material occurs immediately thereafter and the NIST report conjectures pools of molten metal on floor 81(?). I will offer the alternative hypothesis that these are metal fires, consuming the metal. If the metal is aluminum, then the release of aluminum oxide would appear white. This seems to be the case on one occasion in the NIST report. This would also explain the visual that Foxx offered, which is not in the NIST report.
Foxx specifically asked about the several occasions when the building fires synchronously flared up. NIST states these are probably due to sudden increases in the floor (partial) collapses, each resulting in more and deeper "hanging objects" as the NIST report calls them. This appears to me to be a highly plausible hypothesis, partially confirmed by the visuals which demonstrate but more and deeper hanging objects on the north side. So, Foxx, could you repeat your objection to the NIST report in this regard? I'll be happy to attempt to answer.
NEU-FONZE
31st May 2006 - 12:31 AM
AA: On what basis do you claim I am lacking in gonadal fortitude, as in this quote.... one of your best ever mindless rantings:
"And I would compare you to Astaire, but at least he has the gonads to put his ideas down IN WRITING, unlike you, who can just TALK the TALK but obviously not WALK the WALK.
ARTHUR!
What a bunch of cliched rubbish!
Do they pay you by the word?
Or by the turd?
NF
Guest
31st May 2006 - 12:39 AM
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+May 30 2006, 09:45 PM) ,,, and yes they did have info the FF's didn't. A police (NYPD) helicopter gave out a warning that the building was in danger of coming down. This info went out to NYPD in the area but since NYPD and NYFD did not operate on the same freq or have any set way to communicate such info to the NYFD command they did not get that info. NYPD were told to evacuate, some members told the FF's this as they evacuated but some of the FF's, not having gotten orders to leave, stayed and died. Help me out here, who exactly was it in that there police helicopter that able to the determine the building was coming down?
Guest
31st May 2006 - 01:24 AM
QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+May 30 2006, 09:45 PM) ,,, and yes they did have info the FF's didn't. A police (NYPD) helicopter gave out a warning that the building was in danger of coming down. This info went out to NYPD in the area but since NYPD and NYFD did not operate on the same freq or have any set way to communicate such info to the NYFD command they did not get that info. NYPD were told to evacuate, some members told the FF's this as they evacuated but some of the FF's, not having gotten orders to leave, stayed and died. Some additional interesting info on the distress call, this from one Martin Steadman: QUOTE And much has been made of the fact that a police helicopter radioed a warning at 10:07 a.m. on 9/11, shortly after the collapse of the south tower, a warning that the north tower was in imminent danger of collapse. The New York Times, in one of a series of in-depth stories based on Oral History interviews of rescue workers that the newspaper was able to obtain, led its account with the warning from the NYPD helicopter shortly after the south tower fell and 21 minutes before the second building came down. The Times estimated there were 121 firefighters still in the north tower, none of whom heard the police radio warning and all of whom died.
The police helicopter warning has become the focus of all the What Went Wrong stories since. But in the same July 7 story, down in the middle of its massive account, The Times reported that a high-ranking chief of the FDNY radioed an evacuation order to all firefighters in the north tower at 9:32 a.m., after he felt the building move and saw the structure buckling and the windows breaking all around him in the lobby. That was 27 minutes before the south tower fell, 35 minutes before the police helicopter warning that the north tower was certain to go, and a full 56 minutes before the north tower collapsed.
But hundreds of firefighters in the floors above never heard the Staff Chief’s radio command on their own radios, nor did they hear any of the frantic calls to evacuate that followed. And with 27 minutes still left before the first collapse, no one in the south tower heard his evacuation order either. The FDNY radios, the same ones that failed at the WTC in 1993, failed again at the same place eight years later. They couldn’t be heard on the floors above, they couldn’t be heard on the floors below, and they couldn’t be heard from one WTC lobby to the other. The Times has unintentionally done history a disservice with its emphasis on a 10:07 a.m. radio warning from a police helicopter. The emphasis should have been on a 9:32 a.m. order by Staff Chief Joseph Callan to his firefighters to "come down to the lobby, everyone down to the lobby." No one knows how many more times the Fire Department lobby command center repeated those evacuation orders on their worthless, useless radios that morning. We only know that too many firefighters on the floors above never heard the commands.
As for the current wisdom that the police and fire departments didn’t work together on 9/11, contrary to what you may have read there was a plan in place for the NYPD and the FDNY to work together in high-rise fires. The plan was developed after the 1993 WTC bombing and it envisioned possible roof-top rescues that would involve two police helicopters carrying rescue companies from the FDNY. A battalion chief would ride in one of the helicopters, equipped with a police radio that would tie him into an Emergency Services Division police officer that would respond immediately to fire commanders in the lobby of the building.
That never happened on 9/11 because the fire commanders were unable to reach the Fire Dispatcher on the department radio to trigger the rescue plan.
yesitdid
31st May 2006 - 03:14 AM
QUOTE (Guest+May 31 2006, 12:39 AM) QUOTE (Guest_yesitdid+May 30 2006, 09:45 PM) ,,, and yes they did have info the FF's didn't. A police (NYPD) helicopter gave out a warning that the building was in danger of coming down. This info went out to NYPD in the area but since NYPD and NYFD did not operate on the same freq or have any set way to communicate such info to the NYFD command they did not get that info. NYPD were told to evacuate, some members told the FF's this as they evacuated but some of the FF's, not having gotten orders to leave, stayed and died. Help me out here, who exactly was it in that there police helicopter that able to the determine the building was coming down? The police in the helicopters AFAIK. They commented that the top 15 stories of the North Tower "were glowing red" and that they might collapse. At 10:08, a helicopter pilot warned that he did not believe the North Tower would last much longer. These guys have the experience of the collapse of the South tower to compare the North tower to. They know the South tower collapsed and now they see changes in the North tower that are occurring that suggest the north one may collapse as well. Other reports have them noticing an increase in the inward bowing of the perimeter columns. I understand you are getting at the fact that these are police, not structural engineers, however having witnessed the fact of one tower collapsing, and then seeing changes in the condition of the second tower, it does not take a Ph.D. in engineering to conclude that it too might very well be on the verge of collapse. Some FF's did hear an order to evacuate, some did not due to several reasons. Others heard it but were unaware that the South tower had collapsed and delayed their response for various reasons, still others simply refused to obey the order.
steve1957
31st May 2006 - 03:29 AM
Proverbs 10:14 "Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction".
yesitdid
31st May 2006 - 03:40 AM
QUOTE (steve1957+May 31 2006, 03:29 AM) Proverbs 10:14 "Wise men lay up knowledge: but the mouth of the foolish is near destruction". Having so little knowledge then, you must be teetering on the edge.
adoucette
31st May 2006 - 05:36 AM
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+May 30 2006, 08:31 PM) AA: On what basis do you claim I am lacking in gonadal fortitude, as in this quote.... one of your best ever mindless rantings:
"And I would compare you to Astaire, but at least he has the gonads to put his ideas down IN WRITING, unlike you, who can just TALK the TALK but obviously not WALK the WALK.
ARTHUR!
What a bunch of cliched rubbish!
Do they pay you by the word?
Or by the turd?
NF More TALK from our gonadal impaired member I see. I wish, they paid "by the TURD", I'd make a MINT off of just you. Canadian? Candu? Greening? His Bud? ? Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
