From 911Blogger

Professor Steven E. Jones from BYU has updated his research paper on the ‘collapses’ of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.



The report also includes an image from Ground Zero showing molten hot steel, presumably weeks after 9/11. How temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees could be found in the sub-basements of the WTC towers weeks (and even months) after 9/11 has yet to be fully explained.

You can also find a video linked in his report which comments on the lava like core found weeks after 9/11 here

Hey cortez, welcome to the nightmare.

I have repeatedly done calculations that show that an enormous amount of kinetic energy must have been left over from the collapses, and repeatedly shown that the bulk of this kinetic energy must have become heat; this without even discussing the energy content of 110 floors of offices full of paper, plastic, cloth, wood, and other combustible material that would have smouldered for weeks under the pile of steel and concrete.

This is precisely what I have in mind when I say that hypotheses are presented, evidence that compromises them is developed and never refuted, and then those hypotheses are re-presented as if the compromising evidence had never been stated. Why do you and others do this? It is clear obfuscation, and clear avoidance of obvious flaws in your hypotheses, yet you refuse to abandon them. It is this that leads me to accuse people who do it of dishonesty. I'm stopping short of that with you, but PLEASE try to understand that simply shouting the same thing over and over again when it has been proven ridiculous is of no help to your cause.

Zoktoberfest, you need to look this page over; it deals with static discharge wicks that are required equipment on all civilian aircraft. You might have seen these devices on planes you flew on and not even been aware of what they were for.

You might also want to look here, where not only is the use of these wicks reiterated, but it is also stated that static electricity in cars can be dissipated through the tires; one presumes that this would be true of aircraft tires as well. In case you are not familiar with ESD protective devices commonly used in the electronics manufacturing industry, they are not direct wired connections to ground; this would be hazardous to personnel who might come into contact with high voltage sources, and being grounded could be killed by the current flow. Instead, ESD protection involves a resistance between the person and ground of some 10k to 1M, allowing static to be dissipated slowly. What is essential is to ensure that large charges are not built up, and even such a high-resistance pathway is sufficient to ensure that that is the case. In a plane, with the static wicks taking care of the bigger charges, the conductance of the tires is sufficient to dissipate any remaining static before the plane reaches the gate and fuel is present in sufficient quantity to constitute a hazard.

Metamars, thanks for not taking my sniping on the engine block thing personally. It's very frustrating to present clear and compelling evidence that a particular statement is wrong, and have someone wait fifteen pages and then present the same statement again as if it was never responded to. Not saying you did that, but I'm sure you can see obvious examples of it. So thanks for staying level-headed.

I'd like to take the opportunity to establish some relatively obvious facts that we can all agree on so that there is some chance of eventually coming to some sort of conclusion. I'd like to put what we know and can easily deduce out for criticism and see what we can agree on, and then proceed to try to find problems with or confirmations of the "official story" based on it. Let's see how this works out; it seems to me more likely to yield sensible conclusions than the endless repetition of stale, disproven ideas that has been the rule on this thread so far.

1. Trumpman's analysis is flawed in several ways, not least of which is badly formatted calculations and the use of figures that are not justified in any way. I don't think we can take it seriously in the face of these obvious flaws.

2. Hoffman's dust cloud analysis ignores several relatively obvious sources of energy, and fails to correctly evaluate the sources and sinks; the first is clear from the fact that there is no discussion of the energy content of the office floors that burned, and the second from the fact that he totally fails to include the energy that broke apart the concrete of the floors in his final tally of the sources and sinks, implying that this energy somehow disappeared. It is further flawed in that it makes assumptions about the dust cloud that are in obvious conflict with the testimony of numerous individuals who were trapped in the clouds, and who could not have survived the conditions Hoffman postulates. Again, I don't think we can take this analysis seriously in the face of these obvious flaws.

3. The potential energy of the mass of the towers and their contents is an order of magnitude greater than NIST has presented it in their analyses, at least those I have seen so far. Even the most conservative estimate places just the RESIDUAL energy at some 6GJ, whereas the NIST estimate of the TOTAL energy is 400GJ, an order of magnitude lower. The total energy, to be accurate, is calculated as not much more than 6TJ; the additional energy lost is some 200GJ, increasing the total to only about 6.2TJ. This amount of energy is the equivalent of a kiloton and a half of TNT (a ton of TNT is 4.184GJ, thus a kiloton is 4.184TJ). I am by no means surprised to find molten metal under the pile of rubble.

4. The total collapse time is a red herring; it is clear that there would be little difference in the collapse time between a building that was being deliberately demolished and one that collapsed on its own. Although substantial time is taken for the first few floors, the remainder change the timing little. What is really different is the velocity at impact; this varies by some 30% or more, but the time taken varies from free fall by only some 1.4/8.8=16%. This happens because the velocity is first-degree in the equation for momentum, which is conserved, but second-degree (squared) in the equation for kinetic energy, which is not conserved (because it can be converted to other forms of energy, such as heat).

5. The total energy of the plane's impact and the plane's fuel is immaterial to the total energy of the collapse; it is more than three orders of magnitude less, by even the most generous estimates. However, it is NOT immaterial to the INITIATION of the collapse, since it provides at least some of the energy that weakens the building's materials sufficiently to allow the collapse.

6. The total energy of the office contents by floor is material in that it provided not only an additional source of heat at the point of the initiation of collapse which has turned out to be greater than the heat of the jet fuel, but also because it provides extra mass to drive the collapse, and extra energy at the bottom of the debris pile to keep the materials there hot for days and weeks after the collapse.

7. Since we know that total energy is conserved, we know that we can use this fact to calculate how much energy must have been dissipated by X number of tons falling Y number of meters, no matter how long or short the time, and no matter what else took place during that fall. Resistance to the fall is immaterial; cause of the fall is immaterial; collision with any structural element insufficient to credibly attempt to hold the entire mass up is immaterial. If X tons of mass descends through Y meters in gravity field G, then Z joules of energy must be dissipated by whatever means.

8. Since we know that momentum is conserved, we know that we can use this fact to calculate the momentum distributed among the elements of the structure of the building over a given time. Since we know the mass and we know the force, we also know the total potential energy that must be dissipated as well. Given the mass, the force, and the total potential energy, it will be strange if we cannot derive the momentum by some means. I have made a proposal of a method of doing this. So far, objections have been highly subjective and without relevant mathematical content. I am open to suggestions for how this methodology might be improved, but totally uninterested in sniping by the illogical and uninformed. Suffice it to say that the model we are currently using uses the conservation of energy to make the assumption of unimpeded fall, and that the conservation laws ensure that this energy must be dissipated no matter what else happens; this allows us to estimate the momentum on a floor-by-floor basis. This estimate shows that assertions that the collapse time was "near free-fall" are not merely ridiculous, but ludicrous. Furthermore, in at least two cases, the objections raised actually BOLSTER the case for global collapse being inevitable; it is clearly apparent that the presenters of these objections have not thought their way through to the conclusions their "objections" militate toward. I mention specifically the objection that this modelling technique fails to account for resistance to the fall posed by structural elements in the way of the fall, which is shown to be a false objection by the fact that our calculations using this method yield a time only 15% greater than free fall, yet we clearly observe in indisputable video evidence a collapse time almost twice the time of free-fall. The implications of this are obvious to anyone who has the intelligence to consider them.

9. We have both done calculations using our separate methodologies, and come to strikingly similar results. These results support the idea that the global collapse was inevitable once the local collapse had begun, but explicitly make no attempt to describe or account for the local collapse itself. We have agreed to put that matter off, but to eventually do detailed calculations to confirm or deny the plausibility of either explosive demolitions being the initiator, or some weakening of the structure being the initiator. I'd say that the time to examine the local collapse has arrived. I will in a post that I will make shortly examine the last remaining objections and show that due to overall considerations, they cannot stand; granted that I show this, I believe we are now ready to discuss the local collapse in as much detail as we can arrange to extract from reliable sources of evidence.

10. We have examined the possible means of use of explosives to initiate the collapse, and have determined that these means are unlikely to say the least. No plausible scenario that would support the contention has yet been presented; despite numerous repetitions of obviously implausible scenarios, we have no hard evidence to show that this must have been the case. Rather than go scenario by scenario refuting increasingly implausible suggestions, I would like to examine the likely characteristics of explosive demolition on the local collapse WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS PLAUSIBILITY (which is obviously low) and try to show whether the observed characteristics of the local collapses tend to support or deny this hypothesis.

11. Finally, I would also like to examine the likely characteristics of a local collapse driven by mechanical damage due to the impact, weakening of the steel due to the fire, and off-balance loading due to the structural damage AGAIN WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS PLAUSIBILITY and try to show whether the observed characteristics of the local collapses tend to support or deny THIS hypothesis.

I think that this is a balanced and clear method of moving forward to a conclusion, at least to the extent that we can come to any firm conclusion. What is your opinion? Do you have objections? I think this is a good time to bring them forth and discuss them, and either reject them or modify our plan to account for them.

Faux, as far as I am concerned, you have exhausted all credibility. I have repeatedly shown that you lie, and I am about to show it yet again. Before I begin, let me say that I find the fact that you fasten onto assumptions or assertions that are not merely immaterial to the matter, but in fact are assumptions or assertions BY ME that would tend to BOLSTER YOUR VIEW rather than otherwise, yet still fail to show what you would have them show, not merely the height of stupidity but further evidence of your complete lack of any vestige of ethics. I think that the evidence is clear: you are dishonest, and have unstated ulterior motives in this conversation. You are incapable of maintaining a respectful tone toward your opponent, despite the obvious drawbacks of failing to do so, and you depend far more on rhetoric than upon fact. I despise this sort of thinking, and I note that it is precisely the sort of thinking and method of proceeding that we all most abjure in the current US administration; it is precisely this sort of stuff that leads to denial of global warming, denial of ongoing ecological catastrophe, denial of the poor state of oil reserves, assertion of ridiculous pseudo-science like "creationism" and attempts to give it the same stature as actual science, and assertion of "WMD" in the hands of a nation accompanied by destruction of the most effective unit of the government trying to keep those same WMD out of the hands of actual terrorists (I'm referring, of course, to the "fixing" of intelligence revealed by the British memos, and to Plamegate). You are despicable, and I detest you.

In regard to the outriggers: now, where precisely do you suppose the force exerted by the perimeter columns on their ends is received? Perhaps it goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CORE WITHOUT TOUCHING IT to the opposite face of the building? Maybe you think little aliens or electron beams or reptiloids are holding the outriggers up. Oh, my goodness, do you suppose that they could be PUSHING DOWN on the core? No, no, couldn't be.

Now tell me again how the force isn't on the core. You see, it doesn't matter whether the force from the perimeter is on the core from the hat truss, or on the core from the outriggers, IT'S STILL ON THE CORE. You are not only despicable, you are an idiot.

In regard to whether the core columns were encased in concrete, it never appears to have entered your brain cell that they would be STRONGER if they were encased in concrete. DON'T YOU SUPPOSE THAT HAVING THEM BE STRONGER MIGHT BE AN ADVANTAGE FOR YOUR SIDE? No, no, COULDN'T be, right? Why should I make assumptions that might tend to help your side? Wouldn't that be HONEST? And if I'm being honest, what does that make you?

QED.

schneibster, don't bother, they managed to figure it out. They know about our little 9/11 trick.
My astrologer told me it would go unnoticed but the *** was wrong.

Come get your check, and a secure shelter. We may get lynched anytime soon.

Damn sheeple. I hate them.

/me is amused by harassment. It tells me that I've made a point sufficiently strong that the poster has no other answer. IOW, thanks for telling me I'm right, "donald rumsfeld."

QUOTE

"Once it is initiated... there is no stopping it" !!! <br>This clip puts that nonsense to bed once and for all. http://media1.Break.com/content/stillstanding.wmv And this was posted by some 'idiot shill' who has no concept of structural engineering and somehow thinks it supports his position !!!. (Adoucette - Please note that: this 'mpeg' does not address the " 'plunger' acting as a 'solid body' issue posted by yourself above). The 'plunger' in the WTC towers broke up 'turning to dust and shattered sections' Prior to the commencement of the 'collapse' of the lower intact section. This is clearly evident from videos and photos posted earlier, and I will attempt to (again) show that tomorrow for your edification & enlightenment. (YID - Remember your good buddy 'Lew'... ?) Please send him our thanks for this excellent video You can do it yourself Foxx. Now please explain how it does anything to support your contention that the upper sections of the towers broke up into dust before it hit the lower floors, Please also tell me in what universe the videos of the collapses show that the upper sections broke up into dust before they hit the lower section. You are desending into the same insanity that has claimed your good buddy ong Foxx. newton's ghost 12th December 2005 - 03:20 AM QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 12 2005, 12:05 AM) In regard to the outriggers: now, where precisely do you suppose the force exerted by the perimeter columns on their ends is received? Perhaps it goes ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE CORE WITHOUT TOUCHING IT to the opposite face of the building? Maybe you think little aliens or electron beams or reptiloids are holding the outriggers up. Oh, my goodness, do you suppose that they could be PUSHING DOWN on the core? No, no, couldn't be. Now tell me again how the force isn't on the core. You see, it doesn't matter whether the force from the perimeter is on the core from the hat truss, or on the core from the outriggers, IT'S STILL ON THE CORE. You are not only despicable, you are an idiot. In regard to whether the core columns were encased in concrete, it never appears to have entered your brain cell that they would be STRONGER if they were encased in concrete. DON'T YOU SUPPOSE THAT HAVING THEM BE STRONGER MIGHT BE AN ADVANTAGE FOR YOUR SIDE? No, no, COULDN'T be, right? Why should I make assumptions that might tend to help your side? Wouldn't that be HONEST? And if I'm being honest, what does that make you? QED. (kinda) sorry if i've been rude, schneibster. the thing is, if you are wrong, then the world is coming apart at the seams. i am sure that this is the case. if you can convince me that the towers fell on their own, it will not change the fact that a puff of smoke can be seen coming off the woolworth's tower, which corresponds emergency radio broadcasts which say exactly that. a shoulder-fired missile was launched form the top of that building. it will not change the fact that most people don't even know that tower seven fell, because it was IGNORED BY LYING MAINSTREAM MEDIA. (and you accuse 'our side' of advertising and viral memes(i know that's redundant, but you get the idea). it's demise has never been explained. now, once again, without plugging in any numbers, your new analysis is missing something(the same thing, in fact). it requires that a mass falls all at once. when X mass DESCENDS Y meters.... in order for it to descend, nearly a whole floor has to give out AT ONCE. more like three floors, really, because of the staggered nature of the perimeter columns. like i said before, this building was a giant steel mesh. the pathways through which loads could be redistributed were multitudinous. it has been described as a 'mosquito net'. there was no reason for this building to be so brittle. we should have seen SLOW bending and twisting before any global collapse, and, once again, the thicker stronger portion of the building was COMPLETELY undamaged. the steel in the lower portion should have acted like steel, and not like peanut brittle. if it was a floor that fell, it was because of the clips failing, no? if said floor becomes disconnected, how does it represent the full mass of the upper floors? if the clips have failed, then how are these floors any more than JUST THE FLOORS, and not the entire upper mass of the building? what was it that SEVERED 47 core columns, and hundreds of perimeter columns? not disconnected floors, that's for sure. ooooo. that's gotta hurt. also, it might have worked if you weren't so VILE! people here aren't 'LYING', and you know it. they may be WRONG, but they are not 'LIARS'. this type of ad hominem attack is typical of division five desk agents. you extrapolate to the extreme, implying a great divide, where there may be an infitisimal difference. YOU do not know 'the truth'. maybe, 'we' don't, either. is that not why we are having this 'discussion'? but, despite all your accusations of bias and agenda, you have just admitted that you have a 'side'. was the core encased in reinforced concrete, according to your 'side'? ooooo. that's gotta hurt. finally, if the building could fall all by itself, why does 'your side' require that every single floor be wired to accept that ANY explosions went off? i would believe in a total global collapse, IF something were destroy the BASE of the CORE. otherwise, it just doesn't add up. the towers may have had the potential energy, but i don't see the mechanisms in place which would nearly INSTANTLY convert it all into kinetic energy. as i've reiterated a few times... there were FOUR huge box columns in the core that were WELDED all the way up. it would take a great deal of horizontal shearing force to break these babies ANYWHERE, nevermind EVERYWHERE. it was not all of the core columns. just four. yesitdid 12th December 2005 - 03:24 AM QUOTE (cortez+Dec 11 2005, 10:21 PM) From 911Blogger Professor Steven E. Jones from BYU has updated his research paper on the ‘collapses’ of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. The report also includes an image from Ground Zero showing molten hot steel, presumably weeks after 9/11. How temperatures exceeding 1500 degrees could be found in the sub-basements of the WTC towers weeks (and even months) after 9/11 has yet to be fully explained. You can also find a video linked in his report which comments on the lava like core found weeks after 9/11 here Molten: Reduced to liquid form by heating The images you post show no "molten" anything! naught when 12th December 2005 - 03:31 AM QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 11 2005, 10:31 PM) I have repeatedly done calculations that show that an enormous amount of kinetic energy must have been left over from the collapses, and repeatedly shown that the bulk of this kinetic energy must have become heat; this without even discussing the energy content of 110 floors of offices full of paper, plastic, cloth, wood, and other combustible material that would have smouldered for weeks under the pile of steel and concrete. tower seven didn't have 110 floors. yesitdid 12th December 2005 - 03:45 AM QUOTE (naught when+Dec 12 2005, 03:31 AM) QUOTE (Schneibster+Dec 11 2005, 10:31 PM) I have repeatedly done calculations that show that an enormous amount of kinetic energy must have been left over from the collapses, and repeatedly shown that the bulk of this kinetic energy must have become heat; this without even discussing the energy content of 110 floors of offices full of paper, plastic, cloth, wood, and other combustible material that would have smouldered for weeks under the pile of steel and concrete. tower seven didn't have 110 floors. So? I believe that the discussion is about the WTC 1 & 2 towers. yesitdid 12th December 2005 - 03:52 AM QUOTE there were FOUR huge box columns in the core that were WELDED all the way up. it would take a great deal of horizontal shearing force to break these babies ANYWHERE, nevermind EVERYWHERE. it was not all of the core columns. just four. <br>Doesn't matter anyway since they were constructed of 30 foot sections. Welding them together is still NOT the same as one piece fabrication. They will still be most likely to fail in a shear mode(caused by a shear force or a bending distortion) at the weld points. The box columns sections were capped at the ends, welding them together would make the welded area stiffer due to those caps , than the rest of the column. In a bending distortion then they would simply not bend at that point the same as along the length between welds. This would mean a concentration of the forces at the welds. They might fail just above or below the welds or at the welds themselves but this still translates into an approx 30 foot section. Schneibster 12th December 2005 - 04:07 AM QUOTE (kinda) sorry if i've been rude, schneibster. Well... apology (kinda) accepted, then. QUOTE (-> QUOTE (kinda) sorry if i've been rude, schneibster. Well... apology (kinda) accepted, then. the thing is, if you are wrong, then the world is coming apart at the seams. Friend, it's comin apart at the seams one way or the other, in case you ain't been readin the news just lately. Global warming... mass extinctions... massive pollution... Chinese population... running out of oil... the ozone which nobody's talking about just lately... fundies runnin every d**n thing the way some f***in stone age goat herders tell 'em to in their five-thousand year old "holy book"... water shortages... food shortages... In short, we're in real trouble, the lights just come on and it's time to find a crack to hide in before the giant shoe gets you. You might not have heard my point. My point is, what idiot would bother to put explosives in the WTC after they got done convincing some fool to go fly planes into it? Let's say you've got this CIA asset named Osama bin Laden. Now let's say you wanna fix up a flagging Presidency, and stop everybody moaning about the screwed up economy (being as how you haven't got a clue what to do about it, and being as how the people who got you in office in the first place don't really want it fixed anyway), and have an excuse for a nice little war and whatnot. So you figure out how to get numb nuts to make a big plan to go fly some airplanes into the WTC and the Pentagon and so forth, and you figure you better fix things up so when they get around to the White House, you can stop 'em or you're not there or whatever. And you figure out how to set things up so that you've got the planes you need to take care of that up in the air, but also so that there won't be any chance of the other ones getting shot down too early. And you fund them and set them going. OK, you're good to go: a buncha a-rabs are gonna go fly airplanes into national landmarks for allah, and nobody's payin attention to Tyco and Enron and the energy crisis any more, and everything's all set for your little war. You got what you need. So why do the monumentally stupid, and go put explosives in the buildings? Whadda ya tryna complish? You got your excuse for a war, you got all the rest of it. WHAT'S THE MOTIVE, not of some random fool but of the PEOPLE WHO HAD THE POWER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE? What do THEY, not Larry Silverstein, not the NYPA, not teh j00s or whatever other weird conspiracy theory, but the people IN POWER with the MEANS and OPPORTUNITY to make this happen, get out of it? Answer: NOT A SINGLE F**KING THING!!! OK, now here's the next question: What do those same people get out of it if a bunch of people are going around asking who dynamited the towers when they know perfectly d**n well the correct answer is NOBODY? Well, let me ask you this: if everybody's asking who dynamited the towers, WHO'S ASKING ABOUT BIN LADEN BEING A CIA ASSET? Answer: NOBODY! Get it? QUOTE in order for it to descend, nearly a whole floor has to give out AT ONCE. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. At time T1, mass X is at height Y1. At time T2, mass X is at height Y2. If Y2 is less than Y1, then the potential energy of the mass X is less at T2 than it is at T1. It DOESN'T MATTER how it got from Y1 to Y2, or how long it was from T1 to T2; that potential energy is no longer available. Because of conservation of energy, it HAS TO appear SOMEWHERE. Period. End. QUOTE (-> QUOTE in order for it to descend, nearly a whole floor has to give out AT ONCE. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. At time T1, mass X is at height Y1. At time T2, mass X is at height Y2. If Y2 is less than Y1, then the potential energy of the mass X is less at T2 than it is at T1. It DOESN'T MATTER how it got from Y1 to Y2, or how long it was from T1 to T2; that potential energy is no longer available. Because of conservation of energy, it HAS TO appear SOMEWHERE. Period. End. people here aren't 'LYING', and you know it.  they may be WRONG, but they are not 'LIARS'.