WTC Collapses

[John99]

How so?

 

[scott3x]

How so?

I guess I just thought that engineers were a little more civil on the whole. Perhaps that only applies to 'civil' engineers . Anyway, I've added a point to my previous post regarding your assertion that Urich's PE stood for "Professional Engineer"...

 

[John99]

it can be frustrating when others cannot see things that are obvious but i realize having received my license at 19 that i need to be more tolerant and understanding.

 

[scott3x]

it can be frustrating when others cannot see things that are obvious but i realize having received my license at 19 that i need to be more tolerant and understanding.

You're not the only engineer in the world John- many disagree with the official story; more then 555 of them would like to further investigate what happened on 9/11, as the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth site makes clear.

 

[John99]

555 of them would like to further investigate what happened on 9/11

the term engineer is a broad one and there are hundreds of thousands of engineers whose opinions on this matter are no more relevant than a school crossing guard. that is not to say it isnt a fine profession or respectable field.

to this i afford professional courtesy:

http://www.teachingtools.com/Slinky/types.html

 

[scott3x]

555 of them would like to further investigate what happened on 9/11

the term engineer is a broad one and there are hundreds of thousands of engineers whose opinions on this matter are no more relevant than a school crossing guard. that is not to say it isn't a fine profession or respectable field.

to this i afford professional courtesy:

http://www.teachingtools.com/Slinky/types.html

Yes, I am aware of this and have mentioned to shaman_ that I believe it is a flaw on the part of the Architects and Engineers site to not have a list that takes into account only the engineers that have a professional knowledge of buildings. Nevertheless, I believe there are still quite a few engineers in the list who are certainly professionally qualified and there are, ofcourse, all those architects as well. Out of curiosity, what type of engineer are you?

 

[John99]

what type of engineer are you? None of your business.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 6

This post is in response to the 6th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris –outside of building footprint.

This claim in no way favors CD over gravitational collapse. The size of the debris field is not surprising considering that the exteriors peeled outward(see also #10). The debris was not equally distributed.

Don't know why, but the AE site has since taken down this point. When they had it up, they linked to this FEMA picture which seems to support their point of equally distributed debris.

 

[scott3x]

what type of engineer are you? None of your business.

I'm not an engineer. You mentioned you were an engineer- I didn't think you'd mind if I knew if the type of engineer you are has a bearing on buildings, but apparently that's not the case.

 

[John99]

i was answering your question, not asking you. the less you know about me the better.

 

[John99]

and yes, it does have to do with building. but i no longer work as my gf supports me.

 

[scott3x]

i was answering your question, not asking you.

Actually, you were asking- question marks do that to a phrase. Re-reading what you wrote, I understand what you mean. The phrasing is wrong, but I know that people at times write things that way.

the less you know about me the better.

How do you figure? Personally I tend to believe that it's -much- better to know a great deal about the people you interact with.

 

[scott3x]

and yes, it does have to do with building.

Ah cool, thanks for sharing.

but i no longer work as my gf supports me.

Ah ok. Doesn't take away your professional knowledge and experience though.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 7

This post is in response to the 7th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

9. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away.

The characterization of blast waves is not supported. Since most of the broken windows were broken lower down on the surrounding buildings, the most likely cause was winds caused by the expulsion of air from the building as described in #5. The winds described above would certainly be capable of blowing in windows.

This is another point that AE no longer has on its site. However, I find that the evidence for this former assertion of theirs is still valid. When they originally asserted this point, AE linked to a page from 9/11 Research, a source of information that I have found to be valid time and again. From 9/11 Research's Explosive Ejections of Dust and Pieces page, with a bit of minor modification:

1- Thick dust clouds spewed from towers in all directions, at around 50 feet/second.

2- Solid objects were thrown ahead of the dust -- a feature of explosive demolition:

3- The steel was thoroughly cleansed of its spray-on insulation.

4- Some pieces of the perimeter wall were thrown laterally 500 feet:

5- Aluminum cladding was blown 500 feet in all directions.

6- Blast waves broke hundreds of windows in buildings over 400 feet away:

 

[Buffalo Roam]

you are nit-picking and obfuscating, the data is available with regard to reaction speeds of various explosive forms of thermite compunds. saying "thermite is not explosive" is too general a statement to be of any use. people think of "thermite" as a thermite grenade or a flowerpot engine block experiment, nowhere have I claimed that is explosive.

If there is data on reaction speed of thermite please post it.

Sorry but yes you did, your the one nit picking.

Thermite is a added to explosives to control the detonation of the explosives, and is not a explosive in and of it self.

Please post any citation to prove your claim.

where do you get your information from? what made you think nanothermite can only be used at the nanoscale such as targetting drugs into cells? was it the "nano" part of "nanothermite" that convinced you? what about the documents i have shown you that describe a process by which silica aerogels can be made dried from a solution to hold nano-sized thermite reactants (aluminium, iron oxide and oxidizers such as potassium permanganate) to make nanothermite at the macro level (big chunks of nanothermite that could be molded into shaped charges). why do you deny this? if you simply handwave it away dismissively and stick to your false statement that it is only useful for molecular level applications then it is pointless continuing any discussion with you, since you will simply ignore anything that you want not to be true.

Your lack of reading comprehension is showing, I have posted many statement as to the uses of nano thermite in welding, and that is no a micro use.

I have also posted citation as to the use of Nano Thermite as a controller in warheads, and explosives, as a enhancement to control the path of detonation inside the explosive, that is what they are working on, and again from your own citation that is still in the R&D stages, and the R&D started after 9/11 by at least 6 months according to your own citation, it was dated article.

Thermite is not usable as a shaped charge, it isn't dense enough, and it has no shock wave, it is still a Intense Thermic Reaction, again post citation of such, evidence, like a picture of the supposed weapon.

How do you know it was miss-reported? you don't want it to be true so it must be a lie, right? you do not get to create reality, you only get to acknowledge it or deny it. this is a perfect example of what I was saying above.

Because, Irons and Steels come in grades, and I referenced a site that shows the materials that are added to Iron and Steel to make different grades of Iron and Steel, and all of the compounds are listed as additives to Iron and Steel to give them their grades, and the equalities of each grade are used for different purposes in construction and fabrication.

Some Steels are Stainless and resist corrosion, some steels are mailable, so they can be shaped and best in to needed pieces in assembly.

Irons are also graded with additives, steel is nothing more than Iron with a carbon content, and all of the compound that you cited again are used in the manufacture of graded Irons.

life is a breeze when you decide what is real and what you can ignore. the truth is sometimes more difficult to accept, like a wife who denies her husband is abusing the children. nanothermite welding in the towers construction? are you being serious?

Yes, it is a listed use of Nano Thermite.

Your the one with the breeze, you are the one who has been deciding, what is real and what you can ignore.

garbled nonsense which doesn't even support your position, steel does not have 10% aluminum or 14% silicon.

So it isn't nonsense, it is fact, graded steels use all of the compounds that you and your citation listed including aluminum additives.

all those old farm boys, why bother with metallurgy, bubba will sort it out for a bottle of moonshine.

Because as a old farm boy, when you have to repair farm equipment, you need to know the grade of steel in the cutter bars, or any other metal, so when you weld the patch in it doesn't break in the next five minuets after you put it back into use, not only does that waste time it can be dangerous with moving machinery, it can get you seriously hurt or killed by making a improper repair.

But then I forget you are a city boy, and you get your meat from a counter.

and this disproves my position in what way? :shrug:

Because, I have worked on construction and fabrication jobs, I have been their as the welds have been place, I have delivered the materials to the job sites, and have watched as they have been used.

I Have seen the bead slag scattered across the construction sights, I have seen the dust being blown around 50 stories above the ground, everything form concrete, wood dust, to thermite dust, to over spray from the paint guns as they spray anti corrosion coatings and fire proofing on the exposed steel and Iron.

I had a advantage being retired from the military I could work any job that interested me, and any job that kept me out of a plant or office interested me, especially jobs were I was out on my own.

That brings up another point about that red coating on that chip of Iron of Steel, that red coating could also be a anti corrosion paint, primer red is the standard color, and that is primer red, but it isn't Thermite.


ps:

Combustion characteristics of A1 nanoparticles and nanocompo...
Much interest has been formed in the science and application of nano -sized ... have been used for decades in welding and other intense heat applications . Nano -thermite reactions , have shown unique properties in ignition sensitivity ...

http://repositories.tdl.org/tdl/handle/2346/956 - 20k - Similar pages


Nano-welding could join molecular devices - tech - 31 March ...
Nano-receptacles. Richter says nanoscale thermite reactions could perhaps be used to "weld" together molecular machines. But the real value of the technique ...

www.newscientist.com/article/dn8930-nanowelding-... - 42k - Similar pages

A nanoscale welding technique has been developed by sparking high-temperature chemical reactions inside "nanopores".

The technique could ultimately be used to weld together nanoscale components and could also lend itself to nanoscopic chemistry experiments, say the researchers.

By lacing a micrometre-thick film of aluminium with nanoscopic holes and filling the holes with iron oxide, the researchers produced a high-temperature "thermite" reaction.

This reaction is used every day in welding and fireworks, and as a simple but spectacular classroom chemistry demonstration. Thermite reactions are normally produced by heating a mixture of aluminium and iron oxide powders, and produce fiery sparks and molten iron.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 8

This post is in response to the 8th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

10. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 -50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet.

Close inspection of some of the videos reveal that most exterior columns fell still connected as the exterior peeled outward. Since the exterior was 1400 ft. high, it's not surprising that they reached 500 ft. away. In fact, there exist photos of the nearly intact exterior stretching all the way from WTC1 to the World Financial Center.

They seem to have removed this point from the AE site as well. Headspin, what's your take on this? Even if what he says is true, I note that he says 'most', which still leaves some rogue pieces and clearly an explanation for those pieces may be outside of his purview. But I've never dealt with the above argument before...

 

[Headspin]

ps:

Combustion characteristics of A1 nanoparticles and nanocompo...
Much interest has been formed in the science and application of nano -sized ... have been used for decades in welding and other intense heat applications . Nano -thermite reactions , have shown unique properties in ignition sensitivity ...

http://repositories.tdl.org/tdl/handle/2346/956 - 20k - Similar pages

here is the full quote:
"Much interest has been formed in the science and application of nano -sized aluminum (nm -Al ) combustion . A thermite (or aluminothermic ) reaction is an oxidation reaction between aluminum and a metal oxide with highly exothermic energy release . Thermite reactions of traditional Al powder (typically micron -sized particles ) and Iron -oxide have been used for decades in welding and other intense heat applications . Nano -thermite reactions , have shown unique properties in ignition sensitivity and deflagration (flame propagation ) speeds which have propelled thermites to new realms of applications"

you just cropped the quote to make it say what you wanted it to say
http://repositories.tdl.org/tdl/handle/2346/956

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 9

This post is in response to the 9th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

11. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements –obliterating the steel core structure.

It has not been demonstrated that this is uncharacteristic of a gravitational collapse that initiates high up in a 110 floor,high rise, tube/corestructurebuilding. Since the world has never seen such a collapse prior to or after 9/11, there are no empirical results to compare to.

My take is that the thing to focus on is not the fact that the building was 110 floors but rather, that it was a 100% steel framed building. What's more, WTC 7 wasn't 110 stories anyway. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire before or since; logic dictates that another mechanism took the buildings and there is a lot of evidence that explosives were that mechanism.

Often, the collapses are compared to gravitation collapses due to earthquakes resulting in pan-caking or toppling. These comparisons are not relevant to the Twin Towers because the initiation of the collapses is low in the building due to lateral forces.

Say what? How do 'lateral forces' make floors 82 for the south tower or 98 for the north tower 'low in the building'?

Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that there was plenty of potential energy to enable buckling of all columns at every floor. In reality, the core columns broke mostly at the welded connections every 36 ft, which takes even less energy.

Sorry, but I debunked the 'plenty of potential energy' argument when I responded to his 5th point in his letter.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 10

This post is in response to the 10th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

12. Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (What could have produced all of that molten metal?)

Does any evidence for “tons of molten metal”exist?

Definitely:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

What metals comprise this molten metal?

Most likely molten iron, as Steven Jones has made clear in his article Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

This author is only aware of witness statements regarding molten metal and only small pieces of previously molten metal. Can molten metal observed in the pile weeks after the collapse be attributed to a thermate attack weeks before?

I believe so.

The fires in the pile would not be hot enough to ignite any unburned thermate

Would like to know if he has any evidence for this assertion...

and any thermate burning in the pile would give off a characteristic bright white light, which was not observed.

Again, would like to see some evidence...

If there is in fact evidence of tons (i.e. more than one ton), this is a reasonable issue to investigate.

Why tons?

Until this claim is supported by evidence, it cannot be considered indicative of a thermate attack.

I believe it is supported by evidence such as the evidence Steven Jones has provided in the aforementioned article.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 11

This post is in response to the 11th part of shaman_'s post 394 in this thread.

Continuing where I left off in my response to Gregory's Open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth:

13. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

I believe that this is a valid issue which should be pursued by independent researchers and NIST alike.

Finally something we can agree on ;-)

However, there may be alternative explanations other than a preplanned demolition and these should receive at least as much attention.

If he comes up with any alternative explanations I'd be happy to hear them .