WTC Collapses

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 12

This post is in response to the 12th 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:

14. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and inter-granular melting on structural steel samples.

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

Nice

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

Again, if he comes up with any, I'd be happy to hear them .

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 13

This post is in response to the 13th 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:

15. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for —700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

This does not favor the CD hypothesis over the gravitational collapse hypothesis. See #4.

Headspin dealt with his point #4 here.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 14

This post is in response to the 14th 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:

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations.

See #1 above.

Seen and countered here.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 15

This post is in response to the 15th 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:

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires).

Has any rigorous analysis of the “path of least resistance” been done? An application of the principle of least action would probably be more appropriate. Mechanical dynamics are governed by inertia, force, momentumand material properties. This author has seen no dynamic analyses showing that the top parts of the towers should have fallen off. Unless this argument is supported by careful analysis it is only conjecture.

I believe that AE911 is on the right track when it comes to this path of least resistance bit but I can't counter Urich's argument. Headspin, what do you think?

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 16

This post is in response to the 16th 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:

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel.

It is well proven that temperatures in building fires can soften steel. This is why buildings have thermal insulation applied to the steel structural components.

Perhaps in some buildings, but Kevin Ryan, who worked for the company who certified the steel assemblies in the twin towers, has made it clear that this didn't apply in the case of the twin towers.

 

[scott3x]

Gregori Urich, Part 17

This post is in response to the 17th and final 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:

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

These buildings were not structurally damaged to begin with and had different structural designs than the Twin Towers. It would be meaningful to examine whether or not the buildings, which survived serious fires, had concrete cores or not. Does any evidence exist that buildings with similar structural design, damaged in the manner of the world trade center, should not collapse due to fires?[/quote]

Plenty:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

My conclusion is that there is no claim favoring the controlled demolition hypothesis over NIST’s impact/fire/gravitationalcollapsehypothesis. Most important, there are no tell-tale sharp cracking sounds in the sound video given above and there is no comparison between the sounds in that video and the sounds in video's actual demolitions. This means we can rule out demolition using conventional means.

Here we can agree. The explosives were not conventional. It has been my theory that nano thermite may be quieter then conventional demolitions or more numerous but smaller charges were used so that the sound was not like that of a typical demolition.

I hope that your commitment to the truth is such that you take my criticisms seriously.

Definitely which is why I took the time to respond, even though I'm not Richard Gage- I am, however, a (non architect/engineer) member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth.

If the truth movement is going to be successful, we will need to distance ourselves from fallacious claims and avoid conjecture.

I agree.

I would welcome constructive discussion of these issues in any forum. I am regularly available on the STJ911 and JREF forums, and you have my e-mail address.

Seen him on JREF, didn't know about the STJ911 forum; may look for it in the future.

 

[psikeyhackr]

In fact, there exist photos of the nearly intact exterior stretching all the way from WTC1 to the World Financial Center.

I have never seen any such photograph, If that happened shouldn't there have to be a row of X's on the FEMA map. I have seen pictures of about 6 perimeter panels connected together leaning against the corner of the FedEx Tower.

psik

 

[scott3x]

In fact, there exist photos of the nearly intact exterior stretching all the way from WTC1 to the World Financial Center.

I have never seen any such photograph, If that happened shouldn't there have to be a row of X's on the FEMA map. I have seen pictures of about 6 perimeter panels connected together leaning against the corner of the FedEx Tower.

No idea. I just applied for the STJ forum, perhaps I'll be able to ask him about this soon. I know he's on JREF, but I'm a bit antsy about bringing stuff up over there. Oh, and you may find this be a christmas gift of sorts ...
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2126251&postcount=593

 

[Buffalo Roam]

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

Yes, and, still no citation of Thermite, or Nano Thermite, as a explosive.

1. No mention of Nano Thermite as a explosive.

2. The confirmation that Thermite is used in welding.

3. You still haven't provider the burn speed of Nano Thermite or proof of shock wave propagation, which is a signature of explosives.

Again, Thermite and Nano Thermite are used to control the ignition of explosives and as a enhancer to explosive material, the hotter the explosion the more power released, and nano thermite increases the temperature of the explosive reaction they by increasing the yield of the explosive, it is not in and of it's self a explosive.

 

[pjdude1219]

just a thought people who keep mumbling about how the tempeture wasn't hot enough to melt the metal in the towers are forgeting on little thing. It didn't have to melt. as a metal gets hotter it becomes more malleable. all it would take for it to collapse is for the weight to deform the support top the point where it could no longer hold the weight it needed to.

 

[Headspin]

just a thought people who keep mumbling about how the tempeture wasn't hot enough to melt the metal in the towers are forgeting on little thing. It didn't have to melt. as a metal gets hotter it becomes more malleable. all it would take for it to collapse is for the weight to deform the support top the point where it could no longer hold the weight it needed to.

Who is arguing that "it had to melt"?
do you not see that you arguing with phantoms?
your post has been addressed several times in this very thread.

 

[John99]

just a thought people who keep mumbling about how the tempeture wasn't hot enough to melt the metal in the towers are forgeting on little thing. It didn't have to melt. as a metal gets hotter it becomes more malleable. all it would take for it to collapse is for the weight to deform the support top the point where it could no longer hold the weight it needed to.

I dont think these people are so stupid as to actually believe their stories but you you never know. One of the greatest mysteries to come out of this whole thing is just how gullible toofers may actually be.

 

[leopold]

why didn't the "nanothermite" explode above the impact site?

 

[shaman_]

Still on page 20...

This post is in response to the 2nd and final part of shaman_'s post 390 from this thread.


Kevin Ryan, NIST and Underwriter Laboratories, Round 4



A lot of things. He's certainly not the only person who felt that Larry Silverstein was essentially admitting that the building was pulled; I myself did for a time. In any case, I have never seen him mention the 'pull it' comment in any of his other articles, so I assume that he has now realized that it's not compelling evidence; I believe the quote is still suspicious, however. If he meant that the fire chief had told him that he was going to pull his firemen away, one would expect he'd atleast have said 'he decided to pull -them- out' or something to that effect. People are not its- buildings are. The fact that the firechief has apparently denied he ever said any such thing to Silverstein is also worthy of investigation, don't you think? .

Can you show me some evidence of that claim?

No, he's not a steelworker. Yes, he does know a great deal about steel and the WTC steel in particularly due partially or completely to his study of it since 9/11. .

He is not an authority on steel. Doing some reading does not make you an expert. He was a chemist who worked on water, he is not an authority on steel.

Laugh . Hopefully we'll be able to come to some sort of agreement.

That doesn’t seem likely..

Hopefully the person or people I went to would be both.

If they were a doctor they had been trained by the most appropriate people and that training had been thoroughly tested to assure that they met a certain standard. Someone who had done a bit of research is not even close to the same level. Just accept that Ryan is not an authority on steel. It’s not even a critical part of your argument but you need to contest every little criticism of your heroes.

You find one minor flaw and all of a sudden the article isn't worthy of note?

I scanned for three seconds and found one….. It wouldn’t matter how many mistakes this guy made you would still worship him.

You forget to mention all the research they've done on 9/11.

Big deal. So have you and I. We’re not experts on the behaviour of steel are we? Could someone cite your comments as evidence? That is what you are trying to do with Ryan.

As to whether they're the best experts, I would argue that they are the best experts on certain subjects, particularly the subject of the WTC collapses. For experts on all the subjects that 9/11 brings up, I'd turn to noted authors David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs.

lol What great additions to your team of experts, the theologian and the ufo guy.

I'd ask you to present his evidence.

So you agree that Mackey saying it so is not evidence right?

From wikipedia:
"Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion."

So: If his statements help determine the truth, they can be seen as evidence.

The problem here is that you are quoting Ryan’s comments on steel as if that alone is evidence. I am trying to point out to you that Ryan saying the building shouldn’t have collapsed is not compelling evidence because he was a chemist who worked with water. I have gone in circles trying to get you to understand this and you can’t. So I came up with the hypothetical situation of me doing the same thing with Mackey and you still don’t seem to get it. I can’t break this down any simpler for you Scott.

I know that many in the 9/11 truth movement are critical of Ryan Mackey's work and I am no exception. Nevertheless, his work hasn't been dismissed by the 9/11 movement. Jim Hoffman, Kevin Ryan and C. Thurston have all debunked various parts of his writings and their debunkings can be seen here:
Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers

Mackey’s document on David Ray Griffin's claims is an excellent work of debunking. The truthers have made an attempt to return fire on a few points, and Mackey has been addressing their critiques. So no he hasn’t been 'debunked'.

You know what the irony is? Few of the core people in the 9/11 movement are even arguing about what NIST says anymore; their work has been debunked a while back. Instead, the debate has turned to -unofficial- supporters of the official theory, such as Ryan Mackey and you for that matter, because the officials in charge of the 9/11 investigation have in essence closed shop.

NIST did an investigation and presented their findings. It was done, over. There is no need for them to do another one. Debunkers however may continue to release material. Somehow you think that is irony? :shrug:

When have I ever said that all of Mackey's work should be ignored?

I said, ‘it is something you seem to be trying’. Every time I refer to Mackay’s work you can’t respond so you just claim that Mackey has been debunked as if that somehow a good enough response. It's not. Address the argument.

I get your assertion, I simply don't agree with it.

Don’t you? When I used the Mackey example you asked to see the evidence. You thought that his words alone were not evidence. Get it?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Controlled demolition and concrete comminution

Any controlled demolition would have used the least amount of explosive possible and the argument about concrete communition or dust generation being a basis for saying explosives were used is not a good one.

There is some concrete comminution in any controlled demolition but the vast majority of it is caused by impulsive loads due to the impacting masses of structure. Most of the energy in a controlled demolition is due to gravitational potential energy being released by taking out the columns.

The calculation of the amount of concrete which was comminuted does not mean that the bone fragments, which were found on top of the Deutsche bank building, could not be due to explosives propelling them there. However, the bone crushing and body fragmentation could easily have been due to being caught in the impacts. The pressures to do this could easily have been there ten stories into the collapses once enough kinetic energy was available.

 

[Buffalo Roam]

Any controlled demolition would have used the least amount of explosive possible and the argument about concrete communition or dust generation being a basis for saying explosives were used is not a good one.

There is some concrete comminution in any controlled demolition but the vast majority of it is caused by impulsive loads due to the impacting masses of structure. Most of the energy in a controlled demolition is due to gravitational potential energy being released by taking out the columns.

The calculation of the amount of concrete which was comminuted does not mean that the bone fragments, which were found on top of the Deutsche bank building, could not be due to explosives propelling them there. However, the bone crushing and body fragmentation could easily have been due to being caught in the impacts. The pressures to do this could easily have been there ten stories into the collapses once enough kinetic energy was available.

Like stomping on a packet of catsup? a pressure squirt.

 

[psikeyhackr]

Any controlled demolition would have used the least amount of explosive possible and the argument about concrete communition or dust generation being a basis for saying explosives were used is not a good one.

The calculation of the amount of concrete which was comminuted does not mean that the bone fragments, which were found on top of the Deutsche bank building, could not be due to explosives propelling them there.

A NORMAL controlled demolition uses the least amount of explosives which is partly why it takes so long to calculate and set up. I do not think what happened to towers 1 & 2 can be regarded as NORMAL. Whoever did that did not care how much external damage was done and made no attempt to minimize anything.

That does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED however.

psik

 

[Buffalo Roam]

A NORMAL controlled demolition uses the least amount of explosives which is partly why it takes so long to calculate and set up. I do not think what happened to towers 1 & 2 can be regarded as NORMAL. Whoever did that did not care how much external damage was done and made no attempt to minimize anything.

That does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED however.

psik

This is suppose to pass for logic?

That does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED however.

:roflmao:

 

[scott3x]

A NORMAL controlled demolition uses the least amount of explosives which is partly why it takes so long to calculate and set up. I do not think what happened to towers 1 & 2 can be regarded as NORMAL. Whoever did that did not care how much external damage was done and made no attempt to minimize anything.

That does not necessarily mean it was not CONTROLLED however.

This is suppose[d] to pass for logic?

It is quite logical. However, the logic involved may currently be beyond your grasp. Hopefully this may change in the future.

 

[shaman_]

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 393 from this thread.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid, Round 1



A fair amount of it, yes.

I certainly believe so.

But you are not supporting your statements or addressing mine. That article doesn’t do this either and yet you keep linking to it.

The Windsor Tower was held up by its concrete core which the twin towers did not have. Now tell me how that article disproves or addresses this.

911review is an official story site. The site I linked to is, as you have (correctly) labelled it before, my 'favourite' site concerning 9/11, 9/11 Research.

I've never heard that. I imagine you're thinking that the Cardington fire tests were done to simulate normal test fires? I've heard that they were done to simulate extreme test fires.

The final test was fuelled only by office materials. The results were consistent with NISTs own office tests and the one which Kenny linked to. These have been shown to you many times and you have come up with every excuse in the book to avoid acknowledging them.

And the Cardington fire tests were done to much smaller buildings.

haha. Like that. The tests were performed in the corner of a building and the temperatures reached near 1000C. That the building was smaller than the WTC is irrelevant when we are talking about the temperatures of the fire. However many stories were above or below does not change the temperatures.

Ah, so if the core collapses then the problem -must- be poor design? As it happens, the WTC buildings had steel frames- no concrete to be found in them. It was the -Madrid- tower that had the concrete frames. They were weakly reinforced with steel, but as I make clear below, the reinforcement was weak and the load bearing was mainly done by the core.

That paragraph is gibberish so I will repeat my point in hope that you will understand. Your article makes a point that concrete buildings can be susceptible to spalling during fire. I am saying that isn’t an important issue here because the concrete core of the Madrid tower stayed up. The spalling did not appear to be an issue. The steel however was affected by the fire. It collapsed.

Alright, since you won't go to the link, I guess the link must come to you. Here's a good chunk of it:
**********************************
Because the Windsor fire produced a partial collapse, some have argued that it validates the official account of the collapses of WTC Buildings 1, 2, and 7. Because the same fire was so massive and did not produce total collapse, others have cited it as evidence disproving that account.

If the WTC had the same concrete core then it might still be standing. You are still avoiding the point..

Compare these photographs of the Windsor building fire to photographs of the Twin Towers' fires and Building 7's fires:

Windsor fire

Windsor fire close-up

Twin Tower fires

As has been pointed out once or twice the construction of these two buildings was quite different. . The WTC relied on fireproofing which was not intact after the full speed collision of the 767s. The Windsor Tower was not hit by any large planes, and the fires still caused the steel to weaken and collapse. That only a small percentage of the WTC is visibly on fire is irrelevant. It was one of the tallest buildings in the world. Only one floor had to fail for the collapse to start.

Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete [framed buildings][/SIZE]




In fact, comparisons between the Windsor tower and the WTC Towers are limited because of the very different structures of these buildings. The Twin Towers and Building 7 were both 100% steel-framed, with large wide-flange columns and box columns, some measuring over four feet wide and fabricated of steel up to five inches thick. Severe fires in other skyscrapers which, like the WTC Towers, were 100% steel-framed, have not produced even partial collapses.

In contrast to the WTC Towers, the Windsor building was framed primarily in steel-reinforced concrete, with columns of concrete reinforced by thin sections of rebar. 4 The concrete pillars in the Windsor building are clearly visible in the photographs showing the intact core exposed by the collapsed facade. The very light construction of the perimeter, described [at their site], makes it clear that the core was the main load-bearing component of the building.


Before examining the partial collapse of the Windsor building more closely, we note that steel-framed and steel-reinforced-concrete-framed structures behave very differently in fires.

* Steel is a good conductor and concrete is a poor conductor of heat. Thus in a fire, a steel frame will conduct heat away from the hotspots into the larger structure. As long as the fire does not consume the larger structure, this heat conductivity will keep the temperatures of the frame well below the fire temperatures. The same is not true of steel-reinforced-concrete structures, since concrete is not a good thermal conductor, and the thermal conductivity of the rebar inside the concrete is limited by its small mass and the embedding matrix of concrete.

* Fires can cause spalling of concrete, but not of steel[/b][Emphasis mine]. This is because concrete has a small percentage of latent moisture, which is converted to steam by heat.

Clearly the spalling at the Madrid tower was not a problem was it Scott? The concrete core held firm while the steel collapsed.

Thus, a large fire can gradually erode a concrete structure to the point of collapse, whereas a fire can only threaten a steel-framed structure if it elevates steel temperatures to such an extent that it causes failures.

That's right, just as with the steel at the Madrid Tower, the steel at the WTC reached temperatures when the steel was sufficiently weakened so that it could no longer bear the load.

It's really not complicated.


The problem you have is that the behavior of the Madrid tower supports the official story and you are still trying to say otherwise but you are unable to.