Hardfire: Szamboti / Chandler / Mackey

[riptowtan]

It was the particle thickness which was being discussed not the full chip thickness. From page 12 of the paper

The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE
intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and
have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen
intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate
BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to
about 1 micron across.

To say the particles were not nanometer size is not accurate.

Ok. But I'm pretty sure Ryan was talking about the chips themselves.

[knife fight colobus]

Ok. But I'm pretty sure Ryan was talking about the chips themselves.

This issue in question starts at 26 minutes and 22 seconds into the 2nd program.

I've listened to it a few times and if talking about elemental aluminum = talking about particle size, then Tony is correct. But if that isn't the case then the discussion and the size was for the paint chips, thereby making Mackey correct. Though according to what he thought you guys were talking about at the time (just the paint chips), Mackey is still correct based on the quote rip posted.

I might be in over my head here, but I don't see a reference to elemental aluminum in the quote you posted, Tony.

Tell me what you guys think.

Link to the 2nd program.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guz04iFYxXY)

[Newtons Bit]

Did you assume a dynamic load?

What are you talking about?

You stated, "There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks."

I said no, it wouldn't. The energy in the deforming and the buckling of the columns, even at a theoretical maximum, is only about 10% of the total energy budget.

Loading is completely non-sequitur and, furthermore, the mode of load is completely irrelevant in an energy equation. That's basic physics.

[Julio]

You should read the Missing Jolt paper and see where Dr. Bazant is wrong. He never measured the fall of the upper block and was presuming there was a jolt.
I'll read it.



There's no missing jolt there. There's a big heap of missing mass in your math!!

You calculate a kinetic energy of the 12 upper falling floors to be 6,725,860 in-k (I'm more used to Joules: 1.67 MJ). With a velocity of V1= 6.95m/s, that means the mass you considered was m=69098 Kg. Only 69 tons for the 12-floor block!!!

But in very this thread, you wrote
The weight above was 69,303,00 lbs.
(figure that you use in the paper, but with different units, 69,303 kips)

That's about 31,000 tons for me. Using this other value of mass, the kinetic energy is about 759 MJ, and assuming the energy sinks of 1.50 MJ you calculate are correct, that gives us a final velocity of V2=6.66 m/s. Only about 0.3 m/s difference

[A W Smith]

There's no missing jolt there. There's a big heap of missing mass in your math!!

You calculate a kinetic energy of the 12 upper falling floors to be 6,725,860 in-k (I'm more used to Joules: 1.67 MJ). With a velocity of V1= 6.95m/s, that means the mass you considered was m=69098 Kg. Only 69 tons for the 12-floor block!!!

But in very this thread, you wrote

(figure that you use in the paper, but with different units, 69,303 kips)

That's about 31,000 tons for me. Using this other value of mass, the kinetic energy is about 759 MJ, and assuming the energy sinks of 1.50 MJ you calculate are correct, that gives us a final velocity of V2=6.66 m/s. Only about 0.3 m/s difference

a typo there? shouldn't that be about 6930 kips?

[scott.in.taiwan]

I've got a question for Tony.

If there was military grade "nano-thermite" within the dust from Ground Zero, then how come there were no military demolition experts involved in the investigation to confirm it?

Before Tony answers this, I'll have to remind him that the military used all kinds of thermite during WWII to the present. So it's no secret that they used the stuff.

I've become confused by Tony's discussion of thermite. While it is necessary to invoke thermite to explain things his way, he is no expert on this. The complete failure of the thermite community - and yes, there is a large thermite research community - to be consulted on this is important.

Tony has complained repeatedly that others do not understand his argument. He does not understand the complex nature of thermite and refuses to consult or discuss this with anyone who does.

While he cloaks his discourse in phrases that sound complex and scientific, this appeal to thermite - and more particularly, nano-thermite - shows he should be taken as seriously as the high school students that make up We Are Change. Now the conspiracy's grown to envolope the termite research community. What a joke, and I'm not hiding behind a pseudo-name.

[Julio]

a typo there? shouldn't that be about 6930 kips?

69,303 kips is what is written in the paper. I'm not used to those units (kips or lbs). Anyway, the kinetic energy calculated by Tony is not right.

ETA: mmm... I think i'm making some mistakes with conversion of units, but there's still some orders of magnitude of difference for the kinetic energy which are not due to that.

ETA 2: Ok, right, it was my problem with conversion of units. Forget what i said, Tony

[A W Smith]

69,303 kips is what is written in the paper. I'm not used to those units (kips or lbs). Anyway, the kinetic energy calculated by Tony is not right.


oh ok, his error then. I thought a kip was 1000 lbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_%28force%29)

The weight above was 69,303,00 lbs.

[Tony Szamboti]

What are you talking about?

You stated, "There is a good chance it would halt it's drop at the next floor due to energy dissipation in deforming and buckling the columns and other energy sinks."

I said no, it wouldn't. The energy in the deforming and the buckling of the columns, even at a theoretical maximum, is only about 10% of the total energy budget.

Loading is completely non-sequitur and, furthermore, the mode of load is completely irrelevant in an energy equation. That's basic physics.

The calculation we did in the Missing Jolt paper showed 76% of the pre-impact kinetic energy would be used up in the first impact just in deforming and buckling the columns on the first floors on either side of the collision. We also used an actually measured velocity of the upper block after it's fall through one floor. We also used a mass for floors 99 through 100 and the roof and antenna from Gregory Urich's mass analysis.

Did you consider elastic and plastic deformation and buckling of the columns on both sides of the collision? What mass did you use for the upper block? Did you allow freefall to find your velocity at impact?

I asked the question about loading just to see what you thought not that it had to do with your energy calculations.

[Tony Szamboti]

oh ok, his error then. I thought a kip was 1000 lbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_%28force%29)

You will see above that Julio realized his error and edited his post.

[Tony Szamboti]

This issue in question starts at 26 minutes and 22 seconds into the 2nd program.

I've listened to it a few times and if talking about elemental aluminum = talking about particle size, then Tony is correct. But if that isn't the case then the discussion and the size was for the paint chips, thereby making Mackey correct. Though according to what he thought you guys were talking about at the time (just the paint chips), Mackey is still correct based on the quote rip posted.

I might be in over my head here, but I don't see a reference to elemental aluminum in the quote you posted, Tony.

Tell me what you guys think.

Link to the 2nd program.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Guz04iFYxXY)

The whole basis for nanometer size vs. micron size particles in thermite is the reaction time, due to a much greater surface area to mass ratio of the nano size from than that of micron size particles. Nano sizing of the particles makes thermite into an energetic material. The sizes of the actual surviving small pieces of macroscopic material is not germane to the conversation so I don't understand why Ryan would be discussing that.

You should read the paper if you want to see the elemental aluminum discussion.

[Tony Szamboti]

I've become confused by Tony's discussion of thermite. While it is necessary to invoke thermite to explain things his way, he is no expert on this. The complete failure of the thermite community - and yes, there is a large thermite research community - to be consulted on this is important.

Tony has complained repeatedly that others do not understand his argument. He does not understand the complex nature of thermite and refuses to consult or discuss this with anyone who does.

While he cloaks his discourse in phrases that sound complex and scientific, this appeal to thermite - and more particularly, nano-thermite - shows he should be taken as seriously as the high school students that make up We Are Change. Now the conspiracy's grown to envolope the termite research community. What a joke, and I'm not hiding behind a pseudo-name.

All I said in the debate about it was that I would like to know why energetic material was found in the WTC dust and made mention of a couple things which are in the paper written by people who actually did the analysis and are experts in nano chemistry.

Have you read the paper?

I think one would have to consider scott.in.taiwan a pseudo-name if that is what you are referring to in this comment.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I've become confused by Tony's discussion of thermite. While it is necessary to invoke thermite to explain things his way, he is no expert on this. The complete failure of the thermite community - and yes, there is a large thermite research community - to be consulted on this is important.

Tony has complained repeatedly that others do not understand his argument. He does not understand the complex nature of thermite and refuses to consult or discuss this with anyone who does.

While he cloaks his discourse in phrases that sound complex and scientific, this appeal to thermite - and more particularly, nano-thermite - shows he should be taken as seriously as the high school students that make up We Are Change. Now the conspiracy's grown to envolope the termite research community. What a joke, and I'm not hiding behind a pseudo-name.

I'm not confused by Tony's discussion of thermite.

If he can't have any military personell make a statement that thermite, of any kind, was found in the dust then his assumptions are just that, assumptions. Also the military would have to conduct tests of the dust sample that a Truther happened to have for nearly 3 years or more.

How do we know that the dust sample they have is contaminated? Not a single Truther would ever talk about it being contaminated because they know full well that if it is, their theory about thermite being present in the dust would turn out to be a lie.

If that's the case then what they assume is in essence, a lie.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

All I said in the debate about it was that I would like to know why energetic material was found in the WTC dust and made mention of a couple things which are in the paper written by people who actually did the analysis and are experts in nano chemistry.

Have you read the paper?

I think one would have to consider scott.in.taiwan a pseudo-name if that is what you are referring to in this comment.

I would like to know if what you assume might be contamined Tony?

Do you know if the dust sample that 1 of your people collected was contaminated in any way?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

WTC Dust vs Thermite:

[Tony Szamboti]

I would like to know if what you assume might be contamined Tony?

Do you know if the dust sample that 1 of your people collected was contaminated in any way?

I understand that the USGS has a large amount of the dust and it should be tested. One would think there is some chain of custody there.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I understand that the USGS has a large amount of the dust and it should be tested. One would think there is some chain of custody there.

Ok Tony,

Can you exlain to us why the WTC dust samples that were collected didn't contain any reddish charactoristics in it, if indeed there was unexploded thermite?

[Tony Szamboti]

WTC Dust vs Thermite:

The red/gray chips comprised approximately .01% of the dust so how much do you think they would affect the color of the dust?

The WTC dust was primarily gypsum and concrete, but those red/gray chips which may have a story to tell were buried in there.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The red/gray chips comprised approximately .01% of the dust so how much do you think they would affect the color of the dust?

The WTC dust was primarily gypsum and concrete, but those red/gray chips which may have a story to tell were buried in there.

Tony,

Unexploded thermite would dramatically make the WTC dust sample a bit red in color.

What you've just pointed out about those red/grey chips is nothing more than paint chips.

I've been a painter for a long time along with being a Vol. Firefighter, I know what paint chips look like & what you've just described is nothing more than paint chips.

Primer from that time was grey in color, hence the grey color on the chip.

[scott.in.taiwan]

All I said in the debate about it was that I would like to know why energetic material was found in the WTC dust and made mention of a couple things which are in the paper written by people who actually did the analysis and are experts in nano chemistry.

Have you read the paper?

I think one would have to consider scott.in.taiwan a pseudo-name if that is what you are referring to in this comment.

Thank you for responding to my remarks. I apologize for having to be so heavy handed, but in this genre of writing it is sometimes necessary. Yes, I have looked at the paper, but technically, it is beyond me. This is simply not important to my understanding of the problem.

First. Tony, I imagine your internet search skills are good enough to type my pseudo-name into Google. If you want, we can become facebook friends and share personal information - seriously.

Second. Tony, there was no energetic material found in the WTC dust. Steven Jones has no experience at all dealing with this kind of material - and you know it. He has no collaboration from anyone - not even one person - who does have this experience. There is no one in the thermite research community who supports his claim. None of his so-called research team has even attempted to publish this claim in a journal that deals with this specialized research. The journal he published it with is questionable, And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But you know all this. So why are you still talking about energetic materials?

In all honesty, when I first read your stuff, I thought...wow, this is cool. As stupid as the idea of CD is, at least you're dealing with it the way it needs to be handled. But if you start talking about energetic materials and all that that means, you become just all the other kids at We Are Change.

Scott Sommers.

[knife fight colobus]

The whole basis for nanometer size vs. micron size particles in thermite is the reaction time, due to a much greater surface area to mass ratio of the nano size from than that of micron size particles. Nano sizing of the particles makes thermite into an energetic material. The sizes of the actual surviving small pieces of macroscopic material is not germane to the conversation so I don't understand why Ryan would be discussing that.

You should read the paper if you want to see the elemental aluminum discussion.

Let me clarify myself.

I understand the phenomenon you are discussing and I am sure Mackey and pomeroo do too. The issue is that the conversation was about the paint chips and is it correct to say that the paint chips were micron size and not nm size? This may not be relevant when discussing SA to mass ratios wrt particles but that wasn't what was being discussed. Simply the paint chips.

I think that Mackey addressed the elemental aluminum by saying they didn't test to see if it was aluminum oxide. I'll take your advice and read the paper but what difference would it make if it were instead aluminum oxide instead? If that isn't discussed in the paper do you mind responding to that issue?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Look at this photo very carefully Tony. What do you see?

The red paint had lead in it to prevent rusting. That lead was colored red! Look below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Red_lead.jpg/250px-Red_lead.jpg

[R.Mackey]

I fail to see why some posters here find it necessary to try and make fun of how Tony looks or how he performed in an oral debate....seems a bit childish.

I agree. Many of the attacks in this thread are totally unsophisticated. All of you need to knock it off. Tony has made numerous mistakes you can pick on, if you wish, don't make an ass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey) of yourself by saying he looks dumb or should be selling cars. That's stupid.

I was totally confused by most of Tony's arguments, but I am an engineer. The one that I found most bizarre was the argument that if a plate was supported by 30 columns and 27 of them were removed than that would fail at 70% gravity. Seems complete nonsense to me. A buckling failure is a rapid failure and once initiated there is little or no resistance ..

Precisely right. Once the capacity is exceeded, the columns will resist only until they buckle, and afterwards don't resist much at all. As I noted in the debate, what slows the collapse is momentum transfer, not the strength. Dr. Bazant computes in the BLGB paper -- correctly -- that the structural strength is a minor correction to the overall collapse, so minor that you cannot tell whether all the columns were loaded to failure or simply pushed aside from the collapse time alone. It just doesn't make a significant difference.

I am not sure where he got the 3 from, but more importantly the floors are not designed to hold the building above, the columns are.

Yup. He may have originally gotten that factor of 3 from Heiwa, but wherever he got it, it's wrong. Already covered that in this very thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5166056#post5166056).


Regarding the nano- vs. micro- nature of the particles, I was referring to the particles within the paint chips, not the chips themselves. As Tony quotes:

From page 12 of the paper

The results indicate that the small particles with very high BSE
intensity (brightness) are consistently 100 nm in size and
have a faceted appearance. These bright particles are seen
intermixed with plate-like particles that have intermediate
BSE intensity and are approximately 40 nm thick and up to
about 1 micron across.

To say the particles were not nanometer size is not accurate.

But his interpretation is wrong. The "aluminum" flakes are hexagonal "plate-like" particles up to a micron across. They're micron sized, not nanometer sized. QED.

In real nanothermite, as described (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5118192#post5118192) by its creators such as Dr. Tillotson, the aluminum is in spheres about 30-50 nm across, and the iron oxide in extremely small particles as small as 7 nm. The structures seen in Dr. Jones's samples are 20 to 100 times as large.

By the way, look up in what common forms aluminum oxide mineral occurs naturally. Here's a hint: Microscopic hexagonal platelets... ;)

And, to answer the question above, aluminum oxide is inert for purposes of a thermite reaction. Its presence is a dead giveaway that it ain't thermite, nano- or otherwise.

I did poke fun at Ryan though, that screen shot was horrible. I couldn't figure out if it was part of the technical difficulty or they used it on purpose for effect.

I had no control over that. Gary chose the poses. If it brings a little levity, eh, what's the big deal?

---

Gary is also busily adding subtitles to the second show. I hope this helps improve the presentation. We work with what we have.

[Tony Szamboti]

Let me clarify myself.

I understand the phenomenon you are discussing and I am sure Mackey and pomeroo do too. The issue is that the conversation was about the paint chips and is it correct to say that the paint chips were micron size and not nm size? This may not be relevant when discussing SA to mass ratios wrt particles but that wasn't what was being discussed. Simply the paint chips.

I think that Mackey addressed the elemental aluminum by saying they didn't test to see if it was aluminum oxide. I'll take your advice and read the paper but what difference would it make if it were instead aluminum oxide instead? If that isn't discussed in the paper do you mind responding to that issue?

I think they do discuss the aluminum vs. aluminum oxide issue in the paper.

One must also realize that aluminum always gets a natural oxide when exposed to the atmosphere. From what I have read a thin film of aluminum oxide on the particles in nanothermite does not inhibit the reaction and is actually induced to control it and allow handling.

[Tony Szamboti]

Thank you for responding to my remarks. I apologize for having to be so heavy handed, but in this genre of writing it is sometimes necessary. Yes, I have looked at the paper, but technically, it is beyond me. This is simply not important to my understanding of the problem.

First. Tony, I imagine your internet search skills are good enough to type my pseudo-name into Google. If you want, we can become facebook friends and share personal information - seriously.

Second. Tony, there was no energetic material found in the WTC dust. Steven Jones has no experience at all dealing with this kind of material - and you know it. He has no collaboration from anyone - not even one person - who does have this experience. There is no one in the thermite research community who supports his claim. None of his so-called research team has even attempted to publish this claim in a journal that deals with this specialized research. The journal he published it with is questionable, And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But you know all this. So why are you still talking about energetic materials?

In all honesty, when I first read your stuff, I thought...wow, this is cool. As stupid as the idea of CD is, at least you're dealing with it the way it needs to be handled. But if you start talking about energetic materials and all that that means, you become just all the other kids at We Are Change.

Scott Sommers.

Thanks for the rational comments Scott and it is good to know your real name.

I do think that the present official explanations for the collapses of the towers are insufficient as we now know there was no impulsive load, and that there needs to be additional work in explaining the collapses.

As for the red/gray chips, I would very much like to see the U.S. government test the samples it has to put this controversy to bed. If several samples were tested by several chemists and found to be inert, and Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, and their colleagues shown the results I would accept that.

[Tony Szamboti]

Look at this photo very carefully Tony. What do you see?

The red paint had lead in it to prevent rusting. That lead was colored red! Look below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Red_lead.jpg/250px-Red_lead.jpg

Yes, I understand the primer on the steel was red and that there would be a chance that these chips are paint. I believe Steven Jones and co. did get a sample of the WTC paint and that it was not of the same microscopic structure found in the red/gray chips.

I would like to see the U.S. government test the samples of dust that it has in it's possession.

[knife fight colobus]

I think they do discuss the aluminum vs. aluminum oxide issue in the paper.

One must also realize that aluminum always gets a natural oxide when exposed to the atmosphere. From what I have read a thin film of aluminum oxide on the particles in nanothermite does not inhibit the reaction and is actually induced to control it and allow handling.

Alright I'll check out the paper on the discussion.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Yes, I understand the primer on the steel was red and that there would be a chance that these chips are paint. I believe Steven Jones and co. did get a sample of the WTC paint and that it was not of the same microscopic structure found in the red/gray chips.

I would like to see the U.S. government test the samples of dust that it has in it's possession.

Tony,

Then what Steven Jones got was a contaminated sample.

The lead based paint found in the chips contains iron.

Lead Tetroxide Chemical properties:

With iron oxides and with elementary iron, lead tetroxide forms insoluble iron and iron plumbates, which is the basis of the anti-corrosive properties of lead-based paints applied to iron objects.

When heated to 500 °C, it decomposes to lead oxide and oxygen. At 580 °C, the reaction is complete.

2 Pb3O4 → 6 PbO + O2

Nitric acid dissolves the lead oxide component, leaving behind the insoluble lead oxide:

Pb3O4 + 4 HNO3 → PbO2 + 2 Pb(NO3)2 + 2 H2O

This was taken from here - http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html

"Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust"

Iron rich "microspheres"! Iron which is found in lead based paint, which is iron itself.

Coincidence? I think not!

[3bodyproblem]

I see Tony skirted the issue of overloading and buckling.

[Toke]

Tony,
You missed my point about floors vs. columns, and what the upper part "landed" on.

[TruthersLie]

All I said in the debate about it was that I would like to know why energetic material was found in the WTC dust and made mention of a couple things which are in the paper written by people who actually did the analysis and are experts in nano chemistry.

Have you read the paper?

I think one would have to consider scott.in.taiwan a pseudo-name if that is what you are referring to in this comment.

What energetic material tony?

oh ... you mean the paint chips which were not texted in an inert atmosphere... mixed with rust. It is rather amazing that oxidized paint will burn in an oxygen rich environment isn't it?

Do us a favor, get a REAL paper published which uses REAL science and then come on back and talk about nanothermite.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I just love proving Truther experts wrong.

Nano-thermite found in dust, red/grey chips are "evidence" of nano-thermite.

U.S. Army demolition experts would detect nano-thermite if Truthers give dust samples to confirm it. Truthers fault for not presenting their samples to the right people.

Red/grey chips are paint chips that were from the columns with lead based red paint as a rust preventative. Any painter can tell the difference!

Simple logic Truthers! Use it, don't abuse it!

[Dave Rogers]

There is no evidence of a dynamic load. You need velocity loss to show there was one and there is no velocity loss observed, the upper block of WTC 1 continuously accelerates.

As I've pointed out many times before, there was no reason to expect any negative acceleration. At an angle of 4º or greater, the columns fail sequentially rather than simultaneously at each level. At no point is there an upward force as large as mg exerted on the upper block, because at no time are as many as one third of the columns resisting the collapse, so at no point is the resultant force upwards. In fact, assuming the force exerted by the columns remains at the ultimate strength up to a reduction in length of 20%, and using a factor of safety of three, I still find that there is continuous acceleration throughout the descent. Since this uses an overestimate of the as-built strength of the building, neglects the known damage below the level of collapse initiation, and assumes a geometrically impossible best-case impact scenario, I'm confident that it represents an absolute lower bound on the downward acceleration considering structural resistance. In short, no jolt is expected for a collapse that resembles the one actually observed.

Dave

[911kongen]

---

Gary is also busily adding subtitles to the second show. I hope this helps improve the presentation. We work with what we have.

That is great news! Then I will watch it again! :cool:

[Tony Szamboti]

As I've pointed out many times before, there was no reason to expect any negative acceleration. At an angle of 4º or greater, the columns fail sequentially rather than simultaneously at each level. At no point is there an upward force as large as mg exerted on the upper block, because at no time are as many as one third of the columns resisting the collapse, so at no point is the resultant force upwards. In fact, assuming the force exerted by the columns remains at the ultimate strength up to a reduction in length of 20%, and using a factor of safety of three, I still find that there is continuous acceleration throughout the descent. Since this uses an overestimate of the as-built strength of the building, neglects the known damage below the level of collapse initiation, and assumes a geometrically impossible best-case impact scenario, I'm confident that it represents an absolute lower bound on the downward acceleration considering structural resistance. In short, no jolt is expected for a collapse that resembles the one actually observed.

Dave

Dave, if you think what you are saying here is truly what happened and has merit then you should do the calculations and show the work to the world, by writing a paper and salvaging the current official explanation, which presently has no standing as it has been shown to not conform to observation.

You should get ahold of Dr. Bazant who I am sure would help with the calculations and would have the incentive to do so to salvage his own reputation.

[bill smith]

What energetic material tony?

oh ... you mean the paint chips which were not texted in an inert atmosphere... mixed with rust. It is rather amazing that oxidized paint will burn in an oxygen rich environment isn't it?

Do us a favor, get a REAL paper published which uses REAL science and then come on back and talk about nanothermite.

When Steven Jones announced the finding of the nano-thermite in the dust of the WTC in Boston in december of 2007 we all waited with bated breath or a confirmatory analysis from one of the major institutes. Personally I became highly suspicious of Jones after 6 months had elapsed without any word of progress on the independent-testing front.

But with a little thought it is plain to see why he did not approach Princeton or any of the well knnwn others.

Science is no longer free to speak it's mind and damn the consequences Science and espectaly it's institutions have been subverted by government into mere mouthpieces for policy support.Look up the thousands of scientists in 'the union of Concerned Scientists' for a snapshot of how big this problem has become. Take NIST for one example, or Purdue for another...

Jones at that time could not risk an institution like Princeton saying outright 'No, there was no trace of nano thermite in the WTC dust' which they certainly would have done after a simple call from the Whitehouse. At that time Jones would never have recpvered from that. Now it is rather different with the peer review process having been completed. You may whine about this but just the fact that Bentham is still in business peer reviewing documents is enough to tell even the casual observer that they are a fully legititimate institution of their own.

In other words....nano thermite has been proven at the WTC on 9/11 and until the government proves otherwwise there is no doubt whose court the ball is in.

[Dave Rogers]

Dave, if you think what you are saying here is truly what happened and has merit then you should do the calculations and show the work to the world, by writing a paper and salvaging the current official explanation, which presently has no standing as it has been shown to not conform to observation.

This is, I think, what Ryan Mackey would describe as your irreducible delusion. In fact, the generally accepted explanation, understood by the overwhelming majority of the population of the world and backed up by calculations, numerous published papers in peer reviewed journals, political and criminal investigation, insurance settlements and just about any other source you care to mension, is that the towers fell as a result of impact and fire damage. Your belief is that this explanation has in some way been discredited, and your belief has no basis in reality. And, of course, you have no alternative explanation which conforms to observation; if you had, there's nothing to stop you from publishing a complete, detailed account of how you believe the collapse occurred; what type of initiation mechanism was used, where and how, backed up by reference to the observed characteristics of the collapse. In particular, you won't have to get it past a neutral peer review, since the Journal of 9/11 Studies only reviews conclusions. And yet, despite not even having to play on a level field, none of you have even attempted to develop a hypothesis in anything remotely approaching the detail of the NIST analysis and Bazant's papers. You're not trying to add to human knowledge; you're trying to subtract from it. And that's the worst thing about your whole movement.

I have no interest in spending the time writing a paper that will tell the vast majority of the world something that's this obvious.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

In other words....nano thermite has been proven at the WTC on 9/11 until the government proves otherwwise. There is no doubt whose court the ball is in.

This would be why court proceedings against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed have currently been suspended pending a new criminal investigation into 9/11, right?

Oh, wait. They haven't.

Dave

[NutCracker]

Dave, if you think what you are saying here is truly what happened and has merit then you should do the calculations and show the work to the world, by writing a paper and salvaging the current official explanation, which presently has no standing as it has been shown to not conform to observation.

You should get ahold of Dr. Bazant who I am sure would help with the calculations and would have the incentive to do so to salvage his own reputation.


The onus is on you to prove your controlled demo theory. If you believe NIST's hypothesis and computer simulations are not valid, write a paper detailing the why's and how's and have it published in a real peer reviewed paper.

Good luck! :p

[TruthersLie]

When Steven Jones announced the finding of the nano-thermite in the dust of the WTC in Boston in december of 2007 we all waited with bated breath or a confirmatory analysis from one of the major institutes. Personally I became highly suspicious of Jones after 6 months had elapsed without any word of progress on the independent-testing front.

But with a little thought it is plain to see why he did not approach Princeton or any of the well knnwn others.

Science is no longer free to speak it's mind and damn the consequences Science and espectaly it's institutions have been subverted by government into mere mouthpieces for policy support.Look up the thousands of scientists in 'the union of Concerned Scientists' for a snapshot of how big this problem has become. Take NIST for one example, or Purdue for another...

Jones at that time could not risk an institution like Princeton saying outright 'No, there was no trace of nano thermite in the WTC dust' which they certainly would have done after a simple call from the Whitehouse. At that time Jones would never have recpvered from that. Now it is rather different with the peer review process having been completed. You may whine about this but just the fact that Bentham is still in business peer reviewing documents is enough to tell even the casual observer that they are a fully legititimate institution of their own.

In other words....nano thermite has been proven at the WTC on 9/11 and until the government proves otherwwise there is no doubt whose court the ball is in.

<snicker> <snort> <LOL>

Oh bill. Some days you do make me laugh. Yes, we have a claim which is not backed up BY ANYONE based on bad science. But instead of looking at the 20 methodological ERRORS (yes they are errors) in that "paper" <snicker> and trying to actually do GOOD science, you handwave and say, "see we proved it now prove us wrong."

Really bill?

HYPOTHETICAL SITUATION
I make the claim that generic truther #1's mother is a crack whore who gives $5 bj's and has aids. PROVE ME WRONG. Oh wait. I can't make that claim. Why? because 1. I don't have proof that she is hypothetical truther #1's mother. 2. I don't have proof that she is a whore. 3. I don't have proof that she is addicted to crack. 4. I dont' have proof that she only charges $5 for a bj. 5. I don't have proof that she has aids.
Since I don't have that proof, I can't say that about your hypothetical truther #1's mother. Unless I have the PROOF, I can't then tell you to PROVE ME WRONG.

nice try billy. try again.

[scott.in.taiwan]

Thanks for the rational comments Scott and it is good to know your real name.

I do think that the present official explanations for the collapses of the towers are insufficient as we now know there was no impulsive load, and that there needs to be additional work in explaining the collapses.

As for the red/gray chips, I would very much like to see the U.S. government test the samples it has to put this controversy to bed. If several samples were tested by several chemists and found to be inert, and Steven Jones, Neils Harrit, and their colleagues shown the results I would accept that.

So this means you continue to insist the suggestion of 'energetic material' at the WTC is valid? What I said was that there has been no meaningful demonstration of this. You disagree? My point was, Tony, that without this, you sound reasonable. Perhaps wrong, but reasonable. With this, you lump yourself in the same category as the high school kids that make up We Are Change. As such, you make the choice to be ridiculous.

I am certain you know what I'm saying. You come across as too lucid to not understand this. In fact, I am sure you've thought of this already. So why do you want to make this choice? It's perfectly possible to make your arguments without appealing to this claim.

Or perhaps you don't know it. Perhaps you're hearing for the first time that your arguments sound legitmate but that, to informed people, this talk about 'energetic material' might as well be Judy Wood's space-based energy beam. Maybe that's important with AE911. Maybe there are other personal reasons you choice to act as though this claim has meaning. But claims about it make you come across like just another one of those 911 nut jobs - and you are not.

Are you sure you want to continue the discussion with this as meaningful evidence?

Scott Sommers.

[Tony Szamboti]

So this means you continue to insist the suggestion of 'energetic material' at the WTC is valid? What I said was that there has been no meaningful demonstration of this. You disagree? My point was, Tony, that without this, you sound reasonable. Perhaps wrong, but reasonable. With this, you lump yourself in the same category as the high school kids that make up We Are Change. As such, you make the choice to be ridiculous.

I am certain you know what I'm saying. You come across as too lucid to not understand this. In fact, I am sure you've thought of this already. So why do you want to make this choice? It's perfectly possible to make your arguments without appealing to this claim.

Or perhaps you don't know it. Perhaps you're hearing for the first time that your arguments sound legitmate but that, to informed people, this talk about 'energetic material' might as well be Judy Wood's space-based energy beam. Maybe that's important with AE911. Maybe there are other personal reasons you choice to act as though this claim has meaning. But claims about it make you come across like just another one of those 911 nut jobs - and you are not.

Are you sure you want to continue the discussion with this as meaningful evidence?

Scott Sommers.

I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.

Wouldn't you want a definitive unbiased answer?

If you noticed I was not the one who brought it up in the debate. Ron Wieck brought it up and we discussed it for a couple of minutes. My point was essentially that if it is energetic material, as claimed by those who wrote the paper, then why was it there? I also brought up the fact that the USGS has an abundance of samples of the dust, which have a chain of custody, and could be tested to alleviate the controversy.

[Dave Rogers]

I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.

So let's suppose the USGS, an agency of the US Government, which you suspect of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, were to issue a report saying that they had tested the dust and found no evidence of nanothermite. Would you consider this to have put the controversy to rest, or would you argue that the USGS could not be considered an unbiased observer and that therefore its results could not be taken at face value? Would you then accept the result, or would you go on to devote all your efforts to casting doubt on its findings by any means you could conceive of?

Let me remind you that NIST, an agency of the US Government, has produced reports saying that they had studied the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and found them to be due to impact and fire damage, and this doesn't seem to have 'put the controversy to rest' as far as you're concerned. What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?

Dave

[twinstead]

What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?



Indeed

[scott.in.taiwan]

I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.

Wouldn't you want a definitive unbiased answer?

No Tony, there has been no meaningful question raised. This is a point only believable to the high school students that make up We Are Change. There are other players that make up the scientific community outside of Steven Jones and the USGS. There has been no commentary about this from the thermite research community, nor has Steven Jones and his group sought out their opinion.

You know as well as anyone here that this document that gets called a 'published paper' was not published in any scientifically meaningful way. It was posted on the Internet for a fee. I can reproduce the proof of this if you want, but I doubt you need me to do so. Since it has never been presented in a scientifically meaningful venue and seems to have no support at all outside of a small group of researchers unable to attract the attention or interest of recognized experts in relevant fields, it is not a claim that needs to be addressed by anyone, much less the US Government and its representatives.

Virtually everything that gets presented as evidence of a CD at the WTC has been copied directly from Richard Gage's presentations. While this may serve as entertainment at local churchs and university clubs, they are in no sense presentable to a professional audience. As such, he has not sought out the opinion of such an audience.

Your arguments hold the appeal that they are original, informed, and do not necessarily rely on Gage's poorly received positions. They are the only thing new that alternative 911 positions have had to offer in almost a decade. You do them no justice by appealing to what is a pseudo science claim. I can not believe you see them as necessary for your argument - because they are not. I can only believe you continue to imply they have credibility because of your affiliation with those whose arguments logically need them to be true.

On the other hand, perhaps you do have some deep-rooted belief that armies of scientists and government agents are conspiring to murder citizens in the streets. Perhaps the presence of super secret compounds in the dust of WTC is important to your position in a very personal and private way. Then that leaves us all pretty much in the same position that we are with the legions of 911 crazies that posit everything from no planes to limited nuclear weapons. Because "the presence of energetic materials" is nothing more.

I don't think I need to, but here's the offer once again; Tony, would you like me prove why this so-called 'publication' has no scientific meaning at all?

Scott Sommers.

[bill smith]

Let USGS do their test and announce the result and we can go from there Dave. Maybe Jones would believe them if they said they had found nothing suspicious. Either way he would want a sample to test against his own.

It would help to remove the notion that they are afraid to become embroiled in something that might be the ruination of them. What else can we think ?

[DGM]

So let's suppose the USGS, an agency of the US Government, which you suspect of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, were to issue a report saying that they had tested the dust and found no evidence of nanothermite. Would you consider this to have put the controversy to rest, or would you argue that the USGS could not be considered an unbiased observer and that therefore its results could not be taken at face value? Would you then accept the result, or would you go on to devote all your efforts to casting doubt on its findings by any means you could conceive of?

Let me remind you that NIST, an agency of the US Government, has produced reports saying that they had studied the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and found them to be due to impact and fire damage, and this doesn't seem to have 'put the controversy to rest' as far as you're concerned. What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?

Dave
Dave:
I think he means by "unbiased" is in a way that "supports our believes". I don't understand why they can't do the same thing with their samples, you know, independent (non-bias) evaluation. Perhaps a university study of their results.

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't think I need to, but here's the offer once again; Tony, would you like me prove why this so-called 'publication' has no scientific meaning at all?

As I said I would like the USGS to do testing on the material they have and to show the results, chain of custody, and methodology used in the testing, to those who wrote the Bentham paper and then to the world at large.

I think testing the actual material will be far more explanatory than arguments from those of us without access to it.

If you consider that to be taking some sort of position on this then I would have to say you are exhibiting a bias here.

[Edx]

If you consider that to be taking some sort of position on this then I would have to say you are exhibiting a bias here.

Bias, Tony, is an inability to be critical of people like Richard Gage and Steven Jones's claims or be critical of the way their paper was published in Bentham.

If truthers really cared about being accurate they woulld try and make sure they would show that, but they wont.

You yourself have had the opportunity to say that Richard Gage's "indications of explosive demolition" are wrong, but you cant, you just cant admit that they are wrong. You know they cannot be defended. You have brought up Harrit and Jones' NanoThermite paper and yet are unable to admit that the way the paper was published leaves peer review most likely completely non existent and that their parading it around as being in a respectable journal with real peer review is disingenous. But you cant, you wont. That, Tony, is showing "bias".

If you want to give truthers more respectability, then start acting like you care about being accurate. In short, show you care about science, because for nearly a decade all of you have been acting like the Intelligent Design movement.

[3bodyproblem]

As I said I would like the USGS to do testing on the material they have and to show the results,


And I'd like it to be done live on TV in a 1 hour special hosted by Megan Fox. But that isn't going to happen unless you can prove the collapse was anomolous. No one has even come close to doing that.

[scott.in.taiwan]

As I said I would like the USGS to do testing on the material they have and to show the results, chain of custody, and methodology used in the testing, to those who wrote the Bentham paper and then to the world at large.

I think testing the actual material will be far more explanatory than arguments from those of us without access to it.

If you consider that to be taking some sort of position on this then I would have to say you are exhibiting a bias here.

I can understand you would like them to. The fact that they do not says nothing. They have no responsibility to do so. They have no obligation to do so. There would be no more reason for the USGS to reply to this claim than to Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology about their claims concerning science and the nature of reality. There has only been a claim made in a venue that has less merit to it than if it were made in a leading newspaper like the NY Times.

There is nothing unreasonable your desire, but to claim this your wish has any merit or meaning like Mossad provide access to its facilities to prove that they are not hiding the tons of nano-thermite some claim were used in the demolition.

I guess I am getting an answer to my question. Does Tony Szamboti believe in super duper super secret nano-thermite? I had wished the answer to be different than it is appearing.

[Tony Szamboti]

So let's suppose the USGS, an agency of the US Government, which you suspect of being complicit in the 9/11 attacks, were to issue a report saying that they had tested the dust and found no evidence of nanothermite. Would you consider this to have put the controversy to rest, or would you argue that the USGS could not be considered an unbiased observer and that therefore its results could not be taken at face value? Would you then accept the result, or would you go on to devote all your efforts to casting doubt on its findings by any means you could conceive of?

Let me remind you that NIST, an agency of the US Government, has produced reports saying that they had studied the collapse of WTC1, 2 and 7 and found them to be due to impact and fire damage, and this doesn't seem to have 'put the controversy to rest' as far as you're concerned. What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?

Dave

If the NIST would share all of their data and models and were verified as accurate there might not be as much skepticism of them. Unfortunately, in many cases the data they have shared thus far has been shown to not conform to observation. For example, the model they show of the collapse of WTC 7 cannot be taken seriously as in it the exterior deforms significantly, which is not see in the footage of the real collapse.

As for the USGS and testing of the dust I have answered what I think should be done there in other replies here in the last several minutes.

[3bodyproblem]

Bias, Tony, is an inability to be critical of people like Richard Gage and Steven Jones's claims or be critical of the way their paper was published in Bentham.

.

On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.

[Dave Rogers]

Let USGS do their test and announce the result and we can go from there Dave.

It seems rather pointless, given that we all know which way you'd go from there.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

As for the USGS and testing of the dust I have answered what I think there in other replies here in the last half hour.

And, I'm sorry to say, I simply don't believe your answers. I think you would find any excuse you could to reject their findings if they didn't confirm your beliefs.

Dave

[Edx]

which is not see in the footage of the real collapse..

Actually yes it clearly does.

VQkWCRV54lY

It obviously deformed rather dramatically since it managed to fall accross a 4 lane street and critically damage 30 Westbroadway.

[Edx]

On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.

Only because Anders' claim that you can drop the top part of the building from 2 miles above the building and have it bounce off (or whatever it is he says) is ******* crazy.

Tony still defends Heiwa's claim that the top part of a building cant crush down the rest of it, as we can see from this thread

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony still defends Heiwa's claim that the top part of a building cant crush down the rest of it, as we can see from this thread

Which is truly a bizarre interpretation of design. I've repeatedly asked people in the movement why such a simple principal isn't taught in the design curriculum... Afterall;there must not be much to worry about with accidental or eccentric loading if this is true... I mean you'd think I'd have at least been taught on this subject in my undergraduate education... Should I be expecting this to come up during the next two years in master's architecture? The idea that arbitrary proportions would you know... ease some worries about collapse scenarios in a range of design implementations... if it's such a profound matter.

[bill smith]

On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.

If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give no other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.

[DGM]

If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give mo other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.
Bill:
Please stop this 1/10th, 9/10th BS. It shows you have no clue as to what happened. 1/10th fell on 1/80th (ish)! Live with it.

[BasqueArch]

... Unfortunately, in many cases the data they have shared thus far has been shown to not conform to observation.

For example, the model they show of the collapse of WTC 7 cannot be taken seriously as in it the exterior deforms significantly, which is not see in the footage of the real collapse.



You mean for example, the model you show of the collapse of WTC1,2 cannot be taken seriously as in it the collapsing load path is axially through the columns below, which is not seen in the footage of the real collapse.

[twinstead]

If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give mo other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.

There's a little French CD technique that shows you are wrong, unless you are saying that 10% is a magical number, and any upper part 11% or more can crush the lower part. But it's a moot point; That magical 10% fell on a single floor.

[bill smith]

There's a little French CD technique that shows you are wrong, unless you are saying that 10% is a magical number, and any upper part 11% or more can crush the lower part. But it's a moot point; That magical 10% fell on a single floor.

I don't want to spin off nto verinage but I would point out that in this attached example of the technique in action you can hear the concrete begin to grind as the upper load begins to apply. Why does it begin to apply ?. Answer; because they have just mechanically removed the support that was holding it up, They use cables and jacks to achieve this in place of explosives. Notice that the right side of the building remains unblemished. Why ? Answer: Bacause they have not yet mechanically removed the lower support for the upper black.When they do they will get the same result.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prwvj-npt5s grinding concrete

[3bodyproblem]

If you ask Tony here and now whether the lightest one-tenth of a structure when dropped a short distance onto the other similar but sequentially more heavily built nine-tenths of the same structure will crush that lower nine-tenths down level with the ground I think you will find that he is in full agreement with Heiwa. To wit it is absolutely impossible.

Further....you can give no other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.

Someone with a better connection than me can look this up, but I'm positive he refutes it.

It's pretty clear his new pet theory is a combination of mass participation and the upper part being slowed so that the momentum isn't sufficient to dynamically load the columns without some sort of heat weakening.

[Grizzly Bear]

heh so billy is still at it... :\
He exists in quoted form, but as I'm currently taking classes to enter this field, I can tell him and every other conspiracy guy who tries to use their authority as leverage that if it were such a stern absolute principal in design, I would have heard about it already. I'll put it simply; Architecture students are required to take materials and methods of design as well as two structures courses at my university during undergraduate studies. And we of course learn through applying the concepts taught that trying to arbitrarily attribute a proportional law to a building's vulnerability to collapse means basically you're full of <--- :) ----> regardless of whether or not you work in the related field. It's an absolutely incompetent claim backed by absolutely nothing in the principals discussed in my field of study. I have zero respect or tolerance for this kind of incompetence.

[3bodyproblem]

I don't want to spin off nto verinage

No because that would be on topic :rolleyes:

[3bodyproblem]

There's a little French CD technique that shows you are wrong, unless you are saying that 10% is a magical number, and any upper part 11% or more can crush the lower part. But it's a moot point; That magical 10% fell on a single floor.

Which is exactly what Tony was talking about when he laughs off Anders.

Tony has incorporated the verinage technique into his Irreducible Delusion. This is why he says 3/30 columns with a safety factor of 3 would slow the building to 0.7g, but the verinage technique removes all the columns and allows for a full 1g acceleration.

[bill smith]

heh so billy is still at it... :\
He exists in quoted form, but as I'm currently taking classes to enter this field, I can tell him and every other conspiracy guy who tries to use their authority as leverage that if it were such a stern absolute principal in design, I would have heard about it already. I'll put it simply; Architecture students are required to take materials and methods of design as well as two structures courses at my university during undergraduate studies. And we of course learn through applying the concepts taught that trying to arbitrarily attribute a proportional law to a building's vulnerability to collapse means basically you're full of <--- :) ----> regardless of whether or not you work in the related field. It's an absolutely incompetent claim backed by absolutely nothing in the principals discussed in my field of study. I have zero respect or tolerance for this kind of incompetence.

Maybe you will see this in quoted form. Deny it if you can..

''Whatever downwards force the moving body exerts on the stationary body of identical construction fixed in the ground is reciprocated by the stationary body equally and oppositely at the point if contact. After that it depends which body is is worn away first by the mutual contact .

It is clear that the upper falling body anounting to only 10% of the mass will be gone long before the Anchored land braced ower and heavier built body of 9o% of the mass.

Keep on topic please.

[TruthersLie]

I am only saying that the issue has been raised by a published paper by several scientists and that there is an avenue to put the controversy to rest, as the U.S. government agency USGS has an abundance of the dust which could be tested in an unbiased way.


Which published paper do you insist on using? What peer reviewed journal are you talking about?

or are you really trying to pass off the Bentham craptacular pile of fail as your "paper?"

Tony, tony, tony. Of all twoofs you should realize how science works, how journals work (but then again maybe not, after all you have "published" in JONES).

Again, which peer reviewed paper discusses this thermetic materials again? Maybe I missed it.


Wouldn't you want a definitive unbiased answer?


BS. I'm not even sure what logical fallacy this is. What is an unbiased answer? If it comes back that it isn't thermitic you will just ignore it (look at the french researcher who examined the dust and didn't find anything... )


If you noticed I was not the one who brought it up in the debate. Ron Wieck brought it up and we discussed it for a couple of minutes. My point was essentially that if it is energetic material, as claimed by those who wrote the paper, then why was it there?


I would have hoped that science would be with you... over 20 methodological errors, failing to disclose testing materials, burning it in an oxygen environment instead of an inert one... and the list goes ON and ON and ON....

[TruthersLie]

And I'd like it to be done live on TV in a 1 hour special hosted by Megan Fox. But that isn't going to happen unless you can prove the collapse was anomolous. No one has even come close to doing that.

in a thong.

[TruthersLie]

On a side note, Tony was actually critical of Anders claims on the program, which I thought was nice. He even chuckled when 1/10th - 9/10th A, B, C was brought up.

And yet it is amazing that he tried to pull that craptacular pile of fail here less than 5 pages ago...

[3bodyproblem]

And yet it is amazing that he tried to pull that craptacular pile of fail here less than 5 pages ago...

That's the "Delusion" part.

[Toke]

Last month I was at a French monastery on an island off Normandy, the architecture was very interesting, particularly the mentioning of sections of building that had fallen off the cliff at some point in time.

If there were any simple rules on building collapse like 1/10, don't you thing people would have figured it out from mediaeval times?

(I left the place still impressed by the buildings, but also realising that a 1000 year old building were not necessarily well thought out, it could just have been the lucky one . )

[R.Mackey]

Bloody hell!

The dust has already been tested -- all the dust, definitely from the Towers, not just scraps flaked off of a railing somewhere and thrown in a baggie. Lioy et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002. Cataloguing all the samples, not just the special flakes Dr. Jones picked out.

No nanothermite! None!!

Stop asking for yet another result proving you wrong! You're like kids taking on Olympic atheletes, calling us names when we won't go "best 11 out of 20" with you.

[bill smith]

Well as long as Jones does not have large proportions of highly engineered nano particles in his dust that might be worth considering. On the other hand if there are large proportions of this exotic and-very-hard-to-get material in the dust that will be an entirely other matter. These materials do not does not occur naturally at the nano-scale in any quantity above the incidental..

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Well as long as Jones does not have large proportions of highly engineered nano particles in his dust that might be worth considering. On the other hand if there are large proportions of this exotic and-very-hard-to-get material in the dust that will be an entirely other matter. These materials do not does not occur naturally at the nano-scale in any quantity above the incidental..

You calling nano-thermite "exotic" when it's been around since WWII as an incendiary & a thermite grenade used to fuse the breach of artillery pieces?

I thought an Iguana or guinea pig was exotic, not nano-thermite!

Get your exotic nano-thermite pets here! Half off for U.S. Government employees & NWO agents.

:dl:

[Edx]

You calling nano-thermite "exotic" when it's been around since WWII as an incendiary & a thermite grenade used to fuse the breach of artillery pieces?

Actually nano thermite has not been around since WW2. Thermite has, thermate has been around a good while. nano thermite has not. Of course truthers dont know what real nano thermite is but that is bescides the point.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Actually nano thermite has not been around since WW2. Thermite has, thermate has been around a good while. nano thermite has not. Of course truthers dont know what real nano thermite is but that is bescides the point.

About Nano-thermite, I'm just making a point that it's still thermite. ;)

[Edx]

Thermite/nano-thermite, I'm just making a point that it's still thermite. ;)

yes, but you said nano thermite, that is still a different substance. I ask that truthers be accurate, so I expect us to be accurate

[Edx]

Which is truly a bizarre interpretation of design. I've repeatedly asked people in the movement why such a simple principal isn't taught in the design curriculum... Afterall;there must not be much to worry about with accidental or eccentric loading if this is true... I mean you'd think I'd have at least been taught on this subject in my undergraduate education... Should I be expecting this to come up during the next two years in master's architecture? The idea that arbitrary proportions would you know... ease some worries about collapse scenarios in a range of design implementations... if it's such a profound matter.

And why is 10% the magic number? He cant ever explain that. And why would it be relevant anyway? From the footage Ive seen more than 10% of the WTC crushed the rest of it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

yes, but you said nano thermite, that is still a different substance. I ask that truthers be accurate, so I expect us to be accurate

Nano-thermite is still thermite! Just a bit more powerful than regular thermite alone.

[3bodyproblem]

At around 16:00 in Part 2 Ron and Tony start talking about CD.

Tony says that it's possible to protect the charges from the fires. He's not sure what, but something.

What are you talking about Tony? What should we be looking for when the second investigation happens? It was obviously, in your opinion, over looked, so what exactly are we going to look for?

Ron says the amount of charges need would require a very intense effort. Tony incredulously laughs it off as incredulity (sorry but that was ironic).

Tony makes mention of security. It seems pretty easy to find security people or workers there very Early or very late to confirm the number of people coming and going in both buildings, on the floors in question. Why hasn't that been done?


edit:Also Tony, are you limiting yourself to charges on the initiation floors now? You seem to be, and yet there are so many Truthers claiming they see explosives the whole way down. How do you explain that Tony?
I see at 18 minutes he says 8 or 9 floors from the initiation. Damn slow internet connection!

[Edx]

Nano-thermite is still thermite! Just a bit more powerful than regular thermite alone.

And a duck is still a bird but not all birds are ducks, accuracy matters. Nano thermite as a substance isnt the same thing as thermite. If you wanted to make that point you shouldnt have said "nano" thermite has been around since WW2.

[Edx]

Tony makes mention of security. It seems pretty easy to find security people or workers there very Early or very late to confirm the number of people coming and going in both buildings, on the floors in question. Why hasn't that been done?

Tony is just moving the goal posts here. He apparently realises that Bush's brother wasnt in charge of the company running security that day, but if thats proven wrong thats okay. Someone was still running security, we just cant connect it to Bush....


Also Tony, are you limiting yourself to charges on the initiation floors now? You seem to be, and yet there are so many Truthers claiming they see explosives the whole way down. How do you explain that Tony?


I thought Tony was saying the opposite, that there had to be explosives all the way down.

[alienentity]

'What would be the point of anyone simply generating more material for you to ignore?'

Hear hear!

I just received a comment on one of my vids today which sums up the attitude perfectly:

'Frankly none of the testimony of anyone who was officially involved in 9/11, such as the demolition company used to clean up or the FBI testimony about evidence can be relied upon because these people were hand picked by the perpetrators.

I relly on my intelligence, which seems to far outstrip yours. '

No amount of evidence or mathematics, no matter how carefully documented and proved, will be sufficient for hardcore truthers. While they do not, of course, apply the same impossible level of evidence to their own hypotheses, they expect it of anyone who argues against them.

It's another way to crudely skew the playing field, so in their minds, they always win.

Unfortunately, in most others minds, they fail. That's the real story.

[3bodyproblem]

I thought Tony was saying the opposite, that there had to be explosives all the way down.

I just got to the 18 minute mark where he says it would have been 8 or 9 floors worth of charges.

I suppose this means we need to ask him why the pilots for 9/11 truth say these guys couldn't fly these birds, but Tony thinks they could fly them to within an 8 or 9 story (and different on each building) window of demolition.
:rolleyes:

[alienentity]

I noticed that Mr. Szamboti failed to address the obvious counter to his WTC1 theory - the fact that WTC2 DID tilt as it began to collapse, thus removing the 'no jolt' excuse.

Tony still cannot or will not explain why this case, which destroys his argument, doesn't affect the tower next to it.

Sorry Tony, I'm not buying your story. You definitely have NOT proved that there was controlled demolition. And you never will, mark my words.

Apart from that you seem to be a reasonable enough person, too bad you've allowed yourself to be sucked into this truther madhouse. I hope you escape one day soon.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

And a duck is still a bird but not all birds are ducks, accuracy matters. Nano thermite as a substance isnt the same thing as thermite. If you wanted to make that point you shouldnt have said "nano" thermite has been around since WW2.

Thermite:
Thermite was also used in both German and Allied incendiary bombs during World War II. Incendiary bombs usually consisted of dozens of thin thermite-filled canisters (bomblets) ignited by a magnesium fuse. Also thermite is on a sparkler & can be used as a pyrotechnic.

Nano-thermite:
MICs, including nano-thermitic materials, are a type of reactive materials investigated for military use, as well as in applications in propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics.

I see a couple of things that are very consistant.

[Edx]

Thermite:

Nano-thermite:

I see a couple of things that are very consistant.

Thats great, but nano thermite as a substance has not been around since WW2. Just accept that you should have said "thermite" not "nano thermite".

[Mr. Skinny]

Thats great, but nano thermite as a substance has not been around since WW2. Just accept that you should have said "thermite" not "nano thermite".
Don't tell Chewy he's wrong. It makes him very cranky, and no one likes a cranky Wookie. :)

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Thats great, but nano thermite as a substance has not been around since WW2. Just accept that you should have said "thermite" not "nano thermite".

It's not wise to upset a Wookie! LOL! ;)

Thermite

Super THERMITE

Nano THERMITE

All end in the word THERMITE. Coicidence?

[R.Mackey]

Can we at least try to hold a more intelligent discussion in my thread, please? I do so hate asking the moderators to split it apart again.

[Edx]

Apparently you dont get it Chewy. I give up.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Apparently you dont get it Chewy. I give up.

I do get it! Let me show you a drawing of an incendiary bomb from 1938.

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/11816

Back On Topic:

I wonder where Tony went off too? He hasn't answered anyones questions.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's something everyone can look at from our friend Tony Szamboti:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/SzambotiSustainabilityofControlledDemolitionHypoth esisForDestructionofTwinTowers.pdf

Find subjects which Tony has brought up or hasn't. Enjoy! :)

[scott.in.taiwan]

Bloody hell!

The dust has already been tested -- all the dust, definitely from the Towers, not just scraps flaked off of a railing somewhere and thrown in a baggie. Lioy et al., Environmental Health Perspectives, 2002. Cataloguing all the samples, not just the special flakes Dr. Jones picked out.

No nanothermite! None!!

Stop asking for yet another result proving you wrong! You're like kids taking on Olympic atheletes, calling us names when we won't go "best 11 out of 20" with you.

I understand this thread was created to allow the technically adept to talk about the engineering the WTC collapse. The problem my original post was trying to raise was that no matter how sophisticated Tony's response may be, once he admits the role of 'energetic materials', he reduces his argument to a non-teachnical one that draws in all the crazies.

It's neither necessary nor important to his technical argument. It's not supported by the opinions of anyone in the scientific community that deal with these materials. There is no meaningful statement in the scientific literature than needs to be addressed. The US government and its agents have no responsibility to address this. 'Demands' that they do so are laughable.

My questions weren't intended to drag the crazies over into this argument. I had hoped for a more personal response from Tony concerning why he continues to dirty the only argument that has any hope of touching a more technical audience.

[newton3376]

Apparently you dont get it Chewy. I give up.

I wouldn't bother with him Edx....he is almost as bad as a truther.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I wouldn't bother with him Edx....he is almost as bad as a truther.

Would you like to clearify that Newton?

Atleast I don't make up stuff like a Truther does. Just because you don't like me doesn't mean other people should follow you.

You feel like you want to attack me personally? Send me a PM instead!

[Tony Szamboti]

I noticed that Mr. Szamboti failed to address the obvious counter to his WTC1 theory - the fact that WTC2 DID tilt as it began to collapse, thus removing the 'no jolt' excuse.

Tony still cannot or will not explain why this case, which destroys his argument, doesn't affect the tower next to it.

Sorry Tony, I'm not buying your story. You definitely have NOT proved that there was controlled demolition. And you never will, mark my words.

Apart from that you seem to be a reasonable enough person, too bad you've allowed yourself to be sucked into this truther madhouse. I hope you escape one day soon.

WTC 2 did tilt right away and it's fall is more complicated and does not lend itself to measurement.

However, this in no way contradicts what is being said about WTC 1, and to the contrary if there was no jolt in WTC 1 it would lend credence to the notion that there probably wasn't one in WTC 2.

I think you have the logic backwards.

What we have proved is that the NIST/Bazant hypothesis does not conform to observation and that the collapse mechanisms have yet to be explained officially.

[R.Mackey]

There is no "NIST / Bazant hypothesis." You're conflating two reports with differing purpose and differing assumptions. On purpose, since I know you're smart enough to understand both, and because I've already explained to you the differences.

[Tony Szamboti]

There is no "NIST / Bazant hypothesis." You're conflating two reports with differing purpose and differing assumptions. On purpose, since I know you're smart enough to understand both, and because I've already explained to you the differences.

Ryan, at this moment we have no solid natural explanation for the collapses of those towers. Both NIST and Bazant require an impulsive load which is not observed.

If you think you can explain it as a natural occurrence, without any need for an impulsive load and force amplification, then you should write it up complete with calculations. However, I don't think you can get away with saying the entire upper section mass just plopped on the floors only and down it went.

I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.

[R.Mackey]

Ryan, at this moment we have no solid natural explanation for the collapses of those towers.

Yes we do.

Both NIST and Bazant require an impulsive load which is not observed.

No they don't. Neither even considers the observed collapse. What gall.

If you think you can explain it as a natural occurrence, without any need for an impulsive load and force amplification, then you should write it up complete with calculations. However, I don't think you can get away with saying the entire upper section mass just plopped on the floors only and down it went.

Don't have to. If as little as 20% hits the floors, that corresponds to a load of 318 lb/ft2, which plus their self-weight exceeds design limit by a factor of three. Bye bye floors.

Plus, the write-up you clamor for is rendered irrelevant by Dr. Bazant's papers and what they actually say, which is that even under much more conservative assumptions, the structure is coming down.

Seriously, you've been told this so many times, you have to be pulling our legs or exuding denial.

I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.

No, he said he'd already done the work, and that there was no requirement for us to write things that you will find excuses to ignore anyway. I sympathize.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Ryan, at this moment we have no solid natural explanation for the collapses of those towers. Both NIST and Bazant require an impulsive load which is not observed.

If you think you can explain it as a natural occurrence, without any need for an impulsive load and force amplification, then you should write it up complete with calculations. However, I don't think you can get away with saying the entire upper section mass just plopped on the floors only and down it went.

I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.

Tony,

Fire is a natural element! Or did that slip your mind?

Your bad misconception that a single floor would just plop on the next without affecting it structurally.

Once a collaspe starts with a driving force of 100,000 to 35,000 + tons of force, there's no way in hell to stop it from destroying the rest of the structure.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Fire is a natural element! Or did that slip your mind?

Your bad misconception that a single floor would just plop on the next without affecting it structurally.

Once a collaspe starts with a driving force of 100,000 to 35,000 + tons of force, there's no way in hell to stop it from destroying the rest of the structure.

There is no physical evidence whatsoever that fire caused those collapses.

Add to that the fact that the NIST couldn't get their model to produce the alleged south wall bowing and had to add artificial forces. Even then they don't show the loads required to collapse the east and west walls and remaining north wall of WTC 1. Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation. It is understandable as to why he would say this, because he knew a dynamic load was necessary for a natural collapse which he had no reason to doubt at the time. However, we have since learned that there wasn't one.

Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.

[Grizzly Bear]

Being unable to distiguish between limiting case and real world events, as well as completely misrepresenting a report you're criticizing are hardly any excuse to justify your position bud. Ryan's explained it to you, I've explained it to you, just about anyone who has competently read those papers have corrected you. It's beyond anyone's control if you continue ignoring those corrections even after having them explained at the most basic level possible hundreds of times.

I liken this discussion to speaking with a brick wall.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever that fire caused those collapses.

Add to that the fact that the NIST couldn't get their model to produce the alleged south wall bowing and had to add artificial forces. Even then they don't show the loads required to collapse the east and west walls and remaining north wall of WTC 1. Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation. It is understandable as to why he would say this, because he knew a dynamic load was necessary for a natural collapse which he had no reason to doubt at the time. However, we have since learned that there wasn't one.

Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.

Tony,

You know nothing about what fire can do to a steel structure. You're not qualified enough to make that kind of judgement call, if you had researched about fire you'd know that it weakens steel.

Steel is a great conductor of heat Tony. You think some magic pixie dust brought down the WTCs'?

If you were any mechanical engineer Tony, you'd drop this whole sham & not risk your professional career over a stupid conspiracy theory.

Remember what happened to Steven Jones, James Fetzer & the rest of the crazies that lost their jobs because of this? Want to end up like them Tony?

Save your grace & drop the CTs.

[Grizzly Bear]

Tony,

You know nothing about what fire can do to a steel structure. You're not qualified enough to make that kind of judgement call, if you had researched about fire you'd know that it weakens steel.

Steel is a great conductor of heat Tony. You think some magic pixie dust brought down the WTCs'?

If you were any mechanical engineer Tony, you'd drop this whole sham & not risk your professional career over a stupid conspiracy theory.

Remember what happened to Steven Jones, James Fetzer & the rest of the crazies that lost their jobs because of this? Want to end up like them Tony?

Save your grace & drop the CTs.

The error(?) he makes is denying that there was any evidence that it was the principal cause. And that denial is based on a gross misrepresentation of what the NIST actually writes. He's otherwise aware of what fire does to the material. Be careful not to confuse what he's saying.... Getting him to represent those works correctly on the otherhand...

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The error(?) he makes is denying that there was any evidence that it was the principal cause. And that denial is based on a gross misrepresentation of what the NIST actually writes. He's otherwise aware of what fire does to the material. Be careful not to confuse what he's saying.... Getting him to represent those works correctly on the otherhand...

I know Grizzly!

I've got something for Tony to look at anyways.

CHECK IT OUT TONY:

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's another picture that Tony should look at:

[Tony Szamboti]

I know Grizzly!

I've got something for Tony to look at anyways.

CHECK IT OUT TONY:

I know what temperature the overpass beam connections got to and their is NO evidence for those types of temperatures in the twin tower steel that the NIST got. You have no evidence for the kind of actual steel temperatures needed to cause the steel to lose enough strength to collapse, yet you act like you do.

The tiny I-beams you show in your thumbnail are a far cry from the tower columns thermal capacity wise, it doesn't say how long the fires lasted, what loads were on those beams, or even if some were deformed in a collapse and not the fire. That thumbnail is baseless for this argument.

You simply have no argument.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I know what temperature the overpass beam connections got to and their is NO evidence for those types of temperatures in the twin tower steel that the NIST got.

You have no evidence for the kind of temperatures needed to cause the steel to lose enough strength to collapse, yet you act like you do. The tiny I-beams you show in your thumbnail are a far cry from the tower columns thermal capacity wise.

You simply have no argument.

Tony,

I know fire caused the buildings to collaspe with the help of the impact from the planes weakening the structure.

Tony, you're not a firefighter, you weren't there on 9/11. You never risked your life like the FDNY did that day. You didn't lose 343 of your fellow firemen either. You'd never understand Tony, what it means to be in the fire service. You've got nothing but words!

And you have no evidence that thermite or explosives brought down the Towers'.

For the record Tony, you'll always be wrong about fire not collapsing the WTCs'. Nothing in the world would suggest that it wasn't fire.

Here's another picture for you to look at:

[Bluesky]

The building structure below was designed to handle several times the load above it.

This is why in the Verinage demolitions they drop the upper section through a distance to develop enough momentum to crush the lower section and itself through successive impacts where there is evidence of deceleration and load amplification.

Of course, the upper section experiences little resistance and accelerates while going through the removed stories in the Verinage demolitions.

The velocity curve for WTC 1 looks very similar to that measured of the fall of the upper section through the removed stories in a Verinage demolition.

Wow where did the explosions go? Ae911t had "conclusive proof" on the explosions and now Tony demolishes that theory in favor of the new one: "fireproof hydraulics".

But it seems to me that Tony's calculations assume that the building above falls a few flloors and lands cleanly on the columns below, and that this would stop the building above or slow it down.

But what happens when the columns above hit a floor beam rather than a column.?

Or what happens if the top bit does not hit the bottom bit uniformly? Say it hits the the corner a few milliseconds before the others. Its easy: the corner buckles, ( a rapid failure with little resistance beyond the initiation foce) and the force then hits the next element and so on.

Once the speed increases then you can see the whole building "explodes", or should I say that the escaping air (calculated at over 160mph) pushes out the perimeter columns so that you can see that they dont add to the resistance.

But did the impact slow down the collapse. Yes. All we know is that the failure of the outside columns was at about 70%g, so that means that about 30% of the energy of the collapse was absorbed by the collapse, which slowed it down a bit.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If you only learned your history Tony:

[Edx]

Here's another picture for you to look at:

Id love to know the source for that picture.

[Edx]

I know what temperature the overpass beam connections got to and their is NO evidence for those types of temperatures in the twin tower steel that the NIST got..

So how hot do you you think it got in the WTC, Tony?

[Grizzly Bear]

:/

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=118389

Seriously... this is becoming another annoying loop.... I really don't feel like doing this again... the denial is such that debate is is no longer feasible, and has been this way for a very long time.


Id love to know the source for that picture.

http://www.softwood.org/AITC_eVersion/EN/p3.htm

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Id love to know the source for that picture.

I'm trying to find it. :D

Looks like someone did! Thanks Grizzly!

[Edx]

Awesome! Cheers Grizzly!

[3bodyproblem]

Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.

Um, no. The reason for collapse initiation is understood. The impact damaged some columns, the fires burned unfought, and the steel weakened.

The only ones criticizing NCSTAR and NIST, are the ones that don't understand it. Everyone else in the World knows exactly what they were tasked to do.

Any discussion with you is pointless, because you fail to realize this. Not fail, refuse. You refuse to accept a very simple fact, NIST was not tasked with collapse progression, because no one cares. We all saw it, plain as day, over and over again.

"But it shouldn't have happened!"- no it shouldn't have happened, but it did, 3 times on the same day.

"But it couldn't have happened!"- but it did, 3 times on the same day.

"But it's never happened before!"- no, and it will probably never happen again.

BUT!,BUT!,BUT! for 8 years, and not a single thing has changed. Just give it up already Tony. Head over to the Forum Community and start a nice thread about how you like pretzels, or your favorite type of music. Turn off the computer, get out, go see a movie. Take up bowling! Take some time away from all this and let it all sink in. Come back in a few years with some fresh new ideas. Because right now yours stink.

[Bluesky]

There is no physical evidence whatsoever that fire caused those collapses.

Add to that the fact that the NIST couldn't get their model to produce the alleged south wall bowing and had to add artificial forces. Even then they don't show the loads required to collapse the east and west walls and remaining north wall of WTC 1. Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review.

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation. It is understandable as to why he would say this, because he knew a dynamic load was necessary for a natural collapse which he had no reason to doubt at the time. However, we have since learned that there wasn't one.

Finally , the present official causes for the collapses are not backed by any evidence at all, yet all I hear from some here is that the collapses have been explained. That is pure unadulterated baloney and it seems many here are the ones who are actually guilty of Ryan's "Irreducible Delusion", including Ryan himself.

Jeez What do you mean there is no physical evidence that the fire brought down the towers? Does that mean there is no evidence on anything or what? I have seen lots of photos showing large fires immediately at or adjacent to the collapse initiation level. What is your alternative...fire proof explosives and now fire-proof hydraulics.. or what?

Actually Nist hhypothesized about many alternatives. Your statement that , "Nobody could get away with this in industry, they would be thrown out of a design review." just demonstrates that you cannot be in the tall building industry, since you do not apply anything like the same standard of care to the words that come out of you mouth.

And you say we shouldn't look at dynamic effects when considering collapse propogation. That is completely nuts. Collapse propogation implies that it is moving. So why ignore the effects of movement, ie. the dynamics. But its fair to say that if the building had not moved after it failed then it would be much more difficult to prove collapse propogation.

Finally I am afraid that the whole world thinks you are nuts... but perhaps its the world.
LOL

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Seems like each time I, or we, bring up something to Tony, he always manages to make up some kind of an excuse.

We all know that he's got zero credibility for thermite or explosives. He's supposed to be a mechanical engineer who should know that fire is an enemy to steel & wood.

But I think he put his career on the line just for his own crazy ideas about 9/11. When he loses his job or retires because of them, I'm not gonna laugh at him. I'll just say: "I told ya so!"

[Dave Rogers]

Further....you can give no other example of this happening in the entire recorded history of the planet. End of story.

Except for the Bailey's Crossroads collapse, where the 23rd and 24th storeys of an unfinished building fell on the 22nd and collapsed the entire structure down to the ground. You're not allowed to ignore it just because it's inconvenient.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

I suggested this to Dave Rogers this weekend, and he feigned away mumbling something along the lines that he would not spend the time as everybody accepts the present explanation etc.

I made it perfectly clear, but since you're determined not to understand I'll have another go. There's no point publishing results that sane people would regard as trivial and truthers would regard as disinformation. And there's no need to refute results posted on an insignificant website through any more prestigious medium than a similarly insignificant discussion forum. If you ever get your missing jolt published in a grown-up journal, I might consider addressing it, but I suspect I'll be a long way back in the queue, and by the time Bazant's done with you there won't be much left to address.

Dave

[newton3376]

Would you like to clearify that Newton?

Sure....

I find some of your arguments weak and when someone points out to you the error you say something about a wookie instead of listening to what they are saying. That reminds me of what truthers often do.

I also find some of your posts childish and designed to receive some kind of internet "slap on the back" because of how clever or funny you think you are being.

Atleast I don't make up stuff like a Truther does. Just because you don't like me doesn't mean other people should follow you.

You don't seem to make stuff up...so I agree with you there.
I do not dislike you at all....I have nothing personal against you and don't know enough about you to dislike you. I'm just going off your posts which are sometimes good but sometimes are a waste of time and just seem like you are as zealous of a "debunker" as some truthers are.

You feel like you want to attack me personally? Send me a PM instead!

I have no desire to attack anyone personally.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sure....

I find some of your arguments weak and when someone points out to you the error you say something about a wookie instead of listening to what they are saying. That reminds me of what truthers often do.

I also find some of your posts childish and designed to receive some kind of internet "slap on the back" because of how clever or funny you think you are being.



You don't seem to make stuff up...so I agree with you there.
I do not dislike you at all....I have nothing personal against you and don't know enough about you to dislike you. I'm just going off your posts which are sometimes good but sometimes are a waste of time and just seem like you are as zealous of a "debunker" as some truthers are.



I have no desire to attack anyone personally.

Then what do you get out of ridiculing me Newton?

If you say that you're not ridiculing me, then that's the only word that I know that makes perfect sense to me at this point.

[Fourbrick]

Baileys Crossroads

"In March 1973, a dramatic multistory building collapse involving premature removal of shoring occurred at Bailey's Crossroads in Fairfax County, Va. The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor. The sudden, progressive collapse carried the weight of the failed concrete of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors all the way to the ground level. The failure killed 14 construction workers and injured 35.

Several investigations came to the same conclusion for the Bailey's accident. The concrete had simply not attained sufficient strength to carry the construction loads that were placed on it. The shear strength of the slabs would have been acceptable if the concrete had reached its specified capacity before the shoring was removed. "


Hardly comparable with the WTC towers.

[Dave Rogers]

Hardly comparable with the WTC towers.

Appeal to perfection. Bill smith said there was no recorded example in the history of the planet of the top 10% of a structure crushing the remaining 90% down to the ground. Bailey's Crossroads is a recorded example of the top 10% of a structure crushing the remaining 90% down to the ground.

At some point, either you're going to have to admit that there is no fundamental physical principle being violated here, or retreat to the position that, because never in history had the top 13 storeys of a steel-framed tube-in-tube 100-storey building crushed down the remaining 97, it was impossible for it to have happened on 9/11. The latter is simply an assertion that no specific event can possibly happen for a first time, which is absurd.

Dave

[Fourbrick]

Appeal to perfection. Bill smith said there was no recorded example in the history of the planet of the top 10% of a structure crushing the remaining 90% down to the ground. Bailey's Crossroads is a recorded example of the top 10% of a structure crushing the remaining 90% down to the ground.



Dave

That''s not what this photo shows.

http://www.structuremag.org/OldArchives/2005/January%202005/Great%20Achievements.pdf

[CHF]

Add to that the fact that there is no evidence of the dynamic load that Dr. Bazant simply presumed there was, to cause propagation.

No evidence of the dynamic load? :eye-poppi

Are you saying that the top block of the WTC did not fall when the collapse started?

[Grizzly Bear]

No evidence of the dynamic load? :eye-poppi

Are you saying that the top block of the WTC did not fall when the collapse started?

Well... how much does a car slow down when it hits a horse fly on the expressway? Since the care continues moving may we assume that there was no force exerted on either object? :rolleyes:

Sorry I can't think of a better analogy to putting a light weight metal decking & concrete floor against well something like a 15 or 30 story building crashing down on it with a highly uneven load...

I'm sure someone who knows what I mean can word it better in the context of the discussion.

[bill smith]

Except for the Bailey's Crossroads collapse, where the 23rd and 24th storeys of an unfinished building fell on the 22nd and collapsed the entire structure down to the ground. You're not allowed to ignore it just because it's inconvenient.

Dave

Further comment is redundent .Already served I believe,

[Newtons Bit]

That''s not what this photo shows.

http://www.structuremag.org/OldArchives/2005/January%202005/Great%20Achievements.pdf

That's the adjacent building.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Already served I believe

Ok Yoda!

:dl:

[Mr.Herbert]

That''s not what this photo shows.

http://www.structuremag.org/OldArchives/2005/January%202005/Great%20Achievements.pdf

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/Failures_FairfaxCollapse.jpg


At Bailey’s Crossroads, concrete was placed on the 24th floor while shoring was prematurely removed from the 22nd, causing a progressive collapse down to the ground level.

http://www.djc.com/news/co/11155170.html

[alienentity]

Tony, what caused WTC2 to tilt more than WTC1?

Whatever the possible reasons, try applying Occam's Razor, just for fun. That's what I've done. My list of possibilities is fairly short, only because I'm interested in the most plausible causes:

a) The damage caused by plane impacts was asymmetrical, which resulted in eccentric loading in the remaining structure
b) The fires caused random weakening of the floor trusses, and to some extent the core and perimeter columns.
c) A gradual failure of critical structures from combinations of 1 and 2 allowed the heavy upper sections to accelerate and destroy the structure below.
d) Thermite or thermate (nobody seems to know which), in quantities of several tons, was deposited on the impact floors, where the planes were expected to hit. It was ignited and burned, giving off huge quantities of telltale white smoke, which for some reason was not seen (How many times have we been lectured by truthers about the black smoke?)
e) nanothermite cutter charges were placed at the impact floors, where the planes were expected to hit. They were placed only on core columns, out of sight, so nobody, not NIST engineers or conspiracy theorists like Tony Szamboti would ever have direct evidence of them.
f) Both thermite and nanothermite devices were ignited or detonated in such a way as to mask their presence, by mimicking the effect of the plane impacts and fires, and fool the world's best forensic investigators.
g) In order to pull off this deception, all the calculations were made beforehand, and the flight paths of each jet were carefully controlled so they hit their designated spots on each building.
h) In a final feat of superhuman-level planning, the flaming debris from WTC1 was carefully calculated to impact WTC7 in such a way as to start multiple fires which would perfectly mimic a random situation.
i) All the conspiracy planning was done without a single notable leak from the conspirators, and without a single incident of detection by any of the 10's of thousands of employees who worked in the towers.
j) A feat of this magnitude would have required top engineers to be consulted and conscripted into the effort, as well as top demolition experts.

I could go on. In case Tony is wondering what the relevance of the last few points are, if you even try to seriously contemplate that the difference in the collapses was not random and natural, then you must believe that the differences were engineered on purpose.
The difference between WTC1 and WTC2 is not trivial - it is central to the issue at hand. For Tony to dismiss it with 'WTC 2 did tilt right away and it's fall is more complicated and does not lend itself to measurement.' is not good enough. It's a cop-out. The obvious conclusion is that the plane impacts and fires did have a real effect on the outcomes of the tower collapses, EVEN if you consider the placement of explosives and thermite.

But how great was this effect? Tony cannot answer this question intelligently, because there is no way to rationally intertwine both a natural collapse and a controlled demolition without admitting that the natural collapse could have been the main mechanism, not the secondary one.

As soon as Tony opens the door, even slightly, to the possibility that the buildings could have collapsed without explosives or thermite, his entire denial process itself collapses into nothing. Hence, where he vehemently denies an early tilt for WTC1, since it would ruin his argument, he cannot allow WTC2 to be admitted as valid evidence. Yet it is perfectly valid, and incontrovertible proof that the upper block did not impact the lower block uniformly, so we would not expect a jolt.
He argues that it is 'more' complicated, but I don't think it is. It's less subtle than the WTC1 collapse, but not less complicated.

Tony is depending on an oversimplified model to demonstrate his theory, but his model (and the original Bazant model) are not representative of the actual collapses in either case. If, in either building, the upper block does not impact the core or perimeter columns directly, it is game over. Tony knows it. We know it.

WTC2 is the definitive proof that it was possible. There is no point in further denial of that fact.

WTC2 did not require explosives to collapse, by Tony's own criteria. So why did WTC1 require them? Riddle me this, Tony.

[3bodyproblem]

The construction pace for the 26-story project was quite rapid; one floor slab completed per week. At the time of the collapse, concrete was being placed on the 24th floor, and shoring was simultaneously being removed from concrete at the 22nd floor.


That's actually not that fast paced. It' normal, at least by todays standards. I'm glad I never knew of this before I started working construction, I probably would have just served lattes. I coulda been a great barista.

You're right in a sense Fourbrick, that isn't like the WTC. From what I know steel structures are more susceptible to progressive collapse than SRC. I believe the load paths are such that damage, or failure in one area is much more easily transferred in SRC. I also believe SRC buildings deal with heat better. Like heat from a fire.

[Newtons Bit]

That's actually not that fast paced. It' normal, at least by todays standards. I'm glad I never knew of this before I started working construction, I probably would have just served lattes. I coulda been a great barista.

You're right in a sense Fourbrick, that isn't like the WTC. From what I know steel structures are more susceptible to progressive collapse than SRC. I believe the load paths are such that damage, or failure in one area is much more easily transferred in SRC. I also believe SRC buildings deal with heat better. Like heat from a fire.

I think, in general, concrete buildings are still more susceptible to progressive collapse than steel structures. There's a number of reasons for this, but the simplest explanation is that concrete requires rebar to resist tension forces. If that rebar isn't in the right location and detailed correctly an entire concrete section could fail from load redistribution, the capacity of the original section before the collapse is irrelevant. With steel, the entire structure is capable of resisting both compression and tension. It's quite common for a steel structure to have good resistance towards single column failures. Concrete structures, on the other hand, have to be specifically designed for that load redistribution (and it's not required by code for most buildings).

[alienentity]

Sorry for that long post. Reading it over, one might wonder why WTC7 is relevant to the other tower collapses, and a conspiracy to rig them with explosives or thermitic materials.

The reason is that, if WTC1 had collapsed very differently, let's say away from WTC7, then WTC7 might not have been impacted very much, and might not have been engulfed in fires.

In that case, the demolition explosives would have been impossible to camouflage. It is therefore necessary that the planners engineered the collapse of WTC1 to hit WTC7 in the manner it did.

Of course this leads to further questions as to why the other WTC buildings weren't rigged with thermite and cutter charges as well.

Whatever the hypothesis, the collapses are unlike any controlled demolition ever seen in history.

[jaydeehess]

In addition, concrete must be allowed proper time to cure before load is applied and if the construction pace pushes this time is combined with adverse temperature and humidity conditions that slow the curing disaster can occur.

With steel, it goes up, gets attached and is ready.

[jaydeehess]

Sorry for that long post. Reading it over, one might wonder why WTC7 is relevant to the other tower collapses, and a conspiracy to rig them with explosives or thermitic materials.

The reason is that, if WTC1 had collapsed very differently, let's say away from WTC7, then WTC7 might not have been impacted very much, and might not have been engulfed in fires.

In that case, the demolition explosives would have been impossible to camouflage. It is therefore necessary that the planners engineered the collapse of WTC1 to hit WTC7 in the manner it did.

Of course this leads to further questions as to why the other WTC buildings weren't rigged with thermite and cutter charges as well.

Whatever the hypothesis, the collapses are unlike any controlled demolition ever seen in history.

Yes, the TM does so love circular reasoning. Why destroy WTC 7? Because WTC 1 collapsed. Why destroy WTC 1? Because WTC 7 had to be brought down. Why destroy any WTC structure? Because they all were all to come down.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Sorry for that long post. Reading it over, one might wonder why WTC7 is relevant to the other tower collapses, and a conspiracy to rig them with explosives or thermitic materials.

The reason is that, if WTC1 had collapsed very differently, let's say away from WTC7, then WTC7 might not have been impacted very much, and might not have been engulfed in fires.

In that case, the demolition explosives would have been impossible to camouflage. It is therefore necessary that the planners engineered the collapse of WTC1 to hit WTC7 in the manner it did.

Of course this leads to further questions as to why the other WTC buildings weren't rigged with thermite and cutter charges as well.

Whatever the hypothesis, the collapses are unlike any controlled demolition ever seen in history.

I'm just going to say this because it needs to be said:

First time in history that a Controlled Demolition, with explosives, was silent.

[3bodyproblem]

I think, in general, concrete buildings are still more susceptible to progressive collapse than steel structures. There's a number of reasons for this, but the simplest explanation is that concrete requires rebar to resist tension forces. If that rebar isn't in the right location and detailed correctly an entire concrete section could fail from load redistribution, the capacity of the original section before the collapse is irrelevant. With steel, the entire structure is capable of resisting both compression and tension. It's quite common for a steel structure to have good resistance towards single column failures. Concrete structures, on the other hand, have to be specifically designed for that load redistribution (and it's not required by code for most buildings).

I was going on the basis that steel buildings tend to "push the limits" on open spaces. This seem to result in "global" failure, as opposed to SRC that seems to fail in modules. In my limited experience, SRC tend to have more exterior load bearing walls, which compartmentalize a progressive collapse. Thus total global collapse like the WTC 1,2,7 are more common in steel structures, whereas Ronan Point and the others see it localized to certain areas.

[bill smith]

I just watched the first Hardfire show. Hey...I got a mention. Ron Wieke tried to steal my thunder though by using a bullfighting expression as I recently did. He used 'carrentia' (sp?) whereas I used 'estocada' which is the killing stroke of the sword when the matador plunges the blade between the shoulders of the bull. I leave it to you to imagine the context that I was using it in.

One other thing- when Ryan and Tony are arguing at 24:15, why does Ron growl ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE Show 1

[riptowtan]

I just watched the first Hardfire show. Hey...I got a mention. Ron Wieke tried to steal my thunder though by using a bullfighting expression as I recently did. He used 'carrentia' (sp?) whereas I used 'estocada' which is the killing stroke of the sword when the matador plunges the blade between the shoulders of the bull. I leave it to you to imagine the context that I was using it in.

One other thing- when Ryan and Tony are arguing at 24:15, why does Ron growl ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1u3KO9kUdE Show 1

Haha. What the hell was that?

[Justin39640]

Haha. What the hell was that?

The closest thing to an on topic post Bill has posted in this thread so far. :D

(sounds like someone's mic rubbed against something)

[bill smith]

Haha. What the hell was that?

It sounds to me like Ron spontaneosly growled. Others may think differently.

[rwguinn]

Well... how much does a car slow down when it hits a horse fly on the expressway? Since the care continues moving may we assume that there was no force exerted on either object? :rolleyes:

Sorry I can't think of a better analogy to putting a light weight metal decking & concrete floor against well something like a 15 or 30 story building crashing down on it with a highly uneven load...

I'm sure someone who knows what I mean can word it better in the context of the discussion.
Mine was--A bus company wanted us to put an accelerometer in the front of the bus, so that if the driver hit a deer, or elk, etc, the acceleration would trigger a signal to HQ.
We pointed out that the delta-V for a 48000 lb bus, doing 60 MPH hitting a Volkswagon was less that what we could do with the brakes alone...

[jaydeehess]

It sounds to me like Ron spontaneosly growled. Others may think differently.

Lavalier style mics often do this. They rub against an article of clothing even a silk tie and you get a low rumble sound.

[R.Mackey]

Tony, what caused WTC2 to tilt more than WTC1?

[...]

The difference between WTC1 and WTC2 is not trivial - it is central to the issue at hand. For Tony to dismiss it with 'WTC 2 did tilt right away and it's fall is more complicated and does not lend itself to measurement.' is not good enough. It's a cop-out. The obvious conclusion is that the plane impacts and fires did have a real effect on the outcomes of the tower collapses, EVEN if you consider the placement of explosives and thermite.

[...]

WTC2 did not require explosives to collapse, by Tony's own criteria. So why did WTC1 require them? Riddle me this, Tony.

This is a good point, and one that I've made before regarding both Tony and Gordon Ross. The argument goes like this:

1. Tony has a calculation that he claims shows WTC 1 could not have completely collapsed. (Ignore for now that it doesn't, or that we've already shown its flaws, just focus on the claim.) Ergo, WTC 1 must have collapsed due to some other factor.

2. This same calculation, however, predicts a complete collapse for WTC 2.

3. Since it's an Inside Jorb, and the highjackers / radio controllers / whatever could hit the Towers at any floor, one concludes WTC 1 was hit high on purpose.

4. Thus we must rationally conclude that They loaded the WTC 1 building with explosives and hit it with an aircraft, a much more complicated endeavor, deliberately. But why??

There is no "why." Therefore, this proposal makes no sense at all. Thus, we must have made a mistake. The source of this mistake is, of course, the calculation that says WTC 1 couldn't fall down in the first place. With this error rectified, there is no longer any conflict.

This is another textbook example of Irreducible Delusion at work. The one, simple error, i.e. the bad calculation above, leads us to conclude something truly complex and fantastic after we try to make it fit with other, actually correct facts. If we're not thinking scientifically and we allow ourselves to make excuses, no matter how improbable, we can make any conflict fit. This is the primary mechanism of conspiracy theory thinking.

[Childlike Empress]

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/anonymous/strip/2009/11/17/aint-rocketscience.png


Sorry Mackey. :D

[DropGems]

Isn't there a 3rd segment? If so, when is that one dropping?

[Tony Szamboti]

I think, in general, concrete buildings are still more susceptible to progressive collapse than steel structures. There's a number of reasons for this, but the simplest explanation is that concrete requires rebar to resist tension forces. If that rebar isn't in the right location and detailed correctly an entire concrete section could fail from load redistribution, the capacity of the original section before the collapse is irrelevant. With steel, the entire structure is capable of resisting both compression and tension. It's quite common for a steel structure to have good resistance towards single column failures. Concrete structures, on the other hand, have to be specifically designed for that load redistribution (and it's not required by code for most buildings).

Excellent comments.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Tony,

Do you have any physical evidence to show everyone here that thermite or explosives were used on 9/11?

Can you account for the primacords, the shaped charges & 1,000's of pounds of thermite?

[Tony Szamboti]

In addition, concrete must be allowed proper time to cure before load is applied and if the construction pace pushes this time is combined with adverse temperature and humidity conditions that slow the curing disaster can occur.

With steel, it goes up, gets attached and is ready.

I believe most of the concrete structure progressive collapses that have ever occurred were for the reason you cite.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Do you have any physical evidence to show everyone here that thermite or explosives were used on 9/11?

Can you account for the primacords, the shaped charges & 1,000's of pounds of thermite?

Are you really Brent Blanchard?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Are you really Brent Blanchard?

If I was Brent Blanchard I'd be asking you: "What are your credentiuals for Controlled Demolition?"

Your response would be...........

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by Newtons Bit
I think, in general, concrete buildings are still more susceptible to progressive collapse than steel structures. There's a number of reasons for this, but the simplest explanation is that concrete requires rebar to resist tension forces. If that rebar isn't in the right location and detailed correctly an entire concrete section could fail from load redistribution, the capacity of the original section before the collapse is irrelevant. With steel, the entire structure is capable of resisting both compression and tension. It's quite common for a steel structure to have good resistance towards single column failures. Concrete structures, on the other hand, have to be specifically designed for that load redistribution (and it's not required by code for most buildings).


Excellent comments.



Portland Cement Association has a different opinion:


“A major advantage of concrete construction for high-rise buildings is the material's inherent properties of heaviness and mass, which create lateral stiffness, or resistance to horizontal movement. Occupants of concrete towers are less able to perceive building motion than occupants of comparable tall buildings with non-concrete structural systems. As a result, concrete has become the material of choice for many tall, slim towers, including many squeezed into narrow building lots in New York City in recent years. Engineers deemed concrete to be the only viable structural option for the structures—including City Spire on West 56th Street, with its slenderness ratio of 10 to 1—to withstand anticipated wind loading. …”

When subjected to abnormal loads how do concrete and steel buildings perform:

“Contrary to popular belief, a structure's likelihood of surviving an earthquake depends more on how well the structure is engineered than on what type of material is used to build it. During a severe earthquake that struck Kobe, Japan, on January 17, 1995, concrete buildings and steel buildings in the downtown area of the city shared comparable fates: just 4.9 % of concrete buildings and 5.3 % of steel buildings collapsed.”

http://www.cement.org/buildings/overview.asp

Whereas most steel high rise office buildings have a column and beams grid floor systems (as in the Towers core area) every 900 square feet or so that can compartmentalize and aid in arresting progressive collapse , the almost structurally unique Towers had 31,000 square feet of interior floors unsupported by any interior columns or beams. This design combined with light, fire unprotected, high-perimeter steel area to mass ratio fire exposure of the web joists contributed to the building’s progressive collapse.

[Newtons Bit]

This is far off-topic, BasqueArch, but what exactly is the different opinion? They mentioned detailing for seismic resistance. This is not quite the same as detailing for progressive collapse resistance, though frequently seismic details provides strength against progressive collapse.

Concrete buildings in non-seismic regions do not have the ability to withstand column failures. They're just not detailed for it. The Murrah building is a good example of this. Steel structures, such as those at the WTC, have an inherent ability to resist greater or lesser amounts of column failure.

[cmcaulif]

Brittle behavior in concrete can be a benefit in a progressive collapse.

A portion of the Murrah building survived because the collapsing portions broke of, and could not transfer any more of the energy from their collapse into the surviving structure.

Steel structures might exhibit great redundancy and ductility, but this is not a benefit unless you have determined the structure will be stable after new load paths have been found. This is tricky because the post damage configuration might lead to large forces that were not ever accounted for in design.

For example, flooring systems display remarkable damage tolerance due to catenary action, but the resulting anchorage forces can be extremely problematic (sounds familiar....)

[Newtons Bit]

Brittle behavior in concrete can be a benefit in a progressive collapse.

A portion of the Murrah building survived because the collapsing portions broke of, and could not transfer any more of the energy from their collapse into the surviving structure.

Steel structures might exhibit great redundancy and ductility, but this is not a benefit unless you have determined the structure will be stable after new load paths have been found. This is tricky because the post damage configuration might lead to large forces that were not ever accounted for in design.

For example, flooring systems display remarkable damage tolerance due to catenary action, but the resulting anchorage forces can be extremely problematic (sounds familiar....)

That's a bug, not a feature. Your argument is akin to saying windows has an added safety feature against hackers because it crashes so frequently and isn't connected to the internet while it reboots.

[3bodyproblem]

I'm not sure if this is true to the Murah building. The blast accelerated debris, then left an alternate path for the debris to collapse onto (compared to the towrers). In terms of Tony's favourite mass participation, the Murrah had very little. There is a distinct pattern in the building remains that suggests the blast caused the observed collapsed areas, and not falling debris. I think there are different mechanisms at work in the Murrah bulding.

[Mangoose]

Tony, what caused WTC2 to tilt more than WTC1?


I noticed that you didn't mention that the two blocks were of different dimensions and sizes. I would have thought that would have been a significant factor, as the upper block of WTC1 was much shorter than the other one. Am I on the right track?

[BasqueArch]

This is far off-topic, BasqueArch, but what exactly is the different opinion? They mentioned detailing for seismic resistance. This is not quite the same as detailing for progressive collapse resistance, though frequently seismic details provides strength against progressive collapse.

Concrete buildings in non-seismic regions do not have the ability to withstand column failures. They're just not detailed for it. The Murrah building is a good example of this. Steel structures, such as those at the WTC, have an inherent ability to resist greater or lesser amounts of column failure.

NB, as shown by the Kobe ,Japan earthquake both concrete and steel buildings had the same failure rate, so one material was no more inherently weak, when both materials design account for the same forces. Detailed right, both materials can compensate for lost columns.

As I understand it both the concrete Murrah building and the steel WTC7 suffered an initial column failure (one by explosion, one by heat) under transfer beams/girders . So the WTC7 loss of one steel column did not prevent global collapse. Perhaps the lesson here is that transfer beams should not be used in buildings subject to potentially abnormal loads, not what material to use. Embassies choose poured-in-place concrete for blast resistance and thereby survival from collapse.

The main point I want to make is that the steel Towers were not of typical design and were weak to fire and non-redundant in its vulnerable long span non-columned lightweight floor truss design.
(Not that I would have done anything differently.)

For steel buildings either the fire goes out before the building collapses or the building collapses before the fire goes out.
The plane damage and the fires fully explain the gravity-only collapse of the Towers.

[alienentity]

I've got a request from you guys. Can those of you who have college/university training in physics and/or engineering please give a brief account of it?

I would like to pass such info onto a group of anti-JREF truthers who seem convinced that nobody on the JREF conspiracy forums has expertise in physics.

Thanks in advance.

[Hokulele]

I've got a request from you guys. Can those of you who have college/university training in physics and/or engineering please give a brief account of it?


More than you really wanted to know. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2191263#post2191263

ETA: If you scroll to the last page, there are summary tables.

[3bodyproblem]

I've got a request from you guys. Can those of you who have college/university training in physics and/or engineering please give a brief account of it?

I would like to pass such info onto a group of anti-JREF truthers who seem convinced that nobody on the JREF conspiracy forums has expertise in physics.

Thanks in advance.

Physics and math (degreed) at the University level, and currently Power Engineering at the college.

A physics expert isn't really that well versed in material science and engineering. We're talking applied science and theoretical. There's a grey area, but I know PhD physics grads that can't change a tire.

What physics does is give you a great base for applying science to things. Ryan is a great example of this. He's probably spent more time on this 9/11 crap than he did on his undergrad. If not more, then he's certainly approaching that point.

It isn't about degrees, it's about understanding. Period. All a degree does is give you a piece of paper that says "This guy gets it".

My degree says "He kinda gets it, but just barely" :)

[alienentity]

More than you really wanted to know. ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2191263#post2191263

ETA: If you scroll to the last page, there are summary tables.

Thx! A virtual volcano of info...;)

[Hokulele]

Bitings only happen in that other thread. :)

[alienentity]

Bitings only happen in that other thread. :)

I'll tell you what, kiddo - you helped me put a big bite on some truthers today!
That's good enough for me..:D

[newton3376]

I've got a request from you guys. Can those of you who have college/university training in physics and/or engineering please give a brief account of it?

I would like to pass such info onto a group of anti-JREF truthers who seem convinced that nobody on the JREF conspiracy forums has expertise in physics.

Thanks in advance.

Here is mine...although none of it related to 9/11 issues....

Military:
8 years in the Army Reserves specializing in Communications....deployed from 2004-2005 during OIF2. Left the service in 2006.

Civilian:
Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering.
Almost 7 years of experience.

Areas of focus:Electronic Warfare (EW) and Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems and sensors.

Role: Testing and Evaluation during field and lab testing.

Other areas: Directed energy weapons (DEW).

Thats the shortest and most general description I can give ya...

***Edited to add: Nevermind...it looks like you already got what you needed....***

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If I was Brent Blanchard I'd be asking you: "What are your credentiuals for Controlled Demolition?"

Your response would be...........

...........exactly what I figured your response would be.

Absolutely NOTHING!

Next time Tony, get your credentials for Controlled Demolition. Because next time you say that thermite or explosives were used on 9/11, it'll be your career that'll be in jeapordy. Not anyone elses!

[alienentity]

Here is mine...although none of it related to 9/11 issues....

Military:
8 years in the Army Reserves specializing in Communications....deployed from 2004-2005 during OIF2. Left the service in 2006.

Civilian:
Bachelors of Science in Electrical Engineering.
Almost 7 years of experience.

Areas of focus:Electronic Warfare (EW) and Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems and sensors.

Role: Testing and Evaluation during field and lab testing.

Other areas: Directed energy weapons (DEW).

Thats the shortest and most general description I can give ya...

***Edited to add: Nevermind...it looks like you already got what you needed....***

Yes, thanks anyway though. Much appreciated.

It was to no avail, since the minute I gave a few credentials out, the goalpost was moved to only include people who use their own names, and then they got really ugly.
A civil debate is not possible in that realm. I won't bother mentioning where it was, don't want to dignify them.

[rwguinn]

Yes, thanks anyway though. Much appreciated.

It was to no avail, since the minute I gave a few credentials out, the goalpost was moved to only include people who use their own names, and then they got really ugly.
A civil debate is not possible in that realm. I won't bother mentioning where it was, don't want to dignify them.
BSME, Registered Professional Engineer
40+ years dynamic and static analysis and testing on structures from Automobiles to buses to aircraft (F-111, F-16, T-38, F-35, and G650) to payloads for STS (including External Tank) to T-3 and T-34D rockets...

[R.Mackey]

You'll note I'm not in the "Credentials" thread. No point. I don't argue from authority. Even so, there are a few idiots around who sporadically accuse me of it anyway. You just can't win with the Truthers.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic again.

Third show is coming. Gary needed a fresh copy of Tony's collapse video, but he informs me it should be done by the weekend. Also the second show's subtitles are finished in case you couldn't hear what I was saying.

[Newtons Bit]

NB, as shown by the Kobe ,Japan earthquake both concrete and steel buildings had the same failure rate, so one material was no more inherently weak, when both materials design account for the same forces. Detailed right, both materials can compensate for lost columns.

As I understand it both the concrete Murrah building and the steel WTC7 suffered an initial column failure (one by explosion, one by heat) under transfer beams/girders . So the WTC7 loss of one steel column did not prevent global collapse. Perhaps the lesson here is that transfer beams should not be used in buildings subject to potentially abnormal loads, not what material to use. Embassies choose poured-in-place concrete for blast resistance and thereby survival from collapse.

The main point I want to make is that the steel Towers were not of typical design and were weak to fire and non-redundant in its vulnerable long span non-columned lightweight floor truss design.
(Not that I would have done anything differently.)

For steel buildings either the fire goes out before the building collapses or the building collapses before the fire goes out.
The plane damage and the fires fully explain the gravity-only collapse of the Towers.

I'll reiterate my statement I made to 3bodyproblem:

Steel structures have an inherent resistance to progressive collapse due to the inherent nature of steel to resist both compressive and tensile forces. Reinforced concrete structures, on the other hand, need to be specifically detailed to do so.

I'll not address the ignorance and logic fallacies of the rest of your post out of respect for R.Mackey's frequently off-topic threads.

[alienentity]

You'll note I'm not in the "Credentials" thread. No point. I don't argue from authority. Even so, there are a few idiots around who sporadically accuse me of it anyway. You just can't win with the Truthers.

Anyway, we're getting off-topic again.

Third show is coming. Gary needed a fresh copy of Tony's collapse video, but he informs me it should be done by the weekend. Also the second show's subtitles are finished in case you couldn't hear what I was saying.

You'd be delighted to know that there was complete denial that you have any physics expertise. That's because on your resume it doesn't explicitly say so.
Once again, truthers fail.

Apologies for the OT.

[R.Mackey]

On my resume, it does explicitly say so. Same with my CV. You can also gather that from my publications... but, whatever. I don't care enough to find out what rag or snippet or quote-mined talk announcement they're actually looking at.

Incidentally, if you haven't used it before, you turn on the captioning on YouTube with the little "up arrow" down at about 4 o'clock in the frame. Looks like a white triangle in a box. Mouse over that, then select "CC" for Closed Captioning, and you should get a pop-up menu for English. Only my remarks are captioned though I worked up a transcript for all three of us. Hope that helps.

[cmcaulif]

That's a bug, not a feature. Your argument is akin to saying windows has an added safety feature against hackers because it crashes so frequently and isn't connected to the internet while it reboots.

I am not attempting to argue that brittle behavior should be designed in to a system to make it resistant to progressive collapse, that's obviously crazy.

On the other hand, when you are talking about structures that are not designed for progressive collapse, there is no benefit to load redistribution or ductility if the members you are redistributing to will just fail with the new loads and geometry.

In WTC 7, failure of 1 column meant the whole building was lost. For L'Ambiance plaza, a failure in the east tower also brought down the connected west tower.

If collapsing members had broken off before delivering their loads to the undamaged portions of these structures, it is more likely that these portions could have survived.

Again, I am not claiming this behavior is ideal or even good, just better than losing the whole structure.

[cmcaulif]

I'm not sure if this is true to the Murah building. The blast accelerated debris, then left an alternate path for the debris to collapse onto (compared to the towrers). In terms of Tony's favourite mass participation, the Murrah had very little. There is a distinct pattern in the building remains that suggests the blast caused the observed collapsed areas, and not falling debris. I think there are different mechanisms at work in the Murrah bulding.

If i remember correctly murrah only completely lost 2 or 3 columns at the base.

[alienentity]

On my resume, it does explicitly say so. Same with my CV. You can also gather that from my publications... but, whatever. I don't care enough to find out what rag or snippet or quote-mined talk announcement they're actually looking at.


Thx.
I stand corrected. The bio that I've seen obviously isn't your resume.

I also see this topic has been discussed recently in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=158996), in this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5313176&postcount=84)

[alienentity]

If i remember correctly murrah only completely lost 2 or 3 columns at the base.

Me too. Just rewatched a bit of 'Rebuilding on ground zero' recently, where they looked at the Murrah bldg. It was at least 2 or 3 columns.

[Dave Rogers]

It was to no avail, since the minute I gave a few credentials out, the goalpost was moved to only include people who use their own names, and then they got really ugly.

Doctorate in physics, over 20 years experience in industry, I've changed the occasional tyre, and this is my real name. And they were probably fairly ugly to start with.

Dave

[newton3376]

Doctorate in physics, over 20 years experience in industry, I've changed the occasional tyre, and this is my real name. And they were probably fairly ugly to start with.

Dave

Sheesh...so many people here with 15+ years of experience....

It's like I'm back at the office....

With my 7 years (almost 7) I'm what tfk referred to as a "baby engineer"....

[3bodyproblem]

Doctorate in physics, over 20 years experience in industry, I've changed the occasional tyre, and this is my real name. And they were probably fairly ugly to start with.

Dave

I've got $50 that says Dave uses the "Right Hand Rule", instead of "Lefty-Loosy Righty-Tighty". :D

Another $50 that says he considers the length of the tyre iron as a moment arm, and tries to apply uniform force at varying distances along the length of the iron in order to gauge the amount of torque applied to the lug nuts. At the very least the thought crosses his mind. :)

(My apologies to Ryan, I'm probably the biggest offender at derailing since the departure of Heiwa. Sorry.)

[Dave Rogers]

I've got $50 that says Dave uses the "Right Hand Rule", instead of "Lefty-Loosy Righty-Tighty". :D

Sorry, you lose $50. I use the "I'm not dyslexic so I know which way to turn the thing" rule.

Another $50 that says he considers the length of the tyre iron as a moment arm, and tries to apply uniform force at varying distances along the length of the iron in order to gauge the amount of torque applied to the lug nuts. At the very least the thought crosses his mind. :)

I find that jumping on the crossbar is an effective way of loosening nuts that have been put on at the garage with power tools; that's why I have an intuitive understanding of load amplification effects. For tightening, I usually just stand on it; less torque, but experience tells me they stay done up, and it's a pretty reliable way of always applying the same torque every time.

Which, if you think about it, is a means of applying uniform force at varying distances etc. So I do more than consider it.

(My apologies to Ryan, I'm probably the biggest offender at derailing since the departure of Heiwa. Sorry.)

Them's fightin' words, pardner.

Dave

[Justin39640]

Sorry, you lose $50. I use the "I'm not dyslexic so I know which way to turn the thing" rule.



I find that jumping on the crossbar is an effective way of loosening nuts that have been put on at the garage with power tools; that's why I have an intuitive understanding of load amplification effects. For tightening, I usually just stand on it; less torque, but experience tells me they stay done up, and it's a pretty reliable way of always applying the same torque every time.

Which, if you think about it, is a means of applying uniform force at varying distances etc. So I do more than consider it.



Them's fightin' words, pardner.

Dave
Mechanic tips from Justin:
I wouldn't jump.
When I have lugs that are too tight I use a breaker bar (get a piece of pipe) stand on it carefully and bounce a lil while supporting yourself on the car. This should work too if you only have the 4 way. Jumping (airborn lol) could be tragic if your wrench slips off the nut. Smaller stubborn nuts and bolts - use the palm of your hand to smack your wrench to get it loose (sharp impacts are better), don't try to turn it forcibly, you'll most likely strip a stubborn fastener.
Remember to use a criss-cross pattern to tighten your lugs. Don't go in a circle.
Also remember if you have aluminum rims they have to be torqued properly. (usually 150 ftlbs or so)
:D

I'll win the 50 by throwing in reverse thread lugs.

[Toke]

I find that jumping on the crossbar is an effective way of loosening nuts that have been put on at the garage with power tools

It is very important to do this before the wheels are raised off the ground.:D

[newton3376]

It is very important to do this before the wheels are raised off the ground.:D

HA!

That created a rather amusing picture.....

[Toke]

HA!

That created a rather amusing picture.....

I am talking from experience. :o

[newton3376]

I am talking from experience. :o

ROFL

Then I truly am very sorry to hear that....

Very few posts on debate forums strike me as funny enough to make me do more than smile...but that last post made me laugh....

I can only imagine how enlightening that experience was LOL :)

[3bodyproblem]

Them's fightin' words, pardner.

Dave

Pizza boxes at high noon until the first one globally collapses?

[A W Smith]

Mechanic tips from Justin:
I wouldn't jump.
When I have lugs that are too tight I use a breaker bar (get a piece of pipe) stand on it carefully and bounce a lil while supporting yourself on the car. This should work too if you only have the 4 way. Jumping (airborn lol) could be tragic if your wrench slips off the nut. Smaller stubborn nuts and bolts - use the palm of your hand to smack your wrench to get it loose (sharp impacts are better), don't try to turn it forcibly, you'll most likely strip a stubborn fastener.
Remember to use a criss-cross pattern to tighten your lugs. Don't go in a circle.
Also remember if you have aluminum rims they have to be torqued properly. (usually 150 ftlbs or so)
:D

I'll win the 50 by throwing in reverse thread lugs.

Or drive up in a sixties Chrysler and have him try to get the lugs off on the passenger side.

[R.Mackey]

You loosen the lug nuts (or bolts) before jacking up the car. Don't take 'em all the way off, just break them free. Otherwise the wheel will rotate a bit while you're trying to wrench on them. Very basic automotive knowledge.

I carry a 28" fixed wrench with 3/4" drive, and spare tungsten carbide sockets in my car. I've had auto shops torque my lug bolts to 400 foot pounds before (spec is 75).

What this has to do with the topic, gentlemen, I have no idea.

[tsig]

You loosen the lug nuts (or bolts) before jacking up the car. Don't take 'em all the way off, just break them free. Otherwise the wheel will rotate a bit while you're trying to wrench on them. Very basic automotive knowledge.

I carry a 28" fixed wrench with 3/4" drive, and spare tungsten carbide sockets in my car. I've had auto shops torque my lug bolts to 400 foot pounds before (spec is 75).

What this has to do with the topic, gentlemen, I have no idea.

Other than to prove there's a lot of detail oriented people here. Who really know the details.

[Justin39640]

You loosen the lug nuts (or bolts) before jacking up the car. Don't take 'em all the way off, just break them free. Otherwise the wheel will rotate a bit while you're trying to wrench on them. Very basic automotive knowledge.

I carry a 28" fixed wrench with 3/4" drive, and spare tungsten carbide sockets in my car. I've had auto shops torque my lug bolts to 400 foot pounds before (spec is 75).

What this has to do with the topic, gentlemen, I have no idea.

I carry a Dewalt 18v 1/2" drive cordless impact wrench. (inset Tim Allen Home Improvement chuckle here)
Other than that, sorry about the OT
I think we're just killin time till part 3 comes out. :D
(did it? there's so much OT I might have missed it lol)

[newton3376]

You loosen the lug nuts (or bolts) before jacking up the car. Don't take 'em all the way off, just break them free. Otherwise the wheel will rotate a bit while you're trying to wrench on them. Very basic automotive knowledge.

I carry a 28" fixed wrench with 3/4" drive, and spare tungsten carbide sockets in my car. I've had auto shops torque my lug bolts to 400 foot pounds before (spec is 75).

What this has to do with the topic, gentlemen, I have no idea.

400 foot pounds?!

Sheesh...no wonder they are such a pain to loosen after being done at the shop....

I just have a T-bar and a crowbar...that and a hydraulic jack...I love those jacks....good purchase.

It has nothing to do with the topic really...but the 9/11 debate has been over for a long time now....the truthers lost and lost bad.

I have a feeling that with this new debate you finished that there are more than enough debates in audio, video, and print to seal the deal for the truthers.

At this point they just rehash old disproven arguments like a broken record....they are rather boring....

[DGM]

You loosen the lug nuts (or bolts) before jacking up the car. Don't take 'em all the way off, just break them free. Otherwise the wheel will rotate a bit while you're trying to wrench on them. Very basic automotive knowledge.

I carry a 28" fixed wrench with 3/4" drive, and spare tungsten carbide sockets in my car. I've had auto shops torque my lug bolts to 400 foot pounds before (spec is 75).

What this has to do with the topic, gentlemen, I have no idea.
I doubt the 400lbs. maybe 200. I have a 1/2" drive Snap-on impact gun running 175lbs input air and it's lucky to get 275 lbs torque. Now if you want to talk about how much torque it takes to break fastener loose............Woow now I'm way off topic...:p

[R.Mackey]

Doubt all you like... 400 foot pounds. Understand that I'm running Y-rated low-profile rubber on forged aluminum wheels. They got a little excited.

I discovered this when I got a nail in a tire on a road trip, and I couldn't remove it to fit my spare. Neither could the tow truck, or the first tire shop I went to. The second got it off with a heavy-duty air hammer after about fifteen minutes of work. Davis, California, 2001. Now I carry much, much heavier tools. :D

[A W Smith]

Doubt all you like... 400 foot pounds. Understand that I'm running Y-rated low-profile rubber on forged aluminum wheels. They got a little excited.

I discovered this when I got a nail in a tire on a road trip, and I couldn't remove it to fit my spare. Neither could the tow truck, or the first tire shop I went to. The second got it off with a heavy-duty air hammer after about fifteen minutes of work. Davis, California, 2001. Now I carry much, much heavier tools. :D
http://www.directindustry.com/prod/stanley/torque-multiplier-13786-46357.html

[Justin39640]

http://www.directindustry.com/prod/stanley/torque-multiplier-13786-46357.html

http://buy1.snapon.com/catalog/item.asp?P65=&tool=all&item_ID=81261&group_ID=2798&store=&dir=catalog :D

Maybe it was stripped. :p
Remember to thread them on a few turns by hand. Don't try to start them with your wrench.

My pet peeve is people putting standard bolts in metric threaded holes. If it says Mitsubishi on it, why would you use a grade 5 (http://www.nutsandbolts.com/v1-bolt-grade-markings.html)?!? :mad:

Tony, comment? :popcorn6
lol

[knife fight colobus]

Will there be a lot of ppt in the last show? I thought a main issue that kept the shows from becoming available was technical stuff with presentations but so far the shows haven't relied on any presentations, mostly just talking points (which isn't bad at all).

[A W Smith]

still waiting for part three. any news? or was that it and i lost count?

[DeusExMachina]

Third episode posted. But only 7 minutes and 31 seconds? It ends abruptly during Ryan's presentation. Neophyte status prevents me from posting link.

[DeusExMachina]

wwwDOTyoutubeDOTcom/watch?v=WQIGxe_ZCz8

[R.Mackey]

You guys really need to get new hobbies. Gary has been trying for three days to upload the whole file, and no idea why it isn't working. That was a trial run.

[R.Mackey]

Part 3 Is Up!

kDvDND9zNUk

Ha! Beat you this time!

I'm having extreme trouble accessing the JREF Forums right now -- probably the only reason I beat you to it for once -- so I'll put together an anthology post later.

[knife fight colobus]

Hey man, these things are few and far between. I got interested in this stuff wayyyyy too late so when a debate on 911 that isn't from pre-historic 2006 comes around its good times.

Plus everything is so up to date! No longer are we hearing thermite or thermate...ahem, its called nanothermite here in 2010 (I'm over 2009, I'm just gonna start with 2010).

[Reactor drone]

Just finished watching it and I think that was the best of the three with both of you getting your points across.I can certainly see where Tony's no tilt point a little better after watching that,being more about the very point of initiation and the method of failure of the side walls.

I'd stilll disagree with his conclusions though since for that degree of bowing to occur there must have been serious force redistribution into the corners of the perimeter either side of the bowed wall.

[R.Mackey]

Tony, of course, has picked a video looking almost directly in the plane of the tilt, and on the other side, so naturally it's harder to see in this video. But in others, and in the picture I showed, the tilt is obvious.

This is why, as far as I know, not even anyone else in the Truth Movement cares about this theory. You can see a great deal of skepticism, for instance, at Gregory's forum: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/did-wtc1-hinge-like-wtc2-t139.html

... or here: http://the911forum.freeforums.org/wtc-1-tilt-t235.html

[WhiteLion]

Interesting, going to watch the debate now.

[911kongen]

Part 3 Is Up!

kDvDND9zNUk

Ha! Beat you this time!

I'm having extreme trouble accessing the JREF Forums right now -- probably the only reason I beat you to it for once -- so I'll put together an anthology post later.

Hehe, yeah.. I could have posted it a lot earlier. But JREF was down.. and it was time to go to work! So congratulations! :D I have seen the 3. program now.. good job Mackey!

[newton3376]

Part 3 Is Up!

kDvDND9zNUk

Ha! Beat you this time!

I'm having extreme trouble accessing the JREF Forums right now -- probably the only reason I beat you to it for once -- so I'll put together an anthology post later.

Cool....I'll have to watch it tonight.

[grandmastershek]

Part 3 Is Up!

kDvDND9zNUk

Ha! Beat you this time!

I'm having extreme trouble accessing the JREF Forums right now -- probably the only reason I beat you to it for once -- so I'll put together an anthology post later.

DUN DUN DUNNN! I am glad the truth is finally out that you're an official NIST shill!:jaw-dropp

[riptowtan]

DUN DUN DUNNN! I am glad the truth is finally out that you're an official NIST shill!:jaw-dropp


I have to admit, that was a really funny slip. :D I liked part 3 the best. I have a good imagining of the whole collapse process now.

[alienentity]

Great job Mr. Mackey, and also to Ron for hosting. Kudos to Tony for showing up an presenting his POV.

I'd love to see a frame-by-frame of WTC1 to demonstrate the tilt, since i think Tony is incorrect (along with most of you, I guess).

I still find it peculiar that Tony refuses to deal with WTC2, since there was a very clear tilt on collapse initiation. It is possible to calculate the average acceleration of the upper block as it begins to fall.

I made a fairly serious attempt to do so in my recent video, by running elapsed time for the topmost section of the roof to descend to roughly the 90th floor. My measurements show at least 5 to 6 seconds for this, while freefall would have done this in less than 4 seconds.

So we have both towers falling slower than freefall acceleration, both tilting to various degrees, and we certainly wouldn't expect a jolt in the case of WTC2, let alone with WTC1.
They seem to behave roughly the same way, and collapsed due to very similar types of failures.

It really ought to be 'case closed' on this subject. There's just no engineering requirement for explosives to produce the fx seen.
Even if there were a jolt the conclusion would be the same. Obviously the impacts were not symmetrical enough to produce that kind of effect.

Why continue flogging this dead horse Tony?

[alienentity]

Just FYI, here's the video with my measurements.

I could have started timecode a bit later, but in FCP the upper block is moving by 1 second in. So subtract a second if you like. It doesn't really matter. This wasn't freefall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOIebjT2jaM

rOIebjT2jaM

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I see that Tony hasn't come back to the thread to discuss his explosives, thermite & WTC2 section topple theories.

I guess the reality that his own conclusions weren't plausible or practical in real world physics. If he had looked at the evidence that RJ Lee Group, Inc. provided, he would've came to the same conclussions that we all see.

It's unfortunant that someone with expertise in their field of study & research would be labeled something other than what they thought they would turn out to be.

Failures do happen & will occur from time to time. I believe Tony has seen his own failures & is hopefully coming to terms with them.

If Tony's here, there's no hard feelings. Just don't let your mind wonder into the unknown.

[3bodyproblem]

Tony: "I'm going to have to get back to you on this graph...because I, because I don't..."

... I say give him 8 more years. Then we call him on it.

Ron: "Greg Urich, I so sorry"

I thought it was pretty nice of Ron give props to GU. It just shows his charcater.

Tony, you just didn't convince anyone that there was no tilt. That's being as objective as I can. Sorry.

I'd just like to say Jon Luvitz is one of my favourite SNL charcters. I don't know where that came from.

[alienentity]

Further to Tony S's insistence on a jolt, I'm going to look at the angles frame-by-frame, 'cause I'm pretty sure there's going to be a tilt before Tony says there is - but in themeantime have a look at this:

Cz6VxxVdXuA

ETA: Sorry, I included an extra character, the vid should play now.

If you look at the lowest reaches of fires, let's call that the lowest point of damaged/compromised floors - then look at the building as the collapse begins, and you'll see the initial failures are well above the lowest fires.
(YOu can tell roughly where the initial collapse zone was from the black plumes which shoot out in all directions)

So IMHO, the collapse zone itself is quite a few floors, not just one, and the number of compromised floors is even larger still. There's no way you're going to get a single impact between two intact blocks in that situation. It's not physically possible.

I don't even need the tilt to explain why a jolt wasn't detected.

[Tony Szamboti]

Further to Tony S's insistence on a jolt, I'm going to look at the angles frame-by-frame, 'cause I'm pretty sure there's going to be a tilt before Tony says there is - but in themeantime have a look at this:

v=Cz6VxxVdXuA


If you look at the lowest reaches of fires, let's call that the lowest point of damaged/compromised floors - then look at the building as the collapse begins, and you'll see the initial failures are well above the lowest fires.
(YOu can tell roughly where the initial collapse zone was from the black plumes which shoot out in all directions)

So IMHO, the collapse zone itself is quite a few floors, not just one, and the number of compromised floors is even larger still. There's no way you're going to get a single impact between two intact blocks in that situation. It's not physically possible.

I don't even need the tilt to explain why a jolt wasn't detected.

The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.

[Grizzly Bear]

The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing,
And fully involved in fire apparently. Along with 6 other floors.
http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8128/1018892.jpg


and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.
Can somebody please tell me the relevance of the bolded? When the entire floor plan of a level in the building somewhere below said floors is severely compromised is the idea that the floors above are intact even relevant?

[A W Smith]

The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.

And how far above the fire initiation zone where the plane and all its jet fuel impacted was that tony? ever wonder why the steak on the grill is cooked but not actually in the charcoal itself? but above it? Don't you remember the nist report tony? the buildings withstood the impact but the fires doomed the building?

ETA, thanks Grizz for illustrating my (our) point. You beat me too it.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.

Tony,

You really need to look at it from a different point of view.

Gravity doesn't need a "jolt" to cause a building to collapse.

However, an earthquake could collapse a building with a jolt.

But since no earthquakes weren't recorded on the seismic recorders on 9/11, the only possible conclusion is the plane damage + the fires + gravity = collapse.

Study a bit more & you'll get the idea! ;)

[Tony Szamboti]

And how far above the fire initiation zone where the plane and all its jet fuel impacted was that tony? ever wonder why the steak on the grill is cooked but not actually in the charcoal itself? but above it? Don't you remember the nist report tony? the buildings withstood the impact but the fires doomed the building?

ETA, thanks Grizz for illustrating my (our) point. You beat me too it.

Floor 97 didn't have much aircraft impact damage either and we weren't seeing 97 and down move first so Grizzly's theory has no basis.

Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102, and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, but according to you it was hot air that caused 99 to 102 to collapse. Steaks cook at a lot lower temperatures than steel does. The steel would need to be enveloped by fire to have any chance of weakening.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Floor 97 didn't have much aircraft impact damage either and we weren't seeing 97 and down move first so your theory has no basis.

Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102, and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, but according to you it was hot air that caused 99 to 102 to collapse. Steaks cook at a lot lower temperatures than steel does. The steel would need to be enveloped by fire to have any chance of weakening.

Tony,

Since jet fuel is a liquid, what happens to that liquid when gravity gets ahold of it? Where's it going to go inside both Towers after the plane impacts?

[A W Smith]

Floor 97 didn't have much aircraft impact damage either and we weren't seeing 97 and down move first so Grizzly's theory has no basis.

Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102, and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, but according to you it was hot air that caused 99 to 102 to collapse. Steaks cook at a lot lower temperatures than steel does. The steel would need to be enveloped by fire to have any chance of weakening.

And you completely missed my point . steak on the grill? Does heat rise tony? yes or no?

http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/appendixh.pdf
H.6.1 WTC 1
It has already been mentioned that substantial fireballs formed on the north, east, and south faces
immediately following the plane strike. A brief period of intense burning from openings on these faces
was observed after the fireballs dissipated, but in a short period (on the order of 60 seconds) the fires
seemed to “damp down” and very little flame and only light smoke was evident from the outside. This
period of light burning lasted several minutes before fires began to reappear.
Rapid early fire growth was observed on the east side of the north face on floor 96 and floor 97, the center
of the east face on floor 94 and floor 97, and the western side of the south face on floor 96. Even though
relatively little initial damage was sustained by the west face, heavy smoke followed shortly by flame
appeared around window 97-437 at 8:55 a.m. After this time, a very rapid fire spread was observed
across the west face on this floor. Within a couple of minutes, over half of the windows were emitting
smoke, and flames were visible in many. Even though floor 92 was not directly struck by the airplane,
fire appeared on the east side of the tower on this floor shortly after 9:00 a.m.
Following the initial development of large fires, fire spread continued until WTC 1 collapsed around
10:28 a.m. At times the fires displayed the systematic, relatively slow spread expected for fire growth in
a typical building. For instance, after the initial rapid growth phase, fires on floors 92, 94, 96, and 97 on
the east face began to move deliberately toward the south. As they spread, the fires would burn intensely
at a given location for a while before dying down. As a result, these fires developed the appearance of a
wave moving slowly across the building.
There were also certain times and locations during which fire appeared to spread quite rapidly. Some of
these episodes were clearly connected with rapid fire growth and likely flashover in rooms. During the
first half hour, significant fires were observed toward the centers of floors 92, 94, 96, and 97 on the east
face that were spreading towards the north. Each of these fires eventually reached a certain point where
further fire spread was inhibited for many minutes. A review of building plans showed that walls of
offices or meeting rooms were presented at the locations where fire spread was inhibited.
Apparently, these walls served as effective fire breaks that protected against further fire spread. However,
for each of these floors fire and smoke eventually appeared at one of the windows beyond the walls, and
after one of these windows was broken fire growth was extremely rapid and robust across the remaining
windows. These observations are consistent with the occurrence of flashover within an enclosed space.
At other times, unusually rapid fire growth apparently occurred in areas that are believed to have been
relatively open and not constrained by walls. One of these episodes occurred around 9:54 a.m. on the
north face. Fire suddenly appeared on floor 96, a location to the west of the damage inflicted by the
airplane. Within a very short period of time, fire could be seen in roughly 10 windows covering a
distance of more than 30 ft.
Another example of very rapid fire growth appeared to take place on floor 98. In the early period of the
fire, this floor did not appear to be heavily involved, and this remained true for quite a while. However,
after 9:30 a.m., fire began to appear on this floor and by 10:00 a.m., fires were observed over significant
lengths on all four faces of the tower.

One of the more unusual fire spread episodes in WTC 1 occurred just after the collapse of WTC 2 around
9:59 a.m. Within a couple of minutes, a large intense fire suddenly appeared on the south side of the west
face on floor 104 in an area well above any other apparent fire. This unusual jump in fire location is
difficult to explain, but is likely associated with vertical shafts located in the core of the tower.
For most of the time following the plane strike, no fire was observed on any of the floors on the south
face over lengths extending from the eastern edge of the tower to near the center of the face. Fires were
not observed in this region of the building until around 10:00 a.m. By the time this tower collapsed
roughly 25 minutes later, intense fires extending over significant lengths of the originally uninvolved area
were burning on floor 94 to floor 98 in this area.
A final example of rapid fire spread and growth in WTC 1 was described previously in the May 2003
Progress Report for the Investigation (NIST 2003). In this case, a line of smoke appeared suddenly over
a significant length of floor 92 on the north face of WTC 1 at 10:18:48 a.m., or roughly 9 minutes before
the collapse of the tower. Puffs of smoke were observed simultaneously on the north face from floors 94,
95, and 97. More isolated puffs were seen at the same time from floor 92 and floor 95 on the west face
and from floor 92 on the south face. Very shortly (seconds) after the appearance of the smoke, a localized
fire on floor 95 to the west of the plane strike location grew very rapidly and flames erupted from
windows. Following the smoke release, a large fire began to spread rapidly across the western side of
floor 92 on the north face. Previous to the appearance of the smoke, only small fires were evident on this
floor. By the time the tower collapsed, this fire had spread across most of the floor and had reached the
western wall. This fire was responsible for the large burst of flame from the north face observed when
this tower collapsed.

[Grizzly Bear]

Additionally, there was not much fire on floors 99 to 102

And this is supposed to be relevant because....?
.....?

and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors.
One would think that repeating a lie this often when people have long since moved on would send the message that it gets a little old. I absolutely implore you to consider a new pet peeve after you've addressed my other question.

[alienentity]

The initial failure was at the 98th floor, which had almost no aircraft damage as it was only hit by about five foot of the end of the right wing, and then the fully intact floors 99 to 102 collapsed, without a jolt. Please explain how that happened.

Hi Tony,

Now I've fixed the video link, take a careful gander at the black plumes, and you'll notice the failures were quite extensive and involved a lot of floors.

I don't care what NIST says about it, there's no other way to explain why, 4 seconds into this clip, that you've got masses of smoke being pushed out way above the point you say was the collapse point.

It just doesn't work for me.

Guys, just estimate for me how many floors above the lowest visible line of flames those big plumes are. It's quite a few.

You see, if you look at verinage videos and make a note where the majority of plumes come out, it's right at the heart of the collapse zone. You also get some secondary amounts above and below. I've looked at these things over and over, so I'm pretty confident about it.

Again, Tony, the main point is that there is quite clear evidence of damage on many floors - there's a lot of fire in there, so a lot of heat and hot steel.

As soon as you take away a rigid, square impact zone, you lose the jolt. That's just not the way either building fell. In WTC2's case, your jolt idea is completely moot, as I said. So if you see no jolt, it just means that your theory is incorrect, that's all. It's very simple.

[alienentity]

.. and the NIST has no physical evidence for high steel temperatures on these floors, ..

You don't need very high temps for viscoplastic buckling. That's a fact. What matters is the stress applied to the column.

You can't just ignore these things and make a good argument. It won't work. You must account for the eccentric loads, the asymmetry of the collapses, etc... otherwise you're just making theoretical points which have little relevance to what actually happened.

[alienentity]

Look, this whole premise is self-defeating anyway:

We look at real demolitions, like the verinages, and what do we see? A jolt, because support is simultaneously removed across the whole structure.

The JOLT is proof of CD, for crying out loud!

The absence of a jolt shows conclusively that the failures were not simultaneous and symmetrical, ie: NOT like any controlled demolition.

You're making the wrong argument with the data. This is getting ridiculous.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Tony,

Why would the top of WTC 2 just tilt to 1 side, where the plane impacted, & the other side didn't?

If there was a CD, wouldn't the other side be blown out to make it look like the whole top of WTC 2 fell symmetrically?

Also I'd like to point out that WTC 1 looked like it fell symmetrical is because whole floors were on fire.

[Tony Szamboti]

Tony,

Since jet fuel is a liquid, what happens to that liquid when gravity gets ahold of it? Where's it going to go inside both Towers after the plane impacts?

So you think it flew up to the 99th thru the 102nd floors?

Read what the estimates are. FEMA and NIST estimate that the 98th floor only got 240 gallons. and the 99th 68 gallons. They don't even mention above that.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

So you think it flew up to the 99th thru the 102nd floors?

Read what the estimates are. FEMA and NIST estimate that the 98th floor only got 240 gallons. and the 99th 68 gallons. They don't even mention above that.

Tony,

I didn't say anything about that.

Just how many gallons of jet fuel did the planes carry at the time?

Figure that out & minus the 68/240 gallons & you'll get your answer.

You still think that I'm Blanchard?

[BigAl]

So you think it flew up to the 99th thru the 102nd floors?

Read what the estimates are. FEMA and NIST estimate that the 98th floor only got 240 gallons. and the 99th 68 gallons. They don't even mention above that.

"Only"? That much gas would make one hell of a fireball when constrained within a floor and a fine firestarter for all the in flammables on each floor.

[Tony Szamboti]

Look, this whole premise is self-defeating anyway:

We look at real demolitions, like the verinages, and what do we see? A jolt, because support is simultaneously removed across the whole structure.

The JOLT is proof of CD, for crying out loud!

The absence of a jolt shows conclusively that the failures were not simultaneous and symmetrical, ie: NOT like any controlled demolition.

You're making the wrong argument with the data. This is getting ridiculous.

In the real world demolitions are done by removing a certain amount of structure and allowing momentum to build and then there is a jolt to destroy the lower intact structure.

I guess it is too hard for you to realize that the structure can just as well continue to be removed but it is cheaper to let gravity do some of the work in a legitimate CD. In the real world buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

Additionally, the NIST does a gigantic hand wave to get the east and west walls to just sympathetically fail due to the alleged demise of the south wall. They don't have the stresses in their analysis to show why they would collapse.

No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

In the real world do buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

Tony,

In the real world other buildings has concrete around their inner core & outter structural steel supports.

The Twin Towers were built without concrete around their structures.

[BigAl]

In the real world do buildings with huge amounts of reserve strength do not crumble without any evidence of a dynamic load. Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.


I'm not an expert on the details of the collapse but I know of a video that shows the core column for one of the towers was left standing for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors were on the ground, or close to it.

[WildCat]

No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.
Just curious, what color is the sky in your world?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

Tony,

But you have no Controlled Demolition credentials. So why bring that up when you're not an expert in that field?

http://www.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=999907
v
v
v
Personal 9/11 Statement:

After watching the twin tower collapses live I wondered to myself where all of the energy came from to cause such rapid collapses. At the time I did not know how the buildings were designed and also heard a few days later about a civil engineering professor saying there was a 30g dynamic load. This was probably Dr. Bazant of Northwestern University. I somewhat accepted this but still wondered. After hearing about Dr. Steven Jones bringing up issues with molten metal in the rubble in early 2006 I decided I should read his paper. I found it on the Internet and after reading it started looking much harder at those collapses myself. Unfortunately, there is little doubt that the collapses were caused by controlled demolitions and it appears the aircraft impacts were causal ruses.

:dl: OMG Tony!

[A W Smith]

Ryan didn't explain how the central core came down without a jolt.

.

Say what? Did you completely miss slide five and Ryans explanation of why there was no jolt? Are you being deliberately ignorant?

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/AWSmith1955/slide5.jpg



No jolt does imply controlled demolition and nobody has shown any calculations to prove otherwise.

Perhaps Tony, you will show us an example of a controlled demolition where there was no jolt?

[BigAl]

In the real world demolitions are done by removing a certain amount of structure and allowing momentum to build and then there is a jolt to destroy the lower intact structure.


Demolition makes a seismic record. There were two independent seismic recording systems in operation on 9/11. Neither of them recorded any impulse that can't be explained by either the impact of a plane or parts of a tower hitting the ground.

I guess the core would be standing to this day but for lack of latteral support.

[scott.in.taiwan]

Somewhere in there, we have to have thermite. Thermite explains everything and that's why the US government should mobolize it's entire scientific resources to look for thermite. If only there were thermite at the WTC...

[Tony Szamboti]

Demolition makes a seismic record. There were two independent seismic recording systems in operation on 9/11. Neither of them recorded any impulse that can't be explained by either the impact of a plane or parts of a tower hitting the ground.

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

Tony,

It's either "hydraulics" or "small explosives". Can't have both!

Here's a song for ya Tony:
7bQwin3Vv0k

[scott.in.taiwan]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

What did I tell ya'? Thermite saves the day. But I guess this shows how wrong I was about you. In the end, all this comes back to back to superduper supersecret nanothermite. And when all that fails, you become a no-planer.

Any bets on how long it takes Tony to become a no-planer?

[BigAl]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.


hydraulics ?????

Can you make a hypothesis as to the placement of charges and the size of each one? You can use this blaster's manual to make an accurate calculation of the amount of charge for each beam based on it's shape and size.

FM 5-250 Explosives & Demolition
http://www.militarynewbie.com/pubs/FM%205-250%20Explosives%20And%20Demolitions%20Manual.pdf


Making such a plan that fits the evidence and video record would be a breakthrough in the field of quantitative Truthology. Posting it for review would be a major contribution.

I suggest that the detonation of so much as a single C4 block at any above-ground spot in a tower would be heard all over WTC plaza and caught on the audio track of every video camera in operation at the time. Others here have first-hand experience with the stuff and are welcome to comment on my assertion.

[BigAl]

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

For one tower, the core stood for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors left the building, so to speak.

[LashL]

I've just watched the third segment. Very nicely done, indeed, Mr. Mackey.

Mr. Szamboti, you have been well and truly (not to mention completely and utterly) served.

[Grizzly Bear]

I'm not an expert on the details of the collapse but I know of a video that shows the core column for one of the towers was left standing for several seconds after the exterior columns and floors were on the ground, or close to it.

It was in both. At least 40 stories of the south tower's core, and 60 of the north tower's. And, the next thing you're going to hear from him is that they were the inner core columns. Regardless of which it proves that the core below the impact points were not the source of the collapse in either tower. They weren't 'cut' and they weren't 'blown.'

The steel examined at fresh kills showed absolutely no signs of explosive trauma; instead they exhibited bolt failure at the ends as the collapse progressed:

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/7324/splice2.jpg

The columns struck by the planes failed in a nearly identical manner. The connections were sheared.

And of course TS still wants to speculate that columns might have been 'heated' while also arguing that no evidence was found to suggest the presence of high temperatures.

Nothing particularly surprising... :\

[alienentity]

There would be no seismic record if joints were heated or hydraulics were used to remove the columns of the first eight to nine floors to collapse in WTC 1. Even small explosives used that high probably wouldn't produce a seismic record. After that the collapse could probably proceed on it's own as at that point the floors outside the core would collapse due to a quasi-static overload.

The problem is that in the early stages there needed to be a jolt and there isn't one. You can't take out the core without one. It really is that simple.

Tony, that's just silly. You're just fantasizing about this now - there is not a shred of evidence which supports the idea that the joints were artificially heated and that hydraulics were used.

What there is abundant evidence of, but you refuse to accept (for an emotional reason, not a logical one) is that the towers were hit by planes and then experienced large fires without any fire suppression, or proper insulation.

Your elaborate and fantastical ideas are utterly redundant and unnecessary to explain the events accurately. I admit the jolt idea is intriguing, but we have now explored that question honestly and thoroughly with you, and it does not fit with the evidence. Sorry.

WTC2 had a strong tilt, so there was no need for a jolt, so it is logical to accept it collapsed just from the fires. Your own criteria allow this. And if they allow one, they must allow the other as well, since the evidence is overwhelming that they experienced similar traumas.

It's your business if you want to wallow in this stuff until well past it's due date, (which was some time ago, frankly), but if you harbour further fantasies about swaying the engineering community over to your POV don't bother, it will never happen.
I commend your persistence, but you must know that your efforts are futile if you wish to find and prosecute any alleged perps in this vast and fantastic conspiracy you are erroneously pursuing.

That's a polite way of saying that I think you're a little nuts. But that's your problem, not mine. You really ought to listen to a very smart man like Ryan, it would do you some good, sir. Sincerely.