Momentum Transfer in WTC

[TruthSeeker1234]

Consider Gordon Ross' paper:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
(remove space after h)

Frank Greening's attempted criticism:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_2_Greening.pdf
(remove space after h)
and Ross' reply to Greening:

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Article_3_RossReply.pdf
(remove space after h)

NIST, of course, did not attempt to do any calculations showing the possibility that the upper part of a damaged tower could cause the phenomenon we observe in the videos (i.e. the shredding of the steel and near total-pulverization of all other matter into fine powder).

Thus it appears that, at present, Ross is the last word on the subject.

Can anyone provide a refutation of Ross? I am not interested in the planes, or the fires. I am only interested in seeing calculations that show the possibility that the upper part of a skyscraper can crush the lower part, and itself, under the force of gravity.

In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers. I'd like to see any example of any object or structure, made of any material(s), of any average density, of any size (say between 1 inch to 100 miles) which meets the following two critera:

1. The object or structure is able to stand up against the force of gravity and retain its shape (i.e. generally behaves as a solid, not a liquid or a gas) for at least a year.

2. As a result of damage, an upper part of the object falls down into the lower part, and using no other source of energy apart from gravity, at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I do not know why this was moved to "conspiracy theories" from "science and mathematics". I am not interested in any conspiracy theories on this thread. I am only interested in the science and math.

Thanks

[Lisa Simpson]

I moved it. You can still discuss the science here. But it belongs in this sub-forum.

[T.A.M.]

a little disingenuous coming in here and complaining about where a post is moved, when your selected username clearly indicates that you are a "Truth" seeker (9/11 "Truth" movement). But if I am wrong, than please tell me that you believe the official story about 9/11 and i will apologize. Otherwise, your post belongs right where it still sits.

Don't worry, if it is debate over the "Ross" paper you want, i am sure you will get it here.

TAM

[Gravy]

R. Mackey, whose posts are must-reads, points out several problems with Ross' paper: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1822297&postcount=576

[Pardalis]

I do not know why this was moved to "conspiracy theories" from "science and mathematics". I am not interested in any conspiracy theories on this thread. I am only interested in the science and math.

Thanks

Yeah right, not with that screenname. Give me a break... :rolleyes:

[R.Mackey]

Beat me to it.

What do you mean by "attempted" refutation? Greening is correct. Unless you're referring to how Ross, being on the board of editors of that "journal," is guaranteed the last word.

[Pardalis]

In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers.

Why???

Skyscrapers are very unique constructions, especially the WTC towers. Why on earth would you want to compare it to... let's say... trees???

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey states The floor trusses are either failed or intact -- if failed, the top of the column is no longer constrained, and is free to deflect to the sides;

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.

[Gravy]

at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.
Your source for this contention?

[R.Mackey]

In fact, let's not limit it to skyscrapers. I'd like to see any example of any object or structure, made of any material(s), of any average density, of any size (say between 1 inch to 100 miles) which meets the following two critera:

1. The object or structure is able to stand up against the force of gravity and retain its shape (i.e. generally behaves as a solid, not a liquid or a gas) for at least a year.

2. As a result of damage, an upper part of the object falls down into the lower part, and using no other source of energy apart from gravity, at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.
On further inspection, it looks like you're not talking about Ross at all. All Ross's flawed whitepaper concerns is whether progressive collapse could initiate with a single floor. He deals only peripherally with the crumbling energy of other WTC materials.

I reject your challenge. Where do you get the idea that 50% of the mass of the WTC towers was "rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter?" This does not describe the debris seen after the collapses. What you've got here is a strawman.

[T.A.M.]

where's the popcorn, this looks like a good one.

:popcorn1 :popcorn1

TAM

[R.Mackey]

Mackey states

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.
Cross-braced, by the floor trusses. I thought that was obvious.

Please read completely before criticizing. I also had a follow-up addressing Ross's "rebuttal" to Greening, found here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1829989#post1829989). Happy reading.

[Belz...]

Mackey states

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.

How is "massively" ?

[kevin]

Where do you get the idea that 50% of the mass of the WTC towers was "rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter?" This does not describe the debris seen after the collapses. What you've got here is a strawman.

What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter?

[David Wong]

Consider Gordon Ross' paper:
at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter.


Could anything short of a nuclear device do that?

No controlled demolition has ever turned half a building into powder, as far as I know.

[R.Mackey]

What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter?
The latter weighs more... on the mind of a 9/11 denier. :D

TruthSeeker, if you really wish to have an intelligent, abuse-free scientific discussion here, I'm game. Just say the word.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward.

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"?

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?

[Pardalis]

I'll leave this debate to the people who know their physics, but I'd like to ask Truthseeker to take note of this fallacy, which no one is immune to:

http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Argument_from_Incredulity

Just so that you are aware of it. :)

[Loss Leader]

Didn't NIST just (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) clarify this?

In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, you are simply incorrect about the floor trusses being the only cross-bracing for the core columns. Look here, for instance:

http://www.peaceproject.com/graphics/postcards/CA2-huge.jpg

(add needed h t t p and w's)


Please retract your error, or lose credibility.

[R.Mackey]

You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward.
Except, as my posts referenced above point out, as does Greening, he did the calculation wrong. It's really a very bizarre argument that Ross is trying to promote.

No need for a "challenge." No stunts are necessary. If you can find holes in my reasoning, I'd like to hear about them. I am a scientist and I want to learn. But keep in mind that I will defend my opinions, trying to find out which of is right.

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"?

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?
I might remind you that concrete made up only a small fraction of the WTC tower mass.

The flows were not in any way "pyroclastic." I fear you are getting your information from disreputable sources. We've seen this misnomer for a long time.

If you're claiming 100 micron particles from the size of the debris cloud and eyeballing it, as in your "four to five times the volume of the intact tower" statement, then you need to research the debris much, much more carefully. No way you can make that claim.

Again, if you are serious about debating Ross's paper, please do so. You've seen my criticisms. But you will have to do much better than you have so far.

[DavidJames]

You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward.

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"?

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?So much for science ;) Now you can see why the tread was (correctly) moved :D

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, you are simply incorrect about the floor trusses being the only cross-bracing for the core columns. Look here, for instance:

peaceproject.com/graphics/postcards/CA2-huge.jpg

(add needed h t t p and w's)


Please retract your error, or lose credibility.
Fighting words indeed. None of this idiocy is necessary, if you are sincere. I won't back away from a friendly debate.

I note your image was taken during construction -- and is of extremely low quality. Please answer these questions first:

1) Which cross-bracing elements are you referring to in your picture?

2) What evidence do you have that they were permanent, rather than temporary bracing needed for construction?

3) What material are those elements made of? Your photo is in sepiatone and appears to be photocopied.

4) How are these elements attached to the columns?

After that, perhaps we can talk about credibility.

And you really should read my entire critique of Ross's paper. Your quote of me, out of context, only points out that Ross treated the problem one-dimensionally, assumed the columns would compress to failure, and that he is assuming columns are pinned on both ends.

As NIST has recently clarified, the actual collapse mechanism was highly three-dimensional in nature, with the columns being twisted into the interior, pulled in by sagging floor trusses at each floor.

If there are such huge cross-braces as you claim, these braces would be part of the load-bearing structure. Funny that not even Ross accounts energy to break them, as he would have to do, if they were real.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, of course pictures of the core are during construction. How could we photograph it after they were finsished? Come on. There is ample photographic evidence that the 47 core columns were horizontally and diagonally braced. Where is your evidence that they were not?

Next, there was about 100,000 tons of concrete per tower, which is about equal to the mass of the steel. Regardless, It appears almost everything besides the steel was rendered into fine powder. Otherwise, where is it?

Still waiting for the pictures of stacked up floors, or desks, or . . .anything.

Someone else upthread was wondering how much explosives it would take to bring the tower down, speculating it would take a nuke. Bear in mind that, using NIST logic, it would not take very much at all. NIST would have it that all that is needed is to initiate local collapse on one floor, gravity would do all the rest. Right?

Greening did point out what he felt were errors in Ross, which is why I linked his paper. Ross answered that even if Greening was right, it would only delay the halt of collapse by a fraction of a second.

[kevin]

Mackey, you are simply incorrect about the floor trusses being the only cross-bracing for the core columns. Look here, for instance:

http://www.peaceproject.com/graphics/postcards/CA2-huge.jpg

(add needed h t t p and w's)


Please retract your error, or lose credibility.

You do know those corner columns that are cross-braced are the kangoo jacks supports and were dismantled when the job was complete right?

Most of the rest of the columns were straight braced against each other with some cross-bracing.

If you look at the framing plan and model NIST used you'll see they had the proper bracing in place.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578945035914e810f.png
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578945035915370ca.png

[R.Mackey]

Mackey, of course pictures of the core are during construction. How could we photograph it after they were finsished? Come on. There is ample photographic evidence that the 47 core columns were horizontally and diagonally braced. Where is your evidence that they were not?
Nope. Please answer my questions. Awfully hard to do the calculation without that information.

Next, there was about 100,000 tons of concrete per tower, which is about equal to the mass of the steel. Regardless, It appears almost everything besides the steel was rendered into fine powder. Otherwise, where is it?
The total mass per tower is about 500,000 tons. It most certainly does not appear that "everything besides the steel" was rendered into 100 micron powder. If you have evidence for this, present it. Otherwise you're wasting all of our time.

Still waiting for the pictures of stacked up floors, or desks, or . . .anything.
I don't deal in pictures. If you have something to say about my criticisms, please say it.

Someone else upthread was wondering how much explosives it would take to bring the tower down, speculating it would take a nuke. Bear in mind that, using NIST logic, it would not take very much at all. NIST would have it that all that is needed is to initiate local collapse on one floor, gravity would do all the rest. Right?
Greening's work suggests that this is correct. But it's irrelevant, since there is no sign of explosives either before, during, or after the event.

ETA: I might add that a quick calculation of the gravitational energy reveals that each tower contained the equivalent of 0.16 kilotons of gravitational potential -- far, far more than chemical explosives could provide under any faintly rational scenario. If that's not enough energy for you, you need to bring many truckloads of high explosive to make a significant difference.

Greening did point out what he felt were errors in Ross, which is why I linked his paper. Ross answered that even if Greening was right, it would only delay the halt of collapse by a fraction of a second.
Which is true, except all of the structural members would have failed before that half-second could elapse. Ross requires 3 meters of linear deformation in ALL of the columns, in addition to energy absorption that already takes them to their plastic limits, and on top of that removes two floors worth of crushing energy that wouldn't have happened until later. Ross's answer is quite silly. That's all outlined in my critique of his rebuttal.

[apathoid]

Truthseeker, have you any idea how much explosives would be necessary to micronize 50% of the floor slabs? Have you any idea why said explosives were so quiet? Did you know that in CD, the explosives are used to cut columns, not blow the floor slabs to smithereens?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.

Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped.

[apathoid]

Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.

Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped.

Truthseeker, have you any idea how much explosives would be necessary to micronize 99% of the floor slabs? Have you any idea why said explosives were so quiet? Did you know that in CD, the explosives are used to cut columns, not blow the floor slabs to smithereens?

[R.Mackey]

Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.

Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped.
Given that you've already made several serious errors in your first seven posts, I'm not interested in your guesses. Show me that 99% was pulverized, and show me the average fragment size by species. Until then, you're whistling Dixie.

You have yet to demonstrate my statement is false. You also have yet to demonstrate that you understand the point it makes.

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, are you Terrocell on the LC forum by any chance?

[kevin]

does truthseeker1234 remind anyone else of christophera? Only wants pictures. Pulverization/atomization of concrete. Massive core (I'm just waiting for the claim it was concrete 7 floors below that picture.)

[TruthSeeker1234]

kevin wondered What weighs more 100lb of concrete or 100lb of concrete power 100 micron average diameter?

The mass is the same, the "weight", in the real world, would actually depend on a few things. Surface area to mass ratio, for instance. The bigger that ratio, the more air will resist it from falling.

If the implication is that puverized mass will push down on intact structure as well as non-pulverized mass, you must consider that the majority of the mass in each twin tower lander well outside the footprint of the building, thus making it unavailable to push down on the intact structure.

[David Wong]

Truthseeker, have you any idea how much explosives would be necessary to micronize 99% of the floor slabs?

Guys... I don't think he's talking about Controlled Demolition. I seriously think he's saying the buildings were empty mock-ups. I think that's why he's harping on the lack of furniture in the rubble.

After all, is there ANY method ever devised by mankind that could micronize 99% of a building's non-metal mass? Why would you want to?

[kevin]

kevin wondered

The mass is the same, the "weight", in the real world, would actually depend on a few things. Surface area to mass ratio, for instance. The bigger that ratio, the more air will resist it from falling.

I said a 100 pounds vs. 100 pounds. That is already weight. And the conversion of mass to weight does not in anyway involve the surface area to mass ratio.

If the implication is that puverized mass will push down on intact structure as well as non-pulverized mass, you must consider that the majority of the mass in each twin tower lander well outside the footprint of the building, thus making it unavailable to push down on the intact structure.

Says who? With what calculations?

[R.Mackey]

If the implication is that puverized mass will push down on intact structure as well as non-pulverized mass, you must consider that the majority of the mass in each twin tower lander well outside the footprint of the building, thus making it unavailable to push down on the intact structure.
I just got done correcting einsteen about this in another thread.

There is some fractured mass, even some big chunks, that spills over the sides early. However, most mass that eventually lands outside the footprint gets there by first smashing into the structure, so it does contribute.

This is irrelevant vis-a-vis Ross's paper, since he is considering collapse initiation. There are no large chunks or small chunks to fall away at that time. Once the upper mass has a few floor's worth of momentum, collapse is inevitable even if a significant fraction of it ricochets off to the sides.

Please provide evidence for how much mass was ejected. And keep in mind that the debris pile after collapse would itself spill over the footprint, so a single post-collapse picture is not precise enough.

[stateofgrace]

Truthseeker1234 are you Gordon?

If you are,did you do as I suggested? Did you get your work reviewed by the bodies I suggested ?

[R.Mackey]

I don't believe this is Gordon Ross. He is not sufficiently familiar with Ross's papers.

[Gravy]

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river".
AFAIK, no analysis was done of how much concrete was reduced to what size. George Pataki, who works in Albany, did not spend significant time down in the rubble pile.

Now, there was about 60,000,000 pounds of gypsum drywall in the towers. (at 19% sulfur content, that's 11.4 million pounds of sulfur...something smells like rotten eggs, Steven Jones). What do you think happened to it? Which do you think pulverized faster and finer, the concrete or the drywall? How about the 6,000,000 pounds of ceiling tiles and the millions of pounds of fire insulation? Which pulverized faster and finer those or the concrete?

I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. Please do some research on what a pyroclastic flow is. Hint: "Pyro."

It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. No, it doesn't, and you'll learn that arguing from incredulity ("It couldn't happen because I don't believe it could happen") is dealt with swiftly and savagely by the JREF ninjas here.

If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"? Most went down, some went out. Here's a question: if most everything turned to dust, what comprised the 1.6 billion pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted on conveyor belts for evidence and remains at Fresh Kills landfill?

Here's a related post of mine, with a report from someone who did spend months in the pile, on what the rubble looked like to him: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1902661&postcount=20

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors? I apologize for not having the link to this handy. Maybe someone can remember where it came from. IIRC, this museum display shows 8 tower floors compacted to four feet high.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904503614d293a4.jpg

[Gravy]

I don't believe this is Gordon Ross. He is not sufficiently familiar with Ross's papers.
No, Ross has posted here under his own name.

[R.Mackey]

No, Ross has posted here under his own name.
Really? Strange that he would do so, and then not defend his own work. As user brumsen told me by PM, he specifically invited Ross here to do just that.

[Gravy]

Really? Strange that he would do so, and then not defend his own work. As user brumsen told me by PM, he specifically invited Ross here to do just that.
He only defended himself against the accusation that he was a "peer reviewer" of Greening's paper: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1839052&postcount=1511

[Kent1]

AFAIK, no analysis was done of how much concrete was reduced to what size. George Pataki, who works in Albany, did not spend significant time down in the rubble pile.

Now, there was about 60,000,000 pounds of gypsum drywall in the towers. (at 19% sulfur content, that's 11.4 million pounds of sulfur...something smells like rotten eggs, Steven Jones). What do you think happened to it? Which do you think pulverized faster and finer, the concrete or the drywall? How about the 6,000,000 pounds of ceiling tiles and the millions of pounds of fire insulation? Which pulverized faster and finer those or the concrete?

Please do some research on what a pyroclastic flow is. Hint: "Pyro."

No, it doesn't, and you'll learn that arguing from incredulity ("It couldn't happen because I don't believe it could happen") is dealt with swiftly and savagely by the JREF ninjas here.
Most went down, some went out. Here's a question: if most everything turned to dust, what comprised the 1.6 billion pounds of debris that was meticulously sorted on conveyor belts for evidence and remains at Fresh Kills landfill?

Here's a related post of mine, with a report from someone who did spend months in the pile, on what the rubble looked like to him: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1902661&postcount=20

I apologize for not having the link to this handy. Maybe someone can remember where it came from. IIRC, this museum display shows 8 tower floors compacted to four feet high.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904503614d293a4.jpg
The PBS link has a guy talking about 14 floors compressed into 8 feet.
Under the demo dave link.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

Here is some photos of basement pancaking that occured during the collapse.
This is in the bathtub. It can also be seen under the Slurry Wall Animation video on the PBS link.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

[Mercutio]

I apologize for not having the link to this handy. Maybe someone can remember where it came from. IIRC, this museum display shows 8 tower floors compacted to four feet high.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/87904503614d293a4.jpg

NPR story on the proposed Ground Zero memorial site. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5484916)

[T.A.M.]

:popcorn1

Sorry I am nost posting anything relivant, but I am busy listening, and learning...not a bad debate so far. Hoping to get more into the finer points soon.

TAM

[pmurray]

Next, there was about 100,000 tons of concrete per tower, which is about equal to the mass of the steel. Regardless, It appears almost everything besides the steel was rendered into fine powder. Otherwise, where is it?

Why is this surprising? When something that heavy falls that far, it releases a hell of a lot of energy. Lets put it the other way - if someone thinks that explosives were used, how much explosive would it take to render that much concrete into powder?

Lets put it another way again - how much explosive would it take to lift all the material in the WTC towers up to the height that it was at prior to the collapse? Because that's how much gravitational potential energy was released when it fell. So, yes - a godawful load of concrete and steel falling from a godawful height is enough to powder concrete.

Look at it yet another way - If you took the elevator up to the roof of the WTC and dropped a cinderblock off the side, what would happen to that cinderblock when it hits the ground?

The problem with the WTC collapse is that it is outside our experience to see something that big fall. Our everyday intuitions about how objects behave under gravity are misleading.

[Loss Leader]

Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.

Mackey, I will study your critique of Ross. On first read, I got to the false statement about the floor trusses and stopped.

I don't know what this proves, but here's a whole article on the entire debris-sorting process. They've found all sorts of things in the rubble at ground zero.

http://www.epa.gov/region02/demolition/casestud.htm

[Gravy]

I don't know what this proves, but here's a whole article on the entire debris-sorting process. They've found all sorts of things in the rubble at ground zero.

http://www.epa.gov/region02/demolition/casestud.htm
Yes, that's an excellent article. There's one glaring typo in it, though: "The debris recovery effort hit the 1.1 million-ton mark Friday - and there's 400,000 million tons of World Trade Center rubble to go until the job is finished in either April or May." :jaw-dropp

[Kent1]

I don't know what this proves, but here's a whole article on the entire debris-sorting process. They've found all sorts of things in the rubble at ground zero.

http://www.epa.gov/region02/demolition/casestud.htm
Ironicly enough it looks like Jones may have some large concrete (w/ other debris) sandwiched together in his paper. Here is a large photo.
Lets see if this link works.
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/43ecf281m36083ba3/bc/My+Documents/concrete_.jpg?BCFH3AFBkieWF.6m

[TruthSeeker1234]

Gravy has given us a picture of a chunk of something inside a room somewhere that appears to be concrete, and might weigh, oh, 1 ton. Assuming it is from WTC, this represents on the order of 1/100,000 of the concrete, and zero of anything else. Where is the rest of it?

Wong, if you wish to consider the energy imparted by a falling mass onto something else, you must consider surface area to mass ratio, and air resistance. A 10 pound brick falling 1000 feet will take a person's head off. 10 lbs of fine dust will not.

This is not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Observe any of the photos and videos of the twin towers. Huge amounts of very dense dust along with chunks of steel and aluminum is being projected sideways, even upwards, and is obviously does not "ricochet" off of anything.

Mackey, where is your evidence that concrete ricocheted?

Then observe this photo

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_aerialb.jpg

and tell me where all the macro concrete, or macro anything is

[steve s]

Truthseeker, are you suggesting that the concrete floor slabs were wired with explosives, in addition to the vertical steel columns? Don't you think the people who worked in the WTC would have noticed that they were tripping over thousands of pounds of explosives and miles of det cord?

And please answer Apathoid's question about how much explosives it would take to reduce 220 concrete floor slabs to dust.

And please name one other controlled demolition in which all the floor slabs were wired with charges.

Steve S.

[Gravy]

Ironicly enough it looks like Jones may have some large concrete (w/ other debris) sandwiched together in his paper. Here is a large photo.
Lets see if this link works.
http://us.f13.yahoofs.com/bc/43ecf281m36083ba3/bc/My+Documents/concrete_.jpg?BCFH3AFBkieWF.6m

I've been meaning to look into that for ages. Jones claims it's solidified molten metal. It sure looks to me like a mass of concrete with rebar sticking out of it and some metal stuck to it. Does anyone know where it is, or was? Possibly in the same storage area as the 4-story section in the NPR link?

(And what's that cat toy doing hanging from it?)

[Gravy]

Gravy has given us a picture of a chunk of something inside a room somewhere that appears to be concrete, and might weigh, oh, 1 ton. Assuming it is from WTC, this represents on the order of 1/100,000 of the concrete, and zero of anything else. Where is the rest of it?
Did you check these links from Kent1 (whose posts are also must-reads):

The PBS link has a guy talking about 14 floors compressed into 8 feet.
Under the demo dave link.
http://www.pbs.org/americarebuilds/videostories/index.html

Here is some photos of basement pancaking that occured during the collapse.
This is in the bathtub. It can also be seen under the Slurry Wall Animation video on the PBS link.
http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

[Gravy]

Then observe this photo

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_aerialb.jpg

and tell me where all the macro concrete, or macro anything is
Are you out of your freaking skull? That's a photo from an AIRCRAFT.

[TruthSeeker1234]

steve s asked And please answer Apathoid's question about how much explosives it would take to reduce 220 concrete floor slabs to dust.

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd. But if you agree with NIST's findings, then this it follows logically.

[R.Mackey]

Gravy has given us a picture of a chunk of something inside a room somewhere that appears to be concrete, and might weigh, oh, 1 ton. Assuming it is from WTC, this represents on the order of 1/100,000 of the concrete, and zero of anything else. Where is the rest of it?
That's an example, son. Check the other links for the debris piles.

Wong, if you wish to consider the energy imparted by a falling mass onto something else, you must consider surface area to mass ratio, and air resistance. A 10 pound brick falling 1000 feet will take a person's head off. 10 lbs of fine dust will not.
False analogy. The WTC debris was not released in a free-stream. Pulverization happened after grinding against each other, not before, as in your "brick on head" example.

This is not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Observe any of the photos and videos of the twin towers. Huge amounts of very dense dust along with chunks of steel and aluminum is being projected sideways, even upwards, and is obviously does not "ricochet" off of anything.
There's so much going on that you can't say one way or the other. This is not evidence.

Mackey, where is your evidence that concrete ricocheted?
If it didn't, then it would be contained in the footprint. How else is it supposed to get launched to the side?

Then observe this photo

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/ground_zero_aerialb.jpg

and tell me where all the macro concrete, or macro anything is
I don't think you know what that picture represents.

TruthSeeker, I'm about done with you. You haven't brought anything to the table. You have repeatedly refused to answer my questions. You manufactured this "50% of the mass into 100 micron dust" out of thin air. And then you aggressively, and prematurely, question my credibility.

Unless you decide to do as you claimed, and stick to the science and math, I don't believe I have anything else to say to you.

[steve s]

steve s asked

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd. But if you agree with NIST's findings, then this it follows logically.



So you're saying that the floor slabs were wired with explosives, yes or no. And if yes, please see my questions in my prior post.

Steve S.

[Gravy]

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd.
you'll learn that arguing from incredulity ("It couldn't happen because I don't believe it could happen") is dealt with swiftly and savagely by the JREF ninjas here.
Not a good start.

Originally Posted by TruthSeeker1234 http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1908831#post1908831)
at least half of the mass is rendered into a fine powder of less than 100 micron average diameter. I ask again: your source for that contention?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'll wait. Please, anyone, link us to photo or video evidence of macroscopic anything (besides metal) at ground zero. It appears that there was very very little.

murray suggested we Look at it yet another way - If you took the elevator up to the roof of the WTC and dropped a cinderblock off the side, what would happen to that cinderblock when it hits the ground?

a) the cinder block would shatter, but not powderize.
b) this is not particularly relevant, because the twin towers turned to powder in mid air, not when stuff hit the ground. Please review the evidence.

[rwguinn]

I'll wait. Please, anyone, link us to photo or video evidence of macroscopic anything (besides metal) at ground zero. It appears that there was very very little.

murray suggested we

a) the cinder block would shatter, but not powderize.
b) this is not particularly relevant, because the twin towers turned to powder in mid air, not when stuff hit the ground. Please review the evidence.
:dl::bs:

Now, where is that Don Quixote smiley????

[apathoid]

steve s asked

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd. But if you agree with NIST's findings, then this it follows logically.

This is completely my point. YOU think its absurd, so I'd like to know how much C4 is required to micronize 99% of the concrete, if a collapse couldnt account for it. I think there is an explosives expert here at JREF(Huntsman?) who may be able to set you straight with some staggering numbers...

(But why in the hell would they wire the floors as opposed to the columns):confused:

[TruthSeeker1234]

gravy admonished you'll learn that arguing from incredulity ("It couldn't happen because I don't believe it could happen") is dealt with swiftly and savagely by the JREF ninjas here.

We could just as easily say that the OCT's are arguing from incredulity: It couldn't have been a controlled demolition because I can't believe "my" government would do such a thing, I can't believe so many people would keep the secret, etc.

RIght?

C'mon, focus on the science, most of this thread is going well.

[Gravy]

gravy admonished

We could just as easily say that the OCT's are arguing from incredulity: It couldn't have been a controlled demolition because I can't believe "my" government would do such a thing, I can't believe so many people would keep the secret, etc.

RIght?

C'mon, focus on the science, most of this thread is going well.
Dead wrong. We require evidence. You have provided none.

"Focus on the science?" How about answering this question, which I ask for the third time: what is your source for your contention that at least half of the towers were reduced to particles of 100 microns (1/10th mm, which is much smaller than the period at the end of this post) or less?

Cut the crap and give us your answer.

[rwguinn]

gravy admonished

We could just as easily say that the OCT's are arguing from incredulity: It couldn't have been a controlled demolition because I can't believe "my" government would do such a thing, I can't believe so many people would keep the secret, etc.

RIght?

C'mon, focus on the science, most of this thread is going well.

Ok--We will.
Where is your source for the "100 micron" particles? We can't do the math without the data.

[Kent1]

Dead wrong. We require evidence. You have provided none.

"Focus on the science?" How about answering this question, which I ask for the third time: what is your source for your contention that at least half of the towers were reduced to particles of 100 microns (1/10th mm, which is much smaller than the period at the end of this post) or less?

Cut the crap and give us your answer.
A lot of this "100..60...etc. Micron talk" was caused by Hoffman's poor research.

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html

[TruthSeeker1234]

Please refrain from vulgarity, gravy. I will excuse it one time, after that I will ignore you. I will continue to answer the question, as I already have.
My evidence that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the twin towers was converted to powder is as follows:

THe entire body of photographic and video evidence.

Perhaps this one will serve as a nice point of discussion.

http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/docs/wtc1_dust_2en.jpg

Where once there was a tower, there now is a mushroom cloud. Meanwhile, there are voluminous clouds of concrete powder billowing in every direction. When the dust settles, it settles from river to river, inches deep. There is almost no macroscopic chunks of non-metallic stuff at ground zero, based on the photos and videos.

If someone will send pictures that refute this I will stand corrected. So far we have one picture showing about one ton of material, allegedly from ground zero. We need to account fo about 99,999 tons more. Let's keep trying.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Scott! Nice to see you!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
This is not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Observe any of the photos and videos of the twin towers. Huge amounts of very dense dust along with chunks of steel and aluminum is being projected sideways, even upwards, and is obviously does not "ricochet" off of anything.

Mackey, where is your evidence that concrete ricocheted?
...
RE: Ejection of Materials:

In order to allow time for lateral motion, the exterior column(s) that hit WFC 3 were most probably from the upper half of WTC 1. A fall from 1,000 feet to 240 feet would take SQR(2*h/g) = around 6.9 seconds where h = 760 feet and g = 32.17 ft/s^2. In the horizontal plane, a uniform acceleration of 20 m/s^2 for the first second followed by negligible deceleration due to drag for the remaining 5.9 seconds would provide 10 + (5.9 * 20) = 128 metres = 420 feet displacement. At 1,000 feet the WTC 1 perimeter columns, per story, were comprised of:

two flanges of 1/2 x 13.5 x 144 inches each, totalling 1,944 ins^3
one outer web of 1/4 x 13 x 144 inches = 468 ins^3
one inner web of 1/4 x 15.75 x 92 inches = 362 ins^3
one spandrel plate of 3/8 x 40 x 52 inches = 780 ins^3

...totalling 3,554 ins^3 per floor or 10,662 ins^3 = 6.17 ft^3 for a three-floor section which at 490 lb/ft^3 is 3,023 lb (84 pounds per lineal foot) or 1,371 kg. (There is some uncertainty as to the flange thickness; it was known to be only 1/4" at the very highest floors.) The force require to produce an acceleration of 20 m/s^2 in an inertia mass of 1,371 kg is 20 * 1371 = 27,420 N = 6,165 lbf.

The cross-section presented to a wind, per floor, would be 40 x 52 = 2,080 ins^2 for the spandrel plate and 15.75 x 92 = 1,449 ins^2 for the inner web, totalling 3,529 ins^2 per floor or 10,587 ins^2 = 6.83 m^2 for a three-story section of exterior column. (So the required pressure is well under 1 psi.) From the drag equation of

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

we obtain

v = SQR(2 * d / (Cd * A * r))

where r = density of air ~ 1.2 kg/m^3 and assuming a relatively high drag coefficient Cd of 4 / pi ~ 1.27 for a flat plate and d = the previously calculated force of 27,420 N and A = 6.83 m^2 as calculated above. This places the required wind at 72.6 m/s = 162 mph for one second duration. Actual windspeed on the day was up to 10 mph on the ground and up to 20 mph at higher altitude.

Suppose we imagine the collapse initiating at 1,200 feet, and proceeding as per the "pancaking" theory to 1,000 feet. After freely falling 200 feet, the terminal velocity would be SQR(2 * 200 * 32.17 ft/s^2) = 113.4 fps = 77.3 mph. In this theory, there is a small delay due to resistance of the intact building below, but the falling upper section smashes its way through each floor in about 0.1 seconds at the 1,000 feet level. The volume of air per floor is approximately 12 * 200 * 200 feet = 480,000 ft^3. Some will go down, but if the total was forced out through a perimeter of 800 feet by an average height of 6 feet which is an exiting area of 4,800 ft^2, it would (continuing outward) extend for some 100 feet at the end of the 0.1 seconds which is a velocity of 1,000 fps or 682 mph.

Let's set the exiting gases velocity at just 700 fps = 213 m/s, in which case the force acting on the exterior column for 0.1 seconds is given by:

d = Cd * A * r * 0.5 * v^2

= 1.27 * 6.83 * 1.2 * 0.5 * 213^2 ~ 236,000 N

to produce an acceleration of F / m = 236,000 N / 1,371 kg = 172 m/s^2. After 0.1 seconds the velocity of the steel is 17.2 m/s = 38.5 mph, and the horizontal displacement is 0.86 metres. Following another 6.8 seconds at 17.2 m/s the total distance travelled horizontally is 0.86 plus 6.8 * 17.2 ~ 118 metres = 387 feet. The columns have to shear off quickly enough, and the pancaking theory has the problem that the gravitational potential appears to be too low for all the energy sinks, but even this scenario does not appear to rule out the idea that debris could end up a few hundred feet away. source (http://www.911myths.com/html/explosive_force.html)

Energy released: Large quantities of energy were stored in the buildings during their construction. For example, the construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 3 x 1012 J of potential energy over the 1,360 ft height of the structure. Of this, approximately 7 x 1010 J of potential energy was stored in the upper part of the structure—above the impact floors—relative to the lowest point of impact. Once collapse was initiated, this energy was rapidly released and converted into kinetic energy—in the form of the rapidly accelerating mass of the top part of the structure. The impact of this rapidly moving mass onto the lower structure caused a wide range of structural failures in the floors directly at and below the aircraft impact zone, in turn causing failure of these floors. As additional floor plates failed, the mass associated with each of these floors joined that of the tower above the impact area, unleashing further destructive energy on the floors immediately below. This initiated a chain of progressive failure until total collapse of the building ensued. source (http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html)

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan, showing calcs of how much energy and time is required when something happens is not the same as showing that it did happen. Please, can anyone show me a video of stuff that ricochets? I observe a systematic horizontal outflow of very dense dust that starts coming out of all four sides of the tower from the very beginning all the way until the end of the collapse.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan, showing calcs of how much energy and time is required when something happens is not the same as showing that it did happen. Please, can anyone show me a video of stuff that ricochets? I observe a systematic horizontal outflow of very dense dust that starts coming out of all four sides of the tower from the very beginning all the way until the end of the collapse.

WTF are you talking about?

[Loss Leader]

Where once there was a tower, there now is a mushroom cloud. Meanwhile, there are voluminous clouds of concrete powder billowing in every direction. When the dust settles, it settles from river to river, inches deep. There is almost no macroscopic chunks of non-metallic stuff at ground zero, based on the photos and videos.


Truthseeker, what in the [rule8]ing [rule8] is your contention? Are you contending that a controlled demolition of the bottom supports of the towers would pulverize the buildings but that tower failure from the 83rd floor down would not? If your theory of a controlled demolition doesn't account for the 50% pulverization that you claim, then I'm not sure what ground you have to question any other theory. How do you contend the towers were brought down and how does your contention create the type of debris you claim?

I'm betting you don't answer that.

In the meanwhile, here's a picture of all sorts of debris from the WTC. I saved it on my computer and blew it up. I saw a chair. Look at it all night, if you like. Play Where's Waldo. Then answer my question.

http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/department/medicine/emed800/phcare/JPEGs/wtc_03.jpg

[Gravy]

Please refrain from vulgarity, gravy. I will excuse it one time, after that I will ignore you. I will continue to answer the question, as I already have.
My evidence that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the twin towers was converted to powder is as follows:

THe entire body of photographic and video evidence.
You know what's vulgar, "TruthSeeker?" Your insistence that we stick to the science while refusing to back your claims with any. What is your problem? Final time: what, in the "entire body of photographic and video evidence," shows that at least half the towers were reduced to 100 microns or less?

You made a specific claim. Prove it or admit that you have no proof.

[Brainache]

Arkan, showing calcs of how much energy and time is required when something happens is not the same as showing that it did happen. Please, can anyone show me a video of stuff that ricochets? I observe a systematic horizontal outflow of very dense dust that starts coming out of all four sides of the tower from the very beginning all the way until the end of the collapse.

I don't have any videos, but I think a fair bit of crushed drywall and ceiling tiles would have been blown out by all the air that was being forced out by the floors compacting on their way to the ground.

There are lots of posts in other threads showing pics of debris much bigger than the 100microns you talk about.

I've seen pictures of conveyor belts with people picking through chunks of the stuff looking for flight recorders etc.

But as it seems you have already made your conclusions without real evidence, I can't see much point in anyone providing you with it.
If you checked the links already posted by others in this thread you will have seen real evidence.

Anyway welcome to the forum where no one is banned for disagreeing.(unlike others I could name)

[Kent1]

Scott! Nice to see you!

Thanks, nice to see you bringing up the same points. LOL!
http://www.atfreeforum.com/911studies/viewtopic.php?mforum=911studies&t=4&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=135&mforum=911studies

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I don't have any videos, but I think a fair bit of crushed drywall and ceiling tiles would have been blown out by all the air that was being forced out by the floors compacting on their way to the ground.

There are lots of posts in other threads showing pics of debris much bigger than the 100microns you talk about.

I've seen pictures of conveyor belts with people picking through chunks of the stuff looking for flight recorders etc.

But as it seems you have already made your conclusions without real evidence, I can't see much point in anyone providing you with it.
If you checked the links already posted by others in this thread you will have seen real evidence.

Anyway welcome to the forum where no one is banned for disagreeing.(unlike others I could name)

This whole pictures/video line of reasoning is flawed for so many reasons anyway. Aside from that, we've already seen one pic provided, but apparently that is not enough. Which gives me the distinct impression that this will turn into another "god of the gaps"/transitional-fossil type argument. How many pics of debris need to be provided? etc?

You (Truthseeker) brought up Dr. Greening's article. If you take issue with some part/all of it then please, bring up the specific point and let's discuss that specific point.

[David Wong]

I guess I don't understand. Is vast pulverization the sign of a controlled demolition? It isn't, is it?

So why do they focus on this? I've read a lot about 9/11 conspiracy theoris but I can't keep up with all of them.

[Kent1]

I guess I don't understand. Is vast pulverization the sign of a controlled demolition? It isn't, is it?

So why do they focus on this? I've read a lot about 9/11 conspiracy theoris but I can't keep up with all of them.

Some believe there was some sort of mini nuke. Others believe all of the concrete was wired methodically with explosives. Some believe that the building was built with explosives inside.:boggled:
Basicly they KNOW concrete should not have behaved as it did on 9/11.

[Foolmewunz]

I'll wait. Please, anyone, link us to photo or video evidence of macroscopic anything (besides metal) at ground zero. It appears that there was very very little.


a) the cinder block would shatter, but not powderize.
b) this is not particularly relevant, because the twin towers turned to powder in mid air, not when stuff hit the ground. Please review the evidence.

Powderize? No wonder Mackey left for parts unknown. You can't have a scientific discussion with someone who knows about powderization without doing some massive research.:D And they powderized in mid-air? Are you citing physics from Planet X? This sounds like gravimation theory from the ol' Kingfish. It done powderized! :p

And just what is "macroscopic"? I know what it means. Do you? Are you saying that in the thousands of pictures available all you see is dust? There are enough pictures of debris OF ALL SIZES SHAPES AND COLORS on the ChristopherA thread that one tends to believe you just woke up last week and got an email from a guy who knew a guy who's sister heard this broadcast. The word of Pataki versus thousands of photos? Hmm? I'll stay with the out of context quotes!

Even if you won't accept the photographic evidence (somehow I doubt you will), then maybe you want to go talk to these guys......

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf#search=%22Debris%20at%20WTC%22

I think they may have a certain amount of material at "macroscopic" sizes for you. They spent months sorting the stuff, after all! Or are you going to posit that this was false debris, trucked in from some other major catastrophe that we never heard about?

Here's some mainstream press for you.
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/groundzero/1.html

I see pieces of debris larger than human beings in these pictures. Is that sufficient to move past this dumb request?

Now, as Loss Leader asked, can we get on with your underlying contention here? Just what is your particular theory? No planes? UFO's? CD? NWO? Illuminati? Global Zionist Conspiracy? Take a break. Go get a cuppa coffee. We'll still be here when you've decided to tell us what it is you're getting to. So far, you're just a troll, though.

[kevin]

Where are the pictures of 100 micron powder? Where are the pictures of explosives in the floors and walls?

Until you can provide these you have no proof.

[Lisa Simpson]

Some believe there was some sort of mini nuke. Others believe all of the concrete was wired methodically with explosives. Some believe that the building was built with explosives inside.:boggled:

How do they explain how the WTC got built with explosives inside? Aren't skyscrapers fairly transparent as they are built up?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The issue of particle size has already been dealt with quite thoroughly.

http://www.911myths.com/html/particle_size.html
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1668411#post1668411
And (at risk of seeming arrogant at quoting myself)

4x10^11 joules = 400000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 400000000000 J / 1055 J = 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 379146919.43127962085308056872038 Btu / 3413 Btu = 111089.04759193660148053928178154 kWh


Okay, fun equations aside now (what can I say, I like double-checking math)


Quote:
...Robert Fowler, senior engineer at the structural engineering firm of McNamara and Salvia...
"Though the WTC towers stood over 1,360 feet above the street level, the structures' bases were actually set 70 feet into the ground, and one had a 100-foot-tall antenna atop it, so with 205-foot widths, they had a lot of [exterior] area facing the wind," the engineer stated. He calculated that the approximate maximum wind shear force that a single face needed to withstand to be somewhere around 11,000,000 pounds. The gravity loads (weight) produced by the towers at their bases were on the order of 500,000 tons, Fowler said.
...
Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. "The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam," he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (1012 Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). "That's about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb," he noted.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. "Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy," he stated. "Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City." Kausel concluded that the "the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below."


from
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/


What this would imply is
10^12 joules = 1000000000000 J
1.0 British thermal unit (Btu) = 1055 joules (1.055 kJ)
=> 1000000000000 J / 1055 J = 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu
1.0 kilowatt-hour (kWh) = 3413 Btu
=> 947867298.57819905213270142180095 Btu / 3413 Btu =
277722.61897984150370134820445384 kWh which is greater than Jim Hoffman's estimated 135,000 kWh needed to pulverize the concrete.

Okay, so why the big difference from the FEMA estimated 4 x 10^11 joules and Kausel's 10^12 J?
My guess, the FEMA estimate deals with the potential energy stored during construction of the towers and does not necessarily include all the stuff inside the towers. Whereas, Kausel is using Fowler's estimate of 500,000 tons of gravity load produced by the towers.

ETA: Site I used for the conversion formulas http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html
ETA^2: Formatting source (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1666768&highlight=FEMA+estimated+4+x+10%5E11+joules+of+ene rgy#post1666768)

[gumboot]

How do they explain how the WTC got built with explosives inside? Aren't skyscrapers fairly transparent as they are built up?

The 3" rebar on 4' centres that provided the steel reinforcement to the solid invisicrete (tm) core of the towers was coated in C4.

Apparantly. :rolleyes:

-Andrew

[Lisa Simpson]

Alrighty, then! Thank you.

[David Wong]

How do they explain how the WTC got built with explosives inside? Aren't skyscrapers fairly transparent as they are built up?

Doesn't New York have building codes and inspectors who check out construction to make sure everything is kosher and that corners aren't being cut at the expense of safety?

Wouldn't they have questioned the decision to embed explosives in the concrete? Wouldn't some of the laborers at the site thought that was strange?

And if it were a mini-nuke, wouldn't the sound be heard from miles away? Like 200 decibels, right?

What am I missing here?

I'm not debating whether or not they're right. I'm just trying to figure out what they're even saying.

[TruthSeeker1234]

loss leader bets that I won't answer Are you contending that a controlled demolition of the bottom supports of the towers would pulverize the buildings but that tower failure from the 83rd floor down would not?

No. I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place. Except for the metallic components, the pulverization appears to be very thorough. I don't know exactly what percentage, but it is very thorough. I have looked and found no evidence of the hundreds of thousands of tons of non-metallic content of these huge buildings. Where did it go?

Therefore, these observations must be explained.

No, the controlled demolition did not only occur at the bottom, that does not fit the observations. Evidentally large explosions did take place in the basements before the collapses. The final collapses were complex. First, the part above the impact began collapsing down towards the impact zone, like a standard controlled demoltion of a 12 story building (in the case of WTC1). Observe in WTC1 how the 97th floor and everything below do not move as the floors above collapse to half their original height. Then, the next phase begins, and the tower begins collapsing from the impact zone downwards.

I hope that answers your question.

[Kent1]

Alrighty, then! Thank you.
Christophera is one of the biggest supporters of that theory. It doesn't matter how many pictures or videos I show of the core falling apart.
Christophera is quite delusional. For real.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Doesn't New York have building codes and inspectors who check out construction to make sure everything is kosher and that corners aren't being cut at the expense of safety?

Wouldn't they have questioned the decision to embed explosives in the concrete? Wouldn't some of the laborers at the site thought that was strange?

And if it were a mini-nuke, wouldn't the sound be heard from miles away? Like 200 decibels, right?

What am I missing here?

I'm not debating whether or not they're right. I'm just trying to figure out what they're even saying.

The mini-nuke falls apart on many levels. There was no radiation at ground zero. This is especially important because, as the nuke gets smaller, the heat/shockwave output gets smaller and the radiation output goes up.

[kevin]

I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place.

I must be blind. I've not seen a single photo or video that shows complete pulverization of anything. Please post a sample or link to an example.

[TruthSeeker1234]

David Wong is wondering about explosives in concrete and mini nukes. Dr. Jones (yes, he really has a Ph.D.) has done testing and found no evidence of nuclear bombs. I don't think anyone is suggesting that explosives were imbedded in the concrete.

[gumboot]

The mini-nuke falls apart on many levels. There was no radiation at ground zero.


[tinfoil hat] Well what do you think all those GZ rescue workers are dying of, huh? Besides, Dylan Avery (may He be praised) has supplied clear digitical camera video footage of a Burger King sign flickering as the towers collapse. Clearly this is evidence of EMP released from a nuclear weapon[/tinfoil hat]

-Andrew

[gumboot]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that explosives were imbedded in the concrete.


Well, Christophera is, but he's special.

-Andrew

[TruthSeeker1234]

Theories should be evaluated on merits, but I would point out that Kausel is one of the guys who tried to convince us that fires melted the steel.

[David Wong]

Okay. So... do we have examples of controlled demolitions where all non-metallic materials were powderized?

Is that why this phenomenon points to a controlled demolition?

I haven't seen anyone make that direct connection but I also admit I have not studied controlled demolitions. Is pulverization of all concrete typical in those demolitions?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Theories should be evaluated on merits, but I would point out that Kausel is one of the guys who tried to convince us that fires melted the steel.

Then deal with the merits of what I posted and drop the ad hom against Kausel.

[gumboot]

l
No. I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place.


What is your experience in photographic interpretation?

-Andrew

[Foolmewunz]

David Wong is wondering about explosives in concrete and mini nukes. Dr. Jones (yes, he really has a Ph.D.) has done testing and found no evidence of nuclear bombs. I don't think anyone is suggesting that explosives were imbedded in the concrete.

Once again, then... What are you saying? Are we required to play Twenty Questions? Just what is your theory, or are you just trolling for effect and attention?

[R.Mackey]

Powderize? No wonder Mackey left for parts unknown.
Oh, I'm still around. :D If this conversation ever progresses to some actual evidence, or that "science and math" that TruthSeeker feigned interest in, I'll toddle on back. Until then, no need for me to add anything.

En garde!

[Foolmewunz]

Oh, I'm still around. :D If this conversation ever progresses to some actual evidence, or that "science and math" that TruthSeeker feigned interest in, I'll toddle on back. Until then, no need for me to add anything.

En garde!

But... But.... we can't handle the debate without you. Why he has common sense enough to just know that it was powderized in mid air!:D

Yeah... you're right. Leave this to the B Team, for now.

And I still ask...... WHAT IS YOUR THEORY, TRUTHSEEKER? You have posed a question or three, all neatly gobbled up, digested, and spit out again, but you have me on tenterhooks.... What are you bringing to the table in the way or a theory or proposition?

[Gravy]

No. I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place. Except for the metallic components, the pulverization appears to be very thorough. I don't know exactly what percentage, but it is very thorough. I have looked and found no evidence of the hundreds of thousands of tons of non-metallic content of these huge buildings. Where did it go? (bolding mine)

Had you looked at the links we provided, rather than responding reflexively, you would know that it went to Fresh Kills for sorting.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045038f8d4464a.jpg

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045038f8d08d59.jpg

[R.Mackey]

Yeah... you're right. Leave this to the B Team, for now.
Don't sell yourself short. There are many perceptive and experienced individuals here.

I just get awfully tired asking the same questions over and over again.

[Loss Leader]

Therefore, these observations must be explained.


I have an explanation: Your observations are mistaken. But you don't have to take my word for it. Call the men and women who spent months sifting through the rubble. Heck, drive there and talk to them in person.

Taylor Recycling Facility, LLC
350 Neelytown Road
Montgomery, New York 12549

Tel: 845.457.4021
Fax: 845.457.4003

These guys aren't the government. You can talk to some of the very employees who sorted non-microscopic rubble and found all sort of non-metalic debris that survived.

I am told Jim Taylor and his son are very approachable guys. Their email is: Jim Taylor - jim@taylor-recycling.com
James Taylor, III - jt3@taylor-recycling.com

Their office is less than 20 miles from my house and I will be glad to give you turn by turn directions.

Now, I would never naysay a person's theory without offering a better theory that fits all of the evidence. And I won't change that policy today. I have a fully-formed theory of how the towers were brought down that explains all observed phenomena, obeys all physical laws and is completely self-consistent:

On the morning of September 11, 2001, two 767s, American Airlines flight 11 and United Airlines flight 175, flew into buildings 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center.

[Foolmewunz]

Don't sell yourself short. There are many perceptive and experienced individuals here.

I just get awfully tired asking the same questions over and over again.

eeeek! I meant in terms of scientific balloon pricking, where "you da bomb, man". If there's a serious discussion of Greening vs Brown, I want R.Mackey out there. If it's a troll with wishful thinking and addle-pated ideas.... that's another story.

If anyone felt I was disparaging any here, even accidentally, my humblest apologies. I'm an unabashed fan of the work of several of the JREF Debunking Squad. I'm a New Yorker (20+ years) living overseas and I had no friggin' idea what was going on with the CT nutbars until I stumbled upon this forum about four months ago when looking for something else, entirely.

The previous sentence, by the way, ought to give you a bit of perspective. There is literally no attention at all being paid over here to any of their nonsense. This is a home-grown hysteria. It doesn't play well overseas. I've taken to asking Ameircans over here what they think of the 911 conspiracies, and I usually get a response like, "Oh? Is there some kind of Oswald/Kennedy thing about 911?"....

Sorry for the derail. Back on topic...

What is your particular theory, Truthseeker? We're seven hours into this, and we still have nothing to hang our collective hats on.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you are wrong that the core columns of the towers were not cross braced. Yes, they were, all the pictures show it.

I have indeed stated my evidence for pulverization. Apparently Kausel made the same observations, as he used this word too.

Arkan, criticizing Kausel for attempting to convince us that fire can melt steel is not an ad hominem attack. It is a legitimate scientific point. He richly deserves to be criticized, I said nothing at all about his character.

Look, if a very tall building could "collapse" completely, the debris would be a tall pile in roughly a pyramid or cone shape. What we observe in this case is not that. We observe a 110 story tower disappear in 9 seconds (NIST's number, not exactly accurate but whatever), a mushroom cloud appears, and a crater that smolders for months.

Kent is correct that I refer to Hoffman's calcs for particle size, and energy requirements for the expansion of the dust clouds.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

..Arkan, criticizing Kausel for attempting to convince us that fire can melt steel is not an ad hominem attack. It is a legitimate scientific point. He richly deserves to be criticized I suggest a dictionary for you.
...

You are attempting to discredit his points on the energy/pulverization of the building by attacking his statements on the fire/steel. Would you care to actually address any of the math/science that's been posted, or are you going to continue dodging anything of substance?

ETA: on the issue of floor-trusses/cross-bracing:
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf - figure 2-6 to 2-9

outrigger system
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf - figure 2-10, 2-19

floor failure
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf - figure 2-20 to 2-22

EETA: Look, if a very tall building could "collapse" completely, the debris would be a tall pile in roughly a pyramid or cone shape. Evidence that this is the only outcome?

[Foolmewunz]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you are wrong that the core columns of the towers were not cross braced. Yes, they were, all the pictures show it.

I have indeed stated my evidence for pulverization. Apparently Kausel made the same observations, as he used this word too.

Arkan, criticizing Kausel for attempting to convince us that fire can melt steel is not an ad hominem attack. It is a legitimate scientific point. He richly deserves to be criticized, I said nothing at all about his character.

Look, if a very tall building could "collapse" completely, the debris would be a tall pile in roughly a pyramid or cone shape. What we observe in this case is not that. We observe a 110 story tower disappear in 9 seconds (NIST's number, not exactly accurate but whatever), a mushroom cloud appears, and a crater that smolders for months.

Kent is correct that I refer to Hoffman's calcs for particle size, and energy requirements for the expansion of the dust clouds.

You're getting to be like Christophera. The pictures DO NOT prove anything. Those are supporting structures during construction. You have not itemized what you think are cross-braces as requested by R. Mackey. There are dozens of pictures on this very forum (many compliments of Christophera in his never-ending attempt to fit his foot in his mouth) that show various portions of the construction process. Why do you choose this one picture of a picture to support this ludicrous idea? Why do you not accept the various documents that show how the buildings were constructed?

What is your theory? The construction itself is a Big Lie? Get to the point, please. Please show us any evidence of carpet, curtain, floor or ceiling tile being powderized in any sort of demolition. There were such items in the Towers. I worked there!

[TruthSeeker1234]

fool queried What is your particular theory, Truthseeker? We're seven hours into this, and we still have nothing to hang our collective hats on.
I began this thread by asking if anyone had done calcs like Gordon Ross, except shown that collapse would continue, as opposed to Ross' conclusion.
None have emerged. I will review Mackey's critique as best I can, but I repeat that his credibilty would be restored if he would admit that the core columns were abundantly cross braced, horizontally and diagonally. Denying what the pictures show, and asking for pictures of the core "not during the construction" is, well, not very scientific.

I am not advancing a particular theory. Along the way i became interested if anyone had any evidence of significant amounts of non-metallic material which was not pulverized. People sent pictures of a land fill. It seems to me, based on the pix and vids, that most of the non-metallic mass was converted to a fine powder and moved great distances. It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful. Statements by workers is not helpful.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Please show us any evidence of carpet, curtain, floor or ceiling tile being powderized in any sort of demolition.

OK.

h t t p://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/Tower%20Explodes.jpg

h t t p://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/mushroom.jpg

h t t p://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Now, please show me significant carpet, curtain, floor, or ceiling tile that remained macro.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

fool queried

I began this thread by asking if anyone had done calcs like Gordon Ross, except shown that collapse would continue, as opposed to Ross' conclusion.

No, what you have done is dismissed Dr. Greening out of hand, or because you feel that Ross' rebuttal is sufficient, dismissed Kausel's analysis, and dismissed other provided information.


None have emerged. I will review Mackey's critique as best I can, but I repeat that his credibilty would be restored if he would admit that the core columns were abundantly cross braced, horizontally and vertically.

Whether R. Mackey agrees with you or not on the issue of the cross bracing is irrelevent to the discussion of pulverization.


Denying what the pictures show, and asking for pictures of the core "not during the construction" is, well, not very scientific.

No, you provided one picture, and then a slew of claims without any substantiating/corroborating evidence.


I am not advancing a particular theory.

Bulls hit your not.


Along the way i became interested if anyone had any evidence of significant amounts of non-metallic material which was not pulverized. People sent pictures of a land fill. It seems to me, based on the pix and vids, that most of the non-metallic mass was converted to a fine powder and moved great distances. It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful. Statements by workers is not helpful.
Why are you dismissing any evidence that is not photographic in nature from ground zero? Do you dismiss cosmological evidence if it is not photographed by Hubble?

[Loss Leader]

I am not advancing a particular theory.

Well, that's not surprising. "I'm not advancing a theory, I'm just asking questions" is a common refuge. However, it is not scientific. We create a theory, test it, modify it if need be or abandon it for another theory. If you have no theory to test, then you have no point. You're just asking us to show that everything of every type is true. It's like learning addition in school and then saying, "Yes, but we don't know what 31+57 is because the teacher never showed us that particular problem. And, in any case, we'd still have open questions about 31+58."

It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful.

The same has been provided here and in other threads. I personally posted a picture that showed much non-metalic debris.

Statements by workers is not helpful.

Why the heck not? Are you arguing that John Quincy Adams didn't exist because we have no pictures of him? The statements of workers who saw him wandering around Washington, DC would seem to point to his having been: a) alive; and b) President.

I believe that the reason you say statements by workers are not helpful is because you know that if you interview actual witnesses, your questions will evaporate. And what fun is that?

ETA; To me, it would be a lot of fun because Taylor Recycling is right near a major outlet mall (http://www.premiumoutlets.com/outlets/outlet.asp?id=7) and I need a couple shirts.

[TruthSeeker1234]

No, what you have done is dismissed Dr. Greening out of hand, or because you feel that Ross' rebuttal is sufficient, dismissed Kausel's analysis, and dismissed other provided information.
Greening: No, I find Ross persuasive. He says that even if Greenings criticisms are correct, it only delays the stoppage of the collapse by a fraction of a second.

Kausel: Kausel estimates the gravitaional potential energy, but does not estimate the energy sinks. He shifts immediately to editorializing with words like "small nuke" and so forth. Yes, there is a lot of GPE, but every chemical bond broken requires energy. So does the expansion of the dust cloud. So does the molten metal. All of this must come after considering the rate of fall. The closer to free-fall, the less energy available to do anything else. The attempts to quantify this (hoffman, Trumpman, Ross) seem to corroborate what is intuitively obvious, that is, absent explosives, there is not nearly enough energy to explain the observations.

I know intuition is not science, but when calculations corroborate intuition, it is pretty strong stuff.

The subject of this thread was (generally) the collapse of the towers, so NIST is not an authority at all, as they did not study the collapses.

Yes, observation (photos and videos) is preferred evidence over hearsay. That does not totally invalidate what people say. When hearsay agrees with observation, as in the case of the litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard, felt and were horribly injured by explosions, then it is very compelling. When hearsay conflicts with observation, I tend to side with observation.

[Loss Leader]

Yes, observation (photos and videos) is preferred evidence over hearsay. That does not totally invalidate what people say. When hearsay agrees with observation, as in the case of the litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard, felt and were horribly injured by explosions, then it is very compelling. When hearsay conflicts with observation, I tend to side with observation.

As a lawyer, I can tell you this: You are using the word hearsay wrong.

Those witnesses have independent, first-hand knowledge. They are not repeating back to us something that they heard another person say.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You guys are right. I am advancing a theory. I misunderstood. I thought you were trying to get me into the entire truth movement in one thread, which is too huge. In this thread, I am advancing the theory that a local structural failure on the 98th floor of a twin tower would not automatically lead to the type of complete destruction that we observed. To test this, I was asking for reference material specifically like Ross's paper. Calculations about momentum transfer. In other words, the stuff that NIST did not do.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You are correct about my misuse of "hearsay". I stand corrected. I should have said eyewitness testimony.

[R.Mackey]

I began this thread by asking if anyone had done calcs like Gordon Ross, except shown that collapse would continue, as opposed to Ross' conclusion.
The answer is yes. Dr. Greening is the standard to beat. Ross's paper and rebuttal of Greening are both flawed. This was shown to you on Page 1.

None have emerged. I will review Mackey's critique as best I can, but I repeat that his credibilty would be restored if he would admit that the core columns were abundantly cross braced, horizontally and diagonally. Denying what the pictures show, and asking for pictures of the core "not during the construction" is, well, not very scientific.
I denied nothing. I asked you to answer the following questions,to verify that the picture you brought forth -- which is hardly blueprint quality -- reflected the state of the WTC towers when they were hit:
I note your image was taken during construction -- and is of extremely low quality. Please answer these questions first:

1) Which cross-bracing elements are you referring to in your picture?

2) What evidence do you have that they were permanent, rather than temporary bracing needed for construction?

3) What material are those elements made of? Your photo is in sepiatone and appears to be photocopied.

4) How are these elements attached to the columns?
You still have not answered. I must assume that you do not know.

I did not use such cross-bracing in my critique of Ross's paper because Ross didn't include such cross-bracing in his paper to begin with. Neither did Greening or the NIST report. Yet according to you, I'm the one who "denies" and is "unscientific." What a very strange process of investigation you must use.

Can you answer the above questions or not? Until you do, the onus is squarely on your shoulders.

I am not advancing a particular theory. Along the way i became interested if anyone had any evidence of significant amounts of non-metallic material which was not pulverized. People sent pictures of a land fill. It seems to me, based on the pix and vids, that most of the non-metallic mass was converted to a fine powder and moved great distances. It is hard to estimate what that would be on a percentage basis, so photographic evidence from ground zero would be helpful. Statements by workers is not helpful.
So you have no theory, and you're backpedaling. Do you understand why static pictures and TV-quality video are not good ways to estimate particles of "100 micron size?"

In light of this admission, were you lying or bluffing when you made the following estimate? From your earlier post:
Still waiting for any evidence of any significant macroscopic objects at ground zero, apart from steel. I think 50% dissociation is generous. More like 99% of the non-metallic mass was pulverized.
Seems to me you estimated at high precision on a percentage basis before. I'd like you to explain the inconsistency of your estimate with your current statement.

In closing, complain about my "credibility" all you want, but at the end of the day, you still have (a) no argument and (b) no evidence. So far, you don't even have a way to establish credibility.

[fuelair]

You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward.

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"?

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?


This is why nobody who understands construction, engineering and/or physics can take you people seriously - and few bother debating you. It's like trying to explain child psychology to a 1 year old. Kid might listen but he can't understand what he's being told - which makes it pointless. I am so gone........

[LashL]

Truthseeker1234 sounds a lot like an idiot in the DU dungeon who calls himself "petgoat". The same bluster and pretense to knowledge that he does not actually possess. The same inability to back up anything he says with facts or evidence when called upon them. The same CT talking points that petgoat spouts there. And the first few of of his posts here could have been taken verbatim from "petgoat" at DU. He loves Jones and waterboy Ryan, and he repeatedly yaks about "pulverization", "pyroclastic clouds", quotes Pataki as "proof" that there was nothing but dust, etc. etc. ad nauseum. He is downright religious about calling Steven Jones "Dr." He pretends to have scientific knowledge although he never actually exhibits any, never answers direct questions with anything remotely resembling expertise, and instead quotes conspiracy theorists and tries to change the subject in an effort to avoid admitting that he has no clue what he's talking about.

Just saying.

I'm not saying they are the same person, but they are obviously cut from the same CTer cloth and they are similarly well versed in pretense. The petgoat persona once tried to take on skeptics at Du and ended up making a complete and utter fool of himself. He actually claimed that anyone could control gravity and that he did so by ridiing his skateboard. No, really. He actually said that. It was hilarious.

Edit to add: I added a bunch more to this post but got an error message when I tried to post it and I'm too tired to try to recreate it - hmmmmmmm, must be a conspiracy to prevent me from posting what I really wanted to post. :D

[TruthSeeker1234]

Mackey said Dr. Greening is the standard to beat. Ross's paper and rebuttal of Greening are both flawed. This was shown to you on Page 1.

I began the thread by linking Greening. I have stated that I find Ross persuasive over Greening. I get that you disagree, but i am not avoiding this. I also note that Greening has backed off on some of his other claims, like spontaneous thermite, food for another thread perhaps.

Mackey wanted some answers 1) Which cross-bracing elements are you referring to in your picture?

2) What evidence do you have that they were permanent, rather than temporary bracing needed for construction?

3) What material are those elements made of? Your photo is in sepiatone and appears to be photocopied.

4) How are these elements attached to the columns?

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

2) Observe the construction picture here

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg

Would they really use cross bracing as thick and heavy as shown here, only to tear it out after the floor assembly was in place? What evidence do you have that this horizontal and diagonal cross bracing was temporary? Last I knew, the actual drawings for WTC were secret. Have they now been released? A lot of people have been very anxious to see them for a long time.

3) They are made of structural steel. Notice how they are identical in color and appearance to the structural steel elements.

4) They are welded

[Foolmewunz]

Edit to add: I added a bunch more to this post but got an error message when I tried to post it and I'm too tired to try to recreate it - hmmmmmmm, must be a conspiracy to prevent me from posting what I really wanted to post. :D

Nope, it was powderized! :D I clearly saw your additional words, but half-way here, right in mid-air, they just up and powderized.

[Trifikas]

Not to bring in the blitheringly obvious, but you seriously can't be advancing a theory that relies on POWDERIZED Debris doing the damage it did to 5, 6, and 7, are you?

[Pardalis]

The subject of this thread was (generally) the collapse of the towers, so NIST is not an authority at all, as they did not study the collapses.

So why blame them?

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

I (and Gordon Ross) happen to think that is absurd. But if you agree with NIST's findings, then this it follows logically.

[Foolmewunz]

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

2) Observe the construction picture here

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg


Those appear to be the steel columns supporting the kangaroo cranes. There are people on this forum who know much better than I, but I believe the cranes were moved up after 6 or so floors of construction. If this was part of the integral structure of the building why are they so far apart and only, obviously (to coin one of your favored terms) only where the cranes are?

I'm not sure, but I don't think the crosss-hatched (x-like diagonals) columns stayed in place. They brought in the support beams when the moved the cranes up.

Can anyone provide direct cites on the above. I got part of it from the narrative to the Ken Burns documentary.


ETA: Not speaking for anyone, but I believe this is why R.Mackey asked you to highlight just what structure you were referring to when you first posted the picture.

[jhunter1163]

OK, I'm going to risk being labeled a total idiot here and suggest that maybe one of our sharp math guys (surely not me) could calculate how much material was actually released into the dust clouds. Assume a density of 1 g/m^3, multiply by that 3-4x the volume of the towers that the CTs are so fond of quoting, and you'd have a figure that would be at least in the ballpark (or maybe would mean nothing at all-I may be way off base here)

Source for 1g/m^3 figure:

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9781402032646-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-150943-p45333536#search=%22mass%20of%201%20cubic%20meter% 20of%20dust%22

This article states that 1g/m^3 or more is observed in major dust storms, so it's probably silica dust and not powdered concrete. However, I did also look at some OSHA figures for dust exposure and the highest density they obtained was on the order of 200 mg/m^3, which was taken from visible clouds of wood dust. I'm trying to establish an upper limit here, I guess.

(hoping he's just not made a fool of himself...):scared:

[Belz...]

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?

Should they have stacked up like in cartoons, again ? You do know that concrete tends breaks upon impact. And that WAS an impact.

Please retract your error, or lose credibility.

Now you're starting to sound like chris.

Mackey, you are simply incorrect about the floor trusses being the only cross-bracing for the core columns. Look here, for instance:

Looks pretty hollow to me.

ETA: Those structures inside the core were removed after construction. Try to imagine the building without them, now.

[chran]

http://www.peaceproject.com/graphics/postcards/CA2-huge.jpg When will you guys stop lying? The caption on the picture is wrong and misleading.

First of all. The quote appears on page 541 of the report (but page 558 of the PDF-file).

Second, the quote is incomplete (I know, what a shocker!). The complete quote is:

The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Doesn't sound hollow to me!

[Belz...]

Where is your evidence that they were not?

Doesn't work that way, son.

Still waiting for the pictures of stacked up floors, or desks, or . . .anything.

Ah! Asking for impossible proof. The core argument of any self-respecting CTer.

all that is needed is to initiate local collapse on one floor, gravity would do all the rest. Right?

I would think that one floor dissapearing suddenly would cause tremendous damage, depending on which floor we're talking about. 78 ? Near-total collapse, to be sure.

[Belz...]

Gravy has given us a picture of a chunk of something inside a room somewhere that appears to be concrete, and might weigh, oh, 1 ton. Assuming it is from WTC, this represents on the order of 1/100,000 of the concrete, and zero of anything else. Where is the rest of it?

You want pictures of ALL the chunks ? Impossible standard of evidence it is.

Wong, if you wish to consider the energy imparted by a falling mass onto something else, you must consider surface area to mass ratio, and air resistance. A 10 pound brick falling 1000 feet will take a person's head off. 10 lbs of fine dust will not.

Oh, yes it will, if it stays relatively compact. In the case of the WTC, I would think that most of the tower's mass, staying in the middle of the collapse, would still carry the same destructive force.

Mackey, where is your evidence that concrete ricocheted?

Well it sure as hell didn't stick.

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

Not according to NIST, according to YOU, since you claim that NIST's assertion is impossible.

We could just as easily say that the OCT's are arguing from incredulity: It couldn't have been a controlled demolition because I can't believe "my" government would do such a thing, I can't believe so many people would keep the secret, etc.

RIght?

Please provide page number for this paraphrase.

My evidence that some very large percentage of the non-metallic contents of the twin towers was converted to powder is as follows:

THe entire body of photographic and video evidence.

From that distance, you could't tell a truck-sized chunk from a lump of Robin Hood powder.

Arkan, showing calcs of how much energy and time is required when something happens is not the same as showing that it did happen.

Again CTer mentality at work: calculations and logic are useless. They use common sense and "pictures".

[Belz...]

No. I'm saying that I (and anyone with eyesight) observe pulverization taking place. Except for the metallic components, the pulverization appears to be very thorough. I don't know exactly what percentage, but it is very thorough. I have looked and found no evidence of the hundreds of thousands of tons of non-metallic content of these huge buildings. Where did it go?

Any other hunch you wish to share with us ?

Therefore, these observations must be explained.

Non-sequitur.

No, the controlled demolition did not only occur at the bottom, that does not fit the observations.

You don't think that things go boom when they hit lower floors ?

Evidentally large explosions did take place in the basements before the collapses.

And, there we have it. "Evidently" presumes evidence. Please present it.

Observe in WTC1 how the 97th floor and everything below do not move as the floors above collapse to half their original height. Then, the next phase begins, and the tower begins collapsing from the impact zone downwards.

I hope that answers your question.

Here's that common sense at work, again.

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you are wrong that the core columns of the towers were not cross braced. Yes, they were, all the pictures show it.

Seeing things in the pictures that aren't there ? That's not a good sign, as we've seen, twice, where that leads us.

Look, if a very tall building could "collapse" completely, the debris would be a tall pile in roughly a pyramid or cone shape.

Oh, like a kid dropping a handful of sand on the beach ?

I began this thread by asking if anyone had done calcs like Gordon Ross, except shown that collapse would continue, as opposed to Ross' conclusion.

Who cares ? It's pictures you want, as you've repeatedly shown.

I am not advancing a particular theory.

Controlled demolition is not a theory ?

I know intuition is not science, but when calculations corroborate intuition, it is pretty strong stuff.

No, it isn't, because calculations always win over intuition, so even if it confirms the intuition, said intuition was worthless, anyway.

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced."

Clear ?

[T.A.M.]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_10761450402916d516.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1417)
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1076145040398a65b1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1419)

Those are a couple, there are more...but CLEARLY there is more that metallic objects in those piles. The Photographers, I don't think, were not looking for "concrete" chunks, so it is not the focus. Anyone who say that only "metal" objects comprise these piles is just foolish.

Here are links to two more with large chunks of concrete at the bottom

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg
http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg


TAM

[T.A.M.]

My physics and Engineering knowledge is limited to 1st year college, so I have a question.

Is it possible that the large mushroom cloud of "ash/concrete/drywall/etc" we see as the building is coming down could be 95% drywall, with the concrete still relatively (relatively) intact, and then upon impact with the ground, the concrete is largely pulverized, creating the larger cloud that appears after complete collapse.

An honest question?

TAM

[Belz...]

Is it possible that the large mushroom cloud of "ash/concrete/drywall/etc" we see as the building is coming down could be 95% drywall, with the concrete still relatively (relatively) intact, and then upon impact with the ground, the concrete is largely pulverized, creating the larger cloud that appears after complete collapse.

I don't see why the concrete wouldn't break into smaller and smaller pieces until the end of the collapse. I don't think it needs to hit the ground to pulverise. That's a simplification.

My opinion, of course.

[T.A.M.]

True, but if we are to understand that the building underneath offered little resistance to the collapse, I just thought that large parts of the concrete at the top of the building would have less damage done to it until it reached the bottom, or the "effective" bottom of the fall so to speak, and then it would become pulverized.

[kevin]

Well, according to NIST logic, not very much. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.


and you would be wrong. According to NIST to bring down WTC you need severed columns, removed fireproofing AND massive multi-floor fires.

Their load analysis on the building shows that with fires and intact fireproofing the building would've remained standing. Even with removed fireproofing the fires probably wouldn't have brought it down. Only with all three does the load capacity drop to zero.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944fa3ed4d002c.png

Oh, and do you have those pictures showing complete pulverization yet? I can't find any.

[Shrinker]

True, but if we are to understand that the building underneath offered little resistance to the collapse, I just thought that large parts of the concrete at the top of the building would have less damage done to it until it reached the bottom, or the "effective" bottom of the fall so to speak, and then it would become pulverized.

TAM, I've got no credentials in this topic but I alwasy assumed that most of the pulverisation happened when the floors hit 'the ground'. Firstly because the ground would offer more resistance and secondly because the cloud of dust arising and the end of the collapse seems much more dense than the cloud that appears during the collapse. That also explains how the building can almost freefall and smash itself to bits.

[tsig]

You're correct that Ross does not get into the dissociation of the non-metallic mass of the towers. He has calculated that global collapse is not possible under the circumstance. Figuring in the other observaions, such as the pulverization, only makes the "gravity did it" explanation more absurd. I will make that a sepearate thread, and name it the "TruthSeeker Challenge". Perhaps there will be a reward.

Many observes at ground zero, such as governor Pataki, commented on the near-complete absence of macro-concrete in the rubble, and the presence of powder "from river to river". I observe very dense clouds of powder falling very fast to the ground, and swelling out into rapidly progressing pyroclastic flows quickly became 3-4 times the volume of the intact tower. It certainly appears that entire towers were rendered almost totally into fine powder. If not, where did the concrete go? Where is the carpet? The computers? The pictures? Why was the biggest piece of non-metal that a rescue worker saw only "a half a keypad"?

Can someone link us to some photographic evidence of some stacked up concrete floors?

good old gravity

[David Wong]

OK.

h t t p://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/Tower%20Explodes.jpg

h t t p://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome/mushroom.jpg

h t t p://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Now, please show me significant carpet, curtain, floor, or ceiling tile that remained macro.

No, no. I expressed myself poorly. I mean, in other known controlled demolitions, with explosives, is all of the non-metallic material turned to powder? I ask because the "pulverization" of all the non-metals to tiny chunks seems to be your primary indication of controlled demolition...

...But I don't think such pulverization is typical in those demolitions.

I'm not getting into whether you're right or wrong about the pulverization. I'm not qualified. I'm just trying to understand what you're saying.


I mean, if you could indeed prove the concrete had all been pulverized, my first reaction would be to ask if the concrete had been mixed properly at the time of construction, if there wasn't some kind of flaw in the process that made it brittle. Maybe there could be an investigation into that, for safety concerns.

But I would not draw the connection from that to controlled demolition unless someone could demonstrate that pulverization is common in other controlled demolitions. Right?

[TruthSeeker1234]

I said I was Still waiting for the pictures of stacked up floors, or desks, or . . .anything.
and bellz claimed I was Asking for impossible proof. The core argument of any self-respecting CTer.
Impossible proof? Nonsense. How about a GZ pic like thishttp://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/6/images/carcus.jpgor like thishttp://www.terradaily.com/images/pakistan-earthquake-building-collapse-bg.jpg

[Belz...]

Okay, let me get this straight. You're comparing a 110-storey building with a 5-storey building and expect them both to collapse in the same manner ?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I said I was
and bellz claimed I was
Impossible proof? Nonsense. How about a GZ pic like thishttp://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/6/images/carcus.jpgor like thishttp://www.terradaily.com/images/pakistan-earthquake-building-collapse-bg.jpg

How about accepting that there is valid, corroboratable, objective evidence beyond that which is photographic in nature?

[gumboot]

Okay, let me get this straight. You're comparing a 110-storey building with a 5-storey building and expect them both to collapse in the same manner ?


The concrete in those buildings appears to be fairly structural too...

I'm not sure if this helps, but the NIST report on the towers mentioned how the "spider web" floor trusses were stacked up together at GZ in enormous piles (which supports the "pancake" theory).

I recall it clearly, because NIST had wanted to pull out specific floor trusses, but the clean up crews had found it hard to deal with enormous stacks of steel grids, so they'd rolled them up into gigantic balls. As a result NIST ended up having the take the entire balls of 20 or so floor trusses as one piece (it was too hard to work out which truss was which floor) and as a result ended up with far more steel than they needed.

That story just stuck in my mind because it was so strong a visual image.

-Andrew

[Mercutio]

Take a handful of dry gravel and dry sand. (If you can add some pulverized dry cement to the handful, so much the better.) Throw it into the air. The difference in wind resistance on the way down will ensure that the gravel hits first, the powder last. Eyewitness and videotaped accounts of GZ show us that the dust cloud was settling for quite some time, and that a fine cloud of ash and dust was spread out over quite some area. It looked, eerily, a bit like the aftermath of a grey snowfall.

Ah...snowfall. It makes the whole world look like a wedding cake. My back yard, where in summer there are bare patches, rocks, grass, garden...under the snow, it is all the same.

Truthseeker, the pictures you are showing could not possibly be evidence of complete pulverization; they are completely consistent with any number of other possibilities as well. A layer of ash and dust on top of chunks of concrete would look exactly the same. And that, of course, has the added benefit of being consistent with the testimony of the rescue and recovery teams, the people sorting through the rubble for remains, and the testimony of survivors.

If you are going to bring photographic evidence, you must bring photos that are not only consistent with your claims, but inconsistent with the official story.

[kevin]

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html

I see no photographs of cross bracing on that page. I see a very far away shot of the core but no details indicting the massive cross bracing. I do see a claim that the actual column layout is unknown, but I didn't have any problems finding it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f501a762853.png


2) Observe the construction picture here

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg

You've forgotten to indicate what bracing you're talking about again. If you're referring to the z-shaped bracings those are, once again, the supports for the kangaroo cranes and were removed when the cranes were no longer needed.

Here's a couple of shots clearly showing the cranes and their supports, and the straight bracing used on the majority of the floors.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155a130f.jpg
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg


Would they really use cross bracing as thick and heavy as shown here, only to tear it out after the floor assembly was in place?
Yes. They needed it on the next job, and they had to put the elevators in the shafts the cranes were using.

3) They are made of structural steel. Notice how they are identical in color and appearance to the structural steel elements.
Of course they're made of structural steel, they have to hold the crane up, plus whatever the crane is lifting, and that's live load not dead load like the building mostly carries. Funny how things made from the same materials are the same color.

4) They are welded
In sections, the sections are then assembled to build a support of any height they need.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I stated Well, according to NIST logic, not very much [explosive would be required to bring down a tower]. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

kevin then retorted and you would be wrong. According to NIST to bring down WTC you need severed columns, removed fireproofing AND massive multi-floor fires.

Kevin, you have misssed the point of my statement, and of this thread. NIST used the fires and fireproofing, and allegedly a computer model to show local collapse. After 10,000 pages and $20,000,000, the entire substance of their argument for how local collapse leads to global collapse is the following three words:

Global Collapse Ensued.

Talk about non-science.

[gumboot]

After 10,000 pages and $20,000,000, the entire substance of their argument for how local collapse leads to global collapse is the following three words:

Global Collapse Ensued.


That's not entirely true. In a number of their reports they discussed precisely why they didn't go into indepth study of the global collapse progression.

-Andrew

[TruthSeeker1234]

I will monitor this thread to see if any examples emerge of refutations of Ross.

[TruthSeeker1234]

That's not entirely true. In a number of their reports they discussed precisely why they didn't go into indepth study of the global collapse progression.

:D I needed a good chuckle this morning.

Explaining why you didn't study something is not the same as studying it. It certainly isn't science.

[rwguinn]

Mackey, I'm still waiting for you to admit that you are wrong that the core columns of the towers were not cross braced. Yes, they were, all the pictures show it.

I have indeed stated my evidence for pulverization. Apparently Kausel made the same observations, as he used this word too.
no, you ****** have not! You have asserted, ad nauseum, but have not provided one iota of evidenve.
Evidence has been provided that indicates that you could not be more wrong.
Show us the data!

[WildCat]

Wow, I go to the German fest last night and missed all the fun here! Doesn't seem like there's much for me to add at this point, TruthSeeker won't actually address any points made anyway. Like every other CT'er who comes here clinging to their disproven theories religiously.

[Mancman]

I said I was
and bellz claimed I was
Impossible proof? Nonsense. How about a GZ pic like thishttp://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/6/images/carcus.jpgor like thishttp://www.terradaily.com/images/pakistan-earthquake-building-collapse-bg.jpg

You have to remember that the examples there are of far, far smaller buildings. Each floorplate would (obviously) have far less momentum as it met the ground. That mass of WTC floorplates could well have been travelling at 100mph as they tore through the last intact floors and hit the ground, and went down into the basement levels.

The result? A huge amount of compression.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/gs/p509.jpg

If you're hoping to find any easily identifiable trace of the floor plates, you will be dissapointed. A twisted mass of crushed steel is all you would expect.

[gumboot]

:D I needed a good chuckle this morning.

Explaining why you didn't study something is not the same as studying it. It certainly isn't science.


Certainly. But I was merely pointing out you weren't correct in your claim that it boiled down to three words. They wrote quite a lot of words on it. They didn't STUDY it, sure. But they didn't just write three words. :)

-Andrew

[David Wong]

no, you ****** have not! You have asserted, ad nauseum, but have not provided one iota of evidenve.


Look, all you need to do is gather up all of the macro concrete from the WTC wreckage and drive to his house and present it to him in person. Is that too much to ask?

[gumboot]

Look, all you need to do is gather up all of the macro concrete from the WTC wreckage and drive to his house and present it to him in person. Is that too much to ask?


That shouldn't be too bad. My car fits a decent amount of stuff in it if you fold down the back seats, for what it's worth.

-Andrew

[rwguinn]

TAM, I've got no credentials in this topic but I alwasy assumed that most of the pulverisation happened when the floors hit 'the ground'. Firstly because the ground would offer more resistance and secondly because the cloud of dust arising and the end of the collapse seems much more dense than the cloud that appears during the collapse. That also explains how the building can almost freefall and smash itself to bits.

The fact that a floor hiting another floor involves energy is what pulverizes the make-up of the floors. the fact that the available energy was considerably greater than that needed to collapse the target floor is what causes the "essentialy no resistance to collapse" situation.
Since the vast majority of the concrete in the building was the flooring, and since it was relatively thin, one would expect it to break up, and each broken chunk would further break up with each ensuing collision, one would expect a fairly large cloud of small particulates to emerge. When mixed with the readily fractured and pulverized gypsum of the drywall, you get a spectacular cloud.
Think of it as a vertical glacier moving at high speed. Grinding and tumbling produces smaller and smaller particles as it continues.

[kevin]

You stated:
Well, according to NIST logic, not very much [explosive would be required to bring down a tower]. According to them, all that would be needed is enough explosive to break the vertical supports on one floor, and gravity would do the rest.

The bolded part is incorrect. NIST never claimed this. In fact NIST clearly shows that if all you do is sever the supports then the building would not undergo ANY collapse.

There is no difference between global and local collapse in this building, there was one collapse. Collapse started when 10 floors (best case scenario) of building fell 12 feet and hit the structure below. If that one floor couldn't stand up to the collapse why would any of the other floors? The mass only grew as it collapsed and the construction of the building was fairly identical on each floor (with some differences on the technical services floors)

What was special about lower floors that would've made them capable of stopping the fall of the building?

[kevin]

Think of it as a vertical glacier moving at high speed. Grinding and tumbling produces smaller and smaller particles as it continues.

Not to mention the top floors above the collision would've remained fairly intact during the fall and slammed into everything underneath when it hit bottom. basically a double impact.

[DavidJames]

I said I was
and bellz claimed I was
Impossible proof? Nonsense. How about a GZ pic like thishttp://www.msnucleus.org/membership/html/k-6/pt/hazards/6/images/carcus.jpgor like thishttp://www.terradaily.com/images/pakistan-earthquake-building-collapse-bg.jpg
you rant about wanting to use science then you show these pictures. Just between you and me, no one is listening, you're here to show how stupid CTers are aren't you? You really are a shill, one of us...a ninja, a NWO agent.

Don't worry, our secret is safe ;)

[Architect]

Mackey states

Nonsense. The 47 core columns were massively cross-braced, and not dependent on floor-trusses to constrain them.

Sorry. That's not correct.

[TruthSeeker1234]

cat complained TruthSeeker won't actually address any points made anyway

Not true. I have provided data. Pictures are data. I have adressed points. We have strayed far afield of the narrow focus inteneded by the topic, but oh well.

Someone said that because because the towers were bigger than the earthquake buildings I linked, therefore there would be less macro-rubble. No, there would be more.

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job! Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW, contrary to the hilarious cartoons produced for the NOVA show.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

[gumboot]

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore.



Er... it's really obvious in that photo that the cross bracing is on the structures that are holding up the cranes. They are clearly not part of the building...

It'd be a bit weird to leave them lying about once the building was finished. I'd imagine building tenents would get a bit annoyed at having this enormous crane mount going through the middle of their premium office space...

-Andrew

[rwguinn]

cat complained

Not true. I have provided data. Pictures are data. I have adressed points. We have strayed far afield of the narrow focus inteneded by the topic, but oh well.

Someone said that because because the towers were bigger than the earthquake buildings I linked, therefore there would be less macro-rubble. No, there would be more.

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job! Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW, contrary to the hilarious cartoons produced for the NOVA show.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/578944f4f155d23fe.jpg

Wel, golly gee whizz
Look 2 floors below your "cross bracing" on those crane towers.
Al the cross bracing seems to have become made of Invisicrete

[TruthSeeker1234]

kevin speculated Not to mention the top floors above the collision would've remained fairly intact during the fall and slammed into everything underneath when it hit bottom. basically a double impact.

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/image017.jpghttp://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

[rwguinn]

kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/image017.jpghttp://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

Actualy, the relatively sane amongst us observe that whatever is happening up top is totaly obscured by a dense cloud of smoke, dust, and debris...

[DavidJames]

...that doesn't match the observations. We observe...Those that can, research, perform genuine analyses. Those that can't, make stuff up based on observations.

Funny how everyone that really has the ability, knowledge, education, experience who does perform the analysis comes to the same conclusion. But Internet "wizards" observe and come to different ones.

Maybe not so funny.

[kevin]

kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.


nice photos. Can you show us the x-ray versions that prove the upper stories are no longer together? You say you made these observations so you must be able to see behind the smoke and dust.

[Belz...]

Global Collapse Ensued.

Talk about non-science.

"truth" seeker my fiendish, scaly bottom.

[WildCat]

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job!
Yes, that is exactly what they are and why they are removed. I live in a big city where there is lots of high-rise construction, and in every case I've ever seen the crane mounts are removed as the building is completed.

Close your eyes and hum all you want, but that's the facts.

[Belz...]

Someone said that because because the towers were bigger than the earthquake buildings I linked, therefore there would be less macro-rubble. No, there would be more.

Well, I hope you're not saying that _I_ said that. My point was, the much larger concrete floors of the world trade center not only fell much further and, eventually, faster than in the buildings you showed, but they also had to contend with different collapse parameters, namely the presence of thousands of tons of steel, fire, and the fact that a large number of floors was coming down onto them.

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this?

Why in the blue HELL would they leave it there ? It takes up space for no reason and that steel can be reused. Can you imagine Taipei 101 if they had left the cranes in place ?

Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW,

So, this is a huge argument from incredulity and personal bias ?

[Belz...]

kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.

That's an interesting, if unsupported, assertion. You can't see through th dust cloud any more than I can, and yet you assert that the top portion desintegrates ? I'd like to know how you reach that conclusion.

ETA: Typo.

[R.Mackey]

Let's consider the picture Mackey has provided. Mackey is asking us to believe, without evidence, that all of the cross bracing of the core structure which is observed in this photo, was meticulously removed after the cranes were not needed anymore. Why would they do this? Because they needed it for another job! Absent the detailed engineering drawings, which are "missing", observation must rule over assertion. The floor trusses were cross-braced as well, BTW, contrary to the hilarious cartoons produced for the NOVA show.
You need to be much more careful, with that attitude. I've provided no pictures, nor asked for any. I don't deal in pictures. Pictures are too subjective for the precision I require. Your claim, bolded, is wrong. That's yet another mistake for you, a clumsy one this time.

It appears you are in such a hurry to "discredit" me that you've lost track of whom you're speaking to.

I have "asked you to believe" nothing. I asked you to show me that there was additional cross-bracing that neither I, Ross, nor Greening knew about. If you can do that, please do. So far what you've shown me is a terrible picture that may or may not represent temporary bracing during construction. It may also represent bracing well down in the structure that is irrelevant for purposes of collapse initiation.

I don't know what your picture represents. I'm asking you. Seems you don't know either, though you think you do.

You did attempt to answer my questions about it, finally, so that merits a response:

Mackey wanted some answers

1) "It is clear from photographs, such as the one on the right, that the core columns were abundantly cross-braced." http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/core.html
I asked you to point out exactly what looks like cross-bracing to you, not to give someone else's inexpert opinion that there is cross-bracing. Please point it out.

2) Observe the construction picture here

http://nomoregames.net/911/trouble_with_jones/core_2.jpg

Would they really use cross bracing as thick and heavy as shown here, only to tear it out after the floor assembly was in place? What evidence do you have that this horizontal and diagonal cross bracing was temporary? Last I knew, the actual drawings for WTC were secret. Have they now been released? A lot of people have been very anxious to see them for a long time.
Oh joy, another picture.

You haven't answered my question. They very well might use "thick and heavy" cross-bracing. I don't know. You've answered my questions with more questions.

I'm still waiting for an answer from you on this, most important question. If you don't know whether those elements stayed in place, just say so.


3) They are made of structural steel. Notice how they are identical in color and appearance to the structural steel elements.
Useless. Color isn't a good determination, though I would also guess they are steel. What I wanted was more exact -- what size are they? I-beams? Shapes? What thickness? Alloy?

This is why I don't ask for, or use, pictures in quantitative analysis. They just don't contain what I need except in rare examples.


4) They are welded
How do you know that?

I would expect them to be bolted, not welded. And yes, it makes a difference.

[Alareth]

Wow, I go to the German fest last night and missed all the fun here! Doesn't seem like there's much for me to add at this point, TruthSeeker won't actually address any points made anyway. Like every other CT'er who comes here clinging to their disproven theories religiously.

The real question is, does he have the stamina and perserverance of Christophera?

[Mancman]

kevin speculated

That's certainly what you would think, Kevin, based on the official theory. The problem is, that doesn't match the observations. We observe that the upper section disintergrates into dust in mid air.
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/image017.jpghttp://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/present/mushroom.jpg

15 storeys of steel turned into dust? No. That did not, and could not, happen.

In these photos, you can see the compression process has already started. The top 15 floor slabs will have stacked up into a dense pile as they smashed into the first intact floors, the stacked up slabs would be a fraction of the former height of the section. The connections to the perimeter columns are ruptured, allowing them to fall away in large chunks.

That's what I reckon, anyway.

[David Wong]

The connections to the perimeter columns are ruptured, allowing them to fall away in large chunks.

That's what I reckon, anyway.

But do you have photos of that exact thing happening?

[Pardalis]

Listen, I want a picture of my birth produced here right now...

[Loss Leader]

The longer I stick with this thread, the more it reminds me of the silly freefall argument. Truthseeker, you have asserted that collapse of the towers as detailed in the NIST report could not have accounted for the debris that was observed. However, you have refused to answer two ver simple questions:

1. What theory do you propose that accounts for the debris you observed?

If you cannot tell us how you think such debris was created, you have no grounds to tell us that the planes couldn't have caused it. That's like telling me that the moon is farther away from earth than the sun (because it obviously is smaller than the sun and every picture proves it) but having no model of the solar system to compete with the one I made in fourth grade. What theory do you believe accounts for the debris?

2. Why do you refuse to consider evidence that your observations are mistaken?

I have given you the names, addresses, emails and phone numbers of the very people who went to ground zero, cleaned up the debris, carted it to Fresh Kills, sorted it, preserved some for a museum exhibit and disposed of the rest. These individuals have first-hand knowledge of exactly the thing you are trying to guess at from photographs. Why won't you talk to them? It's like trying to guess the jury's verdict by reading the expressions on their faces instead of just asking them to read the verdict sheet.

People have direct, personal knowledge of the information you are guessing at. Why won't you get the information from them?

I know the answer. You can click here if you really want to see it:

This is all a game to you and if you had any contact with the people who actually dealt with the pain and loss of that day it just wouldn't be fun anymore.

[Loss Leader]

Listen, I want a picture of my birth produced here right now...


I have a couple pictures of your conception that I can give to you for five bucks.:)

[Pardalis]

I have a couple pictures of your conception that I can give to you for five bucks.:)

:dl:

[TruthSeeker1234]

Here is a nice couple of pictures that we can observe and analyze.
Clearly, the upper section does not remain "relatively intact" until it hit the ground. Quite the opposite. The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0000.jpg
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0101.jpg

[Pardalis]

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0000.jpg
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/2003-0101.jpg

What is this supposed to prove? That the top section collapsed?

The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.

I wish I had your x-ray vision.

[twinstead]

Show of hands. Who is tired of armchair internet sudden photo analyst expert 'investigators'?

[Pardalis]

hand up

[rwguinn]

hand up.
anyone notice that the Delta on his evidence is just about as high as the damaged floors.

Hint to the terminaly credulous 'deeker:
If your going to compare things like that, draw your lines at the part that is undamaged, not below the damaged section...
I don't know which is more insulting: The stupidity of the LC'ers, or their assumption that we are as stupid as they...

[Pardalis]

Sometimes this feels like it's the WOI (war on idiocy).

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis whined What is this supposed to prove?

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

[twinstead]

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

Your red lines are improperly placed. You have no qualifications to judge what is happening by looking at pictures and video. You are looking at the collapse with a predisposed conclusion. You have an ideological axe to grind.

Tell me how you can be considered a seeker of truth?

[chran]

Truthseeker excremented

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see. I know I'm not Pardalis, but here's what I see:

I see the top part of WTC1 falling through the damaged floors (where the plane impacted).

[TruthSeeker1234]

twinstead accused Your red lines are improperly placed

how so?

[Gravy]

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.
When you say "the bottom part holds," you're including the interior of the building. All of it. If you don't have x-ray vision, then what's the basis for that statement?

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground.

I don't remember reading anyone saying that.


It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

I do not have the proper expertise to analyse these pictures. I just see the top section falling into the building. My uneducated guess is it's because the impact floors couldn't support the weight of the top section.

I see no explosions.

[apathoid]

Pardalis whined

It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen.

Who suggested that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground?

[TruthSeeker1234]

chran opined I see the top part of WTC1 falling through the damaged floors (where the plane impacted).

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

[Pardalis]

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

Move where?

[Gravy]

chran opined

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?
Remember those strong outer columns? Remember how much of the outer walls of both towers remained standing after the collapses?

[chran]

chran opined

Then why doesn't the bottom part move? Fairies.

[Belz...]

Here is a nice couple of pictures that we can observe and analyze.
Clearly, the upper section does not remain "relatively intact" until it hit the ground. Quite the opposite. The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.

Is there an eye-twitching smiley ?

How can you POSSIBLY tell through all that smoke ?

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

OR, that the section BELOW the top portion is collapsing, leaving said portion relatively intact.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see.

Lots of smoke.

[apathoid]

chran opined

Then why doesn't the bottom part move?

???

Bottom part of what? The WTC? I think its clear that it didnt remain intact, ergo - it moved.

[twinstead]

twinstead accused

how so?

The fact that you have lines at all is what is incorrect. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but unless you can see through the walls, you have no idea what is going on in that building. You are just trying with your red lines to focus our attention to a specific area for no reason.

In fact, you have no more idea what is happening with those buildings than I do. Yet you, unlike me because you have decided you are now a qualified photo analyst and structural engineer, are claiming foul and trumping all the REAL qualified engineers who watched the same collapse as you did yet came to a different conclusion.

[TruthSeeker1234]

apathoid forgot Who suggested that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground?

it was kevin who saidNot to mention the top floors above the collision would've remained fairly intact during the fall and slammed into everything underneath when it hit bottom. basically a double impact.

[tsig]

Greening: No, I find Ross persuasive. He says that even if Greenings criticisms are correct, it only delays the stoppage of the collapse by a fraction of a second.

Kausel: Kausel estimates the gravitaional potential energy, but does not estimate the energy sinks. He shifts immediately to editorializing with words like "small nuke" and so forth. Yes, there is a lot of GPE, but every chemical bond broken requires energy. So does the expansion of the dust cloud. So does the molten metal. All of this must come after considering the rate of fall. The closer to free-fall, the less energy available to do anything else. The attempts to quantify this (hoffman, Trumpman, Ross) seem to corroborate what is intuitively obvious, that is, absent explosives, there is not nearly enough energy to explain the observations.

I know intuition is not science, but when calculations corroborate intuition, it is pretty strong stuff.

The subject of this thread was (generally) the collapse of the towers, so NIST is not an authority at all, as they did not study the collapses.

Yes, observation (photos and videos) is preferred evidence over hearsay. That does not totally invalidate what people say. When hearsay agrees with observation, as in the case of the litany of eyewitnesses who saw, heard, felt and were horribly injured by explosions, then it is very compelling. When hearsay conflicts with observation, I tend to side with observation.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

[Lisa Simpson]

Is there an eye-twitching smiley ?



This is the best I could come up with in my collection of smilieys.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/8416/scaredhy8.gif

[TruthSeeker1234]

twinstead clarified The fact that you have lines at all is what is incorrect. I'm not sure what you are trying to prove, but unless you can see through the walls, you have no idea what is going on in that building.
The red lines do not move. They demonstrate that the roofline moves down about 6 stories, while the 98th floor and below does not move.

It is true that we cannot see what is inside, but we can see what is outside. The perimeter columns above the impact zone are failing, while the perimeter columns below that point are holding.

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.

[apathoid]

apathoid forgot

it was kevin who said

Thanks for finally answering a question of mine. I dont agree, but others are correct in saying that unless you have x-ray vision - there is no way to know whats happening to the cap as it fell onto the floors below(we know what happened to them - they got crushed).

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

twinstead clarified
The red lines do not move. They demonstrate that the roofline moves down about 6 stories, while the 98th floor and below does not move.

It is true that we cannot see what is inside, but we can see what is outside. The perimeter columns above the impact zone are failing, while the perimeter columns below that point are holding.

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.

Then bring up specific points from the NIST report and we will discuss them and test the veracity of their (NIST's) claims on the point in question.

[LashL]

Show of hands. Who is tired of armchair internet sudden photo analyst expert 'investigators'?

Hand up.

And I'm even more tired of the subset of them who who purport to have X-ray vision.

[Pardalis]

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.


Then... (http://piv.pivpiv.dk/)

[Brainster]

This is not particularly relevant to the present discussion. Observe any of the photos and videos of the twin towers. Huge amounts of very dense dust along with chunks of steel and aluminum is being projected sideways, even upwards, and is obviously does not "ricochet" off of anything.

Upwards? You're looking at too many photos and not enough film if you believe that dust, chunks of steel and aluminum were being projected upwards. It may appear so in still photographs, but that's just an artifact of the building collapsing underneath it making it appear to be moving upwards by comparison.:rolleyes:

[Loss Leader]

It is true that we cannot see what is inside, but we can see what is outside. The perimeter columns above the impact zone are failing, while the perimeter columns below that point are holding.

I can appreciate that many of you are falling back on an appeal to authority. Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.


Well, then, Truthseeker, let me ask for the third time: What conclusions are you willing to accept?

You state that the top of the building began collapsing into the floors hit by the aircraft while the bottom remains stable, you even show pictures? Does that mean that you do not believe that explosives blew at the base of the towers to bring them down? Does this mean that when the towers started collapsing, the men in black blew the explosives at the base because they saw their chance? What is your theory as to how the towers were brought down?

You seem to like to state that the generally accepted opinion of the experts isn't supported by the pictures you found. What theory of collapse is supported by those pictures?

Please answer this question. Until you do, I cannot understand your argument. In fact, nobody here can.

[tsig]

Pardalis whined

Pardalis, you're not keeping up. It was suggested by several that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground. It was claimed that the pictures showed only dust and that the behavior of the top portions could not be seen. The latest pictures I posted show very clearly that the top portion begins collapsing first, while the bottom part holds.

It does not require "x ray vision. Look at those two pictures and tell me what you see. Don't ignore, don't go to name calling, tell me what you see.

The top of the building grinding into the bottom until they both go down in gravity's embrace.

[rwguinn]

new CT term:
Fairly intact=completely whole, unchanged...

[apathoid]

Well, then, Truthseeker, let me ask for the third time: What conclusions are you willing to accept?

You state that the top of the building began collapsing into the floors hit by the aircraft while the bottom remains stable, you even show pictures? Does that mean that you do not believe that explosives blew at the base of the towers to bring them down? Does this mean that when the towers started collapsing, the men in black blew the explosives at the base because they saw their chance? What is your theory as to how the towers were brought down?

You seem to like to state that the generally accepted opinion of the experts isn't supported by the pictures you found. What theory of collapse is supported by those pictures?

Please answer this question. Until you do, I cannot understand your argument. In fact, nobody here can.

Hey, he's just asking questions.
:whistling

[TruthSeeker1234]

Loss Leader and others demanded What theory of collapse is supported by those pictures?

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

[Gravy]

Unfortunately, given the utterly un-scientific nature of the NIST study, and the fact that NIST did not even study the collapses themselves, only the pre-collapse, I am not willing to accept the alleged conclusions of that authority.
Got it. NIST is out. Just trashed my 10,000 pages of files. Thanks for giving me more space on my hard drive!

[Gravy]

I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.
You haven't pointed any out.

[Pardalis]

I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

OK, so you would also have to consider this theory (http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/2006/05/911-train-conspiracy.html)?

[tsig]

Loss Leader and others demanded

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

[TruthSeeker1234]

You haven't pointed any [observations ignored by NIST] out.

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.

[apathoid]

Loss Leader and others demanded

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

Scare quotes on official. I love it. Yes, the "expert" "scientists" at NIST didnt deal with idiotic CD theories in their "official" "report". Deal with it.

...trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations

Depends on who's doing the observing. Structural engineers and demolitionists dont think a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations. Deal with it.

[Pardalis]

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.

So why do you accuse them of lying?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.

Stop playing word games. It is very clear what he was accusing you of having failed to provide were any examples of "ignoring observations that conflict". Show that the observations conflict.

[tsig]

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.
Planes hit the towers and destroyed 20% of the support beams.

Heat and gravity did the rest.

[LashL]

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html



Is that your own website, or do you just base all of your beliefs concerning the destruction of the towers upon its contents?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Arkan requested clarification Show that the observations conflict [with NIST conclusions].

OK. As you all know, Dr. Jones has shown quite convincingly that there were pools of molten iron at ground zero. This observation conflicts with NIST conclusion, and is ignored by them. This paper has been updated recently, it's worth another look if you haven't lately.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf


Molten iron is but one observation, as I said, the entirety of the collapse is ignored by NIST.

[Kent1]

Loss Leader and others demanded

Here is your answer. Please read this. I concur with this study, as it proceeds scientifically, trying to construct a demolition theory which is consistent with the observations.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

You will note in this paper a number of observations which are not dealt with in the "official" reports. I think we all agree that ignoring observations that conflict with the hypothesis is bad science.

For those who really want a laugh I would suggest checking out gordons site. He claims the flashes are explosives. When you look at other closer angles and photos you can see Gordons flashes are pieces of falling debris/aluminum from the outer facade.
Gordon uses this video here to make his flash claim
http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv
Yet here you can see closer up that its just the aluminum
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

Large photos are also good at showing the detail of the collapse.

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg

[TruthSeeker1234]

Lash entertains with a false dichotomy Is that your own website, or do you just base all of your beliefs concerning the destruction of the towers upon its contents?

No, not my website, and no, I don't base all my "beliefs" on it.

[Kent1]

Arkan requested clarification

OK. As you all know, Dr. Jones has shown quite convincingly that there were pools of molten iron at ground zero. This observation conflicts with NIST conclusion, and is ignored by them. This paper has been updated recently, it's worth another look if you haven't lately.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf


Molten iron is but one observation, as I said, the entirety of the collapse is ignored by NIST.
Honestly he hasn't shown quite convincingly that there were pools of molten iron. Although I have no problem with some melted steel. As NIST has mentioned they also agree that some steel could of also melted. Steel slag can also occur at temps under 1000C
http://www.me.wpi.edu/MTE/People/imsm.html
As NIST stated:
"Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing. "

[Gravy]

Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST.
And you've pointed out how the observation of the collapses conflicts with NIST's hypothesis of why the collapses occurred? I guess I am slow. Please bring me up to speed.

[Kent1]

"Sure I have. Please keep up. NIST did not study the collpase. We observe that the buildings collapsed. Everything after the beginning of collapse is ignored by NIST."

He's wrong about that also. NIST has a section of observations Following Collapse Initiation. Its on page 319 9.3.3 called Events Following Collapse Initiation.

"Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC 2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The titlting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.
The structure below the level of collapse initation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential enery released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of demformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, futher incresing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing materical, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos."

Guys like Jones really didn't read the NIST report very well.

[TruthSeeker1234]

I'm going to give Kent the benefit of the doubt and assume he just had the wrong URL on his clipboard. Kent, please admit your error. Here is a video relied upon by Ross, a nice quality copy.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Please observe the flash on the corner, about halfway between the impact zone and the top. Then note how the top part breaks at that point. Also note how there is no debris there, so it cannot be reflections of light.

[Pardalis]

Why do the flashes happen AFTER the collapse?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Pardalis, flashes happen before and during the collapse. It is a whole complicated series of events. Read Ross' papers, the subject of this thread.

http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

[Kent1]

Why do the flashes happen AFTER the collapse?

Maybe because explosives are cool and its fun to wipe out the core. :D

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent, acknowledge that you linked the wrong video, watch the correct one, and comment please.

[apathoid]

I'm going to give Kent the benefit of the doubt and assume he just had the wrong URL on his clipboard. Kent, please admit your error. Here is a video relied upon by Ross, a nice quality copy.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Please observe the flash on the corner, about halfway between the impact zone and the top. Then note how the top part breaks at that point. Also note how there is no debris there, so it cannot be reflections of light.

What error did he make? Unless he's edited the URL - it deals with the eroded steel, which YOU brought up..

Wow, a flash! Consider me converted!

[Pardalis]

Pardalis, flashes happen before and during the collapse. It is a whole complicated series of events.

Truthseeker, please read this (http://piv.pivpiv.dk/).

[Kent1]

I'm going to give Kent the benefit of the doubt and assume he just had the wrong URL on his clipboard. Kent, please admit your error. Here is a video relied upon by Ross, a nice quality copy.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Please observe the flash on the corner, about halfway between the impact zone and the top. Then note how the top part breaks at that point. Also note how there is no debris there, so it cannot be reflections of light.

Im going to guess you didn't look at his site. Since I grabbed the very link he had and added another one. Yes I saw that flash also during the collapse. Again yes it can be an ejected piece coming off. The video quality is not the greatest. I would suggest something more like a detailed photo.

As gordons sites says:
Evidence of Phase Four

Flashes of light throughout lower core section

http://www.911eyewitness.com/truth/downloads/spirefinish.wmv

The first six or so seconds of the above video shows many short duration, flashes of light, intense enough to be seen through the clouds of dust and smoke. Note that I have tried but am unable to take screen captures from this video to illustrate these flashes. If anyone can supply these I would be very grateful

[TruthSeeker1234]

PLease watch this video, it is the one that Ross talks about and analyzes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Video is helpful here as opposed to photos, because the duration of flash is important. The above link is a nice quality. There is absolutely no falling debris of any kind where the flash on the corner occurs. I am very curious to see to what length you guys will go to deny was is seen in this video. There are several other explosions evident, but let's comment on the one that occurs about halfway up the near corner.

[kevin]

Here is a nice couple of pictures that we can observe and analyze.
Clearly, the upper section does not remain "relatively intact" until it hit the ground. Quite the opposite. The Floors below remain intact until the top has gone to about half its former size.


those 2 lines appear to be on different floors to me. The bottom photo the red line has moved above what looks like the airplane hole, while in the top it's below it all. How were the photos normalized to ensure the lines were on the same floor?

Why, when attempting to criticize my comment that the top floors remained intact, did you first present photos of debris and smoke that have absolutely no imagery of the top of the building? Why didn't you present these photos first? What made you think the other photos were your best evidence?

[Pardalis]

Truthseeker, what would be the purpose of detonations AFTER the collapse starts?

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, Kent, you are correct that in the video you linked, there are flashes beneath the smoke and dust. I would say that is evidence of more explosions. What say you.

[Kent1]

PLease watch this video, it is the one that Ross talks about and analyzes.

http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc2-demolition-2.avi

Video is helpful here as opposed to photos, because the duration of flash is important. The above link is a nice quality. There is absolutely no falling debris of any kind where the flash on the corner occurs. I am very curious to see to what length you guys will go to deny was is seen in this video. There are several other explosions evident, but let's comment on the one that occurs about halfway up the near corner.


Again yes I've seen the other video. It's far more likely to be ejected materical during the collapse. And again photos are a lot of times better because they have a higher resolution that just isn't possible with video. That's why I posted that large photo. Its full of all sorts of stuff you just can't see in the videos.

[TruthSeeker1234]

Paradalis persisted Truthseeker, what would be the purpose of detonations AFTER the collapse starts?

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.

[kevin]

Who suggested that the top portions remained intact until they hit the ground?

I did. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong on that, but I'm not seeing the proof in the photos presented so far. My assumption of the top remaining fairly intact is based on there being not too much happening that would cause it to break apart. The top remaining intact, or breaking apart is not proof one way or the other of explosives being used, so the point is really, uh, pointless.

[Kent1]

Yes, Kent, you are correct that in the video you linked, there are flashes beneath the smoke and dust. I would say that is evidence of more explosions. What say you.
Thats why I posted this video.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem7/911.wtc.1.demolition.north.03.avi

As you should be able to see it looks like the debris.

[Pardalis]

The purpose would be to continue to demolish and destroy still-intact parts of the structure, as explained by Ross.

Why would the structure need help in its demolition once it started to fall?

[TobiasTheViking]

there is no need, there is a HUGE impulse from all the rubble from above falling down. The next floor won't be able to hold all the weight of the floors above with the added force which comes from the speed.

So, there is no need.

The question stands.

[apathoid]

Yes, Kent, you are correct that in the video you linked, there are flashes beneath the smoke and dust. I would say that is evidence of more explosions. What say you.

You're joking right? Flashes but no booms. Flashes while the collapse was 2/3 complete?

What purpose did these charges serve?

[Kent1]

Whoops double post

[TruthSeeker1234]

Kent claimed [The flashes are ] far more likely to be ejected materical during the collapse.

Kent, there are no debris at all in that area. None. Please, you appear to be arguing from incredulity. Can you explain what you see that makes you think that there are debris falling where that flash occurs? I see none, plus it is well above the impact zone. What you claim has no basis in either logic or observation.

[gumboot]

Show of hands. Who is tired of armchair internet sudden photo analyst expert 'investigators'?

I know I am...:mad:

I wish I learned photographic interpretation at THEIR school. See, we were taught to use collaborating video/photos from multiple angles. We learned you had to be familiar with what you were looking at. We learned even with all that it was still very very very hard to be accurate.

Obviously at the CSI school of Photographic interpretation they learned how to measure sub-pixel particles recorded eight miles away...

-Andrew

[Kent1]

You're joking right? Flashes but no booms. Flashes while the collapse was 2/3 complete?

What purpose did these charges serve?
No these guys are serious. They think all of these little flashes are explosives. You can see these "flashes" all over the videos.
http://italy.indymedia.org/uploads/2005/03/wtc1-demolition-4.avi

[Kent1]

Kent claimed

Kent, there are no debris at all in that area. None. Please, you appear to be arguing from incredulity. Can you explain what you see that makes you think that there are debris falling where that flash occurs? I see none, plus it is well above the impact zone. What you claim has no basis in either logic or observation.
Again as I stated the videos are many times not a very good way to tell what's going on. Thats why I posted the large photo where you can make out all sorts of detail not evidant in the videos. Im sorry you see all of these as bombs. But you can see the one you point to happens as the building is falling.

Honestly I know there's really nothing I can do to change your mind.