Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

[Horatius]

Your question is falsly premised, ala "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?". I try to make it a habit not to answer to such questions.

Oh come now, Truthseeker1234, you have a habit of not answering all sorts of questions!

And while we're at it: if the Dustification Beam can dustify 80% of the steel in the building, why is it none of the pieces we do see show any signs of being partially dustified? Are we to believe that this process is an all-or-nothing deal? The individual steel components are either intact, or dustified?

Does that seem at all reasonable?

So, Truthy, can you show us any pictures of half-dustified steel?

Go ahead, prove me wrong! I double-dog dare ya!

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Does anyone else ever get sick of Troothers making assertions about things when they clearly haven't even studied the thing in question?

NIST did not "abandon" anything. They had a hypothesis that the collapse initiation was caused by floor truss failure (a "pancake collapse"), but rejected this hypothesis in favour of the current standing one - a collapse initiated via the sagging of the floor trusses.

This has nothing to do with what happened AFTER the collapse initiation. The floors pancaked onto each other after the initial failure. This is clearly evident and well documented. NIST do not dispute this.

And you're exactly right, pancaking floors would leave the core standing. Which is why the core was still standing after the floors had collapsed. I'm glad we agree on that.

-Gumboot

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

We observe nothing of the sort in the photos you cite as evidence because the 'sandwich' was underground.

Evidence please. I have looked and looked, and found essentially no evidence for the existence of the floor assemblies.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html

 

[WildCat]

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab).

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Once the collapse initiated, it was a pancake collapse. But it wasn't a pancake collapse in the initial phase because it was initiated by sagging floor trusses pulling the columns inward. Gumboot is correct, and you don't understand what you're reading.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Once the collapse initiated, it was a pancake collapse. But it wasn't a pancake collapse in the initial phase because it was initiated by sagging floor trusses pulling the columns inward. Gumboot is correct, and you don't understand what you're reading.

NIST said:

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse

Had they only meant to refer to collapse initiation, they would have said that. Besides, since when did NIST study the events after collapse initiation?

 

[stateofgrace]

TS they did say , the fact you are unable to read English is not their problem.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System​

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

• the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

• the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

So, get to the part where NIST endorses the pancake theory. And why do they say that their findings don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

In fact, get to anything NIST studied after "collapse initiation".

 

[stateofgrace]

So, get to the part where NIST endorses the pancake theory. And why do they say that their findings don't support the pancake theory of collapse?

In fact, get to anything NIST studied after "collapse initiation".

Excuse me?

Are you unable to read?

What part of pancaking did not initiate the collapse don't you understand?

 

[pomeroo]

NIST said:



Had they only meant to refer to collapse initiation, they would have said that. Besides, since when did NIST study the events after collapse initiation?

We all get the idea that NIST showed that pancaking is not the explanation of the collapse, but, rather, is what happened after the collapse was initiated.

Would you care to re-visit the great "Pull it!" controversy?

Hey, nobody's talked about those mysterious "pods" on the planes that crashed into...oh, right. There were no planes.

Ace, a debate between you and Dr. Greening would be a freak show, not an honest examination of evidence.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

We all get the idea that NIST showed that pancaking is not the explanation of the collapse, but, rather, is what happened after the collapse was initiated.

Where does NIST say that?

Would you care to re-visit the great "Pull it!" controversy?

Not on Hardfire.

Hey, nobody's talked about those mysterious "pods" on the planes that crashed into...oh, right. There were no planes.

Shhhhhh. Ron, we said we weren't going to talk about that. I can't help it if the plane videos depict impossible physics, and that the nosecone accidentally popped out of the other side on the one live shot. I agreed to your terms of not discussing the "planes".

Ace, a debate between you and Dr. Greening would be a freak show, not an honest examination of evidence.

Dr. Greening has already agreed to debate me on video. This occured prior to your being invited to moderate. Greening asked about a moderator, and I suggested you. Greening liked the idea of you, he contacted you, Greening then told me you had agreed to moderate.

After you became involved, Dr. Greening and I exchanged a few emails as an "evidence hearing" and we have agreed on which pictures and videos I'm allowed to show. I'll have one interpretation of the pictures, and Greening will have another, both in the context of Greening's theory. What's the fear? I'm going to say the buildings were blown up, you and Greening are going to say they fell down. What's the big deal?

If you don't want to be involved, or if you can't sell the idea to Hardfire's producer, that's OK. Greening and I will try to make other arrangements, diappointed though I may be. I am so looking forward to having a nice conversation with you.

 

[R.Mackey]

Evidence please. I have looked and looked, and found essentially no evidence for the existence of the floor assemblies.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/HTRHome.html

When you say "no evidence," you of course mean "you found some arial (sic) photographs in which it's impossible to find anything conclusive," but then you make a conclusion anyway, namely that the thousands of people who walked on, dismantled, and sorted the Pile are all liars.

You're a very special person, Ace.

The most telling example on your stupid, disrespectful "game" website is here:

Being generous, let's say their is about 100 tons of broken concrete here. This would be about 1/1000th of the total. We must keep hunting.

For starters, this picture is just the top of one corner of the pile. But... 100 tons? How did you get to that figure?

How big is 100,000 tons of concrete? Well, concrete has a density of roughly 2400 kg/m³, call it 2.4 tons per cubic meter. The total volume you're looking for would therefore be about 41,700 cubic meters. This is a cube of concrete only 34.7 meters on a side.

In your picture, you've blurred out the edges, like the disingenuous sort that you are. You've also added no scale nor shown any estimates you may have made in order to reach your answer. So I'll make some. The people standing in that picture are just under 2m tall, so I'm going to eyeball the picture at 20m x 20m. I'll be really generous and ignore the fact that it looks to be in perspective, and it's probably a lot longer than that. Furthermore, I'll assume the pile shown here is only about 3m deep, though given the six-story basement, it could be far more than that.

How much concrete do I estimate is in your photograph? 1200 m³ of it, or 2880 tons. Just in that cropped picture alone, lowballing it severely. Almost 30 times your estimate!

How on earth did you get 100 tons?

Oh, right, the same way you get all of your other estimates. You pull a number out of thin air, using your highly relevant skills as a musician, and then claim -- on that basis alone -- that the work of thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, and professors, who actually were on site rather than trying to eyeball it from a handful of newspaper photos, are all either complete idiots or the most evil of men. Every single one of them.

Your misapprehension of science is so comprehensive that education seems to be impossible, but let me try one last time. Here's another faulty comparison you make on your site, claiming, on the basis of an earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan, that the rubble should have been more intact:

How could the WTC type of structure, which is substantially more resistant to progressive collapse, somehow be less resistant to self disintegration?

Isn't a twin tower at least 11 times taller and four times the footprint of the Pakistani building? At least. That would mean we should expect at least 88 times the amount of intact concrete. Yet we don't find anything like that in any of the pictures of ground zero.

Here's the problem, Ace. As you note the WTC towers were 11 times taller.

That means, approximately speaking, the WTC towers contained 11 squared times as much energy for a given footprint -- 121 times as much. Potential energy = m g h, right? Well, m is 11 times greater because there are 11 times as many floors, and h is also 11 times greater, because the average floor is 11 times as high off the ground.

To make a fair comparison, you'd have to take the collapsed structure in Pakistan, pick up the pieces to their original height, and then drop them on top of themselves ten more times.

Any wonder why the rubble looks more intact?

Finding out what really happened is the sincerest form of respect, and that search must encompass detailed observation. I have discovered that the only way some people can bear to study 9/11 is through games or music. If HTR can stimulate people to wonder and ask important questions, it has served its purpose.

Now that I've answered your questions for you, by performing a more detailed observation than you apparently are capable of, I've shown you what really happened. What a relief, huh?

Now please fix your site, Ace. Thanks.

 

[T.A.M.]

I can almost hear the glee in your words ACE. I guess you figure you're a "Biggie" in the microcosm of the truth movement, eh? Some fame and popularity where you havent had any perhaps.

Poor Ron, nothing better to do so you throw the old dog a bone, eh, by "allowing" him the "privelege" of hosting your "grand debate". I am sure if he can't sell it to his producers, he will not lose any sleep over it...I can guarantee it.

Bring it back down to reality, your last name isn't Frehley...

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

When you say "no evidence," you of course mean "you found some arial (sic) photographs in which it's impossible to find anything conclusive," but then you make a conclusion anyway, namely that the thousands of people who walked on, dismantled, and sorted the Pile are all liars.

You're a very special person, Ace.

The most telling example on your stupid, disrespectful "game" website is here:


For starters, this picture is just the top of one corner of the pile. But... 100 tons? How did you get to that figure?

How big is 100,000 tons of concrete? Well, concrete has a density of roughly 2400 kg/m³, call it 2.4 tons per cubic meter. The total volume you're looking for would therefore be about 41,700 cubic meters. This is a cube of concrete only 34.7 meters on a side.

In your picture, you've blurred out the edges, like the disingenuous sort that you are. You've also added no scale nor shown any estimates you may have made in order to reach your answer. So I'll make some. The people standing in that picture are just under 2m tall, so I'm going to eyeball the picture at 20m x 20m. I'll be really generous and ignore the fact that it looks to be in perspective, and it's probably a lot longer than that. Furthermore, I'll assume the pile shown here is only about 3m deep, though given the six-story basement, it could be far more than that.

How much concrete do I estimate is in your photograph? 1200 m³ of it, or 2880 tons. Just in that cropped picture alone, lowballing it severely. Almost 30 times your estimate!

How on earth did you get 100 tons?

Oh, right, the same way you get all of your other estimates. You pull a number out of thin air, using your highly relevant skills as a musician, and then claim -- on that basis alone -- that the work of thousands of architects, engineers, scientists, and professors, who actually were on site rather than trying to eyeball it from a handful of newspaper photos, are all either complete idiots or the most evil of men. Every single one of them.

Your misapprehension of science is so comprehensive that education seems to be impossible, but let me try one last time. Here's another faulty comparison you make on your site, claiming, on the basis of an earthquake-induced collapse in Pakistan, that the rubble should have been more intact:



Here's the problem, Ace. As you note the WTC towers were 11 times taller.

That means, approximately speaking, the WTC towers contained 11 squared times as much energy for a given footprint -- 121 times as much. Potential energy = m g h, right? Well, m is 11 times greater because there are 11 times as many floors, and h is also 11 times greater, because the average floor is 11 times as high off the ground.

To make a fair comparison, you'd have to take the collapsed structure in Pakistan, pick up the pieces to their original height, and then drop them on top of themselves ten more times.

Any wonder why the rubble looks more intact?


Now that I've answered your questions for you, by performing a more detailed observation than you apparently are capable of, I've shown you what really happened. What a relief, huh?

Now please fix your site, Ace. Thanks.

The first thing people should notice about the crater rim picture, is that people are standing on the rim of a huge smoldering crater. Think.

http://www.acebaker.com/9-11/HTR/web-content/Pages/CraterRim.html

R, yes, there is would be 121 times the potential energy in a twin tower, which is why it would be built with 121 times the strength, at least. In fact, the twin towers were about the strongest structures ever built.

I do not agree with your approach of assuming the whole pile these people are standing on is macroscopic concrete. It sure doesn't look like it. And I most assuredly do not agree with any assertion that floor slabs pulverized upon hitting the ground. Clearly, whatever broke up the floor assemblies did so in mid air. All of the video and photos support this, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the notion that floors fell all the way down. Not a shred.

I'll clarify the crater rim page of HTR with your help. I was considering the slab that appears on the right side of the picture. That looks like part of a floor slab, the "holy grail" of HTR. There are several of what appear to be concrete pillars. Are they? I didn't think the twin towers had any concrete support beams. In any case, they don't look like floor slabs. What are those?

Thanks. With your input, I will update that page and clarify any concrete tonnage estimates. And if I misspelled "Aerial" I'll try to fix that too.

 

[R.Mackey]

The first thing people should notice about the crater rim picture, is that people are standing on the rim of a huge smoldering crater. Think.

I Think you're nuts. I'm looking at that picture, and I don't see it smouldering or being crater-shaped. It's a jumble, no more than that.

R, yes, there is would be 121 times the potential energy in a twin tower, which is why it would be built with 121 times the strength, at least. In fact, the twin towers were about the strongest structures ever built.

Complete crap. The strength of a building doesn't scale with its energy, it scales with its load. The two are not linearly related.

The WTC towers were "about the strongest structures ever built?" What on earth are you smoking?

I do not agree with your approach of assuming the whole pile these people are standing on is macroscopic concrete. It sure doesn't look like it.

Maybe not, but you made no assumptions of your own. You just pulled a conclusion out of thin air.

Whatever that rubble is, it's probably of comparable density. Or even much higher, if there's a large fraction of steel underneath.

And I most assuredly do not agree with any assertion that floor slabs pulverized upon hitting the ground. Clearly, whatever broke up the floor assemblies did so in mid air. All of the video and photos support this, and I have yet to see one shred of evidence to support the notion that floors fell all the way down. Not a shred.

Who said they fell all the way down intact? They got hammered by the upper floors. That broke them apart. The building wouldn't have fallen in the first place if there wasn't damage inflicted while it was still standing.

I'll clarify the crater rim page of HTR with your help. I was considering the slab that appears on the right side of the picture. That looks like part of a floor slab, the "holy grail" of HTR. There are several of what appear to be concrete pillars. Are they? I didn't think the twin towers had any concrete support beams. In any case, they don't look like floor slabs. What are those?

The WTC towers didn't have any concrete pillars. If we're looking at the same things, I think those are steel columns, the ones you claim all "turned to dust," that are the same color as the concrete / other rubble because they're covered in dust.

You can't estimate composition by color alone, Ace. I've explained this to you before.

Thanks. With your input, I will update that page and clarify any concrete tonnage estimates. And if I misspelled "Aerial" I'll try to fix that too.

How about you stop making stuff up while you're at it? You do that way too much.

 

[pomeroo]

Where does NIST say that?

In its ten thousand pages of graphs, charts, illustrations, calculations, analysis, and commentary. You missed it; we get the idea.

Not on Hardfire.

But elsewhere perhaps? Maybe there is a demolition specialist--one demolition specialist--somewhere in the country who thinks that "pull it" means "blow it up"? What about it, Ace? Does such a person exist? Is this staggeringly silly canard ready for the scrap heap or not? Did Larry Silverstein really ask the FIRE DEPARTMENT to blow up his building? Do you suppose he would ask his mail carrier to fix the leak under his sink?
Why not?

Shhhhhh. Ron, we said we weren't going to talk about that. I can't help it if the plane videos depict impossible physics, and that the nosecone accidentally popped out of the other side on the one live shot. I agreed to your terms of not discussing the "planes".

But it isn't totally deranged idiocy that has been debunked a thousand times. Maybe there's something to it, huh?

Dr. Greening has already agreed to debate me on video. This occured prior to your being invited to moderate. Greening asked about a moderator, and I suggested you. Greening liked the idea of you, he contacted you, Greening then told me you had agreed to moderate.

After you became involved, Dr. Greening and I exchanged a few emails as an "evidence hearing" and we have agreed on which pictures and videos I'm allowed to show. I'll have one interpretation of the pictures, and Greening will have another, both in the context of Greening's theory. What's the fear? I'm going to say the buildings were blown up, you and Greening are going to say they fell down. What's the big deal?

The big deal is that you have provided abundant evidence that you are not a serious person. You have no background in science, and your understanding of its principles and methods is shockingly poor. You seem unable to process any information that highly-qualified people who post on this forum present to you. Thirty minutes of Greening explaining the science and you failing to comprehend a word he says doesn't sound like much of a show.

If you don't want to be involved, or if you can't sell the idea to Hardfire's producer, that's OK. Greening and I will try to make other arrangements, diappointed though I may be. I am so looking forward to having a nice conversation with you.

You have ducked almost all of the pertinent questions directed at you. Try this one: Why are you impervious to everything real scientists say to you? Are they attempting to deceive you, or are they simply misinformed?

What do you know that they don't? What is it that makes your fabrications more valuable than their knowledge of the relevant science?

 

[gumboot]

NIST said:

Had they only meant to refer to collapse initiation, they would have said that. Besides, since when did NIST study the events after collapse initiation?

Do you even read what you write?

Right here you are claiming that, in their statement regarding their research, they are talking about the ENTIRE collapse, not collapse initiation. And then, in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE you claim they only studied collapse initiation.

Un-fing-believable.

-Gumboot

 

[A W Smith]

Ace i will give the slab thickness another inch making them five inches thick. 110 of them IF they fell intact to the ground would stack up to just over 45 feet in height. Are you claiming that the basement levels combined are less than this total height? And should have stacked up above gound for seven or more stories?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Ace i will give the slab thickness another inch making them five inches thick. 110 of them IF they fell intact to the ground would stack up to just over 45 feet in height. Are you claiming that the basement levels combined are less than this total height? And should have stacked up above gound for seven or more stories?

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.

I've seen several photos that show basement areas clear, with guys walking around in there.

I've seen no photos of any stacked up floor pans.


If you can show me evidence of pancaking, or stacked up floor assemblies, (in any condition), or debris crashing through the ground level and piling up in the basement, I'll have a look.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals. The fact is, the floors did not fall intact to the ground. Something made them turn into powder, and shoot sideways in all directions.

Pop quiz: What other materials within the towers could be turned into dust through twisting/crushing/grinding action and then be expelled outward due to air compression?

 

[Babbylonian]

I don't want to get into such falsely-premised hypotheticals.

You mean the sort that you and the rest of the CTers bring here all the ******* time?

I'm going to give you a golf clap for that one...Well played!