Metatheory and the NIST report

[TellyKNeasuss]

High velocity shock is required to pulverize.

Velocity shock = 2 x height of the fall/deflection

In the cases of both towers the deflection was very high and essentially equaled the fall providing no more than a 2G hit.

Say I want to try a little experiment. I take a baseball and a bunch of bowling balls to a tall building. I climb up the stairs, stopping to drop a bowling ball out of the window on each floor. I stop when the last bowling ball that I dropped cracks the sidewalk. What is the likelihood that the baseball, moving at the same velocity, will do as much damage to the sidewalk as the bowling ball?

Then I try another experiment. I drop a baseball from 5 feet on your left foot and a bowling ball on your right foot from 5 feet. What is the likelihood that the toes on your left foot will be as pulverized as the toes on your right foot?

 

[cmcaulif]

No argument that a lot of the dust cloud was gypsum wallboard. However, a great deal of it was also concrete. Otherwise we would have seen many stacked up floors after the collapse.

I do not believe that charges were placed under the carpet into holes drilled in the concrete. However they could have easily been installed on the floor trusses beneath the floor. You should realize that these areas would be hidden from view as there was a distance of four feet from the drop celing to the floor above it, since the floor trusses were four feet deep. Don't forget a new security system was installed by Securacom (Marvin Bush George Bush's brother and Wirt Walker George Bush's cousin were on its board) and that could have easily been used as cover to install explosives. The elevator shafts were not visible either and could have been used to install explosives on the core columns.

The explosive installation project would have been done over a long period of time and would not need to be massive. Bush's brother and cousin had security at the towers for years.

Your main contention that the initial dust cloud could only have only been produced by explosives seems to have been addressed, but do you seriously not contest the conclusion of Bazant Le Benson and Greening that approx 158 tons of TNT would need to be installed per tower, drilled into small holes in the floor slabs, in order to produce the degree of concrete pulverization with explosives? You do understand how a controlled demolition is done right(hint, charges placed in floor slabs are not involved)? Or does the controlled demolition have to be performed in an extra special way on this one?

 

[Swing Dangler]

There is nothing I can see related to oxygen flow modelling on either page 79 of the document or of the PDF. Are you sure you have the correct citation? The previous one seemed more likely to be correct?

Chapter 6, top paragraph on page 79.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Federal Buildiing and Fire Safety Investigations of the World Trade Center Disaster
Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates and Timeline Analysis

Start by assuming that the only air available for burning was already present when the aircraft struck.

William M. Pitts
Kathryn M. Butler
Valentine Junker

 

[e^n]

Chapter 6, top paragraph on page 79.
NIST NCSTAR 1-5A Federal Buildiing and Fire Safety Investigations of the World Trade Center Disaster
Visual Evidence, Damage Estimates and Timeline Analysis

Oh I see, well the simple answer is that this was not part of any simulation and indeed was just a theoretical look at how much fuel could be expended in the combustion and the overpressures involved. They didn't account for any air flow whatsoever that I can determine.

This however has nothing to do with the actual fire modelling? Unless you believe the Jet A significantly altered the amount of heat released or the profiles and NIST got the amounts of it very wrong? That is the only thing I can imagine you are implying.

 

[Swing Dangler]

Oh I see, well the simple answer is that this was not part of any simulation and indeed was just a theoretical look at how much fuel could be expended in the combustion and the overpressures involved. They didn't account for any air flow whatsoever that I can determine.

This however has nothing to do with the actual fire modelling? Unless you believe the Jet A significantly altered the amount of heat released or the profiles and NIST got the amounts of it very wrong? That is the only thing I can imagine you are implying.

From the reading it appears they used that lack of oxygen from the hole to determine the amount of fuel remaining in the North Tower.

Is there somewhere else in the document that I overlooked where NIST took into consideration the oxygen from the hole or is that the baseline numbers they used when modeling the event?

 

[Dave Rogers]

From the reading it appears they used that lack of oxygen from the hole to determine the amount of fuel remaining in the North Tower.

Do you mean the amount of fuel remaining after the initial explosion? In that case, it seems a reasonable assumption, because due to the overpressure from the explosion, the net flow of air through the hole would be out, not in. Therefore, take the initial quantity of fuel, subtract the amount estimated as being consumed outside the building from the size of the fireball, subtract the amount that would have reacted with the air inside the tower, and you have the remaining quantity of liquid fuel. What's your problem with this?

Dave

 

[Ultramedia]

Not daring at all--just stupid and dishonest.

All conspiracy liars are irrational America-haters.

Haters? what are you pomeroo?

The alternative?

Jeez too bad they weren't all purple in color as part of your stereotype, we could add race to your hate and prejudice.

- Ultramedia

 

[GregoryUrich]

You realize that a great deal of that dust cloud was gypsum wallboard, ceiling tile, and other man made vitreous fiber right?

A child can pulverize that stuff with a toy hammer.

And I suppose you have seen the latest from Bazant, Le, Benson, and Greening? In order to achieve the same degree of concrete pulverization with explosives, the charges would need to be wired into small holes drilled into the concrete floor slabs on every single floor. Tell me why no one noticed the ripped up carpet, or the crews working, or the moved cubicles while this massive project was underway.

Granted, there were roughly 60 tons of gypsum wallboard per floor on those levels, mostly in the core. Based on the impact analysis, it would appear that most of that would already be broken up and spread out with other debris or on the floor, while it still had water content. How much pulverization has occured so far? Probably not that much.

Then the wallboard was clearly heated by the fires and a bunch of heavy stuff fell on it. If the wall board is to be pulverized it is in the last milliseconds of the initial collapse when it gets hit. Regardless of the speed or mass, there is not much air left to push the dust out of the building. Also, the smoke color change is earlier in the collapse collapse initiation.

Now blowing up the floors is a dumb way to bring down a building...maybe. But if you wanted to do it, you could place the charges in the built in floor conduits.

I still don't think we have a good explanation for the change of smoke/dust color yet.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Haters? what are you pomeroo?

The alternative?

Jeez too bad they weren't all purple in color as part of your stereotype, we could add race to your hate and prejudice.

- Ultramedia

I'm not sure purple is a race, but remember this: If you question the government, you are a lying conspiracy idiot who hates America. What should be done with these people pomeroid? Orange jumpsuits for the lot of them? I hope they aren't Hugo Boss, though. His stuff never seems to fit me.

I really think this stuff should be on the "yes you are/no I'm not" thread but I couldn't resist.

 

[DavidJames]

but remember this: If you question the government, you are a lying conspiracy idiot who hates America.

Yummy, strawmen, high in fiber, low in intellectual calories.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Yummy, strawmen, high in fiber, low in intellectual calories.

You've been drinking too much pomerade if you think that's a straw man.

 

[cmcaulif]

Granted, there were roughly 60 tons of gypsum wallboard per floor on those levels, mostly in the core. Based on the impact analysis, it would appear that most of that would already be broken up and spread out with other debris or on the floor, while it still had water content. How much pulverization has occured so far? Probably not that much.

Then the wallboard was clearly heated by the fires and a bunch of heavy stuff fell on it. If the wall board is to be pulverized it is in the last milliseconds of the initial collapse when it gets hit. Regardless of the speed or mass, there is not much air left to push the dust out of the building. Also, the smoke color change is earlier in the collapse collapse initiation.

Now blowing up the floors is a dumb way to bring down a building...maybe. But if you wanted to do it, you could place the charges in the built in floor conduits.

I still don't think we have a good explanation for the change of smoke/dust color yet.

Jimbenarm and Apollo made good points about the dust, but you seem to be getting close to making an actual CD hypothesis, I like it. I don't think any truthers have done that.

So how would you blow up a building floor by floor in a top down demolition?

you have the added hurdles of:

BLBG demonstrating that it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed.

Columns ejected 500 feet, there is some discussion of that in a number of posts on this thread, but it is by no means conclusive.

large portions of the core remaining standing after the collapse front reaches the ground.

I'm quite interested in how a CD hypothesis holds from a metatheoretical standpoint, especially since no truther has offered a coherent hypothesis with quantifiable data.

 

[beachnut]

missed some more stuff

I'm not sure purple is a race, but remember this: If you question the government, you are a lying conspiracy idiot who hates America. What should be done with these people pomeroid? Orange jumpsuits for the lot of them? I hope they aren't Hugo Boss, though. His stuff never seems to fit me.

I really think this stuff should be on the "yes you are/no I'm not" thread but I couldn't resist.

No. You truthers are without facts. You have zero facts. you make up there was no air left. Your arguments are nil, your facts are missing. You claim not enough air left in a building of 95 percent air. You lack the ability to think like an engineer. You have failed to make a valid point yet. You are a CD believing truther, without facts. You support terrorist by making up misinformation or supporting the 9/11 truth movement liars.

You missed the facts. You missed the boat, you signed the petition of woo, and you only have woo to support you.

You can not even get air right. You missed the ceiling tiles, you missed the fireproofing, you missed the wall inside each floor made of wallboard, and you missed the shell's inner liner of wallboard. There is a source of wallboard dust at the seam that cracks open letting out white cloud of gypsum as the building collapse, the wall board on the shell. You are not very good at this and you have joined the liars of 9/11 truth.

 

[DavidJames]

You've been drinking too much pomerade if you think that's a straw man.

Thanks for confirming my opinion of your thinking.

I question the govt. all the time, as do many of my friends and none of us are

lying conspiracy idiot who hates America

Enjoy your kool aid

 

[twinstead]

You've been drinking too much pomerade if you think that's a straw man.

Not only is it indeed a strawman, but it is a last resort of somebody who can't support his position.

 

[jay howard]

The fevered attempts to lock down a cd hypothesis speaks to the deceptive tactics many here claim to be anathema to.

The typical jref anti-CT argument goes like this:

1. Clear the ground: turn all CT's into absurdities like "it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed." (Really? CD companies use TNT? Acme brand? Be careful where you lay your accusations of "straw men" for they will come to haunt you.)

2. Once the opposing side's position has been reduced to an absurdity, whatever is left over MUST be the truth: read, "NIST is therefore the only possible theory."

3. Whatever the NIST theory doesn't successfully explain is by virtue of its unexplainability irrelevant to the official investigation. (See pseudoscience.)

Anyone who asks for a reproducible test of the NIST explanations is unAmerican or being "disrespectful" to the fallen.

Ultimately, the NIST theory is sacred. It's like Dawkins asking Christians why the Bible is wrong about so many things.

To date, no one here has successfully defended the arbitrary "beefing up" of the NIST report's simulations. The NIST report unambiguously goes against its own estimations and its own accounts of the visual evidence to produce "more severe fires" in its simulations.

It must claim that the forensic evidence is uncharacteristic of the fire conditions that produced the global collapses.

It must claim that the severe corrosion and sulfidation of steel is "irrelevant" to the investigation.

It must claim that molten material pouring out of WTC 1 shortly before collapse is aluminum mixed with organic material which gives it the apparent luminescence.

It completely ignores USGS findings of ferrous microspheres.

This is characteristic of a poor explanation, as I've explained ad nauseum in this thread. Anyone have a way to deal with this evidence? Anyone want to attempt to reconcile NIST's beefing up their simulations in contradiction to the available estimates and evidence?

Anyone have anything other than "you are ignorant"?

 

[T.A.M.]

How about you are a professional in a relevant field, yet like so many others you have not produced anything to prove your claims of CD....nothing.

TAM

 

[twinstead]

The fevered attempts to lock down a cd hypothesis speaks to the deceptive tactics many here claim to be anathema to.

The typical jref anti-CT argument goes like this:

1. Clear the ground: turn all CT's into absurdities like "it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed." (Really? CD companies use TNT? Acme brand? Be careful where you lay your accusations of "straw men" for they will come to haunt you.)

This is a good start. Can you quote anywhere that somebody claimed it had to have been specifically TNT?

You just did what you accuse us of doing!

 

[jay howard]

How about you are a professional in a relevant field, yet like so many others you have not produced anything to prove your claims of CD....nothing.

TAM

So you predictably don't have a single criticism of my arguments, but would rather prefer to discredit me.

No surprising.

Fortunately this is a very transparent attempt at avoiding having a debate in which you know you don't stand a chance. Again, you demonstrate the unwillingness of the majority who feel threatened by the possibility that they may have been duped by the report they have defended this whole time. If you were honestly capable of presenting a counterargument to my criticisms of the NIST report, you would do so.

At least Mackey attempted to make honest counterarguments.

Make a case against my criticisms or remain silent.

 

[jay howard]

This is a good start. Can you quote anywhere that somebody claimed it had to have been specifically TNT?

You just did what you accuse us of doing!

Maybe you should read 5 or 6 posts previous. Here's a hint:

BLBG demonstrating that it would take 158 tons of TNT per tower, drilled into small holes the concrete floor slabs to produce the concrete pulverization observed.

Again, present a real argument on the subject or sit on the sidelines. This bickering is for children.