Metatheory and the NIST report

[rwguinn]

Yes, if the "material" in question is a chemical explosive and its effects must include pulverizing the concrete.

Perhaps there's a material I'm overlooking. What material did you have in mind?

Respectfully,
Myriad

I suspect you are correct, at least for the most efficient use of explosives.
In order to "powderize" the concrete (which is only 4" ihick), the force of the blast must be directed in a direction parallel to the surfaces. Any surface application, such as a shaped charge, or even an explosive on the surface, is going to primarily direct the force through the concrete, blowing a hole in it and wasting most of the energy. The waste is even more dramatic with conventional explosives, as opposed to shaped charges, in that the explosive impulse is directed spherically, so that less than 1/2 of the forcew even goes into the floor...
The problem with placing the charges below the floor (in the ceiling of the lower floor) is that pesky galvanized steel pan--you have to get through that first.

 

[GlennB]

Do you know what i'm claiming?

I'm NOT claiming anything about CD in this thread.

Did you read anything I've written?

You're claiming temperatures in excess of those that are experienced in office fires.

So far you have offered no explanation for these 'unfeasible' temperatures.

It might be you believe that reactions between crushed concrete and shredded aluminium fuelled by by the original fires, then basement diesel, is the reason??

We don't know. You won't say. You just hint at something fishy going on.

Please state your case vis-a-vis the 'unfeasible' temperatures, jay.

 

[cmcaulif]

In terms of blast effect alone, yes.

V. M. Kuznetsov. “The Mean Diameter of the Fragments Formed by Blasting Rock.” Soviet Mining Science Vol. 9(2), 144, (1973).

A. Rustan. “The Influence of Specific Charge, Geometric Scale and Physical Properties of Homogenous Rock on Fragmentation.” Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Rock Fragmentation by Blasting, page 114, (1983).

B. M. Luccioni et al. “Concrete Pavement Slab Under Blast Loads.” International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 32, 1248, (2006).

These papers show that explosive blast is not a particularly effective means of pulverizing concrete especially if the explosive charges are not in direct contact with the target. Thus, for example, spherical charges of 10 kg TNT-equivalent placed 0.5 m above a 3 m x 1.5 m area, 15 centimeter thick concrete slab produce a post-detonation crushed zone only about 30 cm in diameter. It is for this reason that mining and quarrying operations always use explosive charges placed into drilled boreholes to achieve maximum fragmentation.

(With thanks to EFFIGY at LCF)

Well, drilling into the concrete just provides the most efficient pulverization, which still is not very efficient considering how much of the original stored energy is wasted.

I suppose I could have said that the charges were not drilled into the concrete, and thus, in order to provide the degree of pulverization the weight of the TNT reference would have to go up by a large amount. But that smacks of deceptive arguementation

 

[pomeroo]

People are quick to throw around phrases like "thoroughly refuted" around here without a lick of substance to back it up. I'm not asking for special treatment here. Just take one of my criticisms of NIST and show what exactly you find wrong about my interpretation.

If you cannot do that, then your words don't amount to much. The are just Bare Assertions. If you want to see copious examples of that, look at any of Beechnut's posts. There is not an argument to be found in his 73 posts so far on this thread.

The vast majority of your posts serve no real argument. They are only designed to avoid a debate. Would you dare bring a real criticism to one of my arguments against NIST, or is that only going to happen if I spoon feed it to you? I'm not claiming my arguments are rock solid. There are undoubtedly parts to be criticized and improved upon, but so far, no one here has anything substantive to add on this count. Just transparent fallacies, misinterpretations or just plain sloppy reasoning.

Do you have a real criticism of my arguments against NIST?

Yes. My criticism of your arguments is that they are airy and insubstantial. They are simulacra, i.e., they resemble arguments although they are something less than genuine arguments. R. Mackey has engaged you point-by-point. You are dismissive of his comprehensive explanations of your factual errors and logical deficiencies. Tiresomely, you retreat again and again to the same invalid premise. By now, we all understand that the NIST Report is falsifiable, and it serves no purpose to catalogue all the ways various posters have made that case.

To summarize my criticism of your "arguments" against NIST: you don't have any arguments. You don't have a definable position. You appear to have a vague, emotion-based need to reject anything that fails to confirm the existence of a mathematically-impossible conspiracy that does little apart from rampaging aimlessly, leaving clues for really dumb guys.

 

[OldSchool]

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.




Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org]

---------

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [email protected]

Date: 11/11/2004



Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.

There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel . . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown's theory."

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

 

[Brainster]

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Well that's it then. Oh, wait, this is Kevin Ryan? Waterboy Wonder?

 

[OldSchool]

Former NIST employee James Quintiere Ph.D Fire Science Division of NIST

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.


“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

Can't even keep there own on board. The NIST report appears to be more of a sinking ship than the White House.

 

[pomeroo]

Former NIST employee James Quintiere Ph.D Fire Science Division of NIST

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said.


“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding.


“They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

Can't even keep there own on board. The NIST report appears to be more of a sinking ship than the White House.

The conspiracy liars are getting really desperate when they try to link Waterboy with someone who flatly rejects their controlled-demolition moonshine.

 

[OldSchool]

The conspiracy liars are getting really desperate when they try to link Waterboy with someone who flatly rejects their controlled-demolition moonshine.

On what basis could he reject demolition based upon his statement.


And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

 

[pomeroo]

On what basis could he reject demolition based upon his statement.


And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

Oh, gee, I don't know. Maybe the part where Quintiere talks about becoming a conspiracy theorist "in the proper way" suggests--admittedly, only to someone who can read--that the fantasists' promotion of baseless nonsense constitutes the improper way. Pretty deep stuff, no?

 

[T.A.M.]

The truthers are like drowning men. As they flail about in the water, sinking further and further, they reach out for anything they think might keep them afloat. The only trouble is, they are surrounded by big hunks of lead.

TAM

 

[beachnut]

ryan's letter is full of errors and repeats stupid stuff in the news

An executive at Underwriters Laboratories (UL), the company that certified the steel used in the construction of the World Trade Center, has questioned the common theory that fuel fires caused the Twin Towers to collapse.

Text of an e-mail letter from Kevin Ryan to Frank Gayle, Nov. 11:

[NOTES: Kevin R. Ryan is Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories at South Bend, Indiana (company site at www.ehl.cc). EHL is a division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (company site at www.ul.com). Frank Gayle is Deputy Chief of the Metallurgy Division, Material Science and Engineering Laboratory, at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gayle heads the "NIST and the World Trade Center" project, see wtc.nist.gov. Dr. Gayle's biography is at wtc.nist.gov/pi/wtc_profiles.asp?lastname=gayle. The following text is taken from an e-mail forward, from Ryan to David Ray Griffin. Emphases are ours. - 911Truth.org]

---------

From: Kevin R Ryan/SBN/ULI
To: [email protected]

Date: 11/11/2004



Dr. Gayle,

...

We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.

The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse". The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building's steel core to "soften and buckle"(5). Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C". To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above 1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.

This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I'm sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.

There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and "chatter".

Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.

Ryan is full of BS. His posted letter here proves he is an idiot. If you can not find multiple errors in his letter, you are not very good at this.

You are showing how challenged your are at research and knowledge on 9/11. Are trying to be bad at this?

It is sad this guy ever had a job. And it is perfect he is one of the phonies who peer review the doltish papers at the Journal of 9/11 lies.

 

[CJOKUSAP]

I want to expose the frauds, charlatans, and ignoramuses who treat the deaths of three thousand civilians as a monstrous game.

You don't have to look very far, they're right in front of your noses, manipulating your tiny forum-focused life! And before anyone objects to that comment, if he can make the one below and not be called to account, my accusation of being blinkered, pales in comparison.

I want the public to understand that behind the stupidity and irrationality of the fantasy movement there is evil, pure and simple.

It's definitely a sweeping generalisation, to say the least!

 

[T.A.M.]

well when dealing with the dust and debris that is the 9/11 truth movement, a broom does seem to be the best thing to do the sweeping with.

TAM

 

[CJOKUSAP]

The truthers are like drowning men. As they flail about in the water, sinking further and further, they reach out for anything they think might keep them afloat. The only trouble is, they are surrounded by big hunks of lead.

TAM

Who has the more noble cause? The person striving to share his fears for the way of life he holds dear, whilst risking ridicule and worse, against the hatred of a group of people intent on shouting down every plea for consideration he makes, OR the "Fanatical Forum Freedom Fighters" waging a war on ignorance, in defence of 'the dead' and their highly honorable members of govt. (who somehow are unable to defend their selves against a rag-tag army of morons, and traitors out to make a quick buck.) When the govt. you trust implicitly has marched the whole world on to the plains of Armageddon, will you offer your apologies then? And don't ask me, "Where are my facts", or I will scream.(Get ready to cover your ears! )

 

[T.A.M.]

Who has the more noble cause? The person striving to share his fears for the way of life he holds dear, whilst risking ridicule and worse, against the hatred of a group of people intent on shouting down every plea for consideration he makes, OR the "Fanatical Forum Freedom Fighters" waging a war on ignorance, in defence of 'the dead' and their highly honorable members of govt. (who somehow are unable to defend their selves against a rag-tag army of morons, and traitors out to make a quick buck.) When the govt. you trust implicitly has marched the whole world on to the plains of Armageddon, will you offer your apologies then? And don't ask me, "Where are my facts", or I will scream.(Get ready to cover your ears! )

Your descriptions of both sides are your own, full of your bias, and from my perspective completely inaccurate. I am not going to make a choice between your definitions...

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

To ask you or any truther for facts would be an exercise in futility.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

You don't have to look very far, they're right in front of your noses, manipulating your tiny forum-focused life! And before anyone objects to that comment, if he can make the one below and not be called to account, my accusation of being blinkered, pales in comparison.

It's definitely a sweeping generalisation, to say the least!

I'd call it an accurate characterization of the fantasy movement. Yes, there are all sorts of cranks, from crypto-zoologists to dowsers, but they are essentially harmless obsessive types. The fantasists I have in mind are the ones who promote the mad belief that the jihadists who continue to celebrate their victory of 9/11/01 and proclaim their desire to inflict even greater suffering on America are not to be feared. Behind the irrationality, the imperviousness to evidence and reason, is genuine evil. The people I am careful to label as conspiracy liars seek to absolve murderous barbarians of a heinous crime.

 

[CJOKUSAP]

Your descriptions of both sides are your own, full of your bias, and from my perspective completely inaccurate. I am not going to make a choice between your definitions...

TAM

So which parts do you disagree with then?

 

[CJOKUSAP]

I'd call it an accurate characterization of the fantasy movement.

Yes, well you would!

Yes, there are all sorts of cranks, from crypto-zoologists to dowsers, but they are essentially harmless obsessive types. The fantasists I have in mind are the ones who promote the mad belief that the jihadists who continue to celebrate their victory of 9/11/01 and proclaim their desire to inflict even greater suffering on America are not to be feared. Behind the irrationality, the imperviousness to evidence and reason, is genuine evil. The people I am careful to label as conspiracy liars seek to absolve murderous barbarians of a heinous crime.

What a ridiculous load of tosh. I must say your moral certitude is not very convincing really.