Question for Apollo20

[beachnut]

CC, the evidence gathered by NIST for WTC2 is NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

That report describes many anomalous phenomena that occurred spatially and temporally near collapse initiation.

My heat-weakening model fits the "available empirical evidence" - as you put it - far better than NIST's or Bazant's.

So, based on your assertion, why does MAX-MIHOP not have scientific merit?

No, your ideas have zero merit due to lack of evidence, they do not fit anything NIST produced. The biggest reason you ideas are junk, you made up your ideas.

You are like Jones trying to fit a fantasy lie to 9/11 and now backing in evidence. You are trying to take rational work and make it fit your fantasy lies. You have failed and as you make up more things, it gets worse.

There would be thermite welds all over the place if your fantasy took place; and we would have the people who did it; they would be caught before the event, the planes would be stopped. Your continued fantasy crap is disgusting and I think it is disrespectful to make up lies without evidence. Thermite would leave a huge signature. 6 years of lies made up fantasy junk. Why do you make up this stuff without evidence; just to mock the victims?

 

[Mince]

My heat-weakening model fits the "available empirical evidence" - as you put it - far better than NIST's or Bazant's.

Looooooooooooooove the self-appraisal.

 

[Max Photon]

NIST - What a bunch of video-gaming hippies.

No, your ideas have zero merit due to lack of evidence, they do not fit anything NIST produced. The biggest reason you ideas are junk, you made up your ideas.

You mean like NIST's needing to invoke loss of SFRM?


By the way, is it just me, or is it pretty funny that NIST uses - like - super duper mega computers to math like no man has ever mathed before, and then right at the 1 yard line, whip out the beads, petrulli oil, and tarot cards, and then wave the glittery SFRM magic wand?

First they're video gamers - then hippies.



You seem like the kind of guy who likes hippies, Beachnut.

Do not modify other posters' names.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady

 

[A W Smith]

Max you could remove all the viscoelastic dampers from the building and in no wind it would still stand. They were not designed to assist in supporting the live and dead loads of the floor. If they were rigid connections and not viscoelastic the floors would slightly arch or sag in a strong wind depending on what side of building the wind was acting upon.

 

[Max Photon]

If you're concerned about 911 optics, you can't do better than Paul's Magic Filter

By the way, a while back Frank said that Bazant was bummed NIST didn't say more about collapse progression because Bazant was concerned about the "optics" of NIST's lack of coverage.

I would hope that Bazant is also concerned about the "optics" of the unfounded statement in the abstract of his very important paper.

If he's the expert, and if in a society with high division of labor we must rely on his expertise, then he had better get it right!


I don't see how that statement is right.


ETA: I am assuming that Apollo is not in a position to comment, but if he is, it would be welcomed...

 

[Max Photon]

There IS evidence of concentrated heat at WTC2 connections

Max you could remove all the viscoelastic dampers from the building and in no wind it would still stand. They were not designed to assist in supporting the live and dead loads of the floor. If they were rigid connections and not viscoelastic the floors would slightly arch or sag in a strong wind depending on what side of building the wind was acting upon.

First, you avoided that I addressed your issue. There IS evidence of concentated heat at connections. I just gave 2 examples.

Second, compromising the dampers destabilizes the floor membrane. NIST even says so. Apollo20 agrees.

Is not destabilizing the floor membrane a step in the direction of causing floors to sag? Remember, sagging floors pulled in perimeter columns, initiating collapse!

 

[A W Smith]

Consider the correlated events:

• Coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs
• 7 major smoke releases that lasted 1 minute +/- a few seconds
• Flames at the tops of windows (i.e. at the bottom of spandrels)

Are these not consistent with thermite fuse igniting thermite planted at gussets seats, not to melt the seats, but to burn the visco-elastic dampers?

Are you aware this would cause the floors to sag?

Is not the 10 minute aluminum fire right at the bolt access hole opening to Column 301/81 not consistent with burning thermite at the opening? (Remember, you can see in video Column 301fail, initiating the collapse!)

I could go on.


Has anyone here ever even read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C?

First, you avoided that I addressed your issue. There IS evidence of concentated heat at connections. I just gave 2 examples.

Second, compromising the dampers destabilizes the floor membrane. NIST even says so. Apollo20 agrees.

Is not destabilizing the floor membrane a step in the direction of causing floors to sag? Remember, sagging floors pulled in perimeter columns, initiating collapse!

Smoke releases at the column segment splices? staggered the same as they were assembled? You would have had trios of smoke in three story intervals. Your so called thermite fire was coincidentally where the plane wreckage was captured near the corner of the building on the south tower.

 

[Max Photon]

A.W.Smith, please explain the origin of the correlated anomalies in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C

Smoke releases at the column segment splices? staggered the same as they were assembled? You would have had trios of smoke in three story intervals. Your so called thermite fire was coincidentally where the plane wreckage was captured near the corner of the building on the south tower.

You're not paying attention. I did not say the smoke releases were from column splice segments. I said they were from thermite at gusset seats and the dampers that burned because of it.

As for my second example, yes, I know there is wreckage in the NE corner. (Good grief!)

But it is a fact that the 10 minute metal fire is exactly by the column splice of 301, and it is a fact that we can see in video Column 301 fail, thereby initiating the collapse!


By the way:

• How do you explain the numerous coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs? Have you ever even seen them?
• Have you seen that they are exactly timed with the white flashes that I claim is burning thermite fuse?
• Have you seen the pressure pulses?
• Have you seen the high speed ejected material?
• Have you seen the white glows?
• How do you explain the correlation among these and other phenomena? What mechanism do you propose?

 

[Mince]

All hail the self-acclaimer!

 

[Major_Tom]

CC Asks:

Why do the theories of controlled demolition have Scientific merit if they do not match the available empirical evidence?

They don't.

The Judy Wood thing was a joke. No scientific merit.

Steven Jones tries to sell a more advanced trick. He tries to pass of a global demolition based on thermite. He uses highly misleading photos of a "thermite cut" at an angle across a base core column.

He presents highly dubious photos to defend his claim of "Molten metal: Flowing and in pools".

I agree there isn't much scientific merit there.


So what do the Wood fiasco, the deceiving angle cut column model of Steven Jones and the Bazant mathematical model have in common?


They ignore the forensic evidence. They ignore the massive quantities of forensic photographic evidence available to verify the conditions of the core and perimeter columns as they were seen in the debris.

Bazant's is an overly simplified mathematical theory based on the folding of plastic hinges or buckles.

He never seems to need to return from "theoryland" to see if the central core box columns actually do show evidence of plastic hinges or buckles. (The large, large majority don't).

So here you have a buckling theory with no buckles.



Gravy writes:

If the calculations in the paper are correct to a reasonable degree of certainty, then the paper does disprove the conspiracist claim that explosive demolitions caused the observed collapse effects.

There is no logical connection between the mathematical claims made in the paper and the disproof of controlled demolition.

The explicit statement within the paper that this is some kind of negative proof is simply not true.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

First, you avoided that I addressed your issue. There IS evidence of concentated heat at connections. I just gave 2 examples.

Second, compromising the dampers destabilizes the floor membrane. NIST even says so. Apollo20 agrees.

Is not destabilizing the floor membrane a step in the direction of causing floors to sag? Remember, sagging floors pulled in perimeter columns, initiating collapse!

Max if that much thermite was used there would be evidence of it in the air data clear evidence so far there is none.
The thermite would have to survive the fires and the impacts and leave evidence, the only evidence I have seen in the air data is oxidized steel particles combined with zinc.
I have not seen any solid thermite like iron particles at all, that is why I have been trying to create the micro spheres Dr. Jones found I though that he found some solid iron spheres that could possibly have come from thermite, I was wrong and just wasted my time in that.
There are substances that only form around 2000c and only in low oxygen environments, similar to what would happen in a fire with thermites.
I have experimented and found out what those materials are, however I am not going to release the information at this time.
I will know if thermites are found because I know what to look for, there may in fact be evidence of thermite in Dr. Joneses data he just does not know where to look.
Also Max I think the evidence for floor pan ignition trumps your theory because it works even better and because that if it happened the thermites that your theory is based on would be converted to aluminum chloride and would not produce a thermite reaction because of interaction with HCl in the smoke from plastics.

This sphere was created by an aluminum Fe304 reaction,

notice I can not crush it with pliers, and it has aluminum oxide Incorporated on and in it.
There are other spheres that I have created that had a component that can only be formed above 2000c.
Solid iron spheres are not often found in fly ash, most fly ash spheres are magnetite.
Solid iron spheres are not really likely to be formed in fires alone only low melt Chlorides and sulfates.
You would find a lot of Fe 304 Iron oxides in the fires, however you would find very few solid iron spheres and you should just about find no solid iron, with aluminum, and other temperature dependent species.
From what I have seen in experiments in the air data, and else where there is considerable evidence that the floor pans played a big role and the same chemical reactions that make the metal spheres possible makes igniting the floor pans possible.
There is zero data, nada, zip, none for the thermite theories, if you can find some then please do so.

Max I can make assumptions that rabid mutant Martian hopping Giant rabbits brought the towers down, however until I present proof of rabid mutant Martian Hopping giant rabbits, were at the twin towers on 9/11/2001 I have no scientific basis for that claim.

 

[DGM]

Major Tom:
There's no buckles because they failed at the weld joints where you would expect. The weak link so to speak.

 

[A W Smith]

You're not paying attention. I did not say the smoke releases were from column splice segments (anymore) I said they were from thermite at gusset seats and the dampers that burned because of it.

oh i see you have moved your thermite locations from a couple months ago.. maybe time to change your avatar.

As for my second example, yes, I know there is wreckage in the NE corner. (Good grief!)

But it is a fact that the 10 minute metal fire is exactly by the column splice of 301, and it is a fact that we can see in video Column 301 fail, thereby initiating the collapse!
By the way:
How do you explain the numerous coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs? Have you ever even seen them?

be more specific and point your 'coordinated smoke puffs" out to us

Have you seen that they are exactly timed with the white flashes that I claim is burning thermite fuse?

yes i have seen the fluttering white 9x11 offiice paper

Have you seen the pressure pulses?

you are going to get bursts of smoke as interior stuff collapses

Have you seen the high speed ejected material?

i have seen air from story height office space an acre in area eject from the towers during the collapse

Have you seen the white glows?

be more specific point your 'glows' out to us

How do you explain the correlation among these and other phenomena? What mechanism do you propose?

collapse due to aircraft impact and resultant fires

 

[Max Photon]

Column failure modes: buckling; separating at the weld planes; shortening

Major Tom:
There's no buckles because they failed at the weld joints where you would expect. The weak link so to speak.

Also, if heat induced buckling occurs at impact floors to initiate collapse (ala Bazant) the buckled columns would represent a very small subset of the total debris field, making them hard to find in photos.

Major Tom, I have to agree with DGM that most of the core columns separated at weld planes from collapse dynamics. The photos I've seen of the welds show very superficial welds.


Just a side note:

Bazant's collapse initiation model calls for columns to experience visco-elastic creep in the form of buckling.

Tony Szamboti's new paper seems to contradict Bazant, calling for the heated columns not to buckle, but to shorten. This is also in direct contradiction to NIST's emphatic conclusion that sagging floors pulled perimeter columns, causing them to bow inward and fail.

(Note that the video of the failure of WTC2 Column 301/81 shows buckling.)

 

[Max Photon]

A.W Smith, your homework assignment is to read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C

A.W. Smith

Clearly, you have not read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C. And I'm not going to babysit. (That's what Bedtime Stories, with Max Photon is for.)

Also, I did not change my thermite locations. I have said a zillion times that thermite was planted at - and I won't name them - the various splices. Like so many here, you are shadow boxing with what's in your head, rather than addressing what is being said.

 

[Mince]

I AM THE GREATEST PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH!


So says I.

 

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw/Max:

I think the real-thermite-deal is not iron oxide + aluminum, but iron oxide + carbon, (probably in the form of soot) + impurities......

The Twin Towers had plenty of indigenous iron oxide.........

The fires provided the soot!

Iron microspheres are made at temperatures as low as 1000 deg C by the reactions:

2Fe2O3 + 3C = 4Fe + 3CO2

and

Fe2O3 + 3CO = 2Fe + 3CO2

These reactions are mediated by:

CO2 + C <-> 2CO

The reduction of pure hematite in the presence of solid carbon is observed to occur at temperatures as low as 650 deg C, but the RATE of the reduction reaction is altered by the presence of small amounts of CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3. (Check out the melting points of iron gehlenite, 2CaO.Fe2O3.SiO2 = 1285 C; iron cordierite, 2FeO.2Al2O3.5SiO2 = 1210 C or fayalite, 2FeO.SiO2 = 1205 deg C.)

Carbon wants iron's oxygen just as much as aluminum does and carbon can be mobilized very effectively by a fire.

The extent of reaction of Fe2O3 coated with carbon is easily followed. As you heat it, the sample becomes more and more MAGNETIC!

 

[Max Photon]

Apollo20 on iron microspheres from iron-oxide reduced by carbon

Chainsaw/Max:

I think the real-thermite-deal is not iron oxide + aluminum, but iron oxide + carbon, (probably in the form of soot) + impurities......

The Twin Towers had plenty of indigenous iron oxide.........

The fires provided the soot!

Iron microspheres are made at temperatures as low as 1000 deg C by the reactions:

2Fe2O3 + 3C = 4Fe + 3CO2

and

Fe2O3 + 3CO = 2Fe + 3CO2

These reactions are mediated by:

CO2 + C <-> 2CO

The reduction of pure hematite in the presence of solid carbon is observed to occur at temperatures as low as 650 deg C, but the RATE of the reduction reaction is altered by the presence of small amounts of CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3. (Check out the melting points of iron gehlenite, 2CaO.Fe2O3.SiO2 = 1285 C; iron cordierite, 2FeO.2Al2O3.5SiO2 = 1210 C or fayalite, 2FeO.SiO2 = 1205 deg C.)

Carbon wants iron's oxygen just as much as aluminum does and carbon can be mobilized very effectively by a fire.

The extent of reaction of Fe2O3 coated with carbon is easily followed. As you heat it, the sample becomes more and more MAGNETIC!

Wow, what an interesting post!

I did not know that carbon's affinity for oxygen was so keen.

• Does the reduction of hematite by carbon produce a similar amount of heat as aluminum by iron oxide?
• Do you think this would have been a significant heat source in the WTCs?
• Does the iron product remain magnetic after cooling?
• Would any iron microspheres be magnetic?
• Are these types of iron microspheres [magnetic or not] found around other building fires?

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Chainsaw/Max:

I think the real-thermite-deal is not iron oxide + aluminum, but iron oxide + carbon, (probably in the form of soot) + impurities......

The Twin Towers had plenty of indigenous iron oxide.........

The fires provided the soot!

Iron microspheres are made at temperatures as low as 1000 deg C by the reactions:

2Fe2O3 + 3C = 4Fe + 3CO2

and

Fe2O3 + 3CO = 2Fe + 3CO2

These reactions are mediated by:

CO2 + C <-> 2CO

The reduction of pure hematite in the presence of solid carbon is observed to occur at temperatures as low as 650 deg C, but the RATE of the reduction reaction is altered by the presence of small amounts of CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3. (Check out the melting points of iron gehlenite, 2CaO.Fe2O3.SiO2 = 1285 C; iron cordierite, 2FeO.2Al2O3.5SiO2 = 1210 C or fayalite, 2FeO.SiO2 = 1205 deg C.)

Carbon wants iron's oxygen just as much as aluminum does and carbon can be mobilized very effectively by a fire.

The extent of reaction of Fe2O3 coated with carbon is easily followed. As you heat it, the sample becomes more and more MAGNETIC!

I agree, completely as I have stated here in the past Oxide reduction reactions have had to occurred with carbon.

 

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw/Max:

Thanks... I am still trying to dig out more information on these reactions. I suspect that the heat production would be less than the Al/iron oxide reaction. As for the magnetism, I think its a key feature of the reaction ......... see:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030093577_2003101278.pdf