Welcome to the Twilight Zone

[DavidJames]

You have some nice posts to begin your fun little debate.

Personally, I'm not interested.
Personally, I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[HeyLeroy]

Ah, the usual propaganda from a group that is much smaller than even the flat earth society....


Funny, I had always assumed gravity had been proven, but maybe gravity is just in my head.

Haven't you heard?

 

[JimBenArm]

Ah, the usual propaganda from a group that is much smaller than even the flat earth society....


Funny, I had always assumed gravity had been proven, but maybe gravity is just in my head.

Yes, but you need a source of air pressure. Didn't you learn anything from Malcolm?

 

[StoneRook]

Playing games now Sizzler?


Strange, for someone who started asking questions less than a month ago, do you have the knowledge to play this?


I think I will pass...

 

[Sizzler]

Thanks Mackey. Sorry for the late reply.

1. Every independent, published calculation (frauds like the Journal of 9/11 Studies don't count) demonstrates that failure of the Towers was expected, and complete collapse anticipated, from impact and fire alone. Without positive evidence for explosives, there is automatically no reason to conclude there were explosives.

We'd have to start at the NIST report, because all other independent reports cite it for collapse initiation sequence.

For the purpose of this thread, the burden of proof is on the official story. I see a few problems in this case.

1. Of the steel nist analyzed, they reported prior steel temps of only ~250C

2.Floor sagging tests could have been more realistic, and sagged much less than the numbers (42 inches?) used in the model.

3. Loss of fireproofing tests were unrealistic (shot gun blasts on unrealistic steel pieces)

4. very little real physical evidence supports the idea that the fires burnt long enough and hot enough to get STEEL temperatures hot enough to cause what we saw (2 photos of buckling).

2. Video clearly shows that at the onset of failure, perimeter columns buckled inward, precipitating the collapse. This requires structural connections to remain intact rather than be blasted apart. No one has even proposed any way to replicate this with explosives.

I agree with this, because I see it too. That also has me wondering. Therm?te could be a possible answer. I saw a theory i'll try to dig up for you that works in therm?te and blasts. Be patient.
3. Now 1. and 2. turn out to be true for both Towers, even though they were hit quite differently. Rigging of explosives would have to be radically different between the two structures, and would have to anticipate the impact point, speed, and effect of the aircraft to extremely high detail -- which simply cannot be done. As Purdue will shortly publish, the dynamics of impact are quite sensitive to initial conditions, even if you have the best pilot in the world who can hit a dime at +/- 1 knot and +/- 0.1^o of roll and pitch angle.

from wiki again.

The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

4. Video and seismic records also show that there are no sounds and no shocks at collapse initiation. There were many afterwards, of course, but this is consistent with a gravity-driven collapse. You'd need to set off the explosives first. Didn't happen.

Hoffman points out;

Paraphrased: CD is an engineered event, and as such can be engineered for specific needs. There is at least one example of a known CD not showing up on the local seismic record.

The seismic record for 9-11 is what it is, a record of vibrations; what caused the vibrations is open to interpretation. But, to assume that ALL CD would have a single type of seismic pattern is simply unfounded.

5. The failure modes of recovered material are also not consistent with explosives. Perimeter columns show connection failure, not cutting or breaching or even "heat weakening." There's no cloud of shrapnel. There's no remains of det cord, copper bands, evidence of drilling and placement, nothing.

Steel pieces with slag were recovered and tested and found to have therm?te residue.

The same signiture (therm?te residue) is found in once molten iron microspheres.
(for the above, remember the burden of prrof is on you for this thread. so show me some lab results that show the same can happen in fire induced collapse)

And to be confirmed, unreacted thermite has been recovered.

In addition, most building contents and concrete were pulverized into dust.

Ultimately, the best reason to reject it is that nobody can even imagine a plausible situation. Even if we relax our requirements so much that we demand no evidence at all, there just is no way to replicate what we saw with explosives. I've commented on ways to hypothetically plant explosives that would work and would survive the impact and fires, but even I can't explain the failure mode of the structure. Nobody can.

Refer to my response to number 3.

 

[LashL]

Dear Sizzler,

You are 100% wrong.

Love,
LashL (with apologies to Regnad Kcin)

 

[MIKILLINI]

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was a controlled demolition?

This has yet to be proven.

That makes it a large burden for anyone to prove.

 

[pomeroo]

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

A few months after the start of the of the 9-11 Commission, it is found that there are conflicts of interest among a few of the top commissioners. The 9-11 Commission is shut down and new one is launched.

However the 'New-Commission' is even more corrupt, and for reasons unknown, they conclude that the WTC event was a controlled demolition. The usual suspects are executed and the general consensus among the public is that "9-11 was an inside job".

Evidence for controlled demolition in the 'new-commission' is summarized on ae911truth.org.

A group of skeptical citizens claim the 'new-commission' is a sham, and 9-11 was not an inside job.

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was not a controlled demolition?

Remember, this is the twilight zone, and the burden of proof is on the gravity driven collapse theory.

Anyone want to play?

I suppose the total absence of evidence for demolition might be a starting point.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Just that simple.
9-11 was an act of war.

By whom?

 

[Sizzler]

What are the top 5 pieces of evidence that show the WTC event was a controlled demolition?

This has yet to be proven.

That makes it a large burden for anyone to prove.

it is a large burden of proof. i wonder what it would take to prove the WTC buildings were CD?

ps. start a new thread with 5 pieces of evidence for cD and i'll respond there.

 

[Sizzler]

I suppose the total absence of evidence for demolition might be a starting point.

It is a starting point. Does that keep one from moving further?

 

[pomeroo]

It is a starting point. Does that keep one from moving further?

Funny you should ask. Many, many engineers, physicists, chemists, seismologists, demolition experts, avionics techs, pilots, forensic examiners, fire safety specialists, and military personnel have moved much further. You, on the other hand, remain mired in ancient, thoroughly debunked nonsense. Shouldn't you apologize to the people who, against their better judgments, granted you the benefit of the doubt?

 

[e^n]

Thanks Mackey. Sorry for the late reply.

Like R Mackey I don't mind answering theoretical questions and I think his initial analysis was quite accurate. I will try and respond in his stead for now and I hope he agrees with me.

We'd have to start at the NIST report, because all other independent reports cite it for collapse initiation sequence.

This is not really correct, the NIST report details collapse initiation in an entirely different manner to most (all?) models. The theoretical models are based upon making the collapse of the tower as difficult as possible, to do this they generally rely on every column from the upper block equally and evenly impacting every column from the lower block. There are also impossible limits placed like removing the ability of steel to fracture, which means the columns will absorb more energy than in reality.

I see a few problems in this case.

1. Of the steel nist analyzed, they reported prior steel temps of only ~250C

I don't want to write too much on this because Mackey's paper deals with this quite extensively. In short the steel that was isolated as coming from a specific location all matched the temperatures NIST predicted, there were only 2 core sections recovered and neither were expected to be exposed to an area of heavy fire. I can cite if you really want but you should check R Mackey's paper.

2.Floor sagging tests could have been more realistic, and sagged much less than the numbers (42 inches?) used in the model.

The purpose of the floor tests was to determine the towers ability to resist fire in its 'as-built' state. This is required because if the towers were more vulnerable to fire than was expected, this may have contributed to the cause of collapse. Arup for example has published a study indicating that the towers may have been insufficiently protected from fire and there is a reasonable amount of evidence of poor fireproofing application and pre-impact damage to it which would support this. The truss tests were not designed to determine how far the trusses would sag in the post impact fires for several reasons including the lack of any test facility large enough. The longest trusses tested in NISTs experiments were only half the length of the trusses expected to sag to 42" in the towers so this criticism really isn't valid.

3. Loss of fireproofing tests were unrealistic (shot gun blasts on unrealistic steel pieces)

This is again addressed in Mackey's paper. Shotgun tests (modified to be within a reasonable kinetic energy range) were carried out on realistic pieces and they were not the only tests to be carried out. This is essentially a paraphrasing of Kevin Ryan's criticisms which are entirely invalid. If you don't know that there were two different sets of tests you possibly haven't read the NIST report thoroughly enough. (no offence intended, it is a hefty document and there is much i have still to read)

4. very little real physical evidence supports the idea that the fires burnt long enough and hot enough to get STEEL temperatures hot enough to cause what we saw (2 photos of buckling).

There are more than 2 photographs to support the inward bowing of columns (this is not buckling yet, buckling occurs when the steel fails afaik.) but yes, the amount of physical evidence is quite low. This is unfortunately the case for all theories as the collapse of the towers caused significant damage to everything within it which can not be easily quantified as being pre collapse or during collapse.

I agree with this, because I see it too. That also has me wondering. Therm?te could be a possible answer. I saw a theory i'll try to dig up for you that works in therm?te and blasts. Be patient.

Thermite or thermate (similar burn temperatures) are unlikely to be a good candidate as they exceed the melting temperature of steel significantly and would result only in severing rather than heat weakening. Not only this but it would require extensive work to place, consisting of lifting every ceiling in the area to be affected and placing charges onto fireproofing. A theory which could explain these effects was proposed by Dr Greening but is unsupported by evidence of course.

For this next section you claim that R Mackey is arguing from incredulity, but you perhaps fail to understand his argument. Lets assume for a second we have an absolutely perfect computer simulator, it will tell you the precise result of any physical interaction (this does not exist and is another limiting factor in the modelling of the impacts / collapse). To run this simulation however you have to have inputs, you have to have the plane crashing into the building. From running simulations with various plane impacts it has been determined that the result of the impact is extremely sensitive to any changes in the values of the plane impacting. To this end to accurately predict the results of a plane impacting you would either have to predict every possible case and design appropriately (the software to do this again does not exist) or you would have to ensure the plane impacted with the precise values specified in the model which is obviously impossible (the values are beyond human perception).

Of course you may argue that the planners could have just put charges everywhere and hoped it would work, but the risk of being caught (thermite weakening / shaped charges etc would be immediately obvious if the building did not collapse) was extremely great, this is the only place I can imagine you can seriously claim argument from incredulity.

Hoffman points out;

This is not an entirely bad argument, you can plausibly argue that charges would not certainly appear on seismic records, but you would also have to explain the lack of any sound and the various points above. I think this is probably a valid criticism.

Steel pieces with slag were recovered and tested and found to have therm?te residue.

The same signiture (therm?te residue) is found in once molten iron microspheres.
(for the above, remember the burden of prrof is on you for this thread. so show me some lab results that show the same can happen in fire induced collapse)

And to be confirmed, unreacted thermite has been recovered.

In addition, most building contents and concrete were pulverized into dust.

These two statements are not compatable and furthermore change actual facts, if you suppose that unreacted thermite had been discovered at the WTC then yes of course that would be quite plausible. However unreacted thermite is simply iron and aluminium, metals in huge quantities in the towers. The same argument applies for your microspheres etc, it would be nice if they actually did show evidence of thermite, but as far as I am aware only Steven Jones has formally claimed this. You can't expect to change the evidence discovered and ask whether an alternate theory is plausible.

With regards to your 'pulverized into dust' argument, thermite cannot cause this and would result in us supposing that high explosives were responsible (even they are practically incapable of this). However the buildings were not pulverized to dust and even Steven Jones supports this, so this criticism is entirely invalid.

I hope this answers some of the questions you have.

 

[DavidJames]

Sizzler: You've been here a while and Mackey's paper has been mentioned many times. Why have you not read it?

 

[Sizzler]

Thanks for the reply;

Like R Mackey I don't mind answering theoretical questions and I think his initial analysis was quite accurate. I will try and respond in his stead for now and I hope he agrees with me.


This is not really correct, the NIST report details collapse initiation in an entirely different manner to most (all?) models. The theoretical models are based upon making the collapse of the tower as difficult as possible, to do this they generally rely on every column from the upper block equally and evenly impacting every column from the lower block. There are also impossible limits placed like removing the ability of steel to fracture, which means the columns will absorb more energy than in reality.

Yes, that is more accurate. What I meant is that NIST's collapse mechanism is generally accepted and cited in independent collapse articles. Independent analysis of collapse sequence (Bazant et al) build on it, or at the very least, accept it as the collapse mechanism. Thus, it is the starting point.

I don't want to write too much on this because Mackey's paper deals with this quite extensively. In short the steel that was isolated as coming from a specific location all matched the temperatures NIST predicted, there were only 2 core sections recovered and neither were expected to be exposed to an area of heavy fire. I can cite if you really want but you should check R Mackey's paper.

Right. I understand. But, this same explanation should be taken into account when looking at evidence for CD. Most of the the wreckage was not analyzed.

The purpose of the floor tests was to determine the towers ability to resist fire in its 'as-built' state. This is required because if the towers were more vulnerable to fire than was expected, this may have contributed to the cause of collapse. Arup for example has published a study indicating that the towers may have been insufficiently protected from fire and there is a reasonable amount of evidence of poor fireproofing application and pre-impact damage to it which would support this. The truss tests were not designed to determine how far the trusses would sag in the post impact fires for several reasons including the lack of any test facility large enough. The longest trusses tested in NISTs experiments were only half the length of the trusses expected to sag to 42" in the towers so this criticism really isn't valid.

Ok that makes sense. But then, where did the 42 inches come from? Is this based any realistic test, or just a theory?
This is again addressed in Mackey's paper. Shotgun tests (modified to be within a reasonable kinetic energy range) were carried out on realistic pieces and they were not the only tests to be carried out. This is essentially a paraphrasing of Kevin Ryan's criticisms which are entirely invalid. If you don't know that there were two different sets of tests you possibly haven't read the NIST report thoroughly enough. (no offence intended, it is a hefty document and there is much i have still to read)

I'll read Mackey's paper.


Thermite or thermate (similar burn temperatures) are unlikely to be a good candidate as they exceed the melting temperature of steel significantly and would result only in severing rather than heat weakening. Not only this but it would require extensive work to place, consisting of lifting every ceiling in the area to be affected and placing charges onto fireproofing. A theory which could explain these effects was proposed by Dr Greening but is unsupported by evidence of course.

If a significant portion, but not all, of the support structure was cut pre-collapse, would this not cause stress on the rest of the intact support structures?

I agree that work in putting it together would be extremely difficult.

For this next section you claim that R Mackey is arguing from incredulity, but you perhaps fail to understand his argument. Lets assume for a second we have an absolutely perfect computer simulator, it will tell you the precise result of any physical interaction (this does not exist and is another limiting factor in the modelling of the impacts / collapse). To run this simulation however you have to have inputs, you have to have the plane crashing into the building. From running simulations with various plane impacts it has been determined that the result of the impact is extremely sensitive to any changes in the values of the plane impacting. To this end to accurately predict the results of a plane impacting you would either have to predict every possible case and design appropriately (the software to do this again does not exist) or you would have to ensure the plane impacted with the precise values specified in the model which is obviously impossible (the values are beyond human perception).

This part is bolded because one could speculate here. It isn't beyond imagination that a plane could hit the precise location, for example, between floor A and floor D.


These two statements are not compatable and furthermore change actual facts, if you suppose that unreacted thermite had been discovered at the WTC then yes of course that would be quite plausible. However unreacted thermite is simply iron and aluminium, metals in huge quantities in the towers. The same argument applies for your microspheres etc, it would be nice if they actually did show evidence of thermite, but as far as I am aware only Steven Jones has formally claimed this. You can't expect to change the evidence discovered and ask whether an alternate theory is plausible.

Can you link me to anything in the mainstream that reports the above happening in natural fire?

With regards to your 'pulverized into dust' argument, thermite cannot cause this and would result in us supposing that high explosives were responsible (even they are practically incapable of this). However the buildings were not pulverized to dust and even Steven Jones supports this, so this criticism is entirely invalid.

I meant, most of the concrete and building contents were totally destroyed. I'm not pushing the usual pulveriztion argument. I was trying to show that the destruction of the building would also destroy evidence of CD.

I hope this answers some of the questions you have.
Yup...gonna read that mackey paper....thanks

 

[e^n]

Thanks for the reply;

No problem, your questions are mostly relevant and useful.

Yes, that is more accurate. What I meant is that NIST's collapse mechanism is generally accepted and cited in independent collapse articles. Independent analysis of collapse sequence (Bazant et al) build on it, or at the very least, accept it as the collapse mechanism. Thus, it is the starting point.

This still isn't very accurate, the collapse mechanism proposed by NIST includes perimeter wall bowing and column disconnection and rotation, Bazant does not include any of these features in his original analysis. I don't know what point you're trying to make here exactly so I can't really judge whether you are correct or not.

Right. I understand. But, this same explanation should be taken into account when looking at evidence for CD. Most of the the wreckage was not analyzed.

Certainly, in some controlled demolition theories it may be entirely possible that some of the damage would have been indistinguishable from collapse damage. However it depends on the specific theory, and theories involving thermite would leave effects not explainable as collapse damage (again the effects differ between theories). You would have to present a more specific theory to determine whether evidence was likely to be found in the rubble.

Ok that makes sense. But then, where did the 42 inches come from? Is this based any realistic test, or just a theory?

42 inches is taken from a section of NCSTAR 1-6C:


If your criteria for 'realistic test' is any test done in reality then no, this is a result of (to my knowledge) relatively common formulas based on steel's properties at 700C. In NCSTAR 1-6C NIST describes their model extensively enough for this to be reproduced by anyone who doubts it, this has yet to be done.

I'll read Mackey's paper.

I really recommend you do, I have only read about 40-50 pages so far (time constraints keep me away from here far too much at the moment) and it is pretty good, i only have two minor wording corrections I would suggest.

If a significant portion, but not all, of the support structure was cut pre-collapse, would this not cause stress on the rest of the intact support structures?

It would and the WTC should survive some pre-weakening, but in that case you would expect collapse upon aircraft impact, not the subsequent fire weakening. Calculating a scenario to allow for aircraft impact and fire weakening before collapse would obviously be even more tricky.

This part is bolded because one could speculate here. It isn't beyond imagination that a plane could hit the precise location, for example, between floor A and floor D.

No offence intended but a distance of two to three floors (depending on how you measure) is not precise. The variances in NISTs simulation for an example resulted in massive differences to behaviour of things like engines with a difference in impact location of 2 feet. That is 1/6th of a floor or at least 12 times more accurate than your example. This is somewhat argument from incredulity but it is supported by the data, hitting something that accurately is extremely unlikely.

Can you link me to anything in the mainstream that reports the above happening in natural fire?

There have been numerous sources unrelated to the fires in the tower proposed you should consider. Even things like toner use microscopic spherical particles. Fly ash is also another example provided which is used in concrete. Now I am no chemical expert and this stuff is way beyond me, so I refer you to Crazy Chainsaw who should be able to answer more of your questions. He has a thread on this somewhere round here but I could not find it through searching.

I meant, most of the concrete and building contents were totally destroyed. I'm not pushing the usual pulveriztion argument. I was trying to show that the destruction of the building would also destroy evidence of CD.

Potentially yes, things like detcord and solidified liquid iron would have a decent chance of surviving and being recovered though (detcord as it is designed for visibility, solidified chunks of iron because of their mass). It is a valid point though if you did not mean it was 'dustified'.

One thing you really should do is read the NIST report, even the summaries of each section are very good and if you are truly interested in 'the truth' then many of their simulations are repeatable without requiring any sources you might consider suspect. Unfortunately the software to do so may be beyond you unless you are at a university or similar.

 

[R.Mackey]

Thanks Mackey. Sorry for the late reply.

e^n gave pretty good answers already, but I'll add mine anyway.

This would be easier if you didn't bury your answers inside a quote block, however.

[1.] We'd have to start at the NIST report, because all other independent reports cite it for collapse initiation sequence.

No, not really. All other reports cite the visual observations made by NIST. Not all use the NIST estimates of damage, fireproofing, or thermal modeling -- these in fact vary quite a lot between the different independent results, but all nonetheless predict collapse. The collapse initiation mechanisms are quite different between, say, Dr. Quintiere's paper and NIST.

As far as all quoting the visual observations, why not? NIST gathered every photo it could find, and overlaid them with useful measurements. I have yet to see a conspiracist challenge the NIST observations, except of course for the raving lunatics who claim there were no aircraft, or the fires were small.

For the purpose of this thread, the burden of proof is on the official story. I see a few problems in this case.

1. Of the steel nist analyzed, they reported prior steel temps of only ~250C

2.Floor sagging tests could have been more realistic, and sagged much less than the numbers (42 inches?) used in the model.

3. Loss of fireproofing tests were unrealistic (shot gun blasts on unrealistic steel pieces)

4. very little real physical evidence supports the idea that the fires burnt long enough and hot enough to get STEEL temperatures hot enough to cause what we saw (2 photos of buckling).

No, no, no, and... no. I cover all of these concerns in my whitepaper. In the first case, as I've told legions of doubters over the past two years, the analyzed steel is only steel that could be identified. Steel that gets heated more than that loses its identifying marks. Some steel got so hot that it couldn't even be tested. See NCSTAR1-3 for pictures of bales of former truss material, for instance. Then tell me if it only reached 250^oC. But since it had no identifying marks to begin with, and nobody could be sure it wasn't heated after collapse instead, it's left out of the analysis. Nonetheless, there is other support for excessive temperatures, i.e. the reports from the NYPD aviation unit who saw the interior of the structure glowing before collapse. And finally, if it just so happened you were correct in your inference, and no steel did exceed 250^oC, this would also knock out the therm?te theories. Touche.

Second, the "42 inches" referred to are not a full floor model, but a validation experiment of the computer models of a single truss, all by itself, unfireproofed, heated to uniform temperature. This is in my whitepaper too. However, the actual structural floor models do, in places, predict even more sagging, but only at edges damaged by the impact, i.e. in free space. There are photos of this happening in real life, so this result is totally valid. Regarding the floor sagging tests, they were certification tests, not an attempt to recreate the post-impact conditions. In these tests, the trusses were fully fireproofed and fully intact. Apples to oranges comparison.

Third, the "shotgun tests" are not ideal, but did use pieces of steel sized to match the truss diagonals. It also proved that SFRM loss was expected over a huge range of impact conditions. There's no better testing I'm aware of. I mention in my whitepaper, discussing this issue with Eric Douglas, ways the testing could be further improved, but there's no reason to doubt NIST's results -- it merely could be refined, and should since we will use SFRM in future construction...

Fourth, take a look at NCSTAR1-5E. You will see direct evidence for temperatures required, in the form of a scale test. Dr. Quintiere's scale test predicts even higher temperatures, enough to defeat even fully intact fireproofing in the time allotted. That's more than enough physical evidence for me.

2. I agree with this, because I see it too. That also has me wondering. Therm?te could be a possible answer. I saw a theory i'll try to dig up for you that works in therm?te and blasts. Be patient.

I'll be quite interested to see that. Thus far I've asked everyone I've talked to, even charlatans like Max Photon, and gotten no answer.

3. from wiki again.

Quote:
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproven premise is true instead.

If you're suggesting I made an argument from personal incredulity, you're sadly mistaken. It so happens that I'm working a project with NASA Dryden that involves flying a King Air in an extremely tightly controlled flight path in order to simulate Martian gravity conditions with low vibration. The best pilots in the world -- and I'm not kidding -- can mostly keep the aircraft within a tube 5 m in diameter, and within 1 degree of the prescribed pitch angle. No airliner will do better than that. Also, the margin of uncertainty in NIST's impact estimates are published, and they're larger than this.

Regarding Purdue's "not yet published" results, a preprint is available, and I link it in my whitepaper. I'm not making stuff up here. Not one bit. Purdue's results are also totally reasonable to anyone who's ever done dynamic modeling, or studied deterministic chaos.

[4.] Hoffman points out;

Paraphrased: CD is an engineered event, and as such can be engineered for specific needs. There is at least one example of a known CD not showing up on the local seismic record.

The seismic record for 9-11 is what it is, a record of vibrations; what caused the vibrations is open to interpretation. But, to assume that ALL CD would have a single type of seismic pattern is simply unfounded.

Ah, yes, Jim Hoffman. I'm not a fan.

Hoffman is wrong on many levels. We know that the aircraft impacts did show up on the seismic records. This proves, beyond any doubt, that mechanical destruction by explosives would also show up -- the seismic coupling between column and the LDEO seismograph is confirmed. Furthermore, Brett Blanchard of Protec describes additional portable seismographs that were in the area, sensitive enough to pick up not only the impacts and collapses, but air blast events as well. No explosives on these either.

The seismic story doesn't rule out "therm?te," since that doesn't send any impulse through the columns, but this hypothesis is ruled out through other means.

Besides, all you challenged was the seismic records. The audio and video records still remain unchallenged, and also prove no explosives.

Steel pieces with slag were recovered and tested and found to have therm?te residue.

The same signiture (therm?te residue) is found in once molten iron microspheres.
(for the above, remember the burden of prrof is on you for this thread. so show me some lab results that show the same can happen in fire induced collapse)

And to be confirmed, unreacted thermite has been recovered.

Before we even get into whether or not "normal fire" could do this, assuming the above is true (it's not), how do you disambiguate from the thermal lances used in the recovery effort? I wouldn't be surprised at all to find all of these features.

If you found "unreacted thermite," which again you haven't, then we have something interesting. I'm expecting a device. If you can produce that, well, then we can talk about alternate theories. But I know you can't.

At this point we've gotten far too hypothetical. If you produced (a) a reasonable alternate hypothesis, and (b) physical evidence supporting this, like an undetonated device, then I would take this theory seriously. In the real world, however, I'm still waiting for both.

In addition, most building contents and concrete were pulverized into dust.

No. Even Steven Jones says this is false. And what pulverization there is can only be described by gravity. If not, then you have to postulate an enormous additional explosive -- not therm?te -- contribution to the destruction. By "enormous," I mean > 100 tons TNT equivalent, since that's the approximate collapse energy of each tower. And, somehow, you have to also hide this fabulous amount of explosives.

Fat chance.

[5.] Refer to my response to number 3.

No dice. It's not a matter of personal incredulity if it's shared by everyone. If you can produce a valid hypothesis, then you can require me to refute it directly. But until then, it's not an issue. You're asking me to accept a theory that you can't even define. I, on the other hand, have a perfectly viable, working theory. I win.

 

[MIKILLINI]

it is a large burden of proof. i wonder what it would take to prove the WTC buildings were CD?

ps. start a new thread with 5 pieces of evidence for cD and i'll respond there.

I also wondered how these buildings could be brought down by CD. Along with that thought came a question almost simultaneously; Has there ever been a building as tall as the WTC towers brought down by CD? No there has not.

Then more questions; Why would you rig up the towers for demolition and then set them off, murdering your own citizens at the risk of getting caught?
Wasn't the image of planes crashing into these structures disturbing enough?
Wouldn't crashing an airliner into the Statue of Liberty have made a stronger resounding effect on the American psyche since it was a much more recognizable and beloved symbol of America?

I have no evidence of CD on the twin towers, nor have I come across any precedents of reference to use as a similar comparison: Such as a top down demolition on buildings of such magnitude as the towers were.

Like I say, since there has been no proof presented of CD on the towers, then those who believe it was a CD have a large burden to carry. I'm not one of those who believe it was a CD.
Now do you see what I mean?

 

[Gravy]

Yes, Sizzler, it beggars belief that fireproofing could have been removed by airliners impacting at 440-580 mph.

 

[Sizzler]

e^n gave pretty good answers already, but I'll add mine anyway.

This would be easier if you didn't bury your answers inside a quote block, however.




No, not really. All other reports cite the visual observations made by NIST. Not all use the NIST estimates of damage, fireproofing, or thermal modeling -- these in fact vary quite a lot between the different independent results, but all nonetheless predict collapse. The collapse initiation mechanisms are quite different between, say, Dr. Quintiere's paper and NIST.

As far as all quoting the visual observations, why not? NIST gathered every photo it could find, and overlaid them with useful measurements. I have yet to see a conspiracist challenge the NIST observations, except of course for the raving lunatics who claim there were no aircraft, or the fires were small.



No, no, no, and... no. I cover all of these concerns in my whitepaper. In the first case, as I've told legions of doubters over the past two years, the analyzed steel is only steel that could be identified. Steel that gets heated more than that loses its identifying marks. Some steel got so hot that it couldn't even be tested. See NCSTAR1-3 for pictures of bales of former truss material, for instance. Then tell me if it only reached 250^oC. But since it had no identifying marks to begin with, and nobody could be sure it wasn't heated after collapse instead, it's left out of the analysis. Nonetheless, there is other support for excessive temperatures, i.e. the reports from the NYPD aviation unit who saw the interior of the structure glowing before collapse. And finally, if it just so happened you were correct in your inference, and no steel did exceed 250^oC, this would also knock out the therm?te theories. Touche.

Second, the "42 inches" referred to are not a full floor model, but a validation experiment of the computer models of a single truss, all by itself, unfireproofed, heated to uniform temperature. This is in my whitepaper too. However, the actual structural floor models do, in places, predict even more sagging, but only at edges damaged by the impact, i.e. in free space. There are photos of this happening in real life, so this result is totally valid. Regarding the floor sagging tests, they were certification tests, not an attempt to recreate the post-impact conditions. In these tests, the trusses were fully fireproofed and fully intact. Apples to oranges comparison.

Third, the "shotgun tests" are not ideal, but did use pieces of steel sized to match the truss diagonals. It also proved that SFRM loss was expected over a huge range of impact conditions. There's no better testing I'm aware of. I mention in my whitepaper, discussing this issue with Eric Douglas, ways the testing could be further improved, but there's no reason to doubt NIST's results -- it merely could be refined, and should since we will use SFRM in future construction...

Fourth, take a look at NCSTAR1-5E. You will see direct evidence for temperatures required, in the form of a scale test. Dr. Quintiere's scale test predicts even higher temperatures, enough to defeat even fully intact fireproofing in the time allotted. That's more than enough physical evidence for me.


I'll be quite interested to see that. Thus far I've asked everyone I've talked to, even charlatans like Max Photon, and gotten no answer.



If you're suggesting I made an argument from personal incredulity, you're sadly mistaken. It so happens that I'm working a project with NASA Dryden that involves flying a King Air in an extremely tightly controlled flight path in order to simulate Martian gravity conditions with low vibration. The best pilots in the world -- and I'm not kidding -- can mostly keep the aircraft within a tube 5 m in diameter, and within 1 degree of the prescribed pitch angle. No airliner will do better than that. Also, the margin of uncertainty in NIST's impact estimates are published, and they're larger than this.

Regarding Purdue's "not yet published" results, a preprint is available, and I link it in my whitepaper. I'm not making stuff up here. Not one bit. Purdue's results are also totally reasonable to anyone who's ever done dynamic modeling, or studied deterministic chaos.


Ah, yes, Jim Hoffman. I'm not a fan.

Hoffman is wrong on many levels. We know that the aircraft impacts did show up on the seismic records. This proves, beyond any doubt, that mechanical destruction by explosives would also show up -- the seismic coupling between column and the LDEO seismograph is confirmed. Furthermore, Brett Blanchard of Protec describes additional portable seismographs that were in the area, sensitive enough to pick up not only the impacts and collapses, but air blast events as well. No explosives on these either.

The seismic story doesn't rule out "therm?te," since that doesn't send any impulse through the columns, but this hypothesis is ruled out through other means.

Besides, all you challenged was the seismic records. The audio and video records still remain unchallenged, and also prove no explosives.



Before we even get into whether or not "normal fire" could do this, assuming the above is true (it's not), how do you disambiguate from the thermal lances used in the recovery effort? I wouldn't be surprised at all to find all of these features.

If you found "unreacted thermite," which again you haven't, then we have something interesting. I'm expecting a device. If you can produce that, well, then we can talk about alternate theories. But I know you can't.

At this point we've gotten far too hypothetical. If you produced (a) a reasonable alternate hypothesis, and (b) physical evidence supporting this, like an undetonated device, then I would take this theory seriously. In the real world, however, I'm still waiting for both.



No. Even Steven Jones says this is false. And what pulverization there is can only be described by gravity. If not, then you have to postulate an enormous additional explosive -- not therm?te -- contribution to the destruction. By "enormous," I mean > 100 tons TNT equivalent, since that's the approximate collapse energy of each tower. And, somehow, you have to also hide this fabulous amount of explosives.

Fat chance.



No dice. It's not a matter of personal incredulity if it's shared by everyone. If you can produce a valid hypothesis, then you can require me to refute it directly. But until then, it's not an issue. You're asking me to accept a theory that you can't even define. I, on the other hand, have a perfectly viable, working theory. I win.

Thanks for your reply mackey (e^n I don't have time for 2 conversations, reply to this one).

First and foremost i need to read your paper. Unfortunetely it is the busy season at work.

OP was unfair, however it has spawned an interesting topic.

Indeed the precise location of impact could not be replicated by a pilot.

Here's an idea paraphrased from another blogger:

Floors 92 through 98 were not rigged with explosive(X?). Floors 99 to 110 were rigged explosive(X?) and engineered more like a traditional CD. Floors 91 and below were rigged with explosive(X?) and engineered as a top to bottom CD.

Therm?te was used to cut a significant portion of steel support structures throughout the whole building.

Steel was cut with therm?te just prior to collapse. The top section fails due to explosive(X?) and falls in traditional pattern for a few moments until the lower section begins top down CD.

This pattern gives the effect of a natural collapse at impact point followed by progressive collapse due to falling upper section. This effect would only need to be seen for a few seconds due to the dust clouds covering the rest of the collapse.

So in said theory, the plane would only need to strike between floors 92 and 98. The precise location wthin those floors wouldn't matter.