DC: Why do you think WTC7 was a CD?

[thewholesoul]

It's interesting how you have deduced the entire gist of NIST's explanation of the collapse down to a single sentence. However once again, as you have done so repeatedly you have vastly over simplified the explanation."Then the collapse ensued" is not an explanation to explain the collapse,

I know, that is why i said “first we have the claim: global collapse then ensued”. A claim is not the same thing as an explanation.

The only reason why this seems to be a fallacy to you seems to be your nagging lack of comprehension as to how 1/5 of a tower destroys 4/5, or (bolded):

"test how a sudden, symetrical, freefalling global collapse can occur from the gravity collapse of 1/10th of the upper structure"

It is only nagging because noone can answer it by providing an example! You may have the most convincing theoretical explanation but I want some beef. There is nowhere in archecture, and no experiments that prove how 1/10 th of a structure “crushes” approximately 8/10ths of the same structure below. If there was you would have cited one already.

Think about it, if you had two trains, one four times longer than the other and crashed the smaller train into the rear of the longer train. Of course the smaller train will be crushed upon impact of course the smaller train will slow down upon impact as opposed to accelerating and finally it will not crush all the way through the longer train, even at top speed. Can you find even one analogy in the natural world?

It just seems absurd to me that 1/5TH when dropped on 4/5th of the same object/structure will NOT get slowed down – but in fact accelerate – and yet at the same time “crush and pulverize” the larger heavier portion by gravity alone!!

I can only assume that you're calling this an incomplete explanation by the fact that they do not detail how the pancaking progressed the collapse (Is this correct?) as opposed to them saying that the floor necessarily pancaked following the collapse initiation.

The fact NIST not explain how the pancaking progressed is yet another reason why their explanation was incomplete. But where were the pancakes Grizzly? Does NIST subscribe to the ‘pancake hypothesis’ is so then quote me where they say so. The towers were 110 stories high how many stories was the rubble pile? How was it pancaking and pulverizing at the same time? and have you any examples of this process in other structural failures and/or in the natural world?

But yes their explanation is incomplete for numerous reasons. This fact was point out in the Journal of Civil Engineering.

I provided samples in Post #1101 which shows the exposed core structures of both towers after the perimeter walls and floors yielded and collapsed. Perhaps the easiest way I could put this is that the cores suffered a local failure in the impact zones, but did not themselves fail (farther from the impact zones) until they lost the lateral support structure provided by the external columns and floor structures.

Nice hypothesis but i would imagine very difficult to prove. Preplanted explosives is also a nice hypothesis but less difficult to prove.

This is where Richard Gages card board box experiment and your assertion of assigning proportional size values to the building sections fails.

To debunk richard gage’s experiment you will have to make your own card board box experiment and demonstrate how the upper section when dropped over other cardboard boxes falls at the same speed through those cardboard boxes as opposed to being dropped over air. Can you do that?

To debunk my claim you will need to provide an example. Not to mention it would be nice if you could device a way to prove your own ‘theoretical’ explanations.

Your objection to the possibility of global collapse starting from a comparatively 'small' section of tower then seems to require that additional failures must be initiated in order to continue the collapse progression. Some articles you have used in the past even speculate that secondary devices were place on multiple floors to accomplish this. With the cores initially surviving the main collapse, does this not hurt your theory?

No. It suggests explosives took out the stronger and heavier outer columns. ONLY the inner weaker columns were left momentarily. Which suggests that explosives were not planted on them. The link i sent you goes into great detail on this matter.

I'm rather curious how you propose they run a truly representative test. Running physical tests at one to one scale to simulate the kind of loads that the structure was bearing on it in addition to the fires, is nearly impossible to accomplish,

I am not proposing anything. i’m simply stating a fact that in the context of the official hypothesis total collapse remains unproven. And arguing that it is “nearly impossible” to test the official explanation is hardly a rebuttal to this fact. So i take it that you concede that in the context of the official hypothesis total collapse remains unproven?

There are both physical, and computer modeling limitations to what they can do to experiment with this. Smashing cinder blocks against each other and using card board box models as your favorite physicist and architects like to use to discredit NIST's findings isn't any way to go about it.

What findings? NIST conducted no tests of their hypothesis post initial collapse. Repeat – no tests. Besides how would you go about it? you concede that the official hypotheis in relation to total collapse remains unproven, you are unable to debunk their cinder blocks and card board box experiments, you are unable to come up with your own experiments, so i dont think you are in a position to down play their efforts no matter how simple they may appear.

Needless to say, I'm sure somebody out there has a reasonable proposition, I'm far from genius level... but there are numerous complications in trying to model every grain of detail in the global collapse of the towers.

If someone finds a proposition – even a hypothetical one – they should pass it on to NIST.

Can global collapse of the ratios seen on 911, (12 floors crushing 92 floors) be re-produced on ANY object or structure at near free fall speeds with pulverizing forces? Are we taking about a metaphysical concept here or something that can be proven scientificially?

There is a fundamental matter to keep in mind with this case, The Big Bang theory is based on observations of residual effects in space, such as radiation dispersion, the outward expansion of the universe, among many other things, which are deduced through careful observation and in many other cases mathematics.

The big bang theory predicted that if the universe began with a bang then one would expect to observe the universe expanding. So once this prediction ws validated by observations their theory was also validated. Now what predictions does the official global collapse theory propose? Drop 1/5 of a tube-in-tube structure on the rest of the structure and IT WILL CRUSH IT ALL THE DOWN AT NEAR FREEFALL SPEEED.

The same is true for evolution, scientists observe the adaptations which species have made, and in some case where adaptations are disappearing. For example snakes have adapted in such a fashion that they no longer require extremities (arms and legs), yet certain species of snakes, have remnant features which indicate that they once had limbs. Crude example perhaps, however the theory of evolution is based on such observations.

The theory of evolution makes predictions (e.g. fossils will confirm changes in species over time) and observe these predictions in the natural world. What observations in the natural world validates the global collapse theory?

Your other examples are generally the same, they have been validated through mathematics and observations.

The atomic theory was proved by testing.

And the World trade centers have been studied extensively from observations, mathematics, engineering, and computer simulation modeling.

Observations: are to be explained by a working hypothesis, that hypothesis should then be proven. It needs to be proven because observations alone prove nothing. To illustrate when i observe the twin towers 'collapsing' i observe a controlled demolition.

Mathematics: mathematics are by nature theoretical. As published in the Journal of Civil Engineering NIST's calculations of global collapse are incomplete.

engineering: name one engineering experiment that demonstrates a global collapse.

Computer simulation:there is not one computer simulation of the total collapse

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

You need to up your game if a moron like me can show you up.

your certainly not a moron.

once you either run from my challenge to answer post 1057, 1063 i will not respond to you again.

you didnt respond to post 1057, 1063. so as predicted you got knocked out.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

This was a good thread. Sorry to see it fade away. Thanks to all who contributed. Sorry I personally didn't really have much substance to offer.

hey dont be too hard on yourself applecorped, you got plenty of good ad homs in!

 

[funk de fino]

your certainly not a moron.

you didnt respond to post 1057, 1063. so as predicted you got knocked out.

peace

How old are you? I have shown you up. Oh no

Your analogy in the last post to Grizzly is amongst the stupidest you have ever used. The large train and small train is missing one vital ingredient that was an available source of energy in the towers.

thats right - GRAVITY

You missed it out. That is the whole point of a collapse. This is Stundoe material. Well donje you did not even need me to prove you did not have a clue what you were talking about. You did it all by yourself.

You talk about big bang theory and say it is validated. So are progressive collapses. There are papers on them. They are well known in the building industry and in real life. There are building codes to help prevent them You are trying to say they are not proven and you are wrong.

Another FAIL

NIST do explain the pancake progression (not initiation remember). It is the same explanation I gave you for global collapse from the December FAQS. Each floor was designed to carry a certain amount. When the upper portion fell on the lower portion the connections holding the floor to the core and the perimeter failed. Gravity took over. Then the core collapsed due to lack of support. You must try harder.

You are also back to claiming freefall (gage experiment) which is incorrect. How many things do you want me to show you that you are being wrong about? It's becoming embarrassing.

Progressive collapse is a well known phenomena and has been observed from as early as around the 1960's. You are in denial here pal. What you are claiming is that it needs to be verified because progressive collapse is a unique first time event that has never happened before. This is untrue.

Do you think ther big bang was caused by explosives?

 

[applecorped]

hey dont be too hard on yourself applecorped, you got plenty of good ad homs in!

Thanks, I appreciate all your posts as well. Keep up the excellent work.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

I know, that is why i said “first we have the claim: global collapse then ensued”. A claim is not the same thing as an explanation.

It wasn't a claim, you left out the most important part of my post here: "that is what was observed" to happen.

It is only nagging because noone can answer it by providing an example! You may have the most convincing theoretical explanation but I want some beef. There is nowhere in architecture, and no experiments that prove how 1/10 th of a structure “crushes” approximately 8/10ths of the same structure below. If there was you would have cited one already.

Think about it, if you had two trains, one four times longer than the other and crashed the smaller train into the rear of the longer train. Of course the smaller train will be crushed upon impact of course the smaller train will slow down upon impact as opposed to accelerating and finally it will not crush all the way through the longer train, even at top speed. Can you find even one analogy in the natural world?

You seem to forget that gravity is a constant force of acceleration. The train in your attempt at an analogy will not act the same by a long shot.

Let's modify the model. Space the train cars 12 ft apart and ram one with the mass of 15 cars into the rear. Energy is lost in the process in a combination between friction and impact.

You're trying to compare that to acre-size floors that are oriented vertically held only by core columns and columns along the perimeter. With gravity constantly working to pull them to the ground.

Let's go back to the modified train analogy. When the massive (15 cars worth) car hits the rear most, it cannot stop the mass from advancing, however the mass loses acceleration in the process, in effect it slows down. It moves the next car, and slows some more, and then so on, until it stops.

In the towers if the floor below gives, gravity takes over and [/i] accelerates the floors above another 12 ft, hits the next floor, loses some energy, and then the floor gives, unable to take the load, and then gravity forces the mass to accelerate downwards again, and again.

In summary: There are two significant problems with your model

- Trains obviously do not act like buildings. I modified the model to compare them to horizontally oriented floor slabs, but even that is stretching the analogy

- Your train model is oriented horizontally, any acceleration offered by the impacting car is not constant. The impacting car will lose some of the energy with each impact. Gravity is a constant force of acceleration, some energy is lost with each impact of the floor below, however if it is unable to hande the stresses and yields, it adds to the mass of the upper block and then gravity accelerates it down, essentially it regains what it loses.

It just seems absurd to me that 1/5TH when dropped on 4/5th of the same object/structure will NOT get slowed down – but in fact accelerate – and yet at the same time “crush and pulverize” the larger heavier portion by gravity alone!!

Ironically, this whole principal is gravity. The exterior perimeter columns were being forced out laterally, by the mass of floors inside that were failing, and the connections the floors had to the core were sheered off. The scale we're speaking about is enormous...

The principal makes sense to me... if it doesn't make sense to you then enter the architecture field and find out.

Does NIST subscribe to the ‘pancake hypothesis’ is so then quote me where they say so.

NIST concluded that sagging floor trusses pulled the perimeter columns in causing failure on the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2 initiating the collapse of each tower. The pancake hypothesis has nothing to do with collapse initiation. NIST never said it did, however, the collapse progression was clearly a pancake collapse as supported by the significant sections of core structure remaining briefly following the main collapse in both towers.

The towers were 110 stories high how many stories was the rubble pile?

This is irrelevant, the piles necessarily would be no more than several stories high (this includes the debris in the basement sections of the towers). The towers might have stood at 110 stories, but the interior space (AKA circulation) was mostly air.

How was it pancaking and pulverizing at the same time?

Think of the scale of the floors. 4-inches of concrete laid out on corrugated metal decking and space-framing. At that scale 4-inch thickness compared to an acres of coverage is like scaling concrete to the size of a bedroom and thinning to the same thickness as tissue paper. 150,000+ tons falling on a thin concrete slab, do the guessing work.

and have you any examples of this process in other structural failures and/or in the natural world?

Sure, and the examples are pretty ironic... look at every controlled demolition and look at how much dust the buildings create when they collapse. The explosives don't do that, the collapsing building does.

Nice hypothesis but i would imagine very difficult to prove. Preplanted explosives is also a nice hypothesis but less difficult to prove.

How is that difficult to prove? How are preplanted explosives less difficult?
Explain...
Given that you have technical issues with how much of a building is required to either collapse an entire structure, or topple over, or simply drop and sit on top of a compromised structure, isn't the point of your explosives to weaken the core to enable this to happen?

If so, why did the buildings collapse without the core failing simultaneously?

To debunk richard gage’s experiment you will have to make your own card board box experiment and demonstrate how the upper section when dropped over other cardboard boxes falls at the same speed through those cardboard boxes as opposed to being dropped over air. Can you do that?

Gage's experiment is a bunk, and simply won't answer the question.

The best analogy to this is to look at the Hercules Beatle, which can carry 850 times its own weight. Scale that ration to a 200-pound person, can the person carry the weight, or will he be crushed the instant the weight is loaded?

This is what Gage is trying to compare, and it's laughable, among the many other faults with that card board box model

To debunk my claim you will need to provide an example. Not to mention it would be nice if you could device a way to prove your own ‘theoretical’ explanations.

You're comparison isn't any better than Gage's. When you run models horizontally you're dealing with frictional forces that render acceleration non-constant. The overall model is simply apples and oranges... I can simplify it to bear some relevance by thinking of the train cars as individual floor slabs and space them apart, but the dynamics simply aren't the same by any stretch of the imagination.

No. It suggests explosives took out the stronger and heavier outer columns. ONLY the inner weaker columns were left momentarily. Which suggests that explosives were not planted on them.

This is just baffling... wasn't part of your thermite theory arguing that these core columns were being cut?

So i take it that you concede that in the context of the official hypothesis total collapse remains unproven?

no....

you are unable to debunk their cinder blocks and card board box experiments, you are unable to come up with your own experiments, so i dont think you are in a position to down play their efforts no matter how simple they may appear.

I just explained why the cinder block and card board box fiasco's are such foolish experiments. The concrete in the towers was not masonry, and Jones' experiment certainly makes no attempt to scale that concrete to a reasonable ratio to accurately model that. As a physicist, Jones should have been well aware of the ratios he's comparing to, but he's obviously not...

Now what predictions does the official global collapse theory propose? Drop 1/5 of a tube-in-tube structure on the rest of the structure and IT WILL CRUSH IT ALL THE DOWN AT NEAR FREEFALL SPEEED.

You made sense until this came up... you're looking at the towers as a single unit, I am looking at the towers based on their constituent parts when I look at how they collapsed. And since my statement about free fall didn't get posited and you keep bringing it up, what acceleration value would you estimate to be a base line for near free fall speed? Or rather acceleration?

The towers each took 15 seconds or more to collapse, so I'd appreciate if you gave me an indication of what this base value is that makes it 'near free fall' I'm not sure what the distinction is here, it clearly fell rapidly but the relevant issue at hand is acceleration, not velocity. It certainly doesn't appear to be 9.8 m/s^2m judging by the time taken to collapse.

What observations in the natural world validates the global collapse theory?

Knowledge of the attributes of the building materials, and previous incidents where small events produced proportionally large results... Have you ever looked into the ronin point incident in the 1960's? Should a small explosion have led to the collapse of every floor on that part of the building?


As for the remaining parts I haven't covered I will get to them later today

 

[doobiedoright]

I know, that is why i said “first we have the claim: global collapse then ensued”. A claim is not the same thing as an explanation.



Nice hypothesis but i would imagine very difficult to prove. Preplanted explosives is also a nice hypothesis but less difficult to prove.



peace

So if it is so easy how bout you prove it?
Show just one piece of det cord.
How about just one piece of explosive residue?
Anything....I mean if it is so less difficult to prove it should be easy!

 

[thewholesoul]

I rather suspect that by “during the collapse” they are referring to the incident as a whole, as opposed to specifically while the buildings collapsed. You quote, moreover, the term “during collapse”. This indeed sounds more specific than general. The problem, however, is that the term “during collapse” does not appear even in Jones’ conspiracy paper, let alone in the RJ Lee report. Nevertheless, as you say, without a copy of either the full report or the mislaid paper it will not be possible to know quite what they mean or why they mean it.

The following quotations can be found in Jones’s paper and are both attributed to the RJ Lee report 2003:

“extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize”

and

“extremely high temperatures during the collapse”.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Now these quotations were referenced to the RJ Lee Report 2003 and like you I was unable to access the link provided by Jones’s paper. That of course does not mean that these quotations were not within the RJ Lee report 2003.

I agree however that without the original RJ report it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is meant by such quotations. In the RJ summary report the following statement is made:

“In addition to the spherical iron and aluminosilicate particles, a variety of heavy metal particles including lead, cadmium, vanadium, yttrium, arsenic, bismuth, and barium particles were produced by the pulverizing, melting and/or combustion of the host materials such as solder, computer screens, and paint during the WTC Event”.

http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf

By “produced” one could infer that the pulverization “released” the already evaporated materials in particulate form. Or one could infer that by “produced” the author suggests that the evaporation “resulted from” the pulverization? After going over the RJ summary report I suspect that the former is a more accurate interpretation which leads me to believe that the quotations in Jones’s paper are perhaps, as you suggest, speaking generally.

I did not claim that the entire study should be disregarded.

Sorry i misinterpreted your statement.

I pointed out that if the study firstly claims that the particles in question must have formed during the collapses and secondly openly entertains the possibility that they formed during the fires, then it has contradicted itself and thus cannot be straightforwardly considered a compelling authority on that particular matter.

Not unless it is possible for certain materials to evaporate during an office fire AND during a building collapse. However if it is not possible for materials to evaporate during the collapse then yes I would agree with your concerns. Personally, as I have expressed elsewhere, that I doubt pulverization of materials causes evaporation.

In any event, as I say, I do not imagine that the study actually does contain said contradiction; rather, I suspect that, when it comes to the mislaid paper, you have suffered a simple lapse of either memory or understanding.

In Jones’s paper quotation referenced to the RJ Lee report 2003 state that there was extreme temperatures during the collapse. If anything I am guilty of literal interpretation because contrary to what you have stated these quotations are found in Jones’s paper.

The paper from which you have quoted above – one we have already discussed – merely explains that World Trade Center Dust is distinctive. I understand that it is distinctive. The problem, however, is that – as alluded to in that same paper – World Trade Center Dust is composed, in part, of particles that formed both before (for instance, during the building fires) and after (for instance, during the debris piles fires) the buildings collapsed.

Allow me to give a brief summary of our exchanges thus far. Initially we discussed the evaporated steel recovered from WTC 7. I argued that it may have occured during the WTC 7 event (explosions, fires, collapse), you argued that we did not know when the eutectic reactions took place:

The question of whether or not the reactions took place during the building fires – as opposed to during the debris pile fires, etc. – is precisely the point at issue.

I then presented the RJ Lee report which proves that evaporation occured during the WTC event and not in the rubble pile. This fact is reflected in your above comment: “World Trade Center Dust is composed, in part, of particles that formed both before (for instance, during the building fires) and after (for instance, during the debris piles fires) the buildings collapsed.” My objective was to establish that eutectic reactions occured during the WTC event, I have achieved this objective, and your comment that evaporated particles may have been produced prior to 911 and after the event is neither here nor there since you concede that eutectic reactions did occur during the WTC event.

Now the next question is – can the WTC fires evaporate metal particles? The RJ report suggests that this may be the case but does not state the requisite temperatures. Regardless, evaporation means that metal must have melted since in order for a solid to evaporate it must first become liquid and this of course stands in contradiction with NIST’s statement that in no instance did they report that steel had melted in the WTC fire.

Moreover we have the interesting situation were eutectic reactions or the “swiss cheese effect” occured slowly in the case of steel recovered from the WTC 7 rubble pile and then it apparantly occured rapidly within the WTC fires? What are the requisite temperatures Par for eutectic reactions to occur rapidly?

You seem to be potentially relying upon the following argument:
• Alumino-silicate particles were found in the World Trade Center Dust.

Yes this is a fact
•

Hour-long building fires cannot boil and evaporate alumino-silicates.

I cant say for sure, I know that for evaporation to occur that a solid must become liquid at some point before it turns to vapor. Were the WTC fires hot enough to melt steel? thats your burden to prove.
•

Therefore, the alumino-silicate particles were formed specifically while the buildings collapsed.

No, I have accepted, for argument sake, that eutectic reactions occured in the rubble pile (in relation to recovered steel from WTC 7). You have accepted that they have also occured during the WTC event. The remaining matter at hand is an empirical matter. Can alumino-silicates not just melt but evaporate in a “swiss cheese effect” when exposed to temperatures generated by an office fire?
•

Therefore, the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed.

This was not my argument. If you recall I was arguing that extreme temperatures were present during the WTC event. We know that ALL the particles mentioned in Jones’s paper can be produced within temperatures higher than that of an office fire. This fact is not debatable.

What is debatable is that a an office fire can. What I am trying to say is that our exchange has moved on from “when” the reactions took place to “how”. It is for this reason I ask you to prove how an office fire can evaporate steel? The author of the RJ reports suggests that it can but I am looking for proof. This would involve experiments and/or comparative studies which identify and produce the swiss cheese phenomena from an office fire.

So my argument runs as follows:
- Certain particles indicate extreme temperatures may have been present during the WTC event
- [If] it is not possible to evaporate alumino silicates (i.e. produce the swiss cheese effect) from temperatures equivalent to the WTC office fires
- Then, the particles in question prove that extreme temperatures must have been present during the WTC event

Please refrain from attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is you and not I making specific claims as to when the eutectic reactions took place. Thus, the burden of proof, as I have explained, is on you.

As explained the “when” question is done and dusted. You admit that eutectic reactions occured during the WTC event. Next question is “how” this occured. NIST claim that no steel melted in the WTC fires, yet we know that steel must have melted because evaporated particles have been found. So I am not shifting the burden of proof, I admitted that I cannot prove whether the evaporation occured during the actual collapse. That claim was based on several quotations taken from the RJ Lee report which have been general statements as discussed above.

In any event, because you defend the official explanation the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how an office fire can evaporate steel. Because I defend the CD explanation the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate how explosives can evaporate steel. I think we can both agree that the latter can generate sufficient temperatures thus the most relevant question that you continue avoiding is can the former?

You are mistaken. The NIST FAQ does not state that “in no instance did steel melt in the WTC fires”. Rather, it states that in no instance did NIST report that “steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires”.

So when I point out that there is a contradiction between the RJ report and the NIST report because the former states that steel could have melted in the WTC fires whereas the NIST report does not. Your response is that because NIST ‘didnt report’ steel melting therefore they are open to the possibility that steel did in fact melt during the WTC fires which is therefore not in contradiction with the comment made within the RJ Lee report.

The problem with your response however is that you fail to provide the stated reason why NIST did ‘not report’ that steel melted during WTC fires. To undertsand this we must read their reponse to the following question:

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?
In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. [Because]The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

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

It is clear, or at least should be, that once we place their comment in context we understand that the reason they did ‘not report’ steel melted during the WTC fires is because they concede that the WTC fires were not hot enough. This of course is in contradiction with the RJ Lee report that ‘assumes’ the WTC fires were hot enough but does not speculate as to what the requisite temperatures would have to in order to evaporate alumino-silicates.

That said if you contend that NIST does claim that steel melted during the WTC fires then the burden is on you to provide that specific claim in their final report.

When it comes to the eutectic reactions themselves, on the other hand, yes, I would imagine it is fairly certain they took place during the building fires or building collapses or debris piles fires or a combination thereof.

Because it is you, not I, making these claims the burden of proof rests on you. So can you prove that metals evaporate in an office fire? In a building collapse? Do you think the WTC fires were hot enough? Do you think that metals can evaporate below their melting point and if so how?

In Summary: You have now conceded that you cannot prove that particles unique to the eutectic reactions were formed specifically while – and only while – the buildings collapsed. In light of this (and of a number of other factors), the following two facts are becoming increasingly clear: firstly, you are currently unable to provide proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed; secondly, you will – notwithstanding this mislaid paper riding to the rescue or another kind of evidence altogether presenting itself – continue to be unable to provide proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed. Is this a fair assessment of the situation?

Sure but we have moved on to “how” not “when” as you have conceded long ago that eutectic reactions took place during WTC event.

peace

 

[thewholesoul]

So if it is so easy how bout you prove it?
Show just one piece of det cord.
How about just one piece of explosive residue?
Anything....I mean if it is so less difficult to prove it should be easy!

my claim was that the total collapse in relation to the official hypothesis is and remains unproven according to the scientific method. your line of argument admits this is the case. the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove your hypothesis, not mine.

'red chips' has been found in all dust samples. the chemical signature of these red chips matches that of commercial thermite. the iron-rich spheres produced from a reaction of these red chips have the same chemical signature as iron rich spheres produced from commercial thermite. iron rich spheres with a matching chemical signature were found in abundance within the WTC dust samples.

by the time this information passess peer review I imagine that your NAZI government will have manufactured a war with Iran so as to keep the dumbed down populace distracted.

peace

 

[~enigma~]

by the time this information passess peer review I imagine that your NAZI government will have manufactured a war with Iran so as to keep the dumbed down populace distracted.

And the morons in the truth movement have been claiming the exact same thing since 2004. Do you see a war with Iran?

peace

Considering the above quote of yours, this is really funny...

 

[applecorped]

my claim was that the total collapse in relation to the official hypothesis is and remains unproven according to the scientific method. your line of argument admits this is the case. the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove your hypothesis, not mine.

'red chips' has been found in all dust samples. the chemical signature of these red chips matches that of commercial thermite. the iron-rich spheres produced from a reaction of these red chips have the same chemical signature as iron rich spheres produced from commercial thermite. iron rich spheres with a matching chemical signature were found in abundance within the WTC dust samples.

by the time this information passess peer review I imagine that your NAZI government will have manufactured a war with Iran so as to keep the dumbed down populace distracted.

peace

Sieg Heil TWS! We will come for you next! We can't have you exposing the truth to the masses....er, I mean people on this forum. Carry on truth warrior!!

 

[thewholesoul]

hey funk de fino, i just want to apologise for a post i made a while back. you caught me on a bad day and i said somethings that does not reflect the kind of person i am or would wish to be. i will try in futire neither to insult your intelligence or your character but i will of course include a little tongue and cheek as there is no harm in that you fanatical celtic supporter

How old are you? I have shown you up. Oh no

still no response to post 1057, 1063 i see.

its the same in other threads, you are unable to debunk my arguments. i think a fair minded person could see who is running from who.

Your analogy in the last post to Grizzly is amongst the stupidest you have ever used. The large train and small train is missing one vital ingredient that was an available source of energy in the towers. thats right - GRAVITY

there is more potential energy from a train travelling at "top speed" which i included in my analogy THAN the same train being dropped half its height on another train 4 times longer. now if the former with MORE potential energy is unable to crush a train 4 times its size then the later gravity driven event is even less likely! i am surprised you missed that obvious point.

but if it helps simply imagine the smaller train being dropped on the longer train and watch how: (a) the smaller train also gets crushed on impact and how (b) the smaller train does not crush all the way down the longer train accelerating at near freefall speed.

You missed it out. That is the whole point of a collapse. This is Stundoe material. Well donje you did not even need me to prove you did not have a clue what you were talking about. You did it all by yourself.

how old are you? what does this stundie accusation signify in any case? there is more potential energy from a train travelling at top speed that a train falling by gravity alone. my analogy used a MORE EXTREME example and still could not produce the results the official hypothesis claims to have happened?

You talk about big bang theory and say it is validated. So are progressive collapses. There are papers on them. They are well known in the building industry and in real life. There are building codes to help prevent them You are trying to say they are not proven and you are wrong.

the progressive collapses you mention did not TOTALLY and SYMETRICALLY destroy the buildings. if they did you would have provided just one example. can you name one total symmetrical collapse on a steel framed skyscraper?

and no the total collapse in the context of the official hypothesis remains unproven. i know this because there has been no tests to prove it.

NIST do explain the pancake progression (not initiation remember). It is the same explanation I gave you for global collapse from the December FAQS. Each floor was designed to carry a certain amount. When the upper portion fell on the lower portion the connections holding the floor to the core and the perimeter failed. Gravity took over. Then the core collapsed due to lack of support. You must try harder.

then why did the north tower spire seen by millions on TV fall FIRST?

in any event as i explained to you before the explanation in the FAQ's is INCOMPLETE. it does not provide calculations on those whistles and bells like the Conservation of Energy and Momentum etc. it does not explain the symetrical collapse at near free fall speeds. so next time you cite NIST's explanation please include the qualifier - INCOMPLETE - so as not to mislead any readers.

You are also back to claiming freefall (gage experiment) which is incorrect. How many things do you want me to show you that you are being wrong about? It's becoming embarrassing.

when responding to the following question: 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST said

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

moreover as documented in Section 6.14.4 NIST NCSTAR 1:

"since the stories below the level of collapse inititaion provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling buildinf mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos"

as for gages experiment: you failed to provide a reason why it is wrong. are you arguing that the Law of Conservation of Momentum does not apply to larger bodies? if that is what your saying then please explain

Progressive collapse is a well known phenomena and has been observed from as early as around the 1960's. You are in denial here pal.

NOT ONE progressive collapse observed prior to 911 was TOTAL and SYMETRICAL - if there was just one example you would have provided it already.

What you are claiming is that it needs to be verified because progressive collapse is a unique first time event that has never happened before. This is untrue.

I never claimed progressive collapse never happened before. what i am saying is that if 911 was indeed a progressive collapse then this claim has yet to be proven.
the following quote is from wiki:

Possible examples (of progressive collapse) are the three World Trade Center towers (WTC 1, 2 and WTC 7[1])

the key word to note here is "possible" meaning that it possibly was a progressive collapse or possibly not. the reason why they cannot say for certainty my friend is becuase the total collapse in relation to the official hypothesis remains UNPROVEN.

but if you have a buring desire Hoffmans "progressive collapse challenge" is still out there for anyone who wants to try and prove 911 was indeed a progressive collapse.

Do you think ther big bang was caused by explosives?

yes, nanothermites to be precise though according to NIST the Big Bag theory was more like a Progressive Bang. of course NIST here too, were unable to provide a full explantion of their hypothesis.

peace.

 

[applecorped]

hey funk de fino, i just want to apologise for a post i made a while back. you caught me on a bad day and i said somethings that does not reflect the kind of person i am or would wish to be. i will try in futire neither to insult your intelligence or your character but i will of course include a little tongue and cheek as there is no harm in that you fanatical celtic supporter



still no response to post 1057, 1063 i see.

its the same in other threads, you are unable to debunk my arguments. i think a fair minded person could see who is running from who.



there is more potential energy from a train travelling at "top speed" which i included in my analogy THAN the same train being dropped half its height on another train 4 times longer. now if the former with MORE potential energy is unable to crush a train 4 times its size then the later gravity driven event is even less likely! i am surprised you missed that obvious point.

but if it helps simply imagine the smaller train being dropped on the longer train and watch how: (a) the smaller train also gets crushed on impact and how (b) the smaller train does not crush all the way down the longer train accelerating at near freefall speed.



how old are you? what does this stundie accusation signify in any case? there is more potential energy from a train travelling at top speed that a train falling by gravity alone. my analogy used a MORE EXTREME example and still could not produce the results the official hypothesis claims to have happened?



the progressive collapses you mention did not TOTALLY and SYMETRICALLY destroy the buildings. if they did you would have provided just one example. can you name one total symmetrical collapse on a steel framed skyscraper?

and no the total collapse in the context of the official hypothesis remains unproven. i know this because there has been no tests to prove it.



then why did the north tower spire seen by millions on TV fall FIRST?

in any event as i explained to you before the explanation in the FAQ's is INCOMPLETE. it does not provide calculations on those whistles and bells like the Conservation of Energy and Momentum etc. it does not explain the symetrical collapse at near free fall speeds. so next time you cite NIST's explanation please include the qualifier - INCOMPLETE - so as not to mislead any readers.



when responding to the following question: 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST said

moreover as documented in Section 6.14.4 NIST NCSTAR 1:

as for gages experiment: you failed to provide a reason why it is wrong. are you arguing that the Law of Conservation of Momentum does not apply to larger bodies? if that is what your saying then please explain



NOT ONE progressive collapse observed prior to 911 was TOTAL and SYMETRICAL - if there was just one example you would have provided it already.



I never claimed progressive collapse never happened before. what i am saying is that if 911 was indeed a progressive collapse then this claim has yet to be proven.
the following quote is from wiki:

the key word to note here is "possible" meaning that it possibly was a progressive collapse or possibly not. the reason why they cannot say for certainty my friend is becuase the total collapse in relation to the official hypothesis remains UNPROVEN.

but if you have a buring desire Hoffmans "progressive collapse challenge" is still out there for anyone who wants to try and prove 911 was indeed a progressive collapse.



yes, nanothermites and solgel to be precise

peace.

 

[TexasJack]

the burden of proof lies on your shoulders to prove your hypothesis, not mine.

Wrong, the burden of proof lies with you and your fellow truthers. Truthers want a new investigation, not the logical, rational people who don't buy the insanity of your claims. So, get to work.

 

[~enigma~]

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST said

Quote:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

Did you ever read the N.I.S.T. section you quoted? What fell in 11 and 9 seconds?

 

[Grizzly Bear]

there is more potential energy from a train travelling at "top speed" which i included in my analogy THAN the same train being dropped half its height on another train 4 times longer. now if the former with MORE potential energy is unable to crush a train 4 times its size then the later gravity driven event is even less likely! i am surprised you missed that obvious point.

The total collapse of a building which is oriented vertically and has a constant gravitational force applied to it, the train does not. Again it will not act the same by a long shot. I see no reason to repeat everything I told you before, but I'd have thought that even without responding to that first you'd have read it or made a brief side comment regarding anything wrong with what I said about it...

but if it helps simply imagine the smaller train being dropped on the longer train and watch how: (a) the smaller train also gets crushed on impact and how (b) the smaller train does not crush all the way down the longer train accelerating at near freefall speed.

This still does not set up like a building... Either way this in part deals with the Hercules beattle and human weight lift ratio I brought up earlier, amongst other problems... simply not a working analogy.

there is more potential energy from a train travelling at top speed that a train falling by gravity alone.

However unless you expect that train to enact a constant force and acceleration, the potential energy completely diminishes in any relevant value. Remember that the towers were constantly resisting gravity. If gravity ever diminished you and I would float off into space, the constant force it exerts on everything is what keeps us bound to the ground.

Your train model lacks significantly in scale, and in having a constant acceleration.

my analogy used a MORE EXTREME example and still could not produce the results the official hypothesis claims to have happened?

Because your example places no effort to put the scenario in context. The train is built far differently than a building, so are cars, so are planes, so are a multitude of other examples... Instead of asking why the train cars aren't all being crushed you might consider an experiment which simplifies the collapse to it's most basic components. I described the model in my last post, perhaps you'd like to cover that when you arrive at it.

the progressive collapses you mention did not TOTALLY and SYMETRICALLY destroy the buildings. if they did you would have provided just one example. can you name one total symmetrical collapse on a steel framed skyscraper?

But I asked you a question because I am placing the event in context. The ronin point disaster for example involved nothing of the magnitude of the WTC damage, yet the event that caused the partial collapse was much more extensive than the initiating event that resulted in it.

Should a small gas explosion as seen in the ronin apartments, have resulted in a corner of the building's entire height to collapse? What if the explosion compromised the entire floor as opposed to the corner as that did? How do you believe the results would have differed if it had?

then why did the north tower spire seen by millions on TV fall FIRST?

The spire was supported by a hat truss system on the upper-most floors. It transferred vertical loads between the core and perimeter columns. If the spire began to fall first then likely the core in the impact region failed. The loads for the core would have then been transferred via the hat truss, an unto the perimeter columns, which by then were incapable of supporting the full weight of the upper section

when responding to the following question: 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST said

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

Emphasis added, they are referring to the 1st exterior panels to strike the ground. Was the collapse complete at this point in either tower? NO

as for gages experiment: you failed to provide a reason why it is wrong.

Card board boxes, 'nuff said... You can read my last response for details

I never claimed progressive collapse never happened before. what i am saying is that if 911 was indeed a progressive collapse then this claim has yet to be proven. the following quote is from wiki:

That entire height of the towers were not falling at the same time is basically the ear mark. Did any part of the towers fail (start falling) before the collapse wave reached them?

 

[funk de fino]

hey funk de fino, i just want to apologise for a post i made a while back. you caught me on a bad day and i said somethings that does not reflect the kind of person i am or would wish to be. i will try in futire neither to insult your intelligence or your character but i will of course include a little tongue and cheek as there is no harm in that you fanatical celtic supporter

Neither Rangers or celtic, irrelevant anyway. But lets move on from it.

still no response to post 1057, 1063 i see.

its the same in other threads, you are unable to debunk my arguments. i think a fair minded person could see who is running from who.

Anyone debunks them you just ignore it.

there is more potential energy from a train travelling at "top speed" which i included in my analogy THAN the same train being dropped half its height on another train 4 times longer. now if the former with MORE potential energy is unable to crush a train 4 times its size then the later gravity driven event is even less likely! i am surprised you missed that obvious point.

More potential energy in a train crash than thousands of tons of skyscraper being dropped on another part with a constant gravity energy? You are having a laugh here right?

Do you know how much energy it takes something like the space shuttle to overcome gravity? I suppose they should just use traing diesel engines in the space shuttle?

but if it helps simply imagine the smaller train being dropped on the longer train and watch how: (a) the smaller train also gets crushed on impact and how (b) the smaller train does not crush all the way down the longer train accelerating at near freefall speed.

This is better analogy because you are at least using the constant force created by gravity whch your other train analogy did not. The gravity is a constant which does not stop whereas the train engine does not create a constant and the energy available decreases over time during the crash. Please tell me you see this? If not, I am wasting my time and you need physics classes.

how old are you? what does this stundie accusation signify in any case? there is more potential energy from a train travelling at top speed that a train falling by gravity alone. my analogy used a MORE EXTREME example and still could not produce the results the official hypothesis claims to have happened?

It is a stundie. There is far more potential energy stored in the towers than you can ever create with a train with a couple of diesel engines. Get a grip man.

the progressive collapses you mention did not TOTALLY and SYMETRICALLY destroy the buildings. if they did you would have provided just one example. can you name one total symmetrical collapse on a steel framed skyscraper?

Argument from history again. Progressive collapse is a well known phenomena.

and no the total collapse in the context of the official hypothesis remains unproven. i know this because there has been no tests to prove it.

Progressive collapse is a known. It is what was observed to happen on 911. Whether it was explosives, thermite or planes impact and fires, it means they were all progressive collapee. I think you should look up the definition of progressive collapse. Whatever initiated the collapse, it was a progressive collapse that ensued.

then why did the north tower spire seen by millions on TV fall FIRST?

I fail to see what this means according to what I posted but if you use your brain you will see why the tower that fell first did so.

Compare the size of the area above the impact zone of each tower and tell me what the difference was.

in any event as i explained to you before the explanation in the FAQ's is INCOMPLETE. it does not provide calculations on those whistles and bells like the Conservation of Energy and Momentum etc. it does not explain the symetrical collapse at near free fall speeds. so next time you cite NIST's explanation please include the qualifier - INCOMPLETE - so as not to mislead any readers.

The explanation does give us calculations. It tells us the maximum static load each floor could handle and gives us a rough estimate for the weight which dropped on the floor below the impact zone and explains that this weight was more than the floor was designed to hold. Thus the floor connections gave way and they fell inside the building. The perimeter columns fell away as the connections were broken and then after some time the cores fell after they lost their lateral support. It is all rather easy to figure out if you know the basics and do not have pre determined fantasy you need to support. The Conservation of Energy and Momentum does not apply the way you think or have read from truthy nutjobs. What energy source was greater than the potential energy created by the gravity that could have deflected the tower away from falling straight down? There was two options here. The tower fell straight down or the tower collapse stopped. There was never any tipping going to happen.

The collapse speeds were nowhere near free fall.

when responding to the following question: 6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST said

moreover as documented in Section 6.14.4 NIST NCSTAR 1:

as for gages experiment: you failed to provide a reason why it is wrong. are you arguing that the Law of Conservation of Momentum does not apply to larger bodies? if that is what your saying then please explain

I cannot believe you have misread this?? What NIST is saying is the first parts of the building which hit the ground were parts which had broken loose from the structure. Like perimeter columns. They would have fallen in freefall. They are not saying these are the collapse times of the buildings.

The collapse did not occur anywhere near freefall. I have seen a video from someone who was nearly killed that day and the collapse of the tower lasts about 15 secs minimum. How much percent more than freefall speed is that?

NOT ONE progressive collapse observed prior to 911 was TOTAL and SYMETRICAL - if there was just one example you would have provided it already.

Argument from history again.

I never claimed progressive collapse never happened before. what i am saying is that if 911 was indeed a progressive collapse then this claim has yet to be proven.
the following quote is from wiki:

See above you are using argument from history many times. It is a crap argument.

the key word to note here is "possible" meaning that it possibly was a progressive collapse or possibly not. the reason why they cannot say for certainty my friend is becuase the total collapse in relation to the official hypothesis remains UNPROVEN.

Regardless of what wiki (snigger) says. Please tell me what a progressive collapse is? You do not seem to know the definition?

but if you have a buring desire Hoffmans "progressive collapse challenge" is still out there for anyone who wants to try and prove 911 was indeed a progressive collapse.

Hoffman is a moron and a liar.

yes, nanothermites to be precise though according to NIST the Big Bag theory was more like a Progressive Bang. of course NIST here too, were unable to provide a full explantion of their hypothesis.

peace.

It was not their job to. They gave an explanation out of kindness to the nutty truthers who did not understand it. You still do not understand it after others trying to baby walk you through it.

I think you should go away and have a think about this. Ask some physics profs to explain some basic stuff to you. Learn to read and comprehend what statements are saying. I have seen a couple of times where your english is letting you down. I am not saying this as an insult as your english is pretty good and better than any other language I can use so you are one up on me. I would not, however, try and comprehend and make judgements on statements I did not fully understand due to it not being my first language.

Progressive collapse is a known fact in this world. NIST proved the initiation of the collapse. Once this had occured the progressive collapse caused what we saw. They then explained why the collapse did not stop once started.

You want experiments and information that is completely unreasonable and not required to understand what happened that day. You should concentrate on showing us proof of explosives or thermite becase this is what you need.

The steel was all foresically tested and catalogued at the holding stations.

Do you not think someone would have noticed explosion damage or thermite damage?

 

[funk de fino]

Post #1057 is another goalpost shifting excercise and semantics game. I refuse to play your silly games like this everytime you make a false claim

You made a false claim and I proved it. Live with it and move on.

 

[Par]

The following quotations can be found in Jones’s paper and are both attributed to the RJ Lee report 2003: and http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Now these quotations were referenced to the RJ Lee Report 2003 and like you I was unable to access the link provided by Jones’s paper. That of course does not mean that these quotations were not within the RJ Lee report 2003.

I agree however that without the original RJ report it is difficult to ascertain exactly what is meant by such quotations. In the RJ summary report the following statement is made: http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 ...ignature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf

By “produced” one could infer that the pulverization “released” the already evaporated materials in particulate form. Or one could infer that by “produced” the author suggests that the evaporation “resulted from” the pulverization? After going over the RJ summary report I suspect that the former is a more accurate interpretation which leads me to believe that the quotations in Jones’s paper are perhaps, as you suggest, speaking generally.

Sorry i misinterpreted your statement.

Not unless it is possible for certain materials to evaporate during an office fire AND during a building collapse. However if it is not possible for materials to evaporate during the collapse then yes I would agree with your concerns. Personally, as I have expressed elsewhere, that I doubt pulverization of materials causes evaporation.

In Jones’s paper quotation referenced to the RJ Lee report 2003 state that there was extreme temperatures during the collapse. If anything I am guilty of literal interpretation because contrary to what you have stated these quotations are found in Jones’s paper.

Allow me to give a brief summary of our exchanges thus far. Initially we discussed the evaporated steel recovered from WTC 7. I argued that it may have occured during the WTC 7 event (explosions, fires, collapse), you argued that we did not know when the eutectic reactions took place:

I then presented the RJ Lee report which proves that evaporation occured during the WTC event and not in the rubble pile. This fact is reflected in your above comment: “World Trade Center Dust is composed, in part, of particles that formed both before (for instance, during the building fires) and after (for instance, during the debris piles fires) the buildings collapsed.” My objective was to establish that eutectic reactions occured during the WTC event, I have achieved this objective, and your comment that evaporated particles may have been produced prior to 911 and after the event is neither here nor there since you concede that eutectic reactions did occur during the WTC event.

Now the next question is – can the WTC fires evaporate metal particles? The RJ report suggests that this may be the case but does not state the requisite temperatures. Regardless, evaporation means that metal must have melted since in order for a solid to evaporate it must first become liquid and this of course stands in contradiction with NIST’s statement that in no instance did they report that steel had melted in the WTC fire.

Moreover we have the interesting situation were eutectic reactions or the “swiss cheese effect” occured slowly in the case of steel recovered from the WTC 7 rubble pile and then it apparantly occured rapidly within the WTC fires? What are the requisite temperatures Par for eutectic reactions to occur rapidly?


Yes this is a fact
•
I cant say for sure, I know that for evaporation to occur that a solid must become liquid at some point before it turns to vapor. Were the WTC fires hot enough to melt steel? thats your burden to prove.
•
No, I have accepted, for argument sake, that eutectic reactions occured in the rubble pile (in relation to recovered steel from WTC 7). You have accepted that they have also occured during the WTC event. The remaining matter at hand is an empirical matter. Can alumino-silicates not just melt but evaporate in a “swiss cheese effect” when exposed to temperatures generated by an office fire?
•
This was not my argument. If you recall I was arguing that extreme temperatures were present during the WTC event. We know that ALL the particles mentioned in Jones’s paper can be produced within temperatures higher than that of an office fire. This fact is not debatable.

What is debatable is that a an office fire can. What I am trying to say is that our exchange has moved on from “when” the reactions took place to “how”. It is for this reason I ask you to prove how an office fire can evaporate steel? The author of the RJ reports suggests that it can but I am looking for proof. This would involve experiments and/or comparative studies which identify and produce the swiss cheese phenomena from an office fire.

So my argument runs as follows:
- Certain particles indicate extreme temperatures may have been present during the WTC event
- [If] it is not possible to evaporate alumino silicates (i.e. produce the swiss cheese effect) from temperatures equivalent to the WTC office fires
- Then, the particles in question prove that extreme temperatures must have been present during the WTC event

As explained the “when” question is done and dusted. You admit that eutectic reactions occured during the WTC event. Next question is “how” this occured. NIST claim that no steel melted in the WTC fires, yet we know that steel must have melted because evaporated particles have been found. So I am not shifting the burden of proof, I admitted that I cannot prove whether the evaporation occured during the actual collapse. That claim was based on several quotations taken from the RJ Lee report which have been general statements as discussed above.

In any event, because you defend the official explanation the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how an office fire can evaporate steel. Because I defend the CD explanation the burden of proof is on me to demonstrate how explosives can evaporate steel. I think we can both agree that the latter can generate sufficient temperatures thus the most relevant question that you continue avoiding is can the former?

So when I point out that there is a contradiction between the RJ report and the NIST report because the former states that steel could have melted in the WTC fires whereas the NIST report does not. Your response is that because NIST ‘didnt report’ steel melting therefore they are open to the possibility that steel did in fact melt during the WTC fires which is therefore not in contradiction with the comment made within the RJ Lee report.

The problem with your response however is that you fail to provide the stated reason why NIST did ‘not report’ that steel melted during WTC fires. To undertsand this we must read their reponse to the following question:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

It is clear, or at least should be, that once we place their comment in context we understand that the reason they did ‘not report’ steel melted during the WTC fires is because they concede that the WTC fires were not hot enough. This of course is in contradiction with the RJ Lee report that ‘assumes’ the WTC fires were hot enough but does not speculate as to what the requisite temperatures would have to in order to evaporate alumino-silicates.

That said if you contend that NIST does claim that steel melted during the WTC fires then the burden is on you to provide that specific claim in their final report.

Because it is you, not I, making these claims the burden of proof rests on you. So can you prove that metals evaporate in an office fire? In a building collapse? Do you think the WTC fires were hot enough? Do you think that metals can evaporate below their melting point and if so how?

Sure but we have moved on to “how” not “when” as you have conceded long ago that eutectic reactions took place during WTC event.

peace

There is a lot in there I could address. Thankfully, however, actually doing so is rather unnecessary*, as what was essentially my only remaining point – the crux point – has now been conceded:

[W]e have clear evidence that eutectic reactions took place during the collapse. [etc.]

[The] RJ Lee report notes the presence of such reactions during the collapse. [etc.]

[Much discussion later…]​

[Y]ou are… unable to provide proof of your claim that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed. Is this a fair assessment of the situation?

Sure…

…I cannot prove whether the evaporation occured during the actual collapse.

Your initial claims that the eutectic reactions took place specifically while the buildings collapsed have obviously been shown to be unfounded. Consequently, any arguments that feature said notion as a premise (such as one of the arguments for explosives or thermite you presented in an earlier post) are unsound.

Thank you, again, for your time.

* That is not necessarily to say I will not!

 

[thewholesoul]

Originally Posted by thewholesoul
So i take it that you concede that in the context of the official hypothesis total collapse remains unproven?

no....

when was it proven according to the scientific method and how?

this point is important to me because i want to establish the claim that in the context of the official hypothesis total collapse remains unproven.

peace