Debunk Alert: New Ryan/Jones Article in Peer Reviewed Journal

[Newtons Bit]

I'm not certain that it's an adequate explanation either, but it's not just some excuse-of-the-minute. It's held by more people than Cahill. Astaneh-Asl, for example, says the same thing:



I may not have the expertise to analyze the merits of the argument, but I'm not ready to so easily dismiss it either. I myself believe that it wasn't a building "flaw" or disregard of code that led to the collapses, but rather that it was an unpredictable circumstance. But regardless, there's meat to Cahill's and Astaneh-Asl's arguments that renders them substantive enough to merit consideration. They shouldn't simply be dismissed. Could you expand on what about the argument doesn't hold water with you? That would make the objection more substantive, and not appear as though it's a rejection for convenience's sake.

I take issue with some parts of that article. There's nothing in the IBC that prevent designers from using high strength steel in non-seismic regions for example. I'll post comments on it later.

 

[ferd burfle]

180,000ppb is a massive amount of benzene to be suddenly released, as are daily averages of 18,000 ppb. It warrants investigation.

sdemetri, you said you are a chemist so I would expect you to know the distinction between amount and concentration. 180,000 ppb may be a high concentration but by itself it is not evidence of a "massive amount", expecially when you read the EPA source material and find

"To protect workers at the site, EPA attempted to identify the highest concentration levels of VOCs by taking samples lasting for a few minutes. Some of these "grab samples," taken where smoke plumes were seen at the work site, have shown concentrations up to 4000 times higher than those taken in the surrounding streets."

http://www.epa.gov/wtc/monitoring/benchmarks/voc.htm

So these concentrations in some cases represented peak concentrations measured in as little as a few minutes. Ignoring for a minute that no release of VOCs, regardless of concentration, implies nanowhatever, this breathless interpretation of the data would never have passed muster in a peer-reviewed science journal.

Ferd

PS: and if you read the EPA data further, those concentrations taken in the surrounding streets, as well as the day-long samples, were all below the EPA screening threshold of 20 ppb. If you look closely, you'll find the 18,000 ppb averages are the averages of the peak concentrations shown in the graphs presented in the paper; they are not day-long time-weighted averages.

 

[T.A.M.]

I apologize for the multiple posts. My browser froze up not showing the posts as going through.

And thanks pomeroo for the synopsis of how the chief's quote is parsed here. Good points. But I stand by the fact that the fires were "not unusual." They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.

ElMondo's "probably" statement, "Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size conflagration that the Twin Towers did..." elicited my reply, and I stand by it. There have been very large structures that have suffered much larger fires, and didn't react as the Twin Towers with their "not unusual" and much smaller fires.

Dave Rogers, the "calculations ad nauseum" comment is from my POV a lot of singing to the choir.

Be that as it may, you said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate downwards; if it's less, then it won't fall at all. It's really that simple." Absolutely. Very intuitive concept, and I don't argue that. It makes no sense to me when viewing the video of the North Tower collapsing to measure acceleration, and then have you conjure up an hypothesis that on its face contradicts what you just said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate..." Your calculation, nor what I could see in any of Bzant's calculations, show that the downward force WAS greater than the resistance of the supposedly intact building below it. As I said, I was trained in chemistry, not engineering, but that formulation for the upper block is entirely counter-intuitive. The building was supposedly intact, was built structurally stronger in the lower floors. As Ross said, the buildings should not have disintergrated. The resistance offered by the lower, supposedly intact structure was sufficient to arrest collapse. It didn't because of addition forces at work. In your argument you have not shown what those forces were in a way that corroborates with many other observations. You are saying MG>F1+F2, the buildings collapsed, and that proves no controlled demolition. I don't see it that way at all. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

My only reply to Mackey, my statement is better said that NIST denied molten metals. I don't have the citation, and don't appear yet to be able to post it anyway, but I am sure you know the reference I cite: John Gross giving a talk at the University of Texas in Austin. And molten metals in the pile are not explained by any of the studies I know of to date, and the molten metals in the pile can be reasonable concluded to be associated with the fires.

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do. You sound like a prosecutor reaching for every straw to counter the defense's protestations, no matter how far fetched. Dispute, and dispute vigorously, something might stick. Your resort to "logic" is self-congratulatory, but inconclusive. And calling me a liar, well, that sounds more grade school playground than anything else. But I note that is how much of the argumentation goes down here. Sing to the choir, son, you've got it down pat.

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

1. Welcome to the forum.
2. Black smoke does not exclusively mean an oxygen starved fire, by a long shot. Your area is chemistry, as you have said, so I know you know yourself that such an argument is a strawman. There are many chemicals, combinations of chemicals, that will produce black smoke when burning.
3. On the floors of the impact zone, as well as floors above and below, there were hundreds of windows broken out, both from the impact, and from the heat of the fires. Yet again the "no windows open" comment" is a strawman, and you know this.
4. No study needs to explain molten metals, as the pile was MORE THAT HOT ENOUGH to make many metals molten. The only reason this is even discussed, is due to the truther cannard that the molten metals were in fact STEEL, which of course, there is little evidence for. That said, it would not surprise me in the least if there was molten STEEL found in that pile...not in the least.

So what I have read from you is what appears to be the musings of a relatively smart man, mixed with a number of truther talking points, that from the rest of your dialogue, I would say are beneath you...and me.

TAM

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I take issue with some parts of that article. There's nothing in the IBC that prevent designers from using high strength steel in non-seismic regions for example. I'll post comments on it later.

That's completely fair. Like I said, I don't have the knowledge necessary to evaluate the strength of the claims. That specific issue is one such thing I would have zero clue about; the article indirectly proposes that such use of such steel is a bad practice, yet as you said, the code doesn't forbid it. So the real substantive question on that point is this: Is the use of such steel a bad practice, regardless of what the code says? And would adherence to the code result in different behavior on 9/11? I'm not necessarily asking you, Newtons Bit, I'm merely pointing out that in genuine, considered criticism, there's room for truly enlightening discussion.

------

And that illuminates a bigger point (sorry to run off on a tangent like this): Real criticism illuminates. False criticism stated with an agenda in mind - in the case of 9/11 Trutherism, the impugnment of the US Government - obsfucates. How many people are still stuck on the notion of steel having to have melted for the towers to collapse? How many people can be led into thinking incorrectly of the military response that day because some conspiracy peddler asked "Why did the planes fly around for 40 minutes without being intercepted"? It's necessary to retail the first narrative in order to build the case for thermite, and the second for the stand down, but it doesn't truly shed light on what really happened that day. Inquiries like Astaneh-Asl's - even if the engineering world ends up falsifying the charges - lead to better understanding of the engineering issues involved. Look at the true, genuinely considered criticisms that have occurred: Arup, Edinburg, Quintiere's statements for example... all those may pose more questions, and in regards to the fireproofing in those specific examples actually contradict NIST's model, but they ultimately build a path towards further illumination. What about conspiracy fantasies does the same thing?

A movie critic - was it the late Gene Siskel? I forget... - once said that the real difference between independent and mainstream movies wasn't the production company, the funding, the director, or anything like that. It was whether the storyline confirmed or challenged the dominant view of whatever subject matter the film was covering. A most independent source of funding for a film with a most un-Hollywood director would not result in an independent film if the storyline confirmed society's views on the subject, whereas the most commercial studio using the most inside-Hollywood director could make an independent film if they chose to challenge how the audience normally looked upon a topic. While incomplete, the definition is useful in separating what truly chooses to exist outside the zeitgeist, and what chooses to flow with it. This framework is very much applicable to conspiracy fantasists and the entire subject of 9/11. Who really challenges existing thought? And who simply chooses to follow the current of the particular zeitgeist? When Astaneh-Asl, for example, questions the view of the towers being properly constructed, he may be doing so within the rigid rules of engineering, and he is doing so from well inside the engineering community, but he's very much offering an illuminating challenge to the dominant mode of thought regarding the towers. Were they in fact truly well built? We're the builders' "10 unusual elements" truly bad practices? Regardless of code, was the choices made in the design of the towers truly bad ones to make? Against those questions, you have the dominant NIST model which exonerates the design. Where lies the truth? Who knows, but the interplay between the positions will shed light on that question.

Now, consider the conspiratorial claims: Thermite. Stand down. Pull it. Claims like these and others pose as though they stand against the dominant paradigm, but do they really? Do such claims that tap into the common feelings of powerlessness in the face of such a large government as the United States's one really challege orthodox thinking? Does tapping into the common mistrust of government really stand as independent thought? Does any of the conspiratorial narrative truly achieve any real state of rebellion? Or are they mere confirmations of the lazier parts of the zeitgeist that says this monster in Washington is all-powerful and all-capable, and willing to do whatever it takes for power/money/influence/forward the "NWO"/etc.? And on top of that, what do conspiratorial claims illuminate? Is it anything original? Does it truly generate genuine scholarship, and really illuminate new considerations inside well known fields? Or is it yet another "confirmation" of government's willingness to act against society, as the zeitgeist says?

In the end, the disappointment I feel towards the conspiracy addicts is not merely in their lack of discriminating thought (although that is certainly a component of it), nor in their abuse of freedom of speech (many "abuse" this right). It is that the energy spent on the faulty narrative ultimately does not challenge or change anything. What are all these arguments we have here, other than bricks in the ediface of the conventional? Even when Christophera, Balsamo in his various sock puppets, Swing Dangler, RedIbis, etc. put forth superficially challenging arguments, what puzzle are they completing other than the conspiratorial one that ultimately says "Government bad"? For all the poses of original thought, what they put forth is every bit as conventional as the arguments we muster; they simply have the flaw of being contextually or outright factually wrong as well. They don't plow new ground; they only tred in the tracks of previous paranoids. And they do nothing to get people to look at anything in any new way. Even those who consider 9/11 an "Inside Job" end up painting a picture no different from that painted by those who looked askance at government for Ruby Ridge, the JFK assasination, Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombings... calling government an antagonist, a contravida, is as old as the history of formal governments, and every bit as established. So what do they accomplish, other than forward a conventional narrative disguised as rebellion?

Ultimately, the problem in the so-called truth movement is that they neither illuminate, nor challenge. Much energy is wasted to convey a message that is ultimately flawed, and no true enlightenment comes of it. Whereas looking at the critiques of Quintiere, Astaneh-Asl, or other genuine critics really gets you thinking outside the mainstream. They challenge conventional wisdom: Was NIST's presumptions regarding the fireproofing truly erroneous, therefore demonstrating that the fireproofing is actually irrelevant in these situations? Were the building practices truly deviated from? Those of us outside the engineering community cannot definitively answer those because we don't know; the answers would be genuinely original scholarship. And even inside the community, I'd bet that the questions stimulates thinking, even if it does not ultimately result in change. But the point is that the rebels who are creating genuinely original thought are not the ones proclaiming "Inside Job" or finding ways to spin Steven Jones's latest findings. They're in fact very much a part of the establishment they seek to criticize.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Your calculation, nor what I could see in any of Bzant's calculations, show that the downward force WAS greater than the resistance of the supposedly intact building below it. As I said, I was trained in chemistry, not engineering, but that formulation for the upper block is entirely counter-intuitive. The building was supposedly intact, was built structurally stronger in the lower floors. As Ross said, the buildings should not have disintergrated. The resistance offered by the lower, supposedly intact structure was sufficient to arrest collapse. It didn't because of addition forces at work.

There's no need to keep repeating that you weren't trained in engineering, because you're shouting it from the rooftops with everything else you say. First of all, the building wasn't "supposedly intact", it had massive damage from the airliner impacts which weakened the structure around the collapse initiation zone. Secondly, the resistance offered by the lower structure was built to resist the static loading of a stationary upper block, not to decelerate and arrest an already falling block. If it isn't clear to you why the latter would require a very much stronger structure, then you need to learn so much more physics than you know already that I simply don't have time to try and teach it to you.

Perhaps, however, you could try this: place a house brick on top of a wine glass, and you'll find that it stays there. Now raise the brick a foot above the glass and drop it, and you'll find that a structure that was strong enough to hold the stationary brick somehow didn't manage to hold it once it got moving. In compliance with the rules of this forum, which prohibit members to advocate others to self-harm, I would advise you to wear safety goggles and protective gloves while doing this.

We can, of course, as you suggest, agree to differ. This will result in a continuation of the status quo, in which the 9-11 attacks are known by the overwhelming majority to have been carried out by al-Qaeda without the complicity of the US government. If you want that situation to change, you'll need to learn enough to present a convincing argument to people who know far better than you do at present what they're talking about. So far, the truth movement has failed abysmally in doing this.

Dave

 

[Pardalis]

Ultimately, the problem in the so-called truth movement is that they neither illuminate, nor challenge. Much energy is wasted to convey a message that is ultimately flawed, and no true enlightenment comes of it. Whereas looking at the critiques of Quintiere, Astaneh-Asl, or other genuine critics really gets you thinking outside the mainstream. They challenge conventional wisdom: Was NIST's presumptions regarding the fireproofing truly erroneous, therefore demonstrating that the fireproofing is actually irrelevant in these situations? Were the building practices truly deviated from? Those of us outside the engineering community cannot definitively answer those because we don't know; the answers would be genuinely original scholarship. And even inside the community, I'd bet that the questions stimulates thinking, even if it does not ultimately result in change. But the point is that the rebels who are creating genuinely original thought are not the ones proclaiming "Inside Job" or finding ways to spin Steven Jones's latest findings. They're in fact very much a part of the establishment they seek to criticize.

That's very well said, especially that last paragraph^

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Thanks, man.

 

[pomeroo]

I apologize for the multiple posts. My browser froze up not showing the posts as going through.

And thanks pomeroo for the synopsis of how the chief's quote is parsed here. Good points. But I stand by the fact that the fires were "not unusual." They were large office building fires, originally ignited by jet fuel, which burned off rapidly, according to NIST, and then proceeded to burn as typical office building fires do. The plumes of dark smoke indicate they were not burning in an oxygen rich environment.

ElMondo's "probably" statement, "Some "large structures" that were completely aflame probably didn't suffer the same size conflagration that the Twin Towers did..." elicited my reply, and I stand by it. There have been very large structures that have suffered much larger fires, and didn't react as the Twin Towers with their "not unusual" and much smaller fires.

Dave Rogers, the "calculations ad nauseum" comment is from my POV a lot of singing to the choir.

Be that as it may, you said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate downwards; if it's less, then it won't fall at all. It's really that simple." Absolutely. Very intuitive concept, and I don't argue that. It makes no sense to me when viewing the video of the North Tower collapsing to measure acceleration, and then have you conjure up an hypothesis that on its face contradicts what you just said, "If the downward force is greater than the resistance of the structure, the falling block will accelerate..." Your calculation, nor what I could see in any of Bzant's calculations, show that the downward force WAS greater than the resistance of the supposedly intact building below it. As I said, I was trained in chemistry, not engineering, but that formulation for the upper block is entirely counter-intuitive. The building was supposedly intact, was built structurally stronger in the lower floors. As Ross said, the buildings should not have disintergrated. The resistance offered by the lower, supposedly intact structure was sufficient to arrest collapse. It didn't because of addition forces at work. In your argument you have not shown what those forces were in a way that corroborates with many other observations. You are saying MG>F1+F2, the buildings collapsed, and that proves no controlled demolition. I don't see it that way at all. We will have to agree to disagree on this point.

My only reply to Mackey, my statement is better said that NIST denied molten metals. I don't have the citation, and don't appear yet to be able to post it anyway, but I am sure you know the reference I cite: John Gross giving a talk at the University of Texas in Austin. And molten metals in the pile are not explained by any of the studies I know of to date, and the molten metals in the pile can be reasonable concluded to be associated with the fires.

As far as your other comments, lots of hand waving and making claims to knowledge that even Cahill had the sense not to do. You sound like a prosecutor reaching for every straw to counter the defense's protestations, no matter how far fetched. Dispute, and dispute vigorously, something might stick. Your resort to "logic" is self-congratulatory, but inconclusive. And calling me a liar, well, that sounds more grade school playground than anything else. But I note that is how much of the argumentation goes down here. Sing to the choir, son, you've got it down pat.

As Mackey is not a man who toots his own horn, I will point to you that he is a NASA engineer and you're fighting way out of your weight class.

 

[pomeroo]

Permit me to agree with the sentiment expressed by other posters: Frank Greening's thoughts on this paper would be welcome.

 

[Stellafane]

As Mackey is not a man who toots his own horn, I will point to you that he is a NASA engineer and you're fighting way out of your weight class.

I think it's pretty clear by now that wherever you see the words "hand waving" in this thread, what actually is being said is "stuff that's so far over my head that I can't even begin to comprehend it, so instead of working a little to learn something I'll just see if I can save a little face by attempting to dismiss it with the most transparent of vague insults."

 

[Mangoose]

HyJinX: "Hey Red...any comment on Mangoose's post (#139)?" Mostly it's questioning the sources for the paper. I don't see where s/he proposes what caused the spikes in VOCs at levels thousands of times greater than what has been recorded for normal office bldg fires with large amounts of plastics.

And Mangoose, rather than taking a single line and parsing it to your heart's content, perhaps you might try to address the salient points of the paper

I'm not surprised that you missed the point of my post, but it is worth reiterating: My post showed that the article was a shoddily-researched paper with abysmal standards of evidence which NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED in any sort of respectable journal. You don't have to refute or assess their claims about "spikes in VOCs" or any other claim in the paper; what I presented is SUFFICIENT to demonstrate this. And this is no mere "single line," Ryan et al. accord great weight to the false claim contained in that line in the very next paragraph, turning it into one of the key "facts" that requires explanation -- the raison d'etre for the investigation in the rest of the paper.

 

[Horatius]

the raison d'etre for

Look, if they can't figure out the point of your earlier post, is it really fair to expect them to figure out French?


Good earlier post, BTW.

 

[Mangoose]

Horatius: You're right, mon mauvais.

 

[Pardalis]

Horatius: You're right, mon mauvais.

Actually, this is too literal a translation. If you wanted to say "my bad" you should have said "c'est de ma faute".

 

[R.Mackey]

Well, since I've seen nothing useful from our newcomer, and things seem pretty much settled, let me turn to a less crucial question:

I don't think Ryan does present such a hypothesis. The question to you is what could be the cause of such spikes, remembering that the highest recorded levels occur long after office contents and debris are removed?

I agree that Mr. Ryan doesn't present a workable hypothesis, but that's the whole point. This question is thus not really on topic anymore. Nonetheless, it is a reasonable question, which is why the EPA and DELTA looked at it to begin with. I'll take a stab at it.

So we know that the gas concentrations were rather high. The 180,000 ppb etc. appears to be a highly localized sample, much higher than the site average, but the site average is still pretty high. However, following the article I linked, your average charcoal barbeque puts out about 3,000 ppb into open air. Quantities in this range or even several times higher should be unsurprising, given that the Pile fire was much less aerated than a standard barbeque, and benzene along with other aromatic hydrocarbons are products of incomplete combustion.

What is interesting, however, is that from these limited data the concentration appears much higher after the fire was diminished or extinguished. This suggests the fire isn't entirely to blame. Perhaps the fire is the original source of the compounds, but those compounds weren't loose in the atmosphere until something else happened. Or perhaps there's another source entirely.

There are several obvious factors that would strongly influence these readings:

Site demolition: I would guess that in the February timeframe, the Pile had been carried off to the point that demolition of the basement and foundation structures, the PATH station, etc. took place in earnest. This would naturally disturb concentrations of contaminants held underground.

Weather: Ambient temperature and humidity, not to mention surface winds, will have a dramatic effect on the plume behavior, not to mention any chemical reactions still taking place. The Towers were hit in September, but the spikes were later, into November and even February? Totally different environment.

Demolition activities: It may be that the spikes are caused by something new brought into the site. Cutting torches? Hundreds of diesel generators powering tools and lights? Crushers? I can't say, but it bears examination.​

To investigate this thoroughly, we would need a better understanding of activities at the Pile, preferably day by day, as well as more data on the contaminants themselves. How sampled and where? What time of day? What altitude? How does all this correspond to the location and type of activity at the site?

I'm fairly confident that we could figure this out with the right information. Without it, I can't say for certain that there actually is an anomaly here. The concentration is high, but not absurd; the chemicals are among those we expect to find; the site itself has few direct analogues for comparison. It's interesting enough to study. Mr. Ryan, however, has gone off half-cocked in asserting that there must be an anomaly here, and even more so by proposing something fantastic in response. We just aren't ready to say one way or the other.

That's my guess. Might be right, might not. But that's my first cut at a hypothesis, and how to test it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Plumes of dark smoke, from the towers and from whatever is burning on the ground in that image, indicates an uncontrolled burn. In the towers with its controlled environment and windows that would not open, the fires were oxygen starved. If this choir believes otherwise, good luck to you. Herd mentality doesn't prove anything. In the photo above, whatever the fuel is, it would most likely burn much, much cleaner in a controlled burn where the proper mix of oxygen and fuel are mixed optimally. Yikes!

Ridiculous, a jet burner effect can produce, black smoke,
and melt steel both at the same time, it merely means that there is more carbon than oxygen in the atmospheric oxidized flame it does not mean oxygen starved in a normal atmosphere.

The only way to have an oxygen, carbon balanced fire is with bottled oxygen, or by limiting fuel and air intake with controlled means, it has no bearing on fire temperature in fact a jet burner effect was noticed in the air handling system to some degree.
All carbon rich fires will produce black smoke, which itself is a fuel and explosion source from pyrosis heating of the fuel as well as explosive Carbon monoxide.

Your confusing oxygen starved with unbalanced flames, what type of chemist are you?

Oxygen starved is a completely different term it means not enough oxygen to continue combustion.

The fire in the towers was unusual, as it was multi floor accelerated, and Chemically enhanced.

Of course there would be no black smoke in a complete oxygen atmosphere, as your suggesting, there would be no fuels, no life, and no people there as well, all the metals in the world would also be oxidized to their metal oxides.

Talk about hand waving your flapping so hard your in already passed escape velocity, and heading for the next solar system.

 

[RedIbis]

So we know that the gas concentrations were rather high. The 180,000 ppb etc. appears to be a highly localized sample, much higher than the site average, but the site average is still pretty high.

The highest level of benzene recorded was in February at 610,000ppb.

However, following the article I linked, your average charcoal barbeque puts out about 3,000 ppb into open air.

3000ppb of what?

Quantities in this range or even several times higher should be unsurprising, given that the Pile fire was much less aerated than a standard barbeque, and benzene along with other aromatic hydrocarbons are products of incomplete combustion.

The readings were thousands of times higher than those recorded, not at a weekend barbeque, but in other large office bldg fires with large concentrations of plastic, about 26ppb. Is this figure far too small?

What is interesting, however, is that from these limited data the concentration appears much higher after the fire was diminished or extinguished. This suggests the fire isn't entirely to blame. Perhaps the fire is the original source of the compounds, but those compounds weren't loose in the atmosphere until something else happened. Or perhaps there's another source entirely.

Perhaps.

There are several obvious factors that would strongly influence these readings:

Site demolition: I would guess that in the February timeframe, the Pile had been carried off to the point that demolition of the basement and foundation structures, the PATH station, etc. took place in earnest. This would naturally disturb concentrations of contaminants held underground.​

Agreed.

Weather: Ambient temperature and humidity, not to mention surface winds, will have a dramatic effect on the plume behavior, not to mention any chemical reactions still taking place. The Towers were hit in September, but the spikes were later, into November and even February? Totally different environment.

Yes, February.

Demolition activities: It may be that the spikes are caused by something new brought into the site. Cutting torches? Hundreds of diesel generators powering tools and lights? Crushers? I can't say, but it bears examination.

I agree, it does bear examination.

I'm fairly confident that we could figure this out with the right information.

Ay, there's the rub.

Without it, I can't say for certain that there actually is an anomaly here.

If the EPA data is accurate, you can certainly call it an anomaly.

The concentration is high, but not absurd; the chemicals are among those we expect to find; the site itself has few direct analogues for comparison.

This is a series of contradictions. First, the concentrations do appear absurdly high. I'm not sure what "we" you're referring to because the presence of some of this material was not expected and remained unexplained.

It's interesting enough to study. Mr. Ryan, however, has gone off half-cocked in asserting that there must be an anomaly here, and even more so by proposing something fantastic in response. We just aren't ready to say one way or the other.

Fair enough. So why don't we forget about Ryan and Jones and try to answer the difficult question of what would cause those spikes. I'm not quite sure when you'll be ready to say, but it's been almost 7 years.

That's my guess. Might be right, might not. But that's my first cut at a hypothesis, and how to test it.

I know it's difficult for some around here to grasp, but I do find your contributions helpful. Even if I disagree or follow up with more questions, an even informed tone is the proper one to gain understanding through discourse.

 

[Disbelief]

This is a series of contradictions. First, the concentrations do appear absurdly high. I'm not sure what "we" you're referring to because the presence of some of this material was not expected and remained unexplained.

The presence of what material is not expected and unexplained?

Fair enough. So why don't we forget about Ryan and Jones and try to answer the difficult question of what would cause those spikes. I'm not quite sure when you'll be ready to say, but it's been almost 7 years.

Haven't people here been offering possibilities? The bigger question for you, is what is the significance of these spikes? remember, you are forgetting about Jones and Ryan.

 

[sdemetri]

A Brick on a Wine Glass

There's no need to keep repeating that you weren't trained in engineering, because you're shouting it from the rooftops with everything else you say. First of all, the building wasn't "supposedly intact", it had massive damage from the airliner impacts which weakened the structure around the collapse initiation zone. Secondly, the resistance offered by the lower structure was built to resist the static loading of a stationary upper block, not to decelerate and arrest an already falling block. If it isn't clear to you why the latter would require a very much stronger structure, then you need to learn so much more physics than you know already that I simply don't have time to try and teach it to you.

Perhaps, however, you could try this: place a house brick on top of a wine glass, and you'll find that it stays there. Now raise the brick a foot above the glass and drop it, and you'll find that a structure that was strong enough to hold the stationary brick somehow didn't manage to hold it once it got moving. In compliance with the rules of this forum, which prohibit members to advocate others to self-harm, I would advise you to wear safety goggles and protective gloves while doing this.

We can, of course, as you suggest, agree to differ. This will result in a continuation of the status quo, in which the 9-11 attacks are known by the overwhelming majority to have been carried out by al-Qaeda without the complicity of the US government. If you want that situation to change, you'll need to learn enough to present a convincing argument to people who know far better than you do at present what they're talking about. So far, the truth movement has failed abysmally in doing this.

Dave

That is a very interesting demonstration... a brick on a wine glass... I heard a talk recently in which a similar statement was made. The speaker said regarding the ability of the upper mass to crush the lower intact building, presumably intact from around floor 91 down to ground level, if this lower part of the building were made primarily of glass, I could buy that argument. So could I. The lower structure of the building was not made of glass, however. The structure was stronger and more rigid as one travelled down the building. So, a brick on a wine glass.... if this were remotely comparable to the actual structure, or were the demostration you suggest of raising the brick several inches and letting it fall remotely comparable, you might have something there. Nice visual, but thoroughly unconvincing.

But I do want to give ElMondo a nod to his reference to Astaneh_Asi's comments about "unusual design elements." Interesting stuff. What Astaneh-Asi points out as a possible weakness in design, a plane easily entering the internal reaches of the design, DeMartini points to as a feature of the design, speculating the building could withstand multiple aircraft strikes, if one thinks of the perimeter structure as similar to mosquito netting. Of course, no designer of buildings desires to test that theory, but the towers were designed to withstand winds well in excess of the force of an aircraft slamming into them. I think it is incorrect to portray the designs as "poor," or as weak as a wine glass.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nice visual, but thoroughly unconvincing.

You've missed the point, unsurprisingly. What's convincing is the calculation of the dynamic loading and the strength of the support columns, which gives the result that collapse propagates. If you don't understand why the dynamic loading is greater than the static loading, then a visualisation might be useful. If you refuse to believe the results, then there's nothing I can say to convince you that you should accept the known properties of materials and Newtonian mechanics as a basis for your reasoning. However, as long as you choose not to do so, nobody with any influence will pay you the slightest bit of attention.

Dave