WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[GlennB]

In the context of perhaps the biggest fire/engineering disaster in US history the haphazard removal and destruction of the physical evidence, over the objectons of many experts and relatives of victims, is suspicious behaviour worthy of further investigation.

Are you aware that the Fresh Kills recovery site was designated as a crime scene so that WTC debris could be removed there and examined in detail?

A couple of quotes :

"At first, detectives and forensic recovery agents hand-sorted the material. Wearing Tyvek suits and other protective gear, they carefully scrutinized the material with rakes. During the summer of 2002, when all the piles were gone, the staff at Fresh Kills resifted through that material. Many additional remains and personal effects were recovered."

"It was not until late fall of 2001 that a system used in commercial recycling centers was utilized at Fresh Kills. A long, round cylinder spun huge hunks of debris to loosen and separate fine particles from larger pieces. Once separated, the debris went onto a conveyor belt where New York City police and firefighters and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents searched for human remains, personal objects, and criminal evidence. Work could only be done in 45-minute shifts or the strain from watching the constantly moving material might result in vertigo."

from http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/sortingprocess.html (for example)

Please have a look.

May I respectfully suggest that you actually study these subjects before tossing in words like "haphazard" ? It was far from that.

 

[dtugg]

Topic is of course what happened after collapse initiation and we all seem to agree energy was released.

NIST suggest that there was lack of strain energy in the remaining structure to absorb it and that global collapse ensued for that simple reason. Friction is ignored.

Bazant in several papers takes a one dimensional approach to prove the same thing; no slipping off sideways displacements that requires 2-D or 3-D, no friction that required at least 2-D, etc, etc. Bazant suggests that a layer of rubble develops soon after initiation that plays an important role but does not explain how energy released produces rubble. And a 1-D layer?

These experts ignore the many tools availble to explain structural damages that have occurred in the past. Quite strange.

Says the fool that believes you could drop 1/3 of the WTC from a height of two miles onto the rest without the whole thing being completely demolished.

We all know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[JihadJane]

Conclusive proof

The mushrooming shape is caused by vorticity, as I once explained to Ace Baker. Under no circumstances is this evidence of explosives, or indeed anything unusual at all. These concepts were explored by researchers from Franz Grashof in the mid-19th century through Theodore von Karman before WWII, and can be found in any textbook; I would recommend Frank White's "Fluid Dynamics" for your particular case.

Your hypothesis is plausible. Thanks for your interesting introduction to fluid dynamics. I remained puzzled by the density of the dust and how this was ejected so violently, along with substantial bits of steel, at the same time as it was supposedly being pulverized by gravity. Photos of the Towers' disintegration also show dust ejections apparently describing upward arcs.

The intergranular melting is the very well known effect of sulfur and iron at moderate heat. This has been understood since approximately Roman times. This link gives you a picture of the phase diagram, from a ruddy textbook, copyright 1997. (Geochemistry of Hydrothermal Ore Deposits, H. Barnes, editor, Wiley, 1997.)

I know these things seem like deep, dark mysteries to you, but they're really extremely simple. Take some science classes, you'll learn something.

The "deepest mystery" referred to by the New York Times (not by me, btw!) was not that intergranular melting exists as a phenomena but how it happened to WTC steel. All articles I have read on the subject offer only hypothetical mechanisms for this observed event, ranging from rain to sheetroc.

It seems strange to me, anyway, to base research into the matter on such a small sample. It hasn't even been established whether this intergranular melting occurred before of after WTC7 fell down.

If the WTC7 debris pile had been forensically dismantled (I've seen no good reason as to why this didn't happen) then this "mystery" would likely be no mystery at all. As it was, the pile was dismantled without being properly mapped and virtually all the steel disposed of. (Nist claims ALL but this is obviously not true).

What do you mean by “moderate heat”?

Hypotheses are not explanations? Is English not your first language?

I find this the most fascinating part of your post.

English is, indeed, my first language and I keep a large dictionary on my desk.

I am puzzled that you apparently do not understand something that is at the heart of the scientific method. Definitions of the word "hypothesis" which include the word "explanation" always do so with a qualifying adjective or phrase such as "tentative" or "provisional". A hypothesis is not an explanation but a possible explanation. This confusion is repeatedly illustrated on these threads by those who mistake plausible hypotheses for conclusive proof.

Where I live, learner drivers must have a provisional licence to be in control of a car (they must also be accompanied by someone with a full licence). Were they to mistake this provisional driving licence for a real driving licence they would likely find themselves in legal difficulties. You appear to be making the same mistake with your provisional “explanations”.

Your claim of "scientists" manipulating calculations and parameters is a lie. You merely seek to slander those who have knowledge you lack. Not one of these "lies" is actually a lie, just more confusion voiced by your fellow ignoramuses. See my whitepaper for details.

Sadly, I have been unable to open your document. I repeatedly get a "file error" message when trying to download it. It sounds very interesting and I'd like to read it.

NIST writers were not shy about having manipulated their data. They were open about having to take their already questionable hypothetical scenario to a worst-case extreme before they could get their model to initiate collapse. Bazant arguably performed a similar sanitisation of reality to make his calculations work.

[QUOTE}As I said, all of this has been presented before. You simply don't know about it. And your claim that we can't know about it either is simple hubris on your part. You are in no position to afford such a luxury.[/QUOTE]

Without the destroyed physical evidence nothing can be conclusively proved about the WTC destruction. It is all conjecture. This is an undeniable truth that "debunkers", including, apparently, your good self, repeatedly ignore in their quest for certainty.

 

[JihadJane]

Are you aware that the Fresh Kills recovery site was designated as a crime scene so that WTC debris could be removed there and examined in detail?

A couple of quotes :

"At first, detectives and forensic recovery agents hand-sorted the material. Wearing Tyvek suits and other protective gear, they carefully scrutinized the material with rakes. During the summer of 2002, when all the piles were gone, the staff at Fresh Kills resifted through that material. Many additional remains and personal effects were recovered."

"It was not until late fall of 2001 that a system used in commercial recycling centers was utilized at Fresh Kills. A long, round cylinder spun huge hunks of debris to loosen and separate fine particles from larger pieces. Once separated, the debris went onto a conveyor belt where New York City police and firefighters and Federal Bureau of Investigation agents searched for human remains, personal objects, and criminal evidence. Work could only be done in 45-minute shifts or the strain from watching the constantly moving material might result in vertigo."

from http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/recovery/sortingprocess.html (for example)

Please have a look.

May I respectfully suggest that you actually study these subjects before tossing in words like "haphazard" ? It was far from that.

Thanks for your comments. I haven't time now for a detailed response but, from memory, I don't think that structural steel was taken to Fresh Kills. It went to scrap metal dealers. The emphasis at Fresh Kills was on retrieving human remains and personal effects.

I am interested to know how criminal evidence can be spotted on a moving conveyor belt by observers possibly suffering from vertigo! What exactly would this evidence look like? Were they looking out for box cutters, red bandanas or hijackers' passports perhaps? Please enlighten me!

This article linked below illustrates the haphazard nature of the process of examining the steel - volunteer inspectors crawling through huge piles of unsorted steel looking for bits that might be interesting:

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_apndxD.htm

The original, virgin debris piles were not mapped. These are the places that should have been designated as crime scenes. Why weren't they?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Photos of the Towers' disintegration also show dust ejections apparently describing upward arcs.

"Apparently" is the key word there. This has been discussed here before, so a bit of searching might find you some useful information. If dust is being thrown out from a falling body, then the dust thrown out earlier in the collapse - and hence from a greater height - falls slowly due to air resistance, and dust thrown out later is thrown out below it. The dust further from the point of origin, therefore, is higher than the dust nearer the centre. The result looks like the result of objects having been thrown out with an upward trajectory, but in fact isn't. There are videos of the collapses that show that the dust is always moving at a trajectory close to or below horizontal.

The "deepest mystery" referred to by the New York Times (not by me, btw!) was not that intergranular melting exists as a phenomena but how it happened to WTC steel. All articles I have read on the subject offer only hypothetical mechanisms for this observed event, ranging from rain to sheetroc.

I think the "acid rain" reference was inserted by the reporter; newspapers aren't known for their accurate coverage of scientific stories. There is, at least, one highly plausible hypothesis as to how this melting could have occurred based on the well-understood chemistry of the substances known to be present. The temperatures required for the processes are all below 1000ºC, the dissociation of calcium sulphate into CaO and SO2/SO3 is well-known, and the effect of hot sulphuric acid vapour on steel hardly needs to be explained. On the other hand, I've yet to see even the bare bones of a hypothesis on how thermite or explosives could have caused any such effect. In the absence of a competing hypothesis, the balance of evidence is fairly clearly in favour of high temperature corrosion.

It seems strange to me, anyway, to base research into the matter on such a small sample. It hasn't even been established whether this intergranular melting occurred before of after WTC7 fell down.

That would most likely be impossible to determine however the rubble pile was dismantled.

Without the destroyed physical evidence nothing can be conclusively proved about the WTC destruction. It is all conjecture. This is an undeniable truth that "debunkers", including, apparently, your good self, repeatedly ignore in their quest for certainty.

I think your definition of the word "conjecture" is a little stretched here. There is a large body of evidence available concerning the destruction of all three WTC towers, and on careful inspection all of it supports the claim that WTC1 and 2 fell as a direct result of the aircraft impacts (and resulting jet fuel-accelerated fires), and that WTC7 fell as a result of fire and damage caused by the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. This is more than mere conjecture.

And, of course, outside of mathematics there is no such thing as conclusive proof. If the rubble pile had been as carefully dismantled as you suggest, the very care that was taken would be cited as suspicious by conspiracy theorists. The process would have taken months, if not years, and it would be claimed that the duration of the process was necessary, not to analyse, but to fabricate the evidence that was uncovered. Deny this if you want, but this exact argument has been used to try to discredit the NIST WTC7 report before its publication. Therefore, even with whatever subset of the physical evidence that was destroyed, there would be no conclusive proof for those who choose to reject it.

Dave

 

[GregoryUrich]

Topic is of course what happened after collapse initiation and we all seem to agree energy was released.

NIST suggest that there was lack of strain energy in the remaining structure to absorb it and that global collapse ensued for that simple reason. Friction is ignored.

Bazant in several papers takes a one dimensional approach to prove the same thing; no slipping off sideways displacements that requires 2-D or 3-D, no friction that required at least 2-D, etc, etc. Bazant suggests that a layer of rubble develops soon after initiation that plays an important role but does not explain how energy released produces rubble. And a 1-D layer?

These experts ignore the many tools availble to explain structural damages that have occurred in the past. Quite strange.

Just like you are ignoring the question I posed. Still no answer?

 

[WildCat]

Is there a reason that you missed concrete off your list of "pulverised a good deal" items?

Yeah, about that. Have you calculated how much explosives would be needed to pulverize the concrete since you seem to dismiss the idea that gravity alone could do it?

 

[GlennB]

I am interested to know how criminal evidence can be spotted on a moving conveyor belt by observers possibly suffering from vertigo! What exactly would this evidence look like? Were they looking out for box cutters, red bandanas or hijackers' passports perhaps? Please enlighten me!

I think unexploded cutting charges, radio-controlled detonators, horizontal linear thermite delivery devices - you know, all those favourite figments of the CTists imagination - would have stood out like a sore thumb, given that many personal effects down to the size of door keys were recovered.

The original, virgin debris piles were not mapped. These are the places that should have been designated as crime scenes. Why weren't they?

Because it was an extremely dangerous location and no place to conduct such an investigation.

You seem to be implying that they should have checked for evidence of CD. Is that right? If so, you need to understand that the investigators were not half insane and did not anticipate the "Truth" movement's ridiculous requirements years in advance. They had a job to do.

 

[Heiwa]

Just like you are ignoring the question I posed. Still no answer?

OK - Say that the spring has length L=384 m, spring constant C = 2 GN/m and that it is compressed 0.8 m or 0.21% of L. What force F is required to compress it? Evidently F = 1.6 GN.

Big force - where did it come from? Aha, from the energy E applied, where E = 0.64 GNm. Big energy applied to a thin floor at top of spring. How do you apply 0.64 GNm to a thin floor?

Aha, it was applied by another thin floor of a springy mass above. It is not possible of course. What would actually happen? I assume the floors burst absorbing energy and get entangled ... and friction absorbs the rest of the 0.64 GNm.

Happy?

 

[GregoryUrich]

...I am puzzled that you apparently do not understand something that is at the heart of the scientific method. Definitions of the word "hypothesis" which include the word "explanation" always do so with a qualifying adjective or phrase such as "tentative" or "provisional". A hypothesis is not an explanation but a possible explanation. This confusion is repeatedly illustrated on these threads by those who mistake plausible hypotheses for conclusive proof.

...Without the destroyed physical evidence nothing can be conclusively proved about the WTC destruction. It is all conjecture. This is an undeniable truth that "debunkers", including, apparently, your good self, repeatedly ignore in their quest for certainty.

Just wanted to mention a few words about hypotheses vs theories and convincing vs conclusive proof.

Essentially all physical laws are explanations (or better, predictions) and are provisional. For example, Newton's laws have been replaced by relativity. Newton's laws worked well (and still do) for most real world applications until things start to get very small, very fast or greater accuracy is required. Still they aren't 100% accurate. Relativity may well be replaced by a better explanation and that is the nature of science.

It seems to me that you are confusing hypothesis with theory. A hypothesis is a guess as to an explanation of a phenomena which is then tested. Serveral competing hypotheses can be tested and usually there is one hypothesis that explains the more of the observed phenomenon (evidence) better than the others based on the results of tests or theoretical analysis. That hypothesis becomes the latest theory, accepted as true until replaced by a better one.

Now we have two theories that seem to dominate the discussion of WTC which are impact/fire/gravitational collapse and controlled demolition. Evidence has been collected, and experiments and analyses have been done, appearing to support both theories.

The primary question, in terms of conclusive proof, is: What kind of evidence could exist to provide conclusive proof for either hypothesis/theory? Videos capturing fire weakening the columns until they start to buckle and collapse might suffice. Videos capturing explosions such as are seen in known controlled demolitions might also suffice. To my knowledge, there exists no such evidence. That means we have to settle for convincing proof.

While we're at it let's take a look at the theories. If we examine the existing evidence and theoretical analysis and tests done to date, we might begin to see which theory is most convincing.

Evidence explained equally well by both theories:

1. Witnesses heard sounds which some described as explosions.
2. Expulsions of dust and heavy debris.
3. Bones on the roof.
4. Collapse duration.
5. Fairly symmetrical complete collapse.

Evidence not explained well by either theory:

1. High temperatures in the piles.
2. Intergranular melting.
3. So called "Squibs". (Expulsions are too slow to be causes by high explosives. No detailed "over-pressure" explanation has been provided.

Evidence supporting or better explained by the controlled demolition theory:

1. Some witnesses saw flashes of light.
2. Evidence of a thermite like reaction. (could have another explanation)
3. No evidence of high temperatures in structural steel.

Prmary analyses supporting CD:

1. Hoffman, "Energy not enough to create the amount of dust". (Deeply flawed and incorrect.)
2. Ross, "Conservation of Momentum". (Deeply flawed and incorrect.)
3. Kuttler, "Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1". (Deeply flawed and incorrect.)
4. this list could go on forever...

this list could go on forever...


Evidence supporting or better explained by the Impact/fire/gravitational collapse theory:

1. Damaged by airplane impact. (doesn't apply to WTC7)
2. The buildings had horrendous fires.
3. No explosions are heard on the video tapes of the collapses with sound.
4. The collapses initiated in the damaged areas.
5. No evidence of common controlled demolition devices identified by anyone.
6. Seismic measurements did not show an explosions.

Primary analyses supporting the Impact/fire/gravitational collapse theory:

1. NIST Fire model. (Supports heating on the structural steel.)
2. NIST Collapse model. (Tweaked input parameters, which may not have been necessary if they had the correct load distribution.)
3. Complete NIST theory. (Flawed by relying on inadequate analysis of fire-proofing damage.)
4. Bazant Simple analyses. (To simple to be a convincing proof, but subsequent analyses show that the conclusion was correct.)

My analyses:

MassAndPeWtc.pdf
FalaciousCdArguments2_14.pdf
loadDistribution_v1.pdf
RemovalOfFireproofing.pdf
OpenLetterToRichardGage.pdf
Momentum in WTC1 Revisited

My conclusion is that the Impact/fire/gravitational collapse theory better explains the observed phenomena.

 

[GlennB]

Is there a reason that you missed concrete off your list of "pulverised a good deal" items?

A fair question. The catch would be with the word "pulverisation" itself, so we'd need to know your view of the degree of pulverisation experienced by the concrete, as I asked before.

I'll assume that you are asking for my beliefs about the Towers' destruction rather than my broader beliefs about 911. I am undecided though I tend to lean towards the hypotheses that other means besides aeroplanes and fire were employed to bring them down.

So you "tend to lean" towards a CD hypothesis then. Why might it have been organised? How ?

Perhaps you can be the first to propose a narrative that could possibly explain some mechanism for the WTC destruction that doesn't involve impact damage and fire - alone - as the cause? Or will you continue to inhabit the nice, warm comfort zone you seem to have created for yourself where "nothing can be proved either way without the physical evidence" ?

 

[GregoryUrich]

OK - Say that the spring has length L=384 m, spring constant C = 2 GN/m and that it is compressed 0.8 m or 0.21% of L. What force F is required to compress it? Evidently F = 1.6 GN.

Big force - where did it come from? Aha, from the energy E applied, where E = 0.64 GNm. Big energy applied to a thin floor at top of spring. How do you apply 0.64 GNm to a thin floor?

Aha, it was applied by another thin floor of a springy mass above. It is not possible of course. What would actually happen? I assume the floors burst absorbing energy and get entangled ... and friction absorbs the rest of the 0.64 GNm.

Happy?

I'm happy, but you have not answered the question. What force would be required to stop the upper part before the elastic limit was reached?

 

[beachnut]

Just wanted to mention a few words about hypotheses vs theories and convincing vs conclusive proof.

Evidence explained equally well by both theories:

1. Witnesses heard sounds which some described as explosions.
2. Expulsions of dust and heavy debris.
3. Bones on the roof.
4. Collapse duration.
5. Fairly symmetrical complete collapse.

Evidence not explained well by either theory:

1. High temperatures in the piles.
2. Intergranular melting.
3. So called "Squibs". (Expulsions are too slow to be causes by high explosives. No detailed "over-pressure" explanation has been provided.

Evidence supporting or better explained by the controlled demolition theory:

1. Some witnesses saw flashes of light.
2. Evidence of a thermite like reaction. (could have another explanation)
3. No evidence of high temperatures in structural steel.

Prmary analyses supporting CD:

1. Hoffman, "Energy not enough to create the amount of dust". (Deeply flawed and incorrect.)
2. Ross, "Conservation of Momentum". (Deeply flawed and incorrect.)
3. Kuttler, "Collapse Time Calculations for WTC 1". (Deeply flawed and incorrect.)
4. this list could go on forever...

this list could go on forever...


My conclusion is that the Impact/fire/gravitational collapse theory better explains the observed phenomena.

And you still signed the "ample evidence" petition of truth? How do you un-sign something you learn is false?

But you still list things as evidence for either theory that are not, not even close if you were using logic and knowledge. Learn some more about CD and you will be ready to remove your name from the truth petition of pure fantasy.

Was your "ample evidence", "vapor evidence"? You need some more work and you will be cured of being a truther.

 

[JihadJane]

The wise woman will never assume that she has perfect knowledge.

Yeah, about that. Have you calculated how much explosives would be needed to pulverize the concrete since you seem to dismiss the idea that gravity alone could do it?

Hello Wildcat,

No I don't dismiss that idea. Sorry to disappoint you!

I am not qualified to perform the calculations you suggest either but I could try! I imagine that if explosives were used then gravity would still be lending its helping hand in a downwards direction regardless. Do you know what the total force of gravity induced force was that each floor experienced in the collapse model, just to start me off, so I can leave that bit off my explosive pulverization calculations?

 

[WildCat]

Do you know what the total force of gravity induced force was that each floor experienced in the collapse model, just to start me off, so I can leave that bit off my explosive pulverization calculations?

Are you going to claim that the evil NWO conspirators knew in advance exactly which bits of concrete would be pulverized by gravity alone, and then only placed explosives on the other bits?

eta: also, what would be the point of placing explosives solely to pulverize concrete in the first place?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Hello Wildcat,

No I don't dismiss that idea. Sorry to disappoint you!

I am not qualified to perform the calculations you suggest either but I could try! I imagine that if explosives were used then gravity would still be lending its helping hand in a downwards direction regardless. Do you know what the total force of gravity induced force was that each floor experienced in the collapse model, just to start me off, so I can leave that bit off my explosive pulverization calculations?

mg.

 

[GlennB]

Do you know what the total force of gravity induced force was that each floor experienced in the collapse model, just to start me off, so I can leave that bit off my explosive pulverization calculations?

JJ - why would explosives be placed in concrete floors remote from load-bearing structures ?

 

[JihadJane]

Allegedly...

Originally posted by JihadJane:

*******I am interested to know how criminal evidence can be spotted on a moving conveyor belt by observers possibly suffering from vertigo! What exactly would this evidence look like? Were they looking out for box cutters, red bandanas or hijackers' passports perhaps? Please enlighten me!**********

I think unexploded cutting charges, radio-controlled detonators, horizontal linear thermite delivery devices - you know, all those favourite figments of the CTists imagination - would have stood out like a sore thumb, given that many personal effects down to the size of door keys were recovered.

I'm assuming this comment is mostly tit for tat sarcasm ;-)

I do wonder what kind of criminal evidence the investigators could have been looking for.

Originally posted by JihadJane:

*******The original, virgin debris piles were not mapped. These are the places that should have been designated as crime scenes. Why weren't they?************

Because it was an extremely dangerous location and no place to conduct such an investigation.

How does their dangerousness effect their designation or not as a crime scene? I'm not suggesting that the operations like those carried out at Fresh Kills should have carried out at "Ground Zero", but that systematic, documented records should have been kept of the dismantling of the debris pile as would happen at a crime scene, and as much of the evidence carefully preserved for future investigation and reconstruction as possible. The desire to find survivors and human remains could explain the Twin Towers' rush but there were no bodies in the WTC7 debris pile.

You seem to be implying that they should have checked for evidence of CD. Is that right? If so, you need to understand that the investigators were not half insane and did not anticipate the "Truth" movement's ridiculous requirements years in advance. They had a job to do.

No, my words had no hidden meaning. If the physical evidence had been treated as is normal at a crime scene or after a major fire or engineering failure, then it could probably have been discovered conclusively how the Towers disintegrated. Certainly a lot of hypotheses could have been eliminated by now and theories binned!

"Al Qaeda" had already allegedly bombed the Towers ( allegedly with a little help from the FBI) so it would have been far from even half insane to check for evidence of a repeat bombing after another attack allegedly by the same terrorist group. First responders on the day didn't think it was any fraction of insane to suspect that there may be explosive devices in the buildings. Afterwards, some even suspected that they had witnesed a controlled demolition. Booby traps are common in war.

 

[JihadJane]

mg

Are you going to claim that the evil NWO conspirators knew in advance exactly which bits of concrete would be pulverized by gravity alone, and then only placed explosives on the other bits?

eta: also, what would be the point of placing explosives solely to pulverize concrete in the first place?

Who said anything about explosives being placed solely to pulverize concrete? It was you who asked me how much explosives I'd need to pulverize the concrete.

Your questions appear somewhat unrelated to anything I have written. I am merely asking you for a bit of assistance with the calculations you wish me to perform.

You are obviously an expert on the mathematics of gravity-driven collapses. I need your help.

I can hardly even remember how to do long division.

 

[beachnut]

If the physical evidence had been treated as is normal at a crime scene or after a major fire or engineering failure, then it could probably have been discovered conclusively how the Towers disintegrated. Certainly a lot of hypotheses could have been eliminated by now and theories binned!

"Al Qaeda" had already allegedly bombed the Towers ( allegedly with a little help from the FBI)

The WTC fell due to impacts and fire. It is known and the guys who did it are known. The evidence was inspected immediacy by expert engineers and scientist to aid future buildings. You are making up false information or repeating the false information oif 9/11 truth due to lack of knowledge.

The bombing of the WTC in 93 was not helped by the FBI, it was solely done by terrorists. If you have evidence of someone else doing the 93 bombing, you need to report it to the authorities, but other than that, your lack of evidence proves your opinion on this to be wrong as are you ideas on 9/11.