WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[JihadJane]

"We"

Mackey's use of "our" could mean the human race, the scientific community, the JRef membership or any group whatsoever. It clearly isn't the Royal "we", though.

Yes, this is what I assumed, but Hokulele seemed to be implying that R.Mackey was referring only to himself. I would like to know precisely which group this "we" referred to.

The Royal "we", incidentally, always assumes that the speaker is speaking for a group, as in a monarch for her people.

P.S. Did you find any reasons for under-cover dust sampling apart from the weather?

 

[JihadJane]

up/down

And in many cases, foundations must be designed to prevent uplift by the building.

Completely unlike floats or snow shoes.

Yes, more like diving boots or anchors , in some cases.

 

[Heiwa]

No. Soil always has been a collection of rather small solids.

I recall a school experiment where we shook up a soil sample in water and let it settle out, in order to determine its composition. There were sand particles, clay particles, some small stones, particles of organic material .... All solids, and varying from very small to rather small.

What do you think soil is, Heiwa?

Soil is earth in which plants, trees, etc., grow! I would never build anything on soil. Too ... semi-fluid, when it rains. But the plants and trees like it.

Back to topic. What happened to the lowest floor of the upper block, when it dropped? Was it intact as NIST/Bazant assume (without evidence to suit their lies) or was it the first to be damaged after initiation (so that the collapse would be arrested)?

 

[JihadJane]

2+2=5

About the same time you demonstrated that you are interested in a technical discussion.


[/sarcasm]

Is this a condition of participating in JREF forums? What is the point of divorcing science from political context?

I wonder if it is this concentration on the fascinating minutiae that makes people forget that they are discussing abstract hypotheses and theories rather than physical reality. The physical reality no longer exists. Destruction of evidence is usually considered suspicious, as an attempt to cover-up a crime of some kind, possibly “just” of substandard construction, in this case. Who knows? I don't think we will ever know and these discussions can never move beyond the hypothetical, beyond the barrier erected by the removal and destruction of vital evidence.

I would expect multimillion dollar theories (computer sumulations) to be plausible and internally consistent. Some people say this isn't actually the case but I am not qualified to judge. If there were evidence of high level malfeasance do you really think an investigative organisation that is basically a branch of the White House would tell you about it?

 

[GlennB]

Yes, this is what I assumed, but Hokulele seemed to be implying that R.Mackey was referring only to himself. I would like to know precisely which group this "we" referred to.

Your post #1127 ('Who is this royal "we"') was a direct response to Mackey's post #1124. Hokulele entered the debate later.

P.S. Did you find any reasons for under-cover dust sampling apart from the weather?

Let me give you a clue, although it's clear enough if you actually took the trouble to read the report. Even if there had been no rain, they would still have taken the samples from sheltered locations.

 

[Newtons Bit]

So soil is now a collection of rather small solids? So you build houses on a collection of rather small solids?!?! You must be joking.

You know Heiwa, before you pretend to be an expert on something you're not, it would be wise to at least google the subject first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotechnical_engineering

The engineering properties of soils are affected by four main factors: the predominant size of the mineral particles, the type of mineral particles, the grain size distribution, and the relative quantities of mineral, water and air present in the soil matrix. Fine particles (fines) are defined as particles less than 0.075 mm in diameter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soil_mechanics

The structure of a soil is the combined effects of fabric (particle association, geometrical arrangement of particles, particle groups, and pore spaces in a soil), composition, and interparticle forces. The structure of soils is also used to account for differences between the properties of natural (structured) and remolded soils (destructured).[1] The structure of a soil reflects all facets of the soil composition, history, present state, and environment. Initial conditions dominate the structure of young deposits at high porosity or freshly compacted soils; whereas older soils at lower porosity reflect the post-depositional changes more.

It's generally wise to do a brief literature survey before just making thing up. I would have thought you would have learned that by now.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Soil is earth in which plants, trees, etc., grow! I would never build anything on soil. Too ... semi-fluid, when it rains. But the plants and trees like it.

Back to topic. What happened to the lowest floor of the upper block, when it dropped? Was it intact as NIST/Bazant assume (without evidence to suit their lies) or was it the first to be damaged after initiation (so that the collapse would be arrested)?

The cold undamaged columns of the 99th floor fell onto the heated and damaged columns below. Neither part could handle the force of the impact and both upper and lower columns failed. The next drop was 7.4m. I wonder why it fell down so fast?

 

[Heiwa]

The cold undamaged columns of the 99th floor fell onto the heated and damaged columns below. Neither part could handle the force of the impact and both upper and lower columns failed. The next drop was 7.4m. I wonder why it fell down so fast?

A column when cut cannot fall on itself for obvious reasons! The question is what happened to the lowest floor of the upper block, when it started to move.
Was it intact all the time as suggsted by NIST/Bazant to produce crush-down or was it demolished by e.g. the failed columns?

 

[firecoins]

Wow! These long threads never cease to amaze thee!

 

[JihadJane]

Your post #1127 ('Who is this royal "we"') was a direct response to Mackey's post #1124. Hokulele entered the debate later.

My response to R.Mackey's post ("Who is this royal 'we'") was an attempt to find out which collective he was referring to. Hokulele seemed to be suggesting there was no collective in R.Mackey's "we".

Let me give you a clue, although it's clear enough if you actually took the trouble to read the report. Even if there had been no rain, they would still have taken the samples from sheltered locations.

Your imagined truth (that I haven't read the report) is incorrect and I can find no evidence supporting your assertion.

 

[GlennB]

My response to R.Mackey's post ("Who is this royal 'we'") was an attempt to find out which collective he was referring to. Hokulele seemed to be suggesting there was no collective in R.Mackey's "we".

In which case M's use of "we" or "our" was not of the Royal variety.

 

[JihadJane]

In which case M's use of "we" or "our" was not of the Royal variety.

A singular "we" is the royalest and maddest of "we"s!

 

[GlennB]

Let me give you a clue, although it's clear enough if you actually took the trouble to read the report. Even if there had been no rain, they would still have taken the samples from sheltered locations.

Your imagined truth (that I haven't read the report) is incorrect and I can find no evidence supporting your assertion.

Fair enough. You may have read the report but you don't seem to have studied it.

A couple of questions could clarify things for you, although you might have to study the report to answer them. By which I mean go beyond the preamble and summary and read the whole contents.

1. What exactly did Lioy et al set out to study?

2. Dust samples were freely available in a (theoretical) particular area one block from GZ.
Location A was under cover.
Location B was only 10 metres away, but exposed.

Assuming there had been no rain and the locations were only differentiated by the existence of cover, would either sample have served equally well for Lioy's purpose?

 

[JihadJane]

Fair enough. You may have read the report but you don't seem to have studied it.

A couple of questions could clarify things for you, although you might have to study the report to answer them. By which I mean go beyond the preamble and summary and read the whole contents. [I suggest you give up portraying unsubstantiated assumptions as truth! -JJ]

1. What exactly did Lioy et al set out to study?

2. Dust samples were freely available in a (theoretical) particular area one block from GZ.
Location A was under cover.
Location B was only 10 metres away, but exposed.

Assuming there had been no rain and the locations were only differentiated by the existence of cover, would either sample have served equally well for Lioy's purpose?

1) The toxicity of the dust to humans, particularly via inhalation.

2) Yes, assuming that R.Mackey's explanation , above, re: "the Stokes flow regime", is correct and not just bluster.

 

[GlennB]

1) The toxicity of the dust to humans, particularly via inhalation.

Obviously. But do a word search of the report.
Look for "aerosol plume".
Count the number of occurences of "indoor" and "resident".
And look up Stokes Flow if you haven't already.

2) Yes, assuming that R.Mackey's explanation , above, re: "the Stokes flow regime", is correct and not just bluster.

No.
From the study here :

Approach​

the analyses conducted on each sample were based on the nature of the sources of the particles that were aerosolized on 11 September 2001.

What might be sampled in an uncovered location that would not be sampled in a covered location? A passing knowledge of Stokes Flow would help here.​

 

[rwguinn]

In which case M's use of "we" or "our" was not of the Royal variety.

It is the Editorial "We", appropriate for use in the context.
And JihadJane is either deliberately rude and uncivil--in all possible ways... or stupid. The misrepresentations cannot be accidental...

 

[JihadJane]

Obviously. But do a word search of the report.
Look for "aerosol plume".
Count the number of occurences of "indoor" and "resident".
And look up Stokes Flow if you haven't already.

Don't you find it strange that the authors state explicitly that they collected samples from under-cover because of the weather and failed to mention the experiementally important reason you are imputing?

No.

I thought you might say that!

From the study here :

Approach​

the analyses conducted on each sample were based on the nature of the sources of the particles that were aerosolized on 11 September 2001.

What might be sampled in an uncovered location that would not be sampled in a covered location? A passing knowledge of Stokes Flow would help here.​

Feathers?

Good advice. I'll get back to you when I'm a Stokes Flow expert!

 

[JihadJane]

It is the Editorial "We", appropriate for use in the context.
And JihadJane is either deliberately rude and uncivil--in all possible ways... or stupid. The misrepresentations cannot be accidental...

Editorial "we"? Editor of what?

deliberately rude and uncivil"

People who don't believe the unsubstantiated 911 bin Laden theory are routinely abused on this forum, often in very childish ways and usually without censure. It is so common that it is accepted as normal. Perhaps it is a little shocking when the roles are reversed. My sometimes provocative quips are minor in comparison. For example, I do not accuse people of being insane or mentally subnormal.

or stupid.

Only in the sense that the King's Fool is stupid.

 

[GlennB]

Don't you find it strange that the authors state explicitly that they collected samples from under-cover because of the weather and failed to mention the experiementally important reason you are imputing?

Their objective is clearly stated. They set out to study the contents of the plume. The word aerosol is in the very title.

Macroscopic ejected debris fell at a considerable distance from WTC. For example, aluminium cladding panels (and much other debris) were found north of WTC7 in Barclay St., and this was certainly not the furthest such debris reached. Undoubtedly non-aerosol debris would be a very possible "contaminant" of any samples taken by Lioy et al from exposed locations. Avoiding this would be an absolutely central aspect of their experimental approach.
Taking samples from "weather-protected" locations achieves this. The dust can only have drifted to those spots. One can go so far as to say that if they had not taken samples from such locations, then their experiment would have been fatally flawed.

Good advice. I'll get back to you when I'm a Stokes Flow expert!

Expert knowledge is not required here, just an understanding of the basics. Bear in mind that when you see particles of dust dancing in a shaft of sunlight, some of those particles are actually quite dense. Yet they float on the slightest draught. 2kg lumps of concrete don't.

 

[JihadJane]

@GlennB


2kg lumps of concrete may not qualify as dust particles! R.Mackey wrote "The particle size is such that all dust is in the Stokes flow regime, and its specific gravity is irrelevant." I understood from this to mean that intuitive assumptions about heavy particles falling more quickly than lighter ones don't apply because the dust was in the Stokes flow regime.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?