Coast to Coast AM Debate, August 21 2010

[Sabretooth]

All this repetitive denial and double talk is a cover to facilitate the exit of Dave who cannot defend his statement and will not admit it was wrong.

So says the guy who thinks FFA = CD, "just because".

How many times are you going to repeat this drivel without any factual support? We've been discussing this subject in two different threads for weeks now, and you still have not clarified how you believe FFA = CD.

And, I suspect, you never will.

 

[triforcharity]

The actual initiation floors in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were just above the actual impact zones, on floors with little to no damage and where there would have been almost no jet fuel. The 98th in WTC 1 and 82nd in WTC 2.

Think about that!

Fire rises, as does heat. Think about that!!

 

[Sabretooth]

Fire rises, as does heat. Think about that!!

[truther mode]
Where's your facts to support this? You can't prove it!
Therefore, WTC7 was a CD!
[/truther mode]

 

[Gamolon]

So says the guy who thinks FFA = CD, "just because".

How many times are you going to repeat this drivel without any factual support? We've been discussing this subject in two different threads for weeks now, and you still have not clarified how you believe FFA = CD.

And, I suspect, you never will.

Question.

Can buckling columns create a free fall scenario? It stands to reason that if enough of a load is applied to a buckling column (or series of columns) that the load (or structure) above will come down at free fall.

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

All this repetitive denial and double talk is a cover to facilitate the exit of Dave who cannot defend his statement and will not admit it was wrong.

"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

The 2.25 seconds of FFA was measured using a point on the roof line of the north wall. The "part of the building underneath" the north wall had NOT collapsed already.

You have not convinced me that my statement was wrong. And it doesn't look like you're convincing anyone else besides truthers, anyway.

I've been monitoring progress from time to time, but I've been quite busy with my day job.

But since you mentioned Thermite, that's on topic, as it was discussed in the debate.

Here are the differential scanning calorimeter runs I mentioned.

From Harrit/Jones et. al: note how the peak of the "thermitic material" reaction is about 420 ^o Centigrade.

In contrast, here's the exact same type of measurement - with a differential scanning calorimeter - on real thermite. This is from the paper "Kinetics of thermite reaction in Al-Fe2O3 system" by Run-Hua Fana, Hong-Liang Lü, Kang-Ning Sun, Wan-Xia Wang and Xin-Bing Yi:

The peaks at 650 ^o C are from the aluminum melting (endothermic). The exothermic ("thermitic") reaction occurs at 850 ^o C to 950 ^o C, at least 400 ^o C higher than the supposed "thermite" measured by Harrit and Jones.

Whatever Harrit and Jones thought they were measuring, it is clearly not thermite.

Your "thermite" explanation for 9/11 has just evaporated.

Ah well.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

The actual initiation floors in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were just above the actual impact zones, on floors with little to no damage and where there would have been almost no jet fuel. The 98th in WTC 1 and 82nd in WTC 2.

Think about that!

Actually I side with Triforcharity when he said:

Fire rises, as does heat. Think about that!!

Also steel is a great conductor of heat from a fire & can cause microscopic changes in the steel itself, causing it to soften & sag.

Now think about that Tony!

 

[Chorduroy]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6266413&postcount=330

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6269088&postcount=368

Maybe you didn't understand my question ... I asked you to show me where the RJ Lee report mentions THERMITE in any form.

You can't, because it doesn't.

 

[Sabretooth]

Question.

Can buckling columns create a free fall scenario? It stands to reason that if enough of a load is applied to a buckling column (or series of columns) that the load (or structure) above will come down at free fall.

Absolutely. Once a column buckles, there is little, if any, support. The buckled columns cannot support the shear weight of the building. At that point, you may as well try to hold up the building with drinking straws.

Imagine an empty cardboard paper towel roll. Stand it up staright and balance a few books on it. Relatively stable, right? At the very least, it will support the books.

Now put a kink in the roll and try to balance those books. The roll doesn't stand a chance. Your books hit the floor as if the roll wasn't even there.

 

[Gamolon]

Absolutely. Once a column buckles, there is little, if any, support. The buckled columns cannot support the shear weight of the building. At that point, you may as well try to hold up the building with drinking straws.

Imagine an empty cardboard paper towel roll. Stand it up staright and balance a few books on it. Relatively stable, right? At the very least, it will support the books.

Now put a kink in the roll and try to balance those books. The roll doesn't stand a chance. Your books hit the floor as if the roll wasn't even there.

I know that and you know that.

What I want to know is why Christopher7 keeps saying that buckled columns ALWAYS provide support/resistance?

I would like to see the information he uses as the basis for this claim.

So what is that informaiton Christopher7?

 

[Seymour Butz]

The simultaneous failure of all WTC 7 perimeter columns was not possible without planning and preparation. If FFA of the upper floors "in a single unit" depends on such a failure, that must be impossible too.

You dodged my question.

You believe that a simultaneous failure of columns to be impossible, therefore ffa is impossible. This implies that you in fact believe that ffa IS possible if this condition is met.

I asked if you find Tony to be a liar, since he said ffa is impossible, and he gave no conditions that must be met first.

Also, do you care to answer the question I gave to him?

How much resistance would an 8 story column, made up of 2 story pieces, give when they fracture at the joints? Would it perhaps be zero? Or do you find another number to be more reasonable? Care to give it?

 

[Seymour Butz]

Bardamu,
Pardon me for jumping in here but triforcharity is talking thru his hat.

In order for the entire upper portion to fall at FFA as a single unit, all 58 exterior columns had to fail simultaneously. If they had not failed simultaneously, the top part would have fallen to one side.

NIST says:
"Exterior column buckling spread from column to column, as loads were redistributed, until all the exterior columns had buckled between floors 7 and 14 within approximately 2s. [1-9 Vol.2 pg 588] This is consistent with Stage 1. [1A pg 45]

Then "The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed" [1A pg 55 ] At FFA - Stage 2

Why provide the passage that debunks your "simultaneous" belief?

NIST says the buckling occured over appx 2 seconds.

They CONTINUED the buckling after that, resulting in fractured column joints, and since fractured columns will give negligible resistance, your requirements are met.

You of course don't understand that, but that is expected.....

 

[bill smith]

All this repetitive denial and double talk is a cover to facilitate the exit of Dave who cannot defend his statement and will not admit it was wrong.

"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

The 2.25 seconds of FFA was measured using a point on the roof line of the north wall. The "part of the building underneath" the north wall had NOT collapsed already.

Check what Noam Chomsky says about continuous denial of evidence at around 2:10 into this video. It might seem a little off topic but in that context the video is right on the money..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYlyb1Bx9Ic&feature=related Chomsky

 

[alienentity]

The actual initiation floors in WTC 1 and WTC 2 were just above the actual impact zones, on floors with little to no damage and where there would have been almost no jet fuel. The 98th in WTC 1 and 82nd in WTC 2.

Think about that!

Heat rises. Think about that.
ETA oh Tri beat me to it

 

[alienentity]

You have not convinced me that my statement was wrong. And it doesn't look like you're convincing anyone else besides truthers, anyway.

I've been monitoring progress from time to time, but I've been quite busy with my day job.

But since you mentioned Thermite, that's on topic, as it was discussed in the debate.

Here are the differential scanning calorimeter runs I mentioned.

From Harrit/Jones et. al: note how the peak of the "thermitic material" reaction is about 420 ^o Centigrade.

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/HarritChart.jpg[/qimg]

In contrast, here's the exact same type of measurement - with a differential scanning calorimeter - on real thermite. This is from the paper "Kinetics of thermite reaction in Al-Fe2O3 system" by Run-Hua Fana, Hong-Liang Lü, Kang-Ning Sun, Wan-Xia Wang and Xin-Bing Yi:

[qimg]http://www.nmsr.org/real_thermite.jpg[/qimg]

The peaks at 650 ^o C are from the aluminum melting (endothermic). The exothermic ("thermitic") reaction occurs at 850 ^o C to 950 ^o C, at least 400 ^o C higher than the supposed "thermite" measured by Harrit and Jones.

Whatever Harrit and Jones thought they were measuring, it is clearly not thermite.

Your "thermite" explanation for 9/11 has just evaporated.

Ah well.

Dave, can you explain the difference (if any) in the DSC of ordinary thermite and 'superthermite' or nanothermite?

 

[DaveThomasNMSR]

Dave, can you explain the difference (if any) in the DSC of ordinary thermite and 'superthermite' or nanothermite?

Well, the widths of the peaks are related to explosive efficiency. If something was truly explosive, as "nanothermite" is alleged to be, it would have a narrow peak on the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, indicating that a lot of energy is released for a narrow range of activation temperatures.

Harrit's peaks are not very narrow, eh?

Dave

 

[bardamu]

No, my questions address a specific claim that you made. Of course, I do not expect you to answer since that would not fit into your fantasy.

My specific claim is that fires could not have caused the upper floors of WTC 7 to fall "in a single unit". You changed the subject by asking questions about thermite and explosives.

"random office" and "easily" are strawman or something. Call it your attempt at spin.

1. NIST say the collapse of WTC 7 was due to standard office fires. Unless you suspect arson, those would have been random.

2. If simultaneous failure of all perimeter columns is perfectly natural and even "an expected result", it's reasonable to suppose it could "easily" be caused. (see quote below)

I already explained how a simultaneous failure can happen due to load redistribution. It's the expected result of the transition between "barely bearing the weight of the building" to "no longer able to bear the weight of the building".

3. If you don't think fires could easily cause simultaneous failures, you should be suspicious of the official story.

You dodged my question.

You believe that a simultaneous failure of columns to be impossible, therefore ffa is impossible. This implies that you in fact believe that ffa IS possible if this condition is met.

I asked if you find Tony to be a liar, since he said ffa is impossible, and he gave no conditions that must be met first.

Also, do you care to answer the question I gave to him?

How much resistance would an 8 story column, made up of 2 story pieces, give when they fracture at the joints? Would it perhaps be zero? Or do you find another number to be more reasonable? Care to give it?

Your question is pointless, because there were 58 columns supporting the perimeter.

 

[Disbelief]

My specific claim is that fires could not have caused the upper floors of WTC 7 to fall "in a single unit". You changed the subject by asking questions about thermite and explosives.

Here's your claim:

If there were 58 columns, they'd all have to fail at the same time.

You show no proof of this and you offer no alternative. If it was not fire, what could it have been? Are you claiming that you do not think it was thermite or explosives?

 

[Christopher7]

All this repetitive denial and double talk is a cover to facilitate the exit of Dave who cannot defend his statement and will not admit it was wrong.

"There were 2 seconds of free fall at world Trade Center 7 but that's because the collapse took 16 long seconds and by the time those 2 seconds happened the part of the building underneath had collapsed already."

The 2.25 seconds of FFA was measured using a point on the roof line of the north wall. The "part of the building underneath" the north wall had NOT collapsed already.

You have not convinced me that my statement was wrong. And it doesn't look like you're convincing anyone else besides truthers, anyway.

I've been monitoring progress from time to time, but I've been quite busy with my day job.

But since you mentioned Thermite, that's on topic, as it was discussed in the debate.

On topic? I did not mention thermite in that post.

Your reply has nothing to do with your claim that the structure below the upper portion of the north face had collapsed already. This is false. The structure below the upper portion of the north face was buckling when the FFA began and continued buckling well into the FFA, but it had not "collapsed already".

I will study the reference to thermite you posted and respond in another post but again I ask you to man up and admit that "collapsed already" is incorrect.

 

[bill smith]

Well, the widths of the peaks are related to explosive efficiency. If something was truly explosive, as "nanothermite" is alleged to be, it would have a narrow peak on the Differential Scanning Calorimeter, indicating that a lot of energy is released for a narrow range of activation temperatures.

Harrit's peaks are not very narrow, eh?

Dave

Dave here's a write-up on the coast-to-coast debate.

http://stj911.org/blog/?p=774&preview=true

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Fire rises, as does heat. Think about that!!

The point I was making was that the impacts had nothing to do with where the collapse occurred as the person I had responded to (Bad Boy) seemed to think.

Additionally, your response is far from rigorous and the lack of steel with high temperature evidence belies your simple guess for the shout in the dark that it is. The factors of safety designed into the structures of the twin towers were 3.00 to 1 minimum so most of the steel would have had to be heated to at least 650 degrees C if a natural fire based collapse that you and some others are maintaining here were true, and there would have been a massive amount of steel from the 98th floor of WTC 1 and the 82nd floor of WTC 2 with evidence of having experienced these very high temperatures. There is none.