Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[Oystein]

You disappeared rather sharpish yesterday ? So do you need to know anything else about 9/11 ?

A serious case of real life. Had a girl friend to take out and pamper. Such inconveniences sometimes get in the way of our real important business here, sorry.
I saw that you wrote a larger piece of fiction in that somewhat tedious style of a hypothetical dialogue. Haven't read it yet, only scanned it briefly. It appears to be terribly incomplete if you really attempted to write down a full theory, but I will tell you more when I get the time to read it through. Which isn't now. Real life, ya know...

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm a analyst Hans, not a doer. In any case we already know how hot thermite and it's far more concentrated cousin NANOthermite can burn at. We also know the melting point of steel. The rest is just technicalities.

You think the hypothesesis works then I take it ?

No, I don't think it works. Oh, I think you can sever a hollow steel column by burning the appropriate amount of thermite in it, but the effect will be very noticeable. Fire-proofing is a layer you paint on steel to delay the heating from a fire. It is simply an insulating layer which has no structural integrity what so ever in itself. It will not hold in the rather violent fire resulting from thermite.

And of course the idea of collecting the steel somewhere is ridiculous.

First of all, the steel was still there in the debris heap. After all, a whole other line of truther talk has been of how it was hurriedly trucked away and sold off to China.

Secondly, those buildings were cleared all the way down to the concrete 'bathtub' under them, and those 'bathtubs' were carefully inspected for damage (to know if they could be used to erect new buildings on).

Article:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/foundation.html

Methinks they would have noticed a drain for thousands of tons of molten steel. Not to mention the fact that the stuff would probably still be red-hot at the time.

No Bill, quite frankly, I feel I'm quite charitable when I call your narrative a fairy tale. Apart from some basic make-believe, fairy tales usually make sense.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

In nanothermite, just as in any material that is reduced to nano-sized proportions the surface area of each particle becomes much larger, effectively concentrating the product. Or so I've heard. Is that not true ?

It may be slightly denser, but not significantly. A bucket of balls has the same density, regardless of the size of the balls.

ETA, The larger surface contact between the ingredients makes for a faster reaction and hence higher energy output in a given time, not much else.

Hans

 

[Oystein]

So correct me then .Be more specific. Keep it simple for the readers.

Alrighteee!

You are correct that smaller particle size means greater surface-to-volume ratio. This, in thermite has three principle effects on the thermite reaction, two positive and one negative:
- Positive: As there are more iron-oxide molecules in close proximity to aluminium atoms at any one time, the reaction can progress faster and also possibly more complete. Speed is the main objective.
- Positive: Smaller particle size has a minor effect to lower the temperature where the reaction starts, making it easier to ignite and, again, a little faster.
- Negative: Aluminium always develops a thin film of oxide on its surface as soon as it has contact with air. This is a minor nuisance when particle size is larger, but becomes significant at nano-sizes. It means, practically, that a significant proportion of the aluminium gets deactivated and becomes useless ballast. It can't add to the reaction then. To partially offset this, the thermite mix must contain more aluminium (or, the reverse, less oxigene in the form of iron oxide) than would be optimal for maximum energy density. In theory, optimal thermite has an energy density of 3.9kJ/g. In practice, normal thermite may be around 3 kJ/g. Nano-thermite however reaches only around 1.5kJ/g.

Now, when you say "concentrated", it is not clear what you mean. The word means "more of the same per mass unit" or "more of the same per volume".

By using a different particle size, you can't significantly increase the density (mass per volume) of the stuff. In fact, that is another potential problem of nanosizing, that you can't alway pack it as densely as you could larger particles, or particles of mixed sizes.

Now, if you compare nano-thermite to regular thermite, you will find the following changes with regards to "concentration":
- The ratio of usuable reactants to total mass is reduced, because of the larger proportion of useless aluminium oxid. Concetration decreases
- In other words, the energy density (energy per mass) is lower. Concetration decreases
- Density and volume are roughly the same. So energy concentration by volume also decreases

The only thing that increases is reaction speed, or energy release per time unit. This is called "power" in physics. A term you will probabkly misunderstand next.

The truth is: You don't need more power to melt more steel, you need more energy. But nanothermite contains less energy than regular thermite, per pound as well as per gallon.

 

[bill smith]

No, I don't think it works. Oh, I think you can sever a hollow steel column by burning the appropriate amount of thermite in it, but the effect will be very noticeable. Fire-proofing is a layer you paint on steel to delay the heating from a fire. It is simply an insulating layer which has no structural integrity what so ever in itself. It will not hold in the rather violent fire resulting from thermite.

And of course the idea of collecting the steel somewhere is ridiculous.

First of all, the steel was still there in the debris heap. After all, a whole other line of truther talk has been of how it was hurriedly trucked away and sold off to China.

Secondly, those buildings were cleared all the way down to the concrete 'bathtub' under them, and those 'bathtubs' were carefully inspected for damage (to know if they could be used to erect new buildings on).

Article:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/foundation.html

Methinks they would have noticed a drain for thousands of tons of molten steel. Not to mention the fact that the stuff would probably still be red-hot at the time.

No Bill, quite frankly, I feel I'm quite charitable when I call your narrative a fairy tale. Apart from some basic make-believe, fairy tales usually make sense.

Hans

Very little steel actually went to China. The reason that they started hauling it away so quickly in direct contavention of every decent human principle of respect for the dead and against all the advice of professionals was to provide a reason why there was so little steel in the first place. After all there were lots of completely missing core columns. This way they could say that any percieved shortfall had already been removed and 'shipped to China', Dead obvious really.

See what the editor of 'Fire Engineering Magazine' Bill Manning had to say about it at the time. Fire Engineering Magazine is the most respected Fire Engineering publication in America and has been publishing for more than 100 years.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020100fireengineering

 

[MRC_Hans]

Very little steel actually went to China. The reason that they started hauling it away so quickly in direct contavention of every decent human principle of respect for the dead and against all the advice of professionals was to provide a reason why there was so little steel in the sirst place. After all there were lots of completely missing core columns. This way they could say that any percieved shortfall had already been removed and shipped to China, Dead obvious really.

See what the editor of 'Fire Engineering Magazine' Bill Manning had to say about it at the time. Fire Engineering Magazine is the most respected Fire Engineering publication in America and has been publishing for more than 100 years.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020100fireengineering

From that link:

For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car.

From here

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/cleanup.html

Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.

Plenty of steel.

And really, it is only in your fantasy that thousands of tons of steel can be made to vanish. There are accounts of it, accounts of the sale, accounts of the truckloads. A few tons might slip away, but ......

Hans

 

[bill smith]

Alrighteee!

You are correct that smaller particle size means greater surface-to-volume ratio. This, in thermite has three principle effects on the thermite reaction, two positive and one negative:
- Positive: As there are more iron-oxide molecules in close proximity to aluminium atoms at any one time, the reaction can progress faster and also possibly more complete. Speed is the main objective.
- Positive: Smaller particle size has a minor effect to lower the temperature where the reaction starts, making it easier to ignite and, again, a little faster.
- Negative: Aluminium always develops a thin film of oxide on its surface as soon as it has contact with air. This is a minor nuisance when particle size is larger, but becomes significant at nano-sizes. It means, practically, that a significant proportion of the aluminium gets deactivated and becomes useless ballast. It can't add to the reaction then. To partially offset this, the thermite mix must contain more aluminium (or, the reverse, less oxigene in the form of iron oxide) than would be optimal for maximum energy density. In theory, optimal thermite has an energy density of 3.9kJ/g. In practice, normal thermite may be around 3 kJ/g. Nano-thermite however reaches only around 1.5kJ/g.

Now, when you say "concentrated", it is not clear what you mean. The word means "more of the same per mass unit" or "more of the same per volume".

By using a different particle size, you can't significantly increase the density (mass per volume) of the stuff. In fact, that is another potential problem of nanosizing, that you can't alway pack it as densely as you could larger particles, or particles of mixed sizes.

Now, if you compare nano-thermite to regular thermite, you will find the following changes with regards to "concentration":
- The ratio of usuable reactants to total mass is reduced, because of the larger proportion of useless aluminium oxid. Concetration decreases
- In other words, the energy density (energy per mass) is lower. Concetration decreases
- Density and volume are roughly the same. So energy concentration by volume also decreases

The only thing that increases is reaction speed, or energy release per time unit. This is called "power" in physics. A term you will probabkly misunderstand next.

The truth is: You don't need more power to melt more steel, you need more energy. But nanothermite contains less energy than regular thermite, per pound as well as per gallon.

Very helpful Oystein. Pretty clear too. The fast reaction time fits nicely in with my hypothesis. The temperatures reached are way more than enough too.

 

[BStrong]

Very little steel actually went to China. The reason that they started hauling it away so quickly in direct contavention of every decent human principle of respect for the dead and against all the advice of professionals was to provide a reason why there was so little steel in the first place. After all there were lots of completely missing core columns. This way they could say that any percieved shortfall had already been removed and 'shipped to China', Dead obvious really.

See what the editor of 'Fire Engineering Magazine' Bill Manning had to say about it at the time. Fire Engineering Magazine is the most respected Fire Engineering publication in America and has been publishing for more than 100 years.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020100fireengineering

I've been around quite a bit, and have never encountered a situation where debris isn't removed out of "respect for the dead."

Proof?

 

[bill smith]

I've been around quite a bit, and have never encountered a situation where debris isn't removed out of "respect for the dead."

Proof?

They started hauling not long after the collapse. The common wisdon was that people could still be alive and buried in rubble. The thousands of firemen that you guys say were frantically digging in the rubble certainly thought so.

So in that instance they could possibly have been crushiing survivors and mangling the dead bodies. Criminal and sacrilegious behaviour without a doubt.

It tells you what lengths they were prepared to go to to account for the missing steel.

 

[Carll68]

First, lets be clear. If the core was rigged for demolition, the core would have fallen first. Instead, it was the last thing to collapse while the external faccade collpased around it.

So, again, Bill's fairy tale amounts to nothing more than speculative fantasy not based in the reality of the days events.

Next, John Gross was neither lying, nor was he negligent. I can not prove that he knew of any of the qoutes of molten flowing, and therefor have no reason to slander him, nor beleive he saw these qoutes which are mostly mined and readily visible in CT circles. Myself, I have never read these molten steel qoutes until this CT nonsense popped on my radar. He deals with empiracal evidence and he and his team form conclussions based on that.

So, finally, can anyone 1) show me video or pictures of MOLTEN steel at GZ, then 2) link me to the peer reviewed studies that prove the molten material being shown is indeed STRUCTURAL STEEL while explaining 3) how the THERMAL temp readings show no temps high enough to cause molten steel?

 

[Carll68]

They started hauling not long after the collapse. The common wisdon was that people could still be alive and buried in rubble. The thousands of firemen that you guys say were frantically digging in the rubble certainly thought so.

So in that instance they could possibly have been crushiing survivors and mangling the dead bodies. Criminal and sacrilegious behaviour without a doubt.

It tells you what lengths they were prepared to go to to account for the missing steel.

This has to be a joke.

Bill, how do you think they remove columns and beams weighing many tons to search for survivors? By hand?

 

[bill smith]

It may be slightly denser, but not significantly. A bucket of balls has the same density, regardless of the size of the balls.

ETA, The larger surface contact between the ingredients makes for a faster reaction and hence higher energy output in a given time, not much else.

Hans

Thanks Hans. I'll save that. The nanothermite sounds like a operfect candidate.

 

[tmd2_1]

tmd,



First question, tm: How old are you? I'm guessing pretty young.

I'm a lot older (approaching 60 way too fast for my own taste). In my generation, one called another person "a liar" with great trepidation. It was a great way to get your light punched out.

Second, you haven't the slightest clue as to whether Dr. Gross was lying or not. You haven't the slightest clue what he knew, or didn't know, at that time about other peoples statements.

I'll give you a little clue: very, very, very few working engineers bother with this crap. I know. I are one.

And I keep this personal little fascination with spectacularly dysfunctional epistemologies as quiet from my engineer / scientist / professional friends as some would keep an embarrassing drinking problem. When I (rarely) bring up the subject, I generally get a "you're not still wasting time on that crap, are you?" response.

When I was working for myself (i.e., at my own company), I posted more often here. My time was my own to devote to whatever I chose. Since the beginning of the year, I've been working a consulting gig for another company. I put in about 65 - 70 hours / week. There ain't enough time in the day to waste a couple hours reading the rantings of the utterly clueless.

This is exactly the situation that Gross was in, in the midst of the preparation of the final NIST reports. I am certain that he'd heard that there were a bunch of lunatics, running around saying that the buildings were blown up with explosives. I am also certain that he had all the engineering knowledge & insider info (ie., no detonators, no explosive remnants, no trivial evidence (unmistakeable from 20 feet away) that any column had been blown up or melted.

He wasn't shocked at the punk's accusations. He was utterly disdainful of stupidity.

My kinda guy...



Perhaps, just perhaps, he didn't spend his time watching brain dead Youtube crap while the nation waited impatiently for his group's overdue report. Maybe he was too busy, you know, working.

Just a thought...



You're wrong. You're completely wrong.

The evidence points to there being little to no molten steel in the debris. You do know what "molten steel", "running down channels like lava", turns into over time, don't you? Please tell me.

And tell me whether or not this was found in the debris.

You do know what a massive steel column looks like if a portion of it has melted, don't you? Please describe it to me. There are tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of pictures on the internet of the columns in the debris. And then stacked at Fresh Kills. There is not ONE that shows evidence of a portion of the beam having melted. (And that includes Beiderman, Barnett & Sassoon.)

Please think about what this means.



You haven't a clue what constitutes a "well qualified" individual to answer these questions.

Architects are out.
Physicists are out.
Chemical engineers are out.
Electrical engineers are out.
Computer engineers are out.
Sanitation engineers are out.
Most civil engineers are out.

Mechanical engineers (like me) are getting closer, but still no cigar.
Structural engineers are closer yet, but not automatic authorities.

The above eliminates about 1450 of your "1500+ well qualified" individuals.

The people that are real experts are structural engineers with extensive experience in very large buildings. (I'll give you one guess as to the specific expertise of the 200+ engineers from academia & industry that NIST hired to help them with this task. C'mon, tm, one guess.)

And the amazing thing about AE911T…? None of the 50 or so structural engineers have produced squat for analyses.

Those few informed individuals have published … zippo.
They have released … nothing.
On a question that they all state is of crucial importance to the US & the world, in a field in which their expertise & knowledge might contribute enormously to society, they have done … nothing.

Care to try to explain that, tm?

Are they lazy? Are they uncaring? Are they unmotivated? Are they incompetent?

Answers: Maybe. Maybe. Maybe. Yup.

And the rest of the engineering world, the REAL engineering world, ignores these boobs.

Care to try to explain that one, tm??

Let me try and summarize what you said...tell me if I'm wrong. Basically John Gross somehow is still not lying...though he clearly is. You're evidence is basically that he would just laugh at the matter...because it is so stupid. That's some evidence. Then you go to talk about, your qualifications and how this whole issue is basically laughed at...by real engineers. Again, this evidence is astounding, I might actually have to re-think this whole thing.

Next you go into what should or should not have been found in the debris. Take a look at these two videos...then talk about that. The first is the evil money grubbing Richard Gage, again showing Gross lying, and does it probably best of all. Also in regards to your question, what what molten steel turn into..take a look at the part of the Video with Bart Voorsanger...think that looks a little like it? But it couldn't be could it? The second is Jon doing an experiment, showing normal office supplies, and some jet aluminum couldn't produce the sulfur that was found. Don't like his results? Do just what he says prove him wrong by experiment...I mean for an engineer who laughs at other engineers, it should be no problem for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU

Let me address your first point. My age and for that matter my background is not important. I am an adult..a person...whose opinions and thoughts should be treated with respect, the same as every one else. I would have no problem calling Gross a liar right to his face, in fact I would love to get the chance. But I would do in a respectful manner, I do everything with respect, like if he was giving a talk, and during the Q&A I would be like "Why did you feel the need to lie about eye witness reports of Molten steel at the University of Texas" and then watch him squirm, and avoid the topic. Also you're right I'm sure Gross wouldn't have the 10 seconds it would take to find these videos, but my hope is that he wouldn't need to do such a thing, you know because he (or someone from NIST) should probably be talking the the eye witnesses directly.

One last point, if you look at the Gage video I posted, it also has a quote attributed to Leslie Robertson, fully sourced. But he is same quack as well I'm sure.

 

[Craig4]

Thanks Hans. I'll save that. The nanothermite sounds like a operfect candidate.

Meanwhile, everyone who lives in a place I like to call reality will stick with planes flying into the buildings.

 

[tmd2_1]

Typical truther, eyewitnesses are only useful if you can twist their words to fit your theories, and dismiss other parts of their testimony you can't make fit.

What exactly am I distorting? He said what he said. Perhaps you'd like me to talk about how he says, he was not in front of the cobblestone, when the picture clearly shows that he is. This is when he knows he is being recorded...somehow I got this wrong as well?

Besides name one time in this entire thread, where I said an eye witnesses statements didn't matter?

 

[twinstead]

Meanwhile, everyone who lives in a place I like to call reality will stick with planes flying into the buildings.

Yea, but that's no nearly cool or edgy enough for bill. Nanothermite is MUCH more exciting. And, the fact that only he and a few other intrepid internet warriors know The Truth^tm makes it just that much cooler.

 

[Carll68]

One last point, if you look at the Gage video I posted, it also has a quote attributed to Leslie Robertson, fully sourced. But he is same quack as well I'm sure.

Gross wasnt lying nor negligent. Deal with it.

Since you brought him up, what does Leslie Robertson think of Gage and the nuttery that the towers were CD'ed?

 

[The Platypus]

What I have a problem with is irrational ideologues spewing spittle on relatively obscure internet forums trying to shove their beliefs down my throat.

But that's just me.

it's not just you...

 

[Carll68]

. I would have no problem calling Gross a liar right to his face, in fact I would love to get the chance. But I would do in a respectful manner, I do everything with respect, like if he was giving a talk, and during the Q&A I would be like "Why did you feel the need to lie about eye witness reports of Molten steel at the University of Texas" and then watch him squirm, and avoid the topic. .

LOL..oh the Irony. Nuttin' but respect there.

I really respect people who type using "I would be like..."

It's amazing how these twoofers have no clue on physics or engineering, but somehow magicaly have the abiltiy to know that the NIST report is wrong. Can't solve an 8th grade physics problem, but argue with the college professor...classic.

 

[Carll68]

What exactly am I distorting? He said what he said. Perhaps you'd like me to talk about how he says, he was not in front of the cobblestone, when the picture clearly shows that he is. This is when he knows he is being recorded...somehow I got this wrong as well?

Besides name one time in this entire thread, where I said an eye witnesses statements didn't matter?

LOL..so now they are manipulating photos........