Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[beachnut]

Although the connection at column 79 is a major problem for the NIST hypothesis, especially since they omitted the girder stiffeners, it isn't just the one connection that is in contention. There are a significant number of problems with the NIST hypothesis.

What do you think about what I asked Chris Mohr in Post #79? If as NIST alleges, the exterior comes down due to a loss of lateral support from the interior, then why doesn't the east side exterior come down first if, as the NIST WTC 7 report claims, it loses its interior first? Instead it comes down later with west side exterior.

I am hoping someone here will answer this as I am trying to understand why so many here continue to support the NIST WTC 7 report in spite of these problems with it.

You are an engineer, answer you questions with some engineering, not BS.

What happen to your symmetry BS?

How many people did it take to prep WTC 7, 1, 2? How many people prepped the WTC to murder thousands? How did people miss the BS silent explosives being placed by people who murdered them?

What a load of BS, you have many people planting explosives to murder thousands. Gee, Watergate had a smaller cast of characters and it leaked quickly - where as your CT delusion has been silent for 13 years, and there is not one piece of evidence for CD.

You have no clue on this subject; you ask stupid questions; because you can't answer them. Why do you ask so many silly questions which only expose you can't do the engineering to prove your point, or even answer the question. You have not done the work, and only use BS statements backed with questions to form some failed delusion of CD. Who did your CD fantasy? No one.


The symmetry is the big red flag for BS to follow. There is no symmetry, in the collapse, and even less in real CD. The more symmetrical collapse would be fire induced in a broad fire, and less in a fire where the tower began to collapse and the section was rotating as it fell.
Who planted the silent explosives Tony? What? Is the question to hard?

Where is the symmetry? I see WTC 7 sagging all different directions. Where is your engineering? You don't have any, you can't answer or prove your own failed claims.

Although the connection at column 79 is a major problem for the NIST hypothesis, especially since they omitted the girder stiffeners, it isn't just the one connection that is in contention. There are a significant number of problems with the NIST hypothesis.

Saying so is BS, you failed to produce the proof. You failed to do the engineering, and you never will. You will ask questions, and make up BS statements like this which mean nothing.

Who planted your explosives? Why? How much explosives are needed when you can't prep the building? I would say 10 times, or 100 times more explosives are needed to do the job when you can't place cutter charges on the steel, or precut. What is the amount in your silly CD fantasy you fail to detail. Why can't you do engineering to back up your statement on the girder stiffeners?

Who did it, who murdered their fellow citizen no 911; who planted the explosives Tony? Got some engineering to go with your BS statements and questions? When I went to engineering briefings on items in the USAF, we had engineering presented, not opinions based on some fantasy CT. Where is the engineering?

 

[Oystein]

A couple weeks ago my clients tested the latest evolution of their best-known product, which will be used in the SLS system in a few years. Its fuel is quite similar to thermite, and it burns while... well, not so much "floating" through the air as hurtling through it at hypersonic velocity. And it burns very brightly. To insinuate that significant amounts of burning thermite could fall through the air unnoticed and unphotographed is colossally wishful thinking. In fact, here's what it looks like when burning thermite rains down to the ground.

Hehe good point.

Just for comparison:
The old Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters each burned 500 tons of propellant within 127 seconds.
WP: "The rocket propellant mixture in each SRB motor consisted of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6% by weight), aluminium (fuel, 16%), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%), a polymer (PBAN, serving as a binder that held the mixture together and acted as secondary fuel, 12.04%), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96%)."
So, like thermite, it basically is aluminium fuel with oxidizer and some organic binder. Total energy density cannot be significantly higher than that of thermite.

Niels Harrit and fans and friends want us to believe that there were hundreds of tons of thermite in the towers, or even still unreacted in the dust!

So hundreds of tons went off within 3 times ... what, 15 seconds or so, right?
A Space Shuttle booster burned 500 tons in 127 seconds, or under 4 tons/s.
Harrit believes "hundreds of tons", or at least 200 tons, within 45 seconds or so, = over 4 tons per second.

The visual show should have been spectacular. Sorry I am glad I missed it.

 

[LSSBB]

To be fair, "we" have the same "problem" with the fiery, burning and hot debris that actually travelled from WTC1 to WTC7: It's there (all that was burning, smoldering and glowing red-hot or more wasn't magically switched off) during the collapse, but hidden from sight by the much more plentiful dust and smoke that's not aflame.

It suffices if, among 1 ton of dust that was dumped into #7, there were a few handful of hot embers. Or a few handful of burning thermite

Actually, it's not the same problem. Burning embers radiate in a different light band / at different frequencies, and with different luminosity, than burning thermite, I believe.

 

[JayUtah]

It suffices if, among 1 ton of dust that was dumped into #7, there were a few handful of hot embers. Or a few handful of burning thermite

That's why they have to postulate the magic pixie gypsum dust to preferentially extinguish anything except thermite.

 

[JayUtah]

Actually, it's not the same problem. Burning embers radiate in a different light band / at different frequencies, and with different luminosity, than burning thermite, I believe.

That's correct. You may recall Crazy Chainsaw and a few others of us discussed in a different thread the UV wavelengths you get from thermite. Glowing embers radiate primarily in the classical thermal wavelengths.

 

[carlitos]

To be fair, "we" have the same "problem" with the fiery, burning and hot debris that actually travelled from WTC1 to WTC7:

No, we really don't.

 

[WilliamSeger]

He didn't even say "unreacted thermite." He said "burning thermite" floating as if thermite would "burn" while floating through the air (invisibly). As I said in the previous thread, I'd love to see a demonstration of this phenomenon at work.

Ah, yeah, so it's just another case where thermite has the ability to burn undetected and as long as needed to explain anything that happened? Remarkable stuff.

 

[JayUtah]

Harrit believes "hundreds of tons", or at least 200 tons, within 45 seconds or so, = over 4 tons per second.

Yes, according to that particular claim, the Truthers want us to believe that the equivalent of a shuttle launch occurred within WTC 7 -- rapidly and undetectably.

The visual show should have been spectacular. Sorry I am glad I missed it.

Further, there's a reason Orbital ATK makes even VIP spectators watch from the highway and not in the test area ^{[Google aerial]} itself. Most of the spectators line up along the turnoff to the Golden Spike monument. (Yes, the STS and SLS boosters are manufactured a stone's throw from the U.S. transcontinental railroad completion site. Zoom out the geography link above.)

You don't "hear" a rocket firing so much as "feel" it. We talk about failing to hear the distinctive cracks of the supposed demolition shape charges. But the notion that tons of thermite will burn rapidly and silently is fairly daft.

The huge caveat is that the acoustic signature of a rocket motor is produced mainly by focusing the combustion through the nozzle; it's the interaction of the exhaust with the surrounding air. That doesn't necessarily apply to paint-on thermite. But then again, paint-on thermite can't cut steel, and the alleged proof videos showing how thermite can cut steel use a nozzle to focus the thermodynamic expansion effects of thermitic reactions into a torch flame that is essentially indistinguishable from a rocket plume for both fluid and heat transfer purposes. So apply expectations accordingly.

Neither could the focused cutting flame powered by thermite be the "explosions" Truthers insist some witnesses reported. It is a sustained roar, in the case of this particular rocketry device. And it's a powerfully seismic roar. Orbital ATK rocket tests register on seismographs. And from even the safe distances that ATK enforces, the shock wave is ... well, a shock wave. For the duration of the firing you feel it in your chest and also transmitted through the ground to your feet, in addition to hearing it with your ears.

 

[JayUtah]

Ah, yeah, so it's just another case where thermite has the ability to burn undetected and as long as needed to explain anything that happened? Remarkable stuff.

Exactly why it has to be super-duper nanothermite manufactured in secret Dept. of Energy labs. Unlike ordinary thermite, which has easily discovered and falsifiable properties, nanothermite magically possesses all the properties needed to destroy a tall office building, but none of the properties that would give it away to any but the most careful, attentive, and knowledgeable observers. And because it's such an exotic material with such obscure properties, no critic can rationally formulate a way to falsify it.

Let's hear again how Truthers are so rigorously scientific in their proposals.

 

[Oystein]

Actually, it's not the same problem. Burning embers radiate in a different light band / at different frequencies, and with different luminosity, than burning thermite, I believe.

We know there was a lot of burning and glowin material - tons?
Visible light.
We don't see it.

Proof of concept.

We'd see 500 tons of burning thermite.
500 kg - not so sure.
500 g might suffice to start a fire here or there.

 

[Oystein]

No, we really don't.

"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
...
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't."​

 

[LSSBB]

We know there was a lot of burning and glowin material - tons?
Visible light.
We don't see it.

Proof of concept.

We'd see 500 tons of burning thermite.
500 kg - not so sure.
500 g might suffice to start a fire here or there.

Not quite following you there. We saw a lot of burning material on the buildings before the collapse, and on the ground after. Material can also be burning and radiating in a part of the spectrum not visible (infrared).

Thermite burns pretty brightly, and in a visible spectrum also.

 

[jaydeehess]

Chris, if one accepts the NIST scenario then they believe the exterior collapsed due to a lack of lateral support from the interior.

Of course, the over g situation can happen if the interior is falling and pulling on the exterior which then reacts to an already falling interior and initially accelerates at slightly greater than g.

However, the NIST scenario has the east side interior collapsing first and then a progression from east to west. The question I have for NIST and you is how do you explain the symmetry of the exterior collapse within that paradigm.

In your scenario the east side exterior would have to remain standing after its interior support was removed and wait for the west side interior to collapse and then come down simultaneously with the west side exterior. This symmetric collapse of the east and west side exteriors seems to cause problems for your hypothesis.

On the other hand, if all 24 core columns are removed simultaneously over a significant number of stories then symmetry for the exterior collapse, and free fall or even slightly over free fall acceleration for the exterior, is explainable.

Fact of the matter is that neither you or AE911T has been able to, or at least hasn't bothered to, play at the technical level that NIST operated at in the use of computer aided forensic evaluation of the WTC structures. Instead you pick at details which you evaluate with hand calculations which in turn necessitates simplification and isolation beyond that which the FEAs use. You then have the audacity to complain about simplifications used in the FEAs.

....and so we wait, and wait, for the seemingly promised independently developed FEA(s) that AE911T is doing.

Hand calculations and seat-of-the-pants speculations.
I am sure the AE911T FEA will sort things out. Maybe you'd like to contact them and get an ETA on that. Or we could wait until the next monthly progress report, once they start.

The 47 storey FEA shows global collapse occurring at the lower floors in similar fashion as seen by the near simultaneous drop of all four sides in reality. IIRC exterior collapse ensued when the columns under the south end of the cantilever trusses gave way. Until that time the perimeters of east and west were still holding up(except along the line of the 'kink' which had already let go). At that time the north side buckled out at the line of trusses. This would pull on the east side and cause the east wall to release as well.

What you characterize as the "NIST scenario" is a consequence of the research and computer aided forensic investigation they performed. To counter it you have created, out of whole cloth and a fervent imagination, a scenario involving explosive demolition.

 

[Oystein]

Not quite following you there. We saw a lot of burning material on the buildings before the collapse, and on the ground after. Material can also be burning and radiating in a part of the spectrum not visible (infrared).

Thermite burns pretty brightly, and in a visible spectrum also.

There was plenty of fire (or: currently burning hydrocarbon) and embers glowing in the visible light spectrum that travelled from WTC1 to WTC7, right?
The burning did not all stop just because the burning material was ejected into the open space between the towers, right?
Some perhaps, but other flames surely were fanned by the collapse dynamics.

So there was visible light emitted from burning office contents in the dust cloud above WTC plaza.
But we did not see it - too much dust, and also probably a matter of dispersion.

I am struggling to understand your problem.

 

[jaydeehess]

You don't "hear" a rocket firing so much as "feel" it. We talk about failing to hear the distinctive cracks of the supposed demolition shape charges. But the notion that tons of thermite will burn rapidly and silently is fairly daft.

The huge caveat is that the acoustic signature of a rocket motor is produced mainly by focusing the combustion through the nozzle; it's the interaction of the exhaust with the surrounding air.
.......Neither could the focused cutting flame powered by thermite be the "explosions" Truthers insist some witnesses reported. It is a sustained roar, in the case of this particular rocketry device. And it's a powerfully seismic roar. Orbital ATK rocket tests register on seismographs. And from even the safe distances that ATK enforces, the shock wave is ... well, a shock wave. For the duration of the firing you feel it in your chest and also transmitted through the ground to your feet, in addition to hearing it with your ears

Water coming out of a garden nozzle makes a distinctive hissing sound, same amount of water coming out of the end of the hose(no nozzle) makes at best a gurgle. Same principle, no?

That doesn't necessarily apply to paint-on thermite. But then again, paint-on thermite can't cut steel, and the alleged proof videos showing how thermite can cut steel use a nozzle to focus the thermodynamic expansion effects of thermitic reactions into a torch flame that is essentially indistinguishable from a rocket plume for both fluid and heat transfer purposes. So apply expectations accordingly.

.

Recently someone asked T.Sz. why the cars did not end up like the ones subjected to a thermite burn on "Myth Busters" to which T.Sz. correctly replied that the show used a large mass of thermite and he is only calling for a bit of dust.
It apparently skipped his mind that one of the 911T gurus opined that the towers were brought down by nano-thermite painted onto structural members. So, either a thin layer of nano-thermite is capable of significantly altering thick steel, or it takes a great deal of thermite to do that. OTOH we now have members of the 911T community saying it has both, or either or whatever it happens to need to do, that they wish it could do.

 

[gerrycan]

A couple weeks ago my clients tested the latest evolution of their best-known product, which will be used in the SLS system in a few years. Its fuel is quite similar to thermite, and it burns while... well, not so much "floating" through the air as hurtling through it at hypersonic velocity. And it burns very brightly. To insinuate that significant amounts of burning thermite could fall through the air unnoticed and unphotographed is colossally wishful thinking. In fact, here's what it looks like when burning thermite rains down to the ground.

NASA have been using this for ever. With lithium rods to produce trails more recently too. It isn't similar to at thermitic reaction it is one.

 

[Georgio]

"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
...
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't."​

Thank you for reminding me of this sketch - I hadn't seen it for quite a while and had forgotten just how good it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y (Monty Python - Argument Clinic)

 

[LSSBB]

There was plenty of fire (or: currently burning hydrocarbon) and embers glowing in the visible light spectrum that travelled from WTC1 to WTC7, right?
The burning did not all stop just because the burning material was ejected into the open space between the towers, right?
Some perhaps, but other flames surely were fanned by the collapse dynamics.

So there was visible light emitted from burning office contents in the dust cloud above WTC plaza.
But we did not see it - too much dust, and also probably a matter of dispersion.

I am struggling to understand your problem.

The visibility of hydrocarbon fires to the naked eye is not the same problem as the visibility of thermite reactions to the naked eye - because they burn at different luminosity levels, with different emission spectra, and the dust absorbs or scatters the spectra differently.

In addition, hydrocarbon fires were spotted before and after any dust clouds. No definitive themite reaction spectra were spotted before or after the smoke clouds.

Clear enough? It is not the same problem identifying hydrocarbon material burning as identifying thermite reactions.

I may not use much of my Astrophysics training nowadays, I at least remember the differences in spectra produced by different materials and reactions, and their absorption by dust, smoke, and gasses.

 

[jaydeehess]

The visibility of hydrocarbon fires to the naked eye is not the same problem as the visibility of thermite reactions to the naked eye - because they burn at different luminosity levels, with different emission spectra, and the dust absorbs or scatters the spectra differently.

In addition, hydrocarbon fires were spotted before and after any dust clouds. No definitive themite reaction spectra were spotted before or after the smoke clouds.

Clear enough? It is not the same problem identifying hydrocarbon material burning as identifying thermite reactions.

I may not use much of my Astrophysics training nowadays, I at least remember the differences in spectra produced by different materials and reactions, and their absorption by dust, smoke, and gasses.

What it boils down to is that burning hydrocarbon bits would be much less distinguishable in the falling dust and debris than would thermite, because of the intensity and frequency differences in the light emitted by these two different reactions.

I have personally seen a 45 gallon fuel barrel be ejected into the air from a burning debris dump. While it trailed smoke, burning fuel was not visible. Neither was the fact that it was a very hot steel drum observable. It of course was, it had been in a fire and had reached a temperature at which the fumes inside ignited. In fact when it landed it lit the grass on fire.

 

[LSSBB]

A correction to my terminology: instead of hydrocarbon I should be saying Class Alpha and Class Bravo fires, the burning material was probably more Class Alpha (leaves an ash) than Bravo (hydrocarbon).

I believe thermite is a Class Delta (burning metals) fire - if it counts as a fire.

In any case, I am not a fireman, so all the above may be inaccurate.