Continuation: 'What about building 7?'

[jaydeehess]

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.

I think the technical term is actually "burning chunks a'stuff"

 

[carlitos]

Chucks

 

[Andy_Ross]

I look in on a 9/11 thread every year or so to see how things are going.

They have never gone anywhere. Same old ...

Although the idea of flying thermite is a new one and gangs of arsonists running around lighting fires is novel.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Hi Tony, I'm no engineer and don't come close to your skill set, so I am not really qualified to answer your question. At best I can share what I see, and summarize what I read (and not only from the people here; as you know I have talked to 14 physicists and NIST and countless other scientists and experts from every field about several aspects of the 9/11 collapses).

Can you quote some of these physicists, scientists, and technical people from NIST? It would be interesting to hear their actual words.

But what I see is the two penthouses collapsing into the inside of the building one at a time, then the whole facade coming down more or less as a unit. I know that the perimeter wall was a major structural element in the building design, to make more room for large open areas inside.

This is correct.

I have also been told that when one column fails, it shifts its load at almost the speed of sound to other columns. I think that's what they mean by cascading failure? So the perimeter wall columns are all somehow holding together and supporting one another until they lose all support from the inside. The fact that the East Penthouse went down first should not mean that the east part of the perimeter wall should go down first if all the columns are supporting one another. But once the perimeter columns being to fail and shift their loads almost instantaneously, they can collapse globally in a very short amount of time.

Failures in ductile materials do not occur at the speed of sound. That happens in brittle materials. Steel is a ductile material.

The perimeter walls did not hold together in the NIST model which experiences radical deformation not seen in the actual collapse. In their model the east side exterior deforms first as one would expect if the east side interior went down first as the NIST WTC 7 report claims.

Again, ductile materials don't fail in the instantaneous way you are imagining.

Oystein's belt trusses explanation above, while tentative, does give further credence to the idea that the perimeter wall was tightly held together and would be resistant to one part collapsing until the whole perimeter lost the structural strength needed to hold it up. Others here can do a much better job of explaining this and understanding the mechanisms.

The belt trusses were only on a couple of stories and they did not prevent the east side exterior in the NIST model from radical deformation before the west side exterior.

BTW I am relieved to hear you acknowledge a mechanism of >g collapse. And just a week or so, Niels Harrit's star witness in his libel suit acknowledged it as well. After years of being mocked by people in 9/11 Truth for denying >g ever happened (and would be impossible). I know you see that possibility in the context of a CD PLUS interior collapse, but you are the first person I know of from the other side who has done anything but mock me for this claim.

Of course it can happen when one item is suddenly pulled along by another that is already moving. However, the sequential collapse of the exterior around the building that you are surmising is at odds with the over-g symmetric exterior drop. The over-g drop would only happen in a symmetric way if the entire core was falling. It can't happen in the so-called east to west progression of the interior collapse or with a sequential exterior failure.

As for your claim that burning thermite flew out of the buildings, the brilliant light they would emanate (and which I don;t see in ANY video) makes that scenario extremely unlikely, in my opinion.

There was tons of dust that it would have been in. It could have also been molten iron or steel. With all of the dust I don't understand why you would expect to see it and then discount it because you can't see it.

 

[JayUtah]

Failures in ductile materials do not occur at the speed of sound. That happens in brittle materials. Steel is a ductile material.

Strain rate.

 

[Ziggi]

...BTW I am relieved to hear you acknowledge a mechanism of >g collapse. And just a week or so, Niels Harrit's star witness in his libel suit acknowledged it as well. After years of being mocked by people in 9/11 Truth for denying >g ever happened (and would be impossible). I know you see that possibility in the context of a CD PLUS interior collapse, but you are the first person I know of from the other side who has done anything but mock me for this claim..

Chris, you were mocked for misinterpreting NIST´s data in the silliest way possible, and claiming it shows over-g acceleration. Instead of acknowledging your being in over your head you got offended at David Chandler the messenger.

You are still being mocked because you are still making the same error despite Chandler´s effort: NIST´s data does not show over-g.

Over-g could be possible in theory given complete removal of core structure, and this is what Harrit´s witness and Tony have acknowledged. But the data does not show over-g in reality.

You do know the difference?

If you really want someone to prove that over-g was realized, then you need a qualified expert to post that research in his own real name, maybe in a form of a letter to NIST like Chandler and gerrycan and others have been doing.

 

[LSSBB]

Chris, you were mocked for misinterpreting NIST´s data in the silliest way possible, and claiming it shows over-g acceleration. Instead of acknowledging your being in over your head you got offended at David Chandler the messenger.

You are still being mocked because you are still making the same error despite Chandler´s effort: NIST´s data does not show over-g.

Over-g could be possible in theory given complete removal of core structure, and this is what Harrit´s witness and Tony have acknowledged. But the data does not show over-g in reality.

You do know the difference?

If you really want someone to prove that over-g was realized, then you need a qualified expert to post that research in his own real name, maybe in a form of a letter to NIST like Chandler and gerrycan and others have been doing.

NIST's acceleration curve is based on averaging and imprecise. And the acceleration profile is not evidence of controlled demolition. Chandler is wrong.

 

[Ziggi]

Can you quote some of these physicists, scientists, and technical people from NIST? It would be interesting to hear their actual words..

Yes Chris, it is becoming very old hearing your claims about speaking to experts without having any proof and without knowing what data you showed them.

It is also very easy for most people to take the official "truths" for granted and simply repeat claims by NIST, without any real analysis.

I know that one of your questions was whether there was enough energy in the top blocks of the Towers to crush the lowers blocks, and that people told you "yes"...but I am not sure if you realize that this "yes" claim came from a paper that has been shown to have been flawed and very wrong, and that Tony is one of those who demonstrated this in a study.

Try emailing a couple of those experts again, and include Tony, and see if you get a different result.

 

[JayUtah]

It is also very easy for most people to take the official "truths" for granted and simply repeat claims by NIST, without any real analysis.

So how long do you estimate it will take before you convince AIA, ASME, ASCE, and other relevant professional bodies of the validity of your analysis? How many "disgraced web forums" will Truthers need to visit in order to make that happen?

 

[JayUtah]

...maybe in a form of a letter to NIST like Chandler and gerrycan and others have been doing.

Help me out here; I'm confused. Several people expressed interest in gerrycan's interaction with NIST regarding WTC 7 and were told it was irrelevant. You suggest it isn't irrelevant. Would you please elaborate?

 

[ozeco41]

I know that one of your questions was whether there was enough energy in the top blocks of the Towers to crush the lowers blocks, and that people told you "yes"...but I am not sure if you realize that this "yes" claim came from a paper that has been shown to have been flawed and very wrong, and that Tony is one of those who demonstrated this in a study.

Are you sure that you want to go there Ziggi?

Given that the "enough energy...to crush the towers" came from an early paper by Bazant (& Zhou) which seems to have been a major factor in NIST's claim "global collapse was inevitable".

Now from there the ironies start to add up.

That B&Z paper has dominated discussions for years - IMO unfortunately so. AND it did so through correct and incorrect interpretations. So be it.

In a limit case which in no way resembled the actual collapse B&Z claimed that there was more than enough energy to crush down the towers. People accepted that. I observed that one of B&Z assumptions was arse about - but my comments went nowhere. My attention from 2007 onwards has been on explaining what really happened...so I managed to avoid a lot of the confusion following B&Z and their model of what did not happen. Which was a limit case and I thought that their explanation was probably near enough for a limit case.

The concept of limiting case was and is valid despite many people from both sides of the divide getting confused. (and one of Bazant's assumptions was arse about but no-one seems to have spotted that)

However many people have been and still are confused and misapply B&Z as if it actually described what really happened.

Tony was one of those who took B&Z as literally what happened. He wrote a paper "Missing Jolt" which IMO was to be his biggest published error.

It applied the Bazant model of collapse as if it was what really happened. It wasn't what happened despite lots of wasted effort from both "sides" discussing "Missing Jolt". The alleged missing jolt was never missing because the scenario for it simply never occurred.

Then, in a 2013 paper, Szuladzinsky, Szamboti and Johns made a good case than Bazant got his maths wrong. They claim and I'm reasonably persuaded but haven't checked the maths that there wasn't enough energy.

So do you really want to raise the Sz, Sz and J paper Ziggi?

Be warned it pulls the rug out from under "Missing Jolt".

And will discomfort those who still think that Bazant can make no blunders.









Try emailing a couple of those experts again, and include Tony, and see if you get a different result.[/QUOTE]

 

[beachnut]

Chris, you were mocked for misinterpreting NIST´s data in the silliest way possible, and claiming it shows over-g acceleration. Instead of acknowledging your being in over your head you got offended at David Chandler the messenger.

You are still being mocked because you are still making the same error despite Chandler´s effort: NIST´s data does not show over-g.

Over-g could be possible in theory given complete removal of core structure, and this is what Harrit´s witness and Tony have acknowledged. But the data does not show over-g in reality.

You do know the difference?

If you really want someone to prove that over-g was realized, then you need a qualified expert to post that research in his own real name, maybe in a form of a letter to NIST like Chandler and gerrycan and others have been doing.

What are you talking about? Chandler is a conspiracy theorist - what a bunch of BS. Your 911 research BS artist did not say much but attack Chris. And now you are stuck saying Chris lied talking to experts. Your are a CD fantasy believe, and you have nothing but CTers to support your fantasy. You have no clue who measured what, and you have failed to do basic research; you are more about 13 year behind most posters here, and you offer zero math, no physics, and less engineering. Unlike you, Chris gets expert opinions beyond those discussing 911, beyond the failed CTers you have, who have the same evidence as you do; zero.

You have failed to present evidence for CD, and there will be no engineering to support your CD theory. Your claims are all backed up with BS talk made up tag-lines from a fake movement based on ignorance. Who planted your explosives in your CD theory? Right, you have no clue. Fire did it, you don't do science. What was your major? It failed to give you the tools needed to figure out 911, and to avoid being fooled by liars; it only takes a grade school education to comprehend 911, and to see the CD claims are BS.

Chandler? lol, he believes in CD, like you, he is not a valid person for anything on 911; which is why you are stuck here posting BS about 911, in 911 Conspiracy Theories. 13 years, and you don't know fire caused the collapse. 13 years, enough time to earn a PhD in engineering; I you understood engineering you would see 911 truth is BS; or if you had a solid grasp on the first grade taught cause and effect - you would not be fooled by 911 truth, with the silly CD theory based on BS.

911 truth's CD claims are fantasy on face value; no evidence.

When will you talk to reality based engineering about 911? You don't listen to the ones here. Don't ask Chris to do what you failed to do to save you from falling into the pit of ignorance, 911 truth.

Faster than free-fall, it is all relative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-QFAB0gEtE
Was WTC 7, like a chain? 911 truth can't explain their claims, and 911 truth, the movement of lies, never will.

What we have, is 911 truth is lies, you joined the wrong team.

 

[GlennB]

There was tons of dust that it would have been in. It could have also been molten iron or steel. With all of the dust I don't understand why you would expect to see it and then discount it because you can't see it.

So you'll allow that thermite or molten steel started the car fires in the street but not allow that hot debris entered the building and set fires there?

Do you need reminding just how low the auto-ignition point of paper is? You seem to have self-debunked.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So you'll allow that thermite or molten steel started the car fires in the street but not allow that hot debris entered the building and set fires there?

Do you need reminding just how low the auto-ignition point of paper is? You seem to have self-debunked.

You have to be joking here, because your contention that hot debris from the fire affected areas of the North Tower could have caused the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 is laughable.

The fire affected areas in the North Tower comprised only about 3% of the building. The chances of enough hot debris from that limited area flying 350 feet to WTC 7 and starting fires on ten floors in it, and not in the Verizon or Post Office buildings, is extremely remote.

The extreme heat in the rubble pile was largely only under the three collapsed buildings and there are witnesses to molten steel in the rubble. It could only have been a product of the use of thermite, because it couldn't have been formed any other way. Don't forget the ubiquitous iron microspheres are another sign of the potential use of thermite.

The use of thermite in the buildings, and some level of dispersion of it or its products (molten iron and steel) during the building collapse, would explain the vehicle fires and possibly the fires on ten floors in WTC 7. Arson is still the more likely cause of the fires in WTC 7 with the nearly two hour gap between the North Tower collapse and the first photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7, no fires in either the Verizon or Post Office buildings, and the fact that the buildings were largely sealed with very few entrance points and nothing flammable on the exterior like vehicles have with external plastic parts.

 

[GlennB]

You have to be joking here, because your contention that hot debris from the fire affected areas of the North Tower could have caused the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 is laughable.

Answer the point please. Why might molten metal from your supposed thermitic activity get into the building but not hot metal from the fires? Same distance, same zone of origin.

 

[Belz...]

Although the idea of flying thermite is a new one and gangs of arsonists running around lighting fires is novel.

You haven't been here long enough, then.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

"
Failures in ductile materials do not occur at the speed of sound. That happens in brittle materials. Steel is a ductile material."

I would like to see your experimental evidence to back that statement up,
does not matter if the material is ductible or not what matters is the materials,
ability to absorb the energy acting upon it at 5100 meters per second.

So steel can and does fail at the speed of sound if sufficient energy acts upon it in sudden rapid impacts or strain, the speed of sound is simply the rate compression waves transfer though steel to cause connection bolt and weld failure, if that energy is sufficient the iron crystalline bonding of the steel can fracture.

It however takes a very active environment to achieve sufficient energy transfer, inducing failure.
Strain rate is a more static non dynamic process.

Of course rapid fracturing can occur only in cold steel not in heated steels,
as you correctly pointed out steel is ductible, and becomes more ductible as the
the temperature rises.

Since bolt and weld failure are the main observed failure modes in the buildings.

Good engineering tries to avoid subjecting the steel structures to impacts
that exceed the steels ability to absorb energy though ductible deformation.

 

[Oystein]

You have to be joking here, because your contention that hot debris from the fire affected areas of the North Tower could have caused the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 is laughable.

The fire affected areas in the North Tower comprised only about 3% of the building.

The chances of enough hot debris from that limited area ...

3% is still over 3 acres of burning office floors creating smoke enough to be visible from space. To try to convince us that this fire, one of the worst in the history of inner city fires, was somehow small and insignificant and not a danger to buildings in the vicinity is laughable, and possibly dishonest.

flying 350 feet to WTC 7 and starting fires on ten floors in it,

You claim cars that far away and farther cought fire from the collapsing tower. Double standard much, or would ony Magic Thermite be able to fly that far?

and not in the Verizon or Post Office buildings, is extremely remote.

As you pointed out yourself earlier, the Verizon (probably) did not sustain huge gashes from the collapse of WTC1.
Neither did the P.O. bdg.
But WTC7 sustained a very large gash down a great number of floors.
Would that somehow change your assessment?

(I already offered you a slightly better argument - the Bankers Trust had a gash but no fire).

[The chances] ... is [sic!] extremely remote.

Ex ante, Tony, ex ante. Maybe.
Since, in reality, WTC7 did burn and the others didn't, you ought to adjust the ex post probabilities, don't you think?

The extreme heat in the rubble pile was largely only under the three collapsed buildings

Which "extreme" heat, Tony? Please be specific!

and there are witnesses to molten steel in the rubble.

How would YOU identify stuff as "molten" plus "steel" in the rubble, if you saw it?
How did you corroborate these eyewitness reports?
Have you looked into other large building fires and ascertained that witnesses never report molten steel unless there actually is molten steel?


How reliable is eyewitness recollection, in your opinion, in general? You may want to discuss this with a view to your own trouble to recollect what who said where and when on TV!

It could only have been a product of the use of thermite, because it couldn't have been formed any other way.

If it ever was

Don't forget the ubiquitous iron microspheres are another sign of the potential use of thermite.

No.

The use of thermite in the buildings, and some level of dispersion of it or its products (molten iron and steel) during the building collapse, would explain the vehicle fires and possibly the fires on ten floors in WTC 7.

So would Invisible Pink Godzilla attacking New York. Or DEW.

Arson is still the more likely cause of the fires in WTC 7 with the nearly two hour gap between the North Tower collapse and the first photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7, no fires in either the Verizon or Post Office buildings, and the fact that the buildings were largely sealed with very few entrance points and nothing flammable on the exterior like vehicles have with external plastic parts.

Which FDNY officers and forensic and fire engineering experts actually on the scene in New York agree with you? Citations, please!
Which FDNY officers and forensic and fire engineering experts actually on the scene in New York disagree with you? (Hint: All of them)

 

[Grizzly Bear]

EDIT:
If he wants to live with the arson route and "thermite started it angle" he can. But at the end of the day, even if such leeway is given there is no evidence any such played a role in the collapse. Even arson =/= CD unless evidence for "CD" is provided. Just as Evidence that NIST got an insignificant detail wrong =/= CD unless evidence for CD is produced.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You have to be joking here, because your contention that hot debris from the fire affected areas of the North Tower could have caused the fires on ten floors of WTC 7 is laughable.

The fire affected areas in the North Tower comprised only about 3% of the building. The chances of enough hot debris from that limited area flying 350 feet to WTC 7 and starting fires on ten floors in it, and not in the Verizon or Post Office buildings, is extremely remote.

The extreme heat in the rubble pile was largely only under the three collapsed buildings and there are witnesses to molten steel in the rubble. It could only have been a product of the use of thermite, because it couldn't have been formed any other way. Don't forget the ubiquitous iron microspheres are another sign of the potential use of thermite.

The use of thermite in the buildings, and some level of dispersion of it or its products (molten iron and steel) during the building collapse, would explain the vehicle fires and possibly the fires on ten floors in WTC 7. Arson is still the more likely cause of the fires in WTC 7 with the nearly two hour gap between the North Tower collapse and the first photographic evidence of fires in WTC 7, no fires in either the Verizon or Post Office buildings, and the fact that the buildings were largely sealed with very few entrance points and nothing flammable on the exterior like vehicles have with external plastic parts.

I would think shattering of the diesel fuel supply line to the tank on the roof by debris,
and that diesel spilling out on and though the damaged building would be probable cause of the fire.

How did they know what was molten in the rubble pile?
Did they touch it, did they smell it, did they taste it?
You can not just look at a molten material and tell what it is, so you do not know if it was steel lead, aluminum, glass, or magical molten fairy dust.

Iron microspheres most of which are undoubtedly FeO, Fe3O4 with some Fe, from the oxidation of fine steel wire are common in fires, along with contamination, are meaningless.

Please try again your failing miserably at understanding 9/11/2001.