A W Smith
Philosopher
So you are saying. The towers collapsed because they had galvanized building material in them?
Debate! What debate?
- Thread starter Apollo20
- Start date
So you are saying. The towers collapsed because they had galvanized building material in them?
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
There is a quote feature on this forum; I recommend using it as it facilitates others in knowing to whom you are replying.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Ah, very good. I saw yours before I saw his.
Edit: I believe, but I'm not certain, that the tower structural steel was painted with red zinc oxide paint. I'll have to look into that some day.
Last edited:
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
Well, since you believed the onset of the tower collapses was sudden, it looks like you've got some chapter-and-versing to do.
A couple of questions about the iron particles:
1) How did measurements of that size and type of particle made after the collapses differ from measurements made previously, if any?
2) What is the "official" explanation for the presence of those particles, if any?
3) When were the measurements that you are using made? (I don't know if I'll have access to each article you listed, and I'm thinking about the effects of all that torch cutting of steel.)
And just from my own curiosity, how did Ace Baker make it on your list?
Last edited:
JamesB
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 27, 2006
- Messages
- 2,152
The ironic thing being, that the truthers use the fact that people thought it might collapse as proof of a conspiracy. That is when they are not insisting that its collapse was sudden and unexpected.
Consistency is not their strong point.
A W Smith
Philosopher
Excuse me I just cought this..
Excuse me a moment.. You wrote to a piano player? were you hoping to put your theory to bad music?
Excuse me a moment.. You wrote to a piano player? were you hoping to put your theory to bad music?
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
Yepster!I call
I'm gonna have my people call the Vegas people so we can get a betting line down on this thread. There's Benjamins to be made and time's a wastin'.
Should the line be on which sock Apollo20 is, or what his New Theory is, or both?
I'm also calling my stockbroker and asking about zinc futures...
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,940
Are you saying that you are typical of the types of 9-11 Deniers we get here? Because I would say just from reading your few posts so far that you are not very typical except perhaps in your overconfidence that you will best those here. Present your evidence. If people abuse you, put them on ignore.
It is helpful to look for “chemical signatures” for the presence of X in the rubble pile. This requires careful scrutiny of the available data on gaseous emissions at Ground Zero. For example, consider the Report on Air Sampling Near the World Trade Center Site: New York State Department of Health, October 30 & 31, 2001.” In this document we find that air sampling of the smoke plume on the rubble pile over one month after 9/11 measured 33.9 mg/m3 of HCl as well as 2.24 mg/m3 of HNO2 and 12.28 mg/m3 of HNO3. The presence of these acid gases in the air above the WTC rubble pile at this time is consistent with the emission of Cl2, HCl, N2O, NO, and H2O from the slow decomposition of X.
Prof. T. A. Cahill at U.C. Davis has also published data on aerosol samples collected at or near Ground Zero in October 2001. (See Aerosol Science and Technology 38, 165, (2004)) Among the data reported by Cahill is a mass spectrum of 5 – 2.5 micron particulate collected from within the smoke plume on Varick Street. In agreement with the results noted above, the mass spectrum’s three strongest peaks reveal the presence of Cl, NO2 and NO3. However, Cahill suggests that the detection of chlorine may be explained by “ the relatively large chlorine inventory in the WTC buildings from plastics, including the ubiquitous PVC, and chlorine-bleached paper.” Let us therefore briefly review data on chlorinated species at the WTC in relation to studies of the behavior of chlorine-containing materials such as PVC in building and other related fires.
Analytical data reported by the US EPA derived from air monitoring at, or near, Ground Zero in the period September 2001 to May 2002 show that many chlorinated organic species were present at significant levels up to December 2001. These included aliphatic species such as chloroform, chloroethane and di-chloroethane as well as the aromatic compounds chlorobenzene and di-chlorobenzene. The chlorinated compounds detected may be arranged into two groups: chlorinated species produced by the thermal degradation of PVC and chlorinated species that are not derived from PVC decomposition. The PVC-derived designation was arrived at from published data on the thermal decomposition of PVC, (See for example: Journal of Polymer Science 12, 737, (1974)). Apart from HCl, which is indeed a major product of the thermal degradation of PVC, the major decomposition products from heating PVC in the temperature range 300 – 500 °C are: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, di-chlorobenzene and tri-chlorobenzene. All these species were observed in the air at Ground Zero.
However, the most interesting feature of the EPA data is the fact that the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. This clearly demonstrates the presence of another major source of chlorine, above and beyond “the ubiquitous PVC” previously postulated by Prof. Cahill as the most likely source of the elevated levels of chlorine in air samples collected at Ground Zero up to December 2001.
An alternative source of chlorine suggested by Prof. Cahill, namely chlorine-bleached paper, may also be ruled out as a major contributor to chlorine emissions at Ground Zero. Thus, while there certainly was a large amount of paper in the Twin Towers, a reasonable upper limit would be 500 kg per office x 100 offices per floor, or 50 tonnes of paper per floor. However, paper typically contains no more than 0.5 wt. % of chlorine so that each floor would have contributed a maximum of only 250 kg of chlorine to the total inventory of chlorine in the Twin Towers.
The USGS XRF spectra of WTC dust particles include over a dozen spectra labeled as CONCRETE. Most of these spectra show peaks for chlorine, (K-alpha at 2.62 keV), and sulfur, (K-alpha at 2.31 keV). The height of these peaks relative to the height of the calcium peaks allows one to estimate the chlorine and sulfur content of the concrete particles being analyzed and shows that the concrete particles in the USGS samples contained up to 3 % chlorine!
The NIST Report NCSTAR 1-5 provides data for plastic materials in a typical WTC workstation. These data indicate that there was about 1.5 tonnes of PVC-derived chlorine per floor. This estimate actually ignores the contribution from PVC-derived chlorine in the vinyl asbestos tiles used in the WTC flooring. This amounted to about 0.3 tonnes of chlorine per floor. If all of the available chlorine combined with the 600 tonnes of concrete per floor there would be a maximum concentration of 1.8/600 x 100 % or 0.3 % chlorine in the concrete. Thus we see that the measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been based on known sources of chlorine in the WTC concrete dust.
Prof. T. A. Cahill at U.C. Davis has also published data on aerosol samples collected at or near Ground Zero in October 2001. (See Aerosol Science and Technology 38, 165, (2004)) Among the data reported by Cahill is a mass spectrum of 5 – 2.5 micron particulate collected from within the smoke plume on Varick Street. In agreement with the results noted above, the mass spectrum’s three strongest peaks reveal the presence of Cl, NO2 and NO3. However, Cahill suggests that the detection of chlorine may be explained by “ the relatively large chlorine inventory in the WTC buildings from plastics, including the ubiquitous PVC, and chlorine-bleached paper.” Let us therefore briefly review data on chlorinated species at the WTC in relation to studies of the behavior of chlorine-containing materials such as PVC in building and other related fires.
Analytical data reported by the US EPA derived from air monitoring at, or near, Ground Zero in the period September 2001 to May 2002 show that many chlorinated organic species were present at significant levels up to December 2001. These included aliphatic species such as chloroform, chloroethane and di-chloroethane as well as the aromatic compounds chlorobenzene and di-chlorobenzene. The chlorinated compounds detected may be arranged into two groups: chlorinated species produced by the thermal degradation of PVC and chlorinated species that are not derived from PVC decomposition. The PVC-derived designation was arrived at from published data on the thermal decomposition of PVC, (See for example: Journal of Polymer Science 12, 737, (1974)). Apart from HCl, which is indeed a major product of the thermal degradation of PVC, the major decomposition products from heating PVC in the temperature range 300 – 500 °C are: benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, chlorobenzene, di-chlorobenzene and tri-chlorobenzene. All these species were observed in the air at Ground Zero.
However, the most interesting feature of the EPA data is the fact that the non-PVC-derived chlorinated species are more abundant than the PVC-derived species. This clearly demonstrates the presence of another major source of chlorine, above and beyond “the ubiquitous PVC” previously postulated by Prof. Cahill as the most likely source of the elevated levels of chlorine in air samples collected at Ground Zero up to December 2001.
An alternative source of chlorine suggested by Prof. Cahill, namely chlorine-bleached paper, may also be ruled out as a major contributor to chlorine emissions at Ground Zero. Thus, while there certainly was a large amount of paper in the Twin Towers, a reasonable upper limit would be 500 kg per office x 100 offices per floor, or 50 tonnes of paper per floor. However, paper typically contains no more than 0.5 wt. % of chlorine so that each floor would have contributed a maximum of only 250 kg of chlorine to the total inventory of chlorine in the Twin Towers.
The USGS XRF spectra of WTC dust particles include over a dozen spectra labeled as CONCRETE. Most of these spectra show peaks for chlorine, (K-alpha at 2.62 keV), and sulfur, (K-alpha at 2.31 keV). The height of these peaks relative to the height of the calcium peaks allows one to estimate the chlorine and sulfur content of the concrete particles being analyzed and shows that the concrete particles in the USGS samples contained up to 3 % chlorine!
The NIST Report NCSTAR 1-5 provides data for plastic materials in a typical WTC workstation. These data indicate that there was about 1.5 tonnes of PVC-derived chlorine per floor. This estimate actually ignores the contribution from PVC-derived chlorine in the vinyl asbestos tiles used in the WTC flooring. This amounted to about 0.3 tonnes of chlorine per floor. If all of the available chlorine combined with the 600 tonnes of concrete per floor there would be a maximum concentration of 1.8/600 x 100 % or 0.3 % chlorine in the concrete. Thus we see that the measured chlorine was ten times higher that it should have been based on known sources of chlorine in the WTC concrete dust.
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
High-five!
Let me reply to the substantive part of your message only.
If you have genuine problems with NIST, that's terrific. Let's hear them. If your concerns are valid, then we can move to the question of whether your concerns push us towards a truly alternative theory (e.g. bombs in towers) or whether it merely means the fundamental NIST hypothesis is correct, but requires refinement.
Now then, going down your list:
1. [NIST] is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower.
It is? In what way?
2. [NIST] assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse.
Well, duh. It is trivial to compute that collapse of a single floor leads to a runaway energy condition, even if all the remaining floors are in blueprint condition. Since several floors were weakened by impact and fire, the requirement for global collapse is handily satisfied. I refer you, as I have many others, to Greening. And don't reply with Gordon Ross; been there, refuted that.
3. [NIST]'s fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless.
Explain. NIST seemed to think they were useful. Why should we believe you? And you aren't confusing their test cases with their actual model, are you? The two aren't meant to be the same.
4. [NIST]'s assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation.
Speculation, but plausible, even likely given the impact dynamics of an airplane crash. Not speculation as in "a stab in the dark." It's only speculative in that nobody survived to take pictures of the insulation, nor did any piece survive the collapse. Do you have any evidence to suggest that the insulation remained intact? Or are you just casting aspersions for the heck of it?
5. [NIST] ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires.
This perhaps could be a detail that could use refinement, yes. But I don't see it as conflicting with NIST's overall conclusions. If anything, it should make tower collapse more likely.
6. [NIST]'s metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse.
Everything I've read, such as Lioy et. al., says there were no such "micron sized spheres" of iron. I saw you list some sources and will check them out, but even if such spheres exist, you are a long way from proving molten iron at any stage of the event, yet you treat it like it's a known fact. Help us out, here.
7. [NIST] mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination.
Details, please. The sulfidation thing is interesting, but is in direct opposition to both Jones' and Wood's alternate collapse theories, while consistent with NIST's. I'd like to learn more about it too, but only out of scientific curiosity. Chlorination is new, but I also don't see it supporting anything other than NIST's ultimate conclusion.
8. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?
That's a lie, through and through. NIST released its preliminary long ago. The final is due out soon. NIST is governed by availability of experts and funding. You're fussing about what, the release date? Impatient, aren't we?
That's eight out of eight that are either non sequitur or support NIST, and I haven't even opened it yet. So, if you want to hold an intelligent discussion about these things, please do. Perhaps you know something that I don't. But I'm hardly inclined to treat you respectfully until you show some maturity.
Deal?
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2002
- Messages
- 11,286
As long as it is proper to ask for supporting definitions:
Please define the word "sudden," as you used it initially.
Please define what is "near" free fall speeds. How close to free fall (in % or time) would a collapse have to be to meet your definition?
Please define what is meant by "completeness" when talking about destruction. Is there something about this collapse in terms of "completeness" that is unusual? What do you compare it to?
And as long as we're at it: "sustained high temperatures" and "long after 9/11" should be defined. How high a temperature, for how long after, and what are you comparing it to in order to call it "high" in this context?
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
So excess chlorine is the smoking gun after all. I think I know where this is going.
The WTC complex was actually being used as the world's largest Manchurian Candidate Generating Plant.
Folks'd come in to work, get jumped by elevator shaft ninjas, then CHLOROFORMED and dragged into brain-recircuiting wards honeycombed within the entire WTC complex. For God only knows what evil tasks.
An observant stairs janitor happened to notice unconscious, CHLOROFORMED workers being dragged up and down the stairs (elevators too risky, all them tourists). The janitor called Cheney and the entire operation was scrubbed (with chlorine bleach).
And that's how Dr. K-hill, U.S. Marshall, uncovered the dastardly scheme, using nothing but a magnifying glass, common sense and a gas chromatograph / mass spectrometer.
Said K-hill: "It's the chlorine, stupid! And where's my lunch?!? And how come my secretary didn't order more chili?!? I'm down to my last 53 cans!"
The WTC complex was actually being used as the world's largest Manchurian Candidate Generating Plant.
Folks'd come in to work, get jumped by elevator shaft ninjas, then CHLOROFORMED and dragged into brain-recircuiting wards honeycombed within the entire WTC complex. For God only knows what evil tasks.
An observant stairs janitor happened to notice unconscious, CHLOROFORMED workers being dragged up and down the stairs (elevators too risky, all them tourists). The janitor called Cheney and the entire operation was scrubbed (with chlorine bleach).
And that's how Dr. K-hill, U.S. Marshall, uncovered the dastardly scheme, using nothing but a magnifying glass, common sense and a gas chromatograph / mass spectrometer.
Said K-hill: "It's the chlorine, stupid! And where's my lunch?!? And how come my secretary didn't order more chili?!? I'm down to my last 53 cans!"
Last edited:
I've just scanned -- very quickly, mind you, reading these properly will take some time -- the references provided by Apollo20 regarding molten metal, including molten iron.
So far I see nothing unexpected. I've found no indication that the amount of iron melted was particularly large, or any indication of any single specimen containing a volume of melted iron, such as we would expect if "thermite" had cut through a ruddy 20" column or two. What is observed in the RJ Lee Group Inc. Report is that the WTC plume contained higher concentrations of molten metals -- including but not dominated by iron -- only compared to other dust samples at the time, not that it was in any way unexpected.
The other reports, notably the USGS Particle Atlas, mostly remark that iron is commonly confused with its oxide in EDS studies. Iron oxide would be quite common apart from structural steel, as would other oxides like titanium oxide, a substantial signal of which was found by Lioy -- from white paint. The RJ Lee Group Report is also using visible microscopy, so they have indeed found instances of elemental iron rather than iron oxide, but there is no quantitative analysis provided.
I would also like to propose that a substantial amount of iron could be melted at the moment of aircraft impact, through simple friction. When 10,000 gallons of fuel suddenly shoot through a building at 500 knots, the amount of turbulent abrasion expected is staggering, and quite a lot of iron might have been eroded (worked, yes, perhaps even melted) into small droplets at that time. Recall that the kinetic energy of each crash was sufficient to destroy an entire floor's worth of columns, had it all gone into destroying columns and not mostly been expended in other ways. And that doesn't take the combustion energy into account, nor does it take the combustion energy contained in the towers into account. Anyway, such a collision might explain the micron-sized iron droplets as well -- and be completely consistent with NIST.
Apollo20, I thank you sincerely for the references. I will digest them more thoroughly.
But you are way off your mark in leveling such sweeping accusations against NIST at this stage in the game. You are not ready to do so. Get back to work.
So far I see nothing unexpected. I've found no indication that the amount of iron melted was particularly large, or any indication of any single specimen containing a volume of melted iron, such as we would expect if "thermite" had cut through a ruddy 20" column or two. What is observed in the RJ Lee Group Inc. Report is that the WTC plume contained higher concentrations of molten metals -- including but not dominated by iron -- only compared to other dust samples at the time, not that it was in any way unexpected.
The other reports, notably the USGS Particle Atlas, mostly remark that iron is commonly confused with its oxide in EDS studies. Iron oxide would be quite common apart from structural steel, as would other oxides like titanium oxide, a substantial signal of which was found by Lioy -- from white paint. The RJ Lee Group Report is also using visible microscopy, so they have indeed found instances of elemental iron rather than iron oxide, but there is no quantitative analysis provided.
I would also like to propose that a substantial amount of iron could be melted at the moment of aircraft impact, through simple friction. When 10,000 gallons of fuel suddenly shoot through a building at 500 knots, the amount of turbulent abrasion expected is staggering, and quite a lot of iron might have been eroded (worked, yes, perhaps even melted) into small droplets at that time. Recall that the kinetic energy of each crash was sufficient to destroy an entire floor's worth of columns, had it all gone into destroying columns and not mostly been expended in other ways. And that doesn't take the combustion energy into account, nor does it take the combustion energy contained in the towers into account. Anyway, such a collision might explain the micron-sized iron droplets as well -- and be completely consistent with NIST.
Apollo20, I thank you sincerely for the references. I will digest them more thoroughly.
But you are way off your mark in leveling such sweeping accusations against NIST at this stage in the game. You are not ready to do so. Get back to work.
The Great Hairy One
Chief Cdr Scientist, NWO Cloning Labs
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2007
- Messages
- 2,054
I'd like to see Apollo20 answer R.Mackey's questions.
Cheers,
TGHO
Cheers,
TGHO
Why is Apollo getting such an icy reception here? What the hell happened to our manners? Is it because he pointed out that we seem more devoted to shutting down truthers than we are to the truth these days? Because I hate to break it to you, but he's right on the money with that statement.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
The anti-tank sabot round fired by an Abrams tank is not explosive. It penetrates and melts the armor of its target from kinetic energy alone, setting the enemy tank ablaze.
He drew first blood in post #10.
I'm game for an intelligent conversation, but so far I don't see that he's supported his contention -- very strongly worded -- that NIST is "seriously flawed." If he can back that up, then we can discuss it in perfect calm and respect.
Your move, Apollo20.
I'm game for an intelligent conversation, but so far I don't see that he's supported his contention -- very strongly worded -- that NIST is "seriously flawed." If he can back that up, then we can discuss it in perfect calm and respect.
Your move, Apollo20.