Debate! What debate?

[WildCat]

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.

Post 10 is where it went downhill. And Apollo20 authored that bit.

 

[The Almond]

Greetings Apollo20, welcome to JREF! I wanted to comment on some sections of your post that were not addressed by other posters. First, when you talk about the XRF data collected by the USGS, are you talking about this article? I also found this article that seems to be on the same subject.

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).

So, I didn't find the XRF Spectra labled as concrete that you mention here. It would be helpful if we could work from the same resource, because the resources above do not mention chlorine in the concrete samples.

I'd also like to point out that calcium sulfate (CaSO4) or "gypsum" is added to clinker to make portland cement. The gypsum undergoes a reaction with water to form ettringite, which in turn keeps the cement from hardening for a period of time. Furthermore, since most concrete is mixed with municipal, chlorinated water supplies, and the presence of chloride ions in concrete is not uncommon in any way.

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!

Actually, you can't just take the peak ratios. You have to measure standards at the same operating conditions and then take the ratio of the measured peak to the standard. That forms what is known as a k-ratio, and from that, you need to apply matrix corrections for absorbed X-rays, probe flux corrections and strip the background.

I'd like to see the XRF spectra from which you are making this 3% determination, and how you arrived at your conclusions.

Edited to add:
Reading over R.Mackey's post, I have now linked to the article showing the XRF spectra. I will review and comment in my next post.

 

[Gravy]

That forms what is known as a k-ratio, and from that, you need to apply matrix corrections for absorbed X-rays, probe flux corrections and strip the background.

Oh, come on, you're just making stuff up now!

Thank you for teaching me a new word: ettringite. I will try to use it in a sentence tomorrow.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

This is very interesting. Mackey has referred Apollo to Greening. Apollo reads like he's already been studying Greening. A lot. In fact, to my ears, Apollo sounds like Greening. i could be wrong.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Furthermore, since most concrete is mixed with municipal, chlorinated water supplies, and the presence of chloride ions in concrete is not uncommon in any way.

Dang, I hadn't thought of that, probably cause I'm not on a city supply. However I did up the reporting system for a drinking water treatment plant and chlorine isn't the half of what they throw into water to make it "drinkable". Half the stuff in there would make you determined to drink only filtered water, lol.

 

[R.Mackey]

Hmm.

I might ask readers to compare the initial post to the fourth from the top here, on the PhysOrg forums. I believe I've identified who Apollo20 is, though I cannot reconcile the tone...

Dr. Greening, if that is you, then understand that I've followed your work and found it useful -- you need not enter the room at battle stations, as you have done. If it's a critique of your new theory on chlorine that you're interested in, there are many here who can provide that. But I'm completely puzzled about the way you've chosen to enter the discussion.

Assuming there is a different, overlooked-by-NIST mechanism that is significant in the collapses (a possibility I'm willing to accept), I still don't see any validity lent to the two "alternatives" you listed in your OP, namely the Jones thermite-theory and its variants, or the Wood-Reynolds death ray. In fact, I don't see your proposed mechanism supporting any conspiracy at all.

I'm extremely puzzled by your behavior. Please help me out here.

 

[R.Mackey]

Just to amplify my statement above, I cannot reconcile the poster who wrote this:

· Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
· Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
· Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
· The completeness of the destruction of each tower
· Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11

Most, if not all, of these phenomena have been quoted as being problematic in some way to the currently proposed collapse theories. I therefore believe the time is right to propose a new theory that addresses the shortcomings of the existing theories.

as being the same person who wrote this:

[Page 20]
We have shown in this report that because of the failure of just one floor, a sequential collapse of all remaining floors was inevitable. This, of course, brings us to the $64,000 question:

What caused the initial floor collapse?​

Although some researchers apparently find it difficult to accept, I believe the answer to this question is essentially quite simple:

The initial floor collapse occurred due to the aircraft impact damage
and the resulting eccentric loading of the core columns.​

[Page 21]
The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.

[...] The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor concrete in both towers to particles 100 um in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.

I'm really, truly confused. What gives?

 

[uk_dave]

(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”

hmmmmm it's not really a taunt, unless by that you mean the poor CTist is being asked for something which both he and the skeptic know he doesn't have.

But evidence to support your claims is kinda important if those claims are ever to escape the realms of fantasy.

 

[Apollo20]

To answer some of the questions posted by the NIST apologists on this forum:

Sudden Onset and Near Free Fall Collapse:

I suggest you look at NIST's Report NCSTAR 1-6 Chapter 9 pages 298 - 305.
Here you will read the following in reference to WTC 1:

"The Tower began to collapse- first exterior sign of collapse was at floor
98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building
section began to fall vertically under gravity."

Also see Figure 9 -13 on page 305 which shows WTC 1 tilting to the south
before collapse.

I have done my own measurements of the tilting of WTC 1 during the first few
seconds of collapse using screen capture of frames from a number of
well-known videos. I think the tilt is less than NIST's estimate, but still
quite significant:

Time (s) / Drop Distance (m) / Tilt Angle (deg)

0.2 0.1 1.2
0.4 0.4 1.3
0.6 0.9 1.5
0.8 2.0 1.8
1.0 4.9 2.2
1.2 7.0 2.4
1.4 9.4 2.6
1.6 11.2 2.7
1.8 12.1 2.8
2.0 13.8 3.0
2.2 16.5 3.2
2.4 18.9 3.6
2.6 20.7 3.9
2.8 24.3 4.3
3.0 27.5 5.0

Tilting of the Upper Sections:

NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in Figure 9-14 (page 308) of Chapter 9 we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:

“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”

However, on page 169 of the NIST Report, in a Section called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):

“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”

Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees as it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees before it began to fall.”

The suggestion that WTC 2 rotated by up to 25 degrees before it began to fall is very significant since it would indicate that the top of WTC 2 fell over rather than fell down!

The Sustained High Temperatures of the Rubble Pile:

In an article in the October 2003 issue of Chemical & Enineering News, L. Dalton has summarized the progress of the fires and the associated temperatures within the WTC rubble pile:

“The fires, which began at over 1,000 °C, gradually cooled, at least on the surface, during September and October 2001. USGS's AVIRIS measured ground temperatures when it flew over the WTC site on Sept. 16 and 23. On Sept. 16, it picked up more than three-dozen hot spots of varying size and temperature, roughly between 500 and 700 °C. By Sept. 23, only two or three of the hot spots remained, and those were sharply reduced in intensity, researcher Clark said. However, Clark doesn't know how deep into the pile AVIRIS could see. The infrared data certainly revealed surface temperatures, yet the smoldering piles below the surface may have remained at much higher temperatures. "In mid-October," said Thomas A. Cahill a retired professor of physics and atmospheric science at the University of California, Davis, "when they would pull out a steel beam, the lower part would be glowing dull red, which indicates a temperature on the order of 500 to 600 °C. And we know that people were turning over pieces of concrete in December that would flash into fire--which requires about 300 °C. So the surface of the pile cooled rather rapidly, but the bulk of the pile stayed hot all the way to December."

 

[Dave Rogers]

NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in Figure 9-14 (page 308) of Chapter 9 we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:

“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”

However, on page 169 of the NIST Report, in a Section called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):

“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”

Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees as it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees before it began to fall.”

A minor question on this.

The NIST report is not always as exact as I'd like in its choice of terminology - "essentially in free fall" is an example that I find rather misleading, and that I think has given spurious ammunition to conspiracy theorists - and I wonder whether this is another example. Note that the second quote says "..before the building section begins to fall vertically." Could it be that the word "vertically" is used here to mean "without further rotation", i.e. that the falling part fell and rotated, then entered a second phase of the fall where it was no longer rotating? If that was the original meaning, then the two quotes are in agreement with each other.

Dave

 

[R.Mackey]

To answer some of the questions posted by the NIST apologists on this forum:

Still adversarial, huh? I just don't get it.

I have done my own measurements of the tilting of WTC 1 during the first few
seconds of collapse using screen capture of frames from a number of
well-known videos. I think the tilt is less than NIST's estimate, but still
quite significant:

So NIST estimates eight degrees, and you estimate five. Could be a matter of perspective, could be one of you hasn't accounted for buckling at the hinge point. I see a mild disagreement here and no way, nor any need, to pick sides.

NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in Figure 9-14 (page 308) of Chapter 9 we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:

“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”

However, on page 169 of the NIST Report, in a Section called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):

“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”

Semantics. NIST could have been clearer, but really, I don't get what you're on about.

The Sustained High Temperatures of the Rubble Pile:

In an article in the October 2003 issue of Chemical & Enineering News, L. Dalton has summarized the progress of the fires and the associated temperatures within the WTC rubble pile:

Yes, we're aware the pile remained hot for some time.

I imagine you're already well aware that the stored chemical energy in the towers totaled over 110 times the collapse energy (page 17)? Isn't it reasonable to suppose the sustained temperature was more a function of combustion, and had nothing at all to do with the collapse itself?

I'm still not understanding your gripes. These seem quite trivial to me.

 

[uk_dave]

Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees as it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees before it began to fall.”

I guess everyone can make a mistake.

ETA: I know we get acused of nitpicking, but all you have managed to come up with is a contradiction involving a split second of difference in reality.

 

[Disbelief]

To answer some of the questions posted by the NIST apologists on this forum:

Sudden Onset and Near Free Fall Collapse:

I suggest you look at NIST's Report NCSTAR 1-6 Chapter 9 pages 298 - 305.
Here you will read the following in reference to WTC 1:

"The Tower began to collapse- first exterior sign of collapse was at floor
98. Rotation of at least 8 degrees to the south occurred before the building
section began to fall vertically under gravity."

Also see Figure 9 -13 on page 305 which shows WTC 1 tilting to the south
before collapse.

I have done my own measurements of the tilting of WTC 1 during the first few
seconds of collapse using screen capture of frames from a number of
well-known videos. I think the tilt is less than NIST's estimate, but still
quite significant:

Time (s) / Drop Distance (m) / Tilt Angle (deg)

0.2 0.1 1.2
0.4 0.4 1.3
0.6 0.9 1.5
0.8 2.0 1.8
1.0 4.9 2.2
1.2 7.0 2.4
1.4 9.4 2.6
1.6 11.2 2.7
1.8 12.1 2.8
2.0 13.8 3.0
2.2 16.5 3.2
2.4 18.9 3.6
2.6 20.7 3.9
2.8 24.3 4.3
3.0 27.5 5.0

Tilting of the Upper Sections:

NIST is not consistent in its reporting of the tilting of WTC 2 prior to collapse. Thus in Figure 9-14 (page 308) of Chapter 9 we read in reference to WTC 2 just before global collapse:

“The entire section of the building above the impact zone…began tilting
as a rigid block about 7° - 8° to the east and about 3° - 4° to the south.
…. The building section above impact continued to rotate to the east
as it began to fall downward, and rotated to at least 20 to 25 degrees.”

However, on page 169 of the NIST Report, in a Section called Observations and Timeline of Structural Events, we read in reference to WTC 2, (See item 11 of Table 6-2):

“ The building section above the impact area tilted to the east and south. ….
Rotation of approximately 4 to 5 degrees to the south and 20 to 25 degrees
to the east occurred before the building section begins to fall vertically.”

Thus we see NIST claiming, on the one hand, that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees as it began to fall”, while on the other hand claiming elsewhere that WTC 2 “rotated 20 to 25 degrees before it began to fall.”

The suggestion that WTC 2 rotated by up to 25 degrees before it began to fall is very significant since it would indicate that the top of WTC 2 fell over rather than fell down!

What is the axis of rotation? No, I am not being a jerk, I just want some slarification (and I can't watch any videos at work to answer my question). Do they mean 20-25 degrees top toward ground or 20-25 degrees around the center?

 

[jhunter1163]

If Apollo20 is Greening, this discussion between he and R. Mackey is something I've been awaiting for a long time. I can understand the arguments presented, but the calculation and whatnot is far beyond my ability.

I mean this in all sincerity. This should be very interesting.

 

[Horatius]

I'm still not understanding your gripes. These seem quite trivial to me.

So far, Apollo20 hasn't actually told us what he thinks happened. He indicates he has a new explanation for the collapse, but so far he has only recited some interesting facts about chemicals found in the dust and air, and some disagreements with angular measurements in NIST.

What I'd like to know, is where this is all going. How does that evidence lead us to a new hypothesis of how the collapse occurred? How does this hypothesis differ from NISTs or the CTs ideas?

So, Apollo20, what mechanism of collapse are you suggesting here? Show us how it all fits together, since obviously we're not seeing what you seem to see.

 

[ConspiRaider]

So far, Apollo20 hasn't actually told us what he thinks happened. He indicates he has a new explanation for the collapse, but so far he has only recited some interesting facts about chemicals found in the dust and air, and some disagreements with angular measurements in NIST.

What I'd like to know, is where this is all going. How does that evidence lead us to a new hypothesis of how the collapse occurred? How does this hypothesis differ from NISTs or the CTs ideas?

So, Apollo20, what mechanism of collapse are you suggesting here? Show us how it all fits together, since obviously we're not seeing what you seem to see.

Yep. What we've all been trying to discern from him, but he's being very coy. Could it be that his new theory might seem even less credible than my Godzilla scenario? Hmm.

Meanwhile, standby to launch your Alert Cat, and have your Backup Cat groomed and ready for heavy action.

 

[Horatius]

Meanwhile, standby to launch your Alert Cat, and have your Backup Cat groomed and ready for heavy action.

They're purring on the launchpad now.


And by launchpad, I mean, the back of the chair, and my bed.

 

[DavidJames]

They're purring on the launchpad now.


And by launchpad, I mean, the back of the chair, and my bed.

Roger that. I've got one on the bed and one on the giant pillow in the family room.

We're Ready!

 

[jaydeehess]

Apollo20, you seem very quick to answer those on this thread who deride you but I notice that you have not botyhered to answer the posts by PhantomWolf (post 7 and 9) which do address your points. Instead you have simply bulled along as if no good inquires concerning your theory have been put forth.

Gravy asked how you could characterize the initial collapse as sudden when it is very well docuemented that the perimeter columns were bowing for many minutes prior to collapse. Any theory you put forth will have to account for this gradual(20 minutes or more)progression towards failure of the columns.

If chlorine is now the smoking gun, so to speak, then has it been taken into account that the building was a few hundred feet from the Altantic Ocean which would be a source of NaCl?

 

[Apollo20]

In a 10,000 page report NIST make no effort to quantify the RATE of rotation of the upper block of either tower. In fact NIST lose interest in the collapse about 2 milliseconds after collapse initiation. The rotation of the upper section of the towers, especially WTC 2, was SUBSTANTIAL and crucial to the collapse mechanism. NIST describe it differently in two different sections of the report. NIST's scientists, (god bless them), should do a better job of proof reading their reports and learn some trigonometry while they are at it! If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I'd be asking for a refund!

So you can call it "nit-picking" .... I call it "doing a full and complete collapse analysis"

As for the absence of peer reviewed papers contradicting NIST and Bazant - try reading Cherepanov's paper in I. J. Fracture 141, 287, (2006).

And as for X-ray analysis of materials, I did it for a living for 15 years. Peak heights for adjacent elements in an x-ray spectrum are a pretty good approximation because the x-ray absorption effects are about the same. Oh. and by the way, if chlorine was coming from the water it should be in every concrete spectrum. It isn't! Besides, chloride ion is a no-no in concrete and is generally kept as low as possible

As for a new collapse theory: I have some ideas but, based on the reaction of most JREFers to most of my points, I sense the NISTIANS (who appear to dominate this site) are not ready to look "outside the box", especially when its quite apparent they think they already know all the answers. This approach to 9/11 "research" is based more on CONVICTION rather than CURIOSITY.

I worked many years with nuclear engineers who behaved the same way. When we found a problem with a reactor, the engineers were more concerned about making up a plausible STORY to tell the Nuclear Regulators than getting to the truth. Looks like the engineers at NIST have the same mind-set.