Debate! What debate?

[Apollo20]

I HAVE addressed the issue of sudden on-set of collapse! (See post # 49). At some arbitrary moment in time WTC 1 was intact, by which I mean it was not falling over or down, 2 seconds later the upper section had dropped about 28 meters. I call that sudden on-set of collapse. What do you call it?

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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.

I presume from these statements that you have done the calculations and your claim is based upon your findings, is this correct? If so, please share them.

This approach to 9/11 "research" is based more on CONVICTION rather than CURIOSITY.

I think that if you present objective, verifiable evidence that you will find your conclusion to be in error.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I HAVE addressed the issue of sudden on-set of collapse! (See post # 49). At some arbitrary moment in time WTC 1 was intact, by which I mean it was not falling over or down, 2 seconds later the upper section had dropped about 28 meters. I call that sudden on-set of collapse. What do you call it?

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "sudden on-set". My interpretation of it, which may be inconsistent with your intent in using it, is that a "sudden on-set" of a collapse means that the time between compromise of structural integrity and of failure of the structure was short (minutes). Is this correct?

 

[chipmunk stew]

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.

Please take this in the spirit it's intended--a sincere appeal, not a sarcastic or snarky comment:

I would ask you to once more read through this thread, only pretend every response is followed by a .

I think (I hope) you'll find that the feeding frenzy you expected has not occurred.

You have received several very thoughtful responses and questions that exhibit genuine curiosity about your perspective and ideas. (See R. Mackey, in particular)

Please consider lowering your defenses and assuming we're all open-minded and curious long enough to allow for you to effectively communicate your ideas. Thank you!

 

[chipmunk stew]

Something I am curious about, Apollo20:

Have you submitted RFCs for the calculation and proofreading errors you found?

 

[Apollo20]

We all watched the towers burn.

We have all seen the firefighters milling around the base of WTC 2.

Then poof! 15 seconds later WTC 2 was gone!

That's what I mean by sudden on-set. No one was doing a count down, no one said those towers are going to collapse in the next 10 seconds. That's what I mean by sudden on-set.

It appears that you are the nit-picker. If only you read the NIST report with such a critical eye!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I call (and this time, the big "gotcha" will be, "ohhh, but Greening says...." as if we don't know already know). SSDD. (Same socks, different day).

QFT

 

[chipmunk stew]

We all watched the towers burn.

We have all seen the firefighters milling around the base of WTC 2.

Then poof! 15 seconds later WTC 2 was gone!

That's what I mean by sudden on-set. No one was doing a count down, no one said those towers are going to collapse in the next 10 seconds. That's what I mean by sudden on-set.

That's true. There was concern expressed about the bowing observed, and about the structural integrity of the buildings in general (which is why engineers were called in to assess the situation), but you're right that the buildings went from relatively stable to collapsing in a very brief period of time and that this moment was not predicted (and probably not predictable to any degree of useful accuracy.)

 

[chipmunk stew]

Any chance of getting an executive summary of your conclusions, Apollo20?

 

[Apollo20]

I wrote to NIST about this problem but they ignored my e-mail.

As for the calculation of the tipping of an upper section of a tower, it's really quite simple:

The tilting motion of a rigid structure under the action of gravity may be expressed for small angles of tilt as:

q = qo e ^ b t

where, q is the tilt angle measured from the impacted floor.

qo = (dq/dt)i / 2b

The subscript i denoting some inital condition

and b is a constant related to the height of the upper section.

An equation of this form may be fitted to the measured rate of WTC 2 tilting with the following result:

q = 1.72 e ^0.69 t ; hence, qo = 1.72°, b = 0.69 s-1

and (dq/dt)i = 2.37° s-1

 

[chipmunk stew]

I wrote to NIST about this problem but they ignored my e-mail.

To get things done with bureaucratic organization, you usually have to bite the bullet and play their game. In this case, NIST had specific windows of time in which they were accepting input from the public.

Since those windows have long passed, there are more hoops to jump through if you want to get your comments to the right people. Specifically, it probably requires a formal Request for Correction at this point. I've never done one of these, so I don't know the process, but apparently Judy Wood and Morgan Reynolds have done them, so you might be able to ask them about it.

 

[Apollo20]

Chipmunk Stew:

I really don't have any conclusions, only observations, ideas, dreams and flights of fancy.....

And by the way, I apologise if my style has upset anyone, I thought this site was full of HARDHAT engineers not Peace Love and Understanding HIPPIES. Anyway, sometimes the truth hurts!

 

[ConspiRaider]

Chipmunk Stew:

I really don't have any conclusions, only observations, ideas, dreams and flights of fancy.....

And by the way, I apologise if my style has upset anyone, I thought this site was full of HARDHAT engineers not Peace Love and Understanding HIPPIES. Anyway, sometimes the truth hurts!

There ARE engineers here. I'm one myself, a software engineer, 20-plus years experience in that racket.

But we also embrace peace, love and understanding. And for me, personally? Chili. God how I love chili.

You're posting weird calculations that will go right over almost everyone's head. Is that your intention? I could do the same thing, post software coding, and zoom past everyone here. It solves nothing. Just murkifies things (is that a word?).

Obviously you have a collapse theory but you're squeamish about posting it. If it has legs - then you shouldn't worry a bit about what us JREFers think. We don't own the truth any more than those silly collitch kids do. So: Think of us as the first several rungs up the peer review ladder.

We're waiting...

 

[WildCat]

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?

Especially since there were fire boats pumping ocean water onto the debris pile.

 

[WildCat]

Chipmunk Stew:

I really don't have any conclusions, only observations, ideas, dreams and flights of fancy.....

You said you had a theory, in your first post:

I therefore believe the time is right to propose a new theory that addresses the shortcomings of the existing theories. With this in mind I have developed such a theory and have been testing it out on selected audiences.

Are you going to tell us what it is?

And by the way, I apologise if my style has upset anyone, I thought this site was full of HARDHAT engineers not Peace Love and Understanding HIPPIES. Anyway, sometimes the truth hurts!

I'm not an engineer, but I did see 50 Grateful Dead shows back in the day...

 

[stateofgrace]

Welcome to the forum, Apollo, I look forward to your thesis.

I guess I am one of those hardhat engineers you are on about; mind you I left my studies back at university years ago. I am more of hands on type guy now, you know the type having been around lots of engineers,they call them “hammers and spanners” guys

Hey,I see you worked in the nuclear industry. I never got there but I have had a few interviews now and again. I like the robotics you guys use, are you still using the T2 or have you managed to stretch your budget to get the T3 arm yet? I have actually heard there is a T4 coming soon have you heard anything about it?

Cheers anyway, look forward to seeing what you reckon happened, back to the popcorn for me.

Oh when you do finally produce your thesis, remember you are speaking to lots of people that are not as clever as you, so maybe keep it simple eh? Cheers.

 

[T.A.M.]

I think I already welcomed you in another thread, Apollo, but welcome again.

At the present time there are THREE main theories that claim to explain the collapse of WTC 1 & 2:

1. The “official theory”: The collapse events were natural, gravitationally driven, processes that were brought on by localized damage caused by the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires.

Natural is the wrong word. Not Premeditated might be better, but some would even argue that. There was nothing "natural" about the way NIST describes the causation of the collapses. Once it had initiated, the word gravity driven is perhaps a good word, as you have used.

2. Dr. Steven Jones’ theory: The collapse events were man-made processes caused by the timed ignition of pre-planted explosives or incendiary devices.

You've got to include Thermite/Thermate here, as it is at the core of his theory.

3. Dr. Judy Wood’s theory: The collapse events were man-made processes induced by an external source of directed energy.

She uses the word "weapon" often enough that it should be included as well.

Needless to say, each of these theories has its supporters and its detractors. Indeed, so much has been written on the pros and cons of each of these theories that there is little to be gained in going over all the arguments one more time.

I do not agree with the indirect assumption that these three theories are equal either in evidence or acceptance. By far, the NIST theory, the mainstream "official" theory is the most accepted theory, with the most evidence behind it. To argue otherwise IMO, is just silly.

However, if any WTC collapse theory is to gain full acceptance it must, at the very minimum, be able to explain certain well-documented phenomena such as:

· 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

1. Collapses were not sudden in any of them. People were shouting out warnings of possible collaspe before each occured. Also, the collapses did not occur immediately or suddenly after the impacts but almost an hour, and over an hour in the WTC 1&2 cases, and 7 hours later in the case of WTC7.

2. Noone has shown me, in any scientific literature, how the explanation given by NIST is not possible, or unlikely for the time of collapse. As well, the only ones making a "big deal" out of the "near freefall time of collapse" are the truth movement people, so it is a bit misleading to say this needs to be explained to be accepted, unless you mean to be accepted by every single person on earth.

3. Pulverization of some, even alot, of concrete can be explained through gravity + height + weight of falling segment. Large plumes of smoke often mistaken as being ONLY pulverized concrete can be explained through the easy crushing of a large amount of drywall and other materials.

4. Lateral ejection of concrete and other debris, please see the compression of a hamburger, and the subsequent ejection of ketchup. I am sure there are other explanations, but this seems like the obvious one to me.

5. Complete destruction? Seems alot of the steel columns were left, alot of macroscopic concrete was left, alot of unrecognizable debris was left. Not sure what more you would expect to be left after an 18-30 storey chunk of building falls some 1200 feet down.

6. Have you ever buried embers, then dug them up to find them still red hot.

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. With this in mind I have developed such a theory and have been testing it out on selected audiences. Because I naively believed that the CTists would be the most receptive of a new WTC collapse theory I sent an e-mail detailing my theory to the following list of prominent 9/11 researchers:

David Ray Griffin, Jim Fetzer, Steven Jones, Judy Wood, Phil Jayhan, Eric Hufschmid, Jim Hoffman, Jimmy Walter, Gordon Ross, Ace Baker and Kevin Barrett.

why am I not surprised.

Here’s what each had to say:

1. DRG: No reply
2. JF: No reply
3. SJ: No reply
4. JW: No reply
5. PJ: Liked it a lot – said it was better than anything Jones or Wood had to offer!
6. EH: Said it doesn’t matter HOW it was done, only WHO did it.
7. JH: No reply
8. JW: Thought it was “interesting” but not the main modus operandi.
9. GR: No reply
10. AB: No reply
11. KB: Said I was “stretching the facts to fit a theory.”

First, I should note that I have been in e-mail contact with all of these people, off-and-on, for up to two years.

says even more.

This, however, is the first time that an e-mail I have sent to some or all of these researchers has gone unanswered by so many of them. Interestingly, most of those who failed to respond are individuals who have strongly aligned themselves with a particular WTC collapse theory. Perhaps a new theory is simply too much of a paradigm shift for them! Yet the non-responding individuals all claim to be honest, objective, investigators who apply scientific deductive reasoning to reveal the TRUTH about 9/11. Therefore you would think that these truth seekers would have SOMETHING to say about a new theory, one, I might add that presents a considerable body of physical evidence to support its claims. However, all I hear from the Truthers is the SOUND OF SILENCE!

Thus I would say that the GREAT 9/11 DEBATE, if there ever was one, was over before it began.

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

Paul Simon, The Boxer.

I like your final quote (I am a big S&G fan....love their "Heart in Newyork")

I am just starting to read this thread, I hope you present your theory for us to digest.

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk Stew:

I really don't have any conclusions, only observations, ideas, dreams and flights of fancy.....

And by the way, I apologise if my style has upset anyone, I thought this site was full of HARDHAT engineers not Peace Love and Understanding HIPPIES. Anyway, sometimes the truth hurts!

I don't think you upset anyone. But a lot of people come here and use our "closed-mindedness" or "lack of curiosity" or "pseudoskepticism" or the like as an excuse to avoid clarifying or backing up their arguments. It appeared as though your posts were straying in that direction. It would be a shame if you were never able to get around to expressing your observations, ideas, dreams and flights of fancy because you slammed the door every time someone engaged in skeptical probing of the idea. That's all.

 

[T.A.M.]

Ok, lets have a look....

This is part of what I sent:

Let’s consider the evidence for molten iron at the WTC and the crucial question of molten steel in the rubble pile at Ground Zero. While this topic has been debated on many 9/11 websites, nearly all of the arguments I have seen rely on visual sightings of “molten metal” in the rubble pile - information drawn from eyewitness accounts recalled by recovery workers. This type of anecdotal evidence has been strongly criticized for its lack of scientific credibility. Remarkably, however, there is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2 that has apparently been completely ignored by 9/11 researchers.
I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.

Source? Are you an expert in metallurgy? Can one not get micron sized particles of iron from the collapse, and breaking off of iron fragments at the areas where the columns bent and then cracked off. In other words, are you saying, with proof, that the only way to find micron sized, round shaped iron particles is through the metal turning to a liquid state?

Each of the references below specifically mentions the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provides electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in all indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”


1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)

2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)

3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.

4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).

The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to sub-micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.

see my above comments which concern all this.

In seeking an explanation of the formation of iron spherules during the destruction of WTC 1 & 2 it is significant that samples of WTC dust have an additional chemical signature - an enrichment of zinc. Data for iron and zinc in WTC aerosol samples have been presented by S. Qureshi and co-workers in Atmospheric Environment 40, S238, (2006). We first note that concentrations of these elements in PM2.5 aerosol collected in New York City prior to 9/11 were about 100 ng/m3 for iron and less than 20 ng/m3 for zinc. Qureshi’s data show that on September13 2001 the PM2.5 iron concentration was 127 ng/m3 and the zinc concentration was 217 ng/m3, i.e. airborne zinc concentrations were about ten times higher than normal. Qureshi’s data also show that both iron and zinc concentrations in New York’s 2.5-micron dust peaked in early October 2001 with iron at 370 ng/m3 and zinc at a remarkable 1028 ng/m3. These observations are consistent with iron and zinc data reported by the EPA for WTC air monitoring samples collected in the same post-9/11 time period.

Why was so much zinc dispersed into the air above Ground Zero? In order to answer this question we need to consider sources of zinc in the Twin Towers. A review of the construction materials in these buildings shows that the galvanized 22-gauge corrugated sheet steel, used for the decking that supported the floor concrete, was a major source of zinc. Given that 22-gauge galvanized steel has a coating of about 50 microns of zinc on a 1 mm sheet of metal comprised of ~ 98 % iron, we may use a reasonable estimate of 14 tonnes for the mass of steel decking per floor to conclude that there was about 1.4 tonnes of metallic zinc on every floor in WTC 1 & 2.

Zinc. Funny you only mention the steel as a source of sinc. No other sources of this INCREDIBLY COMMON Element?

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

I’m new to posting on JREF but I have been following this forum for quite a while and I have observed how the regular JREFers eagerly DEVOUR each CTist that ventures on to this Conspiracy thread to question the official 9/11 story. It all gets pretty much routine because the JREFers always use one or more of the following modes of attack:

(i) NIST has covered all the bases – you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
(ii) Taunt the CTist with “where’s your evidence?”
(iii) Question the CTist’s credentials – “Are you a scientist?”; “Are you an engineer?”
(iv) Ask the CTist why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
(v) Ask the CTist if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.

1. When someone comes in here making outrageous claims that fly in the face of what the "regulars" consider to be logical, or when they come here posting old, tired, already discussed a million times "Theories", then yes they tend to POUNCE...can't say I blame them/us.

When a CTist retreats, the JREFers pass the time patting each other on the back for another debunking job well done and discuss how idiotic that particular CTist was. While this may be a source of entertainment for the JREFers, this type of mutual admiration is not particularly helpful to anyone seeking to understand how the Twin Towers collapsed. In fact, I would say that the JREFers appear to be fixated only on smothering scientific debate under a blanket of NIST, FEMA, Kean, Fox and CNN “Truths”! But as Leonardo da Vinci so aptly states: “Whoever in a discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory.”

Nice quote. If there is a structural engineer posting on the collapses, he will usually post from intellect. If an FDR Technician posts here, he does so as well...on the topic of FDR data.

For me, as a physician, to post from "intellect" on either of the two topics above would be simply stupid, as I have little to no knowledge or education on the subject. This, however, does not matter to the truthers, which is why they often sound so stupid when they post here.

As for the "patting on the back", your language gives your stance on the matter away. Beyond that, I would say that this is a "Community" in many ways, where most "regulars" do tend to hold common beliefs on this topic. They put up with the repetition of stupid, obnoxious claims on a daily basis, so when they put one of these idiots in their place, I think a little back patting is appropriate. I doubt it bothers any of the fence sitters.

I have worked as a research scientist in industry and academia for MANY years but I do not recall ever witnessing such an endless appeal to authority, by one side in a debate, as I see with the JREFers! Indeed, I find the JREFers more often than not coming across as dogmatic followers of a creed. Thus, ironically they have become a modern band of Inquisitors doling out their autos-da-fe to heretic CTists for simply having the temerity to question NISTIAN authority.

Once again, your distaste for us is shining through. However, I am not sure what you find wrong with someone who admits to know little of the science behind a topic referencing what the experts say in their argument. Better than the truthers, who have no experts, and use their flawed logic to misinterpret all aspects of the 9/11 science, then add in more than a dash or two of paranoia to come up with their "answers".

In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. {/quote]

Report # and Page references please.

It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse.

The buildings completely collapsed, didnt they? Am I missing the intent of the words "global collapse". How is modeling needed to state that the collapse was global?

Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless.

"Useless" is a word of opinion.

Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation.

Educated speculation based on the reasonable deduction that since other buildings, hit by high velocity debris in the area, that had similar spray on insulation, had it removed substantially from the columns etc...

Beyond that, the entire CT movement on 9/11 is based on speculation.

It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires.

Interesting. Source for this?

Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory.

source, or mere opinion again?

It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying….. This is the JREFers Bible!?!?!?

The spherical iron I asked about earlier, waiting for an answer. As for WTC7 and how long NIST has been trying to explain...they have a reasonable theory, and what are you insinuating by relating WTC7. failure to explain the collapse, and it being the JREFer bible. Please spell it out for me.

TAM