Debate! What debate?

[Apollo20]

When I said I had a theory, perhaps I should have said I have an idea....

I see this theory/idea as a movie script that tells a story based on what MAY/COULD/MIGHT have happened on 9/11.

And I see the NIST Report that way too. It's a movie script about some ideas about what MAY/COULD/MIGHT have happened.

Cherepanov also has a movie script based on something he calls a fracture wave. And he has all sorts of fancy calculations to back it up as well.

Steven Jones has a movie script too.... of sorts.....

Now the NISTIANs are convinced that theirs is the one and only TRUE STORY because they have studied what happened with their engineer's tool box. But NIST never considered the rubble pile! The rubble pile was the geological record of a cataclysm. It had the history of the collapse encoded in every grain of dust and sand. But NIST chose to ignore it. True, NIST collected some scraps of structural steel, but did NIST collect any concrete, any pulverized gypsum, and any floor pans. Did NIST consider where the North Tower antenna landed? No! That could have told the NISTIANS a lot about the trajectory of the upper section of WTC 1. But that's right, NIST was only mandated to look at collapse initiation.

However, when someone dies in a hospital bed, does the doctor only look at the encephalogram and the cardiogram up to the moment of death? And say: "Yes, this man died because his heart stopped beating and his brain ceased to function!"

Or does the good doctor conduct an autopsy - a post-mortum examination of the body, using blood samples and tissue samples and chemical analysis......

 

[chipmunk stew]

When I said I had a theory, perhaps I should have said I have an idea....

I see this theory/idea as a movie script that tells a story based on what MAY/COULD/MIGHT have happened on 9/11.

And I see the NIST Report that way too. It's a movie script about some ideas about what MAY/COULD/MIGHT have happened.

Cherepanov also has a movie script based on something he calls a fracture wave. And he has all sorts of fancy calculations to back it up as well.

Steven Jones has a movie script too.... of sorts.....

Now the NISTIANs are convinced that theirs is the one and only TRUE STORY because they have studied what happened with their engineer's tool box. But NIST never considered the rubble pile! The rubble pile was the geological record of a cataclysm. It had the history of the collapse encoded in every grain of dust and sand. But NIST chose to ignore it. True, NIST collected some scraps of structural steel, but did NIST collect any concrete, any pulverized gypsum, and any floor pans. Did NIST consider where the North Tower antenna landed? No! That could have told the NISTIANS a lot about the trajectory of the upper section of WTC 1. But that's right, NIST was only mandated to look at collapse initiation.

However, when someone dies in a hospital bed, does the doctor only look at the encephalogram and the cardiogram up to the moment of death? And say: "Yes, this man died because his heart stopped beating and his brain ceased to function!"

Or does the good doctor conduct an autopsy - a post-mortum examination of the body, using blood samples and tissue samples and chemical analysis......

Your low opinion of NIST is noted.

The tentative nature of your theory/idea is noted.

Now about this idea...how long do you plan on dragging this out before you get down to the meat?

 

[T.A.M.]

However, when someone dies in a hospital bed, does the doctor only look at the encephalogram and the cardiogram up to the moment of death? And say: "Yes, this man died because his heart stopped beating and his brain ceased to function!"

Or does the good doctor conduct an autopsy - a post-mortum examination of the body, using blood samples and tissue samples and chemical analysis......

lol...I have alot of personal experience with this. If I am called to pronounce someone dead in the middle of the night, and asked to fill out the death certificate, I usually go through the chart, and from the illness they were admitted for, along with a report from the nursing staff on their course in hospital, and the symptoms prior to expiration, Unless something does not sit well, I will sign off on the patient with a probable cause of death. An autopsy is offered if the family wants, but is rarely performed unless the death is outside the hospital setting, or unexpected. Even in the case of an unexpected death, an autopsy is usually only done if the patient was relatively free of chronic disease of a cardiorespiratory or malginancy nature.

I am not saying what you are saying is wrong, only that there is some flaw in your analogy...but I still get your point.

TAM

 

[Apollo20]

TAM:

You admit to not being an expert on metallurgy, etc, ... I was in the zirconium metallurgy deparment of a nuclear research outfit..... All I can do is suggest you read about spherical metal particles in all the references I have provided. The fact that particles are spherical means they were molten when they formed - its connected to surface tension of a drop of liquid.

 

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

Thanks...so you are an expert. Therefore, I will defer to you on this manner. I doubt with my 2nd year university level chemistry, done a dozen years ago, that I could understand it.

Anyway, in a brief synopsis, could you clarify?

ie. in a nutshell, is there anything other than melting to LIQUID of Iron, that could cause spherical iron particles of the size you mentioned.

THANKS

TAM

 

[Apollo20]

Chipmunk Stew:

"Now about this idea...how long do you plan on dragging this out before you get down to the meat?"

We are already into the meat!

And remember what mother said:

"You must chew your meat before you swallow it!"

Unfortunately, however, it appears that most of you guys are vegetarians

 

[T.A.M.]

Apollo20:

A number of people have asked you if you are, infact, Dr.Frank Greening. Do you choose not to answer, or have you missed the question in the fray of pouncing?

I ask, because if you are Dr. Greening, than you are attacking many of the people here who have admired and trust your work, much to the annoyance of the truth movement. In fact, you seem to be, in a way, defending the truth movement here, at the expense of the JREFers. It just seems illogical for someone with such education to come in here and pounce on a group who find validity in your work, rather than just come in here and provide your idea upfront. That is if you are Frank Greening. If not, than simply ignore everything beyond the question of your identity. I am fine if you choose not to answer the question, as it is your right.

Just curious as to motive behind your posting "attitude" so far.

TAM

 

[A W Smith]

cannot light gage metals such as filing cabinets. steel studs, etc form those tiny little dingleberries of steel? or do they have to come from structural steel such as core columns?

 

[Apollo20]

TAM:

I believe the answer to your question is NO! So the REAL question is what melted the iron in the towers. And please note that the iron spheres were quite abundant in the WTC dust.

As to who I am...... What difference does it make to what I say?

 

[T.A.M.]

Posted over at the Physorg forum on March 24th by Neu-Fonze:

Palpatane:

No need to be so facetious over such a serious matter.

I am perfectly familiar with XRF - its capabilities and its limitations - having operated an EDAX spectrometer and an electron microscope for 15 years. If you are not up to speed on these technique, I'm sorry I don't have the time to help you.

The bottom line is you cannot , (or should I say, don't WANT TO), explain the vaporized zinc, nor the high chlorine.

I have seen an interesting theory, but it's not for the closed minded NISTIANS on this site who already THINK they know everything.

So, Palpatane, carry on thinking the way you do by all means. NIST's scientists have had their say. They have many good points and a lot of good data in their Reports.

However, most unfortunately, NIST's view is blinkered so it misses all the INTERESTING CHEMISTRY

Now its time for others to fill in the gaps....

NF

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

TAM:

I believe the answer to your question is NO! So the REAL question is what melted the iron in the towers. And please note that the iron spheres were quite abundant in the WTC dust.

As to who I am...... What difference does it make to what I say?

It makes no difference, except you came here with a particular attitude, that was certainly not neutral, and turned even more hostile, in some ways, as your posting progressed. As many here have felt, perhaps wrongly assumed, that in general you were not a believer in 9/11 CTs, many I think find it strange for you to come here with such an attitude before even saying hello so to speak.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Another question:

What is your opinion on the evidence and science behind Stephen Jone's Theory, and Judy Wood's Theory?

TAM

 

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk Stew:

"Now about this idea...how long do you plan on dragging this out before you get down to the meat?"

We are already into the meat!

And remember what mother said:

"You must chew your meat before you swallow it!"

Unfortunately, however, it appears that most of you guys are vegetarians

It's just, most presentations go like this:

X is/is not true (or alternatively, Is X true?)

Points in support of X being true
and/or
Points against X being true

Therefore, X is/is not/might be true


Since your presentation leaves out the first section, the second section is just:

Points (which may or may not be in support of or against some unknown X)

Which is pretty boring.

 

[ConspiRaider]

So obviously Apollo / Greening / anti-NISTIAN is saying the Twin Towers were dropped by nukes. That's not exactly original, but at least we now know the thrust of his argument.

I guess, several strategically placed suitcase nukes in the basements.

Right, Doc?

 

[Gravy]

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

Sudden Onset and Near Free Fall Collapse (snip)

Thanks for the reply. I was referring to the inward bowing of the exterior walls, which was progressive over many minutes. I thought you were making the common conspiracist claim that there no visible signs that the towers were in danger of structural failure.

I don't think anyone here would claim that the NIST report is error-free. I found a small error in it yesterday. You made a good catch in noting that in two separate parts of the report, NIST describes the south tower top tilting as occurring before and during collapse. Of course, anyone can see that the tilting is part of the collapse, and that the maximum lean is reached well into the collapse. NIST should have used more accurate phrasing in that one sentence. However, I know of no practical significance to that error. AFAIK, NIST's models don't have the top of the south tower tilting 20-25 degrees before collapse. That would be silly.

 

[jaydeehess]

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!

that is quite the long view of the collapse you are using to define a sudden onset of collapse.
It has been pointed out that the perimeter column bowing illustrates that the building was suffering los of load carrying capacity many minutes prior to the failure of the columns.

In many tests to destruction of any building material the material deforms slowly then suddenly gives way and fails. A very good illustration of this would be the test of an aircraft wing in whivch the wing is bent until it breaks. It will bend and bend slowly then fail suddenly and catastrophically.

A first year physics lab experiment is to test the Young's modulus of a steel wire by hanging increasingly heavier mass by the wire and measuring the stretch. There comes a point at which the addition of mass causes the wire to continue stretching until it breaks. What is seen is that the rate of stretching often acellerates rather than decellerates right up to failure(separation).

So the bowing must be taken into account if you are speaking about the failure of the columns. Much like that stretched steel wire the columns of the towers were succumbing to the load. In this case because of a combination of their capacity being lowered as they heated up and shifting loads due to internal failures(ie. an aircraft damaged core column that could still support some load directly after the crash but which later has heated to the point where it is offering no load carrying capacity). At the time of failure the load has shifted and the capacity had decreased such that many columns could no longer accept more load. At that point a single failure would cause enough load to be shifted to those columns that they fail.

I find your reluctance to take into account the increasing bowing puzzling.

Post 49 did not address this at all.

Two sources of chlorine have been given to you, Have you considered them yet? That is that city water supply is chlorinated and would likely be the source of water used to mix the concrete and that sea water was used on the debris pile.

As for steel sphericules, there was a lot of metal cutting being done during the clean up. A large number of very high temp torches and high speed cutting blades. Those steel sphericules get produced even by grinders throwing sparks.

Your idea/theory will have to take into account all sources of the materials you wish to examine. Such baseline data is the very backbone of any investigation. That is one reason why NIST has 10,000 pages. they did lab tests concerning many aspects of the events in the towers.

As for WTC 7, NIST has not been activly investigating this building's collapse for the last 6 years. It produced a preliminary report shortly after 9/11/01 and then concentrated on the towers since it was in the towers that lives were lost. One purpose of the investigation was to determine what could be done to increase safety in high rises. NIST promises a final report on WTC 7 this year IIRC.

 

[T.A.M.]

What I do not understand, is why so many truthers, and now some scientists of uncertain tendencies, jump on the proverbial ass of NIST, as if it purposely set out to decieve.

Lets back track to when it was done, not look back after 4-5 years of CTists finding faults with it. Their mandate never included a criminal investigation. It never included looking at the criminal aspect or lack there of. People attack the report as if the scientists intentionally mislead or ommitted. If this is the case, then I say do not be cowards, name names, tell us who is wrong in the report and why?

I am all for pointing out flaws in the report. More often than not, on this forum, the debunkers ask truthers to do this very thing...point out where NISt is flawed or incorrect.

I aplaud your attempt Apollo/Neu-Fonze/Dr. Greening, so long as it is done in the name of REAL TRUTH and science, and not based on an AGENDA.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

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

If you had the resources at your disposal, how would you model the rest of the collapses?

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

I shall, thank you. Although being math-impaired, with technical papers I'm usually reduced to parsing the words between the formulas.

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.

Your charge that some of us think we already know all the answers – to any complex issue – is unfounded.

Last night I sent a PM to a member which said that I was glad you were thinking "outside the box" and providing ideas that required new thinking, but that I was perplexed by your approach. You said you've been lurking here for some time, and don't like how we've dismissed other ideas. Can you think of a new claim about 9/11 that's been presented here that

1) Appears to have merit; and
2) Was dismissed without examination

Perhaps that's happened, but I can't think of a case.

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.

Specifically how would you have liked to see them approach their collapse analyses?

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?

Gravity acting on a severely damaged structure that was visibly losing its ability to resist.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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?

If I had a stick in my hands and slowly applied pressure to each end so that it bowed upwards in the centre, and I continued that for 5 mins until it broke, would you say that it suddenly snapped?

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!

And the question would be, is 15 (actually it was about 16, but hey let's not quibble over a second) an unreasonable time frame for it to do so considering that freefall from the same height was only 9 seconds, so the collapse was at about 178% of the time it would have been under freefall. (WTC 1 was 180%)

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.

Going back to my stick example, would you be able go say exactly when the stick was going to break?

However you are also wrong in that people did know it was going to collapse, and the fire chiefs had already radioed through an evacuate order to the crews in Tower 2 before it went. Radio problems (which appartently still haven't been fixed) and lack of time to get out was what lead to the deaths.

In Tower 1 Captain Jay Jonas and his men headed out when they determined that Tower 1 was in danger of collapsing and that saved their lives as the building collapsed around them.

 

[Gravy]

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?

My concern, which I expressed earlier, is that the iron particles Apollo refers to, be distinguishable from the enormous amount of airborne iron produced by the ironworkers' torches, which was a main source of health concern for workers on the piles.