Your muted interest is duly noted. Frankly, while I don't know a lot about the JREF forum, I can't say that I'm terribly optimistic about finding anybody who is a 'regular', and who is qualified, taking an objective look (which implies reading the paper). But hey, it's worth a shot.
Still confused.
You admit you don't have the skills to apply C & E. I haven't read it, and it's not readily available, so I can't either. You say you expect Ross's conclusions to be borne out, even though you apparently accept Dr. Greening's and my analyses of Ross that show him to be wrong. You're not interested in following up on those other calculations that show global collapse is expected, yet you expect
us to take your banner and prove your conclusions?
Honestly, what do you expect us to do with that? If you had something other than "intuition" to go on, I'd be more interested. Please present it, if there is anything.
As if Mack would actually need to prove this. CD is an extraordinary claim, with no supporting evidence.
Thank you! I'm glad some readers are getting it.
I'm not going to declare that NIST is all-knowing and correct. It may not be. That's what we're discussing here.
But even if NIST is
wrong, that still doesn't mean "explosives." What it means is this:
- Modeling techniques are insufficiently accurate
- Some observations are wrong or incorrectly measured
- The building design contained still undiscovered flaws
- There exist still undiscovered or poorly understood mechanisms in skyscraper fires
- The building was built below standards, accidentally or directly
If you evaluate all of those options and still find nothing, then we
might begin to entertain "CD" discussions. But only if you can explain where they came from, how they got there, how they survived the fires, why nobody saw them before detonation, why they made no shockwaves and threw no shrapnel, and why nobody heard them.
In other words, "CD" is nuts. Just plain nuts.
Scientists:
1. Is the only evidence you have for "molten iron" at GZ, besides vague nonspecific witness references to "molten metal", the spherical Fe particles? If not, what other evidence of "Molten Iron" do you have?
2. As others have posted, could the Fe spherical particles have come from torches used to cut away the iron at GZ, and also come crom "sparks" of iron, that would have occured due to frictional forces as the towers collapsed, etc...?
I'm not a materials scientist or structural engineer, just an aero and AI scientist, so my speculation may not be worth much. But I'll try anyway.
I don't think the iron spherules are signs of iron melting in any significant structural degree. I say this for two reasons:
- The amount of structural steel recovered from the site matches, to some reasonable degree, the amount that went in.
- As far as I know, the mysterious molten steel only appears as spherules. There's no puddles, no slag, no blobs, no streaks on other steel members. Just these tiny droplets.
This isn't proof, of course, but then it's hard to prove any negative.
Still, there are some iron spherules, and they are interesting. I suspect they came from one of the following:
- Site contamination by cutting operations after the collapses
- Erosion of steel members during the aircraft impact or collapse friction
- Surface chemistry of steel members during hot burning after collapse
- Complex surface chemistry during the fires prior to collapse
What would be much more useful is if we could figure out
how much iron became spherules. I suspect it isn't a lot, however widespread individual examples may be. And as others have noted, none of the folks looking at dust samples (except Steven Jones, of course) seem to find this startling.
It is interesting, but I don't think it'll be earth-shattering.
And you'll note I didn't go to NIST even once.
-----
Finally, I have to remark that the level of discourse in this thread is highly disappointing. There is a perfectly reasonable scientific discussion hidden here, but the signal-to-noise is pretty low. And some of that is JREF regulars. I ask you all to lower the level of antagonism here, or find another thread if you cannot.
Have a good weekend, all.
