Loose Change - Part II

[chipmunk stew]

Chipmunk Stew say

“He (wrongly) concludes that there was literally molten steel at Ground Zero”

No, he says, “molten metal,” which is direct testimony from workers at the scene. Jones guesses that it is steel, but he openly admits that this is a guess. It cannot be molten aluminum, because aluminum does not glow red.

Pick any metal you want--it doesn't matter which. The "glaring point of idiocy" I was referring to was Jones' suggestion that this molten metal points to thermite (or one of its cousins). Again, on what planet does thermite (or one of its cousins) provide the continuous heat source that is required to keep [your choice of metal here] molten for hours/days/weeks at a time?

It is idiotic to observe molten metal at the scene long after the collapses, and from that to formulate a hypothesis of thermite.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to cart all of the WTC steel to a secure location, tagged, and ready to be inspected at a later date. It’s not just about, “who is an expert.” It’s also, “did they do their job.”

They did do (and still are doing) their job:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/

And in reference specifically to the collection of samples: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-3BDraft.pdf

Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation. Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence. Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators. Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators. Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.

"The" report, as I said before, is an executive summary.
Tell me this is grade-school investigation: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
And this is not: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 

[chipmunk stew]

Once again, A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is evidence, It is not a conclusion, but it is evidence.

Why don't you try to track down that firefighter, and ask him what he meant by that, and if, in his expert opinion, he believes that the possibility of a controlled demolition ought to be seriously investigated?

 

[kookbreaker]

Modeled on computers. That’s grade-school investigation.

Nonsense. Computer modeling is a very critical tool for failure analysis these days. Saying otherwise is naive and childish.

Real investigators don’t model, they study evidence.

Which is what NIST did. They have done simulations, tested pieces, all kinds of experiments have been run to analyse evidence.

Stop telling me that the NIST people were real investigators.

No. They are real investigators. Childishs demanding that they are not is silly.

Because they sure didn’t act like real investigators.

Your opinion, and a poorly formed one at that.

Was it their fault, or their superiors fault? I don’t know. That’s not my concern. I’m concerned with the report.

You obviously have not read much of the report.

 

[kookbreaker]

About computer modelling from someone who forgot more engineering that Mutton-Head will ever learn:

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=626787&postcount=214

Finite-element models properly constructed are so accurate and so predictive that they have taken the place of physical models for testing candidate designs. Boeing, for example, designed the airframe of the 787 Dreamliner and tested it for handling characteristics, lift/drag and other aerodynamic concerns, and structural integrity without ever building a physical model of it to any scale. No wind-tunnel testing is needed. These models are actually more useful than physical models because they are automatically instrumented to provide immense amounts of data that cannot be determined or measured in physical models.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Some things I'd like to address, and readdress as I didn't have time to do so last night:

Molten aluminum:
http://www.laaluminum.com/Plant_Tour/plant_tour.htm - specifically http://www.laaluminum.com/Plant_Tour/MoltenAlumInCrucible.jpg shows molten aluminum, glowing red, at ~1300F

http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/ - specifically http://www.alliedmetalcompany.com/images/moltenal05.jpg also shows red hot aluminum as does http://media.www.kykernel.com/media...kernel.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com (http://media.collegepublisher.com/media/paper305/stills/d676oeaq.jpg)

Interesting side-note on properties of aluminum

The pure metal has a melting point less than 1200ºF and does not exhibit the color changes before melting so characteristic of most metals. For this reason, aluminum does not tell you when it is hot or ready to melt. The oxide or "skin" that forms so rapidly on its surface has a melting point almost three times as high (3200º+F). To add to this confusion, aluminum even boils at a lower temperature (2880ºF) than this oxide melts. The oxide is also heavier than aluminum and, when melted, tends to sink or be trapped in the molten aluminum. For these reasons, it is easy to see why as much as possible of this oxide "skin" must be removed before welding. Luckily, the reverse polarity half of the AC arc does an outstanding job of cleaning off quantities of this oxide ahead of the weld!

from http://www.lincolnelectric.com/knowledge/articles/content/tigalum.asp

That said, I am not saying it _was_ or _was not_ molten aluminum that was observed; merely that it is possible for aluminum to glow red.

Now, on to the claim that "real investigators don't model [using computers]".
Yes, they do:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10978637&dopt=Abstract
http://www.arengineers.com/Services/Simulation.htm
http://granitestategraphics.com/

 

[Belz...]

Actually, now that I think about it, I find Gravy to be unnecessarily insulting.

“they deliberately distort the truth all the time. Their dishonesty is an absolute insult to thinking people.”

I will also no longer respond to Gravy. He can likewise apologize if he wishes.

Do you deny that the 9/11 "truth" seekers lie ?

 

[Belz...]

A firefighter saying “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building.” Is a reasonable expert. Honestly I’m getting tired of repeating myself.

So a firefighter making a comparison is evidence of controlled demolition ?

Boy, your definition of evidence is lacking, to say the least.

Whenever a workman had to cut a piece of steel away to remove it, both sides of the cut would have been marked with an ID #. The two sides would have the same number, and taken to a secure location.

Why ? There was no question as to the initial cause of the buildings' collapse.

“Our nation was attacked on 911. I want to know who did it, and how.
Terrorists. They flew planes into buildings.”

No, I want to know everything. That means, listening to firemen, analizing steel from the crime scene.

You mean YOU analysing steel ? Or experts ? If the latter, already been done.

 

[Belz...]

I want to ask again, do any of you know the difference between evidence and conclusion?

First, learn what evidence is. Then we'll talk.

The wacky kooky Cters are saying that if a firefighter says, “It was if they had detonators, to take down a building,” that is evidence. Evidence, not conclusion. The NIST took assumptions and called them conclusions, ignoring the firefighters statements.

Yes and I look at my computer and call it a cow. What's your point ?

Similes, metaphors, assumptions. My investigation would have included real interviews with the firemen gesturing and using similes. I would have compared their expert testimony with the steel from the towers.

What makes you think they didn't ?

Like I said, and I will repeat myself yet again, the tower didn’t have to be reconstructed right away.

Exactly how would they have stood ? And where would they build them ?

I would have just made sure that it wasn’t discarded. It had to be cleared anyway, why not put it somewhere. Tell me that it would have been unreasonable to keep the steel, and not discard it, just like any crime scene investigator would do.

If the damage was completely inconsistent with a controlled detonation, then guess what, you just ruled it out. Conclusively. This is very basic investigation procedure.

Exactly. Then we agree.

 

[WildCat]

100% right on what I'm trying to convey. Thank you Macky, that was it exactly. I see your mathematical explanation. (I admit, it's been years since college physics.) There seems to be dispute though over those numbers for mass. Also, I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.

Please show your calculations showing how much high explosives (use any high explosive you'd like) is necessary to pulverize 3.3 million sq. ft. (the square footage of the concrete floors per tower) of 4" thick (I'm estimating conservatively here) concrete. Yes, you have to show your math. I think you will find it is a ridiculously high amount, and the force necessary would have also been enough (since explosions project forces outward in all directions) to send chunks of material to New Jersey and Brooklyn (and I'm not talking about blowing paper here).

Does that seem feasible to you?

Thanks for info on the firemen. That may be my next course of research. Perhaps I can get information from/about these guys that extends beyond Google and People magazine. Man I'd sure love to talk to some of them.

Thanks to Manny for the fire fighters union. However, I have to admit that it makes me chuckle. I can hardly even get MY union representatives to call me back, and I pay them $800 bucks a year. Ha!

This would qualify as real research however, I suggest you go this route if you really want answers to the firefighter quotes you cite.

I don't trust the NIST report. Also to Manny, my assertion that they ignored the central steel core wasn't an outrageous lie. It was an exageration. The NIST grossly misrepresented it.

The NIST publications (there are dozens of them pertaining to the WTC collapses) are here. Please tell us which report and which assertions found in those reports you have problems with. Use page numbers also, so we can follow along.

For every single hypothetical question that evreybody has asked, I have at least one or two good hypothetical answers, that make sense, and are plausable, in my opinion. That's why I keep digging. If I find anything that I think is significant, I will let you all know.


Rock on

Good luck!

 

[Belz...]

I would like to know why you would rig up explosives to a building AND slam planes into it. According to the main catalog of 9/11 theories, the explosives were needed to bring down the building. Wouldnt that be a huge waste to smash a few planes into it and cause the grounding for a couple of days of all aircraft?

I've asked this one more than once. Never got an answer. I support CTers don't want to think about that. Bush is evil, you see. No reason needed.

 

[Belz...]

I believe that 30% to crush the structure and throw material and pulverize concrete is not enough. I believe it would be much higher. My intuition (and other researchers) tells me that even 100% would not have been enough. But, that's only my intuition, so for now, that discussion will have to wait.

Well, change the damn numbers and do the math again. See where that brings you in terms of TNT load.

 

[WildCat]

I inadvertantly made a thermite bomb while grinding down a VW alternator bracket on a grindstone which was mounted on a very rusty support structure. Sparks ignited the aluminium filings/rust flakes and suddenly I had drops of molten metal burning holes in the floor. Adding water made life even more interesting for a period...

EB.

Reminds me of the time I was working on my car, and accidentally dropped a wrench so that it fell just perfectly and made contact w/ both terminals on the battery. It turned glowing red almost instantly, and melted (and I mean molten steel dripping off of it) within a second or two. I was terrified the battery would explode, but it didn't.

Yes kids, cover those battery terminals when working on a car.

 

[gruk]

Darat hits the crux of the problem here.

The firemen claim they heard explosions. Mutton-head says this means there must have been explosives.

Now, I have never been near a burning skyscraper when it has fallen, so I wonder, are explosions inconsistent with what is expected for such an event?

If you want to argue that explosions are evidence against the building-falling-on-its-own scenerio, then you have to be able to show that a building-falling-on-its-own would NOT cause explosion like sounds.

So let's get to the real crux of the matter here. On what do you base the implicit assumption that a skyscraper inferno, loaded with all types of things that explode when heated, will not produce explosions or things that sound like explosion when it falls on its own?

How do explosions rule out the conventional explanation?

Technically, what we call explosions are shockwave fronts, usually (maybe always) caused by high-pressure gas being released VERY rapidly. A mini-example of an explosion can be made and studied in the safety of your own home. Buy a rubber balloon, fill it with air and tie it off. Now prick it with a needle. Instant explosion. Not very powerful, but still an explosion.

Now, does this mean we can have explosions without explosives? Obviously. Your bretah isn't an explosive. The balloon isn't an explosive. But we still have a very small explosion.

There's lots of things in a skyscraper that contains pressurised gas. There's fire extinguishers everywhere. There's probably flammables in quite a few places. There's material that can give off extremely flammable gasses when heated. There's probably flammable dust (not as much as in a flour mill, mibnd you).

Add some burning kerosene, drop a couple of hundred tons of weight on a floor and, well, you will have explosions. I would've been surprised, hadn't there been explosions.

 

[LostSoul]

I meant to post this a few days ago. Its the article I got my sig quote from.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/columnists/jgurwitz/stories/MYSA052406.2O.gurwitz.1685aadf.html

 

[aggle-rithm]

Yes there is evidence. Many firemen said so. That doesn’t make it “conclusive proof,” but it is evidence.

Yes, evidence is very important. However, it is important to START with the evidence and allow it to lead you where it will. If you START with a pre-conceived notion (such as "explosives were used in the WTC") then the evidence could lead you astray.

Here's a hypothetical example: Supposing I believe that a giant purple salamander is going out every morning and eating all the newspapers off the neighbor's driveways. I want to test this hypothesis by going out at 5:30 AM, right after they are delivered, and confirming that the newspapers are in fact lying on the driveways. An hour later, I go check them again. If my hypothesis is true, then the newspapers will be gone. Thus, the purple salamander hypothesis is proven.

See the problem here? I am so focused on my pre-conceived belief about what is happening, I fail to consider other, more mundane explanations.

That is why falsifiability is so important. If the purple salamander hypothesis were wrong, how would I know? Certainly not by watching the newspapers and finding that, in fact, the neighbors themselves are picking them up and taking them into their houses. I could simply say, "They beat the purple salamander to it", or "the purple salamander was sick today".

If your explosives hypothesis were wrong, how would you know?

Evidence should be in the report, and then refuted. It should not be omitted.

If EVERY eyewitnesses impressions of what MIGHT have happened were included as evidence in the report, then it would be a very thick and largely meaningless document.

Let me tell you why every single conspiracy theory was not addressed in the report: It's because the authors never dreamed that anyone would have a problem with the idea that two airliners loaded with jet fuel crashed into the buildings at crusing speed, and as a result the buildings fell down.

 

[aggle-rithm]

As a continuation to my previous post, let's examine the issue from another viewpoint. Let's look at the hypothesis that the airliners crashing into the building started a chain of events that caused them to collapse.

The most obvious evidence that this is true is that the buildings were observed collapsing only once in their almost 30-year history, and airplanes crashed into them only once in the same period. The crashes occured first, the buildings collapsed second. This in itself is not sufficient proof. Correlation does not imply causation. Just because A preceded B does not mean that A caused B. However in this case, since both A and B were unique, it is extremely likely that A caused B. We need corroborating evidence, though.

The hypothesis states that the crash sites resulted in structural weakness in the buildings, and the weight of the buildings ABOVE the crash site caused the collapses. Here's where the corroborating evidence comes in: If this were true, then we would expect the building with the MOST weight above the weakened area to collapse first.

(This may seem to be similar reasoning to the "salamander" test described in my last post -- the main difference is that THIS test is designed to CORROBORATE very compelling already-existing evidence.)

And guess what...THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED! Of course, you could always say that explosives were set off in this way to MAKE it consistent with the "official version", but that raises several unanswered questions. Why, at this point in the investigation, is it necessary to posit explosives? How could the "evildoers" behind the conspiracy foresee the need for this corroborating evidence, and yet leave so many of what CT's call "inconsistencies"?

I'm not saying, of course, that these two pieces of evidence were sufficient to explain the collapse. However, as more and more corroborating evidence is added, it becomes less and less likely that the hypothesis is wrong. Such corroborating evidence is plentiful in the official reports that CT's find so questionable.

All the CT's have is purported "inconsistencies", which are not consistent with each other, are not sufficient to disprove the rock solid "official" hypothesis, and are ultimately not helpful in determining exactly what happened.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Theorists without portfolio

Thanks for mentioning this, it is something I have noticed as well while butting heads with revisionists. I would add that, in the same way that CTs lack structural engineers, the revisionists lack real historians. I have been confronted with enough "articles" from psychiatrists, lawyers, political figures to paper a wall, but almost nothing from a trained historian (as opposed to an "internet-trained" historian). Not to mention that both sides want one more big investigation that, they fervently believe, will conclude that their side was right after all.

Well, that's exactly right, both with 9/11 nuts and Holocaust denier nuts. Fred Leuchter was NOT an engineer...he just claimed to be one. Gerhard Rudolf was NOT a chemist...he also claimed to be one. Their "reports" were shot down by highly qualified experts in these fields. David Green, the guy who did the report shredding Rudolf is a Ph.D. in chemistry who works with the US Army on CW. So David Irving ripped Green as being a "computer expert," not a chemist, as if Irving would know the difference.

The deniers and nutters are interesting in their arguments...as a writer, I'm interested in HOW arguments are framed...and nutters take this condescending tone. They sound like this: "I am smarter than you are. I am making a statement. It is your job as my student to go out and do the research yourself and come back with a term paper that matches my conclusions...and while you're at it, you find the 'smoking gun' that proves my theory. Do my work for me, and then join my crusade."

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Why I don't go to "Loose Change"

Just to get banned ?

Non merci.

And the other reason being...unlike conspiracy theorists, I have a life.

More importantly, I lack the exaggerated sense of self-importance conspiracy theorists seem to have, in which they think they are the sole bringers of truth to the universe, and therefore are the center of it...both in the evil conspiracy's attempt to destroy them and the world adulating them.

That's why they get angry when they're ignored by the government and derided by the rest of the world. Bringers of truth think they deserve better.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Who's interesting around here?

Oh, I think you'll find I'm not all that interesting...

Well, at least the avatar is interesting, and I still can't figure out how to post one of my own.

But everybody has some reason to be interesting to others...heck, look at how many people are fascinated with the lives of Kato Kaelin, the Olsen twins, Uri Geller, and Paris Hilton!