New guy here: Questions for official hypothesis

Dave Rogers said:
Not really, no. Even if you collected enough together and showed them burning with a thermite reaction, that would only prove that they were a mixture of iron oxide (i.e. rust) and aluminium, both of which were present in the Twin Towers in abundant amounts. Jones has speculated about the origin of other chemicals in various fractions of the debris, but everything he's found has a simple explanation in terms of the elements that would be expected to be found. The beauty of Jones's theory, from the point of view of conspiracy theorists, is that it's so difficult to prove either way, so with careful shifting of the burden of proof it's possible to sustain a meaningless debate almost indefinitely.

Dave

ETA; It's possible, of course, to prove that they're not thermite; not being mostly iron, aluminium or oxygen would do that nicely. Jones would then claim that this just meant that either the thermite was somewhere else, or that it was all consumed as planned in the demolition. Evidence doesn't tend to affect faith-based conclusions.
Click to expand...

Actually the chips are bilayer-ed, with silicon, and aluminum that suggests 60 year old electronics technology was used to make them. They appear from what I have seen to be inducers or inductors.
Those parts are common in computers.
 
Sizzler said:
Are you saying there is no way to tell if they are actually thermite chips?
Click to expand...

It's incredibly difficult, especially if you say "thermite residue". The products of a thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and iron. Both of those already existed in the towers.

It's sorta like looking at a sample of the atmosphere, seeing CO2, O2, and H20 and claiming it's "methane residue".
 
Sizzler said:
were there sacks involved in this collapse that kept all the pieces together?

Lets look at your example.

Try it without the sack. That is more accurate.
Click to expand...

This is all very sad. It's exactly the sort of thing that makes me lose faith in humanity, and the sort of thing that slowly turns me cynical. Sizzler came along asking questions and a few people speculated that he was just another Troofer. I thought, no, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He's being reasonable, hasn't trotted out any of the usual Troofer garbage, he seems to show a genuine interest in learning.

But here we are almost 500 posts later and he's starting to show his true colors. Granted it's taken a lot longer than usual but like all of them he's slowly coming out of his costume.

Thank you Sizzler. Thank you for proving me wrong and teaching me a lesson I needed to be reminded of: Never trust anyone who's JAQing off.
 
Does this mean that Sizzler now concedes there wasn't significant crush up in the beginning of the collapse?
 
GregoryUrich said:
Of course it's possible I have calculated incorrectly. You may notice I asked if someone could confirm it. I think you mentioned that you had a spread sheet. Why not calculate it and we can compare?
Click to expand...
Hey GregoryUrich, I've done some back of the envelope calculations based on simplified linear treatment of oscillating aerofoils and come to the conclusion that bumblebees cannot fly!

Is there any chance you could check my calculations to confirm it because I believe there is a problem here and I'm going to reserve my judgment on this aspect of reality until you get back to me.
 
Sizzler said:
Ok you guys.

So I now understand that the "global collapse" was doomed, based on the calculations done by Bazant and others.
Click to expand...

Sizzler, just as an aside, last month NIST released a supplement to their August 2006 faq.

The first faq item is their answer to the question of why the collapse of the towers was deemed inevitable after collapse initiation (which they did not address in the NIST report itself).

1. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.
Click to expand...
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm

It's interesting to note that they chose not to make any reference to any of the Bazant papers here, and opted for a much simpler analysis based on floor loads and truss capacities.
 
Last edited:
FramerDave said:
This is all very sad. It's exactly the sort of thing that makes me lose faith in humanity, and the sort of thing that slowly turns me cynical. Sizzler came along asking questions and a few people speculated that he was just another Troofer. I thought, no, let's give him the benefit of the doubt. He's being reasonable, hasn't trotted out any of the usual Troofer garbage, he seems to show a genuine interest in learning.

But here we are almost 500 posts later and he's starting to show his true colors. Granted it's taken a lot longer than usual but like all of them he's slowly coming out of his costume.

Thank you Sizzler. Thank you for proving me wrong and teaching me a lesson I needed to be reminded of: Never trust anyone who's JAQing off.
Click to expand...
When you really think about it, the odds of someone who is just learning about 9/11 conspiracies finding this as one of the first forums, coming in wide-eyed and open minded, and still being capable of not only asking very specific questions but being able to come back with answers to the answers are very, very slim... even moreso if they're using their very first posts to start a thread rather than contributing to several first.

Not saying no one will ever post a "just asking questions" thread in this forum who doesn't already have an agenda, but whenever one pops up the smart money is on it being a liar rather than a truth seeker until they can prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Drudgewire said:
When you really think about it, the odds of someone who is just learning about 9/11 conspiracies finding this as one of the first forums, coming in wide-eyed and open minded, and still being capable of not only asking very specific questions but being able to come back with answers to the answers are very, very slim... even moreso if they're using their very first posts to start a thread rather than contributing to several first.

Not saying no one will ever post a "just asking questions" thread in this forum who doesn't already have an agenda, but whenever one pops up the smart money is on it being a liar rather than a truth seeker until they can prove otherwise.
Click to expand...
Do you think this forum will ever see someone who comes here to ask questions about the NIST reports who has actually read the NIST reports and not just the CTists interpretations of them?
 
DavidJames said:
Do you think this forum will ever see someone who comes here to ask questions about the NIST reports who has actually read the NIST reports and not just the CTists interpretations of them?
Click to expand...
No, but as a skeptic rather than a debunker I need to keep my mind open to the possibility it COULD happen, even though there is no evidence it ever has. :D
 
It's just so frustrating because, as Pomeroo said, you just keep wanting to fast-forward the thread to the part where they actually start making assertions that can be discussed.

The Socratic thing is just so exhausting because it requires dozens of posts and thousands of words for the truther to figure out that they're talking to informed people. And they're not reading it.

Though I like the twist this guy put on it where, once he was pinned down to start explaining his theory, he simply abandoned it and started a new thread, hoping to start the whoooole process over again.
 
FramerDave said:
Thank you Sizzler. Thank you for proving me wrong and teaching me a lesson I needed to be reminded of: Never trust anyone who's JAQing off.
Click to expand...
I have to say, I'm still not quite sure about this guy. He has openly conceded quite a few points already. I have never before seen a twoofer doing this. And even if that's part of the game, he's going to run out of new claims pretty soon.
 
Arus808 said:
Like i stated in earlier posts, sizzler's presence here stinks of a truther in disguise. He writes like Max Photon (a carriage return after every sentence).

he's now on ignore. Since he wont listen to the experts here, and WONT attempt to contact Bazant, who's paper he is criticizing, its easy to see that he is not here for the "truth" at all. And not "confused".

48 hours, and he's only read Bazant's paper? On the first page, tehre are links to 20 different reports. NIST's report takes at least a 2 week read.
Click to expand...


What disguise?
 
Myriad said:
Sizzler,

The answer to your question about how parts of the rubble piles reached temperatures of 1000°C is, fire. That is, ordinary combustion of class A combustibles, breaking down hydrocarbon compounds such as cellulose (paper) in an oxygen atmosphere into (primarily) CO2, CO, and H2O, releasing chemical energy as heat in the process.

This is counter-intuitive for most people because when they think of fire they think of flame, and they think that if there is no flame then a fire is extinguished. But a fire is not extinguished until the fuel is exhausted or the heat that sustains the chemical reactions has dissipated away. In the rubble piles, there was plenty of fuel to sustain a slow burning fire for many weeks, and there was almost nowhere for the heat to go. So, even though the combustion was slow because of the limited amount of oxygen diffusing through the rubble, there was no reason for it to stop, and the accumulating heat resulted in high temperatures.

It's the same reason a wood-burning stove, which limits the ventilation of the fire, reaches higher temperatures than an open campfire even though it burns its fuel at a slower rate. It's all about where the heat goes. (And a wood stove is designed to radiate heat to its surroundings; that's what it's for. If you prevented that heat loss by covering it with insulation on the outside, it would get hotter still; an iron wood stove under those conditions would eventually warp or sag to failure, but if you build it out of stuff that won't melt, it's called a kiln.)

Slow-burning oxygen-limited (and heat-trapped) fires reaching high temperatures, similar to the ground zero rubble fires, are seen in underground coal seam fires, some of which have burned for decades. Also cargo hold fires aboard ships -- imagine a longshoreman's smoldering cigarette butt ends up in the center of a 15-meter cube of (say) wooden crates packed with no space between them, ignites a small fire using the little available air nearby, and when that air is depleted a smoldering fire develops. The oxygen is limited but the heat is trapped, and the fire can't be put out by ordinary means. The fire will gradually grow, and eventually the heat will reach a place that will cause something (e.g. a deck or bulkhead) to fail, which will make fresh air available to the super-pre-heated fuel. That ship is in serious jeopardy.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

Thanks Myriad, you just educated me on something I didn't even realize that I didn't understand. I knew about fires smoldering with limited oxygen (in other words, I saw Backdraft :)), but it never occurred to me that the temperature would rise dramatically because of the trapping of the heat.

(i never took even high-school physics because the (non-biological) sciences were always difficult for me to understand. is there a physics for dummies, I wonder :o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom