Trussbolt failiures and flame cutters

[A W Smith]

--------
Here is photographic evidence of incendiaries heat-weakening core steel connections.

Look at the 3rd figure (View 2)

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911...er_op=view_page&PAGE_id=11&MMN_position=23:23

Note the aluminum oxide ash coming off the joints.

I guess thats why they were the last part of the building to fall?


Conclusion.. Thermite strengthens steel connections

 

[Max Photon]

Max Photon responds to e^n

---

Hi e^n,

Thanks for your response!

1.) Floors can not only go downward. They can be blown laterally, or outward. (Obviously they will also fall, but not over the footprint.) Hence, these do not contribute momentum to a "progressive collapse."

2.) I am saying incendiaries were used to create a spectrum - a natural looking spectrum - of failure modes.

To that end, I suspect a spectrum of heating modes - with variation in maximum temperature reached, duration of heat exposure, timing of heating relative to collapse initiation (which affects amount of cooling time, in any), and so forth.

Therefore, I would expect that at collapse initiation, some steel is ductile (thanks), some brittle, and so for.

3.) With respect to testability - a question you have delivered and I have acknowledge receipt of - I still do not have an answer that I am comfortable with. However, your question is definitely at the top of the list in importance, and when I can answer you convincingly, my hypothesis will have matured immensely.

If you have any good ideas on the testability issue, please, give me a hand.

4.) You wrote:

This brings into question, just exactly what thought process did you take in order to arrive at this conclusion?

Photos such as this are certainly not proof of anything, how can you tell that is aluminum oxide?

Why could it not be drywall?


What thought process did I take?

That is a really important question, because it gets at the heart of the tension between my approach, and the prove-it prove-it prove-it crowd.


The NIST report basically says: NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

The NIST report is just one investigation. Its finding - one hypothesis.

Had there been other independent investigations, surely you can agree there might have been different findings, and those would properly be called alternative hypotheses.


Okay, so the hypothesis H = NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION

As I scientist, I like to check things out - at least a little - for myself.

NIST is not God, NIST is an institution. NIST might not be correct. Right?


So if:

H = NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION

then I would test the null hypothesis:

H(null) = CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION


Got that?

To conduct a scientific investigation of the WTCs - as any real skeptic would - ASSUME CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION.

(Sorry guys, applying page 3 of Introductory Statistics does not make one anti-American.)


It should be noted that right off the bat, ASSUME CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION is strongly validated by even the most rudimentary back-of-the-napkin likelihood analysis.

There were many low probability events on 9/11:

- The failure of the military - even around HQ.
- The collapse of WTC 7
- The many anomalies NIST admits to and describes in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C
- The many melted cars
- The shock-tube flashes in WTC2
- FEMA high-resolution photos showing many, many examples of catalyzed effects on steel members. (Remember, NIST sampled only a tiny portion of the steel.)
- etc, etc, etc.


The joint probability of low probability events - especially when there are multiple - vanishes to zero.

I am utterly, totally, completely at a loss for how any of you even get past the joint probability issue. (Really, I have no words.) My only explanation is that you simply don't understand probability and likelihood analysis.

Which brings up an important point.

In modeling dynamic systems far from equilibrium, one does not use DEQs.

One uses coordinate transformations (shifts in perspective - such as MAX-MIHOP), and likelihood analysis - ie., what picture best fits all of the observations, in particular the anomalies and low frequency events.

I have yet to meet one person in my whole 9/11 experience who understands this. If anyone does, please identify yourself.


Okay, so basic statistics says: ASSUME CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION

Well, if you assume controlled-demolition, you assume MIHOP.

(LIHOP is preposterous - if only because it is orders of magnitude more complicated than MIHOP.)


From here it is obvious that the controlled-demolitions were masked, covered up - cloaked.

How were they cloaked?

How could one possibly cloak controlled-demolitions of three gigantic structures, in plain view, with the whole world watching?

Well, magicians or magic illusionists do that all the time.

Military-deception is just magic illusion - weaponized.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff puts out Joint Publication 3-13.4: Military Deception (MILDEC)

MILDEC is magic.

To see the controlled-demolitions, one needs to filter out the magic.

I use Paul's Magic Filter, which is simply had by reading JP 3-13.4 (and military publications on MILDEC, on the military using the media as a force multiplier, and on weaponized propaganda).

By knowing how the military conducts MILDEC, I can adjust or filter for MILDEC. Think of it as finding a magician's how-to book, so that you see all the tricks.


Anyway, so now one assumes:

- Controlled-demolition
- MIHOP
- MILDEC
- Cloaking


HOW did they cloak the controlled-demolitions?

Well, to answer that question, I observed, and observed, and observed.

I worked very hard to gain familiarity with the available evidence, where that evidence fits on the time-line, the structure of the towers, the NIST reports, the works of Jones and Ryan, and so on.

During this process it is only natural to have hypotheses well up, grow, die, morph, and so on.

But as one's familiarity crosses a critical threshold, quickly most hypotheses simply do not match the evidence. They die.

What is left standing?

MAX-MIHOP:

Incendiaries were used to heat-weaken the towers to intiate collapse.


Based on the evidence, I was simply unable to discount the null hypothesis - CONTROLLED DEMOLTION.

Therefore, I had to reject the hypothesis: NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION


But the public narrative is all around explosive demolition, cutter charges, thermite slicing steel, melting, etc. That is another part of the cloaking trick - the language game.

"NIST found no evidence of controlled-demolition from explosives..."


You guys have been robust, active participants - perpetuators - in this language confusion.

I have been graciously trying to illuminate that all the cutting/slicing/melting stuff is wrong. HEAT-WEAKENING! (Come on guys, I know you can do it!)


e^n, the problem is, one needs to have a pretty high degree of familiarity with the evidence, and of MAX-MIHOP, to see MAX-MIHOP and to gage its fit to the observations.

However, even with familiarity, if one is resistant to new ideas, then the chance of seeing MAX-MIHOP is zero.

Most here are unfamiliar, and resistant. Many here actually write that they see no anomalies, and no evidence of controlled-demolition - zilch, zero, nada. Their chances of seeing MAX-MIHOP are zero.


You? I am not sure. I can't tell if your resistance is low enough. I am not even sure you have the fortitude to accept any anomalies (and rightly so, because the moment you do, it's a steep slippery slope).

But I will certainly give you the benefit of the doubt. (And I really appreciate your participation with me.)


I also wonder if you have the constitution to stand up to your "peers" at JREF, if they sensed your were "getting soft" (which is a phrase I saw elsewhere)?

---------

Back to the testability question you raised.

Part of my difficulty is that MAX-MIHOP is a complex collection of concepts, not just one.

I suspect the testability issue will be sorted out in time, as the hypotheses mature. I would expect that individual chunks will be tested in parts.

---------

As to the last questions about aluminum oxide vs gypsum etc...

I am saying aluminum oxide is the MAX-MIHOP explanation.

I believe that "aluminum oxide" fits the photo (with the billowing whatever coming right from the connections), the FEMA debris photos (where you see strong evidence of heating on these joints), and the contextual logic of my model.

Obviously, I can not prove that is aluminum oxide.

I only speak to fit - fit of all the evidence.

You may see it differently. That is why you would have a different hypothesis.

Yours would be subjected to the same criterion of fit as mine.


I hope I have answered your questions.

Thanks again for your interest. I appreciate it.


Max

P.S. I'd love to know how my ideas are percolating in that brain of yours. Is anything...intriguing?

(I won't tell anyone ; )

----

 

[T.A.M.]

I dunno Max, you make so many statement, so many claims without any 9/11 Expertese (geophysics + marketing) I am not sure they should take your comments seriously...lol

TAM

 

[Furcifer]

Max: Longest post with the least content ever

You will be hard pressed to convince me that the floors weren't the defining mass of the progressive collapse let alone the fact that they did not contribute to the momentum of the progressive collapse. There is very little of which I am certain, but I am certain most of the mass of the floors contributed to the progressive collapse. The reason is simple, most of the mass of the floors fell within the footprint. I will allow you a small amount of pulverized floor mass that fell outside the perimeter, but in the order of 5% or less. I will fight you with all my being on this, because of this I am certain. I urge you to reconsider this statement.

(I'm just kidding with the first sentence. I realize you spent a lot of time preparing it, so I acknowledge it)

 

[Gravy]

NIST said that of the truss seats on the core columns of the north tower that they examined, below the impact zone, all were bent downward.

 

[e^n]

e^n replies to Max Photon!

Hi e^n,
Thanks for your response!
1.) Floors can not only go downward. They can be blown laterally, or outward. (Obviously they will also fall, but not over the footprint.) Hence, these do not contribute momentum to a "progressive collapse."

You're welcome Max. Yes certainly floors can be blown outwards and not contribute to the mass in the collapse, however the amount of energy required for this is immense and the mechanisms unclear. Exterior walls are pushed outward due to pressure in the tube from debris and pivot action as the upper sections become disconnected. I don't remember seeing clear truss ejection in any of these videos.

2.) I am saying incendiaries were used to create a spectrum - a natural looking spectrum - of failure modes.

To that end, I suspect a spectrum of heating modes - with variation in maximum temperature reached, duration of heat exposure, timing of heating relative to collapse initiation (which affects amount of cooling time, in any), and so forth.

Therefore, I would expect that at collapse initiation, some steel is ductile (thanks), some brittle, and so for.

Ok thanks for qualifying your hypothesis a little more. I am not entirely confident that it is possible to make steel more ductile by heating it and cooling, I believe the only way to increase ductility is to increase the temperature and maintain it. Still you have yet to provide any calculations for steel strengths so for now I will refrain from comment.

3.) With respect to testability - a question you have delivered and I have acknowledge receipt of - I still do not have an answer that I am comfortable with. However, your question is definitely at the top of the list in importance, and when I can answer you convincingly, my hypothesis will have matured immensely.

I am glad you answered in this manner, and while I cannot think of any direct testing method you will probably need to contact a professional FEA company to determine failure modes with A36 steel at room temperature / with different amounts of strain before failure etc.

What thought process did I take?
That is a really important question, because it gets at the heart of the tension between my approach, and the prove-it prove-it prove-it crowd.

The NIST report basically says: NOT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
The NIST report is just one investigation. Its finding - one hypothesis.
Had there been other independent investigations, surely you can agree there might have been different findings, and those would properly be called alternative hypotheses.

From here onwards we come to where we will disagree. You seem to feel that because your particular theory would explain all the evidence (as you see it) best, it is the correct one. I cannot however see any reason for adding weightings in in this manner, there is no good reason to believe that the steel was more brittle or ductile than specified in either tower, and the amount of change that would be possible strongly suggests the towers were only a 'hairs breadth' from collapsing regardless.

I'm sorry Max but without meaning to be offensive, the only part of your theory so far which really intrigues me is the idea of bolt access holes being used to house incendiaries. This is a new claim on me and it would still require a hell of a lot of work inside the towers it is at least more plausible than giant thermite funnelling devices placed on core columns which were in open areas.

It's 5:26am as I write this so if I have made any huge mistakes / mischaracterised your posting I apologise, but I feel you have to do some serious research and apply your logic only to the evidence at hand, rather than your personal feelings of a 'best fit'. Remember, Einstein said God doesn't play dice with the universe, and Schroedinger was originally ridiculing QM. Neither of them were right.

 

[Gravy]

---
I am saying aluminum oxide is the MAX-MIHOP explanation.

Save your carpal tunnels. We know what you think. People are laughing at you, Max. Some people think your loony ideas are funny. I think your claims are sad, ignorant, and delusional.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I'd love to see the mechanics of a truss being ripped laterally from its seat on the core. I can't see any way that could have even with explosives. A propellent strong enough to do it, would likely shatter it.

 

[Gravy]

---

The NIST report is just one investigation. Its finding - one hypothesis.

NIST explored several failure hypotheses, and abandoned the FEMA hypothesis, which prevailed when NIST took over the investigation.

That you don't know there were independent investigations, or what their results were, yet you castigate us for not being real researchers, is just sad.

You make me sad, Max. I don't think you're funny.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'd love to see the mechanics of a truss being ripped laterally from its seat on the core. I can't see any way that could have even with explosives. A propellent strong enough to do it, would likely shatter it.

I was having that exact issue on a 150' truss I was designing last week. It can actually happen =\

 

[peteweaver]

I am starting to get the sense that there are no serious 9/11 researchers on this site.

Max

Max for your attention, an introduction to bending moments:

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Beams/Shear_Bending.html

http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Beams/Beam_theory.html

And what makes you think that the average office is non flammable ?
Lots of flammable equipment can be found in the average office, desks, chairs reams of paper, computers, printers, carpets, books, documents etc.

And in a building like WTC 1 that means thousands of computers, thousands of printers and so forth, that makes plenty of 'fuel' to burn for weeks after the attack. So why go to the difficult length of bringing in stuff like thermite ? it makes no sense.

 

[NYCEMT86]

--------


The controlled-demolitions were done by heat-weakening the steel.


---

Max,

Fire causes heat, when that temperature reaches 1,000*F, the strength of steel rapidly decreases. Especially when it comes to a truss system. A truss system depends on all of the parts for its strength. If one part, whether its the bolts, welding, top chord, bottom chord, or the web members the truss system fail it may cause the entire truss to collapse.


Maybe you should read Retired FDNY Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn's why the WTC fell or his book Collapse of Burning Buildings, Chief Dunn has an extensive background in researching Building Collapses. Many of the National and State Firefighting Academy's and Classes are based on his research. He also was a contributor for NIST.

Also you should read my thread on basic principles of fire behavior.

 

[leftysergeant]

According to CD theory, McCormick Place should still be standing. The roof of M Place resembled the floors of WTC 1 and 2 more than it did the roofs of WTC 5 and 6.

A volumn of class A fuels much smaller in relation to the volumn of the building burned in McCormick Place than did in the towers, and the class A fuels in the towers were closer to the trusses in the towers than they were in McCormick Place.

 

[Max Photon]

Max Photon responds to failure.

---

Hi guys,

Thanks for the responses.

NYCEMT86 - thanks for the information. I will take it in.

Petweaver, likewise.


e^n, several points:

1.) I simply wanted to point out that downward wasn't the only option.

2.) With respect to ductility - I say that some of the incendiaries were ignited right near collapse initiation, so that steel would be hot. Other steel, exposed to heat earlier and cooled, would respond differently to the collapse.

3.) Steel strength as a function of temperature is well-known, and well-documented in the NIST reports. You don't need me.

4.) I have my answer to testability. I will write it up and post it later.

5.) You wrote:

You seem to feel that because your particular theory would explain all the evidence (as you see it) best, it is the correct one.

That is how I seem to feel - to you. To me, I have a hypothesis (well, it's actually a collection of hypotheses), and I present it.

There are two broad modes to presenting a hypothesis.

The first to to qualify every single statement - might, could, possibility, etc.

The second is to use bold, declarative statement, and say, "Prove this wrong."

It is really just a style issue.

You asked for my approach, and I told you. No one needs to like it. I couldn't care less.

You all have your own approaches (foreclosure), and I have mine (open-mindedness).

As for fit: GOOD MODELS EXPLAIN ALL THE ANOMALIES.

NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C is full of anomalies. NIST takes great care to describe just how anomalous the anomalies are!

These need to be explained.

NIST provides possible explanations - hypotheses - and labels them as such.

I present MAX-MIHOP - different hypotheses - that DO explain these anomalies.

If you don't see that fit, that is your concern, not mine.
(e^n, this sentence meant to be direct, not aggressive.)

Everyone seems to think that there is some law written somewhere that it is my job to prove something to them.

I am not here to tell you what to think.

I am here to tell you what I think, and to get input from others (and to kid a little, since that seems the norm).

6.) You wrote:

"...the only part of your theory so far which really intrigues me is the idea of bolt access holes being used to house incendiaries."

Well e^n, if that is the "only part" that intrigues you, I would still call that a grand accomplishment, given the angry natives.

Don't get me wrong - I am not out to "win" anything. But there can be no real discussion without at least some genuine interest.

In fact e^n, in the near future, I would like to focus on the possibility of incendiaries in box columns, placed through bolt-access-holes.

Obviously, I have a thread specifically for that topic, so we should move the discussion there.


Just one last thought.

You know, perhaps you guys are looking at me from the wrong perspective.

e^n pointed out that I have at least brought one new, intriguing idea. Don't you guys get bored? New is good. Plus, think of all the fun you can have tearing it apart.

Also, do you guys really want a forum where its just one gigantic circle-agreement? Really?

Yikes! No thank you!

Plus, do you guys have any respect whatsoever that this idiot is at least trying to think, he is putting his ideas out in public where everyone can take their best shot, and he is even game enough to go into hostile territory and mix it up - with a little humor I might add. (Oh right, Max isn't funny. Sorry.)


Here, try this:

Imagine e^n found a myna-bird. He called it Max Photon, and taught it a couple of 9/11 words. The next day, the damn thing started blogging - The Adventures of Max Photon.

Now you have a mascot.


Regards,

Max


ETA: Who can tell me what percentage of core columns NIST studied?

---

 

[pomeroo]

As I scientist, I like to check things out - at least a little - for myself.

Maxie, listen carefully: You're not a scientist. NOBODY here thinks you sound anything like a real scientist. You sound like a kid with a very average IQ who didn't do well in any science courses he might have taken.

NIST is not God, NIST is an institution. NIST might not be correct. Right?


So if:

H = NOT CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION

then I would test the null hypothesis:

H(null) = CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION


Got that?

Yeah, Max, the hundreds of independent researchers who have concluded that controlled demolition is not a viable hypothesis did just that. Try Brent Blanchard's paper explaining why no one in the demolition industry takes the claims of the conspiracy liars seriously.

To conduct a scientific investigation of the WTCs - as any real skeptic would - ASSUME CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION.

(Sorry guys, applying page 3 of Introductory Statistics does not make one anti-American.)


It should be noted that right off the bat, ASSUME CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION is strongly validated by even the most rudimentary back-of-the-napkin likelihood analysis.

There were many low probability events on 9/11:

- The failure of the military - even around HQ.
- The collapse of WTC 7
- The many anomalies NIST admits to and describes in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C
- The many melted cars
- The shock-tube flashes in WTC2
- FEMA high-resolution photos showing many, many examples of catalyzed effects on steel members. (Remember, NIST sampled only a tiny portion of the steel.)
- etc, etc, etc.


The joint probability of low probability events - especially when there are multiple - vanishes to zero.

I am utterly, totally, completely at a loss for how any of you even get past the joint probability issue. (Really, I have no words.) My only explanation is that you simply don't understand probability and likelihood analysis.

It is good to hear that your school offers a class in basic probability theory. Your posts suggest that math is difficult for you, so I fear that you will absorb little of the subject matter. But elementary probability theory is an extraordinarily useful tool for showing the absurdity of the fantasists' belief in a gigantic conspiracy. Here is part of my response to Rev91. His silence indicates that he understands that his imaginary conspiracy cannot possibly exist:

You don't understand what a straw man is. The conspiracy concocted by the tinfoil-hatters is necessarily vast. You and your fellow fantasists pretend that a cabal was able to cow into silence thousands of people across a broad spectrum of professions and industries. We've been down this road many times, but as you are new to the forum, I'll run through the drill again.

You claim that the two hundred researchers working for NIST, along with the eight hundred unaffiliated scientists and engineers consulted by the agency, are complicit in this staggering crime. Whether they are--absurdly--willing accomplices (yeah, we'll buy that a Democrat working for NIST has a perfectly understandable motive to acquiesce in mass murder for no other purpose than to line the pockets of Dick Cheney's cronies) or--slightly less absurdly--normal people intimidated from speaking out by an invisible Gestapo, we have a thousand people who KNOW that the Bush administration perpetrated a heinous crime. Add to that number the people who work for FEMA; for the FAA; the air traffic controllers; the forensic examiners; the police and fire departments of New York City and Washington, D.C.; the people who work for the Port Authority; all the top brass in NORAD (some of whom are Democrats, let us remember); the Boeing Corporation; American Airlines; United Airlines; the newspaper editors who printed passenger manifests showing the seating positions of the hijackers; seismologists at the Lamont-Doherty labs whose data showed no secondary explosions--and on and on.

The problem is that conspiracy liars are more than simply dishonest; they are incredibly stupid. They tell themselves that their imaginary conspiracy is small, but they refuse to recognize the impossibility of what they claim. There would be THOUSANDS of people who know that an unprecedented crime had been committed. That NOT A SINGLE ONE of them would blow the whistle is matter of simple probability.

Suppose that instead of thousands of people knowing the secret, there are only one hundred. Suppose further that these hundred people are extraordinarily good at keeping their mouths shut. Assign them an average probability of .9 (a typical human's might be .5) of never spilling the beans. This conspiracy--much, much smaller than yours--has a 99.97% probability of letting the cat out of the bag (use a calculator to raise .9 to the hundredth power).

The gigantic network of perps, accomplices, and coerced innocents posited by conspiracy liars would let the secret slip far more often, 99.99999...% of the time. The math is childishly easy. You can let everyone involved clam up with a probability of .99--they're all James Bonds and G. Gordon Liddys--and your conspiracy will still unravel with near-certainty.

Who is in the invisible army that knocks everyone into line? How is it funded?

Which brings up an important point.

In modeling dynamic systems far from equilibrium, one does not use DEQs.

One uses coordinate transformations (shifts in perspective - such as MAX-MIHOP), and likelihood analysis - ie., what picture best fits all of the observations, in particular the anomalies and low frequency events.

I have yet to meet one person in my whole 9/11 experience who understands this. If anyone does, please identify yourself.

Gibberish. You think very badly. Any good book on logic or critical thinking would be helpful.

Okay, so basic statistics says: ASSUME CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION

No, a statistics book talks about statistics.

Well, if you assume controlled-demolition, you assume MIHOP.

(LIHOP is preposterous - if only because it is orders of magnitude more complicated than MIHOP.)

Your assumption is, of course, ridiculous: exactly the reverse is true.

From here it is obvious that the controlled-demolitions were masked, covered up - cloaked.

It is obvious that the collapses of the Twin Towers were NOT controlled demolitions--obvious, at any rate, to people who work in the demolition industry.

How were they cloaked?

They weren't cloaked. There was nothing to cloak. No explosives were used in the WTC complex. Seismic data compiled by the Lamont-Doherty labs show no secondary explosions. There is zero evidence supporting your fabrications.

How could one possibly cloak controlled-demolitions of three gigantic structures, in plain view, with the whole world watching?

Well, magicians or magic illusionists do that all the time.

Military-deception is just magic illusion - weaponized.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff puts out Joint Publication 3-13.4: Military Deception (MILDEC)

MILDEC is magic.

More gibberish. You are an ignorant charlatan babbling incoherently.

To see the controlled-demolitions, one needs to filter out the magic.

I use Paul's Magic Filter, which is simply had by reading JP 3-13.4 (and military publications on MILDEC, on the military using the media as a force multiplier, and on weaponized propaganda).

By knowing how the military conducts MILDEC, I can adjust or filter for MILDEC. Think of it as finding a magician's how-to book, so that you see all the tricks.


Anyway, so now one assumes:

- Controlled-demolition
- MIHOP
- MILDEC
- Cloaking


HOW did they cloak the controlled-demolitions?

There is no "they." Your imaginary conspiracy cannot possibly exist.

Well, to answer that question, I observed, and observed, and observed.

No, you observed nothing. You invented a bunch of childish falsehoods.

I worked very hard to gain familiarity with the available evidence, where that evidence fits on the time-line, the structure of the towers, the NIST reports, the works of Jones and Ryan, and so on.

During this process it is only natural to have hypotheses well up, grow, die, morph, and so on.

But as one's familiarity crosses a critical threshold, quickly most hypotheses simply do not match the evidence. They die.

What is left standing?

You understood nothing in the NIST Report. You have wasted everyone's time with your silly lies.

I am saying aluminum oxide is the MAX-MIHOP explanation.

Why should anyone care what a dishonest ignoramus makes up?

I believe that "aluminum oxide" fits the photo (with the billowing whatever coming right from the connections), the FEMA debris photos (where you see strong evidence of heating on these joints), and the contextual logic of my model.

Obviously, I can not prove that is aluminum oxide.

I only speak to fit - fit of all the evidence.

You may see it differently. That is why you would have a different hypothesis.

Yours would be subjected to the same criterion of fit as mine.

Why not read Dr. Greening's paper on aluminum? Oh, I forgot, you don't actually read anything.

I hope I have answered your questions.

Thanks again for your interest. I appreciate it.

Yes, you have explained yourself very well. I regret wasting so much time on you. Verdict: another ignorant, dishonest egomaniac peddling thoroughly debunked rubbish.

Max

P.S. I'd love to know how my ideas are percolating in that brain of yours. Is anything...intriguing?

You don't have any ideas. You are a dimwit.

 

[Drudgewire]

---
P.S. I'd love to know how my ideas are percolating in that brain of yours. Is anything...intriguing?

(I won't tell anyone ; )

----

I'm very intrigued. For the life of me I can't figure out how you are able to type all that in a straitjacket.

 

[Monza]

4.) ...To conduct a scientific investigation of the WTCs - as any real skeptic would - ASSUME CONTROLLED-DEMOLITION...From here it is obvious that the controlled-demolitions were masked, covered up - cloaked.

Actually, a scientific hypothesis would be based on observations. Then the facts and evidence would be studied to see if it supports or contradicts the hypothesis.

But OK, let's start by assuming a controlled demolition. It seems you have researched and found a lack of evidence. But you draw the conclusion that this lack of evidence is "obvious" proof that the controlled demonlition was "masked, covered up - cloaked". Don't you think that there was no controlled demolition is also a valid conclusion from the lack of evidence of a controlled demolition?

I have been graciously trying to illuminate that all the cutting/slicing/melting stuff is wrong. HEAT-WEAKENING!

Is your hypothesis that the yield strength of the metal was temporarily reduced by increasing its temperature? That is, the support beams were heated immediately prior to the collapse by use of incediary devices. Or are you stating that the mechanical properties of the support beams were permanently weakened by means of changing its grain structure through a heat process (such as annealing) so that it could be as ductile or brittle as desired?

Have you given any thought to the practical implementation of each scenario? The former would require the use of devices that would not detonate at the time of the planes' impacts, but could be automatically or manually detonated sometime later. For the latter, I can't think of any half-way reasonable method for doing this under the conditions of an occupied and standing building. So I don't think this is what you meant in your statement.

I'd appreciate any clarifiction on your stance.

 

[DGM]

Max:
I'm still trying to get how you see a "fire truck about to drive through molten steel" from this:


I can't find the link to the original video. Can you supply it? It's not on your web site.

 

[Max Photon]

Max Photon on 1) the fire truck / molten iron photo; 2) How was thermite ingnited?

---

DGM,

Here is the link to the video showing the fire truck about to drive through molten iron.

WTC_Explosives (go to T=5:03)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-0ZIrAfCI0

I will add the link to my web page. (Thanks.)


By the way, right before the fire truck clip, look at the anomalous melted vehicles.

What caused that?

MAX-MIHOP explains the melted cars effortlessly.

The cars melted because a layer of hot iron-laden dust settled on the cars. (The iron is left over from thermite reactions.)

The dust had a lot of concrete and fire protection material - both insulators.

Also, the rubber tires were insulators.

The vehicles became heat traps, covered with insulating blankets.

The heat transfer from the hot dust blanket melted the vehicles.


What is the JREF pat explanation for the many, many melted vehicles?

I am VERY interested.

---

Monza,

You wrote:

Is your hypothesis that the yield strength of the metal was temporarily reduced by increasing its temperature?

That is, the support beams were heated immediately prior to the collapse by use of incendiary devices.


Or are you stating that the mechanical properties of the support beams were permanently weakened by means of changing its grain structure through a heat process (such as annealing) so that it could be as ductile or brittle as desired?


The MAX-MIHOP answer is both:

- The yield strength of the metal was temporarily reduced by increasing its temperature.

- The mechanical properties of the support beams were permanently weakened.


Some steel connections and splices were permanently weakened well before collapse - probably right at and soon after the jet's impact.

To see evidence of this early weakening, please visit my site (link in my signature), and see the post:

Analysis of the Video: 2nd Hit - North Face Cropped

In the first sequence, watch the flashes in the left tower (WTC2) along the left (NE) edge, right where the exit explosion is going to occur.

Those are initiation flashes of shock-tube networks. (More on shock-tube below.)


In contrast, using delays, some of the thermite was ignited very close to collapse initiation, so the steel was still hot.



You asked: HOW was the thermite ignited?

Shock-tube was used to link and ignite the thermite.

(There is probably an intermediate step between the lit shock-tube, and the lit thermite.)

By the way, shock-tube contains high-explosives!

Please pay attention - Max Photon is claiming that one can see not only burning incendiaries in the WTCs, but also firing HIGH-EXPLOSIVES.

To repeat:

If one merely opens his or her eyes, one can see in the WTCs:

- FIRING HIGH-EXPLOSIVES
- FIRING SUPPLEMENTARY CATALYSTS (probably thermite)


Now please see at my site the post right next to it, called:

Analysis of the Video: WTC Thermite Video (Stabilized)

In that post, I discuss shock-tube, and the fact that FIRING shock tube can be seen in a number of different videos, on the north face of WTC, linking the synthetic fires.

By the way, frame-by-frame analysis of the firing shock-tube shows the shock-tube intersecting column and spandrel splices, exactly where MAX-MIHOP predicts.

(e^n, are you listening? MAX-MIHOP does make predictions! Predictions generated by MAX-MIHOP led me to find the video: 2nd Hit - North Face Cropped. I predicted that demolition planners would try to hide demolition work at peak emotional moments. I KNEW to look for video like that, and I found it! That is serious predictive power!)


Please research those links, and then if you have more questions - which I hope you do - please feel free to ask them.


Thank you both for your participation.

Max

---

 

[Alareth]

It's astounding how much effort a person can put into being continually wrong.