WTC 1 & 2. What happened after collapse initiation?

[GlennB]

@GlennB


2kg lumps of concrete may not qualify as dust particles! R.Mackey wrote "The particle size is such that all dust is in the Stokes flow regime, and its specific gravity is irrelevant." I understood from this to mean that intuitive assumptions about heavy particles falling more quickly than lighter ones don't apply because the dust was in the Stokes flow regime.

Have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I was pointing out - facetiously - that Lioy's sampling methods would have to preclude ejected macroscopic debris in order to limit the sampled dust to the contents of the 'plume'. Hence, weather-protection was only one issue. Whatever the weather, the samples would have needed to come from undercover locations. But I suppose we're down to minutiae at this point.

To answer your question - no you haven't. Mackey was quite right and your understanding of his comments about 'Stokes flow regime' was accurate. .

If I read things correctly you have long since dropped your claim about how "... collapsing high rise buildings routinely transform their contents into mid-air mushrooming clouds of microscopic dust ...". Ain't science grand? But you still seem to lean towards the idea that there was little macroscopic non-metallic debris at GZ, is that right? Have you seen the cleanup photos? Have you read about the jackhammers required to break up concrete into manageable pieces? Have you seen the "meteorites" ?

As a matter of interest, has this minor deluge of new-found knowledge affected your "I tend to lean towards the hypotheses that other means besides aeroplanes and fire were employed to bring (The Towers) down" ?

 

[JihadJane]

If I read things correctly you have long since dropped your claim about how "... collapsing high rise buildings routinely transform their contents into mid-air mushrooming clouds of microscopic dust ...".

Yes, the "microscopic" was a bit of an exaggeration. A lot of "very fine" is better.

Ain't science grand?

It's marvelous. Thank goodness for retractable tape measures.

But you still seem to lean towards the idea that there was little macroscopic non-metallic debris at GZ, is that right?

No, I never did think such a thing. I was talking about the mushrooming dust clouds.

Have you seen the cleanup photos?

Yes.

Have you read about the jackhammers required to break up concrete into manageable pieces?

No, which part of the building was the concrete from?

Have you seen the "meteorites" ?

Seen some photos of a big lump of something.

As a matter of interest, has this minor deluge of new-found knowledge affected your "I tend to lean towards the hypotheses that other means besides aeroplanes and fire were employed to bring (The Towers) down" ?

Currently about vertical.

(I was going to be a bit more expansive but saw the cheeky comment you left for me on another thread and changed my mind! )

 

[GlennB]

"Originally Posted by GlennB
As a matter of interest, has this minor deluge of new-found knowledge affected your "I tend to lean towards the hypotheses that other means besides aeroplanes and fire were employed to bring (The Towers) down" ?"

Currently about vertical.

Good, barely leaning at all then. This is a wise adjustment as there's not one grain of evidence that anything but impact damage and fires was involved.

And - my comment about researching the facts (in this case, the WTC steel forensic samplng) wasn't "cheeky". A number of times on this forum you have made claims that turned out to be plain wrong. Some kudos to you for the retractions, but much more kudos would be due if only you would investigate first. The steel investigations are there, published in plain sight, with little searching involved. The GZ "dustification" nonsense has been debunked a hundred times on this forum alone.

Next time you plan to repeat something here that you read on a 9/11 CT website ... just don't. Look into it for a day or two. And look someplace other than yet more CT websites. There are plenty of links available via the top of this forum. There's no hurry.

p.s. I haven't yet seen your retraction for your claim that all the steel was destroyed before forensic examination was possible. Perhaps I missed it.

 

[BigAl]

In my opinion political literacy is far more important to understanding 911 than scientific literacy.

It's that position amongst the rank and file of the "Truth Movement" that makes it the ever-shrinking and ineffectual movement that it is.

I argue that the political awareness of the Twoofers I am aware of ranges between ineffectual eunuchism and unfocused to-lazy-to-get-off-the-couch lazy anarchy.

The "Obama-is-not-a-citizen" movement has only been in business for 4 months and it shows every sign of running rings around the Twoofer where it counts, in the street.

The Twoof movement ends at the Internet's edge and most Twoofers don't have wet feet in the real world.

 

[CORed]

I certainly haven't researched every aspect of the 9/11 attacks, nor do I have the engineering expertise to evaluate all of the evidence. However, I don't think this is required for me to form an intelligent opinion as to the veracity of the "official story". While I'm not an engineer, I do have a pretty good understanding of basic science, so, while I might not be able to understand all the details of an in-depth engineering report. I can spot explanations that are utter nonsense. For instance: "The buildings were brought down by nano-thermite." There is also common sense and plausibility.

Lets see: Large airliner with a full load of fuel hits building, causing significant damage to building and starting large fires. About an hour later, the building collapses I don't remember the exact timing, and it's not important to this argument, so if I'm wrong, deal with it. What do you suppose caused the building to collapse?

1. Damage from impact and fires.

2. A controlled demolition using high explosives.

3. A controlled demolition using thermite (or super-duper-nano-thermite).

4. Particle beam weapons from extraterrestrial spacecraft.

It does not take a genius to see that number 1 is by far the most likely cause. On the contrary, it takes the antithesis of a genius to suppose that anything else is a likely explanation. The details of how, while certainly worth knowing, if for no other reason than improving building design, aren't really all that important to picking hypothesis 1 as the heavy favorite. On the contrary, It would take substantial evidence of another cause to make me consider the possibility that it was anything but number 1. Claims by an self-proclaimed expert that number 1 is impossible don't carry a lot of weight. It would be sort of like a doctor telling me, without an examination, that the pain I was experiencing in my foot after dropping a bowling ball on it couldn't be the result of the bowling ball, but is probably a symptom rare and fatal tropical disease. A consensus of experts that number 1 is impossible with little dissent would be enough to raise significant doubts in my mind. Of course, that never happened.

Similar reasoning applies to WTC 7. Damage from falling debris and fire seems a lot more likely than FDNY doing a high-speed controlled demolition because Silverstein said "Pull it."

If, on top of suggesting an unlikely cause for the building collapse, the self proclaimed experts are putting forward as the perpetrators of the attacks, a bizarre conspiracy theory so preposterous as to make their explanation of the collapse seem almost plausible, it's pretty easy to realize that they are crackpots who need not be taken seriously.

 

[CORed]

What part of the collapses don't you understand?

The gravity part, the thermal expansion part, the kinetic energy part. You know all that fake physics stuff the NIST made up to cover up the conspiaracy.

 

[GregoryUrich]

Yes, the "microscopic" was a bit of an exaggeration. A lot of "very fine" is better.

It's marvelous. Thank goodness for retractable tape measures.

No, I never did think such a thing. I was talking about the mushrooming dust clouds.

Yes.

No, which part of the building was the concrete from?

Seen some photos of a big lump of something.

Currently about vertical.

(I was going to be a bit more expansive but saw the cheeky comment you left for me on another thread and changed my mind! )

JJ,

You might want to take a look at Greg Jenkins article at the Journal of 911 Studies. He concludes that the amount of material that fell within the perimeter of WTC 1 was around 60%. I have dicussed this with him and he said that is a conservative estimate to avoid arguments and that he thinks it is likely to be more like 70%. Greg, Tony Szamboti and I calculated that the upper bound for "dustification" was around 15% of the concrete and conclude that a large portion of the dust is from more easily crushed materials such as SFRM (fire-proofing) and gypsum wallboard. There were 100's of tons of these materials in each tower.