Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
But hang on, 110 stories, 0.9 seconds per story? isn't that at least 99 seconds for the whole thing? And yet the total time is more like 10 seconds isnt it? It takes approximately 10 seconds for an object not resisted by anything causing friction to fall 110 stories. In Emacs Lisp, the calculation is: (let ((s 400) (a 9.8)) (sqrt (/ (* 2 s) a))) -- 9 seconds, which is `approximately 10 seconds' and presumes the falling object is not subject to any kind of friction My memory, from seeing the second building collapse, is that it took something around that length of time. If it takes say 10 seconds to fall 400m, each floor is maybe more like 0.1 of a second. I do not understand you at all. The velocity of a falling object increases until external friction produces enough drag. I don't see air causing that much drag on a floor. Other floors might, but didn't. Also, you don't need to find out the stress-strain curves for the bolts. Instead you can figure that conservative engineers design a resting structure, like the floor of a building, to take no more than three times its maximum expected load. To design for more is to cost the investors extra money and to reduce their profit. (Some buildings were designed to higher limits, of course; but I remember the `safety factor of three' from a long time ago.) So we should calculate how far the bolts would have to give in order to prevent a more than 3 g deceleration of the load falling on it. (It does not matter how many bolts there are. Actually, we should take into account the weight of the floor itself, but we are not, so the situation is worse since the floor itself would add to the total weight its bolts must bear.) And to tell us more, we can presume a `safety factor of six' as well. In one g, the floor above weights roughly as much as the floor below. Let us find the distance needed to decelerate three times that weight (or six); both of those distances will be less than the distance needed to dedecelerate at one gravity, which is the acceleration at which the top floor fell. The first drop is slow since the floor is initially standing still. It takes a bit more than 3/4 second to fall the first three meters. I figure that three meters is small for a floor; Andrew Paul figures that 110 stories take up 400 meters, or about 3.6 meters per floor or about 12 feet. But the distance needed for minimal deceleration is smaller the less distance the falling floor falls, so let's presume 3 meters rather than 3.6 meters. And let's presume the velocity reached is 7 meters per second. By calculation, it is a little more than that for the first drop, but a higher velocity is worse, so 7 meters per second it is. With a safety factor of 3, the deceleration takes more than 80 cm. With a safety factor of 6, the deceleration takes more than 40 cm. The bolts will not stretch either distance. So the lower floor falls. Here are the calculations in Emacs Lisp (I am using floating point, hence the appearance sometimes of erroneous accuracy): (/ 400.0 110.0) ;; -- 3.6 meters for each floor, presuming they are equal, which ;; they weren't. (let ((s 3.0) (a 9.8)) (sqrt (/ (* 2 s) a))) ;; -- 0.78 second for floor to fall 3 meters in a frictionless space (* 9.8 0.78) ;; -- 7.64 meters per second, the speed of the falling floor after ;; falling 3 meters in a frictionless space ;; s = 0.5at^2 ;; t = v/a ;; s = 0.5 a v^2 / a^2 ;; = v^2 / 2a ;; therefore, s = v^2 / 2a where a is one gravity deceleration ;; safety factor of 3 (let ((v 7.0) ;; velocity of falling floor (a 9.8) ;; gravitational acceleration on Earth's surface (f 3)) ;; safety factor (/ (* v v) (* 2 a f))) ;; -- 0.83 meters, the distance needed for 3 gravity deceleration ;; to reduce the speed of the falling floor from 7 meters ;; per second to zero ;; safety factor of 6 (let ((v 7.0) (a 9.8) (f 6)) (/ (* v v) (* 2 a f))) ;; -- 0.42 meters, the distance needed for 6 gravity deceleration This provides you a way to convince yourself through your own thinking that the `pancake theory' is highly suggestive. You do not need to depend on anyone else, on good or bad hearsay, to reach your conclusion. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Dan Minette wrote: Thanks for this Dan, some comments below: That's not really accurate. To believe this theory one needs to accept that the physics of rigid objects can be counterintuitive at times. I'm not sure why this would be hard to accept. I gave one model of this, which didn't get much response, but I'll try another. I'm going to construct a toy model (a very simplified steel girder building) and show how the physics works with this building. The actual building is more complicated, of course, but that's what the engineering architecture finite element analysis programs (I believe those are the kinda programs that are used) are for. Anyways, my building is build of these items: Rigid Steel Beams, || | OO | || Bolts _ |_| Rigid steel floors _/ /_ / / / / / / / / /__/ /___/ The beams are bolted together at the corners, and the floors are put on top of the horizontal beams. Only the bolts have any give to them, and that give is rather small. What keeps the building from collapsing? It's the bolts. Now, in reality, there is more than 1 bolt per corner, and the corners are often welded together. But, the basic physics of the question is not affected by the difference. The building is held up by the sheer strength of the bolt. Lets assume that the building about the floor we are considering has a mass of 10,000 metric tons. That means there is a force of about 2.5*10^7 Newtons on each of the bolts (10,000 metric tons is 10^7 kg, acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s^2, 4 bolts). Apparently the building was around 500,000 tonnes total, so what happens if you halve the mass of each floor? Let's have the bolts rated to 2.5*10^8 Newtons. That means that the shearing force applied to the bolts needs to be 2.5*10^8 Newtons before the bolts break. I assume this is a number you made up to demonstrate the idea, rather than an actual number. Thats ok, I guess there would be a lot more than 4 bolts too, I am just wondering how realistic it is. I will try to find some numbers when I get time. I might have to do a spreadsheet ! So, let's have the floor immediately above the floor we are considering collapse. Let's also assume that the distance between floors is 4 meters. The top of the building, with a mass of 10,000 metric tons free falls those 4 meters. Given the height of the towers (417m) and 110 stories, no argument there. It takes about 0.9 sec to free fall those 4 meters. The velocity after the fall is about 9 m/sec. So, we have a rigid object falling at 9 m/sec hitting another rigid object. The give, we are assuming, is in the bolts. But hang on, 110 stories, 0.9 seconds per story? isn't that at least 99 seconds for the whole thing? And yet the total time is more like 10 seconds isnt it? So is that time right, and if it isn't, then presumably the velocity you are quoting is too high? If it takes say 10 seconds to fall 400m, each floor is maybe more like 0.1 of a second. So the velocity will be more like 1m/sec not 9 m/sec wont it? The critical question is how far will the bolts bend before breaking? The reason for this is that, for the floor we are considering to hold the falling mass, it must decelerate it to a stop before the mass falls enough to bend the bolts beyond the breaking point. Steel, as others observe, doesn't bend much over short intervals. Let's assume a stress strain relationship for our toy model where 2.5*10^8 Newtons of force strains the bolts 5 cm. Any greater force, even 1 more Newton, breaks the bolts. Again I will see if I can find some numbers for the stress/strain thing. But how are we looking if the mass is half and the velocity maybe 10%? Given this, the falling floors are decelerated by the floor we are considering until the deceleration of the mass is at 9 g's (we have to consider the constant gravity force of 1 g). At this point, the bolts break. Now, if we assume a linear stress-strain relationship (simplifies the problem, but isn't essential), we can see the change in velocity of the falling mass due to the resistance of the bolts. Doing some handy-dandy math, with 1 msec steps, we find that the bolts shear in less than 60 msec. During that time, the velocity of the falling mass was reduced by about 0.25 m/sec from free fall. By the time the mass falls another floor, it's speed increase, so it takes less time to shear the bolts: about 40 msecduring which time the velocity was reduced by
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Charlie wrote: Did the Bush Administration use 9/11 to further an agenda in the Middle East after it happened? Undoubtedly, and Blair did the same. Did it bring down the towers and fake portions of the attacks, or even directly instigate the attacks to those ends? Not a chance. I wouldn't put it beyond the administration to have been intentionally negligent. I think that they may have assumed that a terrorist attack was going to occur and went out of their way to ignore the warnings. It is documented that Iraq was on their agenda well before 911 and their complacency concerning the threat of an attack is also well documented. -- Doug Said it all before, maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:26 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Charlie wrote: Did the Bush Administration use 9/11 to further an agenda in the Middle East after it happened? Undoubtedly, and Blair did the same. Did it bring down the towers and fake portions of the attacks, or even directly instigate the attacks to those ends? Not a chance. I wouldn't put it beyond the administration to have been intentionally negligent. I think that they may have assumed that a terrorist attack was going to occur and went out of their way to ignore the warnings. So, you think that they showed unbelievable physical bravery before 9-11? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:18:11 -0500, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 12:26 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Charlie wrote: Did the Bush Administration use 9/11 to further an agenda in the Middle East after it happened? Undoubtedly, and Blair did the same. Did it bring down the towers and fake portions of the attacks, or even directly instigate the attacks to those ends? Not a chance. I wouldn't put it beyond the administration to have been intentionally negligent. I think that they may have assumed that a terrorist attack was going to occur and went out of their way to ignore the warnings. So, you think that they showed unbelievable physical bravery before 9-11? Joke?? -- Doug Don't get it maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Pensinger Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 3:22 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples I wouldn't put it beyond the administration to have been intentionally negligent. I think that they may have assumed that a terrorist attack was going to occur and went out of their way to ignore the warnings. So, you think that they showed unbelievable physical bravery before 9- 11? Joke?? Not really. Both the White House and the Capitol were on the potential target list for the planes. There are some arguments that the path of the plane that hit the Pentagon indicates that the first target was the White House, which is surprisingly hard to see from the airalthough I think just down Pennsylvania Ave. from the Capitol should be workable from the air. Unless one assumes that the administration knows something about the timing of attacks, which I think we agree is not a reasonable assumption, then Bush and Cheney would be at a likely target...and risk death. Thus, any deliberate looking the other way during such an attack would have to involve taking a personal risk. Just being wrong, of course, requires none of this. For that reason, I see it as the simplest explanation. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Dan wrote: Not really. Both the White House and the Capitol were on the potential target list for the planes. There are some arguments that the path of the plane that hit the Pentagon indicates that the first target was the White House, which is surprisingly hard to see from the airalthough I think just down Pennsylvania Ave. from the Capitol should be workable from the air. Unless one assumes that the administration knows something about the timing of attacks, which I think we agree is not a reasonable assumption, then Bush and Cheney would be at a likely target...and risk death. Thus, any deliberate looking the other way during such an attack would have to involve taking a personal risk. Just being wrong, of course, requires none of this. For that reason, I see it as the simplest explanation. First of all I'm sure they believed that they were adequately protected. Secondly, I think you'll find that during that summer Bush was rarely at the White House, third you may recall how quickly Cheney crawled down a rat hole at the first sign of danger and finally, you're talking about an administration that believed that conquering Iraq would be a cakewalk; a president that was confident that not a single life would be lost in the effort. It’s an administration that just doesn't think these things through very well. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Ahoy all, I trust we are enjoying our long weekend.
I've just done some quick updating the conversation these last few days
and have some additional thoughts.
On Jun 30, 2006, at 8:01 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. IIRC their
conclusion was that the heat caused the structural beams to sag,
pulling away from the anchors and thus causing the floors to pancake
on top of each other. At a sufficient weight the lower floors were no
longer able to support the weight...
Is that the one where they have some footage with the architect?
Julia
Why the Towers Fell aired on PBS, proposing the FEMA theory {via the
American Society of Civil Engineers - ASCE} about the floor trusses
growing hot and the sagging to the breaking point. That show ends on
the sorrowful figure of a junior architect {name escapes me} and leaves
the audience wondering if he designed poorly and bearing great remorse.
It also incorrectly fingers him as the keystone designer, but in
reality he was an underling for senior partner John Kittling who did
the actual designs, had the experience, and states that this building
was over-built. I've also noticed a number of diagrams from news
stories at the time which vastly under represent the strength of the
exterior column walls. This building was designed to withstand
hurricanes as well as plane impacts and as Kittling still says, it
should no have failed as it did.
This documentary rang true enough the first time I saw this, but when
it came around again I started doubting. The NIST {National Institute
for Standards and Technology} report abandons this theory and in fact
states these trusses would have been drawn to the core structure and
and this caused the break - kinda-sorta opposite theories, but the
story has lodged in the public's mind - I dare say as it was intended
to.
How the debris we see falling {I would point out it's much more akin to
exploding outward and then down} exterior to the building can match an
interior descent flies in the face of logic. I simply cannot accept
that the core structure, a thick _lattice_ of crossing steel, would
offer the same resistance as the air outside slowing the debris.
Recap, to believe this theory one has to accept that the interior steel
structure has to completely and utterly fail up and down the entire
length and I just don't see how a shock-wave from one collapsing floor
can do this: the building has give and sway precisely to bend to
hurricane winds, earthquakes, let alone the 100+ MPH winds skyscrapers
routinely handles during their lifetime.To believe this you need to
accept a brittleness to these structures that defies their original
program.
Collapsing steel buildings tip in one direction - the area of failure -
with the remaining building falling {damn near} intact on top of the
failed section... examples include earthquakes {Iran}, terrorists
{Russia - bombs placed in parking area collapsed apartment building}
poor construction {Turkey} all demonstrate this. For structures that
do start falling down initially they invariably begin tipping one
direction once the floors below bunch up - inevitably collecting in one
area over another because nature does not operate symmetrically on a
failing structure - unless coerced. I had already considered the
collapses mentioned in previous posts, but put them aside because they
always seem to occur during construction - obviously as this is the
most dangerous and fragile period of a building's life when it's
integrity has not been finalized and loads are shifting dramatically.
The only way symmetry in a collapse occurs is when its made to collapse
- when thought and energy has gone into weakening critical points.
It's why crews that perform such demolition are considered elite
specialists.
I am not convinced the discussion of heat-softened steel justifies
extrapolating complete failure. I can find no study in their report
about the wicking nature of steel and how this offsets a {potential}
high-temp fire in one locale _not_ being distributed away. Rio de
Janeiro had a steel skyscraper burn for 24+ hours over multiple floors
yet it had no such catastrophic collapse, was reconditioned and in use
today {with upgraded fire suppression}. Those fires on the South Tower
had burned less than an hour, were in fact almost out {watch the smoke
volume decrease dramatically by end of sequence} and firemen had
reached the scene said they could handle it - yet that building falls
first.
It's up to the government to explain this event and they have offered a
very faulty proposition obscured with copious preliminary detail around
the plane crash, engines, fire, wing members, down to the damn
turban-fans ... with but a few pages explaining events AFTER the
building BEGINS to collapse. The narrative doesn't even match the
illustrations. The only
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 03/07/2006, at 8:06 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
How the debris we see falling {I would point out it's much more
akin to exploding outward and then down} exterior to the building
can match an interior descent flies in the face of logic. I simply
cannot accept that the core structure, a thick _lattice_ of
crossing steel, would offer the same resistance as the air outside
slowing the debris.
It doesn't. The building collapsed very rapidly, but not as fast as
most of the debris.
Rio de Janeiro had a steel skyscraper burn for 24+ hours over
multiple floors yet it had no such catastrophic collapse, was
reconditioned and in use today {with upgraded fire suppression}.
Had it had a plane full of kerosene fly into it?
One final and glaring omission from the official NIST report is
rarely commented on: once the collapse takes place they virtually
ignore the entire structural analysis of the pancake theory and how
the various materials acted {or didn't}... as thought the report
ends once collapse is initiated.
Because progressive collapses are well-documented.
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Why would we assume the building MUST collapse in one direction (the point of failure)? This assumes the failure was in the essential superstructure that brought it down; on an externally supported building (IIRC much of the structural strength came from the external walls, rather than the internal structure, which I believe was innovative at the time). However, the Pancake theory does not support an external failure to satisfy it's conclusions; instead the falling mass of debris compromised internal support mechanisms. Indeed, if a falling mass of debris impacts previously uncompromised floors, the support structure may very well draw the walls *in*. Therefore, the strength of the external walls may very well served to channel the debris internally. I think the idea of jets is inconsistent with the idea of thermite cutting steel; It might be with *explosives,* but thermite burns extremely vigorously, not explodes... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Alan's Panzer IIC -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.5/376 - Release Date: 6/26/2006 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:07 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
How the debris we see falling {I would point out it's much more akin to
exploding outward and then down} exterior to the building can match an
interior descent flies in the face of logic. I simply cannot accept
that the core structure, a thick _lattice_ of crossing steel, would
offer the same resistance as the air outside slowing the debris.
That's not quite what happened. While conspiracy sites argue that the
building fell at the rate one would expect from free fall, other sites, and
my own analysis indicated that it took 2 seconds longer than what one would
expect from free fall.
As Charlie has pointed out, some debris did fall just a bit faster than the
building, which makes sense. Small debris, due to the square-cubed law, met
relatively high air resistance, which resulted in a lower terminal velocity,
so there is a point where the smaller loose debris did fall slower than the
lowest structure. To intuit this, think low long a dust cloud can remain in
the air, or think of why raindrops don't hurt when they fall on you.
Recap, to believe this theory one has to accept that the interior steel
structure has to completely and utterly fail up and down the entire
length and I just don't see how a shock-wave from one collapsing floor
can do this:
That's not really accurate. To believe this theory one needs to accept that
the physics of rigid objects can be counterintuitive at times. I'm not sure
why this would be hard to accept. I gave one model of this, which didn't
get much response, but I'll try another. I'm going to construct a toy model
(a very simplified steel girder building) and show how the physics works
with this building. The actual building is more complicated, of course, but
that's what the engineering architecture finite element analysis programs
(I believe those are the kinda programs that are used) are for.
Anyways, my building is build of these items:
Rigid Steel Beams,
||
| OO |
||
Bolts
_
|_|
Rigid steel floors
_/ /_
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/__/
/___/
The beams are bolted together at the corners, and the floors are put on top
of the horizontal beams. Only the bolts have any give to them, and that
give is rather small.
What keeps the building from collapsing? It's the bolts. Now, in reality,
there is more than 1 bolt per corner, and the corners are often welded
together. But, the basic physics of the question is not affected by the
difference.
The building is held up by the sheer strength of the bolt. Lets assume that
the building about the floor we are considering has a mass of 10,000 metric
tons. That means there is a force of about 2.5*10^7 Newtons on each of the
bolts (10,000 metric tons is 10^7 kg, acceleration due to gravity is 9.8
m/s^2, 4 bolts).
Let's have the bolts rated to 2.5*10^8 Newtons. That means that the
shearing force applied to the bolts needs to be 2.5*10^8 Newtons before the
bolts break.
So, let's have the floor immediately above the floor we are considering
collapse. Let's also assume that the distance between floors is 4 meters.
The top of the building, with a mass of 10,000 metric tons free falls those
4 meters.
It takes about 0.9 sec to free fall those 4 meters. The velocity after the
fall is about 9 m/sec. So, we have a rigid object falling at 9 m/sec
hitting another rigid object. The give, we are assuming, is in the bolts.
The critical question is how far will the bolts bend before breaking? The
reason for this is that, for the floor we are considering to hold the
falling mass, it must decelerate it to a stop before the mass falls enough
to bend the bolts beyond the breaking point.
Steel, as others observe, doesn't bend much over short intervals. Let's
assume a stress strain relationship for our toy model where 2.5*10^8 Newtons
of force strains the bolts 5 cm. Any greater force, even 1 more Newton,
breaks the bolts.
Given this, the falling floors are decelerated by the floor we are
considering until the deceleration of the mass is at 9 g's (we have to
consider the constant gravity force of 1 g). At this point, the bolts
break. Now, if we assume a linear stress-strain relationship (simplifies
the problem, but isn't essential), we can see the change in velocity of the
falling mass due
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:07 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
How the debris we see falling {I would point out it's much more
akin to
exploding outward and then down} exterior to the building can match
an
interior descent flies in the face of logic. I simply cannot
accept
that the core structure, a thick _lattice_ of crossing steel, would
offer the same resistance as the air outside slowing the debris.
That's not quite what happened.
[Snip-a-doodle]
Doing a bit of searching I have found a few failure modes noted by
NIST that have not been discussed here.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1-3ExecutiveSummary.pdf
One glaring example that we missed was bolt hole tearing. This is
where force causes the bolt hole to deform til it slips around the
supporting bolt. I would suspect that this takes a bit more time than
bolt shearing, but I also feel it doesn't change the math enough to
matter.
As for the bolts themselves, they turn out to have been stronger than
original building specs called for, but again this makes small
difference.
It turns out that there were a very significant amount of welded joins
that failed in the collapse. If you know much about welding then you
are aware that the weld itself is much stronger than the base metal in
the heat affected zone and it turns out that many of the welds that
failed were torn in exactly that way.
The base metal that gets heated by the welding rod becomes weakened by
the heat. In many manufacturing processes the part being welded is
then heat treated to give the heat affected zone properties similar to
the base metal. this of course is not practical on a construction
site. So you end up with 2 qualities of welding in a building, the
high quality welding where heat treating was performed in a factory
( as a part of the normal manufacturing process for say I-beams) and
welding that was performed on site as apart of the construction
process.
Another concept we have not discussed is load re-distribution. When
some of the supports were knocked out by the impact of the planes, the
load of the buildings mass was supported by the remaining structural
members. NIST claims that evidence is seen that heat and load
re-distribution caused not just buckling (as expected) but also
necking. Necking is the thinning of a member under stress exceeding
its yield strength. When impact caused the load to re-distribute, heat
weakened structural members til some buckled and others necked and
eventually you had a structural failure. WTC was a fairly lightweight
structure for its size but the buildings were still very massive.
The more one looks at the failure modes of the WTC collapse, the more
complex it gets.
xponent
Standards Maru
rob
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
To veer slightly pedantic, ISTR I-beams are actually extruded... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Alan's Panzer IIC -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.5/376 - Release Date: 6/26/2006 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 7/3/2006 7:39:30 PM, Damon Agretto ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: To veer slightly pedantic, ISTR I-beams are actually extruded... Sure, but the trusses on the ends are welded on. Basically, the architect orders beams to a specification and the manufacturer custom makes them. Any parts beyond the basic I (read that as a Roman I/numeral-one) are welded on and heat treated for strength. xponent Works Around This Stuff Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples So, I think we've gotten to the point where, in order to still say I cannot accept the conventional explanation, then you will have to reject my basic physics argument. I'd be very interested to see what flaws you might see in this argument. OKG, I'll bite on this one.G The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a 707 fully loaded with 23,000 gallons of fuel, yet the planes that actually hit them had less than half that amount (10,000 gallons) on board and much of that was expelled in the fireball associated with the impact. xponent Monkey Wrench WielderG Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:10 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples So, I think we've gotten to the point where, in order to still say I cannot accept the conventional explanation, then you will have to reject my basic physics argument. I'd be very interested to see what flaws you might see in this argument. OKG, I'll bite on this one.G The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a 707 fully loaded with 23,000 gallons of fuel, yet the planes that actually hit them had less than half that amount (10,000 gallons) on board and much of that was expelled in the fireball associated with the impact. There is a very simple answer for this, as I guess you know. When designing a fail-safe system, one works through scenariosbut there can be scenarios that one has not thought of. The building did withstand the impact of the plane, itself. But, it did not survive everything that came with the impact. Would you like to see exactly what analysis was done concerning a 707 impact? I've got a beer that says that the airplane impact analysis before the collapse was rather limited compared to the after-the-fact analysis. Anyways, I actually curious to see how it was impossible for the collapse to be as fast as it was. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: One glaring example that we missed was bolt hole tearing. This is where force causes the bolt hole to deform til it slips around the supporting bolt. It's also astonishingly painful. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 7/3/2006 10:11:19 PM, Warren Ockrassa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: On Jul 3, 2006, at 5:16 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: One glaring example that we missed was bolt hole tearing. This is where force causes the bolt hole to deform til it slips around the supporting bolt. It's also astonishingly painful. Yeah, it's pretty low on my list of things to do before I die. G Which brings me to the surgery I had several years ago. xponent I'm Sitting On It Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:47 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 8:10 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 2:35 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples So, I think we've gotten to the point where, in order to still say I cannot accept the conventional explanation, then you will have to reject my basic physics argument. I'd be very interested to see what flaws you might see in this argument. OKG, I'll bite on this one.G The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a 707 fully loaded with 23,000 gallons of fuel, yet the planes that actually hit them had less than half that amount (10,000 gallons) on board and much of that was expelled in the fireball associated with the impact. There is a very simple answer for this, as I guess you know. When designing a fail-safe system, one works through scenariosbut there can be scenarios that one has not thought of. The building did withstand the impact of the plane, itself. But, it did not survive everything that came with the impact. Would you like to see exactly what analysis was done concerning a 707 impact? Of course! TIA! I've got a beer that says that the airplane impact analysis before the collapse was rather limited compared to the after-the-fact analysis. I would expect it to be so in light of the actuality of later events. (More below) Anyways, I actually curious to see how it was impossible for the collapse to be as fast as it was. Beforehand I would expect it to be described as improbable. Just for the sake of curveballs, I'll posit that if some Cassandra had appeared on the list with a detailed description of what was to come at the WTC all hands onboard would give a cornucopia of reasons why it could never happen. I know it is an unfalsifiable proposition but I think such a consideration is a very good (and humbling) reason to go gently with believers. By the same token it is good reason for believers to practice patience with Skeptics. I strongly suspect that those who count themselves among the believers were more traumatized by the events of 911 than most of us. I know that plays into my feelings of suspicion with regard to the building collapse. (As I often try to make clear, I suspect as opposed to believe) The natural desire to blame and revenge a great wrong is frustrated, so the mind turns over events and finding seeming discrepancies, points a finger in seemingly likely directions. In moments of introspection I see something like this operative in my inner self, and I suspect that I am not alone in this mild form of PTSD. xponent Inner Universe Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 04/07/2006, at 4:10 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote: The WTC towers were designed to withstand an impact by a 707 fully loaded with 23,000 gallons of fuel, yet the planes that actually hit them had less than half that amount (10,000 gallons) on board and much of that was expelled in the fireball associated with the impact. They did withstand the *impact*. In that sense, the design worked. But it seems clear that a combination of many factors, including where on the towers the plane struck (and so how much mass was above the damaged floors), fire (kerosene, office furniture, aluminium from the plane) weakened already damaged beams and trusses whose insulation had also been damaged in the impact, lead to the initiation of progressive collapse. The other mystery is that the South Tower went down first. It was struck far lower, and so had far more mass above the damaged portion. I'm finding this whole thread really weird because I'm usually the skeptic of official reportage, but in this case, I just don't see anything beyond some bad maths and some wishful thinking by haters of the neocons (and I normally count myself among those). Did the Bush Administration use 9/11 to further an agenda in the Middle East after it happened? Undoubtedly, and Blair did the same. Did it bring down the towers and fake portions of the attacks, or even directly instigate the attacks to those ends? Not a chance. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
I've seen that one. Not recently. But they gave a good explanation as to how the design contributed to that sort of collapse, IIRC. Julia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe so... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:01:22 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. IIRC their conclusion was that the heat caused the structural beams to sag, pulling away from the anchors and thus causing the floors to pancake on top of each other. At a sufficient weight the lower floors were no longer able to support the weight... Is that the one where they have some footage with the architect? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Damon wrote: The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. (...) My cable TV recently added THC to the line-up. I have enjoyed most of its programs. Alberto Monteiro, who will be echeloned for mentioning tetrahydrocanabiol and WTC in the same message... ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:20 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Robert G. Seeberger wrote: . A stiffer join means that force is transmitted through the structure more efficiently, so weakening vibrations could have sundered the lower parts of the structure before the actual wave of collapse reached a particular level. Let me clarify myself a bit here. I'm proposing that there is a damaging kinetic shockwave that runs ahead of the actual wave of collapse weakening structural members to the degree that the collapse wave progresse almost unimpeded. Ah, that does make sense. If one thinks of the force on a steel beam when thousands of tons fall on it, one can think of a significant shock wave traveling at the speed of sound. That speed in steel is about 6000 meters/sec and close to 20,000 feet/sec. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/30/2006 3:28:51 PM, Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 3:20 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Robert G. Seeberger wrote: . A stiffer join means that force is transmitted through the structure more efficiently, so weakening vibrations could have sundered the lower parts of the structure before the actual wave of collapse reached a particular level. Let me clarify myself a bit here. I'm proposing that there is a damaging kinetic shockwave that runs ahead of the actual wave of collapse weakening structural members to the degree that the collapse wave progresses almost unimpeded. Ah, that does make sense. If one thinks of the force on a steel beam when thousands of tons fall on it, one can think of a significant shock wave traveling at the speed of sound. That speed in steel is about 6000 meters/sec and close to 20,000 feet/sec. The question I think is, is this a real effect? As I'm visualizing things, and incorporating the speed of sound info you provide, the vibrational shock runs ahead of the collapse wave by a very great distance (in a structure of this size it would be rebounding throughout the surviving structure during the entire event, essentially hammering every weak link until failure.) bouncing top to bottom with the chaotic vibratory forces being swamped by the resonant vibratory forces that are reinforced with every cycle. The resonant cycles would have an effect that is quite different than the general collapse that evidences mostly lateral shearing forces in that they produce much more longitudinal shear. The only way I can think of to prove such a hypothesis is to sample bolts from the upper building and compare them to bolts sampled from the lower building. The upper building should show evidence of more lateral shear and the lower longitudinal shear. Does this make sense? And am I using the terminology correctly? (I'm not exactly sure about terms used for lateral and longitudinal shear) Of course, this is just intuitive guessing and we all know what value that has.G (I'm aware that the kind of resonance I'm speaking of may well be simply a matter of chance peculiar to the specific building and its engineering and not some general rule that could be applied in all such events) xponent Comic Book Logic Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:51 PM, Dave Land wrote: In all honesty -- and knowing that brother Warren will see this post, too -- I got all het up over Warren's insistence on proofs and failure to offer same, and applied a bit more heat than light to the discussion. I take it you're referring to my claim that modern architectural design prefigures demolition in the construction. Unfortunately I don't seem to be able to find any decent sources or ref's on that, and I'm not going to expect you to rely on my recollection of some discussion or other I may or may not have encountered on some PBS or Discovery documentary on the topic. I'll provisionally withdraw that assertion, since I just don't have the facts to back it up. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Nick Arnett wrote: On 6/28/06, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The max fuel load of a top-of-the-line 737 is 37,712 Kg, or around 90,000 pounds. Figure 8 pounds of water in a gallon and you've got better than 10K gallons of fuel in a 737, give or take. Oops. Fuel weighs less than water (a fact that is impressed upon one when learning to fly). Part of every pre-flight inspection to drain a bit of fluid from the lowest points on the tanks, to ensure that what comes out is fuel, not water (typically from condensation in the airplane, the fuel truck or tanks). If you get water, you keep draining until you don't get any. Jet-A weighs 6.5 to 7 lbs/gallon, nominally 6.76 lbs/gallon in the United States and Europe. Okay, not a foot. A decimeter, about four inches. But you get the idea. That is a hell of a lot of explosive fluid, and the 737s that hit the WTC towers were on long-distance flights, at the beginning of their journeys, and damn near capacity in their tanks. Explosive, you say? This is kerosene, not gasoline. Try this at home (away from flammable stuff). Put some kerosene in a glass (don't use styrofoam). Light a match. Stick it in the kerosene. It will go out. Do not try this with gasoline. And yes, it's kerosene, not gasoline. Lower octane rating. But the flashpoints of the two are close enough to one another (-40 C for gasoline, 29 C for kerosene, which is a lot in human space but nothing for chemistry) that any spark hot enough to light a cigarette would set them off. Baloney. Really. I've used a lot of kerosene to start fires (to burn brush at my parent's farm) and I can assure you that it is not so easy to ignite. It is nowhere near as volatile as gasoline. You do NOT use gasoline for firespinning. You use kerosene or white gas. Much safer. Really. Leastways, the folks I hang with that actually play with fire tell me so. If there's going to be a lot of them gathering in one place, there's a discussion about who's bringing how much fuel, etc., and it's usually kerosene. Oh, and you can have a lot of fun by soaking a roll of toilet paper in the stuff and using it as a soccer ball (NOT during a burn ban!). Or at least attempting to, until it disintegrates completely. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. IIRC their conclusion was that the heat caused the structural beams to sag, pulling away from the anchors and thus causing the floors to pancake on top of each other. At a sufficient weight the lower floors were no longer able to support the weight... Is that the one where they have some footage with the architect? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
I believe so... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Julia Thompson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:01:22 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. IIRC their conclusion was that the heat caused the structural beams to sag, pulling away from the anchors and thus causing the floors to pancake on top of each other. At a sufficient weight the lower floors were no longer able to support the weight... Is that the one where they have some footage with the architect? Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Dan Minette wrote: ...That is a factin the exact same sense that there is professional consensus on anthropological global warming. Dan-- I always like reading your well-reasoned and careful posts. So forgive me a slight nit-pick: Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that you mean anthropogenic global warming. : ) ---David Coming of Age, Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 12:56 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples On 29/06/2006, at 4:06 AM, Dave Land wrote: Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phase_diag_iron_carbon-color_temp.png You will see that iron undergoes a phase change at 600C, becoming soft and pliable. It is this phase change that allows farriers and swordsmiths to shape iron in a controlled manner. Steel changes from the solid metal it is at room temperature, to a material with a consistency and structural integrity about the same as well-chewed gum. Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the consistency and structural integrity at that temp was actually the same as well-chewed gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would have required big hammers and big arms. :-) Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength at that temperature. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that you mean anthropogenic global warming. : ) Well, I've a couple of references that indicate that she was full of hot air. :-) Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/29/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the consistency and structural integrity at that temp was actually the same as well-chewed gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would have required big hammers and big arms. :-) Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength at that temperature. Even if it is soft, it's still heavy... and the hammers aren't just for shaping it, they are for annealing, which requires kinetic energy. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 29/06/2006, at 6:17 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Good find on the phase diagram Charlie. To pick a nit, if the consistency and structural integrity at that temp was actually the same as well- chewed gum, I don't think that blacksmiths would have required big hammers and big arms. :-) *Well-chewed* may mean something different to me. Lost all its flavour, and started to go hard again... Put three sticks of DoubleMint in your gob and chew them for 4 hours, your jaws will look like the blacksmiths arms... Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength at that temperature. Certainly don't have a problem with it. Plus it also shears far more easily. I'm a firm believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theory - the one where a bunch of well-funded Saudis decided to do the most spectacular attack on the most potent symbols of America's position in the world, and so hijacked some planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and would have destroyed something else, probably the White House, if not for the passengers trying to take the plane back. There's much I don't like - the Bush administration sucking up to the Saudis and allowing Bin Laden's relatives to flee the States, the way the Bush administration conflated the hatred of Iraq with TWAT. But that's the conspiracy, right there. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Charlie Bell Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:05 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples *Well-chewed* may mean something different to me. Lost all its flavour, and started to go hard again... Put three sticks of DoubleMint in your gob and chew them for 4 hours, your jaws will look like the blacksmiths arms... Ah, we did have different mental pictures. Hyperbola aside, I presume that you have no difficulty with the multiple references to about a factor of 2 reduction in yield strength at that temperature. Certainly don't have a problem with it. Plus it also shears far more easily. I'm a firm believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theory - the one where a bunch of well-funded Saudis decided to do the most spectacular attack on the most potent symbols of America's position in the world, and so hijacked some planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and would have destroyed something else, probably the White House, if not for the passengers trying to take the plane back. Now, there's a conspiracy theory I can buy into 100%. :-) I'll not respond to your criticism of Bush because I think we've already laid out our positions on Bush's actions and both know the nuances of the relatively modest differences we have on just how Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]#^'d up. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Mead (was Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples)
On 29 Jun 2006, at 4:18PM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that you mean anthropogenic global warming. : ) Well, I've a couple of references that indicate that she was full of hot air. :-) If you are referring to the claims by Derek Freeman that Mead was 'hoaxed' by her respondents in respect of _Coming of Age in Samoa_ it seems that Professor Freeman, apart from having an axe to grind , may have been hoaxed himself. It doesn't appear to me that this controversy has been settled. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Theists cannot be trusted as they believe that right and wrong are the arbitrary proclamations of invisible demons. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Mead (was Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples)
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William T Goodall Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 11:17 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Mead (was Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples) On 29 Jun 2006, at 4:18PM, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 8:28 AM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples Ignoring Margaret Mead's contribution, I suggest that you mean anthropogenic global warming. : ) Well, I've a couple of references that indicate that she was full of hot air. :-) If you are referring to the claims by Derek Freeman that Mead was 'hoaxed' by her respondents in respect of _Coming of Age in Samoa_ I am. It doesn't appear to me that this controversy has been settled. I think that summarizes the situation fairly well. I hope you also note that my claim that there are a couple of references that indicates she was wrong is fully consistent with that statement. :-) There are references that indicate that, just as there are references that indicate that Dr. Freeman has less verisimilitude than Dr. Mead. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Behalf Of Dan Minette If Gautam were still on the list, he might have been persuaded to talk to the liberal Democrat he's going to school with who compiled this. Why would liberal Democrats want to whitewash Bush? If my conversation with Gautam was correct, this sort of thing is a big reason why he's not come back to the list. Not that I entirely understood that. - jmh ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 10:55 PM, Charlie Bell wrote: On 29/06/2006, at 4:06 AM, Dave Land wrote: Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phase_diag_iron_carbon- color_temp.png You will see that iron undergoes a phase change at 600C, becoming soft and pliable. It is this phase change that allows farriers and swordsmiths to shape iron in a controlled manner. Steel changes from the solid metal it is at room temperature, to a material with a consistency and structural integrity about the same as well-chewed gum. And, of course, it doesn't matter how much fuel there was. They could have FILLED every floor of building with a couple of feet of Jet A and replaced the air with pure oxygen, and it still couldn't possibly burn hot enough to bring the buildings down. If you accept that the fuel burns above 600C as you have above, you *have* to accept that the structural integrity of the floors where the fuel fires were was fatally compromised by the heat, as the Fe phase diagram shows. I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity - which strikes a pretty notable blow to the theories as promulgated. It's described as 'sailing through' the tests. Perhaps this will change, but it still appears dubious given the paint chips another UL lab examined reveal less than 500° maximum heat and a mere 2% of these samples came close to this temperature. I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading to the Soft Butter support member lack of resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. Seems a stretch. I don't come to my conclusions easily, nor with any comfort. And I can certainly eat some nourishing helpings of crow when appropriate. I've found it chock-full of wholesome psychic vitamins good for one's moral constitution as well - but I'm leaving the stewing pot on the shelf for now. - Jonathan - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Whatever, honey. On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Sigh. [etc.] Look at my dialogue with Nick to understand how adults behave. If you had extended actual dialog you might have a point. Make me care. - J - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 29/06/2006, at 9:18 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity I take it you mean 2000F, around 1100C. You can heat steel to that temperature, it will not melt or deform. What it does do is become about half as strong, and will bend, stretch and fail if it's structural. Not to forget that a lot of the central support had just had a plane fly into it. I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading to the Soft Butter support member lack of resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. It didn't collapse all at once. It was jackhammered floor by floor. it only needed the top 1/4 of the building to start collapsing to crush the rest. I'm amazed that this is at all mysterious. Charlie___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Charlie Bell wrote: On 29/06/2006, at 9:18 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity I take it you mean 2000F, around 1100C. You can heat steel to that temperature, it will not melt or deform. What it does do is become about half as strong, and will bend, stretch and fail if it's structural. Not to forget that a lot of the central support had just had a plane fly into it. I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading to the Soft Butter support member lack of resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. It didn't collapse all at once. It was jackhammered floor by floor. it only needed the top 1/4 of the building to start collapsing to crush the rest. I'm amazed that this is at all mysterious. I think what Jonathan is refering to is the idea that jackhammered floor by floor is not consistant with freefall. The floors below, even though they give way should present a bit of resistance that slows the fall. The idea incorporates the fact that the floors below were not weakened by fire, but maintained their integrity until hammered kineticly. I can't say that I know much about this aspect, but my intuition tells me that the structure below should give more resistance than vacuum or air.G OTOH, the shock that is transmitted though the structure by the pounding from above would significantly overpressure the shear strength of the bolts that tied the horizontal structure to the vertical structure. Does anyone know if there was welding performed in addition to bolting? Or would that inhibit the neccessary flexing required of such a tall structure? xponent Spasms Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibson Jonathan Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2006 1:18 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading to the Soft Butter support member lack of resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. Seems a stretch. As Charlie pointed out, it wasn't all at once. Floor by floor, it collapsed, from multiple shocks. I discussed the physics of this at some length in an earlier post. The essence of what I am arguing is that the time to build the g forces necessary for the falling mass of floors X+1 to 110+ to build up sufficient g forces to break though floor X is very shortsay ~10msec. That is not surprising. If it is traveling at only 100 feet/sec, then this is the time it takes to travel 1 foot. The floor has to give 1 foot, fairly uniformly, or break in 10 msec.** To move 1 foot in 10 msec, it has to be accelerated at a rate of 8 g's. There is some resistance to this, of course, so the force of the falling upper stories has to be greater than 8 g's. I'd have to look at stress-strain curves and the building structure to give a good number, but I have a hard time seeing the lower floors not breaking before they are displaced 1 foot downwards. Shear, as Charlie suggested, looks like a very good candidate for the failure mechanism to me. Since this is the second time I explained this, I get the feeling that I'm not being as clear as I might wish. It would be helpful for you to tell me what about the shock wave propagation that I describe is troublesome for you. Dan M. ** Well, the falling mass could also be squeezed together, with the bottom part decelerating at a higher rate than the top part. But, this doesn't buy a whole lot of time before the forces needed for further compaction are multiple g's. Not a whole lot would probably add to one or two hundred msec. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
OTOH, the shock that is transmitted though the structure by the pounding from above would significantly overpressure the shear strength of the bolts that tied the horizontal structure to the vertical structure. Does anyone know if there was welding performed in addition to bolting? Or would that inhibit the neccessary flexing required of such a tall structure? Let me ask a counter-question on this. Take a cross-beam welded and bolted to a vertical beam. How far could the cross beam move straight down, at the point of attachment, before it shears apart from the vertical beam? My guess is that the 1 foot I referred to vastly overestimates the distance that the vertical beam would be offset at the point of attachment before breaking. Wouldn't a 1 movement at the point of attachment be enough to break the weld and shear the bolt? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/29/2006 2:42:40 PM, Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: OTOH, the shock that is transmitted though the structure by the pounding from above would significantly overpressure the shear strength of the bolts that tied the horizontal structure to the vertical structure. Does anyone know if there was welding performed in addition to bolting? Or would that inhibit the neccessary flexing required of such a tall structure? Let me ask a counter-question on this. Take a cross-beam welded and bolted to a vertical beam. How far could the cross beam move straight down, at the point of attachment, before it shears apart from the vertical beam? My guess is that the 1 foot I referred to vastly overestimates the distance that the vertical beam would be offset at the point of attachment before breaking. Wouldn't a 1 movement at the point of attachment be enough to break the weld and shear the bolt? 1/10th would break the weld handily and 1/4 to 1/2 for the bolt. (Bolt holes are not tightly fitted and there is often some variation in bolt hole pattens. You often see bolt holes being redrilled or torch cut to make the fit right.) The reason I asked is because welding adds strength WRT shearing forces but stiffens the joins. A stiffer join means that force is transmitted through the structure more efficiently, so weakening vibrations could have sundered the lower parts of the structure before the actual wave of collapse reached a particular level. This would be an effect that could explain why the entire structure gave way almost all at once. Maybe resonance? I remember an event in KC years ago where people dancing caused a bridge over a reception hall in a hotel caused the bridge to collapse and kill a few people. The cause was resonance. Everyone stomping their feet in time. Of course there are any number of forces at work during a chaotic event like the collapse of the WTC. Any and all of them could be operative. I'm interested in understanding the subject a bit better through an exploration of what occurred at different levels of the engineering of the structure. Having worked construction in similar buildings over the years and being aware of the nuts and bolts (NPI) of their construction, I find this all very interesting. xponent Frequency Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Robert G. Seeberger wrote: . A stiffer join means that force is transmitted through the structure more efficiently, so weakening vibrations could have sundered the lower parts of the structure before the actual wave of collapse reached a particular level. Let me clarify myself a bit here. I'm proposing that there is a damaging kinetic shockwave that runs ahead of the actual wave of collapse weakening structural members to the degree that the collapse wave progresse almost unimpeded. Is that better? (I was unsatisfied with the way I stated it originally) xponent The Scud Missile Of Discourse Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
The History Channel occasionally runs its 9/11 special. IIRC their conclusion was that the heat caused the structural beams to sag, pulling away from the anchors and thus causing the floors to pancake on top of each other. At a sufficient weight the lower floors were no longer able to support the weight... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Trumpeter's Marder I auf GW 38(h) Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld. -Original Message- From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 21:54:38 To:Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples On 29/06/2006, at 9:18 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: I do believe the soft-butter theory could have some merit and look forward to real studies we can sink teeth into and chew properly. As I understand it Underwriters Labs put the original steel, and debris samples, under 2,000° for several hours without deformity I take it you mean 2000F, around 1100C. You can heat steel to that temperature, it will not melt or deform. What it does do is become about half as strong, and will bend, stretch and fail if it's structural. Not to forget that a lot of the central support had just had a plane fly into it. I have yet to see a model - or even discussion - on how such metal is a renowned heat wick and just how this would have mitigated total systemic collapse... unless the argument is that this apparently minimal heat was X-ferred down the entire skeleton structure... leading to the Soft Butter support member lack of resistance that allowed the entire building to fall at damn-near free-fall speeds - all at once. It didn't collapse all at once. It was jackhammered floor by floor. it only needed the top 1/4 of the building to start collapsing to crush the rest. I'm amazed that this is at all mysterious. Charlie___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Conspiracy (was: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples)
Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Behalf Of Charlie Bell snip I'm a firm believer in the 9/11 conspiracy theory - the one where a bunch of well-funded Saudis decided to do the most spectacular attack on the most potent symbols of America's position in the world, and so hijacked some planes and crashed them into the WTC, the Pentagon, and would have destroyed something else, probably the White House, if not for the passengers trying to take the plane back. Now, there's a conspiracy theory I can buy into 100%. :-) I'll not respond to your criticism of Bush because I think we've already laid out our positions on Bush's actions and both know the nuances of the relatively modest differences we have on just how Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED]#^'d up. A former Republican and military officer sent me a 'resume' of GWB; the whole thing is ~ 10K, so I picked out a few highlights: PAST WORK EXPERIENCE I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil business in Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record. I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week. I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury. I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period. I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12-month period. I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S. history - Enron. I've broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history. I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission. I withdrew the U.S.from the World Court of Law. I refused to allow inspectors access to U.S. prisoners of war detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention. I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election). I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind. RECORDS AND REFERENCES All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father's library sealed and unavailable for public view. All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view. All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-President, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public review. And since no one has mentioned it in this current diss-cussion, I'll throw out the theory that higher-ups deliberately thwarted those lower echelon intelligence gatherers who warned about some of the 9/11 suiciders; i.e., allowed the hijackers to crash their planes and prep America for eventual kleptocracy (we'll never accept a dictatorship!). Debbi :P That Ben Franklin Quote Maru __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Dan Minette wrote: So, it seems that we agree that the planes flying into the building are sufficient for the buildings to collapse. We also agree that the pattern of the collapse is consistent with rigorous structural analysis of the buildings. It is a very weird and unlikely concept, the whole conspiracy theory idea, but the more I look at it the less I accept the 9/11 commissions findings, so no, I don't agree, but I cant claim expertise in the matter. The explanations these gentlemen give are tailored to explain what was seen in the evidence, what they don't do is eliminate alternate explanations and that is the item that I would like to see. The alternative explanation is that, in addition to the planes flying into the WTC, bombs were placed by persons unknown, but probably connected with someone like Dick Cheney, a while before that...and that the planes flew into just those floors where bombs were placed. The bomb people either had to be really really good spooks, or coordinated with WTC security. Given the track record of the CIA and the plumbers, etc., I don't think of anyone who is quite that good. Further, the blasts couldn't have occurred on the outside structures, because there would have been some outward puffsthat would not be part of the general flameseven with the burning, multiple explosions of would be seeable. But, on the inside, which is full of melted aluminum which could explode, the bombs could be masked. So, I don't think that I could falsify the existence of modest size bombs on the inner columns. It appears that we agree that the well accepted explanation is both simple and sufficient to explain what has been observed. In contrast, the conspiracy theory relies on a number of variables all lining up perfectly to conceal the blast. For example, how did all of this coordination work, between the AQ members and Dick, or whoever set up the bombs? How did they know just which floors to hit, and how could those undertrained pilots be so good at hitting just the right floors? I would agree, but they didn't need to hit the right floors Watch The Great Conspiracy - bottom right here: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11 its an hour, but it is interesting. In it they show some videos of the collapse and in it is clear that the mast on top of WTC 1? begins to collapse down into the core of the building well before the rest of the structure, indicating that the central supports of the building (the key to its structural integrity) were the first things to go. They attribute this, and the damage on the ground floor prior to collapse, to bombs in the basement of the building (and elsewhere) that were triggered after the impact and that were the cause of the collapse. These bombs cut the central supports and initiated the collapse. They also have people inside the building, and seismic records etc that allegedly corroborate the idea. One thing that explains something that always worried me about the collapses but I never knew why, is the fact that the whole thing took around 10 seconds, in both cases. Given the height of the buildings ( I didn't take notes when I was watching, so watch it for details - they even have formulas !) this is basically free fall speed. So the structure of the building, even the thousands of tonnes of undamaged hurricane-proof steel and concrete below the collision levels, did absolutely nothing to impede the collapse speed. It is as if the whole building just broke into a zillion separate pieces and fell at free fall speed to the ground. That video and this one, which covers some of the same ground but is more about the Pentagon impacts: 911 Loose Change Second Edition (from the same link) http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9%2F11 are both pretty good. Why is the hole in the Pentagon so small, where is the plane debris, why are the engine remains that do exist from the wrong plane, why wont the government release the videos of the impact from nearby security cameras etc. And weird coincidences like that the pilot of the plane that hit the Pentagon was an ex-air force pilot who was part of a training exercise in which a plane was flown into the Pentagon just before he retired from the air-force to join American Airlines, all the put options on its stock a few days before, that Marvin Bush was kinda in charge of WTC security at the time of the attack, that Bush said he had seen the first impact before he went into the school room and talked to reporters about it ( a - he couldn't have and b - WTF?), that three separate exercises planned for the same day had denuded the US of air cover and confused any response to the hijacked planes etc etc. It is just too strange to contemplate that it was an inside job, that part of it is the thing I find very hard to accept, the idea that anyone would think that they could get away with it. But there are a lot of things that
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
I'm with Dan on this one (!). That a fully-loaded 737 can cause, after impact, buildings to fall down is not even remotely shocking. This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs myself about four years ago). What's amazing, in this light, is that the buildings didn't fall before they did. As to the thermate idea: Sorry. Bullshit. If there were explosives in the WTC, they were probably there illicitly, not planted as part of a larger plot. Recall these were buildings housing hundreds of businesses, not all of them necessarily wholly legit. (And, frankly, the words of a BYU scientist are not enough to sway me. It was a BYU scientist who claimed cold fusion was a reality back in the 80s.) And even if there were explosives strapped to the structure, so what? All that would show is that the conspiracy *among the Islamic fundamentalists* was well-developed, to the point they were willing to plant charges to ensure destruction. We knew they were well-coordinated already. So what's the rhetorical point? (Sorry, Rob.) On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: There is some interesting discussion in the comment section. It pretty much all sounds like conspiracy-talk, but then it has always been my opinion that there was something not quite right with the official explanations. I'm not quite sure why you say that. The official explanation is pretty simple: planes fly into buildingsdamages buildingsfire weakens steel to the point where the remaining columns give way, buildings go boom. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 6/26/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect. It's all so perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life. Real investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust like real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks. And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually (okay, always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)... Yet I remain optimistic that a reasonable explanation can be found. There's an awful lot unexplained, IMO. Nick, the WTC was designed in the 70s as a disposable structure. It was built with the full knowledge it would one day be imploded. ALL tall buildings constructed after the 60s or so were built with that idea in mind. It was designed to collapse, neatly and in pancake fashion. Bear in mind the WTC towers were not weakened at the base as with a standard structure fire, a la a tree in the forest cut down in logging. They dropped top-down, from where the devastation began. Why would you expect them to teeter and/or be much more unstable than they were designed to be? In a terrible way, the architects' design proved faultless. The towers came down with minimal damage to nearby structures. That is good engineering. To me what's unexplained is the apparent want to believe in a Vast Conspiracy. Or even a small one. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 26, 2006, at 7:50 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say has been without doubt eliminated as a possibility. Ah, but how to prove a negative? Especially when it's in the arena of opinion, wherein anything is possible? Can you say, without doubt, that my neighbor's tomatoes are NOT in fact tended nightly by his garden gnomes, come magically to life under the silvery dewlit moon? Because they're damn big tomatoes. I guess the Miracle-Gro bag he dips from regularly is just a diversion away from the real facts. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Hyperbole, lots thereof -- but where are the facts, the figures, etc.? Just one example: Molten steel unearthed six months after the collapse displays energy levels simple kinetic forces cannot foster. Quantify, please. On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote: On the behalf of Mr Gibson: Greetings, Embrace the horror. Face our fears. [bla bla bla] -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
As for the pilots and training...
It's gets kinda thick, but if you can spell PATSY your journey has
already begun.
As I understand from a conservative investigator {who I think is} named
Lomas {apologies as my memory is fuzzy here, but I see him on C-SPAN
several times a year} he's located next to CenCom with personal ties to
the officer corps nearby - as well as Sander Hicks The Big Wedding -
it appears Atta was a clandestine drug-runner/intel-operator trained at
a former MILSPEC airbase run out of Florida by ex-intelligence
officers. What was once the Marines 59th Airborne division base is now
the small municipal airfield in Venice, FL, and lo-o-o-ong rumored to
be a drug import point due to the intel operations that were ostensibly
run out of it.
ASIDE: This field was 'privatized' with one main building sold to an
operative named James Bath biz partner Salim bin Laden {ring a bell?}
where Bath ran his law offices out of. This was long before both of
these figures go on to invest in a failing little oil company called
Arbusto Oil ... benefiting a certain GwB as he built up a resume that
allows him to now hunker down with the rest of the Republican Guard
dead-enders in DC.
So, when Atta needed training on the bigger planes he went to school of
course, but would anyone venture a guess where this school was located?
By an AMAZING co-inky-dink this flight school is the
_very_same_building_ that James Bath and Salim bin Laden previously
owned.
[insert: hair-raising backside of neck effect]
I've known a number of right-wing so-called Conservatives and so-called
Republicans who took absolute delight digging into Clinton shadows and
unearthing CIA networks running drugs and arms in-out of Mena, Arkansas
- but who have been UTTERLY disinterested in exploring where those
links lead to and who set them up LONG before those youngish Little
Rock politicians pushed Poppy Bush out of the White House. This
Terrorism-era counterpunch to the end of the Cold War is perfectly
illustrated by the PNAC NeoCon screed calling for a New Pearl Harbour
to both rally their faithful and cow critiques by short-circuiting
logical thinking with blunt emotional trauma. It would appear to this
writer that our bloated Irresistible Military Force needs an Immovable
Enemy Object to bill mega-PO's against. Is it OK yet to mention GwB's
g'pappy, a certain Prescott Bush, was censured by Congress for NAZI
financing supply {both sides} during WWII? Just wondering.
The lies are unravelling with every scandal laying bare the craven
crass cruelty of a House, Senate, Justice and White House all run by
so-called Republican politicos who were sore losers in the 90's and
poor winners here in the XXIst.
Loyalty is a two-edged sword and as awareness grows of this betrayal I
fear for the wholeness of this country. As cynical as all this can
make one, I remain hopeful. Let me tell you about my Rapture-Ready
religious neighbor. This man with a W bumper-sticker surprised me by
offering to lend {unbidden} his own DVD's on the topic of controlled
demolition of WTC on 911 - after he saw me display my anti-Iraq
occupation paintings in the kitchen window {BTW available on tees and
mugs, http://www.cafepress.com/agit-pop}. Like the three blind men, we
are all feeling different aspects of this Elephant in the room and our
descriptions may not initially match, but still seem to describe the
same underlaying truths.
Some things to h{URL} at you as the last posting I did {via Seeberger}
broke the longer URL link-strings, here are a few jumps to review. If
you have trouble clicking, just copy the multi-line string of text and
paste that into your browser Location field:
911 Myth Reality w/Rev. David Ray Gritffith via Guns and Butter {pts
1 2, hour long each}
http://157.22.130.4:80//data/20060405-Wed1300.mp3
http://157.22.130.4:80//data/20060412-Wed1300.mp3
This is a recent interview.
911 Research NIST opportunities
www.wtc7.net {DVD just released last night}
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html
{BTW - the NIST gov-response engineering report on WTC was secretly
written by Chertoff's cousin - no conflict there, heh?}
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime {large movie downloads available}
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?
cat=9997med=0ord=Namestrt=0vid=92epi=0typ=0
The Big Wedding {interview rebroadcast just last week} via Guns and
Butter
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?
server=157.22.130.4port=80file=dummy.m3umount=/data/20060621-
Wed1300.mp3
Loose Change is often cited, and well crafted, but ultimately flawed
movie to the point of tarnishing the real jewels within. It's worth
watching, but realize it's become a handy cudgel for the debunkers to
distract from the truths within.
http://www.loosechange911.com/ {complete movie downloadable}
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Lucky you!
I have too much free time just now and can reply at length, and will.
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
I'm with Dan on this one (!). That a fully-loaded 737 can cause, after
impact, buildings to fall down is not even remotely shocking.
This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football
field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the
math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs
myself about four years ago). What's amazing, in this light, is that
the buildings didn't fall before they did.
I'll call your bull-shite and raise you a sobering reality check.
I suggest you follow the writings/speeches of one Kevin Ryan, formerly
of Underwriters Labs who did the testing first on original steel 40
years ago and then the debris brought them by our betters in GovCo.
Not only was the building overbuilt - it one industry awrds at the time
for superior construction by the structural engineer, John Skilling.
To the point, this steel was simply NOT heated to the point of
deformity. Most of this fuel was ejected out the other side of WTC2,
yet it fell first!?!
What's more, the paint samples provided to prove this case simply could
not do so: they did not even make 500° - which is consistent with the
paper and furniture burning scenarios that had nearly burned themselves
out when the buildings collapsed. In fact, firemen who had climbed all
those stairs had even called down saying they could easily get them
{can't recall which building this was} under control! Steel buildings
have raged with larger infernos and burned 24 hours - yet no
collapse... again, this is apparently the ONLY time in recorded history
such a fire-collapse occurred.
One by one, this Kevin Ryan began to see rationale after hypothesis
after implausible assertions promulgated only to fall over in the light
of scientific investigation. To the point where John Skilling, the
structural engineer who designed this building, was demoted to
anonymous commentor on how the structure should not have fallen -
hardly the respect, or authority, one should afford such a prominant
figure in this project. Mr Ryan was fired from his leadership position
at safety-centric Underwriters Labs for simply raising questions about
the anomalies.
Here's the internal memo he sent to the CEO and got him fired:
http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm
Here's an hour long interview that highlights some interesting events
and results:
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?
server=157.22.130.4port=80file=dummy.m3umount=/data/20060614-
Wed1300.mp3
As to the thermate idea: Sorry. Bullshit. If there were explosives
in the WTC, they were probably there illicitly, not planted as part of
a larger plot. Recall these were buildings housing hundreds of
businesses, not all of them necessarily wholly legit. (And, frankly,
the words of a BYU scientist are not enough to sway me. It was a
BYU scientist who claimed cold fusion was a reality back in the 80s.)
And even if there were explosives strapped to the structure, so what?
All that would show is that the conspiracy *among the Islamic
fundamentalists* was well-developed, to the point they were willing to
plant charges to ensure destruction. We knew they were
well-coordinated already. So what's the rhetorical point?
(Sorry, Rob.)
Excuse me while your statement peaks the ridicul-o-meter - a device to
measure things of a ridiculous nature. I understand the resistance to
face these facts, but sticking ones' head in the sand leaves one's
posterior rather exposed.
Pray tell, just how would *islamic terrorists* get routine access for
the extended periods needed to plant such charges? Did these crafty
fanatics really orchestrate the unusual and multi-week safety drills
that emptied out sections of the buildings leading up to the event?
Are you claiming that multiple business fronts were there to allow
access to detonators and these offices were neatly spaced such that
these explosions left steel beams no longer than 30ft - just the size
to be relatively quickly carted off by long-haul rigs? And somehow the
ownership, management, finances of these business could then not be
traced by this NSA-centric administration? Or, maybe you would be less
certain and downright uncomfortable knowing GwB's cousin was running
the security of those buildings - a tenure that ended days before this
event occurred?
Granted, this Brin-list is drawn from people with a stronger than usual
interest in fantastic leaps of imagination, but it appears we are
actually firmly in the reality-based community and hold scientific
rigor with more value than other quarters. If your not comfy with
BYU-centric scientists, perhaps a wider net of logical, questioning,
intelligent minds from the 911 Scholars for Truth might not be as
dismissible as the
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Sorry, I was hoping for a rational reply, not a worthless rant a lot like the ones I've seen already. Write back when you've grown up. On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:32 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: [bla bla bla, again] -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Sigh,
Sharpen your pencil Warren and follow along as best you can.
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:33 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Hyperbole, lots thereof -- but where are the facts, the figures, etc.?
Just one example:
Molten steel unearthed six months after the collapse displays energy
levels simple kinetic forces cannot foster.
Quantify, please.
Free-falling from WTC heights
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our
trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' former height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)
or
Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity
Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to
the ground from the towers' former height. Using the simple equation,
V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in
9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295
ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.
But that can only occur in a vacuum.
Did the floors below use pixie-dust to magically slide out of the way
of the ones above them, taking internal sea-level air resistance within
them for a joy ride? BTW - leaving a residue of space-vacuum so as not
to impede the collapsing upper stories. Since the overbuilt steel
structures that had held for almost 40 years were suddenly NO {as in
none, nil, nada} impediment we can only assume the internal structure
was abnormally affected throughout the building.
On Jun 27, 2006, at 4:09 PM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
On the behalf of Mr Gibson:
Greetings,
Embrace the horror. Face our fears.
[bla bla bla]
Wonderfully insightful {incite-full?} commentary, a tactic which adds
so-o-o much to a conversation one doesn't wish to have. Why bother
responding to me at all?
Where are your figures to back up the grand sweeps of certainty you
dispense?
Where's the money-quote from the designer - or even original owners -
that stated this was a disposable building their biz plan anticipated
the investment would be past it's shelf-life by the beginning of this
millennia?
Neener-neener,
- Jonathan Gibson -
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/28/06, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs myself about four years ago). Even if that is true (and I've seen plenty of doubts), there was no jet fuel (which is kerosene, for those who don't know) in WTC 7. Yet it imploded neatly. At the least, it's weird. Of course, many seemingly weird things happen in nature, provoking superstition until somebody figures out the underlying mechanism. I don't know what to think. I find myself wondering how many people would have had to have been directly involved and how they could all stay quiet if something really was cooked up. But maybe it wouldn't have had to be very many... but so many indirectly. There are a lot of orders from that day that demand explanation, regarding security at the WTC, military drills, shoot-down orders, etc. So darn many coincidences. And yet it's hard to know if such coincidences would be found for any day of any year if we took the time to look. What bugs me the most is how very, very little has been spent on investigating and explaining, while so much evidence was lost forever. The outrage of fire investigators is appropriate. At the very least, we failed to learn a great deal that could go into designs to resist such attacks. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 12:53 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Quantify, please. Free-falling from WTC heights The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let's start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers' former height. Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared) or Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7 Time = 9.2 So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers' former height. Using the simple equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph. But that can only occur in a vacuum. Okay -- so where are the energy levels simple kinetic forces cannot foster? And where are these molten steel artifacts you lay claim to? And can you show that the molten steel wasn't due to the fire's heat? You've stacked a lot of numbers, which is good -- but you haven't really shown anything. If you have a point, try to get to it. Where's the money-quote from the designer - or even original owners - that stated this was a disposable building their biz plan anticipated the investment would be past it's shelf-life by the beginning of this millennia? Have you paid no attention at all to architectural design in the last half century? Pick up a magazine on the topic. I'll not burden myself with trying to educate you further. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/28/06, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote And where are these molten steel artifacts you lay claim to? There is no shortage of pictures of this. And can you show that the molten steel wasn't due to the fire's heat? Actually, the fire that burned before the collapse isn't the only source of the heat. A huge pile of hot stuff insulates itself, so I can imagine that it is entirely possible that the heat built up to that temperature long after the collapses. That's how flashovers happen, as any firefighter knows. A sealed-up building burns quickly for a while, using up most of the oxygen. Then it slows down tremendously because only a little oxygen can get in. But the same walls and windows that keep oxygen out are keeping the heat in, so the fire gets hotter and hotter... and the combustion is less and less complete, so the building fills with smoke that is made up of incompletely burned particles. Let oxygen in at the bottom of the fire (rather than venting the heat from the top first) and boom, the air itself explodes because it is superheated and well-fueled -- it just needed the third element for fire, oxygen. I've read that the subway tunnels under the WTC acted as oxygen vents into the rubble pile. In other words, the rubble pile could have been acting like a great big forge. The insulating effect is also it's against the law to have fires on the beaches around here. People cover them with sand, figuring they'll go out. But they smolder and the heat stays trapped... then some poor soul steps on it barefoot and gets a nasty burned sole. The amount of heat (energy) in a building fire is very difficult to comprehend at a gut level, I know, having seen fire trucks badly damaged by radiant heat from a fire a block away... exposed buildings ignite across the street from a burning house... water cannons that evaporate before even hitting the flames of a really big fire. We're so used to dealing with little fires that it is very hard to intuit the scope of a big one. I remember a while ago comparing this to running water. We're so accustomed to ordinary water forces that people do stupid things like driving into a flash flood, thinking It's only water. Our common sense fails us as the scale rises. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Sigh. I'm not your walking stick just because you can't walk on your own to the school. Start doing your own hard work. You don't even answer direct questions. Do you think I like being right about this? On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:17 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Okay -- so where are the energy levels simple kinetic forces cannot foster? And where are these molten steel artifacts you lay claim to? And can you show that the molten steel wasn't due to the fire's heat? You've stacked a lot of numbers, which is good -- but you haven't really shown anything. If you have a point, try to get to it. Here's molten steel pulled out early-on 9/27/01. http://www.911blogger.com/files/images/Molten-metal-Sillechia_fixed.jpg I regret I can't find the URL for one with construction workers in front of red pools deeper down and later. It's on a drive somewhere, but out of reach just now. Look at this construction photo and tell all of us just how all that offers less resistance than butter the entire length down: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/9-11%20Picture6.jpg Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. ... Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC - NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177 Here's what a steel frame modern structural failure looks like, every time until this most-special day of Coincidences Grande. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_files/image010.jpg It's only under controlled demolition that symmetry occurs. Only. Ever. Where's the money-quote from the designer - or even original owners - that stated this was a disposable building their biz plan anticipated the investment would be past it's shelf-life by the beginning of this millennia? Have you paid no attention at all to architectural design in the last half century? Pick up a magazine on the topic. I'll not burden myself with trying to educate you further. Warren, we haven't met, but I feel sure I've seen your silhouette shaking fists at yungin's from the porch. If you did know me you would have known I sent away for my college transcripts from the Tulane School of Architecture just yesterday. LoL. If you want to talk about then life-cycle of suburban housing, well... I was complaining about that fact when I was in high school. Commercial grade skyscrapers are a whole order of magnitude upgrade over the razors+blades model the contractor-builder offers. You've got yourself a big mouth, but it don't seem to really say much. Follow the links I've traced and maybe you'll have something to say next time. - Jonathan - www.formandfunction.com/word ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 6/28/06, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs myself about four years ago). Even if that is true (and I've seen plenty of doubts), there was no jet fuel (which is kerosene, for those who don't know) in WTC 7. Yet it imploded neatly. At the least, it's weird. After having been so near the collapse of a supermassive structure, its roof burdened by debris weighing, possibly, dozens or hundreds of tons, and sitting atop a honeycomb of parking and subway conduits? I don't think that's weird. As to what's true, you've made me revisit my numbers. I've learned I was wrong in one important figure, and I thank you for making me diligent. Here we find some InternetFacts™ (take them for what they're worth): http://www.b737.org.uk/fuel.htm The max fuel load of a top-of-the-line 737 is 37,712 Kg, or around 90,000 pounds. Figure 8 pounds of water in a gallon and you've got better than 10K gallons of fuel in a 737, give or take. Put in terms of metrics, you have about 37K liters of fluid, and a (US) football field is only about 90 or so meters long. Since one liter is equivalent to 1000 CCs, and since a football field area is about 50 meters wide (53 yards), we can see that the 450 square meters of the field are covered easily by the fuel load in a 737, at zero depth, by a factor of ten to one. Give the football grid some walls and you'll be able to fill it, to a depth of about 10 cm or so, by what's in your airplane's tanks. Okay, not a foot. A decimeter, about four inches. But you get the idea. That is a hell of a lot of explosive fluid, and the 737s that hit the WTC towers were on long-distance flights, at the beginning of their journeys, and damn near capacity in their tanks. Though maybe not -- it would be silly to fill a plane to the brim when it only had to make a short run, since you'd be lifting the fuel AND the jet -- not very efficient. So do as the airlines do and fill the jet with enough fuel to make the trip, plus an hour or to extra. But even half capacity is stunning -- football field, two inches of jet fuel covering it. And yes, it's kerosene, not gasoline. Lower octane rating. But the flashpoints of the two are close enough to one another (-40 C for gasoline, 29 C for kerosene, which is a lot in human space but nothing for chemistry) that any spark hot enough to light a cigarette would set them off. And the higher flashpoint of jet fuel was one of the reasons the towers burned so long. Think of carpeting, wallpaper, ceiling tiles -- wicking all that kerosene and then burning slowly like a candle. Heat on heat, mounting slowly, on the central steel framework of the buildings until their central columns were like hot solder. It's not high heat in a crock pot that makes your stew; it's a long, slow cook. I don't know what to think. I find myself wondering how many people would have had to have been directly involved and how they could all stay quiet if something really was cooked up. But maybe it wouldn't have had to be very many... but so many indirectly. There are a lot of orders from that day that demand explanation, regarding security at the WTC, military drills, shoot-down orders, etc. So darn many coincidences. And yet it's hard to know if such coincidences would be found for any day of any year if we took the time to look. You suggested earlier that fires are chaotic. Well, they are. (You'd know.) For the first 18 minutes or so, no one even knew the US was being attacked in a coordinated effort. So conflicting reports, chaotic orders and strange omissions in emergency responses aren't that hard to understand, are they? It's much simpler to say we were caught with our pants down -- which I am sure we were -- than it is to suggest a multinational conspiracy, possibly involving US officials, was in play here. What's more plausible? That Dick Cheney was drunk and shot his friend in the face, or that he mistook a 70-year-old lawyer for a quail? What's more plausible? That buildings designed to implode underwent structural failure after a catastrophic event never even dreamed of by their designers, and the disassociated and tentacular arms of a badly-organized government failed to respond appropriately in the first few titanic hours -- or that proper response was quelled from the top, leaving the local units to fend for themselves as a building (two), which was little more than a façade erected around a central hollow girderwork of steel, did more or less what it was supposed to do under total structural failure? I really hate Bush et. al. I don't think a single thing they have ever done is right, with the one exception of invading Afghanistan. (The
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Whatever, honey. On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:04 PM, Gibson Jonathan wrote: Sigh. [etc.] Look at my dialogue with Nick to understand how adults behave. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 1:59 PM, Nick Arnett wrote: In other words, the rubble pile could have been acting like a great big forge. How many modern cases of spontaneous human combustion have you heard of? It used to be a big deal, one of those things that happened regularly for no good reason anyone could find, and it was bizarre. Wooden houses didn't burn down, flammable drapes didn't get anything but smoke damage, and still, lying in the middle of a scorched floor, were the remains of a body, burned to ash, but with weird omissions, such as an untouched hand or foot. While SHC has never been fully explained, a plausible explication has been proposed: Wicking. You (Nick) know what wicking is, of course -- fuel or any fluid being sucked along a conduit. In SHC, the idea is that a body, a person, has become unconscious or otherwise helpless next to a low-heat combustive force, sometimes a candle, sometimes a lamp. As the body is heated regionally and rapidly in a small area, fat melts and wicks, and the burning process is fed slowly and almost carefully, almost deliberately. A good source of wick action, such as cotton or wool, helps — and in the days before DuPont, what did most people wear? Just as you can hold a burning candle in your hand and not feel pain, the wicking process in SHC might feed into the gradual, but total, burning of a victim while leaving his surroundings unscorched. Why this is important is that SHC cases often speak of bones being turned to ash, which is a thing that usually requires the high heat of crematoria to make — hot enough to fire pottery, which starts at 500 degrees F and goes well up from there. And even then, bones are left, and have to be broken manually before the ashes are put into an urn. Well, as you noted, slow, low fires can sometimes do the same things as fast, hot fires — and they can do things fast, hot fires cannot. The wicking action and low gentle heat of a candle or wicking fire can destroy collagen in bones (you can get collagen from a low simmering soup, but not a fast, high cook), and maybe the low forge-like fire you've described can help us understand what happened in the WTC. You don't need ten thousand degrees of heat in one second to make steel melt. (Its melt point is around 3100 degrees F). All you really need is a thousand degrees over a few hours, wafted gently by air from time to time. Heat builds. And in the case of the WTC structure, you don't even need melting to start the collapse. You just need plasticity, which happens at a much lower temperature. BTW, I'm starting to get worried. In the last hour or so I've Googled terms like gasoline flashpoint, 737 fuel load, WTC tower collapse and melting point of steel. Please think kindly of me when you learn I'm in GitMo. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/28/06, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The max fuel load of a top-of-the-line 737 is 37,712 Kg, or around 90,000 pounds. Figure 8 pounds of water in a gallon and you've got better than 10K gallons of fuel in a 737, give or take. Oops. Fuel weighs less than water (a fact that is impressed upon one when learning to fly). Part of every pre-flight inspection to drain a bit of fluid from the lowest points on the tanks, to ensure that what comes out is fuel, not water (typically from condensation in the airplane, the fuel truck or tanks). If you get water, you keep draining until you don't get any. Jet-A weighs 6.5 to 7 lbs/gallon, nominally 6.76 lbs/gallon in the United States and Europe. Okay, not a foot. A decimeter, about four inches. But you get the idea. That is a hell of a lot of explosive fluid, and the 737s that hit the WTC towers were on long-distance flights, at the beginning of their journeys, and damn near capacity in their tanks. Explosive, you say? This is kerosene, not gasoline. Try this at home (away from flammable stuff). Put some kerosene in a glass (don't use styrofoam). Light a match. Stick it in the kerosene. It will go out. Do not try this with gasoline. And yes, it's kerosene, not gasoline. Lower octane rating. But the flashpoints of the two are close enough to one another (-40 C for gasoline, 29 C for kerosene, which is a lot in human space but nothing for chemistry) that any spark hot enough to light a cigarette would set them off. Baloney. Really. I've used a lot of kerosene to start fires (to burn brush at my parent's farm) and I can assure you that it is not so easy to ignite. It is nowhere near as volatile as gasoline. And the higher flashpoint of jet fuel was one of the reasons the towers burned so long. Think of carpeting, wallpaper, ceiling tiles -- wicking all that kerosene and then burning slowly like a candle. Heat on heat, mounting slowly, on the central steel framework of the buildings until their central columns were like hot solder. Sorry, but that strikes me as simply arguing from your conclusion. I'd like to see a peer-reviewed simulation. Maybe there's one out there. It's not high heat in a crock pot that makes your stew; it's a long, slow cook. Uh, isn't that an argument against high temperatures??? You suggested earlier that fires are chaotic. Well, they are. (You'd know.) For the first 18 minutes or so, no one even knew the US was being attacked in a coordinated effort. So conflicting reports, chaotic orders and strange omissions in emergency responses aren't that hard to understand, are they? I'm not talking so much about what happened after the attack as what was happening by coincidence prior to it. What's more plausible? That buildings designed to implode I hadn't realized that the buildings were designed to implode. Many sources seem to agree on this, it seems, which helps me to feel reassured. As much as I'd love to see Bush done up for treason, I just can't get aboard here. I'm not aboard either. I'm just bothered by how many things seemed to come together for this to happen. But then again, that's often the way it is when an unusual event takes place. Perhaps it was the Hand of God at work. (I'm really, really not serious, except that there's part of me that thinks anything is possible.) Let's think of what didn't work for a moment. The Pentagon didn't collapse; only one face was affected. Wasn't that the just-reinforced face? And why were the engine parts at the Pentagon from a different airplane? That's the sort of thing I'd like explained. But there just isn't credible evidence to accept the idea of a conspiracy. No disagreement here. As I said, I'm more concerned about the lack of answers, rather than the implications of the evidence available. There could be a lot more evidence available. What's more deserving of a deep and thorough investigation? How about some explanations of why there hasn't been more investigation? Of course, the answer is probably purely political. The outrage of fire investigators is appropriate. At the very least, we failed to learn a great deal that could go into designs to resist such attacks. How? How can you possibly make a skyscraper with every possible contingency in mind? Nobody has proposed that. Have you seen the comments of frustrated fire engineering experts? A great deal could have been learned. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 29/06/2006, at 2:25 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: Explosive, you say? This is kerosene, not gasoline. Try this at home (away from flammable stuff). Put some kerosene in a glass (don't use styrofoam). Light a match. Stick it in the kerosene. It will go out. Do not try this with gasoline. Try it again by getting a glass bottle full of kerosene, sticking a lit rag in the neck, and throwing it into your office through a window. You *can* put a match out in gasoline too. It's the air/fuel mixture that's important. Shredding an aircraft half full of fuel through a building will mix the air and the fuel pretty well. Add lots of wicky stuff, and that's a good raging fire. And yes, it's kerosene, not gasoline. Lower octane rating. But the flashpoints of the two are close enough to one another (-40 C for gasoline, 29 C for kerosene, which is a lot in human space but nothing for chemistry) that any spark hot enough to light a cigarette would set them off. Baloney. Really. I've used a lot of kerosene to start fires (to burn brush at my parent's farm) and I can assure you that it is not so easy to ignite. It is nowhere near as volatile as gasoline. But still pretty volatile when heated. Once that fire's going, it goes good, right? Well, you've got flames in the WTC from the engines exploding anyway. That'll set the rest off nicely. Wasn't that the just-reinforced face? And why were the engine parts at the Pentagon from a different airplane? That's the sort of thing I'd like explained. A different airplane? That I've not heard. Source? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
its an hour, but it is interesting. In it they show some videos of the collapse and in it is clear that the mast on top of WTC 1? begins to collapse down into the core of the building well before the rest of the structure, indicating that the central supports of the building (the key to its structural integrity) were the first things to go. They attribute this, and the damage on the ground floor prior to collapse, to bombs in the basement of the building (and elsewhere) that were triggered after the impact and that were the cause of the collapse. These bombs cut the central supports and initiated the collapse. They also have people inside the building, and seismic records etc that allegedly corroborate the idea. One thing that explains something that always worried me about the collapses but I never knew why, is the fact that the whole thing took around 10 seconds, in both cases. Given the height of the buildings ( I didn't take notes when I was watching, so watch it for details - they even have formulas !) this is basically free fall speed. So the structure of the building, even the thousands of tonnes of undamaged hurricane-proof steel and concrete below the collision levels, did absolutely nothing to impede the collapse speed. It is as if the whole building just broke into a zillion separate pieces and fell at free fall speed to the ground. There are three things to consider about this. First, the terminal velocity of an object is dependant on a number of factors, including the shape of the object, the density of the object, and the size of the object (square/cubed law). Each tower was about 500 thousand tons. Assuming these are English tons, and using 68 meters x 68 metric as the footprint, we have 500 tons per meter squared of area by the time the falling structure got to the bottom...which is where air resistance should be slowing things the most. Knowing that the terminal velocity of skydiving humans is 120 mph...when resistance is maximized, it seems reasonable to see that the terminal velocity of this great of a mass/meter squared is far greater. To pick a number, I'd say at least 400 mph, or about 600 fps. In 10 sec, total free fall gives us 320 fps, or 98 mps. Since air resistance goes as v^3, we'd see, roughly, no more than a 10% reduction of the maximum velocity. Second, g forces involved with stopping fallen objects are much higher than g forces required to hold something up. For example, dropping a hammer on a floor generates 1000 g's of force. The g forces are also sheer, they pull the cross beams down, thus magnifying the force. Let's assume a factor of 2 safety margin is involved. (I'm pretty sure a number close to that has been quoted somewhere with regard to the temperature weakening) So, an addition g, on top of gravity is needed to break the bonds. While the building as a whole does have give to bending, steel beam structures do not have significant give with respect to shearing forces. It would only take milliseconds for the falling building to generate the additional 1g force that is needed. 100 decelerations of, say, 5 milliseconds each, would result in an extra half second above free fall. I admit to doing a bit of back of the envelope work here. But, my point is that's a lot more work than the folks who maintain the websites did. They just appealed to untrained intuition. A more careful job could certainly be done. I've referenced numerous professional groups who have analyzed the collapse, and have found it very understandable. So, my question is why trust an appeal to intuition over both rough calculations and the work of a number of professional groups. I know that appeal to authority is not a good argument, but I do tend to trust analysis done by multiple groups of people who are both trained in practice in evaluating structures and their failures more than arm waving by folks who don't have similar track records, training or tools. This is just enhanced by my own back of the envelope work which is much more consistent with the pros. It is just too strange to contemplate that it was an inside job, that part of it is the thing I find very hard to accept, the idea that anyone would think that they could get away with it. But there are a lot of things that don't seem to add up. And the 911 Commission (which took 411 days to start, and had an initial budget of 3 million, versus a week and 50 million for the Challenger disaster) report looks more like a whitewash to me the more I learn about it. If Gautam were still on the list, he might have been persuaded to talk to the liberal Democrat he's going to school with who compiled this. Why would liberal Democrats want to whitewash Bush? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I'm with Dan on this one (!). That a fully-loaded 737 can cause, after impact, buildings to fall down is not even remotely shocking. Of course, the buildings were scarcely damaged by the planes' impact. Big chunks of the planes went clear through the building and landed on the other side. Some didn't even strike the core of the building. This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs myself about four years ago). What's amazing, in this light, is that the buildings didn't fall before they did. Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. And, of course, it doesn't matter how much fuel there was. They could have FILLED every floor of building with a couple of feet of Jet A and replaced the air with pure oxygen, and it still couldn't possibly burn hot enough to bring the buildings down. So: Sorry. Bullshit., to coin a phrase. We don't know what the hell happened on 9/11. The administration's just-so story is no better or worse than the conspiracy theorists': they're all wild-ass guesses based on too little information and too many jumped conclusions. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
In a message dated 6/27/2006 10:02:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The conspiracy theory is, as far as I can tell, that some very powerful folks wanted to scare Americans. They got wind of the AQ plot. They thought that flying planes into the WTC, which would then just burn for a while and probably have to be torn down, wasn't bad enough to institute the Patriot act, or maybe an industrial strength Patriot act. Thus, they placed bombs to go off after the planes hit. In short, while AQ did fly planes in the buildings, the real enemy is a shadowy powerful conservative groupwith ties into the CIA, the White House, etc. Your point is _very_ consistent with my viewsthe above is my take on the internet conspiracy theories we see posted here. Two things - 1) the current administration does not seem capable of such success 2) No matter what I think of the people running our country I do not believe they would commit mass murder. I do not believe if they tried that someone would not have ratted them out and either stopped this before it happened or quickly uncovered the conspiracy afterwards. Some might argue that this administration has already killed thousands of US citizens with their ill conceived war but that is different. Humans engage in all sorts of mental tricks to justify war. We all accept some of these rationalizations in some circumstances (humans have been killing other humans for a long time - from before we were humans). But by and large we do not accept killing members of our own tribe. One can rationalize sending men into war but not killing one's own kind. I think that are too many moral individuals in this government (or any other US government) to allow this to occur ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 2:30 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Okay, not a foot. A decimeter, about four inches. But you get the idea. That is a hell of a lot of explosive fluid, and the 737s that hit the WTC towers were on long-distance flights, at the beginning of their journeys, and damn near capacity in their tanks. Explosive fluid? Sheesh! It's actually pretty hard to get it lit, and when it does get lit, it doesn't explode, and it burns at a relatively sedate 500-800 degrees C. I wouldn't want to be in there with it, but it would be the one single solitary time in the history of the world that such a fire caused such a collapse. The only time ever What part of that are you missing? Millions upon millions of steel- frame buildings in the world. Hundreds subjected to fires, some of the which burned for more than 24 hours, and yet not one of them ever collapsed due to the fire. Well, actually, three of them did. In the space of a couple of hours. And did so at a speed that suggests that the floors below them simply ceased to exist as the floors above fell. And yes, it's kerosene, not gasoline. Lower octane rating. But the flashpoints of the two are close enough to one another (-40 C for gasoline, 29 C for kerosene, which is a lot in human space but nothing for chemistry) that any spark hot enough to light a cigarette would set them off. And the higher flashpoint of jet fuel was one of the reasons the towers burned so long. Think of carpeting, wallpaper, ceiling tiles -- wicking all that kerosene and then burning slowly like a candle. Heat on heat, mounting slowly, on the central steel framework of the buildings until their central columns were like hot solder. You can tell you're a writer -- this is fine fiction. Hot solder my achin' ass. More like hot high-tensile steel. And LOTS and LOTS of it. You know how much I respect you, Warren, but you're acting very strangely about this. It's not high heat in a crock pot that makes your stew; it's a long, slow cook. Yeah. My crockpots almost always collapse directly into their footprints after a couple of hours. That's why I don't use 'em any more. Can't afford to clean up the mess they leave in the foundation of my house. I'm reminded of an old Monty Python sketch, wherein John Cleese, in an intense bid to become a freemason, proposes a new living-block apartment model to prospective purchasers. The tower is built on a central-column design (as are all modern buildings), and he claims this will totally preclude the possibility of structural collapse. As he says so, his model collapses, the little model floors falling down along the central column he was promoting. This is almost exactly what the WTC towers did. Right: the WTC collapse was just a really enormous Monty Python sketch. The towers were designed to come down. That they were made to do so in 2001 by attack is surprising from a cultural point of view, but not at all from the perspective of engineering or modern architecture. Since you've been so insistence on proof, please provide documentation that WTC1 and 2 were designed to come down. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Dave Land wrote: On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I'm with Dan on this one (!). That a fully-loaded 737 can cause, after impact, buildings to fall down is not even remotely shocking. Of course, the buildings were scarcely damaged by the planes' impact. Big chunks of the planes went clear through the building and landed on the other side. Some didn't even strike the core of the building. Didn't have to. The damage wasn't solely because of the kinetic force of the planes, which of course are designed to be as light as possible given their workload. Just down the street from my house there's a steam engine in a park. It's about 50 feet long and made of cast iron (this was once a working railroad engine), and it weighs about the same as an empty 747. Of course, tornadoes have been known to drive blades of straw into tree trunks, and a small 9mm slug is capable of destroying a human life. Sometimes mass isn't necessary to wreak unrecoverable damage. This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs myself about four years ago). What's amazing, in this light, is that the buildings didn't fall before they did. Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. See my exchange with Nick regarding slow fires. The girders didn't have to melt; they didn't even have to buckle. All that was needed was for their rivets to shear, for the flooring to come loose from the central tower — and blam. Any architect will tell you that ALL modern skyscrapers can suffer a similar fate under similar circumstances. Buildings under construction have collapsed like pancakes because their upper floors were de-reinforced before the concrete shrouding their girders was cured. Just a few sheets of plywood held them up. And you're suggesting, seriously, that a fire burning for 90 or so minutes wouldn't do appreciable damage to a building's structural integrity? And, of course, it doesn't matter how much fuel there was. They could have FILLED every floor of building with a couple of feet of Jet A and replaced the air with pure oxygen, and it still couldn't possibly burn hot enough to bring the buildings down. Prove it. Show your stats to support your assertion that the WTC towers could have stood up under fires burning on every floor. We already know that fires on thee floors were enough to bring them down, so I think you'll be hard-pressed here. Come on, Dave -- this is really disappointing from you. We don't know what the hell happened on 9/11. Yes, actually, we do. Islamic fundamentalists took just enough flight instruction to know how to guide a plane, then hijacked some planes, and flew them as missiles into designated targets. Two of the targets collapsed after several hours of burning and progressive structural weakening. One of the targets, built in a much earlier era to survive, as much as possible, a direct nuke attack, managed to fare well. The fourth target wasn't reached, but cockpit voice recordings seem to indicate that the hijackers of the Pennsylvania plane were, at best, unprepared to face resistance from passengers. Where, please tell me, do you think the mystery lies here? -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Dave Land wrote: You know how much I respect you, Warren, but you're acting very strangely about this. That's pretty damned funny. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress The Seven-Year Mirror http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf http://books.nightwares.com/ockrassa/Storms_on_a_Flat_Placid_Sea.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 6:37 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 28, 2006, at 6:06 PM, Dave Land wrote: This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs myself about four years ago). What's amazing, in this light, is that the buildings didn't fall before they did. Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. See my exchange with Nick regarding slow fires. The girders didn't have to melt; they didn't even have to buckle. All that was needed was for their rivets to shear, for the flooring to come loose from the central tower — and blam. Any architect will tell you that ALL modern skyscrapers can suffer a similar fate under similar circumstances. Anyone who has looked into it can tell you that this has happened to exactly three buildings. Ever. I don't care how many imaginary architects you want to cite, because in the real world, it hasn't worked that way. It. Never. Happens. (Except this once.) But I'm supposed to accept this as normal? That's just crazy talk. Here's the deal: find documentation for just one instance of any steel building that collapsed precisely into its footprint due to any sort of fire at all prior to 9/11/01, and I'll take myself out of this discussion with sincere apologies to you. Buildings under construction have collapsed like pancakes because their upper floors were de-reinforced before the concrete shrouding their girders was cured. Just a few sheets of plywood held them up. And you're suggesting, seriously, that a fire burning for 90 or so minutes wouldn't do appreciable damage to a building's structural integrity? Thank you: that is precisely what I have been suggesting (and suggesting is exactly the word: I don't know what happened; nobody does), because in roughly 100 years of steel-reinforced construction, not a single building has failed in this way until September 11, 2001. The ones that have collapsed as you describe were under construction: they were incomplete. And, of course, it doesn't matter how much fuel there was. They could have FILLED every floor of building with a couple of feet of Jet A and replaced the air with pure oxygen, and it still couldn't possibly burn hot enough to bring the buildings down. Prove it. Show your stats to support your assertion that the WTC towers could have stood up under fires burning on every floor. We already know that fires on thee floors were enough to bring them down, so I think you'll be hard-pressed here. We don't know that at all. We know that there was a fire, and we know that the buildings collapsed. We do not know why or how they collapsed. We most definitely do not know that fires on three floors were enough to bring them down. By the way, I have no interest in proving it. I don't have to. We're just a bunch of friends yacking on the Internet about it. Come on, Dave -- this is really disappointing from you. Nice to know that our surprise in each other's position is mutual: it bespeaks an underlying respect that will survive this exchange. We don't know what the hell happened on 9/11. Yes, actually, we do. Islamic fundamentalists took just enough flight instruction to know how to guide a plane, then hijacked some planes, and flew them as missiles into designated targets. Two of the targets collapsed after several hours of burning and progressive structural weakening. We do not know that. We know that two of the targets collapsed after several hours of burning. We have a lot of guesses -- some more rational than others -- as to why. Maybe it was termites, not thermite. Where, please tell me, do you think the mystery lies here? In the bits that you conveniently assume -- the conclusion from which you argue so unsuccessfully: that the buildings definitely collapsed due to structural weakening. I'm not saying that they didn't necessarily fail in that way: only that it is extraordinarily unlikely -- representing a singular event in architectural physics, an event at least as unlikely as a government plot to murder thousands of American citizens to enrage them enough to support an evil invasion of another country. We just don't know, and probably never will. Except for those who make up their minds before the facts are in. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 6:38 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jun 28, 2006, at 6:29 PM, Dave Land wrote: You know how much I respect you, Warren, but you're acting very strangely about this. That's pretty damned funny. That's me, the comic relief. For those who don't know, I have the highest regard for Warren as the list's leading atheologian. I wish that those who call themselves Christians (and other religions) would approach matters of faith with the seriousness that Warren does. That said, we're poles apart at present on the WTC thingy. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 8:07 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples On Jun 28, 2006, at 11:18 AM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: I'm with Dan on this one (!). That a fully-loaded 737 can cause, after impact, buildings to fall down is not even remotely shocking. Of course, the buildings were scarcely damaged by the planes' impact. Big chunks of the planes went clear through the building and landed on the other side. Some didn't even strike the core of the building. This is an aircraft that carries enough jet fuel to cover a football field to the depth of one foot with highly combustible fluid (do the math; check me -- this is what I recall from working out the figs myself about four years ago). What's amazing, in this light, is that the buildings didn't fall before they did. Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. And, of course, it doesn't matter how much fuel there was. They could have FILLED every floor of building with a couple of feet of Jet A and replaced the air with pure oxygen, and it still couldn't possibly burn hot enough to bring the buildings down. I've posted a number of studies by mechanical and structural engineers on the collapse. A plethora of potential mechanisms were given. The most reasonable conclusion that I saw was that it was probably a combination of many of them. Many of them were published by folks who analyzed data that were provided to them. I just found one that was quickly published, based more or less on public knowledge. It's at: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html The lead author was Thomas Eagar, the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. My guess is that he has considerable experience in the field. He suggests that differential heating was part of the problem. It makes sense to me. Every professional work that I've read on this has discussed the weakening of steel in the 500C to 800C range. The steel doesn't have to melt for there to be a problem. So: Sorry. Bullshit., to coin a phrase. We don't know what the hell happened on 9/11. The administration's just-so story is no better or worse than the conspiracy theorists': they're all wild-ass guesses based on too little information and too many jumped conclusions. But, it's not just the administration's just so story The overwhelming professional consensus is that the data are consistent with the impact of the planes and the resultant fire causing the collapse. That is a factin the exact same sense that there is professional consensus on anthropological global warming. These are not imaginary people. These are professions, with very reasonable looking training and jobs who have investigated the problem. I've referenced a number of them, and quoted some at length. Let's assume, hypothetically, that there was a problem reconciling the collapse with what was known. In that case, the nature of the debate would be different. People would search for unconsidered factors in the details. Instead, we have an overabundance of possible causes. It is true that the collapse of these high rises were singular. But, so was the event. I cannot think of any other high rises that suffered similar damage, and then a prolonged 500C+ fire at the point of the fire. Indeed, the impact was greater than the impact it was designed for, a 707 IIRC. Finally, out of curiosity, are you familiar with the kind of stress modeling that mechanical and structural engineers do regularly, and have applied to this problem. I've quoted, earlier, web sites that discuss this modeling work. Having managed projects that involved extremely rugged environments, I have some feel for the finite element analysis programs that have been used. I have a feel for shock and vibration problems, having had to design for 1500 g shock and 20 g rms vibration at elevated temperatures (just 175 C, but that still has an effect). My tool, alas, has failed in a well where the drill string resonance was so bad, bolts with 15,000 ft-lbs of torque were backed out by vibration. With this background, what they write makes sense to me. I would like to suggest that these, very real and often quoted, mechanical and structural engineers, modelers, etc. have a decent understanding of the dynamics. I'm not taking them on pure faith. Indeed, your arguments contradict what I know, while their arguments do not. In essence, I'm trying to understand why you feel it's impossible for your intuition to be wrong, and professionals to be right. I know the results are unique, but so are the circumstances. Unique circumstances can produce unique results. Now, if you can show 10 buildings that have
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 28, 2006, at 9:18 PM, Dan Minette wrote: In essence, I'm trying to understand why you feel it's impossible for your intuition to be wrong, and professionals to be right. I know the results are unique, but so are the circumstances. Unique circumstances can produce unique results. Now, if you can show 10 buildings that have gone through similar trauma, and remained standing, then that's a different story. But, as long as the circumstances are unique, unique results should not be surprising. Thank you for your detailed, rational message -- I don't have time to respond in kind tonight, but hope to follow your leads and learn more about this. In all honesty -- and knowing that brother Warren will see this post, too -- I got all het up over Warren's insistence on proofs and failure to offer same, and applied a bit more heat than light to the discussion. Your message didn't get my dander up, just my curiosity. Thanks again, Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 29/06/2006, at 4:06 AM, Dave Land wrote: Fuel that, when burning, generates less than 800 degrees C, about a third of the temperature needed to melt the steel used in the WTC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phase_diag_iron_carbon-color_temp.png You will see that iron undergoes a phase change at 600C, becoming soft and pliable. It is this phase change that allows farriers and swordsmiths to shape iron in a controlled manner. Steel changes from the solid metal it is at room temperature, to a material with a consistency and structural integrity about the same as well-chewed gum. And, of course, it doesn't matter how much fuel there was. They could have FILLED every floor of building with a couple of feet of Jet A and replaced the air with pure oxygen, and it still couldn't possibly burn hot enough to bring the buildings down. If you accept that the fuel burns above 600C as you have above, you *have* to accept that the structural integrity of the floors where the fuel fires were was fatally compromised by the heat, as the Fe phase diagram shows. So: Sorry. Bullshit., to coin a phrase. We don't know what the hell happened on 9/11. The administration's just-so story is no better or worse than the conspiracy theorists': they're all wild-ass guesses based on too little information and too many jumped conclusions. Or possibly based on some school-level physical chemistry. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/26/06, Robert G. Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What was the distance between adjacent buildings in that part of town? There was some on-street parking on the east side of the towers, so it was maybe a half-city block in that direction. To the south and west, they were fairly close to the adjacent buildings -- fairly wide sidewalks, but typical Manhattan streets. I can't quite recall the distance to the north... And this is all from memory. And there was a large plaza between the buildings, of course. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:26 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples If you are terrorists why should you care whether the buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't you want them to topple to do more damage? How much control do you think that the terrorists had? While the hijacker pilots did have a bit of training, it's hard to imagine that they would be able to do a much better job of hitting the towers with planes. IIRC, Bin Ladin was surprised when the towers actually fell. Is there any indication at all that the folks flying the planes had more of a plan than flying the planes into the towers and causing a lot of damage? Bingo again! And that is the only reason it is suspicious at all. What was the distance between adjacent buildings in that part of town? I wasn't aware, but there was a path of total destruction, about a tower wide, for 1.5 to 2 blocks away from the WTC. You can see it on the before and after photos at http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm# Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Seeberger Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 9:51 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples - Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:17 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples [Snip a godawful amount of quoted text] All of this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what I see on the videos of the collapse. Well of course it does Dan. So, it seems that we agree that the planes flying into the building are sufficient for the buildings to collapse. We also agree that the pattern of the collapse is consistent with rigorous structural analysis of the buildings. The explanations these gentlemen give are tailored to explain what was seen in the evidence, what they don't do is eliminate alternate explanations and that is the item that I would like to see. The alternative explanation is that, in addition to the planes flying into the WTC, bombs were placed by persons unknown, but probably connected with someone like Dick Cheney, a while before that...and that the planes flew into just those floors where bombs were placed. The bomb people either had to be really really good spooks, or coordinated with WTC security. Given the track record of the CIA and the plumbers, etc., I don't think of anyone who is quite that good. Further, the blasts couldn't have occurred on the outside structures, because there would have been some outward puffsthat would not be part of the general flameseven with the burning, multiple explosions of would be seeable. But, on the inside, which is full of melted aluminum which could explode, the bombs could be masked. So, I don't think that I could falsify the existence of modest size bombs on the inner columns. It appears that we agree that the well accepted explanation is both simple and sufficient to explain what has been observed. In contrast, the conspiracy theory relies on a number of variables all lining up perfectly to conceal the blast. For example, how did all of this coordination work, between the AQ members and Dick, or whoever set up the bombs? How did they know just which floors to hit, and how could those undertrained pilots be so good at hitting just the right floors? In a real sense, it is impossible to absolutely falsify conspiracy theories because they are usually fairly well immunized from falsification. For example, someone who thought JFK was a secret Commie and that RFK decided to have him killed because of the disgrace he would bring to the family name could not be dissuaded by the lack of concrete evidence. That just proved how good RFK was. I would even trust your judgement of such an endevour, but such has not been undertaken or even really been officially commented on. (At least I have not become aware of it and that is also within the realms of possibilityG) It seems that you are very skeptical about the analysis that was done. I'm trying to find out why you think these guys are wrong. It is that it is *an* explanation, but not neccessarily *the* explanation. I'm also trying to understand what you believe might have happened. I can think of a couple theoretical possibilities. 1) There no hijacked planes. The pictures of the second plane flying into the WTC faked were faked. Then the witnesses would have to be faked also, but there are just too many of them for that to be true. 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set off in the floors that they hit. Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the official explanations precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go. Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say has been without doubt eliminated as a possibility. (The point being that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or ignored) So did the conspiracy theories about Clinton murdering Ron Brown. As we have previously discussed, my main concern is that all three buildings collapsed fairly well into their basements with about as little collateral damage as could be possible. Why pancaking and not toppling? For full toppling to occur, one of the sides of the base would have to be damaged. Only the top was damaged, so the whole tower wouldn't topple. Indeed, one of the tops _did_ start to topple before the whole thing gave way. That's clearly seen. The long quote I reported discussed why this behavior is very consistent with what is known about the building. From your post: He noted that videotapes showed some tilting of the top portion
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
Although at least muon-catalyzed cold fusion worked . . . although in the short life of a muon, it apparently cannot catalyze enough fusion reactions to make as much energy as it took to make the muon in the first place, so it is not a great new source of energy. Muon-catalyzed fusion is elegant: the muons cause protons to come closer together! If I remember rightly, a muon as currently produced by humans must catalyze more than 800 fusion reactions before the method becomes energy-effective. (I cannot remember how many a muon catalyzes, but the number is, or was, considerably smaller.) I was in Provo at the time, and I'll try to find a summary I wrote of what went on if anyone's interested . . . Yes, I am curious. -- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.rattlesnake.com http://www.teak.cc ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/27/2006 11:34:12 AM, Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 10:26 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples If you are terrorists why should you care whether the buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't you want them to topple to do more damage? How much control do you think that the terrorists had? While the hijacker pilots did have a bit of training, it's hard to imagine that they would be able to do a much better job of hitting the towers with planes. IIRC, Bin Ladin was surprised when the towers actually fell. Is there any indication at all that the folks flying the planes had more of a plan than flying the planes into the towers and causing a lot of damage? I don't believe they did. My suspicions fell along the lines of the plot being discovered ahead of time by parties unidentified who took advantage of the situation for gain, or less likely, that parties unidentified were aware of or were party to the plot and were cold blooded enough to co-operate in order to change the political climate here. There are people who stood to gain from such a disaster politically or economically and I have had few qualms about casting my yellow eye around since the OKC bombing and subsequent revelation of the conspiracy behind it. (McVeigh and all) There are some very nasty people in the world. Bingo again! And that is the only reason it is suspicious at all. What was the distance between adjacent buildings in that part of town? I wasn't aware, but there was a path of total destruction, about a tower wide, for 1.5 to 2 blocks away from the WTC. You can see it on the before and after photos at http://www.spaceimaging.com/gallery/9-11/default.htm# Thanks Dan! Every photo I have seen in the past (That I recall at least) was too far away or too close to show the extent of the debris field around the towers. With these pics I can approximate the distances and it seems to me that the buildings collapsed in accordance with my expectations. So often you hear the phrase Collapsed into thier own basement/footprint and these photos put the lie to that. The towers splashed downward *and outward* until the kinetic energy was spent and if there was some toppling then you can see the debris in all the right places. Last night I was ruminating (thats talking to myself for you laymenG) that the tilting of the south tower should have left debris at a distance at least 10% of the buildings height lateral to its base and these pics convince me that I was not far off the mark in my guesstimation. That was *my* intuitive guess and I suppose I was being overly conservative. Damn that's a lot of joules at ground level! Now I think it is time I spent the next ten minutes in contemplative silence in remembrance of the WTC dead. xponent Praying My Guilt Away Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On the behalf of Mr Gibson:
Greetings,
Embrace the horror. Face our fears.
There is much more empirical evidence than this recent news. I've
long
stated that only a Thermite Infestation explains the anomalies around
this structural failure. The official story breaks down now that the
emotion of that day has allowed a calmer assessment of what occurred.
Sites are literally popping up every week displaying serious
scholarship involving labs analyzing those events and the {paltry}
debris remaining to examine. Sure, the wing-nuts who saw black UN
helicopters abducting cattle in the 90's subscribe to notions that
holographic ghost-gun planes faked the collisions, but Professor Jones
has bravely faced the media winds spinning obfuscation around his
findings as well as the back-room sticks and carrots offered to change
his line of hard science investigation{s}.
Just consider a few glaring facts:
Never has a steel construction building collapsed from fire...
before this day - and twice {I can't count WTC7 as third}.
Molten steel unearthed six months after the collapse displays
energy
levels simple kinetic forces cannot foster.
I-beams impaled in the high up surrounding buildings demonstrate
an
outward force acting on the support structure, not a vertically
collapsing structure.
Squib jets of debris and dust ejected far below the collapsing
event-wave{s} that fell at free-fall speeds can only be explained by
controlled demolition. Engineering calculations have shaved the
possible speed for this building at essentially 1 second per floor...
yet even if we generously cut this in half this leaves some 45
seconds
for such a building to fall... yet watching the clips show they fell
in
some 11 seconds. The official public line is a tough one for physics
mavens to swallow.
We honor the firemen who brave events like these, but shall we
also
dismiss their testimony that the interior lobby was wrecked when they
arrived and full of wounded people claiming the basement exploded,
that
many later heard successive explosive sounds heralding the collapse
and
quite familiar to those who have witnessed controlled demolitions?
Was reality distorting the laws of physics that day, or was a yarn of
lies being spun before us?
Any good detective looks at a crime scene and no matter what the
presentation of initial facts appear to indicate they MUST ask, who
benefits?
OK, that's just a few things I chew over just, but the linch-pin for
what occurred that day remains World Trade Center Seven the
building was not hit by plane debris, yet suffered mysterious internal
fires and collapsed by the end of that dark day - when we were all in
deep shock and anger. Shall we ignore the purpose of this building
was
as a command and control center for Guilliani's FEMA prep and was also
a law enforcement and intelligence {FBI and CIA + others} operations
center?
How's this factoid: Silverstien built and owned this building before
bidding on those two towers. Before purchase, he insisted the
insurance policy include a {new} terrorism pay-out clause ... that
today has reached $3+ billion dollars and may go as high as $7
billion.
Here's the clincher for junior detectives: Silverstien put a mere 15
million dollars down to buy those two towers. If only I could put
such
a slim percentage down on property.
This is the achilles heel of that day and what will ultimately trip up
those responsible, and implicate those who have made a point of
benefiting from these events.
If people in Power {or the flip-side, Money} are willing to dispense
wholesale death overseas for a megabucks, what's to keep such
disconnected sociopaths from inflicting casualties here at home for a
few megabucks {+ uber-power} more?!?
For further examples in our own history, I'd suggest a look at the
1962
Operation Northwoods where OUR military proposed sending airplanes
into US buildings to foment war upon Castro's Cuba.
JFK had the good sense to reject this and fired the main instigators.
Comment?
- Jonathan -
Ponderables...
911 Research
www.wtc7.net {DVD just released last night}
Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime {large movie downloads available}
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?
cat=9997med=0ord=Namestrt=0vid=92epi=0typ=0
The Big Wedding {interview rebroadcast just last week} via Guns and
Butter
http://www.kpfa.org/cgi-bin/gen-mpegurl.m3u?
server=157.22.130.4port=80file=dummy.m3umount=/data/20060621-
Wed1300.mp3
PS - one more aside adding some flavor to the mix: why does the FBI
_NOT_ list Osama as responsible for 9-11? Because they cannot link
him
to those events... impossible as this appears to the consuming public.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
In a message dated 6/27/2006 12:31:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much control do you think that the terrorists had? While the hijacker pilots did have a bit of training, it's hard to imagine that they would be able to do a much better job of hitting the towers with planes. IIRC, Bin Ladin was surprised when the towers actually fell. OK - I know I am dense but if you are going to blow up the building why fly planes into them? Why not fly planes into something else? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 8:17 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples In a message dated 6/27/2006 12:31:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How much control do you think that the terrorists had? While the hijacker pilots did have a bit of training, it's hard to imagine that they would be able to do a much better job of hitting the towers with planes. IIRC, Bin Ladin was surprised when the towers actually fell. OK - I know I am dense but if you are going to blow up the building why fly planes into them? Why not fly planes into something else? The conspiracy theory is, as far as I can tell, that some very powerful folks wanted to scare Americans. They got wind of the AQ plot. They thought that flying planes into the WTC, which would then just burn for a while and probably have to be torn down, wasn't bad enough to institute the Patriot act, or maybe an industrial strength Patriot act. Thus, they placed bombs to go off after the planes hit. In short, while AQ did fly planes in the buildings, the real enemy is a shadowy powerful conservative groupwith ties into the CIA, the White House, etc. Your point is _very_ consistent with my viewsthe above is my take on the internet conspiracy theories we see posted here. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/27/06, Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although at least muon-catalyzed cold fusion worked . . . although in the short life of a muon, it apparently cannot catalyze enough fusion reactions to make as much energy as it took to make the muon in the first place, so it is not a great new source of energy. Muon-catalyzed fusion is elegant: the muons cause protons to come closer together! If I remember rightly, a muon as currently produced by humans must catalyze more than 800 fusion reactions before the method becomes energy-effective. (I cannot remember how many a muon catalyzes, but the number is, or was, considerably smaller.) I was in Provo at the time, and I'll try to find a summary I wrote of what went on if anyone's interested . . . Yes, I am curious. -- Robert J. Chassell The number appears to have been around 100. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon-catalyzed_fusion ~maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue. This would be a blockbuster if true. But, he gives no evidence that it is true. He just claims it. Also, I think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold fusion. :-) There is some interesting discussion in the comment section. It pretty much all sounds like conspiracy-talk, but then it has always been my opinion that there was something not quite right with the official explanations. I'm not quite sure why you say that. The official explanation is pretty simple: planes fly into buildingsdamages buildingsfire weakens steel to the point where the remaining columns give way, buildings go boom. This has been investigated by a number of structural engineers, who have found a number of different hypotheses for the relative importance of various factors. If there was a gaping hole in the theory, why would there be an overabundance of conventional explanations? In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect. It's all so perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life. Real investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust like real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/26/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect. It's all so perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life. Real investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust like real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks. And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually (okay, always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)... Yet I remain optimistic that a reasonable explanation can be found. There's an awful lot unexplained, IMO. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:41 PM To: Killer Bs Discussion Subject: Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples On 6/26/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect. It's all so perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life. Real investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust like real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks. And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually (okay, always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)... So, what you are arguing is that such an action is counter-intuitive. OK, I can see that. But, one needs to ask where that intuition is trained. How often have we looked at the collapse of the top of, say, a 20 story building? Once the top of the building started to fall, it was a classic shock wave. Yet I remain optimistic that a reasonable explanation can be found. There's an awful lot unexplained, IMO. Then, why do the professionals who examine this think otherwise? All one has to do to accept the official explanation is to accept that the physics of large building collapse isn't well informed by watching small building collapses. I'd further argue that one reason for this is the fact that when an entire building is being weakened, the bottom falls first. Second, even when the collapse of a 100 story building with a given floor plan size has a bigger impact footprint than the collapse of a 3 story building of the same floor plan size, it looks smaller, because we compare it to the height of the building. I posted a number of professional reviews here before. One of them was at http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?iid=3742isa=Category Let me quote a bit from it quote Although the towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707, 'the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next-a key design omission,' stated Eduardo Kausel of MIT CEE and panel member 'It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building-paper, desks, drapes,' McNamara said, not the much hotter temperature of burning aviation fuel. In general, the panalists agreed that as the structure warped and weakened at the top of each tower, the frame, along with the concrete slabs, furniture, file cabinets and other materials, became an enormous consolidated weight that eventually crushed the lower portions of the structure below. Connor's collapse theory focused on weaknesses in how the vertical and horizontal structural members were tied together. The floor trusses sat on beams and were tied down so the core was locked to the exterior. If a damaged floor system were to fall, it would break the end connections in the lower floors, and they would tumble down on top of each other. He theorized that the fire weakened the supporting joint connection. When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down, a process that accelerated until the structure fell in on itself. Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazart at Northwestern Univ. 'I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the floor trusses and columns so that they became like chewing gum and that was enough to trigger the collapse. The floor trusses are likely to have been the first to sag and fail. As soon as the upper floors became unsupported, debris from the failed floor systems rained down onto the floors below, which eventually gave way. The dynamic forces were so large that the downward motion became unstoppable.' Using two simple models, Kausel determined that the fall of the upper building portion down onto a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the buildings' design loads by at least an order of magnitude. Probably all these failure mechanisms occurred and interacted, said panelist Oral Buyukozturk of MIT CEE. 'The prolonged effect of high heat is likely to have led to the buckling of the columns, collapse of the floors, as well as to the shearing of the floors upon the failure the joints.' He noted that videotapes showed some tilting of the top portion of the south tower before it collapsed. 'This indicates the buckling of one building face while the adjacent face was bending.' After that, the upper portions of the tower are shown disintegrating, with 'a dynamic effect and amplification process' following that led to a progressive collapse-'a kind of pancaking or deck of cards effect,' down to ground zero. Robert McNamara's failure theory 'focuses on the connections that hold the structure together,' but he
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On Jun 26, 2006, at 10:40 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: On 6/26/06, Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a sense, the conspiracy theorists rely on the CSI effect. It's all so perfect on TV, we expect it to be like that in real life. Real investigations of real happenings are usually much more messyjust like real science is a lot more messy than science textbooks. And... real, unplanned building collapses due to fire are usually (okay, always) a lot messier (in that they never neatly pancake)... In fact, the number of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire in the history of the world is three: the fallen WTC buildings. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
At 12:29 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue. This would be a blockbuster if true. But, he gives no evidence that it is true. He just claims it. Also, I think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold fusion. :-) Um . . . presumably you do know what that Steve Jones (there are two at BYU) was best known for before he got on this WTC kick? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:03 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples At 12:29 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue. This would be a blockbuster if true. But, he gives no evidence that it is true. He just claims it. Also, I think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold fusion. :-) Um . . . presumably you do know what that Steve Jones (there are two at BYU) was best known for before he got on this WTC kick? I once knew, but forgot that he did real cold fusion with muons...this is too funny. :-) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
At 02:19 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn!Blankenship Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 2:03 PM To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples At 12:29 PM Monday 6/26/2006, Dan Minette wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert G. Seeberger Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2006 8:45 PM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue. This would be a blockbuster if true. But, he gives no evidence that it is true. He just claims it. Also, I think it's rather funny that it's from the same state that gave us cold fusion. :-) Um . . . presumably you do know what that Steve Jones (there are two at BYU) was best known for before he got on this WTC kick? I once knew, but forgot that he did real cold fusion with muons...this is too funny. :-) Although at least muon-catalyzed cold fusion worked . . . although in the short life of a muon, it apparently cannot catalyze enough fusion reactions to make as much energy as it took to make the muon in the first place, so it is not a great new source of energy. I was in Provo at the time, and I'll try to find a summary I wrote of what went on if anyone's interested . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
- Original Message - From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' brin-l@mccmedia.com Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 1:17 PM Subject: RE: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples [Snip a godawful amount of quoted text] All of this makes sense to me, and is consistent with what I see on the videos of the collapse. Well of course it does Dan. The explanations these gentlemen give are tailored to explain what was seen in the evidence, what they don't do is eliminate alternate explanations and that is the item that I would like to see. I would even trust your judgement of such an endevour, but such has not been undertaken or even really been officially commented on. (At least I have not become aware of it and that is also within the realms of possibilityG) It seems that you are very skeptical about the analysis that was done. I'm trying to find out why you think these guys are wrong. It is that it is *an* explanation, but not neccessarily *the* explanation. I'm also trying to understand what you believe might have happened. I can think of a couple theoretical possibilities. 1) There no hijacked planes. The pictures of the second plane flying into the WTC faked were faked. Then the witnesses would have to be faked also, but there are just too many of them for that to be true. 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set off in the floors that they hit. Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the official explanations precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go. Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say has been without doubt eliminated as a possibility. (The point being that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or ignored) As we have previously discussed, my main concern is that all three buildings collapsed fairly well into their basements with about as little collateral damage as could be possible. Why pancaking and not toppling? From your post: He noted that videotapes showed some tilting of the top portion of the south tower before it collapsed. 'This indicates the buckling of one building face while the adjacent face was bending.' After that, the upper portions of the tower are shown disintegrating, with 'a dynamic effect and amplification process' Why was this tilting not amplified? It should have been. xponent Always Questions Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
In a message dated 6/26/2006 10:51:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set off in the floors that they hit. Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the official explanations precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go. Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say has been without doubt eliminated as a possibility. (The point being that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or ignored) So if you are going to blow up the buildings with explosives why fly the planes into the buildings? If you are terrorists why should you care whether the buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't you want them to topple to do more damage? ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
On 6/26/2006 9:57:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 6/26/2006 10:51:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 2) The planes did hit the building, but explosive charges were set off in the floors that they hit. Bingo, and it resides as a suspicion, not a belief. None of the official explanations precludes the sort of conspiracy required. The conspiracy theorists addressed such right from the get-go. Now, I'm *not* saying that the conspiracy theorists are correct or that any of what they say is true, but very little of what they say has been without doubt eliminated as a possibility. (The point being that they say quite a bit and it goes pretty much unchallenged and/or ignored) So if you are going to blow up the buildings with explosives why fly the planes into the buildings? Well, that's the heart of the idea of a conspiracy, eh? Knock down the targeted buildings but leave the rest of the business district mostly unscathed. If you are terrorists why should you care whether the buildings go straight down or topple over. Wouldn't you want them to topple to do more damage? Bingo again! And that is the only reason it is suspicious at all. What was the distance between adjacent buildings in that part of town? xponent Rumors Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue. This would be a blockbuster if true. There is some interesting discussion in the comment section. It pretty much all sounds like conspiracy-talk, but then it has always been my opinion that there was something not quite right with the official explanations. xponent Theres Smoke Maru rob ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
