Specific Engineering Questions

Over the years since the attacks many engineers etc. have examined the collapses including the various government reports.

I think the engineering community at large would agree that such analysis can never be perfect. I think they would also agree that their are almost always undressed questions and often omissions over-sites or possible errors.
These are of course studies over time and improved models are formed.

I thought I would start a thread for specific engineering questions regarding the collapses.

I would like to concentrate on the questions themselves rather than conjectural explanations.

so...

What specific technically questions would you like to see explored as further analysis is carried out? What do you see as an open question or specific flaw in the current model?

Please feel free to ask our resident experts *honest* questions about what you do not know that might already be covered. I know I intend to.

Once the collapse initiated I assume a certain amount of force was required to cause complete failure.
I also realize that with a structure of this size we are looking at rather un-intuitive scales and I assume that very little movement would have resulted in massive pressures.

I have seen a variety of questions regarding the amount of lean seen in the upper sections as the collapse initiated and progressed as well as the distance/velocity the upper section would need to move to initiate a sustained collapse.

Could one of the resident experts that knows more than I comment on what is known about these issues and how well they are addressed within the various models.

Personally I don't really see the issue but as it has been raised in the past I thought it would be a good starter for the thread.

equals total progressive collapse.

That is a paper by Bazant and Zhou that was submitted two days after 9/11.
Its model proposes that the top of WTC1 completely ripped loose all its
columns, fell one story, and hit in perfect alignment with perfect rigidity
the lower story columns. It then maintains that this lightly constructed
upper block pounded on the heavier lower portion of the tower floor by floor
without reactive forces damaging the upper block, so that only when this
pristine magic upper block reached the ground did it decompose itself.

This absurdity remains the intellectual underpinning of the official
story, even though the video evidence shows that the top block came apart
before the destruction of the part below the impact zone even started.

I don't have time to research your post myself but based on your past postings I have no intention of taking it at face value.

demonstrates how this is still the intellectual underpinning of the current report with clear specific examples?

AE911Truth has a working link:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf


Introduction

To structural engineers, the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers on 9/11/2001
came as the greatest surprise since the collapse of Tacoma Narrows Bridge in 1940. Immediately
after the aircraft impact, the structural frame behaved as expected, but not after the fire.
To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001; Baˇzant 2001; Baˇzant and
Zhou 2002) that viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns caused the top part of
tower to fall through the height of at least one story, and then shown that the kinetic energy of
the impact on the lower part must have exceeded the energy absorption capacity of the lower
part by an order of magnitude. A meticulous investigation of unprecedented scope and detail,
conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST 2005), supports this explanation. Although NIST did not analyze the overall process of
dynamic progressive collapse below the fire zone, it verified a sequence of effects that triggered
the collapse: (1) scraping of much of steel insulation by flying objects during aircraft impact
(without which the towers would not have collapsed, as concluded by NIST); (2) cutting of many
columns, and damage with large deflections of others during aircraft impact; (3) subsequent load
redistributions among columns; (4) sagging of heated floor trusses and their catenary action,
evidenced by multistory inward bowing of perimeter columns; and (5) viscoplastic buckling of
heated, damaged and overloaded columns.



NIST apparently regards Bazant's explanation as sufficiently compelling that they feel no
need to explain how collapse initiation leads to total progressive collapse. Anders
Bjorkman provides the quotes:

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/nist.htm


NISTNCSTAR1-6D chapter 5.2 says

"The aircraft impacted the north wall of WTC 1 at 8:46 a.m. … between Floor 93 and Floor 98. … The subsequent fires weakened structural subsystems, including the core columns, floors and exterior walls. The core displaced downward … At 100 min (at 10:28:18), the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried 7 percent, 35 percent and 30 percent more gravity load loads … and the south wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively., … At 10.28 a.m., 102 min after the aircraft impact, WTC1 began to collapse. … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

From chapter 5.3 we learn:

"The aircraft … impacted the south wall of WTC 2 at 9.03 a.m. … between Floor 78 and Floor 84. … (9:59 am) … The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

"The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by the structure. Global collapse ensued."

Makes no claim I see regarding the columns all failing at once. And it definitely makes no claim I see about the upper section remaining intact.

I am aware of no other justification than Bazant's and Seffen's
for NIST's failure to explain how collapse initiation yields
total progressive collapse. Are you aware of any?

If you know who some of them are, perhaps you could PM them and ask them to introduce themselves in this thread?

apparently I have used some terms I should not have.

How about more knowledgeable people?

Anyway I was hoping for example that those with an actual mechanical engineering background might jump in as I was hoping to limit the scope to those types of questions.

They are far closer to an expert than I.

degrees. I am one of them. I have an ME degree and over twenty years experience in quite a few relevant 9/11 topics.

Frankly that counts for very little as the majority of those wedded to the various controlled, explosives demolitions, and other far flung theories have no real interest in what knowledgeable people might say unless it is line with their fantasy world.

hence my 'honest' questions comment in the OP.

Anyway I was hoping people such as yourself might help those of us actually interested in the answers and more importantly post any shortcomings etc. that you see in the reports so I/we can have an interesting educational discussion for once.

Are their any unanswered questions you see in the report that would be interesting to further study (even if such is impossible)?

NIST I guess to start with. Any if you have a neat question.

What made the hat truss on WTC1 fail with absolute symmetrical
precision, as shown by the straigh-down drop of the TV antenna
before the collapse started?

several people have engineering backgrounds.

Class of '77. I have about enough credits to have earned a Masters, but was busy making money and never bothered to do a thesis.

I also have 30 years experience in the field of magnetic storage devices (tape, disk etc). My work exposes me to every area of mechanical engineering, but I mostly focus on very tiny mechanical vibrations that muck things up.

under all three buildings is one I'd like answered. :hi:
ETA: Or was it Al?

as opposed to a "cocktail" of many materials that day, someone might take your question seriously. Why in the world you think an event like 9/11 would create pools of pure anything baffles me.

you're on my ignore list for months now. Don't know what you said, don't care. No need to reply to my threads expecting my response. :hi:

it was likely a combination of several metals. jberryhill has posted several times an Fe-Al phase diagram showing how mixing the two metals greatly reduces the melting temperature compared to the melting temperatures of the metals when pure. Considering how much "stuff" (that's a technical term) was insulating the bottom of the debris pile, it is not impossible that enough heat was retained to keep a mixture at a sufficiently high temperature in order to remain semi-liquid.

USGS AVIRIS overflights of Ground Zero recorded surface
temperatures in the piles of 1300 degrees. We can
reasonably suppose the temperature in the pile far exceeded
that.

http://www.nasathermalimages.com/#%5B%5BWorld%20Trade%20Center%20Hot%20Spots%5D%5D




Joe Allbaugh, the Director of FEMA, was interviewed by Bryant Gumbel of CBS news on October 10 2001:
GUMBEL: We’re seeing a lot of video of smoke pouring up from the debris.
ALLBAUGH: Correct.
GUMBEL: And we’re hearing there are places where temperatures are still approaching and sometimes exceeding a thousand degrees.
ALLBAUGH: That’s right.
GUMBEL: Why? Why do we have these hot spots? What’s going on?
ALLBAUGH: Well, you have normal debris, you know, computers, paper, you have some areas that are hot pockets because of fuel. It’s just too hot for rescuers to get into those areas. So we do not know yet what’s in those areas, other than very hot, molten material. (source_FEMA.gov)
Source publication date: CBS Early Show 10/04/01
Interviewer: Bryant Gumbel
Witness: Joe Allbaugh
Date molten metal was observed: up to 10/04/01

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for World Trade Centers 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and all subgrade levels, stated "As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running." (source_SEAU.org)
Source publication date: SEAU News Volume VI Issue II 10/2001
Interviewer: James M.Williams October 5, 2001 National Council of Structural Engineers Associations 9th Annual Conference.
Witness: Leslie Robertson
Date molten metal was observed: up to 10/02/01

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." said the first structural engineer given access to the WTC steel. (source) (audio)

"I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat." said Chaplain Herb Trimpe (source) (audio)

A NY firefighter described steel flowing at ground zero. "You'd get down below and you'd see molten steel — molten steel! — running down the channel rails. Like you're in a foundry... like lava... from a volcano. (source) (source) (hi-res_source)

A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." (source) (cached_copy)
Source publication date: July/August 2002 Atlantic Monthly

The owner of Controlled Demolition Inc., Mark Loizeaux stated the molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,”. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon. (source)

Fires burned and molten steel flowed in the pile of ruins still settling beneath her feet. -Sarah Atlas of New Jersey’s Task Force One Urban Search and Rescue (source_upenn.edu)

"Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense," reports Alison Geyh, PhD. "In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel." (source_jhsph.edu)

A veteran of disasters from the Mississippi floods Mt. St. Helens, Burger said it reminded him most of the volcano, if he forgot he was in downtown Manhattan. “Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster,” he said. Additionally he stated "Shards of steel lay upon shards of steel, shifting and unstable, uncovering red hot metal beams excavated from deep beneath layers of sub-floors, exposing further dark crevasses." (source_neha.org)

"They showed us many fascinating slides" he continued, "ranging from molten metal which was still red hot weeks after the event, to 4-inch thick steel plates sheared and bent in the disaster." -Dr Keith Eaton (source_istructe.org.uk)

"Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers' remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots." -Guy Lounsbury of New York Air National Guard's 109th Air Wing (source)

A NY Department of Sanitation spokeswoman said "for about two and a half months after the attacks, in addition to its regular duties, NYDS played a major role in debris removal - everything from molten steel beams to human remains...." (source)

"the ominous groaning of weakened structures overhead, or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole." -William Langewiesche (source_p32) (cached_copy)

He remembers seeing in the darkness a distant, pinkish glow–molten metal dripping from a beam–but found no signs of life. -Lee Turner of The Boone County Firefighters (source)

“In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (source)

As late as five months after the attacks, in February 2002, firefighter Joe O'Toole saw a steel beam being lifted from deep underground at Ground Zero, which, he says, "was dripping from the molten steel." (source)

...numerous fires were still burning and smoldering. Underground it was still so hot that molten metal dripped down the sides of the wall from Building 6. (source_9-11commission.gov) (2) (3)

Richard Garlock, a structural engineer for LERA said "Going below, it was smoky and really hot... The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running." (source)

Vance Deisingnore, OSHA Officer at WTC, reported the following to Jim McKay, Post-Gazette Staff Writer, on September 11, 2002 "a fire truck 10 feet below the ground that was still burning two weeks after the Tower collapsed, its metal so hot that it looked like a vat of molten steel." (source)

Father Edward A. Malloy, on site 40 days after the disaster stated "Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500F so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down." (source_nd.edu)

Ed Pfister, a veteran of three hurricanes and two flood relief efforts, and a member of the elite Disaster Medical Assistance Team, wrote in his diary "deep below ground a portion of the pile was still on fire and boiled with molten material. Sometimes, open flame would erupt as a crane pulled debris out and air rushed in. Fire hoses constantly poured streams of water causing huge billowing steam clouds to rise up over the site into the huge lights above." (source_NIH.gov)
Source publication date: 10/30/2001
Interviewer: Rich McManus

Guy Lounsbury with the 109th Air Wing of the New York Air National Guard wrote "The men who work on this must constantly change their boots as the heat melts them. Two weeks after the attack, one fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains." (source)

A group of veteran ironworkers eating lunch while staring at the steel skeleton of a new building going up on West Third Street when one commented on "how much easier it was to eat a sandwich in front of steel that was strong and straight and new, not molten and mangled and laden with debris." (source)

Fire Department Chief Mike Donoho of Texas Task Force 1 Urban Search and Rescue described the scope of the destruction, "Everything had its own look. In the area surrounding what was the two twin towers, there were several buildings still standing that were burned from top to bottom, and some of them were damaged by the collapse. But the two towers — they were 110-story buildings. And there was nothing that you could put your hands on that resembled anything that would tell you this once was two 110-story office buildings. What you had were large columns of steel that were just stuck into massive amounts of molten steel and other metals, that had just fused together from the heat and bonded together from the strength of the collapse. We dug and we dug and we dug, and we cut and we cut and we cut, and we did not see anything that resembled any type of furniture, any type of personal belongings. We found some pieces of things like a telephone, things like that. I think we found credit cards a few times, and we found a couple of stuffed animals. But you would expect to see, like, a bunch of desks, a bunch of chairs. The only way I can explain it is, if you take a car and put it in one of those machines where they crush it and make it look like a cube, and you can’t recognize what it is, that’s what the whole area looked like. It looked like a massive, molten mess that had been fused together, like a car that had been cubed and crushed. With all that heavy, heavy stuff, there were wires, rebar, concrete. Most of it was just steel. A lot of what we were walking on was just molten steel. (source)

It doesn't matter what people described it as unless they did an actual metalurgical anaylisis.

My point was that as long as it was not pure AZCat's post made an important point. Of course it is very unlikely it was pure but it may have been close. I don't know. But I am fairly sure some of the non-iron metals would have been in there.

A huge list of people describing it is completely beside the point. I don't think anyone is arguing that the metal never existed or that none of it was Iron.

Thank you for a helpful response. I don't think I was around for jberryhill's post on that.

Who pray tell might they be?

That is an "honest" question

n/t

I bet

I can be provoked. But I am a gentleman and I have principles.

as it has never been done before 9/11. The tallest structure ever demolished was 47 stories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_Building

Yeah, I know... Wiki...

The tallest building ever demolished by CD was 25 stories...

http://www.infoplease.com/askeds/tallest-building-demolished.html


There are people here (cough cough) who have a sound engineering background and can make informed opinions on what is and is not possible from a physics standpoint.

But as you point out we do have people who understand the construction etc. from an engineering background and that is what I was looking for.
I know these people may have their own issues with the official reports where data is lacking etc. I don't have time to read all the engineering liturature on this but I think some people have at least read more than me.

I was hoping those engineering types could help address some questions and perhaps post their own. It may have been too much to ask for.

who?


and I need proof of that

I do have to weigh your qualifications with these guys and they are not anonymous posters. They seem to have a bit more experience, did you ever work for NASA, recieve any awards or work for any American Presidents? Testify before Congress maybe? Oh that's probably SD or bolo maybe SweetPee, LARED ?


December 13, 2007 – Seven former senior engineers and scientists of the Federal government have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They are among a rapidly growing number of engineering, scientific, and architectural professionals challenging the government's story.

“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD. <1>. With doctorate degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.




Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD


“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,” continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”
During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.

Criticism of the official account also extends to government scientists. “The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the ‘official’ assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs does not match the available facts,” writes David Griscom, PhD, a retired government research physicist. <2>



David Griscom, PhD A highly esteemed researcher, Dr. Griscom spent 33 years at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. He is a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He was the recipient of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. He is the principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work highly cited by his peers.

Dr. Griscom continued, “I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals … Surely Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!”


The improbability of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 is a major concern of scientists, engineers and architects. The building was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11. In the 6 years since 9/11, the Federal government has failed to provide any explanation for the collapse. In addition to the failure to provide an explanation, absolutely no mention of Building 7’s collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's “full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.”


Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD Another senior Federal engineer who seriously questions the official account of 9/11 is Joel Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member, Congressional Office of Technology Assessment 1978 – 1990 and former Professor of Mechanical Engineering. Earlier this year, he wrote, “Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. ...

“When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of the three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the twin towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.” <3>


Dr. Hirschhorn also served as Director of Environment, Energy and Natural Resources for the National Governors Association. He’s testified more than 50 times before Congress on technology, science, and environmental issues. Prior to his government services, he was Professor of Metallurgical Engineering at the University of Wisconsin, Madison 1965 - 1978.

Dr. Hirschhorn continued, “Like other groups, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth wants a new, honest and comprehensive study that considers all the evidence for controlled demolition. As a former engineering professor with growing skepticism about the official WTC story I share their concerns. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building number 7.”



Another senior Federal engineer who questions the official account of 9/11 is Enver Masud, MS, PE, former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S. Department of Energy. An expert in electrical power grid management, he has consulted for the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the United States Agency for International Development in Albania, Czech Republic, Egypt, Ghana, Indonesia, Latvia, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Tanzania. Prior to his employment by the DOE, he served as Director of the Office of Engineering at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C.


Enver Masud, MS, PE In a statement to this author, Mr. Masud wrote, “The 9/11 Commission Report is fatally flawed. The major conclusions of the 9/11 Commission Report -- the official, conspiracy theory -- are false. Among its many problems; 1.) It is entirely silent on the collapse of WTC Building 7. 2.) The FBI has admitted it has no hard evidence that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks of 9/11. 3.) To this day, the hijackers' identities remain in doubt. 4.) Evidence, including the lack of adequate debris, at both the Pentagon and Shanksville contradicts the official theory of Flights 77 and 93. 5.) There is prima facie evidence of the controlled demolition of the WTC Twin Towers and Building 7.”


Another prominent skeptic of the official account of 9/11 is James Quintiere, PhD, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), who has publicly called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations”, at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said <4>, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”


James Quintiere, Ph.D. “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.”

Dr. Quintiere, one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, also encouraged his audience of fellow researchers and engineers to scientifically re-examine the WTC collapses. “I hope to convince you to perhaps become ‘Conspiracy Theorists’, but in a proper way,” he said.

Dr. Quintiere also expressed his frustration at NIST’s failure to provide a report on the third skyscraper that collapsed on 9/11, World Trade Center Building 7. “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that.”


Dwain Deets, MS Earlier this year, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth created an online petition <5> urging Congress to immediately reinvestigate 9/11. More than 230 architects and engineers have signed the petition as of the date of this publication. Among the signers are Joel Hirschhorn and Enver Masud (both mentioned above), Dwain Deets, MS, and Edward S. Munyak, MS, PE.

Dwain Deets, MS, former Director, Aerospace Projects at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center, wrote in support of the petition, “The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved .” <6>

Mr. Deets also served as Director of the Research Engineering Division at Dryden. He is the recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). He served at NASA for 37 years.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_071211_seven_senior_federal.htm

You made a snide post questioning wither ANYONE here had 'an engineering background' NOT wither anyone here had a PhD in structural engineering.

Thats what was said. And you changed the subject.

Yes people here do have engineering backgrounds. You loose stand corrected. End of story.

If you want to discuss these peoples specific opinions do so in the appropriate place not by way of questioning wither ANYONE in the forum has 'an engineering background'.

back at ya babe

What the hell does that mean?

AGAIN I ASK, WHO??

and why would I give any weight to anyone that has less credentials

I believe AZCat also does.
There may be more. I am sure their are more that have read more of the reports than I have.

You did change the subject you changed it to babbling about how so and so on your list had better credentials that Flatulo.

I have a right to point out the fact that I would give more weight to the opinions of more qualified individuals.


AGAIN who are all these qualified people you keep babbling about? We are up to two.

the number of people here who can provide an informed opinion from an engineering background is not actually the topic of my OP. I only mentioned that some existed. I know of 2 off hand. I think their may be a few others.
I am sorry you don't want to believe anything they say or whatever it is that you are trying to get at. But that is not the point of this thread.
Please ask a question regarding a specific technical issue you have a question about or that you think the various reports did not adequately explain/cover. Then we can discuss it and perhaps even conclude that none of us know for sure, or even that it would be an interesting topic for future actual research.

I do not wish to argue about how many engineers visit here, what level of degree they have, etc. That is ad-hominim bullshit.

You really don't want credible opinions then do you?



an informed opinion? From an anonymous poster at DU? Give me a break


I have the impression your mind is already made up on all of this

I was originally hoping they could illuminate some still unanswered questions from an engineering standpoint. Perhapses even unanswerable questions.

I was also hoping we could discuss single issues and that they could assist in helping those of us without such a background understand the issue better.

Yes I have an opinion on this. It is open to change.

Check out post 8.
I did not know that before and now I am prompted to look up information on the topic when I get a chance.
It is IMO very interesting and addresses a common question.

It does NOT give us a 100% final say about anything. Nor does AZCat appear to claim it does. However, it informs the discussion.

I would like to see that, I believe jberry is an attorney? So that qualifies him as to mechanical engineering?


AZCat (1000+ posts) Thu Jun-26-08 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. If there was molten metal (and a number of testimonies point to that)...
it was likely a combination of several metals. jberryhill has posted several times an Fe-Al phase diagram showing how mixing the two metals greatly reduces the melting temperature compared to the melting temperatures of the metals when pure. Considering how much "stuff" (that's a technical term) was insulating the bottom of the debris pile, it is not impossible that enough heat was retained to keep a mixture at a sufficiently high temperature in order to remain semi-liquid.




several metals? seems to me that the greatest quantity would have been iron and steel. That's just my first thought on it

I plan on looking it up anyway.

It is important to understand that the most common path to patent law is through an engineering degree. jberryhill has IIRC a doctorate in engineering (although, again IIRC, only his bach is in mechanical - the rest are in materials) but practices patent law, a discipline that requires a technical degree in order to qualify for the bar exam.

So while he is indeed an attorney he also qualifies as a mechanical engineer (and also as a materials wonk).


ETA: jberryhill has brought up the Fe-Al phase diagram (which can be found by googling if you're interested) several times, but this link should take you to one of those times if you're interested in reading what he has to say.

stop confusing the CTers with facts. It's not fair to them. ;-)

In any event, you are replying to "Ignored", so I don't know how or why my qualifications would come up in a thread I haven't seen until my return from a trip abroad this past week.

But, yes, my doctorate is in electrical engineering, and my work prior to becoming a patent attorney, related to crystal growth from metal solutions.

The notion that molten material of any kind would consist of steel is silly. The towers were clad entirely in aluminum, and steel is soluble in aluminum.

I referenced a post of yours without linking to it (apparently a grievous sin) and poster "ignored" was questioning whether you were an engineer, and therefore qualified to be commenting on the subject of post #8. I was merely trying to correct this misunderstanding, since it was my fault for not providing proper sourcing for your post.

How was the trip?

in light of the fact that we recently have discovered that things may not be what they seem here.

I definitely believe you. You do not exaggerate what you know, and, you often demonstrate fairness in your responses.

I didn't mean anything against you. I'm still a little peeved from the other day, hard to let go of that one

Some of the smartest people I know have no formal university education.

Peace!

was it not?

We do have some people here who have engeneering backgrounds and understand the construction etc. better than I (not to mention they actually read up on this).
We also have one or two people who seem to have read the full reports, Something I certainly have not had time to do.

As for question two. I am referring to a question that you are interested in the answer for not one you are using as bait for an argument about what you think the answer is.

Oh really now who would those people be, pray tell?

(1) What happened to the towers' core colums? In the core of each tower were 47 columns running the tower's whole height. Photos from just after the collapses don't seem to show pieces anywhere near 1300 feet long, the heights of the towers. So the columns must have been broken into pieces. How did that happen?

(2) The towers' 4-in-thick concrete floors were pulverized. Building pieces and contents were sent flying outwards. The towers' steel frames not only failed, but apparently were broken into small pieces. What was the source of the energy that made these things happen?

(3) In photographs, the towers look like they are exploding, not like they are collapsing. I cannot find any record of buildings looking like this as they collapse. Why did the towers look like this?

There is a factor of merit called 'slenderness ratio', which, when combined with the end conditions and axial loading, can be used to predict when a column will fail.

As an upper limit, it is nigh impossible to construct a column of 1000+ foot height without supports (think guide wires on TV broadcasting masts). Such a structure is unable to suspport its own weight.

I'll qualify my comments by stating that I am not a licensed structural engineer, but I do have a BSME from WPI. My area of specialty is mechanical vibrations and dynamics, but I have a pretty good background in stress analysis and material science. I also perform a good deal of finite element analysis as part of my job. Nothing on the scale of what the NIST and Perdue teams did, but I understand the methodology used.

I did have a video somewhere that showed (what I think was) the core column standing for a few moments after one of the towers collapsed, then it buckled and snapped.

Columns can fail when they lose lateral support. Typically that means they buckle. The lateral supports to which you refer are protection against buckling. If the towers' columns had simply buckled, they would have remained in one piece. Clearly they did not.

How did they end up in pieces?

What makes you think they would remain together under the tremendous twisting, crushing stresses of a global collapse?

of the way there were assembled. The perimeter columns were fabricated in sections about 3 stories tall and about X feet wide. Each section of column was then bolted to the section below it, with four bolts. In essence the outer columns were built like an erector set piece by piece. Notice the lifting lugs bolted on the top of the columns and the hand holes used to get at the four bolts



Once the columns lost lateral support there is not much holding them together and they will fail at the bolted connections.

wasn't the subject the core columns? Not the perimeter columns which were substantially different. Nice try though. :hi:

"The towers' steel frames not only failed, but apparently were broken into small pieces"

I believe that question referenced the perimeters columns.

52"x22" x47 columns.

and they all became smaller in cross section as the height increased. Regarding what happened to them. Columns depend heavily on lateral support to remain stable. Once the collapsing building stripped away the floors and beams the column had to fail. The spires seen in the videos show this quite well. The perimeter walls and floors beams failed first, closely followed by the inner core.

became smaller in cross section as they increased in height.

Do you have the specs?

"Once the collapsing building stripped away the floors and beams the column had to fail."
Thanks for your opinion/guess.
All 47 were interconnected by intersecting framing members. Horrizontal I-beams, floor trusses, etc.

it may deform to a new position where its internal moment can resist the load without its yield stress going into the plastic region. When the load is removed, the column will regain its original shape. This phenomenon is very well understood for simple columns and end conditions.

This Wiki article is actually pretty good. Scroll down to see the pic of various columns in the buckled state that are still supporting their loads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckling

If you continue to apply load, the column will eventually snap. Load can be the column's own weight.

instead of toppling.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212767">petgoat wrote:



Yep, that does look very weird at first glance. But such tall, slender, yet heavy objects as those spires are outside our everyday experience, so they don't necessarily behave the way we might initially expect.

What I suspect may have happened is that, once a spire started to lean just a little bit, it broke at column splices near the bottom, unable to support its own weight. Then, when the remaining upper part of the spire hit the ground, it too broke at column splices near the bottom, and so on.

It was dustified by a space laser.

Sorry couldn't resist. ;)

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting you are responsible for creating COINTELPRO, merely pointing out your use of it.

are outside *anyone's* sphere of experience that we have no historical data on which to base our observations.

The best we can hope to do is to create mathematical models and exercise them, and see if the outputs match the observations of the collapses.

The technology to completely model the collapses is quite daunting. I expect it will be a few more years before a complete model can be created.

...that is an excellent point!

Just how did that happen?

First of all I know of no buildings on their scale, constructed like they were collapsing, do you?

An explosion is a release of energy. Energy can be released in the form of mechanical or chemical energy. A high explosion stores it's energy chemically and releases it in the form of a chemical reaction.

Gravity gave the towers tremendous potential energy which was released in the form of kinetic energy when that mass was set in motion. Think of a solid cannon ball hitting a brick wall. High velocity with small mass = bricks and dust "exploding". In the case of the WTC collapse, you have a HUGE mass, equal to 20,000,000 cannon balls moving at relative low velocity. The physics of energy release is the same.

only that associated with a ten-meter drop, not a 400 meter one.
And remember, the top is built very light--columns are 1/4" plate.

And yet the concrete is completely pulverized, and the floor pans
and the carpets have vanished.

Very strange.

Also, your notion (along with Bazant and Zhou) of the entire top
of the building somehow magically severing all 287 columns
simultaneously and dropping 3 meters to hit the structure below
is obviously absurd.

100,000 ton segment dropped 10m? Can you at least figure that?

Here are some of the floors, floor pans and everything inbetwixt.





And no Magic involved. Columns fail one at a time until the remaining can't support the load, then the rest fail all at once.

I realize you are a lost cause goat...this post is for posterior...er...postarity...whatever.

220 acres of floor pans, 220 acres of carpets, and 220 acres
of 4" concrete floors vanished, except for 250 square feet in
a museum.

Show me the floors and the floor pans in the ground zero
photos. They're gone.

I see a lot of posts about CD or explosives used to bring down the towers, but some perspective can be gleaned by understanding the massive amount of energy transferred to the WTC towers during the aircraft collisions. The energy contained in the aircraft by virtue of its mass alone was equivalent to the truck bomb used to level the Murrah building in Oklahoma City.

I've posted these numbers a few times in the past, but they're easy enough to repeat.

The mass of the fuel-laden aircraft was around 250,000 lbs. The impact velocity was around 500 miles/hr, which is 733 ft/sec.

The energy intrinsic to a moving object is 1/2*w/g*v^2, where w is the weight, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and v is the velocity.

If you run these numbers you will find that the amount of energy due to the moving mass alone was 2X10^9 ft-lbs, or 2.83X10^9 Joules, or 2.83 GJoules or giga-joules.

How much energy is this? It's roughly equal to 1,500 lbs of high explosives.

Now, if you add in the fuel load, it dwarfs the kinetic energy. Each gallon of jet fuel has about 15,000 BTU of energy contained therein. This equates to 1.58X10^7 Joules/gallon. If we multiply that by 10,000 gallons and assume that only 1/2 the fuel was burned inside the building (NIST estimate...?) then we would get another 7.9X10^10 Joules of heat energy released, which is 28X the kinetic energy.

For reference, the Hiroshima bomb was 15,000 tons of TNT, which is 6.27X10^13 Joules. So the energy imparted to the WTC towers was 6.28X10^13/(2.83X10^9+7.9X10^10) = 5.35, or 18% of the yield of the first A bomb.

Hard to believe, isn't it? But looking at the total energy picture can be quite startling.

These numbers have some slop in them as the estimates for the Hiroshima bomb yield vary. I believe the conversions to be accurate, but if someone wants to check my numbers I will not be offended.

It's hard for many people to think on these scales I think this helps to put into perspective the type of impact we are talking about.

Thanks for an interesting and helpful post Flatulo.

The falling mass must have released and enormous amount of energy.

The amount of P stored in the buildings was astronomical. The force released by 20% of the mass of the buildings falling on hte floor below was akin to half a ton of explosives.

There wasn't much left to destroy the structure.

vs destroying the structure.

Same thing.

As the point of this thread is to explore technical questions. Please provide the calculations that is based on as well as the diffrence between 'taking the towers down' (remember to site energy required) and 'destroying the structure' (again energy required).

Thanks.

The energy you describe contributed to damaging the towers. But there was a huge amount of destruction that happened only once the towers started to come down. Clearly the airplanes' impact did not pulverize all of the towers' many floors -- or probably even any of them. Nor did it cause pieces of the buildings to be shot outwards. There had to be another source of energy that made these things happen.

Acceleration due to gravity coupled with a large mass has tremendous energy. Basic structrual engineering.

with the 20-meter drop of a lightly-built structure, not a
400-meter drop of a heavy one.

Except for the hat truss,the top of the tower was in effect
a fifteen story building sitting on top of a 90-story one.

Imagine a 15-story building exploding its floors into dust
from its own potential energy--if you can.

there is a controled demoltion. Even as 15-20 story buildings go, WTC were massive structures.

Not all the dust was concrete. Not all the concrete was "dustified".

the 15 onto 90 story analogy doesn't seem quite correct. Once the collapse initiated we can clearly see the top floors of the '90 story building' being destroyed/collapsing before the top of the '15 story building' meets them.
So it's not like a 15 story building that just collapsed onto a flat surface. pieces fell further than that.
Secondly, after crashing into the '90 story building' all of the '15 story building' fell 90 floors. Not all at free-fall (though some of it did), but it all fell roughly 90 additional stories so that is a lot of potential energy released.

As you point out the top of the building was somewhat lightly constructed. Why would we expect it not to be destroyed in the drop?

Compare the energy to that of a 150 mile wind hitting the south surface of the tower.

Note the jet fuel burned off in ten minutes, says NIST. The towers didn't fall until
much later.

The wind force would be spread out over a large area. The plane hit a relatively small area.
Not to mention other differences.

The speed of the jet fuel burning off does not affect the amount of energy released. I seriously doubt the person you are responding to does not know how quickly it burnt off.

Who is Thomas Eagar and why should I care about his description?

The bending forces would be enormous at the lower levels of the tower,
and wind failure would be extremely local--buckling of the lee side
columns and tensile failures of the windward side columns.

The speed of the jet fuel burning off does not affect the amount of
energy released but the fact that the tower did not fall immediately
after would indicate that it absorbed the energy just fine.

Thomas Eagar is the MIT architect of the famous zipper-pancake theory
that was not disputed by one credentialed person during the three
years it was conventional wisdom, despite its obvious absurdity.

Why is that?

Many of the remarks about the NIST's "methodology" that I've see here seem to be derived from critiques made by Kevin Ryan, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212766">listed here. It would be interesting if someone here could either provide or refer us to a good critique of Kevin Ryan's work. (See also http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212766">my remarks here about the critiques I've encountered so far.)

FEMA and the NIST wrote. Hence it no surprise he writes works of fiction.

In what specific ways did Kevin Ryan misunderstand or misrepresent the NIST and FEMA reports? What specific points did he get wrong, and how?

Thanks for trying, but the three links you provided are not quite what I'm looking for here.

The first link in your post is to a "Screw Loose Change" post which contains and quotes a video critiquing a Kevin Ryan video. I'm at a disadvantage here because I have dial-up and can't watch streaming video. The comments on "Screw Loose Change" accuse Kevin Ryan of misquoting, but, because I can't watch the original video, I have no way of knowing whether Kevin Ryan himself is being misquoted.

The second link is to a "Screw Loose Change" post about the circumstances of Kevin Ryan's firing from Underwriters Laboratories, according to statements by both Kevin Ryan himself and UL. Pat Curley immediately concludes that Kevin Ryan must be "lying," apparently on the assumption that whenever a statement by a fired worker contradicts a statement by the worker's former boss, the fired worker must have been lying. I have no way of judging this matter one way or the other; I wasn't there. In any case, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212766">as I already said here, I'm not interested in seeing yet another attempt to discredit Kevin Ryan personally, I've seen more than enough of those already. What I would like to see is a substantive critique of one or more of his writings.

The third link is to a long-ish PDF file, which, judging by its table of contents, contains little or nothing about Kevin Ryan at all.

What I am looking for, very specifically, is one or more written (not video) substantive critiques of one or more of Kevin Ryan's writings, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212263&mesg_id=212766">as listed here, or of his ideas as reported in writing by Jim Hoffman (but not by David Ray Griffin).

do your own homework, if you're that interested. I'm not wasting my time critiquing Ryan's misadventures in 9/11 fantasy writing. Did it a long time ago, and will not do it again.

In the interest of education and discourse. Read this link as it critiques part of the letter Ryan wrote that got him is trouble in the first place. I did add a few comment for giggles

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/waterboy-wonder-ran-debunked.html

http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php

The collapse of the WTC
by Kevin Ryan
Underwriters Laboratories
Thursday, Nov 11, 2004


The following letter was sent today by Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel componets used in the constuction of the World Trade Center towers. The information in this letter is of great importance.

Dr. Gayle,

Having recently reviewed your team's report of 10/19/04, I felt the need to contact you directly.

As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story, except for one thing - that the samples we certified met all requirements. They suggested we all be patient and understand that UL was working with your team, and that tests would continue through this year. I'm aware of UL's attempts to help, including performing tests on models of the floor assemblies. But the results of these tests appear to indicate that the buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.



There continues to be a number of "experts" making public claims about how the WTC buildings fell. One such person, Dr. Hyman Brown from the WTC construction crew, claims that the buildings collapsed due to fires at 2000F melting the steel (1). He states "What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel…burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts." Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says "Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory."



We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all.



The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.

However the summary of the new NIST report seems to ignore your findings, as it suggests that these low temperatures caused exposed bits of the building’s steel core to "soften and buckle." (5) Additionally this summary states that the perimeter columns softened, yet your findings make clear that "most perimeter panels (157 of 160) saw no temperature above 250C." To soften steel for the purposes of forging, normally temperatures need to be above1100C (6). However, this new summary report suggests that much lower temperatures were be able to not only soften the steel in a matter of minutes, but lead to rapid structural collapse.



This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure. That suggestion should be of great concern to my company.



There is no question that the events of 9/11 are the emotional driving force behind the War on Terror. And the issue of the WTC collapse is at the crux of the story of 9/11. My feeling is that your metallurgical tests are at the crux of the crux of the crux. Either you can make sense of what really happened to those buildings, and communicate this quickly, or we all face the same destruction and despair that come from global decisions based on disinformation and “chatter”.



Thanks for your efforts to determine what happened on that day. You may know that there are a number of other current and former government employees that have risked a great deal to help us to know the truth. I've copied one of these people on this message as a sign of respect and support. I believe your work could also be a nucleus of fact around which the truth, and thereby global peace and justice, can grow again. Please do what you can to quickly eliminate the confusion regarding the ability of jet fuel fires to soften or melt structural steel.



1. http://www.boulderweekly.com/archive/102104/coverstory.html 2. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 61st edition, pg D-187 3. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf 4. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php 5. http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf (pg 11) 6. http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf

Kevin Ryan

Site Manager Environmental Health Laboratories A Division of Underwriters Laboratories

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212835">LARED wrote:



I didn't ask you, personally, to write a critique. I asked to be referred to any substantive critiques that anyone here knew of that already existed (in contrast to the less than satisfactory critiques I was already familiar with).

Anyhow, this topic isn't my top priority. I've spent a lot more of my time reading up on WTC 7.

The reason I brought up the topic of Kevin Ryan just now was because I noticed that some people around here seemed to be parroting some of Ryan's objections to the NIST report. However, if I'm going to bother looking at a topic at all, I am interested only in substantive critique. I am just not interested in the ad hominem approach that some people seem to favor.



You gave two links here, one of which is to the "Screw Loose Change" blog. That link does not work.

Anyhow thanks for the partial commentary on Kevin Ryan's letter.

At least one that meets your standard of substantive. The reality is that most serious people would view Ryan's ignorance as not worth the time.

A cursory review of his statements immediately expose him as a fraud, so why bother.

I suppose in this case that is perfectly fine

support your claims, and to claim that you already answered the question.
Also ad hom attack of Ryan instead of staying on the point of the shortcomings
of the NIST report.

If you want credibility, eschew the techniques disinfo agents use.

If you already wrote something on Ryan, why don't you provide it? Did your
computer die so you lost it?

If you want credibility, eschew the techniques disinfo agents use.

I had no idea I was using disinfo agent techniques. I guess I'll be more careful as establishing credibility with you is utmost in my mind.

I'd hate to be unknowingly using "disinfo agent techniques".

If you disagree with a CT you are by default using disinfo agent techniques. There is no way around this issue. It seems to be doctrinaire.

The quite specific behaviors I cited are disinfo techniques I
have encountered many times in debates all over the internet.

1. Citing long documents and videos that do not say what you
claim they say

2. Changing the subject, preferably engendering a debate on the
character of the witness

3. Claim you already answered the question long ago, and you're
simply too exasperated to waste any more time on the issue with
such an idiot

I have NEVER seen truthers use these tactics except, interestingly,
those who supported that hero janitor feller.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212881">LARED wrote:



Even if you don't consider them to be "serious people," many people do take Kevin Ryan's statements seriously and are not likely to be swayed by an ad hominem attack.



"Fraud"? It does not seem to me that Kevin Ryan was lying in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212835">as quoted by LARED here. Rather, it seems to me that Ryan may have been reacting impetuously to inaccurate office gossip within UL.

Near the beginning of his letter, Kevin Ryan says, "In requesting information from both our CEO and Fire Protection business manager last year, I learned that they did not agree on the essential aspects of the story...." It is likely that neither the CEO nor the Fire Protection business manager would have been on top of all the details, or even all the "essential aspects," of UL's dealings with NIST, or of any long-ago past involvement by UL in the construction of the WTC. It is also likely that neither the CEO nor the Fire Protection business manager would have considered Kevin Ryan's questions important enough for them to bother to look up the answers for him, since Ryan wasn't involved in UL's dealings with NIST. Hence they both are likely to have given him inaccurate information based on hazy memory. Thus, I would be inclined to think of their statements to Kevin Ryan as just gossip.

Anyhow, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212835">LARED writes:



The "link above" does not work. However, it appears that you may have intended the same http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/waterboy-wonder-ryan-debunked.html">link to "Screw Loose Change" that you gave in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212803">this earlier post of yours. Is that correct?

Very little of what is said there seems directly relevant to the two paragraphs of Kevin Ryan's letter above your remark "This is where Ryan screws up interpreting the NIST report." Those two paragraphs say:



Above, Kevin Ryan does seem to equate the temperatures seen by "most perimeter panels (157 of 160)" with the maximum temperature seen by any and all steel anywhere in the Twin Towers, an error similar to one of the alleged "lies" discussed in the "Screw Loose Change" post.

However, the references in Ryan's above-quoted two paragraphs are NOT to NIST's final report on the WTC, but rather to the following:

• (3) NIST's http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P3MechanicalandMetAnalysisofSteel.pdf">Project #3: Analysis of Structural Steel: Update (PDF), October 20, 2004


• (4) http://web.archive.org/web/20041010013916/http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php">Preliminary tests show steel quality did not contribute to towers' collapse by Devlin Barrett, Associated Press, August 27, 2003, about NIST's August 2003 update (copy on the Internet Archive site - the http://www.voicesofsept11.org/archive/911ic/082703.php">original link doesn't work)


• (5) http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACWTCStatusFINAL101904WEB2.pdf">World Trade Center Investigation Status Report (PDF), October 19, 2004


• (6) http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/ffaaMacSleyne.pdf">An Investigation of the Proper Hot Forging Temperatures for Various Steel Grades (PDF) by Jeremiah MacSleyne, Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, May 2001

After all, Kevin Ryan's letter was dated Thursday, Nov 11, 2004, which was before NIST's final report came out.

As I said earlier, I'm in no position to comment on Kevin Ryan's statements in a streaming video that I can't watch.

But it does not seem likely to me that Kevin Ryan was lying (i.e., making deliberately false statements) in his letter to Frank Gayle of NIST. What do you think would have been his motive to lie, at that point? Perhaps he could have had a motive to lie later, after he was fired, but not at the time he wrote the letter, in my opinion. As I said, it seems to me that he was just being impetuous.

Anyhow, in http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212803">your earlier post you also referred us to http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-3-kevin-ryan-of.html">this "Screw Loose Change" post about the reasons why Kevin Ryan was fired by UL:



But Kevin Ryan's letter did NOT do that. His letter can perhaps be faulted for failing to contain an explicit disclaimer that the opinions expressed in the letter were solely his own, but the contents of the letter were quite obviously not institutional opinions of UL, nor did he imply that they were.

Of course, Ryan himself can be faulted for writing a letter to someone outside UL to resolve a matter of inconsistent internal UL gossip - and, worse yet, CC'ing his letter to someone who made it public. (Perhaps he should have spoken, instead, to people at UL who might have been in a better position to answer his questions, such as the relevant UL engineers.) But he clearly did not express "his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

he made public. The words and mythology that many ignorant skeptics and CT'er continue to cling to are clearly misleading people. Perhaps he did not know what he was saying when he wrote the letter and was acting more on emotion than facts. But he MUST know by now that he made many mistakes in his letter and in interpreting the NIST data but he continues to cling to his victim-hood. And is making a living out of it.

Good luck in your search of a substantive critique of Ryan.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213228">LARED wrote:



Maybe he knows and maybe he doesn't know. If no one has ever written a polite, reasoned critique of his work, then perhaps he might not know.

In my experience, many people tend not to listen to criticism from people they perceive as highly biased opponents. For example, progressives tend not to listen to criticism from right wingers, and vice versa. Thus, a diatribe full of ad hominems is not exactly the best way to get someone's attention.

If someone were to write a polite, reasoned, thorough critique of at least some of his writings (or his videos) and publish it somewhere, while also calling his attention to it, THEN he would have no excuse not to know about his errors.

Until then, calling him a "liar" is at best premature.

reasoned, thorough critique of at least some of his writings (or his videos) and publish it somewhere

Some are actually polite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213263">Lared wrote, just now:



But, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=212881">in an earlier post, Lared wrote:



Lared, you appear to be contradicting yourself. Could you please clarify? Perhaps you didn't find out about these critiques until just this morning?

Anyhow, now that you finally seem to saying that the kinds of critiques I'm interested in do exist after all, I would appreciate it very much if you could either provide links or tell me the authors' names, or other relevant keywords, so that I can easily find them myself via Google.

what you seem to be asking for now.

First you want a substantive critique of Ryan

Then you want

reasoned, thorough critique of at least some of his writings (or his videos) and publish it somewhere

I posted links to these that you can't download. That's not my fault.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213275">LARED wrote:



Any critique that is reasoned and thorough would also be substantive. Therefore, the number of "substantive" critiques should be at least as great as the number of "reasoned and thorough" critiques. So, it makes no sense to say that there exist "reasoned and thorough" critiques, "some" of which "are even polite," while at the same time denying the existence of "substantive" critiques.

Anyhow, you also wrote:



No, you posted only ONE link to something I couldn't "download" - the streaming video on one of the "Screw Loose Change" posts you referred me to.

But, again, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213263">here, you wrote:



So, where are "these" (plural) reasoned, thorough critiques, "some" (plural) of which "are actually polite"?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/waterboy-wonder-ryan-debunked.html

Forget the video part if you cannot access it. Read what it says. I think it meets your criteria.

This one although about screw loose change is insightful as well

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-3-kevin-ryan-of.html

Try here

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/06/kevin-ryan-accuses-nist-scientists-of.html

Ryan: What we do know is that thermite materials were found at the World Trade Center.

Utter BS

Here

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Quoting Silverstein incompletely and out of context apparently didn’t satisfy Ryan’s needs. Two months
later, in a presentation remarkably subtitled “A New Standard of Deception,” Ryan makes a significant
change and says, "Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder for all three buildings, essentially admitted to demolishing
the building." Meanwhile, this slide appears on screen, to include Silverstein as a decision-maker:
Kevin Ryan, May, 2006 Ryan changed “They” to “He,” and then to “We.” He is blatantly lying to try to support his claim.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213315">Lared wrote, about http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/09/waterboy-wonder-ryan-debunked.html">this "Screw Loose Change" post about Kevin Ryan:



Perhaps it does count as a substantive critique, assuming it's quoting Ryan correctly (which is the thing I can't verify since I can't watch the video). For now, I'll count it as one substantive critique. It just isn't one of the "polite" ones http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213263">you mentioned in this post, since it accuses him of deliberately lying, rather than simply pointing out inaccuracies.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213315">You then linked again to http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/loose-screw-3-kevin-ryan-of.html">another "Screw Loose Change" post. This one isn't about the content of Kevin Ryan's claims, but only about the circumstances of his firing from UL. Furthermore, accepts as unquestioned truth a UL spokesperson's alleged reason why Kevin Ryan was fired. As I already pointed out in the last several paragraphs of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213141">this post, the reason given by the UL spokesperson does not appear to be true. In any case, because that particular "Screw Loose Change" post focusses on the circumstances of Ryan's firing and not on the content of his claims, it doesn't count as a substantive critique of those claims.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213315">You then linked to http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/06/kevin-ryan-accuses-nist-scientists-of.html">another "Screw Loose Change" post you hadn't pointed us to earlier. This one talks about Kevin Ryan's appearance on Alex Jones's radio show, but doesn't provide a link to the radio show in question, which surprises me. (Usually, when I've seen "Screw Loose Change" posts that critiqued one of Alex Jones's radio shows, a link to the audio file was provided.) But I was able to find the MP3 file via Google without too much trouble. I'm downloading it now and will listen and comment later. Thanks for calling my attention to this.

Thanks for excerpting the relevant portion of http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf">Mark Roberts's long PDF file.

Anyhow, none of the above are among the "polite" critiques http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213263">you mentioned here. If you happen to have handy some links to those (or names of authors, etc., so I can find them easily myself), I would very much appreciate it, for the reason http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=212525&mesg_id=213259">I discussed here.

(Edited to fix links and correct typos.)

I just did a fast look at all the posts here


There are no links to any of these OPINIONS


except for petgoat and Diane_nyc


and that silly stuff of LARED'S who loves to lump us all into one big CT group


If I missed something I'm very sure someone will let me know


oh and Flatulo's wikipedia link




Everything I've read is an opinion of an anonymous poster


So goes the OCTer's in the dungeon

A shameless snowjob totally without credibility.

I sorely missed your insipid posts.

The original engineering drawings and specifications would show the NIST report to be the farce it is or, if it had any credibility, substantiate it. Where are they?

Without this documentation the NIST report is nothing but an expensive cartoon. :shrug:

Whoa

Where's the beef? :shrug:

What I'm talking about are the structural plans and specifications, particularly the floor framing plans, which will show how preposterous the NIST models and assorted insinuations are. That's why they're nowhere to be found.

every single assembly and component? There must be hundreds of thousands of parts that needed to be documented in detail.

for showing things like how the floors were attached to the walls for example. There was a lot more going on than just those joist hangars, but those are what you see in construction photos, so that's what they hung a tale on.

What motivates you to spend your time propping up the official myth of 9/11 -- a myth that has served as the primary justification for a never-ending global war, two disastrous occupations, an all-out assault our Constitutional rights, rampant war profiteering, an imperialistic doctrine of military preemption, torture and rendition, an authoritarian culture of secrecy and our nation's loss of prestige throughout the world?

It is a completely legitimate question.

What motivates you to spend your time propping up the official 9/11 myth?

"propping up the official 9/11 myth". In fact, it's a really stupid strawman.

Whenever the official story of what happened on 9/11 is questioned, you jump to the defense of the official story.

Pointing to the factual errors and logical flaws in the "questioning" isn't "defending the official story". Nice try.

"pointing to the factual errors and logical flaws" in the questioning.

I'm not saying that you do this because you want to prop up the official story. I have no clue why you do what you do. But regardless of your motivation, your actions do defend the officially sanctioned 9/11 myth against skeptical questioning. So what is your motivation if not to defend the official 9/11 story?

Sweet Pea is naturally an exception because of the new information about him, but the general subject has been hashed, rehashed, and locked.

So get over it and start finding some evidence to support your fantasies.

Sweet Pea's motivations differ from your own?

This entire fucking thread is about open questions that warrant further research.
I stated clearly that I don't think the existing models are perfect.

How in the fuck is that 'propping up' a 'justification for never-ending war'?

How the fuck is asking for specific open ENGINEERING questions propping up war, torture, etc.?

I want to explore the physics (for lack of a better term) involved in the impacts and subsequent collapse of the buildings, and I asked for specific unanswered questions in an effort to elevate the debate beyond generalizations. That has NOTHING the fuck to do with propping up anything much less supporting torture and unending war.

In fact it is the opposite. It is asking for holes in the current explanations.

First off their are a lot of questions that I know people have solid answers for that I do not because
1. I am not trained in this discipline.
2. I have not read all the reports.

But to provide an example. I did not know about the heat curve for aluminum and steel that affected the steel melting temperature. That was very interesting information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hNmf76GUCw

How the hell did he know the tower was going to collapse?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sid