BYU Physics Professor: WTC buildings were demolished by cutter charges

I just got done reading this paper. This is by far the best analysis I've seen so far. Whether you are a believer in the 9/11 Comission Report, FBI negligence, LIHOP or MIHOP, everyone needs to read this paper. I don't remember seeing this posted already (it probably has) but it's worth taking a second look and having a further discussion on it.

This is Steven E. Jones:

BYU Professor
Research Group: Atomic, Molecular, and Optical
Specialty: Metal-catalyzed fusion, Archaeometry, Solar energy

Here is the paper Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?



Here is how the paper is broken down into sections:



Here are a few intersting photos from the paper:

"The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Centerbuildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

coming down on them from the top.

of the 9/11 Commission? Or do you have your own ideas?

All I ever see you do around here is shoot down other people's ideas. Have you ever posted your own?

Answer this one question, if you dare: What is your "theory" as to what happened on 9/11?

Don't worry, I won't shoot you down. I just want to see if you have any of your own opinions.

now show me how the government is keeping thousands of scientist and engineers silent about 9/11. It is central to your CT - please prove it.

putting the focus back on him so you don't have to answer. Well, right back at you...prove without a doubt everything in the official story being true. Start with the pentagon and building 7 please. A 757 goes into the pentagon and its still standing, while a few small fires from debris supposedly makes an entire building collapse. Please also tell me why building 7 was cleaned up first and quickly when there was nobody inside to save, while hundreds or thousands were in the WTC1 and 2 and that is where all the focus should have been. I also find it suspect they all fell exactly in the same way, regardless of where they were hit and what they were hit by...either planes or debris. And why was WTC 6 still standing to be demolished later due to the severity of it's damage...it was damaged more severely than 7. The Pentagon and building 6 must have been superman buildings...can withstand anything, right?

Just like I said to another...just admit it, you are a disinformation agent. You are only here to take the focus away from the truth. We are all on to you.

since I'm wrong and you are right, tell me:
What is your theory of what happened on 9/11?

A brief abstract will suffice. You don't have to dive into details or supply dozens of links. No, I'm going to let you off EASY. This isn't a courtroom, I won't cross examine you. Just tell me, from one human being to another, what you think the "story" is.

I'm all ears.

deny that they are NOT based on any hard, physical evidence:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=44663&mesg_id=44663

NIST makes that clear up front, so why would anyone have to active silence 1000s of engineers and scientists? What would they say that NIST hasn't already admitted?

:)

does my lone voice disturb your nice echo chamber?

questions about what your position is concerning 9/11.

How come?

on that very subject. If you were familiar with this forum you would know exactly what I believe. If it is so important to you then I suggest you spend some time in the archives.

don't remember much more than ridicule and debunking of others' beliefs.

...then why are you even involved in the discussion? What's the point? State your theory of what happened on 9/11, because I don't have time to go searching back through time for your "1000's" of posts.

If you have a theory, state it now. No one here seems to know what your position is. Do you actually have one, or is your contribution limited to hyperbole?

I can't help you. With over 1400 posts it's all there for you to figure out - if it isn't worth your time to read then it is not worth my time to write.

If is this unacceptable to you, I suggest you simply ignore me.

what your 9/11 theory is. What takes more time, me reading 1400 posts (most of which seem to be pointless comments involved in flamewars), or you spending 10 minutes batting out a simple abstract of what you think happened that day?

I`m just an average Joe off the street. I don`t know too much about structural integrity, but can somebody tell me the last(or first) time a building (it doesn`t have to be a steel one) ever collapsed in it`s own footprint.


If my memory serves me correctly it happened to 3 separate steel buildings, within a 12 hour period(I think 2 of `em within an hour), sometime in September, way back in 2001.

When I first saw the impact areas I thought to myself "self, the top of that one looks like it`s gonna topple over." You know, kinda like chopping down a tree, but I`ll be damned if it didn`t just fall straight down.


- confused

P.S. I did build a room addition and a patio once.

fall straight down in its own footprint after a football went through the window! Thanks for chiming in Wise Doubter, and it looks like you're fairly new here to the DU, so Welcome! :hi:

But then, I have spent a lot of time here, and, over the last year, I have not seen any of the posts you refer to.

Thanks.

...they silence everybody who knows THE TRUTH about Flying Saucers, the 200-MPH Car, and Who Really Killed JFK. :eyes:

These nutty conspiracy theories are an embarassment.

I, too, would be very interested to hear what your position is on 9/11.

Thanks in advance.

since he still has his professor of PHYSICS job.

"In North America and in most cases, tenure is not given immediately to new professors upon hiring. Instead, open jobs are designated eligible for tenure, or "tenure-track," during the hiring process. Typically, a professor hired in a tenure-eligible position will then work for approximately five years before a formal decision is made on whether tenure will be granted.

The academic department will then vote to recommend the candidate for tenure based on the tenure-eligible professor's record in teaching, research, and service over this initial period. The amount of weight given to each of these areas varies depending on the type of institution the individual works for; for example, research intensive universities value research most highly, while more teaching intensive institutions value teaching and service to the institution more highly. However, tenure is never granted without evidence of excellence in all three areas. The department's recommendation is given to a tenure review committee made up of faculty members or university administrators, which then makes the decision whether to award tenure, and the university president approves or vetoes the decision."

The university gave him tenure based on his knowledge and teaching skills. It's so funny that once a person questions 9/11 they immediately become incredible.

It's very important to realize that Brigham Young is a strict Mormon university with a hierarchy built upon values contrary to intellectualism and rationality.





http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_byu.html




Brigham Young University

there would probably be a shortage of professors at college.

A Peer would be someone he works with not works for.

Peer review and public relations are two different things. The BYU administration is clearly responding to a well-organized attack on Jones.

But to my knowledge there has been no "peer-reviewed" refutation of his paper.

it's author, not it's contents. That speaks volumes for me. His paper asks some very basic questions and wonders why these basic questions were not only glossed over, but were completely left out of the US Government's official 9/11 report.

I then hear excuses like "Well, the 9/11 Commission had to stay within budgets of money and time."

Excuse me? The 9/11 Commission budget was only $15 million:


Hell, Ken Starr's Investigation into Clinton's felatio cost over $40 million.

Interesting that a Republican majority congress thinks that spending $40 million to uncover a secret blow-job is better justified than spending LESS THAN HALF an equal amount on uncovering potential INSIDE involvment in 9/11.

Yet, we are told that this BYU professor is the one with the ulterior motive? WTF? He works at BYU for crying out loud. That is in Utah, the most conservative state in the union, perhaps the most religious too (Steven E. Jones is a hard core Mormon). That isn't exactly the kind of resume that screams "biased against Bush!".

Thanks for posting comrade! :thumbsup:

Neither to refute or support.

In reality there is not much to review from a scientific perspective, as the whole paper is regurgitated 9/11 speculation and gimcrackery.

he has had his work peer reviewed hasn't he? If they reject his work, what should I take from that?

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724

On Sept. 22, prior to going public with his provocative suggestions, Jones gave a seminar to a group of his colleagues from the Department of Physics and Astronomy. After the seminar, all but one of Jones’ colleagues said they agreed an investigation was in order, Jones said. And the lone dissenter came around the next day.

In a Nov. 11 interview, Physics Professor Harold Stokes, one of several faculty members who attended the seminar, said the explosive demolition hypothesis “certainly raises some interesting questions” and that Jones’ claims “certainly appear to be valid.”

...

In an effort to accommodate administration and others, Jones said he has modified his paper, and submitted it to another journal and another round of peer reviewing. He said he feels “a bit awkward” that some colleagues now question the peer review process his paper initially passed through.

“My paper was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication before being made available on the Web with the editor’s approval,” Jones said. “The reviewers included a physicist and an engineer, I now understand. The review has not been shown to have been inappropriate and I believe it was appropriate.”

that article had the following to say:


And the statement as it still appears on the Fulton College website:


But that's just a recap of what has essentially already been posted - here's something I have yet to see posted:


That's the first audience question from his lecture at UVSC on 2/1/06.

Apparently people have different ideas on what the criteria is for peer review.

- Make7

"911 WAS INDEED AN INSIDE JOB"

http://www.et.byu.edu/news_jones_statement.htm

Once Dr Jones submits his work for real peer review, I am sure it will become much clearer who is right.

case..all he'll need is to see the confiscated evidence to determine factually what really happened but we both know that will be over bush's dead body (just a metaphor) don't be calling dhs..(lol)

Did you know 5 israeli students (mossad spy's) were videotaping the attacks? how did they come to learn of them? advance warnings? soon after the neighbors called the cops those spy's were caught and held for 2 months, DEMAND BUSH RELEASE THOSE VIDEOTAPES? will you join the effort?

did you get that Israeli spy tidbit from?

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

at least you gave me exactly what I asked for - I just didn't think you would be so open about it.

Do you get all your news from conspiracy sites?

It seems if that's the only objection to Professor Jones' analyses, they should demand no less from the government analyses and conclusions - that they be "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

ABSTRACT
In this paper, I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges. I consider the official FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 Commission reports that fires plus impact damage alone caused complete collapses of all three buildings. And I present evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government.

Here is a link to more information on nutjob Jones...

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/jones.htm

He stays away from sensationalism and any kind of political commentary. It is just a very reasonable paper which presents a good argument for an investigation. Now how did that molten steel end up in the rubble? and that white hot thermite reactions is identical to white flames/plumes seen on the towers. What else would cause a white flame?

that someone had posted a link in an attempt to discredit this guy. When will they learn that ad hominum attacks don't work with us? We aren't fools, but unfortunately, many people are.

His paper asked BASIC questions that not only can't the "debunkers" address, but neither can the government. So they are left with NO other option than an attempt to smear.

Whoever posted that probably doesn't bother to look up what someone has written in their past IF it is someone they AGREE with. And, of course, none of them can refute any of the actual information.

readable (articulate) and substantive.

why you think that the paper is not "substantive". Can you provide specific examples, and, support your conclusions?

Thank you in advance.

From

2. Observed Temperatures around 1000°C and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel

A few problems exist in this section. 1. Yes the eutectic erosion/corrosion process is going to take place around 1000C, but Prof Jones tries to make the case that this steel was only exposed to the building fires.

How were these ~1000°C temperatures in the steel beam achieved? As noted above in the quotation from Eagar, it is difficult to reach temperatures above 650°C in the type of diffuse hydrocarbon fires evident in the WTC buildings, let alone in the steel columns where heat is transported away by the enormous heat sink of the steel structure. So the high temperatures deduced by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson are indeed remarkable.

What is not remarkable is he already shows underground fires were close to 1000 C. There is no reason to believe the steel could not have been in an underground fire. In fact the eutectic process indicates it was in the underground fires. How does he miss this fact in this section?

Next he makes this argument

Thus, both the unusually high temperatures and the extraordinary observation of steel-sulfidation (Barnett, 2001) can be accounted for -- if the use of thermate is admitted in the discussion.

The part he fails to understand, and one reason his paper is obviously not peer reviewed, is that sulfidation is an inter-granular corrosion phenomena that takes time. It cannot happen in the time it would take for themate (if it exists) to cut through steel.

Thank you, LARED.

I do not know much about physics or engineering, so I am not qualified to agree or disagree with the arguments for or against demolition of the towers (and WTC7).

But, it appears to me that many of the theories and their rebuttals are open to discussion, and can't be proven either way in respect to what happened to those buildings.

While the debates are certainly very interesting, I think that 9/11 researchers need to stick to what can be proven by asking and researching questions like "Who gained monetarily from the events of 9/11?".

From my perspective, the official story is beyond ludicrous, and I believe the answers are out there.

The sulfidation most likely occurred over time (although the "acid rain" explantion is both strained and undemonstrated).

What you fail to mention is that NO STEEL WAS RECOVERED AND ANALYZED FROM ANY COLLAPSED WTC TOWER THAT SHOWED SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO TEMPERATURES OVER 600 C BEFORE THE COLLAPSE!

Therefore, none of the NIST studies were substantive in terms of physical evidence.

was subjected to temps near 1000 c. You also fail to mention the studies done on the wtc collapse establish with good accuracy what the temps inside the tower were. The NIST are experts in this field

They have none. Why not? Who cares what NIST's estimates say? What does the physical evidence say?

Allow me to explain further. NIST worked backward. Given the fact that the towers had collapsed, they worked to explain what could have caused that collapse using computer models and estimates they made from video and photographic evidence. However, they FAILED TO OBTAIN A SHRED OF PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FOR THESE ESTIMATES:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/stickdog/137

In fact, all the physical evidence they analyzed says the same thing: that their backward-engineered temperature estimates are completely full of shit. Their only defense for this FACT is to say that they only looked at a small percentage of the total evidence. Think about that.

Finally, the 1000 C WTC-7 exposure almost certainly took place AFTER the collapse. Didn't you just say that yourself? If not, what could have possibly called the sulfidation?

Also if as you say there is physical evidence of up to 600 C, then that is plenty hot to cause significant weakening of the steel. How can you ignore this basic fact?

We've been through this a number of times. The models used by the NIST are more than sufficient to establish a reasonable estimate of temperatures in the towers. I'm sorry if scientific based anaylsis is not good enough for you. The bottom line is you have nothing but your rage of a lack of physical evidence you like. Nothing will change that, so keep on raging in the face of science if you feel better.

for the official conspiracy theory that 19 Arabs pulled off 9/11 by themselves. If you had read NIST's only report that discusses the PHYSICAL evidence of the WTC towers' collapses, you'd realize that:

1) No WTC-7 steel was recovered or analyzed.

2) No unprocessed, intact floor trusses were recovered or analyzed.

3) No testing for explosives (or sulfidation or other residue of any kind) was performed by NIST, and the only metal tested extensively by metallurgists (for FEMA) revealed strange signs of sulfidation of unknown origin.

4) Only 12 total core columns were carefully analyzed for high temperature exposure from WTC-1, WTC-2 & WTC-7 combined.

5) Of the analyzed core pieces, none showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C.

6) Of 170 examined areas on the perimeter column panels, only three showed exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and for one of these three forensic evidence indicated that the high temperature exposure occurred AFTER the collapse.

7) No recovered steel showed any evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for any significant time.

So of all the physical pieces of metal recovered and analyzed by NIST only THREE pieces demonstrated ANY exposure to temperatures in excess of 250 C and NONE showed ANY signs of being heated even close to 600 C by pre-collapse fires! That's a far cry from your (purposeful?) "physical evidence of up to 600 C" misrepresentation!

REAL science proceeds from the best available evidence. Take the theory of cometary formation for instance. Before the Stardust mission returned samples from Comet Wild 2, scientists didn't have access to any direct physical evidence of cometary composition, so they therefore were FORCED to rely on far less direct evidence and computer models. But what is happening to their cherished theories after getting actual physical evidence of just ONE comet?

NASA's Stardust Findings May Alter View of Comet Formation ( http://stardust.jpl.nasa.gov/news/status/060313.html )

Now compare ACTUAL science to the crap that NIST did. NIST had (or should have had) access to all the physical evidence any scientist could ever hope for just sitting on the ground in Manhattan waiting to be analyzed, but NIST chose to look at just 0.25% of it. And of the 0.25% they examined, about one percent of this (that's less than 1/40,000 of the total collapsed WTC metal) showed ANY signs of being heated in excess of 250 C for ANY period longer than fleeting seconds.

Meanwhile, NIST invented a bunch of speculative and physically unsupported theories about how the towers fell which REQUIRED significant portions of the WTC to be heated for significant periods of time well in excess of what the physical evidence they examined actually demonstrated. Basically, NIST ignored their best evidence in favor of a bunch of comparatively pseudo-scientific postulation.

Now compare what these NIST "scientists" did to what NASA's real scientists are doing. It's as if NASA scientists sampled 2000 different comets -- 99% of which showed signs of being formed close to the sun -- yet still clung to their old unsupported computer models that basically POSTULATED that the vast majority comets were formed in the outer reaches of the solar system.

In summary, everything NIST concluded about the collapse of the WTC towers is CONTRADICTED by the best available evidence and nothing they concluded is supported by a shred of hard, physical evidence. Facing such a dilemma, any REAL scientists would have only two choices: revise their initial theories or extend their survey of the relevant physical evidence until they found at least SHRED of hard, physical support for their unsupported speculations. Instead, NIST simply dismissed their BEST evidence in favor of complicated speculative models which they fed a bunch of unsupported guesstimates that, at best, cannot be DISPROVEN (simply because they didn't look at enough physical evidence to disprove them, of course). Furthermore, you expose yourself as nothing but their biased and unprincipled apologist every time you pretend differently.

observation is used in science - do you?

Let me give you an example. Every junior pipe designer uses a set of design formulas that are nearly all empirically found. If you want to know how much pressure is required to pump a fluid via a pipe, you use a combination of basic engineering principles and empirically found data to determine the pressure drop getting x gallons of water from point A to point B. It works very well and millions of miles of pipe has been installed world wide using these empirically found parameters.

The NIST did exactly the same type of work in determining the temperatures of the fires in an office building. They use their vast experience of testing combustibles in office buildings to estimate the temperature of the fires in the WTC. It ain't rocket science, it's years of data collection developing empirical formulas.

The only reason NIST was able to pawn off their high end temperature postulates as scientifically plausible is exactly because NO ONE has any experience estimating the temperature effects of large passenger jets ramming into high-rises. Instead of using traditional office fire models, they used fuel container models and/or invented completely new reverse-engineered models.

But you're right about NIST's estimates not being rocket science because they certainly don't have anything to do with science.

Just one question for you, LARED. What is the scientifically superior evidence for determining the actual temperatures that the collapsed WTC towers' steel frames were exposed to -- the supposed "empirical formulas" (of an admittedly unique phenomenon, no less) that you quite ridiculously keep lauding or the metal pieces themselves?

Review this, then tell me who flinging BS.

http://wtc.nist.gov/oct05NCSTAR1-5index.htm

Sorry, Miss Direction, but I have just one question for you, and if you refuse to answer it, it proves that you are nothing more than a shill without a shred of objectivity or credibility:

What is the scientifically superior evidence for determining the actual temperatures that the collapsed WTC towers' steel frames were exposed to -- the supposed "empirical formulas" (of an admittedly unique phenomenon, no less) that you quite ridiculously keep lauding or the steel frame pieces themselves?

Of course using physical evidence to determine conditions is superior to empirically determined conditions.

So what?

That does not invalidate empirically determined conditions.

Following up on this unexpected breakthrough, did the small percentage of physical evidence examined by NIST -- the superior evidence, OF COURSE -- support NIST's conclusions about the pre-collapsed temperatures reached in the WTC towers on 9/11? If so, how so?

The NIST conclusion is not based on the physical evidence examined. The extremely small amount of physical evidence is not representative of the conditions in the towers so why use them?

You are hung up on the notion that because the physical evidence shows no temps above 250C that temps that high did not exist. By simple observation of the fires it is clear the temps were above 250 C. So what's holding you back?

representative of the conditions in the towers"

And you know this how?

By simple observation of the fires it is clear the temps were above 250 C.

A 1200 degree fire does not equal 1200 degree steel. The 1975 WTC1 fire burned for
three hours and the floors didn't fall.

If you want to believe the small number of steel samples indicating they were not hotter than 250 deg C is representative of the conditions in the towers, then by all mean continue to believe this. It is apparent no amount of common sense or logic will change your views regarding this, so please continue believing what ever you choose. It is pointless to try and engage in a meaningful discussion.

Normal camp fires get to be over 500 deg C. If you leave a pot on the stove it will get to be over over 500 deg F. But really I don't want to cloud your belief system with trivial mundane facts.

Also the NIST is making up everything. They have zero experience regarding fire behavior in office buildings, They are all pawns of the BFEE since the turn of the century.

tell me how those floors pancaked at about the same speed as a free falling object would take

wouldn't it take SOME time for each floor to collapse the one underneath, at least until enough floors were stacked on top so that the remaining ones could go instantly?

that's the major problem I have with this

otherwise, I'm completely befuddled, and I don't think I want to believe in MIHOP

I don't think I want to think about this anymore, for that matter

thx

the floors did not pancake at about the same speed as a free falling object. Based on video of the collapse, they fell at about 50 to 100 percent slower than free-fall.

If you want to believe the small number of steel samples indicating they were not hotter than 250
deg C is representative of the conditions in the towers

I don't believe they were or were not representative, LARED. You, however, seize on the fact that the
sample is small as justification for the assumption that the conditions in the towers were hotter.
This assumption is unreasonable.

If you leave a pot on the stove it will get to be over over 500 deg F.

Not if it's heavily heat-sinked. And the core steel was heavily heat-sinked. I would grant that the
floors might have sagged, and even partially pulled loose. I can't accept that they pulled the core
down.

Nonsense. The assumption temperatures in the tower were above 250 C is based on science, common knowledge, and expert testimony.

Or are you saying flame and steel temperature are the same? Are you speaking about steel with or without intact fireproofing? steel that still is connected to the structural support, or the half rods at the hole? What would you say the heat capacity of one of the core columns was? And the conductivity? Do you think they'd be able to conduct heat to other columns? or the floor grids?

Can you show some reference for your claim? What science estimate the temperatures higher? How high? What common knowledge and expert testimony? Because both common knowledge and expert testimony as we know from the court are not very dependable. I'd like to see it so I can make a judgement for myself.

How much higher are you or your experts claiming them to be? 10 degrees? 100? 1000? Please quantify.

I'm interested in what exactly is your theory, and what substantiates it.

A pot of water remains at 100 degrees C until all of it is coverted to steam, and then the temperature rises again, if the steam is not allowed to escape.

8th grade science class.

Surely no one here would believe that a pot of boiling water (100 deg C, ~320 deg F) is nearly hot enough to weaken steel (at 500 deg F, as you cite in your example).

the superior scientific evidence in favor of non-falsifiable reverse-engineered models which had to be fed overestimated worst case parameters in order to simulate even the threshold of collapse?

Seriously? You don't have superior scientific evidence, all there is are field tested models based on real science created by real people using the best technology available.

simply because it doesn't provide the reverse-engineered official conspiracy theory supporting pseudoscientific results you both REQUIRE. And that's what makes both you and NIST utter frauds -- completely lacking any rigorous scientific merit and unworthy of any intellectual respect.

figuring out the NIST is an utter fraud. Where would the world of Standards be without you?

My statements about 9/11 speak for themselves, as do yours and NIST's.

First I don't get your example. I'd say what you describe is a practical engineering approach that doesn't have a lot of precision if you were to use it for prediction, then it wouldn't need to as long as the precision is good enough. A scientific approach would be to calculate the flow and turbulence, possible though unpractical since you would need a supercomputer for the pipes in a normal building.

Second, your examples are completely unrelated. The first is an example of how you can manage without complicated scientific models when complexity is low and there are no joker factors. The second is an example of using methods suited for very simple tasks like predicting fireproofing performance relative to other fireproofings, in "standard fires". They don't need to say much about "special fires", best effort is the goal. If the test doesn't simulate 10% of fires at all and would be 20% off, it wouldn't be a problem. The method probably is a lot less precise than your first example, even at its intended purpose. Using this method to model the WTC fires is completely ridiculous, there are hundreds of factors they would have to account for to be precise, and even just for a rough estimate they say themselves that there are tens of factors that are up in the air. Where did the fuel go? How was the condition of the fireproofing? What about oxygen and gases? When they are varying different values for so many parameters, it is evident that they do not have real knowledge about even basic factors. To be able to come up with some sort of explanation for a theory that sort of matches, is not the same as having scientifically proven it. They made the conclusion first and then found a theory to fit, disregarding anomaly observations even when them bein "in your face". Might be scientists work this way sometimes, but then they are being bad scientists.

I'd also like to hear your opinon about what stickdog is referring to, what do you think about their temperature assessment of the WTC steel samples? Do you believe their empirical knowledge best applies to this type of analysis, or global fire computer modelling?

I'd also be interested in a reply to my questions in the post below. You should be able to answer both simple and hard questions, if you have a clue what you are talking about.

My example of using empirically found criteria for pipe design is based on science. Nearly all engineering design is a combination of science and empirically derived observations.

Typically formulas used in engineering are derived equations determined (typically) from basic laws of energy and motion. These formulas are then "corrected" so they work well in real life. As an example the friction factor for type pipe is not simply calculated because you have no practical way to do that. So if you want to determine pressure drop in a pipe circuit you use empirically derived factors to make the design useful.

My example is quite useful to understand how conditions are determined using empirical data. First you should realize that the complexity of fluid flow is quite high. The only reason the complexity has been reduced to a manageable level is because the demand for accurate hydraulic systems is immense. See here for info on just the friction factor.

The NIST uses the same basic principles as above. Yes, it's a complex system, but they know how fires behave in office building with good accuracy. I understand you do not believe the NIST model is useful. I can't tell you how accurate it is. I can state with confidence that if they say fires may have reached 1000 deg F they are close. Close meaning it might really be 800 or it might be 1200, but it not going to be 200F. No matter what, it is conclusive that fire temperatures were hot enough to degrade the strength of the steel. I can't tell you anything to change your mind about this because you lack an understanding of how models work.

in fact I specifically made an example of turbulent flow being particularly unpractical to computer model for normal real life applications. My brother is an engineer and work with turbines and the like.

Your empirical formula would generally break if complexity increased, adding wild cards it would in short time be useless. You could not reliably predict results, not being able to meet modest needs for accuracy. With a given result things would obviously be simpler ... Then having something that matched some of the results and not all, it'd probably indicate problems with the model even though it arrived at the same results.

The problem with modelling complex systems is that adding a joker factor, the uncertainty will multiply at each iteration, leaving you with zilch a few steps down the road. I am skeptical of the nist model regardless of what it might think it is saying about the collapses, them having trouble getting the result they'd like with the conclusion ready in my view points in the other direction, I'd rate it as indication though it is not something I would focus an argument on.

I completely don't buy your "good accuracy", I'd say when complexity is low they have good accuracy but when it is high they don't really have much but some guidance and instinct. Again piecing stuff together in retrospect is a lot easier an exercise than doing good predictions which would measure the real quality of their models. For their purpose they are probably good. People saying the buildings would have been standing clearly are not insane, Nists modelling which you are referring to as I take it good, says that it could go both ways, it depends I guess on your standing what part of that you like to focus on. And it doesn't deal with what happened between start and end of collapse. Asking about that, it is not a stupid question, like you sometimes seem to say. Asking about the underground fires afterwards might be an even better question. It should be very possible to get to the bottom of such questions.

You completely ignoring the evidence we do have about the steel temperature above here is interesting. The sample might be limited, but can you show the sample to be irrelevant? They had several columns from the crash and fire area. 250 degrees C is low in this case, it is not a very substantial weakening of the steel given what we know about the safety factors. There obviously could be areas with higher temperatures, but given the intact fireproofing above the impact and general observation about the type of smoke, etc etc, it seems plausibel those columns didn't get very hot at spots, they probably evened the heat out rather well and the system obviously had a considerable heat capacity. Consider a normal medium size cast iron fireplace. The amount of iron makes it hard to get it very hot, even burning it for hours and hours, with good oxygen access and lotsof good quality, dry, energy dense fuel.

Your last sentence, you are appearantly clearly wrong at the first instance. Do what I said. Pick three point from Jones' work that are most convincing to people with an understanding of physics and defeat them proper, showing him wrong not just calling him wrong. I give particular attention to the substance of the arguments of people that I disagree with. The second part of that sentence is probably wrong as well, you don't specify what you mean by "understanding how models work" and so it is hard to say. I'd like to ask, what is the point of your post? You don't discuss thermite anymore. Or your own theory about the underground fires.

For all the talk of science, this sentence:

"No matter what, it is conclusive that fire temperatures were hot enough to degrade the strength of the steel."

Is questionable, even though you don't say it loud Ì believe the rest of your sentence is "enough to make the building collapse totally, (without the help of explosives or thermite)". What do you mean by "No matter what"? No matter what the proof, or proven fallacy of your theory? Or are you open to the idea that you might not know all about what happened, even though you are "on the right team"? I'd say if you mean no matter what the proof, your statement about changing the mind of a person probably was a description of your self.

to call Prof jones work what it is?

but far short of scientifically unassailable.

Not only is far short of scientifically unassailable, it is not remotely scientifically substantive. It's rehashed 9/11 faith based science.

professor Jones don't believe in an underground fire gaining anything like those temperatures without thermite processes being present. If there wasn't anything close to those temperatures present in the towers, he have shown that thermite processes were at work about as well as he is able to without access to the evidence. It seems unlikely they would start by themselves after the collapse, given they need very high temperature to ignite, and that the rubble was a "mix", it is hard to imagine a good proportion of aluminium oxide and rust to form accidentally, in large proportion, then get ignited by ???? ... With pockets of thermite around, the type with sulpur that will give off sulpurous hypercorroding smoke, and knowing that given very high start temperature Gypsum can take part in thermite reactions. These kind of scenarios, if it still is entirely on a theory basis, it seems they at least need less of the hand of god to work. Of course, if the phenomenon can be easily accounted for without thermite processes, it is a different matter.

Your theory is that a mix containing a significant amount of fireproofing still containing its water, lots of connected metal to distribute heat, an air supply with what I take it must have been quite cold air from the tubes under it, and situated in a cement bath tub sitting in wet soil, close to a river. That this fire on a mix of concrete, gypsum and organic fuel that I don't know, probably less than 50% weigth in combustible material *excluding the steel*. That this mix would burn hotter or as hot as a best case coal fire. I take it, Produce sulphurous smoke to explain the sulphidation in the steel piece you are referring to.

How do you account for these high temperatures in the rubble? I mean 1000 must be a low estimate given the previous discussion here, right? If you can't show very convincingly that the temperatures would have gone so high without thermite reactions, you migth be close on proving his point for him. I don't say I am sure there was a thermite reaction, but your theory to me seems unlikely and in need of some more detail for me to accept it, Jones's theory seems more probable in terms of physics though because of the politics I would like to see more proof or buildup for that as well.

What other case do you have that resemble the swiss cheese steel from the wtc, since you are able to generalise about what happened to it? I thought Nist said it was unprecedented?

I also think I disagree that calling his work bollocks or rubbish is a refutal of his point. You should try and identify what you and your opponents like Stickdog wouldn't disagree to hard about being his strongest arguments and prood (or indication), then debunk those properly. I have doubts you would be able to deliver even such a limited response to his work, I mean I think you would find it hard to make your arguments substantial, to make a counter theory that would be any more convincing than Jones's. Calling his theories Crazy, I think this person either suspect he is right and unhappy with that, or he didn't read much history. He might be completely and utterly wrong, but that is a way different aspect of the human condition.

I am not taking any particular side to Jones work or any theory not proven with a very low uncertainty, the first for which I have some reservations in terms of it at all instances keeping up to the best scientific standard. I have gotten the distinct impression his work on particle physics isn't by any means sub par. His work in other areas, the judge is out but if he is right, even at just a few of his arguments I'd say my reservations are moot. His presentation for an audience at a different university than his own, there are accessible slides and the lecture linked from another thread on him here if you search. Maybe someone can help me with the link? Many of his points are well sourced in stuff like fire engineering magazine etc. He might be making a point in some cases, but you can pick that away and still be left with some interesting patterns. I'd say check that if you are interested in his claims, no matter the reason.

"buried" fires going? I'm sure there are other sources of oxygen, but I'm not sure what, in this case...

was

"There is a vast difference between
readable (articulate) and substantive "
why even post if you are going to deny your intention?
or maybe another one of you posted that.

""There is a vast difference between readable (articulate) and substantive" simply mean what it says. There is no implication that being articulate and substantive are mutually exclusive. I have no clue why you think that was implied by me.

As a physicist Dr. Jones should be able to write in an articulate and substantive manner about the events of 9/11. He choose not to, and mostly rehashed 9/11 mythology and sophistry found all over the internet. You will need to ask him why.

Lared;

I've been reading over your posts here in the 9/11 forum and you seem to be very clear on what didn't happen but I have been unable to find a post where you explain what you think did happen. Could you direct me to a post where you propose or support a specific explanation for what caused the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and the destruction at the Pentagon?

Thank You

what yours?

Lared;

Your nonsensical and simplistic version of the official explanation was completely debunked last summer by a civil engineer on the thread below. Why do you obstinately persist in perpetuating it?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=49321


Your Theory --

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Theory?

Sure.

WTC 1 & 2

Each tower had a large jumbo jet fly into the building at a high rate of speed. This impact damaged the building structure, it's life safety systems, and started massive fires over a large area. The combination of the damaged structure and fires weakening the steel, allowed the building to collapse.

WTC 7

This building was damaged by the collapse of the WTC towers. Fires were allowed to burn for many hours. The structure was a unique design due to the substation inside. There was also large fuel oil tanks inside that most likely added to the fires. The bottom line is the building collapsed because the unique design lacked redundancy.

Pentagon

Very bad stuff happens when a jumbo jet crashed into a building.

as if there was a "small" jumbo jet, heh heh

Are you referring to Janedoe?

That's the discussion where you pretended to be an engineer and Ms. Wood took the time to penetrate your bad grammar and delusional thinking to explain to you in considerable detail why the official explanation makes no sense.

person.

Apparently Clemson's standards are slipping.

agrees with the official conspiracy theory, that's de facto proof that it MUST be correct. In fact, several times you've argued that the fact that no experts have spoken out publicly against the official conspiracy theory proves that it must be correct.

But any expert with the guts to speak against the official conspiracy theory becomes, by definition, less than an expert. Must be nice to live in such a circular world in terms of the logical evaluation of one's own beliefs ...

I am not convinced she is even an engineer.

assuming you are correct that Judy Wood and janedoe are one and the same. Dr. Wood is a Mechanical Engineer not a civil engineer. There is a difference you understand.

LARED;

Her field is mechanical engineering, my mistake. But then, if you were actually an engineer, as you claimed to be in that that discussion, you would know that the disciplines of mechanical engineering are perfectly suited to an analyis of what happened to the towers.

As an mechanical engineer I can tell you a mechanical engineer will have most of the disciplines needed to analyze what happened but a civil/structural engineer would be perfectly suited.

This statement certainly sums up your approach to this subject.

"Frankly, I don't care what you believe"

supposed to be opened minded about what have you have to say.


:boring:

when it comes to critically examining the events of 9/11.

the level of exposure to structural design. A mechanical engineer would only be exposed to the basics, while a civil will develop some advanced knowledge about structural steel design.

I must disagree with the assertion that janedoe debunked LARED in the thread you linked to in your post. As I do not know the specific points you believe have been debunked, I'd just like to make a small request. Please read this extremely brief analysis of the WTC7 collapse and tell me whether or not you agree with how the resistance factor was calculated.

Or alternatively, if you would prefer, you could point out some specific example(s) of debunking from that thread.

Or course, feel free to do both. Or neither, if you wish.

- Make7

I am afraid that I have been terribly rude and I am certainly not an engineer but in reading over the discussion in posts 38 through 113 in the discussion below I found janedoe's argument more convincing than Lared's. I doubt that any of this will be adequately resolved until all of the evidence has been released for study. Which is why I would encourage you to sign the Scholar's for 9/11 Truth petition to congress to release the evidence.

posts 38 through 113:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=49321&mesg_id=49321

Scholars petition:

http://www.st911.org/

In this video, which is a link that janedoe provided in post 60 in the thread you referred to, watch the corner of the building -- the corner that is toward us.

As the damage proceeds down the building, the corner remains intact well above the damage zone. Even after the corner is obscured by the cloud, the shape of the cloud plume indicates that the corner is still in place.

I can see how that would be possible if the damage we see is from demolition charges that took out some of the vertical members but not enough for that part of the building to yet be collapsing.

But in the pancake theory, how could that corner remain so perfectly in place after the stack of pancakes is already many floors below it? That doesn't seem right.

Yes, it does look strange. It doesn't look like you would imagine "pancaking" to look. But since there are no examples of steel high rises "pancaking" as a consequence of fire, who knows?

The official theory would have us believe that WTC1, WTC2 were as fragile and susceptible to collapse as a house of cards. From what I have read this is nonsense -- the towers were constructed with significant redundancy -- they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. One engineer compares the effects of the impact of a jet into one of the towers to the effects of punching a hole in a screen door with a pencil. But don't try to find the blueprints, they have conveniently disappeared, along with most of the debris from WTC1 and WTC2. The black boxes/flight recorders are also missing. And all of the structural steel from WTC7 was shipped overseas before it could be analyzed - check the NIST preliminary report to verify this. And the the idea that jet fuel dispersed throughout the building, ignited and significantly weakened the structural members is absurd -- jet fuel doesn't burn at a temperature sufficient to melt structural steel. I am not an engineer but the idea that these towers, which stood for thirty years, withstood fire and a bombing, were destroyed by the impact of passenger jets seems utterly ludicrous.

For a more detailed explanation as well as numerous links to illustrative videos and graphics, I must direct you to Steven E. Jones analysis:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

I'm not an engineer either but the idea that the expulsions from the sides of the buildings were caused by a stack of floors descending inside the facade and pulverizing floors in succession just doesn't seem possible. For the pancake stack to descend so evenly without either pushing or pulling that corner out of place seems so improbable as to be getting into the impossible range. I'd like to know what the details are of the pancaking theory of this tower in terms of what was supposedly happening to the various elements of the structure.

On the other hand, under the CD theory it is just what you'd expect.

Thanks for the pointer to Jones' analysis. That is what got me to start taking the CD theory seriously as of a couple of weeks ago. Before that I was only casually aware of it.

It makes no sense at all. My intuition is that, at worst, several floors might have collapsed but not the entire building, in perfect symmetry, at free fall speed. As far as I have been able to determine there is no precedent for this.

You might also want to look at this website, The Center For Cooperative Research, which has a wealth of information and detailed timelines.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

it was a unique event? As far as I know, this is the first instance of an airplane hitting a skyscraper at high speed.

I think that we can agree that this was a unique event. But as to the cause of the event I'm afraid we differ. I think that it is preposterous to assert, based on the currently available evidence, that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed into their own footprints as a result of passenger jets flying into them. As I am sure you have read many times in many other posts,the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. These events look like controlled demolition, they sound like controlled demolition, the seismic record indicates explosions, the debris has all of the characteristics of materials subjected to explosive devices and there is no precedent for a steel framed high rise structure to fall as a result of fire. Material was ejected horizontally and vertically with such force that it penetrated buildings blocks away. The clouds of dust were clearly pyroclastic in nature. The record is clear that the jet fuel burned off in minutes. And, in any case jet fuel does not burn at a sufficiently high temperature to create the devastating effects you assign to it. And even if the the jet's impact were more devastating, the hits were not direct and it is logical to think that at least one of the buildings would have collapsed asymmetrically. As for WTC7, WTC7 was not hit by a jet and yet collapsed so quickly and symmetrically that one analyst has calculated that it actually fell faster than free fall due to the vacuum created by a CD type implosion.

The official theory postulates an absurd and unlikely concatenation of events which, in my view, is simpy not supported by the available evidence.

they were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707

Yeah, and the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable.

Scroll up a little to "Floors"


http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

... about her argument. I simply don't understand how her being wrong is convincing.

- Make7

See my post No. 134 in this thread, "Unique Event".

I was looking more for a direct quote or two of janedoe's that you found convincing. I shouldn't think that would be overly difficult if she did indeed "completely debunk" LARED in that thread.


I will agree with most of that - WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall at free fall speeds, and they did not fall into their own footprints. (See your point below about material being ejected horizontally.) I don't know why people continue to assert such preposterous things.


The towers did withstand the impacts of the planes. If the impacts alone had caused the collapses, they would have fallen almost immediately.


Looking like controlled demolition does not mean that it was, although I should add that the towers were unlike any CD I've ever seen.


Before every CD collapse that I have heard, there are unmistakable multiple, distinct sharp explosions - I have not heard any audio of the collapses that day that have anything similar. What makes you think they sound like CD? What are you comparing?


I do not believe the seismic record indicates explosions - that is just how it has been interpreted by some. Could you show exactly how the seismic readings indicate that explosives were used?


Please show some pictures or post some analysis of this debris that has "all of the characteristics of materials subjected to explosive devices". I'm not clear as to what characteristics you are referring to.


There still is no precedent for a high rise steel frame structure to fall as a result of fire. The collapses were caused by structural damage and fire.


While still falling within their own footprints? Hmmm. Tell me, was material ejected horizontally, or did the towers fall into their own footprints?


Pyroclastic clouds are typically extremely hot, aren't they? Hot enough to cause severe burning or death to anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in one. Are there any reports of severe burning or deaths from extreme heat caused by the dust and debris clouds that day?


If the jet fuel burned off in minutes, what difference does the temperature at which it burns make?


The South Tower did collapse asymmetrically. Remember the top portion tipping to the east at the beginning of the collapse? That would by definition make it an asymmetric collapse.


Do you have a link to this analyst's calculations? The collapse time for WTC7 is almost always reported as having fallen slower than free fall. For example, by Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, and the collapse examination that I posted a link to previously.

- Make7

The collapse examination you cite says that it fell faster than free fall of an object in air.

Times used in that paper:

• Free fall in vacuum: 6.0 seconds
  
• Collapse of WTC7: 6.5 seconds
  
• Free fall in air: 7.0 seconds

Clearly the time to beat in order to claim free fall would be the free_fall_in_air time, not the free_fall_in_vacuum time, since there was air. And by that measure, the building fell faster than free fall (if we take the paper's collapse time as correct).

I think the paper is flawed in its calculation of a resistance factor for the collapse because it treats the 6.5 second measurement as having more significant digits (2) than how many I think it really does have (1). In other words, the collapse time should be something like 6.5 +-0.5 seconds, which then gives a range for n of 0.16 +-0.16. Or use a bit smaller error range for the collapse time if you want but you will still get a fairly large range in the calculated resistance factor -- a large enough range to make it clear that the calculation of the paper cannot really tell us much about the actual resistance factor.

But putting that flawed calculation of n aside, if the calculations of free fall time in a vacuum and in air are correct, then we can conclude that WTC7 collapsed in roughly free fall time.

BTW, I agree with you on the seismic data -- I don't think you can tell from the seismic data whether there were or were not demolition explosions. At least the seismic data I've seen so far -- maybe there's some data I haven't seen yet that is more conclusive (but I doubt it).

Do you feel that the "free fall in air" time of an apple would be the same as the "free fall in air" time of a 10 ton steel beam?

Perhaps you would care to come up with some calculations for the increase in collapse time that air resistance would cause for WTC7. Then we'll see how that compares to the various collapse times that have been reported.


Which digit is not significant - the 6 or the 5?



Since you seem to be such a stickler for accuracy, I would like to point out the resistance factor values for your example above.

 collapse time  resistance factor 
      6.0             0.01        
      6.5             0.16        
      7.0             0.28        

Not quite the same as your n = 0.16 ±0.16 "calculation".

- Make7

point that matters.

On the details:

I agree that objects will have different fall rates depending on their shape, density, the atmospheric conditions, etc. (it would be silly not to agree with that).

Also agree that your numbers for resistance factor look right but the whole point I was making is that they are a very rough estimate and I did use the phrase "something like" when I gave my range. I was just lazy and didn't do the math but instead eyeballed it on the graph because -- it's a very rough estimate anyway.

Regarding significant digits, hopefully we can agree to count them starting from the left.

On the actual point:

Anyway, to me the bottom line is that the measured collapse time is going to fall within the error range of whatever "free fall" time calculation we could come up with. I think we can say that it fell at essentially free fall rate and I think that is the most we would be able to say even if we could somehow do some really fancy calculations.

Off topic:

BTW, cool table using html spans. I'll steal that idea if you don't mind.

Did you not state that you thought the WTC7 analysis in question was flawed in its calculation of a resistance factor because it treats the number 6.5 as having two significant digits instead of one? (remember) Here is a quote from the very first hit of a google search: "Non-zero digits are always significant. Thus, 22 has two significant digits, and 22.3 has three significant digits." So tell me again, how many significant digits does the number 6.5 have?



I haven't really looked at the WTC7 collapse at great length, but regarding the collapse time the best estimate I have made so far is 7.0 seconds from a series of screen captures. I haven't looked at the actual video that they were taken from to try and get a more precise measurement yet.

I think 7.0 seconds counts as slower than free fall, but call it whatever you like. However, I would like to add that the tower collapses were certainly slower than free fall.



Steal away. I've found that CSS is about the only way to get some things to look reasonable on this forum - tables being one of them.

- Make7

The number 6.5 implies 2 significant digits but putting that number in a paper doesn't prove that we've really got accuracy to that level. If the author had said the time of collapse was 6.4738924 then he would have been implying 8 significant digits and I would have said I think we really have only 1 significant digit, not 8 as the author claims. Especially if the author had done some kind of calculation that was valid only if he really did have accuracy to 8 significant digits.

I think the time of collapse is "about 6 or 7 seconds depending on how you decide when the end of the event is". I don't think it is "7.0" seconds, assuming you intend the ".0" part to mean that we can show the actual time is demonstrably in the range 6.95 to 7.05. The problem with getting it accurate down to that level is that there is no clear definition of when it hit the ground.

BTW, I think it is in 911 Eyewitness that there is a claim that WTC7 fell at faster than free fall speed. Their measurement is done differently -- they get a vertical scale off of an adjacent building in the video and then measure the time for the first 100 meters of fall, or something like that. They use that conclusion to then draw a secondary conclusion that there must have been a vacuum caused by implosion to "pull" the building down at that faster than free fall rate. I think they are similarly exaggerating the accuracy of their measurement and then drawing a conclusion that they would not have drawn had they used a range of times for their measurement instead of a single number of exaggerated accuracy. (WTC7 was visibly expelling a cloud out its roof as it collapsed so how could a vacuum be pulling it down?)

I'm sticking to my approach that WTC7 fell at roughly free fall speed and that the structure of the building for some reason didn't slow the fall appreciably. Maybe you agree with that, more or less (or maybe not, let me know). Whether the building could have fallen at that roughly free fall rate without the use of demolition charges is a different question.

I agree with you that the towers, on the other hand, took longer than free fall rate to fall.

I was looking more for a direct quote or two of janedoe's that you found convincing. I shouldn't think that would be overly difficult if she did indeed "completely debunk" LARED in that thread.

Thank you for your detailed and thoughful response to my post.

Posted by Kai:
I think that it is preposterous to assert, based on the currently available evidence, that WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed symmetrically at free fall speed into their own footprints as a result of passenger jets flying into them.

I will agree with most of that - WTC1 and WTC2 did not fall at free fall speeds, and they did not fall into their own footprints. (See your point below about material being ejected horizontally.) I don't know why people continue to assert such preposterous things.

My point is that I think it is implausible that jet impacts resulted in catalyzing symmetrical free fall collapses.

Posted by Kai:
As I am sure you have read many times in many other posts,the towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

The towers did withstand the impacts of the planes. If the impacts alone had caused the collapses, they would have fallen almost immediately.

Unless I misunderstand the official explanation, the jets, while not causing the direct and immediate collapse of the buildings, were the initial catalyzing event which led to the collapse of the buildings. I think that this theory is contrived and unbelievable.

Posted by Kai:
These events look like controlled demolition...

Looking like controlled demolition does not mean that it was, although I should add that the towers were unlike any CD I've ever seen.

Perhaps you should review some more examples of controlled demolition. There are a number of examples at this web site: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm.

Posted by Kai:
...they sound like controlled demolition...

Before every CD collapse that I have heard, there are unmistakable multiple, distinct sharp explosions - I have not heard any audio of the collapses that day that have anything similar. What makes you think they sound like CD? What are you comparing?

I think you would benefit by watching the eyewitness video and reviewing the transcriptions of numerous eyewitness accounts which repeatedly mention the distinctive sound of explosions.

Posted by Kai:
...the seismic record indicates explosions...

I do not believe the seismic record indicates explosions - that is just how it has been interpreted by some. Could you show exactly how the seismic readings indicate that explosives were used?

There are times when I feel that the official explanation seeks to “interpret” the obvious and the irrefutable which seems like obfuscation. janedoe cites the seimic record which corresponds with the collapse of the towers. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to treat this as more than mere coincidence.

Posted by Kai:
...the debris has all of the characteristics of materials subjected to explosive devices...

Please show some pictures or post some analysis of this debris that has "all of the characteristics of materials subjected to explosive devices". I'm not clear as to what characteristics you are referring to.

Please refer to this article for an analyis with photos and diagram which shows the likelihood of explosives at WTC.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/index.html

excerpt;
Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.

Posted by Kai:
...there is no precedent for a steel framed high rise structure to fall as a result of fire.

There still is no precedent for a high rise steel frame structure to fall as a result of fire. The collapses were caused by structural damage and fire.

The official explanation is that the structural damage was caused by fire. I think you are being obtuse on this point.

Posted by Kai:
Material was ejected horizontally and vertically with such force that it penetrated buildings blocks away.

While still falling within their own footprints? Hmmm. Tell me, was material ejected horizontally, or did the towers fall into their own footprints?

You seem to be well-informed on this subject so I am going to assume that you have reviewed the photographs of adjacent buildings bristling with pieces of steel as well as the many videos showing material being ejected outward and upward. As from an explosion or explosions.

Posted by Kai:
The clouds of dust were clearly pyroclastic in nature.

Pyroclastic clouds are typically extremely hot, aren't they? Hot enough to cause severe burning or death to anyone unfortunate enough to get caught in one. Are there any reports of severe burning or deaths from extreme heat caused by the dust and debris clouds that day?

There are different types of pyroclastic clouds. The clouds attendant to the collapses of the towers showed all of the characteristics of pyroclastic clouds. It is also significant that the clouds were comprised of concrete dust - mere gravitational collapse would not generate sufficient energy to pulverize concrete. For a more detailed explanation review this analysis:

excerpt;<br>
If all the expansion was due to thermodynamic expansion, it would require that the dust cloud was heated to an average temperature of about 1020 K. Certainly the temperatures of the cloud near the ground were no-where near that high. Eyewitness reports show that the cloud's ground-level temperatures more than a few hundred feet away from its center were humanly survivable. Most of these reports are from the South Tower collapse, and it is unclear how similar the dust cloud temperatures following the two collapses were. Although serious fires raged in Buildings 4, 5, and 6, other nearby buildings that suffered extensive window breakage from the tower collapses, such as the Banker's Trust Building, and Word Financial Center Buildings 1, 2, and 3, did not experience fires. Digital photographs and videos show a bright afterglow with a locus near the center of the cloud, commencing around 17 seconds after the onset of the North Tower's collapse. Once the afterglow started, the cloud developed large upwelling columns towering to over 600 feet, and the previously gray cloud appeared to glow with a reddish hue. This suggests that at lest the upper and central regions of the North Tower cloud reached very high temperatures, but the evidence is insufficient to draw even general quantitative conclusions about the ranges and distributions of temperatures.

Posted by Kai:
The record is clear that the jet fuel burned off in minutes. And, in any case jet fuel does not burn at a sufficiently high temperature to create the devastating effects you (referring to hack89) assign to it.

If the jet fuel burned off in minutes, what difference does the temperature at which it burns make?

It is significant because the official explanation depends on intense fires weakening the structure of the building. The fires didn’t burn long enough or hot enough to weaken or melt the structural steel of the building.

Posted by Kai:
And even if the the jet's impact were more devastating, the hits were not direct and it is logical to think that at least one of the buildings would have collapsed asymmetrically.

The South Tower did collapse asymmetrically. Remember the top portion tipping to the east at the beginning of the collapse? That would by definition make it an asymmetric collapse.

Yes, it tilted and then it dropped straight into it’s own footprint.

Posted by Kai:
As for WTC7, WTC7 was not hit by a jet and yet collapsed so quickly and symmetrically that one analyst has calculated that it actually fell faster than free fall due to the vacuum created by a CD type implosion.

Do you have a link to this analyst's calculations? The collapse time for WTC7 is almost always reported as having fallen slower than free fall. For example, by Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, and the collapse examination that I posted a link to previously.


Whether the WTC7 collapse was at free fall or faster than free fall speeds is a matter of dispute. Watching the numerous videos of its collapse, it certainly dropped with amazing speed. What I find significant about this is that this building suffered nothing more serious than fires on the lower floors and yet it collapsed with the speed an symmetry characteristic of controlled demolition.

An example of a large cloud caused by a non-explosives induced collapse:

http://detroityes.com/downtown/22ywca.htm

"The wrecking ball rebounds after a mighty hit that fells the upper six floors of Downtown YWCA."

I initially responded to a post of yours where you claimed that janedoe "completely debunked" LARED in another thread. You have not provided a single example of debunking, or of a more convincing argument from that thread. Instead you have offered your own opinion. Which is fine, although you seem to provide little or no basis for what you are saying. For example:


My point is that the collapses were not free fall and not symmetrical. Repeating that they fell at free fall speeds does not make it true.


Perhaps you could just post a link to the video of a controlled demolition that looks like the Twin Tower collapses. You said they looked like controlled demolition. What are you using for comparison?


I think I would benefit more if you would actually address my point. You say they sounded like controlled demolition. I am simply asking for the audio from one of the Twin Towers collapses to be compared to a known controlled demolition to demonstrate the apparently obvious similarities.


I'll make this one easy for you - here is a seismic chart of the collapse event for WTC1:



Could you please point out how that indicates explosives were used?


I never knew that eutectic reactions were a characteristic of metal that has been subject to explosives. Can you provide a quote and a reference for drawing that conclusion? Or provide an example of any steel that has been exposed to explosives exhibiting a similar reaction?


I thought the official explanation specifically stated that the plane impacts caused structural damage to WTC1 and WTC2. That is structural damage not caused by fire. The official narrative is that the collapses were caused by this initial structural damage followed by the fires weakening the remaining structure.


You have made two contradictory statements: the towers collapsed "into their own footprints" and "material was ejected horizontally... with such force that it penetrated buildings blocks away." Which is it? Did they fall into their own footprints, or did they eject material horizontally?


Are there any types of pyroclastic clouds that aren't extremely hot? Please give some examples. Funny that you quote from a study that claims that the dust clouds should have been 750°C if caused by thermal expansion alone, but then continues by stating that they were no where near that hot. This would lead me to conclude that the expansion was obviously caused by something other than just an increase in temperature. It also leads me to believe that the dust clouds did not have one of the main characteristics of pyroclastic clouds - high temperatures.


Are you deliberately missing my point? If the jet fuel burned off in minutes, it does not matter what temperature it burns at because it was not what was burning after those first few minutes. It would only be significant if the towers collapsed in the first few minutes because of the jet fuel fires. That did not happen.


No link? I have to say that I am not surprised. I agree that WTC7 fell quickly and certainly straight down, but the assertion that it "suffered nothing more serious than fires on the lower floors" is clearly mistaken. There was structural damage from the collapse of WTC1 and the fires were more severe than you seem to be implying.

- Make7

147. This does not appear to be very productive.

Make7 says:
I initially responded to a post of yours where you claimed that janedoe "completely debunked" LARED in another thread. You have not provided a single example of debunking, or of a more convincing argument from that thread. Instead you have offered your own opinion. Which is fine, although you seem to provide little or no basis for what you are saying. For example:

I found janedoe more convincing, she seemed to address the issues and your responses with great clarity and patience. I wanted t respond to your remarks on my views on the WTC events. I am not an engineer but found janedoe's case more believable. I don't find either you or LARED very persuasive. And as far as 'little or no basis" I have provided abundant substantiating information in my posts.

Kai says:
My point is that I think it is implausible that jet impacts resulted in catalyzing symmetrical free fall collapses.

Make 7 says:
My point is that the collapses were not free fall and not symmetrical. Repeating that they fell at free fall speeds does not make it true.

I'm not an engineer and but the videos I have seen these buildings dropped with any apparent impediment to their descent. Whether it was technically free fall, or slightly slower or slightly faster is a matter of dispute but the many videos of these collapses do not look like progressive mechanical collapse. There is no stuttering, the collapse is fluid and the remaining debris shows very little fragmented concrete. I could be wrong but since I found janedoe more persuasive, I am inclined to believe her assertion that LARED's calculations on the descent rate were not accurate. Freefall.


Kai says:
Perhaps you should review some more examples of controlled demolition. There are a number of examples at this web site: http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion.htm .

Make 7 says:
Perhaps you could just post a link to the video of a controlled demolition that looks like the Twin Tower collapses. You said they looked like controlled demolition.

If you took the time to go to the link that I posted you would have found numerous relevant examples of controlled demolition. Your initial remark was that the collapse of the towers didn't resemble any controlled demolition that you've seen -- can you post an example of the controlled demolition that you are referring to?

Kai says:
I think you would benefit by watching the eyewitness video and reviewing the transcriptions of numerous eyewitness accounts which repeatedly mention the distinctive sound of explosions.

Make 7 says:
I think I would benefit more if you would actually address my point. You say they sounded like controlled demolition. I am simply asking for the audio from one of the Twin Towers collapses to be compared to a known controlled demolition to demonstrate the apparently obvious similarities.

The audio can be heard in the Eyewitness film: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=eyewitness. So be sure to watch it and listen. And of course there were numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions. These are from the firefighters who were there:

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
We were there I don't know, maybe 10, 15 minutes and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Brian Becker -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
So I think that the building was really kind of starting to melt. We were -- like, the melt down was beginning. The collapse hadn't begun, but it was not a fire any more up there. It was like -- it was like that -- like smoke explosion on a tremendous scale going on up there.

Greg Brady -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
We were standing underneath and Captain Stone was speaking again. We heard -- I heard 3 loud explosions. I look up and the north tower is coming down now, 1 World Trade Center.
...
We were standing in a circle in the middle of West Street. They were talking about what was going on. At that time, when I heard the 3 loud explosions, I started running west on Vesey Street towards the water. At that time, I couldn't run fast enough. The debris caught up with me, knocked my helmet off.

Timothy Burke -- Firefigter (F.D.N.Y.)
Then the building popped, lower than the fire, which I learned was I guess, the aviation fuel fell into the pit, and whatever floor it fell on heated up really bad and that's why it popped at that floor. That's the rumor I heard. But it seemed like I was going oh, my god, there is a secondary device because the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit, because we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down. With that everybody was just stunned for a second or two, looking at the tower coming down.

Frank Campagna -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
There was nobody in the intersection, nobody in the streets in general, everyone just saying come on, keeping coming, keep coming. That's when went. I looked back. You see three explosions and then the whole thing coming down. I turned my head and everybody was scattering. From there I don't know who was who. I don't even know where my guys went. None of us knew where each other were at at that point in time.

Craig Carlsen -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.
...
You did hear the explosions . Of course after the first one -- the first one was pretty much looking at in like in awe. You didn't realize that this was really happening because you kind of just stood there and you didn't react as fast as you thought you were going to. The second one coming down, you knew the explosions. Now you're very familiar with it.

Jason Charles -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.)
I grabbed her and the Lieutenant picked her up by the legs and we start walking over slowly to the curb, and then I heard an explosion from up, from up above, and I froze and I was like, oh, s___, I'm dead because I thought the debris was going to hit me in the head and that was it.
Then everybody stops and looks at the building and they they take off. The Lieutenant dropped her legs and ran. The triage center, everybody who was sitting there hurt and, oh, you know, help me, they got up and and everybody together got up and ran. I looked at them like why are they running? I look over my shoulder and I says, oh, s___, and then I turned around and looked up and that's when I saw the tower coming down.
...
North Tower:
We start walking back there and then I heard a ground level explosion and I'm like holy s___, and then you heard that twisting metal wreckage again. Then I said s___ and everybody started running and I started running behind them, and we get to the door.
Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
And while I was still in that immediate area, the south tower, 2 World Trade Center, there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

James Curran -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.)
A guy started scremaing to run. When I got underneath the north bridge I looked back and you heard it, I heard like every floor went chu-chu-chu. Looked back and from the pressure everything was getting blown out of the floors before it actually collapsed.

Kevin Darnowski -- Paramedic (E.M.S.)
I started walking back up towards Vesey Street. I heard three explosions, and then we heard like groaning and grinding, and tower two started to come down.
Dominick Derubbio -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
After a while we were looking up at the tower, and all of a sudden someone said it's starting to come down.
...
This would be the first one.
...
This one here. It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion, but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other.

Karin Deshore -- Captain (E.M.S.)
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building.

Brian Dixon -- Battalion Chief (F.D.N.Y.)
I was watching the fire, watching the people jump and hearing a noise and looking up and seeing -- it actually looked -- the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because the whole bottom I could see -- I could see two sides of it and the other side -- it just looked like that floor blew out. I looked up and you could actually see everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out. Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out. The realization hit that it's going to fall down, the top's coming off. I was still thinking -- there was never a thought that this whole thing is coming down. I thought that that blew out and stuff is starting to fly down. The top is going to topple off there.

Michael Donovan -- Captain (F.D.N.Y.)
Anyway, with that I was listening, and there was an incredibly loud rumbling. I never got to look up. People started running for the entrances to the parking garages. They started running for the entrances. I started running without ever looking up. The roar became tremendous. I fell on the way to the parking garages. Debris was starting to fall all around me. I got up, I got into the parking garages, was knocked down by the percussion. I thought there had been an explosion or a bomb that they had blown up there. The Vista International Hotel was my first impression, that they had blown it up. I never got to see the World Trade Center coming down.

Kai says:
There are times when I feel that the official explanation seeks to "interpret" the obvious and the irrefutable which seems like obfuscation. janedoe cites the seimic record which corresponds with the collapse of the towers. I don’t think that it is unreasonable to treat this as more than mere coincidence.

Make 7 says:
I'll make this one easy for you - here is a seismic chart of the collapse event for WTC1:

Could you please point out how that indicates explosives were used?

I think that my post was quite clear. These seismic events correspond with the WTC events. To associate them with the Tower collapses is inferential but compelling. One wouldn't expect the seismograph needle to spell out "Large Explosive Devices, Manhattan"

Kai says:
Please refer to this article for an analyis with photos and diagram which shows the likelihood of explosives at WTC.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/ind...

Make 7 says:
I never knew that eutectic reactions were a characteristic of metal that has been subject to explosives. Can you provide a quote and a reference for drawing that conclusion? Or provide an example of any steel that has been exposed to explosives exhibiting a similar reaction?

Here is the article on the evidence of explosives on WTC metal that I posted the link for just in case you didn't take the time to click over and read it:

Forensic Metallurgy
Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives

Although virtually all of the structural steel from the Twin Towers and Building 7 was removed and destroyed, preventing forensic analysis, FEMA's volunteer investigators did manage to perform “limited metallurgical examination” of some of the steel before it was recycled. Their observations, including numerous micrographs, are recorded in Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study. Prior to the release of FEMA's report, a fire protection engineer and two science professors published a brief report in JOM disclosing some of this evidence. 1

The results of the examination are striking. They reveal a phenomenon never before observed in building fires: eutectic reactions, which caused "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese." The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." 2 WPI provides a graphic summary of the phenomenon.
A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

FEMA's investigators inferred that a "liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur" formed during a "hot corrosion attack on the steel." The eutectic mixture (having the elements in such proportion as to have the lowest possible melting point) penetrated the steel down grain boundaries, making it "susceptible to erosion."

The page Is There Evidence That Explosive Charges Were Used To Destroy The World Trade Center Towers? provides a summary of the FEMA Report's Appendix C, with references to elements and specific chemical reactions color-coded.

Explosive Evidence. The FEMA report titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Appendix C (Available at http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm) “Limited Metallurgical Examination”, shows evidence of explosives used, by way of photographs, microscopic, and chemical examination. They do not draw this conclusion though. Instead, the authors write (in these selected sentences ) “Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure.”... “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.”...“The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.”...“A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.”... “The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.”


Kai says:
The official explanation is that the structural damage was caused by fire.

Make 7 says:
I thought the official explanation specifically stated that the plane impacts caused structural damage to WTC1 and WTC2. That is structural damage not caused by fire. The official narrative is that the collapses were caused by this initial structural damage followed by the fires weakening the remaining structure.

You are correct, the official version does specify structural damage caused by the impacts and subsequent fires. However, since the building were built to withstand the impact of a 707 and the subsequent fires could never have reached a temperature sufficient to melt or weaken structural steel I am unpersuaded.

Kai says:
You seem to be well-informed on this subject so I am going to assume that you have reviewed the photographs of adjacent buildings bristling with pieces of steel as well as the many videos showing material being ejected outward and upward. As from an explosion or explosions.

Make 7 says:
You have made two contradictory statements: the towers collapsed "into their own footprints" and "material was ejected horizontally... with such force that it penetrated buildings blocks away." Which is it? Did they fall into their own footprints, or did they eject material horizontally?

I am not clear on how these are contradictory statements. But let me clarify. In the process of collapsing the towers ejected materials including steel girders horizontally and vertically/up with explosive force.

Kai says:
There are different types of pyroclastic clouds. The clouds attendant to the collapses of the towers showed all of the characteristics of pyroclastic clouds.

Make 7 says:
Are there any types of pyroclastic clouds that aren't extremely hot? Please give some examples. Funny that you quote from a study that claims that the dust clouds should have been 750°C if caused by thermal expansion alone, but then continues by stating that they were no where near that hot. This would lead me to conclude that the expansion was obviously caused by something other than just an increase in temperature. It also leads me to believe that the dust clouds did not have one of the main characteristics of pyroclastic clouds - high temperatures.

here is the link to a detailed paper on pyroclastic flow that I forgot to include with my post: http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

Jim Hoffman, the author of the paper states:

If enough water was present for vaporization to drive most of the expansion, temperatures in much of the cloud would have remained around 100 C until most of the water had vaporized. Thermodynamic expansion would occur in regions with liquid phase water until 100 C was reached, and again after the water was vaporized.

The paper is not conclusive.

Kai says:
It is significant because the official explanation depends on intense fires weakening the structure of the building. The fires didn't burn long enough or hot enough to weaken or melt the structural steel of the building.

Make 7 says:
Are you deliberately missing my point? If the jet fuel burned off in minutes, it does not matter what temperature it burns at because it was not what was burning after those first few minutes. It would only be significant if the towers collapsed in the first few minutes because of the jet fuel fires. That did not happen.

Perhaps you can explain to me what was burning to generate the high temperatures needed to weaken structural steel?

Kai says:
Whether the WTC7 collapse was at free fall or faster than free fall speeds is a matter of dispute. Watching the numerous videos of its collapse, it certainly dropped with amazing speed. What I find significant about this is that this building suffered nothing more serious than fires on the lower floors and yet it collapsed with the speed an symmetry characteristic of controlled demolition.

Make 7 says;
No link? I have to say that I am not surprised. I agree that WTC7 fell quickly and certainly straight down, but the assertion that it "suffered nothing more serious than fires on the lower floors" is clearly mistaken. There was structural damage from the collapse of WTC1 and the fires were more severe than you seem to be implying.


The NIST notes on page 3 of its preliminary report on WTC7 that the building to "fires/or debris".

Please provide me with clear and unambiguous documentation pertaining to the level of severity of the fires in WTC7.

Eric D. Williams in his book 911 101 remarks that: WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds. 0.5 seconds faster than free-fall. And remember nothing impacted this building.

Thank You
Kai

In order to not have to repeat myself, I am going to provide a link to one of my previous posts on this subject. Please estimate the collapse time for the North Tower in the video linked to in the post, then tell me what your estimate is and explain how that fits your definition of "free-fall".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=77503&mesg_id=78643



?pic">Aerial photo (WARNING: 14 Mb file!) taken on 09/23/01.



You want an example from me? Okay, here's a recent CD that doesn't look or sound anything like the collapse of WTC1 or WTC2: the Landmark Tower implosion. It also doesn't sound anything like what was heard in 911 Eyewitness.

Witness statements regarding hearing what they describe as explosions does not really demonstrate that the collapses of the towers sounded like CD - it just shows that people heard what they believed were explosions.

Here are a couple excerpts from an article describing sounds heard in the South Tower:



The odd thing is that those quotes are from an August 2000 article about an elevator accident.



It indicates explosions even though you are unable to demonstrate how it shows that. And why exactly should I find that compelling?




"Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives". That's the article your using? Suggests explosives? Okay...

In that article, there is no direct relationship shown between the observed phenomenon regarding those steel samples and the possible use of explosives. No previous examples of this type of corrosion occurring in the presence of explosives, and no lab tests that recreate the corrosion seen by subjecting steel to explosives are given. That article merely suggests a possible cause without providing a very reasonable scientific basis for doing so. It certainly cannot be considered evidence that steel was subjected to explosive devices.



Aren't you going to provide "abundant substantiating information" for this one as well?



You should probably read your sources more thoroughly. Jim Hoffman says, "...the Twin Towers' dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows...". That is the only instance of the word 'pyroclastic' at the link you provided. Strange for something you described as "a detailed paper on pyroclastic flow".

According to this source, "the basis of the term comes from "pyro" which means fire, and "clast" which refers to broken pieces of rock. Therefore, pyroclastic is a term used for broken pieces of rock associated with volcanic eruptions. It is a general term which covers a variety of sizes, ranging from ash to boulders." It goes on to describe pyroclatic flows: "They are hot and fast, moving at speeds up to several hundred miles per hour and at temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius."

Since we know that numerous people survived the dust clouds that day, I think it is safe to assume that the characteristic high temperature of a pyroclastic cloud was not present in the dust clouds on September 11th.



Debris from the collapse of WTC1 impacted WTC7, it caused damage to the building's structure. Here is the eye-witness testimony from a few firefighters:





And be sure to check out the video found at the bottom of this page discussing the WTC7 fire(s).

- Make7

I wish that there some way of indexing all these discussions. The search feature is cumbersome and there is wealth of information in this forum but it is hard to access.

Kai claims:
Twin Towers collapsed at free fall.

In order to not have to repeat myself, I am going to provide a link to one of my previous posts on this subject. Please estimate the collapse time for the North Tower in the video linked to in the post, then tell me what your estimate is and explain how that fits your definition of "free-fall".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I stand corrected on this. The videos do show debris falling at a faster rate than the towers. However, the towers do fall with tremendous speed and with no signs of the stuttering that I would expect to see in progressive structural failure.

Kai claims:
Twin Towers collapsed in their own footprint.

Aerial photo (WARNING: 14 Mb file!) taken on 09/23/01.

I'm not clear how that remarkable photograph shows that the buildings didn't collapse into their own footprint. Am I missing something here? Taking into account material expelled from the building in the process of collapse and some spreading of one thousand feet of material, it still looks the building fell down symmetrically into their own footprint.


Kai claims:
The Twin Towers collapses looked and sounded like controlled demolition.

You want an example from me? Okay, here's a recent CD that doesn't look or sound anything like the collapse of WTC1 or WTC2: the Landmark Tower implosion. It also doesn't sound anything like what was heard in 911 Eyewitness.

Witness statements regarding hearing what they describe as explosions does not really demonstrate that the collapses of the towers sounded like CD - it just shows that people heard what they believed were explosions.

Here are a couple excerpts from an article describing sounds heard in the South Tower:

People "thought it was a bomb," said Kim Dunlap, a receptionist on the 100th floor. It rocked the building.

Others described the crash as sounding like a horrendous "boom."

The odd thing is that those quotes are from an August 2000 article about an elevator accident.


There are so many eyewitness accounts of explosions being heard that I have to take them seriously. Additionally all of the accounts I posted are from firefighters who through training and experience should be able to differentiate an explosion from other events.

But sound can be elusive. And the eyewitness accounts of an elevator accident are pertinant. I work with sound effects and it is surprising how similar sounding different physical events can be.


Kai claims:
the seismic record indicates explosions

It indicates explosions even though you are unable to demonstrate how it shows that. And why exactly should I find that compelling?

The fact that the largest movement is followed by smaller movement has been cited as evidence that bombs, detonated at the starts of the collapses, generated the large movement, and that the debris impacting the ground contributed to the smaller subsequent movement. However, bombs, if detonated underground, would have generated strong P waves in addition to S waves. The fact that only strong S waves were reported is consistent with the theory that the largest movement was caused by building remains hitting the ground.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/free...

The use of the seismic reading is inferential and certainly subject to dispute. I still find it compelling. I can understand why you don't


Kai claims:
the debris has all of the characteristics of materials subjected to explosive devices

"Metallurgical Examination of WTC Steel Suggests Explosives". That's the article your using? Suggests explosives? Okay...

In that article, there is no direct relationship shown between the observed phenomenon regarding those steel samples and the possible use of explosives. No previous examples of this type of corrosion occurring in the presence of explosives, and no lab tests that recreate the corrosion seen by subjecting steel to explosives are given. That article merely suggests a possible cause without providing a very reasonable scientific basis for doing so. It certainly cannot be considered evidence that steel was subjected to explosive devices.

The point of the article is that FEMA has the evidence but has refrained from reaching the obvious conclusion the metal had reacted to explosives. Honestly, does this picture, taken on September 13 look like the result of "pancaking"?


Kai claims:
the subsequent fires could never have reached a temperature sufficient to melt or weaken structural steel

Aren't you going to provide "abundant substantiating information" for this one as well?

If anyone has come forward with information explaining what materials were present in the North and South towers that would burn with sufficient heat to damage the structure of the buildings I have yet to see it. Can you inform me on this?

Kai claims:
The clouds attendant to the collapses of the towers showed all of the characteristics of pyroclastic clouds.

You should probably read your sources more thoroughly. Jim Hoffman says, "...the Twin Towers' dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows...". That is the only instance of the word 'pyroclastic' at the link you provided. Strange for something you described as "a detailed paper on pyroclastic flow".

According to this source, "the basis of the term comes from "pyro" which means fire, and "clast" which refers to broken pieces of rock. Therefore, pyroclastic is a term used for broken pieces of rock associated with volcanic eruptions. It is a general term which covers a variety of sizes, ranging from ash to boulders." It goes on to describe pyroclatic flows: "They are hot and fast, moving at speeds up to several hundred miles per hour and at temperatures of several hundred degrees Celsius."

Since we know that numerous people survived the dust clouds that day, I think it is safe to assume that the characteristic high temperature of a pyroclastic cloud was not present in the dust clouds on September 11th.

I believe that it is appropriate to refer to the clouds attendant to the destruction of the towers as having the characteristics of pyroclastic flow. The article I posted discussed the issue of temperature and as I mentioned when I posted it initially it is not conclusive. And whether or not those clouds were truely pyroclastic in nature they certainly look like the clouds of dust that occur at controlled demolitions.


Kai claims:
WTC7 suffered nothing more serious than fires on the lower floors and yet it collapsed... And remember nothing impacted this building.

Debris from the collapse of WTC1 impacted WTC7, it caused damage to the building's structure. Here is the eye-witness testimony from a few firefighters:

Boyle: ...We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.

...

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyl...

Visconti: ...I remember standing there looking over at building 7 and realizing that a big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side...

...

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we're moving the command post over this way, that building's coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn't bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/visc...

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there.

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayd...

Neither the FEMA nor the NIST have issued conclusive reports on why WTC7 collapsed. And since no effort was made to save any of the remaining structural steel as evidence it will be very hard to determine what happened. After reading your firefighter's accounts i went to look for a picture of what the were describing but couldn't find anything. Surely, if there was a twenty story hole in this building someone must have taken a picture of it. I will keep looking.

Hole or not, it still looks like CD to me. Were all the videos doctored as you suggested in one of your posts to janedoe last year? I doubt it.

I agree that the overall collapse of the towers took longer than free fall but during the part where we can see clearly the damage zone, un-obscured by smoke clouds, progressing down two faces of the south tower, you can see that the damage zone progresses down the faces at a free fall pace.

Evidence of this is in seconds 44 to 48 of the video on this page that is titled as follows:



Beginning at second 46 there is a falling object just to the left of the corner of tower that looks like a beam and is dark in color. The damage zone progressing down the faces of the building keeps pace with that object until it falls out of the picture.

Another piece of video that shows the same thing is seconds 5 to 7 of the video on that same page titled:



In this sequence you can see a large number of falling objects that are in midair just below the explosions on the faces. The explosions clearly progress down the face at the same rate as the falling objects until the objects fall out of the picture at about second 7.

The feeling I get from watching all the videos of the south tower collapse that are linked to from that page is that from the start of the collapse until it reaches about half way down the tower it was at free fall rate.

The rest of the collapse (the bottom half) is obscured by clouds or, in some cases, another building so we can't tell whether there were similar explosions progressing at free fall rate or not. For example, again from the same page, see the video titled:



That video covers the bottom half of the collapse. At the beginning of the video you can see the explosions on the face (just on either side of the tower's right corner) but only briefly before a building obstructs our view of what is happening on the face. During the time that you can see the explosions, it appears they are keeping pace with falling objects.

A picture that shows significant amounts of the debris from the buildings outside their footprints doesn't lead you to believe that the towers didn't fall into their own footprints? Okay... I'd just like to enter this quote into the discussion:





If the conclusion is so obvious, why hasn't it been demonstrated that the type of corrosion seen can even be caused by explosives? That article that you cited does not base their conclusion that this evidence "suggests" explosives any anything verifiable - it is merely an opinion.



Is this your part of your evidence? Your subjective interpretation of whether or not a photograph looks like it was caused by "pancaking"? What are you comparing that picture to in order to form your opinion regarding this matter?



Did you just start looking into this subject March 18th of this year? Perhaps you've heard that the National Institute of Standards and Technology has been investigating this issue for quite some time regarding the structural damage and fires. You can check out their website at http://wtc.nist.gov.



Well, if it looks like CD to you, I guess everyone can stop discussing it.

The above is an example of irony. (See definition 2) I am not really suggesting people stop discussing it.

Just as I was employing irony when in reply to janedoe's implication that the times of the seismic events of the collapses were a useful measure for the length of the actual collapses I wrote: "Of course the video footage seems to contradict those times, but I guess it's possible that the videos have been doctored in some way. From every angle. Even the live broadcasts."

I was actually saying that the durations of the seismic events did not correlate to the actual collapse times because the video footage had obviously different durations of the collapses. To believe that the seismic events were the actual collapse times one would have to believe that all of the video footage was somehow not showing the proper collapse times.

I'm not sure if you just severely misinterpreted what I wrote, or you are simply not being serious. Actually, I don't think it matters much - if you are not serious, I don't intend to continue the conversation. And if you misunderstood, there may not be much point in continuing it anyway.

- Make7

Have you read this paper?

http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm

Calculations on the Possible Use of Thermite
to Melt Sections of the WTC Core Columns

by D. P. Grimmer

Version 1.1, June 20th 2004

excerpt;
The observed near free-fall times of the WTC towers (and WTC7) were a dramatic signature of a controlled demolition. (The articles at http://members.fortunecity.com/911 are a valuable resource for presenting and then challenging the "official" explanation for WTC collapses). Measured times are all around 10 seconds, which is close to calculated free-fall time, indicating the tower floors fell without much impediment. They essentially fell into air . The theory put forth by T. Eagar of MIT and other "establishment" engineers is that while no steel members actually melted or failed, the floor assemblies, bolted at their joists to the outer walls and inner core structures, did fail . The floor joists attachment bolts were weakened and gave way, twisting sideways and allowing the initial floor to "unzipper" itself all the way round and collapse to the floor below. The remaining floors then pancaked all the way down. Never mind that floor joist cross-members, placed to resist twisting, and additional support structures were not included in the MIT/FEMA/NOVA calculations and presentations (nor was the inner core collapse mechanism explained at all).

Consider the following: if the pancaking effect caused the total building failure, why is it that no video of either of the WTC collapses shows any sign of stutter between floor collapses, which should have been very apparent especially in the first few floors of collapse when the speed of gravitational collapse was small? Consider also that apologists for the official conspiracy theory propose that 30% of the gravitational collapse energy was necessary to create the pyroclastic cloud of debris: that is, in their own analysis, this energy came out of the gravitational energy. This means that the time of fall would have been slowed further than what was observed. When a body of mass m falls from a height h, acted upon by gravitational acceleration g, it converts its potential energy PE = m x g x h into kinetic energy KE = (1/2) x m x (v exp2). Here h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2), t = time of fall, and v =g x t, where v = velocity. Removal of 30% of the PE to pulverize concrete essentially reduces the amount of energy available from falling, effectively reducing the gravitational acceleration to something less than g.

Substituting, in the above equations we have (1.0 - 0.3) x PE = 0.7 x PE = m x g' x h, where PE, m and h are as before and g' = the effective gravitational acceleration. Hence, comparing terms for PE, g' = 0.7 g. The time of collapse under g' will also increase. If we let the effective collapse time be t', then comparing terms for constant h, (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) =
(1/2) x 0.7g x (t' exp2). Hence, (t exp2) = 0.7 x (t' exp2), or (t/t') = SQRT (0.7) = 0.837. Or, t' = 1.195 t.

Now the observed time t = 10 seconds (a free fall time, the fastest possible time under g = 9.8 m/sec/sec = 32 ft/sec/sec = 32 ft/s exp2). For the cloud debris creation to absorb 30% of the gravitational energy, the observed time of fall would be 10s x 1.195, or almost 12 seconds. This long a collapse time was observed by no one. Clearly, there are serious flaws in the official explanation/conspiracy theory.

The implication from the above is that there were major energy sources other than gravitational involved in the WTC towers collapses. Certainly that is the conclusion of J. Hoffman in his thorough discussion of the north WTC tower dust cloud . By calculating the major sources and sinks observed, particularly the sink of the pyroclastic cloud expansion, Hoffman establishes that a large amount of energy had to be available to drive that expansion, in a (minimum) range of 2,706,000 kWh to 11,724,000 kWh (see his Summary table). Hoffman does not propose an energy source to balance that sink. In Appendix B, an estimate, for discussion purposes only, of the amount of thermite-equivalent to provide this energy source is discussed. It is large, but physically possible.

First of all, I'm slightly impressed that you've actually managed to post something that I haven't read yet. Second, I'm only responding because I find something in this paper rather amusing as it relates to part of the current discussion.


I have no idea if you agree with the calculations above or not, but I'd like to redo them using 33% of the "gravitational collapse energy" instead of 30%.

     (1.0 - 0.33) x PE = 0.67 x PE = m x g' x h
   Comparing terms for PE,      g' = 0.67 g

   To calculate the increase in time for g'
     (1/2) x g x (t exp2) = (1/2) x g' x (t' exp2) = (1/2) x 0.67g x (t' exp2)
                 (t exp2) = 0.67 x (t' exp2)
                   (t/t') = SQRT (0.67)
                   (t/t') = 0.819
                       t' = 1.22 t

   To get the theoretical free fall collapse time
             h = (1/2) x g x (t exp2)
     2 x h / g = (t exp2)
             t = SQRT (2 x h / g)
             t = SQRT (2 x 415 / 9.80)
             t = 9.20 seconds

   For the cloud debris creation to absorb 1/3 of the gravitational energy we get:
     t' = 1.22 t
     t' = 1.22 x 9.20
     t' = 11.2 seconds
 

Now let us compare that to LARED's calculations in his post from the thread where you said that you are "inclined to believe her (janedoe's) assertion that LARED's calculations on the descent rate were not accurate."

LARED said, "So if 1/3 of the potential energy went into destroying the building, the building falls in 11 + sec's". When solving for t using his calculations, the result was 11.2 seconds. That looks mighty familiar....didn't I just see that somewhere?

So we have yet another set of calculations that agrees with what LARED originally posted. That makes three ways other than LARED's that give the same results. Do you still find janedoe more convincing regarding these calculations?

- Make7

because PE is unknown all of these calculations are purely hypothetical.

janedoe’s response to you on this is still more persuasive and compelling to me.

janedoe’s response to you:

60. Hard Science vs. fudge factors

Thank you for validating my point, that LARED would need to increase his fudge factor in order to produce the answer in the back of the book.

What I find so interesting is that LARED assumes it will take LESS energy to pulverize a floor than the PE of the floor it's supporting. Golly, how did the building even support its own weight all these years?

I find it interesting that you say the speed was not constant (your post #59), that the building accelerated downward, yet you tried to insult me for not assuming it was constant (your post#56).

I never said that my illustrations were intended as exact models of the events. However, I have said that these were meant to demonstrate various concepts. I did this honestly and openly, as approximations for various conditions. We do not know how much of the kinetic energy is consumed by pulverizing the material. Also, with the horizontal distribution of material shot from the building, it is clear that not all of the potential energy was spent in the vertical direction.

I provided several different approximations to account for the kinetic energy spent in pulverizing the building material. I did this to demonstrate the expected range of collapse times, which were based on hard science, not secret fudge factors. I did not pick the answer I thought it should be, then back calculate the fudgefactor needed to arrive at that selected answer.)

So, where is your own model?
What is the EXACT amount of energy required to pulverize the building? In the spirit of your post on the other discussion thread, your model would prove ABSOLUTELY NOTHING unless these values were EXACTLY CORRECT. This exact information will never be known. So, doesn't that mean it's impossible for you to ever come up with anything useful for anyone? What kind of thinking is that?

It's not about the EXACT number!
I've put a lot of time into preparing and posting this information, and it's time I really don't have to spend. But, I felt it was important to have information available for those who really wanted to have an understanding of what folks were talking about. Telling someone that the "answer" is some specific value does little to help their understanding. It's not about the exact number; it's about the range of realistic values, and what variables influence them. It's about giving folks the tools that will allow them to form their own conclusion.

If you don't like the conclusion you come up with because it's painful, I understand. I don't like it, either. But, shooting the messenger won't change the facts. Understanding the facts can only help. It'll at least get you off the koolaid, allowing you to plan the solution.

If you think it will help, you can use 4 x 10^11 joules for the potential energy. That is cited in this paper that you have previously linked to for information. Let me know what you come up with.



That in no way means that she is right.



First of all, LARED was very upfront concerning the purpose of the calculations that he posted. He begins that post with: "This is a very crude energy balance. Not meant to be rigorous in any way shape or form; only meant to get a feel for the forces at work." And concludes: "So if 1/3 of the potential energy went into destroying the building, the building falls in 11 + sec's, still well within the observed fall time."

So calling it a "fudge factor" is a mischaracterization. Also, he never claimed that his energy balance was calculating the exact collapse time. In LARED's example, the amount of PE used to break up the building must be between 0% and 100% of the available PE. Without this number, which janedoe has labeled as a "fudge factor", the energy balance presented would simply not demonstrate anything other than the theoretical free-fall time. (Which is obviously not very useful, nor was it LARED's intention.)

I find it amusing that she can't even decide upon how she wants to mischaracterize this simple ratio of the amount of PE used to break up the building. She seems to think it has become a "safety factor" here for some unknown reason and believes that it should be a value greater than 100%. I would think that an engineering professor would be able to figure out what that number actually represents. Or at the very least she could misrepresent it consistently by not changing what she calls it.



Ummm... my post#56:


As you can see, I do not even mention whether or not the speed is constant. Finding the height is a simple algebra problem given what was presented by LARED. I'll admit this would be an excellent point if only I had actually insulted her for not assuming the speed was constant.

And once again, an engineer professor should be able to understand how the velocity, represented by v, fits into LARED's calculations. It is really not that complicated, he posted exactly how he arrived at his results.



Funny, LARED never said that his "crude energy balance" was intended as an exact model either. He stated that it was "only meant to get a feel for the forces at work." Although janedoe seemed to imply otherwise. For example, in her reply to my post shown above, she wrote, "LARED stated (and shall I assume you validated it with your algebra?) that the total time for collapse was 11.2 seconds. Now, you've said that is wrong, and cited 14 to 16 seconds." Neither one if us stated that the actual collapse time was 11.2 seconds.

The most interesting thing is that I never said that her "illustrations were intended as exact models of the events." Why she feels the need to explain something that is not in question is beyond me.



She did not provide "several different approximations to account for the kinetic energy spent in pulverizing the building material" in her examples. In addition to leaving the kinetic energy used in breaking up the building out of her calculated hypothetical collapse times, she also neglected to factor into those times any momentum transfer that the collapsing mass would impart upon the still intact mass. While the colorful graphs are nice to look at, the very fact that the calculations omit important factors that would greatly influence the results makes her claim that her examples are based on "hard science" somewhat misleading. Perhaps based on "selective science" would be more accurate.

There were no "secret fudge factors". LARED posted his calculations "honestly and openly", to borrow a phrase. He also did not pick an answer and then "back calculate" anything. It was all laid out in his post when he presented his calculations.



This must be the important part, it's in a green font. I would like to know how the absence of a model presented by myself has anything to do with her models being inadequate or not. Should not the validity of her models be judged on the methodology used to create them?



And yet once again, we have janedoe attacking things that have not been said. I never said that the values in a model needed to be EXACTLY CORRECT.

Frankly, to answer her last question, I don't know what kind of thinking that is. She's the one that brought it up, perhaps she should be asking herself why she is asking that question in the first place. Now, if I had actually said that EXACT values were required, she would have an excellent point. But since I didn't.... there really is no point at all to the paragraph quoted above.



Perhaps janedoe's time would be better spent trying to more accurately represent the physics involved in her models, as opposed to creating multi-colored graphics. If the goal is truly to further people's understanding, a misrepresentation of a progressive collapse is probably not bringing that goal any closer to fruition.

I do agree that modeling is about a range of realistic values, but when she omits important variables in her calculations (e.g. energy used in pulverization, momentum transfer) I don't think the resulting range of values are realistic.

She seems to be advocating allowing people to form their own conclusions, yet when I express what I have concluded she doesn't seem to appreciate it very much. My conclusions simply differ from hers. Because she is wrong.



As a matter of fact, I do like the conclusions I have come up with regarding this matter. And it really wasn't painful at all. I don't know why she believes I am "shooting the messenger". I am simply being critical of her models and of her objections to LARED's model. Which, if I am not mistaken, are the facts in question. I wasn't trying to change any facts - I was trying to discuss them. It is my considered opinion that I was not the one having difficulty understanding the facts, I believe it was janedoe.

I don't drink kool-aid. A few years ago I eliminated sugar from my diet. So I think I've been off it for years at least.

- Make7

I don't think that janedoe, Grimmer, you or the official explanations are right because there is insufficient information to present a definitive argument. The demolition of the towers and building 7 don't look like progressive structural failure to me. If this seems like a failure of critical argument it is because there really isn't sufficient information to conduct a complete analysis.




I don't think that she is saying she is right. But I do think that she is biased toward controlled demolition but tends toward conclusions that favor this explanation. And, I must admit, so am I. And simply watching the videos shows these buildings falling at a startling rate of speed. And yet steel used in applications on this scale doesn't behave in the same way that it does when, say, supporting a barbecue grill. I don't think she is being completely open-minded. For my part, I came blazing into this discussion convinced that the towers were blown up (or down, if you like). And yet, based on my amateur observations of high rise steel structures, I don't believe that it is out of the realm of possibility that the tower's collapse was a progressive structural failure. I was never comfortable with the towers when visiting them. Part of the drama of their design was in the relative small size of the base to the overall height. That visually dramatic effect triggered in me an instinctive reaction that these slender structures might fall over. And I have never forgotten watching the uncertain construction of the fifty story Hancock building in Boston in 1973 which, upon its intial completion was so susceptible to swaying in the wind that it began blowing the windows out. They had to replace all the windows with plywood, whereupon the press dubbed it "Plywood Plaza"(actually they had to put in the plywood twice, the first time they forgot to fireproof it). They then had to reinforce the interior structure before restoring the windows. The creators of these buildings assure us that flexibility is intentional and yet in the case of the Hancock Tower there was nothing intentional about this building flexing to such an extent that shattered glass piled up in drifts around it.




I think that it was unfair of janedoe to refer to LARED's calculations as prejudicially selecting a PE "Fudge Factor" since all of this is speculative.




I agree with you, I think that janedoe may have missed the point here. But in order to calculate any of this with the remotest chance of being accurate you would have to have reference to the architectural drawings and the engineering diagrams. High rises are very dynamic structures, very "alive", and to understand how they would fail you first must know how they succeeded. Unfortunately the architectural drawings have disappeared, one of the many mysteries that casts suspicion on these events.



janedoe is being defensive.



I don't think that LARED was fudging but I do think his calculations justify his conclusions. But then so do janedoes. From my standpoint, without any engineering training, it seems unlikely that kinetic energy would so completely pulverize the concrete in those buildings. And I think that at a certain point the concrete floors of the building would begin to absorb energy as they stacked up in the fall in such a way as to cushion the floors from being completely pulverized. Think of trying to tamp a pipeful of tobacco, the more tobacco you have in the pipe, the the more force is rquired to tamp it down completely. And the lower layers of tobacco do not compress as completely as the upper layers.



There are models demonstrating pancaking in the NIST reports. I'm surprised that you didn't refer to them. A model isn't necessary but as janedoe says she is trying to present her view of the events in a way that is accessible and models are a good way of doing that.




Well...janedoe like millions of other people would probably like to have closure on this. And perhaps she isn't distinguishing between the logical integrity of your arguments and conclusions which she rejects. There can be no conclusions until all of the evidence is available, including films, architectural drawings, flight recorders, presidential phone logs etc. these discussions will not be conclusive and so different opinions out to be respected for what they are -- speculation however compelling and correct the logic of the different arguments may be.




I don't think that either of you are necessarily wrong.




Since you were both swiping at each other throughout the discussion it isn't very surprising that janedoe would resort to outright condecension and insult. (Actually, it was Flavor-Aid at Jonestown) And yet there is something awful about the phenomenon of citizens who for very good reasons find themselves trying to find answers to these cataclysmic and tragic events when the answers provided by the government seem incomplete and incorrect.

Do you not even understand what the argument was about? In the thread that you first linked to janedoe said that LARED's equations were in error, but she made a mistake in her "correction". His results have been duplicated by three different methods.

In the thread where she presented her billiard ball models, I objected to the method she used to calculate the theoretical times because she did not factor in momentum transfer or the energy required to break up the buildings. Other posters have made similar, if not precisely the same, objections to her models. Simply stated, her models are a misrepresentation of a progressive collapse, and for her to imply that the times that she derived somehow prove that a progressive collapse is not possible is disingenuous.

She brought other things up that I objected to, but the two items outlined above are the basic points of contention in those debates. I honestly have no idea what exactly you think was being discussed. The information was very specific: LARED's equations and janedoe's models.



Both janedoe and LARED presented a case to illustrate some of the concepts involved. Precise accuracy was not the goal. Someone once said, "It's not about the EXACT number!" But janedoe's models did not portray a progressive collapse accurately. That was my objection to her 'Case for Controlled Demolition' models.

BTW, the blueprints have been made available to the agency investigating the collapses.



Perhaps she could try to defend her position without misrepresenting the issues. "Being defensive" is not an excuse for being misleading.



That's interesting. I thought that one of the major objections to the NIST reports were that they never modeled the progressive collapse - that they just modeled the local collapse and then stated that global collapse occurred as a result. Perhaps you could post a quote or two concerning their "pancaking" models, and a link as well.

Models are an excellent way to present concepts to demonstrate your views, however the models must actually represent the event in question for it to be useful. Hers do not.



She misrepresented a progressive collapse in her modeling.
She misrepresented the equations LARED presented.
She misrepresented what I had written.
She misrepresented what she had previously written.

I don't think that is a failure of distinction between arguments and conclusions. I think it is being deliberately misleading. For someone that claims to have presented her models "honestly and openly" and that "understanding the facts can only help", she seems to be unable, or unwilling, to debate based on the facts in question.



It was not really a 'controlled demolition' vs. 'progressive collapse' debate. Concerning the points raised by her own and LARED's models, she was wrong. Her "correction" to LARED's results have been shown to be incorrect, and her own models do not accurately portray a progressive collapse. That's what she was wrong about, that's what I objected to, and that's what I was arguing about.



I didn't find it surprising from her at all. I was just hoping that she could have either demonstrated how I was wrong, or admitted that she was. As it stands now, my basic objections have not been shown to be incorrect. How difficult could it be for a professor of engineering to prove that I am wrong? I have presented my case here and here. Maybe someone else could take her place in the debate.

- Make7

but there is nothing in the substance of your argument, the way that you present your argument or in the tone of your argument to persuade me that you are. You have answered my replies selectively, the examples you provide are few and far between, you haven't provided a model and I really don't like being patronized. I am sure that janedoe didn't either. I provided you with a dozen eyewitness accounts of firefighters who heard explosions. You provided me with an account of eyewitness accounts of an elevator crash in an unrelated event. I provide you with photos of the WTC debris, acres of smoking, corroded steel and metal. You provide nothing. As far as I am concerned the collapse of the buildings looks like controlled demolition. If it isn't you have done nothing to convince me. And, believe me, I am not married to and of these theories - the ramifications of controlled demolition and a cover-up are nightmarish. If you can provide me with a plausible explanation that they collapsed as a consequence of airliners crashing into them, including WT7, I will return to the discussion. If you persist in posting more patronizing, nitpicking obfuscation, I am through.

I was just following your example:


And this one:



As for the rest of this most recent post of yours, I'll just refer to my early assessment regarding our conversation: This does not appear to be very productive.

- Make7

I can't PM without posting many posts. Can you PM me? It's about an online forum on this subject you might find interesting.

http://www.debunking911.com

The above isn't the forum.

First, I would like to suggest that you try to resist the urge to call people names. Even if you think it is deserved, it will only marginalize any point you are actually trying to make. But of course point out why you disagree with someone, or why you believe they are wrong - just don't call 'em "nutjobs" if you can help it.

You can email me: make_seven@yahoo.com

I don't check that account with great regularity, but I'll keep an eye out for the next few days.

- Make7

You can check your mail now.

Just asking ...

Two steel plates having a tight fit around the interior box column sandwiching high explosives cast into the floor provided a maximized, collapsing high pressure gas plane shearing columns of like a mechanical cutter.

each other, and INSTANTLY broke through the floors below, allowing the buildings to fall to the ground in the same amount of time it would take to toss a stone off the same floor?

am I missing something here?

each floor goes through the next without any time at all passing? Instantaneously breaking through, floor by floor?

forgive the question if it's been asked a thousand times before; I just started trying to deal with this

thx

The Trade Center wasn't a dingbat apartment complex, and the towers weren't built like stacks of chessboards waiting to slam into each other. They were built like redwood trees, with a strong central trunk supporting canopy-like floor diaphragms. Pancaking is a bill of goods.

That did not happen - the collapses did not occur at a free fall rate - they fell at acceleration rates significantly slower than gravity. In video footage debris from the towers can be seen falling to the ground faster than the towers were collapsing. That debris is your proverbial "stone" - it fell faster than the collapsing tower. One of the best videos to see what I mean and to estimate the collapse time of the North Tower is 911 Eyewitness. Collapse starts at 6:56 in the video. (Free fall time would be 9.22 seconds in a vacuum.)

- Make7

down. The free falling debris outpaces the main collapsing tower by only 5 seconds.

is the speed of a falling controlled demolition building, as opposed to a building that would start to buckle, floors snapping, internal core resisting, damage accruing, top of building starts to lean over, asymetrical sheering, etc....that would take 30 seconds to a minute for the building to fall. But all 3 buildings just fall straight down, from start to finish.

According to CBS video it fell in about 6 seconds:
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/videos.html

And yes, WTC 7 did seem to fall faster, but it was demolished in a more manner that closer resembles conventional controlled demolition.

The Towers fell in what seems to be an unconventional demolition, that is, they fell in a top-down sequence of widely spaced cutter charges and thermite compromised support structure. Most of the collapse seems to be a downward chain reaction which was initialized by these elements.

There were a few huge explosions before the building began to fall - typical of a controlled demolition.

Working with raw evidence utilized from an intimate view of the North Tower construction through a PBS documentary.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html

If they mean that it fell faster than they believe it should have, then they should just say that. It might actually do harm to their position because they are repeating something that is easily shown to be false.

I disagree with your assertion that the collapse of one of the towers would take 30 seconds or more to fall. Do you have some basis for that number?

And as for all three falling straight down, I don't believe that is entirely correct either. But that would depend on what exactly you mean. The tower collapses looked nothing like WTC7, and the debris fields caused by each collapse were very different. I think you have to be looking at the situation from a certain perspective in order to state that all three of those buildings fell "straight down".

I would elaborate on those points, but I haven't got a whole lot of time right now.

- Make7

Seeing as so much material is going up,



The distance that it went up must be added to the distance fallen in the free fall calculation because that material must still fall.

And of course, in collapses plumes of heavy particualtes do not stream upward in plumes.