Thursday, September 14, 2006

Rex Murphy on the Deniers

Here's a terrific article by Canadian journalist Rex Murphy on conspiracy theories in general and the 9-11 Deniers in particular:

I do not know why we give any oxygen to these extraordinary libels. Detestation for George Bush may qualify a person for many things, but it is not a degree of metallurgy, just as anti-Americanism is not a branch of physics.

These theories that suggest a sitting president and his advisors would murder their own citizenry are a calumny, as lunatic as they are contemptible. They come from the imagination of hate, the pernicious concoctions of minds allergic to reality, and are beneath the dignity of reasoning human beings.


Hat Tip: Emailer Ross. Thanks!

61 Comments:

At 14 September, 2006 11:29, Blogger JoanBasil said...

Another namecalling article.

 
At 14 September, 2006 11:34, Blogger Dog Town said...

Another namecalling article.

What left is there to do Basil...?
Laughing at you and the "Black Shirts" is all we have left.
Destroying your little tale has been done.

 
At 14 September, 2006 11:42, Blogger nes718 said...

The criminals are frightened! The light of truth is shining on these roaches and they are in full protective mode; predictable.

9/11: Press for Truth

 
At 14 September, 2006 11:44, Blogger nes718 said...

What left is there to do Basil...?

Take it like an adult and admit the criminality of our rulers.

Name calling only shows weakness, lack of insight, lack of intelligence and admission of defeat.

 
At 14 September, 2006 11:45, Blogger Alex said...

Another namecalling article.

Did you have any sort of point there, Red?

 
At 14 September, 2006 11:53, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

Rex Murphy Rules!

Rhodes Scholar, and a Newfoundlander. Great man with a wonderful talent for wit and sensibility.

TAM

 
At 14 September, 2006 12:16, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Another namecalling article.

LOL!!!!

LETS CHECK THE SCORECARD THERE JOAN.....

TIMES DYLAN AND CREW BELITTLE AND MAKE FUN OF THE VICTIMS OF 9/11:
More times then I care to count and I really dont want to watch Deniers Speak again it painful to watch those fuck tards and the shit that spews from their pie holes.

BOO HOO HOO Joan your widdle feelings are hurt over name calling.

 
At 14 September, 2006 12:23, Blogger Chad said...

Name calling? You think this is name calling? Are you THAT sensitive?

If you want name calling Joan, head on over to well... any CT site in which a rational person throws in his/her 2 cents.

God... you make that statement as though the majority of your movement isn't made up of immature teenagers and wannabe 20-somethings who have nothing better to do than rage against the machine while smoking pot in mommy's basement.

 
At 14 September, 2006 12:57, Blogger shawn said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 14 September, 2006 12:58, Blogger shawn said...

Name calling only shows weakness, lack of insight, lack of intelligence and admission of defeat.

No, it shows we've already deciminated all your "arguments" and now are moving on to having fun thanks to your insane thick-headedness.

 
At 14 September, 2006 13:09, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

God... you make that statement as though the majority of your movement isn't made up of immature teenagers and wannabe 20-somethings who have nothing better to do than rage against the machine while smoking pot in mommy's basement.

Nice. Couldn't have said it better myself.

TAM

 
At 14 September, 2006 13:52, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

Bong Hit 1

Duuuuuuuuuude like I think I see holographic images of the twin towers!!!

Bong Hit 2

Duuuuuuude like did you see how flight 93 landed in Ohio and like those NASA people took them and now they are living on a secret planet!!
THAT SOOOOOO ROCKS!!!

Bong Hit 3

Duuuuuuuude like those crazy New Zealanders caught a giant coffee pot ON FILM!!!
Lets make "Loose Coffee Grounds" and we will like claim that Starbucks was behind 9-11 and launched giant espresso makers at the towers!!!

 
At 14 September, 2006 14:54, Blogger J.R. said...

Does anyone actually argue facts here?

This Rex Murphy piece is just a collection
of rants, blasting the image of a conspiracy theorist that is not the norm, nor generally appreciated in the movement.
Why do ya'll ignore them:
Ray Griffin Phd. Steve Jones Phd, st911.org (scholars for 911 truth)

Bring on the facts people. Convince
me that your justified in your quips and sneers.

I'm looking forward to your refutation of the laws of physics.

FREE-FALL = CONTROLLED DEMOLITION = INSIDE JOB

 
At 14 September, 2006 15:03, Blogger MarkyX said...


Name calling only shows weakness, lack of insight, lack of intelligence and admission of defeat.


You guys lost to me then.

 
At 14 September, 2006 15:09, Blogger shawn said...

FREE-FALL

None of the buildings fell at free-fall.

 
At 14 September, 2006 15:31, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

JR,

Facts:

"David Ray Griffin (FM)

Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University"


No engineering credentials. No science credentials.

Steven Jones (FM)

Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University


No engineering credentials. Science credentials are in the field of muon catalyzed fusion, not applicable to analyzing the Twin Towers collapsse.

Compare to NIST team investigating the collapse:


William L. Grosshandler -
Chief of the Fire Research Division in the Building and Fire Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology... responsibilities and technical areas of interest include fire dynamics, material behavior in fires... advanced fire measurement and predictive methods, and advanced fire service technologies.

Richard W. Bukowski - Standards and Codes Coordinator for the Building and Fire Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Standards and Technology and Senior Engineer in the Integrated Performance Assessment Group... member of the Standards Council of the National Fire Protection Association,

Therese McAllister - research interests include reliability-based structural assessment, performance of structures in fire, structural stability and progressive collapse... conducted engineering research and development projects on the design and construction practices for multi-hazard mitigation


If you want to argue expertise, the 9/11 Scholars for Truth have none. None. Zero. That's a fact.

 
At 14 September, 2006 16:02, Blogger default.xbe said...

FREE-FALL = CONTROLLED DEMOLITION = INSIDE JOB

if i drop a ball off my desk it will fall at free fall speeds, does that mean it was a CD?

not that it matters, as shawn pointed out they did not fall at free-fall speeds

 
At 14 September, 2006 16:16, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

BONG HIT 1
DUUUUUUUUUUDE The NY Yankees dropped giant baseballs on the Towers!!!

We shall call it, "Loose Balls part 23,908"

 
At 14 September, 2006 16:22, Blogger Dog Town said...

The criminals are frightened!

You should be!

 
At 14 September, 2006 16:23, Blogger Alex said...

Bring on the facts people. Convince
me that your justified in your quips and sneers.


Read the rest of the site. We're not here to re-hash every tired old argument any time a new Troofer sticks pops his head into the comments section. Read over the analysis and arguments made on the rest of the site - afterwards if you've got any relevant questions we'll be happy to discuss them.

I'm looking forward to your refutation of the laws of physics.

Sure, here goes:

C4 can withstand fires burning at over a thousand degrees!

Thermite can burn sideways!

A missile can magically suck light poles out of the ground and punch massive holes through 3 sections of the pentagon!

How am I doing so far?

FREE-FALL = CONTROLLED DEMOLITION = INSIDE JOB

While technically true, what you fail to realize is how little difference there would be between freefall and what actually occurred at ground zero. The amount of potential energy present in the falling portion of each building was more than enough to plow through any resisting force within milliseconds. In other words, with the amount of resistance offered by the rest of the building we're not talking about a doubling or tripling of the amount of time required for the collapse, we're talking a difference of only a few seconds, which is NOT something you could measure using the video footage. A scientific analysis requires much more accurate data. That's why it's important for QUALIFIED people to study the collapse. Fetzer and Jones don't fall into that category.

 
At 14 September, 2006 17:15, Blogger James B. said...

Why do ya'll ignore them:
Ray Griffin Phd. Steve Jones Phd, st911.org (scholars for 911 truth)


Why do we ignore them? You must not have spent much time here, we have done dozens of posts on the scholars.

I have written a couple of papers on them too.

www.jod911.com

Not every post will deal with specific topics obviously, but believe me, we are not avoiding the facts.

 
At 14 September, 2006 17:45, Blogger nes718 said...

None of the buildings fell at free-fall.

Well, the surly didn't 'pancake' either. More like beating a bag of flour Sherlock.

 
At 14 September, 2006 18:13, Blogger Alex said...

More like beating a bag of flour Sherlock.

Jeezus man, I thought we debunked the Kibbler Elves theory already....

 
At 15 September, 2006 04:52, Blogger Homer Simpson said...

Why is New Zealand suddenly being brought into this?

Just because our Prime Minister said that if Al Gore won the election then there would have been no Iraq war...hmmm, maybe she is a truther? Wouldn't surprise me, she is a liar, stupid and corrupt.

I used to deliver the Christchurch Star actually and I can definitely say that the paper was in on the JFK plot.

 
At 15 September, 2006 09:29, Blogger J.R. said...

Read the rest of the site ...

Why don't you just consolidate your argument and point us 'Troofers'
to it. A little organization please.


C4 can withstand fires burning at over a thousand degrees!

Thermite can burn sideways!

A missile can magically suck light poles out of the ground and punch
massive holes through 3 sections of the pentagon!

How am I doing so far?


Ranting the usual diatribe of dis-info that has been carpet bombed
on the net to confuse the public.



FREE-FALL = CONTROLLED DEMOLITION = INSIDE JOB

While technically true, what you fail to realize is how little
difference there would be between free fall and what actually occurred
at ground zero. The amount of potential energy present in the falling
portion of each building was more than enough to plow through any
resisting force within milliseconds. In other words, with the amount
of resistance offered by the rest of the building we're not talking
about a doubling or tripling of the amount of time required for the
collapse, we're talking a difference of only a few seconds, which is
NOT something you could measure using the video footage. A scientific
analysis requires much more accurate data. That's why it's important
for QUALIFIED people to study the collapse. Fetzer and Jones don't
fall into that category.


Well actually video footage can be used to determine the speed of the
fall quite accurately (probably +-100 ms), as long the measurement is
done while the top of the building is still visible (more than 80% of
the drop). Doing this one finds that for that period they fell at
speeds closer to free-fall in a vacuum. But for the hell of it, I'm
gonna give your extra 2 seconds, but in that time you have to prove
how:

1) The majority of the concrete and building contents were pulverized
to dust.

2) The entire core infrastructure, of extremely strong steel girders
designed to handle at least 3x the static load, was completely
undermined.

3) A large amount of molten iron/steel was produced at the foundation
that existed at 1000+ degrees for many days.

Suggesting that all this could happen in 12 or even 15 seconds, or
frankly could happen at all, just from the given falling mass, is like
proposing that you could jump on a cinder block, crush it and turn it
to molten lava.

The discrepancy between the official explanation and what actually
happened is a proverbial Grand Canyon. You don't need an expert to
see it, its incredibly obvious. That anyone would buy it is, frankly,
laughable.

 
At 15 September, 2006 10:03, Blogger mbats said...

1) The majority of the concrete and building contents were pulverized
to dust.

2) The entire core infrastructure, of extremely strong steel girders
designed to handle at least 3x the static load, was completely
undermined.

3) A large amount of molten iron/steel was produced at the foundation
that existed at 1000+ degrees for many days.


The answer to all three questions is quite simple. Very few materials can withstand being impacted by the weight of several floors of a skyscraper once they are in motion. Once these floors are in motion, they are no longer "static" load, they are "live" load, which is calculated differently. The more they accellerate, the more force they hit the floor below with, the smaller the pieces of the floor below, whose mass is now added to that which is falling on the floor below... Plus, umpteen tons of building debris provided very good insulation for the materials that were already burning at 1000+ degrees.

For your cinder block analogy to actually apply, it has to already be burning at 1000 degrees, and we're going to need more than just you jumping on it.

 
At 15 September, 2006 10:15, Blogger Alex said...

Why don't you just consolidate your argument and point us 'Troofers'
to it. A little organization please.


Pot, meet kettle.

Ranting the usual diatribe of dis-info that has been carpet bombed
on the net to confuse the public.


Ah, yes, ofcourse. Only YOUR troof is Da TROOF! All the other conspiratoids are either wrong or government shills. Ofcourse, we should all know this ahead of time, and only answer your questions instead of everyone else's.

Well actually video footage can be used to determine the speed of the fall quite accurately (probably +-100 ms), as long the measurement is done while the top of the building is still visible (more than 80% of the drop). Doing this one finds that for that period they fell at speeds closer to free-fall in a vacuum.

Really eh? Ok, let's see you do the math on that one. I'll double-check it for ya once you're done.

But for the hell of it, I'm
gonna give your extra 2 seconds, but in that time you have to prove
how:


I don't have to prove shit. The reports are out, feel free to read them. You're the one alleging government involvement, so it's your responsibility to prove it. In this case I'll answer your questions because they're so simple, for further questions, read through the site, and pick up the FEMA and NIST reports.

1) The towers contained approximately 1.7 terajoules of potential energy. That's something like 600 TONS (1,344,000 lbs) of TNT.

2) Impact and fire will do that.

3) The molten steel crap has never been documented. Extremely hot steel, on the other hand, was definitely present at ground zero, but was just more likely to be produced by the phenomenal amount of energy released by the collapse than some magical thermate substance that would have had no reason for being at the WTC in the first place.

Suggesting that all this could happen in 12 or even 15 seconds, or
frankly could happen at all, just from the given falling mass, is like
proposing that you could jump on a cinder block, crush it and turn it
to molten lava.


I don't contain 1.6 terajoules of potential energy.

Obviously you've never seen the result of a meteoroid impact. A boulder the size of a basketball can cause massive cratering, glassifying of sand, and melting of rock. Anyone who understands anything about physics will tell you that explosives and flammable substances are absolutely not necessary to produce those kinds of results - all you need is enough energy focused in a small enough area.

Thanks for coming out though. Your cookie and juice box are waiting in the kitchen.

 
At 15 September, 2006 10:43, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

JR, you continue to misinterpret things.

"The majority of the concrete and building contents were pulverized
to dust."


All that proves is that it was a horrendous collapse and that there was a lot of energy involved in it. It doesn't prove a single thing about the cause of the collapse.

"The entire core infrastructure, of extremely strong steel girders designed to handle at least 3x the static load, was completely undermined."

Correct. They were undermined because of the fires that were started.

"A large amount of molten iron/steel was produced at the foundation that existed at 1000+ degrees for many days."

People saw molten metal, but no analysis was ever done to verify that it was indeed steel or combinations of other metals (such as the significant amount of aluminum from the airplanes themselves, or the copper wiring and metals involved in the plumbing). Some puddles may have been other metals, many of which like aluminum melt at far lower temperatures.

Two, there was much red hot steel:
http://www.911blogger.com/uploaded_images/glowingsteel-704860.jpg

... but the amount of actually "molten" metals was never quantified, nor have pictures been produced.

Also: The fires continued in the piles of rubble below for 3 months.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/20/rec.athome.facts/

Much combustible material was in the rubble, plus it was insulative. With nowhere for the heat to go - the rubble would be insulative - the temperatures would rise beyond which they would had the same material been burning in air, with no insulative effect from the material around it. That amount of time and that amount of "fuel" from all the combustibles would indeed account for 1. The reports of high temperatures months - not days, not weeks, months - after the event, and 2. The reports of red hot metals, such steel, being dug up from the rubble.

Besides, one explanation CT folks use to try and explain the high temps is the use of Thermite. To get thermite to burn through steel, you have to use a fast burning implementation, which means the thermite would be used up in seconds. Thermite cannot be used as an excuse for the fact that temperatures were extremely high for months after the event; it would've burned out before the towers even finished collapsing. The explanation for the red hot metals being pulled from the ground is because they were buried under other material, and pockets of rubble were still ablaze. Heat plus insulative properties of the concrete and other materials is enough to explain the high temperatures. Thermite use is a terrible hypothesis; it does not explain all the observations, and in fact cannot be used to explain the lenght of time the fires burned.

JR, seriously: Have you read the "official explanation" i.e. the NIST report? You seem to be making the same mistake that nesnyc keeps making, which is to rely on second and thirdhand observations and interpretations, and not go to original sources.

On top of that, you've yet to address the discrepency between the academic credentials and expertise of the 9/11 Scholars for Truth, which you put forth as "experts", and the engineering, structural design and failure, and fire research expertise of just that small sampling of the NIST research team. Only one 9/11ST member claims structural engineering expertise, and no one can find his CV or any articles he may have published. There are no experts on that team in the field of structural collapse or fire and structure research.

You and others keep talking about discrepancies between the "official" story and "what really happened", but your own stories are even further from "what really happened". You and others keep coming up with point explanations for invididual issues - such as "molten steel" - but those individual points do not build up to a comprehensive narrative. Many are even contradictory, such as the hypothesis about thermite vs. the long-lasting fires.

To properly analyze an event of the scope and magnitude of the WTC collapse, critical thinking is required. Not simply swallowing the explanations of some non experts because of a fantasy about the motives of actual experts. You, JR, and others are not applying the critical thinking necessary; you're only stopping at the fact that these alternate fantasies fit your worldview that there's a conspiracy involved. You all don't consider the obvious issues, such as the numbers of folks required to pull such a conspiracy off.

I know that too many posters here have resorted to simply poking fun at conspiracy fantasist, but that doesn't mean those fantasies are correct, or truly reflect reality. If you are indeed interested in the truth, then you need to apply the critical thinking to all the information, not just the "official" story. You must ask "does this alternate theory explain everything". And "does it contradict any other fact in the story". Then you'll get at the truth. But you won't get at it if you simply continue to uncritically buy into the fantasies about thermite and neocon world orders.

 
At 15 September, 2006 10:58, Blogger J.R. said...

According to FEMA the jet fuel burned out in 10 minutes. That heat
source gone, where do we get the energy to produce all that molten
metal? NIST and others already confess that no girders melted. I
think you should re-read the official reports, even they aren't
as outlandish as your 'explanation'. And BTW molten aluminum is silver
not orange as the molten metal found was.

And furthermore, its unlikely that any signigicant amount of aluminum
survived the initial impact.

In case your unaware it takes massive amount of energy to pulverize
concrete. Have you ever seen a jack-hammer in operation? And thats
just to break it into chunks. But here we are looking at pulverizing
500,000 tons of it to dust.

Cinder blocks are not reinforced with steel, so thats a fair trade for
your 'burning at 1000 degrees'. Also, I weigh 10x the mass of a
cinder block - the upper stories were less than 1 quarter the mass of
the rest of the building.

Face it: Your trying to make a dead turkey fly.

People are going to figure this out, re-watch the videos and see those
controlled demolitions for what they are. It took me 5 years to see
the light myself. I just saw the WTC7 drop for the first time 2 weeks
ago. Like many others I was unaware that it also fell. Now I'm on
like a light bulb.

Its a comin' people, the avalanche is just starting, I suggest you
find shelter.

 
At 15 September, 2006 11:17, Blogger Alex said...

According to FEMA the jet fuel burned out in 10 minutes. That heat
source gone, where do we get the energy to produce all that molten
metal?


What, were the towers just empty shells? Where does a house fire get all it's energy? You are ofcourse aware that an average housefire will burn at between 1200 and 2000 degrees fahrenheit, right?

Are you sure you're a human being and not just a spam-bot?

NIST and others already confess that no girders melted. I
think you should re-read the official reports, even they aren't
as outlandish as your 'explanation'.


Most of us have read them. You obviously haven't. And he didn't say the steel melted. Nobody ever said the steel melted. That's just something you conspiracy dolts have been claiming from day one. At least YOU finally realize that the official explanation of events doesn't involve steel melting. That means you're one step ahead of 99% of the troofers.

And BTW molten aluminum is silver
not orange as the molten metal found was.


In other words "I get all my info from Jones and Fetzer, and am incapable of thinking for myself". Pure molten aluminum may be silver, but there's very little reason to believe that any aluminum which melted would have stayed pure for long. Assuming, ofcourse that you can even provide any evidence of "orange molten metal".

And furthermore, its unlikely that any signigicant amount of aluminum survived the initial impact.

Oh really. Then where exactly did it go, Einstein? What did it do, magically turn into gold? Aluminim doesn't just dissapear. You sure you actually attended science classes in highchool?

In case your unaware it takes massive amount of energy to pulverize concrete. Have you ever seen a jack-hammer in operation? And that's just to break it into chunks. But here we are looking at pulverizing 500,000 tons of it to dust.

You don't think 1.6 terajoules (600 tons of TNT) is enough to do that? Well. Thanks doc, but I'll want to have a look at your physics degree before I take your word on it.

Cinder blocks are not reinforced with steel, so that's a fair trade for your 'burning at 1000 degrees'. Also, I weigh 10x the mass of a
cinder block - the upper stories were less than 1 quarter the mass of
the rest of the building.


Wow. That last part just leaves me dumbfounded. Are you TRULY comparing the bottom two thirds of the WTC towers to a solid concrete block? You're like the new Judy Wood.

Face it: Your trying to make a dead turkey fly.

No, genius, we're not the ones claiming 1.6 terajouls of energy is irrelevant, nor are we the ones claiming that a structure which is more than 90% air should act the same as a solid block of concrete.

It took me 5 years to see the light myself.

I truly feel sorry for you. For 5 years you were a semi-rational, if not too intelligent, human being. Now your lack of intellect is displayed for all to see. You may as well have just tossed on a dunce hat.

 
At 15 September, 2006 11:52, Blogger mbats said...

According to FEMA the jet fuel burned out in 10 minutes.

And, with that gone, there was nothing left to burn, right?

In case your unaware it takes massive amount of energy to pulverize concrete. Have you ever seen a jack-hammer in operation? And thats just to break it into chunks. But here we are looking at pulverizing 500,000 tons of it to dust.

And the guy running the jackhammer is wearing a dust mask if he's smart, because even at those low levels, dust is produced.

The towers contained approximately 1.7 terajoules of potential energy.

I'm betting you have no concept of just how much energy is in a terajoule, j.r. For clarifiction, Wikipedia tells us that "As a rough guide, 1 joule is the absolute minimum amount of energy required to lift a one kilogram object up by a height of 10 centimetres on the surface of Earth." now try to wrap your mind around 1,700,000,000,000 joules. Hell, try to wrap your mind around just one trillion pennies. We're talking about 3,400,000 joules per ton of concrete. Are you getting clarity yet?

The upper stories were less than 1 quarter the mass of the rest of the building.

Yes, but if 20 stories are falling as one, they still only hit one floor at a time on the way down. You even said the girders (horizontal span by definition, only holds up one floor) were engineered to take 3x the static load that they had - this was 20+ times that mass, and it had kinetic energy to boot.

Also, my 1000 degree cinder block was to remind you that the buildings that collapsed were on fire. Oddly enough, that makes a differnce in how hot the rubble is.

 
At 15 September, 2006 12:16, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"According to FEMA the jet fuel burned out in 10 minutes. That heat
source gone, where do we get the energy to produce all that molten
metal?"


Actually, the figure I saw was 4 to 7 minutes. Yes, the fuel burned off. Quickly. And set the other combustibles in the building aflame. The jet fuel was just the "lighter fluid", so to speak, for the rest of the flamable structural components.

"NIST and others already confess that no girders melted. I think you should re-read the official reports, even they aren't as outlandish as your explanation'"

Correct. They softened. That was the cause of the structural failure. And, how is the explanation "outlandish"? It properly addresses the observed events.

Plus, I discussed the glowing metal already; that was an artifact of being buried with an intense heat source in an insulative environment.

"And furthermore, its unlikely that any signigicant amount of aluminum
survived the initial impact."


Incorrect. The reports discuss many non-molten pieces of aircraft being recovered. It stands to reason that other parts could have gotten buried in the rubble and softened, heated, and possibly melted; reports show localized areas of the rubble burning at 1000+ degrees; you yourself mention this. That could easily explain the presence of molten metals. Plus, steel and aluminum were not the only metals present; what about the wiring? The plumbing? Other components of electronics in the building?

Besides which, what do you mean by "its unlikely that any signigicant amount of aluminum survived the initial impact"? What happened to it, then? The aluminum cannot simply have disappeared. Where would it have gone?

"In case your unaware it takes massive amount of energy to pulverize concrete. Have you ever seen a jack-hammer in operation? And thats just to break it into chunks. But here we are looking at pulverizing 500,000 tons of it to dust."

Correct. Go to the JREF or the Physorg forums and look up the calculations of the potential energy contained in the structure. Plenty was there, enough to account for the event as observed. No explosives are necessary once the structural integrity was compromised by the impact and the fires.

"Cinder blocks are not reinforced with steel, so thats a fair trade for your 'burning at 1000 degrees'. Also, I weigh 10x the mass of a cinder block - the upper stories were less than 1 quarter the mass of the rest of the building."

You cannot trade off aspects of a model like that. Besides, ignoring temperature, you're not properly modeling for the stresses on the structural components of the building if you're only talking about a cinder block, nor are you accounting for the fact that the "upper stories" were only facing the resistance from each individual floor below one at a time. Then, the combined mass would impact the next floor. You are simply not modeling properly. Plus, you're only taking mass and the lack of reinforcing steel into account. That's not the whole picture; to properly model the collapse, you'd have to scale for the dimensions of the structures. Otherwise, you're not accurately replicating the per-square inch pressure exerted. Jumping up and down on a cinder block does not replicate the conditions of the collapse.

" I just saw the WTC7 drop for the first time 2 weeks ago. Like many others I was unaware that it also fell."

You weren't watching the news when it collapsed?

Plus, structure 7 was terribly damaged. That is also contained in the reports, plus addressed by the PopMech article, and presumably the book (haven't read that one yet). The collapse is hardly proof of any conspiracy. It was natural to expect it to collapse, once everyone realized the extent of the damage that occured.

JR... this is not critical thinking you're displaying. It's obtuseness. It's fact parroting rather than analysis. Again, you're depending on allegations and sources two or three degrees separated from the investigation. You're allowing yourself to be swayed. That is not independent, critical, or coherent thinking. That's accepting a fantasy narrative.

And again, you've yet to address the lack of credentials by the 9/11ST group.

And again, you're not explaining how so many people would be involved, and yet no real proof, leaks from within, or admissions of guild have arose.

Since you consider yourself smart and observant, apply that intelligence and observational ability to the gaping holes in the conspiracy fantasies being espoused. How did they get the demolitions in? How'd they accomplish this? Etc. The conspiracy stories have many more gaping holes than the NIST reports or any other "official" story, yet all the conspiracy fantasists pretend they explain everything. Think. Don't just accept.

 
At 15 September, 2006 12:19, Blogger Alex said...

Another way of looking at it is that a compressor to drive about 4-5 jackhammers uses about 40kw. 40kwh works out to about 1,444,000,000 Joules. Meaning 1.7 Terawats is enough energy to power those jackhammers for 12,250 hours. You could do a lot of concrete demolishing with that much jackhammer time.

 
At 15 September, 2006 12:28, Blogger Alex said...

Although I think I made a mistake in my original calculations, so I'll post the figures here for anyone who cares to correct me:

Energy:

500,000,000kg * 200m * 9.8m/s^
= 980,000,000,000
= 0.98 terjoules per tower.

TNT Equivalent:

1 gram of TNT = 4184 Joules
therefore

980,000,000,000 / 4,184
= 234,225,621 grams
= 234.225 tonnes.

Jackhammer Equivalent:

1 killowat hour = 3,600,000 joules
therefore

980,000,000,000 / 3,600,000
= 272,222 kilowat hours

272,222 / 40 = 6,805 hours of multiple jackhammer operation.


Feel free to criticize my math or physics, it's been a while.

 
At 15 September, 2006 13:11, Blogger J.R. said...

Interesting formula that leads no where. What you really should be
doing is determining how much energy is required to pulverize a cubic
meter of concrete and than do your math on the volume contained in the
towers.

That would make sense.

Let's do some simpler math:


As was stated:


1) The towers contained approximately 1.7 terajoules of potential
energy. That's something like 600 TONS (1,344,000 lbs) of TNT.

So thats 0.85 terajoules per tower, with 10% initiating the collapse
for one and 20% for the other, or on average 15%, so that would be
0.01275 terajoules.

But wait! What fell to the ground at WTC? Mostly dust! That has
more or less ZERO ENERGY - taking a huge bite out of those 0.01275
terajoules of energy which is being consumed pulverizing concrete and
fax machines.

Somehow there was extra energy left over to neatly cut steel girders
into pieces and have them fall into a pile in the buildings footprint AND
create the pools of molten metal. Remarkable: I think the perpetual motion
machine is more plausible.

Man, and we haven't even begun to talk about WTC7. Looking forward to
see what you can cook up for that one.


Obviously you've never seen the result of a meteoroid impact. A
boulder the size of a basketball can cause massive cratering,
classifying of sand, and melting of rock. Anyone who understands
anything about physics will tell you that explosives and flammable
substances are absolutely not necessary to produce those kinds of
results - all you need is enough energy focused in a small enough
area.

Your having serious problems with scale here, claiming that forces
with many orders of magnitude difference are comparable. This is the
usual smearing that seems to the norm with your camp. Gross
exaggerations and cherry picking to blur the facts.

 
At 15 September, 2006 13:28, Blogger mbats said...

But wait! What fell to the ground at WTC? Mostly dust!

I think you have a very different idea if what "mostly" means than the rest of us.

Your having serious problems with scale here, claiming that forces with many orders of magnitude difference are comparable.

You mean like you jumping on your cinderblock?

AND create the pools of molten metal.

Pretty! You don't have any pictures of that, do you?

Gross exaggerations and cherry picking to blur the facts.

What's truly amzing is that you accuse us of these with a stright face.

 
At 15 September, 2006 13:36, Blogger mbats said...

Energy:

500,000,000kg * 200m * 9.8m/s^
= 980,000,000,000
= 0.98 terjoules per tower.


As much as I hate to pick on someone who's picking apart j.r.'s idiocy, alex, not all of the weight started at 200m off of the ground. Your equation needs to be a lot more complex.

 
At 15 September, 2006 14:11, Blogger J.R. said...

Your having serious problems with scale here, claiming that forces
with many orders of magnitude difference are comparable.


You mean like you jumping on your cinder block?
AND create the pools of molten metal.



In that model, I'm giving your argument huge advantages:

Cinder block vs. WTC1 or WTC2:

If we shrunk WTC1 to size of a cinder block it would probably be
10 times stronger and 5 x more fire resistant than that block

Me Jumping vs. the upper stories collapsing.

Probably about 1000x more energy here with me jumping, because on this
scale I'm at least 100x times as heavy as 15% of the mass of a cinder
block and falling with 10x more force.

Odd that I need to go into so much detail on this one.

Now a meteor, traveling at 1000 km/h, melted down to its most dense
metallic core is much more powerful than a cannon ball falling 100ft.

I'm going to let you figure out how that relates to the WTC tower
collapse. (a little project for ya')

HINT: when the cannon ball hits the ground it just bounces a couple of
times: not even a small fire is produced.

 
At 15 September, 2006 14:30, Blogger mbats said...

If we shrunk WTC1 to size of a cinder block it would probably be
10 times stronger...


Changing the size of an object changes its material properties. Its thickest steel members are suddenly thinner than an aluminum can. Intricate, but flimsy. I failed projects in school for making assumptions like this (although not on this grand of a scale), but I've learned my lesson. Can you say the same?

... and 5 x more fire resistant than that block.

Your standard cinder block wall can be rated for up to two hours of fire protection. You just shrunk down the tower, so whatever gypsum wallboard and spray-on fireproofing are now microns thin, proividing no UL rating whatsoever. The rest of your arguments fall apart because you just did something you accused us of only moments ago - you are "having serious problems with scale here, claiming that forces with many orders of magnitude difference are comparable."

 
At 15 September, 2006 15:12, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"What you really should be doing is determining how much energy is required to pulverize a cubic meter of concrete and than do your math on the volume contained in the towers."

A solid cubic meter of concrete? Was the WTC solid? Remember, buildings are mostly hollow; the ratio of wall thickness to internal volume is rather low.

"What fell to the ground at WTC? Mostly dust! "

Incorrect.
pic.
pic
pic
pic

"Somehow there was extra energy left over to neatly cut steel girders into pieces and have them fall into a pile in the buildings footprint AND create the pools of molten metal."

Ignoring your error about applying the energy - the energy of the floors above only have to defeat the immediate floor below, which then adds its potential energy and defeats the floor below, etc. - and your error about the "dust", you ignore the fact that it wasn't just kinetic energy which accounted for the steel failing, it was also their softening from the fires.

And again, you keep ignoring the fact that much red hot metal - I just noticed, no one ever claiming "molten" metal has ever shown proof, they've only shown heated but solid metal fragments - was produced by being under burning material.

"Man, and we haven't even begun to talk about WTC7"

Everyone who's tried to use WTC 7 as proof of a conspiracy has either taken quotes out of context (the infamous "Pull it" uttered by Silverstein) or have ignored the fact that fallen debris caused considerable damage to the structure.

"Your having serious problems with scale here, claiming that forces with many orders of magnitude difference are comparable."

You are the one with scale problems, if you continue to purport that a cinder block properly models the WTC.

"If we shrunk WTC1 to size of a cinder block it would probably be 10 times stronger and 5 x more fire resistant than that block"

Incorrect. You again need to properly consider all the dimensions, including wall thickness.

"Me Jumping vs. the upper stories collapsing.

Probably about 1000x more energy here with me jumping, because on this scale I'm at least 100x times as heavy as 15% of the mass of a cinder block and falling with 10x more force."


No, no, no, no, no. You are not traveling at the same velocity, you are not applying the pressure to the edges of the block in the same way, you are not adding the same amount of potential energy from the failed floors to the floors below in your model. Again, you are failing in your off-the-cuff calculations. You do not understand modeling properly. And, you are not accounting for the failure points of the structure. A cinder block is not the WTC; it is far, far more homogenous and has far, far fewer potential points of structural failure.

On top of that, a portion of it wasn't hit by a scaled amount of kinetic energy a 500MPH passenger jetliner provides, compromising structural integrity. Your example is the farthest thing from a proper model. It explains nothing.

 
At 15 September, 2006 15:13, Blogger J.R. said...

Did the 'me jumping on the block' being 1000x more forcefull on this
scale mean anything to you?

Okay, since your nit picking, let's just simplify, change the cindar
block to an empty one gallon paint can and put a couple of 2 inch
square holes in its outer perimeter. Now change me to a bowling ball
dropped from 3 inches above the can ... Oh, and if you want
you can even start a fire inside the can and let it burn for an hour.

I'm still giving you HUGE advantages in this simplified model and its
closer the real model.

 
At 15 September, 2006 15:21, Blogger mbats said...

elmondohummus, that's a helluva zoom lens they used for that fourth picture! It's making all of that concrete dust look like rubble!

In all seriouslness, I particulary like that it's got a cinder block at the center to give some sense of scale.

 
At 15 September, 2006 15:25, Blogger mbats said...

j.r., you are having serious problems with scale here, claiming that forces with many orders of magnitude difference are comparable.

Seriously, where did you cut & paste this line from? You clearly have no idea what it means, as you are trying to compare a paint can to WTC1.

 
At 15 September, 2006 15:33, Blogger mbats said...

If you actually want to understand the collapse, j.r., you can't do it with scale models. The very fact that you persist in arguing with scale models shows that you do not understand. In a nutshell, the mass increases & decreases with the volume (x³) of material, and the structural integrity increases & decreases with the cross sectional area (x²) of the structural members. You are going to have to wrap your brain around the kilojoules present at actual scale to truly understand.

(apologies for the triple-post)

 
At 15 September, 2006 16:48, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

For the love of God...

A paint can will have different per-inch and per-volume strengths. Plus, a malleable metal like a paint can won't react the same way to a structural interruption like two holes that concrete will.

Plus, again, a paint can's a homogenous structure. The WTC was a mix of metal, concrete, and various other structural materials combined, with all the points of failure that implies. These are not "nit picks". These are points of failure in your arguments attempt to reflect reality.

These are horrible models you're coming up with. You are clearly only considering mass. Not the progressive nature of the collapse, as it added mass and energy for every floor that sequentially failed, not the fact that the points of failure where load bearing structures met severely huge point increases in force applied to them, nothing. Again, not critical thinking.

I'm done. That's my last post on the subject. Take your stuff to a structural engineer, or an instructor in that field. You'll quickly discover how weak your argument is.

 
At 15 September, 2006 18:31, Blogger Alex said...

As much as I hate to pick on someone who's picking apart j.r.'s idiocy, alex, not all of the weight started at 200m off of the ground. Your equation needs to be a lot more complex.

No problem, glad someones actualy analyzing the equations.

To answer you though, the towers were 400 meters roughly. So 200 meters is the average height. That balances out parts that fell from 399 meters and those that only fell 1 meter.

 
At 15 September, 2006 18:34, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 15 September, 2006 18:41, Blogger Alex said...

As far as JR's argument that a concrete block when scaled up to the size of the WTC towers would actualy be weaker....tell ya what JR. Your house should be much stronger than a block of concrete the same size, right? Go rent a crane, have it lift your car, and then drop it on the roof of your house. Obiously the car is much lighter than the house, so it shouldn't do any damage at all, right?

 
At 15 September, 2006 20:36, Blogger mbats said...

To answer you though, the towers were 400 meters roughly. So 200 meters is the average height. That balances out parts that fell from 399 meters and those that only fell 1 meter.

OK, I looked at it for a while, and you can average it like that - my bad. Still, that only for the potential energy. Kinetic energy would be trickier, because we would need to know velocity at time of impact - there were so many impacts.

 
At 16 September, 2006 00:07, Blogger PopPop said...

elmondodumbass,

Their credentials mean very little, considering the NIST report doesn't back up any of their claims with SCIENCE and they skirt around more questions than they answer. You only have to read the report to see that it's a bunch of propaganda and BS.

this is an example of the crap they try to pull...

As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:

“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”


They don't back up these claims with anything. Where's the mathematical proof? Hell, they completely ignore the fact that the lower floors have any mass at all(!), and they try to tell us that the collapsing floors were met with almost no resistance. This is complete BS. Steel and concrete just don't decide to get out of the way and disintegrate because the collapsing floors above are about to hurt them. Laws of Nature will not permit the collapsing floors to move just as fast as moving through air. And the building was overengineered closer to the bottom and the core was wider at the bottom...the way you guys defend this preposterous event is just amazing to me. It would almost be comical if it wasn't such a tragic event. Just watch the damn tapes! Fire cannot do that! NIST provides NO scientific evidence to back up this insane global collapse. They provide NO scientific data showing us how the weight of the collapse was far too much for lower floors. No mathematical equations regarding the Laws of conservation of momentum. Nothing! Wake up already people! The fires were actually relatively weak. Open your eyes. A 600,000 lb (twice the weight of the plane) piece of steel frame was thrust into the side of a nearby building. Massive piece of steel just lodged there. Fire produced those forces too?

The design engineer of the WTC, John Skilling, said that they took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires into account and clearly stated that the structure would still be there. When NIST quoted this in their later presentations they said it was only an anonymous view, LOL!

They didn't explore any CD theories. What they did was ANTI-SCIENCE. Start with their one and only conclusion, and try and get as much evidence together to support it. When nothing supports the toppling of these towers they move on to the trusty computer models. Those Yahoos at Popular Mechanics are no better either, and in fact some of what they say is in direct contradiction to what NIST says because after NIST's final report, PM did theirs, then 6 months later NIST's final, FINAL draft came out LOL! What a gongshow. Although it was nice to see NIST admit that their evidence didn't support a pancake theory afterall...

What a complete joke of an investigation. I could literally pick apart every point they make and back it up - it's highly debatable and they don't prove anything! That's what science is all about - you have to prove, otherwise your word is meaningless....How do you people not see through that? And they still completely ignored and skirted around a ton of other questions and they downright lied in other instances. We spent $100 million investigating the Monica Lewinsky Scandal and some of us are having to fight tooth and nail for an adequate, unbiased, and truthful investigation of 9/11. Unbelievable...

 
At 16 September, 2006 18:45, Blogger J.R. said...

Can y'all tell me why Rumsfeld on Sept. 10 2001 said the pentagon can't account for 2.3 trillion. Check this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg

Any way, been good yakkin' and thanks for helping me reaffirm my certainty that those buildings
were brought down by controlled demolition.

 
At 17 September, 2006 10:55, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

"... they completely ignore the fact that the lower floors have any mass at all(!)..."

How do you get that from the statement you're quoting? The dynamic load overcame the ability of the rest of the structure to handle it, besides which the structure was designed to suport a static load.

"Steel and concrete just don't decide to get out of the way and disintegrate because the collapsing floors above are about to hurt them."

Correct. The steel was compromised - softened - by the fire.

"Laws of Nature will not permit the collapsing floors to move just as fast as moving through air."

No one said that.

" Fire cannot do that!"

Cannot do what? Weaken parts of a structure to the point it collapses and triggers a global collapse? Cannot disrupt structural integrity by softening steel members relied on to support the weight of the stories above? That is in fact what happened. How can you claim that it "cannot do that"?

"The fires were actually relatively weak."

Incorrect. The fires were widespread and in places were estimated to reach 1000 degrees, more than enough to soften steel.

"the impact... widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns."

NIST FAQ link

"The design engineer of the WTC, John Skilling, said that they took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires into account and clearly stated that the structure would still be there."

Everyone quotes Skilling's Seattle PI interview where he talks about taking the jet fuel fires into account, but all of you ignore the other designer - Leslie Robertson - saying:

"To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance."

You also ignore the assertion by MIT Civil Engineering professor Eduardo Kausel:

"However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission."

Who's right? Who knows... but the assertation by Skilling is hardly unchallenged, and one of the challengers is one of the other WTC designers.

"They didn't explore any CD theories."

And geologists ignore flat-earth theories. And NASA ignores the cabal of "moon landings were faked". It's proper to only address facts and scientifically generated hypothesis, not random charges with no scientific basis.

"Start with their one and only conclusion, and try and get as much evidence together to support it."

They stared with the fact of the collapse and came to a conclusion based on the actual events that occurred. Your charge is false.

"I could literally pick apart every point they make and back it up"

I've seen so many people claim that, and not one of them has yet to do it. Put your money where your mouth is. What you've stated above doesn't count; it's already disproven by people other than me, and you only make a handful of claims. Debunk. Go ahead. Prove you can "pick apart" every point, then see if your nitpicks, errors of interpretation, and logical fallacies actually build to a cohesive narrative.

Anyone can find faults in how things are phrased, be selective about quotes, build an alternate hypothesis. But to reflect reality, the narrative must be cohesive, and the facts must build up logically and answer not just what happened, but other questions that may arise but have not yet been addressed. So far, this whole "government is at fault" fantasy does not do that. No one - no one - for example has yet to satisfactorally explain just how explosives were put in the buildings without anyone noticing. No one has yet to explain how so many people could be involved without one leak from the inside. So, go ahead and build your story. Then, if you're truly concerned about being "scientific", see if it explains everything, including the details on exactly how government did it. A proper theory - not hypothesis, not claim - provides predictions and explains all events, not merely the cherry picked ones. Come up with a cohesive narrative. Do it. Don't just talk big about it.

JR

Rumsfeld's admission is severe, and ought to cost him his job, but that doesn't prove one single thing about the WTC collapse. Not one. It proves financial irresponsibility, which is itself a serious charge that needs investigation and, if need be, prosecution, but it doesn't prove a single bit of 9/11. Not one.

You have yet to provide anything other than misguided belief about the events surrounding the collapse. No part of your beliefs have been proven. That's exactly what I meant about not thinking critically. You've been answered, your models are weak, yet you persist in your beliefs. That's simply not critical thinking on your part.

 
At 17 September, 2006 10:56, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

That's really it. I'm really done this time. Go ahead and have your last word. It doesn't matter, not when you refuse to build an argument based on reality.

 
At 17 September, 2006 15:43, Blogger Alex said...

Go ahead and have your last word. It doesn't matter, not when you refuse to build an argument based on reality.

You sound so much like a flat-earther that it'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

 
At 17 September, 2006 18:33, Blogger Elmondohummus said...

Alex? You realize I'm addressing the CT'ers with that remark? The conspiracy fantasists?

 
At 18 September, 2006 03:42, Blogger PopPop said...

How do you get that from the statement you're quoting?

Because they act like the lower floors would provide almost no resistance to the upper floors. That is total bullshit. The lower floors still had 10x the weight advantage over the upper floors.


The dynamic load overcame the ability of the rest of the structure to handle it, besides which the structure was designed to suport a static load.


Sigh...you have no idea what you're talking about. You're only reciting useless NIST propaganda THAT PROVES NOTHING! Please back up what you're saying with some science, otherwise you are solving nothing.

Using the law of conservation of momentum, here is what happens AFTER a collision with a NON-MOVING (equal)MASS. After the collision, the equation balances like this:
M=mass
V=velocity

M1xV1 + M2xV2 = (M1+M2) x V3

V1 is the initial speed of the object. V2 is the initial speed of the second object, which is zero since it is not moving. V3 is the final velocity after the collision.

Now we have:

M1xV1 = (M1+M2) x V3

Solving for V3:

V3 = (M1 /(M1+M2)) x V1

V3 = 1/2 x V1


As you can see the resulting speed is HALF of the original speed before the collision.

HOWEVER...this is only if the 2 MASSES ARE EQUAL! That is DEFINITELY NOT the case with a few upper floors of a massive skyscraper collapsing onto the 80 floors below! The MASS of remaining part of the structure is HUGELY greater than the stack of floors from above!

So, by applying this law to the WTC, we end up with something like this...

V3 = (M1 /(M1 + 9xM1)) x V1

V3 = 1/10 x V1


The final speed is now 1/10th of what it started out! The only thing that matters is how much larger the 2nd MASS is compared to the 1st MASS (i.e. 80+ floors of a skyscraper compared to 10+ floors of a skyscraper).

This is obviously over-generalized, but the principal still applies. The point is, it is FUCKING PREPOSTEROUS to believe that these floors were able to plow through the rest of the building like a FUCKIN MACK TRUCK completely destroying the 47 core columns, pulvering loads of concrete, and thrusting huge steel beams into nearby buildings like 3WFC. It's honestly insane to believe that this is at all possible.

Here is even more detailed science on the subject. Courtesy of ENGINEER Gordon Ross. He actually calculates the science, UNLIKE any of the NIST scientists, and he basically states that the collapse would STOP AFTER ABOUT 2 FLOORS. Please read it and attempt to scrutinize it.

http://worldtradecentertruth.com/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf


Doesn't anyone raise an eyebrow at the fact that NIST doesn't do ANY OF THIS SCIENCE? The "wingnut" engineers are actually doing the math on this farce...the NIST engineers just ramble on about 'momentum' and 'global collapse', refer us to different sections and appendices, tell us how many experts are working on this, and provide the odd diagram of the structure, whilst failing to back it up with any Scientific data. Think about that. And they purposely make it so long and full of useless rhetoric that very few people will actually read the damn thing. That's all by design. They know they have nothing to work with. They don't even show us the computer models that apparently support their claims. They don't do ANYTHING! How the fuck do you people buy this tripe? The entire report reeks of neo-con propaganda. NIST should stick to homeland security, because this is just not cutting it. You guys probably have your minds made up at this point, despite the mounds of evidence in your collective faces, but you should at least be open to an INDEPENDENT investigation after this debacle.

Incorrect. The fires were widespread and in places were estimated to reach 1000 degrees, more than enough to soften steel.

In 1975, there was a fire in the North Tower that burned hotter and for longer (3hrs) and it didn't affect the steel. Steel is an excellent thermal conductor, which means that the steel temperature increases needed would have required raising the temperature of major portions of the whole structure. These were simply not severe enough. The huge black plumes indicate that the fires weren't ver intense. The firefighters were in control and only need two lines to put it out. This wasn't some raging inferno, so stop buying this BS.

NIST’s WTC report often confuses computer results with physical testing results, and gas temperatures with steel temperatures. We might assume they confused these details because, in every case, the physical tests they performed failed to support their pre-determined conclusions.

For example, NIST’s testing of the few steel samples saved showed that steel temperatures were only about 250 C. This matches with thermodynamic calculations considering the available amounts of fuel, and the masses and specific heats of materials in the failure zones.

NIST’s workstation burn tests to establish gas temperatures were “over-ventilated” and this, among other reasons, shows they were not representative of fires in the WTC. Nonetheless, these tests did result in gas temperatures of ~ 800 C for a few seconds. Added to NIST’s computer, these results mysteriously climbed to 1000 C, and then were used in other analyses where they were applied for 90 minutes or more. This is deceptive to say the least. But are these gas temperatures what NIST is referring to when they suggest the steel reached 1000 C for long periods of time over a vast area of the building? In question 9, NIST is basically admitting that the fires were not very hot. If this is not the case, what thermodynamic calculations did NIST perform to estimate the temperatures that the steel and other materials within the WTC buildings could have realistically experienced? Can we see these please?


"the impact... widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and PULLED INWARD ON THE PERIMETER COLUMNS."

NIST was deceptive and unscientific at every step of their investigation. An excellent example of this is their computer manipulations to prove that perimeter columns could be bowed inward. After having eliminated all the fireproofing, and exaggerated the temperatures and fire duration times, NIST “disconnected” their virtual columns from the floors before applying an inward force. Where does the inward force come from when the floors are disconnected?


"To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance."


They both stated on numerous occasions, that it could handle a 707 crashing into it at high speed. One talks about the obvious fires that would ensue and says it would be fine, and now all of the sudden the other one changes his mind and says it wasn't taken into account? I don't know why he's changed his mind now, but how much sense does it make to design a building to withstand a plane crash AND NOT take into account the resulting fires?

You also ignore the assertion by MIT Civil Engineering professor Eduardo Kausel:

"However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next—a key design omission."



I don't know who this guy is, or why he's saying these things...but it doesn't sound like he's done his research. He states the designers only designed it for a low speed hit lost in the fog, which is absolutely UNTRUE - considering they tested it at 600MPH. I don't believe any engineer would leave fire out at that point. This also has the familiar stench of NIST propaganda the way he describes this great momentum and "unstoppable crushing descent." And just like NIST he fails to back it up with science. While earlier in this post, one of the 'wingnuts' categorically DISPROVES this notion WITH SCIENCE. This is also the same guy who stated in Scientific American, after 9/11, that jet fuel fire had melted the steel in the WTC. Everyone with a brain, including NIST, now agrees that this is impossible. Why is this guy saying things like this? Why did NIST use contractors who had previously stated that the jet fuel fire melted the steel? I have no idea. In any case, his word is pretty meaningless at this point.


It's proper to only address facts and scientifically generated hypothesis, not random charges with no scientific basis.

Well, genius...NIST actually is now looking into the possibility of CD in WTC 7. Why not also look into it for WTC 1 and WTC 2?

"NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

They stared with the fact of the collapse and came to a conclusion based on the actual events that occurred. Your charge is false.


Nope. What they did was manipulate computer models until their original hypothesis was supported.

 
At 18 September, 2006 05:27, Blogger shawn said...

NIST was deceptive and unscientific at every step of their investigation.

Do you all you people just plug your ears and say "I'm not listening"?

 
At 18 September, 2006 10:51, Blogger mbats said...

HOWEVER...this is only if the 2 MASSES ARE EQUAL! That is DEFINITELY NOT the case with a few upper floors of a massive skyscraper collapsing onto the 80 floors below! The MASS of remaining part of the structure is HUGELY greater than the stack of floors from above!

You are proceeding under the false assumption that the remainder of the WTC acted as a monolithic structure. It has been repeatedly explained to you that this is not the case. Your linked analysis also falsely assumes that the floors directly below the intial collapse have full structural strength to resist the monmentum of the falling upper floors. How many times must we remind you that the lower floors' structure had been conpromised by the fire?

No mathematical equations regarding the Laws of conservation of momentum. Nothing!

Considering that the report was technically made for laymen in Congress, I'm not surprised that the calculations were in external documents.

And they purposely make it so long and full of useless rhetoric that very few people will actually read the damn thing.

If you think building professionals aren't examining those referenced documents, you've got another think coming.

In 1975, there was a fire in the North Tower that burned hotter and for longer (3hrs) and it didn't affect the steel.

I'm betting there wasn't an explosion before that fire to knock fireproofing off - apples/oranges.

The huge black plumes indicate that the fires weren't ver intense.

Most computers and carpets, being made of plastic, will burn with black smoke regardless of how much oxygen they have. Because we know those are commonly found in offices, we cannot assume that the black smoke has anything to do with the amount of oxygen present at the fire, epecially when we know there are holes in the size & shape of 757's in the side of the building and that the impact shattered glass 40 floors below the impact point.

Where does the inward force come from when the floors are disconnected?

The 1000 degree trusses sagged, and pulled exterior columns in.

I don't know who this guy is, or why he's saying these things...but it doesn't sound like he's done his research. He states the designers only designed it for a low speed hit lost in the fog, which is absolutely UNTRUE - considering they tested it at 600MPH. I don't believe any engineer would leave fire out at that point.

I haven't seen this analysis, so I'm not sure what they did or didn't test for. Did they take into account everything that actually happened, though (e.g. explosion stripping off fireproofing)? I think we can agree that, whoever is doing the testing and calculations, one false assumption will throw off all of your results.

 
At 19 September, 2006 17:54, Blogger PopPop said...

Do you all you people just plug your ears and say "I'm not listening"?


*irony alert*

 
At 19 September, 2006 23:34, Blogger PopPop said...

You are proceeding under the false assumption that the remainder of the WTC acted as a monolithic structure. It has been repeatedly explained to you that this is not the case.

You're an idiot. Did you even read it? The collapse doesn't just affect one floor, but it has an effect on several floors below the impact zone. That's all taken into account in the calculations. The mass advantage is still on the side of the the remaining floors. The velocity of the collapsing floors would be greatly reduced every time it impacted the large mass below. To think it just plows through the rest of the building, gaining momentum as it goes, is about the biggest farce one could come up with. Simply preposterous. The only engineer to have actually performed the detailed scientific analysis on this collapse is proving with science that the collapse would be arrested at about 2 floors. NIST is basically telling you that the world is flat, and you're smiling and nodding in agreement. Pathetic.

Momentum Transfer Analysis


Your linked analysis also falsely assumes that the floors directly below the intial collapse have full structural strength to resist the monmentum of the falling upper floors. How many times must we remind you that the lower floors' structure had been conpromised by the fire?


Even NIST's own analysis showed that the steel samples were about 250C/500F...NOT 1000! Their workstation burn tests, which they manipulated by overventilating, resulted in GAS temperatures of about 8OOC FOR A FEW SECONDS. When NIST added these to their trusty computer, the results mysteriously climbed to 1000C, and then they were applied for 90+ minutes in other analyses. The fact is these fires were NOT that hot. Most of these temps are reproducible in your kitchen oven for fuck sakes. And you actually believe they were great enough to initiate collapse and weaken the steel in these skyscrapers? You are one gullible soul. You also ignoring that steel is an excellent thermal conductor - meaning to reach the temps you are claiming you would need to significantly raise the temperature in major portions of the entire structure. That's why the steel NIST tested was only 250C/500F - the minute it got heated it would just dissipate the heat to other portions of the structure. You are just not thinking things through here.

NIST steel analysis


Considering that the report was technically made for laymen in Congress, I'm not surprised that the calculations were in external documents.

Bullshit. This was a 3yr building and fire safety investigation into the most devastating terrorist attack on American soil and three unprecedented steel-framed building collapses due to fire. Scientists do the work, provide the data, and make their report available for scrutinization. They don't dumb it down and withhold information to pander to a less intelligent audience. They do the science and put it out there. NIST hasn't done that.


Most computers and carpets, being made of plastic, will burn with black smoke regardless of how much oxygen they have.

Oh fuckin' drop it already. Look at the NIST link. Their steel samples tested at around 250C/500F. The steel COMPONENTS in the building were certified for 6hrs at 2000F. Most of the jet fuel exploded outside the buildings on impact - remaining jet fuel would have burned up in minutes. The fires burned for less than an hour. Better sprinkler systems were installed after the 1975 fire. The firefighters had it under control - referring to it as isolated pockets of fire needing just two lines to put out. Then we're left with a standard fire - carpets, blinds, couches, desks, computers, etc...it doesn't matter - the temperatures were simply not that severe.

 
At 21 September, 2006 17:11, Blogger mbats said...

Did you even read it? The collapse doesn't just affect one floor, but it has an effect on several floors below the impact zone.

Your linked report said 24 stories below initial impact would still act in congress; you said previously that all of the lower floors still act as one. You aren't even agreeing with your source. Were you exaggerating, or did you not understand your own source? I'm arguing against a monolithic reaction, and your linked source does not imply a monolithic reaction, simply resistance greater than one floor's worth. For what it's worth, I can agree with that much from it.

The velocity of the collapsing floors would be greatly reduced every time it impacted the large mass below.

Assuming the paper's math is correct, that reduction in velocity translates to damage moving down the building 24 floors ahead of the impact. As the multiple lower floors resist each impact, they are damaged by each impact, making them less able to resist each subsequent impact - something still not taken into account in your linked analysis.

Also, per the paper, we start with 16 floors moving at 0 m/s, accelerating at 9.8 m/s over a distance of 3.7 meters to a speed of 8.5 m/s just prior to the initial floor-to-floor impact. Per its calculations (which rely on a fully braced floor), after kinetic energy is absorbed in this impact (in the form of damage), we have 17 floors moving at 4.8 m/s. While it has its flaws, I'm OK with the paper up to this point. Unfortunately, its plastic strain calculations are assuming fully functioning steel, which, due to a fire of even 500 degrees, the steel simply does not have. We can't write off the influence of plastic strain entirely, but we still have 17 floors moving with an intial velocity greater than zero, accelerating at 9.8 meters per second over a distance of 3.7 meters before it makes its next impact. It's not just the additional mass conpounding the kinetic energy, it's that mass having a starting velocity greater than zero. The second floor-to-floor impact will not only have more mass, but also a greater velocity, and thus more kinetic energy to absorb than the first impact. As a result, the initial velocity after the second impact will be greater than that after the first, as will each subsequent one after that.

Their workstation burn tests, which they manipulated by overventilating,

Did you read my link? There was a lot more oxygen present than you think - unless a room is sealed, fire will draw in air to fuel itself.

Better sprinkler systems were installed after the 1975 fire.

The sprinkler lines were severed in the intial impact, and thus do not come into play.

The firefighters had it under control - referring to it as isolated pockets of fire needing just two lines to put out.

That was on the lowest floor the fire had spread to. The upper floors were much worse.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home