WTC Collapses

what was the straight line distance between you and the impact point? even if noisy bombs did go off near the impact point prior to collapse, you would not have heard the sound until maybe a second or two into the collapse. the speed of sound travels at 340 meters per second so there is a significant time lag between what you see and what you hear, so what you would have heard if you were standing near the winter gardens would not have been the real time sound.

so you heard the distinct sound of floors colliding with each other?

http://www.csc.gov.sg/html/newsletter/may2007/a6.html

You seem to be arguing against the position that the diffuse flame fires melted the steel. this position is not being put forward by anyone here. you are fighting phantoms.

so if molten steel or iron were found then the official cause of the collapse has serious problems, because as you say the building would have collapsed long before any melting occurred.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are correct that sound would be delayed a little if this person was a distance away from the towers. But ALL of the sound would be delayed, not just the sound of the explosions. The sound of the collapse would have been delayed an equal amount. So if you were standing right next to the tower, your would have heard something like "Pop! Pop! Pop! rummmmbbble" where as someone at distance would have heard (pause) (pause) Pop! Pop! Pop! ruuummmble".

Your concept is flawed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There's something I've always been curious about with the "Truthseeker" position. Y'all talk about demolition devices bring down the towers, but I don't think I've ever heard one of you detail exactly where you think the devices (explosives, termite [edit: LOL, i don't think you believe insects brought down the tower...that would be Thermite] or variation of) was placed.

I think all the active participates of this thread understand the construction design of the towers. There are 3 main parts to it. The inner core of heavy columns, the outer box of exterior columns, and the floor joists that connect them.

I am asking a direct, "unloaded", question to all 4 of the active members of the TS team, Scott, HS, Psi, and Tony. And would appreciate a detailed direct answer.

"Where in your opinion were the demolition devices that initiated (not helped once it was started) the collapse, placed? On the core columns, on the exterior columns, or the floor joists, or a combination? Please elaborate, and be specific."

It's a simple question...please answer.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you have just described thermite residue!!

You are suggesting that the composition of thermite residue could have naturally formed in the conditions of the building without thermite, this is an absurdity.

shaman says - "It could have been aluminium mixed into a molten soup of the contents of the offices"

There is no scientific data to back this up, in fact the scientific data we do have actually contradicts your statement. Aluminum does not emit that color. we have been over this a dozen times.

shaman says - "It could have contained iron freed in a eutectic mix"

<brakes screech to a halt> - Thermate residue is a eutectic (a molten mix) of sulfur and iron.

Diffuse flame fire does not do that to steel!

To "free iron" to a eutectic melt you need to melt it! iron melts at 1500 Celcius which is impossible from just a diffuse flame fire.

In order to reduce the melting point of iron from 1500 Celcius to 1000 Celcius you have to mix pure elemental sulfur to the iron at a precise concentration ratio 31.4%.

The iron has to be mixed with the elemental sulphur in order for the melting point to be reduced, like adding salt to ice. Even a very small deviation of sulfur concentration quantity from 31.4% moves the melting point of iron out of reach of even the most extreme of fires.

This is just not going to occur at random without the help of Douglas Adam's Improbability Drive.

 

Re: Previous post

Nicely done Headspin

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I would also like to mention that I have just created a proposal for a formal debate over in the formal debates forum. The main difference, as far as I'm concerned, is that I suggested that certain derogatory terms not be allowed in the debate, which I specified in my proposal for the debate.

I originally wanted it to be me, Tony, Headspin, psikey and leeray on one side and unspecified people on the other.

However, MacGyver said he'd only participate in the debate if it was me alone. Since I have found him to be the most amenable of my opponents, I agreed. -However-, this doesn't preclude the possibility of me getting advice from all of you here. As a matter of fact, after MacGyver's response to my proposal, I already want some. At one point, MacGyver said:
"We are also in agreement that there were 3 main structural components to the WTC towers, the heavy inner core columns, the lighter outer box of exterior columns, and the floor joists that connect them. (agreed?)"

It sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure, so I told him I'd like to confer with you guys first.

While the debate is active, we may also start a discussion thread in the formal debates forum as well. Since we essentially already have one right here, I figured that if we have one there, it should follow the same rules in terms of certain derogatory terms not to be allowed.

 

It's cool...just don't take too long.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Oh, and Scott..have you ever seen any of the presidential debates? Two dudes on a platform behind podiums. That's kinda what the formal debate forum is supposed to be like. If when asked a question, McCain or Obama would have excused himself from the stage to confer with his team..he would have been the laughing stock of America. Remember YOU started a formal debate...it's a little different than other types of threads.

 

this is a very considered response to that question:
http://gordonssite.tripod.com/id2.html

this is a much easier to follow video presentation of the above link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdtOFNgrkTg

 

what do you mean flawed?
Swivel said he heard no explosions prior to the collapse

"There were no explosions prior to the buildings going down"

I have shown that he would not necessarily have heard any explosion prior to collapse.

you yourself have agreed that any explosion sound would not necessarily have been heard prior to the collapse.

so how can the reasoning be flawed?

...or did you alchemise "no explosions prior to collapse" into "no explosions during collapse"?

 

I personally am not interested in a McCain/Obama type of debate when it comes to these issues, however. This is why I stipulated that I the opponents in the formal debate can take up to a -week- before responding and I put absolutely no limit on the length of the response. This isn't some little issue that can be dealt with with a few soundbites.

Actually, I only started a proposal- only an admin can decide whether or not they would like to allow a formal debate on the issue to proceed. The thing I like most about that forum is that I can actually stipulate that certain insults are off limits. It seems it's the only place here where I can actually do that in sciforums

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

When did I say that I wouldn't be allowed to confer with others? In point of fact, I had originally wanted my 'team', if you want to call it that, to be directly involved in the discussion; I only gave that up when Mac said he'd only debate me if he was debating me alone. I took this to mean that I'd be the only person responding to his posts, not that I wouldn't be able to consult with my colleagues. The -reason- I decided to go for the formal debate approach is because it's the only place in sciforums wherein one can actually enforce some civility. I never intended to be isolated from my colleagues in such a debate, but I compromised to -some- extent with Mac in order to get him into the debate. If he wants to isolate me from my colleagues completely, however, I guess I'd have to debate someone else or just stay here.. which I personally would find somewhat dissapointing, as I had wanted to engage in a discussion that was devoid of atleast certain insults.

Anyway, I think an apology for the 'dishonest' accusation is in order

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

post 1445 this thread:

dream on.

edit:
since this isn't the formal debates forum i will however retract the statement.
post deleted.

 

I have responded to your post in the newly created WTC Collapses discussion thread over in Formal Debates.

 

I understood you to mean the person at a distance would not have heard the sound of explosions occuring before the initiation of the collapse, because it would have been delayed and be masked by the sound of the collapse. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were saying. That's what I thought was flawed. All sound travels at the same speed. The same sounds would be heard at a distance, as close up, just with a little delay. Visually, you would have seen the towers begin to collapse...and a few moments later heard the corresponding sounds. You still would have heard the sounds of explosions before the sound of the rumble of the collapse.

The collapse started at the impact point? right? Any demolition material responsible for the initiation of the collapse would have had to be activated BEFORE the collapse right? Why don't we hear or see that?

 

too bad i didn't accept your challenge.
frankly i'm surprised that macgyver did.

 

I responded in the discussion thread, not the debate thread. I -would- like the same insults avoided in that thread as well, but I think that as a general rule you are fairly polite.

Why?

 

what insults? where?

 

The Cardington fire tests

This post is in response to the 1st part of shaman_'s post 1020 from this thread.

I don't think so.

You seem to think that all office buildings are alike. They aren't. Size really -does- matter.

NIST's computer models are a joke to many. When it comes to all their tests of -real- steel as opposed to their tweaked computer models, they haven't reported -any- steel beams to collapse. Not even on a model that Tony claims had no fireproofing at all.

Yes, steel warehouses and the like; very weak structures indeed.

I never denied this. The problem you're making is that you seem to think that the weak framework of a steel warehouse is the same thing as the massive framework of the WTC buildings.

In one of the tests that I have mentioned in the past, Kevin Ryan claims that there was essentially no fireproofing.

I'm not sure, but it's irrelevant. They reached temperatures that are consistent with the -real- fires, not NIST's tweaked out computer simulations. As a matter of fact, they biased the tests, as Kevin Ryan explained in a letter on the 9/11 Journal for 9/11 Studies, The Short Reign of Ryan Mackey, and yet the floor models still didn't fail:
Not only did UL and NIST add twice as much add twice the known WTC load to the floor models, they also used far less fireproofing than was known to exist at the time. The tests performed by UL included two test specimens with "as built" fireproofing of only 0.75 inches, one with the "as specified" fireproofing thickness of only 0.5 inches, and one with the "as specified" condition of essentially no fireproofing. None of the test specimens had fireproofing to represent the "as impacted" condition of 3.25 inches, reported in NCSTAR 1-6A, figure A-60.

My assertion isn't baseless. It is based on information from Jim Hoffman's Building a Better Mirage article, which is a "critique of the Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers
by the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster."

Here is what he said in the section titled "Imagined Heat":
Temperatures of 800 ºC to 1,100 ºC (1472 ºF to 2012 ºF) are normally observed only for brief times in building fires, in a phenomenon known as flashover. Flashover occurs when uncombusted gases accumulate near the ceilings and then suddenly ignite. Since flame consumes the pre-heated fuel-air mixture in an instant, very high temperatures are produced for a few seconds.

When did I say that the fires couldn't reach temperatures high enough to weaken steel? It's one thing to weaken steel, however- it's another thing entirely for the WTC buildings to complete collapse within seconds of collapse initiation.

The Cardington tests were not simulating the floor models of the WTC buildings. UL and NIST -did- simulate the floor models of the WTC buildings, albeit doubling the load and decreasing the 'as impacted' fireproofing. Nevertheless, although the floor models did sag somewhat, they did -not- collapse. Jim Hoffman, in his article, Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers, states:
Mackey cites the Cardington experiments to support his claim that that the hydrocarbon-fueled fires can sustain temperatures exceeding 1000°C, but it doesn't follow that such temperatures are typically reached in actual building fires. The Cardington experiments, like other such fire tests, were designed to see how structures behave in hot fires -- at the high end of temperatures that the scientists think might be reached in a building fire, not the likely temperatures.

And, despite the fact that the Cardington tests heated steel to temperatures hundreds of degrees hotter than any temperatures NIST claims to have estimated from studies of WTC structural steel samples, no collapse was observed in any of the experiments.

All you've shown me is that the -Cardington fire tests- reached those temperatures. You have shown me no compelling evidence that the same occurred in relation to the WTC buildings.

-That- is an assertion you haven't provided any evidence for as far as I can tell. Jim Hoffman certainly doesn't agree with it. The open air burning temperature of jet fuel is 287.5 °C (549.5 °F). That's a far cry from 1000 °C.

Perhaps.. from me. From you, I'd consider it to be fairly civil ;-). If I had been in a better mood, perhaps I would have asked you what you didn't understand.

What don't you understand in the paragraph?

The WTC towers had a tube within a tube design; I got that bit from 9/11 Research. But the point is that the reason the Madrid tower's upper perimeter collapsed was because the perimeter was made from weakly reinforced concrete, not the strong perimeter steel columns that the WTC buildings had.

You have it backwards. Concrete is susceptible to spalling. Steel isn't. Not only that, but steel -hardens- after being bent to some degree, as Tony has mentioned in the past. Also, steel conducts heat much better then concrete, so that the hottest parts quickly lose their heat unless the temperature gets -really- hot. For these reasons, steel is much better at resisting the destructive force of fire.

The core of the Windsor tower was meant to take the majority of the load; in other words, it was much heftier then the poorly reinforced concrete perimeter.

 

Ask the moderators; I've reported atleast 6 or 7 posts to them.

 

by quoting me and stating that you expect no insults you imply that i have insulted you.
so post the links where i have insulted you scott.

 

I have all the papers I took off the yacht in a small cardboard box. Cracking the box releases the toxic smell that washed over lower Manhattan that day, taking me back to that moment.

I still have never released any of the photos I took that day. The only other item I have is the flag that was flying on the yacht. It went to half-mast about 15 minutes after the jet went into the South tower, probably making it the first flag to do so that day. My father was given the flag later that year and keeps it at his house in Colorado.

The flag that became famous for flying over the rubble was stolen off of the boat two slips down from the one I was captaining. Firefighters broke into the rear glass doors and stole a lot of stuff off the yacht, slept in the beds, trashed the heads, etc... There was also a ton of looting by rescue workers and firemen, since there really wasn't anything else to do. The lawsuits ran on for years, but were not covered by the media. The Greek yacht owner sued to get his flag back, but I don't think he was successful.