01-04-09, 01:26 PM #881
01-05-09, 12:12 AM #882
Scott I don’t religiously worship Mackey and I’m sure he has at some point made mistakes. The point is that many of the times when I have used him as a reference you have just claimed that he has been discredited and posted a comment like the one above. I am just saying make sure you address the content.
(a)You appear to understand English at least and
(b) I have told you many times.
Put those two sentences together in your head and figure the rest out.
He is not an authority on steel, buildings and fires. It was not his area of expertise.
01-05-09, 12:19 AM #883
As far as security - an upgrade is an upgrade. As for the rest - I am not going to sit here and answer unsubstantiated fantasy questions and 'what if this...what if that...'
01-05-09, 12:32 AM #884
01-05-09, 06:34 AM #885
In order to prove that statement false, it is only necessary to show that it is possible. Tony has shown that it was possible.
Any follow up along the lines of "unsubstanstiated, what if, what if..." is bogus since you never asked Tony what the exact method was, you asked him only to show that it was possible. It would be honest and decent of you to review the posts and accept that your declaration of "impossible to install explosives" is false. Or you can dispute one or more of the components to Tony's argument by providing counter argument of your own. This is basic logic.
Without pursuing one of these options you are only left with your belief that it would not be possible.
01-05-09, 10:30 AM #886
what is the maximum gas temperature in the core just prior to collapse according to NISTs fire simulation?
01-05-09, 12:07 PM #887
01-05-09, 12:08 PM #888
01-05-09, 02:15 PM #889
01-05-09, 02:24 PM #890
01-05-09, 05:37 PM #891
I don't suppose any of you have visited the Richard Dawkins 'Clear thinking Oasis' Forum from whence Psikey has been temporarily banned?
it's supposed to be a place for rational thinking and science based discussion, but I fear it may have been hijacked by followers of non-science.
At present they have one supposed engineer - a moderator by the way - who seems to support the pile-driver/pancake/global collapse theory while actually entertaining the idea that he differs slightly from NIST's analysis. Also, there are a lot of people claiming to have some background in the field of demolition who like to claim that it is a near physical impossibility for the buildings to have been rigged that way.
To be honest, I can't personally refute their claims. I can't point out any real obvious flaws or even hope to hold a decent argument for the opposition side in this debate as I am not knowledgeable enough in the subject. Though I do know quite a lot about the history of 'State sponsored terrorism' and I find the subject of 9/11 quite compelling as it does seem that certain interested parties from within the American establishment would have the means and the motive to pull off such an event.
It's also worth noting that as human beings, we have evolved a natural ability to judge how 'middle world' physics would 'play out' without having to actually do equations.
Actual equations would bring more accurate results in terms of physics - that's really undeniable - however, we must all have surely seen a Hollywood film for example, which has some kind of CGI sequence where the physics don't appear to be right?
Now, I cannot escape that very same feeling whenever I see the Twin Towers 'collapse'. The debris cloud, the speed of fall, the complete destruction straight down. It just doesn't sit right.
Anyway, What I'm trying to ask is - and I completely understand if you don't agree to it. - Seeing as this thread does appear to now be quite unbalanced in favour of the pro-demolition theorists and the thread itself seems to be dying down, I wonder if any of you people more knowledgeable in the pro-demolition theories would be willing to take a short amount of time to visit the Richard Dawkins forum and argue your case and to test their theories out? It is really quite one sided over there and some of the comments are verging on the ridiculous. It would be nice to see those peoples theories actually challenged...
.. Also, someone who claims to work for the Hearst corporation is currently posting there; and history has shown us how "reliable" they have been in their journalism.
The thread is :
Last edited by leeray666; 01-05-09 at 05:42 PM. Reason: missed word
01-05-09, 07:55 PM #892
The collapse of WTC 1&2 was correct in sequence and action, and now looking at the type of support beams and vertical inner and outer structure, I see nothing out of the ordinary in how it collapsed.
The main support was at the Central core of the structure, was a long rigid Central spike, and every thing was attached to it, and then radiated out to the outer supports which were were lite corrugated steel support beams, creating a outer skin or rind.
The Central core structure
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/GON/wtc_plan_small.jpgTypical Floor Plan of the World Trade Center:
A perimeter of closely spaced columns, with an internal lift core. The floors were supported by a series of light trusses on rubber pads, which spanned between the outer columns and the lift core.
The Central Core vertical support structure, acted as the guide running straight up the center of the top section of the WTC towers, this guided the upper structure straight down.
The radial support were of light corrugate beam material, that once it was kinked, bent, or twister lost it's load bearing ability, even with out heat induced lose of tensile strength.
The Outer vertical support was was corrugated beam, that one it is out of alignment with it's self, due to kinking, bending, twisting, has no structure support strength.
The horizontal beams were sheared at the ends, sheared from the Central Core, and sheared at the wall supports, the action very much like a Pineapple corer in action.
It was a giant impalement, the Central core acting as the spear impaling the Upper Structure through the Upper Central Core structure.
Once the Upper Structure is in motion, add Newtons Laws, and :
Eventually, the loss of strength and stiffness of the materials resulting from the fire, combined with the initial impact damage, would have caused a failure of the truss system supporting a floor, or the remaining perimeter columns, or even the internal core, or some combination. Failure of the flooring system would have subsequently allowed the perimeter columns to buckle outwards. Regardless of which of these possibilities actually occurred, it would have resulted in the complete collapse of at least one complete story at the level of impact.
Once one story collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure
As can be seen Perimeter columns, several stories high, and still linked together, were pealed from the Towers like the rind of a Pineapple.
Not only is the floor directly below the collapse point destroyed, but the energy transfer, then is transferred to floors below the collapse point, destroying supporting structure by shock, and creating damage to facilitate the collapse of those floors when the event front impacts them.
The gigantic impact forces caused by the huge mass of the falling structure landing on the floors below travelled down the columns like a shockwave faster than the entire structure fell. The clouds of debris coming from the tower, several storeys below the huge falling mass, probably result from the sudden and almost explosive failure of each floor, caused by the "shockwave".
Last edited by Buffalo Roam; 01-05-09 at 08:44 PM.
01-05-09, 09:52 PM #893
However, there is a big problem for your theory.
An amplified load requires high deceleration and measurements of the velocity of the roof line of the upper block of the North Tower, from the start and for the first 114 feet of its fall, after which it is obscured by smoke and dust, show no deceleration at any point in that fall. It just keeps accelerating smoothly at about 75% the rate of gravity. To put it in simple terms there were no shocks or impulses and thus no amplified loads and no mechanism for a natural collapse continuation.
There will be papers coming out showing this in the very near future.
Last edited by Tony Szamboti; 01-05-09 at 10:53 PM.
01-06-09, 12:10 AM #894
Accelerating....meaning that it is gaining speed?.....till it reaches maximum speed of gravity acceleration, which means the shock wave would move further out in front of the event.
Accelerating at 75% of the rate of gravity, exactly, a continuos acceleration for the collapse, from event initiation to cessation, not a free fall, or a controlled demolition.
Some were it was posted that the whole Tower weight in a 100,000 tons,
The top third then would weigh in at 33,000 tons, moving at 7.5 meters per second, that is approximately 17 miles per hour, at 17 mph, a Train that weighs 33,000 tons in a full emergency stop brakes fully applied takes a mile to stop, so how would the top of a building at 75% acceleration of gravity be brought to a stop from resistance in 700 feet? less than a 1/4 mile.
01-06-09, 05:10 AM #895
Biederman has provided more data from further analysis in that pdf document you provided.
Here is his original paper (which was peer reviewed and published in JOM, the pdf you provided doesn't appear to have been peer reviewed or published).
"...Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid..."
Originally he estimated the liquid eutectic required a temperature "approaching 1000°C". In the pdf it is stated "If these compounds were pure Wustite (FeO) and Iron sulfide (FeS), the eutectic temperature is 940°C.".
The minimum temperature at which a pure Iron-Sulfur Eutectic exists is 996°C. This is for an optimum concentration of 31.4% sulfur, at slightly lower and slightly higher concentrations of sulfur the minimum temperature of such a eutectic will be much higher (of the order of 1200°C).
The pdf states 940°C as the minimum temperature when Wustite (Iron Oxide FeO) is considered in the Eutectic, so the minimum temperature doesn't change much from the initially stated estimate of 1000°C.
The other numbers in the pdf refer to different regions of the same sample. It states "...some pearlite bands presented regions that had re-austentized as well as regions where the pearlite had started to spheroidize. These observations indicate steel had experienced temperature between 550 and 850°C"
So the microstructure of specific areas on the sample had spheroidized etc, which required a minimum temperature of 550°C and a maximum of 850°C
So we have a A36 steel sample with regions that has suffered temperatures somehwere within the bounds of 550°C and 850°C, and other regions on the sample that have suffered temperatures of at least 940°C, but most likely much higher than 940°C.
These significant differences in steel temperatures on the same sample can be explained by a molten iron-sulphur eutectic (thermate slag) at a temperature of higher than 940°C melting its way through the steel.
01-06-09, 06:49 AM #896
The Keyspan Maspeth Holding Tanks
This post is in response to MacGyver's post 2461 from the 9/11 Conspiracy thread.
Unbelievable: NIST Uses CDI (suspect?) To Prove No Controled Demolition", that has some information on the owner of that company, Mark Loizeaux:
...it looks like the sole reasons that NIST is claiming that they concluded there was no “controlled demolition” of Building 7 appears to be coming from Mark Loizeaux; the owner of the demolitioncompany that was on scene of the WTC destruction right after 9/11 and a man by his own admission, called his friends in lower Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001 and told them to get out of the area because he knew the buildings would come down.
Mark Loizeaux is listed on page VI in the report’s credits as having been a contributing contractor for the report.
They took the word of the owner of the controlled demolition company that was on-site right after the WTCs fell (and possibly even before) contracted to do “clean-up” while search and rescue teams were still looking for survivors, rather than testing for explosive residue. That’s right, NIST has admitted they NEVER tested for the tell-tale evidence of explosive residueat the WTC site.
Last edited by scott3x; 01-06-09 at 06:57 AM.
01-06-09, 06:56 AM #897
01-06-09, 07:04 AM #898
01-06-09, 07:10 AM #899
"Regarding the melting/boiling temperature of other sulfur compounds, you forget that the sulfur may have started to react with the steel before it was heated"
"sufur" is not the same as "sulfur compounds"
in the same way that sodium (explodes in water) is not the same as sodium-chloride (table salt - very tasty)
"sulfuric acid from overheated uninterruptible power supplies could have flowed onto structural steel at a temperature of about 100oC, then started to react with the steel"
wtc7 had diesel generators as a power backup not sulfuric acid batteries, nevertheless assuming that there was a quantity of sulphuric acid available. if it "flowed onto" a steel beam it would leave behind only a wet surface, technically a very thin film of sulphuric acid which would evaporate very quickly.
"and then was further heated eventually to a temperature of about 900oC"
sulphuric acid has a boiling point of 290 oC - it cannot exist as a liquid above that temperture, it would boil off as a gas - it appears that chemistry isn't mackey's "thing" either.
"at a temperature of about 100oC, then <sulfuric acid> started to react with steel"
sulfuric acid reacts with steel producing hydrogen gas and iron sulfate solution.
Fe(s) + H2SO4(aq) → H2(g) + FeSO4(aq)
An iron-sulfur eutectic requires elemental sulfur, in the above reaction the sulfur is bound with 4 oxygen and an iron, it is not elemental sulfur. (elemental sodium explodes in water, sodium bound to chlorine is tasty)
I think Mackey maybe thinking of the film Alien when the aliens "sulfuric acid blood" burns through the steel hull rather than any repeatable experiment.
"The sulfur would bond to iron and form more heat-resistant compounds"
it would perhaps form iron sulfate (FeSO4) if it managed to find a chance. but not iron sulfide (FeS). Mackey does not explain how Sulfur is liberated from FeSO4.
"There is no reason at all to assume the sulfur started at the upper temperature"
The reason is that elemental sulfur is required to form FeS Eutectic, elemental sulfur would evaporate during a heating process from 100 to 900 C. Mackey assumes incorrectly that iron sulphate creates a FeS iron-sulfur eutectic."
"The sulfur that caused the eutectic probably started as an acidic form, such as H2S or a weak solution of H2SO4 (sulfuric acid)"
There is no reason to assume this at all. it is a complete guess without an explanation. what is a "scientist" doing making a complete guess and lacking any coherent explantion, let alone experiment? This appears to have been plucked out of the collective JREF ass.
Last edited by Headspin; 01-06-09 at 07:19 AM.
01-06-09, 07:11 AM #900As you may know, Controlled Demolitions Inc. was brought in for the cleanup of ground zero. Personally, I find it... interesting that a demolition company would be involved in a cleanup that allegedly didn't involve any actual demolitions.
By Stryder in forum Pseudoscience ArchiveLast Post: 01-21-09, 02:23 AMReplies: 2517
By reasonmclucus in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 08-07-07, 01:14 AMReplies: 5
By duendy in forum Free ThoughtsLast Post: 04-19-06, 09:20 AMReplies: 381
By Brian Foley in forum World EventsLast Post: 04-02-06, 06:11 AMReplies: 10
By Raven in forum World EventsLast Post: 01-05-06, 08:27 AMReplies: 1