9/11 Poll

[Trippy]

There has been no release of information on what the perimeter column strengths and wall thickness were at different levels in the towers.

The outside configuration of the perimeter columns has been released and it is constant from the 9th floor to the 110th.

The size and strength of the perimeter tree columns below the 9th floor and their supporting lower columns down to the foundation has not been released.

We do have complete information on the core columns as their sizes, strengths, and locations have been released. However, we haven't been told the sizes, strengths, and spacing of the horizontal bracing beams in the central core and what they were at each level.

Eh, maybe, but the details that NIST used have been publicly released, i've previously linked to the actual models they used, that were released under a FOIMA request. You may think i'm giving NIST too much credit, and that's fine, but I'd almost be willing to bet money on that additional information being in those models - it's just a matter of extracting it.

 

[Trippy]

Here you go again, avoiding the evidence and the facts.

As for comparing to "reference spectrum", this shows you are confusing the matter, I'm afraid. Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS and regarding the beams and regions of focus, the respective spikes for aluminium and oxygen are clear.

The rest of the facts about the lack of zinc oxide and magnesium are clear, and you have avoided them. This completely rules out paint from the WTC.

So, I again ask you to stop spreading disinformation.

And as far as avoiding anything goes, I'm fairly sure that even Scott and Tony would have to admit i've been fairly good about not avoiding stuff.

If I say I haven't had time to look into Harrit's additional claims, then it's because I haven't had time to look into Harrits additional claims.

Some of us actually have commitments.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Eh, maybe, but the details that NIST used have been publicly released, i've previously linked to the actual models they used, that were released under a FOIMA request. You may think i'm giving NIST too much credit, and that's fine, but I'd almost be willing to bet money on that additional information being in those models - it's just a matter of extracting it.

No other information other than what I stated has been released or is available by extracting it from models.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

As far as the Nanometer size thing goes, this is precisely why I keep referring to the particles as 'nanometer scale' rather than nanometer sized, but I happen to agree that the term 'sub micron' would probably be at least as accurate in this case.

Sub micron would be synonymous. Either term works.

 

[scott3x]

No, they Aren't.
Harrit makes no effort to compare his spectra to a refference spectrum for metallic aluminium in any form.

And yet you keep making assumptions about what I believe, and you keep misrepresenting what I believe, only when I point out that what you think I believe is wrong does it become irrelevant.

And you wonder why real scientests have little time for debates like this?

[snip]

Here you go again, avoiding the evidence and the facts.

As for comparing to "reference spectrum", this shows you are confusing the matter, I'm afraid. Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS and regarding the beams and regions of focus, the respective spikes for aluminium and oxygen are clear.

The rest of the facts about the lack of zinc oxide and magnesium are clear, and you have avoided them. This completely rules out paint from the WTC.

Trippy, I took a look at the data Hoz presented, and what he's saying makes sense to me.

Of course it does.

There have been times where I couldn't make heads or tails of the data, but this isn't one of those cases. This is the point he makes that persuades me:

Jeffery Farrer is an expert in X-EDS and regarding the beams and regions of focus, the respective spikes for aluminium and oxygen are clear.

Here's an excerpt that Hoz mentioned from Neils Harrit's article:

COMPARISON WITH THE COMPOSITION OF THE RED/GRAY CHIPS

The elemental composition of the red/gray chips was obtained by means of X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) in the SEM mode1. Before measurement, the chips were broken (with one exception to be discussed below) in order to secure a fresh uncontaminated surface from which the SEM XEDS was obtained. NONE of these SEM XEDS spectra, taken from four independently collected samples, showed signals from either zinc, chromium or magnesium in intensities significantly above the baseline noise. See the right panel of Figure 5 below in which the intensity scale is expanded. Strong signals from these three elements could be expected from the primer paint according to Table 1.​

 

[scott3x]

For those who are having a hard time getting their heads around what the phrase nanometer sized particle refers to in generally accepted scientific language, take a look at the titles of the below links and see what the actual sizes of the particles are that are being refferred to as nanometer sized.

http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Ramachandran/index.html

http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~suits/Al_particles.html

http://www.find-health-articles.com...nanometer-sized-particles-known-potential.htm

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jnm/2008/169536.html

http://www.masstechportal.org/IP3089.aspx

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/ser...00078000023003708000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

http://books.google.com/books?id=Co...-tisBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

phlog's case was that 200 nanometers was too big for a nanometer sized particle. With one exception that I saw, most of the particles mentioned in the articles you mention don't mention anything above the double digit nanometer range. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out elsewhere, while the UK, atleast, seems to have defined nanoparticles as 100 nanometers or below, this is not an international standard. Most importantly, what we want to know is if the nano material can demolish the WTC buildings; and here, I believe, we have strong evidence showing that it could indeed do so.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

phlog's case was that 200 nanometers was too big for a nanometer sized particle. With one exception that I saw, most of the particles mentioned in the articles you mention don't mention anything above the double digit nanometer range. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out elsewhere, while the UK, atleast, seems to have defined nanoparticles as 100 nanometers or below, this is not an international standard. Most importantly, what we want to know is if the nano material can demolish the WTC buildings; and here, I believe, we have strong evidence showing that it could indeed do so.

No, Phlog originally wanted to say I was wrong because the term nanometer sized particle implied single digit size only.

He later went on to use 200 nanometers in an argument.

Does the Harrit paper talk about iron oxide or aluminum particles of 200 nanometers in size?

 

[KennyJC]

You are simply arguing from indredulity here. You have no basis to deny the reality of that umbrella being a weapon other than you can't believe it.

Only a fool could believe that a guy with an umbrella equates to a guy with an umbrella with poison darts inside it for some unfathomable reason trying to hit the president with it.

There is proof that there was such a weapon designed, and we have a guy standing with an open umbrella on a sunny day during a murder, with the victim having an entry wound from that direction of the same diameter as that weapon's projectile and smaller than any rifle or pistol rounds.

Entry wound? lol

The entry wound was on his back and the exact path the bullet takes can be traced from JFK's back to the governor that was sitting in front of him. There's nothing controversial about this since the bullet path vindicates a single bullet and both men react at exactly the same moment.

I don't get why you try to make an already implausible conspiracy theory to just flat-out coo coo land.

 

[scott3x]

phlog's case was that 200 nanometers was too big for a nanometer sized particle. With one exception that I saw, most of the particles mentioned in the articles you mention don't mention anything above the double digit nanometer range. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out elsewhere, while the UK, atleast, seems to have defined nanoparticles as 100 nanometers or below, this is not an international standard. Most importantly, what we want to know is if the nano material can demolish the WTC buildings; and here, I believe, we have strong evidence showing that it could indeed do so.

No, Phlog originally wanted to say I was wrong because the term nanometer sized particle implied single digit size only.

He later went on to use 200 nanometers in an argument.

Ah ok.

Does the Harrit paper talk about iron oxide or aluminum particles of 200 nanometers in size?

I only found 7 mentions of aluminates or aluminum in the paper (I did a search). In none of those mentions is the size of the material mentioned.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Ah ok.




I only found 7 mentions of aluminates or aluminum in the paper (I did a search). In none of those mentions is the size of the material mentioned.

I didn't remember it mentioning anything on the order of 200 nanometers for aluminum and iron oxide particles.

 

[scott3x]

You are simply arguing from indredulity here. You have no basis to deny the reality of that umbrella being a weapon other than you can't believe it.

Only a fool could believe that a guy with an umbrella equates to a guy with an umbrella with poison darts inside it for some unfathomable reason trying to hit the president with it.

I suggest you read my post on this subject, which can be found in the JFK and 9/11 thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2300639&postcount=44

In fairness, however, Jim Marrs, who has written a book on the JFK assassination has determined that most researchers believe that the umbrella man's purpose was somewhat different. I have elaborated on this theory as well as the contradictions of the official umbrella man story as well as the almost complete silence over his dark complected companion here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2297025&postcount=33

 

[scott3x]

I didn't remember it mentioning anything on the order of 200 nanometers for aluminum and iron oxide particles.

Oh wait; phlog said it did? I thought you meant that it had mentioned double digit nanometer sizes ;-).

 

[Trippy]

There have been times where I couldn't make heads or tails of the data, but this isn't one of those cases. This is the point he makes that persuades me.

In this instance, if you will forgive a crude turn of phrase, Hoz doesn't know his arsehole from his Elbow.

This is a XEDS spectrum of submicron plates of alumina:

This is Harrits XEDS spectrum for the aluminium rich regions:

(note that Magnesium is in fact present in this spectrum).

For the record, here we have another Figure from Harrit's 'paper':

It shows the presence of Zinc and Chromium - also note that although Harrit hasn't labled it as such, the peak for Magnesium is also evident on this spectrum..

So Zinc and Chromium are present in or on the chip before treatment with MEK, and Magnesium is still present in or on the chip after treatment with MEK...

 

[Trippy]

Something else I think that falls into the funny as heck category, from Harrits paper.

There are very few places in this image that are rich in Silicon that aren't also rich in Aluminium, Consistent with the idea of the aluminium being present as Alumina from the dehydration of Kaolin.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh wait; phlog said it did? I thought you meant that it had mentioned double digit nanometer sizes ;-).

I don't think I said anything about 200 nanometer particles being mentioned in the Harrit et al paper.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I suggest you read my post on this subject, which can be found in the JFK and 9/11 thread here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2300639&postcount=44

In fairness, however, Jim Marrs, who has written a book on the JFK assassination has determined that most researchers believe that the umbrella man's purpose was somewhat different. I have elaborated on this theory as well as the contradictions of the official umbrella man story as well as the almost complete silence over his dark complected companion here:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2297025&postcount=33

Here are some short links on the umbrella man and the umbrella, including the transcript from the Church committee hearings about the dart launchers and darts.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/TUM.html

http://www.jfk-assassination.de/articles/umbrella.php

 

[psikeyhackr]

Eh, maybe, but the details that NIST used have been publicly released, i've previously linked to the actual models they used, that were released under a FOIMA request. You may think i'm giving NIST too much credit, and that's fine, but I'd almost be willing to bet money on that additional information being in those models - it's just a matter of extracting it.

.
Gregory Urich already did that. The information is in computer readable for for the SAP2000 program. But he had to do an interpolation for the perimeter wall panels. He has produced a spreadsheet of the data. Frank Greening has acknowledged that his info is the best available.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf

But there is still the problem of all these sources that claim the towers had 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. So the accurate of the data is still open to question. So I certainly find it curious how Richard Gage can talk all this crap about taking and architect or engineer to lunch but they aren't all over the business of getting this data straight like white on rice. It's more like hit an architect or engineer up side the head with a baseball bat.

JEEZ

BELIEVERS just don't want FACTS!

psik

 

[scott3x]

Oh wait; phlog said it did? I thought you meant that it had mentioned double digit nanometer sizes ;-).

I don't think I said anything about 200 nanometer particles being mentioned in the Harrit et al paper.

Oh, no, I don't think you did either. I know that phlog mentioned a 200 nanometer particle, but I didn't know he was referring to Harrit's article; if so, I'd be very interested in seeing where he got it from, because I just searched for 200 and two and hundred and found exactly 0 entries for all of them. I had thought that you were implying that Harrit's paper was mentioning below 200 nanometer particles .

 

[Trippy]

.
Gregory Urich already did that. The information is in computer readable for for the SAP2000 program. But he had to do an interpolation for the perimeter wall panels. He has produced a spreadsheet of the data. Frank Greening has acknowledged that his info is the best available.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/wtc_mass_and_energy.pdf

But there is still the problem of all these sources that claim the towers had 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. So the accurate of the data is still open to question. So I certainly find it curious how Richard Gage can talk all this crap about taking and architect or engineer to lunch but they aren't all over the business of getting this data straight like white on rice. It's more like hit an architect or engineer up side the head with a baseball bat.

JEEZ

BELIEVERS just don't want FACTS!

psik

These comments about believers are rapidly wearing thin. And on the basis of the post you're replying to you can't really comment on my belief of anything.

The clear implication of my post is that I wasn't sure if the data extraction had been completed or not, I can point to at least one site that seems to indicate that it's an ongoing process.

As far as the the distribution of the concrete goes? My understanding was that the information that's been published is that the floors were poured to an average depth of something like 8 inches with concrete, and the difference between the mechanical floors and the office floors was in the bracing under the floor, not the thickness of concrete.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Oh, no, I don't think you did either. I know that phlog mentioned a 200 nanometer particle, but I didn't know he was referring to Harrit's article; if so, I'd be very interested in seeing where he got it from, because I just searched for 200 and two and hundred and found exactly 0 entries for all of them. I had thought that you were implying that Harrit's paper was mentioning below 200 nanometer particles .

Scott, I searched the paper and found this on page 25

The red layer of the red/gray chips is most interesting in
that it contains aluminum, iron and oxygen components
which are intimately mixed at a scale of approximately 100
nanometers (nm) or less.

So the paper makes no mention of any of the red/gray chip active particles being anywhere above 100 nm in size.

and finally there is another quote from a paper by Gash etal dated April 2000 that states

“Nanostructured composites are multicomponent
materials in which at least one of the component
phases has one or more dimensions
(length, width, or thickness) in the nanometer
size range, defined as 1 to 100 nm.

So this should put any conjecture about what is meant by nanometer size particles to bed.