9/11 Poll

There was no 'we' when -I- stated that I felt that Tony would perhaps be better able to assess how your knowledge of how things deform and flow would affect your understanding of structural engineering. Now that I've gotten that straight, I strongly disagree with your belief that that wasn't what I was getting at. In any case, I see that Tony has now essentially taken up where I left off with this.

Put simply, if it becomes clear that you aren't qualified to be making the statements you're making concerning structural engineering, don't you think that would be somewhat important? In fairness, I do believe you know a fair amount; but it seems you've now admitted that you're not a mechanical/structural engineer, even if at one point you were taking it as a major. Tony's way past the studying phase and has been a mechanical engineer, working on projects of the likes of NASA, for some time now.

Sigh. What is it with official story believers and crass language anyway?

In any case, we've already established that you don't have to prove anything to me, or anyone else. This is simply an issue of establishing credibility, but if you don't care whether you're credible or not, that's fine.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have addressed the issue of asymmetric loading and why it does not explain the observations which are inconsistent with a natural collapse. You apparently refuse to accept the answers, with no reason given, and just keep repeating that I haven't answered for effect.

Please ask your question again in a single post with no other issue and I will answer.

 

i'm curious as to what these sparks are.
surely there is some kind of "manifest" with the floors contents.

 

I think it is usually called iron which glows orange yellow when molten and flows downward.

 

of course that's the only answer isn't it?
i've seen wood ashes glow orange when blown on.

edit:
why are you connecting the sparks with the glowing area of the building?
there appears to be to spots, the upper, glowing orange, and the lower where the sparks seem to come from.
these could be two separate processes

 

You may want to read Steven Jones' paper "Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method"; For those who so dislike "truther" websites, you can even download it from NIST's website now:
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

He starts on page 16; by page 17, he brings up 4 possibilities to explain the molten metal, the second one being the one that NIST went with. They are:
1. Perhaps the structural steel in the buildings melted nad is flowing out.
2. Perhaps it is molten aluminum from the aircraft that melted and is flowing out, perhaps with added organics from burning office materials.
3. A mix of the two (above) including office materials, etc.
4. Molten metals (e.g., molten iron) produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions (e.g., aluminothermic/thermite reactions)

He then does experiments to determine which one holds up. From his work, it's clear that the only one that holds up to testing is #4. But don't take my word for it; read it yourself.

 

Steven Jones did an experiment with burning wood chips and other organics and tried to mix them in with molten aluminum which is silvery gray, and they did not mix and cause the aluminum to glow orange yellow. I see Scott gave more complete information on this while I was typing this reply.

Glowing wood ashes alone would not flow like what we see in the videos.

 

why is it clear that #4 is the only answer?
a large pile of aluminum may have been stored in that corner on that floor.
all you are doing here is making assumptions.
the only thing that can be said of these sparks is they fall down.
without some kind of "manifest" we will probably never know what this substance is.

 

Professor MacQueen did the actual measurements and would be more familiar with these issues. I'll answer what I can.

I told you before that we used the Sauret film of the collapses and that while I don't know exactly what type of camera was used I believe that information is publicly available.

I believe the frame rate is verified by the number of individual frames taken with the total run time known.

I would have to ask him what the exact exposure time would have been.

 

What are you talking about?

Again, I really don't understand where this is coming from. If you want to correct misinformation, all you have to do is start writing. If you're not interested, you can leave it at that. As long as no one's saying anything libelous about you, I don't see where the problem is.

Trippy, the only person here who can make that type of call in this forum is a moderator. However, if you leave sci forums entirely, I have a strong feeling that I and others will stop referring to you in not too much time.

To date, I haven't put anyone on the ignore list. I'd rather just generally ignore the posts of the people who I find least worthy of my time, but still have the option of seeing them now and again if I so choose.

 

Definitely; as a general rule, official story supporters argue quite rudely. I liked MacGyver and Oli, but they're both gone now. GeoffP was pretty good too, but again, gone. That leaves you in the best position, flaws and all

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. leopold isn't so bad either as a general rule though.

Not sure if you forgot to snip this out (I said it first) or if you're just copy catting me, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that if you say that someone is acting like an idiot, you're insulting them. Fine, not as bad as straight out calling them an idiot, but just because it's not as bad doesn't make it good.

I don't know what type of people you associate with, but as a general rule, if -I- were to tell someone that, they would indeed take offense.

And even -less- so if they're on good terms with you. Yes, I know how that works. Now me and you don't really know each other and seeing as how we're on the opposite sides of the fence concerning 9/11, I think it might be best if you refrained from such liberties...

I agree that one is certainly worse then the other, but it's also true that the term 'naughty' is certainly less offensive then 'idiotic'. If you'd put the term 'idiotic' instead of naughty, I could easily state that both would could be offensive to the child, or an adult, for that matter.

There you go with the caps again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Anyway, not really sure what you're referring to here.

 

Your obsession on this point is becoming humerous to me. What I can't figure out is why you think this even means anything.

First of all, I don't even really believe that there is no such thing of any articles anywhere describing measurements and amounts of steel and concrete on each floor. If there isn't, then I would assume that this is either because it's impossible to have a precise figure, or that it simply isn't relevant to anything.

From what I know about the towers, every floor was pretty much the same except for the lobbies, the sky lobby and the fact that the core columns were thicker at the bottom. So with even a general understanding of the towers, and a ballpark weight of the towers themselves (you claimed 400,000 tons), a ballpark estimate of each floor could be obtained. So why don't you get off your ass and do some research if you are correct in saying that nobody else has done this research?

It was aluminium because...

1) The bulk of the aircraft debris was piled up in that particular corner of the tower on the very same floor the molten material was ejecting.
2) The area was visibly burning at extremely high temperatures which were in the melting point of aluminium.
3) Had this same molten material been witnessed to coming out of another part of the tower were points 1 and 2 are moot, only then could anything else be considered.
4) Steven Jones is a liar which means his opinions on this matter are ignored by real scientists and the media.