WTC Steel Analysis Reveals Thermite and Thermate By-Products

Originally posted by Vushta

Do you always answer a question with a question?

I don't--it seems a cheesey way to have a discussion.

Your question was answered by Mr. Fetzer in the link I provided for you above.

Jone's paper was reviewed by two other Ph.D.s in Physics. That is three Ph.Ds alnoe for his paper written concerning physics.

POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN STEVEN'S PAPER IF YOU THINK THE PEER REVIEW WAS WRONG OR SHUT YOUR UNDEREDUCATED MOUTH.

That is all.

Actually, it's more than an analogy. The property being illustrated, transfer of momentum, is as common to a falling billiard ball as it is to a falling steel beam or concrete slab. It's not like one of those things transfer momentum to other objects and the others don't.

The floors of the WTC, though, apparently didn't have to transfer momentum. As soon as one floor fell onto another, the impacted floor was instantly traveling at the same speed of the already-falling floor, according to the official theory. There was no pulsing or real loss of time due to momentum transfer as one would expect.

But then again, the trusses would've been the absolutel least amount of resistance to a falling structure. The core and perimeter columns were the load-bearing structures, and they were independent of the floor systems. They would've been providing resistance every inch of the way down. The trusses would have only intensified that resistance.

Originally posted by Vushta
A few may be SE's, ME's, people qualified to conduct forensic investigations, failure analyists, people working in finite element analysis..etc.

So you essentially want a bunch of pepole with backgrounds in CALCULUS and PHYSICS?

What is SE based on?
ME?
Failure Analysis?
Finite element analysis?

But GOD FORBID A WORLD CLASS PHYSICIST or THREE!

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

Originally posted by Vushta

Do you always answer a question with a question?

I don't--it seems a cheesey way to have a discussion.

Your question was answered by Mr. Fetzer in the link I provided for you above.

Jone's paper was reviewed by two other Ph.D.s in Physics. That is three Ph.Ds alnoe for his paper written concerning physics.

POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN STEVEN'S PAPER IF YOU THINK THE PEER REVIEW WAS WRONG OR SHUT YOUR UNDEREDUCATED MOUTH.

That is all.

Yes it was peer reviewed by others in Physics, but not civil engineers. And since this is an engineering issue, it's kind of a moot point. I suppose he could have someone with a PHD in french review it too. I mean wouldn't it make sense to have it reviewed by people who are experts in the field the paper is on? Yet those in that field from his same university disagree with him. Here's their quote: "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims". And in regard to peer review: "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

And what was the paper reviewed in? Research in Political Economy. Political economy? Correct, they have never dealt with building collapses before. So believe him if you want, but don't think that he is some kind of expert who's word is golden. And his paper is not something so much to prove or disprove. it's simply an idea. He has no way of proving it is true either.

But there are many arguments that put a dent in Jone's paper that I have seen on this forum. The biggest one being the molten steel issue which turns out no one knows it was molten steel and this was all absed on assumption. unfortunately people just used the word 'steel' which was taken literally by conspiracy theorists.

I suppose you can prove what it is, Snoopaloop? Or atleast an educated guess.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts


Your question was answered by Mr. Fetzer in the link I provided for you above.

Jone's paper was reviewed by two other Ph.D.s in Physics. That is three Ph.Ds alnoe for his paper written concerning physics.

That is all.

I didn't ask Fetzer the question.

POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN STEVEN'S PAPER IF YOU THINK THE PEER REVIEW WAS WRONG OR SHUT YOUR UNDEREDUCATED MOUTH.

This does not offend me. You're only expressing your opinions and thats fine with me.

Originally posted by Masisoar
I suppose you can prove what it is, Snoopaloop? Or atleast an educated guess.

It really doesn't matter does it? It it cannot be shown to be steel the point is ..well..pointless.

claiming that fetzer or AJ's physics back ground makes them authorities on this subject is a joke at best.I suppose the fact that having sex with a woman would qualify people to be a gyno.While you may understand the basics looks etc..No one would get in the styryps for a pap.See the sad thing here is CTers do not really want the truth.When you hang your hopes on these type people,you take way to many liberties with reality.I love fiction as much as the next person,but I am quite aware when reading ,King,orKoontz,it is still fiction.No matter how much I let it get me worked up.Thermite or mate,pick your poison fiction.

Originally posted by snoopy
Yes it was peer reviewed by others in Physics, but not civil engineers.

His paper was not a paper based on issues of civil engineering, but issues of physics. This is why a physicist wrote that paper, and this is why it was reviewed by physicists.

Try to realize that physics is a very basic science and that all engineering is just specialization built upon it. SE's, for example, are experts with designing buildings to support static, non-moving loads, and nothing else.

And since this is an engineering issue, it's kind of a moot point. I suppose he could
But there are many arguments that put a dent in Jone's paper that I have seen on this forum. The biggest one being the molten steel issue which turns out no one knows it was molten steel and this was all absed on assumption. unfortunately people just used the word 'steel' which was taken literally by conspiracy theorists.

Any metal that glows those colors has been heated beyond the range of a hydrocarbon fire. Those things burn 825 C in open atmosphere with a perfect fuel-to-air ratio. The WTC fires did not have a perfect fuel-to-air ratio, as indicated by their production of dark smoke, but were relatively well-ventilated and so they wouldn't have been that far off from open-atmosphere temperatures. They were probably in the 600 - 700 C range, and it would have been impossible for the fires to heat any steel to those exact temperatures, because a law of thermodynamics is that energy is always lost in transfer. In this case, it would also be lost to conrete floor slabs, smoke, the cool air, office supplies, etc., as well as the steel itself wicking heat away.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts

POINT OUT THE ERRORS IN STEVEN'S PAPER IF YOU THINK THE PEER REVIEW WAS WRONG OR SHUT YOUR UNDEREDUCATED MOUTH.

There are plenty of errors in Jones paper. Most of them are the result of ignoring basic engineering principles. For instance. One of his “13 reasons;”

6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna

The official FEMA 9-11 report admits a striking anomaly regarding the North Tower collapse:
“Review of videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles indicates that the transmission tower on top of the structure began to move downward and laterally slightly before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building. (FEMA, 2002, chapter 2; emphasis added.) “


Yes, we can see for ourselves that the antenna drops first from videos of the North Tower collapse. (See 911research.wtc7.net...; also home.comcast.net...) A NY Times article also notes this behavior:
The building stood for more than an hour and a half. Videos of the north tower's collapse appear to show that its television antenna began to drop a fraction of a second before the rest of the building. The observations suggest that the building's steel core somehow gave way first… (Glanz and Lipton, 2002; emphasis added)

But how? What caused the 47 enormous steel core columns of this building which supported the antenna to evidently give way nearly simultaneously, if not cutter charges?
The anomalous early antenna-drop was noted by the FEMA report (FEMA, 2002) and the New York Times (Glanz and Lipton, 2002) yet not resolved in the official reports (FEMA, 2002; Commission, 2004; NIST, 2005). The NIST report notes that:
...photographic and videographic records taken from due north of the WTC 1 collapse appeared to indicate that the antenna was sinking into the roof [McAllister 2002].
When records from east and west vantage points were viewed, it was apparent that the building section above the impact area tilted to the south as the building collapsed. (NIST, 2005)
However, we find no quantitative analysis in the report which shows that this tilting of the building section was sufficient to account for the large apparent drop of the antenna as seen from the north, or that this building-section-tilting occurred before the apparent antenna drop. Furthermore, the FEMA investigators also reviewed "videotape recordings of the collapse taken from various angles" yet came to the sense that "collapse began with one or more failures in the central core area of the building." (FEMA, 2002) Quantitative analysis needs to be done and shown to resolve the issue.

Jones complains that the NIST report does not contain any quantitative analysis of the antenna movement, yet he conveniently fails to provide any himself either.

Furthermore, he also seems to be blissfully unaware of the presence of the hat truss whose primary purpose was to distribute the antenna loads to the perimeter as well as to the core. This is an engineering issue, not a physics issue.

Another key and fundamental error in his paper is his basic assumption that the initiation and propagation of the collapse was strictly a “pancake” mechanism whereby each floor successively impacts the floor below. This is also the same mistake that Judy Wood makes in her billiard ball analogy.

9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy
A recent (2006) analysis by Mechanical Engineering Professor Judy Wood on the rapid collapse of the Towers is instructive although preliminary: janedoe0911.tripod.com...

How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum and energy in the collapsing buildings? The contradiction is ignored by FEMA, NIST and 9-11 Commission reports where conservation of energy and momentum and the fall-times were not analyzed. The paradox is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly remove lower-floor material including steel support columns and allow near free-fall-speed collapses (Harris, 2000).

The problem with this is that it ignores the fact that the collapses quite clearly started as buckling failures.

Buckling failures do not require the successive impacts of floors to cause floor failure, rather the failure is caused by a change in the basic geometry of the structural design and the pieces buckle. Thus the speed at which the point of failure moves through the structure does not act like a series of billiard balls bouncing off each other. This is because the primary cause of the failure of each successive floor is not the direct impact of the debris from above, but the movement of the structural members which destroys the load paths.


Thus Jones' failure to accoount for basic engineering issues leads him to eroneous conclusions.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Jones complains that the NIST report does not contain any quantitative analysis of the antenna movement, yet he conveniently fails to provide any himself either.

Maybe that's because it was part of a list of reasons to question the official story (ie NIST in this case), and not meant to be a quantitative analysis.

Furthermore, he also seems to be blissfully unaware of the presence of the hat truss whose primary purpose was to distribute the antenna loads to the perimeter as well as to the core. This is an engineering issue, not a physics issue.

You used to argue that the antenna never really tilted independently, didn't you, Howard? Whatever happened to that?

The antenna began to fall "a fraction of a second before the rest of the building". Blaming it on the failures of other structural aspects is asinine considering they wouldn't have occurred yet.

Another key and fundamental error in his paper is his basic assumption that the initiation and propagation of the collapse was strictly a “pancake” mechanism whereby each floor successively impacts the floor below. This is also the same mistake that Judy Wood makes in her billiard ball analogy.

Tell us exactly what other mechanisms were at work in your theory, Howard. NIST left this entirely out of their report, and considering you're not an engineer yourself, I'm sure you would know exactly what you're talking about.

Buckling failures do not require the successive impacts of floors to cause floor failure, rather the failure is caused by a change in the basic geometry of the structural design and the pieces buckle. Thus the speed at which the point of failure moves through the structure does not act like a series of billiard balls bouncing off each other. This is because the primary cause of the failure of each successive floor is not the direct impact of the debris from above, but the movement of the structural members which destroys the load paths.

Why would trusses fail before anything had landed upon them?

What happened to the spandrel plates on the perimeter columns?

Why did we not see a wave of buckling ahead of the collapse wave itself (in which everything was utterly destroyed by the falling mass)?


You raise more questions, with no logical answers, than you try to explain away.

[edit on 18-7-2006 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11

Furthermore, he also seems to be blissfully unaware of the presence of the hat truss whose primary purpose was to distribute the antenna loads to the perimeter as well as to the core. This is an engineering issue, not a physics issue.

You used to argue that the antenna never really tilted independently, didn't you, Howard? Whatever happened to that?

Where have I changed my position?

The antenna began to fall "a fraction of a second before the rest of the building".

Not according to the NIST analysis. That is the point.

Tell us exactly what other mechanisms were at work in your theory, Howard. NIST left this entirely out of their report, and considering you're not an engineer yourself, I'm sure you would know exactly what you're talking about.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

Notice that that was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, a REAL peer reviewed publication.

Why would trusses fail before anything had landed upon them?

Because the exterior columns were forced outward, ripping free from the trusses.

What happened to the spandrel plates on the perimeter columns?

Why?

Why did we not see a wave of buckling ahead of the collapse wave itself (in which everything was utterly destroyed by the falling mass)?

Why do you think that there were two separate waves?

I don't pretend to know everything about the progress of the collapse. However, I cdo understand that the simplified billiard ball model is B.S.

Please remember we use physics to determine engineering issues. Anyone who has a qualified background in physics can make a very decent analysis and their opinions should be noted. As well as engineers in the specified fields, but just because some are not engineers in mechanical engineering doesn't make them any less qualified to make a good analysis.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Where have I changed my position?

I'm not going to dig for it. I just remember that you used to argue that the antenna wasn't really moving so much, that it was just an effect of the angles of the photographers and this and that while the building was falling.

I don't pretend to know everything about the progress of the collapse.

Then why did you just feed me all of that BS as if you're one step ahead of NIST, when you're not even an engineer?

If what you just described was an actual collapse mechanism, we wouldn't have seen nearly the amount of pulverization that we did. There would have been stacks of floor sections at the bases of each building, because rather than smash through one another, they would have simply started falling from lack of support in your theory, and were thus allowed to fall with virtually no resistance.

The amount of pulverization present at the WTC indicates either (a) extreme resistance that was still easily, and consistently met at each floor by the falling mass (contradicts lack of resistance), or (b) explosives.

Neither support you.




Btw -- Bazant and Zhou's paper is a joke. Released two days after 9/11, and full of logical fallacies, unsupported assumptions, and their calculations involve figures and other calculations that they apparently don't even mention in the paper itself, and thus cannot be verified.

More info: 911research.wtc7.net...

[edit on 18-7-2006 by bsbray11]

The amount of pulverization present at the WTC indicates either (a) extreme resistance that was still easily, and consistently met at each floor by the falling mass (contradicts lack of resistance), or (b) explosives.

Well there was no evidence of explosives. None. Nada. Zip. No residue. No blast patterns. No eyewitness reports. Nothing seen in videos even tho by the time of collapse all cameras were focused on the towers. Nothing. Zip.

So whats your explanation?

P.S. Again with the 'pulverization". Its a bogus made up standard. If you don't think it is, what are you using as a guidline beside 'gut feelings'?

[edit on 18-7-2006 by Vushta]

The WTC collapse was a concoction of a pulverization factory and of meeting little resistance in its fall. You can't have both.

How can you deny either of the two?

Pulverization was blantantly obvious, particles were pulverized. It also felt at a rate that is very questionable! I'm not going to throw in "Free Fall" but each floor provided so little resistance, there was no support from the inner core or the exterior columns. What did they do? Get a running start then start collapsing?

Oh but you can! That is a uneducated guess at best.The mass it what killed the resistance.Pulverization is still mass.It was pulverizing at an amazing rate.No doubt.Not even kinda against "physics there!

Wait.. what? What the heck are you talking about? Troll along kid.

Originally posted by Duhh
Oh but you can! That is a uneducated guess at best.The mass it what killed the resistance.Pulverization is still mass.It was pulverizing at an amazing rate.No doubt.Not even kinda against "physics there!

This is by far the DUMBEST post I have ever read here on ATS (and I have read a lot) and this troll should be banned.

The WTC collapse was a concoction of a pulverization factory and of meeting little resistance in its fall. You can't have both.

Why not?
The whole 'pulverization' bit is bogus. Thats how concrete fails.

If someone says--"that was too much pulverization"--then the burden is on them to show, at least in theory, how much would have been the "right" amount of pulverization and how they arrived at that conclusion.

The same applies for the speed of the fall. 'Thats too fast!'...then you have to explain why you think its to fast and how fast would have been the "right" speed and back it up with.....something.

If the connections at the perimeter and/or the core failed why WOULD they provide any support?