It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Yep, It's Thermite! So Much for the "Oxygen" Excuse

page: 18
172
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Yes and no, ultimately it is all gravitational energy


Not necessarily in the horizontal component of motion. You could argue that for all vertical motion but last I checked it's still not been established what exactly was sending so much steel flying outwards with so much force. Even if you have energy you don't have a mechanism, and it IS counter-intuitive that so much mass would be thrown out in all directions, especially when the original theory all the "experts" were parading was that all the floors pancaked on top of each other to allow it to collapse to the base.


They do


Do you have a link to it?


even so one would expect if the towers were demolished with explosives, for the difference between the observed variables and theoretical variables to be irreconcilable.


Are you talking about theoretical values if they came down only from gravity, or something else? I agree they would be very close either way but I'm not convinced all the math would work out the same. In particular without extra energy I'm not convinced they should have came down at all.


I would also like to ask that you acknowledge that I was not simply picking on truthers in my previous posts, I did identify that you had incorrectly identified a value for work of 500KJ which was not valid, and in fact the true number for the work done in your hypothetical example was approximately 125KJ.


Ok. Like I said, I shouldn't have brought up work. I was trying to show that a lateral force was present and separate from gravity (even if all that's missing is a mechanism, STILL not just gravity) and wasn't trying to get into everything else implied by those particular numbers. I was the first one to say it produced "bad" figures for velocities and no info as to how it actually accelerated. But the whole example was so unrealistic anyway that I don't care. I also implied a 1-ton mass and that the mass fell from the very top of a tower, but you didn't say anything about that, even though those would show even more error than you did. Really if you used REALISTIC numbers, like the 20x increase in mass to represent the section that hit the Winter Garden, you'd be looking at numbers higher than the one I threw out. A 20-ton column section is 18,150kg, as opposed to the 907kg I originally used. E = (.5)mv^2 = 2,531KJ. That causes a much bigger discrepancy, if you are looking for a realistic number as to how much KE some of these flying objects had, than the one you picked out. Then again I was never trying to show how much kinetic energy the object realistically had. It was not my point.




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I've been following along as best I could, which is not very well, not at all. But one thing I'm interested in is, does any of these equations actually include the force (or work, or energy, or whatever) that is needed to actually disconnect the piece that goes flying? Or is that something that needs to be figured separately? Or not at all? It seems to me both of you, bsbray and exponent, are talking about something like a 1-ton golf ball that's not connected to anything being hit off the roof with a 3 wood by a Mister Ali Tigre Woodammed.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by NIcon
But one thing I'm interested in is, does any of these equations actually include the force (or work, or energy, or whatever) that is needed to actually disconnect the piece that goes flying?


No, only to displace it.


something like a 1-ton golf ball that's not connected to anything being hit off the roof with a 3 wood by a Mister Ali Tigre Woodammed.


That's right. Obviously we are leaving a lot of information out of the equations, but I wasn't originally trying to get into all of this. Coming up with some of this stuff (like how much energy is required to break a perimeter section loose) isn't straightforward. The bolts would have to fail, but depending on how they failed it could require different amounts of energy and I don't know of any easy way to figure that.

Much of the individual pieces of debris weighed well over a ton (more like 20+ tons in at least some cases, like the debris on the Winter Garden), I just don't know off the top of my head how much a section of perimeter columns weighed on average, so I said a ton, just to illustrate a non-trivial amount of force would be required and debris doesn't just sail out horizontally for no reason. They also would have been ejected from lower down the building, I just don't know exactly where so I said the top of a tower. Both of those assumptions reduce the amount of energy required. If it was ejected from the first floor (not saying it was), for example, and went out that far, that would be an enormous amount of horizontal energy (would also take less time to hit the ground). And yes, not even considering what it took to break the pieces loose in the first place. Also not taking drag into consideration, or deformations inflicted upon the debris.

If you took all of those things into consideration, I'm sure you would find it would really require more energy to do all of that than what any of us have actually calculated so far.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 

Thanks for the clarification, bsbray. I just asked out of curiosity, because I'm positive I'm not ready to get into all of the mathematics (plus the fact that looking at all the exponents and deltas and carets makes me see double). I just wanted to see if I was interpreting this right.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Each perimeter section weighs 4 tons and hundreds of them were hurled up to 600 feet all over the WTC.



C.S.I. 9/11



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
exponent, I also agree with some of your calculations after further examinations, independent research and gaining a better understanding of the laws of Physics. I will now continue exploring and educating myself in the world of Physics and controlled demolition.

I'm glad to hear this


Then again, I still feel confident in stating that Prof Jones and others who are working on this eagerly awaited new paper will be supported in time by many more world renowned scientists/Physicists and other relevant specialists around the globe.

I disagree with this though. Even if we accept that he has detected thermite, what use is an incredibly thin coating of thermite? It would raise the temperature of the columns by a few degrees, nowhere near the massive devestation / rapid expulsion of materials some have claimed.


You obviously know Physics, done your homework and have studied extensively.

However, have you thought about why some members are very concerned when you told everyone that you are a spokesman for NIST?

Thank you, but I have not said that I am a NIST spokesman, in fact I am explicitly not a NIST spokesman. I am a UK citizen and have no professional or personal interests inside the US.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Not necessarily in the horizontal component of motion. You could argue that for all vertical motion but last I checked it's still not been established what exactly was sending so much steel flying outwards with so much force. Even if you have energy you don't have a mechanism, and it IS counter-intuitive that so much mass would be thrown out in all directions, especially when the original theory all the "experts" were parading was that all the floors pancaked on top of each other to allow it to collapse to the base.

It depends on how you look at things really, unless you believe in a controlled demolition, any other sources of energy are miniscule in comparison to gravity, and that's why it can be considered the only component.


Do you have a link to it?

I believe this is the 'correct' version: /4wf7td [edit - switched to tinyurl]


Are you talking about theoretical values if they came down only from gravity, or something else? I agree they would be very close either way but I'm not convinced all the math would work out the same. In particular without extra energy I'm not convinced they should have came down at all.

Well that is exactly my point. If without explosives the WTC towers were incapable of collapsing in this fashion, then surely any reasonable attempt to model the towers would have to use ludicrous values for some variables, which should be easily identified.


Ok. Like I said, I shouldn't have brought up work. I was trying to show that a lateral force was present and separate from gravity (even if all that's missing is a mechanism, STILL not just gravity) and wasn't trying to get into everything else implied by those particular numbers.

No problem, although there's not much evidence that the segment weighed 20 tons as far as I know. I think it supposedly weighed 4.5 tons, and that gives us around 0.6MJ for a 150m/9s fall. This is still not 'substantial' compared to the incredible mass of the towers collapsing but I am more than willing to discuss this.

[edit on 10-6-2009 by exponent]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
have you thought about why some members are very concerned when you told everyone that you are a spokesman for NIST?



Originally posted by exponent
Thank you, but I have not said that I am a NIST spokesman, in fact I am explicitly not a NIST spokesman. I am a UK citizen and have no professional or personal interests inside the US.



This is what I really love about Truther information. In a message I mistype "I'm a spokesman for NIST" and later correct it to what I meant to type: "I'm NOT a spokesman for NIST."

But within 24 hours 'exponent' is accused of saying he is a NIST spokesman.


M



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It depends on how you look at things really, unless you believe in a controlled demolition, any other sources of energy are miniscule in comparison to gravity


Guess what?


It hasn't been settled (the cause of the ejections) either way.


I believe this is the 'correct' version: /4wf7td [edit - switched to tinyurl]



The mass that is shed from the tower, characterized by out, exits at various velocities
ranging from nearly 0 to almost either the air ejection velocity, for fine dust, or to roughly
z˙, for large steel pieces. Instead of complicating our model by some distribution of these
velocities, we will simply assume that a certain fraction, eout, gets ejected in any direction
(horizontal, inclined downward or upward, or almost vertical) at velocity z˙, while the remaining
mass (1 − e)out is shed at nearly vanishing velocity. For a certain empirical value of e, this
must be energetically equivalent to considering the actual distribution of velocities of ejected
solids. As the crushing front advances dz, the mass of solids (dust plus large fragments) that
is ejected at velocity z˙ is eoutμ(z)dz and has kinetic energy eoutμ(z) dz(z˙2/2). This must
be equal to Fedz, i.e., to the work of the resisting force Fe over distance dz. It follows that
Fe = 1
2 eoutμ(z) z˙2 (10)
The computation results shown in figures have been run for e = 0.2; however, a broad range
of e has been considered in computations, as discussed later.


I hope those characters don't screw up this post.

Then later they say:


Since there
are uncertainties in the values of specific mass of compacted layer μc and the mass shedding ratio
out, calculations are run for many values within their possible ranges. For μc, the uncertainty
range is 4.10 × 106 ± 0.410 × 106 kg/m, based on regarding the compacted rubble as gravel,
for which the realistic value of porosity is well known from soil mechanics. As for out, the
fits of the video and seismic records are optimal for 0.2, but the optimum is not sharp. For
out 2 [0.05, 0.5], the results are within the error bars if μc is set to 4.10 × 106 kg/m. If both
μc and out are considered to vary, then the results remain within the error bars if out 2 [0.1,
0.3]. The range plotted in Fig. 7 corresponds to μc 2 [3.69 × 106, 4.51 × 106] (kg/m) and
out 2 [0.1, 0.3].


"0.2" is apparently a constant suggesting 20% of the mass or KE was "shed." Apparently they are adjusting it to make it fit within certain margins of error, and NOT basing it on how much mass was actually observed to have left the footprints of the towers during their collapses.

And looking on, no, they didn't base it on the debris that was ejected from the footprints, though they are well aware of the high percentage of mass that was ejected, don't dispute it, but say that it was displaced out of the footprints AFTER the collapse was over!


The mass shedding fraction out is, of course, quite uncertain and doubtless depends on z,
which is neglected. The realistic range of possible out values extends at most from 0.05 to 0.5.
Within that range, the effect of varying out is not discernible in the video (remaining within
the error bars shown), and small on the collapse time (which differs up to 0.45 s). For out 2
[0.1, 0.3], the match of both the video and seismic records is excellent.


Emphasis mine. Where do they show that this is THE "realistic range," and no others? How did they determine this? I don't see it anywhere in the paper, except that they dispute other numbers. So they just get to pick their own numbers without basing them on anything legitimate?


Some lay critics claim that out should be about 95%, in the (mistaken) belief that this
would give a faster collapse and thus vindicate their allegation of free fall. However, such out
value would actually extend the duration of collapse of North Tower by about 2.11 s (and 1.50
s for out = 90%) because the effect of stage (c) would become dominant. Agreement with the
seismic record would thus be lost. This is one reason why values out > 0.5 are unrealistic.
These lay critics claim that the mass shedding fraction out was about the same as the
percentage of rubble found after the collapse outside the footprint of the tower. The maximum
estimate of this percentage is indeed 95%. However, aside from the comparisons with video and
seismic records, there are four further reasons indicating that a major portion of the rubble
seen on the ground after the collapse must have spread outside the tower footprint only after
the crush-down, i.e., after the impact of the falling compacted layer onto the ground:


A few things here. First notice the ad hom of calling critics of these values "lay," in what would otherwise be professional writing. They even admit themselves that a very high percentage of the debris was moved out of the footprints. The seismic comparisons are automatically out the window for me because it hasn't been proven that it reflects only KE hitting the ground, as opposed to bombs going off in the basement or any number of other things that could have produced those signals as far as anyone is aware.

They give four reasons that the mass laying outside of the footprint was put there AFTER the collapse was over!:


One is a physical analogy with the mechanics of rigid foams. Compressing an object in
one direction expels mass laterally only if the compressed object consists of a volumetrically
incompressible mass, as in compressing clay.


This would be relevant if they had already established the cause of the ejections, and established a definite relationship between the cause of the ejections and rigid foam mechanics. I could also compare the collapses to explosive demolitions, and suddenly the problem of so much mass being ejected would not be an energy sink issue at all. But someone would call foul because I haven't demonstrated the a definite relation between an explosive demolition and the WTC collapses. So I just ask the same here, where has this kind of relationship been established? If it's theoretical then it's only circumstantial evidence, which it is.


The large steel fragments move virtually in a free fall, much faster than the dust. If out
were almost 1, many of them would be expected to move ahead of the lower margin of dust
cloud.


Here they argue they couldn't see 90% of the mass actually being ejected, because they didn't see it falling ahead of the dust cloud. I don't know how they are able to look at a video and say for sure they aren't seeing this.

Here's WTC1 collapsing:



The under-side of the falling dust cloud is nothing BUT free-falling large debris, as you can clearly see. If I were to pause it at any given moment, I don't know how anyone would be able to accurately tell me a percentage of how much of the so-far destroyed building is free-falling in the air, mostly because the majority of the cloud is literally obscured. Yet the authors of this paper presume the ability to do that accurately enough to pick their own numbers to use.


If most of the mass were falling in the air outside the tower perimeter, one would have to
expect a seismic signal with continuous mild tremors, in which the arrival of the crushing front
to the ground would not be clearly differentiated. But it is.


Once again I would argue the seismic data is not a good reference considering in this debate you have not yet established what was causing the seismic signals, whether it was debris or bombs.


One may also consider the dust density in the cloud. For the first two stories of collapse
(i.e., first 1.3 second), the cloud volume seen in the photos can be approximated as the volume
of four half-cylinders with horizontal axis and diameters equal to the height of two stories and
lengths equal to the tower side. This gives about 6000 m3.


The 4th and final statement given to support the assertion that the debris leaped out of the footprints once the collapse was over, is based on the volume of the dust cloud 1.3 seconds into collapse. They say nothing about what that volume implies about the total mass within it, except about the fine dust particles.

I wonder, instead of trying to negate how much mass was ejected during collapse, could they positively show how mass could do what they are claiming it did? Namely, hit the ground, and THEN travel so far outside of the footprints? If they can't then they don't have a case, and this is certainly something I've never heard of before, that they seem to have invented themselves. So where's direct evidence?


If without explosives the WTC towers were incapable of collapsing in this fashion, then surely any reasonable attempt to model the towers would have to use ludicrous values for some variables, which should be easily identified.


I think the issue is that every time one of those "ludicrous values" is identified, someone has a problem with it and debates and revises it until it fits and works with their pet model. This debris ejection is one example. Instead of accepting 90% or so, they have to come up with another theory to reduce that amount of mass. See?


No problem, although there's not much evidence that the segment weighed 20 tons as far as I know. I think it supposedly weighed 4.5 tons, and that gives us around 0.6MJ for a 150m/9s fall. This is still not 'substantial' compared to the incredible mass of the towers collapsing but I am more than willing to discuss this.


It's also not the total amount of energy lost to this phenomenon.

I don't have any sources off hand, but the debris on the Winter Garden was not a single perimeter column unit:



[edit on 10-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Take a step back look at the problem before you do the math:

The NIST report claims the buildings fell at the very close to the speed of the acceleration of gravity.
The report claims that this was because there was no resistance beneath.

There were large sections of steel laterally ejected from the building.

In a normal scenario, it makes sense. The pressure from above would push down on the walls with all the force of the floors above. The resistance from the floor below would leave gravity to do its work. There is no math needed to figure out that there was sufficient force to eject tons of material laterally.

However, with no resistance from below (i.e. complete structural failure), this would not be possible. no matter what formula you cite there would not be the needed resistance from below.

Either NIST is incorrect or there was another force was at work, or possibly both. No possible combination fits the OS.



posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


Also in addition, and while we're on the subject of NIST inventing numbers, lets not forget the fact that once they FINALLY admitted freefall for WTC 7, the numbers they used to come to that conclusion are still, as far as I know, undisclosed to the public. Fancy that right?

David Chandler, a teacher, called them out and made them look like idiots. Here, see for yourselves.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
while we're on the subject of NIST inventing numbers, lets not forget the fact that once they FINALLY admitted freefall for WTC 7, the numbers they used to come to that conclusion are still, as far as I know, undisclosed to the public. Fancy that right?

David Chandler, a teacher, called them out and made them look like idiots. Here, see for yourselves.


Once you get off the Truther website and forum circuit, Chandler is not even a blip on the radar screen of credibility. A few months ago Chandler went on a discussion of his 'findings' at the James Randi Educational Forum.

Among other things, it was pointed out he used the NIST data and selecting a video that only showed a portion of collapse still measured the same rate of fall within .25 seconds.

Along the way Chandler drops every "9/11 was an inside job" ditty including even the disproven howlers.

Interesting read for anyone who thinks Chandler has any science behind him, and a good reply to him when Chandler gets angry.



forums.randi.org...

Originally Posted by davidschandler

This forum is pathetic.

--

Originally Posted by T.A.M.

No sir, you and your ilk are pathetic. 7 years out from that horrible tragedy, with allegedly proof positive it was an inside job, and what have you all done...****ING SQUAT!!

You wander around internet forums defending the crap you want to call science and analysis, when in fact it is nothing like legitimate science and investigative analysis.

You have had seven years, you, and the others who profess to know the real truth about 911, and you have not done anything at all with it. Sitting on the proof positive that 3000 innocent americans were killed by their own government. Allegedly 100s of thousands of you, and all you can manage is a few hundred dollars here and there, a few hundred at GZ on the 5th anniversary, a bunch of pathetic websites dedicated to your 15 minutes of fame. A few publishings, by the most famous of you, in pseudo journals where you have to pay to be published.

No sir, it is not a few dozen concerned citizens of the world, who post here to reveal the snake oil for what it is, that are pathetic. It is the alleged thousands of people in the truth movement that have sat back in their computer chairs, and done nothing more than investigoogle for their cause, that are the pathetic ones.

You wanna impress people, get on TV with your evidence. Get before politicians with your evidence.

But that wont happen. You will say it is because the man keeps you from doing so, but we know the real reason...your movement has NO PROOF, just speculation and accusation.

Pathetic.



Mike



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Good job splitting hairs again amigo.

What difference does it make which video he chose? The man found the evidence in a video, and used legitimate resources to prove his claims. He then brought that knowledge with him, questioned NIST about their initial report, and guess what?

They revised their report and, look at that - they admitted free fall.

Ridicule him all you want my friend. The fact still stands that he was right, and the folks at NIST had their BS report discredited right in their faces.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Good job splitting hairs again amigo.

What difference does it make which video he chose? The man found the evidence in a video, and used legitimate resources to prove his claims. He then brought that knowledge with him, questioned NIST about their initial report, and guess what?

They revised their report and, look at that - they admitted free fall.

Ridicule him all you want my friend. The fact still stands that he was right, and the folks at NIST had their BS report discredited right in their faces.



I don't ridicule Chandler. He seems to be pretty good at doing that himself once outside the safety blanket of Truth forums.

He didn't find a lick of evidence. He didn't make anyone do anything, aside from [THEIR OWN DECISION TO] reassess their findings. In the history of science we find re-evaluations happening regularly. That's what makes it dynamic. It's self-correcting. It admits it's wrong sometimes. Something we should all be able to do.

I posted a link. I recommend reading it through not just glibly dismissing it.
Insightful and educational to read a discussion from knowledgeable people wanting to know more, not just throw the same misinformation back and forth.


Mike


[lost words added]
[edit on 11-6-2009 by mmiichael]

[edit on 11-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't ridicule Chandler. He seems to be pretty good at doing that himself once outside the safety blanket of Truth forums.


If "TAM" posted that to a member here, it would be moderated. Not because this is a "truther forum," but because it's nothing but a vitriolic rant. I learned nothing at all from reading it except that filth still flies at JREF.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
If "TAM" posted that to a member here, it would be moderated. Not because this is a "truther forum," but because it's nothing but a vitriolic rant. I learned nothing at all from reading it except that filth still flies at JREF.


No one dares to actually read the thread. Actual scientific analysis demolishing an attention seeking conman.

Some pretty vile accusations in the works of Mr Chandler, school teacher at large.

The guy who wrote the reply thought there was something pretty filthy about outright accusing the US government of blowing up 3000 citizens.

People who live outside the conspiracy cocoon see things differently.


Mike



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

He didn't find a lick of evidence. He didn't make anyone do anything aside from reassess their findings.


He didn't find a lick of evidence, but he made them re-assess their findings? That thesis is brilliant.
/sarcasm.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

He didn't find a lick of evidence. He didn't make anyone do anything aside from reassess their findings.


He didn't find a lick of evidence, but he made them re-assess their findings? That thesis is brilliant.
/sarcasm.



My hasty typing. Lost some words in this unclear sentence. Think it was supposed to be:

"He didn't find a lick of evidence. He didn't make anyone do anything, aside from THEIR OWN DECISION TO reassess their findings."


Mike



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

He didn't find a lick of evidence. He didn't make anyone do anything aside from reassess their findings.


He didn't find a lick of evidence, but he made them re-assess their findings? That thesis is brilliant.
/sarcasm.



hey, forget it , this guy(miichael) is a living example of the cocoon of propaganda that western society is .

i got to laugh at his understanding of Physics , not only that he states Russia smuggled WMD out of Iraq before Bush invaded , giving flimsy arguments for lies of iraq WMD

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Kombatt98]

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Kombatt98]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 


Exactly how is T.A.M.'s worthless OPINION considered interesting?

Regardless, this high school physics teacher FORCED NIST to correct their incompetency or deliberate disinformation, depending on how one views it.

His analyses are right on target and I will accept his science over JREF opinions.

These video analyses by David S Chandler show heavy steel pieces being hurled out from the North Tower alleged gravity collapse at 70 mph. Further analysis identifies the origin of the ejection as about the 82nd floor, where the vertical motion of the building was no more than half that speed

High Speed Ejection from WTC1 - An Analysis
by David S Chandler - Physics-Mathematics Educator - BS-Physics (IPS); MS-Mathematics


High Speed Ejection from WTC1--Further Analysis - Result: over 70 mi/hr
Further analysis identifies the origin of the ejection as about the 82nd floor


Another High Speed Ejection from WTC1 - Result: over 70 mi/hr


Stabilized Video of South Tower



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join