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: 19
172
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

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.


posted by mmiichael

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



Indeed, there is something filthy about accusing the US Government of blowing up 3000 citizens, and what is even filthier is that the US Government did blow up 3000 citizens, and what is filthiest is that the US Government is getting away with blowing up 3000 citizens and you are assisting them.





posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Another star for you SPreston.

You can't be any clearer than that.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 


Right on brother. I'm guessing its because I'm at work, but I can't see the videos you posted, are they put up correctly?

EDIT - I see they are Youtube, so that's why I can't view them. Military hates Youtube.

[edit on 11/6/2009 by P1DrummerBoy]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPreston
Indeed, there is something filthy about accusing the US Government of blowing up 3000 citizens, and what is even filthier is that the US Government did blow up 3000 citizens, and what is filthiest is that the US Government is getting away with blowing up 3000 citizens and you are assisting them.


The US government could have blown up a factory complex in Hoboken New Jersey and planted evidence that Iraq was behind it with Osama bin Laden.

But instead that hire guys to fly planes into their most expensive real estate and plant bombs for a kicker.

A movement is created that exonerates their enemies and blames their own government based on analysis of the time it took for a building to collapse as shown in videos.

And then they call themselves patriots while people who want to destroy them laugh their asses off.

That's what it boils down to.

Mike



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
As I mentioned before the truth movement only exists because the OS has many inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

You may be able to debunk every CT but no one has been able to prove the OS either, which in itself is still a conspiracy theory.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Guess what?


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

Even if we assume either case, there is nothing remarkable about this sort of mass being able to be accelerated.

I don't understand why people propose that this mass was propelled by explosives, I will try and explain why it seems crazy to me.

There are two possibilities put forward by truthers for the type of demolition:

  1. Thermite
  2. Conventional Explosives

Option 1 seems to be the preferred current theory, and fits in better than #2 when it comes to secrecy, as thermite produces molten iron and relatively few gases compared to a conventional high explosive.

However this also presents us with a problem as the very feature that makes thermite the preferred choice makes it incapable of imparting the sort of forces implied. There are of course the various 'super' thermites proposed, but even if these had the strength of a low explosive, the collapse would be characterised by huge amounts of brightly glowing molten iron balls being expelled along with the sections at high velocity.

The other option is RDX, which has a relative efficiency factor of 1.6 giving it an explosive yield of approximately 4.4MJ per kg. Assuming for a second that fully 50% of this energy is used in propelling an outer column, one kg of RDX could propel 18 of these columns out to 150m with a 9 second fall time. This option comes with a serious problem though, RDX is loud. Being a high explosive it creates a shock wavefront, leading to extremely large overpressures in the surrounding area. There are no indications of this in the collapse, and here is an example of just how loud it would be: video.google.com...

Lets also consider the logic behind requiring such expulsion. Why would anyone in their right mind wish to blow hundreds of perimeter column sections laterally out of the towers, instead of attempting to contain them? As you have rightly pointed out their expulsion decreases the amount of energy available to the collapse, and anyone designing such a collapse would know this.

Moving onto your specific criticisms:

"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.

This is true, they are attempting to understand the dynamics behind the collapse. As you say later on:

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.

I agree, and so do the authors, which is why they try a range of experimental values to determine how severely it affects the collapse. As you can see by their values, it only extends the collapse significantly if the amount of energy ejected is extreme. No mechanism has been proposed that would eject this amount of mass, especially because if you look at the geometry of the towers, the likely ejecta consists of perimeter columns and sections of concrete floor/office debris/floor trusses.


I wonder, instead of trying to negate how much mass was ejected during collapse

This statement is based on the idea that the amount of mass you believe was ejected during collapse is a fact. But we have already established that in fact it is not, and it is incredibly hard to determine the actual values.


Instead of accepting 90% or so, they have to come up with another theory to reduce that amount of mass. See?

I don't see, because if you read the paper, even with the extreme values for K_out the collapse is still possible, but with radically different timing. So you're essentially arguing that large quantities of explosives were placed in a building, all for the purpose of slightly reducing the collapse time. This does not make sense to me.

With this, you are left with two options
1. K_out as defined in the paper, which does give good agreement with the available data.
2. Extremely high values of K_out which are not supported by any evidence other than an unsourced figure which may simply be speculation, which then requires some sort of explosive or propulsive force being applied which we also have no evidence for.

I simply cannot understand why either the people behind such a plan would engineer something so inefficiently, or why when we have a good fit to the evidence without explosives, people would be convinced that explosives in fact are needed.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
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.

Neither of these are correct, the 'speed of acceleration' due to gravity is 9.81m/s/s, WTC2 accelerated at approximately 2/3rds this, WTC1 3/4. 25% of this energy is an insanely large amount, if I remember correctly it's equivalent to over a ton of TNT, but I can run the numbers if needed.


Originally posted by jprophet420
As I mentioned before the truth movement only exists because the OS has many inconsistencies and inaccuracies.

This is not true, the truth movement would exist regardless of inconsistencies and inaccuracies. You find people challenging the 'official story' for almost every major event, JFK, Moon Landing, 911. You'll often find someone who believes in one conspiracy believes in many or all others.

Many truthers believe they have evidence, but I have seen many people be shown their evidence is clearly wrong, and then simply deny the conclusion. I don't want to speculate about who's personality falls into what criteria, as I am surely not perfect, but the existence of this movement does not lend credence implicitly to the idea that there is something majorly 'wrong' with the "official story".


You may be able to debunk every CT but no one has been able to prove the OS either, which in itself is still a conspiracy theory.

What would you consider proof of the "official story"?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I never said I knew exactly what caused so much mass to be ejected. I just don't automatically assume all the mass was ejected by gravity alone.


Originally posted by exponent
I agree, and so do the authors, which is why they try a range of experimental values to determine how severely it affects the collapse. As you can see by their values, it only extends the collapse significantly if the amount of energy ejected is extreme.


That's assuming that the mass is being ejected by gravity alone. I never made that assumption, so I don't assume a mathematical relationship between the two. I'm only interested in accurately reflecting how much energy it would take to displace the total amount of mass witnessed outside of the footprints during the collapse.


No mechanism has been proposed that would eject this amount of mass


I agree, which is why I would rather not assume gravity did it.


This statement is based on the idea that the amount of mass you believe was ejected during collapse is a fact. But we have already established that in fact it is not


Where?


and it is incredibly hard to determine the actual values.


Not when you look at Ground Zero, it's pretty easy to make an estimate based on what little is left in the actual footprints.


I don't see, because if you read the paper, even with the extreme values for K_out the collapse is still possible, but with radically different timing. So you're essentially arguing that large quantities of explosives were placed in a building, all for the purpose of slightly reducing the collapse time. This does not make sense to me.


What doesn't make sense to me is how you keep telling me I'm wrong by telling me I'm wrong. No evidence, just telling me I'm wrong, then working the numbers and "proving" that I'm wrong. That the timing goes off when you use so much energy throwing out all that mass, is irrelevant to me. I'm not the one who is convinced that gravity did it in the first place, remember? I don't CARE if your model is off when you put valid data into it, that's actually exactly what you would expect if your model is WRONG.


With this, you are left with two options
1. K_out as defined in the paper, which does give good agreement with the available data.


It actually contradicts available data by suggesting 50% or more of the total mass of each tower was left in its footprint when the collapse was over.


2. Extremely high values of K_out which are not supported by any evidence other than an unsourced figure which may simply be speculation


I can repost the photos that give a clear view of the footprints after the collapses. You're really being disingenuous by saying it's too hard to tell if less than 50% of the total mass of either building is still in its footprint. It's very easy to tell that that much mass is NOT still in the footprint of either building, they even admit this in the paper. They just say that when they use that accurate number, it throws their model off, and they can't have that.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
why dont we attack mexico and other hispanic countries, they are attacking us with their illegal immigration and spys that work for the government who have come from those countries



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
I never said I knew exactly what caused so much mass to be ejected. I just don't automatically assume all the mass was ejected by gravity alone.

Ok, I can understand that viewpoint, but there has to be a level at which you will say "we have found no evidence of any force other than gravity being involved, and no direct evidence of explosives". The question is, what is that level for you? Obviously I am satisfied with NISTs collapse mechanism, and the studies done in BLBG, by Newtons Bit, R Mackey, Gregory Urich etc. The question really is why are you not? What facts do you disagree with? Hopefully by the end of this post, we can resolve what exactly would be needed to fix the only problem you've highlighted so far with this paper, and hopefully I linked you to enough of NCSTAR 1-6D to solve your problems there.


No mechanism has been proposed that would eject this amount of mass



I agree, which is why I would rather not assume gravity did it.

I apologise, I should have been more clear here. Ejecting matter laterally despite only a vertical force being applied is a well understood phenomena. Because of the damage to the building (especially concrete) and the overall energy involved, it may be a more intuitive way to think about the collapses as each floor gradually increases in ambient pressure as the upper section collapses into it. The idea that random or at least chaotic motion will result in lateral ejections should not be unintuitive using this analogy.

My point was, that no mechanism involving anything but gravity has been proposed that would account for the visual, audio, seismographic etc evidence. Indeed nobody has yet been able to answer my question of exactly why this would even be a feature of controlled demolitions. If you have even watched a single documentary on the practise you will have seen that they strategically cut important columns, and use gravity to do the work of actually destroying the structure. I see no reason that (even with thermite) would not be the case at the WTC, it simply makes no sense to use more explosives than you need to collapse the building.


This statement is based on the idea that the amount of mass you believe was ejected during collapse is a fact. But we have already established that in fact it is not



Where?

We have established it is not a fact because you have stated that during collapse analysis of the ejecta is practically impossible due to smoke obscuration. Your estimate of ejected mass comes from a brief picture survey post collapse. The model we are discussing is talking about mass ejected per floor of the collapse while it is in motion. We have absolutely no idea what was happening at the base of the towers at the end of the collapse, but it is not a huge leap of faith to assume that once the falling debris hit, it will have formed a pile centred around the middle of the buildings, this pile will deflect debris and distribute it outside the footprint.

I don't think what I am saying here is controversial, and I don't understand why you seem to be arguing that the mass outside the footprint post collapse equates to the mass lost per floor of the collapse, especially when we have only speculative information about both.


What doesn't make sense to me is how you keep telling me I'm wrong by telling me I'm wrong. No evidence, just telling me I'm wrong, then working the numbers and "proving" that I'm wrong.

I'm not "proving" you wrong, because you have yet to make any specific claims. I am asking you questions which, assuming whatever controlled demolition theory you pick, have no reasonable answer as far as I can see.


That the timing goes off when you use so much energy throwing out all that mass, is irrelevant to me. I'm not the one who is convinced that gravity did it in the first place, remember? I don't CARE if your model is off when you put valid data into it, that's actually exactly what you would expect if your model is WRONG.

It's what you would expect if your model or your data is wrong, and considering that the model will give a good fit even up to 50% of the mass of every floor being ejected and not contributing to the collapse, I think it is worthy to question a 90-95% figure.

The crux of this post and our current discussion is this:
You claim that the mass outside the footprint post collapse is as high as 95%, this is based (as far as I can tell) off you surveying photos post collapse and of an unsourced image showing a cross section of the towers and surrounding area with estimated debris distribution. I find it very hard to believe that anywhere near 90% of the mass was ejected from each floor during the collapse, and because of this I am questioning this figure.

As we have seen, a good fit to the other available data can be shown with a mass loss of up to 50% per floor. Can you think of any test we can do which would distinguish between the two figures? How can we possibly know how much mass was actually ejected per floor?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:04 PM
link   

I apologise, I should have been more clear here. Ejecting matter laterally despite only a vertical force being applied is a well understood phenomena.


Understand that if there is not resistance from the floors below, which the NIST report claims is the case, then that vertical force cannot be applied laterally, 100% of the force is moving downwards. Since the phenomena is well known thats easily verifyable.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Ok, I can understand that viewpoint, but there has to be a level at which you will say "we have found no evidence of any force other than gravity being involved, and no direct evidence of explosives"


My whole point is that the assumption that EVERYTHING was due to gravity alone is also still unproven, and I'm not going to make that assumption just so I can go on faith to excuse the fact that these models can't account for realistic data.


The question really is why are you not? What facts do you disagree with?


Well, we're talking about one of them right now. In this case, just the mass being shed out of the towers, you have to already believe that the towers came down due to gravity alone before you can even accept the data, because they had to adjust the data they put in to get the results they were looking for. If you're just looking to create that result, then it doesn't matter to you, of course. But if you're trying to represent the actual conditions as closely as possible, then it's a problem because there is no evidence 50% of the mass of each tower (or more) was in the footprints at the end of each collapse.


Hopefully by the end of this post, we can resolve what exactly would be needed to fix the only problem you've highlighted so far with this paper


It's also the only thing I looked at. If they unabashedly make up their own numbers to make their results work out the case of mass being shed, then why wouldn't they also sleight the amount of energy needed to create all the dust, or any of the rest of it? They've already demonstrated that they will even invent new theories to account for data they can't work with.


and hopefully I linked you to enough of NCSTAR 1-6D to solve your problems there.


I downloaded the files the other night but still haven't gotten around to looking through them. Like I said, I won't even bother responding here when I read through it, I'll make a whole different thread for it.


I apologise, I should have been more clear here. Ejecting matter laterally despite only a vertical force being applied is a well understood phenomena.


That doesn't mean you've proven it was the phenomena that ejected all the mass here, especially when it messes energy models of the collapses up when you actually use more realistic numbers for how much mass left the footprints.


Because of the damage to the building (especially concrete) and the overall energy involved, it may be a more intuitive way to think about the collapses as each floor gradually increases in ambient pressure as the upper section collapses into it. The idea that random or at least chaotic motion will result in lateral ejections should not be unintuitive using this analogy.


What my intuition tells me is that when the building is getting denser and stronger the further down you go, and when the majority (not just SOME) of the mass is somehow being pushed out of the system, and yet the system is continuing along at the exact same pace it had initially, then something else is doing the work. There is no legitimate basis for "pancake theory," as I can even post quotes from NIST saying simultaneous failures of all the discrete floor connections would be very unlikely, yet this model seems to be based on it the way mass gradually accumulates instead of the majority of it being sent out over the sides as happened in reality.

There is nothing to suggest this kind of chaotic collapse should result in such symmetrical distribution of mass, either. In chaos, you know, slight "defects" in initial symmetrical conditions rapidly propagate to much more exaggerated chaotic states due to the inherent randomness of the system. Like "tilts" and "leans," in a chaotic system, would not tend to correct themselves and then maintain that balance. Or maintain a constant vertical rate despite general decreases in available mass and increases in structural strength. So WTC2 tilting, for example, and then falling straight down into itself anyway and continuing to the ground at a steady rate, sending mass out in all directions, or WTC1 sending mass out in all directions all the way down and neither of them ever lop-siding, that is all also very counter-intuitive to me.


My point was, that no mechanism involving anything but gravity has been proposed that would account for the visual, audio, seismographic etc evidence.


Ok, here's another: a pressure wave. Any type of pressure wave. It is actually THE common denominator of any device that "explodes" and exerts a force on other objects through pressure waves in the air, so let's just say that. That's as specific as I have to be as far as I care, because I also don't assume full working knowledge of all the world's different types of bombs or all the possibilities included there. And one would have to assume that to say that there is no possibility here, short of simply considering a non-specific "pressure wave" as an alternative for most of the lateral energy.


it simply makes no sense to use more explosives than you need to collapse the building.


I won't dispute that in a commercial situation, but in this particular scenario, there may have been other conditions to be satisfied. Taking them down "conventionally" would obviously have a lot of drawbacks to anyone trying to hide the fact that someone planted things inside the buildings (had access to them, thus implying a connection to the building tenants and owners themselves, etc.). Eating away a lot of connections quietly with inexpensive and innocent-looking nanocomposite applications, and then blowing the core structure up in a couple of different places, for example, would not look like a conventional demolition (because it wouldn't be), and could actually look just like they did from the outside, like things just way on their own as soon as the inner core structure gives way. Because as soon as the core gives way, everything else will give way on its own, because the perimeter columns wouldn't be able to take the redistributed load.


We have established it is not a fact because you have stated that during collapse analysis of the ejecta is practically impossible due to smoke obscuration.


Exactly how much is impossible to tell, but the dust clouds swell up to cover much more area than the towers themselves, and there is clearly heavy debris raining down all below these same dust clouds. It's also obvious that this type of ejection during collapse is a real phenomenon, while 50% of the mass ending up in the footprints after the collapses are over, and then somehow redistributing themselves all over the complex, is NOT a proven phenomenon, was a theory just invented for this paper, and frankly to me it doesn't even sound (or look) possible. But that's beside the point, that it's not positively established in any way to begin with.


Your estimate of ejected mass comes from a brief picture survey post collapse.


Anyone can look at as many photos for as long as they want. I've seen hundreds of them of GZ and I've been looking at them for years.

In fact I compiled this collection: www.studyof911.com...


The model we are discussing is talking about mass ejected per floor


...which should be related to that was ejected from all floors, no? Which has been generalized as a percentage.


We have absolutely no idea what was happening at the base of the towers at the end of the collapse


We know the end result when the dust cleared. But that we don't know anything else, is exactly why this theory is trash, based on nothing and only invented to bolster a mathematical model.


but it is not a huge leap of faith to assume that once the falling debris hit, it will have formed a pile centred around the middle of the buildings, this pile will deflect debris and distribute it outside the footprint.


To some extent yes, I'm sure that actually happened, but not 50%.


I don't think what I am saying here is controversial


Yet you find yourself debating it with me. I think the controversy has increased with time.


It's what you would expect if your model or your data is wrong


And again, there is no evidence 50% of the mass of either tower was still in its footprint at the end of the collapse.


and considering that the model will give a good fit even up to 50% of the mass of every floor being ejected and not contributing to the collapse, I think it is worthy to question a 90-95% figure.


That's assuming nothing else is fudged, either, something I'm not as sure of. But even still I very seriously doubt 50% of the mass of either tower was left in the footprint at the end, and there's nothing to even suggest it to me, and if the model can't take that then the model needs further review.


You claim that the mass outside the footprint post collapse is as high as 95%


That's what the paper claimed, I've only said 80-90% because I try to be conservative.


of an unsourced image showing a cross section of the towers and surrounding area with estimated debris distribution


It was a graphic WeComeInPeace did based on the FEMA diagram of the debris spread and lots of photos.


I find it very hard to believe that anywhere near 90% of the mass was ejected from each floor during the collapse, and because of this I am questioning this figure.


Think of it this way: 100% of the uppermost floors probably ended up outside of the footprints. From there, it would scale down to closer to 0% leaving the lobby and below. The longer the mass is falling, the more opportunities it gets to be ejected. There is no single "per floor" figure.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You know, I think it's a shame that Bsbray and Exponent are on opposing sides to this scenario, because I think the two of you could solve the 9/11 mystery yourselves. It's hard to keep up with you two sometimes.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by SPreston
Indeed, there is something filthy about accusing the US Government of blowing up 3000 citizens, and what is even filthier is that the US Government did blow up 3000 citizens, and what is filthiest is that the US Government is getting away with blowing up 3000 citizens and you are assisting them.


The US government could have blown up a factory complex in Hoboken New Jersey and planted evidence that Iraq was behind it with Osama bin Laden.

But instead that hire guys to fly planes into their most expensive real estate and plant bombs for a kicker.

A movement is created that exonerates their enemies and blames their own government based on analysis of the time it took for a building to collapse as shown in videos.

And then they call themselves patriots while people who want to destroy them laugh their asses off.

That's what it boils down to.

Mike



Whilst you on the other hand put all your faith into NIST.......

www.youtube.com...

Quite a few shreds of evidence they *overlooked* once again re molten steel.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
My whole point is that the assumption that EVERYTHING was due to gravity alone is also still unproven, and I'm not going to make that assumption just so I can go on faith to excuse the fact that these models can't account for realistic data.

I understand that this is your point, but I still think it important to get the answer to my question. There are many things people can suspect are 'wrong' about 911, and to you clearly the expulsion of mass and the development of NIST's tower models and failure predictions are. However, there could be many other things that you are also suspicious of, and if the list is extensive it might be worth starting threads on specific topics.

Now, with regards to the realistic data claim, I decided to look up some actual numbers so we could have a clearer view of what is being proposed. This is a graph representing the percentage contributions to the mass of each floor by the various structural elements. The data is taken from a study done by Gregory Urich which as far as I am aware is considered to be accurate by all parties.


As you can see, in order for 90% of the mass of a floor to be ejected, you need a mechanism capable of ejecting the entirety of the area outside the core, all of the core steel and a significant proportion of the core concrete also. To me this is utterly incomprehensible, even more so than I thought before this data.

I would ask that if you wish to defend this number, we should ignore the mass distribution on the ground for now as the exact process is ambiguous. I will answer the other points you have put forward below, but I hope that we can focus on a specific topic, as we've already moved away from NCSTAR 1-6D.


It's also the only thing I looked at. If they unabashedly make up their own numbers to make their results work out the case of mass being shed, then why wouldn't they also sleight the amount of energy needed to create all the dust, or any of the rest of it? They've already demonstrated that they will even invent new theories to account for data they can't work with.

This is an entirely unfair criticism. They did not simply 'make up a number' as you put it, they estimated reasonable values based on the evidence to hand, and conducted a simple parametric study to determine the influence this had on collapse time. They found, as I have, that the influence is only significant when the amount of mass ejected is considered to be extreme, and as of yet no plausible method has been suggested to do this.

Faced with this, what else could they do? They created a model and published their numbers, it was peer reviewed, corrected and published in a well known journal. This is the proper process for science, and if you have evidence that disputes one of their values then you can present it, a review of their model can be done and it can be corrected if needed. The problem is that so far the evidence is speculative at best.

With regards to the energy required to create dust, the numbers and references are in the paper. If you believe them to be wrong, you have every ability to check them.


There is no legitimate basis for "pancake theory," as I can even post quotes from NIST saying simultaneous failures of all the discrete floor connections would be very unlikely, yet this model seems to be based on it the way mass gradually accumulates instead of the majority of it being sent out over the sides as happened in reality.

"Pancake theory" was indeed a proposed initial failure mechanism, which has been disproven, but as a collapse mechanism the phrase is quite accurate. The floors were undoubtedly the weakest point of the towers to vertical load, and would likely have acted to channel debris inbetween the core and perimeter columns. It is not simply mass that must accumulate, but energy, and as long as the upper portion has enough energy to fail the next floor plus a small amount to account for the increase in strength, the collapse will continue. Any more energy than this, and the collapse will accelerate.


There is nothing to suggest this kind of chaotic collapse should result in such symmetrical distribution of mass, either. In chaos, you know, slight "defects" in initial symmetrical conditions rapidly propagate to much more exaggerated chaotic states due to the inherent randomness of the system.

This is not strictly true in the case of the WTC collapses. While the debris front was almost certainly chaotic, the actual design of the towers, the materials it is made from etc are not, and so they provide a predictable response.


And one would have to assume that to say that there is no possibility here, short of simply considering a non-specific "pressure wave" as an alternative for most of the lateral energy.

This was the basis of my energy calculation before. A reasonable estimate for the weight of a single 3x3 exterior column at the 80th floor is approximately 5.6 tons, so the numbers can be run quite easily from this. It does result in a large quantity of explosives, and you can see what a small proportion the exterior column mass is overall in the graph above.


Eating away a lot of connections quietly with inexpensive and innocent-looking nanocomposite applications, and then blowing the core structure up in a couple of different places, for example, would not look like a conventional demolition (because it wouldn't be), and could actually look just like they did from the outside, like things just way on their own as soon as the inner core structure gives way. Because as soon as the core gives way, everything else will give way on its own, because the perimeter columns wouldn't be able to take the redistributed load.

This confuses me, because while it is a potential candidate for a demolition theory, it does not account for the mass ejection at all. Assuming that there is a plausible mechanism to "eat away" steel, this leaves many things unexplained. What caused the perimeter column bowing for example, and the collapse mechanism would almost certainly be different, as there would be no inward pull to fail the walls, and so it's likely the perimeter structure would survive longer until the core collapse progressed enough to leave them unsupported over a large length.

Mainly though it does not explain the mass ejection at all, in order to push a column out from 60 feet away you would need an extremely large charge,potentially into the tons.


Anyone can look at as many photos for as long as they want. I've seen hundreds of them of GZ and I've been looking at them for years.

Yeah I apologise for this, it did not come out right, I meant to say something akin to 'trivial', as in I don't think you have attempted to categorise which perimeter columns are where, what the pre collapse positions were etc. I did not mean it in an insulting fashion


And again, there is no evidence 50% of the mass of either tower was still in its footprint at the end of the collapse.

It is worthy of note that there is also no evidence that it was not, and the fact that this model fits correctly with values from 0.2 to 0.5 is circumstantial evidence in favour of it.


It was a graphic WeComeInPeace did based on the FEMA diagram of the debris spread and lots of photos.

Were any more details provided? Perhaps an attempt to determine debris volume?


Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy
You know, I think it's a shame that Bsbray and Exponent are on opposing sides to this scenario, because I think the two of you could solve the 9/11 mystery yourselves.

That's kind of you to say, but I am only trivially educated in these matters, I just have spent time doing my research and I have a practical mind I guess.

I'm about to hit the character limit, but if i'm careful I can make it exactly ri..



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   

posted by P1DrummerBoy
reply to post by bsbray11
 


You know, I think it's a shame that Bsbray and Exponent are on opposing sides to this scenario, because I think the two of you could solve the 9/11 mystery yourselves. It's hard to keep up with you two sometimes.


Yes indeed, exponent is quite brilliant. Unfortunately he allows his extreme bias to affect his work, and is unwilling to look at the data neutrally and calmly as bsbray does.

The lack of resistance which is absolutely necessary for a gravity collapse to be hurling mass over 500 feet away in all directions, should be sending up alarming warning signals; but exponent just ignores them and works his flawed analysis without them.

It is a shame.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Let's leave the cheer leading out and let these two guys have the floor. This is one of the better discussions I have ever read here on ATS.




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
turbofan: Did you receive the Harrit, etc. emails we discussed?
I sent them to your "lasbrat" address on June 8th and have not received any acknowledgement of receipt.

Sorry I have to post like this - I don't have enough posts here yet to U2U.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:00 PM
link   
Double post.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by beReal]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
As you can see, in order for 90% of the mass of a floor to be ejected, you need a mechanism capable of ejecting the entirety of the area outside the core, all of the core steel and a significant proportion of the core concrete also. To me this is utterly incomprehensible, even more so than I thought before this data.


That's fine and it's pretty incomprehensible to me too, but, you're still not seeing 50% of the total mass in the footprints, or even 25%, so some high percentage of mass like that WAS ejected out of the footprints.


I would ask that if you wish to defend this number, we should ignore the mass distribution on the ground for now as the exact process is ambiguous.


No, I won't ignore it just so other numbers will work out. The model you pick has to accurately reflect what actually happened, not what needed to happen to make your theory work. The fact that the how's and why's are ambiguous and no one has really explained this is why the investigations carried out so far were unsatisfactory.


They did not simply 'make up a number' as you put it, they estimated reasonable values based on the evidence to hand


And what is the exact evidence of there being 50% of the mass still in the footprints of either tower after its collapse?


They found, as I have, that the influence is only significant when the amount of mass ejected is considered to be extreme, and as of yet no plausible method has been suggested to do this.


Exactly. And the model they use can't explain it or account for it either. But just because you can't explain how it happened doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It just means you will need a different theory to explain it. And I'm not necessarily the one to answer any of those questions in any detail, because it was never my personal responsibility to do anything like NIST was supposed to.


They created a model and published their numbers, it was peer reviewed, corrected and published in a well known journal.


Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean it's true. And I don't accept authorities simply because they assert themselves as authorities, and that includes scientific journals that boil down to nothing but an image and fitting in with a norm imo. In other words you can't win me over by saying by saying "all these people agree with this," but you can win me over by making me agree with their actual reasoning.


With regards to the energy required to create dust, the numbers and references are in the paper. If you believe them to be wrong, you have every ability to check them.


You're right, I do. And until I do it's like Schrodinger's cat to me, huh?


"Pancake theory" was indeed a proposed initial failure mechanism, which has been disproven, but as a collapse mechanism the phrase is quite accurate.


So what's the difference between a failure mechanism and a collapse mechanism?


It is not simply mass that must accumulate, but energy


The problem I have is that the perimeter columns and core structure represented at least as much mass as the office floors, but pancake theory, NIST's theory, and how the core structure was pulled down simultaneously haven't been reconciled. Pancake theory basically stated that the floors connections gave first, and started a chain reaction like vertical dominoes. Then the NIST team said the perimeter columns gave first when too many of them buckled too severely, and started a chaotic global collapse they didn't bother to analyze in any detail. And neither of these theories explain what happens to the other end of the connections, to the core, or to the core structure itself, after all this happens around the perimeter of the building, in order to make everything go at once and be floor-by-floor.


This is not strictly true in the case of the WTC collapses. While the debris front was almost certainly chaotic, the actual design of the towers, the materials it is made from etc are not, and so they provide a predictable response.


If it were really that predictable don't you think we would have seen specific mechanisms for the global collapse by now (at least that aren't at odds with NIST) or simplified computer simulations or something?


It does result in a large quantity of explosives


That depends on what kind of device.


Assuming that there is a plausible mechanism to "eat away" steel, this leaves many things unexplained. What caused the perimeter column bowing for example, and the collapse mechanism would almost certainly be different, as there would be no inward pull to fail the walls, and so it's likely the perimeter structure would survive longer until the core collapse progressed enough to leave them unsupported over a large length.


Actually the core columns and perimeter columns were connected through the hat trusses at the top of each building. When the core went, the hat trusses would redistribute all the "hanging" weight of the structure above the destroyed core onto the perimeter columns, and the perimeter wouldn't be able to take the extra load and would give way wherever they were already weakest.


Mainly though it does not explain the mass ejection at all, in order to push a column out from 60 feet away you would need an extremely large charge,potentially into the tons.


If we could establish that it had to be conventional TNT, then I would agree, but we can't.



And again, there is no evidence 50% of the mass of either tower was still in its footprint at the end of the collapse.

It is worthy of note that there is also no evidence that it was not


I disagree. It's pretty obvious to me from photos that 50% of the total mass didn't end up in the footprint of either building and then fan out. I could mention Occam's Razor here too because I don't have to assume an additional theory for how the mass was distributed.


and the fact that this model fits correctly with values from 0.2 to 0.5 is circumstantial evidence in favour of it.


Then I could say the fact that the model can't handle 80-90% of the mass being ejected and produce results that reflect reality, is circumstantial evidence that the model is wrong. And the fact that they had to make a new theory to explain not being able to handle those numbers, is circumstantial evidence of the same.


Were any more details provided? Perhaps an attempt to determine debris volume?


No one ever proved the average depth rigorously or anything like that if that's what you're getting at, but like I said, he based that diagram on a lot of photos that we were looking at. I posted a link to tons of them earlier, you can look at them yourself. They consistently show the same things in regards to the relative amount of mass within the footprints as opposed to laying everywhere else.



new topics

top topics



 
172
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join