WTC: Molten Steel - Was there any? Why? What About the Hot Spots?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The pictures you show only serve what I say. Right in there, at the base of it, it's dust, gravel and strangely rounded pieces of larger 'stones' which look smooth ...but where are the pictures of the surrounding streets and buildings covered with thick dust? - where are the at least partially intact floors? It's obvious - it went up in a pyroclastic dust cloud.

Up? Up where?

Regarding "strangely rounded pieces of larger 'stones' which look smooth" - what do you expect? That's what happens to RC when it breaks up. Have a look at this considerably less energetic example. Of course there's vastly more of it as the building is made of concrete, but the nature of the concrete here is not dissimilar to the WTC examples above. Not as much dust as it has been watered down.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daohaiku/6807608865/sizes/o/in/photostream/
 
Last edited:

Jazzy

Closed Account
mutuality is not necessary regarding fantasy
That's why we are no longer mutual George. You have a fantasy which leads you to believe that you may ask me questions while not answering mine.

still waiting for that close-up shot
0.jpg

kinetic energy brought to melting point
I never said that. You misrepresent what I said. Consistently.

inevitable hot spot 'theory'
It certainly was.

you're not a structural engineer, are you?
Aeroengineering, actually. Rather more specialized than civil. Rather more civil than you.

First you claim you never said such a thing (my poor reading skills, apparently)
Yes. Like your above with "kinetic energy".

you try to bluff your way out by claiming that 450,000 tons of steel is correct.
One doesn't really need to be any kind of engineer to understand that this is a gross misrepresentation of the reality. But maybe you'd like to share your source on this figure? I doubt that will be forthcoming. I always find it's best to own up when you've been caught making things up or denying you said certain things when they are right to hand for anyone who bothers to look - that type of thing.
FEMA actually gave the calculation of PE in each building as 4 x 10^11 joules and that is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower. So your calculation on that wasn't bad
I'm glad you're happy about that. So let's work that back, shall we? 4 x 10^11 joules = 0.5 x M x g x h, right? Then M = 2 x 4 x 10^11 / 9.81 x 387 = 211,000 TONNES for one building.

Were there two towers? Then you'll have to multiply by two. Can you manage that? Now tell me, what exactly did both FEMA and I get wrong?

You also said this. I think you're a bit confused about this - you've said it more than once. The potential energy of a building is not 'the energy put into it to raise it from ground level into its structural position'. No, the potential energy of a building, as is generally accepted, is gravitational potential energy - which isn't the same thing as all the energy put in to raise the building. I think the wording speaks for itself.
Frankly, you leave me at a loss, here. I am absolutely unable to answer you. Except that "all the energy put in to raise the building" isn't what I said - once again.

it's just that the words you attach often don't match the music
LOL.

I asked you - What is 'energy in its loosest sense'?
And I ask you, what is 'an intellectual in its loosest sense'? You know, you see.

Obviously no-one here is bright enough to understand either your 'theory' or your replies.
It is always more honest to simply speak for oneself.

One other thing, you've also said that the energy required to break the concrete in each tower represents around 5% of the total PE available in each tower. You even said turning steel rc into dust was easy
It's easy if you have at your disposal 95 tons of TNT.

no disrespect
Refrain from such a terminological inexactitude, please.

There was undoubtedly a lot of steel reinforced concrete in the core of each tower - but it's not easy to tell how much with the dimensions and system not clear.
I don't think that there was any at all. The cores were steel alone. The dividers/partitions were wall boarding.

90,000 tons of concrete per tower
No there weren't. There was only the concrete in each floor slab. 34,000 tons per tower. The concrete used in the floors was a special lightweight concrete made by admixing pearlite. It has the consistency of tough biscuit and a low density.

The "pyroclastic cloud" did not seem to differ (accounting for scale) from the dust clouds in verinage demolitions. And in what way is it "pyroclastic"? All the concrete did not turn to dust. Pretty much all the wallboard probably did, but that does not really take much energy. Dust takes longer to settle, so initially the pile would have had a layer of dust over it. There were many slabs that were simply broken up, and a lot of the debris was in quite large chunks.]
Absolutely.

Glad you made those points Lee, I was thinking very much along those lines also but was a bit apathetic about writing it. so thanks. BTW it takes a force of 4000 psi to smash the concrete
Was that this concrete, or concrete in general? Oh, concrete in general...

my description of the destruction of the towers as an 'eruption'
Is typical of you. All buildings in collapse hurl dust through any escape points they possibly can, as the falling floors are compressing the air volume held within them. In the case of the towers they were on fire, and the compressed air and fire shot upwards via the central core spaces (once the roofs were out of the way) which had been cleared by the kerosine/air explosion immediately after the impacts.

I always find it's best to own up
I bet you do.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
That's why we are no longer mutual George. You have a fantasy which leads you to believe that you may ask me questions while not answering mine.


0.jpg


I never said that. You misrepresent what I said. Consistently.


It certainly was.


Aeroengineering, actually. Rather more specialized than civil. Rather more civil than you.


Yes. Like your above with "kinetic energy".




I'm glad you're happy about that. So let's work that back, shall we? 4 x 10^11 joules = 0.5 x M x g x h, right? Then M = 2 x 4 x 10^11 / 9.81 x 387 = 211,000 TONNES for one building.

Were there two towers? Then you'll have to multiply by two. Can you manage that? Now tell me, what exactly did both FEMA and I get wrong?


Frankly, you leave me at a loss, here. I am absolutely unable to answer you. Except that "all the energy put in to raise the building" isn't what I said - once again.


LOL.


And I ask you, what is 'an intellectual in its loosest sense'? You know, you see.


It is always more honest to simply speak for oneself.


It's easy if you have at your disposal 95 tons of TNT.


Refrain from such a terminological inexactitude, please.


I don't think that there was any at all. The cores were steel alone. The dividers/partitions were wall boarding.


No there weren't. There was only the concrete in each floor slab. 34,000 tons per tower. The concrete used in the floors was a special lightweight concrete made by admixing pearlite. It has the consistency of tough biscuit and a low density.


Absolutely.


Was that this concrete, or concrete in general? Oh, concrete in general...


Is typical of you. All buildings in collapse hurl dust through any escape points they possibly can, as the falling floors are compressing the air volume held within them. In the case of the towers they were on fire, and the compressed air and fire shot upwards via the central core spaces (once the roofs were out of the way) which had been cleared by the kerosine/air explosion immediately after the impacts.
Not to worry . . . I won't ask any questions . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I'm making this clear right now George. I believe your purpose here is merely as a saboteur. You have nothing real to discuss at any time. Your agenda is merely to provide astroturf and wreck any forward progress on any topic you can. I really want to you to be banned. I've had enough of your ingenuousness.

Your above "reply with quote" clinched it for me. You are a deliberate violator. There's no accident to your behavior. Mick should kick you out.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
So it just LOOKS like a pyroclastic cloud?

Well, you said it yourself. It doesn't just look like a pyroclastic cloud; it looks like a pyroclastic cloud. Which is presumably why you posted the picture and words above.

It looks like a pyroclastic cloud in the same way that a lump of dog poo looks like a lump of dog poo. No discussion required - it looks like what it is...who could believe it? Ofcourse, someone might have planted a fake dog poo on the pavement just to throw you, or perhaps it might be another animal's poo - but would you pick up a piece of what looked, smelled and felt like dog poo under your foot so you could send it off to the lab for investigation? No, you look at it and say - that's dog poo....and you'll almost certainly be right....don't forget not to step in it


[SIZE=-1]
Photograph from Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report. [/SIZE]


Look like dog poo to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Up? Up where?

Regarding "strangely rounded pieces of larger 'stones' which look smooth" - what do you expect? That's what happens to RC when it breaks up. Have a look at this considerably less energetic example. Of course there's vastly more of it as the building is made of concrete, but the nature of the concrete here is not dissimilar to the WTC examples above. Not as much dust as it has been watered down.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daohaiku/6807608865/sizes/o/in/photostream/

Up? Up where?

And if I'd said it went down in a pyroclastic dust cloud, you'd have said, 'Down? Down where?'



Up there. And quite a few other places. The highest point of the pyro cloud was estimated (using the known heights of surrounding buildings) to be approx 700ft. It was moving at 35ft/s, which is pretty fast.


Re: concrete dust - we've been over this before, so I'm not getting into some rather banal Q&A over it. It's obvious that not every square inch of concrete was reduced to 60 microns, but it's equally obvious that a very large proportion of it was. Again, no special skills required - just watch videos and look at pictures.

This picture of yours doesn't do much for the discussion - it's a bit out of focus and it's a long shot. What it does show, though, is a two storey high rubble pile from a 5 (6 at most) storey building, part of which is still standing. Compare this to the pics you showed of the wtc site - bit of a proportion issue there.

what do you expect? That's what happens to RC when it breaks up

Look, we've been down the concrete road before. Please don't instruct me about the nature of concrete, especially as you have no experience with it. Shattered concrete is very sharp to handle, jagged, irregular; a large number of the larger pieces (which aren't very large, but only relative to the rest) in the wtc pics, look like they've been tumbled - and I don't mean tumbled in 15 seconds of collapse.
What do you think makes those pyroclastic flows so dense, so impermeable, so visible? Dust - and a large portion is concrete dust. Not too many people dispute that because it is so obvious.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
I don't think that there was any at all. The cores were steel alone. The dividers/partitions were wall boarding.


No there weren't. There was only the concrete in each floor slab. 34,000 tons per tower. The concrete used in the floors was a special lightweight concrete made by admixing pearlite. It has the consistency of tough biscuit and a low density.

Was that this concrete, or concrete in general? Oh, concrete in general...




I think it's you with the comprehension issues, judging by the replies. One last thing - now you've hung yourself with your continual 'I didn't say thats', when anyone caring to look back can see exactly what you said. I'll not waste any more time logging it, it's evident.

And here's some more concrete nonsense.


I don't think that there was any at all. The cores were steel alone. The dividers/partitions were wall boarding.

Yes, but what you think isn't right. That comment is regarding my conservative estimates of steel rc in the towers' cores; and that I have to make an estimate due to the non-availability of the engineer's drawings in respect of this. Weren't the stairwells in the core? What do you think they were made with? Wallboard? Steel? Biscuits? No - poured mass concrete w/steel to reinforce - otherwise known as steel reinforced concrete - it wouldn't be any other way, I assure you.

No there weren't. There was only the concrete in each floor slab. 34,000 tons per tower. The concrete used in the floors was a special lightweight concrete made by admixing pearlite. It has the consistency of tough biscuit and a low density.

This one is relating to the quantities of concrete in each tower. I have made the calculation a few posts back. It's a very simple calculation. It's also pretty accurate. The slabs contained approx 88,000 tonnes of concrete. You say it was 'a special lightweight concrete' - almost right - nothing 'special' about it, lightweight concrete would be the obvious choice in such a building - but the tag 'lightweight' doesn't make it what you think it is. It's just as well you're not a SE, if you can't grasp that basic calculation.


a special lightweight concrete made by admixing pearlite

You say? I presume you mean perlite? Actually, the aggregate used is called Haydite @ 3/4 inch - and yes it's a porous medium - that means it holds a lot of water due to its high surface/volume ratio. Concrete holds a fair bit of water, btw.


It has the consistency of tough biscuit and a low density.

Hmm. Now you mention it, did you ever see the tower go all floppy when it rained, like when you dunk a biscuit in your tea? Comments like this are why you can't be taken seriously. It's risible.


Was that this concrete, or concrete in general? Oh, concrete in general...

This is yet another comment which makes clear that you don't know much about the subject. There is no such thing as 'concrete in general'. All applications of concrete are designed for purpose, the wtc was no exception. The floor slabs in the towers were 3-3500psi compressive strength. Some biscuit that. Would you like another?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well, you said it yourself. It doesn't just look like a pyroclastic cloud; it looks like a pyroclastic cloud. Which is presumably why you posted the picture and words above.

It looks like a pyroclastic cloud in the same way that a lump of dog poo looks like a lump of dog poo. No discussion required - it looks like what it is...who could believe it? Ofcourse, someone might have planted a fake dog poo on the pavement just to throw you, or perhaps it might be another animal's poo - but would you pick up a piece of what looked, smelled and felt like dog poo under your foot so you could send it off to the lab for investigation? No, you look at it and say - that's dog poo....and you'll almost certainly be right....don't forget not to step in it


[SIZE=-1]
Photograph from Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report. [/SIZE]


Look like dog poo to me.

The WTC cloud looks like a cloud of dust.
Pyroclastic clouds look like a cloud of dust.
Therefore the WTC cloud looks like a pyroclastic cloud
However this does not mean the WTC cloud IS a pyroclastic cloud. It means it's a cloud of dust.

I used pyroclastic cloud in the context of volcanoes. You said it looked like an eruption, I disagreed, and said a pyroclastic cloud was a better analogy. This was an analogy, which is why I used the term analogy. That means it resembles something, bit it is not that thing.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What do you think makes those pyroclastic flows so dense, so impermeable, so visible? Dust - and a large portion is concrete dust. Not too many people dispute that because it is so obvious.

Yes, dust, entirely consistent with a collapsing building. What exactly would you expect? Look at Verinage collapses, there's a huge cloud of dust. This is exactly the same.

Have a look at the collapse of these tiny buildings. No explosives were used. Yet there's a "dense", "impermeable", "visible" cloud of dust, just from some tiny building.





Now scale that up by about 100x the mass. Vastly more energetic collapse, a huge volume of air is displaced. Vast amounts of material are crushed, plus there's a huge multi floor fire that has been raging for an hour. Compare the two:

 
Last edited:

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I'm making this clear right now George. I believe your purpose here is merely as a saboteur. You have nothing real to discuss at any time. Your agenda is merely to provide astroturf and wreck any forward progress on any topic you can. I really want to you to be banned. I've had enough of your ingenuousness.

Your above "reply with quote" clinched it for me. You are a deliberate violator. There's no accident to your behavior. Mick should kick you out.
I have had my say on the subject . . . I can add no further contribution . . . if that is a crime Mick can take whatever action he sees fit . . . most of the time I have no idea what your point is or what you are trying to convey. . . I just gave up . . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Yes, dust, entirely consistent with a collapsing building. What exactly would you expect? Look at Verinage collapses, there's a huge cloud of dust. This is exactly the same.

Have a look at the collapse of these tiny buildings. No explosives were used. Yet there's a "dense", "impermeable", "visible" cloud of dust, just from some tiny building.





Now scale that up by about 100x the mass. Vastly more energetic collapse, a huge volume of air is displaced. Vast amounts of material are crushed, plus there's a huge multi floor fire that has been raging for an hour. Compare the two:

Yet, Mick there is a difference . . . the buildings you are referring to are not steel reinforced structures and were weakened strategically to allow such collapse . . .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
The WTC cloud looks like a cloud of dust.
Pyroclastic clouds look like a cloud of dust.
Therefore the WTC cloud looks like a pyroclastic cloud
However this does not mean the WTC cloud IS a pyroclastic cloud. It means it's a cloud of dust.

I used pyroclastic cloud in the context of volcanoes. You said it looked like an eruption, I disagreed, and said a pyroclastic cloud was a better analogy. This was an analogy, which is why I used the term analogy. That means it resembles something, bit it is not that thing.


Look, I'm not going in for any more semantic arguments, definitely not over what might be an analogy or not. Neither am I going to go round in circles again over great big pictures and pronouncements about Verinage controlled demolitions of vastly inferior grade construction to the wtc complex. It's a no-brainer, but you keep trotting it out.

I used pyroclastic cloud in the context of volcanoes

You used it to describe the flow of gas and matter issuing from the collapse of the towers.

My point was pretty clear - and it's this: much much more often than not, things look like what they are, not the other way round. You appear to like it the other way round. When I look out my window and see what looks like the largest tree growing on the British mainland, the ash, and lo-and-behold it is indeed Fraxinus excelsior. The dog poo I skipped over in the street earlier today, looked like dog poo - because that's what it was. The glass in my window looks like glass because it is glass....the bricks in that wall look like bricks because....
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
So? How would that create a different type of dust cloud?
The point is different methods of collapse will have similar visual effects . . . it requires a thorough, transparent, exhaustive, complete investigation to support an acceptable conclusion that is to be believed and is commensurate with the magnitude and importance of the event . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Well then, can you explain what a pyroclastic flow is, and why the WTC dust cloud was a pyroclastic flow, and why it's actually relevant? You think it's this:

A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current[1]) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph).[2] The gas can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F). Pyroclastic flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope. They are a common and devastating result of certain explosive volcanic eruptions.
Content from External Source
Can you explain why the dust cloud would be different if the WTC simply collapsed due to the impact and fire?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The point is different methods of collapse will have similar visual effects . . . it requires a thorough, transparent, exhaustive, complete investigation to support an acceptable conclusion that is to be believed and is commensurate with the magnitude and importance of the event . . .

But lee here seems to be claiming that different methods of collapse would have DIFFERENT visual effects, that this dust cloud is evidence of controlled demolition, and not progressive collapse initiated by the collision and subsequent fire*.

(* lee did not actually say that, that's just what I think he's hinting at, I invite him to clarify).
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
But lee here seems to be claiming that different methods of collapse would have DIFFERENT visual effects, that this dust cloud is evidence of controlled demolition, and not progressive collapse initiated by the collision and subsequent fire*.

(* lee did not actually say that, that's just what I think he's hinting at, I invite him to clarify).
If I am not mistaken, he is suggesting the particulate size and rounded debris found in the piles are more indicative of an explosive collapse than a mechanical one . . . I am not sure he is saying the cloud alone can distinguish one from the other . . .
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Zut alors!


But lee here seems to be claiming that different methods of collapse would have DIFFERENT visual effects, that this dust cloud is evidence of controlled demolition, and not progressive collapse initiated by the collision and subsequent fire*.

(* lee did not actually say that, that's just what I think he's hinting at, I invite him to clarify).

No, I'm not hinting at that at all. The problem is - as said many times previous - that Verinage is controlled destruction by mechanical means (and on cheaply constructed buildings with no comparison to the wtc), yet you claim the towers as an accident caused by a failure in one floor - just like Verinage, you say - which then initiates an inevitable 'progressive collapse'. 1) Verinage would not be considered as a viable way of bringing down those buildings and 2) The very idea that you keep saying a single floor failure leads to inevitable progressive collapse is so basically incorrect that I'm surprised I might have to spell it out - I have told you before that this idea is fundamentally wrong, that it's a basic distinction, I said it in another thread....


I agree with George, wholeheartedly, every word:

... it requires a thorough, transparent, exhaustive, complete investigation to support an acceptable conclusion that is to be believed and is commensurate with the magnitude and importance of the event . . .

That's the bottom line.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
2) The very idea that you keep saying a single floor failure leads to inevitable progressive collapse is so basically incorrect that I'm surprised I might have to spell it out - I have told you before that this idea is fundamentally wrong, that it's a basic distinction, I said it in another thread....

Yet you did not convincingly explain WHY it was wrong.

And if you are saying it's wrong then you MUST be saying that it was controlled demolition, no?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
But lee here seems to be claiming that different methods of collapse would have DIFFERENT visual effects, that this dust cloud is evidence of controlled demolition, and not progressive collapse initiated by the collision and subsequent fire*.

(* lee did not actually say that, that's just what I think he's hinting at, I invite him to clarify).

I think it important to clarify that all these 'theories' are exactly that, 'simply theories'.

The other key issue, IMO, is that we seem to fall into two camps... the pro OS camp, (being one set of theories) and the pro CT's, being another set.

The origins of the OS are apparently rooted in either i) factually set out the course of events which transpired and finding a logical theory to account for any anomalies, or ii) setting a scene which mitigates the Bush administration and intelligence agencies from blame, (either of active participation or by omission in prevention) whilst firmly affixing the blame to a small group of 'international' terrorists' (which were previously lauded and funded by the CIA as 'international', (drawn from a number of nations), 'freedom fighters) or iii) a mixture of the two alternatives.

Incidentally, OBL was charged by the CIA with the mission of creating a 'database' of small independent groups and members of each group so that the CIA knew who and where they were, for funding, supply and utilisation purposes. This OBL did and passed on to the CIA. It was known in Arabic as Al Quaeda or some variant, simply meaning 'database'.

The origins of the CT's are rooted in the inconsistencies of the OS as reported and in the apparent 'conveniences' that the attack provided the Bush administration with. These are unquestionably legion and of staggering import.

The question I would like to ask you Mick is, what would it take to convince you, (short of Bush, Cheyne, Rumsfeld etc making a public admission), that the Bush admin were either involved or simply deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The question I would like to ask you Mick is, what would it take to convince you, (short of Bush, Cheyne, Rumsfeld etc making a public admission), that the Bush admin were either involved or simply deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen?

Some evidence.

and I disagree that the inconsistencies are "legion and of staggering import". As far as I know, everything suggested has a reasonable explanation.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
I presume you mean perlite? Actually, the aggregate used is called Haydite @ 3/4 inch - and yes it's a porous medium - that means it holds a lot of water due to its high surface/volume ratio. Concrete holds a fair bit of water, btw.
You don't say. The perlite concrete would hold water of crystallization. All concrete is porous until its surface is sealed with a sealant. The floor perlite concrete would be bone dry in spite of its water of crystallization. The perlite concrete I've made in the past was light enough to float in water. It had a good compressive strength even so.

Hmm. Now you mention it, did you ever see the tower go all floppy when it rained, like when you dunk a biscuit in your tea? Comments like this are why you can't be taken seriously. It's risible.
And how heavy were those towers? What was the weight of structural steel in them? How much potential energy did they possess?

This is yet another comment which makes clear that you don't know much about the subject.
Would that be, say, potential energy? Can you define it? Where did that potential energy go?

It looks like a pyroclastic cloud in the same way that a lump of dog poo looks like a lump of dog poo. No discussion required - it looks like what it is
Mick said:
The WTC cloud looks like a cloud of dust.
Pyroclastic clouds look like a cloud of dust.
Therefore the WTC cloud looks like a pyroclastic cloud
However this does not mean the WTC cloud IS a pyroclastic cloud.
It means it's a cloud of dust.
LOL. "Truthers" disagree in their flat world where the Sun is the same size as the Moon, and both travel over the Earth.

Lord Kelvin said:
“When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
If I am not mistaken, he is suggesting the particulate size and rounded debris found in the piles are more indicative of an explosive collapse than a mechanical one . . . I am not sure he is saying the cloud alone can distinguish one from the other . . .

Hello George

Hope you're well. Fl road sounds good....nice and warm.

Yes, absolutely the particle size. Please check my maths and tell me if I've made any errors. On the 60 micron issue, that was taken as a mean dust size. I'm not claiming (as I said above) that every square inch of concrete was pulverized to 60 microns, but there has to be some parameters for the sum, and those were the parameters I chose. It's up to any individual to try and estimate how much of that circa 90,000 t of steel rc was indeed turned to 60 microns - and also to bear in mind that in the aggregate 60 micron dust (which is pretty bloody small) as well as concrete were also computer components, plasterboard, asbestos, glass fibres, insulated electrical cabling, carpet etc. Plus - if the concrete were pulverized to 10 microns - as other sources quote, then that is a lot more energy than the 135,000kwh in my calculation. In that way, I think it's a fair sum.

Re: rounded debris (with the appearance of tumbled concrete): to be honest, George, I don't know what to make of it. It's something I noticed in pictures a while ago, but I don't have any explanation for it. The 'boulders' we're talking about, to me look like they've been smoothed by a long close relationship with the ocean, or tumbled like glass is tumbled to smooth it, similar processes - what do you see?

Re: dust cloud - I think there's a few interesting features of this. 1) the lack of mixing with the surrounding air (it has a very distinct 'front') unlike the Verinage examples which are quickly lined up with the wind direction - when the wtc clouds pushed back at 35f/s in all directions (up to 700 ft high - one eighth of a mile) carrying thousands of tons of particulates made of what was once the building and its contents. Scale is an issue, ofcourse, but hard to tell how much of one. Also worth considering that a great deal of the super fine particles created by the collapse would never even hit the ground. It's probably fair to say that by now there's bits of the wtc towers spread all around the world in the form of microscopic particles suspended in some part of the atmosphere, and circulating, airborne, ever since, and forever more - some of them. Those particles can never even be estimated - it's impossible to make an estimate with any confidence, but the smaller the particle, the more energy it took to get it that small.

Cheers
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Yet you did not convincingly explain WHY it was wrong. And if you are saying it's wrong then you MUST be saying that it was controlled demolition, no?


Because there's a basic distinction between a floor and a load bearing structural member known as a column. It's fundamental. One floor failing does not automatically collapse a building. That's where you got it wrong with your repeated reliance on the turn of phrase (as it's become), 'once one floor fails then progressive collapse is inevitable'. That's codswallop, to anyone who knows.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Some evidence.

and I disagree that the inconsistencies are "legion and of staggering import". As far as I know, everything suggested has a reasonable explanation.

Come on Mick, you can do much better than that. This the type of response I would expect from Jazzy. Are you seriously denying that powerful evidence has been presented?

What I am asking is what specific evidence or type of evidence would be needed for you to change your stance?

Also, would you please refrain from misquoting me. I said:
"the apparent 'conveniences' that the attack provided the Bush administration with. These are unquestionably legion and of staggering import."
. Having said that, the inconsistencies are also legion and of staggering import but that is not what I said or the issue I broached.

At the risk of being accused of gish galloping, the conveniences that the attack provided were, and I list only a few:

It permanently diverted attention from the missing 2.3 trillions (minimum), in defence funds.

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

It allowed for PNAC policies to be implemented virtually instantaneously

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

http://pnac.info/

The ramifications of the above are undoubtedly legion and affect virtually everyone on the planet. Do you still dispute these are legion and of staggering import.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Come on Mick, you can do much better than that. This the type of response I would expect from Jazzy. Are you seriously denying that powerful evidence has been presented?

What I am asking is what specific evidence or type of evidence would be needed for you to change your stance?

Also, would you please refrain from misquoting me. I said: . Having said that, the inconsistencies are also legion and of staggering import but that is not what I said or the issue I broached.

At the risk of being accused of gish galloping, the conveniences that the attack provided were, and I list only a few:

It permanently diverted attention from the missing 2.3 trillions (minimum), in defence funds.

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

It allowed for PNAC policies to be implemented virtually instantaneously

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1665.htm

http://pnac.info/

The ramifications of the above are undoubtedly legion and affect virtually everyone on the planet. Do you still dispute these are legion and of staggering import.

You should read that link you posted about the $2.3 trillion, as it explains it.

Which is a good example of what I'm talking about. You keep bringing things up, they are all explained, or at the very most they are circumstantial. You think theres this vast amount of evidence, but there is not, there's a vast amount of bunk. I've gone over it piece by piece, and it's just about all bunk, like the $2.3 trillion.

Yet you think the fact that you have a lot of bunk is somehow a good argument. "So many questions" people say, neglecting to note that all those questions have answers.

And regarding the PNAC, I don't think anyone denies that people took advantage of the situation. That's entirely different from actually causing that situation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Because there's a basic distinction between a floor and a load baring structural member known as a column. It's fundamental. One floor failing does not automatically collapse a building. That's where you got it wrong with your repeated reliance on the turn of phrase (as it's become), 'once one floor fails then progressive collapse is inevitable'. That's codswallop, to anyone who knows.

Well, I'm with Lord Kelvin on this one.

And with these guys:
View attachment Mechanics of Progressive Collapse- Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.pdf
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Hello George

Hope you're well. Fl road sounds good....nice and warm.

Yes, absolutely the particle size. Please check my maths and tell me if I've made any errors. On the 60 micron issue, that was taken as a mean dust size. I'm not claiming (as I said above) that every square inch of concrete was pulverized to 60 microns, but there has to be some parameters for the sum, and those were the parameters I chose. It's up to any individual to try and estimate how much of that circa 90,000 t of steel rc was indeed turned to 60 microns - and also to bear in mind that in the aggregate 60 micron dust (which is pretty bloody small) as well as concrete were also computer components, plasterboard, asbestos, glass fibres, insulated electrical cabling, carpet etc. Plus - if the concrete were pulverized to 10 microns - as other sources quote, then that is a lot more energy than the 135,000kwh in my calculation. In that way, I think it's a fair sum.

Re: rounded debris (with the appearance of tumbled concrete): to be honest, George, I don't know what to make of it. It's something I noticed in pictures a while ago, but I don't have any explanation for it. The 'boulders' we're talking about, to me look like they've been smoothed by a long close relationship with the ocean, or tumbled like glass i=s tumbled to smooth it, similar processes - what do you see?

Re: dust cloud - I think there's a few interesting features of this. 1) the lack of mixing with the surrounding air (it has a very distinct 'front') unlike the Verinage examples which are quickly lined up with the wind direction - when the wtc clouds pushed back at 35f/s in all directions (up to 700 ft high - one eighth of a mile) carrying thousands of tons of particulates made of what was once the building and its contents. Scale is an issue, ofcourse, but hard to tell how much of one. Aslo worth considering that a great deal of the super fine particles created by the collapse would never even hit the ground. It's probably fair to say that by now there's bits of the wtc towers spread all around the world in the form of microscopic particles suspended in some part of the atmosphere, and circulating, airborne, eve since, and forever more - some of them. Those particles can never even be estimated - it's impossible to make an estimate with any confidence, but the smaller the particle, the more energy it took to get it that small.

Cheers

Lee, Good Day!! to you as well . . . to be honest . . . I rely on the "experts" to do the math . . . I eyeball it and see if it makes sense to me . . . seems we should be able to find the data we need from past demolitions of standing structures . . . it was no doubt a progressive collapse or at least appeared to be . . . seems NIST, National Geographic, Mechanics Illustrated or some interested group could measure the particulate sizes and shapes, temperatures (from the released kinetic energy contained in the debris), etc. of a future explosive demolition vs a mechanical demolition . . . and compare it to TWC Twin Towers and #7 . . . that is, experiment to see if they could duplicate the hotspots . . . theory is one thing . . . a demonstration is quite a different story . . .

I have also suggested that aircraft be given the chance to duplicate the ramming of the buildings using light or laser beams near ground level in the desert . . . seems cheap and relatively easy to do . . . why not and put an end to all this speculation . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have also suggested that aircraft be given the chance to duplicate the ramming of the buildings using light or laser beams near ground level in the desert . . . seems cheap and relatively easy to do . . . why not and put an end to all this speculation . . .

Do you think it would end the speculation?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Do you think it would end the speculation?

If it were done with the complete transparency and thoroughness that it deserves . . . yes, I think it would go a long way to heal the wounds . . .
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Re: dust cloud - I think there's a few interesting features of this. 1) the lack of mixing with the surrounding air (it has a very distinct 'front') unlike the Verinage examples which are quickly lined up with the wind direction - when the wtc clouds pushed back at 35f/s in all directions (up to 700 ft high - one eighth of a mile) carrying thousands of tons of particulates made of what was once the building and its contents. Scale is an issue, of course, but hard to tell how much of one.

Scale is, I think, the biggest issue in the problems people have in comprehending what is going on during the WTC collapse. It's such an unprecedentedly large building collapse that it's totally unlike anything anyone has ever seen before, and so they try to shoehorn it into their experience with smaller objects.

But regarding the dust cloud, here's a much smaller one, but bigger than the verniage:



Yes, I know it used explosives, but it's still illustrative of a dust cloud (and how loud actual controlled demolition is)

And speaking of misconceptions of scale, here's the most incredible example from a leader in the 9/11 truth movement.



and one from a trooper:
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Me said:
All concrete is porous until its surface is sealed with a sealant.
All concrete is waterproof, actually. No need for sealant. Q> what is the Hoover Dam made from?
Q: Is concrete impervious to moisture and water?

No. Concrete can be made relatively impervious to both liquid and vapor water, but without these special preparations, both liquid and vapor water may move slowly through concrete. A common view is that a normal dried concrete slab-on-grade may pass in the range of 2 – 3 pounds of water per day per 1000 sq. ft. of floor. Experience has shown that indoor problems can be expected when the concrete water vapor transfer rate is in the double digit range
Content from External Source
http://www.experts123.com/q/is-concrete-impervious-to-moisture-and-water.html

I'll not be entertaining any more from you.
I bet.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
All concrete is waterproof, actually. No need for sealant. Q> what is the Hoover Dam made from?

Not all concrete is waterproof but it is a simple process to make it waterproof by adding a small amount of additives in the mix. Therefore it is not usually necessary to use a sealant after laying it. Likely the interior floors were without these additives as they would be protected as they are interior. NB Rocks and bricks also contain water... even Martian rocks found in the Sahara.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You should read that link you posted about the $2.3 trillion, as it explains it.

Which is a good example of what I'm talking about. You keep bringing things up, they are all explained, or at the very most they are circumstantial. You think theres this vast amount of evidence, but there is not, there's a vast amount of bunk. I've gone over it piece by piece, and it's just about all bunk, like the $2.3 trillion.

Yet you think the fact that you have a lot of bunk is somehow a good argument. "So many questions" people say, neglecting to note that all those questions have answers.

And regarding the PNAC, I don't think anyone denies that people took advantage of the situation. That's entirely different from actually causing that situation.

Yes the link does offer some reasonable explanations and a different take on the 'missing 2.3 Trillion' but it does not completely remove it but it is a bit off topic so I don't want to go into it other than as an example of the type of issues surrounding 9/11 and many of these issues as you well know are far from debunked.

What I was really interested in was what specific evidence or type of evidence would be needed for you to change your stance?

You have made clearthe type of evidence that you regard as 'circumstantial, coincidental or irrelevant', but what would you regard as relevant and substantive proof that 9/11 was an inside job?
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Scale is, I think, the biggest issue in the problems people have in comprehending what is going on during the WTC collapse. It's such an unprecedentedly large building collapse that it's totally unlike anything anyone has ever seen before, and so they try to shoehorn it into their experience with smaller objects.

But regarding the dust cloud, here's a much smaller one, but bigger than the verniage:



Yes, I know it used explosives, but it's still illustrative of a dust cloud (and how loud actual controlled demolition is)

And speaking of misconceptions of scale, here's the most incredible example from a leader in the 9/11 truth movement.

and one from a trooper:eo]
Scale is important, I agree . . . so an extreme case requires a large scale demonstration to investigate properly . . . computer models don't cut it IMO . . .
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Hello George. Please check my maths
In the light of what George has said, that's pretty funny. LOL. What maths?

if circa 90,000 t of steel rc was indeed turned to 60 microns - and also to bear in mind that in the aggregate 60 micron dust (which is pretty bloody small) as well as concrete were also computer components, plasterboard, asbestos, glass fibres, insulated electrical cabling, carpet etc. Plus - if the concrete were pulverized to 10 microns - as other sources quote, then that is a lot more energy than the 135,000kwh in my calculation. In that way, I think it's a fair sum.
If. Of course.

Re: rounded debris (with the appearance of tumbled concrete): to be honest, George, I don't know what to make of it.
Drink the bottle. Stare through its base. Should give you a clearer picture...

the lack of mixing with the surrounding air (it has a very distinct 'front') unlike the Verinage examples which are quickly lined up with the wind direction
In both cases they were building fires, but the verinage was not. Do you think that hot air rising faster than cool air may have something to do with it?

thousands of tons of particulates made of what was once the building and its contents.
How much of the building's contents is actually found in the dust?

It's probably fair to say that by now there's bits of the wtc towers spread all around the world in the form of microscopic particles suspended in some part of the atmosphere, and circulating, airborne, ever since, and forever more.
No it isn't. Particulates attract water molecules and would have completely washed out within weeks.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
You have made clearthe type of evidence that you regard as 'circumstantial, coincidental or irrelevant', but what would you regard as relevant and substantive proof that 9/11 was an inside job?

Photos of the explosives in-situe. Multiple consistent whistleblower testimony. Documentary evidence.

But I think it's more relevant to ask what would make me suspicious that 9/11 was an inside job. It's a much lower standard, and something that you'd need to have as a first step before moving on to convincing.

I would suspect it was an inside job if there was physical evidence of a controlled demolition. Stuff like loud bangs, or times and det cord wrappers found in the debris.

I would suspect an inside job if there was ANYTHING that was inconsistent with the official story. Anything that could not be explained by the events of the day. Basically the kind of things that the truthers claim are all things that would be good evidence to provide suspicion - except they are invariably wrong. Freefall, microspheres, dustification, energetic material, all wrong. But that type of thing would be relevant.
 

Jazzy

Closed Account
Photos of the explosives in-situ. Multiple consistent whistleblower testimony. Documentary evidence.

But I think it's more relevant to ask what would make me suspicious that 9/11 was an inside job. It's a much lower standard, and something that you'd need to have as a first step before moving on to convincing.

I would suspect it was an inside job if there was physical evidence of a controlled demolition. Stuff like loud bangs, or timers and det cord wrappers found in the debris.

I would suspect an inside job if there was ANYTHING that was inconsistent with the official story. Anything that could not be explained by the events of the day. Basically the kind of things that the truthers claim are all things that would be good evidence to provide suspicion
Spot on.

- except they are invariably wrong. Freefall, microspheres, dustification, energetic material, all wrong. But that type of thing would be relevant.
I second that. I'll add failures of thinking, logic and science to the above list.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top