ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 23rd September 2007, 06:43 AM   #241
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Max Photon takes a sideswipe at WildCat (with that feather play-thingy).

Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Ah, so now 175 sideswiped WTC 2? So it was real-time CGI effects that only made it appear that the entire plane from wingtip to wingtip struck the tower? Perhaps you and Ace Baker could producer a paper on this!

WildCan't,

I believe the point is that even though Flight 175 struck the tower wingtip to wingtip, 175 struck the tower off-center, thereby exciting torsional harmonics.

These harmonics absorbed energy.

These harmonics ought to be accounted for.

Stay tuned!

Max

---
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 06:47 AM   #242
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Its a shame when real science gets in the way of resent and bitterness induced fantasy, isn't it people?

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 07:03 AM   #243
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Max Photon says WTC2's phreato-thermatic explosion was used to knock off SFRM

---


Apollo20 and others,


Just a reminder...

As you discuss the SFRM, the floor trusses, and the visco-elastic dampers, remember that I put forth the notion that demolition planners engineered a phreato-thermatic explosion when Flight 175 struck WTC2.


First, let me clarify a point.

I had first said all of the aluminum from 175 was consumed in the phreato-thermatic explosion.

Allow me to loosen that constraint a bit, so that a significant portion of the aluminum - that portion that was sufficiently fine to burn - was involved in the phreato-thermatic explosion.


Anyway, that said, the phreato-thermatic explosion was a multi-valued function - it served multiple purposes.

One key function of the phreato-thermatic explosion - a function highly relevant to this discussion - was to provide energy to dislodge SFRM from the floor assemblies, including the dampers.


So as you ponder energy deficits or surpluses, keep that extra energy source in mind.


Cheers!

Max


P.S. TAM, too bad you don't have any Kool Max Vax.

---

Last edited by Max Photon; 23rd September 2007 at 07:09 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 07:03 AM   #244
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
Maxwell:

I am glad to see that someone understands my use of the term "sideswipe"... How else would you excite torsional vibrations in WTC 2?

Oh and TAM, did you know:

A closed mind put's someone (metaphorically at least)

in THE COUNTRY OF THE BLIND....

And, by the way, this is a GREAT short story by H. G. Wells that is very apropos vis-avis the JREF NISTIANS who self-identify every time they post here!

Mod WarningThis is the last warning to concentrate on the argument, and not those who argue against you. If you cannot discuss the matter without baiting and insulting others, further mod action will follow.
Posted By:chillzero

Last edited by chillzero; 23rd September 2007 at 07:08 AM.
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 08:11 AM   #245
Totovader
Game Warden
 
Totovader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,321
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
---


Apollo20 and others,


Just a reminder...

As you discuss the SFRM, the floor trusses, and the visco-elastic dampers, remember that I put forth the notion that demolition planners engineered a phreato-thermatic explosion when Flight 175 struck WTC2.


First, let me clarify a point.

I had first said all of the aluminum from 175 was consumed in the phreato-thermatic explosion.

Allow me to loosen that constraint a bit, so that a significant portion of the aluminum - that portion that was sufficiently fine to burn - was involved in the phreato-thermatic explosion.


Anyway, that said, the phreato-thermatic explosion was a multi-valued function - it served multiple purposes.

One key function of the phreato-thermatic explosion - a function highly relevant to this discussion - was to provide energy to dislodge SFRM from the floor assemblies, including the dampers.


So as you ponder energy deficits or surpluses, keep that extra energy source in mind.


Cheers!

Max


P.S. TAM, too bad you don't have any Kool Max Vax.

---
Apollo20- any thoughts on this? Earlier you said that Max was indeed correct when he was making statements similar to this, and it's a bit confusing on what you're actually agreeing with. Would you be so kind as to clarify...
__________________
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into." --Jonathan Swift
Blog - Corrected By Reality. My debunking videos, and philosophy on YouTube


Totovader's 9/11 Conspiracy Challenge Still unanswered!
Totovader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 08:17 AM   #246
Civilized Worm
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,718
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
That it's ridiculous to assume that the shredded remains of a jumbo jet traveling 400 mph accompanied by the explosion of thousands of gallons of jet fuel could possibly dislodge 3/4" of spray-on fireproofing, therefore the cause must have been something else. That "something else" is apparently a critical problem with embrittlement of steel that has not been shown to be a problem on other steel-frame buildings in over 100 years of high-rise construction, and is being ignored by those blind-to-the-obvious stuffed shirts at NIST and their mindless followers.

Ah, thanks. And when can we expect his paper outlining this theory?
Civilized Worm is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 08:21 AM   #247
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Pardon me Good Sir, but do you have a light?

---

Apollo20,


This is a great thread, and you are bringing all kinds of goodies to light.


ChillZero - actually a very warm person - is here help.

She is saying this thread must have a high signal-to-noise ratio, or else.

In other words, she has quieted down the room, and warned EVERYONE that disruptions will not be tolerated.

This means, good doctor, that the microphone is on, and yours.


Why waste time with silly (but fun) child-like resistance?

Perhaps it is time, Apollo20, to stop holding back, and simply incinerate them.


(I brought dark goggles.)


Max Always-Prepared-for-Fireworks Photon

---
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 09:07 AM   #248
T.A.M.
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 20,795
Max:

If I had any "Kool-Max-Vax" I would not use it. You are harmless, and while an little insulting at times, for the most part you are good natured.

Apollo20:
I do not consider myself a NISTIAN, nor close-minded. I do consider baseless and factless accusation to be rubbish, and those who encourage it to be promoting lies and slander. I also consider the NIST report, from what I have read (NISTNCSTAR 1, and ALL of the exec summaries) to be the best available, AND the most thorough, by a LONG SHOT.

I also find those who will claim respect and appreciation for the report (and those who sweated for it) on one hand, while berating it, belittling it, and mocking it on the other to be quite...two faced.

TAM
T.A.M. is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 09:12 AM   #249
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
Well, so far not too many nibbles from the NISTIANs on my list of problems with the NIST Report. So here is the list again with a few edits and additions:

1. NIST bases its collapse theory on the loss of thermal insulation while admitting that the state of thermal insulation inside the towers is unknown.
2. NIST about the presence of molten metal in the towers.
3. NIST offers no explanation for the sulfiding of steel and fail to mention the occurrence of widespread chlorination of recovered samples.
4. NIST do not consider the possible contribution of corrosion, erosion, wastage and/or embrittlement to the failure of bolts and welds in the truss assemblies.
5. NIST offer contradictory versions of the pre-collapse tipping of the upper sections of the towers and estimate tilt angles that exceed tilts predicted for quoted downward displacements.
6. NIST do not consider the energy dissipated by the aircraft impact-induced torsional vibrations of WTC 2.
7. NIST do not consider the thermal degradation of the visco-elastic damper polymer or even discuss if SFRM was applied to the dampers.
8. NIST's ASTM E-119 tests were carried out on floor truss assemblies made from a different steel welded by a different technique to that used in the towers.
9. NIST carried out no analyses or mechanical tests on any recovered concrete.
10. NIST says it found no evidence for the use of explosives in the destruction of the towers when it knows full well that no analyses for explosive residues were carried out.
11. NIST assumes in one section of its Report that 2/3rds of the KE of the aircraft was converted into motion of WTC 2, but elsewhere assumes, as per T. Wierzbicki, that ALL the impact KE was dissipated by plastic deformation and fracture of the aircraft and the WTC structural steel and concrete.
12. NIST ignore the contribution of the shredded aluminum from the impacting aircraft on the evolution of the fireballs and the development of the fires and did not include aircraft debris in its fire simulations.
Some of those don't make any sense. Maybe one or two people who claimed to see molten metal but the problem being we are quite susceptible to pulling stuff out of think air in extremely life threating situations. Number ten isn't even a point because a good scientist would be able to discount the use of explosives without testing for explosives.
Quote:
These harmonics absorbed energy.

These harmonics ought to be accounted for.

Stay tuned!
No. If a force is large enough a material will just deform and not act like a spring. In that case you don't have to account for anything.
Quote:
Perhaps it is time, Apollo20, to stop holding back, and simply incinerate them.


(I brought dark goggles.)


Max Always-Prepared-for-Fireworks Photon
What fireworks? If his theories really had any bearing he'd have them published in a peer reviewed journal.

Last edited by technoextreme; 23rd September 2007 at 09:27 AM.
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 09:37 AM   #250
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Max Photon's recommendations on how to read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C quickly and productively

---

Serious readers of this thread...

allow me to make a practical recommendation:


A solid understanding of "the story" told in the NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C WTC2 time-line is essential to fully appreciating - and meaningfully participating in - this thread.


Here is a good way to read, or re-read, the report:


Download the report to your hard drive.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_9-AppxC.pdf


Print out the WTC2 time-line pages (there are only about 100 if I remember correctly).


I recommend printing and stapling together 25 pages at a time, just to make handling easier.


The report discuss about 85 photos of WTC2, taken between impact and collapse initiation.

To "read the report", read the paper copy, while having the photo being discussed up on your screen.

Since the report basically is a sequence of photos, plus text describing each photo, it is very helpful, as you read, to draw a line horizontally across the paper copy to separate each photo/text segment.

Also consider writing in the left margin of each segment - in large letters - Fig XX, for fast reference.


The report tells a story. Follow the story.

(It's actually incredibly exciting. And bizarre - very bizarre.)


I think you'll find these recommendations will make your experience fast, fun, thrilling, and productive.


Cheers!

Max


P.S. Thanks for the kind words TAM
---

Last edited by Max Photon; 23rd September 2007 at 09:39 AM.
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 09:40 AM   #251
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Serious readers of this thread...

allow me to make a practical recommendation:


A solid understanding of "the story" told in the NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C WTC2 time-line is essential to fully appreciating - and meaningfully participating in - this thread.
No. A solid understanding of the field of civil engineering is essential to even understanding the paper. Im not going to delude myself into thinking that Im going to understand that paper.

Last edited by technoextreme; 23rd September 2007 at 09:43 AM.
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 10:03 AM   #252
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Max Photon says: Go ahead. Delude yourself. Read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
No. A solid understanding of the field of civil engineering is essential to even understanding the paper.

Wrong.

NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C is simply a visual account of phenomena observed on WTC2's facade.

If you can bird(brain) watch, you can read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C

Why, some astute spotters claim to have seen even the Gravy-Billed Sucker Plucker hunting and pecking at it.


Quote:
Im not going to delude myself into thinking that Im going to understand that paper.

(or apostrophes)


Ah, the power of positive thinking.

Well at least you are honest.



Is it just me, or are there brilliant minds in these parts?


Max

---
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 10:27 AM   #253
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
 
chillzero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 15,558
Mod WarningDue to the number of reports generated by this thread, it is now being moderated.
Posted By:chillzero
chillzero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 11:40 AM   #254
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Max Photon cranks up, "Break on through to the other side. Break on through..."

---

Apollo20 my dear chap,


Phase transformation completed.


Now, would you be gracious enough to do a quick summary of this thread thus far, and some hints as to where you'd like to go?

This reader is very interested.


With maximum respect,

Max

---
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 11:50 AM   #255
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,722
Apollo or Max;
I really would like to know how fire proofing of the dampers would come in to play. All the load bearing members being protected would seem to be the critical parts. Surely your not saying that the dampers could have arrested the collapse.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 12:15 PM   #256
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Wrong.

NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C is simply a visual account of phenomena observed on WTC2's facade.

If you can bird(brain) watch, you can read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C

Why, some astute spotters claim to have seen even the Gravy-Billed Sucker Plucker hunting and pecking at it.
No it's not simply a visual account. It didn't even take me five minutes to realize this fact.
Quote:
Ah, the power of positive thinking.

Well at least you are honest.
But your not.
Quote:
(It's actually incredibly exciting. And bizarre - very bizarre.)
What's your definition of bizarre though.
Quote:
Ah, the power of positive thinking.

Well at least you are honest.
Actually Im smart enough to know your making stuff up. Lord knows I would like to know what ground water had to do with 9/11.

Last edited by technoextreme; 23rd September 2007 at 01:59 PM.
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 12:54 PM   #257
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Inretrospect the whole building should have been covered in fireproofing, top to bottom. It wasn't, therefore this was a design flaw? I'm not following the logic progression here on the dampeners. You can't just spray fireproofing willy nilly on stuff, especially equipement designed to work in a dynamic state. Seems to me like covering a safety device, thereby restricting its movement would impair it. Plus who knows what kind of chemical interaction would happen? If the foam retained moisture, would the resulting corrosion and pitting on the actuator rod lead to failure?
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 01:06 PM   #258
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Max Photon tells the story of WTC2

Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Apollo or Max;
I really would like to know how fire proofing of the dampers would come in to play. All the load bearing members being protected would seem to be the critical parts. Surely your not saying that the dampers could have arrested the collapse.

What-o DGM?


Here is what I see:


WTC2 Floor 81 had a UPS room.

The "UPS batteries" had iron instead of lead, and salt-water instead of acid. The "UPS batteries" were in fact rust generators.

When Flight 175 hit the tower, the front landing gear penetrated the rust generators, throwing up a screen of iron oxide and water into the oncoming shattered aluminum.

(The absorption of the jet's energy by the rust generators might account for the "catcher's mitt" effect Apollo20 commented on earlier.)

Naturally-occurring, small thermite sparks ignited a thermite reaction in the presence of water, creating a phreato-thermatic explosion (which in turn helped to drive a fuel-air explosion.)

This engineered phreato-thermatic explosion provided added energy to knock off SFRM from many different types of steel members and components.


Incidentally, the phreato-thermatic explosion also helped to create a spectacular visual input signal, that would be fed into the media, to excite resonance in such harmonics as blind hatred, racism, irrational jingoism, flag-wrapping, belligerence, and so forth. These necessary illusions were required to manufacture consent to illegally invade other sovereign nations, and install a police state here in the SubprimeHomeLand.

The phreato-thermatic explosion also created some pools of molten iron on the impact floors, which pooled at low spots, heated the trusses through the concrete, which caused the floors to sag even more, encouraging more pooling, thereby creating a dynamic floor-loading mechanism.


The rust generators created a "debris shadow" - the Cold Spot.

It was planned that debris on either side of the Cold Spot would collect at under column splices - which were engineered to become hot spots.


Thermite had been planted at perimeter connections: column splices, spandrel splices, floor truss seats, and gusset seats.

The thermite was simply poured into box columns and spandrel-splice gaps.

For the floor truss seats and gusset seats, the thermite was wrapped in paper and black plastic.

The thermite was linked and ignited by thermite-dusted shock-tube, and the shock-tube was remotely ignited by laser from WTC7.

Note that the thermite-dusted shock-tube was able to light the planted thermite directly, and that the planted thermite was able to ignite out-lines of (other) shock-tube. In other words, the planted thermite could serve as a one-to-many relay.


The thermite was designed not to cut, melt, or slice the steel, but to heat-weaken it, by heating the steel to about 600C (though some components were heated to 1100C).

If steel was heated well before collapse initiation, it cooled, and became more brittle.

If the steel was still hot at collapse initiation, the steel would have been ductile.

By controlling the variables of time and temperature, a natural-looking spectrum of failure modes was engineered.


Depending on where the thermite was planted - that is, depending on the splice or connection - different phenomena were observed on the exterior as the thermite burned.


Thermite at floor truss seats produced flames and smoke at the base of windows.


Thermite at gusset seats produced flames, and bright flashes at the "tops of windows". (NIST should have said at the "bottom of spandrels.")

Thermite at gusset seats caused the visco-elastic dampers to burn, which created black smoke to mask the white aluminum-oxide ash.


Thermite in most box columns was used in small quantities. But it was enough to blow the bolt-access-hole covers off, creating NIST's unexplained "pressure pulses"

Thermite was packed into WTC2/81/301, and was the source of the 10-minute metal fire about which NIST dribbled in its bib.

Burning thermite spewed out of this column (and others) onto debris piles, creating NIST's "fires burning on piles of debris" or similar.

By controlling where and when columns spewed out burning thermite onto piles of debris, demolition planners were able to create the illusion of intense fires migrating across the faces, hots spots and cold spots (which created differential heating, and buckling) and other phenomena.

The iron from column 301 accounts for much of the metal flows.


Thermite in spandrel splice gaps accounts from the white glows on top of spandrels, and at least one of the WTC2 metal flows.


The ignition of all of the above in timed sequences accounts for the "steam pipe organ" effects, the smoke puffs, the pressure pulses, the metal fire, the metal flows, the falling debris, the intense smoke release, the fires that violate normal fire behavior, the intense white glows, the white "smoke", the hanging objects changing location, and on and on.



The way to think of the dampers is that they were one of several exploitable susceptibilities:

- Flammable visco-elastic dampers
- A325 column splice bolts
- Thin spandrel splice plates
- Top chords at truss seats


Never ever forget - the pre-engineered narrative called for:

Loss of SFRM allowed trusses to be heated from below, which caused them to sag, which pulled perimeter columns inward, which caused the columns to bow, which caused them to fail, which initiated the collapse of WTC2.

NIST is leaving out that thermite was used to heat-weaken steel connections.

So the weakening of the visco-elastic dampers was just one step in causing the floors to sag in a manner consistent with the narrative.

Plausible deniability required it.


Remember, it is not the collapse, but collapse initiation that is of interest.

The visco-elastic dampers had a role in the engineering of the collapse initiation.


Max

---
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 04:39 PM   #259
Furcifer
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,796
Max: Thanks, it's so obvious now.
Furcifer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 04:41 PM   #260
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
MAXWELL:

Max MIHOP surely means AP-spiked SFRM as well...........
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 05:13 PM   #261
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,722
Ok Max.

Apollo20;
Do you care to field my question?
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 05:37 PM   #262
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
This engineered phreato-thermatic explosion provided added energy to knock off SFRM from many different types of steel members and components.
What the hell does ground water have to do with this explosion? In all seriousness. I looked the words up in a dictionary. Answer that question.
Quote:

The thermite was designed not to cut, melt, or slice the steel, but to heat-weaken it, by heating the steel to about 600C (though some components were heated to 1100C).
Actually you don't need thermite to get the weakened steal. All you need is a large amount of fuel.

Last edited by technoextreme; 23rd September 2007 at 06:19 PM.
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 05:54 PM   #263
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,722
Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
What the hell does ground water have to do with this explosion? In all seriousness. I looked the words up in a dictionary. Answer that question.
He needs lots of water to produce the rust he needs........... Don't ask........
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 06:09 PM   #264
~enigma~
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,923
Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
What the hell does ground water have to do with this explosion? In all seriousness. I looked the words up in a dictionary. Answer that question.
If he used the proper name maybe you can see why water is needed. He made up the term phreato-thermatic but the proper term is phreatomagmatic
~enigma~ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 06:52 PM   #265
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Max Photon explains why he chose "phreato-thermatic explosion"

Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
What the hell does ground water have to do with this explosion? In all seriousness. I looked the words up in a dictionary. Answer that question.


Very well.

Here is an excerpt from a post of mine, the link to which can be found here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...27#post2757227


* * *

"...the improvised thermite, which in the presence of water, created a spectacular phreato-thermatic explosion!


Phreato means ground water, or underground water.


Some object to my phrase, saying that is should be called a phreato-magmatic explosion, in which ground water meets magma (or something molten), creating a steam - or littoral - explosion.


I believe phreato-thermatic is more appropriate.

Underground can also mean clandestine.

Phreato = clandestinely-placed water.

Also, the reaction I propose creates more than just a steam explosion.

A thermite reaction is twice as hot as orange flowing magma.

A DU-penetrator is twice as hot still.
[Note: I no longer need the DU penetrator.]

At these high temperature, water is energetically driven past the steam phase, and is broken into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen.

This creates a colorless hydrogen explosion (as seen in the thermite/ice explosion videos).

So a phreato-thermatic explosion has more bang than a phreato-magmatic (steam) explosion.

Last, I use thermatic instead of thermitic because the reaction I propose includes sulfur from the building material, in particular, from the gypsum.

Phreato-thermatic explosion."

* * *


I hope that clarifies my choice of words.

Max

---
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 07:57 PM   #266
Max Photon
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,592
Alright! Who spiked MAX-MIHOP with AP? Whoever did it...to the moon!

Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
MAXWELL:

Max MIHOP surely means AP-spiked SFRM as well...........

Apollo20,

I am not sure I follow you.

MAX-MIHOP is Maxwell C. Photon's particular model.

It so happens that MAX-MIHOP is similar in many respects - minus the catalyst - to APOLLO20-MIHOP, an elegant model using ammonium-perchlorate-spiked SFRM.

Are you seeing more overlap than I do?

Is your model starting to incorporate some of MAX-MIHOP's cunning innovations, hmmmm?

If so, I'd love to hear about it.

(I'd also like to have little hidden web-cams to see others' reactions.)


There is a beautiful saying:

The information is in the errors.

I think it would be fun to try and articulate MAX-MIHOP and APOLLO20-MIHOP as succinctly as possible, and subject them to some of the anomalies described so beautifully by NIST in NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

May the best fit win.


I say it all the time: I can switch models in a flash; I am beholden to nothing.

If AP explains the 10-minute metal fire, the pressure pulses, the 7 intense smoke releases, etc., then MAX-MIHOP will plunder your model for the good parts. (It's like a PacMan game out there.)


If there is something better, I want to know about it.

If my models are winning, I want to know about that too.


Cheers!

Max

---
Max Photon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd September 2007, 08:41 PM   #267
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,158
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
The thermite was linked and ignited by thermite-dusted shock-tube, and the shock-tube was remotely ignited by laser from WTC7.
I still don't understand why they didn't just use the laser to cut the columns. Think of all the tax money that could have been saved; money that could have been used for further tax cuts for the rich.

Quote:
By controlling where and when columns spewed out burning thermite onto piles of debris, demolition planners were able to create the illusion of intense fires migrating across the faces, hots spots and cold spots (which created differential heating, and buckling) and other phenomena.
And the smoke came from? (Why am I even asking this question?)
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 04:45 AM   #268
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
Quote:
Phreato means ground water, or underground water.
Phreato just means ground water. Nothing more than that.
Quote:
At these high temperature, water is energetically driven past the steam phase, and is broken into its constituent hydrogen and oxygen.

This creates a colorless hydrogen explosion (as seen in the thermite/ice explosion videos).
No the thermite ice explosions that your seeing isn't caused by hydrogen. It's just a steam explosion.
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 07:07 AM   #269
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
 
GregoryUrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by R.Mackey View Post
Yes, Kevin Ryan has been telling this lie for some time. I cover it on Page 19 of my whitepaper.

The NIST Report says that the aggregate KE of impacting fragments need to be roughly 1 MJ (actually they say 0.1 to 1 MJ) to shake loose a square meter of SFRM. But this does not mean that the SFRM absorbs all of this energy. The vast majority of energy remains to damage the structure underneath or ricochet the impacting fragments into other SFRM somewhere else.

Kevin Ryan not only uses 1 MJ / m2, disingenuously using the top of the range, but also assumes all of that energy is absorbed. If a three-quarter inch layer of SFRM could do that, we should use it as armor on main battle tanks.

However, since this is "Bash NIST Day," I will add that I don't understand why they used energy and not momentum in the above expression. I believe that momentum is actually the correct quantity, and their use of KE leads to further confusion. Probably has no impact at all on their overall conclusions, though.
In NCSTAR1-5D, NIST suggests that 66% of the airplanes KE was transferred into the building's KE (movement of the building). This would mean that only 34% of the KE is left to actually damage the building and SFRM, unless of course the movement of the building caused damage.

I find nowhere else in NIST, including the 1-2 Airplane Impact Analysis series, that this is taken into account. In fact, they compare the NIST results to Wierzbicki's study which applied the entire energy to destroying the airplane and damaging the building and had fairly similar results.
GregoryUrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 07:46 AM   #270
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
In NCSTAR1-5D, NIST suggests that 66% of the airplanes KE was transferred into the building's KE (movement of the building). This would mean that only 34% of the KE is left to actually damage the building and SFRM, unless of course the movement of the building caused damage.

I find nowhere else in NIST, including the 1-2 Airplane Impact Analysis series, that this is taken into account. In fact, they compare the NIST results to Wierzbicki's study which applied the entire energy to destroying the airplane and damaging the building and had fairly similar results.
So, that energy just....disappears?
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 08:57 AM   #271
Apollo20
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,425
NIST 1-5D states:

"To assess the response of the tower at the end of the impact, it was necessary to consider the kinetic energy transferred from the airplane to the tower. .... It was assumed that two-thirds of the energy was transferred from the airplane to the structure."

This means that the aircraft itself absorbed one third of the impact energy, basically by being shredded...
Apollo20 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 08:57 AM   #272
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
 
GregoryUrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
So, that energy just....disappears?
NIST doesn't say. I would assume the KE (swaying of the building) is absorbed by the visco-elastic dampers and dissipated as heat. This would mean that the energy is no longer available to damage the building.
GregoryUrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 09:28 AM   #273
technoextreme
Illuminator
 
technoextreme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,785
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
So, that energy just....disappears?
No. It just gets converted into some other form of energy. If the building rocks back and forth that energy gets dissipated in the form of heat.
Quote:
This means that the aircraft itself absorbed one third of the impact energy, basically by being shredded...
Im assuming that the flying pieces of shrapnel includes the 2/3 of the energy that damaged the building. Right?

Last edited by technoextreme; 24th September 2007 at 10:11 AM.
technoextreme is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 10:11 AM   #274
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,104
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
NIST 1-5D states:

"To assess the response of the tower at the end of the impact, it was necessary to consider the kinetic energy transferred from the airplane to the tower. .... It was assumed that two-thirds of the energy was transferred from the airplane to the structure."

This means that the aircraft itself absorbed one third of the impact energy, basically by being shredded...
Thank you fot the quote.
So, Gregory Urich... How does one get from "the kinetic energy transferred from the airplane to the tower. .... It was assumed that two-thirds of the energy was transferred from the airplane to the structure" to "NIST suggests that 66% of the airplanes KE was transferred into the building's KE (movement of the building). "
The energy ransfer was energy transfer. It takes a different comprehension to read "..energy was transferred from the airplane to the structure" as "KE energy was transferred from the airplane to KE of the structure"
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 10:52 AM   #275
cloudshipsrule
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
If there is something better, I want to know about it.

If my models are winning, I want to know about that too.
FYI, the better model is that airplanes hit the buildings, the damage and fire initiated collapse. Yours is pretty good too, though.
cloudshipsrule is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 01:25 PM   #276
GregoryUrich
Graduate Poster
 
GregoryUrich's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,316
Originally Posted by technoextreme View Post
No. It just gets converted into some other form of energy. If the building rocks back and forth that energy gets dissipated in the form of heat.
Im assuming that the flying pieces of shrapnel includes the 2/3 of the energy that damaged the building. Right?
Originally Posted by Apollo20 View Post
NIST 1-5D states:

"To assess the response of the tower at the end of the impact, it was necessary to consider the kinetic energy transferred from the airplane to the tower. .... It was assumed that two-thirds of the energy was transferred from the airplane to the structure."

This means that the aircraft itself absorbed one third of the impact energy, basically by being shredded...
In NCSTAR1-5D (p.43-44), NIST very clearly states that 66% of the energy goes into the KE (= 1/2 x mv^2) of the building. I.e. the building (or rather some portion of it) and the airplane are moving together at 42.3 ft/s at the end of impact. What happens to this energy after that point is not discussed.

This part of the NIST reports seems to be one of the weakest. On p. 45 they calculate the accelleration for the building based on a velocity of 42.3 ft/s after 0.63 and get 0.25g (2.46 m/s^2). The minimum accelleration to attain 42.3 ft/s in 0.63 seconds is around 67 ft/s^2 or more than 2g. If the accelleration was constant (it was higher earlier in the impact) the building would be displaced around 13 ft which should have been visible on the videos.

T. Wierzbicki et al. estimated that the energy for destroying the aircraft was 586 MJ. The total KE for the planes was 2540 MJ and 3658 MJ for WTC1 and WTC2 respectively. This gives 16-23% of KE for destroying the planes. So only 11-18% would be left for flying debris.

To summarize, I think NIST's big mistake was guessing that 66% of the planes KE was tranferred to the tower in the form of KE.
GregoryUrich is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 01:46 PM   #277
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
WildCan't,

I believe the point is that even though Flight 175 struck the tower wingtip to wingtip, 175 struck the tower off-center, thereby exciting torsional harmonics.

These harmonics absorbed energy.

These harmonics ought to be accounted for.

Stay tuned!

Max

---

Gee, Max, imagine if the real scientists knew the stuff you make up. NIST, for example, could have explained why one Tower remained standing longer than the other by showing that the angles at which the planes hit made a difference.

What? NIST did exactly that?

Never mind.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 01:52 PM   #278
pomeroo
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,081
Originally Posted by Max Photon View Post
What-o DGM?


Here is what I see:


WTC2 Floor 81 had a UPS room.

The "UPS batteries" had iron instead of lead, and salt-water instead of acid. The "UPS batteries" were in fact rust generators.

When Flight 175 hit the tower, the front landing gear penetrated the rust generators, throwing up a screen of iron oxide and water into the oncoming shattered aluminum.

(The absorption of the jet's energy by the rust generators might account for the "catcher's mitt" effect Apollo20 commented on earlier.)

Naturally-occurring, small thermite sparks ignited a thermite reaction in the presence of water, creating a phreato-thermatic explosion (which in turn helped to drive a fuel-air explosion.)

This engineered phreato-thermatic explosion provided added energy to knock off SFRM from many different types of steel members and components.


Incidentally, the phreato-thermatic explosion also helped to create a spectacular visual input signal, that would be fed into the media, to excite resonance in such harmonics as blind hatred, racism, irrational jingoism, flag-wrapping, belligerence, and so forth. These necessary illusions were required to manufacture consent to illegally invade other sovereign nations, and install a police state here in the SubprimeHomeLand.

The phreato-thermatic explosion also created some pools of molten iron on the impact floors, which pooled at low spots, heated the trusses through the concrete, which caused the floors to sag even more, encouraging more pooling, thereby creating a dynamic floor-loading mechanism.


The rust generators created a "debris shadow" - the Cold Spot.

It was planned that debris on either side of the Cold Spot would collect at under column splices - which were engineered to become hot spots.


Thermite had been planted at perimeter connections: column splices, spandrel splices, floor truss seats, and gusset seats.

The thermite was simply poured into box columns and spandrel-splice gaps.

For the floor truss seats and gusset seats, the thermite was wrapped in paper and black plastic.

The thermite was linked and ignited by thermite-dusted shock-tube, and the shock-tube was remotely ignited by laser from WTC7.

Note that the thermite-dusted shock-tube was able to light the planted thermite directly, and that the planted thermite was able to ignite out-lines of (other) shock-tube. In other words, the planted thermite could serve as a one-to-many relay.


The thermite was designed not to cut, melt, or slice the steel, but to heat-weaken it, by heating the steel to about 600C (though some components were heated to 1100C).

If steel was heated well before collapse initiation, it cooled, and became more brittle.

If the steel was still hot at collapse initiation, the steel would have been ductile.

By controlling the variables of time and temperature, a natural-looking spectrum of failure modes was engineered.


Depending on where the thermite was planted - that is, depending on the splice or connection - different phenomena were observed on the exterior as the thermite burned.


Thermite at floor truss seats produced flames and smoke at the base of windows.


Thermite at gusset seats produced flames, and bright flashes at the "tops of windows". (NIST should have said at the "bottom of spandrels.")

Thermite at gusset seats caused the visco-elastic dampers to burn, which created black smoke to mask the white aluminum-oxide ash.


Thermite in most box columns was used in small quantities. But it was enough to blow the bolt-access-hole covers off, creating NIST's unexplained "pressure pulses"

Thermite was packed into WTC2/81/301, and was the source of the 10-minute metal fire about which NIST dribbled in its bib.

Burning thermite spewed out of this column (and others) onto debris piles, creating NIST's "fires burning on piles of debris" or similar.

By controlling where and when columns spewed out burning thermite onto piles of debris, demolition planners were able to create the illusion of intense fires migrating across the faces, hots spots and cold spots (which created differential heating, and buckling) and other phenomena.

The iron from column 301 accounts for much of the metal flows.


Thermite in spandrel splice gaps accounts from the white glows on top of spandrels, and at least one of the WTC2 metal flows.


The ignition of all of the above in timed sequences accounts for the "steam pipe organ" effects, the smoke puffs, the pressure pulses, the metal fire, the metal flows, the falling debris, the intense smoke release, the fires that violate normal fire behavior, the intense white glows, the white "smoke", the hanging objects changing location, and on and on.



The way to think of the dampers is that they were one of several exploitable susceptibilities:

- Flammable visco-elastic dampers
- A325 column splice bolts
- Thin spandrel splice plates
- Top chords at truss seats


Never ever forget - the pre-engineered narrative called for:

Loss of SFRM allowed trusses to be heated from below, which caused them to sag, which pulled perimeter columns inward, which caused the columns to bow, which caused them to fail, which initiated the collapse of WTC2.

NIST is leaving out that thermite was used to heat-weaken steel connections.

So the weakening of the visco-elastic dampers was just one step in causing the floors to sag in a manner consistent with the narrative.

Plausible deniability required it.


Remember, it is not the collapse, but collapse initiation that is of interest.

The visco-elastic dampers had a role in the engineering of the collapse initiation.


Max

---

Max, you neglected to mention that no thermite was used at the WTC complex.
pomeroo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 02:16 PM   #279
cmcaulif
Critical Thinker
 
cmcaulif's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
The minimum accelleration to attain 42.3 ft/s in 0.63 seconds is around 67 ft/s^2 or more than 2g. If the accelleration was constant (it was higher earlier in the impact) the building would be displaced around 13 ft which should have been visible on the videos.
This is not quite accurate, the building will not be displaced 13 ft, nor anywhere near it. In this study:

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The accelerations and displacements are calculated for the building, and they find that WTC 1 and 2 experienced maximum accelerations of 2g and 3g respectively, which corresponded to displacements of approx 30cm(.98ft) on the impact floor and 50cm(1.64ft) at the top floor.
cmcaulif is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2007, 02:24 PM   #280
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 30,389
Originally Posted by GregoryUrich View Post
To summarize, I think NIST's big mistake was guessing that 66% of the planes KE was tranferred to the tower in the form of KE.
It seems fairly clear to me from reading NCSTAR 1-5D that the group working in ceiling tile damage needed a value for the transfer of kinetic energy in advance of the group working on modelling the aircraft impact, so they took 66% as a best guess at that stage. That value is only used in assessing ceiling tile damage. If I had been doing the analysis I would have tried to parameterise the result and normalise it to whatever more correct value arose from the impact modelling, but that seems not to have been done. I didn't go into the report in enough detail to see how sensitive the results were to the KE transfer.

One question I would ask is what vibrational modes of the structure were excited by the impulse delivered by the airplane impact. Some of the higher order modes may have coupled into the floor trusses enough to cause significant SFRM loss, especially coupled with debris damage; I wouldn't know whether this is feasible because it isn't my specialism.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.