Question for Apollo20

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

CC, the evidence gathered by NIST for WTC2 is NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C.

That report describes many anomalous phenomena that occurred spatially and temporally near collapse initiation.

My heat-weakening model fits the "available empirical evidence" - as you put it - far better than NIST's or Bazant's.

So, based on your assertion, why does MAX-MIHOP not have scientific merit?

No, your ideas have zero merit due to lack of evidence, they do not fit anything NIST produced. The biggest reason you ideas are junk, you made up your ideas.

You are like Jones trying to fit a fantasy lie to 9/11 and now backing in evidence. You are trying to take rational work and make it fit your fantasy lies. You have failed and as you make up more things, it gets worse.

There would be thermite welds all over the place if your fantasy took place; and we would have the people who did it; they would be caught before the event, the planes would be stopped. Your continued fantasy crap is disgusting and I think it is disrespectful to make up lies without evidence. Thermite would leave a huge signature. 6 years of lies made up fantasy junk. Why do you make up this stuff without evidence; just to mock the victims?

[Mince]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

My heat-weakening model fits the "available empirical evidence" - as you put it - far better than NIST's or Bazant's.

Looooooooooooooove the self-appraisal.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by beachnut

No, your ideas have zero merit due to lack of evidence, they do not fit anything NIST produced. The biggest reason you ideas are junk, you made up your ideas.

You mean like NIST's needing to invoke loss of SFRM?


By the way, is it just me, or is it pretty funny that NIST uses - like - super duper mega computers to math like no man has ever mathed before, and then right at the 1 yard line, whip out the beads, petrulli oil, and tarot cards, and then wave the glittery SFRM magic wand?

First they're video gamers - then hippies.



You seem like the kind of guy who likes hippies, Beachnut.

Do not modify other posters' names.

Responding to this mod box in thread will be off topic Posted By:LibraryLady

[A W Smith]

Max you could remove all the viscoelastic dampers from the building and in no wind it would still stand. They were not designed to assist in supporting the live and dead loads of the floor. If they were rigid connections and not viscoelastic the floors would slightly arch or sag in a strong wind depending on what side of building the wind was acting upon.

[Max Photon]

By the way, a while back Frank said that Bazant was bummed NIST didn't say more about collapse progression because Bazant was concerned about the "optics" of NIST's lack of coverage.

I would hope that Bazant is also concerned about the "optics" of the unfounded statement in the abstract of his very important paper.

If he's the expert, and if in a society with high division of labor we must rely on his expertise, then he had better get it right!


I don't see how that statement is right.


ETA: I am assuming that Apollo is not in a position to comment, but if he is, it would be welcomed...

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Max you could remove all the viscoelastic dampers from the building and in no wind it would still stand. They were not designed to assist in supporting the live and dead loads of the floor. If they were rigid connections and not viscoelastic the floors would slightly arch or sag in a strong wind depending on what side of building the wind was acting upon.

First, you avoided that I addressed your issue. There IS evidence of concentated heat at connections. I just gave 2 examples.

Second, compromising the dampers destabilizes the floor membrane. NIST even says so. Apollo20 agrees.

Is not destabilizing the floor membrane a step in the direction of causing floors to sag? Remember, sagging floors pulled in perimeter columns, initiating collapse!

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Consider the correlated events:

• Coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs
• 7 major smoke releases that lasted 1 minute +/- a few seconds
• Flames at the tops of windows (i.e. at the bottom of spandrels)

Are these not consistent with thermite fuse igniting thermite planted at gussets seats, not to melt the seats, but to burn the visco-elastic dampers?

Are you aware this would cause the floors to sag?

Is not the 10 minute aluminum fire right at the bolt access hole opening to Column 301/81 not consistent with burning thermite at the opening? (Remember, you can see in video Column 301fail, initiating the collapse!)

I could go on.


Has anyone here ever even read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C?

Originally Posted by Max Photon

First, you avoided that I addressed your issue. There IS evidence of concentated heat at connections. I just gave 2 examples.

Second, compromising the dampers destabilizes the floor membrane. NIST even says so. Apollo20 agrees.

Is not destabilizing the floor membrane a step in the direction of causing floors to sag? Remember, sagging floors pulled in perimeter columns, initiating collapse!

Smoke releases at the column segment splices? staggered the same as they were assembled? You would have had trios of smoke in three story intervals. Your so called thermite fire was coincidentally where the plane wreckage was captured near the corner of the building on the south tower.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

Smoke releases at the column segment splices? staggered the same as they were assembled? You would have had trios of smoke in three story intervals. Your so called thermite fire was coincidentally where the plane wreckage was captured near the corner of the building on the south tower.

You're not paying attention. I did not say the smoke releases were from column splice segments. I said they were from thermite at gusset seats and the dampers that burned because of it.

As for my second example, yes, I know there is wreckage in the NE corner. (Good grief!)

But it is a fact that the 10 minute metal fire is exactly by the column splice of 301, and it is a fact that we can see in video Column 301 fail, thereby initiating the collapse!


By the way:

• How do you explain the numerous coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs? Have you ever even seen them?
• Have you seen that they are exactly timed with the white flashes that I claim is burning thermite fuse?
• Have you seen the pressure pulses?
• Have you seen the high speed ejected material?
• Have you seen the white glows?
• How do you explain the correlation among these and other phenomena? What mechanism do you propose?

[Mince]

All hail the self-acclaimer!

[Major_Tom]

CC Asks:

Quote:

Why do the theories of controlled demolition have Scientific merit if they do not match the available empirical evidence?

They don't.

The Judy Wood thing was a joke. No scientific merit.

Steven Jones tries to sell a more advanced trick. He tries to pass of a global demolition based on thermite. He uses highly misleading photos of a "thermite cut" at an angle across a base core column.

He presents highly dubious photos to defend his claim of "Molten metal: Flowing and in pools".

I agree there isn't much scientific merit there.


So what do the Wood fiasco, the deceiving angle cut column model of Steven Jones and the Bazant mathematical model have in common?


They ignore the forensic evidence. They ignore the massive quantities of forensic photographic evidence available to verify the conditions of the core and perimeter columns as they were seen in the debris.

Bazant's is an overly simplified mathematical theory based on the folding of plastic hinges or buckles.

He never seems to need to return from "theoryland" to see if the central core box columns actually do show evidence of plastic hinges or buckles. (The large, large majority don't).

So here you have a buckling theory with no buckles.



Gravy writes:

Quote:

If the calculations in the paper are correct to a reasonable degree of certainty, then the paper does disprove the conspiracist claim that explosive demolitions caused the observed collapse effects.

There is no logical connection between the mathematical claims made in the paper and the disproof of controlled demolition.

The explicit statement within the paper that this is some kind of negative proof is simply not true.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

First, you avoided that I addressed your issue. There IS evidence of concentated heat at connections. I just gave 2 examples.

Second, compromising the dampers destabilizes the floor membrane. NIST even says so. Apollo20 agrees.

Is not destabilizing the floor membrane a step in the direction of causing floors to sag? Remember, sagging floors pulled in perimeter columns, initiating collapse!

Max if that much thermite was used there would be evidence of it in the air data clear evidence so far there is none.
The thermite would have to survive the fires and the impacts and leave evidence, the only evidence I have seen in the air data is oxidized steel particles combined with zinc.
I have not seen any solid thermite like iron particles at all, that is why I have been trying to create the micro spheres Dr. Jones found I though that he found some solid iron spheres that could possibly have come from thermite, I was wrong and just wasted my time in that.
There are substances that only form around 2000c and only in low oxygen environments, similar to what would happen in a fire with thermites.
I have experimented and found out what those materials are, however I am not going to release the information at this time.
I will know if thermites are found because I know what to look for, there may in fact be evidence of thermite in Dr. Joneses data he just does not know where to look.
Also Max I think the evidence for floor pan ignition trumps your theory because it works even better and because that if it happened the thermites that your theory is based on would be converted to aluminum chloride and would not produce a thermite reaction because of interaction with HCl in the smoke from plastics.

This sphere was created by an aluminum Fe304 reaction,

notice I can not crush it with pliers, and it has aluminum oxide Incorporated on and in it.
There are other spheres that I have created that had a component that can only be formed above 2000c.
Solid iron spheres are not often found in fly ash, most fly ash spheres are magnetite.
Solid iron spheres are not really likely to be formed in fires alone only low melt Chlorides and sulfates.
You would find a lot of Fe 304 Iron oxides in the fires, however you would find very few solid iron spheres and you should just about find no solid iron, with aluminum, and other temperature dependent species.
From what I have seen in experiments in the air data, and else where there is considerable evidence that the floor pans played a big role and the same chemical reactions that make the metal spheres possible makes igniting the floor pans possible.
There is zero data, nada, zip, none for the thermite theories, if you can find some then please do so.

Max I can make assumptions that rabid mutant Martian hopping Giant rabbits brought the towers down, however until I present proof of rabid mutant Martian Hopping giant rabbits, were at the twin towers on 9/11/2001 I have no scientific basis for that claim.

[DGM]

Major Tom:
There's no buckles because they failed at the weld joints where you would expect. The weak link so to speak.

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

You're not paying attention. I did not say the smoke releases were from column splice segments (anymore) I said they were from thermite at gusset seats and the dampers that burned because of it.

oh i see you have moved your thermite locations from a couple months ago.. maybe time to change your avatar.

Quote:

As for my second example, yes, I know there is wreckage in the NE corner. (Good grief!)

But it is a fact that the 10 minute metal fire is exactly by the column splice of 301, and it is a fact that we can see in video Column 301 fail, thereby initiating the collapse!
By the way:
How do you explain the numerous coordinated smoke puffs reminiscent of old fashioned steam driven pipe organs? Have you ever even seen them?

be more specific and point your 'coordinated smoke puffs" out to us

Quote:

Have you seen that they are exactly timed with the white flashes that I claim is burning thermite fuse?

yes i have seen the fluttering white 9x11 offiice paper

Quote:

Have you seen the pressure pulses?

you are going to get bursts of smoke as interior stuff collapses

Quote:

Have you seen the high speed ejected material?

i have seen air from story height office space an acre in area eject from the towers during the collapse

Quote:

Have you seen the white glows?

be more specific point your 'glows' out to us

Quote:

How do you explain the correlation among these and other phenomena? What mechanism do you propose?

collapse due to aircraft impact and resultant fires

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by DGM

Major Tom:
There's no buckles because they failed at the weld joints where you would expect. The weak link so to speak.

Also, if heat induced buckling occurs at impact floors to initiate collapse (ala Bazant) the buckled columns would represent a very small subset of the total debris field, making them hard to find in photos.

Major Tom, I have to agree with DGM that most of the core columns separated at weld planes from collapse dynamics. The photos I've seen of the welds show very superficial welds.


Just a side note:

Bazant's collapse initiation model calls for columns to experience visco-elastic creep in the form of buckling.

Tony Szamboti's new paper seems to contradict Bazant, calling for the heated columns not to buckle, but to shorten. This is also in direct contradiction to NIST's emphatic conclusion that sagging floors pulled perimeter columns, causing them to bow inward and fail.

(Note that the video of the failure of WTC2 Column 301/81 shows buckling.)

[Max Photon]

A.W. Smith

Clearly, you have not read NCSTAR 1-5A/9/C. And I'm not going to babysit. (That's what Bedtime Stories, with Max Photon is for.)

Also, I did not change my thermite locations. I have said a zillion times that thermite was planted at - and I won't name them - the various splices. Like so many here, you are shadow boxing with what's in your head, rather than addressing what is being said.

[Mince]

I AM THE GREATEST PERSON ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH!


So says I.

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw/Max:

I think the real-thermite-deal is not iron oxide + aluminum, but iron oxide + carbon, (probably in the form of soot) + impurities......

The Twin Towers had plenty of indigenous iron oxide.........

The fires provided the soot!

Iron microspheres are made at temperatures as low as 1000 deg C by the reactions:

2Fe2O3 + 3C = 4Fe + 3CO2

and

Fe2O3 + 3CO = 2Fe + 3CO2

These reactions are mediated by:

CO2 + C <-> 2CO

The reduction of pure hematite in the presence of solid carbon is observed to occur at temperatures as low as 650 deg C, but the RATE of the reduction reaction is altered by the presence of small amounts of CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3. (Check out the melting points of iron gehlenite, 2CaO.Fe2O3.SiO2 = 1285 C; iron cordierite, 2FeO.2Al2O3.5SiO2 = 1210 C or fayalite, 2FeO.SiO2 = 1205 deg C.)

Carbon wants iron's oxygen just as much as aluminum does and carbon can be mobilized very effectively by a fire.

The extent of reaction of Fe2O3 coated with carbon is easily followed. As you heat it, the sample becomes more and more MAGNETIC!

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Chainsaw/Max:

I think the real-thermite-deal is not iron oxide + aluminum, but iron oxide + carbon, (probably in the form of soot) + impurities......

The Twin Towers had plenty of indigenous iron oxide.........

The fires provided the soot!

Iron microspheres are made at temperatures as low as 1000 deg C by the reactions:

2Fe2O3 + 3C = 4Fe + 3CO2

and

Fe2O3 + 3CO = 2Fe + 3CO2

These reactions are mediated by:

CO2 + C <-> 2CO

The reduction of pure hematite in the presence of solid carbon is observed to occur at temperatures as low as 650 deg C, but the RATE of the reduction reaction is altered by the presence of small amounts of CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3. (Check out the melting points of iron gehlenite, 2CaO.Fe2O3.SiO2 = 1285 C; iron cordierite, 2FeO.2Al2O3.5SiO2 = 1210 C or fayalite, 2FeO.SiO2 = 1205 deg C.)

Carbon wants iron's oxygen just as much as aluminum does and carbon can be mobilized very effectively by a fire.

The extent of reaction of Fe2O3 coated with carbon is easily followed. As you heat it, the sample becomes more and more MAGNETIC!

Wow, what an interesting post!

I did not know that carbon's affinity for oxygen was so keen.

• Does the reduction of hematite by carbon produce a similar amount of heat as aluminum by iron oxide?
• Do you think this would have been a significant heat source in the WTCs?
• Does the iron product remain magnetic after cooling?
• Would any iron microspheres be magnetic?
• Are these types of iron microspheres [magnetic or not] found around other building fires?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Chainsaw/Max:

I think the real-thermite-deal is not iron oxide + aluminum, but iron oxide + carbon, (probably in the form of soot) + impurities......

The Twin Towers had plenty of indigenous iron oxide.........

The fires provided the soot!

Iron microspheres are made at temperatures as low as 1000 deg C by the reactions:

2Fe2O3 + 3C = 4Fe + 3CO2

and

Fe2O3 + 3CO = 2Fe + 3CO2

These reactions are mediated by:

CO2 + C <-> 2CO

The reduction of pure hematite in the presence of solid carbon is observed to occur at temperatures as low as 650 deg C, but the RATE of the reduction reaction is altered by the presence of small amounts of CaO, SiO2 and Al2O3. (Check out the melting points of iron gehlenite, 2CaO.Fe2O3.SiO2 = 1285 C; iron cordierite, 2FeO.2Al2O3.5SiO2 = 1210 C or fayalite, 2FeO.SiO2 = 1205 deg C.)

Carbon wants iron's oxygen just as much as aluminum does and carbon can be mobilized very effectively by a fire.

The extent of reaction of Fe2O3 coated with carbon is easily followed. As you heat it, the sample becomes more and more MAGNETIC!

I agree, completely as I have stated here in the past Oxide reduction reactions have had to occurred with carbon.

[Apollo20]

Chainsaw/Max:

Thanks... I am still trying to dig out more information on these reactions. I suspect that the heat production would be less than the Al/iron oxide reaction. As for the magnetism, I think its a key feature of the reaction ......... see:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2003101278.pdf

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

I agree, completely as I have stated here in the past Oxide reduction reactions have had to occurred with carbon.

Then kudos to you too CC. Very cool.


These are all constraints.

[Max Photon]

Chainsaw,

I am under the impression Jones obtained dust from near Ground Zero, and found - among other things - various microspheres.

I am also under the impression that Jones burned some thermite recipes and found microspheres similar to those found in the WTC dust sample.

Now I am also under the impression that you have tried Jones' recipes - and others - many others - and cannot reproduce Jones' findings (as you understand them).

In your estimation, are my impressions correct?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Chainsaw,

I am under the impression Jones obtained dust from near Ground Zero, and found - among other things - various microspheres.

I am also under the impression that Jones burned some thermite recipes and found microspheres similar to those found in the WTC dust sample.

Now I am also under the impression that you have tried Jones' recipes - and others - many others - and cannot reproduce Jones' findings (as you understand them).

In your estimation, are my impressions correct?

NO I can produce Joneses findings from thermite thermate, or though chemical reactions in ordinary fires, he has to date not found anything that I would not expect to find, in a fire.
I have identified species compounds only formed by high temperature reactions that would not normally occur in the fires of the World Trade Center, to date Jones has shown none of them.
IF Jones found those species then Thermite, would be one of the few ways they could have been formed in an oxygen environment.
The problem has always been producing a solid iron, Fe sphere with sulfur, FeS in a reducing environment with carbon, IF I take a Fe 203 or Fe 304 sphere, and react it with carbon to create Fe, the sulfur in the sphere also reacts with the oxide to form SO2, so I loose the sulfur in the process as well with the oxygen.
Since the S in Joneses Micro spheres is Si silicon it is not lost during the Oxidation of FeS to Fe 304 so Jones spheres are not evidence of thermite at all.
The problem was that Jones did not release the data and I actually believed him to be an honest researcher with critical important knowledge.
My mistake.
I actually sent Jones a sample of Fe 304 formed from Chlorides similar to those found in brown paper as the mordant that holds brown paper together.
Brown paper is brown because of Ferric Chloride.
All Dr. Jones had to do was state that his IRON spheres were mostly oxide with Si and anyone would be able to recreate them.

DR. Jones has not found anything that would not be found in an ordinary house fire.

[Max Photon]

Thank you very much for clarifying. All very interesting.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Chainsaw/Max:

Thanks... I am still trying to dig out more information on these reactions. I suspect that the heat production would be less than the Al/iron oxide reaction. As for the magnetism, I think its a key feature of the reaction ......... see:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...2003101278.pdf

Working from experience I can say positively that your right. The carbon molecular bonding gets stronger with heat, forming graphite rings, heat and pressure are in fact how diamonds are formed the strongest molecular bonding known in the universe.
As metals are heated they lose their inherent magnetic fields as the electrons become less molecularly bonded.
I have preformed the experiments, and have created crude pig iron from iron ore, Fe 304-Fe 203, and diesel soot it works, Chlorides and Sulfates make it work even better because the Chlorides and Sulfates when heated decay into hot metal oxides, that react with carbons because they are hot.
I have already preformed that experiment I know it to be true, and as Dr. Jones so well put it experiments trump authoritarian statements even his.


A

+B


=C

It simply adds up that such reactions would play a major part in that environment and would produce as mine did explosive carbon monoxide.
However no one really wants to listen such gas when compressed even mildly with air explodes.

Now Apollo20 we will have the enjoyment of members of the Herd mentality, criticizing me for my crazy conspiracy theories, (on natural explosive and high temperature fuels created in fire,) again.
Such fuels and reactions would undoubtedly lead to energy increases in the collapses, and unusual effects.
I however do not like to talk about them as I have been criticized so much for even bringing up the subjects.

[T.A.M.]

If Jones is any sort of legitimate scientist, he should release his dust samples for independent testing...I doubt, in the extreme, that he will...he seems to have a thing for chips now (with or without dip is the question).

TAM

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

NO I can produce Joneses findings from thermite thermate, or though chemical reactions in ordinary fires, he has to date not found anything that I would not expect to find, in a fire.
I have identified species compounds only formed by high temperature reactions that would not normally occur in the fires of the World Trade Center, to date Jones has shown none of them.
IF Jones found those species then Thermite, would be one of the few ways they could have been formed in an oxygen environment.
The problem has always been producing a solid iron, Fe sphere with sulfur, FeS in a reducing environment with carbon.

[bold mine]


Chainsaw / Apollo20,

Allow me to offer how Fe spheres with S might have been created at WTC2.

Assume the 10 minute metal fire at Column 301/81 was from a thermite reaction (and that there were more of them in that NE corner).

Assume that these reactions left molten iron on the slab (some of which we saw in the metal flows).

For the iron to flow while yellow, the iron would have to be high in sulfur. Jerry Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram shows a eutectic at about 32% sulfur, with a melting temperature at around 950 C.

When WTC2 failed right at the NE corner, all of this hot sulfur-rich iron - some still molten - was blasted out - "atomized" if you will - and this cooled into iron/sulfur microspheres.

(I mentioned elsewhere that columns could have had a foot of sand or silica in the bottom ends, which might have provided some Si, or Ca, K to the Fe, S product.)

Please note that not just one, but many WTC2 videos and photos of the collapse initiation clearly show a red-orange cloud blowing out of the NE corner. Attached is just one example.

So why is there S in the iron spheres in a carbon rich environment? Wouldn't the S get removed to form S02?

I suggest that the NE corner was severely depleted of carbon based fuel by the time of the metal fire. Furthermore, the NE corner was very well ventilated. Between little carbon-based fuel, and plenty of O2, the NE corner was in fact NOT a carbon rich formation environment for the iron-sulfur melt. Thus S was not taken up as S02, and we see sulfur rich iron microsphere, formed in a low carbon, high oxygen environment.

[Fly ash in the ointment: I have to check, but Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram might have been for a low O2 environment.]


ETA: Ignore the markings on the photo below. Those are NOT pointing out the reddish cloud.

* * *

[Major_Tom]

Dgm writes:

Quote:

Major Tom:
There's no buckles because they failed at the weld joints where you would expect. The weak link so to speak.

Totally agree. Using forensic photographic evidence we can see that this is where the large, large majority of column-to-column separations occurred.

So when Bazant speaks of plastic hinges and buckles, we know that they are indeed snapped welds.

We know that from the forensic photographic evidence available.



DGM, I am glad that we can all agree on a model for the "progressive collapse" of the core based on "weld failure".

This is a big step in understanding at what points the core columns failed.

This means that the core structure can be modelled using the idea of "matchsticks".

"Matchstick theory" recognizes that the large, large majority of core box column sections seen in the rubble were totally straight and had cleanly squared-off ends.

In other words, matchstick theory accepts that the core box column sections separated from one another along their original welds.

It also accepts the fact that almost no plastic buckling deformations were observed along core box column sections.

Matchstick theory relies on comprehensive collections of photographic forensic evidence taken of the North Tower, South Tower and the Plaza area to verify it's claims.



If you combine the matchstick model with the Bazant collapse model, you will find some absurdities in the way Bazant transfers the kinetic energy of the top portion of the building to the columns of the bottom portion.

According to a matchstick visualization of the continued impacts between the 2 portions of the building, the "matchstick" upper core columns will most probably penetrate through floor panels of the lower portion.

They will in no direct way make firm contact with the tops of the core columns of the lower section.

The resulting effect would be "spearing" of core columns through floor panels.


Bazants mathematical model wouldn't make much sense if the force of the falling building can't be directly delivered to the columns in the portion of the building receiving the blow.

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

[bold mine]


Chainsaw / Apollo20,

Allow me to offer how Fe spheres with S might have been created at WTC2.

Assume the 10 minute metal fire at Column 301/81 was from a thermite reaction (and that there were more of them in that NE corner).

Assume that these reactions left molten iron on the slab (some of which we saw in the metal flows).

For the iron to flow while yellow, the iron would have to be high in sulfur. Jerry Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram shows a eutectic at about 32% sulfur, with a melting temperature at around 950 C.

When WTC2 failed right at the NE corner, all of this hot sulfur-rich iron - some still molten - was blasted out - "atomized" if you will - and this cooled into iron/sulfur microspheres.

(I mentioned elsewhere that columns could have had a foot of sand or silica in the bottom ends, which might have provided some Si, or Ca, K to the Fe, S product.)

Please note that not just one, but many WTC2 videos and photos of the collapse initiation clearly show a red-orange cloud blowing out of the NE corner. Attached is just one example.

So why is there S in the iron spheres in a carbon rich environment? Wouldn't the S get removed to form S02?

I suggest that the NE corner was severely depleted of carbon based fuel by the time of the metal fire. Furthermore, the NE corner was very well ventilated. Between little carbon-based fuel, and plenty of O2, the NE corner was in fact NOT a carbon rich formation environment for the iron-sulfur melt. Thus S was not taken up as S02, and we see sulfur rich iron microsphere, formed in a low carbon, high oxygen environment.

[Fly ash in the ointment: I have to check, but Lobdill's Fe/S phase diagram might have been for a low O2 environment.]


ETA: Ignore the markings on the photo below. Those are NOT pointing out the reddish cloud.

* * *

Max, Iron sulfide burns in air to Iron and SO2.
http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CC1000183&

Iron sulfates decompose when heated to SO2.

The S in the micro spheres was never S sulfur as Dr. Jones originally stated, it was Si, silicon.

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw

Max, Iron sulfide burns in air to Iron and SO2.
http://shippai.jst.go.jp/en/Detail?fn=0&id=CC1000183&

Iron sulfates decompose when heated to SO2.

The S in the micro spheres was never S sulfur as Dr. Jones originally stated, it was Si, silicon.

Are you referring to the WTC microspheres, or Jones' experimental microspheres?


ETA: Apollo20, I realized I'm not clear. By magnetic, do you mean magnetized, or attracted by magnets?

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Originally Posted by Max Photon

Are you referring to the WTC microspheres, or Jones' experimental microspheres?


ETA: Apollo20, I realized I'm not clear. By magnetic, do you mean magnetized, or attracted by magnets?

The ones found by Dr. Jones and in the air data collected by the USGS.

I believe he means that the carbon is electromagnetically attracted to the iron oxide because of the difference in charges between the two.

In other words the Hot carbon is attracted to the hot Iron oxide, and the reaction happens because of the attractions.

He is talking about this reaction.
http://www.topforge.co.uk/Processes.htm

Quote:

This is the process that started the Iron Age. It seems most likely that a lump of Iron Ore in a particularly hot fire lead to a strange material left in the embers of the fire. From this, the Bloomery Furnace developed, in this a mixture of Iron Ore and Charcoal was burnt with the help of a blast of air from hand worked bellows.

The Output was typically a small lump of Wrought Iron of poor quality, but even this was enough to make an impact on history.

[Max Photon]

* * *

Sometimes it seems like the whole world is an iron microsphere.


Wait, the whole world is an iron microsphere (well, at least the core).

[Max Photon]

* * *

By the way, Apollo, in case you finish the crosswords early, this was posted
right before you slipped in to communism : )

[Golden Bear]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Golden Bear:
However, the way I see it, the paper is still being reviewed, so now is NOT the time to present this type of information on a public forum in the same way that a jury does not discuss a case until the trial is over.

It's funny how life goes sometimes. It seems like every time I have a mediation coming up, a prescient article will appear on my desk that talks about mediation tactics and strategy. Today, a similar thing happened. I was discussing jury issues with a young associate, who pointed me to an interesting article: http://www.abanet.org/yld/tyl/jan08/diamond.html. It reminded me of your comments above

FTA: "...Arizona courts wanted to evaluate an innovation that allows jurors to discuss the case among themselves during breaks in the trial—a contrast to the usual practice of admonishing jurors to refrain from discussing the case until the end of the trial. ... The results of the evaluation revealed some of the advantages (e.g., jurors found expert testimony easier to understand) and no evidence of the disadvantages (e.g., plaintiff advantage, premature closure) that proponents and critics of the discussions innovation had predicted."

I don't think this sole article will cause you to change your mind, but I did want to offer it as food for thought. If you and your writing team change your mind and would like to be more forthcoming with the revisions you have made to the paper, I would certainly welcome it.

Happy and Healthy New Year to all.

[Apollo20]

Golden Bear:

Welcome to the New Year!

Just like the Old Year....

You know I appreciate and even agree with your point that CLOSED-DOOR deliberations over a scientific paper that is headed for publication in the OPEN literature is something of an oxymoron, but you have to accept the REALPOLITIK of the scientific publication process. And I am saying that this is true REGARDLESS of the added sensitivities of publishing, in a mainstream (read conservative) engineering journal, a paper on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 that even MENTIONS controlled demolition/explosives !

You may not like or agree with Prof. Bazant, but I commend him for even TRYING to tackle this issue head-on in the open literature when I know that most professional engineers won't even touch the subject!

However, as it turns out, I can tell you that the politics of 9/11 is NOT what's holding up the paper - it really is mostly about the science, and let's just say "personalities"......

You know, I once had a paper rejected by a referee because, as I subsequently discovered, he didn't like the Professor who ran the research lab where I carried out the work. (By the way, the Professor's name was not even on the paper!). I know this was the only reason my paper was turned down because I eventually had a long conversation with the referee who ultimately admitted that the paper was ok; in fact he eventually apoligized for rejecting my paper!

Anyway, at the present time, I will not divulge all the on-going machinations around my paper with Bazant, but I will say that ONE issue centers on our mathematical approach to the collapse problem - an approach that has been criticized for being "too simplified". Indeed, there are those in the engineering community who believe that detailed finite element calculations are the ONLY way to model the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Obviously I, and Bazant, totally disagree with this view!

And so the debate continues.......

"Nothing changes, it's New Year's Day"

U2

[Max Photon]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

... at the present time, I will not divulge all the on-going machinations around my paper with Bazant, but I will say that ONE issue centers on our mathematical approach to the collapse problem - an approach that has been criticized for being "too simplified". Indeed, there are those in the engineering community who believe that detailed finite element calculations are the ONLY way to model the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Obviously I, and Bazant, totally disagree with this view!

As do I.




Hey look...linear thinking in a cyclical world:

[Golden Bear]

Originally Posted by Apollo20

Anyway, at the present time, I will not divulge all the on-going machinations around my paper with Bazant, but I will say that ONE issue centers on our mathematical approach to the collapse problem - an approach that has been criticized for being "too simplified". Indeed, there are those in the engineering community who believe that detailed finite element calculations are the ONLY way to model the collapse of WTC 1 & 2. Obviously I, and Bazant, totally disagree with this view!

And so the debate continues.......

Wait a minute... You mean to tell me that after publishing two papers by Bazant that espouse the mathematical model of crush down then crush up, that the good people at JEM have finally looked beyond Bazant's credentials and into the meat of the theory? I guess it's better late than never.

My question for you regarding your mathematical model vs. a finite element analysis is this: If a finite element analysis were performed for the entire collapse (ie. everything that happened after "collapse initiation" in the parlance of NIST) do you think the upper section of floors would remain in tact as a rigid block and crush down through the entire lower structure, and only after the upper section of floors completely destroyed the lower structure would it then become non-rigid and destroy itself (crush up)? Or would it be more likely that the upper section of floors would not remain a rigid block and intact as it destroyed the lower floors?

Surely a man of your intelligence can see that the upper floors would, in fact, not crush the entire lower structure as a rigid block, but instead would be just as likely as the lower floors to deform and "crush up", you know, seeing as how the upper and lower floors were very similar to each other structurally and materially speaking. What I mean is, if the columns and connections comprising the lower structure are likely to fail when the upper floors impact it, doesn't it just make sense that the columns and connections comprising the upper floors are just as likely to fail at impact? If not, why do you think not?

I'm even giving your mathematical theory the benefit of the doubt by not taking into consideration the fact that the lower down in each structure you go, the stronger and sturdier it would be (the lower structural elements had to carry more weight, after all), and thus would be even less likely to deform and fail than the relatively weaker upper section of floors.

Because this new paper you have penned with Bazant continues to rely on this ridiculous crush down then crush up theory, it is abundantly clear that your mathematical model is too simplistic, and that a finite element analysis would be a much better representation of reality. Is it possible to formulate a mathematical model that's close enough to reality to make it instructive? Maybe. I don't know. What I do know is that yours and Bazant's certainly is not.

Once JEM forces Bazant to formulate a model that's closer to reality (that is, if he can), Bazant should publish a retraction of his two previous papers if he wants to salvage any shred of credibility.

Quote:

And I am saying that this is true REGARDLESS of the added sensitivities of publishing, in a mainstream (read conservative) engineering journal, a paper on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 that even MENTIONS controlled demolition/explosives !

You realize you have just given Dr. Jones and the Journal of 9/11 Studies more credibility. If what you say is true, it would be virtually impossible for a "mainstream (read conservative) journal" to publish anything that advocated, let alone MENTIONED, controlled demolition. If it's difficult to get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is debunking CD because it only mentions it, how on earth could you get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is supporting CD?

[Apollo20]

Well Golden Bear, please come up with a better calculation if you can.

Anybody can mouth off, but remember the story of The Little Red Hen.

[Max Photon]

Here, let me feed the chickens...

[The Almond]

Originally Posted by Golden Bear

[...]

You realize you have just given Dr. Jones and the Journal of 9/11 Studies more credibility. If what you say is true, it would be virtually impossible for a "mainstream (read conservative) journal" to publish anything that advocated, let alone MENTIONED, controlled demolition. If it's difficult to get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is debunking CD because it only mentions it, how on earth could you get a paper published in a mainstream journal that is supporting CD?

I'll give you a hint: Dr. Jones can acquire evidence and perform analyses that conform to the standards of the legitimate scientific community.